Apple to End iTunes Music Store Uniform Pricing Model?

[maddav]

Hmmm I wonder if this news topic has had the biggest ratio of negatives : positives ever?

I think I agree with the majority here that tiered pricing = bad for us, good for the uber-rich megastars.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Introducing iTunes 7. $7.95 per track. The ability to have Limewire built-in to share your "Podcasts".

 

[timon]

I really believe that the only way out is for artists en-mass to stop making agreements with record labels, and for everyone to go indie.

These days I really don see where even the artists need the record lables. All that is needed is a way to distribute the content to the public.

Apple now being the largest could easily be one of the distributers between the artists and the consumer. Wow 😀 , only one layer of added costs if you download. Add one more layer if you want to "Buy" a physical CD.

The artist would make a lot more money per song than they do now, Apple would make more and we would pay less. It's a WIN, WIN, WIN for all of us.

I love to see Sony BMG taken down a BUNCH!😎

 

[VanNess]

The record companies are NOT doing this to blindly grab a little extra cash. The ITMS market is small. Very small.
They are pushing to charge more for 'superstars' to maintain their influence on the music-buying public. While all the money is being made from a dull repititious few, they can control the airwaves and charts. The way it is done now, with a 'hit single' that gets high rotation (not without a little coersion), and that spurs a massive (and brief) demand for the album, the record companies call the shots.
It is the beautiful democracy of 0.99 tracks that has them scared.

I'm not sure about the 99 cent democracy movement, but I agree that a lot of this is about who is going to control online music. Because control (the distribution of content) is exactly what the record companies have been used to since the heyday of LP's and CD's, but now the internet potentially makes that once unbreakable model and the very reason for the record companies existence obsolete.

The last thing the record companies want is for Steve Jobs to call all of the shots and effectively seed control of music distribution and pricing to Apple via iTunes and iPods. There are probably a number of reasons for this, but the most important one is that music industry professionals (musicians, producers, engineers, etc) outside of the record companies normal operations will view the record companies becoming more and more irrelevant as the transition from physical CD's to online music stores occurs. For the record companies, the internet changes everything, and it's a sea change with no looking back. Right now, they're trying to strong-arm their way into being perceived as still relevant by making claims like unpaid royalties from your unborn child if you were playing RIAA licensed music during pregnancy. It's getting about that ridiculous.

In the long run, going forward, who would want to do any business with these creeps given their present actions unless there was simply no choice? Steve Jobs? I notice a number of "superstars" have begun making high profile personal appearances at Apple events lately. Madonna, Wynton Marsalis, Kayne West, all of them calling the CEO of Apple on a friendly, first name basis: "Steve..." 🙂

A little Steve Jobs message to the record companies perhaps? Sheer speculation: I wonder just how Apple is planning going to settle the Apple Corps lawsuit? iTunes doesn't have terrestrial distribution, but if they came to a special agreement with the Beatles icon label? How many more "superstars" might come calling, referring to Steve Jobs as "Steve...?"

 

[cornfedgrowth]

prices

Why do people think that prices for the back catalogue are going to go down? They're selling them for 99 cents now, why would they lower it? sure, it doesnt mesh with supply and demand, but when has the record company ever made sense? prices are only going up. wait and see.

 

[rickvanr]

This is the exact opposite practice of record stores. When I go in looking for an unknown artist, it's usually $30+ for their record, when you see the "what's popular this month" rack full of discs for $11.99, but I do understand with physical property the laws of supply and demand come in which explain the record store's logic.

So this news is good in a way, but bad in another.

 

[nichos]

Limewire will be gone within the year, just as Grockster just went. Sorry, but the industry is rightfully winning cases against people who steal.

Limewire is nothing more than a front end to the Gnutella protocol. They can close all they want. There are a ton of better, open source projects out there ( http://acqlite.sourceforge.net/ being my fav., much faster than limewire) Limewire isn't gnutella, just a front-end. Also, gnutella doesn't have a single point of failure, like napster did.

 

[nichos]

this is rediculous...The music industry makes no sense. They are already dying, why are they trying to further kill themselves off?? People hate them enough, they should be appeasing us and even LOWERING some prices. I will love seeing these big crap companies fold and die off, maybe actual MUSIC will be made again 😡 😡

I think they're going down fighting. They know their buisiness model is doomed, and they're going to try to get what they can, while they can

 

[varmit]

Back to Limewire I guess 🙄

Too bad, I only spent $182 on music, now its going to be $0

Limewire, BAH!, Try Poisened. But back on topic, this will just make the rich richer, and the little guys that are trying to get in the music business fall flat. This is a stupid idea.

 

[Loge]

I don't mind paying more for a longer song, instead of them being album only at present, which is really annoying, but I don't think I would pay more for a new release (popular) song, particularly as such CDs are typically discounted by the stores.

 

[dotdotdot]

This would REALLY suck...

If they do, I'm switching to P2P apps. I will pay THE MOST a dollar for a song. Nothing more.

 

[danielsan26]

If this was slashdot I'd mod you +5 informative.. those were excellent links, simply excellent and I appreciate it.

Until the RIAA passes legislation (notice I didn't say politicians) that forces me to hand over half my paycheck for ashley simpson CD's, I won't be giving a single dime to their cartel.. hear that RIAA? Hear me now? Sue away..

Wish I could take the kudos, but I found the forum where I got those and it turns out that Abstract gets the credit for his post here.

 

[aswitcher]

Beginning of the end for iTunes...

The only way it might work is if CDs go up in price or they open the DRM up for other music players to keep the market growing...

 

[FaasNat]

Sigh.

Hope people keep posting (and posting more) about really good "unknown" artists that didn't have their hand in this and are going to make less (per song, hopefully more overall).

This would be cool, but then I think Apple (the computer company) will really be treading on thin ice with the agreement it has with Apple (the music company).

 

[hulugu]

I really don't have a problem with this, and its not a foreign concept, like many people are treating it.

Traditional CDs and DVDs work the exact same way -- new releases and more popular items are more expensive than older, less popular CDs and DVDs. Hence, the bin of $ 5.99 CDs/DVDs at the store.

Why should digital music and movies be any different? (And, why aren't you people out bitchin' about the traditional CDs/DVDs cost structure if this model will be so "evil")

In addition, this rumor says nothing about "superstars" getting more money. It says "more popular". Supply and demand. Number 1 song would cost $1.99 when its first released and then probably drop to 79 cents when no one wants it no more (just like traditional CDs)

Limewire will be gone within the year, just as Grockster just went. Sorry, but the industry is rightfully winning cases against people who steal.

First, few of us believe that supply-n-demand will work within the economic cartel that is the RIAA, so let's stop pretending that the 'free-market' operates here.

Second, it is more likely that new releases will go up dramatically, large numbers of older stuff will stay the same and only the most obscure titles will go down in price. Thus, we'll pay more for the same stuff.

Third, 'superstars' are by definition more popular.

Fourth, stealing is not the same thing as copyright infringment; they are morally and legally different things and should remain so. Your, and the RIAAs, obsfucation of this very important fact is one of the reasons this current situation continues to get worse. Copyright is an important part of the legal structure of the United States, but it is by nature a limited right, constrained by the ideals of the public good as well as economics.

 

[hulugu]

I think they're going down fighting. They know their buisiness model is doomed, and they're going to try to get what they can, while they can

And drag everyone down with them. I say we poke a hole in their life-preserver and let the bastards drown. The RIAA/MPAA is a cartel and a boat-anchor to economic progress.

 

[Mechcozmo]

It sounded like to me Jobs is being forced into this. Steve Jobs is a smart man. He set the .99 cent limit originally and he probably won't throw it away without a thought.

 

[sethypoo]

On the filp side there are a lot of new artists that most people neglect because they don't want to waste $1 on something they may not like. At .50 or .75 its worth a gamble though. And wouldn't it be nice to be able to afford to experiment with music that Infinity or one of the other mega radio station owners don't shove down your throat and tell you to like it?

You're forgetting the fact that the record companies will likey require all of their songs to be at least .99, and that all the big names will be $1.25 or more.

Things will not get cheaper, just more expensive. Not worth it!

 

[MM2270]

Why do people think that prices for the back catalogue are going to go down? They're selling them for 99 cents now, why would they lower it? sure, it doesnt mesh with supply and demand, but when has the record company ever made sense? prices are only going up. wait and see.

From an article about the price changes:

"EMI Music feels Apple will change the iTunes Music Store (iTMS) pricing structure within a year, according to the Wall Street Journal. EMI speculates that Apple will raise the price of popular songs, and lower the price of less popular songs and performers."

So, at this point, the music execs, at least this guy from EMI, are saying they would lower prices on less popular artists. Of course, I wouldn't trust these slimebags for anything in the world, but we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

 

[iHateWindows]

I love Xfactor and Poisoned.

 

[stefan15]

Sweet..works for me. All this means is other companies will get to step up to the plate, offering the $.99

 

[freiheit]

Bollocks.

Pure, unadulterated greed.😡

You said it. Sure makes me glad that the music industry's refusal over the last 15 years to promote any decent acts has led me to seek out indie and unknown artists, so the major labels won't be seeing an additional dime from me if they do coerce Apple into a two tiered pricing structure. My music will still be cheap.

 

[Konradx]

luckily anything i listen to isnt even listed on itunes, and the stuff that would be would be really cheap.

But what they'll probably do is leave unknown goodness at stock price while make trendy crap much more expensive. If the music industry wasnt so anal id start paying for music..but most the music i pay for are on indie labels..gotta support them

 

[freiheit]

And drag everyone down with them. I say we poke a hole in their life-preserver and let the bastards drown. The RIAA/MPAA is a cartel and a boat-anchor to economic progress.

Not to mention an anchor to creativity and consumer choice. The same droning, mindlessly repetitive junk has been churned out by the major labels and movie studios for so long that there's no chance of anyone or anything actually being original in that market anymore. Remember when MTV began? There were at least a dozen varied styles that all suddenly found enormous popularity. To my (still somewhat youthful) ears, the majority of "artists" today all sound pretty much alike. After the thirteenth mega star boy band, it's just not interesting anymore.

 

[projectle]

Am I really the only one thinking WTF are you all talking about???

Supply and Demand Echonomics only works when SUPPLY is limited.

In this case, supply is infinite, as no physical exchange of product ever happens.

Additionally, is there ANY justification why a CD of music should be anywhere near comparably priced to a movie???

Consider the following... a typical movie is 2 Hours and retails for $15 on DVD.
A Typical CD is $12-$20, and lasts between 35 Minutes and an Hour.

So, let me call BS on the recording industry. It takes approximately $5000 to produce a CD, the rest is all marketing to get it aired on the radio, duplication, distribution, etc.
An Independant film takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce, with major ones being hundreds of millions of dollars.

In a truly electronic distribution system, duplication costs are nothing.