Record Companies to ask for subcription service

baggss · Apr 17, 2007

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. As an Apple share holder I'm not particularly worried about it.

The idea that the record companies are simply going to walk and alienate the ever growing on-line music business is a bit silly. EMIs agreement to allow DRM free content shows that the labels, or at least one of them, realizes the growth and revenue potential of doing so. Since Apple makes little money off of iTMS if the labels left iTMS and went DRM free elsewhere, Apple would still have little to lose. The cash cow is the iPod, not the store. Leaving iTMS and and going with a DRM scheme that is not iPod compatible would alienate that large part of the music listening public that owns iPods and end up being counter productive in the long run.

fleurya · Apr 17, 2007

As an Apple share holder I'm not particularly worried about it.

I just find it odd that someone investing in a company wouldn't want their investment to grow as much as possible. If Apple came out and said, "if we offer subscription music, we project the value of the company will rise $1 per share (or whatever amount you want to think of), but since Steve doesn't like the idea, we're not doing to do it and you won't make as much money as a result" You would be ok with that? Why invest any money at all?? Put it in the bank or something.

baggss · Apr 17, 2007

Hmmmm....lets see....I bought at ~$12 a share before Jobs took over and the stock is at ~$90 today, after splitting TWICE (that means I have significantly more stock than I originally purchased). Why am I worried about this as a shareholder? His job is to make these sorts of decisions and as a Shareholder I trust him to do so. His track record has been pretty darn good in the last 10 years and I don't see his refusing a subscription service tanking my stock value to less than when I purchased it.

Since Apple doesn't pay dividends, I'm only missing money if I choose to sell my stock. Otherwise, it's all gravy.

fleurya · Apr 17, 2007

Hmmmm....lets see....I bought at ~$12 a share before Jobs took over and the stock is at ~$90 today, after splitting TWICE (that means I have significantly more stock than I originally purchased). Why am I worried about this as a shareholder? His job is to make these sorts of decisions and as a Shareholder I trust him to do so. His track record has been pretty darn good in the last 10 years and I don't see his refusing a subscription service tanking my stock value to less than when I purchased it.

The past has nothing to do with raising the value in the future form the current value. Your stepping around the main point. It's not about how much you've made so far, it's abut how much you can make. If they were going to make more money on a new venture and pass it up, that is what people in business call opportunity cost. Not taking a money making deal the same as losing money. It's a very simple concept that most people understand. "Do I want more money, or less money? hmmmm"

Since Apple doesn't pay dividends, I'm only missing money if I choose to sell my stock. Otherwise, it's all gravy.

So you're saying you really didn't invest to make money. You just felt like you wanted to give Apple some money to help their business? You don't ever plan sell any stock for money?? Because that's the only way you would not have any interest in Apple being more valuable. Of course Apple will most likely become more valuable in the future. But how much more depends on the courses of action they take.

Say, in 10 years the stock is worth $200 as an example. With subscription music included and the extra users and revenue, it could be worth $225. Now say you want to pull 100 shares of stock for retirement. You'll either get $20,000 or $22,500. But you have no problem in giving up $2,500 dollars just because you and Steve don't like subscription music. You're a really swell guy and I hope Steve sends you a thank you card.

Now think of Arthur Levinson, who owns 253,105 shares. Do you really think Arthur, or other major holders like Arthur, are willing to give up something in the neighborhood of over $6 million dollars so old Steve doesn't have be upset about allowing subscription music? Well, maybe he would in fear of being fired or he's just a money-burning nut too. But do the calculations for the major institutions who own tens of millions of shares of Apple stock and go ask them if they're willing to part with hundreds of millions of dollars just to keep Steve happy. Something tells me they won't be.

Just get real.

baggss · Apr 17, 2007

You know, I'm getting a bit tired of your trollish behavior. If you dislike Apple and everything about them so much, why are you here? If you have an issue with "fanboys" then this is the wrong place to hang out. If you choose to invest in Apple, that's fine, then you can vote as you feel next time the board comes up, until then, to bad.

It doesn't matter what you feel or think, it matters what Steve does. I'm not the one who needs to get real here.

fleurya · Apr 17, 2007

Nothing I said was in any way trollish or against apple and there was absolutely no mention of fanboys. Where did that all come from??? If anything I am speaking in the best interest of Apple because what I'm talking about is making the company better by increasing it's value. If anyone is against Apple here, it's you because you think they should hold back and not move forward. Not moving forward in business is moving backward.

We could be talking about any business in the world here, which is partly my point. You proposed that shareholders have no say in a company's actions, but I stated otherwise and gave reasons. You feel that Apple has control of the record labels and they must act at the behest of Apple. I disagreed and gave reasons why. You feel there is no reason for Apple to engage in an action that would add value to the company and it's shareholders, yourself included, if they simply don't want to, but I pointed out that normally shareholders care a great deal about adding value whenever possible.

I'm engaged in a discussion, you're getting upset over nothing and imagining things. You seem to be very adamant about stating your feelings and opinions about what people post on this forum, but you don't seem to like it when others do the same.

baggss · Apr 17, 2007

fleurya said:
Nothing I said was in any way trollish or against apple and there was absolutely no mention of fanboys. Where did that all come from??? If anything I am speaking in the best interest of Apple because what I'm talking about is making the company better by increasing it's value. If anyone is against Apple here, it's you because you think they should hold back and not move forward. Not moving forward in business is moving backward.

I don't see a subscription service as foreword move, I see it as a back-step. The ultimate goal would be to put as much control in the hands of the consumer and not in the hands of the Music companies. As such a subscription service doesn't do that.

As for the rest, you've been here long enough and said enough that I think we both know where it came from. You've been better as of late, as has been pointed out to me elsewhere, so perhaps I am wrong. Speaking one's mind is one thing, but a guy who's been here as long as you have and posted as much as you have and still has one green dot? That speaks VOLUMES that I don't have too.

PowerBookG4 · Apr 17, 2007

fleurya said:
Nothing I said was in any way trollish or against apple and there was absolutely no mention of fanboys. Where did that all come from??? If anything I am speaking in the best interest of Apple because what I'm talking about is making the company better by increasing it's value. If anyone is against Apple here, it's you because you think they should hold back and not move forward. Not moving forward in business is moving backward.

I am not sure exactly where I stand on this issue. As a business major I understand what adding a subscription service to Apple's iTunes store could do for profits. I could also understand what it would to do the iTunes sales. I do however, think that it could possibly be a good move for Apple on a whole, financially wise any way. Having a subscription service could bring in a few more sales on ipods and give Apple another steady income on a monthly basis from this subscription service.

That being said. I still do not feel that a subscription service is the best move for Apple, at least not at this time. What about the people who want to own their music. A subscription service would neglect these customers, and possibly drive them away from iTunes.

There was one idea that I had that I think would benefit all customers and bring new business to Apple. A optional subscription service, that would go along side of iTunes. iTunes would still sell their songs at $1, and lets say the subscription service at something like $20 a month. If you are a member of the subscription service and you download the song and you like it. You should have the option to buy the song at half price ($0.50) to keep the song even if you stop the subscription. I would actually opt for this option if this option was here, but if there was no discount for purchased songs then I would not go with this because I would like to have the option to keep the music if I like it enough.

baggss · Apr 17, 2007

That would be ok I think, although I still feel a subscription service of any kind is a step backwards as it takes control away from the consumer in the long run. I'm not sure about the $0.50 to keep a song if you stop the subscription. There would be a number of ways to abuse that and I get the feeling that the companies want the consumer to keep paying as much as they can as long as they can force them too.

fleurya · Apr 17, 2007

So you admit your attack on me isn't just from what I've said, but your own jaded memory of me and my posts? In my opinion, holding grudges, basing decisions and feelings on the past, and giving negative reps on someone for a post because of how you feel about them isn't the best attitude.

I have one green dot because I don't many positive reps, which is probably because I mostly post in anything goes as my knowledge of Apple isn't as high as many experienced users on here. I try to help when I can, but I don't get on the forum very much and questions are usually answered by the time I get to them. I have 3 negative reps, scratch that, now 4 negative reps, all of which I'm almost positive are from Baggs. 2 of them are from posts on this very thread tonight. I wonder where they came from? Here are the posts for the other 2:

I wasn't going to post to this thread again, but I just can't help myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss
A little unethical behavior is having a beer or two on your lunch-break, too much is coming back drunk AND stoned to boot...
So, just coming to work drunk is ok??????
I wish I hadn't fired those 2 people working for me who came in to work drunk. I guess I just didn't know someone out there thought that it was ok.

It's all about drawing lines. The it's hard to get it right, but the first to step towards getting it wrong is thinking your line alone is the correct line.

Quote:
Hmmmm, I thought I specified Lunch in my example, not work in general....yes I see I did. Not sure what dark hole you pulled that comment out of....
Your comment said it's ok to have a couple drinks on a "lunch-break", implying it was a break from work. When else other than work do you refer to having lunch as a lunch break??

And can someone explain to me why I would get a negative rep for the comment below, but the person who gave it to me wrote "agreed"???

Quote:
Originally Posted by fleurya
I wasn't going to post to this thread again, but I just can't help myself.

So, just coming to work drunk is ok??????
I wish I hadn't fired those 2 people working for me who came in to work drunk. I guess I just didn't know someone out there thought that it was ok.

It's all about drawing lines. The it's hard to get it right, but the first to step towards getting it wrong is thinking your line alone is the correct line.
Once again, thanks to the narrow-minded jerks who give negative reps to a person who merely posts a personal feeling towards a general question. It's like me asking a question and giving negative rep if a person answers in a way I happen to disapprove of.

The funny thing about those posts was they were all surrounded by dissenting comments from Baggs. Another funny thing is the neg. reps either say "agreed", "well said" or "you have a right to your opinion" in the comments! If the person who gave me those reps felt that way, why the negative rep? Seems like a theme in all my negative rep.

I may disagree with what people say and I will discuss my point, but I don't attack them for their differing views and I don't throw negative rep on people unless they are making a personal attack on me.

fleurya · Apr 17, 2007

An optional service is a great idea and what I was alluding to. I currently use Napster which gives users the option of buying music, downloading, or "renting" music or both at the same time. I like it because I like to listen to new music available, but I don't want to commit to purchasing the album and find out I don't like it after all. And the little audio previews from Apple just aren't enough for me. It works great for my needs.

Someone once said on this forum that if you read the fine print on CDs, you're more or less renting the music anyway from a legal standpoint. I'm not sure what they meant, but I'd like to find out.

baggss · Apr 17, 2007

fleurya said:
So you admit your attack on me isn't just from what I've said, but your own jaded memory of me and my posts? In my opinion, holding grudges, basing decisions and feelings on the past, and giving negative reps on someone for a post because of how you feel about them isn't the best attitude.

It doesn't really matter what you think, I can base my judgments on whatever I choose to base them on. Sorry, but maybe 1 of those is from me, but not all of them. Or, maybe they all are, who knows. Please don't believe that I am the only one who might give you bad rep simply because I am the one being vocal about you. You certainly were not in a hurry to leave your name in the bad rep you just left me.

If you think your being abused, feel free to report it, someone will figure it out and take the appropriate action. As I said earlier, I may be mistaken about you recently, it has been pointed out to me, and if so I apologize.

fleurya · Apr 17, 2007

You certainly were not in a hurry to leave your name in the bad rep you just left me.

I left you a bad rep? If there was no name, how do you know who it was? Please don't believe that I'm the only one who may find your personal attacks offensive.

As a person who chooses to visually present himself with a cartoon character, I try not to get worked up so easily over small things and take it easy. I think it's a good rule to live by. It's also I chose an easy-going, laid-back appearing character; that's just how I want people to know me. So, I'm just going to take the high road, stop commenting on this thread, and not even look at it any more.

baggss · Apr 18, 2007

All-righty then.....

Dimitri · Apr 18, 2007

fleurya said:
Someone once said on this forum that if you read the fine print on CDs, you're more or less renting the music anyway from a legal standpoint. I'm not sure what they meant, but I'd like to find out.

Because you haven't purchased the rights to the music, just that piece of media the music is on. Once it wears out, you're not entitled to another. That's one helluva of a long rental if you take care of your stuff, though.