Slashdot Mirror
The Nine Lives of Napster
lisa langsdorf writes "There's an interesting article on BusinessWeek.com today about Napster's race to gain greater market share in the music download business. According to a recent study, Apple has 75% of the pay for music download market, but Napster could soon gain more market share due to a new upcoming market push. BusinessWeek says: 'Napster could start to increase market share in the more profitable business of selling monthly subscriptions, where customers can listen to -- but not own -- as many songs as they want each month for $9.95. While Napster is far behind RealNetworks' Rhapsody service, AOL's MusicNet, and others, it's taking the lead again in the old Napster's stomping ground: college campuses.'"
How a monthly subscribtion eventually filters down to the artists? It seems such a system would make it hard to do the "for each time a user listens to X's song they get hit with a bat by the RIAA" analysis.
Because as we all know if you can listen to it...then you can record it :) Not that i would do such a thing...but im sure somebody here can figure out the end run on this model :)
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
..but I am entirely uninterested in NOT owning my music. I like Apple's model a lot. And, thanks to Pepsi, I've even bought some songs from them now and it works wonderfully. If I had a job, I'd probably be buying music from them on a regular song-by-song basis. But I don't. So for now, I use bottle caps with codes that my girlfriend gives me. :-)
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
While Napster is far behind RealNetworks' Rhapsody service, AOL's MusicNet, and others
It's gotta hurt pretty bad when Real is considered better than you!
Why all the hooplah about all these "me-too" online music downloading businesses?
I mean, I know you all are stiff for Apple, so anything they do just has to be covered as innovative and cool. But Napster is not napster anymore, the name was merely bought.
Big fricking deal.
I just dont care that the new Napster is going to start a big marketing push. That's what businesses do, duh.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
You should be able to just use beam back to... well... beam back the streaming media (if that is in fact how napster does it) onto your computer. You can dowload it at www.freshmeat.net.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Can you simply subscribe to napster and stream the content to disc, thus illegally "buying" it? It's not that I want to do this, it's just that I would imagine that if people cannot do this (or have to go d2a2d to do it) then their market will always be much smaller than the stores, if however you can rip off the content then I imagine many users will go that route as a cheaper way to get their hands on music that's slightly more legal than simply going peer to peer. Come to think of it, can you just timeshift the napster content legally? I presume not as you can control it's delivery but ...
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Napster could start to increase market share in the more profitable business of selling monthly subscriptions, where customers can listen to -- but not own -- as many songs as they want each month for $9.95.
Like most people, I buy around 4 - 5 CD's a year. This totals about 50 - 60 bucks. For me to pay $10 per month, I would have to own the music to justify the $120 per year cost.
I believe that most people, much like myself, would like to own their music. I want to put it on any device I want. I want as many copies as I need. And, I want it available anytime, anywhere. When these companies figure that out, then they will start making money from me. Until then, I will continue to buy the 4-5 cds I deem worthy.
"BEHOLD, CORN!!" - Dr. Weird, ATHF
I will not buy from these places. I have no problem with paying for music, it's that I don't want DRM. If any of these places where to sell me music without drm, I would buy it.
Napster the music-sharing service used to be cool. Now, it's nothing more than a Brand Name. That's not nine lives, that's just someone profiting off of an established name. Sad.
You probably shouldn't click this.
Unsubscribe, you lose all 'rights' to play?
Dont do DRM.
But Napster is not napster anymore, the name was merely bought.
I'm glad someone has finally pointed this out. The "new napster" is actually run by Roxio, the folks that make EasyCD Creator for Windows and Toast for Mac.
Now if only the Nero guys would show us what a real music store could look like....!!
While Napster is far behind RealNetworks' Rhapsody service, AOL's MusicNet, and others, it's taking the lead again in the old Napster's stomping ground: college campuses.
Wow! I never knew there were so many ways to use your hard earned money to buy poorly encoded music. BTW, are the college campuses they speak of from the days of the free and illegal Napster or the new and legit one?
From the article:
Penn State University and the University of Rochester's Eastman School of Music intend to offer free Napster subscriptions to thousands of students in coming months. These are just pilot programs, and Roxio granted big discounts that will keep profits negligible at best, say insiders. But the hope is that the students will become paying customers for years to come. "Smart," says Kenswill.
A college endorsing and paying for a private entertainment service of this sort? This is a school of music, but billing Napster as academic resource seems a little questionable. Unless I miss my guess, Napster's unlikely to have deals with the world's great bastions of classical music performance. Another example of an academic institution adopting a policy of private endorsement.
Posted Anon for obvious reasons.
Why should I even bother with any of these pay for download schemes? Lets be serious here.
They dont provide any CONSUMER Benifit over the "shady" p2p services.
They give me no incentive to switch. The quality of the files are oft worse then what i can get illegally. You pay for something, and dont get anything tangible in return. The selection is severly limited. And there are file restrictions.
There is a very easy way to fix this whole problem. Put up a "donate" button on artist's websites so I can fling them a few bucks.
Unfortunatly, due to politics, this is mindboggingly complex. Im getting really tired of putting up with half-assed efforts that are simply a mediocre nod to the population.
Remember, we are fighting with people who think that free, instant, worldwide access to much of the art created in the past 100 years is a BAD THING.
ugh. just ugh.
Half the fun of discovering/enjoying new music is turning your friends on to it. For me anyway ...
I understand the need for these distribution companies to cling to the idea of control and taxing our enjoyment habits, but they need to dig deeper when they think about a possible business model that will work for the artists, themselves, and most importantly the consumer ...
You RENT an apartment, you BUY music...
I'm now over 250 song purchased from the itunes music store and still think its the closest thing to digital music nirvana there is.
Very liberal DRM (that still protects the artist), cheap, Incredbile round tripping between itunes software and the ipod and the list goes on...
Scott "how's buymusic.com doing now?" Blum can kiss my itunes using behind. It still cracks me up when i think of the shameful buymusic.com launch and the quotes that were attributed to him....
There is nothing Napster-like about 2.0, NOTHING. I think someone should sue them for false advertising, because Napster is supposed to be synonymous with free.
I want 2D games back.
How does free subscriptions at two universities translate into "it's taking the lead again in the old Napster's stomping ground: college campuses."
Hell, I had an inch-thick binder full of 9-point type with just a few day' worth of 'classic' napster download logs "back-in-the-day" at a teensie campus... the lead is a long way off.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
...should campuses be buying music subscriptions for their students? Do they buy magazines, etc? Nope. I see things like that and then see the universities plead poverty....
Napster could start to increase market share in the more profitable business of selling monthly subscriptions, where customers can listen to -- but not own -- as many songs as they want each month for $9.95
Of course it's more profitable -- you're tied to the service by an umbilical cord, and as soon as you stop paying, you lose all access to the music, no matter how much you've paid up to that point!
There's a reason Americans are so big on the home buying thing: they don't want to pay rent for the rest of their lives.
Let's do some math: $10/month = $120/year = $1200/decade. So if after paying my 1200 bucks, I decide to stop subscribing -- or Napster goes out of business, then I have, let's do some more math: squat! No music for my money.
And of course, my subscription won't work at work -- my employer won't want the bandwidth cost of my streaming --, and it won't work on my portable, because it'll all be DRM'd streams.
If I want to listen without owning, there's this thing called radio. Since that's almost wholly dominated by Clear Channel Homogeneity, I re-phrase: Internet radio.
But no way will I subscribe to ephemeral music encumbered by Digital Restrictions Management.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
iTunes has streaming music for free anyway. Frankly, 9.95 a month for songs I can't download and listen to when I want is about as good as listening to the local radio station.
-A
It's been 3 1/2 years since napster was shut down -- with a 4-year college, that means that anyone who used the old napster will be graduating out in about 2 1/2 months. This doesn't leave a lot of time for the new napster to get traction on the coattails of the old, especially when iTunes has been out since before the beginning of the school year.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
"While praising Apple's service, analysts caution that its success won't necessarily transfer completely to the Windows environment." - John Borland, c|net news, 7/28/03
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
because comparing Naptser to iTunes in the pay download market versus the pay stream market is moot. If you, Apple has a marketshare of 0 in the pay stream market. Basically, Apple says "so what" to that. I am happy with the ability to listen to radio streams and not rent music. Napster can increase their marketshare all they want in the pay stream business because in the end, I think that market will dry up after people realize "Hey, I am basically paying for selected radio."
Good luck Napster on that one because you are going to need after losing $15 million last year. Here's to hoping that you find many more suckers in the pay stream market.
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
This sentence is so dumb and useless.
"According to a recent study, Apple has 75% of the pay for music download market, but Napster could soon gain more market share due to a new upcoming market push."
In other words, Apple is beating the crap out of Napster right now, but Napster might do better. They might do better because there are only three options, do better, do worse, or stay the same...
Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
The whole napster on campus thing is silly. Only very long in the tooth graduate students remember napster at it's prime. Why would youngsters feel any bond with napster?
OK, I'm good so far. As of this point in history, the RIAA is making $0 additional dollars out of Internet downloads. Other services are trying out, like MP3.com and emusic.com and so on, but that's not helping the RIAA. Not that I'm terribly concerned about them myself, but I'm sure they are concerned about themselves.
So then this happens:
As we all know, subscriber services have pretty much crashed and burned. And this is the part I don't get:
Why do those who prefer subscriber services keep trying to tell everybody else how great it is? Since Rhapsody and Real Network's service came out, it's been "the consumer will realize how great our service is, and they will come to us with great shedding of tears of joy, and we will ease their music needs with our streaming servers!"
Except that people aren't rushing to subscriber services. Most of these services have just not been doing well.
Moving on in history:
So let's get back to Napster 2.0.
So that's where we are. I know Micorosft likes Napster, and wants them to do well to peddle WMA to the world, and then there's the whole college thing.
And once those college students leave the dorms? Will they say "Hey, let's pay $10 a month to Napster to keep listening to music!", or will they say either:
A. I haven't had to pay for music in years, and now I can't listen to my old stuff. Streaming music stuff - I'll just download it off [insert P2P service here].
Or:
B. Well, guess I'll have to buy the song. May as well use the iTunes store - it works with my iPod.
Napster doesn't really have a "value added" reason to use them over iTunes. Sure, there are WMA devices out there, and I'd be surprised if the average man on the street can name you 1. No, not geeks - I'm sure I'll get calls of the "Archon Mega Zord Power MP3 player!" - average man on the street. Ask them what MP3 player works with Napster, and you'll either get blank looks, or "iPod", and then you'll scream and say "those only work with the iTunes store, you nitwit!"
And then they'll say "Oh. Well, I guess I'll go there instead."
Apple's got it all d
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I saw prepaid Napster cards in the local conevience store the other day. Scary...
Am I just stupid, or is there some benefit to paid streaming? Exactly what added value do I get for $120/year over the hundreds, nay thousands, of streaming music stations I can get off the internet now?
Is there some advantage to picking my own songs (ie I'm doing the DJ work here) versus logging into an all-Blues or all-Jazz or all-whatever streaming audio feed and forgetting about music 'till I shut down?
Or does Napster offer an option to do that grunt work for you (which makes them exactly, and I mean exactly, the same as a free streaming radio station)?
Sorry, I just don't get it. My $120 still buys 6 to 12 CDs a year (depending on whether they're new releases or older albums) and I can have my choice of internet radio stations, many of whom broadcast at 128 kbps.
At least with the iTMS you can keep the songs; although I still bristle at paying anything for a lossy compressed version I'm not naeive enough to think that it's not good enough for many people.
But streaming music is free, free, free right now. What am I missing here?
As much as they keep trying to reinvent themselves, it's obvious this is a company that is just trying to keep its head above water. It's not even really Napster anymore, and I think people realize that. Whoever owns Napster 2.0 mistakenly thought that Napster was a cultural icon, when in fact, it was simply the first in a string of "free music" programs. People who want to pay for the music use iTMS; it works better, has more name recognition and is "cool," unlike Napster. All Napster really had was its brand name, and now that brand name is associated with "selling out," which pretty much dooms any product based on an image of "cool" to a short lifespan.
" it's taking the lead again in the old Napster's stomping ground: college campuses."
i'm surprised people haven't realized that college students don't have money. the reason why napster was so popular with college students was because of their broadband connection and because it was free. free (and illegal) methods spread like wildfire on campuses and so long as there's a cheaper or free alternative, i highly doubt napster will become as popular on campuses as it has in the past if at all.
If you're going to steal someone else's joke, you could at least give credit. A Penny Saved
You RENT an apartment, you BUY music... I'm now over 250 song purchased from the itunes music store and still think its the closest thing to digital music nirvana there is.
You don't own that music. What you get from iTMS is a long license to play that music on a narrow range of hardware device. You are buying a subscription, only instead of a monthly fee you pay a one-off license fee.
Don't believe me? Try reselling what you have "bought".
Da Blog
If you spend $16 to buy a CD, you get a couple of good songs and a bushel of filler -- but the same money at the iTunes Music Store will let you cherry-pick more than enough good tracks to fill your own mixed CD. Or, you can pay Apple for the album, plus maybe a few extra songs.
Burn your Apple tunes to a CD, and you're in business.
What's not to like? Sure, some will scoff that the quality is better on a CD, but I'd much rather get a little noise in tunes I want than crystal-clear reproduction of all the rubbish it took to pad out an EP into an album.
I'm not that familiar with iTunes, but don't you have to have a credit card or PayPal account to use it? One nice thing about Napster's service is that a 14-year-old can easily use the service without mom's credit card. I see the Napster "gift card" things *everywhere* now, even at gas stations and the like.
"...where customers can listen to -- but not own -- as many songs as they want..."
Isn't this the model RIAA already has in place for CD-based distribution?
Because there are still bitter Slashdotters who hate that a program that let them conveniently pirate every album under the sun was taken away and replaced with something legitimate.
.rar or .zip files of an entire album ripped from the same source, usually at high quality (192 or better). Movies, software, you name it. You want it, you can get it, and fast.
Napster was good for just grabbing a random song here and there but sucked ass for getting a whole album. Each song would be encoded by a different person at different quality levels and sound levels. I'm not bitter that napster was taken away - it just meant that something better would be here that much sooner.
First it was kazaa, which had the same problem as napster in terms of downloading a whole album, but you could also get movies and software from it. It also had multi-source downloads, so everything was sure to be on your computer in the blink of an eye (supposing you had broadband of course). That was really cool.
Then along came edonkey and bittorrent. You can get anything you could ever imagine from these two programs, including
The original napster was a good first step, in fact I would say it was revolutionary because of the programs it inspired, but compared to what we have today, it doesnt hold a candle. I tried out the "new" napster and think it is well done, in fact I actually like it better than iTMS, but anything that restricts my use of media is not something I'm going to pay for.
Joseph?
Your current ability to create derivative copies of the iTMS product and record them onto other media does not give you the right to listen to those derivative works when and if your right to the original source material has passed. Consider also that a future revision by Apple of the licensing terms may invoke technological barriers to your ability to create derivative copies of the iTMS product. Or try this: currently there is a small but definite quality loss through the transcoding process. Apple may decide in future to increase the quality loss for the AAC->CDDA process. Where are your "rights" to listen to your music on a wide range of players then?
You need to think about what a "subscription" means. Think different! Just because you pay up-front (instead of amortizing the cost over a periodic interval of payments) doesn't change its nature. If I paid a sum of money up-front for a Rhapsody subscription, and my license term was for the length of time the software player remained on a specific PC, would I be buying a "subscription" or a "license"?
Subscription: an arrangement for providing, receiving, or making use of something of a continuing or periodic nature on a prepayment plan.
Reselling CDs might be a pain for you, but consider someone else who might have "purchased" several thousand dollars of iTMS product. Afert several years she wants to sell the iPod with attached product to someone else. If she had CDs she could enjoy right of resale and obtain a fair market value. Because she does not own the iTMS products, but only owns a non-transferrable license, she can resell the iPod but cannot, legally, assign any value to the contents of that iPod with respect to the iTMS product.
Finally, you use rude words a lot. And a rather pathetic ad hominem insinuation about illegal narcotics, framed within a class-specific drug format denigration. Are you always this angry?
Da Blog
Some people will shell out a subscription fee for satellite radio. Think of the 9.95 fee for Napster as "satellite" radio, where you get to pick all the songs in the playlist on demand.
.wma's on the iPod). The ability to just listen to songs on a whim whenever I felt like it is something that I definitely miss with iTunes. In fact, Napster is pretty much a superset of the iTMS. You can still do non-subscription $0.99 downloads if youwant.
In those terms it doesn't seem quite as unreasonable.
I used to be a Napster subscriber, but since I bought an iPod I cancelled (can't use the
Is anyone else around here sick and tired of the movement away from ownership to where everything is leased, for a monthly fee..
If you dont own it, boycott it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
These people seem to have the most difficult time usderstanding that the music business is over.
There has been a order of magnitude change in the price that people are willing to pay for pre-recorded music. This change happened in 1997-2000 when the combination of MP3, CD rippers, Napster, and $100 CD burners came into public consciousness at the same time.
In other words, people aren't going to pay $18 for a CD or $1 for a song. They will pay $1.80 for a CD and 18 cents for a song.
This is the new public perception of what music is worth.
The transformation in music distribution due to a technology shift doesn't seem to have penetrated the thick skulls of the people who run the music industry.
It happened. It's a new reality. It's like the stock market crash. Yahoo! is never going to be $180 a share again. CDs are not going to bought in huge numbers at $18 each anymore.
Learn to deal with it. And stop all these insane lawsuits before somebody gets hurt. They all have six figure incomes - they're supposed to be smart. Sheezh!
I'm on a college campus, and I don't know anybody who uses or would use the new Napster. However, iTunes is quite large. On our dorm subnet, there's probably around 50 people sharing their iTunes playlists at any given time. Given that that gives pretty much the same benefits as Napster would, there's just no benefit to using Napster besides "legality".
Karma: Contrapositive
The primary justification for buying my Karma 20 MP3/OGG player was books-on-CD from the library. I missed reading, and now I can "read" a book while driving on the boring interstate or doing menial labor (not programming or engineering). In fact, I'm ripping and encoding the last CD from Jon Krakaur's Under The Banner Of Heaven as I type this. Listen once, and I'm done, which does make sense for a monthly rental. I'd gladly skip the trip to the library and rent a single use MP3 for a buck or two. Saving me the time to shuffle CDs would be worth it.
Of course, all the DRM and DMCA crap is far too much hassle to be worth using. The artists need to be compensated, but making it almost impossible to enjoy their work is not the solution.
I like the idea of putting the control back in the hands of the artists, regardless of whether it's a book-on-CD or music. Pay to download works. I have used PayPal to quickly send a few bucks to various humor websites if I liked the content. Ubergeek is a great example. I also donated $20 to a Multiple Sclerosis charity website in the UK because I liked the novel breast bearing approach that was used to solicit donations.
A few dollars for a download, paid directly to the artist is a lot better than the raping they get from the RIAA.
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.