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.

Comments

You can fill it for free.

[aichpvee]

Just get on the Napster 14 day free trial and convert their stuff to mp3.

Re:You can fill it for free.

[ornil]

If you are OK with breaking the law, you might just download whatever you want from P2P and skip the whole rigmarole.

Re:You can fill it for free.

[Skynyrd]

I tried their 14 trial. What a turd.
The interface is clunky, everything is slow, many songs (usually one from each album) isn't available unless you pay extra and the downloading is slow.

I stopped using my 14 day trial about day 5.

I might consider using a similar service, but it would have to be put together better and it would have to have a wider selection of music. For example, there's a band called X that I really like. They put out 6 or 7 albums, and only one of them is available on Napster. Sure, they aren't super current and they were never huge, but they were a big enough band that their catalog should be available.

Re:You can fill it for free.

[jimbolaya]

Another Slashdotism: Any business model that can't somehow make a profit from thieving "customers" is "stupid" or "obsolete". Could it be, just maybe, that you people really should just stop stealing?

Re:You can fill it for free.

[Znork]

"Why is is to friggin' hard to just pay for music?"

It isnt. However, I dont want to pay for the marketing, the videos, the lawyers, the exec payscale, the parties, the execs coke habit, the payola, the execs cousins nephews marketing, videos, birthday party and coke habit and the execs cousins newphews floozies new wardrobe.

How can a music company refuse to release a finished recorded album from an artist selling platium on the grounds that it wont make a profit? How can it fail to make a profit? Where is the hard work and what is the honest buck? Pretty much anyone who can afford a car can afford to pay for a complete professional recording, and could make a profit from a few thousand sales at todays prices. How exactly does copyright benefit the artist and public in such a case?

I'd love to just pay for the music. But it appears that choice usually aint on the menu. Paying for everything _but_ the music appears to be the dish of the day. But that's monopolies for you.

Because "fees" never go up

[acomj]

Judging from cable and satellite radio subscription fees just keep rising and rising.
I would expect nothing less from the music rental services..

I have a feeling that renting your music will be harder and harder to get stuff you want. (like some bands charging more than 9.99$ for an itunes album..)

itunes "playlist" which users post there mixes is very clever. When you select a song, you can search for playlists with that song on it (more songs you might like..)

However the napster "try" part is a way to discover new music I might or might not shell out cash for. Then again alot of bands have sites with free downloadable mp3s..

If my free 3 month trial of XM radio has taught me anything (I bought a car), there is a lot of music out there I don't care for.

The thing no one ever seems to mention

[daveschroeder]

...about Napster. Explicitly, anyway.

Once you stop paying your $15/month or $180/year, which will likely become $17, and $20, and so on, in the future, you no longer have access to your music.

If you want to keep it forever - or burn it to CD or use it on something other than an approved device - you have to buy it for a dollar. Just like with iTunes.

Also, that money you're spending on Napster is 180 songs, or 18 albums per year, on the iTunes music store, that you get to keep forever. I suppose it just all depends on your usage style.

That, and whether you want to use the hard-drive based music player with 92% market share.

To say nothing of the fact that Apple will introduce a subscription plan if they need to, anyway.

Re:The thing no one ever seems to mention

[daveschroeder]

People argue that it's better to listen to music on Windows because it has a higher marketshare?

No. I assume you're trolling here - or mind-shatteringly stupid, one of the two - but I'll bite. Where did I say anything about listening to music on Windows? I said "the same fundamental argument that has been buoying the entire Windows platform for a nigh on a couple decades now". To even presume that has *anything* to do with listening to music assumes that my initial statement about iPod's 92% share of the hard-drive based music player market has ANYTHING to do with the sound quality of the music coming out of it. Since my initial statement didn't say that, and since my subsequent explanation made no reference to it - and since you continue to feebly derail the perfectly factual claim that iPod's marketshare stunningly outshines any competitor, and has done so in a comparatively small amount of time - I can only assume you're the idiot you seem to be.

Still, I have to assume that you agree with it since you seem to be using it as the basis for your own argument that the iPod's marketshare affects one's listening experience.

I never made any argument that the iPod necessarily "sounded better". Though AAC at a given data rate may indeed sound better than various other codecs at the same given data rate, that was not, and never was, the argument that was made. But the user experience of the iPod, and its tight integration with iTunes and the iTunes Music Store is so tremendously better than any other combination of player, platform, or music store that it's quite laughable. This, of course, has been confirmed by numerous reviews by anything from traditional IT press to the New York Times.

And, to anyone who even stumbled on the doorstep of a business school in a drunken stupor, by iPod's 92% share of its market.

Napster's model, whether implemented by Napster themselves or another company, will pressure Apple, there's no "if" about it.

Now I know I'm dealing with a real mental giant here. I alluded to that, quite specifically, in my first post when I said:

To say nothing of the fact that Apple will introduce a subscription plan if they need to, anyway.

Perhaps me repeating that for a third time now will drill it into your mind, eh?

Then, I said:

But, as I said, if the subscription model of a competitor pressures Apple, they'll release their own. And then it's goodbye Napster for the second time again, since Apple's model is invariably guaranteed to work infinitely better from a user's perspective, as has been shown time and again.

So far, your argument has been based on complete fallacy:

- That I'm arguing that an iPod somehow makes the music sound different, when I did no such thing (though the iPod makes it easier for the vast, vast majority of people to actually *listen* to their music), and

- That I failed to acknowledge a possibility that Apple might release its own subscription model. It indeed may, as I've said in the first post, the second post responding to you, and this post.

But it's not as clear cut as you think. Napster's business model - as shocking as this may be to you - may fail. And then what happens to your precious model? Oops, the last couple of years worth of downloads and $360 down the drain. So long, and thanks for all the fish. If - and that's a big if - Napster's model survives the oversight of the content owners (or, indeed if it even becomes profitable itself, another big if) - Apple may see fit to introduce its own subscription model, as I've said for, again, a third time now.

And then you drones can drool over the MacWorld videos of it when Steve Jobs announces that Apple will also offer a subscription plan. You'll think it's the best thing since sliced bread, but lots of us will remember how horrible you thought it was before it got the Steve Jobs Reality

Forget monthly payments

[Daniel_Staal]

Do we really want to pay for everything monthly for as long as we live?

I don't mind a monthly fee for something I'll use within that month, or that has a time-based cost component, but you try to bill me monthly for something where I can pay once (even a higher up-front fee) and you'll lose my business. It's not worth it, long term.

Re:Forget monthly payments

[Daniel_Staal]

But, if you look at the economics of it, really my descendants (should I ever have any) would be likely to get both cash money and iTunes files, rather than neither.

Monthly subscription do several things, in this setting: they limit the life of your music, they limit your financial flexibility, and they lock you into a particular vendor. I'm actually less worried about the first and last than the middle choice, from an economic standpoint. (Though they are something I like to avoid as well.)

Under a subscription model I can't decide that this month I'm just a little short, so I should skip buying any music. Or that there is a great investment, for only $20, which I have to have. Or that, this month, I'd rather watch another movie. Sure, $15 sounds like nothing. They add up though, especially over time. And when you are tight on cash anyway...

Look at it this way: With Napster to Go, I have to spend (at least) $15 a month on music. With iTunes/CDs, I can spend $15 a month. Or more. Or less. Or none. It depends on my situation that month. And that is good financial planning.

Napster is...

[HaveBlue34]

...not iPod compatible. Thats a show-stopper for the 20 MILLION iPod users out there.

2 can play this game

[Skraut]

Ok lets say I'm the average Music Junkie, and oh 20 years old.

I can buy a song on iTunes for $1 and keep it for the rest of my life, lets just say thats 80 years.

Since the Napster songs go away as soon as you stop subscribing I need to pay $15 a month for the next 80 years. That folks, is $14,400.

Considering I still listen to my grandfather's 78's that price just keeps going up and up.

sure they do ...

[Heisenbug]

... that's the same comment that gets posted on here every time a subscription music service comes up.

The point could be equally well made about every other subscription service, though -- why rent city water that keeps getting more expensive and goes away when you stop paying, when, with a larger initial investment, you could dig your own well and have water forever?

The answer is, gee, they both make sense in different situations. It depends *how much* more expensive the initial investment is than the subscription, and whether the specific resource you are buying will always be sufficient, or it would be better to have a provider committed to keeping new sources available.

You acknowledged that it depends on your usage style, but I just wanted to drive this point home: pointing out that a subscription service stops when you stop paying for the subscription, and therefore is different from a one-time purchase, is no longer insightful. They're both different; they both make sense sometimes.

Personally, I pay $100 per year for Rhapsody. For me it makes sense -- there's no way I could purchase enough music for $100 to satisfy my needs, and downloading music for free would cost me literally thousands of dollars in terms of time spent. If it doesn't make sense for you, fair enough -- but don't act like it's a blinding insight to point out that I'm renting rather than buying.

Who wants 10,000 songs?

[FunWithHeadlines]

OK, I'm sure I'm going to get lots of replies along the lines of "Dude! I have 12,137!" Fine, you are the exception. I'm sure the vast majority of iPod users have fewer than 10,000 songs. Me? About 550. That's all I want. I have no use for another 9,500 songs. My collection grows slowly but surely, but it will take decades to reach the thousands at this rate.

Maybe I'm not typical either, but I'll bet the typical user is closer to 550 than 10,000. And how did I get my 550? Mostly ripped from CDs in my existing collection, plus about 90-100 bought from iTunes over the last year. That's $90-$100 for me instead of $15x12 or $180. And I get to burn them to CD if I want (and I do want), and keep them for as long as I want. My monthly bill? Whatever I happened to buy that month. Maybe $2 or $3 or even zero. The Napster math makes absolutely no sense to someone like me. I don't want to rent my music, I want to own it. It's cheaper this way too.

Re:Problem with both of them: Changing your hardwa

[michaeldot]

This is beyond true.
I know that apple's iTMS works only with the iPod as a digital media player.

Not true at all. When you buy from the iTMS, the music goes into iTunes, not to an iPod.

From iTunes, you can either play it as is or route the music to other places such as burning a CD, which lets you play it in a portable CD player, car player, etc. You can also rip that CD in both iTunes OR ANY OTHER MUSIC PROGRAM, to put on ANY OTHER MUSIC DEVICE.

It's really the convenience and hyperfast synching that confuses people that iTMS is ONLY for iPods, but it's more true to say that iTMS is a way of getting music into iTunes. Where it goes from there is still largely up to you. It's not forever locked onto an iPod when you buy the track.

Re:DRM quality

[mike518]

hmmm... so let me get this straight...from what ive heard you cant keep the music only if you pay $15 a month, you cant even download all the songs from many albums (and many more albums are not available at all), you can only use the songs on certain players like from creative and dell (*cough* junk *cough*) and finally the songs are 128 bitrate WMA (mmm gotta love M$ style sub-tape quality encording). Not to mention that the program is clunky, slow and doesnt work with ipods (which has like 70%+ combined mp3 player market share)

and they claim Itunes is bad?

yeah... they are sure to win this fight, esspecially with their informative (aka stupid) commercials and trendy brightly ipod mini colored website (very original). "napster to go" is sure to sweep itunes and free p2p -- and then maybe it will cure cancer. /sarcasm

Mike

$10,000 to fill up an iPod...

[eclectic4]

...but it's always been that way, hasn't it? If an iPod was around 10 years ago, it still would have cost you about $9000. It's just the price of OWNING music, always has been.

Napster is different. It LOANS the music to you. So comparing them is like comparing *insert obligatory Apple dichotomy here*.

The price difference is still a choice for consumers. Do I want to be able to listen to that music after I stop paying Napster? If yes, then iTunes, if no, the Napster. Done.