Jobs says no lower priced iTunes songs NEVER EVAR

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Hmm...what else did you expect him to say during the heat of the holiday sales season? With demand outstripping supply, you can keep your prices where they are.



But, perhaps there's a lower cost model pegged for early in the new year...I hope.



http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinv...16-apple_x.htm

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 8
    Quote:

    Originally posted by satchmo

    Hmm...what else did you expect him to say during the heat of the holiday sales season? With demand outstripping supply, you can keep your prices where they are.



    But, perhaps there's a lower cost model pegged for early in the new year...I hope.



    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinv...16-apple_x.htm




    I think you mean he said now lower priced iTunes songs.
  • Reply 2 of 8
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by salmonstk

    I think you mean he said now lower priced iTunes songs.



    Oops...yes my mistake.
  • Reply 3 of 8
    Too much spiked egg nog I guess.
  • Reply 4 of 8
    Well the price of the songs/albums is not so much up to Apple as it is up to the record companies. If the numbers heard so far are to be believed, the record companies take $0.65 (or more) for every song. Not much left to pay for everything else. Maybe Apple could get more efficient and somehow drop 10 cents from their operating expenses.



    The thing is everyone (unrealistically) expects Apple (or anyone else for that matter) to sell everything at a loss. Bah. Ain't gonna happen. At least not for long. Apple is doing the (not so new) "loss-leader" thing already with the music. I hear so many people expecting them to lower the prices of the iPod (to the point of losing money too). Craziness. Apple is "old school" (i.e., pre-dot-com-boom-bomb), they actually have to make money for their investors. Go figure.
  • Reply 5 of 8
    Well, I think everyone knows that Apple really isn't making any money from selling just the tunes. Thats why is will be intersting to see how long all those other online music stores will last. A buck a song is really quite reasonable, i just wish more would go to the artists.



    I really hope that once Jobs gets the music stores up and all the negotiations settled for music distribution accross the globe, that he then takes it to the next level: offer an alternative to the big and small musci producers. We've heard rumors of GarageBand. Could this be software to enable iTunes encoding for the masses. Maybe some music creation software also from Logic. Imagine if the iTunes Music store would let anybody with their own recordings sell there stuff online. Maybe through a dot-Mac account just to make it a little more worth Apple's efforts.



    Jobs recently quoted that the problem with the music biz was that the big stars were supporting the little guys and that generally didn't make them happy. Offcourse, for the startups getting a break in the music biz is very hard. His answer was to do away with the advances the record companies give to the startup bands. Wouldn't an iTunes music store based system do away with all that? You get your recordings on your own, Apple will give you a place to sell them. Its the bands job to promote themselves etc. Not perfect for everyone, but i could see it as a major shift in the intire music industry model. Just something that his Steveness likes to do.



    Problems: For starters this would make the whole legal spat between Apple records and Apple computer ugly to the 10th degree. Apple buys Apple? The music industry itself might not be happy with Apple, but it could also gain. If an artist breaks out and makes it from iTunes music store, then they could be still free to sign up with a label. The labels get a proven artist with less risk. Possibilities are ther to make this a win-win-win situation for all involved and it all is based around Apple's software and hardware products. CPU's for recording/mixing music, Logic, GarageBand (whatever it is), iTunes Music Store, iPods.
  • Reply 6 of 8
    I am beginning to think Apple should have bought Universal Music.



    Then no problems with competition. The largest label and the biggest catalog would be Apple only.



    Alas, a missed opportunity perhaps. And that cash is still just sitting there!
  • Reply 7 of 8
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Carson O'Genic

    Jobs recently quoted that the problem with the music biz was that the big stars were supporting the little guys and that generally didn't make them happy. Offcourse, for the startups getting a break in the music biz is very hard. His answer was to do away with the advances the record companies give to the startup bands. Wouldn't an iTunes music store based system do away with all that? You get your recordings on your own, Apple will give you a place to sell them. Its the bands job to promote themselves etc. Not perfect for everyone, but i could see it as a major shift in the intire music industry model. Just something that his Steveness likes to do.





    Step one: Cut an album.



    Step two: Sign up with CD Baby and ship them some CDs.



    Step three: Pay CD Baby $40 to get on all the online services (including iTMS)



    Step four: Promote yourself (which is really, really hard work, by the way).



    No need for Apple to get involved directly. They want there to be middlemen.
  • Reply 8 of 8
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by salmonstk

    Alas, a missed opportunity perhaps. And that cash is still just sitting there!



    It was probably Vivendi who took the deal off the table, not Apple, after Vivendi started making money again. Which negated the need to sell UMG (cash injection).
Sign In or Register to comment.