Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ask and you shall receive. Great little free itunes plugin that will link to to the same song or album on amazon to let you see if it's cheaper there. Only checks Amazon mp3 store right now, but that may change down the line. Versions for both Mac and Windows.
http://www.advantageousmp3.com/mac/index.html
Edit: Oops, someone beat me to it in post #48. Oh well, great app either way.
I don't understand where the labels are coming from...
Quote: "Sources at Apple tell me that Apple is getting different prices than Amazon from the recording idustry."
Why would content providers deliberately set out to cause problems for the most successful vendor of their content? It doesn't makes sense. If iTunes were an extremely successful bricks-and-mortar music store, would the labels then force them to start pricing CDs in a non-competitive manner and reduce their sales?
Even granted that the record labels don't like new paradigms and don't like to play nice with Apple, it seems that requiring Apple to have higher prices, thus predictably reducing sales from the highest-volume online digital vendor, is nonsensical from a business perspective. Do these record companies want to fail?
Quote: "Sources at Apple tell me that Apple is getting different prices than Amazon from the recording idustry."
Why would content providers deliberately set out to cause problems for the most successful vendor of their content? It doesn't makes sense. If iTunes were an extremely successful bricks-and-mortar music store, would the labels then force them to start pricing CDs in a non-competitive manner and reduce their sales?
Even granted that the record labels don't like new paradigms and don't like to play nice with Apple, it seems that requiring Apple to have higher prices, thus predictably reducing sales from the highest-volume online digital vendor, is nonsensical from a business perspective. Do these record companies want to fail?
why should it be illegal? I can set the price to whatever i want, in general.
They made a contract and apple singned, so what? they made a different contract with amazon, so what?
Meanwhile, CD prices are getting cheaper. You can often get sales, and/or find things in discount bins, and end up buying CD's for $5-10.
I was volunteering at a merchandise booth for a concert last night and the band's CDs were all selling for $15. $20 if you wanted the CD+full-length concert DVD combo. No taxes. (By comparison, they were selling T-shirts for $30, and hoodies for $55... the CDs seemed like a steal!)
I'll continue buying CDs, and reserve the 99-cent (oops -- $1.29) tracks for "I really don't like much of this artist, except this one song is kinda cool" purchases.
I was volunteering at a merchandise booth for a concert last night and the band's CDs were all selling for $15. $20 if you wanted the CD+full-length concert DVD combo. No taxes. (By comparison, they were selling T-shirts for $30, and hoodies for $55... the CDs seemed like a steal!)
I'll continue buying CDs, and reserve the 99-cent (oops -- $1.29) tracks for "I really don't like much of this artist, except this one song is kinda cool" purchases.
So far it looks to be the same, $.30 in the US. I am being offered seven songs to upgrade; the funny part is that I never owned those seven songs to begin with. It looks to be some kind of EP of acoustic songs by Godsmack and I have purchased the original version of at least some of these songs. I can "upgrade" this album for $2.10 instead of the $6.99 it would cost normally. Maybe Apple decided to come up with a fourth price point just to get back at the studios!
With the economy the way it is, people will start doing the walmart/amazon thing even if its a little less convenient.
Apple si going to need to figure something out, unless people are that stupid
Apple si going to need to figure something out, unless people are that stupid
Amusingly enough I after being reminded of emusic I went and had a browse around and ended up using one of the rejoin deals they sent me
Simply put, they do want Apple to fail. Or at least to reduce Apple's share of the market.
Apple's continued dominance in the market allows them to dictate terms. 99-cent constant pricing was one example. Remember NBC left in a huff over that when Apple refused to bow to their terms? And then they came crawling back, tail between legs. They can't just go to other stores and raise prices there because the other online stores just don't have the market share. And if they tried to offer higher prices in other stores, everyone would just go buy it from Apple anyway. So Apple effectively makes all the decisions.
They first tried allowing other stores non-DRM music (Amazon mp3, for example) to see if that would knock buyers away from Apple's DRM'ed tracks. That didn't work. Non-technical people don't know or don't care about the difference. So now they're forcing Apple to have higher prices, because money is a language everyone understands.
The other foot of the big 5 drops
What Apple does, imitators must do likewise to compete. If it's 99 cents at iTunes, who can charge more? It's no mystery that record companies view Apple as the tail wagging the dog. By pushing for variable pricing, they now can offer the best wholesale price to the marketplace they favor -- effectively removing the stranglehold of Apple.
It's amazing, in retrospect, to see how much foresight Steve Jobs has. In his ardent negotiations, he would not budge off the one-price model. Now that he is on leave (though titularly involved), we can see matters though his eyes, when he was the one with whom others had to negotiate directly.
What Apple does, imitators must do likewise to compete. If it's 99 cents at iTunes, who can charge more? It's no mystery that record companies view Apple as the tail wagging the dog. By pushing for variable pricing, they now can offer the best wholesale price to the marketplace they favor -- effectively removing the stranglehold of Apple.
It's amazing, in retrospect, to see how much foresight Steve Jobs has. In his ardent negotiations, he would not budge off the one-price model. Now that he is on leave (though titularly involved), we can see matters though his eyes, when he was the one with whom others had to negotiate directly.
Yes it is cheap and easy to record a song. Even if a band can't do it themselves there are recording studios near me that charge like $250 to record a song which is far cheaper then buying your own equipment. So that part is easy
The REALLY HARD part is getting the typical 15 to 25 year old music consumer to listen to something that is not on the current top-40. Yes there are a few but most are "sheepeole". It still costs a LOT of money to place a song on the top 40 list. That is what the record companies do that independents can't do.
Actually is more complex. There are many "top-40" lists. the radio market is segmented by demographics. Advertizers want to know who they are selling to. So the record companies have to get their stuff on several lists. Bands just are not equipt to play in that field
The recording industry never learns. Let them keep jacking up prices, and piracy will continue to sky rocket. Napster became popular because people wanted a fast and convenient alternative to CDs (in particularly CD singles), not because there was some mass conspiracy by music lovers to not pay for anything.
I think the Amazon hysteria on this thread is a little funny. I highly doubt the record labels are giving Amazon that much of a better deal than Apple. It's just that Amazon, which owns a plethora of other online stores, is willing to sell hit songs as loss leaders for other products. This would similar to their gold box deals and other competitive pricing.
As an Amazon frequenter, it's dead easy to go between their different services. Amazon wants to be your go to company for everything (books, movies, tv shows, electronics, ebooks, online music, CDs, groceries, online storage, etc). What don't they sell anymore?
Amazon essentially wants to be the online version of Wal-Mart.
I think the Amazon hysteria on this thread is a little funny. I highly doubt the record labels are giving Amazon that much of a better deal than Apple. It's just that Amazon, which owns a plethora of other online stores, is willing to sell hit songs as loss leaders for other products. This would similar to their gold box deals and other competitive pricing.
As an Amazon frequenter, it's dead easy to go between their different services. Amazon wants to be your go to company for everything (books, movies, tv shows, electronics, ebooks, online music, CDs, groceries, online storage, etc). What don't they sell anymore?
Amazon essentially wants to be the online version of Wal-Mart.
Because the record companies saw Apple becoming the Microsoft of entertainment content and they didn't want that to happen. Without competition, they had no leverage against Cupertino, so they went about creating some ... and now it's much easier for them to get Apple to toe the line because they have other places to flog their content.
This is the kind of long term strategic thinking that I never dreamed they were capable of ...
I guess I can understand that, and thanks for putting it so cogently, but another part of my brain is saying:: so what, if Apple's decisions lead to increased music sales and a viable alternative to piracy (which I think it has done?). In other words, are the record companies putting a power game with Apple over practical results here? How is this any worse than the old days when Tower Records set the market price, and also sold plenty of music? A content provider still needs a retailer, and it's good to have one that's successful because they can sell a lot of your content.
Meh ...
I'm disappointed in Amazon, but I think they still offer a wider range of discount than iTunes ... particularly given my aversion for today's "hit" music.
Album pricing seems largely unaffected, and the variable pricing just might work to my advantage if my genre of music falls in the lower price brackets for a la carte purchasing.
High Schoolers may not have placed as high a priority on smart shopping as others - given their age, hormonal development, and a propensity to be spending someone else's money ... but I have.
I'm disappointed in Amazon, but I think they still offer a wider range of discount than iTunes ... particularly given my aversion for today's "hit" music.
Album pricing seems largely unaffected, and the variable pricing just might work to my advantage if my genre of music falls in the lower price brackets for a la carte purchasing.
High Schoolers may not have placed as high a priority on smart shopping as others - given their age, hormonal development, and a propensity to be spending someone else's money ... but I have.
amazon always had variable pricing!
Where the heck are they getting their news from?
Amazon MP3 service had variable song pricing from day 1! I've been seeing .89 cent, .99 cent, .79 cent songs since I've been using the store.
Where the heck are they getting their news from?
Amazon MP3 service had variable song pricing from day 1! I've been seeing .89 cent, .99 cent, .79 cent songs since I've been using the store.
highest quality hey?
the song my sister bought legally from itunes was missing 30 seconds fromt the end of the track (Sky - Peice of paradise >> needed for her wedding)
i had to pirate the album to get the rest of the song. (pirating was faster than itunes believe it or not, full CD in less than 3 minutes at 320kbps mp3)
yea and they take must of your cut and give the artist just a lil bit. Funny we don't see any record execs on this forum speaking up as to why the price hike. It's pure greed and they know it. On a $1.29 song it's probably something like 0.99 goes to the label, then the remaining 30 cents is for the artist and apple to fight over.
Market forces will win: Don't worry
Don't worry, market forces will win. Apple knows what it's doing. It couldn't do anything until it first won DRM free music. This was a key Apple strategy. Though it may be little comfort, iTunes does provide the highest quality downloads with AAC for the pricing.
With Walmart & Amazon in the fray, and DRM being dead, the labels no longer have any bargaining power, other then cap & trade protectionism, which will not make them the most money.
Give them a little time to get used to their new role as a commodity dealer... market forces will show up in their pocket book, and we will see things change.
All of the music stores, past present, & future, will be able to bargain for their own deals on pricing: Pre-buying, offering free advertising, etc. being all ways to lower the price. Keep in mind, Walmart, Amazon, & Apple use the music stores as loss leaders to sell iPods and other stuff. That means- they all can kick in some of their own "promotional" advertising dollars with 10 free songs with the purchase of an iPod, for example... or 69 cent daily specials on their own, absorbing the loss, to promote the store. Variable pricing goes both ways.
I really wonder still why the record industry thinks that raising the price of a commodity in a recession/depression is a good idea to stifle piracy.
Don't worry, market forces will win. Apple knows what it's doing. It couldn't do anything until it first won DRM free music. This was a key Apple strategy. Though it may be little comfort, iTunes does provide the highest quality downloads with AAC for the pricing.
With Walmart & Amazon in the fray, and DRM being dead, the labels no longer have any bargaining power, other then cap & trade protectionism, which will not make them the most money.
Give them a little time to get used to their new role as a commodity dealer... market forces will show up in their pocket book, and we will see things change.
All of the music stores, past present, & future, will be able to bargain for their own deals on pricing: Pre-buying, offering free advertising, etc. being all ways to lower the price. Keep in mind, Walmart, Amazon, & Apple use the music stores as loss leaders to sell iPods and other stuff. That means- they all can kick in some of their own "promotional" advertising dollars with 10 free songs with the purchase of an iPod, for example... or 69 cent daily specials on their own, absorbing the loss, to promote the store. Variable pricing goes both ways.
but...steve jobs was involved in this most recent music deal...
apple lost fixed pricing
apple gained DRM free music, ability to download from itunes from iphone and ipod touch (do people not use this? not alot of people have been talking about this on here....)
The battle won was DRM free... now the innovation can begin!
Now that Apple won DRM free, I'm looking for Apple to set up something similar to youTube for aspiring artists, on iTunes, to promote themselves without the need for labels.... a lot of possibilities there... and it could all be set up "hands off" strictly through iTunes and MobileMe subscription... the new service will be called uTunes. So technically, Apple would NOT be a label themselves... just providing an open market place.
Under uTunes, any artist will be able to charge whatever they want, even free, just like the App Store. Apple gets 30% for running the servers, accounts, & software. Ratings systems, promotions, etc. all built in... even vote style battle of the bands contests could be held weekly for highly rated singles. Fan clubs, email blasts, music videos, etc. could all be managed through uTunes tools. Of course, uTunes would be a separate tab of iTunes, just like the App Store, iTunes U, etc.
Now that Apple won DRM free, I'm looking for Apple to set up something similar to youTube for aspiring artists, on iTunes, to promote themselves without the need for labels.... a lot of possibilities there... and it could all be set up "hands off" strictly through iTunes and MobileMe subscription... the new service will be called uTunes. So technically, Apple would NOT be a label themselves... just providing an open market place.
Under uTunes, any artist will be able to charge whatever they want, even free, just like the App Store. Apple gets 30% for running the servers, accounts, & software. Ratings systems, promotions, etc. all built in... even vote style battle of the bands contests could be held weekly for highly rated singles. Fan clubs, email blasts, music videos, etc. could all be managed through uTunes tools. Of course, uTunes would be a separate tab of iTunes, just like the App Store, iTunes U, etc.
It's not pure greed, not in any sense of the word. It's simple supply and demand. No one is twisitng anyone's arm to buy any music from anywhere. If anything it's the customer's greed and addiction to listening to music. You don't have a right to buy anything at some abitrary price you decide is reasonable. The producer sets the price and you decide if you're willing to pay it. Don't like the price? Don't buy the product.
So I guess you want the Obama adminstration to set the price of music downloads, huh. Yeah, that's the ticket, price regulation set by the government.
So I guess you want the Obama adminstration to set the price of music downloads, huh. Yeah, that's the ticket, price regulation set by the government.
That's a straw man--I don't think anyone here is saying that, or anything like it. A lot of us are questioning the wisdom and/or good faith of the music industry's move to higher prices for Apple's music store, though. The fact is, the market will set the price, and apparently Amazon and, if your taste runs to indies, eMusic have lower-cost alternatives, at least for now.