Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPod Boycott all $1,29 songs
- Thread starter arjen
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I fully support this, even if I don't actually buy music from the iTunes store. But seriously, the people that actually purchase music legally are getting even more screwed. A 29% price hike is unacceptable.
So yeah, DEATH TO THE RIAA (and everyone else that wanted to raise the prices).
So yeah, DEATH TO THE RIAA (and everyone else that wanted to raise the prices).
Well I no longer pay for music. It's pointless. It's obvious music hasn't much monetary value. Music should be free. If the artists don't like it, that's tough. That's the way the environment is these days. Adapt to it or learn to profit from it. The artist can leave the business, but I don't think many will since they enjoy the "fame". So I guess they better get real good at doing shows live, because their record royalties are in the dumpster. Sure, everyone says the artist should be compensated for their work. But unfortuanetly the record company exec's and staff get the money. The music business model needs to change.
The pricing scheme is funny also. It's the only entertainment medium were the price never goes down over time. A Marvin Gaye album that came out in 1964 costs just as much as an album in 2009. Some might say that Marvin Gaye album is a classic and if they are still able to sell it, they can charge full price for it as if it came out yesterday. I don't buy it.
I suspect it has something to do with the artist contracts since they are quoted in whole dollar amounts of what they "get" for each sale instead of a % of the wholesale price. Maybe the new unproven artist get a % of wholesale and these older "legends" get full dollar amounts, but the whole setup is iffy at best.
I only use the technology that's available to obtain what I want/need. I didn't event the internet, P2P, CD technology, CD ripping software, the mp3 format, the hard drive, nor the mp3 player. These are all technologies evented, used and endorse by big media and tech companies. They created this. Not me.
And for them to charge online as if it were a full priced product is ridiculous. I understand they have huge server and other IT costs to distribute the music online, but it's obsurb to charge just as much as retail stores. Reason?: no packaging and therefore no lyrics and linear notes; while they sound good, it's still compressed music from a source that has already been compressed (the CD is merely a sample of the analog, which already throws out information it doesn't think it needs). So they are trying to charge full price for a product that is half the fidelity. That's wrong.
The pricing scheme is funny also. It's the only entertainment medium were the price never goes down over time. A Marvin Gaye album that came out in 1964 costs just as much as an album in 2009. Some might say that Marvin Gaye album is a classic and if they are still able to sell it, they can charge full price for it as if it came out yesterday. I don't buy it.
I suspect it has something to do with the artist contracts since they are quoted in whole dollar amounts of what they "get" for each sale instead of a % of the wholesale price. Maybe the new unproven artist get a % of wholesale and these older "legends" get full dollar amounts, but the whole setup is iffy at best.
I only use the technology that's available to obtain what I want/need. I didn't event the internet, P2P, CD technology, CD ripping software, the mp3 format, the hard drive, nor the mp3 player. These are all technologies evented, used and endorse by big media and tech companies. They created this. Not me.
And for them to charge online as if it were a full priced product is ridiculous. I understand they have huge server and other IT costs to distribute the music online, but it's obsurb to charge just as much as retail stores. Reason?: no packaging and therefore no lyrics and linear notes; while they sound good, it's still compressed music from a source that has already been compressed (the CD is merely a sample of the analog, which already throws out information it doesn't think it needs). So they are trying to charge full price for a product that is half the fidelity. That's wrong.
Live shows, DVD sales of concerts or documentaries, publishing rights, merchandise.
I feel bad, but I pretty much agree. Bands like Radiohead that let me decide how much I want to pay THEM for their music are awesome and I gladly pay double for that. And not to mention flying half-way across the country to see them in concert; giving THEM my $ and doing my small part in helping out the economy. Everybody wins.
Ugh this is honestly ridiculous. Amazon MP3 is still at .99 cents a song. Like compare 3oh!3 store to store ... ITS ALLLL 1.29 on itunes and .99 cents on Amazon MP3. This is pretty much gonna kill all sales on the itunes store. I can understand things like singles released at 1.29 but when the album comes out all songs should be .99 cents or less .... THIS IS RIDICULOUS and what is totally dumbfounding is that there is no price continuity between Amazon MP3 and iTunes ... HOW THE HELL DID APPLE AGREE TO THIS!!! All the songs in the top 100 now are ALL pretty much 1.29. First off i would think they for one should be grandfathered in at 99 cents and all new songs have the variable pricing. This is just the recording companies trying to hurt apple in some way if you ask me. But this is just rediculous ... i wake up and its 1.29 today WOW.
I don't have to boycott this crap ... its cheaper elsewhere. Amazon MP3 here i come!!
I don't have to boycott this crap ... its cheaper elsewhere. Amazon MP3 here i come!!
The only thing increasing prices on your newly DRM free music is drive more people to piracy.
Its not the record labels that are gonna have an issue. Its apples itunes business ... almost ALL of the songs are not cheaper on amazon MP3.
How about just stop purchasing things on iTunes. If Apple doesn't want my money, then I am not giving it to them, whether it be $.99 or $1.29.
I luck out I love a lot of electronic music and most of them are on bleep.com. Cheaper, higher quality, and tracks are usually between $.49 and $.99.
I luck out I love a lot of electronic music and most of them are on bleep.com. Cheaper, higher quality, and tracks are usually between $.49 and $.99.
more over, how would anyone expect to hear any music, I mean it takes a lot of time, and sometimes a lot of money to get songs released, not even talking about all the business side of it yet. I don't see how anyone could expect me to spend thousands of dollars and hour after hour to make them a song, because "that's how it is supposed to be.
If the market does not support the price increase, then they will need to lower the price. That is simple economics.
Whether this will happen or not is another issue. As can be seen in this thread, some profess that they won't purchase a song for $1.29 or whatever. I would venture to say that there are many out there who will so it won't really matter. As someone stated, $1.29 for a song is still cheaper than purchasing a CD.
Whether this will happen or not is another issue. As can be seen in this thread, some profess that they won't purchase a song for $1.29 or whatever. I would venture to say that there are many out there who will so it won't really matter. As someone stated, $1.29 for a song is still cheaper than purchasing a CD.
As much as I liked the old $0.99 price point, I have to admit I will still buy even at $1.29.
As much as I hate the new $1.29 price point, it was inevitable. I mean since 2003 the price point has been $0.99 and after 6 years the $0.30 price increase was sorta imminent. I can see the inflation argument holding up 6 years into this which I will still buy. Record labels now fear Apple, which is something good; for those of you doubtful of my statement check a recent rumor/news here in MacRumors, an executive who wished to remain anonymous said, record labels fear Apple delisting them and loosing the bounty that is iTunes.
Anyways, a boycott won't do a thing, the $1.29 is here to stay. But if Apple does see the $1.29 is hindering sales, they will push on record companies to struggle and go back to the $0.99 price point. But that's a big if.
As much as I hate the new $1.29 price point, it was inevitable. I mean since 2003 the price point has been $0.99 and after 6 years the $0.30 price increase was sorta imminent. I can see the inflation argument holding up 6 years into this which I will still buy. Record labels now fear Apple, which is something good; for those of you doubtful of my statement check a recent rumor/news here in MacRumors, an executive who wished to remain anonymous said, record labels fear Apple delisting them and loosing the bounty that is iTunes.
Anyways, a boycott won't do a thing, the $1.29 is here to stay. But if Apple does see the $1.29 is hindering sales, they will push on record companies to struggle and go back to the $0.99 price point. But that's a big if.
Most new music is crap so it won't be difficult to avoid any of higher-priced songs.
Now, if I could find some of the reported 69-cent song ...
Now, if I could find some of the reported 69-cent song ...
All the other online music stores are selling singles for $1.29. The labels set the prices.
As much as it sucks looking at songs that I wanted to get go up 30%, I don't mind too much. Even to argument that "the artists get s**t so why bother even buying music", to them I say, at least the artists are getting something from me. And you know, right now, they're getting a tad bit more. So, here's another penny Blink, and NFG, and Amber Pacific.
Yeah, I'll pay more to you.... as long as the artist is HIGHLY worth it. And kudos to the Original Poster. I will avert my purchasing from the $1.29 songs. How about we just buy the $.69 songs? Now that'll be a punch in the groin.... sorta.... though I fear it may be a matter of time until the apple site goes from "Songs starting at $.69" to "S**T songs no one's heard of starting at $.69 and all the good stuff you want for $1.29"
I can't wait. Hell, I still buy m albums in the store. It's fun that way. Good ole CD....
Yeah, I'll pay more to you.... as long as the artist is HIGHLY worth it. And kudos to the Original Poster. I will avert my purchasing from the $1.29 songs. How about we just buy the $.69 songs? Now that'll be a punch in the groin.... sorta.... though I fear it may be a matter of time until the apple site goes from "Songs starting at $.69" to "S**T songs no one's heard of starting at $.69 and all the good stuff you want for $1.29"
I can't wait. Hell, I still buy m albums in the store. It's fun that way. Good ole CD....
Economics in high school?
Try sixth grade. After that I stopped paying attention. That's an excellent comparison - health insurance to the music industry... the technology and costs to provide healthcare are practically identical to music. I mean, the music industry has made incredible technological leaps forward through the years... can anyone say cassette tape?
I hope you were kidding. At $.99 the songs are overpriced. My point regarding supply and demand is that demand will ultimately dictate the price of the songs in the music industry. The reason? We're not talking about a finite quantity. We're talkinga about digital downloadings... as in, a theoretically limitless supply. That's why people pursue illegal methods for obtaining songs - because the price of the supply isn't low enough yet. Once companies relinquish their stranglehold, prices would fall to more appropriate levels. Everyone recognizes the additional costs associated with producing a cd, artwork, album notes, transportation of product, inventory of product, staffing to sell product, physically stocking product. They don't see the reason for the additional cost when the song was uploaded through a secure site and from there on out can basically manage itself.
All I'm saying is that this price hike will increase demand for illegal acquisition of product. They're headed in the wrong direction. The original price was too high - which is why digital downloading hasn't made up for the loss in cd sales. They need to lower the price across the board, increase the number of transactions, thereby increasing their overall revenue. Of course people will still buy the songs at $1.29. "People" also bought the "I am rich" app. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "fight" - we're talking about a collective group making individual decisions. I'm talking about a decision not to buy a product. Not really a fight.
Regarding the Amazon thing. They hadn't released their variable price deal until after I made that post. Even still, per the article, they still have better pricing than Apple. My previous comment stands.
Try sixth grade. After that I stopped paying attention. That's an excellent comparison - health insurance to the music industry... the technology and costs to provide healthcare are practically identical to music. I mean, the music industry has made incredible technological leaps forward through the years... can anyone say cassette tape?
I hope you were kidding. At $.99 the songs are overpriced. My point regarding supply and demand is that demand will ultimately dictate the price of the songs in the music industry. The reason? We're not talking about a finite quantity. We're talkinga about digital downloadings... as in, a theoretically limitless supply. That's why people pursue illegal methods for obtaining songs - because the price of the supply isn't low enough yet. Once companies relinquish their stranglehold, prices would fall to more appropriate levels. Everyone recognizes the additional costs associated with producing a cd, artwork, album notes, transportation of product, inventory of product, staffing to sell product, physically stocking product. They don't see the reason for the additional cost when the song was uploaded through a secure site and from there on out can basically manage itself.
All I'm saying is that this price hike will increase demand for illegal acquisition of product. They're headed in the wrong direction. The original price was too high - which is why digital downloading hasn't made up for the loss in cd sales. They need to lower the price across the board, increase the number of transactions, thereby increasing their overall revenue. Of course people will still buy the songs at $1.29. "People" also bought the "I am rich" app. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "fight" - we're talking about a collective group making individual decisions. I'm talking about a decision not to buy a product. Not really a fight.
Regarding the Amazon thing. They hadn't released their variable price deal until after I made that post. Even still, per the article, they still have better pricing than Apple. My previous comment stands.