Universal leaving Itunes

[Easy Mac]

Universal is on its way to taking its music out of Itunes, presumably because $0.99 is not enough, and because they're not getting money every time an iPod is sold. Oh well... everyone can go back to pirating Universal artists.

http://www.reuters.com/article/inter...S&pageNumber=1

[Vinatieri for Prez]

This line was the best: "Some music executives have privately expressed frustration that Apple's dominant position may have hampered growth of the fledgling digital music market by keeping users locked within the Apple system."

The music execs have only themselves to blame. There was a big void in the market while they were fighting tooth and nail against any digital piracy while still trying to sell CDs, when customers clearly wanted a digital option. Had they started digitally selling their own stuff during that period, Itunes would not have the dominant position that it does now. Rather than hamper growth, Apple was the driving force for growth. The music execs were the ones fully responsible for hampering growth.

[Surtt]

Some music executives have privately expressed frustration that Apple's dominant position may have hampered growth of the fledgling digital music market by keeping users locked within the Apple system.

So, Universal's alternate plan is?
Apple may not be the best answer, but they are better then nothing.
It seams some what ironic for them to complain about Apple's DRM.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Surtt

So, Universal's alternate plan is?
Apple may not be the best answer, but they are better then nothing.
It seams some what ironic for them to complain about Apple's DRM.

Clearly, it's to sell their own music for $50 a song, loaded with triple DRM that secretly loads up a trojan on your computer.

[Malificent]

Am I the only person in the world that thinks the price point on individual songs is off? Why am I basically paying the same price for a downloaded album that I would pay for a physical CD? I'm not trying to argue for free - just cheaper. At .10 or even .25 per song, I would probably buy more music than I do now. Russian pirates or not, I think allofmp3 had both the best pricing system and the best download system in the business.

[Draft Dodger]

you are not the only person to think that at all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Malificent

Why am I basically paying the same price for a downloaded album that I would pay for a physical CD?

Convenience.

Well, that, and the fact that it seems to be the highest price point buyers have a comfort level with.

I'll be honest with you, I have absolutely no problem paying .99 per track in order to get what I want when I want it. It's even better that I can avoid both Wal-Mart crowds & too-cool-for-school/14-22 year old targeting brick & mortar music stores and still get what I want. I've hear plenty of hip & hop while I'm sitting at traffic thanks, last thing I want to do is try to find something I like while it's blaring at me on somebody's in-store audio.

[Malificent]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Convenience.

Well, that, and the fact that it seems to be the highest price point buyers have a comfort level with.

I'll be honest with you, I have absolutely no problem paying .99 per track in order to get what I want when I want it. It's even better that I can avoid both Wal-Mart crowds & too-cool-for-school/14-22 year old targeting brick & mortar music stores and still get what I want. I've hear plenty of hip & hop while I'm sitting at traffic thanks, last thing I want to do is try to find something I like while it's blaring at me on somebody's in-store audio.

I can buy that, I guess. I think I just expect convenience as part of the online world rather than plan to pay for it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Malificent

I can buy that, I guess. I think I just expect convenience as part of the online world rather than plan to pay for it.

{shrug} At this stage of my life, there's virtually nothing that I expect to be "convenient". Then again, there are times when I would be willing to pay someone to walk to the coffeemaker around the corner in the next room instead of me having to do it.

And no, before anyone asks, I'm not hiring at the moment

[Young Drachma]

If I had to buy CDs or even digital tracks at the volume I listen to music, I'd consume a lot less music than I do now. I don't really understand their long-term position on this stuff. But I guess screw the future so long as we get rich now.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Surtt

So, Universal's alternate plan is?
Apple may not be the best answer, but they are better then nothing.
It seams some what ironic for them to complain about Apple's DRM.

Step 1 - Pull out of Itunes

Step 2 - ???

Step 3 - Profit

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Malificent

Am I the only person in the world that thinks the price point on individual songs is off? Why am I basically paying the same price for a downloaded album that I would pay for a physical CD? I'm not trying to argue for free - just cheaper. At .10 or even .25 per song, I would probably buy more music than I do now. Russian pirates or not, I think allofmp3 had both the best pricing system and the best download system in the business.

No, not at all. I think the price really is way high.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

No, not at all. I think the price really is way high.

Unfortunately our wallets don't seem to tell the same story.. it's just like people bitching for years that ~$15 for a CD was too much... it seemed to, as Jon said, be the high price point that people would pay... People are paying $.99 a song and $9.99 an album (myself included) at pretty high rates... I know companies like Apple, etc do their research and there has to be a reason they pick this price point - maximizing profit... They must figure that if it's $.50 a song while more of a "fair" price that maybe they'll increase sales by 75% or something..

I'm just picking numbers, but point being I'm sure they've researched these price points to hell.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Step 1 - Pull out of Itunes

Step 2 - ???

Step 3 - Profit

Well put.

[SirFozzie]

actually, if you re-read the articles, it doesn't say they're pulling out entirely, just going month to month. This is an attempt to scare Itunes/Apple into keeping them on at Universal's terms (higher per song price, a cut of IPod revenue, etcetera)

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Unfortunately our wallets don't seem to tell the same story.. it's just like people bitching for years that ~$15 for a CD was too much... it seemed to, as Jon said, be the high price point that people would pay... People are paying $.99 a song and $9.99 an album (myself included) at pretty high rates... I know companies like Apple, etc do their research and there has to be a reason they pick this price point - maximizing profit... They must figure that if it's $.50 a song while more of a "fair" price that maybe they'll increase sales by 75% or something..

I'm just picking numbers, but point being I'm sure they've researched these price points to hell.

Actually, I think your analysis is a bit off concerning the driving forces for the prices. Apple had to pick a price that would satisfy the record industry as well as the consumers. I think Apple has wanted to decrease prices of at least some songs, but has been unable to get the recording companies to sign off on those changes. Because of the RIAA, the music industry doesn't quite function like an ideal market in terms of reaching a consumer and competition driven price equilibrium.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Malificent

Am I the only person in the world that thinks the price point on individual songs is off? Why am I basically paying the same price for a downloaded album that I would pay for a physical CD? I'm not trying to argue for free - just cheaper. At .10 or even .25 per song, I would probably buy more music than I do now. Russian pirates or not, I think allofmp3 had both the best pricing system and the best download system in the business.

I would look at it this way. Normally, a hit single is anywhere between $3 and $6 if purchased a-la cart at Best Buy or some music store. You are getting them for $.99 at i-Tunes. If you just buy one song, you can't expect to get the same price as a pro-rated cost on a CD. That's like someone saying they should be able to get a snickers bar at the 7-11 for the same price as one bar pro-rated in a 50-pack at costco. It just doesn't work that way.

Now, I do think there should be some "in bulk" pricing for iTunes that is a discount. And, most albums do cost between $3 and $8 less than if you purchased the songs individually or went to a store.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Step 1 - Pull out of Itunes

Step 2 - ???

Step 3 - Profit

I think it's a good move by Universal. The music companies need to get out from under Apple ASAP. The thing with Apple is, the music they sell only works on their own players, which locks people in to Apple mp3 players almost for life (because otherwise they would have to re-buy their entire library of songs). If, some years in the future, Apple has all these consumers that are locked into Apple, they might have enough clout to start pushing around the big music guys.

[Easy Mac]

The last 3 or 4 albums I've gotten from Itunes works on even the cheap little player I have as a backup.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think it's a good move by Universal. The music companies need to get out from under Apple ASAP. The thing with Apple is, the music they sell only works on their own players, which locks people in to Apple mp3 players almost for life (because otherwise they would have to re-buy their entire library of songs). If, some years in the future, Apple has all these consumers that are locked into Apple, they might have enough clout to start pushing around the big music guys.

Actually, with many of the songs now available free from DRM (at the extra 30 cents a song on original purchase or uprgrade for current songs), you can play them anywhere (PC, other MP3 players, etc.). If the music execs would actually "allow" Apple to put DRM-free songs on Itunes (like the one company that has), Itunes would not have the locked in player advantage at all.

In the end, I think Itunes is gunning to be top seller of all digital media anyways (whether for their player or not), because why else would they be pushing for DRM-free music to be put on Itunes.

[Easy Mac]

Thankfully, album prices stay the same with Itunes Plus (i hate buying singles).

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Thankfully, album prices stay the same with Itunes Plus (i hate buying singles).

Yes, I forgot that. No additional charge for DRM-free when the whole album is purchased.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Malificent

Am I the only person in the world that thinks the price point on individual songs is off? Why am I basically paying the same price for a downloaded album that I would pay for a physical CD? I'm not trying to argue for free - just cheaper. At .10 or even .25 per song, I would probably buy more music than I do now. Russian pirates or not, I think allofmp3 had both the best pricing system and the best download system in the business.

Isn't there something to be said for the fact that most CDs are, at best, half good/half filler, so you can get the good songs on a CD for $4 or $5?

SI

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Isn't there something to be said for the fact that most CDs are, at best, half good/half filler, so you can get the good songs on a CD for $4 or $5?

SI

what shit bands are you consistently buying albums by?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Actually, I think your analysis is a bit off concerning the driving forces for the prices. Apple had to pick a price that would satisfy the record industry as well as the consumers. I think Apple has wanted to decrease prices of at least some songs, but has been unable to get the recording companies to sign off on those changes. Because of the RIAA, the music industry doesn't quite function like an ideal market in terms of reaching a consumer and competition driven price equilibrium.

Fair enough, but they're not exactly losing money because of the price point.

[st.cronin]

What is the alternative to apple, at this point? I know nobody else is really close, but who's distant second?

[Groundhog]

kazaa-lite?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

What is the alternative to apple, at this point? I know nobody else is really close, but who's distant second?

for music sales or for units?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

for music sales or for units?

I mean for something like the ipod/itunes process. I'm just not really aware of anything else.

[SirFozzie]

Probably Yahoo Music or Rhapsody or Napster

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Actually, with many of the songs now available free from DRM (at the extra 30 cents a song on original purchase or uprgrade for current songs), you can play them anywhere (PC, other MP3 players, etc.). If the music execs would actually "allow" Apple to put DRM-free songs on Itunes (like the one company that has), Itunes would not have the locked in player advantage at all.

In the end, I think Itunes is gunning to be top seller of all digital media anyways (whether for their player or not), because why else would they be pushing for DRM-free music to be put on Itunes.

I think Jobs said that they only got into iTunes to sell more iPods. Apple doesn't make shit from the sale of songs as most of it goes to the record label.

[JonInMiddleGA]

re: top legal digital music sources
http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_0703141.html

Among PC users, iTunes maintains a 70 percent share of households using a legal service and the share of song tracks downloaded; however, the average number of files purchased by the average iTunes user fell 11 percent since 2005. Songs purchased per buyer from Napster and Wal-Mart also declined, while Yahoo’s digital music download sales rates held steady.

and re: iTunes share of all music sales
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070625/tc_nm/itunes_dc
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Apple Inc.'s (Nasdaq:AAPL - news) digital music store iTunes is now the third-largest music retailer in the United States with 10 percent market share, overtaking Amazon.com in the first quarter, according to a survey released on Friday.

The NPD Group report highlights the growing strength of digital music in the U.S. market as physical sales of compact discs continue to slide.

Apple's iTunes is third behind market leader Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE:WMT - news) with a 15.8 percent share, and Best Buy Co Inc. (NYSE:BBY - news) with a 13.8 percent share, according to the survey of 40,000 people aged 13 and older.

Both of those retailers mostly sell music in the CD format. Online store bestbuy.com has a 1.1 percent market share with sales of both CDs and digital music..

Amazon.com Inc. (Nasdaq:AMZN - news) dropped to fourth with a 6.7 percent share. Its sales increased but not as fast as rivals.

Amazon also sells music mainly in the CD format, but last month it said it plans to start selling digital music later this year but without copy protection software such as that used by iTunes.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Among PC users, iTunes maintains a 70 percent share of households using a legal service and the share of song tracks downloaded; however, the average number of files purchased by the average iTunes user fell 11 percent since 2005.

and re: iTunes share of all music sales
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070625/tc_nm/itunes_dc
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Apple Inc.'s (Nasdaq:AAPL - news) digital music store iTunes is now the third-largest music retailer in the United States with 10 percent market share, overtaking Amazon.com in the first quarter, according to a survey released on Friday.

Doesn't this basically just imply that the number of iTunes users has gone way up?

[Ksyrup]

Apple's Next Big Thing: tiny prices for iTunes albums

Posted Jul 6th 2007 12:13AM by Ryan Block
Filed under: Portable Audio

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

'Course, there is still the problem of "you get what you pay for". Honestly, my expectation is that you'd have to pay me the six bucks to listen to 99.99% of what will be offered at that price. Time will tell, but that's what I anticipate.

[Easy Mac]

There's some pretty good ones for the $6.99. The LCD Soundsystem album is very good. The Kooks album is solid (though I got it for $5.99 not too long ago). Maps is meh... like for people who are waiting for another The Postal Service album.

Jon you're just old

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Any price decrease on music and wider availability of DRM-free music is always a good thing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Jon you're just old

No shit.