iTunes 30% Price Increase

[Lott's Bandana]

I loves me some Apple, but a 30% jump on individual songs carries the slight scent of arrogance to me.

[badger]

Oh noes, profits are down due to the failing economy! ooo, I know! let's raise prices to offset the difference, because if we take in more money per sale, we will get more money, period!

:rolleyes:

[NormanPride]

Time to raise the flag...

http://www.halcyon.com/donace/PIRATE05AM.JPG

[Lott's Bandana]

Oh noes, profits are down due to the failing economy! ooo, I know! let's raise prices to offset the difference, because if we take in more money per sale, we will get more money, period!

:rolleyes:


I bought AAPL on the SF stock trader in July of 2008 at $170 per share. It bottomed out at $78.20 in January of this year.

Today: $184.46

I really don't watch the news much, but is Apple the only company who's stock has recovered?

Seems I would have heard about this recovery by now...maybe not.

[proud gonzo]

Did you know the artists get more of the profit when you buy an actual CD than when you buy from iTunes? Strange, huh? Especially considering there's no physical product to deliver when you buy a download...

[Jacie]

I bought AAPL on the SF stock trader in July of 2008 at $170 per share. It bottomed out at $78.20 in January of this year.

Today: $184.46

I really don't watch the news much, but is Apple the only company who's stock has recovered?

Seems I would have heard about this recovery by now...maybe not.

I have been on the SF stock trader since June 21. Since then, the only one of my picks that has lost money is Playboy (PLAA).

Others such as Walmart and Microsoft are up . . .

[49r]

I loves me some Apple, but a 30% jump on individual songs carries the slight scent of arrogance to me.

Blame the record labels, not Apple. If they had it their way, they'd have kept the price the same indefinitely.


Apple Inc. set the 99-cent-per-song rate in 2003 when it launched the iTunes Store. The company long resisted pressure from the music industry to allow flexible pricing, arguing it would inhibit sales. Apple changed its tune in January, however, announcing it would begin selling music at three prices: 69 cents, 99 cents and $1.29, based on wholesale costs set by the labels.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/01/apple-labels-both-win-with-drm-free-itunes-tiered-pricing.ars


Just saying, I don't think Apple did it to increase any profits. The labels forced their hand in order to cling to their dying industry. Tunes are a very low margin product for them.

[49r]

I actually purchased AAPL in 2007 @ $70, BTW. It's done well through the recession.

[Lott's Bandana]

Blame the record labels, not Apple. If they had it their way, they'd have kept the price the same indefinitely.



http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/01/apple-labels-both-win-with-drm-free-itunes-tiered-pricing.ars


Just saying, I don't think Apple did it to increase any profits. The labels forced their hand in order to cling to their dying industry. Tunes are a very low margin product for them.

Excellent link 49r, so can anyone 'splain what DRM-free means to a layperson?

[1890MilesToNorman]

Excellent link 49r, so can anyone 'splain what DRM-free means to a layperson?

Yes, no restrictions on copying or sharing music.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yes, no restrictions on copying or sharing music.

Other than copyright law and your own conscience, of course. There's just no copy protection encoded into the data.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Other than copyright law and your own conscience, of course. There's just no copy protection encoded into the data.

He didn't ask about the morality of DRM-free. :D

[badger]

I must say, Apple has done what nobody thought possible - make people pay for something online that they were already getting for free in massive amounts.

The free online downloading option is what is sinking former superstar companies like Playboy (and a lot of print media like newspapers and magazines, for that matter). However, Apple convinced everyone to not only pay for it, but to also buy their expensive players to play what they download.

[OU4LIFE]

I've found that all itunes songs I purchased are DRM free.....

once I've burned them to a CD.

[yermom]

until i can download them again if i lose them, i'm not buying music from iTunes

DRM is Digital Rights Management - basically a way for a vendor to keep control over their content in some way

with iTunes, it meant that you could only play the files on iPods, iPhones, and in iTunes on computers you had authorized. you could also burn an audio CD, but you are likely losing quality that way

without DRM you are looking at basically just an mp3 file you can do with whatever you want. like me, personally, i have a CD player in my car that will play mp3 CDs, with the old iTunes stuff, i'd have to jump through hoops to play crap in my car, now i could just burn a data CD with the files on it

[StoopTroup]

Did you know the artists get more of the profit when you buy an actual CD than when you buy from iTunes? Strange, huh? Especially considering there's no physical product to deliver when you buy a download...

Especialy when guys like Garth Brooke's was so up in arms about the original guys who made a way for all of us the share the music we purchased.

Napster.

They really tried to ruin them yet Apple gets a free ride?


The music industry made the following claims against Napster:

(1) That its users were directly infringing the plaintiff's copyright;
(2) That Napster was liable for contributory infringement of the plaintiff's copyright; and
(3) That Napster was liable for vicarious infringement of the plaintiff's copyright.