I coulda told you this, though I am a little surprised that we've seen the results so fast. Despite iTunes having put the new tiered pricing into effect just last week, Billboard is reporting that they've already seen sales drop on the higher-priced tunes. The iTunes Top 100 chart has 40 different songs with a new price of $1.29, and one day after the changes, those songs dropped an average of 5.3 places on the chart, while cheaper songs moved up on average. And on the second day of the price change, ten of the tracks that saw their prices rise within 24 hours dropped a huge 12.4 chart positions on average.

Of course, we're talking only a matter of days here, and there are all kinds of things that could have affected this average drop -- lots of the tracks that became expensive were from a Rascal Flatts album, and it could be just that the album has lost popularity, bringing the average down. And don't forget that even though these sales figures may be dropping, they haven't dropped nearly enough to show a loss of revenue (though fewer songs may be selling, they're still making more money).

But for those convinced that higher prices mean lower sales numbers, these first few days of figures will seem to connect all of the right dots. We'll have to wait and see if the long-term effects match up to the figures Billboard has seen so far.

Hot off the heels of the news that the iPhone is dominating independent mobile gaming comes this interesting statistic: 14% of all people downloading mobile games are doing so on an iPhone. Market research group comScore says that not only is the iPhone picking up double digits of all game downloads overall, but that 32.4% of all iPhone users have downloaded a game. We're not sure if this means purchased a game over the air or bought it in iTunes' App Store and then transferred it onto the phone, but that's a lot of downloading.

And the numbers are increasing -- 8.5 million Americans downloaded mobile games onto their devices in November of last year, up 17 percent from the year before. And smartphones in general are growing -- last year, there were zero smartphones sitting in the top 10 mobile devices for downloading, says a comScore analyst, and this year, six of the ten on the list are smartphones. Sounds like an emerging market to us, and the iPhone is sitting right on top.

A month ago, Apple was crowing about selling one million iPhone 3G handsets over its opening weekend. In a month, they've tripled that figure.

According to Fortune and analyst Michael Cote of the (eponymous and nascent, from what I can Google) Cote Collaborative, Apple has already hit the three million mark, with many investors expecting only three to four million handsets sold by the end of the quarter.

Cote is a former T-Mobile executive, who Scott Moritz says has been accurate with his predictions in the past.

It took over 10 weeks for the original iPhone to sell just one million handsets. The iPhone 3G accounts for almost a third of all iPhones sold, ever.

Cote says that meeting demand will be Apple's challenge going forward, as it enters 20 new countries on August 22 -- almost doubling its market presence worldwide. "The demand is so strong it may impact or delay the new countries coming on," he said.

John Gruber has penned an interesting observation of how Microsoft might very well have missed the mark from the get-go when they made the strange decision to take on the iPod and iTunes. Since the player's initial wiz-bang sales period is essentially over (as in: it more or less set a decent sales barometer, at least for now), John wrangles some interesting statistics from Amazon's charts on exactly where the Zune stands in comparison to Apple's players (including year-old models), as well as its ranking in the overall electronics category. To spoil the surprise: the Zune isn't doing so well. We've looked at Amazon's charts before, but as of this writing, a record player is beating out the best selling Zune on the electronics list, while iPods - specifically the small, flash-based nano and shuffle - dominate most of the top 10 spots.

John then uses this data and good ol' fashioned people watching to conclude that Microsoft shouldn't have taken what could be their only swing at the plate in producing a hard drive-based iPod; they should have cranked out a flash memory model to go head-on with the nano - inarguably the home run slugger in Apple's lineup. While I tend to agree with John, I also see a problem with going down this road: Microsoft would likely have had even less room to maneuver, and even fewer things to market ('Beam your tunes') and invent lame, dead-end lingo for - they actually refer to sharing your music wirelessly as 'squirting'. Who wants to bet how excited Steve Ballmer's kids are to 'squirt' at school?

Sure, when you look at what you're up against in the DAP market, Apple's iPod nano and SanDisk's respectable 2GB Sansa player (expandable via an SD slot, and at #11 on Amazon as of this writing) are the top dogs to beat - but what could they have offered? I highly doubt they could have fit their DRM-crippled and arguably worthless (though admittedly buzz-worthy) Wi-Fi sharing feature into a nano-sized player, even if they made it slightly larger and uglier like the Zune is to its 30GB iPod rival. A 'Zune nano' with nothing unique to offer would dry up on its own in a market already dominated by Apple, SanDisk and Creative, and Microsoft's exclusive, 3rd party bitch-slap of a music store would have even less of a leg to stand on.

In summary: I think John's right - Microsoft made a bad move in copying the 30GB hard drive-based iPod, but it was the only move they had. In this light, it kinda makes you wonder why they bothered in the first place.