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
Ever rent a movie at a video store? New releases are always more than older movies. A new DVD at a department store is $15 to $25 bucks and older movies are in the $5 bin. Video games often come out at the $50 price point, a year later theyre 20 bucks, and 2 or 3 years later you get every version of the game with every expansion pack for the same 20 bucks. Similar pricing with books too.
Variable pricing is nothing new. New releases are in higher demand so they can get a higher price. I dont see anything wrong with it.
Variable pricing is nothing new. New releases are in higher demand so they can get a higher price. I dont see anything wrong with it.
As if...
The music industry is chasing their tail.
They had it made with iTunes and they bitched and balked and are screwing Apple and themselves too.
What will they do for their next stupid trick? Start suing their own customers?
Oh, really? Nevermind...
And the government spent billions to close down the Mafia...
The music industry is chasing their tail.
They had it made with iTunes and they bitched and balked and are screwing Apple and themselves too.
What will they do for their next stupid trick? Start suing their own customers?
Oh, really? Nevermind...
And the government spent billions to close down the Mafia...
They wouldn't, if there weren't other places consumers could buy their music, but we know, Amazon is being used for leverage. (Even though Amazon's numbers are quite small compared to iTunes.) And as usual, the media (and anti-Apple blogs) jumped all over it trying to portray Apple as the bad guy.
You have to look at the way Wal-Mart operates to understand why the content providers are worried. Wal-Mart dictates to manufacturers everything about the product or else they don't shelf space in Wal-Marts stores. From how they're packaged to actually using cheaper parts/materials during manufacturing so Wal-Mart can get sell the "same" product for less. (This doesn't apply to "hot" or "popular" products though, because it is to Wal-Marts benefit to have them in the store.)
The record companies are afraid of iTunes being able to do the same with their content. So they are trying to "break" iTunes, not put them down, but just knock them down a bit. The problem is, the record companies have proven time and time again to be nothing more than a greedy bunch of a$$holes. (Remember them being found guilty of collusion in the 90's over CD pricing?)
Something like iTunes is necessary to keep the record execs in check. And of course, those execs would rather there not be.
Aside from knowing how these boards work, I don't get the outrage over this.
OK, we know the record companies are major pains in the A. But don't forget that Apple has been selling tracks at 99 cents for the better part of a decade now. Zero price increases ever. This variable pricing thing is hardly unfair.
Also, a couple of dumb and/or wrong things I noticed. First of all, all albums are not $9.99. Those have been variable for years. They're mostly $9.99, but numerous albums are $11.99, others are $7.99. Very big albums are sometimes $19.99. That leads to another thing: The album prices haven't changed. "Right Round" by Flo Rida is now $1.29, as is every other track on the album. But the album is still $9.99 for just the music or $11.99 if you get the deluxe or whatever version with 2 videos. Please show me where you find these albums for $9.99 in a store. I got it for $5 at Amazon, but most stores will still charge you $12-14 for just the CD.
As far as the different pricing for Amazon and Walmart, that's crap from the record companies. It's not based on quantity or anything, just favoritism. Hell, Apple has helped save record companies by leading the online music revolution, yet Apple gets F'ed in the A because they did it so damn well. The movie and TV studios aren't far behind with their crap pricing on TV shows and movies. That won't succeed because of sales hunters like me. I'm not spending $24 for Family Guy Season 6 when I can spend $12.99 on Volume 6 (same number of episodes) at Target this week.
OK, we know the record companies are major pains in the A. But don't forget that Apple has been selling tracks at 99 cents for the better part of a decade now. Zero price increases ever. This variable pricing thing is hardly unfair.
Also, a couple of dumb and/or wrong things I noticed. First of all, all albums are not $9.99. Those have been variable for years. They're mostly $9.99, but numerous albums are $11.99, others are $7.99. Very big albums are sometimes $19.99. That leads to another thing: The album prices haven't changed. "Right Round" by Flo Rida is now $1.29, as is every other track on the album. But the album is still $9.99 for just the music or $11.99 if you get the deluxe or whatever version with 2 videos. Please show me where you find these albums for $9.99 in a store. I got it for $5 at Amazon, but most stores will still charge you $12-14 for just the CD.
As far as the different pricing for Amazon and Walmart, that's crap from the record companies. It's not based on quantity or anything, just favoritism. Hell, Apple has helped save record companies by leading the online music revolution, yet Apple gets F'ed in the A because they did it so damn well. The movie and TV studios aren't far behind with their crap pricing on TV shows and movies. That won't succeed because of sales hunters like me. I'm not spending $24 for Family Guy Season 6 when I can spend $12.99 on Volume 6 (same number of episodes) at Target this week.
As stated before, it's rather interesting to see how people are passionate about an extra 30 cents. Good thing most songs that are at that price don't interest me, but the few songs I do purchase, I don't mind paying an extra 30cents. Let's suppose the labels and the RIAA turn a page and become a very friendly, consumer-oriented company.......will people still pirate music? Hell yes. Piracy will never go away, for there will always be people looking for anything for free.
Variable pricing was inevitable, for the labels had the power (but not the balls) to remove all tracks from iTunes at anytime to force Apple's hand after their contracts expired. As well known as it is, the labels want to lessen the grip Apple has on the music download industry, and their attempts are not very successful. However, in any industry, if your business is losing money at a rapid rate, you can't just give in and lose even more money. Yes you have to adapt your practices, but you also must stop the financial bleeding. This is what the labels are trying to do with the price hikes. Making better music would also help too. Unfortunately their past silly decisions will always overshadow any positive decision they make.
If something has value, people should have the ability to charge for it. While most people might say that modern music acts today aren't valuable enough to pay $1.29 for it, then don't buy it. You were probably going to pirate it anyways, even if it was 69 cents. I guarantee Apple won't be losing millions of customers to Amazon anytime soon because of price hikes. The people who do stray will be but a blip in the overall world market.
Yes we are in a recession, but if you are worried about an extra 30 cents for music downloads.....you are probably in over your head monetarily anyways and haven't made the right decisions financially. There are exceptions to that statement of course.
Bottom line, there will be people moving to P2P to get songs, visiting alternative stores for other options. However Apple isn't going away, their music download control will lessen slightly, and people will still pirate. The RIAA isn't going anywhere, nor are the music labels, but they will still make bone headed decisions.
Variable pricing was inevitable, for the labels had the power (but not the balls) to remove all tracks from iTunes at anytime to force Apple's hand after their contracts expired. As well known as it is, the labels want to lessen the grip Apple has on the music download industry, and their attempts are not very successful. However, in any industry, if your business is losing money at a rapid rate, you can't just give in and lose even more money. Yes you have to adapt your practices, but you also must stop the financial bleeding. This is what the labels are trying to do with the price hikes. Making better music would also help too. Unfortunately their past silly decisions will always overshadow any positive decision they make.
If something has value, people should have the ability to charge for it. While most people might say that modern music acts today aren't valuable enough to pay $1.29 for it, then don't buy it. You were probably going to pirate it anyways, even if it was 69 cents. I guarantee Apple won't be losing millions of customers to Amazon anytime soon because of price hikes. The people who do stray will be but a blip in the overall world market.
Yes we are in a recession, but if you are worried about an extra 30 cents for music downloads.....you are probably in over your head monetarily anyways and haven't made the right decisions financially. There are exceptions to that statement of course.
Bottom line, there will be people moving to P2P to get songs, visiting alternative stores for other options. However Apple isn't going away, their music download control will lessen slightly, and people will still pirate. The RIAA isn't going anywhere, nor are the music labels, but they will still make bone headed decisions.
i think most people that are saying "damn you record labels for charging 30 cents more now im going to pirate music!!!" are just doing so to:
1. "stick it to the man"
2. sound cool on the webernets
I've found that the best was to go if you like only 2 -4 songs on a CD is to buy a good quality used CD off of Amazon.
Hmmm...what if Apple just sits quiet for a while and then sues the record companies for unfair pricing? This way they can force a level playing field and pick up the lost profits in a negotiated settlement.
Why, yes, I did mean sound (aural) quality. Am I missing something? And please don't point to bit-rate sampling numbers.
Morod
You are missing something, you're getting ripped off paying for lower than CD quality.
Don't Bite the hand that feeds you!!!
Don't Bite the hand that feeds you!!!
I used itunes before you could buy music in it and used to get my music in an unfavorable way. At just $.99 a track i have changed ways and spent more money on music than i ever have in the past even counting CD's that i would never spend that kind of money on even now because if i am going to spend money its's going to be on songs that i like not a CD with 10 horrable songs and one good one.
--It's just time that the record industry just suck it up and adjust to what people will spend not rail people to make up for lost sales or old sales modles
Don't Bite the hand that feeds you!!!
I used itunes before you could buy music in it and used to get my music in an unfavorable way. At just $.99 a track i have changed ways and spent more money on music than i ever have in the past even counting CD's that i would never spend that kind of money on even now because if i am going to spend money its's going to be on songs that i like not a CD with 10 horrable songs and one good one.
--It's just time that the record industry just suck it up and adjust to what people will spend not rail people to make up for lost sales or old sales modles
Appstore for Music
Really, apple should just adopt an appstore model for music. Artists pay $100 to submit tracks/albums directly to Apple and get a free version of an "SDK" which is something along the lines of a souped up garageband. Artists set the price of their music (many I know would love to just be heard by as many people as possible, and would gladly give away digital albums free or for very nominal amounts). Labels that own the rights to the music could participate, and set prices however they saw fit, but now they would be in a truly competitive marketplace. No payola, no etc. The possibilities for cross-promotion abound. Live music would benefit. "Come to a concert, get a free copy of our EP." Artists could send twitters to their fans--"hey, just recorded a new track for our upcoming album. click ok to download for free from itunes music store".
The itunes store and app. store combined already have the majority of the infrastructure to create this, and I can't help this would help apple in the long run. The record companies are lumbering beasts, but dying.
Really, apple should just adopt an appstore model for music. Artists pay $100 to submit tracks/albums directly to Apple and get a free version of an "SDK" which is something along the lines of a souped up garageband. Artists set the price of their music (many I know would love to just be heard by as many people as possible, and would gladly give away digital albums free or for very nominal amounts). Labels that own the rights to the music could participate, and set prices however they saw fit, but now they would be in a truly competitive marketplace. No payola, no etc. The possibilities for cross-promotion abound. Live music would benefit. "Come to a concert, get a free copy of our EP." Artists could send twitters to their fans--"hey, just recorded a new track for our upcoming album. click ok to download for free from itunes music store".
The itunes store and app. store combined already have the majority of the infrastructure to create this, and I can't help this would help apple in the long run. The record companies are lumbering beasts, but dying.
boycott Boycott BOYCOTT!!!!
Buy direct from the artist or from Apple. Don't let record companies attempts at artificially managing the digital revolution succeed. This isn't much of an invisible hand, but a sloppily veiled one. Apple has the best system of delivering and enjoying music. They should be rewarded for the fruits of their labor. Record companies can't do anything without consumer compliance. I just wish we knew who "record companies" were so that they could be addressed and questioned directly, rather than have my righteous indigination aimed at some hazy plural noun... record companies.
Also, what do you guys think of unicorns? mythical creatures or the best friend ever!?
Buy direct from the artist or from Apple. Don't let record companies attempts at artificially managing the digital revolution succeed. This isn't much of an invisible hand, but a sloppily veiled one. Apple has the best system of delivering and enjoying music. They should be rewarded for the fruits of their labor. Record companies can't do anything without consumer compliance. I just wish we knew who "record companies" were so that they could be addressed and questioned directly, rather than have my righteous indigination aimed at some hazy plural noun... record companies.
Also, what do you guys think of unicorns? mythical creatures or the best friend ever!?
Now that is true. Which is why maybe 5% of my music library is from the iTunes store. The rest is taken from my CDs, using Apple lossless compression. Believe it or not, there are some songs where I don't want the entire CD, just the song. Thanks!
Morod
Some ancient history. in 1960 a single with a throw-away b-side sold for $.99 and an album for $5.98. Usually you had to buy them in a music store. The bargain bin singles went for $.89 and were mostly crap songs.
Of course, in 1960 there was no minimum wage and a great job for a teen was a dollar and hour. That $.99 was some dear money and for $2.50 you could buy a steak dinner.
So, to answer that question, "Yeah, the $.99 cent per song goes back almost 50 years."
When CDs came to market the music industry pretty much told the consumer market that they were not going to raise the price if a CD over that of a pressed vinyl, so "go ahead" and buy the pricey CD player.
We brought the CD players, they dropped the vinly media, and the agreed price for CDs stayed at $5.99.
What has happened since then has been a revolution in how music is distributed and most people don't know how we got to where we are today. The music industry has been a drag on the evolution of the whole market, but for good reason. They are holding onto their place in the chain of distribution and their place is becoming more and more trivial.
In 1960 the film industry began to go through this same thing. At that time they had owned the stars, the studios and even the theaters. Since then, film went to DVD, the theaters became self-owned and the stars are no longer under contract to the studios and people mostly watch the movies at home. Some of these changes could be seen coming and some were a surprise as how rapidly they occurred.
The transition to electronic marketing of both of these medias is unstoppable, and all the music and film industry can do is try to slow things down. It' a bad plan, but it's the only one playing in town at the moment.
One of my favorite bands is selling USB dongles with the actual master files versions (96KHz, 24bit), you get the whole album for 10 bucks! That's how it's done! You can even reuse the dongle for whatever you like. That's how it's done folks, higher than CD quality for the audiophiles, collectors have a neat USB dongle with the album art printed on it and you even get some extra content (which you can't even get through iTunes).
All about it here in a 3 minute video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfE2E-8Azyc
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.
totally agreed
fail - amazon & wal-mart... hello P2P