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.
iPod Boycott all $1,29 songs
- Thread starter arjen
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why? The record companies are obviously greedy as we all know only a few cents of each song goes to the actual artist hence why I like Trent Reznor and the guy from Radiohead putting out music on their own. Organizations like the RIAA are a joke a complete waste of everyones time I cant remember the last time the RIAA contributed more then lawsuits to old grandmothers can you? (yep they withhold paying out for every song from the artists also).
Lets actually take a look at what would go into purchasing a song at your local retail store, you've gotta get dressed (if you aren't already) do your thing, gotta hop in the car and drive over to your favorite music place, go find the section with the CD, go buy it (maybe wait in line), drive back, open and enjoy. Seems simple enough now lets put a price tag on the .10-.30 cents of gas you probably used to get there and back, and tack on a "for your time" charge to be out getting this CD. You can easily see how if you really wanted to get anal about being charged $1.29 a song for the "convenience" to download it then driving to the store to pick up a copy then you need to take a look at how much energy/gas it costs for you to go out and buy the CD heck with 15 songs you may not like much less care for. I also think the $.99 cent model spoiled people since its hard to ask for $.30 more for the same thing you've paid $.99 in the past for so I think Apple really screwed up with pricing it that way.
But.. but.. MacNoobie.. My time doesn't count when I'm going out to buy stuff.. Ohh really?!? try having your boss tell you that u can work for less or free cos your time isn't worth the paperwork much less handing you a check for the time you put in.
Everyones time is worth something even if you work at the BK Lounge.. This is very true in the high tech world, bandwidth, employee's being paid to keep iTunes up at all times, song selection, artwork with your song, improvements to iTunes and adding functionality etc. Not to mention the countless number of hours sound engineers/artists/promotion peeps put into making music sound as good as it does, studio space, the millions of dollars in sound equipment, etc etc.. its just the cost of doing business and of course putting money in your pocket.
Now don't get me wrong I hate paying $1.29 for a song especially with randomly scattered prices through out the iTunes store but seriously add up a time you'd like to be paid (maybe by those damn record executives) plus gas/wear and tear on your vehicle/pita charge for using your bike up hill and come back and tell me how much that CD really cost per song.. I'm willing to bet its more then $1.29.
Lets actually take a look at what would go into purchasing a song at your local retail store, you've gotta get dressed (if you aren't already) do your thing, gotta hop in the car and drive over to your favorite music place, go find the section with the CD, go buy it (maybe wait in line), drive back, open and enjoy. Seems simple enough now lets put a price tag on the .10-.30 cents of gas you probably used to get there and back, and tack on a "for your time" charge to be out getting this CD. You can easily see how if you really wanted to get anal about being charged $1.29 a song for the "convenience" to download it then driving to the store to pick up a copy then you need to take a look at how much energy/gas it costs for you to go out and buy the CD heck with 15 songs you may not like much less care for. I also think the $.99 cent model spoiled people since its hard to ask for $.30 more for the same thing you've paid $.99 in the past for so I think Apple really screwed up with pricing it that way.
But.. but.. MacNoobie.. My time doesn't count when I'm going out to buy stuff.. Ohh really?!? try having your boss tell you that u can work for less or free cos your time isn't worth the paperwork much less handing you a check for the time you put in.
Everyones time is worth something even if you work at the BK Lounge.. This is very true in the high tech world, bandwidth, employee's being paid to keep iTunes up at all times, song selection, artwork with your song, improvements to iTunes and adding functionality etc. Not to mention the countless number of hours sound engineers/artists/promotion peeps put into making music sound as good as it does, studio space, the millions of dollars in sound equipment, etc etc.. its just the cost of doing business and of course putting money in your pocket.
Now don't get me wrong I hate paying $1.29 for a song especially with randomly scattered prices through out the iTunes store but seriously add up a time you'd like to be paid (maybe by those damn record executives) plus gas/wear and tear on your vehicle/pita charge for using your bike up hill and come back and tell me how much that CD really cost per song.. I'm willing to bet its more then $1.29.
I agree. I am already not buying $1.29 songs. Hello??, has anybody heard of YouTube, go there and listen away. It is free!
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
First price hike in the history of iTunes on individual tracks. Ever. Considering the songs were 99 cents in 2003 (isn't that when the store began?) at 128k and are now still mostly 99 cents at 256k without DRM, I think a small price hike is damn fine. I mostly buy albums, and they have been variable for a while.
If you want to pitch a fit at the record companies, pick another battle.
First price hike in the history of iTunes on individual tracks. Ever. Considering the songs were 99 cents in 2003 (isn't that when the store began?) at 128k and are now still mostly 99 cents at 256k without DRM, I think a small price hike is damn fine. I mostly buy albums, and they have been variable for a while.
If you want to pitch a fit at the record companies, pick another battle.
This is because record companies refuse to change their revenue-sharing model to reflect the vastly more efficient distribution system that the internet provides over physical media more than it evinces overwhelming corporate greed.
Look up Napster and i2Hub.
It might not be worth it to you, but luckily for Apple some people are willing to pay $1.29 per song. Simple microeconomics, your marginal utility of buying a song from the iTunes Music Store is higher than others.
You choose how to spend your free time, which is (by definition) "free." If you choose to spend it by going to the store and buying a CD, that's your choice. The rest of your post hinges on the misconception that since you are able to download a song in less time and effort than you can go to the store and buy a CD, you should pay less. Think of it as paying for the convenience and availability.
OP, I admire your spirit, but if you really want to "beat the man", form a band, get really big, then don't sign up to capitol or any of the big labels, you'll be doing them far more damage that way than posting on an internet forum...
To any further argumenting in this thread, it's 30c, get over it, give it 6 months, and you won't notice at all, on the flip side, if you don't buy from iTunes, you'll be hurting the one company that tried to save the music industry from dissolving away from P2P piracy...
To any further argumenting in this thread, it's 30c, get over it, give it 6 months, and you won't notice at all, on the flip side, if you don't buy from iTunes, you'll be hurting the one company that tried to save the music industry from dissolving away from P2P piracy...
interesting logic
So, your logic is that the price hike is justified because it's been the same price since 2003? Oh, and they increased the bit rate and took off DRM... By my calculations, adding DRM probably made things more expensive by adding an extra step/time to the encoding process. I'm not really sure how increasing the bit rate would make things more expensive... because of increased storage? Because of increased bandwidth? In any event, those are both items that would have been paid for by Apple - the company that wanted to keep it at $0.99. So that point doesn't make much sense. By your logic, they should no longer be able to afford give away free singles of the week... heck they've been free since 2003 - about time for a price hike!
My first question is, are you an RIAA apologist? My next question is, do you understand a free market society? Supply and demand dictate price. If demand, as represented by the original poster, dwindles because of the price hike, prices will eventually go down, or record companies will lose comparitively more money. It's not a case of whining or pitching fits as you demeaningly suggest. It's just supply and demand.
IMO, this is an attempt by record companies to decrease Apple's share of power in music pricing. The reason being that when you can buy the same song on Amazon for $.99 and it's a $1.29 on iTunes, Apple will lose some business. Heck, they even have programs now that do the hunting for you.
So, your logic is that the price hike is justified because it's been the same price since 2003? Oh, and they increased the bit rate and took off DRM... By my calculations, adding DRM probably made things more expensive by adding an extra step/time to the encoding process. I'm not really sure how increasing the bit rate would make things more expensive... because of increased storage? Because of increased bandwidth? In any event, those are both items that would have been paid for by Apple - the company that wanted to keep it at $0.99. So that point doesn't make much sense. By your logic, they should no longer be able to afford give away free singles of the week... heck they've been free since 2003 - about time for a price hike!
My first question is, are you an RIAA apologist? My next question is, do you understand a free market society? Supply and demand dictate price. If demand, as represented by the original poster, dwindles because of the price hike, prices will eventually go down, or record companies will lose comparitively more money. It's not a case of whining or pitching fits as you demeaningly suggest. It's just supply and demand.
IMO, this is an attempt by record companies to decrease Apple's share of power in music pricing. The reason being that when you can buy the same song on Amazon for $.99 and it's a $1.29 on iTunes, Apple will lose some business. Heck, they even have programs now that do the hunting for you.
I refuse. If I want to buy a song, I'm gonna buy it. It's only $1.29. Hello.......
It's still $9.99 for a CD.
Wal-Mart and Amazon have all adopted the $1.29 songs. It's not just Apple.
It's still $9.99 for a CD.
Wal-Mart and Amazon have all adopted the $1.29 songs. It's not just Apple.
Supply and demand would take place if this were an "unregulated" market. By that I mean the labels have essentially colluded on the price and are telling any distributor out there that if they dont price in the manner they wish, they will no longer have the rights to distribute. The labels are acting as a group instead of individual companies. In my mind, that is monopolistic. Think of what the govt would do if HP, Dell, Apple and Lenovo (to name a few) all got together and told retailers what they could charge for computers of the EXACT same specs? All hell would break loose.
What the record labels are doing is a crime, but unfortunately Apple has to take it. And in the end so do we. If we stop buying music, nothing is going to happen. Too many people who don't think $1.29 is a lot to pay for a song will continue to buy.
Ah, the old "supply and demand" routine. Quite possibly the oldest trick in the book from every person who took economics in high school. Yes, I know what supply and demand are. Yes, I know how they're SUPPOSED to work. The problem is you're screwing your own pooch of a point. The record companies want to increase prices on what they think are more in-demand tunes. Same deal with HBO charging $2.99 for its TV show episodes.
And yes, price hikes are justified when they've been the same for that long. Song downloads are about the only thing that haven't increased in price in the past decade. My health insurance has gone up about $3 or $4 per pay period ($6 to $8 a month) each year.
I agree with you that the record companies want to decrease Apple's power in the music industry, but not by this. Walmart and Amazon did the exact same thing today. Giving everybody else different prices on music is the RIAA's power grab, not variable pricing. In fact, variable pricing goes back to your "supply and demand" thing.
And no, I'm not an RIAA apologist. Don't even get me started on those turds or the movie and TV studios. But as I said, this isn't the battle to fight.
I only buy CDs, and usually directly from the artists. Less than a dozen good albums are released every year. If a track is $1.29 on iTunes, chances are it's the current pop drivel polluting the airwaves and isn't even worth $0.99, so the higher price doesn't matter. If you have to have what the record companies want you to listen to, then consider the price difference a sin tax, like the taxes on cigarettes.
how about you boycott it.... while i continue to buy music for what i think is a very fair price
Believe what you want. I don't need music that much. I just bought 5 songs tonight on iTunes that were $.69 each. I refuse to pay more than $.99 per individual song.Haha sure. Oh wait, did I just say that out loud?
