Apple Drops Price Of Non-DRM'ed Songs

[Cpt. Funkaho]

NEW YORK (Associated Press) - Apple Inc. is lowering the prices of songs it sells online without copy-protection to 99 cents from $1.29, a company spokeswoman said Tuesday.

The reduction, which started appearing on songs Tuesday, puts Apple closer in line with rival offerings. Amazon.com Inc., which opened its online music store in September, sells tracks without anti-copying software locks for 89 cents to 99 cents.

Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris said the price cut was not in response to competition.

"It's been very popular with our customers and we're now making it available at an even more affordable price," Kerris said.

I say good, and it's about damn time.

[shakermaker113]

how long do you think before they drop the drm altogether?

things are looking good.

[TomAz]

wait. did apple also cut its price on songs with DRM? otherwise it doesn't make sense.

[Cpt. Funkaho]

wait. did apple also cut its price on songs with DRM? otherwise it doesn't make sense.

No, they're all 99 cents a pop now... the trick is that only EMI has agreed to sell their songs without DRM. Sony and BMG are still holding out. I expect they'll cave at some point, though... probably within six months.

Apparently Apple is now the third-largest music retailer in the US now.

[Hannahrain]

wait. did apple also cut its price on songs with DRM? otherwise it doesn't make sense.

It sort of does. An awful lot of tracks that Apple offers are only available with DRM. They're not going to stop selling a ton of protected tracks, even if the price doesn't change. People aren't going to get different songs because the ones they want are protected. They're going to take the songs they want in the available format.

[Cpt. Funkaho]

Actually, I stopped buying songs by anyone other than EMI as soon as EMI went DRM-free. Just to send a message, however small it might be.

[shakermaker113]

there's talk of expanding the non-drm collection to indie labels too... and there's no reason, other than ignorance, why people would buy the drm versions when the non-drm versions are available at the same price. I'm convinced the drm ones will soon be dropped altogether where drm-free versions are available.

also, if sony and bmg don't cave I bet they'll see a drop in sales. people will get spoiled being able to buy higher quality drm-free tracks from EMI, and might be less likely to purchase from other record companies that don't offer the service. there will be pressure.

Actually, I stopped buying songs by anyone other than EMI as soon as EMI went DRM-free. Just to send a message, however small it might be.

might point exactly! thank you sir.

[Hannahrain]

there's talk of expanding the non-drm collection to indie labels too... and there's no reason, other than ignorance, why people would buy the drm versions when the non-drm versions are available at the same price.

Hi. You're missing the point. For the most part, the tracks aren't the same. They only offer some tracks DRM-free.

That's like saying that you went to the store to buy a Dylan album, but the Jewel one had better features so you bought that instead.

[canexplain]

Hi. You're missing the point. For the most part, the tracks aren't the same. They only offer some tracks DRM-free.

That's like saying that you went to the store to buy a Dylan album, but the Jewel one had better features so you bought that instead.

you are right of course ... and i dont see drm going away or maybe it will morph into something different ... one good precedent is though, remember when most all of the software you bought, you couldnt copy at all ..not even a one time fair use ... that didnt last long .. canx**

[shakermaker113]

Hi. You're missing the point. For the most part, the tracks aren't the same. They only offer some tracks DRM-free.

That's like saying that you went to the store to buy a Dylan album, but the Jewel one had better features so you bought that instead.

oh I know, and you've got a good point. but what I was trying to point out is that soon it won't be just EMI. soon there will be not just a Jewel album but also a Bright Eyes album and a Of Montreal album as well.

and the more people that jump on board the DRM-Free train, the more pressure there will be for columbia to make that Dylan album available DRM-free. if columbia are the only people not allowing DRM-free mp3s to be sold it will get to the point where people will not buy the Dylan cd because it has DRM. it might take a while, but it will eventually happen.

[Cpt. Funkaho]

one good precedent is though, remember when most all of the software you bought, you couldnt copy at all ..not even a one time fair use ... that didnt last long .. canx**

No, I don't remember a time when I *couldn't* make copies of software I bought, but I definitely remember a time when the license only extended to one installation, and that time is now.

[canexplain]

No, I don't remember a time when I *couldn't* make copies of software I bought, but I definitely remember a time when the license only extended to one installation, and that time is now.

i had lots of software you couldnt copy, say pre 95 maybe, of course like most people you could crack it to make copies ... canx**

[TomAz]

That's like saying that you went to the store to buy a Dylan album, but the Jewel one had better features so you bought that instead.

insert comment about Jewel's 'features' here.

[Hannahrain]

1: Innuendo about awful, child-like singer.

[TomAz]

2. Breasts

[RotationSlimWang]

3: Need for braces.

4: Breasts, again. Breasts are awfully popular talk today.

[instinct]

lol, who would actually pay 99 cents for a song?!?

Don't people know this shit is for free?

[Cpt. Funkaho]

lol, who would actually pay 99 cents for a song?!?

Don't people know this shit is for free?

You are part of the reason why the world is not a better place.