1. Welcome to the new MacRumors forums. See our announcement and read our FAQ

Apple iTunes offers Band Aid 2 single - 79p

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Dec 1, 2004.

  1. macrumors bot

  2. macrumors 65816


    So they like... beat Apple into giving their OWN money because they didn't want to put a certain product on THEIR shelves at a certain price. Not that I'm against good causes, but this seems like a corporate guilt trip to me. What BS.
  3. macrumors 6502a

    doh. still can't get it on the US store :(

    btw, it's band aid 20. band aid 2 was about 10 years ago with kylie minogue and all that that implies.
  4. macrumors regular

    Apple are making a loss on it!

    It's not bullying at all, it's a effing great thing to do!
  5. Moderator emeritus


    Yes, a milti-billion dollar company giving pocket change away to startving people is "BS" :rolleyes:.
  6. macrumors member

    AWESOME...I would love to get this track just to support the cause.

    I'm gonna purchase it right now...

    oh. wait. i live in canada. nevermind.

  7. macrumors 6502a

    I bought it and don't think it's as bad as people make out. It does set up an interesting president. When the next charity single comes out, Children In Need or what have you, they will want to sell as the £1.49 price too. Will Apple end up having to pay out a few million every time one comes out, or lose face in the media for looking mean? I think it's great that Apple is doing this, and corporations should do more like this, but it could prove to be very expensive in the long run. At the moment there are not many charity singles, but with the cost of distribution almost zero with digital downloads and the time to market lowering, they could become more popular. It doesn't matter so much if Apple start making bucket loads from ITMS but at the moment I don't think this is the case.
  8. 24C
    macrumors 6502a

    Well done Apple

    About time sense cut in on this one. Apple wouldn't change the price structure, and so they made up the difference. Don't know what olive branch Universal offered?

    Anyway good positive spin here...now I don't mind paying more for my (UK) music than the RTW:))

    PS I still preferred the original though.
  9. macrumors regular

    I love the track.

    Nigel Godrich (the producer and producer of Radiohead) put a very Radioheady spin on the mix so Jonny Greenwood's guitars are very prominent and just MAKE the song. Shame about the ****** inclusion of the darkness. oh well.
  10. macrumors 68020


    Apple have always been a socially aware company and have been giving b i g to charity for years.

    Dosn't change the fact that the new version is, well, not good.

    None of the heavy atmosphere of the original.
  11. akb
    macrumors member

    If you're in the UK and you've not bought this yet, then shame on you! Even if you don't like the song, it's a good cause. While you're at it, get the '84 original, too.

    If you're worried about Apple losing money (!) then go out and buy the CD. I think it was Frank Skinner who said give them the £4, tell them they can keep the penny.... and the CD. ;)
  12. macrumors 68000

    Yep. Shame on me.

    I've not even heard it. Don't intend going out of my way, either.
  13. macrumors member

    Good on Apple. That'll put a few digital music retilers noses out of joint.
  14. akb
    macrumors member

    Lighten up. I bet you're fun to be around at Christmas.
  15. macrumors 68000


    I'll give money to charities, for sure, but not this farce. Call me Ebeneezer.
  16. macrumors 65816

    Savage Henry

    The sentiment from Apple is spot on ... I only wish the song itself could live up to it.

    Good cause, sure, without question. But from an artistic perspective, the song is dreadful.
  17. macrumors 65816


    I would like to reiterate that I stated that I am fully in favor of giving to charity. I don't believe in FORCING people to give, or GUILTING people into giving. It seems to me that Apple is doing this to look good to the public. I am fully in favor of giving; but not when someone holds your reputation against you to make you do so.
  18. macrumors regular

    that's crap

    Apple could of charged £1.49 if they wanted. They were forced into nothing.
  19. macrumors 65816


    When Apple does not want to charge any more than 79p for ANYTHING in the music store without exception, they have every right to do so. Again, giving is not a mandate - or at least it should not be.
  20. macrumors regular


    Pretty stupid way to look at this if you ask me. OK, so say I open up a shop called "the $5 shop" that only sells things for $5. There is this product that all my competitors are selling, but they are all selling it for $7.50, because the manufacturer is charging them $7 per unit for supplies. I don't want to sell it for $7.50, because that would ruin my $5 slogan. But if I want to sell it, I have two choices - either sell it for $7.50, or sell it for $5 and subsidise the other $2.50 from my own pocket. Asking the manufacturer to sell it to me for $2.50 less than it sells it to everyone else is not an option. They are not forcing me to sell it at $5 - that is my choice - but they are forcing me to buy it at $7.....BECAUSE THAT IS THE PRICE!!!

    I don't see how you can say Apple is having their arm twisted. It is their choice, not the record company's, to sell every track at 79p. I think it's a great idea, and definitely has helped secure their place as the number 1 music store, but the supplier doesn't have to make special consideration for iTunes just because it has chosen to do this.
  21. macrumors 6502a

    What Apple looses here they make up from the loose change that people never chash in. Get over it Napster, it's not like they are giving them away for free, or even not selling it since it's above their list price. Plus, those who buy from Napster buy it for their WMA players, iTunes for their iPod.

Share This Page