Mix: NBC sales, Podcast searches, The Munsters, Steve Jobs | iLounge News

2014 iPad iPhone iPod Buyers' Guide from iLounge.com

News

Mix: NBC sales, Podcast searches, The Munsters, Steve Jobs

Author's pic

By LC Angell

Contributing Editor
Published: Wednesday, January 25, 2006
News Categories:

An NBC executive has revealed that the company has sold approximately $2.5 million in TV shows on the iTunes Music Store, one third of it from “The Office.”

According to the Yahoo! Buzz Index, podcasts haven’t yet made the mainstream. “Stuck somewhere in our top 6,000 searches, it’s safe to say podcasting has not reached the critical mass of IM (or even photo-tagging)—yet.”

Apple has added the classic TV series “The Munsters” to the iTunes Music Store. [via TUAW]

Wired’s Leander Khaney has written an editorial on Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ lack of charitable donations and public stance on social issues. “He’s nothing more than a greedy capitalist who’s amassed an obscene fortune. It’s shameful,” Khaney says.

« GEAR4 intros PocketPower for iPods, USB devices

Bicycle handle bar mount for iPod nano available »

Related Stories

Comments

21

I’d like to see someone prove that *all* the money Apple is ‘extorting’ ($29 for charger, $39 for shuffle lanyard etc.) from it’s customers goes *directly* to Jobs.

There are many people in this country who are obscenely rich like Jobs…..some of them give of themselves and then others don’t….who cares?!?? 

Just because Jobs doesn’t sponser the Special Olympics every year or actively campaign for the United Way doesn’t mean he should be put on trial and crucified for christ sakes…..

Posted by Huskerz85 on January 25, 2006 at 7:22 PM (PDT)

22

First of all, I agree with Talking Madness: Steve Jobs IS a greedy capitalist.  But you know what?  So am I.  Steve Jobs has responsibility to 1 group of people only: His Shareholders.  If he can make those people more money by cutting some costs (charger) while at the same time INCREASING the amount of people who buy his product, damn good job by him.  All of the people who whine about the chargers, were you clamoring to pay MORE money for a 5g iPod when it offered more (10GB and video capability) than a 4g for the same price? 

I wonder what people who accuse others of being “greedy capitalists” really want.  Do they want the “to each what he needs and nothing more” philosophy of Communism?  Without greedy capitalists who were willing to put their own money and future on the line to create a business, few of us would have a job.  Greed is what drives us to do better, work harder, and inovate more than the next guy.  Don’t like it?  Go try the alternative in North Korea.

Posted by Chris Stack on January 25, 2006 at 9:10 PM (PDT)

23

Perhaps the author should do a little more journalistic investigating.  Investigating the situation would bring up some inportant work that he and his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs, do together.

Posted by Jakob on January 26, 2006 at 6:25 AM (PDT)

24

Enlighten us, Jakob.

Posted by Talking Madness in Los Angeles on January 26, 2006 at 11:55 AM (PDT)

25

Steve Jobs has responsibility to 1 group of people only: His Shareholders.

From his business perspectives: yes, that’s not in question here. But what about his personal views?

And whaddup wit dis Pinko stuff? Just because there’s an expectation that a person should be more generous with his/her resources doesn’t equate to the second coming of social totalitarianism.  Celebs make their fortunes off of us ‘commoners’, and most of the time we pay them freely. But why should we say it’s OK and cool that they play the egotistical power baron and gleefully accept that they’re single-minded, greedy SOBs while at the same time their palms are out asking us to fork over our hard-earned dead presidents?

Posted by flatline response on January 26, 2006 at 12:36 PM (PDT)

26

Tell ‘em, Flatline!

Posted by Talking Madness in Los Angeles on January 26, 2006 at 10:52 PM (PDT)

27

Because they are not asking you for your money.  They are offering to trade you, your money for their wares.  Because they have cooler stuff to trade, and thus more money, you expect them to give some back for nothing.  That is crap.  We should praise him for giving back, but if he doesn’t, that’s hist choice.  Is their no middle ground between someone who is lauded for giving back, and someone condemned for not doing it?

Posted by Chris Stack on January 28, 2006 at 8:41 PM (PDT)

28

Because they are not asking you for your money. They are offering to trade you

In a word: hogwash. This is BUSINESS; your (and mine and any and everyone else’s) money is EXACTLY what they’re asking for. It’s their fundamental reason for existence.

“Trade”...now that’s a relative distinction. Mind you, Apple MUST FINANCIALLY PROFIT from every one of those so-called “trades”. From a fiscal standpoint, Apple (or any other business, for that matter) is in it solely for that profit. So if their products are deemed worthy and good by the masses and convince people to part with those dead presidents, well, profit is indeed what they deservedly get.

Again I don’t have any problem whatsoever with that system. My business does the same thing. Apple The Corporation has every bloody right to every bloody penny that gets on the black side of the ledger, mainly because it’s altogether likely not all their future products will wind up as the runaway hit like the iPod brand has. (Although it should be noted that even corporations themselves are known for their philanthropy—though some might question their real motives at times; not all of their profits are just there to satisfy Wall Street.)

But that’s the company and not the man who runs that company, and therein lies the difference.

What you ask about the middle ground: you might think there would be a bit of tolerance in this so-called P.C.-correct world of ours, but the way we as people usually think and judge (by actions), what other logical conclusion can anyone derive? The history of modern business is filled with money barons who DO generously contribute to worthy causes left and right—it’s not just Gates-vs-Jobs thing. Jobs also has the baggage of the generousity of Carnegie, Rothchilds, Rowntree, Rockefeller, Turner, etc., etc., ad nauseum, more etcs., et. al, yada yada, (whew), as examples of people who realized that they have more money than they know what to do with for themselves and, *(epipheny)*, decided why not use it for charitable causes.

It’s true that not all corporate big shots do the charitable thing, but enough do indeed go down this road that it should be no surprise that articles—and opinions—like the one that started this thread are going to happen. Jobs has been on one a hell of roll, both for his companies and business ventures, and for himself and his family; he’s the rock star of the tech world, and perhaps soon, the media content one as well.

With that, people are going to pay attention to everything, and they no doubt will judge based on those observations.

Posted by flatline response on January 29, 2006 at 2:33 AM (PDT)

29

Well, referring to the lawsuit over the IPED that changed to PED, I think Apple deserves a break, after all, Bill Gates did copy the idea of a graphical user interface called windows from him.  And lost in court because a Copy Machine Manufacturer had invented windows first, and didnt care if either used it.

Posted by dialking on December 21, 2006 at 9:19 AM (PDT)

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

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 section entry.

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Shop for Accessories: Cases, speakers, chargers, etc.