Napster vs iTunes: Superbowl Ad

[pubwvj]

Simple FACT: No, legit, music store will EVER get the major lables without DRM.

Fact: the "major" labels are mostly putting out trash.
Fact: the indie labels put out a lot of great stuff without DRM [Digital Rightious Mismanagement]
Fact: I already had most of my music from CD's I already owned long before DRM schemes tried to start limiting this on our computers and MP3 players. Same for most people.
Fact: I won't buy music with DRM limitations. Many others have vowed the same. It's a vow that is easy to keep.

Yes, the music labels would like to sell you the same song again and again as each new medium comes out. MP3 scares them because you might not need to replace your vinyl, 8-track, cassette, CD, etc library with the next great media. But they just don't get the picture. The media is just an envelope and their days of monopolistic behavior are past. Many great musicians are distributing their music without getting roped into the major label slave contracts.

 

[jettredmont]

Final Thought

What guarantee do we have that Napster's service will be $15/month in perpetuity? It wasn't too long ago that $10/month for cable was expensive; now $80-100/month isn't out of the question. Even the alternatives (satelite primarily) aren't much cheaper.

Competition, you say? Thta's what will save you? You think you will be able to shift your library from a Napster subscription to a Real subsription and preserve all your ratings, comments, playlists, etc? Ummmm ... no, I doubt it! Switch services == re-download, re-categorize, re-playlist, re-do everything you've ever done with your music aside from passive listening. Lock in.

Eventually technology changes. Will your Napster subscription weather the change? All Napster songs start and end as protected files, there is no "burn to CD" out. When NanoOpticalImplants are all the rage in 2050, will your Napster library make the transition? Will there even be *any* subscription service available for you then? What about when Napster goes out of business (come on, does anyone see these guys lasting ten years as a business, given the incompetence they've already shown?) What then becomes of all the bits and pieces you've added to your music, the very filtering that you've done in determining what songs you kept and which ones you didn't? Out of luck.

To a high school kid buying 6 cds a month (holy crap! If I'd had that kind of free money in high school, you can bet I'd have found better things to spend it on than music!) $15 a month for the rest of their life sounds like a good deal. Music is a big part of your life, and it looks like it always will be. Not just "music", but "new music". You don't want to listen to last week's album any more; this week's is better! It doesn't start sounding sour until you hit your late-twenties or thirties, give or take. At that point, if you get off the Napster gravy train you will have to spend considerable time and energy finding and buying all the music you've accumulated under your subscription and won't be able to leave. Trapped.

 

[sirjimithy1]

Fact: the "major" labels are mostly putting out trash.
Fact: the indie labels put out a lot of great stuff without DRM [Digital Rightious Mismanagement]

fact n. - Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.

opinion n. - A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

 

[Draelius]

This Napster service...

...sounds a lot like trying to sell a computer with no monitor, keyboard or mouse.

Maybe it'll work. Maybe it won't.

 

[astrochess]

Renting an entire service doesn't make much sense to me.

With videos and CDs, one rents them one at a time, usually to see if the customer wishes to buy it. If he/she does, then the customer buys it (usually from renter, who also happens to be a seller).

It makes more sense to rent the songs or albums for a few cents for about a week. Then the company should let customer decide.

In response to an earlier comment to the effect that Apple should start a subsciption service of its own, I disagree. Apple should rent them at a reduced price for a few weeks. If the customer decides to buy, then Apple has the iTMS.

 

[ryanw]

USA Today reports on Napster's upcoming Superbowl advertisement which is directly targeted against Apple's iTunes/iPod.

The theme of the campaign is "Do the Math" will be pushing the Napster To Go service which allows users to transfer an unlimited number of songs to their (WMA-compatible) music player for $15/month:

What about the record labels? The record labels like iTunes better because they get paid a substantial amount per track. With Napster and REAL you get probably $0.01 each time someone listens to the song for 30 seconds or more. You could say that it's better to get paid each time someone listens to the song, but think about it if someone listened to subscription songs (average of 4 minutes each) 24 hours a day for a whole month you would basically earn the labels $10.80. But with the same person they could have made more money .. I know it's not all about the labels, but frankly it's upto the labels to produce top quality music.

 

[SAukland]

Thrifty Players?

You can download every song Napster offers, but the minute that you stop paying (or 1 month later), all your songs are no longer playable.

I am confused. If you are synching these songs to your portable player... how does it know once you've stopped subscribing to the service?

Conceivably, couldn't you sync right before you stop the service... and then just leave it at that... listening to your current songs?

Not sure how that would work...

 

[archer75]

$15/month and you can own 15 songs. Or rather you can have 15 copy protected songs which are limited in what you can do with them.

Or $15/month to download over 1million songs which can only be played on computers or a portable device. But you can get an FM transmitter or a line out cord for that portable device and now you can listen to all that music wherever you want.

If you stop paying you still have the songs, they just aren't active. You are free to reactivate those songs at any time. You do not have to carry a continous subscription if you don't want.

Now if you buy $15 worth of music per month anyways then this Napster service is a great deal as you will get a greater benefit.

I see no point in buying copy protected songs as I cannot listen to them where I want. My deck in my truck can play MP3 or WMA files. But with DRM protection I cannot put WMA files on a disc and play them. They have to be burned as a CD which limits me to only a few songs as opposed to hundreds. My home receiver has an ethernet port on it and it allows me to directly stream MP3's or WMA files over a network through the receiver. Again this wont' work with protected music.
With iTunes songs you can ONLY listen to them on one portable device. And no car stereo supports AAC. So there is virtually no reason whatsoever to use iTunes for music purchasing.

 

[billystlyes]

...sounds a lot like trying to sell a computer with no monitor, keyboard or mouse.

Maybe it'll work. Maybe it won't.

Hey now go easy on the mini! JK Renting music is just stupid if your going to go that route just listen to the radio.

 

[SAukland]

So there is virtually no reason whatsoever to use iTunes for music purchasing.

I patiently await the fallout from dropping that bomb...

... in the Mac forums.

 

[newsound]

Remember Napsters History

Hey folks.

Please remember that Napster made it's early fortune by ripping off the artists and (to a lesser extent) the labels who create the music. I don't see this as any different.

Any 12 year old with a decent sound card can figure out how to output the audio to a good CD recorder and rip it back into their computer. Now you have it for life.

Napster has just changed the paradigm of the same illegal scam they used to run.

Heck, I might just take a month off and get all of the music that I want to listen to from past or present downloaded at only $15 USD! That's if they have the catalogue of music that they claim to have (which I seriously doubt).


Just my $.02 USD.

 

[sirjimithy1]

I think one of the funniest things about Napster's advertising is that they consistently beat down on paying 99 cents per track to get your music.. However, if you want to actually "keep" the music you get from Napster and burn it to disc, you have to use their Napster Light service which allows you to do so for.. drumroll please.. 99 cents per track. And forget AirTunes. Napster's site actually suggests playing music in your living room by connecting your PC's sound card to your Stereo's input. Hmm... $15 per month PLUS 99 cents per track if I want to keep the music, no AirTunes, and I can't put them on my iPod.... there you go Napster, I did the math.

 

[hayesk]

I am confused. If you are synching these songs to your portable player... how does it know once you've stopped subscribing to the service?

Conceivably, couldn't you sync right before you stop the service... and then just leave it at that... listening to your current songs?

You could put a timer on the songs. (i.e. play for 5 times or 30 days and stop playing until the user re-synchs the player with Napster).

 

[archer75]

Hey folks.

Please remember that Napster made it's early fortune by ripping off the artists and (to a lesser extent) the labels who create the music. I don't see this as any different.


Napster has just changed the paradigm of the same illegal scam they used to run.

Actually Napster did no such thing. Napster P2P software was created by Shawn Fanning. This Napster is a different company and entirely different software. Aside from the name and logo it has absolutely nothing in common with the napster of old.

 

[newsound]

Actually Napster did no such thing. Napster P2P software was created by Shawn Fanning. This Napster is a different company and entirely different software. Aside from the name and logo it has absolutely nothing in common with the napster of old.

Except for the fact that Shawn Fanning is a principal partner in this "new" Napster.

 

[ChapterHouse]

Why renting is not fine by me...

There's something fundamentally wrong with Napster's scheme. When I was younger, I had fantasies of being independant from public utilities (electricity and phone basically). There's a reason why we're willing to pay monthly fees for these utilities: it's because the infrastructures are so large and complex that it's impossible to be independant.

However, I can happily be independant from any music service once I have bought music, to own.

Renting, in that case, serves no other purpose than locking in clients and opening a steady stream of money...

 

[gekko513]

I can do the Math for my situation ...

I'm not heavily into music and I currently have 400 songs. I don't have access to iTMS because I'm in Norway.

Napster solution:

I subscribe to Napster for 5 years: $900

I will still want some of the music on CD, I'll have to pay for that. I'll assume I want 1 CD every 4 months (I'm currently at 1 every 2 months): $120

When I finally decide that I don't like Napster after 5 years, or Napster goes out of business, or whatever, I will have to buy some of the favourites that I lost access to and that I don't have on CD. Assuming 2 per year. 10 CDs: $150

So, this makes $1170

iTunes Music Store solution

I will probably purchase a bit more music than I do currently. One album every month + 5 tracks: $780

I will not buy as many real CDs, but I'll have to buy some, because iTMS will probably not have everything I want. 2 per year: $150

For a total of $930


I think I'll go for the iTMS solution.

Also, after these 5 years I'll have 650 songs in my total collection with the Napster solution. With the iTMS solution, I'll have 1400 songs.

Still not enough to fill my iPod, but I need room for data files so that's not a loss.

 

[gekko513]

LOL Why Napster will be a fully-integrated flop [theregister.co.uk]

 

[sw1tcher]

I am confused. If you are synching these songs to your portable player... how does it know once you've stopped subscribing to the service?

Conceivably, couldn't you sync right before you stop the service... and then just leave it at that... listening to your current songs?

From what I can understand, the songs seem to be on a timer or something and expire after 30 days. If you don't renew your 30 license and it expires, you lose access to the songs.

 

[coolfactor]

I have used Napster and for the most part really enjoy it. ---clip--- You don't have to subscribe. It's just an additional service for those who want more choices.

More choice is good. I like being able to pick a new flavour of apple rather than the regular 3 varieties in the supermarket.

But my favorite service is Rhapsody. Larger selection than iTunes or Napster.

... and you live in the US, so your iTunes Library is the largest of them all. Is Rhapsody really bigger?

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.

Okay, this one comes up a lot. Let's see what we do with our music:

1. Listen to it on our computer. (Yep, iTunes does 5 of those).
2. Listen to it on our stereo. (Yep, hello Airport Express).
3. Listen to it in our car. (Yep, CDs or iPod with adapter).
4. Listen to it on-the-go. (Yep, iPod does that).

To be fair, there may be things people like to do that is currently difficult with copy protected songs, such as embedding them into home movies, or mixing them up in DJ compilations, but you're still able to do those things with a little extra work.... probably easier than Rhapsody/Napster songs that can't be burned to a CD without buying the song first anyway (yah, yah, audio rippers, but that's just cheating).

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.

Okay, just had to add... the only ways someone can lose them and not have it to be their own carelessness includes:

1) computer gets stolen
2) house burns down
3) portable player gets stolen

... but that's no different than having a CD (or LP) collection. I wonder if insurance companies consider digital downloads to be an asset. I should hope so. You could keep the receipts as proof of purchase.

 

[narco]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but has anyone seen the napster.com home page?

It displays four artists: (I believe) the dude from Coldplay, Gwen Stefani, Eminem and Usher. Not sure about Usher, but I know the Coldplay dude is a big Apple fan (rumors were even spread that him and his wife named their kid after the company, but doubtful), and then Gwen and Eminem both have iPods in their videos.

I just think it's kind of funny that their mugs are splashed on the napster site.

Fishes,
narco.

 

[SAukland]

fabulous.

From what I can understand, the songs seem to be on a timer or something and expire after 30 days. If you don't renew your 30 license and it expires, you lose access to the songs.

Thats even more amusing. Hmmm... renting songs, monthly fee, no iPod, no airtunes... and I actually get to keep syncing this thing so it knows I'm paying up... and retain the honor of listening to them, delaying the revocation from non-payment?

Thats just grand. Napster was my savior a few years ago...
But who needs another repo-man?

 

[HumanJHawkins]

Like... Um... I think iTunes is cheaper.

Thinking back to me high school math fer this one... Lessee An iPod holds about 5000 songs... 99 cents per song vs. $15.00 a month.

So like, 99 cents is less than $15, so I am sure I could fill my iPod cheaper with iTunes. That's not a very smart commercial.

 

[HumanJHawkins]

Eminem has an iPod in one of his videos?

Gwen and Eminem both have iPods in their videos.

Seriously? I though Eminem was supposed to be pissed at Apple (and suing them) for using one of his songs in their comercial without his consent (and apparently after he flat out told them they couldn't use it)

 

[HumanJHawkins]

I wonder if insurance companies consider digital downloads to be an asset.

Anything you can prove you own and can prove you lost due to something covered by your insurance, is usually covered.

Some policies specifically exclude things, but I doubt that downloaded music has made it on the list yet!