toggle

AAPL Stock: 509.46 ( + 6.86 )

MacNN News

Napster unveils new music service, anti-iPod campaign

updated 08:00 am EST, Thu February 3, 2005

Napster takes on iPod

Napster on Wednesday unveiled a portable version of its music subscription service, backed by a $30 million ad campaign that , according to Reuters: "Napster's promotion includes a Super Bowl television spot urging fans to compare the costs of spending $10,000 to buy and transfer 10,000 songs from Apple's iTunes store to an iPod, with the $15-per-month fee to carry songs from a catalog of over a million tracks on Napster-compatible players."

by MacNN Staff

(62)

TAGS :

industry, digital music/video

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

jaxxe
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2001

0

02/03, 08:09am | report spam | close Reply |
Dat's Just Retarded

Good luck to 'em!

oxjox
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2004

0

02/03, 08:14am | report spam | close Reply |
Who would rent songs?

Wow - do they really think people will spend money to rent songs? Maybe it's just me, but I can't imagine that. But then again... I suppose you could "rent" a million songs for $15 a month for 20 years and be saving quite a bit of dough - that's $3,600. But if Napster takes a c***, I know - terribly unlikely, then what happens to my million songs I have been renting? I'm up for a good debate - what are the pros and cons of Napster vs. iTunes?

msuper69
Mac Elite

Joined: Jan 2000

0

02/03, 08:15am | report spam | close Reply |
Won't work

and the first time you fail to make your monthly subscription payment, you lose all your music.

No thanks!

iChick
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2001

0

02/03, 08:21am | report spam | close Reply |
People Want to Own Stuff

Music isn't something you want to rent - you want to own your collection.

williamdrover
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

02/03, 08:21am | report spam | close Reply |
Trash

looks like Napster is wasting 30 million on a stupid ad campaign. Too bad that would buy a lot of iPods for their staff.

Renting a song is an okay idea but their player is garbage and why would I support a company that (as far as I know) was founded on the whole premise of stealing music.

scottrussell
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2001

0

02/03, 08:24am | report spam | close Reply |
renting music

I think the "renting music" analogy is spot-on. It sure sounds like a bad idea. But perhaps if people think the deal is a good enough, they'd rather rent than own.

For example, if you could buy a condo for $150,000 or rent it for $15 per month, renting becomes extremely attractive. I know this is an extreme exaggeration, but I'm just using it for illustration. For people who desire massive (legitimately downloaded) music collections, the rental paradigm is the ONLY way.

MacnTX
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2004

0

02/03, 08:25am | report spam | close Reply |
Yeah But...

In one to two years when Napster has gone belly up, you can also say goodbye to all of your music!!!

jimothy
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2000

0

02/03, 08:55am | report spam | close Reply |
Careful, Napster!

For some users, "renting" does make more sense than buying. But here's the thing: There's nothing stopping Apple from offering a subscription service in the future, if that's what the market calls for. So Napster's $30 million ad campaign may be little more than an expensive way to egg Apple on.

dwishbone
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: May 2002

0

02/03, 09:05am | report spam | close Reply |
hidden charges...

doesnt napster charge you when you want to burn any of your music to a cd? so its $15 a month but then you have to pay money for each track to burn them permanently...or something like that. or am i mistaken? i looked on their site and they seem to hide those kind of things.

eddd
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2001

0

02/03, 09:09am | report spam | close Reply |
pride goes before...

Careful about the hubris, Mac fans. My daughter owns 2 iPods, and has bought hundreds of songs from the iTMS. Lately she's been asking if she could "use Kazaa like her friends," (to which I answered "no," of course). The point is, she's tiring of having to purchase each song she listens to, while her friends have an apparently limitless choice. She's probably spending close to $180 annually anyway... I could see her wanting something like this, and I don't think it would bother her too much to lose them if she stopped paying. She can always buy the CD for music she really likes.

Nothing lasts forever, and I could see this eating into the iTMS customer base. The thing I couldn't imagine is her giving up her iPod mini... she loves that thing. So maybe the device is more important than the service after all.

Visnaut
Senior User

Joined: Nov 2000

0

02/03, 09:12am | report spam | close Reply |
Yeah right...

The fact that the iPod/iTunes paradigm has been so successful apparently hasn't hammered home the fact enough to big company execs: The market has already made their choice loud and clear. If renting was a better idea, the iTMS would never of have taken off.

And by using the faulty logic of having to spend 10,000 to fill your iPod, the company is seriously shooting themselves in the foot. It insults the intelligence of your potential customers who *surprise* already OWN a great collection on CDs.

This will do nothing to convert iPod/iTunes users who already have invested money into it, and is basically a desperate attempt to cull customers who have not yet settled into the whole online music business.

The problem is, during the same Superbowl campaign, Pepsi/Apple will be going at it strong with offers of FREE songs. You can't pass up free, and once you've enjoyed how easy it is to do it on iTunes, the 99� upfront price is very appealing, rather than some fat $15 monthly commitment. Hook, line and sinker.

GORDYmac
Mac Elite

Joined: Dec 1999

0

02/03, 09:15am | report spam | close Reply |
And the people will ask..

..."will these songs play on my iPod?"

hybrid
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2004

0

02/03, 09:20am | report spam | close Reply |
Napster charges $0.99

... every time you want to burn a track to CD. Considering a lot of people still use CDs in their cars, and often on their home stereos as well, that could add up.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple counters with a campaign showing all the advantages of iTunes, like unlimited CD burning, actually owning the files, etc.

ff11
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2004

0

02/03, 09:27am | report spam | close Reply |
edd

There's nothing stopping your daughter from using Kazaa ... other than the law.

hybrid
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2004

0

02/03, 09:35am | report spam | close Reply |
"Purchased" tracks

Napster is trying to have it both ways. Even with their subscription service, they have a "purchased" track option as well. Under the subscription service, you can listen to your music online or offline, but if you want to transfer it to a digital music player or burn a CD, you have to buy it for *ding ding ding* $0.99 per track!

The new "Napster to Go" service sounds like they're trying a new strategy because Apple is kicking their a** on the "purchased" music side of things. It looks like Napster to Go lets you download unlimited songs to ONE portable music player. But again, if you want to burn a CD or do pretty much anything else with it, you have to pay $0.99 per track.

They're only telling half the story on their site. I presume the full rates and terms & conditions of the service are only revealed within the Napster application itself.

rok
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 1999

0

02/03, 09:35am | report spam | close Reply |
something napster assumes

...is that people buy ALL of their music online. yet apple KNOWS lots of people ALREADY OWN LOTS OF MUsic and, if they are willing to buy an mp3 player, are not so retarded as to figure out how to put that music on the player.

i bet i have spent over $1000 lifetime EASY on CD's in my rack (maybe more), so i have a.) already paid for them and b.) therefore OWN them. so this model of filling up your player on a cheap subscription fee only really counts if you are buying NEW music to add to your collection, or, the much more unlikely "starting from scratch." if napster (and others) really think they can create a business model around that and succeed, more power to 'em.

gts440
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2005

0

02/03, 09:36am | report spam | close Reply |
It more than just renting

its spyware, form Napster's legal stmt:

Napster automatically renews your rights to all of your Downloads at the beginning of each Subscription Month (as defined below) so long as your subscription remains current. This means that in order to play any Download after the end of a Subscription Month, you must log on to the Service so that Napster can renew your rights for those Tracks. The Client will count the number of times that you play a Download, including while you are offline, for royalty accounting and analysis purposes.

In addition, if you register for the "Napster To Go" tier, you will be able to transfer your Downloads an unlimited amount of times to up to a maximum of three (3) such compatible portable devices for as long as your "Napster To Go" membership is current. For royalty accounting and analysis purposes, Napster will track the Downloads that you so transfer and the number of times that you play Downloads on such devices. Napster also automatically renews your rights to any Downloads stored on your portable devices at the beginning of each Subscription Month. Thus, in order to continue to play such Downloads on that portable device, you will need to dock your portable device (i.e., connect to the PC) and log onto Napster at the beginning of each Subscription Month.

If you have Tracks that were pre-loaded to your personal computer, portable device, CD or DVD, you may access and play these Tracks as Downloads only after you have registered for a tier of the Subscription Service. You may not otherwise access or play these Tracks and you agree not to attempt to do so.

hardcat1970
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: May 2000

0

02/03, 09:46am | report spam | close Reply |
the truth is...

selling songs at 99 cents each is not a profitable business, napster and others know that. They try to get your money up front so that they can survive.

horvatic
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2002

0

02/03, 09:49am | report spam | close Reply |
What free songs?

Your monthly payment doesn't include downloads! It still cost 99 cents per song so where to they get this free stuff from. Talking about miss leading advertising.

evansls
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2004

0

02/03, 09:50am | report spam | close Reply |
Revenue

Is it safe to assume (even though you shouldn't) that if you were to multiply 270,000 Napster subscribers by the new $15 a month (if everyone had a windows portable and joined the Janus technology) that it would equal a monthly revenue of $4,050,000 in revenue? And if this was an accurate statement, wouldn't you see this as a horrible low number compared to Apple's million dollar a day revenue from iTunes?

OsakaBill
Forum Regular

Joined: Oct 1999

0

02/03, 09:51am | report spam | close Reply |
Limitless Choice...

"The point is, she's tiring of having to purchase each song she listens to, while her friends have an apparently limitless choice."

Your daughter's friends have "limitless choice" because they are engaging in illegal file sharing via Kazza. They are not renting or subscribing to a music service when they use Kazza. They are illegally downloading music. It is that simple.

You can give your daughter the same "limitless choice" by allowing her to install Kazza or any other P2P sharing application. The she will be free to illegally share music too and will have free, nearly "limitless choice".

But you have already decided you don't want her doing that.

So how would Napster's service give you that "limitless chocie" your daughter's friends have? Answer: It wouldn't!

futuremac
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2003

0

02/03, 10:09am | report spam | close Reply |
p2p= virus, bad recording

they are also trusting "johnny" to record the song properly and not install a virus or trojan into the song. how many times have you spent hours downloading songs from kazza only to find out that the person who uploaded it cut the song off 45 seconds before the end, or recorded it where you can hear them talking in the background?

not to mention adding a virus or trojan horse to the song. when you download from these p2p services you are taking a risk of downloading a badly recorded or shotened song, or worse. with itunes i know im not downloading a virus into my computer...

TwinFeats
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 1999

0

02/03, 10:10am | report spam | close Reply |
Pirating purchased music

What I do with my purchased tracks from iTunes is technically illegal, but quite frankly I don't care to adhere to what I find to be stupid licensing. After downloading from iTunes, I convert the file to a normal mp3 file so I can have as many personal copies as I like. I don't give them out to my friends, I don't post them on the internet, but with my large family (8) I typically need more than the 5 copies (I think that's the number) the Apple format allows, especially considering how hard my younger kids are on CDs!

dwishbone
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: May 2002

0

02/03, 10:14am | report spam | close Reply |
itunes is a virus...

its one big money sucking virus. :)
ive spent more money on music since iTMS was launched than i ever have before. i used to use P2P apps like most everyone else before. the 99 cents is worth it to me for the quality, lack of hassle, safety, and time saving. i only use P2P now if a song is not on iTMS. iTMS is a god send for music lovers. if the money grubbing holier than though record labels and artists dont want to support iTunes then i dont support them with my money. plain and simple. if they want it...put it on iTunes.

mjtomlin
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 1999

0

02/03, 11:04am | report spam | close Reply |
Ironic...

That these people are attacking the very company that is credited as bringing the Music Industry into the digital age. It was Apple that got the RIAA to lessen their grip on the licensing and make it possible for people to have a "fair" amount of rights over the music they purchase online. It is also the iTunes Music Store and the iPod that drives a majority of consumers online to buy their music.

And that's the problem here ... people are online BUYING their music not renting their music. This has already been proven to be what the consumer wants. Before iTMS, all the legal "pay-for" services were in fact subscription based services. Where are they all now... well those that did not perish, switched to the "pay per song" model. Unfortunately it was too late at that point, because iTMS was getting all the attention, especially after selling a million songs in its first week. And with Apple's iPod + iTunes ad campaign, the others really never had a chance.

Since they know you can't make any real money off 99 cents per track, they have to try and convince the consumers that subscribing to music for a monthly fee is much better than owning your music. This would then give them a continuous income they could count on. The flawed logic here... if there really was a market for renting music, don't you think Blockbuster or Hollywood Video would already be doing that?

One of the major problems with download subscription services is the amount of time it takes to download these songs. Their ad says a million songs for $15/month, but honestly, who in the h*** who could possibly download a million songs to listen to all of them. For that matter, who's going to download just several hundred knowing that all that time will be wasted if you ever decide to end the subscription? This isn't like satellite radio or broadcast radio where you listen to the music as it's received. It needs to be downloaded first, then it can be listened to. True you have the benefit of choosing which songs you get to play, but if I'm going to sit around and wait for a 4MB file to download, it had better be something I can keep and play when ever and where ever I wanted.

robtronik
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2002

0

02/03, 11:10am | report spam | close Reply |
NTG clarifications

1 - The Napster application is not spyware any more than Apple's iTunes is spyware. It only manages the portable subscription license so that abuses don't occur. This is the same type of management Apple does for authorizing a certain amount of computers allowed to play back songs you've purchased.

2 - Napster has a $.99 download store AND subscription options. It allows the choice of either so you can choose which option you want. Apple only has the download option, that's it.

3 - If your subscription payments stop, the music on your computer or MP3 player still stay on the machines. After a small grace period, they just stop playing. Restart your subsubcription payments and they unlock so you can continue to use them on your PC or MP3 player. They are not deleted. In fact, Napster has a resync option that allows you to reupload all your tracks to your PC if it gets hosed for some reason as well. Purchased tracks always play whether your subscription payment ends or not.

4 - And finally, the point behind Napster to Go is not so you can burn songs to disc (thereby stripping the DRM) it is so you can transfer unlimited amount of times any tracks you want from the more than 1,000,000 available. That's VERY cool if you want to sample or listen to tracks/albums and decide if you want them permanently or not.

Look at it this way - you can spend around the cost of a CD per month and have access on your PC or compatible MP3 player to over a million songs to listen to. AND you can still purchase the ones you want as well if they are good enough to keep.

Its a much better service than Apple now because of this.

.02,

rob.

benhur
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2001

0

02/03, 11:10am | report spam | close Reply |
only a matter of time

Apple's service is obviously the best model, right now. I'd seriously consider renting and I'm an iPod owner. If it worked on an iPod I'd take the plunge and do it. Sure most of you would rather own then rent, I suppose that's why blockbuster and netflix are doing so terrible right now. There are many songs I'd like to sample or hear just a few times. I'm not going to buy them to do it.

Why are people so pesimistic? I don't think Napster could offer the same user experience as Apple but it's a good alternative and I'm not going to shoot them down. Apple might want to look into either doing this themselves or allowing another service to do renting for them. Apple said it themselves, they don't make money on the iTunes store but rather on the iPod's.

A super bowl ad is going to be huge. There are many people just sitting on the fence right now. I think the shuffle came out just at the right time bc the iPods were way to expensive before and those who would likely consider renting just may stay with iTunes because the entry point is now $99.

We all know Apple could offer a subscription service if it wanted to. I don't pretend to know what other people want but I think it's smart to give the people a choice. Apple should look into it.

VadersCape
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2004

0

02/03, 11:38am | report spam | close Reply |
$10,000? CHEAP!!!

$10,000 to own 10,000 more songs I do not already have is actually a GREAT deal for me because:

a) I'm not spending the $10,000 in one lump - I tend to buy songs in groups of slightly fewer songs at a time

b) They would be 10,000 songs that I would WANT ... not paid monthly access to a library of songs most of which I have absolutely no interest in

c) I wouldn't feel compelled to listen to all of those songs enough times every month in order to feel like I'm getting my money's worth

d) I wouldn't be worried that they might disappear for one of many different reasons

Napster will attract a few subscribers, predominantly among the folks who still associate it with "free music on the internet" but even those won't have any kind of stellar renewal rate.

hardcat1970
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: May 2000

0

02/03, 11:45am | report spam | close Reply |
why napster sucks

to answer your question why people so pessimistic about Napster to Go is because they don't work on a mac and they told you theirs is about choice. And they completely ignore the fact that apple is the one who revives the digital music business.

vickys-box
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2004

0

02/03, 12:19pm | report spam | close Reply |
Logging in

According the T&Cs you have to log in at the beginning of each Subscription Month in order to continue playing the music you've already downloaded AND the same goes for each portable device that you have the music loaded onto.

Great if you're on holiday when your Subscription Month expires.

John F.
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2004

0

02/03, 12:41pm | report spam | close Reply |
So...

So I subscribe, download like 10000 songs - how long would that take and how to choose? - and when I end my subscription in say a year I loose my whole collection and have to think about building a new collection? Thanks but no thanks. I only see subscription as an extra service. You listen to a bunch of songs, buy the ones you like at the end of the week. So actually, you'll be spending subscription and the usual iTunes per song fee.

iFrankie
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2002

0

02/03, 01:01pm | report spam | close Reply |
Risky

"The once-renegade online music service was part of Roxio Inc. before Roxio sold its consumer software division and renamed itself Napster Inc."

Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

02/03, 01:12pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: ironic

And that's the problem here ... people are online BUYING their music not renting their music. This has already been proven to be what the consumer wants. Before iTMS, all the legal "pay-for" services were in fact subscription based services. Where are they all now... well those that did not perish, switched to the "pay per song" model. Unfortunately it was too late at that point, because iTMS was getting all the attention, especially after selling a million songs in its first week. And with Apple's iPod + iTunes ad campaign, the others really never had a chance.

Just because more people are using iTMS more than the others combined, doesn't mean people have said "We want to buy music!". It could be just that (a) they buy it there because there's no subscription service that plays on the iPod, or (b) all the other services/stores (subscription or not) suck. The big question should be, if Apple started the iTMS as a subscription service instead of just purchasing, with its ease of use and stuff, how well would it be doing now in comparison with the current iTMS.

As for people wanting to buy more then rent, keep in mind teenagers listen to loads of music, most of which is flash in the pan c***. Many of them may not want to buy the latest Hansen CD or music because they don't want to be seeing that on their shelf 10 years from now. But rent it for a few months until they're no longer 'in', that makes sense.

rok
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 1999

0

02/03, 01:23pm | report spam | close Reply |
here's the thing...

first, good luck to all these companies who are ABOUT to start war with apple. nothing like letting apple get a, what, three year head start? also, apple just needs to do two things to completely send all other competitors down in flames... make the ipod wmf compatible (it's there, just not unlocked... they'll drop that bomb if they feel they need to, not before), and start subscription services, once they think they are losing money on the pay-per-song model.

so go ahead, napster, poke the beast.

+ spiral +
Dedicated MacNNer

Joined: Jun 2001

0

02/03, 01:38pm | report spam | close Reply |
more monthly fun

"Thus, in order to continue to play such Downloads on that portable device, you will need to dock your portable device (i.e., connect to the PC) and log onto Napster at the beginning of each Subscription Month."

Sweet! So in addition to all of my monthly bills i have to remember to renew my music by physically connecting my portable player and logging in every month? Wow. Where do i not sign up?

dwishbone
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: May 2002

0

02/03, 01:41pm | report spam | close Reply |
good suggestion...

personally ive thought some sort of subscription for iTunes would be a good idea...but not the way Napster does it. my only beef with iTunes is the 30 second previews. sometimes 30 seconds just isnt enough...especially for songs with long strange intros. whoever picks the preview portions sometimes picks very odd places to start and stop their previews. some sort of $5.00 a month for a sort of "iTMS Pro" would be nice. it would let you stream a low quality version of the song to listen to the whole song before you buy it. also a few extra perks could be thrown in...such as being able to save music vidoes and movie trailers without Quicktime Pro or a hack of some sort.

macnews
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2004

0

02/03, 01:59pm | report spam | close Reply |
why this is bad...

What Napster and the others who support the subscription model don't get is how people aquire their music.

1. The notion of spending $10,000 to get 10,000 songs assumes you NEVER buy an albulm.

2. Most people will probably NEVER have 10,000 songs. I know some of you who are reading this might but I would hazard to guess the average person doesn't. BUT this does play a part in a bit...

3. A subscription service requires you to ALWAYS pay to use your songs. This is the major flaw in their thinking. Sure, I'm not going to plop down $10k for 10,000 songs but then again I'm not going to spend $180/year in music either (15*12 approx, 179.40 actual). Might there be a few years where I would do that - sure, when I was 18-20 I might have spent that kind of money. On average, however, I don't spend that much per year. The great thing with the a-la-carte model is those years when I did spend that kind of money I STILL have those songs despite the fact I haven't spent that kind of money in years.

4. Some people acknowledge they need to take care of their music medium (LP, tape, CD, etc) if they want it to last. Those who really want a certain albulm to be around will take care of it. Under the subscription model you need to pay $180/year to "maintain" that same albulm OR, heaven forbid, do exactly what iTunes does and allow you to buy that albulm a-la-carte! So at best you are paying the same price (or really close to it) and at worst you could be paying 179% more.

5. Lastly regarding how people aquire music a subscription model DOES cost more. Say you DO spend $180/year on music. Without a subscription, that $180 buys YOUR music forever. Under the subscription model you pay once $180 per year for that music, then must PAY AGAIN if you want to keep any of that music forever. Do you like being "taxed" twice?

The "this player holds xxxxxx many songs" is a marketing gimic. I would love to see Apple come out with a ballsy campaign showing how many songs the average person owns and why the iTunes model is thus truly CHEAPER than ANY subscription model.

This model is targeted at young kids or those who will spend 180/year on music. It will fail because of that as well. It takes significant more effort, thus more $$$ (expenses on a balance sheet), to recruit and maintain a steady user base. A subscription model would have to be a loss leader with the purchase option being your money maker.

benhur
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2001

0

02/03, 02:15pm | report spam | close Reply |
re: why napster sucks

I realize Apple revived the digital music business but does that really matter?

For the 95% of the people who own computers it doesn't matter who revived the music business or that Napster doesn't work on a PC. It's about choice and price (should be more about user experience and quality but...)

So are Mac users too sit and pout about having revived digital music and arrogantly shoot down any new models or should they tackle it head on? Personally, I'd like Apple to go after them. Everybody is going to take a shot at Apple, don't give them the chance.

benhur
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2001

0

02/03, 02:18pm | report spam | close Reply |
renting

I suppose that's why Blockbuster and Netflix are going out of business. Everyone would rather own dvd's.

Give people the choice is the point. 2 Go gives people the choice of owning or renting.

Apple could do the same and do it better. But they won't. To much pride.

vickys-box
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2004

0

02/03, 02:20pm | report spam | close Reply |
Ten thousand

Picture the scene: N years down the line, Napster decides they are going to close their business. They give everyone one month's notice. Want to keep the music you've been renting for N years? That'll be $0.99 a track please. On top of the subscription.

It's like going to a friend's house every month to listen to their music collection. He or she charges you $15 a time when you visit. After a couple of years, they decide they don't like your or the music anymore and then they change their name and move to a different country.

very
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2005

0

02/03, 02:48pm | report spam | close Reply |
Renting Music???

"renting 158121 2/3/05, 2:18 pm EST

I suppose that's why Blockbuster and Netflix are going out of business. Everyone would rather own dvd's.

Give people the choice is the point. 2 Go gives people the choice of owning or renting.

Apple could do the same and do it better. But they won't. To much pride.
Comment posted by: benhur"

Honestly, you can't really compare Movie business and Music business.
Watching movies and listening to musics are way too different. Watching movies requires the person to spend a certain amount of time primarily dedicated to the movie viewing.
Listing to musics can be done while driving, exercising, lawn-mowing, relaxing, pillaging, plundering, playing, destroying, ...........etc.......etc.....

Then again.......... DVD SALES ARE REACHING RECORD HIGH.

VadersCape
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2004

0

02/03, 03:46pm | report spam | close Reply |
Blockbuster blockhead

"I suppose that's why Blockbuster and Netflix are going out of business. Everyone would rather own dvd's."

Uh ... are you kidding with this insipid analogy? Most movies are watch-it-once affairs. Once you've seen a movie, you've seen it. There's very few movies compared to the range of available movies that the average person would care to watch multiple times. That's why renting works there. But there's far more songs you're going to want to listen to over and over again, so owning makes more sense. And as Very points out, you can make a passive commitment to listening to music (whether for two minutes or twelve hours), but you must make an active commitment to watching a movie (for typically 90 minutes at the minimum.

I'm sure Apple would offer a rental system - if there was a demand for it. And it easily can if there ever is. But right now, in a misguided attempt to differentiate themselves from iTunes, Chris Gowrong figures to just do what Apple isn't doing and he'll own that space. Hey Chris, here's a clue: you can own that space for a lot less than $30 million.

benhur
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2001

0

02/03, 04:19pm | report spam | close Reply |
re: blockbuster

Yes, I was being overly dramatic and sarcastic but that didn't keep you from missing the point, did it?

Choice.

Since you seem to know what everybody wants, I guess it doesn't make much sense to offer a choice.

benhur
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2001

0

02/03, 04:29pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Ten thousand

Posted by Vickys-box.
It's like going to a friend's house every month to listen to their music collection. He or she charges you $15 a time when you visit. After a couple of years, they decide they don't like your or the music anymore and then they change their name and move to a different country.

Okay, well picture going to the persons house but instead of being charged $15 a month to visit, you have to buy the song for a $1 to hear it for more than 20 seconds. Not having the freedom to randomly search songs, brownse by genre and maybe, just maybe come across a song that you never would have heard before and like enough to buy (because you have that choice now too).

You can argue that Napster is bad and will not be in business and all your songs will disapear (even though you could buy the one's you wanted, since that's what everyone is complaining is better)

Don't forget that MSN has yet to put it's full weight into this as well. They're not going out of businees and moving overseas anytime soon.

Look, I'm a loyal Mac user. I own 3 Macs and two iPods. If I wish Apple would make some changes or have an open mind in certain areas, it's only because I want to see them take over the world.

bigpoppa206
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2003

0

02/03, 06:20pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Ironic...

"That these people are attacking the very company that is credited as bringing the Music Industry into the digital age. It was Apple that got the RIAA to lessen their grip on the licensing and make it possible for people to have a "fair" amount of rights over the music they purchase online."

Why oh why do people assume the RIAA sets pricing? Apple did NOT get thew RIAA to do anything, Jobs met with the label heads themselves and sold the idea. Each music label has the power to set their prices independantly of everyone else. Let's not blame the RIAA for everything...only what they have actually done.

Stegabot
Junior Member

Joined: Feb 2001

0

02/03, 07:34pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re:Ten Thousand

Benhur
One of the cons of having a music subscription service is one we sometimes don't think about,how can we pay for a subscription service when we are out of work due to sickness,injuries or are laid off from our jobs.Fifteen dollars a month is nothing if you are earning good money,but it becomes a problem when you are out of work for six months.Tell me,how can music subscription work for these people then.We can easily temporarily disconnect our cable/satellite subscriptions,our internet access just to have that extra money to buy basic necessities.Imagine your frustration when you cannot use your rented music on your digital player and in your computer because you haven't paid Napster for the last three months . Pay per song is a beauty because it doesn't punish you if you are broke and it doesn't suddenly becomes unusable because you don't have the money to pay for internet access.It is just there unlike subscription music .

I.P. Freely
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2003

0

02/03, 07:47pm | report spam | close Reply |
Choices?!?!?

What the h*** are you "Give people a Choice" babbling about. Yeah you have a choice, either use iTunes and its rules or don't. If you want to rent your music go right ahead, no one is stopping you. I'll stick with iTunes and iPod.

And most importantely, that piece of Sh*t system isn't avilable on Mac. so what the F*ck is this bullsh*t about choice!

And to eddd, if your daughter is spending $180 per year on iTunes that comes out to 18 CD per year, does she actually buy 18 iTunes Album per year?

Napster math is based on people buying 10,000 songs well, excuse me but last time I checked that's about 55GB of music, that takes about month to listen to it. Without repeating the same song.
People don't go thru their life listening to that much music.

And I'm not interested in $15 a month when I'm not interested in listening to anything they are offering. with iTunes I control who I buy and who I listen to.

You're just throwing money out the window with Napster. Because I haven't spent any where near $180 worth of songs with iTunes.

iTunes = 180 song a year or 18 albums a year or less, it's up to you.
Napster = $180 no matter what. You're locked in at that price. And $180 per year if you want to continue to listen to that music.

kw99
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2001

0

02/03, 09:13pm | report spam | close Reply |
Most people...

do not have a library of 10,000 songs. Just because the iPod can hold 10,000 songs, it does not mean the customer buys 10,000 songs from iTMS. What a stupid ad compaign.

If an iPod owner actually has that many (10,000) songs to put on an iPod and fill it up, the breakdown probably goes something like this:

* A few thousand songs downloaded during the glory days of Napster.
* A few thousand songs ripped from CD's they physically own.
* A few dozen (or maybe a few hundred) purchased from iTMS.
* a few dozen from other sources.

Apple's competition needs to face facts. iPods are popular because they are great products and you can buy more and more cool accessories for them. iTunes (the application) is a very important consideration because it contributes to the user experience. However, the iTunes Music Store, while being high-profile, is almost a secondary consideration for the iPod purchase. It's a great bonus service, but not one of the main reasons for choosing an iPod over the competition.

So Napster is delusional for making iTMS versus Napster's service the central message. Napster is not going to make a dent in iPod's market share buy "taking aim" at iTMS.

VadersCape
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2004

0

02/03, 09:26pm | report spam | close Reply |
Prime, Not Choice

"Yes, I was being overly dramatic and sarcastic but that didn't keep you from missing the point, did it?"

I see your point, benhurl, but your hair hides it.

You're whining because the ITunes Music Store does not offer "choice" of a rental option? Well, amazon.com doesn't offer you the choice of packing your order with ecologically-friendly chunks of dried dog p*** instead of plastic shrink-wrapping it to cardboard. But I'm sure they would if there was enough demand for it. Perhaps you could suggest it.

But maybe you are on to something here after all ... perhaps BestBuy can start renting CDs ... yeah ... you give them $15 a month and then drop by the store and check out all the CDs you want ... bring back the ones you don't like and trade them for others ... keep them at home for as long as you like. Just remember to drop back in on the first of every month and pay your next $15 (or optionally set up the convenient automatic payment plan) or otherwise two goons from the applicance department will show up at your door and (forcibly if necessary) resposess all of your CDs. Of course, you could also pay the minimal 99-cent fee per song that would allow you to transfer tracks from these copy-protected CDs to other media. Thank goodness that's nothing like buying music by the song.

Mark Tilley
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2003

0

02/03, 09:57pm | report spam | close Reply |
Both strategies wrong?

I think that both the $0.99 per song (to own) or $15.00 per month (to listen) schemes are wrong.

Whoever comes up with a hybrid of both plans will win hands-down.

My rough calculations indicate that if someone was to offer a plan of about $0.005 (half a cent) for each song listened to then the consumer would be getting a better deal and I would guess that the music suppliers would be happier too.

For those who say "but I want to own my CD/mp3" I would reply:

On average, every album you have ever bought probably only ever gets listened to about 100 times. For example:

First two weeks - once each day = 14
Next two weeks - once every two days = 7
Next month - twice per week = 8.6
Next month - once every week = 4.3
Next month - once every two weeks = 2.2
Next six months - once every month = 6
Next year - once every two months = 6
Next two years - once every six months = 4
Next 40 years - once every year = 40
Total plays = 92.1 plays @ 14 tracks per album = 1,289 tracks played = $6.44

Wouldn't that be better than paying $20 per album that you are currently paying?

For those who say "but I don't want to own my CD/mp3, I just want to listen to whatever music I want to whenever I want to" I would reply:

On average, you may listen to three hours of music every day:

In a month you would listen to 90 hours
= 1,650 tracks played @ 4 minutes a track = $6.75

Wouldn't that be better than paying $15 per month that you are currently paying?

For those who say "but how would they know how many times I've played my music" I would reply:

Napster are already able to tell which songs you have played for royalty purposes (spyware?) so they could use this information to bill you as well. And just as they do now, if you fail to pay a monthly account, the music stored on your computer/iPod would no longer play.

I agree that at this $0.005 price point the record companies may not collect as much as they do now, but I would guess that if they bumped the price up to one cent, they would actually be collecting more than they do now, and we, the music listeners, would all still be better off than we are now.

Sorry for the long rant, but sometimes I feel that we all lose track of what "music" is all about - listening & enjoying.

Mark

jmperez64
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2003

0

02/04, 12:06am | report spam | close Reply |
Agree with kw99

I agree. I don't think I'm going to spend much more on music. Since iTunes became available, I've purchased 71 songs. My iPod contains 936 songs. That's 71 songs from iTunes, the rest from my CD collection. I tried satellite radio, but I cancelled after only 2 months. I was listening to the music on my iPod more often than to my satellite subscription. Even though Napster will only play the songs that I want, I can't imagine paying a monthly fee just to listen to them.

benhur
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2001

0

02/04, 01:31am | report spam | close Reply |
so dumb

I guess there's no arguing with Vandersape & IP Freely who are as ignorant as they come.

Mark Tilley perhaps says it best:
"Whoever comes up with a hybrid of both plans will win hands-down"

That's it. I'm not saying Napster is better or iTunes for that matter. Just that the choice of both is best and that Apple would be able to pull it off better than Napster.

JEB
Junior Member

Joined: May 2001

0

02/04, 01:33am | report spam | close Reply |
iPod = Firewire Drive too

So, I'll only put $5k worth of music on it, and well, the other half I'll just put some rented music, or something.

Bwaaaaaahhhaahahaha

*sometimes I just crack myself up*

JEB
Junior Member

Joined: May 2001

0

02/04, 02:30am | report spam | close Reply |
iPod = Firewire Drive too

I forgot to say, I like an iPod for backup for alot of important stuff (photos, files).

Also, lots of people (think: MS developers / biotech "Genome in the Pocket" story at Apple.com) do the same. iPod's functionality transcentds music alone.

I don't use iSync much for iCal, but I think having Address book on there is pretty cool (as a backup).

I think they should package a new deal: iPod + iTunes + Sliced Bread

People would flock to stores in droves (I mean, more than they already are) -- and even you'd see 3rd party accessories, like the iToaster, iButter, and iCinnamonSugar. The Genius Bars would never be the same.

I.P. Freely
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2003

0

02/04, 06:37am | report spam | close Reply |
To Mr. Benhur....

Just because I find the idea of Renting music as dumb as they come. Doesn't mean I don't understand what they are attempting. It's a stupid idea and it's not a choice.

If you want to charge people subscription, charge them by usage, NOT flat monthly fee. Oh wait a minute, you already do that with iTunes!

Do you actually buy one and half iTunes album a month? Because that is what your actually spending.

And if iTunes did have subscription, people would need to start managing their rented and bought music. Why would you want to do that?

This subscription is a scam and just because you're dumb enough to fall for it, don't call people who think it's a stupid idea ignorant. You haven't come up with one good argument for this, all your doing is beating a dead horse "Give people choice", "hybrid". You don't think Apple given this any thoughts? You think you're the only one who actually came up with this idea of offering both kind of service. Don't flatter yourself.

beb
Mac Elite

Joined: Jan 2002

0

02/04, 08:40am | report spam | close Reply |
Reiteration

Obviously people want to OWN their own music, renting it isn't smart because we all have bills to pay. Apple's solution is fair but unbalanced. But at least it's fair.

benhur
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2001

0

02/04, 11:05am | report spam | close Reply |
fine

I get you're point but you're all assuming we all don't want to rent music because we have bills to pay. Yes, I do buy more than one album a month, I'm sure a lot of people do. Just because you don't, it's a bad idea to offer renting. And for the umpteenth time, you can still buy music from Napster.

Before you blow up, I'm not saying it's better because iTunes is for many reasons but it's a model MSN is likely to try too and Apple should consider it.

VadersCape
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2004

0

02/04, 11:59am | report spam | close Reply |
Call Steve!

Perhaps, benhurl, you should give Mr. Jobs a call and suggest this. I'm sure they'll add your name to the list of the other three people demanding it from iTunes.

Steve said a LONG time ago (like when the iTMS was introduced) that Apple had researched this and dismissed the rental model because (I'm paraphrasing here) it was f**king stupid. It just makes no business sense.

Napster is not offering a rental model because they've been overwhelmed with demand for one. None of the rental model folks are. They're doing it because it is the opposite of what Apple is doing in an effort to distinguish themselves.

The rental folks concocted their model and are trying to convince music customers to adopt their model. Apple looked at the way music customers buy music and adopted the customer's model. Gee, I wonder which way will work better: go looking for customer so you can make them do it the company's way or take the built-in group of customers and make the company do it the customer's way. In case you missed it, benhurl, there's a big blue pawprint on the latter. Get out your notebook.

VadersCape
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2004

0

02/04, 12:10pm | report spam | close Reply |
Another Butthead

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1093&ncid=1093&e=1&u=/pcworld/20050203/tc_pcworld/119546

"I am more interested in a world where consumers have a choice: They can choose any portable player, any piece of software, any operating system, and listen to their music," Robertson says. "That is what MP3 brings."

Robertson is hopeful that major record labels will want to offer their music through MP3tunes even though the service lacks copyright protection. "Obviously that would be a change from where they are at. They have licensed their music to DRM-based systems, but not to non-DRM-based systems. We are trying to push the envelope."

Oh yeah, baby! As a recording industry executive, I just can't wait to offer my company's entire catalog online without copy protection!!!

Robertson's going to be pushing a lot of envelopes - containing incredulous rejection letters.

bigpoppa206
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2003

0

02/04, 05:16pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Another Butthead

That guy is so off the mark its nuts. Robertson is clueless. I know all the acts I work with would never allow their material to be a part of that.

I.P. Freely
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2003

0

02/04, 11:02pm | report spam | close Reply |
For the last time....

Lets do some math, shall we?

Lets say you have 100 songs you always want to hear. And lets say for next 5 years let see what the cost is:

iTunes = $99 and you own it!
Napster = $900 and you are just renting it. But hey you get to listen to million songs... Oh wait you can't possibly do that.

Oh yes, you can buy songs from Napster for 99�... but you need a PC. So I have to spend money to buy a PC to buy Napster songs. But I don't have it yet. I have to burn it to CD. then I have to convert it to mp3 just so I can listen to it on my computer.

I don't need the privilege of potentially listening to 1 million songs for $15 a month.

Can you tell me how this is good for you?

You want good subscription service? Try Emusic.com
Yeah, there are restrictions but you know what, the songs are your. When I cancel my account I get to keep the songs.

VadersCape
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2004

0

02/06, 09:58pm | report spam | close Reply |
Oh Yeah!

Now THAT was $30,000,000 well-spent!

Let's hope Chris Gowrong continues to show off his business acumen at this level. It's quite entertaining!

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

02/14	Cook hints at Apple TV set during Goldman...
02/14	Apple CEO: Kindle Fire will sell, but...
02/14	Cook talks labor, pre-paid iPhones...
02/14	Apple 'aggressively' pursuing new production...
02/14	Apple attempting to disrupt Siri hacks...

Show All

02/14	Apple CEO: Kindle Fire will sell, but...
02/14	Time Capsule stock sees delays, sell...
02/14	Readability iOS app delayed, Android...
02/14	Fresh rumors surface of Apple testing...
02/13	Apple takes top spot from Google in...

Show All

02/14	Apple attempting to disrupt Siri hacks...
02/14	Readability iOS app delayed, Android...
02/13	Apple launches 2012 back-to-school...
02/13	Sony Music caught inflating price for...
02/09	Apple explores environment-sensitive...

Show All

02/14	Refurb. 16GB iPhone 4, now only $259...
02/13	Refurb. Flip UltraHD Pocket Digital...
02/10	$380 off refurbished 2.8GHz Mac Pro...
02/09	iHome Dual Alarm Clock for Apple iPod...
02/08	Save 69% on SanDisk Cruzer 32GB USB...

Show All

toggle

Napster unveils new music service, anti-iPod campaign

updated 08:00 am EST, Thu February 3, 2005

Napster takes on iPod

Related Articles

Recent Articles

Dat's Just Retarded

Who would rent songs?

Won't work

People Want to Own Stuff

Trash

renting music

Yeah But...

Careful, Napster!

hidden charges...

pride goes before...

Yeah right...

And the people will ask..

Napster charges $0.99

edd

"Purchased" tracks

something napster assumes

It more than just renting

the truth is...

What free songs?

Revenue

Limitless Choice...

p2p= virus, bad recording

Pirating purchased music

itunes is a virus...

Ironic...

NTG clarifications

only a matter of time

$10,000? CHEAP!!!

why napster sucks

Logging in

So...

Risky

Re: ironic

here's the thing...

more monthly fun

good suggestion...

why this is bad...

re: why napster sucks

renting

Ten thousand

Renting Music???

Blockbuster blockhead

re: blockbuster

Re: Ten thousand

Re: Ironic...

Re:Ten Thousand

Choices?!?!?

Most people...

Prime, Not Choice

Both strategies wrong?

Agree with kw99

so dumb

iPod = Firewire Drive too

iPod = Firewire Drive too

To Mr. Benhur....

Reiteration

fine

Call Steve!

Another Butthead

Re: Another Butthead

For the last time....

Oh Yeah!

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

10 Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace