Congratulations Slave and Catrin!!!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Well, it also makes little sense that AC/DC wouldn't explore other online avenues. iTunes isn't the only place that you can buy music online. Amazon is pretty competitive and doesn't have the restrictive software. And Radiohead, noted by Sebby to be more album oriented than singles oriented, doesn't sell on iTunes, but their most recent album was released on their website and did really well.

I think AC/DC is just stuck in the past, but they can get away with it because their fans are used to buying CDs.

AC/DC gets away with it for the same reason the Beatles do it. Because they can.

AC/DC sells over a million records a year even when they don't do a new album. They're one of the top selling bands in the world and they make staggering cash by forcing fans to buy whole cds on the pretext that they want their albums to be bought as "whole items." Bullshit. AC/DC is a singles group if there ever was one. They know if they went on Itunes their records would be cannibalized the same way people buy the one or two decent Stones' songs from that band's lamentable 70s and 80s releases.

If AC/DC went online people would only buy the hits and the band would lose money. So they don't. It's just smart business.

[1436]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

AC/DC gets away with it for the same reason the Beatles do it. Because they can.

AC/DC sells over a million records a year even when they don't do a new album. They're one of the top selling bands in the world and they make staggering cash by forcing fans to buy whole cds on the pretext that they want their albums to be bought as "whole items." Bullshit. AC/DC is a singles group if there ever was one. They know if they went on Itunes their records would be cannibalized the same way people buy the one or two decent Stones' songs from that band's lamentable 70s and 80s releases.

If AC/DC went online people would only buy the hits and the band would lose money. So they don't. It's just smart business.

And I suppose Apple has decided that it would rather not sell AC/DC than have to deal with the backlash of letting one band dictate terms.

It is all just business, but now I have to drive home without AC/DC's new album instead of with.

Sucks.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by pernsky no account

Exactly, Guv'ner! Point well taken and please accept my humblest foregiveness.

New topic, of the worlds are colliding varietale. Scratch that, new querry of a sort. So a client sends me an email today.....let me clarify, in reality the client is a corporation, a quasi-fictional person at law, if you will, and those "persons" don't have opposable thumbs or other accentuating digits to allow them to hit the "send" button to dispurse the email. The source of the email was actually a flesh and blood human employee of the client aka corporate entity. Full disclosure: middle level employee to be exact, and I say this, because I know what you are thinking, that this person, employee, must be the CEO of the client aka corporate entity, given my corner office statii, but, in fairness, out of a sense of social justice and equity, which is what I am all about, on special occassions, for a premium billing rate adjustment, I deal with the hoi polloi ("proles" in Paigowworld, sniff), if you will. Anywhom, in short, as I digress, the email read:

"Last nite, I dreamted that you shaved your head, and the look was off the hizzle. Everyone in the dream loved it."

Two questions:

A. Is this a come on?

II. If so, does the implicit reference to others in the dream indicate group sex could be at hand (and foot, and other apendage)?

Serious advice appreciated!

not to be a timmy, but one does not need opposable thumbs to send email. emakl can be sent equally well after a thumb-ectomy.

however, a lack of thumb will limit the sex acts em can perform.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

AC/DC gets away with it for the same reason the Beatles do it. Because they can.

AC/DC sells over a million records a year even when they don't do a new album. They're one of the top selling bands in the world and they make staggering cash by forcing fans to buy whole cds on the pretext that they want their albums to be bought as "whole items." Bullshit. AC/DC is a singles group if there ever was one. They know if they went on Itunes their records would be cannibalized the same way people buy the one or two decent Stones' songs from that band's lamentable 70s and 80s releases.

If AC/DC went online people would only buy the hits and the band would lose money. So they don't. It's just smart business.

Again, they could sell the whole album online without having the songs piecemealed out on their own website or one of iTune's competitors.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Plus, you get a free Dr Pepper

There is no way Chinese Democracy cannot be a let down. The band hit the ball so far with its first three records I can't imagine any way they could put out a better song selection. Say what you will about the band, "Appetite" is one of the best hard rock records of all time. And the "Use Your Illusion" records have some songs that rival the best of Jagger/Richards. The only problem with all of these records is they are horribly overproduced. If G&R stripped the production down and went for an "Exile on Main Stream" sound, tunes like "14 Years," "Dead Horse" and "Yesterdays" would be all time rock radio classics. They're every bit as well crafted as classics like "Tumbling Dice."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Again, they could sell the whole album online without having the songs piecemealed out on their own website or one of iTune's competitors.

That's baffling to me. I can only assume they got a killer deal with Wal Mart or the mragin on selling whole cds on Itunes isn't as good as it is selling actual cds.

It's kind of odd for these guys to be greedy, really. They've got more money than God.

I rather enjoyed my trip to Wal Mart, by the way. It's huge and there's tons of stuff to see. The television selection was impressive.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by 1436

And I suppose Apple has decided that it would rather not sell AC/DC than have to deal with the backlash of letting one band dictate terms.

It is all just business, but now I have to drive home without AC/DC's new album instead of with.

Sucks.

There's a song in the middle that sounds like Creedence. Shocked me a bit. Then I thought, "Who better to screech like Fogerty than Brian Johnson?" They might be the only two voices in rock who have a high and low range and absolutely nothing in the middle.

By the way, that Fogerty disc you can buy in Starbucks... Buy it. It's really, really good.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by 1436

Both of these issues seem relatively minor. Is Apple really so stubborn that they can't get this sort of shit together?

The iTunes Music Store doesn't exist to make money selling music. It exists in order to continue making Apple hardware necessary in people's lives. The DRM makes it absolutely necessary that your next MP3 player is an iPod. I'm not going to shit-can 4,000 songs for which I paid good money because SanDisk makes a slightly better player this year.

The artists are pissed because Apple isn't incentivized to make money per transaction like they are. Sure, Apple could charge a buck-fitty for Kid Rock's latest excretion, but that won't sell any more iPods, so why risk pissing off the hardware customer base just to make another four cents a song?

ETA and that's why Apple introduced iTunes Plus with premium pricing, only to return to 99 cents either with DRM or without. It's no longer necessary for all the songs to be DRMed -- just enough in everyone's libraries that you wouldn't even think to buy a Sansa because some indefinitely large portion of your music library would be unplayable. Apple has achieved the goal of making the other guy's hardware seem like too much of a pain in the ass. You could offer Sansas and Zunes at cost, and Apple will still sell more iPods.

[pernsky no account]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

not to be a timmy, but one does not need opposable thumbs to send email. emakl can be sent equally well after a thumb-ectomy.
.

Off a blackberry? its all i use these days.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

You handled this post quite nicely, nicely, thank you.

Ah, Wonk, I love you like the dope-addled, Zeppelin-addicted older brother I never ha . . uh, Not Nick? Is that you?

eta: I hit 4500 while wonking a wonk post? Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

How is this any different than Walmart's negotiations with Sony to sell TVs? If Sony says, "Since you want so many tvs because you're in such a unique position, we'll sell to you for $x," and Walmart says, "This is true. And because we do, you'll sell to us for $y," and Sony says, "Uh, no. If we sell to you for $y, you're making more than we think you should and we want a cut of that margin." It's a negotiation and the price is set based on what is acceptable to both parties or there's no deal. Same shit.

TM

What's different is Kid Rock isn't simply saying that Apple's getting too much of the pie from him. He's saying that everyone else should get more of the pie too, and until they do he's not going to sell to them (this, even though a whole bunch of other musicians apparently are satisfied with their piece of pie).

So in your hypo, Sony would be saying "We think you're getting too good a deal from everyone you deal with--Panasonic, Alpo, Hanes, whoever--so we're not going to sell to you at the price you want. In fact, we resent the fact that you're doing that so successfully, so we're not going to sell to you at all." Sure, that's negotiation, but then so would be "I'm going to burn down your store if you don't give me the deal you want."

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Apple has achieved the goal of making the other guy's hardware seem like too much of a pain in the ass.

While I won't quibble with your analysis, I think it is equally fair to say that the other guys, for the most part, did an even better job of making their hardware seem like too much of a pain in the ass.

[pernsky no account]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Sure, that's negotiation, but then so would be "I'm going to burn down your store if you don't give me the deal you want."

And at that point the State probably comes in and effects some resolutions that, for better or worse, distort the normal give and take in the marketplace. Is that the socialism aspect you were referencing?

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

While I won't quibble with your analysis, I think it is equally fair to say that the other guys, for the most part, did an even better job of making their hardware seem like too much of a pain in the ass.

True. I had one of the old brick mp3 players -- the sonic rio. Made me pull my hair out.

In contrast, when I first tried an ipod, I was ready to suck Steve Jobs' dick.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

The iTunes Music Store doesn't exist to make money selling music. It exists in order to continue making Apple hardware necessary in people's lives. The DRM makes it absolutely necessary that your next MP3 player is an iPod. I'm not going to shit-can 4,000 songs for which I paid good money because SanDisk makes a slightly better player this year.

The artists are pissed because Apple isn't incentivized to make money per transaction like they are. Sure, Apple could charge a buck-fitty for Kid Rock's latest excretion, but that won't sell any more iPods, so why risk pissing off the hardware customer base just to make another four cents a song?

ETA and that's why Apple introduced iTunes Plus with premium pricing, only to return to 99 cents either with DRM or without. It's no longer necessary for all the songs to be DRMed -- just enough in everyone's libraries that you wouldn't even think to buy a Sansa because some indefinitely large portion of your music library would be unplayable. Apple has achieved the goal of making the other guy's hardware seem like too much of a pain in the ass. You could offer Sansas and Zunes at cost, and Apple will still sell more iPods.

Not me! Almost all my music is ripped from my own CDs. And a fat lot of good it does me, since everyone else is completely fucked by Apple's DRM.