Apple to End iTunes Music Store Uniform Pricing Model?

[MacRumors]

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

MarketWatch reports 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...

[Grell]

Originally Posted by socamx

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.

[Sunrunner]

Originally Posted by socamx

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.

[Lord Blackadder]

Bollocks.

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

Pure, unadulterated greed.

[TheMonarch]

Back to Limewire I guess

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

[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.

[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.

[winmacguy]

Originally Posted by blaskillet4

Back to Limewire I guess

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 I still dont have a problem with borrowing and ripping CDs to add to my collection The bulk of my collection is from CDs I have purchased.

[quigleybc]

Originally Posted by blaskillet4

Back to Limewire I guess

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

aww ya, agreed, Limewire is more fun anyway

[varmit]

Originally Posted by blaskillet4

Back to Limewire I guess

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

Limewire, BAH!, Try Poisened. 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.

[graphiqdezine]

Originally Posted by blaskillet4

Back to Limewire I guess

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

*sigh* I am closer to $1,820, not counting songs I've lost. This is no good at all.

The $0.99 pricing model is more successful than I see a variable model being. Who can't justify $0.99 for a song? But when they have to start deciding between $0.25 for one song or $1.50 for another, their sales will drop off. IMO

[mister_L]

Originally Posted by Lord Blackadder

Bollocks.



Pure, unadulterated greed.

see the good part:

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

[freiheit]

Originally Posted by Lord Blackadder

Bollocks.

Pure, unadulterated greed.

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.

[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.

[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).

[FaasNat]

Originally Posted by 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).

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).

[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.

[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.

[Lord Blackadder]

Originally Posted by mac-er

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.