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."

19 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. question.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are these 5 million indivually-packaged 99 cent songs, or are they including songs shipped out under subscription plans as "sales?"

    1. Re:question.... by Ryosen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hmm...5 million songs sold to 1.5 million users. While the numbers might sound impressive that only breaks down to just over three songs per user. That doesn't speak too highly of their offering.

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    2. Re:question.... by asdf+101 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      More important than the sheer volume of songs is the profitabilty of iTunes vs. that of Napster.

      Apple is looking at iTunes, not to earn millions from pennies++ over every song they sell there, but rather to obviously profit from the hefty margins on the iPod sales they generate when they dangle the "lifestyle" and "portability" carrot "via" iPod through iTunes.

      So the question is basically, even after having gotten to 5 million, just how well are those volumes working for Napster vs. the volumes that iTunes has (even is you assume for a moment that iTunes has sold just as many songs)?

      The Answer: no comparison. Napster should be lagging far behind. Because iTunes revenues are miniscule compared to those from the iPod sales that iTunes generates invariably from use of its iTunes store.

      Only stating the obvious.

  2. Imagine how many songs if HP would have stayed? by rueben · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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..

  3. Numbers Game by Liselle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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."
  4. Great! by nicedream · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Great! by Unwise+One · · Score: 5, Interesting
      A similar comment from another angle.

      I hate buying CDs, or at least new ones. The idea of paying $10 to $20 for an album when there are likely to be only one or two good tunes on each one was enough to keep me away except for Xmas shopping.

      For personal reasons, I never liked stealing the music via Napster/Kazaa/Whatever either.

      With iTunes I have spent more this year on music than I have in the last two or three combined. Heck, I've even downloaded songs I used to own on cassette many years ago.

      I've heard from audiophiles that the quality is less, but to my tin ear the sound of the download burned to CD and that of a store-bought CD is identical.

  5. Profitable? by despik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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."
  6. nah, it's the MS DRM by I8TheWorm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  7. Use of Napster name by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Firstly, although I can't see myself using one of these services in the near future, well done to Roxio for trying a different business model.

    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.
  8. Buying Music "In Bulk" by Landaras · · Score: 5, Interesting
    One interesting thing that the article mentions that Napster is doing that Apple is yet to, is allow people to buy tracks "in bulk" for a small discount.

    Members can now buy packs of 15, 25 or 50 tracks for US$13.95, $21.95 and $39.95, respectively.

    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
  9. Napster aggressive marketing by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  10. Re:gripes. by displaced80 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?
  11. Kazaa Usage by jetkust · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  12. profitable or tax loss? by fermion · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Apple says it makes no money on music, and it is possible they don't. If we believe the number, the division brings in about half a million that Apple get to keep. So it would seem that any other service would try to minimize start up costs, are at least those that could not be deferred. So why it is that Napster claims to have lost 15 million in the first two months of operation? During that time, they probably brought in less than half a million after paying royalties. Even if much of this loss was start up costs, do they actually expect to make millions of dollars a month off the 20 cents of so they keep from each track sold?

    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
  13. Re:More importnaly.... by pikkumyy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Top-10 downloads

    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]


    .. not too many it seems :)

  14. I have tried both Napster and iTunes by x.Draino.x · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  15. A sad press release from a desperate company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    The editors of /. need to treat corporate PR with a healthier degree of skepticism.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=roxi

  16. Two Quick Points.. by DoctorScooby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    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" .Mac accounts, for example.

    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.