According to a churning rumor-mill, Apple desperately wants to make over-the-air downloads of iTunes content a reality on the
3G iPhone. Apparently, a record label executive "familiar with the discussions" states that the Cupertino gang is hoping for a "big launch in June" which includes OTA music downloads, ringtone sales, and ringback tones (the substitute music you hear instead of a ring when calling someone). There's only one problem: the labels want a higher premium for those services than a typical MP3 download. Of course, Apple's iTunes pricing has been a
point of contention for some time, though its
recent rule-bending for HBO could lead to upped charges for the new services. Something tells us Apple has the tenacity and bullheadedness to make this work -- let's just hope they can temper the labels' greed with the end user's economic realities.
[Via
AppleInsider]
posted May 19th 2008 1:41PM
Seriously, why would the type of internet connection factor into the record labels profits?!
It has absolutely nothing to do with them, and has absolutely no effect on their costs whatsoever!
This calibre of greed should be illegal.
yup...correct...this is actually a money-churning mill for Apple...and people will blindingly pay...How do you think apple came out of losses since the ipods and now profits in millions??
another money-making technique...ringback tones...age old concept but will seem to be "new" as apple bringing this to the US and "only available on the iphone"
The record labels want people to pay more for the convenience of not having to be at your computer.
Why are the record labels even being asked? When you go to a real record shop, you don't pay more if you arrived by a certain method of transport, so why is how you get to the iTunes store important?
Lol you got that right music is already overly expensive, you pay the same amount for a digital product with not freaking online backup (not to mention nothing you can hold in your hand, no case, and no cover), and they want to increase that so you can buy the same digital product over a different internet service which you are paying for.
These levels are greed is of course legal because people will use the service. It would take customers not using the service for the price to drop and come sense when has an American actually fought for lower prices sense like the 50’s. SO SUCK IT UP AND BEND OVER APPLE HAS A BIG ONE FOR YA THIS TIME.
On a personal note I'm glad this got reported my decision on buying the 3G iphone will be related based on this.
now may be...3G services for the iphone will be costlier....right now it is $20 for the data plan etc...for 3G it might be $30
Fuck the RIAA!
Because the labels will take any opportunity to make great profits they can. If it's different, it's another opportunity for them. What they don't realize though is that simply adding another method for people to get their content easily can only help them and implementing more fees and trouble both for the provider (Apple) and the customer is going to only hurt them.
Seriously if they wanted to maximize their profits they should drop their legal team (and it's budget) and concentrate on making the music highly available, highly affordable (cheaper than physical media) and highly convenient (no DRM or stupid restrictions, works with every device, every platform).
If the entire catalog of every label was available on digital download including brand new releases and the entire back catalog, in perfect quality with no DRM, works on every device, available at all major download stores, and at a reasonable price, I'd be buying a hell of a lot more music and P2P would have far less appeal!
Even if it was only at their store so they don't have to share the profits with anyone but the artist, it would be perfect :)
Hell, P2P would be worthless to me if that happened!
Carrie Underwood? What crapassjunks are the Americans listening to?
i only pay $5.99 for tmobile internet.
$30 is way too much when we also pay for broadband
I am probably getting the new iPhone but will not download CRAP from iTunes nor will I after I get my new toy.
Major record labels = assholes who put out crap music to begin with just to make a buck. They are trying hard to stay above water as the industry has moved to digital.
No one should be paying $10 for an album or a buck for a song that has been decompressed to 10 times he normal size.
Thank god for emusic who fights for the people.
@Vidit Bhargava
You are a damn moron. You are seriously stating that over-the-air music downloads are a 'money-churning mill' for Apple? do you have any idea how much of that $0.99 per song on iTunes they receive? a few cents. Or that they actually LOSE MONEY on every video purchase from the iTunes store.
After factoring in costs, the entire iTunes store is a LOSS LEADER to make their iPods more attractive.
You can feel however you want about Apple, but when you criticize them, you better know the facts or you look like an idiot.
This really would be a good thing. Then instead of pulling over in a residential area and stealing someone's wireless to buy a sing I can use my 3G service instead!
That's just idiotic. Why would an mp3 downloaded over 3G be worth more than an mp3 downloaded over wifi. That's just pure and simple greed.
"Pure and simple greed" very accurately describes the big record labels. This isn't really surprising.
Pure and simple greed also describes Apple.
Meh, why don't people just pirate the MP3s using the iPhone's browser?
coz people just like paying apple :)
or use www.seekpod.com/iphone
Have you ever considered that stealing music hurts the artist? It hurts the artist a lot more than it hurts the record labels. I'd say people who pay for music simply have some morals. Now if the labels would get a clue and stop demanding DRM for everything, that would be a much better solution.
Stealing the music may hurt the artist more than the label, but buying the music helps the label a lot more than the artist. Because of the greedy middleman, its a lose-lose situation.
Oh I agree completely. I just choose what I see as the lesser of two evils by at least giving the artist something, despite giving the labels a lot more.
Because you can't download files with the iPhone's browser, I'd say.
@zak: When you chose the lesser of two evils, you're still choosing evil.
On a side note, not purchasing a downloaded track does very little to hurt the artist. Typically, an artist receives fractions of a percent per-track, and even with millions of purchases that still ends up in low thousands of dollars. If you made YOUR employer $2M, would you expect to only be paid $1k?
For artists (and the reason so many are starting to give their music away) album sales, radio spots, and mp3s are really just advertising for their live shows, where they make their real money. The pittance that their label gives them for generating tens of millions of dollars in retail sales just isn't a motivating factor, and certainly doesn't constitute "stealing from the artist" (an odd concept, since theft implies you've deprived someone of a material good of which there are limited quantities. Copy and theft are very different).
Really, if you like an artist, you're only "stealing" form them if you don't go to their shows. You're certainly not paying THEM anything when you download their music from iTunes.
Brad - Actually, you are. I know it's not very much. And I'm well aware of how little artists receive from the labels. However, downloading music without somebody paying for it = stealing. Period. No justification.
I agree that it's a crappy situation and that artists deserve a lot more. I just don't think that stealing the music is the answer, even if it is shafting the labels. And yes, I agree that the labels all need a good shafting.
Just download the music you want, then donate directly to the artist. This way you get the content you want, and more money goes to the artist than if you had paid for a CD, or downloaded through an internet service.
@Zak - It must be fun to live in your RIAA-constructed world, but when you DOWNLOAD a song, or a movie, you are NOT stealing, you are committing copyright infringement. The two are very different. This would be similar to going to a library, picking up a book, taking it over to the copy machine and coping the entire contents (or better yet, just the chapter you need). Is it the same as grabbing the book out of a book store and heading for the exit? Of course not.
Theft is when a physical property is taken without consent of the owner. Theft is NOT 'not paying for something and having it' and it is NOT 'duplication of a piece of a larger work for personal use'. Even copyright infringement only gets bad when you're profiting off of the distribution of protected works - not possessing them.
So, I'm sorry, but "downloading music without somebody paying for it" != stealing. Period. Just because a commercial or a sticker on a CD or a movie preview tells you something doesn't make it true, and CERTAINLY doesn't make it law. Think for yourself.
Brad, give the tired argument over copyright versus stealing a rest. It's important in the courtroom but meaningless otherwise. When you download a song, you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. Those of us who speak English call that theft even if the legal system calls it something else. Law doesn't define the language we speak.
Don't think, either, that by committing copyright infringement you haven't deprived the owner of property. The owner of the work possesses the right to control duplication and distribution and that is his "property". By duplicating without permission, you've taken that from him.
Regardless of your petty objections to words, a crime is a crime and arguing senselessly what the name of the crime is doesn't make it any less so. Don't think for an instant that copyright infringement is of any less consequence than theft.
I agree with Brad 100%. Well said.
And yes, the music labels are greedy assholes that need to get a reality check. They're not gonna make more money by charging more since they're going to lose a lot more customers by doing it.
Charge less = more sales, more customers and more people willing to test the waters.
@Craig
You're so wrong.
You clearly didn't read the excellent example given:
"This would be similar to going to a library, picking up a book, taking it over to the copy machine and coping the entire contents (or better yet, just the chapter you need). Is it the same as grabbing the book out of a book store and heading for the exit? Of course not."
In the first part, the total amount available to the store hasn't changed. The store hasn't lost anything at all and no matter how many books that person copies, that same original book will still be available to the store to give to other people. The only thing lost is ONE potential customer (and you could EASILY argue that said person wasn't even a potential customer to begin with).
In the second part, the person is actually taking the PHYSICAL object. The library, therefore, would actually have to purchase a NEW one, otherwise the library could lose THOUSANDS of potential customers.
While I'm not saying scenario 1 isn't bad (my personal preferences not withstanding), it doesn't even fall into the same universe as scenario 2.
I thought you could buy songs on the iPhone, or is that just over WiFi?
Yeah just over WiFi.
Certainly, because Apple's main focus is saving us money. If it doesn't hurt Apple's own profits, they don't care.
Case in point: The iPod in the picture for this "story." Is that a first-gen iPod Touch or a second-gen. The difference being that the first-gen, loyal early adopters were the ones who got reamed for $20 for the mail, weather, notes, etc. apps which came standard for people who got on the train a bit late.
And as for the prices... someone will be dumb enough to pay them no matter what they are... they need that new incoherent Ying Yang Twins song NOW rather than waiting 3 weeks and spending 5 minutes once someone finds an alternate way of getting it on there for free with your own copy of that song.
Oh yeah, cuz Apple isn't greedy too... People seem to have no problem paying for ring tones made from songs they've already bought, so they won't mind an additional fee.
If I remember a lot of people were upset about that! So much so it wasn't long before there were loads of third party methods to avoid this senseless charge, and after that an Apple supported method with GarageBand.
It was the record companies that forced the ring tones to be sold separately because they make more money on them since they don't have to pay the artist for the sold ring tones.
How is what Apple does any different from any other way of legally buying ringtones? With any other service you still have to pay for the ringtone even if you own the CD or music file.
Not true. Apple does not allow you to add free ringtones unlike tons of other phones. I have owned several phones that allow me to use any mp3 as a ringtone. It worked by either drag and drop the file to the phone while synched, or i would mail the file to my phone. All free.
Drag and drop my own music in would be fine with me. I have never used anything but the included ringtones in my phones. But I am certainly not interested in the so called free ringtone sites. I don't trust them. Next question: Is it legal to use your own mp3s as ringtones? As far as I'm concerned I don't see anything wrong with it but I bet the RIAA has something to say about it.
And you wonder why Piracy is rampant!?!?!
Why does the artist need to make $25 million an album?? Why are they not content with $5 million??
Why do the record labels need to register $100 million in profits?? Why are they not content with $15 million??
It's all the damn greed!!
what artist makes $25 mil an album...?
Artists don't make 25 mil per album... what hole did you pull that number out of? Artists make most of their money off merchandise or direct album sales, which is why their damn cheap shirts cost 40 bucks at their concerts.
Labels, on the other hand...
It was figurative....
Don't take it so literally... i don't have profit numbers etc etc...
It was just an example....
Did arnold swarchenegger need to make $30 million for T3?!?! I felt ripped off paying $15 for it at the movie theatre!
"i don't have profit numbers etc etc..."
Well then don't talk like you do. Without hard numbers, you have no argument. Nice try switching to movies, which has a very different business model, and how talent is compensated. What are you, 12?
If the money is made on T-Shirts and what not, why don't they just give the music away?
Paul McCartney did that just over this weekend.
You number people are the ones that stay in the box....
The Fail Guy
They're not the ones adding extra value.
Let us download audio and video podcasts directly to the phone please. I shouldn't have to sync with iTunes if the iPhone/iTouch has its own Internet connection. Why is there still not a device in existence that has this obvious and awesome feature?
theres a podcast app for the N95, it's not perfect but its pretty damn cool
Agreed. This is a major selling point for me. Forgetting to sync podcasts before driving home is a major bummer.
Doesnt the Zune offer that?
It does if you are in range of your home Wi-fi network, I thought the PSP can do that roaming?
You can go to Mediafly.com
Been working just fine with me (and no downloading, streams the video so no wait time!)
Yeah, it's a great feature on the N95. Setting up the podcast feeds hassle but automatic download over HSDPA and playback both work really well.
I really hope apple sticks to their guns on the $0.99 thing. In an ideal world i'd be able to use anything from my itunes library for a ringtone too, but i'm not holding my breath.
Or even better, a subscription service.
I could understand AT&T wanting a piece of the action, as increased music sales over their network would increase the strain on the network, but what in god's name gives labels the right to increased profit from OTA sales?
Agreed. AT&T's been giving Apple special pricing-plans for unlimited broadband ($20 instead of $40 they charge users of non-iPhones), so AT&T should have the leverage to tell them what that bandwidth can be used for (like how they don't allow tethering). I wonder if AT&T will start charging regular prices when the iPhone goes 3g.
However, for record companies to assert themselves this way is totally greedy and stupid. If they want more money, they should charge more, but they shouldn't discriminate based on the type of connection.
What's next? Are they going to force Apple to discount songs downloaded with modems over dial-up? Yeah, I didn't think so, because that would be ridiculous!
dude....iphone data prices are regular
what AT&T is providing on the iphone is unlimited data($15) and 200 messages($5)...its no different.
what you are talking about is PDA connect which offers PDA capabilities over the internet like VPN etc...those are expensive
Are you surprised??... 1st apple puts out a $600 phone with limited functions and sadly people fall for it, now they want to use... "the record labels want more money to download OTA" excuse. Sprint and Verizon phones have had this ability for years, you never heard about that so-called record label BS. Apple is full of scat!
Are you just... really dumb or something?
No... I didn't buy the iphone! ;-)
Yes, you hate Apple, we get it. But you still seem to think that it's Apple who wants more money for downloads and not the record labels, so that would indicate that you are actually pretty stupid.
No YOU, are stupid if you actually believe that BS, Sprint customers don't pay extra to dowlnoad OTA, they pay 99 cents same record labels. What difference does it make if a customer uses wifi vs OTA?? Why should the record labels care? Apple is full it, you are too if you believe it!!
Did you seriously just say "why should the record labels care"? Were you born yesterday? If there is the smallest chance in hell for a record label to squeeze more money out of something, they will do it. Why do you think artists only make $.50 off of every $13 CD sold? You think Apple has anything to do with that?
And I'm sure Apple's constant refusal to raise their prices indicates greed on Apple's part... somehow. Actually maybe you better explain that one, it would be funny to see you try to justify it.
Do you watch Fox news or something?... Now you're trying to spin, what the f--k does an artist make have to do with OTA downloads? The contract is between apple and the labels, the same labels Sprint uses for their music store, the same OTA functionality apple is pushing which Sprint customers can utilize to download 99 cents songs via 3G. Obviously you will be the first idiot to pay extra for a same function Sprint customers have yet, they only pay 99 cents.
If someone can download movies via wifi or OTA should the production companies get more money depending one how you download?? A BIG F---K'N NO!!
Zak, what are you new here? You can't use reason and fact on a internet forum/comment.
So you can download a 99 cent track and listen to it on your phone, computer, and then burn it to cd if you want?
My GF has Sprint - once you buy it on a phone you can't listen to it else where.
Yes you can listen to a track on a computer as well, you get one copy for the phone one for the computer. you can burn it to a CD as well due the included license. I've burned many tracks to a CD!
Quote the Raven - I know, right?
p3t3b2 - If you don't understand the correlation between what artists make and the labels' desire to charge more for OTA downloads, then you are seriously missing the point. Record labels are incredibly, almost impossibly greedy, which is the underlying reason for both those things.
If you had actually read the article, you would have seen that it was a record label executive who supplied this information, including the assertion that the labels want to charge more for OTA downloads. This has nothing to do with Sprint, but if I had to guess I'd say they don't really care about Sprint since the Sprint OTA download market is a miniscule, microscopic fraction of the music download market.
You may not have heard, but Apple is the #1 music retailer in the US now. Sprint... not so much. When Apple says they want to implement OTA downloads, what do you think the record labels' response is going to be? Of course they're going to want more money. They're greedy, have we not gone over this already?
In any case, Apple is the one who has been refusing to raise their prices despite the labels' insistence, which is a good thing for consumers. In the end it will depend on how badly Apple wants OTA downloads, and how badly the record labels want Apple to sell their music OTA. If you have a brain in your head, you'll root for Apple on this one.
Uh... I did read the article, obviously you didn't. In the very first paragraph is says this;
"As part of Apple’s efforts to improve on the shortcomings of its popular iPhone, THE COMPANY HAS APPROACHED SOME OF THE MAJOR MUSIC LABELS to try to expand the variety of ringtones and other musical features available on the device, several label executives said last week. The negotiations are very active right now and a final deal has not been set, said the executives, who requested anonymity so as not to disrupt the ongoing talks."
It was apple who approached the labels not the other way around, the labels could care less if it's wifi or OTA, a download is a download. Apple is a very greedy company they have complete control over that iphone. It's a good thing other carriers turned down apple.
you are mind-baffling obtuse, p3t3b2.
Apple APPROACHED the labels, sure, but THE LABELS are wanting the price increase.
...if you haven't noticed, A. the labels are greedy, and will take any chance they can to squeeze a few more dollars from their customers, and B. The labels HATE Apple, because apple is concerned with their customers and not the label's profits (IE: forcing Apple to keep DRM while giving Amazon DRM-Free mp3s in an attempt to try and chip away at Apple's business, etc)
Given that A is true, and B is true, how are you not following? How are you still trying to blame Apple for a price hike? seriously, read the damn article:
"the labels want a higher premium"
your pathetic twist to try and blame it on Apple with ABSOLUTELY no supporting evidence (or even just plain old lucidity) is... well it's annoying at best.
Yes Apple has complete control over a product that THEY worked hard to produce. You say that as if they should just let any and every company do what they want with it (the iPhone). This was the problem with much of the chatter about mac clones in the past few months. Sure you can buy a copy of OS X and put it on your dell or home built box. However, Apple is under no legal obligation to allow their product to be sold as part of some other company's business plan. Apple is under no obligation to allow any other company to reap profits off of products that they own the rights to (such as the iPhone or OS X). They are not even under any obligation to allow another company to sell their product. That is why you could not buy an Apple computer in Best Buy for a while. But I digress. . .
The funny thing about contracts is that they can be . . . well . . . funny!
How the contract between Apple and the record companies was written determines how Apple can distribute their content. Just because a digital download and a mobile download looks the same to us means nothing. When the original contract was written I am sure Apple was not even thinking about digital downloads to telephones. If you will remember, when digital downloads via the iTunes stores first kicked off all of the downloaded music had to be cleared by artists because mp3 downloads were never in original record company/artist/writer/etc contracts. The record companies (though they "owned" the rights to the music) had to clear this with artists, songwriters, etc. Thus, bon jovie (or some other rock group) withheld their content from Apple for a long time. so of course Apple has to now go back to the record companies to ask for direct downloads to the iPhone via 3g. Of course Apple has to go back and ask for MORE of the record company catalogs to be made available for ringtones. OF COURSE apple has to go back and ask for permission to sell pre-rings or whatever the hell that is called. Apple simply can not do something outside of the contract that they originally have with the record companies.
In addition, that Apple wants this is just another way to try and coerce them into raising prices. We will see who budges, Apple or the record companies. WHo knows.
What does Apple approaching them first have anything to do with the labels demanding higher pricing for OTA downloads? Look, it's very simple - Apple approaches the labels wanting to implement OTA downloads, the labels respond by saying they want Apple to charge more for OTA downloads. How are you not getting this? You said you read the article, but you obviously missed a couple things. For example:
"labels argue that they should be paid more for an over-the-air download than a standard track bought over the internet"
"The music labels would like to argue that this should open the door to their being able to charge more than 99 cents for hit songs and less for older works. But there’s no evidence that Apple sees it that way."
So you read the article but missed those key paragraphs, huh? The labels obviously care if it's wifi or OTA, because they're specifically asking for higher prices for OTA downloads. Read those quotes again if you need to.
If you still believe Apple is the one that wants to charge more for OTA downloads, I don't know what to tell you at this point. It's in black and white, right there. Read it. I don't think it could possibly be any clearer.
Some of you guys are really missing the boat, as data = data, so is true for download vs download (it's still a download). Do you guys actually think these label heads are versed on cell phone networks? There is no reason that comes to mind nor anything I can agree with that will make a consumer willing to pay more for a song downloaded over a cellular network vs over Wifi.
It's clear that some of you have the mind-set that apple can do no wrong, that is really sad.
@Zak, the Sprint music store has surpassed V-cast, so your "minuscule" comment doesn't have weight... Literally!
Yeah, you're a wee bit confused. We're not saying Apple can do no wrong. We're saying it's the LABELS that are asking for the price increase on OTA downloads - because they are. Was that not clear? I mean I have to ask again - did you read the article? How about this, did you read my last post? How about where I quoted the part saying it was the labels asking for the price increase, did you read that part? Seriously, how can you not be getting it at this point? Were the direct quotes from the article just not clear enough for you? Does somebody need to sit down with you and spell it out word for word?
As far as V-Cast and Sprint - are you trying to make me laugh? Yes, both V-Cast and Sprint own an absolutely miniscule, microscopic percentage of the online downloads market. Better?
Zak that boat is too far for you to catch up, notice how in the article there is no mention of ATT, after-all it is ATT's network. ATT bent over big time and is now taking in the butt from not only apple but from the labels as well. In a nutshell ATT screwed it's customers, internet is internet period. Apple has found a way to further exploit ATT weaknesses. Ask yourself this question, why doesn't the 1st iphone have the ability to download OTA?.... We're talking about a $600 phone, that's insane. Apple knew how to take advantage of folks from the beginning they are taking further advantage now.
I'm just looking forward to Limewire for iPhone. Then I'll get music the good ole fashion way , argh!
then apple will start charging for p2p transfers ;)
Limewire sucks anyway, AFAIK, its the only network the RIAA actively searches. I would go for something more along the lines of skreemr, with the ability to save to your library.
is there a way to use mp3s as ringtones on the iphone???
this feature would negate the need to "buy" or "encode" any ringtones.
with storage capacities like 8gig and 16gig you should be able to store thousands of mp3s...why not use them as the ringtones???
also...this feature is actually available on the cheapest phones in the market today...does apple have a knack at overlooking features that are even available on cheap phones???
Yes, you can use any music on your computer as a ringtone on the iPhone. Go into Garageband, import an MP3, cut it down to the size you want it, and just choose "export to ringtone". Real easy.
Yes you can create your own ringtowns on current iPhones. You can actually read how to do it on Apples forums. Simple as changing a file extension.
I do understand that the bandwidth would then go through AT&T, so they want a piece, but then again, supposedly it's already all-you-can-eat data. From the consumer perspective, I don't think people will pay much more than 99 cents, especially with all the Starbucks and McDonalds and so forth that will supposedly offer free wi-fi to the iphone. They might get away with charging $1.29 or something, and people might pay that and grumble, but I don't think they'll see many sales at the $1.59 or $1.99 price points that I'm sure the record labels and AT&T would like. It's just the reality of it- people just aren't going to pay through the nose just to get the song through the cellular network.
It's not At&T who's asking for more money, it's the record labels.
I simply won't use the service if it costs more. I'll continue to download from my computer and sync, or wait 'til I'm in range of free WiFi.
The labels will shoot themselves in the foot if they price the feature out of the market.
Idiots.
I don't get the point of all these comments. What is the main goal of a company such as Apple? Make money period. What would you try to do if you where in the board of Apple? Make more money. What would you do if you where in the board of some bigg label? Make even more money.
That's economy folks , honest or not, they don't care (Nor I)
If you don't like it, search for an alternative. That's called a free market ! :)
And you would make more money by not fucking you customers. At the end we walk away, especially when you can get the same music for free all over the internet and in the long run the labels lose money by being greedy.
Any company who's goal is simply "to make money" is setting itself up for failure.
...unless, of course, we're talking about the Bureau of Engraving and Printing...
really though, believing that companies like Apple are making every decision based on "will we immediately make more money if we do this?" with little or no regard to long-term-profits, or REALITY, is and incredibly naive way to look at the world. (No argument here that entities like Comcast and MPAA are exactly that stupid...)
I'd rather see DRM-free lossless tracks sold for a premium, of say, $1.29. Perhaps those large files would have to be restricted to a 3G network, but the other tracks should be downloadable over EDGE.
Oh My God ! it says about iphone again !!
I expect at least 100 or more comments from the people than dont know any other phone than the five cellphones that their provider gives them. I don't get why the iPhone is so amazing. Sheeps!.
The point of getting more money for the record companies over 3G versus wi fi or through i tunes is down to one thing.
Impulse buying. If you hear a song on the radio and buy it they want to charge more, the same way soda costs much more at a gas station or vending machine than if you buy it in a grocery store and drink it at home. They think that if x people buy a song after they hear it or when bored they can charge more.
Can you not just buy un-DRM'ed MP3s from Amazon on an iPhone? I can with my PSP.
why would record companies want more money if songs are downloaded over the 3G connection???
I have a small Reggae label and I will insist on being paid the same
Screw the majors
There isn't a single ringtone that I've every used or uploaded to a cell phone of any kind (including the iPhone) was a song. I can't stand the iPhone's ringtones, so i ripped the one from their tv spots (and almost all cell ads) and used that.
I'll never ever never ever never PAY for a music ringtone. Nor will I ever use a song for a ringtone.
I guess I'm in the minority b/c the market obviously says that people will pay 99 cents for a song that they've already paid the rights to listen to, just to use it as a ringtone. I guess these are the same people who are willing to pay 20 to 40 cents per sms.
Come on people. You're determining the market, and you SUCK!
I hear you man!
I seriously wish that there would be some new form of virus that can jump from machine to human. It could be spread using these obnoxious ringtones and kill all of the people stupid enough to pay for a song twice!!
Hackers, care to start working in this idea? Please?
lol
"There's only one problem: the labels want a higher premium for those services than a typical MP3 download"
Since when have we gotten typical MP3 downloads from iTunes?
Given the fact that iTunes is perhaps the number one outlet for selling music, the record labels should be kissing up to Apple, not the other way around. It's hard to believe that Apple will change the pricing on iTunes just to comply with the record lables.
But on the other side, iTunes is just the middle man, and since they are selling the record labels' property - they must be flexible.
Lately we've been seeing a trend in which Apple has been giving up former 'standards'...such as allowing the subsidation of iPhones in France, signing deals with multiple service providers in a single nation (in Europe and Asia), and raising prices on HBO shows on iTunes.
I won't be surprised to see iTunes prices rise.
www.ismashphone.com