Apple to change ITunes pricing

[SoCalMK]

http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/16/apple-emi-itunes-cx_pak_1116autofacescan08.html

God I hate Apple!

[sammie]

Not so much an Apple deal. The record labels have been trying to force a price increase for some time.

[Faustus]

Not so much an Apple deal. The record labels have been trying to force a price increase for some time.

Yup so the correct response would be "God I hate the record companies/RIAA"

[suppafreak]

And they wonder why people stealing music.

I hate RIAA soooooo much

[shelbyGT]

I already think that a buck is too much for one song. I'm willing to pay 10 dollars for some cd's (the ones with a lot of good songs on them). But honestly... 1 dollar for 1 song... I don't know. And definitely not 1.25-1.50 for a song, heck no.

[SoCalMK]

I do hate the RIAA, but the statment still stands independent:

God I hate Apple!

[Faustus]

I do hate the RIAA, but the statment still stands independent:

God I hate Apple!

For what?


Anyway on topic, the REcord labels should be ashamed of themselves.

[thecoalman]

Reads:

Levy, along with executives from Warner Music Group and Sony BMG, the joint venture between Sony and Bertelsmann, have been pushing Jobs publicly and privately to move to a tiered pricing system, where older, less popular songs could be discounted, and in-demand singles could go for more than a dollar.......

Means:

Older songs stay a buck, popular and new releases go up in price.

If they cost more than a buck that will put them right in line with what it would cost for a CD on per song basic. The big argument used to be they had to produce these CD's, package them, ship them etc. Downloads are dirt cheap, probably amounts to a fraction of a penny per song.........

[robertazimmerman]

I would reluctantly pay $0.75/song if they were available in WAV, FLAC or SHN formats. Paying for crappy sounding MP3s? You've got to be nuts. I wouldn't download them if they were free.

roberta

[adam]

Yeah Apple really just had their hands tied. Either they started charging more for the more popular music or the studios would just not license the music to them at all.

It does sort of make sense to charge more for new/popular songs. I mean a Milli Vanilla song shouldn't cost the same as whatever is #1 on the charts right now, but from the standpoint of an online music store a 1 price fits all policy just works so well. And if any of the songs go over $1 than its not worth it in my opinion.

[RKelly]

what about the other major music download services? (Walmart, RealNetworks, MSN, etc ) Are they going to have to charge more as well? Won't this move push iTunes users to cheaper, other download sites?

[ROF]

Like all good businesses, you bait your customers early on with lower prices. Once you get a demand and a customer base who is more than willing to pay, you raise the price. Sure, you lose some customers but the raise in price maintains the bottom line and as with all businesses there will always be new people to pay your higher prices.

Who remembers games at an arcade outlet that cost a quarter to play? Try and find a quarter machine today. They are quite scarce with $1.00 per game being the average.

[adam]

Except that Apple was very much opposed to raising their prices. It was forced by the studios, period.

I think that the jump from a quarter to a dollar is due more to inflation. But I still see quarter machines in every arcade.

[ROF]

There is no denying Apple was forced into this decision. This will probably benefit alot of people myself included. I do not listen to todays music only music from the distant past. These will be price marked under the current .99 cents, so I will get increased value for my purchasing dollars. .99 cents is really too cheap for songs anyways. i would think $1.50 or $2.50 would be more appropriate. Considering the average price of a full length CD is $15 to $20. .99 cents a song is too close to the price of an entire CD. Individual tracks should cost more thus making entire CDs more valuable. The problem with that is very few artists today actually create an entire CD worth listening to from beginning to end.

[NoodleMaps]

I'll stick with allofmp3.com

[e404pnf]

...Considering the average price of a full length CD is $15 to $20. .99 cents a song is too close to the price of an entire CD. Individual tracks should cost more thus making entire CDs more valuable...

Surely the whole point (or at least a major one) of downloading your music is that it is cheaper. No shops, no sales staff, no CD manufacturing/package/distributing etc meaning a cheaper end product for the consumer. If the CD is the same cost as downloading the mp3 what is the advantage of going to iTunes (or similar) and what happens to the extra money???

On a side note....it maybe 99c/track in US, 99c/track in "Europe" (1 Euro = US$1.2), but in the UK they cost used to cost 99p each (now 79p I think) (£1 = US$1.70 = 1.46 Euro). Not sure if they have 'corrected' this yet but they prohibit UK users from buying from the European store (well you need a Euro Bank Account, which you can't get unless you work/study in the Euro-Zone), which is illegal under EU Free-Trade legislation.

- e404pnf

[Kingnog]

I'll stick with allofmp3.com

You might as well just download "illegally," then. I'm pretty sure the artists aren't making anything from allofmp3 downloads, you're just paying to maintain their site/make them a profit.

[Snakebyte1]

What a song is worth and what someone is willing to pay for it can be two different things.

There has be be a compromise on both sides when it comes to pricing. If a song is valued at $2.00 but hardly anyone buys it, its not going to make any profit. Where those old Supply and Demand curves intersect is optmimal price.

In this case I would say that the majority of individuals in the market for this product would not be willing to pay $2.00+ for a single song at this time.

[robertazimmerman]

I am simply amazed that people are ready to pay $1.00 - $1.50 for crappy sounding MP3s!

You cannot compare MP3s with CDs! CDs contain uncompressed 16-bit audio files. Compressed MP3 files sound horrible compared to CDs. Why would you be willing to pay comparable money for lower quality?

MP3 albums should sell for $3.00-5.00 if regular CDs sell for $15.00. Anyone who feels that $15.00 is justified for MP3 albums either doesn't care about the quality of the sound or has too much money.

roberta

[Kingnog]

There's nothing wrong with a high-bitrate mp3. I'm willing to bet you can't tell the difference between a 192kbps mp3 and an uncompressed wav through crappy ipod headphones, let alone 320kbps

[ROF]

There's nothing wrong with a high-bitrate mp3. I'm willing to bet you can't tell the difference between a 192kbps mp3 and an uncompressed wav through crappy ipod headphones, let alone 320kbps

Exactly. MP3's have made music more portable. Most headphones and even medium speaker systems won't notice any difference. But the topic is about iTunes which doesn't sell MP3s anyways.

[smearbrick1]

There is no denying Apple was forced into this decision. This will probably benefit alot of people myself included. I do not listen to todays music only music from the distant past. These will be price marked under the current .99 cents, so I will get increased value for my purchasing dollars. .99 cents is really too cheap for songs anyways. i would think $1.50 or $2.50 would be more appropriate. Considering the average price of a full length CD is $15 to $20. .99 cents a song is too close to the price of an entire CD. Individual tracks should cost more thus making entire CDs more valuable. The problem with that is very few artists today actually create an entire CD worth listening to from beginning to end.

Crack? Are you on it?

$2.50 per song for an AAC file? At this cost, you would be farther ahead to go to the store and buy the cd. Then you could make several AAC files of the song. $.99 is a perfect per song rate. Older songs could be cheaper. Especially since you aren't getting the artwork, original disc, full CD resolution, and the warm and fuzzy feeling you get when the smell of the polycarbonate disc hits the old nostrils. Currently, you get the song for $.99 cents... a compressed version. $.99 is perfect. Let it alone.

[shelbyGT]

I've got decent equipment and while yes you can tell the difference between a CD audio and an mp4 iTunes file, it isn't enough for me to really care. I buy an album for 10 bucks from iTunes and I can do it in my underwear, listen to it instantly and put it on the ipod, make a copy of it (and copy that as many times as I want)... I'm paying for that service. I'm not a big fan of driving to the store, buying it, unwrapping it... all that for liner notes.. no thanks.

[ROF]

I'm not a big fan of driving to the store, buying it, unwrapping it... all that for liner notes.. no thanks.

There was a time when friends would gather round and go to the store on release date to purchase the album. Some purchased it for the music, some for the liner notes, some for both. The problem with this is most artists and their marketers only include credits now instead of stories, bio pics, or other goodies.

[Faustus]

I just say if you want me to pay more money you better offer higher bitrate.

Arounbd 320 should make it worth it.

[robertazimmerman]

There's nothing wrong with a high-bitrate mp3. I'm willing to bet you can't tell the difference between a 192kbps mp3 and an uncompressed wav through crappy ipod headphones, let alone 320kbps

There's nothing wrong with a "high-rate mp3" (talk about an oxymoron!)? Someone would have to be deaf not to hear the difference. I recently replaced some CDs that were made from 320kbps MP3s with original commercial ones. The difference in quality was astounding.

Why in the name of Bob Ludwig would I want to listen to music "through crappy ipod headphones"? I'm sure I couldn't hear the difference underwater either.

Music is meant to be enjoyed, not tolerated. Listening to compressed music is something that can be tolerated if necessary, but it ain't hi-fidelity and it cannot compare to uncompressed music.

Do yourselves a favor and compare MP3s and uncompressed music thru a good system. You'll either notice the vast difference immediately, or you're a fortunate person who is satisfied with the quality of compressed music and will save a bundle on equipment!

roberta

[ROF]

There's nothing wrong with a high-bitrate mp3. I'm willing to bet you can't tell the difference between a 192kbps mp3 and an uncompressed wav through crappy ipod headphones, let alone 320kbps

There's nothing wrong with a "high-rate mp3" (talk about an oxymoron!)? Someone would have to be deaf not to hear the difference. I recently replaced some CDs that were made from 320kbps MP3s with original commercial ones. The difference in quality was astounding.

To you and me the difference maybe significant, but you must remember there are people here and elsewhere who backup 5.5-6.5 GB movies on 4.3 GB discs and call them good quality backups. Each person has their own individual tolerance for what is quality and what is tolerable.

[vitualis]

Encoded properly, MP3 at 320 kbit/s are transparent with the original.

I don't care how good your ears are, you will not be able to tell the difference.

If you use a crappy encoder or do something stupid like encoding a WMA or lower bitrate MP3 into a higher bitrate one, then yes, you may well hear the difference.

Realistically, no one (and I mean no one including those audiophiles using multi-thousand dollar equipment) can tell the difference between an MP3 encoded with LAME at high quality VBR with an average bitrate of higher than around 256 kbit/s.

Regards.

[shelbyGT]

I bought my system for movies, not really for music. I listen to most of my music in the car...

[yoda313]

Great maybe I'll start buying from musicmatch instead........