Comments on: iTunes Music Store shortcomings http://steinbaugh.com/journal/itunes-store/ University of Michigan Cellular and Molecular Biology graduate student. Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:31:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Anonymous http://steinbaugh.com/journal/itunes-store/#comment-882 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://mike.steinbaugh.com/?p=505#comment-882 <p>Real's 50 cent songs are only until labor day, then they go back to 99 cents.</p> Real’s 50 cent songs are only until labor day, then they go back to 99 cents.

]]> By: Anonymous http://steinbaugh.com/journal/itunes-store/#comment-883 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://mike.steinbaugh.com/?p=505#comment-883 <p>Real has already stated that they are going to <em>lose</em> millions of dollars by selling songs for 50 cents - for just a few weeks! They are only doing it as a last-ditch desperate effort to attract customers. Also, if you download songs from Real and want to use them with your iPod, Real tells you that you can't use iTunes to manage your music collection. What's the point in that?</p> <p>I have purchased a few albums and a few singles from iTunes and have been happy with the service. The small amount of DRM hasn't gotten in my way at all, and if I really had a problem with it, I could just burn the songs to an audio CD and re-rip them. Bye-Bye DRM.</p> Real has already stated that they are going to lose millions of dollars by selling songs for 50 cents – for just a few weeks! They are only doing it as a last-ditch desperate effort to attract customers. Also, if you download songs from Real and want to use them with your iPod, Real tells you that you can’t use iTunes to manage your music collection. What’s the point in that?

I have purchased a few albums and a few singles from iTunes and have been happy with the service. The small amount of DRM hasn’t gotten in my way at all, and if I really had a problem with it, I could just burn the songs to an audio CD and re-rip them. Bye-Bye DRM.

]]> By: DRM slam http://steinbaugh.com/journal/itunes-store/#comment-884 DRM slam Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://mike.steinbaugh.com/?p=505#comment-884 <p>Sounds like you've got issues about DRM and online music in general, because what you said about song costs, DRM policies, music selection are issues that all online music store face... My question to you is, given iTMS is not "perfect" to your liking, how does it compare to other stores? Are there viable alternatives that you think the both the recording industry and online providers will be able to realistically fulfil? Secondly, like you said... CDs are there. Don't like the online deal, go get the CD and live with it. You are buying a service, not getting a God given right.</p> Sounds like you’ve got issues about DRM and online music in general, because what you said about song costs, DRM policies, music selection are issues that all online music store face… My question to you is, given iTMS is not “perfect” to your liking, how does it compare to other stores? Are there viable alternatives that you think the both the recording industry and online providers will be able to realistically fulfil? Secondly, like you said… CDs are there. Don’t like the online deal, go get the CD and live with it. You are buying a service, not getting a God given right.

]]> By: Anonymous http://steinbaugh.com/journal/itunes-store/#comment-885 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://mike.steinbaugh.com/?p=505#comment-885 <p>The "album only" or certain tunes on the CD not available at all on the iTMS, or inconsistent pricing (10-song album for 12.99 rather than the "standard" 9.99) -- all these restrictions are imposed by the record label (or in some rare cases by the artist), not by Apple. I think Apple's DRM is an aceptable compromise between giving the record companies their due (and hopefully, the artists -- although the less popular artists often DON'T get their due) and giving me a reasonable amount of freedom in how I use the tunes. I would like higher bit-rates, however. I usually rip at 192 AAC, and would rather but tunes ripped at that rate.</p> The “album only” or certain tunes on the CD not available at all on the iTMS, or inconsistent pricing (10-song album for 12.99 rather than the “standard” 9.99) — all these restrictions are imposed by the record label (or in some rare cases by the artist), not by Apple. I think Apple’s DRM is an aceptable compromise between giving the record companies their due (and hopefully, the artists — although the less popular artists often DON’T get their due) and giving me a reasonable amount of freedom in how I use the tunes. I would like higher bit-rates, however. I usually rip at 192 AAC, and would rather but tunes ripped at that rate.

]]> By: jojoe http://steinbaugh.com/journal/itunes-store/#comment-886 jojoe Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://mike.steinbaugh.com/?p=505#comment-886 <p>I will tell you exactly why 99 cents is not a rip off. Let us take my case. I have downloaded about 200 songs. Cost $200. In the past I would not have purchased any of this music. There would probably be one song per CD for the 200 songs I bought. If I bought all $200 CD's this would have cost me $2,000 at the record store. But it only cost me $200. 50 cents per song would be ok if you had to buy the whole CD. The music people are never going to let you buy just the one song on the CD for a ridiculus price. You have to analyze this from the viewpoint of the artist who does need to make a living</p> I will tell you exactly why 99 cents is not a rip off. Let us take my case. I have downloaded about 200 songs. Cost $200. In the past I would not have purchased any of this music. There would probably be one song per CD for the 200 songs I bought. If I bought all $200 CD’s this would have cost me $2,000 at the record store. But it only cost me $200. 50 cents per song would be ok if you had to buy the whole CD. The music people are never going to let you buy just the one song on the CD for a ridiculus price. You have to analyze this from the viewpoint of the artist who does need to make a living

]]> By: Michael Steinbaugh http://steinbaugh.com/journal/itunes-store/#comment-887 Michael Steinbaugh Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://mike.steinbaugh.com/?p=505#comment-887 <p>Jojoe: clearly you didn't read my first point.</p> <p>Anonymous comment #4: Yes, it is the record industry that is forcing Apple to price albums that way, but that model will ultimately fail. Like Jojoe said, he likes being able to buy singles from the store and not entire albums. Otherwise, it's not any different than wasting money on entire albums from a retail CD just to get one track you like.</p> <p>Yes, iTMS is the best service out there. However, I still think it is a better value to just go out and buy a CD. Until Apple makes pricing changes, most consumers are going avoid iTMS and head to their local record store.</p> Jojoe: clearly you didn’t read my first point.

Anonymous comment #4: Yes, it is the record industry that is forcing Apple to price albums that way, but that model will ultimately fail. Like Jojoe said, he likes being able to buy singles from the store and not entire albums. Otherwise, it’s not any different than wasting money on entire albums from a retail CD just to get one track you like.

Yes, iTMS is the best service out there. However, I still think it is a better value to just go out and buy a CD. Until Apple makes pricing changes, most consumers are going avoid iTMS and head to their local record store.

]]> By: Al http://steinbaugh.com/journal/itunes-store/#comment-888 Al Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://mike.steinbaugh.com/?p=505#comment-888 <p>'Until Apple makes pricing changes'.</p> <p>You say you know that the recording industry regulates what can be sold and how it can be sold and what the return must be to the recording industry and yet you want Apple to change the pricing. What part of recording industry control don't you understand?</p> <p>Apple gives away free recordings at their own expence. Do you want them to do more? Do you want them to loose money on each transaction? Would that sell more iPods? No.</p> <p>You probably think iPods are overpriced also. You should have bought a Dell DJ. Now there's a bargain. It works with Real's jukebox software also. You would be happier if you switched.</p> ‘Until Apple makes pricing changes’.

You say you know that the recording industry regulates what can be sold and how it can be sold and what the return must be to the recording industry and yet you want Apple to change the pricing. What part of recording industry control don’t you understand?

Apple gives away free recordings at their own expence. Do you want them to do more? Do you want them to loose money on each transaction? Would that sell more iPods? No.

You probably think iPods are overpriced also. You should have bought a Dell DJ. Now there’s a bargain. It works with Real’s jukebox software also. You would be happier if you switched.

]]> By: Michael Steinbaugh http://steinbaugh.com/journal/itunes-store/#comment-889 Michael Steinbaugh Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://mike.steinbaugh.com/?p=505#comment-889 <p>Al: First off, no the iPods are not overpriced. The 3G models were, yes, but the current pricing is excellent. No complaints there.</p> <p>I understand that the RIAA controls pricing and that Apple has to price the songs at a certain set point in order to break even. Apple is currently making its money off of iPods and not off of iTMS downloads.</p> <p>However, Apple does have the ability to put pressure on the RIAA to lower its price controls and give consumers a break. The RIAA is already giving in on CD prices, which have dropped over two dollars per album in the past year. Many new albums are retailing at $9.99, which I think is fair to both consumers and the recording companies.</p> <p>Perhaps 50 cents per song is a little low, but 99 cents is definitely too high. This is a grey area. Remember, digital audio requires fewer manufacturing expenses. I understand that Apple makes very little money off of song sales, but the RIAA is making a tidy little profit with its price controls. Reducing a little bit of their margin I think would increase store sales and make picky consumers like me think twice about downloading.</p> <p>Read the article carefully. I'm not blaming Apple for the overly expensive songs. You are correct in pointing out that it is the RIAA who is jacking up prices.</p> Al: First off, no the iPods are not overpriced. The 3G models were, yes, but the current pricing is excellent. No complaints there.

I understand that the RIAA controls pricing and that Apple has to price the songs at a certain set point in order to break even. Apple is currently making its money off of iPods and not off of iTMS downloads.

However, Apple does have the ability to put pressure on the RIAA to lower its price controls and give consumers a break. The RIAA is already giving in on CD prices, which have dropped over two dollars per album in the past year. Many new albums are retailing at $9.99, which I think is fair to both consumers and the recording companies.

Perhaps 50 cents per song is a little low, but 99 cents is definitely too high. This is a grey area. Remember, digital audio requires fewer manufacturing expenses. I understand that Apple makes very little money off of song sales, but the RIAA is making a tidy little profit with its price controls. Reducing a little bit of their margin I think would increase store sales and make picky consumers like me think twice about downloading.

Read the article carefully. I’m not blaming Apple for the overly expensive songs. You are correct in pointing out that it is the RIAA who is jacking up prices.

]]> By: Dave http://steinbaugh.com/journal/itunes-store/#comment-890 Dave Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://mike.steinbaugh.com/?p=505#comment-890 <p>So the question is: how do we pressure the RIAA to give up some? I think the true beauty of the music store will come into view as artists begin to abandon selling CDs altogether and go the route of selling their music directly to us via Apple. Would they really make less money? NO. Most would make more since many make close to nothing now on each CD sold at WalMart. I suspect this is what Apple expects in the long run as well. This means we may see lower prices and/or possibly better bit rates. I know that we've lost most of our great music stores here in Montreal. The bulk of the CD sales appear to come through WalMart and Cosco. That's fine if you keep to a limited range of music. Apple has the potential of returning me to the days when I could discover new music by browsing through Sam the Record man... now gone sadly...</p> So the question is: how do we pressure the RIAA to give up some? I think the true beauty of the music store will come into view as artists begin to abandon selling CDs altogether and go the route of selling their music directly to us via Apple. Would they really make less money? NO. Most would make more since many make close to nothing now on each CD sold at WalMart. I suspect this is what Apple expects in the long run as well. This means we may see lower prices and/or possibly better bit rates. I know that we’ve lost most of our great music stores here in Montreal. The bulk of the CD sales appear to come through WalMart and Cosco. That’s fine if you keep to a limited range of music. Apple has the potential of returning me to the days when I could discover new music by browsing through Sam the Record man… now gone sadly…

]]> By: Anonymous http://steinbaugh.com/journal/itunes-store/#comment-891 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://mike.steinbaugh.com/?p=505#comment-891 <p>The idea that 99 cents is too much for a song, I think, lacks some perspective. I think people are too inclined to think of prices as reflecting some sort of cost of goods sold plus some markup, and don't think that 99 cents is a fair price for something where the costs of goods sold on a marginal basis is relatively small (that is, given that they're selling "(I've Just Begun) Having My Fun" by Britney Spears, it just costs them whatever the bandwidth costs are to sell an extra copy of it). But that's the wrong way to look at it.</p> <p>Fact of the matter is, 99 cents is way too much for any song by Britney Spears, cause everything she does sucks. (Your opinion may differ). Whereas a song like "Stuck in a Moment" by U2, or (insert your favorite song here) is a bargain at 99 cents.</p> <p>The question is not what it costs Apple or the labels to sell the song. The question is what the market will bear. And the question is not whether 99 cents is too much. The question is: how certain do you have to be that you will like the song before you go ahead and click that "Buy Song" button?</p> <p>I've downloaded some of the free songs, and frankly they all pretty much suck. But I find that the 99 cents doesn't inhibit me from buying a song if after hearing the preview it sounds interesting. Your mileage may vary. But I think 99 cents is a bargain for a good song.</p> The idea that 99 cents is too much for a song, I think, lacks some perspective. I think people are too inclined to think of prices as reflecting some sort of cost of goods sold plus some markup, and don’t think that 99 cents is a fair price for something where the costs of goods sold on a marginal basis is relatively small (that is, given that they’re selling “(I’ve Just Begun) Having My Fun” by Britney Spears, it just costs them whatever the bandwidth costs are to sell an extra copy of it). But that’s the wrong way to look at it.

Fact of the matter is, 99 cents is way too much for any song by Britney Spears, cause everything she does sucks. (Your opinion may differ). Whereas a song like “Stuck in a Moment” by U2, or (insert your favorite song here) is a bargain at 99 cents.

The question is not what it costs Apple or the labels to sell the song. The question is what the market will bear. And the question is not whether 99 cents is too much. The question is: how certain do you have to be that you will like the song before you go ahead and click that “Buy Song” button?

I’ve downloaded some of the free songs, and frankly they all pretty much suck. But I find that the 99 cents doesn’t inhibit me from buying a song if after hearing the preview it sounds interesting. Your mileage may vary. But I think 99 cents is a bargain for a good song.

]]> By: Michael Steinbaugh http://steinbaugh.com/journal/itunes-store/#comment-892 Michael Steinbaugh Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://mike.steinbaugh.com/?p=505#comment-892 <p>Anonymous #10: That's an interesting point. I agree that price isn't currently the biggest issue with iTMS and that 99 cents can indeed be a great deal for a song you want. The idea of pricing songs based on popularity would be pretty tricky to execute I think though.</p> <p>Heh, if songs were priced based on demand, I'd probably save a lot of money because I tend to listen to indie rock and electronica. The TRL drones would be the ones paying extra money for overpriced garbage.</p> <p>All I know with regard to price is that Apple is charging more than its competitors currently (WalMart has a flat rate of 88 cents per song). The reasons aren't totally clear why Apple charges an extra eleven cents per song, but it probably has something to do with covering the costs of developing the store technology.</p> Anonymous #10: That’s an interesting point. I agree that price isn’t currently the biggest issue with iTMS and that 99 cents can indeed be a great deal for a song you want. The idea of pricing songs based on popularity would be pretty tricky to execute I think though.

Heh, if songs were priced based on demand, I’d probably save a lot of money because I tend to listen to indie rock and electronica. The TRL drones would be the ones paying extra money for overpriced garbage.

All I know with regard to price is that Apple is charging more than its competitors currently (WalMart has a flat rate of 88 cents per song). The reasons aren’t totally clear why Apple charges an extra eleven cents per song, but it probably has something to do with covering the costs of developing the store technology.

]]> By: KK http://steinbaugh.com/journal/itunes-store/#comment-893 KK Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://mike.steinbaugh.com/?p=505#comment-893 <p>Walmart may either 1) eat the costs of the music operation (i.e., costs absorbed by other costs of running the whole Walmart.com store), or 2) been able to use pricing power from being the largest retailer of music (CDs!) to force the labels to give it a reduced price.</p> <p>Hey, your site is pretty neat (except for those google ads)! Like the immediate comment preview.</p> Walmart may either 1) eat the costs of the music operation (i.e., costs absorbed by other costs of running the whole Walmart.com store), or 2) been able to use pricing power from being the largest retailer of music (CDs!) to force the labels to give it a reduced price.

Hey, your site is pretty neat (except for those google ads)! Like the immediate comment preview.

]]> By: Matt Wilber http://steinbaugh.com/journal/itunes-store/#comment-894 Matt Wilber Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://mike.steinbaugh.com/?p=505#comment-894 <p>I think its way overpriced.</p> <p>If you can buy a 19 track CD for $10 to $15. Why pay an extra $4 to download them? Unless im missing something here. Which, most likely I am.</p> I think its way overpriced.

If you can buy a 19 track CD for $10 to $15. Why pay an extra $4 to download them? Unless im missing something here. Which, most likely I am.

]]>