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
LA Times said:
This statement is idiotic as linked in the MacRumors post. It has nothing to do with supply and demand.
a) There is a theoretical infinite supply of a given track
b) In situations of supply and demand, it is increased supply that drives down prices, not raises them
Instead, what this demonstrates is cartel-like behaviour. There aren't multiple releases on different labels of Born In The USA, for instance. As a frequent buyer of CDs with many being big-selling back releases where they're substantially cheaper than more contemporary releases, I find this reversal of policy interesting and possibly indicative of buying from the iTunes store being a impulse purchase. It's nothing but gouging.
One can interpret these things differently. One way to argue is that the supply of good artists/track is limited. For example, if there where 100 tracks on the iTMS and 10 really good one among these. Now assume people buying 20 tracks each, since there only 10 good tracks they cannot but buy these ten. The other 10 purchases will be spread around, with preferences going to the lower-priced ones.
But I admit arguing the supply side is harder as the demand side.
I have long thought that the labels should be able to set their own prices. Don't we live in a free market, Steve?
Are you a record studio executive??? Why would you say something so stupid? CDs have been overpriced for years and years and now they are trying to do the same thing in the digital realm when they would make more money if they would just ease up a bit.
Just went through of some of the posts here so far. At $1.29 for "hot" tracks - I will not be buying. At 69 cents, I might fill-in on my personal catalog.
maybe it's a trade off and I'll end up spending the same amount anyway. It really depends on what they deem "popular."
Ummm, I'm pretty sure it was announced at Macworld in January that it was going to be April 1, 2009!!! I'm surprised no-one noticed that!
Look at 2:06 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOBRe8-_W4
Look at 2:06 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOBRe8-_W4
Sounds backwards to me....I'm gonna be so mad when all of the songs I've been buying cost 1/3 less. I buy more new stuff than the classics because my parents usually have a CD or record (old LOL) of that stuff.
I thought 99 cents was cheaper than buying cd's.
maybe that just has to do with the kind of music I listen to.
maybe that just has to do with the kind of music I listen to.
I don't think I've ever seen more ignorance and sky is falling bologna in a single thead on here ever...all over a 30 cent increase on SOME songs with a drop in price of 30 cents on other songs with most staying the same, which gave us the VERY VERY VERY worthwhile change of DRM free music at DOUBLE the bit-rate (256kbps AAC is indistinguishable from the original source material whereas 128kbps is in the land of questionable lossy differences.
I personally would NEVER EVER buy a music track with DRM on it (I do like to play my music on USB flash drives in my car which has a JVC stereo with a USB port and AAC/MP3/WMA support in it. I also would never buy a song at 128kbps EVER. 30 cents extra for a song to get a high quality DRM free track is a small price to pay considering I wouldn't buy a SINGLE TRACK at 99 Cents if it had DRM and 128kbps on it. CLEARLY, others on here feel VERY differently and seem to LOVE (or at least prefer) DRM and 128kbps. Screw that.
I would consider buying tracks from Amazon for 99 cents (clearly the music industry is not treating Apple the same), but OTOH, Amazon is using MP3 and the MP3 is INFERIOR to AAC at the same bit rates. To me, the POSSIBILITY of paying an extra 29 cents for a single track (albums appear to remain the same) is worth getting a higher quality product in 256kbps AAC. 256kbps MP3 is absolutely and demonstratably inferior to 256 AAC.
The lack of DRM will also finally mean that more products like car stereos and other media players will finally offer AAC support. My car stereo and cell phone has it already, but many players still only support MP3 and WMA and that's a shame since AAC is a much better quality format in general and should be the defacto music standard, not WMA or MP3.
I agree Apple is shooting themselves in the foot with overpriced hardware. I can only hope Psystar clobbers them in court so that the clone floodgates will open and Apple will FINALLY have to compete on MERIT and PRICE instead of a virtual MONOPOLY on its products. This sort of anti-competition business practice has been allowed to go on for far too long with Apple. They are no longer a second class citizen in the computing and gadget worlds, but a major player in both markets in terms of sales and gaining popularity. They do not deserve special protection or the right to overcharge for the same hardware, IMO. Operating Systems and hardware are two separate markets. They should not be allowed to use one to hold the other hostage. I can only hope the judge that oversees the case can plainly see that. The ever increasing hardware prices for clone level products is making it ever more obvious, though. If you want OS X, you HAVE to buy Apple hardware and that should never have been allowed in the first place. Software and Hardware are two separate markets and there is NOTHING embedded about OS X to make a case in that direction. Raise the cost of the OS (within reason) if necessary but stop trying to block my ability to get a decent priced mid-range tower that can run OS X.
This is simply not true. OS X Leopard runs perfectly fine on my 2001 PowerMac with a 1.8GHz single core PPC G4 and a GPU with Core Image support (ATI 9800 Pro in this case). I'm typing this messagte on it right now and it's very "snappy". It runs one HECK of a lot better than Vista (and quite possibly XP as well) would run on the equivalent era hardware.) And while I've heard some reports of how great Windows7 is, I've also read plenty of conflicting reports that indicate it is STILL based on the Vista core and therefore is still plenty slow and resource intensive, despite some improvements and optimizations. Frankly, until I see a final revision review tested on several different hardware configurations, I'll reserve judgment.
I agree here as well. Frankly, Apple has proven they have no interest in providing competitive hardware or prices. Clearly, more hardware competition is needed in this market area.
Even so, the areas I agree on have NOTHING to do with the price increase on iTunes. That is driven completely by the music industry which wants the ability to have some variable pricing options and has been holding out on DRM free to get that option from Apple. To have very popular tracks at the same price as older unpopular music IS a little absurd. If the music companies want to sell me a song for 69 cents instead, I say GREAT. If a song is really great, I'm willing to pay an extra 30 cents for it if it means I get higher quality DRM free music in the best format. Although frankly, I wish they would offer a lossless format as an alternative to AAC even. Why shouldn't we be able to buy CD or even SACD equivalent archive quality tracks in 2009? THAT would definitely be worth an extra 30 cents to me.
I personally would NEVER EVER buy a music track with DRM on it (I do like to play my music on USB flash drives in my car which has a JVC stereo with a USB port and AAC/MP3/WMA support in it. I also would never buy a song at 128kbps EVER. 30 cents extra for a song to get a high quality DRM free track is a small price to pay considering I wouldn't buy a SINGLE TRACK at 99 Cents if it had DRM and 128kbps on it. CLEARLY, others on here feel VERY differently and seem to LOVE (or at least prefer) DRM and 128kbps. Screw that.
I would consider buying tracks from Amazon for 99 cents (clearly the music industry is not treating Apple the same), but OTOH, Amazon is using MP3 and the MP3 is INFERIOR to AAC at the same bit rates. To me, the POSSIBILITY of paying an extra 29 cents for a single track (albums appear to remain the same) is worth getting a higher quality product in 256kbps AAC. 256kbps MP3 is absolutely and demonstratably inferior to 256 AAC.
The lack of DRM will also finally mean that more products like car stereos and other media players will finally offer AAC support. My car stereo and cell phone has it already, but many players still only support MP3 and WMA and that's a shame since AAC is a much better quality format in general and should be the defacto music standard, not WMA or MP3.
I agree Apple is shooting themselves in the foot with overpriced hardware. I can only hope Psystar clobbers them in court so that the clone floodgates will open and Apple will FINALLY have to compete on MERIT and PRICE instead of a virtual MONOPOLY on its products. This sort of anti-competition business practice has been allowed to go on for far too long with Apple. They are no longer a second class citizen in the computing and gadget worlds, but a major player in both markets in terms of sales and gaining popularity. They do not deserve special protection or the right to overcharge for the same hardware, IMO. Operating Systems and hardware are two separate markets. They should not be allowed to use one to hold the other hostage. I can only hope the judge that oversees the case can plainly see that. The ever increasing hardware prices for clone level products is making it ever more obvious, though. If you want OS X, you HAVE to buy Apple hardware and that should never have been allowed in the first place. Software and Hardware are two separate markets and there is NOTHING embedded about OS X to make a case in that direction. Raise the cost of the OS (within reason) if necessary but stop trying to block my ability to get a decent priced mid-range tower that can run OS X.
This is simply not true. OS X Leopard runs perfectly fine on my 2001 PowerMac with a 1.8GHz single core PPC G4 and a GPU with Core Image support (ATI 9800 Pro in this case). I'm typing this messagte on it right now and it's very "snappy". It runs one HECK of a lot better than Vista (and quite possibly XP as well) would run on the equivalent era hardware.) And while I've heard some reports of how great Windows7 is, I've also read plenty of conflicting reports that indicate it is STILL based on the Vista core and therefore is still plenty slow and resource intensive, despite some improvements and optimizations. Frankly, until I see a final revision review tested on several different hardware configurations, I'll reserve judgment.
I agree here as well. Frankly, Apple has proven they have no interest in providing competitive hardware or prices. Clearly, more hardware competition is needed in this market area.
Even so, the areas I agree on have NOTHING to do with the price increase on iTunes. That is driven completely by the music industry which wants the ability to have some variable pricing options and has been holding out on DRM free to get that option from Apple. To have very popular tracks at the same price as older unpopular music IS a little absurd. If the music companies want to sell me a song for 69 cents instead, I say GREAT. If a song is really great, I'm willing to pay an extra 30 cents for it if it means I get higher quality DRM free music in the best format. Although frankly, I wish they would offer a lossless format as an alternative to AAC even. Why shouldn't we be able to buy CD or even SACD equivalent archive quality tracks in 2009? THAT would definitely be worth an extra 30 cents to me.
This isn't supply and demand. Period. There has to be a limited supply for this equation. Since only the demand is variable, with the supply approaching infinite, then the price should actually drop, if you want to play in that arena.
I'm not upset at Apple. I'm upset at the greedy record labels that have been stuck in the same paradigm since the inception of recorded music and refuse to change despite evidence that shows they should. They've been screwing musicians and customers alike.
Instead of testing the waters for HIGHER THAN CD pricing, they ought to be testing the waters for carte blanche LOWER THAN CD pricing for quality (whether it's perceived or real) that is less than CD. Try to make this the primary market for music and in turn reduce shipping costs, manufacturing costs (losing a bit of economies of scale, I'm sure), stocking costs, etc. Meanwhile, increase the quality to lossless.
Right now they are being beaten up by pirating because the pricing scheme is out of whack with the perceived value. I think that most people download "illegally" due to the price/value inequality rather than our innate desire to "steal". I, for one, admit to filching more than buying due to this exact thing. Now, if the price dropped to $5-7 for a CD worth of music ... I'd be a buying fool.
The problem is that the recording industry wants to make the same return on music as they always have. They can't see that their strategy is what is killing them and that they are losing customers. They truly need to explore lower pricing all around in order to become a impulse purchase and $13-17 is not impulse.
I'm not upset at Apple. I'm upset at the greedy record labels that have been stuck in the same paradigm since the inception of recorded music and refuse to change despite evidence that shows they should. They've been screwing musicians and customers alike.
Instead of testing the waters for HIGHER THAN CD pricing, they ought to be testing the waters for carte blanche LOWER THAN CD pricing for quality (whether it's perceived or real) that is less than CD. Try to make this the primary market for music and in turn reduce shipping costs, manufacturing costs (losing a bit of economies of scale, I'm sure), stocking costs, etc. Meanwhile, increase the quality to lossless.
Right now they are being beaten up by pirating because the pricing scheme is out of whack with the perceived value. I think that most people download "illegally" due to the price/value inequality rather than our innate desire to "steal". I, for one, admit to filching more than buying due to this exact thing. Now, if the price dropped to $5-7 for a CD worth of music ... I'd be a buying fool.
The problem is that the recording industry wants to make the same return on music as they always have. They can't see that their strategy is what is killing them and that they are losing customers. They truly need to explore lower pricing all around in order to become a impulse purchase and $13-17 is not impulse.
I'll still buy
I was all set to say "I guess I won't be buying music from iTunes." Then I remembered that just yesterday, I paid Apple $10 for one song ("A Love Bizarre" by Sheila E. is "album only.").
I probably won't buy as many songs that I'm on the fence about. Maybe I won't buy any that I'm on the fence about. But if I really want a song, I'm not going to check to see whether it's cheaper at Amazon; I'll want it at higher quality than Amazon's MP3's and I'll pay Apple the extra 30 cents.
Like the poster above, I'd feel better about it if it were lossless.
I was all set to say "I guess I won't be buying music from iTunes." Then I remembered that just yesterday, I paid Apple $10 for one song ("A Love Bizarre" by Sheila E. is "album only.").
I probably won't buy as many songs that I'm on the fence about. Maybe I won't buy any that I'm on the fence about. But if I really want a song, I'm not going to check to see whether it's cheaper at Amazon; I'll want it at higher quality than Amazon's MP3's and I'll pay Apple the extra 30 cents.
Like the poster above, I'd feel better about it if it were lossless.
Boy, what a GREAT idea.... make the people who AREN'T pirating music pay MORE! It's so stupid, it just might work!
Or, in the world I like to call reality, here's what happens.... right now, it's marginally more difficult to pirate music for free than it is to download it from the ITMS. Every single person that either downloads or pays has SOME price point at which they're willing to pay for the music, and will go no higher... for some, that might be 10 cents, for others, 99 cents, or $1.29, or $10 per song -
Point is, when you raise the price, there's going to be some people that say "you know what? you just made it worthwhile to start getting this crap for free." And once someone heads down that road, it just gets easier and easier to download the stuff you want not only for free, but in higher quality as well (once you find invites to sites like what.cd and waffles).
A bonehead move by the labels to finally force this on Apple. Overall paid downloads will decrease. Piracy will increase. Film at 11.
Or, in the world I like to call reality, here's what happens.... right now, it's marginally more difficult to pirate music for free than it is to download it from the ITMS. Every single person that either downloads or pays has SOME price point at which they're willing to pay for the music, and will go no higher... for some, that might be 10 cents, for others, 99 cents, or $1.29, or $10 per song -
Point is, when you raise the price, there's going to be some people that say "you know what? you just made it worthwhile to start getting this crap for free." And once someone heads down that road, it just gets easier and easier to download the stuff you want not only for free, but in higher quality as well (once you find invites to sites like what.cd and waffles).
A bonehead move by the labels to finally force this on Apple. Overall paid downloads will decrease. Piracy will increase. Film at 11.
The thing is that music USED TO BE $5-7 for an album. When the CD came out, they justified the $12-15 prices for manufacturing reasons, but even when the prices for that came WAY WAY down, they jacked the price WAY UP instead, saying that all the failure albums had to be paid for somehow and that meant by the good albums. The point is it's all BS. Albums SHOULD be $5-7 for a CD, let alone online albums.
The worst part is that the artists don't make SQUAT from album sales no matter what the price of the album is because the record companies force bad contracts on new artists that can last for 5 albums or more. They can only really make money by touring. The whole system is in favor of the record companies. THAT is what really needs to change. iTunes should be supporting independent artists on their store. THAT would change everything for the artists, but I'm sure you can imagine how the record companies would feel about that. I say too bad. They're all just greedy music pimps, for lack of a better word. The problem is also that the radio stations are all in it with the record companies too. It's a bit like organized crime, IMO. And the consumer loses because it becomes about making hit artists instead of good music. When is the last time you saw an unattractive pop star? What's the odds of getting good looks and talent in the same package? How many artists write their own music? How many record companies would let them if they wanted to?
I'm surprised you haven't been run off this forum yet.
But seriously, Apple better take the competition from the Amazon MP3 Download store SERIOUSLY. They have to for the following reasons:
1) Amazon will frequently cut the price of a full album download SUBSTANTIALLY as a loss leader to drive up business on the MP3 Download store. They frequently run US$1.99 per album download specials, and Amazon scored a HUGE coup when they offered U2's latest album No Line On The Horizon at a limited time for a full album download at only US$3.99!
(Nice album, by the way.)2) Amazon offers a download program that automatically puts downloaded music into the basic Playlist in iTunes. That means it's easy to sync the downloaded music from Amazon into any iPod.
3) Amazon wisely chose to use 256 kbps variable bit rate (VBR) MP3 encoding for music compression. That means not only excellent sound quality, but almost every portable music player in the world that can play MP3 files can play back the music downloaded from the Amazon MP3 Download store--essentially Amazon now covers just about 100% of the portable music player market. While iTunes Plus' 256 kbps VBR AAC encoding does sound a little better, the difference is not noticeable unless you either use a seriously high-end in-ear monitor (IEM) headphone with your iPod or connect your iPod to a higher-end home stereo.
Yea, I don't use iTunes, I go to http://www.beatport.com to buy my music and to buy a lossless wav there it's so expensive ($1 fee0, and the songs are already around $1.50-$2 to begin with. So per song you can be spending up to $3 or more if you want the lossless format. Personally though, I think it's worth it because I only buy songs that I really like, and I know I'll be getting lots of enjoyment out of it.
What I don't get is, why would people pay $10 for a crappy 256kb/s mp3 encoded album when you can go out and pay $10 at your local store for the same thing, but in CD with LOSSLESS files? I'd much rather have a CD than a digital file if I'm going to buy a whole album and I can rip all the songs to my computer in lossless, easily.
256kbps VBR mp3s are not excellent sound quality, what are you talking about. Maybe for the average consumer it is fine, but in no way is it excellent and it would sound like complete crap listening to it on a high end system. MP3s can not deliver "excellent" sound quality, even at 320kb/s, if you're going to be listening to it on anything high end.SactoGuy18 said:
Other than new releases and specials and value priced items, where can you reliably get music for $10 on CDs anymore? Best Buy starts at $12 for sales and MOST albums are priced in the $18-20 range for a CD these days. $10 is half off. Yes, music clubs can get you albums much cheaper, but they often don't get new albums until a year after its release.
Yes, I'd much rather have a CD archive and make my own lossless and compressed files to put in iTunes (I have over 400 CDs and did exactly that for those albums), but like I said you cannot get $10 CDs normally and even $10 is a rip-off if the album only contains one or two good tracks on it. I'd rather pay 99 cents for a single good song than $10 for an album with one good song and a bunch of filler.
The record companies want to know why people don't buy albums any more? It's because they purposely made sure albums had a few good hit songs from their best song writers and spread all the good songs out among all their pop artists and then sold you CDs for $15-20 to get 1 or 2 good songs per album. Sure they want you to buy the whole album. They make more money with little effort and effectively get $7-15 a song instead of 99 cents because you will not listen to a bunch of crappy songs and only play the good one. I always buy the whole album from reliable artists that write their own material (e.g. Tori Amos, Sarah Mclachlan, Pink Floyd or its solo members, Billy Joel, etc.) but many of those artists (e.g. Pink Floyd and Billy Joel) don't even make albums any more.
The days of having quality artists that make quality MUSIC are disappearing. Everything is about "image" now. It's much easier to make quick money off a pop star with one 'hit single' and show him/her half naked in a music video or late night tv show appearance than actually make good music. Ironically, the days of MTV/VH-1 showing music videos are more or less over so music videos don't matter quite like they used to. But you still won't get music only artists in the spotlight because there are still media interviews, the Internet, etc. and people want to worship ATTRACTIVE people. Someone like Janis Joplin never would have gotten a record contract in today's world and the world would be a lot worse off. Sadly, music for music's sake just doesn't happen anymore unless you get away from the record labels and look directly to the artists and sites that promote them.
Music is far too an important thing to be left to the record labels. They will eventually bugger iTunes and the movie studios will do the same thing.
Not happy to make a buck, a good buck at that, they must wring every cent out of it.
Down they go and up goes piracy.
Not happy to make a buck, a good buck at that, they must wring every cent out of it.
Down they go and up goes piracy.