BILLBOARD: Poll: 99 Cents Too Expensive For Downloads | iLounge News

News

BILLBOARD: Poll: 99 Cents Too Expensive For Downloads

“A single song download is too pricey at 99 cents, according to a Billboard.com poll. Of 9,034 voters, 61% said that the base price at such online outlets as Apple’s iTunes is too expensive for them.”

« Apple launches ‘iPod-a-Day Giveaway’

The Onion: I Have An iPod—In My Mind »

Related Stories

Comments

1

nothing will be “cheap” compared to free mp3s

Posted by spectzix on August 19, 2003 at 11:48 PM (CDT)

2

That’s why it will never work.

Posted by Bob on August 20, 2003 at 1:52 AM (CDT)

3

Maybe 50 cents is better.

Posted by MM on August 20, 2003 at 4:36 AM (CDT)

4

10 cents is fair in my opinion

Posted by ti on August 20, 2003 at 5:07 AM (CDT)

5

$9.99 is cheap enough for an album. That’s why it’s better to buy the album instead of a few single tracks.

Posted by kainjow on August 20, 2003 at 5:10 AM (CDT)

6

I just spent 20 bucks on a CD this week, 99 cents a song is just dandy.  If the itunes music store ever comes to PC, i could very well spend my paycheck there every week.

BTW, im guessin they interviewed the trailer park welfare retards without computers.

Posted by Keaner on August 20, 2003 at 5:22 AM (CDT)

7

i agree with ti, 10 cents with no restrictions is what would get me to go from free to pay services. until then, kazaa here i come

Posted by bb_dg on August 20, 2003 at 8:00 AM (CDT)

8

So, 39% are fine with purchasing songs at $0.99.  Sounds like a pretty good market to me.

Posted by thenightfly42 on August 20, 2003 at 8:23 AM (CDT)

9

39% does sound like a pretty good market.  Plus, beware the self-selected sample.  I do think that we may be in for a price cut in the future, but I’m guessing it’ll drop to something like $0.79 a song, not $0.10.

Posted by Ellat on August 20, 2003 at 8:34 AM (CDT)

10

if they can encode the song with higher bit rate…...  then 99 cents is good.

Posted by Paul on August 20, 2003 at 8:49 AM (CDT)

11

As an iPod user, this comes to me as no surprise. I a person wanted to fill the 10GB iPod with songs only from the iTunes music store, it would cost them $1,980 (a pretty hefty investment for entertainment). At ten cents a song this would only cost $200, a price that I think most people would be willing to pay, but the record companies would never be able to afford. It would be nice if they could find some sort of middle ground, like twenty-five cents a song.

P.S. Stand up for your rights, fight the RIAA.
www.boycott-riaa.com

Posted by Locke on August 20, 2003 at 9:02 AM (CDT)

12

Why am I paying 99 cents when the record company no longer has to pay anything for distribution, packaging, production, shipping, etc. I’m sure the artists aren’t getting most of that 99 cents anyway.

I do think services like eMusic are worth it though. For 9.99 I can download as much as I want. Don’t tell me “they don’t have any good artists or bands”. I don’t need to listen to top40 “you will buy what we play—and we play the same 8 bands over and over” radio to know about good music.

Posted by digitaltrapper on August 20, 2003 at 9:35 AM (CDT)

13

It is ridiculous to expect less than 99 cents per song and still be profitable, at least until there is more demand and more competition driving the pricing down (ie: when iTMS reaches Windows and International Community, along with offerings by Microsoft and Amazon.com). 

The price suggestions from 50 cents and below are pretty absurd, considering the legal alternative is to buy the actual CD for $20.  Those who want something for nothing should just take the risk and download illegally.  Something I do not condone.

Posted by Styx on August 20, 2003 at 9:54 AM (CDT)

14

$1,980 to fill your iPod?  Freakin’ wah!  I own nearly 700 CD’s… at an average of $15 a pop, that’s $10,500.

If you like the music, pay the price.  If you don’t like the price, don’t steal the music.  Theft is theft, no matter how you justify it.

If you don’t like the price, then you boycott the music industry all together.  Only by not spending money and *not* stealing at the same time is going to make a statement to the industry.  Stealing only makes you a theif.  There’s a difference between saying “Your product is overpriced, and I will have nothting to do with it until you change your pricing model…” versus “Your product is over priced, so I’m going to steal it, instead.”

And 10 cents a song?  You’ve got to be kidding me.  Even if an artist got 10% of the profits (which is rare), they’d only make a penny per sale.  For musicians, making music is their job.  If they can’t live off of what they earn, they stop making music.  Artists need to eat, too, you know.

Maybe once you all get into the working world, where the rest of us live, and you start going through layoffs and pay cuts and raise freezes, you’ll understand what it’s like to not be compensated for your hard work.

Posted by Rance on August 20, 2003 at 10:00 AM (CDT)

15

digitaltrapper, you’re right!

Studio time, studio musicians, recording, producing and mastering, pressing masters and paying all those people to do all that stuff is just a ruse to get you to pay more money.

All the smart people know that music is created out of thin air by magic elves.  Like the ones that make the cookies, but different.

Posted by Rance on August 20, 2003 at 10:05 AM (CDT)

16

I’m not saying that it doesn’t cost anything to produce the music… I am saying that most of what you are paying for, when you buy a $15 CD has nothing to do with the production of the music itself, and more to do with the way the recording industry has artifically inflated the prices of CDs. I’m not making this stuff up. Several big name music companies were found guilty of price fixing.

If a CD in a store costs $15 and one online costs $10, and by selling it online you didn’t have to produce 250,000 CDs, press them, print artwork, spend money shipping them to all of the stores they are sold in, etc etc. 

I don’t download music illegaly either. When I do want something that eMusic doesn’t have, I go to the store and spend the money for the CD. I’m happy spending the money but the prices keep me from buying more than I currently do.

Posted by digitaltrapper on August 20, 2003 at 12:16 PM (CDT)

17

http://www.musiccdsettlement.com/english/default.htm

Contains the legal settlement the recording industry has to pay for price fixing.

Posted by digitaltrapper on August 20, 2003 at 12:20 PM (CDT)

18

If I had to pay $20.00 bucks for a cd, I would think .99 is liveable. In my area the most I pay at circiut city or best buy is $12.99, sometimes $9.99, then I own the cd, plus I can’t get anything but dialup where I live anyway. I truly feel pity for anyone paying 20 bucks for a cd!

Posted by Del Griffith on August 20, 2003 at 12:54 PM (CDT)

19

I only paid 20 bucks for my cd because FYE (some really horrible retailer that charges 20 bucks for any cd) was the only retailer that carried it.  Most of the time i go to wallmart or CC or BB and get it for 12.99 or somethin.

I cannot stand downloading from kazaa because 1- the spyware is unbelieveable, a friend of mine lost his credit card number to spyware included in a copy of kazaa.  It cost him more in agravation than the free music was worth. 2- If you are LUCKY on kazaa you can get music at 128bitrate, otherwise its 94, which sucks btw.  And the 128 on kazaa always seems like they used the MusicMatch encoder, if ya know what i mean.  3- The iPod is easily the most sensitive player to bitrates ever.  If i play a 128 bit song (mp3 mind you) on my car stereo, it sounds sufficient, i play it on the ipod, and i can hear every artifact.  Now, iTunes music store does AAC, which is better compression, so i wont hear a thing.  I already have to encode at 192 bitrate off my CD’s for my ipod to have it barable to listen to, so id rather either have the CD, or be able to get it from itunes (come on apple, just cause i use windows doesnt mean i suck enough to not get itunes!).

/end rant

And theft is morally wrong, any how, any way, so deal with it.

And another point, for that 15 dollars, you are getting the art on the case, the case, the cd, the printing and whatnot—which costs them a grand total of 12 cents a CD.  Hows that for a discount?

now, instead you get an album for 9.99, which is a great deal, any less and the artists get screwed.

Posted by Keaner on August 20, 2003 at 1:20 PM (CDT)

20

Crap.  Just lost an incredibly articulate post, which was lost due to character limit exceeded.

So I’ll summarize:  A physical cd, $15, an online album $10.  You’re already paying a lower price.

Maybe when I’m done being ticked off, I’ll try to post my long reply again.

Posted by Rance on August 20, 2003 at 2:11 PM (CDT)

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy