Slashdot Mirror
New Napster Off To A Solid Start
Anonymous Superhero writes "From Wired magazine Napster 2.0 has a sleek design and makes exploring new music a pleasure. The most nagging problem? The confusing licensing issues. A review by Katie Dean." I haven't tried it yet - still using the iTunes store.
I haven't tried it yet - still using the iTunes store.
No kidding. iTunes is great, but I don't use it for music - I use it for the audiobooks. These are not available by *ahem* cheaper means, so I love having iTunes for them.
At $10 a month, the Napster premium service allows customers to stream an unlimited number of songs and listen to Napster's preprogrammed radio stations. For as long as you shell out the fee, you can download tracks and listen to them either online or offline. Stop paying the fee, and you don't get to keep the downloads.
;-)
Sounds like a nice way to get all the stuff you like for 10 bucks a month - given that you have the right tools to get the audio stream into a mp3 - can't be too difficult.
Of course, this would be illegal, so I won't try it (no, really!)
For as long as you shell out the fee, you can download tracks and listen to them either online or offline. Stop paying the fee, and you don't get to keep the downloads.
Right there is why I don't think it will catch on. People don't like the idea of paying until the end of time for something they have bought. Also, what happens when Napster 2.0 goes out of business, do your downloaded songs dissapear as well?
While I understand the reason, I would find it extremely disappointing to hear a bunch of songs streamed and then stop subscribing and realize all that money had been in vain....
I haven't downloaded music probably for over a year. Perhaps it says something about me, but as I age (28) I like less and less of whats out there and don't even have a desire to download it for free let alone for $.99.
The only time any more that I will download music probably is for a song I remember from my teens or some classical music.
I suppose the radio feature is useful (to get you hooked on new music and to get you to buy new songs).
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Anyways, it's good to see that this is some REAL competition for iTunes. Hopefully we'll see a price war soon.
You can't squeeze blood from a turnip there buddy.....there's no margin at all.
An industry leader has already emerged in the digital music business -- Apple's iTunes. They've set the bar and I'm not sure how that bar can be raised.
Does this new Napster service offer anything better than iTunes? The article claims more songs are available using Napster, but then goes on to say that some are only available as streamed audio, and then only to those who pay the $10/month. Of the 500,000 songs, how many are truly available as downloadable tracks?
iTunes, without requiring any purchases, comes with a few hundred radio stations, all of them free. Napster radio stations are only available to those who pay the $10/month (according to the article).
So where's the innovation? The industry is struggling to catch up to Apple, and Apple has a huge lead. I can't think of any feature I'd like to see in iTunes that isn't already there, and what is there is done really well.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
The thing I don't like about it is you have to create an account just to browse the store ... ? It's not like I can steal anything, but good grief, why do they need my digits just to look around? I hope that doesn't become the stardard anytime soon.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Apple has iTunes, Napster trying to compete there would be a waste of money. Windows 2000/XP saturation in the client marketplace is very high, and it seems to me that more tech savvy people are going to be the ones using this service, meaning they are probably not running Windows 95/98/ME, NT, and probably not Microsoft Bob either.
You titled your post "Rock solid start," sarcastically, but I don't really see the problem with the percentage of the marketplace they can reach.
I'm sorry, I'm not even an audiophile and I can hear a difference between a 128Kbps AAC and a FLAC. Yeah you can buy one song at a time. But that's only good for those pop singles.
So for $10/album I get no media, no notes, and less quality. Or I can get a used CD for the same price/cheaper and rip to 256Kbps myself.
Yeah I guess it saves me the trip into the hated sun world, but are people really finding this worth it?
In other news iTunes is a great program. Some flaws, and it eats RAM, but still fun to use.
-- taking over the world, we are.
1. Artist makes music
2. (optional) Music made without a producer because technology is cheap now
3. Artist starts promotional website
4. Artist gets on the radio and on P2P services
5. Artist gets popular if he doesn't suck
6. Artist makes money because of his popularity through advertising
7. Profit!!!
Notice the lack of a ??? step? Notice there's no RIAA involved? Notice how this system works already with television?
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Flat-fee streaming is what I really wish iTunes had. I use Rhapsody because it lets me listen to anything they have through my computer for a flat monthly fee. Since my PC is hooked up to my stereo and I have a DSL connection, it's basically indistinguishable from playing local ripped tracks or CDs. But it won't rip tracks directly to MP3s (it requires you to burn a CD directly), won't play any local files, and is very Windows-only. If iTunes let me do the same streaming thing, I would not only sign up, but it would be one of the last reasons for me to give up my Windows desktop and get a Mac.
Napster 2.0 seems to have something similar, but I don't like the fact that some songs are download-only. Perhaps I'll check it out though.
They are pressuring, cajoling and enticing labels to release music in WMA with the promise of it being pirate-proof. At that same time, they hope this will marginalize Mac OS and Linux (which also doesn't have a WMA 9 port).
I can't witness Napster's sleek new design, because it's a Windows-only client. That leaves me with these choices: Buy outrageously-priced CDs (haven't for two years and don't plan to until I see competitive pricing), "steal" music off of P2P (not my cup of tea), or use a competing distributor like Magnatune. I guess since Magnatune has streaming for previewing, competitive pricing, works with Linux (or any OS with a decent media player), and has no DRM, I will put up with their limited selection and they will get my money.
It's pretty obvious that the major music industry distributors have one shared brain cell. The more they lobby, prosecute and price-fix, the less money they make off of potential buyers like me, who aren't "pirating", but are sick of taking collateral damage from the battle. It doesn't take an economics genius to realize that $10 is better than $0 (because I'm not paying $20 thankyouverymuch). This is how it works RIAA: You don't call the shots, the consumer does. If you want my money, deliver what I want or get nothing.
BTW, does customs allow CDRWs to be shipped from Canada? I'd like to not fund the ongoing RIAA battle, because I have nothing to do with it. I figure it's time now to actively avoid funding this nonsense. I've bought the thousands of dollars worth of CDs in the past. What did I get for it? A 100% increase in music prices, only top 40 garbage to choose from, DRM controls, a tax on an unrelated item (I burn data CDs, not illegal copies of songs), ISP witch hunts, and legal maneuvering to stamp out viable competitive pricing through better technology.
I think from now on, whenever I spent $20 on entertainment other than on RIAA's partners in crime, I'll send them a nice e-mail telling them that they just lost out on profit because their products are not a good value, and they refuse to bargain with consumers. They may laugh at it now, but in three years, when their sales have dropped off 25 per cent, it won't be so funny anymore.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
To everyone who says that Napster should just pack up and leave since iTunes already does everything they do and better, get educated. I'd rather a market in which music distribution systems like iTunes and Napster compete because guess what, competition is what keeps these companys developing. If iTunes becomes the sole provider of legal music over the internet, no one has won except Apple since they would no longer have to put as much effort into R&D, which is both expensive and time consuming. Lack of competition often leads to stagnation in the realm of technology, just look at IE as of late.
This argument is ignoring either one of their merits as companies/products, but the point is, don't attack Napster or any other company in this market just because they aren't iTunes and do not attach your pride and ego to iTunes as its just a product designed to be sold, just like Napster.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Um... don't you have the choice to go to the store and buy CD's? Or do they mark everything except BNL and Moxy Fruevous as "Import"?
Your credit card information wants to be free.
I'm not paying a buck per song for the 'privilege' of downloading a CD (minus the CD, the case, the cool packaging etc). And I'm CERTAINLY not going to pay a buck a song to get the music on a non Mp3 format. I'd rather go down to the locally owned used record store, buy some used CD's and rip them myself - in whatever format I want.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
Yes, that must be why Itunes are selling so many songs and people are raving about it. Because it's doomed.
Expecting artists to sell ads for their songs is just ridiculous, and has nothing as all to do with how TV works. The production companies, writers, and actors don't work for ad revenue. They get paid by the networks for creating the shows, and the networks try to make money by selling ads when they show them. And the huge media corporations that own the networks can generate ad revneue a whole lot better than a million individual artists can. Do you expect each one to pay an agent and a few contract lawyers with the ad revenue generated by an unknown song on a P2P network?
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
So, what you are saying is that Canadians don't have a sense of humo(u)r?
Did you try doing the math? If the average American listens to music 1 hour a day, and each song is 4 minutes, that's 15 songs a day. 5475 songs/ year. At your compensation rates, that works out to $0.55/year for every man, woman & child. Whatta deal! The record industry would now have total revenue of about $160 million. If a typical employee earns $50,000/ year, the recorded music industry could employ about 3300 people. How many good record can you produce with 3300 people? 'course, there'd be no money left to actually pay the artists.
Honestly, schemes like this where a clearly unsustainable business model is proposed are just silly. Maybe if everyone had to pay $50/year for unlimited music there'd be a working model. And that estimate of 15 songs/person/day is on the high side of reality. Most people don't download music. And many songs would be downloaded once and played repeatedly on devices not connected to the computer.
I think this scheme would actually generate closer to $15 million, which Apple has already exceeded all by itself. And this would kill CD sales. Why would the record industry choose to drastically lower their revenue & potential revenue for one outlet (online sales), while irrerparably (sp?) harming their sales in their primary outlet (CD sales)? Any record label executive who pursued this would be sued by their shareholders, and probably removed by the board.
How did the artist afford a studio?
How did step 5, Artist becomes popular, translate into money in step 6? Are you saying she sold advertising? Who listened to the ads in this model, and when did they listen to those ads? On TV, if that's your example, there are commercial breaks. In a P2P, song-by-song model, there are no such breaks. What, product placements? In the form of lyrics about Frosted Flakes?
Are you saying artists themselves are going to be able to make decent deals with advertisers? Where was the step where the artist boned up on contract law?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
> Notice the lack of a ??? step?
No - I just noticed that you didn't label them.
For example, #2 - "make music without a producer." Technology may be cheap, but talent is not, and there's a lot more to studio fees than the building costs. As a general rule of thumb, discs made in a garage studio _sound_ like discs made in a garage studio. Sometimes that's good, but it lowers the quality of most genres of music.
Similarly, #4 - "artist gets on the radio." How, exactly, do you propose that an artist does that? What's to stop big companies with big money from controlling the airwaves, just like they do now?
With #2 and without #4, it's very, very unlikely that an artist will become popular, whether he's good or not. There are plenty of artists _right now_ who are talented, who have promotional websites, who are on P2P services, who made their music without a producer...and who are unknown. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find any counter-examples. The fact that your theory has already been tested and found to fail means it's not likely to work any better in the near future.
Finally, even if it somehow does work, let's look at #6: "Artist makes money because of his popularity through advertising."
You're probably thinking of things like Britney's Pepsi deal, yes? How, exactly, are _thousands_ of artists supposed to earn their money through incredibly rare sponsorship deals like those? Or is your grand plan happy with the idea of only 50 musicians who actually make money?
There is a very big difference between tracking what is going on on your server, and tracking what is going on an end user's program. Essentially, the web server at company XYZ is the property of company XYZ. They are tracking usage on their computer, for their use. XYZ pays for the computer, bandwidth, etc..
Spyware puts tracking software on a machine that they do not own. They use someone else's resources to gather information about a person's personal habits with the intention of manipulating that person.
The free market doesn't care about what songs people listen to...it cares about what they purchase. The transaction provides enough information for the seller. The company who sold you your mattress has no business tracking what you do on said mattress.
1. Burn a CD
2. Rip the CD into the format of my choosing.
Is a "hurdle" that the author cannot surrmount. He explains the two easy steps right there! Sure, its somewhat of a pain, but the apple format is not really an obstacle to playing the music on other devices than an iPod and making as many copies as you want. I've purchased about 50 songs so far, burned them all to CDs for playing in my car, and ripped them back to mp3s for playing in WinAmp at work.
And Napster 2 doesn't have DRM crap? It has significantly WORSE DRM crap.
(1) AAC, while it has DRM crap is an open specification which anyone (read: hardware vendors) can use.
(2) It is trivial to write the AAC to a disk and rip it to mp3 (or wav, whatever floats your boat). If you really want to get fancy, load the AAC into iMovie and save it as AIFF (lossless format), and the drm goes away.
DRM is not going away, the record companies will NEVER authorize a service that sells MP3s. So you either go back to buying CDs, or just take the extra step with iTMS and make your own MP3s. Or you could steal the music but that isn't doing anyone any good.
Given the choice between Napster 2.0 (windows only, wmp9 with drm only, very strict drm, confusing license issues, files only last as long as you play, non-open file format) and iTMS (lax DRM, Windows & Mac support, open file format, very straightforward licensing issues) I'm going with iTMS.
There isn't anything universally "good" about the USD declining in value.
As for me, I'm getting paid in USD, so if the value of the USD goes down, it acts like a paycut. Sure, local businesses are priced in dollars, but any inputs that come from overseas are going to feel pressure to raise their dollar prices. And don't fool yourself about how much of that cost of a nifty Palm pilot, wireless LAN card, etc., is influenced by the exchange rate. Making imported cars more expensive doesn't help *me*---"domestics" stay the same, so the cost of buying an automobile can only go up.
There isn't any "normal" economic mechanism for "correcting" the trade deficit. The trade deficit and current account deficit are two sides of the same coin. If people need dollars to buy USD-denominated stocks and bonds, they have to give us funny-colored pieces of paper in exchange. Those funny-colored pieces of paper don't have any value in the U.S. They only are useful to buy goods, services, and financial instruments that are denominated in yen, yuan, euros, etc. That is, in the end, they can only be used to buy foreign stuff. [I'm leaving out domestic investment, because the U.S. doesn't have any (net) to speak of.]
In summary, the main reason the U.S. has a trade deficit is because people in other countries are sending the US goods and services in order to get stocks, bonds, and dollars. And, indirectly, because Japanese and Chinese people are saving rather than consuming, and there aren't enough domestic investment opportunities to use up all that savings.
Sure, a declining dollar might sound good to an out-of-work autoworker in Detroit, but if it happens because no one in the world wants to invest in the U.S. economy any more, that doesn't sound like good news to me. Sounds more like the country being run like a third-world banana republic, but that's a longer discussion than I'm in the mood for now.
I agree in principle, but I also believe people should follow the law unless it is a really unjust law (think salvery). and as it stands now, copyright is part of the law.
Finkployd