iTunes Pricing Structure Ridiculous

[IJ Reilly]

Might have something to do with the music industry trying to force Apple into the new agreement by letting Amazon having better pricing and DRM free.

That's correct, the industry fears Apple's growing dominance in music retailing. They began playing hardball some time ago. Apple makes a few cents per track -- the pricing on the iTMS is a reflection of the industry's wholesale pricing. That's why a CD costs what it does; that's why digital downloads cost what they do. But if there's one thing we've learned, it's that this simple fact can be repeated over and over, but some will never believe it.

 

[Resist]

Might have something to do with the music industry trying to force Apple into the new agreement by letting Amazon having better pricing and DRM free.

And that makes sense how?

 

[smurfjammer]

And that makes sense how?

Just read IJ Reilly last post...

 

[mkrishnan]

And that makes sense how?

It doesn't make sense, but the industry has taken the position repeatedly that they are afraid of iTunes's dominance and wish to block them from achieving a monopoly. This is alongside the decision by the same industry to repeatedly go after individuals for piracy and make it difficult to buy music electronically as the best means of dealing with their sales slumps...

Of course, their actions have to be carefully chosen to avoid the appearance of collusion for price fixing.

I think this is another salvo in a longer term battle to see what happens with music content sales. Apple and Amazon, FWIW, really do seem to be representing the consumer a lot more, from my perspective, than the recording industry is.

 

[pianojoe]

99.99% of iTunes users purchase the "newest and most popular".

Sorry. but this is big BS. I'd guess, 40%. There is actually a big market for not-the-top-40 music. I should know, I'm making a living out of this fact.

 

[pianojoe]

Everyone keeps saying Apple has no choice about their music prices. Well then how is it that Amazon doesn't have a problem with DRM free (and less expensive) music?

This is because the record labels have accepted to receive less money for their songs on Amazon.com than on iTunes. They do it because they want to break Apple's market dominance.

 

[Plutonius]

I know what they said but I am hearing now that most will cost $1.29. It seems Apple lied to us. Guess I am going back to Amazon for my music.

Now that Apple has raised it's prices, expect the music companies to start charging Amazon more and Amazon to raise their prices also.

 

[pianojoe]

Now that Apple has raised it's prices, expect the music companies to start charging Amazon more and Amazon to raise their prices also.

As I said, Apple doesn't make the price. As matter of fact, as a record label, I am to choose which of my releases will be lo, mid, or hi. Since the industry wants to cripple Apple's leadership in the download market, Amazon prices might stay down. Gives them kind of an edge.

 

[sbking]

Isnt aac better than mp3 though?

 

[Consultant]

The thread title should be changed to:

Random people with no knowledge of music industry speculate
on song prices set by the greedy music industry executives, and blames it on iTunes.

Isnt aac better than mp3 though?

At the same size
Mp4 (AAC) > Mp3 > WMA

 

[mkrishnan]

Mp4 (AAC) > Mp3 > WMA

I thought WMA was better than MP3 at a given bit rate (I mean, audio quality wise, not annoying-as-hell, useless-god-forsaken-format wise)?

 

[iTeen]

If I see a song I want at $1.29, I am going to open Limewire.
Simple as that.

 

[Consultant]

I thought WMA was better than MP3 at a given bit rate (I mean, audio quality wise, not annoying-as-hell, useless-god-forsaken-format wise)?

Green: original
Blue: Mp4 (AAC)
Red: Mp3
Yellow: WMA

Well for part of the music spectrum, WMA is better than Mp3
for a small part of the spectrum, Mp3 is better than WMA (where red > yellow)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mobile-music,489-6.html
What they said here is overall AAC> WMA > mp3

I have seen reviews pointing out Mp3 > WMA but there is no point because Mp4 is much better than the other formats.

 

[yossim]

If I see a song I want at $1.29, I am going to open Limewire.
Simple as that.

Limewire is illegal.

 

[NT1440]

It seems Apple lied to us.

What is this statement geared towards? Werent we all told of the new pricing structure? Is it geared towards that other statement of what you've "heard" ?

 

[realityking]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mobile-music,489-6.html

Comparison of pretty frequency graphs is almost meaningless for lossy Codecs since the objective is to remove inaudible parts of the track. The only meaningful way to compare lossy codecs is blind testing.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Limewire is illegal.

Limewire isn't illegal, using it to steal music is.

 

[yossim]

Limewire isn't illegal, using it to steal music is.

using music without paying for it is piracy. Isn't it?

 

[NT1440]

using music without paying for it is piracy. Isn't it?

Of course, but limewire is merely a means of exchanging data, if users choose to use it for downloading illegal music, thats on them.

 

[yossim]

I know that bit torrents in and of themselves are legal, but very often they are a convenient way to commit acts of piracy.

If I see a song I want at $1.29, I am going to open Limewire.
Simple as that.

Such a statement alludes to piracy. Right?

 

[NT1440]

Such a statement alludes to piracy. Right?

Sure does, but using limewire in itself is not illegal.

 

[rhsgolfer33]

It is people like you that allow Apple to sell their products at an inflated price. What you don't understand is that ultimately you WON'T end up saving money with Apple's new music pricing structure. Everyone keeps saying Apple has no choice about their music prices. Well then how is it that Amazon doesn't have a problem with DRM free (and less expensive) music?

Recently this new legal concept was invented, its called a contract. You see, these wonderful record companies have contracts, which, coincidentally are difficult to break, with Amazon to sell music at $.99 per song with no DRM. Apple just negotiated new contracts with these companies to sell some songs at $1.29 without DRM, expect Amazons prices to follow suit sometime in the future as they negotiate nifty new contracts with record companies.

And yeah, I will save money, I don't buy very popular music, so guess what, most of it will probably be $.99 or $.69 per song.

 

[Nermal]

Thats fine if you have that option...
In New Zealand we still can't get access to Amazon and the other digital music providers only support WMA

Digirama and Vodafone both sell MP3s.

 

[Resist]

What is this statement geared towards? Werent we all told of the new pricing structure? Is it geared towards that other statement of what you've "heard" ?

Yes we were all told of the new pricing structure, but they also said the majority of songs would not be priced at the $1.29 price point. This is opposite of latest news reports where they are now saying the majority of songs will cost $1.29 each.

 

[anjinha]

Yes we were all told of the new pricing structure, but they also said the majority of songs would not be priced at the $1.29 price point. This is opposite of latest news reports where they are now saying the majority of songs will cost $1.29 each.

You do know that rumor ≠ fact, right?