caddisfly never stated that AllOfMP3.com is losing money, so you can give up that particular straw man now.
My position is that AllofMP3 is making money, since if they can set their own price, it's illogical that they would set it so low (1c per meg) that they would lose money (and keep it that low for years and years). Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is the most probable.
His position more complicated, and is somewhere in the opposite. (that AllofMP3 is either not making money, or losing money, he hasn't specified). See the following:
There are tons of companies who "are still in business" but aren't making a profit. Try the short term/long term concept on your analysis.
...there are tons of examples of businesses who run losses for multiple years...
Blah, blah, and so on. Now, I know you Maclots are required to stick up for each other (per membership agreement in the cult), but you really should have read the whole thread before opening your big mouth, and subsequently filling it with your foot.
snip-- blah blah blah, a bunch of shit conclusions based on the fact that you can't read properly, and then-- You need to "sharpen" - remember, your razor is dull
LOL. what a joke.
BTW-- you've once again managed to IGNORE the point that destroys your whole pretend world where Apple isn't full of shit. Here it is again, for the THIRD TIME:
Why would AllofMP3.com set their price *so low* that they would lose money, and do so for three years straight?
The only logical conclusion is that they're not losing money. You seem convinced of the opposite, for some ridiculous, unknown reason.
Look, I even put it in bold, so you can't pretend you missed it for a fourth time.
A corp can be unprofitable for as long as it has cash in the bank and can cover it short term costs; in fact, some will take those losses for the promise of long term return or to establish a market -- it is called INVESTMENT.
you're talking on a whole lot about business, but not responding to the obvious question that I've asked TWICE: Why would AllofMP3.com set their price *so low* that they would lose money, and do so for three years straight?
The only logical conclusion is that they're not losing money. You seem convinced of the opposite, for some ridiculous, unknown reason. AllofMP3 could increase their price by a factor of 10, and still be less expensive than Real or Apple. Explain that one, Adam Smith.
do you think if someone opens a business with all its related costs (rent, inventory, marketing, fixtures, marketing, etc), that they make a profit with the first widget they sell? ... and as I've shown, even if AllofMP3 makes zero profit, and Apple's costs are TRIPLE AllofMP3's costs, Apple's still making 16.1 million dollars.
... and as I've ALSO SHOWN (and you conveniently ignore), Apple missed their own projections by 30 million songs, and still made a big profit. This means that they were planning on making an EVEN BIGGER PROFIT than the one they made.
No, that is the only way YOU can read the statement...and as you have already shown, I can't read....
...fixed that typo for you. I posted two interpretations-- and you completely ignored the second interpretation that completely blows away your argument. I reposted it above, using slightly different wording, in case you were having trouble with some of the larger words.
WE have shown YOU believe he is a pathological liar
and his "$1 salary" that's actually upwards of $75 million in yearly compensation?
and his "no profit on iTMS sales" claim, when his own sales projections predict they're going to rake in millions of dollars?
It's too bad your religious beliefs get in the way of your ability to think rationally. It's fairly obvious the guy's worse than the Iraqi Information Minister when it comes to factual information.
that is a non-sequitur -- they exist therefore they must be profitable? There are tons of companies who "are still in business" but aren't making a profit.
So your position is that Allofmp3.com has been in business for the last 3 years, and losing money the entire time? So, what, they're a charity organization? Allofmp3.com could charge however much they want. Why would they choose an amount that was so low, they'd lose money on it for three years straight? If you want to discuss logical non-sequiturs, start with your own little bizarro world, big guy.
...and you assume this 35 cents is profit? based on what? revenue does not equal profit!
...and you assume this 35 cents is *all cost*? Even if Allofmp3 spends all four cents to cover their expenses (because you seem to think they're a non-profit charity organization), Apple's still making 30 cents profit per song. On 70 million songs, that's still 23 million dollars profit.
Hell, say Apple's operating cost is TRIPLE that of AllofMP3. Apple's still making 16.1 million dollars.
At the time the statement was made - I think it was at the itunes launch, Apple probably didn't make a "profit".
Now that's just insane. Apple announced that they hadn't made a profit on iTunes the day they launched it? Somehow I doubt that.
The only other way to read your statement is that Apple announced that they weren't *planning on* making a profit, when they launched the store. Well, that makes Jobs look like an even bigger liar-- you see, they missed their sales projections by 30 million songs, and still made a pretty sizeable profit. So you're saying that they were actually planning on making a bigger profit than the one they made?
Even today, the profit of itunes is not the driver for their music business, the ipod is.
Once again, taking the word of Jobs as gospel. Haven't we already demonstrated that he's a pathological liar?
Because they're still in business. Even if they make exactly zero profit, it still proves the "no profit on iTMS" idea to be a crock. Occam's razor, my friend.
...and most illegal activity sells "goods" below market. Why? Because it didn't cost them anything (or little) to get it ... which is what makes Apple's claim of "no profit" so pathetic. Let me restate it, since you seem to be having trouble understanding.
1. Apple charges 99c per song, 35c of which goes straight to Apple.
2. AllofMP3.com charges ~four cents per song. Even if 100% of that goes to them, without paying any royalties, they're still able to stay in business.
3. Therefore, if allofmp3.com is able to cover their expenses (cc processing, bandwidth, hosting, electricity, staff, etc) on FOUR CENTS PER SONG (which is the high estimate, assuming no royalties being paid out), then Apple's claim of making no profit taking in 35c per song is complete bullshit.
If apple sold 200 million songs, that fits right in with the $70 million profit figure that Jobs himself mentions.
Of course, publicly, he has a completely different story. Publicly, he pretends that they make no profit on iTMS. It's great PR, it fits in great with Jobs' bullshit faux-hippie image, and it works--
*Because he knows Apple zealots are too sheepish to do their own research.
*Because anyone who contradicts the word of Jobs is shouted down, even if Jobs' statements are completely illogical
Hate Microsoft and Real all you want. Their products certainly aren't the best. But Bill Gates actually does good things with his ill-gotten gains. Jobs pathologically lies about what he takes in, then keeps it for himself.
If you can prove $0.35 number then you should really call a securities attorney or the SEC, because that means that Apple has been lying to their shareholders, --snip, blah, blah, blah--
The way I understand it, Apple makes most of the money on iPods. The iTunes business is to make ipods more attractive and brings almost no profit. Why don't they want to let others sells songs for ipod?
Because, given their reaction to Real, it's a logical deduction that Apple is LYING OUT THEIR ASS about "not making any money from iTunes music sales".
If you think about it, it makes sense. Apple pockets about $0.35 out of every $0.99 track. The files are about 4 megs, on average. Allofmp3.com, which is in Russia, charges by the megabyte for its downloads. A 4 meg file costs you $0.04. That's right.. they charge FOUR CENTS per song, on average. Now, given that they can charge so little, and still turn a profit, don't you think it's a little outlandish for Apple to claim that it doesn't make any money on its music sales, when it's making over EIGHT TIMES the amount of profit per song as one of its competitors?
But don't try to do it all with hardware. Imagine a device that I can plug into my TV. It will play DVDs, it will take my CD's, convert them to MP3s (autmatcially putting in track names and authors), it will allow internet surfing (yes, a TV isn't as good as a monitor), PVR, game playing, paying bills online, etc. it will handle VOIP (with built in message manage), IM...
The sad thing is, you can already do all of those things with a modded xbox. And what's even sadder is, it'll cost you under 200 bucks.
Apple already sacrificed profit from iTunes in favour for profit from the iPod by capitulating to the record companies.
Given their reaction, it's a logical deduction that Apple is LYING OUT THEIR ASS about "not making any money from iTunes music sales".
If you think about it, it makes sense. Apple pockets about $0.35 out of every $0.99 track. The files are about 4 megs, on average. Allofmp3.com, which is in Russia, charges by the megabyte for its downloads. A 4 meg file costs you $0.04. That's right.. they charge FOUR CENTS per song, on average. Now, given that they can charge so little, and still turn a profit, don't you think it's a little outlandish for Apple to claim that it doesn't make any money on its music sales, when it's making over EIGHT TIMES the amount of profit per song as one of its competitors?
The article even states that apple makes essentially no money on music sales, so who cares if Real gets in on it?
This brings up an interesting point. Given their reaction, it's a logical deduction that Apple is LYING OUT THEIR ASS about "not making any money from iTunes music sales".
If you think about it, it makes sense. Apple pockets about $0.35 out of every $0.99 track. The files are about 4 megs, on average. Allofmp3.com, which is in Russia, charges by the megabyte for its downloads. A 4 meg file costs you $0.04. That's right.. they charge FOUR CENTS per song, on average. Now, given that they can charge so little, and still turn a profit, don't you think it's a little outlandish for Apple to claim that it doesn't make any money on its music sales, when it's making over EIGHT TIMES the amount of profit per song as one of its competitors?
Constant death was a necessity in the days of video arcades... Now, in the comfort of our lounges or offices, what reason is there to keep dumping us out of the game we bought with our hard earned cash?
This is the reason Lucasarts adventure games are so fondly remembered. Nothing was funnier than falling off the cliff in monkey island and seeing the Kings-Quest-esque death screen, only to have your character bounce back onto the screen, make a face, and say "Rubber Tree".
Not having a fear of death lets you try all kinds of crazy shit in games. That's what makes them fun.
Having the iTMS in my pocket is a groundbreaking concept.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but no, it's not a "groundbreaking concept". I've been doing nearly the same things for the last 8 months, using my Treo 600, a 512mb SD card, and Pocket Tunes. I can download mp3s from the web, play ~130 songs from the SD card, or stream shoutcast radio.
It's actually superior to Apple's "groundbreaking concept", because you're not locked into Apple's proprietary iTunes/AAC/DRM/Riaa-loving bullshit.
So, yeah. Looks like Apple's playing catch-up on this one; although I guess if they repeat "WE'RE FIRST@!!!!!!!11!1oneone" enough, everyone will believe it. Just like they did with the ipod.
Yeah, maybe we need to stop worry about "decency" and start worrying about "individual responsibility".
But then, that runs counter to Christianity, which teaches that everyone should act like whiny little babies who need the 'holy father' to clean up their mess when they make a mistake.
...yeah, that's what I thought. Somehow the current administration seems to have forgotten about "equal protection under the law". Maybe it was that big Constitution-burning party they had right after stealing office.
Well, when you do start buying online, I'd go with allofmp3.com Songs are a few cents apiece-- most albums cost less than the $0.99 apple charges for a single song. *And* they have the entire Beatles catalog available. It's 100% legal. It's no worse than buying a CD from Amazon.co.uk.
I spend $4 to $6 a month there.. which ends up being 7-8 albums a month, DRM-free mp3's.
That's a lot better than Apple's pricing scheme, where you'd get 4-6 SONGS per month, with all kinds of fucked up DRM which limits what you can do with what you've LEGALLY PURCHASED.
Re:Thinking of Switching to a OSX for a laptop
on
Fix a Troubled Mac
·
· Score: -1
Apple laptops do work right out of the box. No manufactured laptop will be absolutely perfect, but the system and hardware are generally worry-free.
Yeah, they work right out of the box... just not for very long.
Apple does a great job of pretending all the problems with their computers don't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
caddisfly never stated that AllOfMP3.com is losing money, so you can give up that particular straw man now.
...there are tons of examples of businesses who run losses for multiple years...
My position is that AllofMP3 is making money, since if they can set their own price, it's illogical that they would set it so low (1c per meg) that they would lose money (and keep it that low for years and years). Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is the most probable.
His position more complicated, and is somewhere in the opposite. (that AllofMP3 is either not making money, or losing money, he hasn't specified). See the following:
There are tons of companies who "are still in business" but aren't making a profit. Try the short term/long term concept on your analysis.
Blah, blah, and so on. Now, I know you Maclots are required to stick up for each other (per membership agreement in the cult), but you really should have read the whole thread before opening your big mouth, and subsequently filling it with your foot.
Lets look at your "allofMP3" numbers (4 cents/MB, correct?) and try to normalize them with Apple:
Weren't you the one pounding the pulpit about reading comprehension? Try again, there, genius.
I'll even link my post so you won't pretend you can't find it.
snip-- blah blah blah, a bunch of shit conclusions based on the fact that you can't read properly, and then-- You need to "sharpen" - remember, your razor is dull
LOL. what a joke.
BTW-- you've once again managed to IGNORE the point that destroys your whole pretend world where Apple isn't full of shit. Here it is again, for the THIRD TIME:
Why would AllofMP3.com set their price *so low* that they would lose money, and do so for three years straight?
The only logical conclusion is that they're not losing money. You seem convinced of the opposite, for some ridiculous, unknown reason.
Look, I even put it in bold, so you can't pretend you missed it for a fourth time.
A corp can be unprofitable for as long as it has cash in the bank and can cover it short term costs; in fact, some will take those losses for the promise of long term return or to establish a market -- it is called INVESTMENT.
... and as I've shown, even if AllofMP3 makes zero profit, and Apple's costs are TRIPLE AllofMP3's costs, Apple's still making 16.1 million dollars.
... and as I've ALSO SHOWN (and you conveniently ignore), Apple missed their own projections by 30 million songs, and still made a big profit. This means that they were planning on making an EVEN BIGGER PROFIT than the one they made.
...fixed that typo for you. I posted two interpretations-- and you completely ignored the second interpretation that completely blows away your argument. I reposted it above, using slightly different wording, in case you were having trouble with some of the larger words.
you're talking on a whole lot about business, but not responding to the obvious question that I've asked TWICE: Why would AllofMP3.com set their price *so low* that they would lose money, and do so for three years straight?
The only logical conclusion is that they're not losing money. You seem convinced of the opposite, for some ridiculous, unknown reason. AllofMP3 could increase their price by a factor of 10, and still be less expensive than Real or Apple. Explain that one, Adam Smith.
do you think if someone opens a business with all its related costs (rent, inventory, marketing, fixtures, marketing, etc), that they make a profit with the first widget they sell?
No, that is the only way YOU can read the statement...and as you have already shown, I can't read....
WE have shown YOU believe he is a pathological liar
and his "$1 salary" that's actually upwards of $75 million in yearly compensation?
and his "no profit on iTMS sales" claim, when his own sales projections predict they're going to rake in millions of dollars?
It's too bad your religious beliefs get in the way of your ability to think rationally. It's fairly obvious the guy's worse than the Iraqi Information Minister when it comes to factual information.
that is a non-sequitur -- they exist therefore they must be profitable? There are tons of companies who "are still in business" but aren't making a profit.
...and you assume this 35 cents is profit? based on what? revenue does not equal profit!
...and you assume this 35 cents is *all cost*? Even if Allofmp3 spends all four cents to cover their expenses (because you seem to think they're a non-profit charity organization), Apple's still making 30 cents profit per song. On 70 million songs, that's still 23 million dollars profit.
So your position is that Allofmp3.com has been in business for the last 3 years, and losing money the entire time? So, what, they're a charity organization? Allofmp3.com could charge however much they want. Why would they choose an amount that was so low, they'd lose money on it for three years straight? If you want to discuss logical non-sequiturs, start with your own little bizarro world, big guy.
Hell, say Apple's operating cost is TRIPLE that of AllofMP3. Apple's still making 16.1 million dollars.
At the time the statement was made - I think it was at the itunes launch, Apple probably didn't make a "profit".
Now that's just insane. Apple announced that they hadn't made a profit on iTunes the day they launched it? Somehow I doubt that.
The only other way to read your statement is that Apple announced that they weren't *planning on* making a profit, when they launched the store. Well, that makes Jobs look like an even bigger liar-- you see, they missed their sales projections by 30 million songs, and still made a pretty sizeable profit. So you're saying that they were actually planning on making a bigger profit than the one they made?
Even today, the profit of itunes is not the driver for their music business, the ipod is.
Once again, taking the word of Jobs as gospel. Haven't we already demonstrated that he's a pathological liar?
and you know this (they make a profit) how?
...and most illegal activity sells "goods" below market. Why? Because it didn't cost them anything (or little) to get it ... which is what makes Apple's claim of "no profit" so pathetic. Let me restate it, since you seem to be having trouble understanding.
Because they're still in business. Even if they make exactly zero profit, it still proves the "no profit on iTMS" idea to be a crock. Occam's razor, my friend.
1. Apple charges 99c per song, 35c of which goes straight to Apple.
2. AllofMP3.com charges ~four cents per song. Even if 100% of that goes to them, without paying any royalties, they're still able to stay in business.
3. Therefore, if allofmp3.com is able to cover their expenses (cc processing, bandwidth, hosting, electricity, staff, etc) on FOUR CENTS PER SONG (which is the high estimate, assuming no royalties being paid out), then Apple's claim of making no profit taking in 35c per song is complete bullshit.
And look, Steve Jobs proves me right, in a private conference call.
If apple sold 200 million songs, that fits right in with the $70 million profit figure that Jobs himself mentions.
Of course, publicly, he has a completely different story. Publicly, he pretends that they make no profit on iTMS. It's great PR, it fits in great with Jobs' bullshit faux-hippie image, and it works--
*Because he knows Apple zealots are too sheepish to do their own research.
*Because anyone who contradicts the word of Jobs is shouted down, even if Jobs' statements are completely illogical
This whole "no profit on iTMS" line is just like his famous "$1 salary". That's a load of horseshit too. Because along with that $1 salary, he also receives $74.7 million in restricted stock; Apple also provides him a private jet, which he leases back to Apple for $1.2 million in two years
Hate Microsoft and Real all you want. Their products certainly aren't the best. But Bill Gates actually does good things with his ill-gotten gains. Jobs pathologically lies about what he takes in, then keeps it for himself.
I bet no one - artists included - is getting paid for these downloads.
This is what makes Apple's "no profit" claim so pathetic.
Allofmp3 *could* charge whatever they want. but they don't. they're making enough profit on FOUR CENTS PER SONG.
If you can prove $0.35 number then you should really call a securities attorney or the SEC, because that means that Apple has been lying to their shareholders, --snip, blah, blah, blah--
Don't believe me, believe the mac news sites
Oh wait. It hasn't happened because you're wrong. That's a much simpler explanation.
If you were as smart as you are smug, you wouldn't be so easily duped by El Senor Jobs.
The way I understand it, Apple makes most of the money on iPods. The iTunes business is to make ipods more attractive and brings almost no profit. Why don't they want to let others sells songs for ipod?
Because, given their reaction to Real, it's a logical deduction that Apple is LYING OUT THEIR ASS about "not making any money from iTunes music sales".
If you think about it, it makes sense. Apple pockets about $0.35 out of every $0.99 track. The files are about 4 megs, on average. Allofmp3.com, which is in Russia, charges by the megabyte for its downloads. A 4 meg file costs you $0.04. That's right.. they charge FOUR CENTS per song, on average. Now, given that they can charge so little, and still turn a profit, don't you think it's a little outlandish for Apple to claim that it doesn't make any money on its music sales, when it's making over EIGHT TIMES the amount of profit per song as one of its competitors?
I tried talking to Halliburton. I got a letter back that said:
Thanks for all the money, sorry about your kids!
But don't try to do it all with hardware. Imagine a device that I can plug into my TV. It will play DVDs, it will take my CD's, convert them to MP3s (autmatcially putting in track names and authors), it will allow internet surfing (yes, a TV isn't as good as a monitor), PVR, game playing, paying bills online, etc. it will handle VOIP (with built in message manage), IM...
The sad thing is, you can already do all of those things with a modded xbox. And what's even sadder is, it'll cost you under 200 bucks.
Nintendo. It's for breakfast now!
Nintendo. It's a cereal, wow!
maybe there was an "underwhelming response" because they were charging an arm and a leg for the fricking thing.
Tivo = $99.
PS2 = $150.
Tivo + PS2 = $900?
what kind of math is that?
So you hire "interns" to managerial positions over there at Ziff Davis? (Rights & Permissions Manager, specifically)
Either you do, which means you're a fucking moron, or you don't, which means you're a fucking liar.
So, which is is? Moron, or liar?
Given that poorly composed paragraph of spin and slant you managed to barf up, my bet is that you're both.
Apple already sacrificed profit from iTunes in favour for profit from the iPod by capitulating to the record companies.
Given their reaction, it's a logical deduction that Apple is LYING OUT THEIR ASS about "not making any money from iTunes music sales".
If you think about it, it makes sense. Apple pockets about $0.35 out of every $0.99 track. The files are about 4 megs, on average. Allofmp3.com, which is in Russia, charges by the megabyte for its downloads. A 4 meg file costs you $0.04. That's right.. they charge FOUR CENTS per song, on average. Now, given that they can charge so little, and still turn a profit, don't you think it's a little outlandish for Apple to claim that it doesn't make any money on its music sales, when it's making over EIGHT TIMES the amount of profit per song as one of its competitors?
The article even states that apple makes essentially no money on music sales, so who cares if Real gets in on it?
This brings up an interesting point. Given their reaction, it's a logical deduction that Apple is LYING OUT THEIR ASS about "not making any money from iTunes music sales".
If you think about it, it makes sense. Apple pockets about $0.35 out of every $0.99 track. The files are about 4 megs, on average. Allofmp3.com, which is in Russia, charges by the megabyte for its downloads. A 4 meg file costs you $0.04. That's right.. they charge FOUR CENTS per song, on average. Now, given that they can charge so little, and still turn a profit, don't you think it's a little outlandish for Apple to claim that it doesn't make any money on its music sales, when it's making over EIGHT TIMES the amount of profit per song as one of its competitors?
well DUH.. the DMCA will prevent all of this! Because if something is illegal, obviously nobody will do it!
Constant death was a necessity in the days of video arcades... Now, in the comfort of our lounges or offices, what reason is there to keep dumping us out of the game we bought with our hard earned cash?
This is the reason Lucasarts adventure games are so fondly remembered. Nothing was funnier than falling off the cliff in monkey island and seeing the Kings-Quest-esque death screen, only to have your character bounce back onto the screen, make a face, and say "Rubber Tree".
Not having a fear of death lets you try all kinds of crazy shit in games. That's what makes them fun.
Having the iTMS in my pocket is a groundbreaking concept.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but no, it's not a "groundbreaking concept". I've been doing nearly the same things for the last 8 months, using my Treo 600, a 512mb SD card, and Pocket Tunes. I can download mp3s from the web, play ~130 songs from the SD card, or stream shoutcast radio.
It's actually superior to Apple's "groundbreaking concept", because you're not locked into Apple's proprietary iTunes/AAC/DRM/Riaa-loving bullshit.
So, yeah. Looks like Apple's playing catch-up on this one; although I guess if they repeat "WE'RE FIRST@!!!!!!!11!1oneone" enough, everyone will believe it. Just like they did with the ipod.
Yeah, maybe we need to stop worry about "decency" and start worrying about "individual responsibility".
But then, that runs counter to Christianity, which teaches that everyone should act like whiny little babies who need the 'holy father' to clean up their mess when they make a mistake.
These puritanical attitudes make us the laughing stock of the entire world.
... right?
Hey, the same type of draconian policy worked for the Taliban in Afghanistan, right?
Could someone explain to me why Howard Stern can say something, and it's "indecent", but if Oprah uses the same language, in the same setting, in the same way, it's magically *not* indecent?
...yeah, that's what I thought. Somehow the current administration seems to have forgotten about "equal protection under the law". Maybe it was that big Constitution-burning party they had right after stealing office.
He's a h4ck3r, and he uses MS Paint. That makes him both a hacker and a painter, right?
Right?
Well, when you do start buying online, I'd go with allofmp3.com Songs are a few cents apiece-- most albums cost less than the $0.99 apple charges for a single song. *And* they have the entire Beatles catalog available. It's 100% legal. It's no worse than buying a CD from Amazon.co.uk.
How can this possibly be? It's due to the wonders of international copyright law.
I spend $4 to $6 a month there.. which ends up being 7-8 albums a month, DRM-free mp3's.
That's a lot better than Apple's pricing scheme, where you'd get 4-6 SONGS per month, with all kinds of fucked up DRM which limits what you can do with what you've LEGALLY PURCHASED.
Apple laptops do work right out of the box. No manufactured laptop will be absolutely perfect, but the system and hardware are generally worry-free.
Yeah, they work right out of the box... just not for very long.
Apple does a great job of pretending all the problems with their computers don't exist.
But don't believe me, believe the many, many pissed off users that get brushed off when they want their in-warranty, defective computers fixed
Or the thousands that are having problems with defective equipment in their shiny, new, two week old G5s.
Or the formerly proud owners of Apple "Titanium" powerbooks, who found out the hard way that Apple's definition of "Titanium" is actually "Cheap-ass silver paint that flakes off after a month".
But hey, at least Apple still makes the most *expensive* personal computer on the market, right?
.. but.. but.. el Presidente Jobs promised me my Mac would "just work"!
You mean to tell me they break, just like every other computer? This is an outrage!@@#@!11 I demand my eight thousand dollars back!