HumanJHawkins said:
That doesn't make sense.
it takes $15 to fill up the iPod using Napster, and (5000 * .99 = ) $4950 with iTMS. 4950 / 15 = 330 months of a filled iPod with whatever you want with Napster...
scem0
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Napster vs iTunes: Superbowl Ad
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That doesn't make sense.
it takes $15 to fill up the iPod using Napster, and (5000 * .99 = ) $4950 with iTMS. 4950 / 15 = 330 months of a filled iPod with whatever you want with Napster...
scem0
Which is why most people I know hate their cable companies and constantly complain about how they're being ripped off. Most of them (myself included) would love a purchsae-model instead. Rather than spend $45 a month for cable service, I'd much rather spend some nominal fee (maybe $1-2 per 30 minute spot) to buy the programs I like.ctachme said:
The only reason you don't see people using this is that none of the content producers want to consider the option. They'd rather you pay through the nose or wait several years to buy a whole-season DVD compilation.
jettredmont said:
I couldn't agree more. My entire music collection means something to me. And this probably has to do with the fact that I don't just buy what's hot at the moment, or what everyone's listening to, or what the radio station is playing and says I should buy. Each song/album represents a special point/moment in my life. To me, it's like a photo album. Listening to each song/album is like a trip back down memory lane. I'm a part of that song/album and that song/album is a part of me. In a sense, my music has come to define who I am. I am my music.
Well, per year ...ChrisH3677 said:
It's not for the rest of your life, but for the rest of Napster corporation's life. Or for the life of their subscription service.ChrisH3677 said:
Once they decide the service isn't profitable, or if they go bankrupt, or if they get bought by someone that isn't interested in the service, all your music goes poof, and you'll have no recourse.
That's what Apple does. I was talking about Napster's DRM, however.Mechcozmo said:Actually, copy a protected AAC file over and just enter the username/password combo that you bought it with. iTunes checks on the internet that its legit and then your good.
Most DRM systems other than Apple do not let you transfer your licenses to new computers.
And what happens if they must raise the price to meet operating expenses?nek said:
With iTMS, you continue to be able to play the songs that you already purchased. Plus the option is there if you want to purchase more at the increased rate. But it is not mandatory.
With Napster, you pay the increased price, or you can't listen to any of the music.
Sushi
This is not surprising. For the last several years, Microsoft has been trying to convince corporate IT departments to start renting software as well. You fail to keep up the payments? Watch every copy of Word stop working and your corporation goes out of business.sirjimithy1 said:
They try to promote this "feature" by promising free upgrades to every new version. Maybe it's just me, but I'd need a lot more incentive than that.
Ahhhh, how about Napster - think different
Apart from that, well fair enough, you have your views on music (thanks for making it all the way through!)
... but ... one question, and to sw1tcher as well, how do you choose the music that is "special" without buying it? I do look at a very large proportion of it as rubbish but I do still allow 20% as the really good music, the stuff I would want to buy.
How do you find those good tracks that stand the test of time without wasting vast sums on rubbish, or restricting music to that preselected for you by someone else?
Subscription to me says don't let the radio / TV / your fiends filter your music tastes, look and listen for yourself. When you searched on P2P it comes up with the maddest results, you might download 50 tracks, listen to them and maybe you find 1 good one that finds itself on every playlist - if you still think it is good a year on, that's one to buy, one that is you and you also know 49 you shouldn't, 49 that aren't you, and 49 tracks you have saved money on (although they sounded good at the time). I don't see any other service offering this ability at the moment.
But with cable you don't get to choose the programme or the time.
How about a compromise, you pay the $45 a month and you get to choose the programme, from any of a million or more programmes I have to offer, that you want to watch and it will come on when you want to watch it.
That means Simpsons, Southpark and Family Guy all day saturday if that's what you want. Got homework? We have every documentary made in the last 30 years. Why not relive England beating Germany in the World Cup Final ... on TV the minute you come back from the pub (or er, your team beating another in the Superbowl). Speaking of which, if you really, really want it, you can run the original Apple 1984 commercial non-stop, all day, every day...
The Subscription Model and Cindy Crawford
I know exactly one enthusiastic user of Napster. He's in the movie business. He has to keep up with the industry. So he has his iPod for himself, but he downloads from Napster too to sample hundreds of songs a month. It doesn't matter to him that it's a subscription. The studio pays for it.
I could see mad fans supplementing their iTunes consumption with a sub like that. Just not as many as impulse buy at the iTunes Music Store.
If Apple does subscriptions, they should way undercut. You might even make it free to download songs that self-destruct in a week; but very cheap, and giive people searchable database access to the whole Music Store streams for $50 a year. Worth it to you? How about $20 a year? It's a loss leader, a way of hooking millions of customers. It's like downloading a demo. Like kids in the corner record shop, listening to the latest .45. Researchers looking for a film theme, or doing their doctorates in music or Modest Mouse composing a new piece. Then, when the trial period stops, you either buy the full rights, with higher-quality, applesingle sound, or you toss the music and just keep the metadata: performers, names, liner notes, and a "buy me" hypertext link and all that, in case you want it later.
They give you a 30 sec. stream now. Make it two day's worth of that whole song. You'd make the money through the traffic through the store.
Our communication is too expensive. We have, most of us, limited means, and TV and the radio used to be "free." We paid only for the phone. Then cable TV. Now comes all the monthly bills. Telephone. DSL? Cable. Digital cable? HDTV channels for the Digital cable? With all the Movies you want, or without? Oh, you can't use Vonage on our phones, and no, you can't drop the line while just paying for bandwidth. Music? You have to subscribe to that too.
The market will belong to the first person who figures out how to provide everything. All your network needs. Cheap. Anywhere.
----------------
- Part of the appeal of movies is,
we fall in love with beautiful strangers in the dark -
I know exactly one enthusiastic user of Napster. He's in the movie business. He has to keep up with the industry. So he has his iPod for himself, but he downloads from Napster too to sample hundreds of songs a month. It doesn't matter to him that it's a subscription. The studio pays for it.
I could see mad fans supplementing their iTunes consumption with a sub like that. Just not as many as impulse buy at the iTunes Music Store.
If Apple does subscriptions, they should way undercut. You might even make it free to download songs that self-destruct in a week; but very cheap, and giive people searchable database access to the whole Music Store streams for $50 a year. Worth it to you? How about $20 a year? It's a loss leader, a way of hooking millions of customers. It's like downloading a demo. Like kids in the corner record shop, listening to the latest .45. Researchers looking for a film theme, or doing their doctorates in music or Modest Mouse composing a new piece. Then, when the trial period stops, you either buy the full rights, with higher-quality, applesingle sound, or you toss the music and just keep the metadata: performers, names, liner notes, and a "buy me" hypertext link and all that, in case you want it later.
They give you a 30 sec. stream now. Make it two day's worth of that whole song. You'd make the money through the traffic through the store.
Our communication is too expensive. We have, most of us, limited means, and TV and the radio used to be "free." We paid only for the phone. Then cable TV. Now comes all the monthly bills. Telephone. DSL? Cable. Digital cable? HDTV channels for the Digital cable? With all the Movies you want, or without? Oh, you can't use Vonage on our phones, and no, you can't drop the line while just paying for bandwidth. Music? You have to subscribe to that too.
The market will belong to the first person who figures out how to provide everything. All your network needs. Cheap. Anywhere.
----------------
- Part of the appeal of movies is,
we fall in love with beautiful strangers in the dark -
AlmostThere said:
Sorry, I missed this point previously.
Note that Napster (current) has a few orders of magnitude fewer songs than Napster (original) did. This is because of two essential reasons:
1) It is impossible to get contracts with every music company ever having been in existence, as many just plain don't exist any more.
2) Some companies who do have contracts with the download sites don't allow all their music to be downloaded on all the sites (especially their back catalogue).
I think an obvious failing of a "subscription" model is that it is Napster and the record companies themselves who decide if the song you've been listening to for three years should go "back in the archives" for whatever reason (and they have done this in the past). Next month your WMP player "checks in", sees the "no rights" notice for "My Favorite Bluegrass Single", and whoop! Gone!
This is not an issue when you own the music. Yes, granted, technically, you just own the right to play it, but there is no legal or technical means for a song to me pulled from your shelf. Given the proclivity of media companies to want to limit shelf availability of their "products", when that "no longer available" day comes for a song, it will be gone from iTMS, it will be gone from Napster, and it will be gone from the records store. But it will still be on my computer, and it will still be on my iPod.
AlmostThere said:
I have a variety of sources, from air-radio (you know, the paleolithic kind), to internet radio, to satellite tv "channels", to shared iTunes, to just walking around offices, family, friends ... did I miss anything? And of course there's always "I liked their last album, so I'll buy the new one and give it a try", etc, as well. And the occaisional blind purchase just to get new blood in every once in a while.
Costs a lot less than $15/month to keep me in a solid 25-50% "new" music (less than a year old is "new" to me...), even with the occasional clinker that ends up on the bottom corner of the CD rack after the first listen-through.
As I said, as a "preview" service, the "subscription" model makes sense. But it has to be significantly cheaper than the current offerings to work as a preview service, and to counter-balance that as a preview service it could have a few more restrictions (like, I can only have x number of songs out as "preview" at a time, or there might be a nominal per-song preview charge and the preview copy dies after a set amount of time, or something along those lines). I don't know. But in the absence of a good preview download service, I've got the various sources listed above, which don't cost me anything (well, the sat tv channels do, but that comes as a package...)
I just can't see my entire life being in "preview" mode. Music's too important, once I've taken it in, to be just "borrowed".
Returning it is not the point ...
My point is not to return it though I mentioned that. THe point is to get a first full hearing of the music THEN decide. That is what stores like B&N and others let you do before buying. And I was suggesting that if Apple let you do that first with a self-destructive download then many who would subscribe as a way of sampling to decide what they like and dont like would not need to do that. The Apple store would be even much more fantastic and give us what plysical stores do ---> The ability to fully preview and THEN purchase.
sirjimithy1 said:
My point is not to return it though I mentioned that. THe point is to get a first full hearing of the music THEN decide. That is what stores like B&N and others let you do before buying. And I was suggesting that if Apple let you do that first with a self-destructive download then many who would subscribe as a way of sampling to decide what they like and dont like would not need to do that. The Apple store would be even much more fantastic and give us what plysical stores do ---> The ability to fully preview and THEN purchase.
jettredmont said:
Of course we don't want all the music since it's like saying we want all the <insert desirable object here> in the world. I don't think that's what AlmostThere is implying.
He/she is saying that the consumer has that option in this subscription model. Well I think the past has shown, consumer demand for a particular product/service that innovates the marketplace is a poor indicator of its success.
A fair analogy (?):
"I don't want "all the information on the Internet". I can visit the library for that. I want *my* information (ie what I want). ...
Yes, on occasion I want to discover something new, but for that the library serves me quite well (I have access to some decent libraries for free, and the libraries have plenty of books that I haven't read)."
As we all know, in spite of this reasoning, the Internet continues to grow and flourish. It has become an indispensible part of life (for me at least).
Napster isn't saying that renting is better or even what you should do for the bulk of your music.
Example.
I divide my songs into 3 categories.
A- the classics I grew up with and will always love. These I rarely tire of and I BUY these so I have perfect copies 'forever'.
B- the good songs I like and want to keep 'archived' but I do not listen to these on a day to day basis but once in a while I blow off the dust and give them a listen.
C- the current chart toppers,the 'throw a way' songs that I listen to 15-20 times over the course of a month or two then delete. THESE are the songs you 'rent'. Load 'em up,listen til you get bored and then trash them. Currently you must BUY these songs from iTMS. You still buy the Metallica or
Led Zeppelin or KISS you love forever but you rent the Bowling For Soup and Jessica Simpson tracks you just want to listen to a dozen times.
However,under the rental option,you too can keep the songs.
Get yourself some cheap basic mp3 recorder software and turn those protected WMA files into unprotected mp3's.
The con is you need to clear out an afternoon or two some Weekend to get all your songs recorded. The Pro,you can get 20,30,50,? songs in acceptable quality mp3 for $10.00-$15.00/month.
I do not know how much money I've wasted in iTunes on these throw a way songs. I buy them like a good little boy only to be sick of them 3 weeks later.
It's unlimited how many songs you can 'own' doing it this way. The more free time and patience you have the more songs you can get recorded.
I see it as the evolution of radio recording you did on your old tape deck when you were 12.
With Napster you can sample songs all day and night and if you find a few that you really like buy/record them.
I guess it all depends on how you listen to your music. For me,if itunes did what Napster is doing I'd be in heaven.
I'd pay $10-15/month to have my run of the iTunes music store....even if the songs expired after 30 days.
Maybe Apple could do this: Charge $12 a month and let us download/'check out' up to 50 songs to be listened to on our ipods. At the end of the month we can 'keep' 5. The rest remain listen only until we delete them or cancel our subscription.
I think the future lies somewhere between what iTunes does and what Napster is trying to do.
Example.
I divide my songs into 3 categories.
A- the classics I grew up with and will always love. These I rarely tire of and I BUY these so I have perfect copies 'forever'.
B- the good songs I like and want to keep 'archived' but I do not listen to these on a day to day basis but once in a while I blow off the dust and give them a listen.
C- the current chart toppers,the 'throw a way' songs that I listen to 15-20 times over the course of a month or two then delete. THESE are the songs you 'rent'. Load 'em up,listen til you get bored and then trash them. Currently you must BUY these songs from iTMS. You still buy the Metallica or
Led Zeppelin or KISS you love forever but you rent the Bowling For Soup and Jessica Simpson tracks you just want to listen to a dozen times.
However,under the rental option,you too can keep the songs.
Get yourself some cheap basic mp3 recorder software and turn those protected WMA files into unprotected mp3's.
The con is you need to clear out an afternoon or two some Weekend to get all your songs recorded. The Pro,you can get 20,30,50,? songs in acceptable quality mp3 for $10.00-$15.00/month.
I do not know how much money I've wasted in iTunes on these throw a way songs. I buy them like a good little boy only to be sick of them 3 weeks later.
It's unlimited how many songs you can 'own' doing it this way. The more free time and patience you have the more songs you can get recorded.
I see it as the evolution of radio recording you did on your old tape deck when you were 12.
With Napster you can sample songs all day and night and if you find a few that you really like buy/record them.
I guess it all depends on how you listen to your music. For me,if itunes did what Napster is doing I'd be in heaven.
I'd pay $10-15/month to have my run of the iTunes music store....even if the songs expired after 30 days.
Maybe Apple could do this: Charge $12 a month and let us download/'check out' up to 50 songs to be listened to on our ipods. At the end of the month we can 'keep' 5. The rest remain listen only until we delete them or cancel our subscription.
I think the future lies somewhere between what iTunes does and what Napster is trying to do.
Octopod said:
I think its called Itunester!
JK! I still think renting music is a loser idea! Owning is better over the long run.billystlyes said:I think its called Itunester!
Why pay for songs you will only end up deleting? Makes no sense.
Maybe some people dont outgrow songs or get sick of them but many do.
Why not rent those songs,use them up and discard them w/o wasting the money?
I'd rather spend $10 on 30 songs of which 25 will get dumped in the recycle bin at some point then to spend $30 on those same songs.
I like to keep my library streamlined and I often trim the fat...now I can rent the fat and not lose gobs of money.
Again,this renting thing is not the be all and end all...it is simply another way of enjoying music...think of it as radio on demand. Make a 40 song playlist,load it up....enjoy it for a week or two then dump it and start over.
I just dont see the negative. If its not something that fits your musical lifestlye...fine...but why trash something just because you can't use it?
DarkSideofMoon said:
Ya know all Apple would have to do is let you dload the track & buffer it (the trial track) within iTunes (prolly already does) where in can't be saved . You could dload & listen to several, then choose to buy 1, all or none (then these are saved). After, say 15 minutes, you get a "put up or shut up" dialog last chance to buy, then the "trial" songs are purged from the buffer,
Would take more bandwidth, but would give the customer "try before you buy".
Napster aside, ITMS would prolly sell a lot more tracks this way!
Their logic is flawed
Firstly, I doubt there are very many people who have spent $10,000 at the iTunes Music Store. I doubt there are that many who have spent even 1/10 of that (or $1,000 for those that don't want to "do the math")... I personally have spent only about $200 (and $150 of that was the U2 collection). I think most people have probably spent $100 or less.
The logic that a person would buy an MP3 player with a very large harddrive and yet not have any music to begin with is ridiculous. Most people have been collecting music all their lives. Nobody says "what's this whole 'Music Thing' everyone's been talking about all my life? I better get in on this new-fangled thing. First I'll buy an mp3 player and,... oh wait... I don't have ANY music. So I'll have to go to ITUNES and I've got exactly $10,000 in my bank account, so I might as well just blow ALL of it on music."
I've been through Albums & 45s, 8-tracks & Cassettes and finally got serious with CDs. Hundreds and hundreds of CDs. And I've been building my Digital Music collection now for over 4 years. Who hasn't? I'm sitting right now on about 12,000 music/book files. $10,000 sounds like a lot of music, but over the course of one's life, it really isn't. I've probably spent more money on Coca-Cola and Snickers if you broke it down over the course of a lifetime.
We all have lots of stuff already. ITunes is there to simply fill in the gaps, get stuff first in some cases and buy music we've had a hard time getting because it's been out of print for a long time. It's not there to build a person's collection from the first music note up.
Also, think about this... check out your most played songs in iTunes. I've got songs that I've played over a hundred times over the past couple of years, but would I want to listen to the same song over and over again for the one month I am a Napster member? No, it would kill the song for me. I need to own the song so that I can enjoy it now and next year, as much as I choose to play it -- without another lame monthly fee.
They claim that $15 rents you 10,000 songs. Bogus. If you spent the next 30 days listening to music, without stopping to do ANYTHING, you would probably not have listened to that many songs, not to mention that your brain would be mush. No one listens to anywhere near that many songs so what's the point?
Napster can't get away from the fact that once you quit paying them, the DANCE is over. The DJ has packed up all his music and left the building. Personally, I don't ever want to rent my music. I want to buy it once and have it from now on.
Firstly, I doubt there are very many people who have spent $10,000 at the iTunes Music Store. I doubt there are that many who have spent even 1/10 of that (or $1,000 for those that don't want to "do the math")... I personally have spent only about $200 (and $150 of that was the U2 collection). I think most people have probably spent $100 or less.
The logic that a person would buy an MP3 player with a very large harddrive and yet not have any music to begin with is ridiculous. Most people have been collecting music all their lives. Nobody says "what's this whole 'Music Thing' everyone's been talking about all my life? I better get in on this new-fangled thing. First I'll buy an mp3 player and,... oh wait... I don't have ANY music. So I'll have to go to ITUNES and I've got exactly $10,000 in my bank account, so I might as well just blow ALL of it on music."
I've been through Albums & 45s, 8-tracks & Cassettes and finally got serious with CDs. Hundreds and hundreds of CDs. And I've been building my Digital Music collection now for over 4 years. Who hasn't? I'm sitting right now on about 12,000 music/book files. $10,000 sounds like a lot of music, but over the course of one's life, it really isn't. I've probably spent more money on Coca-Cola and Snickers if you broke it down over the course of a lifetime.
We all have lots of stuff already. ITunes is there to simply fill in the gaps, get stuff first in some cases and buy music we've had a hard time getting because it's been out of print for a long time. It's not there to build a person's collection from the first music note up.
Also, think about this... check out your most played songs in iTunes. I've got songs that I've played over a hundred times over the past couple of years, but would I want to listen to the same song over and over again for the one month I am a Napster member? No, it would kill the song for me. I need to own the song so that I can enjoy it now and next year, as much as I choose to play it -- without another lame monthly fee.
They claim that $15 rents you 10,000 songs. Bogus. If you spent the next 30 days listening to music, without stopping to do ANYTHING, you would probably not have listened to that many songs, not to mention that your brain would be mush. No one listens to anywhere near that many songs so what's the point?
Napster can't get away from the fact that once you quit paying them, the DANCE is over. The DJ has packed up all his music and left the building. Personally, I don't ever want to rent my music. I want to buy it once and have it from now on.
But the whole point is that you have choice... If I hear a song I like on the radio, I can download it free of charge. If I really like a CD that I bought prior to my subscription to Napster, I could download other CDs by that band - for free!
It is the freedom that is so attractive to me. If my music tastes change - no biggie! I can just delete the old stuff and download the new stuff, free of charge.
Yeah, for $15 I can listen to 15 songs for the rest of time, but I hope my music tastes change at least a little bit in the next couple of years...
I really think Napster has a great deal. If only it had AAC support.
scem0
It is the freedom that is so attractive to me. If my music tastes change - no biggie! I can just delete the old stuff and download the new stuff, free of charge.
Yeah, for $15 I can listen to 15 songs for the rest of time, but I hope my music tastes change at least a little bit in the next couple of years...
I really think Napster has a great deal. If only it had AAC support
.scem0
