[ManOfSteal]

Amen.

[PurpleGiant]

Sorry guys, I broke the thread with my super-mod powers.

[Mafia]

but its awesome when someone gives you an ipod as a gift

[d4nth3m4n]

alright who broke this thread?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v16/dantheman/huh.jpg
[inline images must be no wider than 480px. --tooki]

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Wow, these boards are sooooo sucky!

[paully dub]

weeeelll? is it? I got a 1 gb shuffle on another tab that's just one...click...away....

[ManOfSteal]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Wow, these boards are sooooo sucky!

I blame the lack of vB updates...oh wait...

[E's Lil Theorem]

Here you go:

Napster To Go campaign will challenge Apple iTunes' lead
, 02.10.05, 11:22 AM ET

New Media Age

Napster has revealed that it's planning an aggressive marketing campaign again Apple's iPod as part of its plans for a full launch of the Napster To Go portable subscription service later this quarter.

The service, which soft-launched in the US in November, is likely to roll out in the UK in March. It's one of the first services enabled by Microsoft's Janus technology, which for the first time allows music files bought via subscription services to be transferred from a PC to a portable device.

According to Napster CEO Chris Gorog, speaking to NMA at MidemNet this week, his company is betting heavily that the monthly 'all you can eat' subscription model will win the battle of the digital services, rather than the download strategy currently pursued by Apple's iTunes, which has around 70% of legal download sales.

"We're confident it will be the model the entire industry backs," said Gorog. "It's exactly what consumers want to do. Napster To Go is very similar to the P2P experience."

He believes the best way to market the new service is to emphasise its advantages over iTunes. He's particularly keen to highlight iTunes' iPod-only compatibility. "We're going to be communicating to people that it's stupid to buy an iPod."

The campaign's thrust is said to be part of an educational initiative supported by Microsoft and many key device manufacturers.

Gorog stopped short of revealing how much money is being put behind the campaign, other than to say it would be "extensive".

Napster has recently raised $52m (?28m) and is said to have another $130m (?62m) in the bank, some of which it could put behind a marketing campaign.

napster.co.uk

For more information and stories in this area visit the UK's leading new media title at http://www.nma.co.uk

2004 Centaur Communications Ltd or its licensors. All Rights Reserved

Full linkage

An interesting one:

Napster To Go a Tough Sell? I Think Not.
Category: Content Providers - February 07, 2005
By Alexander Grundner [829 Reads]
Print Page | Email Story | Comments [3]
napster_to_go_logo.gif

The debate between purchasing or renting music heats up. The Register posted an interesting article on basically why you would be stupid to consider subscribing to Napster's new Napster To Go service, a service that lets you download all the music you want for only $15 a month.

Excerpt from "Why Napster will be a fully-integrated flop"

From where we sit, the math doesn't break down terribly well in Napster's favor.

Let's take a look at consumer A. This consumer goes to Amazon.com and does a search for Creative - one of the Napster supported music device makers - and picks up a 20GB player for $249.99. Let's assume he keeps the device for three years, paying Napster all the time. That's $538 for the Napster service, bringing the three-year total to $788.19.

Consumer B types iPod into the Amazon.com search engine and finds a 20GB device for $299. Apple doesn't offer a subscription service, so this customer has to buy songs at the 99 cent rate or at $9.99 per album. Subtracting the price of the iPod from the $788, consumer B would have $489 left over for music. That's roughly worth 489 songs or 49 albums.

We posit that during this three-year period both Consumer A and Consumer B will actually end up with close to the same number of songs on their devices. Customers do not, as Napster suggests, pay $10,000 to fill their iPods with 10,000 songs just because the capacity is there. They take their existing music, CDs and MP3s, and put that onto the device first, then later add iTunes songs as they go along. A Napster customer would have a similar mix of old music and new downloads.

The big difference here is that after the three years are up, Consumer B has something to show for his investment. He still owns the music. If the Napster customer stops paying for the service, his music is all gone. He's paying $179 per year to rent music. This isn't high quality stuff either. It's DRM (digital rights management)-laced, low bitrate slop.

The writer's argument is somewhat sound, but it limits you to buying only 10 tracks a month. With an unrealistic consumtion limit like that, everyone would choose iTunes over Napster To Go. But the way to really look at monthly music rental services is to compare them to online DVD rental services like Netflix or Blockbuster Online. Yes I can buy one DVD every month from Best Buy (approx $18.00) to add to my collection, or I can subscribe to a Blockbuster Online for $15.99 and have access to an entire collection of DVDs at my whim (my current choice). To be honest, I don't feel the least bit gipped that I don't own hundreds of DVDs. In fact, I feel that I have enjoyed more content than I would ever have consumed by purchasing only one DVD a month. On top of that, the DVDs that I do purchase are ones that are worth seeing repeatedly.

My suggestion to anyone considering renting music is... if you're comfortable renting DVDs online, you should have no trouble transitioning to renting music. But if you are the type of person who takes pride in amassing a collection of DVDs to throw on their entertainment rack, then renting music may be a tough sell.

Linkage

[Xeo]

My suggestion to anyone considering renting music is... if you're comfortable renting DVDs online, you should have no trouble transitioning to renting music.

The problem with that is, people listen to the same music over and over a hell of a lot more than they watch the same DVD over and over.

I see some advantage of renting music, though. I think it does open the doors to a lot more choice. You can look around and just download without otherwise thinking. Considering people pay a lot for playing a single online game, I can see this happening. Honestly, it'd be cool to have access to the iTMS like that. Just fill up my iPod with random songs from a genre and see what happens. It'd be an interesting way to find new music. Smart iTMS playlists.

I just don't like the comparison to DVDs cause I don't think people use them the same.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by Xeo:
The problem with that is, people listen to the same music over and over a hell of a lot more than they watch the same DVD over and over.

I see some advantage of renting music, though. I think it does open the doors to a lot more choice. You can look around and just download without otherwise thinking. Considering people pay a lot for playing a single online game, I can see this happening. Honestly, it'd be cool to have access to the iTMS like that. Just fill up my iPod with random songs from a genre and see what happens. It'd be an interesting way to find new music. Smart iTMS playlists.

I just don't like the comparison to DVDs cause I don't think people use them the same.

Ya but this service sucks, I mean you spend $180 a year to rent this music and as soon as you cancel your subscription it is all down the drain.

[The Godfather]

If there was an option to get a music mortgage, it would beat both the rent and buy options.

One drawback to buying music instead of all-you-ca-eat it is that if you don't like what you ordered, you can't take it back.

[Cubeoid]

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Ya but this service sucks, I mean you spend $180 a year to rent this music and as soon as you cancel your subscription it is all down the drain.

What would be cool is if you rented the music but were able to keep 1 song per $1 you spend. Honestly it'd get more people to buy the service. And of course you can spend whatever you want over it. But it's like, buy at least X songs and listen to whatever else you want for free, but then all the "free" ones go away if you stop buying the songs.

[thunderous_funker]

How can renting music possibly be compared to renting movies?

Imagine a fabulous new service that lets you listen to popular music all you want without having to buy it or even remember it years down the road.

I think I'll call it "Radio".

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by Xeo:

I see some advantage of renting music, though. I think it does open the doors to a lot more choice. You can look around and just download without otherwise thinking.

thats what i said in the other thread

i tried to get into Blues music. i ended up buying 1 CD. clearly I have not learned sh t about Blues!!!!

If iTunes offered this service last year when i started that thread... BOOM! 1 subscription (cheaper than that double disc Clapton CD i bought by the way) fee of of 15 bucks later... I am listening to every blues artist in the service. sampling who i like, who i hate, who i want to explore more. comparing and contrasting clapton to vaughn, BB king to Muddy waters....

But what do i have now? 1 Eric Clapton CD.





I forgot to say... cancel it after i am done until i get into something else.

[FulcrumPilot]

Why buy music when you can make it yourself? er...nevermind.

[CharlesS]

This isn't high quality stuff either. It's DRM (digital rights management)-laced, low bitrate slop.

Anyone know exactly what the bit rate is? I can't seem to find this info on their site.

[Ganesha]

Originally posted by E's Lil Theorem:
My suggestion to anyone considering renting music is... if you're comfortable renting DVDs online, you should have no trouble transitioning to renting music.

Only problem is scale.

A DVD costs about the same as 1 month at Netflix.
A song from ITMS costs the same as about 2 days of Napster.

If we want to put things on the 'same' scale, Netflix would be charging ~$270/month. If we used Napster pricing scale. Still look like a good deal to you?

[Eriamjh]

I don't buy music from iTunes, yet my iPod has lots of legitamate music on it? How?

CDs, dumbass! (Not directed at anyone here)

[Kenneth]

Guess I'm with stupid.

Next: "It's stupid to buy a Mac"

[The Godfather]

Originally posted by Kenneth:
Guess I'm with stupid.

Next: "It's stupid to buy a Mac"

Only if you have a legitimate need of a PC, buy a Mac and then complain about the lack of apps.

[lavar78]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
i tried to get into Blues music. i ended up buying 1 CD. clearly I have not learned sh t about Blues!!!!

I forgot to comment on this in the other thread. What on earth possessed you to buy a Clapton album to learn about the blues?

B.B. King.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
How can renting music possibly be compared to renting movies?

Imagine a fabulous new service that lets you listen to popular music all you want without having to buy it or even remember it years down the road.

I think I'll call it "Radio".

When the iPod first came out, it occurred to me that almost 40 years earlier, I had a transistor radio of about the same size that captured free music from around the world, at a fraction of the price, and could get the news, weather, and baseball to boot. I wondered: if a Martian landed and you presented him with one of each, would he necessarily consider the iPod to be more advanced? I'm not sure.

But I do love my iPod.

[Mafia]

Originally posted by lavar78:
I forgot to comment on this in the other thread. What on earth possessed you to buy a Clapton album to learn about the blues?

B.B. King.

got to love the classics:
bb king, albert king, buddy guy, freddie king, srv, albert collins.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by The Godfather:
Only if you have a legitimate need of a PC, buy a Mac and then complain about the lack of apps.

I've never experienced a lack of apps. Interesting.

Or are you simply talking about games? If so, I have an Xbox and a PS2 for such things (and soon a PSP).

[TailsToo]

I don't like the fact that someone else would be in control of my music. What if I am on Napster for two years, and spend all that money. If I cancel the service, I have NOTHING to show for all that expense. What if Napster starts dropping labels over some dispute?

No thanks, I do believe that owning is better than renting.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
When the iPod first came out, it occurred to me that almost 40 years earlier, I had a transistor radio of about the same size that captured free music from around the world, at a fraction of the price, and could get the news, weather, and baseball to boot. I wondered: if a Martian landed and you presented him with one of each, would he necessarily consider the iPod to be more advanced? I'm not sure.

But I do love my iPod.

One word, fidelity. Even compressed audio is better than FM.

XM, OTOH, is a completely different kettle of fish.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
thats what i said in the other thread

i tried to get into Blues music. i ended up buying 1 CD. clearly I have not learned sh t about Blues!!!!

If iTunes offered this service last year when i started that thread... BOOM! 1 subscription (cheaper than that double disc Clapton CD i bought by the way) fee of of 15 bucks later... I am listening to every blues artist in the service. sampling who i like, who i hate, who i want to explore more. comparing and contrasting clapton to vaughn, BB king to Muddy waters....

But what do i have now? 1 Eric Clapton CD.

OT: Clapton's blues playing is relatively sterile. His best work was in a rock setting, Cream in particular.

SRV is a very muscular player but I found him uninteresting - I'd rather listen to his brother Jimmy.

The best white-boy blues I've heard is the stuff Peter Green did with the original Fleetwood Mac, and Mike Bloomfield on the Live Adventures album with Al Kooper (not the Fillmore East or Super Session albums). For genuine feel, they blow Clapton and SRV away, and are as good as any of the originals. Unfortunately, they weren't always well-produced.

BB King is sorta required listening but becomes tedious after a short time. There's much more interesting stuff out there, Muddy especially.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by zigzag:
When the iPod first came out, it occurred to me that almost 40 years earlier, I had a transistor radio of about the same size that captured free music from around the world, at a fraction of the price, and could get the news, weather, and baseball to boot. I wondered: if a Martian landed and you presented him with one of each, would he necessarily consider the iPod to be more advanced? I'm not sure.

After even just a few minutes of listening to the ultra-lame stew of crappy commercials, too much DJ blathering, and oh yeah, maybe some music every now and then that is FM radio in many big cities, the aliens would probably be ready to invade and wipe humans out as an inferior life form.

I do believe you�ve just made the case that the iPod could indeed SAVE the planet!

I got an iPod Shuffle for my wife who has sworn she didn't need an iPod of any kind. After just a few days she and it are inseparable.

[ort888]

Do people really use iTunes that much? For me it's a way to buy a single I like or maybe find an odd album somewhere that I can't get elsewhere. I have 130 songs from the store, probably about $70-$80 bucks worth. Compared to the 5,000 songs I have in my iTunes library, it's a drop in the bucket.

Does anyone actually buy a lot of music from the ITMS? Maybe this deserves it's own thread...

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
One word, fidelity. Even compressed audio is better than FM.

XM, OTOH, is a completely different kettle of fish.

Sure, but fidelity isn't everything - I can be just as moved by music coming out of an AM radio as out of my Snells. I Saw Her Standing There was in mono, and was as compelling in its way as anything I've heard since. And my iPod can't deliver the news, or capture a border station in the middle of the night.

I don't want to argue about it, I just think it raises an interesting question about technology. Like I said, I love my iPod.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
When the iPod first came out, it occurred to me that almost 40 years earlier, I had a transistor radio of about the same size that captured free music from around the world, at a fraction of the price, and could get the news, weather, and baseball to boot. I wondered: if a Martian landed and you presented him with one of each, would he necessarily consider the iPod to be more advanced? I'm not sure.

But I do love my iPod.

I think you misunderstand me. I love my iPod too.

I'm not comparing iTunes unfavorably to the radio, i'm comparing Napster unfavorably to the radio.

Renting music is like listening to the radio except paying for the "priveledge" of not keeping anything you listen to over the years. I can't possibly understand how that would be a selling point.

I'm not crazy about Apple's DRM, but its a far cry better than any legal alternatives and the price isn't prohibitive. Napster is literally selling and empty box.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by ort888:
Do people really use iTunes that much? For me it's a way to buy a single I like or maybe find an odd album somewhere that I can't get elsewhere. I have 130 songs from the store, probably about $70-$80 bucks worth. Compared to the 5,000 songs I have in my iTunes library, it's a drop in the bucket.

Does anyone actually buy a lot of music from the ITMS? Maybe this deserves it's own thread...

1 million songs sold a day, you tell me.

[Kenneth]

Living in a dorm, all my dormmates use iTunes and some of them even own the iPod. However, they seldom purchased songs from iTMS. They are all college freshmen, so go figure. Meanwhile, the school network is too slow to listen to a 30-sec preview, so don't even bother to hit 'buy song'. I'm lucky enough to get myself a 3Mbit DSL line in a dorm.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think you misunderstand me. I love my iPod too.

I'm not comparing iTunes unfavorably to the radio, i'm comparing Napster unfavorably to the radio.

Renting music is like listening to the radio except paying for the "priveledge" of not keeping anything you listen to over the years. I can't possibly understand how that would be a selling point.

I'm not crazy about Apple's DRM, but its a far cry better than any legal alternatives and the price isn't prohibitive. Napster is literally selling and empty box.

No, I understood you, but what you said reminded me that radio has its merits. I honestly wonder whether a Martian would be more fascinated by the radio or the iPod.

[ReggieX]

Ah, god bless Usenet.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by zigzag:
OT: Clapton's blues playing is relatively sterile. His best work was in a rock setting, Cream in particular.

SRV is a very muscular player but I found him uninteresting - I'd rather listen to his brother Jimmy.

The best white-boy blues I've heard is the stuff Peter Green did with the original Fleetwood Mac, and Mike Bloomfield on the Live Adventures album with Al Kooper (not the Fillmore East or Super Session albums). For genuine feel, they blow Clapton and SRV away, and are as good as any of the originals. Unfortunately, they weren't always well-produced.

BB King is sorta required listening but becomes tedious after a short time. There's much more interesting stuff out there, Muddy especially.

IS THIS NOT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE?

1 month. $15 bucks later and I can listen to everything here zigzag suggested.

that is the value of the service.

[after one month then i would have to go buy some CDs but i suppose every choice i made would be the right one]

[RonnieoftheRose]

Napster's is being stupid for a number of obvious reasons.

1. If people just wanted to listen and not buy they would use Limewire or any other p2p app that included a link to an online music store if they wished to pay.
2. The same thing everyone is saying. For $15 you get an empty box. They could at least allow you to keep $15 worth of songs, but no.
3. It's not the same as renting videos.
4. Apple could also add subscription services along side pay services for music AND films. With such an attractive online store who would want to go to Napster?
5. Windows crashes. iPod competitors are rubbish.
6. Napster and Windows' DRM 'Janus' (read 'Just Anus') will be cracked by a Smart Alec. What then, $15 for the whole music library? The record labels will pull out.
7. Again, Windows crashes and iPod competitors are rubbish.

If you agree with the above spread it like butter.

[Ganesha]

Originally posted by TailsToo:
I don't like the fact that someone else would be in control of my music. What if I am on Napster for two years, and spend all that money. If I cancel the service, I have NOTHING to show for all that expense. What if Napster starts dropping labels over some dispute?

If you read the Napster to Go TOS, you would know Napster has the right to deautorize any song if Napster loses the rights to it. (i.e. you could be paying for monthly fee and off a sudden some of your songs won't play case Napster lost the rights or didn't want to renew the rights.)

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
6. Napster and Windows' DRM 'Janus' (read 'Just Anus') will be cracked by a Smart Alec. What then, $15 for the whole music library? The record labels will pull out.
7. Again, Windows crashes and iPod competitors are rubbish.

It's already been cracked, sort of. Companies and malicious users have already found out ways to embed spyware, viruses, worms, and trojans inside the DRM.

So much for "trusted."

[Skip Breakfast]

I pay money to go see bands perform live. It's better.