There's nothing mysterious about this. I'm pretty sure that answer is that Apple wishes to make more per sale than Amazon or Rhapsody or Napster. It seems much more likely that record companies have a fixed rate at which they sell songs and that Apple's markup from the wholesale price they pay for the song is $0.10 more than Amazon and others.

That may be true, but I don't know.

I just don't TRUST them.

How the "value" of media is determined is so loopey that I just can't trust them to give me a fair price on their own -- so outside entity (in this case Apple) needs to be there to force them to be fair to consumers.

Look at how TV shows are "valued" these days. A boxed season of "Deadwood" costs $100.00?? How was that "value" determined?

All I know is that if it were Microsoft that came out with iTunes instead of apple -- we'd all be paying $1.99 for new releases. Or RENTING them with some kind of subscription service (an even bigger rip off, IMHO). Who really wins when you pay someone (like Apple or Microsoft or Amazon) $120 a year to "rent" a single from Fergie?

The reason Apple doesn't offer it is because the music industry would never have it. The fact that they allow Amazon to sell DRM-free but not Apple suggests that they are playing politics.

Either that or Apple wouldn't sell it under terms the music industry wanted. Amazon and Rhapsody are apparently willing to agree to the music industry terms AND sell them for less than iTunes. So is Amazon selling at a loss or Apple selling at an inflated price?

This is business, not politics beling played here.

Look, I've used the iTunes store to discover new music, and I also subscribe to eMusic, but it's obvious that once you listen to this music through good headphones or a good stereo (even in the car), you hear the difference.

I did a test last night, ripping a CD in AIFF (lossless), Apple lossless, 320 bps AAC, 256 MP3 (w/ variable bit rate) and 128 AAC. Through good headphones, anything less than 320 bps AAC, was detectably flawed--flatter, less spacious, harsher, and ultimately less enjoyable.

I've been ripping my CDs at 320 bps AAC for a couple of years now. It does reduce the number of songs I can store on my iPod, but the music sounds very good.

From eMusic, I typically get 160 bps VBR MP3s. The quality is acceptable, but when listening in shuffle mode, when an eMusic tune follows a 320bps AAC tune, the difference is audible, even in the car. The same is true of 128 bps AAC (the Apple standard). I did seek out a Joss Stone album from EMI on iTunes and downloaded it at 256 bps AAC. It does sound pretty darn good, but maybe because I'm in love with Joss Stone (but that's a whole 'nother matter). ;^)

Having said all this, I do think it's good that Amazon is offering some real competition to iTunes. However, I think all these stores have to start offering higher bit-rate versions of these songs. We are getting sold down the river buying these inferior quality tracks, when the music industry has every opportunity to provide superior quality downloadable tracks. For example, nowadays, most music is recorded at 24-bit 96 kHz sample rates, twice the CD standard. What if the music industry ripped their AAC or MP3 downloads from these high-quality masters? But they don't. They rip them from a commercial CD, an already-compressed version of the master.

The music industry, in my opinion, is not taking the bull by the horns. They are not cherishing their product and making sure that we, the buying public, are able to obtain it in optimal condition. 320 bps AAC should be the very lowest bit rate offered. Heck, even offer it in higher bitrates if people are willing to spend the bandwidth (and some extra cash) to download it.

All of the DRM and low bit rate nonsense continues to assure the decline of the music industry. They have to start thinking differently...with Apple, with Amazon, with whoever will provide a superior product and user experience to their customers.