Steve Jobs warns 'greedy' record companies .!.

[So]

Originally posted by: RBachman
Bahahahahaha :laugh:

Man, of all people to warn others about high prices :laugh:

 

[Yreka]

Originally posted by: RBachman
Bahahahahaha :laugh:

Man, of all people to warn others about high prices :laugh:

What are you talking about ? I see threads for free ipods every day.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: RBachman
Bahahahahaha :laugh:

Man, of all people to warn others about high prices :laugh:

haha. pretty good point

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: So
The fact is, a new song is realistically worth ~$0.25 per dl, and an old song (no newer than say 5 or 10 years old) is not realistically worth more than $0.05-$0.10 per dl.

Based on whose calculations?

based on the value it gives the consumer.

you are full of it.


the music companies hate itunes. instead of selling a bundle of 8-12 songs where they make profit off each and every song regarless of quality on itunes they tend to make money off just the few worth buying. they make much less money. course this is making the stupid assumption they make that the person would have paid full price for a full cd instead if itunes didn't exist which is bs. cd prices have been kept up so long people are turned off. most cds are too much of a gamble, buyers remorse sours people quick on cd purchasing at high prices.

So, what are you saying? That the record corporations have a lisence to get a certain profit margin at all times? If so, why not just federalize the whole industry, give them all fat salaries and give away music?

And that's BS about their profits going down....the margnins are an order of magnitude greater not having to produce and ship physical media. Hell, afaik, the stores eat the bandwidth costs, so it's pure profit for the record industry. Second of all, if they are losing so much money on advertising (that they can't sell at reasonable prices), because the advertising is not bringing in enough buyers to pay for itself, then why are they advertising)?

There is a natural market price at which people will pay for music. The current price is fixed above that price by a legalized cartel, and as such, people are willing to go through other channels.

oversimplistic. it costs money to market and develop artists. many who have money losing albums on their first attempts to boot. and of course they have to make up for any albums that do not perform. its not just simply profit - bandwidth i don't see whats unreasonable about a dollar a song.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: coolVariable

Shows how stupid journalists are.
And what a$$heads mac-fanatics.

Jobs wants to keep prices at $.99 per song.
Record companies want to price them $1.49 for new songs and $.49 for older songs.
The vast majority of songs downloaded is older songs.
Thus consumers in average would profit from the record labels' pricing.

The record companies figure they can sell even more older songs if they are cheaper.

WHY CAN'T STUPID JOURNALISTS GET THIS???

where does it say that record companies want to charge less for older songs. i re-read the OP and still cant find it. knowing how greedy the record companies are, i think they want to charge more for all songs...new or old