Subscription services had been tried for many many years, none has been successful. The main thing is that people know the companies can change the price of the subscription at any time, and thus any money so far put into the subscription would vaporize if you choose not to stick with that subscription anymore. Therefore the iTunes (which can rip your retail CDs or import your mp3s) is not going down due to subscription services.

Just the fact that Sony is jumping on board, already proves it will fail.

Universal is like that little kid who thinks he can beat you up and keeps coming at you kicking and hitting, teeth grinding and talking the talk.

One hand on the forehead keeps him at bay, hands swinging in the air.

Pathetic

Ask Virgin's online subscribers how great subscription music is. They're shutting down and now their users find they've been paying £10 a month and don't have any music out of it.

If their primary interest is to unseat iTunes store, then they will fail. Among other things they need to make their primary interest serving the end user. That's the first easy step you'd think. The harder step that more companies get stuck on is figuring out how best to serve the end users.

Numerous companies have been down this road. Has Universal done a detailed study and developed plans to succeed where the others have failed? I think they'll go off the cliff just like everyone else before them.

Desssss-per-aaado!

And where exactly do they think I'm going to play this music? Apple's strenght isn't iTunes. It isn't the iPod. It's the combination of the two.

I also find this quote very intersting:

"the reduced need to buy albums would more than offset the expenses of a subscription, Universal reckons."

I thought forcing users to buy whole albums or other "bundles" was what they wanted Apple to do. They hated that iTunes let you buy individual songs. Now they act they they are the hero by liberating us from having to albums? I got new for you, I'm already free from having to buy whole albums...it's called iTunes.

Let's see...Microsoft, a company with pretty much unlimited resources, couldn't do it but Universal thinks they can? And do they really believe that the cell providers will absorb the cost and NOT pass it on the their customers? We're talking about the companies that absolutely nickel-and-dime their customers to death.

of personal ego ignoring what is best for the company. Universal shareholders should be up in arms.

Imagine if you owned the rights to zillions of songs and there was a way for you to sell those songs that didn't cost you anything, but brought in revenues from a source that is growinf exponentially year by year, while your other sources of revenue are declining. It is fool-proof, it works without a hitch, and you don't have to take any risks at all. But then you choose to do it another way, where you incur all the risk, along the lines of other plans that have never succeeded.

Doofuses. Except Doug Morris, who is simply an a******.

The "Too much money" per sale cracks me up too. How much do they make on a disc sold to a distributor? How much do they think Apple makes on a single track after bandwidth and credit card transaction fees are subtracted?

That said, I see no reason why Apple shouldn't allow variable-pricing if that's the major sticking point. The labels will charge too much, sales will decrease, prices will adjust to compensate.

And I don't buy the simplicity argument either. I manage the varying prices in my Amazon shopping cart just fine.