Steve Jobs' Disney stocks aren't the only thing making him rich -- AAPL has hit an all time high, according to MacRumors, thanks to the big announcements earlier this week, both on the online store and during the conference call. Before opening this morning, it was at 204.72, but the high yesterday was a whopping 208.71, the best the company's ever seen, beating the previous high of 199.83, set in December of 2007. And it's been a heck of a year: the stock was trading in the mid 80s this past January, though that may have been more of a sign of the economy at large than Apple's fortunes specifically.

Boy, it would have been nice to buy back then, wouldn't it have? $5,000 of Apple's shares in January would be worth $13,000 yesterday. Just goes to show you can't keep a good fruit down.

You can track all the AAPL financial news on our sister sites Blogging Stocks and Daily Finance.

I like the way Schiau Studios thinks -- when customers complained about the price of their $2.99US App Store game Alchemize, they raised the price up to $39.99. Over on the TouchArcade forums, they make their case: most devs, they say, when faced with complaints about price, will just lower their price even though their software is already cheap. So they wanted to buck the trend, and instead raised it up to almost $40 (which, incidentally, is slightly more than what you might pay for a handheld console game).

Lest you simply complain that they were greedy, they say they were only out to make a point: everyone who purchased the game at the higher price point will have all of their money go to charity, and now that the game's back at the $2.99 price point, 33% of all the profits to be gained will go to the same charity. Regardless of whether the game's any good or not, we like their thinking.

Can we all agree to stop griping about price points? I've actually heard this come up lately on a comedy podcast of all places -- when Chicago broadcasting legend Steve Dahl (and one of my favorites) started up a podcast about a month ago, and introduced an app to go along with it. Steve was inundated with comments complaining about the $2.99 price, which he responded to with a great argument on the show: he's put a lot of money into the app and the show behind it, and if you're already a fan of his, paying less than the cost of a cup of Starbucks should not even be an issue.

Sure, when the App Store first started up, it was the Wild West -- both prices and quality were all over the place. But at this point, Apple's review system has more or less settled down, and blogs like ours are full of recommendations, with enough free apps to last any rabid app user most of their iPhone time. If you have any interest in an app at all, a couple of bucks shouldn't be enough to give you pause -- either pick it up and make sure the dev gets their due (small as that may be), or move on to find an app you'd rather buy.

Our weekly interactive podcast goes live on the air tonight at 10pm Eastern time over on the Talkshoe page, so if you're around and ready to talk some Unofficial Apple Weblog news with us, please come by and join in. I'll be hosting this evening, and Dave Caolo will be along for the ride with us, as well as a slew of other familiar names and voices from TUAW and our community. And we'll be welcoming Alykhan "AJ" Jetha as our special guest for the evening -- he's the CEO of Marketcircle, makers of Daylite and Daylite Touch, business productivity management apps for the desktop and the iPhone. Our own Stephen Sande reviewed their products here on TUAW earlier this week.

Also tonight on the show, we'll talk about all of the new iPhone hardware rumors floating around, and try to separate the wheat from the chaff there. There's also rumors of an OS update that we'll try shaking down, and the iPhone 3.0 beta has hit a new milestone, so we'll look that over as well. iTunes prices are up, and sales are down, so we'll try to figure out why. And since this is the eve of the release of Tweetie for Mac, we'll talk about which clients we've used for Twitter on the desktop before and if Tweetie will be everything that everyone else is saying it is. Should be a lot of fun -- tune in promptly at 10 Eastern to give us a listen.

To participate on TalkShoe, you can use the browser-only interface, or you can stick with the classic TalkShoe Pro Java client; however, for maximum fun, you should call in so we can hear your dulcet tones. For the web UI, just click the "TalkShoe Web" button on our profile page at 10 pm Sunday. To call in on regular phone or VOIP lines (take advantange of your free cellphone weekend minutes if you like): dial (724) 444-7444 and enter our talkcast ID, 45077 -- during the call, you can request to talk by keying in *-8. SIP or Gizmo users can connect directly to Talkshoe by following the instructions here. Talk with you then!

Recording support for the talkcast is provided by Call Recorder from ecamm networks.

Looking to pick up an iPhone, but not interested in getting bogged down by any contracts with "the Man?" Your time may have come -- The Boy Genius apparently got their hands on some slides from an AT&T training session saying on March 26, AT&T will offer a "No-commit" for their existing customers on both iPhone models -- it'll be $599 for the 8GB and $699 for the 16GB.

This isn't quite a deal anyone's planning to jump at, however, since the phones themselves are likely still locked to the AT&T network. Not to mention that you've got to already be an AT&T customer, and they're only selling one phone per line that you've already got. Which means these phones are... for Grandma, who doesn't want a contract and can't make it to the store herself? Businesses might be interested as well, we guess, but for most of us, it's still cheaper to just buy the phone and sign the AT&T contract (assuming that you actually want to use it as a phone).

What it does likely say, however, is that AT&T is expecting an iPhone hardware upgrade, and wants to clear out as much of the stock they've got now as they can (to suckers who are willing to pay more).

[via Engadget]

It's just a rumor at this point, but yes, apparently it's floating around out there that Apple may be considering a $19.99 price point for "premium" games in the App Store. That would be a direct response not only to bigger developers who say a 99 cents to $9.99 price point is too low for them to justify the cost of production, but also to competing game systems like the DS and the PSP -- if the same games were available for the same price on both systems, Apple could use the iPhone's extra features to justify even more purchases.

It's an interesting idea, and actually, though obviously it would cost consumers more, the bottom line in the App Store has always been worth, not price -- there are currently premium games being sold on services like Xbox Live and the Wii's Virtual Console for $20, and gamers are willing to pay, as long as they get the bang for the buck that they expect.

We'll have to see what approach Apple takes here. On the music side of things, they were obviously very hesitant to move up the price points (though even there, they made concessions and did so). As popular as the App Store is, a higher price point, if used correctly, could really open up the kinds of software we're seeing there.

One of the first applications I used and enjoyed on my iPhone, Sketches, has updated to version 1.5. New in this version is the ability to change the alpha settings for colors (so you can change the opacity of the drawings you make on photos you take), and an edit mode for the corkboard view, to rearrange your drawings with. Additionally, they've moved uploaded photos off of a third-party server and onto their own page, so (for right now, anyway) no ads to get in the way. Not new in this app: a quality, fun, and surprisingly robust photo and image editor designed for the iPhone.

We've heard from the devs that there is a version 2 on the way as well, and both this version and that one are free to anyone who's purchased the app. But if you haven't picked it up yet, it is available for $4.99 over on the App Store, well worth it if you often take and share pictures with your iPhone.

Illusion Labs is probably best known for their first app, iPint, but have been making splashes since then with interesting apps that make great use of the iPhone's features and touchscreen. I tried out their Touchgrind app, and while it was a fascinating demo of how to combine an in-game physics system with the sensitive touchscreen controls, it was a little too tough for me to use (you have to really be a skateboarder, since the app really is a fingerboard, basically).

But Sway looks much more casual, and still puts the touchscreen and tilt abilities to great use. Like Rolando, it's a cartoony, physics-based platformer, but unlike Rolando, the mechanic here isn't rolling, but swinging. You swing the little characters around, and then use the touchscreen to grab onto various parts of the environment while exploring it.

Very intriguing. Like Touchgrind, the controls might be a little too sophisticated to appeal to all players (it looks tough coordinating which hand is which and exactly when to grab and let go), but we'll have to see how it works out -- if it starts out in an accessible way, Sway might be really impressive. Illusion Labs didn't tell us a price yet (their two other paid games are $5 and $7), but the game is set to hit the App Store soon.

You knew this was coming. The iTunes pricing changes announced at Macworld got groans from most of us watching (even though I'm pretty sure it's more or less agreed that it had to happen sooner or later), but the record companies are taking time to do a little bit of gloating over the fact that they've finally broken through Apple's 99 cent barrier. They told the AP that the move means that customers aren't "price sensitive" -- in other words, we're OK with paying more for music.

I don't know that that's true -- iTunes has had 99 cent songs since its inception, and even with the record companies crying and whining the whole time, it's been an amazing success. But prices go up eventually, no matter what product you're talking about, and if Apple had to raise prices, they could do a lot worse than adding a tier above and a tier below. Of course the record companies will want to put anything that sells on the top tier, but I don't think they can use that as evidence that consumers don't care what price they pay for music.

And let's keep in mind that at $1.29 a song, a 10-song album at $12.99 is still cheaper than the $16 and $17 record companies used to try and charge. There's no question about it -- this latest change is one in favor of the record companies, but a system like iTunes still seems worlds better for consumers than the old Sam Goody/Tower Records retail store system.

[via MacBytes]

This is interesting: the prevailing argument about App Store pricing seems to be that developers are rushing down to 99 cents because apps priced there sell better (and developers say they can't fund really great apps priced there). But Mobile Orchard did a little number crunching, and their conclusion upends the whole premise: 99 cent apps don't sell any better than their more expensive counterparts. They plotted each app's popularity against its price, and while there are a few 99 cent apps out there selling better than any higher-priced app, the only real way to make the app "sell" better is to give it away for free. Above $0, price doesn't really matter than much in terms of popularity.

You could argue that Apple's 0 to 1 popularity scale doesn't tell us much (we're not looking at actual sales here, just a number Apple has given to each app in terms of downloads), but Mobile Orchard's conclusion makes sense, in a strange way: free apps, we know, are much more popular than any paid apps, and if people are willing to pay 99 cents, why wouldn't they be willing to pay more? Why should a 99 cent app sell better than an app of equal usability that costs $1.99? It shouldn't, and according to this data, it doesn't.

Very interesting. There is an exception -- in the Entertainment category, 99 cent apps do sell markedly better than the apps above them (Games, also, as you can see above, seem a little stronger in the 99 cent bar). But in the Business and Productivity categories, higher-priced apps actually sell better than their cheaper counterparts. People will pay what your app is worth, whether that's $1, $10, or even higher. The problem may be getting people to understand the app's worth in the first place (and that's where something like an App Store trial system might work), but Mobile Orchard's data says that price isn't a factor in an app's sales.

Thanks, Dan!

Is it just me or is it pretty mindblowing what Moore's Law is doing to our computers these days? I remember when 64mb of RAM was great, and even a few years ago, I wondered why anyone would ever use 1GB of RAM (I've got 2GB in my gaming PC, and I still almost think it's too much). But apparently TidBITS has been doing some testing, and they've discovered that not only can the new MacBooks hold 4GB of RAM as Apple recommends for a limit, but stuffing a whopping 6GB in there is possible and doable. There are two DDR3 slots in the new MacBooks and MacBook Pros, and they come with either 1GB or 2GB in each DIMM slot.

TidBITS says you can switch out one of those 2GB DIMMs for a 4GB, and voilà, as long as they're the same speed and type, apparently almost everything is hunky-dory. TidBITS says there are two drawbacks: one, that dual-channel architecture requires identical DIMMs, so that's out if you're running a 4GB and 2GB configuration. Plus, it'll cost you an arm and a leg, especially if your leg is priced at around $600, which is what a 4GB stick runs. Even the DDR2 is pricey at that level (then again, if you don't like memory prices, just wait about five minutes, because that's basically how often they change).

And for some reason, there's an issue with running two 4GB sticks in there (for a total of 8GB), but TidBITS surmises that may be fixed by the time Snow Leopard rolls around. Personally, I'd love to see a program that needs 6GB of RAM -- maybe a high end 3D modeler or a financial simulator of some kind. But it's good to know that if you really need that much memory (and have the cash to spend on it), there you go.

This would be an interesting deal -- rumor has it (that crazy rumor always has something, doesn't it?) that Apple may start selling subsidized MacBooks in the UK, with O2 including the notebooks with their wireless plans. Quite a proposal -- the idea, of course, would be for O2 to pick up a subscription by offering a discount on the already (relatively) cheap $999 MacBook. This plan has been rumored for a long time with iPhones (and I still believe it'll happen eventually), but with mobile broadband subscriptions on the rise, O2 and other services might start giving kickbacks on notebooks, too.

Of course, whatever discount you saved early on would cost you in the end with the continued cost of the broadband subscription. Which makes this deal as unlikely for people to buy into it as it does for Apple to agree. But you never know -- analysts especially are leading the call for cheaper and cheaper MacBooks, and a subsidy might be just the thing (even if it isn't actually popular with consumers) to push the MacBook down to around the $800 price where stockholders want it to be.

I love Tom's Hardware -- they're traditionally a PC site (and being a gamer, I've built and run my share of PCs), but like most PC guys, they aren't afraid to lay out the specs and draw direct conclusions from there. And that's exactly what they've done with a very Mac misconception: that Apple computers traditionally cost more than the average PC.

To the average user, that seems true -- if you go to, say, a Best Buy or a Circuit City, and look at the Macs they're selling versus the seemingly equivalent PCs they're selling, then yes, you're seeing higher pricetags on the Apple stuff. But when Tom's lays out what you get out of each computer, the prices are generally the same. In fact, they even build an equivalent Mac Pro, and there's only a $5.67 difference.

Of course, that doesn't stop people from trying to prove otherwise (Apple, you'll note, is not a client of NPD, and they don't actually share which computers they're talking about in the study). And of course, as Tom's Hardware commenters will tell you, there's really no argument for gamers yet, as amazing hardware is nothing when it doesn't run your software the way it should. But it's good to see TH taking a serious, relatively unbiased look at the price differences, and Apple getting a little more love from the traditionally PC crowd.

Macworld UK reports that Apple shares reached a new 52-week high. Between holiday iPod sales predictions and iPhone rumors, Apple stocks are performing strongly. Some analysts expect Apple to sell up to 15 million iPods during the Christmas sales season. That's (quickly doing math) a lot of iPods to shift out the door. Share prices were up $1.56 yesterday to $85.61. Apple's market capital stands at over $73 billion.

Eagle-eye reader Steve points out that both Yahoo and Google say the APPL high is actually 86.40.

Certainly one of the drawbacks to buying music on the iTS is the single vs. album purchase: sure you can buy a song or two from an album, or maybe the hot pre-release single, but what happens if you want the rest of the album later, or when it's completely released? This has been a catch with traditional music distribution methds as well - you can either buy that $3-5 CD single release, or pony up the ridiculous price of $15-20 (and more) for the entire album. I've been hoping someone would devise a digital solution to this conundrum since I bought my first album off the store the day it launched, and Ina Fried CNET has a rumor stating that a solution could see the light of day soon. The idea is that if you've bought a track or two from an album, you can receive credit for those purchased tracks in the form of a lower total album price, should you decide you want the entire thing at a later date.

If this is true, I would hope it could debut as early as January's Macworld '07 event. Ina's right - they're leaving a ton of money on the table without something like this in place, and they have the opportunity of solving an age-old conundrum in offering an appealing and fundamental advantage over the traditional brick-and-mortar method of buying music.