NEWS: Does Apple Want Kids To Starve?

GEEK: Does Apple Want Kids To Starve?

In a bizarre move, the iTunes music store is refusing to sell the charity single "Do They Know It's Christmas" by Band Aid 20, because the charity's organisers won't let them sell it at a discount.

Can someone explain the logic of that? It certainly isn't a technical issue, as the store sells a number of audiobooks at prices other than 79p, so it is possible to charge something other than the standard price. I know nobody wants to let the record companies price fix, but...it's a charity single.

Try to remember IDGAS' first rule:
{p} are assholes where {p} describes everything associated with people.


[Edited on Nov 29, 2004 by IDGAS]

Does Apple, perhaps?

I think the only fair conclusion is that Apple wants children to starve. Especially because that scrap of information you've given us offers absolutely no explanation of their decision, and Apple has yet to comment. I mean honestly, what else could it be?

indeed, that's why i offered the explanation as cold hard fact. i didn't pose it as a question or anything.

does apple want kids to starve?

Starving children are good for business. I'm pretty sure I learned that in business school.

yeah, good call

sounds like a dumb decision about two or three levels down from steve jobs. i bet steve's pissed.

Granted, it's in the form of a question, but by asking it, and especially by making it the thread title, you start the discussion from that (rather hysterical) point. Instead of saying, wow, wierd that Apple would do this, I wonder why they did, or, Does anyone understand why Apple did this? You skip right to the conclusion, which puts anyone who may disagree with you on the defensive from the start. I have no personal attachment to this issue; I have no idea why they don't want to sell it, nor do I give a shit, but if I did, and I felt there was a valid reason for Apple's actions, I would have to start by defending them, and myself, because of the tone of the post.

Apple is well known for having *terrible* corporate communication.

If you have a sub to FT you could read Taking off the Shine which makes interesting reading.

.

[Edited on Nov 30, 2004 by demetrius_z]

I apologize for my snarky post; I just get irritated when "news" comes with built in commentary. But I'm overreacting. Your commentary was in fact pointed towards asking if anyone had ideas about why Apple chose to act in this way, though in my defense, it's plenty clear what you think of the issue. Headlines are there to grab attention, it's unfortunate that they also end up being the starting out point of your post, thus gearing one towards a specific reading. But I guess these news threads are more to start discussions than actually report news anyways.
Sorry, I'm an asshole.

what she said ^

though, really, what i thought of it was it was a bizarre thing to do with no logical explanation.
just to be clear i LOVE apple.
this however, is dumb.

[Edited on Nov 30, 2004 by almostfamous]

Are you kidding? Steve Jobs has one of the biggest egos in IT. He will not budge, simply because of the principle of it. Im sure the decision was made a couple levels down, but Steve will refuse to violate the sanctity of his iTMS.

exactly.

they pretty much always come with commentary.. remember, everyone, this is a discussion board, not cnn.com.

are you sure about that? jobs seems like the kind of CEO who, when he fucks up, apologizes, fixes it, and moves on.

Why do Apple want to does such a thing?

Comedy GOLD!

oops point taken.

got it the first time, but thanks, i'm gonna change it.

welcome

What? almostfamous is -I think- in the UK where we are relaxed with our singular and plural forms.
Apple could be singular or plural, and over here we're happy to use either.
ask oxford

Of course, I've been on the gin so maybe I'm wrong, eh?

SO THERE!

i have to say, i do try to americanize my newswire posts, because the majority of the readership is american (i'll use things like mom instead of mum) but i'm not perfect (and sometimes i don't care)
just remember american is my second language

I'm sorry, but for the first time, I'm gonna shout.

HAVE ANY OF YOU FUCKERS ACTUALLY HEARD THE PEICE OF CRAP THEY'RE TRYING TO PASS OFF?!

Ahem. Sorry, but it's a bunch of divas, and fairly crap divas at that, trying to boost their image. If they where so damn keen on making money for the charity, they'd have allowed Apple to sell at any damn price.

Also, please, please don't forget, that leveraging a price the same as shop prices does one thing only - makes more money for the music companies. Don't kid yourself into thinking this single donates all profits. In fact, if Apple had sold the track at 79p, the charity fee would have been the same, if not a little more.