MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

I don't understand this "more popular songs cost more, less popular cost less". Mainly because it goes against what I see when I got to say, Target, to look at CDs. There the most popular CDs are the cheapest (chart CDs by big bands can most often be purchased for $10 or less), whereas the less well known bands see no discount.

Most likely scenario - we all end up paying more for music.

that's all i have to say about that.

Is this a time warp?

If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Drum up public support for the plan, and maybe Apple will go along. Why the public would embrace paying more for music, I don't know. But if record company executives were smart, they wouldn't be in the position of having Apple able to dictate terms to them anyway.

Quote:"Steve Jobs may change its iTunes prices"

Here the most important word is 'may'. He may or he may not. Essentially this guy doesn't know. He's hoping because that's what he wants.

Such garbage.

MW: gone. this guy will be gone soon, too.

Yaah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt!

I don't understand this either. Usually market price is set higher because something is in great demand but low supply. With digital music, there is an endless supply, so why do they think they can charge more something that's popular?

Also, what determines the level of popularity that will result in a higher price?

I'm sorry, but this whole thing just smacks of greed. If they were going to do this in any segment of their business it should be brick and mortar stores because that's where they have overhead, like production and shipping. iTMS costs the record companies next to nothing and they take most of the money from each sale. It's greed, pure and simple.

It's going to happen, but that will also probably slow sales.

If you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.

WHEN the recording studios cut a bad album, it costs them just the same as a block buster. Sure, the talent may cost them more but mostly it is the marketing and production/distribution that costs a lot.

But there are differences - M&M;:) costs more than I do to cut a single. They should be able to be compensated for that. Likewise, the market demand for 1960's folk songs is pretty low, so why not try to meet market equilibrium by reducing costs. If nothing else, how about being able to promote a single? Instead of being either $0.99 or Free, how about "Five cent Friday" on certain tracks?

"I don't understand this either. Usually market price is set higher because something is in great demand but low supply. With digital music, there is an endless supply, so why do they think they can charge more something that's popular?"

Actually, with intangibles, supply is irrelevant to pricing. Only demand matters. They will charge what the market will bear.

As for comparisons to prices for top selling CDs ar Target or WalMart, this has nothing to do with the record labels. The record labels don't discount those titles, the retailer does. In the case of Target and WalMart, they are often sold as a loss to get people into the store to buy other stuff.

The labels have always charged less for "back catalog" items than they do for new stuff.

The exact same market demographic that is attracted to "new music" also happens to be the largest group participating in LimeWire P2P swapping.

They're not going to pay more for songs on iTunes because THEY'RE NOT PAYING AT ALL on LW.

It would be great if some of these Music Co execs would go on public record through their own media outlets so we could really see if raising rates is their real plan (without slant or bias from reporters). Could they really be stupid enough to think raising cost per song will net them more revenue?

There is usually a price to pay for convenience. Maybe enough people are hooked now that they feel they can change the price structure without losing significant business. I haven't bought a single physical CD since iTMS opened but I've bought far more music had it not opened.

They've had a couple of years now to analyze sales data. They know what sells and what doesn't. An extra 10¢ from new singles for a month might be a huge total figure. I don't like the idea of paying more than 99¢ for a song but maybe the market will allow it. I've got a long list of older songs I haven't bought that might prove more tempting if they dropped below 99¢.

I am in the wait and see camp on this one. Steve doesn't want this so I am highly skeptical that it will come to pass.

This looks like what jfbiii suggests: tenderizing the meat. "Steve Jobs may........" "May" what? Take a dump in the next three hours? Go to Paris in the next 3 months? Attend MacWorld in the next two months? Yeah, he "might" do a lot of things. Looks to me that cNET confirmed that Nicoli opened his mouth and something less than putrid nonsense came out.

I have two words for Eric Nicoli, and any other record execs, if they're serious about this EFF'd up pricing model: Lime Wire. Greedy bastards. I'll dump the ITMS like a hot potato if they do it, and go back to appropriating music through the P2P networks.

Most likely scenario - we all end up paying more for music.

Or less because we decide not to donate money to the recording industry by downloading songs coated in DRM and instead get our music through other channels

Tutty Fruity

In my opinion music isn't worth more than $10 dollars an album. There are to many bands out there that suck and you get ripped off by going to the store ponying up $14-$18 dollars. The industry is greedy and this is probably a compromise for Jobs. Sucks to be a fan of music. Hopefully my favorite bands wont be considered popular.

lets be clear on this:

Steve Jobs won't be the one making the choice, it will be the record companies -- they set the wholesale price and the retailer reacts accordingly.

the slime-ball record execs will "hide" and let Apple take the heat, but unless we know what "gun" was being held to the head of Apple, we won't know the whole story

Apple should introduce variable pricing into the iTunes Music Store!
The pricing should be 99¢ for new songs and cheaper for older less "popular" songs, like around 50¢. These f#$king greedy record companies are still making billions off CD sales. There is no overhead for the greedy record companies on digital music, a song should NEVER be more than 99¢! And for anyone who pays $2 for a 10 second ringtone, shame on you!!!!!!

Well... we can all go back to ripping music for free again... show the music biz execs whos really boss.

but only the record labels WANT to.

will pretend it was their idea or that they liked it too--and downplay the RIAA gun to their head.

Because Apple won't want to look weak and seem like the caved. That's bad when they go to negotiate with other kinds of companies.

Apple will make it sound like a mutual decision. But if it happens, it won't really be mutual, and will be the RIAA.

LimeWire pffft. Poisoned is the shiznit.

Or I could just go to a Russian MP3 site and download anything for a nickel.

http://allofmp3.com/

Seems to me the more popular tracks already generate more $$ for all involved simply by being.....More Popular! Now will the record companies refund the $$/track for all the crap on most CDs no one listens to but is still charged for?? Why could not Apple sell CDs with the songs from the ITMS pre ordered as with the Photo Book. Only much higher bitrates. I would pay a premium for that! "U Pick Greatest Hits!". I'd have volume 300+ by now!

Oh Yeah! More Cowbell!

no big deal. Popular music is generally crap. If they want to charge more for Britney Spears, fine with me.
.
.
.
I can't believe how many of you are encouraging theft. It just screws over us honest people. So thanks for giving us DRM and variable pricing you f*cktards.

Tommy Boy, Poisoned hasn't had any active development for over 10 months. Lime Wire has, and tends to pull a lot more results than Poisoned on any given search. I dislike that Lime Wire is written in java and used Poisoned when it was being actively developed, but I'm going to use what's going to get results.

Stinks of greed.

I LIKE fixed-price mode for singles; don't mind variable album prices so much.

I can't decide if I am opposed to the idea. It would be great to buy a ton of my oldest favorite music for much cheaper and I don't like modern Pop so much. If britney spears songs costs 3 bucks each I couldn't care less. I'm not buying them anyone.

Then again the buyers on the iTunes store have better taste than your average music buyer. To me it seems that the most popular songs on iTunes tend to have more merit to them than the billboard top 40, so maybe that means that they would charge more for good music, not for britney spears. If that is the case I don't want to pay more but if the record companies started making more money from making good music instead of pop trash, I would be willing to pay more to help that trend out.

MDN word: decided, as in the opposite of what I am on this issue.

as i recall, back when i was a wee lad buying 7"/45 rpm singles, they all cost $0.99 a piece. all the time. without exception. for TWO songs mind you. you paid for the a-side and the b-side was lagniappe basically. so where is that bonus now?

more cowbell


and fucktards

I believe the variable pricing scheme will be: everything costs more, but to a different degree. Yay! How creative! Now I can pay $3 for the new U2 "hit" and $1.35 for an old Rush song. Super fucking sweet.

>From: Bizarro Jeff

>I have two words for Eric Nicoli, and any other >record execs, if they're serious about this EFF'd up >pricing model: Lime Wire. Greedy bastards. I'll dump >the ITMS like a hot potato if they do it, and go >back to appropriating music through the P2P networks.

I have to wonder if this is EXACTLY what the record execs want to happen... Forcing people to drop iTunes, even at the expense of lost records sales for a awhile, may be the only true way they can get Steve off their backs. Then of course they institute a Draconian search and destroy mission on the P2P sites and force everyone back to "business as usual" model they want to keep now.

However, these execs are probably not that bright or patient...

MW: level. "May I have a level check here before I start singing the blues?"

While I wont pay more than $.99 for a track I dont have a problem being charged less for older works. I think the labels will be mostly disappointed in sales of newer tracks if they do get a price hike on them

"I can't believe how many of you are encouraging theft. It just screws over us honest people. So thanks for giving us DRM and variable pricing you f*cktards."

Who's stealing from whom? There are three groups involved, the bands, the music industry, and the commoners who buy the good music and/or drivel. The band writes the music, the listeners enjoy the music, and the industry steals from both- and it makes a hell of a lot less sense when they aren't needed to pay the cost of producrion: the band creates, and Apple stores. WTF has EMI done? The only thing that they can "Add" is price control. They tell the band that they can 'force' Apple to pay them a higher fee. If, instead, you simply cut those limp-dickers out, the U2's songs wouldn't sell for the $1.50, but the U2's would get the money they made at $.99 PLUS the money that the chislers normally stole.

Who in the hell needs the record labels? They're trying to force Apple while they still have people under contract; in 3-5 years THEY GOT NUTHIN.

ITMS is already overpriced for what you get (low bitrate, no sleevenotes, nothing tangible). This would make it a total waste of time. Price cuts, not price hikes!!

guys like Paul Thurrott love this proposal because they know it will fuck up iTunes

which.. helps MS and WMA..

how nice of Paul to be so forthright

I think Steve Jobs may say otherwise. I'm sure he doesn't appreciate this guy putting words in his mouth that he might not have actually said.

I would take this with a microscopic grain of salt.

Nearly everything I want is 15 years or more old, or is obscure indie stuff. Bring on the 50¢ and 75¢ tracks. I don't buy Usher, Spears, or anyone who appears on award shows or Disney.

I like the idea of 5¢ Fridays!!

I don't buy much music as it is; the only way to get me to spend "more" is to make the price "less". 99¢ is already the maximum I will pay for a track, so the labels better get ready for a dip in sales if they think that they can get a higher price.


MW=less;

When Apple changes its prices (if they go up), I'll change where I buy my music downloads.

Note to the labels: I'll make you a deal. You can increase the price on newer songs by no more than $0.25 if, and only if, every cent of that increase goes to the artist. I have no interest in paying more just so you guys can line your pockets. This is after all your entire argument, isn't it? That p2p only hurts the artists? So if you are willing to give the artists the extra cash they deserve, then I have no problem with a modest increase.

If not, you can shove your increase and go piss up a rope.

M

99c is ultimately doomed by inflation, not to mention that it really is a dollar just as $4,995 is $5,000 [and five 99c songs] and 1984 wasn't really 1984.

of course we'll pay more for ITMS songs, every other ITMS in the world already does pay more than us and it hasn't slowed them down. I'm not saying it's right, just that users will pay.

Sign up for a subscription service for $7.99 (Red Pass- Virgin). Two million selections. Convert to unprotected MP3 with Muv Audio. That'll learn 'em!

MW: Was. iTunes was the dominant music service.