Apple: rumors untrue, iTunes Music Store songs will remain 99-cents per track

“Apple Computer Inc. on Friday flatly denied a report that the computer maker was planning to raise prices for songs bought on its popular iTunes online music store. ‘These rumors aren’t true,’ said Apple spokeswoman Natalie Sequeira. ‘We have multiyear agreements with the labels and our prices remain 99 cents a track,'” Reuters reports.

“Apple’s statement came after the New York Post reported on Friday, citing one unnamed source, that music fans may have to start paying more for some songs on Apple’s music store following contract renegotiations with the record labels ahead of the one-year anniversary of the store,” Reuters reports.

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Gotta love The New York Post, huh?

20 Comments

  1. Jeff, my camel thanks you. The flees were causing him to scratch uncontrollably. I guess he should also thank the New York Post. Maybe they should just hire Enderle and Thurrott to complete their lock on journalistic integrity.

  2. If anything iTunes should lower it’s prices to $0.50 to $0.75 per track I think more people than would stop using p2p and start paying for songs. Some people are just going to say fuck I’m not paying a dollar for a song when I can get it for free.

  3. I’m guessing that Glaser guy would love to start this sort of rumor… after Apple let his begging/threatening email get leaked to the press.

    if you can’t compete, sabatoge

  4. The Labels have been loosing money to P2P, and that Russian site.

    They see the success of iTMS and testing the waters a bit, they see people developing playlists and sharing them via iTunes and not going by the album purchases anymore.

    The artists don’t like the idea of ala-cart, they like the idea of a few hit songs and the rest filler.

    I have over 5,000 songs, only half are worth listening to, then out of those 800 not very much at all.

    User playlists would go a lot towards saving people money.

  5. Drop the price for tunes older than 3 years to 50 cents, albums older than 3 years to 4.99 and sales will replace some p2p downloads. You can’t do much about singles versus albums if the buyer is on dial-up and has a limited budget; but there should be an economic incentive to purchase an album — it’s the most basic retail principle — charge less for more — say 69cents times the number of tracks?

  6. As long as they lock the prices in at the current levels forever, inflation will do the work of making them cheaper.

    I would like to see some sort of standarization for album prices though. Something like 9.90 per 12 songs included with proportional increases for more songs. That would drive more album sales.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.