Apple to End iTunes Music Store Uniform Pricing Model?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

MarketWatch reports (http://www2.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp?siteid=mktw&dateid=38672.4950248264-850864041&) on a Wall Street Journal article saying that Alain Levy, CEO of EMI Music, expects Apple to end the one-price-fits-all pricing in the iTunes Music Store within a year, increasing prices for popular songs and cutting prices for music by unknown artists. Levy reportedly discussed the issue with Steve Jobs, although the details of those discussions were not given and it was not claimed that Jobs made specific statements about iTMS pricing himself.

From a Levy press conference:
There is a common understanding that we will have to come to a variable pricing structure. The issue is when. There is a case for superstars to have a higher price.

[socamx]

Music industry sucks.

I can't see this being good for the iTMS...

[Lord Blackadder]

Bollocks.

there is a case for superstars to have a higher price.

Pure, unadulterated greed.:mad:

[TheMonarch]

Back to Limewire I guess :rolleyes:

Too bad, I only spent $182 on music, now its going to be $0

[topgunn]

I don't know if there is a case for superstars to have a higher price. Superstars should sell more product and thus make more money but Lyle Lovett's latest CD will cost as much as Usher's (I don't know who is popular today) down at BestBuy

[phonic pol]

Good reason to find even more great unknown 'uncommercial' tunes and boycot manufactured crap!!! What's the bets illegal downloads will be up?

[Veldek]

This would like a price increase for me, as I normally buy new songs. Don't know if I'll still buy as many songs as now then.

[macphisto]

The music industry is pathetic.

Looks like I will just wait and buy "the popular" music from the "biggest artists" after it is no longer popular and drops in price.

And you wonder why limewire and P2P is so popular.

My vote is for Apple to create it's own recording studio (under the iTunes Originals section) and pay the artists more and woo all the artists away from the money grubbing studios.

[Ja Di ksw]

Sigh.

Hope people keep posting (and posting more) about really good "unknown" artists that didn't have their hand in this and are going to make less (per song, hopefully more overall).

[HiRez]

I don't have that much of a problem with variable pricing in theory. It's still better to pay $1.50-$2.00 for a single song I like than to buy the whole CD for $15-$18. I do feel like they need to offer a decent discount for buying the whole album on iTunes, though, and I think they really need to get on board in offering higher quality downloads (192 Kbps with free updates for previously-purchased songs).

However, I have a bad feeling that the price hikes are going to far outweigh these supposed price cuts, hence raising the average price for songs substantially. This is just a way for them to disguise it.

[Madmic23]

I don't understand this reasoning. If a popular artist sells one million songs at one dollar, they make one million dollars. If a less popular artists sells one thousand songs at one dollar, they make one dollar (yes, I know not all of that dollar goes to the artist, but I'm generalizing).
How is this not fair? The popular artist will still make more money! This is just pure greed on the part of the record industry.

[javiercr]

may be i could understand that old songs were cheaper since the music industry no longer need to recover marketing costs, however it doesnt make sense that any song is more expensive than they are now, they are already too expensive and not good value for money compared with the physical CD (that is not compressed, has no DRM restrictions and comes in a nice little box)

[ZorPrime]

Good reason to find even more great unknown 'uncommercial' tunes and boycot manufactured crap!!! What's the bets illegal downloads will be up?

I agree. Too bad Apple doesn't own much/if any of the content being sold on iTunes Music Store... I think Apple should start it's own record label and bypass the likes of the greedy record labels.

[Tommyg117]

This is not fair. Superstars are going to get more money, great. But what about the lesser known independant bands? They are the ones that might need that extra bit of cash to keep touring etc. Maybe now 50 cent can bathe in champagne and put out another crappy movie thanks to his money.

[topgunn]

This is not fair. Superstars are going to get more money, great. But what about the lesser known independant bands? They are the ones that might need that extra bit of cash to keep touring etc. Maybe now 50 cent can bathe in champagne and put out another crappy movie thanks to his money.
He stopped that. The champagne was drying out his skin.

[mr_flibble]

I saw somewhere very strange explanation from some representative of "music industry", it was something like: "It cost much more to produce good music than to produce the one nobody likes. We just want our investment back!". OMG, of course - if the music is so good, you will sell millions of the same track instead of hundreds tracks of bad music, this is the way you can get your money back and much more. They are just greedy, trying to maintain status quo of CD market - one hit and the rest is about nothing so you have to buy CD to get 1 song for 15$..now compare it with iTMS where you can get the same song for .99 and you see they are loosing money. But not because of unified price, it is because until now they didn't have to care about the quality of the music on CDs they were selling.

[Maestro64]

I am not sure what they mean by superstar, but there are two statements there, the superstar statement and the most popular. Most popular my not always be a superstar. So are they going to set price based on the precieved number of downloads for a new song. It will be easy for existing since they know what is hot. Right now My Hump is the most popular song on itunes, but I would not say Black Eyed Peas are superstars.

Think about this, as the download counter goes up so does the prices!!!

[mac-er]

I really don't have a problem with this, and its not a foreign concept, like many people are treating it.

Traditional CDs and DVDs work the exact same way -- new releases and more popular items are more expensive than older, less popular CDs and DVDs. Hence, the bin of $ 5.99 CDs/DVDs at the store.

Why should digital music and movies be any different? (And, why aren't you people out bitchin' about the traditional CDs/DVDs cost structure if this model will be so "evil")

In addition, this rumor says nothing about "superstars" getting more money. It says "more popular". Supply and demand. Number 1 song would cost $1.99 when its first released and then probably drop to 79 cents when no one wants it no more (just like traditional CDs)

Back to Limewire I guess
Limewire will be gone within the year, just as Grockster just went. Sorry, but the industry is rightfully winning cases against people who steal.

[iGary]

I'll go right back to stealing it. I can't imagine I will be the only one.

[nemaslov]

The record companies are already saving manufacturing costs, shipping etc. Do less and wanting more than you would pay by purchasing a CD. THEY STILL DON'T FRIGGEN GET IT! Of course people will go steal again. LAME!!:mad:

[xli_ne]

we shall see how much more the songs will go up or go down for that matter. 10 cents or so might not be that big of a deal for some people

[Phatpat]

99 cents is "the" price. More is too much.

But if some good older music is 49 cents, I won't complain .

[dernhelm]

This isn't about a fair pricing structure where old/less popular music costs less. You better believe that they will not charge less than $0.99 (US) for even the least popular song in the catalogue. This is about charging exhorbitant rates for Top 50 songs, and anything that begins to sell well.

I can't believe the music industry doesn't believe we understand this.

Prediction: Piracy will increase - and it will be a real shame, because it is the artists who continue to suffer.

I really believe that the only way out is for artists en-mass to stop making agreements with record labels, and for everyone to go indie.

[SlowX]

It's so easy to do whatever you want when you can define your own price. Record companies, oil companies, government, tomatO, toMAHto...

I can only hope that more people will seek out the "cheaper," better alternatives to the higher-priced "same old crap."

Heck, I'll sell you MY stuff for a nickel!
WOOP!

[iHavenolife]

This is not good if true. The big artitsts will still get more money anyway.

Also Apple should not sell any songs above $0.99.

[g4cubed]

... I think Apple should start it's own record label and bypass the likes of the greedy record labels.
Isn't their problems with Apple Corp enough without going all the way. :rolleyes:

IMHO the music industry is just like the oil companies never enough profit for that middleman :mad:

I'll stop buying if its much higher

[swingerofbirch]

I had heard the new Madonna album was good, so I went over to iTunes to preview it. It comes with 12 tracks, some digital booklet, and a music video, all for $12.99. I thought about $12.99 showing up on my statement (I am a student part time work, make about $50 every two weeks), and I thought I just can't spend that money. I need to buy shoes and clothes for winter. Real things thatwon't disappear if my computer crashes. And so I thought how much would I pay for that album with the video. At $2 I might be tempted.

LOL...anyhow, yeah I get the two free downloads a week though.

[big_boldge]

Pure selfishness and greed, Tesco has the same download pricing as iTMS have a moan at tham for a change. As the market share of iTMS and decreased illeagal downloads shows fixed ricing is working, so keep it like that. DON'T GIVE UP APPLE FIGHT FOR IT!

[Cali_Man]

I think you people crying out about the RIAA's injustices, etc. need to calm down. Lets just wait and see what comes of this before we organize the lynch mob. Maybe prices won't be affected much, maybe they'll back down, maybe people will just stop paying for music again.

The statement is far too general I feel to start blasting off on how disgusting this move is. And as one poster said earlier, how would this be any different than other commodities, such as CD's/DVD's? Can't really fault a business for following a simply supply and demand chart....

[mac-er]

I had heard the new Madonna album was good, so I went over to iTunes to preview it. It comes with 12 tracks, some digital booklet, and a music video, all for $12.99. I thought about $12.99 showing up on my statement (I am a student part time work, make about $50 every two weeks), and I thought I just can't spend that money. I need to buy shoes and clothes for winter. Real things thatwon't disappear if my computer crashes. And so I thought how much would I pay for that album with the video. At $2 I might be tempted.

LOL...anyhow, yeah I get the two free downloads a week though.

You are smoking dope if you think you will get 12 songs and a video for $2.

And what exactly did you do when you bought CDs? That same album in traditional CD format is probably $14.99-$17.99

[Epicurus]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Apple is pushing into a lot of markets these days, and the whole music thing is now a bit old hat. Apple has to pick its battles. If they cave in to the music industry about variable pricing, then what's to stop the movie/tv industry from following suit. If the $.99 song goes away in favor of the $1.99 hit single, then the $1.99 price for TV shows will look too low (!!). Then that price will go up, killing any future the video iPod might have had.

And for those of us still clinging to the hope that variable pricing means that only a few of the more recent/popular songs will go up and 70-80% of the catalogs will go down in price... Not likely. :eek: This is a move to get bigger profits. Profits, not revenue. They know full well that higher prices mean fewer net sales, but the higher margins mean 1-2% more profit (or something else really small).

I have no choice but to wait and see what happens, but I can't think of any way in which this could turn out good for the consumer.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Windowlicker]

I'm against this, but since I don't listen to Britney & Co. I guess this pricing model might even be better for me.

Still, I think the beauty of iTMS is based partly on the fact that you don't really have to look at the prices too much, because pretty much everything goes for $/€10.

[Lord Blackadder]

Limewire will be gone within the year, just as Grockster just went. Sorry, but the industry is rightfully winning cases against people who steal.

Perhaps, but people on both sides of the illegal downloading debate have to admit that the pirates will always have a leg up on the music industry.

Computers will always be facilitators of piracy. I think Apple's way of making iTMS viable was to make the price attractive enough that people would choose legit music over piracy. Take away the low flat-rate pricing and people will lose interest.

I'm afraid that pressure from the music industry will force Jobs to introduce a tiered pricing system which will have a negative effect on the iTMS. Sony, Real, and M$ would like to see this happen, but the iPod may still keep people on iTMS.

Maybe a sharp increase in piracy afterwards will vindicate Jobs' argument though.

[iJaz]

Good!
The superstars suck anyway!
Let's lower the price for the good and interesting music.
And yes, Black Eyed Peas are "superstars"...

[dashiel]

Limewire will be gone within the year, just as Grockster just went. Sorry, but the industry is rightfully winning cases against people who steal.

not true. as individuals and small groups the aware consumer will always be more agile than big business. all shutting down limewire, grokster, etc... will do is speed up the development of encrypted peer-to-peer services, invitation only dark nets and so on. it's constant battle the losers end up being the music companies and the less informed consumers who continue to use compromised applications.

[NVRsayNVR]

I think you people crying out about the RIAA's injustices, etc. need to calm down. Lets just wait and see what comes of this before we organize the lynch mob. Maybe prices won't be affected much, maybe they'll back down, maybe people will just stop paying for music again.

The statement is far too general I feel to start blasting off on how disgusting this move is. And as one poster said earlier, how would this be any different than other commodities, such as CD's/DVD's? Can't really fault a business for following a simply supply and demand chart....

Which record company did you say you worked for?:D :D :D

[sonicsessions]

I have no problem with them charging whatever the hell they want for "superstar" acts, because I rarely listen to "superstars."


Support independent music. Support local music. Screw the Top 40.

[emw]

Traditional CDs and DVDs work the exact same way -- new releases and more popular items are more expensive than older, less popular CDs and DVDs. Hence, the bin of $ 5.99 CDs/DVDs at the store.

Why should digital music and movies be any different? (And, why aren't you people out bitchin' about the traditional CDs/DVDs cost structure if this model will be so "evil")But this is a different scenario. The $5.99 CDs were originally $12.99 (or whatever), but didn't sell well. Unfortunately, the store still has a stock of them. Selling them at $5.99 is better than throwing them away, hence the reduced price.

It's not like the record companies said "This music is crap, let's sell it for $5.99." They said "This music is crap, let's sell it for $12.99." Unfortunately for them, Best Buy or whomever bought the music at the original price (no, not $12.99 to them) thinking they would sell it. And they didn't.

With digital music, it's completely different. The distribution costs are essentially nothing. You don't manufacture and stock CDs hoping to sell them, you simply release another copy when it's purchased. The $5.99 bin goes away.

Besides, if the digital model were indeed the same as the physical model, all music would start out at the same price, and unpopular music would be reduced.

[djlu]

If the pricing schedule worked like this I might find it acceptable.

$1.29 new-3 months only
$0.99 after 3 months
$0.79 for discounted titles

That would be OK with me. I can afford to wait 3 months.

Doug

[swingerofbirch]

You are smoking dope if you think you will get 12 songs and a video for $2.

And what exactly did you do when you bought CDs? That same album in traditional CD format is probably $14.99-$17.99


I don't smoke dope. As I said I make $25 a week. I told you what i WOULD be legally WILLING to pay. Obviously that's not the direction the music industry wants to take. The point you could extrapolate from what I said, is that if young people like myself want to pay less for music than it currently costs, moving in the opposite direction will probably lose even more people to P2P music.


It should be pointed out that Madonna literally (LITERALLY) lives in a castle. I can't imagine selling an album for profit if I had that much money. I think I'd be sick. You have to have way too much self esteem to think you should take in more profit at that point.

There's this idea of what is legal being what is right. But the two are very often misaligned.


EDIT: To answer your other question, CDs are somewhat before my time.

[puckhead193]

well if this is true this will be the end of the ITMS and back to limewire etc and sales of the ipod will drop ... so in othe words apple is geting screwed big time

[alien]

I think that they shouldn't raise the price over the $.99 established price either. Drop the price of the unknown bands or those that are not as popular. The record industry is just showing their true colours as always. If anything they're just going to make the illegal downloads more popular again.

[Doctor Q]

I like the flat pricing because it makes it simple. I think about the tracks I want and buy those above my personal threshold of "worth a buck".

With variable pricing, not only would I have to judge different tracks at different prices, I'd have to consider whether to buy a new release now, or wait to see if the price drops after the newness wears off.

Overall, I'd probably come out ahead with variable pricing, because I'd tend to buy more of the bargain music from the 1980s and 1990s and less of the 2000s music. Nevertheless, if Steve Jobs asks me to decide for him, I'd have them stick with fixed pricing.

[crap freakboy]

easy solution.
We all buy iPods.
Then do what I do, take my full iPod to a friends house, transfer my tracks to his PC, then put his iTunes library onto mine. Buy the odd 'superstar' CD each month. Download the new band stuff from iTunes. New exciting stuff races up the charts, all the 'soul-less' 'superstar's get sweet fanny adams in royalites. Music industry dies.

[revjay]

Hello Limewire!!!
If this happens, I will likely purchase less on iTunes.

[killmoms]

well if this is true this will be the end of the ITMS and back to limewire etc and sales of the ipod will drop ... so in othe words apple is geting screwed big time
Bwaha! Why would sales of iPods drop? People would just be stealing more MP3s. There's nothing to stop you from putting those on your iPod. If you think the iTMS is the big reason why people are buying the iPod, you're nuts.

[Steamboatwillie]

In the words of the late, great Hunter S. Thompson:

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There’s also a negative side. "

The funny thing is when Job's "explains" the pricing change we will all feel good and wonder why it had not happened sooner, be that the truth or not! :eek:

[j-a-x]

Good thing I don't listen to music by 'superstars'.

I'm hoping at least the indie stuff will stay at 99 cents.

[amholl]

The music industry is pathetic.

Looks like I will just wait and buy "the popular" music from the "biggest artists" after it is no longer popular and drops in price.

And you wonder why limewire and P2P is so popular.

My vote is for Apple to create it's own recording studio (under the iTunes Originals section) and pay the artists more and woo all the artists away from the money grubbing studios.

I agree. It would be dirt cheap to make studios, as apple pretty much makes the computers that are used to make music. It could even be 60 cents artist 40 cents Apple, and eliminate the record companies. This would give Apple exclusic=ve rights, but they need settle with apple corps before they do this.

[reckless_0001]

All I can say is... Boo! I hope that doesn't happen, otherwise I'll stop buying from iTunes and start downloading again.

[cazlar]

Support independent music. Support local music. Screw the Top 40.
Just don't support them TOO much, or they become Top 40 themselves (and therefore expensive)! :D

[oskar]

I think charging anything more than $0.99 for a song is a bad idea I do agree that pricing should be lowered for some artists and tracks that don't sale as much. Apple should base pricing on long term demand, but only for lowering prices.

[Lord Blackadder]

Music industry dies.

If only it were true <sigh>.:(

[Some_Big_Spoon]

The RIAA sues children and dead grandmothers.. do you really think they're going to care the this will increase "piracy" (fair use)?

The AG wrote an opnion that copyright violations (Civil Offenses) should be punishable by jail time (as in Criminal Offenses). This piddly little increase in fees in one place and lowering in another means nothing. They're paying "officials" to change the rule of law with no basis or precident, shouldn't that be what we're talking about?

[seriypshick]

I'm going back to piracy as soon as this happens.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

Copy it from a friend or by it used; you're within your right to do so (for the time being) regardless of what the RIAA mafia says.

I had heard the new Madonna album was good, so I went over to iTunes to preview it. It comes with 12 tracks, some digital booklet, and a music video, all for $12.99. I thought about $12.99 showing up on my statement (I am a student part time work, make about $50 every two weeks), and I thought I just can't spend that money. I need to buy shoes and clothes for winter. Real things thatwon't disappear if my computer crashes. And so I thought how much would I pay for that album with the video. At $2 I might be tempted.

LOL...anyhow, yeah I get the two free downloads a week though.

[killmoms]

I agree. It would be dirt cheap to make studios, as apple pretty much makes the computers that are used to make music. It could even be 60 cents artist 40 cents Apple, and eliminate the record companies. This would give Apple exclusic=ve rights, but they need settle with apple corps before they do this.
Fark it, just let 'em BUY Apple Records, Corp. I mean, what've they REALLY done since the Beatles? That's all I know 'em for. And they don't even own the Beatles' catalog anymore. Apple Computer has a crap-ton of money lying around—use that cash to buy Apple Records, merge 'em into the iTMS division, and start their own label that sends 60 cents straight to the artist for every sale. Dunno how they'd handle CD releases though, I'd still want those for lossless goodness. But as long as the terms were still good for the artist, I'd prefer buying CDs from Apple to buying them from elsewhere.

[SiliconAddict]

the iTunes Music Store within a year

Yah. Right around the time Apple has to renew their license with the various producers. They have Apple by the balls at that point. The RIAA can lick my sweaty. I'm going back to P2P. Bastards. :mad:

[Photorun]

As I've said countless times on these and other forums, until people steal about all their music and push the big, greedy, scumsucking, soulless, rich, white run, evil record companies out of business into bankrupcy they'll continue to put money over art and put out crappy tunes and stick it to the consumers. If they got driven out of business new distributors would emerge and hopefully a renaissance of musician driven commerce... my "phoenix rising from the ashes" concept.

I, for one, will resume illegal copies of music full on if the tunes aren't what I consider a reasonable price.

This is utter and total b***&&&& by the record labels and anyone that thinks differently clearly isn't looking at the same picture.

[Porchland]

The music industry is pathetic.

Looks like I will just wait and buy "the popular" music from the "biggest artists" after it is no longer popular and drops in price.

And you wonder why limewire and P2P is so popular.

My vote is for Apple to create it's own recording studio (under the iTunes Originals section) and pay the artists more and woo all the artists away from the money grubbing studios.

I've wondered before why Apple doesn't just start its own label. Heck, it could even license the print rights for CDs to someone else.

Apple probably owns parts of the iTunes originals -- the spoken word stuff and maybe the studio performances -- and I'm sure they get a great margin on those things that they own. When there's "iTunes Original Version" of a song, though, it doesn't necessarily mean Apple owns it.

But heck, Apple could pull someone of the street, put them in the studio, market them through iTunes, TV ads or whatever, and Apple own the whole shebang. I certainly trust Apple more than, say, EMI to deliver quality and not try and roast me for an extra 23 cents to download a single because it cracks the top 40.

[chubad]

The most important thing to do is for everyone not to purchase any song on iTunes for more than .99 cents. The only thing the recording industry cares about is $$. Hit 'em in the pocket book and show them their wrong.:mad:

[ITASOR]

I guess everything has to increase in price. :(

I won't resort to illegal downloading, I don't think, but I often debate whether to spend $0.99 on a song and then end up doing it. If they're higher, I don't think it'll feel "worth it".

[reemas]

This is great!!!

I listen to a lot of smaller artists anyways, now I'll be able to afford them. And for the mainstream stuff, well that always EASY to pirate!!

[Chupa Chupa]

Personally I see this as a GOOD and SMART move, and not greed. The greed is really on the part of the consumer who says he's going back to stealing because he can't afford the extra .25. Certainly that extra .25 is worth the convenience of being able to just get the song you want without having to buy the whole CD. And if you want the whole CD what are you doing paying $10 for crappy 128kbps music file anyway. The CD at $12 is a much better deal.

On the filp side there are a lot of new artists that most people neglect because they don't want to waste $1 on something they may not like. At .50 or .75 its worth a gamble though. And wouldn't it be nice to be able to afford to experiment with music that Infinity or one of the other mega radio station owners don't shove down your throat and tell you to like it?

Similarly, there are a lot of backlist "oldies" for the 70s, 80s, and 90s that I'd love to hear again, but for $1 a pop its just not worth it because I know I'll be sick of them in a week. Again, at .50 a pop I wouldn't care as much.

[danielsan26]

There is an article at wall street journal online right now titled "Apple may alter pricing on iTunes" but it is a subscription based article, and no bugmenot logins either. Anyone with access care to post the article here? They better not be caving...

Edit: link to article if you're a subscriber (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113215771649899056.html), I think, I cut it out of the link provided by yahoo's AAPL RSS feed

Posted a few hours before this came out under the iTunes section, no replies. Oh well. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=161909)

[Porchland]

I think charging anything more than $0.99 for a song is a bad idea I do agree that pricing should be lowered for some artists and tracks that don't sale as much. Apple should base pricing on long term demand, but only for lowering prices.

I would love to see this happen, but you're not really making a sensible economic argument. If the market will bear Madonna's new single at $1.49, that's what it should cost.

The risk -- as with the risk in pricing any product -- is that Apple price its products high enough to maximize return but not so high as to lose purchasers because of price.

[iriejedi]

My Protest.......


LIMEWIRE!:mad:

[Chupa Chupa]

I've wondered before why Apple doesn't just start its own label. Heck, it could even license the print rights for CDs to someone else.



I'll just assume you are a newbie to Apple with that comment. There was a trademark infringement lawsuit between Apple Records (The Beatles original lable and also the label that still owns John Lennon's solo stuff) and Apple Computer back in the early 80s. The two sides settled and agreed Apple Computer could use the Apple name as long as they didn't get into the music business. iTMS hovers that line, and Apple Records sued again and settled. However, if Apple started its own label it would be all out war, and I'm sure Apple has better things to focus on.

[Grell]

Music industry sucks.

I can't see this being good for the iTMS...


I can see this being good for me! :)

I don't like popular music at all.
This would probably be a great advantage for those unknown artists to actually sell something at all; an opportunity for them and therefore an advantage for music production in general.

[xli_ne]

To answer your other question, CDs are somewhat before my time.


how old are you, 6? they still sell cd's you know

[danielsan26]

A while ago on one of these kinds of threads someone posted a link to "RIAA safe" artists whose labels aren't members of the RIAA, and I've really enjoyed it. I've also been pleasantly surprised that some of my favorite musicians' labels AREN'T part of the RIAA.

RIAA radar (http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/)
Top 100 "RIAA safe" albums (http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/zeitgeist_topamazonsafe.asp)
Amazon top 100 with their RIAA status (http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/zeitgeist_topamazon.asp)

[emw]

I guess everything has to increase in price. :(I disagree in this case. What Apple has done is reduce the cost of distribution of the music, a significant part of the cost associated with music production. As a result, costs should actually go down.

I agree that resorting to piracy is not the right method here. I hate paying so much for eggs, but I'm not going to try and steal them because I think egg farmers or supermarkets are greedy.

The key here is what will the market bear. If Apple does indeed raise prices, and sales go down, then we'll know it was a bad move. If they raise them and sales (in terms of dollar revenue) remain the same or increase, then it was a good move.

[lucas]

however it doesnt make sense that any song is more expensive than they are now, they are already too expensive and not good value for money compared with the physical CD (that is not compressed, has no DRM restrictions and comes in a nice little box)
you answered your own question. the music industry doesnt like itms. it doesnt like online shops. i wants the monopoly on music as CDs back so they can continue their price fixing, raping the consumer for all theyre worth. personally i took the stance "If piracy feels less wrong than supporting evil business practices then I'll feel no guilt" a long time ago. CDs have long been out of the equation. iTMS lessened my piracy convincing me to buy some digital music, "variable" pricing (the only way is up, baby!) can only put things back the way there were. it's fun watching the industry kill itself. Im sure they realise that music stopped needing them long ago

[mister_L]

Bollocks.



Pure, unadulterated greed.:mad:


see the good part:

buying the independend-label-artists will be cheaper and the so-called "superstars" can easily be found on edonkey etc. ;).

[HD Max]

What a load of ****. I know someone who won't be using iTunes for much longer. The thing is, the **** you buy from iTunes isn't even in Lossless format, it's in that useless AAC, and that just ain't worth paying. And there's another thing, why the hell doesn't my iPod play Lossless music? Why can it only play ****** quality AAC music? Heck, I'd never have bought me a Bose SoundDock if I'd have known...

[MacFan782040]

It's so easy to do whatever you want when you can define your own price. Record companies, oil companies, government, tomatO, toMAHto...

I can only hope that more people will seek out the "cheaper," better alternatives to the higher-priced "same old crap."

Heck, I'll sell you MY stuff for a nickel!
WOOP!


Yeah... I agree. I don't really see their reasoning here. If they sell a million tracks at $1 each, they make a million dollars. And without me doing the math, if they sell 700,000 tracks at $1.29 each, they probably make similar to what they were making before with songs being $1. I don't get it. They're greedy.

[MacSA]

"There is a case for superstars to have a higher price." ?? :eek: :eek:


Well, I suppose most of them do have an extravagant lifestyle they need to maintain.

[Lertie32]

This whole thread is somewhat pointless because there's no detail about WHAT the pricing structure would be. Until we know that, we don't know if the range goes up ($0.99 to $2) or down to ($0.50 to $0.99). Knowing the evils of RIAA though, I'm REALLY hoping it's not as bad as we expect.
:confused:

As far as I'm concerned, the music industry should be kissing Steve's toes :eek: for even creating the iTMS and NOT hassling him about increased prices! They should imagine the world with no iTMS and even more P2P and they should shut the hell up. WHY mess with a good thing?! Idiots!
:mad:

Also, this is idiotic to begin with because the music industry is KNOWN to manipulate who's popular and who's not.

And we most definitely can't trust CDs and the record companies anymore -
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=159412
What's REALLY scary is if they start adding their DRM crap to the actual song files!

I think that iTMS is a great solution and source for obtaining music, but if price goes higher than $0.99, piracy will go up. Period.
:(

Not to mention the fact that everyone will hate the record companies even more. More artists will start self-publishing and self-promoting, and the record companies will die. Now there's a happy ending!
:cool:

[nagromme]

I hope Apple isn't forced into this. One-price single simplicity is one of the strengths of iTunes, and the albums already vary.

Oddly enough, the less-popular stuff I want from a CD store often seems to cost the same or MORE than the "superstars."

Guess I shouldn't complain if the opposite happens on iTunes...

[KEL9000]

it makes perfectly good sense that the RIAA would want to charge higher prices for songs that are in more demand than others. This is the basis for price theory where price is determined by supply and demand only. Since the supply is constant it is only logical that demand alone would drive prices.

What I don't understand is when you go to best buy to get a CD the new popular cds are usually discounted and rare hard to find cds are really expensive. The music industry prices pop music as if it based on supply (look how many 50cent cds there are). This model is contrary to the limitless supply the internet brings which they think allows them to let demand drive price.

How can you have two different price models based on supply channels? If they charge $2 per song people will find other means for acquiring music (legally or illegally). Thus reducing the demand, which would in turn reduce price. It seems to me it is more about power than money.

[dashiel]

i don't have anything against variable pricing, but $1.49 should be the absolute ceiling for any single at lossless quality. if the record companies adopted a pricing structure similar to allofmp3 they would clean up. not only that but it would almost eliminate piracy.

here's how i think it would work:


all singles older than 1 year are priced at ¢25 and encoded at 128kbps
all single albums older with 10 or more songs are priced at $2.49 and encoded at 128kbps
users can set a preference to their encoding format which would:

320kbps - ¢40/$3.99 (includes extended ID3 tag information)
lossless - ¢60/$6.99 (includes digital booklet)

new/hot/superstar singles less than a year old are priced at ¢99 and encoded at 128kbps
new/hot/superstar albums less than a year old are priced at $9.99 and encoded at 128kbps

320 kbps - $1.09/10.99 (includes extended ID3 tag information)
lossless kpbs - $1.49/14.99 (includes digital booklet/video)



if they did this the record companies would dwarf their current profits, they're just not smart enough to see it.

at the minimum price they would capture the kids/teens who don't have a ton of cash and really only listen to their ipod/car stereo anyway. music fidelity is irrelevant to them. at that price and combined with the itunes ease and speed of the itunes client, i suspect you'd see piracy drop off sharply; the immediacy and reliability of itunes coupled with a cheap price renders slogging though a P2P client or asking a friend to burn a CD an expensive inconvenience.

at the media price you would hit the slightly older user who listens to their music through higher fidelity computer speakers or wirelessly through airport express. the added incentive of extended ID3 track information would be appealing as well.

at the high price you get the fans of a band who want the digital booklets videos. you also get music archivists and audiophiles who don't mind paying the extra for true cd quality music.

--

speaking anecdotally, i at one time owner more than 1,000 cds, i've pruned that down to about 500, but i was buying on average 70-80 albums a year at the peak. this year i've bought 2 albums and maybe $20 worth of itunes tracks. i haven't replaced my purchasing with a P2P client either, just with the price of CDs do i really need that re-mastered version of artist X, or the collection remixes by artist Y? the answer these days is no, not at $20 an album. however with a service like the above, which can be seen in allofmp3, that barrier of "do i really need" becomes "oh cool i want that". if that 3 disc set of remixes that costs $42 in the store costs $18 for lossless download, or $8 for the 128kbps version, that's not even a question in the minds of most music consumers. on itunes it's $34.95 for 128kbps, for me that's not worth it.

i know the record companies would never do that because they'd see it as losing money, but that's because they're short term thinkers who with each passing day are expediting their own demise. good riddance.

[iDONTdoWINDOWS]

Back to P2P filesharing. I wont pay more than a buck for 3/4 of the stuff on the ITMS

[Anawrahta]

Do none of you guys know the difference between copyright infringement and theft?:confused: Is it that hard to understand? I'm astonished by the lack of knowledge here. I still can't believe how many people think that downloading music over p2p is theft. I guess the RIAA's brainwashing has worked wonders on all of you.

/glad to live someplace where music is free:rolleyes:
/never bought itms crap anyways

[xy14]

Apple should charge a base fee of $0.49-$0.79 for unsigned/unpopular artists, then charge $2.29 for the most popular artists, and then take 75¢ out of the $2.29 music and give it to the unpopular artists. Then, the remaining $1.50 will be divided:

25¢ to Apple
54¢ to artist
75¢ to Evil label company

The unpopular artists will end up about as successful as the popular artists, because people can buy their music for only 49¢ which they will see as a good deal, but the 75¢ taken from more popular artists will be taken and given to the less popular artists which will be seen (by the artists) as the equivelant as (roughly) a $1.25 song, and Apple will take the same 25¢ out, and then the artist will be left with $1.00 which is even more than they get now (more like 70-80¢). Therefore, the unpopular artists will get more money to promote their music and eventually as they get more popular, they will get less money per song and when they become one of the more popular artists, they will have 75¢ taken out of their music, which will be given to the potentially future popular artists.

After reading this, I got a new idea. This will create a lot of 'middle-class' artists and less lower/upper class artists, which is always a great thing!


Sorry about the long message. I just get carried away alot..

[Maestro64]

But this is a different scenario. The $5.99 CDs were originally $12.99 (or whatever), but didn't sell well. Unfortunately, the store still has a stock of them. Selling them at $5.99 is better than throwing them away, hence the reduced price.

It's not like the record companies said "This music is crap, let's sell it for $5.99." They said "This music is crap, let's sell it for $12.99." Unfortunately for them, Best Buy or whomever bought the music at the original price (no, not $12.99 to them) thinking they would sell it. And they didn't.

With digital music, it's completely different. The distribution costs are essentially nothing. You don't manufacture and stock CDs hoping to sell them, you simply release another copy when it's purchased. The $5.99 bin goes away.

Besides, if the digital model were indeed the same as the physical model, all music would start out at the same price, and unpopular music would be reduced.
This is very true, what people have to understand about the current CD model and how pricing is set and why the $5.99 bin exist at Wal Mart.

Here is the simple example, you buy 1000 items for $500 and you sell them $1.00, (100% markup which is typical). after a month or so you sold 750, so that means you recieved $750 and profitted $250. So you could have the remaining 250 sitting around for months in hopes to get the last $250 or sell them for $0.50 and make another $125 in a short period of time. It is well understood the longer something sits on the shelf the less desirable it is and less likely it will ever sell. This is exactly what Wal Mart does, as soon as they max out thier profits at one price they lower and so on until not more is left.

In the digital world, the incremental cost to sell another item goes down, however, there is still a shelf life to a product. For the most part ITMS was selling music which has been around for a while. Most recently you are seeing new songs. From a business stand point why not charge a bit more for the first download verses the 1 million. Remember, everyone and this includes the musucians have to be able to recover thier original production costs. In order to do this you set your initial offering a bit higher and as you exceed your base costs you started to reducing your price.

Also remember there are early adopters who will buy things as soon as they come out no matter what the price. Then there is the rest of you who want it free. Everyone has a reserved price they are willing to pay and if you do your pricing model right you can get every dollar that anyone is willing to spend.

Just remember no one is forcing you to buy, and there is always FREE radio

[zap2]

i hope people dont like my music!

[otterpop]

Let's get something straight.
Yes, it -would- be nice to see indie and unknown music at the 49/79 cent mark. but it's NOT going to happen. It -would- also be nice to have affordable health care in this country. same result, not going to happen. Unknown/unpopular music will stay at 99 cents, (in the best case scenario, you know they'll want to make it $1.25) and the "superstar" music will go up to $1.50/$1.99.
It doesn't matter what -we the consumer- want. Because the music industry has never been about giving the consumer what it wants, it's about shoving the flavor of the month down people's throats. Fact is, the recording industry is evil. They're sons of bitches, and they don't care about you or what you want. If it was about giving people a good product, at a fair price, you'd know who Juce to Make It Happen is. CDs would cost $6, and lindsey Lohan would NOT HAVE A RECORD CONTRACT.

edit: just wanted to also add, the recording industry would kill your dog if there was a dollar in it for them.

[cxny]

This could be very good for lesser known artists, people would be more willing to experiment, but only if the record companies don't get too greedy
the lower end should be 50 cents, with 75% of the ITMS catalog falling to this price level. I don't care if they charge $2.00 for "the hits" - keep 'em for all I care.

[MM2270]

Bwaha! Why would sales of iPods drop? People would just be stealing more MP3s. There's nothing to stop you from putting those on your iPod. If you think the iTMS is the big reason why people are buying the iPod, you're nuts.

Yes, I agree. For people here claiming that iPod sales will drop, please put down the crack pipes! People aren't buying iPods just so they can use iTMS. I would bet there are plenty of iPod owners who have never bought a single track from iTMS. Believe it or not, many folks still buy… wait for it- CDs! Yes, I know, hard to believe it, but it's true! And despite Apple's very heart-in-the-right-place label about 'not stealing music' on every iPod, people still do steal music and put in on their iPods.

As for this price hike, it never ceases to amaze me how greedy and stupid the music industry people are. The current model is perfect because you never have to think about the price of a track when on iTMS. They're pretty much all 99¢, unless it's an album only track. I don't want that to change. All the price increases will do is make honest folk think twice about dumping something in their cart on iTMS. Sales of music thru iTunes may actually drop, resulting in less profit. Morons!

Though personally, I may not have a problem with this price increase, provided it doesn't go above $1.49 a song, and the least popular tracks (read- often the BEST music) drops to say, 79¢. Everything else in the middle can stay at 99¢. If they do it like that, I won't care, because like some others here, I never buy the "popular" music, since it's most often crap. I make do very nicely without any Britney music in my iTunes library, thank you very much. I usually go for the more off the beaten track stuff. So in this model, people like me may come out ahead.

For anyone hooked on the popular junk, now would be a good time to change your musical tastes, and start listening to the less manufactured stuff the industry tries to push on everyone.

[ijimk]

No way will i pay more than 1 dollar per song... This will be the begining of the end of the music store...:mad:

[SummerBreeze]

So many people here are saying that this is going to be good for them because they don't like popular music, I say that thought is delusional. First off, prices aren't going to go down. I'm sure prices will just go up for "superstars." Also, I don't see "superstars" as being just bands like Black Eyed Peas and 50 Cent. I'm sure even lesser known bands will have more expensive singles because their songs are new, and could possibly sell.

[nsjoker]

I really don't have a problem with this, and its not a foreign concept, like many people are treating it.

Traditional CDs and DVDs work the exact same way -- new releases and more popular items are more expensive than older, less popular CDs and DVDs. Hence, the bin of $ 5.99 CDs/DVDs at the store.

Why should digital music and movies be any different? (And, why aren't you people out bitchin' about the traditional CDs/DVDs cost structure if this model will be so "evil")

In addition, this rumor says nothing about "superstars" getting more money. It says "more popular". Supply and demand. Number 1 song would cost $1.99 when its first released and then probably drop to 79 cents when no one wants it no more (just like traditional CDs)


Limewire will be gone within the year, just as Grockster just went. Sorry, but the industry is rightfully winning cases against people who steal.

ahh that's where bitTorrent comes in my friend =) and now with trackerless support, it's pretty close to impossible to "shut down". w00t

[Squozen]

What a load of ****. I know someone who won't be using iTunes for much longer. The thing is, the **** you buy from iTunes isn't even in Lossless format, it's in that useless AAC, and that just ain't worth paying. And there's another thing, why the hell doesn't my iPod play Lossless music? Why can it only play ****** quality AAC music? Heck, I'd never have bought me a Bose SoundDock if I'd have known...

The iPod plays Apple Lossless just fine, assuming you have a reasonably recent model with the latest firmware.

[Lord Blackadder]

I think one of the biggiest irritants with the concept of introducing tiered pricing is that it is essentially fiddling with a system that already works for the consumer in order to increase profit margins for the music industry to the detriment of the consumer.

Sony, EMI and others aren't doing much if ANY actual work here, yet they feel they're entitled to more money. Huh? :confused:

Artists write and record the songs, largely at their own expense. The record companies supply their track to Apple, who sell the music using an electronic infrastructure that they built, for use on iPods they designed, built and marketed. The record companies get a big check, part of which goes to the artist. I fail to see why they even need to exist in this arrangement.

I really think that piracy, while perhaps not a good thing on it's own, is appropriate in the context of it being a market pressure against price gouging by the industry.

[Maestro64]

Yes, I agree. For people here claiming that iPod sales will drop, please put down the crack pipes! People aren't buying iPods just so they can use iTMS. I would bet there are plenty of iPod owners who have never bought a single track from iTMS. Believe it or not, many folks still buy… wait for it- CDs! Yes, I know, hard to believe it, but it's true! And despite Apple's very heart-in-the-right-place label about 'not stealing music' on every iPod, people still do steal music and put in on their iPods.

So is it stealing if your friend brings his CD over and you load it onto your iPod. Also, is it stealing if you create a digital copy of something that the original owner never offered (At one point the music industry never sold mp3, only CDs so it was hard for them to claim they lots money, you can not lose what you never offered for sale) ITMS has actually help them win their court cases.

I too agree there is a group of people who never bought from iTunes so ITMS does not drive iPod sales.

Also, if the music industry had it their way they would not want you playing your music so others could hear it.

[Squozen]

First, are you a communist, second the reason a song is unpopular is because the artist/song "S@#Ks" and why would you reward mediocrity...

Bad to assume the reason it is unpopular is because they are not making enough money.

Popular songs aren't popular because they're good, they're popular because the industry spends an obscene amount of money saturating the media with them. If they were good, popstars wouldn't lose popularity after a couple of years. Heard Billy Ray Cyrus's latest album? Didn't think so.

[winmacguy]

Back to Limewire I guess :rolleyes:

Too bad, I only spent $182 on music, now its going to be $0
A few days ago I was getting flamed for saying that I didnt have a problem with borrowing a few CDs from family to rip and add to my collection:rolleyes: I still dont have a problem with borrowing and ripping CDs to add to my collection:D The bulk of my collection is from CDs I have purchased.

[VanNess]

First of all, you have to be careful when reading a statement like "there is a case for superstars to have a higher price" in the sense that it implies the "superstar" artists will get an additional profit from songs sold on iTunes in excess of 99 cents. That's not what the record companies are really saying. Generally, artists contracts aren't structured that way; the record companies "expenses" related to the artist are always deducted from actual song sales before the artist sees a dime of income from the record companies. That's why most artists, even the superstars, make the bulk of their money touring, where the record company doesn't have their hand directly in that till.

And it shouldn't go unnoticed that the record companies have never said that their new-found interest in raising prices on iTunes is even partly on behalf of increasing the artist's stake in profits. To the contrary, as failed self-described musician, whiskey company heir, and - surprise - current Warner Music Group CEO, Edgar Bronfman Jr., says on Red Herring back in September of this year: "We have to keep thinking how we are going to monetize our product for our shareholders..." In other words, this is entirely about increasing profits for the record companies, not the artist. And before you hire the local violin players to sooth the poor record companies money-losing woes, consider that these guys, notwithstanding the bogus claims of lost profits due to file-sharing and personal copying, presently rake in billions in profit, annually.

Well, since it's inception, iTunes has turned over at least 70 percent of over a half-billion dollars to the record companies. And for the record companies, that's pure, unadulterated excess profit. The record companies have virtually no expenses whatsoever for providing the songs to iTunes since the recording masters and marketing materials were already conceived for the CD release - where the record companies still make the bulk of their money.

From CD's, to satellite radio, to online music sales, record company execs are singing the same old song: we make a ton of money from music, and now we want even more. And in the long run, it isn't about whether they can "make a case" for increasing the price (they can't), it's all about who is going to blink first. The record companies appear to operating under the pretense that their customers, the music consuming public, won't hold them accountable for anything at all. Regardless of what they do, regardless of what they charge.

Make no mistake about it. As bad as some of them where back then, these aren't your grandfather's record companies anymore. Up until about the late 70's or so, the record companies had been independently owned businesses whose execs were former musicians or record collectors who had a honest passion for music. Today, they are fewer record companies, all of them corporately owned, and they are absolutely ruthless and cold-blooded in trying to legitimize profit streams what would normally never be considered something they are the least bit entitled to.

Worse, record company management has been made up of borrowed execs from parent corporations who really don't understand the synergies of the music business very well. Not the way a musician would know them, or a record store owner, or a collector. They do know how to sell bottles of whiskey, though. And everybody knows whiskey doesn't sell at a uniform price...

For the record (no pun intended), the day I find a single iTunes song that I want selling for more than .99 is the day I know that I've already bought my last song online from the major labels. Period.

[maya]

I like the price drop idea. ;) :)

P2P will be on the rise, and that is what the crystal-ball shows. :D

[Maestro64]

Popular songs aren't popular because they're good, they're popular because the industry spends an obscene amount of money saturating the media with them. If they were good, popstars wouldn't lose popularity after a couple of years. Heard Billy Ray Cyrus's latest album? Didn't think so.
I agree with your statement, especially if your talking abour Britney Spears, but she will not last since teenagers do grow up and realize what good music is.

Most good and great bands/musicians stand the test of time and people will seek out their music no matter what. People learn about them when they show up in their town for a show. All bands will tell you they make the most amount of money doing a show then selling an album.

I have said it before, you will see more and more bands after they become popular go right to the net to sell their music directly to you and getting rid of the record labels.

[rockthecasbah]

this is rediculous...The music industry makes no sense. They are already dying, why are they trying to further kill themselves off?? People hate them enough, they should be appeasing us and even LOWERING some prices. I will love seeing these big crap companies fold and die off, maybe actual MUSIC will be made again :mad: :mad:

[Fiveos22]

Good thing "Superstar" is arbitrary...my music should remain untouched...

Heck, I bet from a cost of production standpoint Ashlee Simpson is considered a "superstar".

[combustible]

The record companies are NOT doing this to blindly grab a little extra cash. The ITMS market is small. Very small.
They are pushing to charge more for 'superstars' to maintain their influence on the music-buying public. While all the money is being made from a dull repititious few, they can control the airwaves and charts. The way it is done now, with a 'hit single' that gets high rotation (not without a little coersion), and that spurs a massive (and brief) demand for the album, the record companies call the shots.
It is the beautiful democracy of 0.99 tracks that has them scared. It is in their best interests to have just a few artists to flog, and make all their money from them, rather than spreading it over a larger field.
It doesn't have to be this way. We can go the Jobs way.
The top40 doesn't have to be such inane crap. The public can make a free choice from what music is available, not what is force-fed them. The record companies go from being self-ordained gods to servants of the artform, and the public's whims.
(sorry - i am a little naive)

[wPod]

this would completely stink. a lot of what makes iTMS so easy is the simplicity in pricing. if they start raising the prices, then i just might start shopping at other online music retailers for a better price!!! i unfortunatly think most consumers will just keep clicking and buying regardless of the price so i think apple will probably end up doing this anyways. but at least all the older bands i might like will be cheaper, right?!

[MBHockey]

Terrible.

Jobs knows that this is going to drive people back to piracy...guess it's back to Xfactor for me...until the stupid greedy labels realize they're losing more money on the higher priced songs...

[dr_lha]

If the major labels were at all serious about dropping the price of "Back Catalog" music, they would already have done so. After all, its 99cents per song, but the seller is free to choose whatever price they want to sell an album at. Guess what, they're going for $9.99 or more usually, same as new albums.

For the time being, all those moaning about how these guys are acting the solution is simple: Break free of major label music. By listening to smaller bands on smaller labels you will find more variety, interest and *quality* than you will listening to mainstream music.

Not only that, but when you go see them live you won't have to pay $100 to go see matchsticks jump up and down in a Football Stadium, but rather $15 to go see them up close and personal.

Check out: http://www.metacritic.com

pretty much anything on there that gets over 80 is worthwhile. Plus now with iTunes you don't have the problem that your local Best Buy doesn't stock smaller artists because they don't think anyone will buy them.

[MM2270]

So is it stealing if your friend brings his CD over and you load it onto your iPod. Also, is it stealing if you create a digital copy of something that the original owner never offered (At one point the music industry never sold mp3, only CDs so it was hard for them to claim they lots money, you can not lose what you never offered for sale) ITMS has actually help them win their court cases.

Actually, I wasn't referring to CD purchases with my comment. I meant that some people will continue to steal via p2p services, and other means.

No, I don't consider it stealing if my friend or my wife or whoever lends me a CD and I rip it into my iTunes/iPod. I know the music industry and many individuals for that matter would disagree, but I'm not taking those songs and distributing it out to the whole world to copy. There's a big difference there as I see it. I don't do that and I don't condone it in any way shape or form. The scenario above is no different than what friends and family did for each other years ago by recording LPs to a cassette tape or recording off a radio station.

[Gherkin]

Considering most mainstream music sucks, and the lesser known bands are the actual good ones, this is awesome news!

[quigleybc]

Back to Limewire I guess :rolleyes:

Too bad, I only spent $182 on music, now its going to be $0



aww ya, agreed, Limewire is more fun anyway :D

[photomaniac]

okay so as an example of $ from downloading:

.99 cents comes into Apple
.40 cents Apple keeps
.59 cents goes to the Label
the label then has to pay the music publisher about .08 cents
Now the label has .51 cents.
usually the label will then split the remaing with the artist 50/50 which leaves about .25 cents for the label as gross revenue.... which is a long way from the "old" record label business model of selling to a distributor at about $8.00 (of course, excluding expenses) on a $16.98 list price.
We all know even with the packaging and shipping charges of the "old" way, labels made a LOT more money this way.

Yes, labels have a cut that is substantially less than it was with legalized downloading... so 2 things need to happen. ONE is put out better music and cut the "filler" tracks to sell more downloads... and TWO, which is most important, change your business model (STOP LIVING THE SAME LIFESTYLE WITH THE SAME AMOUNTS OF EMPLOYEES, HIGH PAY, AND THE SAME BROADWAY ST. ADDRESS IN NY WITH YOUR $10,000 A MONTH RENT!)

The bunch of old men with their old attitudes of how the music industry is ran need to change or get replaced!

(hope Apple pushes their weight to keep a cap at .99 cents)
MY .02 cents...

[bigandy]

i have one thing to say:


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

:mad:

[edited because my NOOO was too long and broke the stylesheet :()

[Some_Big_Spoon]

If this was slashdot I'd mod you +5 informative.. those were excellent links, simply excellent and I appreciate it.

Until the RIAA passes legislation (notice I didn't say politicians) that forces me to hand over half my paycheck for ashley simpson CD's, I won't be giving a single dime to their cartel.. hear that RIAA? Hear me now? Sue away..

A while ago on one of these kinds of threads someone posted a link to "RIAA safe" artists whose labels aren't members of the RIAA, and I've really enjoyed it. I've also been pleasantly surprised that some of my favorite musicians' labels AREN'T part of the RIAA.

RIAA radar (http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/)
Top 100 "RIAA safe" albums (http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/zeitgeist_topamazonsafe.asp)
Amazon top 100 with their RIAA status (http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/zeitgeist_topamazon.asp)

[pounce]

I'll go right back to stealing it. I can't imagine I will be the only one.

what a bunch of pathetic ********. and there is plenty of this sentiment.

but instead of making comments about the legality or ethics involved in that kinded of retarded commentary, the question is this. if you aren't listen to totally horrible music like britney and 50 cent and all of that crap, it looks like the music prices may go down. cheaper prices for labels catalog artists from whom the production costs have already been recuperated.

anyhow, the fact that this may makes the music i like _cheaper_ while still legal is totally cool. it may turn out that i don't like the way the new model is implemented. i'll have to see. but the idea that nobody is discussing how some of their music purchases will be cheaper seems to be only telling part of the story.

[Lacero]

The pricing structure should be the opposite. 49¢ for hit songs and more for the older back catalog of songs.

Oh well, since bands like Steadman are providing all their music for free, we'll see a shift to independent distribution where the greedy music industry middle-men are cut off at the balls. See ya RIAA and greedy CEOs.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

As scary as it is, I beleive Apple's chunk is approx $0.10, which would put the mob's chunk at $0.89, 8 cents going to the artist (show me the money trail because I guarantee that they don't get it), leaving 81 cents for the mob.

That's free money, no distribution, marketing, packaging, etc.. it's free, and don't give me that back end junk.. they make that back 100 fold from physical sales, promotions, ad rev, etc.. multiply 81 cents by the 600M plus downloads that Appl'es got and that's a nice chunk of effortless cash, yet they feel they're entitled to more.. think they'll up that supposed 8 cents they "give" back to the artist with the extra cash?

okay so as an example of $ from downloading:

.99 cents comes into Apple
.40 cents Apple keeps
.59 cents goes to the Label
the label then has to pay the music publisher about .08 cents
Now the label has .51 cents.
usually the label will then split the remaing with the artist 50/50 which leaves about .25 cents for the label as gross revenue.... which is a long way from the "old" record label business model of selling to a distributor at about $8.00 (of course, excluding expenses) on a $16.98 list price.
We all know even with the packaging and shipping charges of the "old" way, labels made a LOT more money this way.

Yes, labels have a cut that is substantially less than it was with legalized downloading... so 2 things need to happen. ONE is put out better music and cut the "filler" tracks to sell more downloads... and TWO, which is most important, change your business model (STOP LIVING THE SAME LIFESTYLE WITH THE SAME AMOUNTS OF EMPLOYEES, HIGH PAY, AND THE SAME BROADWAY ST. ADDRESS IN NY WITH YOUR $10,000 A MONTH RENT!)

The bunch of old men with their old attitudes of how the music industry is ran need to change or get replaced!

(hope Apple pushes their weight to keep a cap at .99 cents)
MY .02 cents...

[Some_Big_Spoon]

Ever think that 99cents may be the minimum? Betcha it will be with "hot *****" singles going for above that. You're dealing with organized crime here, they're not really looking to get good press.


what a bunch of pathetic ********. and there is plenty of this sentiment.

but instead of making comments about the legality or ethics involved in that kinded of retarded commentary, the question is this. if you aren't listen to totally horrible music like britney and 50 cent and all of that crap, it looks like the music prices may go down. cheaper prices for labels catalog artists from whom the production costs have already been recuperated.

anyhow, the fact that this may makes the music i like _cheaper_ while still legal is totally cool. it may turn out that i don't like the way the new model is implemented. i'll have to see. but the idea that nobody is discussing how some of their music purchases will be cheaper seems to be only telling part of the story.

[sccaldwell]

Seriously.

If they're looking to RAISE prices for any songs, they're *completely* shooting themselves in the foot. Why? Simple. I've bought only 2 songs as downloads (both iTunes) for one reason: I like having the liner notes, art, and original CD.

So, if I'm going to buy a whole CD for $9.99, I'm willing to pay an extra $2-3 to get the *actual* CD, which I'll promptly rip into iTunes when I get home.

Many people don't care about having the liner notes, etc, so they're happy to save $2-3 by downloading from iTunes. Raise the "album" price by a couple of bucks, and the only reason to download from iTunes (or any other service) are 1) convenience, and 2) you only want a song or two, not the whole album. I see per-song increases resulting in (1) increased CD sales, (2) decreased legal downloading, and (3) of course, increased illegal downloading.

Now, in the *highly* unlikely scenario that they're wanting to *lower* prices for older or less popular songs, while keeping popular stuff at $0.99, then disregard the above. I'm not holding my breath, though... :-)

And as someone else pointed out, they're being greedy by wanting to *increase* the per-song price for songs that are *top* sellers (thereby increasing income). So presumably artists who are already making millions off of their songs will get even more money, while artists who are struggling (and probably working other jobs) will get even less money.

As several have said, the music industry sucks. Hard.

None of this will effect me much, though, because I mostly listen to progressive metal (Ex: Dream Theater, Enchant, Vanden Plas, Pain of Salvation, Symphony X, Superior, Conception, Fates Warning, etc), almost none of which is available on any of the download stores. I think some Dream Theater and Fates Warning are on iTunes, but I'm pretty sure that's it (out of my favorite bands, anyway).

As a side-note, if you like Queensryche and/or Rush and/or Yes, check out some of what I mentioned....amazing stuff.

Later,

Craig

[Mac Dummy]

I don't understand this reasoning. If a popular artist sells one million songs at one dollar, they make one million dollars. If a less popular artists sells one thousand songs at one dollar, they make one dollar (yes, I know not all of that dollar goes to the artist, but I'm generalizing).
How is this not fair? The popular artist will still make more money! This is just pure greed on the part of the record industry.

Yes, however the record companies have already front these bands money to record their albums and tour the albums and merchandising (T-shirts, Thongs, etc.) and promotion (posters, radio spots, internet marketing, etc.) These companies do have some cash outlayed. While the artist hardly sees any of that money in royalties, due to the recording companies contracts, management salaries and policies. So in essence the artists don't make a "million dollars" if a million songs are sold through iTunes. The record companies and some corporations in general have become something, not unlike the U.S. Government today, with the bureaucracy, power and corruption.:mad:

[skubish]

The record companies are NOT doing this to blindly grab a little extra cash. The ITMS market is small. Very small.
They are pushing to charge more for 'superstars' to maintain their influence on the music-buying public. While all the money is being made from a dull repititious few, they can control the airwaves and charts. The way it is done now, with a 'hit single' that gets high rotation (not without a little coersion), and that spurs a massive (and brief) demand for the album, the record companies call the shots.
It is the beautiful democracy of 0.99 tracks that has them scared. It is in their best interests to have just a few artists to flog, and make all their money from them, rather than spreading it over a larger field.
It doesn't have to be this way. We can go the Jobs way.
The top40 doesn't have to be such inane crap. The public can make a free choice from what music is available, not what is force-fed them. The record companies go from being self-ordained gods to servants of the artform, and the public's whims.
(sorry - i am a little naive)

Um I disagree that iTMS is small.
They have sold 500,000,000 songs and have ~80% market share. iTMS would be even bigger if the songs were cheaper. I mean the price now is basically the same as buying a CD but you don't actually get the CD or album.

Lets face it, this is just a cash grab for the recording companies. The artists aren't going to see an extra dime if there is a price increase. I will be very disappointed if this price increase goes thru. Especially after Jobs said that any price above $0.99 is just greed.

[cornfedgrowth]

Number 1 song would cost $1.99 when its first released and then probably drop to 79 cents when no one wants it no more (just like traditional CDs)


Sorry, but i highly doubt any record company would ever sell ANYTHING for less that 99 cents. Unfortunately, if the labels get thier way, prices are going only one way: up. The problem with saying 'hey, but look, these ones are still cheap' is simply that nobody wants them. How many people do you know that go looking through the 5 dollar CD bin to find good music? Sure, you might get lucky once and a while, but not usually.

Tiered pricing is bad for consumers and, dare i say it, bad for record companies. Consumers will go back to P2P. BitTorrent is an amazing thing. I can barely afford to buy music from iTunes now, theres now way in hell i'm paying more.

Screw Sprint too... 2.50 per download? its outragous.

[-hh]

I think you people crying out about the RIAA's injustices, etc. need to calm down. Lets just wait and see what comes of this before we organize the lynch mob. Maybe prices won't be affected much, maybe they'll back down, maybe people will just stop paying for music again.


The unfortunate reality is that Copyright Law is currently way out of balance with what is fair and reasonable. Its not just the RIAA's fault, but also Big Corp's like Disney who want to keep works like Mickey Mouse from passing into the public domain.

And as one poster said earlier, how would this be any different than other commodities, such as CD's/DVD's?

Because it is different. When the commodity's owner has his money tied up in a physical product, he has immediate incentives to adjust his prices so as to move inventory that's costing him money to maintain. However, when the product becomes virtual (a download), he has effectively ZERO dollars tied up in inventory...and thus, he is essentially under ZERO compulsion to ever lower his prices.


Can't really fault a business for following a simply supply and demand chart....

True, if classical Supply/Demand rules applied.

But they don't apply here, because under current Copyright Law, the holder has exclusive distribution rights for roughly a Century.

The first copyright law in the USA was the Copyright Act of 1790. It granted a period of 14 years + option to renew for another 14 = 28 years maximum.

Today (as per the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act), a work for hire is currently protected for 95 years, and a self-owned work is "life of the author plus 70 years".

Futhermore, the history of US Copyrights is that whenever we've gotten close to works starting to pass into the Public Domain, we slap another 20 year extension on. This is exactly what happened in 1998.

And to give you an idea of just how long this "exclusive rights" monopolistic protection is, consider Elvis Presley.

Elvis died at the tragically young age of 42 (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977), and has now been dead for almost 30 years. But we're still another 42 years from when "Blue Suide Shoes" will pass into the Public Domain..

...assuming that we don't have yet another copyright extension (a bad assumption).

With the Estate's royalties on his songs not ending until the year 2047:

His widow, Priscilla Presley (born 1945) would be 102 years old. Statistically, the odds are ~100% that she will never live to see the day.

His daughter, Lisa Marie Presley (born 1968) would be 79 years old. Odds are greater than 50% that she won't live to see the day, either.

How about Elvis's grandchildren Danielle (born 1989) and Benjamin (born 1992)?

They would even be 58 and 55 years old, respectively, and the only reason why they'll probably outsurvive the royalties is because Grandpa Elvis died so young. Had Elvis lived to even Age 60 (15 years less than statistical life expectancy), then they'd be 73 and 76 years old and odds are that only 1 of the 2 would have lived to see the day.

Personally, the music of Elvis was before my time. Nevertheless, the odds are that I'll die 10 years before his songs could pass into the public domain.

Now do keep in mind that I have no particular grief in providing legal protection to a "Work" to encourage creativity.

What I have a huge problem with is that the protection is literally 3 generations if its a mere song, but if its a Patentable Invention, its still only a mere 14 years.

Afterall, they're both notable Works from Creativity, so there's no logical reason why the period of protection for the two should not be identical.

If anything, because the standard for being issued a Patent is higher than for a Copyright (since Copyrights are automatic), logically, the protection for a Patent should be longer than a Copyright, not shorter.


-hh

[birch25]

if the price of popular stuff goes up, it would hurt the store, but if they also lowered the price of lesser know bands, i'd be really happy.

the problem i see for the music industry is that the popular stuff is the stuff that's easy to pirate. it's easy enough to steal the new 50 Cent album, but really tough to steal a This Day and Age album. the only thing stopping people from stealing the popular stuff is the low prices on itunes.

pop music = easy to steal, so people steal
rare music = hard to steal, so people buy

from where i'm sitting, it makes no sense to raise the prices on the stuff people can get a dozen different ways for free.

[JohnHummel]

The music industry is pathetic.

Looks like I will just wait and buy "the popular" music from the "biggest artists" after it is no longer popular and drops in price.

And you wonder why limewire and P2P is so popular.

My vote is for Apple to create it's own recording studio (under the iTunes Originals section) and pay the artists more and woo all the artists away from the money grubbing studios.

I have the feeling that, if they actually do drop the price of the older songs, then the sales of old songs will skyrockets, and new songs if they raise 50% (from $0.99 to $1.49 or greater) will suddenly drop in sales.

Any bets? And then how long until the Music Industry starts to scream out "piracy" again instead of "Damn, we are butt munches!"

[Mike Teezie]

Well, Apple gave them an elegant solution, but the RIAA wants more.

Imagine that.

Is anyone really surprised?

[Seasought]

I would hope the price would cap somewhere reasonable (if the term can even be applied here). However, I think increasing prices is a dangerous act given how easy it is to fire up a P2P and grab the song for absolutely free. Filing suit after suit against various P2P software groups, or going after end-users 'witch hunt style' is sort of a vague threat that most people quietly ignore.

In the end I think people will pay more despite their complaints, but perhaps I'm too cynical. :D

[maddav]

Hmmm I wonder if this news topic has had the biggest ratio of negatives : positives ever?

I think I agree with the majority here that tiered pricing = bad for us, good for the uber-rich megastars.

[BornAgainMac]

Introducing iTunes 7. $7.95 per track. The ability to have Limewire built-in to share your "Podcasts".

[timon]

I really believe that the only way out is for artists en-mass to stop making agreements with record labels, and for everyone to go indie.

These days I really don see where even the artists need the record lables. All that is needed is a way to distribute the content to the public.

Apple now being the largest could easily be one of the distributers between the artists and the consumer. Wow :D , only one layer of added costs if you download. Add one more layer if you want to "Buy" a physical CD.

The artist would make a lot more money per song than they do now, Apple would make more and we would pay less. It's a WIN, WIN, WIN for all of us.

I love to see Sony BMG taken down a BUNCH!:cool:

[VanNess]

The record companies are NOT doing this to blindly grab a little extra cash. The ITMS market is small. Very small.
They are pushing to charge more for 'superstars' to maintain their influence on the music-buying public. While all the money is being made from a dull repititious few, they can control the airwaves and charts. The way it is done now, with a 'hit single' that gets high rotation (not without a little coersion), and that spurs a massive (and brief) demand for the album, the record companies call the shots.
It is the beautiful democracy of 0.99 tracks that has them scared.

I'm not sure about the 99 cent democracy movement, but I agree that a lot of this is about who is going to control online music. Because control (the distribution of content) is exactly what the record companies have been used to since the heyday of LP's and CD's, but now the internet potentially makes that once unbreakable model and the very reason for the record companies existence obsolete.

The last thing the record companies want is for Steve Jobs to call all of the shots and effectively seed control of music distribution and pricing to Apple via iTunes and iPods. There are probably a number of reasons for this, but the most important one is that music industry professionals (musicians, producers, engineers, etc) outside of the record companies normal operations will view the record companies becoming more and more irrelevant as the transition from physical CD's to online music stores occurs. For the record companies, the internet changes everything, and it's a sea change with no looking back. Right now, they're trying to strong-arm their way into being perceived as still relevant by making claims like unpaid royalties from your unborn child if you were playing RIAA licensed music during pregnancy. It's getting about that ridiculous.

In the long run, going forward, who would want to do any business with these creeps given their present actions unless there was simply no choice? Steve Jobs? I notice a number of "superstars" have begun making high profile personal appearances at Apple events lately. Madonna, Wynton Marsalis, Kayne West, all of them calling the CEO of Apple on a friendly, first name basis: "Steve..." :)

A little Steve Jobs message to the record companies perhaps? Sheer speculation: I wonder just how Apple is planning going to settle the Apple Corps lawsuit? iTunes doesn't have terrestrial distribution, but if they came to a special agreement with the Beatles icon label? How many more "superstars" might come calling, referring to Steve Jobs as "Steve...?"

[cornfedgrowth]

Why do people think that prices for the back catalogue are going to go down? They're selling them for 99 cents now, why would they lower it? sure, it doesnt mesh with supply and demand, but when has the record company ever made sense? prices are only going up. wait and see.

[rickvanr]

This is the exact opposite practice of record stores. When I go in looking for an unknown artist, it's usually $30+ for their record, when you see the "what's popular this month" rack full of discs for $11.99, but I do understand with physical property the laws of supply and demand come in which explain the record store's logic.

So this news is good in a way, but bad in another.

[nichos]

Limewire will be gone within the year, just as Grockster just went. Sorry, but the industry is rightfully winning cases against people who steal.

Limewire is nothing more than a front end to the Gnutella protocol. They can close all they want. There are a ton of better, open source projects out there ( http://acqlite.sourceforge.net/ being my fav., much faster than limewire) Limewire isn't gnutella, just a front-end. Also, gnutella doesn't have a single point of failure, like napster did.

[nichos]

this is rediculous...The music industry makes no sense. They are already dying, why are they trying to further kill themselves off?? People hate them enough, they should be appeasing us and even LOWERING some prices. I will love seeing these big crap companies fold and die off, maybe actual MUSIC will be made again :mad: :mad:

I think they're going down fighting. They know their buisiness model is doomed, and they're going to try to get what they can, while they can

[varmit]

Back to Limewire I guess :rolleyes:

Too bad, I only spent $182 on music, now its going to be $0
Limewire, BAH!, Try Poisened (http://gottsilla.net/poisoned.php). But back on topic, this will just make the rich richer, and the little guys that are trying to get in the music business fall flat. This is a stupid idea.

[Loge]

I don't mind paying more for a longer song, instead of them being album only at present, which is really annoying, but I don't think I would pay more for a new release (popular) song, particularly as such CDs are typically discounted by the stores.

[dotdotdot]

This would REALLY suck...

If they do, I'm switching to P2P apps. I will pay THE MOST a dollar for a song. Nothing more.

[danielsan26]

If this was slashdot I'd mod you +5 informative.. those were excellent links, simply excellent and I appreciate it.

Until the RIAA passes legislation (notice I didn't say politicians) that forces me to hand over half my paycheck for ashley simpson CD's, I won't be giving a single dime to their cartel.. hear that RIAA? Hear me now? Sue away..
Wish I could take the kudos, but I found the forum where I got those and it turns out that Abstract gets the credit for his post here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=1792067&postcount=44).

[aswitcher]

Beginning of the end for iTunes...

The only way it might work is if CDs go up in price or they open the DRM up for other music players to keep the market growing...

[FaasNat]

Sigh.

Hope people keep posting (and posting more) about really good "unknown" artists that didn't have their hand in this and are going to make less (per song, hopefully more overall).
This would be cool, but then I think Apple (the computer company) will really be treading on thin ice with the agreement it has with Apple (the music company).

[hulugu]

I really don't have a problem with this, and its not a foreign concept, like many people are treating it.

Traditional CDs and DVDs work the exact same way -- new releases and more popular items are more expensive than older, less popular CDs and DVDs. Hence, the bin of $ 5.99 CDs/DVDs at the store.

Why should digital music and movies be any different? (And, why aren't you people out bitchin' about the traditional CDs/DVDs cost structure if this model will be so "evil")

In addition, this rumor says nothing about "superstars" getting more money. It says "more popular". Supply and demand. Number 1 song would cost $1.99 when its first released and then probably drop to 79 cents when no one wants it no more (just like traditional CDs)

Limewire will be gone within the year, just as Grockster just went. Sorry, but the industry is rightfully winning cases against people who steal.

First, few of us believe that supply-n-demand will work within the economic cartel that is the RIAA, so let's stop pretending that the 'free-market' operates here.

Second, it is more likely that new releases will go up dramatically, large numbers of older stuff will stay the same and only the most obscure titles will go down in price. Thus, we'll pay more for the same stuff.

Third, 'superstars' are by definition more popular.

Fourth, stealing is not the same thing as copyright infringment; they are morally and legally different things and should remain so. Your, and the RIAAs, obsfucation of this very important fact is one of the reasons this current situation continues to get worse. Copyright is an important part of the legal structure of the United States, but it is by nature a limited right, constrained by the ideals of the public good as well as economics.

[hulugu]

I think they're going down fighting. They know their buisiness model is doomed, and they're going to try to get what they can, while they can

And drag everyone down with them. I say we poke a hole in their life-preserver and let the bastards drown. The RIAA/MPAA is a cartel and a boat-anchor to economic progress.

[Mechcozmo]

It sounded like to me Jobs is being forced into this. Steve Jobs is a smart man. He set the .99 cent limit originally and he probably won't throw it away without a thought.

[sethypoo]

On the filp side there are a lot of new artists that most people neglect because they don't want to waste $1 on something they may not like. At .50 or .75 its worth a gamble though. And wouldn't it be nice to be able to afford to experiment with music that Infinity or one of the other mega radio station owners don't shove down your throat and tell you to like it?

You're forgetting the fact that the record companies will likey require all of their songs to be at least .99, and that all the big names will be $1.25 or more.

Things will not get cheaper, just more expensive. Not worth it!

[MM2270]

Why do people think that prices for the back catalogue are going to go down? They're selling them for 99 cents now, why would they lower it? sure, it doesnt mesh with supply and demand, but when has the record company ever made sense? prices are only going up. wait and see.

From an article about the price changes:

"EMI Music feels Apple will change the iTunes Music Store (iTMS) pricing structure within a year, according to the Wall Street Journal. EMI speculates that Apple will raise the price of popular songs, and lower the price of less popular songs and performers."

So, at this point, the music execs, at least this guy from EMI, are saying they would lower prices on less popular artists. Of course, I wouldn't trust these slimebags for anything in the world, but we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

[iHateWindows]

I love Xfactor and Poisoned.

[stefan15]

Sweet..works for me. All this means is other companies will get to step up to the plate, offering the $.99

[freiheit]

Bollocks.

Pure, unadulterated greed.:mad:

You said it. Sure makes me glad that the music industry's refusal over the last 15 years to promote any decent acts has led me to seek out indie and unknown artists, so the major labels won't be seeing an additional dime from me if they do coerce Apple into a two tiered pricing structure. My music will still be cheap.

[Konradx]

luckily anything i listen to isnt even listed on itunes, and the stuff that would be would be really cheap.

But what they'll probably do is leave unknown goodness at stock price while make trendy crap much more expensive. If the music industry wasnt so anal id start paying for music..but most the music i pay for are on indie labels..gotta support them

[freiheit]

And drag everyone down with them. I say we poke a hole in their life-preserver and let the bastards drown. The RIAA/MPAA is a cartel and a boat-anchor to economic progress.

Not to mention an anchor to creativity and consumer choice. The same droning, mindlessly repetitive junk has been churned out by the major labels and movie studios for so long that there's no chance of anyone or anything actually being original in that market anymore. Remember when MTV began? There were at least a dozen varied styles that all suddenly found enormous popularity. To my (still somewhat youthful) ears, the majority of "artists" today all sound pretty much alike. After the thirteenth mega star boy band, it's just not interesting anymore.

[projectle]

Am I really the only one thinking WTF are you all talking about???

Supply and Demand Echonomics only works when SUPPLY is limited.

In this case, supply is infinite, as no physical exchange of product ever happens.

Additionally, is there ANY justification why a CD of music should be anywhere near comparably priced to a movie???

Consider the following... a typical movie is 2 Hours and retails for $15 on DVD.
A Typical CD is $12-$20, and lasts between 35 Minutes and an Hour.

So, let me call BS on the recording industry. It takes approximately $5000 to produce a CD, the rest is all marketing to get it aired on the radio, duplication, distribution, etc.
An Independant film takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce, with major ones being hundreds of millions of dollars.

In a truly electronic distribution system, duplication costs are nothing.

[horace]

Is this the beginning of the end of music as a product? Isn't the inevitable conclusion to this madness that people will once again share music freely?

That is, in much the same way as musicians used to before the record industry existed and turned music into a tightly controlled product?

It's a very interesting time - the MUSIC industry is in better shape than ever. There are more ways to profit from music than ever before, its just the RECORD industry that's suffering now. They're desperate, so expect more such nonsense over the next few years.

I give it 10 years - once all these wireless networks kick off and everyone has iPods that allow you to listen to whatever you want, whenever you want without actually having your own copy of the tune, this will all be over.

We can all subscribe to iTunes 9 for $29.95 a month and listen to whatever so we're happy. We'll need content to listen to, so the musicians get paid and they're happy (well mostly - there's not much we can do about coldplay...)

In fact, the only people to lose out are the cartels that have told us for so many years how much we should pay and what we should listen to.

Or sumfink. :)

[corywoolf]

Am I really the only one thinking WTF are you all talking about???

Supply and Demand Echonomics only works when SUPPLY is limited.

In this case, supply is infinite, as no physical exchange of product ever happens.

Additionally, is there ANY justification why a CD of music should be anywhere near comparably priced to a movie???

Consider the following... a typical movie is 2 Hours and retails for $15 on DVD.
A Typical CD is $12-$20, and lasts between 35 Minutes and an Hour.

So, let me call BS on the recording industry. It takes approximately $5000 to produce a CD, the rest is all marketing to get it aired on the radio, duplication, distribution, etc.

In a truly electronic distribution system, duplication costs are nothing.

Way to make assumptions. ROFLMAO, a $5000 CD, lol. Even without all the marketing (which is necessary), the rental costs, technicians, and a lot of other hidden costs def. add up to way more then $5000. Maybe it's $5000 for every 5 seconds of music without including marketing?

[puuukeey]

with the advent of filesharing, recorded music is finding its natural place in supply and demand

every other person wants to supply music
every person wants music.

the recorded music market will not be fair until we TRULY purchase the right to play a piece of music where ever and when ever. if I am truly just purchasing the right of my own ears to hear a piece, sony should replace my cds, upgrade all my cassette tapes and rip all my discs to MP3 for me. untill then its just not fair.

-matt

[mtrctyjoe]

There is an unlimited supply of music out there.... and it is free. I pay $.99 because it is fair and out of respect for the artist(s)... go ahead and get greedy and I will save some money. Bastards.

[boogamihxc]

wow. So all the ****** music that is popular is going to be INCREASED?! Meh. Thank god I don't listen to crappy overrated, over the radio tunes. AKA- Music that's pumped out by major record labels.

[otter-boy]

Unless I missed it, people aren't really discussing the source: a music company CEO. Of course the CEO of a music company is predicting this; it's his own wishful thinking. I'm not saying that Apple won't move to tiered pricing, but I think this comment is more contractual posturing than inside knowledge.

I think that the real reason behind this raise in prices is not to increase profits of singles sold on iTunes, but to protect the idea of album sales. If the price of a single rises and the price of an album (probably still the physical CD) stays the same, more people might be willing to shell out for the whole album (which provides lower profits per song but greater aggregate profits because they sell 10-15 songs at a time). This price negotiation is more about breaking Apple's perceived power than it is about profits. The record companies are thinking that while Apple is a small part of the music business now, it could be a major threat in the future. If the record companies drive people back to CDs then they gain back their control; at least that's what they hope.

I think it's all in vain anyway. I see musicians moving toward giving away their music at iTMS quality (128kbs AAC or similar) on the internet then earning their money through touring and sales of full-quality CDs at their shows or through their websites. As mentioned earlier, most musicians (and performers) on big labels don't pay back the record companies' expenses (both real and inflated) through album sales and therefore don't really make money off of their albums anyway. While you can copy a song from the internet, you can't replace the live experience--people will continue to pay for concerts.

[pounce]

i am in the music industry.


it is totally ****ed up, i don't yet know what the new model will be.


people on this thread seem to have no ****ing clue as to how expensive it is to make a cd. studios, production, distribution, it's endless. it's very expensive, even for small indie labels. which aren't making it anymore. and the big labels aren't doing as well as you'd think. factor in the idea that major releases need videos now and those damn things cost more than some of the releases did in the first place. i'm just saying the economics of actually producing real music are a lot more complicated. and don't give me any ********* about internet only self recorded stuff. believe me, this stuff isn't getting cut on a soundblaster and a radio shack mic for a reason.

stealing music via p2p and otherwise doesn't just get the "man". it gets every band, small label, small record store, etc. too.

if you are stealing music you are no more a music fan than a carjacker is an auto enthusiast. there is not charm or vindication in stealing music. tiered pricing may end up getting us music we like at a better price. that's a huge possibility. we'll have to see.

i do think the music industry needs an entirely new model with less video's and less payola. more real music, and artists that they hang on to for more than a single cd. but it takes folks actually buying real music in the meantime. if you want to protest tiered pricing, don't buy the expensive new singles from titney or 50 cent. buy a cheaper catalog song from a good but underplayed artist who could really use your support. or buy from artists directly at places like cdbaby. (although my actual cd is at cdbaby, you could get my music on itunes. supporting my music isn't supporting a big nameless faceless corporation. and many independent artists are on itunes)

[photomaniac]

Remember when Steve Jobs said and later proved that people are willing to buy music if the price was right? ...man- Apple had a whole marketing campaign promoting the .99 cent price... we as consumers thought of Steve as our leader and universal voice for this movement... and we have now all become accustomed to this new way of getting music and paying for it at this price. We as consumers have the choice now to pick and choose which songs we want ... not forced a bunch of garbage on a CD to get 1 or 2 hits.

In my opinion, I see a MASSIVE backlash that will happen in the industry, which will be much greater than when Napster hit the market if there is a price hike.

I said it before... instead of Itunes being forced to change..... LABELS NEED TO CHANGE THEIR OLD BUSINESS MODEL!

(I hope that Steve reads some of these posts... man - I really hope)

[adamcz]

So, let me call BS on the recording industry. It takes approximately $5000 to produce a CD, the rest is all marketing to get it aired on the radio, duplication, distribution, etc.I can clear this up, since I'm a musician and I've recorded in quite a few different studios.

In NYC, the good studios that record labels use are around $300/hour. Because the kids that play/sing in these bands are untrained and unprofessional, they find a way to spend 5 days in the studio recording; 8 hours per day. 5x8x300 = $12,000.

Because many pop musicians don't write their own music, and don't have a clear concept of what they should be doing, they hire a producer, and I wouldn't know how much one costs - I'm sure the prices vary quite a bit, but let's guess that they cost $5,000 for the whole thing.

I trust that I'm not blowing anybody's mind when I say that these albums are heavily edited. Mixing costs $150 an hour, and again, it's normal (for popular bands) to spend 5 days in the studio correcting missed notes and messing with levels. 5x8x150 = $6,000.

Mastering costs an extra grand.

That leaves us with a subtotal of $23,000, and I didn't even mention the costs of hiring studio musicians and hiring "famous" engineers, if you don't want to use the house guys (silly really, because the house engineers at such expensive studios are almost always quite good).

I would estimate that plenty of pop albums reach the $50,000 mark before marketing.

On the other hand, jazz albums (which is all I've done) are as a rule recorded in 2 days, and mixed in 2 days, at studios with prices a lot closer to $100/hr. Should our albums cost less to purchase because we spent less money making them? I obviously can't answer that in an unbiased way, but I can say in defense of myself and other jazz musicians, that we tend to work our ass off all year long in a way that pop musicians wouldn't even understand. I don't want to get into a bragging/pissing contest about how hard I study on a daily basis, but let me just point out that pop bands are almost always young attractive people. It costs a lot of $$$ to turn random good looking people into polished sounding musicians, and it's a lot cheaper to just bring real professionals into the studio in the first place.


I'm almost finished with my first album as a leader, and I planned all along to sell the digital version through itunes. I hope they don't tell me that I can't sell for .99 anymore, because I had to go into debt to record the thing, and it'd be nice to start clawing my way out quicker than 20 cents a pop, or whatever low amount I'd get after a price reduction.

[2nyRiggz]

damn.....they putting the mafia move on Jobs huh.........P2P here i come!

Bless

[Stella]

Nothing much will change... the average person will pay the higher prices.

[benbondu]

Am I really the only one thinking WTF are you all talking about???

Supply and Demand Echonomics only works when SUPPLY is limited.

In this case, supply is infinite, as no physical exchange of product ever happens.

That's a good point. Or wait.... no, it's not a good point. Supply is never actually infinite since it is ultimately determined by the supplier. Supply at the iTMS is variable with incremental increases whenever a purchase is made. But you're right, limits on supply do not dictate price in this case. Limits on demand do, however. Even with a potentially infinite supply, the priciples of price elasticity still apply. The fact that supply is infinite has no relevance. Or.... not as much relevance as you think anyway.

Here's an example: A kid who sells lemonade on the street. Is he limited by his supply of lemonade, or by the speed which he can vend the beverage to customers? Well... perhaps if the day was particularly hot and the street was particularly busy with pedestrians, but lets just assume he has an infinite supply of lemonade (which he gets for free from his parents) and he can service however many people want to buy from him. The main factors a kid selling lemonade considers are 1) how many people want lemonade, and 2) how much they are willing to pay. With uniform unit elasticity of demand, those questions wouldn't matter since the kid could theoretically sell twice as much lemonade by cutting the price in half (thus yielding the same revenue). Doubling the price also has no effect on revenue since he just sells half as many glasses. In this scenario, the best thing for the public is for the kid to keep slashing his price for lemonade until it approaches zero. That way everyone in the world can have cheap lemonade and the kid still makes his $50 or whatever.

But demand elasticity is rarely uniform. The above example was pretty rediculous, but actually translates pretty well to the iTMS. Supply can pretty much be considered infinite, and additional cost per unit is pretty close to zero. But demand elasticity is certainly not uniform. For some tracks, doubling the price will not cut sales in half. Thus the music industry can expect to make higher profits by raising the price on some tracks (and lower profits by lowering the price) or even make higher profits by lowering the price on certain other tracks (and vice versa).

If demand at the iTMS were uniformly elastic, it wouldn't matter to the record companies what Apple set the price at. Indeed it would benefit the whole world if Apple sold songs for a penny (or groups of songs for a penny) so the entire free world could listen to all the music they want. But that's just not the way it is.

Now I'm not a fan of tiered pricing at iTMS, and I generally think it's a bad idea. I suspect the current rate of $.99 per track is a little below the profit maximization point, so if a tiered system goes into effect, prices will as a whole rise. It should produce higher profits for the music industry, but it will also take music away from some people, or at least turn them back into criminals when they return to downloading it illegally. My viewpoint is purely an ethical one where I place a high value on getting music in the hands of as many people possible (legally). The music industry already makes enough money. They need to remember they are serving a vital social function by serving as an instrument to get enjoyable music to the masses.

[autrefois]

It wouldn't be fair if independent labels / lesser known acts were cheaper. They're the ones who need the money and sales more. It also wouldn't be fair if the big name acts were cheaper, that would just make their sales skyrocket.

What's the solution? The iPod shuffle did really well on the whole concept of random. So why not have the prices be random on iTMS? You click "buy" on any given song, from a well-known act or an unknown, and it might be 49&#162;, or it might be $1.29, or it might be 99&#162;, who knows? Try your luck!

"Life is random, so are our music prices!" :p

[EricNau]

I don't ever see it happening...

Considering iTMS is the largest online music store in the world, can't they do kinda whatever they want? And Apple knows it is in their best interest to keep the pricing the way it is now. - Apple wouldn't make any more money out of the deal (it would all go to the record labels).

It's a shame how greedy artists/record labels are these days

[adamcz]

You click "buy" on any given song, from a well-known act or an unknown, and it might be 49¢, or it might be $1.29, or it might be 99¢, who knows? this board doesn't seem to have the rolling laughter icon, but imagine it here in place of this text.

[crpchristian]

Prices

[crpchristian]

Pricesdo

[crpchristian]

NO, prices do NOT go up when something becomes popular, the opposite is true.

Case in point, mini dv vcrs cost all over $1000 when all it does it play and record while a mini dvd camera does all that PLUS its a camera and you can buy one for 1/3 the price..why...because a ton of people buy cameras and no one buys mini dv vcrs....


this is PURE greed and profiteering and does not follow any true economic model

[UWF404]

I've spent $600 on iTunes downloads this year alone. I probably spent $300 in CD's in the previous 5 years. If they go to a variable pricing model I will definitely seek out limewire or some like alternative.

For me 99 cents seems like a good cost/value sweet spot. I don't care who the artist is - I simply won't pay more than 99. :mad:

[EricNau]

Apple is smarter than this...I hope. :(

[adamcz]

I don't care if they make Britney Spears more expensive. They just better not tell me that as an independant artist, I have to sell my music for .75.

[axcess99]

If this should come to pass and If you want make your point heard that you don't like it, don't just pirate and boycott iTunes. Instead, just don't buy anything priced over $0.99, and I mean anything!!!

There can be no clearer signal to them what about what is an acceptable price than if they sell lots of songs at 99 cents and under and there is a *dramatic* drop off of sales at over $0.99, they will be forced to drop the price (and a probable corresponding rise in piracy of *just* the more expensive songs).

Other options for reactions to variable pricing structure:

1)Boycotting all iTMS music = excuse to say people don't want downloadable services anymore and there is no market for them

2)Buying as usual = support greed and outdated model, record companies have no reason to reverse pricing back to earlier structure

My biggest concern about variable pricing is that this then builds in a mechanism for them to slowly inch up the prices on all songs w/o much notice.

Variable pricing also doesn't make sense for this medium. This is music-on-demand publishing. There are no overhead costs that make mass production of few tracks cheaper than mini production of many tracks and when there is no "supply" constraint, then supply and demand doesn't hold water either.

3)Don't buy the "variable priced" songs = see first paragraph


In addition to any of these policies, people should also send feedback to both apple and the record labels that they do not want this structure and will not buy the more expensive songs.

[Lacero]

Looks like this story got Dugg (http://www.digg.com/apple/No_more_.99_songs_on_iTunes). :D

[lolex]

There is a common understanding that we will have to come to a variable pricing structure. The issue is when. There is a case for superstars to have a higher price.

Why you think of the superstar should has a higher price and not " the new artist would sell less songs on this price? "

You're basically GREEDY just in term of your statement !!! :eek:

[Super20]

This is such a joke. Maybe someone else has said this already, but what they are saying it - "If we like your music, we'll sell your songs for more money, but if we think your music sucks, we'll sell you for less. Now....let get greedy and charge some more money! YAH!!!!!!":eek:

[Sirus The Virus]

This is why I buy Cd's. I don't want to mess with DRM or pricing issues. I can get used Cd's way cheaper and get better sound quality with no DRM while I'm at it.

[Koodauw]

Just remember guys, no one pushes Steve around. He ism ore stubborn than a mule. This is just one guy talking, I doubt Steve is shaking his head in agreement.

[iMeowbot]

This is not fair. Superstars are going to get more money, great. But what about the lesser known independant bands?
What about them? By definition they're not on major labels and tend to get a better deal already. It's safe to assume that if variable pricing was available, indy labels and distributors would be able to use it too.

[thirdwaver]

Couple of points to make:

1. There's no mention ANYWHERE of reducing the price of non-superstar songs and doing so would pretty much negate any profit they'd gain from raising the superstar ones. Those of you who think this is a good thing because you don't buy those albums, uh, wake up.

2. I buy from ITMS because it's convenient and I'm willing to spend 99 cents (not a dime more) per song to get just what I want. The record companies keep signing up these one hit wonders who put 11 pieces of crap and one hit on an album. No wonder they want to raise the price.

3. I'm paying less because I'm getting less! I'm getting a restricted bunch of ones and zeros that don't exist anywhere but on my limited life hard drive. Not to mention, I can't even burn an mp3 cd from the ITMS stuff or listen to it on my Tivo. Allow me to re-download any song I've purchased and let me use them any way I choose and I'd think about paying slightly more.

4. Apple, Record companies... Are you listening? Most of us have reached the limit for what we'll pay. We were looking for it to get cheaper, not more expensive. There are alternatives.

[lord patton]

I'm rather dismayed that so many posts indicate a willingness to steal music because you don't like the terms of the deal. You respect an artists' property rights when songs are $.99, but not at $1.49?
Forgive me a divisive analogy: I understand people who are pro-choice (fetus not yet human enough to have rights) and I understand people who are pro-life (a human fetus is still a human). But I don't understand people who are pro-life except in cases of rape and incest. Do the circumstances of conception (albeit abhorrent) have anything to do with the status of the embryo/child/lifeform/thingy?
So if you're willing to steal music, just do it. And admit your moral stance. Don't blame the "greedy" music company for your arbitrary decisions.

BTW, when you write music, you own it. The only reason the record companies get the publishing is because the artists voluntarily give it to them in exchange for the production, marketing and distribution services the majors bring to the table.
What I'm looking forward to is the ability of independent artists to sell their DRM-protected music via iTMS. And then the artists can market themselves and keep their publishing. Some will go it along and some will partner with the biggies (just like now). And they'll both lose when you steal their music (just like now).

Edit: I'm not sure how easy it is to put your own music on iTunes, but reading here makes it seem possible. What makes you think independents don't want to set their own prices too (i.e. tiered pricing)?

[p0intblank]

I really hope this does not happen. 99 cents for one song is perfect how it is, even if it's an older song you are purchasing. One price for all songs is fine... stop being so greedy, music industry! :mad:

I don't think Steve would let this happen... he's very serious about music sales. But who knows!

[zim]

Here is what I would want in exchange for flex pricing:

1. I don't want to see any more album only songs, videos or pdf booklets.
2. If after buying a few songs, I want to be able to have the option to buy the rest of the album and get any discounts available.
3. There should be a cap.. no greater then $x amount, apple needs to put their foot down at some point.
4. I want lyrics included with each song as well as extra info like label published under etc.. in the tags.

I think those request would be directed towards the labels and not apple. One thing I would say to apple is, more free songs, videos and or even sales.

Most of the music I buy would be seen as unpopular.. I think but who knows what the labels consider unpopular now.

[muffinman]

this really sucks. but then, buying music from legal sources only make up about 20 percent of music downloads, right?

[lolex]

people on this thread seem to have no ****ing clue as to how expensive it is to make a cd. studios, production, distribution, it's endless. it's very expensive, even for small indie labels. which aren't making it anymore. and the big labels aren't doing as well as you'd think

I sympathetically understand your woes, however, it 's also my part of job to reduce the production cost as for I am a shop owner . Everyday in the business
market is an unforgiving day, only the winner can left , and no one would cares what's the loser's name? :o

if you are stealing music you are no more a music fan than a carjacker is an auto enthusiast. there is not charm or vindication in stealing music.

Who will disagree ? but the fact is piracy is still thriving , and no one got the power enough to shut down the internet !!

I just wonder why so many peoples ( normally among the top managerment)
snub on the mighty power of internet , they just don't understand the business model has been changing, and will keep changing ,if they can't catch up enough, will be vanished.

Do they know how frantic are completitions is now on the market?
Myself , have been overloading with excessive entertainment media, magazines , newspapers, TVs, Books, Video Games, they are now too many around me, give me sometime pls before I could manage to buy yours, and why should I need to buy yours? some of them even give away for free now!!:eek:

Franky, Movie and Music I've owned in forms of CD/ DVD are over 600s, and they really can entertaining me enough for more than couple of lifes.
They are all very good music artists which from 70's to 90's, Eagles, Simon and Garfunkel, Beatles, Bee Gees, Madonna ....too many, I may need years to
go thr. every single track to all of my ownings. Then should I need to buy another :eek: new ones ??

I believes this is the scenario to the majority of people, and it is a reality for those Big Label face,

And want reminds them the internet downloading is a really instant gratification which you won't bother too much if it's moral or not. Even when you resemble those downloader as rapists, robbers., does it help? Do you feel any better then ? Go catch them!! I don't believes if anyone could win the pirates , until you shut down internet, Could you ? :)

[Chip NoVaMac]

Which record company did you say you worked for?:D :D :D

I was thinking oil or tele-com myself. :D

It just seems to be more of the same. The rich get richer (and the rich can afford the newer pricing better) and the poor get poorer (in particular those that are to blind to just say no to corporate "greed").

As long as we pay inflated prices fro tickets to concerts and sporting events, as long as we pay higher prices for the clothes that the "stars" endorse, or pay higher prices for these same "stars" to tell us what we should drive or own - then we have no one to blame but ourselves.....

[tsaxer]

There's one thing about the variable pricing rationale that bothers me...new CD's don't really cost any more than non-ancient ones (20yrs+ old).
In fact, Target, Circuit City, even Wal-Mart put the newest and most popular CD's on _sale_ the first week they are released. I just spent $10 on Kenny Chesney's new CD, when his older ones on the shelf beside it were $14-$15.
So, I don't see how downloads should be any different; there is very little variation in price among non-new releases until they hit the bargain bin, so what am I missing?

[iMeowbot]

I think it's all in vain anyway. I see musicians moving toward giving away their music at iTMS quality (128kbs AAC or similar) on the internet then earning their money through touring and sales of full-quality CDs at their shows or through their websites. As mentioned earlier, most musicians (and performers) on big labels don't pay back the record companies' expenses (both real and inflated) through album sales and therefore don't really make money off of their albums anyway. While you can copy a song from the internet, you can't replace the live experience--people will continue to pay for concerts.

There is a catch in here, and that catch is the reason why we aren't seeing many successes with that model.

To the artists, a major contract isn't a source of income by itself. It is, however, access to national or international promotion. It gets them on TV and radio, gets their albums reviewed in publications with high circulation. It gets them distribution to the vast majority of the population who still don't have iPods or buy much stuff over the Internet.

That exposure is the difference between playing in a small bar or a decent sized theatre, between splitting a small share of cover charges or selling real tickets. Putting up a Web page doesn't accomplish that, and someone still has to pay for the hosting. How do they get people, in decent numbers, to go look at that page?

Someone needs to come up with a successful way to replace the traditional marketing machinery. Until then, things aren't likely to change much.

[heisetax]

may be i could understand that old songs were cheaper since the music industry no longer need to recover marketing costs, however it doesnt make sense that any song is more expensive than they are now, they are already too expensive and not good value for money compared with the physical CD (that is not compressed, has no DRM restrictions and comes in a nice little box)


Unlike most if I like an artist enough to purchase their music I prefer to have the complete albumn. I also do not want the lower quality of downloaded music. Then to add in the restrictive DRM's & you can understand why I have purchased no music from the iTunes Music Store to put on my iPod or iPod Shuffle.

Anthing over $.99 per song & most of my CD's come out cheaper per song than the downloads. With higher quality & less restrictions on making copies for myself on my computers & iPods as well as actually putting a CD into a player & actually using it. I would think that higher prices would cut down on the downloads of newer more expensive music.

Bill the TaxMan

[MacTruck]

The music industry is completely infested with dirty rotten scumbag money grubbing good for nothing lowlife people that would kill their mothers for a dollar. I say to hell with music. Sony is the number one culprit. I will go back to recording songs over the radio with a tape deck before I give into the extorsion that the record companies are pushing on the public.

Record companies will rot in hell. Why?


1. Sueing people for downloading music. Kids mind you.
2. Putting software in CDs to disable music playing on your computer. Thus infecting your computer with a virus.
3. Charging $20 for a freakin CD of songs that have like 3 good ones and the rest suck.
4. Thwarting good technology in the name of keeping copyright infringment down.
5. Making it illegal to do anything with a cd like copying it, ripping it, lending it to a friend all in the name of copyright infringment.


Burn baby burn. They sure will.

[lolex]

Imagin if free downloading could not be stopped, what will happens ?

- No one will pay to buy music, and Music Label vanished ? Yes.

- Who will produce and marketing for artists , would they manage to do it online
by themself ? Yes.

- Would there still be artist performs on TV ? Will there be any agency do a good job to bring new artist to TV and TV company will paid for it ? Yes.

- would the vanish of Big Label companies cause in a market deflation and a recession in assets values ( this may be hard to someone , but it's healthy in longterm), so the production cost will then be lowered ? Yes.;)

- Would you still spend money to buy anything then ? Yes. I always buy things only whenever I need it ( not I want it )

- What would you like to buy by then ? I 'd save all my money to look for Apple products, since they're bundled whichever softwares needed for that product for free.

- It's quite ideal then ? Yes:p

- What you're going to name this? A Liberation

[gekko513]

I'll steal instead of buy any song I want that's more than $.99

[lord patton]

I'll steal instead of buy any song I want that's more than $.99

There's that honesty I was looking for. Succinct, honest and deplorable.

BTW, is this magical $.99 price point indexed for inflation? :rolleyes:

[zoozx]

**** ta=hat

More sharring less buying!

[kenzbud]

I really don't have a problem with this, and its not a foreign concept, like many people are treating it.

Traditional CDs and DVDs work the exact same way -- new releases and more popular items are more expensive than older, less popular CDs and DVDs. Hence, the bin of $ 5.99 CDs/DVDs at the store.

Why should digital music and movies be any different? (And, why aren't you people out bitchin' about the traditional CDs/DVDs cost structure if this model will be so "evil")

In addition, this rumor says nothing about "superstars" getting more money. It says "more popular". Supply and demand. Number 1 song would cost $1.99 when its first released and then probably drop to 79 cents when no one wants it no more (just like traditional CDs)


Limewire will be gone within the year, just as Grockster just went. Sorry, but the industry is rightfully winning cases against people who steal.

This prcing structure wouldn't be so bad if they were keeping new releases/popular artist at 99 cents and lowering old relases down to 75 cents or 50 cents.

[lolex]

-What would you buy when a song from superstar and new artisst is cost the same $.99 ?

I won't buy a song sucks from superstar and would buy a good song from new artist. :rolleyes:

- So you mean superstar is not equal to good song and new artist is not equal to crapy song ?

Of cause , everybody knows that !!

[JoeG4]

I'd rather see Apple tell the record companies pushing this stuff to take their prices and shove them, than anything else.

Seriously, there's gotta be a good way to short change Sony and Co (Right now, Sony should be boycotted ENTIRELY) and take business away from those morons.

[iMeowbot]

- Who will produce and marketing for artists , would they manage to do it online
by themself ? Yes.

- Would there still be artist performs on TV ? Will there be any agency do a good job to bring new artist to TV and TV company will paid for it ? Yes.

- would the vanish of Big Label companies cause in a market deflation and a recession in assets values ( this may be hard to someone , but it's healthy in longterm), so the production cost will then be lowered ? Yes.;)

If that is true, why isn't it already happening? Someone needs to come up with a viable business model to make that happen. What would work (i.e., not be charity)?

[MacTruck]

BTW, is this magical $.99 price point indexed for inflation? :rolleyes:

No, because it costs nothing to put a file on a server and let people download it.

My god, itms has made over $100,000,000. When will the insanity end. 99 cents is a ripoff.

[lolex]

If that is true, why isn't it already happening? Someone needs to come up with a viable business model to make that happen. What would work (i.e., not be charity)?

Just in an arguable time. :)

[iMeowbot]

Just in an arguable time. :)
But it gets circular really fast. The only reason there are record labels now is that most artists aren't business people (very few people are good at both). What will keep any replacement for record labels from looking pretty much the same as what is there today?

I'm not saying it can't be done, only that the "how" part always goes unanswered. The do-it-yourself distributors don't do promotion (and the ones who say they do, don't really do it). That still costs money, and the effective promotion is all about contacts. How might one bypass the system without becoming a part of it?

[balamw]

Traditional CDs and DVDs work the exact same way -- new releases and more popular items are more expensive than older, less popular CDs and DVDs. Hence, the bin of $ 5.99 CDs/DVDs at the store.
Where do you live/shop?

My experience over the past few years is quite the opposite. As others have posted, you can often find loss-leader prices on popular new releases at major retailers like Best Buy and Target which are significantly lower than the list/regular price. For example, I just bought Sublime's "Gold" 44 track 2 CD compilation last night for $12.99 (down from $19.99 list, $24.99 at iTMS) at Best Buy. Their "Greatest Hits" CD was quite meager as was the "20th Century Masters", but I'm not enough of a fan to buy all of their albums spearately as this comp does a good job of sampling their oeuvre.

I also disagree with your comment about the bargain bin, in traditional CDs and DVDs, older less popular titles are the ones that are only available at full price and these tend to go out of print and become no longer legally available from the label at any price. Of course there's always the used market, but that doesn't benefit the artists or record companies in any way. The titles you usually find in bargain bins are titles that once were popular, but are no longer in demand, or titles that are so inexpensive to start off with (e.g. Eastern european classical recordings, etc...)

Legal digital distribution like iTMS offers the labels a huge potential to exploit their back catalog on a daily basis and potentially turn those items that would otherwise be unavailable (out of print) into a revenue stream. A huge "bargain bin", if they price it right and make the items available.

Over a period of 10 years or so 1989-1999 I purchased over 600 CDs, that's about 5 a month on average. in 2000-2004 my yearly music consumption dropped to ~1/month on average, even though I was making a lot more money at the time. Why? Not P2P or downloads. Mainly that I no longer perceived that I was getting a good value buying CDs. I bought the majority of the CDs in my collection for $10.88 or less from Newbury Comics around Boston. Now it seems hard to find many CDs I want to listen to for less than $15. Since I got my 4G iPod in late 2004, I have started buying more music in general, and am probably averaging close to 4 albums and a few single tracks on average per month. I just bout two yesterday, and I bought an album off iTMS last week and I am expecting my monthly selection form yourmusic.com real soon now.

If they really want to charge me $1.99 for a new release track, where I might ultimately want the album, I'll probably just wait for the CD to become available on yourmusic.com for $5.99 shipped. At $0.99 it's still an impulse buy.

B

[lolex]

But it gets circular really fast. The only reason there are record labels now is that most artists aren't business people (very few people are good at both). What will keep any replacement for record labels from looking pretty much the same as what is there today?

I'm not saying it can't be done, only that the "how" part always goes unanswered. The do-it-yourself distributors don't do promotion (and the ones who say they do, don't really do it). That still costs money, and the effective promotion is all about contacts. How might one bypass the system without becoming a part of it?

Actually, i believe you don't quite need a serious promotion, the audiene will look for it, like we 'regoogling now, some platforms like podcasting will evolve to help, so you need some audition videos to put on.

When you gain enough celebrity, the Station will pay you up on their shows.

Of cause, it won't be esay, completiton will be crazy, but there 're always winners and losers ;)

[generik]

Fantastic, greed of the music industry finally won Apple over... :mad:

What's going to happen from now on? Sales on iTMS will take a hit, music executives will step in and claim it is due to "piracy", petition congress to pass more legislation.

Soon we will be prisoners in our own country! Maybe pay a monthly "culture tax" for the indunation of "culture" and "intellectual property" that we occasionally partake in during the normal course of our lives.

Saw the movie trailer? Hummed a tune that your mind was force fed with? Used a catch phase that came about in a TV series? All these value do not come for free, you will have to pay for them as part of the culture tax!

[VanNess]

BTW, when you write music, you own it. The only reason the record companies get the publishing is because the artists voluntarily give it to them in exchange for the production, marketing and distribution services the majors bring to the table.
What I'm looking forward to is the ability of independent artists to sell their DRM-protected music via iTMS. And then the artists can market themselves and keep their publishing. Some will go it along and some will partner with the biggies (just like now). And they'll both lose when you steal their music (just like now).

These days, most, if not all, artists own the publishing rights to songs they write, usually setting up their own publishing company. The record companies, however, own the master recordings and have rights to those, even if the artist decides to switch to another label. In that case, the artist will continue to earn publishing royalties for the songs (and copyright ownership) for songs recorded with the former label, but the master recordings remain the property of the former label.

I don't agree that the act of downloading a song is de facto proof of "stealing" as it has never been shown, even in the worst instances of file sharing, that every recipient would have otherwise purchased the song. As a matter of speculation, it's certainly possible, but it's just as possible that the song would have ended up in the trash bin after it's "audition."

More than that, it's just plain human nature to share. Insofar as music is concerned, music has been shared since humans learned how to whistle. In the present day, it's more than likely that some songs will be copied and be shared amongst friends. But that doesn't rise to the true, real-world meaning of "piracy" because giving your girlfriend a copy of a song that reminds you of her has no measurable, direct impact on the record companies song sales. Folks have "shared" music long before the internet, ever since tape recorders found their way into consumer's hands. In fact, some of those folks are the record companies artists themselves, who inevitably swap music from their musical influences amongst themselves while honing their own sound. When the Beatles "shared" Bob Dylan songs amongst themselves, was it "stealing" or was it a part of the written history of music?

I think most people are honest. If someone hears a song that really grabs them, their first instinct is to go buy it. If you're hooked up to the net, iTunes makes it practically irresistible. It's convenient, immediate, simple, and the .99 price is perfectly set so the consumer won't have pause to think about whether it's really worth it or not. And as long as the consumer experience remains postive, song piracy, such that it is, will eventually give way.

[Fukui]

This is not good if true. The big artitsts will still get more money anyway.

Also Apple should not sell any songs above $0.99.
Its intersting, the most common post on iTunes Japan is basically "This song is good but not worth 200 yen!"
One of the reasons I think iTunes does so well there is BECAUSE its price is lower than everyone else and doesn't have soviet -er- sony-style licensing restrictions...

I think more the music industry struggles to maintain controll and manipulate, they dig their own graves.

[generik]

I think more the music industry struggles to maintain controll and manipulate, they dig their own graves.

Not really, if they are lucky they can probably label us all as criminals and get us all arrested.

I do download tunes from time to time, but I also buy CDs containing tracks I like. The music industry can call it piracy, I call it "visiting the music store from home".

[Will_reed]

I hope the greedy bastards choke.

[Hattig]

Only if the price for older or less popular music drops, and there is no realtime pricing system (price increases if song gets popular).

Also the per-track price for popular artists shouldn't increase much either. I.e., $1.49 per track will not work when you can buy the single for $2.99 with two or three tracks on it, and the physical media. I think that $1.25 is the limit.

Volume discounts - buy 5 $1.25 tracks for $5.

Bundle deals - buy New Song and get Old Song By Same Artist for 1/2 price

Here in the UK a single track costs &#163;0.79, and the typical single costs &#163;1.49 on iTunes (two tracks). I certainly wouldn't buy from iTunes if the single track itself cost &#163;0.99 and the single version cost &#163;1.89, when I can buy the physical CD in a store for &#163;1.99, hell, even if it was a &#163;2.99 single. Better to have the original uncompressed version with no DRM and real physical ownership. Even for a single.

If they want to put the price up, then they should offer VBR averaging 192kbps AAC songs, not 128kbps AAC at the very least.

Oh, and by the time this happens, iTMS will have been selling songs for 4 years. Assuming 3% inflation per year the price by then should be $1.08 anyway. Of course bandwidth costs go down, as do other costs, so Apple could maintain the $0.99 price, even though even now it is costing you 5 or 6 cents less in real terms.

[amateurmacfreak]

that's so screwy... my parent's are songwriters w/ a lot of old songs, and if the price got dropped on those it would suck... why would they do that?? it's so greedy and idiotic... and i bet it'd just drive a bunch of people to limewire that are sick of that sort of crap.

[amateurmacfreak]

Good reason to find even more great unknown 'uncommercial' tunes and boycot manufactured crap!!! What's the bets illegal downloads will be up?

yeah, i think the illegal download rate will definatly go up if this happens....

[SPUY767]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000026M3.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg <----Sony BMG CEO Anderw Lack

What Music Company Exec has Mac Er on his/her payroll. . . One can only speculate. I can, however, assure you, Mac Er, that this is not the place to fly that flag. Demi God or not.

[Uragon]

Let's hope that this variable doesn't push through as some record companies (hope not one) disagrees with it. :)

[gekko513]

There's that honesty I was looking for. Succinct, honest and deplorable.

BTW, is this magical $.99 price point indexed for inflation? :rolleyes:
Why were you looking for such honesty, and I why would I care if you find it deplorable?

[Gasu E.]

This could be good for me personally. I tend to spend my money on jazz, world, and backfilling my classic rock collection. My kids go for obscure indie music. So I'm hopeful that this will allow us to acquire more music at our current expenditure level. I feel bad for those who will pay more for very popular top 40 stuff; but the economics of this kind of product should be different from less popular music, as the demand is mainly marketing-driven.

[otter-boy]

There is a catch in here, and that catch is the reason why we aren't seeing many successes with that model.

To the artists, a major contract isn't a source of income by itself. It is, however, access to national or international promotion. It gets them on TV and radio, gets their albums reviewed in publications with high circulation. It gets them distribution to the vast majority of the population who still don't have iPods or buy much stuff over the Internet.

That exposure is the difference between playing in a small bar or a decent sized theatre, between splitting a small share of cover charges or selling real tickets. Putting up a Web page doesn't accomplish that, and someone still has to pay for the hosting. How do they get people, in decent numbers, to go look at that page?

Someone needs to come up with a successful way to replace the traditional marketing machinery. Until then, things aren't likely to change much.

I agree. I didn't mean that bands would merely put up websites and then tour. I think that there will be outlets that music-lovers can go to and find bands that they like. I'm not the biggest fan of MySpace since it is hard to navigate and find new stuff, but I think that it may be one direction that bands will go (it's already been successful for a few). There might be other sites where people can nominate and vote for music they like. And online music magazines could also recommend albums. I can see recommendations coming both from a bottom-up direction (fans recommended) and top-down direction (expert recommended).

I think there will be more avenues to get to know bands and more opportunities to hear them before you ever make a purchase. I think with the advent of digital music that there is no other choice than to make songs widely available for little or no money on the internet. If bands don't then other people will. Who knows, maybe labels will catch on and become concert promotion agencies, using free music and advertising as one more way to sell tickets to shows.

[ioinc]

This isn't about a fair pricing structure where old/less popular music costs less. You better believe that they will not charge less than $0.99 (US) for even the least popular song in the catalogue. This is about charging exhorbitant rates for Top 50 songs, and anything that begins to sell well.

I can't believe the music industry doesn't believe we understand this.



I think the music industry does understand this.
What I don't understand, is why a large portion of people on this board don't understand "supply and demand."

This is an example of demand. If the demand is high they get to charge more.

Nobody is coming down hard on Apple because of what they charge for iPods, and they are making tons of money.

Nobody calls apple..."just plain greedy"

Newsflash... Apple could sell iPods for less and still make money, they don't because they can make more money by selling at the higher price point. This is not greed, this is business.

This is how it should work in almost all industries... to include the music industry.

It is their job to make as much money as they can. That's their goal. Its your job (as a consumer) to get the best product for as little as you can.

[xejn]

I say, if they are so sure it will work, then try it first on another service. If revenue go down, then it don't work. If it goes up, then they have a case to make with Steve.

That way they get to test out their theory and not poison the goose laying those golden eggs.

If you ask me, they should try to use the old business models they used pre-CD's in the digital market. That means putting out more music by more acts and getting more air play on the radio for those acts to promote them.

[pounce]

pricing model aside, why is it greedy when the bands/labels/studios/distributors/etc. want to be paid for the music they have created, but it's not greedy when a bunch of internet geeks get on some wankfest like this about how they are all gonna steal their music. nobody is stealing music to teach the labels or make some grand point. people steal music because they are selfish and greedy and unwilling to support the artists who they want to hear. there is no noble construct here. so when you do it you are the thief. it makes the morally superior tone in this thread seem ironic and sad. so now the labels are thieves, the music stealers are also thieves, and the only one not getting any money on the deal are the bands that actually made the damn music.

[artifex]

The funny thing is when Job's "explains" the pricing change we will all feel good and wonder why it had not happened sooner, be that the truth or not! :eek:

I really wonder why we never hear boos at these announcements. Maybe now we will.

[lolex]

pricing model aside, why is it greedy when the bands/labels/studios/distributors/etc. want to be paid for the music they have created, but it's not greedy when a bunch of internet geeks get on some wankfest like this about how they are all gonna steal their music. .

you work, and you get paid is a solid statement.:rolleyes:

To pay how much is an arguable statement, a doctor's salary in US may over $20,000 , but a doctor in Russian get only $20 a month. There 's nothing wrong
if somebody wants to pay higher premises to hire you, however, if you want to have a higher salary and nobody wants to pay, you got to find the reason and do something achieve that goal. The market will judge. :p

[scottsalbo]

It's beyond belief how greedy the recording industry is. They tried to kill cassette tapes back in the day, too. Same argument. They claimed that the classic Who album; "Who's Next" took 10 years to go platinum because of all the copying. Fact is, it's not reallly the artists who are suffering, since they make more money on tour than they ever recieve in royalties in any given year.

As that great artist David Grohl said during a Continental Arena show I attended:

"If I was at a party and didn't have any weed, and someone was passing around a joint, I wouldn't be thining about the dealers pocket, I'd take a free hit."

I've purchased over 700 songs from iTunes over the past 18 months. I'll never pay a cent more than .99 for a song. There'll always be a way to get it free. Jobs and Rec Execs, be warned. that 99 cent price point better be the premium price, not the starting point.

[pounce]

the recording industry should be aware that this is as much as folks really want to pay for audio tracks. i really agree. i think the current itunes model is exactly right. i sure don't want prices to go up.

however, there is one little point to pick from the above two posts. doctors wages aside, they at least expect to get paid for their services. and in the market where the doctor made less, the cost of living is also less so we shouldn't necessarily look at his salary against our cost of living, we should look at that in comparison to his cost of living if it were to be a fair comparison.

for the point about joint at a party, the dealer had already been paid by the person who bought the week and there would be no point in worrying about the dealer. the person who bought the weed was -offering it up for free-. not all bands are giving away their audio for free. this is because it's also true that music studios, distributors, etc. aren't free and so there are costs associated with producing the music in the first place. hey, if it were no costs in making music well then i'd suggest it ought to be free. but like in your weed example, someone is paying for it.

[lolex]

doctors wages aside, they at least expect to get paid for their services. and in the market where the doctor made less, the cost of living is also less so we shouldn't necessarily look at his salary against our cost of living, we should look at that in comparison to his cost of living if it were to be a fair comparison.

this is because it's also true that music studios, distributors, etc. aren't free and so there are costs associated with producing the music in the first place. hey, if it were no costs in making music well then i'd suggest it ought to be free. but like in your weed example, someone is paying for it.



Simply speaking, all connect to money is materialism, as a customer, I choose just base on how many choices I could compare to in the market, I don't bother how much it cost you to produce, if you're being costed high to produce , you may mark price higher and I will judge whether to buy.;)

Personally, I don't believe money can help you produce good music, only talent will do, talent is not enough , you need enough practice to make it perfect.Good music is not that money can buy.

Better equipments could help you play good sounds but not playing good music, I think whoever doing music now should dig deeper into the nature of music and sort out which direction to go, otherwise , will be eliminated.:p

[VanNess]

I think the music industry does understand this.
What I don't understand, is why a large portion of people on this board don't understand "supply and demand."

This is an example of demand. If the demand is high they get to charge more.

Nobody is coming down hard on Apple because of what they charge for iPods, and they are making tons of money.

Nobody calls apple..."just plain greedy"

Newsflash... Apple could sell iPods for less and still make money, they don't because they can make more money by selling at the higher price point. This is not greed, this is business.

This is how it should work in almost all industries... to include the music industry.

It is their job to make as much money as they can. That's their goal. Its your job (as a consumer) to get the best product for as little as you can.

Neither supply or demand are at issue when the record companies (the so-called "big four" EMI, Sony-BMG, Universal Music, and Warner whom account for 95 percent of worldwide CD sales) become monopolists and act collectively as a price-fixing cartel, which is exactly what they have done in the past and what they are effectively proposing to do now. That's not exemplarily or typical of the "way it works in most industries."

And Apple does make a ton of money on iPods, but they haven't done so by suddenly shifting the existing, established price of the latest, hottest selling iPod upward just to simply cash in on a new wave of consumer interest. When Apple does raise the price of an iPod, it's due to the inclusion of enhanced capacity and/or new, better features. The price then obviously reflects the product's added value, (although Apple often includes additional features at the same price point or less when the product line is refreshed) and the price is never arbitrarily increased over the product life cycle.

But your right, Apple does make a lot of money on iPods, and in that sense they seem to know something the record companies don't.

[-hh]

There's that honesty I was looking for. Succinct, honest and deplorable. :rolleyes:


My reaction is currently undecided, between:

a) Not buy anything new anymore. Used CD's only.

b) Spend $50 to buy an FM tuner for my PC, since I can *legally* grab an analog copy for personal use off the airwaves.


-hh

[Disturbed]

What Music Company Exec has Mac Er on his/her payroll. . . One can only speculate. I can, however, assure you, Mac Er, that this is not the place to fly that flag. Demi God or not.

DRFSR. I love it.
Now, it's time to raise your fists to the labels!
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000AGTQKO.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

There is no doubt that we are talking about pure greed. With digital music, the gross profit margin is much higher because there is no physical product to manufacture and no physical distribution. I wonder what their gross profit is on an album that is sold for $9.99 - perhaps $8 or $9? So, the gross profit is ~80%-90%. I don't know what it is for a CD, but I bet it's around 40% or so.

If digital albums cost about the same as physical CDs, I will go back to CDs. Better yet, maybe I'll just join BMG or Columbia House again. Or maybe I'll just go to allofmp3.com (http://www.allofmp3.com) again. (Of which I have not used in a long time. I buy all of my music from the iTMS.)

:mad:

[Fukui]

I think the music industry does understand this.
What I don't understand, is why a large portion of people on this board don't understand "supply and demand."

This is an example of demand. If the demand is high they get to charge more.

Um, does supply and demand theory apply to non-physical sales? So if pathfinder 4 (yes! its comming!) turns out to be incredibly popular they should raise the price becuase the demand is so hight they cant download it fast enough, so they gotta raise the price to reduce the load?

It sounds ridiculous doesnt it?

Supply and demand applies to products that are manufactured at a fixed cost and must be balanced with supply in order to reach equilibrium, but in the virtual world, there is basically an unlimited supply! Increasing bandwidth to allow downloads at the millions is grossly cheaper than sending millions of CD's out to retail.

In this case, its trying to apply old rules to a new system because the old people in charge are too old.

[gugy]

like I said many times before,

Itunes
1 song $0.99
whole albums $5.99

if Apple is pressure to change the cost of 1 song we'll see an increase of illegal downloads and Steve already said the same.
Whole albums must be cheap. I don't see advantage to buy an album at Itunes. No artwork bad compression. I would rather go to Amoeba and buy an used CD for $9.
All Itunes music should be 192kpbs.

Music industry is just sucks CDs should cost $9 nowadays. It's just greed to charge $18 for a CD with production costs so cheap. Greed, Greed, Greed!:mad:

[quigleybc]

1. Sueing people for downloading music. Kids mind you.
2. Putting software in CDs to disable music playing on your computer. Thus infecting your computer with a virus.
3. Charging $20 for a freakin CD of songs that have like 3 good ones and the rest suck.
4. Thwarting good technology in the name of keeping copyright infringment down.
5. Making it illegal to do anything with a cd like copying it, ripping it, lending it to a friend all in the name of copyright infringment.


Burn baby burn. They sure will.


Great post, couldn't have said it better myself....

[OnaMacSince1989]

I had heard the new Madonna album was good, so I went over to iTunes to preview it. It comes with 12 tracks, some digital booklet, and a music video, all for $12.99. I thought about $12.99 showing up on my statement (I am a student part time work, make about $50 every two weeks), and I thought I just can't spend that money. I need to buy shoes and clothes for winter. Real things thatwon't disappear if my computer crashes. And so I thought how much would I pay for that album with the video. At $2 I might be tempted. LOL...anyhow, yeah I get the two free downloads a week though.


You are smoking dope if you think you will get 12 songs and a video for $2. And what exactly did you do when you bought CDs? That same album in traditional CD format is probably $14.99-$17.99


As with many popular new releases during the first week of release, you can pick up Madonna's new CD this week at many retailers (ie: Best Buy, Target, Circuit City, etc.) for only $9.99. I much prefer to have the original high-quality manufactured CD and liner rather than the downloaded versions with materials printed on my home printer. No way would I pay the same amount for inferior downloads as I would manufactured CD's. The music labels are kidding themselves if they think they can grow their business by charging more for downloaded music.

PS. This is THE Madonna album to buy...best in years!

[lolex]

To be success ,you need access to the majority of people,
To access to majority of people, you need something people affordable.:rolleyes:

In the music industry, I don't see a model which can successfully accessed to the majority of people like the Mcdonnal's , Coka Cola, Apple, Google etc, which you always have good faith with these Label,

Itune is looming , to liberate the market and potentially be the one finally accessed the majority, and music label will be decimated. :)

[Disturbed]

I agree that this is not a supply and demand issue. This is a conscious attempt to try to capitalize on the digital download trend, which is still in its infancy. It is incredibly shortsighted to make changes at this early juncture. I am very sure that all music stores will be affected. Would subscription services make more sense then? I don't know. Perhaps they too will go up in cost.

At this juncture, I am not going to pay 2 bucks for one song. Simply is not going to happen. It's the point. Now, I could see a small increase - say 10 cents or so. All costs go up due to inflation, etc..., but if it went from $0.99 to $1.49, that is not fair. A 50% increase overnight.

What if automobiles went up by 50%? Or your electric bill? Or your cable/satellite bill? It is a matter of principal and fairness. I'm not saying that they should never be able to raise prices, that is not the issue. As long as it's a reasonable increase, I'm fine with an increase.

[quigleybc]

Hypothetical:

ITMS prices go up-
More and more people switch to p2p and Bit Torrent-
Even more people people "pirate" music-
The music industry goes competely bankrupt-
There is no major industry to record, promote, and sell music anymore-
Music recording goes back to indepenant, underground enthusiasts-
Music is sold out of the trunk of cars, and at street perfomances and shows-
It is a level playing field where you will succeed only if you have talent-
No longer can 16 girls with a pretty face undergo a makeover and team of assistants and song writers to be succesful-

ya right.......:o

[ioinc]

Um, does supply and demand theory apply to non-physical sales? So if pathfinder 4 (yes! its comming!) turns out to be incredibly popular they should raise the price becuase the demand is so hight they cant download it fast enough, so they gotta raise the price to reduce the load?

It sounds ridiculous doesnt it?

Supply and demand applies to products that are manufactured at a fixed cost and must be balanced with supply in order to reach equilibrium, but in the virtual world, there is basically an unlimited supply! Increasing bandwidth to allow downloads at the millions is grossly cheaper than sending millions of CD's out to retail.

In this case, its trying to apply old rules to a new system because the old people in charge are too old.

Is there an unlimited supply of popular music?

There is a limited supply of popular music that consumers are willing to pay a premium for.

There is a high demand for popular music (by definition of being popular)

There is a cost associated with marketing and production of music.

The rules are the same.

We can't reinvent the rules of a free market economy just because we want to pay less.

Stealing music off of Limewire is no different to than taking a CD off the store shelf and not paying.

For all those people that say they will go back to limewire... why not just pick them up at Wal-Mart for free. All you need is a coat with big pockets and no morals.

[woolfgang]

I've worked in the music industry and I've worked in bookkeeping. The reality of the situation is that the companies write losses to piracy into their price to begin with. So they're already being covered and if the piracy is less than expected, they make even more. It's pure greed.

[ioinc]

At this juncture, I am not going to pay 2 bucks for one song. Simply is not going to happen. It's the point. Now, I could see a small increase - say 10 cents or so. All costs go up due to inflation, etc..., but if it went from $0.99 to $1.49, that is not fair. A 50% increase overnight.

What if automobiles went up by 50%? Or your electric bill? Or your cable/satellite bill? It is a matter of principal and fairness. I'm not saying that they should never be able to raise prices, that is not the issue. As long as it's a reasonable increase, I'm fine with an increase.

Its not a question of fair or not fair. There is not constitutional (or God given) right to cheap music.

It is a question of what price the market will bear. If it goes beyond a point you want to pay... don't buy it.

Its not unfair that I can't buy a Ferrari. The car is simply out of my price range and I don't buy it.

Electric bill is a bit different since they don't compete in a free market (and they typically have limitations on increases in charges).

Cable is not. If they price of cable goes to high get a dish. If that too is too high read a book.

[qevlhma]

ioinc:

You are actually wrong about this... sorry to have to be the one to say it.

The very concept of supply and demand relies on a limit to physical goods.

ie: there is a finate amount of water in the worLd, so everyone could not have as much as they want.

Technically speaking there is an unlimited amount of copies of a digital work.

We are not re-inventing the wheel here.. if you think about it..

What is the supply and demand for air that you breathe?

[whiteg]

Gripe a

[whiteg]

llll

[yadmonkey]

Now people, I don't think you understand the stress these major artists suffer... how else can Justin Timberlake afford a gold-plated shark-tank bar if he gets the same money as some crappy jazz or classical musician? Lesser artists don't NEED a gold-plated shark-tank bar, but an artist of his calibre has an image to maintain.

I know we have brothers and sisters around the world starving with flies on their lips, but what would MTV Cribs be if female artists couldn't afford 3500 square foot shoe closets fitted with plasma televisions? Would you have them wear the same pair of shoes twice? I think even my starving brothers and sisters would shutter at that notion.

[rickvanr]

Now people, I don't think you understand the stress these major artists suffer... how else can Justin Timberlake afford a gold-plated shark-tank bar if he gets the same money as some crappy jazz or classical musician? Lesser artists don't NEED a gold-plated shark-tank bar, but an artist of his calibre has an image to maintain.

I know we have brothers and sisters around the world starving with flies on their lips, but what would MTV Cribs be if female artists couldn't afford 3500 square foot shoe closets fitted with plasma televisions? Would you have them wear the same pair of shoes twice? I think even my starving brothers and sisters would shutter at that notion.

Took the words right out my mouth. Couldn't agree more... :D

[yadmonkey]

And if you've ever written a song you'd play for someone that's decent, you know it takes a significant amount of guts to do it.

Well said. As a struggling jazz musician, I can certainly say you are correct. So few musicians ever make it past the dreamer stage and those who do pay dearly in sweat and blood, figurtively and literally. They usually do it without the respect and blessing of their piers and families, they do it without the basic comforts most of us take for granted... it's the ultimate labor of love and in the end, few ever achieve anything close to financial abundance.

Even a mega-successful artist like Eminem has more than paid the piper and in my opinion, deserves every penny he gets.

[ioinc]

ioinc:

You are actually wrong about this... sorry to have to be the one to say it.

The very concept of supply and demand relies on a limit to physical goods.

ie: there is a finate amount of water in the worLd, so everyone could not have as much as they want.

Technically speaking there is an unlimited amount of copies of a digital work.

We are not re-inventing the wheel here.. if you think about it..

What is the supply and demand for air that you breathe?

There is a limited amout of popular music.
Every cd a record company produces does not go gold.

[ioinc]

Now people, I don't think you understand the stress these major artists suffer... how else can Justin Timberlake afford a gold-plated shark-tank bar if he gets the same money as some crappy jazz or classical musician? Lesser artists don't NEED a gold-plated shark-tank bar, but an artist of his calibre has an image to maintain.

I know we have brothers and sisters around the world starving with flies on their lips, but what would MTV Cribs be if female artists couldn't afford 3500 square foot shoe closets fitted with plasma televisions? Would you have them wear the same pair of shoes twice? I think even my starving brothers and sisters would shutter at that notion.


This is silly.

Does this mean that Steve Jobs should give up his millions, his big house, his private jet, just because there are people in the world are starving?

Not just Steve, must any CEO of a big comanpy.

In fact... if we are on a global scale.... anybody with two twenty dollar bills to rub together should give one away.

[k2k koos]

Once a gain a tipical example of greed from the record companies to push for higher prices. The big artists (and especially the record companies) make more than enough money for their music due to the sheer volume of sales.
Higher prices are unacceptable. for starters we do not want to pay the same money for an album if it doesn't come with album inlays, lirics and case, on a silver disc.
Unknown artists have the right on earning the same money for a song, and when they sell mere they earn more. Simple, and that is how it should be.

Stop milking the consumers, and for once be resonable, the above is not at all reasonable and not open for negotiation with us, the consumers and customers. We may as well go back to copying music if this is the way it goes.
I don't copy music from other people at the moment because of the convenience of the iTunes store and the fair pricing. Change the pricing, (higher) and I won't be buying. And I'm sure I am not the only one.

Get real record companies!



:mad:

[deadturtle]

Hear! Hear! We all need to read more.


Cable is not. If they price of cable goes to high get a dish. If that too is too high read a book.


The concept of iTunes raising prices is something, frankly, im suprised didnt happen sooner. The industry sees a way to get more income, the concept of adapting their price structure to the new system is un-American. We are a society of greed. If pro-sports played for a liveable wage (say 100,000/yr) they would make more than enough to be/live comfortably and ticket prices would go down, because the cost of the team would be less, and more people would go to the games, thus driving the total costs down (and profits up). The music industry is the same way. They dont see that selling more for less will, in the end, equal more. Our concept as a society is that MORE is ALWAYS better, and that to receed is unsightly, cowardly, and just plain not done. I wonder if it has ever occured to them that if they dropped the cost of songs just 5c, they could possibly sell 5x as many songs thus making, roughly, 1/5 more than they would have if they had kept prices the same, or more had they raised them, thus loosing customers. Will I buy from iTunes if the price goes up? Possibly, I am fond of the single song method of listening, will I buy if the raise is 50% or more, no.

[ioinc]

Once a gain a tipical example of greed from the record companies to push for higher prices. The big artists (and especially the record companies) make more than enough money for their music due to the sheer volume of sales.
Higher prices are unacceptable. for starters we do not want to pay the same money for an album if it doesn't come with album inlays, lirics and case, on a silver disc.
Unknown artists have the right on earning the same money for a song, and when they sell mere they earn more. Simple, and that is how it should be.

Stop milking the consumers, and for once be resonable, the above is not at all reasonable and not open for negotiation with us, the consumers and customers. We may as well go back to copying music if this is the way it goes.
I don't copy music from other people at the moment because of the convenience of the iTunes store and the fair pricing. Change the pricing, (higher) and I won't be buying. And I'm sure I am not the only one.

Get real record companies!



:mad:

It does not matter how many times Atlas Shrugges.... people won't get it.

Every artist does not have a right to earn the same amount for thier work.

You earn an amount based on the quality of the work as judged by the consumer.


Atlas Shrugged is a book by Ayn Rand

[yadmonkey]

This is silly.

Does this mean that Steve Jobs should give up his millions, his big house, his private jet, just because there are people in the world are starving?

Not just Steve, must any CEO of a big comanpy.

In fact... if we are on a global scale.... anybody with two twenty dollar bills to rub together should give one away.

Yes, it was meant to be silly. Thanks for picking up on that... or did you? It was a joke. But then you extrapolated all kinds of crap from it which I didn't intend. THAT'S silly.

Of course I don't think Stevey should give up anything and I think he deserves the abundance he's generated. What I was joking about is how frivilously some of these people, particularly those on MTV Cribs, spend their money on excesses. Money is power and I believe that with power comes responsibility. I don't blame a rich person for buying a nice car, but personally I could not justify spending $50,000 on rims when there are people with flies on their lips.

But then again I was cursed by being born with compassion.

[jiv3turkey748]

this is crazy $1 is already a little to much for one song
all this is going to do is increase piracy

[Sunrunner]

Music industry sucks.

I can't see this being good for the iTMS...


I think a good option might be allowing publishers to LOWER their prices in iTMS, but I think .99 is a good ceiling. Despite all the talk about how successful the iTMS is, it is still an emerging technology. With only 2% of the music sales made anually going to online sources, a price hike would easily kill adoption of the new music-purchasing medium by the main stream.