I wonder what happens to our existing DRM'd music. Will we have an option to convert our entire purchased library to DRM free? Will this option be free or will there be a charge? Or will we have to repurchase our collection to get rid of the DRM?
Well Apple is a smart company, and we have to think so are the record companies.
So either the pricing so something everyone can live with, and we all win ? or
the pricing is something only the record companies love, and therefore because of the new pricing, CD sales will go back up to where they (the record companies) like it. This will be a "Big Hit" to Apples bottom line, and something I don't think Apple is ready to deal with.
I think it will be something we can all live with. NOT what the consumer wants (mostly because we want everything for free), but it should still be a good thing.
Many people on this board believe that DRM is oppressive, as it is another case of the studios trying to dictate their terms to us with electronic shackles.
Furthermore (with respect), this 'the market will dictate the pricing' crap went out the window years ago. Please explain to me how the cost of CD production has gone down over the years, but the relative price per CD has shot up. We are not talking about a finite resource here like oil.
The vast majority of my artist mates scrape by while the Music Execs live the champagne lifestyle. Big Music own the market and any sort of fair deal for the average consumer gets stomped on, hence the backlash with torrents.
I will continue to use the iTunes store, but I guess I will have to search harder for cheaper tracks. Which sucks.
The market dictating pricing isn't saying that replication expenses dictate the pricing. But I'm not saying that they're telling the truth, they seem to be just pricing them however they want and then blame piracy if the sales don't keep up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman
This is bad.
Remember people
1) Audio CD @ 1 CD = 80min of audio + case + album art + lyrics etc + shipping and the rest
2) ACC/MP3 CD @ 1 CD = 10hrs of audio + a sever + bandwidth
On quality alone we are being ripped off nearly 10 times.
In OZ its 1) $25 vs 2) $19. That's not $2.50 for a 10th the data, let alone reduced costs of production and shipping, let alone NO lyrics, NO art and NO ownership.
Would you willingly pay a few dollars less for a book if it only had 1 in 10 pages, no cover and you had no right to transfer ownership. No you wouldn't buy it all.
The music industry cry baby tactics are a Con as we all happily get converted over to crap quality at higher prices (relative to quality)
In such conditions it is appropriate to "rip" 9 albums for every one you buy as a digital download just to balance the lie.
NOW it just got worse. Charge us more for the same less. CRAP
If you honestly believe that the price should be dictated by the number of bits that you're getting, I'll sell you a CD with white noise for $20. Also, it's not the music industry that pushed this, they got dragged into it because they would rather sell you the CD. It's the customers that wanted convenient file media and the ability to select tracks a-la-carte.
cd sales have collapsed down i think 20% from a downer last year. the music business is realizing that to sell they need a market, the music moguls wanted the DRM not apple they realize that itunes is the answer so though they don't like to embrace SJ they want to embrace pirated music less,
people buy when the song is hot, albums and bundling junk, as has happened for years is dying, people want the music will pay for quality and ease of use.....yeah apple.
i'd still like standard quality 99cents and higher quality may cost more.
now if the moguls can chanrge more, how has SJ won that battle, is it the lack of DRM? or that now itunes grows even more?
...but I don't want to be paying the same as what it would cost me to go to JB Hi-Fi and buy the physical disc. An album should be cheaper on iTMS. I know it cost them to keep the music on a server somewhere but still doesn't cost as much as stamping the disc then shipping it to the store where it takes up space until I purchase it!
The price should be whatever people are willing to pay. That is how a free-market economy works. The music is there to generate revenue, not to fit into your budget.
All musicians should just give it up now and become software developers??? Forget about music everybody, it's "over," cause there is no money in it. Of course no one could possibly have any other reason for becoming a musician than money.
Microsoft would have to double in size to hire all the crap "musicians" out there that try to become "developers."
I'd gladly pay extra for every song I buy, even up to $1.50 or more, if I could somehow "block" artists I don't care to see any notice of or have their titles clutter my searches.
I mean really, between the 40 some odd emails I get each week from iTunes and the sheer clutter of the ITMS interface anymore, it's getting to where I buy less and less music from them.
They've become like network television or bad cable stations: I don't want to suffer through all the endlessly repeating commercials, so I just pay more money for content with less interruptions.
This makes sense as far as the 3G downloads go. They will probably offer a tethering plan now, and start a 5G cap. So they probably wont car about anyone downloading music, as long as you stay within your "unlimited" 5G area.
As someone with terrible taste in music and movies, I applaud this move. Since I only buy really awful music, I'll win. Everyone else, of course, will lose. The music industry had a windfall with CDs and they now expect to keep it up forever. Well, it's not going to happen and the artificial valuation of these assets is going to cause a collapse of these companies-- sub-prime mortgage style-- before long. And it couldn't happen to a more appropriate group of folks.
I hope Apple hasn't given in on variable pricing, because you can bet the average price of songs will go up. Anything popular (both new and old hits) will be significantly more than $1. Only old songs that have very few takers will be priced under $1.
And I'm sure pricing on Amazon will mysteriously match Apple's pricing the next day.
The only 'winners' for this is the big music cartel. Everybody else (namely Artists and Customers) lose.
It's very easy for independent artists to put their music on iTunes, so hopefully price increases by major labels will encourage people to buy more non-label (or new smarter-label) music.
I love the idea of Apple removing DRM from the iTunes Music Store by April 2009. That could mean owners of Creative, Microsoft and Sandisk players will soon be able to play 256 kbps AAC tracks from essentially the entire iTunes Music Store. Watch for a lot of non-Apple player firmware updates to support non-DRM AAC playback within the next year or so.
The music store has finally reached that last plateau of perfection. Now its time to start working on the movie studios so that the potential of digital movies doesn't continue to be held back.
Since I tend to only purchase music made in the ‘60s thru ‘80s, this lower pricing, and higher-quality will benefit someone like me. For those folks who are into Top 40 music, I feel they will find the $1.29 price acceptable. At the very least, audio quality is improved, and the DRM headaches will be gone.
I look at it this way, the iTunes gift certificates are $15 anyway and I still go by the time honored tradition of buying by album, so a slight price increase for the few contemporary artists I can actually stand isn't going to effect me much. At the lower track price for older music, I might be able to two classics for that $15.
I just want to know why everyone thinks that variable pricing is ok for iPhone apps, but not music?
Makes absolutely no sense to me. Get over this $0.99 only thing. It's dead.
Apps have much more variation in content. Music pricing doesn't vary all that much in store so it's easier having a consistent pricing scheme and helps buyers keep track of spending.
On the other hand, there will be music that is enjoyed by a select group of people who may be willing to pay a premium for the content and the musicians will be losing out there. In a similar setup to Apple really. They sell certain types of computer to a minority market for a premium.
I guess Apple don't want music companies to extort customers though. They could easily push the price higher for digital downloads than physical copies and start putting people off using the service.
Apps have much more variation in content. Music pricing doesn't vary all that much in store so it's easier having a consistent pricing scheme and helps buyers keep track of spending.
On the other hand, there will be music that is enjoyed by a select group of people who may be willing to pay a premium for the content and the musicians will be losing out there. In a similar setup to Apple really. They sell certain types of computer to a minority market for a premium.
I guess Apple don't want music companies to extort customers though. They could easily push the price higher for digital downloads than physical copies and start putting people off using the service.
Apps have much more variation in content? So what? No two songs are alike, no two songs have the same production values or labor time involved in producing it, some songs take years/decades to create. This logic still makes no sense to me.
Brick and mortar stores, online stores, etc. have ALL had variable pricing (music, products, videos, groceries, etc. etc.) for YEARS. Consumers have dealt with this FINE. Again, why is it ok for iPhone apps to have variable pricing but music does not?
If it's too high prices, then people won't buy the song. Simple as that. Once they realize this, THEY WILL LOWER THE PRICE. If they don't, then the song won't sell. Simple as that.
Comments
Best,
Daniel (from my iPhone)
Just asking. Any specualtion?
So either the pricing so something everyone can live with, and we all win ? or
the pricing is something only the record companies love, and therefore because of the new pricing, CD sales will go back up to where they (the record companies) like it. This will be a "Big Hit" to Apples bottom line, and something I don't think Apple is ready to deal with.
I think it will be something we can all live with. NOT what the consumer wants (mostly because we want everything for free), but it should still be a good thing.
In a few hours we may know.
Skip
Many people on this board believe that DRM is oppressive, as it is another case of the studios trying to dictate their terms to us with electronic shackles.
Furthermore (with respect), this 'the market will dictate the pricing' crap went out the window years ago. Please explain to me how the cost of CD production has gone down over the years, but the relative price per CD has shot up. We are not talking about a finite resource here like oil.
The vast majority of my artist mates scrape by while the Music Execs live the champagne lifestyle. Big Music own the market and any sort of fair deal for the average consumer gets stomped on, hence the backlash with torrents.
I will continue to use the iTunes store, but I guess I will have to search harder for cheaper tracks. Which sucks.
The market dictating pricing isn't saying that replication expenses dictate the pricing. But I'm not saying that they're telling the truth, they seem to be just pricing them however they want and then blame piracy if the sales don't keep up.
This is bad.
Remember people
1) Audio CD @ 1 CD = 80min of audio + case + album art + lyrics etc + shipping and the rest
2) ACC/MP3 CD @ 1 CD = 10hrs of audio + a sever + bandwidth
On quality alone we are being ripped off nearly 10 times.
In OZ its 1) $25 vs 2) $19. That's not $2.50 for a 10th the data, let alone reduced costs of production and shipping, let alone NO lyrics, NO art and NO ownership.
Would you willingly pay a few dollars less for a book if it only had 1 in 10 pages, no cover and you had no right to transfer ownership. No you wouldn't buy it all.
The music industry cry baby tactics are a Con as we all happily get converted over to crap quality at higher prices (relative to quality)
In such conditions it is appropriate to "rip" 9 albums for every one you buy as a digital download just to balance the lie.
NOW it just got worse. Charge us more for the same less. CRAP
If you honestly believe that the price should be dictated by the number of bits that you're getting, I'll sell you a CD with white noise for $20. Also, it's not the music industry that pushed this, they got dragged into it because they would rather sell you the CD. It's the customers that wanted convenient file media and the ability to select tracks a-la-carte.
people buy when the song is hot, albums and bundling junk, as has happened for years is dying, people want the music will pay for quality and ease of use.....yeah apple.
i'd still like standard quality 99cents and higher quality may cost more.
now if the moguls can chanrge more, how has SJ won that battle, is it the lack of DRM? or that now itunes grows even more?
...but I don't want to be paying the same as what it would cost me to go to JB Hi-Fi and buy the physical disc. An album should be cheaper on iTMS. I know it cost them to keep the music on a server somewhere but still doesn't cost as much as stamping the disc then shipping it to the store where it takes up space until I purchase it!
The price should be whatever people are willing to pay. That is how a free-market economy works. The music is there to generate revenue, not to fit into your budget.
All musicians should just give it up now and become software developers??? Forget about music everybody, it's "over," cause there is no money in it. Of course no one could possibly have any other reason for becoming a musician than money.
Microsoft would have to double in size to hire all the crap "musicians" out there that try to become "developers."
So basically if you like real music you'll save money.
Yeah
I mean really, between the 40 some odd emails I get each week from iTunes and the sheer clutter of the ITMS interface anymore, it's getting to where I buy less and less music from them.
They've become like network television or bad cable stations: I don't want to suffer through all the endlessly repeating commercials, so I just pay more money for content with less interruptions.
I hope Apple hasn't given in on variable pricing, because you can bet the average price of songs will go up. Anything popular (both new and old hits) will be significantly more than $1. Only old songs that have very few takers will be priced under $1.
And I'm sure pricing on Amazon will mysteriously match Apple's pricing the next day.
The only 'winners' for this is the big music cartel. Everybody else (namely Artists and Customers) lose.
It's very easy for independent artists to put their music on iTunes, so hopefully price increases by major labels will encourage people to buy more non-label (or new smarter-label) music.
Makes absolutely no sense to me. Get over this $0.99 only thing. It's dead.
I just want to know why everyone thinks that variable pricing is ok for iPhone apps, but not music?
Makes absolutely no sense to me. Get over this $0.99 only thing. It's dead.
Apps have much more variation in content. Music pricing doesn't vary all that much in store so it's easier having a consistent pricing scheme and helps buyers keep track of spending.
On the other hand, there will be music that is enjoyed by a select group of people who may be willing to pay a premium for the content and the musicians will be losing out there. In a similar setup to Apple really. They sell certain types of computer to a minority market for a premium.
I guess Apple don't want music companies to extort customers though. They could easily push the price higher for digital downloads than physical copies and start putting people off using the service.
Apps have much more variation in content. Music pricing doesn't vary all that much in store so it's easier having a consistent pricing scheme and helps buyers keep track of spending.
On the other hand, there will be music that is enjoyed by a select group of people who may be willing to pay a premium for the content and the musicians will be losing out there. In a similar setup to Apple really. They sell certain types of computer to a minority market for a premium.
I guess Apple don't want music companies to extort customers though. They could easily push the price higher for digital downloads than physical copies and start putting people off using the service.
Apps have much more variation in content? So what? No two songs are alike, no two songs have the same production values or labor time involved in producing it, some songs take years/decades to create. This logic still makes no sense to me.
Brick and mortar stores, online stores, etc. have ALL had variable pricing (music, products, videos, groceries, etc. etc.) for YEARS. Consumers have dealt with this FINE. Again, why is it ok for iPhone apps to have variable pricing but music does not?
If it's too high prices, then people won't buy the song. Simple as that. Once they realize this, THEY WILL LOWER THE PRICE. If they don't, then the song won't sell. Simple as that.
w00master