smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Stewart Mason" <craigtorso@verizon.net> |
| Subject | Re: The Great Debate (Round 2) |
| Date | Wed, 23 May 2007 02:34:29 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (4.9 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
99 cents, or about 50 pence at the current exchange rate.
And, no, no reason why they shouldn't cost the same that I know of.
S
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Whitby" <matt.whitby@gmail.com>
To: <audities@smoe.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 2:12 AM
Subject: Re: The Great Debate (Round 2)
> I'd be interested to know how much you Americans pay for an iTunes
> mp3. In the UK they cost 79p which with the rates at the moment is
> about $1.60 I'm guessing you're not paying that much? Anyone know
> a
> concrete reason there should be such a disparity between pricing
> when
> the delivery mechanism should mean it costs the same to sell to
> everyone?
>
>
> On 22/05/07, Steve Alter <shteevea@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You raise a REALLY good point, Bob. (And this comes from someone
>> who has willing digitized his entire music collection. Audiophiles
>> can stone me now.)
>>
>> I was managing a record store when we got our very first CDs; had
>> all six of them in a little crate on the counter. There was a
>> premium on them, not just because of the added benefits, but
>> because all new production facilities were required, they didn't
>> have capacity to meet demand, etc. We were told repeatedly in the
>> late 80s by company execs and distributors that the price point was
>> going to come down once production was full bore to "just above LPs
>> and cassettes today."
>>
>> That obviously didn't happen, and they gouged and milked that
>> sucker for all it was worth. the justification was exactly that
>> value prop: better sound (for average folks), indestructible,
>> greater capacity, etc.
>>
>> Based on that logic, you are absolutely right: there is no
>> justification whatsoever (OK, well, greed, as well as being stuck
>> on a business model developed by a bunch of accountants in late
>> 60s) for parity in pricing for a product that is almost a generic
>> copy of the original.
>>
>> Bob Hutton <bob_hutton@standardlife.com> wrote:
>> I just read that article in the Chicago Tribune blog that Bill
>> Sherlock
>> posted.
>>
>> I found it odd that some people (invariably from the music
>> business)
>> argued that a dollar a song seemed like a fair price, given that
>> there are
>> inherent overheads involved in selling music online as well
>> (although at
>> least with onlinhe music, your stock never runs out!). What they
>> didn't
>> seem to realise was the end-product does NOT have the same value at
>> all.
>> Instead of a physical high-quality sounding CD with artwork, you
>> get a
>> low-quality, compressed mp3 file - which is also shackled by DRM -
>> dumped
>> on your hard drive. People who are content with that will probably
>> be
>> happier to get the same song for free via file-sharing. I don't
>> know
>> anyone who regularly purchases albums off iTunes/Napster/whatever.
>> Only a
>> few friends have said they'll even buy the occasional song! I
>> myself have
>> only used iTunes to for free promotional downloads, when I got a
>> stack of
>> them a couple of years back.
>>
>> I would argue that a dollar per song may be what the people in the
>> biz
>> think they need to maintain a reasonable standard of living. But a
>> dollar
>> doesn't seem to be a fair price to the consumer for what is
>> currently
>> offered online.
>>
>> On another point, I take back my comments on the IKE sponsorship
>> debate -
>> I guess if fans are happy to cough up what the band asks, then
>> that's fair
>> enough. I hope they end up with an great album, worthy of their
>> aggregate
>> contributions. I still wouldn't be happy to pony up that amount
>> myself,
>> but I shouldn't judge others' sincerity - my apologies all round.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob - 0131 24(51188)
>> Systems Developer
>> IS DG3
>>
>>
>> This e-mail is confidential, if you are not the intended recipient,
>> do not
>> retain/disclose it and please return it to us. We virus scan and
>> monitor
>> all e-mails but are not responsible for any damage caused by a
>> virus/alteration of our e-mail by a third party after sending.
>>
>> For more information on Standard Life group, visit our website
>> http://www.standardlife.com/
>>
>> Standard Life plc (SC286832), Standard Life Assurance Limited*
>> (SC286833)
>> and Standard Life Employee Services Limited (SC271355) are all
>> registered
>> in Scotland at Standard Life House, 30 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH1
>> 2DH.
>> *Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. 0131
>> 225
>> 2552. Calls may be recorded/monitored. Standard Life group includes
>> Standard Life plc and its subsidiaries.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
>> in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
>>
>
>
> --
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
> Great songs @
>
> www.myspace.com/daviddoll
> www.last.fm/music/David+Doll
> www.daviddoll.com
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.