iTunes - Pay More Get Less

[Chris Gohlke]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://weblog.raganwald.com/2008/05/why-apple-is-more-expensive-than-amazon.html' target='_blank'>http://weblog.raganwald.com/2008/05...han-amazon.html</a><br /><br /></div><em>&quot;For example, Bach: Goldberg Variations, BWV 988 on 256-bit DRM-free MP3 is just $9.99 from Amazon. The same album is also $9.99 from Apple, but you get DRM. And there are tons of tracks on Amazon that are actually less expensive than on iTMS, so you get better music for less money without the DRM hassle. So is Apple screwing the customers? In a word, no. The reason you can find more music on Amazon at a lower price is that the Record Labels want it that way. Do you think they charge Apple and Amazon the same price for each track and Apple simply charges you more and pockets the difference as a higher markup? The labels would like you to think that, but they actually charge Amazon less for each track, and that&rsquo;s how Amazon can charge you less.&quot;<br /><br /></em>There is some interesting logic to this article.&nbsp; There were no references, so I have no idea if the labels actually sell to Amazon for less than Apple.&nbsp; I certainly follow that the record companies want Amazon in the game to keep Apple in check.&nbsp; However, I disagree that this will let the record labels take back control AND allow them to keep DRM.&nbsp; I think at this point they have to choose either/or.&nbsp; If they want to keep DRM in place, then they are stuck with Apple calling the shots.&nbsp; If they are willing to go DRM free, then competition can at least keep Apple in check .

[David Tucker]

I seriously doubt that...Apple has been VERY insistant on its pricing plan. So insistant that it drove NBC out over it. If Apple is charging more...its because they want to.

[WyattEarp]

For me, this article just confirms my instance on not buying digital downloads period. Paying for a sub par sounding file compared to the original makes no sense to me. I'll continue to purchase CDs until music downloads are offerred at the same bit rate. I may be alone but I like my music to sound good and uncompressed is the best. For my equipment I settle for AAC 320bit and nothing less.
As far as pricing, some of the music industry wanted to charge more instead of the same price for all titles. And if people didn't buy it, then they'd drop the price back. The real question is woud they really have done so. We're paying twice as much for CDs that we did for cassettes and CDs are easier and cheaper to make. I think that model of doing business was just a horribe way to play with people but that's the RIAA for you.
DRM is just useless, people have been sharing music since the first recording ever made and they can't stop it. If the music industry would concentrate more on quality content then none of this woud be an issue as people would be more than happy to buy music.

[ionen]

Here in Romania neither iTunes nor other online music store is available for the digital listener. iTunes doesn't work but iPods are being sold for more than 4 years by now.
So our only alternative to listen to good music on the run is ripping CDs

I use MP3 at 192kbps for most of the tracks and for my favourite bands and tunes I go for the 320kbps even though it uses more space.
I hope some of the famous online music retailers will turn their heads to Eastern Europe too in the near future :(