Steve Jobs says no to raising iTunes prices

We know he's been feeling the pressure lately, but Steve Jobs lashed out against "greedy" record labels at the Apple Expo today, warning them that any increase in the price Apple charges for downloads from the iTunes Music Store would result in more piracy and fewer profits. He's right, of course — if anything the price of a download should be even less than 99 cents (which is what they charge here in the US) — but the record labels don't see it that way and think that they should be able to charge more money for newer hits than they charge for back catalog.

[Lee @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

Yeah you guys have it so hard in the states paying 99 cents a track!!!

Try living in the UK guys!!

[kane @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

wise move mr jobs...wise move.

[Jesse @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

I don't use iTunes, but as far as I can tell every online music service sells compressed, lossy music. I think that $0.99/track is a little too much for that (some of these other services that are at $0.79 are a little more reasonable), and prices should not go up until they can offer the music in SHN, FLAC, or some other lossless format, along with the booklet, jewel case, and other materials that I would get if I just walked into a store and bought the CD. Anything else if just robbery.

[JinKazama @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

I suggest the record companies listen to Jobs...think where they would be without Apple and iTunes?

If they want to go $1.25/$1.50 a song for a new release and drop the older stuff to .25 to .99 cents a song I can deal with that.

[jimmy @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

Paying for music online is such garbage. you're paying as much as a CD and you don't even get a physical product. When you buy an album on itunes or some other dumb service they should ship you the damn cd with the artwork, then it would be kind of worth it.

[Justin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

I think it's too expensive, as well. At 99 cents a track, or $10 a cd, it's really not that substantial discount from the actual cd. And most cds aren't worth that in the first place.

Now the prices of allofmp3.com are in my range--at that price I'd rather just get them there than look at "other sources."

[narco @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

Dear record companies,

It must be nice cashing in on the talent of others. You should be glad that you are making money at all, instead you fight and search for new ways to get more. Nobody really likes your music anyway. Maybe with the age of the internet, artists won't need to sign with your dumb major labels.

Oh, and see right through your plans -- dressing up 5 pretty boys and making them play together in a rock band... pathetic. I speak of you, the Killers. I also see through your new "indie" labels which are basically branches of your major labels, you don't fool anyone.

Fishes,
narco.

[Jason @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

.99 is too much for DRM'd music. Even at .99 Canadian. If I give a little {DRM peace of mind to paranoid record exec's} I expect to get a little {like fair use}, or no sale. You can't escape risk and reward {well except monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels}. It's the captalism facts of life.

[Edwin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

if you think jobs is against raising the price of an itunes song because he's against CEO greed and afraid of people going back to piracy, you're retarded. he doesn't want the price of an itunes song to go up because...people won't buy them anymore.

[Robert Brodrecht @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

I think the record companies are 1/2 right. The back catalog SHOULD cost less than newer tracks. But Steve is right, as well. Going over 99 cents WILL create a piracy back-lash. There is something magical about 99 cents. It doesn't have the same connotations as $1. There aren't many songs (if any) I would pay $1.50 for a lossy compression version. But, somehow 99 cents seems okay. So, keep the new tracks at 99 cents. If they want to drop prices on their back catalog, I won't argue. But if they push the cost of a track past the 99 cent mark, they'll feel it in terms of piracy increasing.

[Lite @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

nevermind iTunes, how about fixing iTunes 5 and the broken sharing functions (or lack or)

[Andrew Stone @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

Yet to buy a song or CD online, unless you count Amazon or Ebay, where i'm willing to wait a week and actually own the thing.

I know every once in a while iTunes will do a cool bonus edition cd with ben folds or whoever that makes it tempting, but come on people, is it really that much more difficult to go buy the freaking disk and pop it in to your optical drive?

Here is the deal... untill there is some sort of sweet printer / burner device that will burn my CD at full quality, print the art in a booklet insert AND on the cd, and give it to me with out all sorts of lame restrictions on how i can use the thing, i'll be rocking Target for my music needs. Paying for low quality music makes my nice stereos worthless, picking and choosing the one radio hit and ignoring everything else artists put on their CDs is ignorant, and i like to actually own something i can use as i please for my 10 dollars. That is all.

[__redruM @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

The newer stuff is much easier to get for free via some form of file sharing. It's hard to find stuff that make itunes usefull. You'd think they'd understand this. And not push hard won customers back to file sharing.

[ty @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

The iTunes store is for the iPod generation who only know lossy music through crappy tiny white earbuds...to them its CD quality and its being fed to them by Apple.

[Tom @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

Old software is sometimes given away - i.e. Propellerheads giving away Rebirth music software after 8 years.
Why does this never happen with music? Why should The Eagles still be earning $$$ for work they did 30 years ago? I wish I was being paid for work I did six months ago...

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

"Now the prices of allofmp3.com are in my range--at that price I'd rather just get them there than look at "other sources.""

Yeah, I'd honestly like to see some stats on the number of tracks sold via allofmp3 vs. iTunes. My guess is allofmp3's business is blowing the doors off iTunes, it's just that you never hear about it because they're in Russia and they don't release press releases every couple of weeks like Apple does. And of course it's in the industry's best interests not to promote them. (Not that their service is illegal, mind you - remember, the Russian cops looked at their site and publicly declared there was nothing to prosecute. But it is still an "inconvenient" service for the RIAA; it does not fit their master plan, and they would like nothing more than to shut it down.)

Call me old-fashioned, but I personally still just buy CD's because I feel that's where the value is. I want to support the artists I like, and while I would love to be able to buy CD's directly from them and avoid the 90% markup the record labels tack on, the reality is this is still the best way to get uncompressed, full-quality music on archival-grade media with official printed artwork and liner notes. I can then do whatever I want with that music, and usually the first thing I do is put the CD in my PC and rip it to mp3 using EAC as a front-end for LAME. I then import it into my iTunes library.

Is it as simple or quick as just buying stuff from iTunes? No, but a) I've got full uncompressed quality if I ever want to re-rip or just listen to it directly that way, b) I've got a pressed disc that'll (hopefully) last 30 years or more, c) I've got artwork and liner notes, and d) I have zero DRM. (I haven't yet met a copy protected CD that EAC couldn't rip.) And all that for only a buck or two more than if I'd bought it on iTunes. For songs to be worth buying on iTunes, they'd have to be very nearly free. Or at least cheaper than allofmp3.com, which is obviously never going to happen.

I guess my point is I really couldn't care less if the record labels force iTunes to raise prices, because it doesn't affect me... but I *will* laugh when people then stop buying music online again, at least through industry-sanctioned sources. The record industry's self-destructiveness is a constant source of amusement for me.

[bert @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

More a question than a comment, i dont download legal music because scared my HD will get messed up, it happened before and probably will again.

Q. is there any site which keep a record of what u download and allow u to download many times, in case u lose the data!!, Cd's just seem safer to me!!

[Saif @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

Lossy or not, many people forget one of the main advantages of buying individual tracks vs. buying a whole CD: you don't have to pay for all the songs that you *don't want*. How often does a CD come out with perhaps 2 to 4 notable tracks and then 8 to 12 tracks of filler material? Even the most talented and/or prolific recording artists have put out albums like this.

Compare spending $3 to get three tracks that you listen to, vs. spending $10-$16 for a whole bunch of tracks, of which you'll only listen to 3.

Not that I buy my music online, just throwing that fact out there.

[SteveK @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

Don't like it? Don't buy it!!!

As long as the sheep get in line and buy millions of copies of the latest crap, this will continue.

I have not bought a new CD in nearly 3 years. I do not pirate music, I buy from used CD stores. Can I get everything? No, but there's no RIAA record of, and no royalties paid, when I buy a used CD.

I am doing my part to help the RIAA on it's way out. What are you doing? Complaining about 'CD quality'? Please. The record companies are laughing all the way to the bank.

[beligerent truth @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

One Revenue Stream?

Did anyone read the article and notice the rediculous whining from the Sony BMG CEO? He claims he only gets one revenue stream from this "that a proctologist would have a hard time analyzing" (what does that mean, anyway?)

I disagree that he has one revenue stream. His same music generates money on itunes, from CD sales, royalites from public performances (bars, clubs, radio). He is generating multiple revenue streams from one single piece of "intellectual" property.

His analogy to Steve Jobs multiple revenue streams is totally inept. The ipod is a seperate commodity that requires additional effort to generate revenue beyond the revenue stream that Jobs gets from distributing music for the music industry. Completely unlike the rent-seeking absence of work required to collect more money by selling the same music in different formats. He might as well whine about how Jobs makes money by selling computers, too.

The music industry is run by a bunch of stupid twits who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

[Dan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

CDs are a lossy format.

VINYL 4-EVAZ!

[Jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

"How often does a CD come out with perhaps 2 to 4 notable tracks and then 8 to 12 tracks of filler material?"

I'll say what I always say to people who complain about this: you're listening to the wrong artists.

I do realize you said next that "even the most talented" release a dud once in a while, and this is true - but if you're a fan, don't you want the whole CD anyway? If I have ten CD's of one particular artist, and the eleventh one isn't all that great, am I really going to not buy that CD just because it's not as good as the others? I would still rather have the not-so-great songs; they're still *their* songs, and maybe they'll grow on me.

But if you're listening to bands that consistently put out albums with only a couple good tracks on them, then I'd suggest a reordering of your musical taste is probably worth exploring. If a band isn't good enough to consistently put out quality full albums, then they're frankly not good enough for me to listen to at all.

[Inside Man @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

Why charge more for new releases? At all the stores here in the USA, (at least Best Buy, Circuit City, other big box retailers) all the new releases are usually on sale for a few weeks, and are cheaper than that particular artists older catalog. Usually 11.99 or 12.99 as compared to 15.99 or 17.99 for an albumn that is several years old.

[Craig @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

Steve Jobs is right when he says that raising the price would create piracy backlash; but we must keep in mind that this is still happening anyway. This has been said before, but why would I (or anyone that can tell the difference) buy music online for the same price as I could get it on cd when it doesnt even sound as good. Hell, even CD's arent perfect compared to an actual analog recording (Vinyl), but at least they provide all 20Hz-20kHz at nearly full intensity.

For starters, Apple (and other online music providers) should start ripping their compressed tracks at a higher bitrate, because the difference is notable. Additionally, format issues make it difficult for users to take music around with them indefinately. What if I dont want to buy an ipod 3 years from now because there is something better out? How can I port the music I payed for without loosing even more quality? CDs never had this problem. This is just stupid. The concept for online purchasing is there, but the execution is far from reasonable.

On another note, #13, are you an idiot? Propellerhead is giving their software away because nobody would pay the premium they would be charging for it when there is newer better software available to do the same thing and they want to provide support for those using other propellerhead software. The Eagles can still make royalties on their records because people would still buy their albums, since it is still good music. Piss off

[cecil @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

There needs to be a shift in paradigm. The simple fact of the matter is that older people have paid time and time again for the same music. They bought it on LP, Cassette, CD, DTS Disc, DVD Audio etc.

Sure, something fundamentally needs to change with the record companies and their formulaic approach to building bands, instead of finding real talent out there, but that is a different argument.

The fact of the matter is, I should be able to rip my CDs, and purchase music online for whatever price, then I am on record as purchaseing/owning the right to listen to those songs. If 5 years from now songs that I have purchased already have been re-mastered from studio recordings and are now available in lossless, DTS 5-channel, MPEG-2 10 channel, whatever... I SHOULD BE ABLE TO FREELY DOWNLOAD THE NEW VERSIONS as they represent a more accurate representation of the recording I purchased the rights to hear. The money I paid was for the recording the artist laid down in the studio. If there is a new means of transmission that more faithfully reproduces the listening experience of that recording, great, give it to me. If not, when I purchase that song, give me the reel-to-reel, or DAT tape, or whatever.

How come no one has ever brought this up?

[Saif @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

@Jeff:

Because we're typing text comments, it's easy to read more into some parts of a comment than others, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and clarify my intent a bit more...

When I said "How often does a CD come out with perhaps 2 to 4 notable tracks and then 8 to 12 tracks of filler material?", I wasn't necessarily talking about MY OWN listening tastes. I'm talking about ANY artists. You know, the ones that make money because they put out albums that people feel they have to have. To the AVERAGE consumer, buying 3 tracks that they want is a better deal than buying a whole CD for only 3 tracks, PROVIDED that it is in fact the case that they would only listen to 3 of those tracks.

I'll be honest, when I convert vinyls to digital, I don't always "rip" every song on an album. When I rip CDs, I rip the whole album, just for the sake of completeness and for the sake of having all the music by an artist I appreciate, like you said. But not everyone's that way -- some are more content to just have the single that was once on the Top 40.

I'm interested in seeing artists pioneer new musical program idioms. The album format is good, it provides artists with a lot of creative freedom, and it makes for a good way to distribute a large body of work, but I'm also interested in seeing what other ways artists can distribute their music using formats other than the 74/80 minute CD. I've heard about "clusters," but I think there are more possibilities out there. If that occurs, than it definitely makes sense to price a musical distribution differently, because a work could potentially be much larger or much smaller than a 74/80 minute CD.

[Finished.Law.School @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

It is too bad that the record companies will ignore the success of iTunes and its $.99 songs and double the cost (if not more) assuming that consumers think the shit music is worth more than $.99 - fucking losers are just as stupid as Hollywood execs giving Uwe Boll movies to direct and killing off Cyclops and Professor X in Xmen 3...

[Ed @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

to #16 (bert)
check out emusic.com
they let you re-download the mp3s that you have already purchased

[leathaface @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

The record companies are full of sh*t. Generally when music becomes older it becomes more expensive.

The one thing that was most disappointing about the transition from cassettes to CD's was the fact that prices of CD's were initially more expensive than cassettes. And the record companies told us it was due to new technology, yet the prices of CDs have never come down even though they are much cheaper to produce than cassettes.

[peteremcc @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

sure you can make newer songs cost more than old songs... just reduce the price of the old songs...


To bert, once you have downloaded the songs, burn them as mp3's or whatever to a cd (not as audio). You'll fit a few hundred files per disc and then you can use it as a back up.

Peter

[Bob Knobshiner @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

You Rock Steve!!!!!

[Galley @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

I refuse to pay for the iTunes Music Store's crappy 128Kbps files. I'd rather get a real CD for less money. http://www.yourmusic.com/ offers 14,000 CDs for $5.99 each with free shipping. YourMusic is a new service from the fine folks at BMG. I've been using them for six months. They will still send you one disc per month, but only discs that are in your "queue". At any time you can order unlimited CDs with free shipping. Double discs are $11.98; Boxed sets are priced at $5.99 per disc.

[waggss @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

If they want to charge more for newer tracks they should drop the price of older tracks to 79 cents. Keep the new ones at 99 and hey your golden more money for newer tracks.

[spinachdip @ Dec 19th 2005 12:19AM]

One thing to keep in mind is that Apple's share of the 99 cents on every single is, at best, minimal. Most of the 99 goes to royalties and costs of running iTunes. But he can afford the spandex tight margin because the more iTunes songs he sells, the more iPods he moves.

And *that* is why Jobs opposes any price increase. He's not going to benefit from a price increase since the difference will almost entirely go to the labels, and the inevitable drop in sales will in turn hurt iPod sales.

So Jobs is just as greedy as the labels, but at least he knows that overpricing is not the way to generate revenue.