iTunes price increases mean slower sales for music labels

123457»

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 139
    igeniusigenius Posts: 1,240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


    Legally, you may be right, but the end result is the same: you are acquiring someone's else's merchandise without paying. In layman's terms, they are the same.



    No, they are not even close to being the same. Theft deprives the owner of the goods. Creating a new copy does not.



    It is the same difference as stealing a painting compared to taking an unauthorized photo of a painting.



    The first deprives the owner. The second does not. That is why the first is theft and the second is copyright infringement.
  • Reply 122 of 139
    SOOOOOOOOOO GREEDY!!!!! Records companies are paying the price for that and still don't understand how sick not only consumers but musicians as well are tired to be treated that way... I was in the music business and I know exactly what it means to be a musician. Getting paid a dime on an album they sold for $15 bucks!!! Did they ever considered how much time and material investment an artist has to put on in order to create 10 or 12 songs for an album????

    Art should be free anyway as without art the world as we know it wouldn't exist. Would you buy an ugly car? Would you shop in an Apple store the way you do without its clean design? Would you live without music? Would you read a bad book? Most of the world's economy is based on art and design. Ugly things simply don't sell. Art helps us evolve. Artists can generated money by using their art as a great platform for businesses to advertise, like they do using websites, sport events and more, and help people evolve and feel better. Musicians don't need records companies to make a living. Play on stage, sell posters and merchandsing, find sponsors and give free concerts. Do your part and help the world feel beter by listening to your music. Give the world free access to enlightenment. ART SHOULD BE FREE AS IT IS A POWERFUL, NECESSARY WAY FOR US TO EVOLVE AND SHARE LOVE. Because that's what it's all about: LOVE. Leave the greedy business to car dealers and lawyers and stay away from the arists. Please.
  • Reply 123 of 139
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "During the earnings call, Bronfman sounded a bit wistful as he noted the book industry?s apparent success, with the help of Apple, at raising prices above the $9.99 floor Amazon (AMZN) had set," Kafka wrote.



    Shouldn't that be CEILING?
  • Reply 124 of 139
    igeniusigenius Posts: 1,240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TimmyDax View Post


    Shouldn't that be CEILING?



    Very good catch. Was it a Freudian slip? Is the price so low (the lowest that he deals with) so that he thinks of it as a floor, and so he said the wrong word?



    Interesting.
  • Reply 125 of 139
    successsuccess Posts: 1,039member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iGenius View Post


    Very good catch. Was it a Freudian slip? Is the price so low (the lowest that he deals with) so that he thinks of it as a floor, and so he said the wrong word?



    Interesting.



    Not Freudian. Floor if you're selling, ceiling if you're buying.
  • Reply 126 of 139
    igeniusigenius Posts: 1,240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by success View Post


    Not Freudian. Floor if you're selling, ceiling if you're buying.



    So $9.99 was the minimum that they could charge, and not the highest?
  • Reply 127 of 139
    Once the prices started going up my wife and I started looking elsewhere. Now we buy the bulk of our online music from Amazon's MP3 store. We still use iTunes to look for stuff and listen to samples because it's a nicer interface, but when we've made a selection we go looking to Amazon to buy. It's cheaper and DRM free and much better value. The Apple experience would be much better and we would come back if the price was competitive.
  • Reply 128 of 139
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    New or used?



    New. If you go to a "music" store you will pay more, but there are shops that sell new music at discounted prices, and then with the likes of Amazon, Zavvi, play.com etc there is no reason to pay high prices for CDs
  • Reply 129 of 139
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iGenius View Post


    Downloading a song does NOT equal stealing from artists.



    Downloading a song does not equal stealing from anybody. It is copyright infringement, and not theft. They are different things, and that is why different words are used to accurately describe the actions.



    By misusing words, you confuse concepts. Likely the concepts are confused in your head, and that is the reason why you think the words are synonyms.



    Call it whatever you want.



    If you download a song the artist doesn't get paid. End result, less money in their pocket.



    And, "rain" wasn't just downloading songs, by his own admission, he/she was actively engaged in distributing those files to others.



    While some may feel that illegal distribution of copyrighted material helps the artist, it should be the artist that decides if that is to be done. I've downloaded free songs on iTunes and later purchased the album it was contained in. In this case, the artist specifically wanted that specific track to be available for free.



    Those that say they are helping the artist by distributing the music are full of BS. I also have no problem if a person downloads a song and goes on to purchase it. I also don't mind if someone downloads a song, doesn't like it, and deletes it. Unfortunately, many feel it's their right to be able to download music off the internet, and not have to pay for it.



    I think a lot of people would change their opinion if they were selling something, and then discovered how many people have copies that weren't paid for.
  • Reply 130 of 139
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    It becomes my problem when a family is destroyed, homeless and owes the RIAA $2,000,000,000 for having 16 music tracks on their computer that was in the wrong folder.



    Or are you cool with that?



    The thing is, what you're doing as a response is playing into their hands.



    What you should be doing is trying to promote non-label acts, not do the unpaid advertising work for the labels.
  • Reply 131 of 139
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    Publishers will make less money using the 70/30 Apple iBooks way that the $9.99 Amazon way. Publishers are already selling their books to Amazon at $14.99. Amazon is losing $5 for each $9.99 book they sell on the Kindle.



    How do you figure that? Both my parents were printers back in the days when hot metal was king and the one thing that was true then is true now--of all the costs that a book has paper was the biggest. Not advertisement, not labor, not royalties, not even the huge printing machines, but paper.



    Ebooks get rid of the most expensive thing in a book-paper. So how can Amazon be loosing anything?
  • Reply 132 of 139
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    Factors you ignored:

    Amazon is US only



    You can't be this clueless. Amazon UK division
  • Reply 133 of 139
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Since Apple granted music labels the flexibility to set individual song prices between $0.69 and $1.29 on the iTunes Music Store, growth of digital music sales has slowed, one music executive revealed Tuesday.



    According to Peter Kafka at MediaMemo, Warner Music Group revealed Tuesday that it has seen digital music sales slow down since the price increase took effect in April 2009. Digital album downloads grew 5 percent in December, down from 10 percent in the September quarter and 11 percent in the June quarter. Digital revenue is slowing as well: Warner saw 8 percent growth in the holiday quarter, versus 20 percent a year before.



    Warner CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. reportedly said the pricing change has been a "net positive" for Warner, but conceded that a 30 percent price increase during a recession was not the best move.



    The executive went on to comment during Tuesday's quarterly earnings conference call on the effect Apple and its iPad announcement has had on the publishing industry. Specifically, Apple has offered publishers some flexibility in pricing their e-books, as opposed to the more strict approach the company has taken with music.



    "During the earnings call, Bronfman sounded a bit wistful as he noted the book industry?s apparent success, with the help of Apple, at raising prices above the $9.99 floor Amazon (AMZN) had set," Kafka wrote.



    Bronfman reportedly said, "It?s interesting that the book publishing industry, on the iPad, has much more flexibility than the music industry had."



    Last August, Apple's iTunes was found to be a quarter of all music sales in the U.S. That makes iTunes by far the largest music retailer, ahead of second-place Walmart with 14 percent. In all, digital downloads make up 35 percent of music sales, and iTunes accounts for 69 percent of online sales. But despite iTunes' popularity, CDs still remain the top-selling format, with 65 percent of overall sales.



    In early 2009, Apple convinced record labels to remove digital rights management from iTunes music downloads. But in the process, the Cupertino, Calif., company conceded price flexibility. Starting last April, some popular tracks saw a 30 percent increase in price, from 99 cents to $1.29.



    But as Apple looks to take on Amazon's Kindle in the e-book business, the company has offered publishers the ability to price new hardcover titles higher -- from $12.99 to $14.99 -- than Amazon's $9.99 price. Apple's deal influenced publisher Macmillan to push Amazon to allow it to adjust its prices, to which the bookseller reluctantly agreed. Higher prices on the Amazon Kindle are expected to coincide with the launch of Apple's multimedia iPad in late March.



    It is Apple's entrance into the e-book market, with its new iBooks application and accompanying iBookstore, that has caused a new rift between publishers and Amazon. Following Macmillan's lead, Hachette Book Group and HarperCollins have both announced their intent to ink new deals with more flexible price structuring with Amazon.



    Publishers have said the increased prices will not lead to greater profits, but will protect the viability of the book marketplace by giving authors and agents the ability to make more money on every digital sale. Some have said they believe the current Amazon $9.99 pricing model hurts retailers who sell the hardcover editions by devaluing books.



    Honestly, I don't give a $*%& what happens to major labels. 90% of them are terrible anyway. Most good music out there comes from Local Musicians or Indie Labels. That's not to say they don't have bad artists too... but at least the ratio of good to bad isn't like it is in mainstream. What's that, Puddle of Mudd's album just went up $0.30 a song... who cares they suck anyway. There's maybe a handful of major label bands who could be considered good musicians and good song writers. I'd be happy if I never heard a thing from the rest of them ever again. 40+ years ago at least the Top 100 list each month was for the most part, respectable. The Top Hits artists now a days can barely be considered song writers, their all clones of each other.



    Vented and feeling better now.
  • Reply 134 of 139
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post


    You say that stores generally control the prices of the products they sell, but that isn't always true, it's all dependent on the agreements in place. Consoles are the same price everywhere, there is little wiggle room on cell phones, the music industry sets prices on Amazon (as previously mentioned), car dealers have a MRSP but you can negotiate, etc.



    I love how people like you think everything is an Apple conspiracy.



    Well I can't speak for where you live. But in England consoles are different prices. Many may follow the recommended price from the manufacturer, but all have their own offers etc. That why different stores exist and people talk about shopping around. Fine agreements could be in place that mean a store can't choose its prices. But given the size of Apple and iTunes, I highly doubt they can be forces into any agreement they disagree with.



    I don't think everything is a conspiracy, I just don't believe everything I read. 90% of what companies say is marketing as they have no other reason to talk.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stompy View Post


    See JeffDM's reply.

    You apparently regard Steve Jobs open letter, Feb. 6 2007, as a ruse.



    What is the point of an open letter if it isn't about marketing to the public. If they wanted to remove DRM they would negotiate with the music labels at any time they wanted. An open letter isn't a communication its about making the public like you and be on your side.



    End of the day a few facts remain
    • DRM music from iTunes locked you into playing it on an iPOD. So when your iPOD broke, you had to get another iPOD

    • While nobody sold DRM free music, iPOD locked you into iTunes

    • If Apple was so against DRM why does the app store use it? There's no third party in this company to dictate anything, its purley up to them, and yet its still there

  • Reply 135 of 139
    igeniusigenius Posts: 1,240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by realmike15 View Post


    40+ years ago at least the Top 100 list each month was for the most part, respectable.





    Misty watercolored memories...
  • Reply 136 of 139
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post


    End of the day a few facts remain
    • DRM music from iTunes locked you into playing it on an iPOD. So when your iPOD broke, you had to get another iPOD

    • While nobody sold DRM free music, iPOD locked you into iTunes

    • If Apple was so against DRM why does the app store use it? There's no third party in this company to dictate anything, its purley up to them, and yet its still there


    • iTunes was the first app to even allow a conversion and transfer of music back when the RIAA was saying that ripping a CD and using it in your MP3 player was illegal. Hell, even Gates was amazed by the deal Apple got with the labels.

    • Why is this even a question? Music labels required it. How else would they would Apple had been able to get a contract if they said no DRM. They were scared enough about the internet already.

    • Apple is against pointless DRM. They prevent Mac OS X from installing on just any system. Snow Leopard Server requires an activation code. Many of their pro apps do to. iWork requires oen is you use the 30-day trial. Asking for music not to DRMed because that exact same music is more easily pirated from other sources is not the same thing.

  • Reply 137 of 139
    My thoughts on music and even movies and downloads/sales.



    I think that the initial reluctance to embrace downloads may well have been part of the downfall but is that excuse really valid? The internet doesn't allow us to share the mp3 players that music is played on but it allows the content of the players to be shared. Most of us would never go into a shop and steal an mp3 player or a computer or a cd player or even a cd for that matter but for some reason the internet seemed to disillusion people into thinking that file sharing isn't theft. Fifteen years ago if you couldn't afford an album or to see a movie you wouldn't buy it or you wouldn't go to the cinema, you'd wait to see it on TV or youd wait until you could afford it. Today, if you can't afford it you go on a p2p, use torrents or search the net and bingo instant gratification as you get what you want, when you want it and without paying for it.



    Digital downloads have destroyed the artistry behind music. An album can be torn apart, the tracklist is irrelevant and these days largely due to Apple its more about the gadget you use to play the music than the music itself.



    Its easy to say today oh its the record companies greed that has resulted in the drop of sales, why couldn't it be that the drop in sales is due to the fact that more people are sharing the songs now that they don't have drm protection?



    Apple were fast to pick up on digital downloads but its quickly become more about the hardware as opposed to content you put on the hardware (iphones, ipads, ipods). Most people wouldn't consider stealing the hardware but music, movies, tv shows - the things you can listen to and watch on the hardware - is shared without thought.



    So ultimately is really the blame of labels?
  • Reply 138 of 139
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Musiquenut View Post


    Digital downloads have destroyed the artistry behind music. An album can be torn apart, the tracklist is irrelevant and these days largely due to Apple its more about the gadget you use to play the music than the music itself.



    I don't think digital downloads are the bogeyman here. Concept albums and other kinds of albums where there is a good flow were few and far between for a long time, it was mostly gone before Napster. I think to say that iTunes and other digital downloads pulled the trigger killing the cohesive album is to get the time line wrong.



    I think it's more the industry side not making compelling media. Complaints about the quality of albums predate digital downloads for some time. Before downloads, consumers only had the choice of buying the album or not. Now, they can buy the tracks they want and avoid buying what they consider to be filler.



    Quote:

    Its easy to say today oh its the record companies greed that has resulted in the drop of sales, why couldn't it be that the drop in sales is due to the fact that more people are sharing the songs now that they don't have drm protection?



    Revenue digital download has been increasing, not decreasing. Besides, most CDs don't have DRM protection either, so digital downloads lacking DRM can't be the bogeyman there.
  • Reply 139 of 139
    bgpubgpu Posts: 7member
    It took me about a year to find an album that had a 69¢ track on iTunes, and shockingly it wasn't an ancient, obscure album.



    My issue with the 69¢ price point is that I feel it should be used far more extensively for tracks that aren't really "music:" Any intro/outro track that's nothing more than guitar feedback or a drum beat that lasts less than a minute; or any kind of interlude or lame "skit."



    99¢ for 10-30 seconds of the artist talking. Come on... Those are the tracks that should be album only. But if people are dumb enough to buy them...
Sign In or Register to comment.