Tim from LA is obviously an Apple worshiper. The iPhone is overpriced, over hyped and overrated.

The iPhone is an expensive, high end (though no 3G/3.5G), niche handset which costs £899 over 18 months before you've bought a single track. MusicStation works on a wide range of new and existing contract and pre-pay mobiles with unlimited music downloads for £1.99 a week.

With iPhone you pay 79p per track and can only download music when connected to iTunes via WiFi or a computer. With MusicStation’s all-you-can-eat service mobile users can download unlimited tracks at anytime, anywhere over the 2.5G, 3G and 3.5G mobile network for £1.99 a week with no extra data costs.

Marcus, London, UK

This article is weird. It needlessly confuses iPhone music purchases and texts/minutes. They are totally separate. Indeed, the iPhone can't download music over EDGE (the phone connection), only over Wi-Fi. This is, frankly, a limitation, but it underlines the extent to which the iPod features in the iPhone have nothing to do with O2 or mobile phones, but with the existing Apple model of music sales instead.

So, iPhone will play downloaded iTunes tracks, but it will also play music ripped from your CDs and other mp3s just like an iPod. Unlike MusicStation, iPhone-bought songs can be uploaded back to your computer, then back out onto up to 4 other computers (Mac or PC), and on to an unlimited number of your iPhones, iPods or CDs as you see fit. Legally, and permanently. Vodafone also make you rent your music, and confine it to your phone, which is so limited it damn well ought to cost less! T-Mobile is more expensive, has less choice, & won't work on Mac or iPod. Some alternative!

John Allen, Oxford, UK

Tim, as a T-Mobile customer, I can tell you that tracks on its Mobile Jukebox service are 'dual download'. That means you get two versions of the track: one optimised for your mobile, and another optimised for your PC (so-called CD quality).

In your post, which is pretty aggressive in tone, You accuse Ali of getting his facts wrong. But the reality is you get yours just as wrong.

scotd, london,

Thank you! I was reading this article and thinking that it was nearly meaningless! Let's compare apples to oranges! (pun somewhat intended) I'm glad another intelligent reader has already noticed. How can you even begin to compare a subscription plan to a purchase plan? An who exactly says people buy 30 songs per month?! Or is that _download_? As Tim pointed out, that's not even accurate!

Oy. If you're going to try compare something, try make it a useful comparison.

Markian Hlynka, Edmonton, Canada

This seems like a rather lazy and misleading article because it seems to suggest that you need to use the iTunes Store if you want music on the iPhone. The following quote is particularly misleading:
"one of the main appeals of the iPhone is its ability to store 8GB of tracks (about 2,000 songs) from the iTunes site."

iTunes is basically a jukebox that happens to contain a store and use of that store is optional. Most iPod users only purchase a small number of songs, if any from the iTunes Store, so most of the music in their iTunes/iPod or collections comes from other sources such as CDs. I suspect most iPhone users will only download the occasional track from the iTunes Store on their phone and instead will simply sync their existing music onto the device.

Andrew, Worcester, England

Trying to move with the times...failing miserably...I agree what a ridiculous article.

I currently buy the odd track from iTunes, I still buy CDs I pay for a mobile contract at £35 a month with a rubbish phone and no free data usage.

If I spend £269 on an iPhone that is what it costs me. Nothing else will change - yet I will have a device that is elegant and does alot more that my current phone with free data usage and wifi.

Its all about the big picture.

Jez, London, UK

This should have been titled, "Sunday Times can't do maths".

The price of the device is irrelevant to the price of music. I note you don't claim that iPod shuffle songs are less expensive than iPhone songs!

Examine your argument. Apple says people buy only 22 songs on average from iTunes, and get the rest of their music elsewhere, like CDs. That's a lifetime total of £17.38 spent on iTunes music. Vodafone charges £1.99 a week, or £103.48 per year. Given that the average age of music purchasers is around 20, and they can expect to live to at least 70, that's £5,174 over a lifetime at Vodafone, vs. £17.38 on iTunes. Vodafone is nearly 300 TIMES more expensive!

You say that "a good alternative to iPhone is the T-Mobile Jukebox" which offers only 500k songs (vs. iTunes 6m), at the higher price of £1 vs. 79p. HOW is that a good alternative again? Can songs from T-Mobile be played on your PC? No?

I hope this post shows how ridiculous the original article really was.

Tim, Los Angeles, CA

This is an appalling article !

How can you figure that 'download cost more with the iPhone' when on the rival service you mention you LOOSE ALL YOUR MUSIC when you end your contract. At least with your iPhone/iTunes purchases your music is yours to keep, and can be transferred seamlessly to your iPods, computers, and even burnt onto CD. Can I do that with T-Mobile? You didn't bother to find out and tell us.

Andy, Birmingham,

Hello! More anti-Apple FUD. Most people already have tunes in their iTunes library on their Mac, or if they are really behind the times, on their PC. So figuring in the costs of downloads into the equation is a misguided attempt to make the iPhone look expensive, which it is not when you consider you may use your content from your Mac computer on the iPhone and, for the monthly fee, you get internet access via the phone's network, or, of course, via any free wi-fi hotspot. More information, less FUD. And did I mention the iPhone uses FREE wi-fi? You didn't, becuase the phone you are comparing it to does not. More anti-Apple bull. Do you own a Dell or something?

C W ALQUALONDE, Costa Mesa, Wyoming