PDA

View Full Version : Apple sets tune for pricing of song downloads


MacBytes
May 1, 2006, 06:42 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Apple Services
Link: Apple sets tune for pricing of song downloads (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060501194205)
Description:: Apple Computer on Monday revealed it had renewed contracts with the four largest record companies to sell songs through its iTunes digital store at 99 cents each. The agreements came after months of bargaining, and were a defeat for music companies that had been pushing for a variable pricing model.

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

otter-boy
May 1, 2006, 06:54 PM
If I actually believed that the record companies would price songs below 99 cents, I would've been all for variable pricing, but as it is, I believe that Apple did the best thing for consumers (for now).

bluebomberman
May 1, 2006, 07:03 PM
Woohoo! Score one for the good guys!

yankeefan24
May 1, 2006, 07:10 PM
As I once said, "If a song is 99, i may buy 10. But if the price was $1.50, I would buy 6." More songs sold is better for the music industry overall because there is more publicity for that song. I buy some songs because I hear them at a friends, from someone who bought it off of iTunes. If that person decided, that song isn't as good as these, and he/she doesn't buy it, I may never buy it.


Total Score: Apple 1, IRAA 0.

mkrishnan
May 1, 2006, 07:10 PM
Nice work for Apple. :)

Xavier
May 1, 2006, 07:19 PM
I love having the price of a song be 99 cents. It lets me send that lone dollar I have here and there. But if the cost of one song goes any higher, say 1.50, then iTunes has lost my buisness. I don't have lost of money to spend on music, but the idea of spending close to 2 dollars for a song is horrible.

Stridder44
May 1, 2006, 07:58 PM
http://www.msghelp.net/images/old_news.jpg


Anyway, this is very good! Im glad to see Apple told the record companies to shove it with their variable song prices. How long do these contracts last I wonder?

nagromme
May 1, 2006, 08:14 PM
Contract length is a question: the last paragraph suggests that these might be short-term contacts while negotiations continue. Still, better then the speculation that labels would continue without any agreement, and might pull out shortly.

(But how is this old news? It happened today.)

EricNau
May 1, 2006, 08:16 PM
I was very curious to see who would win. Ahh, who am I kidding? I knew it would be Jobs all along. :p

Analog Kid
May 1, 2006, 08:37 PM
As I once said, "If a song is 99, i may buy 10. But if the price was $1.50, I would buy 6." More songs sold is better for the music industry overall because there is more publicity for that song. I buy some songs because I hear them at a friends, from someone who bought it off of iTunes. If that person decided, that song isn't as good as these, and he/she doesn't buy it, I may never buy it.


Total Score: Apple 1, IRAA 0.
And if they were a dime, I'd be trolling iTMS bulking up my music collection as fast as I could.

wyatt23
May 1, 2006, 09:00 PM
idk, i remeber reading that songs could go as low 30-50 cents. i think that would be better for bands that aren't going to be able to sell songs for 99c each. like indie bands and alt rock.... however, it'd be smarter to sell the next sean paul single for 1.30 - 1.50 because he isn't going to release a good album, just a good song.


[i'm only using sean paul as an example, he could be good ;) ]


but point being... sell more of the songs that you WON'T sell for 99c per song, and make more money off of the songs you are DEFINATELY going to sell.


variable pricing is only bad if you only like the most popular things.

p0intblank
May 1, 2006, 10:42 PM
Thank you!!! :D It's good to hear the 99 cents price tag is here to stay (for now).

macnulty
May 3, 2006, 09:49 PM
idk, i remeber reading that songs could go as low 30-50 cents. i think that would be better for bands that aren't going to be able to sell songs for 99c each. like indie bands and alt rock.... however, it'd be smarter to sell the next sean paul single for 1.30 - 1.50 because he isn't going to release a good album, just a good song.


[i'm only using sean paul as an example, he could be good ;) ]


but point being... sell more of the songs that you WON'T sell for 99c per song, and make more money off of the songs you are DEFINATELY going to sell.


variable pricing is only bad if you only like the most popular things.

I understand your point but 99 cents is the sweet point in pricing. A 30 cent song has no value, and if I thought the record companies would hold pricing at a buck fifty you might have a case. The tell tale sign of record company intentions is ring tone pricing.