I guess the record labels prefer money. Next, the oil companies and taxes.

Hey does anyone know how much the profit differential is for the labels of on-line vs. disc? I assume the cut for the musician is the same, so the real "problem" for the record companies would be whether Apple's minimal overhead (5-6%?) is greater than the difference between the price of CD's and their overhead (production, transportation, storage, etc.) I can't see that and I can't see that they are losing any money with iTunes.

when the record labels actually accept the offer re-made by Apple shows that Steve was right- they are greedy.

Who in their right mind wants to pay more than a dollar for a song is beyond me, maybe possible I guess, but just not right in the aspect regarding an artist who might get sold for 50cents on the top of the charts next to another artist selling for 2bux...

it's just ethically if not morally wrong

Flat rate music is the only way to go imho.

Digital sales only represent about 6% of total annual music sales. I still believe some executive was having a martini one day and said, "You know, it would be funny if we tried..." and this whole thing was blown out of proportion by some over-zealous reporter.

Just having a big smile cross across my face.

So much for the labels 'taking Apple down'.

Can't even play poker properly - all talk, and no bite.

It's too bad Apple isn't big enough to go into the music biz; they have a history of appreciation for the arts and the smarts, in glaring contrast to recording interest. As far as the biz is concerned the artist is the absolutely least important part of the equation, unless they hit a cash cow like Michael Jackson or some other such concoction.

Just have to love how Real is trying to do things to knock off iTunes. They still don't get it that PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO RENT MUSIC.

when the record labels actually accept the offer re-made by Apple shows that Steve was right- they are greedy.

Who isn't greedy. You don't think Apple isn't greedy. Why do you think Steve's insistent on the 99 cents pricing? Because he cares about you, the consumer? Please! If that was the case, he'd stop the assembly line of macs and start yelling at his engineers to stop making the c*** they're making and fix the problems with their current crop of computers. But, alas, its the same old same old.

Apple is insising on the 99 cent a song pricing because they think it will keep their sales at their current levels and keep their profits coming. They balk at multi-tier pricing because their overall cut would end up being less. Enough said.

Who in their right mind wants to pay more than a dollar for a song is beyond me, maybe possible I guess, but just not right in the aspect regarding an artist who might get sold for 50cents on the top of the charts next to another artist selling for 2bux...

I don't know. A lot of people used to buy CD-singles. And they were $3+. The younger generation, you know, the ones who just spend their parent's money without care, isn't going to really care if they have to spend $2.50 for some new hit. h***, they used to spend $10 for the CD just to get the song. They apparently are willing to spend more than a dollar to download music to their cell phones. They spend $$ to get ring tones.

And I think if Steve Jobs started selling songs at 89 cents, and they wanted to raise it to 99 cents, you all would be "Who'd want to spend $1 for music???"

it's just ethically if not morally wrong

How is it ethically or morally wrong? And where do these ideals come into play with pricing of music. We're not talking about something sacred! Its a freakin' song.

There's nothing ethically wrong about charging more for high demand items. That's capitalism. Let the market decide a decent price.

Flat rate music is the only way to go imho.

And that's you're opinion. The labels think variable pricing is the way to go. They look at all other media, like CDs, DVDs, books, etc, and see that new and more popular stuff gets sold for more then the c*** in the bargain bin. Why shouldn't they be able to charge more? If no one buys it, they lower the price.

The only reason apple wins here is because the iTMS has the marketshare and clout at this time. If Apple loses their marketshare (I know, I know, apple is god and will always be dominant, but I'm talking theoretically here), the labels will have a lot more leverage to bend the contracts their way.

astuce auto bebe blague blagues carte carte2 carte3 cartes cartes2 cartes3 cartes4 cheat cinema code jeu couple diaporama diaporama2 diaporamas diaporamas2 ecran de veille ecrans de veille enfant erotique erotiques f1 rallye familiale famille fond d ecran fonds d ecran football golf histoire horoscope horoscopes humour icone illusion image humour jeu jeu2 jeu3 jeux jeux2 jeux3 lingerie massage

eleman

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2007

0