iTunes Keeps Download Prices at 99 Cents, From the Financial Times Options

[jonerik]

Apple sets tune for pricing of song downloads

By Joshua Chaffin and Kevin Allison in New York
Published: May 1 2006 21:15 | Last updated: May 1 2006 21:52

itunesApple Computer on Monday revealed it had renewed contracts with the four largest record companies to sell songs through its iTunes digital store at 99 cents each. The agreements came after months of bargaining, and were a defeat for music companies that had been pushing for a variable pricing model.

The music industry’s big four - Universal, Warner Music, EMI and Sony BMG – were not immediately available to comment.

Since iTunes’ launch three years ago, Apple has charged US consumers 99 cents for each track – a uniform price that Steve Jobs, its chief executive, favours because of its simplicity for consumers.

Edgar Bronfman, Warner’s chief executive, and senior executives at EMI and Sony have in recent months supported variable pricing, which would allow them to charge more for new material from top artists. Universal has taken a more modest approach, suggesting that the market should be allowed to develop further before any adjustments are made.

The issue has occasionally become acrimonious, with Mr Jobs last year publicly labelling the industry “greedy”. However, several music executives privately acknowledge that they have little leverage over Mr Jobs.

ITunes accounts for about 80 per cent of the US digital music market at a time when the record companies are desperate to show shareholders they are replacing declining compact disc sales with new internet revenues. “The labels need Apple too much right now,” one record executive said.

Online music sales surged 194 per cent last year to 352m units, according to Nielsen Soundscan, as overall album sales fell 3.9 per cent. Digital sales now account for about 5 per cent of the music majors’ revenues.

The surge underlines the competing priorities for Apple and the music industry. While the record companies are seeking new ways to generate revenues, Apple generates the bulk of its music-related revenues from sales of iPod players.

Some record executives had speculated that the big labels might sign short-term contracts with Apple and revisit the issue later. The companies were also discussing issues such as anti-piracy controls and the possibility of greater interoperability between iTunes and other download services.

[EricDoberman]

It's almost like the label executives know the end is near so they just pissed themselves like aging mongrels who didn't want to fight.

Truthfully the complete arrogance and ignorance the music industry has had regarding technology in the past decade is coming home to roost and it makes me happy inside.

How much of your 1986-2006 music collection was released on major labels? If your answer is 50% or greater you probably have terrible taste. It's nice to know the businesses responsible for popular music's decline are in their death throes. Whatever comes along to replace them will be an improvement because there is nowhere to go but up.

[ThisThreadIsRetarded]

Truthfully the complete arrogance and ignorance

Speaking of complete arrogance and ignorance....

How much of your 1986-2006 music collection was released on major labels? If your answer is 50% or greater you probably have terrible taste.

[EricDoberman]

Speaking of complete arrogance and ignorance....

No, it's pretty much true.

[luca brazzi]

It's almost like the label executives know the end is near so they just pissed themselves like aging mongrels who didn't want to fight.

Truthfully the complete arrogance and ignorance the music industry has had regarding technology in the past decade is coming home to roost and it makes me happy inside.

How much of your 1986-2006 music collection was released on major labels? If your answer is 50% or greater you probably have terrible taste. It's nice to know the businesses responsible for popular music's decline are in their death throes. Whatever comes along to replace them will be an improvement because there is nowhere to go but up.

c'mon now... I agree with most of your post, but these lines are a bit over the top.

elvis costello, motorhead, tool, springsteen, dylan, richard thompson, los lobos, outkast, tom petty, nirvana, NIN, the pixies, flaming lips, ryan adams, radiohead, afghan whigs, peter gabriel, pearl jam, blur, pulp, oasis, prince, wilco, tom waits, lucinda williams, neil young, that "new" coltrane/monk record, yeah yeah yeah's, white stripes, etc

are just a few of the bands/musicians who've released albums in this time period I've seen cited on the board more than once as largely influential on the people here, or considered good taste.

the majors fuck it up quite a bit, and they definitely fuck over the artists even more than they fuck over the consumer, but it don't mean that they don't put out a lotta good shit. with just the sheer volume of shit they put out, a certain percentage is gonna be good despite themselves.

[EricDoberman]

c'mon now... I agree with most of your post, but these lines are a bit over the top.


are just a few of the bands/musicians who've released albums in this time period I've seen cited on the board more than once as largely influential on the people here, or considered good taste.

At least half of the people you cited peaked WAY before 1986.

My point is that at least half of the story of the last 20 years was told by labels like Taang!, Dischord, SubPop etc and the majors were largely asleep at the switch.

[luca brazzi]

At least half of the people you cited peaked WAY before 1986.

in the cases of Dylan, Springsteen, Petty, Motorhead, coltrane/monk (both were dead) you're probably right... and with waits, thompson, costello, prince and gabriel one could debate (prince's masterpieces sign o the times, parade and diamonds and pearls all came later, as did gabriel's So, much of costello's material, and waits stuff like frank's wild years, big time, bone machine and black rider all came after this)....

so that's 5 definites and 5 that people will most likely debate. I mentioned 30 artists.

just because an artist reached a "peak" (and really, it seems like you are referring to peak meaning intersection of artistic achievment with mass popularity - something that indie lables very rarely get to) doesn't mean that further peaks cannot be reached in the future, or they stop putting out relevant music.

My point is that at least half of the story of the last 20 years was told by labels like Taang!, Dischord, SubPop etc and the majors were largely asleep at the switch.

I get that - and it is a good point. but you dilute it with that comment about the bad taste thing.

this is the hipster thing of "I love it when it's underground and mine and when it gets real popular, fuck it, they sold out"

[Arz]

Why did they write "194 per cent" instead of 194%?

[listen you ballbag]

why spend money on mp3s when you can get them for free?