Record labels accuse Apple CEO Jobs of 'double standard' a...


Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
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?"
Who is stopping them from being denied, go and sell using those "other opportunities" :p

Oh, wait -- they aren't iTunes are they and not doing as well in the marketplace.
 

TheMonarch

macrumors 65816
May 6, 2005
1,469
1
Bay Area
"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"


Umm... iPod prices have gone DOWN.
 

TheMonarch

macrumors 65816
May 6, 2005
1,469
1
Bay Area
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...
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
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...
I've purchased probably 4- to 5-hundred dollars worth of songs on ITMS.

The labels would have likely sold me nothing if they had relied on me to go to the store and buy it.

Let them go eff themselves, I say.

Call their bluff, Steve™.
 

2nyRiggz

macrumors 603
Aug 20, 2005
6,159
66
Thank you Jah...I'm so Blessed
whats going on man..

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.

More Times!
 

winmacguy

macrumors 68020
Nov 8, 2003
2,237
0
New Zealand
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.

More Times!
Regarding your signature, approached has got an "A" in it 2nyRiggz.
 

Stella

macrumors G3
Apr 21, 2003
8,273
4,636
Canada
What do you expect - the music industry to say that higher prices will lead to more piracy?

Greed, greed, greed.

I love to see the day when Record companies are bypassed by artists for selling their music on the internet.

Their inability to change with the times is shocking and a complete shambles.
They act as if they are really in todays world, but 20 years ago.
 

bousozoku

Moderator emeritus
Jun 25, 2002
13,951
3
Gone but not forgotten.
They can say what they want but when did they lower prices? What about record unit sales? They're doing quite well. It's not as if they're losing money. It would be difficult to have the prices all over the place the way the grocery store does. They spend so much time and money changing prices that they have to keep prices high overall. I doubt that would go well with the iTunes Music Store.
 

michaelrjohnson

macrumors 68020
Aug 9, 2000
2,174
1
53132
Taking jabs at each other aren't the best ways to accomplish something. But either way, criticizing the iTMS for lack of pricing flexibility isnt' necessarily not possible it may just be not desired. Apple's all about the experience, (and the simplicity, and the $.99 threshold) and variable pricing doesn't fit into that scheme anywhere.

Considering the percentage of each purchase that already goes to the record labels, it's absurd to think they want to charge more.

I may come off as biased. But listen, I don't give a crap about iTMS. All I really care about is a good music-buying experience at a low cost.
 

jydesign

macrumors member
Oct 23, 2003
59
0
From the article: "Music is art; it's not a commodity," the source said. "Things that are more relevant command more money. The idea of saying it should all be 99 cents is absurd. Variable pricing is the norm in the music business and every business — even the iPod business."

Things that are relevant should command the HIGHEST relative market price, not necessarily 'more money'. I would agree with the statement above if you said that the most relevant songs will cost 99 cents - as that I belive is what Steve Jobs is advocating being the top-end market price. Then, hey, I'd love to see variable pricing in that scenario because it would lead to an obscure song from the 80's costing less!
 

SPUY767

macrumors 68020
Jun 22, 2003
2,018
112
GA
This lying sack of @#$%!!@# from the record company should be killed. Variable pricing my ass! If more current material should cost more, then why does my 30 year old "Frampton Comes Alive" STILL cost just as much as 50 Cent's latest?
 

Heb1228

macrumors 68020
Feb 3, 2004
2,217
0
Virginia Beach, VA
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.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,220
quae tangit perit Trump
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.
Which, as it stands today, would be detrimental to downloadable music since the iPod retains the greatest market-share of portable players.

I would support variable pricing if $.99 is the ceiling, but I don't think that's what the labels would do, I have a feeling that some obscure titles might be $.50, but I'm sure the newest and greatest hits would be $1.99 just for example. Steve Jobs has been wrong about lots of things, but he's definitely right here.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
bousozoku said:
They can say what they want but when did they lower prices? What about record unit sales?
UMG cut list prices by about 1/3 late in 2003. Apple did not pass those savings along to consumers.
 

Deepdale

macrumors 68000
May 4, 2005
1,965
0
New York
Stella said:
Their inability to change with the times is shocking and a complete shambles. They act as if they are really in todays world, but 20 years ago.
They are trapped in a time-warp from which they cannot escape.
 

robbieduncan

Moderator emeritus
Jul 24, 2002
24,488
13
London
iMeowbot said:
UMG cut list prices by about 1/3 late in 2003. Apple did not pass those savings along to consumers.
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

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
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.
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.
 

Fender2112

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2002
1,077
268
Charlotte, NC
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.
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
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.
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.

And in the end, as always, the RIAA will look like arse candles™.
 

billyboy

macrumors 65816
Mar 15, 2003
1,165
0
In my head
How stupid is the music industry?

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 in a positive way, 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 Steve Jobs seems to understand and music companies dont.
 

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,583
0
Randy's House
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.
More than half a billion songs...why don't they go lock up some 80-year-olds again?