Amazon and Wal-Mart MP3 Stores Adopt Variable Pricing

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/04/08/amazon-and-wal-mart-mp3-stores-adopt-variable-pricing/)

Just after Apple instituted variable pricing (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/04/07/itunes-variable-pricing-live-more-countries-supported/) for music in the iTunes Store, Electronista noticed (http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/04/07/amazon.mp3.raises.prices/) that Amazon and Wal-Mart have followed suit in their MP3 download stores.The quiet price hike confirms that Apple's unofficial switchover date for variable pricing on its store is part of a larger move to raise prices across the industry. Concerns had been raised that the music industry might target Apple specifically after an initial comparison of prices this morning had suggested only iTunes was carrying the higher prices. Major music labels have publicly expressed a desire for such pricing after the emphasis on single downloads over albums, as well as plummeting CD sales, hurt the traditional music industry as a whole.Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/MP3-Music-Download/b/?ie=UTF8&node=163856011), which had previously offered a standard $0.99 price point, is now offering approximately eight of its top 100 bestselling tracks (http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/dmusic/digital-music-track) at $1.29, with a handful of others priced at $0.79 and the vast majority still priced at $0.99. Wal-Mart (http://mp3.walmart.com/store/home), which had previously offered individual tracks for $0.94 and late last year began offering its top hits at $0.74, has also adopted a three-tiered model with $1.24, $0.94 and $0.64 price points. Approximately 15 of its Top 100 Singles (http://mp3.walmart.com/store/tracksList?targetType=TOP_TRACKS&showFilter=true&disableZeros=false&maxItems=100) are currently priced at $1.24.

As Seth Weintraub points out at Computerworld (http://blogs.computerworld.com/itunes_amazon_apple_variable_pricing_store_99_cents), tracks are not necessarily offered at the same relative price points across the different stores. Apple currently has a significantly greater percentage of its tracks priced at $1.29, with many of these same tracks still being offered at $0.99 (or even $0.79 in some cases) at Amazon or $0.94 at Wal-Mart, suggesting that Apple is receiving different pricing from the record labels than its competitors.Sources at Apple tell me that Apple is getting different prices than Amazon from the recording idustry. The record companies are, and have been for awhile, favoring Amazon. In fact, Amazon is selling songs for less than the price that Apple pays for them in some cases.

Article Link: Amazon and Wal-Mart MP3 Stores Adopt Variable Pricing (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/04/08/amazon-and-wal-mart-mp3-stores-adopt-variable-pricing/)

[trudd]

guess it was only a matter of time before singles cost more than b-sides.

it's good news for us who don't usually download singles :D

[talkingfuture]

Thats strange, yesterday Amazon UK dropped their top 100 to £0.29 ! Thought they might do a similar offer in the US, it takes the edge off the rises elsewhere in the catalogue.

[bobbyroller]

more price hikes?:mad:

[nathbeadle]

This is what they wanted... the studios. Variable pricing means they can stick it somewhat to Apple as they set the price. When everything was 99 cents three was equal ground but now they can have Apple charge more and let Amazon or Walmart charge less .... they can control the balance more than previously possible.

[tbobmccoy]

more price hikes?:mad:

I really wonder still why the record industry thinks that raising the price of a commodity in a recession/depression is a good idea to stifle piracy. :rolleyes:

[RTiii320]

I don't use Amazon or Wal-mart music options but they were definitely going to follow along with the price increases.

[Tones2]

Wow - a 30% - 40% price hike. Might as well buy the physical CD instead.

Tony

[Full of Win]

Anyway you cut it, we the consumers got screwed.

[Airforcekid]

I will stick with iTunes and limesire for the stuff not on there. 

[LillieDesigns]

Hey record companies, I don't feel like playing 2 dollars for song when tax is added.

People are making less money, that means they are going to stop paying for things they really don't need to pay for. Imagine if a car salesman used this logic:

'Oh, you can't afford a $30,000 car? Let's bump the price up to $40,000 and call it a deal.'

I hate record labels.

[casik]

I think it's silly to give certain music distributors favorable pricing. Apple did digital music right from the beginning, so why should they suffer now with more expensive prices. I don't mind the variable pricing, but for goodness sakes record lables be fair to all the distributors.

[themacintoshman]

I'd think amazon and wal-mart would use this against apple, saying they were charging too much per song, but no, they do the same thing. Intresting.

[Gherkin]

I'm fine with this as albums are still at $9.99.

Guess this sucks for people who just cherry pick songs here and there and listen to pop radio. Too bad for you!

[psingh01]

I won't pay more than $0.99 for a single.

[dwd3885]

Didn't expect this. But still seems like Amazon has many more hits that are .99 instead of the majority of iTunes that are 1.29

[instaxgirl]

Thats strange, yesterday Amazon UK dropped their top 100 to £0.29 ! Thought they might do a similar offer in the US, it takes the edge off the rises elsewhere in the catalogue.

I just noticed this too! Went to Amazon UK to see if prices had bounced up and ended up buying a couple of tracks instead! :D

But on increasing prices the music industry can get stuffed. I prefer buying physical to digital media anyway and I'm perfectly happy to sit around waiting for sales and deals if digital prices go up.

[redrabbit]

I really wonder still why the record industry thinks that raising the price of a commodity in a recession/depression is a good idea to stifle piracy. :rolleyes:


I've always wondered why random people on the internet always think they could run a company better, with no experience or knowledge on how they would really act in a situation like running a multi-million dollar corporation during a recession. :rolleyes:

[pacohaas]

Can someone make a "pricecheck" app for the iPhone and/or a webapp that will tell me which store has a given song for the cheapest price and link me to that store for purchase/download?

[sushi]

Seems like the record companies want to be able to increase their pricing.

Apple was smart to make everything at 99 cents. Now with this variable pricing, you can expect costs to go up for the popular tracks/albums.

The only way this will change is if enough individuals vote with their pocket books and not purchase the higher priced songs.

[mdntcallr]

interesting to see that pricing has changed. while it looks like the majority of tracks at still the same 99 Cents, frontline greatest hits or hit singles have gone up a little. which doesn't seem to have effected pricing at the album basis.

But... it's strange to see that amazon doesn't get same price points now that it is more of a level playing field, my bet is that pricing will align more on a standard to close to all the price points for what iTunes sells it for. and ... i bet that Microsoft zune store and others will shortly fall into similar line.

my guess is that music companies have been feeling pain on the sales that have been coming in for their "hits" and needed to align their prices to get a bit more income from one off sales. but the nice side is that album pricing doesn't seem to have changed, which is smart. people will be incentivized to actually.... buy albums. which... would actually support artists ... go figure.

[Cassie]

God d*** it Amazon. I was beginning to like you more and more, now this.

I guess it's not a huge deal, since I don't like any of the bestselling songs, never have, but still.

[nagromme]

The only way this will change is if enough individuals vote with their pocket books and not purchase the higher priced songs.

I can't imagine the music labels would give up this system that they fought so hard (with Apple, at least) to get... but the NUMBER of songs that get the higher price in future will be affected by sales. So count me in on your 1.29 boycott :)

...
I guess it's not a huge deal, since I don't like any of the bestselling songs, never have, but still.

Same here. The boycott won't be hard for me really!

[Xavier]

Another 30 cents here, another 30 cents there..

what else do you want from us record labels?

[redrabbit]

So, how long before we don't even need record companies? I mean, it seems like it's easier than ever for a musician to record with their own money/equipment, and to release a single on the internet without any need for a larger company to handle all that promotion for you...

[pr5owner]

you people enjoy being ripped of and i dont understand why,

emusic is far cheaper for the same track, better quality
mp3sparks is a fraction of the cost and you get to CHOOSE your quality (although they should just make all tracks 320kbps)

[xsecretfiles]

I am screwed, but you know what screw them I am going back to PB and the other torrent sites

[Morod]

If it means buying fewer songs, so be it. Apple has the best quality, IMHO. I just bought Jeff Beck's version of Amazing Grace yesterday on iTunes. Still only $.99.
Morod

[bokonon]

And THAT is exactly what the record companies want.

Can someone make a "pricecheck" app for the iPhone and/or a webapp that will tell me which store has a given song for the cheapest price and link me to that store for purchase/download?

[Consultant]

Of course, any people with half a brain would see this coming...

Record labels were unsuccessful in getting iTunes to raise prices,
thus they provided temporary competition, forcing iTunes to follow
what record labels want, and then got rid of competition.

Damn greedy record labels. Hope people won't get fooled again anytime soon.

[rdowns]

Hey record companies, I don't feel like playing 2 dollars for song when tax is added.


Exaggerate much? :rolleyes:

[shanmugam]

how does emusic compares with iTunes and Amazon Mp3

signed up with emusic for 35 free downloads :cool:

who is the thrid largest online music followed by iTunes, Amazon?

[theBB]

At least Apple announced the new pricing scheme months in advance. I'm surprised that a similar scheme is put in place at the other stores at the same time.

[Goona]

I've always wondered why random people on the internet always think they could run a company better, with no experience or knowledge on how they would really act in a situation like running a multi-million dollar corporation during a recession. :rolleyes:

Hehehe, this is especially true with Apple, so many dudes here think they know better than the people running the company.

[instaxgirl]

you people enjoy being ripped of and i dont understand why,

emusic is far cheaper for the same track, better quality


True. But it's also a subscription service (or was when I was signed up to it)

[JayMan8081]

I'm not too happy that because of Apple going to variable pricing everyone else has to follow suit. Hopefully Amazon will be able to keep the bulk of their singles at $0.99.

[chewbaccacabra]

how does emusic compares with iTunes and Amazon Mp3

signed up with emusic for 35 free downloads :cool:

who is the thrid largest online music followed by iTunes, Amazon?

I did the same but got 50 free downloads and then cancelled. I didn't much care for the selections. But that's just me. All personal taste, right? It seemed jazz heavy, and I like Jazz and own many CDs, but I just didn't find much I liked. Ended up getting 2 Public Enemy albums and Radioheads In Rainbows that I had downloaded a couple of years ago as the pay what you want experiment. Got it as a 256 file vs Radioheads 160.

[jzuena]

Exaggerate much? :rolleyes:

Depends what country you are in. Australia's pricing is now $1.19, $1.69, $2.19, so they are above $2 before tax (or does Australia price already include tax?)

[jzuena]

This is what they wanted... the studios. Variable pricing means they can stick it somewhat to Apple as they set the price. When everything was 99 cents three was equal ground but now they can have Apple charge more and let Amazon or Walmart charge less .... they can control the balance more than previously possible.

I think it's silly to give certain music distributors favorable pricing. Apple did digital music right from the beginning, so why should they suffer now with more expensive prices. I don't mind the variable pricing, but for goodness sakes record lables be fair to all the distributors.

Now that the studios have what they want with variable pricing, they would be better off standardizing over all of the sites. Otherwise they could lose impulse purchases while users go compare the price on multiple sites. The more time you have to think about it, the more time you have to realize you may not want that song after all.

Can someone make a "pricecheck" app for the iPhone and/or a webapp that will tell me which store has a given song for the cheapest price and link me to that store for purchase/download?

I suppose this is an opportunity for someone to make an app, but as I said above it would be in the studios interest to remove as many variables as possible or they will lose on impulse purchases.

[andiwm2003]

Hey record companies, I don't feel like playing 2 dollars for song when tax is added.

People are making less money, that means they are going to stop paying for things they really don't need to pay for. Imagine if a car salesman used this logic:

'Oh, you can't afford a $30,000 car? Let's bump the price up to $40,000 and call it a deal.'

I hate record labels.

well said. seems like record labels think they are exempt from market forces. well, i hope people buy less music. i for sure do. since they hiked the prices on CD's many years ago i reduced my spending on music by 90% (without stealing music). I just listen much less to music and I select better music.

[theBB]

Now that the studios have what they want with variable pricing, they would be better off standardizing over all of the sites. Otherwise they could lose impulse purchases while users go compare the price on multiple sites. The more time you have to think about it, the more time you have to realize you may not want that song after all.
I did not think about that aspect, but you are right.

[gmcalpin]

So, how long before we don't even need record companies? I mean, it seems like it's easier than ever for a musician to record with their own money/equipment, and to release a single on the internet without any need for a larger company to handle all that promotion for you...
Recording it and releasing it isn't the part you "need" record companies for anymore; it's the promoting it part.

If you want to be the next Top 40 act, you need big companies with deep pockets to get your name out there. Otherwise, it'll take you ten years or more to get where, say, Neko Case has gotten, by virtue of her talent almost exclusively.

Of course, real musicians who only want to make enough money to pay their bills, live comfortably, and keep making music — not be rich — won't really mind that. For them, the major labels haven't been a necessity since... well, ever.
I did the same but got 50 free downloads and then cancelled. I didn't much care for the selections. But that's just me. All personal taste, right? It seemed jazz heavy, and I like Jazz and own many CDs, but I just didn't find much I liked. Ended up getting 2 Public Enemy albums and Radioheads In Rainbows that I had downloaded a couple of years ago as the pay what you want experiment. Got it as a 256 file vs Radioheads 160.
Emusic has a lot of great indie rock stuff (which you're probably not into, or you'd have noticed it). I find myself signing up and cancelling a few times a year, because at some point, I just start wasting download credits on stuff. "I liked one song by that guy, oh here's an album I've never heard," and I'll listen to it once.

Still, for $20 a month, if I get two albums I really like in one month, it's a bargain, and that will get me another handful of albums I don't need to worry about getting my money's worth on.

[aristokrat]

If the record companies are sad about people cherry-picking only the good songs from an album, why is the clear response not then to STOP MAKING THE BAD FILLER TRACKS. There's an immediate way to save some money with regard to these stupid pop sensations. It's not like they don't know which ones are crap (look at the 1-2 songs/album that have a professional songwriter vs. the rest of the tracks that are written by the singer themselves), they just are so stuck in the album mindset (the Beatles made good albums because they were cohesive, and mostly good, while pop albums are anything but). In no other industry do people continue producing items that the market doesn't want, yet somehow the music industry doesn't realize this and lets Britney make a 13 track album instead of a 1-2 track single with only the songs that anybody cares about (not saying that these songs are good either, but some people apparently want them).

And it seems like this would make more money everybody, if these sensations put out a good track every couple of months instead a mostly crappy album every other year.

[iOrlando]

piper jaffray released their 17th bi-annual High school survey today. Go to appleinsider.com to view it..its a good read...

it said 97% of teens who buy music online use iTunes. The popularity of amazon, walmart fell off a cliff in the past year...

im confused because on here everyone says how they use amazon and other venues when buying music...but apparently high schoolers aren't?

[alphaod]

I better hope they won't require us to pay even more to upgrade from DRM'd to Plus music.

[mdntcallr]

you people enjoy being ripped of and i dont understand why,

emusic is far cheaper for the same track, better quality
mp3sparks is a fraction of the cost and you get to CHOOSE your quality (although they should just make all tracks 320kbps)

Hey there. umm emusic doesn't have nearly as much music on it. maybe some indie fringe stuff. but no major distribution stuff.

[kallisti]

I'm not too happy that because of Apple going to variable pricing everyone else has to follow suit. Hopefully Amazon will be able to keep the bulk of their singles at $0.99.

I think you might be confusing cause and effect here. I don't think it's the case that Apple decided they wanted variable pricing and then other services felt it was okay to jump on the bandwagon (or other services felt forced to jump on the bandwagon).

Given Apple's previous stance on the issue, I'm fairly sure they wanted to keep $0.99 pricing for everything. The labels most likely "shoved" variable pricing down Apple's throat. They are also most likely shoving it down the throat of every other music service provider.

Variable pricing is coming from the labels, not from Apple or any other music service provider. At least that's my take based on available information.

[overminer]

Comparison shopping app: http://www.tuaw.com/2009/04/08/advantageous-mp3-simplies-amazon-comparison-shopping/

ever tried to get music to teen ipods and computers from anything outside of itunes while letting them shop? That's why iTunes is dominant.

Try looking in the half price bookstores or local libraries for your music.....way cheaper!

[slu]

how does emusic compares with iTunes and Amazon Mp3

signed up with emusic for 35 free downloads :cool:

who is the thrid largest online music followed by iTunes, Amazon?

Until emusic allows one to sign up and pay per track rather than via a subscription is the day I try it. Until then, no way. You should be able to choose one or the other.

Some months I buy a lot of music, some months I buy none at all. I am not going to get stuff just to get stuff so I don't feel like I am wasting my money.

Audible.com has it right. You can buy the book and pay more OR you can sign up for the monthly service.

And I didn't even know Wal-Mart had an mp3 store. I thought they shut it down.

Anyone ever used it? How does it compare to Amazon?

Yeah, yeah I know, Wal-Mart is evil, etc...

[casik]

well said. seems like record labels think they are exempt from market forces. well, i hope people buy less music. i for sure do. since they hiked the prices on CD's many years ago i reduced my spending on music by 90% (without stealing music). I just listen much less to music and I select better music.


same here.... i think way more about the music i buy. if i don't LOVE it i don't buy it.

[dernhelm]

Sources at Apple tell me that Apple is getting different prices than Amazon from the recording idustry. The record companies are, and have been for awhile, favoring Amazon. In fact, Amazon is selling songs for less than the price that Apple pays for them in some cases.


How is this LEGAL????

[dwman]

Can someone make a "pricecheck" app for the iPhone and/or a webapp that will tell me which store has a given song for the cheapest price and link me to that store for purchase/download?


Ask and you shall receive. Great little free itunes plugin that will link to to the same song or album on amazon to let you see if it's cheaper there. Only checks Amazon mp3 store right now, but that may change down the line. Versions for both Mac and Windows.

http://www.advantageousmp3.com/mac/index.html

Edit: Oops, someone beat me to it in post #48. Oh well, great app either way.

[sishaw]

Quote: "Sources at Apple tell me that Apple is getting different prices than Amazon from the recording idustry."

Why would content providers deliberately set out to cause problems for the most successful vendor of their content? It doesn't makes sense. If iTunes were an extremely successful bricks-and-mortar music store, would the labels then force them to start pricing CDs in a non-competitive manner and reduce their sales?

Even granted that the record labels don't like new paradigms and don't like to play nice with Apple, it seems that requiring Apple to have higher prices, thus predictably reducing sales from the highest-volume online digital vendor, is nonsensical from a business perspective. Do these record companies want to fail?

[Jayomat]

How is this LEGAL????

why should it be illegal? I can set the price to whatever i want, in general.
They made a contract and apple singned, so what? they made a different contract with amazon, so what?

[notjustjay]

Meanwhile, CD prices are getting cheaper. You can often get sales, and/or find things in discount bins, and end up buying CD's for $5-10.

I was volunteering at a merchandise booth for a concert last night and the band's CDs were all selling for $15. $20 if you wanted the CD+full-length concert DVD combo. No taxes. (By comparison, they were selling T-shirts for $30, and hoodies for $55... the CDs seemed like a steal!)

I'll continue buying CDs, and reserve the 99-cent (oops -- $1.29) tracks for "I really don't like much of this artist, except this one song is kinda cool" purchases.

[jzuena]

I better hope they won't require us to pay even more to upgrade from DRM'd to Plus music.

So far it looks to be the same, $.30 in the US. I am being offered seven songs to upgrade; the funny part is that I never owned those seven songs to begin with. It looks to be some kind of EP of acoustic songs by Godsmack and I have purchased the original version of at least some of these songs. I can "upgrade" this album for $2.10 instead of the $6.99 it would cost normally. Maybe Apple decided to come up with a fourth price point just to get back at the studios!

[Saladinos]

Anyway you cut it, we the consumers got screwed.

We were getting screwed yesterday, too.

[brsboarder]

With the economy the way it is, people will start doing the walmart/amazon thing even if its a little less convenient.

Apple si going to need to figure something out, unless people are that stupid

[instaxgirl]

you people enjoy being ripped of and i dont understand why,

emusic is far cheaper for the same track, better quality
mp3sparks is a fraction of the cost and you get to CHOOSE your quality (although they should just make all tracks 320kbps)

Hey there. umm emusic doesn't have nearly as much music on it. maybe some indie fringe stuff. but no major distribution stuff.

Amusingly enough I after being reminded of emusic I went and had a browse around and ended up using one of the rejoin deals they sent me :)

[notjustjay]

Why would content providers deliberately set out to cause problems for the most successful vendor of their content? It doesn't makes sense. If iTunes were an extremely successful bricks-and-mortar music store, would the labels then force them to start pricing CDs in a non-competitive manner and reduce their sales?

Even granted that the record labels don't like new paradigms and don't like to play nice with Apple, it seems that requiring Apple to have higher prices, thus predictably reducing sales from the highest-volume online digital vendor, is nonsensical from a business perspective. Do these record companies want to fail?

Simply put, they do want Apple to fail. Or at least to reduce Apple's share of the market.

Apple's continued dominance in the market allows them to dictate terms. 99-cent constant pricing was one example. Remember NBC left in a huff over that when Apple refused to bow to their terms? And then they came crawling back, tail between legs. They can't just go to other stores and raise prices there because the other online stores just don't have the market share. And if they tried to offer higher prices in other stores, everyone would just go buy it from Apple anyway. So Apple effectively makes all the decisions.

They first tried allowing other stores non-DRM music (Amazon mp3, for example) to see if that would knock buyers away from Apple's DRM'ed tracks. That didn't work. Non-technical people don't know or don't care about the difference. So now they're forcing Apple to have higher prices, because money is a language everyone understands.

[Kwill]

What Apple does, imitators must do likewise to compete. If it's 99 cents at iTunes, who can charge more? It's no mystery that record companies view Apple as the tail wagging the dog. By pushing for variable pricing, they now can offer the best wholesale price to the marketplace they favor -- effectively removing the stranglehold of Apple.

It's amazing, in retrospect, to see how much foresight Steve Jobs has. In his ardent negotiations, he would not budge off the one-price model. Now that he is on leave (though titularly involved), we can see matters though his eyes, when he was the one with whom others had to negotiate directly.

[ChrisA]

So, how long before we don't even need record companies? I mean, it seems like it's easier than ever for a musician to record with their own money/equipment, and to release a single on the internet without any need for a larger company to handle all that promotion for you...

Yes it is cheap and easy to record a song. Even if a band can't do it themselves there are recording studios near me that charge like $250 to record a song which is far cheaper then buying your own equipment. So that part is easy

The REALLY HARD part is getting the typical 15 to 25 year old music consumer to listen to something that is not on the current top-40. Yes there are a few but most are "sheepeole". It still costs a LOT of money to place a song on the top 40 list. That is what the record companies do that independents can't do.

Actually is more complex. There are many "top-40" lists. the radio market is segmented by demographics. Advertizers want to know who they are selling to. So the record companies have to get their stuff on several lists. Bands just are not equipt to play in that field

[jaw04005]

The recording industry never learns. Let them keep jacking up prices, and piracy will continue to sky rocket. Napster became popular because people wanted a fast and convenient alternative to CDs (in particularly CD singles), not because there was some mass conspiracy by music lovers to not pay for anything.

I think the Amazon hysteria on this thread is a little funny. I highly doubt the record labels are giving Amazon that much of a better deal than Apple. It's just that Amazon, which owns a plethora of other online stores, is willing to sell hit songs as loss leaders for other products. This would similar to their gold box deals and other competitive pricing.

As an Amazon frequenter, it's dead easy to go between their different services. Amazon wants to be your go to company for everything (books, movies, tv shows, electronics, ebooks, online music, CDs, groceries, online storage, etc). What don't they sell anymore?

Amazon essentially wants to be the online version of Wal-Mart.

[rayz]

Quote: "Sources at Apple tell me that Apple is getting different prices than Amazon from the recording idustry."

Why would content providers deliberately set out to cause problems for the most successful vendor of their content? It doesn't makes sense. If iTunes were an extremely successful bricks-and-mortar music store, would the labels then force them to start pricing CDs in a non-competitive manner and reduce their sales?

Even granted that the record labels don't like new paradigms and don't like to play nice with Apple, it seems that requiring Apple to have higher prices, thus predictably reducing sales from the highest-volume online digital vendor, is nonsensical from a business perspective. Do these record companies want to fail?


Because the record companies saw Apple becoming the Microsoft of entertainment content and they didn't want that to happen. Without competition, they had no leverage against Cupertino, so they went about creating some ... and now it's much easier for them to get Apple to toe the line because they have other places to flog their content.

This is the kind of long term strategic thinking that I never dreamed they were capable of ...

[sishaw]

Simply put, they do want Apple to fail. Or at least to reduce Apple's share of the market.

Apple's continued dominance in the market allows them to dictate terms. 99-cent constant pricing was one example. Remember NBC left in a huff over that when Apple refused to bow to their terms? And then they came crawling back, tail between legs. They can't just go to other stores and raise prices there because the other online stores just don't have the market share. And if they tried to offer higher prices in other stores, everyone would just go buy it from Apple anyway. So Apple effectively makes all the decisions.


I guess I can understand that, and thanks for putting it so cogently, but another part of my brain is saying:: so what, if Apple's decisions lead to increased music sales and a viable alternative to piracy (which I think it has done?). In other words, are the record companies putting a power game with Apple over practical results here? How is this any worse than the old days when Tower Records set the market price, and also sold plenty of music? A content provider still needs a retailer, and it's good to have one that's successful because they can sell a lot of your content.

[DELLsFan]

I'm disappointed in Amazon, but I think they still offer a wider range of discount than iTunes ... particularly given my aversion for today's "hit" music.

Album pricing seems largely unaffected, and the variable pricing just might work to my advantage if my genre of music falls in the lower price brackets for a la carte purchasing.

piper jaffray released their 17th bi-annual High school survey today. Go to appleinsider.com to view it..its a good read...

it said 97% of teens who buy music online use iTunes. The popularity of amazon, walmart fell off a cliff in the past year...

im confused because on here everyone says how they use amazon and other venues when buying music...but apparently high schoolers aren't?

High Schoolers may not have placed as high a priority on smart shopping as others - given their age, hormonal development, and a propensity to be spending someone else's money ... but I have.

:apple:

[ilp]

Where the heck are they getting their news from?

Amazon MP3 service had variable song pricing from day 1! (http://www.tuaw.com/2007/09/25/amazon-mp3-a-quick-review/) I've been seeing .89 cent, .99 cent, .79 cent songs since I've been using the store.

[pr5owner]

If it means buying fewer songs, so be it. Apple has the best quality, IMHO. I just bought Jeff Beck's version of Amazing Grace yesterday on iTunes. Still only $.99.
Morod

highest quality hey?

the song my sister bought legally from itunes was missing 30 seconds fromt the end of the track (Sky - Peice of paradise >> needed for her wedding)

i had to pirate the album to get the rest of the song. (pirating was faster than itunes believe it or not, full CD in less than 3 minutes at 320kbps mp3)

[B2k1977]

So, how long before we don't even need record companies? I mean, it seems like it's easier than ever for a musician to record with their own money/equipment, and to release a single on the internet without any need for a larger company to handle all that promotion for you...

yea and they take must of your cut and give the artist just a lil bit. Funny we don't see any record execs on this forum speaking up as to why the price hike. It's pure greed and they know it. On a $1.29 song it's probably something like 0.99 goes to the label, then the remaining 30 cents is for the artist and apple to fight over.

[Plutonius]

why should it be illegal? I can set the price to whatever i want, in general.
They made a contract and apple singned, so what? they made a different contract with amazon, so what?

I would bet it's illegal in the EU :) .

[Windinthedust]

I really wonder still why the record industry thinks that raising the price of a commodity in a recession/depression is a good idea to stifle piracy. :rolleyes:


Don't worry, market forces will win. Apple knows what it's doing. It couldn't do anything until it first won DRM free music. This was a key Apple strategy. Though it may be little comfort, iTunes does provide the highest quality downloads with AAC for the pricing.

With Walmart & Amazon in the fray, and DRM being dead, the labels no longer have any bargaining power, other then cap & trade protectionism, which will not make them the most money.

Give them a little time to get used to their new role as a commodity dealer... market forces will show up in their pocket book, and we will see things change.

All of the music stores, past present, & future, will be able to bargain for their own deals on pricing: Pre-buying, offering free advertising, etc. being all ways to lower the price. Keep in mind, Walmart, Amazon, & Apple use the music stores as loss leaders to sell iPods and other stuff. That means- they all can kick in some of their own "promotional" advertising dollars with 10 free songs with the purchase of an iPod, for example... or 69 cent daily specials on their own, absorbing the loss, to promote the store. Variable pricing goes both ways.

[iOrlando]

What Apple does, imitators must do likewise to compete. If it's 99 cents at iTunes, who can charge more? It's no mystery that record companies view Apple as the tail wagging the dog. By pushing for variable pricing, they now can offer the best wholesale price to the marketplace they favor -- effectively removing the stranglehold of Apple.

It's amazing, in retrospect, to see how much foresight Steve Jobs has. In his ardent negotiations, he would not budge off the one-price model. Now that he is on leave (though titularly involved), we can see matters though his eyes, when he was the one with whom others had to negotiate directly.

but...steve jobs was involved in this most recent music deal...


apple lost fixed pricing

apple gained DRM free music, ability to download from itunes from iphone and ipod touch (do people not use this? not alot of people have been talking about this on here....)

[Windinthedust]

yea and they take must of your cut and give the artist just a lil bit. Funny we don't see any record execs on this forum speaking up as to why the price hike. It's pure greed and they know it. On a $1.29 song it's probably something like 0.99 goes to the label, then the remaining 30 cents is for the artist and apple to fight over.

Now that Apple won DRM free, I'm looking for Apple to set up something similar to youTube for aspiring artists, on iTunes, to promote themselves without the need for labels.... a lot of possibilities there... and it could all be set up "hands off" strictly through iTunes and MobileMe subscription... the new service will be called uTunes. So technically, Apple would NOT be a label themselves... just providing an open market place.

Under uTunes, any artist will be able to charge whatever they want, even free, just like the App Store. Apple gets 30% for running the servers, accounts, & software. Ratings systems, promotions, etc. all built in... even vote style battle of the bands contests could be held weekly for highly rated singles. Fan clubs, email blasts, music videos, etc. could all be managed through uTunes tools. Of course, uTunes would be a separate tab of iTunes, just like the App Store, iTunes U, etc.

[lkrupp]

yea and they take must of your cut and give the artist just a lil bit. Funny we don't see any record execs on this forum speaking up as to why the price hike. It's pure greed and they know it. On a $1.29 song it's probably something like 0.99 goes to the label, then the remaining 30 cents is for the artist and apple to fight over.

It's not pure greed, not in any sense of the word. It's simple supply and demand. No one is twisitng anyone's arm to buy any music from anywhere. If anything it's the customer's greed and addiction to listening to music. You don't have a right to buy anything at some abitrary price you decide is reasonable. The producer sets the price and you decide if you're willing to pay it. Don't like the price? Don't buy the product.

So I guess you want the Obama adminstration to set the price of music downloads, huh. Yeah, that's the ticket, price regulation set by the government.:eek:

[sishaw]

So I guess you want the Obama adminstration to set the price of music downloads, huh. Yeah, that's the ticket, price regulation set by the government.:eek:

That's a straw man--I don't think anyone here is saying that, or anything like it. A lot of us are questioning the wisdom and/or good faith of the music industry's move to higher prices for Apple's music store, though. The fact is, the market will set the price, and apparently Amazon and, if your taste runs to indies, eMusic have lower-cost alternatives, at least for now.

[Windinthedust]

highest quality hey?

the song my sister bought legally from itunes was missing 30 seconds fromt the end of the track (Sky - Peice of paradise >> needed for her wedding)

i had to pirate the album to get the rest of the song. (pirating was faster than itunes believe it or not, full CD in less than 3 minutes at 320kbps mp3)

Strange it was missing 30 seconds... good thing it's the only song. Did you get refund, or ask Apple to look into fixing it? Last time I had a complaint, I had an email back with 24 hours with the offer of a refund, keep the song, and they would fix it shortly!

Anyway, AAC is better then MP3, even at higher bit rates. AAC allows for higher and lower frequencies to be played, so you get more dynamic sound out of good A/V equipment able to reproduce it. The total footprint is also smaller then comparable bit rates, as the compression technology is more advanced and efficient.

[Windinthedust]

Did I say Amazon & Walmart both sell iPods? :cool:

Take advantage of undervalued Apple stock before everyone wakes up... Apple is in the money seat.

Keep in mind, it's in their monetary best interest to keep music as low as possible to continue to promote their hardware. As such, they are actually our advocate, as our interests are the same, in this regard.

DRM had to be won first, now the real fun can begin! They will let some time for this to settle in with the labels... then the real fun will begin! ;)

[MikeAtari]

Collusion by the Record industry to Hurt Apple. Collusion is Illegal. We should but these Bastards in JAIL.
:mad:

[jhsfosho]

Once again, Apple is leading the way in music downloads.

[Full of Win]

How is this LEGAL????

I'm no lawyer, but what would illegal about it?

[cwwilson]

Strange it was missing 30 seconds... good thing it's the only song. Did you get refund, or ask Apple to look into fixing it? Last time I had a complaint, I had an email back with 24 hours with the offer of a refund, keep the song, and they would fix it shortly!

Anyway, AAC is better then MP3, even at higher bit rates. AAC allows for higher and lower frequencies to be played, so you get more dynamic sound out of good A/V equipment able to reproduce it. The total footprint is also smaller then comparable bit rates, as the compression technology is more advanced and efficient.

Ahhh so that's why when I preview a song in iTunes it always seems to sound better than ones I acquire in mp3 even at 320 br. :o

[MacFly123]

I really wonder still why the record industry thinks that raising the price of a commodity in a recession/depression is a good idea to stifle piracy. :rolleyes:

Wow - a 30% - 40% price hike. Might as well buy the physical CD instead.

Tony

Anyway you cut it, we the consumers got screwed.

Ya the record labels are complete MORONS. I just read this article on Apple Insider that polled 60% of teens download music for free using P2P!

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/04/08/apple_near_saturation_point_for_ipod_itunes_use_by_teens.html

WOW, nice move studios, this is really going to help stifle piracy! :rolleyes:

[sishaw]

Strange it was missing 30 seconds... .

Just contact Apple support, they will authorize another download.

[dal20402]

Damn. It's incredible how worked up people can get over 30 cents.

It's 30 CENTS. Not even enough for half of the bun on your crappy Big Mac.

Edit: And what is it that's making people draw an arbitrary line in the sand at $0.99 per song, anyway? Do you refuse to buy a $12.99 CD album if it only has ten songs on it?

:eek::rolleyes:

[cmichaelb]

Edit: And what is it that's making people draw an arbitrary line in the sand at $0.99 per song, anyway? Do you refuse to buy a $12.99 CD album if it only has ten songs on it?

:eek::rolleyes:

Yes...

[DELLsFan]

Damn. It's incredible how worked up people can get over 30 cents.

It's 30 CENTS. Not even enough for half of the bun on your crappy Big Mac.

Edit: And what is it that's making people draw an arbitrary line in the sand at $0.99 per song, anyway? Do you refuse to buy a $12.99 CD album if it only has ten songs on it?

:eek::rolleyes:

For me, it's not that the prices are exorbitant. The record labels are greedy, spiteful companies. They were relentless and unapologetic at the hell they put some people through with the DRM lawsuits and damages. If they were to wither and die on the vine of failure tomorrow, I wouldn't mind it one bit. I have bought pretty much most of the music I will ever need. If there is anything new I want, I certainly wouldn't mind paying slightly more to bypass a label's parasitic attachment to musicians and artists today.

:apple:

[winks360]

Wow - a 30% - 40% price hike. Might as well buy the physical CD instead.

Tony

That is only for Singles, the CD's are still the same price :p

I understand the anger in raising prices, but do you really expect that the #1 hit should be sold for the same price as the worst song?? Look at the upside DRM FREE Music, + new and upcoming bands can get their name out there by selling their songs for cheaper. Making unknown bands more likely to get purchases.

Lets all try to stay positive :cool:

Also note that MOST songs are still going to be the same price :o

[SixStringAddict]

Ok, so they raise prices during a recession. Genius. OPEC didn't even raise the price of oil during the recession.

I can't believe OPEC cares more about us then the record labels. :eek:

[VoR]

Ya the record labels are complete MORONS. I just read this article on Apple Insider that polled 60% of teens download music for free using P2P!

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/04/08/apple_near_saturation_point_for_ipod_itunes_use_by_teens.html

WOW, nice move studios, this is really going to help stifle piracy! :rolleyes:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20090116_downloading.shtml - My link says 95%

I prefer to buy cds and other physical media, I think that things like itunes/amazon/etc are too expensive for what they are and the compromise you make.
Putting the prices up when, in my opinion, they're already too high is pretty frustrating. I want instantly available, high(est) quality and drm-free media - a cheap usenet account gives me this, but it's naughty, illegal, against forum rules, starves the artists/production staff and funds terrorism (according to the adverts), so I put a lot less money into the 'system' than I'd like to.

[InkMaster]

Well, what else could you expect from all the greedy bastards? Jet fuel isn't cheap ya know...

[guzzlamiamor]

Quote: "Sources at Apple tell me that Apple is getting different prices than Amazon from the recording idustry."

Why would content providers deliberately set out to cause problems for the most successful vendor of their content? It doesn't makes sense. If iTunes were an extremely successful bricks-and-mortar music store, would the labels then force them to start pricing CDs in a non-competitive manner and reduce their sales?

Even granted that the record labels don't like new paradigms and don't like to play nice with Apple, it seems that requiring Apple to have higher prices, thus predictably reducing sales from the highest-volume online digital vendor, is nonsensical from a business perspective. Do these record companies want to fail?


I think the record companies feel they can make more profit by forcing Apple to charge higher prices. Keep in mind the millions of iTunes consumers may not be quite as savvy or willing to shop around as the majority of users on this site are. I know people personally who are not that computer savvy who will pay 30 cents more per track just because of the integration of the store with the iTunes software and the iPod. The record companies have wanted variable pricing all along, and now that they have it there is no reason for them to wish failure upon iTunes. Personally I listen to mostly classic rock and smooth jazz in full album format, so this change means nothing to me and I will continue using iTunes.

[asphyxiafeeling]

only makes torrents more and more appealing.

i'd rathe buy my music (i've spent the majority of all the money i make on music in some form or another) ((poor student, i'm not spending six figures here LOL)) but when it's the choice between paying 30% more for a song and downloading the song + have enough to go to a show, the choice is simple.

[guzhogi]

highest quality hey?

the song my sister bought legally from itunes was missing 30 seconds fromt the end of the track (Sky - Peice of paradise >> needed for her wedding)

i had to pirate the album to get the rest of the song. (pirating was faster than itunes believe it or not, full CD in less than 3 minutes at 320kbps mp3)

Yeah, I noticed that in some TV episodes & movies. Some scenes or parts of scenes are gone on the iTunes version that were there on the broadcast/theater versions. Not sure if they got cut out by mistake or were deliberately taken out by the studios or whatever. Example: the iTunes version of star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (the whale one), the whole punk on the bus scene is gone. Kinda sad because that was like the best scene!

[jons]

I really wonder still why the record industry thinks that raising the price of a commodity in a recession/depression is a good idea to stifle piracy. :rolleyes:

Yeah, we're witnessing the last desperate breaths of an organization that has had a death grip on distribution for many years. What worked so well for them before is now going to be their downfall.

And good riddance.

IMO popular music would be a lot more diverse without those bastards.

[iPhoneNYC]

I just did a fast run thru the iTunes Store and saw that of the music I would download, which is not the Top 100 by any means - older rock, jazz, blues; I found the bulk stayed .99 maybe 10 percent went up to 1.29 and I didn't see a single .69. So I do think it's a simple price rise scheme.

[jons]

I can't believe OPEC cares more about us then the record labels. :eek:

Hahaha, seriously.

[ryanrul]

OPEC didn't even raise the price of oil during the recession.
:
OPEC no longer controls the price of oil.

[mjtomlin]

How can so many people remain so ignorant for so damned long? ... I don't understand why so many people are STILL complaining about the distributors and not attacking the actual source of the greed; the record companies. They are getting exactly what they wanted and it's the stupid people who let them.

You all ran to DRM-free Amazon, while attacking Apple. Apple caved into the demands of the record execs and agreed to offer tiered pricing, so that they can also offer DRM-free music. So, now all online music will have tiered pricing, but yet Apple still pays more. Which, as the record execs want, you will run to some other store and buy instead of paying 30 cents more. Once (if) iTunes loses market share, then the record execs will raise prices across the board, because the one store that could keep them in check will no longer have the market share numbers to do so.

Just like a herd cattle being corralled, just before they're slaughtered.

Thanks idiots.

[k'five]

Oh well, back to downloading music for free.

[organerito]

If it means buying fewer songs, so be it. Apple has the best quality, IMHO. I just bought Jeff Beck's version of Amazing Grace yesterday on iTunes. Still only $.99.
Morod

I hope you don't mean sound quality.

[kajitox]

Question: when does this cross the line to price fixing?

[sharkinfested]

Ever rent a movie at a video store? New releases are always more than older movies. A new DVD at a department store is $15 to $25 bucks and older movies are in the $5 bin. Video games often come out at the $50 price point, a year later they’re 20 bucks, and 2 or 3 years later you get every version of the game with every expansion pack for the same 20 bucks. Similar pricing with books too.

Variable pricing is nothing new. New releases are in higher demand so they can get a higher price. I don’t see anything wrong with it.

[PinkyMacGodess]

The music industry is chasing their tail.

They had it made with iTunes and they bitched and balked and are screwing Apple and themselves too.

What will they do for their next stupid trick? Start suing their own customers?

Oh, really? Nevermind... :(

And the government spent billions to close down the Mafia...

[PinkyMacGodess]

Ever rent a movie at a video store? New releases are always more than older movies. A new DVD at a department store is $15 to $25 bucks and older movies are in the $5 bin. Video games often come out at the $50 price point, a year later they’re 20 bucks, and 2 or 3 years later you get every version of the game with every expansion pack for the same 20 bucks. Similar pricing with books too.

Variable pricing is nothing new. New releases are in higher demand so they can get a higher price. I don’t see anything wrong with it.

Sometimes, with Wii games, you just have to wait 3 or 4 months...

[mjtomlin]

Why would content providers deliberately set out to cause problems for the most successful vendor of their content? It doesn't makes sense.

They wouldn't, if there weren't other places consumers could buy their music, but we know, Amazon is being used for leverage. (Even though Amazon's numbers are quite small compared to iTunes.) And as usual, the media (and anti-Apple blogs) jumped all over it trying to portray Apple as the bad guy.

You have to look at the way Wal-Mart operates to understand why the content providers are worried. Wal-Mart dictates to manufacturers everything about the product or else they don't shelf space in Wal-Marts stores. From how they're packaged to actually using cheaper parts/materials during manufacturing so Wal-Mart can get sell the "same" product for less. (This doesn't apply to "hot" or "popular" products though, because it is to Wal-Marts benefit to have them in the store.)

The record companies are afraid of iTunes being able to do the same with their content. So they are trying to "break" iTunes, not put them down, but just knock them down a bit. The problem is, the record companies have proven time and time again to be nothing more than a greedy bunch of a$$holes. (Remember them being found guilty of collusion in the 90's over CD pricing?)

Something like iTunes is necessary to keep the record execs in check. And of course, those execs would rather there not be.

[Michael CM1]

Aside from knowing how these boards work, I don't get the outrage over this.

OK, we know the record companies are major pains in the A. But don't forget that Apple has been selling tracks at 99 cents for the better part of a decade now. Zero price increases ever. This variable pricing thing is hardly unfair.

Also, a couple of dumb and/or wrong things I noticed. First of all, all albums are not $9.99. Those have been variable for years. They're mostly $9.99, but numerous albums are $11.99, others are $7.99. Very big albums are sometimes $19.99. That leads to another thing: The album prices haven't changed. "Right Round" by Flo Rida is now $1.29, as is every other track on the album. But the album is still $9.99 for just the music or $11.99 if you get the deluxe or whatever version with 2 videos. Please show me where you find these albums for $9.99 in a store. I got it for $5 at Amazon, but most stores will still charge you $12-14 for just the CD.

As far as the different pricing for Amazon and Walmart, that's crap from the record companies. It's not based on quantity or anything, just favoritism. Hell, Apple has helped save record companies by leading the online music revolution, yet Apple gets F'ed in the A because they did it so damn well. The movie and TV studios aren't far behind with their crap pricing on TV shows and movies. That won't succeed because of sales hunters like me. I'm not spending $24 for Family Guy Season 6 when I can spend $12.99 on Volume 6 (same number of episodes) at Target this week.

[ruinfx]

people pay for music :confused:

[ghostface147]

As stated before, it's rather interesting to see how people are passionate about an extra 30 cents. Good thing most songs that are at that price don't interest me, but the few songs I do purchase, I don't mind paying an extra 30cents. Let's suppose the labels and the RIAA turn a page and become a very friendly, consumer-oriented company.......will people still pirate music? Hell yes. Piracy will never go away, for there will always be people looking for anything for free.

Variable pricing was inevitable, for the labels had the power (but not the balls) to remove all tracks from iTunes at anytime to force Apple's hand after their contracts expired. As well known as it is, the labels want to lessen the grip Apple has on the music download industry, and their attempts are not very successful. However, in any industry, if your business is losing money at a rapid rate, you can't just give in and lose even more money. Yes you have to adapt your practices, but you also must stop the financial bleeding. This is what the labels are trying to do with the price hikes. Making better music would also help too. Unfortunately their past silly decisions will always overshadow any positive decision they make.

If something has value, people should have the ability to charge for it. While most people might say that modern music acts today aren't valuable enough to pay $1.29 for it, then don't buy it. You were probably going to pirate it anyways, even if it was 69 cents. I guarantee Apple won't be losing millions of customers to Amazon anytime soon because of price hikes. The people who do stray will be but a blip in the overall world market.

Yes we are in a recession, but if you are worried about an extra 30 cents for music downloads.....you are probably in over your head monetarily anyways and haven't made the right decisions financially. There are exceptions to that statement of course.

Bottom line, there will be people moving to P2P to get songs, visiting alternative stores for other options. However Apple isn't going away, their music download control will lessen slightly, and people will still pirate. The RIAA isn't going anywhere, nor are the music labels, but they will still make bone headed decisions.

[ruinfx]

As stated before, it's rather interesting to see how people are passionate about an extra 30 cents. Good thing most songs that are at that price don't interest me, but the few songs I do purchase, I don't mind paying an extra 30cents. Let's suppose the labels and the RIAA turn a page and become a very friendly, consumer-oriented company.......will people still pirate music? Hell yes. Piracy will never go away, for there will always be people looking for anything for free.

Variable pricing was inevitable, for the labels had the power (but not the balls) to remove all tracks from iTunes at anytime to force Apple's hand after their contracts expired. As well known as it is, the labels want to lessen the grip Apple has on the music download industry, and their attempts are not very successful. However, in any industry, if your business is losing money at a rapid rate, you can't just give in and lose even more money. Yes you have to adapt your practices, but you also must stop the financial bleeding. This is what the labels are trying to do with the price hikes. Making better music would also help too. Unfortunately their past silly decisions will always overshadow any positive decision they make.

If something has value, people should have the ability to charge for it. While most people might say that modern music acts today aren't valuable enough to pay $1.29 for it, then don't buy it. You were probably going to pirate it anyways, even if it was 69 cents. I guarantee Apple won't be losing millions of customers to Amazon anytime soon because of price hikes. The people who do stray will be but a blip in the overall world market.

Yes we are in a recession, but if you are worried about an extra 30 cents for music downloads.....you are probably in over your head monetarily anyways and haven't made the right decisions financially. There are exceptions to that statement of course.

Bottom line, there will be people moving to P2P to get songs, visiting alternative stores for other options. However Apple isn't going away, their music download control will lessen slightly, and people will still pirate. The RIAA isn't going anywhere, nor are the music labels, but they will still make bone headed decisions.

i think most people that are saying "damn you record labels for charging 30 cents more now im going to pirate music!!!" are just doing so to:

1. "stick it to the man"
2. sound cool on the webernets

[SandynJosh]

I've found that the best was to go if you like only 2 -4 songs on a CD is to buy a good quality used CD off of Amazon.

[SandynJosh]

Hmmm...what if Apple just sits quiet for a while and then sues the record companies for unfair pricing? This way they can force a level playing field and pick up the lost profits in a negotiated settlement.

[Morod]

I hope you don't mean sound quality.

Why, yes, I did mean sound (aural) quality. Am I missing something? And please don't point to bit-rate sampling numbers.
Morod

[overcast]

How is this LEGAL????
ZOMGZZZ!!!$@ You should sue something!!

[overcast]

Why, yes, I did mean sound (aural) quality. Am I missing something? And please don't point to bit-rate sampling numbers.
Morod
You are missing something, you're getting ripped off paying for lower than CD quality.

[k1121j]

Don't Bite the hand that feeds you!!!

I used itunes before you could buy music in it and used to get my music in an unfavorable way. At just $.99 a track i have changed ways and spent more money on music than i ever have in the past even counting CD's that i would never spend that kind of money on even now because if i am going to spend money its's going to be on songs that i like not a CD with 10 horrable songs and one good one.

--It's just time that the record industry just suck it up and adjust to what people will spend not rail people to make up for lost sales or old sales modles

[williedigital]

Really, apple should just adopt an appstore model for music. Artists pay $100 to submit tracks/albums directly to Apple and get a free version of an "SDK" which is something along the lines of a souped up garageband. Artists set the price of their music (many I know would love to just be heard by as many people as possible, and would gladly give away digital albums free or for very nominal amounts). Labels that own the rights to the music could participate, and set prices however they saw fit, but now they would be in a truly competitive marketplace. No payola, no etc. The possibilities for cross-promotion abound. Live music would benefit. "Come to a concert, get a free copy of our EP." Artists could send twitters to their fans--"hey, just recorded a new track for our upcoming album. click ok to download for free from itunes music store".

The itunes store and app. store combined already have the majority of the infrastructure to create this, and I can't help this would help apple in the long run. The record companies are lumbering beasts, but dying.

[matruski]

Buy direct from the artist or from Apple. Don't let record companies attempts at artificially managing the digital revolution succeed. This isn't much of an invisible hand, but a sloppily veiled one. Apple has the best system of delivering and enjoying music. They should be rewarded for the fruits of their labor. Record companies can't do anything without consumer compliance. I just wish we knew who "record companies" were so that they could be addressed and questioned directly, rather than have my righteous indigination aimed at some hazy plural noun... record companies.

Also, what do you guys think of unicorns? mythical creatures or the best friend ever!?

[Morod]

You are missing something, you're getting ripped off paying for lower than CD quality.

Now that is true. Which is why maybe 5% of my music library is from the iTunes store. The rest is taken from my CDs, using Apple lossless compression. Believe it or not, there are some songs where I don't want the entire CD, just the song. Thanks!
Morod

[SandynJosh]

Damn. It's incredible how worked up people can get over 30 cents. And what is it that's making people draw an arbitrary line in the sand at $0.99 per song, anyway? Do you refuse to buy a $12.99 CD album if it only has ten songs on it?

Some ancient history. in 1960 a single with a throw-away b-side sold for $.99 and an album for $5.98. Usually you had to buy them in a music store. The bargain bin singles went for $.89 and were mostly crap songs.

Of course, in 1960 there was no minimum wage and a great job for a teen was a dollar and hour. That $.99 was some dear money and for $2.50 you could buy a steak dinner.

So, to answer that question, "Yeah, the $.99 cent per song goes back almost 50 years."

When CDs came to market the music industry pretty much told the consumer market that they were not going to raise the price if a CD over that of a pressed vinyl, so "go ahead" and buy the pricey CD player.

We brought the CD players, they dropped the vinly media, and the agreed price for CDs stayed at $5.99.

What has happened since then has been a revolution in how music is distributed and most people don't know how we got to where we are today. The music industry has been a drag on the evolution of the whole market, but for good reason. They are holding onto their place in the chain of distribution and their place is becoming more and more trivial.

In 1960 the film industry began to go through this same thing. At that time they had owned the stars, the studios and even the theaters. Since then, film went to DVD, the theaters became self-owned and the stars are no longer under contract to the studios and people mostly watch the movies at home. Some of these changes could be seen coming and some were a surprise as how rapidly they occurred.

The transition to electronic marketing of both of these medias is unstoppable, and all the music and film industry can do is try to slow things down. It' a bad plan, but it's the only one playing in town at the moment.

[rhett7660]

Now that is true. Which is why maybe 5% of my music library is from the iTunes store. The rest is taken from my CDs, using Apple lossless compression. Believe it or not, there are some songs where I don't want the entire CD, just the song. Thanks!
Morod

You and me both!

[MrCrowbar]

Now that is true. Which is why maybe 5% of my music library is from the iTunes store. The rest is taken from my CDs, using Apple lossless compression. Believe it or not, there are some songs where I don't want the entire CD, just the song. Thanks!
Morod

One of my favorite bands is selling USB dongles with the actual master files versions (96KHz, 24bit), you get the whole album for 10 bucks! That's how it's done! You can even reuse the dongle for whatever you like. That's how it's done folks, higher than CD quality for the audiophiles, collectors have a neat USB dongle with the album art printed on it and you even get some extra content (which you can't even get through iTunes).

All about it here in a 3 minute video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfE2E-8Azyc

[ptsube]

The RIAA are/is a bunch of morons. "We'll sue our customers, and if that doesn't make 'em buy more music, then we'll raise the price. Brilliant!"

[twoodcc]

well at least apple isn't the only one

[BrokenChairs]

* waits for International release of Amazon to Australia :( *

[Aqueus]

I really wonder still why the record industry thinks that raising the price of a commodity in a recession/depression is a good idea to stifle piracy. :rolleyes:

totally agreed

fail - amazon & wal-mart... hello P2P

[iMaggot]

people pay for music :confused:

Lol Torrent FTW :cool:

[mklos]

Damn. It's incredible how worked up people can get over 30 cents.

It's 30 CENTS. Not even enough for half of the bun on your crappy Big Mac.

Edit: And what is it that's making people draw an arbitrary line in the sand at $0.99 per song, anyway? Do you refuse to buy a $12.99 CD album if it only has ten songs on it?

:eek::rolleyes:

Well .30¢ adds up if you buy enough music. If I buy 500 songs throughout the year (which isn't out of the question for me) at $1.29/song versus paying .99¢/song thats an extra $145 I gotta fork out. Maybe thats not much for you, but in these times (or any time for that matter) its too much extra. More than I'm willing to pay.

[Sabenth]

So, how long before we don't even need record companies? I mean, it seems like it's easier than ever for a musician to record with their own money/equipment, and to release a single on the internet without any need for a larger company to handle all that promotion for you...


So many options so many sites and if i can just recomend beak the trend..

Two sites i recommend and there free
http://www.icompositions.com
http://www.macjams.com/

[mklos]

How is this LEGAL????

How is it not legal? Its just like I can be a car salesman with 2 of the same vehicle and sell you a car (no trade) for $25,000 and have someone else talk me down to $23,500 (no trade) for the same vehicle. You both agreed to a contract for the price. So he got a better deal than you. Its not their fault they're a better salesman than you. Keep in mind I'm just using you and an imaginary person to make a point for this post.

The record companies sold Apple DRM free music for a set price, and Amazon the same music for another set price just like I sold you the car for a set price that you agreed to and someone the same vehicle cheaper. Its not illegal IMO. It sucks yes, but its not illegal. I see this only promoting illegal activities (P2P downloading).

[Mjmar]

On the bright side, this makes me feel better about sticking to iTunes to buy my music. It's just so much more convenient. :D

[B2k1977]

On the bright side, this makes me feel better about sticking to iTunes to buy my music. It's just so much more convenient. :D

I wasn't going to switch anyways either. The convenience of it outweighs all the other B.S. in my opinion. I have alot of itunes drm'd music also, doesn't bother me, I think the promo upgrade to non-drm for .30 cents a song is a straight moneygrab, anyone that buys into that is a sucker. I don't use cd's anymore I have an ipod car stereo so.......

[dam0dred]

Well, buying music was fun.

I'll support the bands I like by going to concerts and buying t-shirts from them. I won't support these labels ripping us off. Hello, Pirate Bay. :)

[jzuena]

Some ancient history.

When CDs came to market the music industry pretty much told the consumer market that they were not going to raise the price if a CD over that of a pressed vinyl, so "go ahead" and buy the pricey CD player.

We brought the CD players, they dropped the vinly media, and the agreed price for CDs stayed at $5.99.

I bought my first CD player in 1984 before heading to college, only about 1.5 years after they came out. Back then you could go to Tower Records or Strawberry Records and they would have maybe 2 racks of CDs total (maybe 50-100 to pick through, and that was a combo of classical and rock.) And they cost $15 and up to buy. When CDs really took off in the late 80s, some came down to $11. I don't EVER remember new CDs being priced at $5.99. Even today, new CDs are rarely below $9.99 (the usual iTunes/MP3 album download price), and that's only at Wal-Mart or Amazon.com.

[marksman]

I've always wondered why random people on the internet always think they could run a company better, with no experience or knowledge on how they would really act in a situation like running a multi-million dollar corporation during a recession. :rolleyes:

I have always wondered why random people on the internet think everyone else is as inexperienced and lacking of knowledge as they are...

[kas23]

On the bright side, this makes me feel better about sticking to iTunes to buy my music. It's just so much more convenient. :D

On the bright side, this makes me feel better about stealing my music. It's just so much more convenient. :D

I'm in the 4th decade of my life, I have fattened the wallets of many, many record execs. If they didn't use to fleece the consumer and also, the artists, they probably wouldn't be in this situation.

The irony of digital music is that the record companies probably earn a higher profit margin than with physical CDs. These companies are worse than GM, we won't miss them.

[marksman]

I think people are crazy to pay .99 per track... so obviously my thoughts on these changes should be obvious.

The whole music business still needs major shake-up. I suspect most artists would prefer to get the lions share of 25 cents - 50 cents a song then get a fraction of $1.29.

Until the middlemen are cut out it is the same ole same ole and this is more of the same.

Online retailers could take 5 cents a song, give 25 cents to 30 cents to the artists/writers producers to split up and be done with it. I know some think the music machine is still needed to promote things, but I don't know how much that is true any more, and they get way too much money for the job they do.

My spending would go from zero to hundreds a year if I could cherry pick songs for a quarter.

I used to spend a few hundred dollars a month of cds when I was younger, now I can't even tell you the last time I bought a song or cd online or offline. It has been years.

I know I am the outcast here so I don't really expect things to change. With the record companies moving billions of singles at 99 cents and such, there is no motivation for them to lower prices. They don't believe people might spend MORE money if prices were lower, yet I know I would. I can't speak for everyone else.

Honestly, I mistakenly thought the next big price change in music we would see like a 49 cent price point. Instead they pretty much went the other way, as I am sure the average price per download will now go up with these new tiers and not down.

And I take that back.. I have bought a few full albums of music in the last few years. When Amazon has their 1.99 deals and it is something I want or like. I have a couple of those. Of course that is less than 25 cents a song.

[marksman]

For those that never saw it, David Byrne of Talking Head fame, wrote an article about the business of the new music world. He wrote it a year or so ago, but still some very interesting, enlightning and relevant information in there.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all

Here is an interesting graphic from the article pointing out the price breakdown of a typical store bought CD.

http://i41.tinypic.com/14mylip.gif

Notice $1.60 for artist royalties. On a 10 song disc this is only 16 cents per song. You see how much fat is there, and how for a fraction of the cost the artist could make more money. Especially since with lower prices they would sell more songs. So not only could they get more per song, but the volume would go up.

[marksman]

Hmmm...what if Apple just sits quiet for a while and then sues the record companies for unfair pricing? This way they can force a level playing field and pick up the lost profits in a negotiated settlement.

There used to be fair trade laws that governed these, they are gone now. Apple would not have a basis for a suit unless there was some sort of discrimination.

[MrShoehorn]

Just when I thought Amazon would start to sell more mp3's because Apple went up 30 cents they raised their prices as well. Smart move? I don't think so.

[hexonxonx]

Just when I thought Amazon would start to sell more mp3's because Apple went up 30 cents they raised their prices as well. Smart move? I don't think so.

It's not Apple nor Amazon. It's the record lables.

[mdriftmeyer]

For those that never saw it, David Byrne of Talking Head fame, wrote an article about the business of the new music world. He wrote it a year or so ago, but still some very interesting, enlightning and relevant information in there.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all

Here is an interesting graphic from the article pointing out the price breakdown of a typical store bought CD.

http://i41.tinypic.com/14mylip.gif

Notice $1.60 for artist royalties. On a 10 song disc this is only 16 cents per song. You see how much fat is there, and how for a fraction of the cost the artist could make more money. Especially since with lower prices they would sell more songs. So not only could they get more per song, but the volume would go up.

You wanna wager how much lower the Artist would sell their music if they were solely in charge?

[Music_Producer]

God, I f@cking hate it when people go about giving opinions when they are not musicians themselves, or in the business at all. Let's cover some points here -


Like most people stated "It is so easy for an artist to make his/her own music and get it out there.. you don't need a record label anymore"

Are you kidding? I have produced my own stuff, and it's out there.. but who notices? I have 6,500 'fans' .. but imagine if I had a major label marketing my music - that number would have multiplied by much more. I spend MONTHS making a piece of music sometimes.. I do have a family to support as well. In the end when I release a song, people whine about paying $0.99 for it (even though they love it) and they go and download it from a torrent site. I have a comment posted on my YouTube page by someone - "How can I get your songs for free??" :mad: Do you really think I am going to spend thousands of $$ marketing my music when people can easily download it for free? Heck no!

Do you know how much damn money it costs to make music? (right from song writing to production and marketing, etc)

Let's see - cost of music instruments (quality instruments - not a little casio keyboard), cost of studio recording, mixing, mastering, production costs, let's not forget the 'time' (you guys do know the concept of time?) that musicians spend making music. Everyone assumes musicians just play their little banjos all day without eating or having to pay rent, or anything else that normal people do.

Next, legal agreements, distribution deals, publishing, song writer royalties, etc etc what have you.

I remember when singles used to cost upwards of $5-$7 - now they are $1.29 - not a great move on the label's part but really, when you think about it - $1.29 is PEANUTS if you look at the effort that goes into making a song or an album.

Only buy the music you LIKE - there's a tendency these days (especially amongst teenagers) that they HAVE to own every song that's on the radio. ("Oh I have 1000 songs on my ipod.. how many do you have? What? Just 500? hahahaha!)

and then you have bloody piracy rampant everywhere. What do you want the labels to do? Declare bankruptcy or raise the price a bit?

If all the f@cking torrent sites shut down, and music was bought legally all the time, then the labels would make enough money to sustain themselves and everyone involved. But that is not going to happen -

Please stop treating the music business as though it were so easy to record a song and the whole world will start buying it the very next day. :rolleyes:

[Music_Producer]

You wanna wager how much lower the Artist would sell their music if they were solely in charge?

Exactly. Thank you.

[Music_Producer]

On the bright side, this makes me feel better about stealing my music. It's just so much more convenient. :D


Thanks, it's people like you who ruin our jobs (and whatever passion we may have in making music quickly disappears when we realize that there is no money coming in at all)

[likemyorbs]

On the bright side, this makes me feel better about sticking to iTunes to buy my music. It's just so much more convenient. :D

yeah and it makes me feel better about sticking to limewire. it's just so much more convenient. artists should make their money at concerts performing for people. i'm not paying to listen to a recording of their music. i can do that for free on the radio too, would people get as mad if i record it off the radio like people did in the 90's? somehow no one cared back then, today we have a bunch of "saints" who think they're the internet morals police

[armoguy94]

God d*** it Amazon. I was beginning to like you more and more, now this.

I guess it's not a huge deal, since I don't like any of the bestselling songs, never have, but still.why would you censor out the word damnit but not the word before that? whenever i see people write those two words together i feel really disturbed....

but yeah, I agree with you I never liked and never will like the top songs, they're all from artists that want the money and don't have an actual passion for making music without the money...just there to make a quick buck off a hit that took 5 min (primarily the top songs in hip hop and pop)

[Music_Producer]

yeah and it makes me feel better about sticking to limewire. it's just so much more convenient. artists should make their money at concerts performing for people. i'm not paying to listen to a recording of their music. i can do that for free on the radio too, would people get as mad if i record it off the radio like people did in the 90's? somehow no one cared back then, today we have a bunch of "saints" who think they're the internet morals police

Uh, airplay on radio does fetch royalties.. it's not exactly 'free'. The radio companies in turn, make money by airing commercials. Just because it's convenient to steal something doesn't mean you should. Entire careers and jobs are being ruined because of illegal downloaders - now it's going to spread to the movie industry.

But I'm not going to try and waste my time on someone who thinks that not stealing equals 'saint'. :rolleyes:

[MowingDevil]

This just sums up how much the record labels resent Apple. They couldn't figure out **** from shinola and Apple figured it out for them...they're bitter. They wanted to keep their old model because they had the industry monopolized from every aspect. Instead of embracing iTunes and recognizing that they could even make more profit if it really took off (no more expenses in manufacturing or distribution) they've decided to fight them tooth & nail. They're idiots running the industry and I hope they fall on their own swords soon...the sooner more major artists start walking away from the labels and embracing iTunes the better. You've got artists now signing w/ Live Nation (Madonna etc) instead of labels so its only a matter of time before big artists start signing with Apple. Just imagine the promotion they'd get w/ TV ads, magazines, online etc.

Cutting off their nose to spite their face just sums up major label mentality.

[emt1]

See my sig. :)

[SpaceKitty]

See my sig. :)

No. If I want A song, I'm still gonna buy it.

[rockosmodurnlif]

people pay for music :confused:
Yes, some of us realize it costs money to make music.

Beyond supporting the artist I support the labels, such as Ninja Tune, Verve, Century Media, Naxos, Epic because if it sells the labels will seek out more of the same. Hence the god awful state of current popular music, well not the entire cause but it does contribute. And quite frankly, I have a life and don't have to time to hunt down every obscure artist's myspace to see if they're good (most times they're not), so if one of my preferred labels is willing to take a chance, I'm willing to take a listen (provided there are free samples or tracks).

I've cut down pirating and find I'm getting more good music more often because I'm not downloading all the crap that's fit to torrent. I say I've cut down because I still hunt down the bonus tracks you can only get on foreign releases or singles but aren't available for digital purchase for some reason. I don't understand that.

[DELLsFan]

Thanks, it's people like you who ruin our jobs (and whatever passion we may have in making music quickly disappears when we realize that there is no money coming in at all)

Oh, come on now ... the 3 or 4 lines of cocaine at that producer's party, or the booze-fest bonanzas at all those raves didn't have anything to do with ruining all that passion? Work those fingers to the bone all day and it's just so damned stressful dodging the paparazzi on the way home! Life sucks!

http://michaelemilio.com/images/20061111-historic-palm-beach-mansion.jpg

:rolleyes:

[SpaceKitty]

people pay for music :confused:

I bought a CD on my iPhone at work just last night. It felt good to and made me happy. Try it sine time. :)

[leonstafford]

does it cost more for Bill Ray to pump out "Achey breakie" than it does for Tone Loc to squeeze out a Funky Cold Medina?

supply demand only applies when there is an actual limit to the supply.

oh, those poor Chinese labourers sitting all day copying mp3s from Zip disk to MO drive everytime someone clicks the Buy Now button on their iPhones....woe is they

I'm very disappointed at Apple for handing their balls over on this one....

[likemyorbs]

And quite frankly, I have a life and don't have to time to hunt down every obscure artist's myspace to see if they're good (most times they're not), so if one of my preferred labels is willing to take a chance, I'm willing to take a listen (provided there are free samples or tracks).

thats the kind of thinking record labels love. i dont download everything that will fit in a torrent, i download individual tracks as i want them, just like i would do if i paid for them. my itunes library would cost much more than my iphone itself, im not rich like the people who made those songs on my playlist, i dont pirate poor indie musicians. therefore, ill never feel bad about not paying for music. however, i would feel bad if i looked at the number of tracks in my music library and thought about how much i paid for them and didnt have to.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Wow - a 30% - 40% price hike. Might as well buy the physical CD instead.

Tony

Isn't that what the record companies have wanted all along? They make MUCH more profit when you buy the whole album than a single song. Given most albums sucks as a whole these days, getting to buy just the GOOD songs is still a deal, even if slightly higher. Pushing to make a couple of singles and write filler for the rest of the album has been a standard for pop music forever, but starts to fall apart when you're not forced to buy the filler.

[KilljoyPBN]

You guys have to understand 30% is a HUGE increase in business terms.

It will be interesting to see how it works out for the music industry. I guess Im going back to torrents. BTW **** Metallica.

[SFStateStudent]

These guys are already making a killing and the stuff isn't really that good. I'm going by the used CD/DVD store and buy music and movies at a fraction of the cost. I can buy a CD for $4.99 or less, a DVD for $7.99 or less, and a Blu-Ray disc for around $10.99...:mad:

[xparaparafreakx]

Good thing im belong to a record pool.

$99 a month for weekly dvds of music videos sent to my house. They even have them as mp4 digital files as an option.

Most regular people that buy music through iTunes. I ask some people and they did not know amazon and wal-mart sold digital music.

[Music_Producer]

Oh, come on now ... the 3 or 4 lines of cocaine at that producer's party, or the booze-fest bonanzas at all those raves didn't have anything to do with ruining all that passion? Work those fingers to the bone all day and it's just so damned stressful dodging the paparazzi on the way home! Life sucks!

http://michaelemilio.com/images/20061111-historic-palm-beach-mansion.jpg

:rolleyes:

What? do you think ALL producers live like that? Do you think it just takes a producer to create everything? Do you think I live like that? If I did I wouldn't loiter around macrumors for sure, I'd be busy getting high.. right?

Seriously, stop being myopic and acting so ignorant. Just like you have rich producers living such lifestyles, you also have average/poor producers, mixing engineers, studio techs, staff, etc living a lower than average lifestyle.

That's like saying Will Smith is so rich.. so let's just stop watching his movies. And so WHAT if this producer is rich and can afford this house and this lifestyle? Obviously he has TALENT - if everyone could make a song in 5 minutes (like someone said) heck, we'd all be living that lifestyle too.

Fool.

[Nicolasdec]

This just shows you how out of touch the music industry is with the real world. They complain about people downloading there songs for free, then they go and increase the prices on songs. DURING A RECESSION.

The movie industry has adapted quite well to the digital age. however the music industry carries on trying to fight it. And you know what I hope they all go bankrupt.

[BobtheTomato]

The record labels want to cut Apple down to size so they engage in this petty crap. This just makes me less inclined to buy music. It's past time that the record labels died.

[emulator]

So, how long before we don't even need record companies? I mean, it seems like it's easier than ever for a musician to record with their own money/equipment, and to release a single on the internet without any need for a larger company to handle all that promotion for you...
many already do that, nin//underworld just to name a few. only the crapfest singers, rappers and idols will stay with records companies; we'll see if the sheep will still buy that for no matter how much.

edit: with records copanies I mean the real corps, not the smaller, better records companies like audio therapy, soma, hope and a lot more ready to sell their releases on their own site or juno/beatport.

[dernhelm]

ZOMGZZZ!!!$@ You should sue something!!

Ha.

Doesn't hurt me any, just seems like collusion on the part of the record labels.

Look at it this way, if Microsoft got mad at Michael Dell, and decided that he had to pay more for windows licenses than everyone else doesn't that smell like a problem? Or if Microsoft suddenly decided that all computer manufacturers that didn't offer the ability to configure your system to ship with Linux got a deal on Windows licenses that nobody else got? Wouldn't that be a problem? Oh yeah, I guess maybe it WAS...

[lkrupp]

Oh well, back to downloading music for free.

Thief. A common thief. You should be in jail.

[blybug]

I won't pay more than $0.99 for a single.

Sort of playing devil's advocate, but not really...

Back in the 70's and 80's, the last time single sales were booming, a 45rpm record cost somewhere between $1-$2. And for crappy sound quality that you could only play at home on a turntable. What's remarkable is 25 years later the price for a song is exactly the same, sounds better, and has exponentially increased convenience and portability. And can't get scratched. :)

What else can you buy for a buck today?

Of course you also got the "B" side back then, which more often than not was crap compared to the song you were really buying. I've always thought since iTunes started selling songs that they should bring this old-fashioned model to the iPod era and throw in a "B" side that virtually nobody would buy otherwise anyhow, for the price of the single. Wouldn't cost them anything but bandwidth, and might convince a few more people to go back and buy the whole album.

[lkrupp]

You guys have to understand 30% is a HUGE increase in business terms.

It will be interesting to see how it works out for the music industry. I guess Im going back to torrents. BTW **** Metallica.

Yet another common thief in our midst. Why not just walk into a Walmart and shoplift a CD? You would have the physical media for backup and could make copies to distribute to your friends. Anonymously downloading music is so cowardly, like a pervert peeping into your neighbor's window. Be a man for god's sake. Or is cowardice your main personality trait?

[B2k1977]

It's not pure greed, not in any sense of the word. It's simple supply and demand. No one is twisitng anyone's arm to buy any music from anywhere. If anything it's the customer's greed and addiction to listening to music. You don't have a right to buy anything at some abitrary price you decide is reasonable. The producer sets the price and you decide if you're willing to pay it. Don't like the price? Don't buy the product.

So I guess you want the Obama adminstration to set the price of music downloads, huh. Yeah, that's the ticket, price regulation set by the government.:eek:

The only thing I want the Obama Administration to do is resign. I didn't vote for any of those clowns in the whitehouse. Sorry for not being P.C. but I just don't care when it comes to politics.

I don't see how you can cite supply and demand. It's an electronically downloaded product. Theoretically it should be unlimited supply.

I understand that they have to compensate for loss of CD sales (I can't remember the last time I bought a CD) I think like anything else, the price will go up but it is NOT a matter of supply and demand.

[compuguy1088]

The recording industry never learns. Let them keep jacking up prices, and piracy will continue to sky rocket. Napster became popular because people wanted a fast and convenient alternative to CDs (in particularly CD singles), not because there was some mass conspiracy by music lovers to not pay for anything.

I think the Amazon hysteria on this thread is a little funny. I highly doubt the record labels are giving Amazon that much of a better deal than Apple. It's just that Amazon, which owns a plethora of other online stores, is willing to sell hit songs as loss leaders for other products. This would similar to their gold box deals and other competitive pricing.

As an Amazon frequenter, it's dead easy to go between their different services. Amazon wants to be your go to company for everything (books, movies, tv shows, electronics, ebooks, online music, CDs, groceries, online storage, etc). What don't they sell anymore?

Amazon essentially wants to be the online version of Wal-Mart.

I can think of one thing they don't sell......refrigerated grocery items, sheet music, musical instruments....

[Porco]

I'm sticking with CDs for most of my music purchases for the forseeable future. Downloads were already overpriced. It's a shame the music industry still doesn't seem to get it.

However I don't think Apple shouldn't care too much. To paraphrase a nefarious fictional character, I think everything is proceeding as they have foreseen. iTunes is still top dog, is now DRM free, ad in order to try and wrestle some control back (control they only lost in the first place because Apple were the only ones to get it right) they're continuing to do Apple's work for them, stoking up competition that will squeeze more profits per track but lose them sales, until artists will, I think, eventually revolt and the likes of Amazon and Apple become the 'labels' themselves. I think it's a matter of time. Look at the App store - it must terrify the music industry, because that is a model where the creators get 70%! Extend that model to unsigned musical artists and the need for record contracts in anything like the way they exist now kind of disappears...

Meanwhile, Apple keeps selling iPods and iPhones that play files bought from anywhere, thanks to the end of DRM on music.

[compuguy1088]

So many options so many sites and if i can just recomend beak the trend..

Two sites i recommend and there free
http://www.icompositions.com
http://www.macjams.com/

iCompositions FTW!

http://www.icompositions.com/artists/compuguy1088

[sushi]

I can't imagine the music labels would give up this system that they fought so hard (with Apple, at least) to get... but the NUMBER of songs that get the higher price in future will be affected by sales. So count me in on your 1.29 boycott :)
Glad to see folks thinking alike.

The more the better chance of sending a message to the industry.

The RIAA are/is a bunch of morons. "We'll sue our customers, and if that doesn't make 'em buy more music, then we'll raise the price. Brilliant!"
This does make one wonder.

While many other stores are giving discounts to keep the business coming in the recording industry is trying to increase costs which more than likely will reduce sales.

yeah and it makes me feel better about sticking to limewire. it's just so much more convenient. artists should make their money at concerts performing for people. i'm not paying to listen to a recording of their music. i can do that for free on the radio too, would people get as mad if i record it off the radio like people did in the 90's? somehow no one cared back then, today we have a bunch of "saints" who think they're the internet morals police
You know that it is individuals such as yourself that are messing it up for the rest of us. By stealing your music through P2P networks like Limewire, you are hurting the industry. They will make up for losses by increasing costs to paying customers.

As for your recording from the airwaves comment, please do a little research before posting such comments. If you did, you would realize that there is a huge difference.

See my sig. :)
Good luck with that. :)

I bought a CD on my iPhone at work just last night. It felt good to and made me happy. Try it sine time. :)
iTMS makes things so easy doesn't it?

Buy a song or CD is just a few clicks away regardless if you are on your computer or iPhone/iPod touch. Sweet. :)

[sishaw]

Question: when does this cross the line to price fixing?

When all the record companies get together and decide that all retailers must charge a specific price for each song. That is not the case at all--for example, as many people have pointed out, Amazon is charging different prices for many songs. They are using their advantage as a "long tail" retailer, they don't have to make as much profit on each item sold. So the prices are clearly not being fixed.

[sishaw]

You guys have to understand 30% is a HUGE increase in business terms.

It will be interesting to see how it works out for the music industry. I guess Im going back to torrents. BTW **** Metallica.

Wow, the candy machine down the hall where I work just raised their prices from .80 for a Snickers bar to $1.00 (really, not making this up). Guess I'm gonna crack the glass front and just take the bars when I want them.

[leonstafford]

These guys are already making a killing and the stuff isn't really that good. I'm going by the used CD/DVD store and buy music and movies at a fraction of the cost. I can buy a CD for $4.99 or less, a DVD for $7.99 or less, and a Blu-Ray disc for around $10.99...:mad:

Good point!

When I was younger and dumber I bought CDs new, then tried the monthly CD club thing, then as downloads increased, I occasionly went to a 2nd hand store and picked up stuff as it was cheap and good.

A .99c or more download isn't going to be (isn't allowed to be!) sold 2nd hand for 20% if the cost.... so what happens to us bottom feeders when we have no more "SUPPLY"??

(spoiler) WE MAKE OUR OWN!!

[Morod]

I can think of one thing they don't sell......refrigerated grocery items, sheet music, musical instruments....

Nevermind......

[shanmugam]

1. iTunes
2. AmazonMP3
3. eMusic
4. Napster
5. Rhapsody
6. WalmartMP3

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9992592-1.html (this is old link)

common to all (with some exceptions)
1) DRM Free
2) 256 Kbps
3) same screwy labels :cool:

Differentiator will be

1) larger collection
2) Ease of use in general
3) easy to find related songs
4) easy downloading mechnism
5) album art work
6) AAC vs MP3 (if you are too much into sound quality and have great accessories to go with it; for example i download some comedy dramas; it does not matter whether it is MP3 or AAC quality does not make any difference in this case )
7) faster load times; try using emusic or walmartmp3 and you will know how much time it takes to load album art works when searching
8) ...

still i think no one matches iTunes ease of use; so for now other players have play the Price game

[stainlessliquid]

ahoy! price fixing off the port bow

[Trajectory]

The only thing I want the Obama Administration to do is resign. I didn't vote for any of those clowns in the whitehouse. Sorry for not being P.C. but I just don't care when it comes to politics.

Would you like to install Bush back in the White House as Dictator? And what exactly does this have to do with the topic of this thread??

[electronboy]

Do ya think it has _anything_ to do with Steve Job's strong arm tactics and scorched earth business practices? iWay or the highway? Sound familiar?

I hope SJ does not come back from medical leave and quietly fades away into the background. While I admire Steve for some his accomplishments, those are now in the past and its time to take Apple in a new direction.

[Trajectory]

Do ya think it has _anything_ to do with Steve Job's strong arm tactics and scorched earth business practices? iWay or the highway? Sound familiar?

I hope SJ does not come back from medical leave and quietly fades away into the background. While I admire Steve for some his accomplishments, those are now in the past and its time to take Apple in a new direction.

First off, it's pure speculation and rumor that the record companies are favoring Amazon in order to burn Apple. I know the RIAA is run by a bunch of brain-dead luddites, however, what they DO understand is profit, and Apple has helped them make a huge profit in online sales of their music. Why would they try to screw over their best online distributor? It's pure hearsay.

If it weren't for Steve Jobs, Apple would probably not be around today, and we'd still be buying all of our music at a music store, paying $18.00 for a CD just to get that one song you like. Let's face it, Steve Jobs saved Apple with the original iMacs, revolutionized digital music with the iPod and iTunes, and is now dominating the cellphone market with the iPhone. All on the watch of Steve Jobs.

[williedigital]

You wanna wager how much lower the Artist would sell their music if they were solely in charge?

EXACTLY.

The VAST majority of musicians make money for one reason.

<b>They enjoy making music.</b> It provides them with an outlet for creative expression, relaxation, social interaction if they are in a band or play live. If they take the time to record the music, they either want to preserve it for themselves or family, or share with others their vision. People have been making and playing music a LONG time before the privatization of music in the 20th century, and they will continue to do so for all time, because most musicians make music because they enjoy making music.

Just like someone who plays tennis or goes fishing or participates in any other activity that is at its core recreation and pleasure seeking, they recognize that there may be costs involved (buying a tennis racquet, buying a fishing rod, buying a guitar). I like the idea of public subsidies for musical instrument access (this exists in Europe), just like public subsidies for tennis courts, but I don't think any individual has the right to expect the public to bear the costs of their private property instruments or recording studio sessions.

I'm SO sick of hearing small time musicians complain about how much it costs to buy instruments, and most ridiculously of all, not be paid by the hour for the time they spend making music. It's your decision to do all of these things. If you are entering into a music career primarily as a means of making a living, then I feel no sympathy for your poor economic decisions to buy nice recording equipment and spend hours practicing music that no one is interested in paying to hear. If you view music as an economic opportunity, then I expect you to be smart about the product you produce, the capital you invest in producing it, etc.

[sishaw]

EXACTLY.

The VAST majority of musicians make money for one reason.

<b>They enjoy making music.</b> It provides them with an outlet for creative expression, relaxation, social interaction if they are in a band or play live. If they take the time to record the music, they either want to preserve it for themselves or family, or share with others their vision. People have been making and playing music a LONG time before the privatization of music in the 20th century, and they will continue to do so for all time, because most musicians make music because they enjoy making music.

Just like someone who plays tennis or goes fishing or participates in any other activity that is at its core recreation and pleasure seeking, they recognize that there may be costs involved (buying a tennis racquet, buying a fishing rod, buying a guitar). I like the idea of public subsidies for musical instrument access (this exists in Europe), just like public subsidies for tennis courts, but I don't think any individual has the right to expect the public to bear the costs of their private property instruments or recording studio sessions.

I'm SO sick of hearing small time musicians complain about how much it costs to buy instruments, and most ridiculously of all, not be paid by the hour for the time they spend making music. It's your decision to do all of these things. If you are entering into a music career primarily as a means of making a living, then I feel no sympathy for your poor economic decisions to buy nice recording equipment and spend hours practicing music that no one is interested in paying to hear. If you view music as an economic opportunity, then I expect you to be smart about the product you produce, the capital you invest in producing it, etc.

Luckily, they can also eat angel's breath and fairy dust, and live in a magic palace.

Get real. Being a musician is talent and skill mastered after a great deal of study and practice. A good song is no less a great creative work than a novel, a film, or a really great car. People deserve to get paid for what they produce. The idea that musicians should starve so you can have free music is very wrong.

[iphonerain]

I thought it was pretty steep at one dollar a song... they should really lower the prices rather than hiking it up for those who are still legally paying for their media rather than pirating it. It might encourage people to buy more to feed their conscience - this probably works against it.

[Solfeggio4]

Luckily, they can also eat angel's breath and fairy dust, and live in a magic palace.

Get real. Being a musician is talent and skill mastered after a great deal of study and practice. A good song is no less a great creative work than a novel, a film, or a really great car. People deserve to get paid for what they produce. The idea that musicians should starve so you can have free music is very wrong.

Right on. Yes, being an artist (musician or otherwise) is about talent and passion for what you do. But these artists also have to make a living, and if you are benefiting from it, why shouldn't you pay for their service? I know that there are many who have more money than they know what to do with, but there are a lot more struggling artists than Bonos in the world.

[marksman]

Sort of playing devil's advocate, but not really...

Back in the 70's and 80's, the last time single sales were booming, a 45rpm record cost somewhere between $1-$2. And for crappy sound quality that you could only play at home on a turntable. What's remarkable is 25 years later the price for a song is exactly the same, sounds better, and has exponentially increased convenience and portability. And can't get scratched. :)

What else can you buy for a buck today?

Of course you also got the "B" side back then, which more often than not was crap compared to the song you were really buying. I've always thought since iTunes started selling songs that they should bring this old-fashioned model to the iPod era and throw in a "B" side that virtually nobody would buy otherwise anyhow, for the price of the single. Wouldn't cost them anything but bandwidth, and might convince a few more people to go back and buy the whole album.


I used to buy singles for 49 cents at licorice pizza back in the early 80s. I don't think I ever paid close to a dollar for a vinyl single.

[iMacoo7]

Seems like the record companies want to be able to increase their pricing.

Apple was smart to make everything at 99 cents. Now with this variable pricing, you can expect costs to go up for the popular tracks/albums.

The only way this will change is if enough individuals vote with their pocket books and not purchase the higher priced songs.

I totally agree. It will diminish the higher priced songs or will be made limited because if the consumers choose the cheaper versions then they will more than likely dwindle the higher priced songs.

[stompy]

First off, it's pure speculation and rumor that the record companies are favoring Amazon in order to burn Apple. I know the RIAA is run by a bunch of brain-dead luddites, however, what they DO understand is profit, and Apple has helped them make a huge profit in online sales of their music. Why would they try to screw over their best online distributor? It's pure hearsay.


That certainly seemed to be the situation at the beginning of this saga (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/technology/14clash.html?fta=y).

Notice particularly the paragraphs near this quote: "A senior executive at another record company..."

[williedigital]

Luckily, they can also eat angel's breath and fairy dust, and live in a magic palace.

Get real. Being a musician is talent and skill mastered after a great deal of study and practice. A good song is no less a great creative work than a novel, a film, or a really great car. People deserve to get paid for what they produce. The idea that musicians should starve so you can have free music is very wrong.

I didn't say all musicians "should" starve. I'm saying that the vast majority of people shouldn't expect not to starve if they pursue music (or writing, or filmmaking, playing tennis) as a full-time economic endeavor. The economics simply do not work out for there to be more than a very small percentage of people able to make a decent quality living playing music full time. That has been the case since the beginning of history and will continue to be the case well into the future. For the vast majority of musicians, writers, painters, or any other artist, their work is not and will never be valued highly enough by enough people to provide them with full sustenance.

Your quote that "People deserve to get paid for what they produce" is so laughably ignorant of the concept of value that it underscores my whole point. I "produce" posts on this thread. They take my time write and I had to invest money in the computer and my monthly internet service. Nevertheless, I don't in any way expect to be paid for producing it. I recognize that it has little value outside of a very small community, and that no one is willing to pay for my opinions, although some people are willing to pay for the opinions of others (they are called opinion columnists). Likewise for musicians--I recognize that your instrument cost you money and that you spend time making music, but neither of these is a sufficient condition for me to want to spend a dime on your output. That said, I might be willing to give it a listen at no, or very low cost (just like I am willing to read posts on this board because they are free, but wouldn't spend one red cent on a "subscription" to this forum).

My proposal is for iTunes to become a more democratic distribution medium by allowing artists to directly distribute their product to a market on the same footing as major artists. Many musicians would love to "sell" 1,000 copies of their album at $0.99 instead of selling 100 at $9.99. Heck, maybe these artists could start to become better known and "valued" by listeners, so that they might charge $1.99 next time. If Madonna thinks she can keep charging $9.99 for albums and compete, then fine. If NIN or other groups with a rabid fanbase think they can charge $99 for their album, then fine.

Once content becomes divorced from any physical media, the concept of universal pricing falls apart, but so does variable pricing that enforces a narrow range of clearly defined "tiers". All I want is artists to be able to distribute their music on the same footing for a modest sum, and I wish Apple would take the lead in bringing that future about.

[kas23]

You know that it is individuals such as yourself that are messing it up for the rest of us. By stealing your music through P2P networks like Limewire, you are hurting the industry. They will make up for losses by increasing costs to paying customers.


Back when pirating songs was non-existant, CD prices were still steadily increasing in price. CDs were being sold in the stores for up to $18.99. I remember when MediaPlay initially opened and most CDs were 9.99$. I was as happy as a pig in... However over the next 2-3 years, prices quietly increased up to $13.99 and this was BEFORE pirating. Now that pirating, is well-established, prices have stabilized or gone down. $0.99 or $1.29 per track on a 10 track CD is costing $9.90 or $12.90. So, exactly how is pirating causing increased CD prices? If the record industry dare does this, this will just encourage more pirating. What we are seeing is stable or lower prices, but less of a product (a digital file and no physical CD).

[blybug]

I used to buy singles for 49 cents at licorice pizza back in the early 80s. I don't think I ever paid close to a dollar for a vinyl single.

We didn't have a Licorice Pizza in my hometown. Maybe they used 45s as loss leaders to get you to buy the pizza :D. I bought singles at a really tacky discount store called "Fisher's Big Wheel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher's_Big_Wheel#)" and can specifically remember digging through my paper route money in the early 80s for a dollar bill, a nickel, and a penny to buy 45s for 99 cents plus tax.

Also have a fairly specific memory from the early 70s of one of my first purchases ever with my own money. I used one of those oversized Eisenhower silver dollars I got from the tooth fairy to buy Tony Orlando's "Say Has Anybody Seen My Sweet Gypsy Rose (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?i=304763289&id=304763232&s=143441)". I can recall my mom saying "Are you sure you want to spend your whole dollar on this record?" I sure did. Listened to that 45 about a million times. In junior high my friends and I actually smashed a bunch of vinyl kids records we had, like Sesame Street and Mr Rogers, as well as that 45, because we way too cool to ever want to listen to that stuff anymore.

Tony is back on my iPod now, love it whenever his songs come on. Catchy songs trump cool when you're in your 40s. Wish I still had those 45s though.

[kas23]

My proposal is for iTunes to become a more democratic distribution medium by allowing artists to directly distribute their product to a market on the same footing as major artists. Many musicians would love to "sell" 1,000 copies of their album at $0.99 instead of selling 100 at $9.99. Heck, maybe these artists could start to become better known and "valued" by listeners, so that they might charge $1.99 next time. If Madonna thinks she can keep charging $9.99 for albums and compete, then fine. If NIN or other groups with a rabid fanbase think they can charge $99 for their album, then fine.


I fully agree with this. I will pay money for music, but I just don't want the record company charging a "blanket" price. And I want my money going directly to the artist. I will no longer pay major record companies one penny. For what? With the internet, they don't need to market artists anymore. They don't need to support artists anymore. And what do the artists get from the record companies? Less than a dollar per CD, which is disgusting.

Some of my favorite bands (like Grizzly Bear, Deerhunter) are not on major labels. I discovered them by downloading their music from the internet. Then, I paid them my money because I know those independent labels are more ethical towards their artists. Both of these bands could eaily splint from their record labels too, but they just don't know this year.

I paid money directly to Saul Williams, NIN, and Radiohead for their CDs. The Saul Williams CD was $5, NIN; one was $10 (but came with 2 physical CDs) and the other was free (but I paid $10 for the physical CD anyways), and the Radiohead was name-your-price (which I gave $5). In all these cases, the money went directly to the artist. I know they have to pay for bandwith, producers, studio time, etc., but they likely made more money per CD than the major record companies would have given them.

[rockosmodurnlif]

I didn't say all musicians "should" starve. I'm saying that the vast majority of people shouldn't expect not to starve if they pursue music (or writing, or filmmaking, playing tennis) as a full-time economic endeavor. The economics simply do not work out for there to be more than a very small percentage of people able to make a decent quality living playing music full time. That has been the case since the beginning of history and will continue to be the case well into the future. For the vast majority of musicians, writers, painters, or any other artist, their work is not and will never be valued highly enough by enough people to provide them with full sustenance.

Your quote that "People deserve to get paid for what they produce" is so laughably ignorant of the concept of value that it underscores my whole point. I "produce" posts on this thread. They take my time write and I had to invest money in the computer and my monthly internet service. Nevertheless, I don't in any way expect to be paid for producing it. I recognize that it has little value outside of a very small community, and that no one is willing to pay for my opinions, although some people are willing to pay for the opinions of others (they are called opinion columnists). Likewise for musicians--I recognize that your instrument cost you money and that you spend time making music, but neither of these is a sufficient condition for me to want to spend a dime on your output. That said, I might be willing to give it a listen at no, or very low cost (just like I am willing to read posts on this board because they are free, but wouldn't spend one red cent on a "subscription" to this forum).

My proposal is for iTunes to become a more democratic distribution medium by allowing artists to directly distribute their product to a market on the same footing as major artists. Many musicians would love to "sell" 1,000 copies of their album at $0.99 instead of selling 100 at $9.99. Heck, maybe these artists could start to become better known and "valued" by listeners, so that they might charge $1.99 next time. If Madonna thinks she can keep charging $9.99 for albums and compete, then fine. If NIN or other groups with a rabid fanbase think they can charge $99 for their album, then fine.

Once content becomes divorced from any physical media, the concept of universal pricing falls apart, but so does variable pricing that enforces a narrow range of clearly defined "tiers". All I want is artists to be able to distribute their music on the same footing for a modest sum, and I wish Apple would take the lead in bringing that future about.
I read your post and it reminds me of the App Store where, if I'm not mistaken, developers are talking about how the pricing structure tends towards cheap apps and I see myriad derisive comments here about the bestselling fart apps. And, remember Apple is the gateway in the App store, so Apple decides what would be in the music store? Why would Apple want to involve itself in music to that extent?

[williedigital]

I read your post and it reminds me of the App Store where, if I'm not mistaken, developers are talking about how the pricing structure tends towards cheap apps and I see myriad derisive comments here about the bestselling fart apps. And, remember Apple is the gateway in the App store, so Apple decides what would be in the music store? Why would Apple want to involve itself in music to that extent?

Two good points of discussion here.

1. Pricing structure at App store leads to bad apps.

I have no problem whatsoever with there being 30 different "ifart" applications available. I fully expect there to be hundreds of different artists that sound really similar to each other. That's the nature of art, and it already is the case already. Clearly, there is a need already in the apple store for more useful rating tools, comment sections, etc. and this would be even more the case with music. I completely expect there to be blogs written about music, just as there are now (hey maybe apple can provide an open platform for that as well?), along with most other machinations of the existing music industry.

These programmers and these musicians should not expect to make a living off of these applications or these albums. Not enough people value them enough. They should expect to have fun doing what they do (programming, making music) and have to the opportunity to POSSIBLY become popular, make new social connections, learn, and advance as programmers,artists. If they think they can make a product valuable enough that living out of it, then nothing is stopping them from devoting more time to their art or buying new materials, but they are in the same boat as any entrepreneur, and should expect to be treated as such, rather than the poor visionary who should be able to make ends meet but just can't because of some injustice in the world.

2. Apple controlling content. From my understanding the only thing apple permits from the app store are apps that crash phones or violate existing copyrights. So I expect them to virus-check each file uploaded and not allow recordings that are plagiarisms. I don't remember the exact rules on cover tracks, but I'm sure it's not too hard to enforce.

[B2k1977]

Would you like to install Bush back in the White House as Dictator? And what exactly does this have to do with the topic of this thread??

Politics have no place here. I only made that statement to answer someone's inquiry.

[sishaw]

I didn't say all musicians "should" starve. I'm saying that the vast majority of people shouldn't expect not to starve if they pursue music (or writing, or filmmaking, playing tennis) as a full-time economic endeavor. The economics simply do not work out for there to be more than a very small percentage of people able to make a decent quality living playing music full time. That has been the case since the beginning of history and will continue to be the case well into the future. For the vast majority of musicians, writers, painters, or any other artist, their work is not and will never be valued highly enough by enough people to provide them with full sustenance.

Your quote that "People deserve to get paid for what they produce" is so laughably ignorant of the concept of value that it underscores my whole point. I "produce" posts on this thread. .

First of all, the fact that you think your ridiculous diatribes on this thread about why artists shouldn't get paid is equivalent to being a musician shows that you know nothing about music on the professional level and how much work goes into it. Secondly, people get paid in creative fields all the time--advertising writing, screenwriting, composing, painting, whatever. There mere fact that one has had the talent, hard work and luck to succeed in doing something one enjoys does not mean that you should have no expectation of getting paid. By extension, then, should anyone who enjoys their work not get paid? Your kind of thinking is how artists and musicians get taken advantage of by people who essentially want to steal their original, creative work.

If a song is good enough for you to spend time to download and listen to it, it's certainly good enough to see that the artists who made it get paid. The idea that the market doesn't sustain music is wrong, music is very much a part of the lives of people who appreciate it. I just wish so many of them didn't think it is OK to steal intellectual property.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

If a song is good enough for you to spend time to download and listen to it, it's certainly good enough to see that the artists who made it get paid. The idea that the market doesn't sustain music is wrong, music is very much a part of the lives of people who appreciate it. I just wish so many of them didn't think it is OK to steal intellectual property.

Do you think it's OK for the record companies to 'steal' the artists' money? Have you seen a typical standard new artist contract? It's pretty much theft, IMO. If you sell a million songs at $1, you will make about $10-20,000 while the record company will get the other $980-990,000. I'm sure you would say that's a valid contract and so it's not theft, but I say you're just trying to justify corporate GREED. These people don't care about artists or music, what-so-ever. They only care about how much money they can make off you. They'll pass by true musicians in favor of some model that can barely sing because they know they can sell the latter in Maxim magazine. If by chance they do come across a hot looking talented musician, they'll try to force their pop writers' music on their album instead of letting them write their own music or if they do let them, they'll want to change everything to make it more marketable, which usually means the music gets compromised. Someone like Janis Joplin would NEVER get into the music industry today under any circumstance save maybe a backup session musician that is only heard, not seen. The ONLY musicians that see any real money from album sales are ones that are mega-bands or artists that have made it through their 4-6 album contracts and are still popular and can renegotiate from a power stand-point. This would be bands like Metallica.

While I own well over 400 CDs and have bought many tracks online, I can tell you quite honestly that if you want to truly support an artist and see him or her get most of the money instead of some suit at the head of EMI or whatever, then you should go see them in concert. Many famous artists would be starving artists if they didn't tour. My personal opinion is an artist would be better served by someone that 'steals' their online music but comes to see them in concert than someone that buys their albums online but never goes to a concert because they'll get many times the money from that concert ticket than that 99 cent sale that they only 1-2 cents from maximum. You'd be better off sending your 99 cents directly to the artist as a 'gift' check or something if you care about supporting the artist and not the machine.

All the high ethics and morality lectures from would be do-gooders that think laws are somehow just because they are laws (regardless of content) and that downloading copies of 1s and 0s is the same thing as taking actual physical property won't change any of the facts above. In the end, all you end up doing and being is a patsy to support the greedy corporate system that's in place to take advantage of those laws they helped to put into place in the first place. Yeah, that makes me a patsy too since I own over 400 CDs, most of which is filler.

So buy that song for 99 cents, knowing that your 1.8 cents will go to the artist and feel good that you 'did the right thing' or better yet go see them in concert where they'll get a much larger portion of the money. Good artists deserve to be supported and they deserve more than 1-2 cents a song (sometimes less).

What we really need is a push to remove the record companies out of the equation entirely. There is simply no reason that stores like iTunes couldn't sell music directly from the artists. But there is pressure from the record companies to NOT allow this sort of thing en masse. But that's because they realize they are IRRELEVANT in today's technological age. You can get more press from word of mouth on You Tube than through a music video that MTV no longer plays 95% of the time anyway. Of course, the danger there is that stores like iTunes would eventually become the new record companies by charging outrageous 'fees' to host their music...kind of like Apple already does with iPhone apps by take 1/3 of the programmer's take right off the top with no alternative store to sell them in). But just lecturing to support a system that is inherently 'bad' for artists to begin with doesn't accomplish much, IMO. It just helps maintain the status quo of record companies taking 98% of the money and treating artists like dirt (save the top 1/2 of 1%).

[shanmugam]

one question who creates the .mp3 or .aac files? is the service provider or record companies?

if record companies provide the files, why bit rate is different?

should we see one day all are selling same content/bit rate/AAC files?

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I don't know who makes the files (I'd guess Apple does in this case), but based on the latest iTunes, I'm assuming iTunes Plus songs are all variable bit-rate 256kpbs, which might be better for sound quality over non variable, but both my cell phone and car stereo don't like those files and won't play them or play them correctly. If I convert them to straight 256kbps (non-variable), they play perfectly on both. Until I saw the new "iTunes Plus" setting, I couldn't figure out why all my non-Apple players that handle AAC didn't like Apple songs (since all my own library conversions always played fine and so did the Apple ones if I converted AAC to AAC). This explains it. I suppose the fault is on the 3rd party players (they should support variable bit-rates for AAC; they seem to for MP3s on the same players), but it's something to watch out for. I love my iPod Touch, but having a car stereo that has a USB port and an 8GB micro-USB stick with all my favorite songs on it for random play without having to bring my iPod is even better.

[joemama]

If musicians were smart (no flame intended), they would create one big union/company/conglomerate and sell their music directly through Apple, just like the iApp store.

What do the record companies do now-a-days that artists can't do for themselves?

[MacManiac76]

Very bad timing considering the state of the economy.