Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Kevin · Nov 17, 2005, 06:40 AM

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27749

APPLE is expected to back down on its one price fits all music price under pressure from the music industry.

EMI expects Apple to increase the price of popular songs and cut those by unknown acts on its iTunes Web site within a year.

Cody Dawg · Nov 17, 2005, 06:44 AM

He "gave in" when he put an Intel chip in our computers. Especially when Motorola then released their newer chip about a week afterwards.

This is just more of the same.

MindFad · Nov 17, 2005, 06:55 AM

Weyland-Yutani · Nov 17, 2005, 07:01 AM

Well. Seeing as the popular music is the one that is the easiest to acquire on the p2p nets it is fantastically stupid to up the prices on those songs.

On the p2p nets it is the norm to code mp3s in 192 kbps to 256 kpbs. Legal downloads are becoming more expensive at 128 kbps (AAC, yes but the difference between 128 kpbs and 256 kbps mp3 is not in favor of the AAC)

Album art in high res is also usually included on the p2p nets. If they are raising prices, I suggest they raise quality as well.

cheers

W-Y

Kevin · Nov 17, 2005, 07:07 AM

What it seems to be to me is, the top 40 radio crap will cost more. But the other stuff will actually cost less......

If this is the case, It's a win win situation for me. I never bought that top 40 crap anyhow.

Kevin · Nov 17, 2005, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

He "gave in" when he put an Intel chip in our computers. Especially when Motorola then released their newer chip about a week afterwards.

This is just more of the same.

Oh come on Cody, the hardware really doesn't matter. And it's not the Intel chips that are out NOW that is going to be important.

Plus, you'll have a machine that can run ANYTHING.

Eug Wanker · Nov 17, 2005, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

He "gave in" when he put an Intel chip in our computers. Especially when Motorola then released their newer chip about a week afterwards.

This is just more of the same.

WTF?

Heheh. Captured for posterity.

production_coordinator · Nov 17, 2005, 08:17 AM

Kevin and Cody Dawg,

You say "backs down" I say "remains competitive"... (and I doubt he had all that much say in the issue... [either raise the price or we aren't going to give you the songs])

The moral high ground helped considerably in taking the Mac platform and reducing it to a ~5% market share. I have a considerable amount of faith in Steve. Look at where the platform was when he took over and look at where we are now. Cody... your Intel statement was a blatant derail. Perhaps if you elaborated as to how transitioning to the mainstream CPU was a "sell out" you would have had a point.

production_coordinator · Nov 17, 2005, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Plus, you'll have a machine that can run ANYTHING.

I actually think this is going to be a BIG selling point.

If you buy a Mac and don't like it... you can still run Windows. Also, some people LOVE the Apple hardware. It's going to kill me to see a 30" display and a PowerMac running Windows Vista... but I would rather it send money Apple's way to fuel the OS development...

Oisín · Nov 17, 2005, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

If this is the case, It's a win win situation for me. I never bought that top 40 crap anyhow.

Same here. If this will indeed be the way this turns out (of which I am still somewhat sceptical), I would be more than happy. Nearly all the music I would like to buy via the iTMS definitely does not fall under the category of 'popular'. Actually, most of it doesn't even exist in the iTMS, so it wouldn't make much difference there, but at least some of it does.

turtle777 · Nov 17, 2005, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

What it seems to be to me is, the top 40 radio crap will cost more. But the other stuff will actually cost less......

If this is the case, It's a win win situation for me. I never bought that top 40 crap anyhow.

Nah, I doubt it.

The top 100,000,000,000 is gonna cost more, the worst five songs EVAR are gonna be $ 0.95.
I'm sure it's gonna make things more xpensive.

-t

cjrivera · Nov 17, 2005, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Nah, I doubt it.

The top 100,000,000,000 is gonna cost more, the worst five songs EVAR are gonna be $ 0.95.
-t

Awesome! Then I'm gonna wait for this to happen and save the $0.20!

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/M...&i=5222131

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/M...amp;i=48346567

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/M...&i=6494675

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/M...amp;i=74139911

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/M...&i=3432866

Mastrap · Nov 17, 2005, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

If this is the case, It's a win win situation for me. I never bought that top 40 crap anyhow.

Same here. If some of the stuff I am interested in would retail for less I'd be very happy.

dcmacdaddy · Nov 17, 2005, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by cjrivera

Awesome! Then I'm gonna wait for this to happen and save the $0.20!

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/M...amp;i=74139911

This one actually rocks and the sounds seems appropriate
for the general aural vibe you get from Talking Heads.

wdlove · Nov 17, 2005, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

He "gave in" when he put an Intel chip in our computers. Especially when Motorola then released their newer chip about a week afterwards.

This is just more of the same.

Just have to trust in the decisions that Steve makes. So far he has been on target. I'm like Kevin, not interested in the newer songs either.

Dork. · Nov 17, 2005, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27749
EMI expects Apple to increase the price of popular songs and cut those by unknown acts on its iTunes Web site within a year.

So, EMI wants Apple to charge more for its songs, while charging less for the "unknown" competition? I say this is a win for those independant artists. iTunes makes it easy to find this "unknown" music. Someone who is fed up with having to pay $1.50 or $2.00 a song might just browse through other songs in the genre and buy two $.75 songs.

I've bought some songs via iTunes, but I'll admit that i've bought just as much on the "discount rack". you know, those cheezy compilations that sell for $4.99 a CD (and $8.99 for a 3-CD set) in the grocery store. Most are crap, but some have good stuff on them. I've bought plenty of classical, old blues, and lesser-known artists' music that way that I still listen to today. If I could get something similar in the iTMS, at the equivalent of $.40 or $.50 a song, I'll probably buy more of their music, and less of the trendy stuff.

besson3c · Nov 17, 2005, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

He "gave in" when he put an Intel chip in our computers. Especially when Motorola then released their newer chip about a week afterwards.

This is just more of the same.

Yeah, when Motorola released their new chip I was thinking "hmmmm.... why can't we all go back to those nice G3s that Motorola used to make? Those where the bomb, and nobody was ever sad about them. It seems to me like this world has gotten itself in a big hurry, nobody even remember the joy those G3s brought to so many people. *Sigh*"

I think you are thinking of IBM. Motorola hasn't made chips for Apple in ages. Freescale has been making G4s.

olePigeon · Nov 17, 2005, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Yeah, when Motorola released their new chip I was thinking "hmmmm.... why can't we all go back to those nice G3s that Motorola used to make? Those where the bomb, and nobody was ever sad about them. It seems to me like this world has gotten itself in a big hurry, nobody even remember the joy those G3s brought to so many people. *Sigh*"

I think you are thinking of IBM. Motorola hasn't made chips for Apple in ages. Freescale has been making G4s.

Did I miss something? When did IBM release a low power G5 that would actually fit in a laptop?

Tesseract · Nov 17, 2005, 03:53 PM

olePigeon got it right. Why do people act like IBM is Apple's only chip supplier, when Motorola/Freescale processors are in 4 of the 7 Mac models?

himself · Nov 17, 2005, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27749

APPLE is expected to back down on its one price fits all music price under pressure from the music industry.

EMI expects Apple to increase the price of popular songs and cut those by unknown acts on its iTunes Web site within a year.

I wish the record companies would stop being so greedy. They are making more cash per song via iTunes than they are through traditional retail, and if the more popular songs sell in higher volume (at 99¢), they'll be making a mint anyway! It's just about enough to make a pirate outta me...

Eug Wanker · Nov 17, 2005, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Tesseract

olePigeon got it right. Why do people act like IBM is Apple's only chip supplier, when Motorola/Freescale processors are in 4 of the 7 Mac models?

Cuz Freescale is the reason Apple signed a deal with IBM in the first place. In personal computer terms, Freescale makes strictly low performance parts even if they are relatively low power. IBM makes high performance parts, albeit at medium or high power.

ie. If IBM didn't exist, the Power Mac, Apple's flagship machine, would be a total joke.

tooki · Nov 17, 2005, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Tesseract

olePigeon got it right. Why do people act like IBM is Apple's only chip supplier, when Motorola/Freescale processors are in 4 of the 7 Mac models?

7 models?

How are you counting? I see either 5 or 9, depending on how you want to count.

5: iMac, iBook, Power Mac, PowerBook, Mac mini (3 of these use Freescale CPUs)
9: 17" iMac, 20" iMac, 12" iBook, 14" iBook, Power Mac, 12" PowerBook, 15" PowerBook, 17" PowerBook, Mac mini (6 of these use Freescale CPUs)

Obviously I am not counting any other specs (e.g. CPU speed, RAM, etc), since those are all BTO options that don't change the Apple model number.

tooki

nredman · Nov 17, 2005, 05:19 PM

i dont buy much on itunes anymore - most of the time they dont have the songs i want anyways

Tesseract · Nov 17, 2005, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by tooki

7 models?

How are you counting? I see either 5 or 9, depending on how you want to count.

5: iMac, iBook, Power Mac, PowerBook, Mac mini (3 of these use Freescale CPUs)
9: 17" iMac, 20" iMac, 12" iBook, 14" iBook, Power Mac, 12" PowerBook, 15" PowerBook, 17" PowerBook, Mac mini (6 of these use Freescale CPUs)

Obviously I am not counting any other specs (e.g. CPU speed, RAM, etc), since those are all BTO options that don't change the Apple model number.

tooki

Xserve, PowerMac, iMac (3 IBM), PowerBook, iBook, mini, eMac (4 Motorola).
Or you could say 3 of 5 consumer Macs use Motorola CPUs. (Was 4 of 6 until a month or so ago.)

tooki · Nov 17, 2005, 05:46 PM

You said "Mac models". The Xserve isn't a Mac model, strictly speaking.

And the eMac has been discontinued to all but education customers (probably just clearing out old stock at this point).

tooki

cjrivera · Nov 17, 2005, 05:59 PM

"Stevie Gives In"

When I first read the title of this thread, it sounded like some bad After-school special about peer pressure...

Cubeoid · Nov 17, 2005, 06:20 PM

^^^

wdlove · Nov 17, 2005, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Cubeoid

^^^

Hi Cubeoid

Ratm · Nov 17, 2005, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

He "gave in" when he put an Intel chip in our computers. Especially when Motorola then released their newer chip about a week afterwards.

This is just more of the same.

Our computers? You bought the company's product, that's all. Does that give you some kind of special entitlement--you're a major shareholder now? The modifications Moto may have achieved is made irrelevant by their track recored and history with Apple. Moto proved to all that it could not provide nor sustain the kind of growth that Apple needed to remain competitive. I think IBM could have most defiantly shown themselves to be the better supplier for Apple. But unfortunately everything is timing. I like the new Apple. They're showing themselves to be true to the slogan of $Think Different*. They've been playing the same hand for decades now and I for one would like them to truly do something different.

SpaceMonkey · Nov 17, 2005, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by cjrivera

"Stevie Gives In"

When I first read the title of this thread, it sounded like some bad After-school special about peer pressure...

Don't let the man touch you there, Stevie. Just say no.

Mrjinglesusa · Nov 17, 2005, 06:53 PM

I don't really care what Steve does as long as Apple stock keeps on truckin'. Up $20 in ~3 months? Yep. Doubled in past year? Uh huh. Thanks Steve!

::maroma:: · Nov 17, 2005, 06:54 PM

Give in? How is it you know for sure that Steve Jobs "gave in" to pressure? Maybe its out of his control, or maybe its for the better. Lets just wait and see what happens when the prices change.

I remember when Apple (Stevie) made a deal with Microsoft and most people said he "gave in" to pressure from MS/Billy. Most people thought they knew better than Apple/Steve. Those people were wrong.

If I've learned anything from keeping up with the goings on from Apple, its that you cannot prejudge decisions made by them. To wait and see what comes of their decisions is wiser than jumping to conclusions.

Kevin · Nov 17, 2005, 06:56 PM

He said he wasn't going to raise any prices. And he did.

I would say that was giving in...

I am not making any judgments about his decision either way.

production_coordinator · Nov 17, 2005, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

He said he wasn't going to raise any prices. And he did.

I would say that was giving in...

I am not making any judgments about his decision either way.

He has also made it VERY clear that he is NOT raising prices... the music companies are.

Kevin · Nov 17, 2005, 07:14 PM

AHahahah

SuvsareRetarded · Nov 17, 2005, 07:18 PM

Oh well. I get all my music from local libraries anyway.

production_coordinator · Nov 17, 2005, 07:22 PM

"APPLE is expected to back down on its one price fits all music price under pressure from the music industry."

From the article you posted... it doesn't look like Apple has much choice.

Either:
A) Lose money on iTMS downloads
B) Lose songs/albums due to fracturing contracts from the music industry
C) Increase prices

besson3c · Nov 17, 2005, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Oh well. I get all my music from local libraries anyway.

You should be careful about who you say that to. You wouldn't want the FBI to raid your house and confiscate your stash of Glenn Miller and Benny Goodman albums you stole from the library in the late 80's, would you?

Don't worry, I won't tell anybody, but I wish you'd return these so that I don't have to listen to my Grandma go on about how some young rapscallions are trying to prevent good music from being heard. Her SUV is wearing a groove in the streets checking in everyday to see if the Glenn Miller albums are back.

Chuckit · Nov 17, 2005, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

From the article you posted... it doesn't look like Apple has much choice.

Either:
A) Lose money on iTMS downloads
B) Lose songs/albums due to fracturing contracts from the music industry
C) Increase prices

Or D) Throw up its middle finger at the companies, because Apple controls the freaking market and leaving the iTunes Music Store will only decrease the greedy bastards' profits.

::maroma:: · Nov 17, 2005, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I am not making any judgments about his decision either way.

Too late, you already have.

Hawkeye_a · Nov 17, 2005, 07:29 PM

As faras theswitch to intel, i wouldnt say "back down", "sell out", etc....i think he finally realized the potential of Apple and took it's entire philosophy to heart. by going with the cheapest(price) and powerful supplier, Apple gets a high profile friend, and can exploit it's own talent without having to worry about that side of the equation(chip supplies) like they have since going to the PPC platform.

As far as the variable pricing scheme..... i'm just glad we have a single place online to purchace music. IF the jackasses at the record labels decide to price songs and albums the same as they would be at a retail outlet......... well lets just say there are a a lot cheaper alternatives that the public will turn to (again). It's like Steve said, their biggest competitor is p2p, and im afraid that if this variable pricing scheme goes too far, people wont think twice before giving up on the online music purchasing experiment. Here's hoping the iTMS will still remain competitive with p2p.

Cheers

besson3c · 07:49 PM

Re: Intel,

Let me point out some of the many possibilities with this new direction that may not be completely obvious:

- much easier porting of apps that were heavily optimized for x86 (e.g. 3D apps?)

- access to other Linux/Unix distros. FreeBSD, for instance, supported PPC hardware, but it lagged behind x86 in development. Now Apple can provide hardware to any agency or organization looking to run OSS/Linux/Unix. This is a much bigger population than you might think.

- access to emulators built for x86. If we had Intel Macs now, we probably could be playing that Nintendo 64 emulator mod of Zelda right now.

- machine virtualizing that is possible and easier without totally pegging the CPU - e.g. VMWare/Virtual PC Windows.

I'd be really surprised if Apple *wasn't* working on something like WINE to address running Windows apps. Think about it, no need to pay for a Windows license, no huge Windows footprint, etc.

I'm assuming that this would be legal, or else WINE would have been cut off ages ago?

(BTW, WINE is now out of alpha... I wonder if Apple has been contributing to it?)

SuvsareRetarded · Nov 17, 2005, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

You should be careful about who you say that to. You wouldn't want the FBI to raid your house and confiscate your stash of Glenn Miller and Benny Goodman albums you stole from the library in the late 80's, would you?

Don't worry, I won't tell anybody, but I wish you'd return these so that I don't have to listen to my Grandma go on about how some young rapscallions are trying to prevent good music from being heard. Her SUV is wearing a groove in the streets checking in everyday to see if the Glenn Miller albums are back.

I LISTEN to music RENTED from the library. Heck, I actually WORK at a library right now.

Kevin · Nov 17, 2005, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

"APPLE is expected to back down on its one price fits all music price under pressure from the music industry."

Yes apple backing down, AKA giving in.

Kevin · Nov 17, 2005, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

Too late, you already have.

Actually you are right. I said it was a win win situation.

Salty · Nov 17, 2005, 10:08 PM

Meh I'm not going to mind hopefully. I don't think most of the music I listen to will go up in price too much. Though most of the labels will probably decide all new music goes for like 2 bucks a song or something in which case I'll just use iTunes for older stuff.

JoshuaZ · Nov 17, 2005, 11:47 PM

I'll believe it when it happens.