Uh, that's more than a REAL CD. No thanks.

I just wonder why people pay MORE money for LOWER quality music tracks...

You have to start somewhere, no reason to bitch about it. If people don't use it they will lower the price.

I can't wait until 2 months from now when they drop their price to .99 and everyone bitches they got ripped off.

TV Advertisement: Yes, now you can hear holophonor virtuoso Philip Fry play 900 of his classic themes in your own home on this two-record set. That's over 30 minutes of music for only $14.99.

Dr. Zoidberg: Only $14.99 for a two-record set? Two records! Oh, Zoidberg, at last you're becoming a crafty consumer! (Calls to order) Hello? I'll take eight!

@ry81984: That's just the thing -- they definitely will NOT lower the price. I doubt the record companies will allow it.

Does this mean we can finally use them as ring tones?! Yeah, I didn't think so.

@Franklin Comes Alive!: Hahahahahaha

OR......, Buy the CD and rip it to your PC for less money than these downloadable files cost and pick your own (much higher) encoding rate! No laws broken. You saved money. Got exactly the same result, and as a bonus.... AT&T and the RIAA look like the money grubbing FAT CATS we knew they were.

I sure am glad that with all these restrictions on cell phones and networks and locking whatsits and thisnthats, that our various mobile providers are able to treat consumers like dirt and their offerings like cash cows.

What would be more reasonable (but still unreasonable, compared to most European cellphone markets) would be a $3 per month "data plan" that lets you send tracks on your computer to your phone. Limit the bandwidth to a few hundred megs per month or something. It wouldn't cost them anything and would still generate revenue off of this 'newfangled mp3 craze'.

Or, you know, keep offering shitty deals that no one with half a brain would go for. Wow! $2 to hear a song out of my cellphone's crappy speaker? SWEET! What? If I buy it on my cellphone then it's forever locked to my cellphone and I can't use it on any other device? EVEN BETTER!

I don't expect everybody in the world to be on the apple/itunes bandwagon, but with it as a very viable option I don't understand why execs think the public will readily toss their money away.

Maybe I missed it in the article, but does that $1.99 include the data charges for downloading? Or will AT&T require that you subscribe to a monthly data plan first?

Phone companies are the cruise ships and airport terminals of the digital era. Everything is at least double what it is outside their captive market.

@LatherRinseRepeat: I'm almost positive that you'll need the data plan or else you'll be paying for the bandwith "ala carte."

Absolutely ridiculous. You'd think the RIAA would figure out that most people are willing to pay a fair price for music and not steal it. They continue to push people toward stealing music by placing restrictions on everything and charging well above what people are willing to pay. Their business model is broken, and now they are grasping at straws.

@ry81984: "You have to start somewhere, no reason to bitch about it. If people don't use it they will lower the price."

No, if people don't use it, they'll cancel the service and blame it on piracy.

And of course there'll be one more content type on your phone that your carrier won't let you transfer to your new phone, even if you stick with them. I'm getting really sick of this shit.

@morganlh85: convenience.