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

You know, this is what I'm thinking with my WoW subscription. I have to pay 15$US a month to be able to play. And no matter the number of hours I play, I still pay 15$US a month. In my mind that means I have to play a lot to get the most from my monthly fee. I do wish Blizzard had subscriptions based on purchased hours. Say, 15$US for 100 hours of play. If I abuse and play a lot, I end up paying more. If I don't play much in the month, I have more hours left in the bank.

These "all-you-can-eat" monthly fees are adding up too fast. After apartment/house, car, television, phone/cellphone and internet monthly bills, I like to be able to limit the spending a bit. Adding monthly fees for games and music seems rather dumb to me.

Especially since I already have about 30 digital audio channels in my digital cable subscription. All I'd need is to record to my computer and make MP3's.
 
geeyesgee said:
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.

.mac account = requires a Mac = no-go.

Anyone got the numbers of Windows iPod users vs Macintosh iPod users?
 
Well if you already spend $15/month or more on music than there isn't much of a difference. Except that you get all the songs you want. As long as you're a subscriber of course. So yes, it can be more cost effective depending on how much you spend on music per month and where you listen to it.

Keep in mind though that this is just another choice. And you don't have to use it. You can still purchase songs at .99 each. I'm willing to bet it's just a matter of time before apple does something similar.

But i'm of the opinion that purchasing copy protected music from anyone is just plain stupid as you do not have the freedom to do what you want with your music.
 
Unfortunatly I think alot of unknowing consumers are going to get taken in by Napsters misrepresentations about the iPod.

1. The 40GB iPod that holds 10,000 songs is not the only iPod and most consumers arn't going to buy a 40GB iPod. Not to mention the Shuffle.

2. The iPod can play many different types of formats, AAC, MP3, WAV, and content from Audible.com

The iPod is the most popular music player on the market today and I seriously doubt that the current iPod owners out there are going to trade in their iPods just to get a lesser player just to get this service.
I know I won't be. :D
 
nagromme said:
A parallel to the question of whether I serve my computer (Windows) or my computer serves me (OS X)?
Haha interesting parallel. Sounds like you might need some training. You're not doing it right unless you are serving the OS. ;)
 
CubaTBird said:
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

It sure rocks.

For a month anyway.

To keep on rockin' keep on payin'. :D
 
Macrumors said:
"Do the Math"

I'll do the math:

$15/month for 6 months and then end subscription = $90 and not one single song to show for it. 1 song from itunes within the same 6 months = $1.07(with tax) and 1 song in my music library. So, I can spend $1.07 and in 6 months have more songs(1) on my ipod than their $90(zero, zip, nada, nill, zilch) put on their rio. Smart move. Renting songs is a joke. I wouldn't do it from any service (even Apple).
 
Right.

Yes, I would like to build a huge collection of painstakingly selected music, only to have it disappear when the company I rent it from goes out of business due to spending all their meager revenue on superbowl ads.
 
You know, if Apple offered a subscription service, how many of us would jump for it? I generally buy 15 or songs off iTMS ever month, it would fit in well as a replacement. The thing is, Apple would offer it for the iPod, and that would rock. No iPod = no interest, unless the iPod-killers get better.

As for the campaign itself, something like "Do the math" really doesn't sound like a good idea. It's basically saying, "Hey, potential customer, you're a moron! You should have done the math before buying that iPod!" It'll rub a lot of people the wrong way, generate a lot of ill will towards Napster. Napster should really go after satellite radio, market themselves as the customizable radio station.
 
god this pisses me off.. I don't think this will overtake apple, but it uses distorted logic. It just depends on how much time you plan to keep the music, and how much.
 
chukronos said:
I'll do the math:

$15/month for 6 months and then end subscription = $90 and not one single song to show for it. 1 song from itunes within the same 6 months = $1.07(with tax) and 1 song in my music library. So, I can spend $1.07 and in 6 months have more songs(1) on my ipod than their $90(zero, zip, nada, nill, zilch) put on their rio. Smart move. Renting songs is a joke. I wouldn't do it from any service (even Apple).
Haha you're gonna get awfully bored listening to that 1 song for 6 months! After 6 months you won't WANT to keep it!
 
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?)

Not sure if this is the answer you're looking for, but...

From Apple:

Sharing Your Music with Others

Just by clicking the “Share my music” checkbox in the Sharing panel of the iTunes Preferences dialog, you can let anyone in the house listen to your music on another Mac or PC. As if by magic, the music just shows up in their copy of iTunes. In fact, when you choose to authorize another computer, you can even play the songs you’ve downloaded and purchased from the iTunes Music Store. The latest version of iTunes lets you authorize up to 5 computers to play purchased music. As long as your computer is on and you have iTunes active, friends and family on other computers in your household can find and play your music by looking under Shared Music in the iTunes source listing. In fact, sharing music works equally well — and just as simply — on wired and wireless networks.
 
CubaTBird said:
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

Yes, except you have to pay that $15/mth for the rest of your life


archer75 said:
Well if you already spend $15/month or more on music than there isn't much of a difference. Except that you get all the songs you want. As long as you're a subscriber of course. So yes, it can be more cost effective depending on how much you spend on music per month and where you listen to it.

But you'd have to spend that much every month for the rest of your life And who's going to be buying the equivalent of 1 CD per month, month in month out for the next 60 years?



Let's say you are the average music buyer and download approx 100 songs (currently equivalent to 4 to 6 CDs) per year between ages 15 and 30 but then on average only 15/yr (about 1 CD) for the next 55 years, that's a total of 2250 songs.

From iTMS, that's $2250. From Napster, that's $12,600. (70 years x $15/mth x 12mths/yr)


Or let's look at it another way... 6 CDs per year at iTMS = $60. At Napster $180. Except at Napster you gotta keep paying that $180 year in year out.

At $15/mth, you've got to download the equivalent of at least one CD per month to get the equivalent iTMS value. That's all well and good when you are in the prime buying years and you might do that, but how long does that CD buying frenzy last? And then with Napster you have to keep paying or lose access to your music.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but subscription sounds to me like a very expensive lifetime commitment.


PS I think it'd be great if Apple did a 1st Qtr ad so when the Napster one came up it would make it look stupid. Then Apple could follow up with a fourth quarter ad just to ice the cake.
 
Arcady said:
Encryption is meaningless. If you can hear it, you can copy it.

True, encryption cannot stop you from taking an analog sample of the material and turning it into an mp3, but that is kind of a pain and sound quality is lost.
 
superleccy said:
Music downloaded from the iTunes Music Store can only be played on your computer and your iPod.

Not entirely true.

According to Apple:

With its personal music sharing options, iTunes helps you make the most of your music, letting you access your music collection from any computer (Mac or PC) in your home or play it — wirelessly — through your home entertainment system.

Sharing Your Music with Others

Just by clicking the “Share my music” checkbox in the Sharing panel of the iTunes Preferences dialog, you can let anyone in the house listen to your music on another Mac or PC. As if by magic, the music just shows up in their copy of iTunes. In fact, when you choose to authorize another computer, you can even play the songs you’ve downloaded and purchased from the iTunes Music Store. The latest version of iTunes lets you authorize up to 5 computers to play purchased music. As long as your computer is on and you have iTunes active, friends and family on other computers in your household can find and play your music by looking under Shared Music in the iTunes source listing. In fact, sharing music works equally well — and just as simply — on wired and wireless networks.

Key Features:

# Authorize up to 5 computers to play music from the store
# Share music over your local network
# Share music between Macs and PCs
# Share an entire library or selected playlists
# Protect shared music with a password
# Automatically scan for shared music
 
ChrisH3677 said:
Let's say you are the average music buyer and download approx 100 songs (currently equivalent to 4 to 6 CDs) per year between ages 15 and 30 but then on average only 15/yr (about 1 CD) for the next 55 years, that's a total of 2250 songs.

From iTMS, that's $2250. From Napster, that's $12,600. (70 years x $15/mth x 12mths/yr)
Yes you're right. You've done the maths. ;) It would cost an absolute fortune.

I think the angle Napster is going for is that people don't always know what they like. The somewhat illegal music sharing networks are full of people downloading songs that they have never heard of before. Sometimes they like what they hear (and may rush out and buy the CD), other times they don't (File>Delete). Some songs sound good for the first 30 seconds, and then go bad. I think iTunes is fantastic for people who know what music they like, but Napster are trying to broaden on that approach by catering for those who DON'T know what they like.

I assume Napster provide the same buy-one-song system as the iTunes Store too? You can purchase a song for $1, without needing this subscription service? In which case, Napster has embraced both possibilities by providing consumers with that all-empowering CHOICE.
 
superleccy said:
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).


Never mind. switcher got there first. However...

I, for one, bought about 200 songs from iTMS, and the rest of my 10GB iPod is filled with CDs that I've been buying for more than a decade. It's Napster being disingenuous again in trying to make people believe that a full iPod costs $10,000. Hasn't everyone who has bought an iPod loaded up all their CD collection too? You can even do this with Vinyl/A-track/Reel-to-Reel with some extra equipment.
 
hulugu said:
Never mind. switcher got there first. However...

I, for one, bought about 200 songs from iTMS, and the rest of my 10GB iPod is filled with CDs that I've been buying for more than a decade. It's Napster being disingenuous again in trying to make people believe that a full iPod costs $10,000. Hasn't everyone who has bought an iPod loaded up all their CD collection too? You can even do this with Vinyl/A-track/Reel-to-Reel with some extra equipment.
Yes, you're correct. But in most countries outside the USA, it is currently illegal to transfer your CD collections to portable music players. This might sound ridiculous, but sadly it's true. Some countries such as New Zealand are going through the process of broadening the law to allow this transfer to take place. Here in the UK, I don't think they've even discussed it! Until then, though, if you want to be legal, you have to pay for downloaded music...
 
i think the napster service is great.

$180 a year for what ever music you want or $180 for 180 songs you keep, idk about u guys but i sure would pick the unlimted songs for $180 a year.

I think u guys are praising itunes a little to much, it has its pros and cons, apple should start a service similar. Yes i know by the time im dead its going to cost me alot but i will have listened to alot of music.
 
JereIC said:
You know, if Apple offered a subscription service, how many of us would jump for it?

I know I wouldn't. I don't listen to enough music during the day to justify paying $15/month. However, if I bought and owned the music, I could listen to it whenever I got the chance. I wouldn't feel like I was getting ripped off.

With this Napster service, if I'm too busy during to month to listen to anything or much of anything (it happens) then I've just paid $15 for nothing. Definitely not a good deal for me.

However, that's not to say it's not a potential good deal for other people with more time on their hands who just want to be able to listen to something different. But I can't help but feel that the novelty of it will wear off as people will get tired of paying $15/month for something they'll end up using less and less. Might be good for kids during the summer when they have plenty of time on their hands. It would allow them to sample and discover new artists which they otherwise would never have been able to find.
 
Encryption...

TheMasin9 said:
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.

That doesn't matter because of the way encryption works. Basically, I have a message to send to you, so I make a box that works with only two keys in the world. I send one to you via a trustworthy source. You and I both have keys.
I send the box to you; you open the box, read the message and write a new one and send it back. In the case of the courier moving the box, he cannot access the data because he doesn't have a key. He could open the box with explosives, or maybe heave it in a river, but he cannot access the information.
This is encryption.
However, Napster wants you to not have a key, but to still be able to open the box, so they leave the key in the box, but tell you not to keep it or use it except at specific times. So, eventually you need to get into the box, you have the key already in the lock, but have been given instructions not to open it. You say screw it, and open the box anyways. You have now broken their encryption.
The problem is the end user has to have the key as part of the communication, so therefore they can always break the ecryption, but are asked, politely, not to. This is all DRM-based encryption.
 
reasonable numbers

15 years X 12 months/year X $15/month

$2700 or ~270 CDs

I can't see myself ever buying that much CDs . Who has time to listen to an unlimited music library. I hardly ever browse my music library.

-Chomo
 
Doctor Q said:
So far, this story has been rated 100% negative. Is our Apple bias showing or are we simply sensible?

I think many aren't.

I, personally, would rather pay for the Napster service. If I can access the whole Napeter catalogue at any time for a small payment of $15/month then I would much rather do that than get 15 songs a month for the same $15.

I could fill up an mp3 player with unlimited songs for $15/month! I think that is a great deal.

And if you are all being unbiased, then if Apple was to do a similar service, it'd only be fair that you condemn that one too, just like this Napster one. But I don't expect that for a second.

Be reasonable, this service is great! If you purchase a CD a month then you might as well get this and then you can have that CD and thousands of others for that month, and for the rest of the time you continue the service.

It's just too bad that it doesn't support the iPod.

scem0
 
napster details

Couple of points about the $15/month subscription.

1. The "Napster To Go" plan (the $15/month in question) lets you download the songs to a portable device. The Janus code must be updated every 30 days. So, you have to reconnect it to your computer every 30 days. It's also possible that the songs have to be completely reloaded onto the device which will take more than a few second update...probably closer to 15-20 minutes. Decide for yourselves if that hassle is enough of a deterent.

2. The "Napster To Go" plan is not for ALL songs. There are some that are classified "Buy Only". Kinda similar to how some songs are "album only" in iTunes and some songs cost more than 99 cents. Again, decide for yourselves is that is going to be too disruptive.

3. Napster's marketing will be $30,000,000. It will require roughly $90,000,000 in subscription fees to pay that off. That's about 500,000 subscribers for a year. My math isn't perfect, but is that what they meant by do the math?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.