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.
Music Labels See Slower iTunes Sales Growth in Wake of Price Increases
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good!
Those greedy mofos.
Apple's got plenty of other revenue streams - so it's the music labels' loss.
Those greedy mofos.
Apple's got plenty of other revenue streams - so it's the music labels' loss.
That is what the music companies want. They want Amazon or another competitor to emerge as an equal to iTunes, so that Apple has reduced power - which goes back into the music industries hand.
Then, they can raise prices on all the online stores (since there isn't a dominant one that can say 'f' you').
The record companies, after years of stupid after stupid, are finally playing a smart game.
Raising the price of something during a recession = Dumb. Encourages many to just "take" songs from other sources. These songs are not Apple products that people are willing to pay more for so goodbye music biz... again!
No improvement in format means no justification for price increase
It disgusts me how all these pimps in the music industry keep trying to win themselves a thicker and thicker cut of the sales. These lumbering mastodons deserve to lose their fortunes because they're not adding anything to the experience of listening to music. Do we really need record companies anymore? Their main responsibility seems to be just writing checks--and mainly to themselves. They're still pissed that iTunes allows consumers to select only the songs they want to buy rather than forcing a customer to buy a whole album, which typically contains about two-thirds dud tracks and about one-third songs worth repeated listening. Thank god iTunes lets you buy most songs a la carte.
I'm not happy about how iTunes' DRM is punishing law-abiding customers, but I do like how it has wrenched the distribution of music away from these parasites.
It disgusts me how all these pimps in the music industry keep trying to win themselves a thicker and thicker cut of the sales. These lumbering mastodons deserve to lose their fortunes because they're not adding anything to the experience of listening to music. Do we really need record companies anymore? Their main responsibility seems to be just writing checks--and mainly to themselves. They're still pissed that iTunes allows consumers to select only the songs they want to buy rather than forcing a customer to buy a whole album, which typically contains about two-thirds dud tracks and about one-third songs worth repeated listening. Thank god iTunes lets you buy most songs a la carte.
I'm not happy about how iTunes' DRM is punishing law-abiding customers, but I do like how it has wrenched the distribution of music away from these parasites.
No kidding - those prices are great! How can Amazon make money selling 100+ songs for only a DOLLAR?
Seriously - decimal points + "cents" == FAIL. Unless you are Verizon and you're billing for international data - then it == WIN (for Verizon).
Well, my typical thought process always went like this:
"Ooh, that's a good song. I should buy it. Well, wait... what about the other songs on this album? Maybe I'll like enough songs that it makes more sense to buy the entire album than the one song. OK, so I should probably buy the entire album. Well, wait.. before I buy the album on iTunes, I should see how much the CD costs. If the CD is only a dollar or two more, I'd rather get that instead. Let's check online... hmm, I wonder if this will go on sale anytime soon?"
... and in the end I don't buy anything from iTunes because I wait to see if the physical CD can be had for roughly the same price. You should see my iTunes wishlist. Full of albums that I want to buy, but am waiting to see if I can get a better deal first.
If the song is 99 cents, it's more of a no-brainer -- I'll waste a dollar quite readily -- but if it's more, I semi-subconsciously start to think "wait, is this a good idea?" Similarly if an album is $9.99 online then it's more likely to be "cheap enough to just buy online" compared to say a $14.99 CD, whereas if the online album pricing is say $12.99 then I'd rather spend the extra dollars for the CD.
Cheaper is always better of course but there's a low point where it's cheap enough to go ahead and buy impulsively and conversely there's a high point where I start to think about alternative purchase scenarios.
I could see that, speaking for myself I don't buy as much maybe only about 3/4 songs per month. And the app store maybe around 1 or 2 (for paid apps)
MY music purchases have not really changed much. If I only want 1 or 2 songs from an album ill buy them on itunes. If i want more than that I'll just buy the CD and import them.
MOST if my purchases in itunes are music vids and tv shows. I dont even usually buy movies, since a lot of new movies come out for $20 on Blu-Ray, old for as little as $10 on Blu-Ray.
MOST if my purchases in itunes are music vids and tv shows. I dont even usually buy movies, since a lot of new movies come out for $20 on Blu-Ray, old for as little as $10 on Blu-Ray.
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
I too went to Amazon....it's a very simple, well integrated-with-iTunes system. Although I still get my iTunes free songs of the week! If it had worked out the way they said where a majority of songs were going to be $.69 maybe it would have worked, depending on how long it took for new releases to decrease in price, but they have practically every song for $1.29.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
aka Supply and Demand. Are you saying basic economics work? Does Obama know about this?
aka Supply and Demand. Are you saying basic economics work? Does Obama know about this?
Heh, that's hilarious - you just described my buying process to a T. Actually, to be more accurate my non-buying process, as I typically end up not buying anything. I decide buying the CD (at the same price or less than the digital download) is a smarter way to go, then I don't end up going to the store (virtual or real) to buy it.
Nice job Hollywood, fewer sales for you!
These days I typically buy just a couple of songs here and there based on what I hear (and like) on Slacker Radio on my iPhone - certainly not the ideal buying pattern from the record companies' perspective. Then again, without Slacker I wouldn't be buying songs at all.
What Hollywood really wants is for all of us to be locked into a Zune-like fixed monthly subscription, guaranteeing that 99% of us spend more on music in a year than we would otherwise.
A rare admission of stupidity by BronfMAN...what about quitting Warner and perhaps continuing with your lousy diatribes at the Anti-Defamation League now?
I've curbed my spending on iTunes over recent months and have turned to Amazon. Most the tracks I want on iTunes these days are £0.99, when on Amazon they can be as little as £0.29, I can't warrant paying a quid per track. Sure it's only a 20p price increase, but it all adds up in the end.
Can they finally accept that el Jobso was right with the $0.99 pricing? These greedy idiots know nothing.
It seems like every time I want to buy a song, it's $1.29. OK, so I go to Amazon and that same song is also $1.29. I usually end up buying it on iTunes most of the time just for the convenience.
I rarely buy whole albums anymore because they usually aren't worth the price.
I rarely buy whole albums anymore because they usually aren't worth the price.
As one of the earlier posters said, perhaps the music from the last year isn't as good. I know my purchases have decreased significantly simply because I can't find anything I need to have. Then, in the event I do find something, I see that it is $1.29, and I decide I don't like it that much anymore. The bottom line is $0.99 was the sweet spot.
Also, price increases while demand decreases at the same rate, would equal no net gain. So apparently something worked.
Also, price increases while demand decreases at the same rate, would equal no net gain. So apparently something worked.
