Macnn is simply telling the Mac community that this was published: they often do that with polemic (and anti-Apple) articles, and I've never interpreted it as Macnn endorsing the articles in question. You don't stop reading a newspaper just because they quote something stupid the George Bush says, do you? Jeez.

I have the 45, so I could honestly really care less one way or the other, but not letting Apple sell the song for 79p on its iTMS is 79p less than the Boomtown Rat could have had collected by letting them sell it.

A profit is a profit. Utter stupidity!

Why not donate directly to a charity "more" money than buying a stupid song, you might not even want?

I was 15 when this song came out, so I'm not sure if I WANT this song on my iPod. I think I've heard it enough since then... But I own the single, so I would not feel guilty if I was to download from "other" other sources and put it on my iPod.

This 'The Times' article really stinks. Like Apple is to blame if you can't get it. Like they have an obligation to sell it. There are always other sources where you can buy it, like said here before, you can just buy the CD.

In page 5 of "The Times" today, the headline is "APPLE ITUNES DON'T KNOW ITS CHRISTMAS-TIME AT ALL"....
This looks so bad for Apple...they could really do without this bad press :(

n/t

Christmas got pwn3d

The article states that "Apple’s refusal to sell the track could reduce the revenues raised through online sales by 70 per cent."

If Apple isn't even selling it, how can they reduce the revenues? To actually reduce revenues, they'd have to take money that's already been raised. I guess that logic gets thrown out the window when you're spewing anti-Apple garbage under the guise of a "news" article.

The sad part is that there are some people that work with charities that use strong arm tactics to make companies feel bad if they don't give into their charity. Seems like this person has that problem.... no different than walking out of a supermaket and not donating to the United Way and having the santa spit on you and call you names because you won't give them money.. I do feel a bit sad for the person who wrote this. :(

I live in the UK and I've heard the 'new version'. It's a complete and utter butchering of one of the most loved tunes in British recording history. If you want to give money to help the starving in Africa, find a relevant charity and give them some money. But for the sake of your hearing and your sanity, avoid playing the song. It's really god-awful.

As to whether the ITMS should sell it or not, I'm in agreement with some earlier posters. A large chunk of 79p is better than no money at all. It's Band Aid here that's being stupidly stubborn, not Apple.

Why are prople slating MacNN for bad reporting? Am I missing something? They're just reporting on someone else's article and using quotes from it.

As you've all realised, the Times reporter doesn't know what he's writing. That's not MacNN's fault - they're simply reporting what he said and I think it is implied that MacNN know that he's got it wrong - they don't need to say 'This idiot reporter said this:'.

Here's a handy tip: When you see something in double quotes "like this" it means that this is something that someone else said or wrote. In this case, MacNN are quoting verbatim the words of the reporter at The Times.

This stinks of M$ PR - the UK papers are full of pro-M$ c*** stories cut and pasted from press releases. People should reaaaaaaly start a writing campaign in support of Apple.

The better I feel...

People should stop relieving their mental illnesses with stupid song and really engage themselves in reliveing poverty...

Mac users are no different on this issue... maybe just a little less egoistic... but not enough to really make a difference...

This must be the first time that someone has been accused of lacking holiday spirit for refusing to _raise_ the price of their offerings.

Sure, Band-aid wants the excess revenue to go to charity this time, but the next person who wants their online track to cost more might not, and if Apple breaks the pricing model for one vendor, does that not bring into question breaking it for others?

Personally, I believe it is very much pro consumer to have the average price of music drop to $10/album, $1/track in the US. More unit sales will result, which may encourage more interesting music. Similarly, offering tracks for 0.79p in Britain is a good move - if it is a sustainable price, then we see more music.

While I do suspect that heavy iPod sales are helping Apple make that price work, I also suspect that Apple quite correctly wants to make a profit on the ITMS. Thus, this is a fundamental change in the compensation model.

On reading this my reaction was to write to Apple and to express how ashamed I was to call myself an Apple fan.

Apple's pricing policy is for competitive reasons ... this is for charity so they can't dictate what the charity is selling things for.

It's like a cookie website that sells boxes of cookies for $1/box and won't sell Girl Guide cookies for $4.50 a box that they sell them for because it's not their standard pricing... (Hey maybe that wouldn't be so bad ;-) )

I think they should sell for what the charity is asking especially since it's in the 'spotlight' now.

my 2 cents.

On reading this my reaction was to write to Apple and to express how ashamed I was to call myself an Apple fan.

Yes the article in the Times feels biased and has poorly researched facts.

However what is all this fear I hear ? What has the market leader to fear that all the other major players who are particiapting do not ???

This is a new version of an old song which has been re-done to celebrate the original movement 20 years ago, but more importantly becasue there is still a need to support the starving people of Africa.

Shame on those who put petty rivalries about platform and format above this.

Come on Apple Do YOU know it's Christmas

Why are you ashamed? Apple gives money to other charities and charitable causes. Forcing someone to give money to a charity or publicly taking someone to task for not giving to YOUR charity is not in the spirit of charitable giving.

The Times 'Media Reporter' Adam Sherwin is responsible for this article which seeks slam Apple. The thing to do is write to:

comment@thetimes.co.uk
and tell them Adam Sherwin is a bad writer and should be reprimanded.

I'm not asking Apple to give any money to anyone, and this is not particulary MY charity.

The point of the single is to raise money for charity, and the charity has decided how much they want to riase per single bought, hecne the price they want to charge.

All I'm asking Apple to do is to support this worthy cause by allowing the charity to offer their product throgth the iTunes music store at the price the Charity would like to charge.

The simple perception here rightly or wrongly will be that Apple does not support the charity effort, and ultimately that's not good for business Apples image and business.

the article was very poorly research and put together_ I wonder if in my lifetime there will actually be news worthy of actually reporting beyond that of which we recieve every day just so that someone draws attention to themselves_

Anyone with an iPod can still goto another website that is offering the charity/holiday music and download it_ Guess what - not too many people are using their iPods to surf the internet and download stuff_ Odds are better than not that people are using web browsers running on desktops or laptops and then at some point moving the music over to their music players_ In between all of that - these users can take what ever format the music has come in and convert it to somethiong readable by iTunes and the iPod - either thru iTunes itself or one of many other audio applications available - convert it and then move it over_

So yeah i bet that most likely someone by the end of the holiday season will have been able to get these charity/holiday tracks onto their iPods with minimal effort_

And the author of this article will still be getting paid to write inaccurate and bad press_

And for that bit about the 70% drop in revenue 'cause Apple refuses to raise it's prices for charity is a load all by itself_ One of the first couple of comments is pretty accurate about being able to sell a higher quantity and a slightly cheaper price more than not will generate a larger end profit than selling the same thing at an initial higher price_

You'll find that in basic statistics classes and mentioned in business every where_

Think about it - if a buyer says hey I can buy this thing for 1.49 at joe's music downlodes or I can goto Apple and buy it for .79 instead - the money is still going to charity and the buyer could actually buy 2 songs and give the same amount to charity thru the Apple music store or buy one song instead_ I don't need to flip a coin for this one - as a consumer that buyer is gonna think the better deal is with the lower priced song_

And then still the 1.49 price of the song is misleading anyway_ The profits coming from the song that will be donated to charity are coming only after the record label makes it cost back - which is paying the bills - the equipment - the time - any financial incursions - then the charity will get money from the pot after the cost is absorbed_

Say the downloads for this charity thing generate 700,000 in revenue_ But say it costs the record label 690,000 to produce and market the music - yeah tthe charity is gonna et a nice 10,000 out of it - true charity to me would be if the record label actually incuured the cost and donated the entire revenue to the charity instead of passing the cost onto the consumer_

The only thing I'm impressed about is that Apple FOR ONCE is sticking to it's guns_

'Cause there have been times when Apple

No, sorry, I do not understand why most of you don't bash Apple here. I really like Apple since I bought my first Mac 14 years ago - but this is stupid. It's absolutely fair that Apple gets bad press for this - I hope Steve Jobs does something about it now. If Apple doesn't want to sell a track for anything else than 79p, then why don't they simply write: "79p + 70p for ...". Then it's clear that songs will only cost more than 79p if the rest goes to a charity.

And concerning the "iPod owners won't be able to listen to this song" - you may be right, but do you already know that the CD you can soon buy is not copy-protected? Here in Austria most CDs cannot be ripped with iTunes, and if the songs are not available from the music store, you can only download them illegaly.

Does it have anything to do with Paul McCartney being involved in Band Aid???

Again, the key question is whether Apple should, or should not, accept a song priced at double their current price. Doing this for a high profile song like the Band-Aid song will make it easier for a label to ask for 1.49p for a song, just because it is going to be popular.

This is not legal precedent, so Apple can do any darn thing they want, but right now, a label would have to bargain hard to get the ability to nearly double the cost of a song. Each time they break this rule makes it easier for the next person to ask for more money. Do we really want Band-Aid to get such a high profile song out there at double the cost? After all, Band-Aid could always just put two songs up, and send half the profits of each on to charity..

So, I do not see why it is in our consumer interest to have songs priced higher at the ITMS, given that the next one may just not be a charity.

Scott

Apple refused to sell the song because of the price they want them to sell it at. Apple looks like the bad guy here, but what about the other side. Why can't they simply agree to sell the song for 79p rather than 1.45? Why can't the charity be a little more flexible? So many charities feel that everyone should bend their rules because it is for charity. It is frustrating. I'm not bashing charity work here at all, but it steams me that they assume that they can do what they want because it is for charity. So everyone should change their rules to suit them. I think they would be better off selling it for 79p. They may discover quickly that they could make more money as more people are likely to buy it for that price.

Overall, it is a bad story, full of inaccuracies, like the statement that no one with an iPod will be able to buy the song and put it on their iPod.

Anyone notice this charity is making the same stupid mistakes the RIAA have been when it comes to pricing. Their thought is apparently "X people will buy this song, so we'll sell it for 1.49 and make Y" rather than going "Hey, if we sell it for 1.49, only X number will buy it, but if we sell it for 79, h***, we'll get twice the sales on that sucker!".

My question is "Who in their right mind would pay 1.49 for that song? It was never good to begin with (the thought is there, but its arrangement is horrible, the music is sub-par, the lyrics are repetitious, and the singing is average at best. It ranks up there with "We are the world" as one of those over-rated blowhard ego trips that people bought because they felt they should, not because it was deserved.

The writer/reporter Adam Sherwin obviously has an axe to grind with Apple. The UK Times is not the correct forum to engage in his inaccurate Apple-bashing a la carte. Secondly, Sherwin should be reprimanded for his poor research in basic facts, such as:

How will Apple's selling of the charity song damage Apple's dominance of the download market? More likely the refusal thereof would result in damage, such as this scathing article in a popular paper.

Apple's refusal to sell this song will not "reduce revenue", as Apple never generated revenue for the charity in order for it to diminish.

Apple's refusal will not result in a single iPod owner's inability to listen to the track on their iPods - this is the shoddiest "fact" of all. All they have to do is place the CD in their computer and import it into iTunes, and then synchronize - viola - instant iPod-listening gratification.

Sherwin casts Apple as the grinch who stole Christmas, by refusing to help the charity. Boo-frickin-whoo. Apple has its own priorities, and should not be coerced by strong-arm tactics of artists under the guise of charities.

Sherwin than throws in the anti-trust bit to make sure that Apple is vilified as the evil, cold-hearted organization. I wonder, why didn't the writer mention all the good that Apple has done for charities, such as donation of millions of dollars in both computer hardware, and software to schools worldwide.

I suggest you remove the whetstone from Adam Sherwin before he does it again.

A Disgruntled Times Reader

" Here in Austria most CDs cannot be ripped with iTunes..."

A CD is a CD is a CD. Why wouldn't you be able to rip a CD in Austria?

When I go there to try to buy the song, here's the message that greets me:

"Sorry. Your does not appear to be compatible. This download will only work on computers with Windows 98, ME, 2000 or XP. ActiveX controls are not supported - you must enable ActiveX for this download to work correctly"

And Band Aid wants *Apple* to cooperate? Uh, okay...

Yes, you're right. "Real" CDs can be ripped with iTunes. But the things people call CDs here in Austria are copy-protected and you can't rip them (except for a few of these "CD"s where the copy-protection doesn't work on Macs).
And since everyone continues to buy these copy-protected discs and calls them CDs, the name CD just stands for something that looks like a CD and is playable in most CD players, but NOT on PCs and Macs.

A few points....

1) This is bad PR for Apple. Regardless of comments on spin, etc the fact is that Band Aid went to Apple and said "Can we sell this at £1.49 on your site. It's all going to charity" and the reply was "no".

2) Some people seem to think it's the old version, it's not. It's a new version. Some like it, many don't, but a lot are buying it for the sentiment.

3) Someone asked "How will Apple's selling of the charity song damage Apple's dominance of the download market?"
Aye, that's poorly written. Methinks they meant to add in a 'refusal' somewhere. I already know two people rethinking buying ipods because of this tale and a few people who have said they won't buy anything from the Apple iTMS over this.

4) "Apple's refusal to sell this song will not "reduce revenue", as Apple never generated revenue for the charity in order for it to diminish."
True, but there's a good chance it could still damage the money raised. I would have bought it if it had been online there. As it isn't, I won't, so that's cash away already. There would probably have been lots of spontaneous purchases as well that might not happen now.

5) "Apple has its own priorities, and should not be coerced by strong-arm tactics of artists under the guise of charities."
True, but at the same time it should be very aware of PR opportunities.

>>Apple has done for charities, such as donation of millions of dollars in both computer hardware, and software to schools worldwide.