MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Ahhh .... I dunno ...

As the old saying goes .... "Money talks .. and ..." ... well, you know the rest ...

The Record labels are, of course greedy ... and who knows how long His Steveness can fend off their efforts, but, IMHO ... there isnt much "new" stuff worth the premium price anyhoo !!



MDN MW = "attack" ...(insert your own witty remark here "_____________" )

The only thing the EMI guy told us was his wet dream.


Ewww.

f EMi....f Sony...they're dinosaurs.

Steve jobs will need to negotiate with music labels since the outcome will affect future negotiations with movie/tv execs.
Just because Apple has the power, they need to show they can be flexible and this might limit the tv networks from creating their own tv show downloads.
The TV networks will relize they need to get into the ecosystem of iPod and tv shows. One hand washes the other.
I think Steve know how to deal with this. But if he's too stubborn he will risk TV networks snubbing iTunes.
That will suck.

errr .. not that I'm an actual iTMS paying customer, but .. cheap prices, if they are really really cheap (like me), for oldies and heritage music certainly has an appealing ring to it. If this flies I hope the record companies quit screwing around and license out their full archives to all the iTMSs. That would really get me happy.

Thats OK by me, because most new music is total crap to begin with.

Fsck EMI, I'll just switch to P2P if they start adjusting the pricing.

I despise most of the chart music anyway, who the hell wants to listen to Britney Spears or any other talentless turdwipe who sells 100 records and gets to Number 1?

Different Prices for DIfferent Bit-rates.
99¢ for 128 AAC on OLD Recordings (Analog Master).
$1.29 for 224 AAC on Digital Master.
$1.49 for 320 AAC on Jazz & Classical as an option.

Why does MDN say that music labels called "greedy"?
Does making a profit make one greedy? Then Apple is greedy, too.

Is MDN greedy for cluttering up its website with way too many ads?????

Ok, let's make the prices go up automatically when more songs are bought, or should it work the other way around?

Made in China: large quantities> cheap prices, Made in US: large quantites> higher prices. But hey, it's not actual objects we are selling here, only MB's of data so should the prices be the same.

"Different Prices for DIfferent Bit-rates.
99¢ for 128 AAC on OLD Recordings (Analog Master).
$1.29 for 224 AAC on Digital Master.
$1.49 for 320 AAC on Jazz & Classical as an option."

Here's something even more straightforward:
99¢ for ALL 128 AAC (compressed from Highest quality Master available)
$1.29 for ALL Lossless files (from same source as above)

****

If the record industry is really smart, the prices would be: 79¢/99¢

In this situation, everyone wins. the consumer, because they can get the same quality for less, or better quality at the same price. Apple, because they'll sell more songs, leading to more iPod sales to fit all of these new purchases on and lastly, the record labels becuase they'll get more (practically pure-profit) sales.

Sadly, the record industry is made up of complete ignoramuses and they'll just fight over trying to make a 128 kbps AAC cost $2.50. I doubt we'll see the logical pricing structure see the light of day - unless Steve finds a way to take over the record industry.

Consumers can now be overcharged on downloads, too. Sure, you used to want to use iTMS, but the chance to spend $15.99 or $16.99 on a hip hop CD was just too compelling. Now you can pay the same for an mp3 version and get on with enjoying DRM and average sound quality at prices you are more comfortable paying. Phew! Thanks EMI! You're terrific.

Queezie: making a profit is fine. Who said they weren't making a profit under the $0.99 a track price?

OK, so right now we are paying 99 cents per song, or roughly $10 per CD if you buy the entire album. If I am buying a la cart, I'm not paying much less than the record companies charge at a brick & mortar. I'm getting a lower quality recording, and if I want it on CD, I have to supply my own CD.

The record companies actually make out better here because they only need to supply the sound file. They don't supply CD, packaging, cover art, etc., and they are making nearly the same amount.

They now want to increase the price by what? 25%? 50%? I think that this sucks. Apple is giving them a cheaper way to distribute music, but it's just not enough.

OK, that is what I call greedy.

LMAO I told you biatches this was goin to happen!!!! I freakin TOLD YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


*laughs all the way to the bank* ..

now if they are changin the prices maybe you guys should demand a better encoding of your file. 192kb sounds way better than 128.. and its not much more larger. And its not much money from Apple's stand point to encode that!

The record companies better just hope that there are a lot of fans for the new music. I don't care about any of it. If they drop pricing on older stuff I might just be cashing in on that; as it stands I am even reluctant to buy older stuff at 99¢. I can assure them that I won't be making any purchases at more than 99¢ on anything. And anything I really care about, I shop around and find it on CD. Something tells me that this is all going to crash around their ears.

MW="zebra"; funny, that was my MW on another site yesterday.

Well, if iTunes breaks a buck per song... I am firing up Acquisition again for my music.

When iTunes released the music store I dumped over 2K downloaded song and legally bought about 500 of them back from iTunes. If iTunes gets out of whack with pricing, because of greedy Apple or greedy labels... I will stop using iTMS and go right back to Acquisition... though I will still use iTunes to manager my music, and my iPod to listen to music.

The Dude abides.

I won't buy until they start encoding at 192 AAC or higher. And how long will that wait be? Zzzzzzzzzzz........

When MDN talks about negotiating tactics, one should have much doubt. There have been at least a couple of notable retractions about comapany's negotiating tactics by MDN in recent weeks, so form your own conclusions and think for yourselves.

no more iTunes if the price goes above 99 cents

With variable pricing, I can see a new dynamic on music downloads:

- Oldies & less popular @ 79¢ will be bought from iTunes
- Newer & more popular @ $1.29 will be downloaded from P2P
- Other songs @ 99¢ will swing either way. But since people will be using P2P for the $1.29 songs anyway, they may be tempted to download these as well.

Bottomline: the labels will actually make LESS $. Don't they realize they're driving themselves out of business?

MW: closed. This case is closed.

If predictions that Labels will be earning less after they increase the price are correct we should probably not worry as they will have to return to a more profitable strategy:) Or if they do not they will just go bankrupt. Again, if the predictions are correct.

Here's something even more straightforward:
99¢ for ALL 128 AAC (compressed from Highest quality Master available)
$1.29 for ALL Lossless files (from same source as above)

Macnut222 is right. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I am waiting for. Except that I would make it closer to:

79¢ for ALL 128 AAC
89¢ for ALL 128 AAC BRAND NEW RELEASES
99¢ for ALL LOSSLESS

As I have said in the past they should be adjusting the price down not up. Many people just don't get this "Wal-Mart" way of business, you lower the price and make your money in volume. You raise the price and more and more people leave the market. The other comments on this article prove that.
The music executives should be kissing SJ butt not arguing over prices. Are they that dumb (I guess they are).

Hey David Munns, if there's one thing eveyone knows for sure, it's you can't tell Steve what to do. Even though you have no doubt (Gwen?) I do.

What everyone seems to be missing is the recent news that growth in iTMS sales is leveling off. With that being the case, wouldn't raising prices be UTTERLY RETARDED?!?!?

"What everyone seems to be missing is the recent news that growth in iTMS sales is leveling off. With that being the case, wouldn't raising prices be UTTERLY RETARDED?!?!?"


Why yes it would. Welcome to Steve Jobs' world.

This is all negotiating bluster. EMI is scared that Apple, the WalMart of downloading, will do what WalMart has done, which is to move DOWN the wholesale price of music. IE, Steve's position will be to move the wholesale price from 65 cents a track down to 50 cents a track, and then offer retail prices of 89 cents or so.

The labels who are weaker, get less, Apple which is stronger gets more, and the customer gets a better price.

EMI is trying to get their little story out there, as a feint, to try to pre-empt Apple's strategy. Of course, he'll fail.

If there is a compromise, it'll be this, multi-tiered pricing, but at lower overall prices. IE, new tracks at 99 cents, old tracks at 50 cents. Wholesale prices to Apple will drop to 60 cents for new tracks, and 20 cents for old.