Slashdot Mirror


Apple Shifts iTunes Pricing; $0.69 Tracks MIA

Hodejo1 writes "Steve Jobs vowed weeks ago that when iTunes shifted to a tiered price structure in April, older tracks priced at $0.69 would outnumber the contemporary hits that are rising to $1.29. Today, several weeks later, iTunes made the transition. While the $1.29 tracks are immediately visible, locating cheaper tracks is proving to be an exercise in futility. With the exception of 48 songs that Apple has placed on the iTunes main page, $0.69 downloads are a scarce commodity. MP3 Newswire tried to methodically drill down to unearth more of them only to find: 1) A download like Heart's 34-year-old song Barracuda went up to $1.29, not down. 2) Obscure '90s Brit pop and '50s rockabilly artists — those most likely to benefit from a price drop — remained at $0.99. 3) Collected tracks from a cross-section of 1920s, '30s, and '40s artists all remained at $0.99. Finally, MP3 Newswire called up tracks in the public domain from an artist named Ada Jones who first recorded in 1893 on Edison cylinder technology. The price on all of the century-old, public-domain tracks remained at $0.99. (The same tracks are available for free on archive.org.) The scarcity of lower-priced tracks may reflect the fact that the labels themselves decide which price tier they want to pursue for a given artist; and they are mostly ignoring the lower tier. Meanwhile, Amazon's UK site has decided to counter-promote their service by dropping prices on select tracks to 29 pence ($0.42)."

9 of 429 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is no competition between different labels to sell the same product (song)

    TFS mentions tracks in the public domain. Anyone can sell those tracks - how do you explain the pricing there? That can't be the Label's bullying poor defenceless Apple.

  2. Re:Guitar Hero by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Of course the labels are going to raise prices on hits, and sell the crap for cheap, just like those DVD bargin bins.

    Except that the whole "sell the crap for cheap" part is missing.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  3. Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can buy your music from amazon and just import it into itunes. iTunes is a database for you to organize your collection. iTunes music store is the store.

    captcha: monogamy

  4. Re:Who cares by Bieeanda · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Your favorite artist" sees just about zilch from CD sales, unless they're totally independent. If you want to support them, go see them in concert.

  5. Re:Who cares? by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 4, Informative

    no, the USA has Amazon. like so many other sites involving music, people outside of the USA get shafted

    --
    TIAEAE!
  6. Love my iPod - Hate iTunes. by Like2Byte · · Score: 4, Informative

    I reluctantly purchased an ipod a few years ago. I didn't know just how much Id grow to love this thing. I love being able to take tunes with me where-ever I go. Then my laptop crashed, I was able to get all my tunes off the HD but wasnt able to get them all loaded back onto the iPod from the fresh XP installation on the same LT.

    ALL of the songs I purchased without DRM I am unable to get back onto my iPod as well as a few others as I changed my password from time to time and cant remember which PW I used when I purchased certain tracks.

    So, iTunes sucks major ass. You can't tell me that Apple doesn't have a record of the songs I purchased over the years. I can't download again one's I've already purchased. It's BS.

    Now, I purchase all my tracks on CD, rip them using cdparanoia and copy to my iPod. iTunes manages the mp3s I create for my own personal use and my podcasts/vidcasts.

    Keep your money as well as your sanity - rip CDs for personal use and dont buy from Apple.

  7. Re:Surprise? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 5, Informative

    As I'm currently researching a tangential issue for a journal article right now, I have found numerous cases and pronouncements from Congress that if the song file is transferred (as distinguished from streamed), it is a public distribution, not a public performance.

    Thus, ASCAP should not be implicated when you're selling tracks (as distinguished from streaming radio).

    Yes, I know from a technical standpoint there isn't much difference between streaming and transferring a 4MB MP3 file with speeds the way they are now over the net.

    However, it basically breaks down to: a streamed MP3 is "performed" and the "performance" is sent over the net. However, a merely transferred MP3 is sent as a piece of data that is meant for later performance.

    Think of it as the difference between sending a VHS recording of a play you produced and transmitting a live show over the airwaves.

  8. Re:Who cares? by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Amazon downloader automatically adds the track to your itunes and WMP libraries....

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  9. Re:Surprise? by Clovert+Agent · · Score: 4, Informative

    They want to have their cake and eat it too*
    * Stupidest expression ever? I think so.

    It seems senseless until you realise that it's back to front in today's common usage. The expression means "they want to eat their cake and still have it afterwards".