Live data from Hacker News

The trouble with Steve Jobs

money.cnn.com

31–32 of 32 posts

Re: The trouble with Steve Jobs

#31
post #11

This line worries me: "...chafe at his insistence on setting uniform prices for their songs and videos on iTunes..." because it ignores keen business insight by presenting it as another example of Jobs's mercurial nature. Joel does a good job of explaining why this is important. It is about the way that the music industry uses pricing as a signal. And Jobs wants to own that signal: "And Apple? Apple wants the signali…

Ironically, fixed prices means people are able to afford to buy more music and help the less popular artists earn more money. Incidentally it also makes the more popular artists easier to hear and thus more popular.

Control or not, Jobs' fixing the price is a good thing for the music industry. A book is usually around $5 for paperback, a movie is usually around $10 in theaters, yet the price of CDs vary from popular to unpopular and that doesn't make any sense.

I regularly buy books I'm not 100% sure I'll like, because it's $5. I go see movies I'm not 100% sure I'll like, because it is ALWAYS $10. I don't buy music I'm not 100% sure I'll like, because it can cost $20 for a popular CD. I've bought DVD boxsets for $20! That's a damn months entertainment for less than a 40-minute album.

The only music I ever buy without hearing nearly every song on the album is from bands I know I like. The problem with this is that I'm a huge music fan, and I can't even remember if I've ever gone a day without listening to music in the last decade; yet I hardly buy any new music, because I can't justify the price risk of getting something bad. I mean its two movies, four books and thats if I'm not going for the $1.50 books off amazon. I once bought around 15 books of amazon because they were all cheap as hell, I haven't even read some of them but the author and publisher still made money off of me, no artist or music company gets free money from me when I'm admittedly stupid enough to allow them to if they had good prices.

Re: The trouble with Steve Jobs

#32
post #6

honestly- having to disclose cancer? WTF! - isn't that personal?

Well, no, not when the price of your publicly-traded stock hinges on whether or not you're at the helm.

If you've got untreatable cancer then yeah you should be forced to disclose. However cancer invokes more fear than there is actual risk, if I get skin cancer its 100% treatable, some forms don't even need treating because its merely a skin growth with no health risk except maybe an infection if you cut it off with a blunt knife. Yet if a CEO announced they had 'skin cancer' the stock would drop, even if it is one of the benign forms that doctors treat with wart removers.

I think saving the investors from themselves should be just as big a concern. He is predicted with survival past 10 years, which IIRC the average age of death with someone having that prognosis is in fact only a few years shorter than the average age of death. If Jobs getting cancer means he kicks it at 78 instead of 82, I don't see why it should be disclosed immediately or at all.

Post reply on HN