Best Buy Coughs Up $54 Million For Napster

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Best Buy Coughs Up $54 Million For Napster

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday September 15, 2008 @04:29AM from the so-i-heard-you-got-robbed dept.

MarketWatch reports that Best Buy has decided to toss $54 million into an acquisition of Napster. All told, the deal amounts to around $121 million, with about $67 million headed towards getting cash and short-term investments from Napster's balance sheet. "The deal will give Best Buy an online digital music retail outlet as well as a subscription streaming service that has about 700,000 subscribers. That could help Best Buy to compete against retail giant Wal-Mart, which has its own online digital music offering."

164 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

... and somehow, they managed to make it suck more by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 04:31 · Score: 5, Funny

Good work, Best Buy. That takes effort.
Just a name... by religious+freak · 2008-09-15 04:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

$54 million for just a name? Sounds a little high to me.

--
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
1. Re:Just a name... by jep77 · 2008-09-15 04:36 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Well it was either that or buy naming rights for a stadium. They may have made the wrong choice.
2. Re:Just a name... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  No, $54 million for a household name plus a turn-key service with all of the infrastructure that they can simply re-brand and begin making money immediately.
3. Re:Just a name... by gstoddart · 2008-09-15 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  $54 million for just a name? Sounds a little high to me.
  I must say, I had more or less the same reacion. So, this says all things considered, they're spending about $121 million for Napster.
  What, exactly, are they getting for this? Sure, Napster is a well known name, but so are Edsel and New Coke. ;-)
  Does anyone have any insight into what about Napster in its current state (or any other) that actually makes any sense whatsoever to spend this kind of money?
  I just don't see it.
  Cheers
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
4. Re:Just a name... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  Just a name? They had $127M in revenue last year.
5. Re:Just a name... by larry+bagina · 2008-09-15 05:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Roxio didn't do a particularly good job of making money with the napster name.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
6. Re:Just a name... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  For a name and a huge subscriber base...
7. Re:Just a name... by BPPG · 2008-09-15 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not just the name, but the existing subscribers too. Or at least, the existing subscribers that don't care about who owns napster.
  When you're talking music industry, your primary commodity is not the music, it's the people.
  
  --
  What's the value of information that you don't know?
8. Re:Just a name... by Karlt1 · 2008-09-15 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  I must say, I had more or less the same reacion. So, this says all things considered, they're spending about $121 million for Napster.
  Napster has $67 million in cash and no debt. So while Best Buy is actually paying $121 million for Napster, they also get the $67 Million in cash -- that's where the $54 million fogure came from.
9. Re:Just a name... by penguinstorm · 2008-09-15 05:35 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Since when was Napster a household name? It's so far off the cultural radare you couldn't hit it with a Phoenix missile.
  Those crazy kids today haven't ever even used Napster. It's like talking to them about the Love Boat: they just get a blank look in their eyes, and nod accommodatingly.
  As for my general thoughts on this, I'll try to be brief.
  WTF?
  
  --
  Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
10. Re:Just a name... by Ethanol-fueled · 2008-09-15 05:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Nobody did a good job of making money with the Napster name after Napster wasn't free anymore ;)
  
  It hard to see how Best Buy will make Napster worse because Napster started to suck the second they became a pay service -- Unlike the Geek Squad, which I heard were respectable until they became Best Buy's monkeys. Note: You'd be surprised what the "Geek" Squad can't fix!
  
  I know because I worked for a contractor that took care of Best Buy's warranty laptop repair and we were doing things like malware removal and OS/driver reinstalls.
11. Re:Just a name... by globaljustin · 2008-09-15 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, it IS just a name. Napster hasn't been worth anything since it stopped being a p2p filesharing network...well, scratch that...the name 'napster' is worth whatever people will pay for it, in a sense...
  I have no idea how Best Buy financial analysts could think that "napster" is work that much.
  It's deals like this that explain why US business is doing so poorly
  
  --
  Thank you Dave Raggett
12. Re:Just a name... by Kent+Recal · 2008-09-15 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like a great deal!
  Hey BestBuy, listen up:
  I'm the exclusive rights-holder of the globally established trademarks "drm-infested-music.com" and (related) "dim-executives.com".
  We both know that your brand-portfolio will never be complete without them, therefore I will (reluctantly) agree to sell it to you for the unbeatable (discounted, all-inclusive, wholesale, excl. tax) price of only 100 million US-dollars.
  In order to make the deal more attractive to your shareholders I hereby agree that we pretend I'd have 50 million US dollars in the bank along with the trademarks, thus we can close the deal if you send me a cheque covering only 50 million US-dollars! This 50% monster-discount is only valid till the end of this month, act now!
13. Re:Just a name... by gEvil+(beta) · 2008-09-15 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  $54 million for just a name? Sounds a little high to me.
  
  Oh c'mon. Who hasn't done something stupid when they were high?
  
  --
  This guy's the limit!
14. Re:Just a name... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  Napster means free music. As soon as you try to put the name on something that isn't free, people start ignoring you again.
15. Re:Just a name... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  oh.. lets compare shall we?
  Best buy: 30.848 billion
  Napster: 0.127 billion
  Wow, that's almost like a whole 0.5% of best buys' revenue... far out dude.
  so yes, they just paid for the name. None of this "turn-key" marketing bullshit in your reply. I'm sure best buy can easily afford to re-create whatever software they get from the deal without blinking...
  Napster = hey, i'm a clueless computer user who still shops at best buy because they have that "hip" company Napster that my kid/uncle/nephew used to get free music from.
16. Re:Just a name... by brouski · 2008-09-15 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Note: You'd be surprised what the "Geek" Squad can't fix!
  No. No I wouldn't.
  
  --
  Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
17. Re:Just a name... by The+Great+Pretender · 2008-09-15 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Best Buy, you want to buy my 67 cents and old, skid stained underwear for $1.21? You can wash and re-use the underwear. Fantastic!!
  
  --
  A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
18. Re:Just a name... by el+cisne · 2008-09-15 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  "$54 million for just a name? Sounds a little high to me."
  
  I dare say they must have been more than a little high to pay that much.
19. Re:Just a name... by Dan541 · 2008-09-15 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  A household name that everyone remembers the fall of.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
20. Re:Just a name... by Artuir · 2008-09-16 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, same here.
  I worked over at a contractor near Nashville for a while (La Vergne, TN). Geek Squad never ceased to amaze us with notes like "replaced cpu fan, customer still complaining about overheat issue" and we find not only is the fan not even plugged into the power source, but it's not even screwed down onto the cpu! Brand new fan, they took it down far enough to replace it, but couldn't be bothered to put it on right. It's incredible.
  Seriously amazing. And this happened multiple times daily. But you know that already.
Hey, blue-shirt bitches! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 04:34 · Score: 3, Funny

That's a lot of Monster Cable money your bosses just threw away. Betcha they didn't buy a warranty, either.
1. Re:Hey, blue-shirt bitches! by hendrix2k · 2008-09-15 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it's called Black Tie Protection now.
  And believe me, at these prices they simply couldn't afford it.
Can anyone explain... by Darundal · 2008-09-15 04:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

...how this wasn't a giant waste of cash and a sign that Best Buy is run by PHBs? Honestly, I understand the reasoning (online is where music distribution is, at this point, which cuts into their bottom line), but the Napster brand is, at least last I knew, pretty much useless as a brand. If I am wrong, someone please correct me.
1. Re:Can anyone explain... by garcia · 2008-09-15 04:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  but the Napster brand is, at least last I knew, pretty much useless as a brand. If I am wrong, someone please correct me.
  Well, give them a chance, maybe they'll start giving out free music again, just like Napster was when the brand actually meant something more than stocks and dollars changing hands.
2. Re:Can anyone explain... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 04:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Wow, it just goes to show how out of touch geeks are.
  Ask an average non-geek about napster and they will know automatically that its a music outlet much like itunes. They won't know that it sucks, they won't know much about it at all, but it is a well known brand. So yes if marketed correctly it could be very profitable.
  But it will still suck
3. Re:Can anyone explain... by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2008-09-15 05:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  ...how this wasn't a giant waste of cash and a sign that Best Buy is run by PHBs? Honestly, I understand the reasoning (online is where music distribution is, at this point, which cuts into their bottom line), but the Napster brand is, at least last I knew, pretty much useless as a brand. If I am wrong, someone please correct me.
  Napster is a well known brand - and brand awareness is valuable - most folks have no idea whether Napster is good or not - but they know teh name.
  Best Buy essentially hedged its bets on the future of music distribution. WalMart is pushing to reduce the price of music it sells - as well as floor space dedicated to CD's. Wal-Mart's clout is driving the retail CD sales industry and labels are forced to play ball or risk losing significant sales volume; especially since WM really doesn't care if the carry a specific CD since it's contribution to revenue is small unlike the labels where a 10% sales drop can be very expensive. This is forcing the labels to rethink distribution, and Best Buy needs a foot in the door as the market evolves. It isn't just about online purchases but in stor kiosks and cheap memory cards / CD burns to sell a broder catalog at a much lower costs to the store - read higher margins.
  Napster gives them a quick and cheap way to get into the business without screwing up the Best Buy brand (I won't touch taht with a 10 foot pole) since problems will be associated with Napster, not BB. As it grows and the bugs get worked out they can transition to a BB branded service.
  Finally, it also gives them a way to move into the iPhone market *if* they can get a purchase app on the iPhone. Once they get it (Napster) up and running they are no longer trheatened by online purcases reducing CD sales as tehy have a foot in that market as well. In fact, depending on teh margins, they may prefer it.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
4. Re:Can anyone explain... by larry+bagina · 2008-09-15 05:21 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Maybe it shows how out of touch you are. Roxio bought the napster name in 2002. They spent a lot of money on advertising and marketing. They failed miserably. The only people that make money on music downloads is the RIAA.
  
  --
  Do you even lift?
  These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
5. Re:Can anyone explain... by XHIIHIIHX · 2008-09-15 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  The only people that make money on music downloads are the RIAA lawyers.
  fixed that for you
6. Re:Can anyone explain... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  Tell Steve Jobs that...
7. Re:Can anyone explain... by fracai · 2008-09-15 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Finally, it also gives them a way to move into the iPhone market *if* they can get a purchase app on the iPhone.
  Hmmm, unlikely.
  It would probably duplicate functionality
  
  --
  -- i am jack's amusing sig file
8. Re:Can anyone explain... by Kent+Recal · 2008-09-15 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I don't know which average non-geeks you asked but most non-geeks I know have never heard about napster.
  Napster was a short fad back in 2000 and probably there are still some people out there who remember it - but it's nowhere near as known as iTunes or, say, mp3.com
  50 million dollars can buy *a lot* of marketing. One has to seriously wonder why they didn't simply start a new brand instead of paying so much for a partially tainted (not everybody remembers the good days of napster) and effectively dead one...
9. Re:Can anyone explain... by commodoresloat · 2008-09-15 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well, give them a chance, maybe they'll start giving out free music again
  Sure, that's exactly what I would expect Best Buy to start doing.
10. Re:Can anyone explain... by Yvanhoe · 2008-09-15 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  They are buying the 700 000 subscribers as much as the brand. Plus, the brand 'Napster' is already known to many. That's a huge marketing advantage. To people who know the current sad state of naptser, they'll only have to say "Well, it used to be that way... now we bought it and it got better"
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
11. Re:Can anyone explain... by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2008-09-15 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Finally, it also gives them a way to move into the iPhone market *if* they can get a purchase app on the iPhone.
  Hmmm, unlikely.
  It would probably duplicate functionality
  While I realize Apple does that, Best Buy probably has a bit more clout with Apple, and a lot more financial resources to devote to lawsuits, than the average app developer.
  It would far easier, and smarter, to allow BB to do sell music via an app than risk a court deciding that Apple's actions are anti-competitive.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
12. Re:Can anyone explain... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sorry that I was moderated anything other than +1 Funny. I can't help it if the moderators don't understand a joke and think I'm serious :)
13. Re:Can anyone explain... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't this score 2 funny?
  Because obviously the "duplication" only matters when it interferes with revenues. I'm sure Best Buy and Apple could make a deal they both like... after all Best Buy already sells Apple products.
14. Re:Can anyone explain... by CodeBuster · 2008-09-15 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Ask an average non-geek about napster and they will know automatically that its a music outlet much like itunes.
  They might remember that Napster involved downloading music from the Internet, but they probably don't know or don't remember that Napster changed to a paid subscription service. You would probably get responses like, "Wasn't that the free music thing, but they got shut down right?". People may know the Napster name, but they certainly don't associate that with paying for music like they do with iTunes. I agree that it could be profitable (in the long run and marginally so), but probably not very profitable. After all, even the iTunes store has sold only a few million downloads so far and that is spit in the ocean compared to the file sharing networks. Anyone who pays for their music and is interested in paying for downloads instead of CDs has probably already tried iTunes and will either stick with it(since it works on their iPod) or doesn't like it and will continue to rip their CDs (people who can't or won't pay will continue to get their music from the file sharing networks). I think that if Best Buy had an extra $58 million lying around then they should have returned it to their shareholders, if they could not profitably reinvest, instead of buying Napster.
15. Re:Can anyone explain... by bill_mcgonigle · 2008-09-15 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  and a sign that Best Buy is run by PHBs?
  You needed a sign? Have you been to a Best Buy?
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
16. Re:Can anyone explain... by warsql · 2008-09-15 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  mp3.com came back? I used to love that site.
  
  --
  878659 - yep its prime.
17. Re:Can anyone explain... by Locomorto · 2008-09-15 19:39 · Score: 1
  
  You might want to make that a few _billion_ songs (5 billion as on June 2008 according to wikipedia). Thats atleast 5 billion in turnover right there (the itunes plus tracks were slightly more, different regions also pay more as well). I think BB would love to a slice of that action.
  
  --
  Stopping Content Restriction Annulment and Protection means not calling it DRM.
18. Re:Can anyone explain... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-16 00:23 · Score: 0
  
  He already knows. Apple's revenue is in iPods, not iTunes.
19. Re:Can anyone explain... by Mister_Stoopid · 2008-09-16 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  You're not thinking like a Best Buy executive. Every free song downloaded from Best-Buy-Napster is a potential sale of an Extended Data Warranty (Only $5.99! Covers your .mp3 file FOR EVER!!!)
This is interesting by nauseum_dot · 2008-09-15 04:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

I think this could eventually give Best Buy some leverage in selling electronics because they will package downloads with the sale of mp3 players. I think they may be putting together enough clout to give Apple a good scare.

--
Crap! I just kissed my karma good-bye.
1. Re:This is interesting by Spazztastic · 2008-09-15 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Or they've just taken on a burden that will dampen their sales.
  
  --
  Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
2. Re:This is interesting by UnknowingFool · 2008-09-15 04:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Seriously do you think Apple is scared of Best Buy? Apple isn't scared of Wal-mart which is larger, has a better IT infrastructure, and can get better deals with the media companies. The main reason Apple isn't scared is that iTunes Store exists only to sell more iPods and AppleTVs. It makes some profit but the company's future isn't bet on it. If iTunes Store were to shut down tomorrow due, it really would not hurt Apple. The problem for Best Buy leveraging downloads to sell mp3 players is that they offer nothing special and are really late to the game. Which DRM would they use? PlaysForSure? We all saw what happened to other MS partners. That would also eliminate their iPod customers as well. No DRM. They have to compete with Amazon and Apple with 700K singles compared to millions for each for Amazon and Apple. Would their integration be as easy to use as Apple or even MS Zune or would it be like every other player out there?
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
3. Re:This is interesting by jcr · 2008-09-15 04:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think they may be putting together enough clout to give Apple a good scare.
  Considering the number of "ipod killers" and "itunes killers" that have come and gone so far, I think that anyone at Apple who felt even a twinge of anxiety over this would be overreacting.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
4. Re:This is interesting by Chrutil · 2008-09-15 05:12 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  iTunes Store exists only to sell more iPods and AppleTVs.
  Actually I think the long term plan for apple is the reverse.
  When you buy an ipod they make like 20 bucks (or whatever) on the deal, with all the costs involved in making the hardware.
  When they, by using that ipod they sold you, tie you into becoming a subscriber (eventually) spending all your bucks for music, movies, tv shows and all your other media needs on *their* itunes infrastructure, making 30% on all your media, then that's way more worth for them than an ipod sale.
  
  ^C
5. Re:This is interesting by Lumpy · 2008-09-15 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Apple isn't scared of Wal-mart which is larger, has a better IT infrastructure, and can get better deals with the media companies.
  I spit coffee all over the monitor on that one.. have you EVER seen the inside of WalMart's IT? Their IT people are bungling and everything is done as cheap as possible. I had a fight with their Senior Networking specialist on how it's impossible to use Cat-5 for telephone use when trying to get a phone line into a subway store. (I so am glad I don't help with Subway IT anymore.. that was a consulting gig that sucked.)
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
6. Re:This is interesting by ajlitt · 2008-09-15 05:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why is it impossible? Does POTS not run over 24 gauge twisted pair?
7. Re:This is interesting by samkass · 2008-09-15 05:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  When they, by using that ipod they sold you, tie you into becoming a subscriber (eventually) spending all your bucks for music, movies, tv shows and all your other media needs on *their* itunes infrastructure, making 30% on all your media, then that's way more worth for them than an ipod sale.
  
  Are you saying that Apple is lying in their SEC filings? Because from everything they've reported to their shareholders, what you say is the opposite of true. Maybe someday the iTunes store will turn into a cash cow, but right now it's smaller and more or less break-even. As of the latest quarterly report, Apple was making at least twice as much revenue and better margins from hardware sales as store sales.
  The big advantage Apple gets when you buy things from the iTunes store is that most of it only works with other iPods, so the next hardware purchase will likely also be an iPod (75%) instead of a SanDisk (15%) or one of the other bit players like Microsoft (2%).
  
  --
  E pluribus unum
8. Re:This is interesting by KUHurdler · 2008-09-15 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  so, why can't you use Cat-5 for phone lines? I use it all the time.
  
  --
  Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
9. Re:This is interesting by Lumpy · 2008-09-15 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  yes it does, and CAT-5 is simply telephone wire.
  the moron at Walmart corporate IT thinks that it wont work because and I quote... "Cat 5 is for digital communication. it works for Ethernet, Voip and DSL but not analog voice lines."
  I was stunned at what he said and asked several times if he was serious.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
10. Re:This is interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  Apple isn't scared of Wal-mart which is larger, has a better IT infrastructure, and can get better deals with the media companies.
  I spit coffee all over the monitor on that one.. have you EVER seen the inside of WalMart's IT? Their IT people are bungling and everything is done as cheap as possible. I had a fight with their Senior Networking specialist on how it's impossible to use Cat-5 for telephone use when trying to get a phone line into a subway store. (I so am glad I don't help with Subway IT anymore.. that was a consulting gig that sucked.)
  um...why couldn't you use cat5 for POTS?
11. Re:This is interesting by onefriedrice · 2008-09-15 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  You think the markup for iPods is only $20?...
  
  --
  This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
12. Re:This is interesting by Chrutil · 2008-09-15 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  Are you saying that Apple is lying in their SEC filings? Because from everything they've reported to their shareholders, what you say is the opposite of true.
  
  Of course I'm not saying that they are lying, but filings report results, not strategy.
  I'm saying that iTunes and the iTunes store is a long term strategy for Apple.
  Take it ten yerars down the line, and if apples strategy pans out and the iTunes store really replaces purchasing CDs, DVDs/Blu-Rays off amazon, pay-per-view, watching tv shows, and other things still in its infancy, then people will find themselves spending much more money on itunes than on the hardware.
  
  ^C
13. Re:This is interesting by xenocide2 · 2008-09-15 05:41 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Wal-Mart is known for their massive infrastructure at corporate, logging the sales of their product and warehouse inventory in real time (or very close). At one point my alma mater received a donation of an 82 processor system from them; Pentium Pros, presumably ousted for Xeons by 2000. I don't envy the graduate student employed to make such a beast run to where it's worth having powered on!
  I'm sure there's dumbass field technicians out there that you'd have to interact with as a tenant of Walmart, but I only hear praise for their internal IT machine. Which side of the Cat-5 debate were you on?
  
  --
  I Browse at +4 Flamebait
  Open Source Sysadmin
14. Re:This is interesting by Lumpy · 2008-09-15 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  The Walmart guy claimed he was well informed and would not move from his "you can not use cat5 for analog, the wire is designed for digital communications only."
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
15. Re:This is interesting by jedidiah · 2008-09-15 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  That may or may not be true, but they are still stomping all over the rest of the retail space with it.
  Those "bungling IT people" are a large part of the reason Walmart
  is putting all of it's other competitors out of business.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
16. Re:This is interesting by ucblockhead · 2008-09-15 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah really. Given that both Microsoft and Sony have completely failed to produce an iTunes killer, I find it hard to think that Apple is worried about Best Buy.
  
  --
  The cake is a pie
17. Re:This is interesting by ajlitt · 2008-09-15 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Post his snail mail address. I think last weekend's newspaper had a $5 off coupon on Monster Cable EXTREME HD silver satin phone cable.
18. Re:This is interesting by wcb4 · 2008-09-15 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Its unfortunate how powerful that lock in really is. There are so many MP3 players out there that are so much more functional, and sound better. The Cowan offerings, and even Creative's Zen Vision series (M30, M60 and W) are much better (sound and video quality), and support a shitload more formats than anything form Apple. The lock with iTunes purchases becoming worthless bits if you switch away from Apple makes most of those offerings a non starter.
  
  --
  I reject your reality ... and substitute my own.
19. Re:This is interesting by commodoresloat · 2008-09-15 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously do you think Apple is scared of Best Buy? Apple isn't scared of Wal-mart which is larger, has a better IT infrastructure, and can get better deals with the media companies.
  Hell, Apple isn't even scared of Apple! (Apple Records that is).
20. Re:This is interesting by Grishnakh · 2008-09-15 06:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The few times I ever go to Wal-Mart, I don't see any benefit from these IT people, even if they aren't bungling. Instead, all I see is a lot of hassle in shopping there, from spray-paint cans that are locked away (unlike at Lowe's) and require a 30 minute wait to get a manager to open the display case, to a store that looks dingy and nasty, to horrible customers who let their 8 kids run wild all over the store, to parking lots where people who can't drive constantly run into each other.
  I almost never shop at Wal-Mart any more because it's such a miserable shopping experience. If I want cheap stuff, I go to Target instead. Maybe it has something to do with my particular area, but around here the Wal-Marts are all like a zoo, and seem like a good place to get attacked by gang members, whereas my local Target is clean, and the customer base seems much less dangerous than the one at Wal-Mart.
21. Re:This is interesting by UnknowingFool · 2008-09-15 07:05 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The main reason Apple is the biggest player is they figured out that the average customer would like the process to be as easy as possible.
  How do you sync your iPod with your computer? 1) Plug in your iPod. There is no #2 if you accept iTunes defaults. I was one of those who bought earlier and got a Diamond Rio. Syncing up that thing to my computer took 4 or 5 steps some of them complicated.
  How do you get your music on your computer? 1) Put in your CD or 1) Click on iTunes Store and browse, 2) Click on purchase. 3) Enter in your method of payment info. 4) Wait for the dowload. With other services there were like 2 or more extra steps.
  If I'm the typical iPod/iTunes customer, I have like over 2,000 songs on my iPod. Maybe 10 of them are iTunes. The rest were from CDs. Of those 10, they were impulse buys or singles only or laziness in not going to the store to buy the CD or a combination of the three. So iTunes has made $10 dollars off me. If I were to switch to Zune or Creative, I would not weep for that $10 loss and nothing really stops me except I like my iPod.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
22. Re:This is interesting by UnknowingFool · 2008-09-15 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Wal-mart has a huge data center and IT infrastructure already. The Internet is littered with many companies that failed simply because their infrastructure couldn't handle their business. Wal-mart already sells music downloads. Between Best Buy and Wal-mart which one could handle a billion downloads in two years? If Wal-mart can't do it today, they'll throw enough money and people to get it done if it was a priority. I don't have that confidence in Best Buy.
  Also which company do you think could ask for a 2 cent decrease in wholesale download song cost? Wal-mart is known to play hardball when it has to. Ask Rubbermaid if you don't think they won't drop an entire company to get what they want.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
23. Re:This is interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  exactly. and you can reuse the lines for something else with the leftover pairs...
24. Re:This is interesting by CodeBuster · 2008-09-15 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. It probably would have been better for them to promote downloading, with oblique references that avoid liability (i.e. Download Your Music from the Internet!*** with lots of disclaimers in small print at the bottom), from file sharing networks. Perhaps even bundling package deals with their floor model PCs, file sharing software, and MP3 players all setup and ready to go. The profit for Best Buy, if there is any, will be in the MP3 gadget sales, just as it is for Apple with iPod sales, and not the music downloads themselves.
25. Re:This is interesting by MBraynard · 2008-09-15 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  If it existed to just sell hardware, they would introduce a subscription model so that everyone who wanted to use it would need a new Ipod and so that they can start to REALLY make money on the store as well as the Ipods.
26. Re:This is interesting by UnknowingFool · 2008-09-15 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  If they were that greedy then you couldn't play MP3 or unencumbered AAC. Maybe Steve Jobs isn't the authority on this but he has already stated that nobody wants to rent their music. In order to get people to buy their music player, they had to make it easy for people to get their music. They automated the ripping process in iTunes to handle the situation if their customer wanted to rip off CDs. They created iTunes Store for the situation where the customer doesn't want to do that but want music quickly. Now FairPlay only exists because the media companies didn't allow Apple to sell music without it initially.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
27. Re:This is interesting by dilvish_the_damned · 2008-09-15 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe he thought "the wire is designed for digital communications only" constituted a licensing arrangement, and thats what you would be breaking rather than universal law.
  Of course this would make him twice as stupid, so thats what I will prefer to believe.
  
  --
  I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
28. Re:This is interesting by MBraynard · 2008-09-15 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  Making Ipods not play other music formats would hurt their Ipod sales since you can't load it with all your stolen music.
  Steve Jobs wrong. I want to rent my music. Real has around a few million subscribers, Napster has 700k. I asked an Ipod user if he would pay $150 a year for unlimited music on Itunes and he said yes.
29. Re:This is interesting by Risen888 · 2008-09-15 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  You had me til the end.
  
  Would their integration be as easy to use as Apple or even MS Zune or would it be like every other player out there?
  That's funny, see. When I think "integration" I think "I plug my audio player into the USB drive, it pops up as a folder just like any other folder and I put files in it just like any other files." iPods don't do that.
  
  --
  Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
30. Re:This is interesting by jcr · 2008-09-15 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  Given that both Microsoft and Sony have completely failed to produce an iTunes killer
  Microsoft, Sony, MTV, Wal-mart, Amazon, Real, and I forget who else. The only one that's a viable business is Amazon's music store, and that's because they sell tracks that work on the iPod.
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
31. Re:This is interesting by Dog-Cow · 2008-09-16 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  That's funny, I think you're an idiot. How is showing up as a generic drive an "integrated music player"? Oh right, it isn't.
  You don't have to like it, but an iPod integrates with Apple's music app and Apple's music/media store. iTunes will notice if there's something new on the iPod and copy it to the comp and vice versa. Automatically, if you want. That's integration.
  Forcing me to find which drive letter was assigned, popping up explorer to browse to my media, figuring out what's new on the comp versus the iPod and moving stuff around is not integrated.
  To reiterate. You are an idiot.
32. Re:This is interesting by UnknowingFool · 2008-09-16 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Most people don't rent music. Real has few million customers. iTunes has maybe a hundred million customers and billions in downloads. Yes, some people will like to rent most of their music. Apple has chosen not to go after this market which they perceive to be small. Just like they don't make the iPod play ogg-vorbis. Are there potential customers there too? Yes. Is it large enough for the cost of engineering? In their opinion, no.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
33. Re:This is interesting by UnknowingFool · 2008-09-16 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  Whether the iPod pops up as a folder is an OS setting, not an iTunes setting. But that unfortunately doesn't control the music selection as iPods keep the music on a hidden, inaccessible folder. Maybe some users do, but for the average user, they don't care to manually move their music. I might be an example of the typical user. I have like 2,000 songs on my computer. I really don't want to figure out which new folder I have to add to my iPod or which song I need to re-load because I just added the lyrics. For me, that integration is 1-step: Plug in my iPod. iTunes handles the rest. That's the kind of integration that isn't always the case with MP3 players and wasn't the case before the iPod came on the market.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
34. Re:This is interesting by ucblockhead · 2008-09-16 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  My understanding is that Amazon's store is doing fairly well. Better than all those other failures at least. Obviously part of that is that they also sell tracks that work on the iPod.
  
  --
  The cake is a pie
35. Re:This is interesting by Risen888 · 2008-09-16 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  an iPod integrates with Apple's music app and Apple's music/media store. iTunes will notice if there's something new on the iPod and copy it to the comp and vice versa. Automatically, if you want. That's integration.
  To my knowledge, Amarok will do this with any old mp3 player out there (subbing Jamendo/Magnatunes for iTunes store, of course) if that's the kind of thing you're into. Me, not so much. For one thing, I've got half a terabyte of music on my machine. I don't want my music program to try to sync stuff or find stuff or look for stuff. I sure as hell don't want it messing around in my files making its own directories and shit. I've had the same system for managing my music since the mid-90s. I've got a directory structure and naming convention and tagging system, and every single song in that .5Tb adheres to it. I don't need my computer trying to tell me it knows better than I do how my shit gets filed. It doesn't.
  Here are my requirements for "integration" with regards to my music program and mp3 player. Number one with a bullet, it must be smart enough to understand my directory structure and how I've got my stuff organized and display things properly WITHOUT making folders in weird places and copying all my stuff into its own weird structure and giving everything funny names and converting my files to some weird format. Full stop. If it doesn't do that, I am not interested. Two, it doesn't give me some weirdo interface to deal with my music.As I said before, Amarok will give you the option of letting it sync stuff to your mp3 player. I don't want it. I want a folder that I can put files in, period. Which is a good segue into this gem...
  
  Forcing me to find which drive letter was assigned, popping up explorer to browse to my media, figuring out what's new on the comp versus the iPod and moving stuff around is not integrated.
  I plug in the mp3 player. My file manager opens automatically, with the drive mounted. I open ~/Music. I drag stuff between the two. I unplug my mp3 player and go. Done. And you want to know what's really neat? My file manager can even automatically compare the two folders and tell me if there's anything new in either of them! Integration! (Not that I need that really, because I put shit in sensible places to begin with.)
  And that's it. It's a folder with files. Like any other folder with files, just like the whole rest of my computer. Integration. Things working well together. If iTunes hijacks my computer with its own database and directory structure and only lets me manipulate my music through said, that's totally the opposite of integration.
  
  To reiterate. You are an idiot.
  What, are you like 14? How is this middle-school name calling germane to the topic or in any way called for? Is this how you talk to strangers in real life? For God's sake, act civilized even if you're not.
  
  --
  Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
36. Re:This is interesting by Risen888 · 2008-09-16 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for your comment, and a more mature reply than that other kid had. I will try to reply to your points.
  
  Whether the iPod pops up as a folder is an OS setting, not an iTunes setting. But that unfortunately doesn't control the music selection as iPods keep the music on a hidden, inaccessible folder.
  Exactly.
  
  for the average user, they don't care to manually move their music. I might be an example of the typical user. I have like 2,000 songs on my computer
  I think this might be the key difference between us; I have .5Tb of music on my server, like tens of thousands of songs. Literally a month and a half if I played it back-to-back. Every song is tagged the same way, every file and folder is named the same way, and it has been this way for twelve years. I am serious about my music. The last thing in the world I want is a music program that tries to take that out of my hands, which makes iTunes a total non-starter for me.
  For the record, I think you're right about "the average user." But I demand more. I need something that I can plug my system into and have it understand and work with that system.
  
  I really don't want to figure out which new folder I have to add to my iPod or which song I need to re-load because I just added the lyrics
  And for me it's the other way around. I don't want to figure out where iTunes hid some weird folder or how it mangled my tags. If I can't plug my directory structure into a "settings" dialog and have my music player or my mp3 understand that without fucking everything up and moving shit around and making hidden folders and causing general filesystem chaos, that is unacceptable.
  I think the difference here is that you seem to want your computer to integrate with your mp3 player, while I want my mp3 player to integrate with my computer. I'm not trying to say you're wrong to want that or everyone should do it my way, just that that approach is not for everyone.
  
  --
  Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
37. Re:This is interesting by MBraynard · 2008-09-16 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Things change. So do public perceptions. The public will come to see it's music choices as such:
  1) Pirate and risk jail (minimal risk) - but getting all the music you want.
  2) Pay a small fee a month and get all the music you want each month, along with some really nice management and catalog tools and pretty high quality audio.
  3) Pay $1 for each song you want to own forever but you can only play it on your Ipod or burn it to a CD and then have to do some funky re-ripping to get rid of the DRM.
  At the end of the day, option two is going to win out. And if you even have to think twice about paying $13-15 a month for a music subscription, you're not a relevant part of the market anyway.
Did you hear that, Steve Jobs? by bigtallmofo · 2008-09-15 04:37 · Score: 4, Funny

In your face, Steve Jobs!! You and your lame iTunes store are screwed now!

Expect all kinds of innovation from this combined entity... Like 98.9 cent downloads. Store name that ends in "ster". More.

--
I'm a big tall mofo.
1. Re:Did you hear that, Steve Jobs? by BitterOldGUy · 2008-09-15 04:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  and the opportunity to purchase an extended warranty on your downloads for 49.95! Protects your investment!
2. Re:Did you hear that, Steve Jobs? by cowplex · 2008-09-15 06:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Here's the thing - that may be what they do.
  What's the big stink nowadays in digital music distribution? DRM - especially backups. If BestBuy did this right, they could sell a "warranty" for their songs - for $49.99, you can protect say 1000 songs. That way, if they are deleted or lost or whatever, you can simply use that warranty to recover them!
  While the readership here at /. might see through this obvious scam, Joe Sixpack sees it as a good deal. Consumers are already used to warranties on their physical goods, and with a little bit of clever marketing I can see consumers getting taken advantage of with a "warranty" ploy.
  But here's the rub: we have been raging against lock-in and recoverability for quite some time now - enough to alert the less technical consumer. BestBuy comes out with a warranty on music, and markets it right, the consumer sees the problem as fixed and buys stuff from BestBuy.
  I know you were joking, but really a music warranty could be a viable business model. Let's hope it doesn't happen...
3. Re:Did you hear that, Steve Jobs? by shadwstalkr · 2008-09-15 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  Except that Napster has been selling DRM-free MP3s for months. Everybody is going to that model since Amazon showed that it's viable. Napster still uses DRM for the subscription service, but you can't really do subscription without DRM.
Stupid by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2008-09-15 04:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Investors are always saying stupid things like " this could help them compete with Walmart which has its own digital music service". Is walmart's digital music service good? Is is profitable? Does it do anything now, or will it ever, to contribute to the companies bottom line in any way what-so-ever?

Most of the time, just like this time, its just ridiculous.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
1. Re:Stupid by oahazmatt · 2008-09-15 04:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Is walmart's digital music service good? Is is profitable?
  Wal-Mart has a digital music service?
  
  In all seriousness, I did not know this. I never see it advertised anywhere.
  
  --
  Those who believe the Internet is private,
  find their privates are on the Internet.
2. Re:Stupid by nawcom · 2008-09-15 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yes; you listen to music via 2 plastic cups that are connected via a really long string.
3. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  Wal-Mart has a digital music service?
  In all seriousness, I did not know this. I never see it advertised anywhere.
  Yeah, they do. And even there you'll want to be carrying a concealed weapon.
4. Re:Stupid by Otter · 2008-09-15 05:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I'd never heard of it either, but -- here you go.
  
  $9.22 albums, DRM-free MP3s, can't purchase on Firefox or on non-Windows. Not bad, if you have Windows and IE. Does browser ID-spoofing work?
  
  --
  What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
5. Re:Stupid by morgan_greywolf · 2008-09-15 05:06 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Not bad, if you have Windows and IE. Does browser ID-spoofing work?
  No, but this does the trick. ;)
  
  --
  My blog
6. Re:Stupid by Rayeth · 2008-09-15 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Even more epic than the knowledge that this exists is that you can't get to it on Firefox! Coded for IE only with "improvements coming soon" for Firefox. Welcome to the Internets of the 90s WalMart.
7. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 05:37 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Wal-Mart has a digital music service?
  
  Go into a store some time. They have racks of CDs. Sure, it's limited selection, but those CDs are the popular (i.e. high-selling) stuff. Everyone would love to have their CDs for sale at Wal-Mart, so yeah, they have a formidable digital music service.
  And I didn't see any tapes last time I was there. I think they may be completely out of the analog market.
8. Re:Stupid by oahazmatt · 2008-09-15 05:49 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually I haven't shopped at Wal-Mart in a long time. A primary factor in that decision goes back to when I had bought a CD from their music section and afterward realized they had "sanitized" the lyrics without giving any notice to the purchaser, as if they were doing me a favor.
  
  --
  Those who believe the Internet is private,
  find their privates are on the Internet.
9. Re:Stupid by jedidiah · 2008-09-15 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Walmart is a lot like Microsoft in this respect. Their online store can
  be crappy for 10 years while they sort themselves out and get it sort of
  right (at least close enough for their typical customer) by version 8
  or somesuch.
  In the meantime, Apple gets to deal with the ascension of the online
  equivalent of Walmart not screwing things up quite so badly (namely
  Amazon).
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
10. Re:Stupid by stretch0611 · 2008-09-15 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  You're right... But the same investors that like this idea are the same ones that liked backing junk mortgages...
  
  --
  Looking for a job?
  Want your resume written professionally?
  DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
11. Re:Stupid by Grishnakh · 2008-09-15 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  I always bring my gun with me to Wal-Mart on the few occasions I go there. I take it the Wal-Marts in your area are also full of gang members?
12. Re:Stupid by MikeXpop · 2008-09-15 06:57 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I remember when they launched this and the story broke on Slashdot. Back then the draw was $0.88 DRM-free WMAs, which now seem to be MP3s. I can't check the site at all on my mac, so I don't know if the price-per-song has changed. In any case, the Amazon store seems to have made Wal-Mart's service obsolete; Amazon delivers cheaper albums in DRM-free MP3s available on all platforms.
  
  --
  Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
13. Re:Stupid by PuritySyrup · 2008-09-15 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  > Not bad, if you have Windows and IE. And live in the U.S.A.
14. Re:Stupid by genghisjahn · 2008-09-15 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Well if having DRM free music is as important to the slashdot crowd as it seems to be, then you'll buy a windows machine and IE you're way to DRM free music. If you don't want to get your hands dirty the the MS stuff, go to a friend's house that has windows, like the Ammish do when they want to watch MNF.
  
  --
  Sorry about the mess.
15. Re:Stupid by FredFredrickson · 2008-09-15 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  I've been curious about this.. do they still do this? I haven't purchased a CD in years (Thank you Rhapsody).
  
  --
  Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
16. Re:Stupid by Zwicky · 2008-09-15 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Please tell me there aren't four girls involved.
  
  --
  "Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
17. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 16:09 · Score: 0
  
  Investors are always saying stupid things like " this could help them compete with Walmart which has its own digital music service". Is walmart's digital music service good? Is is profitable? Does it do anything now, or will it ever, to contribute to the companies bottom line in any way what-so-ever?
  Not to mention: Did I ever hear of it before reading this thread?
SELL Best Buy Now: by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 04:40 · Score: 0

Same as comment title. See above.
I looked by mikesd81 · 2008-09-15 04:42 · Score: 1

at Napster a while back and a few other digital stores and I just can't justify paying a $1.00 for a song that, at most stores, I don't really own any way.

--
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
1. Re:I looked by DanZ23 · 2008-09-15 04:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You should look into Amazon's mp3 downloads. less than a buck a song, and totally DRM free. I get 99% of my music this way
2. Re:I looked by mikesd81 · 2008-09-15 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  99 cents doesn't count. Majority of the mp3s are $0.99.
  
  --
  That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
3. Re:I looked by DanZ23 · 2008-09-15 05:19 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Most are indeed $.99, with a lot of singles priced at $.89. And the majority of the albums are $5-$9. And everything is DRM free. Plus, there are almost 30 free songs this week linked to from this week's mp3 newsletter.
  If this is too expensive for you, then I'd recommend getting a job.
4. Re:I looked by vux984 · 2008-09-15 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  You should look into Amazon's mp3 downloads. less than a buck a song, and totally DRM free. I get 99% of my music this way
  As is 'itunes plus' music. I recognize that a minority of itms music is the drm free 'plus' kind, but still... I think its the direction even apple is moving. They have to.
5. Re:I looked by DanZ23 · 2008-09-15 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  I seem to remember when itms came out with plus the songs were $1.29? More than the DRM encumbered music in any event.
  I think everyone will eventually move away from DRM as well, to maybe watermarking or such. Amazon adds a serial of sorts to their mp3 id3 tags, which would be easy enough to delete.
6. Re:I looked by vux984 · 2008-09-15 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  I seem to remember when itms came out with plus the songs were $1.29? More than the DRM encumbered music in any event.
  You recall correctly. However, itms+ music is the same price as regular itms music now, and has been for almost a year now.
7. Re:I looked by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  And the other 1% via Torrent? :-)
8. Re:I looked by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 11:27 · Score: 0
  
  Yaeah, he got is numbers mixed up too
9. Re:I looked by mikesd81 · 2008-09-15 16:54 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, asshole, I have a job, pays decent. I just don't think at $1 per song is a deal. Even if it is DRM free. 89 cents is reasonable. And buying the DRM free CD from $5-9 is reasonable. BUT if I want a mixed album of certain songs, well that leads to $15-20. $15 puts gas in my car to get my job you elude I don't have. Make it bulk price or something like that, great. If you buy 10 songs, then 10 cents off each track. Or if you buy 15 songs, then $13 or something like that.
  
  --
  That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
10. Re:I looked by DanZ23 · 2008-09-16 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. Some things are unavailable on amazon, like Dirty Little Rabbits, so I find other places to purchase them. I don't download music I have no right to.
11. Re:I looked by Raenex · 2008-09-16 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  BUT if I want a mixed album of certain songs, well that leads to $15-20.
  Listen here, sonny. Back in my day I paid $17 dollars for a CD to get two songs I liked, and if I was lucky it contained a hidden gem and another song or two that was ok. The thought of getting 10 songs that I really liked on an album was unthinkable!
  Well, it's ok. Times change and bits are flying around the Internet. The world will shake out this copyright business, for better or for worse. Just offering some perspective :)
Nothing left to say by Just+Some+Guy · 2008-09-15 04:43 · Score: 4, Funny

You know, I tried hard to think of something funny here. There's just not a punch line you can add to this.
To paraphrase Hank Hill, this acquisition is the feces that is produced when shame eats too much stupidity.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
1. Re:Nothing left to say by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe Best Buy can hire Lars Ulrich to be their new napster spokesman!
2. Re:Nothing left to say by mlow82 · 2008-09-15 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  For the record, it was actually Dale who said that.
3. Re:Nothing left to say by Just+Some+Guy · 2008-09-15 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, you're right. In the grand tradition of Slashdot, I was too lazy to post a followup correction.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Napster Squad? by TheNecromancer · 2008-09-15 04:47 · Score: 1

Does that mean that the Geek Squad will be replaced by the Napster Squad? Dang, they'll have to repaint all their cars!!

--
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
Windows Guru + Napster = ? by dunnius · 2008-09-15 04:49 · Score: 2, Funny

A few days ago, there was a article about Best Buy planning to have Windows Gurus to push Vista. WIth the acquisition of Napster, I am not sure what kind of monster will be created.
1. Re:Windows Guru + Napster = ? by UnknowingFool · 2008-09-15 04:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Easy.
  Windows Guru + Napster = Windows Grapster. Rhymes with how we really feel about it.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
2. Re:Windows Guru + Napster = ? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  Whatever monster is created from that, it will be a waste of money.
  1. Windows Guru
  2. Buy Napster
  3. ???
  4. NOT profit
Not The Real Napster of Course by illectro · 2008-09-15 04:55 · Score: 5, Informative

Napster 2.0 is of course a Napster Branded music store created by Roxio.
All the engineers from napster went off to setup their own music sites, the most high profile children of Napster are of course Snocap, which was setup by Shawn after napster 1.0 died and later got acquired by imeem.com which was also started by napster engineers and has become the most popular web2.0 music site (over twice the users of last.fm).
There's also finetune and a few other small music projects that can trace some lineage to the original napster. Every single one of these descendants from napster are a whole lot more interesting and innovative than what the Napster brand ever did.
1. Re:Not The Real Napster of Course by Otter · 2008-09-15 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Every single one of these descendants from napster are a whole lot more interesting and innovative than what the Napster brand ever did.
  Presumably you're talking about the later Napster efforts, right? The original Napster may not have been especially ethical, but there's no question that it was revolutionary and industry-shaking.
  
  --
  What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
2. Re:Not The Real Napster of Course by illectro · 2008-09-15 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the revolutionary and industry shaking part of napster 1.0 clearly never got sold along with the brandname.
3. Re:Not The Real Napster of Course by Civaus · 2008-09-15 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  While there are better music sites available to buy, think about how much publicity they are getting from "nay sayers" by buying a brand that is so doubted ..... Right or wrong: brand name + decent service + publicity = $$$$$
4. Re:Not The Real Napster of Course by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  not all of them. one of them went to create cloudmark. (no clue if its still around).
5. Re:Not The Real Napster of Course by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  That was Vipul, I think he's been pretty successful and helped get Web2.0 porn site zivity off the ground.
Great... by fahrbot-bot · 2008-09-15 05:09 · Score: 1, Funny

Can't wait for Best Buy to add the "Extended Warranty" option to my on-line music purchases... :-)

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
1. Re:Great... by GIL_Dude · 2008-09-15 05:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You know what? I bet they do. They might not call if "Extended Warranty". They'll probably call it "Download Protection" and sell it with lines like: "What if your hard drive crashes? Do you want to have to buy all that music again?"
  
  Just like with real extended warranties - mostly hogwash and lies.
2. Re:Great... by xrobertcmx · 2008-09-15 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like one sold by EA on games?
3. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  It'll take the form of DRM reactivation when you inevitably have to reinstall or migrate systems.
This reminds me... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 05:10 · Score: 0

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/12/05/
I'm sure this will work out for them. by halcyon1234 · 2008-09-15 05:12 · Score: 1

I'm sure this will work out perfectly for them. I mean, take a look up here at Canada. Best Buy Canada is owned by Future Shop. And Future Shop opened their own digital music download store, too. It's called Bonfire, and...
Wait, what's that? Oh, okay, it wasn't really their own download store. It was just Puretracks with a custom skin on it. In any case, it blazed their trail into the future of music downloads and...
Huh? Oh. Okay, it turns out Bonfire was a massive flop and was shut down this year.
Well, in any case, I'm sure that Best Buy USA's third-party, rebranded online music store will do much better than Best Buy Canada's third-party, re-branded online music store did.
PS: To give you an idea of how well this is going to turn out, this is the same company that decided it would be a good idea to sell "branded" mp3 players. Basically it was 128MB player that "came with" a few tracks, all for the low, low price of $169. Mmm, dollar-store MP3 player with DRM'd tracks for more than the cost of an iPod. Success!

--
UTF-8: There and Back Again
1. Re:I'm sure this will work out for them. by LMacG · 2008-09-15 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  You might want to check on just who owns who up there in Canada, eh.
  
  --
  Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
2. Re:I'm sure this will work out for them. by halcyon1234 · 2008-09-15 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Oops, I stand corrected. But this just makes things even worse, since they don't even have that extra degree of separation from Bonfire.
  
  --
  UTF-8: There and Back Again
Re:... and somehow, they managed to make it suck m by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 05:12 · Score: 0

Required tag: deadhorse.
uhh by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 05:19 · Score: 0

people still use napster?
Lack of differentiation by CdBee · 2008-09-15 05:27 · Score: 1

I can't see it working just because when you buy a Windows-Media based distribution system you're locked into a platform, a delivery system, a microsoft support contract, and a range of not-iPod music players.

Losing the DRM might help (especially re non-WMA players) but that still leaves the biggest problem of them all - few of the non-iTunes / non-indy online distributors can cut a deal with the recording industry that gives them the possibility of standing out from the crowd. (and its a big crowd with little differentiation)

To add extra suck - its a bit late in the gameplay for another company to do an apple and change the game. The rules have been set.

--
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
1. Re:Lack of differentiation by shadwstalkr · 2008-09-15 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  Napster sells most of it's tracks as MP3s now with no DRM, and even the subscription service works on Mac and Linux (it uses Java and Flash).
  I agree though: between Napster and Rhapsody only one can survive in the long run, and likely they'll both fail.
Napster has a monetary value? by British · 2008-09-15 05:27 · Score: 1, Insightful

Here's what I don't get: Napster started as a free app to download pirated music. Now after many changes, it's being sold for millions of dollars. What are they exactly bringing to the table? Just the subscribers?
The sale of myspace for an obscene amount of money makes more sense than this(eyes to see ads). Still not quite getting the Napster sale.
Then again, this is the same world that the "I'm rich!" iPhone app sold for a while.
1. Re:Napster has a monetary value? by jimicus · 2008-09-15 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Here's what I don't get: Napster started as a free app to download pirated music. Now after many changes, it's being sold for millions of dollars. What are they exactly bringing to the table? Just the subscribers?
  Seems that way.
  Interesting maths that has the subscribers valued at around $40 million each.
Best Buy will use it to... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 05:28 · Score: 0

I used to work for best buy. And have seen them make acquisitions that fail miserably because they pulled the plug too soon. The only exception that I can think of is the Geek Squad purchase. JMHO but this will turn into something else they will push on you right before the service plan pitch and right after the magazine offers... when you bought a vacuum cleaner.
Because people generally don't like these kinds of offers it may just flop and fade into the past like so many other things BBY has done. BBY should get back to the basics of selling consumer electronics that made them famous in the first place. Fry's electronics and others can do it... why not BBY?
I can only guess by XanC · 2008-09-15 05:33 · Score: 1

That the GP was on the pro-POTS-over-Cat-5 side, although his comment is at best vague.
Rhapsody by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 05:34 · Score: 0

Best Buy has been including software in many mp3 players for the 'Best Buy Music Store', software branded off the Rhapsody music service. This is a blow to Real's music service, which actually has a pretty amazing selection.
$54M or $121M ... So which is it? by More_Cowbell · 2008-09-15 05:39 · Score: 1

Wired is running the same story, but with a $121 Million price tag
Somebody's a bit off....

--
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
Re:$54M or $121M ... So which is it? by More_Cowbell · 2008-09-15 05:44 · Score: 1

OK, in my defense, while I didn't read the summary past the first line, I did RTFA (which didn't mention $121M)

--
Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
my dream by Dan667 · 2008-09-15 05:50 · Score: 3, Funny

Is for Best Buy to hire Larz to pimp Napster. Best Buy goes down the tubes like AOL/Time Warner. Larz goes bankrupt. And Shawn Fanning buys Napster for a dollar.
1. Re:my dream by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-16 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  Now if only you can find a way for Ewe Boll to get shot, and throw in a mythical nipple somewhere, you'll have every geek's dream movie.
Re:$54M or $121M ... So which is it? by gnasher719 · 2008-09-15 06:41 · Score: 1

Wired is running the same story, but with a $121 Million price tag
Best Buy is paying $121 million. However, Napster has about $67 million cash and short term investments, and since Best Buy buys the whole, complete company, they will aquire these $67 million as well, so their actual cost is only $54 million.
Wonderful... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-09-15 07:33 · Score: 0

Great. I work for the company that Napster hired to do all their customer service/tech support.
Guess I'll be out of a job soon. =(
So cool by Nerdposeur · 2008-09-15 07:57 · Score: 2, Funny

LOL - totally right.
"Hey kids - remember when you used to download N'Sync off Napster? Back in 2001? When that first iPod came out with the black text screen, and Napster was synonymous with 'free' and 'rebellious?'
Good news! Napster is still cool! It's, like, 'phat' and stuff! And now we own it! So it's not free or rebellious anymore. But come on back and give us some money!"
They could have just... by mr_lizard13 · 2008-09-15 08:19 · Score: 3, Funny

...downloaded it for free

Suckers!!!!

--
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
Re:... and somehow, they managed to make it suck m by macdaddy357 · 2008-09-15 09:05 · Score: 2, Funny

Worst Buy and Crapster: Now that's a marriage made in hell!

--
How ya like dat?