$1 a song by Apple

Originally posted by sheepguy42
gwynarion- I have often found Classical music CDs to be cheaper (gotta know where to look) than current rock albums, or classic rock, or the Celtic rock I listen to.
Click to expand...
I've found the same to be the case, which is why I suggested that they might use a variable rate for different kinds of music, just as they have different prices for different CDs.
 
At $1 a song (if that's what it will be), a variable price format seems as if it would be a lot of extra clutter for a minority of users. Why make things more complicated?
But... if you're really into doing that, why not charge $.98 for a song, then the other 2 cents can be donated to this website to keep it running. :D Sorry if being a little cheeky, but c'mon, it's a buck a song. Get some friends and share songs via a burned CD and you further reduce the price.
The simpler the plan, the better the chance it has of working.
 
Originally posted by Randman
The simpler the plan, the better the chance it has of working.
Click to expand...
I can only agree with that. I want to know what anything costs in advance. A simple setup like 'A buck for a song' sounds perfect.
 
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE APPLE LET THIS BE TRUE.... $.99 A SONG.. !!!

this is NOT too expensive... go ahead and try to make a song, my friend, then tell me you want to sell it to me for $.99

hmmph.
 
NO 99¢ SONGS I HATE THAT STUPID NUMBER. THAT IS THE ONE THING THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO GET AWAY FROM!!!
(ok i am done with may rant)
make it a dollar !
 
Let's put aside the discussion around price - I am more concerned about Apple diversifying its' product and service offering even more. Most business that loose their focus and core business end up having to take a big loss at some point. This can only mean one of two things:

1. Apple desperately needs to ramp up revenues and is willing to take the risk with yet another online service. Hopefully they will make the value proposition more clear and - as much discussed on this board - makes sure that pricing is attractive unlike its' .mac offering.

2. MacOSX will soon run on Intel processors and Apple NEEDS to diversify because hardware revenues will likely decline and software revenues increase. This could mean a shift in Apple's overall business strategy. Less hardware, => less inventory => less cost.

I personally would like to see Apple stick to hardware and the software they have.

Cheers,
G
 
Originally posted by Inline_guy
The LA Times is saying that Apple is making a napster like service where you will pay one dollar to download a song in ACC format. You could burn it, or put it on your iPod, or just listen to it on your computer!

What do you think? If it is true, then I am excited about it. I would go for it in a flash.


Matthew
Click to expand...


1. if this is really true, it could be an
indication that apple is desperate.
2. $1 a song is way too much - 50 cents a
song would be more reasonable and i
would pay that.
3. Would the service be the same crappy
quality we have come to expect from
.mac ??
(**cough** **sarcasm** **cough**)
 
Infinite Loop. :)

The price has been discussed on page one of this thread, too. Please read some of those arguments, too...

1 USD per song is certainly not too much to ask if compared to a CD single or even an album of which you might not like every track.
 
Originally posted by g/re/p
1. if this is really true, it could be an indication that apple is desperate.
Click to expand...
Or it could be an indication that Apple has looked at the market, seen a void, and decided that there was a golden opportunity to be siezed by whichever company or individual could prove to the record labels that they had the resources and the business model to exploit it properly. Personally, I think this sort of thing is right up Apple's alley.
 
I know I'm joining this thread late, but Yahoo news seems to have an item about this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=/ap/20030306/ap_on_hi_te/apple_music_service


**GRATUITOUS GRAMMATIC NITPICK**

Not picking on anyone in particular, just a general pet peeve about something I see a lot on the web:

"loose" and "lose" are two different words.

lose: verb: to fail to keep, sustain, or maintain <lost my balance>

loose: adjective: free from a state of confinement, restraint, or obligation

The two things are not synonymous. You cannot "loose" your focus. Now granted, there IS an archaic verb form of "loose" - ("He hath loosed the fateful lightning...") - which means "to turn loose". But it's not likely anyone is worried that apple will 'turn loose' it's focus.
(END NITPICK)
 
Okay listen up children...

If John has an iPod, and he subscribes to Apple's service of a $1/song, how much will it cost for John to fill up his iPod?

Submit your answers by filling in the entire circle of the paper in front of you.
 
evildan if someone wants to buy an entire ipod full of songs (at about $1 per song) that's their issue. You don't have to use this serivce to fill up an iPod. Go to the store and buy your music. But for those of us who want songs but not a whole CD this is great.
 
Originally posted by evildan
Okay listen up children...

If John has an iPod, and he subscribes to Apple's service of a $1/song, how much will it cost for John to fill up his iPod?

Submit your answers by filling in the entire circle of the paper in front of you.
Click to expand...

I currently have 1.5 G of music on my iMac, all from paid CD. This represents a lot of money, but that's the music i like. And I'll pay for it like I pay for .mac and I pay to buy my Mac because nothing is for free. Only dreaming is free.
 
IF John buys 200 songs at $1 a piece, he'll spend $200 and get 200 songs he likes.

If John buys 10 CDs at $20 a piece, he'll spend $200, but be lucky to get 20 or 30 songs he likes!

If John steals music, he can have unlimited songs for free, but then, that's kind of the definition of theft, is it not?

However, it seems to me that this casts no legitimate doubt on the $1/song concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top