PDA

View Full Version : Apple Dropping iTunes Plus (DRM Free) Songs to $.99?




MacRumors
Oct 15, 2007, 08:30 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

In May, Apple launched (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/05/30/apple-releases-itunes-7-2-launches-itunes-plus-drm-free/) the Digital Rights Management (DRM) free portion of their Music Store called iTunes Plus. The copy-protection free songs sold for $1.29 and were encoded at a higher 256kbps quality AAC.

Earlier today, some users had noticed (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=369221) that certain iTunes Plus songs were now selling for $.99 instead of $1.29. At first it wasn't clear if the pricing discrepancy was simply a mistake.

Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/10/15/itunes-plus-drm-free-tracks-expanding-dropping-to-99-cents) is now reporting that Apple is in the midst of expanding iTunes Plus to include indie music labels and also dropping the price of all iTunes Plus songs to $.99. Apple will reportedly keep the old DRMed songs at $.99.

The article speculates that the price drop is a reaction to Amazon's DRM MP3 Store (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/25/amazon-launches-public-beta-of-drm-free-music-store/) which has been very well received. Amazon's MP3 DRM-free store launched (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/25/amazon-launches-public-beta-of-drm-free-music-store/) 3 weeks ago and provides 256kbps MP3s that can be seamlessly loaded into your existing iTunes library.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/15/apple-dropping-itunes-plus-drm-free-songs-to-99/)



twoodcc
Oct 15, 2007, 08:33 PM
well i guess a little competition can be a good thing

Grimace
Oct 15, 2007, 08:33 PM
I wonder if the law suits will come from this too. The price dropped too soon on my songs I paid $1.29 for!! Give me a refund Steve!! I can hear it now.... :rolleyes:

Multimedia
Oct 15, 2007, 08:34 PM
Excellent Advancement.

mashinhead
Oct 15, 2007, 08:35 PM
i don't know the iTunes store seems like kind of dead avenue to me. i find that i use it less and less. I think it should actually move to a subscription basis and then it will see more growth. I just get this feeling that both companies and consumers are starting to move away from it. The ipod's still great though.

VanMac
Oct 15, 2007, 08:35 PM
Nice. Now I can update the rest of my purchased songs :apple::apple:

NDLaHam
Oct 15, 2007, 08:35 PM
excellent!!

Now just offer the songs in ACC or MP3(for people that don't use player that can't support aac)

Hopefully the other record companies will cave in eventually to this.

Wouldn't it be great if you could download it in as many formats as you want unprotected. FLAC, WAV, MP3, whatever. then you truely own the full quality of the music.

Mistershark
Oct 15, 2007, 08:39 PM
I wonder if the law suits will come from this too. The price dropped too soon on my songs I paid $1.29 for!! Give me a refund Steve!! I can hear it now.... :rolleyes:

I'm just glad that most iTunes plus albums are already priced at $9.99.

polishmacuser
Oct 15, 2007, 08:41 PM
there updating there site thats what it keeps telling me and my itunes doesnt want to open in windows :( but in mac it does

Martin C
Oct 15, 2007, 08:42 PM
I honestly do not understand how someone could select 'negative' for this news story.

wattage
Oct 15, 2007, 08:42 PM
Anyone else find it funny that some people vote this type of news as a 'Negative'!!

What's negative about a price drop??

plumbingandtech
Oct 15, 2007, 08:43 PM
I accidently press neg instead of pos. :(

I wish I could redo it and make it right.

twoodcc
Oct 15, 2007, 08:43 PM
I honestly do not understand how someone could select 'negative' for this news story.

Anyone else find it funny that some people vote this type of news as a 'Negative'!!

What's negative about a price drop??

i guess they think amazon is gaining on apple?

Martin C
Oct 15, 2007, 08:46 PM
i guess they think amazon is gaining on apple?
A lot of the people I have talked to didn't know anything about Amazon's Music Store. They need to do some better web advertising to have a chance at challenging iTunes.

Peace
Oct 15, 2007, 08:47 PM
This is a good step.Now all Apple needs to do is get Warner Bros. and Universal in DRM-Free format.;)

Nugget
Oct 15, 2007, 08:47 PM
Excellent news!

ghall
Oct 15, 2007, 08:48 PM
If this is true, then iTunes plus is finally worth it to me! Awesome!

p0intblank
Oct 15, 2007, 08:48 PM
This would be awesome if true! Competition is always a good thing. :)

saxman
Oct 15, 2007, 08:51 PM
Yeah for competition.

I wonder if they'll give me a credit for $0.145 per iTunes+ song I purchased since May (-;

CommodityFetish
Oct 15, 2007, 08:52 PM
Apple is in the midst of expanding iTunes Plus to include indie music labels and also dropping the price of all iTunes Plus songs to $.99.

Finally! Give the indies some respect! :D

Amazon.com, I salute you. It's so nice when the consumer benefits from a competitive market.

Telp
Oct 15, 2007, 08:53 PM
This is great news!

Martin C
Oct 15, 2007, 08:53 PM
They need to get some more record labels on to these DRM-Free songs.

nemaslov
Oct 15, 2007, 08:54 PM
GET ALL THOSE INDIE LABELS DRM FREE NOW!! YEAH!!! :p

zwida
Oct 15, 2007, 08:55 PM
They need to get some more record labels on to these DRM-Free songs.

Yeah, that'd be nice. I think it's going to be awhile before any of the other majors sign on to this project, though.

elppa
Oct 15, 2007, 08:55 PM
I'm waiting for the first person to ask for the $0.30 cashback for every song they upgraded.

Any moment now…

axboi87
Oct 15, 2007, 08:56 PM
First Plus, now iTunes Premium Lossless files for the old plus price of $1.30! Better yet, since the iPod is perfectly capable, how about 24-bit 192khz files!!!

infectbda
Oct 15, 2007, 08:56 PM
I just took a look at the Upgrade area, and sure enough, I have some new stuff that can be upgraded to iTunes Plus. Several of the Josh Rouse albums I've purchased are on their (although not all of them). But it still costs some dough to upgrade. Debating spending the money now or waiting.

nagromme
Oct 15, 2007, 08:57 PM
Nice!

First choice: DRM-free MP4/AAC at iTunes.

Second choice: DRM-free MP3 at Amazon.

I hope both take off, and DRM slowly vanishes.

Martin C
Oct 15, 2007, 08:58 PM
They really aren't an audio company, but they should offer better stock headphones for this higher quality music. The current ones sound like tin cans tied to the back of a moving vehicle.

bellicelli
Oct 15, 2007, 09:00 PM
So, I went to the iTunes Plus section of the store, and there are now two new upgradable albums that weren't available before (I upgraded everything available in May)

HOWEVER, there is still a cost associated with upgrading these albums ($4.78 for 20 tracks) even thought the individual tracks are, in fact $99 for individual Plus tracks.

I never really understod why I had to pay to upgrade full albums when the album Plus price is always the same as the non-Plus price.

Now the indiviudal tracks aren't even more expensive for Plus, so why am I being chanrged for buying the full album?

FreeState
Oct 15, 2007, 09:00 PM
Screen shot:)

furious
Oct 15, 2007, 09:01 PM
The Australian store has not been updated. Maybe this is an American only thing.

Martin C
Oct 15, 2007, 09:03 PM
Screen shot:)
Nice find FreeState. So far that's the only album that I have seen updated.

Westside guy
Oct 15, 2007, 09:04 PM
I've been a happy customer of the iTunes Plus store and Amazon's DRM-less MP3 store. Amazon did a very good job putting together its iTunes integration tool. Now if people will just quit buying the DRM'ed stuff, the pressure will be on the record companies... (okay it's already on, but they've been far too dull-witted to realize the true source of the pressure - so it needs to increase).

tgildred
Oct 15, 2007, 09:04 PM
AAAAARGH! :mad::mad::rolleyes:

I can't take it anymore. :mad:

This typo has been exploding in frequency lately.

It's seamlessly, not "seemlessly."

Is it a typo if it happens on purpose? Like when people say "They're going to loose the game," when they really mean "They're going to lose the game." That's not a typographical error. That's just ignorance.

Anyway... DRM bad. Low, low prices goooood.

Peace
Oct 15, 2007, 09:06 PM
Nice find FreeState. So far that's the only album that I have seen updated.


http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=263128221&s=143441

Iron and Wine is one.

filman408
Oct 15, 2007, 09:06 PM
Apple might not remove the 30% upgrade charge. They still might have to get something for the bandwidth costs of downloading the files.

Does anyone else have this issue?
Whenever iTunes finishes downloading a ungrade song, it crashes. (On 7.4.2)
Its as if it has trouble deleting the old 128kbs file and replacing it with the 256kbs file.

onebloodonelife
Oct 15, 2007, 09:08 PM
So, I went to the iTunes Plus section of the store, and there are now two new upgradable albums that weren't available before (I upgraded everything available in May)

HOWEVER, there is still a cost associated with upgrading these albums ($4.78 for 20 tracks) even thought the individual tracks are, in fact $99 for individual Plus tracks.

I never really understod why I had to pay to upgrade full albums when the album Plus price is always the same as the non-Plus price.

Now the indiviudal tracks aren't even more expensive for Plus, so why am I being chanrged for buying the full album?

That's what I'm wondering too. I bought the Band of Horses album the day it came out, October 9th, and it's now available for upgrade for $2.97.

Other than that, great move by Apple!

La Porta
Oct 15, 2007, 09:11 PM
Good deal. This means that when Apple sees a potential problem, they will respond it. This also means that they do not currently see a potential problem with iPod/iPhone sales since they have no need to compete price-wise with other companies. Double good news.

Nugget
Oct 15, 2007, 09:14 PM
I'm waiting for the first person to ask for the $0.30 cashback for every song they upgraded.
Any moment now…

Ha ha ha! Yeah, where's our Open Letter from Jobs?

Mac OS X Ocelot
Oct 15, 2007, 09:18 PM
A lot of the people I have talked to didn't know anything about Amazon's Music Store. They need to do some better web advertising to have a chance at challenging iTunes.

I don't think I knew about it specifically, but I always assumed everyone and their mother had an online music store. Am I right. I'm right, right?

blehpunk
Oct 15, 2007, 09:19 PM
thank you al gore for lowering the prices!

Glenny2lappies
Oct 15, 2007, 09:20 PM
Anyone else find it funny that some people vote this type of news as a 'Negative'!!

What's negative about a price drop??

What price drop? iTunes + is still $2 in the UK store (99p). Also there's too few tracks available.

I've yet to buy anything from the iTunes store and won't until I can get it DRM free and in a decent quality. Whilst it's good to see some songs in non-DRM format, just about everything I'm interested in still has the "don't buy" DRM lock on it.

I'm still puzzled why the prices are all the same. Often there's bargains available in my local record store which are lower priced than iTunes.

It's good to see Amazon doing something - with some real competition it may spur Apple into action. Pity it's not available in Europe which is no doubt why the prices are still double that of the US.

chrisgeleven
Oct 15, 2007, 09:20 PM
Very good news. About time the indie labels have joined in as well.

Superdrive
Oct 15, 2007, 09:23 PM
What's negative about a price drop??

Literally, the price...

Random Ping
Oct 15, 2007, 09:25 PM
Yeah, that'd be nice. I think it's going to be awhile before any of the other majors sign on to this project, though.

Content providers are incredibly stupid and have no vision. Yes, I believe they should get paid (I have paid for over 700 songs, videos and TV shows on iTunes, and have never illegally downloaded a commercial show or song), but they are desperately trying to hold onto the past.

The content providers need to (1) get more efficient, (2) get used to making less money per song or show, (3) get used to selling content a la carte, (4) look for additional ways to generate revenue, and (5) learn to treat their customers with respect instead of pissing us off.

donlphi
Oct 15, 2007, 09:27 PM
Now all we need is free ringtones and world will live in perfect harmony. :D

inkswamp
Oct 15, 2007, 09:31 PM
This is great news, if true. The only thing that stops me from buying from iTunes is the DRM. I find lots of interesting indie bands on iTunes, but the DRM stops me from buying. Bring it on, Apple.

Couldn't give a rip about the big, corporate bands so they can stay DRM'd. I just want the indie stuff to be free and clear.

LFrascogna
Oct 15, 2007, 09:38 PM
That's what I'm wondering too. I bought the Band of Horses album the day it came out, October 9th, and it's now available for upgrade for $2.97.

Other than that, great move by Apple!

Yeah, i have the same problem. I think .30 per song is excessive. I always thought there would be a way to just unlock things.

I'm going to hold out and see if eventually my iTunes plus upgrades are free.

Scottc320
Oct 15, 2007, 09:39 PM
Aww, I upgraded all of my eligible songs to DRM-free already :(

Nermal
Oct 15, 2007, 09:42 PM
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=263128221&s=143441

Iron and Wine is one.

Confirmed lower price in NZ, $1.79 instead of $2.39 :)

Palestrina
Oct 15, 2007, 09:49 PM
You gotta love the free market.:D

GregA
Oct 15, 2007, 09:53 PM
Anyone else find it funny that some people vote this type of news as a 'Negative'!!

What's negative about a price drop??

Wasn't it once positive or negative referred to likelihood the rumour was true?

I'd like 2 different buttons.. true or false, good or bad (assuming it is true).

dmelgar
Oct 15, 2007, 09:53 PM
i don't know the iTunes store seems like kind of dead avenue to me. i find that i use it less and less. I think it should actually move to a subscription basis and then it will see more growth. I just get this feeling that both companies and consumers are starting to move away from it. The ipod's still great though.
HA HA HA!! Good one. Had me going there... NOT!

This is a good step.Now all Apple needs to do is get Warner Bros. and Universal in DRM-Free format.;)
Have you been paying attention anytime recently???

Universal bailed from iTunes/Apple. They are majorly pissed off at Jobs. They're offering their whole catalog to Amazon just to spite Jobs and to try and take down iTunes/Apple/Jobs.

Don't anyone think Universal wants low prices. They simply want to stick it to iTunes and see if they get people buying elsewhere, then jack up the price.

geerlingguy
Oct 15, 2007, 09:56 PM
I just hope CD Baby starts selling their CDs through iTunes Plus (if indies are allowed to now...).

Thataboy
Oct 15, 2007, 09:59 PM
Looks like it's still an all-or-nothing upgrade. Why would it be so hard to offer a choice to upgrade songs on a track by track basis?

Oh well, I gave up lossy music this summer anyway. Call me when it's Lossless. Til then, the only download store I can use is Beatport :)

Peace
Oct 15, 2007, 09:59 PM
Have you been paying attention anytime recently???

Universal bailed from iTunes/Apple. They are majorly pissed off at Jobs. They're offering their whole catalog to Amazon just to spite Jobs and to try and take down iTunes/Apple/Jobs.

Don't anyone think Universal wants low prices. They simply want to stick it to iTunes and see if they get people buying elsewhere, then jack up the price.

Yes I pay very close attention that's why I made that statement.:rolleyes:

clevin
Oct 15, 2007, 10:00 PM
amazon offers DRM free mp3 for 89c~99c for a month now, this is why we need competition, rather than iTMS monopoly.

Maccus Aurelius
Oct 15, 2007, 10:02 PM
Well, this is certainly looking a lot more attractive to me than Amazon.com's download scheme, mainly because I pretty much get the DRM-free stuff, while having the superior payment model. What I hate about Amazon is that it doesn't allow me to use paypal, and it automatically stores my credit info after purchasing. That alone sort of keeps me from making more purchases there.

synth3tik
Oct 15, 2007, 10:02 PM
It was nice to see a lot of my favorite albums becoming DRM free, sadly even though I bought the songs at $0.99 to upgrade them it still costs $3, even though the iTunes Plus versions are $0.99, Oh well. I like it it's nice of them.

clevin
Oct 15, 2007, 10:07 PM
Well, this is certainly looking a lot more attractive to me than Amazon.com's download scheme, mainly because I pretty much get the DRM-free stuff, while having the superior payment model. What I hate about Amazon is that it doesn't allow me to use paypal, and it automatically stores my credit info after purchasing. That alone sort of keeps me from making more purchases there.

iTMS doesn't save your credit card info?

akac
Oct 15, 2007, 10:07 PM
Yeah, i have the same problem. I think .30 per song is excessive. I always thought there would be a way to just unlock things.

I'm going to hold out and see if eventually my iTunes plus upgrades are free.

For just DRM-free? yes. For double the sound quality? Totally worth it.

Porchland
Oct 15, 2007, 10:10 PM
I would be perfectly happy to see every track go non-DRM but with a identifying watermark that can't be scrubbed out. Non-DRM should be about liberal -- but legal -- use of your tracks.

rocketsauce9
Oct 15, 2007, 10:12 PM
this is real nice, i'm stiil wating for 50 cents a song, but 99 will do for now.

Analog Kid
Oct 15, 2007, 10:17 PM
I never really understod why I had to pay to upgrade full albums when the album Plus price is always the same as the non-Plus price.

Now the indiviudal tracks aren't even more expensive for Plus, so why am I being chanrged for buying the full album?
Because there's a difference between a new customer and an upgrade customer. New customers are far more valuable.

Upgrades will never be free-- just think of the bandwidth hit they'll take in a few years when 100 billion songs get released in a new format at as a free upgrade...
Literally, the price...
Literally, the price is still positive. The change in price is negative.
amazon offers DRM free mp3 for 89c~99c for a month now, this is why we need competition, rather than iTMS monopoly.
I really don't think this is Apple competing with Amazon. This is Apple trying to shake the other majors into going DRM free. If they were competing with Amazon they'd drop the price on their DRM'd songs too. Keeping lower bitrate, DRM'd songs at the same price as the good stuff just makes the old stuff look broken.

I do think we can thank Amazon on this: I think EMI dropped their price as a result of Amazon's pricing. To the extent people make their music purchase decisions based on secondary features such as bitrate, price and DRM, if EMI was going to continue pursuing their goal of increasing market share by dropping DRM they need to make sure the price at least matches other labels who are doing the same.

Apple also probably has most favored nation status with EMI-- so if EMI offers their music to Amazon at a lower price, Apple gets the same deal.

samh004
Oct 15, 2007, 10:18 PM
this is real nice, i'm stiil wating for 50 cents a song, but 99 will do for now.

And that's fair to whom now... (apart from you) ?

Analog Kid
Oct 15, 2007, 10:20 PM
I would be perfectly happy to see every track go non-DRM but with a identifying watermark that can't be scrubbed out. Non-DRM should be about liberal -- but legal -- use of your tracks.
I've always been a fan of watermarking. Yes, it can be circumvented, but it's not like these other systems can't...

And that's fair to whom now... (apart from you) ?
I'm willing to step up and say it's fair to me too... ;)

retroneo
Oct 15, 2007, 10:24 PM
excellent!!

Now just offer the songs in ACC or MP3(for people that don't use player that can't support aac)


Every portable player supports AAC in the last few years (even Zune). Every mobile phone supports AAC.

genshi
Oct 15, 2007, 10:57 PM
this is real nice, i'm stiil wating for 50 cents a song, but 99 will do for now.

And that's fair to whom now... (apart from you) ?

I'm willing to step up and say it's fair to me too... ;)

Well, not very fair to me. I'm a struggling independent artist who refuses to sell out to the major record labels, but I'm never going to survive if people aren't even willing to pay 99 cents for a song. What's with you bunch of cheapskates!?

Anyway, 99 cents for DRM free tunes is a pretty good deal. I hope they convert my albums to that format (they haven't yet, though they did make one of my albums ringtonable by surprise!)

halfgoon
Oct 15, 2007, 10:58 PM
(Crossposting this from the discussion in the iTunes forum)

I reported this ages ago on mactalk.com.au. Even took a screenshot of The Go Team's new album being in the iTunes Plus format:

(http://forums.mactalk.com.au/showpost.php?p=366825&postcount=14)
Oh, just a little addition to my purchase of The Go! Team's Proof of Youth album - If you have a look at my image just a few posts up, you'll see that it's in iTunes Plus' unprotected, 256kb format.

Go have a look at it on the iTunes Store - Notice the track prices?

Yeah, that's right. They're $1.69. Not $2.19. How curious.

That's in Australian dollars, by the way. They didn't have the little + icon next to the tracks, either. This is the screenshot I took of the first track from the album:

aLoC
Oct 15, 2007, 11:04 PM
Yes, they need to get serious about maintaining their position in music downloads. Youtube has video all locked up and Steam has games all locked up, songs is all they have.

offwidafairies
Oct 15, 2007, 11:21 PM
im likely to start *buying* music at that price :p

TurboSC
Oct 15, 2007, 11:25 PM
they definitely feel the burn from Amazon :)

SiliconAddict
Oct 15, 2007, 11:33 PM
I wonder if the law suits will come from this too. The price dropped too soon on my songs I paid $1.29 for!! Give me a refund Steve!! I can hear it now.... :rolleyes:

No I just hear the sounds of suckers crying out. This is the fabled "Apple Tax" at work. iTunes+ costs nothing more to make and very little to distribute vs. a traditional track. All it is, is Apple weeding out the fanbois and suckers. Now that they have harvested them its time to go after the more traditional buyers. Those who won't scream: OMG! NO DRM AND A HIGHER BR! *swoons*

If they do this I wonder how much it will cost to upgrade a track or are they going to outright drop that.

ltldrummerboy
Oct 15, 2007, 11:35 PM
Been waiting to buy Jars of Clay's new Christmas album. They recently left Sony BMG to start their own label, Gray Matters. They've finally got the album up, and it's iTunes plus. Check it out!
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=263963117&s=143441

MacinDoc
Oct 15, 2007, 11:48 PM
Been waiting to buy Jars of Clay's new Christmas album. They recently left Sony BMG to start their own label, Gray Matters. They've finally got the album up, and it's iTunes plus. Check it out!
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=263963117&s=143441
A bit early for me to get into Christmas music, but this is another example of why spending $5/month for unlimited "free" downloads from Universal is not nearly as good a deal as it sounds. With the proliferation of Indy artists and labels, you just miss out on too much good stuff. Save your $5/mo and buy 5 songs you really want instead. And keep them without paying again and again every single month for them.

BWhaler
Oct 16, 2007, 12:32 AM
This is good news.

I started moving back to buying CD's after spending about $6,000 on iTMS. The crappy bit rate and DRM finally starting getting to me. I gave Apple a second chance with iTunes Plus, but it took too long for new content to appear so I can upgrade my library.

So I've gone back to DVD's. I just bought the new Clapton DVD Set for $14 on Amazon and its $26 on iTunes. Cheaper, higher bit rate and DRM free.

I don't get mad exclusively at Apple. I know the record companies have blood on their hands.

But the whole thing is a mess. Charge me $.99 per song, 256 bit AAC, DRM free and I'll be back buying music.

Apple wins.
The record labels win since is more profitable as a channel.
The environment wins...no plastic disks around for 1,000 years
I win...music the way I want when and how I want it.
The artists win since I will buy more music and discover new albums and artists.

Hopefully reason will win out...

minik
Oct 16, 2007, 12:38 AM
Screen shot:)

Same DRM'ed 99 cents tracks. I purchased 2 songs from that album, but they ain't on the Upgrade section.

Dublo7
Oct 16, 2007, 12:46 AM
I wish they'd make the Plus range a lot bigger :mad:

Iroganai
Oct 16, 2007, 12:46 AM
How many of us will sue Apple $1 million for mental distress
coming from the 30-cent drop in price ?
John Gruber (http://daringfireball.net) already contacted his lawyer :)

Analog Kid
Oct 16, 2007, 02:02 AM
Well, not very fair to me. I'm a struggling independent artist who refuses to sell out to the major record labels, but I'm never going to survive if people aren't even willing to pay 99 cents for a song. What's with you bunch of cheapskates!?

Anyway, 99 cents for DRM free tunes is a pretty good deal. I hope they convert my albums to that format (they haven't yet, though they did make one of my albums ringtonable by surprise!)
Here's the thing for me-- if the titles were cheaper, I'd be buying a lot more. If they were a quarter a track, I'd probably buy a few bucks worth a day-- and some of that would filter back to you. As it stands, I buy very little and I don't think I've helped you in your career much.

Some may say that a subscription model is what I'm looking for, but I'm not. Renting music sticks in my craw. I want to buy stuff. Maybe it's crap and I junk it, maybe it's the latest Genshi track and I put it into heavy rotation.

Can I suggest you put links to your stuff in your sig? I'd love to hear what people here do. We've got "photo of the day" threads that I think are great, I'd be psyched to start clicking on people's sigs and finding new stuff that way.

swagi
Oct 16, 2007, 02:23 AM
Every portable player supports AAC in the last few years (even Zune). Every mobile phone supports AAC.

Nearly no CD-entertainment system in a car supports AAC. But they support MP3-data CDs. And I'd rather have a MP3-CD stolen than my iPod :p

Loge
Oct 16, 2007, 02:33 AM
I honestly do not understand how someone could select 'negative' for this news story.

Some will vote negative to see how quickly they can draw a "how can someone rate this negative?" post. :p

gnasher729
Oct 16, 2007, 02:44 AM
So, I went to the iTunes Plus section of the store, and there are now two new upgradable albums that weren't available before (I upgraded everything available in May)

HOWEVER, there is still a cost associated with upgrading these albums ($4.78 for 20 tracks) even thought the individual tracks are, in fact $99 for individual Plus tracks.

I never really understod why I had to pay to upgrade full albums when the album Plus price is always the same as the non-Plus price.

Now the indiviudal tracks aren't even more expensive for Plus, so why am I being chanrged for buying the full album?

When you upgrade, Apple has to pay money to EMI. Letting you upgrade without any charge would mean Apple has to pay this out of its own pocket. Can't see them doing that.

minik
Oct 16, 2007, 02:53 AM
My Nokia 6682 (S60 2nd Edition) doesn't do 256kbps track. It only supports upto 192kbps.

Moening
Oct 16, 2007, 04:36 AM
I would be quite happy with this change in price because I really like those drm free titles in high quality.

But what I find more interesting. Why in hell can't I download Itunes anymore. It
says "We are busy updating"

http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/

Does this indicate something or is it common?

aswitcher
Oct 16, 2007, 04:38 AM
No change in Aus ITMS

goosnarrggh
Oct 16, 2007, 06:31 AM
My Nokia 6682 (S60 2nd Edition) doesn't do 256kbps track. It only supports upto 192kbps.

Then hopefully your media management software includes a feature to automatically downsample your music as it is transfered to the portable player. That's been a feature in both iTunes and Windows Media Player for quite some time now.

Max E Verde
Oct 16, 2007, 06:46 AM
i don't know the iTunes store seems like kind of dead avenue to me. i find that i use it less and less. I think it should actually move to a subscription basis and then it will see more growth. I just get this feeling that both companies and consumers are starting to move away from it. The ipod's still great though.

Funny, ever since the iTunes Store has come to my iPhone I have been buying more and more. Including a couple movies, season passes to Sarah Silverman Show and South Park and a ton of music

koobcamuk
Oct 16, 2007, 07:38 AM
My Nokia 6682 (S60 2nd Edition) doesn't do 256kbps track. It only supports upto 192kbps.

time to get an iphone... :rolleyes:

Porchland
Oct 16, 2007, 08:29 AM
I've always been a fan of watermarking. Yes, it can be circumvented, but it's not like these other systems can't...


The people in the anti-DRM crowd who say they don't like watermarking because it's intrusive or big brother-ish are so transparent. What they really don't like isn't the use restrictions -- it's paying for music.

Whining about DRM is legitimate is some cases, but Apple's use policy is liberal enough for the vast majority of users who download tracks, burn CDs and use iPods.

peestandingup
Oct 16, 2007, 08:38 AM
If you think about it, there was no real reason why the DRM free songs had to be more expensive than the regular ones. Sure they were encoded higher, but that doesnt cost Apple that much more to store those. It was a natural progression that shouldn't have been charged more for in the first place.

johnmcboston
Oct 16, 2007, 10:00 AM
Always curious why 'indie' stuff had DRM on it to begin with. I see DRM's songs that I can get DRM free on emusic of CDBaby... I htink apple used to make them do DRM to keep the big labels happy even if local artists didn't want DRM (or didn't care either way).

BTW
Oct 16, 2007, 10:02 AM
This is a good step.Now all Apple needs to do is get Warner Bros. and Universal in DRM-Free format.;)

It would be nice if Apple price matched all of Amazon's titles that are 89 cents. That's the next step. Winner consumer! :D

mozmac
Oct 16, 2007, 10:42 AM
This is exactly why we all benefit when iTunes competitors come to market. I love using Amazon MP3.

decadentdave
Oct 16, 2007, 10:44 AM
That's hilarious that NBC pulled out of iTunes because they thought .99 cents was too low so Apple offered DRM-Free downloads at $1.29 and nobody bought them so they lowered the price to .99 cents. I bet NBC is eating their words now.

SthrnCmfrtr
Oct 16, 2007, 11:02 AM
The people in the anti-DRM crowd who say they don't like watermarking because it's intrusive or big brother-ish are so transparent. What they really don't like isn't the use restrictions -- it's paying for music.

Whining about DRM is legitimate is some cases, but Apple's use policy is liberal enough for the vast majority of users who download tracks, burn CDs and use iPods.

While you're reading minds, could you travel to D.C. and find out for me if we're really going to attack Iran? Inquiring minds want to know, but thusfar we've lacked someone of your caliber.

Anyway, it's partially economics. I can go to a store and buy a CD for $5.99 (or lower) used, which I can then rip to ALAC and play on everything in the house. Why should I pay $10 for something of lower bitrate with restrictions on how I use it? It's not particularly appealing. The only sensible reasons are for convenience/availability or because you like to cherry-pick the tracks. Personally, I only have whole albums...

It's also principle. I can resent restrictions without them applying to me, since I am an evolved human being. For instance, I'm not crazy about bans on gay marriage, even though I'm straight. I don't smoke marijuana, but I'm not crazy about the War on Drugs. There are a lot of ridiculous laws in the USA that do not necessarily restrict my actions, but I resent them nevertheless. The same applies to entertainment purchases: I don't like DRM, so I continue to buy CDs because they lack DRM. I also rip all of my DVDs so that I can play them from any video player I own, regardless of what some whore politician decided my legal rights should be.

As for a problem with paying for music, I just cheerfully spent $20 on In Rainbows by Radiohead because I dislike DRM, like Radiohead, and I believe in voting with my money.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike DRM. The inability to share DRM-laden music is such a pathetically inconsequential hindrance that it's laughable. Seriously, go look at a major BitTorrent tracker, and report back with how many >256Kbps or Lossless versions of your favorite album you find. Do you honestly think that people are pissed off about DRM because they pay $10 for a low-bitrate album and then can't pirate it?

genshi
Oct 16, 2007, 11:23 AM
Well, not very fair to me. I'm a struggling independent artist who refuses to sell out to the major record labels, but I'm never going to survive if people aren't even willing to pay 99 cents for a song. What's with you bunch of cheapskates!?

Anyway, 99 cents for DRM free tunes is a pretty good deal. I hope they convert my albums to that format (they haven't yet, though they did make one of my albums ringtonable by surprise!)

Here's the thing for me-- if the titles were cheaper, I'd be buying a lot more. If they were a quarter a track, I'd probably buy a few bucks worth a day-- and some of that would filter back to you. As it stands, I buy very little and I don't think I've helped you in your career much.

Some may say that a subscription model is what I'm looking for, but I'm not. Renting music sticks in my craw. I want to buy stuff. Maybe it's crap and I junk it, maybe it's the latest Genshi track and I put it into heavy rotation.

Can I suggest you put links to your stuff in your sig? I'd love to hear what people here do. We've got "photo of the day" threads that I think are great, I'd be psyched to start clicking on people's sigs and finding new stuff that way.

A quarter a track!? What is wrong with you? Don't you people realize that others are trying to make a living here? Not just the big record labels but the artists themselves, and the retailers, distributors, publishers; all that money gets split up between these people.

Seriously, if we didn't even have the ability to download songs for 99 cents you'd have no choice but to go back to your local record store buying CDs at $14 to $19 (usually without a way to preview them and not being able to find independent artists) or go back to using illegal p2p downloading services and if you are the type to do that, then you have no ethics and I have no respect for you or your opinion. Sorry.

When it comes to music, these kind of issues really matter to me since I've been a musician practically my whole life. Ever since Al Gore's wife Tipper tried to ban certain music because she caught her 11 year old daughter listening to "Darling Nikki" by Prince (and after a fight from everyone from Frank Zappa to John Denver, the compromise was to add warning labels to albums) I, among many other struggling musicians, have been very watchful of the industry because it seems like, at every turn, someone somewhere is doing something for the benefit of either the labels, the retailers or the consumers, but never for the artists themselves that are MAKING the music that you are enjoying!

Sorry for the rant, just woke up and I'm still a bit grumpy, but...

For some reason my sig is not showing up though it is "turned on" so... Available in iTunes Music Store, one of my albums under one of my many project names: The Warm Wet Low (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=184955383&s=143441) by jido-genshi (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewArtist?id=184955441).

fabianjj
Oct 16, 2007, 11:25 AM
While you're reading minds, could you travel to D.C. and find out for me if we're really going to attack Iran? Inquiring minds want to know, but thusfar we've lacked someone of your caliber.

Anyway, it's partially economics. I can go to a store and buy a CD for $5.99 (or lower) used, which I can then rip to ALAC and play on everything in the house. Why should I pay $10 for something of lower bitrate with restrictions on how I use it? It's not particularly appealing. The only sensible reasons are for convenience/availability or because you like to cherry-pick the tracks. Personally, I only have whole albums...

It's also principle. I can resent restrictions without them applying to me, since I am an evolved human being. For instance, I'm not crazy about bans on gay marriage, even though I'm straight. I don't smoke marijuana, but I'm not crazy about the War on Drugs. There are a lot of ridiculous laws in the USA that do not necessarily restrict my actions, but I resent them nevertheless. The same applies to entertainment purchases: I don't like DRM, so I continue to buy CDs because they lack DRM. I also rip all of my DVDs so that I can play them from any video player I own, regardless of what some whore politician decided my legal rights should be.

As for a problem with paying for music, I just cheerfully spent $20 on In Rainbows by Radiohead because I dislike DRM, like Radiohead, and I believe in voting with my money.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike DRM. The inability to share DRM-laden music is such a pathetically inconsequential hindrance that it's laughable. Seriously, go look at a major BitTorrent tracker, and report back with how many >256Kbps or Lossless versions of your favorite album you find. Do you honestly think that people are pissed off about DRM because they pay $10 for a low-bitrate album and then can't pirate it?

Exactly my thought, although DRM won't have any effect on pirates who never pay for everything, it may prevent slight piracy from those who pay for music and then simply share a song or two to a friend.

One funny thing I remember that seems really really weird. I was looking for a rare song on a file sharing application (a song that I did have at home on a purchased CD) and all I could find was a WMA file, which turned out to be DRM:ed

balamw
Oct 16, 2007, 11:35 AM
A quarter a track!? What is wrong with you? Don't you people realize that others are trying to make a living here? Not just the big record labels but the artists themselves, and the retailers, distributors, publishers; all that money gets split up between these people.
Let's just assume that the players get the same cut regardless of how it is sold.

What's better?

40 individual tracks at $0.25
10 individual tracks at $0.99
1 album at $9.99


In each case the revenue is ~$10 so each player would get the same share.

If the volume goes up >4X at a price point of $0.25 (because you are now bringing in new business that would not buy at a higher price) all the players make a better living.

Now it's not clear that volume would or could go up that much, but it certainly is possible.

B

nickbates
Oct 16, 2007, 11:50 AM
Let's just assume that the players get the same cut regardless of how it is sold.

What's better?

40 individual tracks at $0.25
10 individual tracks at $0.99
1 album at $9.99


In each case the revenue is ~$10 so each player would get the same share.

If the volume goes up >4X at a price point of $0.25 (because you are now bringing in new business that would not buy at a higher price) all the players make a better living.

Now it's not clear that volume would or could go up that much, but it certainly is possible.

B
Silly argument because you are assuming more people will buy just because it's cheaper, but it's hard enough to get people to buy as it is (even though the prices ARE already lower than CDs) because so many people these days think they are entitled to everything for free (at least on this forum it seems) and when the songs/ albums are already set at a fair price and people STILL complain, imagine if it's lowered to a quarter a song? Then some of you would be saying "Well it's already a quarter a song, that's practically free so you might as well just give it to us for free!" I've already seen this kind of [il]logic happen in the software industry. It's the same for all the iPhone whiners that are constantly complaining about every little thing even though Apple provided a fairly good phone with some cool features... but no, not good enough for the almighty forum elite you think they rule the world and demand that everything be their way!

genshi
Oct 16, 2007, 11:55 AM
Let's just assume that the players get the same cut regardless of how it is sold.

What's better?

40 individual tracks at $0.25
10 individual tracks at $0.99
1 album at $9.99


In each case the revenue is ~$10 so each player would get the same share.

If the volume goes up >4X at a price point of $0.25 (because you are now bringing in new business that would not buy at a higher price) all the players make a better living.

Now it's not clear that volume would or could go up that much, but it certainly is possible.

B

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Especially for independent artists. Just because the price is lower doesn't mean that the volume is going to go up. Also, all the "players" involved do not get the same cut. Believe me, I've been in the music industry for a LONG time and my dad was in the music industry (on the broadcasting and concert promotions side) and the mentality with this new generation is, unfortunately, very different than previous generations because there is such an almost unfair sense of entitlement that people have. People would rather sue because a product they bought 2 months ago dropped in price by a couple of hundred dollars than be happy with what they have. Very disconcerting...

Crike .40
Oct 16, 2007, 12:11 PM
competition is ALWAYS good for the market, though I hope apple continues to have a >50% marketshare to be able to keep all the labels on board. I love ITMS but if labels/networks etc. start dropping support so too will my usage drop off. For many people (not necessarily myself) this sort of dropping (NBC) has led to a return to p2p sources. I don't like this sideaffect, and hope to see it stopped. Other than that, way to go on price drops apple, always a welcome occurance.

Analog Kid
Oct 16, 2007, 01:43 PM
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Especially for independent artists. Just because the price is lower doesn't mean that the volume is going to go up. Also, all the "players" involved do not get the same cut. Believe me, I've been in the music industry for a LONG time and my dad was in the music industry (on the broadcasting and concert promotions side) and the mentality with this new generation is, unfortunately, very different than previous generations because there is such an almost unfair sense of entitlement that people have. People would rather sue because a product they bought 2 months ago dropped in price by a couple of hundred dollars than be happy with what they have. Very disconcerting...
I think you're reading a different tone into my comments than I'm putting into them. I'm only speaking for myself here, and I won't claim to know the economics of independent music. I, like most, have finite resources so I'm forced to make decisions about where to focus them. If Apple decided to drop their Plus prices it is probably because they believe lower prices will bring higher volume. That might be true, but for me it hasn't crossed the threshold yet where my buying habits will change. For most of the music I buy now, I know I want it and I tend to buy it as albums-- so my demand is rather inelastic and the price hasn't really changed for me in any event.

If the price came down further, I'd explore more, and buy more music that I don't find as necessary. I don't know that I'm typical, but in my case that would tend to benefit new and independent artists, and artists in genres I'm less devoted to. Whether the added revenue from people like me would offset the loss in revenue from diehard fans is a decision someone else needs to make.

What I'm expressing isn't about entitlement. I don't think I deserve special privilege here. This is about value. What this music is worth to me. This is a market where buyer and seller need to decide on a price. If the price is higher than the value I place on the item, I have no music and the seller has less revenue.

Thanks for the link BTW.

ChrisA
Oct 16, 2007, 02:32 PM
....
If the volume goes up >4X at a price point of $0.25 (because you are now bringing in new business that would not buy at a higher price) all the players make a better living.

Now it's not clear that volume would or could go up that much, but it certainly is possible.

B

This is a classic business school problem. The way you solve this is to first figure out what the slope of the curve is. How much more do you sell if the price is less? You have to figure this out by collecting data. Then the classic solution is the use a bit of Calculus, take the derivative and solve it for zero to find a maxima.

The problem is that I'm sure Apple's goal is NOT to maximize profits in iTunes but to maximize overall corporate wide profits. I think they run iTunes at a break even point because having iTunes causes people to buy ipods. They may choose to charge more then they need to so that they can put the money into making iTunes a more atractive site so they will sell more iPods

Amazon is the same. I'm sure the goal is not to make money but drive traffic to Amazon where they cann sell other things. Notice how the Anazon MP3 store links to the physical CD.

I think Wallmart does the same thing with CDs. Sell them cheap just to get you to come into the store and buy some other stuff that has a much higher margin.

genshi
Oct 16, 2007, 02:32 PM
I think you're reading a different tone into my comments than I'm putting into them. I'm only speaking for myself here, and I won't claim to know the economics of independent music. I, like most, have finite resources so I'm forced to make decisions about where to focus them. If Apple decided to drop their Plus prices it is probably because they believe lower prices will bring higher volume. That might be true, but for me it hasn't crossed the threshold yet where my buying habits will change. For most of the music I buy now, I know I want it and I tend to buy it as albums-- so my demand is rather inelastic and the price hasn't really changed for me in any event.

If the price came down further, I'd explore more, and buy more music that I don't find as necessary. I don't know that I'm typical, but in my case that would tend to benefit new and independent artists, and artists in genres I'm less devoted to. Whether the added revenue from people like me would offset the loss in revenue from diehard fans is a decision someone else needs to make.

What I'm expressing isn't about entitlement. I don't think I deserve special privilege here. This is about value. What this music is worth to me. This is a market where buyer and seller need to decide on a price. If the price is higher than the value I place on the item, I have no music and the seller has less revenue.

Thanks for the link BTW.

You are probably right. And I am also sure I took your tone the wrong way originally (because again, I had just woken up and was grumpy! My bad.)

It is true I think that, independent artists could benefit from a drop in price because people would explore more, but it also means those artists need to spend more time and money of their own to get their music out there which isn't always as easy (certainly not as easy as having major label backing.)

One thing for sure though, with today's technology and online retailers like iTunes, Amazon and others, it has made it easier for independent artists to get their music out. I would have never been able to release my own stuff like I do now back in the 1980's (though I still kick myself sometimes for not accepting that Capitol Record deal back then!)

balamw
Oct 16, 2007, 02:40 PM
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Especially for independent artists. Just because the price is lower doesn't mean that the volume is going to go up.

All I know for sure is my own music buying habits. I bought over 500 CDs, many from indie artists over a 5 year period, when I lived near a couple of great record stores and could generally buy CDs for < $10. The next five years only added 100 CDs or so. Why? The stores near me didn't' carry the music I wanted to hear or were now charging > $15 per CD.

Now, I'm back to my old ways, buying ~1+ CDs/week including lots of tracks from smaller/indie acts, because the barrier to entry is much lower. I know I can try out a song or two for $0.99 each and buy the whole CD for $9.99 without leaving home.

Music is more of an impulse buy now than ever. Lowering the price only makes that easier. Friends and acquaintances also report the same phenomenon. Being able to buy single tracks allows them to remember a song and just go get it for instant gratification.

That said, for me, the competition provided by Amazon has actually dampened my impulse habit, since I now stop and see if I can perhaps get a song or album cheaper on Amazon than iTS. Though I have yet to find one,

Also, all the "players" involved do not get the same cut.

I certainly wasn't suggesting some sort of equal repartition of the revenue, I was just assuming that if the artist gets 1% of the $9.99 CD sale that they would also get 1% of a $0.25 song sale. (The middlemen of course taking the remaining 99% :p).

It is true I think that, independent artists could benefit from a drop in price because people would explore more, but it also means those artists need to spend more time and money of their own to get their music out there which isn't always as easy (certainly not as easy as having major label backing.)


FWIW the iTunes "Just for You" and Amazon recommendations systems know my tastes pretty well and I can usually find something I like without artist intervention.

Sigs like yours and even bumper stickers on cars have led me to various impulse iTuens buys.

B

joemama
Oct 16, 2007, 03:40 PM
I have to say I was quite impressed with Amazon's service. I downloaded the new Hooverphonic album using Amazon's download utility, and it was quick and easy. It also transfered it directly to iTunes for me.

8.99 for the album. DRM free MP3. 256 - no brainer!

mihiruthere93
Oct 16, 2007, 03:46 PM
Even though i'm extremely greatful for this, i gotta pick Amazon this time.

Amazon 1
Apple 1,000,000 :D

sartajc
Oct 16, 2007, 03:54 PM
CNET is reporting that the iTunes plus store has decreased its price to 99 cents a pop.

more info here: http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9798044-1.html?tag=cnetfd.mt


Maybe Apple read my thread on iTunes turning into AOL (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=368858), hahah. kidding

cheeseadiddle
Oct 16, 2007, 03:57 PM
Nice. I hadn't bought a lot of iTunes until the plus stuff hit the store. I'll buy even more now.

Maclover129
Oct 16, 2007, 04:05 PM
Apple need to lower their song prices, especially as Amazon has now released its new music store, a sibling to Unbox video, which has been a bit of a failure for Amazon, because of high prices. Obviously, the market's got tough as the Virgin online music store has closed its doors, Apple really do need to lead this market, as the ipod family rely on it, in most cases.

genshi
Oct 16, 2007, 04:31 PM
All I know for sure is my own music buying habits. I bought over 500 CDs, many from indie artists over a 5 year period, when I lived near a couple of great record stores and could generally buy CDs for < $10. The next five years only added 100 CDs or so. Why? The stores near me didn't' carry the music I wanted to hear or were now charging > $15 per CD.

Now, I'm back to my old ways, buying ~1+ CDs/week including lots of tracks from smaller/indie acts, because the barrier to entry is much lower. I know I can try out a song or two for $0.99 each and buy the whole CD for $9.99 without leaving home.

Music is more of an impulse buy now than ever. Lowering the price only makes that easier. Friends and acquaintances also report the same phenomenon. Being able to buy single tracks allows them to remember a song and just go get it for instant gratification.

I must admit, my personal buying habits are pretty much the same as yours now. A couple of years ago I would buy 2 to 3 physical CDs every week (at least) and they were very specific ones that I wanted. Now, I haven't bought a physical CD in 2 years but I buy a lot more music through iTunes and most of it is very impulse buy. It is a curious phenomenon!

That said, for me, the competition provided by Amazon has actually dampened my impulse habit, since I now stop and see if I can perhaps get a song or album cheaper on Amazon than iTS. Though I have yet to find one,

Not for me, a few cents cheaper per song doesn't mean a whole lot to me. I still buy through iTunes because it's convenient and the price is already better than a physical CD in a store. I'm not a "penny pincher" so I'm not going to scour the internet to find the best price on music.




FWIW the iTunes "Just for You" and Amazon recommendations systems know my tastes pretty well and I can usually find something I like without artist intervention.


Though it still only recommends related artists based on how well they have previously sold (and based on how well that particular independent label promotes that artist.) Still, it helps...

wheels524
Oct 16, 2007, 07:43 PM
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,138527-c,onlineentertainment/article.html

just another source confirming the rumor...

McPaul
Oct 16, 2007, 08:02 PM
no change in Canada yet.

Prof.
Oct 16, 2007, 11:08 PM
CONFIRMED: Apple lowers cost of DRM-FREE songs
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21334619/

Prof. :D

minik
Oct 17, 2007, 01:12 AM
Then hopefully your media management software includes a feature to automatically downsample your music as it is transfered to the portable player. That's been a feature in both iTunes and Windows Media Player for quite some time now.

So far, I only use bluetooth/memory card syncing and not aware of any media management apps from Nokia.

time to get an iphone... :rolleyes:

I will eventually (after my contract with T-mobile). Not into the hacking business.

BWhaler
Oct 17, 2007, 03:16 AM
After buying over 9,000 songs, countless TV shows and about 20 movies, I stopped cold.

I hate the video quality
I hate DRM
I strongly disliked the audio bit rate.

I still buy TV shows for the portability.

But I am back to buying CDs. Cheap on Craigslist. I will happily and willingly go back to Apple when there is more + content. I am happy about the move today, but I want to be able to upgrade my library to be future proof before I will feel comfortable buying online again.

But this is good progress.

p0intblank
Oct 17, 2007, 08:04 AM
Wow, this is great news! And it happened so quickly. :D

bbarnhart
Oct 17, 2007, 08:36 AM
Apple cuts prices on iTunes Plus
8:54a ET October 17, 2007 (MarketWatch)
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Apple Inc. said Wednesday that it cut the price of its iTunes Plus tracks to 99 cents each and expanded the iTunes Plus catalog to more than 2 million songs. Tracks on iTunes Plus are free of digital-rights management, or DRM, software, meaning they can be played on many types of digital music players. With this price cut, iTunes Plus songs will be priced on par with those songs locked by the company's copy-protection software. Earlier this year, Apple struck a deal with record label EMI to offer some songs free of DRM software for about $1.39 each.


I want a refund on the songs that I already purchased at full price. :rolleyes:

Sbrocket
Oct 17, 2007, 08:54 AM
Just in case...


iTunes Plus Now Offers Over Two Million Tracks at Just 99 Cents

Apple® today announced that it has expanded its iTunes® Plus offering to over two million tracks and lowered the price of all iTunes Plus tracks to just 99 cents. All iTunes Plus tracks feature DRM-free music with high quality 256 kbps AAC encoding for audio quality virtually indistinguishable from the original recordings (www.itunes.com). The iTunes Plus catalog is now the largest DRM-free catalog in the world, and includes artists from Sub Pop, Nettwerk, Beggars Group, IODA, The Orchard and many others, along with EMI’s digital catalog.

...

- http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/10/17itunes.html

Jeonat
Oct 22, 2007, 12:20 AM
Price drop has also taken effect in the UK store... screenshot attached. :)

minik
Oct 22, 2007, 12:59 PM
Apple still needs to clean out some bugs with iTunes Plus. Just do a quick search on Nettwerk. I found two identical albums, but different offering ( iTunes Plus and non-iTunes Plus). Telling Apple.