No one's twisting any arms here. Use it or don't. Personally, I think it's a great price. I think this service is going to be a big hit (no pun intended). I hate buying most CDs because so much of the music is junk, with one or two good titles for $12-$16. Now that's not cost effective. This service from Apple means I can make my own CDs -- with the songs I like -- for my own use and be completely legal. I refused to participate in the illegal Napster stuff and it's spin offs. This is the perfect solution to me. Another big plus is that, for the $0.99 price per song, I can use that music for multiple personal uses -- listen on my computer, put it on my iPod, burn a CD for my car, use it as a soundtrack in a video, or in multimedia presentations (Flash or Director) for the classes I teach. No commercial stuff though. I wonder if Apple will offer a full, commercial-use option once this thing gets going. That would be really good, depending on the cost that is. I won't comment on Yoko Ono. Ron Woodland -- St. George, Utah Darby Lee Darrow wrote: >> >> AAC encoding good. 99¢ per cut not cost effective. I paid $6 for Yoko >> Ono's TEN track Maxi-Single of "Walking On Thin Ice" which is 72.5 >> minutes long yesterday - $4 less expensive. I paid $18 for 21 tracks >> and 141.5 minutes of Nick Warren's Global Underground Reykjavik 024 >> two CD box yesterday - $3 less expensive. I have a big booklet that >> came with it, I have three CDs that I can rip anyway I like as often >> as I like, and it was $7 less expensive. The Apple Music service >> pricing doesn't make any sense. The downloaded track must cost >> significantly less than the cost of buying CDs before this model will >> work. I think 49¢ a track is a more realistic success target price. > > > > > The other day I bought two CDs for about $12 each. From one I wanted > only one song, and from the other I wanted only 2 songs. Or $8 per song. > > So for me $.99 is pretty cheap.