Steve Jobs warns 'greedy' record companies .!.

[Analog]

Jobs warns music firms
Higher download prices foster piracy, CEO says

By Associated Press | September 21, 2005

PARIS -- Apple Computer Inc. boss Steve Jobs vowed yesterday to repel ''greedy" record companies' demands for higher music download prices, warning any such move would encourage piracy.

Jobs, speaking before the opening of the Apple Expo in Paris, said some music firms were pushing for an increase in prices on Apple's online iTunes Music Store.

Apple's cofounder and chief executive said record companies already earn more profit from songs sold through iTunes -- cutting many costs -- than from those sold on CD. ''So if they want to raise the prices it just means they're getting a little greedy," he said.

As their contracts with Apple come up for renewal, music companies are seeking to improve their take from sales through the US iTunes site, which charges 99 cents per song. Prices are typically higher in Europe, Japan, and other regions.

Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple launched its Japanese iTunes site in August without Sony BMG's music catalog, as negotiations dragged on.

Observers say the same issues are likely to surface in talks between the two companies on their US sales, and Warner Music Group Corp. is also reportedly seeking price increases.

Warner Music and Universal Music Group declined to comment. Sony BMG and EMI Group PLC did not return calls.

http://www.boston.com/business/technolo...les/2005/09/21/jobs_warns_music_firms/

 

[otispunkmeyer]

go JOBS!

least he knows whats what, i wouldnt pay anymore than it is now for a song off iTunes. if it went up....back to P2P pirating i go!

 

[Gibsons]

I think the music industry is pining for the glory days of the 80s when they were re-selling their catalogs on CD for 15 bucks or more.

 

[PingSpike]

I think Jobs is correct.

 

[Fritzo]

Heck, I even think .99/song is too much. Yahoo's service has them for .79 and has a better library IMO.

 

[necine]

Jobs is correct. 99cents is already too high for me.

 

[MetalMat]

Normally I dont like apple much, but in this case I give credit where credit is due. Go jobs

 

[StrangerGuy]

Way to go Jobs! Blow them out!

 

[marvdmartian]

Yeah, 99 cents is a high ceiling already. Let's face it.....most cd's have how many songs? 10? 12?? And cost in the range of $13 to $18?? Even being kind to the record companies, we can say that when you buy a cd, you're paying a dollar a song (tho it's probably higher).

But when you buy a retail music cd, you're getting a material object, not just the songs. You get a cd, case, and insert/artwork. Those all have value. So if you forgo getting those things, shouldn't you get a break on the price?

My guess is they want to charge more money because (A) they think they can get away with it, and (B) they need more money to pay their a$$hole lawyers that are suing folks that share music on p2p.

The funny thing is that all these lawsuits haven't really done a thing to slow down p2p music sharing. I can go online and get just about any song I want within 5 minutes. While I agree that the music companies need to make money off their music, I really can't have too much of a :brokenheart: about them missing out on some of their ill-gotten gazillions of dollars. Too bad it probably won't ever teach them a lesson in humility or reasonableness, eh?

 

[nakedfrog]

Jobs = Smart
Labels = Not Smart

 

[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.

 

[Orsorum]

The record companies are entitlted to charge whatever they want for their CDs; after all, they're for-profit companies. I, as the consumer, exercise my power of choice and choose not to buy (what I think are) overpriced CDs. I will buy from ITunes or AllOfMP3, and maybe Yahoo!, if I really want music.

 

[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?

 

[frankgomez75]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
go JOBS!

least he knows whats what, i wouldnt pay anymore than it is now for a song off iTunes. if it went up....back to P2P pirating i go!

QFT

 

[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.

 

[Orsorum]

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.

Based on the value it gives you. There are some CDs I've purchased recently where I gladly paid $1 or slightly more a song... but that's a rare, very rare case.

 

[EKKC]

:thumbsup: to jobs. he deserves my money that i paid for the nano.

 

[ajpa123]

I used to buy tons of cd's, cd singles, music dvds. But, then Napster et al came out and everybody downloaded stuff for free, until it became illegal. I haven't illegally downloaded anything for ages.

Right now, I buy maybe 1 or 2 cd's a month as opposed to 3-5 a month before mp3's came along. I thought CD's would come down in price to $8-9. Illegal music totally changed my music buying habits. I only buy CD's of bands i love.

 

[coolVariable]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero
Jobs warns music firms
Higher download prices foster piracy, CEO says

By Associated Press | September 21, 2005

PARIS -- Apple Computer Inc. boss Steve Jobs vowed yesterday to repel ''greedy" record companies' demands for higher music download prices, warning any such move would encourage piracy.

Jobs, speaking before the opening of the Apple Expo in Paris, said some music firms were pushing for an increase in prices on Apple's online iTunes Music Store.

Apple's cofounder and chief executive said record companies already earn more profit from songs sold through iTunes -- cutting many costs -- than from those sold on CD. ''So if they want to raise the prices it just means they're getting a little greedy," he said.

As their contracts with Apple come up for renewal, music companies are seeking to improve their take from sales through the US iTunes site, which charges 99 cents per song. Prices are typically higher in Europe, Japan, and other regions.

Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple launched its Japanese iTunes site in August without Sony BMG's music catalog, as negotiations dragged on.

Observers say the same issues are likely to surface in talks between the two companies on their US sales, and Warner Music Group Corp. is also reportedly seeking price increases.

Warner Music and Universal Music Group declined to comment. Sony BMG and EMI Group PLC did not return calls.

http://www.boston.com/business/technolo...les/2005/09/21/jobs_warns_music_firms/

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???

 

[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]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

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.

Based on the value it gives you. There are some CDs I've purchased recently where I gladly paid $1 or slightly more a song... but that's a rare, very rare case.

As have I. But you must admit, that if they lowered the cost of a single song to those prices, piracy would drop DRASTICALLY, therefore, that is the price the market would bear is near that, and it reflects the value to the consumer.

 

[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.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Orsorum

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.

Based on the value it gives you. There are some CDs I've purchased recently where I gladly paid $1 or slightly more a song... but that's a rare, very rare case.

As have I. But you must admit, that if they lowered the cost of a single song to those prices, piracy would drop DRASTICALLY, therefore, that is the price the market would bear is near that, and it reflects the value to the consumer.

Eh...I don't know about that. I mean, if you dropped the price of a plasma screen to $5 then I'm sure plasma screen theft would be eliminated, but that doesn't mean thats what the plasma screen is worth.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Orsorum

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.

Based on the value it gives you. There are some CDs I've purchased recently where I gladly paid $1 or slightly more a song... but that's a rare, very rare case.

As have I. But you must admit, that if they lowered the cost of a single song to those prices, piracy would drop DRASTICALLY, therefore, that is the price the market would bear is near that, and it reflects the value to the consumer.

Eh...I don't know about that. I mean, if you dropped the price of a plasma screen to $5 then I'm sure plasma screen theft would be eliminated, but that doesn't mean thats what the plasma screen is worth.

Ah, but plasma screens cost around $x to manufacture. It costs the record companies $0.00000000000000000001 to sell the consumer a Frank Sinatra song recorded in 1953. If market prices do not reflect a reasonable price for the value of the object, then people will find ways to get it at that value.

 

[CKent]

Bahahahahaha :laugh:

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