Hacker News Reader

Comment by sillygeese | Hacker News Reader

> I'm not going to risk $1.50 to an unknown website.

$1.50 isn't much of a risk you know, even if you don't know the website. You'd probably even get the song!

Also, if a song is on Audio CD, it's probably on iTunes too.

> in the current atmosphere, $1.50 seems like it's too much

This makes no sense. If you're a true music lover, a great song will give you countless hours of enjoyment and appreciation. Do you seriously think $1.50 is too much for that?

Compare to paying $10 for a movie ticket. You get 2 hours of entertainment, the movie might suck, and you don't get much from watching it again. That's massively worse value than $1.50 for a great song you can listen to over and over again.

I would gladly pay $1000 for Prince's Purple Rain, if there was no other way to get it.

View on HN

> $1.50 isn't much of a risk you know, even if you don't know the website. You'd probably even get the song!

The $1.50 itself isn't the risk, it's how you pay for it - by entering your card details you let them charge you whatever they want whenever they want

They just might accept PayPal though.

And of course everyone trusts that PayPal won't be hacked. /s

I don't think it's a problem with $1.50 in absolute terms. It's $1.50 compared to $0.99 from other vendors. Artists have set the expectation that songs are worth $0.99 by selling them for that amount elsewhere.

FWIW, I don't buy a lot of music - I use free Pandora and put up with the ads.

Music execs set that expectation, and artists just have to live with it. http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/branding/1559631/...

"During those meetings it was Warner executives, not Jobs as is commonly thought, who suggested tracks be sold for 99 cents. At the time, many labels wanted to price tracks at $3.49 each. But not Warner.

“When we told Steve, he looked at us like we just gave him a gift,” Vidich recalls. “We knew we needed to alter consumer behavior in a big way. Below $1 was an emotional threshold for people. It became an acceptable impulse purchase.”

> I don't think it's a problem with $1.50 in absolute terms. It's $1.50 compared to $0.99 from other vendors.

Yes, but if you only have the $1.50 option for buying a song you supposedly love, it simply makes no sense to refuse because other places sell other songs for $0.99, especially considering the massive value for a measly amount of money you get either way.

Even when people would be strictly better off accepting a deal, they refuse it if they feel it is unfair: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

But it seems to be too much for her. To quote "$1.50 is a lot to pay for a song, even a song you love..."

> This makes no sense. If you're a true music lover, a great song will give you countless hours of enjoyment and appreciation. Do you seriously think $1.50 is too much for that?

Just to add to this: since you've been streaming the song, you already know that you enjoy it! There is no risk to you, as a consumer, of purchasing something you'd dislike. This, to me, is the genius of streaming services. I know that my money, once I spend it, is going to artists I enjoy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com