'Pricey' iTunes will suffer – Napster boss [Archive]

fuge

Jan 4, 2005, 12:51 PM

Let's see - I can pay $180/year for the rest of my life to have the ability to listen to 1 million songs, of which 995,000 won't be used by me, but have to pay $1 extra if I want to put it on CD
OR
I can just buy the songs I really want for $1/piece.

Do those guys not see that they are going to fail with this plan? Who in their right mind is going to "rent" music indefinitely?

Also, I love how the Yahoo guy says that the 'a la carte' model isn't good for them or for consumers. He's mostly saying that it isn't so good for them as a business rather than for consumers. Because they barely make anything with a la carte rather than subscription while Apple makes their profit off the iPod.

These guys are ballsy to predict that iTunes will fall by the wayside because they've got the better model - subscription rather than ownership - after iTunes has sold more than 200 million songs.

Timelessblur

Jan 4, 2005, 01:02 PM

I dont see it doing to well for indivieal but I can see collages and what not jumping on board to help low the amount of illage downloading going on that and maybe some corps doing it for there employees so they have something to listen to at work

Fredstar

Jan 4, 2005, 01:03 PM

I agree it will never take off. People want to own their music rather than pay 180 dollars a year. If i subscribed i would have to pay so much by the time i am 70 and i wouldn't be able to burn them unless i spend a dollar and i do not want 700000 or how many songs they have. I want to buy my music from itms and music i want and burn it to cd e.t.c
Just out of interest, how does this work? are artists happy with getting their money over like 70 years? I assume they get paid a fraction of each 180 dollar subscription or am i mistaken. Surely through itunes they would get paid a lot more or just straight downloads.

Stella

Jan 4, 2005, 01:09 PM

Subscription models have already been tried... and failed. iTunes hasn't sold 200 million tracks for no reason. At the moment the 'buy your songs' models is working extremely well.. subscription model may become popular, but, its already failed.

Personally, I want to own my music and don't want to rent. Yes, I may be able to get 10,000 tracks for $180 a year but realistically how many will be listened to? A fraction of that.

dejo

Jan 4, 2005, 01:25 PM

Yahoo's Dave Goldberg also supports the subscription model. He told USA Today: "Selling 99-cent singles isn't working as a business model for us or for consumers. We sell hundreds of downloads but we don't make money on them. Subscriptions is a much better business for us."

"We sell HUNDREDS of downloads"? No wonder that isn't working as their business model. Meanwhile, Apple IS selling HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of downloads.

"Subscriptions is a much better business for us." I.E. we get more profit from renting rather than selling, whether or not it is better for the consumer, so we need to flog that approach.

backupdrummer

Jan 4, 2005, 01:26 PM

Subscriptions have failed in the past mainly because you can't take it with you. Janus remedy that. This is the only reason why subscription may pay off. But I don't think that is what the market wants in 2005 maybe in 10 years but right now its a pretty radical concept and I don't think the general public will gravitate to it maybe a niche group but that is all. As people become use to the technology I see Apple begining to offer a solution that fresembles subscription (most likely more like sat. radio).

Are there any artist out there that can give their take on this? I would think that an artist would prefer a traditional ala carte model because you can get signed up and running with out needing the music industry machine to get your stuff out there. I would have to believe that the subscription model will further erode the quality of music being produced today. What incentive do They (artist, industry, napsters, etc. ) have to put out new music once you get locked in it will be tough to get out. I can imagine being a college student and falling into the napster "free" college service after 4 years graduating and having my music collection evaporate unless I keep paying the man.

I really find the comment that the Yahoo guy said that the ala carte system doesn't work for us we can't make money therefore the customer must change so they can make money. GImme a break.

Lastly, I have 40 giger with around 3,500 songs on it. Fun facts.
- I didn't pay $3500 to load it up with music from iTunes. I have spent maybe $60 on the songs I want but don't already have on CD.
- I only consistently listen to about 1/3 of the songs on my ipod. Who the hell listens to completely different music from month to month?
-

wordmunger

Jan 4, 2005, 01:32 PM

MCCFR

Jan 4, 2005, 02:08 PM

"Selling 99-cent singles isn't working as a business model for us or for consumers. We sell hundreds of downloads but we don't make money on them. Subscriptions is a much better business for us."

In what way is the 99¢ model not working for consumers - it seems to be working for Apple's iTMS. Could it be that what he really meant to say was "We're really clutching at straws now, and I've spent much of the holiday season praying to as many deities as possible whilst dancing naked around an old redwood. If I tell people that 99¢ is a bad deal often enough, maybe I'll find enough suckers who'll be willing to ditch their iPods and the elegance of iTunes just to keep my music operations alive for another month or two whilst I try and find a job with a music operation that has a future!"

The spirit of P.T. Barnum is alive and well, and living in the Windows Media Audio community. :D

Macmaniac

Jan 4, 2005, 02:15 PM

Poor misguided Napster, when you can't compete you whine about how the other service is inferior.
If his service is so great why have they not sold 200 million songs?

jbembe

Jan 4, 2005, 02:29 PM

dashiel

Jan 4, 2005, 02:45 PM

subscription services can work, but napster, microsoft, et al. won't. the "celestial jukebox" is a great idea, if and only if, i can listen to absolutely anything i want, wherever i want, whenever i want. when i say anything i mean if i want to listen to the irish release single of band X, despite it not being "available" in the united states, i want to listen to it. the problem currently, even with itunes is the selection is small (compared to the total amount of music out there), record companies are far too greedy to drop their artificial "borders" and i am very much tied to my computer to acquire new music.

for a celestial jukebox to work, i need the option to be hiking around nepal and think "oh i could really go for some centro-matic right now". pull up my 802.16 or cell capable ipod, find the band and "download" those tracks.

additionally, because a celestial jukebox has such an overwhelming amount of choice itunes (or whatever app) needs to have a very smart recommender system (something which to date still doesn't work as well as human recommendations). my faith in companies like napster or yahoo being able to come up with an elegant and effective music recommender is not very high.

right now the subscription possibilities are too limiting and a poor experience. napster et al sell themselves on "choice", but the choice isn't very good. when apple's catalog approaches an effective level of "all" music, i don't doubt we'll see a subscription service to supplement the ala carte.

mcarvin

Jan 4, 2005, 02:51 PM

"With our plan customers can get 10,000 songs on their device for $180 a year. It's enormous value."

Onto WHAT device????

"Yahoo's Dave Goldberg also supports the subscription model. He told USA Today: "Selling 99-cent singles isn't working as a business model for us or for consumers. We sell hundreds of downloads but we don't make money on them. Subscriptions is a much better business for us."

If only those pesky little consumers would just do more of what's best for better business.
:mad:

He's got something right there - it's not working for them. It does however, work with Our Favorite Music Store because iTMS has the best user experience out there. Also, who wants to rent a song then be charged and extra $1 just to put it on some crappy 8-song Rio?

My favorite part though is "We sell hundreds of downloads...". Yeah, that versus hundreds of MILLIONS for iTMS. Goldberg and Gorog are the corporate equivalent of trolls.

xtremdav45

Jan 4, 2005, 03:28 PM

He got his facts wrong:

Gorog told USA today: "Filling a top-of-the-line iPod with 10,000 songs would cost $10,000 if you bought the songs from Apple.

Actually it would cost $9,900. :D

munkle

Jan 4, 2005, 03:31 PM

Predicting the demise of iTMS is a bit silly.

The 'a la carte' model is the popular choice at the moment, as demonstrated by the massive gulf in numbers. However, if the subscription model does take off in the future I can't see it being too difficult for Apple to incorporate a subscription service as well. Basically it does not have to be one or the other and I'm sure if/once Apple enters the subscription market it will dominate that as well.

Earendil

Jan 4, 2005, 03:42 PM

He got his facts wrong:

Actually it would cost $9,900. :D

Right, and filling a top of the line iPod with Napster songs cost you nothing ;)

rikers_mailbox

Jan 4, 2005, 04:43 PM

Obviously they're doing this because it's the only way they can hope to compete with Apple, and I do think there's a chance it might work. Nobody complains that they can only watch a TV show once, but they pay $50 a month for cable. My biggest concern with this model is that the right artists get paid for their work. I hope Napster has some way to compensate the artists whose music actually gets played the most.

Of course, if the subscription model does start to show serious promise, it will be a simple matter for Apple to adopt that model as well. Basically, Napster's up a creek either way.

Funny paradox with the TV/music comparison you're making. . .

TiVO makes it possible to record and keep the very programs you pay $50 to view. Try recording music from Napster and expect the RIAA to come knocking on your door.

One question about these subscription-based services. . . are the songs trasferrable to portable music players? Or do you have to be sitting at the computer and streaming the files? (sorry, I'm ignorant and spoiled by iTMS, and quite blissful about it)

Sharewaredemon

Jan 4, 2005, 04:50 PM

I think it's funny because all of there companies are trying to make money off music stores, whereas Apple is trying to get people to buy iPods through downloading from their music store. Though Apple may be making a profit from their music store, I think that it is sort of a bonus to them, they are REALLY making a profit off iPods.

Napster doesn't sell iPods.

wordmunger

Jan 4, 2005, 05:22 PM

Funny paradox with the TV/music comparison you're making. . .

TiVO makes it possible to record and keep the very programs you pay $50 to view. Try recording music from Napster and expect the RIAA to come knocking on your door.

I expect that will change within the next 5-10 years.

asif786

Jan 4, 2005, 05:31 PM

I wish these people (napster, et al) would get a grip. Jeez, just because they're not number one, they feel they have to rain on everyone apple's parade.

I cant wait for napster's financial results to come out. I wonder how much they'll be in the red.. :D :cool:

/asif

mrsebastian

Jan 4, 2005, 05:43 PM

this is such an old tale! people do not want to rent music, nor movies or any other collectible for that matter. why else would itunes and dvd sales be so tremendous. we as human beings are gatherers and love collecting stuff, be it music, movies, stuffed animals, or whatever. [bleep] that makes me think of a brilliant idea, i'm going to rent collectibles to people. whatever the latest craze, i'm gonna buy em all and then rent them to people for a $1 a day, i'm gonna be a millionaire!!... uh, no.

stop with the "people want subscription based music". yes there will be some, but in general people want to own/collect music, end of story. so napster and the like can take their buck-fifty they made this month from a few subscribers and shut the [bleep] up. thank you.

SiliconAddict

Jan 4, 2005, 06:17 PM

*yawns* Hmm an iTMS competitor talking trash with a half***ed plan. Wow that's new.

rikers_mailbox

Jan 4, 2005, 06:54 PM

I expect that will change within the next 5-10 years.

Agreed. It's already happening with TiVoToGo (http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/va/20050103/110478118100.html). . .
TiVo said the service was designed to respect the copyrights of copy-protected content. Certain programs, including pay-per-view and commercial DVDs, will not be transferable to a laptop.

We can expect more regulations and tons of freaked out Hollywood execs crying about lost revenue. Wonder what kind of DRM services like TiVo will use? Perhaps something that's proven to work. *cough-cough-AAC-iTunes-cough* :D

Nermal

Jan 4, 2005, 07:34 PM

this is such an old tale! people do not want to rent music, nor movies

Then why are movie rental places so popular?

nagromme

Jan 4, 2005, 07:49 PM

People occasionally want to watch a movie again, and so they own a few. But most movies people watch aren't known favorites, they're something new, only worth seeing once. So people rent, and play one or two movies at a time.

Music is different. You collect music you like and play it repeatedly, often as background for other activities, and often in a series of many songs in a row. It's really not the same situation.

NetFlix DVDs, for instance, appeal to me... Renting music downloads does not.

idkew

Jan 4, 2005, 09:30 PM

Then why are movie rental places so popular?

blockbuster just posted over a BILLION dollar loss. hollywood and blockbuster are both on slippery slope. we'll see if they last.

also- i have seen may favorite movie maybe 15 times, as opposed to my favorite album- 258 times, according to itunes. very different animals, music and movies.

noxes

Jan 4, 2005, 10:08 PM

So what happens when someone cracks the WMA protection, they can subscribe for a month and download the whole library at maximum speeds, crack them and for $15 have a million songs.

But alas it's in wma format.

dvdh

Jan 4, 2005, 10:57 PM

Here's a question about Napster's subscription: is there any guarantee that they will keep there subscription cost at $180 a year. Or are they trying to get customers now, and then raise the prices? From what I understand, once you stop the subscription, you lose all the music.

I can see there business plan already . . . this year $180, but *surprise* all subscribers get a message something like this in about 12 months:

"Due to increasing costs incurred in copyright licensing, we will now be billing your subscription at a new rate of $45.99 per month."

Then which model will be working better?

shamino

Jan 4, 2005, 11:42 PM

I can imagine being a college student and falling into the napster "free" college service after 4 years graduating and having my music collection evaporate unless I keep paying the man.
And I think you can be certain that these college students will find ways to make their collection permanent before graduation. Programs like WireTap (http://www.ambrosiasw.com/utilities/wiretap/) make this trivial on Macs without breaking any DRM schemes. I'm certain that there are similar programs for Windows.
Lastly, I have 40 giger with around 3,500 songs on it. Fun facts.
- I didn't pay $3500 to load it up with music from iTunes. I have spent maybe $60 on the songs I want but don't already have on CD.
My iTunes collection (don't yet own an iPod) is 35G. About 8000 songs. Almost all of it ripped from the CDs I've been buying for the past 15 years.
- I only consistently listen to about 1/3 of the songs on my ipod. Who the hell listens to completely different music from month to month?
Actually, I do. I have my iTunes set up to shuffle-play my entire collection. I like being surprised by hearing songs that I wouldn't have otherwise thought of.

shamino

Jan 4, 2005, 11:54 PM

Nobody complains that they can only watch a TV show once, but they pay $50 a month for cable.
You're comparing apples to oranges here.

A lot of cable subscribers pay for their subscription only because the picture quality from an antenna is unacceptibly bad. In the case of music, the pre-existing system (buying CDs or iTMS) has quality just as good or better than the Napster subscription.

Many more subscribe because they have no choice. If you want to watch certain shows (like the new Battlestar Galactica, on the SciFi channel), you either pay up or do without. Again, in the case of music, this is not an issue - you have a bigger selection with the pre-existing systems. (They say they'll have more tunes than iTMS. Maybe, but I won't believe it until I see it. And they definitely won't have more than all the stores that sell CDs.)

People "choose" cable subscriptions over purchasing TV shows because they have no choice. If the networks would start selling their shows at low prices (say, $1-2 per episode for a good-quality download that can be kept, burned to DVD-R, and played indefinitely), I think a lot of people would go for it. If I could do this for the 3-4 shows I routinely watch, I would do just that and tell my cable company to stick their service where the sun don't shine.
Of course, if the subscription model does start to show serious promise, it will be a simple matter for Apple to adopt that model as well. Basically, Napster's up a creek either way.
Agreed.

billyboy

Jan 5, 2005, 05:34 AM

Of course, if the subscription model does start to show serious promise, it will be a simple matter for Apple to adopt that model as well. Basically, Napster's up a creek either way.

The wonders of being a market leader so far ahead and with such a good basic infrastructure is that Apple can even cherrypick the "killer" ideas of competitors trying to catch up. (Although it is debatablw whether this Napster plan is a killer idea!) I would think Apple will only get undone when someone comes up with a completely different way of distributing music. But that is in the future and will be a similar topic of conversationn to "CDs will never take over from vinyl, or online music stores will never take off". Ride the wave and watch Napster flounder.

pbook15

Jan 5, 2005, 08:49 AM

- I only consistently listen to about 1/3 of the songs on my ipod. Who the hell listens to completely different music from month to month?
-

I do, infact it changes week to week and sometimes day to day, which is why i bought an iPod and put about 2000 songs on it. Of those songs, most were ripped from a CD or downloaded (illegally) but now that iTMS is available in Canada i have begun purchasing songs I want to own and listen to for the next few years at least. I've had some of my music for a good 6 or 7 years digitally, i couldn't imagine having to 'rent' it for that length of time.

pbook15

Jan 5, 2005, 08:52 AM

blockbuster just posted over a BILLION dollar loss. hollywood and blockbuster are both on slippery slope. we'll see if they last.

also- i have seen may favorite movie maybe 15 times, as opposed to my favorite album- 258 times, according to itunes. very different animals, music and movies.

DVD sales are also on the increase, people want to own box sets of their favourite TV shows, movies etc. not wait for it to come on TV again through syndication or go out and spend $5 each time they want to see it.

pbook15

Jan 5, 2005, 08:59 AM

If the networks would start selling their shows at low prices (say, $1-2 per episode for a good-quality download that can be kept, burned to DVD-R, and played indefinitely), I think a lot of people would go for it. If I could do this for the 3-4 shows I routinely watch, I would do just that and tell my cable company to stick their service where the sun don't shine.
Agreed.

See my post above. I just bought Season 5 of the Simpsons for about $45CDN, there are twentysomething episodes, works out to about $2 per episode, with special features. It seems that EVERY show on TV is putting out past seasons on DVD around this price. I just keep cable for a few chanels like TMN.

jbembe

Jan 5, 2005, 09:26 AM

He got his facts wrong:

Actually it would cost $9,900. :D

Additionally if one were to purchase the fart album and other such weird MP3's that folks were buying in mass when they were giving prizes away for the 100 Millionth download, it would cost considerably less for 10,000 songs. :cool:

applebum

Jan 5, 2005, 11:51 AM

All they have to do is keep everything the same and simply allow you to preview the entire song instead of just 30 seconds. Think about it, this is much better than a subscription - you get to keep any song you pay .99 for plus you can listen to well over 1,000,000 other songs. If you shop with a shopping cart, you could actaully put any song you would want to listen to in there, then you could listen to it on any computer with iTunes once you signed in. Give us that, and the whole idea of subscription would quickly fade away.

idkew

Jan 5, 2005, 12:59 PM

srobert

Jan 5, 2005, 02:00 PM

Allow me to quote Napster: <Charlie Brown's teacher's voice>Wah! wha-wah wah-wha-wha wha wha-wha wha!</Charlie Brown's teacher's voice>

applebum

Jan 5, 2005, 02:51 PM

the problem with this idea is that if apple were to do this, people would use the aforementioned Wiretap app and record these full length previews and apple would lose a ton of money, and help pirating.

Ahhhhaaa - but isn't that the problem with any subscription model available??? That is why I don't understand why the Record Companies would be behind that model.

idkew

Jan 5, 2005, 04:05 PM

Ahhhhaaa - but isn't that the problem with any subscription model available??? That is why I don't understand why the Record Companies would be behind that model.

i agree with you there... not sure why they agree.

the only diff. i see between a sub service and the previous "Itunes full length previews" is that the sub service gives you a DRM'd file to use, and the itunes does not. maybe that little guise of DRM is the reason...