Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Napster Sells 5 Million Songs

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the will-they-be-here-a-year-from-now dept.

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."

10 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 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. 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
    --
    My legal education, in nifty podcast format
  6. 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?
  7. 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
  8. 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