PDA

View Full Version : Labels may force 2006 iTunes price hike


MacBytes
Aug 6, 2005, 12:33 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Labels may force 2006 iTunes price hike (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050806003357)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

redAPPLE
Aug 6, 2005, 01:30 AM
does this news only count for Japan?

mkrishnan
Aug 6, 2005, 01:45 AM
It looks like the price re-negotiation part is a worldwide issue. This has been in the news several times, with labels pushing Apple for price hikes. I really hope Apple does not cave. The labels are incorrigible.... :(

iMeowbot
Aug 6, 2005, 01:51 AM
The labels' cut is already pretty healthy for downloads, they need to rack up 20-65 streams to get the same elsewhere.

Format warring is going to be the bigger issue, and the Sony/BMG catalog is a pretty big stick for demanding Walkman compatibility.

snowdog
Aug 6, 2005, 03:11 AM
I highly doubt this rumour.
It's not very professional signing a deal like this, just to have it redone a year later.

Apple has earlier denied similar rumors.
Stating that the deals are for 5 years.

Loge
Aug 6, 2005, 03:18 AM
It's hard to see how download prices can rise very far without making it more expensive to download than purchase a CD. Despite the impulse factor of downloads, I think people still regard a CD purchase as being worth more. And with labels being squeezed by Wal-Mart and others on CD pricing, I don't see much scope for those increasing either.

iMeowbot
Aug 6, 2005, 03:40 AM
Apple has earlier denied similar rumors.
Stating that the deals are for 5 years.
Is there a source for that five year term?

Apple PR people have used the term "multi-year agreements" (which would mean at least two years), but Apple financial statements expand on this:
The Company’s licensing arrangements with these third-party content providers are short-term in nature and do not guarantee the future renewal of these arrangements at commercially reasonable terms, if at all. Certain parties in the music industry have announced their intent to consolidate their music distribution operations, which could limit the availability and increase the fees required to offer music content to customers through the iTunes Music Store.

mainstreetmark
Aug 6, 2005, 09:14 AM
Labels may force 2006 iTunes price hike

In other news, Labels may force a 2006 piracy hike.

PlaceofDis
Aug 6, 2005, 09:17 AM
In other news, Labels may force a 2006 piracy hike.

i thought the exact same thing....

mainstreetmark
Aug 6, 2005, 11:20 AM
i thought the exact same thing....

And you just know they'll start suing everybody "on behalf of the artists", and generally make it sound like >WE< are the greedy tomato overlords.

wdlove
Aug 6, 2005, 11:40 AM
I hope that the labels won't be successful at this venture. My trust is in Steve to rule the day.

snowdog
Aug 7, 2005, 12:11 PM
Is there a source for that five year term?

Apple PR people have used the term "multi-year agreements" (which would mean at least two years), but Apple financial statements expand on this:

Sorry mate, my bad :o
It was probably this article that I was referring to.
http://www.themacobserver.com/article/2004/05/07.11.shtml

You are completely right, the term was "multi-year agreement".
Hopefully though, so was the deal in Japan. Which means we wont see a higher price in 2006.

iMeowbot
Aug 7, 2005, 01:34 PM
Sorry mate, my bad :o
It was probably this article that I was referring to.
http://www.themacobserver.com/article/2004/05/07.11.shtml

Darn, I was hoping you had seen that five year thing in writing. I know that the standard Apple term for small labels is three years, but the arrangements with the big four (as usual) seem to be cloaked in secrecy :mad:

Chip NoVaMac
Aug 9, 2005, 06:24 PM
And you just know they'll start suing everybody "on behalf of the artists", and generally make it sound like >WE< are the greedy tomato overlords.

But don't you see, we are the greedy ones. First we wanted our music for free. When the RIAA made good on threats of lawsuits, we turned to Apple's "affordable" .99 cents a song - where we could choose not to buy the filler crap.

Consumers and the media industry share equal blame IMO. We as consumers demand that we get more choices in where to spend our entertainment $. Hence for the most part, gone are the single screen theaters - replaced by the 10 to 20 screen giants. Something has to fill those screens, so we end up with garbage thrown at us - and the industry cries when they can't make decent returns.

In music, you had the likes of Billy Joel and Queen that produced albums that were IMO - musical events on tape (now CD). But now we as consumers want so much more. You want a Gay African-American Country-Western singer with a Reggae beat? They will deliver it to you. But segregation of the market costs money in the labels eyes.

The mega profits from the likes of Coldplay are not something that the labels want to share in order to meet the consumers tastes. Yet the consumer is like lemmings falling in to the sea.

We keep paying what ever price it takes to keep us happy. $10 to $20 for a CD? Sure I'll buy it. $20 to $40 for the latest DVD? What the heck, I'll take that too. Concert or sporting event tickets and associated costs of the evening totaling more than $100 to $200 a person? Bring it on. Never mind that we also have to sit through ads of one type or another, just make me happy.

But if we as consumers would vote with our $, the companies would have to listen. Just look at the success that GM had with the employee pricing for everyone deal. People who would have never considered GM, flocked to the stores. And GM has seen the light and will offer lower pricing in 2006.