And that may be something that many people would actually want. You could look at it as a pay radio service that enables the user to select the music he wants to hear, commercial free.
Not everyone is a collector, or some may use this as a means to be more selective in their collecting, and would be willing to pay the price for that ongoing service. You can choose to buy or rent movies and other video content. Why not music/audio?
Again, its definitely not for everyone, but I can't dismiss it as a bad thing out of hand as long as buying the music remains an alternative. Now if you were to tell me that this is replacing CD sales, which would eventually prevent people from being able to own their music, then I'd say that would not be a good thing. That was the threat of Divx for movies. I suppose some of the more conspiratorial-minded of us could see this as a first step towards that, but I don't see it happening.
Which is what Rhapsody is. My wife uses it at work and she loves it. It is a pretty simple and elegant system.
This system is not quite as simple and elegant. You are limited by the models of players, and the DRM could be a problem down the line (on both sides of things).
And even iTunes allows you to preview for thirty seconds before you buy. With rare exceptions, that's usually enough to tell me if it's worth buying or not.
I was hoping to avoid having to buy the AC/DC albums Powerage, Let There Be Rock, and Jailbreak 74 because there is only four songs between them that I wanted. But AC/DC won't let you download individual songs, just the complete albums for the same price as buying them in the store (which is what I wound up doing).
Just think of it as $10 to $15 a month for permission to borrow as much music as you want. I absolutely love it. For only $10 a month (I don't have/want a portable player) I have access to just about anything I want.
It takes 2 clicks on the Napster web site to find all the info that Eric implies Napster is hiding from you (Eric, did you look at anything other than the home page?).
That seems kind of obvious. And again, Napster makes that fact very clear on their site. I don't think anyone would seriously expect to be able to pay ten bucks, download 20,000 songs, and then expect to keep them forever.
Some people prefer to pay $10 for 10 songs they can keep forever. Other people prefer to pay $10 for a million songs they can only access for a month. It's just a matter of preference. One approach isn't inherently better than the other, just different.
As for me, I'm more than willing to pay $10 to "borrow" a huge number of CDs for a month. If I like something enough I'll quit borrowing and go buy it.
It sounds like some of you would prefer to pre-pay for your music and then keep it forever. If that's what you want, try eMusic (there are a few gems among an otherwise crappy song selection, $10 a month for 40 keep-it-forever MP3s), or buy Napster TrackPacks (pre-pay for multiple songs and get a discount).
Yeah Jassen, you can reencode iTMS AAC files easily, but you have to pay for them first. With Napster you can get a subscription, rip all the music you want, and then cancel, giving you access to nearly unlimited amounts of music for a mere $15.
Read the above posts to see why you're wrong Doug. This doesn't threaten your ability to buy any music you want, the way Divx threatened your ability to buy movies.
Glenn - DIVX didn't fail because it threatened the consumer's ability to buy something. It failed because most people want to own what they pay for and don't want "the corporation" controling a box sitting in their living room and tracking their viewing habits. Really though, I think the aversion to that kind of thing is eroding. Look at Tivo.
Anyway, in my opinion "rented" music will eventually fail just as DIVX did. In the end I think most people want to own their music.
I agree that Divx failed because most people want to own. I want to own too. This new Napster model isn't something I personally am interested in, at least not now.
I also agree that a "rental" model for music may fail for the reasons you state. But in this case, I think having such a choice is actually a positive thing.
The reason so many of us were very adamently opposed to Divx was that it was very much threatening our ability to own. If that format had caught on and prospered it is quite possible that many studios like Disney would have been content to offer their prize movies, such as classic animation, on Divx exclusively. We all know that ultimately the studios would love it if they could get paid every time we want to watch something. They don't really like us owning the movies, even though they continue to prosper from this model financially.
All I was trying to point out is that these repeated comparisons to Divx by posters here are flawed. If your comparison is only regarding the likely consumer reaction, that is one thing. But if your comparison is related to the "big brother" aspect or threat to the right to purchase, I don't think that is right. Just posting "DIVX, DIVX, DIVX" is kind of ambiguous as to what point you're trying to make.