Kent Pribbernow
08-30-2005, 09:00 AM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/27/technology/27apple.html?hp&ex=1125115200&en=54e6c9bea83ad21a&ei=5094&partner=homepage' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/27/technology/27apple.html?hp&ex=1125115200&en=54e6c9bea83ad21a&ei=5094&partner=homepage</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Two and a half years after the music business lined up behind the chief executive of Apple, Steven P. Jobs, and hailed him and his iTunes music service for breathing life into music sales, the industry's allegiance to Mr. Jobs has eroded sharply. Mr. Jobs is now girding for a showdown with at least two of the four major record companies over the price of songs on the iTunes service. If he loses, the one-price model that iTunes has adopted - 99 cents to download any song - could be replaced with a more complex structure that prices songs by popularity. A hot new single, for example, could sell for $1.49, while a golden oldie could go for substantially less than 99 cents."</i><br /><br />This isn't the first time one or more major record label has tried to pressure Apple into jacking up prices. I wouldn't mind seeing a price increase on hot new release tracks, but if the industry wants to go this route they should at least reduce prices on back catalog tracks as well.