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 vs iTunes: Superbowl Ad
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ctachme said:
I agree that there are some people that will like this. There is some nice flexibility in being able to sample a lot of songs. This is a different model than iTunes, almost to the point where it's hard to compare them. The Napster offer is basically one of giving you a customized radio station. You can listen to the songs when you want to, but you don't own them. For people that don't like buying a lot of CDs but like a wide variety of music, this isn't a bad deal.
A lot of people DO like to rent instead of own. Think of how many movies you've rented on VHS or DVD but didn't buy. Why? You didn't know if you liked it enough to buy it. I think that's really what Napster is doing here. Remember when Napster was the free, illegal software? Illegal downloaders often argued that it was GOOD for the music producers because it allowed people to sample what they would be willing to buy later. That seems to be why the record companies have signed on to this new Napster. By renting the songs, they're creating interest in songs that people may want to buy later. In that sense, it's much more efficient direct marketing than their payola radio schemes.
I think a lot of the objections on this thread come from the fact that this is a model that, by definition, doesn't appeal to iPod users as much. As many others have pointed out, most already had a big music collection when they bought the iPod. (Otherwise they wouldn't need so much capacity.) These people will not be spending anything close to $10,000 buying music online. To us "iPod people," the idea of renting music that you can't keep is silly, but that doesn't mean no one will like it.
I predict that Napster will do OK, but not nearly as well as iTMS. People that are intrigued by their "do the math" campaign will try it out. If they like the flexibility of renting music, they'll stick with it. If they prefer buying, they will find themselves looking longingly at the iPod instead. I don't think this will hurt Apple much.
The ad sucked yes, but if you do the math:
50 years * 12 months/year * 15 dollars/month = $9000
That's $9000 over essentially the course of one's life for unlimited access to an entire library of a million songs (or more). (This is simplistic of course since it assumes Napster will be there for 50 years.) Not a bad proposition if you ask me.
(And "ownership" of iTMS music has been modified already when Apple changed the licensing terms if you wanted to continue using iTMS. Definitely a different concept of ownership than buying a CD and having the same capabilities until it deteriorates in a thousand years.)
Personally I'd like to see Apple add a subscription model to iTMS. It's probably not that hard to do with the current technology and I'll pay $15 a month to access that entire library.
50 years * 12 months/year * 15 dollars/month = $9000
That's $9000 over essentially the course of one's life for unlimited access to an entire library of a million songs (or more). (This is simplistic of course since it assumes Napster will be there for 50 years.) Not a bad proposition if you ask me.
(And "ownership" of iTMS music has been modified already when Apple changed the licensing terms if you wanted to continue using iTMS. Definitely a different concept of ownership than buying a CD and having the same capabilities until it deteriorates in a thousand years.)
Personally I'd like to see Apple add a subscription model to iTMS. It's probably not that hard to do with the current technology and I'll pay $15 a month to access that entire library.
But I still won't be watching more than the 4-5 shows I watch now. And if the provider decides to stop carrying them, I'm SOL.AlmostThere said:
No thanks. Given a choice, I still want to own what I watch. I want to be able to keep a permanent archive of what I like, so I can watch them years later, after the rest of the world has decided they're unprofitable or uninteresting.
I'm talking about owning what I watch. You're talking about drinking from the firehose.AlmostThere said:
This is the problem with the entire entertainment industry. Customers say they want something, and the rest of the world says "no, you don't really want that. You want this instead..." Just like you did with your post.
While some companies have made money by spitting on their customers, those days are fading fast. You can only ignore customer demands when those customers have no other choice. The instant they get a choice, they'll run away screaming in a heartbeat.
There are a few. I was searching last week and found two Kenwood models that will play unprotected AAC files.Lacero said:
And this is the real truth. The media companies don't want you to own anything. They want all media, in all form factors, to be pay-per-play.spacepower7 said:
The fact that you can buy CDs without DRM makes them angry enough to spit bullets. They don't like the fact that the DVDs you buy don't self-destruct after the first playback. (Which is why they invented DivX, and lost a lot of money trying to force it on an unwilling audience.)
These are the same people who (a few decades ago) tried to have VCRs outlawed, because they don't want you to be able to watch a TV show more than once, and they want to force you to watch it at the time they show it.
And now, they're trying to pass "induce" laws that will make it illegal to manufacture anything that is theoretically capable of copying anything - including CD-R drives, photocopiers, VCRs, and computers.
They would rather drive their entire industry out of business than allow their customers to have even the slightest shred of control.
None in the past five years. Less than ten in my entire life.aloofman said:
But that's a red herring. There's a big difference between movies and music.
Most of the time, you watch a movie once, and never again. Most people don't want to watch a movie (which typically runs 90-130 minutes) again and again. They just don't have the time. Since you're only watching it once anyway, rental (or going to a theater) isn't too bad a deal. You don't care if you have to keep on paying to keep on watching, because you know you're not going to watch it again anyway.
Music, on the other hand, is qualtitatively different. When I buy an album, I listen to it dozens of times. And after I rip it into the Mac, its songs get shuffled in with the rest of my collection.
People generally do not treat music as a "one play only" item the way they do with movies.
The way you describe this, it's even worse. You think I'm going to pay my money in order to sponsor a crooked corporation's advertising budget?aloofman said:
Nothing Wrong with Napster Model
Personally I dont see anything wrong with Napsters rent model.
And I'm sure it will appeal to a fairly large audience. Personally I don't buy music downloads at all, but I might be willing to pay for the Napster service for my daughter. She has very wide tastes in music and could get everything she wants and very cheaply. It certainly is cheaper for me than buying her cds. I figure it might save me several hundred dollars a year.
On another note, I bought her a 20G ipod which she never uses. She likes her flash based player better.( mainly because of battery life).
Personally I dont see anything wrong with Napsters rent model.
And I'm sure it will appeal to a fairly large audience. Personally I don't buy music downloads at all, but I might be willing to pay for the Napster service for my daughter. She has very wide tastes in music and could get everything she wants and very cheaply. It certainly is cheaper for me than buying her cds. I figure it might save me several hundred dollars a year.
On another note, I bought her a 20G ipod which she never uses. She likes her flash based player better.( mainly because of battery life).
Assuming every song you ever want to listen to is in their service when you want to hear it.cmoney said:
If they are missing stuff, then you have to buy that material in addition to this subscription fee. The same thing happens if their people decide that your favorite songs are not popular enough, and delete them from the system.
And if they decide the whole service isn't profitable and drop it, all that money you paid ends up for nothing - you'll have to go and buy your songs all over again.
The only modification Apple made to their terms make it less restrictive, not more.cmoney said:
The original terms said "three computers only". Now it's five.
Yes, the number of CD burns changed from 10-per-playlist to 7-per-playlist, but is that impacting you at all? When you can simply destroy and re-create the playlist with the same songs and get another 7 burns?
If you're worried that some future version of iTunes will make all your music go away, all you have to do is burn audio CDs with the files. This will be just as unrestricted as a purchased CD. Good luck doing this with Napster's service (without payind per-track fees in addition to your subscription, of course.)
cmoney said:
But when you dont understand is that most people arent going to spend $15 a month on music downloads. Maybe the first month or so a person with no CD music collection is going to download what they want. How much that would cost... I dont know, but far less then buying all thee CDs needed to get the songs you want. After that, new bands may release a new CD every few years or so. That means, that from month to month, most people wont download $15 worth of songs from iTunes. Why would you pay $15 a month for a service in which I would MAYBE speend $5 worth? Not worth it.
The complaint: With Napster I dont' 'own' my songs. I have to keep paying $15 a month to hear them. I don't want to 'borrow' or 'rent' my music,I want it at my finger tips whenever I want it,wherever I want it and with Napster I can't do that.
The solution: http://www.replay-music.com/?src=RR5E
The solution: http://www.replay-music.com/?src=RR5E
ok...so i did the math:
$15 divided by $.99= 15.1515152 itunes songs per month (or one new song every two days)
15.1515152 x 12 months= 181.818182 itunes songs per year or (at four minutes per song) 727.272728 minutes of new music per year (or 18 albums with 10 songs per album)
unless you are obscenely addicted to new music (and perhaps particularly, to *bad* music...for good music, like a good book, can be listened to over and over again without one's getting tired of it...now...depending on one's opinion of the state of contemporary music...maybe the napster thing isn't a bad deal...after all...if music is so poor that you can only stand to listen to it once, you may as well do the napster thing...) with good music, however, 18 new albums per year should be more than enough...there are people starving...of course...that's just one macuser's opinion...
$15 divided by $.99= 15.1515152 itunes songs per month (or one new song every two days)
15.1515152 x 12 months= 181.818182 itunes songs per year or (at four minutes per song) 727.272728 minutes of new music per year (or 18 albums with 10 songs per album)
unless you are obscenely addicted to new music (and perhaps particularly, to *bad* music...for good music, like a good book, can be listened to over and over again without one's getting tired of it...now...depending on one's opinion of the state of contemporary music...maybe the napster thing isn't a bad deal...after all...if music is so poor that you can only stand to listen to it once, you may as well do the napster thing...) with good music, however, 18 new albums per year should be more than enough...there are people starving...of course...that's just one macuser's opinion...
I cannot wait until the next Keynote when Steve gets up and lambastes those poor Napster fools with a recap of their lame Super Bowl ad and then, statistcally, how iTunes mopped the floor up with them. I hope he includes how much an ad like that costs versus their return. It is going to be soooo sweet!
shamino said:
My point was that few iPod users will be persuaded that Napster is better, but some people might. Just because it doesn't appeal to you, doesn't mean it will fail. Their ads are not aimed at people who already have iPods -- since Napster's songs are incompatible anyway -- but at people who are thinking about getting an iPod, but balk at the price.
A lot of people will see through the fuzzy math and disagree with the concept, like you do, but that doesn't mean it won't work. Consumers have been known to fall for dumber things.
There are probably people who will buy into the Napster thing. Funny thing is that alot of those people fall into the younger crowd- who are not as financially stable and have little brand loyalty. Those who think "Why pay $15 a month to download music (that I dont own) if I can get it for free on Kazza?"
This is VERY different from the clientele that iTunes gets. Usually people who will pay for what they like. The same people who buy iPods.
Apple is providing a fantastic service for a client base that will pay for this fantastic service.
Napster may work for a while, but I don't think it's going to impact iTunes very much at all.
This is VERY different from the clientele that iTunes gets. Usually people who will pay for what they like. The same people who buy iPods.
Apple is providing a fantastic service for a client base that will pay for this fantastic service.
Napster may work for a while, but I don't think it's going to impact iTunes very much at all.
Monthly subscription "Sounds Good To Me"
$15 is the cost of 1 CD a month.
I have around 200 CD's at ~$15 each so thats $3000.
At $15 per month my $3000 would = 16+ years of unlimited access to all my songs + sooooo much more. I wouldn't have to worry about scraching my CD's or the physical space to hold them. I would never have to go to my stereo to change my CD's.
$15 is the cost of 1 CD a month.
I have around 200 CD's at ~$15 each so thats $3000.
At $15 per month my $3000 would = 16+ years of unlimited access to all my songs + sooooo much more. I wouldn't have to worry about scraching my CD's or the physical space to hold them. I would never have to go to my stereo to change my CD's.
BanditBill said:
Why don't you take those 200 CDs and drop them onto an iPod? Now, you own these songs for your lifetime and you don't have to worry about scratching them, changing the CDs or keeping them. Napster doesn't add anything to this, it just means you will pay $15 per month for your lifetime for those songs if you got them from Napster.
The math is compelling if you listen to music 24/7/365 and your musical tastes are wide and varied, and you don't mind hooking your player to your computer every 30 days, and you never burn a CD, and Napster survives for more than the next two years, and everything works as promised including those .wma files on your player of choice. Than Napster's idea is great.
But, I still want to OWN my music, and you should too. DRM is a bad thing, a necessary evil, don't buy into a deeper set of it where we all get to rent our music.
I've said this before on another thread but just because you've purchased a CD does not mean you now OWN the music. You are only given permission to USE that music, under "fair use" terms. Ownership of that music is still left to the record label (or whoever). If you truly want to OWN the music, you can probably expect to pay a boatload of money to the rights holder.
Priceless - Do the Math
Apple iPod: 40gb $399
Ripping my entire CD/LP collection: (25gb) $0
Music I downloaded from Napster in the late 90s: (13gb) $0
Pepsi iTunes Music (.01gb) $5
iTunes Music, 1 song/week, 5 years (1.25gb) $250
Grand Total $650
Getting to keep all my music after Napster goes belly-up: Priceless
Napster Music Thing @ $15/month for 5 years $900
Doing the math while sober instead of drunk during superbowl: Priceless
jncrow said:
Apple iPod: 40gb $399
Ripping my entire CD/LP collection: (25gb) $0
Music I downloaded from Napster in the late 90s: (13gb) $0
Pepsi iTunes Music (.01gb) $5
iTunes Music, 1 song/week, 5 years (1.25gb) $250
Grand Total $650
Getting to keep all my music after Napster goes belly-up: Priceless
Napster Music Thing @ $15/month for 5 years $900
Doing the math while sober instead of drunk during superbowl: Priceless
GO DADDY
go daddy was evidently supposed to have two slots for there add according to fox news
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146704,00.html
the second got pulled by the nfl and fox.
go daddy was evidently supposed to have two slots for there add according to fox news
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146704,00.html
the second got pulled by the nfl and fox.
I have not been able to find any information about how Napster keeps you from using the music once terminate your account with them. I know when listening online with your computer you can no longer login and stream the music to your computer.
However, once you put music on your own player, how do they get the songs back, self-destruct or stop playing. I am not aware of the Divx equivalent for MP3s where they have a time limit or lifetime that has to be renewed.
Can someone explain how once you download songs from Napster and put them on your iPod or other player and then terminate your account how these songs are not longer yours or usable. Not like it is a library or movie rental store where they know when you have not returned the borrowed item and charge you replacement or full retail costs.
However, once you put music on your own player, how do they get the songs back, self-destruct or stop playing. I am not aware of the Divx equivalent for MP3s where they have a time limit or lifetime that has to be renewed.
Can someone explain how once you download songs from Napster and put them on your iPod or other player and then terminate your account how these songs are not longer yours or usable. Not like it is a library or movie rental store where they know when you have not returned the borrowed item and charge you replacement or full retail costs.
Nobody here is disputing this fact.dejo said:
Everybody know that, within the context of this discussion, "own" means "have the ability to play the songs forever without paying any additional money."
The fact that you don't have the right to re-publish the material is not relevant to this discussion. I also can't re-publish a book, but only an extremely pedantic and desperate lawyer would waste his time stridently insisting that I don't own the 200 sheets of printed paper I bought at the local book store.