Suggestion to Apple: Knock iTMS prices

[Mechcozmo]

A preference in iTunes that allows you to choose your preferred bitrate out of, say, 4 or 5 wouldn't be all that hard.

 

[ftaok]

Here is what I'd like to see them offer(assuming AAC-Plus is good):
-96kbps AAC-Plus - $0.79/song - $7.99/album
-160kbps AAC-Plus - $0.85/song - $8.50/album
-224kbps AAC-Plus - $0.95/song - $9.50/album
-320kbps AAC-Plus - $0.99/song - $9.99/album
-Apple Lossless - $1.05/song - $10.50/album
-Full CD Quality - $1.09/song - $10.99/album

The problem with having this many options is that the server costs for Apple goes up since they now have to have more storage space to house 6 copies of each album instead of one. Plus the better the quality, the more space required. Also, if consumers flock to the higher quality songs, the bandwidth costs also increase since you'd be download more MB.

It takes long enough to download an album at 128 kbps, I couldn't imagine wanting to download more than a few songs at 44,000 kbps.

 

[wowser]

Also - it's just confusing to users who don't know about sample rates, and just complicates the system for everyone

 

[StarbucksSam]

I don't think we should start asking Apple to go into the business or providing low and high quality MUSIC and making it extremely complicated. That will hurt their sales a lot as Apple's iTMS is portrayed as easy to use and accessible to older and middle-aged people who aren't as computer savvy.

 

[MisterMe]

Decreasing profit 10-20 cents is not the same as a 10-20 cent loss on a song, unless you are making the assumption that someone would have bought the song at either price point. The poster my comment was directed was implying the break even price is in the neighborhood of 79-89 cents and that selling at 69 cents is a 10-20 cent loss. I think the break even is actually lower and that by decreasing the price to $.69 Apple would still turn a profit, meaning that they wouldn't "lose" 10-20 cents on that song unless the buyer would have bought at full price.

For example, lets say the profit is .50 per song and they sell 1 million a month. Total profit is 500,000. Reduce price to .69 and now profit is only .19, but if that increases sales to 5 million a month, they make 950,000 in profit.

You labor under the notion most of the money generated by the iTMS goes to Apple. Not true. The best estimates are that Apple earns a profit of maybe $0.05 per song sold. Most of that $0.99/song sales price goes to the record labels and the iTMS infrastructure, marketing, and operation.

 

[StarbucksSam]

You labor under the notion most of the money generated by the iTMS goes to Apple. Not true. The best estimates are that Apple earns a profit of maybe $0.05 per song sold. Most of that $0.99/song sales price goes to the record labels and the iTMS infrastructure, marketing, and operation.

Excellent point. Maybe a buy 10 get one free thing? No?

 

[szark]

Lossless is not full CD quality.....if it was it would be full size.........it's as close as you come to sounding like full CD quality.

On the contrary, lossless is full CD quality if it has been created from a CD source.

Lossless = no-loss compression. When you compress a group of files using a program like Stuffit or Winzip, it reduces the total file size but doesn't destroy any of the information. It's the same with lossless audio -- none of the information is lost, so the quality is the same.

 

[Mantat]

Lossless is not full CD quality.....if it was it would be full size.........it's as close as you come to sounding like full CD quality.

Wrong! Thats is why its called lossless! There is no lost of data. Its like image compression, There are destructive format (JPEG) which are much smaller than the non destructive format (ex: Tif). But both would be smaller than a bitmap who use no compression at all.