Apple's iTunes pricing to stay at 99 cents

Apple Computer's Steve Jobs has apparently won his long-running battle with the record industry over the pricing of songs in the iTunes Music Store. Jobs has long insisted that the store's 99-cents-per-song price point should stay in place, while record companies had argued for more flexible pricing, with newer songs going for a higher price, and catalog material selling for less. The record companies had also pushed for a subscription option similar to that followed by most other online music stores. Now, according to The New York Post, the record companies have largely thrown in the towel, and will allow Apple to keep pricing flat. The victory is, however, somewhat Pyrrhic for Apple; the company makes very little money (proportionately) from iTMS, and uses the store largely as a way to lure customers into buying iPods and lock them into its FairPlay DRM, which we all know works only with one audio player. (Why do you think the French are giving them such a hard time?) Keeping pricing simple is part of Jobs' strategy to avoid losing customers to competing platforms, which have access to music stores that offer unlimited download subscription packages for as little as $8 per month. Level pricing may help stanch defections -- but it's not likely to produce any increased revenue for Apple, which is apparently just how they like it.

[Lars Groeger @ Apr 21st 2006 10:19AM]

Maybe the "We dont make money with this" attitude is essential for the Apple versus Beatles/Apple Process ????

[Thataboy @ Apr 21st 2006 10:22AM]

This is excellent news. The record companies may finally be understanding that Apple KNOWS what they are doing. Virtually no one is interested in non-Apple downloads or "Plays fer sher!" bollocks.

People have a choice. They can buy Zens and iRivers and Yepps and rip CDs into WMA and use Napster or Rhapsody or whatnot. Or they can go the iPod/iTunes route. Consumers have a choice. And most have chosen the latter.

Now, it is up to Apple to innovate and push iPod development a bit further. It'll be interesting to see where they take it next.

[Sean @ Apr 21st 2006 10:23AM]

Apple's stupid not to offer a subscription option. I know a lot of people would be upset if that was the only option, but it would be a nice alternative to the flat fee per song structure. I subscribe to Yahoo Music for currently $5/month (although that's about to go up when my renewal comes around) and I love it... well, I dont love the software, but I love the unlimited access. Apple is losing money from me because I dont like their pricing structure. If on the other hand they offered a subscription for $10/month, I would drop Yahoo in a snap. Oh well.. :P

[TomTheBomb @ Apr 21st 2006 10:26AM]

The problem with the subscription model is that you may only download two songs a month, and have to continue paying to keep those songs. With Apple's model, you download the song, and you can keep it forever.

I find that to be far more acceptable, even if it costs more in the end. I don't like to be locked into paying someone $10 a month so I can listen to my music. If I wanted to do that, I'd just get Sirius.

[jc @ Apr 21st 2006 10:31AM]

they may lock you into one audio player, i believe that fairplay is still the only drm that works on more than one operating system...no one ever mentions that for some reason.

[jen @ Apr 21st 2006 10:40AM]

hahahaha.
>> record companies had argued for more flexible pricing, with newer songs going for a higher price, and catalog material selling for less


exactly the opposite of the way CDs are priced!

[James @ Apr 21st 2006 10:46AM]

Yeah, I agree with the key point that #4 makes:

When I buy something, especially something with high replay value like music, I want to 'own' it as much as possible. A system which forces me to pay a regular subscription, for music I may have bought, say, 3 years ago, cannot be the way forward.

I'm not alone in this, as I believe the non-subscription model is one of the main reasons behind iTMS's success.

Besides, why do you think the record companies are so keen on a sub model (ie: who wants to make the most money)?

[Sean @ Apr 21st 2006 10:54AM]

Tom - exactly why I said it should be an option. :) Some people just aren't cool with the concept of "renting" music, that's fine... but seriously, once you try it out, it's hard to imagine going back to purchasing individual songs. Yes, you must keep paying to be able to play your songs, however, the fact that at any point you can go and stream any album or one of over a million songs without having to fork over more money, is very rewarding. I have discovered many new artists via Yahoo because of the subscription model, that I would never have discovered with iTunes - I wouldn't have paid to download music that I didn't know if I would like or not, ya know? I just think it's an option they should offer. Like I said, there are some people out there that it is very appealing to, such as myself.

[Eric @ Apr 21st 2006 10:57AM]

I think that Apple needs to wake up! Services such as Napster and Rhapsody offer far more for the money. I can pay about $14.95 per month and download as many songs as I wish to my computer and my iRiver. If I decide that I want to keep them forever or for burning to a disc, it only costs me less than 90 cents per song. Cheaper than iTunes, more flexible (by far), and I am not "locked" into Apple's marketing strategy like the rest of you! Don't own an iPod and never will!

[Daniel Clausen @ Apr 21st 2006 10:59AM]

This appears to be the whole Mac vs. IBM PC thing all over again and I predict the outcome will be much the same. Apple's proprietary ways are not going to loose again in the end.

[Subscription Hater @ Apr 21st 2006 11:04AM]

I find it fascinating that the author of this entry thinks Apple's only reason to offer fixed pricing is to keep people locked into their DRM. While that is unarguably a goal of that process, the real issue is ownership versus rental.

NEWS FLASH: You don't own your music with subscription based services!

That's right. Stop paying and you stop playing. So ask yourself, is $8 per month for the rest of your life better than 99 cents per song once?

Don't get me wrong-- If I could own my music in a subscription service I would consider it, but I'm not keen on a company dictating the price I must pay to continue listening to "my" music. One could argue that the price of buying new iPods *might* outweigh this argument ... and those people would have a good point. But at the end of the day I still own my music and I can still burn it to a CD as Audio or Data.

[Eric @ Apr 21st 2006 11:07AM]

Yeah, the music lables know what's the right thing to do. So they argue that we thieves, er, customers want subscriptions, and paying higher prices for new stuff.

Of course, there's a tiny little factor that proves the subscription model and price increases are good...

...Apple's market share continues to increase, not decrease, in online music downloads.

[invaderluj @ Apr 21st 2006 11:12AM]

Since i can get virtually every cd i want from my local cd store for less then 10$ each, i get to own the music for less then itunes (not many cds have less than 10 songs) or subscription services can offer.

[Synergy @ Apr 21st 2006 11:24AM]

This happened because NY Attorney General was looking at the music industry for online music price fixing.
Apple can price fix but the music industry cannot Apple and others what price to charge accross the board which is what they wanted to do with tiered music pricing.

[Apple Hater @ Apr 21st 2006 11:27AM]

Refuse to buy DRM'd music.

The big record companies only want to sell you music online if they can control what you do with it via Digital Rights Management. In principal, I don't have any problem with them using technology to prevent piracy, but DRM takes away significant rights and choices from consumers and should, in my opinion, be boycotted. There is no one standard format for DRM'd music. The iTunes store will sell you AAC files wrapped in a proprietary FairPlay DRM wrapper. While AAC is a standard format supported by a semi-reasonable number of players, the FairPlay DRM wrapper around it is owned by Apple. Except for HP who are making iPod players to meet demand, Apple have refused to licence FairPlay to anyone, whether they want to sell DRM'd music compatible with iPods or make competing music players which can play music bought from iTunes. Pretty much the only other popular DRM'd music format is WMA. Many more online stores and music players support DRM'd WMA files, but not all of them do...

Do you really want to pay money for some music that starts making choices for you about which hardware and software you play it back on in the future? What if you buy a DRM'd WMA album today and next month a kickass new iPod comes out that can't play it? Do you skip the iPod, or buy a second copy of the album? If you buy music from the iTunes store you'd better be really, really sure that for the rest of your life you're only going to buy Apple music players because it looks likely right now that nothing else will play them, HP's version of the iPod aside.

[Jack B. @ Apr 21st 2006 11:28AM]

Did album prices always vary though? For some reason, I remember that all the album I saw were $9.99. Now prices, for albums, are all over the place.

[K @ Apr 21st 2006 11:40AM]

Unlimited downloads of sh*t music is still sh*t. iTunes is the only store/service that offers a comprehensive selection and functional interface. No one else is even close.

What's the big deal with DRM? I think it's completely fair; I pay $9.99 for an album I can use on 5 computers. Easy to download; good quality audio.

The "flexibility" to use an other crap MP3 player with another crap service is overrated.

[Hawthorne @ Apr 21st 2006 11:45AM]

2 things:

1- An option for subscription would be nice, especially if I were given, say, a 10% discount on buying the track from iTunes if it was on my subscription playlist. I like the idea of downloading music I'm half-interested in to see if I like it, then being able to buy it to own it/burn it/rip it etc.

2- The RIAA wanted "newer songs going for a higher price, and catalog material selling for less".

Uh-huh. Anyone want to bet that right after they did that, 99% of their catalogues would become "newer material" and the only thing you'd be able to find for less than 99 cents would be "William Shatner sings Yanni's Greatest Hits" or the like?

Good for Apple. Someone needs to smack some sense into the RIAA.

[Count Chocula @ Apr 21st 2006 11:47AM]

Pay for music? Are you serious?
Never

[slim @ Apr 21st 2006 11:50AM]

That would be like paying for porn. LOL

[Jico @ Apr 21st 2006 11:58AM]

NEWS FLASH #9:

Subscription services such as Rhapsody and Yahoo DO let you own music, and for less than 99 cents/song.
(Rhapsody is 89 cents, and yahoo is even cheaper at 79 cents, provided you are a subscriber. Both services charge 99 cents per song to non-subscribers)

But the real advantage to subscription services is the freedom to find new music. Like #8, I just couldn't imagine going back to buying albums before I get to hear them.

Surely I'm not the only one who's bought piles of cds at $10-$20 and never lisened to them again. Taste changes as you explore genres. For me, and for plenty of others, $10(or even $15-$20)per month is a small price to pay to scratch every musical itch.

Those hell-bent on 'ownership' have their option too. I can't help but think that they don't know what they're missing.

[Jico @ Apr 21st 2006 12:03PM]

#14, you don't know what you're talking about.

Check out Rhapsody's selection, Virgin Digital Red Pass (they had 2 million tracks before iTunes did), or Yahoo's.

They're all comparable.

[Thill @ Apr 21st 2006 12:04PM]

#12, I understand your hatred of DRM, but in the case of Apple/iTunes, you can burn the music you have purchased off iTunes as either an audio CD or MP3 audio CD. You can also import audio and MP3 format music into iTunes.

Contrary to what you just wrote, you do have a future with your music if you buy it via iTunes. I personally own both WMA and an iPod player and have had no problem moving music around.

iTunes really is not as inflexible as most people make it out to be. You just need to educate yourselves on how to use it. Personally I am really glad to see that all songs are staying at 99 cents. I just don't see the point in spending $10-15 for a whole CD if it only has 1-4 good songs on it. This is why the record companies are pissed. I own countless CD's that have 1-3 good songs on them and the rest are "fillers". So in reality, I paid $10-15 for a CD to listen to a few songs. At least now I feel I pay for what I want...

[mediaking @ Apr 21st 2006 12:06PM]

Long live allofmp3.com

[BK @ Apr 21st 2006 12:14PM]

"11. Since i can get virtually every cd i want from my local cd store for less then 10$ each, i get to own the music for less then itunes (not many cds have less than 10 songs) or subscription services can offer."

Yea, but how many of those CDs do you listen to from beginning to the end. If you only wanted to listen to 5 songs from the album, wouldn't it be cheaper to get it from ITms?

[blin @ Apr 21st 2006 12:18PM]

I used the Yahoo subscription as part of a 7 day trial. And while I ended up canceling (I was actually able to continue playing the songs I downloaded for 1 more month, not sure if that was glitch or not) it is a very good idea.

The nice thing was it was encoded at 192KB/s so you could actually encode again it (and remove the DRM) and still have pretty good quality music.

There are really two sides to the argument against subscription music. Sure, once you stop paying, you can't listen to the music you like. But also remember that with the $1/song model once you are sick of a song, you still have spent that $1 on it and you can't get your money back.

Lets say you had the subscription thing for a year (that would cost $5/month, or a total of $60). You downloaded and listen to thousands of songs. Some ones you really liked, others were ok, and still others were horrible. Now that your year is up, you decide that you don't want your subscription anymore, so you don't go on for another year. Now lets say that you have about 700 songs that you liked and that you want to keep. So while your subscription is still good, you just buy those songs for 80 cents each and you can keep them forever (with similar restrictions as iTunes).
Your total cost = $60 + (.8*$700) = $620

So not only in the end do you save money (if you actually buy a bunch of songs, the number of songs you need to buy a year to make the Yahoo subscription cheaper is 300) but you also get to keep the songs you like the most and don't end up buying crappy songs. And on top of all that, the subscription model encourages you to try new stuff. So at the end of it all, you have have a wider range of music that you really like for less than you would pay otherwise.

The yahoo music software isn't great, but that isn't the point. The point is that subscription does work and save money for many people.

While obviously subscription isn't for everyone, it should certainly be an option. And don't say it is a stupid idea without trying it out first (yahoo still has 7 day trial, so all you iTunes people out there could try it out tons of music for free for 7 days and then buy it at iTunes if you wanted).

So that's all I have to say.

[Pablo @ Apr 21st 2006 12:20PM]

#20---that argument is weak. Burning a compressed audio file to a CD then recompressing does not fly for may people (esp. when iTMS files are arugably low quality).

If Fairplay DRM files could be natively played on other DAPs, this would be a non-issue. But I guess people don't care since we are talking about do-no-wrong APPL.

[Cheese @ Apr 21st 2006 12:25PM]

21: I couldn't agree more... allofmp3 is so perfect - great prices, great quality, lots of formats and is semi-legal. Thats good enough for me. I don't to give a lot of money for this infected DRM shit. Music is reaaally overpriced.

[Scott @ Apr 21st 2006 12:27PM]

>"but it's not likely to produce any increased revenue for Apple, which is apparently just how they like it."

If the record company changed the prices of the songs, it's doubtful that apple would get a larger cut of the song. Most likely the only group getting more money out of the higher prices would be the record company.

Apple is smart in keeping the prices flat, keeping their share and keeping clients.

[crescentdave @ Apr 21st 2006 12:30PM]

I'm happy that Apple's not bowing to pressure from the music companies ... these dinosaurs just don't want to evolve.

FYI, Yahoo music offers a blend of subscription music to go as well as downloadable music to buy. Just because you subscribe to music doesn't mean you can't purchase music. Of course- under the subscription model you pay .79 per song. You can also burn to MP3 as well as WMA.

I think there's room for more than one kind of listener. Just as people rent movies, as opposed to buying them, others rent music. I have so many monthly services, the "music-to-go" option is just one more. For a pittance I have access to thousands upon thousands of artists and their songs.

I've heard more music (and different kinds of music) in the last couple years than I've ever heard. Absolute keepers are downloaded. If you've seen most people's music collections spanning more than a decade or so, you'll see the reason why I don't insist on burning everything :).

Choice. It's a good thing.

[Thill @ Apr 21st 2006 12:59PM]

I think it is so funny that so many Apple iPod hating zealots take the time to bitch and moan about iTunes/iPod everytime Engadget posts an iPod related article.

Honestly, there are alternatives out there, it is not like you are living in a alter communistic music playing society where iPod and iTunes are your only choice.

We get it. You hate iTunes and iPod (even though you have probably never used one, although I bet all of you secretly wish you owned one). Great. So why do you care? If you have your wonderful little Rio WMA player and love to listen to your music from Yahoo/MTV/whatever, why in the world are you guys so obsessed with iPods? Hmmm.. I think it all goes back to your secret desires.. Yepp. You paid anywhere from $100-400 for your crappy little WMA player and are frustrated as hell that you cannot use iTunes directly.. So you take your frustrations out on the message boards here at Engadget..

Here is my advice. Go buy a used iPod, or maybe a cheap iPod shuffle so you can finally make your wildest dreams come true......

[jared @ Apr 21st 2006 1:13PM]

Steve: $0.99 is ol korrect!

RIAA: Let the market decide!

Avg Listener: Why am I paying at all?

DJ: iTunes doesn't offer uncompressed files (at any price), and generally doesn't carry the music I want to buy. Neither do the subscription services. Maybe I should go to beatport.com and get uncompressed tracks, including public performance royalty, for less than half the cost of import vinyl.

[Dan @ Apr 21st 2006 1:13PM]

The market's already spoken on this one. People want simplicity, not necessarily variety. An elaborate subscription/rent-to-own model is only going to confuse most people. Do I own this song now? Can I transfer this song to my new WMA DAP? What exactly does 'PlaysForSure' mean? I understand most of the people reading here can handle these concepts, but most ordinary people would really rather not think about all that garbage. One song. One dollar. Ownership in perpetuity. Steve Jobs understand the importance of KISS, that's why he's been fighting so hard to keep it at 0.99, even tho it's probably losing him money at that point.

[I.P.Freely @ Apr 21st 2006 1:21PM]

#24 "that argument is weak. Burning a compressed audio file to a CD then recompressing does not fly for may people (esp. when iTMS files are arugably low quality)."

Errmm... that's your opinion, you can't tell the difference once something has been digitized. You're splitting hair at this point
If you burn Fairplay songs to CD and re-rip that CD, why would you care about quality at this point? But it's YOUR SONG so you can do whatever you want to do with it.

"If Fairplay DRM files could be natively played on other DAPs, this would be a non-issue...."

Why should Apple do this? They are not obligated to help their competitor.

"...But I guess people don't care since we are talking about do-no-wrong APPL."

Well if you mean Apple offering the best DAP as being "do-no-wrong APPL"
But hey you do what you want and do not use iTMS. Apple isn't forcing you to do anything. You happy with your crappy DAP then mind your own business and keep your 2 cent to yourself.

[portorikan @ Apr 21st 2006 1:32PM]

For the complainers about Fairplay, there's this.

http://fairtunes.cjb.net/

I've never had a problem with it, sharing it with five other computers, or burning to a CD. The only time I ran into a problem was trying to create a ringtone with a bought song. Not an issue really.

I think there's another application that does something like this on other systems as well.

[Motlicious @ Apr 21st 2006 1:40PM]

Frequent user of Yahoo!'s music subscription service, but would switch in a second to itunes if it offered a subscription service. I love being able to find new music, or if I hear something on a commercial, find it and play it and other songs from the artist. If I want to own it, I will purchase the CD or buy the song. I don't know why people think they are exclusive. Problem with Yahoo! is that it tends to have period glitches which are annoying, and I own an ipod. Really wish Apple would offer this.

[o rly @ Apr 21st 2006 1:46PM]

Both sides (those for iTMS and those for subscription based services) seem to lack information about the "opposite" side, and that ignorance shows.


Both have their major benefits, one being able to play a song a few years later without having to pay the monthly fee (although based on the popular type of music sold, I doubt people will be listening to "My Humps" or "Hollaback Girl" a few years from now); the other being able to download as much as you want and being able to sample albums or singles from artists you probably wouldn't have heard of or tried out had it not been for the "unlimited" access, with the option to purchase in some cases (but once again, the "My Humps" reference comes to mind.)


One thing both sides have in common is this: Neither side owns the music. DRM makes sure of that, as does the record labels which more or less determine what happens with the music you "purchase." Until you can do whatever you want with the track, you don't own it, it's that simple so neither side should try to use that as some sort of benefit, as it truly doesn't exist.


@ 14 / K: "Unlimited downloads of sh*t music is still sh*t."
Well, seeing as the libraries are similar between all services (last I checked, most of the songs on iTMS weren't exclusives), that means iTunes has shit music as well, so you're basically paying 99 cents for a piece of shit, and multiple times over.


@ 28 / Thill: "We get it. You hate iTunes and iPod (even though you have probably never used one, although I bet all of you secretly wish you owned one). Great. So why do you care? If you have your wonderful little Rio WMA player and love to listen to your music from Yahoo/MTV/whatever, why in the world are you guys so obsessed with iPods? Hmmm.. I think it all goes back to your secret desires.. Yepp. You paid anywhere from $100-400 for your crappy little WMA player and are frustrated as hell that you cannot use iTunes directly.. So you take your frustrations out on the message boards here at Engadget..

Here is my advice. Go buy a used iPod, or maybe a cheap iPod shuffle so you can finally make your wildest dreams come true......"

No Thill, you don't get it. Not everyone wants an iPod, similar to not everyone wanting a Rio. Just because some people here prefer Rhapsody, Yahoo Music et al to iTMS, doesn't mean they "secretly wish" they had it or are "frustrated as hell that you cannot use iTunes directly."

Here is my advice, rescind the iPod fanboyism a little and see that
1) dislike of (or preference to something other than) Apple/iTMS/iPod != "secret desires" for Apple related products
and 2) dislike of (or preference to something other than) Apple/iTMS/iPod != love for Microsoft/WMA/Rhapsody/Yahoo/or any other company or format.

@ 31 / I.P.Freely : "Errmm... that's your opinion, you can't tell the difference once something has been digitized. You're splitting hair at this point
If you burn Fairplay songs to CD and re-rip that CD, why would you care about quality at this point? But it's YOUR SONG so you can do whatever you want to do with it."

If you can't tell the difference between a digitized 64kbps file and a 320kbps file, you need to upgrade your stock earbuds. If you can't tell the difference between transcoded (and subsequently re-encoded) files as iTMS, rhapsody, yahoo, & other services use a lossy file format (aac, wma, mp3), then maybe you should get your hearing checked (or "educated" as some circles say) or upgrade the stock ear buds...or wallow in the lower quality that you've become accustomed to.
...and once again, it's not your song; never was, never will be.

[idude135 @ Apr 21st 2006 1:46PM]

Has anyone tried Mp3Spy.ru?

They have albums for download for 80 cents! I just tried it and it seems pretty good(their songs are encoded w. LAME @ 192 kbps). I mean if you simply need to have imports, and cannot wait for BitTorrent or LimeWire, this is a pretty good store.

[Willis @ Apr 21st 2006 1:48PM]

#28... I see it the other way around. I'm sitting here looking at all of these iPod/iTunes fanboys complaining about all of the other choices out there (like subscription price plans) and I'm thinking (like post #18) that they don't know what they're missing. I think iPods are pretty cool. I'd never buy one though because I don't want to pay $1 a song to listen to music. Instead, I bought a little 1GB player for $100 that I love. I pay a little bit each month and listen to all the music I want. I DON'T WANT to own it. I just want to listen to my choice of the 2 million songs out there whenever I want. If iTunes offered that, I might actually consider an iPod. For now though, I'm laughing at everyone who went out and bought an iPod because they were trendy. You're trapped in a single way of owning music that will only work on one brand of music player... for the rest of your life. If someone outside of Apple comes up with a pricing plan you might like better (subscription)... well, too bad... the service you bought your music on doesn't do that. And one day if (when) someone puts more advanced features on a music player that isn't from Apple... well, sorry but it doesn't work with all that music you've bought.

I don't write out of anger or hatred for you iPod owners. It's more of pity for you than anything else.

[Thill @ Apr 21st 2006 1:55PM]

orly
"No Thill, you don't get it. Not everyone wants an iPod, similar to not everyone wanting a Rio. Just because some people here prefer Rhapsody, Yahoo Music et al to iTMS, doesn't mean they "secretly wish" they had it or are "frustrated as hell that you cannot use iTunes directly.""

Then why the hell do you always have to chime in when there is an iPod article on this site??? If you are so happy with whatever crappy player you have then why are you so obsessed with hating the iPod so much?

I really do not care which friggin player you own or how great you think Napster/Yahoo/whatever is. Great. Use it and be happy. I honestly could care less if Apple had 1 million or 100 million iPod users out there, I did not buy the player for its popularity, I bought it for its simplicity, ease of use, and functionality. I own several differnt players and have found the iPod to be the player that offered the best overall experience.. Looks like I am not the only one...

[tommyboy @ Apr 21st 2006 2:11PM]

@34
Here is my advice, rescind the iPod fanboyism a little and see that
"1) dislike of (or preference to something other than) Apple/iTMS/iPod != "secret desires" for Apple related products
and 2) dislike of (or preference to something other than) Apple/iTMS/iPod != love for Microsoft/WMA/Rhapsody/Yahoo/or any other company or format."

Mind sharing with the group what MP3 player you use and how you put music on it (music service, CD's, etc)?

[Thill @ Apr 21st 2006 2:33PM]

#35 o rly,

Hey, I actually do agree with you on the stock earbud upgrade point :) Personally, I have been using Sennheiser MX500 earbuds on the various MP3 players that I own (huge difference in sound quality) and was given some Bose Quietcomfort noise cancelling headphones as a gift (normally, I am not much of a Bose fan, but am impressed with these headphones, especially when traveling on airplanes).

[I.P.Freely @ Apr 21st 2006 2:37PM]

"If you can't tell the difference between a digitized 64kbps file and a 320kbps file..."
WRONG! I wasn't talking about 64kbps vs 320 kbps. I was talking about 128kbps iTunes Music being burned to CD then re-ripping that and then worrying about quality. . if your concern is quality of sound, don't buy any downloaded songs to begin with.

..."you need to upgrade your stock earbuds."
WRONG AGAIN... Etymotic ER6

"If you can't tell the difference between transcoded (and subsequently re-encoded) files as iTMS, rhapsody, yahoo, & other services use a lossy file format (aac, wma, mp3), then maybe you should get your hearing checked (or "educated" as some circles say) or upgrade the stock ear buds...or wallow in the lower quality that you've become accustomed to."

Again Mr. Peabody... WRONG... Can you stop making assumptions??? you are making ass out of yourself. If you have already settle on download service, then you get what you pay for. I make that choice on my own, but for the CD's I own, I usually use Apple Lossless to encode... so Mr. Know-It-All STFU. No one needs your help , so stop trying to sound like you know anything.

"...and once again, it's not your song; never was, never will be."
Yes it is. you can do what you want with it. I have the ITMS songs, guess what, I can burn a CD or re-rip it. But since I wasn't starting out with Filet Mignon, I'm not going to complain when I get White Castle out of the deal.

[Ben Hobbs @ Apr 21st 2006 2:39PM]

How do Apple make very little money form iTunes, Its direct revenue - theres no shipping charge, retailing mark-up etc.... I would guess that even if the average iPod user downloads 50 songs that Apple would make more money from the songs than the hardware.

Lets not be silly here, It still = $15 or so for an album, which is exactly what a CD costs to buy, yet theres no shipping cost, packaging, retail or distribution margin etc... They and the music bods are raking it in and they have to do almost nothing for the money, ermm take the digital recording and put it on a server.

If Microsoft started offering downloads of Windows XP at current RRP would you believe them if they told you they made no money from it, cmon downloaded software runs at around 30-40% of the cost of a hard copy, why shouldnt music - 33c a track sounds mor elike it, I don't see any major artists pleading poverty - they are all driving around in gold plated Bentleys.

[Thill @ Apr 21st 2006 3:03PM]

#41 Apple makes approximately 34 cents on a 99 cent song. The rest goes to the record company (approx 55 cents) and the artist (10 cents). When you factor in the fact that Apple develops the software and content, it means they (Apple) are making very little money off that 99 cent download. They make their money strictly on iPod sales (and it is alot of money).

The record companies make out like bandits, again...

[Jeff @ Apr 21st 2006 3:09PM]

"How do Apple make very little money form iTunes, Its direct revenue - theres no shipping charge, retailing mark-up etc...."

Because the wholesale price of the tracks they sell is around 80 cents. Their "profit" is about 19 cents per track, and that mostly goes to stuff like, you know, paying their employees. So it's not really profit at all. It's called "overhead". iTunes software development and the iTunes music store don't run themselves. (You seem to be similarly in the dark about what it actually takes to create and maintain a piece of software like iTunes, and create and maintain all the artist and album pages on a "site" like the iTunes music store.)

"If Microsoft started offering downloads of Windows XP at current RRP would you believe them if they told you they made no money from it"

If it's in their quarterly or annual SEC filings, then yes. Because if you lie on one of those, you go to jail.

Apple makes very little money on iTunes; that's a fact and you can look it up. They are a publicly traded company that is bound by SEC rules and laws and answerable to their shareholders. All of this stuff is publicly available knowledge.

Now "very little money" is a relative term, obviously, but we're not talking billions or hundreds of millions of dollars in profit here. Last I saw, they were making around $4 million per year from iTunes sales. (That may have changed by now; I think it was about six months ago the last I checked.)

As for the rest of this thread, I'm not even going to get into the relative merits of buying vs. renting music, except to say that it should be obvious by now which model the market prefers.

[Galley @ Apr 21st 2006 3:09PM]

Why should I pay $9.99 for crummy 128Kbps files, when I can choose from 15,000 CDs shipped free for $5.99 each from www.YourMusic.com?

[oshean @ Apr 21st 2006 3:11PM]

#4 TomTheBomb writes:
"With Apple's model, you download the song, and you can keep it forever."

Yeah, and you have to continue using iTunes and buying iPods forever!!!

Sucker!

[Bren @ Apr 21st 2006 3:13PM]

I like iTunes.

[o rly @ Apr 21st 2006 3:14PM]

@ 36 / Thill : "Then why the hell do you always have to chime in when there is an iPod article on this site??? If you are so happy with whatever crappy player you have then why are you so obsessed with hating the iPod so much?

I really do not care which friggin player you own or how great you think Napster/Yahoo/whatever is. Great. Use it and be happy. I honestly could care less if Apple had 1 million or 100 million iPod users out there, I did not buy the player for its popularity, I bought it for its simplicity, ease of use, and functionality. I own several differnt players and have found the iPod to be the player that offered the best overall experience.. Looks like I am not the only one..."

More vacuous accusations courtesy of Thill.

Do I always "chime in" every iPod article on Engadget?
If you're so happy with your wonderful iPod, why bother commenting on (what you consider) "crappy" players (which you also claim to own)? Is there an obsession with what everyone else *doesn't* have or *doesn't* use, or in your opinion "secretly desires to own?"

If you don't care, why bother with your post in the first place? Post 29, made by you Thill, was all about what other people use (or don't use), yet you claim not to care. Honestly enough, I wouldn't even have addressed you had it not been for post 29 (as you noticed I didn't address post 21, as the theme in that post is completely different to post 29.)


@ 37 / tommyboy : "Mind sharing with the group what MP3 player you use and how you put music on it (music service, CD's, etc)?"
According to Thill I use a Microsoft MP3-WMA player with Microsoft's subscription/rental/download service, and the reasoning behind this is because I may or may not own an iPod which I may or may not use with iTMS.


@ 40 / I.P.Freely : "WRONG! I wasn't talking about 64kbps vs 320 kbps. I was talking about 128kbps iTunes Music being burned to CD then re-ripping that and then worrying about quality. . if your concern is quality of sound, don't buy any downloaded songs to begin with.

WRONG AGAIN... Etymotic ER6
Again Mr. Peabody... WRONG... Can you stop making assumptions??? you are making ass out of yourself. If you have already settle on download service, then you get what you pay for. I make that choice on my own, but for the CD's I own, I usually use Apple Lossless to encode... so Mr. Know-It-All STFU. No one needs your help , so stop trying to sound like you know anything.

"...and once again, it's not your song; never was, never will be."
Yes it is. you can do what you want with it. I have the ITMS songs, guess what, I can burn a CD or re-rip it. But since I wasn't starting out with Filet Mignon, I'm not going to complain when I get White Castle out of the deal.

Sorry, but if you own Ety's (even the lower end ones) and you are comfortable with 128kbit aac (a LOSSY format) and decoding it to CDDA, then re-encoding it to MP3 (or any other LOSSY format), you've pretty much embarrassed yourself, and lost any credibility you could've had regarding audio quality; then again, you did say "you can't tell the difference once something has been digitized." Maybe you should go back to stock earbuds, as you seemed to have wasted your money on Ety's (since 128kbps aac -> cdda/wav -> mp3 makes no difference to you, nor does 128kbps aac in general (your beloved White Castle which you probably do mistake for filet mignon.))
...and no, you still don't own the music; you might want to look up how the record companies work in regards to "owning" music and your "rights," hint, it's similar to the movie studios and software companies.
Post again I.P.Freely, as you'll do most of the work for me, don't forget to contradict yourself by mentioning Apple Lossless.