Business Models: Napster to Go vs. iPod
CNet offers an interesting comparison between Napster to Go and iTunes.
For $15 a month, Napster to Go offers over 1 million songs (access to which lasts as long as subscription is valid), while songs for iPod must be purchased and last 'forever' (but it takes about $10,000 to fill an iPod). Is Napster to Go the future of digital music distribution? Would moving to an all-you-can-eat model hurt iPod business and balance the power among authors, studios, hardware makers and consumers?" It might take $10,000 to fill an iPod with songs downloaded from iTunes or with music converted to MP3 from newly purchased CDs, but there's a lot of downloadable and legit free music out there, not to mention Griffin's RadioShark.
There is the cost factor but I myself would look at the format as well and for the most part AAC is the far better format. Hold on did I say for the most part, silly me it should be stated that it is the better format :)
:P
"BING BING BING" And the WINNER is AAC by clear KO!!!
Give my best to the wife and kids
"The most dangerous creation of any society is that man who has nothing to lose." - James Baldwin, American author
DJing isn't music. It's a guy taking a bunch of records that *other people made* and mixing them. Sonic artform, yes, music, no.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
A business model where "customers" are treated like thieves from the get-go is "stupid" or "obsolete".
I'm all mixed up.
You're upset that, by your estimation, a company's business model treats you "like thieves." Your response to that? Steal their stuff.
What can one possibly say in response to this, other than, "Looks like Napster was right all along?"
It was quite easy before the companies discovered DRM.
Before DRM, you all downloaded it for free off Napster/Kazaa etc. That's why they brought in DRM. If you hadn't all been illegally downloading it for free, they'd never have thought of implementing DRM.
What goes around comes around.