OMG! Can you say that again in all caps?

Anyone who’s read anything about the iTunes saga knows that the 24-hr rental limit was imposed by the media companies, not by Apple. Those who continue to rant about evil Apple and their evil DRM must have missed Jobs statement that he would be perfectly willing to sell DRM-free music if the labels would allow it. They apparently also missed the music industry trumpeting that they would allow Amazon to sell DRM-free music while at the same time purposely leaving DRM requirements in place for iTunes, all for the sole purpose of reducing Apple’s dominant position in the digital download market. They actually said this…out loud. How blatant!

Apple did not attain this dominant position because they “keep you locked into their proprietary formats.” They attained it because they provide the most elegant and convenient way for people to legally download music. If you find another company’s format more desirable you are perfectly welcome to utilize it, but it is certainly ridiculous to continue to question how Apple chooses to conduct its business when you have no idea what sort of constraints they are operating under.

And Matt, it certainly is refreshing to see someone acknowledge that an opposing viewpoint has provided them with food for thought.

It seems that a lot of people don’t know this, but variable pricing is a way for the labels to control which artists succeed and which fail.

If someone knows nothing about two songs, each by a different unfamiliar artist, and one is priced $1.50 and the other song is priced at$0.50, what will that person conclude about the relative quality of those two songs? The strong implication is that the 50 cent artist sucks.

If there was variable pricing in iTunes, guess who would set the prices? The labels! Remember that the interests of the artists and the labels are often very different.

Ever wonder why most movies are the same ticket price? Same reason. If there was a $5 movie and a $12 movie, most people would assume the $5 sucked and no one (except real cheapskates) would go. In that case, why would the theatre even bother to play it?

Anyway, others have written a lot more about this, so go read about the effects of variable pricing before you argue that Apple should have done it.

That obviously can and does happen. Apple’s approach to that dilemma has not been: “iTunes should bend to artists and developers needs” as you put it. In the long run, Apple has made more (what turned out to be) correct decisions than not, and that’s why I defended Apple’s right and ability to curate its offerings.

If you regard Apple as dumb and venal, as some do, then you’ll take your business elsewhere. Nothing wrong with that. But in most such instances those who criticize Apple don’t have sufficient information on (internal and external) constraints that Apple must operate under in terms of legal obligations, business partnerships, product roadmaps, competitive pressures, financial planning, and so on.

You seem to be convinced, for example, that it’s right and easy for Apple to allow movies to be rented for “72 hours instead of the currently stingy 24.” Without having sat in meetings with Apple people whose salaries depend on figuring out these things, how exactly do you know that? Variable pricing is not a universal panacea. On the contrary, price uniformity is quite common for a lot financial, technical and psychological reasons, as evidenced by non-variable movie theater ticket prices.

Pricing is design, as I have argued many times here. Just as a company shouldn’t let its products be designed by others, neither should it let others (including developers, artists, etc) design its price structures. It should listen to them but not be obligated to agree with them.

The template I use is heavily reconfigured to look like the way it does now, but the logo is unfortunately not a clickable item. Since a redesign is on the (not immediate) agenda, I haven’t messed with it. I’m glad you enjoyed the rest though.

Agreed – but we are passed the early birthing stages of the iTunes store – its success isnt in doubt anymore – and the appstore shows that consumers can be presented with different costs for different media without getting lost and confused. I dont expect all the books I buy to costs the same. Consumers realize that some media has more value than others and spend accordingly. Apple doesnt sell all its software at the same price – some has more value and took more effort and they charge more. It sure would be simpler if they sold Final Cut Studio at the same price as iLife but strangely they dont and their customers are able to muddle through. Not sure why music or movies are different than apps.

“if all you’re interested in is options and alternatives. That’s not what Apple does.”

dont use weasel words like “all” to try and frame what I was trying to say. That if someone believes Apple is making the wrong trade-off between simplicity and choice in some manner “all” he is interested in is options and alternatives. Thats a neat way to try and shut down criticism.

Is there some kind of design aesthetic behind this choice? It seems to really hinder basic navigation.

I tried to explain this in my earlier comment, but I guess DBL did not comprehend.

DBL: “After reading that, I was half-expecting you to praise them for not allowing apps to be distributed freely outside of the App Store and for stomping on Podcaster and squeezing out perfectly legitimate competitors!”

I suppose since we’re such “rabid fanboys” it would be futile to point out that managing the user experience on its devices is way more important to Apple than any sense of unfairness it might engender in a few developers and gadget geeks by not allowing a free-for-all on the iPhone. And speaking of fanboys, in comparing the number of OS X users to the number of Windows users, I would venture to say that there are more PC fanboys than there are Apple customers in total. There is a reason why Apple products inspire loyalty.

Kontra: “If you want “options” you go elsewhere, and people do.”

Over the last 10 years it has become obvious that if you are looking for hardware which you can treat like some sort of perpetual erector set, Apple is not your company. And yet the complaints continue about Macs not being upgradeable.