Apple CEO Steve Jobs may change its iTunes prices with “the next twelve months,” charging more than 99 cents for popular songs and cutting prices for those by unknown acts, the head of EMI Music, Alain Levy, told reporters in Europe today. A recent report on CNET (broadcast) today has confirmed this report.
Carolyn Pritchard reports for MarketWatch, “The chief executive of EMI Music, Alain Levy, said EMI had discussed the issue with Apple CEO Steve Jobs and believed Apple planned to end its single-price policy for iTunes music, the Wall Street Journal reported on its Web site. ‘We are having discussions which make us believe it will happen in the next 12 months,’ Levy reportedly said at a press conference in London for the company’s half-year profit results. ‘There is a common understanding that we will have to come to a variable pricing structure. The issue is when. There is a case for superstars to have a higher price.'”
Full article here.
The Wall Street Journal also has a report (subscription only) here.
[UPDATED: 12:29pm EST: Added MarketWatch report. Corrected EMI executive to Alain Levy.]
Advertisement: The New iPod with Video. The ultimate music + video experience on the go. From $299. Free shipping.
Related articles:
In 99-cent fight with ‘Looney iTunes’ labels, Apple CEO Jobs will get whatever Jobs wants – September 29, 2005
Warner music exec discusses decapitation strategy for Apple iTunes Music Store – September 28, 2005
Warner CEO Bronfman: Apple iTunes Music Store’s 99-cent-per-song model unfair – September 23, 2005
Analyst: Apple has upper hand in iTunes Music Store licensing negotiations with music labels – September 23, 2005
Steve Jobs plays high-stakes poker with greedy record labels – September 22, 2005
Record labels accuse Apple CEO Jobs of ‘double standard’ as they seek to force iTunes price increase – September 21, 2005
Apple CEO Steve Jobs to repel ‘greedy’ record companies’ demands for higher iTunes prices – September 21, 2005
Apple CEO Steve Jobs vows to stand firm in face of ‘greedy’ record companies – September 20, 2005
NYT’s Pogue to record companies: it’d be idiotic to mess with Apple iTunes Music Store prices – August 31, 2005
Apple CEO Steve Jobs prepares for pivotal fight on digital music prices – August 28, 2005
BusinessWeek: Apple unlikely to launch music subscription service – August 15, 2005
Record labels to push Apple for higher iTunes Music Store prices in 2006? – August 05, 2005
Study shows Apple iTunes Music Store pay-per-download model preferred over subscription service – April 11, 2005
Record labels look to raise iTunes wholesale prices, music industry fears Apple’s market domination – March 05, 2005
Report: Apple CEO Steve Jobs ‘angered’ as music labels try to raise prices for downloads – February 28, 2005
Report: Music labels delay Euro iTunes Music Store fearing Apple domination – May 05, 2004
Greedy Big Five music labels looking to jack up iTunes songs to $2.49 each? – April 22, 2004
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.