Slashdot Mirror
PressPlay + Roxio?
securitas writes "The NY Times and the LA Times (via SJ Mercury News) report that Roxio is close to a $30 million deal to buy Pressplay from Universal and Sony. The struggling joint-venture has less than 50,000 subscribers after three years. Roxio bought the Napster brand and assets at a bankruptcy auction last year and plans to resurrect Napster as a legal service."
Wasn't the whole legal arguement of Napster being that it was somewhat peer to peer? If Napster was not actually storing the data on their site, why did they need all of that storage?
Not neccesrily!
I don't own a Mac & I don't plan to right now ($$$!) I would love to be able to leagally get the songs I want and I don't want to wait until the end of the year when Apple gets iTunes out for the PC. I would gladly welcome a viable iTunes-like PC solution!
But that's just me... Most people are just happy with Kazaa (regaurdless of the leagalities of it)
~ tmasman
Oh! And this one time, at band camp...
First, Roxio's plan was as follows:
1) Buy Napster
2) ?
3) Profit!
which did not work out. Apparently, they think that step 2 is "Buy PressPlay".
Napster did not make money. PressPlay (AFAIK) did not make any money worth mentioning. The Apple Music Store has set the bar now, and Roxio's attempt to become "the tech savvy player in the digital music business" has - if not failed - become more difficult.
Forgive my ranting, Roxio just canned me recently...
A.C.
PressPlay and Rhapsody were the two services Steve Jobs mentioned when he introduced Apple's iTunes Music Store, and he concluded that compared to iTMS, they both suck. They're both subscription services, and they place restrictions on what you can do with the songs you download. Apple also uses DRM, but Apple is MUCH more lenient about how you can use music you've purchased.
If Roxio is buying PressPlay, that can only mean increased competition among music providers, and competition is always a good thing.
By the way, although Apple hasn't had time to work out any deals with independant artists, many of them have been clamoring to get on board as quickly as possible, and Apple says they will definitely be working with them once they've had a chance to get more popular "Big 5" stuff added first. I haven't heard much interest in PressPlay distributing indy music. Probably doesn't hurt that so many musicians are Mac users.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Bands played live, recorded music wasn't avaialble.
Recordings are cheap, I wouldn't pay much for one.
I would pay to see a band live.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
In short, Apple was incredibly stupid not to make their store web-based or have plans for PC availability in the very short term, as it leaves the PC market wide open for someone to copy Apple's service and take over the market.
It cannot be done in six months. No way, no how.
Apple already has everything they need except the client-side application. They have the back-end commerce system (including one-click, which is an integral part of the transaction processing system), they have the database, they have a growing repository of content. iTunes for Windows is just the last tiny piece of the puzzle.
No one will be able to do it in six months. Guaranteed. They will either be unable to do it at all, or they will do a half-assed job that leaves nobody satisfied.
And as for Apple's being "incredibly stupid not to make their store web-based," you've got to be kidding me. Have you actually seen how ITMS works? The user experience is superb. It's simply not possible to get that level of user experience with a web application. Can't be done. With ITMS, you have real-time searching, not this "click submit and then wait two minutes" stuff. With ITMS, you have integrated previews, not "click here to download a browser plug-in." With ITMS, you have one-click integration, which means you click one button and then wait a period of time proportional to your internet connection and then POOF! There's the file, right in your library. No "save this file to your desktop" crap.
So no. Apple was NOT incredibly stupid. HTH.
I had no idea Napster ended up in a bankruptcy auction. I used to work for a company that were working with Bertelsmann to buy Napster (remember that?), so a big hello to Paul V. at iFormation! Would you put a guy with his finger as far from the pulse as possible on a project like that? I mentioned at the time that buying Napster was the stupidest idea ever because it was seen as being free gratis & for nothing, but egos tend to get in the way....I wonder how much cash went up the wall? iTunes works because it's not been free from Day One and has a reputable backer - but more people use Kazaa. (Or Kazaalite if they're smart.) Whatever. Cheers S.
Why people steal music.
(in my opinion that is)
Because they can, and come up with all sorts of reasons to justify it to themselves.
I don't buy your "we use KaZaa because all the music sucks!" argument.
People dont go on kazaa and download stuff they dont want, they use the search feature to find songs that they DO want.
The "one or two good songs" argument is another attempt to justify to themselves that what they're doing is just and right.
MP3 ftps and irc fserves boast the number of full albums they have available.
Myself, I don't like most of the music thats out there. So I dont listen to it, I dont buy it, and I dont download it. Why would I? I dont want it.
You know, I guess I'm blessed (?) or just lucky that the wiring in my brain has enabled me to truly enjoy (for nearly 20 years now) independant music and at the same time that wiring has enabled me to loath and detest "commericial mainstream" music. So, when I want to downnload MP3's of music I enjoy... its never done "illegally" as 90% of the bands/artists I like generally thrive on the free exchange of their music.
Also, and here's the kicker, these bands generally make money off of me because after I download and burn 2 or 3 MP3's, I then buy the CD (and also get past CD's if applicable).
So, the whole point of "legal" vs. "illegal" burning/copying MP3's is quite irrelevant if one just opens up to independant/diy music.
I generally use places like diysearch, victory records (who always has a nice selection of their artists mp3's available).
The stuff is out there, in all genres, you just gotta find it, and be open to it.
sad robot making broken music
>> This service could have a chance, but any
>>software that I've had the unfortunate
>>pleasure of using from Roxio was complete crap
You need to remember that Roxio has a seperate target market then the one you are used to. The target is the average non-technical home consumer. The software is dumbed down for these folks.
Considering the Roxio line-up, Jam could easily go into Apple's current pro music offerings (like Logic) as well as being a standalone product. On the consumer side, imagine Toast being built-in to Mac OS X...that would be very nice. Then Apple could sell an iTunes "Pro" to Windows users with Easy CD Creator bundled/built-in, and it could sell off GoBack, VideoWave and PhotoSuite to some other company.
I agree with 99% of your post but I do have one small dicker point.
Since Apple is basing its DRM solution on AAC, which is an open standard, there's no reason in the world why other MP3 makers can't include it in their firmware, or even offer a patch. If companies can offer MP3/WVM/OGG support, then there's nothing that is stopping them from offering AAC.
It will probably come later in the year in anticipation of when Apple rolls out their service for Windows users. Assuming that Pressplay/Roxio will not be able to offer MP3's of their selectioin (which would give members of the RIAA brain hemorages), they'll probably stick with some open standard of DRM, which right now either means they go WVM, or go AAC. AAC will probably have more support, and unless they want to make their own proprietary standard (which will probably cause people like myself to go "splt!" at them), they'll have to support what Apple has introduced.
If nothing else, Apple made a right move using AAC as an open standard. Now they don't have to care if you buy an iPod or not if you use their service. Oh, sure, they'd prefer that you did, but as long as they get their $0.33 cut per song, they'll be just as happy if you by a Jukebox.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Aren't they coming a bit late to the party? People are doing much more exciting things with file sharing nowadays.
It ought to be pretty obvious that this has nothing to do with file-sharing or P2P. This is about creating a legal alternative to file-sharing and P2P -- a label-friendly environment where people can actually shop for and buy music, rather than just take it. Apple proved in two weeks that people will buy downloadable music if it caters to their needs. Now Roxio is going to follow suit and try to beat Apple to the PC market.
These new online music shops will find customers, because people still want to buy music. Likewise, P2P will still survive, because people still want for porn, warez and back episodes of Adult Swim cartoons. The real question is how much these new online shops will cater to independent labels and artists. If Apple, Roxio and RealNetworks (which recently bought Listen.com) treat those not associated with the Big Five like red-headed stepkids, then these new stores should be shunned.
Apple has indicated they want to help the indie labels. That's a good start, IMHO.
The addition of the type of features which I'd want to see in an online music service (searches, previews etc) would lead to a product completetly different to Napster.
And is that such a bad thing, really? Wouldn't you rather have the product you want rather than another P2P system? (That's what Roxio is betting, anyway.)
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
Take a look at the end of the URL that the parent sends you too, very interesting.
T UN E.html?ex=1053921600&en=563cfca1e07d15b9&ei=5062&p artner=SLASHDOTSUCKS
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/19/technology/19
I'm hoping Apple gets this Windows version out there asap. It would be nice to see them be the first to do something right and then actually get to capitalize on it's acceptance by those unwashed masses. Hopefully the record labels in their paranoid glory will be slow to try anyone else in this and Apple will get the time it needs to get the other 90 some odd percent of the world connected to their budding money machine
I'm still at a loss to explain why they didn't get that Windows version ready to go from day one though. That would have been amazing. If the Mac users pulled down a million songs in a week (and even then it was only the OSX users) and were able to get that much positive buzz about their numbers then can you picture what it would have been like if a Windows client had been available from the outset? What would people have been saying if they had cranked out ten million songs in the first week?
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
All the companies involved see is that people are buying music from Apple. So, they figure that selling music the same way they've been trying to only with an established brand name (Napster) will sell even more music than Apple - after all, people must be buying now because it's from Apple, and will buy even more from a trusted name like Napster! It's just an attempt to leverage a brand into selling music. It's the same stuff underneath with a shiny coating, if you will... they don't seem to have learned to "think different" (or even examine how much the Napster brand is worth at this point).
That's how they think, anyway... and so the service will just be a repeat of Pressplay.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"EZ-CD kicks arse"
I'll have two of whatever Cackmobile is drinking. I want to experience that distorted sense of reality. EZ-CD is a mess and it's been a mess as long as it's existed.
If their music service is even close to the quality one finds in their burning software then Apple has all the time in the world to get that Windows client out.
No rush, it's not like anyone else is threatening to beat them to the punch.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Because of Pressplay and other services absymal feature set, there is no way that I would have ever signed up. I was an E-Music subscriber for a number of years, but when my subscription ended, the genius marketing folks over there never bothered to auto-renew it! Because they were so stupid at marketing over there, I just never bothered to go through the trouble of signing up again.
As one of those souls who happen to *buy* all my music, Apple is the way to go. I hope Roxio has good luck, but I can't see how they are going to even use the Napster name or technologies in any way without giving the record companies the willies. Then again, perhaps they have something in mind that will blow our minds in a few months.
Newsfollow.com
Microsoft?
.Net technologies. Count on it.
Do you really expect Microsoft to sit idly by while Apple makes $$$$ hand over fist, winning over converts in the process?
Microsoft may not be the most ethical of companies, and they may not be the producer of the most stable or the most secure software in the world, but one thing they're not is stupid. If there's any money to be made in the software and Internet content businesses, you better believe Microsoft will be standing there making it. And the delivery system will be centered around the fully-DRM-enabled Windows Media Player and
My journal has hot
We came to the agreement that a market would exist for bands to emulate the stones, led zepp and others and be quite successful at it since current 'original' bands just don't cut it and fail to properly carry the legacy. Already existing examples we could thing of included The Back Doors and Bjorn Again both of whom are able to draw a crowd of 2,000 at almost any given moment.
So, how long will it be until officially sanctioned cover bands step in to replace the Stones once they get too old to tour, but are still a profitable commodity?
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.