Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

stevesnj · Feb 6, 2005, 10:15 PM

I can't see a 'catch' anywhere...$15 a month for unlimited downloads?!?! hmmm seems too good to be true...are they 'rented' songs or would you own them like iTMS songs?

JohnM15141 · Feb 6, 2005, 10:21 PM

Go for it...sucker!

Originally posted by stevesnj:
I can't see a 'catch' anywhere...$15 a month for unlimited downloads?!?! hmmm seems too good to be true...are they 'rented' songs or would you own them like iTMS songs?

lavar78 · Feb 6, 2005, 10:22 PM

That's the catch. You have to pay the subscription fee indefinitely.

ManOfSteal · Feb 6, 2005, 10:23 PM

I found this comparison and happen to agree with it 100%:

Napster: Old & Busted<----------------------X-->iTMS: New Hotness!

mitchell_pgh · Feb 6, 2005, 10:24 PM

They are rented.

The super bowl commercial that showed $10,000 vs. $14.95 is like looking at your DVD library vs. netflix.

Arguably I could say my netflix collection is worth $1,000,000,000+

The reality is, I don't own anything when it's all said and done. I like owning my music. then again, I still buy most of my CDs.

Joshua · Feb 6, 2005, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by stevesnj:
I can't see a 'catch' anywhere...$15 a month for unlimited downloads?!?! hmmm seems too good to be true...are they 'rented' songs or would you own them like iTMS songs?

Towards the bottom of this page:

*It is necessary to maintain a Napster subscription in order to continue access to songs downloaded through the Napster service.

You can't burn the tracks, obviously, and I'm guessing tracks put onto MP3 devices have an "expiration date" of some sort to prevent you from just loading up and canceling the service.

mitchell_pgh · Feb 6, 2005, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by ManOfSteal:
I found this comparison and happen to agree with it 100%:

Napster: Old & Busted<-----------------------X->iTMS: New Hotness!

Fixed�

stevesnj · Feb 6, 2005, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Joshua:
Towards the bottom of this page:

You can't burn the tracks, obviously, and I'm guessing tracks put onto MP3 devices have an "expiration date" of some sort to prevent you from just loading up and canceling the service.

Ah ok I see...they dont say that though. it just says to maintain a subscription. hmmm

chabig · Feb 6, 2005, 10:48 PM

Another comparison would go like this:

Amount it costs to rent music from Napster for one year: $180
Number of iTunes songs owned for the same cost: 180
Number of Napster songs owned: 0
Owning your own music: Priceless

Chris

SeSawaya · Feb 6, 2005, 10:54 PM

so you can even burn CDs from Napster? Then reimport?

Truepop · Feb 6, 2005, 10:54 PM

just wait when the DRM is crack (if it hasn't been already).

Napster has a powder keg waiting to blow up. Also doesn't a subscription services mean you aren't locked in to a provider? and with the MS PlayAll or whatever it is called, once someone under cuts them in price they will start lose users while Apple still has people buying actual music who are "locked in"

I just don't see the good-business sense to this.

PurpleGiant · Feb 6, 2005, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by SeSawaya:
so you can even burn CDs from Napster? Then reimport?

If you want to burn it, it will cost you $1.

chabig · Feb 6, 2005, 11:25 PM

Napster king of blows the whole "Plays for Sure" thing out of the water.

Plays on select players.
Quits playing when you quit paying. (TM)

Chris

Krusty · Feb 6, 2005, 11:27 PM

This Napster concept has got to be one of the most ill-concieved I've seen.

How many songs can you reasonably download in a given period of time ? MUCH slower than importing from CD ... I doubt anyone would ever really "fill up" a 10k song player strictly from downloads (unless they gave up their lives for months)

Use the service for 5 years and cancel and you've dropped $900 with zilch to show for it.

If someone cracks the DRM (likely), then Napster will become the biggest illegal music service in history (again). How do the artists get paid when their songs are available for general download.

While I have only used iTMS via free Pepsi Caps, I think the purchase model is the most sensible. Artist gets paid per download, user keeps what they bought. Even if someone burns to CD, reimports and then distributes the song ... that is the exact same level of risk as a person who buys a CD, imports and distributes it.

demograph68 · Feb 6, 2005, 11:41 PM

Online music is crap. iTunes is better than the rivals imho, though the limitations aren't worth my money.

MacGorilla · Feb 6, 2005, 11:45 PM

Not mac compatiable; you'd have to (ewww) use Windows.

deej5871 · Feb 6, 2005, 11:56 PM

Was there a disclaimer at the bottom of those commercials? If not, then Apple could sue them seeing as how 10,000 songs at 99� each is actually only $9900.

Krusty · Feb 7, 2005, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by deej5871:
Was there a disclaimer at the bottom of those commercials? If not, then Apple could sue them seeing as how 10,000 songs at 99� each is actually only $9900.

well ... you have to spend at least $99 on an iPod shuffle to play it right ?

Nodnarb · Feb 7, 2005, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Krusty:
well ... you have to spend at least $99 on an iPod shuffle to play it right ?

But then you wouldn't need to download 10,000 songs only 120-240. They are saying the 40 GB iPod holds 10,000 songs therefore costing $10,000 which is very incorrect.

Superchicken · Feb 7, 2005, 12:17 AM

The only reason I could see someone paying for Napster was to download the whole catalogue, crack it then Bittorrent it

Aside from that I see no purpose.

hardcat1970 · Feb 7, 2005, 12:41 AM

i remember steve jobs had said that the labels didn't like the subscription idea but now i wonder why napster and ms can go ahead with this idea.

ort888 · Feb 7, 2005, 01:06 AM

That ad was incredibly lame.

First of all, if you were buying that much music, you would most likely be buying albums, which are only $9.99 for about 15 songs.

And anyway, who would buy $10,000 worth of songs from iTunes? Nobody. You put your CDs on there.

good luck Napster. They don't stand a chance in hell.

MilkmanDan · Feb 7, 2005, 01:44 AM

We all know that like 9,000 of those 10,000 songs is from your college campus network connection, and the rest are from Burned CDs you got when you were in high school. Man.

malvolio · Feb 7, 2005, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by MilkmanDan:
We all know that like 9,000 of those 10,000 songs is from alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.indie, and the rest are from Burned CDs you got when you were in high school. Man.

Fixed.

Sherwin · Feb 7, 2005, 03:27 AM

Originally posted by MilkmanDan:
We all know that like 9,000 of those 10,000 songs is from alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.classic-rock, and the rest are from CDs which you borrowed off everyone you've ever met. Man.

Even more fixed.

alphasubzero949 · Feb 7, 2005, 03:28 AM

I wonder how many idiots fell for that ad.

The ad intentionally ignores the fact that the iPod can store MP3s and AACs...gasp...NOT bought from the iTMS!

Big Mac · Feb 7, 2005, 06:52 AM

You can find out more about Napster's lastest losing scheme from this Wired article. The Janus encryption technology that drives this service is actually from Microsoft. It's funny that you have to renew your license every thirty days. I don't necessarily plug my iPod into my Mac every thirty days, so I bet a lot of gullible people will be quite disappointed to find that their music players are worthless until they take them home and plug them in to verify their subscription status. I also thought it was questionable that the advertisement used Apple's logo - shouldn't that be considered trademark infringement?

Apple Pro Underwear · Feb 7, 2005, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by chabig:
Another comparison would go like this:

Amount it costs to rent music from Napster for one year: $180
Number of iTunes songs owned for the same cost: 180
Number of Napster songs owned: 0
Owning your own music: Priceless

Chris

I like my Netflix

why does it not apply to music?

____________

specifically, i am canceling my Netflix today. but in the last 3 months of subscribing i have seen soooo many movies and discovered so many dvds i have never seen. music is different in a way but why would this not apply? i have bought bad CDs because i was fooled into buying it before. i can name atleast 2 anime collections i would buy as a set after using Netflix.

sugar_coated · Feb 7, 2005, 08:43 AM

It's a very tempting move by Napster!

Krusty · Feb 7, 2005, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
I like my Netflix

why does it not apply to music?

Well, if you listen to sJobs spin on it, a favorite song is something you may listen to a thousand times in your life. How many times are you realistically going to sit down and watch the same 2hr movie over the course of your life? Music can be passively listened to while driving, commuting, working, etc. in a way that movies really can't (they demand much more attention, and more importantly, visual attention that precludes doing much else while watching.). You can't go on a hike and watch a movie at the same time (realistically). Unless you really have limitless time to sit on your couch, you just simply can't consume movies with the same frequency that you can consume songs. That said, if you really do have a movie that you want to watch again and again .. the same logic does apply: it's probably worth just buying it outright.

Big Mac · Feb 7, 2005, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
I like my Netflix

why does it not apply to music?

specifically, i am canceling my Netflix today. but in the last 3 months of subscribing i have seen soooo many movies and discovered so many dvds i have never seen. music is different in a way but why would this not apply? i have bought bad CDs because i was fooled into buying it before. i can name atleast 2 anime collections i would buy as a set after using Netflix.

If you are canceling your account with Netflix, then their subscription model obviously was not effective enough to keep you as a customer. I know Netflix has changed the DVD rental model, but music is a different matter. The second most persuasive argument against Napster-to-go is that you're probably going to sample far fewer songs for that monthly fee, and for the same money you can own the tracks outright. And the most persuasive argument is that once you decide you no longer want the service, you have nothing to show for all that money spent. Napster sucks. Roxio was hoping to cash in on a depreciated brand name combined with a crappy underlying service. The company failed to realize that the name Napster is a horrible brand name that had nothing to do with the popularity of the original network. Napster was popular because the music was free. The new Napster just plain sucks. Encumbering users with even more obnoxious DRM restrictions is not the path to success.

Mafia · Feb 7, 2005, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
I wonder how many idiots fell for that ad.

i know. that is what i hate about it. but whatever they will learn soon enough when mommy cancels the service and WHOOPS all my music went bye bye.

Apple Pro Underwear · Feb 7, 2005, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Big Mac:
If you are canceling your account with Netflix, then their subscription model obviously was not effective enough to keep you as a customer. I know Netflix has changed the DVD rental model, but music is a different matter. The second most persuasive argument against Napster-to-go is that you're probably going to sample far fewer songs for that monthly fee, and for the same money you can own the tracks outright. And the most persuasive argument is that once you decide you no longer want the service, you have nothing to show for all that money spent.

BUT YOU ARE SPENDING $15 bucks!!!

Starbucks coffee = $3-5
Trainfare (NYC) = $4 round trip
Beer in bar (NYC) = $4=6

I think it would be a convenient tool to discover and explore music. Last year for instance when i started the "I want to get into the blues" thread, so far i have bought 1 CD and have not learned much. I bought the Eric Clapton doubles disc Blues CD and like it alot. But I still have no idea how other artists interpret those same songs or even any other blues artists!!

I would not use Napster because their players suck, their music management software sucks and probably Napster itself is not all that great to use. BUT... If iTunes offered this service, i would sign up atleast once a year.

Mafia · Feb 7, 2005, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
BUT YOU ARE SPENDING $15 bucks!!!

Starbucks coffee = $3-5
Trainfare (NYC) = $4 round trip
Beer in bar (NYC) = $4=6

I think it would be a convenient tool to discover and explore music. Last year for instance when i started the "I want to get into the blues" thread, so far i have bought 1 CD and have not learned much. I bought the Eric Clapton doubles disc Blues CD and like it alot. But I still have no idea how other artists interpret those same songs or even any other blues artists!!

I would not use Napster because their players suck, their music management software sucks and probably Napster itself is not all that great to use. BUT... If iTunes offered this service, i would sign up atleast once a year.

iTunes allows for song preview. but i see what your saying. it just doesn't appeal to me because if i want to hear what someone sounds like i will download the song illegally if i like it i'll buy it, if not i trash it.

Sherwin · Feb 7, 2005, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
I think it would be a convenient tool to discover and explore music. Last year for instance when i started the "I want to get into the blues" thread, so far i have bought 1 CD and have not learned much. I bought the Eric Clapton doubles disc Blues CD and like it alot. But I still have no idea how other artists interpret those same songs or even any other blues artists!!

alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.blues

Download whatever you see. Listen. Then do what Mafia suggests - if you like it, go buy the CD; if you don't like it, trash it.
There's nothing like a UseNet feed to get you exploring new music.

For example, in alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.classic-rock today there's an album by "Dan Fogelberg". Who's that? Never heard of the guy. So, I'll download it, see if I like it. If it grow on me over the course of the next week I'll go buy it. "Dan Fogelberg" could pick up a fan this week.

(note: I'm not suggesting that you use UseNet to rip artistes off - be honest and go buy what you like, trash the rest)

turtle777 · Feb 7, 2005, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by sugar_coated:
It's a very tempting move by Napster!

vvvvvvv

Originally posted by JohnM15141:
Go for it...sucker!

-t

misnomer · Feb 7, 2005, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
They are rented.

The super bowl commercial that showed $10,000 vs. $14.95 is like looking at your DVD library vs. netflix.

This analogy would work if Netflix allowed you to have out as many DVDs from their collection at one time as you want and if the DVDs you purchased were all from, let's say Walmart, where if Walmart ever went belly up all your DVDs would stop working (because your DVD player needed to validate with Walmart from time to time to authorize your ownership).

Stradlater · Feb 7, 2005, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by alphasubzero949:
I wonder how many idiots fell for that ad.

Doesn't look like too too many...it was ranked the lowest of all Super Bowl ads.

mitchell_pgh · Feb 7, 2005, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Doesn't look like too too many...it was ranked the lowest of all Super Bowl ads.

Off Topic: The GoDaddy.com one was lame.

turtle777 · Feb 7, 2005, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Off Topic: The GoDaddy.com one was lame.

True, sort of.

-t

itai195 · Feb 7, 2005, 04:07 PM

I still don't know quite what to make of subscription services, but I don't think it matters right now. Some people like the idea, others don't. Overall I think Americans like to own things, but that's probably my own bias speaking.

The fine print not mentioned in the Napster ad -- you can't play those rented tracks on your iPod. Companies like Napster still don't seem to understand that it's the popularity of the iPod that drives the iTMS, not the other way around. 'Most' people still buy CDs and don't want to use online music services. So they'll want to get the best music player - the iPod - which also happens to be supported by the best jukebox software and music store. Eventually those consumers will dabble in the iTMS because they already have the player and the software.

Mafia · Feb 7, 2005, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Off Topic: The GoDaddy.com one was lame.

that commercial was supposed to air 3 more times during the superbowl but after the first airing the nfl called fox and made them not show the other 3 airings. you can see the full commercial at godaddy.com. i agree it wasn't a great commercial but the nfl needs to take the stick out their ass.

Apple Pro Underwear · Feb 7, 2005, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Mafia:
that commercial was supposed to air 3 more times during the superbowl but after the first airing the nfl called fox and made them not show the other 3 airings. you can see the full commercial at godaddy.com. i agree it wasn't a great commercial but the nfl needs to take the stick out their ass.

the worst part is the hypocrisy:

� cheerleaders... specifically: cowboys cheerleaders
� levitra... specifically: "4 hour erections"

WTF?

stevesnj · Feb 7, 2005, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Off Topic: The GoDaddy.com one was lame.

This is the one with a hot chick...I can't stand that the advertisers had to be, in a sense, 'good little boys' in order to not get fined by the FCC...i want hot chicks getting splashed with beer by the pool while the chicks are wearing thongs!!! these commercials need to be approved by the pope it seems to even be considered. uggghhh

juanvaldes · Feb 7, 2005, 07:35 PM

"uncensored" version. Longest I saw, fox would not run
http://download.metatokyo.com/godaddyuncensored.wmv
lets just call it NSFW.

york28 · Feb 7, 2005, 08:29 PM

I thought the obvious use of mammaries for attention was humorous.