I generally use the iTunes Music Store because I'll pay for the convenience of being able to grab songs in just a few seconds. However, price hikes would be enough to deter me from doing so.
The reason I skipped the new Foo Fighters album was that it was priced around $18.98 USD… too expensive!
The problem, as Red Herring reports, is that the labels are used to people buying full albums — and in the process paying for songs they might not have wanted — while the iTunes Music Store lets consumers pay for only the songs they're interested in. Buying only the songs you want seems way more fair to consumers, but it hasn't exactly done much to keep the labels' revenues up. Bronfman's solution? Well, if Apple is “artificially” keeping the price of downloads low to promote sales of iPods (you can debate amongst yourselves whether 99 cents is artificially high or artificially low), then as he sees it, the labels should get to “share in those [iPod] revenue streams.” (Source)
It really seems like the labels are pushing it here, and I'm sure others feel the same way. — I wonder how this would affect the unlimited subscriptions that are now being offered by Napster and Yahoo?