Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It's not as simple as people are making it out to be. That's not to say it will be a smashing success, but it's a different model and has its own particular pro's and con's.

The main benefit is that you can download a TON of new music to your player, and have access to it at any time. It's more than 'previewing', you basically get to listen to anything and everything whenever you want.

But of course the catch is you have to keep suscribing, or else you have nothing at the end of the day. But for certain people I think this is not bad at all.

I did a free trial of RealRhapsody at one point (also a suscription service, but streamed to your computer.) They had a pretty extensive library, and it was cool to be able to play anything you wanted.

But personally, I don't pay for digital music from anyone in any form, because I'd much rather buy a high-fidelity CD for the same price rather than 128 kbps compressed files.

In the end, choice is good. So if this model gains any traction, I'd like to see Apple offer the same thing (in addition to buying music, not replacing buying music.)
 
Cfly said:
apple should also offer this to put them out of business.

I'd like to see Apple offer it, since it's an option users don't have at all right now, but I'm not sure if I'd use it or not. Depends. I would think Apple would have lots of weird issues to work out, like what happens to my iMovies with iTunes tracks built into them after I cancel the service.
 
I see their point. If I had to pay that many thousand of dollars to fill up my iPod I wouldn't ever do it. I do have a fairly large CD collection which I have picked up over the years for an average of $4-$5 per disc (used and through clubs and stuff). My friends and family have done the same. Share with them and share with the rest of the world via P2P (everyone does this and yes most of my music is legit) and rip your CD's at a higher bitrate or use Apple Lossless and you can fill up an iPod fairly quickly for a lot less than thousands of dollars.

I don't want to rent my music! But it would be nice if you could purchase songs for a lot less than $.99 (although $.99 is a good price).

I know I'm all over the place but bottom line is I don't think Napster has a winning idea. I think Apple does but not enough to make everyone stop sharing music. I am cheap with my music purchase.
 
retromac said:
Can these Napster music files be shared with other computers? Apples itunes music files can be shared with other computers right? (limited number?)
Music downloaded from the iTunes Music Store can only be played on your computer and your iPod. But, once you've paid for them, they are yours forever (ie, there is no subscription charge)... and you can burn them to CD if you want too. You can't do any of that with Napster (as far as I know).
 
motherfather said:
The last time a company told consumers to "do the math" was with the Atari Jaguar.

And we all know how that one turned out.

Now that's funny. As far as Napster goes - I think they'll go the way of the Atari Jaguar. Who wants to rent their music?
 
Norouzi said:
I agree that I don't want to rent my music, I want to own it. If I want to burn a CD of it I want to be able to, or use it for a slideshow or a move. I think it's stupid that I would pay $15 a month to basicly try out music. If I really like it and want to have it permantly I still have to buy it. Plus I'd never trade my iPod for a lesser MP3 player just so it would work with this service.

I, too, want to own my music. But, how many people out there will look at the Janus/Napster model as "being able to test play hundreds of CD's a month for the cost of just one?"

I think there is room in the playing field for subscription models to survive. Maybe it is not for you or me, but there are people out there content to just listen and not own - Satellite radio, anyone? Of course, to be truly successful in the same vein as iTMS, they have to work with the best player out there, the iPod. If subscription services show they can have legs, Apple will show everyone how to do it right, by offering this as an alternative on the iTMS.
 
Heres my view:

I listen to my songs on shuffle (95% of the time at least). So, this means I want my stuff to be played radomly. For $10 a month I can get XM radio. I get all songs in random, plus, I can listen to talk shows about anything and everything, sports...what ever I'd like. Plus, I won't have to download squat!

XM/Sirrus are the subscribtion models that will work. Not Janus from Microsoft.

This is the way it needs to go:
1. XM & Sirrus need to merge.
2. $9.99 for the subscription
3. iPod gets XM

I would so be a happy camper if this were to play out.

Napster and other MS style services will croak. It isn't working for them. Apple played the cards the right way.
 
Some will like it

... and these sorts of services will probably happily coexist with purchase-based models. People subscribe to TV services like movie channels, but still buy DVD's in increasing numbers.

Ownership is a much bigger deal than Napster makes it out to be... if they could get their purchase model to be as successful as iTunes, I doubt they would even entertain this approach - this smacks of those companies who can't get close to Apple directly trying to fight a different battle instead.

And crucially for me, if Napster goes bang (not so unlikely), so does your ENTIRE music collection. Now that's just not funny. Nor is there CD burning, so you're locked to their tech in a far more sinister way than FairPlay does.

Thanks, but no thanks.
 
motherfather said:
The last time a company told consumers to "do the math" was with the Atari Jaguar.

And we all know how that one turned out.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Atari Jaguar.... too funny. :D

I would never RENT music. That is just the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I've always bought cassettes. I've always bought CD's. Now, I buy music files. Up until the MP3 "revolution," people were buying CD's.
the only guy I ever knew who came close to renting was taking CD's out from the FREE library, ripping them as wavs, and burning his own.
 
Hmmm...

Went to Dictionary.com and did a search for Napster; and what I got back was no surprise:

"No entry found for Napster"

So if I were to make up a meaning for this word it would be a person who loves to sleep often, you know like make a hobby out of sleeping!!!!

I know, its pretty lame, but "While they slept, they dreamed of taking down iTunes. When they woke, they found the dream was actually a nightmare:0

Oh well...Keep trying you PC Weenies!:)
 
According to my math, to fill up a 10,000 capacity iPod would cost $9,900 (worst case), or 55 years of subscription service. iTunes is cheaper in the long run, but I doubt I spend anywhere close to $15 a quarter on iTMS, and I'd hate to think if I ever lost my job, I'd also loose my collection of delta Blues music
 
People are going to get burned out listening to their subscribed music for the first 3 months, then they'll always feel they are getting ripped off if they don't listen to their music but still paying monthly. Soon, the novelty wears off and they'll go back to just buying music they like and want to actually own.
 
Cfly said:
apple should also offer this to put them out of business.

It would be cool if Apple did offer a subscription service that was specificaly for the iPod Shuffle. It could be like an autofill playlist, say $4.99 for 512M and $9.99 for 1G of music. Pick, choose and change your content as much as you want. They could easily tie this into a .mac account.
 
They discount the iPods storage ...

They discount that quite a few people use the storage capacity to back up as well ... not just for music.

The ease of ripping your CURRENT collection of CDs is where iTunes/iPods really shine vs any other experience

Also, the Napster Mp3 player doesn't play solitare or brickles ;-)

Also, the sheer volume of iPod specific accessories and peripherals makes it a VERY attractive purchase.
 
While I hope that Apple watches this carefully (as I expect they will), I would say that Napster is over-looking the following things:

1. They seem to assume that people have NO music when they get their music player. In fact quite the opposite if probably true. People don't buy a 10,000 song iPod if they have no music. They maybe buy a mini or even a shuffle. So people are likely already filling their iPods...or close to it.

2. They assume that people will actually WANT to fill their iPods completely. 10 or 10 thousand songs is a LOT. A LOT. People are much more likely to "fill" in smaller increments. Which brings us to...

3. For $14.95/month, at the end of the year, I can actually OWN around 180 songs (perhaps more). That's only about 12 hours of music...but I've started (or enhanced) my own music collection...in a digestable way (I mean who on earth is going to just select 10,000 songs...renting...and just load up their iPod?)

4. Their model seems to strike a little closer to a radio model. This might have some value, but upon further examination, probably not. I can just listen to the radio for free. If I want more control ove the music I listen to...well...take me back to #3 (above).

5. Of course most have said this already...people prefer to own rather than rent. This kind of commerce model works for certain products/services which really demand it (Cable TV comes to mind...they keep feeding you new programming every day/week/month). This is less true for music.

6. I surely don't want another monthly bill.

There are probably more.
 
Apple can offer a comparable service any time it makes sense!

And it will work with iPods & iTunes.

And it will coexist with the existing Apple offerings.

This (Napster) is a non-starter ... not gonna' sell my Apple stock & buy Napster :)
 
I'd like to see Apple off subscription service also. It gives music lovers the chance to explore other music genres. I really only buy music from iTMS that i know I like. But i'd like the chance to expand my music options.
Porchland said:
I'd like to see Apple offer it, since it's an option users don't have at all right now, but I'm not sure if I'd use it or not. Depends. I would think Apple would have lots of weird issues to work out, like what happens to my iMovies with iTunes tracks built into them after I cancel the service.
 
Ya know what, I think its great that Napster wants to do this

Let people experience how crappy it will all go. :rolleyes:

Then they can buy a REAL mp3 player and com over to the darkside and DL from iTunes. :cool:
 
Too bad that none of the tracks you can rent from Napster will play on the most popular MP3 player in the world, the iPod. It doesn't matter how much they charge you per month, you still can't play them on an iPod. But they leave that detail to the small print. Maybe their argument should have been:

How much would it cost to fill your iPod with music from iTMS? About $10,00 [more like less than $9,900 actually].

How much would it cost to fill your iPod with music from Napster? $14.95/month, you say? Oh wait. Sorry. No matter what you pay, you can't do it.

P.S. Napster doesn't even work outside of Windows XP/2000.
 
*shrugs* Don't really care. Apparently Napster wasn't paying attention during the Divxx vs. DVD wars. There WAS a reason why Divxx got stomped by DVD. Napster will just be another speedbump in the continuing spiral of pay to play services. Some people will use it because of their music preferences but most won't.
 
dejo said:
Too bad that none of the tracks you can rent from Napster will play on the most popular MP3 player in the world, the iPod.

Yah to bad Apple doesn't give anyone that option. :rolleyes:

You make it sound as if its Napster's fault. IF anyone's to blame for that its Apple.
 
Piracy Concerns

How comfortable can the record companies be with this model? What's to stop people from grabbing 10000 songs for $15, digitizing them as MP3 files, and freely distributing them?
 
powermac666 said:
I, too, want to own my music. But, how many people out there will look at the Janus/Napster model as "being able to test play hundreds of CD's a month for the cost of just one?"

I think there is room in the playing field for subscription models to survive. Maybe it is not for you or me, but there are people out there content to just listen and not own - Satellite radio, anyone? Of course, to be truly successful in the same vein as iTMS, they have to work with the best player out there, the iPod. If subscription services show they can have legs, Apple will show everyone how to do it right, by offering this as an alternative on the iTMS.

i generally agree with your points, but i still don't see subscription service surviving. the thing is, most of us do not listen (or even sample) that many CDs per month after month after month. (which is what you'd need to do to justify $15 per month price.) and the difference from the satellite radio is that the radio is a passive source - you choose in general genre what you want to listen to and after that, the music/sound is fed to you. with napster, you have to be making an active choice in music you want to hear. otherwise, you'll just feel like you are wasting money because nothing is coming from the napster service unless you tell it to do something.

i imagine many users will realize that after paying $15 a month, they've only listened to 4 new songs from 3 CDs on average. if such is the case, iTMS would be cheaper because you'd only spend $4 and get to keep the music as well.

it's not for everyone and it's definitely for some people. but i think accounting/marketing types are grossly overestimating those "some people." subscription model has never taken off and being able to add music to your portable device will probably not change that.

i say let napster blow their money on the ad. and we'll see how much longer they'll survive, much less challenge iTMS.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.