toggle

AAPL Stock: 509.46 ( 0 )

MacNN News

iTunes song pricing policy spurns charity fundraiser

updated 12:15 am EST, Thu November 25, 2004

iTunes song pricing policy

Apple has the charity Band Aid song via its iTunes music service. A new report says that Apple's iTunes Music Store has refused to sell Do They Know It�s Christmas? because of pricing issues, according to the UK newspaper The Times Online: "The track costs �1.49 on other major online sites which have agreed to donate their profits to relief efforts in Africa. Apple sells individual tracks at 79p but has refused to raise its price for the charity song. Because of iTunes�s dominance of the online market, Apple�s refusal to sell the track could reduce the revenues raised through online sales by 70 per cent. Millions of iPod owners will not be able to play the track over the Christmas period."

by MacNN Staff

(41)

TAGS :

industry, digital music/video

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

unregistered
Forum Regular

Joined: Mar 2001

0

11/25, 12:52am | report spam | close Reply |
If you give in once...

For iTunes users, this is a good thing. If Apple gives in once then it will start a precedent. Next thing you know there will be all sorts of songs popping up at different prices. No thanks. I prefer the single price model. Let's see, Apple only takes a few cents per song. If the artists and others want to donate, then there should be plenty left over for them to donate with. Instead of donating their own money, they want to raise the price and donate our money.

zro
Mac Elite

Joined: Nov 2003

0

11/25, 01:15am | report spam | close Reply |
More iPod/iTMS confusion

So millions of iPod owners won't be able to play these songs during Christmas because Apple isn't selling them? How exactly does that work?

Brilliant reporting there.

dweebert
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2001

0

11/25, 01:19am | report spam | close Reply |
bad planning

Umm, the artists don't get any money for this song. All of the proceeds from sales go to charity. That's kind of the point.

Anyway, I agree that Apple has to keep the single price model. Revenue of online sales may be reduced by 70%, but they probably should have signed the deal beforehand rather than assuming that Apple would go along with their terms. They might even have been able to convince Apple to give the full 79p collected instead of the "profits on �1.49", which probably would work out to about the same amount.

jrome
Junior Member

Joined: May 1999

0

11/25, 01:52am | report spam | close Reply |
Article wrong, misleading

This article is terrible.

1) The opening sentence is false on its face, "THE Apple iTunes music store has refused to sell the charity Band Aid song Do They Know It�s Christmas? because it would damage the company�s dominance of the download market." They dominate the market & they're not selling it, but not selling it is certainly not a ploy to continue their dominance. The write makes it sound as if Apple is in favor of beating puppies, essentially.

2)"Millions of iPod owners will not be able to play the track over the Christmas period." Wrong again. They can still buy it via CD and rip it to iTunes. This one demonstrates bias & ignorance.

3)"The song cannot be made available for 79p because Band Aid must maximise the cash raised from each sale." This is just stupid. Of course it can be sold for 79p. And they don't have to do anything-- they seek to maximize the total amount of cash raised, and raising the per-sale price won't necessarily do that. They think 149p is the ideal price, but maybe not. And Band Aid CAN make it available for 79p, they have CHOSEN not to. This one is pure stupidity.

4) "Five million iPod players have now been sold." Well, more like 8 million according to this, http://forbes.com/personaltech/2004/10/15/cx_ah_1015tentech.html . Chalk this one up to laziness.

It's obvious that the writer here has an ulterior motive (pressuring Apple), but this is such a poorly written article that it's hard to believe it got published in a major newspaper.

scotty321
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 1999

0

11/25, 01:52am | report spam | close Reply |
Millions of iPod owners?

Um, what? Millions of iPod owners won't be able to play that song? Excuse me? I'm an iPod owner, I have that song on my iPod, and every other iPod owner can have that song on their iPod too. There's about a million other ways to get songs besides the iTunes Music Store. This is some of the worst news reporting I've read in a long time.

scotty321
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 1999

0

11/25, 01:54am | report spam | close Reply |
Good for Apple

Good for Apple to sticking to its pricing policy.

This is the worst-written article ever.

dashiel
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2001

0

11/25, 02:20am | report spam | close Reply |
too bad

it's a shame, i was really hoping it would be released on itunes. won't be released in the states other than import, and while the original is a good track it's not worth $10+

Lyra
Forum Regular

Joined: Jul 2000

0

11/25, 02:28am | report spam | close Reply |
yep

Quote : So millions of iPod owners won't be able to play these songs during Christmas because Apple isn't selling them? How exactly does that work?

Brilliant reporting there.

Best quote of the day... Macnn is getting worse and worse...

Anyway, I don't see this as a problem, if you want to help buy the single, on a real CD and THEN put it on your ipod... Is it that hard?

Lyra
Forum Regular

Joined: Jul 2000

0

11/25, 02:32am | report spam | close Reply |
A PC person?

I still feel there are a number of cases where the articles simply feel to PC like. Meaning that either a PC person wrote it and didn't give a frell about the Mac or a person who has NO IDEA what they are writing... It is really sad to see Macnn crumble like this... I have deleted my macnn bookmark as of today... So I will be spared of these idiotic articles...

I suggest you do the same, there are tons of other more dedicated Mac news sites out there who take reporting more seriously...

Lyra
Forum Regular

Joined: Jul 2000

0

11/25, 02:36am | report spam | close Reply |
Dumb, dumber and dumbest!

The writer of this article is an ANTI MAC b******! GET OUT OF OUR COMMUNITY! NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!

TiDual
Forum Regular

Joined: Nov 2001

0

11/25, 03:35am | report spam | close Reply |
Don't shoot the messenge

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.

Stephen.S.
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2004

0

11/25, 03:54am | report spam | close Reply |
Poor business decision

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!

aristotles
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: Jul 2004

0

11/25, 04:40am | report spam | close Reply |
Here's a thought

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

macnavi
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2001

0

11/25, 05:04am | report spam | close Reply |
Too many times

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.

finknottle
Dedicated MacNNer

Joined: Aug 2000

0

11/25, 06:31am | report spam | close Reply |
Looks Bad

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 :(

mibok
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

11/25, 06:48am | report spam | close Reply |
good thing

n/t

PookJP
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2001

0

11/25, 07:02am | report spam | close Reply |
pwn3d

Christmas got pwn3d

zzimbob
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2003

0

11/25, 07:40am | report spam | close Reply |
Reducing the Revenues?

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.

MichaelNH
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2002

0

11/25, 07:40am | report spam | close Reply |
charity extremist..

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. :(

jonbwfc1
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2003

0

11/25, 08:13am | report spam | close Reply |
To be honest..

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.

wesukmk
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2004

0

11/25, 09:33am | report spam | close Reply |
Erm...

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.

QuatermassX
Forum Regular

Joined: Oct 1999

0

11/25, 09:46am | report spam | close Reply |
M$ PR Story

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.

Blanchard
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2003

0

11/25, 10:17am | report spam | close Reply |
The less I hear that song

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...

ScottEllsworth
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2001

0

11/25, 10:47am | report spam | close Reply |
Strange thinking

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.

MacCoylton
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

11/25, 12:02pm | report spam | close Reply |
Poor show Apple

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

trevc
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2000

0

11/25, 12:09pm | report spam | close Reply |
They should ...

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.

MacCoylton
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

11/25, 12:13pm | report spam | close Reply |
Poor show Apple

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

zzimbob
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2003

0

11/25, 12:23pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Poor show Apple

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.

Ralf_Wiggum
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2002

0

11/25, 02:29pm | report spam | close Reply |
Adam Sherwin BiasedStupid

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.

MacCoylton
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

11/25, 02:46pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Poor show Apple

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.

UberFu
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2002

0

11/25, 03:09pm | report spam | close Reply |
i agree.....

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

Tsilou B.
Senior User

Joined: May 2002

0

11/25, 03:13pm | report spam | close Reply |
Poor show, indeed

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.

The Wolf
Dedicated MacNNer

Joined: Jul 2001

0

11/25, 06:50pm | report spam | close Reply |
hrmmm...

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

ScottEllsworth
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2001

0

11/25, 10:11pm | report spam | close Reply |
Tsilou B.

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

Roehlstation
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

11/26, 12:39am | report spam | close Reply |
Other Side of the coin

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.

LouZer
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2000

0

11/26, 12:53am | report spam | close Reply |
Charity and RIAA

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.

iceberg
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2004

0

11/26, 10:36am | report spam | close Reply |
My Letter to the Editor

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

chabig
Addicted to MacNN

Joined: Jun 1999

0

11/26, 02:06pm | report spam | close Reply |
Can't rip in Austria?

" 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?

deasys
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

11/26, 02:59pm | report spam | close Reply |
Band Aid's Official Site

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...

Tsilou B.
Senior User

Joined: May 2002

0

11/26, 04:33pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Chabig

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.

Craig McGill
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2004

0

11/27, 12:25pm | report spam | close Reply |
Hang on...

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.

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

02/15	Gartner: Apple No 1 vendor in Q4, but...
02/15	Proview: Chinese customs 'unlikely'...
02/15	Cook: iCloud over 100M users, Siri...
02/15	AMD Radeon HD 7750, 7770 GHz Edition...
02/14	Cook hints at Apple TV set during Goldman...

Show All

02/15	Gartner: Apple No 1 vendor in Q4, but...
02/15	Proview: Chinese customs 'unlikely'...
02/15	AMD Radeon HD 7750, 7770 GHz Edition...
02/14	Apple CEO: Kindle Fire will sell, but...
02/14	Time Capsule stock sees delays, sell...

Show All

02/14	Apple attempting to disrupt Siri hacks...
02/14	Readability iOS app delayed, Android...
02/13	Apple launches 2012 back-to-school...
02/13	Sony Music caught inflating price for...
02/09	Apple explores environment-sensitive...

Show All

02/14	Refurb. 16GB iPhone 4, now only $259...
02/13	Refurb. Flip UltraHD Pocket Digital...
02/10	$380 off refurbished 2.8GHz Mac Pro...
02/09	iHome Dual Alarm Clock for Apple iPod...
02/08	Save 69% on SanDisk Cruzer 32GB USB...

Show All

toggle

iTunes song pricing policy spurns charity fundraiser

updated 12:15 am EST, Thu November 25, 2004

iTunes song pricing policy

Related Articles

Recent Articles

If you give in once...

More iPod/iTMS confusion

bad planning

Article wrong, misleading

Millions of iPod owners?

Good for Apple

too bad

yep

A PC person?

Dumb, dumber and dumbest!

Don't shoot the messenge

Poor business decision

Here's a thought

Too many times

Looks Bad

good thing

pwn3d

Reducing the Revenues?

charity extremist..

To be honest..

Erm...

M$ PR Story

The less I hear that song

Strange thinking

Poor show Apple

They should ...

Poor show Apple

Re: Poor show Apple

Adam Sherwin BiasedStupid

Re: Poor show Apple

i agree.....

Poor show, indeed

hrmmm...

Tsilou B.

Other Side of the coin

Charity and RIAA

My Letter to the Editor

Can't rip in Austria?

Band Aid's Official Site

Re: Chabig

Hang on...

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace