iTunes Store Available in Australia Very Soon

tintub writes "New Zealander Russell Crowe has probably infuriated Apple by revealing the launch date of the iTunes store in Australia. Apparently it will be open as early as tomorrow (Thursday), selling tracks for AU$1.80 each. Personally I think this is too much, but I'm glad it's finally available in Australia. Now, when's Amazon coming?"

Comments

Dear Apple

[CaptainZapp]

I read that you will also open an ITunes store in Scandinavia and in Switzerland as well this week; this is nice.

As long as you don't sell MP3 / Ogg files in 320kb - / very high quality however, I cordially invite you to go and bang yer heads; you won't sell me one damn song.

I can agree to not distribute downloaded material, but I'm hell bent not to buy anything that even faintly stinks of DRM.

Oh and while we're at it: 99c a song is acceptable, 9.99 per album is not, specifically for some crippled format, which may or may not play in three years. You cut out the middleman and a whole lot of manufacturing -, distribution and logistics in the process and I - as the consumer - want at least a part of that savings reflected on the price.

There is no need to thank me.

Re:Dear Apple

[Calroth]

You cut out the middleman and a whole lot of manufacturing -, distribution and logistics in the process and I - as the consumer - want at least a part of that savings reflected on the price.

Whilst you can want that, there's no reason for you to get it.

The cost of production has little to do with the price of the songs. The price is simply the highest amount that consumers will let Apple get away with. Although they could lower their prices and therefore sell more songs, if you add it up, they wouldn't make more money this way.

Now, the actual issue isn't this simple in real life, of course. Also, Apple only makes a tiny amount of money from music sales (at the moment, the store is only there to make iPods more attractive). But it's useful to remember, in the real world, we have real world economics.

Re:Dear Apple

[CrackedButter]

The RIAA cut out the middleman btw not Apple, it isn't Apple which dicates pricing nor the DRM, iTunes music store is the result of what the music industries want. However I do agree with you on all the other points. Although I do buy music from them, I resort to cherry picking good albums for their singles because I'm not prepared to pay for price for an album to get a few good songs.
There is also nothing wrong with selling 320kb songs in AAC either as long as the DRM wrapper isn't there, it is an open format after all.

Re:Dear Apple

[nmg196]

> As long as you don't sell MP3 / Ogg files in 320kb - / very high quality however

Most people listen to MP3 files though headphones or in a car. The quality of the sound though headphones is so bad that it doesn't really matter if it's only 128K - you're never going to tell the difference anyway. Especially if you don't upgrade from the crappy white headphones that came with your iPod.

Re:Dear Apple

[kevcol]

Actually, recent reporting suggests the industry let Apple drive the price, much to it's later consternation.

I'm not prepared to pay for price for an album to get a few good songs.

Ahh well, I almost only purchase albums that has nearly all quality songs, then the per song pricing bought in an album is more attractive.

Re:Dear Apple

[CaptainZapp]

Whilst you can want that, there's no reason for you to get it.

Of course not, they can charge whatever they damn well please. I on the other hand don't have to buy an overprized, crappy product and that's exactly what I will refrain to do.

Also, Apple only makes a tiny amount of money from music sales

I'm aware of that. But then again Apple may or may not feed the agitation of consumers back to the powers that be. In any case, it's the Apple brand representing the store and thus I feel legitimate to address my concerns to Apple.

But it's useful to remember, in the real world, we have real world economics.

Very useful indeed. Real world economics (in theory) give the consumer a very strong tool to voice dissatisfaction, by not buying. It would be nice to see more consumers leverage this power.

Re:Dear Apple

[svanstrom]

I won't buy every new song from them, but I sure will (when ITMS reaches Sweden, or I set it all up via my Finnish address etc, that is) buy a cpl of songs that just have to have like 5 minutes ago and/or can't be found at a local store...

Re:Dear Apple

[CrackedButter]

Yeah but I delete songs I don't like so there is no benefit doing it that way. However, if the album is really good and say only 1 song is bad, I'd just buy it in a sale or from amazon, which ever is cheaper first.

Re:Dear Apple

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Although they could lower their prices and therefore sell more songs, if you add it up, they wouldn't make more money this way.

That's assuming that demand is inelastic. But given the number of alternatives to iTunes, albeit crappy ones, this is not the case.

The main reason iPod is still the top dog is because of trend. There are iPod clones and killers out on the market now, but if Apple fails to continue innovation with the iPod, you can be sure that demand will be elastic, and they'd have to lower prices.

And without the music, people have no reason to get an iPod.

Re:Dear Apple

[BackInIraq]

Oh and while we're at it: 99c a song is acceptable, 9.99 per album is not, specifically for some crippled format, which may or may not play in three years. You cut out the middleman and a whole lot of manufacturing -, distribution and logistics in the process and I - as the consumer - want at least a part of that savings reflected on the price.

You might want to address this to somebody more appropriate, such as "Dear RIAA." Apple does not have as much control as you might think over the prices of songs on the iTMS...in fact, if I remember correctly, they've had to fight the record labels a couple times when they wanted Apple to raise their prices (especially on albums). I believe that is the reason that many albums are not even available at the 9.99 price, but instead you are forced to buy all the songs on the album individually (leading to 19 and 20 dollar DRM'd lossy-encoded albums!); the record lables refuse to license some albums for sale on their store at that price, but but instead just allow sales of the songs.

I hate DRM, and I hate the idea of paying 9.99 for an album off iTunes (which is why I never have)...but let's give credit where credit is due. Apple has gone with the least DRM and the lowest prices that the record companies will allow them, or something very close to it.

Remember, Apple does not own the music they sell. They are simply a reseller...most of your complaints are regarding the companies actually producing the product Apple sells.

As for their 128kb encoding rates...well, even Apple is stupid sometimes. Unless that was another concession to the record companies. But I think that was just their (bad) choice. I've found AAC files as low as 192kb to be rather nice, qualitywise, however....320 just seems unneccesary to me.

Re:Dear Apple

[CaptainZapp]

The quality of the sound though headphones is so bad

This is only true if you refer to the 99 cents ear killers, that they tuck in with portable audio devices. You are however free to toss them and get a set of Sennheiser, or Koss earphones. At least the more expensive models sound rather excellent to my ears.

Re:Dear Apple

[Calroth]

That's assuming that demand is inelastic. But given the number of alternatives to iTunes, albeit crappy ones, this is not the case.

Yeah. That's why, in the very next sentence, I wrote "Now, the actual issue isn't this simple in real life, of course."

Seriously, I could go on and on about the economics of the situation, and pick apart everything I said above, and talk dry theory. But why bother? I made my point.

Re:Dear Apple

[CrackedButter]

I read the article btw, I think it is wrong in that it states that there are many more phones than mp3 players. While this is true, how many would upgrade their phones to the new music downloading phones plus would it be simpler to buy music off them when they might cost more than from a PC which they might already have?
Also while it seems that Apple does indeed set the price, it is well known that the music industries want to increase this but its because of Apple that they are still at the price of $0.99.

Re:Dear Apple

[rokzy]

>You cut out the middleman and a whole lot of manufacturing -, distribution and logistics in the process and I - as the consumer - want at least a part of that savings reflected on the price.

yes because we all know how expensive producing CDs is (*cough* AOL *cough*) whereas internet bandwidth is so cheap people never run out (*cough* /. effect *cough*).

Re:Dear Apple

[Calroth]

Most people listen to MP3 files though headphones or in a car. The quality of the sound though headphones is so bad that it doesn't really matter if it's only 128K - you're never going to tell the difference anyway. Especially if you don't upgrade from the crappy white headphones that came with your iPod.

Damn right. Consider the following:

• the difference in sound quality between 128Kbit AAC and 320Kbit Ogg Vorbis
• the difference in sound quality between your current crappy earbuds and (for instance) anything made by Etymotic
• the difference in sound quality between your current crappy sound card and (for instance) an external box with much less noise
• the difference when listening to music between sitting near a humming PC and sitting in silence
• etc. etc. etc.

Most people focus on the first point. And yeah, it's a good point. But there are all these other things you can do to make your music sound better.

Re:Dear Apple

[CaptainZapp]

You might want to address this to somebody more appropriate, such as "Dear RIAA."

I'm waware of who calls the shots. Apple however sells the material. It's their logo representing the shop, the customer interacts with Apple, not with the RIAA (unless the customer is a dead grandmother, or an eight year old girl, who just got sued by the RIAA, but I digress).

I can agree that Apple really pulled something off here. They basically invented legal, downloadable music in a very scalable manner. It's just that I so frantically detest anything DRM that I would like to make them aware of that on an occasional basis. As a pathological optimist I'm sure they forward my concerns to the appropriate entites.

I've found AAC files as low as 192kb to be rather nice, qualitywise, however....320 just seems unneccesary to me.

In fact, 320kb seem inadequate to me personally. I would very much prefer and pay for flac. The reason is that I'm a sucker for uncompromised source material, which permits me to compile derivates from the material on hand. It's sort of like a compressed, digital image. As soon you have loss you can never reconstruct the original. You can polish it up and mask the unniceties, but you can never get the original material back. Call it a phobia of mine, if you will.

Re:Dear Apple

[Wysz]

...but I'm hell bent not to buy anything that even faintly stinks of DRM.

I'm curious, do you refuse to buy CSS-encrypted DVDs and/or serialized software?

Re:Dear Apple

[CrackedButter]

thankyou, btw, i got that quote from slashdot at the bottom of its page!

Re:Dear Apple

[kevcol]

Well, personally for me the time saved in waiting for shipment to arrive makes up for it; I've learned to be very impulsive with Internet commerce, and music is no exception. I've only bought about a half dozen songs individually but I have purchased about 25 CD's worth (a few of which I have original vinyl copies I've purchased as far back as the late 70s). Plus I can burn a physical CD of it and rip to MP3 for other devices; I'm not as picky about the file quality as many people are, so the whole bag works very well for me.

Re:Dear Apple

[CrackedButter]

Yes, the file quality isn't bad, I don't understand why its a big issue at times. I have a good set of speakers as well and I cannot tell any difference, none of the songs I have bought make me sit up and notice and say "This song sounds shit, I'm not buying from iTunes again"! I even recently downgraded my music from 256kbs mp3 to 128kbs AAC as well. no difference to me other than filesize which saved me 4GB's.

Re:Dear Apple

[CaptainZapp]

I'm curious, do you refuse to buy CSS-encrypted > DVDs and/or serialized software?

Actually, since I don't own a DVD player I never bought a DVD (honestly), but I get your point.

It might not be avoidable to buy DRM crippled crap in the not too distant future. I will try to avoid this as good as I can howerver and whenever possible seek out alternatives.

What do you mean by serialized software? (sorry, English is my 2nd language)

Re:Dear Apple

[CrackedButter]

Explain in more detail please. What do you mean, it says more about me and explain the word "arbitrary".

Re:Dear Apple

[Wysz]

By serialized software I mean software that requires a serial number to be installed or run. Basically software that uses a technology to control or inhibit distribution of digital copies, like DRM music. And yes, for now at least it looks like it will only be harder to find non-DRM products to purchase.

Re:Dear Apple

[91degrees]

Whilst you can want that, there's no reason for you to get it.

Apple want money. There's no reason for us to give it to them. But we'd both be happier if I could get the music I want, and they could get my money.

Re:Dear Apple

[Synapsys]

If this is the case, I'd question the quality of both your ears and your speakers. Most consumers can put up with poor quality (128kbit/s) MP3s, and wouldn't know the difference with an AAC. I know there are less artifacts and the sound is fuller with an AAC, but it is by no means the same as uncompressed audio. A comparison between an MP3 encoded at high rate and a low rate AAC is moot, the AAC uses a better, less obtrusive compression algorithm, but it's still audiable.

Re:Dear Apple

[Synapsys]

You forgot ALC, quite an interesting codec, but the sample rates can get a little insane.

Re:Dear Apple

[CrackedButter]

Question them, you won't get an answer! Seriously though, what I should do is actually encode the same song at differing rates to be sure, then I might be more objective on sound quality of music in encoded formats. My opinion at the moment is based on different songs at different rates though.

Re:Dear Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

"In fact, 320kb seem inadequate to me personally. I would very much prefer and pay for flac. The reason is that I'm a sucker for uncompromised source material..."

You know whats funny about all of this -- its a very small portion of people that complain about this. Most of my friends outside of the university are musicians...one of them won a Grammy last year (or the year before...I can't keep track). Almost all record at 24bit 96khz+.

But each and every one I know has an iPod or something similar and I've never heard any of them complain about the quality of music. Heck, when they are trading their music back and forth, instead of sending real glass mastered cds or even burned discs, they send MP3s and nothing more. I don't know when the last time I've actually seen any of their real discs except when going to the store to buy one so I can get them to sign it as a gift to someone else.

The guys making the music just don't care about quality when they are listening to it. They care about the content...I guess thats the difference between the creative and the not so creative. One wants a pure perfect reproduction, while the other is happy to experience a version of it that might not be the original but is just as beautiful.

Re:Dear Apple

[Wyatt Earp]

If you are such a sucker for uncompressed source materials, why are you listening to ogg then? It's been compressed. So no MPEG or JPEG for you either.

In other words, you are not the type of customer Apple is marketing towards, so really they shouldn't care and neither should you.

Break out the turntable and the tube amps.

Re:Dear Apple

[Synapsys]

Blind testing is also helpful. I have done a setup with 4 feeds going into a digital mixing console: raw audio, 128kb/s MP3, 128kb/s AAC and Auto ALC, the feeds were phase synced and I got my friend to move the faders, to switch feeds, the AAC and MP3 were easy to pick, but the difference between the ALC and the raw was harder, but still there.

Re:Dear Apple

[the_macman]

Dear CaptainZapp You do realize that it's not up to Apple to set the DRM. I think they hate it as much as you do but they are at the whim of the Record Labels. So it's kind of a love hate relationship. You also realize that you can strip the DRM from songs downloaded via iTunes. You also know that you can convert your downloaded AAC files to mp3 and thus effectively removing the DRM. I hardly think you justify calling this music format 'crappy'. There is no need to thank me.

Re:Dear Apple

[BackInIraq]

In fact, 320kb seem inadequate to me personally. I would very much prefer and pay for flac. The reason is that I'm a sucker for uncompromised source material, which permits me to compile derivates from the material on hand. It's sort of like a compressed, digital image. As soon you have loss you can never reconstruct the original. You can polish it up and mask the unniceties, but you can never get the original material back. Call it a phobia of mine, if you will.

Actually, you do have a point. I myself am a fan of FLAC, and I have quite a few discs encoded with it for backup purposes (one, for instance, is a bootleg that to my knowledge is not impossible to get ahold of for a reasonable price...god forbid it ever got ruined). I also like FLAC because then I can always re-encode in any new lossy format that comes out, or at any bitrate I feel like having.

My opinion (which is of course by no means definitive) is that for buying music online for download, assuming it was a couple bucks cheaper per album, 192 or 256 kilobit is more than reasonable. I mean, if you really need lossless, you might as well pony up the money and buy the CD.

Then again, I recently had a guy try to convince me his 96k mp3s sounded "good enough" when I turned my nose up at copying some of the music off his laptop. Personally, I'd rather just not have the music at that point. I assume you look at me about the same way I looked at him, so I suppose I can understand :).

Re:Dear Apple

[learn fast]

Oh and while we're at it: 99c a song is acceptable, 9.99 per album is not,

Are you math-impaired? For an album of 12 songs, $9.99 is less than $.99 per song. Any album of 11 or more tracks (and most are) will be cheaper bought for $9.99 than $.99 per track. If the album is less than 10 songs, then it is always the number of songs times $.99, not $9.99. So, a 9 track album is priced $8.91.

The price of an album will *always* be equal to or lesser than the price of all of its tracks purchased individually.

Re:Dear Apple

[Golias]

It has also been my experience that professional musicians, especially singers or those who perform on non-electronic instruments, are far less fussy about audio fidelity than the typical hi-fi enthusiast. As long as they don't hear obvious artifacts (tape hiss, record pops, etc) added to the sound, they are happy. Things like out-of-phase ride cymbals or a harsh-sounding midrange go by without notice.

I believe there are two reasons for this:

1. Looking through a dirty window bothers you less when you are intimately familiar with what you are looking at, because your mind tends to fill in the gaps for you. Since an orchestra conductor knows better than most people exactly what a violin sounds like, their mind is more likely to correctly fill in the gaps made by a poor recording, so it sounds more like a live violin to him than it does to you and I.

2. Live instruments are loud, and most rehearsal rooms are not set up properly for handling them. A typical 30-year old professional musician probably has the hearing of a 55-year old, and it only gets worse from there. I know of many musicains and music teachers who had to retire at a fairly young age because they were either going deaf or developing painful tinitis.

Re:Dear Apple

[nmg196]

Actually I *have* Sennheisers, but they're absolutely nothing compared to my hifi setup. The body is not designed to have the sound forcefully injected into your ear canal via a device millimeters from your eardrum. The music was not recorded and mixed with the infinite separation that you get from headphones. Some of the sound from the right ear is *meant* to reach the left ear as it would in real life. Unless you've got some VERY expensive headphones that correct for this (some do) then you can get some very odd sounding music indeed - especially if the sound was electonically produced.

The best headphones I've used are the ones that actually seal themselves into your ear so you can get bass response that rivals a decent hifi setup, but these are dangerous to use while on the move as they elimiate environmental noise so I don't use them. ..and they're still not as good as a decent speaker setup (if you think they are, then you don't have a *decent* speaker setup). And if you post back saying that you think your $500 Sony seperates system is anything other than a low-end mass produced system then I'll just laugh.

Re:Dear Apple

[clifyt]

Again, its the creative vs. the uncreative.

We want content, not perfect little bits.

I know I have just upgrade to the top of the line Shure in ear monitors for the stage...on stage, I don't listen to LOUD LIVE INSTRUMENTS, I listen to very quiet instruments and honestly, I can't hear much of anything with the in-ears properly inserted (sometimes I have to pop them in and out). Heck, I've used on planes as a means to get to sleep while sitting next to the engine (its a whole different set of freaking out over being on a plane when you only 'hear' what is absorbed through the body and not through them there earholes).

I care about my ears...and the only musicians I know that have ears this bad are the idiots that like it loud. I keep a few sizes of standard plugs in my gig bag because I don't know who is going to be with me and I know my friends actually care about their ears as well.

As for dirty windows? An out of phase ride is very easy to hear when they are being picked up by the overheads and others...most of the time it just doesn't matter though. Sometimes we switch phasing because of musicial decisions...and half the time, we switch something and then switch back and don't realize. It just doesn't matter. We can hear it, but who cares.

But HiFi enthusiasts are freaks and idiots. I could care less if I can identify what kind of rosen a soloist is using so long as I can hear him. I listen to music and not bits. I'd recommend you do the same. Fill in the gaps yourself...think like a musician.... :-)

Re:Dear Apple

[wchanley]

Oh, bother.

Really, there's an underutilized concept called target market that really does matter here.

If you're the sort of audiophile for whom spending $200 on good headphones matters, that's lovely for you, but there are other factors that contribute to the overall value of something like the iTunes Music Store. Most of those other factors really don't have a thing to do with what audiophile types consider acceptable sound quality.

Convenience is, of course, a big deal. That I can grab new music laying in bed with a cat and a latté and in my comfy PJs matters to me. A bunch. More than sound quality.

That I can download my purchases right away, painlessly, easily, and I can play them on my work Mac, my home Mac and an iPod matters. More than sound quality.

Of course, what matters to me doesn't have to matter to anybody else, but it's silly to proclaim iTMS a "rip-off" merely because the service isn't going out of its way to knock you out on the one value-metric you seem to care about: sound quality.

No, my iTMS tracks don't sound as good as the CD's in my collection. That matters very, very little to me; it seems to matter very little to the majority of folks buying millions and millions of tracks on the service.

It's okay that you find iTMS lacking in the one area you care about. You're not Apple's target market for the service. I am. You're utterly free to buy music from a service that more closely meets your preferences.

Re:Dear Apple

[CableModemSniper]

He doesn't listen to ogg, you'll notice he said he preffered FLAC.

It's just sad...

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

that even though we have something that is truly global such as the internet and the web, we still find citizens of the web denying access to services based on real-world geographical location?

Doesn't that defeat the all-encompassing nature of the web?

Re:It's just sad...

[MrMickS]

The issue, as always, is the invasion of external legilation onto the web. The reason for no global launch is two fold; the rights holders and the local government.

In the early days of e-commerce it was simple for me to buy goods from the USA (I live in the UK) and electronically download them, or have them physically shipped, for less money than I paid locally. Now this is much harder. There are agreements in place that require overseas suppliers to charge me UK sales tax, or make it easy for the UK authorities to charge me it directly. This has made the world shrink again. I recently looked to buy something only available in the US but found that the company didn't ship to the UK, not because of shipping costs but because of the hassle of the form filling.

Re:It's just sad...

[CleverNickedName]

Doesn't that defeat the all-encompassing nature of the web?

Unfortunately the all-encompassing nature of the web defeats the geographic nature of markets and governments. Neither are going to change anytime soon.

Re:It's just sad...

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

True as it may be, it still harks back to my original comment, that the true global capabilities and function of the internet is not being used to its full potential.

Rather than adapting traditional laws, regulations and customs to those of the internet, people are forcing the internet to adapt to traditional laws, essentially nationalizing and limiting something international.

Perhaps, it's for the best. I certainly wouldn't want kids jumping up and down behind CNN anchors screaming "First post!".

Re:It's just sad...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

There are rights issues to consider, as the seller has to have the legal right to sell that track in the locale. Probably other legal issues as well. It does seem kind of silly, given that importing CDs is a trivial thing for a lot of people.

Re:It's just sad...

[BackInIraq]

I recently looked to buy something only available in the US but found that the company didn't ship to the UK, not because of shipping costs but because of the hassle of the form filling.

Welcome to off-topic land, but I just have to say something. I am a soldier deployed in Iraq, and have found that for some reason I cannot order software online and have it shipped here. I'm a US citizen on a US installation trying to buy something from a US store and have it delivered by the US mail system (even though the army handles part of it, they would still be a US entity), and for some reason I cannot do so. Even sillier because there is some computer software available at the post exchange here. And even sillier because I could legally have the Xbox version of the PC game I was trying to buy shipped here, no problem (from the same store, even).

So go figure.

Re:It's just sad...

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Wait until IPv6 gets penetration and the routing becomes easily centrally controllable because of the natural hierarchical nature of IPv6 addressing. You'll need some kind of network passport to connect to other countries, and won't be able to connect to some countries at all.

Re:It's just sad...

[Sunspire]

Even when your country is added to the iTunes approved list, all the content is localized. I have zero interest in the stuff on my local iTunes, it's the same poppy crap I can listen for free on the radio.

I want to listen to what's new on the Brazilian scene, download the newest releases from Japan, listen to UK indie etc. Sell to me dammit! I've got a credit card and a 10 second attention span. I hope someone will take iTunes to the next level and truly offer a global service. I realize this isn't Apples fault, but it still sucks.

Everything that can be digitized should be. Imagine being able to call up any song or movie ever produced. That way the media companies would be putting their vast archives to work for them instead of rotting away in some vault. Bulgarian jingles from the 60's are worth something to someone on the Internet right now. When there's see a "watch now" button on IMDB, no matter how obscure the movie, the world will have changed.

Re:It's just sad...

[YrWrstNtmr]

What reason do they give? "We don't ship to APO/FPO" is a common 'excuse'.
Who is it and what are you trying to buy?

Re:It's just sad...

[ameline]

Out with it soldier -- what is it you are trying to buy? I bet they'll ship it to me -- and then I can ship it to you. If not me, I'm sure there are dozens who would also like to help. (But I wonder that it's a Canadian who is the first to offer to help here.) I can be reached at ameline@a[ ]s.com ['lia' in gap]

Re:It's just sad...

[BackInIraq]

What reason do they give? "We don't ship to APO/FPO" is a common 'excuse'.
Who is it and what are you trying to buy?

I forget what game specifically I was trying to buy, but the store in question was amazon.com. They ship just fine to APO/FPO addresses, they just say something along the lines of "due to customs restrictions we are unable to ship certain items to APO/FPO." Like I said, I tried adding the Xbox version to my cart, to see if it would get through the shipping phase with that, and it had no problems. (I even made sure it wasn't through an amazon.com partner, like Office Depot, as I know most of those don't do APO either...but both items were straight from amazon.com)

And then when I tried finding it on a different store, I ran into the same problems (either the store in general wouldn't do APO, or wouldn't ship software to APOs). Like I said, I think there is some kind of customs restriction on software ordered overseas.

I had it shipped to my wife instead, and had her send it...though I made sure she didn't mention it on the customs slip! :) Just sucks because it adds several days to an already lengthy shipping process.

Re:It's just sad...

[g0at]

There are agreements in place that require overseas suppliers to charge me UK sales tax

Please cite these agreements.

The EU would like to have the rest of the world act as its tax collector; remarkably, many of the large American corporations have bent over already. But as small suppliers, I and many of my colleagues are scratching our heads saying "wtf".

-b

Re:It's just sad...

[jfengel]

Yeah, I hear they had the same problem in the 'Nam.

Seriously, that totally sucks. If you haven't got family willing to do the transfer for you, you've got friends on Slashdot. Lemme know what you want and where you need it sent.

Re:It's just sad...

[cide1]

I worked in mail order for years. I know the company I worked for could only ship UPS. The post-office wouldn't pick up, and Fed-Ex was too expensive. Can UPS ship where you are?

I imagine the problem you are fighting is that companies just dont know how to ship there, not that they wont do it. If you explained exactly how to address the box and whatnot, and explained that there is no additional cost, I know I would be much more willing to help you.

Re:It's just sad...

[tim1724]

I hope someone will take iTunes to the next level and truly offer a global service. I realize this isn't Apples fault, but it still sucks.

I'm sure that as soon as the music industry can work out all the rights issues and agree on terms, Apple will jump on the opportunity to increase the selection of music in iTunes.

Currently the US iTunes music store has "French Pop" and "German Pop" sections .. I imagine that they'll expand their selection whenever possible. I heard something about them adding a large Chinese music section at some point a few months ago, but I don't think it's happened yet. (Or at least I don't see it.) .. Aha, here is a news story about it.

Re:It's just sad...

[AussieVamp2]

mp3 region encoding!

What for ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why paying A$1.8 per song when you can buy a
whole unprotected CD at www.allofmp3.com for
the same amount ?

And legally as well :
http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/26/108283147 555 6.html

Re:What for ?

[Carthag]

Because the artists get even less money that way than if you bought the CD in a store.

Re:What for ?

[AussieVamp2]

over 20 bucks for a 12 track album? sounds like a rip to me. You can just buy the CD! (and for 15.00 perhaps later)

When's Amazon coming to Australia?

[artifex2004]

When everyone learns how to read upside-down!

Re:When's Amazon coming to Australia?

[Anonymous Coward]

HA HA Ha ha aha ahahaha ahahaha!!!!!

Fucking idiot

Price

[Puremajik]

I agree with the fact $1.80 is too expensive.

I would be much more inclined to purchase tracks if they were $1.00 or at least $1.10 or $1.20.

A lot of traditional distribution costs don't apply and I think they are not really passing on these savings as they should.

If you really could get cheap fast track downloads with high bitrate in a flexible format you would cut out a lot of piracy.

Re:Price

[Lifthrasir]

they should sell songs at 99c. that way they can advertise that all their music is under $1.

Re:Price

[AussieVamp2]

exactly hear some latest single, know the album is pretty much crappy, get it for a dollar, sure, why not, 2 bucks, costing more than CDs per track - no way in hell

Apple is gladiating the RIAA!

[Dancin_Santa]

The whole anti-freedom effort on the part of the RIAA (A as in Australia) is really chafing. I'm glad someone out there is finally fighting for the rest of us, and it makes me happy that it is Apple, of all companies.

iTunes may not be the best solution, but as far as a halfway point between music slavery and music freedom, a for-pay music download site is a great step and a great way to give the finger to our rights usurpers. I'd love to have a system that didn't require any pay at all, but Apple's pioneering of this type of business method is absolutely wonderful.

And now, to have it spread to Australia, it is great to see freedom on the march. I hate to sing the praises of any company, but Apple deserves it this time.

Re:Apple is gladiating the RIAA!

[Artega VH]

In Australia the correct acronym is ARIA, as in Australia Recording Industry Association.

But they are pretty much the same thing.

The price is horrible though... the current exchange rate is 1 USD = 1.28923 AUD... so 1.80 AUD per track is outrageous.

Re:Apple is gladiating the RIAA!

[gl4ss]

halfway point... to where?

to paying the same per album as you would on a physical disc, while still the majority of the money goes to riaa, only with MORE PROFIT???

APPLE IS __NOT__ BATTLING RIAA! NOT AT ALL! apple is working with and for the riaa.

Re:Apple is gladiating the RIAA!

[Anarchitect_in_oz]

Remember thou you have to add GST to that, in much the same way some states in the us have to add sales taxes.
That puts it more in the 1.40 to 1.50 range.

Re:Apple is gladiating the RIAA!

[nordicfrost]

Rumor has it that the iTMS is coming to Norway as well. Two weeks ago, four or five of the record company execs told the music industry rag that the store was coming, and on the 28th of April. They printed it, but the country manager did not comment anything.

Yesterday the TONO, rights holders organization, issued a press release about their agreement with iTunes (sic!). After that some forum guys went on to try local credit cards to purchase music with limited sucess and published the results. The country manager had to deny, deny, deny, looking like a fool in todays press conference about tiger. Nobody asked about Tiger, of course.

It may seem that the music industry do everything possible in their power to stop the *bang* PR factor of Apple. Apple loves the surprise element, but today the country manager just looked tired and sick of having to issue the company statement saying no over and over again. And Apple don't make mistakes like not having a NDA until launch time in their contracts.

price??

[aerthling]

According to XE.com, US$0.99 = AU$1.27. Why then are they asking almost almost $2?

Re:price??

[eclectro]

According to XE.com, US$0.99 = AU$1.27. Why then are they asking almost almost $2?

Because Australia is where they sent all the pirates in the olden days.

Re:price??

[Cheekyspanky]

0.79 GBP = 1.94 AUD. 0.65 GBP (Price without VAT) = 1.59 AUD (according to xe.com) Do Australians pay sales tax added onto the purchase price like the American style, or use VAT?

Re:price??

[aerthling]

We pay 10% GST. I'd forgotten about that :)

Re:price??

[jonwil]

Firstly, remove the 10% GST we have in australia.
So thats probobly ~18c of it.

Re:price??

[drsmithy]

We do, but retail prices must be quoted with GST included.

So the ex-GST (ie: ex-VAT) of a song is going to be around $1.60.

Personally that's still too much for me (as it works out to about the same you pay per-song when you buy a whole CD, which I consider about 3x more than I'm prepared to pay). If they get down around the $0.50 mark I might consider it.

Re:price??

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't just a problem with online music. Here in Australia, a lot of retailers of "imported" goods are still charging as though US$1 = AU$2. Over the last few years, the Australian dollar has crept back (or the US dollar has sunk if you like), but music cds still cost AU$30 and video games still cost AU$80 - $100. Even considering shipping costs, it's cheaper for me to buy video games from the US and have them sent over here.

And now it's happening with online music, where the difference between me getting a file from Australia iTunes or from US iTunes is...

No difference. Except the disgraceful price gouging.

iTunes is the only site where iPod users can legal

[Idimmu Xul]

From the article:

iTunes is the only site where iPod users can legally download songs.

Is this really the only site where iPod users can legally download songs? It's a shame that the mass media can get away with spouting complete falacies such as this :(

There are many sites to get free, legal, mp3s from:

In This Defiance band
Online Tonight
John Peel sessions

Re:How much is that?

[ivansanchez]

1.80 Austrialian dollars? What is that 15 US dollars and about 1.5 Euros?
1.8 Australian Dollars, at today's currency exchange rates, are about 1.40 US $, or about 1.08 €.

Re:Russell / Steve jobs drinking binge?

[91degrees]

Yeah. Isn't the guy a Kiwi?

two comments

[ccdotnet]

1. Finally!
2. Over-priced by 30%

Russell Crowe

[TuataraShoes]

What are you doing telling everyone that Russell Crowe is a New Zealander???
We've been doing a pretty good job up till now convincing the world he's an Aussie. The Aussies can have iTunes if they promise to keep Russell Crowe.

Re:Russell Crowe

[stinkyfish]

Oh come on. Im embarrased that the Australian media claim him as our own. Yes he is an Australian citizen, yes is was born in New Zealand and yes he was good in that movie about tobacco and LA Confidential (oh and check out Rompa Stompa - very good - dark but very good), but since he seems hell bent on insisting he is a muso too NZ can have him - have you ever heard any of that TOFOG crap? And now he thinks he can pull off a solo career? Hmmm

Re:Russell Crowe

[donscarletti]

Oh no you don't you sneaky sheep farming weasel. Claiming Russell Crowe is ours is like claiming that the nuclear bomb is Japaneese.

Re:Russell / Steve jobs drinking binge?

[Oculus Habent]

Clearly you missed that Russell Crowe has a new solo album out, and there was a prereleased track on the iTMS.

Re:How much is that?

[fabs64]

actually it's $1.40 USD...

Come on Tugger!

[SFA_AOK]

Writing music, selling songs, iTunes round the World!

$1.80 a bit steep...

[GrahamCox]

While $1.80 is in line with the prices charged elsewhere, based on the actual exchange rate, it does FEEL too high nevertheless. Wages and the overall cost of living in Australia is lower than e.g. UK and US, so the affordability of iTunes is that much poorer. Something like $1.30 - $1.50 would seem right.

Re:$1.80 a bit steep...

[godless dave]

Based on today's exchange rate it should be AU $1.27, not $1.80. You're being overcharged 53 cents. Ain't that a diggerywumble! Conversion from here: http://www.xe.com/ucc/

Re:iTunes is the only site where iPod users can le

[byolinux]

http://sampleme.org

I guess what they're really saying is that iTunes is the only online-music store that caters for iPod users. Not true of course, I know of at least one.

Amazon

[Yakman]

Now, when's Amazon coming?

There's not enough of a market to make it worth Amazon's while setting up the distribution infrastructure for an Australian store.

iTunes on the otherhand doesn't have a physical product so it's only contractual reasons (ie. stupid music industry) that prevents a worldwide iTunes day one.

Re:Amazon

[kimba]

There's not enough of a market to make it worth Amazon's while setting up the distribution infrastructure for an Australian store.

Says who? There are a number of distribution centres throughout the U.S., and if you divide it into the population, I'd say one U.S. distribution centre covers the same population as Australia. Plus, there is NZ and other surrounding Asia-Pacific populations that would benefit not having goods shipped from the opposite side of the world.

I expect...

[j0e_average]

we'll see a rise in "Men at Work" downloads now...

Re:I expect...

[AussieVamp2]

Not at 1.80, best of CD is cheaper! :)

What?

[datacaliber]

Anyone else read that and think, "What the hell does Russell Crowe have to do with iTunes?" Well here's the answer:

Crowe said songs he had recorded since the break-up of his band, 30 Odd Foot of Grunt, would be available when iTunes launches.

Seriously, I wouldn't have read the article if I hadn't read that Crowe was involved. Pretty boring story otherwise.

we've checked it out ...

[zbaron]

... using a "side" door to get in early. The song price appears to be AU$1.69. Russel Crowe in the interview was talking about the price of the sanity.com.au online store, not the iTMS(AU).

Looks like out accounts have been disabled for getting in too early too. :-(

Re:How much is that?

[mistfall]

Some people on one of the Apple boards in Australia managed to create accounts today and purchased a few tracks. The cost of them was AUD$1.69 which is more expensive than the US but cheaper than the UK. That's pretty much par for the course for everything these days.

Those accounts have now been closed by Apple. Sorry, I won't put up the link to the relevant threads on the Apple board as local readership to an article on there caused the server to slow down appreciably and there's no way they will ever suvive a slashdotting.

30 odd songs and grunts

[digitaldc]

1.80 AUD Australia Dollars = 1.39636 USD US Dollars
A 40 cent difference just for living 'dahn undah'?
Now is anyone actually going to download Russell's songs without being totally inebriated first?

Re:30 odd songs and grunts

[Tesen]

Now is anyone actually going to download Russell's songs without being totally inebriated first?

Well we were sober when we kicked him out of NZ.

Re:iTunes is the only site where iPod users can le

[Calroth]

Is this really the only site where iPod users can legally download songs? It's a shame that the mass media can get away with spouting complete falacies such as this :(

This is Australia.

To cut a long story short, we don't have the fair use rights that other countries have. It's (technically) illegal to rip a CD to the computer, for instance. You can put digital music files that you already own or have rights to on your iPod, but apart from that, there are actually very few legal uses for an iPod in Australia...

That's the short version, this is Slashdot, so I'm sure that people will reply at length on this subject!

Russell Crowe?

[flamearrows]

Frenzal Rhomb (Australian punk band) summarised Russell Crowe's involvement in music nicely -

"At least we know that Russell Crowe's band is a fucking pile of shit".

If this is what iTunes Australia is offering, count me out.

flamearrows

Hmm

[darnok]

I was prepared to put aside my DRM objections and give this a try, but not at $1.80 a song. I'd probably consider paying up to $1.20 a song, but at $1.80 I'd get that "ripped off" feeling.

At that price, it's actually *cheaper* to buy many/most new CDs in a regular shop, and then you're not having to deal with DRM rubbish.

Re:Hmm

[Llywelyn]

Erm, AU$1.20 ~= US$0.93, take out the GST and you get around 85 US cents.

Sir, you're talking out of your arse

[CaptainZapp]

yes because we all know how expensive producing CDs is (*cough* AOL *cough*) whereas internet bandwidth is so cheap people never run out (*cough* /. effect *cough*).

You don't seem to have a clue what sales, transportation, warehousing and stockpiling costs. That's not even touching the whole distribution cycle (returns or defects, for example)

I suggest that you read a company report for just about any company dealing in tangible goods. Check out the costs they report to get their goods to their customers.

It's actually $1.69

[ojek]

It's actually $1.69, not $1.80 as predicted. See this Sydney Morning Herald article

Nope, here it is:

[AkaXakA]

No it isn't.

AUSD 1,80 are EUR 1,08 or USD 1,40.

That might seen high converted to US Dollars, but given how low the US Dollar is, it's a good price for a number of reasons.

1) You can probably buy the same for USD 0,99 in the US as you can buy for AUSD 1,80 in Australia.

2) *and this is actually the most important one*
If/when the dollar goes up, Apple will still get enough back in Dollars.

They should settle this like men.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

I want to see Russell Crowe and Steve Jobs suited up and locked in a gladiatorial fight to the death in the Coliseum.

Re:They should settle this like men.

[donscarletti]

I kinda feel sorry for Russel Crowe since now, every time he goes to a bar in his (and my) home town in northern NSW, he is confronted by scores of drunken young men who want to beat Maximus in a fight. Of cause, when they do fight, and Crowe ends up loosing, it's him that looks stupid, not the other guy who knows that he is fighting an actor when assessing his chances of winning, but thinks he is fighting a great Roman general when assessing the glory.

Re:iTunes is the only site where iPod users can le

[Dr.Opveter]

Thanks for the John Peel sessions link, some lovely tracks in that list.

Re:Apple's arrival here in Australia..

[martinX]

1. There's stacks of iPods here already. Biggest selling MP3 player. Even Telstra (who owns BigPond) gives them away with phone plans. And, no, I don't have one.

2. If a consumer gets what they want (great music player + easily downloadable music from the world's largest catalogue) then this is indeed a good thing.

3. In what way has it (the iTMS) been a negative for any other country's economy? Any music sold here that is licenced here (through ARIA, APRA and AMCOS as required) generates money that stays here. Simple. Positive.

4. DRM is DRM. Apple's is less restrictive. Try and find any music service with that range with zero DRM. I'll take the one that I can use in iTunes and burn to CD as many times as I want.

5. BigPond music isn't better - it's $1.89 per track, uses DRM and requires Windows Media Player. BigPond is scum (says the loyal broadband customer of 4 years...)

Re:Apple style exchange rates

[rylin]

Wait a minute or two and you'll see Apple-apologists mention how it's much more expensive to ship things to .au

Re:iTunes is OK, but....

[gandell]

Also, Apple aren't giving the american consumers what they want - subscription based. For $15 or around, I should be able to rent music.

Who says that's what we want? I couldn't care less about "renting" music...I'm better off listening to the radio if I want to do that. The whole reason I use online stores is I want to OWN certain songs, without paying for the whole album.

Current release of Rhapsody works for iPods

[Shivetya]

See this story on NEWS.COM
http://news.com.com/RealNetworks+rekindl es+iPod+te ch+tussle/2100-1027_3-5685286.html?tag=nefd.top

How long before we get an update from Apple that ends this "compatibility"? While I like my iPod I don't care for the fact that I cannot use another service other than iTunes.

Re:Apple style exchange rates

[Anonymous Coward]

you *DO* realise that the US $499 mac mini price does not include state and local taxes

you *DO* realise that the AUS $799 mac mini price DOES include state and local taxes?

you *DO* realise that the .au government gouges importers with a duty far above and beyond what Apple US has to pay?

You didn't of course. Fuckwit.

Re:iTunes is OK, but....

[MrMickS]

iTunes is too restrictive. I tried it when it came out, but because I don't have an Apple mp3 player, I cannot play any of my songs. Moderators. Please read this post and stop modding up as insightful. It's nothing of the sort. Its Flamebait or an ordinary Troll at best.

But is it legal

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia if I buy a CD then its is illegal to make a backup. Its illegal convert the songs to mp3 . Transfering a song from my cd to my iPod is illegal. This law is not enforced but thats not the point. How can a company sell a product that if used as intended will be breaking the law.

Re:But is it legal

[terminal.dk]

How can it be illegal ? Apple has a license with the copyright holder allowing you to copy it to the iPod or burn it to CD.

Most laws protecting one of 2 parties can be avoided by making a contract.

Re:But is it legal

[dangitman]

In Australia if I buy a CD then its is illegal to make a backup. Its illegal convert the songs to mp3 . Transfering a song from my cd to my iPod is illegal.

No, it's not. Where did you get this idea?

Re:Apple's arrival here in Australia..

[MetaMarty]

4. DRM is DRM. Apple's is less restrictive. Try and find any music service with that range with zero DRM. I'll take the one that I can use in iTunes and burn to CD as many times as I want.

www.allofmp3.com

The problem with the spreading of the iTMS is the huge precedent is sets for future spreading of DRM. The masses are lured into buying DRM'd content without knowing what they're getting into.

Now before people tell me that there wouldn't be any digital music shop if it weren't for DRM, I'll have to add that this is all about negotiations. If you're big enough you get to set the rules. That's how Wallmart was capable of getting their content for less than Apple. If Apple is so innovative, let them fight this DRM with all they have to show the RIAA that digital DRM-less distribution is feasible. They have the largest market share now, so they must be able to get a better deal but all I see now is the fairplay restrictions getting tighter instead of looser.

Amazon happy with status quo

[Ezza]

Because when you buy from Amazon in Australia, you get charged shipping fees from North America, yet most of the time the book will actually come from their Hong Kong distribution centre (geographically around the corner compared to the US, plus cheaper labour to boot).

Just be happy that you can buy itunes music legit down under now, even if it's more expensive than as if you got it from the US.. (US$0.99 AU$1.80 by about AU$0.50).

Re:Amazon happy with status quo

[CaptainAvatar]

When this did start happening? Last time I ordered from Amazon US, it actually came from the US. Admittedly that was in August.

Re:Apple's arrival here in Australia..

[Per Wigren]

Apple's is less restrictive. Try and find any music service with that range with zero DRM. I'll take the one that I can use in iTunes and burn to CD as many times as I want.

www.allofmp3.com. 0.02 USD per MB, choose from MP3, OGG, FLAC, AAC, WMA and APE and select your bitrate of choice. All files correctly tagged. Zero DRM.

It's not a legal to buy from them everywhere in the world (at least not in the US), but if it's legal in your country go ahead and use the IMHO worlds best online music store...

Re:iTunes is OK, but....

[Synapsys]

Please tell me you are not serious...

iTunes is too restrictive. I tried it when it came out, but because I don't have an Apple mp3 player, I cannot play any of my songs.

iTMS is an iPod marketing tool, along with a being quite cool for just nabbing those songs you just have to get.

I should be able to rent music. What would the record companies say about that? Give me a break! *Rent* music? How? "Oh, I've copied it, you can have it back now!"

Its a bit like Linux really, they forgot to add windows compatibility - which fails me - really, if you don't make an OS compatible with Windows, whats the point! Same with MP3 players.

I hope to god you are trolling. If not, you need some sense beaten into you.

Re:iTunes is the only site where iPod users can le

[miskate]

Yes, and no.

We don't have implied fair use as such but the copyright holder can come out and say "please feel free to download this song and copy it as many times as you want and play it or pass it one however you choose", which many independant bands etc have done.

What the article should say is "it's the only site where iPod users can legally download songs from major labels".

Re:Russell / Steve jobs drinking binge?

[djward]

"Makin' Movies, Sellin' Songs on iTunes 'Round the World!"

Price blah blah

[danielacroft]

Why the hell does everyone think that taking the US rate and doing a currency conversion is a valid comparison in price? Do you morons think that the Australian (or other countries) record labels have the same cost structure? They're negotiating the price with the record labels people, not picking a number out of a hat and deciding that it's fine.

Re:Price blah blah

[Sabriel]

Because it *is* a valid comparison in price, just not the only way of doing it. And given the price of CDs over here, I *do* think the Aussie record labels have the same cost structure as their US counterparts - which can basically be summed up as "rip their wallets a new one".

Each new technology (vinyl, tape, CD) has seen the manufacturing cost go down while the retail price goes up. And now along comes iTunes, with no physical medium to manufacture and ship, and the cost per track... actually goes down? ABOUT TIME.

But before we leap for joy, if we average the current top 3 Australian albums, you can get a 12 track CD for $24.95 from a brick store instead of paying iTunes $20.28 (the Sydney Morning Herald says the price is $1.69 a track not $1.80).

So for an extra $4.67 (or 39 cents a track) we get a nicely pressed physical CD, with liner etc, and CD quality music, which we can rip for ourselves at any quality we like. This against 12 lossily compressed files we'd have to buy a CDR for if we wanted to burn our own physical copy.

Judging solely by the impact on the wallet, yes, the price has come down by about 20%. But you can get that kind of discount just by waiting for a crazy sale. Buying music is as much about quality as quantity, and I think the industry is hoping to sucker us again.

Re:Price blah blah

[spir0]

I agree and while I think that AU$1.80 is reasonable for a single song, paying for a whole album makes it about the same price as a nice pressed shiny CD with cover, sometimes lyric sheets, etc.

Being in NZ, I'm expecting that when and if they come here, they'll be something like NZ$1.99. Again, that's great for one song, and if there are only 10 songs on an album, it'll cost $20 for the whole thing. A CD in the shop costs about NZ$35. So that's a saving that's worthwhile. But once that CD has 15 songs, the savings become non-existant.

In which case, it's cheaper, or the same price to go and buy the CD.

Stupid question, maybe ...

[minairia]

This might be a very stupid question, but what happens when an Australian tries to buy/download songs from the US site? Does apple block Australian IP addresses or is that when you try and pay with an Australian credit card, it won't go through? They use PayPal. Does PayPal tell Apple if the account holder is Australian? Like I say, this might be a really idiotic question.

Re:Stupid question, maybe ...

[daveKfs]

I can't answer for definite, but it's entirely possible.

Napster does exactly that. Here in the UK the Napster service costs £9.99 per month. In the US it costs $9.99. I don't know the exchange rate off of the top of my head, but the UK is much more expensive.

Try and sign up for the US site however, and you're informed that you're from the UK and *must* use the UK site.

HTTP proxies could help though....

Re:Stupid question, maybe ...

[myov]

I remember setting my country to US to try out iTMS before it was available here. I got as far as entering a credit card, which failed because it did not have a US billing address.

Paypal won't work unless it somehow looks like a credit card. Apple doesn't take paypal.

Re:Stupid question, maybe ...

[Valar]

Eh? The hell they don't.

Re:Stupid question, maybe ...

[Jm_aus]

iTMS in the US requires a US billing address on the credit card used. I'm Australian but have a US credit card so I have access to the store already at the US prices. The thing preventing others from doing this is that to get such a credit card you need to have a credit record in the US which is difficult to obtain without living there for a while.

Re:Stupid question, maybe ...

[AussieVamp2]

so if you have a US credit card you could set up an iTunes middle man service by buying from the US and selling cheaper to oz?

Rubbish

[caitsith01]

Through a pair of $30 Sony earbud headphones the difference between 128 and 320kbps is painfully obvious. If you invest in a decent set of headphones ($100-200) there are few sets of speakers on the market that will compare to the sound quality. With all due respect if you think the sound quality through headphones is 'so bad' maybe it's your ears that are masking the quality loss at lower bitrates.

Re:Russell / Steve jobs drinking binge?

[donscarletti]

Russell Crowe is a dude from Australia that thinks he's a musician (probably his dellusion isn't as well known outside of .au). The connection is a little frail, but there are people who would be less likely to know about it than him.

Re:What about India?

[brjndr]

For the most part, iTunes stores from various countries are probably more than 90% the same, with a few variations because of licensing and local artists who are not popular outside their home country.

Indian tastes in music are so different from the western world, although some western songs do become popular there. iTunes India would require additional genres of hindi, hindi film, bhangra, etc. Also, pricing would probably be much lower for songs and albums (last time I went a CD in India cost about $5-6 USD in stores). Because the infrastructure for iTunes India would still probably be located outside India it may not be as profitable.

Personally, I think Apple should go for it. Indian people are crazy about music, and a competetively priced store could do very well.

One born every day

[caitsith01]

How, pray tell, is the benevolent Apple "fighting for the rest of us"?

At $1.80 per song I can get most music on a physical CD for the same price or less at a range of Australian shops - e.g. K-Mart, JB Hi-Fi, even Myers, and of course much overlooked independent music retailers. As others have pointed out, Apple and ARIA can just split $1.80 pure profit (less hosting costs, which are surely negligable) for each song sold - no need to employ people in a retail store, no need to pay for physical packaging and pressing, no need to leave the confines of our wired up nerd-dungeons to obtain music.

Yes indeed, we are truly blessed to be thusly liberated.

Now if Apple was to charge, say, 40 cents per song you might be more justified in singing their praises. But for the jillionth time, and I expect to get modded down for this, APPLE ARE A COMPANY WHO WANT TO MAKE MONEY, NOT MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE.

Don't you mean....

[porcupine8]

"Dear RIAA," not "Dear Apple?"

Considering that pretty much everything you complain about is their fault, not Apple's.

Re:Apple style exchange rates

[Anonymous Coward]

you *DO* realise that we don't have to put up with price gouging?

you *DO* realise that people will just buy this stuff over the net (or when they visit the US)?

you *DO* realise that businesses have been using the "we have to charge more because Australia is so far away" excuse for decades?

you *DO* realise that they *will* go out of business with this attitude and they will blame everyone but themselves?

You didn't, of course.

It's time to stop this bullshit. Especially since we are supposed to have a free trade agreement with the US now.

Re:Apple's arrival here in Australia..

[Vanish]

RTFC guys. He said "with that range with zero DRM". Not just zero DRM, but the range of offerings that iTMS has. allofmp3.com does not meet that requirement.

Why is $9.90 not acceptable

[RodgerDodger]

Assuming you want at least 11 songs on the album (and that there are at least 11 songs), then the $9.90 figure represents a bulk discount on buying them individually.

So: why do you have a problem with the bulk price but not the single?

Aussies Can Sure Drink

[allwaysmusic]

I met several Aussies on a Contiki Tour through Europe and they definitely drank the most at the Beer Hall in Germany! Don't get me wrong though. I loved the Australians! They were the nicest people I have ever met. Very outgoing, inclusive and fun. But, now they can put some tunes to their merrymaking. Cheers mates!

iTunes in Australia, Russell Crowe Spilt the Beans... http://allwaysmusic.modblog.com/

Re:Apple's arrival here in Australia..

[Squozen]

That's fine for you, but none of the money you give to allofmp3.com gets back to the artist. From my moral standpoint you might as well steal it. I'd rather pay for a CD and know at least a tiny proportion of the money I'm paying is going to the creator of the work. That said, I don't listen to recent major-label music - they haven't released anything I've been interested in for around 10 years.

Amazon is available already...

[xarium]

Why is Amazon implied to be unavailable in Australia?
I buy ALL my books from there...

I suspose it's possible that the Amazon site I've been buying stuff from has no idea who I am and some staggeringly amazing twist of quantum improbability has caused freakishly appropriate packages to spontaneously appear in the Australian postage system with miraculously accurate timing for me not to become suspicious... until now.

But I think that's unlikely.

Re:Apple's arrival here in Australia..

[AussieVamp2]

you can only steal it if you can find it to steal! There's an old Joan Osborne album I'd like to get, never see it anywhere, certainly not 'stealable'. If they had it, might give it a shot!

Idiots

[dafing]

Cmon people, I take it that my parent post originated from Australia. Please, Please PLEASE just get it right, the dude is from Here, New Zealand. People have made it clear throughout this thread. Please read. Cant wait till we in New Zealand get iTunes, so I can boycott it.

Re:Apple style exchange rates

[Chucker23N]

"One example is the Mac Mini: $US500 in the 'states, but selling for $AUD800. On today's exchange rate, $US500 is around $AUD645. Now that's a $155 gouge, and a pretty painful one at that."

No, the gouge is much less than that, since you totally forgot about
1) tax
2) customs
3) additional shipping

"Now, with their online music store, they are charging $AUD1.80 for exactly the same songs which cost $US0.99 -- yet another blatant rip off. Again, on today's exchange rate, that is a markup of over 40%!"

Since when does Apple decide about the local music store prices? Prices are negotiated with the local music industries and are entirely different per-country. Converting the price from one currency to another does not take into account
1) tax
2) local authorities (e.g. RIAA, GEMA, ROMS)
3) local music industry

A much fairer comparison can be made by comparing prices of
1) local CD albums
2) other local online music stores

Note that U.S. prices are almost *ALWAYS* /without/ sales tax, since that differs from state to state and doesn't actually exist in some states.

Sorry dude, but you're simplifying matters :-)