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.
Apple to End iTunes Music Store Uniform Pricing Model?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
I had heard the new Madonna album was good, so I went over to iTunes to preview it. It comes with 12 tracks, some digital booklet, and a music video, all for $12.99. I thought about $12.99 showing up on my statement (I am a student part time work, make about $50 every two weeks), and I thought I just can't spend that money. I need to buy shoes and clothes for winter. Real things thatwon't disappear if my computer crashes. And so I thought how much would I pay for that album with the video. At $2 I might be tempted.
LOL...anyhow, yeah I get the two free downloads a week though.
LOL...anyhow, yeah I get the two free downloads a week though.
Pure selfishness and greed, Tesco has the same download pricing as iTMS have a moan at tham for a change. As the market share of iTMS and decreased illeagal downloads shows fixed ricing is working, so keep it like that. DON'T GIVE UP APPLE FIGHT FOR IT!
I think you people crying out about the RIAA's injustices, etc. need to calm down. Lets just wait and see what comes of this before we organize the lynch mob. Maybe prices won't be affected much, maybe they'll back down, maybe people will just stop paying for music again.
The statement is far too general I feel to start blasting off on how disgusting this move is. And as one poster said earlier, how would this be any different than other commodities, such as CD's/DVD's? Can't really fault a business for following a simply supply and demand chart....
The statement is far too general I feel to start blasting off on how disgusting this move is. And as one poster said earlier, how would this be any different than other commodities, such as CD's/DVD's? Can't really fault a business for following a simply supply and demand chart....
Apple is pushing into a lot of markets these days, and the whole music thing is now a bit old hat. Apple has to pick its battles. If they cave in to the music industry about variable pricing, then what's to stop the movie/tv industry from following suit. If the $.99 song goes away in favor of the $1.99 hit single, then the $1.99 price for TV shows will look too low (!!). Then that price will go up, killing any future the video iPod might have had.
And for those of us still clinging to the hope that variable pricing means that only a few of the more recent/popular songs will go up and 70-80% of the catalogs will go down in price... Not likely.
This is a move to get bigger profits. Profits, not revenue. They know full well that higher prices mean fewer net sales, but the higher margins mean 1-2% more profit (or something else really small). I have no choice but to wait and see what happens, but I can't think of any way in which this could turn out good for the consumer.
I'm against this, but since I don't listen to Britney & Co. I guess this pricing model might even be better for me.
Still, I think the beauty of iTMS is based partly on the fact that you don't really have to look at the prices too much, because pretty much everything goes for $/10.
Still, I think the beauty of iTMS is based partly on the fact that you don't really have to look at the prices too much, because pretty much everything goes for $/10.
mac-er said:
Perhaps, but people on both sides of the illegal downloading debate have to admit that the pirates will always have a leg up on the music industry.
Computers will always be facilitators of piracy. I think Apple's way of making iTMS viable was to make the price attractive enough that people would choose legit music over piracy. Take away the low flat-rate pricing and people will lose interest.
I'm afraid that pressure from the music industry will force Jobs to introduce a tiered pricing system which will have a negative effect on the iTMS. Sony, Real, and M$ would like to see this happen, but the iPod may still keep people on iTMS.
Maybe a sharp increase in piracy afterwards will vindicate Jobs' argument though.
mac-er said:
not true. as individuals and small groups the aware consumer will always be more agile than big business. all shutting down limewire, grokster, etc... will do is speed up the development of encrypted peer-to-peer services, invitation only dark nets and so on. it's constant battle the losers end up being the music companies and the less informed consumers who continue to use compromised applications.
I have no problem with them charging whatever the hell they want for "superstar" acts, because I rarely listen to "superstars."
Support independent music. Support local music. Screw the Top 40.
Support independent music. Support local music. Screw the Top 40.
But this is a different scenario. The $5.99 CDs were originally $12.99 (or whatever), but didn't sell well. Unfortunately, the store still has a stock of them. Selling them at $5.99 is better than throwing them away, hence the reduced price.mac-er said:
It's not like the record companies said "This music is crap, let's sell it for $5.99." They said "This music is crap, let's sell it for $12.99." Unfortunately for them, Best Buy or whomever bought the music at the original price (no, not $12.99 to them) thinking they would sell it. And they didn't.
With digital music, it's completely different. The distribution costs are essentially nothing. You don't manufacture and stock CDs hoping to sell them, you simply release another copy when it's purchased. The $5.99 bin goes away.
Besides, if the digital model were indeed the same as the physical model, all music would start out at the same price, and unpopular music would be reduced.
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
mac-er said:
I don't smoke dope. As I said I make $25 a week. I told you what i WOULD be legally WILLING to pay. Obviously that's not the direction the music industry wants to take. The point you could extrapolate from what I said, is that if young people like myself want to pay less for music than it currently costs, moving in the opposite direction will probably lose even more people to P2P music.
It should be pointed out that Madonna literally (LITERALLY) lives in a castle. I can't imagine selling an album for profit if I had that much money. I think I'd be sick. You have to have way too much self esteem to think you should take in more profit at that point.
There's this idea of what is legal being what is right. But the two are very often misaligned.
EDIT: To answer your other question, CDs are somewhat before my time.
well if this is true this will be the end of the ITMS and back to limewire etc and sales of the ipod will drop ... so in othe words apple is geting screwed big time
$.99 Popular $.79 Non-top sellers $.49 Unknown
I think that they shouldn't raise the price over the $.99 established price either. Drop the price of the unknown bands or those that are not as popular. The record industry is just showing their true colours as always. If anything they're just going to make the illegal downloads more popular again.
I think that they shouldn't raise the price over the $.99 established price either. Drop the price of the unknown bands or those that are not as popular. The record industry is just showing their true colours as always. If anything they're just going to make the illegal downloads more popular again.
I like the flat pricing because it makes it simple. I think about the tracks I want and buy those above my personal threshold of "worth a buck".
With variable pricing, not only would I have to judge different tracks at different prices, I'd have to consider whether to buy a new release now, or wait to see if the price drops after the newness wears off.
Overall, I'd probably come out ahead with variable pricing, because I'd tend to buy more of the bargain music from the 1980s and 1990s and less of the 2000s music. Nevertheless, if Steve Jobs asks me to decide for him, I'd have them stick with fixed pricing.
With variable pricing, not only would I have to judge different tracks at different prices, I'd have to consider whether to buy a new release now, or wait to see if the price drops after the newness wears off.
Overall, I'd probably come out ahead with variable pricing, because I'd tend to buy more of the bargain music from the 1980s and 1990s and less of the 2000s music. Nevertheless, if Steve Jobs asks me to decide for him, I'd have them stick with fixed pricing.
easy solution.
We all buy iPods.
Then do what I do, take my full iPod to a friends house, transfer my tracks to his PC, then put his iTunes library onto mine. Buy the odd 'superstar' CD each month. Download the new band stuff from iTunes. New exciting stuff races up the charts, all the 'soul-less' 'superstar's get sweet fanny adams in royalites. Music industry dies.
We all buy iPods.
Then do what I do, take my full iPod to a friends house, transfer my tracks to his PC, then put his iTunes library onto mine. Buy the odd 'superstar' CD each month. Download the new band stuff from iTunes. New exciting stuff races up the charts, all the 'soul-less' 'superstar's get sweet fanny adams in royalites. Music industry dies.
Bwaha! Why would sales of iPods drop? People would just be stealing more MP3s. There's nothing to stop you from putting those on your iPod. If you think the iTMS is the big reason why people are buying the iPod, you're nuts.puckhead193 said:
In the words of the late, great Hunter S. Thompson:
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. Theres also a negative side. "
The funny thing is when Job's "explains" the pricing change we will all feel good and wonder why it had not happened sooner, be that the truth or not!
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. Theres also a negative side. "
The funny thing is when Job's "explains" the pricing change we will all feel good and wonder why it had not happened sooner, be that the truth or not!
Good thing I don't listen to music by 'superstars'.
I'm hoping at least the indie stuff will stay at 99 cents.
I'm hoping at least the indie stuff will stay at 99 cents.
macphisto said:
I agree. It would be dirt cheap to make studios, as apple pretty much makes the computers that are used to make music. It could even be 60 cents artist 40 cents Apple, and eliminate the record companies. This would give Apple exclusic=ve rights, but they need settle with apple corps before they do this.
All I can say is... Boo! I hope that doesn't happen, otherwise I'll stop buying from iTunes and start downloading again.