Yes, nothing. Just as if you didn't buy the music at all. So is not buying the music at all also "rape"? Get real. When artists offer their music at reasonable prices, I'll gladly buy. Until then, they have no-one to blame but themselves.
What a screwed up excuse!
If you don't want to pay for something, then you don't get it.
If you want it, and don't pay for it, then, yes, it's rape.
If you're too poor, or too cheap, to buy it at the price offered, then you shouldn't have it.
In eco 101 we all learned that selling more doesn't always mean higher profits. There is a point where number of sales x price gives the highest profitability. That's never at the lowest price.
Like anything, there is a moderation point. I would agree if they sold songs at $0.01 They would not be making much profit. They would have to sell 100 times more, to equal the same. I have used that graph before in calc, I forget what it is called though.
the question is: did you get ripped off when you bought it again on 8 track, cassette tape and then again on cd? if the argument by the record labels is that we don't own the music we buy, how about an 'upgrade' when new media comes out?
That relates to Apple's prices for software such as iLife and iwork.
You pay the same for the upgrades as yu paid for the original. Most people accept that as being fine, as the price isn't that high, and presents a good value for those who want the programs.
We argue about what the right price is for music, and guys such as tomasf think that stealing it is ok because the price is too high for them (though I think they would steal it at any price).
Perhaps the price isn't too high. Perhaps its just right, and upgrades shouldn't be cheaper. After all, they almost always re-master it for a new medium.
I think Ferrari is ripping me off, so the next person I see that owns one. I am going to follow home, crack on the back of the head, and steal his car.
While I haven't looked for 69 cent tracks, there are a number of HD movies AND Tv shows for purchase and rental.
It's right there. Go to the left side of the iTunes window. You'll see:
MORE IN MOVIES & TV
Under that title you'll see:
HD Movies (NEW)
HD TV Shows
TV Shows Just Added
The problem isn't that I can't find HD movies, but that I can't rent those movies in HD. I see that you can BUY the HD movie and I see that you can rent the same movie that is available in HD, but if you do rent the movie, it is in SD, not HD.
Less people download = less revenue = losers = Apple & Record Companies & Artist & Consumer
It looks like you're wrong so far. The data in the article with very a tiny bit of math shows that it is bringing more revenue on average. In this case, the increase in price more than makes up for the moderate loss in sales. Sometimes charging more brings in more money (despite a modest loss of unit sales), sometimes charging less money brings in more money because more customers are buying. It really depends on the elasticity of demand. This is basic first year Economics.
Steve Jobs has always stuck by the single pricing model and resisted the record companies variable model for so long. Finally they got their way (probably not helped by Steve's break). The variable pricing is pure GREED on the part of the labels, to fleece the consumer for 30% more. I predicted that this was too much and was so blatant. Hence the drop top track sales.
Yes, nothing. Just as if you didn't buy the music at all. So is not buying the music at all also "rape"? Get real. When artists offer their music at reasonable prices, I'll gladly buy. Until then, they have no-one to blame but themselves.
Until you get a clue and realize who actually sets the price, then maybe you'll understand. The Artists don't set the price, their record label does. If they are independent, that's different. New releases at Target and Wal-Mart can be obtained for $9.99 for the CD. They have never been cheaper. It wasn't long ago that CD's were $15.99 to $17.99. Single tracks for .69 to $1.29 is still far cheaper than $5-$7 for a CD single.
Yeah, that .29 cent increase will really set you back. Most of the new music sucks anyway, so no harm done.
I agree with 'teckstud' - You are wrong it's 30% increase in the top tracks which is a big increase and is easily enough to put people off. Most new music may suck, but not all of it.
WRONG - harm to Apple iTunes sales. People will now find it cheaper, buy a Cd or simply steal.
I started to use iTunes to buy music about three years ago. Prior to that I purchased most at Best Buy or Target for my domestic and yesasia.com for my imports. Why? 100% for the CONVENIENCE, nothing more. The ease of purchase even made up for the trouble to remove the DRM by burning and reripping.
NO MORE. With this new pricing system I have started buying my older music on CD at second-hand music stores. In addition, I have gone back to yesasia.com as well. Yes, I have to spend more effort to find music on CD and it takes longer for the CDs to arrive from Japan. All true. But, import cds are the same price and used cds are cheaper, so it works out for me.
This all comes down to principle. There is NO reason, other than greed, to raise these prices...especially in the midst of such terrible economic times.
I started to use iTunes to buy music about three years ago. Prior to that I purchased most at Best Buy or Target for my domestic and yesasia.com for my imports. Why? 100% for the CONVENIENCE, nothing more. The ease of purchase even made up for the trouble to remove the DRM by burning and reripping.
NO MORE. With this new pricing system I have started buying my older music on CD at second-hand music stores. In addition, I have gone back to yesasia.com as well. Yes, I have to spend more effort to find music on CD and it takes longer for the CDs to arrive from Japan. All true. But, import cds are the same price and used cds are cheaper, so it works out for me.
This all comes down to principle. There is NO reason, other than greed, to raise these prices...especially in the midst of such terrible economic times.
No more iTunes (or Amazon, etc.) for me.
Nearly everything I would be interested in remains at $.99. I don't really buy what would be considered "new and popular" music, though. I did see a few older songs, like Etta James "At Last" at a $1.29.
Yeah, Apple simply said, "Okay, whatever you want to charge is fine with us".
We haven't heard anything from Steve Jobs on variable pricing (or more than .99) at all.
Variable pricing was one of the concession Apple gave in to to get DRM free music. And I believe Apple also got the rights to sell their iTunes music on the iPhone for the same price as buying it on a computer.
You can look at it this way. That extra $.29 is the tax all music buyers pay on downloaded music to make up for the fact that they can now easily give away copies to their friends. It's like the blank media tax many people in some European countries (and Canada) have to pay to their version of the RIAA. Everybody has to pay regardless of whether they give away their music or not.
And let's not forget that iTunes was already selling some of music for $1.29 before the Music Industry raised the price. These were the "plus" songs in a higher bit rate. But many still had DRM. So now all the songs are in the higher bit rate "plus" format and DRM free. And still for $1.29.
Would all you people whining about the extra $.29 rather still pay the $.99 for the lower bit rate (with DRM) version of it, if it were still available on iTunes?
Comments
Yes, nothing. Just as if you didn't buy the music at all. So is not buying the music at all also "rape"? Get real. When artists offer their music at reasonable prices, I'll gladly buy. Until then, they have no-one to blame but themselves.
What a screwed up excuse!
If you don't want to pay for something, then you don't get it.
If you want it, and don't pay for it, then, yes, it's rape.
If you're too poor, or too cheap, to buy it at the price offered, then you shouldn't have it.
Didn't your mother teach you anything?
I think Apple should team up with all other service providers and push for c99 prices.
Yeah, Apple simply said, "Okay, whatever you want to charge is fine with us".
We haven't heard anything from Steve Jobs on variable pricing (or more than .99) at all.
No. It depends on the mix as was shown.
In eco 101 we all learned that selling more doesn't always mean higher profits. There is a point where number of sales x price gives the highest profitability. That's never at the lowest price.
Like anything, there is a moderation point. I would agree if they sold songs at $0.01 They would not be making much profit. They would have to sell 100 times more, to equal the same. I have used that graph before in calc, I forget what it is called though.
You know as well as I do that what I said is true.
You're a man of integrity. Of course I know it- to an extent. You oversimplified it a bit.
It just read funny.
the question is: did you get ripped off when you bought it again on 8 track, cassette tape and then again on cd? if the argument by the record labels is that we don't own the music we buy, how about an 'upgrade' when new media comes out?
That relates to Apple's prices for software such as iLife and iwork.
You pay the same for the upgrades as yu paid for the original. Most people accept that as being fine, as the price isn't that high, and presents a good value for those who want the programs.
We argue about what the right price is for music, and guys such as tomasf think that stealing it is ok because the price is too high for them (though I think they would steal it at any price).
Perhaps the price isn't too high. Perhaps its just right, and upgrades shouldn't be cheaper. After all, they almost always re-master it for a new medium.
You're a man of integrity. Of course I know it- to an extent. You oversimplified it a bit.
It just read funny.
It's good we can agree on something.
We haven't heard anything from Steve Jobs on variable pricing (or more than .99) at all.
He's too busy relaxing and listening to his iPod HI-FI's.
Seriously we know he was always against anything other than 99 cents a song. What could he say?
I think Ferrari is ripping me off, so the next person I see that owns one. I am going to follow home, crack on the back of the head, and steal his car.
That will show Ferrari!!!
While I haven't looked for 69 cent tracks, there are a number of HD movies AND Tv shows for purchase and rental.
It's right there. Go to the left side of the iTunes window. You'll see:
MORE IN MOVIES & TV
Under that title you'll see:
HD Movies (NEW)
HD TV Shows
TV Shows Just Added
The problem isn't that I can't find HD movies, but that I can't rent those movies in HD. I see that you can BUY the HD movie and I see that you can rent the same movie that is available in HD, but if you do rent the movie, it is in SD, not HD.
Didn't your mother teach you anything?
Your mother did a great job.
It's not just anyone that can amass 16k+ posts being a cranky, know-it-all, old man.
Less people download = less revenue = losers = Apple & Record Companies & Artist & Consumer
It looks like you're wrong so far. The data in the article with very a tiny bit of math shows that it is bringing more revenue on average. In this case, the increase in price more than makes up for the moderate loss in sales. Sometimes charging more brings in more money (despite a modest loss of unit sales), sometimes charging less money brings in more money because more customers are buying. It really depends on the elasticity of demand. This is basic first year Economics.
Big record label = bastards
A 30% $ increase in the sale of anything is a negative- no matter where the blame lies.
Yeah, that .29 cent increase will really set you back. Most of the new music sucks anyway, so no harm done.
Yes, nothing. Just as if you didn't buy the music at all. So is not buying the music at all also "rape"? Get real. When artists offer their music at reasonable prices, I'll gladly buy. Until then, they have no-one to blame but themselves.
Until you get a clue and realize who actually sets the price, then maybe you'll understand. The Artists don't set the price, their record label does. If they are independent, that's different. New releases at Target and Wal-Mart can be obtained for $9.99 for the CD. They have never been cheaper. It wasn't long ago that CD's were $15.99 to $17.99. Single tracks for .69 to $1.29 is still far cheaper than $5-$7 for a CD single.
Yeah, that .29 cent increase will really set you back. Most of the new music sucks anyway, so no harm done.
WRONG - harm to Apple iTunes sales. People will now find it cheaper, buy a Cd or simply steal.
Yeah, that .29 cent increase will really set you back. Most of the new music sucks anyway, so no harm done.
I agree with 'teckstud' - You are wrong it's 30% increase in the top tracks which is a big increase and is easily enough to put people off. Most new music may suck, but not all of it.
WRONG - harm to Apple iTunes sales. People will now find it cheaper, buy a Cd or simply steal.
I started to use iTunes to buy music about three years ago. Prior to that I purchased most at Best Buy or Target for my domestic and yesasia.com for my imports. Why? 100% for the CONVENIENCE, nothing more. The ease of purchase even made up for the trouble to remove the DRM by burning and reripping.
NO MORE. With this new pricing system I have started buying my older music on CD at second-hand music stores. In addition, I have gone back to yesasia.com as well. Yes, I have to spend more effort to find music on CD and it takes longer for the CDs to arrive from Japan. All true. But, import cds are the same price and used cds are cheaper, so it works out for me.
This all comes down to principle. There is NO reason, other than greed, to raise these prices...especially in the midst of such terrible economic times.
No more iTunes (or Amazon, etc.) for me.
I started to use iTunes to buy music about three years ago. Prior to that I purchased most at Best Buy or Target for my domestic and yesasia.com for my imports. Why? 100% for the CONVENIENCE, nothing more. The ease of purchase even made up for the trouble to remove the DRM by burning and reripping.
NO MORE. With this new pricing system I have started buying my older music on CD at second-hand music stores. In addition, I have gone back to yesasia.com as well. Yes, I have to spend more effort to find music on CD and it takes longer for the CDs to arrive from Japan. All true. But, import cds are the same price and used cds are cheaper, so it works out for me.
This all comes down to principle. There is NO reason, other than greed, to raise these prices...especially in the midst of such terrible economic times.
No more iTunes (or Amazon, etc.) for me.
Nearly everything I would be interested in remains at $.99. I don't really buy what would be considered "new and popular" music, though. I did see a few older songs, like Etta James "At Last" at a $1.29.
Don't buy 'em and the price will come down ....
Yeah, Apple simply said, "Okay, whatever you want to charge is fine with us".
We haven't heard anything from Steve Jobs on variable pricing (or more than .99) at all.
Variable pricing was one of the concession Apple gave in to to get DRM free music. And I believe Apple also got the rights to sell their iTunes music on the iPhone for the same price as buying it on a computer.
You can look at it this way. That extra $.29 is the tax all music buyers pay on downloaded music to make up for the fact that they can now easily give away copies to their friends. It's like the blank media tax many people in some European countries (and Canada) have to pay to their version of the RIAA. Everybody has to pay regardless of whether they give away their music or not.
And let's not forget that iTunes was already selling some of music for $1.29 before the Music Industry raised the price. These were the "plus" songs in a higher bit rate. But many still had DRM. So now all the songs are in the higher bit rate "plus" format and DRM free. And still for $1.29.
Would all you people whining about the extra $.29 rather still pay the $.99 for the lower bit rate (with DRM) version of it, if it were still available on iTunes?
The price increase is not $0.29, as mentioned in a few posts already.
Original price: $0.99
New price: $1.29
Difference: $0.30
Okay, you can get back to arguing. {:-)