iTunes Might Lose Labels 614
Dreamwalkerofyore writes "According to the New York Times, the iTunes music store might have to change its 99 cents per song policy or risk losing a huge amount of songs due to recent disputes with record companies, who demand an increase in the cost. From the article: 'If [Mr. Jobs] loses, the one-price model that iTunes has adopted 99 cents to download any song could be replaced with a more complex structure that prices songs by popularity. A hot new single, for example, could sell for $1.49, while a golden oldie could go for substantially less than 99 cents.'"
"Its," damn it! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
How is Apple to blame? According to the article summary (can't see actual article) Apple is fighting to protect it's current model, and may be forced to (or to lose a large chunk of it's inventory). I'd hardly say Apple is to blame for that.
The price is already $1.42 for me (Score:3, Informative)
Re:great! (Score:1, Informative)
Meme: "a unit of cultural inheritance, hypothesized as analogous to the particulate gene and as naturally selected by virtue of its 'phenotypic' consequences on its own survival and replication in the cultural environment."
Re:It was only a matter of time (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Geeeze (Score:1, Informative)
Re:"Its," damn it! (Score:1, Informative)
A Cent Sign (Score:5, Informative)
On a Mac, press Alt + 4.
Re:great! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:AllOfMp3 (Score:3, Informative)
Last month the International Federation of the Phonographic Industries (IFPI) urged Russian authorities to take action against AllofMP3.com.
But Moscow prosecutors will not take legal action because Russian copyright laws do not cover digital media, according to news agency Tass.
WalMart is at 88 cents per song. (Score:5, Informative)
"The labels price things based on what they believe they can get -- a pricing philosophy a lot of industries have. But we like to price things as cheaply as we possibly can, rather than charge as much as we can get. It's a big difference in philosophy, and we try to help other people see that." - WalMart senior VP (entertainment) Gary Severson.
WalMart pushed the labels into a $9.97 retail price for CDs. Then they started signing deals with artists on their own. WalMart now has exclusive rights to Garth Brooks.
It's hard to cheer for either side here. But from the music industry's perspective, WalMart is scarier than Apple. Apple needs the music industry. For WalMart, audio CDs are a minor business. WalMart sometimes threatens to cut back on audio CDs and devote more shelf space to DVDs and games. And Apple doesn't care about content. WalMart imposes censorship on both music and cover art.
Turn you over to shake out that last penny (Score:4, Informative)
At the price of 99 cents a song, the share of the major labels is about 70 cents
Apple needs to get their profits from the iPod, since most of the 99 cents is already going back to the record companies. What's so hard about this for the NYT to understand?
The other main battleground in Apple's coming confrontation with the industry has to do with "interoperability" of services and devices. Mr. Jobs has so far refused to make the iTunes software compatible with music players from other manufacturers, and he has prevented the iPod from accepting music sold from competing services that use a Microsoft-designed music format. As a result, songs purchased from Napster, for example, will not play on an iPod.
Ah, now we know the real reason why Sony is unhappy. Won't play on Sony players either.
Re:great! (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)