Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

OAW · Apr 7, 2009, 05:15 PM

Variable pricing was implemented on iTunes today. Plenty of $1.29 songs are available. However, everything else appears to be $.99. Despite the pledge by the labels that there would be a 10 - 1 ratio between $.69 tracks and $1.29 tracks. I've looked and couldn't find a single $.69 track. Even among really old music.

Has anyone found any $.69 tracks yet? Post the iTunes URL if you have.

OAW

olePigeon · Apr 7, 2009, 05:19 PM

Probably because the labels were lying as usual. They're going to shoot themselves in the foot by first raising all the prices to $3.99 for popular tracks, and $1.99 for 99.99% of everything else they publish, then wonder why everyone just stopped buying music.

Then they'll have Metallica sue a bunch of autistic kids with no internet access, and blame it all on Apple.

Dakar V · Apr 7, 2009, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Probably because the labels were lying as usual. They're going to shoot themselves in the foot by first raising all the prices to $3.99 for popular tracks, and $1.99 for 99.99% of everything else they publish, then wonder why everyone just stopped buying music.

This depends. If you believe the conspiracy theories, this another step to help drive customers from iTunes to Amazon with its still 99¢ pricing.

Apple Pro Underwear · Apr 7, 2009, 05:25 PM

they're going to force Amazon to do this too probably

Dakar V · Apr 7, 2009, 05:26 PM

I think so too. Just a case of contract renewals not lining up.

Salty · Apr 7, 2009, 05:41 PM

Good point, even some of the old stuff in my library is 99 cents. Nice thing is though none of the artists I listen to are probably gonna get sold for more

Chuckit · Apr 7, 2009, 05:41 PM

If this stuff isn't 69¢, I can't imagine what would be.

ort888 · Apr 7, 2009, 06:17 PM

I wasn't buying at 99 cents and I won't at $1.29.

Maybe every once in a while, but overall??? No thank you. Pass.

Oisín · Apr 7, 2009, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Then they'll have Metallica sue a bunch of autistic kids with no internet access, and blame it all on Apple.

I actualol’d.

ghporter · Apr 7, 2009, 08:51 PM

I haven't seen 69¢ tracks, but I've seen $1.29 tracks... Lots of 'em.

HenryMelton · 09:11 PM

Downloaded the featured .69 'Rock' album, on the basis of a couple of songs I'd heard of. I'm in the process of ranking them. Only one has earned a 1-star (to be deleted) yet.

Later: Make it two, thus far.

migel628 · Apr 7, 2009, 09:55 PM

I've never been a big fan of iTunes (DRM or not), so I'll deal w/ their variable pricing by not buying.

finboy · Apr 7, 2009, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Then they'll have Metallica sue a bunch of autistic kids with no internet access, and blame it all on Apple.

WTF? Explain that please.

Chuckit · Apr 8, 2009, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by finboy

WTF? Explain that please.

The RIAA and Metallica are both known for suing music fans. The RIAA in particular is famous for ridiculous lawsuits against really helpless victims who likely haven't even done anything (like a granny who doesn't know how to use a PC).

- - e r i k - - · Apr 8, 2009, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by finboy

WTF? Explain that please.

Did you just magically pop into this world three years ago?

Seeing as you were around the internet around 2000, I really can't see how you missed this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIuR5TNyL8Y

scottiB · Apr 8, 2009, 09:20 AM

Saw a couple Charles Mingus tunes for 69 cents.

Dakar V · 10:13 AM

I think I read somewhere this morning that prices are up on Amazon and Wal•Mart already.

Originally Posted by OAW

Despite the pledge by the labels that there would be a 10 - 1 ratio between $.69 tracks and $1.29 tracks.

Does anyone have a link to this quote handy?

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Did you just magically pop into this world three years ago?

Seeing as you were around the internet around 2000, I really can't see how you missed this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIuR5TNyL8Y

Nice, exactly what I was thinking of.

moep · 01:13 PM

I’m so pissed about this.

First they (record labels) whine about piracy all day long and the next thing they do is jack up the prices for the honest people who pay for the music in the iTMS. During an economic recession. That’ll work.

Unrelated to this but just a few months ago they (again, the record lables) tried to pull another 300€ out of my pocket for stripping the DRM from a part of my already purchased files.

**** you. At this point I honestly regret every single one of my 3500 iTMS purchases, even though I at least stripped them from DRM using Requiem.

By the way, the prices at most other popular online music stores were already adjusted as well.

The Pirate Bay has me back. Spotify is great too.
</rant>

TETENAL · Apr 8, 2009, 10:13 AM

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/m...rancisco-2009/

Pricing model is discussed starting at 1:23:00.

“I can tell you we know already that more songs are going to be offered at 69 than 1.29, so there is going to be a benefit for a lot of customers.”

In the German iTunes Store there are currently 14 songs of the top 100 offered for 1.29 and 1 for 0.69. Now this could be because top 100 songs are usually newer. However, I can not find any other song for 0.69 no matter how old the music is I'm looking at. It's no problem to see 1.29 songs.

Doofy · Apr 8, 2009, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by moep

First they (record labels) whine about piracy all day long and the next thing they do is jack up the prices for the honest people who pay for the music in the iTMS.

The record companies didn't jack up the price in your beloved iTMS. Apple did.

Originally Posted by moep

Unrelated to this but just a few months ago they (again, the record lables) tried to pull another 300€ out of my pocket for stripping the DRM from a part of my already purchased files.

You're having a really hard time working out the difference between record labels and Apple, no?

MallyMal · Apr 8, 2009, 10:29 AM

NIN: The Perfect Drug
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/M...50220&s=143441

moep · Apr 8, 2009, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

The record companies didn't jack up the price in your beloved iTMS. Apple did.

You're having a really hard time working out the difference between record labels and Apple, no?

And so did Amazon as well as Walmart? They all raised the prices at the same time, just for kicks and not because they were “asked to"? Please elaborate.

Doofy · Apr 8, 2009, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by moep

And so did Amazon as well as Walmart? They all raised the prices at the same time, just for kicks and not because they were “asked to"? Please elaborate.

So you're telling me that the record labels own Apple, Amazon and Walmart?

moep · Apr 8, 2009, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

So you're telling me that the record labels own Apple, Amazon and Walmart?

Am I? Where?

TETENAL · Apr 8, 2009, 10:54 AM

Doofy, doesn't know what a wholesale price is.

Doofy · Apr 8, 2009, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Doofy, doesn't know what a wholesale price is.

I know that nobody forces anybody to buy anything they don't want to. Wholesale or otherwise.

Labels: "Your new price is blah blah blah".
Apple: "We're not paying that. F off."
Amazon: "We're not paying that either. F off."
Walmart: "Neither are we. F off".

See how that works?

Chuckit · Apr 8, 2009, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

So you're telling me that the record labels own Apple, Amazon and Walmart?

They don't own them, but they do control them in that they have the ability to impose contractual obligations on them.

Doofy · Apr 8, 2009, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

They don't own them, but they do control them in that they have the ability to impose contractual obligations on them.

And those companies have the ability to not sign those contracts. The major record labels would not enjoy having nowhere to sell their crap.

dcmacdaddy · Apr 8, 2009, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Doofy, doesn't know what a wholesale price is.

Doofy doesn't understand supple and demand and those who control the supply of the commodity can regulate the demand of a commodity (and by regulating the demand the supplier can regulate, or control, the price of the commodity).

Of course, this is really a lesson in captive markets and cartel-capitalism. If you get a limited number of suppliers for a commodity to agree on a uniform, consistent pricing strategy for said commodity--in this case, digital music files--then you have a cartel that regulates the demand for their product.

Doofy · Apr 8, 2009, 11:58 AM

I wish you boys would come and show me how the music biz works. With your expertise I could earn loads more money and get another Ferrari. Blue with cream seats this time, I reckon.

TETENAL · Apr 8, 2009, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

I know that nobody forces anybody to buy anything they don't want to. Wholesale or otherwise.

Labels: "Your new price is blah blah blah".
Apple: "We're not paying that. F off."
Amazon: "We're not paying that either. F off."
Walmart: "Neither are we. F off".

See how that works?

Right. And when the barrel of oil goes up in price, gas stations could just say F off and only sell magazines and crisps. But somehow that never seems to happen.

Doofy · Apr 8, 2009, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Right. And when the barrel of oil goes up in price, gas stations could just say F off and only sell magazines and crisps. But somehow that never seems to happen.

So, that'd be like Apple only selling computers, Amazon only selling books and Walmart only selling everything under the sun? You're right - I don't know how they'd survive without selling mp3s.

ort888 · Apr 8, 2009, 01:19 PM

It's a cat and mouse game where both parties need each other. If the big record companies all pulled out of iTunes and went to Amazon, it would be bad for Apple... so they have to play ball.

It was easier for Apple to tell the record companies to F off before they had any real competition. The landscape is a little different now.

Doofy likes to take really complicated issues and boil them down into 2 sentence absolutes. It's just not that simple.

Doofy · Apr 8, 2009, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by ort888

It's a cat and mouse game where both parties need each other. If the big record companies all pulled out of iTunes and went to Amazon, it would be bad for Apple... so they have to play ball.

It was easier for Apple to tell the record companies to F off before they had any real competition. The landscape is a little different now.

Doofy likes to take really complicated issues and boil them down into 2 sentence absolutes. It's just not that simple.

You're right, it's not that simple. Apple now has plenty of content provided by companies outside the big four. That coming in off TuneCore, for example. So, plenty of content on its own terms (same with Amazon). And it's not like the plebs out there in iPod land care whether they're listening to what the big four's marketing departments are telling them to listen to or not.

Plus, of course, Amazon is looking at what Apple do. Walmart is looking at what Amazon do. If Apple says FO to the big labels because of a price increase, Amazon could either follow suit (if they fancied more profit) or fill (if they fancied more turnover). But then they'd also have to be watching what Walmart did. If Walmart followed while Amazon filled, Amazon could find itself in a monopoly situation, which wouldn't go down well in court.
Since these companies don't tend to like to innovate and instead simply follow (with quantum leaps here and there), if Apple said FO I'm 99% sure the rest would too. It's a pack mentality out there in corporate land, especially with the current economic climate.

ghporter · Apr 8, 2009, 02:14 PM

While iTunes is a wonderful way for me to discover new artists (or at least new to me), I don't depend on them for my digital music. I rip my CDs so I can listen to them wherever I am, and that has meant lots of wonderful music at my finger tips.

But a lot of people DO depend on iTunes for all of their music, and if Apple sends the big four label companies packing, it would be Very Bad for those labels. And while they may be evil and scum suckers (they're the driving force behind the RIAA after all), they aren't completely stupid. When and if a label's deals with Apple don't suit Apple, that label will have some work to do to get back into Apple's good graces or risk losing a huge market.

dcmacdaddy · Apr 8, 2009, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

I wish you boys would come and show me how the music biz works. With your expertise I could earn loads more money and get another Ferrari. Blue with cream seats this time, I reckon.

How much time have you spent on the distribution and marketing side of the music biz as opposed to the creation and production side of the music biz?

Besides, you don't *have* a Ferrari. . . . Unless you have other vehicles you don't tell us about besides your beloved American Jeeps.

Doofy · Apr 8, 2009, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

How much time have you spent on the distribution and marketing side of the music biz as opposed to the creation and production side of the music biz?

The buck stops here.

moep · Apr 8, 2009, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

[…]if Apple said FO I'm 99% sure the rest would too. It's a pack mentality out there in corporate land, especially with the current economic climate.[…]

We’ve been there before and it didn’t quite work out like that.

iTunes, NBC, Amazon

ctt1wbw · Apr 8, 2009, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

Variable pricing was implemented on iTunes today. Plenty of $1.29 songs are available. However, everything else appears to be $.99. Despite the pledge by the labels that there would be a 10 - 1 ratio between $.69 tracks and $1.29 tracks. I've looked and couldn't find a single $.69 track. Even among really old music.

Has anyone found any $.69 tracks yet? Post the iTunes URL if you have.

OAW

President Bush made Apple do it. It's Bush's fault.

Chuckit · Apr 8, 2009, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

While iTunes is a wonderful way for me to discover new artists (or at least new to me), I don't depend on them for my digital music. I rip my CDs so I can listen to them wherever I am, and that has meant lots of wonderful music at my finger tips.

But a lot of people DO depend on iTunes for all of their music, and if Apple sends the big four label companies packing, it would be Very Bad for those labels. And while they may be evil and scum suckers (they're the driving force behind the RIAA after all), they aren't completely stupid. When and if a label's deals with Apple don't suit Apple, that label will have some work to do to get back into Apple's good graces or risk losing a huge market.

As this move demonstrates, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Doofy · Apr 8, 2009, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by moep

We’ve been there before and it didn’t quite work out like that.

iTunes, NBC, Amazon

I don't know about TV. I don't do TV.

Spheric Harlot · Apr 8, 2009, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Right. And when the barrel of oil goes up in price, gas stations could just say F off and only sell magazines and crisps. But somehow that never seems to happen.

Actually, that happened a long time ago.

You never noticed how every gas station is now a full-fledged supermarket and bakery and car wash?

Most gas stations now make MORE profit on groceries than they do on petrol, IIRC.

ghporter · Apr 8, 2009, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

As this move demonstrates, that doesn't seem to be the case.

On the contrary, I think it's Apple compromising a little with the labels so that they still get their margin on the label's titles, and the labels get a little bit more money on a few titles. Of course I haven't exhaustively checked to see what titles are now higher priced, but the ones I have seen at $1.29 are not that numerous.

Chuckit · Apr 8, 2009, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

On the contrary, I think it's Apple compromising a little with the labels so that they still get their margin on the label's titles, and the labels get a little bit more money on a few titles. Of course I haven't exhaustively checked to see what titles are now higher priced, but the ones I have seen at $1.29 are not that numerous.

Apple has rejected this idea several times before. The only difference is that now there's Amazon. So yes, it is Apple compromising with the labels — which means, as I said, that Apple doesn't feel like it can tell them to take a hike if the terms don't suit them.

OAW · Apr 8, 2009, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by Dakar V

Does anyone have a link to this quote handy?

Perhaps anticipating a consumer backlash against price increases executives, who spoke to Reuters on background ahead of the launch, pointed out that for every one song they raise to $1.29 they will be reducing 10 songs to 69 cents.

Source

OAW

OAW · Apr 8, 2009, 05:35 PM

Day 2 and still no significant number of $.69 tracks huh?

OAW

lpkmckenna · Apr 8, 2009, 05:39 PM

Apple is gonna take a pounding over this. Promising $0.69 and not delivering is worse than never removing DRM at all.

If the record companies drag their feet on lower prices, I can see Apple suing them. Maybe.

moep · Apr 8, 2009, 06:00 PM

Ars has a decent article on this.

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/20...apsody-too.ars

Like Apple, Lala has been up front about the pricing changes that the labels have managed to negotiate into their contracts with digital music distributors. In a company blog post on Tuesday, April 7, Lala offered a little more info than Apple by calling this variable pricing "an industry shift." Lala says the price changes will be slowly arriving "in the coming weeks," suggesting that more tracks may rise from 99¢ to $1.29 (or even drop to 69¢) across all music retailers.

All this "variable pricing" talk is — to me — just pretty marketing for a plain and simple price increase.

ghporter · Apr 8, 2009, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Apple has rejected this idea several times before. The only difference is that now there's Amazon. So yes, it is Apple compromising with the labels — which means, as I said, that Apple doesn't feel like it can tell them to take a hike if the terms don't suit them.

Or that they thought they could cash in on the price change and make a little more themselves.

Chuckit · Apr 8, 2009, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Or that they thought they could cash in on the price change and make a little more themselves.

Apple never thought that on the several occasions they rejected it before. So they just randomly did a 180, and the fact that it was around the same time the other retailers went to that pricing structure was a total coincidence?