Steve Jobs gets his way: Radiohead makes Apple iTunes Store debut via ‘In Rainbows’ DRM-free singles

Radiohead has debuted in Apple’s iTunes Store.

The group’s latest album, “In Rainbows,” a self-release, which was the subject of an experiment earlier this year in which fans could set their own prices (or no price at all) for downloading from Radiohead’s site, is now available for US$9.99 as an iTunes Plus (DRM-free, 256kbps AAC) download. That experiment ended in early December when Radiohead entered into negotiations with Apple’s iTunes Store. “In Rainbows” is currently the only Radiohead album available via iTunes Store.

Although Radiohead has long resisted “breaking up their album” into songs that can be sold separately, iTunes Plus songs from “In Rainbows” are indeed now available individually for 99-cents each via iTunes Store.

MacDailyNews Take: Steve Jobs usually gets his way eventually and, in this case as with many others, Apple’s customers benefit.

Direct link to Radiohead’s “In Rainbows” via Apple’s U.S. iTunes Store where customers have the choice to download either the album or individual songs here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Gavin” for the heads up.]

MacDailyNews Take: Yet another nail in the artificial construct’s coffin.

48 Comments

  1. Good.

    They chose their own course that led to their humiliating retreat. Radiohead and the others need to get it through their thick skulls that we as music consumers are fed up being forced to buy their garbage along with their good stuff.

    The other holdouts can eat cake, because consumers are not going to go to them and beg them to take their money for music they do not want.

  2. I think you (and Steve Jobs) are all being excessively mean for no reason at all.

    As an artist myself, I understand the reasoning behind people wanting to sell their musical works in an album format, yet I don’t see anything reasonable about forcing artists to sell individual tracks.

    I can see why we don’t want the Labels and distributors to force us to buy the album instead of the individual song, but if the artist wants it to be that way, then iTunes should cave on this issue. It’s not like anyone is forcing you to buy the thing.

    Forcing artists to sell their art the way Steve Jobs thinks is right instead of the way the artists want to sell it is just plain wrong and helps no-one sue to it’s essential dishonesty.

  3. @Jeremy

    So by your argument, the “artists” should force the radio stations to play the whole albums instead of just playing one song? Let’s see what the radio stations would say about that.

  4. Three songs missing: “Down is the new up”, “Go slowly”, and “Bangers N Mash”. I guess they wanted to keep each song @ 99 cents and the album for $9.99. No extra songs if you buy the album.
    MW: Values

  5. @ mike_in_helsinki

    You’re a fool to think this was a humiliating retreat. Radiohead have pointed out they would make no money from putting their older albums on iTunes as their past contract didn’t cover online sales resulting in the record company taking any cash that was made. Now they’re independent so it is perfectly understandable that In Rainbows is available on iTunes. Also Thom Yorkes solo album has been available on iTunes since forever.

    Lots of albums that come out are complete trash, but it’s understandable why some artists would prefer their work to be only available as a complete album. Think Dark side of the moon.

    So get it through YOUR thick skull. This was no humiliating retreat.

  6. Everybody totally missed the boat on this one.

    For one, Radiohead stated even before the experiment started that they would one day release it on traditional lines.

    If you actually look at how much they made (3 million in one month) that no record label saw one penny of it was actually a brilliant move.

  7. Jeremy….

    “As an artist myself, I understand the reasoning behind people wanting to sell their musical works in an album format, yet I don’t see anything reasonable about forcing artists to sell individual tracks. “

    ok, what is the reasoning.

    understand it? i have never even HEARD it. it always amounts to “cause i don’t wanna!”

    go ahead. explain.

  8. I the latest WIRED, Radiohead talks about their experiment. It actually made a LOT of money. The average price paid for the album during the experiment was less than $9.99 and yes, a lot of jerks downloaded it and paid nothing.

    I thought it was a great experiment. The whole music industry is in a state of flux and I admire the innovation that is taking place with the music business models.

    It will all shake out in the end. Enjoy the ride!

  9. So if the artists want us to buy all of the album because its an artistic compliation (blah blah blah) does it mean that we have to listen to the enitre album also? I think Prince did this many years back where the entire cd was one track. Now THAT would be an artistic move… the entire cd is one track, and you only had to pay 99 cents for it.

  10. Shen—some people create individual songs; some people like to create suites made up of a number of those songs, and create them as a unified whole. Not saying one is better than the other, necessarily, only that, say, Sgt. Pepper was made as an album, Pet Sounds was made as an album, etc. It’s a different experience, is all–the difference between Beatles 1, say, and Abbey Road.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.