toggle

AAPL Stock: 505.4 ( -4.06 )

WP: Napster's new music service 'doesn't add up'

updated 07:40 am EST, Mon February 14, 2005

Napster\'s \'bad\' math


Napster's new music subscription service , according to a column at The Washington Post: "Whether you like Napster To Go, the online store's new music subscription service, depends on whether you think of it as all-you-can-eat or all-you-can-pay. Both descriptions are accurate. For $15 a month, Napster To Go offers unlimited song downloads -- in a copy-restricted format that can be played only on Windows XP computers and some digital music players -- but these songs expire if you don't keep paying that fee each month." Columnist Rob Pegoraro notes that there are a limited number of compatible players and concludes that Napster To Go "looks less like a service that allows you to pay to get new music and more like one that forces you to pay to keep your existing music." [free subscription required]


by MacNN Staff

print
email
(12)

TAGS :

 industry, digital music/video

Related Articles

Recent Articles

toggle

Comments

  1. Sydney Tsai

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Feb 2002

    0
    02/14, 08:05am | report spam | Reply |

    Steve said it already.

    I remember Steve Jobs said that in the opening of iTMS...
    Music renting just doesn't work. I wonder why they can't understand that.

  1. eldarkus

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Feb 2004

    0
    02/14, 08:28am | report spam | Reply |

    Car Leases...

    This is akin to leaese on cars. a LAME idea. The concept is to put you in a really nice car for a lot less than buying it. But in the end, you are left with nothing for all of the moeny spent. Just fond memories of a nice car you no longer have!

    And according to Napster, renting is better than owning. So maybe I should put my house on the market and just rent an apartment. After all, it's cheaper than buying! LOL!

    Napster = head in arse!

  1. heidilux

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Nov 2003

    0
    02/14, 08:29am | report spam | Reply |

    PC only?!

    How on earth can Napster hope to compete with iTMS when they exclude the majority of iTMS customers.

  1. kw99

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Nov 2001

    0
    02/14, 08:53am | report spam | Reply |

    "Unlimited" is deceivin

    After reading the endless commentary about Napster, I've come to the conclusion that comparison to iTunes Music Store is irrelevant.

    "Unlimited" for Napster means you can download any song in its library (although technically this is not true because there is a "special" library for the "TO GO" service that does not include all songs in the "for purchase" library). What you can do with that download is certainly not "unlimited"; the play-time of the download is not unlimited (unless you pay the fee forever) and the DRM rules are not unlimited.

    Napster To Go is a bit like Blockbuster's "Freedom Pass" (or NetFlix). You pay the monthly fee and you can rent any video in the store. It's great for a while (until you have seen the 50 or so movies you want to see), but then you feel compelled to rent movies that you don't particularly want to see, because if you don't watch X number of movies per week, you are not getting your money's worth. That gets to be annoying and even a bit stressful, and you quit the program. Then you don't want go back to Blockbuster to rent individual movies anymore, because that now seems like such a bad deal compared to the "unlimited" deal.

    The same thing may happen to Napster To Go. At least with Blockbuster's program, you are comparing one form of rental to another form of rental. When you quit the "unlimited" program, you don't feel like you have lost anything tangible. With Napster To Go, when you quit you have nothing and the alternative (pay per download) was owning the songs forever.

  1. Lyra

    Forum Regular

    Joined: Jul 2000

    0
    02/14, 09:10am | report spam | Reply |

    Stupid

    Stupid n*** SOBs. I hate napster, what a sell out!

    They started this whole mess with illegal downloading and now they want to come and join the game by pretending they are the good guys? That they are better than the other?

    iTunes has everything I need, I don't need more cause iTunes is perfect for me. And guess what, I know there are a lot of people out there who feel the same way.

    Napster will always be the Pirates in my eye.

    Apple, made iTunes something that was fun, they gave us quality and heck they even gave us a new life style by giving us the iPods.

    What has Napster done for us? Nothing, but made us worry about a bunch of angry musicians who were pissed at us.

    Apple is the only way. Unless someone else can give the SAME and Better than Apple, there is no room for anyone else.

    Apple has been learning every time they come with an update on iTunes and iPods. They have a history. Napster go burry your selves in shame...

    At this point I'd rather look at Sony's idea and see where that will lead us. But Napster no frelling way!

  1. VadersCape

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Mar 2004

    0
    02/14, 09:27am | report spam | Reply |

    Napster's Math

    Napster's math certainly DOES work ... of course, the math Napster is really looking at are the figures showing how much cash will overflow their coffers based on the idiotic subscription model. That hinges on how many customers they can dupe and how long they can dupe them for. But this 'number of customers' is presumed as a given in every projection they make so they can get to the really good numbers at the end.

    Note to Chris Gowrong: when you're selling chocolate-covered turds (and using a cheap grade of chocolate to begin with), you might seriously want to reconsider those sales projections.

    Further note to Chris Gowrong: the world is LAUGHING at you and Napster.

  1. theduffsronme

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Sep 2004

    0
    02/14, 09:37am | report spam | Reply |

    Geez...

    n*** SOB's? Could we cool the rhetoric a bit? Napster may have a flawed business model, but they are hardly n****.

  1. JohnnyFive

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Feb 2003

    0
    02/14, 10:33am | report spam | Reply |

    re: Car Leases

    I'd have to digress on this one. If you're the type that wants a new car every 2-3 years then you're better off with a lease. Keep in mind, cars do not appreciate in value like real estate or even jewelry for that matter.

    It's really a matter of choice: do you want a loan bill or a lease bill every month. And, if you plan to purchase a new car in 2 years time, are you really keen on owning a car that has depreciated in value the minute you drove it out of the dealer's lot?

  1. testudo

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Aug 2001

    0
    02/14, 10:43am | report spam | Reply |

    Re: car leases

    This is akin to leaese on cars. a LAME idea. The concept is to put you in a really nice car for a lot less than buying it. But in the end, you are left with nothing for all of the moeny spent. Just fond memories of a nice car you no longer have!

    Well, depending on the car, after three years, a lot of people owe more money on it then its worth. That don't make much sense either. And if you buy a car for $20000, plus $4000+ for interest, you've spent $24000 on a car, after 5 years, might be worth $7000. What a deal!

    As for 'renting' songs. I still can't believe you "People want to own music"-heads. You just don't understand the market they're going for. I read this article yesterday, and saw the same thing. You all think because you download 20,000 songs, you'll want to listen to them over and over again for all time. And that's not music these days. Today's Vanilla Ice is tomorrow's, well, Vanilla Ice. You might think he's great and what an album, but after 3 months, you realize its just c***. But you're stuck with it. With 'renting' music, you can try out all sorts of c***, listen to stuff that's hot today and, when you're sick of it, you can toss it from your player and move on. No having to look at the album for 15 years going "I can't believe I spent $10 on that 'Hansen' album!" (or try out an album before buying it because you heard it was good, but then you bought it, and realized it sucked). And if you find stuff you like, you do realize you can buy it, right? You're paying 15 a month to listen and try out all the music you want. Sort of like people who pay for XM radio. Or internet radio. Or that kind of thing.

    And, I'd just like to point out to all you Napster haters, the smart ones here realize one thing. If Apple came out with a subscription model rather than a buying one, you'd all be screaming about how great subscriptions are and what a great deal it was. $15 a month, for all this music on my iPod? OMG, who'd pass that up!"

  1. beeble

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Mar 2004

    0
    02/14, 11:12am | report spam | Reply |

    Testudo

    Yes a small part of the market does spend more than $15 a month on music purchases so for them the subscription model makes sense. However, the vast majority of the public buy only a handful of albums a year, a whole lot less than $15 a month. In fact, most of the music on iPods isn't from the iTMS at all but from existing CD collections.

    If Apple were to scrap their existing model and go with a $15 a month subscription service, they'd loose my business completely and there are millions of iTMS users like me.

    However Napsters biggest problem is not that they only work on a subscription basis. Their software only works on XP. They've not only excluded themselves from the Mac market (a huge slab of the legal download market - many times larger than their PC marketshare) but from most of the Windows market. At least Apple include support for Win2k (I still don't know why you'd put a bug count in a software packages title, but MS knows what their doing).

    There are vast numbers of people who refuse to upgrade from Win2k to XP for numerous issues. I'm not a PC user at all, however some of my friends are IT administrators for large corporations. They have kept 2k where they could. They did explain the reasons and they made sense to me at the time but I can't remember them. Sorry!

Show More Comments

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

 
close
Photo
toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

10 Most Read

Recent Reviews

Logitech Cube

The world of mice could often be described charitably as stagnant: it's an endless sea of ergonomic shapes that assume you're sitting ...

NewerTech and Targus USB Hubs For Gifts

A useful holiday present to resolve an ongoing frustration is a multi-port hub. Whether as a stocking stuffer, Chanukah present, or an ...

X-Rite ColorMunki Photo

Color calibration is the art of tweaking your monitor so that the colors represented on screen better match real life and your printer ...

toggle

Most Commented

10 Most Discussed

 

Popular News