Slashdot Mirror
Napster Tries Again
intheory writes "As it states on the site, The Cat is Almost Back. Napster, following a singificant delay, beleagured by legal and ethical rhetoric, reappears as a pay-to-play service. With some similarities to Apple's iTunes, will Napster regain its place as the premiere music distribution service? Additionally, the man behind the magic, Shawn Fanning, receives a thoughtful write up." I'm pretty wary of the new Napster, as the only thing it seems to share with its predecessor is the name.
Free > Cheap to most, as long as the quality of the free is anywhere near the quality of the cheap. Especially when you don't have to sign up for anything with a credit card or so with the free version.
Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of
mcmoot!
Here's what I got whilest using my TiBook:
We're sorry, Napster is not currently compatible with your operating system.
Napster is currently compatible with Windows XP/2000. Windows 95, Windows NT and the Mac OS are not supported at this time.
If you are planning on using Napster on this computer, the service will not be compatible and you should discontinue registration. If you will use Napster on a different computer, with a compatible operating system, please continue.
What and odd thing to say. They also don't even mention Windows 98, which in all the stats pages I've seen, is currently between XP and 2000 in popularity. Well, good luck to them.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
New Napster has nothing to do with only Napster. Roxio just bought the name, they are hoping for name recognition, nothing else.
-- OMFG = Oh My Floatse Goatse
With some similarities to Apple's iTunes, will Napster regain its place as the premiere music distribution service? ..no..
Roxio bought PressPlay and Napster's "brand". Then they re-launch PressPlay with the Napster's name.
There ya go. It's just PressPlay with a different face and a different owner. Same tech team.
AWWWWWW YEEAAHHHHHH -
That one is mine biznatches!!!!!
You'll never shut down the REAL Napster!!!
"I planned within my means and got a fixed rate mortgage, so where's MY bailout?" -cafepress
The online music industry is filling up quick, with itunes coming out for win, magnatune, etc... Napster would have to make a REALLY strong case to be able to survive in this new industry. And with the history of napster, I'm not sure they can get the deals with the record companies to make it viable.
Well, I guess now the only thing that counts its the price and the selection of songs... But the P2P networks will still be up and running!
Napster is dead, they surrendered to the RIAA and turned coat. The service is now strictly DRM, and is nothing more than the fulfillment of a record exec's wet dream. Refuse to fulfill the fantasy of the RIAA, boycott Napster. Nothing more to say here.
Slashdot needs a section for press releases instead of publishing them as actual news/story articles.
for old times sake, maybe a nice Metallica ditty:
MASTER! MASTER!
Master of "puppets" pulling strings..
I think you know where I'm going with this.
We *all* know that Seth Green was the inventor of Napster... because he liked to Nap!
"I am the napster!"
See you space cowboy...
At it's finest. Compatable with Windows Media player 9 too I bet.
Let's face it... this service is Roxio's attempt to build their clone of iTunes, BuyMusic, PressPlay, etc. The main gimmick of this one is just the fact that they bought the rights to the Napster name and logo at the bankruptcy auction, so they get to slap that name on it rather than having to create a new brand from zero.
Now that we have to pay for napster, it's not that cool anymore.
But now that I'm out of college, I'm not that cool anymore either.
P.S. - I'm black
roflamo its STILL not modded down.
Ive said it before and ill say it again, cdbaby.com kicks ass. They let you listen to 2 minutes of 5-7 songs off an album to see if you like it, if you do buy it, if not go on to the next one! All their albums are reviewed by the editors to give you description of what the music is like. Plus, after your first purchase, they send you a free cd with each purchase thereafter (usually a mix cd which is pretty good.)
Disclaimer: all though this read like an ad, its not. Im just a satisfied customer.
This is a great alternative to emusic and such pay for play setups where you waste a quota trying to find music you like.
So I guess they decided not to compete on price. I must say I'm shocked, just like a deaf old cat snuck up upon and grabbed.
yea.. and my post down below was modded down.. but this FP trash wasn't bahhhhhhhhhh...!#@%$@
Well, here's a chance for people to argue with their pocketbooks. As in the post, yes, it doesn't share many similarities with the original Napster, but so what? In an earlier posting today, I said I'd bought myself a Nomad, so I'm keen to try this thing out - yes, the music suits are bad, bad! i tells ya for taking in 90% of the money i pay for a CD or a downloaded song, but, well, that's the price, and I'm willing to pay.
I guess, at the end of the day, all I'm trying to say is score one for the idea that music theft is theft, plain and simple, black and white. And it won't just be talk, I'm going to vote with my pocketbook.
No, I am ghey.
This is just another example of the Napster zelots promoting a more expensive, propritary technology that doesn't even include a three-button mouse...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Napster was replaced with better systems a long time ago. Same name, different cat.
The real question is, does the new napster offer advantages over competing services, such as iTunes, and if they do, what are they? Anybody in the know here? Is it easy to preview content without paying for it? Do the downloads include DRM? Watermarking? How does this new Napster work, and why should we all be rushing to sign up?
MakePassword.com Mp3 Blog
Here's what I got whilest using my TiBook
Please don't complain about lack of the new Napster on Mac OS X because 1. remember that it took a while for Napster to make a Mac client for its old network, and 2. as a TiBook owner, you're in on the beta test of iTunes Music Store, which seems equivalent to what the new Napster offers ($1 singles, $10 albums).
They also don't even mention Windows 98
Because of its (lack of a) security model, Microsoft's Windows 9x operating systems aren't that great for much other than running legacy DOS apps.
Will I retire or break 10K?
They have zero information on what kinds of files will be available and what quality they will be. I suppose the 5 tracks for free will discourage most people from continuing the service. Only thing that would worry me is that they already have your credit card number.
If the rumors are true, iTunes for Windows and The Apple Music Store should be available next week.
Tough timing.
I swear by MacOS X. Although I use to swear *at* MacOS 9...
Who is this Shawn Fanning person? We all know Lyle is the true creator of Napster! He is after all ... The Napster.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
All I see is another news blurb at that link. Help
will Napster regain its place as the premiere music distribution service?
Answer: No!
Dont just mail it - Maileet
Its also worth noting that they ship first class mail so it usually takes 1-2 days for your cd(s) to arrive. If i place my order monday morning or early afternoon, i get my package on wednesday. Note I live in Pennsylvania and they ship from Oregon
Sure it's got the name Napster, but Napster died a long time ago. It's never going to come back. The people that own it now don't realize that Napster wasn't popular because of it's name, but because it was FREE. Nobody is going to want to join Napster and have to pay for it. Apple's iTunes was only popular when it first came out. It was a big hype, and it's died off tremendously. There's no way that Napster will ever be as popular as iTunes because it doesn't have the following like Apple did with the Mac crowd.
This is "same wrapping, new shit" I'm afraid.
That's exactly what I was expecting when I signed up (Linux/Firebird)... but everything went through just fine.
As far as the service... Well, I'll probably end up getting the 5 free tracks on a friend's box (since I don't have Windows) and then never using it again--barring the release of a Linux client. *laughs*
I figured it's worth a try just to find out how it works and what restrictions they have, then if the topic ever comes up I can speak from experience.
It's been gone since what, July of 2000? 3 years is one long nap...
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
Check out the Napster Animations. They're pretty funny =)
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
$.99 a song?!?!? That's a SWEET deal.
Er...wait...I can still get all that crap on Kazaa and eMule for free.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
I think the article made a mistake. Roxio is not beleagured, Apple is, clearly.
...I still keep a folder called "Napster".
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Not when it's using WMA. Roxio shouldn't even waste their time. I never open anything with a WM* extension.
The other thing was that their privacy policy page that they link to isn't up - it just redirects back to the homepage.
Their terms of use says that "Once you have burned a Purchased Track to a CD, you agree not to copy, distribute, or transfer the track from that CD to any other media or device" which makes me wonder -- if I burn a CD, can I rerip it to get rid of the DRM?
"The service is currently only available to Apple Macintosh users, who represent 3 percent of the world's PC users"
Their tech section should be headed with "Reuters beacuse a Mac is a PC too"
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
The license of most distributed music requires you to promise that you won't share this music with anyone else.
It's wrong to make this promise, and wrong to keep it if you have made it already.
will Napster regain its place as the premiere music distribution service?
No.
Any more brain-busters?
The other day I was downloading some "free" (free as in kaaza) disney material and I got this.
Imagine my shock.
This article from Wired tells us, that Napster will be using the wma-format. I dont know wma that well (being a mac user), but reading this does not make me feel safe in any way.
I've been a happy subscriber to pressplay for the last several months and have mixed feelings about it changing its name to napster due to the obviously negative impression that many (eg. company IT people) have of that name.
.99 is not that bad considering that you pay 15 bucks for a cd on which you like 4 songs. Plus, you can rip the cd that you burn those songs to to mp3 and use on any device you want. That said, I haven't bought that much music from them.
Nonetheless, its a great service for the most part:
1. I can download all the music I want for one flat fee of 10 bucks a month. I can only play it on the computer I downloaded it to, but thats the only computer (at home) I listen to music on.
2. I can stream music at work... this means I can go group an artist or genre or group of songs into a playlist and have it streamed to my while I work. I can also listen to their radio stations.
3. Purchasing music -
Downsides:
1. Music selection - lots of good music, but some artists that I like are missing.
2. Pay - its taken me a bit of time to get used to the idea of paying something for music (albeit just 10 bucks a month)
Alot of posts here have said that this is some phoney service thats doomed to fail - a wannabe iTunes. I think that many more features are available than with iTunes and I urge you to give it a shot... even just the free trial if its available when they startup.
and I'm american
Apparently every company out there thinks that this new pay-per-song system is going to work. I can't imagine why, because to me it is obvious that it never will. You're paying as much as you do for a CD and not even getting the real CD. Personally, part of the reason I ever buy a CD is so I can actually own it, both for the higher sound quality, and to have a physical album in my hand, complete with art, liner notes, etc. If I just wanted the sound file I'd get it for free or rip it from the CD. It's the same thing as eBooks, and for the same reason, they will never take off either. The music industry needs a massive overhaul, and iTunes and Napster just aren't doing it.
On a similar note why design a site that is platform specific? There is simply no reason why a music delivery website (thats what all these services are anyway) needs to be designed for a particular platform. I guess the current excuse is media player integration or DRM format capabilities.
That just leads to the question why use DRM? I realize licensing negotiation in the main reason why, but people who request DRM don't understand the nature of propagation on P2P networks. Once a file is seeded from one source, that is it! The cat is out of the bag. DRM is simply ineffective at prohibiting sharing of files on P2P networks and as seen from the many copy protected CD's, its like putting a big flashing sign on the packaging saying "Crack Me, Trade Me, Please!"
There ya go. It's just PressPlay with a different face and a different owner.
Well, not quite. This Press release states that pressplay was the "foundation" for Napster, but from the information on their site, it sounds like Napster has a bunch more features, a different pricing structure, and a larger catalog of music. So yeah, it's from the same company as pressplay, and it shares some of the same software, but it's hardly "PressPlay with the Napster's name."
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
Anyway, forget it if you're outside the US (written in their Terms and Conditions). And 0.99$ is way overpriced (specially compared to 0.00). I really wish some big name company would have the guts to start a 0.10c service for non-DRM downloads, available worldwide, and see how it goes.
have you been defaced today?
After reading this story, I thought I would go check out BuyMusic.com and see if anything has changed. Low and behold on the front page is a banner advertising the Metallica album. Funny that they were one of the most vocal bands against P2P and Napster in particular.
I find it quite ironic that they are now giving in and have St. Anger available on BuyMusic.com (nevermind that the album completely blows but that discussion is for another day). I wonder if they will be on the Napster? Since both sites use the draconian DRM so well implemented in WMA, this should make them happy. Now that can sell a few copies of songs off that crappy album and increase their profits from $10 gazillion to $10 gazillion plus a few bucks.
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
It's just RIAA crap w a known name. DRM ridden songs for some money.
Thanks, NO.
how long until
Additionally, the man behind the magic, Shawn Fanning, receives a thoughtful write up.
/. editors call his bluff (yeah, sure...)
Um... Fanning is not mentioned at all in the linked article. Am I missing something, or was the submitter so pressed for time that he merely guessed about the content of the story?
Or maybe it was an attempt to let the
-ben
myselfmusic
I am reminded of the time when the Scientologists sued a cult hotline into the ground, then bought the crumpled ashes (mostly the telephone number). They assumed the identity of a cult hotline that praises scientology as a non-cult.
but it's hardly "PressPlay with the Napster's name"
if it looks like a duck.....
and it's quacking pretty loudly!
too little too late.
Paranoia was conceived to make you feel that your reasonable suspicions are unreasonable and unwarranted.
RIAA, you don't have what I want and you will never keep anyone from getting and sharing the things they enjoy. Much of the music I'm digitizing is no longer published and impossible to find. Well, not impossible. WWOZ does a show called "records from the crypt" which features all sorts of great New Orleans R&B.
If the RIAA does ever get what it wants, their sales will go to zero.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The DRM support is more bulletproof on XP/2000.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
... since Napster shutdown. And I got rid of all their records at that time. Also I know that a lot of people did the same thing.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
It did have an initial surge, but has been averaging about 500k songs a week. Any guess how much OTHER music services are selling a week?
I have to think that anything actually making money, and lots of it, for the owner is pretty far from being "dead".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you are thinking of signing up make sure you read the terms and conditions first. It limits what you can do with the songs quite a bit. Some highlights are:
--You may burn each Purchased Track to a CD up to five times as part of any particular playlist of songs. A "playlist" is a discrete group of Purchased Tracks that are arranged together in a particular order. Once you have burned a Purchased Track to a CD, you agree not to copy, distribute, or transfer the track from that CD to any other media or device. --
and
---If you are using the version of the Service that is accessible from Microsoft Corporation's Windows Media Player 9 Series, you will only be able to burn or transfer Purchased Tracks using the Windows Media Player. In addition, if you are using the version of the Service that runs in Microsoft Corporation's Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004, certain features that are available in the Service will not be available in the "distance viewing" experience. --
also --You may copy each Download to up to two additional personal computers that you own (i.e. a total of 3 copies). You may not share Downloads with anyone else. 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. --
I guess that's what all that Digial Right's Management stuff is in WiMP 9.
Anyone know what "distance viewing" is?
Napster on Thursday introduced a test version of its new software that will sell individual songs for 99 cents each, albums for $9.95. or monthly "all-you-can-eat" subscriptions for $9.95.
Is this a typo? I mean, why would I pay 9.95 for an album, when i can get the "buffet" subsciption at the same price. Would this be for people who are too lazy to cancel thier subscription when they get done downloading? What if my album has less then ten songs? This pricing scheme won't help them in a successful comeback.
Shawn Fanning is an idiot. This is not a troll. He releases a PTP system that is so inherently unthought out and stupidly illegal and try to make a go of it. He wrote a program in VB that was what it was because he couldn't implement anything more complex. Sure, some of the beauty of Napster was its simplicity. But this is also the reason we are in a jam with PTP systems like we are today. Without Napster we would not have the RIAA court cases. We would have Gnutella systems, Bit Torrent etc free from lawyers and everyone would be happy.
Napster was a lowest common denominator PTP system. It stole MP3's. Many people thought of simple systems like this that the masses could use but most knew better than to damage PTP credibility before this. Writing a Napster program in VB would take a few days at best. Not that his idea wasn't what counts, it is and simple is usually better. But in his case there was no way around it. Napster was made to steal music. At least with Hotline and similar technologies you could say it had other purposes and in some cases make other purposes for it.
Napster has caused so many problems with legit PTP systems. My problem with it was it was so flagrant. It was a dumb mans PTP system and it brought attention to other areas that otherwise didn't want it.
Now, I probably sound like I am hating on Napster because now it's harder for me to steal things. Well, it's not harder for to steal things so you can rule that out. But, I know systems are being monitored closely now and the general public knows what a PTP system is, well sort of. I download some music I don't own. I use free software so I don't need to pirate that. But now I can get a huge fine if I D/L a song from the wrong person. I blame Napster for this. Not for me D/Ling things, but for being so stupid, flagrant and blatantly illegal about it they fucked it up for everyone.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
If anybody has been paying attention to their marketing attempts...pretty much the only thing they've been pushing is the brand recognition. I hope they realize that once they roll this out....and they hook a few people....that the brand will be trashed once people realize the service is:
A. Nothing like it used to be.
B.Sucks donkey balls compared to similar services *cough*iTunes*cough*.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
All I want to know is, what is the quality level of the recordings offered by these new pay download services? I used EMusic's $10/month service for a while and quit mainly because many of their MP3s were poorly encoded at low bit rates. Many people just can't tell the difference or don't care, but for me high fidelity is important.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
I get my free Disney material at the public library. Advantages of the library vs. other methods:
You may be surprised at the selection offered by your public library. I sure was.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Gee, I can't wait.
I really wish some big name company would have the guts to start a 0.10c service for non-DRM downloads
Where would it get the recordings? Where would it get the license to distribute phonorecords[1] of the underlying musical work? Put together, those cost much more than 10 cents to license.
[1] "Phonorecord" is legalese for a copy of a sound recording.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I don't understand what all of this hullaballoo about "legal" music vending methods is.
I mean, it is nice that we can now download music at the behest of our checking (or credit card) accounts. On the other hand, the majority of consumers are still in the mindset of "try before you buy." For ten bucks an album, I want some damn liner notes. Do any of these services provide them online? I don't think they do.
I strongly feel that 10.00 for a bunch of digital bytes, and without any liner notes is an astrociously high price. The company's only real expense for the distribution is the bandwidth. They should adjust the prices accordingly. Now, I do understand that the labels get a cut of the proceeds, I really think they need to revise how big of a cut they get for something that is not physical...especially if they want to be on top of the game.
Again, I know I am kind of ranting here, but I think that all of these music-service startups is like a bad dream. It reminds me of the "DotCom" bubble in the sense that only the services that provide THE BEST experience will survive. Read: Apple.
Napster's old reputation precedes its new offering. So, with that kind of stigma, most people that want to legally get music probably won't want to be associated with a name that has had a bad reputation in the past.
"Napster was only cool was because it was free"
Slashdot editorial team called, they want their copy editor back.
.02
cLive ;-)
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
Many users commenting here claim that they support the artists and that the record companies are ripping them off. Sure -- in all honesty, I believe that. But then they take the big non sequitur leap and claim that the only course of action is to steal the music. You see, I don't buy that part. Because if the artists were selling it directly (and a lot of artists do), people would steal it anyway. Why? Because people are cheap. Because they love getting something for free, even if it means compromising their ethics. They don't give a shit about the artist. They're just trying to justify their obviously unethical behavior.
Some people also claim that selling the music is unjust because the cost of duplication is near zero. That doesn't mean that the musician didn't have to work to make the music. That doesn't mean the studio didn't have to work to record the music. That doesn't mean the label didn't have to spend money promoting the music. And there are plenty of musicians out there who do give their music away for free. There are garage bands who put their whole catalog of songs up for people to download. But people still steal the commerical music anyway. Why steal when you can get free and legal stuff? Some pirates try to use this same argument as justification for stealing software. Obviously they've never heard of OSS. Why do they steal? Because they're cheap. Because they don't want the free stuff, they want the commercial stuff. But they don't want to pay for it. And, hey, it's quick and easy to steal the commercial stuff, so who cares if it's dishonorable?
Don't get me wrong. I think the MPAA and RIAA are just as despicable as pirates. They continually lie to you -- trying to convince you that even after you buy their products, you still don't really own it. But just because they're underhanded it doesn't automatically make stealing acceptable.
I believe that you have a right to do whatever you want with whatever you buy. I believe the MPAA has no business telling me where I can watch my DVDs that I paid for. I believe the RIAA has no business telling me I can't rip my CD's so I can put the songs on my portable mp3 player. But I don't believe I have the right to steal copies of the movies or songs. I believe in both sides of electronic copyright. I have first sale rights that say once it's mine -- I can do whatever the hell I want with it. And if I don't want it any more, I'm allowed to sell it to whomever I choose. But I'm not allowed to give it away AND keep a copy for myself at the same time. It's just like lending a friend a book or a chair. Just because it's electronic, doesn't mean stealing is less wrong.
I'd rather die than see a WMA file on my hard drive.
Chomp on my ass hairs, Pressplay/Napster.
mplayer plays Windows Media files just fine. Should work, no? Not that I would pay for the serice anyways, but mplayer should work fine. Unless the DRM sh*t is something extra, which it probably is, about which I know nothing and could care even less.
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
The posting on this thread says "Additionally, the man behind the magic, Shawn Fanning, receives a thoughtful write up."
I read the article pointed to in that text, and Shawn Fanning isn't mentioned at all. What gives?
Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
"You may copy each Download to up to two additional personal computers that you own (i.e. a total of 3 copies). You may not share Downloads with anyone else. 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."
SO LET ME GET THIS FUCKING STRAIGHT....
The rights to the music I bought are RENEWED each month, as long as I have a subscription...?
So if I cancel my subscription, then none of my music will play any more? FUCKING WHAT?!?!?!
ME, that's what!
Of course this isn't enforceable, but the license agreement clearly states:
"Once you have burned a Purchased Track to a CD, you agree not to copy, distribute, or transfer the track from that CD to any other media or device."
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
Hi, I looking for low quality sounding, DRM restriction, non-mp3, no included album art, files that must be burned to CD-R, to waste time as well as effort to search and download, mainstream pop only, single computer based crap music files that I PAY FOR!!! Please help.
pay vs free ...pay for napster or dont pay for the one im using... hmmmmm tough coice isnt it
3y3 c4|\| |\|0t u|\|d3rs74nd j00
Please note the following caveats:
... really I don't see this as much of a contest. Ask those folks at BuyMusic.com if they've sold +12M songs yet like iTMS has.
1. emusic is stopping their all-you-can-eat DL subscription policy. I guess subs don't work after all.
2. This "Napster" bears absolutely no resemblance to the previous Napster. No free songs, dudes. Sorry.
So, let's see:
Napster: Could have a better selection of music than iTunes, particularly of indies
Apple: Adding indies like mad, has incredible obscure/long out of print stuff.
Advanatage: Napster
Napster: seems to tether your rights to your subscription, and includes spyware to report on your playing/burning habits. Severe restrictions on playlists/burning/sharing.
iTunes: Doesn't.
Advantage: iTunes.
Napster: uses WMA which has more restrictive DRM than AAC. Does not work with #1 MP3 player iPod.
iTunes: uses AAC with really quite reasonable DRM, can work with iPods AND most MP3 players.
Advantage: iTunes
Napster: WMA @ 128kbit kinda sucks.
iTunes: AAC @ 128kbit sucks a LOT less.
Advantage: iTunes
Um
Someone beats up on my friend's p2p system, sues them, takes it over, and they expect me to now buy music from them? There is NO WAY I'll be buying ANYTHING from this new Napster if it feeds RIAA a single penny.
Napster has virtually NO brand name value with the demographic that counts, kids aged 15-25.
As an aside, the same kids knew Nirvana, but had no idea who Alice In Chains or Soundgarten were, and these were headbanging Korn/Limp Bizkit dudes. Sad... Actually, they didn't know who the President of the USA was, or the Prime Minister of Canada, so take heart, the cuts in education are working wonders.
But I can find more than that on a free p2p network!
seriously, there's a lot more music out there than 500,000 tracks.. I'm betting they only serve the mainstream music, which leaves people who have interest in different styles of uncommon music in the cold, hence why the service will probably fail, because of those rare or odd tracks that cant be found on there, and face it, people dont want to pay... also, is it 99 cents per play? if that's the case, then they're gonna die out even quicker than before. that's like sending money every time your cd loops a song. whatever.
if I pay money, I better be able to keep the song.
Also, if the do let you keep the song, you know how they can prevent illegal distribution? extra tag info that isnt editable and is encrypted that's added in when the user downloads the song, so they know where it came from.. looking in the best interests that way.
but still, there's even glitches to that.. sound recorders and file cache. either record the song from the applet, or record the song when you download it (presuming you can)
it's not failsafe.. but hey, you had that coming in the new technology age.
either charge decent fees for cd's (aka, less than 30 dollars for a cd) or go bankrupt is what I say.
and it's been proven when you sell something good at a low cost, but not too low, you end up making more money, because you get more consumers than before.
if they had done that before p2p... maybe they wouldnt be in this mess, have they ever thought that this whole mess is their fault?
The only ones who will do this right is, ironically, Apple. Next week, they will realease their iTunes service for Windows and they will take over just like they did with the Mac.
Think about it. Of all these "pay-for" music distribution channels, only Apple has really succeeded.
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
Technology? Yeah, they're all about the same, download, burn, transfer. It's just a matter of who's looser with their terms, who cares.
Platform? who cares, there are options for most.
BUT! the most important thing nobody has mentioned is where is the selection? 500,000 song titles is jack squat. I do know one thing, where are the Beatles? the Rolling Stones? Eric Clapton? These are the high roller artists that people (and myself) want and if they can't find them on the legal pay services, well you know what's left......
Fail, Fail again, Fail better
I was looking at Broadway and 50th Street yesterday afternoon, and saw a "Napstermobile" driving down the road. I was thinking, "Who the heck bought a new car and painted it for a dead product?".
Thought someone might find that interesting...
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
Every service is going to have good and bad.
... Other "intangibles"?
Napster Good:
* We don't know. Napster hasn't released it's DRM scheme yet. I can only assume that they got the same deal as iTunes Music Service.
* Pricing -- Including a subscription model (but who cares, subscriptions and montly payments are dead!).
Napster Bad:
* WMA ONLY! Windows ONLY!
-- This restricts portable device options, and end user options.
-- No support for purchased tracks on iPod!
* We don't know - What tracks will be available? What will the service provide other than music? Reviews?
iTunes Good:
* Great, open, and fairly unrestrictuve DRM scheme.
* Linked to a heavily used and user respected player / music management application.
* With iTunes for Windows release will work on multiple platforms.
* Pricing -- Except no subscription model.
* All of the "intangibles" including ease of use. Integrated searching. Seamless between user music library and purchasing service. "It Just Works".
iTunes Bad:
* AAC 128bit Encoding -- Locked into iPod for portable device support.
Software Engineering Stuff:
There are core issues with the Napster code base. It relies heavily on "other people's software" to function properly.
Requirements for Napster:
1) A full install of Windows Media Player (14MB or more depending on WMP version). The Napster client uses COM based automation to control and use the WMP components to play WMAs, manipulate WMAs, and enforce WMA based DRM.
2) A full install of the MSXML 3.0 components. MSXML is probably used extensively for data transport, and data storage.
3) MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes) is / are used for UI and other application presentation.
Now, in and of themselves these core software components are not truly bad. There are many Windows based apps which have these components as base requirements. The "truly bad" issues start if a Mac, or Linux version is ever needed. It will take quite a bit of work to re-code the app to work without MSXML, WMP, and the WMA DRM that goes with it. If Napster was serious about "being everywhere" they would be using their own WMA code base, an open source XML library (Xerces, et. al), and a very thin framework for accessing Windows APIs and UI components (i.e. WTL).
Think I am wacked? It is easy to get access to these restrictions, simply use the MS Developer tool Depends on the PressPlay DLLs and EXEs.
My hope: By using these libraries that the Napster client is slick, cool, and allows for music purchasing to be as flawless as iTunes 4.
Marketing Stuff:
I believe that Napster's main issue is timing. iTunes for Windows will be released on Oct. 15th a full 2 weeks before Napster.
If Napster comes out and cannot measure up to the usability and functionality of iTunes for Windows, then I believe that Napster will be DOA.
Apple is releasing iTunes for Windows to drive 2 things:
* iPod Sales
* Mac Sales
This means that the margin earned per song can be **EXTREMELY** low because Apple derives other significant revenue streams from their Music Service.
Napster / Roxio has NO additional revenue stream from their music service. This means that Napster / Roxio will burn through capital at a very quick rate. Napster / Roxio seems to hope that the Napster brand will sell better and quicker than iTunes on the Windows platform and seems to hope for volume and notoriety to triumph over quality and volume... (Beta vs. VHS anyone?)
I got,
I'm to lazy to copycat my previous post, so here's the link to it...
oh, yeah, what I missed to say in there, is that as a VIP customer, you're able to listen and preview all tracks (in 24kbit/bitrate) before you deside to buy anything...
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.