Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's Ongoing iTunes Negotiations

99 cents is good.

99 cents per song is a really good deal, but I usually download albums. $10 Canadian for an entire album is a really good deal, and I'd gladly do that rather than buy from a store. If iTunes gets more expensive, I might think twice.
 
WillMak said:
would anyone here support a 1.00 per song pricing if they changed the 128kbit to 192?
Click to expand...

For a penny more? Yeah, i think i'd pay a penny for 192kbit encoded files. If they raised it to 1.99... they might as well just go tell me to download limewire right now... (that or go support RIAA free bands and lables) As a poor college student who doesn't spend that much on music anyway, any increase in pricing is gonna shut down my iTunes habit.
 
Apple would lose credit

If Apple changed its pricing to a tier system, not only would it become more expensive for us, but iTMS would lost its credibility. The motto is 99 cents a song, if it changed, what would it be: The iTunes Music Store, 100,000 songs, and more than a dollar a song. Just isn't as catchy. People know it for the price tag it's been flaunting, if this were to change all hell would break lose...Nope just exaggerating there, but it would be bad for Apple.
 
I like the idea of afew months at Record Industry prices (as they want them now.) Alternatively the tiered model could fall below 99c. ie 99c for popular songs and 50c for older songs. Heh.... whatever!:eek:
 
Veritas&Equitas said:
I'll have to admit, as much as I love the $.99 thing that the Music Store does have going for it, the music industry DOES have a point. Since when do retailers tell the suppliers what they will be paying for goods? It seems a little backwards to me, not that I'm complaining, b/c I hate record companies just as much as the next guy...but it does make some sense....
Click to expand...

When they're the only legitimate retailer! But on the other hand, when do suppliers tell retailers what to CHARGE for goods?

The system right now seems pretty normal. Back in the day a vinyl 45 with 2 songs on it cost the same across the board. All the singles were the exact same price. Now the albums, that was different. A crappy album would be cheap, or a great selling album might be cheap, and the whatever albums would be pricey. Over time, the good albums always cost a little more while the cruddy ones went to the bargin bin, etc.

It's the same with iTunes right now. I've seen full albums for as little as $5.99. (The Police) and other albums be $12.99. Both have 11 or 12 songs. The practice of selling a particular song as album only is also gaining speed.

Seems normal to me. The only difference these days is you have the luxury of buying almost any song as a single. Yeah, some of them are throwaway tracks you wouldn't buy at any price. But it must increase sales overall.
 
Ha... RIAA is super evil. I'm soooo glad the aquarian age of emergig nobility is now dilluiting the bone gnawing for blood RIAA industry with well examined behavioral marketing models.

...

Godspeed Apple to the ending of history! You inspire all us oil wollowing feinds with creative modalities of more rightous materialistic captialism

OM...
 
That said 99 cents a song is expensive and ludicris... I would suggest 33 cents a song and (apple should really compete with its own price here)... and a variable pricing for albums...
 
pacman7331 said:
That said 99 cents a song is expensive and ludicris... I would suggest 33 cents a song and (apple should really compete with its own price here)... and a variable pricing for albums...
Click to expand...

You do realize THAT is ludicrous? That barely covers the songwriter and publishers royalty. What is left for Apple and the record company? Not even enough to cover their costs of doing business. I'll best the rest of the band would like a little bit too. You realize that's the only place the musicians on a album or song make any money at all, right? They make a percentage of PROFITS. The authors and publishers get a set amount of money for each sale and for each play on the radio. It's around 5-10 cents years ago, but possibly more now.

But hey, let's just ream everybody and maybe they'll just quit making music altogether.
 
It doesn't make sense to charge more.

Veritas&Equitas said:
I'll have to admit, as much as I love the $.99 thing that the Music Store does have going for it, the music industry DOES have a point. Since when do retailers tell the suppliers what they will be paying for goods? It seems a little backwards to me, not that I'm complaining, b/c I hate record companies just as much as the next guy...but it does make some sense....
Click to expand...
Look, there is a simple reason to keep the price of songs low; it makes pirating them less advantageous. $ 0.99 doesn't seem like a lot of cash, but $ 1.99 for a few songs would make someone just download from whomever they can get it from. It would hurt the record industry and iTunes. Apple is smart to put their foot down on this issue. Not to mention, the record company doesn't have to produce any actual physical product for delivery, so if you paid $0.99 for the amount of songs that comes on an album, they would make something like $12.00. The problem for the record companies is that nobody wants the whole album for most of the lousy bands they put out, so they only sell one song. To fix this problem I suggest they get better talent that can put out good music, instead of people that just look attractive and dance.
 
bretm said:
You do realize THAT is ludicrous? That barely covers the songwriter and publishers royalty. What is left for Apple and the record company? Not even enough to cover their costs of doing business. I'll best the rest of the band would like a little bit too. You realize that's the only place the musicians on a album or song make any money at all, right? They make a percentage of PROFITS. The authors and publishers get a set amount of money for each sale and for each play on the radio. It's around 5-10 cents years ago, but possibly more now.

But hey, let's just ream everybody and maybe they'll just quit making music altogether.
Click to expand...

I don't think pacman was being serious. I found it quite humorus, in fact.
 
I know it is breaking the law, but darnit if they raise the prices I will go back to pirating ALL my music OUT OF SPITE. I will even pirate MORE music than I need! (which, is a useless statement as ANY music is more than I NEED - but the RIAA seems to think we NEED it!)

Revolutions are often against the government (and therefore their law), but sometimes you have to do what you believe in. I will continue to support artists by attending concerts.

EDIT: I say let Apple develop their own label (not named Apple, or course), but one that exclusively supplies the iTMS. Let them sell for $.50 a track, subtract overhead, and split 50/50 with artist.
 
No kidding, you only get 128 kbits on ITMS?
I tried all iTunes engocing formats, AAC is the worst on 128 kbits. Is it ok if I buy an album on iTunes and then download the thing in better quality on p2p networks? :p

I don't know if Apple makes really much profit of ITMS itself. I think it's main purpose it to sell iPods.
 
mlrproducts said:
EDIT: I say let Apple develop their own label (not named Apple, or course), but one that exclusively supplies the iTMS. Let them sell for $.50 a track, subtract overhead, and split 50/50 with artist.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, nice idea. We could finally believe Steve saying "We love music".
 
I think the price should actually be less than 99 cents but I won't complain about this price and I gladly pay it over having to drive down to Best Buy and pay 15 bucks for the same songs
 
Raised prices = Raised piracy

I love the artists but hate the labels.
**** (self-edited) the major labels.
The artists need to make a living... and the record company execs need to stop being greedy.

It's a sensitive issue.
 
Common Practice

In response to your comment:
Veritas&Equitas said:
I'll have to admit, as much as I love the $.99 thing that the Music Store does have going for it, the music industry DOES have a point. Since when do retailers tell the suppliers what they will be paying for goods? It seems a little backwards to me, not that I'm complaining, b/c I hate record companies just as much as the next guy...but it does make some sense....
Click to expand...
I would like to point out that many retailers do exactly the same thing. Wal-Mart would be one of the most obvious examples, but so, too, with many other retailers.
 
-prices go up= piracy for pave....its not hard.
-with 99 cent songs, i know im not pissing my money away
-i feel good about buying through itunes, its a brilliant process, if you dont take total sound quality into acount

Anyway..........

To sum it all up, if they raise prices i will stop using itunes, starting pirating, and MAYBE feel bad for doing so....for a millisecond. Maybe reminisce about how i used to buy songs, while i listen to my new...free...music......:cool:

pave
 
Either way if steve wins or not the iTMS brings competition to the US market and that is never bad. Over here there is no real online retailer, so we have to pay about $25 for a CD, and we dont have a choice.... come on apple... get this over with and bring out the music store in more countries!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back