Macintouch today quotes a writer for Microsoft/NBC’s MSNBC on the iTunes Music Service:
Even if you think AAC cuts are good enough for your listening needs, you’re paying way too much for this near-CD quality when a few cents more per cut can get you the real thing. Apple should consider slashing the price of their music to reflect the ultimate quality of its offerings. For now, I’ll stick with CDs.
Macintouch then comments:
You’ve got to wonder about the ethics of the Microsoft news organization publishing critiques of its competitors’ services….
Good point. Especially as Microsoft continues to work on their Windows Media products which, I’m told, contain incredibly restrictive DRM software. For a monopoly such as Microsoft to make jabs at what they consider to be “high priced” items is laughable. Ever looked at the price of Microsoft Office lately?
I wonder just how much editorial control Microsoft has over MSNBC?
Anyway. Since the iTunes Music Store seems to have had a strong launch and just about everyone I know has purchased something already, it looks like the price *is* right. Yes, you can buy a complete CD for about $12 at a store, which makes the downloads only slightly less expensive. But there’s a huge difference here that MSNBC seems to forget: you can’t buy one song at the local music store. You have to buy a complete $12 CD to get the one song you want.
For the price of a complete album, I can buy 12 songs that I actually like and create my own album, and never have to get into the car and go to the mall. Apple has already proved that there are plenty of people who will pay a slightly higher price for their products because of ephemeral niceties such as design, ease of use, etc. And that is why the iTunes Music Store will be at least somewhat successful.
I agree with you completely about the possibility of bias in having an MSNBC employee critique Apple’s service. But upon reading the article, he seems to be mostly critiquing the cost *due to the poor sound quality of the AAC files*. His article’s not really biased in that regard, although the lack of comparison to an equivalent WMA file is certainly telling!