jonesy's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/115888/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/92630-verizon-s-anti-iphone-pr-campaign?source=feed#comment-239320 239320 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:45:37 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/84540-apple-ups-the-ante-with-3g-iphone-but-rim-s-almost-ready-to-counter?source=feed#comment-203108 203108
RIM down about 4.5% while market (and Apple) down about 1.5%.]]> Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:46:32 -0400
RIM down about 4.5% while market (and Apple) down about 1.5%.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82854-apple-s-leap-from-mediocre-to-marvelous?source=feed#comment-193606 193606
Apple products in the mid-90s left lots to be desired (though argubly they were still better than the competition). But since Jobs return to Apple, the products have been much better thought out, the design began to be pleasing, the user experience even more so. The overall value of Apple products has grown tremendously.

Apple has great strategy, great products, great stores, and great marketing.]]> Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:35:29 -0400
Apple products in the mid-90s left lots to be desired (though argubly they were still better than the competition). But since Jobs return to Apple, the products have been much better thought out, the design began to be pleasing, the user experience even more so. The overall value of Apple products has grown tremendously.

Apple has great strategy, great products, great stores, and great marketing.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81808-apple-my-q3-earnings-estimates?source=feed#comment-187925 187925 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:00:30 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/81482-apple-s-balancing-act-3g-iphone-vs-jobs-health-barron-s?source=feed#comment-186455 186455
The implication of Barrons (and your article in repeating it without questioning it) is that Apple is lying in its response. Reporter asked specifically about cancer, Apple answered that it's a bug. Continuing to question the answer shows that Barrons doesn't believe it.]]> Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:51:32 -0400
The implication of Barrons (and your article in repeating it without questioning it) is that Apple is lying in its response. Reporter asked specifically about cancer, Apple answered that it's a bug. Continuing to question the answer shows that Barrons doesn't believe it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/79190-more-good-news-about-the-3g-iphone?source=feed#comment-175441 175441
And you don't think Apple has become a "name brand", even in Asia?

If you'd read the comments, you'd see lots of reasons why Apple will continue to do well, and likely be unbeatable in the market segments and geographies in which they are competing.]]> Wed, 28 May 2008 15:23:27 -0400
And you don't think Apple has become a "name brand", even in Asia?

If you'd read the comments, you'd see lots of reasons why Apple will continue to do well, and likely be unbeatable in the market segments and geographies in which they are competing.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/69010-can-apple-s-resistance-to-flash-content-last?source=feed#comment-128303 128303 Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:49:02 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/64005-apple-on-an-innovation-treadmill?source=feed#comment-115775 115775
Apple is entering two markets that are huge and still largely untapped: handheld mobile personal devices, and home digital entertainment devices. If done right, these two markets will grow in the same way that the PC market grew over the last 2 decades. Again if done right, there's no doubt that they can grow 20% a year for the next decade. And that's not even including the fact that they have just a small part of the PC market and there's lots of room to grow there.

]]> Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:03:32 -0500
Apple is entering two markets that are huge and still largely untapped: handheld mobile personal devices, and home digital entertainment devices. If done right, these two markets will grow in the same way that the PC market grew over the last 2 decades. Again if done right, there's no doubt that they can grow 20% a year for the next decade. And that's not even including the fact that they have just a small part of the PC market and there's lots of room to grow there.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/62091-apple-s-extraordinary-edge?source=feed#comment-113571 113571
@Marcel: Back in late 2004, many said iPod would be a commodity; not a defensible business. Over 3 years and 100 million iPods later, maybe it's commoditization is beginning. But Apple's already moving away from the classic iPod; we see it in iPod touch, and actually, we've seen it from the beginning - it was always called an iPod, not an iMusic. So back to PCs: Windows PCs are definitely a commodity, but as Callahan says, Apple's advantage is OS X, objects of desire, Apple Stores with Genius Bars working on OS X mostly for "free", and its brand. By the way, OS X is on all its future-looking products - iPod touch, iPhone, AppleTV, and Mac. This synergy will lead to agility and speed in getting its software innovations out to its whole family of products; something no other company has this, not Microsoft, Nokia, Sandisk.
]]> Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:57:25 -0500
@Marcel: Back in late 2004, many said iPod would be a commodity; not a defensible business. Over 3 years and 100 million iPods later, maybe it's commoditization is beginning. But Apple's already moving away from the classic iPod; we see it in iPod touch, and actually, we've seen it from the beginning - it was always called an iPod, not an iMusic. So back to PCs: Windows PCs are definitely a commodity, but as Callahan says, Apple's advantage is OS X, objects of desire, Apple Stores with Genius Bars working on OS X mostly for "free", and its brand. By the way, OS X is on all its future-looking products - iPod touch, iPhone, AppleTV, and Mac. This synergy will lead to agility and speed in getting its software innovations out to its whole family of products; something no other company has this, not Microsoft, Nokia, Sandisk.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/61429-apple-needs-to-execute-no-longer-innovate?source=feed#comment-112610 112610
And I would hope that they never stop.]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:40:46 -0500
And I would hope that they never stop.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58344-blinded-by-flash-rim-s-excellent-results-all-eyes-on-apple?source=feed#comment-106917 106917
Can they defend and grow their position? Do they hold "push email" patents such that the end result is that others cannot provide a comparable quality service to handset owners? Do they have scale so they can have reasonable prices AND good margins/profits, and get better deals on product components compared to competitors? Do they have brand stickiness so that even if others come, consumers will still choose them for their next handset? I haven't done as much research as others (I don't own RIMM), but I see them more like the Apple of the 90s.]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:00:04 -0500
Can they defend and grow their position? Do they hold "push email" patents such that the end result is that others cannot provide a comparable quality service to handset owners? Do they have scale so they can have reasonable prices AND good margins/profits, and get better deals on product components compared to competitors? Do they have brand stickiness so that even if others come, consumers will still choose them for their next handset? I haven't done as much research as others (I don't own RIMM), but I see them more like the Apple of the 90s.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/50896-is-at-t-an-iphone-sales-anchor?source=feed#comment-99871 99871
But deep down, you and everyone know it's a reaction to the iPhone. No iPhone and we wouldn't have seen this for a longer while.]]> Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:56:55 -0400
But deep down, you and everyone know it's a reaction to the iPhone. No iPhone and we wouldn't have seen this for a longer while.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/50896-is-at-t-an-iphone-sales-anchor?source=feed#comment-99870 99870
In the long run, Mossberg is right. But getting that privilege without other fundamental changes is a hollow victory.

This is analogous to DRM and the music industry. Even though Jobs criticized DRM before iTunes ever existed, Apple went along with DRM (buying Fairplay pretty much at the last minute) just to get a foot in the door. Once industry and customer culture changes began to occur, Apple started to push for no DRM, even offering the industry a plum in a higher 1.29 price. Which the labels, other than EMI, has continue to reject. So be it.

Anyway, same steps for cellular and walled gardens and carrier reqts for handsets. Jobs has criticized the labels as orifices, but has now locked-in to one such company to effect the changes Apple thinks are needed.]]> Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:54:33 -0400
In the long run, Mossberg is right. But getting that privilege without other fundamental changes is a hollow victory.

This is analogous to DRM and the music industry. Even though Jobs criticized DRM before iTunes ever existed, Apple went along with DRM (buying Fairplay pretty much at the last minute) just to get a foot in the door. Once industry and customer culture changes began to occur, Apple started to push for no DRM, even offering the industry a plum in a higher 1.29 price. Which the labels, other than EMI, has continue to reject. So be it.

Anyway, same steps for cellular and walled gardens and carrier reqts for handsets. Jobs has criticized the labels as orifices, but has now locked-in to one such company to effect the changes Apple thinks are needed.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/50896-is-at-t-an-iphone-sales-anchor?source=feed#comment-99846 99846
Next, my point, which you missed completely, on the touch pricing was that all Sep 5 iPod pricing on was linked to the 4GB iPod nano going to 149, which caused the 8GB iPod nano to be 199, which caused the 8GB iPod touch to be 299, which caused the 8GB iPhone to be 399. Had the 4GB iPod nano been priced at 199 and the 8GB 249, then the touch could've been 349 or maybe even 399, and the iPhone 449 or 499. Don't you realize that all the variants are priced for upsell? So each model needs to have a solid value proposition for the price differential. But why 149 for the nano - because Apple wants a boatload of handheld video players in the market.

Since Apple was so focused on increasing the market presence of video players and iPhones, and the positive vibe of lower prices, they were surprised by the reaction of the mainstream iPhone buyers to the price cut.

Finally, were iPhone sales really "sluggish"? Would making its publicized goal (projected on Jul 25) of 1M total sold by Sep 29 (4Q end date) been considered "sluggish"? I'll spell this out: price cut on Sep 5 midday; 1M sometime on Sep 9; press release next morning. Assume supercharged run rate of about 25K for those 4.5 days. Which means 887K sold by Sep 4. At even a truly "sluggish" 5.5K a day run rate from Sep 5 to 29 (24 days), Apple would've reached 1M by Sep 29.

In any case, my calculations yield about 610K iPhones sold from Jul 1 to the day of the price cut, or approximately 10K a day; or about 200K more than yours; 89K of which you cut out by saying Apple sold just 1.3M instead of 1.389M.

Regardless, one survey says iPhone is in top 4 models, #1 for AT&T, and trending to #1 across all carriers in the US. I'm sure, even without the price cut, iPhone would still be in the top 10 models. I wouldn't consider that not a "hit".]]> Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:47:15 -0400
Next, my point, which you missed completely, on the touch pricing was that all Sep 5 iPod pricing on was linked to the 4GB iPod nano going to 149, which caused the 8GB iPod nano to be 199, which caused the 8GB iPod touch to be 299, which caused the 8GB iPhone to be 399. Had the 4GB iPod nano been priced at 199 and the 8GB 249, then the touch could've been 349 or maybe even 399, and the iPhone 449 or 499. Don't you realize that all the variants are priced for upsell? So each model needs to have a solid value proposition for the price differential. But why 149 for the nano - because Apple wants a boatload of handheld video players in the market.

Since Apple was so focused on increasing the market presence of video players and iPhones, and the positive vibe of lower prices, they were surprised by the reaction of the mainstream iPhone buyers to the price cut.

Finally, were iPhone sales really "sluggish"? Would making its publicized goal (projected on Jul 25) of 1M total sold by Sep 29 (4Q end date) been considered "sluggish"? I'll spell this out: price cut on Sep 5 midday; 1M sometime on Sep 9; press release next morning. Assume supercharged run rate of about 25K for those 4.5 days. Which means 887K sold by Sep 4. At even a truly "sluggish" 5.5K a day run rate from Sep 5 to 29 (24 days), Apple would've reached 1M by Sep 29.

In any case, my calculations yield about 610K iPhones sold from Jul 1 to the day of the price cut, or approximately 10K a day; or about 200K more than yours; 89K of which you cut out by saying Apple sold just 1.3M instead of 1.389M.

Regardless, one survey says iPhone is in top 4 models, #1 for AT&T, and trending to #1 across all carriers in the US. I'm sure, even without the price cut, iPhone would still be in the top 10 models. I wouldn't consider that not a "hit".]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/50896-is-at-t-an-iphone-sales-anchor?source=feed#comment-99781 99781 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:07:02 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/50896-is-at-t-an-iphone-sales-anchor?source=feed#comment-99721 99721 www.reghardware.co.uk/.../

Echoing my point about data - Yahoo: "In terms of internet usage nothing is holding a candle to the iPhone."

Echoing my point about how the other carriers will follow - Motorola: "For us, it's been quite beneficial, because wireless carriers are now willing to talk about all kinds of new experiences on handhelds that they wouldn't consider in the past." Plus, "It opened up a whole new pricing tier. There are [people] who are willing to pay a lot for a phone. They're willing to do more than sign up for a wireless plan and get four phones for free - which is where the market was headed."

Really, Todd, the impact of the iPhone on carriers is being talked about and written about by "experts" everywhere except here. From these articles, Jobs' comments (at preview, All Things D, and at launch), and Stephenson's (AT&T CEO) comments (at launch), you can see where AT&T (and other iPhone partners) has to go.

Last point: The carriers are spending (and risking) really big bucks building out higher speed cell (and wifi) networks. Once built, almost all customer revenue goes toward paying off the investment, then when that is done, it is just profit. So until the network is completely saturated, every additional customer is beneficial (and desired). iPhone will bring in those customers who will pay for data use. (BTW, this is largely analogous to investing in expensive flash production factories.)]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:31:04 -0400 www.reghardware.co.uk/.../

Echoing my point about data - Yahoo: "In terms of internet usage nothing is holding a candle to the iPhone."

Echoing my point about how the other carriers will follow - Motorola: "For us, it's been quite beneficial, because wireless carriers are now willing to talk about all kinds of new experiences on handhelds that they wouldn't consider in the past." Plus, "It opened up a whole new pricing tier. There are [people] who are willing to pay a lot for a phone. They're willing to do more than sign up for a wireless plan and get four phones for free - which is where the market was headed."

Really, Todd, the impact of the iPhone on carriers is being talked about and written about by "experts" everywhere except here. From these articles, Jobs' comments (at preview, All Things D, and at launch), and Stephenson's (AT&T CEO) comments (at launch), you can see where AT&T (and other iPhone partners) has to go.

Last point: The carriers are spending (and risking) really big bucks building out higher speed cell (and wifi) networks. Once built, almost all customer revenue goes toward paying off the investment, then when that is done, it is just profit. So until the network is completely saturated, every additional customer is beneficial (and desired). iPhone will bring in those customers who will pay for data use. (BTW, this is largely analogous to investing in expensive flash production factories.)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/50896-is-at-t-an-iphone-sales-anchor?source=feed#comment-99714 99714
See www.blackfriarsinc.com...

Based on Gene Munster's and Dan Frommer's analyses, each iPhone sold and on contract is possibly generating over $800 in revenue (and $550 in profit) over 2 years, So 10 million phones leads to 5.5 billion in profit. Yes, there's iPhone software development cost that wasn't accounted for, but that will be almost negligible if they sell lots of iPhones, and because it's shared across Macs and iPods.

I don't think Apple conceded anything on price, since the drop was clearly preplanned, as there's no way Apple could sell a $599 8GB iPhone, when the 8GB iPod touch is priced at $299. And there's no way the iPod touch could be more expensive if the 8GB iPod nano is $199. And there's no way the 8GB iPod nano could be more expensive if the 4GB iPod nano is $149. So why is the iPod nano at 149 - because the number of mobile video players sold so far is really small, and Apple wants a huge huge market for mobile video. Why? To drive content owners to put video (esp. movies) into the iTunes Store, which will then drive future sales of AppleTV, which Apple hopes will turn its hobby into a business. And what does Apple's huge forecast tell us? That between Sep 5 and Oct 22, Apple has seen huge sales of its iPods (surely, nanos and up) and iPhones, thus, validating its pricing strategy.

Apple is not just a bunch of unrelated parts. This incredible Jobs-led strategy is thoroughly integrated in every which way, with each product driving other products, and leverage everywhere (i.e., OS X, Quicktime-based content, consuming devices-production devices). ]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:44:45 -0400
See www.blackfriarsinc.com...

Based on Gene Munster's and Dan Frommer's analyses, each iPhone sold and on contract is possibly generating over $800 in revenue (and $550 in profit) over 2 years, So 10 million phones leads to 5.5 billion in profit. Yes, there's iPhone software development cost that wasn't accounted for, but that will be almost negligible if they sell lots of iPhones, and because it's shared across Macs and iPods.

I don't think Apple conceded anything on price, since the drop was clearly preplanned, as there's no way Apple could sell a $599 8GB iPhone, when the 8GB iPod touch is priced at $299. And there's no way the iPod touch could be more expensive if the 8GB iPod nano is $199. And there's no way the 8GB iPod nano could be more expensive if the 4GB iPod nano is $149. So why is the iPod nano at 149 - because the number of mobile video players sold so far is really small, and Apple wants a huge huge market for mobile video. Why? To drive content owners to put video (esp. movies) into the iTunes Store, which will then drive future sales of AppleTV, which Apple hopes will turn its hobby into a business. And what does Apple's huge forecast tell us? That between Sep 5 and Oct 22, Apple has seen huge sales of its iPods (surely, nanos and up) and iPhones, thus, validating its pricing strategy.

Apple is not just a bunch of unrelated parts. This incredible Jobs-led strategy is thoroughly integrated in every which way, with each product driving other products, and leverage everywhere (i.e., OS X, Quicktime-based content, consuming devices-production devices). ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/50896-is-at-t-an-iphone-sales-anchor?source=feed#comment-99704 99704
So Todd, you really need to listen more to others, who are not even Apple "fans", objectively recognizing the impact of the iPhone and its relationship with the carriers.

Here's some reading for some more ideas:
communities-dominate.b... (site has other related articles as well)
www.news.com/8301-1357...
www.rcrnews.com/apps/p...

And this is what I think is the long-term change to AT&T and carriers? (Hasn't happened yet!) As soon as broadband data is somewhat viable over cell networks, (definitely not with EDGE, possibly with 3G, more likely with 4G or even WiMax), Apple will get the carrier to charge for being a pipe from your mobile device to anywhere on the Web (not just the walled garden), just like telcos/cablecoms charge for being the broadband pipe from your home to the Web (where those walled gardens have already disappeared). If iPhone is the best device for using the mobile Internet, it will persuade many who do not bother with data to become willing to pay from $20 to $200 for various speeds/capacities/serv... of mobile data. Especially corporations. So you can bet iPhone will be tying in to more and more enhanced data services, some through .Mac, some like Salesforce. As other carrier competitors see the writing on the wall, they'll have to also have open data plans (initially using other phones of course).

And if the carrier can bundle this with home broadband or corporate wired networking, this becomes even more valuable to the carrier. I'm sure you can imagine further tie-ins that will eclipse anything Blackberries do today.]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:05:47 -0400
So Todd, you really need to listen more to others, who are not even Apple "fans", objectively recognizing the impact of the iPhone and its relationship with the carriers.

Here's some reading for some more ideas:
communities-dominate.b... (site has other related articles as well)
www.news.com/8301-1357...
www.rcrnews.com/apps/p...

And this is what I think is the long-term change to AT&T and carriers? (Hasn't happened yet!) As soon as broadband data is somewhat viable over cell networks, (definitely not with EDGE, possibly with 3G, more likely with 4G or even WiMax), Apple will get the carrier to charge for being a pipe from your mobile device to anywhere on the Web (not just the walled garden), just like telcos/cablecoms charge for being the broadband pipe from your home to the Web (where those walled gardens have already disappeared). If iPhone is the best device for using the mobile Internet, it will persuade many who do not bother with data to become willing to pay from $20 to $200 for various speeds/capacities/serv... of mobile data. Especially corporations. So you can bet iPhone will be tying in to more and more enhanced data services, some through .Mac, some like Salesforce. As other carrier competitors see the writing on the wall, they'll have to also have open data plans (initially using other phones of course).

And if the carrier can bundle this with home broadband or corporate wired networking, this becomes even more valuable to the carrier. I'm sure you can imagine further tie-ins that will eclipse anything Blackberries do today.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/50942-total-music-threatens-apples-music-distribution-revenue?source=feed#comment-99615 99615
The labels have never been good at distribution; that's why we had independent brick-and-mortar retail stores. Now that it's digital, they are beginning to think they can get together and control it; just as we move toward DRM-free. Will they also get together and institute DRMed CDs; this time, not just Sony, but all of them together?

Anyway, it's not just AAPL, it's also AmazonMP3; note that the Universal DRM-free trial is just 6 months.

Sure, let's revisit when they get the details out.]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:02:20 -0400
The labels have never been good at distribution; that's why we had independent brick-and-mortar retail stores. Now that it's digital, they are beginning to think they can get together and control it; just as we move toward DRM-free. Will they also get together and institute DRMed CDs; this time, not just Sony, but all of them together?

Anyway, it's not just AAPL, it's also AmazonMP3; note that the Universal DRM-free trial is just 6 months.

Sure, let's revisit when they get the details out.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/50942-total-music-threatens-apples-music-distribution-revenue?source=feed#comment-99532 99532
But do let me bring up Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus as an example. The TV show and music which is played on Disney Radio, disney.com, and Disney Channel over and over, could be seen as marketing to get people to go to her concerts, which are pretty much sold out with tickets getting scalped all over. Or High School Musical could be seen as marketing to get people to go to the play. And they could give it away at disney.com or at iTunes.

So yes, it is possible to succeed without "selling the music", and that's what the labels need to do - be creative.]]> Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:00:52 -0400
But do let me bring up Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus as an example. The TV show and music which is played on Disney Radio, disney.com, and Disney Channel over and over, could be seen as marketing to get people to go to her concerts, which are pretty much sold out with tickets getting scalped all over. Or High School Musical could be seen as marketing to get people to go to the play. And they could give it away at disney.com or at iTunes.

So yes, it is possible to succeed without "selling the music", and that's what the labels need to do - be creative.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/50942-total-music-threatens-apples-music-distribution-revenue?source=feed#comment-99531 99531
Second, if you're original piece included some of the thoughts that you wrote in response to criticism, then I wouldn't have called it a puff piece.

Third, you call Apple greedy for charging more for distribution yet below you say you had no idea that Apple claims to just break even, which Apple has been saying for a long time. So do you or don't you know how much it actually costs to distribute? There's sunk infrastructure cost (servers, facility, networking equipment, marketing, site maintenance, etc), and a per-sale unit cost (bandwidth, credit card/paypal fee). Apple actually bundles multiple purchases into one to decrease the impact of the credit card fee. Most analysts believe Apple loses money, but Apple insists they break-even, which they may now that much of the infrastructure is paid for. It's also unclear how much infrastructure is accounted for (vs. capital expense) when Apple says that. So just because other companies charge less doesn't mean crap - they could be taking a loss (most of them regularly report losses anyway), or they could have a server/network system that doesn't scale and would need to be ripped out and redone if they were to grow (have more customers or have a larger catalog). And how is giving the labels $.70 on the dollar not appropriate? That's the same portion they got when they had to press the CDs and send them out. Now they do nothing but send a master digital file to Apple. Didn't the labels just gain 25 cents of profit per sale?

In any case, no matter how cheap hardware gets, someone will offer that hardware without the "FREE" music for $90 cheaper than with it. So the consumer will see it. But that's not the real problem. The issue is that PEOPLE DON"T WANT EXPIRING MUSIC. Expiring music is almost the same as radio to most people. BUT if that $90 included the purchase of 90 (or 80 or 100) non-expiring songs as well as the 1 year free all-you-can-eat music, then people might go for it. Almost like emusic.

I agree with you the music industry needs to find a new way to monetize their music in this age of digital copying. Digital goods may have to be a marketing tool to sell a service (even advertising is an information service) or other physical, tangible goods. But baking the cost of expiring music (which nobody wants) into the player (in order to fruitlessly "hide" the cost) is cynical and deceptive.

The labels need to realize that as long as they sell CDs, people will have music to put on their iPods (from CDs and torrents). Shut down the iTunes store; who does it hurt? Apple, who barely makes money on it? Nope (because if there is no iTunes, someone will spend more energy making torrents easier to use). Or the labels, who get $.70 per sale? Yup.

The labels need to stop thinking of the distributor (Apple or others) as the enemy because they're not. They need to realize they know little about distribution (did they run the brick-and-mortar retail stores themselves? Hell no.) They need to realize people will pay some nominal amount not for the music itself but for the convenience of getting the music. ]]> Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:53:51 -0400
Second, if you're original piece included some of the thoughts that you wrote in response to criticism, then I wouldn't have called it a puff piece.

Third, you call Apple greedy for charging more for distribution yet below you say you had no idea that Apple claims to just break even, which Apple has been saying for a long time. So do you or don't you know how much it actually costs to distribute? There's sunk infrastructure cost (servers, facility, networking equipment, marketing, site maintenance, etc), and a per-sale unit cost (bandwidth, credit card/paypal fee). Apple actually bundles multiple purchases into one to decrease the impact of the credit card fee. Most analysts believe Apple loses money, but Apple insists they break-even, which they may now that much of the infrastructure is paid for. It's also unclear how much infrastructure is accounted for (vs. capital expense) when Apple says that. So just because other companies charge less doesn't mean crap - they could be taking a loss (most of them regularly report losses anyway), or they could have a server/network system that doesn't scale and would need to be ripped out and redone if they were to grow (have more customers or have a larger catalog). And how is giving the labels $.70 on the dollar not appropriate? That's the same portion they got when they had to press the CDs and send them out. Now they do nothing but send a master digital file to Apple. Didn't the labels just gain 25 cents of profit per sale?

In any case, no matter how cheap hardware gets, someone will offer that hardware without the "FREE" music for $90 cheaper than with it. So the consumer will see it. But that's not the real problem. The issue is that PEOPLE DON"T WANT EXPIRING MUSIC. Expiring music is almost the same as radio to most people. BUT if that $90 included the purchase of 90 (or 80 or 100) non-expiring songs as well as the 1 year free all-you-can-eat music, then people might go for it. Almost like emusic.

I agree with you the music industry needs to find a new way to monetize their music in this age of digital copying. Digital goods may have to be a marketing tool to sell a service (even advertising is an information service) or other physical, tangible goods. But baking the cost of expiring music (which nobody wants) into the player (in order to fruitlessly "hide" the cost) is cynical and deceptive.

The labels need to realize that as long as they sell CDs, people will have music to put on their iPods (from CDs and torrents). Shut down the iTunes store; who does it hurt? Apple, who barely makes money on it? Nope (because if there is no iTunes, someone will spend more energy making torrents easier to use). Or the labels, who get $.70 per sale? Yup.

The labels need to stop thinking of the distributor (Apple or others) as the enemy because they're not. They need to realize they know little about distribution (did they run the brick-and-mortar retail stores themselves? Hell no.) They need to realize people will pay some nominal amount not for the music itself but for the convenience of getting the music. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/50942-total-music-threatens-apples-music-distribution-revenue?source=feed#comment-99491 99491 Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:32:19 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/50942-total-music-threatens-apples-music-distribution-revenue?source=feed#comment-99490 99490
Note also it's the device, not the "store", that people buy. Do you know what incredible devices are coming to use Total Music?
Not Apple devices. Not Nokia devices; they're starting their own store. By the way, Apple said yesterday that iPods gained 10-15% share in the big EU markets since the iPod refresh in Sept. (Side note: Big MS mistake. The Zune killed off MS' PlaysforSure partners' devices, while the Zune wasn't ready to be sold in Europe.)

As for greed, can you also explain what Apple is doing that is sinfully greedy? iPod prices going down; even MS can't underprice them. iTunes DRM-free song prices are going down. Make sure you explain how it is that Apple, and not the music labels, that is being greedy. (Ringtones? Labels.)]]> Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:30:56 -0400
Note also it's the device, not the "store", that people buy. Do you know what incredible devices are coming to use Total Music?
Not Apple devices. Not Nokia devices; they're starting their own store. By the way, Apple said yesterday that iPods gained 10-15% share in the big EU markets since the iPod refresh in Sept. (Side note: Big MS mistake. The Zune killed off MS' PlaysforSure partners' devices, while the Zune wasn't ready to be sold in Europe.)

As for greed, can you also explain what Apple is doing that is sinfully greedy? iPod prices going down; even MS can't underprice them. iTunes DRM-free song prices are going down. Make sure you explain how it is that Apple, and not the music labels, that is being greedy. (Ringtones? Labels.)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/50896-is-at-t-an-iphone-sales-anchor?source=feed#comment-99488 99488
Second, Apple is aiming to change the cellular industry, not just sell handsets. For now, it needs its carrier partners to make the change happen. You need to take a broader, big-picture, strategic view instead of such a short-sighted, tactical, next-quarter revenue view.



]]> Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:17:23 -0400
Second, Apple is aiming to change the cellular industry, not just sell handsets. For now, it needs its carrier partners to make the change happen. You need to take a broader, big-picture, strategic view instead of such a short-sighted, tactical, next-quarter revenue view.



]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/50942-total-music-threatens-apples-music-distribution-revenue?source=feed#comment-99448 99448
As for greed, can you also explain what Apple is doing that is sinfully greedy? Make sure you explain how it is Apple that is doing it, and not the labels driving it from the rear.]]> Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:20:36 -0400
As for greed, can you also explain what Apple is doing that is sinfully greedy? Make sure you explain how it is Apple that is doing it, and not the labels driving it from the rear.]]>