PDA

View Full Version : Detroit News asks: Would you prefer iTunes' current fixed p...


MacBytes
Aug 27, 2005, 02:27 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Polls
Link: Detroit News asks: Would you prefer iTunes' current fixed pricing or a new variable pricing model? (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050827142703)

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

nagromme
Aug 27, 2005, 07:48 PM
For purely selfish reasons? I'd want whatever came out ahead for MY specific habits, and that depends on exactly HOW much each song cost, so I can't answer.

Except I can: I'd want it to stay fixed. Becauce variable opens the door for the RIAA to play games I don't want them playing, a la Japan.

And for consumers in general, simplicity is a big benefit of iTunes. Look at the bad reviews of other download services with variable pricing (and even terms). Confusion is bad.

There's enough confusion in iTunes due to the few "album only" songs. If the labels want to play games with new releases they can do it that way for a while. Don't give them any more tools to pester music shoppers.

It would seem that the poll agrees with me :)

PlaceofDis
Aug 27, 2005, 07:50 PM
fixed. duh. its not broken, they don't have anything to fix.

hob
Aug 27, 2005, 08:35 PM
Gee, I wonder if Apple, like all corporations, will look at it from the perspectives of 1) profits and 2) remaining competitive? Perhaps they'll let users choose from Plan A or Plan B to try to capture market share. A cost-benefit analysis in the boardroom will decide this one, not pressure from anyone.
If Apple were in this for the profits they'd have been straight out the door, I hear they barely make a cent on each song?

mkrishnan
Aug 27, 2005, 08:51 PM
If Apple were in this for the profits they'd have been straight out the door, I hear they barely make a cent on each song?

Apple *is* in it for a profit ... just a hardware profit. ;)

I dunno about the record execs' ideas about variable pricing...that is, I'm not so sure they'll really spur any sales. As for me purchasing, I suspect that the music I want falls on the lower end of the popularity scale, for the most part... but I'm not sure.

I just want to see more music availability in the store.

winmacguy
Aug 28, 2005, 02:51 AM
If Apple were in this for the profits they'd have been straight out the door, I hear they barely make a cent on each song?
whats 500,000,000+ x .5c = $$$

Alkard
Aug 28, 2005, 08:28 AM
iTunes because they own an iPod. I've used iTunes, and other music managers I feel are as intuitive and easy to use.
With the subscription music services out there (Rhapsody, MusicMatch, Napster, and most notably Yahoo! Music Engine), I'm surprised people aren't embracing these services over iTunes and other traditional music purchase options.
You can pay the $0.99 a song, or some variation on that, or you could, for instance, pay just $60 a year to Yahoo! and have access to over 1 million songs that are transferrable to a portable player and your PC. Don't want to be tied to digital rights management? Use a utility like Replay Music or MuvAudio to rerecord the tracks minus DRM and put the music where ever you'd like.

Frankly, I'm surprised this scenario doesn't occur to more people...

mkrishnan
Aug 28, 2005, 09:24 AM
whats 500,000,000+ x .5c = $$$

500M songs * $0.005/song (your figure) = $2.5M dollars. That is substantially less than 1% of the $320M in profits Apple reported in fiscal Q3/05 (and that's comparing one QUARTER of profits to everything ever sold on iTMS, isn't it?)....

Stella
Aug 28, 2005, 09:51 AM
Fixed sum, definitely.

Once again, the music industry is getting too greedy. Their overwhelming lust for more and more profits drive music piracy. They fail to address or acknowledge the issues of high prices == more piracy. Music is way over priced, with very little quality.

Online music costs record companies extremely little - there are no duplication costs, no media costs - i.e., blank CDs, packaging etc, yet they expect consumers to pay the same or nearly the same amount for CD singles. WTF.

Its called Ripping Off the consumer.

I really want to see the day when artists can bypass Record companies and offer their material directly to online music stores.

As well as ripping off the consumer, record companies, of course, rip off the artists.

As for subscription.. if prices are jacked up due to record company demands - pay $xx for one month subscription and audio hijack all the music you want...

Where is DVD Jon? Its about time he cracked WMA DRM isn't it?

JeDiBoYTJ
Aug 28, 2005, 10:40 PM
In a way, iTunes is already using Variable pricing. Not for individual songs, but for albums. if you look, some albums have 12-13 tracks, and sell for $9.99 at the store, while other albums that have 13+tracks go for a couple bucks more