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

iTunes Store Variable Pricing to Begin April 7th?

This is awesome. No I can buy from Amazon all the time, and everyone else will too.

Don't get me started on HD movies from iTunes not playing on every monitor hooked up through mini-DP on my UMB.
 
iTunes Store Variable Pricing to Begin April 7th?



The Los Angeles Times reports that implementation of variable pricing in the iTunes Store will occur on April 7th.
The world's largest music store, Apple's iTunes, plans to boost the price of many hit singles and selected classic tracks to $1.29 on April 7, breaking the psychological barrier of 99 cents in what could be the first big test of how much consumers are willing to pay to download individual songs.

Although the date for higher prices has not been publicly announced, Apple has been notifying record labels it will go into effect on that date, industry executives said.
Click to expand...
The LA Times also discusses how music labels will set pricing for individual songs, basing the decision primarily on artists' popularity.
True to supply-and-demand economics, the price of music downloads will be geared to the artist's popularity. Releases from new artists would receive the lower pricing, while tracks from popular acts would get slapped with the higher rate. Even classics, such as Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA," could retail for the higher price. Most of the 10 million songs in the iTunes catalog are expected to remain at 99 cents.
Click to expand...
Apple announced at Macworld 2009 that the iTunes Store would shift to variable pricing in April with price points at $0.69, $0.99, and $1.29. Despite increased prices for certain individual tracks, Apple has claimed that most album prices will remain at $9.99.

Article Link: iTunes Store Variable Pricing to Begin April 7th?
 
Wow, I can see the first song at $16!!! and the most expensive song price competition.
 
I'd forgotten they were going to do that well if I'm wanting to buy any songs they raised the price on I guess its over to amazon or pirating it.
 
Thank goodnes

I have long thought that the labels should be able to set their own prices. Don't we live in a free market, Steve? :rolleyes:
 
What about lower prices?

If some tracks are going up $0.30, why not lower more tracks to $0.69? Oh yes, they are trying to make more money! I'm sure very few tracks will be at the $0.69 price point.
 
Thats stupid, the reason songs have been cheaper on I-tunes is that its electronic there is no CD or case and artwork to come with it. This is stupid to pay CD pricing for electronic music. Money games.
 
They will be lowering some tracks to $0.69. At least, let's hope that the number of cheaper tracks is reasonable.

If album prices remain at $9.99, I can see more people buying the whole album instead of buying individual higher-priced tracks.

The problem I see is that variable pricing by popularity or new release suggests that prices attached to a particular song may change over time. I know I'd be tempted to wait instead of buying today, hoping that maybe in a few months the price will drop to 99 cents. I'd also be concerned that a surge in popularity on a 69-cent track might be cause for Apple to suddenly raise its price to 99 cents.
 
Dear record labels,

I will not be buying any $1.29 songs.

Sincerely,
Used to be your best customer, having bought 1000+ CDs and 100s of LPs before that.

P.S. Good luck with the price increase. Right in time for the economy tanking, and people having way less discretionary income.
 
i would never pay more than .99 for a digital song. that's ridiculous. i think that .69 is the most reasonable. hell, .99 is a bit too much anyway but, i like that they added .69 tier to the catalog.
 
Ted13 said:
Dear record labels,

I will not be buying any $1.29 songs.

Sincerely,
Used to be your best customer, having bought 1000+ CDs and 100s of LPs before that.

P.S. Good luck with the price increase. Right in time for the economy tanking, and people having way less discretionary income.
Click to expand...

Im stealing this.
 
Back in the day this was discussed, basically apple only makes like $0.03 a song, stating that to keep the .99 model and pay artists/producers what "they" wanted apple would loose money on iTunes.

As far as the "supply and demand" theory. I don't think apple has a limited number of downloads per track, more of a file, copy-paste thing.

It'll be a sad sad sad day... (it was a lot easier to justify, .99 but 1.29, can really add up to be a difference, unless they make every fourth track a free download:rolleyes:)
 
I agree with techage14. 99 cents is the most I really want to pay for a song. I'll stop buying from iTunes. There are plenty of other digital music retailers that will be selling the most popular songs cheaper.

Nobody likes to see price increases...
 
notjustjay said:
If album prices remain at $9.99, I can see more people buying the whole album instead of buying individual higher-priced tracks.
Click to expand...

I think this is really the point. Labels have been lamenting individual song sales online mostly because people aren't buying albums any more. I think if they keep album prices reasonable for the lack of packaging and album art etc. inherent in the cost of a physical product, while charging a surcharge on single tracks to encourage album sales it's a pretty reasonable and fair scenario for consumers, artists and labels.
 
variable pricing over time

notjustjay said:
. . .

The problem I see is that variable pricing by popularity or new release suggests that prices attached to a particular song may change over time. I know I'd be tempted to wait instead of buying today, hoping that maybe in a few months the price will drop to 99 cents. I'd also be concerned that a surge in popularity on a 69-cent track might be cause for Apple to suddenly raise its price to 99 cents.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it is already like that in the brick-and-mortar world. Except that it only applies to albums which usually take years for prices to go down. That's just my impression. You know the ones that say 'Super Saver' or have some sticker. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes for the price to drop. I think you're right that it'll be under a year.

Maybe some enterprising soul would be able to track a random sample of songs to see how the prices vary (if they even do).
 
earthandtone said:
Thats stupid, the reason songs have been cheaper on I-tunes is that its electronic there is no CD or case and artwork to come with it. This is stupid to pay CD pricing for electronic music. Money games.
Click to expand...


Ya... It'd be nice to hear the explanation for how Supply/Demand logic actually applies to 'infinite' supply of digital downloads.
 
Wow, the downfall of Apple is upon us.

Ominous signs that Apple are falling apart:

1. They are increasing the price of everything: mac mini, mac pro, now itunes songs when the competition is decreasing the price - eg. Dell Intel i7 Desktops for just over $1000 dollars.

2. Windows 7 - it is getting rave reviews and works on sub-standard Netbooks, whereas OSX is slow and needs at least a core 2 duo to run well.

3. There is a huge gap between Mac Pro and iMac; a mid-level desktop is seriously needed.

4. The Macbooks Pro are severely over-priced and underpowered. Dell have 15inch and 17 inch laptops for under $1000, that means the equivalent Apple laptops are 100% more expensive. And where are the quad core laptops?

5. The price of the 24 LED screen is unbelievable, considering you can buy superior LGs and Samsung for a third of that price.

6. Their Pro Apps are becoming a joke. Logic gets updated every 4 years, whereas the competition eg. Pro Tools get updated every 6 months.
 
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