iTunes prices

[Dusty Chalk]

...raised

In other news, eMusic subscriptions are up. (Alright, that's not news, that's a prediction.)

[grawk]

In other news, drm is gone, and some itunes songs are as cheap as $0.69.

[hungrych]

This would be a great time to for Amazon to advertise the fact that anything that's 1.29 on iTunes will still be 99 cents on their store.

[aardvark baguette]

what is "MP3"?

[Dreadhead]

what is "MP3"?

somethings that makes computer thingies produce music stuff

[LFF]

somethings that makes computer thingies produce music stuff

Remember people - there is MP3 and then, there is my MP3's.

[grawk]

Not yet, I'm sure as some don't move they'll get lowered. Market rarely starts at the low price

[hungrych]

This would be a great time to for Amazon to advertise the fact that anything that's 1.29 on iTunes will still be 99 cents on their store.

Nevermind, they're doing the same thing.

I don't understand the logic here. "Music sales are going down, so let's make them cost more!"?

[grawk]

This was driven by the labels, not by apple or amazon.

[hungrych]

I know, but that only explains why it makes no sense, not why they think it's a good idea.

[Dusty Chalk]

Nevermind, they're doing the same thing.

I don't understand the logic here. "Music sales are going down, so let's make them cost more!"?

Those that are willing to actually pay for mp3's are willing to pay more for them?

[grawk]

they want to say "see, we offered it without drm, and sales went down"

[hungrych]

Those that are willing to actually pay for mp3's are willing to pay more for them?

But since the system supposedly makes more popular stuff more expensive, it should affect the top 40 the most, and I think people buying top 40 stuff are generally younger and more likely to turn to piracy.

[mirumu]

they want to say "see, we offered it without drm, and sales went down"

They don't want to risk losing customers who like DRM. The kind who'd say "I just don't feel like I'm getting value for money unless some of that fancy DRM comes bundled with my music". I'd like to say I'm being sarcastic, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if record company execs actually believe such consumers exist.

[aardvark baguette]

i know music is expensive, but is hijacking ships truly the answer teenagers are looking for?

See, this is why we need to stop the smuggling of U.S. guns across the boarder.

[TheSloth]

"Sources at Apple tell me that Apple is getting different prices than Amazon from the recording idustry. The record companies are, and have been for awhile, favoring Amazon. In fact, Amazon is selling songs for less than the price that Apple pays for them in some cases."

From MacRumors.com. Apple's success has really scared the record companies - they can't handle the loss of control, and are subtly trying to break Apple down by supporting other vendors. This isn't 'competition' in the beneficial sense, as the pricing is still being set by a monopoly figure which is now using pricing as a way of maintaining that monopoly. Shame on them.

[zippy2001]

"Sources at Apple tell me that Apple is getting different prices than Amazon from the recording idustry. The record companies are, and have been for awhile, favoring Amazon. In fact, Amazon is selling songs for less than the price that Apple pays for them in some cases."

As far as I know, Apple is getting different pricing than Amazon.com, they are paying less than Amazon.com. The record companies do favor Amazon because they are easier to work with. Apple has been using their marketshare to leverage better pricing and doing things their way.

From MacRumors.com. Apple's success has really scared the record companies - they can't handle the loss of control, and are subtly trying to break Apple down by supporting other vendors. This isn't 'competition' in the beneficial sense, as the pricing is still being set by a monopoly figure which is now using pricing as a way of maintaining that monopoly. Shame on them.

If all tracks are priced the same, the record companies can not influence buying by putting things on sale. With the premium prices for popular tracks, this may entice the Beatles to release their catalog digitally.

[zippy2001]

But since the system supposedly makes more popular stuff more expensive, it should affect the top 40 the most, and I think people buying top 40 stuff are generally younger and more likely to turn to piracy.

Will 30 cents make people turn to piracy? I don't think it will, especially if they are only buying one track instead of an entire album.

And if they are willing to turn to piracy they are probably already doing so.

Hopefully this pricing model will help improve the profit margin and get the artist royalties paid and also increase sales of slow / non moving music that may otherwise get forgotten about.

[grawk]

I'd imagine the odds of most artists getting royalties out of this new arrangement is somewhere between not fucking likely and no chance at all.

[zippy2001]

I'd imagine the odds of most artists getting royalties out of this new arrangement is somewhere between not fucking likely and no chance at all.

the artists are going to be screwed just like all the other times they were screwed. it's just how it works.

It's always a gamble with each release, most of them do not make any money. And new artists normally have crappy contracts, so if they do sell well, they are supporting the other releases that lose money. So you are right that lots of artists get screwed.

Once an artist is established, they renegotiate their contracts and can make huge profits. The Beatles take home the majority of their record sales. The Beatles contract is so lucrative that when Steve Hoffman tried to license the Beatles catalog it was so cost prohibitive that he would be losing money on each sale.