Comments on: Will consumers determine iTunes prices?

With seemingly everyone lamenting that iTunes' songs will now cost $1.29, they should remember that consumers determine prices--at least in theory.

[Waam]

I welcome change, but I have friends who are already balking at this change.

[Truntru]

Why don't more people use the zune pass? For $15/month (up to 3 zunes and 3 computers) you can download as much temporary music as you would like, and also keep in your collection forever 10 songs. You can't find a better deal anywhere.

[pairof9s--2008]

I, and I think most people judging by the numbers, do not agree that subscription music is a good deal. I have no desire to rent music only to lose all of it (less the 10 song bait) once I stop payment. And remember, included in that rental library is a lot of music I already have on CD and now digitally. So why pay for that again...over & over & over?!

[Truntru]

For me it was perfect because I don't already have an overly extensive library of music. My music tastes also change all the time and... well... getting to listen to all the different versions of an album without paying anything more is something I wouldn't do if I was paying per song.

[infinitely]

Sure, but why would I want to use the horrible Zune software? It's a joke. If it worked with other software, maybe. I mean, people complain about iTunes but iTunes has many very useful features and a great interface. Apple does need to fix performance issues, but it seems like they have been working on it lately.

[monkeyfun14]

@infinitely

Zune software performs better then iTunes atleast..

[celticbrewer]

It depends on who you are. If your tastes change more than your underwear, subscription is definitely the smart move. If you listen to the same 3 or 4 albums ad naseum, then you're better off just buying the songs. It also depends where you listen to music. I enjoy the included digital music stations on tv. I think it's best that there are a lot of options. Of course "apple" is the opposite of "options"

[sharmajunior]

Why not do the easiest thing. Download all of the songs for free. No itunes or Zune or any other kind of pass. Its DRM free, you won't lose it (atleast till your hard drive dies and you don't have a backup). That'll keep the music labels off of anyone's face in terms of charging their own prices. Once you get the free music, the labels can jack up the prices as much as they like.

[technewsjunkie]

I prefer to own, not rent.

[Rolker]

I also prefer to own my music/movies/games. The thought of loosing my music after I stop paying the monthly fee just doesn't sound right for me.
As for the new price, I don't know if this is Apples idea or the record companies, but I do know that if any other music provider (Amazon, MS, etc.) would have done the same, probably most people here would have been more harsh on this move (nicknaming MS as M$, etc). For some reason Apple doings are more acceptable in this site compared to the treatment other companies receive - either by Cnet or by the posters.

[t8]

As a customer, the idea of using Microsoft only gives them more power to shaft customers. They have shafted us with their OS to the point where it is up to 50% of the cost of a new computer and then you have to pay to eliminate all the virus threats. I wouldn't vote with my feet to give Microsoft anymore responsibility than they have already. In short you can't trust that company.

[TuckersRock]

Haven't you head of BitTorrent?

[boy444]

I tink that apple has a right to make thye pricesa what the wat, but to do it know is stupid. Why is there no monthly pay for songs. I was gonna get a zune and get songs because as longs as I pay to keep the service I get my songs(although I feel that's dumb,there mine to keep and why not keep them unless, microsft thinks that if you don't to keep with the program you loose your benifits). iTunes and apple would be a hit with the monthly fee of $5 for drm and $8 for non-drm. Aslo I love the fact that the zune is wireless( save me the hassle of finding coards). So I hope to get one and make apple mad ( or change their staratergy)

[Sausagebiscuit]

Please go back to school and learn how to create a constructive post that people can understand and expresses your thoughts clearly. It doesn't have to be perfect, but I couldn't make it past "tink" and that is only the second word in your block of text.

[pairof9s--2008]

@Saugagebiscuit:
:-D Maybe that says a bit about Zune and/or subscription music customers.

[infinitely]

I couldn't have faked a better exemplary post of what a Zune user is exactly like in real life. Good job.

[cwbutler]

" I was gonna get a zune and get songs"

it's possible I'm misinterpreting but it seems like boy doesn't own a zune or an ipod.

that means he(?) represents only the non-microsoft-non-apple choosers.

[jinx101a]

Rhapsody is much like the zune pass and works well also.

Apple is going to do what Apple is going to do though... that's the price you pay dealing with them. You pay a premium and you only use their products as they say you can, nobody should be shocked by this.

[pairof9s--2008]

@jinx101a:
You know absolutely nothing about this, do you? Read the article again, paying close attention to the 6th paragraph.

This is the work of the music moguls. Either they deny Apple the right to DRM-free music, which pisses people off, or Apple has to raise the prices, which also pisses people off. In the end, the music industry doesn't want Apple to be the 800 lb. gorilla in music sales. Remember, it was Apple that introduced the online digital music store with a set price of .99¢ per song...long past when the labels wanted it increased.

But by all means, go rent your music or buy exclusive to Amazon...soon enough, you'll see how that changes too.

[catch23]

pairof9s--2008
Apple treated its business partners (the record labels) just like it treats its users... You do it our way or **** off.
Most business partners expect to be treated like... partners. And they aren't the kool-aid drinkers Mac fans are, willing to take the abuse.

And seriously, on line sales are not making up for CD sales. For the record labels, iTunes is a losing proposition. It just won't work.They might as well go out of business now.
So they will shake things up and see what happens. Personally, I hope they throw iTunes under a bus, but we will see.

[EitherOrlok]

Apple is the new IBM. You can buy better, but you can't pay more.

[infinitely]

@parof9s- if they can't compete in the modern music business, they need to go out of business. This is how it works now. Artificially jacking up prices will only delay the inevitable. I'm sure as hell not paying a cent over .99 for a song. If it comes to that, I'll find it elsewhere.

[DrtyDogg]

@Pair of 9s: also notice the last line of that paragraph points out that the entire paragraph is a presumption.

[grtgrfx]

Obviously, if Amazon (the #2 online music retailer) already jumped in behind Apple, then it's not just pin the donkey on Apple and take a hit. The music industry is solidly behind this pricing move, and if Apple capitulates (which is obviously what happened) other retailers will have little choice but to do the same. Don't want to pay higher fees? Boycott expensive music!

[bsbd]

The higher pricing is the record label's doing, not Apple's.

It will be interesting to see if the labels wind up dropping the price back to .99 per track.

[karpenterskids]

I sure hope so...I, for one, don't like paying $1.9 (plus tax) per song.

It's 99 cents per song for me...or else I just won't buy it, unless it's a song I absolutely can't live without. (Which is only 0.001% of the time...maybe that's just me, though?)

[aMUSICsite]

Yep I read today that Amazon is raising it's prices too. Obviously this is not true, it's the record labels that are pushing up the prices. Then again I have a small independent album on both iTunes and Amazon and have not yet been offered the lower or higher price. If all the small players opt for the cheap price then it's more likely to force the big boys to compete, especially if there is an Artic Monkeys type hype story of some band making it big by exploiting the cheap price.

Then again I would not buy an overpriced CD in the shops nor would I buy an overpriced digital download online, but obviously there are plenty that will.

[chipsendip]

Yet another reason to ditch the iTunes store for Amazon MP3 downloads. DRM free downloads and the low price for songs and albums. The main reason people use the iTunes store is out of ignorance - they think it's the only way to get songs on their iPods. It doesn't have to be that way folks! Just download from alternative sources and put the files in with the rest of your music. Then simply import the folder/files from iTunes into your library.

It's all Amazon for this consumer.

[Daniel Staal]

Amazon and Apple have exactly the same deal with the record companies as far as I can tell: They both sell DRM-free downloads, at prices ranging from $0.69 to $1.29. Prices on specific songs may vary slightly, but the general pricing structure is the same.

There is no effective difference on either pricing or DRM between the two music outlets as of today.

[nickh2]

There is a difference. Apple don't sell mp3 tracks.

They sell the higher quality AAC (mp4) format.

[ikramerica--2008]

Yes, AAC is higher quality, though an optimized MP3 is close. What gets me is that some people get on apple's case for using a better format, one that is still a standard, rather than the outdated MP3 some still cling to. There are plenty of devices that play unprotected AAC (most good ones do, at least), and now that the iTunes store is unprotected AAC, Amazon has nothing on the iTunes store.

But it's true you can just buy the music anywhere. That's the free market. So who cares if Apple charges 1.29 or 1.59. Just buy the music somewhere else. :)

[kelmon]

"The main reason people use the iTunes store is out of ignorance"

I think that's a pretty poor way of spinning things. Yes, I am sure they don't know that there are other services that produce music that can be played on their iPod but do you really think that is the customer's fault? If Amazon or the other services were to market their products to inform customers of the choice then this situation will change.

[viper396]

Arguments and rants about the difference in sound quality are pointless for people who primarily listen to music on a portable. There is little to no distinguishable difference in sound quality between MP3 and AAC when you consider the quality of the earbuds or headphones that most people typically use.

The original reason Apple went with AAC was because they could not put protection or DRM on an MP3 file.

[jazzmsngr]

This is a Joke....and so are the "Big Record Labels" ....the fact is, CD's came out in the late 1970's and since then, record labels have done NOTHING....not one single attempt at creating a better source of media to listen to music. Now....we all know that vinyl is the one and only true medium, but it is not practical fine..... The fact is, Apple and even Napster (the good illegal version) forged a new direction that even today the record labels still can't seem to evolve with....AND THEY SHOULD NOT!! Because another fact is, the reason record sales are so bad in the past 10 years or more, is not because of bad people downloaded copyrighted stuff....it's because THERE IS NO GOOD ARTISTS OUT THERE! You have nothing but lawyers and PR people choosing what music gets mass produced, and People are starting to notice that crap like Spears and The Jonas brothers, SUCK! So they don;t buy it! BUT still Apple (and others, which BTW, The Zune service SUCKS because you can't keep the stuff, try Emusic...better selection AND DRM Free! with a better price!)......But these co.'s have come up with a way for the record labels to sit on their butts and do nothing but collect a check and STILL, they want more......I give Geffen, Atlantic, and the others, about 5-10 more years before they will go bankrupt to GOOD labels, like Daptone Records and Ubiquity Records, whom still produce vinyl and yet seem to make a profit???? Hmmmmm? Maybe because the music on these labels does not suck!

[gsekse]

"Vinyl is the one and only true medium"!?!?!

Oh goodie another music "engineer".

Funny thing those "vinyl" albums were cut from tape recordings in the old days, now I'm sure they are cut from high quality digital files!

[karpenterskids]

E-music, eh?
*checks it out*

Hope cow...it IS better than a Zune subscription...assuming they have a good collection, anyways...thanks for spreading the word.

[ikramerica--2008]

CD's came out in the 80s. And since then, there have been many attempts at higher quality music, but nobody has yet wanted it en masse. They just want something more convenient. Digital is more convenient. That's life.

[infinitely]

I don't believe in the free market system. It failed and this will fail to benefit consumers similarly.

[contentcreator--2008]

Feel free to head to North Korea, say. Free market isn't always pretty, but there's a reason there aren't many alternative economic systems left these days.

[viper396]

If it failed then why are you here? As the other guy noted, feel free to move to North Korea (or Iran, or Iraq) if you've got such a problem with the free market system that you currently appear to be enjoying.

[cdr1313]

While I think there is a good debate about music subscription vs. buying tracks/albums, I don't think that was the point of the article. The real question is, will I pay $1.29 for a DRM track from iTunes if I can find it cheaper somewhere else?

Case in point, I bought the latest U2 album from Amazon.com for $3.99. The tracks were high quality (256 kpbs) mp3 files which work just fine in iTunes and my iPhone.

If there are cheaper alternatives than iTMS, then the record labels are either going to have to pressure them to increase prices too or Apple could potentially lose customers to cheaper alternatives. The real question is if they'll lose enough to force a reduction in price.

I think the whole point here is if you don't like Apple's prices, don't buy.

[S R]

The motive for the record companies is to take away the power that Apple has currently. What is the guarantee that the record companies have the same deal with Amazon and Apple?

Perhaps record company is charing Amazon 70% of their sale price, irrespective of what the sale price is. Amazon is required not to reduce the price below 99 cents, in which case Amazon would still have to shell out 69 cents per song.

The labels will continue to have Amazon prices lower than iTunes because they want to drive the users from iTunes to Amazon.

[Stefaninafla]

"I think the whole point here is if you don't like Apple's prices, don't buy."

That's how I handle it. I don't buy from Apple.
To be fair, I've only bought one album from Amazon, and that was after I had heard it at a friend's house and knew I was willing to shell out the $8.99 it cost.

[john55440]

Yup, "music fans likely will do what they have always done; pay for something they find valuable." That's why I don't buy iTune's inferior, compressed, low-fi, music.

CDs offer superior sound quality, and are reasonably priced on Amazon.com. In addition, when you buy an entire album, you offen discover lesser known gems. As an added bonus, if you have CDs, your music collection doesn't disapper when your computer crashes. (grin)

BTW, doesn't AmazonMP3 already have lower prices than iTunes?

[infinitely]

If you're going to go that route, why not just buy vinyl? It sounds much better than CDs do.

[kelmon]

The thing is that downloads are more convenient than CDs - you want to listen to something and that can be achieved in a few moments rather than waiting for the mail. CDs might well offer better audio quality but if the quality obtained from a download is "good enough" then customers will often select the download option just for sheer convenience.

I'll also note that if you lose a CD then you have to buy it again. Apple will allow you to download your music again from the Store and if you have a backup of your data (which, of course, everyone should have) then you lose nothing when your computer crashes. My music, for example, is stored in 4 separate locations (iPod, computer, backup drive and iTunes Store) so I rather think the digital tracks

[viper396]

"If you're going to go that route, why not just buy vinyl? It sounds much better than CDs do. "


Yes, if you ignore the pops, hissing and other obvious defects that vinyl also reproduces with clarity. Additionally, they're not as easy to rip and transfer to a portable music player.

[ducttape36]

you only get pops and hiss if you scratch or get your records dirty. same as cds. I'm willing to bet that most kids' cd collections are in worse shape than their parents record collections in their attic. and a few labels offer free downloads of albums if you buy the album (saddle creek records for instance) for convience. I personally like that option best, you get the physical media with all the artwork, plus the portability of mp3s, for the same cost.

[ryguy53]

I welcome the change, and I'll change myself to using Amazon mp3 service again.

[SoCalBruce]

well i still think that 99 cents is too much for one damn song. the music industry for years has been blaming consumers for their loss of business when the real reason is, since CD's first were released like TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO, the record companies REFUSE to drop the prices. the ONLY think good about services like apple is, if you buy your music "legally" you can at least pick the tunes you like from an album instead of paying $15 or more for the whole disc. remember all those years the record companies REFUSED to change the packaging of CD's---they came in those 12 inch boxes so they could fit in the record store bins? all that wasted packing material? remember that? it's time tha we the CUSTOMERS let them know, we expect reasonable pricing and fair use. I have NO PROBLEM with them protecting their property that is fine. but I DO have a problem being treated like a CRIMINAL because i go on line and get a couple of Wes Montgomery tunes I can;t find in the record stores or even on ITUNES because the record company has discontinued that recording. as long as I don't try to sell them to others, the entertainment industry should stay out of my home and out of my computer.

[Arachnero]

Wow, No mercy here.

[zizzybaloobah]

If only the headline were actually true. Everyone knows it's the big corporations that are calling the pricing shots -- and getting away with shenanigans that would land everyone else in hot water with the DOJ and the Courts (that is, everyone too poor to pay for lobbyists and keep politicians in their pockets)

[hfilliez]

I have three zunes and two ipods. I have not used the ipods for a long time since I switched over to the zunes about 2 years ago. If you look at the subscription for 15.00 a month, that is 15 songs from itunes. I have over 900 from Microsoft on my zune and add weekly. It would take 60 months at 15.00 a month to pay for all of those on itunes. True, I do not own them but I have them for the next 5 years. I think there really is no choice but using a subscription unless you just have to have the songs.

[Get_a_life_Leo]

Of course there is a choice, its your preference to choose subscription. The vast majority of people don't. Why? Maybe it's something to do with the restrictions that apply (e.g. DRM) and the fact that formats and DRM key servers (like PlaysForSure) have a habit of going off line for good.... It also really depends on how you listen to music, where you listen to music, which players you prefer and whether you want to pay $X every month regardless. Choice is good and while I personally see no appeal in the Zune Pass, it's a good option for those who do.

[DrtyDogg]

With Zune Pass you choose 10 songs a month to keep in MP3 format.

[kelmon]

I just have to have my songs - under no circumstances am I prepared to pay a monthly rental. I want control over when I spend money and don't expect my music library to disappear if I don't want to pay the rental price.

[grtgrfx]

Maybe if you bought and owned each of your songs, you'd be more choosy about your music and listen to each tune more than a few times before giving up on it. U2 didn't get to be the biggest band in the world by casual sampling of their music; fans bought and obsessed over each of their songs for weeks at a time.

Subscription services do not encourage this kind of music appreciation, which naturally leads to the incomprehensible success of "flavor of the month" artists like Brittney and Justin (whose music will retail for the higher prices we're complaining about, of course!). If you want quality musicians, you need to get into their music and not drop songs daily for the next hot thing. If record companies want to save their industry, they need to encourage buyers instead of renters by supplying better music.

[ducttape36]

at 10 songs a month for 15 bucks its not really that much of a price difference between services, assuming you're going with the higher price for new music ($1.29 vs $1.50 not factoring in tax). you jsut get the added benefit of subscription as well.

[artboyz]

I don't buy music, but when apple abandoned the $1.99 cap for TV shows I unplugged my AppleTV and put it in the closet. We can't determine what Apple can charge right now. The networks and record companies have been battling with Apple to do that in this topsy turvy economy. We live in a top-down culture that was driven by the enormous power of corporations to use their monopolies, consortiums and access to Washington to tell the consumer what they can have. With the meltdown of that economy I am hopeful that the consumer's imperitive to be more thoughtful about spending will right the capitalist ship back into a supply and demand model.

[inachu1]

I predict Itune prices will skyrocket. I am sure there is some sort regulation of prices with Apple business partners but when this regulation breaks down like when the deregulation hit the energy secotor then watch out!

My monthly electric bill before deregulation was under $100.
After deregulation my electricity bill is now over $300

Just watch. Apple will run afoul of this in some sort of way and will claim it was unforseen or unavoidable or some new hidden rule has been flushed to the surface which Apple must comply with.

This cheap price is temporary and is only used to attract online shopping. The ones who deregulated energy will move to online sales and make life hell for regualr americans and they will say this deregulation will lead to fair use and fair prices....... Mark my words..... it will happen and those that do make it happen are liars.

[grtgrfx]

OK, this is just stupid and I don't know where to begin. Prices for digital music have been in the $1 range for five years, and now the energy companies are now going to take over and charge $5 a track. Energy AND music sales are secretly regulated by the Government... and the record labels. Online shopping is only a loss leader until they suck you in, then...markups!

I think you're confusing regulated markets, which are usually monopolies, with the unregulated retail marketplace, which has competition everywhere. What world do YOU live in?

[Obmulap]

Let's not forget the trade off was this......the record company gets to dictate the prices and Apple gets to serve up DRM free files. So we can all share our iTunes music.

[bryguy1968]

What people are really missing the point of is, buying a single song or album online as a download should be cheaper than buying the album in the store because the record company does not have to pay for packaging, the CD or shipping. But if you look at the cost of online music at this new price structure it is actually more expensive to purchase it for download than buying it in the store. 1.29 times average songs per CD of 12 equals 15.48, the same album in the store is 14.99. Are they trying to tell me it cost 0.49 more for me to download than it cost for me to buy it in the store? Something smells here and it is the record companies!!!

[nite41]

@bryguy1968

Your post was nice. But there are some grave mathematical errors in it. How did you take $1.29 as the average price for 1 song? Shouldn't the average price be $0.99 (average of $.69, $.99 and $1.29)? So, taking the average price of $0.99, the 12-song CD would cost you $11.88. And that, my dear friend, is way less than $14.99! Add to that the convenience of buying songs and listening to them within minutes (instead of going to a CD store, finding the song, standing in queue etc.). Once you buy the CD, go home, rip the CD and then listen! Whew!! That's too much time....Except the better audio quality and some eye-candy (that comes with a CD), i do not see any other reasons to support CD stores! So, i am going to stick with iTunes.

[elgarak]

iTunes does sell albums typically at $9.99, independent of songs. There are a few albums that are sold only on a song-by-song basis (even before the price re-structuring).

Also, keep in mind that a lot of albums are artificial constructs by the labels to hike up prices by bundling popular songs with unpopular ones, forcing people to shill out the full album price for only a couple of wanted songs. iTuns store with its song-by-song sales has effectively destroyed that practice.

[kelmon]

I feel that you do not understand how a business works. You don't price something according to what it cost to make, you price it according to what people are prepared to pay. It can be argued that customers are prepared to pay more for a digital track because it is easier to obtain and can be put directly onto their MP3 player.

If you can sell something for more than it costs to make then you have a business and if you fail to sell it for the price that generates maximum profits then you are throwing money away. I'm sorry to be the one to explain this to you.

[bruceweik]

I won't pay $1.29. Ninety-nine cents was pushing it. I'm a big music fan, but enough is enough. These people make enough money the way it is. My ipod is getting way to exclusive. Music should be for everyone, not just those with money. So long iTunes. It's back to the drawing board.

[contentcreator--2008]

Ferraris should be for everyone too, right? You have a right to music, a right to whatever you want in the mall, a right to whatever you want in the supermarket, a right to whatever you want, including the right to put everyone making movies, films, software, games, etc --- out of job. Nice you have so many rights.

[ikramerica--2008]

How long should the price be held at $.99? Forever. Inflation alone makes the $1.29 song of today equal to $1.11 when the store opened. So the vast majority of songs at $.99 today have gone DOWN in price compared to when the store was launched when adjusted for inflation. And the quality has doubled, and the DRM stupidity removed.

And of course, once the popularity of the song dies off, the $1.29 price should drop to $.99. So, just like when you wait for a CD to go off MSRP, you can wait for the song to drop in price, too.