why were these tracks 1.29 to begin with?
If it was EMI's demand (which seemed likely at the time although now I am not so sure) then how can Amazon sell the same tracks for 89 cents? Record companies are always complaining that letting consumers pick and choose their tracks reduces their profits so this would make total sense since the album prices were the same as their DRM'ed breathren. You get a price cut by buying the whole album.
If it was Apple's doing, however, then it sounds like they really didn't want DRM-free tracks to succeed in the first place. Heck they even put them in a iTunes plus ghetto that most users would never stumble upon unless they activated it first in their preferences.
This just gets weirder and weirder. Record companies claim Apple does allow flexible pricing... yet they already do (albums can be anywhere from 6.99 to 13.99) And Apple claims Universal wants to charge too much for their tv shows but they already allow PBS to sell NOVA for a ridiculous 7.99 an episode.
Looks to me like there is a lot of spin is coming from Apple and the content providers. But very little of it represents what's goin g on behind closed doors.
Cameras that make great holiday gifts
Let them start the new year with a step up in photo and video quality from a phone.