Napster vs iTunes: Superbowl Ad

[the_mole1314]

Apple can easily counter this ad my modifying the huge spread of their current iPod ads. Just have iPod + iTunes, then Own Your Music, Not Rent It. Simple and easy.

Another good analogy of this new Napster service is the Segway. They said it would revolutionize personal transportation, but it didn't. Why? People are used to walking and this new device was different from common wizdom. Same with music in the US, we go out and buy the music, we don't rent it like a VHS.

 

[eradlmann]

different point

Nope. All tracks are just 99¢ each. (Or whatever price for the particular country's store you're buying from.)

ok, guess I was confusing it with other sites. Either way, not the point. Really, really, not the point. The point I was trying to make is that this $15/month plan does not cover ALL music! There are songs that if you want to download to a portable player you will have to buy! This is a big deal to me! Maybe it won't be a great song, but what if it is. What if it was an amazing song like Milkshake or Kokomo or [insert your favorite song]???!??!? It would rip my heart out if I had to pay for 5 or 6 songs a month that weren't covered under the $15/month plan just so I can memorize the lyrics to impress a girl so she'll go with me to the cotillion...or whatever kids are doing these days (sock hops?).

 

[AlmostThere]

Just have iPod + iTunes, then Own Your Music, Not Rent It. Simple and easy.

Apple:
Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon shown in the background
Slogan - Yours

Napster:
New Kids On the Block's Hangin' Tough shown in the background.
Slogan - How much?

Apple:
Some Things Last Forever

Napster:
Music for the Moment

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

[littlejim]

Nice article MacWorld UK

Macworld UK have posted a nice article about Napster.

Especially interesting is this :

Napster explained: "Every time a track is played using Napster, then the rights owners get paid using our automated back-end system. In the case of Napster To Go, the music players log track plays and when the player is plugged back into the client, it updates our records".

Hmmmmm! Not too sure I like that idea.

 

[BryanSeven]

Especially interesting is this :

Napster explained: "Every time a track is played using Napster, then the rights owners get paid using our automated back-end system. In the case of Napster To Go, the music players log track plays and when the player is plugged back into the client, it updates our records".

Hmmmmm! Not too sure I like that idea.

George Orwells 1984 begins!

i dont like the idea of renting music, i know some people can put a little more effort towards managment but on a monthly basis to keep in mind that you have to pay for your rented music, i dont think its a very good idea to much managment in the way of payment and renting.

i hope napster dies!

 

[ebunton]

Firstly, apologies, this is a long post!

Two separate issues are discussed here:

1) The implementation
2) The mechanism ...

Well that's a great post and I think it brings up a lot of legitimate points in favour of Napster's subscription model as opposed to iTunes pay-per-song model.

The posts in this thread have been really very well thought out, and I must admit that based solely on Napster's "do the math" claim, Napster works out not to be cheaper than iTunes in terms of real assets for the user at the end of the day.

However, the subscription based model implies exactly as AlmostThere has outlined, and that is that Napster treats its music offering as a service rather than product. I think that there is a lot of merit in that notion, and it really requires more thought.

In the future, I see that companies tend towards less tangible products, but in fact, more intangible service-experiences where the product plays of course a role, albeit a small one.

Maybe this marks the beginning of a paradigm shift in the consumption of music? Any thoughts?

 

[billystlyes]

Macworld UK have posted a nice article about Napster.

Especially interesting is this :

Napster explained: "Every time a track is played using Napster, then the rights owners get paid using our automated back-end system. In the case of Napster To Go, the music players log track plays and when the player is plugged back into the client, it updates our records".

Hmmmmm! Not too sure I like that idea.

why not?

 

[littlejim]

why not?

For the same reason I'd not like it if Office 2004 phoned home every month to tell Microsoft how many times I'd used Excel, or if I had to tell Blockbuster how many times I'd watched the video I'd just hired .... etc. etc.

 

[VicMacs]

or..

For the same reason I'd not like it if Office 2004 phoned home every month to tell Microsoft how many times I'd used Excel, or if I had to tell Blockbuster how many times I'd watched the video I'd just hired .... etc. etc.

say Eminem buys 10 mp3 players, donwloads his songs and puts them all on repeat play plugged in to the wall 24/7

thats a money maker!

i say its not going to happen... but you can be a fool and believe it

its your math

 

[yakirz]

Just capture it!

Several friends of mine have subscription services (they're using PCs) and have a program that captures everything coming in.

So they pay per month AND keep the music. Not a bad deal.

 

[chevyorange]

Several friends of mine have subscription services (they're using PCs) and have a program that captures everything coming in.

So they pay per month AND keep the music. Not a bad deal.

Those programs exist on your friendly local Mac platform, as well.

 

[Zmmyt]

not a bad idea, but...

even i wouldn't subscribe, the thing is:

you pay $180 a year and get all the chart songs, oldies, 80's, etc.. and you'll get the latest releases.

but i hate the windows media player for playing music and i love the ipod. and i don't want to spend $180 a year for music and i would like to use my songs for video editing or mixing.

i hope napster won't find a grip and itunes becomes more and more interesting to more and more people. just a great product.

 

[dukeblue91]

Lets see if I understand this right.
Napster targets a market that is being dominated by Apples iPod with a over 70% worldwide market share (soon to be more with the new shuffle)
But can't and won't support the iPod, so they are basically asking people to throw away the iPod and buy some POS player to rent music from them.
This doesn't make much sense at all as a business plan, not to mention this being very arrogant and sounding more like something Micro$haft would try.

So in a nutshell Napster is saying rent instead of buying !!! but...ahm err you won't be able to use your iPod,

I don't think Apple is even going to worry about this and or answer it.

 

[narco]

Lets see if I understand this right.
Napster targets a market that is being dominated by Apples iPod with a over 70% worldwide market share (soon to be more with the new shuffle)
But can't and won't support the iPod, so they are basically asking people to throw away the iPod and buy some POS player to rent music from them.
This doesn't make much sense at all as a business plan, not to mention this being very arrogant and sounding more like something Micro$haft would try.

So in a nutshell Napster is saying rent instead of buying !!! but...ahm err you won't be able to use your iPod,

I don't think Apple is even going to worry about this and or answer it.

Well, maybe they're counting on stupid people who don't read the requirements. Imagine the millions of iPod owners seeing the "$15/mo" price tag and wanting to try it out. They pay the (possibly non-refundable) $15 to start it out, but then they learn it's not compatible. Times that by a bunch of stupid people and Napster will get tons of money.

The fact that Napster is marketing this as if people will actually buy 10,000 songs from the iTMS shows that they don't think consumers are too bright. When I bought an iPod, my objective wasn't to fill it immediately, it is to put the best songs on it.

Quantity over quality, the Microsoft business model. I just don't think these businesses "get it."

Fishes,
narco.

 

[sirjimithy1]

Lets see if I understand this right.
Napster targets a market that is being dominated by Apples iPod with a over 70% worldwide market share (soon to be more with the new shuffle)
But can't and won't support the iPod, so they are basically asking people to throw away the iPod and buy some POS player to rent music from them.
This doesn't make much sense at all as a business plan, not to mention this being very arrogant and sounding more like something Micro$haft would try.

So in a nutshell Napster is saying rent instead of buying !!! but...ahm err you won't be able to use your iPod,

I don't think Apple is even going to worry about this and or answer it.

Even at the CES show, Bill showed off a couple of those iPod wanna-be's and said how he thought subscription services are great. It just explains so much. Their whole ideology is never based around user-friendliness and convenience for the consumer. It's almost as if they're trying to annoy people sometimes (XP activation, completely useless help system and knowledgebase, windows troubleshooters that have never solved a problem in a real-life scenario, etc etc.) And watching so many people continue to go back to microsoft every time they release something new is like watching a girl that you like keep going back to the jerk ex-boyfriend that hits her. People need to be able to think for themselves (aka Think Different) instead of taking everything they see and hear in the media as undeniable fact and maybe we can break out of this 1984 world.

Thank you, Apple.

 

[iJWC]

Devils Advocate

Lets see if I understand this right.
Napster targets a market that is being dominated by Apples iPod with a over 70% worldwide market share (soon to be more with the new shuffle)
But can't and won't support the iPod, so they are basically asking people to throw away the iPod and buy some POS player to rent music from them.
This doesn't make much sense at all as a business plan, not to mention this being very arrogant and sounding more like something Micro$haft would try.

So in a nutshell Napster is saying rent instead of buying !!! but...ahm err you won't be able to use your iPod,

I don't think Apple is even going to worry about this and or answer it.

You can also flip that position which you're arguing around. Apple has what, 2-5% market share in the computer business? Does that make them arrogant that they don't adopt the standards of the PC world? No, just like it doesn't make Napster arrogant. By the way, Napster is owned by Roxio, I'm sure everyone is familiar with their Mac products. Just because a few Mac Heads don't like the subscription models doesn't mean it can't be successful. Napster already has 270,000 subscribers paying $10 a month for their basic service. I think the pie is big enough for all the players to have a slice. Some more than others of course.

 

[mtkoren]

A modest proposal ....

The question I have is what can Apple learn from this so-called 'challenge' to make its service even better?

Using myself as an example - I love the music stores that when you walk into them, you can play over headphones the CD's you are considering for purchase just to be sure you want to live with what you buy. I don't find the example snippet available on iTunes to be enough to substitute so that I can make up my mind. And I would bet that many who would rent are doing it because they then don't have to commit to certain music up front and can test out various samples - problem is they then never own their choices. But at least they get as close as they will ever the feeling of having an open return-priveilege so the choice is not so final.

So I wonder if it would be possible that Apple make available some sort of equivalent trial. I don't think that a self-composting download only saved by receipt confirmation is viable at this point because Apple takes days to get you your purchase receipt. But if Apple were to, say, let you download a degraded version and/or one that self-destructs within a set time-frame, you'd be able to decide that it is OK to buy. I love it when I can go to a store with return privileges. And all those who hesitate on Apple's model because they don't want to be stuck buying things - even at only $0.99 each - they can't return would be addressed.

 

[sirjimithy1]

I love it when I can go to a store with return privileges. And all those who hesitate on Apple's model because they don't want to be stuck buying things - even at only $0.99 each - they can't return would be addressed.

Yeah but even with physical music stores, if you open a CD you can't return it.

 

[silvergunuk]

Even beter idea.

This Microsoft DRM is silly, we don't want to rent our music its a silly idea. How about they drop the J in Janus and give us ipod owners something to laugh at?

 

[jettredmont]

If you are someone who still listens to all or most of the CDs you bought from a few years back, stop reading now. I don't. Very few people I know do. I have simply deleted hundreds of files I downloaded back then and I am very glad I didn't pay for them. Their value to me was $0.05 not $0.99 (not that there was the option of paying anyway!).

I look back on the music from just a year or two ago and genuinely fail, in 80% of the cases, the understand what I saw in it - like an ex that tore out your heart, you look back and see them for the slag or ****** they really are.

Hmm. Interesting. Just the opposite of myself and my circle of friends and acquaintances (who enjoy hearing a song from a few years back).

Personally, I simply can't identify with your point of view. Music to me is a very internal, personal thing. It is a part of my identity. That is, I don't identify myself according to whatever crap was on the radio at point X in my life, but I very strongly identify myself with which of those thousands of songs released that year that struck a note with me, that inspired me and compelled me. To me, music is a collection, an ever-so-wordy MDF hash of what it is to be and to have been me.

Interesting to know that there is such a wildly opposite point of view out there. I've never come across someone who feels that way about music. I've met some who are indifferent about it, who'd listen to whatever at any time and really don't care what's playing as long as it fills the silence, but for them it could be music from ten years ago or from this week, they could have heard it a hundred times before or never, and it all left them the same.

It is this attitude, not the music, that Napster is trying to sell. It makes sense to rent most of your music because genres, bands, songs are merely transient. (important Note : some are not, of course, there are classics but these survive the rental test and are worth purchasing in the flesh). Music provision is no longer a sale, it is a service, like cable, broadband, phone, electricity, or a mobile phone.

Hmmm. Well, then they have a harder road in front of them than even I would have imagined. Changing an attitude about something which IMHO is so ingrained into society is an uphill battle, and, IMHO, Napster doesn't have the resources to fight it.

Lastly, consider the past and future of music.
Sony revolutionised music with the Walkman because it meant you could take your music with you.
Apple have revolutionised music with the iPod because it meant you could take all your music with you.
Over the next few years, with WiFi / WiMax access points everywhere, a WiFi enabled player and a subscription, you can take all music with you.

Again, from my POV, meaningless. I don't want "all music". I can turn on the radio for that. I want *my* music. I want to hear songs that I have identified with in the past. Yes, on occaision I want to hear something new, but for that the radio serves me quite well (I get some decent stations hereabout for free, and the radio stations off my satellite service fill the silence with new-to-me music at home).

Thanks for the perspective. Wish I could relate even slightly.

 

[ProApple05]

Monthly fees suck. Napster Sucks. And who the hell uses WMA!

 

[d.perel]

Clearing up some Fuzzy Math

I think that people could only take this seriously for about 3 days, or for some of my friends that use dell jukeboxes, about 12 months after their wallets are empty from this program. Apple should do an ad campaign with this sort of math:

iPod + iTunes = You +

OR

Zero music ownership + monthly fees + anti-user interface = You +

Do the math

If they did this, it would be pretty convincing, I think. After all, who doensn't like who-gets-the-last-laugh ad campaign?

 

[min_t]

Ugh, who the hell would pay Napster so they can hawk your personal listening habits.

This may have already been mentioned, but the "service" uploads the stats of your usage at the end of each month.

You better believe that when Napster needs some profits, they will sell their consumer information to the highest bidder. -How often different artists are listened to in groups, how often certain artists are listened to each day, and that John Doe in Anytown is a big fan of these 10 performers.

Then they better have a disclosure statement that states what they do with the information they obtain from their service. It's required by the online privacy act in California if yer doin bizness in CA.

 

[Freg3000]

The second ad is now up:

http://movies.differentdistrict.com/play.php?id=2255_0_28_0_M

Same theme as the previous one.

 

[Doctor Q]

Then they better have a disclosure statement that states what they do with the information they obtain from their service. It's required by the online privacy act in California if yer doin bizness in CA.

I've read the fine print in some of those agreements, and they don't seem to apply if another organization acquires the one that made you the promise not to share your data. Given the volatile nature of the online music business, I'd worry that my personal data wouldn't necessarily stay private.