What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee’s singing debut.
126 Comments
- coding, on 10/12/2007, -4/+46"If they want to raise the prices, it just means they're getting a little greedy," - Jobs
A little? - stokestack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34No 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. - IMA_Sellout, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Umm... 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.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Yeah, when I saw this on the front page, I had to clear my browser cache because I thought that I was somehow loading a page from last year.
Anyway, not only is raising prices a bad idea, but lowering them is necessary. I pay less than a dollar per album. Why would i use iTunes and pay ten bucks an album or more?! - jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Maybe apple should pass the cost of distribution (bandwidth) back to the record companies, and see how they like that? They're getting a good deal at the moment with digital distribution. Less manufacturing costs, less distribution costs, and more profit. Yet, as with all things corporate, they still want more - despite their greed almost bringing the recording industry to its knees a few years back.
- wayjer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Without the RIAA, according to this article, all songs would be downloaded for 29 cents! How do we whack the RIAA!
- mscf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11There are two forces in market dynamics: demand, which you mentioned, but also supply. Where the supply is very nearly infinite the price should approach zero, right?
- lonelycanuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I have never seen an industry so bent on pushing its consumers to revert back to piracy
- calabria, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10i won't be paying more than 99 cents for my music, especially with the free option floating so close by
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Don'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. - shelbyme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9i dont know about all of you but the higher the price goes the more music ill download illegally...
- yensed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10^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.
.. - szelij, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Things 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.
- freexe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7AllOfMP3 is a insult to the artists, you might as well illegally download the mp3 because the artists don;t get any of the money, it all goes to crooks in Russia.
Try emusic.com it's a really good service with loads of great music on for a pittance without DRM. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10If they raise the price they better UP THE BITRATE!
WHO AGREES? 128k for $1.50 USD is a TOTAL BUT SCREW. - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You really think the US is the only place where that happens? :-)
- p5ychop3nguin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The 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. - yuriko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Greed yes, I agree. Supply and demand - of course. What you might be forgetting is that Apple (and respectively the record companies) run a business. profit. no favours owed to anyone. so the fact that Jobs actually stands up for the fact that 70c profit is enough, then that's about as much corporate responsibility one could expect from - yes a capitalist!
These people run businesses and are only in business for the sake of making consumer products which we consume. they'll make as much profit as we let them by continuing to support the purchase of products (demand). of course the more competition (supply), the lower the price. pure economics.
The real story here (even though it may be old) is that Jobs is doing better than a lot of business leaders by actually supporting the consumers (and revealing the profits that record companies make to exert pressure in return!) IF Apple were to make less profit, they wouldn't be able to support R&D, hire fabulous designers, and reduce prices / discount products, etc etc. It's a circle. It's capitalism. WE live it and unfortunatley support it. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Allofmp3.com is not illegal in any shape or form here or there.
It's NOT good for artists, of course. But, then again, neither is the RIAA.
The only solution to all of this is for artists to finally work directly with iTunes and skip the whole industry completely. - toddbu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What I find interesting about the RIAA is their web site (http://www.riaa.com). I took a minute to visit it today having never been there before. Their home page mainly consists of stuff about legal cases, what you shouldn't do, how you can be sued, etc. I could only find two sections ("Gold & Platinum", "Research and Data") that spoke about the positive contributions the RIAA makes to the music industry. So whiile I agree with you that the RIAA is a bunch of liars, this is just an outgrowth from a group of people that by their own admission are out to protect their position through the courts rather than by adding value. I think that we all know that they're fighting a losing battle, and that it's just a matter of time before the "music industry" as we know it become irrelevant. Maybe then we'll start seeing good music from artists once again rather than the crap that the industry pushes on us.
- gargantuan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Pop 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.
- akilleen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5How much of a cut does the artist get from allofmp3?
- loftx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Yawn - I would have thought people on here would know by now that when your product is a legally enforceable monopoly (i.e protected by copyright) with low elasticity of demand (songs aren't easily substitutable), the monopolist can charge what they like and normal market economics do not apply.
Please before anyone rants about letting the market sort it out read a high school economics textbook first. - jals, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It also helps that eMusic only seems to offer songs from independant labels, i.e. those that have nothing to do with the RIAA.
I could be wrong about that, but it makes sense. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Most people don't realize that Artists dont get any money from online sales period.
The RIAA doesnt pay artists for music sold online.
The RIAA keeps every cent. - Xoligy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's a company, its sole purpess is to make as much profit as possible. They're hardly going to make songs free because 'they have enough money already'.
- stonedgeek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6It's astounding the blatant greed of these folks.
- Kevbo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Nobody (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. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7It's old news.. but a new article..
- bobbknight, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Apple 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? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7GOTTA 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?
- AeonTorpor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5The Idea of supply in this context doesn't exist. The supply isn't just Infinite, it's 1, it's 9 million, it's however many ppl download it, thus, it is demand. There is no stock pile, no loss if someone doesn't buy a "unit", which by the way, no longer exists. It's just one copy of 0s and 1s.
If we like the song, it has a demand. Anything they can do from that point on just lowers the demand. If it's free, anyone who even thought about getting it would have, there's no dis-incentive. Raise the price to 1 penny, somebody won't wanna pay that, raise it to 5 dollars, good friggin' luck.
And... iTMS could most certainly exist w/o the RIAA. What kind of crazy talk is that? Like a sports store wouldn't be around w/o the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, etc... Just because it wouldn't be called Official NBA or RIAA produced/raped *****, doesn't mean it wouldn't exist. - btitus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This 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. - retral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3RIAA 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.
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4All together now: "***** the RIAA!"
Oh well, it's legal to download music in Canada, whether you pay for it or now. - tedlick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't use AllofMP3.com because... #1-- they obviously aren't licensing all of those albums, I see Pink Floyd BOOTLEG titles available for sale. and #2-- it may be legal in some countries, but it is NOT legal here in the US. While I WHOLEHEARTEDLY disagree with our country's distortions to copyright laws, I also think breaking the law in a VERY trackable manner is NOT a wise way to protest.
Eventually litigous entities like the RIAA will get ahold of the customer records of places like allofmp3.com, and then those 12 cent downloads will become very expensive in hindsight. - matt0ne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3One 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! - RexHavok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The 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
- markcrules, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3In 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. :-)
- acidronin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I know this is a bad comment but I dislike the riaa and the mpaa more and more every day. At least Itunes isn't like Napster.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Jobs is such a hypocrite. If iTunes wasn't helping him sell overpriced iPods where he's raping consumers, he'd agree to raise the prices too. Apple loves customer lockin and uses it as much as possible in their software to sell overpriced hardware. And all the Apple zealots line up to support him. Jobs has no right to be the one to determine the price of music. All he does is run a server farm. It's only his monopoly on music distribution online that gives him the power to dictate price.
- norml2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Artists 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.
- ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2check http://www.riaaradar.com if you're thinking of buying an album. If it comes up "RIAA positive" pirate it and then send a check to the artist.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3***** iTunes, ***** the RIAA.
Use usenet.
http://www.newzbin.com/browse/cat/p/music/
Get an account at easynews.com for $10 a month, or another place that doesn't log activity and has 100% access and allows you access to these groups.
People say "boycott the RIAA. Don't buy their stuff!", but I'd like to add "Don't refrain from downloading it, either."
People need to start standing up for themselves. If not themselves, then for the sake of others. Wave your middle fingers at them, as they can't really do a single thing about it.
To be honest, I feel no remorse or guilt whatsoever for ripping these greedy ***** off. - Plopfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Can't Apple just start their only record label. The artists could be distributed almost exclusively via iTunes. Has this been done before/yet?
- lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Let them raise prices, then there will just be more people on the P2P networks!
- StanrickKubley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2With a monopoly, all normal rules of commerce break down, like the center of a black hole. That the RIAA can even talk about where they should arbitrarily stick their price point, instead of the market setting the price, is an indication that the government should bust up this illegal institution and stop its anti-competitive practices.
The silver lining in this is that Apple is throwing monopolistic posturing back in the RIAA's face. Wanna sell online? Wanna get on iPods? You gotta go through us, sucka. - brihar73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As it should be! I agree. Indie sites are already doing this for lesser-known bands. So, why haven't the more popular artists done this yet? Think of all the money and red tape people and artists would save if you just went to their websites to buy their products. Are blank CDs not cheap enough?! What am I missing?
- weareglass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's true that some albums cost more to record than others and promote than others, but they are priced fairly similarly, they make it up in volume. If Mariah Carey's next single sells 400x more copies than I Love You But I've Chosen Darkness' next single, then they make a lot more. You don't have to also double the price of Mariah's single to double the profit, it's already there.
Also let's not forget the artists. I know the RIAA does a piss-poor job of representing them, but if Apple makes 29 cents and the RIAA gets nothing, then the artist makes nothing. Given, the RIAA probably keeps 68-69 cents and passes on a penny or two to the artist, but that's still a penny or two they wouldn't be making under a proposition where only Apple profitted. What would really be ideal is the bands directly selling songs through iTunes or getting together with likeminded bands, circumventing the labels entirely. Promotions companies could become freelance entities along the lines of venture capitalists. - djrbx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3^^ I agree, they have a plan for $10 a month for 40 downloads.. That means if you download or not, you still pay $10. I'm guessing they're hoping that most people that have the service will not reach the maximum downloads for your plan that you sign up for.. That's how they are making the money.. Cause most average users will not download 40 songs a month, maybe when they are still new to the service.. But after a few months I doubt the average user will still download 40 songs a month..
-
Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is