Dan Hamilton's shared items

Showing posts with label iTunes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iTunes. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Someone Please Save Universal Music From Itself!

Seth Mnookin (who also wrote an excellent book on the Red Sox) has an interview in Wired with Doug Morris, CEO of Universal Music.  The interview is a must read.  Its clear that Morris absolutely hates his customers:

Morris goes on to rail against criminal-minded college students and
low-life punks who steal the music that his artists work so hard to
create. He admits to being fairly ignorant about technology and insists
that his job is to nurture the creative side of the business — work
that's being threatened by all of this other nonsense.
...
He wants to wring every dollar he can out of anyone who goes anywhere
near his catalog. Morris has never accepted the digital world's ruling
ethos that it's better to follow the smartest long-term strategy, even
if it means near-term losses. As far as he's concerned, do that and
someone, somewhere, is taking advantage of you. Morris wants to be paid
now, not in some nebulous future. And if there's one thing he knows how
to do, it's use the size of his company to get his way.
 and despises Steve Jobs and Apple:

"We were just grateful that someone was selling online. The problem is,
he became a gatekeeper. We make a lot of money from him, and suddenly
you're wearing golden handcuffs. We would hate to give up that income." 
And Morris is still deluding himself about music subscriptions:

Total Music subscription would come pre-installed on devices like
the Zune, the Sony PlayStation, or a mobile phone. Universal is well
aware of the difficulty of convincing consumers to pay for music
subscriptions, so Morris wants the device makers to pony up the cash
themselves, either by shelling out for a six-month introductory offer
or by assuming the cost forever. This would be money well spent, Morris
argues, because it would help the Microsofts of the world eat into the
iPod's market share. He has already hammered out preliminary agreements
with Warner and Sony BMG and has met with executives at Microsoft and
several wireless carriers. If Morris is able to make Total Music a
reality, he will once again have succeeded in bending the industry to
his will — in this case, by using the combined catalogs of the major
labels to help establish a true competitor to the iPod. After all, why
buy an iPod if a Zune will give you songs for free?

Unfortunately, Total Music will almost certainly require some form
of DRM, which in the end will perpetuate the interoperability problem.
Morris likely doesn't care. He is more committed to Total Music — or
any other plan that allows protection — than he is to a future where
music can truly be played across any platform, at any time. "Our
strategy is to have the people who create great music be paid
properly," he says. "We need to protect the music. I know that."

I guess this is why Rick Rubin (Morris' cohead of Columbia Records) has drunk the cool-aid on music subscriptions.  The problem is that people do not want to subscribe to music - they want to own it.

I mean doesn't anybody at Universal get it?  Where are the stockholders?  Is this guy so powerful that he can run his company into the ground? I think Mnookin concludes that yes, Morris is that powerful and implies that if  the "Total Music" initiative fails and/or iTunes climbs the last hurdle:

This year, 22 percent of all music sold in the US will move
through iTunes. "If iTunes gets up to 40 or 50 percent, they'll have
too much power for anyone else to enter the business," says James
McQuivey, who analyzes the digital music industry for Forrester
Research.

that he very well may ruin Universal. 

Now, trying to unseat the iPod is not a bad business strategy but I think that everything known about consumers and how they want to purchase music says subscriptions are a dead end.  Every subscription service has failed or is failing.  What that tells me is that the wrong guy is running Universal:

"He wasn't prepared for a business that was going to be so totally
disrupted by technology," says a longtime industry insider who has
worked with Morris. "He just doesn't have that kind of mind."


Universal needs someone who recognizes that technology has transformed the music business and is willing to embrace this.  Someone who can take the world's largest music label and get it on the path to the future and not down some dead end to protect short term profits.  Someone with a lot of money on hand to take over Universal - say 15 or so billion dollars.  

Until that happens, all I can say is ugh! - Will someone please save the music business from itself?

Charles Starrett at iLounge has written an excellent editorial on the growing "War on iTunes" being initiated by Universal.  I urge everyone to read it.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

The iPhone Killer

It seems every day there is talk of "the iPhone killer" coming soon.  Today's entry in the iPhone Killer sweepstakes is the Verizon Voyager. The Voyager, made by LG, sells for $299 and has a touch screen and a flip open keyboard and tries to copy the iPhone's UI.  Here's a review (conclusion: not an iPhone Killer), and another (conclusion: best Verizon phone).  There's also talk that the RIM 9000 series, coming next year (pic?), is out to kill the iPhone.  And of course, there was the much rumored Google Phone that then failed to live up to the hype.  The supposed iPhone killer list goes on:  there's a linux contender, handset maker HTC's entry, samsung's entry, Nokia's got one too.  But nobody seems to be asking the right questions - if the iPhone can be "killed" how can it be done? 

It seems strange to me that there even needs to be an "iPhone Killer".  I mean, my guesstimate based on Apple's latest iPhone sales numbers is that there have been about 2 to 2.5 million iPhones sold to date (based on Apple's released numbers and a guess factoring in approximate daily sales and the European release of the iPhone).  That's a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of cell phones sold (38 million in the U.S. last quarter alone) since the iPhone was released.  Even if you only compare the iPhone to other high end "smart" phones, the iPhone has 27% of the smart phone market but its not yet in a dominant position based on sales.  So why would you need to  have an iPhone killer?  two words: mind share.  The iPhone has simply come in and transformed the consumer mind share about what a smart phone should be.

Now, without disclosing details regarding my "day job", I get to spend a lot of time playing with many models of smart phones - including some of the "iPhone Killers" mentioned above, some that are not even available in the U.S., and a few that are not available anywhere yet.  Some are very cool.  But when you compare them to the iPhone in my pocket, they pretty much all suck.  Most are like small bricks - they are heavy, boxy and clunky - nothing with the sleek lines and minimalist feel of the iPhone.  Even if they have a nice design, they are generally running an operating system that just kills the user experience - Linux, Symbian, RIM or Microsoft (Microsoft is the worst of the bunch.  It takes several "clicks" to get even the most basic things done. Don't even get me started about RIM - an OS only a network administrator could love).

That is the first, most basic, reason there will not be an iPhone Killer anytime soon.  The other Mobile OS and UI designs are just not ready to compete.  Apple's OS X base is several light years ahead of everything else and the IPhone "noun" UI is just perfect for the touch interface.  Of course, the iPhone has its flaws too - it desperately needs voice dialing and/or a better way for hands free use on the phone side, the iPod "scrubber" needs a better UI, it needs "disc mode" like all the other iPods have - just to mention a few of my pet peeves.  But here's the thing - all of those things can be fixed with a software update when Apple works them out or by 3rd party developers when they get the SDK in February 2008.   If you have a crappy OS, then no amount of tinkering is going to be able to fix that.

That's the beauty of the OS X base - Apple has its own experience on the desktop side to draw from as well as all of its 3rd party developers.  The iPhone is just an extension of the Mac ecosystem - a reservoir that Symbian or RIM can't tap into.  Microsoft can't, to a large extent, make this claim either, given its specialized - and sometimes incompatible - flavor of windows for smart phones and PDAs.  Linux, well, is Linux - theoretically I suppose its part of the "Linux ecosystem" - if one even exists - but Linux is just not a player yet as there are very few Linux smart phones right now.  Despite my dismissal of Android, Google has the right idea to go after the mobile OS market instead of releasing an actual phone because that's the key advantage the iPhone has.

The other major advantage Apple has is that it is "Apple, the brand" and all that entails.   If Motorola introduced a phone with the exact same feature set as the iPhone a year ago, they would not have gotten the same amount and quality of attention that Apple did.  I don't see how the maker of any "iPhone Killer" can get around that anytime soon.

The final major advantage is the iPod.  There's no doubt that Apple is a monopoly in the digital music business and is not going to be caught there anytime soon.  Apple's video business is also up and coming.  Until someone can kills iTunes, they are probably not going to "kill" the iPhone.  That's why I have to laugh every time a supposed "iPhone killer" comes up with a phone tied to some minor "music store" or to the cell carriers ridiculously expensive "media store".  Please stop (and I am looking at you Verizon) the madness - iTunes has won.

Everything else is just features - screen size, touch screen, wifi, bluetooth, the webkit based safari web browser (and don't underestimate the iPhone's advantage here even though other manufactures can and do use webkit.  The web browsing experience on the iPhone is better that everything, and I mean everything, else right now).  The iPhone killers keep focusing on features and fail to realize that to "kill" the iPhone, features are the least important thing to concentrate on.  To paraphrase James Carville - its the OS stupid.  Until somebody can come up with an OS that rivals OS X, there will not be an iPhone killer anytime soon.

The iPhone Killer

It seems every day there is talk of "the iPhone killer" coming soon.  Today's entry in the iPhone Killer sweepstakes is the Verizon Voyager. The Voyager, made by LG, sells for $299 and has a touch screen and a flip open keyboard and tries to copy the iPhone's UI.  Here's a review (conclusion: not an iPhone Killer), and another (conclusion: best Verizon phone).  There's also talk that the RIM 9000 series, coming next year (pic?), is out to kill the iPhone.  And of course, there was the much rumored Google Phone that then failed to live up to the hype.  The supposed iPhone killer list goes on:  there's a linux contender, handset maker HTC's entry, samsung's entry, Nokia's got one too.  But nobody seems to be asking the right questions - if the iPhone can be "killed" how can it be done? 

It seems strange to me that there even needs to be an "iPhone Killer".  I mean, my guesstimate based on Apple's latest iPhone sales numbers is that there have been about 2 to 2.5 million iPhones sold to date (based on Apple's released numbers and a guess factoring in approximate daily sales and the European release of the iPhone).  That's a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of cell phones sold (38 million in the U.S. last quarter alone) since the iPhone was released.  Even if you only compare the iPhone to other high end "smart" phones, the iPhone has 27% of the smart phone market but its not yet in a dominant position based on sales.  So why would you need to  have an iPhone killer?  two words: mind share.  The iPhone has simply come in and transformed the consumer mind share about what a smart phone should be.

Now, without disclosing details regarding my "day job", I get to spend a lot of time playing with many models of smart phones - including some of the "iPhone Killers" mentioned above, some that are not even available in the U.S., and a few that are not available anywhere yet.  Some are very cool.  But when you compare them to the iPhone in my pocket, they pretty much all suck.  Most are like small bricks - they are heavy, boxy and clunky - nothing with the sleek lines and minimalist feel of the iPhone.  Even if they have a nice design, they are generally running an operating system that just kills the user experience - Linux, Symbian, RIM or Microsoft (Microsoft is the worst of the bunch.  It takes several "clicks" to get even the most basic things done. Don't even get me started about RIM - an OS only a network administrator could love).

That is the first, most basic, reason there will not be an iPhone Killer anytime soon.  The other Mobile OS and UI designs are just not ready to compete.  Apple's OS X base is several light years ahead of everything else and the IPhone "noun" UI is just perfect for the touch interface.  Of course, the iPhone has its flaws too - it desperately needs voice dialing and/or a better way for hands free use on the phone side, the iPod "scrubber" needs a better UI, it needs "disc mode" like all the other iPods have - just to mention a few of my pet peeves.  But here's the thing - all of those things can be fixed with a software update when Apple works them out or by 3rd party developers when they get the SDK in February 2008.   If you have a crappy OS, then no amount of tinkering is going to be able to fix that.

That's the beauty of the OS X base - Apple has its own experience on the desktop side to draw from as well as all of its 3rd party developers.  The iPhone is just an extension of the Mac ecosystem - a reservoir that Symbian or RIM can't tap into.  Microsoft can't, to a large extent, make this claim either, given its specialized - and sometimes incompatible - flavor of windows for smart phones and PDAs.  Linux, well, is Linux - theoretically I suppose its part of the "Linux ecosystem" - if one even exists - but Linux is just not a player yet as there are very few Linux smart phones right now.  Despite my dismissal of Android, Google has the right idea to go after the mobile OS market instead of releasing an actual phone because that's the key advantage the iPhone has.

The other major advantage Apple has is that it is "Apple, the brand" and all that entails.   If Motorola introduced a phone with the exact same feature set as the iPhone a year ago, they would not have gotten the same amount and quality of attention that Apple did.  I don't see how the maker of any "iPhone Killer" can get around that anytime soon.

The final major advantage is the iPod.  There's no doubt that Apple is a monopoly in the digital music business and is not going to be caught there anytime soon.  Apple's video business is also up and coming.  Until someone can kills iTunes, they are probably not going to "kill" the iPhone.  That's why I have to laugh every time a supposed "iPhone killer" comes up with a phone tied to some minor "music store" or to the cell carriers ridiculously expensive "media store".  Please stop (and I am looking at you Verizon) the madness - iTunes has won.

Everything else is just features - screen size, touch screen, wifi, bluetooth, the webkit based safari web browser (and don't underestimate the iPhone's advantage here even though other manufactures can and do use webkit.  The web browsing experience on the iPhone is better that everything, and I mean everything, else right now).  The iPhone killers keep focusing on features and fail to realize that to "kill" the iPhone, features are the least important thing to concentrate on.  To paraphrase James Carville - its the OS stupid.  Until somebody can come up with an OS that rivals OS X, there will not be an iPhone killer anytime soon.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Are First Run Films iTunes Next Act?

If you've been reading this blog with any regularity, you know that I am a major advocate of iTunes movie rentals.  While we'll have to wait for movie rentals, there is an interesting experiment going on in the movie section of the iTunes Store.  Apple has started to go after the short films market and, beginning tomorrow, will offer the first-run full-length feature film, Purple Violets, for download. 

Purple Violets is a film by Ed Burns, who's first film, The Brothers McMullen, went from indie acclaim to commercial success (you may often catch it running on the various cable movie channels).  Purple Violets has been called Burns' best film since The Brothers McMullen,  so it is kind of surprising that Burns is willing to take an unorthodox route in releasing first on iTunes (exclusively for 1 month) instead of going through a major studio for distribution in theaters.  According to Burns, the iTunes release experiment is worth the gamble:

we were talking with several distributors and had an offer from a company that I had worked at before and it was the same model--the platform release, New York, LA, let’s wait for the reviews [and] our per-screen averages that first weekend, and we’ll go to the next eight markets, the next 12 markets and we’ll roll out that way. That has been my career for 12 years, but I would say for the last seven years that hasn’t worked for my films...So myself and my two producers, Aaron Lubin and Pam Murphy, were brainstorming and the idea came up, ‘What about approaching iTunes?’ They had never premiered a film before… We thought this is where it seems to be going, so why not be on the cutting-edge of this technology-- and we can’t do any worse than the last three films of mine have done theatrically, so maybe we can do better.


The strange thing is, at least up until now, Apple does not seem to be hyping this up too much.  There's no prominent mention of the film on the iTunes store yet (although that may change tomorrow), just a buried entry for it in the "coming soon" section of the movie store.  What makes Apple's lack of hype even more puzzling is the fact that Hollywood seems to be looking at how successful Apple, the de facto only game in town, can make Purple Violets

"They're obviously the leader, by a long way," says Jamie Chvotkin, president at CD Baby and Film Baby, two services that help musicians and filmmakers offer their work in digital form. "Their share in movies is probably similar to what it is in music, somewhere in the 80% range."
...

"Purple Violets," which stars director Ed Burns, Debra Messing, and Selma Blair and was made on a $4 million budget, will be a crucial test for iTunes, the first movie it'll have before it is available anywhere else.


Properly marketed, "Purple Violets" or another indie exclusive could turn into the kind of breakout hit that could nudge digital downloading into the mainstream -- something that hasn't happened yet.

It is no secret that the movie studios have been reluctant to deal with Apple on movie downloads:

Privately, studio execs have expressed hope that iTunes won't turn into the single dominant retailer of digital movies -- with all the accompanying negotiating leverage -- that it has become for music. They don't want to be in business with a partner that dictates terms to them, rather than the other way around..."It's not that those studios don't want more distribution, it's that they're not willing to sell movies at a price lower (than the DVD wholesale price) to Apple," says CinemaNow's Marvis. "Someone is going to have to blink."

Given the fact that the major studios have, until now, been reluctant to deal with Apple on downloads (rentals may be another story), you would thing Apple would be going all out on this release.  So far, besides the promotion Burns is doing himself, Apple has not made a big splash - even though Purple Violets could jump start the stalemate between Apple and the studios:

"Properly marketed, 'Purple Violets' or another indie exclusive could turn into the kind of breakout hit that could nudge digital downloading into the mainstream -- something that hasn't happened yet."

So, keep an eye on iTunes over the next couple of weeks to see how successful Purple Violets is.  You can order the film (I believe for $12.99 today and then I think for $14.99 tomorrow) on iTunes.  Here's the link (which will open in iTunes): 




Purple Violets

Sunday, November 18, 2007

iPhone News Beat: Weekend Edition - November 18, 2007

Slow news weekend, but here's the round up:

Seems HiJacking your iPhone has consequences.

Why Google's Android is wrong.

What Android means for Apple.

The iPhone Java fantasy continues...

I'll second this wish for iPhone WiFi podcast downloads.

Of course, the big news this weekend was the impending Monday morning launch of the Amazon Kindle eBook reader.  Newsweek has the cover story (oddly without pictures but Engadget has some).

Finally, we are 4 days until black friday.  If your in the market for Apple products, set you alarm clocks early friday and get down to the nearest Apple Store as they have historically had some good deals.  For everything else, and to save yourself a trip out after eating all that turkey, check out Amazon's Black Friday Deals Page.



Friday, November 16, 2007

2008: iTunes Movie Rentals?

I've been saying for some time that Apple needs to offer iTunes Movie Rentals.  I am not the only one.

Recently, a college student noticed that with the release of iTunes 7.5, there are clues burried in the code that movie rentals may be coming soon. 

Related to this is the ongoing struggle with TV content and digital distribution.  Yet, despite the fears of the TV networks, viewing TV content online or via iPods and iPhones through iTunes, is not the cause of the decrease in TV viewership. 

There has been some hope that Movie Rentals would come before the holidays
While I would love to see movie rentals before the holidays, I don't
think will happen until January 2008 at the Macworld conference.  With the holiday shopping season due to kick off next week and the iPhone launch in France on November 29th, Apple will probably be quite content to sit on Movie Rentals until MacWorld. 

Of course, I could be wrong.  In just the past two weeks we've had a MacBook update without a press release and a significant upgrade to Final Cut Express with a simple press release.  Anyone who has been following Apple for some time knows that back in 2001 to early 2003 both of these would have been fuel for at least an "Apple Special Event". But, ever since the "MacWorld NY controversy",  Apple has announced products on its own time table and in a tiered manner - "low key" announcements (press release - generally speed bumps to existing products), "medium key" announcements (special events - usually at the Apple Town Hall or at industry functions), and "high visibility" (macworld, wwdc,  any special event held at Moscone).

So, why does this matter?  Well because Movie Rentals would have to fall into at least the "medium" category.  That would require at least an Apple Special Event which means that invitations would need to go out to the press.  In the past, Apple has given at least 2 weeks notice as to when these events would occur (sometimes more, and I believe, on one occasion, 1 week notice - but I could be wrong on that one).  But, I would argue that a Movie Rental announcement would be "high visibility".  With the holidays approaching any Apple Event would need to happen the first week in December (since, due to the Thanksgiving holiday, next week is out and Apple would not want to steal the thunder of the iPhone France launch on the 29th).

But, the next "high visibility" event is already on the calendar and only 8 weeks away - MWSF on January 15th.  So what's on tap for MWSF?  Well, the scuttlebutt says some sort of portable tablet.  And that's about it right now.  We know there'll be no OS X announcement since Leopard was just released.  Ditto for iLife and iWork.  The iPod line was just completely refreshed so that's probably a zero (with an outside chance of a storage bump/price cut). 

So what does that leave in Apple's product line to announce?  New displays?  Maybe, but that's been anticipated for a while (and still hasn't happened).  New iMacs? They were refreshed recently too.  MacPros?  Ok, well they are due for a refresh but, they are not really "consumer" machines and Apple likes to target Macworld with consumer products.  So, other than the ultra-portable and laptop line, the only thing that is due for a needed redesign is Apple TV.  How much sense would it make to announce Movie Rentals along with a new Apple TV with say, an integrated DVD player and maybe DVR capabilities?  (Yes, I know there's the iPhone, but I've gone on record already as saying iPhone 2 is not happening the first half of 2008). A lot of sense I think.

So, despite the speculation, I don't think we will see iTunes Movie Rentals until MWSF.  I expect that the iTunes portion of the keynote will include both Movie Rentals and the Beatles.  Until then, keep that Netflix subscription going. 

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Eisner says Blame Apple. He's Wrong.

Leave it to Michael Eisner to prove exactly what's wrong with the studio mindset regarding video digital distribution:

The studios "make deals with Steve Jobs, who takes them to the cleaners.
They make all these kinds of things, and who's making money? Apple!
They should get a piece of Apple. If I was a union, I'd be striking up
wherever he is."
Ugh.  As I have noted before the mindset that Apple is to blame for the supposed lack of profits on video digital distribution is simply hog wash. 

First of all, the studios haven't seriously taken a shot yet at digital distribution.  Apple's only got around 1000 videos for sale on the iTunes store.  Moreover, I am convinced that video sales of films are just not what people want - rentals are where the volume (and money) is (and I am not the only one who thinks this).

More importantly, the movie and TV studios are just irrationally wedded to an advertising model.  They think that ads will make them money, the same way it makes them money on TV.  But it will not work in the digital world.  They have to offer their products digitally in a manner that is convenient, simple to use and, can be accessed anywhere.  For many reasons, an ad based model doesn't fit that bill (not to mention the fact that it is very easy to eliminate ads in digital distribution - and that absolutely drives the studios nuts).  And they have to offer the content at a price that is reasonable ($9.99 for a movie download - without the DVD extras - and $1.99 a TV episode is pushing the upper limits here.  And yet, they want higher prices!).  And of course, they continue to insist on restrictive DRM

Not only is Eisner an idiot for his Apple comment, he's just plain wrong on the writer's strike:


For a writer to give up today's money for a nonexistent piece of
the future -- they should do it in three years, shouldn't be doing
it now -- they are misguided they should not have gone on the
strike. I've seen stupid strikes, I've seen less stupid strikes,
and this strike is just a stupid strike.
Now, I admit I don't know all the details about the writer's strike, but I do know that the whole reason there is a strike is because the writer's forgot to deal for DVD's the last time.  Seems reasonable to me that the writers don't want to let several years of digital revenue pass without them having a deal to getting a share of it.

So, after all this BS, where does Eisner think the of video distribution future is?   Yup, you got it - the internet.  Thats where is putting his own money.  What a clown. 

Friday, November 2, 2007

Music Subscriptions...DOA (Again)

Well, Well, Well. Seems that Napster has figured out that there is no business in music subscriptions



Might want to let Rick Rubin know about that:


"You would subscribe to music," Rubin explained, as he settled on the velvet couch in his library. "You'd pay, say, $19.95 a month, and the music will come anywhere you'd like. In this new world, there will be a virtual library that will be accessible from your car, from your cellphone, from your computer, from your television. Anywhere. The iPod will be obsolete, but there would be a Walkman-like device you could plug into speakers at home. You'll say, 'Today I want to listen to ... Simon and Garfunkel,' and there they are. The service can have demos, bootlegs, concerts, whatever context the artist wants to put out. And once that model is put into place, the industry will grow 10 times the size it is now."

I'm not sure if Rubin is deluding himself or if he's just spouting off the Columbia Records corporate fantasy. Either way, like it or not, people want to own their music. Gee wonder where I heard that before....

Thursday, November 1, 2007

Odds & Ends: Today's Interesting Reads

Around the Mac web for November 1, 2007, Intel GMA X3100 graphics edition,



MacBook Stealth Update
Time Invention of the Year: iPhone
iPhone already has a Legacy
Leopard's Quality
Leopard Demolishes Vista
Someone Else noticed Apple's Cash Nest Egg
Strike!
Last, but certainly not least, iLounge has released the iLounge 2008 iPod & iPhone buyers guide. Really good stuff. I recommend it highly (and it comes in a really cool iPhone format too!).


Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Odds & Ends: Today's Interesting Reads

Here are today's interesting reads, mac and non-mac:

2 Million Cats on the Loose

Leopard is Apple if His Eye

Why it was Called the Manhattan Project

What is a Hulu anyway?

Apple needs an actual TV

How to Save Apple TV



Monday, October 29, 2007

Apple-NBC War Continues

Jeff Zucker, head of NBC Universal, wanted a piece of Apple's iPod sales in return for a deal to sell NBC's programming on iTunes: 


"Apple sold millions of dollars worth of hardware off the back of our content and made a lot of money,” Zucker said. “They did not want to share in what they were making off the hardware or allow us to adjust pricing."

“We don’t want to replace the dollars we were making in the analog world with pennies on the digital side,” he said.


So, let me get this straight Jeff.

You want Apple to pay you a percentage of each iPod sale for the right to sell, for $1.99, an episode of the Office on iTunes.

Now, this is the same content that you give away for free every week. 

The same stuff that anybody with a TiVo can record and then skip all those commercials when they watch it later.  

Are you the dumbest guy on the planet? 

Good luck with hoho or whatever you call it. HoHo is not exactly burning with buzz but I'm sure it's just what everyone wants - the ability to watch streaming TV and movies with commercials on their PC. 

Oh yeah, and another thing Jeff. Apple didn't sell iPods off the back of your content (which you already give away for free). Apple sold iPods off the back of the Big 5 music label's content (LOL). 

Seriously, Zucker's thinking is the problem here. He believes that his viewers will just watch where and when and how he says they will. It is a pre-digital mindset. The problem is that as DVD's, TiVo and iPods and iPhones have become common place, viewers have realized that they like the ability to choose the time and place and medium to watch TV shows and movies. That's why the movie theaters are slowly dying. Its why TV ratings are steadily declining. Its why DVD, iPods and TiVo sales are increasing.

Zuckers mindset conveniently forgets that iTunes sales saved his bacon:



"I'm not sure that we'd still have the show on the air" without the iTunes boost, says Angela Bromstead, president of NBC Universal Television Studio, which owns and produces "The Office." "The network had only ordered so many episodes, but when it went on iTunes and really started taking off, that gave us another way to see the true potential other than just Nielsen. It just kind of happened at a great time."


I think Apple should do one of two things - either seriously look into buying NBC Universal from General Electric or, drop the H-Bomb and release a version of iTunes that will rip DVDs in the "it just works" Apple way. I'm sure either move would get the movie studios and networks to play ball.

Odd's & End's: Today's Interesting Reads

Who'd have thought that someday we would live in a world where the Red Sox are not just World Series Champions, but have won the World Series twice in the last four years?

When your iPod shouldn't be close to your heart

iPhone: No Cash and only 2 per person

No gift cards either

$831

Windows as the iPhone Limiter

Leopard stalking Microsoft

NBC tells Apple: we can Destroy ourselves, thank you




Friday, October 26, 2007

iTunes Needs Movie Rentals

With the exception of the iPod Shuffle, all of Apple's iPods and the iPhone support video playback. Yet, the movie and TV sections of the iTunes store have become stagnant with little new content. While iTunes has millions of songs for sale, it has less than 1,000 movies. The Apple TV, Apple's "hobby", appears to be going nowhere. Apple needs to do something soon to step up its video content market. But what? 

Well one of the things Apple seems to be doing is to go after short films. But this is not a viable long-term solution. Apple needs video content soon to help fill up all of those iPods and iPhones that will end up in stockings this Christmas. Many of those iPods are going to be replacing ones that can't play video. Come the end of January, unless Apple has something up its sleeve, people are going to start asking why there's no content. 

Apple's position seems to be that the iTunes movie and TV sections are still young:


“We’re really at the beginning stage in the movie space,” said Eddy Cue, Apple’s vice president for iTunes, adding that iTunes had sold more than four million movie downloads...but still had fewer than 1,000 titles for sale.

But this is simply not a reasonable argument when all of your products support video playback.

To further put the heat on Apple, the infamous NBC-Apple feud has apparently ended badly for Apple as talks between NBC-Universal have broken down. Thus, come December 1, all NBC shows, many of which are iTunes top sellers, will be pulled from iTunes.

Unlike the music business, Movie and TV producers seem to have Apple's number:


NBC Universal spokesman Cory Shields said his company's programs help drive the sales of iPods. "The iPod is only as good as the content on it," he said.


I suspect NBC's challenge to iTunes will eventually fail. Although (unlike the music business), NBC does not get any significant portion of its revenue from iTunes sales, it does get buzz among the people it most wants to attract with its shows. Not to offer it on the iTunes store is just foolish. But, the fact that NBC can even think it is possible to challenge Apple and the reason Apple's movie selection is so meager can probably be pinned on one person: David Porter of Wal-Mart. 


It seems Mr. Porter has clubbed the movie studios into submission in order to protect Wal-Mart's multi-billion dollars in DVD sales. As a result, digital movie sales are stuck in the mud with limited selection and insistence by the studios on high prices and ridiculous digital rights management (DRM) restrictions. 

But there may be a way out for Apple: Movie Rentals.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Is iTunes doomed?

I don't think so and neither does Ivan Askwith at Slate.

Monday, April 23, 2007

The iTunes Cash Cow

Apple has maintined that the iTunes store is not profitable or breaks even. They have let the electronics and music industry assume that they make thier cash on the sale of iPods. Of course, selling iPods is a very profitable business. But a new report by Andrew Hargreaves of Pacific Crest may shed some light into Apple's iTunes revenue stream. According to the report, Apple sees $0.10 of profit per $0.99 song. Not too shabby considering Apple is selling millions of songs a week.