'70% price hike' on iTMS

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
If this holds true. I'm done with using the store.



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05...s_price_rises/



Dammit, I just hate the RIAA.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    /\ldie/\ldie Posts: 70member
    hmmm more and more sources seem to be backing up this crap.

    bad bad news.
  • Reply 2 of 15
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    All of these stories are about Apple, but don't mention the other services like Napster and MusicMatch etc. They couldn't be singling out Apple for price increases, could they? This must apply to all the other services, right?
  • Reply 3 of 15
    homhom Posts: 1,098member
    Yes, this is bad news. Although I am not entirely convinced that the prices will actually be going up. Steve seemed pretty confident that prices would remain at 99¢ during the iTMS conference call. I'll try and find a link.



    Now, something that has been bothering me for some time. Why are millions of people buying midi ringtones for their phones every day, but they aren't willing to spend the same money on a song? I just don't get it.



    EDIT:



    Yup, I knew that Steve said that prices were going to stay at 99¢. From MacObserver
    Quote:

    Steven Levy: Good. How are you? Congratulations for the year. A couple questions, related questions, about the negotiations with the labels there. One, was there any discussion from their point of view of changing the price? We've been hearing about how the labels might want to get more for online songs. And second, did they ask you to make the songs purchased on the iTunes store playable from other devices? In other words, ask you to license FairPlay to other third parties?





    Steve Jobs: Great. Let me answer those two things. First one is the price for songs in the iTunes store is remaining 99 cents per song, and we think that's what customers want and that's what we're delivering. So the prices will remain 99 cents per song and any rumors to the contrary are simply not true.



  • Reply 4 of 15
    mac voyermac voyer Posts: 1,283member
    And you believe SJ why? In another thread a few weeks ago, I said this was happening. When albums were $10, the $1 a song made more sense because the bundle price is more appealing. At $17 for albums and $1 a song, what idiot would buy an album. The only way to make this work is to raise the price of individual songs. By this time next year, songs will be $1.50 or more. Mark my words.
  • Reply 5 of 15
    cam'roncam'ron Posts: 503member
    <rant>thats bullshit, the major labels are strong-arming money grubbing pricks. apple better not try and bring itms to Canada with prices higher than that cuz it wont fly. you can go to the store and buy lots of new albums at 9.99 to 12.99, why would i want to pay more than that for just a digital copy. the labels are already raking in tons of cash, and i guarantee they arent trying to help the artist in this situation. </rant>
  • Reply 6 of 15
    Quote:

    Other services may face similar demands, but there does seem to be a particular focus on Apple. Having established the market for legal downloads, Apple now seems to be facing a music industry paranoid about the power that success might bring the Mac maker.



    True.
  • Reply 7 of 15
    homhom Posts: 1,098member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mac Voyer

    And you believe SJ why? In another thread a few weeks ago, I said this was happening. When albums were $10, the $1 a song made more sense because the bundle price is more appealing. At $17 for albums and $1 a song, what idiot would buy an album. The only way to make this work is to raise the price of individual songs. By this time next year, songs will be $1.50 or more. Mark my words.



    Because when Steve tells reporters in no uncertain terms that prices will remain 99¢ he can't lie. There are repercussions when a CEO flat out lies to reporters in a press conference. Apple says no new hardware at an Expo, there is no hardware announcements. And yes I believe Steve over you any day of the week.



    If you read the entire transcript it's pretty clear that the labels wanted a price hike, but Apple wouldn't allow it. There might be a price creep on albums, but there are also albums that are priced way below the usual $9.99. My guess would be that the labels did raise the price on songs in hopes that Apple would raise prices too, but it seems like they are taking a bigger hit on the songs then before to keep prices at 99¢.



    The real problem is that there is no long term profitability in selling songs online. The idea that selling songs as a loss leader for players is just not sustainable. Eventually the players will become a commodity and margins will shrivel up to next to nothing. So if there is no money to be made in selling the songs and eventually there won't be much money made in selling the players, unless you are moving massive amounts, why would anyone get into the business? And what are the labels going to do when they have killed legal downloads?
  • Reply 8 of 15
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    A denial today from Apple:



    Quote:

    Apple denies price hike for iTunes_(AAPL)_By Rex Crum

    SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- Apple Computer (AAPL) on Friday denied a report in the New York Post that it might raise the prices of some select tracks offered on its iTunes online music store to $1.25 a song. "The rumors aren't true," said Natalie Secqueira, an Apple's spokeswoman. "We have multi-year agreements with the record labels and our price remains 99 cents a track."



  • Reply 9 of 15
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    The Register is quoting the New York Post, which is the MOSR of newspapers.



    I think the industry is leaking these price points to see what the reaction is. $2.49 didn't work, so now they're floating $1.25, trying to make it sound like a done deal, and seeing what happens. Maybe they think they're playing hardball with Steve? It's hard to say. The big 5 music labels seem to be insulated from reality.
  • Reply 10 of 15
    sunreinsunrein Posts: 138member
    More denials.



    http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040507/tech_apple_music_2.html



    God, I hope this is just a nasty rumor.
  • Reply 11 of 15
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    The NY Post is a rag, and I wouldn't trust anything the Register says about Apple because they've had it in for the fruit company for a few years now. They're still bitter about NeXT over Be for God's sake, not to mention the passing of the Classic OS.



    Anyway, Apple is saying they have a multi-year deal to sell tracks at 99¢with the big 5. The rumor might mean that whenever that contract is up, whether that's one year from now or 5 years from now, the price might jump to $1.25 per track. What I mean is that if there's any validity to it, it might be a game of telephone where what comes to you has only a passing resemblance to the original message. Obviously, some day the prices are probably going to go up, so long as we have inflation, anyway. So don't plan on holding to a 99¢ or nothing attitude forever.
  • Reply 12 of 15
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Cam'ron

    <rant>thats bullshit, the major labels are strong-arming money grubbing pricks. apple better not try and bring itms to Canada with prices higher than that cuz it wont fly. you can go to the store and buy lots of new albums at 9.99 to 12.99, why would i want to pay more than that for just a digital copy. the labels are already raking in tons of cash, and i guarantee they arent trying to help the artist in this situation. </rant>



    and further-more, they dont give a f*u*c*k about the consumer or technology, if i buy a CD and crack it so it will work on the ipod, or in itunes then I AM A CROOK?? FAIR USE BE DAMED, ok so I will just download it all from itunes, nope! the damned RIAA actualy thinks that the price of a dounload alblum is worth more than a BETTER QUALITY CD?? once again, WTF??



    I beleive that the RIAA showed that makeing money wasnt high on their list when they sued napster, think about it, riaa offers the napster guy a cool million and put it behind a subscription they coulda made a killing and the consumers woulda loved it.



    If the prices do go up i will go back to kazaa and other assorted services, as I used them for 4 years before itunes without being sued by the riaa.



    and if you ever think that 1.69 is fair, then just watch mtv cribs and I think you will agree with me, we all know that P. Ditty is straped for cash.





    ammendment:

    I understand that the less pop-culture-type artists are geting the shaft, but the RIAA doesnt even care about them.



    heres proof: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...&tid=98&tid=99



    What if an artist doesnt want to join the RIAA, is it requierd and if so, what about the monopoly laws? As far as I know, MLB is the only legal monopoly, aside from the government its self, and if monopoly law doesnt apply here, what about the reco statutes, they have taken out mofias so why not the riaa, the shite that the RIAA is pulling cant be legal.
  • Reply 13 of 15
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    There's not much chance this will happen anytime soon. Maybe a couple years down the road they'll have to increase prices a bit, but if they suddenly start making single tracks say $1.25 or albums even $11 or $12, they will see sales numbers absolutely NOSE-DIVE for the first several months. You can't get people used to the great prices they have now and yank the rug out, and still expect to make a good profit. People will balk left and right at the higher prices.
  • Reply 14 of 15
    cam'roncam'ron Posts: 503member
    i think .99 is the equalibrium, if they go above that it will not be benficial for sales. if they go any lower they they are screwing themselves. but honestly, u go to 1.25 sales will drop enough that they wont be doing as well as at .99. anyways thats my opinion.
  • Reply 15 of 15
    turbospeturbospe Posts: 16member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    A denial today from Apple:



    I know you were quoting a source, but the fact that Apple has a contract with record labels means nothing. The labels could choose to breach their end of the agreement (although undoubtedly with some kind of ramifications on their part), and subsequently remove Apple's license/ability to re-sell music.



    turboSPE
Sign In or Register to comment.