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

iTunes $.69 $.99 & $1.29 when is it coming, how do you think it will be?

Jinsou

Jinsou

macrumors regular
Original poster
Nov 18, 2007
110
4
I basically think new releases and the top 10 will be 1.29, price drop after a bit to raise sales---> .69 when their oldies.... although Schiller said most will be .69... so i don't know, what do you guys think it will be like, and When is it coming?
 
I think $0.69 ones will apply to the songs that are not popular at all from one-hit wonder artists from some years back. Anything worth buying will be $1.29, even if they are oldies as long as they are fairly popular.
 
is that for sure theBB? I though I remembered the speech where they said something about new releases are going to be 1.29, 4 year old songs will be .99, and over 7 years is .69, or something like that.
 
puckhead193 said:
I think it will be annoying. One price and get over it. Most of my music is new releases so i think i'll be paying 1.29....
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that it would just be the "hit" songs that cost more, although nothing was really set in stone. I figure 2 or 3 tracks on an album will be 1.29 and the rest would be .99. As long as the album prices don't all of a sudden catch CDs, I'm all for it. I mean eventually prices have to go up due to inflation. 99 cents today isn't as much as it was when the iTunes Store debuted.
 
What is instead of by the age of the song, it was by record company? That would make more sense, to me at least...
 
In any record store the top ten albums are all cheap, around $12 bucks or so and the older they get the more expensive they are, Usually like $15 and up. I have a feeling that they are going to follow this model. The 69 cent stuff is going to be reserved for Menudos greatest hits, or when the cast of House cuts a Christmas album.
 
For decades now the record companies have sold budget-priced albums, most of them former big sellers from the back catalog. You see a lot of these CDs sold in the $7-10 price range. It seems they would like to duplicate this strategy with digital downloads. It will be interesting to see which recordings they feel are deserving of both lower and higher pricing, but my guess is you're going to see a lot of "classic rock" priced for less and a few premium new releases for more.
 
It'll be in April and I think it will be a pain. I hope the album prices stay the same for newer content because I think it's silly to pay that much for one song. :mad:
 
Wow! A whole 30 cents makes the difference between paying for a person's work and just stealing it. What is this world coming to? (Not that I am perfect:D)
 
you have to understand, it was the part of the negotiation with the record companies that apple gave in to. the record companies gave in to apple's request to drop DRM. i think it's a good trade.
 
txhockey9404 said:
Wow! A whole 30 cents makes the difference between paying for a person's work and just stealing it. What is this world coming to? (Not that I am perfect:D)
Click to expand...

The dude's username is "iTeen." What can you expect?

I have no idea how a slight price increase for the first time EVER drives primates and higher beings to stealing. It will be interesting to see what happens as watermarked music files populate such sites. Should make it easier to shut down such punks.

In related news, gasoline went up 8 cents/gallon at the station I go to often. So tomorrow, I'm going to fill up and drive off! HA!
 
txhockey9404 said:
Wow! A whole 30 cents makes the difference between paying for a person's work and just stealing it. What is this world coming to? (Not that I am perfect:D)
Click to expand...
Think about it. If you bought... lets say 1,240 songs, what would you rather pay, 99 cents for all of them, or $1.29 for all of them? It's only a $350+ difference. The $1.29 songs are 30% more expensive. While a 30 cent difference may not seem significant, 30% is.

You have a Lamborghini, which uses premium fuel, and gets 4 mpg. All the gas at the gas stations has exploded, so gas prices rise by 30% due to shortage! Pfft, it couldn't affect you could it?
 
bobertoq said:
Think about it. If you bought... lets say 1,240 songs, what would you rather pay, 99 cents for all of them, or $1.29 for all of them? It's only a $350+ difference. The $1.29 songs are 30% more expensive. While a 30 cent difference may not seem significant, 30% is.

You have a Lamborghini, which uses premium fuel, and gets 4 mpg. All the gas at the gas stations has exploded, so gas prices rise by 30% due to shortage! Pfft, it couldn't affect you could it?
Click to expand...

1) Nobody is going to buy 1,240 of the $1.29 songs like in a month. From what I understood, the $1.29 songs are not going to be ALL of the new songs. On new albums, they'll probably have 2 or 3 songs that are $1.29, the rest $.99. The albums will still vary as they do now but should still hover around $9.99 on average.

2) Even if the entire store went to $1.29, it would kind of be overdue. The songs have all been $.99 from day one, which means they haven't gone up in price for 8 years. Inflation means we've been paying less and less for these songs. It's hard to blame the recording companies for needing to bump those prices up once a friggin decade.

3) Has anybody noticed that the song quality has technically doubled? Most of the songs were 128kbps, and now they will all be 256k. It's not like we're getting stiffed like the cereal companies who are charging $3 for 12.9 ounces instead of 14 ounces (or various other similar tricks). This is about the most upfront price increase in any market.

4) Price increases don't justify stealing.
 
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