Apple may win battle for iTunes pricing - bit-tech.net Forums

WilHarris · 21st Apr 2006, 13:31

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/04...ricing_itunes/

BioSniper · 21st Apr 2006, 13:39

Nice one Mr. Jobs

At the end of the day it boils down to the record labels seeing that the service is working and now wanting a larger slice of the pie and being play greedy buggers.

Im glad apple have fought this and by the looks of things won as it really does have the consumers interests at heart by the looks of things. I know I for one wouldn't pay for it if it got more expensive that it is now and im sure most people wouldn't either thus turning back to "the old ways" which is not what the record companies need.
So in a way even though this does protect the consumer it also protects the record lables because they keep the people buying music due to the happy meduim pricing apple has currently.

Im really sure that my sentances dont make sense right now.. ahh well.

Confused Fishcake · 21st Apr 2006, 14:17

Good one apple, TBH record companies would lose millions if apple stoppepd selling their music.

specofdust · 21st Apr 2006, 15:06

Don't mean to be anal, but they wouldn't lose millions, they'd just not earn it. I know it sounds like the same thing, but in a world where record companys erroneously claim that they lose billions per year to piracy(when in fact they lose nothing, they just possibly don't earn off some of the people who may have bought records if they hadn't downloaded for free), it is important to be specific.

As for this, while I think Jobs' may be doing a good thing overall, I'm in no way kidding myself that he's doing it for the good of apple and his business, he's not being philanthropic here.

Anyway, wouldn't use Itunes, don't like the software, and don't like the idea of putting money to record companies. I'd use allofmp3 if anything, since it seems to be totaly safe(not a single conviction for any users worldwide, I believe), is legal in its home country(and therefore not going to get shut down any time soon) and offers a much better overall service anyway.

Breach · 21st Apr 2006, 18:03

Im just glad someone is telling the music industry to F off with thier greed. They already persecute music fans by trying to keep thier old ways when music downloads didnt exist. They sue 12 year olds for downloading a sub-par music, and have even gotten bands to turn thier backs on thier fans by supporting this nonsense. But I think persecuting people who actually want to pay and participate in legal downloads is crossing the line. What the hell do you want from us? Is there really any question why the public hates you (the music industry)?

No matter which way you go you are still getting screwed, because the industry refuses to change to a new format. Im sticking to illegal downloads, obvioulsy being part of the legal world gets you almost nothing.

Firehed · 21st Apr 2006, 22:02

I avoid paying the full buck when I can, but I absolutely refuse to pay more than that. While I definately prefer to use *cough*other ways to get my music, I don't see why they think they can charge more per track than you'd pay for the CD itself to deliver a lesser-quality product full of crap and missing the physical disc and case booklet. I'd definately be more inclined to use something like allofmp3 for my purchases, though - under two bucks an album seems plenty fair.

CountStiltzkin · 22nd Apr 2006, 10:36

Well, I finally downloaded iTunes yesterday. I've been resistant for so long, relying instead on windows media player. So apart from the grueling task of converting all my .wma files to .mp3, the awful grey default skin (which I'm sure can be changed) and the fact my wonderful shortcut buttons on my keyboard to change track etc are redundant unless Tunes is fullscreen, I'm very happy with it. Everything seems much more convienient.

As for using iTunes to download music, well I don't own an ipod so it wouldn't make much sense to do so. I was recently pointed out www.allofmp3.com by a member of the bit-tech forums - the prices are astounding but as with all things that look too good to be true, it is. I believe it's illegal to download from there in this country.

specofdust · 22nd Apr 2006, 12:04

It's not, or at least, if it is its only in theory, because no-one has been prosecuted for it as of yet

CountStiltzkin · 23rd Apr 2006, 11:17

True, and I haven't in the slightest been put off from downloading from there

Sunny-D · 26th Apr 2006, 07:19

in essence, buying an older album with 14 tracks for $8 is variable pricing, providing you like all of the tracks on an album. they probably make more money off of the new songs where someone likes one or two tracks than if they like the whole album, because the album discount isnt incurred, if there is one on that title.

in the end, if iTunes tracks doubled in price, i wouldn't use iTunes anymore. it wouldn't make sense. then again, i rarely use it. topping off my gas tank supercedes getting a prepaid iTunes card any day.

21st Apr 2006, 13:31	#1
WilHarris Just another nobody Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Oxford Posts: 2,671	Apple may win battle for iTunes pricing http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/04...ricing_itunes/

21st Apr 2006, 13:39	#2
BioSniper I Mod, Therefore I Own Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere in the south Posts: 3,454	Nice one Mr. Jobs At the end of the day it boils down to the record labels seeing that the service is working and now wanting a larger slice of the pie and being play greedy buggers. Im glad apple have fought this and by the looks of things won as it really does have the consumers interests at heart by the looks of things. I know I for one wouldn't pay for it if it got more expensive that it is now and im sure most people wouldn't either thus turning back to "the old ways" which is not what the record companies need. So in a way even though this does protect the consumer it also protects the record lables because they keep the people buying music due to the happy meduim pricing apple has currently. Im really sure that my sentances dont make sense right now.. ahh well. __________________ My Flickr :: Bit-tech Flickr Wii: 1792 1527 2926 7945 :: Xbox Live: BioSnipr :: PSN: Biosnipr

21st Apr 2006, 14:17	#3
Confused Fishcake Hypermodder Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hertford, UK Posts: 684	Good one apple, TBH record companies would lose millions if apple stoppepd selling their music. __________________ My Laptop: Inspiron 1501: Turion64 X2 TL-52 @ 1.6GHz, 1GB DDR2, 120GB SATA HD, 256Mb ATI 1150, 15.4" widescreen lcd, 8x DVD+/-RW, running Gentoo amd64. My Server #1: Pentium III @ 500MHz, 192MB DDR, 290GB in total, running headless Gentoo x86. My Server #2: Athlon 4 @ 1.7 GHz, 128MB DDR, 40GB, running headless Gentoo x86.

21st Apr 2006, 15:06	#4
specofdust Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aberdeen, UK, EU Posts: 7,609	Don't mean to be anal, but they wouldn't lose millions, they'd just not earn it. I know it sounds like the same thing, but in a world where record companys erroneously claim that they lose billions per year to piracy(when in fact they lose nothing, they just possibly don't earn off some of the people who may have bought records if they hadn't downloaded for free), it is important to be specific. As for this, while I think Jobs' may be doing a good thing overall, I'm in no way kidding myself that he's doing it for the good of apple and his business, he's not being philanthropic here. Anyway, wouldn't use Itunes, don't like the software, and don't like the idea of putting money to record companies. I'd use allofmp3 if anything, since it seems to be totaly safe(not a single conviction for any users worldwide, I believe), is legal in its home country(and therefore not going to get shut down any time soon) and offers a much better overall service anyway. __________________ Like marmite, only no-one hates it Mmm bop!

21st Apr 2006, 18:03	#5
Breach Supermodder Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: WA Posts: 354	Im just glad someone is telling the music industry to F off with thier greed. They already persecute music fans by trying to keep thier old ways when music downloads didnt exist. They sue 12 year olds for downloading a sub-par music, and have even gotten bands to turn thier backs on thier fans by supporting this nonsense. But I think persecuting people who actually want to pay and participate in legal downloads is crossing the line. What the hell do you want from us? Is there really any question why the public hates you (the music industry)? No matter which way you go you are still getting screwed, because the industry refuses to change to a new format. Im sticking to illegal downloads, obvioulsy being part of the legal world gets you almost nothing. __________________ Project :: SSC (Super Sport Computer)

21st Apr 2006, 22:02	#6
Firehed Why not? I own a domain to match. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: An hour north of Boston Posts: 12,576	I avoid paying the full buck when I can, but I absolutely refuse to pay more than that. While I definately prefer to use coughother ways to get my music, I don't see why they think they can charge more per track than you'd pay for the CD itself to deliver a lesser-quality product full of crap and missing the physical disc and case booklet. I'd definately be more inclined to use something like allofmp3 for my purchases, though - under two bucks an album seems plenty fair. __________________ hire me @ eric-stern.com - web developer and php ninja pics @ my smugmug :: Twitter @firehed :: blog @ firehed.net 40D\|580EXII\|285HV\|AB800\|70-200f/4LIS\|17-50f/2.8\|150f/2.8Macro\|50f/1.8 MacPro @ 8x2.8GHz, 10GB FBDDR2, 3TB HD :: MBP @ 2x2.2GHz, 4GB DDR2, 320GB HD

22nd Apr 2006, 10:36	#7
CountStiltzkin Modder Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: N. Wales, UK Posts: 57	Well, I finally downloaded iTunes yesterday. I've been resistant for so long, relying instead on windows media player. So apart from the grueling task of converting all my .wma files to .mp3, the awful grey default skin (which I'm sure can be changed) and the fact my wonderful shortcut buttons on my keyboard to change track etc are redundant unless Tunes is fullscreen, I'm very happy with it. Everything seems much more convienient. As for using iTunes to download music, well I don't own an ipod so it wouldn't make much sense to do so. I was recently pointed out www.allofmp3.com by a member of the bit-tech forums - the prices are astounding but as with all things that look too good to be true, it is. I believe it's illegal to download from there in this country.

22nd Apr 2006, 12:04	#8
specofdust Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aberdeen, UK, EU Posts: 7,609	It's not, or at least, if it is its only in theory, because no-one has been prosecuted for it as of yet __________________ Like marmite, only no-one hates it Mmm bop!

23rd Apr 2006, 11:17	#9
CountStiltzkin Modder Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: N. Wales, UK Posts: 57	True, and I haven't in the slightest been put off from downloading from there

26th Apr 2006, 07:19	#10
Sunny-D Multimodder Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Undisclosed Location, NY Posts: 200	in essence, buying an older album with 14 tracks for $8 is variable pricing, providing you like all of the tracks on an album. they probably make more money off of the new songs where someone likes one or two tracks than if they like the whole album, because the album discount isnt incurred, if there is one on that title. in the end, if iTunes tracks doubled in price, i wouldn't use iTunes anymore. it wouldn't make sense. then again, i rarely use it. topping off my gas tank supercedes getting a prepaid iTunes card any day. __________________ Eternal Project::\|AMD XP 2500+\|\|Abit NF7-S\|\|2x 256mb PC3200 Corsair Value Ram\|\|ATi AiW 9000\| \|WD800JB\|\|Seagate 40GB\|\|Lite-On 8x DVD+/-RW 2.4xDL DVD+R\|Lite-On 16x DVD-ROM\|\|Win XP\|\|Logitech MX1000\| \|Audio equipment::: \|5G iPod Video 30GB\|\|Sony MDR-V150 Studio Monitor Headphones\| \|JVC MX series 460 watt stereo\|[/color] Laptop::\|\|Apple G3 Powerbook @ 266Mhz\|\|320 MB RAM\|\|4 GB HDD\|\|250 MB Zip Drive<--Currently dead (dog chewed cord)