PDA

View Full Version : so hmmm where are all these $0.69 songs apple was talking about?




iOrlando
Jul 2, 2009, 11:37 AM
couldn't find one $0.69 song.

so pretty much apple lied when they said there will be more $0.69 songs than $0.99 or $1.29



chrono1081
Jul 2, 2009, 11:23 PM
couldn't find one $0.69 song.

so pretty much apple lied when they said there will be more $0.69 songs than $0.99 or $1.29

They didn't lie. It depends all on how the record companies want to price them. Apple set up a pricing tier so that its possible to offer DRM free music but the cost per song actually depends on the record companies.

jaw04005
Jul 3, 2009, 12:45 AM
They didn't lie.

Nah, they didn't lie just grossly miscalculated.

"I can tell you we know already that more songs are going to be sold or offered at 69 [cents] than $1.29. So, it's going to be a benefit to a lot of customers."

Phil Schiller, Macworld '09 keynote address, 1:23 in:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/macworld-san-francisco-2009/

Apparently, the 69 cent price point is so rare that Apple even removed their promo pages for it on the iTunes store.

nuckinfutz
Jul 3, 2009, 01:38 AM
Call it what you want but the fact is Phil sat there and spoke about there being more .69 tracks and when you hop on iTunes you see very few .69 tracks.

Apple caved to the music industry. They won and Apple lost.

Surely
Jul 3, 2009, 01:41 AM
Call it what you want but the fact is Phil sat there and spoke about there being more .69 tracks and when you hop on iTunes you see very few .69 tracks.

Apple caved to the music industry. They won and Apple music consumers lost.

Fixed that for you.

I haven't ever seen a 69 song.

nuckinfutz
Jul 3, 2009, 01:57 AM
Fixed that for you.

I haven't ever seen a 69 song.

Thanks for the fix ...it is more appropriate. :)

Let me search for some "under 70 cent songs"

About as popular as Hens teeth.


No wonder I haven't purchased anything off of iTunes in months.

iOrlando
Jul 6, 2009, 12:33 PM
apple: there will be more $0.69 songs than other prices

conclusion: apple lied

apple didnt say: we assume the music labels will price songs at $0.69....that would be a miscalculation...

skottichan
Jul 6, 2009, 02:47 PM
apple: there will be more $0.69 songs than other prices

conclusion: apple lied

apple didnt say: we assume the music labels will price songs at $0.69....that would be a miscalculation...

Oh yes, because Apple set the prices. I'm sure Schiller said what he said on good faith with the record labels. Then, like always, the consumer got screwed. There's a reason why people like Frank Zappa fought the record labels tooth and nail.


By the way, it took me like 3 minutes to find a $.69 song. -> link (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?i=215114950&id=215114907&s=143441)

two more on the same album link (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?i=215114917&id=215114907&s=143441) link (http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?i=215114993&id=215114907&s=143441)

Michael CM1
Jul 6, 2009, 02:56 PM
I really think this is the record companies screwing Apple because you will often see the same exact item at Amazon for about $2 less per album and often 89 cents or 79 cents for a track. It's obvious that the recording companies have all the power and a trying to leverage it against Apple with competitors. I'd love for a reporter to try to figure this out.

nuckinfutz
Jul 6, 2009, 03:18 PM
By the way, it took me like 3 minutes to find a $.69 song. ->



Yeah and it took "us" 3 seconds to find a 1.29 song. We don't deny that the .69 songs exist but Schiller's comments were pretty definitive in stating that there would be more .69 songs than 1.29.

That's simply not the reality that we're seeing here at all.

rdowns
Jul 6, 2009, 03:24 PM
Fixed that for you.

I haven't ever seen a 69 song.

I just found one, Theme from Welcome Back Kotter. :D

skottichan
Jul 6, 2009, 03:32 PM
Yeah and it took "us" 3 seconds to find a 1.29 song. We don't deny that the .69 songs exist but Schiller's comments were pretty definitive in stating that there would be more .69 songs than 1.29.

That's simply not the reality that we're seeing here at all.

Aaaaand it goes back to what has been said 100 times before. The RIAA sets the prices, not Apple. If you bother to look, a LOT of older music is $.69, just because it's not music you want doesn't invalidate that it's there.

techfreak85
Jul 6, 2009, 03:35 PM
there are a lot of 69cent songs. just ones that u dont want.;)

i got Cheep Trick-I want u to want me for 69cents.

nuckinfutz
Jul 6, 2009, 03:39 PM
Aaaaand it goes back to what has been said 100 times before. The RIAA sets the prices, not Apple. If you bother to look, a LOT of older music is $.69, just because it's not music you want doesn't invalidate that it's there.

The RIAA wasn't on stage selling consumers on a 30 % increase in track costs that was Phil Schiller.

I'd love to see the numeric breakdown of .69 tracks versus 1.29.

AdamLikesMusic
Jul 6, 2009, 09:49 PM
I wouldn't be shocked if there were more $.69 tracks than $1.29 tracks.

Pretty much all the $.69 tracks are the songs nobody wanted before, and probably still nobody wants. The labels probably just want to sell anything they can, and throw up the $.69 price in hopes of increasing sales.

The popular songs will be $1.29, because the labels know people will buy them, and will want to get as much as they can for them.

Myself personally, whenever I look for music, it's still $.99 a song, so I could really care less.

Just my $.02.

NXTMIKE
Jul 6, 2009, 10:52 PM
Yeah, I've been wondering the same thing as the OP. In fact, I've saw many more $.69 cents songs when they introduced the variable pricing, now I have not recalled seeing $.69 songs in iTunes for the last month or so. :mad:

nuckinfutz
Jul 6, 2009, 11:09 PM
, so I could really care less.

Just my $.02.

So how much less could you care? ;)


If iTunes was easier to search It would allow searching by price (since we have three tiers now)

This would make it easy to compile a "Best of" selection of .69 tracks.

Galley
Jul 8, 2009, 07:59 PM
Meanwhile, catalog CD titles keep getting cheaper. Catalog titles on Amazon sell for as little as $5.00. Sony/BMG just dropped the MSRP on their $10.98 titles to $7.98, and those are the latest remasters. Older titles normally sell for $6.99.

TJRiver
Jul 8, 2009, 09:04 PM
The solution to this HORRIFIC problem is simple. Vote with your wallet. Download from Amazon or buy CDs and rip them.

Michael CM1
Jul 22, 2009, 03:48 AM
I FOUND 69 CENT SONGS!

Yes, they do exist. The entire album of "Superman: The Movie soundtrack" is 69 cents. I found another one in Classical, "The Most Essential Classical Music in Movies." It's No. 2 in that genre right now. But other than those two, I haven't seen any since the beginning of April when Apple advertised two or three pages of songs older than my dad.

Lukeyboy01
Jul 22, 2009, 08:37 AM
any one ever heard of torrents? (sarcasm) same quality and free. Some people could even say its better (320k):rolleyes:

techfreak85
Jul 22, 2009, 09:59 AM
any one ever heard of torrents? (sarcasm) same quality and free. Some people could even say its better (320k):rolleyes:
but also, some have been converted and reconverted from lossy format to lossy format it seems thus making it sounds terrible.;)

Tallest Skil
Jul 22, 2009, 10:02 AM
apple: there will be more $0.69 songs than other prices

conclusion: apple lied

So I guess they should have said to thousands of people, "We don't have a clue what our new prices will be."

THAT'S the best way to run a company. Oh, and so they lied. What, you'll sell your Mac and buy a Zune now? Who cares?

mkrishnan
Jul 22, 2009, 10:12 AM
I really think this is the record companies screwing Apple because you will often see the same exact item at Amazon for about $2 less per album and often 89 cents or 79 cents for a track. It's obvious that the recording companies have all the power and a trying to leverage it against Apple with competitors. I'd love for a reporter to try to figure this out.

Yeah, what surprises me more is that the same song will sell for less on Amazon's DRM-free service than on Apple's DRM-free service. I just bought a couple of songs on Amazon instead of iTunes because of that....

sbking
Jul 22, 2009, 10:48 AM
So I guess they should have said to thousands of people, "We don't have a clue what our new prices will be."Yes. Flat out lying to your consumers is bad, stop trying to talk it right =/

aprofetto
Jul 22, 2009, 11:57 AM
All the good songs are 1.29, dammit!

iOrlando
Jul 22, 2009, 01:37 PM
So I guess they should have said to thousands of people, "We don't have a clue what our new prices will be."

THAT'S the best way to run a company. Oh, and so they lied. What, you'll sell your Mac and buy a Zune now? Who cares?


well apple shouldn't have come out and say..."there will be more 0.69 songs than 1.29"

That's like saying...your iphone att data plan will get cheaper in 2009, but by time 2010 arrives, no change has occurred.

If apple has no control over pricing, then who exactly came out with the tier pricing? Apple made it seem like they were the ones who came out with the idea of 3 tiers.

and i understand older songs should be $0.69 and not black chick peas and other current bands like that, but i guess i was thinking 1991 punk rock bands would be considered "older songs" and $0.69 like blues travelers and not soundtracks to 1970s movies that I have never heard of.

Maserati7200
Jul 22, 2009, 11:06 PM
So I guess they should have said to thousands of people, "We don't have a clue what our new prices will be."

THAT'S the best way to run a company. Oh, and so they lied. What, you'll sell your Mac and buy a Zune now? Who cares?

They should have not mentioned it instead of lying about it.

rhett7660
Jul 23, 2009, 10:11 AM
Not defending Apple, but the music industry could of told apple that is what the plan was. To offer a lot more .69 cent songs. Once the money started to roll in. They changed there mind.

One never knows.

I am in the camp, of buying my cd's and ripping them. I purchase very little music from iTunes or Amazon.com.

Bjohnson33
Jul 27, 2009, 07:23 AM
I assumed a lot of the independent bands would drop down to .69, but even a lot of those songs have risen to 1.29. It's a shame - I think dropping the price would increase the sales substantially.

seashellz
Jul 27, 2009, 11:46 AM
couldn't find one $0.69 song.

so pretty much apple lied when they said there will be more $0.69 songs than $0.99 or $1.29
-


uhm...do you even have the slightest clue as to what youre talking about?

NT1440
Jul 27, 2009, 11:48 AM
Werent these prices set by the music industry? :confused:

iOrlando
Jul 27, 2009, 12:17 PM
Werent these prices set by the music industry? :confused:


topic of this thread is not dependent on who set them. Instead, this thread asks why did apple say in their presentation "there will be more $0.69 songs than $0.99 or $1.29"

BittenApple
Jul 27, 2009, 01:22 PM
but also, some have been converted and reconverted from lossy format to lossy format it seems thus making it sounds terrible.;)

It's true some of the time (and granted more with music downloaded off Limewire for example), but most of the pirated music out there is decent quality. (AKA better than iTunes)