Apple's Ongoing iTunes Negotiations

Discussion in 'MacRumors News Discussion (archive)' started by MacRumors, Apr 23, 2006.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]

    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.

    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.

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

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    #2
    Stay strong Steve! The greedy record labels will never quit.
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    bluebomberman

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Location:
    Queens, NYC
    #3
  4. Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #4
    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!
     
  5. macrumors demi-god

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #5
    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.
     
  6. macrumors 68040

    Macmaniac

    #6
    Record Labels: Lets take a perfectly good ITMS and raise the prices
    Customer: **** that, back to piracy I go!
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    muffinman

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Location:
    San Diego, California
  8. macrumors 68000

    sam10685

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #8
    yo Jobs... yeah, u gotta stay strong... don't let greedy record label's mess with ur stuff...
     
  9. Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #9
    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).
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    ImAlwaysRight

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
  11. macrumors 68000

    Veritas&Equitas

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    #11
    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....
     
  12. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Location:
    La Jolla, CA
    #12
    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.:mad:
     
  13. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Location:
    Southern Ontario
    #13

    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.
     
  14. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA, USA
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #15
    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.
     
  16. macrumors G5

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #16
    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
     
  17. macrumors 603

    Rocketman

    #17
    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
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Electro Funk

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Location:
    The Opium Garden
    #18
    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)
     
  19. macrumors 601

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    state of confusion.
    #20
    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!!!
     
  21. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors 6502

    MacMosher

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Canada
    #22
    theres a direct relationship between prices and piracy.

    price goes up then so does piracy.
     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    #23
    would anyone here support a 1.00 per song pricing if they changed the 128kbit to 192?
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    #24
    I have no problem going back to pirating music to force prices back down.
     
  25. macrumors 68000

    MrCrowbar

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page