Apple sets tune for pricing of song downloads

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacBytes, May 1, 2006.

  1. macrumors bot

    Jul 5, 2003


    Category: Apple Services
    Link: Apple sets tune for pricing of song downloads
    Description:: Apple Computer on Monday revealed it had renewed contracts with the four largest record companies to sell songs through its iTunes digital store at 99 cents each. The agreements came after months of bargaining, and were a defeat for music companies that had been pushing for a variable pricing model.

    Posted on
    Approved by Mudbug
  2. macrumors regular

    Jun 21, 2003
    Fort Worth, TX
    If I actually believed that the record companies would price songs below 99 cents, I would've been all for variable pricing, but as it is, I believe that Apple did the best thing for consumers (for now).
  3. macrumors 6502a


    Jan 9, 2005
    Queens, NYC
  4. macrumors 65816


    Dec 24, 2005
    As I once said, "If a song is 99¢, i may buy 10. But if the price was $1.50, I would buy 6." More songs sold is better for the music industry overall because there is more publicity for that song. I buy some songs because I hear them at a friends, from someone who bought it off of iTunes. If that person decided, that song isn't as good as these, and he/she doesn't buy it, I may never buy it.

    Total Score: Apple 1, IRAA 0.
  5. Moderator emeritus


    Jan 9, 2004
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
  6. macrumors 68020


    Mar 23, 2006
    I love having the price of a song be 99 cents. It lets me send that lone dollar I have here and there. But if the cost of one song goes any higher, say 1.50, then iTunes has lost my buisness. I don't have lost of money to spend on music, but the idea of spending close to 2 dollars for a song is horrible.
  7. macrumors 68040


    Mar 24, 2003

    Anyway, this is very good! Im glad to see Apple told the record companies to shove it with their variable song prices. How long do these contracts last I wonder?
  8. macrumors G5


    May 2, 2002
    Contract length is a question: the last paragraph suggests that these might be short-term contacts while negotiations continue. Still, better then the speculation that labels would continue without any agreement, and might pull out shortly.

    (But how is this old news? It happened today.)
  9. Moderator emeritus


    Apr 27, 2005
    San Francisco, CA
    I was very curious to see who would win. Ahh, who am I kidding? I knew it would be Jobs all along. :p
  10. macrumors 68030

    Analog Kid

    Mar 4, 2003
    And if they were a dime, I'd be trolling iTMS bulking up my music collection as fast as I could.
  11. macrumors 6502a


    Mar 7, 2006
    Forest Hills, NY
    idk, i remeber reading that songs could go as low 30-50 cents. i think that would be better for bands that aren't going to be able to sell songs for 99c each. like indie bands and alt rock.... however, it'd be smarter to sell the next sean paul single for 1.30 - 1.50 because he isn't going to release a good album, just a good song.

    [i'm only using sean paul as an example, he could be good ;) ]

    but point being... sell more of the songs that you WON'T sell for 99c per song, and make more money off of the songs you are DEFINATELY going to sell.

    variable pricing is only bad if you only like the most popular things.
  12. macrumors 68030

    Sep 20, 2005
    New Jersey
    Thank you!!! :D It's good to hear the 99 cents price tag is here to stay (for now).
  13. macrumors 6502

    May 18, 2003
    Rehoboth Beach, De
    I understand your point but 99 cents is the sweet point in pricing. A 30 cent song has no value, and if I thought the record companies would hold pricing at a buck fifty you might have a case. The tell tale sign of record company intentions is ring tone pricing.

Share This Page