“Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99.” That’s an excerpt from an email sent by Apple co-founder Steve Jobs to James Murdoch of News Corporation (which owns this site) that figures prominently in the Department of Justice’s looming e-book price fixing case against Apple. The DOJ claims it’s clear evidence that Apple conspired with Murdoch’s HarperCollins imprint and other publishing companies to raise e-book prices and undermine Amazon’s $9.99 e-book pricing model. And, taken out of context, it might be. But put in context, with the other dozen or so sentences in the message that contained it, that line seems a little less damaging. Certainly, it doesn’t quite imply that the two execs are about to embark on a “caper” . Read as a whole, Jobs’s email doesn’t have quite the conspiratorial tone the DOJ suggests. The late Apple co-founder doesn’t seem to be presenting $12.99 and $14.99 as hard and fast prices, but as price caps in broader pricing tiers. And he openly concedes that the agency model he’s proposing may well fail and that publishers who opt against may succeed. “We simply don’t think the e-book market can be successful with pricing higher than $12.99 or $14.99,” Jobs wrote. “Heck, Amazon is selling these books at $9.99, and who knows maybe they are right and we will fail even at $12.99. But we’re willing to try at the prices we proposed. We are not willing to try at higher prices, because we are pretty sure we’ll all fail.” Now this is but one piece of evidence in a much larger case. And the DOJ does claim to have other evidence that reflects poorly on Apple, specifically testimony that suggests it used its prowess in the apps market to push reticent partners into signing its e-books deal. But in this particular case, it does seem to have cherry-picked a quote for maximum effect.
Read MoreYes, Google plans to launch a subscription music service this week , via its Google Play store. And yes, Google still plans to launch a separate subscription music service, later this year, via its YouTube site. Make sense? Of course not. It makes lots of sense for both YouTube and Play, which was built for Google’s Android devices, to sell music subscriptions. YouTube is the world’s biggest free music service, which could make it a fantastic funnel for a Spotify-like paid offering, which can also help solve some problems with the music labels . And if you’re going to have the world’s dominant mobile platform, then you ought to be the one selling music subscriptions that work on it, because that could help your customers stick to that platform. No sense in handing that feature over to Spotify, which works fine on iPhones and Kindles, too. And something that knitted Android and YouTube together — combing a mix of free, paid, mobile, audio and video — could be great. But that’s not what we’re going to see this week. Music folks I talked today expect the Google Play version to be paid only — no free teaser tier, like Spotify has — and without any features that will set it apart from rivals. And when YouTube launches its service — as best as I can tell, talks with big 3 labels are all but completed — that service will likely run parallel to, but not connected with, the Play version. Which means none of the free music people can get on YouTube will help sell Play subscriptions. This set-up supposedly stems from former Android boss Andy Rubin’s insistence on controlling his own fiefdom (“Andy and [YouTube head] Salar Kamangar couldn’t be in the same room together,” says a music executive who has worked with both of them.) But now we’re in the Sundar Pichai era , and he says he’s all about peace and love . I’ve heard people in and outside of Google suggest that at some point, down the line, the two services could knitted together, eventually. After all, just because something gets announced at Google I/O doesn’t mean it will show up . And getting something out there before it’s fully baked is standard operating procedure for Google. But music subscriptions are an old idea that still really haven’t caught on in a big way
Read MoreIt has been a month since Facebook released Home, the company’s take on a socialized operating system built atop Android. And at a press event this week, Facebook talked about how the app has done in its first weeks on the market. The verdict thus far? Not exactly a home run. Consider this: Home’s project leads Cory Ondrejka and Adam Mosseri said the app was nearing a million downloads as of this week. Sound impressive? Look at it this way: One million downloads of Facebook Home is less than .1 percent of Facebook’s entire monthly active user base, now topping 1.1 billion people every month. And as the company disclosed in its last earnings call, more than 750 million of those people visit Facebook regularly via mobile device. Put simply, one million downloads is a drop in the social ocean. Not that that matters to Facebook, which insists that it’s not that concerned with low numbers, even if some think they should be. “[The number of downloads is] not really important to us,” Mosseri told reporters . “What’s important to us is if people are liking the apps a lot.” Update 3:15 p.m. PT, with further release context: User satisfaction, in this case, is the thrust of Facebook’s rollout strategy for Home, according to the company. Though Home is available for download globally, right now only five Android devices are capable of installing the software — a small amount compared to the hundreds of available Android handsets on the market. Facebook frames this as intentional; release slowly to select devices, and you can listen and fine-tune the product in future software updates, ultimately making the users happy. (That’s the goal, at least.) While it might be unusual for Facebook to dismiss download numbers — particularly in the long term — it’s fair for the company to put user experience and uptake first. The problem is that Facebook didn’t break out how many of those downloads actually resulted in installs and prolonged use of the application. Downloads, after all, do not imply continued or even occasional usage.
Read MoreAmazon is exporting “Vikings”, the hit drama from A&E’s History cable network, to Europe, via its Lovefilm movie service. The axes-and-helmets drama, which started airing in the U.S. this year, will stream exclusively on Amazon’s Lovefilm Instant service later this month, bypassing cable and other outlets.
Read MoreThe currency of the 21st century digital economy is your personal information. It has no transaction costs and does not decrease in value when the supply increases. Contrary to the laws of economics, it may even increase in value with greater supply. The more information you provide to companies, the more value they can extract from it. Now that 21st century digital behemoths such as Facebook and Google have discovered how to make personal information the most valuable resource in the history of humanity, they are strip-mining mountains of it into completely unrecognizable states. Conversely, we tend to ignore this process because the most magnificent, technologically advanced and socially connected digital city is being built from it. You are living in this growing digital city, and I’m guessing that you really like it here. Unfortunately, you can’t live in this city for free.
Read MoreSeeking to put a twist on the typical close-to-the-vest development process the entertainment business has made standard practice, Amazon has given its massive user base access to samples of content that Amazon Studios is considering greenlighting.
Read MoreIt’s no secret that Amazon has very big ambitions when it comes to digital media. But the company doesn’t ever say much about them, save for the occasional Jeff Bezos product roll out. But here’s the guy to ask: Bill Carr, who heads up Amazon’s digital music and digital video groups, which now include Amazon Studios, the unit that is going to make original movies and TV shows for the e-commerce giant. Carr doesn’t talk much, but last week I got the chance to sit down with him at Amazon’s Seattle headquarters. Amazon is as tight-lipped as Apple when it comes to new product discussions — or lots of other stuff you and I would like hear about — so I didn’t even bother asking him about Amazon’s new TV box (Still: count on it ). But if you read between the lines, you should at least be able to get a sense of what Amazon is thinking as it contemplates beefing up its music offerings, and as it goes head-to-head with Netflix (and everyone else) in digital video. Here’s an edited version of our chat: Peter Kafka: A couple years ago, Amazon and Google and Apple were all racing to develop music locker services. But we don’t hear much about them anymore. How is Amazon’s locker working? Bill Carr: The fundamental things about cloud music storage that works for all consumers is that it backs up everything, it’s in a safe place
Read MoreAfter expanding into hardware creation with the Kindle, the Kindle Fire tablet and a rumored smart phone , Amazon is developing a proprietary TV set-top box.
Read More
