When Yahoo unveiled it's "beta" test version of the Yahoo Music service, the pricing -- $4.99/per month for an annual subscription or $6.99/per month for a monthly subscription both of which allow consumers to move content on to portable devices -- execs and staffers at Rhapsody and Napster muttered words like "gimmick" and "cheap come-on" (OK, M2 made up that last one).

Sorry to report, Rob (Glaser) and Chris (Gorog), but looks like Yahoo is making the low-low prices permanent. Given that you both have identical price points for your services -- $9.95 for tethered-to-PC and $14.95 for the to-go versions -- what happens now? Oh, and given those pricing gaps -- and Glaser's recent quote stating that portable subscriptions (those being the more expensive versions) are all "hype" (yes, he did say that ) it doesn't appear that anybody's real sure what to do with portable music subscriptions. 

Yahoo's strategy -- I mean to the extent that cutting your competitors' guts is a "strategy" -- is still the simplest and cleanest: take advantage of the traffic to your site based on your existing services and extend new service offerings to those who are interested in a specific topic/product e.g. music.  It's a lot easier than driving demand to a site dedicated to one thing that, frankly, is still not that easy to explain to consumers. 

Note: Yes, we're aware that Rhapsody and Napster have both posted solid growth in subscribers. What's indisputable is that neither is really knocking the cover off the ball, financially speaking. If Yahoo continues its practice of not quoting subscriber numbers in their next quarterly call, rest assured catty comments will fall upon them.