So . . . there’s been a bit of a verbal slapfight between Steve Jobs and Edgar Bronfman about Apple’s decision to hold tight on the 99-cent per download price per song in the iTunes Music Store.

Bronfman, providing more evidence that the music industry has yet to get a clue, said: “There’s no content in the world that has doesn’t have some price flexibility. Not all songs are created equal. Not all albums are created equal.”

Which is arguably stupid in its generality, especially when extended to a comparable medium like, say, film. It doesn’t matter if I’m standing in line to suffer through some studio’s latest crapfest starring Ben Affleck or for whatever indie auteur navel-gaze-o-rama the New Yorker deems worthy to sit through, my ticket price is the same.

The same is true at Blockbuster — a model which I think is probably closest to the iTunes Music Store in concept — I pay my price and hope that it’s good.

Ultimately though, it’s not about medium. It’s about money. Jobs’ comments about piracy seem a little disingenuous to me. As do Bronfman’s about creative value.

Apple’s recent comeback has been due in no small part to the iPod and the Music Store — both of which rely heavily on the per song price being an easy (and, in the case of iTunes, almost subliminal) purchase decision on the part of the consumer. I think it’s obvious that Jobs sees the sweet spot at 99-cents. And it’s obvious why Bronfman wants it to be higher.

Jobs wants the price on the low end of the threshold so people will keep buying from the Music Store — because he’s more likely to sell more iPods if they do. Less than a buck for the new Britney Spears song means I might just buy it, if I’m in the mood for some tarty bubblegum pop. More than that, shame and snobbery win out in the name of economics.

Bronfman doesn’t care about iPods, so pushing up the price to the top of the threshold is a no-brainer. He gets more money per purchase, more money for Warner Music, and at least he had the common courtesy not to insult us with the “it’s better for the artists” rhetoric that we usually hear from record company execs picking their teeth with [bone, artist].

The dramatic shift in Apple’s stock and general perception over the past few years is a fairly good indicator that Steve Jobs knows his customers better than Bronfman does. Apple is going up, the music industry is going down. I’m not an economist, but that’s pretty easy math.*

Both guys want to make money. That’s what they’re supposed to do. But, plain and simple, Bronfman doesn’t appear to have any respect for the consumer. His assumption is, of course, that people will continue to buy songs –even if they cost for two or three dollars.**

I get the sense that he doesn’t even consider that sales might drop if the price goes up. As though, drug addicted sheep we are, we’ll just keep on buying to fill the need regardless of price.

Conversely, Jobs’ position demonstrates to me that he at least understands our role in the process and has some degree of respect for his customers.

Well. Someone is going to win this one. I don’t expect it’ll be Jobs — but he will come out looking like the hero, because that’s the role in which he’s been cast (and one he is well-suited to play).

Bronfman is the villain. Just because.

Anyways…

* I realize that Apple will never be as up as the music industry (even when the industry is down), But Up is still Up and Down is still Down. Regardless of ratio, Apple is apparently doing something right and the industry is doing something wrong.

** After all, they do it already when they buy a ringtone for their phone — and that’s only a partial song).