Category: 3rd Party Software
Link: Napster To Give Away Music Players
Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Napster To Give Away Music Players
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Category: 3rd Party Software
Link: Napster To Give Away Music Players
Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
kinda funny, to me at least, that they aren't even giving away the Napster branded players.....but then again, maybe they realize that those suck and would deter customers
i guess Roxio and Napster are getting desperate if they are going to resort to this for attention and sales...i heard somewhere a while ago that they werent doing too good.....
i guess Roxio and Napster are getting desperate if they are going to resort to this for attention and sales...i heard somewhere a while ago that they werent doing too good.....
Wow this is not a good sign for those who invested in those companies.
Apple makes money from iPod sales and relatively very little in music sales.
I'm not sure how napster works but it doesn't seem like this will work for them.
Then again their business model might be totally different than apple's but I think i know which one is working best so far.
Apple makes money from iPod sales and relatively very little in music sales.
I'm not sure how napster works but it doesn't seem like this will work for them.
Then again their business model might be totally different than apple's but I think i know which one is working best so far.
does anyone see this as Napster's death knell?
they must be *really* desparate to attract business. It's been made painfully clear (and not just by apple) that online music stores DO NOT make money. desparate times call for desparate measures. Giving away players seems pretty desparate to me. . .
they must be *really* desparate to attract business. It's been made painfully clear (and not just by apple) that online music stores DO NOT make money. desparate times call for desparate measures. Giving away players seems pretty desparate to me. . .
No, no, NO!
This Napster is not the same as that Napster. THAT Napster "turned the world on it's ear". Then, it was shut down by a pack of lawyers who were unable to see the way of the world past 1994. Then, Roxio bought the name, and the name alone, of Napster (and Shawn Fanning). THIS Napster hasn't done much of anything important. THAT Napster is sorely missed.
30 songs in your pocket... and not compatible with your subscription?
So... this hideously ugly, supposedly-worth-$130 player, which will hold about 30 songs, comes "free" (aka $10 off) with a $120 subscription commitment. (Which probably auto-renews and brings you to $240 if you forget to cancel.)
Will the music you subscribe to even PLAY on it? As I understand it, you'll have to pay extra, per song, to even use this "free" $120 player. Your subscription alone will not allow the use of the player (yet--until MS's latest subscription scheme is ready perhaps--if and when that supports this player).
Please correct me if I misunderstand how Napster works.
By the way, elsewhere on the Web, the same player can be bought for under $100. And Amazon has the same player with TWICE the memory (256) for $125. (The 128 model seems to be discontinued or something--very hard to find online compared to the "bigger" 60-song model.)
Behold the glory:
AND a stopwatch. Sweet!
Could this be a perfect example of a "player you throw in a drawer and forget"?
I agree, no matter what Napster's paying for these (not much, you can be sure), I question whether this will truly help them stay afloat.
So... this hideously ugly, supposedly-worth-$130 player, which will hold about 30 songs, comes "free" (aka $10 off) with a $120 subscription commitment. (Which probably auto-renews and brings you to $240 if you forget to cancel.)
Will the music you subscribe to even PLAY on it? As I understand it, you'll have to pay extra, per song, to even use this "free" $120 player. Your subscription alone will not allow the use of the player (yet--until MS's latest subscription scheme is ready perhaps--if and when that supports this player).
Please correct me if I misunderstand how Napster works.
By the way, elsewhere on the Web, the same player can be bought for under $100. And Amazon has the same player with TWICE the memory (256) for $125. (The 128 model seems to be discontinued or something--very hard to find online compared to the "bigger" 60-song model.)
Behold the glory:
AND a stopwatch. Sweet!
Could this be a perfect example of a "player you throw in a drawer and forget"?I agree, no matter what Napster's paying for these (not much, you can be sure), I question whether this will truly help them stay afloat.
actually... it's a smart idea
apple makes money off of players... but if you de-value the player to where they become free to users, they may be less likely to spend money on buying players. cuts off the revenue stream.
there's money to be made in the music store - and napster/roxio only needs to make a little money now, and it's a big deal to a company with a limited amount of revenue - but to apple - they need the hardware sales to keep their massive overhead going.
apple makes money off of players... but if you de-value the player to where they become free to users, they may be less likely to spend money on buying players. cuts off the revenue stream.
there's money to be made in the music store - and napster/roxio only needs to make a little money now, and it's a big deal to a company with a limited amount of revenue - but to apple - they need the hardware sales to keep their massive overhead going.
I don't think THIS will de-value iPods, it will make iPods seem even better! There's no way this will cut off Apple's iPod revenue.
And Apple does NOT have massive iTunes overhead which the iPod must pay for. iTunes makes money ON IT'S OWN--sooner that Apple ever expected. In fact it broke even almost immediately. It doesn't make MUCH money--iPods do that--but it's not a loss. Other music services, including Napster, are taking losses as I understand it. The question is, is a 1-year commitment long enough for Napster to break even on each giveaway, or will they need to hook people for even longer? And will music stores ever be VERY profitable in the foreseeable future? Apple doesn't expect so--not directly.
Not to mention the other benefits to Apple--brand awareness, eventual resulting Mac sales (which nobody ought to expect to be immediate--think one or two upgrades down the road for people who would never have thought of Apple before), and competition against Microsoft's non-standards, including QuickTime vs. WMP.
And Apple does NOT have massive iTunes overhead which the iPod must pay for. iTunes makes money ON IT'S OWN--sooner that Apple ever expected. In fact it broke even almost immediately. It doesn't make MUCH money--iPods do that--but it's not a loss. Other music services, including Napster, are taking losses as I understand it. The question is, is a 1-year commitment long enough for Napster to break even on each giveaway, or will they need to hook people for even longer? And will music stores ever be VERY profitable in the foreseeable future? Apple doesn't expect so--not directly.
Not to mention the other benefits to Apple--brand awareness, eventual resulting Mac sales (which nobody ought to expect to be immediate--think one or two upgrades down the road for people who would never have thought of Apple before), and competition against Microsoft's non-standards, including QuickTime vs. WMP.
How many iTunes employees does it take to screw in a light bulb?
So you're saying Apple needs 10,000 more employees because of the iTunes store. And that they spend $250 million advertising the store that they would not have spent to sell iPods. And that they conceal both of those costs when they claim that the store has crossed over into profitability. And that financial analysts all fall for that deception.
I'm going to have to question those assertions
You're certainly correct that iPods make far MORE money. And that the iTunes store is a "feature" Apple can and does use to promote iPods.
So you're saying Apple needs 10,000 more employees because of the iTunes store. And that they spend $250 million advertising the store that they would not have spent to sell iPods. And that they conceal both of those costs when they claim that the store has crossed over into profitability. And that financial analysts all fall for that deception.
I'm going to have to question those assertions
You're certainly correct that iPods make far MORE money. And that the iTunes store is a "feature" Apple can and does use to promote iPods.
Hahaha...
This is SO right: "...trying to be creative..." He hit the nail exactly though he probably didn't mean it this way.
Laughing my A s s of...
--- --- --- --- ---
Free Desktop Pictures &
Digital Apple Collectibles!
http://homepage.mac.com/nuber
if it was the 20 gig napster player, i might almost be interested (the hd in there has got to be worth something, i'd probably end up extracting it and putting it in a usb2/firewire case).
the odd thing is they do offer the 1.5 gig player for $80 more, by giving you a rebate. the odd thing is they give you more for taking the 128M player than the more expensive HD player (130 vs 120).
i'm assuming they just have a huge stock of these players and this is a way to get rid of them.
the odd thing is they do offer the 1.5 gig player for $80 more, by giving you a rebate. the odd thing is they give you more for taking the 128M player than the more expensive HD player (130 vs 120).
i'm assuming they just have a huge stock of these players and this is a way to get rid of them.
Let's see. $120 for subscription. $80 more for 1.5 gig Nitrus player. So you're forking out $200 for a 1.5 gig player with no music to play on it. And for $249 (or less, if you have the ed. discount), you can get a 4 gig iPod Mini, and the intangibles that come with it. Is there something I'm missing here?
.80 per song plus $120 per year... ouch!
Apparently, you must pay .80 cents per song to actually put any MUSIC on the $99 player you've just paid $119 for.
Otherwise, you've got yourself a rather bulky stopwatch
Of course you can still use Napster to load CDs you already own onto the thing. (Well, two CDs anyway.) Oh, wait, no you can't... Unlike iTunes, Napster has no jukebox software to import CDs!
OK, OK... maybe you can't really DO much with the "free" player unless you pay even more. But at least for your $120 you can stream Napster music for a year (and then it's gone if you don't renew--or if Napster folds up). That's a great thing, since iTunes can't stream music. Oh, wait, yes it can... it has Internet radio, for free.
Apparently, you must pay .80 cents per song to actually put any MUSIC on the $99 player you've just paid $119 for.
Otherwise, you've got yourself a rather bulky stopwatch
Of course you can still use Napster to load CDs you already own onto the thing. (Well, two CDs anyway.) Oh, wait, no you can't... Unlike iTunes, Napster has no jukebox software to import CDs!
OK, OK... maybe you can't really DO much with the "free" player unless you pay even more. But at least for your $120 you can stream Napster music for a year (and then it's gone if you don't renew--or if Napster folds up). That's a great thing, since iTunes can't stream music. Oh, wait, yes it can... it has Internet radio, for free.
I may have misunderstood this new service, Napster 2. To my understanding it is a rental service. That's how they give away the players. It's like cell phones. You sign a contract and you get a phone/player. The problem that I saw, and to my understanding is, that if you don't renew your contract then your music is erased. At least that was what I got out of it. But I don't give a rat's a$$ because I have an ipod and own my music, to some extent anyway
nagromme said:
OK I had wanted to get a iBook when the the G3's were out, but wasn't allow to (My ex going on about me not knowing how to use it, I personally think it was jealously). Getting an iPod & iTunes was what sold me 100% that it was the best thing to get.