so hmmm where are all these $0.69 songs apple was talking about?

Discussion in 'iPod' started by iOrlando, Jul 2, 2009.

  1. macrumors 68000

    couldn't find one $0.69 song.

    so pretty much apple lied when they said there will be more $0.69 songs than $0.99 or $1.29
  2. macrumors 604


    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.
  3. macrumors 601


    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:

    Apparently, the 69 cent price point is so rare that Apple even removed their promo pages for it on the iTunes store.

    Attached Files:

  4. macrumors 603


    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.
  5. Guest


    Fixed that for you.

    I haven't ever seen a 69¢ song.
  6. macrumors 603


    Thanks for the fix 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.
  7. macrumors 68000

    apple: there will be more $0.69 songs than other prices

    conclusion: apple lied

    apple didnt say: we assume the music labels will price songs at $0.69....that would be a miscalculation...
  8. macrumors 6502a


    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
  9. macrumors 603

    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.
  10. macrumors 603


    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.
  11. macrumors Penryn


    I just found one, Theme from Welcome Back Kotter. :D
  12. macrumors 6502a


    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.
  13. macrumors 68040


    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.
  14. macrumors 603


    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.
  15. macrumors 6502

    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.
  16. macrumors 6502

    Yeah, I've been wondering the same thing as the OP. In fact, I've saw many more $.69 cents songs when they introduced the variable pricing, now I have not recalled seeing $.69 songs in iTunes for the last month or so. :mad:
  17. macrumors 603


    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.
  18. macrumors 65816

    Meanwhile, catalog CD titles keep getting cheaper. Catalog titles on Amazon sell for as little as $5.00. Sony/BMG just dropped the MSRP on their $10.98 titles to $7.98, and those are the latest remasters. Older titles normally sell for $6.99.
  19. macrumors 6502


    The solution to this HORRIFIC problem is simple. Vote with your wallet. Download from Amazon or buy CDs and rip them.
  20. macrumors 603


    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.
  21. macrumors regular


    any one ever heard of torrents? (sarcasm) same quality and free. Some people could even say its better (320k):rolleyes:
  22. macrumors 68040


    but also, some have been converted and reconverted from lossy format to lossy format it seems thus making it sounds terrible.;)
  23. macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    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?
  24. Moderator emeritus


    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....
  25. macrumors member

    Yes. Flat out lying to your consumers is bad, stop trying to talk it right =/

Share This Page