Slashdot Mirror
Napster Blames Microsoft for Lack of Sales
An anonymous reader writes "AustralianIT is reporting that Napster has blamed their inability to compete with Apple's iTunes on technical glitches from Microsoft. From the article: '"There is no question that their execution has been less than brilliant over the last 12 months," Napster chairman and chief executive Chris Gorog said at a New York conference. "Our business does rely on Microsoft's digital rights management software and our business model also relies on Microsoft's ecosystem of device manufacturers."'"
"Our business does rely on Microsoft..."
Now if that doesn't set off warning bells...
Why, just switch to Fairplay then, you insensitive clods!
Why can't Napster do what iTunes has been doing?
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
Your service sucks almost as bad as your model, it must be time to start throwing blame around. What's next? Real blames everything on someone else for their awful product?
Now if the first version of napster was Linux only everybody would be on Linux now.
I hate MicroSoft and Billy Gates more than most, but the article summary and title is simply unfair.
Napster has to write software that works with Micrsoft DRM software, which has to interoperate with software from any number of hardware vendors.
This is the classic problem that Linux people are familiar with: uniform hardware support is nearly impossible, due to hardware quirks. You've got N motherboard manufacturers that your software tries to work with. Sometimes it is impossible to write one piece of software that can work with any of N boards: perhaps the boards misidentify themselves, such that what works with one board crashes on another, and so on.
That's the problem that Napster has.
Microsoft's typical approach is to try to support as much hardware and user software as possible, even as they upgrade the OS, even if it makes their engineers lives hell. They don't want to get blamed for application or driver failures -- even though we know that the problems lie with the driver/app software writers. I remember seeing a blog from a M$ engineer, who described making app-specific patches to the OS so that fucked-up apps could still run, even as they changed the implementation of the window system.
Apple has it much easier, in comparison: they do it all in-house.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Are they sure it wasn't the spooky commercials they were playing on late night TV a while back? Those things still give me the creeps.
Maybe not
You can't copy the songs to an iPod. At least not without jumping through hoops.
Read a few books. Search with google.
Understand this:
In capitalist west Bill plays you.
In capitalist west convicted monopolist toys with your brand.
In Soviet union KGB convicts and brands you.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Perhaps it was just the spin the article's author took, but I was shocked at Chris Gorog's poor attitude. It's Microsoft, no it's the device players, no it's ... it's ... as Yoda said, "That is why you fail." ;-)
Methinks it isn't the smartest business move to badmouth your "partners". I get the sense that he's just providing cover for the anticipated acquisition - or trying to provide a rationale for a prospective buyer. E.g., "no, really - it's not us, it's MS et al. Once they get their stuff together, Napster'll be worth billions. Buy me now BEFORE we really succeed - cause we will - someday - eventually - in the end - it is unavoidable - it is our DESTINY!!"
I dream of a day when Microsoft and its "partners" come up with a POSITIVE reason to use their products.
They should do what Apple did! Spend years building a custom OS to sell music on.
Devise, Repair, Solve, Build
So it's Microsofts fault in that they "have to grapple with a number of different companies" and not the fact that Napster choose to sell music in a format that the iPod doesn't play? When you're cutting out 90% of the hard drive MP3 player market and god knows what out of the Flash market (from memory, at least half) _and_ you have to contend with all the other WMA-selling stores don't expect sales to be great. Especially when your corporate DRM-laden retooling of Napster into just another shitty brand leaves a bad taste in many peoples mouths. The iTunes store isn't why people buy the iPod. (You could possibly argue otherwise with the video content, but I don't think so.) The AAC format isn't why people buy the iPod. Nothing on Microsoft's part is going to sell more WMA-capable iRivers and Creatives and the like.
"Microsoft's ecosystem of device manufacturers"
Sounds less like an ecosystem, and more like the inside of a Big Brother house, or maybe some fungus growing at the foot of an iPod shaped monolith.
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
Any music download service that uses Windows Media is going to have precisely the same problem: Microsoft sets the limit on how good their user experience can possibly be, and that limit is far short of the expectations that Apple has set with the iTMS. Since the service simply can't be as good as the iTMS, the only way to compete is on price, and that's not sustainable unless you have volume.
Really, the only hope for Napster, Rhapsody, and Real is to create a new DRM standard and try to convince the music companies and the hardware makers to adopt it. Microsoft's attempt to do so has already failed.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Maybe Microsoft is getting back at them for helping pirate windows and office in the bad old days ;)
I don't know about everyone else, but I associate Napster with free distribution of music. And ultimately music "piracy". The RIAA have successfully married the Napster name with illegal behavior. I'm sure the case is true for Joe Sixpack how just wants to download some old Hank Williams albums (or whatever).
Apple's fortunes smiled on them because they provide end-to-end service. Content. A delivery mechanism. Output device. THEY HAD A STEP "B"!!!
I suppose it helps that iTunes has always been a pay-to-play service.
Brand recognition means nothing if your product is inferior. You'll just be discounted faster based on conception of the brand.
A: "Have you used Napster?"
B: "No. They suck. I got iTunes. for my iPod."
A: ":swoon:"
You don't bet the fortunes of your company on performance on another company.
So what?! It's not the fans' fault if the business model of music distribution is outdated/broken, and if the prescribed cures are even worse than the disease (or a disease in themselves)...
As to the labels, faced with the choice of not reaching their audience anymore, or consenting to unencumbered formats (CD used to be one, remember?), how long do you think they'll prefer selling nothing at all to selling something that may occasionally be pirated (if it isn't reasonably priced)?
Every kid in the world probably knows that "plays for sure" means "won't work with your iPod". The ironic thing here is that if the RIAA wants to have some leverage over Apple, they'll have to make it possible for the Napsters of the world to offer songs that play on the iPod, which means they have to let them sell songs that don't have DRM!
None of the hardware makers ever wanted DRM in the first place. It's expensive to implement, and it's the #1 driver of support issues.
The rational solution is to let anyone sell unprotected music, and charge a uniform royalty to any online music store, just like with radio station airplay.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
our business used to rely on mass piracy.... we got busted for that, now without piracy we are going broke....
lets blame MS so we have someone to sue.. (dispite the fact that we were basing our business model on something illegal)...
Our business does rely on Microsoft's digital rights management software and our business model also relies on Microsoft's ecosystem of device manufacturers."
I blame Napster for relying on Microsoft's "DRM ecosystem".
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Does not play well with others.
"Never say Never."
This seems to be a serious case of the underpants gnomes' business plan. Ignore 80% of the potential market, ignore the lessons learnt by your main competitor (style and ease of use sell) and rely on companies with a proven record of producing poor-quality MP3 players to create your market. Somehow that leads to profit?
Does anyone else think the choice of "PlaysForSure" as a name is pretty odd? "SurePlay" or something would have been better - the only people I have ever heard say "for sure" are German people learning English.
Are you reading this Mr. Gorog? I bet you are. Here's something you said: Mr Gorog insisted that despite Apple's dominance, the competitive landscape would be far different "in the next 12 to 24 months".
..... and gone. Judging by the losses your crap show is making, you'll be one of those who will be gone in the the next 12 to 24 months.
The iTunes store and Apple have been around for some 5 years now. If anything, Apple's share has gotten bigger, not smaller, although many dozens of other devices and stores have come
Idiot.
I subscribed to Napster about 7 months ago. It cost me £15 a month for unlimited downloads off the napster service. I didn't even mind that when I unsubscribed, the music would become unplayable.
But, the whole thing was crap.
Problems that were microsoft's fault: The songs took at least 10 seconds to load on my mp3 player. Each. Especially annoying when I was flicking through songs to find one that I wanted to listen to.
Using windows media player with the service was rubbish; Various random errors when transfering the songs, popups asking me wether it could download licences off the internet (which didn't work) when I wanted to play a napster song, slow loading of the songs...
I had to upgrade Windows media player and two other components before it would even recognise my player.
Problems that were napster's fault: The napster program took ages to open, then it flickered around whilst loading new content off the web.
When I plugged in my mp3 player at any time to sync my files, the napster program used to crash. I had to sync through windows media player, and use windows media player, although it wasn't my default player at the time.
Customer service was depressing. There was a customer service forum, but any questions got replies like; 'Phone this number...' which wasn't very helpful.
And to unsubscribe to the service, you had to phone them. There was no online cancellation service.
The whole setup crashed, a lot. It just felt unstable, and unworked on. It felt like Microsoft had made a half assed attempt to work with a half assed service.
So for as long as Napster blame Microsoft, and for as long as Microsoft really don't seem to care, iTunes is going to be the better service.
In the end, I cancelled, reinstalled the previous firmware, switched to Debian, and now i use Gnomad and Nicotine ; )
The fact that Napster's business model means that as soon as you stop subscribing, all the music you've acquired is rendered inactive via a DRM timebomb, and just like that, it's as if you never had it at all. It's hardly surprising that people don't really see this as a compelling use of their disposable income.
Whats with this new use of ecosystem - Jobs used it yesterday too in describing the range of new products for the ipod. IF half these people cared about the REAL ecosystem we might actually have something.
Even if they lose some of the major studios, they should switch to unprotected MP3 VBR. (Or at worst use the Fraunhofer embedded serial number system). Without the need for DRM, they can play on all MP3 players, and all their technical difficulties and special drivers and DRM crap goes away.
The DRM is a big turnoff, they don't have a trust relationship to customers that Apple has. As it stands you have to virtually marry an online music store (or at least enter into a long term relationship) so they can operate their DRM. Nobody wants that, selling music at a loss is a dead end, they should quit wasting money on this DRM crap.
If any of the big record companies insist on it, then its better not to sell their music. If they're making a loss, what difference does it make to lose that record companies music?
[/rant]
Blaming a bad business model on the tools.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
"Our business does rely on Microsoft's digital rights management software and our business model also relies on Microsoft's ecosystem of device manufacturers."
Hahahaha... HAHAHAHA... cry me a river... hahaa...
Wow a company is blaming low music sales on something other then piracy
In Soviet union KGB convicts and brands you.
This reminds me -- did you know that in Russian prisons, there is a tremendous "tattoo culture"? Permanent as branding, but more refined. For the most part the prisoners tattoo themselves. The tattoos form a symbolic language, often employing religious images, whether or not the prisoners themselves are believers. Sorry it's a bit Offtopic but I hope this is Interesting.
$META_SIG_JOKE
As a funny side note:
We appreciate your interest in the Connect music store, but our store currently only works with Internet Explorer 5.5 and above. You don't seem to be using that particular browser at the moment, so, unfortunately, we'll have to part ways until we support the browser you're currently using or you upgrade to the latest version of Internet Explorer. Please click the Download link below if you'd like to upgrade now..
Well, Somehow I don't think so...
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
1. Rely on Micrsoft software 2. ?????? 3. Profit!!!!
Yeah, free Ipod! He is innocent!
"Microsoft's ecosystem"
I know it is not an ecosystem but the first word that popped in my head was 'dinosaur'
Ever wonder how they would do if they didn't use drm? They got the acronym wrong in the summary, it should be digital restrictions management. There problem was that they relied on one that hurt the customers ability to play there music, what would of happened if they didn't use DRM?
Is this guy a former Airline exec? I've heard this before - develop a crappy business model, lose money, and whine about it, blame others...
Too bad music isn't a critical infrasctucture like the airline system - he'd get billions of tax dollars to prop his sorry ass up.
Enlightenment is a pipe dream. So where's the pipe?
15 pounds per month just to not being able to listen the songs after you unsubscribe? Wouldn't it be better to just listen the radio? Even better, for 15 pounds a person could buy (and own) 26 songs from iTunes. Well, I'm not an iTunes client, I don't even have a MP3 player (I work from home, I have my computer to listen to music and I'm kind of happy with the CD's I already own), but I would never subscribe a service like this one the parent post describes. Ever in my life.
So say we all
they should revert to their old businessmodel...
If it's time to point fingers for these DRM song companies going south, let's blame used CDs. They are cheap and plentiful (after all, many popular groups have gone through two different remastering releases by now, creating a glut of used CDs). They have baout the same per-song price as DRM downloads, but you can rip them and play them on any computer or player without restrictions, software overhead, or hassle.
Napster is synonymous with free downloads. Not paid for ones.
It just adds to my point though; It's a bad service in itself.
Carries an implied doubt that it will in fact Play For Sure. If you knew the answer with confidence you would just say it Plays.
Its a bit like if I write a dogy patch for somebody which I think will work and I say "sure, it'l work" on my way out the door.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Still, more expensive than iTunes...
So say we all
Comforting as it may be to lay off blame to someone else, in business the only mistakes are your own. Strategically, relying on Microsoft's DRM was a huge mistake, as lots of people realized at the time. Moreover, laying off on Microsoft allows them to conveniently ignore the fact that subscription-based music services are a fundamentally b0rked idea while iTunes (and indeed AllOfMp3.com) remains up and running ('why rent when you can buy?' at its simplest). Napster's business model either ignored those factors or figured it was a risk worth taking. They had lots of choices. They made the wrong ones.
I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.
Napster can't find a way to make money off of users' downloads. Film at 11.
Seriously, who thinks that Napster (the big flash in the pan from several years ago) has such brand name recognition that a largely unconnected - and undistinguished - music business deserves to make money off the brand name years later?
1. Facilitate massive copyright violation and get really popular
2. Stop facilitating massive copyright violation
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
It certainly couldn't be the possibility that few people like the subscription model you are pushing.
I think a good deal of the reason iTunes has been successful (other than good integration with the iPod) is that you more or less own the song you buy. Although I don't care for it myself, Apple's DRM restrictions don't seem to bother too many people and I don't know anyone that is comfortable subscribing to a service. They don't want to lose access to their entire library if they choose to stop paying for it.
Napster has an option that lets you buy songs permanently for $0.99, but you wouldn't know it unless you did a little searching.
Like the old adage, Napster, when you point your finger at someone, three more are pointing back at you.
They could compete with Itune by offering lower cost un-drmed song, and they would then usable on Ipod. Remmember user can convert the song to the format, and asd interroperatibility could napser do the same. they bitch simply because they want to sell the cake and eat it : use their own DRM and ride on the fact the Ipod is sold a lot.
Also remmmeber Ipod is NOT a monopoly like MS is. Ipod came later to a market with a lot of player. Heck there is still a lot of concurrence. That the other suck does not matter, as long as 1) Apple is offereing licence for their DRM (they are as far as I know) 2) do not stop other to sell compatible un-DRMed song (as per above this is the case) making their own hardware open for others. 3) do not leverage their monopoly in hardware by forcing other song manifacturer onto their own hardware (this is the case, the RIAA&Co is not forced by Apple to use IPOD).
No really the fact is that napser and other with a buisness model involving restricting a lot their consumer fail and now they bitch because other with a less restrictive business model are successful. In other word because consumer refused their product. This is free market at its best and not a monopoly.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I thought I'd never do this, but I'm going to have to side with Microsoft on this one. As evil and restrictive as their DRM is, it does actually work. Napster made the critical mistake of trying to dictate to the customers what they want instead of actually listening to what customers want. Time after time I read articles written by Gorog and co. with the ridiculous attempts to justify a subscription model that was doomed to failure from day one. The funniest one by far was the "you never really own your music" argument (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4165868. stm).
Did M$ test these devices on an end to end scenerio with XP or W2K to verify the devices will be recognized and they can sync musis to them ...(Nope)
So how do you know the device will PlayForSure ... You don't. Just plug in a IRiver T30 MP3 player with the PlaysForSure logo and watch it not Play DRM media.
I am not a big fan of Apple but I bet the ipod has been through some e2e testing and if I was Napster I'd want to be asociated with a reliable entertainment infastructure.
ZoOnI
"Never say Never."
Because it's bad for business! Companies aren't going to get along unless it's mutually beneficial for them. If portable music player manufacturer A produces a player that works with PMP manufacturer B's DRM and B reciprocates, then it'll just be left to innovation (of a non-DRM sort) to drive the competition and garner more sales than the other guy. But we all know that innovation is hard and expensive, so it's best to just lock the other guy(s) out and try to become the standard to which others much conform. Or in this case, just screw everyone else and boost your sales numbers because you won't even play the other guys' format(s).
Apple is rapidly becoming a company that I despise as much as Microsoft for its sketchy business practices. That's why if big business can't get along, then I'll take my business to the little guys (Free/Open Source) who DO get along. (That's not to say OSS gets along all the time, but they do more frequently than closed source.) Also, I say F/OSS but that doesn't mean I'm adverse to paying for software that will run well on Linux - free is preferable, but quality is worth $$$.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
A (former) P2P company blaming a big DRM-heavy software company for it's lack of sales, talk about unusual.
Don't Business 101 classes still teach that having a your entire business being 100% dependent on a single vendor is a very bad thing?
The problem here is that there is no Open DRM standard. So any company building players and having a music system would love to use their own free DRM system that they don't have to pay royalties on. Apple succeeded in doing this. Everyone else decided to feed at the Microsoft booth. Instead of whining, Real, Napster et al, should band together and build an open royalty free DRM and give it two HW manufacturers and run their services on that, rather than complaining that the big two won't interoperate. Which Apple really can't do without cutting their own throat.
Apple really needs to maintain Fairplay exclusively or cede yet another market to Microsoft. Remember when Palm had a PDA monopoly? Remember when Sony owned Video Games. Apple is just desperately trying to hang on to that one niche that Microsoft hasn't crushed with it's computing monopoly and mountain of Cash (Yet).
Apple won't license fairplay for the same reason they don't license OSX, they make money selling hardware. What happens if they license fairplay?
1: Stiffer competition in hardware sales, in fact Apple will find itself at a competitive disadvantage, as competing players will have fairplay and playforsure.
2: Apple forced to license play4sure from microsoft. Because of the competitive disadvantage they would be in, Apple would be forced to licence ($$$) play4sure from Microsoft. Can you see how distastefull this is.
Now where are we. Apple has now lost it's competitive advantage and was forced to pay money to arch rival computer monopolist microsoft, just to stay competitive. No wonder they won't open Fairplay up.
So music services, quit your damn whining and make a free, open DRM solution available to both music services and HW companies and break free of the big two.
Yahoo's service is like $60 for 12 months of this. You can't transfer to players (that's another $60), but I don't really care. I use it as a service to preview what I want to buy.
Plus now I can stream to my Roku from Yahoo, so I'm not investing big in it.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
First thing you see: BUY MUSIC FROM THE iTUNES MUSIC STORE!
... if you go to the library, you're just presented with an empty window, if you don't have any music. (And there's a thing for the iTunes MiniStore at the bottom, asking you if you want to turn it on, but you can just disable it.)
Actually this isn't precisely true, and I know because I just installed iTunes (on my work PC) for the first time in several years. The first thing you see once you get past the setup screens is a dialog asking "Do you want to go to the Music Store, or to your Library?"
I think the iTMS part of iTunes is somewhat overstated -- I'm willing to bet that most people don't use it for more than a small percentage of their music Libraries, with the possible exception of people who really made out during the Pepsi-cap promotions or won sweepstakes.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"A lot of people following this story in the media and investors ... are really focusing on the tree and are not stepping back and looking at the forest. To date, only 5 per cent of (music) sales have migrated digitally. We are in the very, very early days of this."
Yeah, and if you keep making jabs at the sole provider of your technology, you might find yourself watching from the sidelines. Or, you might have to get in bed with RealNetworks, which is basically the same thing.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
Just another point for the group of people who say: DRM won't work.
People use iTunes because it was new, and innovative, and they all had iPods.
Now people have a bigger choice of good MP3 players, and places offering DRM encumbered music. The novelty will wear off, and people will again slowly realize that they can get the same quaility music with no DRM for free.
DRM: the self defeating prophacy.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
I can envision a new industry, where artists sign with small labels or produce their own music, and sell DRM free music on the web, and have small batches of CDs pressed at reasonable prices to be sold at reasonable prices in stores of the brick and mortor and online varieties. With reasonable prices, I don't think piracy would be a big issue, and with artists getting paid directly and in control of their own product, they'll be making better livings. And I can see the current record execs selling their homes, cars, vacation homes, etc, just to make it by.
But who'm I kidding, that'd make too much sense and be the right thing to happen, so it's obviously impossible.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
you'll be one of those who will be gone in the the next 12 to 24 months.
Hey, maybe that's what he meant? Napster going out of business would be a change in the competitive landscape, albeit a very small one (to anyone who doesn't use Napster). I think that's quite a bit more likely to come true than Apple losing any significant part of the market.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
dump microsoft and partner with sony: then set up the system to download music onto the user's computer and charge his credit card without the inconvenient step of informing him. You could call the DRM 'Foulplay'.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
'Napster' isn't even napster anymore. It's just another shopping cart on yet another clunky and inessential music website.
They've been singing this "no doctrine of first sale" for a long time now, and no one's ever really listened...
Until now.
I did my homework before buying my last MP3 player and for the price size and interface IPod was the best. Itunes is not so great but I only have to deal with that when I transfer songs.
So if it was not for sucky player I may have went with Nabster of Yahoo for music. (however allofmp3.com wins for me)
This has been brought up before, and I don't think that you'll ever see an "open" DRM system, because DRM is a fundamentally flawed and insecure concept, which relies on security through obscurity. 'Openness' of any sort is anathema to a DRM scheme, because it just means that it will be cracked more rapidly.
Of course, they always seem to get cracked anyway, but the closed, obscure, undocumented systems usually stay 'secure' long enough for the manufacturer to sell them to the music labels and other content providers, which is the really important part. If the labels/studios point out what's wrong with the DRM (like "hey, doesn't the user have both the file and the key to decrypt it, in order to make it work?") the manufacturer of the system can respond "sure, but nobody except us understands how the system works, and we're not telling, so it's secure." Then when it eventually gets broken, the companies can blame it on "hackers," and not on a basic problem in what they're trying to accomplish.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Our business does rely on Microsoft's digital rights management software and our business model also relies on Microsoft's ecosystem of device manufacturers.
I found the problem!
The RIAA insisted on DRM. And Apple responded. Now Apple controls the market, much to the chagrins of the RIAA. But hey, they wanted DRM. And don't expect Apple to drop it anytime soon. They have discovered what DRM really means. Its not copy protection. Its vendor lock-in. If the RIAA really wants digital music to succeed, they need to drop DRM now. That will level the playing field both in online stores and digital players.
Smokers blame tobacco companies when they have health problems associated with smoking.
You pick Microsoft with it's track record and what do you expect?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I've got a better system, just charge his credit card for "licenses" which allow him to listen to music that he's statistically likely to hear during the rest of his day.
... you're a 30-year-old white male, you go to the mall once a month, you like to eat at Burrito Hut, and you wear a size 9-1/2 wide. Your Ambient Listening System license will be just $9.85 a month! But if you want to upgrade, for just $29.95 a month, you can get a license that allows for unlimited playback of Sony Music titles on your own Humming and Whistling Device. Can I sign you up for that?"
"Let's see, Mr Jones
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Really, now slashdot can stop pimping articles about the next iPod killer. It seems like we get 3 or 4 announcements each month. Instead just post this article as evidence that there probably won't be one for many years. This is an example of everything that is wrong with all "alternative" mp3 products and services and everything that is right about iPod/iTunes. Can we move on now?
I don't get what you're trying to say here... I've been using an iPod as an MP3 player exclusively for two years, never having bought music from any online store, but rather ripping my CD collection. To me, that's exactly what an mp3 player is all about. What do you mean?
Could the lack of sales possible be from the fact that Napster is a giant heap of turds. I mean I installed it on my computer and could never actually sign in because the program locked the whole damn computer up. Napster used to be king, but now it is a turd.
Never argue with an idiot. They will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
It occurs to me that perhaps what Napster has is a marketing and strategy problem. The system they are using now is really better suited to competing with Sirius and XM radio then with iTunes. You pay a subscription fee to listen to Sirius and to use Napster. I think if they tried to sell the service that way they might do all right as opposed to trying to compete with iTunes buy it and use it system. But I'm just a peon that is supposed to buy this crap unquestioningly so what do I know??
it was due to an advert for napster on the new MS vista webpage that i was made to realise that napster still existed. you can try out vista on their webpage it allows you to interact with the vista features when you click the programs button in vista it shows you napster installed.
I Predict A Riot
Somewhere, giving his considered opinion on Mr. Gorog's plight? You do know what's coming, right?
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
I have tried Napster To Go. Napster's software is horrible. Not Microsoft's. Their customer service is also nonexistent, and extremely slow to respond. They would take 2 to 3 business days to respond to my problem reports. Cancelled after one month.
I am now using Yahoo Unlimited To Go, which I believe uses the same Microsoft technology, and have not had any problems yet, 3 months into their service.
I think Napster's rent option is the one single best thing about the service. The real problems, imho are:
1) Even when you do buy your options with what you can do with the song are incredibly limited.
2) The application itself is gaudy and awkward to use.
3) Incompatability with apple's ipod, the market leader in mp3 devices.
4) A limited selection of mp3 players that work with it's "napster to go" rent service.
One of my good friends uses napster and the napster to go service. The service itself is rather awesome and he has ammased a huge music collection for his mp3 player. It's the one thing I wish I had an option for with itunes. But, he hates everythign else about napster himself and really dislikes the mp3 player he is being forced to use(it's file system becomes corrupted very easily, etc.). At this point he is waiting for his mp3 player to die then he is planning on buying an ipod and switching to itunes.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
Having to rely on one manufacturer is good. And once you build up that 1000 song library and they raise the price of an iPod (guess what you have to either go through the pain in the ass of ripping with some quality loss .. or eating your investment) .. dont blame me. And once they realize they can hold on to their monopoly without improving the iPod that'll be another funny thing. Apple gets away with making the iPod battery inconvenient and expensive to replace. How would you like your cell phone to be like that? Other mp3 players have FM record capabilities etc. who knows we'd be seeing highly reliable voice control ipods or wi-fi mp3 players by now too within smaller form factor. Or innovations I/you cant think of. Just as how the fanboys say operating systems would magically be hundreds of times more advanced if it wasnt for M$FT. Yet Unixes and often Mac OS too didn't exactly suffer from zero profits at the time.
.. and giving out software to people for free. Now I walk into a restaurant and ask for Pepsi, and they say "Coke ok?" .. why's that? Cause Coke discounts the price if they dont supply Pepsi? I wont get into car analogies. If an OEM doesnt agree with M$FTs terms dont sell Windows .. don't try to make money off selling microsoft. Imagine M$FT was Apple .. OEM's can go fishing or something. If M$FT wants to pay people for solely marketing their products that's fine by me .. hey your boss would rightfully get pissed/fire you if you were working for a competitor on the side wouldnt he?
According to the fanboys, M$FT is evil no matter what it does. Hey they even piss on M$FT for breaking compatibility with old apps although Apple was the one who basically told everyone a big "fuck you" and broke compatibility from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X.
M$FT's biggest anti trust (not proven in court) crime was supposedly forcing the OEM's to not support other manufacturers
If one lays down with dogs, one is sure to get flea bites. But a short internet search will show that the law suits of Micorsoft losing AFTER doing business with a company that sells interesting technology is damning enough.
Why not have a music service where you pick your tunes, pay for them -- and have them delivered on plain old fashioned CD...just like if you got them in the store. Everyone wins.
There is no DRM on an established media. The content providers are not taking any more risk than with the CD's they sell of the shelves at the record store or target. The customer owns the "master" and it is not tied to any particular technological device or operating system. They would be 99.9% compatible with anything that can play music.
We know this model works. It has made many record companies and artists rich and famous and many customers happy ever since the introduction of the first LP....All the way through 8-tracks and cassette tapes. The customer retains the right to choose what to do (digital wise) with that CD. If the customer happens to own a PC and Portable music player --- he can rip it to whatever format and bitrate that floats his boat.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Now go into your average electronic store and OOOOOH, a dozen different brands of portable media players. Even different formats. Minidisc, AAC, MP3, WMA, CD, WAV.
Yeah sure, the iPod's sell best BUT that is not what makes a monopoly. Nobody in their right mind would call Dell a monopoly even if they are one of the biggest players in the market.
Apple has done nothing to stop other players from entering the field. It doesn't have exclusive contracts with the artists (you can still buy their CD's even if no other online store happens to carry them).
Oh and the biggest proof that Apple isn't MS. iTunes works on windows. Does MS drm work on apple? So Apple doesn't even abuse its non-monopoly just big market share to force people to use its OS.
Frankly Apple can be bashed for a lot but calling it a monopoly is just silly.
Oh and the smaller players aren't having troubles at all. Just ask the iRivers of this world or the creative labs.
No the ones having problems are the ones who banked on MS winning an easy victory and now finding that people will not buy that MS drm crap.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I mean, they are bashing Microsoft, so they must be right!
I think part of the problem with Napster mark 2 is that subscription models don't work for the same group of people that iTunes appeals to. I'd rather have access to the song for as long as I care to have access to it, not for as long as my subscription holds out. Also, most of the geek people know to stay away from Napster since they are a shell of their former selves. Even their logo looks less ominous than it used to be.
What did you expect in this monopoly-controlled market? What does Microsoft have to do for you? Surely, you MUST be doing something wrong if the Bush Administration agrees that Microsoft should remain a monopolist. (Retired Honourable Thomas Penfield Jackson: 'Nothing changed') What did you expect partnering with a Monopolist? How about developing your own standard or adopt Sun Microsystems Open DRM standard if you need to co-exist with the RIAA and the government? Don't give Microsoft what it wants. Give it what it deserves. You do have options. Go ahead and complain to the EU, but don't think for a moment someone else will save you out of this. These are your choices available. Die, Live in Freedom, or Live under absolute rule of the dictatorship of Microsoft, your choice. It is a choice WE ALL have to make. I choose freedom. And sometimes, that means taking a risk in spite of opposition to that objective. Are you going to take a stand, or are you going to be a disgrace and just stand there and take it. Show me what you've got inside your heart... Gold or Jello?
I tried to use Napster when it first came out because I have a WMA compatible CD player. (The AVC Soul Player, One of the best MP3 CD Players ever released before the market was taken over by iPOD's).
I bought 5 songs from Napster, burned them to CD and popped the CD into my player. Instead of hearing music like I expected, I got the message "Protected WMA". Napster has no interest in supporting my music player, so I have no interest in supporting Napster.
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Microsoft considers Napster to be a key piece of software for their platform. Therefore they are making the changes that Napster needs. On a related note, next year Microsoft is releasing their Live Music system which will allow people to download music from a vast repository. It will be a free download for Windows XP and will deliver with the production run of Vista. :)
Then their is the pricing model. Anyone with a brain knows that this is worse even then the bookclub model (I don't know if americans have it so let me explain, bookclubs sign people up on the street (nowadays mostly immigrants or other people who ain't very street smart) to be able to buy books/cds/dvds cheaply from their catalog. The scam? You have to buy 2 books every period minimum and the contract lasts for 2 years. Since their catalog is really limited you end up buying stuff you do not want).
At least you get to keep the books from bookclub after you cancel (and paid for two years worth of stuff you don't want).You loose all your napster music if you ever cancel.
You are also locked in to only using their service with hardware that supports their DRM. It only works on Windows. (iTunes works on Mac and Windows) Oh and the format used is often reviewed as the worst of the bunch.
There is also no 'gifting' it. You can buy somebody some iTunes songs for their birthday. But napster? Oh, wow, one month of listening to music except I can't listen to them on my iPod, gee thanks.
As for their complaint that MS software ain't up to it. Well fucking duh. NOBODY uses MS software. How do you think the whole winamp model works eh? Because MS own software is to crap for words.
So you got a name that lost its meaning, trying to sell stuff people can't use, by artist people don't want, for a price people are not prepared to pay, on conditions that people don't like, using software people loathe, to be played on a tiny handfull of devices that people don't like.
Gee, yeah that sounds like a good business plan to me.
Then again all this MS funded fud is not meant to be a real business. MS doesn't have to own the online music store market. All it has to do is delay anyone else from doing so until inertia takes over.
In fact that is what Napster seems to be banking on. That MS can pull another IE and that somehow their inferior product will become the norm.
IE vs Netscape happened because IE was bundled. Perhaps MS should sponsor Dell to give a free MP3 player with their PC's? Pre loaded with Napster?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
they turned me off when the freaky ass commercial came on TV, told me that napster was my friend (really?!?!) and then in some devilish little girl voice said "have everything, own nothing" .. sounded somewhat socialist to me..
= Grow a brain...
Blame it on those pesky CDs! As long as people have the notion that music is something that they can buy and own, subscription services like Napster cannot succeed in the face of iTunes. Where oh where would people get the idea that they can own music? Why it's the fact that you can go to a real music store and buy real physical media that you only pay for once. As long as such physical media is available, this idea of owning music won't go away. So if Napster wants to succeed, don't blame Microsoft, instead convince RIAA to stop allowing the sale of CDs in stores. But given that the music publishers still make a lot of money perpetuating the notion of music ownership by selling CDs, I think Napster may be in for a long wait.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
is what can napster do about it? Everybody says that you sue the closed source company. Well, lets see napster sue MS, and see how they do! I am betting that they get NOTHING.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And what exactly does Apple do, offer free and open DRM and hardware so that all may benefit from iTunes and iPod. Apple doesn't control their own little part of the market with their own proprietary DRM for music and movie files? Geeze, here I was thinking that Apple is the most monopolistic company on earth, dictating exactly what software and hardware are sold to their customers, and exactly what price that hardware should be sold for not allowing 3rd party resellers to offer discounts to customers unless Apple first authorizes those discounts. Apple also forces smaller resellers to go bankrupt by ensuring that only Apple stores and large resellers get supply first, choking supply to smaller companies.
Thanks for setting me straight, I thought that Apple was a dictator as well, but it seems that only Microsoft, with their support for tens of thousands of hardware and software products, cheap and easy to use software development tools allowing for both open source and shareware application development, a variety of XP versions to cater to individual and regional needs and allowing support for multiple music stores and support for a variety of digital media players with easy and inexpensive licensing schemes... yes, Microsoft is the biggest dictator out there. And like all dictators, they hold a gun to your head and force you to use their products. Shame on them, shaaaame!
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
And finally, Sun can come out with all the free crap they can dream up of, Java, OpenOffice, open DRM, open this, open that. If nobody uses it or supports it, who cares. How many digital media players support Sun's Open DRM? How many music stores use it? Open DRM is for people using Linux getting crappy independent basement band music off the web.
It is one thing to say, look, we have Open DRM? Its another to make it a viable product, as has been the problem with ALL open source software.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Napster, AFAIK, does not allow for that portability, and instead requires a connection to the net at all times in order to use their service.
That and the whole lock-in . . . I don't sign up for 2 year cell phone plans anymore because of that. When you're a captive customer, your service level goes down dramatically.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Then after that I refused to get an Ipod because, well, everyone has one, and it's nice to be a bit different, isn't it?
iPods are more expensive, too.
As it turns out Creatives Strategy for making an iPod killer was to make players in truly puke inspiring colors and it increase song capacity by dropping the 128K standard and doubling capacity by replacing it with the oxymoron "high quality" 64k WMA format. I guess they though people would not notice, they did.
Here is a hint creative. Make sure all demo units actually work! Having them crash after 5 minutes of playing with them is not a good selling point. Will actually it is, for Apple.
Even though I am basically an Apple person I did check every MP3 player in order to save a few bucks. I was less than impressed. I bought my iPod about 2 years ago and I am looking to get another one as my old one is now full.
It's funny to me that the reason Apple owns the music player market is so simple. Apple's product appeals to what consumers want, consumers like it and they get sales. Microsoft's DRM crap is design to appeal to what music labels want, and last time I checked music labels aren't the ones buying these music players, and so it flops.
Mt. 12:25,26
Wow... Satan against Satan... Microsoft and Napster... how appropriate.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
"Apple can simply licence Fairplay so that non-Apple stores can sell music for the iPod."
Good point, this does seem like a more workable solution. Still might lose Itunes competetive advantage then. If a really good store came along, it could then advertise compatability with Ipod/non ipods.
Then again I don't care. I won't by DRM'd music.
Why'd they even leave MP3? I'm tired of these new formats. MP3, OGG, WMA, RealAudio. Please. RealAudio is a joke- horrible player, poor licensing, awful quality, etc. OGG will never be taken up by corporate america (just look at the slow take to MP3 players, which is being phased out these days). WMA is just too proprietary and lacks that easy compatibility with older devices, plus it requires some good licensing from MS.
I know people say there are quality advantages over Mp3 (however small), but it's completely not worth it. A 192kbit MP3 will do quite enough to make some damn good CD quality audio. All the other formats just go and make up for it with adding SRS/WOW and other filters, destroying the quality anyway.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
>cheap and easy to use software development tools allowing for both open source and shareware application development
While you may arguably have some points against Apple in your post, I dont think MS scores on this one. You can get much cheaper than free and thats how much Apple's dev tools cost. Not "express" editions... the whole thing. How much will you pay for Xcode on Nov 6 2006? nothing. In fact, it comes with every copy of MacOS X sold. Linux and *BSD, yup... free too.
Blame MS? Nice try Napster, but I call bullshit. I've said it before and I'll reiterate: people don't want to rent by the month, they want to own on demand. The phone companies get away with monthly fees because that's the way it started... but it doesn't mean consumers are in love with the business model.
Luke, help me take this mask off
If Napster has problems with DRM and proprietary file formats, then it gets pretty clear what customers are going to face in the future if this nonsense spreads. Just say NO to DRM and
proprietary file formats.
"I believe they meant a economic ecosystem, since MS's DRM is set up to allow hardware and software manufacturers to compete with one another. By comparison the iTunes/iPod system is set up to allow Apple to sell you music."
It should read: By comparison the iTunes/iPod system is set up to prevent other people from competing with Apple.
Vote for Pedro
"What did you expect in this monopoly-controlled market? What does Microsoft have to do for you? Surely, you MUST be doing something wrong if the Bush Administration agrees that Microsoft should remain a monopolist."
How is Microsoft a monopolist in a market where Aplle just sold 1 billion songs, and no one else is even close to that kind of revenue?
Vote for Pedro
You know, that would not matter if the Windoze media experience was anything like ITunes or Amarok. Who wants a $400 player when a $100 can do most of the same things? As it stands, you would be crazy to subject any player to WMP, much less an expensive one. Bill Gate's usual approach is working about as well as winmodems. WMP is a dissaster and everyone knows it.
There's plenty of blame to go around, though. Part of the dissaster is the absolute greed attack by the new owners of Napster and other crappy music services. They have been giving away players, music and months of service in their attempt to get new subscribers. People don't want it, and it's not only Microsoft's fault. Most people don't want music that dissapears if you don't pay monthly fees. Even if it worked, few people would go for it. Combine that with the hit and miss, but always second rate, quality of Works for Sure players and the never work nature of WMP and you have a steaming pile of shit that no one wants.
The whole melt down was predictable. It's easy to see, with so many greedy parties involved, that none of the stuff would work together. Each will be putting in their own little planned obsolescence or trump card over the others and none are co-operating. Napster blaming Microsoft is a little less predictable but the new owners seem to be more Hollywood bitches than M$ bitches. Racks of unsold Napster plans in stores is wholly predictable as are cheap music players that no one buys.
Here's the funny part, a free software user is better off than someone paying the full M$ ticket. Many cheap M$ players act as normal USB storage devices and can be loaded with any normal software. Amarok is a first rate player, providing random fill, play, lyrics, cover art and the whole nine yards. The only problem I have is converting over to crappy mp3 format for the cheap device, which M$ will do their damnest to keep from working with free software. At the same time, I have my no strings attached music, reasonable portability and great software. With MTP, the ease of moving files on and off is lessening, but it won't be long before the gphoto work is taken up and that issue will dissapear. Content, thanks to Magnatunes and the Internet Archive, is also better in the free world.
Believe me, the money I spend on music is now going to artists who don't mind me sharing their work. I want to see them live. I want their merchandise and I even want their CDs for the different versions that might be there.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
My definition of "sell out" does not include what happened to Napster or MP3.com. Both companies were destroyed in court, with their investors loosing everything and then some. After essentially stealing the companies, the RIAA and friends went after the investors to punish them for putting their money forward, a first in copyright law abuse.
The new owners obviously have different dreams for Napster, which mostly end badly. A few months after the purchase, the new owners of MP3.com threw away terrabytes worth of wonderful content that had been built over the years.
I can envision a new industry, where artists sign with small labels or produce their own music, and sell DRM free music on the web, and have small batches of CDs pressed at reasonable prices to be sold at reasonable prices in stores of the brick and mortor and online varieties.
That was essentially MP3.com's model if you take out the brick and mortar. Anyone could put their music up to be found by preference matching. "People who like X also like Y1-Y10" was a powerful sales tool that matched musical tastes. Anyone could download DRM free mp3s. MP3.com would make and mail CD player compatible CD's on demand that also contained mp3s and could be ripped to any format. The price was much more reasonable than either Itunes or the New Napsters of the world. The MP3's were convenient and the physical archive was reassuring.
Today, you have Magnatunes, the Internet Archive and many others stepping into the void.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I have a Samsung MP3 player. I ripped my entire CD collection into MP3 format some time ago. Every week I drag the albums to which I had been listening off and drag six different albums on. My 1G player/FM tuner cost about 130 dollars in September, and now a model with a more sturdy control button is available for about 90 dollars. I had thought about getting more memory, but then I would never change the music!
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!