toggle

AAPL Stock: 509.46 ( + 6.86 )

MacNN News

New York Times compares Napster, iTunes

updated 10:20 am EST, Thu March 17, 2005

Napster vs. iTunes

New York Times columnist Wilson Rothman compares Napster to Go to Apple's iTunes in a report published today. "When used to its fullest extent, Napster to Go . For the $15 monthly fee, you're allowed unlimited downloads. You can put them on up to three compatible portable players, and log in and listen on up to three PC's, " Rothman says, "the magic of the subscription plan is that music you don't know is also covered. I got to see if I liked new cuts from the Killers (yep) and Gwen Stefani (nope). Sitting in judgment didn't mean sitting in front of a computer screen, either; I could do it in the driver's seat of my car." However, Rothman does point to one weakness: "The trouble is, that thing next to me wasn't my trusty iPod. A switch to Napster means kissing your iPod, or any prospect of getting one, goodbye."

by MacNN Staff

(50)

TAGS :

industry, digital music/video

Share the Article

Facebook Twitter Delious Slash Dot Digg

toggle

Comments

jbrjake
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2004

0

03/17, 10:42am | report spam | close Reply |
what about the downsides?

Oh yeah, Napster *really* "lays iTunes flat."

Because who doesn't want to rent music?

Who doesn't want to pay month after month for the same tracks?

Who doesn't want to have their whole music library destroyed when a credit card is pushed over its limit?

Apple's DRM can be a little bizarre--look at the new streaming restrictions--but at least I feel confident that my songs will still play, regardless of my desire to feed a corporation its allowance.

history1me

Joined:

0

03/17, 10:43am | report spam | close Reply | delete
yeah

yeah

hayesk
Professional Poster

Joined: Sep 1999

0

03/17, 10:44am | report spam | close Reply |
Oh yeah... much better

So, it doesn't work on the most popular and best designed portable player, and you are forced to pay every month until you die, and if the company folds, you don't get to keep your music.

What if my money supply is tight for the next few months and I don't want to pay Napster. With them all the music I downloaded before will stop working. How is this better?

Also, I don't know about you, but I don't have time to listen to an unlimited amount of songs. Also, I generally want to listen to an album more than once, so that greatly restricts the amount of new music I'm going to download. My music buying pattern is generally buy a few albums at a time and listen to them, along with my previously purchased albums and for a few months. This really isn't that much more expensive (if at all) than paying Napster.

Clive
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2001

0

03/17, 10:49am | report spam | close Reply |
Next year

The issue here is whether, after a year of paying for the service, people are happy to keep on paying for the service - they may well like it for a few months at a time.

No payment, no music.

scotty321
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 1999

0

03/17, 10:51am | report spam | close Reply |
And besides...

And for the 2 people out there who actually DO prefer to rent their music over buy their music, when Apple offers a subscription plan later in the year, Apple will have cornered the entire market.

pastusza
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Nov 1999

0

03/17, 10:54am | report spam | close Reply |
renting?

When is someone going to point out that if you were to stop paying your monthly $15 fee, you suddenly lose access to all your music. The music on your MP3 player will stop working if you don't sync it within 60 days, so you can't even hide it there. I do not want to rent my music. I want to own it! And that's what Apple's market research showed when they developed the iTMS. Subscription services are not new. They were around way before the iTMS. They were doing pretty poorly, as I recall.

If you want to rent music, go ahead. But I, for one, do not want to give Napster $15 a month for the rest of my life.

Andy

Alric1
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

03/17, 10:57am | report spam | close Reply |
>$15

I think you have to subscribe to their service first ($10) and then pay for the rental ($15) plus $1 extra if you want to burn to CD.

Just one player per account as opposed to unlimited iPods with iTunes.

BillStevenson
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: May 2000

0

03/17, 11:03am | report spam | close Reply |
Apple should offer it...

Apple should give the customer both options though. They are both viable revenue streams, and as long as Apple is clear on the differences between the two, they could offer both in parallel without getting egg on their face.

"When we first introduced the iTunes Music Store, we figured that customers want to own their music. But we realize now, with our millions of tracks, that customers are fickle, and want to explore other music too. So we are introducing iTunes Music Store Explorer, a $14.99/month program that lets you try out any track from the store." That kind of thing. Then once you decide you like the track, you buy it forever for a buck.

SomeToast
Senior User

Joined: Jan 1999

0

03/17, 11:04am | report spam | close Reply |
re: renting?

When is someone going to point out that if you were to stop paying your monthly $15 fee, you suddenly lose access to all your music

The Times article points this out, as well as just about everyone in these comments.

darcybaston
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: May 2000

0

03/17, 11:07am | report spam | close Reply |
imagine...

Imagine you're globe trotting for a couple months. Half way into the trip your Napster player cust you off from listening to any of the music and playlists you spent hours fine tuning and downloading.

I'll never rent music. Like Alric1 said:

$10 subscribe
$15 a month
and then if I want to prevent the music I've grown to cherish from disappearing, it's $1 per song, which means after a year and considering my average music buying habits:

$10 + $15x12 + 10 CDs (avg 12 songs each, so 12 x $1)
=$310 Napster bucks.

With iTunes it's just:
10 CDs (avg 12 songs each, so 12 x $1))
=$120 iTMS bucks

Goodbye Napster. Napster's albums don't always feature full song lists anyway, and many good songs from their library are not elligible for subscription access, and must be purchased separately anyway.

horvatic
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2002

0

03/17, 11:08am | report spam | close Reply |
I don't want to rent!

Flat, I don't think so. $15 a month for the rest of your life or you lose everything that you downloaded. Oh yea, and you still have to pay per track to burn any of those songs to CD. So I ask everyone where is the big savings?
They get to charge you twice! So how does this amount to laying iTunes flat? I don't want to rent my music!

Roehlstation
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

03/17, 11:09am | report spam | close Reply |
Listening limits

Napster limits the number of computers you can put music on to 3 computers. iTunes is 5. (do use them on 5 computers.) Napster also limits the number of players you can put it on to 3 whereas, you can put iTunes on as many iPods as you want (yes I do have more than 3 that I use regularly.)

lowend
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2002

0

03/17, 11:17am | report spam | close Reply |
cracking

what's going to be interesting is when the cracking guys get to work and break the drm on the napster service, if they haven't already. then it'll be interesting to see how labels react to subscribers signing up for a month, jacking $10k worth of tunage for $15, and then signing off. it will happen.

Alric1
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

03/17, 11:28am | report spam | close Reply |
And its 128 kbps WMA!!

Unlistenable to most discernable ears. WMA has always compared poorly to other compression formats at ANY bitrate. At 128 kbps its a joke.

Dalhectar
Junior Member

Joined: Jan 2002

0

03/17, 11:31am | report spam | close Reply |
Did you see

"Buzz on the Internet and in the industry suggests that Apple may be planning a retaliatory move, an iTunes to go. There are also good odds that Yahoo and Real Networks will soon join the melee."

An iTMS rental service. Now that I would jump for.

cmoney
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Sep 2000

0

03/17, 11:34am | report spam | close Reply |
I want to rent

That's right. I wouldn't mind paying $15 per month for the rest of my life if it offered unlimited access to a library as large as iTunes'.

On a monthly basis I already pay:

$100 cell phone service
$75 cable service
$45 cable modem
$15 Vonage VoIP
$250 utilities

etc. As you can see, there are lots of costs that A LOT of people will pay on a monthly basis for the rest of their lives. People pay for on demand HBO and Showtime nowadays and if you stop paying, guess what, you lose access to those shows.

I think if Napster got a partnership deal going with other content providers like a cable provider or satellite, they could make some big inroads and offer something genuinely useful. Like tie it in with the cable box so that if you're watching videos on MTV, if you have a Napster To Go sub, you can set that song to download to your player the next time you plug it in.

Napster To Go is tempting to me because of my listening habits. I like sampling new music and even new genres on a regular basis. And I hate buying songs on iTunes, listening to them and not really liking them. If iTunes offered subscription, I'd be on there all the time. Plus it would mean I wouldn't have to manage a 10k song library on my own.

eddd
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2001

0

03/17, 11:48am | report spam | close Reply |
Audio Hijack

Software like Audio Hijack Pro combined with a subscription service will allow you to keep your "rented" music in a way that has historically been legal and unstoppable by DMA. AHP intercepts the analogue signal on its way to your speakers and re-compresses it on the fly. The results are really quite astonishing... much better than you might expect, and completely acceptable.

Which is the reason that the subscription model may be doomed by the record companies. Once they catch wind of this (it'll take awhile - they're mostly a bunch of tech cro-magnons), they'll pull the plug on all subscription services.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

03/17, 11:57am | report spam | close Reply |
Geesh, idiots!

No, not the idea of subscription service, but the people who are so intent on bashing them.

So, it doesn't work on the most popular and best designed portable player, and you are forced to pay every month until you die, and if the company folds, you don't get to keep your music.

Its NOT YOUR MUSIC! Man, why does everyone think its their music, and therefore you must have it till you die. Its internet radio (or sattelite radio) with a twist. That's all it is. You're listening to music, but music YOU choose. And who would pay for this? I don't know. But since both XM and Sirius have millions of subscribers, someone pays for music (I doubt they ALL get the service to hear talk radio).

What if my money supply is tight for the next few months and I don't want to pay Napster. With them all the music I downloaded before will stop working. How is this better?

Easy, you've downloaded 5000 songs. Listened to them until you were sick of them. And then you just said "Hey, I can't afford it, so I'll let it go." What have you lost? $10 a month ($15 if you also wanted to put them on a player). If you bought all your music, then you'd be down $4000 or so, and no way of getting it back (well, unless you bought CDs and tried to sell them on eBay).

Also, I don't know about you, but I don't have time to listen to an unlimited amount of songs. Also, I generally want to listen to an album more than once, so that greatly restricts the amount of new music I'm going to download.

Hey, then guess what? Napster (or any subscription service) IS NOT FOR YOU! What a shock! There's a service out there that doesn't offer something for everyone! And you know what? You can just buy music off of Napster without a subscription. So you can buy your music there just like at the iTMS. But there's a lot of people (esp. a LOT of YOUNG people) who've got nothing but time and money, and that's who Napster is going after. Not Joe "I got my three albums, and that's all I want!", but Fred "Wow, I'd like to check out all these new artists without having to spend $500 to do it!"

Geesh, a company offers up a CHOICE, and people slam it (I know, you're mac users, you're not used to choice, you're just used to what Apple tries to shove down your throat. I also know that if Apple came out with a subscription service first, you'd all be saying what a great idea Apple had.)

If you're the kind of person who likes to discover 'new' music (new meaning "something you haven't heard before", not "something that just came out"), subscriptions are a better way to go. You can sample 30's Jazz to your hearts content and, if you like some stuff a lot, go and buy it. I know I have several CDs on my shelf that, to put it nicely, are c***. And I certainly wouldn't have bought them if I had known as much. But how is someone supposed

myramoki
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2004

0

03/17, 12:05pm | report spam | close Reply |
Lets do the math

Okay, I've got an iTunes library with a little over 10,000 songs, which iTunes reports is 30 DAYS of music. In a single day, I manage to listen to MAYBE 100 songs, and that would be huge considering all the interruptions I get. If I listen 5 days out of the week, figuring at least 2 days will be shot by doing other stuff, that means it'll take 20 WEEKS to listen to it all (I've actually been organizing it into various play lists, and I've only gotten through 6k+ songs in a significantly longer time than that).

Say I want to really know if I like a song in order to keep it around in my playlist, I'll listen to it maybe 3 times, and stuff I obviously don't like, I'd listen to half the song and move on. So say it doubles my time to determine if what I've got I like. Thats now 40 weeks. Thats almost a YEAR to listen to 10000 songs at least twice.

Also figure in that 10k songs is roughtly 40gb of music that I've got to find and download. Even selecting just albums, your looking at, what, approximately 800-1000 albums you've got to pick out, download, and listen to? EACH MONTH! Because thats what Napster is trying to get you to buy, that at $15 a month you could get 10k songs cheaper than iTMS, completely ignoring the fact that in order to find, download, listen to 10k songs for most people will take a YEAR at least. So really you should figure 10k songs for $180. Thats IF you can find 10k new songs you want.

That said, I'd really love a subscription model, at maybe $5 per month, that lets me download and listen to say 20-30 albums per month (way more than I'd be adding to my collection each month), so that I could test whether I wanted them permanently, with an option for purchasing those albums for a reduced rate later.

jdoc
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

03/17, 12:08pm | report spam | close Reply |
Napster Lite

In all fairness, Napster does offer a "lite" service, where one can purchase the music and use it wherever one would like to (similar to iTunes). So in that regard, Napster is offering a better service. I don't know that Napster would necessarily "lay iTunes flat" though.... I like the Apple implementation of a digital jukebox better, functionally and appearance wise...

Qwinn
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2005

0

03/17, 12:11pm | report spam | close Reply |
Napster's Dirty Secret

One thing I can't believe that people don't talk about is Napster's To Go Spyware. If you read their service agreement you'll see that every song you listen to, and how many times you listen to it are reported back to Napster. They claim this is used for royalty splits:

"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."

I wonder what else they'll using this data for? Data on music listening habits would be a goldmine for Spammers. I wonder what spam I'd get based on my playlists....

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

03/17, 12:15pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: napster's dirty secr

And guess what? Every song you buy from the iTMS is also recorded, supposedly for 'royalty' reasons. Damn Apple! They're tracking my purchasing habits, probably selling it to spammers! I'm suing!

sertian
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

03/17, 12:21pm | report spam | close Reply |
At Napster's peak

Back in the day, when all downloads were legal. I found myself using Napster less and less once I built up a nice size playlist. Once in a while, I'd remember a song I just had to have and occassionally download. Napster now just a buffet. It'll get old too. I don't imagine myself going to eat at a buffet everyday or pay $15 a month. After all is said and done, when you stop paying the $15 bucks your songs goes down the toilet, just as everything else does.

adamschneider
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 1999

0

03/17, 12:27pm | report spam | close Reply |
testudo's right

Just because it's not Apple's service doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Adults, I think, will prefer the iTMS approach, but teenagers will really go for the subscription services -- and teenagers are where it's at, for the music industry.

Xiaopangzi
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2003

0

03/17, 12:37pm | report spam | close Reply |
More concrete issues

I don't care about such abstract ideas as renting versus owning, since they're virtually the same thing to me in the end.

However, I certainly don't want to pay $180 USD every year for the rest of my life. I don't want to use Windows Media Player instead of iTunes or listen to poor-quality WMA instead of good-quality AAC, which is so much more compact. I certainly don't want to have to use some ugly hardware with a poor user interface in comparison to the superior iPod.

I have hardly bought any music since graduating from high school more than twenty years ago, so I can't justify a sudden outlay of $180 each year for the next twenty years.

What I really want is to have Apple offer all of its music in Lossless format with the ability to compress the quality to whatever bps I prefer.

If I want to listen to the most popular music of any genre or era, I listen to iTunes radio or other streaming applications and maybe even capture those streams. Any purchase I make will be the rare music that I loved and can no longer hear online, thus guaranteeing that it is music that I'll probably listen to for the rest of my life.

In the end, it's obvious that iTunes saves me money and renting music is a waste of cash. There would be a day that I'd stop subscribing and would thus lose everything that has been paid for to date.

hayesk
Professional Poster

Joined: Sep 1999

0

03/17, 12:38pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: Geesh, Idiots

If it's like XM radio with a twist, then why is the article comparing it to iTMS? Why are they selling it as an alternative to the iTMS? Every reason they say it's "better" is a stupid one when comparing in that context.

I'm commenting on the comparison to iTMS. If you were too stupid to realize that was the point of my post, then that's your problem.

Instead of flinging personal insults and acting like a jackass you could have said "Hey! Why don't they market it like satellite radio instead of an iTMS competitor?" like a mature person. Then I would have said "hey, good point, because it's nothing like the iTMS and shouldn't even be considered a competitor."

But no, you would rather act like an immature jackass and call us all idiots for blasting it as an iTMS comparison, instead of evaluating the service as itself. Do you even understand the difference?

mbryda
Senior User

Joined: Mar 2002

0

03/17, 12:54pm | report spam | close Reply |
That's the problem

"etc. As you can see, there are lots of costs that A LOT of people will pay on a monthly basis for the rest of their lives"

I already pay all those and more. So why would I want another bill? The beauty of the iTunes system is that it's not recurring.

It's why I don't do Netflix - don't rent enough movies to make it worthwhile.

We really don't need more subscriptions.

MisterWizard
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2004

0

03/17, 01:06pm | report spam | close Reply |
Sound Quality

I have several friends who have tried this service and all report that the sound quality of the 128 WMA files is much worse than the AAC files from iTunes. WMA really does sound poor..

zander106
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2003

0

03/17, 01:30pm | report spam | close Reply |
Subscriptions Done Better

Tetsudo, in response to your previous comments...I don't think it's necessarily the idea of subscriptions per se that offends people. They are a great way to sample lots of different kind of music more affordably than buying a la carte.

The problem people have with Napster To Go is the incredible amount of restrictions it places on what you download. Unlimited downloading is great, but I think it is perfectly valid to object to paying $180 a year for the privilege of continuing to listen to what's on your music player.

Emusic.com is one company that does subscriptions better. You pay them $10-$20 a month for a capped number of downloads (40-90 depending on your payment plan), and you get unencrypted DRM-free MP3s. This isn't as generous as the unlimited downloads of Napster To Go (although they _used_ to offer that before they got bought out a couple years ago), but it's still a good deal to only spend $0.25 per track and have ownership of those tracks forever. Being DRM-free is also great as well, although Apple won't allow that of course.

Hopefully if the iTMS provides a subscription model it will be closer to what eMusic does than Napster. I can't imagine Jobs being psyched about offering a music rental service.

Guido
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

03/17, 01:57pm | report spam | close Reply |
why rent?

I can't understand why people are willing to rent their music? If that's the case, do it for free and listen to the radio.
It seems illogical to me.
The argument that you can listen to any and all songs for $15 per month is equally illogical. No one has time to listen to all 15 million songs (even if they were inclined to do so) and who has time to even listen to a reasonable number of those songs in that time period. If you've got the time, then you probably don't have the money.
It would take about 2,600 years to listen to every song if played 24 hours per day and if each song was 3 minutes long.

just a poster
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2004

0

03/17, 02:04pm | report spam | close Reply |
No, what lays napster

flat is that I don't have to spend $15/month to listen to music.

Whatever happened to that little ol' format called MP3? You DON'T have to purchase your music from any of the proprietary music stores, you know. Just rip from your CDs.

jdoc
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2001

0

03/17, 02:10pm | report spam | close Reply |
Subscriptions vs. Buying

Firstly, Apple apparently did their homework before they decided to venture into the dowload/MP3 player business- they have a commanding lead in the (infant) industry right now. I have faith that their services and plans are flexible (ie, if subscriptions turn out to be the thing to do, they'll do it). They're not going away anytime soon.

Secondly, the subscription services have a seemingly big advantage in that they use Microsoft technology (not from a quality standpoint mind you- that's very debatable). Considering MS has large amounts of market/mindshare in general, that can only benefit firms like Napster. Only time will tell with the format wars however.

Third, Apple and Jobs has this strong, nebulous relationship with the music industry that I don't quite understand, but it seems to put Apple in an advantageous position to bargain with the music companies. This gives Apple a potentially large amount of breathing room as far as taking risks in the future- not only do the music companies seem to cater to Apple, but they seem to be more leary of the MS side of the fence.

Fourth, music is different than movies in the sense that people tend to listen to their music "forever" and while doing all sorts of daily activities. You can listen to music while in the car, while exercising, etc. Watching movies takes focus, and captivates the complete attention of anyone who wants to watch. Furthermore, the movie industry, IMO, is providing a bigger experience nowadays (ie, better sound functionality, larger screens, wide screens, etc- even the little LCD players in minivans are getting bigger- Honda Odyssey went from a 7" to a 9" screen!). Incidentally, I agree with Jobs that handheld movieplayers are not where the money is, based mostly on the above reasoning. Also, most people don't watch the same movies over and over, on a daily basis, as opposed to music obviously.

IMO, people like to have their music, the music they like, no matter how old, on hand whenever they want it. That's the idea of portability with music, and Napster to go is a much needed step in that direction for them. But financially, people don't buy that much NEW music routinely (I don't have stats, but just from my expansive music database, I have music that I bought dating back from when I was a kid, and I only purchase a few new songs every few months). So I can't imagine that people are downloading that much new music every month from either service- most of the stuff that I've downloaded from iTunes is music that I've always wanted, but never got around to going out to the music store to buy. Now that I have my library where I want it, the rest is just an occasional song or album that I like from a new artist every few months. Just my opinion.

Jonathan-Tanya
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2004

0

03/17, 02:12pm | report spam | close Reply |
allofmp3

allofmp3.com you pay per MB downloaded, but it works out on average, to about 12 cents per song.

and no DRM...no restrictions on burning to CD or number of computers.

so, I mean if you need to fill an empty MP3 player fast...then these subscription models may be OK, but if you only listen to, say 500 new songs per year, then allofmp3 is going to be less expensive and allow you to take your purchased music any where.

testudo
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

03/17, 02:26pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: subs done better

The problem people have with Napster To Go is the incredible amount of restrictions it places on what you download. Unlimited downloading is great, but I think it is perfectly valid to object to paying $180 a year for the privilege of continuing to listen to what's on your music player.

No, most people I've heard complaining (see MacNN boards) aren't saying "Subscriptions are cool. But Napster's model sucks!" All I keep reading is the same tripe over and over again. "Subscriptions blow. People want to own their own music! Napster sucks!" (OK, the Napster sucks line works pretty much all the time, sorta like "Microsoft sucks").

Emusic.com is one company that does subscriptions better. You pay them $10-$20 a month for a capped number of downloads (40-90 depending on your payment plan), and you get unencrypted DRM-free MP3s. This isn't as generous as the unlimited downloads of Napster To Go (although they _used_ to offer that before they got bought out a couple years ago), but it's still a good deal to only spend $0.25 per track and have ownership of those tracks forever. Being DRM-free is also great as well, although Apple won't allow that of course.

That's not Apple's call. That's the licensee's call. eMusic might have a great plan, but they also have a limited library (I looked them up previously and couldn't find anyone I knew).

Hopefully if the iTMS provides a subscription model it will be closer to what eMusic does than Napster. I can't imagine Jobs being psyched about offering a music rental service.

Well there's enough people in the market (analysts, those kind of people) that seem to think subscriptions are going to take a bite out of Apple. And since these people have huge influence over Apple's stock price (since they're the ones buying it and recommending it - or not), if enough start saying "subscription services are going to be a problem", then Apple is going to have to start one up or take a hit in the pocketbook.

But if they do, it won't be like eMusic (or even eMusic but with standard fairplay DRM). It'll be whatever he can squeeze out of the record executives.

OsakaBill
Forum Regular

Joined: Oct 1999

0

03/17, 02:32pm | report spam | close Reply |
Troll?

Tetsudo, doshite baka desu ka? Itsumo waruii dess yo!

What's the point in bashing Mac users? Are you here just to troll?

The idea of a subscription service is not inherently bad; however, Napster's implementation leaves a lot to be desired. I subscribe to Time or Newsweek and I get to keep those magazines forever. If I stop my subscription, I still can read my old magazines whenever and wherever I want to read them.

More aggravating is the approach of Napster's advertising campaign. Napster's advertising claim is somewhat dishonest. They do not make mention of the fact that when you stop paying, you lose access to your music. They do not make mention of the fact of the extra charges to be able to burn your songs to disc. While hiding these inconveniences and charges, they claim to be "cheaper" than iTunes. (Which is not necessarily true.)

Most Americans are stupid and won't catch on these finer points.

iTunes is by no means perfect. My biggest complaint about iTunes is that one cannot fully preview a song or album. Whether it is a downloadable file or streamed from the iTunes Music Store, I would like to hear a complete song or album before I buy it. But I really only need this when checking out new music.

But this raises an interesting paradigm question. iTMS is really designed for people who know what they want. For example, I have have heard Gwen Steaffani's "Harajuku Girls" song and I want to get it. iTMS is not for browsers of music or someone who wants to check out unknown artists and songs. In this respect, iTMS is much more like an old school bricks and mortar record shop where customers came in to buy what they knew they wanted. iTMS is not like a modern Tower Records where one can go and preview CDs.

It seems to me that most of the knocks against iTMS come from those who want to be able to browse music, not those who know what they want.

OsakaBill
Forum Regular

Joined: Oct 1999

0

03/17, 02:36pm | report spam | close Reply |
A Missing Question

What is more important to people�the music they listen to or the MP3 player on which they listen to their music.

I think right now, for many the answer is the MP3 player. I know I would much rather have an iPod of some flavor at this point than some other branded player. Because of this choice, I have consciously decided to limit which on-line music services I can use. Who is responsible for that decision? I am. Not Apple or anyone else.

While I know music and music service will be the most important deciding factor for some, for others it will be the MP3 player. As long as people want an iPod because it is an iPod, other music services that cannot or will not play along are not going to make it.

MisterWizard
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2004

0

03/17, 02:37pm | report spam | close Reply |
ITMS

The whole point of the 30sec previews is for you to sample the music....NOT STEAL IT... The Napster model allows people to hijack (STEAL) the analog data and re-encode it. If you allow anyone to preview the whole song and they like it THEY WILL STEAL IT!! The record industry needs to wake up to this fact.... or we will have no online options..

Ganesha
Senior User

Joined: Jul 2002

0

03/17, 02:40pm | report spam | close Reply |
Music is about money...

I don't know why the music industry likes subscription services.

If someone consumes more then 1.5 CD a month @ $9.99, the music industry makes LESS money then they would do with the iTunes model. Since both models exist, people who consume at low rates are not likely to subscribe. This means a large amount of the traditional low usage base that makes subscription services viable won't be there.

aristotles
Grizzled Veteran

Joined: Jul 2004

0

03/17, 02:47pm | report spam | close Reply |
Creative types?

What if I want to use songs that I bought in a creative work? With iTMS, I can make use of songs I downloaded via iTMS in home videos edited in the iLife apps.

You cannot do that with rented songs legally.

As long as I am not doing a direct broadcast or distributing for profit, I can make use of iTMS downloaded songs in my home movies legally.

hayesk
Professional Poster

Joined: Sep 1999

0

03/17, 02:54pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: allofmp3

allofmp3?

They're crooks. They're only in business because they are in Russia and were able to exploit a legal loophole there. If you think buying from allofmp3 is any more legit than using Kazaa or other P2P, than you are kidding yourself. It is not.

DudeMac
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2002

0

03/17, 04:14pm | report spam | close Reply |
Napster is Windows-only!

Napster falls short due to its lack of cross-platform compatibility. iTunes/iTMS/iPod however is cross-platform compatible to Mac and Windows and Linux (via CodeWeavers).

zander106
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2003

0

03/17, 04:16pm | report spam | close Reply |
Re: subs done better

All I keep reading is the same tripe over and over again. "Subscriptions blow. People want to own their own music! Napster sucks!"

I think the issue of "subscriptions blow" and "people want to own their own music" are separate issues. I would be willing to pay for a subscription if it were a plan that would allow me to own my own music.

Or another option: lower the price. I think the cost of Napster To Go's rental plan seems high for people because it's essentially a whole CD per month. If they were only charging $5 a month to rent music I don't think people would be so upset about it. At that price point I think it would be a very consumer-friendly way to sample music. And for people who aren't constantly searching for music, but tend to go through phases of increased interest (like myself, anyway), it's not as hefty a committment.

eMusic might have a great plan, but they also have a limited library (I looked them up previously and couldn't find anyone I knew).

This is definitely true. For me, back when you could get unlimited downloads, I loved it because I did happen to know a lot of the bands they had on there (from Matador Records, primarily). It's not the content of the library I think is really that great; it's the relative friendliness of their subscription plan. I would prefer to see higher caps on downloads (or no caps at all), but I like their plan.

Anyway, has anyone ever heard the bottled water analogy for online music purchasing stores? Unless the Supreme Court rules against Grokster this year, then all these discussions are a little silly because people will still be able to download for free if they really choose to...

jmonty12
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2003

0

03/17, 04:18pm | report spam | close Reply |
Subscriptions might win

I continue to be amazed that most people really are more willing to fork over a small amount of money on a regular basis rather than paying over a large amount just once. Tivo offers a one-time "lifetime" service or an optional monthly service. From what I can tell most people do the monthly service, which is exactly what Tivo wants because they'll usually make much more money that way.

If Tivo's service is an indicator, then Apple will need to offer a subscription service for iTunes in order to survive. Hopefully they'll offer both paid and subscription based services in order to make us all happy.

bigpoppa206
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2003

0

03/17, 05:06pm | report spam | close Reply |
What's funny...

Is that most of the people arguing AGAINST subscriptions are older folks like us.

The article states that research shows the all important 15 to 25 year old group has no problem with that method though and are more likely to come back and actually buy the tracks they love most.

I think in order to stay competitive, Apple could dust Napster's clock in a heartbeat by offering an Itunes to go type service. Do I like it? No! But someone else might...and they might be willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Now if they could find a way to finish Real off I'd be happy!

MisterWizard
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2004

0

03/17, 05:10pm | report spam | close Reply |
15 to 25

Actually what is funny is that most 15 to 25 year olds use the peer to peer services to download illegal songs. They actuall take turns 1 kid this week and 1 kid next week so that it looks like they don't use them that often. - Also 15 year olds can't pay the supscriptions anyway..

MrKlin
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Dec 2004

0

03/17, 07:37pm | report spam | close Reply |
Hmm

"What's the point in bashing Mac users? Are you here just to troll?"

This is what I hate about some Mac users - don't toe the party line and you get labelled as a troll. Is groupthink mentality and allegiance to Steve a requirement from owning a Mac and posting a Macnn?

"More aggravating is the approach of Napster's advertising campaign. Napster's advertising claim is somewhat dishonest. (snip) Most Americans are stupid and won't catch on these finer points."

I will give you the last point. Where is the uproar from this community when Apple limited the number of streamed users allowed per day? Or the ability to burn a song to a playlist for 10 times? Or the ability to stream over internet? I see a few paltry comments of "this sucks!" before the topic goes away but if a 3rd party does something like this it generates 8 pages of comments.

Jonathan-Tanya
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2004

0

03/17, 08:06pm | report spam | close Reply |
@hayesk

allofmp3 is legal. I guess you must live in a country where you don't have any libel laws...because calling someone a crook who is not, in some places, is called libel and not legal.

As you may know the record companies complained about allofmp3 and it was researched and found to be legitimate.

if the riaa can sue children and single mothers, I think I can download from the perfectly legal allofmp3.com. Your 'loophole' is actually the law as it was intended.

MacnnGregor
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2004

0

03/17, 08:53pm | report spam | close Reply |
How 'bout a NEW idea...

To me the best idea would be to take the best of subscription and satellite radio and make it into its own thing.

Make a situation where you have a cheap "subscription" of $5 or so, small enough to undercut the competition by alot. For this you get access to all iTunes songs for listening as much as possible, but it is done in a streaming way (with great new compression technology), no downloads (DRM becomes more important though). So you can be young and run thru as many new bands as you want. Clicking and listening like with Napster to go, but for less money you only get to listen - just like a well run radio station. If you find something you like, you can buy it from the iTunes store and off you go. Everyone is happy.

It is like more like iTunes as on Demand Radio rather than iTunes Store or iTunes To Go.

Problems:
1. Sure they wouldn't run on portable players (UNTIL we get broadband, wide ranging wi-fi) but usually you are at home, late at night checking on new music when you have the time ... at least that's me.
2. You need another kind of DRM to make them more secure, but so does Napster to Go.
3. There is the delay with streaming, but that tech will improve and if you explore with playlists, the servers should be smart enough to pre-emptively be ready in the background to stream almost seamlessly = just like streaming QT. And QT tech could be optimized for audio and used! Another advantage to Apple!

The iTunes on Demand site then is organized in a totally different way that is BETTER for the adventurous folks than Napster with well designed playlists and "emotion" search engines.

tomodachi
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2002

0

03/18, 07:15am | report spam | close Reply |
//

>> but if a 3rd party does something like this it generates 8 pages of comments.

Nahh. Only when it's Napster. And Dell. What do they have in common? Run by a****** CEOs who are quicker than any MacNN reader to badmouth Apple and it's users (by extension).

downloader
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 2007

0

10/24, 12:33pm | report spam | close Reply |
what is wrong with you?

What is wrong with you people?

there are ways around it "renting". Napster is the best deal out there!!! just take all your napster songs and use an mp3 converter program like tunebite and convert the songs to mp3's. then they are yours forever. it is that simple!!!!

or do it the slow way and burn them to cd and upload to itunes or another similar program.

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

New York Times compares Napster, iTunes

updated 10:20 am EST, Thu March 17, 2005

Napster vs. iTunes

Related Articles

Recent Articles

what about the downsides?

yeah

Oh yeah... much better

Next year

And besides...

renting?

>$15

Apple should offer it...

re: renting?

imagine...

I don't want to rent!

Listening limits

cracking

And its 128 kbps WMA!!

Did you see

I want to rent

Audio Hijack

Geesh, idiots!

Lets do the math

Napster Lite

Napster's Dirty Secret

Re: napster's dirty secr

At Napster's peak

testudo's right

More concrete issues

Re: Geesh, Idiots

That's the problem

Sound Quality

Subscriptions Done Better

why rent?

No, what lays napster

Subscriptions vs. Buying

allofmp3

Re: subs done better

Troll?

A Missing Question

ITMS

Music is about money...

Creative types?

Re: allofmp3

Napster is Windows-only!

Re: subs done better

Subscriptions might win

What's funny...

15 to 25

Hmm

@hayesk

How 'bout a NEW idea...

//

what is wrong with you?

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