Sounds like Apple's Next Big Thing isn't too big at all: lower prices for full albums on
iTunes. Introduced with a minor manifesto discussing the powerful influence of indie music on the mainstream, it's pretty clear that Cupertino's finally ready to lower the barrier of entry not only for consumers, but musicians and indie labels looking to sell music on the iTMS. $5.99 and $6.99 will now get you some tasty tracks by the likes of Peter, Bjorn, & John and LCD Soundsystem -- some are even
iTunes Plus (read: DRM-free). Take note: want a great way to keep your music business popular and relevant? Offer more music for less money. Hat tip, Apple.
[Via William]
Read - iTunes store link to "Next Big Thing" reduced-price albums
posted Jul 6th 2007 12:13AM
Progress. Screw you Universal, your days are over.
Hear hear!
right after i buy an album nonetheless. Good to hear a price drop anywhere these days.
first post
Hat tip my ass. The record companies have been begging Apple to do this for quite some time. Next Apple comes across the groundbreaking idea of... a subscription music service!!!
See, this is the kind of misinformed commenting that pisses me off when it comes to the below average engadget poster.
I'd like for you to show me an article where the record companies were pressuring Apple to lower their prices. You know what? I'll save you the trouble. Check out this (http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9716781-7.html)C-Net article that discusses the barganing Apple does with record labels concerning the prices on iTunes. One quote that really stands out is: "For years, record companies have been trying to get Apple CEO Steve Jobs to raise the price of individual songs sold through the iTunes Store, but Jobs has stuck fast to the 99-cent fee, The Associated Press reports. Last month, however, that stance changed with plans to make versions of songs from EMI's artists available for $1.29".
So, as you can see, Apple deserves a tip of the hat for not only defending their customer's wishes not to be price gouged by the record labels, but for offering music at a cheaper price for Indie labels to push more units for their bands.
Next time, know about the subject before you spew your anti-Apple bile.
Oh, and subscription services? I don't like to RENT cds from my record store, so why would i rent music from my online store?
John, this is the stupidest piece of mis-information I've seen in a while. I'm SURE that the Big Three were knocking down Steve's door to pass on savings to the customer and lower their profit margins. Apple has also made it clear (and I agree with their reasoning) that a subscription-based model is nowhere in their future. If I didn't want to own music I'd listen to the radio...
Just because you two above me don't value the utility of a music subscription service, does not make it useless for others. There are two fundamental differences between radio and a subscription service, namely choice. Many want access to tens of thousands of songs (including most new releases) but don't have the financial means to purchase thousands of albums. Most however, have the financial means to pay 10 bucks a month. A subscription service is a perfect solution for the non-rich enthusiast
Why would adding a subscription service to iTunes be a bad thing for customers? No one would be forced to use it and songs could still be purchased.
great idea for apple. some decent stuff in there too really with hopefully much more to come!
"want a great way to keep your music business popular and relevant? Offer more music for less money."
want to actually stay in business as a musician and be able to make enough to support your carrier? offer music at prices that keep you making the music and dont drive the standard lower and lower for other musicians out there... a sale is one thing and is nice from time to time but its a tough enough life as a musician without having to give away your music for nothing just to sell it. is 10 bucks really that unreasonable for an album?
how much of that $10 does the artist really see though if they were represented by the music label?
even less when the albums drop to barging bin prices. totally depends on the label. smaller labels often have a much higher payout to the musicians, even the bigger indies.
in the end there may be no real win win solution but being a musician, id just hate to see music end up being so worthless.
Well, since that music is sold in a market, and people are only willing to pay $10 or less for an album, then, so be it. If that's not for you, then don't be a musician for a career and find a job that pays you more.
man..... think about it. (ESPECIALLY when we are talking about Digital distribution)
If your music is "OK" and your album is $9.99, I might say "Meh....I'll pass" but if it's $5.99 I'd probably pick it up.
Its that age old formula... Would you rather try to sell 1 item for $100.00? or ten of the same item for $10 each?
How many Nintendo Wii's are selling for every PS3? How many PS3's do you think they'd sell if they lowered the price to match the wii? (Again.. with the music there are no losses for every unit sold like there are on the PS3)
again, its just sad to see i guess but things change and its clear that there is no way to please everyone in this digital world. if its not drm then its the "lossless" formats which is even debatable if you think about it. id like to see 32bit uncompressed audio files start being sold... would this please people crying for lossless audio? and would paying 5 dollars for an album with a lower quality encoding be worth it or would there still be the people looking for sometime to moan about.
its all relative when it comes down to it, where some people are not willing to spend much to buy music, other people think its worth more to support things they love. i guess im just trying to imagine a scenario where everyone would be happy.
yes, you may sell more at a lower price but what low is low enough? if itunes cut their pricing in half in a year wold people be wanting it cheeper still? where is the line ever drawn?
an to the defensive bunch that seem to pop up and jump all over posts like this. im not saying ive got an answer, who does? maybe 6 dollar albums are the wave of the future, the hell if i know.
and to the odd commenter with the tired argument, if your not making enough money as a musician get a higher paying job.. i do have a higher paying job. but without new musicians to innovate in music then where will it end up? without the ones crazy enough to tough it out where would we be? (no, im not saying im a brilliant musician, and no im not trying to start another endless argument...)
True artists create art for the sake of creating. Making a *job* out of is and never has been a necessity.
I'm tired of hearing about the money. Do it or don't. Price will never be constant. Half the people who crab about price don't listen to much music outside of the hour a day they are stuck in the car anyways. Price will always be a factor.
If you want to make money as an artist you tour! Because you make the money touring the producer gets the small cut. Then guess what?? More people buy your music. Everyone in the music industry knows the only way to make bank in music is to tour. Take for instance Michel Buble. He will make say 500k-750k for his album going platinum or higher.. but he makes 80k-100k for every concert he preforms. You wonder why artist are coming out with albums in longer intervals than older artists. Well probably because they are making millions preforming live, which will only make their next album sell more copies and in return they make more for preforming the next concert.
The Tours make them the money.
yes, touring is where you make money, its true and its why many smaller artists live on the road. cd sales do make up for the income in the downtime though and allow them to continue to make more.
Don't worry about musicians making money or not off of media sales. Only the record companies make real money off of record sales. All the musicians meaningful revenue comes from touring. When you sell out a 10,000 seat venue at no less than $70 a ticket, multiple times a week, you are doing quite well. I know it must be such hard work to perform 4 or 5 times a weeks for a few hours for your money. Oh, and don't forget the hot and cold running chicks.
Why worry about the musicians, they agreed to sell their music at that price or were paid in advance. They made their bargain why should I as the consumer worry about them anymore once I pay for the music.
I am tired of hearing about the artists.
I pay $0.00 per song and $0.00 per Album over at LIMEWIRE.com.
I payed Realplayer, $1, ONCE for a song from Massive Attack's album "Danny The Dog".
Made me sick to my fckin stomach.
piracy ftw!
i still buy a cd once in a while,1-2 every like 6 months lol, when its worth it.
You sir, are a thief!
That's fine and dandy if you like shitty music and/or popular hits. It's pretty hard to find anything worth paying for on limewire.
i hope this causes regular cd prices to stay under 10 bucks because i still ain't paying for mp3s.
the sales of CD's is business. business has nothing to do with artists. how many physical copies or digital[itunes/napster/etc] copies you sell of an album does generate money for the artist but not nearly as much as they need. if they are lucky enough to break even as far as covering the cost of producing, recording, promoting, and paying radio stations to play their single[oops?], than they make their profit. lowering the prices on albums on itunes is a way to increase sales, which puts money in the hands of the record company. i could see in a few years a company never releasing a hard copy of an album for a cd, although cds are extremely cheap to reproduce now a days, if as a company you can eliminate your overhead and sell all your albums on itunes for 6.99 and sell 500k - 1 million, why pay extra to produce a CD to only sell 200k or less, etc...
While getting some albums for cheaper than 9.99 is cool...what this really means is that Apple is getting ready to go towards variable pricing...and that could mean HIGHER prices for newer, established acts..which of course is what the record companies really want.
its true, there are a ton of over paid, under talented artists out there, i just hope you guys are not refusing to help out the smaller musicians out there actually trying to push music forward. its one thing if you want to listen to cheesy top 40 pop and big label artists and want to rebel and all that but do you actually like ANY of the musicians you just insulted? why even listen?
I never understood that adage.
Please, take me to this magical place where I can get free milk.
Sad to see you trumpet around saying how wonderful it is to steal art. I don't care if you steal top 40 stuff, because they're just as bad as overpaid actors and athletes, but plenty of musicians out there make very little money from labels.
There is so much music these days that it's very hard to keep up, but a lot of that music is good stuff. Unfortunately it gets lost in the sea of albums, crap or not. Get a job and support the artists that struggle to bring you great entertainment, or stop listening to music. I don't think you'd steal a Picasso, so why would you steal music? Cheers to Apple for these prices, I saw 2 albums I've been hesitating buying, and will now.
Standard CD prices are why musicians get upset about lower prices, but the costs to produce the CD, album art, marketing, etc. is much more than online distribution. These prices will just make people more informed about great groups like LCD Soundsystem, and online sales will skyrocket for them. Only took one page with a graphic and some copy to do the job.
seriously, i'm tired of hearing about how "overpaid" and "undertalented" big label artists are... just because you get rewarded more than others for making the top 40 (quite likely due to the fact that the general majority of music listeners ENJOYS your music) does not mean you're overpaid or any of that other garbage people who aren't fans spit constantly.
i mean, there are some pretty good major label artists out there, regardless of your opinions. "to each his own" and all that jazz. don't believe me? take a listen to T.I., Cartel, Linkin Park, Alicia Keys, Sean Paul, Rupee, Stevie Wonder, Kanye West and Macy Gray. but then again, those are just some of the people I find good... who'da thought someone could EVER find artists of his own tastes good, right?
"seriously, i'm tired of hearing about how "overpaid" and "undertalented" big label artists are... "
this is true, there are plenty of artists that did make it into the spotlight and manage to work their way to the top and a lot of them got there because, yes, they are great musicians and the people who produced the albums are often the ones who make them sound the way they sound and they are amazing at what they do. it is wrong to make this argument about how much top 40 music these days sucks because its not ALL bad. we are all entitled to listen to whatever we ant to listen to, thats why there is VARIETY and CHOICE in this world.
the only thing i could add to this side of the argument is that more often than not, the smaller musicians are often the ones who drive music forward and are often not the ones who get credit for it. but then you just get into endless name calling and a big pointless argument about who did what first so maybe i shouldn't say such things around here...
re: big
your view of the music industry is so narrow its ridiculous. If you think all musicians are high school drop out meth addicts you are seriously misinformed and obviously watch too many entertainment news shows. This is probably just what you tell yourself so you don't feel so bad about stealing from people who are trying to make a living in one of the most difficult industries to succeed in. The truth is only an extremely small minority of artists do as well as you described, as a musician the odds of ever becoming wealthy are extremely minuscule. It is apparent that you strictly listen to top40 music where the artists have already made substantial money but they represent a very small aspect of the industry.
"If they wanna be paid to entertain, host a concert."
Thats all fine and Dandy and its true that touring is where artists make most of their money, but the expenses for starting a tour are astronomical. Unless you have a multi-million dollar company backing you touring is almost out of the question for most lower and mid level bands. This said company also probably isn't looking forward to funding your tour if your albums aren't selling (funny how that works) and why aren't the albums selling? Because of ignorant, close minded people like you. Try reading the book "all you need to know about the music industry" by Donald Passman and maybe it will give you some understanding and respect for what musicians go through in order to make a career doing something they deeply care about. Sorry for the long post but I am currently studying music to hopefully pursue a career in the music industry and people with attitudes like my friend "Big" really piss me off.
sorry my post was supposed to be bellow "Big's"
its like the old addage "why buy a cow when you can get its milk for free".
I refrain from paying anything for my music. The only people screaming "theft" are the ones who are losing their multi millions of dollars making it off the backs of underpaid artists. Furthermore, I'm not interested in spending my money to help one of these Meth head, dumbass High School Dropouts buy his first mansion or his first Lamborghini.
No one will ever be able to accuse me of giving away my money to these "musicians".
If they wanna be paid to entertain, host a concert.
Musicians have been screwed for years by the RIAA long before Apple and iTunes came along. Artists make money via two ways:
#1, smaller, independent labels
#2, concerts
Whether you buy from iTunes or buy CDs in the store, the artist is getting pennies, mere pennies per unit sold, after chunks are taken out for the managers, studio fees, production assistants, marketing and advertising, etc. The list of people with their hands outstretched is quite long before the artist even sees a buck.
PS: Thanks, Apple! This will make me more likely to purchase from iTunes now. Especially if it's DRM free.
Hi there - thanks for your input on the iTunes 'Next Big Thing' issue. We've quoted your comments as part of our coverage on SPIN.com - you can check it out here: http://www.spin.com/features/everybodystalkingabout/2007/07/070710_itunes/
I hope this means that we'll see more DRM-free music soon on iTunes. Since they let you upgrade DRMed music to the DRM free variety for $0.30, they may just be trying to get people to buy as many songs as they can before they announce another major deal beyond EMI.
Wow. It doesn't matter the price, if people really want something, they will pay a price no matter how high to get it.
And some one said something about being an artist and not wanting music to be worthless.
Isn't the point of music to get it to the people?
No matter how hard any one tries to stop it, people are always going to get the music for free.
"And some one said something about being an artist and not wanting music to be worthless.
Isn't the point of music to get it to the people?
No matter how hard any one tries to stop it, people are always going to get the music for free."
of course as a musician you would want your music to get out there but artists have to eat too. its hard to be creative and make music to the best of your ability with a full time job along side your creative career.
and of course there is no way to stop it. i dont think its right for anyone to try and stop it, im not calling for file sharing to be illegal, it can be a great tool to get your music out there to people that may not hear it otherwise. these comments go out to the people that get it free, really honestly enjoy it and listen to it and then buy the album to support the artist. a musician does not come to your place of work and ask for your services free or come steal from the product of your labor do they?
probably the best way you could support an artist would be to buy directly from them either through their site or through a live show...
Zune
$15 a month for unlimited downloads. if you like what you hear then you can buy their cd.
iTunes = piece of shit
Good grief booyaka, how many Microsoft shill posts are you going to vomit up on Engadget today?
Until my wife gets rid of that really bad yeast infection.
Or other subscription services for even less, and more player options.
yeah and zune songs disappear just as soon as you stop paying the same subscription (mafia extornsion fee)! same with yahoo and most of the subscription services; they only work on zunes (reason enough to pass)
the ONLY OTHER GOOD SERVICE BESIDES ITUNES IS EMUSIC. every song is yours forever unlike sucky zucky zune. they're all DRM free and the songs work out to 25¢ each if you buy a big package. they're also higher encoded than itunes or any other service i've found. and they can be played on ANY player - ipod, zune, sansa, etc.
i still used itunes to buy music videos and some audio books. plus Amazon has a lot of stuff used which is great when you want a hard copy.
1) emusic 2) itunes 3) amazon marketplace
if you use any other sources you're a damn fool!
It's too bad that apple's iTunes is the worst bloatware and glitch prone software made for the PC. If I didn't have to use it, I would probably shop from their store!
And here I thought Windows was the most glitch prone bloatware made for the PC.
A change is gonna come.
Great lyrics. Also the story of music from 2000 to 2020.
The next big thing is the ability to sell back your music.
The cow saying is in reference to marriage. It means "Why marry a girl if you can sleep with her with no commitments." The other poster is trying to apply it to music.
The labels must love selling downloads because it takes all the work out of distribution. No more CD factories, shipping, none of that. They also don't have to worry about a sale coming back to cannibalize their business because, hey, when was the last time you bought a used mp3?
why are things like this never released anywhere outside the US?
Yea, not that big at all.
DOWN WITH APPLE!
http://fun.drno.de/pics/Stolen_Music.jpg
OH YAY, CHEAPER SHITTY MUSIC QUALITY!
Sorry, I'm still sticking to CD's and EAC Secure ripping to FLAC. I actually care about music quality.
my only problem with this is the quality of an itunes rip, it just doesnt sound as good...maybe if they gave the FLAC or VO for download, then yea.... Not to mention i like the llil book and case that comes with the cd...so i guess thats 2 problems.
A lower price isn't going to do anything..
Those that don't buy music online now, most likely won't even if it's a few bucks cheaper. Cheap ain't free, and a lot of people want it free even if it's a little illegal. And the vocal ones will STILL claim that they're 'helping' the musicians by pirating their songs.
The argument that this hurts artists is a lame one. Looking over the artists listed, you can buy a lot of these on CD new for $9.99 or a cutout from a used CD place for even cheaper. So the price makes perfect sense. These also appear to be artists that are not available on eMusic, so this pricing drops them into a nice spot where a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have downloaded the music are now willing to give it a shot.
Which I'm all for, because a lot of them are REALLY great albums.
Of course, the next step for Apple would be getting the prices of the artists also featured on eMusic (DRM free, no less) more in line with eMusic's pricing.
well, to the actual music itself...
the Sara Bareilles disc is fantastic. Easily worth $6.99 IMHO even though I got mine as a copy from a friend.
maybe i'll just mail her a $10 spot to make it right.
i've got no qualms supporting those who make quality music and don't think that the average consumer does either. i don't want to pay for marketing hype and b.s. but i'm more than happy to keep artists fed, clothed and able to keep on keeping on.
LCD Soundsystem plus amphetamine of your choice equals awesome trips.
Plp still buy music? lol
The avg. musician gets 3 cents a track on a 10 disc CD if it's through a major label. If the produced it they get another couple of pennies per track and so on. Like Sting does everything and makes about 9 cents a track. 2 or 3 dollars for packing and materials, shipping, and funding art a buy back penalty if your album doesnt sell and your managers cut of the funds. If you sell online you get 40 cents a track you cell because you eliminate the shipping packaging and all that. thanks have a good day
at those prices I'll buy two; one for the car and one for the house. and run back and buy another if my friend wants one as well.
Given that bands like Hot Bitch Arsenal are found on iTunes, producing iTunes Plus level content, giving it away for free, AND still making money on iTunes as well as Amie Street... that speaks a lot for this model of a lower dollar amount for great music. Considering they manage and produce themselves and get to keep the majority of the money they've earned, they're not hurting for the attention. Google em', you'll see what I mean.
...but really, this should be a wag of the finger.
how is emusic so consistently ranked behind iTunes? both are equally lacking in terms of gaps between particular albums or artists based on label issues. on the whole, however, both sets of gaps are not that bad. however, i stuck with my emusic subscription contract terms for 90 tracks for 19.99. currently if you sign up, its 75 tracks for 19.99. Either way its 22 cents or 27 cents per download. who in their right mind would consider $5.99 a good price to pay for an album at emusic prices? you would need to download a 22 track album from emusic to reach the same price.