Comments on: Sources: Apple to expand DRM-free music, pricing

Moving further away from its one-price-fits-all model, the company will allow top four music labels more price flexibility.

[awolfe91]

Wow. Raising the possible per song price above 99 cents would offset the greater avalibilty of iTunes Plus for me. I'll just go to Amazon and get it cheaper. Yes it's more work and I would much rather purchase it in iTunes. It's simply more convenient and I generally prefer the quality of the iTunes Plus tracks. But my time is not worth an extra 17 cents. (call me cheap)

If labels will give Amazon the same tracks at the same general quality for less, why in the heck would they raise the price on one store? If prices go up universally, which they probably need to, then I'm OK with that. But if I can get it cheaper at the same quality, I'm all for it.

[skillingssucks]

You're living in a fantasy world if you think Amazon is going to remain cheaper for much longer. The whole reason the record labels allowed Amazon much more DRM free music and at those prices was to break Apple's control over the legal downloading business...and Apple's insistence on selling tunes for 99 cents. Now that the labels have gotten their way, we'll see how long Amazon's songs are 99 cents and less.

[shadowself]

I guess you don't care about quality.

Have fun with MP3 based songs.

[catch23]

@shadowself
>>I guess you don't care about quality.
Are you just stupid? On the crap headphones that ship with any iPod, you would never notice a difference.
Even on good equipment, with good headsets, your dreaming if you think you can tell the difference between Amazon mp3's and Apple AAC.
If quality was important, you would buy neither, and get the CD or the LP. But unnoticeable, meaningless 'quality' differences are only important when you can applaud Apple, right?
Worthless hypocrite.

[kevinskrause]

@catch23

I don't think I've used my headphones more than five times since I bought an iPod. I use a direct interface with my in car Pioneer head unit and Onkyo receiver; and yes, you can tell a major difference in the quality of sound between an mp3 and ACC. But in my case, I buy CDs used for dirt cheap from Amazon and simply rip them to my computer in Apple Lossless format, which makes a HUGE difference. It may not be FLAC, but it's better than the $@&% you listen to on your rinky-dink headphones.

[D3vildog699]

Kudos for dropping more DRM, the evil invention.. but the prices was a loss....

[Mark_Anderson]

So basically Apple have ko-towed to the record industry and given up any principles of keeping their catalogue at one price?

Go principles!

[erictbar]

I listen to 99% classic rock, so the drop to 79¢ and all DRM-free would be double good for me, however, I do agree that iTunes shouldn't be outcasted by the labels just because Apple made a better, more integrated product thats more popular. If iTunes prices go up, all other stores should go up too.

[ErnieTheBear]

iTunes Library: 2700 songs (approx.)
DRM: 0

Don't buy iTunes.

[karpenterskids]

Wait...I'm confused.

[sharmajunior]

@ karpenterskids

What Ernie means is that he/she has 2700 songs in his/her itunes library and they were not bought from itunes. they were rather downloaded for free and without the presence of DRM. therefore, DRM = 0

[kenstee]

Actually, why deal with Apple at all. Everything from Amazon is DRM free, in MP3 rather than AAC format and encoded at 256 rather than 128 at the same price or cheaper than iTunes as well. To my ears anyway the 256 MP3 sounds better than the 128 AAC, YMMV. I love Apple, but.....

[random truth]

Itunes plus uses 256 kbyte/s - 380 kbyte/s encoding. Also why would you prefer MP3 vs AAC. At the same bitrate AAC has better sound quality and a smaller file size. (google it)

[CDubber]

random truth speaks truth. 256 AAC > 256 MP3.

Why deal with Apple at all? Better quality songs (at equivalent bitrates). Larger catalog. Easier to use.

Why deal with Amazon at all?

P.S. I'm also opposed to the weasel-esque antics of the labels - allowing Amazon to sell DRM-free but not allowing Apple the same. It's market manipulation, and it sucks.

[D3vildog699]

CDubber... yeah it really sucks.. enjoy your DRM music.. while mine is free of the chains of evil DRM

[Perry_Clease]

"@ D3vildog699
CDubber... yeah it really sucks.. enjoy your DRM music.. while mine is free of the chains of evil DRM"

There is a difference in the sound then?

[toosday]

I like Amazon MP3, too. But, if you want to talk about quality and pricing: I now buy songs from Lala.com and some of the songs are only 79 cents. And yesterday after purchasing Bob Dylan songs, I noticed that 256 kbps was the lowest Lala went with their songs and quite a few of them were at 320 kbps. And if I don't want to own a song on my HD, then I just pay 10 cents to keep it in my folder online.

Higher quality for much cheaper, I can listen to them online at any computer I want and they are automatically added to my iTunes collection on my Mac without me doing anything. And on top of that, they're creating an iPhone app (according to TechCrunch).

I'm glad Apple is dropping prices and DRM, but I've moved on to greener pastures.

[terminalblue]

d still rather have DRM free music then a SLIGHTLY higher quality file.

[karpenterskids]

Paying over a dollar per song doesn't sound good...but 79 cents is something I'd look forward to...so waiting may not be that bad.


Or else, I'd just get the music elsewhere for cheaper, and avoid iTunes altogether.

[Shaymojack]

Luckily for me, I like alternative music and not much of it ever becomes a big hit, so I should be great on pricing in the future.

[netbookguy]

Way back in the 1960's I was buying vinyl albums for $3.99 to get 1 or 2 good songs. Music downloads @ $0.79 and up are a good way to cherry pick what you want. This is cheaper than 1960's. Why all the complaining about price?

[shadowself]

When Apple (or anyone else) supplies losslessly compressed songs then I'll buy online. Not before.

[muzakaz]

Why should ANYONE HAVE TO PAY MORE? What are the distribution costs?

Itunes sucks once they've converted the crap. Converting it back is a damn joke. I hate Itunes and only buy Amazon tracks.
At least it's mine.

[BigGuns149]

>What are the distribution costs?

That isn't what causes something to cost more or less. It is demand. Less demanded stuff is cheaper than popular new releases.

[Perry_Clease]

"At least it's mine."

Well technically it isn't yours, there are some restrictions. From Amazon's terms of service:

1. The Service
The Service offers downloads of digitized versions of audio recordings, artwork and information relating to such audio recordings, and other content (individually and collectively, "Digital Content") and other services under the terms and conditions in the Terms of Use.

2. Digital Content
2.1 Rights Granted. Upon your payment of our fees for Digital Content, we grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the Digital Content for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use, subject to and in accordance with the Terms of Use. You may copy, store, transfer and burn the Digital Content only for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use, subject to and in accordance with the Terms of Use.

2.2 Restrictions. You represent, warrant and agree that you will use the Service only for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use and not for any redistribution of the Digital Content or other use restricted in this Section 2.2. You agree not to infringe the rights of the Digital Content's copyright owners and to comply with all applicable laws in your use of the Digital Content. Except as set forth in Section 2.1 above, you agree that you will not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, modify, adapt, edit, license or otherwise transfer or use the Digital Content. You are not granted any synchronization, public performance, promotional use, commercial sale, resale, reproduction or distribution rights for the Digital Content. You acknowledge that the Digital Content embodies the intellectual property of a third party and is protected by law.

[ewelch]

Oh yeah, the Apple haters with their irrational hate are a hoot.

Amazon has cheaper stuff because the labels are committing RICO-baiting strong arm tactics against Apple because they don't like Apple doing to them what they've been doing to consumers and artists for decades. I know one of the people who created the Amazon store. And maybe his mom and dad think it's better then iTunes so it must be, right?

I buy lots of my music used from Amazon so that not only do the labels not get a single dime from me, but it costs less for the whole album much of the time, even with shipping. I buy albums from Amazon some times. Mostly when they have $1.99 or less specials on albums.

I really doubt anything will sell for more than 99 cents until it's DRM-free and when Amazon is forced to raise prices to match.

[sting7k]

I many finally be buying from iTunes and not just shopping there. We will see what happens tomorrow.

[gerrrg]

CPI is a joke.

They adjust the CPI under the assumption that the higher a commodity is priced, the less someone will use it, and therefore the actual index is lesser than the actual cost increase. The increase of oil therefore, did not figure as prominently this past Summer in the CPI, as much as the actual rise in price.

Further, songs are commodities that have no resource restrictions, and should be lowering in cost and price, than be artificially tied to the CPI (and somehow be worth MORE now than they were in 2002).

That's just ridiculous that anyone would suggest that a digital file is worth more now than in 2002.

[random truth]

wait, what?

[feliusrex]

Not to mention you can't sell an itune. So the itune you paid $.99 for in 2002 isn't worth $1.17. It's worth $0.00. Actually it's worth less than zero because you have to expend resources (electricity, computer hardware, internet fees) ect ect to maintain it. I'd would venture to guess that your average computer user spends $700/year, granted the same equipment does much more than play itunes (I hope). That probably works out to about $1.00 to $.70/itune. YMMV.

[myles taylor]

The issue is not that the track is worth more, it's that the dollar is worth less. The digital file is worth the same, but you need more of the less valuable money to buy something of the same value.

[unknown unknown]

$0.99 is the absolute max I am willing to pay to download a song without the inclusion of extras more substantial than album art.

Truth be told downloads aren't even worth $0.79.

[BigGuns149]

There are quite a few things I wouldn't pay $.50 for, but I would be willing to pay some token price to acquire. The reality is that a lot of people aren't so cheap. Acquiring an entire season of a TV show can end up costing more via iTunes then just buying the DVD box set nevermind that the DVD often gives you extras and better quality than you would get via iTunes, but Apple seems to be seeing a pretty good growth on that business.

Ultimately what the overall population determines whether something works or not. Just because something doesn't make sense to you or I doesn't doom it to failure.

[unknown unknown]

I said nothing about failure, just that I don't place a particularly high value on Mp3's and AACs. I've bought few songs from iTunes and Amazon and it's not how I would to choose build a collection.

[ajocheslon_911]

I totally agree, £0.79 was acceptable, some songs even worth £0.99 but if it goes any higher it will be back to the clutter of cd's and at least i will have something physical to look at...

[Dani210]

airmp3.net, its free, mostly high quality and safe. and the website is not illegal.

[Dani210]

although it does take longer to download, rename, and load it in you library, its worth it

[3rdalbum]

Hilarious that people who own iPods are saying that they choose the iTunes Music Store because it's "better sound quality than Amazon's MP3s". If sound quality mattered, they wouldn't be using the iPod.

Note: This story must be at least partially false. If Apple was supposedly bowing to the differing pricing structure of the record companies in return for DRM-free songs, then what is Apple getting from the deal? Apple is a big supporter of DRM. If it wasn't, we'd see DRM-free music videos on the iTunes Music Store - you know, the same ones you can watch for free, legally, on Youtube.

[PennStater999]

Uh...no, that is patently false. Apple has repeatedly stated they do not want DRM music. They've said this for a couple of years now. Stop hating.

[Dalkorian]

by 3rdalbum January 6, 2009 2:08 AM PST
Apple is a big supporter of DRM. If it wasn't, we'd see DRM-free music videos on the iTunes Music Store

=====================================================

Right, since Apple owns all that content I'm sure they're keeping DRM on it to control their customers.

Hint: does Apple own all that content, or are they subject to the whims of those who do own it?

There is nothing like proving to the world that you are an idiot, is there.

[robysherry]

Guys, believe me in the states u hav it easy with ur pricing. I cant believe ur gettin angst for havin to pay a little bit more than $0.79, I live in the UK and each song is £0.79 and even at todays exchange rate which is awful for us, it still makes your music £0.53, thus we are paying 26p more each track, now on my library which is 1500 songs of which 1300 are bought off itunes that makes it £1027, in the USA it would be $1027 which is £701 making it £326 more expensive or $447 more! Please think bout complaining!

[Sausagebiscuit]

Can anyone translate this please?

[Perry_Clease]

"Can anyone translate this please?"

It is an obscure dialect of English used mostly in a small island nation. What he is saying is that things generally cost more in the United Kingdom. :)

[MyTThor]

"Can anyone translate this please?"

No, I've lost my English-to-insular-moron-who-can't-decipher-one-very-common-symbol-that-isn't-used-in-his-dialect dictionary.

[marc99999]

i use the script from advantageousmp3.com. so i can windowshop at iTunes. And then buy from Amazon. Guess i won't need it anymore.