"Rivals Hope To Sink iPod With Rented Music" (1 Viewer)

[Thomas Newton]

Yahoo! News - Rivals Hope to Sink iPod With Rented Music

Some people will never learn.

If magazine publishing worked this way, the day that you stopped subscribing, the publisher would send people to remove all of your back issues from your house.

 

[Ted Lee]

so if i get this correctly, you can buy a particular kind of portable player, then subscribe to some service, and download songs for a limited time, only to that player?

yeah, that sounds like something i want.

:rolleyes

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

As if 99 cents per song isn't cheap enough. :rolleyes

 

[Marvin]

Shouldn't this be called "Divx-Audio"?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

When buying a full album, it's a total ripoff. It's like paying the same price you used to when you bought CDs, except you lose the packaging, the lossless quality, and the right to resell the physical disc if you don't like the music. I can understand the kids buying singles at 99 cents, but I'd never accept such nonsense for buying my albums.

Don't even get me started on those $2 ringtones!

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

If you want the whole album, then buy it! If you want specific tracks, 99 cents beats paying for the whole record, or a compilation.

 

[John McM]

agreed 100%. But you'll never win against people who make a living making the music. They don't see it from a consumer's point of view.

 

[John McM]

I like the Napster plan, exactly what I was suggesting, and cheaper than what I was saying would be fair. $14.99 per month for unlimited downloading is the kind of prices that consumers WANT. Downloading is supposed to be a way for the consumers to be saving money. $12 for 12 songs isn't quite the money-saving way people were wanting.

 

[John McM]

by the way Jeff,

my headbanger friend Rob is a big fan of your music. He was on my computer earlier and he was browsing HTF and was "you know Jeff Ulmer? I loved Sacred Blade"

 

[John Garcia]

DiVX anyone?

 

[EricSchulz]

OK, some of you may want to check out the service before you begin drooling...

1. It only works with certain makes/models of MP3 players. (And the hugely popular iPod is not one is them!)

2. It is for downloading ONLY, no burn capabilities.

3. According to the Yahoo article above, the tunes will eventually drop off your player (although Napster's website and tutorial don't mention this).

4. You must maintain your subscription to access the songs.

I am a little dismayed by Napster's info on their site. No FAQ section or many details to answer any questions...

 

[MikeH1]

Yup and when it goes belly up all those $14.95 months leave you with nothing.

 

[robertLP]

I just don't think this business model is going to be a hit with the majority of music lovers out there. We rent things because we can't afford to own (like renting an apartment instead of buying a house). This just looks like a step backward.

Besides, I think it's only a matter of time before someone releases a program that successfully hacks the "timer" mechanism of these tracks, which would essentially destroy the service.

 

[Scott L]

Eric - it seems there are 3 versions of Napster: To Go, standard, and Lite. To Go is the $15/mo service but doesn't let you burn. The other versions do but songs are $.99 a piece, no monthly fee.

What's odd is Napster dogs the idea of paying a buck per song in all their advertisements but they also let you do that as well.

I will agree their site needs more info and organization. I'm interested to know what bitrate they use, and maybe even which mp3 codec too!

 

[GlennH]

I don't know if this service will be successful, and I don't think it would be something I'd get into. But I don't have as dim a view of this as Divx, because I don't think this model threatens the ability to buy music if you really want it, as Divx threatened for movies early on in the DVD launch.

Basically, how is this approach any different than say, satellite radio, which many people here are very enthusiastic about and pay a monthly fee for? Okay, there's no talk, news, or sports. But if all a person is interested in is listening to music, how is having access to a huge library of a wide variety of musical styles a bad thing? Maybe not everyone needs to own all their music forever. The same monthly budget may allow them to buy only 15 songs or have access to thousands of songs. If someone decides that model works for them, what is the problem?

A lot of us here have a "collector" mentality (me included) but that doesn't mean a "rent" model is evil. Bill Howard wrote a column in PC Magazine last October discussing the "rent, not own" model for entertainment:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1666928,00.asp

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Um, thanks for rehashing what I said.

 

[TheLongshot]

This sounds similar to Real's Rhapsody service, except that you can download to a digital device. Rhapsody works from the standpoint that everything is streamed. I see too many potential problems that have to do with whatever DRM they are using.

Jason

 

[ChrisMatson]

There is a good article in the Washington Post about the new Napster model.

My favorite part of the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Feb12.html

 

[Dave Bronsveld]

Hmm. I think ,inadvertantly, the writer makes the opposite point. Today, much of what passes for music is disposable.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

The writer does say "at its best." Not all literature or paintings have lasting value either. Still, I don't see the point in a service that will wipe out your entire music library when you let your subscription lapse, except perhaps as a means of demoing a vast selection with the intention of buying a tangible version of the music that does have a lasting value - at additional cost.