StarDestroyer.Net BBS

According the Forbes, EMI has an understanding with Apple that flat fee pricing will end within the next 12 months, and more popular songs will be priced higher than 99c, while lesser known acts will be priced lower than 99c."
From the article: "Label executives have made multiple arguments for flexible pricing. They argue, for instance, that almost all retail businesses have different price points for different products.
But they are particularly interested in boosting their revenue from digital music sales, which aided by the sale of mobile phone ringtones, are increasing but not quickly enough to replace the continuing drops in compact disc sales.
EMI said today that digital sales, made up 4.9% of the company's sales in the last six months, up from 2.1% a year ago."

link
Maybe I'm being pessimistic and the labes won't charge 2.50 for new songs as they do with cell phone bought songs (Including the new cingular store), and will reduce the price of old songs by a fair amount, surely they wouldn't rampantly increase the price of anything less than a century old

Edited thread title for accuracy.

actually since RIAA doesn't own most of the songs on my dad's burn list/my own burn list. My dad used to have the distinction of being one of the highest uploaders of rare blues. All hail long dead blues and folk muscians and the power of the 78rpm with laser scanner replacing the old phono needle....

I don't see this happening. Apple has a history of being stubborn with these kinds of things. They delayed the release of QuickTime 6 for months until they managed to negotiate free consumer streaming with the MPEG group. I don't see them backing down on the $0.99 pricing, especially since Jobs has been such a vocal opponent of raising prices.

Durandal wrote:I don't see this happening. Apple has a history of being stubborn with these kinds of things. They delayed the release of QuickTime 6 for months until they managed to negotiate free consumer streaming with the MPEG group. I don't see them backing down on the $0.99 pricing, especially since Jobs has been such a vocal opponent of raising prices.

One question: how? Apple's contract with the RIAA is running out and they have to renegotiate. What leverage do you figure that Apple has at this point while the five big labels are still running with a cartel mindset? None of them are going to make a deal with Apple seperately and as long as there are competitors of the Apple Music Store willing to sell for the RIAA's prices, how exactly do you figure they give a shit if it is Apple or someone else?

As nice as Apple's music efforts have been, they have no power in the music industry as of yet. No artist is going to jump their music contract to sign with Apple and until Apple is capable of touting sole distribution channels, the RIAA can always walk away. Hell, they can walk away anyway; they certainly might be willing to ditch online sales and stick with CD's which they have much more control over. Their customers might howl, but I wouldn't put it past them.

EDIT:

It's not just Forbes either. Look at this (original article from WSJ not here because subscription was needed, but The Inq will do...)

The Inq wrote:APPLE is expected to back down on its one price fits all music price under pressure from the music industry.

The company's spiritual and temporal ruler Steve Jobs had slammed the music industry for being too greedy by demanding Apple flog its music at a variable rate. However, according to the Wall Street Journal, EMI expects Apple to increase the price of popular songs and cut those by unknown acts on its iTunes Web site within a year.

EMI Music CEO, Alain Levy, said he had a chat with Jobs and believed Apple planned to end its single-price policy for iTunes music.

Levy said that there was a common understanding that we will have to come to a variable pricing structure. The thing was when Apple would do it. Of course there is variable pricing. The US price of 99 cents miraculously becomes 99 pennies over in Blightyland.