[cphoffman42]

Yes, variable music pricing is a positive, especially from the point of view of smaller artists. At present, someone going on iTunes has zero incentive to buy something indie instead of a Madonna track. Charging less for the indie provides that incentive. The same works with back catalog titles - people will buy more of them instead of new things that are probably crap.

Here's a quick example. Say Jack had two friends recommend music to him. One told Jack the new Madonna album was good and the other said that Jack had not lived until he have heard the Velvet Underground and Nico. Jack goes onto iTunes and discovers that they are both the same price (lets just assume - because of variable album pricing, this might not be the case). Since Jack has heard stuff by Madonna before, but not the Velvet Underground, he decides to play it safe. In a world with differential pricing, though, Jack discovers that the Madonna album is $16 and the VU album is $9. He decides to go for VU&N and his world is changed for the better.

Now, obviously this means that very popular stuff will be more expensive than less popular stuff. But in aggregate this should work to increase the popularity of indie stuff (because it is cheaper, at least initially), while also pushing down sales of inexplicably popular crap.

[natmusak]

Chris Breen said:

Sorry if that wasn't clear enough. No, competition is a positive. You suggested that the music labels would force Amazon and Rhapsody to jump up their prices. iTunes is a check on that.

Ah, I see what you're saying. :)

Quote

You know what they say about assumptions. So, do you suppose that Apple cuts a separate deal with artists that skirts those artists' contracts with the labels? Or isn't it far more likely that the label ? regardless of whether music is sold through iTunes or Amazon ? ultimately determines how much the artist gets?

Yeah, I hate assumptions too. And the labels are likely the final authority on what their artists get. I'd still rather see more upfront...artist equality (that sounds corny, ugh) and less power given to the labels. With that said, much of the music I listen to is from independent artists who's smaller labels show more respect for their art by giving them more creative freedom and a better cut of music sales. I also appreciate how iTunes is more and more showcasing lesser-known independent artists - Radiohead, for instance - right alongside the big, corporate rock and pop artists. :D

[natmusak]

cphoffman42 said:

Yes, variable music pricing is a positive...
Now, obviously this means that very popular stuff will be more expensive than less popular stuff. But in aggregate this should work to increase the popularity of indie stuff (because it is cheaper, at least initially), while also pushing down sales of inexplicably popular crap.

See, I have a major problem with that. It's not so much that popular stuff is more expensive, but that it appears to be worth more than music from independent artists. Ha, more often than not, in my opinion, it's the opposite. But at the end of the day, I think artists should be on a level playing field, then people can decide for themselves which has more value to them.

As for discounting old music, that's a hard decision. In many ways, a lot of old music has more value than what's current and popular. At the same time, does my favorite artist Bob Dylan really need more money?

There's also the argument that all music should be free and the artists make their money through concert ticket sales. I don't really buy into that. :D
Message was edited by: natmusak

[George76]

natmusak said:

Amazon sells some of its music at $0.89, some of it at $0.99. Why? So the big music labels could charge more for the big name sellers and sideline the less popular artists.

Except the flaw in your argument is that it is the top-selling tracks that go for the $0.89 price and the top selling albums drop to the $8.99 price. It doesn't matter whether it's a big name artist or not.

And to Amazon's credit, they have these wonderful things called "sale prices" that are pretty much a foreign concept to Apple. Every day, Amazon has an album going for a considerably cheaper price than normal. The other week when the new Coldplay album was released, I was able to pick up their earlier albums "Parachutes" and "A Rush of Blood to the Head" for $1.99 each. Over the weekend, I picked up a Ramones album for $1.99. Every Friday, Amazon has 5 albums on sale for $5 each. I guess someone will say it's a desperate attempt to gain customers. Guess what? It's working on me. How many others is it working for as well?

Yes, variable pricing can be a wonderful thing.

Quote

I don't even want to think what percentage the artists actually get from Amazon after their label takes their share.

I'm sure it's just as bad as the percentage they get from iTunes or CD sales.

[natmusak]

[quote name='George76']
>

natmusak said:

> Amazon sells some of its music at $0.89, some of it at $0.99. Why? So the big music labels could charge more for the big name sellers and sideline the less popular artists.

Except the flaw in your argument is that it is the top-selling tracks that go for the $0.89 price and the top selling albums drop to the $8.99 price. It doesn't matter whether it's a big name artist or not.

I'm not horribly familiar with Amazon's MP3 store, but looking through their Top MP3 Songs and Top MP3 Albums categories, I found many $0.99 songs in the former and many $9.99, $10.99, and some $12.99 albums in the latter. So from what I can tell, your statement isn't very accurate. Not calling you a liar, but where are you getting your information?

Quote

And to Amazon's credit, they have these wonderful things called "sale prices" that are pretty much a foreign concept to Apple. Every day, Amazon has an album going for a considerably cheaper price than normal. The other week when the new Coldplay album was released, I was able to pick up their earlier albums "Parachutes" and "A Rush of Blood to the Head" for $1.99 each. Over the weekend, I picked up a Ramones album for $1.99. Every Friday, Amazon has 5 albums on sale for $5 each. I guess someone will say it's a desperate attempt to gain customers. Guess what? It's working on me. How many others is it working for as well?

Those "sale prices" are interesting, but they're also, as you note, temporary. You miss them, you'll be paying the normal amount. I do question if these deals are Amazon's idea considering the labels really have the final say. Also, while Apple initiated the $0.99/song ideal, I question if they are the ones holding back deals like these. Remember, the labels are very much colluding against Apple in an attempt to regain some control. Who knows?

Quote

Yes, variable pricing can be a wonderful thing.

> I don't even want to think what percentage the artists actually get from Amazon after their label takes their share.

I'm sure it's just as bad as the percentage they get from iTunes or CD sales.

Oh, so your assumptions are better than my assumptions? :D

Message was edited by: natmusak

[Chris Breen]

Ultimately, I think the point is that while some feel that iTunes is more consumer friendly, the truth is that, on average, you're more likely to get a better deal from Amazon. Plus, because Amazon's tracks are in MP3 format, you're going to be able to more easily use those tracks without having to convert them.

The good news is that because of outfits like Amazon, iTunes has to adjust. For example, there wasn't a lot of action in moving independent music to the iTunes Plus format until Amazon came along. Additionally iTunes Plus tracks were $1.29. AmazonMP3 comes along and suddenly independents go DRM-free and iTunes Plus tracks drop to 99 cents.

[natmusak]

I do agree on the importance of competition. And not just any old competition, but the like Amazon, eMusic, and now Rhapsody are providing, namely DRM-free music that doesn't tie the user to any player, and more importantly, any platform as Microsoft has sought to do with PlaysForSure and other services that use Windows WMA DRM. I will say considering that iPods make up about 60-70% of the mp3 player market, many people aren't troubled by the iTunes Store's use of the superior AAC format. Also, if I'm not mistaken Amazon lacks a good million and a half indie artists iTunes features. But if Amazon's MP3 store did motivate the movement to iTunes Plus by those artists, that's great.

[Steve_S]

nmpike said:

Not true... since Amazon MP3 went online, I have not bought a single iTunes track... Amazon is often cheaper (.89 per song), without DRM. I know about 15 other people the same way, and I do not know that many people.

I'm sorry to hear about your social problems (of not knowing that many people). ;-) Anyway, I'd agree with you that Amazon represents the best competition to iTunes. I'd also agree they've sold music to some demographic. I've even purchased a few from Amazon. However, I haven't seen any sales data to suggest the iTunes music store has been negatively impacted in any significant way. They still clearly dominate the on-line music distribution business. It's more likely that the Amazon store has had a bigger impact on stores like Rhapsody or the Zune Marketplace, etc.

Also, if we're now discussing anecdotal evidence, I know people that want to buy from iTunes. This is mostly out of convenience. If an iTunes plus track is available, they buy it. If they have to go through the trouble of searching elsewhere, it's typically in the form of P2P. ...And I know a lot of people! ;-)

Quote

I will not buy from Rhapsody because they are still more expensive than Amazon...

To each his own... Either I don't buy enough music, or I make too much money. ;-) Either way, the 10 cent difference isn't a deal breaker for me one way or the other.

Quote

The only complaint I have about Amazon is that they DO NOT HAVE AAC encoded formats. MP3 is inferior to AAC... I wish someone other than apple would allow is to get it in AAC format!

I'd be surprised if you could really tell the difference. I'll be honest and say that I can't. At lower bit rates (128bit and lower), I'd agree with you. At higher bit rates, the difference is negligible to the point most people would not be able to tell the difference. Further, other factors such as the quality of the encoder would play a bigger impact than the file format. In theory, AAC should be better and certainly is at lower bit rates. But, at 256bit, I call BS on that one...

Quote

But to respond to the comment, Amazon is well worth checking out.... matched or better pricing than iTunes, and NO DRM.

I agree, the Amazon store is a good thing. But, I'd prefer the convenience of iTunes. Apparently, so would the majority of on-line music consumers.

[Chris Breen]

natmusak said:

I will say considering that iPods make up about 60-70% of the mp3 player market, many people aren't troubled by the iTunes Store's use of the superior AAC format.

Not to pick on you, but AAC superiority is largely felt at lower bit-rates. For example, an AAC file at 128kbps does sound better to most people than an MP3 file at the same bit rate. But once you head into 256kbps territory, it's going to be a very rare pair of ears that can tell the difference between an AAC and MP3 version.

[natmusak]

[quote name='Chris Breen']
>

natmusak said:

> I will say considering that iPods make up about 60-70% of the mp3 player market, many people aren't troubled by the iTunes Store's use of the superior AAC format.

Not to pick on you, but AAC superiority is largely felt at lower bit-rates. For example, an AAC file at 128kbps does sound better to most people than an MP3 file at the same bit rate. But once you head into 256kbps territory, it's going to be a very rare pair of ears that can tell the difference between an AAC and MP3 version.

Oh yeah, I'm one of the many you're talking about. :D I thought I had made a mistake a few years ago of converting my entire library to 128kbps MP3s (I still consider it an unnecessary waste of time), but even when playing music with AirTunes over my sound system or listening using my v-moda vibe buds, I can't tell a difference between those and more recent tracks that I import using 256kbps VBR AAC. It all sounds great to me.

I should have left my thoughts on AAC vs. MP3 out since my point was simply that many people won't run into trouble with the iTunes Store's use of AACs because a majority of them have iPods. Also, I shouldn't forget, many podcasts I listen to are encoded as MP3s.

[ibeetle]

Does not ACC result in a smaller file size as well? Leaving more space on the iPod for ones entire Beatles, Flamin' Groovies, and Smoke catalog?

[Chris Breen]

ibeetle said:

Does not ACC result in a smaller file size as well? Leaving more space on the iPod for ones entire Beatles, Flamin' Groovies, and Smoke catalog?

No. A 128kbps AAC file is the same size as a 128kbps MP3 file. The reason many people believe AAC encodes smaller is because iTunes' default MP3 encoding is 160kbps versus 128kbps for AAC. A 160kbps file of either variety is larger than the 128kbps version.

[natmusak]

Exactly. The idea with AAC is you get higher sound quality for the same file size, though again, you'll need great ears to hear the difference. If you have those great ears, you could make the argument that more storage space would be taken up with, say, 256kbps MP3s to match the sound quality of 128kbps AACs. You'd really be splitting hair though. :D

[Chris Breen]

That would be a tough sell given that Apple offers iTunes Plus tracks at 256kbps -- so tracks the same size as Amazon and Rhapsody. I mean, if AAC at 128kbps was really good enough in their eyes, why bother with the heftier iTunes Plus tracks?