or free if you aren't brand new to the internethttp://www.thestate.com/entertain-index/story/741634.html
4/8/2009 11:35:22 AM
Son of a bitch.[Edited on April 8, 2009 at 11:38 AM. Reason : Is Apple even aware of this fucking recession?]
4/8/2009 11:37:43 AM
recessions don't affect rich white kids in suburbia. daddy will give you money till he's broke. and he won't be broke any time soonI'm Big Business and i approved this message.[Edited on April 8, 2009 at 11:40 AM. Reason : or does it?]
4/8/2009 11:39:27 AM
4/8/2009 11:40:04 AM
Some songs $1.29, some $.99, and some $.69.Apple claims that more songs are .69 than 1.29, but that doesn't seem to be the case in reality. And it's not like Apple is the one doing the money-grubbing here. Apple was a huge fan of .99 across the board. They even wanted DRM-free music. But the record companies refused to issue DRM-free music without a compromise. So they get more cash.
4/8/2009 11:42:30 AM
so are all the shitty radio songs $1.29 or is this spilling over into good music?(admittedly, i didn't read the article)
4/8/2009 11:43:35 AM
it is based on popularity.i would wager that a song can be released at $.99 and then be downloaded a lot and they bump it to $1.29
4/8/2009 11:45:53 AM
4/8/2009 11:47:02 AM
well, at least it's DRM free now.
4/8/2009 11:51:42 AM
^ [Edited on April 8, 2009 at 11:52 AM. Reason : they need to let me redownload all my drm'd shit for free now. bitches]
4/8/2009 11:52:24 AM
good thing popular music is shittyI'm Big Business and i approved this message.[Edited on April 8, 2009 at 11:53 AM. Reason : isn't that right vinylbandit? ]
4/8/2009 11:52:57 AM
lol. music elitists.
4/8/2009 11:53:57 AM
meh. i don't like much popular music, but i don't think it's because i'm a music elitist, i think it's just because i have different tastes then what radio forces down our throats.satellite radio ftw[Edited on April 8, 2009 at 11:55 AM. Reason : siriusly]
4/8/2009 11:54:43 AM
OMG YOUR MUSIC SUCKS, MINE IS THE BEST.
4/8/2009 12:02:00 PM
they talked about doing this a long ass time ago[old]
4/8/2009 12:02:22 PM
^^ i never said that. i just like different stuff.^ but did they?[Edited on April 8, 2009 at 12:05 PM. Reason : t]
4/8/2009 12:05:00 PM
^^
4/8/2009 12:34:50 PM
pricing structure is 69, 99, 1.29but its 100% DRM free.so whats your point?Albums are still on average 9.99.oh and its not breaking news. its [OLD] news.[Edited on April 8, 2009 at 12:50 PM. Reason : .]
4/8/2009 12:48:41 PM
Amazon and Wal Mart have followed suit.
4/8/2009 12:50:20 PM
^considering all the music comes from the same money grubbing old men, makes perfect sense.
4/8/2009 12:51:41 PM
yea saw that this morning - its not the concept of $1.29 - its the idea of the greedy artists that won't stop until they get screwed over....again
4/8/2009 12:57:55 PM
that talked all about it at the last apple conference thing, and it might have been mentioned/rumored at the previous one too.
4/8/2009 1:14:37 PM
^^i don't think it's the artists who are the greedy ones
4/8/2009 1:27:53 PM
Sounds like this only affects 14 year old girl music.
4/8/2009 1:47:50 PM
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/digitalmusic/0,39029432,49300555,00.htmhttp://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090113/0707133391.shtmlJust because there's no DRM doesn't mean sharing them is still all that safe. Although I'm sure it isn't hard to find a way to pull the email address off of the file without ruining the file itself. Someone will have a program for that I'm sure.[Edited on April 8, 2009 at 1:56 PM. Reason : .]
4/8/2009 1:56:06 PM
give me FLAC or give me death
4/8/2009 4:38:58 PM
^ Hells yeah!
4/8/2009 4:42:06 PM