Slashdot Mirror
Napster Sells 5 Million Songs
mattmcal writes "CNet reports that Napster has already sold 5 million songs. The number is impressive despite lagging behind Apple which maintains a 56% market share according to SiliconValley.com. The integration with portable devices must play a key role in the download volume which Apple has also developed for the mini iPod."
Are these 5 million indivually-packaged 99 cent songs, or are they including songs shipped out under subscription plans as "sales?"
If HP had stayed by Napster's side, I wonder how much more successful things would have been... It is good to see more companies adopting online music downloading for a price, while the RIAA campaigns against it, however it would be nice to have some stiff compatition against iTunes. Remember, competition is a good thing..
Since Napster has a subscription-based service in addition to selling individual songs for a fixed price, what does "5 million songs sold" mean? TFA is useless for this. Are they counting the songs that people download under the monthly-subscription model as songs? If so, it's not quite as impressive, no?
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
You know, I don't care as much who comes out ahead in the online music store wars, just as long as they are seen as a viable alternative to purchasing shiny plastic discs at the mall.
I just got an iPod mini on Friday and was playing around with iTunes. I NEVER intended to pay for digital music, and always expected I would just get it from Kazaa, etc. But when I saw how easy Apple makes it to buy music, I was hooked. I spent about $35 on music, and this is someone who buys 1, maybe 2 cds a year. Things are only looking better from here.
So are they even, um, breaking even? Given what Steve Jobs said about iTMS and iPods...
"I seem to have mastered a certain amount of control over physical reality."
Who cares how many songs they sell if they're not making enough money to survive. Hell, their parent company has be laying people off recently.
iintegration with portable devices must play a key role in the download volume
Forget that.. it's the fact that Napster forces use of the MS DRM that keeps me from using it.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
However, I think the "Napster" branding is an odd decision. Who is still likely to go to napster.com in the hope of finding free music, seeing as it was shut down for years? And in terms of brand image, Napster always stood for getting-something-for-nothing, so isn't it a bit like launching a legitimate online software store called "serials.ws"? I wonder what Shawn Fanning would make of it, as it was his nickname in the first place.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
I sincerely wish Apple would do something like this, espescially since I believe they would save a bit on credit-card processing fees (see one of my earlier posts).
They could even do this without cluttering up the iTMS interface by keeping the same "buy song" button. Just have any songs bought be charged against pre-purchased credit before it goes to your credit card on file.
- Neil Wehneman
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
A week or two ago, I saw at a gas station, on the rack with all those plastic phone cards: Napster cards.
It seemed like a clver idea. On the other hand, I was not inspired to buy one at the time.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
A couple-few of those points aren't a problem (at least with iTunes)
Each song may well be $0.99, but a full album is most often $9.99.
You do get artwork. It appears right there in iTunes. Not tried it, but you can most likely copy & paste (or just drag) it to save/print it. There's a host of programs (including AppleScripts for iTunes on the Mac) which makes automating that a breeze.
The format's lossy, true. It's up to you if you can't possibly stand less than 44,100/16-bit.
The extras is a good point. But then I don't see online music stores as replacements for real CDs, just complimentary.
If I want to share purchased music with friends, I create the playlist of my eeeeeevil DRM music, and click Burn. I can hand over the CD physically, or ISO it or re-rip it for sending electronically.
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Of course downloading is theft. You are reproducing someone's copyrighted property without their permission"
There is no connection between the sentences! Copyright violation is a different crime from theft. Your sentence is like saying "of course you raped her: you burned down her house!". No connection.
It's the same thing as copying the text of a book by your favorite author instead of buying it
Which still isn't theft.
Taking this a huge step further, how would you feel if someone picked up some of your DNA (perhaps you left a hair follicle behind) and cloned you without your permission?
That sure is something, but it sure isn't theft either.
iTunes, Napster, and others probably have a lot more to do with decreased usage of Kazaa than the RIAA lawsuits. Eventually Kazaa just becomes too much of a pain in the ass to use considering the alternatives.
Perhaps some accounting type can shed some light on how so much money can be spent on a market that, for the foreseeable future, is only going to generate a million or so after royalties. Haven't we left magic money fairies behind us in the dot com bust? Or are the respected economists of the 80's back to haunt us.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Actually it is not theft. What you describe would be legally referred to as "Copyright Infringement". Theft would be stealing the actual book from a shop. See the difference ? The RIAA etc, have you so brainwashed you are blind to the truth.
Taking this a huge step further, how would you feel if someone picked up some of your DNA (perhaps you left a hair follicle behind) and cloned you without your permission?
Why would I care about that ? Make as many clones of me as you like !
Google has some applicable cache hits.
Mercury News | 02/19/2004 | Smiles fade at Napster
It is my pleasure to serve you caches, for I am a bot.
Apple has admitted that it makes most of its money off of Ipod sales. Where is the similar secondary market for napster? Maybe they are coming out with the NPOD but right now they have to be losing a huge amount of money!
Totally agree. Apple claims that the 99c gets broken up to 65c for the label (band gets a few pennies) and the 34c covers cost of bandwidth, iTMS, overhead. Apple says they don't make money on music, but on iPods.
I don't know if Napster got a better deal with the labels, but the margins are slim.
What interests me is what if bands themselves could plug into the Napster/iTMS directly and avoid the middle man altogether. Bands would increase revinues 10X and songs could be 50c by avoiding the 'RIAA' cut.
Hey, leave comments about my mother out of this!
and I think the service great. There will be some who will fight for free downloads forever but for those looking for a legal alternative I would recommend Napster. I always listen to music while I am working so with Napster I always have a constant stream. I would not be surprised to see even more growth from Napster. For some reason I just can not allow myself to buy or use anything from apple.
I guess I was just branded by Napster when I was in college.
When it comes to PC and device design in general, Apple is a leader and everyone else is an also-ran. Finally this time it's paid off.
Top-10 downloads
.. not too many it seems :)
Britney Spears: Toxic
Maroon 5: This Love
Nickelback: Someday
No Doubt: It's My Life
Jessica Simpson: With You [Album Version]
Jet: Are You Gonna Be My Girl
3 Doors Down: Here Without You [Album Version]
The White Stripes: Seven Nation Army
Nickelback: Figured You Out
Eamon: I Don't Want You Back [Ultra Clean Version]
This is not a troll. I really am interested in your logic.
How about this.
You bring your car to the garage. It gets fixed and the bills comes to some amoutn of money. You are expected to pay the mechanic this amount. Lets say it was all labor as well and no parts were replaced. You use your extra key and get your car back some night without paying the mechanic for the work he did. Did you just steal from him or did you just violate his right to collect the money you owe him. What is he no longer in posession of in this example. The car was always yours, you just took it back without paying the bill. If the answer is nothing then you did not steal from him although I think a court would disagree adn call you a thief.
Yep. A band can make at most about 7 cents a track for their recording royalties, and usually makes less. The label keeps everything else.
I personally will not pay real money for lossy-compressed audio.
All we (musicians) really need is a music search engine that brings listeners to our web sites, and Paypal accounts.
My band's current CD is online in low-quality MP3 (24kbps) for free. It's a try-before-you-buy offering, you can download it relatively quickly, give it a listen, then decide for yourself. If you want the full-quality recording, you can order the CD from us or from Amazon. (Fyi - the band is Highland Sun - Traditional Music from Ireland, Scotland, and Parts Unknown - the URL is by my name above...)
-- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
Here's my problem with iTunes.. If you format your computer and did not back-up your downloaded music you have to PURCHASE it again. I believe if I'm paying for music online and do not receive a CD that I own a license and should be able to re-download it again for free. This was a nice little shock after spending $50 on music then losing it. Napster will re-sync your collection if your hard drive crashes, etc. No fee, just hit re-sync and it will download it all again for you. But you are still able to back it up if you choose to. This problem with iTunes will definitely stir some stuff up in the future when some average joe's hard drive crashes and he loses $300 worth of music. It's about the same as someone breaking in your car and jacking your life-long CD collection.
Maybe we need to distinguish between *integration*, which is a fine thing, vs. what you actually get today, which is *lock-in*, that is, exclusive integration with only one brand.
Has anyone tried Rhapsody? If so is the selection and/or quality up to par? I've been considering it for a while now after seeing it running at best buy. 10-15 bucks a month to listen to unlimited songs, and .99 cents to burn a song onto cd(which from there could go on to whatever mp3 player you're using..). To me it seems like it gives the best of both worlds.
"There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
I agree with you somewhat. I have bought only a couple of "albums"off of iTunes. White Stripes were one. Didn't think the compressed format would be noticeable on their style of music.
I HAVE noticed however that the AAC's I have downloaded are very good quality, even at 128. And some of my CD's that I have ripped at higher bitrates sound worse. So that tells me that some CD's just aren't recorded too well to start, while iTunes AAC's were recorded off of master recordings.
So the recordings I download may actually be of better quality than many of my CD's. But its still the principle of it that I would like to be able to download a FLAC or AIFF of a song just to ease my mind a little.
This is not 'news'. It is a slick piece of PR from a desperate company. Since the launch of pay-per-song Napster, the parent company Roxio has seen its share price decline from $11 to $3.50, a 68% decline. Yesterday the stock hit a 52-week low (amid a generally happy NASDAQ environment). For this company to generate a mere $5mm in revenues in 3 months can only be described as an unmitigated failure, as the market price of ROXI clearly demonstrates.
/. need to treat corporate PR with a healthier degree of skepticism.
The editors of
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=roxi
1) When Napster gives a marketshare number, the Slashdot masses go on the offensive and try to tear that number apart. When Apple gives a marketshare number, we accept it without question, despite the fact that they are well-known for their questionable sales tactics and misleading facts and figures. Does this imply any sort of bias? Open your eyes and take a step back, you'll start to understand what's happening here on Slashdot. A seemingly grassroots groundswell of support for Apple and their brand of proprietary software, and a seemingly grassroots groundswell of disdain for the GPL.
.Mac accounts, for example.
2) People here are also attacking Napster because of its DRM as opposed to Apple's DRM (which is like saying "I much prefer the Guillotine to the Gas Chamber, they really thought about my comfort in designing it"). However, the most interesting part of AAC is that it is an open-ended DRM, which is to say, it can be strengthened after the market has widely embraced it. Think about it - right now, Apple gives you nearly limitless freedom to pirate, copy, share, and distribute files bought from iTMS. They say the RIAA is good with it. Does that sound like the RIAA to you? Apple admits they lose money on the transaction, hoping to make it up in iPod sales (yes, this is the same Apple who is now charging for iLife).... In 2-3 years, when they have cornered the market, they will change the terms and conditions of sale, just as they did with the "forever free"
Right now, Apple listens to their customers. They do this because they are fighting for marketshare. When you reward them with a monopoly, they will become a monopolist in attitude as well as fact. The goal of Apple and the RIAA is not to beat MS' DRM format, the goal is to beat piracy and kill open formats. And they will, to a large extent; with their hardware and software lockins -- this is quite possible and, in fact, probable -- and is the same idea MS has with their Longhorn / Bios / hardware anti-piracy lockin.
I know you love Apple, but sometimes you have to protect yourself from the ones you love.
Unfortunately, weedshare seems to be another DRM format not supported by my hardware.
How many times do I have to say it. My hardware is unable to install your required software.
Stick to industry standards that the hardware already supports. There isn't much out there that can't play MP3's. Very few people are selling MP3's.
Clip from the site,
System Requirements:
A Windows 98 or later PC and a current media player that supports the Windows Media Format. We also recommend a broadband Internet connection, as Weed files average around 5 MB in size.
That leaves out my car jukebox(MP3), my CD jukebox (MP3's only) Winamp on the PC, Living room DVD player (the main audio playback device) and my MP3 player.
Paying a premium to buy music that plays only on the internet connected PC and it's junk speakers is not my relaxing sound system of choice. Don't try to sweettalk me into burning CD's. Why change format twice to get it to a CD MP3 jukebox?
I see no need to burn a CD just to rip it.
Somebocy get a clue and sell tunes in all the popular formats. Those who want Apple format can have it. Those who want MS format WMA can have it. Those who have MP3 jukeboxes... Well we are waiting...
The truth shall set you free!
The story that Apple realizes profit from the iTMS not by selling songs, but by driving iPod sales is a good one, and no doubt there is a lot of truth to it, but I think it is foolish to take it at face value.
Right now, its in Apple's interest to make sure iTMS appears like an unattractive business to get into, because it discourages potential competitors, and the investors who might fund competitors. Meanwhile, the iPod story keeps Apple investors happy.
In time though, as volumes increace, as their initial investment is recouped, as they improve efficiency and lower costs, and as they negotiate better terms with record labels, their story will likely change.