New York Times:
Change is hard. So today might be a difficult day for some music lovers. The country's largest music retailer, Apple, is finally flipping the switch on what it calls "variable pricing" and on what the music industry calls the last, best hope to turn around its rapidly declining fortunes.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Dear music industry and iTunes,
I, and pretty much anyone else with a good head on his/her shoulders, do not believe your BS about "rapidly declining fortunes." When's the last time you saw a rapper without bling? Or a pop diva without the latest couture outfit? NEVER. Music artists continue to buy million dollar homes, luxury cars, extravagant vacations, etc. This economy doesn't hurt them...but it IS hurting the average American who takes refuge in downloaded music when going to a live concert is no longer affordable. Is this your backwards idea of an economic stimulus?!?
"Only a dollar" is a common catch phrase in American life...McD
I love how there is no explanation on the iTunes site about why certain songs are 69 cents, 99 cents or $1.29. I read somewhere that it was based on popularity?!?!? The artists of popular songs are the ones who need the money the LEAST!!!!
I went on iTunes to buy a few songs tonight...
I am so glad I never bought into the Apple BS. I LOVE my MP3 player and can do whatever I want with my music files I want. LOL even my new Samsung Omnia Smartphone sounds better and requires NO special APPLE stuff to do ANYTHING.
That is what they get for trying to dominate the free market and control their customers. So many people fell for it though.
This makes no sense to me. You had to buy Samsung stuff to do something. Apple does dominate the music download market; although, that market has probably never been free, I remember paying exorbitant prices for vinyl, and all it took was one little scratch to ruin a track or a series of tracks.
When was the last time a news outlet reported on the price of Penguin Books? New Proctor and Gamble cleaning products? Milton Bradley releasing new boardgames? Kellogg's raising prices on corn-based cereals?
I hate how whenever Apple does *anything* it comes out as "national news." This obsession with a company that makes pretty but planned-obsolescent products is unhealthy.
There is just as much obsession about Microsoft and Google.
It probably is a sad state of affairs, but Apple has a lot of sway over the consumer market, much more so than any of the companies you mention. When they do something, people pay attention.
What you say about obsolesence is applicable to ANY company that manufactures ANYTHING. Welcome to our modern world.
Don't like their prices? Don't buy their music.
I haven't heard anything worth buying in a long time.
I love hip-hop but I am not not going to pay to be degraded.
I still can't figure out why anyone would buy from a song from a company that restricts how you may use it (Apple) versus a company that literally has zero restrictions as to how you use the song (Amazon).
I just bought a song from Amazon (Schyman's Praan, awesome btw) and I can drag & drop it where I want (not where Apple says I should).
You are misleading people. Apple no longer uses DRM for their tracks, so there are no restrictions. You can drag and drop their files wherever you want, and play them on any device that supports the AAC open standard. I buy songs from both iTunes and Amazon, and have no limitations whatsoever. I prefer the iTunes tracks because they are slightly better quality wise than the Amazon tracks at the same bit rate.
Not a smart thing to do in the middle of an economic crisis. If the record companies and Apple want to encourage illegal downloads, they just did it.....By the way...I'm 60 years old, love my MP3 player and I use Itunes downloads. No more!!!
Amazon just followed suit with tiered pricing, so you can blame the record companies for this one.
Solid is correct. Apple fought against this pricing model for several years. Their whole approach was to keep it simple. But the music companies like having their latest hits cost more and one or two companies actually started withholding content on iTunes because Apple didn't want to raise prices.
My guess is that once the change is fully rolled out you will see very similar pricing on Apple and Amazon. The only good thing is that the record companies have given up on DRM so you can play songs from any site on multiple devices.
Amazon had cheaper pricing on the same songs as iTunes...b
Apple....y
Everyone else raised their prices, too. Follow your principles and just stop buying everything.
There are better, and less expensive ways to get music than itunes.
The Apple thing is getting far too expembive.
Apple is so clueless..
You DON'T need a credit card to start an iTunes account. You can do it with a simple iTunes gift card. My 16 year old daughter has an iTunes account, and she certainly doesn't have a credit card.
You prefer the subscription model, myself I have enough recurring subscriptions in my life, I don't want any more. I want to purchase just the music I want, and not worry about paying somebody $30 per month for life.
That's right, jack up prices in the middle of a recession. What a stupid business decision. But coming from the record companies, who are going the way of the GOP and the SUV, it doesn't surprise me.
LIKE RAISEING TAXES?
95% of us aren't going to see any tax increases. If you are one of the 5% of people making the really big bucks, then tiered iTunes pricing or a few more measly dollars in taxes is the least of your worries.
Bad move....
http://pit
Apple has nothing to do with these prices. They are only doing what the record companies are telling them to do. You really think Apple has any say? The record companies own the songs and they dictate the terms. Apple is just providing a service for them.
Notice that Amazon has also raised their prices, they are in the same boat.
Remember the whole DRM thing? It sucked, we all knew it, and Apple did too. The only reason it was in there was because of the record companies. Apple hated it, it caused nothing but problems, and they begged the record companies to let them get rid of it.
Bottom line: APPLE sucks...no way around it...I have had much better MP3 players that sound better, work better, don't try to nickle and dime you at every turn.
You need $200 headphones to tell the difference between the D/A converters in the different model MP3 players. Sure there are differences but you need fancy equipment to actually tell the difference.
Apple has nothing to do with their prices??? Really???
Then why is it when I search for oh say, Poker Face by Lady GaGa, it's 1.29 with iTunes and only .99 with Amazon? In fact if you compare prices on several "current songs," Amazon is usually .30 cheaper (with the exception of some very new releases).
And if Apple hated DRM so much, then how could Amazon get away with selling DRM- free songs while Apple was bound by the record companies?
I have a problem with Apple. iTunes is becoming bloatware, the iPhone has several better competitors out there, and even though the iPod line may look pretty - it's still lacking several features (like voice recording and an fm tuner) that most users can get with a Sansa or Zune for the same price or less.
They're selling a brand name, not a superior service.
Amazon has gone to tiered pricing as well. I'm sure you will find differences between iTunes and Amazon even with tiered pricing
The record companies gave favored status to Amazon to sell DRM free songs to encourage competition and (some record companies) forced iTunes to sell DRM laden tracks until Apple acquiesed to tiered pricing.
We get it. You're an Apple hater. But you don't know what you're talking about most of the time.
wow, 1.29 is too much per song. Illegal downloads baby!!
Sometimes.
i know websites that sell tracks for as much as $1.45 and $1.99 but they're WAV files and of much higher quality than apple's mp3s & mp4s.
Oh and sansa makes an awesome mp3 player where you dont have to use idiottunes
You don't have to use iTunes for an iPod. You can put plain old MP3s on it too. I have an iPod and I use it from my Linux box. I like iPods because they are lot more durable and sturdy than anyone else's players. I have an old iPod mini, the surface finish has held up well over the years and it still looks brand new. You can even install Linux on an iPod and play video games on it.
Loading comments…
New York Times | Brad Stone | 04/ 7/09