 piPremium
join:2002-01-19
Harwood Heights, IL | Prices will probably change It will probably change to over $1. And eventually it'll get even higher than that and reach the point where going out a buying a CD is much cheaper. But people will still use iTunes. Why? Because everyone seems to be stuck with the mindset that 'mac/apple=geius+good' and 'my iPod changed my life'.
--
Legalize free-enterprise murder: why should governments have all the fun? |
|
 ChiyoSave Me Konata-ChanPremium
join:2003-02-20
Charlotte, NC
kudos:1 | what a bunch of greedy assholes. They were wineing 2 years ago about how they were going bankrupt. Now they come up with a good idea find the sweet spot and now it isn't a enough. I hope someone steps in and does somthing. But they won't they got high paying lobbiests on their side. |
|
|
|
| reply to pi
Still angry you didn't get your iPod for Christmas, aincha.
People use ITMS because they can legally create their own CDs for about the same amount of money it takes to buy one CD with one decent song. The music industry knows the score, and they desperately want to keep profitability where it was five years ago.
I think the pricing scheme is absolutely a win. The most popular music is usually rehashed trash with no creativity. At some point, they're going to have to dispense with the cookie-cutter format groups and actually return to pushing artists with talent.
Kelly Clarkston, your fifteen minutes are about up sweetie. |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| At least Kelly Clarkson can actually sing. Her second album was really quite good for the genre. Certainly not the "one hit wonder" albums that are so typical these days. The really sorry ones are the those that lip sync their concerts because they can't carry a tune live.
-- Rob
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
 TsumePremium
join:2004-02-23
Johnson City, TN | reply to clickie
Why would you WANT an iPos for christmas =\ |
|
| reply to clickie
said by clickie:I think the pricing scheme is absolutely a win. The most popular music is usually rehashed trash with no creativity. At some point, they're going to have to dispense with the cookie-cutter format groups and actually return to pushing artists with talent. Don't be so sure about that. For one I don't think the top 100 downloads fit the major label's model of all the artists they want on top. Second I believe the price increase will in no way affect how those "cookie-cutter" artists are being promoted. Already their CD's tend to be the highest priced in the record stores yet they still sell.
Keep in mind the labels put heavy promotional power (and payola) to keep those artists in the limelight. They know the artists will sell because it's just about all you hear on the radio (thanks to the above-mentioned payola). All the price gouging will do is potentially hurt iTunes as a whole and possibly force them to close if they lose too much revenue. Something the labels wouldn't shed a tear over. In fact they would herald the evils of downloading and urge people to go buy records promoted by the radio stations (that they control). |
|
 tapeloopNot bad at all, really.Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
kudos:1 | Well said SRFireside.
Wired had a great article a few months ago showing the (rather obvious) faults in the music industry model. Interesting point: the profits made from sales of artists on the "lower end" of the popularity scale (i.e. not the Britneys, 50 Cents, and Kelly Clarksons) total and in some cases exceed the totals of the top 100 or so artists.
The Rhapsody demand, however, keeps going. Not only is every one of Rhapsody's top 100,000 tracks streamed at least once each month, the same is true for its top 200,000, top 300,000, and top 400,000. As fast as Rhapsody adds tracks to its library, those songs find an audience, even if it's just a few people a month, somewhere in the country.
This is the Long Tail.
In short, the RIAA fails to realize that the music-listening public wants more than that handful of bands that are played every 5 minutes 50 times a day 7 days a week on Clear Channel stations. And not only that, there's lots of money to be had from those folks. And not only that, it can be done cheaply and efficiently, but no one in the industry seems to be willing to undertake such a thing.
Netflix embraced the online delivery method of physical product, and now they stand to make even more with movie downloads. Amazon learned a long time ago that they don't need brick-and-mortar stores for a business model, and with the more choice you offer, the more "other" products people would be willing to buy (especially with recommendations).
It's no wonder former RIAA mouthpiece Hillary Rosen is raising such a fuss: the record labels are shooting themselves in the foot.
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. |
|
