Slashdot Mirror
NBC Chief Slamming Apple
On the heels of the beta of NBC's and News Corp.'s less-than-killer Hulu music store, NBC's chief Jeff Zucker is speaking out and saying the darnedest things. First, news.com reports, with derision, that Zucker demanded a cut of Apple's iPod revenue. That'll sure happen. Next, AppleInsider caught Zucker urging colleagues to take a stand against Apple's iTunes, charging that the digital download service was undermining the ability of traditional media companies to set profitable rates for their content online.
Ah... Hey Zucker, go shit in your own hat.
No, seriously. You want a cut of iPod revenues? Do you make hardware? Do you demand a cut of the manufacturers who produce DVD players? Do you demand a cut of the Internet carriers? Come on now. How about sticking to content creation and paying good writers to create quality content?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
news at 11. Remember when they wanted to raise album prices to $20-$25 because at $15 an album, they could only afford to buy Gulfstream 3's instead of Gulfstream 4's?
I just wrote quite the comment on the previous story on HULU, of what I think about the traditional Media Industry: my view
it's complete rhetoric, but I believe networks like NBC have lost their usefulness in light of real choice based network (ie internet).
He is just showing the world that they are building their revenues on monopoly, and that they do not like competition, as it has the tendency to lower margins. This is the behaviour that our politicians are protecting with new privacyinvading laws and software patents.
...when the movie/music industry execs get their panties up in a wad and behave like crybabies, insisting that they "deserve" a cut of profits on hardware sales. Each successive generation of corporate big shots is increasingly afflicted with the seemingly unstoppable disease that is called self-entitlement. "I'm going to cut in line because I'm busy and can't wait." "I'm going to swerve across 4 lanes of traffic while talking on my phone because I'm more important than everyone else." "That money is mine because I say it is."
As children, these folks were the ones who stood alone on the playground at recess, holding the ball, because for all intents and purposes, they believed the entire world belonged to them. And they haven't grown up since then. The only reason why they've gotten as far as they have in life is because their limitless greed and egotism is repeatedly mistaken for ambition and confidence. The sad truth is that they only have as much power as others are willing to concede to them, and so their existence is more a reflection of the inability of our society to stand up and refuse to reward such psychopathy.
Y'know, perhaps if they'd spent the last seven years concentrating on monetizing the net for media distribution instead of sinking millions into lawyers and DRM systems they might actually have beaten Apple to it.
The simple fact is Apple stepped into what was in effect an empty playing field while everyone else was still arguing over lockers in the changing room.
Apple isn't the cause of his woes. His real problem is that the Internet and the associated competition are driving the cost of his product towards the incremental cost of production, approximately zero. Artificial monopolistic barriers, such as intellectual property, are no match for the tsunami of the market.
Is that the pricing models (especially the 99c per song) take away the media corps ability to use price as a marketing tool and a way to get consumers to buy the content the media corps what them to buy (instead of what they really want to buy)
I don't think that makes any sense at all. I'd wager that the iPhone is getting AT&T a significant number of contracts; AT&T is not helping Apple sell iPhones. In actuality, it's probably making the iPhone less appealing to consumers. Based on that, it makes sense that Apple gets a cut of AT&T's revenue.
Likewise, NBC is not helping Apple sell iPods/iPhones with their content. Ask anyone who owns an iPod/iPhone; NONE will tell you that they got it to watch officially sanctioned NBC/big time media corporation content on their devices. Most of them can get their media through other means (and these means are more likely than not illegal). If anything, Apple is doing these companies a favor by presenting the media in a highly accessible/available/cheap format for the more conscientious consumer. If anything, Apple is helping them sell content that would otherwise be pirated.
Now, it can be argued that the conscientious are provided more incentive to buy an Apple media device with the availability of officially sanctioned content. But I highly doubt that the content would draw significant numbers to warrant Apple giving up revenue. I feel that having video playback capability in the media players is enough to draw customers, even without the availability of actual content, especially when content can be user generated.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
How have they destroyed the music business? Everywhere I go, especially when I ride public transit, I see people listening to iPods.
They haven't destroyed the music business (yet), but there's a lot of ambiguity about what's on those iPods. Less than 4% of the content was sold by iTunes, something like an average of 20 tracks per iPod were sold. We don't know how much of the rest was legally obtained or not. My sister builds her collection by borrowing CDs from the library.
Thats really the rub in all this though isn't it? None of them wanted to take the alternate distribution systems seriously, or invest any of their own money into one. But some one else did, And it worked well enough to become 'the standard'. And now they have the market and boo hoo! Poor NBC was to cowardly to expand outside their dinosaur business model and got left behind! So they're going to take their ball and go home. Which, might be a smart move if their ball wasn't deflated with gum stuck on it, and there weren't plenty of other kids with balls too.
Zucker whines
but unfortunately (for him and his ilk), he's fighting against both the inevitability of technological change and the just rewards (poetic justice, karma, payback, what-goes-around-comes-around,
As an amateur calligrapher with family members who are performers, I can confidently assert that:
Let's see NBC sharing a cut of their profits with a health insurance fund for performers. Then maybe I'll start listening to anything he has to say about being on the receiving end of a revenue-sharing proposal. Maybe.
Subscription models don't work for music. They may work for video, but that remains to be seen.
The whole idea of a subscription means you amortize the money you pay across the amount of content you use. Use lots of content, and you only pay a little bit per item. That sounds great when you first start out, because whoever offers the subscription has a huge library of stuff you've never seen before, so the idea of searching cheaply has an obvious appeal.
Thing is, people tend to re-use music and video. I can read a newspaper or magazine, throw it away, and never want to look at it again. If I hear a song I like, I want to hear it again later.
That's where the problem starts. When I build a library of items I want to use again, every item in that library competes with the others for my time and attention. If "really liking" a song means I want to hear it at least once a week, and I spend about 2 hours per day listening to music, I can only have about 350 songs in my "really like" playlist. Adding more songs means I'll hear less of the stuff I already "really like." The time each new item takes away from stuff already in my library has to be subtracted from the value of adding the song.
Eventually, the cost of adding another song balances the value of having it, at which point the song is basically worthless to me. Having a million songs to explore means I could spend a three years, twelve hours a day, doing nothing but listening to tracks I haven't heard yet, and never listening to anything that I already knew I liked. Very few people want to do that.
Once you start using content more than once, the idea of amortizing the cost over the number of plays starts to make sense. If I spend $0.99 for an iTunes track and play it 99 times, I've paid a penny per play, and the cost just keeps getting lower the more I play the thing.
So subscription models are good for people who want to explore a large body of stuff, and outright purchase is good for people who want to build a library of stuff they'll use frequently.