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
Damn. It's incredible how worked up people can get over 30 cents.
It's 30 CENTS. Not even enough for half of the bun on your crappy Big Mac.
Edit: And what is it that's making people draw an arbitrary line in the sand at $0.99 per song, anyway? Do you refuse to buy a $12.99 CD album if it only has ten songs on it?
Well .30¢ adds up if you buy enough music. If I buy 500 songs throughout the year (which isn't out of the question for me) at $1.29/song versus paying .99¢/song thats an extra $145 I gotta fork out. Maybe thats not much for you, but in these times (or any time for that matter) its too much extra. More than I'm willing to pay.
So many options so many sites and if i can just recomend beak the trend..
Two sites i recommend and there free
http://www.icompositions.com
http://www.macjams.com/
How is it not legal? Its just like I can be a car salesman with 2 of the same vehicle and sell you a car (no trade) for $25,000 and have someone else talk me down to $23,500 (no trade) for the same vehicle. You both agreed to a contract for the price. So he got a better deal than you. Its not their fault they're a better salesman than you. Keep in mind I'm just using you and an imaginary person to make a point for this post.
The record companies sold Apple DRM free music for a set price, and Amazon the same music for another set price just like I sold you the car for a set price that you agreed to and someone the same vehicle cheaper. Its not illegal IMO. It sucks yes, but its not illegal. I see this only promoting illegal activities (P2P downloading).
On the bright side, this makes me feel better about sticking to iTunes to buy my music. It's just so much more convenient.
I wasn't going to switch anyways either. The convenience of it outweighs all the other B.S. in my opinion. I have alot of itunes drm'd music also, doesn't bother me, I think the promo upgrade to non-drm for .30 cents a song is a straight moneygrab, anyone that buys into that is a sucker. I don't use cd's anymore I have an ipod car stereo so.......
I bought my first CD player in 1984 before heading to college, only about 1.5 years after they came out. Back then you could go to Tower Records or Strawberry Records and they would have maybe 2 racks of CDs total (maybe 50-100 to pick through, and that was a combo of classical and rock.) And they cost $15 and up to buy. When CDs really took off in the late 80s, some came down to $11. I don't EVER remember new CDs being priced at $5.99. Even today, new CDs are rarely below $9.99 (the usual iTunes/MP3 album download price), and that's only at Wal-Mart or Amazon.com.
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.
I have always wondered why random people on the internet think everyone else is as inexperienced and lacking of knowledge as they are...
On the bright side, this makes me feel better about sticking to iTunes to buy my music. It's just so much more convenient.
On the bright side, this makes me feel better about stealing my music. It's just so much more convenient.
I'm in the 4th decade of my life, I have fattened the wallets of many, many record execs. If they didn't use to fleece the consumer and also, the artists, they probably wouldn't be in this situation.
The irony of digital music is that the record companies probably earn a higher profit margin than with physical CDs. These companies are worse than GM, we won't miss them.
I think people are crazy to pay .99 per track... so obviously my thoughts on these changes should be obvious.
The whole music business still needs major shake-up. I suspect most artists would prefer to get the lions share of 25 cents - 50 cents a song then get a fraction of $1.29.
Until the middlemen are cut out it is the same ole same ole and this is more of the same.
Online retailers could take 5 cents a song, give 25 cents to 30 cents to the artists/writers producers to split up and be done with it. I know some think the music machine is still needed to promote things, but I don't know how much that is true any more, and they get way too much money for the job they do.
My spending would go from zero to hundreds a year if I could cherry pick songs for a quarter.
I used to spend a few hundred dollars a month of cds when I was younger, now I can't even tell you the last time I bought a song or cd online or offline. It has been years.
I know I am the outcast here so I don't really expect things to change. With the record companies moving billions of singles at 99 cents and such, there is no motivation for them to lower prices. They don't believe people might spend MORE money if prices were lower, yet I know I would. I can't speak for everyone else.
Honestly, I mistakenly thought the next big price change in music we would see like a 49 cent price point. Instead they pretty much went the other way, as I am sure the average price per download will now go up with these new tiers and not down.
And I take that back.. I have bought a few full albums of music in the last few years. When Amazon has their 1.99 deals and it is something I want or like. I have a couple of those. Of course that is less than 25 cents a song.
The whole music business still needs major shake-up. I suspect most artists would prefer to get the lions share of 25 cents - 50 cents a song then get a fraction of $1.29.
Until the middlemen are cut out it is the same ole same ole and this is more of the same.
Online retailers could take 5 cents a song, give 25 cents to 30 cents to the artists/writers producers to split up and be done with it. I know some think the music machine is still needed to promote things, but I don't know how much that is true any more, and they get way too much money for the job they do.
My spending would go from zero to hundreds a year if I could cherry pick songs for a quarter.
I used to spend a few hundred dollars a month of cds when I was younger, now I can't even tell you the last time I bought a song or cd online or offline. It has been years.
I know I am the outcast here so I don't really expect things to change. With the record companies moving billions of singles at 99 cents and such, there is no motivation for them to lower prices. They don't believe people might spend MORE money if prices were lower, yet I know I would. I can't speak for everyone else.
Honestly, I mistakenly thought the next big price change in music we would see like a 49 cent price point. Instead they pretty much went the other way, as I am sure the average price per download will now go up with these new tiers and not down.
And I take that back.. I have bought a few full albums of music in the last few years. When Amazon has their 1.99 deals and it is something I want or like. I have a couple of those. Of course that is less than 25 cents a song.
For those that never saw it, David Byrne of Talking Head fame, wrote an article about the business of the new music world. He wrote it a year or so ago, but still some very interesting, enlightning and relevant information in there.
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all
Here is an interesting graphic from the article pointing out the price breakdown of a typical store bought CD.
Notice $1.60 for artist royalties. On a 10 song disc this is only 16 cents per song. You see how much fat is there, and how for a fraction of the cost the artist could make more money. Especially since with lower prices they would sell more songs. So not only could they get more per song, but the volume would go up.
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all
Here is an interesting graphic from the article pointing out the price breakdown of a typical store bought CD.
Notice $1.60 for artist royalties. On a 10 song disc this is only 16 cents per song. You see how much fat is there, and how for a fraction of the cost the artist could make more money. Especially since with lower prices they would sell more songs. So not only could they get more per song, but the volume would go up.
There used to be fair trade laws that governed these, they are gone now. Apple would not have a basis for a suit unless there was some sort of discrimination.
Just when I thought Amazon would start to sell more mp3's because Apple went up 30 cents they raised their prices as well. Smart move? I don't think so.
For those that never saw it, David Byrne of Talking Head fame, wrote an article about the business of the new music world. He wrote it a year or so ago, but still some very interesting, enlightning and relevant information in there.
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff_byrne?currentPage=all
Here is an interesting graphic from the article pointing out the price breakdown of a typical store bought CD.
Notice $1.60 for artist royalties. On a 10 song disc this is only 16 cents per song. You see how much fat is there, and how for a fraction of the cost the artist could make more money. Especially since with lower prices they would sell more songs. So not only could they get more per song, but the volume would go up.
You wanna wager how much lower the Artist would sell their music if they were solely in charge?
God, I f@cking hate it when people go about giving opinions when they are not musicians themselves, or in the business at all. Let's cover some points here -
Like most people stated "It is so easy for an artist to make his/her own music and get it out there.. you don't need a record label anymore"
Are you kidding? I have produced my own stuff, and it's out there.. but who notices? I have 6,500 'fans' .. but imagine if I had a major label marketing my music - that number would have multiplied by much more. I spend MONTHS making a piece of music sometimes.. I do have a family to support as well. In the end when I release a song, people whine about paying $0.99 for it (even though they love it) and they go and download it from a torrent site. I have a comment posted on my YouTube page by someone - "How can I get your songs for free??" Do you really think I am going to spend thousands of $$ marketing my music when people can easily download it for free? Heck no!
Do you know how much damn money it costs to make music? (right from song writing to production and marketing, etc)
Let's see - cost of music instruments (quality instruments - not a little casio keyboard), cost of studio recording, mixing, mastering, production costs, let's not forget the 'time' (you guys do know the concept of time?) that musicians spend making music. Everyone assumes musicians just play their little banjos all day without eating or having to pay rent, or anything else that normal people do.
Next, legal agreements, distribution deals, publishing, song writer royalties, etc etc what have you.
I remember when singles used to cost upwards of $5-$7 - now they are $1.29 - not a great move on the label's part but really, when you think about it - $1.29 is PEANUTS if you look at the effort that goes into making a song or an album.
Only buy the music you LIKE - there's a tendency these days (especially amongst teenagers) that they HAVE to own every song that's on the radio. ("Oh I have 1000 songs on my ipod.. how many do you have? What? Just 500? hahahaha!)
and then you have bloody piracy rampant everywhere. What do you want the labels to do? Declare bankruptcy or raise the price a bit?
If all the f@cking torrent sites shut down, and music was bought legally all the time, then the labels would make enough money to sustain themselves and everyone involved. But that is not going to happen -
Please stop treating the music business as though it were so easy to record a song and the whole world will start buying it the very next day.
Like most people stated "It is so easy for an artist to make his/her own music and get it out there.. you don't need a record label anymore"
Are you kidding? I have produced my own stuff, and it's out there.. but who notices? I have 6,500 'fans' .. but imagine if I had a major label marketing my music - that number would have multiplied by much more. I spend MONTHS making a piece of music sometimes.. I do have a family to support as well. In the end when I release a song, people whine about paying $0.99 for it (even though they love it) and they go and download it from a torrent site. I have a comment posted on my YouTube page by someone - "How can I get your songs for free??"
Do you really think I am going to spend thousands of $$ marketing my music when people can easily download it for free? Heck no!Do you know how much damn money it costs to make music? (right from song writing to production and marketing, etc)
Let's see - cost of music instruments (quality instruments - not a little casio keyboard), cost of studio recording, mixing, mastering, production costs, let's not forget the 'time' (you guys do know the concept of time?) that musicians spend making music. Everyone assumes musicians just play their little banjos all day without eating or having to pay rent, or anything else that normal people do.
Next, legal agreements, distribution deals, publishing, song writer royalties, etc etc what have you.
I remember when singles used to cost upwards of $5-$7 - now they are $1.29 - not a great move on the label's part but really, when you think about it - $1.29 is PEANUTS if you look at the effort that goes into making a song or an album.
Only buy the music you LIKE - there's a tendency these days (especially amongst teenagers) that they HAVE to own every song that's on the radio. ("Oh I have 1000 songs on my ipod.. how many do you have? What? Just 500? hahahaha!)
and then you have bloody piracy rampant everywhere. What do you want the labels to do? Declare bankruptcy or raise the price a bit?
If all the f@cking torrent sites shut down, and music was bought legally all the time, then the labels would make enough money to sustain themselves and everyone involved. But that is not going to happen -
Please stop treating the music business as though it were so easy to record a song and the whole world will start buying it the very next day.
On the bright side, this makes me feel better about stealing my music. It's just so much more convenient.
Thanks, it's people like you who ruin our jobs (and whatever passion we may have in making music quickly disappears when we realize that there is no money coming in at all)
On the bright side, this makes me feel better about sticking to iTunes to buy my music. It's just so much more convenient.
yeah and it makes me feel better about sticking to limewire. it's just so much more convenient. artists should make their money at concerts performing for people. i'm not paying to listen to a recording of their music. i can do that for free on the radio too, would people get as mad if i record it off the radio like people did in the 90's? somehow no one cared back then, today we have a bunch of "saints" who think they're the internet morals police
why would you censor out the word damnit but not the word before that? whenever i see people write those two words together i feel really disturbed....
but yeah, I agree with you I never liked and never will like the top songs, they're all from artists that want the money and don't have an actual passion for making music without the money...just there to make a quick buck off a hit that took 5 min (primarily the top songs in hip hop and pop)
Uh, airplay on radio does fetch royalties.. it's not exactly 'free'. The radio companies in turn, make money by airing commercials. Just because it's convenient to steal something doesn't mean you should. Entire careers and jobs are being ruined because of illegal downloaders - now it's going to spread to the movie industry.
But I'm not going to try and waste my time on someone who thinks that not stealing equals 'saint'.
This just sums up how much the record labels resent Apple. They couldn't figure out **** from shinola and Apple figured it out for them...they're bitter. They wanted to keep their old model because they had the industry monopolized from every aspect. Instead of embracing iTunes and recognizing that they could even make more profit if it really took off (no more expenses in manufacturing or distribution) they've decided to fight them tooth & nail. They're idiots running the industry and I hope they fall on their own swords soon...the sooner more major artists start walking away from the labels and embracing iTunes the better. You've got artists now signing w/ Live Nation (Madonna etc) instead of labels so its only a matter of time before big artists start signing with Apple. Just imagine the promotion they'd get w/ TV ads, magazines, online etc.
Cutting off their nose to spite their face just sums up major label mentality.
Cutting off their nose to spite their face just sums up major label mentality.
