I can see pricing so that the 2-3 "hit" songs on the album are more expensive and the rest are cheaper. Kind of how like it used to be when you bought an album for a few good songs and got the rest effectively for free.
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.
iTunes Store Variable Pricing to Begin April 7th?
- Thread starter Lesser Evets
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I can see pricing so that the 2-3 "hit" songs on the album are more expensive and the rest are cheaper. Kind of how like it used to be when you bought an album for a few good songs and got the rest effectively for free.
It seems that longer songs haven't been available on itunes individually. Maybe with variable pricing, they will be willing to sell these longer songs. This could be one positive for the customer. Personally, I prefer the sound quality of CDs, but more choice for the customer is always good.
The same way it applies to software sales right now. Pricing doesn't reflect only the marginal cost of making another copy of the song, which is basically zero, it includes the costs of development.
If demand is higher, the price can be higher and the artist will increase revenues. that's because songs aren't all in perfect competition for each other. If you want Jonas Brothers, U2 isn't going to be a substitute. Yes, at large you may have money to buy only $20 of songs, so higher prices mean less songs, but it's not like you're going to buy what you don't want because it's 30c less.
As an independent artist who has a record on iTunes, I'd like to share a couple of things about how it works now.
You have to go through a company like Tunecore or CD Baby to even get a record on iTunes. Apple will not deal directly with you. You pay a small amount for this service, but you get to keep all royalties you get from Apple (with Tunecore). That is $7 per album sold and $.70 per song sold. Apple keeps the rest.
You have no control over the price. Apple sets the price however they want. But you get paid the same no matter what they charge for it. On Amazon, I had several choices. I wonder if this will now change. I'd love to be able to lower the price of our record on iTunes.
Currently I tell everyone that our album is cheaper on Amazon and they should buy it there.
So unless Apple changes their policy and allows independent artists to set their own price point, I see nothing here that benefits or hurts independent artists.
And let's be honest here. This is a price increase. Anyone that thinks there is going to be as many $.69 tracks as $1.29 tracks is crazy. Popular stuff will be priced higher. Both new releases as well as popular catalog stuff. Does anyone think "Dark Side of the Moon" is not going to go up in price?
Now I generally buy the whole album and I only use iTunes when it is not on Amazon, so I don't care that much, but this is a price hike, plain and simple.
And let me be clear, it is their right to raise the price, especially if the market will continue to pay. That just means the price was too low to begin with. But if revenue drops because of the price hike, they will lower it. If you don't like it, vote with your dollars. Buy from Amazon! That is what I do.
Probably at first, but given how much purchase data they'll be getting, if demand doesn't support those prices, you'll see prices drop.
I would guess it will settle out, and you'll see new singles for real cheap at first, but with the price increasing after a few weeks after it's become "#1 hit" and then eventually dropping back down after a while when it's no longer a hit.
mp3s age like a fine cellared wine?
Just so I understand, mp3s now age so well, they begin to go up in price as time goes by...?
I'm a huge
guy, but it's been a long time since I bought anything from the iTunes store - there are so many better alternatives. My choice is Amazon - they have everything, it cost less, the tracks are better quality, and there hasn't been any DRM for some time.
I think Apple needs to be very careful how they let the record companies shape their product offerings - they will start losing to more flexible competition.
Just so I understand, mp3s now age so well, they begin to go up in price as time goes by...?
I'm a huge
guy, but it's been a long time since I bought anything from the iTunes store - there are so many better alternatives. My choice is Amazon - they have everything, it cost less, the tracks are better quality, and there hasn't been any DRM for some time.I think Apple needs to be very careful how they let the record companies shape their product offerings - they will start losing to more flexible competition.
so true but brings up a point of dose this mean i have to contact my distrabuter and say i want my tracks increased or decreased. As i have an album on the itunes store and as a little guy id like to know were i stand (note iam not that small just in the eyes of record labels)
It still applies because while you can download a song an infinite number of times, there is not an infinite number of songs available on the store. And the utility of each each song is not the same for each consumer.
In this example, the supply is the music on the store. What the record companies are doing is assuming (probably correctly) that demand is greater for some artists on the store over others. If that is true, then they should be able to charge more for these songs because people are not likely to pick a similar song by a different artist because it is cheaper. They want that song.
This is really no different then it is now with CDs. They can essentially print an infinite number of CDs. As someone pointed out, the costs are essentially the same anyway. My band printed 250 CDs of our record and it cost about $2.30 per disc. I can only imagine how cheap it is to print 100,000. All the cost is in recording and producing the music, and this has not really changed much. Although it is much cheaper now than it was ten years ago.
There will be more at 69 cents
Like a lot of things in life, the 80/20 rule will apply here, or in this case even more likely it will be closer to 90/10. 10% of the 1,000,000 plus songs in iTunes are responsible for 90% of the revenue, and likely the bottom 60 or 70% are just there to boost the numbers and have a complete library, and help make iTunes a 1-stop shopping experience, and they are rarely sold. I'll wager that Apple could lower the slowest selling 50% of the iTunes library to 69 cents, and increase revenue on that segment, and raise only the top 5 or 10% of the best sellers to $1.29 and again increase revenue in this segment as well. Sales may slow in the $1.29 segment, but as long as revenue is up, Apple wins.
Just my 2 cents.
Like a lot of things in life, the 80/20 rule will apply here, or in this case even more likely it will be closer to 90/10. 10% of the 1,000,000 plus songs in iTunes are responsible for 90% of the revenue, and likely the bottom 60 or 70% are just there to boost the numbers and have a complete library, and help make iTunes a 1-stop shopping experience, and they are rarely sold. I'll wager that Apple could lower the slowest selling 50% of the iTunes library to 69 cents, and increase revenue on that segment, and raise only the top 5 or 10% of the best sellers to $1.29 and again increase revenue in this segment as well. Sales may slow in the $1.29 segment, but as long as revenue is up, Apple wins.
Just my 2 cents.
Can't Get Away With That
Hey, you can't get away with your drive-by troll attempt without someone correcting your FUD. I see you're new here (joined just this month!) so you'll get off easy this time.
1. Mac Mini price did NOT go up. It stayed the same while the specs went up. Now, in Australia and maybe elsewhere it might have, but it had to due to the dollar exchange rates. In US dollars it's the same.
2. OSX is slow? Where on earth did you get THAT from? OSX runs fine on ancient hardware, and on every release it just gets faster & faster (OK, except ONE, and I forget the exact version). And OSX runs just dandy on an ARM processor.... you know, the portable chip in the iPhone. Try THAT with Windows.Anything.
3. I happen to agree with you on that one.
4. So Dell has a 15 and 17" laptop for under $1k, is THAT the ONLY spec you use to compare? If you price out an EQUIVALENT laptop from Dell & HP vs the MacBook, they are within spitting distance of each other. Google for price comparisons and you'll see. But you must have done that already, right? If not, try this one chosen at random:
http://technologizer.com/2008/10/19/is-the-new-macbook-expensive/
5. Don't know about this. Do you? Give us some links.
6. You said Pro Apps, plural, but you only mention Logic. As for the other pro apps I see updates for them at a fairly regular rate. Is it just Logic that you have a complaint about? And what exactly is your complaint? Is Logic lacking is some specific feature update that you're wanting, or you just want to see generic updates at a faster rate? And Apple's Pro apps are anything but a joke. Ask channel 12 in my home town. They couldn't live without em.
Yes, ominous signs indeed. If you want to see signs of a giant corporation starting to fall apart, I suggest you look at Microsoft.
Hey, you can't get away with your drive-by troll attempt without someone correcting your FUD. I see you're new here (joined just this month!) so you'll get off easy this time.
1. Mac Mini price did NOT go up. It stayed the same while the specs went up. Now, in Australia and maybe elsewhere it might have, but it had to due to the dollar exchange rates. In US dollars it's the same.
2. OSX is slow? Where on earth did you get THAT from? OSX runs fine on ancient hardware, and on every release it just gets faster & faster (OK, except ONE, and I forget the exact version). And OSX runs just dandy on an ARM processor.... you know, the portable chip in the iPhone. Try THAT with Windows.Anything.
3. I happen to agree with you on that one.
4. So Dell has a 15 and 17" laptop for under $1k, is THAT the ONLY spec you use to compare? If you price out an EQUIVALENT laptop from Dell & HP vs the MacBook, they are within spitting distance of each other. Google for price comparisons and you'll see. But you must have done that already, right? If not, try this one chosen at random:
http://technologizer.com/2008/10/19/is-the-new-macbook-expensive/
5. Don't know about this. Do you? Give us some links.
6. You said Pro Apps, plural, but you only mention Logic. As for the other pro apps I see updates for them at a fairly regular rate. Is it just Logic that you have a complaint about? And what exactly is your complaint? Is Logic lacking is some specific feature update that you're wanting, or you just want to see generic updates at a faster rate? And Apple's Pro apps are anything but a joke. Ask channel 12 in my home town. They couldn't live without em.
Yes, ominous signs indeed. If you want to see signs of a giant corporation starting to fall apart, I suggest you look at Microsoft.
What, are you kidding? I run 10.5.6 on a 2GHz G5, and it runs beautifully.
That's iPhone OS, not OSX.
It's still a version of OS X.
To the topic in general, I don't buy much music, and when I do, it's usually full albums (mostly classical music). I doubt this will affect me very much.
If you want to argue that, then you have to count Windows Mobile as a version of Windows, too, so Wingsy's point that Windows can't run on an ARM is still invalid.
I suspect that Spotify and similar services will kill itunes in a year or less.
I'm in the UK and have been using it for the last week. It's amazing. Streams almost instantly, quality as good as itunes. Track library isn't quite as broad as itunes but it's impressive. The advertising is very light - every fifteen minutes or so - and I might just pay ten quid a month to get rid of that.
My computer is hooked up to speakers around my home so the lack of a mobile platform isn't too much of a problem - though I'm hoping they'll bring it to the iphone soon.
I listen to albums on spotify that I already own on CD - less hassle just to call them up on the macbook and they play straight off.
It's really quite refreshing. Hard copy is so passé.
I'm in the UK and have been using it for the last week. It's amazing. Streams almost instantly, quality as good as itunes. Track library isn't quite as broad as itunes but it's impressive. The advertising is very light - every fifteen minutes or so - and I might just pay ten quid a month to get rid of that.
My computer is hooked up to speakers around my home so the lack of a mobile platform isn't too much of a problem - though I'm hoping they'll bring it to the iphone soon.
I listen to albums on spotify that I already own on CD - less hassle just to call them up on the macbook and they play straight off.
It's really quite refreshing. Hard copy is so passé.
$.99 is cheap for a single.
That's what a single cost in the 1960s.
What did gas and food cost back then?
Sure for the price you got a b side as well,
but the b side was usually a throwaway.
Also the vinyl record would sound best the first play and then
the quality would slowly degrade with each play due to scratches and pops.
Perspective!
That's what a single cost in the 1960s.
What did gas and food cost back then?
Sure for the price you got a b side as well,
but the b side was usually a throwaway.
Also the vinyl record would sound best the first play and then
the quality would slowly degrade with each play due to scratches and pops.
Perspective!
This is a tricky situation for the consumer. If you want something soon, do you buy now, expecting it might go up, or wait, expecting it might go down?
How do you know they won't?
I guess you missed the original announcement, but the price increase was insisted on by the record companies - Apple agreed to it in exchange for no more DRM and lower prices on some songs.
Personally, I think variable pricing is a good thing since it will show record companies whether consumers are willing to pay more for "hits" or not. I suspect the answer is not, and when the labels see that the cheaper tracks way outsell the more expensive ones, they can adjust their pricing accordingly.
Actually, with amazon at 256 mp3 and iTunes at 256 AAC, the iTunes version is arguably the better quality. And on any given song or album, we'll have to see how the pricing is on each - when iTunes has it for 69 cents, it may be cheaper.
How do you know they won't?
I guess you missed the original announcement, but the price increase was insisted on by the record companies - Apple agreed to it in exchange for no more DRM and lower prices on some songs.
Personally, I think variable pricing is a good thing since it will show record companies whether consumers are willing to pay more for "hits" or not. I suspect the answer is not, and when the labels see that the cheaper tracks way outsell the more expensive ones, they can adjust their pricing accordingly.
Actually, with amazon at 256 mp3 and iTunes at 256 AAC, the iTunes version is arguably the better quality. And on any given song or album, we'll have to see how the pricing is on each - when iTunes has it for 69 cents, it may be cheaper.
Why still lots of songs not available in iTunes Plus, i thought apple suppose to complete the entire collection into iTunes Plus by April 1st? my iTunes library contains about 100 or so still in DRMed version.
I understand well the concepts of marketing, branding, "supply and demand," etc. I majored in marketing. The trouble is that they are speaking in terms of "supply and demand" when supply is really not a factor in digital downloads. They should speak only in terms of demand. The supply in this case is not the cause of any price increase ... it is simply the demand for the particular song (regardless of marketing costs). Therefore, there really is no flaw in anyone's argument.
By the way, I drink Coke ... because it IS different and I like the taste better than the competition ...