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

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #1
    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

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #2
    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

    jaw04005

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    AR
    #3
    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:

    http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/macworld-san-francisco-2009/

    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

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #4
    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

    Surely

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #5
    Fixed that for you.

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

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #6
    Thanks for the fix ...it 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. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #7
    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

    skottichan

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #8
    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

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #9
    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

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #10
    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

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #11
    I just found one, Theme from Welcome Back Kotter. :D
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    skottichan

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #12
    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

    techfreak85

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Location:
    Places
    #13
    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

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #14
    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

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    #15
    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

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #16
    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

    nuckinfutz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2002
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    #17
    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

    Galley

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    #18
    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

    TJRiver

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    #19
    The solution to this HORRIFIC problem is simple. Vote with your wallet. Download from Amazon or buy CDs and rip them.
     
  20. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #20
    I FOUND 69 CENT SONGS!

    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

    Lukeyboy01

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    #21
    any one ever heard of torrents? (sarcasm) same quality and free. Some people could even say its better (320k):rolleyes:
     
  22. macrumors 68040

    techfreak85

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Location:
    Places
    #22
    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

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #23
    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

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #24
    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

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    #25
    Yes. Flat out lying to your consumers is bad, stop trying to talk it right =/
     

Share This Page