[Ricardo Dawkins]

Originally Posted by Dyvim

Even if Jason were taking a pro-iTunes stance, which he isn't, what would you care? I see you over on the iLounge forums evangelizing for the Zune all the time.

nice choice of words. You see me in threads where someone comes with a Zune half-truth or when someone is taking a decision between iPod or Zune and then one member comes with another lie...(like the radio remote has better reception than the FM radio on a Zune 30). Evangelizing....pffff. Please.

[Ricardo Dawkins]

Originally Posted by Dyvim

Even if Jason were taking a pro-iTunes stance, which he isn't, what would you care? I see you over on the iLounge forums evangelizing for the Zune all the time.

nice choice of words. You see me in threads where someone comes with a Zune half-truth or when someone is taking a decision between iPod or Zune and then one member comes with another lie...(like the radio remote has better reception than the FM radio on a Zune 30). Evangelizing....pffff. Please.

[Pony99CA]

Originally Posted by Jason Dunn

According to this Wired article, Apple pays artists and labels 65 to 70 cents per song, 9 cents of which the artist or studio is paying to the publishers.

I'm confused here. If Apple charges $0.99 for DRM-encoded music and thinks this less-than-10-cent increase would make iTunes lose money, how can Amazon be profitable selling many DRM-free songs for $0.89, 10 cents less than iTunes? (I assume that Amazon is making a profit.)

Steve

[Felix Torres]

Originally Posted by Fritzly

Have fun when you will pay more for the music you download.

As opposed to listening to it for free via internet radio?

[Pony99CA]

Originally Posted by Fritzly

The issue here is not Appl or Amazon or some other company, the point is that greedy music companies want to increase the prices of songs.

While WhyDidnt made a good point about getting a retroactive raise, why call the music companies greedy for this? From my reading, this increase would go to the publishers and songwriters, not the music distributing companies like Sony and the others. (See the Wikipedia music publishing article. Publishers aren't big businesses in many cases.)

Originally Posted by Fritzly

It is interesting to see how many people are so Apple-fobic that act like that man who found the wife in bed with another man and cut his attributes as an act of revenge against her. Have fun when you will pay more for the music you download.

I'm sure you thought you had a point here, but it must have gotten cut off, too.

Steve

[whydidnt]

Originally Posted by Pony99CA

I'm confused here. If Apple charges $0.99 for DRM-encoded music and thinks this less-than-10-cent increase would make iTunes lose money, how can Amazon be profitable selling many DRM-free songs for $0.89, 10 cents less than iTunes? (I assume that Amazon is making a profit.)

Steve

I'm not privy to the individual agreements, but rumor has it that the Music companies are so intent on breaking Apple's lock on digital downloads they are offering "better" deals to the competition right now. Some labels even refuse to offer DRM free music to Apple, while offering it to Amazon and others.

[Pony99CA]

Originally Posted by whydidnt

I'm not privy to the individual agreements, but rumor has it that the Music companies are so intent on breaking Apple's lock on digital downloads they are offering "better" deals to the competition right now. Some labels even refuse to offer DRM free music to Apple, while offering it to Amazon and others.

Maybe the music companies need a little anti-trust action sent their way. Sue Big Music!

Steve

[whydidnt]

Originally Posted by Pony99CA

Maybe the music companies need a little anti-trust action sent their way. Sue Big Music!

Steve

That's not really too far-fetched. They've been busted previously for price-fixing of CD sales. However, they have a very strong lobby. Even though most of what Big Music does is anti-conusmer, anti-artist, and anti-free market, our congress does what it can to protect Big Music's interest. See the recent legislation for a "copyright czar".

[Fritzly]

Originally Posted by Felix Torres

As opposed to listening to it for free via internet radio?

Interesting comparison: it seems that for you driving your car or riding a bus is the same thing.
De gustibus non disputandum est but let us not compare apple with orange.

[Fritzly]

Originally Posted by Pony99CA

I'm sure you thought you had a point here, but it must have gotten cut off, too.

Steve

Let me repack it: there people so Apple-fobic that tey would prefer to pay more just to see Apple take a hit.
Very smart, even more considering that if the music industry would succeed against Apple it would be just a matter of few months before prices for songs would begin to raise steadily.

[Felix Torres]

Originally Posted by Fritzly

Interesting comparison: it seems that for you driving your car or riding a bus is the same thing.
De gustibus non disputandum est but let us not compare apple with orange.

Not necessarily.
Remember, Wimax is on the horizon.
And cellphone broadband is getting affordable.

My point is that between protecting established vendors and encouraging new channels, I'd rather encourage new channels. Dropping royalties on small internet radio ventures to allow them to flourish and expand just as wireless broadband becomes common is something worth doing; protecting an inflexible, *blustering* established vendor with a deathgrip on a market, not so much.

Apple cries wolf too much; lets call their bluff and see if they're really hurting.