Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Amazon and Wal-Mart MP3 Stores Adopt Variable Pricing

you people enjoy being ripped of and i dont understand why,

emusic is far cheaper for the same track, better quality
mp3sparks is a fraction of the cost and you get to CHOOSE your quality (although they should just make all tracks 320kbps)
 
I'm sticking with iTunes!

If it means buying fewer songs, so be it. Apple has the best quality, IMHO. I just bought Jeff Beck's version of Amazing Grace yesterday on iTunes. Still only $.99.
Morod
 
And THAT is exactly what the record companies want.

pacohaas said:
Can someone make a "pricecheck" app for the iPhone and/or a webapp that will tell me which store has a given song for the cheapest price and link me to that store for purchase/download?
Click to expand...
 
Of course, any people with half a brain would see this coming...

Record labels were unsuccessful in getting iTunes to raise prices,
thus they provided temporary competition, forcing iTunes to follow
what record labels want, and then got rid of competition.

Damn greedy record labels. Hope people won't get fooled again anytime soon.
 
how does emusic compares with iTunes and Amazon Mp3

signed up with emusic for 35 free downloads :cool:

who is the thrid largest online music followed by iTunes, Amazon?
 
At least Apple announced the new pricing scheme months in advance. I'm surprised that a similar scheme is put in place at the other stores at the same time.
 
redrabbit said:
I've always wondered why random people on the internet always think they could run a company better, with no experience or knowledge on how they would really act in a situation like running a multi-million dollar corporation during a recession. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hehehe, this is especially true with Apple, so many dudes here think they know better than the people running the company.
 
I'm not too happy that because of Apple going to variable pricing everyone else has to follow suit. Hopefully Amazon will be able to keep the bulk of their singles at $0.99.
 
shanmugam said:
how does emusic compares with iTunes and Amazon Mp3

signed up with emusic for 35 free downloads :cool:

who is the thrid largest online music followed by iTunes, Amazon?
Click to expand...

I did the same but got 50 free downloads and then cancelled. I didn't much care for the selections. But that's just me. All personal taste, right? It seemed jazz heavy, and I like Jazz and own many CDs, but I just didn't find much I liked. Ended up getting 2 Public Enemy albums and Radioheads In Rainbows that I had downloaded a couple of years ago as the pay what you want experiment. Got it as a 256 file vs Radioheads 160.
 
nathbeadle said:
This is what they wanted... the studios. Variable pricing means they can stick it somewhat to Apple as they set the price. When everything was 99 cents three was equal ground but now they can have Apple charge more and let Amazon or Walmart charge less .... they can control the balance more than previously possible.
Click to expand...

casik said:
I think it's silly to give certain music distributors favorable pricing. Apple did digital music right from the beginning, so why should they suffer now with more expensive prices. I don't mind the variable pricing, but for goodness sakes record lables be fair to all the distributors.
Click to expand...

Now that the studios have what they want with variable pricing, they would be better off standardizing over all of the sites. Otherwise they could lose impulse purchases while users go compare the price on multiple sites. The more time you have to think about it, the more time you have to realize you may not want that song after all.

pacohaas said:
Can someone make a "pricecheck" app for the iPhone and/or a webapp that will tell me which store has a given song for the cheapest price and link me to that store for purchase/download?
Click to expand...

I suppose this is an opportunity for someone to make an app, but as I said above it would be in the studios interest to remove as many variables as possible or they will lose on impulse purchases.
 
LillieDesigns said:
Hey record companies, I don't feel like playing 2 dollars for song when tax is added.

People are making less money, that means they are going to stop paying for things they really don't need to pay for. Imagine if a car salesman used this logic:

'Oh, you can't afford a $30,000 car? Let's bump the price up to $40,000 and call it a deal.'

I hate record labels.
Click to expand...

well said. seems like record labels think they are exempt from market forces. well, i hope people buy less music. i for sure do. since they hiked the prices on CD's many years ago i reduced my spending on music by 90% (without stealing music). I just listen much less to music and I select better music.
 
jzuena said:
Now that the studios have what they want with variable pricing, they would be better off standardizing over all of the sites. Otherwise they could lose impulse purchases while users go compare the price on multiple sites. The more time you have to think about it, the more time you have to realize you may not want that song after all.
Click to expand...
I did not think about that aspect, but you are right.
 
redrabbit said:
So, how long before we don't even need record companies? I mean, it seems like it's easier than ever for a musician to record with their own money/equipment, and to release a single on the internet without any need for a larger company to handle all that promotion for you...
Click to expand...
Recording it and releasing it isn't the part you "need" record companies for anymore; it's the promoting it part.

If you want to be the next Top 40 act, you need big companies with deep pockets to get your name out there. Otherwise, it'll take you ten years or more to get where, say, Neko Case has gotten, by virtue of her talent almost exclusively.

Of course, real musicians who only want to make enough money to pay their bills, live comfortably, and keep making music — not be rich — won't really mind that. For them, the major labels haven't been a necessity since... well, ever.
chewbaccacabra said:
I did the same but got 50 free downloads and then cancelled. I didn't much care for the selections. But that's just me. All personal taste, right? It seemed jazz heavy, and I like Jazz and own many CDs, but I just didn't find much I liked. Ended up getting 2 Public Enemy albums and Radioheads In Rainbows that I had downloaded a couple of years ago as the pay what you want experiment. Got it as a 256 file vs Radioheads 160.
Click to expand...
Emusic has a lot of great indie rock stuff (which you're probably not into, or you'd have noticed it). I find myself signing up and cancelling a few times a year, because at some point, I just start wasting download credits on stuff. "I liked one song by that guy, oh here's an album I've never heard," and I'll listen to it once.

Still, for $20 a month, if I get two albums I really like in one month, it's a bargain, and that will get me another handful of albums I don't need to worry about getting my money's worth on.
 
If the record companies are sad about people cherry-picking only the good songs from an album, why is the clear response not then to STOP MAKING THE BAD FILLER TRACKS. There's an immediate way to save some money with regard to these stupid pop sensations. It's not like they don't know which ones are crap (look at the 1-2 songs/album that have a professional songwriter vs. the rest of the tracks that are written by the singer themselves), they just are so stuck in the album mindset (the Beatles made good albums because they were cohesive, and mostly good, while pop albums are anything but). In no other industry do people continue producing items that the market doesn't want, yet somehow the music industry doesn't realize this and lets Britney make a 13 track album instead of a 1-2 track single with only the songs that anybody cares about (not saying that these songs are good either, but some people apparently want them).

And it seems like this would make more money everybody, if these sensations put out a good track every couple of months instead a mostly crappy album every other year.
 
piper jaffray released their 17th bi-annual High school survey today. Go to appleinsider.com to view it..its a good read...

it said 97% of teens who buy music online use iTunes. The popularity of amazon, walmart fell off a cliff in the past year...

im confused because on here everyone says how they use amazon and other venues when buying music...but apparently high schoolers aren't?
 
I better hope they won't require us to pay even more to upgrade from DRM'd to Plus music.
 
pr5owner said:
you people enjoy being ripped of and i dont understand why,

emusic is far cheaper for the same track, better quality
mp3sparks is a fraction of the cost and you get to CHOOSE your quality (although they should just make all tracks 320kbps)
Click to expand...

Hey there. umm emusic doesn't have nearly as much music on it. maybe some indie fringe stuff. but no major distribution stuff.
 
JayMan8081 said:
I'm not too happy that because of Apple going to variable pricing everyone else has to follow suit. Hopefully Amazon will be able to keep the bulk of their singles at $0.99.
Click to expand...

I think you might be confusing cause and effect here. I don't think it's the case that Apple decided they wanted variable pricing and then other services felt it was okay to jump on the bandwagon (or other services felt forced to jump on the bandwagon).

Given Apple's previous stance on the issue, I'm fairly sure they wanted to keep $0.99 pricing for everything. The labels most likely "shoved" variable pricing down Apple's throat. They are also most likely shoving it down the throat of every other music service provider.

Variable pricing is coming from the labels, not from Apple or any other music service provider. At least that's my take based on available information.
 
shanmugam said:
how does emusic compares with iTunes and Amazon Mp3

signed up with emusic for 35 free downloads :cool:

who is the thrid largest online music followed by iTunes, Amazon?
Click to expand...

Until emusic allows one to sign up and pay per track rather than via a subscription is the day I try it. Until then, no way. You should be able to choose one or the other.

Some months I buy a lot of music, some months I buy none at all. I am not going to get stuff just to get stuff so I don't feel like I am wasting my money.

Audible.com has it right. You can buy the book and pay more OR you can sign up for the monthly service.

And I didn't even know Wal-Mart had an mp3 store. I thought they shut it down.

Anyone ever used it? How does it compare to Amazon?

Yeah, yeah I know, Wal-Mart is evil, etc...
 
andiwm2003 said:
well said. seems like record labels think they are exempt from market forces. well, i hope people buy less music. i for sure do. since they hiked the prices on CD's many years ago i reduced my spending on music by 90% (without stealing music). I just listen much less to music and I select better music.
Click to expand...


same here.... i think way more about the music i buy. if i don't LOVE it i don't buy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back