Apple's iTunes store is now iTunes Plus. The new pricing structure is in place and every track has been upgraded to AAC DRM-free 256kbps. Here endeth the good news.
All the most popular tracks now cost 99p and any others worth having are 79p. The rest of the catalogue costs 59p - but you'd be hard pressed to find them and will probably need therapy if you listen to them. Basically, it looks like a thinly disguised price hike. You can also upgrade any 128kbps DRM-ridden tracks to the Plus standard for 20p per track, with further reductions on albums you have already bought - how very generous. Capitalism lives.
Alternatively, you could go to Amazon or Napster where, for example, a popular track chosen at random, My Life Would Suck Without You by Kelly Clarkson, costs 59p (Amazon) or 33p (Napster) rather than 99p (iTunes). Even a more obscure track like Juliet by the Four Pennies costs 79p (i) but only 33p (N). However, on the schizo Amazon site, it depends which album the track is on so you can pay 69p or 79p.
In what the press is hailing as an attack on iTunes, Amazon is also offering some top tracks for only 29p. Why compete when you're beating them hands down on price already? Oh, I see, it undercuts Napster, too. So that's where the battle lies.
All the most popular tracks now cost 99p and any others worth having are 79p. The rest of the catalogue costs 59p - but you'd be hard pressed to find them and will probably need therapy if you listen to them. Basically, it looks like a thinly disguised price hike. You can also upgrade any 128kbps DRM-ridden tracks to the Plus standard for 20p per track, with further reductions on albums you have already bought - how very generous. Capitalism lives.
Alternatively, you could go to Amazon or Napster where, for example, a popular track chosen at random, My Life Would Suck Without You by Kelly Clarkson, costs 59p (Amazon) or 33p (Napster) rather than 99p (iTunes). Even a more obscure track like Juliet by the Four Pennies costs 79p (i) but only 33p (N). However, on the schizo Amazon site, it depends which album the track is on so you can pay 69p or 79p.
In what the press is hailing as an attack on iTunes, Amazon is also offering some top tracks for only 29p. Why compete when you're beating them hands down on price already? Oh, I see, it undercuts Napster, too. So that's where the battle lies.
Subscribe to this blog
The Record Companies are forcing Apple to raise the prices. It has nothing to do with Apple. Apple has always wanted the songs to remain at $.99 and the albums at $9.99. This fight price between Apple and the Record companies is well documented. Apple was given the choice to either lose the music or go with the higher prices.
Here in the USA, Amazon and Walmart are also being forced to raise their prices.
Thanks for the input, Paul. Amazon has yet to raise its prices in the UK and, as mentioned in the blog, has actually slashed the prices of premium content. I still blame Apple for not doing anything about back catalogue tracks. Ok it's good to see that the hits of the 60s, for example, are at the mid-price level but I would expect the lesser-known album tracks to be at the lower tariff. Also, I feel that downloads of previously-acquired tracks should be free. Why should I have to pay 20p more than people downloading the track for the first time today? After all, it is existing customers that have built the iTunes Store into the major operation it is today.