Apple Quietly Ends Free iTunes 'Single of the Week' Promotion After 11 Years

[ELMI0001]

but even as a stockholder you have no idea how the itunes store works.
The itunes store works with an agency model. The content publisher (e.g. Developer, artist, movie studio) sets the price and apple gets 30%.

Apple can't change the price of an item. The contract they have with publishers does not allow this. If you see an item in a promotion apples asked the publisher for permission to change the price.

Then Apple made terrible deals with content publishers. Or Apple is greedy and doesn't need to take 30%. If Apple cut their share of the profit the content publishers could be paid the same and the prices would be lower.

Amazon, Google, Target, Wal-mart, Best Buy, etc. have similar deals and all those retailers discount content. The difference is the physical stores need to move inventory so they have incentive to lower prices. Google and Amazon Instant Video are competing with iTunes so they are trying to lure people away from iTunes.

Apple has no incentive because the same amount of "space" and man-power is needed to distribute files. If the files is $19.99 or $7.99. Doesn't matter to Apple. But, when they keep prices high on everything it comes across as screwing the consumer. In my opinion. If people want to pay higher prices for the convenience that's fine. And they do. And that's why I'm a stockholder.

huh? Apple does not set those prices. The movie and television studios do.

As for some of the prices apple does control:

-iwork used to be $79 standalone; $49 with a new mac. You can now buy the individual apps separately for $20 each, and they're also free with a new mac.

-ilife used to be $49 standalone. Now you can buy imovie for $15, garageband for $5, and iphoto for free. They also come for free with a new mac.

-new versions of os x used to cost $129. That dropped to $29 for lion then $19.99 for mountain lion. Os x upgrades are now free.

-mobileme cost $99 a year. Icloud is free with even more services.

-icloud storage prices used to be $20/year for 15gb. You can now get 20gb for $12/year.

Just saying.

I guess I don't understand your point. Yes, Apple can adjust prices of products they create. They can also adjust other prices.

 

[rorschach]

Except iPhoto is gonna get the axe, and I never had need of iMovie or GarageBand.

iPhoto is being replaced by Photos. They're not getting rid of it like, say, iDVD.

And quality control? Useful new features? Useful, I mean, not "pretty". After Leopard or maybe Snow Leopard, I can't see any progress.

Quality control? Absolutely. There are far fewer major bugs in recent software releases than in past ones. Like Snow Leopard? You mean the release that had that minor bug that wiped all your data? Take a read through this 600-post thread of Snow Leopard bugs. Or how about that epitome of quality software, MobileMe?

Useful new features? I use features like Continuity, Notification Center, AirDrop, Reading List all the time. And there are dozens more I could list in OS X alone. The initial release of Yosemite is also far more stable than the initial release of Snow Leopard was. I had to do a clean install of SL several times. To compare, my MacBook Air (2012) came with Lion and in 2 years of updates since then I have never had to clean reinstall.

And you get 5 GB "free", no matter how many devices you buy. Microsoft gives me ten freaking terabyte for free. With the purchase of ONE device (that happens to come with a free 1 year sub of Office 365)

Since my response was to the idea that Apple has gotten greedier and "less appreciative" of their customers, that "rebuttal" makes no sense. MobileMe cost $99 a year for 20GB; you can get that same amount for $12 now. Prices have gone down, not up.

 

[Gigaman]

The biggest impact on apple regarding a free offering that could have led to this change might be the free U2 album. So thanks to all those ungrateful naysayers..

But even then, what does apple gain from this? They're still going to get complaints and dissatisfaction. I used to look forward to visiting the iTunes Store but now... At least tv shows are still free. (DISCLAIMER: sorry if I jinxed it)

 

[AppleScruff1]

This is good news for Apple. No sense giving anything away for free, all it does is take away from the bottom line. I hope they raise all the iTunes prices. I like to tell all my non Apple using friends how much money Apple makes, it makes me feel so good.

 

[johnnyturbouk]

In all these years, I only got 3 free singles... and the unwanted U2 album (but that wasn't my choice). So, it's not something I'm going to miss.
Too bad for those artists trying to get more attention, I think that's the only downside.

Never new there were free singles given away

All i ever got was that awful U2 album, and i have despised U2 ever since i was a wee lad in the early 90s, tbh, I felt violated by having this album thrusted into my pristine itunes collection

- i smell a class action lawsuit coming on

 

[lra108]

Tim Cook be like:"You giving me hate for the free U2 album?Okay,No more free singles for you guys"

 

[bushman4]

Apple must have their reasoning. It was a 'promo' and all 'promos' end by definition. Most likely it lost its value over the years and not enough people were downloading the songs to make it worth while. Good chance a new 'Promo' will evolve.

 

[Cole Slaw]

Apple is not making enough money.
I'd like to see them raise the price of a track on iTunes to $9.99, or $99.99 per album.
Purchased music could only be loaded onto one device, and your right to play the track(s) expires after 90 days, at which point it will automatically be removed from your device.
That ought to make 'ole penny pincher Tim happy.

 

[allanfries]

I was gonna say how much I really care about this, but I don't.

 

[adambigjohn]

Tim must still be upset about the whole U2 Songs of Innocence pushback...

Good pickup. I didn't think of this, but the negative PR that the U2 debacle brought on, may have led to some talks within the iTunes product team. Maybe they didn't want to seem like they were favouring certain artists? If that was it, they were overthinking it.

Whatever the reason, I see it as a bad move to stop the freebies like this. Customers need to be enticed to spend cash, and this was great for that and showed great diversity to spotlight artists as they did.

 

[Paradoxally]

"You guys complained about U2, now you get nothing. Good riddance.

P.S. Buy our new stuff this year because we will push an update to make your existing hardware even slower" - Apple, 2015

 

[GangstaGehard]

Meanwhile, I'm able to pick up my 7th 'free' album from Google via Play Music

Free in quotes because you do need to add a card to your account but the total is still $0.00

 

[BJMRamage]

I went to listen to some songs...started with my music on iTunes, then went to go to the Radio...hit the iTunes Store area and went to look around, realized nothing free...figured I'lll just go to the iTunes Radio.

So, now they will be getting more advertising money from my listening than they will from purchases based off FREE songs.

but hey, that's cool.

 

[attila]

I have been using iTunes since SoundJam and never saw this offer

 

[roadbloc]

weak

 

[Keirasplace]

Meanwhile, I'm able to pick up my 7th 'free' album from Google via Play Music

Free in quotes because you do need to add a card to your account but the total is still $0.00

Right.... "free", good for you for being all in... Doubt is the enemy after all...

 

[wigby]

They certainly resisted it once they realised it was there.

I think there's a distinction between resistance and whining. I didn't hear about anyone boycotting or canceling anything. I only heard complaints and whining spurred on by the media and obnoxious tweets. No one would know or care if they weren't told they should.

 

[BJMRamage]

Meanwhile, I'm able to pick up my 7th 'free' album from Google via Play Music

Free in quotes because you do need to add a card to your account but the total is still $0.00

I saw their free albums but didn't like how they NEEDED a CC on file to make the "transaction" as a sale.
Granted I could buy a GooglePlay Gift Card and use but have no need for the gift card in their store.

 

[Jessica Lares]

Meanwhile, I'm able to pick up my 7th 'free' album from Google via Play Music

Free in quotes because you do need to add a card to your account but the total is still $0.00

Yeah. I was surprised when they started doing that. I usually go in there to look at the discounts, and then go buy them on Amazon since they're usually price matched. Only if I have money in my PayPal account do I buy from Google Play because I mostly use Amazon gift cards.

I usually buy from iTunes when I come across something interesting in iTunes Radio though. So I'm using everybody.

 

[GangstaGehard]

Right.... "free", good for you for being all in... Doubt is the enemy after all...

Yea dude. Look at all the data or metadata they are getting from me adding a "free" album that they chose to my library.

I saw their free albums but didn't like how they NEEDED a CC on file to make the "transaction" as a sale.
Granted I could buy a GooglePlay Gift Card and use but have no need for the gift card in their store.

I had the same issue when I made a iTunes account. I wanted some free stuff and had to add a CC inorder to finish creating the account. Truth be told, I didn't have to add a CC, there was a work around. But still.

IIRC, they removed that necessity but what's done is done. I was really mad that day.

Yeah. I was surprised when they started doing that. I usually go in there to look at the discounts, and then go buy them on Amazon since they're usually price matched. Only if I have money in my PayPal account do I buy from Google Play because I mostly use Amazon gift cards.

I usually buy from iTunes when I come across something interesting in iTunes Radio though. So I'm using everybody.

Fact is, iTunes has a larger library and some albums could only be pre-ordered via iTunes. I'm fine with using both but Play Music will always be my primary music player. Since I'm paying for All Access. Can't stand radio services.

 

[jtrauscht]

As others have said, it's too bad. They weren't always winners, but I found out about a lot of cool music that I would not have otherwise.

 

[Breaking Good]

If they make their money in hardware why do they need 30% of each sale through iTunes?

...My 6 year old MacBook is testament to their quality.

I think you answered your own question here.

Personally, I usually download every free song or app I find on iTunes or the Google Play Store. (The exceptions being game apps I know I will have no interest in playing and music that is in a genre I don't care for.)

I actually did notice when the Free section was removed two weeks ago. I was very disappointed because like other I found some good artists I would probably have not listened to previously. In some cases I've purchased other songs from the artist and in the case of Brandi Carlile I ended up purchasing three of her albums.

But like the iPod Shuffle, if you never used it, chances you wouldn't miss it if Apple discontinued it.

 

[the8thark]

Crap by YOUR pathetic standards. Don't forget that. Personally, I found quite a few jewels through the Free Song giveaway, but it was complainers like you that turned me off of it.

Crap by a lot of people's standards actually, if the U2 album fiasco is anything to go by. And I think Apple did not want a repeat of this.

 

[Regbial]

I started to not care as much for these when they started plastering the "FREE SINGLE OF THE WEEK" watermark on the album covers.

 

[69650]

Shame. I've found some good new artists through this. Seems a petty move that won't save them much money. Is this the beginning of the end for the iTunes music store in favour of a subscription model?