Pot calls Kettle ‘greedy’
p2p news / p2pnet:- Steve Jobs, who’s effectively trying to snag the term ‘podcast’ for his very own, is calling the record companies “greedy”.
His remark is leveled at the labels for “considering a hike in the price of digital downloads, warning that such a move would drive users back to piracy,” says Reuters, going on:
“Record companies have begun rethinking how to price songs sold over Apple’s iTunes Internet shop – 99 cents each in the United States and 79 pence in Britain – before new contract negotiations come up with the California-based company.
"If they want to raise the prices, it means that they are getting greedy," Jobs told reporters.
Apple’s own pricing is being studied by the European Commission.
Britain’s Which? (formerly the Consumers’ Association) asked why people in the UK pay more than others in France and Germany for the already over-priced Big Music tracks – that’s to say 79p (about $1.42, or 120 euro cents) against 99 euro cents (68p, about $1.22) in France and Germany.
If the EC finds Apple has indeed been over-charging, will Steve immediately reimburse the people on the sticky end?
Don’t stay tuned.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win
- Mohandas Gandhi
See:-
very own – Apple tries to nab ‘podcast’, September 16, 2005
Reuters – Apple’s Jobs warns on ‘greedy’ music pricing, September 20, 2005
own pricing – iTunes over-pricing charge, December 3, 2004
September 20th, 2005 at 7:53 pm
TThe Labels want a tiered pricing structure according to Chris Anderson the editor of wired Magazine and the author of the Long Tail blog
They want to charge a higher price for thier new releases and less of thier back catalog so Mr Jobs is the greedy one becuse he considers all music to have the same value new release or not .
Heres what Chris Suggests on his blog
“Imagine, for starters, that Apple introduces a three-tiered band of pricing: $1.49, $.99 and $.79 (that would no doubt soon expand to include $.49, but below that the transaction costs of credit card processing and the like start to loom large). Tiered pricing–gold, silver, bronze–is still pretty simple for consumers to understand, yet it introduces a valuable new dimension of demand creation.”
http://www.thelongtail.com/the_long_tail/2005/08/could_the_label.html
September 20th, 2005 at 10:35 pm
If the prices do get raised, they had better start considering offering higher quality downloads for the money they ask or they will start to lose customers. What are they right now, 128k AAC? That’s not even worth a few pennies, and I bet there are a LOT of people who stay away from iTMS for this very reason. If they used a higher bitrate, say 192k, or even better their lossless format, I bet they could bring a lot more folks into their fold. Then 99 cents per song actually starts to make sense. I’ll bet I’m not the only one who would rather pay $15 for a CD with no DRM just to get one song rather than 99 cents for that same song in such a low quality format. I don’t pay good money for crap in any other aspect of my life, so why should we all be expected to for music? Would you pay the going price for a good couch or sofa at the furniture store if it were instead made of cardboard? Of course not, and it’s this kind of limited thinking that is going to keep music downloads at iTMS from becoming as big as it could be (among other things).
September 21st, 2005 at 2:17 am
Then more people will flood the p2p networks and the cartels will be shooting themselves in the foot.
I wouldn’t pay their extortionate prices ever. 15 pence a song is more reasonable. I would consider buying it then.
And you should get extra credits the more you buy. Then you would receive free tracks because of customer loyalty. Thats how they should run their business models.
If they provided cut price songs, then the revenue earned from that would increase sustantially. But of course they are too narrow sighted to see the big picture.
September 21st, 2005 at 10:49 am
It does make sense, as there’s no packaging, no storage costs.
15 pence is worth it… considering the quality, too.
The fact that cartels are charging so much for so little is astounding.
It’s just greed.
September 21st, 2005 at 5:29 pm
It is refreshing to hear people like Jobs call a spade a Spade; but I am offended by his comment about consumers returning to piracy if prices go too high! It really is too bad that Jobs, Gates, the gangster cartels, and the Rent-a-Judges feel compelled to feed their venality by such blatant raping and pillaging of the consumer. I would like to think there will be a time when Karma comes back to haunt them — but, alas, history has shown that although the meek and the peace-makers shall inherit the Kingdom of God, the flatulent, selfish, miserly gourmands go blithely through life with nary a soft leaf brushing too hatshly against their cheeks while they grow fat and wealthy at the expense of others.
Libera me, Domine.
September 21st, 2005 at 6:19 pm
Big music is already trying to kill filesharing and they are putting a dent in it, rather a small one at this time, but they are managing to curb it somewhat. If they fully succeed, it means we would only be able to by music from ‘official’ sites such as iTunes. But that’s not where the bulk of their profits are. How many tunes has iTunes sold up until now and the cartels are getting about 80% of that. Their profits are far greater by selling CDs.
This simply appears to be an attempt to kill even the official online music services, forcing people back to purchasing physical product… back to the business model they have always been familiar with and one they currently have full control over.
Ted V.