Members Billster Posted May 12, 2008 Members Share Posted May 12, 2008 You've gotta be kidding? It wasn't a very high price to begin with, and it's come down in literal dollars since then, which means that in real dollars it's probably about a third of the price as when it came out. It's not tracked inflation like almost everything else. It's one of the best deals out there given that you get for $10 to $15 something that you can enjoy hundreds of times for years and years. This attitude that a CD is ridiculously expensive is some kind of commie fallout from the huge need on the web to rationalize stealing the music so people have convinced themselves by continued repetition that it's really true. I'd like to see a comparison of that inflation tracking against computer drive storage space. I note Geoff's later reply that the earliest CD's were $29 in 1982, which is about $65 today. The latest iMacs are available with a 1 Terabyte hard drive, with the computer all for under $2000. If you could even get one in 1982, how much would a 1TB drive have cost, even without a fast computer attached? Why do you think the car makers are offering iPod inputs on their audio systems? The little 650 MB disc is rapidly becoming outmoded in terms of convenience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Geoff Grace Posted May 12, 2008 Members Share Posted May 12, 2008 I'd like to see a comparison of that inflation tracking against computer drive storage space. I note Geoff's later reply that the earliest CD's were $29 in 1982, which is about $65 today. The latest iMacs are available with a 1 Terabyte hard drive, with the computer all for under $2000. If you could even get one in 1982, how much would a 1TB drive have cost, even without a fast computer attached?Why do you think the car makers are offering iPod inputs on their audio systems? The little 650 MB disc is rapidly becoming outmoded in terms of convenience It's important to note that you're comparing blank media -- a 1 Terabyte hard drive -- to media containing something you can use -- an audio CD. On the other hand, it's also important to note that the cost of a CD in 1982 included the high cost of the then new media, whereas the media share of the cost of today's CDs is much lower. That's one reason why today's audio CDs don't cost over $65. Nonetheless, the lion's share of today's cost is the music creation and distribution expenses; and they have mostly kept pace with inflation, which is why the price of a CD today is a bargain. I agree that the CD format is becoming outmoded, and I hope that the compressed formats that are currently driving the marketplace will soon become outmoded as well. We deserve better audio quality than MP3. Best, Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted May 12, 2008 Members Share Posted May 12, 2008 It's important to note that you're comparing blank media -- a 1 Terabyte hard drive -- to media containing something you can use -- an audio CD.On the other hand, it's also important to note that the cost of a CD in 1982 included the high cost of the then new media, whereas the media share of the cost of today's CDs is much lower. That's one reason why today's audio CDs don't cost over $65. Nonetheless, the lion's share of today's cost is the music creation and distribution expenses; and they have mostly kept pace with inflation, which is why the price of a CD today is a bargain. I agree that the CD format is becoming outmoded, and I hope that the compressed formats that are currently driving the marketplace will soon become outmoded as well. We deserve better audio quality than MP3.Best,Geoff Yes, blank vs. loaded media is a factor. A few months ago I was chatting with someone about download vs. disc, and said that what we are seeing is the splitting of the price of music from physical media. Unfortunately, many people are deciding that the content has little intrinsic value :-| As to your second paragraph, maybe those consumer level terabyte drives will open up some disc space for something more than a 96k mp3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Geoff Grace Posted May 12, 2008 Members Share Posted May 12, 2008 As to your second paragraph, maybe those consumer level terabyte drives will open up some disc space for something more than a 96k mp3. Best, Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted May 12, 2008 Members Share Posted May 12, 2008 In addition to the physical media, there's also the cost of transporting and housing the CDs before purchase. Considering the skyrocketing prices of gasoline and real estate, it's surprising at first glance that the expense hasn't been passed along to the consumer in the form of higher CD prices. My guess is that the major labels are terrified of raising CD prices now, so they've eaten that cost. Best, Geoff Maybe. The thing that bothers me is that in this day and age, the delivery medium can have so much less impact than manufacturing piles of plastic discs, storing them and shipping them. The major media companies seem to be devoted to preserving this wasteful practice because it gives them more overhead to skim from. Imagine if the bandwidth clogged up by ugly videos on YouTube was actually used to distribute decent quality audio files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted May 12, 2008 Members Share Posted May 12, 2008 And one more thought on digital distribution. ASCAP, BMI, and anyone else who wants to know could use the traffic data to determine exactly what is being listened to and pay the proper artists, instead of the insane "proportional assumptions of unmonitored venues" formula. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted May 12, 2008 Members Share Posted May 12, 2008 As I always have to point out, the labels don't get that money. They labels generally get 2 to 5 bucks or so per disc. The rest of the cost is in the downstream costs and margins, of the manufacturing, storage, shipping, and final retail seller. So the bulk of the money doesn't go to the labels. It goes to these other companies. And of course once the expenses are covered, some amount of that goes to the artist as well, so for the 1 out of 10 artists whose sales support the company, they are giving some non-trivial amount of of that to the artist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted May 12, 2008 Members Share Posted May 12, 2008 I said "more overhead to skim from". We are all aware of the creative accounting that results from the artist's royalties paying back the advance for everything before they go to the artist. Artist: I sold six million discs, where's my money?" Label: Well, the promotion, the merchandising, the truck rental... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members slight-return Posted May 12, 2008 Members Share Posted May 12, 2008 And one more thought on digital distribution. ASCAP, BMI, and anyone else who wants to know could use the traffic data to determine exactly what is being listened to and pay the proper artists, instead of the insane "proportional assumptions of unmonitored venues" formula. Depends on the nature of the distribution system - If, for instance, the system is decentralized P2P (P2P can have a variety of implementations including trackerless shared storage) then that info may very well not be availableI suppose other issues can come up such as bundled data, crypto/stega wrapping of data, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.