jump to navigation

$1.29 a song? Are you for real? April 8, 2009

Posted by fetzthechemist in Uncategorized.

Apple announced a price structure change from their universal price of $ 0.99 per song on iTunes. Now some older songs are cheaper, $ 0.69, but new and popular songs are going to be $ 1.29. As with most things, this is just raw greed for a bigger profit.

If you look at the older generation of music, a CD that cost approximately $ 15 for usually 15 to 20 songs, you got a physical object with its added costs for production and artwork and distribution. Download gave electronic versions of those cheaper if you bought a whole album.

But Apple, and other downloading stores like Amazon’s followed suit in lockstep, charged $0.99 a song. Who came up with that price? Even at half that, $ 0.49, they made money at the same rates as the downloaded album. So you paid double for the option of only getting one, two, three, or four songs off an album. More than that and you just bought the whole album.

Now Apple says they need more money per song. That extra $ 0.20, on top of the at least $ 0.50 already marked up for the privilege of not buying whole albums is at least $ 0.70 for a hit song. Multiply by tens of millions of downloads and you get profit margins that make the pharmaceutical and oil companies look like bumbling amateurs.

I am a copyright purist because I am an author who gets royalties.  Intellectual property is owned by the publisher and the creator should get something for making something new and innovative. But this smacks of unbridled greed.



No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: