What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
90 Comments
- KChaseR, on 10/11/2007, -0/+82A brilliant move on Apple's part. They're the last good thing the recording industry has going for themselves.
- Jammypac, on 10/11/2007, -0/+60It's kind of strange that the most relevant, cunning player in the music industry right now is (was?) a computer company.
- tzonic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+38Nice move!
- Colesif, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21To quote Steve Ballmer: "I LOVE THIS COMPANY!!!!!"
- mistahroth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20Brilliant, I will actually buy albums on iTunes now
- missupernova, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18i think it's good for new founded bands and musicians at all
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13But why do you want them in mp3 format to begin with? AAC is half the size almost with same quality
- Tenlow, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13are blank cds really that hard to find?
- geminitojanus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Hot Chip - The Warning for $7. Damnit, I JUST spent $14 on the actual CD. I'd definitely recommend it to anyone who's into the electro-pop vibe.
No wonder Universal was pissed. - blackacre, on 10/11/2007, -6/+18Hmmm...$6.99 LCD Soundsystem or the latest crap for $11.99? That's a tough one.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15Not to sound Cliché but they truly do Think Different. I got the free single off Sara Bareilles last week and for 6.99 I picked up and excellent album.
Good Job for Apple and with this may have been why Universal didn't sign an extension. - zioxide, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10If you want the ***** hard copy of the CD, order it off amazon and rip it when it arrives. It's not that hard.
- allenb, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12You know they've sold more than a billion songs, right? People most certainly do buy online.
I think it's all about the convenience, I only ever buy from iTunes on a whim - usually a single song. I think that's the real lure of the iTunes Music Store, rather than album sales.
I do agree, however, that whole albums need to be more competitively priced. You're right, there's no contest between the digital and physical products - and the price should reflect that. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I'd be honoured to have my band on iTunes for even 3.99 for an album...time to distribute
- kingkilr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Nice, I can't say I like any of the bands up there, but its definitely a step in the right direction.
- ToxicBomber, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Thats basically what I said, microsoft jumped into selling online music first. They had no control over the customer base for their online music store. Apple started with the iPod and ensured it was a hit and had a massive user base, to secure the future customer base for the music store.
- shmatt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I will never understand the point of allofmp3. How is giving out your credit card # to Russian pirates any better than p2p-ing the music for free? The artists don't get a penny either way.
- totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I think its a good news/bad news thing. My first thought was that it was just a recognition of that recent study that showed singles sales were doing so much better than album sales, so this will spur album sales. But I think it goes further.
Good news: New groups and indies get better distribution at lower prices, which is good!
Bad news: Apple's stance all along has been to avoid the variable pricing that record companies crave; I'm guessing this is their first real move towards this. The fact that they moved prices DOWN on less known artists is a good thing, but I think it gives them leeway to move prices on popular artists HIGHER. Which is what Universal and others have been pushing for.
I'm thinking this is a move to appease Universal and the other labels, ultimately. - abid786, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4or download itunes plus music (non drm)
- stockjones, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5This actually could be the big mover for Apple. Not the Ipod, Iphone or even OSX. But the fact that Apple may become "the" source for digital distribution of music. Even the big studios will have a hard time competing with Apple in this area, although I see serious lawsuit battles ahead. The Universal's and such of the world will not go down without a battle. The big studios do own the rights to much of this music.
- ragnar0kk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3awesome move by apple!!! I used to be anti mac (i am a linux user) but hell Steve Jobs is making serious waves in a good way!
- dawglse, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Hmm, not EVERY purchase since that would drive the costs up.
How about have the option to charge an additional fee (maybe like $3-$6?) for a hard copy? - Super0ne, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3That almost makes me not want to steal music anymore.
- bradleyland, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I think the deal here is that electronic distribution eliminates the infrastructure required to produce and distribute those little bits of plastic, thus resulting in a better deal. What you're suggesting would be two steps back.
- SenorCardgage74, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4You just showed your own ignorance of new music.
These arent exactly far underground acts either.
Congrats! - johlin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Isn't it worth the extra $7 for a nice package and better quality? I think so.
That CD is awesome by the way. - giroguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3talk to the RIAA and the labels about dropping the cost of music.. thats their ball game. not apples.. apple gets 1-5 % off of music.. they make money on the macs and ipods you buy.
- Chubakkaz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2support your local bands, they struggle and try hard, shoot a couple of bucks for their van's gas money by buying their stuff xD
- aliceinreality, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4i've actually been waiting for this. the only reason i pirate music at all is because $15-20 is too much to expect me to pay for something like an album, especially online when I don't receive a hard copy and album art. i also wasn't willing to pay for DRM'd music. Hot Chip's "The Warning" was $6.99, DRM-free; i bought it to encourage them. =D
- tf23, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This is Apple's only method to battle the big labels. If Apple supports the indie's and the indie's are able to sell lots of music via iTunes, Apple together with the new bands have just obsoleted the big labels. When the "mega" bands contracts expire with the labels, what will they do? They'll release on their own via something like iTunes because they keep most of the $ from sales.
If Apple is able to move themselves into a position that they are considered the one-and-only place to sell your own music and make it big, the big-labels will be in a far more generous mood to not pull contractual stints like Universal is trying to do now (hold their content over Apple's head). Because afterall, Apple doesn't own the copyright to most of iTune's content, it's just selling what someone else owns. That's got to be a touch situation for Apple to be in at times, especially when contract-renewals come around. - indiepenguins, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You listen to beyonce?
- Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The same day they stop referring to Microsoft as Redmond
- accidental, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I like this idea, but please put some decent music on the list.
- daGUY, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Also, albums are the same price regardless of if they're DRM-free or not. It's only individual tracks that are $0.30 higher for the DRM-free version (to help encourage album sales).
- Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2And a movie costs hundreds of millions of dollars to make..big deal.
The record label sees most of the money from the albums and (assuming it goes well) breaks even really quickly.
Then the artist pays -back- that money (since it's really fronting the money) out of their commission, mostly out of concert sales. - tnoy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Zune pass is a subscription service. I'm using it, otherwise I wouldnt have made the comment.
- Prefection, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Just a random thought, but since the big labels aren't selling much music anymore (according to them) I wonder how much it would cost to purchase the music rights to any particular song? Each person commits $0.25 to a common "bank account" for a specific song. When there is enough $$$ in the account the song is purchased from the label, and it is made unconditional open source. Just thinking.
- shmittay84, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2...almost
- g3r4, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Now, I'm not bashing or anything, but why is this so important? They dropped prices. That doesn't make them "truly do Think Different", and as far as it being "a step in the right direction", any object on the market eventually reduces in price. Usually.
Seems like another small announcement that everyone thinks is big, IMO, which seems to happen a lot with Apple. - kelly, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2>"less effort on their part, less product, more money... "
Actually... its a greater effort on their part AND its more product... the no DRM'd file is of greater sound quality, (higher bit rate) which means more bandwidth to pay for as the file is bigger. - toastercookie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Apple makes almost nothing from the iTMS. They've said it themselves.
- Bakkster, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4How much do you want to bet the artist is taking the the hit with the lower price, and iTunes and the record label end up taking an even larger portion of the profit?
- monkeybacon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I can already get a lot of indie music cheaper (or as cheap) on eMusic.com and its ALL DRM free, oh ya, but their not Apple.
- troub, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The albums Apple will be selling for "cheap" are the same ones that you can already buy, non-DRM'd, for about $3.33 at emusic.
- slapthemonkey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Good news.
- Novagenesis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1They're not -actually- stealing the album, like they'd steal a car.
They're pirating it.
The RIAA is doing a great job of blending the two concepts... but there's a huge difference.
If 100,000 people pirate an album and none of them would've purchased it otherwise, the REAL loss is $0.
If ONE person steals a $100,000 car, whether or not they'd buy it, the REAL loss is $100,000.
Nobody ever says of a car thief that the loss is damages PLUS the value of the car not purchased by the thief (or $200,000).
They ONLY do that with music piracy to inflate figures, since most pirated music would never have been bought.
And I'm willing to pay $20 to own something, but every time I pay $20 for a non-exclusive contract on something, and they're too cheap to even make the cd art nice, I get pissed... but no, I don't pirate due to it not being so safe to do so. I wish I could -just- deal with the artists. - mbball, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I bet that the albums you bought didn't have a lot of tracks, old, or weren't the hottest sellers. Where as majority of these are awesome bands just needing something to get them sold because most people don't know them. But, if this works out I can see a lot of people finding out about them.
- BurnTees, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Apple's stance all along has been to avoid the variable pricing that record companies crave; I'm guessing this is their first real move towards this."
exactly. although i believe that variable pricing helps the consumer. - BurnTees, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1if you had any knowledge of the music business, you would know that what you just said is complete BS.
- BurnTees, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1unfortunately, that's not how it works. you should probably get your facts straight before ranting.
-
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is