Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Daracle · Apr 17, 2006, 12:11 AM

This is my idea for the iTunes store.
I think what they should do is charge the $.99 for a song. I listen to it and I like it so I go buy the CD. I tunes should be able to see that I have purchased the disk...Sends the info back to the store automatically or by me manually allowing it to do so and they refund the $.99 for another download. You don't get a full refund but more like "store credit". This would only come back to you if you have bought the album the single is from.

Of course, this would only work with some sort of software that would report back as to what you are listening too and I know people would not like that idea or even something along the lines of *shudder* another ROOTKIT /shudder.

What do you guys think?

mduell · Apr 17, 2006, 12:15 AM

Uh, gee, less profit, let me think... no.

meelk · Apr 17, 2006, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by Daracle

This is my idea for the iTunes store.
I think what they should do is charge the $.99 for a song. I listen to it and I like it so I go buy the CD. I tunes should be able to see that I have purchased the disk...Sends the info back to the store automatically or by me manually allowing it to do so and they refund the $.99 for another download. You don't get a full refund but more like "store credit". This would only come back to you if you have bought the album the single is from.

Of course, this would only work with some sort of software that would report back as to what you are listening too and I know people would not like that idea or even something along the lines of *shudder* another ROOTKIT /shudder.

What do you guys think?

that would mean essentially that the record company is refunding you money....

LOL?

Are you daft?

Daracle · Apr 17, 2006, 12:18 AM

Wow...tough crowd.

I guess I am daft.

Also...How are they refunding you money...I could see it making Apple a little less but then they could change how the $.99 is split up and take a little more. The record company would give up a few cents from the deal but instead get the money from someone actually buying the whole album

Aquataris · Apr 17, 2006, 12:20 AM

That idea is really out there, but I'm not very paranoid about info going home, so I like the idea. I prefer actually owning physical albums, and there are many like me (in that sense) that this kind of idea would attract. Good thinking. I would not mind paying for a must have single until the album comes out, or until I am able to go buy it. But a big problem with the idea is somebody finding a way to pay for the iTunes high grade tracks then inserting a disk of the pirated low grade album and getting a refund and making off with high quality AAC tracks. I'm sure it would be an easy code to crack.

forkies · Apr 17, 2006, 12:20 AM

try writing steve a letter

meelk · Apr 17, 2006, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by Daracle

Wow...tough crowd.

I guess I am daft.

Also...How are they refunding you money...I could see it making Apple a little less but then they could change how the $.99 is split up and take a little more. The record company would give up a few cents from the deal but instead get the money from someone actually buying the whole album

maybe you arent paying attention to the whole deal where the RIAA wants ripping your own cds to mp3s for play on any ipod style device to be ILLEGAL.

maybe you arent paying attention to the fact that the record companies keep demaning that Apple increase song price upwards from its current 99 cents. You want these same companies to shift MORE of the share (of a sale) to Apple?

Your "idea" has absolutely zero logical merit.

Daracle · Apr 17, 2006, 12:29 AM

"inserting a disk of the pirated low grade album and getting a refund and making off with high quality AAC tracks. I'm sure it would be an easy code to crack."

I think you could be right on this.

abe · Apr 17, 2006, 03:01 AM

I'm not sure I understand the opposition to the original idea as posted above, but this idea is not new in retailing or commerce.

Basically, it's like ITMS would be encouraging album purchases because at a certain point you'd just buy one single and then another single and at a certain point you know you'd want the whole album so you'd pay the remaining $6 or $7 and own the album, and wouldn't have lost any money from the single purchases.

Big Mac · Apr 17, 2006, 03:24 AM

Not Gonna Happen

turtle777 · Apr 17, 2006, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by forkies

try writing steve a letter

Darn . Beat me to it.

-t

chabig · Apr 17, 2006, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by abe

I'm not sure I understand the opposition to the original idea as posted above, but this idea is not new in retailing or commerce.

The way he put it, it is new to retailing and commerce. The real-world analogy to his suggestion is that I should be allowed to purchase a single can of Coke at retailer A, and if I like it I should be able to buy a 6 pack at retailer B, who would "credit" me for the one I bought at A.

Chris

Aquataris · Apr 17, 2006, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by chabig

The way he put it, it is new to retailing and commerce. The real-world analogy to his suggestion is that I should be allowed to purchase a single can of Coke at retailer A, and if I like it I should be able to buy a 6 pack at retailer B, who would "credit" me for the one I bought at A.

Chris

The way you put it makes it sound as if his idea were utterly stupid.

1. Once Coke is gone, it doesn't come back.

2. This analogy only works if an average Coke can is desired as memorabilia, as Audiophiles value physical albums.

3. The music on a CD has the ability to be ripped at various different levels of quality and therefore superior to it's virtual counterpart, you can't taste Coke at different levels... unless you're in Mexico.

4. I am bored enough to make these counterpoints.

KeyLimePi · Apr 17, 2006, 08:32 AM

I think I get what he's saying.

AlbumX has 13 songs, and I can purchase all 12 for $9. But I purchase just one song for $1, and later decide I want the rest of the album. I either have to pay $12 for the other 12 songs, or pay $9 for the entire album...essentially paying again for the song I already purchased.

Your idea is unique, but it kinda goes against the standard marketing model of a 'volume discount.' When you buy one song for $1 you're getting the single price, but when you buy the whole album you're (usually) getting each song at a discounted price. You can't expect to get credit at the single price ($1) for a song just because you purchse others at the volume price.

Besides, if the record industry has its way we'll all be paying a lot more for songs and albums.

chabig · Apr 17, 2006, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Aquataris

The way you put it makes it sound as if his idea were utterly stupid.

1. Once Coke is gone, it doesn't come back.

2. This analogy only works if an average Coke can is desired as memorabilia, as Audiophiles value physical albums.

3. The music on a CD has the ability to be ripped at various different levels of quality and therefore superior to it's virtual counterpart, you can't taste Coke at different levels... unless you're in Mexico.

4. I am bored enough to make these counterpoints.

Of course my analogy was flawed--as you pointed out. But it basically covered what he wants to do. Here's a better analogy in recored company terms:

He wants to be able to purchase a single at store A, and if he likes it he thinks he should be able to buy the album at store B, who would give him credit for the single he bought at store A.

This will never happen.

production_coordinator · Apr 17, 2006, 08:50 AM

Your idea sounds very logical... so obviously the Apple/Music Co/RIAA won't go for it.

It only makes sense... you buy one song... like the song, and want to pay the $9.99 for the album (of 14 songs) and get a coupon on the 99¢ song that you already purchased (or rather... repurchased).