Amazon follows Apple to $1.29
As expected, Apple on Tuesday introduced variable pricing on iTunes, meaning that some popular tracks now cost $1.29 instead of $0.99. Less expected: Amazon.com has followed Apple into the fray. Scroll down today's list of top downloads, and you'll see a few tracks at $1.29.
I just stopped believing.
It was only a matter of time, but I didn't expect the price hike to come on the same day, given all the noise Amazon's been making about a special promotion in the U.K. (0.29 pounds for some selected track, down from the usual minimum of 0.59). I can't imagine Amazon's excited about raising prices in a recession--they're probably responding to price increases by the record labels, which were made possible by Apple's capitulation. Good luck with that!
Update at 9:45 a.m. Wednesday: It's not just Amazon. I heard from a contact at another large online music company that the impetus behind the new pricing models is indeed coming from the labels. Apparently, they approached all the major stores and asked them to begin selling certain songs for $1.29 on Tuesday.
Check out Rhapsody and Wal-Mart (which is selling tracks for $1.24, in keeping with its "5 cents cheaper" pricing strategy).
Follow Matt on Twitter
Matt Rosoff is an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, where he covers Microsoft's consumer products and corporate news. He's written about the technology industry since 1995, and reviewed the first Rio MP3 player for CNET.com in 1998. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mattrosoff. 
We can complain all we want about this situation ... but the basic premise of offering protection for IP does encourage Innovation - - - the problem is that innovation is stifiled when the IP is protected for a Century (or longer). The real issue is that our IP protection laws are out of balance: why should the inventor of a new computer chip receive 1/5th the protection that he would if he were to have written a song about the same invention?
The unfortunate reality in the music business is that 90% of the proceeds do not go to the original IP creator, but to the system's "manager" in its many forms. In conjunction with the extremely long Copyright protections, the only incentive that they have to economize is to increase their profits, since they have no motivation to ever pass along any savings to their consumers.
And in the meantime, we are hypocrites as consumers to complain for as long as we still nevertheless continue to buy their product.
It is unlikely to occur, but what has to change within the music industry is a dramatic change to our IP (Copyright) Laws. In simplest terms, the IP protection should be the same, regardless of the type of IP that it is: Patents, Copyright, Design Patents etc. Given that a normal Patent is 20 years and a Design Patent is 14 years ... and that the original US Copyright was 14 years (+ optional 14 year extension), it is quite clear that US Copyright Law (Life of Author + 70 years, etc) is grossly out of proportion with what is a FAIR and REASONABLE degree of compensation for taking the risk of publication, which is the reason why Copyright laws exist in the first place.
Ask your Congressman if he voted for the 1998 'Sonny Bono Act' and if he has ever accepted any money from any Lobby that benefitted.
-hh
When CDs were first introduced, in theory they should've been more streamlined and easier to make than their vinyl and tape counterparts. But guess what? CDs in the early days were twice as expensive, despite being "more efficient" to manufacture. Part of the bump could surely be due to the investment in new tech and manufacturing facilities, but part of it had to be to offset the inevitable losses that were going to be incurred as the older methods were being phased out.
.99 wasn't cutting it, especially when consumers could buy their music ala carte, picking and choosing which songs to buy rather than getting that bigger pot from complete album sales. That's a huge hit to take, and it should be no surprise that the record labels want to manipulate the single track digital sales to offset those declines.
I know why the labels blame iTunes for all the evils of the world... it's unclear to me why the media blames iTunes for all the evils of the labels?
If that is the game they play, I think Amazon and Apple should do a little colluding themselves, and the next time their contract is up, draw a firm line in the sand as far as pricing - offer a higher payback on the first 100 days an item is for sale, higher payback for 'exclusive tracks,' and a lower amount for everything else. Break off a few of the smaller guys (hey EMI always seems like a rebel) and promote the hell out of those who agree.....
I can understand that the record labels want more money for new tracks...its kind of like the movie industry, where the studios take home a higher percentage of the ticket sales in the first week, and that amount is reduced each passing week. But CDs get cheaper as they sit on the shelves, and the benefit of digital distribution is you don't have to print so many copies - so why increase the cost of a download to the same as a cd?
"With money if they download legal or viruses if they do not."
If you get a virus from trying to downloading an MP3 you're an idiot and should be banned from the internet.
Yes, efffingreat, people still pay for things that they receive value from, even when the threat of repercussions from stealing that same item is very low.
Luckily none of the artists I like have $1.29 tracks (yet). Also Amazon still runs decent discounts on album downloads which Apple seldom (ever?) does.
Three times the people won't begin buying music if they brought an album price down from $15 to $5.
They wouldn't even break even.
Actually, true. Your statement isn't the one that's true. Look at what Valve has done with Steam. Whenever they have a half off sale of a game, they sell TEN TIMES as many copies. So if the album costs were reduced, they'd more than make it up in volume.
zune's subscription looking a little bit better now isn't it?
By purchasing music from a signed artist you are feeding a cancer that has been eating the music industry for generations. Stop signed music now!
The labels claim they represent the artists but few artists agree.
are not the vacuous boys or girl bands and the crap that passes for most music today.
And I want in on the class-actiobn suit over the monopoly of song pricing. I want my 29 cents back.
Isn't that how really any job is? You go to work, you create something, or at least put something together for someone else. That person/company then makes the big bucks while you make the little bucks. So, maybe you should begin ripping your employer off, or let "customers" steal your products/work for free.
What ralfthedog said is that we should not buy anything from really anyone, but that one person that made the product. So, explain this to me, why should I go into lets say Wal-Mart to buy a product if the person that came up with the idea for that product isn't get all the money, but the company that purchased the idea will be receiving the money?
The problem is that people don't comprehend that artists sign contracts to create a product for the company they work for, the music industry. The music company will then sell it to us, the consumers, and the artists will then go on a tour to generate buzz for the album.
So, if we go with what ralfthedog and others think, we should not buy any product from any company, but straight from the person that created it. How does this create jobs again? If artists can't make it on their talent, they should consider looking into another field.
The 45 you purchased years ago came with no DRM. There was nothing stopping you from ripping it, FTPing it to all of your friends and putting it on your MP3 player."
Amazon, Emusic, iTunes, etc. are DRM free. There are a few more, but those three are main ones IMO. You're argument loses a little merit at that point.
I was happy Amazon.com is giving 256kbit files; doubt whether iTunes is matching that(??). I wonder why these companies are not giving 320kbit files, at least to match the pirate sources which seem to be so diligent and give neat 320Kbits files, and it does not take much time to find one. My point is, if I am paying money for song, that is easily available from pirate sources, I would like legit source version to match the quality of ripper's.
Thank you cheesy pop, terrible hip pop (not a mistake), emo, and the dixie chicks
- by colamix April 8, 2009 5:22 AM PDT
- If this isn't evidence of price fixing, I don't know what is.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (76 Comments)