Jobs: Greed is Bad

Apple CEO Steve Jobs is making the right stand against record industry pressure to hike prices at iTunes, but it is odd to hear him deploy the g-word.

Apple and Jobs have made stacks of cash by selling high-margin items to the needy -- public school systems in the case of PCs, iPods in the case of chronically insecure hipsters. Just call the recording industry stupid, Steve, and leave it at that.

Then again maybe Jobs thought the greed card would fly in Paris and across "social justice" obsessed Europe. Shrewd marketing, but not greed. Never greed.

Comments

[Eric II]

"We're trying to compete with piracy, we're trying to pull people away from piracy and say, `You can buy these songs legally for a fair price,'" he said. "But if the price goes up a lot, they'll go back to piracy. Then everybody loses."

Now if only Jobs' noble crusade against piracy involved allowing songs downloaded via iTunes to play on DAPs other than the iPod. Or allowing the iPod to play back songs obtained via other legal music services such as Rhapsody and Yahoo. Or just not demanding that Motorola's iTunes phone have crippling DRM software that limits the number of songs it can play to 100.

But I guess he's a little too greedy for any of that.

[DavePotts]

Paris, hell! That'll play well right here at home with his legions of dyed black hair Jetta driving "anti-consumers!"

[Phil]

Now if only Jobs' noble crusade against piracy involved allowing songs downloaded via iTunes to play on DAPs other than the iPod.
Or allowing the iPod to play back songs obtained via other legal music services such as Rhapsody and Yahoo.

Both of these things can be done quite easily and legally. For the first, you can select the tracks and convert them to mp3 within the iTunes software itself, using the "Advanced" menu, and put them on any player you want. Or, if you want to keep the original Apple Lossless files, you can burn them to CD, then re-import the CD in mp3 format.

I'll let you figure out the second.

[joe]

I see the concept of "too much of a good thing" has yet to take root amongst the natives.

Yes, the pursuit of profits is a force for good. No, that does not mean that all pursuit of greate wealth is to be lauded.

[Number 6]

Careful, Joe, you'll stir up the natives. Some people here still take Rand seriously.

[ed]

Gee, Phil, you ruined Eric's perfectly good whine-fest with that information.

As for "greed," iTunes pays me (through an intermediary) about $.64 for every song I sell there. I believe that's the highest return in the industry.

[jf]

Holy Christ, why is Jobs fighting the record companies on this point? Couldn't be a fear of losing profits himself, could it?

And joe, you're making less and less sense lately. How does any aspect of this story affect "the greater good" one iota?

[Phil]

And I see joe's point if he's trying to distinguish between profit-maximizing and rent-seeking.

[Eric II]

For the first, you can select the tracks and convert them to mp3 within the iTunes software itself, using the "Advanced" menu, and put them on any player you want.

Are you talking about songs purchased via iTunes? If you are, that directly contradicts what I've read elsewhere.

Or, if you want to keep the original Apple Lossless files, you can burn them to CD, then re-import the CD in mp3 format.

I was aware of that, but it makes for a highly circuitous route, and not something that most owners of a third-party DAP would be expected to do. It's also a very nail-biting route if you have a large number of purchased songs.

I'll let you figure out the second.

I've read about how to do it, but if you're talking about subscription-based services, nothing I've seen is remotely legal. Simply put, Apple's refused to have the iPod support these services natively out of a fear that it'll hurt iTunes sales.

[fyodor]

joe,

Can you say exactly WHEN wanting more is bad? Or are you stuck in abstract platitudes that ultimately mean nothing?

How about this: wanting more is bad (in the immoral sense) when the only means to attain what is wanted is by violating someone else's rights.

Meanwhile, regarding the post, I'm open to the idea that "greed" can mean not only immoral wanting of more but also foolish wanting of more, like a gambler who won't quit when he's ahead. Looked at like that, wanting to charge more when it'll only drive your customers away and your profits down can fit into the foolish sense of "greed." I don't know if that's what Jobs meant, but without RTFA, it seems plausible.

[Phil]

Are you talking about songs purchased via iTunes? If you are, that directly contradicts what I've read elsewhere.

Yes, I'm talking about songs purchased via iTunes. Go to Preferences, set your Importing preferences to high-bitrate mp3, then select the track in your library and choose "Convert to mp3" from "Advanced." I've done it. It works. Then just put those mp3 files wherever you want.

I was aware of that, but it makes for a highly circuitous route, and not something that most owners of a third-party DAP would be expected to do.

Circuitous != impossible.

[mk]

Speaking of immoral..

I'm waiting for one one of the more legitimate online music services to offer the same flexibility of AllOfMP3.com.
Being able to pick whatver format you want at whatever bitrate you want and charging by the size of the file, all without any DRM. That is what the people want (at least it is what I want, I can't speak for everyone).
THe problem with AllOfMp3.com, of course, is that the artists cannot possibly be making much, if any, money from the service. I myself have only used it in the past because they have a truly impressive collection of HEavy Metal that no other service comes close to matching.

[Timothy]

Seriously, the iPod will play mp3s from anywhere, and things in apple's lame .acc format, as well as whatever that other weird one is. I changed my iTunes preferences to "import as mp3".

Just a note, however, what'll usually happen with the "convert" option is iTunes will make a copy and leave the original, I've had to go into my music directory and delete them.

Also, on a PC it's annoying but possible to move songs from an iPod back to the harddrive, but you've got to go through some rigamarole with hidden files on the iPod (no biggie if you know how to use windows). Be warned, however, that their directory conventions on that thing are crazy, so you'll have to use the search to find anything. On a Mac I believe you've got to download a patch from someplace to do this, but I can't say for certain.

[Dave W.]

Greed is bad, pretty much categorically, in two situations:

- gov't officials

and

- companies violating antitrust laws.

Since Jobs was speaking of the later category, both his conclusion and his reasoning are correct after all.

[andy]

There's another way to deal with oppressive DRM diktats from our friends at the Apple central committee--scrub the files using software like jhymn ( http://hymn-project.org/). It's a nifty, and liberating, bit of code.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

Telling the record companies to get stuffed is a very good thing. The $.99 price-point is very sensible and a good way of getting people to buy a track.

[rich]

Apple was giving schools free and/or cheap hardware *way* before it was fasionable. They only reversed that course since Jobs' return to the company, and did so at a time when the company was teetering on the brink of financial collapse.

It's debatable whether or not they should have changed that policy since the company's return to financial accendency, but Apple is not the bad guy when it comes to the big picture of the education market.

[joe]

"How does any aspect of this story affect "the greater good" one iota?"

"Or are you stuck in abstract platitudes that ultimately mean nothing?"

Don't blame me, blame Taylor - he brought the moral status of greed-in-the-abstract into the discussion.

[Russ D]

Or, if you want to keep the original Apple Lossless files, you can burn them to CD, then re-import the CD in mp3 format.

And you probably should be making backup copies of your purchased tracks anyway.

[Russ D]

Don't blame me, blame Taylor - he brought the moral status of greed-in-the-abstract into the discussion.

How did you real 'moral status' into Taylor's post? Sounded like he was just pointing out the record company greed would cut into Apple greed.

[Jon H]

"That is what the people want (at least it is what I want, I can't speak for everyone)."

Given the market dominance of the iTunes store, it seems the people don't mind.

"THe problem with AllOfMp3.com, of course, is that the artists cannot possibly be making much, if any, money from the service."

Er, how about none? I'd expect that Russian mobsters make a fair amount of money from the site.

[Jon H]

Eric II writes: "Simply put, Apple's refused to have the iPod support these services natively out of a fear that it'll hurt iTunes sales."

Except those other services aren't remotely as popular as iTunes. Frankly, Apple doesn't have to allow the others onto the iPod because the competition can be safely ignored.

[Jon H]

jf writes:"Holy Christ, why is Jobs fighting the record companies on this point? Couldn't be a fear of losing profits himself, could it?"

Apple hardly makes any profit on the iTunes store, as it is.

Jobs if fighting the record companies because they're being their usual knucklehead selves.

If it was up to the record companies, there would be no music downloads, at all, for any price.

[fyodor]

Don't blame me, blame Taylor - he brought the moral status of greed-in-the-abstract into the discussion.

WTF? Actually Jobs apparently did. Taylor chose to address what Jobs said, sure, but then you chose to address what Taylor said. And I chose to address that, blah blah blah. Don't pass the buck!! Anyway, the difference is that using the concept of greed as an abstract bogeyman, applied to dissing those who want more without giving any reason why their wanting of more is bad, is dumb and silly, and Taylor is right to ridicule it. Maybe his blog-post would be more useful if he explained why it's ridiculous, but maybe it would be more tedious too. He chose just to call out Jobs and leave it at that. You disagree but don't say why. Which could be fair enough too, not every comment-post has to be a philosophical treatise. The problem as I see it, though, is that the liberal concept of "greed" is BASED on abstract platitudes divorced from genuine or real causations of harm. And that's why I challenge you to say more. Because maybe there's really nothing more for you to say! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA...

[rich]

jf writes:"Holy Christ, why is Jobs fighting the record companies on this point? Couldn't be a fear of losing profits himself, could it?"

never read articles about Apple's financials, do you JF? Apple basically covers its operational cost on the music store with a very small, very thin profit on top of that. The music store basically exists to sell iPods. If the record companies demand a higher per track minimum, Apple either jacks the per track price or takes a per track bath.

[joe]

"WTF? Actually Jobs apparently did."

Steve Jobs writes blog posts for Hit & Run? Really?? Where?

You see that blog post denouncing Jobs for denouncing greed? Jeff Taylor wrote that.

"Taylor is right to ridicule it." Just so I'm clear, because I've obviously been confused on this point before, does that mean that the morality is greed IS a legitimate topic of discussion now?

[fyodor]

ANYTHING'S A FUCKIN' LEGITIMATE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION!!!

But abstract accusations of greed are empty gestures that prop up the speaker without saying anything useful about what is or isn't specifically bad or wrong. And you used such abstractions to decry greed yourself, which is what I called you on. You then PASSED THE BUCK to Taylor, as if he started it. No, he ridiculed the stupid use of the idea of greed as an accusation, as used by Jobs. You were not somehow OBLIGED to support the notion that greed should be criticized in the abstract just because Taylor said it shouldn't be, and that was my point. There are specific expressions of greed that might be bad, and I gave a generalized statement to explain under what circumstances greed could be bad. Can you? Or are abstract pronouncements about how we shouldn't always laud making more all you have to offer on the subject? Oh yeah, then you can nitpick my posts in thoroughly pointless ways, that's right...

[joe]

How about abstract denunciation of abstract denunciations of greed in the abstract? Are they useful? Oh, I see those are ok.

This is a discussion of principles. Of course it's abstract.

Greed is bad when it encourages you to carry out anti-social actions, like hoarding or theft, and it is good when it encourages you to make positive contributions, like openning and maintaining a for-profit businesses that provides goods and services that people wish to pay for. Often, the distinction comes down to a difference in degree, not kind.

[Eric the .5b]

Greed is bad when it encourages you to carry out anti-social actions, like hoarding or theft, and it is good when it encourages you to make positive contributions, like openning and maintaining a for-profit businesses that provides goods and services that people wish to pay for. Often, the distinction comes down to a difference in degree, not kind.

I don't think that's true, any more than the difference between liberal support of welfare and marching off the rich to the guillotine is often a "difference in degree, not kind". (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

[Eric II]

Yes, I'm talking about songs purchased via iTunes.

If that's the case, you might want to tell this guy, seeing as how he's filed a lawsuit over the issue. You might also want to tell the judge presiding over the case, seeing as how he recently denied a motion by Apple to have the case dismissed.

Just for the record, I think the lawsuit is without merit, regardless of Apple's actual practices. But the point here isn't about the legality of the company's behavior, but about Steve Jobs' hypocrisy.

[dead_elvis]

Jobs is taking the right stand, I think for the right reasons- I suspect the "greed" cheap shot is just for PR, since this is going to be played out partly in the court of public opinion.

Apple was able to hit the sweet spot for music downloads, the nexus of price, convenience, DRM, and selection. Now that they did the work and took the financial risk, the record companies are complaining that they don't make enough from it. They just want to leech profit off of someone elses entrepenurial risk. Sorry, if you didn't risk your goose to shit the golden egg, you don't get to cash it in.

P.S. I wrote this like an hour ago and it wouldn't go through- how the hell are y'all posting?

[Eric II]

Except those other services aren't remotely as popular as iTunes. Frankly, Apple doesn't have to allow the others onto the iPod because the competition can be safely ignored.

It was a similar mindset that contributed to Apple's woes in the PC industry. That's something to keep in mind given that, for now at least, these services offer a capability that iTunes doesn't.

[fyodor]

joe,

Hoarding is bad, because it's anti-social???

Jeez.

And how do you know if someone is "hoarding"? You the elite can decide when someone has more than they need?

Anyway, so is the record industry being "anti-social" in this case?? I know everything can always be analyzed down to another level, but I think it's a helluva lot more self-evident and clear-cut what I mean by violating someone's rights than you do when you refer to "anti-social" actions.

[Eric the .5b]

P.S. I wrote this like an hour ago and it wouldn't go through- how the hell are y'all posting?

Hit post, waited, shrugged at it still processing, checked back after an hour, checked the page, didn't see my post. Tried again.

[fyodor]

Jobs is taking the right stand, I think for the right reasons- I suspect the "greed" cheap shot is just for PR, since this is going to be played out partly in the court of public opinion.

Taylor acknowledges the correctness of Jobs's stand. But it's still valid to take issue with his PR methodology. If we had an overtly racist society and he had used a racial epithet against someone in the record industry, those who do not appreciate such comments would have a good case to criticize him regardless of whether his overall stand was a good one. Not a perfect analogy, and of course using racial epithets is worse than exploiting the masses' emotional reaction to the word "greed", but the idea is the same. If the record industry was out to violate people's right, or, ahem, commit anti-social acts (ha-ha), then THAT'S what Jobs should be talking about. Greed in and of itself is irrelevant. Since even joe knows it's good sometimes, he even said so, right joe?

[dead_elvis]

Hit post, waited, shrugged at it still processing, checked back after an hour, checked the page, didn't see my post. Tried again.

Thanks, though I didn't necessarily need a literal answer 😉

I just think that we should expect better in the 21st century. None of the other forums I hang around have this problem.

[Eric the .5b]

Thanks, though I didn't necessarily need a literal answer 😉

It's not simply literal. 😉 The answer's as much of an implicit complaint about the system as the question is.

[Sandy]

The flaw in this argument is, of course, that record companies are really concerned about piracy. In fact, they're concerned about an alternate distribution model that would force them to adapt or change their business practices--or be cut out entirely. Their nightmare scenario is if an artist can become a big hit on iTunes without ever signing a contract with them.

That's the reason Al Gore sponsored restrictions on Digital Audio Tapes in return for his wife's record stickering campaign: to prevent the easy home-recording boom. As it turns out, hard drives snuck up and bypassed them.

None of this is new: they were lobbying LA to zone (eh? joe? nudge-nudge) home-based recording studios out of existence.

The threat for them is:

a) Cheap means of recording with professional results, widely distributed and outside of their control. (check)

b) Cheap means of distributing and publicizing said recordings without paying a coterie of lawyers and A&R men to keep up their cocaine habit. (check)

With that, who needs a record company?

Preserving their business model is the greed: jacking up iTunes prices to make a potential answer for b) above is just the means.

[jf]

never read articles about Apple's financials, do you JF? Apple basically covers its operational cost on the music store with a very small, very thin profit on top of that. The music store basically exists to sell iPods. If the record companies demand a higher per track minimum, Apple either jacks the per track price or takes a per track bath.

Hm. And if Apple has to raise it's prices high enough that it loses iPod sales, Apple loses profits, no? No reading of financials is necessary. I'm not saying Jobs doesn't have the right to do what he's doing, but we've equally greedy people opposing each other, and I don't care who wins. I'll still get my music untraceably through USENET mp3 groups, with the occasional LimeWire download.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

You are right about record companies being blind to new realities. I mean how dumb do they have to be to continually raise prices on CDs while they are getting competition from online services. Instead of realising the music industry has changed they have resorted to sueing their customers/potential customers. The logic is just completely insane.

iTunes has done a hell of a lot to help emerging acts get out from under the crushing control of the majors. If the majors had their way the only people with access to the large pool of potential customers would be them.

[bardp]

"iPods in the case of chronically insecure hipsters"

I thought I bought an iPod because it made possible carrying my whole cd collection with me while driving from Maine to North Carolina, but apparently I'm just insecure.

Look, Jeff. Maybe you don't want an iPod or don't see why people can't just keep using cassettes or vinyl or whatever it is you personally use. That doesn't mean that everyone who wants one is some sort of sheep.