Mix: Jobs interview, iTunes pricing, Portable video, TEN Technology | iLounge News

News

Mix: Jobs interview, iTunes pricing, Portable video, TEN Technology

The Guardian has posted an article based on an exclusive interview with Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Referring to upcoming products, Jobs says that “a lot of new things in the pipeline.”

Warner Music Group CEO Edgar Bronfman has spoken out on iTunes song pricing: “There’s no content in the world that has doesn’t have some price flexibility. Not all songs are created equal. Not all albums are created equal,” he said. “That’s not to say we want to raise prices across the board or that we don’t believe in a 99-cent price point for most music. But there are some songs for which consumers would be willing to pay more. And some we’d be willing to sell for less.”

BusinessWeek has an article on Apple rivals who are busy readying portable video solutions. “For the market to really take off, though, portable-player makers probably will need to go further in creating easy-to-use one-stop shops that offer a wide array of video. And who better to do that than Apple, which already has brought music, short videos, and podcasts to its iTunes Music Store?”

TEN Technology, makers of the naviPro eX and naviPod remote, said it is ready for Apple’s iPod nano. “We had already been planning remotes that would work with the 30 pin dock so they would be compatible with all dock connector-equipped iPods, including the nano,” John Lin, CEO of TEN Technology. “So by looking ahead, we not only have compatible products available now, but we will be rolling out entirely new nano products very soon.

« Noreve unveils leather case for iPod nano

Griffin ships iFM; iPod nano version coming in November »

Related Stories

Comments

1

Thank You Mr. Edgar Bronfman(Warner Music CEO) for confirming my prior comment by informing us that your justification for wanting to raise iTunes prices is because your studies say that “there are some songs for which consumers would be willing to pay more”.  I only wish you had gone a step further and admited that the music industry thinks it needs to raise the prices on all the hit songs in order to offset the money lost on the scores of wanna-be-a-hit crap that makes up the majority of the industry’s releases. My response is the same as always. If you would quit chasing popular “musical trends” and start cultivating true musical creativity, then maybe you could have more than one hit for every 500 misses. That way we might not have to pay for those 500 misses in every one song we actualy enjoy.

Posted by T.S. on September 23, 2005 at 12:17 PM (CDT)

2

Maybe if you stop spending millions in useless copy protection schemes you then don’t have to raise prices.  Oh, by the way, for each song sold on iTunes YOU DID NOTHING.  No packaging, no shipping, no distribution.  You all are a bunch of greedy morons who just don’t get it.  If the price is raised above $0.99, I won’t be buying anymore.

Why is this so obvious to everyone but the record industry?

Posted by m.sherman on September 23, 2005 at 2:21 PM (CDT)

3

It’s amazing that the same industry execs who were so FEARFUL over piracy that they didn’t even bother to provide digital downloads are so FEARLESS about raising prices.  Personally, I hope they do succeed because they will prove Jobs right and will have to back off.  Apple does not get damaged by this because iPods still play mp3s (a brilliant hedge on Apple’s part by the way).

Posted by Frank Z on September 23, 2005 at 3:28 PM (CDT)

4

And when will these idiots learn that they stand to make MORE profits off of archives than they do current music???  That’s actually the solution to their problems.  Archives are the least available tracks on the peer to peer networks.  And people who have eclectic tastes would love to know they can find old tracks on iTunes.  I’ve been looking for “Almighty Fire” by Aretha Franklin for years to no available.  Archival libraries are monies to be made that are just sitting collecting dust.

Posted by Frank Z on September 23, 2005 at 3:31 PM (CDT)

5

I would never pay for a song that cost more than $0.99, end of story. “Not all songs are created equal.” That has to be the biggest line of bullshit I’ve ever heard. It’s true that not all albums are created equal, but that’s only because the # of tracks varies. “But there are some songs for which consumers would be willing to pay more.” That is just a lie. There are songs that people may want more, but they won’t pay for them. Digitally they will just find new ways to download these songs for free, or just but the physical CD. The recording industry is becoming increasingly greedy and a large majority of consumers won’t stand for it. So if a songs price is raised, just don’t buy it.

Posted by Cyantre on September 23, 2005 at 3:32 PM (CDT)

6

who’s to say some music is worth more? i’m certainly not willing to let warner bros. tell me which artists are “worth more.” that’s bullocks.

greed, greed, greed.

i’ll continue to only buy from indies or directly from REAL artists, thank you very much mr. bronfman.

Posted by Travis on September 23, 2005 at 4:26 PM (CDT)

7

It’s not that people won’t pay more for songs, it’s that the Labels should have never offered them for $.99 in the first place.

Some posts here imply that $.99 is some magical number linked directly to the core essence of what it means to be human and that nothing higher will be tolerated by society and the antidote for the viral bacterial outbreak of higher $1.99 music is Steve Jobs and his crusade against the evil Labels.

Guys, we don’t want to pay more for music, but don’t be delusional and think people won’t pay more.  The iPod market is the exact group the Labels should be trying to exploit because they’ve proven they are carefree with their money by paying so much for the player.

Ultimately the iTMS should charge $2.99 a track and all the WMA based sites (Napster, Yahoo, Wal-Mart & MSN) should charge $.99.  Wouldn’t that be something?

Posted by Talking Madness in Los Angeles on September 23, 2005 at 4:32 PM (CDT)

8

The iPod market is the exact group the Labels should be trying to exploit

It’s not really a case of exploitation, more a case of lock-in. Even though the labels have only sold a paltry few dozen tracks per ipod, they and Apple anticipate a comfortable future (say, 10 years or so) where many ipodders have several hundred dollars “invested” in their DRM files. Then, the cost of moving to another format, player, or platform is too high. Downward pressure on the price becomes reduced, and prices can be raised faster than inflation.

Ultimately, one reason why Apple is in bed with the RIAA is to promote consolidation within the emusic industry. If you’r a big company then it’s confusing trying to deal with dozens or hundreds of independents. Big companies prefer monopolies or oligopolies, and Apple (and MS) is working hard to make this a reality…

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=1890

When it comes to licensing the required technologies, Sepaniak said it’s pretty easy to absorb licensing costs into high margin gear like that made by Escient and it’s remaining sisters Denon, Marantz, McIntosh (no relation to Apple), and ReplayTV.  But in commodity markets like $79 MP3 players, such licensing fees can nickle and dime a product to death.  Sepaniak predicts only the largest companies will be able to survive in that market.  The more individual copies of Apple-DRMed music that Apple can sell into the market, the more Apple is guaranteed to be one of those companies. Like me, people will want to continue to have access to the music they’ve paid for through the iTunes store. Unless Apple does for many others what it has so far done for Motorola, licensee’s of Apple DRMed content will have little choice but to buy their gear from Apple to play it.

Posted by Demosthenes on September 23, 2005 at 4:53 PM (CDT)

9

“There’s no content in the world that has doesn’t have some price flexibility.  Not all songs are created equal. Not all albums are created equal”  Huh.  When I go to Best Buy I don’t really see a huge difference in CD prices.  An old Led Zeppelin album costs just as much as a new Brittany Spears release.  Given his logic the Zep album should probably cost more.  His fear is that only the 1 popular song by Brittany (or any other band these days) is getting downloaded because the rest are crap (that’s not to say that the popular Brittany song is any good).  The music industry needs to focus on signing quality musicians that can put out quality albums instead of trying to raise their profits by shear volume alone.

Why aren’t they concentrating on selling more digital music?  Maybe even (hold on to something for this brilliant idea) making them CHEAPER if you buy them in certain quantities.  Like m.sherman stated, there’s no packaging, no shipping, practicly no overhead to digital music files.  It’s the American dream of getting something for doing almost nothing.

Posted by jkoz73 on September 23, 2005 at 11:36 PM (CDT)

10

No music is worth more than $.99. Hell, $.99 is more than people should have to pay, but it’s at least in the realm of reasonability. Me thinks P2P music sharing for free is looking good again. F U C K YOU, RIAA and F U C K YOU, WARNER MUSIC CEO, EDGAR BRONFMAN, YOU LITTLE PENCIL-NECKED GEEK.

Posted by Jack on September 24, 2005 at 12:03 AM (CDT)

11

—- in another subject VIDEO ipods exist. I’m holding one right now . Its my 3rd gen 40GB with some mods to play video. Go to cnet.com and it will show you how to do the video mod.

Posted by the way on September 24, 2005 at 1:55 AM (CDT)

12

I hope they do raise the prices on the hits, so people start finding the smaller artists. I use iTunes, but don’t buy anything on iTMS both for cost and DRM reasons. Instead I rip CDs I own, and I buy new stuff on eMusic.com (only small independent artists, much cheaper, no DRM).

Posted by mweston on September 24, 2005 at 1:35 PM (CDT)

13

I don’t understand Bronfman’s comment on variable pricing. Movie ticket prices are the same regardless of whether a movie is a hit or not. The publishing world actually takes a more consumer-friendly approach, with best-selling books often being the most heavily discounted. Bronfman really needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Consumers are tired of being ripped off. Maybe it’s time the music labels got off their a$$es and try to do something revolutionary instead of whining about companies like Apple that are actually making a difference.

Posted by smooth on September 24, 2005 at 11:51 PM (CDT)

14

Smooth-

You are absolutely right about the movie business, but the studios have some radical changes they are trying to figure out how to sell to the public…

1.  For a long time now the Studios have had the desire to sell tickets to bigger movies for more than they would to smaller movies.  A certain logic would say that a ticket for ‘Titanic’ should cost more than a ticket for ‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding’ considering that the former cost about 100 times more to make than the latter to produce.  But the problem is that both movies captured an audience and went onto be huge hits.  The problem they’re facing is how to decide what movies will be able to sell tickets for higher prices.  Basing it on the movie’s budget would be a shot in the dark, but they’re gonna try it soon.

2.  Studies have shown that an increasing number of movie viewers like to watch movies at home rather than deal with the hassle of going to the theater.  So the Studios are testing the idea of renting first run, big-budget Hollywood movies to people the same day they come out in theaters.  One example is the notion of renting big summer movies for $100 the weekend it comes out.  You pay a $100 and you can watch it in the comfort of your own home while everyone else deals with the hassle of the theater.  The point the studios are missing is that the biggest part of the hassle is paying $75 to take a family of four to a movie in Los Angeles on a weekend.  What would make me want to spend $25 more to see it at home?  Some people would go for it, but it seems to be missing the main point that the biggest hassle of movies nowadays is that they suck for the most part—not worth $5 a pop, let alone $14.

These are just a couple more examples of how out of touch the executives are at these entertainment companies.

Posted by Talking Madness in Los Angeles on September 25, 2005 at 4:22 AM (CDT)

15

The bottom line is that people SHOULDN’T HAVE TO pay more.

Posted by Jack on September 27, 2005 at 5:21 PM (CDT)

16

But other than that, I have no gripes with you, Talking Madness.

Posted by Jack on September 27, 2005 at 6:18 PM (CDT)

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad 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.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy