Universal, Sony to Launch New Services → Still too much.

Good start.
What about $9.95 a month for 100 downloads? Sorry but $1 a song is still too much if you ask me. Music isnt a rare commodity and they keep charging more than what its worth.

said by wildxgod:

---

Good start.
What about $9.95 a month for 100 downloads? Sorry but $1 a song is still too much if you ask me. Music isnt a rare commodity and they keep charging more than what its worth.

---

I think $1 per song is very reasonable. When you consider that many people are stuck paying $18 for a CD with one or two songs on it that they want, 1 or 2 dollars is cheap.

What would you consider a fair price??

said by wildxgod:

---

What about $9.95 a month for 100 downloads? Sorry but $1 a song is still too much if you ask me. Music isnt a rare commodity and they keep charging more than what its worth.

---

I'm inclined to agree with you but before they see any kind of money then those rippable mp3s better be top quality, full tracks, not some crappy bitrate, partial. And I better be able to listen to that custom created CD on whichever media of my choice strikes my fancy....Rio,CD,mobileCD player,pc, etc.

$10 a month for up to 100 downloads.
Lets face it, P2P is not going away anytime soon so its gonna be hard to compete with a free product. I would pay $10 a month knowing I could d/l 100 songs and get rid of P2P. Their pricing scenario would have sounded a lot better to me in 2000, but because it took them so long to get their act together a lot of ppl have become accustomed to not paying anything. They have dug their own hole.

Think about it, if they offer music online what are the company's real expenses? They have bare expenses, no cd covers, co inserts it just an MP3 track which can be d/l over and over and over. CD singles used to be $1 and we were getting a physical product.

About $1 per song is right I think. Look back at 1984, a 45 cost $1.99 back then. You got 2 songs. That makes it $.98 per song back then. Two cents inflation over 18 years is not too bad.

diff is the record label had to charge that to cover some of the costs. they still had to buy 45's and press them. in this situation they throw songs onto a server and go home.

Servers aren't free --- and neither is the bandwidth needed to distribute this --

is bestbuy.com ready to service one million simultaneous downloads when a #1 single goes up for sale? No way!

i wonder if they have thought that through completely...

at $10 a month from a cple of million people im sure they could cover all costs. lets say 1MM people sign up at $10 a month, your talking $120MM a year in revenue. They wont have as much overhead as they would when they had to press cd's. $120MM a year is not bad if u ask me, especially considering the alternative $0 revenue a year.

said by wildxgod:

---

They wont have as much overhead as they would when they had to press cd's.

---

they already have all the equipment to press cd's -- it's a sunk cost and they aren't getting that $ back...

the plastic circles, jewel case, and insert cost next to nothing...

now add the additional $ for bandwidth, server space for "tens of thousands of low-priced singles" (Marketwatch), and they still have the costs of recording, promotion, retailers cut, artists royalty, songwriter license, etc, etc...

dont get me wrong - its a step in the right direction - i just dont see how it adds up without the RIAA and/or the label losing $ and i dont think they plan on doing that

I wouldn't like the $10 a month idea, cause some months there's music I like, and some there's not. In a dry month, I'd still have to pay the $10? I doubt you'd get a per-month fee without a contract...but maybe.
I think a $1 per song is GREAT. I can make my own CD mixes for about the same cost as a store-bought CD, without the hassle of dealing with the stupid mall, without having to get off my laaaazy ass, and without having to buy multiple albums to get all the songs I want.
AND I personally am not a big fan of the P2P apps. I know how to use them, and have checked them out, but it rubs my ethic the wrong way...and it's a PITA.
I like this model and I hope it works. Sign me up!
KM

I always thought record companies are charging way too much for CDs, and I think this is a great step forward. I also think as long as they are committed to using the Internet as a deliver medium, the pricing will eventually work out according to market. $1 per song is reasonable, after all, PacBell charges 0.99 for a ringtone .

$120 mm is nothing for a company Sony's size. Everyone here forgets about overhead. Salaries, rent, and other supplies adds up. If I was in their business there is no way I would give up 100 songs for $10 dollars.

quote:

---

is bestbuy.com ready to service one million simultaneous downloads when a #1 single goes up for sale? No way!

---

Well, if 1 million people download 1 hot single per week at $1, they have 4 million dollars per month that they can cut into to spend on servers and bandwidth. I think they can manage. Bandwidth is expensive, but not THAT expensive. Those million aren't going to download the file at the same instant.

-- Rob

I think I would pay $1 a song for a CD quality song, but not for an MP3. I'd probably pay around 50 cents for Mp3 quality.

said by wildxgod:

---

Good start.
What about $9.95 a month for 100 downloads? Sorry but $1 a song is still too much if you ask me.

---

Very easy thing for someone who neither sweats creating or producing it, depending on it for their livelihood, to say.

Would you work to produce something for nearly nothing? Remeber for any piece of music even electronically distributed there are tens to hundreds of people involved with it being there.