Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod so hmmm where are all these $0.69 songs apple was talking about?
- Thread starter iOrlando
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
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.
Attachments
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.
Apple caved to the music industry. They won and Apple lost.
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.
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
two more on the same album link link
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 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.
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.
i got Cheep Trick-I want u to want me for 69cents.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
any one ever heard of torrents? (sarcasm) same quality and free. Some people could even say its better (320k)
but also, some have been converted and reconverted from lossy format to lossy format it seems thus making it sounds terrible.any one ever heard of torrents? (sarcasm) same quality and free. Some people could even say its better (320k)
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?
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....
Yes. Flat out lying to your consumers is bad, stop trying to talk it right =/