PDA

View Full Version : iTunes income substantial for music partners


MacBytes
May 11, 2007, 08:45 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Tunes
Link: iTunes income substantial for music partners (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20070511094526)
Description:: none

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

whooleytoo
May 11, 2007, 10:15 AM
Yikes. Half a penny per track sold on Ruckus? Only a thousand tracks sold on Real? (he said it as a real sale figure rather than a hypothetical, that can't be true?)

Not good figures there for the labels or the other stores.

PlaceofDis
May 11, 2007, 10:16 AM
Yikes. Half a penny per track sold on Ruckus? Only a thousand tracks sold on Real? (he said it as a real sale figure rather than a hypothetical, that can't be true?)

Not good figures there for the labels or the other stores.

the real one i believe, they push for their subscription model. which Real probably gets the majority of. and no way to track per-song basis.

mkrishnan
May 11, 2007, 10:24 AM
This is exactly the reason iTunes should get its head out of the sand and adopt the subscription model of all the other stores before it gets run over. ;)

And also, P.S., it *has* been a while since there have been rumors that the labels would force iTunes into differential pricing for different artists and higher prices than $0.99 per track in the US, etc., hasn't it? Granted that EMI is selling $1.29 DRM-free tracks, otherwise, nothing like this has come to fruition. And now, the cat is out of the bag that the record labels are doing much better financially with iTS than with competitors. Gasp. Shock.

PlaceofDis
May 11, 2007, 10:28 AM
This is exactly the reason iTunes should get its head out of the sand and adopt the subscription model of all the other stores before it gets run over. ;)

And also, P.S., it *has* been a while since there have been rumors that the labels would force iTunes into differential pricing for different artists and higher prices than $0.99 per track in the US, etc., hasn't it? Granted that EMI is selling $1.29 DRM-free tracks, otherwise, nothing like this has come to fruition. And now, the cat is out of the bag that the record labels are doing much better financially with iTS than with competitors. Gasp. Shock.

mind you, its Apple setting the price at $1.29/track for the non-drm'ed ones, not EMI. but they probably worked out the price-point and reasoning for it amongst themselves. in other words, sell more songs via pushing album sales over track sales.

whooleytoo
May 11, 2007, 10:36 AM
This is exactly the reason iTunes should get its head out of the sand and adopt the subscription model of all the other stores before it gets run over. ;)

While the general subscription model is something I don't care for, I quite like eMusic's version of a subscription model - effectively you subscribe to a certain number of tracks per month; if you leave you still own them.

It encourages people to buy a lot more music, cheaply; rather than buy fewer tracks for a lot more.

mkrishnan
May 11, 2007, 10:40 AM
It encourages people to buy a lot more music, cheaply; rather than buy fewer tracks for a lot more.

So essentially, it provides you with a discount purchase price as long as you purchase at a steady rate? That sounds like a reasonable system.

whooleytoo
May 11, 2007, 11:01 AM
So essentially, it provides you with a discount purchase price as long as you purchase at a steady rate? That sounds like a reasonable system.

Exactly. The downsides being the lack of iTunes' simplicity and flexibility. The advantages the price and no DRM.

Analog Kid
May 11, 2007, 11:10 PM
While the general subscription model is something I don't care for, I quite like eMusic's version of a subscription model - effectively you subscribe to a certain number of tracks per month; if you leave you still own them.

It encourages people to buy a lot more music, cheaply; rather than buy fewer tracks for a lot more.
I'm with you, sounds like a reasonable system. Wouldn't want it to be my only choice, mind you...

I think the volume upside is what a lot of these companies are missing here-- both in music and video. They've driven their per-unit cost to pretty darn close to zero so driving the volume up is a sure win.

dontmatter
May 12, 2007, 10:35 PM
Exactly. The downsides being the lack of iTunes' simplicity and flexibility. The advantages the price and no DRM.

Eh, more than that. It's like a cell phone plan- make you choose in advance how much you are going to need, even though there is no need for this to be the case, except that it forces you to buy more just in case, to get a good deal. And then there will always be those months when you don't use nearly as much as you thought you would, but you paid for it. This model is better than subscriptions where you loose the music you don't use, but it has to offer a great deal to interest me.

spydr
May 14, 2007, 08:36 PM
Exactly. The downsides being the lack of iTunes' simplicity and flexibility. The advantages the price and no DRM.Isn't another significant drawback the lack of a lot of the mainstream songs? While I have enjoyed their indi and foreign selection (indian classical and bollywood songs!) that was about it for me. Perhaps it has changed in recent times...