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.
Still using piracy. Arrrr, matey.
"I haven't tried it yet - still using the iTunes store. "
that somebody has an advertising deal?
Comment: Yes I realise the username 'fuckfuck101' makes me sound intelligent, no you cannot buy it from me.
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!)
It doesn't use the common MP3 format. Instead it uses the more proprietary and stiflying WMA format. Which, in my experience has proven inferior to every other format available. (MP3, MP3Pro, Ogg, AAC, etc) Though, to it's credit it does have a wider range of device support than Apple's AAC, but it was a mistake to not go with MP3 which would have provided even greater support and better quality.
Something intelligent here.
When the Apple Music Store for Windows went live, half the xp users on the internet had downloaded iTunes within 24 hours, it was the most talked-about event on the internet for days, and Apple had almost immediate statistics showing they'd sold millions and millions of songs in the first weekend.
Where are Napster2's such statistics? If they're remaining silent on that, what does that say about how much of a "success" they are so far?
Now that Napster 2.0 is out... I mean, it's out already? The only way I knew was those ads on the Onion. But that made it seem like a "coming soon" thing. Heck, it's barely made a ripple. You'd think if it were worthwhile, it would get more press than the press they merely recieve because of their famous name.
So are all the people complaining that you can't run your iTunes Music Store purchases on more than 3 computers going to overlook the seemingly worse flaws in Napster2, or whine all the louder?
As soon as my lawyer finishes reviewing the licensing agreements and terms of use. It should only take about 5 days and cost me $10,000.
Jeez. It was so much easier in the old days. At least then it was obvious that you were breaking the law. Now you just don't know...
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?
http://www.napster.com/terms.html
If you are on their monthly service you keep the music only so long as you subscribe to their service and cannot burn it (or I think transfer it to a music player) without paying the additional charge.
It also reports how many times you've played each track to headquarters.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
From the article: I look forward to an even better digital music experience as the licensing hitches are resolved.
And that's the beauty of the Apple solution: all of the licensing hitches have already been worked out. Consumers want predictability, and iTunes is the only one that provides it now.
The big problem with Napster (and BuyMusic for that matter), and the reason iTunes surpasses both of them: Ease of Use. I don't want to have to read the fine print on every single song. I just want to find it and grab it:
"Despite its flexibility, the service can also be confusing. Some songs in the Napster library can only be streamed, while others are only available for a 99-cent download, even if you're paying for the streaming service. Which songs fall into each category isn't clearly spelled out. Some users are liable to think they are signing up for unlimited access to the Napster library, only to find out that some tracks must be purchased separately."
" I was listening to Lucinda Williams' album Car Wheels on a Gravel Road when I ran into a glitch. I could hear all of "Lake Charles," but only 30 seconds of "I Lost It," a song from the same album. It turns out "I Lost It" was only available if I opted for the a la carte feature. I either had to buy the track for 99 cents or be content hearing just 30 seconds of it. What a pain."
The Napster kinks in licenses and stuff like that are only a sign of how the record industry still hasn't embraced this age of electronic media.
You'd think they'd be all into it, with the cost reduction for distrobution.
I would think I'm not the only person in the world who clicks OK whenever I see a contract or license. To me, that long-winded drivel has no hold on my time. If Napster is saying they will require my first born child as future payment for the services, then they'll have to come through me to get it, contract or not.
But that's not really what this is about. It's about record execs who haven't got the slightest idea how to integrate properly into a culture.
We are the culture... The people.
They (RIAA et al) are too busy trying to tell us that they are the culture, they are in control, when in fact that very notion of them having to tell people of this, is their undoing.
Each artist or group might have certain wishes to deal with Napster. Napster likely had to make concessions to appease the powers that be.
It's a side effect of a greater disorder. But does it make Napster bad? Prolly not.
That is my biggest complaint. I decided to sign up for their premium service for a few months, since I was quitting eMusic anyway so the net cost was negligible. Once you join, many songs' icons change from "Buy song" to "Buy only", which means you can't stream or download them without paying $1. OTOH, there is a bunch of stuff that is streaming only. (For example, the Pet Sounds Sessions by the Beach Boys.) I don't think this is made sufficiently clear before you sign up, although I'm sure they would argue it's in the fine print somewhere.
Also, just some more info on the tracks you can download on the $9.99 unlimited plan. If you view the file info in Windows Media Player, they are tagged in the DRM as "no transfer to portable", "no burn to CD", and with 6 week play expirations. Presumably that is renewed automatically if you keep up the subscription.
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).
Here is a recent review from John Fried who compared the different sites head-to-head
Here's my review, which I attempted to post as a new topic but got denied....
:) I also like the notion that my purchased music are simply DRM-protected local files and I can play/manage them along with my local files.
Below is a short review I have done of the three legit online music services I have tried - Rhapsody, iTunes, and Napster 2.
Rhapsody
As a s/w developer who sits in front of his computer all day, I'm a big fan of the online streaming services and a huge Rhapsody advocate. I consider it the best $10 that I spend a month and use it for at least 6 hrs a day M-F. I've also ripped my entire CD collection to a FireWire drive connected to a fileserver I have setup in my home network. In total, I have about 7000 mp3s
ripped at 192kbps VBR which take up about 37GB of storage.
But Rhapsody has it's shortcomings.....
- no portable support
- no way to play local media files
- purchased music can be burned to a CD once and then it's gone
- no one click album purchase
I live with most of these by simply ripping the CDs I burn from Rhapsody which allows me to mix them with my local tracks and upload them to my Samsung YP-30SH MP3 player. I have also purchased the licensed version of RealOne (w/o all the subscription crap) to manage my local files. I'm not a big fan of Real the company but RealOne has great ID3 and file management capabilities. I've tried all of the others (e.g. MusicMatch) and I simply can't find another media player which does what RealOne does for me. I should mention that most of these capabilities came from RealJukebox which has then merged with RealPlayer to form RealOne. Unfortunately, it is now bordering on considerable bloatware and I fear that since Real has purchased listen.com (i.e. Rhapsody) they are planning on merging the Rhapsopdy client into it which will likely result in both clients becoming less usable.
iTunes
When iTunes for Windows launched, I checked it out from a curiosity perspective. The U/I is very well done as one would expect from Apple and the purchase process is seamless. Apple has made it very easy for people to spend money
But iTunes has it's shortcomings......
- iPod-only support
- no streaming service
- AAC format which has very limited industry support
I have seen so many messages blasting M$oft and WMA and DRM, and the same people giving accolades to Apple and iTunes. But from my perspective, iTunes/AAC is 10x more proprietary than WMA and Apple has not been anywhere near as forthcoming with developers as M$oft has been over WMA. There are at least a dozen MP3 players on the market supporting WMA and only one supporting AAC. It seems that since Apple is "cool", it's OK for them to be signicantly more proprietary than the "uncool" Microsoft.
As far as DRM is concerned - yes, it's a pain, but get over it - it's not going away.
Napster 2
So given my views on Rhapsody and iTunes, I was eagerly awaiting the launch of Napster 2. The advance information available seemed to indicate that it had everything I like about Rhapsody and more (e.g. portable support). I had decided that if it actually was what it's PR made it out to be, I'd bite the bullet and get a WMA-capable MP3 player.
But boy was I wrong......
I downloaded the Napster 2 client first thing yesterday morning and immediately felt a sense of deja-iTunes-vu. They seemed to have attempted to replicate the iTunes interface in almost every way but in a way that seems much more "scattered-brained". At this time, I'd like to say a word about these services' U/Is. Perhaps it's my old way of thinking, but I really like Rhapsody's album and artist-orientated U/I. Everything is laid out very logically and navigation among artists, albums, genres, related artists,
etc. is v
CHA-CHING , I'm a millionaire. Y-E-S!
F the RIAA
I bet I can get at least .50cents/ song at the Flea Market.
"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
PC Mag likes Napster too. But the user comments (at the bottom of the page) seem to disagree. PC Mag also has reviews of ITunes and MusicMatch.
Read Epic the first RPG novel.
So I quote an enthusiastic customer commenting on Napster 2.0's payment scheme, "F### THAT." He called his credit card and issued a charge-back on the service for false advertising.
I won't even consider it until it's ($CURRENT_PRICE/2) and until the files are ($CURRENT_BITRATE*2). And until it's in (!($CURRENT_MEDIA_FORMAT)). Plus it only is going to have bands $BAD_BANDS[1]..$BAD_BANDS[134], which I don't listen too anyway.
And they should have thought of this ($DATE-(rand())) ago.
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
It also reports how many times you've played each track to headquarters.
I can live without that. What do they want to know next? How often I take a shit.
Seriously... the review is written like a 10th grade book report. "I could find song X, but I couldn't find song Y. And when I tried to play song Z, it played some weird song by Loverboy. I was like OMG!!1!"
bah.
StrategyTalk.com, PC Game Forums
You think Wired is a big fan of Napster2 because Napster and Roxio are both huge sponsers of the website as well as the mag?
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.
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
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
Yes, that must be why Itunes are selling so many songs and people are raving about it. Because it's doomed.
Well, they let you burn to CD, which is an inherently unprotected format. So you *could* burn to CD and turn right around and rip back to an unprotected format like MP3 (not that I would do something so blatantly illegal as this) ;)
BUT -- if I *WERE* to do something so blatantly illegal as that, I would consider it a huge waste of CD blanks. Which brings me to my question:
Most of us are familiar with programs like Daemon Tools that tricks your computer into seeing an ISO image as an extra CD drive. Has ANYONE seen a program/driver that does this process in reverse?
For example, it could be a program that tricks your computer into seeing an extra CD-R drive which is in reality just an ISO file creator. Nero and several other programs provide this kind of functionality, but only from within their application. Since Napster (and iTunes for that matter) only allows you to burn from their program, I figure such a program would have to work at the ATAPI level, not as a separate application.
I've scoured the net and haven't found any such program yet. I would love to code this sort of thing myself, but unfortunately I'm woefully ignorant of the particular Windows functions one would have to interface with to emulate a drive.
I figure there's enough open source gurus that mill around this site that SOMEONE might see this post and take it upon themself to code this sort of tool. Anyone with any thoughts/suggestions/flames can AIM me at SoyFeo408.
I signed up early to be "notified" when Napster was released, being promised 5 "free downloads". I got my email, followed its link and directions, and downloaded my 5 songs.
And noticed a nice credit card charge for the songs appeared in my statement.
Thanks, Napster. Goodbye, Napster.
MORTAR COMBAT!
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.