Puretracks hits DRM-free mobile music fray

I wouldn't exactly use the word FRAY to describe what they are doing here considering how far ahead Apple already is and seeing that just about EVERYONE else in the world who has taken on Apple has not come anything close to "competing" with Apple in this market.

fray 2 |freɪ| |freɪ| noun ( the fray) a situation of intense activity, typically one incorporating an element of aggression or competition : nineteen companies intend to bid for the contract, with three more expected to enter the fray. • a battle or fight. ORIGIN late Middle English : from archaic fray [to quarrel,] from affray [startle,] from Anglo-Norman French afrayer (see affray ).

...there may come a day when Apple will need to embrace competing online music stores. I would like to use a variety of services to get my music, and am usually forced to due to the different availability of artists in different stores.

I think it's more in Apple' interest to sell hardware units and lose a few customers to other online outlets than not sell a device to those users at all.

Tired of being screwed by apple?

http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

At what point does the fact that the major labels refuse to allow Apple to sell DRM-free music, while at the same time allowing others to sell it, start to look anti-competitive? And if all the labels are playing the same game, it's starting to look like collusion.

"At what point does the fact that the major labels refuse to allow Apple to sell DRM-free music, while at the same time allowing others to sell it..."

Probably when Apple ditches their superior act and starts negotiating.

The only thing preventing Apple from having any available content is their refusal to pay the asking price.

""At what point does the fact that the major labels refuse to allow Apple to sell DRM-free music, while at the same time allowing others to sell it..."

Probably when Apple ditches their superior act and starts negotiating.

The only thing preventing Apple from having any available content is their refusal to pay the asking price."

That's total BS. You think Amazon is paying more to the labels than Apple is? The labels are giving better deals to these other music services just to try to take down iTunes. The fact that all the major labels (except EMI) are doing it is obviously collusion. They may not have actually talked it over, but they are colluding.

That's total BS. You think Amazon is paying more to the labels than Apple is? The labels are giving better deals to these other music services just to try to take down iTunes. The fact that all the major labels (except EMI) are doing it is obviously collusion. They may not have actually talked it over, but they are colluding.

So the labels are colluding to try to beat out the monopolistic practices of Apple's ITMS.

But you're mistaking "price" as just cost. The asking price was variable pricing, the object of which Apple has no problem with unless, of course, it doesn't suit them. Songs have to be one price. TV Shows have to be one price (why, beats me, since there's no way a half-hour comedy is worth the same as an hour sci-fi epic).

But then combine them, and pricing is all over the map. Season passes of shows aren't a single price. Albums range from $7 to $100+. And the number of songs don't matter. Some albums with 5 songs will cost $10, the same as another album with 50 songs. But other albums with 10 songs will cost $13. Even when they went DRM-free, it was $1.29 for some songs, 99 cents for others, and users had to pay attention to realize how much they were paying.

"(why, beats me, since there's no way a half-hour comedy is worth the same as an hour sci-fi epic)."

There is a way, actually. Some folks value one half hour of laughter over an hour of ridiculous science fiction pap.

go figure.

Not saying "I" do, but, just saying...