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."'"

Comments

I think I see the first problem

[Langfat]

"Our business does rely on Microsoft..."

Now if that doesn't set off warning bells...

Re:I think I see the first problem

[Fred_A]

Apparently they came up with a new twist :

1. Pick market MS is considering
2. Rely on MS
3. ???
4. Die a horrible death

Sorry, no profit for you.

One huge technical glitch...

[91degrees]

You can't copy the songs to an iPod. At least not without jumping through hoops.

Re:One huge technical glitch...

[jafac]

I do most of my work on Windows systems, mostly security and integration-type stuff. But when it comes to consumer-level activities on Windows, I'm totally ignorant, because I have a Mac at home. I've been part of the rip-mix-burn culture for about 10 years now, and seriously, I've never had any trouble on my Mac, except for the few legitimately purchased iTMS tracks, which I've probably lost track of, and one day will probably give me a nasty DRM suprise. But those are the minority of my music.

But I was shocked last year, when I had a freind show me her Dell laptop, with iTunes, and a couple of other music players, and the dozens of different formats of music she had, and how some songs would play on some players, but wouldn't even import to other players, some songs wouldn't play at all, and of course the thing was stuffed to the gills with spyware and adware. Stuff she had legitimately paid for, she couldn't use. Stuff that I've ripped contrary to RIAA's wishes (but not contrary to US fair use rights, in most cases), I can use just fine.

So this is the thing. It's about usability. This is what the whole Personal Computer revolution is based on. The evolution from Mainframes and Minicomputers, running systems that only experts can use, to a Personal Computer, that the average joe can afford to buy, and figure out how to use. And the Copyright Fascists want to roll the industry back. People are paying thousands of dollars to buy computers, and finding out the hard way, that they can't use them in the way they want to or expect to - and in some cases, if they were technically savvy enough to figure out how the DRM was supposed to work, maybe they can get by. But more often then not, they've inadvertently moved something to another folder, reinstalled the OS to fix an adware or virus problem, or upgraded to a different music player, and all of a sudden, things don't work anymore, and all they know is they paid through the nose for music they can't listen to anymore.

A big part of the explosion of the internet in the mid-to-late 1990's was because of broadband, and Napster. You think adoption rates are going to continue to expand when broadband companies are clamping down (tiered rates, privacy violations, crappy service, monopolistic pricing) and the Copyright Fascists are clamping down with DRM that makes things much harder to use? On the same vein, do you think that folks are going to be rushing out to pay $5000 for an HDTV, and $40 per title, to watch HD DVD content, only to find out that the key for their TV, or maybe their amp, or switch, has been revoked by the Copyright Fascists? This industry has thrived on ease of use. And they're ready to flush it down the toilet - because they believe they'll be able to make more money, when it's really about power and control, and they're going to find that their market is a lot smaller than they thought it was.

Re:They're right, in a way.

[Jesapoo]

"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."

I love this comment, along with all the pro-apple comments that are going on in this thread. But consider this: If Microsoft was the monopoly in this field and other companies (like the beloved Napster brand) were having trouble competing because they were having to "get by" without the Microsoft system, everyone would be up in arms and demanding MS used open standards, bashing DRM, preaching the name of the small, independent companies fighting against MS tyrany..

Apple is using a proprietary DRM system - both bad words on slashdot - and the small companies are having trouble competing because of it. Why aren't we complaining? Oh yes... because no matter what the situation, Apple is always right and MS is always wrong. I forgot.

Nonsense

[bloobloo]

Napster is synonymous with free downloads. Not paid for ones.

Re:Apple

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

Because iTunes allows people to do what they've always wanted to do, which is buy music. Napster's business model consists of "pay us each month and you can listen to any of the music we own, but stop paying us and you lose it all." The only people on earth who thought that was a good idea were Napster's accountants. It's not even rent-to-own, it's just pay-to-listen. They're trying to market it like it's iTunes, but it's really more like XM Radio without the nifty receiver.

If DRM needed, should be Open.

[guidryp]

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.

Re:LOLOMG!

[Overly Critical Guy]

Every time I see these "I will get modded down for criticizing Apple" posts, it never is. Would people stop with the whining about the Apple love on Slashdot?

Apple's "monopoly" is opt-in. Apple isn't signing illegal OEM deals to prevent the shipment of competing products, the way Microsoft did in the 90s. You're free to buy any player you want at the local Wal-mart.