digg

"If they want to raise the prices, it just means they're getting a little greedy," - Jobs

A little?

No doubt. And WTF was up with the labels' earlier contention that "music has always been priced variably"? ABSOLUTELY WRONG. 45s were always one price, regardless of artist, chart position, whatever.

These liars can't get any more despicable.

Umm... I hate to say it but this is kind of old news. Jobs was claiming that the Record Companies were getting greedy back in January when the contract Apple had with the RIAA cartel expired.

How in the h does does emusic.com sell the same songs without DRM for 25 cents? If someone can tell me that I will digg. No digg on this old news though.

Things like this will be extremely sensitive. Market sentiment will dictate how successful it is-if the price of a song is too much in the opinion of the customer, he will look elsewhere for it. And more often than not he would look onto the peer-to-peer networks.

It's astounding the blatant greed of these folks.

Instead of predicting what will happen let the market dictate prices. If people are unhappy paying 10, 20, 30 cents more then this will show. Until the contract actually expires this is nothing but heresay. I say wait and see what happens and I think that 99 cents US is not that bad a price to be paying as it is anyway.

If they raise the price they better UP THE BITRATE!
WHO AGREES? 128k for $1.50 USD is a TOTAL BUT SCREW.

^You choose the bitrate you buy in the iTunes options^

They raise prices, they also raise the amoung of people that will start/go back to P2P networks.
..

Don't trust record labels because by all means, the popular songs should STAY $.99 while less-popular songs should be *reduced* in price!

Unfortunately, we've seen how big labels have no clue how to *reduce* price, but only know how to *increase* it.

Mark my words, if the flat-price policy is changed, then we'll see a dramatic hike in "top40" songs while the "bottom40" get a discount of < $0.20.

The flat pricing works best since everyone's taste is different. I wouldn't pay a nickel for Black Eyed Peas, but I'd shell out $.99 for something that *I* deem deserving of my hard-earned cash.

technically, it's "Record industry succumbs, artists set prices."

GOTTA LOVE AMERICA, the only place where if your a millionaire, billionaire or multimil-billion dollar corp, you can commit crime and get away with it! RIAA CD PRICE FIXING ANYONE? You remember don't ya?

Apple and I tunes have made the recording industry $693 million dollars from the start of Itunes.
All for 128bit encoded files that cant be cop pied.
And they Bitch, WTF?

i dont know about all of you but the higher the price goes the more music ill download illegally...

Pop will eat itself. This also has further implications, imagine if this story had stayed under wraps? The price hike would have been presented as some sort of improvement, something we should be happy with. But for some reason Apple has decided not to kiss the Record Industries ass and has no problem exposing them for what they are (I used to work in the music industry, so I can comment) which is greedy stalwarts and sub-human scum. Bully for Apple and Jobs, and BOOOOOOO for the record industry. I look forward to the day when the Internet finally kills them all and music is bought straight from the source, the artist.

Nobody (Jobs, labels) wants to admit that quite a bit of the crap out there isn't worth 99 cents.

When will they realize they could drop prices and win at a volume based game? Having a monopoly on something doesn't matter if no one wants to pay your prices.

Make it expensive, I'll steal instead. Make it cheap, I'll probably buy it.

What a bunch of greedy ***** besides the fact that this is old news..

An emboldened Bronfman even suggested that Apple should give the labels a cut of iPod sales.

I honestly, honestly just can not understand you people. Why on earth do you buy stuff from iTunes when you can get superior quality mp3s that are cheaper and have no DRM from other stores like allofmp3.com ?

For example, here in the UK, the songs are 79p each (that's $1.37876 at today's exchange rate). Marginally acceptable for new releases but definitely a rip-off for old tracks. Hmmm, and let's see... song comes with DRM to limit my ability to play what is *MY* mp3.

I just don't get why the RIAA does not allow iTunes to adopt an allofmp3 type business model. EVERYBODY would use it, the p2p would more or less die overnight and the record companies would make gagillions of dollars. The sales would go ballistic and everybody would win.

BUT NO - THAT'S TOO SIMPLE. - so I say ***** em! ...and continue using allofmp3.

i won't be paying more than 99 cents for my music, especially with the free option floating so close by

I don't believe this. I agree, however, with the idea that they should open their balance sheets to the public as a prerequisite to the legitimacy of their claims to "losses". I'm willing to bet that, unless they fake it, those balance sheets are gonna show a lot of profit on their part.

Why don't we ask the artists whose songs are being sold on iTunes? Would they want their fans to be turned off by higher prices and go back to allegedly illegal downloading? Record labels should just shut up and let the artists speak for themselves.

Hey Record Labels, you guys are already rich. Don't whine about losses when you can still stuff your faces with fine food 3 times a day.

The fact that consumers are willing to pay shows that they appreciate an alternative to piracy, and that merits customer loyalty. That means you shouldn't screw them over.

If the media cartels think popular tracks should cost more, then let them *lower* prices on the obscure, unpopular tracks. I don't hear them volunteering to do that.

I actually think that the cartels are looking to ruin iTunes so they can try replacing it with their own tightly controlled digital store.

In an ideal scenario, the ongowing battle between Apple corps and Apple computers would be settled with Apple corp becoming the record label for Apple computers.. Both Apples win and we'll get the Beatles on iTunes. Apple computers could use this to 'force' the other record labels not to get too gready... how many artists would jump ship? Don't forget Apple corps would be in charge of 'real world' publishing, so the artist would get exposure in the real world. :-)

man Im so happy I can pay more for songs,99 cents just seemed like too little to pay

Ouch. We're being slogged enough here in Australia. I really would not like higher prices. It might be time to look for another store. *sigh* I really like iTunes

Ah yes, yet another reason to use AllofMP3. Well done Mr. record label, you really know how to be popular!

The RIAA believes that it is entitled to a Market and will do it's damnedest to squeeze every penny from it, Markets are not guaranteed... this is a cornerstone of a Capitalist Economy. Besides I have never seen a refund booth at the neighborhood theater (cheap shot at the MPAA) nor am I able to get a refund for a crappy album. With all the BS they put "their" consumers you would think we would learn, and who the hell is gonna reimburse me for all the duplicate music I have bought over the years trying to keep up with changing formats. I bet if we boycotted them for a weekend they'd pee their pants. Can you imagine no music sold or movie seen over the course of the weekend. LMAO

The RIAA complains about piracy and then wants to raise prices? Talk about having your cake and eating it too. In the RIAA dream world everyone will pay $5 to $3 a song and you will only be able to play it on the device you bought it on and everyone who breaks a drm will be immediately incarcerated for life.

Raising the price will just push more people to use less legitimate sites (AllofMP3) or just steal their music (hooray bittorrent), thus the RIAA will go after more consumers and they will need more money to pay their lawyers so they will make apple raise the prices a little bit. There are too many easier alternatives to itunes that people will discover if the RIAA raises prices, goodbye 80% market share apple.

Ranks right up there with now you can DL movies at lower quality, limited venue (can only play it on your computer) and twice the cost of a DVD %u2014 sure... sign me up for a bunch. When will the media types realize that their product has been commoditized.

To a certain extent, we're already seeing this sort of manipulation in the Australian store. The stardard pricing structure to download an entire album varies between $16.99 and $17.99 -- but I notice that Neko Case and Morrissey were just added at $20.28. This price is $1.69 x 12 (the number of tracks on the album.) In other words, there is no special price for purchasing the entire album -- it's the same as though you purchased all tracks individually at the price of $1.69.

This is just one way that a greedy Australian music industry is managing to manipulate prices.

In Australia we pay $1.69 per track when the Aus-US exchange rate should put our iTMS downloads nearer $1.30. Who's pocketting that extra 30c per track? Probably the same Australian record labels who managed to delay the launch of the iTMS for over 12 months, until they got the deal they wanted.

How can these corporations be so bold as to firstly accuse their consumer base of being a bunch of theives for indulging in P2P, then take the biggest legal source of musical downloads and try to screw us six ways to Sunday?

I have never seen an industry so bent on pushing its consumers to revert back to piracy

This is not about Steve protecting the consumer from big label greed. Apple's strategy with one-price-fits-all is to lock people in to an unchanging model that they completely understand without having to think about it: "I buy a song it costs me a dollar."

Once that model is broken, Apple is suddenly competing on price with everyone else selling music online. e.g. "hey this song costs 3 dollars on itms, maybe I'd better check somewhere else to see what they sell it for.... wow, look there's a store where I can get it for 2.00 -- maybe I'll try it out."

Apple historically has never wanted to be a low-price leader and I think removing the itms fixed price would force them out of their comfort zone.

One would think that since iTMS has clearly proven itself, i.e. it is a viable business model, and probably fast becoming Record Label's principal source in profits (1 billion songs * .70c = $770m) - well maybe not principal, but that is still a bugger-load of money for practically NO overhead costs (i.e. albums are being made for CD anyway).
One would think that Apple has something to say about pricing - after all they probably did a lot of research into what kind of prices consumers would go for. They should even have a pretty good hand right now. They control a large industry, but yes they need the Record Companies (at least for the time-being). How much do the record companies need them? Since right now there is practically no *viable* or *interesting* alternative, i would say they will need Apple more and more as the numbers steadly increase.
Anyway, I trust Apple more than I trust the RIAA - bastards!

All together now: "***** the RIAA!"
Oh well, it's legal to download music in Canada, whether you pay for it or now.

It's greed pure and simple. Not surprising coming from the corrupt group like the music industry. I would really like to see them open their books too - but that might get them in trouble for illegal activities (creative accounting)? The movie industry is infamous for it...

Capitalistic Tyranny. Greed runs corporate America. And we the people, are the fodder of their success.

Boycott! Stop buying the garbage!

"with P2P you wouldn't harm anyone"

Oh, really? How does the artist get the money they worked for by stealing their stuff? And don't change the subject by talking about the RIAA. We all know they're greedy bastards. But, if you're not giving the artist money, how does that make you any different?

I say we do a full boycott against the industry. For the month of july do not buy any music or movies. Do not go to see the summer movies. We have to hit them where it hurts or they will not stop this madness. We have to plan this right and I think a july boycott would do the job. Come on people. Let's do this. Spread the news and boycott them for a month. JULY 2006 is no media month.

Thats why I quit buying and listening to music.. F'em

Did anyone expect anything else from an industry that proven to as be greed driven as the RIAA? Until we get the government to pay attention to the unethical at minimum and illegal at the worst business practices of the companies of the RIAA this sort of thing will not stop. The racketeering charges that are used to bring down mafia organizations address often lesser activities than the strong arm tactics the RIAA uses right out in the open.

Who are the Real Pirates and who is really "seizing the booty" ?#!.$$$

RIAA is treading unstable ground here, with piracy being as easy as downloading a legitimate song.. I don't think they fully realize what they're dealing with.

Artists need to wake up and promote themselves and sell their music on their websites. They will see a huge increase in their profit compared to signing with RIAA greed laden record labels. If they are truly good artists their music will sell and make them more money than they ever made with a greedy record label.

Well these sort of things are interesting. If you go back to the pre iTunes days you'll remember that most people were say that the sweet spot for downloadable songs was $.25. Many felt that Apple would fail at a $1 per song but Apple can and does command a bit of a premium because they're Apple.

As usual the record companies refuse to acknowledge that the $1 mark is about the most someone is going to pay. If they really want to change more they're going to have to give the consumer something in return. Something like $1.50 for 256K VBR version in addition to the $1.00 128K version. Maybe then they can make it fly but it's going to be a hard sale even for Apple.

Record labels have long been able to control the market, and they are realizing that they no longer have that control. What they don't realize is that music consumers are moving in a direction--one that decreasingly involves the purchase of a hard good (a CD) for a product that is ultimately electronic. If they don't pay attention, they will find themselves out of the picture.
--
Google Talk Profile:
http://www.gtalkprofile.com/profile/1.html

Enough! I can't take this anymore. I just don't understand how they continually want to shoot themselves in the collective foot.

Record exec 1: "Hey, we're making a lot of money doing nothing! No packaging costs, distribution, marketing... the money just rolls in!"

Record exec 2: "I know, let's kill it by demanding even more free money!"

Record exec 1: "Brilliant!"