You Gotta Pay the Cost to Buy The Boss ...
Pretty much everyone I know uses iTunes as their computer's default music player/library. Many, though perhaps not even half, also use iTunes as there go-to source for buying music. I've done it from time to time, but there's always some lingering qualms I keep to myself while my iPod updates.
First is the audio quality: it's compressed and falls way short of what can be achieved on vinyl and CD. I bought those headphones for a reason ...
Secondly, besides the cool "cover flow" viewing option iTunes offers, there's no aesthetically stimulating or tangible visual or physical interaction with the music/musician.
Still, the iTunes store remains the number one seller of music worldwide.
The question: Is $1.29 too much dough for one track? Apple doesn't think so. For "popular tracks," iTunes recently announced they're upping the standard 99 cent fee to $1.29.
While the fine print told of a new 60 cent fee for older songs in the catalog --- my best guess: Kris Kristofferson and Olivia Newton John --- news surrounding the plan has mainly focused on the 30 cent up-charge. Is this the time to make people dish out $13 bucks for ten (allegedly) killer jams? To be honest, I don't think 13 bucks is that bad. In a day where you can purchase a terabyte of memory for a couple hundred dollars, we can afford the room for larger files, which would mean better sounding quality for audiophiles like myself.
The L.A. Time reports that most of the 10 million songs in the iTunes catalog will remain 99 cents, but suggests that the $1.29 price tag will most likely extend to popular "classics" like ... Bruce Springteen's "Born in the U.S.A."