its really funny how Microsoft will get blamed for "playing catch-up" all the time, but when Apple does something that has been done before they get a standing ovation... I'm glad im not the only one that noticed though.
Fred gets low ranked for being a moron. The record labels control which songs get sold in what format and for how much. Apple is a storefront, they don't own the music. Get a clue.
Oh, so you think Apple controls the pricing of the songs? Really? Then why aren't they still all 99 cents? That's right, because the RECORD LABELS would only agree to allow their music to stay on the store DRM-free if Apple sold their music at a higher price.
Are you clear on that point yet? The LABELS are the ones deciding which songs get sold at $1.29, NOT APPLE.
The only reason Amazon had a DRM-free library first is because they allowed the labels to charge variable pricing right off the bat. Apple didn't. You see how that works?
They both made concessions. Apple agreed to three price points, and the labels agreed to let their music go DRM-free. If the pricing were up to Apple, it would have stayed at $.99. Is anybody still confused, or do you get it now?
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
So where are the calls of Apple being "late to the party" or "playing catch up"?
Or does that not apply to them?
This is the work of the content providers (the labels) rather than the stores themselves.
Apple is playing catch up.
its really funny how Microsoft will get blamed for "playing catch-up" all the time, but when Apple does something that has been done before they get a standing ovation... I'm glad im not the only one that noticed though.
Fred gets low ranked for being a moron. The record labels control which songs get sold in what format and for how much. Apple is a storefront, they don't own the music. Get a clue.
Actually, Zak, this is Apple bowing to the record companies who have indeed got their own way. Gone is the unitary model.
Oh, so you think Apple controls the pricing of the songs? Really? Then why aren't they still all 99 cents? That's right, because the RECORD LABELS would only agree to allow their music to stay on the store DRM-free if Apple sold their music at a higher price.
Are you clear on that point yet? The LABELS are the ones deciding which songs get sold at $1.29, NOT APPLE.
The only reason Amazon had a DRM-free library first is because they allowed the labels to charge variable pricing right off the bat. Apple didn't. You see how that works?
They both made concessions. Apple agreed to three price points, and the labels agreed to let their music go DRM-free. If the pricing were up to Apple, it would have stayed at $.99. Is anybody still confused, or do you get it now?