What is Digg?59 Comments
- CatfishJones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29It's news because the contracts, which were up for renewal, have been renewed at 99 cents per song. It helps if you read the article before commenting.
- sheldonwilson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Good, because I doubt I'd pay more.
- Mac2492, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13It does. Piracy causes the music industry to become overprotective men who only worry about having their music stolen - thus causing them to place intrusive DRM/Copy Protection that frustrates all customers. It's true. The same holds true for games, movies, etc...
If you didn't catch the tone of my comment, I'm saying that piracy is "indirectly" affecting things like this. - Mac2492, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Have fun borrowing your music...
- bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9They are the leader, but they are far from a monopoly.
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9That sounds more like an ad rather than a recommendation.
- mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Apple is a major retailer, and like ALL major retailers, they influence the wholesale price from their suppliers so they can charge what they feel is an appropriate price to their customers. They can absolutely set the price to whatever they want, but why are you complaining that Apple is fighting to keep the cost LOWER? They are doing this in the interest of their consumers since they know $0.99 is a psychological barrier.
- macgabriel87, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8i doubt piracy has anything to do with this. show me some data or reports that shows piracy directly affects the music industry. as i remembered, when napster first surfaced and became popular, music sales actually rose.
- marksy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Kinda off the topic, but it would be nice to see Apple have the option to download higher quality tracks. Im sure there is a large percentage of us that prefer at least 192k to 128k mpfrees/acc's...
Still, kudos to Apple for sticking to their guns. I'm sure that upping the price would encourage more pirating. 99cents's (us) is just fine for a track. In New Zealand we have to fork out ($29.95nz = $19.10us +/-) for a CD album. We also have no major music download service. - crackityjonesjr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+699 cents for a single 128kbps AAC file is still too WAY too much. That equates to $15 for the average album. Why would anyone pay that when they can get the CD for less? Just doesn't make sense.
- mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4When you see partial albums and incomplete catalogs, blame the band, publisher, or label...don't blame Apple. Apple wants to have as much music available as possible. They get just as frustrated when they can't offer certain tracks or albums, despite everyone doing their usual, tired "C'mon, Apple! This is an outrage!" schtick.
- lkallion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Do you really think that music industry would have sold anything below 99c? 99c already gives them better margin than song on a CD, and still they don't talk about lowering prices. I'm okay with varying pricing but I'd rather see them to start with those cheaper songs :)
- bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm still hoping to see more albums available on iTunes. It's annoying when they only have "partial album" or incomplete catalogs for major artists.
- Travelsonic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Koshak, I agree with you on other issues on Digg (though I haven't posted it yet) but please, EVERY ONE of these music/RIAA/MPAA/piracy related topics you post in a way that people think you are trolling (and you get your posts modded apropriately).
Take this latest tantrum - not everybody who supports this staying the same is in the same group as the "the music sucks so I pirate it anyways" group - not everybody who pirates music supports this and wants the prices lower, there are many groups of people who have an opinion in this and painting the demographic - even if this is just digg - with one broad brush is inflammitory, inaccurate, and dare I say trollish. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7$0.99 is still too expensive for me.
- Wavey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I applaud Apple and glad the price point is still 99 cents. The only problem I occassionally have with that flat structure, however, is that some tracks that are merely seconds-long transitions between songs end up being 99 cents also. (For example, see "Belly Button" by Sufjan Stevens.) Now, who's gonna pay 99 cents for THAT track?
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that the longer or shorter the track, the more or less the track should cost. A ton of my favorite songs of all time are old rock songs that are no more than 2.5 minutes long, but they're priceless. But come on, there's a certain lower length limit where paying 99 cents gets ridiculous.
On the other hand, something like Shostakovich's "Symphony No. 11" clocks in at over 20 minutes and is still only 99 cents, so the flat structure is not without its advantages... - DarkHack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nice work Apple for keeing iTune Music Download cheap...!
- dalle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Too bad it stays att 99 cents per song. Pretty expensive. :( At least I ain't so keen on paying $15000 to fill up an iPod 60GB with music.
- Mac2492, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Would you guys stop advertising other music downloading sites? We get the point; you think Apple is a monopolistic, evil, greedy, oversized, money making empire of music. They're not.
- apersaud, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Yay! Steve Jobs triumphs! Hopefully Steve showed them that the real enemy is piracy (not competition between labels) and they should not think of ripping off consumers with high prices.
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5meh, either way I'd rather buy a CD. I hate the concept of having restrictions on my music. It's like if I buy a car, and if the car dealer told me I can drive my car on monday, and that I couldn't drive out-of-state. Same concept, both equally annoying.
- battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I think the first price increase we'll see on iTunes will be to end the discounts for buying the albums all at once."
That will never happen as long as Jobs is alive. Long Live Jobs! - mark1372, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The record companies whore themselves out under the mighty pimp hand of Wal-Mart, which makes up 50% of their sales, but they certainly wouldn't be complaining publicly about Wal-Mart like they do Apple. Trust me: I've worked for over a decade at a record company...whatever Wal-Mart says, goes. They feel they can whine about Apple because it's a smaller market share, but it's good to see Apple sticking to their guns. Pissing-off Apple would be the worst PR move yet and they know it.
That being said, way more goes into making and marketing an album than most people think, and record companies are loaded with people who truly care about the product they are selling and believe in the music. The element that seems to be forgotten or ignored when everyone starts hating is the stranglehold the retailers (like Wal-Mart and the record chains) have over the labels, who are scrambling like crazy to stay afloat (mainly their own fault, though...too many people asleep at the switch). - abdulla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How about dropping the mark-up on other stores? In Australia it's $1.69 which is around $1.26 USD. What's up with that? Import tariffs? Shipping digital music must sure be expensive...
- battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Who are the big 4?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Because the whole point of downloading music is that most albums contain 4 songs...at most...that you want to buy.
- merkle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3They shouldn't charge more. When a CD is 12-15 bucks and the average CD has 12-15 tracks... music should be .99 a song. If they charged more people would start going to the store rather than buying online. It will stay at .99 for a long time I think.
I think the first price increase we'll see on iTunes will be to end the discounts for buying the albums all at once. - spikes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Are you some kind of idiot? The RIAA only pays artists 4 cents per song downloaded off ITMS anyways.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Being honest i remember when napster first came around, alot of people didnt have dsl /cable and it took a long time to download a few songs, it exposed me to alot of different types of music/bands at which point i ended up buying the cds /shirts/concerts etc, so i think it just gave "us" the consumer, more options.
- battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1.99 cents is too demned expensive for anybody. Every song should be 39 cents.
Albums ON LINE for download should be at 196 AND only 8.00 US - Are you asking why?
Because there are ABSOLUTELY NO PACKAGE MANUFACTURING COSTS nor SHIPPING COSTS. You cannot compare physical shipping cost to high-speed download costs , that is a ludicrous effort. Just alittle bit of Grpahic arts royalty, the other normal musician perofmance rights and royalty. The profit for record companies would still be in the neighborhood of 15 to 30 cents per single downloaded. - isaymeow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The price of the files has everything to do with the contracts the record companies have with Apple...It's not a Tariff.
- MakinBacon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1koshak says: What the ***** is WRONG with a business model where things that are in more DEMAND cost more! ... Tell me ANY other industry where this would be the case! None.
Really?
How about the movies? If I go to my local Cineplex this weekend, I will pay $9.95 whether I want to watch the highly anticipated "Mission Impossible 3", the end-of-life "Scary Movie 4" or the indie film "Thank You For Smoking".
How about sports? If I go watch the Jays play the Red Sox or the Yankees I will pay the same as if they were playing the lowly Royals.
There are many other examples. When it comes to music, art, sports... who decides for ME what should cost more? Maybe I like indie films much more than Hollywood blockbusters. Maybe I am the biggest Royals fan and I hate the Sox and the Yanks (not true btw). Maybe I want to buy Madonna's new hit song for 99-cents instead of $1.49 and could care less about an old U2 song that costs 69-cents... (also not true but you get my point). - battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The marketing for downloading songs is already on line and paid for (usually ti is just a mirror of what the physical package could look like IF and WHEN it is made).
You know absolutely nothing about the duplication/pressing side of the industry - that is clear. - neocitron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1good... i usually only but like 2 songs per album.... but recently haven't been using the iTMS for a while
- battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Or the ***** Parody or TRIBUTE albums (White Snake doing Zepagain? GIVE US A ***** BREAK)
- dmadzak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1djcham,
One thing you fail to realize is supply and demand. I already have hundreds of songs I have collected over the years on my Ipod. (High supply, low demand for more) To add one more song for $1 is a lot of money compared to what I already have, I'll just pass and listen to what I have. I don't care how much it costs to make a song, that argument doesn't hold, businesses change all the time to changing economic conditions, one thing the music industry has to realize is the economics have changed and their monopoly on music can no longer stem the tide. Salaries and cost of equipment has to go done, there is no longer high margins in the business.
This is the real reason why the music industry hates Ipods its because people can consolidate all their music in one place and will always be able to grab a new tune instead of having to buy a new CD. The other reason is that they can no longer release new CDs just by repackaging old songs. If you own most of the songs there is no reason to repay for a songs you already have so you can get 2 or 3 more. - itanshi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1dude, the missing cents are what the riaa and the artists aren't getting, meh, that's a pirate site
even if its made better (bitrate) - marksy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2hehe, yup - cos of the highly secure packaging... digital music can be susceptible to pirates... :s
at least you dingos are allowed to download off of iTMS :(
i dont see a iTMS-NZ in the future - mementh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1reguardless ... apple has more power then the record industry
they have made MORE MONEY because of digital selling
but they wont admit that.
They can't understand that itunes makes it EASY to protect.
They can't manipulate the prices to earn more... they get whats resonable and should be happy!
Itunes makes a easy to use easy to have system.. those that say that you can't use the songs with another system should shut up.
All you have to do is burn it to CD and rip it back.. you loose almost nothing.. and then can convert to back toy our mp3 for your favorite bad mp3 player. (this is called inconvenience copying)
And those that think that ACC 128 is bad.. shut up.. i have learned that AAC 128 is about as good as MP3 192+
so understand those points are no longer in debate.. you can't prove what i have said is wrong.. now.. whats your debate about whats wrong with apple ? - dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2 If you consider inflation over the last three years that would mean the songs are cheaper. You can't buy much today for 99 cents that was 99 cents in 2003.
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Makes my day.
Imagine that, RIAA--the retailer is setting the retail price!! And the sky hasn't fallen in yet. - sovietmedia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"i doubt piracy has anything to do with this. show me some data or reports that shows piracy directly affects the music industry."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAA... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Have you been asleep for the last ten years? - Drizzit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I've quit buying music off iTunes. The DRM has become a problem with other places and devices I'd like to hear my music on. So I went to Allofmp3.com and rebought all my music DRM free and at better bitrates as well.
- DJgreenLava, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Why buy from the big four?
- allstar255, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1um has anyone noticed that nearly the exact same story was frontpaged 10 days ago? http://digg.com/apple/_Hey_Steve,_99%C2%A2_No_Problem_Record_Biz_Sing_Jobs_iTunes_After_All
please report this. - djcham, on 10/12/2007, -4/+499 is too expensive? is that a joke? i do'nt think most people know the difficulty in making a song. granted, 16 dollars for an album is little expensive but 99 cents for a song that you like is a darn good deal. I think people today are too used to free things.
- PCheese, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/11/18.html
- nerdie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Try allofmp3.com, songs are about 12 cents a piece and has just as much music as ITunes.com and they have no DRM :D
- nerdie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It will also let you download which bitrate you want, 192k is 10-15cents, while 128 is lower.
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It's strange. We have opposite viewpoints and yet we've both been modded down.
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is