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 Prices Going Up?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
autrefois
macrumors 65816
gwangung said:
A thought? Thinking before posting? Surely you jest!
I'm glad Apple has come out to deny the Post story, and some people posting here read Steve's relevant quote from the conference call very explicitly stating the price would still be 99 cents despite any rumors to the contrary.
It was a false alarm--prices are staying at 99 cents per song. I don't know who gave the Post the story, but it's false and thank goodness.
BMG
Are you aware of the fact that, with a simple phone call, you can tell them to eliminate automatic shipments? I haven't sent in a "don't send me anything" reply card for over 10 years, and they have never sent me an album I didn't want. I get the monthly mailings, and the reply card says "no automatic shipment", so I can simply throw the mailing in the trash if I don't want to buy anything.LethalWolfe said:
That's a completely different matter.LethalWolfe said:
This news must have brought lots of concern from Share holders...
I wonder if they've monitored the response to this news? I'm glad Apple responded to this with positive news. Wheww.... I for one was really scared for a moment!
I wonder if they've monitored the response to this news? I'm glad Apple responded to this with positive news. Wheww.... I for one was really scared for a moment!
shamino said:
No I was not aware of that. I only did Columbia House for a few months when I was in high school (8 or 9 years ago).
Lethal
The usual laws of supply and demand don't count when supply is infinite.LethalWolfe said:
My buying a song from ITMS does not in any way impact your ability to buy the same song. Demand does not have any impact on supply. (Except for the overall CPU/bandwidth requirements of the server, but that is only affected by overall purchases, not by some being more popular than others.)
As an artist on itunes, I think this is an outrage!
The "label" gets $.57 for each song of mine downloaded from them. You can guess how much of that I see. Lets put it this way, NOT MUCH!
But this is how I look at it. Other than sending apple a copy of my songs and info the label does NO work. $.57 per song is not much for some rights to my music, but $.57 for doing nothing is a real good deal for the label.
What do I get out of it as an artist? Sound scans! Everytime you buy a song it gets recorded. I get credit for each song. The more I sell the better "deal" I can get on my next release.
THE BIG 5 ARE KILLING ARTIST!
The "label" gets $.57 for each song of mine downloaded from them. You can guess how much of that I see. Lets put it this way, NOT MUCH!
But this is how I look at it. Other than sending apple a copy of my songs and info the label does NO work. $.57 per song is not much for some rights to my music, but $.57 for doing nothing is a real good deal for the label.
What do I get out of it as an artist? Sound scans! Everytime you buy a song it gets recorded. I get credit for each song. The more I sell the better "deal" I can get on my next release.
THE BIG 5 ARE KILLING ARTIST!
shamino said:
Yes they do. Simply, you'll be willing to pay more for something you want more (higher demand). It's one of the best ways to make a profit, being able to meet a higher demand without a significant increase in overall cost. And a more popular song will be downloaded more than the average, so it will contribute to overhead costs. Having too many good songs will cause diminishing returns at some point.
Allofmp3.com is able to obtain legal russian copies of american and other music through the russian laws and then distribute them. This is comparable to what was done in the United States in its early days when very little American literature existed. American printers would print works of british authors and sell them for a much cheaper rate than the imported works. This didn't make the british publishers very happy and as this practice grew among various nations, countries devised agreements amongst themselves about such practices. I researched copyright laws for a paper I wrote when the itms first came out, but I'm not sure of the general format of these agreements anymore. As it is, I wouldn't be surprised if these agreements restrict redistributing a material in the country of original copyright. So likely allofmp3 would be breaching international treaty by distributing to americans, which actually would fall on the russian government to correct in order to keep the peace with other nations. allofmp3 isn't opening new territory in copyright law. This matter has been dealt with 200 years ago.
bibliography. Copyrights and copywrongs. 2001. (I forget the authors name. First starts with an s and last with a v i think. Indian name, i think)
ahha, S. Vaidhyanathan
I should add that whether or not allofmp3 is "legitimate" it certainly is not morally sound. And don't tell me that the labels are screwing you so you should be able to screw them. Two wrongs don't make a right. Do what's right. Maybe you can eventually convince them that their methods are bad for you and thus not so good for them either.
Well I have to say after reading the first couple of pages on this thread I decided to give allofmp3.com a go. After all itms is not yet available here in the UK so why not. Anyway I can categorically say it is the biggest pos I have ever come across. The downloads are less reliable than limewire. The site is slow and unresponsive, an all round pain in the backside. Bring on itms UK.
shamino said:
I agree that normal supply and demand rules don't apply in this situation, but if there is already enough demand (i.e. you are meeting/exceeding your sales goals) there is no incentive to decrease prices (which usually done to increase demand). If people are more than willing to pay 99 cents a song there is no compelling reason to drop it down to 90 cents a song.
Lethal
I think that someday inflation will take effect, and prices will rise, but not any time soon.
And yes, why does Wal*Mart get away with selling songs for .88? Are the record companies going to make their prices go up too?
And yes, why does Wal*Mart get away with selling songs for .88? Are the record companies going to make their prices go up too?
Most rumors have a little truth
An outcome consistent with the rumor and the denial would be that a higher quality song would become available for a buck-twenty-five. I would pay this in a heartbeat for lossless compression. AACs are useless to me - they sound like crap on my home system.
An outcome consistent with the rumor and the denial would be that a higher quality song would become available for a buck-twenty-five. I would pay this in a heartbeat for lossless compression. AACs are useless to me - they sound like crap on my home system.
sethypoo said:
I presume that, like a lot of Wal-Mart items, the songs are sold at either break-even or perhaps a loss. The store isn't there for Wal-Mart to actually make money, but so that it is seen as having a play in this market. And I would guess that whatever contract Wal-Mart has with the record labels says nothing about final price, just what the revenue is that the labels get from a sale.
Doctor Q said:
why though? i mean, how would it really affect your shopping? sure, it'd affect the price... but with oneclick, it doesn't really mess up the shopping experience per se...
personally, i've only purchased 1 album and maybe 2 or 3 other songs (singles) from itms... mainly because the music i like isn't on there at all. so it's possible that if that's where most of your music comes from, it could be seen as bad. but maybe "annoying" isn't the right word for it?
Tulse said:
Anyone get the feeling that WalMart is to the retail sales industry, like Microsoft is to the computer industry?
the label does no work....except for paying for your recording, possibly some promotion, possibly paying for your touring....ya. how exactly do they do much more work for a cd copy? manufacturing and shipping dont cost all that much at their scale.itsa said:
and if the deal is really THAT bad, you are foolish for signing the contract.
The New York Post...
is a piece of Murdoch... garbage.
Its political coverage is just as factual as its coverage of Apple.
is a piece of Murdoch... garbage.
Its political coverage is just as factual as its coverage of Apple.
ALoLA said:Anyone get the feeling that WalMart is to the retail sales industry, like Microsoft is to the computer industry?
dude. walmart is way, way worse than microsoft. microsoft sells crap, so does walmart. But, walmart screws it's employees, local buisnesses, people working in sweat shops in third world countries, manufacturing jobs in the US, etc.
I am very happy Apple cleared this up.
And to everyone freaking out about the seemingly complete legality of allofmp3.com, all of you are too smart to know that it is too good to be true. Just because the illegality does not reach your doorstep doesn't mean that the service is completely legal. So many artists on allofmp3.com have decided to not release their music for sale digitally, like the Beatles.
You can try to use compulsory licensing to trick yourself into believing this service is 100% clean, but it is simply not. Somewhere along the lines something is wrong, and that is why I am not going to use the service.
And to everyone freaking out about the seemingly complete legality of allofmp3.com, all of you are too smart to know that it is too good to be true. Just because the illegality does not reach your doorstep doesn't mean that the service is completely legal. So many artists on allofmp3.com have decided to not release their music for sale digitally, like the Beatles.
You can try to use compulsory licensing to trick yourself into believing this service is 100% clean, but it is simply not. Somewhere along the lines something is wrong, and that is why I am not going to use the service.