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
1. iTunes
2. AmazonMP3
3. eMusic
4. Napster
5. Rhapsody
6. WalmartMP3
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9992592-1.html (this is old link)
common to all (with some exceptions)
1) DRM Free
2) 256 Kbps
3) same screwy labels
Differentiator will be
1) larger collection
2) Ease of use in general
3) easy to find related songs
4) easy downloading mechnism
5) album art work
6) AAC vs MP3 (if you are too much into sound quality and have great accessories to go with it; for example i download some comedy dramas; it does not matter whether it is MP3 or AAC quality does not make any difference in this case )
7) faster load times; try using emusic or walmartmp3 and you will know how much time it takes to load album art works when searching
8) ...
still i think no one matches iTunes ease of use; so for now other players have play the Price game
2. AmazonMP3
3. eMusic
4. Napster
5. Rhapsody
6. WalmartMP3
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9992592-1.html (this is old link)
common to all (with some exceptions)
1) DRM Free
2) 256 Kbps
3) same screwy labels
Differentiator will be
1) larger collection
2) Ease of use in general
3) easy to find related songs
4) easy downloading mechnism
5) album art work
6) AAC vs MP3 (if you are too much into sound quality and have great accessories to go with it; for example i download some comedy dramas; it does not matter whether it is MP3 or AAC quality does not make any difference in this case )
7) faster load times; try using emusic or walmartmp3 and you will know how much time it takes to load album art works when searching
8) ...
still i think no one matches iTunes ease of use; so for now other players have play the Price game
Would you like to install Bush back in the White House as Dictator? And what exactly does this have to do with the topic of this thread??
Record companies favor Amazon. Well Duh!
Do ya think it has _anything_ to do with Steve Job's strong arm tactics and scorched earth business practices? iWay or the highway? Sound familiar?
I hope SJ does not come back from medical leave and quietly fades away into the background. While I admire Steve for some his accomplishments, those are now in the past and its time to take Apple in a new direction.
Do ya think it has _anything_ to do with Steve Job's strong arm tactics and scorched earth business practices? iWay or the highway? Sound familiar?
I hope SJ does not come back from medical leave and quietly fades away into the background. While I admire Steve for some his accomplishments, those are now in the past and its time to take Apple in a new direction.
First off, it's pure speculation and rumor that the record companies are favoring Amazon in order to burn Apple. I know the RIAA is run by a bunch of brain-dead luddites, however, what they DO understand is profit, and Apple has helped them make a huge profit in online sales of their music. Why would they try to screw over their best online distributor? It's pure hearsay.
If it weren't for Steve Jobs, Apple would probably not be around today, and we'd still be buying all of our music at a music store, paying $18.00 for a CD just to get that one song you like. Let's face it, Steve Jobs saved Apple with the original iMacs, revolutionized digital music with the iPod and iTunes, and is now dominating the cellphone market with the iPhone. All on the watch of Steve Jobs.
EXACTLY.
The VAST majority of musicians make money for one reason.
<b>They enjoy making music.</b> It provides them with an outlet for creative expression, relaxation, social interaction if they are in a band or play live. If they take the time to record the music, they either want to preserve it for themselves or family, or share with others their vision. People have been making and playing music a LONG time before the privatization of music in the 20th century, and they will continue to do so for all time, because most musicians make music because they enjoy making music.
Just like someone who plays tennis or goes fishing or participates in any other activity that is at its core recreation and pleasure seeking, they recognize that there may be costs involved (buying a tennis racquet, buying a fishing rod, buying a guitar). I like the idea of public subsidies for musical instrument access (this exists in Europe), just like public subsidies for tennis courts, but I don't think any individual has the right to expect the public to bear the costs of their private property instruments or recording studio sessions.
I'm SO sick of hearing small time musicians complain about how much it costs to buy instruments, and most ridiculously of all, not be paid by the hour for the time they spend making music. It's your decision to do all of these things. If you are entering into a music career primarily as a means of making a living, then I feel no sympathy for your poor economic decisions to buy nice recording equipment and spend hours practicing music that no one is interested in paying to hear. If you view music as an economic opportunity, then I expect you to be smart about the product you produce, the capital you invest in producing it, etc.
Luckily, they can also eat angel's breath and fairy dust, and live in a magic palace.
Get real. Being a musician is talent and skill mastered after a great deal of study and practice. A good song is no less a great creative work than a novel, a film, or a really great car. People deserve to get paid for what they produce. The idea that musicians should starve so you can have free music is very wrong.
I thought it was pretty steep at one dollar a song... they should really lower the prices rather than hiking it up for those who are still legally paying for their media rather than pirating it. It might encourage people to buy more to feed their conscience - this probably works against it.
Right on. Yes, being an artist (musician or otherwise) is about talent and passion for what you do. But these artists also have to make a living, and if you are benefiting from it, why shouldn't you pay for their service? I know that there are many who have more money than they know what to do with, but there are a lot more struggling artists than Bonos in the world.
Sort of playing devil's advocate, but not really...
Back in the 70's and 80's, the last time single sales were booming, a 45rpm record cost somewhere between $1-$2. And for crappy sound quality that you could only play at home on a turntable. What's remarkable is 25 years later the price for a song is exactly the same, sounds better, and has exponentially increased convenience and portability. And can't get scratched.
What else can you buy for a buck today?
Of course you also got the "B" side back then, which more often than not was crap compared to the song you were really buying. I've always thought since iTunes started selling songs that they should bring this old-fashioned model to the iPod era and throw in a "B" side that virtually nobody would buy otherwise anyhow, for the price of the single. Wouldn't cost them anything but bandwidth, and might convince a few more people to go back and buy the whole album.
I used to buy singles for 49 cents at licorice pizza back in the early 80s. I don't think I ever paid close to a dollar for a vinyl single.
I totally agree. It will diminish the higher priced songs or will be made limited because if the consumers choose the cheaper versions then they will more than likely dwindle the higher priced songs.
That certainly seemed to be the situation at the beginning of this saga.
Notice particularly the paragraphs near this quote: "A senior executive at another record company..."
I didn't say all musicians "should" starve. I'm saying that the vast majority of people shouldn't expect not to starve if they pursue music (or writing, or filmmaking, playing tennis) as a full-time economic endeavor. The economics simply do not work out for there to be more than a very small percentage of people able to make a decent quality living playing music full time. That has been the case since the beginning of history and will continue to be the case well into the future. For the vast majority of musicians, writers, painters, or any other artist, their work is not and will never be valued highly enough by enough people to provide them with full sustenance.
Your quote that "People deserve to get paid for what they produce" is so laughably ignorant of the concept of value that it underscores my whole point. I "produce" posts on this thread. They take my time write and I had to invest money in the computer and my monthly internet service. Nevertheless, I don't in any way expect to be paid for producing it. I recognize that it has little value outside of a very small community, and that no one is willing to pay for my opinions, although some people are willing to pay for the opinions of others (they are called opinion columnists). Likewise for musicians--I recognize that your instrument cost you money and that you spend time making music, but neither of these is a sufficient condition for me to want to spend a dime on your output. That said, I might be willing to give it a listen at no, or very low cost (just like I am willing to read posts on this board because they are free, but wouldn't spend one red cent on a "subscription" to this forum).
My proposal is for iTunes to become a more democratic distribution medium by allowing artists to directly distribute their product to a market on the same footing as major artists. Many musicians would love to "sell" 1,000 copies of their album at $0.99 instead of selling 100 at $9.99. Heck, maybe these artists could start to become better known and "valued" by listeners, so that they might charge $1.99 next time. If Madonna thinks she can keep charging $9.99 for albums and compete, then fine. If NIN or other groups with a rabid fanbase think they can charge $99 for their album, then fine.
Once content becomes divorced from any physical media, the concept of universal pricing falls apart, but so does variable pricing that enforces a narrow range of clearly defined "tiers". All I want is artists to be able to distribute their music on the same footing for a modest sum, and I wish Apple would take the lead in bringing that future about.
Back when pirating songs was non-existant, CD prices were still steadily increasing in price. CDs were being sold in the stores for up to $18.99. I remember when MediaPlay initially opened and most CDs were 9.99$. I was as happy as a pig in... However over the next 2-3 years, prices quietly increased up to $13.99 and this was BEFORE pirating. Now that pirating, is well-established, prices have stabilized or gone down. $0.99 or $1.29 per track on a 10 track CD is costing $9.90 or $12.90. So, exactly how is pirating causing increased CD prices? If the record industry dare does this, this will just encourage more pirating. What we are seeing is stable or lower prices, but less of a product (a digital file and no physical CD).
We didn't have a Licorice Pizza in my hometown. Maybe they used 45s as loss leaders to get you to buy the pizza
. I bought singles at a really tacky discount store called "Fisher's Big Wheel" and can specifically remember digging through my paper route money in the early 80s for a dollar bill, a nickel, and a penny to buy 45s for 99 cents plus tax.Also have a fairly specific memory from the early 70s of one of my first purchases ever with my own money. I used one of those oversized Eisenhower silver dollars I got from the tooth fairy to buy Tony Orlando's "Say Has Anybody Seen My Sweet Gypsy Rose". I can recall my mom saying "Are you sure you want to spend your whole dollar on this record?" I sure did. Listened to that 45 about a million times. In junior high my friends and I actually smashed a bunch of vinyl kids records we had, like Sesame Street and Mr Rogers, as well as that 45, because we way too cool to ever want to listen to that stuff anymore.
Tony is back on my iPod now, love it whenever his songs come on. Catchy songs trump cool when you're in your 40s. Wish I still had those 45s though.
I fully agree with this. I will pay money for music, but I just don't want the record company charging a "blanket" price. And I want my money going directly to the artist. I will no longer pay major record companies one penny. For what? With the internet, they don't need to market artists anymore. They don't need to support artists anymore. And what do the artists get from the record companies? Less than a dollar per CD, which is disgusting.
Some of my favorite bands (like Grizzly Bear, Deerhunter) are not on major labels. I discovered them by downloading their music from the internet. Then, I paid them my money because I know those independent labels are more ethical towards their artists. Both of these bands could eaily splint from their record labels too, but they just don't know this year.
I paid money directly to Saul Williams, NIN, and Radiohead for their CDs. The Saul Williams CD was $5, NIN; one was $10 (but came with 2 physical CDs) and the other was free (but I paid $10 for the physical CD anyways), and the Radiohead was name-your-price (which I gave $5). In all these cases, the money went directly to the artist. I know they have to pay for bandwith, producers, studio time, etc., but they likely made more money per CD than the major record companies would have given them.
I read your post and it reminds me of the App Store where, if I'm not mistaken, developers are talking about how the pricing structure tends towards cheap apps and I see myriad derisive comments here about the bestselling fart apps. And, remember Apple is the gateway in the App store, so Apple decides what would be in the music store? Why would Apple want to involve itself in music to that extent?
Two good points of discussion here.
1. Pricing structure at App store leads to bad apps.
I have no problem whatsoever with there being 30 different "ifart" applications available. I fully expect there to be hundreds of different artists that sound really similar to each other. That's the nature of art, and it already is the case already. Clearly, there is a need already in the apple store for more useful rating tools, comment sections, etc. and this would be even more the case with music. I completely expect there to be blogs written about music, just as there are now (hey maybe apple can provide an open platform for that as well?), along with most other machinations of the existing music industry.
These programmers and these musicians should not expect to make a living off of these applications or these albums. Not enough people value them enough. They should expect to have fun doing what they do (programming, making music) and have to the opportunity to POSSIBLY become popular, make new social connections, learn, and advance as programmers,artists. If they think they can make a product valuable enough that living out of it, then nothing is stopping them from devoting more time to their art or buying new materials, but they are in the same boat as any entrepreneur, and should expect to be treated as such, rather than the poor visionary who should be able to make ends meet but just can't because of some injustice in the world.
2. Apple controlling content. From my understanding the only thing apple permits from the app store are apps that crash phones or violate existing copyrights. So I expect them to virus-check each file uploaded and not allow recordings that are plagiarisms. I don't remember the exact rules on cover tracks, but I'm sure it's not too hard to enforce.
Politics have no place here. I only made that statement to answer someone's inquiry.
First of all, the fact that you think your ridiculous diatribes on this thread about why artists shouldn't get paid is equivalent to being a musician shows that you know nothing about music on the professional level and how much work goes into it. Secondly, people get paid in creative fields all the time--advertising writing, screenwriting, composing, painting, whatever. There mere fact that one has had the talent, hard work and luck to succeed in doing something one enjoys does not mean that you should have no expectation of getting paid. By extension, then, should anyone who enjoys their work not get paid? Your kind of thinking is how artists and musicians get taken advantage of by people who essentially want to steal their original, creative work.
If a song is good enough for you to spend time to download and listen to it, it's certainly good enough to see that the artists who made it get paid. The idea that the market doesn't sustain music is wrong, music is very much a part of the lives of people who appreciate it. I just wish so many of them didn't think it is OK to steal intellectual property.
Do you think it's OK for the record companies to 'steal' the artists' money? Have you seen a typical standard new artist contract? It's pretty much theft, IMO. If you sell a million songs at $1, you will make about $10-20,000 while the record company will get the other $980-990,000. I'm sure you would say that's a valid contract and so it's not theft, but I say you're just trying to justify corporate GREED. These people don't care about artists or music, what-so-ever. They only care about how much money they can make off you. They'll pass by true musicians in favor of some model that can barely sing because they know they can sell the latter in Maxim magazine. If by chance they do come across a hot looking talented musician, they'll try to force their pop writers' music on their album instead of letting them write their own music or if they do let them, they'll want to change everything to make it more marketable, which usually means the music gets compromised. Someone like Janis Joplin would NEVER get into the music industry today under any circumstance save maybe a backup session musician that is only heard, not seen. The ONLY musicians that see any real money from album sales are ones that are mega-bands or artists that have made it through their 4-6 album contracts and are still popular and can renegotiate from a power stand-point. This would be bands like Metallica.
While I own well over 400 CDs and have bought many tracks online, I can tell you quite honestly that if you want to truly support an artist and see him or her get most of the money instead of some suit at the head of EMI or whatever, then you should go see them in concert. Many famous artists would be starving artists if they didn't tour. My personal opinion is an artist would be better served by someone that 'steals' their online music but comes to see them in concert than someone that buys their albums online but never goes to a concert because they'll get many times the money from that concert ticket than that 99 cent sale that they only 1-2 cents from maximum. You'd be better off sending your 99 cents directly to the artist as a 'gift' check or something if you care about supporting the artist and not the machine.
All the high ethics and morality lectures from would be do-gooders that think laws are somehow just because they are laws (regardless of content) and that downloading copies of 1s and 0s is the same thing as taking actual physical property won't change any of the facts above. In the end, all you end up doing and being is a patsy to support the greedy corporate system that's in place to take advantage of those laws they helped to put into place in the first place. Yeah, that makes me a patsy too since I own over 400 CDs, most of which is filler.
So buy that song for 99 cents, knowing that your 1.8 cents will go to the artist and feel good that you 'did the right thing' or better yet go see them in concert where they'll get a much larger portion of the money. Good artists deserve to be supported and they deserve more than 1-2 cents a song (sometimes less).
What we really need is a push to remove the record companies out of the equation entirely. There is simply no reason that stores like iTunes couldn't sell music directly from the artists. But there is pressure from the record companies to NOT allow this sort of thing en masse. But that's because they realize they are IRRELEVANT in today's technological age. You can get more press from word of mouth on You Tube than through a music video that MTV no longer plays 95% of the time anyway. Of course, the danger there is that stores like iTunes would eventually become the new record companies by charging outrageous 'fees' to host their music...kind of like Apple already does with iPhone apps by take 1/3 of the programmer's take right off the top with no alternative store to sell them in). But just lecturing to support a system that is inherently 'bad' for artists to begin with doesn't accomplish much, IMO. It just helps maintain the status quo of record companies taking 98% of the money and treating artists like dirt (save the top 1/2 of 1%).
one question who creates the .mp3 or .aac files? is the service provider or record companies?
if record companies provide the files, why bit rate is different?
should we see one day all are selling same content/bit rate/AAC files?
if record companies provide the files, why bit rate is different?
should we see one day all are selling same content/bit rate/AAC files?
I don't know who makes the files (I'd guess Apple does in this case), but based on the latest iTunes, I'm assuming iTunes Plus songs are all variable bit-rate 256kpbs, which might be better for sound quality over non variable, but both my cell phone and car stereo don't like those files and won't play them or play them correctly. If I convert them to straight 256kbps (non-variable), they play perfectly on both. Until I saw the new "iTunes Plus" setting, I couldn't figure out why all my non-Apple players that handle AAC didn't like Apple songs (since all my own library conversions always played fine and so did the Apple ones if I converted AAC to AAC). This explains it. I suppose the fault is on the 3rd party players (they should support variable bit-rates for AAC; they seem to for MP3s on the same players), but it's something to watch out for. I love my iPod Touch, but having a car stereo that has a USB port and an 8GB micro-USB stick with all my favorite songs on it for random play without having to bring my iPod is even better.