Napster Going Under?

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Jan 18, 2006.

  1. macrumors bot

    Jul 5, 2003


    Category: News and Press Releases
    Link: Napster Going Under?
    Description:: Digital Music News is reporting that the digital music subscription service, Napster, is in a dire financial situation, and that massive layoffs are eminent. Company executives may even be planning exit strategies that include a fire sale, or liquidation. In contrast, Apple's iTunes Music Store has scored 83 percent of the legal music download market.

    Posted on
    Approved by Mudbug
  2. macrumors 604


    Jan 20, 2005
    The Napster brand has always been synonymous with pirated, free music. It was pretty dumb to 're-brand' it. I guess the subscription model does not work for music.
    Here's to the Crazy Ones [​IMG]
  3. macrumors 601


    Jul 5, 2004
    Indeed, I was surprised to see a company take that name for a commercial purpose. :confused:
  4. macrumors 6502a


    Nov 27, 2003
    I sure hope those leeches die soon... iTunes Killer my a$$. ;)
  5. macrumors 68020


    Mar 14, 2004
    Chicago, IL
    The big question is, if they go under, what happens to people who bought music from them? Do they get permanent rights or are they SOL?

    On the other hand I laugh at Napster.
  6. macrumors 6502a


    Mar 19, 2005
    Perth, Oztrailya
    I never understood why people would happily accept the requirement of on-going payment in order to listen to their music collection. I for one wouldn't want Napster holding me by the balls like that.
  7. macrumors 68040


    Apr 7, 2005
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

    I'd laugh if those people DIDN'T get rights. Paying all of that money just to lose the ability to listen to music. Morons. Time and time again it's been proven that owning music is preferred over renting it. Why not listen to this, I don't know.
  8. macrumors 65816


    Jun 17, 2003
    Cincinnati, OH
    I would have liked to hear that Real was going under over Napster...
  9. macrumors 601


    Jan 8, 2004
    Back in the motherland
    As soon as Microsoft enters the market Napster AND Real will have a problem staying profitable. I'll predict that they disappear within 1-2 years after Microsoft enters.
  10. macrumors 6502

    Nov 30, 2005
    I was rooting for Creative Labs. Any anyone else that pursues childish macho posturing as a corporate strategy.
  11. macrumors 68040


    Oct 19, 2004
    Calgary, AB
    oh napster, you could have done so well had your straightened up and flew straight after the whole metallica lawsuit.

    But instead you decided to sit dormant for 5 years.

    My personally opinion is that if napster had come out with a subscription based service with 6-12 months of being shut down they could have control legal music downloads. But they simply didn't strike when the iron was hot.
  12. macrumors 604


    May 4, 2002
    Go Vegan
    Napster will fail. They have spent way too much money marketing like making commercials and web banners. They wanted to get their name out there, but, the problem is, their name is already out there. Most people still think Napster is that illegal downlading program from the late 90's. One thing for sure is, if Napster goes down, the people that use it will lose their music. I don't see Napster letting the people keep their music, it was a stupid gimmick anyway and I for one thing it'll fail soon. iTunes marketshare will keep raising and the little music downloading sites will start to be wiped clean from the internet.

    This is a good thing though, might mean more record labels and companies coming to the iTunes music store :D Because with no other altrernative, where would they go?
  13. macrumors 6502a


    Mar 19, 2005
    Perth, Oztrailya
    I'm not so sure that market domination by Apple is a good thing. A move towards legal downloads as a large proportion of music sales is a good idea, but if Apple has too much control certain standards may become set in stone. Like price-fixing, for example. Or choice over compression settings. A little competition is definitely healthy. Will MS supply it?
  14. macrumors 68020


    Nov 8, 2003
    New Zealand
    I doubt it, but who knows?
  15. macrumors regular

    Jul 23, 2002
    Open your mind a little. Do people feel entitled, when they disconnect their cable, that they should still be allowed to access their old pay per view movies? As long as subscribers are going in with their eyes open, there are many reasons why a subscription based model is better than pay per track (ppt). It depends on your listening habits.

    1) For people who listen to a lot of music, having access to a whole library is attractive. It keeps you from getting bored.

    2) It makes it easier to try out new bands, when you know that downloading a track you are unsure of, entails no risk. IMO, the 30 second previews are ass.

    3) It gives the company more flexibility in their offerings. They can upgrade their quality or move to a new codec, with basically no concern to end users.

    4) You don't have to worry about backing up your music files, which for large collections can be a pain.

    5) The price is inexpensive. For approximately 1 CD per month, I can access a provider's entire library. In ten years that's only 120 CD's. In the last 10 years I've bought more than 400 CD's, but I still want new music to listen to.

    6) If money gets tight, I can cancel my subscription for a time, and when I'm in the clear, sign back up the entire collection is back.

    7) If you have a family, like me, you don't need multiple subscriptions.

    The only reason I don't subscribe to a service like Napster is because I refuse to support WMA. Well, that and obviously it doesn't support Mac's; I refuse to have a PC in my house. If Apple opened a subscription service, I'd be first in line, whereas I don't really like iTMS. So next time you feel that people are morons for going against the most popular delivery system, please take a second to realize that there are likely people as smart or smarter than you who have made educated decisions contrary your beliefs.

  16. macrumors 604


    May 4, 2002
    Go Vegan
    Yeah you do have a good point, competition is good. I'm sure there will always be competition but, it has to be pretty big, deffinetly not from some of these little companies that are coming and going on the internet. It would have to be from somewhere big, Google...Yahoo...Microsoft...:rolleyes:
  17. macrumors 603



    However, those that did, got precisely what they wished, and paid, for.


  18. macrumors 603




    1. Owning your music once and for all?

    2. Like being able to put YOUR music on 5 devices/CPU's?

    3. Like being "cool" like everyone else?

    Apple's "domination" is ORGANIC not cheated or FORCED.

  19. macrumors 6502

    Feb 20, 2003
    Palo Alto, CA
    Subscription vs "buying"

    Crackpip, I'm totally with you. If one spends over the cost of a subscription each year anyway, then isn't it better to have access to all the music in the store, not just what on "buys".

    If Apple did a subscription service to all iTunes music at $10/month I'd be right behind you in line.

    Or how about a lifetime subscription for $500? All iTunes music, for ever. Is that owning or renting? Is there really a difference?
  20. macrumors Core

    Jan 6, 2004
    won't surprise me at all.
    its bound to happen to them after all. they've tried to hard. and spent too much money with little profits.

    good riddence. the name "napster" was a horrible choice for such a business anyways given its predicessor.
  21. macrumors 601


    Feb 17, 2002
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    The same thing could be said about the iTMS, that you are renting your music.

    Hypothetical, Apple or the iTMS goes under.
    You get a new computer, load iTunes on it, and want to play your music.
    Whoops, you need to authorize!
    Authorization server no longer exists, you can't authorize.
    Now you can't play your music that you bought.
  22. macrumors Core

    Jan 6, 2004
    at least you have the chance to re-rip it though if you burned it as an audio cd. pain yes. but still a viable option.
  23. macrumors 603


    Aug 20, 2005
    Thank you Jah...I'm so Blessed
    Yea, do they screw those people or give them what they paid for. I think they will get screwed without a kiss.

  24. macrumors 68040


    Apr 7, 2005
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    There is a large difference. Why? Well, here goes my explanation as to why subscription services are stupid, and people are stupid for buying into what's not advertized right on the cover.

    15 bucks a month get you unlimited access ONLY on your PC.

    The radio sucks, plain and simple. So, you want to burn a cd or two to take with you for the week. Well, guess what, that 15 bucks you just spent? It's a waste, because now you have to PAY to burn those tracks to a CD, which is what? About a dollar a song? Maybe less? So now, instead of being able to burn the music you want, whenever you want,you ahve to pay to burn it.

    "Well, then I'll just get an iPod to transport the music." Good plan my fellow netizen, but it will not work. Because you have to pay to sync a portable player to it as well.

    But, alas, what if you not only want to have a portable music player, but burn a CD to take to a party or play in your car or your stereo at work? AHA! There's paying twice for those songs!

    It's foolish. Subscription based service is absolutely foolish monetary wise. Sure, you can get around the whole DRM scheme with playback/record methods. But that again is time consuming, and frankly, boring.

    And, I agree I'd rather see REAL networks out of the lineup. But give it time, it'll happen.
  25. macrumors G3


    Aug 30, 2003
    It sure looks like someone is trying to play games with the stock. They're releasing annual numbers in a couple weeks.

Share This Page