(To be clear, the three point "argument" was examples of what I see as more legitimate reasons for Apple to open iTunes than the profit argument that, to me, is cart-before-horse reasoning)
I guess you're arguing that more people would go the other way. But I don't see it. I think the people who would buy an iPhone will do so regardless of whether or not iTunes works with the Pre.
See, here's where we disagree, for two reasons. First, your argument is all-or-nothing. "The people" don't exist. Some percentage of iPhone buyers would have bought a Pre instead, and in fact some percentage of Pre buyers made the purchase because of Palm's clever "iTunes compatible" marketing. We can haggle over whether those numbers are 1% or 25%, but I absolutely guarantee it is neither 0% nor 100%.
Missing the point. That only applies if those Pre buyers would have bought iPhones otherwise. I'm arguing that there aren't many (if any) people out there who say "oh, I would have bought the Pre if iTunes worked with it, but now that it doesn't, I'll buy the iPhone).
If that were the case, and assuming Palm's marketing and research departments aren't complete morons, why did they bother with the whole "iTunes compatible" thing, if it wasn't going to sell any more Pres? Do you really think they weren't hoping to lure prospective iPhone buyers? If iTunes compatibility wasn't a key selling point for the Pre, why did they put up a fight and complain to USB-IF? I can't see how that can be anything buy profit motive.
Instead, I'm saying the opposite is more likely. People turned off by Apple's closed nature means fewer people willing to purchase Apple products.
And again, here's where we differ. You're arguing the likelihood of people en masse reacting one way or the other on philosophical grounds, and I'm saying that Apple is image conscious enough, and competent enough with spreadsheets, to have run the numbers and determined that the impact of lost hardware sales was negative enough to make it a losing proposition financially.
Keep in mind, we're not just talking Pre. The entire industry was and is watching Apple's reaction; accepting the Pre would be a de facto opening of iTunes for *every* other phone and media player. Like I said, that may be a good thing at some point, but I don't think this is that point.
At the very least, this a very defensible move on Apple's part, not some kind of huge and obvious blunder, as both you and Manjoo painted it.
Therefore, if Apple opened iTunes, they would make just as much money because people could buy competing hardware and use it with iTunes
That's not the argument that I made and it's not the argument that Manjoo made, and you know it.
Please do not misconstrue what we said.
It wasn't intentional misconstruation. In fact, re-reading Manjoo's post, and the original Techdirt post, and your very response here, it seems to be exactly what you are saying. Maybe I've got it wrong.
I see your argument as: Apple would make more money if they opened iTunes to competing hardware.
Is that not the whole argument? I'm totally willing to believe I'm being dense, but please believe I'm not being facetious. If that's not the argument, can you please formulate an "Apple would see higher profits if they opened iTunes because..." assertion?
By the way, I personally think that there comes a time when it is smart to open iTunes; once hardware margins are lower and iTunes margins are higher, there's a tipping point.
But right now, with iPhone/iPod margins at around 35% and contributing about $2B of profit per year, versus iTunes with margins of about 15% and profits of about $500m/year, it's a losing play to give up even a few hardware sales.
Think of it this way: each iPhone sold generates as much profit, just on the hardware and service kickback, as selling about 2500 songs. How many songs do you think the average Pre user is planning to buy?
So you're arguing for foregoing whatever profits they lose by giving up market share in the phone/iPod hardware market, in the name of improving reputation? And in the same comment you talk about wasting developer resources?
It's not a terrible argument, unless you're an Apple shareholder. It's true that image is worth something, and in this case maybe they made the wrong decision. I don't think so, because as soon as the Pre syncs with iTunes, every single other phone/music player manufacturer will do so as well, thereby reducing their costs while simultaneously having a more competitive offering.
But at leas you're talking about intangibles like reputation, rather than the utterly clueless original article (and, sadly, Mike himself), who erroneously claim that there'd be a zero-to-positive financial impact from opening iTunes to competing hardware.
No one's buying Apple hardware because it syncs with iTunes. They're buying it for many other reasons, and Apple can continue to compete on those.
Wow. I was just mildly disagreeing as I read the post, until I got to that. That's quite an assertion to make, especially off the cuff and with no evidence to support it. Nobody is buying Apple's hardware because iTunes? No iPhone users chose the phone because they already had a music library in iTunes? No Airport/Airtunes users bought their hardware because of iTunes?
By that logic, Apple could just shut down iTunes and save a lot of money. Sure, as some earlier wag posted, they *might* be making $10,000 a day from it. But the organizational overhead, technical, and capital requirements are big. If it's not selling hardware, why in the world are they doing it? It is positively not a significant profit center in and of itself.
Think about this argument for a second. In a nutshell it goes like this:
- Apple makes the vast majority of its profits from hardware
- Openness is generally desired by consumers
- Therefore, if Apple opened iTunes, they would make just as much money because people could buy competing hardware and use it with iTunes
It was a ridiculous argument then Manjoo made it, and I'm saddened to see Techdirt run with it. Yes, openness is good. In the long run, music systems will almost certainly be open. And yes, it would be philanthropic of Apple to open the ecosystem. It would also hurt profits.
Argue that Apple has a moral obligation to forego some amount of profit so as to benefit smaller players in the music/phone markets. Argue that 73% market share is a monopoly and the DOJ should get involved. But please, please don't take the position that Apple's choices are driven by anything other than profit maximization.
Are you saying that if I publish facts, everyone can use them, even my competitors? What about people I just don't like? I sure don't want any vegetarians using the facts I publish, that's for sure. I figure that publishing them makes them mine, after all.
If copyright law isn't the answer, how can I legally prevent anyone from competing with me? Don't I have a right to a profitable business, whatever model I choose?
Indeed. Especially if the presentation to end users is different in almost any meaningful way (such as pretty HTML, paginated, different terminology, and so on).
It's asinine, but ultimately futile. It doesn't matter if you use laws, initiatives, or treaties -- you can't legislate against economic reality any more than you can against gravity.
The sad thing is that these people really, genuinely believe that the world would work they way they wish it did, if only there were draconian enough laws. It's sad that so many resources and opportunities are wasted on crap like this.
This same argument applies to electric companies, computer hardware companies, and municipal water supplies. They all make money from people who engage in illegal file sharing.
Obsolete business models, the lot of 'em. And anyone who downloads copyrighted files should be cut off from all of 'em.
(Ah, I give up. You can't satirize these people. They're do it themselves.)
I may run out and set up a "Library Defense" website where authors can register and, for a nominal fee, add their books to a list that libraries will be asked not to buy.
Yep, but I guess the question is at what point it becomes "anonymous", and that's going to be a matter of opinion. Is it anonymous if I can say it's one out of these 100 people? 1 out of 1,000? 100,000?
So I was totally with this article, and that 87% figure grabbed me -- and then we go on to say that, actually, it's a totally meaningless figure because it's based on information that *won't* be released.
Maybe there are privacy concerns. But that's a huge red herring that distorts the issue a lot. I mean, if they released credit card numbers and names, it would be a huge issue (but they aren't). Why include a stat and then say it's not relevant?
Me, I'm a lot less bothered by something that "could" be used to reduce anonymity to "a few hundred individuals in some zip codes." Maybe there's an interesting conversation about at what point personally identifiable becomes non-personally identifiable. But my instinct is that this doesn't cross the line, once you parse the article for what's actually happening and not how it would be if different things were happening.
You're not going to like this. I'm not sure I like it. But I think what we're seeing is the blurring of the concepts of trademark and copyright.
The argument, I think, is that it's impossible to promote a derivative work without invoking the original work, and that such invocation is a misuse of the original brand. It's a complex mix of the confused "parasitism" argument we've seen in these comments, a probably misplaced belief in the ownership of concepts, plain old trademark.
I don't particularly agree with that argument, either viscerally or from a legal perspective. But I do think it's what we're seeing.
So I occasionally complain about posts here, but not because of their subject matter. Talk about the relative merits of the 3-4 and 4-3 defense, for all I care.
What gets my goat, and this post is an example, is the uneven quality of the concepts presented here. Sometimes I think, "wow, that's a really insightful addition to an important conversation," and sometimes I think "wow, that's shoddy reasoning that's more about supporting a position than being coherent."
My complaint with this post is the assumption that frequent complainers are either terminally dissatisfied or subject matter purists.
In fact, there's a third category: people who silently agree with a lot of the content, but who feel compelled to say something when a post isn't up to Techdirt's standards for intelligent, careful analysis. The problem is that, when you folks hit the nail on the head, there's not a lot to say other than "yep." When you get it wrong, there's lots to say. That's the way of the world.
So, right, let's be constructive: you could probably do a better job of guiding conversation with questions.
You could also do a better job of structuring posts as a coherent position, explicitly calling out assumptions, inferences, and conclusions. That will help people disagree intelligently, and will make it more clear when one of the permanently aggrieved just wants to complain in general (or when an old-media insider wants to disagree with conclusions and not the supporting material).
All that said, I think Techdirt is on a roll, and I expect the brand (and Mesnick's personal brand) to continue to ascend. But with that success, you're going to have to accept that your poorer offerings (and *everyone* has work that's not up to snuff) are going to be subject to more scrutiny and criticism.
This is nonsense. Unsolicited pitches do not create agency or liability. If I send you an idea for a book, I have no rights whatsoever if you choose to post my unsolicited idea on the internet, to rethink it yourself, or to ask someone else to write it. You are perfectly free to say "hey, that's a fine idea, I'll ask someone else to write it."
Now, if it gets to the point of plagiarism, then maybe I'd have some claim. But mere ideas and pitches and stuff you hear at random does not create agency. If you really disagre, pease cite even a single case where an agency relationship has been found based on an unsolicited submission.
I'm not at all sure about this lawsuit-as-PR angle. Ok, so this lesser known author becomes semi-famous for having sued a publisher for reviewing her work and declining to publish.
Now, say you work at a publisher, and a manuscript comes in with this name on it. Do you open the package and read it, knowing she's prone to irrational lawsuits? Or do you just throw it out unread?
Before the (justified, but predictable) outrage at Amazon's incredibly clumsy handling of the whole thing, can we quickly remember that the initial impetus for deleting the book was that the publisher who put it *on* the Kindle in the first place did not, in fact, have the rights to do so?
The whole thing is stupid for a lot of reasons, but it's irksome that so many conversations start from the incorrect assumption that Amazon was acting capriciously or something.
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Um, what?
I guess you're arguing that more people would go the other way. But I don't see it. I think the people who would buy an iPhone will do so regardless of whether or not iTunes works with the Pre.
See, here's where we disagree, for two reasons. First, your argument is all-or-nothing. "The people" don't exist. Some percentage of iPhone buyers would have bought a Pre instead, and in fact some percentage of Pre buyers made the purchase because of Palm's clever "iTunes compatible" marketing. We can haggle over whether those numbers are 1% or 25%, but I absolutely guarantee it is neither 0% nor 100%.
Missing the point. That only applies if those Pre buyers would have bought iPhones otherwise. I'm arguing that there aren't many (if any) people out there who say "oh, I would have bought the Pre if iTunes worked with it, but now that it doesn't, I'll buy the iPhone).
If that were the case, and assuming Palm's marketing and research departments aren't complete morons, why did they bother with the whole "iTunes compatible" thing, if it wasn't going to sell any more Pres? Do you really think they weren't hoping to lure prospective iPhone buyers? If iTunes compatibility wasn't a key selling point for the Pre, why did they put up a fight and complain to USB-IF? I can't see how that can be anything buy profit motive.
Instead, I'm saying the opposite is more likely. People turned off by Apple's closed nature means fewer people willing to purchase Apple products.
And again, here's where we differ. You're arguing the likelihood of people en masse reacting one way or the other on philosophical grounds, and I'm saying that Apple is image conscious enough, and competent enough with spreadsheets, to have run the numbers and determined that the impact of lost hardware sales was negative enough to make it a losing proposition financially.
Keep in mind, we're not just talking Pre. The entire industry was and is watching Apple's reaction; accepting the Pre would be a de facto opening of iTunes for *every* other phone and media player. Like I said, that may be a good thing at some point, but I don't think this is that point.
At the very least, this a very defensible move on Apple's part, not some kind of huge and obvious blunder, as both you and Manjoo painted it.
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Um, what?
It wasn't intentional misconstruation. In fact, re-reading Manjoo's post, and the original Techdirt post, and your very response here, it seems to be exactly what you are saying. Maybe I've got it wrong.
I see your argument as: Apple would make more money if they opened iTunes to competing hardware.
Is that not the whole argument? I'm totally willing to believe I'm being dense, but please believe I'm not being facetious. If that's not the argument, can you please formulate an "Apple would see higher profits if they opened iTunes because..." assertion?
By the way, I personally think that there comes a time when it is smart to open iTunes; once hardware margins are lower and iTunes margins are higher, there's a tipping point.
But right now, with iPhone/iPod margins at around 35% and contributing about $2B of profit per year, versus iTunes with margins of about 15% and profits of about $500m/year, it's a losing play to give up even a few hardware sales.
Think of it this way: each iPhone sold generates as much profit, just on the hardware and service kickback, as selling about 2500 songs. How many songs do you think the average Pre user is planning to buy?
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Re: Re: Um, what?
It's not a terrible argument, unless you're an Apple shareholder. It's true that image is worth something, and in this case maybe they made the wrong decision. I don't think so, because as soon as the Pre syncs with iTunes, every single other phone/music player manufacturer will do so as well, thereby reducing their costs while simultaneously having a more competitive offering.
But at leas you're talking about intangibles like reputation, rather than the utterly clueless original article (and, sadly, Mike himself), who erroneously claim that there'd be a zero-to-positive financial impact from opening iTunes to competing hardware.
On the post: Why Apple Should Let Other Devices Connect To iTunes
Um, what?
Wow. I was just mildly disagreeing as I read the post, until I got to that. That's quite an assertion to make, especially off the cuff and with no evidence to support it. Nobody is buying Apple's hardware because iTunes? No iPhone users chose the phone because they already had a music library in iTunes? No Airport/Airtunes users bought their hardware because of iTunes?
By that logic, Apple could just shut down iTunes and save a lot of money. Sure, as some earlier wag posted, they *might* be making $10,000 a day from it. But the organizational overhead, technical, and capital requirements are big. If it's not selling hardware, why in the world are they doing it? It is positively not a significant profit center in and of itself.
Think about this argument for a second. In a nutshell it goes like this:
- Apple makes the vast majority of its profits from hardware
- Openness is generally desired by consumers
- Therefore, if Apple opened iTunes, they would make just as much money because people could buy competing hardware and use it with iTunes
It was a ridiculous argument then Manjoo made it, and I'm saddened to see Techdirt run with it. Yes, openness is good. In the long run, music systems will almost certainly be open. And yes, it would be philanthropic of Apple to open the ecosystem. It would also hurt profits.
Argue that Apple has a moral obligation to forego some amount of profit so as to benefit smaller players in the music/phone markets. Argue that 73% market share is a monopoly and the DOJ should get involved. But please, please don't take the position that Apple's choices are driven by anything other than profit maximization.
On the post: Can You Copyright Movie Times?
Re: Re:
If copyright law isn't the answer, how can I legally prevent anyone from competing with me? Don't I have a right to a profitable business, whatever model I choose?
On the post: Can You Copyright Movie Times?
Re: Re to Kazanjig
On the post: Once Again, Entertainment Industry Looks To Force Massive Copyright Changes Via Int'l Treaties
Sure, go for it
The sad thing is that these people really, genuinely believe that the world would work they way they wish it did, if only there were draconian enough laws. It's sad that so many resources and opportunities are wasted on crap like this.
On the post: Music Industry Copies Language Of Copyright Reformers In Pushing For Three Strikes
In other news...
Obsolete business models, the lot of 'em. And anyone who downloads copyrighted files should be cut off from all of 'em.
(Ah, I give up. You can't satirize these people. They're do it themselves.)
On the post: New Zealand Author Claims Libraries Are Involved In Grand Theft By Loaning Books
Easy solution
Clearly, there's a market for such a service.
On the post: Netflix $1 Million Award Shows The Value Of Collaboration... But Kicks Up New Privacy Questions
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Netflix $1 Million Award Shows The Value Of Collaboration... But Kicks Up New Privacy Questions
Re: Re:
On the post: Netflix $1 Million Award Shows The Value Of Collaboration... But Kicks Up New Privacy Questions
Maybe there are privacy concerns. But that's a huge red herring that distorts the issue a lot. I mean, if they released credit card numbers and names, it would be a huge issue (but they aren't). Why include a stat and then say it's not relevant?
Me, I'm a lot less bothered by something that "could" be used to reduce anonymity to "a few hundred individuals in some zip codes." Maybe there's an interesting conversation about at what point personally identifiable becomes non-personally identifiable. But my instinct is that this doesn't cross the line, once you parse the article for what's actually happening and not how it would be if different things were happening.
On the post: Newspaper Publisher: Search Engines Break Into Our Homes
So it's easy, right?
Why doesn't he do that and see how it goes?
On the post: Recording Industry Insiders Complain About Musicians Who Argue Against Kicking People Off The Internet
Re: Somebody should be paid
The bizarre thing is to couch such transparently economically counterproductive concepts in moral opprobrium.
On the post: Why Do Content Creators Get Control Over Derivative Works?
IP blurs
The argument, I think, is that it's impossible to promote a derivative work without invoking the original work, and that such invocation is a misuse of the original brand. It's a complex mix of the confused "parasitism" argument we've seen in these comments, a probably misplaced belief in the ownership of concepts, plain old trademark.
I don't particularly agree with that argument, either viscerally or from a legal perspective. But I do think it's what we're seeing.
On the post: The Difference Between Reporting And Discussion
Kind of meta complaint
What gets my goat, and this post is an example, is the uneven quality of the concepts presented here. Sometimes I think, "wow, that's a really insightful addition to an important conversation," and sometimes I think "wow, that's shoddy reasoning that's more about supporting a position than being coherent."
My complaint with this post is the assumption that frequent complainers are either terminally dissatisfied or subject matter purists.
In fact, there's a third category: people who silently agree with a lot of the content, but who feel compelled to say something when a post isn't up to Techdirt's standards for intelligent, careful analysis. The problem is that, when you folks hit the nail on the head, there's not a lot to say other than "yep." When you get it wrong, there's lots to say. That's the way of the world.
So, right, let's be constructive: you could probably do a better job of guiding conversation with questions.
You could also do a better job of structuring posts as a coherent position, explicitly calling out assumptions, inferences, and conclusions. That will help people disagree intelligently, and will make it more clear when one of the permanently aggrieved just wants to complain in general (or when an old-media insider wants to disagree with conclusions and not the supporting material).
All that said, I think Techdirt is on a roll, and I expect the brand (and Mesnick's personal brand) to continue to ascend. But with that success, you're going to have to accept that your poorer offerings (and *everyone* has work that's not up to snuff) are going to be subject to more scrutiny and criticism.
On the post: And What's The Deal With Copyright Misuse? Seinfeld Cookbook Doesn't Infringe
Re: Re: Re: Agency
Now, if it gets to the point of plagiarism, then maybe I'd have some claim. But mere ideas and pitches and stuff you hear at random does not create agency. If you really disagre, pease cite even a single case where an agency relationship has been found based on an unsolicited submission.
On the post: And What's The Deal With Copyright Misuse? Seinfeld Cookbook Doesn't Infringe
Re: Agency
On the post: And What's The Deal With Copyright Misuse? Seinfeld Cookbook Doesn't Infringe
PR?
Now, say you work at a publisher, and a manuscript comes in with this name on it. Do you open the package and read it, knowing she's prone to irrational lawsuits? Or do you just throw it out unread?
On the post: Amazon Offers $30 To Those Who Had Orwell's Books Deleted
Quick detail
The whole thing is stupid for a lot of reasons, but it's irksome that so many conversations start from the incorrect assumption that Amazon was acting capriciously or something.
Next >>