Slashdot Mirror
Napster Business Model Not Generating Revenue
An anonymous reader writes "We all know that Apple generates revenue from iTMS via hardware sales. How the hell can pureplay music stores like Napster generate revenue enough to even stay alive? They don't. Is this the first indication of the bubble bursting? Is it time to figure out what to do when your Napster WMA files go unsupported after Napster 2 dies?"
>
Just to kill two birds with one stone, I'll probably load them on Zip Disks. That'll consolidate all my unused, overpriced media into one small place.
"Is it time to figure out what to do when your Napster WMA files go unsupported after Napster 2 dies?"
Yes, it is. Here's what you do: buy an iPod, use iTunes, and try to keep remembering that you should have just done that in the first place.
I remember the days, not so long ago, when *any* serious business was loss making. That's not cool any more?
. . .who will you turn to?
I have a guitar and I know how to use it. Grab a conga and your friend who plays fiddle and meet me down at the park.
Everybody together now:
"Momma don't allow no guitar playin round here
Momma don't allow no guitar playin round here
Well I don't care what momma don't allow
Gonna play my guitar anyhow
Momma don't allow no guitar playin round here."
KFG
While everyone hoots and honks about the DRM on Napster/Microsoft/Evil Company X, isn't it also true that those nice-guys-in-turtlenecks at iApple have also put iDRM on iTunes? I mean, they have some sort of computer-locking mechanism, don't they, that means you can't just make copies of music you buy on-line but rather have to use it on a restricted number of machines?
In a way, Apple might really hurt on-line music - they are funding themselves with iPod sales whilst breaking approximately even on music, so they don't really give a damn whether their pure music business model is competitive or realistic - it's a loss leader. Kinda makes it hard for others to break into the market, and makes it hard for anyone to buck the RIAA's royalty harness if Apple's gonna sit there and pump millions of dollars in royalties directly into the studio's veins. I feel a little more skepticism is in order, and a little less of people writing iT|\/|s or whatever the hell that stupid thing is.
I believe the difference in business model is this:
Napster
-------
1. Set up music system with unrealistic price structure due to being the RIAA's gimp
2. ???
3. Loss!
Apple
-----
1. Set up music system with unrealistic price structure due to being the RIAA's gimp but wear black turtleneck and pretend to be 'the good guy'
2. ???
3. Profit!
Read Pynchon.
QUOTE:
"In the first few months of operations Napster has firmly established itself as one of the top two online music services in the country," he said. "Napster's sales of downloads and subscriptions continues to grow and the Napster brand continues to prove itself as a unique and powerful asset."
Everything is cheery and happy, and Napster is obviously about to conquer the digital music world with its unique and valuable assets. I'm 100% completely, entirely, totally, absolutely certain that Napster is going to be raking in the $$$$$ next quarter. They represent a glowing future of entertainment and the promise of new technology (like flying cars). Anyone who doesn't like Napster and its DRMd WMA files hates America and probably kicks puppies.
It sure beats iTMS, which is run by marxists, Linux users (they don't pay for software and are thus most likely terrorists), and known criminals (you did see that SuperBowl ad didn't you?).
They meant revenue. Napster's revenues are listed as US$3.6 million for its first three months of operation.
Getting $3.6 million in three months isn't generating revenue? Man, I wish I wasn't generating revenue...
Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com