iTunes Music Store Prices to Increase?
From the Wall Street Journal and BetaNews, rumblings today about Apple possibly introducing variable pricing in their iTunes Music Store, at the behest of the music industry. Songs by popular artists would be more than $.99 and lesser-known artists would be priced at $.99 or lower. The music industry has been pressuring Apple and Steve Jobs to introduce this almost since the iTunes Music Store was launched.My opinion? This would pretty much kill the iTunes Music Store. I'm already reluctant to buy music via iTunes because of the included DRM. If they increase the price, I'll stop buying downloaded music altogether and go back to buying non-DRM CD's. I'm certain I'm not alone in this opinion.
Just the other day, a student in one our labs wanted to use a song she had purchased on her computer at home (using iTunes v6.0) for a presentation she was creating for a class project. Our lab computers have iTunes v4.9 on them and songs purchased in iTunes 6 don't work in previous versions. If I had not been there to help her burn a CD and then re-rip it back to a non-DRM MP3, she would never have been able to use the song she legally purchased for her presentation. The conversion process to get rid of the DRM so she could use the song as she wanted was just too complex. She was cursing Apple and the iTunes store and I had to explain to her that it's the large music companies forcing DRM, not Apple. And now the greedy jerks are whining about profit and forcing Apple to increase the prices on much of their music.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Kevin said 3:32PM on 11-16-2005
Thank you for clarifying to her that it's the RIAA and recording studios enforcing this ridculous DRM crap on people and not Apple. Too many people jump the gun and shoot the messenger and not the sender.
Reply
DerekJ said 4:47PM on 11-16-2005
Well,
I don't give a damn.
Back to limewire and bittorrent.
Reply
Elliot Levin said 3:46PM on 11-16-2005
Ok, so for sure increasing prices is dumb, dumb, dumb on the part of the labels. BUT, I am interested in the whole "99 cents *or lower* for lesser known artists" thing. I mean, hey, if someone wants to pay 1.29 for a Linkin Park track or whatever and I get Mogwai for .79, I'm happy with that...Ok, bad example cause they're on different labels, but you get the idea. Then again, when was the last time a record company did any favors for anyone? I guess I'm just wishfully thinking, and "99 cents or lower" really just means "99 cents". Interesting side-note, wouldn't it be neat if this actually dissuaded people from buying the kind of crap that the majors peddle as "premium"? No more over the hill Madonna or boring Coldplay!
Reply
kirk said 3:47PM on 11-16-2005
The labels have this all wrong.
If anything, they should allow lower prices on older stuff. Like 49¢ on songs that are on out of print albums. Imagine hearing a cool song from youth and being able to get it on iTunes.
The industry has thousands of songs that are not making them any money... Yes the publisher and artist would get a smaller royalty, but that's better than nothing, right?
Reply
Wader said 4:56PM on 11-16-2005
(don't shoot the messenger) Just because she paid to listen to and own the song does not mean that she purchased the rights to use the song in a presentation. If you want to get picky she still ended up breaking copyright law. Any unpaid distribution is illegal. As a teacher I got in trouble for steaming a video cast off of the PBS website on a projector for my class. If the students were to all go in a lab and watch it individually that would be fine, but what I did was distributing a copywrited video without paying for it's use (in the end we ended up purchasing "The Merchants of Cool" for the school because it's so damn good).
Reply
steve said 4:39PM on 11-16-2005
It won't kill the ITMS, and the majority of people downloading songs don't even know or care about DRM. 99c was an excellent way to get people a) off of Kazaa and into legally buying art, and b) getting former CD buyers to try out this new digital music thing. It has succeeded well.
Now there is more demand. More demand = higher prices. This is how our great system works. If people don't buy at the raised prices, they will go back down.
Reply
systemsboy said 4:05PM on 11-16-2005
To the music industry I say: Plthhhbt! If you don't stop gouging your consumer base for music that is mostly crap, you should and will go out of business. Shame.
To the recording artists I say: Start looking for new methods of distribution. Indie labels seem to treat artists much better than the majors, and are far less threatened by online distribution. Also, there are ways to self publish through the internet and under licenses like those offered by organizations like Creative Commons.
To Apple I say: Start supporting indie labels and direct distribution models (more).
To the consumer I say: Don't stand for it. If the record companies want to sell total crap for ridiculous prices, don't buy it. There is a ton of good music out there that isn't controlled by the major labels. Seek it out. Go to shows. Buy the music directly from the artists whenever possible. The more we can bypass the major labels altogether, the better it will be for the artists and the consumers. We have some power here. I can't remember the last time I bought a CD from a major label.
Or maybe I'm being naive.
-end of rant-
Reply
Nik Fletcher said 4:05PM on 11-16-2005
An article on MacRumors.Com http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/11/20051116144630.shtml says "There is a case for superstars to have a higher price." Maybe, but it should only be if it's for the benefit of the artist involved - not just for the record company [however I doubt the price increases are 'in the interests of the artists]. I don't believe that Apple WILL increase prices - for the forseeable future. And here's why:
1. The iPod is the worldwide best-selling MP3 player. Period.
2. iTunes Music Store has the largest market share of the download market on the entire planet.
3. FairPlay is the only DRM that doesn't completely screw customers over - of course it does to some extent [that's what they're ultimately designed to do!] but when you compare FairPlay to the whole debacle with Sony's MediaMax and XCP success [or lack thereof], Apple certainly holds the "crown jewels" and can to some extent say "look, we have a proven method of securing your intellectual property and by the way, if you want to get onto the iPod, you have to do it via us".
Hopefully Steve Jobs won't bottle it and give in to their demands [to easily!].
Reply
creanium said 4:37PM on 11-16-2005
To me their thinking is so bass ackwards.
Why raise the price on superstar tracks? Aren't those the ones that are more readily available on P2P networks? So why would I want to pay more for a track that's easier for me to get for free?
By lowering the price on the more obscure tracks then to me they're just screwing those artists. Myself, I'd be more inclined to pay $1.49 for a track by a more obscure artist since A) it'd be tougher to find the track on a P2P network and B) I'd much rather support a smaller artist than a so-called "superstar".
For most people, $0.99 is the threshold for feeling like they're actually getting their money's worth, ESPECIALLY on a more popular song. If the RIAA is successful in getting this done, then I think they've sufficiently done everything in their power to alienate the customers as much as possible.
Reply
Rob Knight said 4:38PM on 11-16-2005
The recording industry is helping to end itself, and I have no problem with that.
This will make illegal downloads go back up...no doubt. But what REALLY needs to happen is Apple needs to get into the market of signing deals with bands directly, like what has happened with Japan's iTMS.
Basically, whatever we as music consumers can do to put an end to the RIAA we should focus on doing.
I buy CDs used or directly from the band as often as I can. There should also be more education for the bands themselves to show them how to circumvent the dictatorship of the recording industry.
Once it becomes clear that a band can make it without a slave-labor deal with a record company, more bands will try to go it alone. It would be nice to see.
I'm sure Apple would like to do a lot more to make some of these things happen, but the whiny RIAA steps in to protect their profits, er, artists.
Reply
voice of reason said 4:55PM on 11-16-2005
um . . . you mean Apple has no stake in using a DRM technology that only works with the iPod? This is a win-win situation for Apple and the RIAA--labels are (relatively) assured that each individual will have to buy their own copy of songs, and Apple is assured that one can only transfer the songs to Apple's mp3 players.
It is not just the record companies pushing DRM, regardless of what SJ says. If the iPod was not the most popular digital audio player by a laaaarge margin, closed DRM would harm the iTMS, and Jobs (I'm sure) would be pushing for more open DRM standards.
Reply
fishpatrol said 4:57PM on 11-16-2005
Wait, Apple is the victim? Poor little Apple, the industry leader, making millions off of music and iPod sales? The big bad music industry pointed a Velvet Revolver CD at Apple's head and said, "You must use this DRM and pricing and blah blah," and Apple's lip quivered--a tear formed at the corner of Apple's eye--and it was agreed?
Get real. This is Apple's system. Apple brought this to the music industry and said, does this work for you? The music industry saw an opportunity to make money, and agreed to try the iTMS. They see it's a success, and they want to make more money. I assume they have analysts saying that people are willing to spend more for the some tracks. Maybe Apple has analysts that say the opposite, or maybe they're playing the media to keep them in the good grace of consumers.
Either way, Apple and the RIAA are in cahoots to sell you lossied-down, DRMed-up music. If you bite and then realize that you're hanging off a stringer, buddy who's fault is that? Sure this is a conspiracy, but it's hardly secret. Buy CDs, rip them yourself, and you save yourself from this entire mess.
Reply
NetworkShadpw said 5:51PM on 11-16-2005
I think $0.99 is kinda high for a song really. An album on iTMS is only a bit less than a CD, without the production and distribution costs they've gotta be making a LOT more off iTMS than CDs...
So long as it stays less than buying a CD I'll keep buying on iTMS, but I'll buy a bit less with anything over $0.99. There's really no point to buying a lower than CD quality album with DRM if you can get a CD without DRM for about the same price.
Reply
Nik Fletcher said 4:59PM on 11-16-2005
Sign the petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/99ctunes/
Reply
Thomas said 5:41PM on 11-16-2005
They already price quite a few albums above 9.99. Sad. I guess it's back to Best Buy or Target to get the CDs on sale.
Reply
Stephen said 5:41PM on 11-16-2005
If they want to start charging 1.29 or something then they need to introduce a higher quality file. I'm sure there are some that would pay a slightly higher price if the audio quality was better..
I'm sure next they will blame the price increase on the increase of oil prices!
Reply
arshad said 6:56PM on 11-16-2005
Am i the only person in the world that does not mind the Fairplay DRM.
It seems pretty seemless to me. I'm (finally) able to buy songs off ITMS AU, play on my 3 computers (1 XP + 2 MacOSX) plus my wife's and daughter's and have no issues. I take the songs with me on my iPod and burn to CD when i need to. After all, I did buy it to listen to not to hawk around in public forums or use in presentations etc.
Compared to the other DRM available the iTMS version is the clear leader. If people really think record companies (and artists) will ever release music DRM free, or that a slight price increase will stop the growth i think you need to think again. For educative value go back to some of the posts on various industry websites at the time of the release of iPod and later ITMS and see what the naysayers had to say about them... all predictions of doom and gloom were wrong.
iTMS is popular because it is a simple, streamlined, cross-platform and compelling way to purchase music, and for the most part (in australia at least) much cheaper (by $9-13AU) than buying a new release CD.
Reply
Derek said 6:31PM on 11-16-2005
I think Apple should just make it easier for artists to sign up and upload their own songs directly to iTMS. Work around the record companies all together just like they are doing in Japan.
Reply
Riccardo said 4:26AM on 11-17-2005
absolutely crazy. Apple don't listen to majors...
Reply
Tom said 8:50PM on 11-16-2005
So what happens if you get free songs on iTunes (a la the Pepsi Superbowl promos)? Do you only get to download .99 cent songs?
How many of those iTunes gift cards will be purchased over the next 6 weeks for the holidays, sit around for a few months and then reciepients find the rules change because the record companies want more cash? Turns out you can't buy just any song. You're only allowed to get songs that aren't in the top 100 (or whatever the arbitrary cut off is).
The record companies are just pissed because they can sell low-quality ring tones (not even full songs) for 3 bucks a piece while at the same time they're contractually obligated to sell the entire song on iTunes for cheaper (even though there's no packaging or distribution costs).
Reply