Slashdot Mirror
Napster On the Block
Ars Technica has a good wrap of
Napster hanging out a "For Sale or Partner" sign. With half a million subscribers (down from the previous quarter) and $100M in annual revenue, the company is still bleeding cash. El Reg pinpoints the trouble: "The subscription crowd – and Apple via iTunes – must fight over a few pennies per song in profit. More from the Vulture: "You have to wonder if Napster's customer base is really worth the effort for a company such as Microsoft or even Real. The Napster brand has all the gravitas of a Che Guevara t-shirt."
Maybe Metallica would be interested in this fine venture!!!!
________________________________
Free iPods? Its legit. 5 of my friends got theirs. Get yours here!
At one point the Napster brand might have had all the gravitas of a Che Guevara shirt. At this point it has all the gravitas of a Jar Jar Binks shirt.
Is that revenue figure right?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Way back when the Napster brand was bought for a buttload of cash, I said it was a bad buy. The buyers thought the brand strength and name recognition would turn into cash when they rolled out a for-pay music service. But the people who used Napster to share music had moved on to Kazaa, Morpheus, and new ones when those got nailed or started barfing up spyware.
When Napster was finally re-rolled out as a subscription service, all of its fans had moved on. There was some advantage to the name recognition, but overall it had lost its chic, its cool, and its cred. It was now a bunch of suits wearing the hip little cat head and everyone knew it. The users who "made" Napster were either illegally sharing via different apps, were buying off iTunes, or were going to hold the new Napster service up to pinpoint scrutiny like an ant under a magnifying glass.
The term "irrational exhuberance" comes to mind. The people who bought the brand and built the new service got a lot of things, but didn't get *it*. Branding the service with the Napster name, while creating a certain amount of buzzz, also brought with it a certain amount of baggage, sets of varying expectations that would be hard to meet. And their declining numbers and murmurs of selling the business just go to prove that this was a bad idea that was not well-executed.
Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
Isn't this Roxio who just bought the name because they thought it once sounded cool? I don't think they fooled anyone else, though.
I'm glad someone is finally sticking it to that sell-out Che Guevara. His marketing campaign drives me nuts.
...what it's like to be on the artist's end of the contract.
Maybe I am the only one who didn't know what it meant. ... conveys a sense of substance or depth of personality.
Gravitas is a Latin noun that
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
So what does it mean for those of us that have used Napster's legitimate service if it evaporates? Do we lose access to our songs once we get a new MP3 player or computer?
Yes, I bought DRMed stuff that I was having no luck finding elsewhere. And no ITunes isn't suitable for my needs: I don't use or want an Ipod. (SanDisk Sansa if you must know)
...Web 2.0!
1) Change name to Napstr.
2) Profit!
El Reg pinpoints the trouble: "The subscription crowd - and Apple via iTunes - must fight over a few pennies per song in profit.
Napster doesn't sell hardware. Furthermore Apple consciously did that. And further further more, both are doomed as DRM awareness and issues surface.
Apple is double-doomed since when everyone gets a good enough iPod, the only revenue Apple is left with is iTunes.
Hence movie downloads.. But they won't have success. Life sucks, doesn't it?
thanks for sharing
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
1. Napster is right where the labels want them. The red-headed step child nobody wants.
2. This is exactly what happens in markets with wealthy, powerful companies unfettered by regulation. Price fixing, absurd litigation, even more absurd legislation.
3. Let's not forget their outdated business model which, in 2006 looks good for another 25 years. It took them 3-5 years as enforcer to force consumers to treat mp3's like vinyl.
It's like punk rock was in the 80's. Only with fiddles and twangy stuff
http://www.crowmedicine.com/
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just a reminder that "Gravitas" is Keifer Sutherland's favorite word!
0 and then search for "CRAPPING ON KIEFER SUTHERLAND"
Go to http://www.howardstern.com/rundown.hs?d=111199680
Q: I've heard a lot about "business models", can you show me an example of a good one?
A: Certainly! A good business model is one where you provide a service without charging any money. For example, the original Napster would be an example. They did lots of research and development into their "file sharing" product, and co-opted the work of artists across the world to produce a product that people would want to use. How did they make a profit without charging anything? Answer: Volume!
Q: Ok, so can you give me an example of a bad business model
A: Sure. Just look at the music industry. They provide products (boo!) that people want, and sell these products to them.
Q: My gosh! How can they possibly survive with that model? Surely you profit more from giving everything away for free than you do by selling things
A: Quite right. This is why the music industry is unable to make a profit. Napster and other supporters of "sharing" have done what they can to change this around to no avail, even forcing the music industry to participate by, essentially, giving away their music. But for some reason, they don't like this, and keep running to the courts to tell people to stop!
Q: OMG! That sounds positively like a protection racket or extortion or something!
A: You betcha! Tehse... I mean these people are positively evil. They get their kicks funding the creation of new music and then charging people who want to own copies of it. Can you believe it?
(...and so on...)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
His least favorite was the N.. word to describe a person of color
As an American, my edumication was a bit incomplete. I never studied much more than a few obscure battles in early pre-US history. So, I had to look up somethings, and I'll have to say that Wikipedia is great for being able to read up on a topic like this. Che Guevara
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Really? I thought number two was Allofmp3.com... or mayby it's number one now?
I think that was always part of the "deal" with music-rental services. If they go under, or you stop paying -- if either one of you decides to terminate the arrangement, in other words -- your music becomes unplayable, just like those old Divx discs.
Now if you're talking about music that you've bought at $0.99 a song, I would think that it would keep working, but I suppose you never know. I guess if I was in your position, I'd be burning it out to Audio CDs and then re-ripping it to some lossless DRM-free format as fast as I could.
I really hope that Napster goes out with a bang, if for no other reason than to teach 500,000 people who really owns their music.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
In retaliation for Napster giving away free songs, the Offspring started selling t-shirts with Napster's logo on it. I got one during the brief time they were selling it. As the original poster said, Napster just isn't cool anymore unfortunately, so I can't bare to wear it.
our current system works just fine unless you simply want shit for free and are willing to illegally distribute intellectual property over the internet.
... I'm in complete agreement.
Um, except that's exactly what people want, and that's exactly what they're doing.
So basically
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
You'll never shut down the real Napster.
The real question, does the Che Gravitas shirts have a lot of depth of personality? I see many "enlightened" people wearing it. Luckily someone told them enlightened people wear it because otherwise they wouldn't have known to wear it? Sorta like a ditzy blonde, people who want to rebel but have little to rebel against/for.
:) (though any article that makes me stretch for a simple analogy gets respect as long as the other 90 percent is readable.)
But this is a serious question is that supposed to be a complement or a slam? Thanks Kdawson for making an interesting article have an conundrum for a final line
I was a subscriber since it was called 'Pressplay', and the service was fair to use but it was riddled with DRM related issues. I vowed never to buy anything with DRM again after I was unable to authorize my computer to play a few tracks that I had bought, but Napster no longer sold. I did what I was supposed to and 'backed up' all of my licenses, and restored them after a reformat and reinstall of Windows... No dice, the files that I had purchased reverted to a 'subscription' license and I couldn't burn or put them on my mp3 player. I had to re-download the songs I had purchased to fix the licenses, so the files that they didn't sell anymore... *poof* I would love the see the day when the first of the DRM infected music services goes out of business, and we can all hear the collective cries of the people who's purchases are now gone, because we all know an install of Windows only lasts so long. At that point there is only thing to point your finger at, and I hope heads roll.
What is this "Napster" thing, and is there a torrent available so I can download a "demo" of it?
The concept of leasing seems to work alright for expensive material goods such as cars, but people generally don't like spending money to temporarily "rent" crippled, DRM-infected media they're used to owning... or can otherwise download for free (regardless of legality). Witness the downfall of the original DivX DVD format (not the codec): http://news.com.com/2100-1040-227194.html. Though the creators believed the blame for its downfall was not lack of consumer interest, the truth is most folks don't like the concept of renting semi-permanent access to media on a monthly basis from a company that may or may not be in business in a couple years -- even if the average person would actually save money in the long run using this method versus traditional purchases.
That and Napster didn't really provide much value above and beyond competitive alternatives such as: illegal P2P downloads, Amazon, iTunes, etc...
Che Guevera t-shirts! Get yer Che Guevara t-shirts right here. Who wants one! Get 'em while they're hot
Support the FairTax
i've got 4 napster tshirts and a few stickers from when i was a moderator on napster. thought about selling em on ebay myself. =P
-- sG
If you want to equate copying a bunch of bits to bribery or assault, that's fine.
However, most people don't think they're on the same level, as evidenced by the rampant amounts of technically illegal copying that goes on, and the significantly less-than-rampant amount of bribery and assault.
Lumping everything in life together under "legal" and "illegal" may be fine in elementary school, but most people don't think that way. If you think life is that black and white, congratulations and I wish you the best.
You might as well condemn people who drive 70 in a 65 MPH zone, since they're breaking the law, too; I'd go on to argue that it's probably significantly worse than copyright violation, since you can easily kill somebody by speeding, while I am going to go out on a limb and say that the number of people killed by pirated music is very low. Certainly something that has the risk of killing other people ought to be less morally defensible than a basically victimless, economic "crime." (Particularly a crime where the damages to society are nebulous at best; who's to say how much money piracy actually diverts from legitimate business and fails to recreate in other sectors of the economy?)
Until we've eliminated all the more significant forms of crime in the world, I think our effort and attention -- both in terms of moral outrage and law-enforcement resources -- would be better directed elsewhere, perhaps at the crimes that cause real physical harm to real people.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Bob Iger announced a million dollars revenue in the first week of movie sales on iTunes. This with a very limited catalog and no living room capabilities.
Disney has found a $50M a year outlet for its old catalog requring no production costs and promotionally piggybacking on latest releases and Apple announcements. I bet they'd like more failures like that.
napster still exists?
i thought napster died long ago...
hmm... maybe lack of advertising/awareness is exactly why they're doing so poorly.
of course, I _know_ about itunes, and still wont use it...
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
I'll just download the company for free.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
The old Napster had a tremendous amount of material. The music selection of the current Napster is pathetic.
At least for me, it has nothing to do with the fact that it costs money. Every time I take a look at Napster, I'm frustrated that I can almost never find even mainstream stuff I'm looking for. Give me eMusic anyday... 10 times the value and more interesting content. It's a great trade off for not having the major labels.
The market seems to agree with me, too.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Why is it okay for Napster to make a profit but the makers of the products are evil incarnate for trying to make money at it? They obviously aren't making a profit but it's being shown as a sad thing. They started off playing middle man in the hopes of making a profit off file sharing songs. Other things were traded but the bulk was copywritten material. Is the stance that it's okay to make money off something so long as you just don't hold the copyright? Just trying to get the rationalization straight.
Any other legit all you can listen to services then with the to-go method available as well, for those who want to go legit and need something simple?
When people catch on that Zune purchasers can't play music downloaded from Napster and its ilk... that Napster and other Microsoft customers have been suckered by the biggest Microsoft head-fake since 1990... I suspect there will be a rash of failures.
It will be comparable to the wave of software development companies that folded or were seriously wounded after hitching their wagon to the OS/2 star (as Microsoft convinced them to do while secretly developing its own products for Windows).
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
He's right, you know. Castro is a good and honest man. All Cubans think so. In fact, it is illegal there to think and express anything to the contrary.
Where were you when the voynix came?
i knew about napster since i was in secondary school..and if i'm not mistaken..wut i knw is napster had gone thru break down and close for a while bcoz it is consider a threat for music industri and etc..but afta a while somebody took over it..is it? afta a long time..Napster still popular but Napster have to admit there is other peer to peer that act like Napster now..with offer sumthing better from Napster..maybe it one of the factor that contribute on it..
You generally have to be an administrator to install applications. This should not come as a surprise.
Being charged for a supposed free trial sucks but I'm guessing that if you read the terms and conditions it would be in there. The credit card is standard practice to make sure they are not getting ripped off.
It sounds like a bad service but $1.94 is not exactly in the realm of the Nigerian scams.
The hunt for NAPSTER'S new lead person
Hint: it's the DRM - if you're looking into subscription services, why not use eMusic? From what I've heard, they sell unrestricted mp3s, though I'm not sure how many songs are available in comparison to iTunes or Napster.
quia potentia mens mentis