or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Price hike hits Apple's iTunes Store
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Price hike hits Apple's iTunes Store - Page 2

post #41 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by polymnia View Post

What about CDs isn't lossless? If you consider a 44khz 16 bit uncompressed bitstream to be lossless, then CDs are lossless!

Granted, music is actually recorded and mastered at higher bitrates, but always with the intention to resample to the standard CD bitrate for mass distribution.

For all intents and purposes, CDs are loss-less. I know, I know, some audiophiles will claim they can hear EVERYTHING on the original recording. In reality, the human ear won't perceive the amount of data "lost" due to digitalization. Most (if any) won't hear the difference between 256 and anything above. Anyone who thinks they can is either the first human/canine hybrid or has delusions of grandeur.
post #42 of 203
Let's all drive down the sales of the $1.29 tracks. Please obtain these tracks from your favorite P2P and put a hurt on these Labels. It won't hurt Apple, their money comes from ipod sales. If we all boycott, it may change. Is that the hot word - ChANgE
post #43 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTL215 View Post

Cancellation fees exist to protect carriers against losses, since they subsidize the purchase of the phone. If you don't want a contract, then pay full price for the phone.

I'm fully aware of their purpose. My point was that, as a carrier, if you are unable to perform your advertised service, you should not have the ability to charge me a cancellation fee amounting to six months of service to cover your already exceptionally high margin service.

And believe me, I would gladly pay full price for a phone and get better service options, but the non-contract options ultimately cost even more from almost all of he biggest carriers.
post #44 of 203
I along with millions of others use iTunes, cos it's quick, convenient reasonably priced and you feel that artists and producers should be paid for their work.

But a blatant attempt by labels to grab 30% more money is just going to result in a backlash and an increase piracy. Labels need to get in to their thick heads is that a sale made on iTunes doesn't cost them that much and it's a sale which they wouldn't have ever made otherwise.
post #45 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut View Post

For all intents and purposes, CDs are loss-less. I know, I know, some audiophiles will claim they can hear EVERYTHING on the original recording. In reality, the human ear won't perceive the amount of data "lost" due to digitalization. Most (if any) won't hear the difference between 256 and anything above. Anyone who thinks they can is either the first human/canine hybrid or has delusions of grandeur.

They come from a loss-less sample and that's it. Compressing the file for CDs inherently causes loss. It does the same thing even at higher bitrates. Stop trying to justify your error and just move on. Physical media is dead one way or another so this entire argument is ultimately irrelevant.
post #46 of 203
Hm, a bit too much negativity here... Most titles are still exactly the same 99 Cents they were going for yesterday (and most of the 1.29 titles are in the charts, you can hear and record them on the radio at least ten times daily). And Amazon could not beat the iTS while being cheaper since it is around. The download market is growing (in some countries at rapid pace) and there is room for several providers. Apple is still offering far more titles than Amazon, a far better buying experience, good customer service and several extras. It is not doomsday just yet...

The more interesting question will be, if Apple is really getting worse conditions than e.g. Amazon. If this is the case, this could become a legal issue in quite some places.
post #47 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut View Post

For all intents and purposes, CDs are loss-less.

I think it isn't on two levels. First, there is no lossy or lossless codec involved so the designation doesn't fit. Second, the audio was pulled from a better copy so there is loss involved to putting to a CD. SACD is evident of the limitations of typical CD audio.

I know I basically contradicted myself between the two posting but it depends on the PoV you start with, hence the inclusion of both.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #48 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabriel_bl View Post

... Now when I hear some song and I like it, from the same CD I usually buy 2-3 songs that could end up to be nearly 4$. I will question my decision and think if it is not better to buy a whole CD somewhere for 9$ and I will wait and look for a deal. ...

This is a good point.

Most of the people I know that still buy CDs buy them second hand as the cost of new ones is still pretty outrageous. That means the average CD is 10 bucks or less in the eye of the consumer.

Even a couple of $1.29 tracks on an album will take the price over that, making it not worth your while to buy digitally.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #49 of 203
I have no problem spending $10 for a CD. I do have a problem with spending $18, which is what the brick-and-mortar stores charged around here.
post #50 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stashman View Post

I along with millions of others use iTunes, cos it's quick, convenient reasonably priced and you feel that artists and producers should be paid for their work.

iTunes Music Store took off many years ago at 99ยข and they only had 128kbps. Now that internet music sales are more common and all tracks are DRM-free and 256kbps I don't think most people will worry about the variable pricing for new and popular tracks.

Personally, I only bought my first iTunes music track a couple months ago, though I have been buying and renting videos for a long time. It was the inclusion of iTunes music sales through the iPhone while on the carrier's network that made me want to do it. That extra convenience was the key for me. I think I've heard a song, found out the name with Shazam, and purchased on my iPhone a dozen times or more at this point. I hope Apple is paying Shazam for their assistance.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #51 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truntru View Post

Why don't more people use the zune pass? For $15/month (up to 3 zunes and 3 computers) you can download as much temporary music as you would like, and also keep in your collection forever 10 songs. You can't find a better deal anywhere.

Because $15 for 10 songs in the end is stupid. I'd rather pay $10 for 10 songs. And the Zune = gag.

Regardless, this isn't "Apple's fault" when the record labels are enforcing the change. Jobs didn't want it to be this way.
post #52 of 203
Amazon's $1.99 daily specials (like Motown Number 1's) sell for $8-$10 on iTunes. I could never figure out for the life of me why anyone would purchase low bit rate DRM protected music for such an exorbitant price on iTune's.

Now Apple's miscalculation is Amazon's gain!
post #53 of 203
Don't get mad at Apple. Get mad at those using P2P/Torrents to obtain music illegally. They're the reason prices are going up.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #54 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post

Now Apple's miscalculation is Amazon's gain!

I'm not sure what part of that is Apple's miscalculation. Apple has been trying to go DRM-free and offer lower prices long before the Amazon Music Store arrived. The music cartel are the ones pulling the strings at Amazon trying to get Apple loss its stronghold, but it didn't work. In fact, since DRM-free MP3s work perfectly well on iPods I am sure that it has done nothing but strengthen Apple's cash cow even further. I don't think Apple cares if it loses a small percentage of it's iTunes Store cosnumer-base to Amazon if it means they sell more HW. I think it's more likely that the 256kbps, DRM-free MP3 files probably did more to loosen more CD buyers to the conveneicnce of online music sales, but they had to try as it was their only play left before giving Apple the unprotected audio files that they had been asking for.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #55 of 203
I'm one of those that downloads music for convenience. I switched to amazon when they started downloads as much for the higher bitrate as DRM. When Apple went to DRM and 256 or VB (I think ACC is superior to MP3) I jumped on it and started upgrading my non-plus songs as soon as each became available. I was willing to buy them again for .30 cents on the dollar, but I won't pay a dollar or more per song, to buy the same song again. Aside from higher quality, DRM allows me to stream to my PS3.

I probably have way more new music than I would have if it weren't for iTunes. However, with the price increase and not being to upgrade all the music I bought from Apple to 256 DRM for a reasonable price, I will once again become a more patient music buyer and forego the convenience of instant gratification.

As an old fart, I tend to be album oriented. I generally only buy singles that are older and and have nostalgic value for me, or are classics in the, "part of music history pantheon, must have" category. I pretty much have the latter satisfied. I will probably use iTunes to preview music and read reviews, make a list or mental note of albums I want, the next time I'm in the mall or near a borders or barne's and noble, I'll pop in, buy the CD, rip it, toss the case and put the disk in a CD book, and hope record labels will be less greedy. Or better yet, I hope more and more artists will discover ways to release independently so that they (and song writers) can get the money they deserve for their art and cut out the labels who have been gouging them for years and doing little to earn the lions share of the profits they keep.
post #56 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Many songs will remain priced at 99 cents while some older and less popular tracks are expected to fall to 69 cents. But as of Tuesday morning, those cheaper songs were few and far between.

That's an understatement. I've checked about 50 artists in my music library, ranging from the 1930s to the 1990s. In the thousand-plus results from those searches, I haven't found anything under 99 cents.
post #57 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by striker_kk View Post

Apple is going to lose business in this segment.
Certainly Apple must have figured out this already!!
Still they did hike the price..

Gotta love ignorance.

Apple doesn't care about content as long as their customers have access to it. This was why they created the iTunes store in the first place. It wasn't to take over the music industry. At the time there weren't any legal places to buy popular digital music for Macs. Everything was Windows only. Because no one else was willing to make anything compatible with Macs, Apple stepped in, as they usually do, and created something their customers could use. And remember this was very limited at first, which is why Steve Jobs was able to get them to all agree to their a la cart model; something that no one else had been able to do before.

No one knew what kind of monster this was going to grow into. After it was too late, the record companies realized that iTunes had grown up and become the 700 pound gorilla they are today. So, fearing of losing complete control yet again (as they did with MTV in the 80's), they decided to let others offer something extra and prevent Apple from being able to match it. The Amazon store was created with DRM-free tracks. The intention of this was not to make music buying consumers happy (a side affect), but rather to provide leverage over negotiations with Apple.

To the average ignorant consumer, this made Amazon look like the good guy and Apple appear evil, when in fact, the record companies were holding all the strings and playing them against each other. This of course created a media backlash against Apple and an obviously false perception of consumer demand; Amazon gained market share, but at the cost of Plays For Sure and Zune, while iTunes continued to maintain its market share. It got so bad that Steve Jobs had to come out publicly (once again*) against DRM and let all the whiners know that if they had the choice they would remove DRM from iTunes music... and a few months later they demonstrated that by announcing EMI's entire catalog in the iTunes Plus format. (Yes it cost 30 cents more at the time, but the proof was in the fact that Apple was accused of wanting to lock people into the iTunes+iPod ecosystem, which they clearly were not. They have always wanted a seamless experience for their customers. Perhaps if Microsoft weren't so damned greedy by locking Plays For Sure content to Windows, then there wouldn't have been a need for iTunes at all?)

*Steve Jobs once said in a Rolling Stone interview, that DRM would never really work. Someone would always find a way around it.

Well eventually Apple had to cave, because passive ignorant people aren't willing to boycott the record industry, for some reason they just have to have their music at any cost. I assume by looking at the top ten lists, most of these people are teens and don't care about politics at that age, so none of this is worth their time. (They'll pay later for it, as we are now.)

Anyway, here we are again... Amazon once again has another unequal advantage and of course it is all Apple's fault. So go ahead and run to Amazon, I don't blame you, but just remember you're proving the record industry to be correct in their assumption that consumers are like cattle and can easily be corralled and led tot he slaughter house. Personally, except a few older albums here and there, I've stopped buying music altogether. F#$K the record industry! Thank god some bands have the moxie to stand up to the industry and are starting to distribute, sell and give away their own music.

Hopefully that will be the next distribution model... "Artist Direct" where artists can submit their own content to iTunes and have Apple take a share as they do with the iPhone App Store.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #58 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by jenkman91 View Post

Limewire is good too if you want to be caught by the FBI who will then seize all of your computers slap you with a huge fine, and then throw your ass in federal prison. it does not matter how many firewalls you have. The government can always fine you. trust me... I have learned the hard way.

Copyright is a civil, not criminal matter, which is why it's RIAA against person x, not State of Minnesota/Feds against person x and also why no one goes to jail.
post #59 of 203
Have you seen the track prices on U2's No Line On The Horizon album? That's just disgusting.
post #60 of 203
Apple specifically said there's be "more" songs at .69 than 1.29.

I'm hoping that they live up to this statement. I'm a bit upset that there are few
.69 songs. I want to "crate dig" for some golden oldies and $.69 a track suits me well.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #61 of 203
Wow and I was thinking of starting to legally buy more music from iTunes, not anymore. I will buy from Amazon or another vendor where its still .99 a track or less. Nice job Apple and record execs, drive more piracy! You just don't get it still, how long will it take. I like to download albums from torrents to see if I like any of the songs, then if I really like them I will buy the song, album or the CD, so torrents drive sales not take away all together. This model just drives more piracy not makes more sales or in your case drives sales to other music sites like Amazon where its still .99 or less.
post #62 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think it isn't on two levels. First, there is no lossy or lossless codec involved so the designation doesn't fit. Second, the audio was pulled from a better copy so there is loss involved to putting to a CD. SACD is evident of the limitations of typical CD audio.

I know I basically contradicted myself between the two posting but it depends on the PoV you start with, hence the inclusion of both.

The term "lossless" seems to complicate matters. I think that a better approach may be to compare "compressed" vs "uncompressed".

For example, as I recording engineer, I usually record at 24-bit 44.1k sample rate. This is the format that I find most commonly since it is generally helpful to have a greater dynamic range to work with.
Since a CD is a 16-bit format, I need to convert my sample-rate in order to put the recording on CD. This is a somewhat different process from "compressing" a file to put it in a smaller format more suitable for sharing (MP3, AAC, etc).

To make a long story short, a CD is an uncompressed PCM (pulse code modulation) format, even though it may be converted from the original format, either to a lower bitrate or sample rate. Since there is not a compression algorithm introduced, it is not considered a compressed format.

That being said, we live in a world where the convenience of compressed audio is overwhelming the need for ultra high-fidelity audio.

Also take this into consideration: The quality loss from the digital-to-analog converters on an iPod is probably much greater than what you may ever be able to decipher between compression formats. Keep in mind that most listening environments are far from "ideal" unless you are a true audiophile willing to invest big bucks into the most accurate equipment.

It is ironic to me that many of us carry around iPods with $10 earbuds and worry about whether our music is in 192 or 256k compression.
post #63 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truntru View Post

Why don't more people use the zune pass? For $15/month (up to 3 zunes and 3 computers) you can download as much temporary music as you would like, and also keep in your collection forever 10 songs. You can't find a better deal anywhere.

How much of that money is getting to the artists? The only group getting the better deal with this in the end is Microsoft. No faster way to discourage new music.
post #64 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Gotta love ignorance.

Apple doesn't care about content as long as their customers have access to it. This was why they created the iTunes store in the first place. It wasn't to take over the music industry. At the time there weren't any legal places to buy popular digital music for Macs. Everything was Windows only. Because no one else was willing to make anything compatible with Macs, Apple stepped in, as they usually do, and created something their customers could use. And remember this was very limited at first, which is why Steve Jobs was able to get them to all agree to their a la cart model; something that no one else had been able to do before.

No one knew what kind of monster this was going to grow into. After it was too late, the record companies realized that iTunes had grown up and become the 700 pound gorilla they are today. So, fearing of losing complete control yet again (as they did with MTV in the 80's), they decided to let others offer something extra and prevent Apple from being able to match it. The Amazon store was created with DRM-free tracks. The intention of this was not to make music buying consumers happy (a side affect), but rather to provide leverage over negotiations with Apple.

To the average ignorant consumer, this made Amazon look like the good guy and Apple appear evil, when in fact, the record companies were holding all the strings and playing them against each other. This of course created a media backlash against Apple and an obviously false perception of consumer demand; Amazon gained market share, but at the cost of Plays For Sure and Zune, while iTunes continued to maintain its market share. It got so bad that Steve Jobs had to come out publicly (once again*) against DRM and let all the whiners know that if they had the choice they would remove DRM from iTunes music... and a few months later they demonstrated that by announcing EMI's entire catalog in the iTunes Plus format. (Yes it cost 30 cents more at the time, but the proof was in the fact that Apple was accused of wanting to lock people into the iTunes+iPod ecosystem, which they clearly were not. They have always wanted a seamless experience for their customers. Perhaps if Microsoft weren't so damned greedy by locking Plays For Sure content to Windows, then there wouldn't have been a need for iTunes at all?)

*Steve Jobs once said in a Rolling Stone interview, that DRM would never really work. Someone would always find a way around it.

Well eventually Apple had to cave, because passive ignorant people aren't willing to boycott the record industry, for some reason they just have to have their music at any cost. I assume by looking at the top ten lists, most of these people are teens and don't care about politics at that age, so none of this is worth their time. (They'll pay later for it, as we are now.)

Anyway, here we are again... Amazon once again has another unequal advantage and of course it is all Apple's fault. So go ahead and run to Amazon, I don't blame you, but just remember you're proving the record industry to be correct in their assumption that consumers are like cattle and can easily be corralled and led tot he slaughter house. Personally, except a few older albums here and there, I've stopped buying music altogether. F#$K the record industry! Thank god some bands have the moxie to stand up to the industry and are starting to distribute, sell and give away their own music.

Hopefully that will be the next distribution model... "Artist Direct" where artists can submit their own content to iTunes and have Apple take a share as they do with the iPhone App Store.

An unfortunate addition to this is that people who now flock to Amazon for MP3 downloads will be missing a huge chunk of the "sound" that the artists and producers spent so much time to give them. It's like listening to music with one ear clogged up.
post #65 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerKellerjr View Post

Wow and I was thinking of starting to legally buy more music from iTunes, not anymore. I will buy from Amazon or another vendor where its still .99 a track or less. Nice job Apple and record execs, drive more piracy! You just don't get it still, how long will it take. I like to download albums from torrents to see if I like any of the songs, then if I really like them I will buy the song, album or the CD, so torrents drive sales not take away all together. This model just drives more piracy not makes more sales or in your case drives sales to other music sites like Amazon where its still .99 or less.

Umm, Amazon isn't selling you the tracks for .99, it is those same record execs that sell you the same track on iTunes for 1.29.

"Drive more piracy"

How about just not buy music? Is this music so important to you that you need to steal it, if you can't afford it? Will you die without it or something?
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #66 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by jenkman91 View Post

Amazon is good.

Limewire is good too if you want to be caught by the FBI who will then seize all of your computers slap you with a huge fine, and then throw your ass in federal prison. it does not matter how many firewalls you have. The government can always fine you. trust me... I have learned the hard way.

Its people like you that make music retailers such as iTunes raise their prices. (as explained in the story)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz......... Oh, I'm sorry. Did you say something important?

Yes, yes. The record companies being greedy has nothing to do with it at all. Do you care to explain why CD's are still 15 dollars or so after all these years? Grow up.
post #67 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by csdg View Post

An unfortunate addition to this is that people who now flock to Amazon for MP3 downloads will be missing a huge chunk of the "sound" that the artists and producers spent so much time to give them. It's like listening to music with one ear clogged up.

Why is that? According to all tests I have seen VBR MP3s > 192kbps are almost identical in quality to 256 kbps AACs. And you would need more than decent equipment to even hear the difference.
post #68 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Since the record labels were successful in twisting Apple arm, I think Amazon will follow shortly.

I doubt it as Amazon is not nearly as large a threat nor as arrogant as Steve-o. Sometimes you reap what you sow. Anyone with half a brain knew that this was not going to last forever, and I am sure that Apple is getting a larger slice of the newly price increased pie.
post #69 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by cassnate6259 View Post

The term "lossless" seems to complicate matters. I think that a better approach may be to compare "compressed" vs "uncompressed".

For example, as I recording engineer, I usually record at 24-bit 44.1k sample rate. This is the format that I find most commonly since it is generally helpful to have a greater dynamic range to work with.
Since a CD is a 16-bit format, I need to convert my sample-rate in order to put the recording on CD. This is a somewhat different process from "compressing" a file to put it in a smaller format more suitable for sharing (MP3, AAC, etc).

To make a long story short, a CD is an uncompressed PCM (pulse code modulation) format, even though it may be converted from the original format, either to a lower bitrate or sample rate. Since there is not a compression algorithm introduced, it is not considered a compressed format.

Exactly right. Sample rate conversions are taking tiny snippets out along a timeline without compromising the frequency spectrum of the file. You will be able to cut much more out of the file before losing perceived quality than you would in a "lossy" compression scheme. The majority of the compression algorithms are frequency based, the lows taking up so much room in the spectrum are the first to go, then the higher end that the coders don't think add anything valuable to the music. What they compromise here is the actual feeling that music can give you. Your sonic perception isn't limited to the small bandwidth allowed for in most compression schemes.
As an example, take the sound of a thunder storm, convert from even a CD to an MP3 and play the two versions of the same file on your sound system (any system will show this effect, but the fuller sound possible the better). You will notice the "life" of the sound getting lost with an MP3 or other "lossy" compression.

It's a shame that the non-musicians and non-engineers are the ones making the decisions at the major labels. They've spent money for decades on capturing quality sound and now want to charge more for worse simply because they can't adapt to the times. They're behaving the same way the US auto manufacturers and banking system are behaving. Wake up gang! It's your money, don't give it if you aren't going to get what was intended by the artists. What's the point in that? Apple has tried to level the playing field a bit, but can't do it without a strong community, the people paying the labels bills, music lovers.

Okay, my soap box is creaking.
post #70 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Don't get mad at Apple. Get mad at those using P2P/Torrents to obtain music illegally. They're the reason prices are going up.

post #71 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

This is a lose-lose proposition for everyone but the labels.

iTunes already had a somewhat limited selection, this morning it has dropped by about 15% by removing all the tracks that the studios were not willing to offer DRM free. I listen to a lot of J-pop right now for instance and some of the biggest groups have literally hundreds of albums out but what's available in iTunes? Two or three at most, and half of those disappeared last night because they are "imports" in the eyes of studio execs who are still living in the 60's.

Curiously though, I'd like to know where the heck all the $.69 tracks are???

I looked up a dozen or two groups from my distant youth in the 70's and about ten from the 1960's and they are all $.99 not $.69. If 45 year old tracks by people who are mostly dead now recorded at studios that no longer exist and owned by people who weren't alive when they were recorded are not $.69 tracks what are?

Just for laughs look up "Glenn Miller" (he died almost 75 years ago).
125 tracks, all of them $.99.

Because he's so "current" right?


Amazing. Months ago, people were clamoring for Apple to cave in and let the labels go to a tiered pricing system. What's the big deal? Most albums will be cheaper. Apple is being pig-headed. Etc.

Now you know why Apple resisted this for so long. There was simply no way that the labels were doing this to LOWER prices. All they have to do is offer 10 or 11 tracks for $.69 to technically get away with calling the pricing "tiered." Most of the tracks you actually want are going to get more expensive. That was the intention all along.

Just wait until $1.29 becomes $1.49. And then $1.99. It'll happen.
post #72 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by realmike15 View Post

i don't mind this at all. maybe this will get people to stop listening to awful music that dominates the top 100... could be a positive change lol.

Hahaha, indeed.

I've got different (weird?) taste in music, so personally this isn't a bad change for me. Hey, maybe this will get people exploring music a little more, there's so many other amazing sounds out there, it's sad that so many live in Britneyland...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

Amazon to the rescue, not to mention Limewire.

Yep, this is the reaction the move seems to be generating from the majority. For a while I thought there might be a change coming, but the labels are pure evil, really. Comes down to greed and arrogance in the end, the thought that they can dictate people's needs and wants, and cash in on it. Looks like they're right.

It'll be interesting to see how well this new model works out for them...

Jimzip
"There's no time like the present, and the only present you'll never get, is time." - Me
Reply
"There's no time like the present, and the only present you'll never get, is time." - Me
Reply
post #73 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

The general pubic that uses iTunes will blame Apple for the price hike.

You are correct, and AppleInsider is one of them, based on their quote "Instead, Apple appears to have made price increases its first priority."

How about the record labels making the price increases a priority. I don't mind paying $1.29 for a song.

CD's at WalMart and Target are being released at $9.99, same price as iTunes.
post #74 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Don't get mad at Apple. Get mad at those using P2P/Torrents to obtain music illegally. They're the reason prices are going up.

This is actually not true.

It's not Apple's fault (other than negotiating a bad deal), but it isn't due to P2P/Torrents either. The price is up because of the monopoly position of the labels and the sweetheart deal they get on copyright law.

All the labels act in unison as a cartel, which is just a monopoly by any other name (an oligarchy technically). Because they are allowed to set the prices artificially and because (with the help of various governments), nothing goes out of copyright anymore, they have carte blanche to do whatever the heck they want.

Monopolies in business are always bad for the consumer. It's always been that way, and it's why from time to time laws are passed that attempt to eliminate or control them. Monopolies stifle freedom and innovation and are inherently fascist in design.

Until something is purposely done to free up the market (government intervention), the consumer will be preyed upon. It really is as simple as that.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #75 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post

This is actually not true.

It's not Apple's fault (other than negotiating a bad deal), but it isn't due to P2P/Torrents either. The price is up because of the monopoly position of the labels and the sweetheart deal they get on copyright law.

All the labels act in unison as a cartel, which is just a monopoly by any other name (an oligarchy technically). Because they are allowed to set the prices artificially and because (with the help of various governments), nothing goes out of copyright anymore, they have carte blanche to do whatever the heck they want.

Monopolies in business are always bad for the consumer. It's always been that way, and it's why from time to time laws are passed that attempt to eliminate or control them. Monopolies stifle freedom and innovation and are inherently fascist in design.

Until something is purposely done to free up the market (government intervention), the consumer will be preyed upon. It really is as simple as that.

If there was an applause emoticon, I'd have used it.

For now, where's my Guy Fawkes mask?

Jimzip
"There's no time like the present, and the only present you'll never get, is time." - Me
Reply
"There's no time like the present, and the only present you'll never get, is time." - Me
Reply
post #76 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

Why is that? According to all tests I have seen VBR MP3s > 192kbps are almost identical in quality to 256 kbps AACs. And you would need more than decent equipment to even hear the difference.

256 kbps AAC is a "lossy" compression scheme, only a better one than MP3. If Apple were allowed to do away with DRM ie. iTunes + they could offer the same quality download found on a store bought CD.
This loss can be heard in most any current consumer sound system.
post #77 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmilinGoat View Post

this is why i'll be using Amazon.com from here on out.

Except that now Amazon is starting to have mp3s at $1.29 too (although not as many so far, but we'll see. Look at their top downloads list, it has a few including older stuff like Journey/Don't Stop Believin'.
post #78 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

Why is that? According to all tests I have seen VBR MP3s > 192kbps are almost identical in quality to 256 kbps AACs. And you would need more than decent equipment to even hear the difference.

I don't know the figures or the details, but this is totally wrong.

AAC is known to be a better sounding, higher quality file than an MP3 file at the same bitrate.

You are claiming here that a lower bitrate MP3 is better quality than a higher bitrate AAC?
That's just crazy talk.

AAC is the format the MP3 consortium slated to replace MP3. Why would it be lower quality than the older format?
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #79 of 203
Thirty cents extra will not break me, so I don't have any issues with it. However, I don't generally buy 'hit' tracks anyway. My main music purchases are classical, which I rarely buy from any online music store. I purchase the CD and rip from there. Out of 16,000+ tracks, maybe 500 are non-classical tracks that I've purchased from online music stores such as iTunes (where possible) or Amazon for non-DRM stuff over the last couple of years.
post #80 of 203
I always get content for free so it doesn't affect me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Price hike hits Apple's iTunes Store