Steve Jobs Wasn't Lying When He Said $1 Per Song Price Would Stay

from the don't-mess-with-Jobs dept

It’s the story that just won’t die. Two years ago, the record labels started making noises about how they wanted variable pricing for songs on iTunes. Steve Jobs immediately made it clear that Apple wasn’t interested. A year ago, the same story popped up and again, Apple said it was news to them. Last summer, the labels started saying it again, leading to Steve Jobs to flat out call them “greedy.” Meanwhile, many of us were wondering how these statements weren’t the equivalent of price fixing. Just a few years ago, the labels all got in trouble for telling retailers how much CDs should cost — which is illegal price fixing. It appears the labels (even post-fine) don’t seem to get this. They also don’t seem to get that Steve Jobs is serious about keeping the price at a dollar. Just as the original iTunes contracts are set to expire, the labels who were all confident that Jobs would back down and allow variable pricing are suddenly discovering he’s not budging at all. In fact, they’re finally starting to recognize that for all their bluster, Steve Jobs is the one who has the power in this relationship — as none seem willing to actually pull their songs off of iTunes. Of course, some of the execs continue to be totally clueless. The article quotes one unnamed music exec who is upset that the labels didn’t “stand up to Jobs.” He then says: “Where in life does the retailer set the price of the content?” Isn’t that exactly what the lawsuit and the fine in 2002 were all about? The labels can wholesale their music at whatever price they want — and then Apple (the retailer) can do whatever it wants in response — just as record stores get to set the retail price for the CDs they sell. If the labels are so upset, then why don’t they set their own variable pricing and see what Apple does in response?

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Steve Jobs Wasn't Lying When He Said $1 Per Song Price Would Stay”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Go Steve!!!

I believe the labels sell their tunes to Apple for $0.60 to $0.80 per song. Apple barely makes any money, if any, off the sale of these songs because they carry the cost of distribution and maintenance of the store.

The variable cost to the labels is practically zero since they don’t need to manufacture nor distribute anything. From a per-unit perspective, for the record labels, this has to be more profitable than selling CD’s via retailers.

Posterlogo says:

I'd love to see what Apple does in response...

I think the day is coming when, instead of flat out backing out of the iTMS, labels will increase their wholesale prices. I would love to see what happens then. Personally, I think Apple would hang in there, take the loss, and keep making money off the iPods and even more foray into videos. Eventually, Apples position could be strong enough to discontinue their deals with certain labels without significant loss in revenue. Hopefully, people will wonder where their favorite music went and find it elsewhere, like P2P. Thus, sticking it to the labels. Which is what I really would love to see. Man, I wish I could walk up to the musicians I love and hand them $5 and say thanks for the music, let’s keep this between us and screw the middle man.

edward Case says:


I remember my licensing days in Hollywood and one well known executive’s understudy being more impressed with his bosses private 9 hole golf course on his estate instead of caring about earlier “windows” on pay per view. It is about time to rid the content providers of these unnecessary gate keepers with their excessive executive compensation packages.

eeyore says:

A dollar a download is a fair price. The RIAA killed off the 45 twenty years ago and never replaced it with a fair means of purchasing a single song. All of you over the age of 35 probably remember buying the little vinyl records with one song on each side for anywhere from $1-2 until they stopped selling them in the late 80s. Cassette singles were overpriced and the selection was never as good as 45s and CD singles were worse because they usually cost about half of what the full CD would cost. If I can’t find a song I’m looking for on iTunes I’m not going to buy it because I’m not paying $15-30 for a CD with one song on it I like, and I’m looking right at you, Metallica.

R-Bro says:

Now get on the subscription bandwagon, Steve!

I will be eternally grateful to Steve Jobs for ushering in the 99-cent download era. Long before it happened, I made up my mind that that was a reasonable price to pay for a song.

And I’ve also come to realize that $10-15/month is a reasonable price to pay for unlimited downloads, like you can get from Napster, Yahoo, etc. Wish iTunes would offer something similar! It’s the only thing keeping me from buying an iPod!

Yonatron says:

I also think a buck a song is reasonable, but anything higher is likely to block impulse buys, and when Techdirt’s brought up the price-fixing argument, it’s made perfect sense to me: the labels set the wholesale price and Apple sets the retail.

What’s ironic about the whole thing is how hard it is to find current Apple products at prices any lower than the direct-from-Apple ones.

Wizard Prang (user link) says:

Re: I disagree...

…I think a buck a song is way too high… you’re paying CD prices without the CD. Digital download = no shipping, no packatging, no physical product…

Somebody’s making out like a bandit here; it ain’t Apple, and it ain’t the artist.

I’m voting with my purchasing dollars, which mostly go to used and cut-price (

Dave Reed (profile) says:

milking a dead cow

I’ve finally become convinced the record company execs AREN’T that brain-dead. They may not completely “get the internet” but Napster, and itunes and etc are too loud to ignore. They must see the writing on the wall.

When the dust clears, there won’t be record companies or record company execs. These guys are simply trying to squeeze the last drops of money out of the system. They’ll keep suing customers (which they figure they are going to loose, anyway) until it stops working. Then they’ll sue the artists (who are jumping ship like rats from a doomed ship). Heck, they’ll probably sue Walmart before the show is over.

That’s the real problem. For them, the show is ALMOST over. It’s sad to see ’em thrash around like that.

If the RIAA was a horse, I’d shoot it.

Just my 2 cents, wait 20 years and see if I was right.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...