News
Cringely: One Possible Future for a Music Business
Napster failed because it was determined by the courts to violate intellectual property rights and because it did not have a successful business model, or any business model for that matter. Any successor to Napster must be both legal (if barely) and profitable. [...]
Snapster is all about ownership. Snapster will be a company that buys at retail one copy of every CD on the market. Figure 100,000 CDs at $14 each requires $1.4 million. Snapster will also be a download service with central servers capable of millions of transactions per day. Figure $100,000 for the download system and bandwidth for one year. Throw in $100,000 for marketing and $400,000 for legal fees and the startup capital required for the business is $2 million.”
Next: iPod voted 'Best Gadget' in InfoWorld's Reader Choice Awards
Previous: 'iPod: The Missing Manual' book released
Shop in the loungeStore for iPod + iPhone Accessories.
Comments
If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.
Recent News
- Massive Flickr photoset from Macworld Expo 2009 posted
- Full transcript of 2009 MWSF Keynote Address
- Apple: No new iPod, iPhone announcements for MW Expo
- iTunes goes DRM-free with variable pricing, OTA downloads for iPhone
- iLife ‘09 brings new features for iPhone, iPod touch
- Sling shows SlingPlayer Mobile for iPhone, coming Q1
- Best Buy now offering refurbished iPhone 3G
- Logitech to trim workforce by 15 percent
- Contour Design intros Bolt Armband for iPod nano 4G
- Boston Acoustics unveils Horizon iDS3 iPod Speaker System
Recent Reviews
- Apple Earphones with Remote and Mic
- Apple In-Ear Headphones with Remote and Mic
- Apple iPod classic (120GB)
- Apple iPod touch Second-Generation (8GB/16GB/32GB)
- Apple iPod nano Fourth-Generation (4GB/8GB/16GB)
- Apple iPhone 3G (8GB/16GB)
- Numark TTi USB Turntable with Universal Dock
- Jensen JiMS-525i Docking Digital HD Radio System for iPod and iPhone
- Gear4 DUO Versatile Speaker System for iPod
- Boston Acoustics Horizon Duo-i
21
I agree with SF, the whole concept is total nonsense, the whole point of a corporation is that the stockholders and the corporation are seperate legal entities, this is a fundamental concept on which they are based. Any first year law (or even finance)student would know straight away this is the case, any lawyer who thinks otherwise should not be practicing.
The author refers to mutual funds but similar to the GM example owning shares in a mutual fund does not mean you own the individual stocks owned by the fund
Posted by Damo on July 29, 2003 at 8:00 AM (PDT)
22
“This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read. Owning stock in a company is not the same as owning assets of the company. I’ll give you an example. I own 100 shares of GM. Do you think I can waltz into the factory, grab a new Corvette, and drive off with it because I own it? If this guy talked to lawyers who thought this was a good idea, they’re dumber than he is.”
*****************************
“I agree with SF, the whole concept is total nonsense, the whole point of a corporation is that the stockholders and the corporation are seperate legal entities, this is a fundamental concept on which they are based. Any first year law (or even finance)student would know straight away this is the case, any lawyer who thinks otherwise should not be practicing.”
*****************************
Yeah. Exactly.
Posted by Z on July 29, 2003 at 12:38 PM (PDT)
Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2