Slashdot Mirror
iTunes Might Lose Labels
Dreamwalkerofyore writes "According to the New York Times, the iTunes music store might have to change its 99 cents per song policy or risk losing a huge amount of songs due to recent disputes with record companies, who demand an increase in the cost. From the article: 'If [Mr. Jobs] loses, the one-price model that iTunes has adopted 99 cents to download any song could be replaced with a more complex structure that prices songs by popularity. A hot new single, for example, could sell for $1.49, while a golden oldie could go for substantially less than 99 cents.'"
good idea!
might change that 'it's new - it must be good' thingy people have in their heads..
It was working so well, it was about time they fucked it up.
Apple goes out of its way and makes a system so that the record industry CAN profit from online media, and then they whine their not making enough! shoulda stuck with P2P, not like they're ever happy.
I expect that if this goes through there will be few if any songs that go down in price.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The 99 cents per song you already pay is a bit much, especially considering there is NO physical packaging, shipping costs, storefronts with employees and power bills, ad infinitum.
I really LIKE iTunes, and I *KNOW* how to steal music if I want to. I really LIKE the fact that I can buy a specific song for a pittance on a whim instead of hoping someone will upload it to the Usenet.
It's not that $1.49 is too much, but it just shows that they will try to reach a price that people will accept, however grudgingly. But the $1 mark is a psychological barrier; once they reach that, people will start to think, "Is this song worth $1.49?" and might not buy it after all.
In any case, good luck to 'em. I don't buy any new stuff anyway. Most of it is crap pushed by the payola artists.
Useless opinions, worthless observations, and more!
Like it costs so much to record a song in this day of digital recording. 99 cents is plenty.
The record labels pretty much killed CDs by charging 20 bucks each for them, now they'll kill this outlet as well.
Let them do it. Sites like AllOfMp3.com will just get more business (which appears to be totally legal). Why would anyone buy a crappy compressed song for $1.50? At that price it costs as much (or more!) as a regular CD with artwork and no compression!
I'm still waiting for the day when the general population knows about sites like AllOfMp3, where you can download an entire album in just about every popular format for around a dollar. You can even preview an entire album before purchasing, and the selection is pretty decent. Not as good as iTunes, but probably enough to satisfy a good chuck of iTMS users.
And given all this, the record companies want to make themselves look worse? Hilarious! Let them!
A variable pricing model would be fine with me. If iTunes were to include more indies and let each artist set their price, they we would end up with a dynamic model.
It seems to me that the primary problem with the music industry is the history of price fixing.
The more I think about this, the more I think it's pure and total BS. Apple has become the WalMart of music downloads. Apple accounts for more than half of digital music downloads. The record companies can huff and puff all they want, iTunes and the iTMS have become the WalMart of digital music. If they don't carry it, it doesn't sell. The record companies would be shooting themselves in the foot.
I wouldn't call this 'capitalist' at all. This article is telling me that somehow, completely independently of one another, every major record label suddenly decided to make apple change their pricing model to the exact same thing at the exact same time? I don't think so. These labels are not in competition at all.
I don't think this has much of anything to do with actual profit by the labels. They're making plenty right now, and growing plenty simply by virtue of increased volume. This is a power play. This is the industry telling Apple, "We own you, we don't need you. You do what WE say."
Basically, since they can't compete with Apple in digital distribution individually, they are colluding to strong-arm Apple and will likely run iTMS into the ground eventually. I think laws are being broken here, but I don't expect anything to be done about it.
No sig now
I think your post sums up Windows vs. Mac OS X totally. :)
I still don't see how this is Apple's fault.
The cable company story doesn't really seem comparable. Cable companies have a lot of leverage on content and it is a hassle for people to switch cable companies. However, it is very easy for people to buy music from a different store than iTMS.
Apple does not have monopsony power.
...they just wnat in on this price gouging that the oil companies are enjoying right now.
I can just see the RIAA, overcome with jealousy over OPEC, arranging a Music shortage. Prices going to $60 an album, people waiting in giant lines at record stores just to pick up a new Black Eyed Peas album. People avoiding playing music while driving to work because it's a precious commodity, while the record industry rakes in profit. Network news would alternately go nuts about how apocalyptic it is, then reassure people that it actually isn't the highest price peralbum ever when adjusted for inflation, informing us that people used to pay more for wax cylinders that could barely hold a song. Then the record industry would graciously recieve generous subsidies from the US government as part of a giant omnibus Music bill. Politicians will promise to help reduce America's dependance on foreign music, and to help keep the chart hits American.
Then we'll invade France to take control of Khaled and his snappy North African pop beats.
Yup...
This article is about record companies wanting to raise the current fixed prices.
If varible prices led to an open market with artists competing on price, then variable prices would like lead to a drop in price.
There are several big ifs in the equation.
Our first big if is the assumption that the prices would have a decent minimum that is near the price of delivering the music. The second big if is the assumption that rights to music is held in enough hands that there will actually be pricing pressure. Right now, the big music collections are owned by a few mega corporations.
You are complete right. If Apple has a pricing structure that sets $.99 as a minimum, then we would see a big jump in price.