This entry was posted on Friday, September 7th, 2007 at 8:41 and is filed under Analysis & Commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Site Search:
Friday, September 7, 2007
It’s a bit ironic that Steve Jobs would make a jab at NBC Wednesday with Apple’s custom ringtone for the iPhone announcement. Basically, the NBC-Universal issue is that Universal wants more control over the DRM and higher prices for its content. If you look at the 99 cent price per ringtone charge Apple is pushing, you could say Apple is committing the same sin as NBC. Think about it. You can only use songs (and not even all of them) from the iTunes store. Control. You have to pay FULL price for a partial song! Higher prices. Sure, you could play the entire song as a ringtone, I guess, but would you get your complete value from it? No. While you can customize the start and end points of the song, does that really justify the high price? Not really.
Going further, what about the fact that you are being double charged? I mean, if you already purchased a song prior, you have to purchase it AGAIN! How does that make sense? I can’t believe Jobs could tell the audience at Moscone Center with a straight face everyone has to pay TWICE for the same song!
What makes this whole thing just amazing is the fact that you can put ringtones on the iPhone now without the help of Apple. Sure, it’s not the easiest thing in the world to use iFuntastic, but iToner (which we reported on) does the drop amazingly easy and costs $15. Granted, not cheap, but after a dozen or more ringtones from iTunes, it will be cheaper than Apple’s alternative.
To customize the start and end points isn’t too difficult, either. Garageband can do the edits on ones files and then you can save that out as your ringtone. Sure, it’s probably not as easy as it is in iTunes 4.7, but the selection and cost doing it this way is so much cheaper.
So that brings us to how Apple blew it. I don’t want to say it is being greedy, because it really could have charged more per song, but it is demonstrating that it likes to a make a buck toward the obscene. Like the DRM argument that even Steve Jobs agreed with, you should only have to pay ONCE for something you already own. If I purchase “Respect” from Aretha Franklin, then I shouldn’t have to buy it again if I want it to be my ringtone.
So why is Steve behind this? Well, there’s a new player in this game and it’s AT&T. Carriers make big money off of ringtones and this topic was sure to have come up with Apple when it brought it’s iPhone to then SBC with all of Apple’s demands. AT&T had a lot to lose and I’m sure ringtone revenue was not one thing it wanted to come out of its grips. Add in the evil record companies and you’re back to high pricing.
While I think Apple blew it with this lame pricing plan of 99 cents (49 cents would have been a better price point if it had to go through with the double charge plan), hopefully it’ll look the other way and continue to allow products such as iToner to work with the iPhone. It may have its back up against the wall, but it has been demonstrating this blind-eye treatment with all the Apple TV hacks. Hopefully, it’ll continue with the iPhone.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:18
“I mean, if you already purchased a song prior, you have to purchase it AGAIN! ”
No, you don’t. You can use songs from your own library and only pay the ringtone fee. That’s exactly what he said in the keynote. He even used Aretha’s “respect” as an example.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:34
Well, the fact these ringtones are only available on 500,000 of the what - 2 or 3 million songs available on iTunes tells you this is not Apple’s bright idea. This is the record industry, which thinks it should be able to sell you a song - well probably every time you listen to it - but certainly when it’s a “ring tone” rather than just a song you listen to otherwise. They’ve been pulling this stunt for years, charging people crazy prices for ringtones (with help from the phone industry.)
It’s a total scam, but I Apple just wants you to buy the iPhone, and this is them appeasing the music industry and/or possibly AT&T.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:41
Sven,
Have to agree with you on the double charge. I don’t propose to defend Apple in any way but, there are 2 points that have to be considered when looking at this as an option.
1) I would propose that the second charge comes as a result of the content owners (music labels) requiring. I don’t know if this is true but, with the profit Apple makes on downloads, it make little sense to build this bad pr will with customers over such a small amount. Another indicator that the record labels are behind this is because the entire catalogue isn’t available as a ringtone. If it was under Apple’s control, why would they limit access to the entire music library?
2) Even with an additional .99 charge, ringtones through iTunes are still less than $2.50, which has been the mobile industry standard price for years.
Even with those considerations I think that it looks bad for Apple because most will not consider those points. (Your post is proof of that.)
Those things being said, I wouldn’t put it past Apple to have consider this another revenue stream.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:36
Jade, you pay twice for the song. 99 cents for the song to listen to and again another 99 cents for your ringtone. Yes, if you have prior purchases, you only pay the 99 cents for the ringtone. But didn’t you pay for that prior song when you downloaded it from iTunes? Yes. So it is a double charge.
Macworld has an excellent picture of this with Steve in the foreground. Note the “$1.98 you get both!!” line at the bottom of the slide.
September 7th, 2007 at 12:44
Why are we blaming Apple for what is industry practice? EVERYONE charges for ringtones. You expect Apple to give them away for free? At 99cents, they are cheaper than Verizon or Tmobile.
September 7th, 2007 at 12:51
Because Apple has set precedent. With DRM-free EMI music and telling NBC Universal to walk. It was Apple that did this and yet while even Microsoft’s own Windows Mobile easily allows you to add a ringtone - regardless of carrier - and it gets clobbered for all its ills, we’re to ignore Apple’s wrong doing here? I don’t think so.
September 7th, 2007 at 13:06
You have answered yourself: “So why is Steve behind this? Well, there’s a new player in this game and it’s AT&T. Carriers make big money off of ringtones and this topic was sure to have come up with Apple when it brought it’s iPhone to then SBC with all of Apple’s demands. AT&T had a lot to lose and I’m sure ringtone revenue was not one thing it wanted to come out of its grips. Add in the evil record companies and you’re back to high pricing.”
That’s where the blame lies, not with Apple.
For example, when iTunes first came out, you could share your music library with the whole internet. Next version of iTunes limited to your subnet. Why? The music industry went ballistic with people listening to other libraries. They probably wanted music sharing eliminated completely. I am sure Apple held the line to limiting it to one subnet.
In the same way, AT&T probably wanted to charge tons of money for ringtones. If it were up to apple, they would let you make ringtones. But I agree with you that AT&T wouldn’t let that happen. So probably Apple managed to get it to be 99cents, as opposed to the $2.50 that Verizon charges.
The battle against the music industry is done in increments. You fight the battles you can win. Right now, Apple needs as many supporters as possible. AT&T is a big one.
September 7th, 2007 at 18:17
You guys have it all wrong. Apple is charging for ringtones because it doesn’t own the rights to the music. The labels want their cut. Arguably allowing users to use their music as ringtones is a copyright violation. Charging for the rightones is just Apple’s way of appeasing the labels. It could be argued that it isn’t a copyright violation as well. Nonetheless, the labels are already not super happy with it. Now they will make a little more money from Apple.
September 9th, 2007 at 8:17
I flat-out refuse to buy ringtones from anybody.
But — being able to make your own, and for cheaper than anyone else? That’s really not bad at all.
Here’s my question: If you want to edit or make a second ringtone out of a song, would you have to pay yet again, or are you basically buying the right to make as many different ringtones as you want from a single song?