old music guy says: "You've got to provide stuff that people can keep, and they don't mind paying you $3 a month for."
....and how does that work? oh yeah, you have to pay $3 a month *FOREVER* and you don't have a choice about paying it if you want music
unfortunately, this is "brit-think" like the TV Tax. Won't work in America - where taxes are a four-letter word.
Can you imagine americans paying a tax to watch TV? ho! ho!
now we *will* pay unlimited $$$ to watch/not watch cable trash, and then bitch about how much we pay the cable companies - that is the american capitalist way; we prefer our corporate handouts/guarantees not too closely or obviously linked to the government. it allows us to keep up the independent cowboy charade;-)
That was my point -- they can't verify the pw, so they accept anything. Once the login has been successful, they take you to the page where you fill in all your information - name, ssn, etc - that they claimed in the email they sent to you that they lost because their system crashed; hackers broke in, etc
...the fact that they rejected your password should have been your first clue -- What phishing site would reject your password and userid? how would they know to? in fact, I think this is a good test of a suspected phishing site - unlike the woman in the study who used her own password to test (duh!), type in *any* nonsense userid/password and see if it is accepted. If it is, then you know the site is bogus!
one of the rules of security is "don't make it easy and obvious" -- OS X does that, Windows doesn't. Windows is the "honey pot" for the world. With all the unsecure machines any script kit can bust it. OS X would take some real work, so the hackers go elsewhere.
another rule: layered defense -- OS X does it, Windows doesn't. With Windows, break into an app or file and you are at the OS core -- see WMF.
It is not about market share, it is about market share of *unsecure* machines. The Windows "not secure" architecture and legacy will haunt it for years to come. If OS X gets 50% market share, those remaining Windows machines will still be just as unsecure and will still get just as hammered by malware, etc. It doesn't follow that overall malware will equally affect OS X.
Try this analogy: there were more robberies of homes than banks....and it ain't because there are so many more homes. Banks are just more difficult to rob, risks are greater and penalties greater. OS X is the bank -- it can be robbed, but I don't spend my time worrying about it. My home, on the other hand, has "windows" -- and I worry about that a lot!;-)
Two observations:
a) do a market share observation of security folks and technical folks at generic computer conferences: the market share of OS X is more like 30-40% for people in the know. b) as much "negative reaction" as folks have to Steve Jobs and Apple, if someone could write a virus, etc. for OS X, they would have done so by now, just to throw it in his face and make headlines across the tech world. I am still waiting.
right on, I know I can hear the diff at 200+ kbit rate in my 335K mile truck....
...and apparently you and the other 6 people in the world who can hear the diff in a double-blind test aren't buying enough CDs...it needs to be "lots, lots, lots, and lots" because CD sales are dying.
...and it ain't Apple's fault. Sorry, your "demographic" is a bump on a gnats rear in the overall scheme of the CD sales and music downloads, so give it up. You are not going to make or break this industry
....OK. so you will let any corporation or other entity enter your computer, house, car, body, etc to modify what is found there, without your knowledge, under the guise that *they* need to protect *their* property rights?
Welcome to 1984 and the birth of facism is America....
keep with the herd, please and "Baaa" only when spoken to
...I am not sure what Wacom stuff you are talking about, but I find my Wacom Intuos3 tablet runs rings around the pressure sensing/sensitivity of the Lenova, HP, Toshiba tablets I have tried.....just not directly on the screen. I also find the extremly limited ability to *adjust* the pen responsiveness a drawback of the tablet. Or at least, I have yet to find the control panel equivalent in XP Tablet to what I have for my Intuos3.
As to whether Apple gets into this or not.....I am not sure there is a market here yet. Dell hasn't entered, and if/when they do, that will be the sign.
I don't see this going anywhere except in niche markets. For general use, I find them a pain to use and not worth the trouble. As an digital artist, they do have some advantages - traveling sketchpad, etc.
I have been using the x41 tablet and several other tablet brands for a couple of months and my conclusion is:
"For mainstream use, Not Worth the Effort"
Everything about them is slower than keying.
Interacting with websites or other apps which expect keyboard entry is painfully tedious. Annotation of existing digital docs require another step, another app and is of limited use to send to others unless they are so configured. (MS Journal, etc)
And as previous slashdotter noted: finding anything is problematic.
Nothing there that I can't do and haven't done with my Palm and graffitti for the last couple of years.
The "value add" that the tablet function brings only happens when you doodle or sketch alot while taking notes. Artists would like it.
I think this whole "writing recognition" thing is generational - with the generation that wants it now hitting retirement age. They don't know how to "type" so they want to "write". But they are generally terrible with their mouse skills and using the pen takes much finer hand-eye coordination than using a mouse.
There have been several articles recently how todays school-age kids can't even "read" let alone "write" long hand. It is like a foreign language to them.
"Print" - yes (it is like a computer!), but "cursive" or script, it might as well be french. So, I don't see this market happening.....I wouldn't mind taking a look at what Apple would come up with in the tablet arena, but right now in the Windoze world, it is pretty "ho hum!"
...and this is why we need to continue to teach *science* in science class 'cause last time I checked, salmon sharks were not reptiles.
These findings just confirm the "above ambient temp" findings that have been known for quite a while with bluefin tuna, other big sharks, etc.
...the evolutionary implications are that these "heater" systems allowed these predators to extend their hunting range and hunting efficiency by moving into and operating in colder waters and thus increasing the amount of food available to them --- presto, evolutionary success!
...that was until the commercial fishing and technology came along to start wiping them out
you *and* your boss need to focus on "what matters" - if the boss can't get his head around that, throw him out with the blackberry; they both are just stealing your soul at time when you are going to need it the most.
prayers to you and your family - and you don't want to be "looking back" saying, "Gosh, I sold 2 more widgets this last year, but...."
Re:the future is the cell phone not PDA
on
The End of PalmOS?
·
· Score: 1
...I would rather it read "PDA's will get cell phone functions"
without all the info and other stuff that my Treo does, the cell phone part is a fairly throw-away device to me. It is the PDA that is the smarts, not that totally unreliable, low quality-ain't-no-coverage- piece of goo called a cell phone.
I think the point of the record companies effort is to raise the price point of the *buy* to a point that forces the *subscription* model to become a viable alternative and thus on going, recurring revenue for the fat cats...
"I want my kids to be able to play it 20 years from now if they want....."
You mean like your piano rolls, records (78s, 33s, 45s), 8 tracks, and soon cassettes and little farther out CDs? Although I guess for the right amount of money you can still get those devices...
I think device technology may be your biggest threat overtime rather than DRM. The crisis point is when version xx.x of itunes won't support the first generation of ipods!
...Windows machine? Not enough money in the world. I do 300+ of them at work....Mac OS....nothing.....of course, I would never get any money anyway because they don't.....
It appears that you are wrong - this is from Henry Norr reporting at macintouch.com: ------> I went back to the booth later and got a little more info on upgrading the Mac Mini.
Apple "does not recommend" that users upgrade the memory themselves - you're supposed to have a service provider do it if you want to add more after purchase - but doing it yourself does not void the warranty unless you damage something. A booth person told me the memory slot is easily accessible once you get the case open. -------
I doubt intel OEMs honor warranties if you end up "toasting" the machine
...maybe it is the morning, but I thought this should have been moderated as "funny" or at least sarcastic.;-)
...downloads are becoming more and more of a commodity item.
Does this favor those that give "value add" - like Apple, who develops products along the entire vertical chain (below music creation point, anyway) and can distinguish themselves in the market any where along the chain *OR* will the monopoly presence of MS and the use of the WMA format by the commodity providers make that uniqueness/differentiation hard to maintain/defend?
...time will tell. Right now, ipod is cool and has established name/concept recognition that no one else can touch. It is still the crown jewels and no one else will ever produce an "ipod" except Apple. I would imagine a large percentage of the consumer market couldn't name another music player other than ipod. It is kinda like Kleenex and Sheetrock.
And we already know that Apple produces better software
The only thing you do is tell us what you believe and want to be the case, repeat it often enough and somehow that will make it so. [Do you work for the Bush Administration?]
Where is your evidence that Apple is making "huge profit"? or your evidence that "allofMP3" does as well. YOU made the claim. I simply asked "How do you know that?" and you simply repeat "Because that is what I believe" or make other non-related claims that I have pointed out with examples which show your claims open to the totally opposite conclusion.
Lets look at your "allofMP3" numbers (4 cents/MB, correct?) and try to normalize them with Apple:
* your average 4.5 minute song takes about 5MB of space.
* ergo, consumer cost at "allofMP3" is 20 cents. (4 cents x 5MB)
* now add the cost that "doesn't go directly to Apple" which Apple has to pay because they have a legal product and have to pay the record companies, artists, etc. You have stated that this is 64 cents ("....35 cents goes directly to Apple"...99-35=64). This is the cost that all legitimate owners of the license would have to pay. It is fixed cost to Apple and others and can't be influenced by the efficiencies, internal costs or economies of Apple and others ("allofMP3" included).
* suddenly the "normalized" cost of a 4.5 minute "allofMP3" track becomes 84 cents. [20 cents + 64 cents] (a 5.5 minute song would cost 90 cents at "allofMP3", etc) Suddenly, the "allofMP3" deal doesn't look that much different than Apples.
* now the question for you - if you decide to actually use evidence and partake in analytical thinking is: how much of "allofMP3"' 20 cents is "profit" and how much is "costs" and/or how much of Apple's 35 cents is "profit" and how much is "costs".
Let me hold your hand -- I would suspect that Apple's costs are not the same as "allofMP3". Why?
1. I don't see any comparable R&D done at "allofMP3"; they are just serving music, they didn't develop the itunes program and interface, etc 2. I haven't seen any marketing efforts done by "allofMP3" - print, radio, TV ads; Apple's cost multiple millions; 3. No evidence that "allofMP3" had to pay any lawyers to negogiate fees with license holders like Apple did 4. I would think the respective salary of employees is a bit different; Guess now, which one do you think is higher?...and how about the benefits piece? US v Russia 5. Taxes in US vs Russia 6. Cost of facilities and data centers are probably different 7. Cost of respective customer support infrastructure. does "allofMP3" have one?
etc, etc
Now, the cost of living index is higher in Russia than US (123 v 100 see http://www.expatforum.com/Resources/icol.htm), but make sure you READ the assumptions on that number. For example, housing costs are not included.
I suspect the cost of labor is lower in Russia but cost of technology may be higher....but who knows?. You are one making the claim, find out!
and his "$1 salary" that's actually upwards of $75 million in yearly compensation?
FYI, salary does not equal compensation. Your compensation, assuming you are employed, is higher than your salary, but when you quote how much you are paid, I bet you don't use your compensation figure. All of which, btw, are a COST or EXPENSE to your employer.
Apple missed their own projections by 30 million songs, and still made a big profit.
You need to "sharpen" - remember, your razor is dull - your projections argument. Missing projections (high) could result in higher costs or lower costs depending on the efficiencies of your infrastructure. Did increase your revenue projections though. Fixed costs don't vary over units sold. Variable costs could due to diseconomies/economies of scale, etc. VC would be the main thing that would be impacted by "missing the projection".
So, go ahead, make your case with some EVIDENCE of how missing the projections resulted in apple making HUGE profits. Pls
".....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?"....
No, my position is that # of years means NOTHING. You are the one making the claim based on number of years. I just asked the question. You haven't been around long have you? there are tons of examples of businesses who run losses for multiple years. look at the telcom industry; look at any number of companies during dot.com era; look at the auto industry as the Japanese cars were coming in; heck, look at Apple for several years running; 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.
your world is the bizarre one: you're trying equate your unsupported belief in the financial status of some website based in Russia who is dealing stolen licenses and is probably run by some kid with a 500GB hard drive existing in a financial culture that has little or no regulation and laws and is probably accountable to no one - and then use it as a model to grind on an american public corporation with 10s of thousands of employees subject to the state and federal regulations in a culture full of lawyers just because you hate the CEO....get real....
"......and you assume this 35 cents is *all cost*?..."
Never said that, I said it was revenue. I don't know how much is cost - your the one making the claim that Apple is making some huge profit on each download. Prove it. Look at Apples financial statements. Look at AllofMP3 statements...oops, that's right, they don't have to file any do they? of course, but they do have your credit card number....what is your credit limit?;-)
"Apple announced that they hadn't made a profit on iTunes the day they launched it? Somehow I doubt that...."
...again, you haven't been around much. How long did it take Amazon to make a profit (have they yet?) How long did it take Google? how about the artificial diamond industry, etc etc etc
do you really understand how business works? 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? Not the norm. particularly if it is an unknown or new market - which is exactly where Apple was when they started legal downloads. It is perfectly reasonable that they may have gambled short term profits and sustained "breakeven" or some losses on itunes for an investment as a new adopter to set the standard for long term market growth. Would you rather make 35 cents per on 10 million downloads the first year or 5 cents per on 500 million year after year a couple of years down the road when everyone is using your product (ipod) where you make $$ per unit. I know your answer, so, interested in this bridge I have?....
"....The only other way to read your statement is that Apple..."
No, that is the only way YOU can read the statement...and as you have already shown, you can't read....even your own citations.
"...Once again, taking the word of Jobs as gospel. Haven't we already demonstrated that he's a pathological liar?"....
no, WE have shown YOU believe he is 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. '
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. Try the short term/long term concept on your analysis. Your razor is need of some sharpening.
1. Apple charges 99c per song, 35c of which goes straight to Apple.
...and you assume this 35 cents is profit? based on what? revenue does not equal profit! unless you know Apple's cost structure, you can't determine profit. [I will grant you their cost structure is higher than a Moscow apartment or where ever the "4 cent/MB" is based, but that is a different discussion. They obviously don't have to pay lawyers.] I think your razor company just went out of business.
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.
...apparently your eye-glasses company went out of business as well. Read your reference article. He didn't say they made proft of $70M on itunes, he said they sold 70M songs and "made a small profit" on itunes that quarter.
*Because he knows Apple zealots are too sheepish to do their own research.
...and - given the evidence you just provided - apparently whatever group classification you put yourself in as well. (although I don't think the problem has anything to do with "sheep" - perhaps more porklike.)
Microeconomics 101: It is entirely conceivable that Apple lost money on downloads 1 to 40 million; broke even on 41 million to 50 million; and made a "small profit" on 51 million to 70 million. [See concepts of "marginal costs/fixed costs/economies of scale".]
So what? At the time the statement was made - I think it was at the itunes launch, Apple probably didn't make a "profit". Even today, the profit of itunes is not the driver for their music business, the ipod is. If the market suddenly dropped the per unit revenue of a download to 49 cents (or 4 cents), the whole revenue line gets shifted, but the cost line stays the same. Back to no-profit. [See prospectus of Real.;-)]
it fits in great with Jobs' bullshit faux-hippie image,
hippieness is a state of mind, not a state of pocket book;-) No one ever accused Jobs of being poor or dumb. You really hate the guy don't you? take a valium and quit listening to Fox and Rush for tips on debating and making points.
Hate Microsoft and Real all you want.
1. How did Bill get into this?
2. Real - now there is an interesting test for your logic. They exist - "are in business" - but are demonstrably unprofitable. Hmmmm. I didn't think that was possible.
Let's see: need of a shave, can't see, a bit pig-headed and wasn't an econ major....oh, I see where Bill comes in!;-) But the dude can make some "profit" though.
If you get a couple of 100 gigs of HD and a ISP, etc., and start selling stuff you ripped (pun intended) off and don't own the distribution license to, you may last for a bit of time or even longer; street vendors selling fake rolex watches "make a profit" also
....and most illegal activity sells "goods" below market. Why? Because it didn't cost them anything (or little) to get it or they like to keep it under the radar. Real Rolex can't/won't go after fake Rolex street vendor because it costs them too much (they have pay people like you $10, or $20, $30/hr) or the vendor lives in *another country*, etc
....why don't you think this just like "free" Napster, but they decided to charge money instead? (IOW, charging for stuff they stole that everyone used to get for free!) boy, what a rip off that would be!;-)
....and I bet you give these guys your credit card number as well?
....yes, and look at the licensing/copyright/IP laws in Russia. They don't much exist.
I bet no one - artists included - is getting paid for these downloads.
Slashdot Mirror
old music guy says: "You've got to provide stuff that people can keep, and they don't mind paying you $3 a month for."
....and how does that work? oh yeah, you have to pay $3 a month *FOREVER* and you don't have a choice about paying it if you want music
;-)
unfortunately, this is "brit-think" like the TV Tax. Won't work in America - where taxes are a four-letter word.
Can you imagine americans paying a tax to watch TV? ho! ho!
now we *will* pay unlimited $$$ to watch/not watch cable trash, and then bitch about how much we pay the cable companies - that is the american capitalist way; we prefer our corporate handouts/guarantees not too closely or obviously linked to the government. it allows us to keep up the independent cowboy charade
hmmmm....that hasn't been my experience.
That was my point -- they can't verify the pw, so they accept anything. Once the login has been successful, they take you to the page where you fill in all your information - name, ssn, etc - that they claimed in the email they sent to you that they lost because their system crashed; hackers broke in, etc
...the fact that they rejected your password should have been your first clue -- What phishing site would reject your password and userid? how would they know to? in fact, I think this is a good test of a suspected phishing site - unlike the woman in the study who used her own password to test (duh!), type in *any* nonsense userid/password and see if it is accepted. If it is, then you know the site is bogus!
Insightful? who mod'ed this?
;-)
one of the rules of security is "don't make it easy and obvious" -- OS X does that, Windows doesn't. Windows is the "honey pot" for the world. With all the unsecure machines any script kit can bust it. OS X would take some real work, so the hackers go elsewhere.
another rule: layered defense -- OS X does it, Windows doesn't. With Windows, break into an app or file and you are at the OS core -- see WMF.
It is not about market share, it is about market share of *unsecure* machines. The Windows "not secure" architecture and legacy will haunt it for years to come. If OS X gets 50% market share, those remaining Windows machines will still be just as unsecure and will still get just as hammered by malware, etc. It doesn't follow that overall malware will equally affect OS X.
Try this analogy: there were more robberies of homes than banks....and it ain't because there are so many more homes. Banks are just more difficult to rob, risks are greater and penalties greater. OS X is the bank -- it can be robbed, but I don't spend my time worrying about it. My home, on the other hand, has "windows" -- and I worry about that a lot!
Two observations:
a) do a market share observation of security folks and technical folks at generic computer conferences: the market share of OS X is more like 30-40% for people in the know.
b) as much "negative reaction" as folks have to Steve Jobs and Apple, if someone could write a virus, etc. for OS X, they would have done so by now, just to throw it in his face and make headlines across the tech world. I am still waiting.
....OK. so you will let any corporation or other entity enter your computer, house, car, body, etc to modify what is found there, without your knowledge, under the guise that *they* need to protect *their* property rights?
Welcome to 1984 and the birth of facism is America....
keep with the herd, please and "Baaa" only when spoken to
...I am not sure what Wacom stuff you are talking about, but I find my Wacom Intuos3 tablet runs rings around the pressure sensing/sensitivity of the Lenova, HP, Toshiba tablets I have tried. ....just not directly on the screen. I also find the extremly limited ability to *adjust* the pen responsiveness a drawback of the tablet. Or at least, I have yet to find the control panel equivalent in XP Tablet to what I have for my Intuos3.
As to whether Apple gets into this or not.....I am not sure there is a market here yet. Dell hasn't entered, and if/when they do, that will be the sign.
I don't see this going anywhere except in niche markets. For general use, I find them a pain to use and not worth the trouble. As an digital artist, they do have some advantages - traveling sketchpad, etc.
of course, with Windows, I can't seem to find sh*t with its search feature. OS X spotlight however.....
I have been using the x41 tablet and several other tablet brands for a couple of months and my conclusion is:
....I wouldn't mind taking a look at what Apple would come up with in the tablet arena, but right now in the Windoze world, it is pretty "ho hum!"
"For mainstream use, Not Worth the Effort"
Everything about them is slower than keying.
Interacting with websites or other apps which expect keyboard entry is painfully tedious. Annotation of existing digital docs require another step, another app and is of limited use to send to others unless they are so configured. (MS Journal, etc)
And as previous slashdotter noted: finding anything is problematic.
Nothing there that I can't do and haven't done with my Palm and graffitti for the last couple of years.
The "value add" that the tablet function brings only happens when you doodle or sketch alot while taking notes. Artists would like it.
I think this whole "writing recognition" thing is generational - with the generation that wants it now hitting retirement age. They don't know how to "type" so they want to "write". But they are generally terrible with their mouse skills and using the pen takes much finer hand-eye coordination than using a mouse.
There have been several articles recently how todays school-age kids can't even "read" let alone "write" long hand. It is like a foreign language to them.
"Print" - yes (it is like a computer!), but "cursive" or script, it might as well be french. So, I don't see this market happening.
These findings just confirm the "above ambient temp" findings that have been known for quite a while with bluefin tuna, other big sharks, etc.
ditto on the "been there; done that"
you *and* your boss need to focus on "what matters" - if the boss can't get his head around that, throw him out with the blackberry; they both are just stealing your soul at time when you are going to need it the most.
prayers to you and your family - and you don't want to be "looking back" saying, "Gosh, I sold 2 more widgets this last year, but...."
...I would rather it read "PDA's will get cell phone functions"
without all the info and other stuff that my Treo does, the cell phone part is a fairly throw-away device to me. It is the PDA that is the smarts, not that totally unreliable, low quality-ain't-no-coverage- piece of goo called a cell phone.
I think the point of the record companies effort is to raise the price point of the *buy* to a point that forces the *subscription* model to become a viable alternative and thus on going, recurring revenue for the fat cats...
if so, it sucks big time....
duh! ...and thus the meaning of the cliche -- it requires neither a rocket or science. ...e.g. - it is simple; not complicated;
"I want my kids to be able to play it 20 years from now if they want....."
You mean like your piano rolls, records (78s, 33s, 45s), 8 tracks, and soon cassettes and little farther out CDs? Although I guess for the right amount of money you can still get those devices...
I think device technology may be your biggest threat overtime rather than DRM. The crisis point is when version xx.x of itunes won't support the first generation of ipods!
...Windows machine? Not enough money in the world. I do 300+ of them at work. ...Mac OS....nothing.....of course, I would never get any money anyway because they don't.....
It appears that you are wrong - this is from Henry Norr reporting at macintouch.com:
------>
I went back to the booth later and got a little more info on upgrading the Mac Mini.
Apple "does not recommend" that users upgrade the memory themselves - you're supposed to have a service provider do it if you want to add more after purchase - but doing it yourself does not void the warranty unless you damage something. A booth person told me the memory slot is easily accessible once you get the case open.
-------
I doubt intel OEMs honor warranties if you end up "toasting" the machine
Does this favor those that give "value add" - like Apple, who develops products along the entire vertical chain (below music creation point, anyway) and can distinguish themselves in the market any where along the chain *OR* will the monopoly presence of MS and the use of the WMA format by the commodity providers make that uniqueness/differentiation hard to maintain/defend?
And we already know that Apple produces better software
....sigh...I understand now...you are a dog, right?
The only thing you do is tell us what you believe and want to be the case, repeat it often enough and somehow that will make it so. [Do you work for the Bush Administration?]
...and how about the benefits piece? US v Russia
Where is your evidence that Apple is making "huge profit"? or your evidence that "allofMP3" does as well. YOU made the claim. I simply asked "How do you know that?" and you simply repeat "Because that is what I believe" or make other non-related claims that I have pointed out with examples which show your claims open to the totally opposite conclusion.
Lets look at your "allofMP3" numbers (4 cents/MB, correct?) and try to normalize them with Apple:
* your average 4.5 minute song takes about 5MB of space.
* ergo, consumer cost at "allofMP3" is 20 cents. (4 cents x 5MB)
* now add the cost that "doesn't go directly to Apple" which Apple has to pay because they have a legal product and have to pay the record companies, artists, etc.
You have stated that this is 64 cents ("....35 cents goes directly to Apple"...99-35=64). This is the cost that all legitimate owners of the license would have to pay. It is fixed cost to Apple and others and can't be influenced by the efficiencies, internal costs or economies of Apple and others ("allofMP3" included).
* suddenly the "normalized" cost of a 4.5 minute "allofMP3" track becomes 84 cents. [20 cents + 64 cents] (a 5.5 minute song would cost 90 cents at "allofMP3", etc) Suddenly, the "allofMP3" deal doesn't look that much different than Apples.
* now the question for you - if you decide to actually use evidence and partake in analytical thinking is: how much of "allofMP3"' 20 cents is "profit" and how much is "costs" and/or how much of Apple's 35 cents is "profit" and how much is "costs".
Let me hold your hand -- I would suspect that Apple's costs are not the same as "allofMP3". Why?
1. I don't see any comparable R&D done at "allofMP3"; they are just serving music, they didn't develop the itunes program and interface, etc
2. I haven't seen any marketing efforts done by "allofMP3" - print, radio, TV ads; Apple's cost multiple millions;
3. No evidence that "allofMP3" had to pay any lawyers to negogiate fees with license holders like Apple did
4. I would think the respective salary of employees is a bit different; Guess now, which one do you think is higher?
5. Taxes in US vs Russia
6. Cost of facilities and data centers are probably different
7. Cost of respective customer support infrastructure. does "allofMP3" have one?
etc, etc
Now, the cost of living index is higher in Russia than US (123 v 100 see http://www.expatforum.com/Resources/icol.htm), but make sure you READ the assumptions on that number. For example, housing costs are not included.
I suspect the cost of labor is lower in Russia but cost of technology may be higher....but who knows?. You are one making the claim, find out!
and his "$1 salary" that's actually upwards of $75 million in yearly compensation?
FYI, salary does not equal compensation. Your compensation, assuming you are employed, is higher than your salary, but when you quote how much you are paid, I bet you don't use your compensation figure. All of which, btw, are a COST or EXPENSE to your employer.
Apple missed their own projections by 30 million songs, and still made a big profit.
You need to "sharpen" - remember, your razor is dull - your projections argument. Missing projections (high) could result in higher costs or lower costs depending on the efficiencies of your infrastructure. Did increase your revenue projections though. Fixed costs don't vary over units sold. Variable costs could due to diseconomies/economies of scale, etc. VC would be the main thing that would be impacted by "missing the projection".
So, go ahead, make your case with some EVIDENCE of how missing the projections resulted in apple making HUGE profits. Pls
".....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?"....
..."
;-)
...again, you haven't been around much. How long did it take Amazon to make a profit (have they yet?) How long did it take Google? how about the artificial diamond industry, etc etc etc
No, my position is that # of years means NOTHING. You are the one making the claim based on number of years. I just asked the question. You haven't been around long have you? there are tons of examples of businesses who run losses for multiple years. look at the telcom industry; look at any number of companies during dot.com era; look at the auto industry as the Japanese cars were coming in; heck, look at Apple for several years running; 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.
your world is the bizarre one: you're trying equate your unsupported belief in the financial status of some website based in Russia who is dealing stolen licenses and is probably run by some kid with a 500GB hard drive existing in a financial culture that has little or no regulation and laws and is probably accountable to no one - and then use it as a model to grind on an american public corporation with 10s of thousands of employees subject to the state and federal regulations in a culture full of lawyers just because you hate the CEO....get real....
"......and you assume this 35 cents is *all cost*?
Never said that, I said it was revenue. I don't know how much is cost - your the one making the claim that Apple is making some huge profit on each download. Prove it. Look at Apples financial statements. Look at AllofMP3 statements...oops, that's right, they don't have to file any do they? of course, but they do have your credit card number....what is your credit limit?
"Apple announced that they hadn't made a profit on iTunes the day they launched it? Somehow I doubt that...."
do you really understand how business works? 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? Not the norm. particularly if it is an unknown or new market - which is exactly where Apple was when they started legal downloads. It is perfectly reasonable that they may have gambled short term profits and sustained "breakeven" or some losses on itunes for an investment as a new adopter to set the standard for long term market growth. Would you rather make 35 cents per on 10 million downloads the first year or 5 cents per on 500 million year after year a couple of years down the road when everyone is using your product (ipod) where you make $$ per unit. I know your answer, so, interested in this bridge I have?....
"....The only other way to read your statement is that Apple..."
No, that is the only way YOU can read the statement...and as you have already shown, you can't read....even your own citations.
"...Once again, taking the word of Jobs as gospel. Haven't we already demonstrated that he's a pathological liar?"....
no, WE have shown YOU believe he is 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 you assume this 35 cents is profit? based on what? revenue does not equal profit! unless you know Apple's cost structure, you can't determine profit. [I will grant you their cost structure is higher than a Moscow apartment or where ever the "4 cent/MB" is based, but that is a different discussion. They obviously don't have to pay lawyers.]
...apparently your eye-glasses company went out of business as well. Read your reference article. He didn't say they made proft of $70M on itunes, he said they sold 70M songs and "made a small profit" on itunes that quarter.
...and - given the evidence you just provided - apparently whatever group classification you put yourself in as well. (although I don't think the problem has anything to do with "sheep" - perhaps more porklike.)
;-)]
;-) No one ever accused Jobs of being poor or dumb. You really hate the guy don't you? take a valium and quit listening to Fox and Rush for tips on debating and making points.
;-) But the dude can make some "profit" though.
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. Try the short term/long term concept on your analysis. Your razor is need of some sharpening.
1. Apple charges 99c per song, 35c of which goes straight to Apple.
I think your razor company just went out of business.
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.
*Because he knows Apple zealots are too sheepish to do their own research.
Microeconomics 101: It is entirely conceivable that Apple lost money on downloads 1 to 40 million; broke even on 41 million to 50 million; and made a "small profit" on 51 million to 70 million. [See concepts of "marginal costs/fixed costs/economies of scale".]
So what? At the time the statement was made - I think it was at the itunes launch, Apple probably didn't make a "profit". Even today, the profit of itunes is not the driver for their music business, the ipod is. If the market suddenly dropped the per unit revenue of a download to 49 cents (or 4 cents), the whole revenue line gets shifted, but the cost line stays the same. Back to no-profit. [See prospectus of Real.
it fits in great with Jobs' bullshit faux-hippie image,
hippieness is a state of mind, not a state of pocket book
Hate Microsoft and Real all you want.
1. How did Bill get into this?
2. Real - now there is an interesting test for your logic. They exist - "are in business" - but are demonstrably unprofitable. Hmmmm. I didn't think that was possible.
Let's see: need of a shave, can't see, a bit pig-headed and wasn't an econ major....oh, I see where Bill comes in!
....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 or they like to keep it under the radar. Real Rolex can't/won't go after fake Rolex street vendor because it costs them too much (they have pay people like you $10, or $20, $30/hr) or the vendor lives in *another country*, etc
....why don't you think this just like "free" Napster, but they decided to charge money instead? (IOW, charging for stuff they stole that everyone used to get for free!) boy, what a rip off that would be! ;-)
....and I bet you give these guys your credit card number as well?
;-) ....
If you get a couple of 100 gigs of HD and a ISP, etc., and start selling stuff you ripped (pun intended) off and don't own the distribution license to, you may last for a bit of time or even longer; street vendors selling fake rolex watches "make a profit" also
Sleep well at night!
....yes, and look at the licensing/copyright/IP laws in Russia. They don't much exist. I bet no one - artists included - is getting paid for these downloads.
well, there is short term and long term..... I can pay for a Ferrari for about 6 months, but after that I am toast unless I buy a dodge dart!