Who is stopping them from being denied, go and sell using those "other opportunities"But there are other options in the mix now and other ways of acquiring music legitimately. Just as he would reserve the right to adjust the prices of his hardware which he has and which he's selling a lot of on the back of our content why should we be denied the same opportunity?"
I've purchased probably 4- to 5-hundred dollars worth of songs on ITMS.blaskillet4 said:All I know is that I'm not going to be paying more than $1 per song. If they want variable pricing, then they should sell crappy songs for 50 cents (pun intended), or 30 sec. intro songs...
Regarding your signature, approached has got an "A" in it 2nyRiggz.2nyRiggz said:greedy greedy they are, now they want to control the prices in itunes and create a hot fuss about it...children they are. soon the labels will be telling steve about the reviews in itunes.
Which, as it stands today, would be detrimental to downloadable music since the iPod retains the greatest market-share of portable players.Heb1228 said:I wouldn't mind it if some songs went for cheaper than $1, but at no time in the near future will I be paying more than $1 a song.
And I say let the record labels pull their music... It'll just be back to illegal downloads for anybody with an iPod.
Those were the list prices for CDs. I don't think that they cut the price they charge Apple to make these songs available for downloads.iMeowbot said:UMG cut list prices by about 1/3 late in 2003. Apple did not pass those savings along to consumers.
The point is that label requests for variable pricing don't necessarily mean requests for higher pricing. In at least certain cases, they definitely don't mean that. Steve is telling porkies.robbieduncan said:Those were the list prices for CDs. I don't think that they cut the price they charge Apple to make these songs available for downloads.
Steve will win this one. I betcha he basically tells the labels that if they don't like having an online distribution medium to 80% of the global music market, then they can yank their songs. Mark my words. It will get ugly.Fender2112 said:When the dust settles, it will be market demand that determines the cost. Not Steve or the labels. As for me, if I can't find it on iTMS, I most likely won't buy it. I very rarely find myself browsing CD's at a music store. My purchases, through iTunes, are about 90% impulse. The higher the price goes, the more easily it is to resist that impulse. 99 cents is a sweet spot and the record lables need to understand this. At 99 cents, I have bought roughly 100 songs over past two years. At 1.49, I might purchase 15 or 20. At 1.99, I would purchace ZERO.
More than half a billion songs...why don't they go lock up some 80-year-olds again?billyboy said:Even with iTunes doing so well, I read that legitimately downloaded music represents about 2% of the number of pirated copies downloaded every day. Record companies are sooooooo short sighted and dare I say Stupid. Stupid stupid for getting on Apple's case. ie record industry has done almost zero to affect piracy, whereas free market iTMS is doing some good undercover "police" work for the music industry (at their own expense) and although small beer at the moment, its popularity seems to be growing very fast. So all the music people need to do is shut up and let Apple spemd a few more years making steady inroads into piracy via the market forces that he seems to understand and music companies dont.