Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
SiliconAddict said:
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.

no it's not. they should offer it as an mp3 then. why is it apple's problem that they can't negotiate with the labels to offer the music in the mp3 format?

otherwise, iPod is an apple product. apple owes no one to license their technology. if napster wanted to offer music that will play on the iPod, napster should pile so much $$$ that apple can't turn it down.
 
It's being done all the time

godrifle said:
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?

You mean like recording songs off of the radio, making mp3's and distributing them over the internet?

Who would do such a thing?

Kids with no money, maybe?
 
The Math

Macrumors said:
"Do the Math"


Umm, okay.

$15/month is $180/year. I'm 31, so just getting me to retirement age I'm talking about over $6000. And if I stop then (less disposable income) I guess I didn't really ever want to hear the songs of my misbegotten youth again anyways.

$15/month. I generally spend considerably less than that buying CDs (I average less than one per month), and even in my most music-buying-frenzy days (esp just after college), I'd spend maybe twice that in a month. But, still, spending $30/month for a few years, then around $5/month the rest of my life so far, still doesn't average out to $15/month. And if I never bought another CD in my entire life, I can listen to Nirvana's Nevermind until my ears bleed.

Hmm. I've done the math, not just in music, but in many areas of my life. Paying rent sucks compared to owning a house. Renting a movie that you watch more than a handful of times sucks compared to buying that movie to have on hand. Taking a taxi everywhere sucks compared to owning my own car. And renting my music a month at a time sucks big-time compared to being able to enjoy the songs I enjoy today, which are inextricably mixed in with my memories of years past and are even at this moment entertwining with the nascent memories of today, any time I want whenever I want. Even if I lose my job or retire I still have my music, and my memories, safe and sound.

I like it that way. The math adds up much better that way. Thank you very much, Napster, for urging me to reaffirm that.
 
This is dumb. They are going friggin' backwards. The whole reason the iTunes Music Store succeeded is that back when it was introduced it was revolutionary to "own" and not "rent" your music from an online digital music service. If you sign up for this service and find a song you like from the monthly mix then you'd still have to buy it from the online store, only then would you be able to keep it and move it to something like a CD so you'd be able to play it in your car. Under their model you would have to pay fifteen bucks a month to do something that we can already get from any radio station. The brilliance of the iTunes MusicStore is that you have, i'd say 3/4, control over your music. The only complaint you'd have from somebody new to the service is that they would have to use an iPod for a digital music player, but few people in their right minds complain about owning an iPod.
 
varmit said:
$15 X 12 months = 180 yearly.
...
I did the math, I like my iTunes.
My thoughts exactly. If I listened to a lot of music, loved variety, and hated the radio, then the subscrption model plus a portable player might be attractive to me (well, actually, I'd probably get XM radio, but whatever).

But that's not me; in the past year I've spent probably $30 at the iTMS, all on either full albums I wanted or single tracks I loved having on a more permenant basis. I've spent another $100 on import CDs, none of which are available on iTMS or Napster, so basically I've saved $50 by not going with them.

Sure, there have been a couple dozen tracks that I'd have listened to in full if I had a subscription but wasn't willing to buy, but even if I did buy all those I'd still be saving money over a Napster subscription.

Still, it'll be interesting to see how this works.
 
guys... 15 bucks a month and u can dl AS MUCH MUSIC AS U WANT AND TRANSFER IT TO UR PLAYER... i mean cmon' that rocks
 
Here's the Math

How many songs will you have after you get sick and tired of paying $15/month and cancel your subscription?

I thought so.
 
The math

Let's see here. I've got over 500 CDs in my collection, purchased over the past 15 years. So how much would it cost to fill a 40G iPod? For me, nothing at all.

But OK, let's assume I'm just a kid that doesn't own any music. A 40G iPod, after formatting and installing system software holds about 35G of music. At 128K bitrates (about 1M/min), we're talking about 35000 minutes. At an average CD size of 60 minutes, that's about 580 discs. At $8 per disc, that's $4640.

At Napster's $15/mo, that $4640 will get you 309 months, or over 25 years.

Not bad, except for a few gotchas:
  • Are they actually going to have all the music you want? My tastes are extremely varied. What are the odds they're going to let me download stuff by King Crimson, or the Philips Mozart collection, or Tangerine Dream?

    iTunes may not have these tracks either, but with them, I'm not paying money every month in order for figure this out. Every time a song I want isn't in their subscription service, it's a song I have to buy from somebody else, undermining the entire point of a subscription.
  • Are you going to actually spend all that time downloading all those songs? I don't care if this is iTunes, Napster or anything else. Downloading 35GB takes a real long time, even over the fastest broadband connections.
  • Are you really going to keep making payments for 25 years? If you let your account lapse, all those songs go away. Hopefully, you won't have to re-download them if you later re-subscribe.
  • If Napster's DRM works like most non-Apple DRM schemes work, your files won't be transferrable to new computers. Since your computer probably won't last 5 years, let alone 25, that means re-downloading everything (and hope that your favorites are still available) when you buy new equipment. Compare that hassle against simply copying unprotected MP3/AAC files between computers over an Ethernet connection.
  • What makes you think Napster (or Apple, for that matter) will exist 25 years from now? And if they do, what makes you think this subscription service will exist in 25 years? With a subscription service, your music collection goes away when the publisher goes away. With a purchase service (especially one that allows CD burning), your collection will outlive the publisher.
 
Yeah, like I said, I wouldn't mind trying a subscription service that worked with my iPod. I probably wouldn't stick with it though. I don't listen to music near as much as I did in high school and college. I probably bought 6 CDs a month in high school. I would have saved a ton of money back then. These days, I don't buy 6 CDs a month. I actually don't even buy 6 songs a month on iTunes.

These days, I listen to a lot more talk radio. I listen to more podcasts on my iPod than music.
 
digitalbiker said:
You mean like recording songs off of the radio, making mp3's and distributing them over the internet?

Arent napster files extremely well protected and encrypted, i heard they carried heavier encryption than a lot of credit card and other financial transactions do. Kinda scary if thats tru.
 
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.

Are... are you trying to tell me the Jaguar wasn't really 64-bit? :( :confused:

:D
 
digitalbiker said:
You mean like recording songs off of the radio, making mp3's and distributing them over the internet?

Who would do such a thing?

Kids with no money, maybe?

Hey might as well do it. At least when they are MP3's they will want to buy the iPod, since the iPod rocks all players.

Which does Apple make more money on?

iTunes Songs or iPods? I'm thinking iTunes??... :eek:
 
dogcowabunga said:
Great strategy! Everybody knows that consumers LOVE to do math!

Your answer might be sarcastic, but companies really do know that consumers can't do the math...

"Oh yeah, that'd cost me a FORTUNE to fill up my iPod! Better go with that rental service for 15$ a month..."

Of course, since it's called "Napster" I bet a lot of people will think along the lines of "15$ per month to download anything I want and then I close my account once I got thousands of songs", not really knowing that they'll lose everything once they quit (or, pay again to keep the songs... which in the end is more expensive than iTMS).
 
[*]What makes you think Napster (or Apple, for that matter) will exist 25 years from now? And if they do, what makes you think this subscription service will exist in 25 years? With a subscription service, your music collection goes away when the publisher goes away. With a purchase service (especially one that allows CD burning), your collection will outlive the publisher.
[/LIST][/QUOTE]

well for one thing apple is going to be around, there is no doubt about it, even tho they just celebrated thier 21st, i think they easily have another 25 in em. another thing i wonder if music will still cost $ in 25 years.

MUSIC WANTS TO BE FREE!!! the industry is just trying to prevent the rebel music from getting its way
 
I think all of you are vastly underestimating the potential this could have. While obviously, this is not for most of you think of it this way:

1. Not everyone already has an extensive music collection. A lot of people here do, but I assure you that you are in the vast minority. Most people have some music, but they don't have 10,000 songs.

2. A lot of people already pay for a (very successful) subscription services like:

television: People pay for television shows each month that they watch only...get this...once! Occasionally you record shows, but people don't do that for every show they watch. And people don't even choose the shows they watch (there are only a few hundred shows on at most ever).

movie rentals: the movie rental business is a multi-billion dollar market (i.e. quite successful)

A decent subscription service (which this Napster is not) could be very popular. Imagine, if Apple integrated a subscription w/ .Mac so that if you pay for .Mac you get to listen to/download any song at iTMS. iTMS has what, 1.3 Million songs?

That means I can listen to any song I want ... or all of them ... all 1.3 Million of them ... as many times as I want, and assuming Apple actually knew what they were doing, I could use them in iMovie etc...

Imagine... you could listen to any of 1.3 Million songs. You could listen to iTMS for like 7 years straight and never get a duplicate song. By the time you were done they probably would have added a couple more million songs.

I don't know, but the ability to listen to any music whenever I want however many times I wanted sounds like something I would pay for.
 
I read somewhere that a common misconception about iPods is that they only play music purchased from iTMS. Napster is trying to cash-in on another misconception about Apple. Like it was said earlier- it's FREE to import your own CDs!!

The last thing I want is a $15/month bill for music I won't OWN
and that I will be charged for EVERY month no matter what ($15/month is more than my iTMS monthly spending for sure!)

The free 30 sec. previews in iTMS and the RADIO (remember that?) keep me happy to sample music I don't own.
 
varmit said:
I did the math, I like my iTunes.

And yes, I would love it if Apple would buy a spot in the 4th quarter and do an AD say just that.

Man, now THAT would be priceless. I sure hope Apple makes one and pay for a spot in the 4th quarter, just in case. If Napster doesn't show up, be prepared with an alternative ad. Yes, that's two ads, and probably even one more spot (if there's still any available anyway).

But that would be priceless.

"Napster. Do the math."

later...

"I did the math, and I don't want to pay 180$ per year for a subscription service where I lose all my downloaded songs if I don't keep paying up year after year. I'd rather keep purchasing songs for 0.99$ each.

I'll keep on using the iTunes Music Store."

See ya, Napster.

P.S.: I find the whole "let's purchase the Napster name and do business under that name" practice to be quite lame anyway.
 
I have used Napster and for the most part really enjoy it. The subscription service works out well for me and being able to download unlimited songs to a portable player is nice too. Of course you can just flat out purchase your songs for .99 each. You don't have to subscribe. It's just an additional service for those who want more choices.

But my favorite service is Rhapsody. Larger selection than iTunes or Napster. Though it is a subscription only service. Meaning you have to subscribe to even purchase anything. But thier songs are .79 each.

But with any service that there is some form of copy protection I feel as if I am renting my music as I am not allowed to do the things I want to do with it.

That's why www.allofmp3.com is such a good service. No copy protection.

"Arent napster files extremely well protected and encrypted, i heard they carried heavier encryption than a lot of credit card and other financial transactions do. Kinda scary if thats tru."

No more so than iTunes or any other service using copy protection. And with Napster you can redownload songs you have purchased if you lose them.
 
Doctor Q said:
So far, this story has been rated 100% negative. Is our Apple bias showing or are we simply sensible?

Sensible AND superior. I like owning my music. I don't like monthly bills. Also, when was the last time you bought enough songs to fill ANY MP3 player.
 
Stupid idea

Like many people here, I agree that paying $15/month is a stupid idea, especially since you don't "own" anything afterwards. If you decide that you want to keep a song(s) you like, guess what? You have to pay $1 for each of them, just like with iTunes. If you really "do the math," you end up paying more with Napster.

Scenario 1:

I subscribe for a month @ $15 and download 20 albums to my MP3 player. I decide I really like 5 of the albums and want to keep them. For the sake of argument, let's assume each album has a total of 10 songs. So that's 10 songs x 5 albums = 50 songs (x $1 each to keep), or $50. $50 plus the $15/month subscription fee equals $65 for 50 songs versus $50 via iTunes.

Scenario 2:

I subscirbe for 12 months at $15/month. After a year, I decide I don't want to "keep" anything and cancel my subscription. What am I left with? Nothing and I'm out $180.

This idea, however, may catch on with kids who are constantly listening to something different or who are trying to discover new artists though, especially since the money's not coming out of their own pockets (daddy?). If the money was coming out of their own pockets and they felt it, then they'd soon realize that this isn't such a great deal.

At first, I thought you'd be able to just download the music to your MP3 player, cancel you subscription, and just leave them there forever, but that's not the case. According to CEO Chris Gorog, "Janus allows you to take an encrypted download from your PC hard drive and move it to your portable device with an electronic license, then that has to be renewed every 30 days." So basically, if you don't renew your license the songs expire and you lose EVERYTHING. I'm sure someone will figure out a way to hack the songs and remove the expiration or something, but how many average users out there are going to know how to do this or bother.

While this idea may not flop, I can't see it catching on. I can't speak for others, but I like the idea of owning something. I hate renting things because you have nothing in the end.

According to the Wired news article, "At the end of 2004, Napster had 270,000 subscribers."
 
jamdr said:
No one wants to have yet another montly bill. I don't think subscription services will ever catch on, no matter how cheap. I know I would never want one. The way iTMS does it is just more flexible and the price is already better than buying in store. There's really not much to improve on.

I don't see why on earth they're about to use the same system that has proven to be a bad idea for many times. Who wants subscription services?? Nobody.
 
jbembe said:
Word of the day: desparation!! :cool:
Hehe, I wonder if you meant 'desperation'? Sorry, couldn't help it.

I don't think this Napster thing is a particularly bad idea, because it's healthy for the market place to have a range of CHOICE. This is what freedom is all about isn't it? Freedom to choose. If you trash everything that is not Apple's idea, then you are... well I don't know. You're not going to walk up to someone that drives a Toyota and tell them that it's useless because a Porsche is better, are you? If this is a stupid plan, then I'm sure Napster's sales figures will reflect that.

Personally the only music I buy is on CD anyway...
 
So.... do people buy music just to "fill" their player... or do they buy a player to CARRY their music? In other words, do a ton of people buy 40 GB players who don't need that space, and then seek a "solution" for that?

A parallel to the question of whether I serve my computer (Windows) or my computer serves me (OS X)?

Anyway, widely popular or not, subscription is a perfectly good option to have out there. One that Apple could offer if iPod users show demand. I can see it being a long time before the digital music market is large enough for the tiny subscription fraction to be worth going for---but someday!

Most people don't want to rent music, but there's nothing wrong with that option for those who do.
 
Well, the general public won't read the details, they'll just see "unlimited songs for XXX amount."

I just hope people are smart enough to realize there's something fishy about this offer, and see that they're just renting their music.

God, I wish someone would hack the DRM and be able to download all those songs and keep them. That would be awesome.

Fishes,
narco.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.