Apple's Ongoing iTunes Negotiations

MacRumors · Apr 23, 2006, 09:59 PM

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

The New York Post is reporting that the record industry may be on the verge of conceding to Apple's demands that iTunes song pricing model remains constant at $.99 per song.

Quote:

But Jobs has dug in his heels on the issue, creating the potential for a showdown between the mercurial Apple boss and the record industry should the labels continue to push for variable pricing.

Apple's current contracts with the record labels expire in the next two months. The NY Post reports that some labels could go as far as to pull their songs from the iTunes Music Store -- however, a more likely scenario described is that the companies will continue to provide their songs but without a contract in place.

Quote:

"That would be problematic for Apple because it allows labels on a whim to pull their stuff whenever they want," said one high-level music executive.

These discussions have been an ongoing point of contention between Apple and the record labels.

powerboy · Apr 23, 2006, 10:03 PM

Stay strong Steve! The greedy record labels will never quit.

bluebomberman · Apr 23, 2006, 10:03 PM

Ah, the NYPost. The most reliable source of info on the planet, at least, when they're not extorting people.

EricNau · Apr 23, 2006, 10:05 PM

It is very important that Apple keep every song at $.99.

I wish these darn record labels would stop being so greedy. When iTunes first came out, they saw Apple as their savior against pirates. iTunes has sold 1 billion songs since then, so that's 1 billion songs not pirated.

They should bow down to Apple!

Spanky Deluxe · Apr 23, 2006, 10:08 PM

The whole 99c thing is fantastic. The constant price means you always know how much you're going to have to pay. Its kind of ridiculous when you see some singles for sale in high street shops that have two tracks and sell for £3.99. Absolutely mad.

Macmaniac · Apr 23, 2006, 10:09 PM

Record Labels: Lets take a perfectly good ITMS and raise the prices
Customer: **** that, back to piracy I go!

muffinman · Apr 23, 2006, 10:09 PM

yeah. keep it at 99

sam10685 · Apr 23, 2006, 10:12 PM

yo Jobs... yeah, u gotta stay strong... don't let greedy record label's mess with ur stuff...

EricNau · Apr 23, 2006, 10:13 PM

I really doubt any (major) record label would go as far as to pull their songs from iTunes. While they may not be able to control what iTunes is charging, they are still making plenty of money from each song sold.
If they pulled any songs, they would not be able to make up all of those sales in CDs or from another online service, people just wouldn't buy as much (people are lazy; they'll either just listen to it on the radio or pirate it).

ImAlwaysRight · Apr 23, 2006, 10:13 PM

Steve oughta whip ass and take names later!

Veritas&Equitas · Apr 23, 2006, 10:15 PM

I'll have to admit, as much as I love the $.99 thing that the Music Store does have going for it, the music industry DOES have a point. Since when do retailers tell the suppliers what they will be paying for goods? It seems a little backwards to me, not that I'm complaining, b/c I hate record companies just as much as the next guy...but it does make some sense....

gugy · Apr 23, 2006, 10:16 PM

Good for you Steve!

Keep those bastards in their place.

If the Itunes raise their prices the piracy will just go up.

It's unbelievable. CDs should cost US$7 by now. Not $18 or more. And they don't understand why people go into piracy.

Baseline · Apr 23, 2006, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veritas&Equitas

I'll have to admit, as much as I love the $.99 thing that the Music Store does have going for it, the music industry DOES have a point. Since when do retailers tell the suppliers what they will be paying for goods? It seems a little backwards to me, not that I'm complaining, b/c I hate record companies just as much as the next guy...but it does make some sense....

Well, I always hear stories about Wal-Mart telling the suppliers what they'll be paying for the goods. Not that I advocate following Wal-Mart's lead in anything, but there is precedent for it.

sethypoo · Apr 23, 2006, 10:35 PM

I think the record companies should be happy with what they've got. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, as you might say. Apple has done more for them in the past three years than all their high paid executives could have done in 25 combined.

I mean, sure, they could make even more money if they raised the song prices, but I think they'd lose a lot of business if they did so. .99 has a better ring to it than 1.99.

syklee26 · Apr 23, 2006, 10:36 PM

The biggest problem with these label company's desire to have multi-tier pricing scheme is the fact that most of the songs will be over 99c while only a few songs would go under 99 (such as songs in those 99c per CD bin in Tower Record and places like that).

this in essence is NOT a multi-tier pricing system. it's more like a single-tier pricing system with some "promo-type" discounts of really crappy old songs.

and these labels don't realize the fact that Apple can still sell a lot of iPods without some of the songs on iTunes. Probably not as much as Apple could but still a good number. However, with downloads almost equaling (maybe more than) CD sales, the lost revenue by pulling their catalog from iTunes would be significant.

I am not an Apple apologist but Label's demands are absurd.

once their negotiation with Apple fails, I can certainly see that they will file to seek a declaratory judgment in some court that importing songs from CD to computer for a purpose of using them in mp3 players is violation of copyright protection.

AidenShaw · Apr 23, 2006, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sam10685

El ninõ is spanish for-- the ninõ.
-Chris Farley

Not that I want to make you look silly, but it's "El Niño", not "El ninõ".

nyah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_nino

Rocketman · 11:06 PM

Hello.

1. FIXED pricing for now means $0.99 but that may not stay the same in the future. How much do you want to bet the NEW contracts specify FIXED prices but not WHAT prices?

2. When you sell old/new/good/bad songs at a FIXED price it levels the playing field such that POPULAR songs make bigger revenue on the MERITS.

3. The delivery cost has been reduced to zero from the record label's perspective.

4. Having "value added songs" at a high price are still possible. Make an "album" with ONE or TWO songs. Make a distribution NOT using iTunes at all. Just a suggestion. iTunes is, in theory, only ONE outlet. ONE. Why does anyone care what policies ONE outlet has?

Oh, wait, it has 87% market share. If it ain't broke DON'T FIX IT!!

Do we now regret dissolving/splitting the OIL companies or the PHONE companies?? Yes.

$0.99 and 10% APPLE profit or $1.29 and 20%+ APPLE profit. Hmmm.

Buy stock.

Rocketman

Electro Funk · Apr 23, 2006, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baseline

Well, I always hear stories about Wal-Mart telling the suppliers what they'll be paying for the goods. Not that I advocate following Wal-Mart's lead in anything, but there is precedent for it.

you beat me to it... Wal-Mart does do this... in fact because of this rubbermaid (who was once based in a small town in Ohio) had to close up shop and move overseas to be able to produce products within the price range that walmart wanted to pay... (Wal-Mart was an exclusive distributor of rubbermaid back in the day... rubbermaid sold product through no one else)

BornAgainMac · Apr 23, 2006, 10:39 PM

I have a proposal. For 1 month, let the record companies select the pricing model. Then compare it to the current pricing model that Apple has in place. Whatever makes more profit wins. Record companies will receive a valuable lesson in the process.

The plan will be communicated to all the iTunes customers when the experiment will begin and that it will determine future pricing.

coumerelli · Apr 23, 2006, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sethypoo

...I mean, sure, they could make even more money if they raised the song prices, but I think they'd lose a lot of business if they did so. .99 has a better ring to it than 1.99.

Or even $1.29 - not that I want to see it, but THAT number makes WAY more sense as a next step than 2x the current price!!!

mi5moav · Apr 23, 2006, 10:45 PM

What I can see is that the record labels may raise the rates to steve on some of there older songs. Steve is right, psychologicaly .99 cents is a very important barrier. Once I get to $1.00 I almost feel like I need a physical product in my hand. 1.00 is paper .99 is and will always be change. I can always find a bunch of it in my couch... but finding a nice buck is hard to do.

MacMosher · Apr 23, 2006, 10:59 PM

theres a direct relationship between prices and piracy.

price goes up then so does piracy.

WillMak · Apr 23, 2006, 11:01 PM

would anyone here support a 1.00 per song pricing if they changed the 128kbit to 192?

SC68Cal · Apr 23, 2006, 11:02 PM

I have no problem going back to pirating music to force prices back down.

MrCrowbar · Apr 23, 2006, 11:02 PM

1.29$ per song?
I'm tempted to rate this post negative (what does rating mean anyway? If I believe the rumor (yes/no) or if I like the rumor (yes/no)? )...

I'd rather get the real album on Amazon for that price, at least it's CD-quality and not (sorry) compressed. I'm an audiophile (therefore not considering an iPod HIFI ^^) and want the real thing. Actually, I'd love to have 48kHz 24bit Audio Discs because the dynamics are way better for classical music or jazz. 44.1kHz 16 bit is really the lowest limit.

I only use iTunes for previewing Albums and usually get the real thing on Amazon or eBay. Sorry.

Apr 23, 2006, 10:03 PM	#3
bluebomberman macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Queens, NYC	Ah, the NYPost. The most reliable source of info on the planet, at least, when they're not extorting people. __________________ Treo 700p.

Apr 23, 2006, 10:05 PM	#4
EricNau macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Sacramento, CA	It is very important that Apple keep *every* song at $.99. I wish these darn record labels would stop being so greedy. When iTunes first came out, they saw Apple as their savior against pirates. iTunes has sold 1 billion songs since then, so that's 1 billion songs not pirated. They should bow down to Apple! __________________ November is Pancreatic Caner Awareness Month www.PanCan.org \| Get Involved

Apr 23, 2006, 10:08 PM	#5
Spanky Deluxe macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: London, UK	The whole 99c thing is fantastic. The constant price means you always know how much you're going to have to pay. Its kind of ridiculous when you see some singles for sale in high street shops that have two tracks and sell for £3.99. Absolutely mad. __________________ "No, I'm from Iowa, I only work in outer space."

Apr 23, 2006, 10:09 PM	#6
Macmaniac macrumors 68040 Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: A tiny spec in the "Garden State", 1 square mile in area, somewhere on the outskirts of town by the railroad tracks	Record Labels: Lets take a perfectly good ITMS and raise the prices Customer: ** that, back to piracy I go! __________________ The customer is NOT** always right

Apr 23, 2006, 10:09 PM	#7
muffinman macrumors 6502 Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: San Diego, California	yeah. keep it at 99 __________________ the progressive horizon : a journal of sorts of a film/biology double major, pre-medicine entrepreneur

Apr 23, 2006, 10:03 PM	#2
powerboy macrumors regular Join Date: Mar 2004	Stay strong Steve! The greedy record labels will never quit.

Apr 23, 2006, 10:12 PM	#8
sam10685 macrumors 68000 Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Portland, OR	yo Jobs... yeah, u gotta stay strong... don't let greedy record label's mess with ur stuff... __________________ I'm Sam.

Apr 23, 2006, 10:13 PM	#9
EricNau macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Sacramento, CA	I really doubt any (major) record label would go as far as to pull their songs from iTunes. While they may not be able to control what iTunes is charging, they are still making plenty of money from each song sold. If they pulled any songs, they would not be able to make up all of those sales in CDs or from another online service, people just wouldn't buy as much (people are lazy; they'll either just listen to it on the radio or pirate it). __________________ November is Pancreatic Caner Awareness Month www.PanCan.org \| Get Involved

Apr 23, 2006, 10:13 PM	#10
ImAlwaysRight macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jul 2002	Steve oughta whip ass and take names later!

Apr 23, 2006, 10:15 PM	#11
Veritas&Equitas macrumors 68000 Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Twin Cities, MN	I'll have to admit, as much as I love the $.99 thing that the Music Store does have going for it, the music industry DOES have a point. Since when do retailers tell the suppliers what they will be paying for goods? It seems a little backwards to me, not that I'm complaining, b/c I hate record companies just as much as the next guy...but it does make some sense.... __________________ Alum. Macbook 2.4 ghz/4gb/500gb \|\| 16gb iPhone Samsung 46'' LCD \|\| Nikon D50 \|\|

Apr 23, 2006, 10:16 PM	#12
gugy macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: La Jolla, CA	Good for you Steve! Keep those bastards in their place. If the Itunes raise their prices the piracy will just go up. It's unbelievable. CDs should cost US$7 by now. Not $18 or more. And they don't understand why people go into piracy.

Apr 23, 2006, 10:35 PM	#14
sethypoo macrumors 68000 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Sacramento, CA, USA	I think the record companies should be happy with what they've got. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, as you might say. Apple has done more for them in the past three years than all their high paid executives could have done in 25 combined. I mean, sure, they could make even more money if they raised the song prices, but I think they'd lose a lot of business if they did so. .99 has a better ring to it than 1.99.

Apr 23, 2006, 10:36 PM	#15
syklee26 macrumors 6502 Join Date: Jul 2005	tsk tsk tsk The biggest problem with these label company's desire to have multi-tier pricing scheme is the fact that most of the songs will be over 99c while only a few songs would go under 99 (such as songs in those 99c per CD bin in Tower Record and places like that). this in essence is NOT a multi-tier pricing system. it's more like a single-tier pricing system with some "promo-type" discounts of really crappy old songs. and these labels don't realize the fact that Apple can still sell a lot of iPods without some of the songs on iTunes. Probably not as much as Apple could but still a good number. However, with downloads almost equaling (maybe more than) CD sales, the lost revenue by pulling their catalog from iTunes would be significant. I am not an Apple apologist but Label's demands are absurd. once their negotiation with Apple fails, I can certainly see that they will file to seek a declaratory judgment in some court that importing songs from CD to computer for a purpose of using them in mp3 players is violation of copyright protection.

Apr 23, 2006, 10:37 PM	#17
Rocketman macrumors 68020 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Claremont, CA	The ANSWER Hello. 1. FIXED pricing for now means $0.99 but that may not stay the same in the future. How much do you want to bet the NEW contracts specify FIXED prices but not WHAT prices? 2. When you sell old/new/good/bad songs at a FIXED price it levels the playing field such that POPULAR songs make bigger revenue on the MERITS. 3. The delivery cost has been reduced to zero from the record label's perspective. 4. Having "value added songs" at a high price are still possible. Make an "album" with ONE or TWO songs. Make a distribution NOT using iTunes at all. Just a suggestion. iTunes is, in theory, only ONE outlet. ONE. Why does anyone care what policies ONE outlet has? Oh, wait, it has 87% market share. If it ain't broke DON'T FIX IT!! Do we now regret dissolving/splitting the OIL companies or the PHONE companies?? Yes. $0.99 and 10% APPLE profit or $1.29 and 20%+ APPLE profit. Hmmm. Buy stock. Rocketman Last edited by Rocketman : Apr 23, 2006 at 11:06 PM.

Apr 23, 2006, 10:39 PM	#19
BornAgainMac macrumors 68030 Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Florida Resident	I have a proposal. For 1 month, let the record companies select the pricing model. Then compare it to the current pricing model that Apple has in place. Whatever makes more profit wins. Record companies will receive a valuable lesson in the process. The plan will be communicated to all the iTunes customers when the experiment will begin and that it will determine future pricing.

Apr 23, 2006, 10:45 PM	#21
mi5moav macrumors regular Join Date: Mar 2004	What I can see is that the record labels may raise the rates to steve on some of there older songs. Steve is right, psychologicaly .99 cents is a very important barrier. Once I get to $1.00 I almost feel like I need a physical product in my hand. 1.00 is paper .99 is and will always be change. I can always find a bunch of it in my couch... but finding a nice buck is hard to do.

Apr 23, 2006, 10:59 PM	#22
MacMosher macrumors 6502 Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Canada	theres a direct relationship between prices and piracy. price goes up then so does piracy. __________________ Don't waste your life fearing what happens after it.

Apr 23, 2006, 11:01 PM	#23
WillMak macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jul 2005	would anyone here support a 1.00 per song pricing if they changed the 128kbit to 192?

Apr 23, 2006, 11:02 PM	#24
SC68Cal macrumors 68000 Join Date: Feb 2006	I have no problem going back to pirating music to force prices back down.

Apr 23, 2006, 11:02 PM	#25
MrCrowbar macrumors 68000 Join Date: Jan 2006	1.29$ per song? I'm tempted to rate this post negative (what does rating mean anyway? If I believe the rumor (yes/no) or if I like the rumor (yes/no)? )... I'd rather get the real album on Amazon for that price, at least it's CD-quality and not (sorry) compressed. I'm an audiophile (therefore not considering an iPod HIFI ^^) and want the real thing. Actually, I'd love to have 48kHz 24bit Audio Discs because the dynamics are way better for classical music or jazz. 44.1kHz 16 bit is really the lowest limit. I only use iTunes for previewing Albums and usually get the real thing on Amazon or eBay. Sorry. __________________ NOOBIE NOOBINSON Is it Funk? Is it Metal? Is it Electronica? Listen For yourself on youTube! Hamachingo Records

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode