Music to Take Away: Napster To Go

[Filip Norrgard]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,66474,00.html?tw=wn_3culthead' target='_blank'>http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,66474,00.html?tw=wn_3culthead</a><br /><br /></div><i>"For about the price of one CD, Napster subscribers can now pack their portable music player with unlimited songs, delivering a new challenge to Apple Computer's buck-a-song iTunes model. Napster To Go launches Thursday and costs $15 a month. It's the first digital music service to use Microsoft's long-anticipated Janus technology, which allows monthly subscribers to take their music with them instead of having to pay for an individual song each time they want something new in their MP3 player."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/napsterToGo.gif" /><br /><br />I think this sounds like a really nice idea that I would like to try out -- if this were to be available in my country. How many of you have tried out Napster To Go? Do you think it works well? Is this a serious contender to iTunes in your mind?

[James Fee]

Is this a serious contender to iTunes in your mind?No because it doesn't work with iTunes. Sure iPod users would flock to it, but thanks to Apple's closed system, they won't.

The question is will this stop people from buying iPods? Nothing introduced yet has, but this might be the price point that could get people looking other directions. If I had to lay down a bet, I'd say at worse all this would do is force Apple to subscriptions. Since they did say flash media players were not in their future, yet now we see the iPod shuffle, I would bet they could introduce their own subscription model, but only if forced. Napster has yet to force anyone to do anything and I seriously doubt they will on this front. Musicmatch and MSN Music will/should have to match it though.

[webdaemon]

There are a small number of compatible players for this service. Compatibility is one of the reasons I did not buy an ipod. I don't want to be stuck with some file format that I can't use across all of my devices. I have a desktop PC, a laptop, 2 pocket pc's, a Dell Jukebox, and a network player that plays my music on my home stereo. I can play MP3s on all of these devices. If I went with some proprietary file format and device, my listening choices would be limited.

I won't be subscribing to any service that delivers anything but MP3s.

[Macguy59]

There are a small number of compatible players for this service. Compatibility is one of the reasons I did not buy an ipod. I don't want to be stuck with some file format that I can't use across all of my devices. I have a desktop PC, a laptop, 2 pocket pc's, a Dell Jukebox, and a network player that plays my music on my home stereo. I can play MP3s on all of these devices. If I went with some proprietary file format and device, my listening choices would be limited.

I won't be subscribing to any service that delivers anything but MP3s.

What makes you think that you couldn't use the music over the various devices?

[Macguy59]

Can this be a monthly thing or is an annual contract required?

[webdaemon]

It requires that you have a specific portable device to play the music. So you'll have to have plugins for everything on your computers too. Who knows if they have plugins for Pocket PC, and I don't want to install ANOTHER music player on mine. My network media player wont play them as it's not upgradable.

[James Fee]

It requires that you have a specific portable device to play the music. All that is required is your digital media player supports PlaysForSure.So you'll have to have plugins for everything on your computers too.Incorrect, all you need is Windows Media Player 10. Who knows if they have plugins for Pocket PC, and I don't want to install ANOTHER music player on mine.Again, Widows Media Player 10 is required. Fault the PPC makers on not offering upgrades. My Dell X30 has one. My network media player wont play them as it's not upgradable.Again fault your media player. It has come to the point where these companies must start supporting PlaysForSure or consumers will be left out.

[Felix Torres]

Can this be a monthly thing or is an annual contract required?

Monthly.
They're at the phase where they want folks to try it out; a long-term up-front commitment would be counterproductive.
Besides, like cable TV, the nature of the service provides all the"lock-in" they need: once you try it and *like* it you won't drop it.
Once other vendors jump in later this year, things should start to liven up as the various vendors start jockeying for market share and prices statt to drop.

[Macguy59]

Can this be a monthly thing or is an annual contract required?

Monthly.
They're at the phase where they want folks to try it out; a long-term up-front commitment would be counterproductive.
Besides, like cable TV, the nature of the service provides all the"lock-in" they need: once you try it and *like* it you won't drop it.
Once other vendors jump in later this year, things should start to liven up as the various vendors start jockeying for market share and prices statt to drop.

If your not locked into a contract then this service should be good for those downloaders that average more then a CD per month.

[James Fee]

If your not locked into a contract then this service should be good for those downloaders that average more then a CD per month.Most likely those are who will have the most benefit from this, but keep in mind that if you end your subscription, you lose all your music.

[Macguy59]

If your not locked into a contract then this service should be good for those downloaders that average more then a CD per month.Most likely those are who will have the most benefit from this, but keep in mind that if you end your subscription, you lose all your music.

Wa? You mean it's essentially renting the music?

[James Fee]

Wa? You mean it's essentially renting the music?Of course. That is what is meant by subscription.

[Macguy59]

Wa? You mean it's essentially renting the music?Of course. That is what is meant by subscription.

So your paying for the same song over and over again. Think I will stay with iTunes.

[James Fee]

So your paying for the same song over and over again. Think I will stay with iTunes.That might not be the right way to look at it. What you are paying for is access to 1 million songs for a small fee each month.

[phillypocket]

Wa? You mean it's essentially renting the music?Of course. That is what is meant by subscription.

So your paying for the same song over and over again. Think I will stay with iTunes.

If all you do is listen to the same song over and over again, a shuffle and itunes are all you need :twisted:

This is probably best for people with a wide variety of musical tastes. Espessially those with tastes that exceed their buying budget. Or for people who need more that a 30 second snippet to determine if they like a new song. Or a new artist.

Actually this could be great for new artists whose music actually requires listening to before you can appreciate it. They won't have to sell with a sound byte.

[Macguy59]

So your paying for the same song over and over again. Think I will stay with iTunes.That might not be the right way to look at it. What you are paying for is access to 1 million songs for a small fee each month.


So if I download 10 tunes this month and I want to keep those 10 tunes I have to pay again the following month even though I may not want any other songs that month ,or I lose the songs. Is that correct?

[piperpilot]

So if I download 10 tunes this month and I want to keep those 10 tunes I have to pay again the following month even though I may not want any other songs that month ,or I lose the songs. Is that correct?

That's right. I really have no interest in renting music particularly now that you can download music on a song-by-song basis for $1. I like to buy my music and keep it forever. I like to listen to my old music every now and again because it brings back memories of time gone by. Besides, I buy maybe one or two songs a month, so I am not particularly interested in paying $15 just for that.

[James Fee]

So if I download 10 tunes this month and I want to keep those 10 tunes I have to pay again the following month even though I may not want any other songs that month ,or I lose the songs. Is that correct?Yes, but the spirt of a subscription is that you give up the rights to own the music "forever" for the rights to the whole catalog. With iTunes you'd only have access to about 15 songs at the price of Napster to Go. With the subscription you have 1,000,000 songs, but only for the length of the subscription.

[James Fee]

That's right. I really have no interest in renting music particularly now that you can download music on a song-by-song basis for $1. I like to buy my music and keep it forever. I like to listen to my old music every now and again because it brings back memories of time gone by. Besides, I buy maybe one or two songs a month, so I am not particularly interested in paying $15 just for that.I think both models have a place. I would probably continue to buy some song I want and would want to make sure I have them, but the idea that I can download almost any song in the catalog and copy it to my iPod (maybe one day) sounds pretty good to me. I could rent the song until I decided I might want to buy it.

[Macguy59]

[quote=Piperpilot] I would probably continue to buy some song I want and would want to make sure I have them, but the idea that I can download almost any song in the catalog and copy it to my iPod (maybe one day) sounds pretty good to me. I could rent the song until I decided I might want to buy it.

Renting a song to decide if I want to buy it will probably not be a part of my music selection process. I'm not one that feels the need to rush out and get something just released an hour ago which means I can almost always stop by a Circuit City and listen to the various songs on a CD before purchasing.

[James Fee]

Renting a song to decide if I want to buy it will probably not be a part of my music selection process. I'm not one that feels the need to rush out and get something just released an hour ago which means I can almost always stop by a Circuit City and listen to the various songs on a CD before purchasing.Sure, but you can't copy them to your digital music player. This is all moot for me as I have an iPod, but we all need to get used to it because the future is all subscriptions. Buying music, movies and books will all be a thing of the past if the copyright holders have their way.

Of course I can't think of any other way to sell 1,000,000 songs for about $15 a month can you? *shrug*

[Macguy59]

Renting a song to decide if I want to buy it will probably not be a part of my music selection process. I'm not one that feels the need to rush out and get something just released an hour ago which means I can almost always stop by a Circuit City and listen to the various songs on a CD before purchasing.Sure, but you can't copy them to your digital music player. This is all moot for me as I have an iPod, but we all need to get used to it because the future is all subscriptions. Buying music, movies and books will all be a thing of the past if the copyright holders have their way.

Of course I can't think of any other way to sell 1,000,000 songs for about $15 a month can you? *shrug*

They aren't selling them and your not buying them, your leasing them for 30 days. I know it's what the services want but I'll believe the all subscription model when I see it. I wonder how many will not read the fine print and end up really ticked off because their music disappears, stops working or whatever happens. I'm sure there's a stat out there that shows what the average person spends a month on music . . . anyone know?

[Felix Torres]

They aren't selling them and your not buying them, your leasing them for 30 days.

Actually, its neither.
Music subscriptions are a whole new creature.
The implications of having access to a million songs at will go way beyond "renting" music.
You are not renting a "fixed" collection; you are gaining access to an ever-changing subset of all the music that is available on the digital market.
Its more like cached customized radio.
Or HBO on demand.
The key is "customized"; its like radio where you're the dj...
In other words, you are subscribing to a music-listening *service*; you are not renting a collection. It is similar to having a satellite radio subscription where *all* the channels are programed to meet different aspects of your taste. Feel like some classical music? You can browse the category or let the player auto-dj pick out something for you.

The way it works (or will work, once competition sets in) is like this:
1- You buy a Playsforsure-capable player, preferably one with a 20gb or bigger hd
2- You draw up a list of all the acts you like and d/l everything they ever recorded
3- You then build up a list of all the acts that are *similar* to the acts you like. A good subscription service will take the first list and build up the second list automatically for you. This may add up to 50-60% of the hard drive.
4- A good service will let you sign up for regular updates, like an RSS news feed, of new music that follows the parameters of your taste.
5- Every so often, you dock your player and the system refreshes the auto-generated playlists based on the feedback the player provides on what you liked and didn't like.

This will work for folks that listen to top 40 over and over, since the top 40 changes weekly. It'll work for folks with quirky but well defined tastes; it'll work for adventurous folks who're willing to sample anything. It work for just about anybody *except* the folks who listen to the same 20 CDs all the time for years on end and don't mind getting stuck with a few "what was I thinking!?" CDs in their collection.
If most of what you are listening now is what you were listening to 2...3...or 5 years ago, then this isn't for you.
But if you ever heard a "new to you" established act you liked and wondered if all their stuff is like *that*, then subscriptions might be for you.

Its not about owning music, its about *experiencing* it...
A service, rather than a product.
You want to own music? Buy CDs.
You want to listen to music with minimal control? Listen to free radio.
You want something in between? Satellite radio and Music subscriptions...

Your choice.

[PR.]

I hate this idea, essentially you can download every song they have but as soon as you stop paying all your music is gone. I don't think so! :roll:

[Macguy59]

Its not about owning music, its about *experiencing* it...
A service, rather than a product.
You want to own music? Buy CDs.
You want to listen to music with minimal control? Listen to free radio.
You want something in between? Satellite radio and Music subscriptions...

Your choice.

You would do well as their marketing lead :lol:

[James Fee]

I hate this idea, essentially you can download every song they have but as soon as you stop paying all your music is gone. I don't think so! :roll:That isn't the correct way to look at it. You aren't downloading songs the same way you did before. Think of it as all the free PPV movies you can view for a month.

Anyway, get used to it. Subscriptions are the way of the future. As soon as the RIAA can convince Apple to do it, buying music for $0.99 is dead.

[Macguy59]

Anyway, get used to it. Subscriptions are the way of the future. As soon as the RIAA can convince Apple to do it, buying music for $0.99 is dead.

We'll see. But then again maybe that's the real driving force behind Apple's Shuffle. :lol:

[Felix Torres]

Its not about owning music, its about *experiencing* it...
A service, rather than a product.
You want to own music? Buy CDs.
You want to listen to music with minimal control? Listen to free radio.
You want something in between? Satellite radio and Music subscriptions...

Your choice.

You would do well as their marketing lead :lol:

Not trying to sell anything; just pointing out that the underlying reality is very different from the surface appearance.
My experience with my HD-based player has simply taught me that having a zillion songs in you pocket adds up to a very different experience from carrying a few dozen at a time and opens up the door to whole new ways of dealing with music beyond the two existing models of streaming and buying.
There are whole new businesses in the process of being invented in the digital media *mediation* arena.

[Felix Torres]

Anyway, get used to it. Subscriptions are the way of the future. As soon as the RIAA can convince Apple to do it, buying music for $0.99 is dead.

We'll see. But then again maybe that's the real driving force behind Apple's Shuffle. :lol:

Nah, the shuffle is a case of selling what you can produce instead of producing what customers want.

The driving forces behind subscriptions are two:

1- Not every digital media buyer owns 500 CDs or has infinite cash or access to a zillion pirated songs.

2- Internet radio-styly licensing fees are much lower than the per-song sales fees.

The first makes it desirable for customers to pay a fixed rate for *access* to unlimted *legal* music.

The latter makes it more profitable to develop new subscrition-based services than to sell singles online. 40% versus 5% profit margins speak loud and clear, which is what Mr Fee is referring to.

The math is simple; it costs $10,000, upfront, to fill up an iPod with legal music. A Plays for sure player can be filled up for $15 a month and $10,000 would pay for a 56 year subscription.
Which is to say most college-age customers won't *live* enough to reach break-even on the buy side of the buy-vs-subscribe equation.

[Macguy59]

Anyway, get used to it. Subscriptions are the way of the future. As soon as the RIAA can convince Apple to do it, buying music for $0.99 is dead.

We'll see. But then again maybe that's the real driving force behind Apple's Shuffle. :lol:

Nah, the shuffle is a case of selling what you can produce instead of producing what customers want.

The driving forces behind subscriptions are two:

1- Not every digital media buyer owns 500 CDs or has infinite cash or access to a zillion pirated songs.

2- Internet radio-styly licensing fees are much lower than the per-song sales fees.

The first makes it desirable for customers to pay a fixed rate for *access* to unlimted *legal* music.

The latter makes it more profitable to develop new subscrition-based services than to sell singles online. 40% versus 5% profit margins speak loud and clear, which is what Mr Fee is referring to.

The math is simple; it costs $10,000, upfront, to fill up an iPod with legal music. A Plays for sure player can be filled up for $15 a month and $10,000 would pay for a 56 year subscription.
Which is to say most college-age customers won't *live* enough to reach break-even on the buy side of the buy-vs-subscribe equation.

I don't know of anyone that uses a music service to fill their ipod. Those that do have a huge library of songs on it already had those tunes before they bought their ipod. If Apple goes with the same subscription model as Napster, I guarantee you that the iTunes msuic store will become a bust overnight. Frankly its the record industry trying to force you into buying whole CD's again. I won't play that game anymore.

[James Fee]

I don't know of anyone that uses a music service to fill their ipod. Of course, it is way to expensive. That is why subscriptions work.Those that do have a huge library of songs on it already had those tunes before they bought their ipod.Hmm, you think? The millions who have bought iPods in the last 2 years are newbies to the HD music player market. I'd wager most of them aren't using most of the available space because they don't have enough songs. If Apple goes with the same subscription model as Napster, I guarantee you that the iTunes music store will become a bust overnight. Why? Apple isn't making any money off of the iTunes store right now. With subscriptions, they'd be able to make money, but I'll tell you later why they don't want to.Frankly its the record industry trying to force you into buying whole CD's again. I won't play that game anymore.No, no, no. That is the last thing they want. They don't want you to own any un-DRM media at all.

Why doesn't Apple want subscriptions? I'll tell you, it doesn't lock you into the iPod at all. If people have thousands of songs on AAC, they'll have to stick to the iPod. If they just lease the music, then they'll be able to switch. Apple loves it when people encode with AAC or download AAC iTunes tracks.

[Felix Torres]

Why doesn't Apple want subscriptions? I'll tell you, it doesn't lock you into the iPod at all. If people have thousands of songs on AAC, they'll have to stick to the iPod. If they just lease the music, then they'll be able to switch. Apple loves it when people encode with AAC or download AAC iTunes tracks.

Especially the latter.
You buy enough music off iTunes, eventually it won't matter if the 2006 edition of the pod is anygood or not; you'll have more money invested in the music than the player is worth and he'll own ya forever.

If you want to *own* music and not be owned by it, buy CDs.

[James Fee]

Especially the latter.
You buy enough music off iTunes, eventually it won't matter if the 2006 edition of the pod is anygood or not; you'll have more money invested in the music than the player is worth and he'll own ya forever.

If you want to *own* music and not be owned by it, buy CDs.Well there is the same problem with WMA, but at least there you have a choice of hardware. The only open choice at this point is still old MP3... :?

[Felix Torres]

Especially the latter.
You buy enough music off iTunes, eventually it won't matter if the 2006 edition of the pod is anygood or not; you'll have more money invested in the music than the player is worth and he'll own ya forever.

If you want to *own* music and not be owned by it, buy CDs.Well there is the same problem with WMA, but at least there you have a choice of hardware. The only open choice at this point is still old MP3... :?

Or Ogg or Flac or Ape...
Or unencoded WMA if you don't buy into Apple's fashion statement thing.
(Actually, the way the fashion victims are trending Pod-wise, the truely fashion conscious should start looking for something *not* carried by every Tom, Dick, any Jane. Maybe the Toshiba Gigabeat... :twisted: )

Any way, WMA gives you way more transportability of music than AAC does, but nothing matches CDs for ubiquity and low cost.
The downside is it isn't massless and it doesn't support hit singles-only buyers.
But again, that mentality is best served by the subscriptions, no?

For those seriously concerned about transportability and lock-in or just plain *offended* by DRM (I'm not), then go with CDs.

Do your own ripping yet keep the disk for archival purposes.
(Or lossless re-ripping. Lets see what the iTunes fans do when microdrives allow for full-collection lossless portable players; think una' Steve will give you a lossless original in trade-in? Or sell it again at a discount? Not holding my breath, here...)

CDs or subscriptions.
You can't go wrong there.

[Macguy59]

You guys may believe that music by subscription and DRM are the greatest things since sliced bread but I don't. Speaking of RIAA . . . how long do you think it takes them to decide that $16 is not enough for all the possible tunes to be heard or start restricting the number of those songs that can be heard for that flat fee? How well would this subscription model work with dialup? Can this music only be streamed to one device at a time?

[Macguy59]

"CDs or subscriptions.
You can't go wrong there."

Sure you can. For the same reason I choose to download individual songs over entire CD's. I'm sorry but I want to own the music and [only] the music I want. That means neither whole CD's or paying multiple times for the priviledge of hearing my favorite tunes. Do you guys really have that much time to listen to music and/or have a competely different selection of songs each and every month?

[James Fee]

You guys may believe that music by subscription and DRM are the greatest things since sliced bread but I don't. Where did I ever say I liked them? I personally hate them and every DRM file out there. What I do understand is the market is going this way and there is nothing the consumer can do about it, and in fact I think that Napster will be very sucessful with this and it will hasen the move to subscriptions.
Speaking of RIAA . . . how long do you think it takes them to decide that $16 is not enough for all the possible tunes to be heard or start restricting the number of those songs that can be heard for that flat fee?The market will decide the price and I assum it will decrease over time to less than $10 a month. How well would this subscription model work with dialup?Well as with anything, it depends on you downloading songs so.... Can this music only be streamed to one device at a time?No, I don't know for certain. I only have an iPod.

[James Fee]

"CDs or subscriptions.
You can't go wrong there."

Sure you can. For the same reason I choose to download individual songs over entire CDs. I'm sorry but I want to own the music and [only] the music I want. That means neither whole CDs or paying multiple times for the privilege of hearing my favorite tunes.Sure, it sounds like you'd save money then by downloading less than 15 songs a month. This isn't aimed at you. Remember though, people thought paying for Cable TV was a waste of money years ago. Do you guys really have that much time to listen to music and/or have a completely different selection of songs each and every month?Actually my problem is that I get tired of music. I have over 500 CDs ripped, but I want a broader choice. What I'd love is to tell iTunes to automatically update my 40g iPod with music that is based upon a query I design. The more I talk about this, the more I like the idea over just buying and ripping CDs. I would probably still buy music that was important to me because I'd rip at a higher rate than the subscription download.

[Felix Torres]

Can this music only be streamed to one device at a time?

The music isn't streamed.
It is downloaded and synchronized from the PC HD to a portable player.

How many portable devices, like the price, is something to be determined by competitive pressures in the marketplace once the business gets going.

I think Napster allows one PC and one portable device fed off that PC.
Of course, that PC can feed multiple networked devices around the house if they support DRM'ed wma...

[webdaemon]

It requires that you have a specific portable device to play the music. All that is required is your digital media player supports PlaysForSure.So you'll have to have plugins for everything on your computers too.Incorrect, all you need is Windows Media Player 10. Who knows if they have plugins for Pocket PC, and I don't want to install ANOTHER music player on mine.Again, Widows Media Player 10 is required. Fault the PPC makers on not offering upgrades. My Dell X30 has one. My network media player wont play them as it's not upgradable.Again fault your media player. It has come to the point where these companies must start supporting PlaysForSure or consumers will be left out.

PlaysForSure is the flavor of the moment, till the next big thing comes out. I have a Dell x50v and a Dell Jukebox, which I understand will be able to play Napster to go songs. Everything I own plays MP3s and that's the format I'm staying with.

[James Fee]

PlaysForSure is the flavor of the moment, till the next big thing comes out. I have a Dell x50v and a Dell Jukebox, which I understand will be able to play Napster to go songs. Everything I own plays MP3s and that's the format I'm staying with.Flavor of the month? I'm not sure I follow. PlaysForSure is the marketing effort for WMA DRM. I assume you mean WMA might go away and be replaced by something else? Doubtful....

[Jason Eaton]

What I'd love is to tell iTunes to automatically update my 40g iPod with music that is based upon a query I design.

Sounds like your looking in the wrong niche market. Ever think of satilite radio?

To me, those whole like the 'idea' of a constant changing music that a subscription based service could provide really should check out satilite rado. Subscription services are about the same *and* your music can be changed on the fly away from a computer.

As for the $15 a month for unlimited downloads? That is not really telling the truth. I believe Napster has 1 million offerings right now. True you could download the same song over and over to reach unlimited, but in the majority of the cases there is a finite number. Depending on music genre that people like this number shrinks significantly. Say you like R&amp;B music that number could drop down to 20 thousand songs.

Which leads to my biggest disbelief about subscription services. The majority of the users have a finite listen habit. They like a certain type of music and may explore a little bit, but in truth they will gravitate back to certain things. At one point the music people have on their device will become 'stagnant' and just be a lot of their favorite songs.

I have yet to meet one person who has used a subscription service that hasn't felt that it lost its luster after a couple of months. Sure in the begining it is great, they explore, they try things out, then they can't devote as much time to finding new music each month. They end up with their selection, then they quit shortly after because repaying month after month they can't deal with. Then on top of that they remain very quiet about their dislike simply because they don't want to look like a fool who was taken.

I think the market *NEEDS* a lot of varity services because no one thing will work for everyone. I also believe that subscription based services have a much smaller niche in that market than the pay once services.

I won't even touch the $15 dollars a month for 'staganat' music tastes over time argument. :)

[Jason Eaton]

So, here you go, the lighting bolt from the sky thought;

Why doesn't D.M.T. do a music subscription review? Say about 4 of its authors/editors try out subscriptions for a period of 2-3 months. Each week they record number of new downloads they have done, the amount of time to look for new songs, and general feelings about selection and use about the service. In the mean time they can also review the digital media players. Throw in a usage summary for the person, then post a news cap every four weeks about where they stand.

I think it would be a good story for people who are on the fence that they might like to read, some reviews of the subscription services would come about, music player reviews would come out, and in short help people decide about a number of things.

What do you think?

[Kevin & Beth Remhof]

It requires that you have a specific portable device to play the music. All that is required is your digital media player supports PlaysForSure.

I don't think that is true. It looks like you can only use a limited number of players (http://www.napster.com/compatible_devices/index.html) with Napster to Go. Right now, there are 10. Blech!

I'm currently in the market for a high-capacity MP3 player. Napster to Go sounds great but the devices are very limited right now. I'm leaning towards an iPod and Napster to Go is not really swaying that decision... or is it... I haven't really decided yet.

Personally, I find the Napster to Go ads deceiving. $10,000 to fill up an iPod with iTunes or $15/month with Napster to Go. Wait a minute... you can't use Napster to Go (or regular Napster) with an iPod. I wonder how many people are going to be confused by this. I find it to be a very deceptive marketing campaign. Yes, Napster explains (http://www.napster.com/using_napster/ipod_and_napster.html) that they want to work with iPods but Apple won't let them. That is a shame but not the end of the world. I don't see Apple changing iPods to play WMA files anytime soon.

[Kevin & Beth Remhof]

So, here you go, the lighting bolt from the sky thought;

Why doesn't D.M.T. do a music subscription review? Say about 4 of its authors/editors try out subscriptions for a period of 2-3 months. Each week they record number of new downloads they have done, the amount of time to look for new songs, and general feelings about selection and use about the service. In the mean time they can also review the digital media players. Throw in a usage summary for the person, then post a news cap every four weeks about where they stand.

I think it would be a good story for people who are on the fence that they might like to read, some reviews of the subscription services would come about, music player reviews would come out, and in short help people decide about a number of things.

What do you think?

Great idea! I'd be on board with this if I had a player that was compatible (http://www.napster.com/compatible_devices/index.html) with Napster to Go.

[James Fee]

Sounds like your looking in the wrong niche market. Ever think of satilite radio?
If I can't even use my cell phone in my office building.... Also the current satellite radio choices don't let me play MP3s. Maybe one day.[/quote]

[James Fee]

I don't think that is true. It looks like you can only use a limited number of players (http://www.napster.com/compatible_devices/index.html) with Napster to Go. Right now, there are 10. Blech!I can't find a "playsforsure" player that isn't supported.

[ale_ers]

I don't think that is true. It looks like you can only use a limited number of players (http://www.napster.com/compatible_devices/index.html) with Napster to Go. Right now, there are 10. Blech!I can't find a "playsforsure" player that isn't supported.

But only a few are compatible with Napster to go:

iriver H10
Creative Zen Micro
Dell Pocket DJ
SMT5600 Smart Phone
Zen Portable Media
Gateway GCM-4 Photo Jukebox
iriver H320
iriver PMC-120
Samsung Napster YH-920GS
Samsung YH-999 Portable Media Center

I personally hated the idea of subscriptions, but the more I use my napster account, the more I see the logic. I run and listed to my current player often while traveling, therefore I would often change the music constantly.

Also keep in mind you can still do both the subscription and the per song purchase. Say I discover group that is new to me like the Push Stars...I like one of their songs so I download a few of their albums to see if I like anything else. Then I decide that I do indeed like a few songs off of each album, I can then buy those songs for $0.99 and I will only be out say $20 ($15 for the subscription, another $5 for the 5 songs I purchased). Then I can move on to the next band and choose to keep or delete the songs that I didn't choose to buy. To make this process even easier, I think the Portable Media Centers even have a "purchase this song" option.

[Jason Eaton]

If I can't even use my cell phone in my office building....

Yeah, I hear you on that one. Did you also know that with Sirius you also get an internet account? That is the ability to login and then stream all the music to what ever machine you want. Work, home, internet cafe... in short unlimited number of machines to stream music for the same price. Of course that is if your company doesn't firewall something like that. :wink:

But yeah... no mp3 in addition that I am aware of. But once you start down the road of mp3 your in the first steps of static music playlist. As the music is confined to the device (not a bad thing just not a constant offering of new things).

[James Fee]

But only a few are compatible with Napster to go:Yea I see that on their site, but how can they use the PlaysForSure logo with NapsterToGo? Something is amiss here.

[Kevin & Beth Remhof]

But only a few are compatible with Napster to go:Yea I see that on their site, but how can they use the PlaysForSure logo with NapsterToGo? Something is amiss here.
Yep, something is definitely amiss. Napster does work with all PlaysForSure devices. But... only certain devices with with the NapsterToGo service. You can use regular Napster for the other devices. I think that is how they can still claim to be part of PlaysForSure.

Honestly, PlaysForSure is pure marketing hype (IMHO). I wonder how much companies have to pay to get their devices listed? Look at Olympus, they advertised the m:robe series during the Superbowl. They are shipping but are not on the list of PlaysForSure. Personally, I find no value in PlaysForSure.

NapsterToGo has some explaining to do...

[Macguy59]

"Then I decide that I do indeed like a few songs off of each album, I can then buy those songs for $0.99 and I will only be out say $20 ($15 for the subscription, another $5 for the 5 songs I purchased)."


So in this scenario you just paid $20 for 5 songs . . .

[James Fee]

So in this scenario you just paid $20 for 5 songs . . .Huh, you paid $5 for those songs. :?:

[Macguy59]

So in this scenario you just paid $20 for 5 songs . . .Huh, you paid $5 for those songs. :?:

Nope $20. Read his post . . . $15 for sub fee and then another $5 to buy the songs he liked.

[James Fee]

Nope $20. Read his post . . . $15 for sub fee and then another $5 to buy the songs he liked.I still don't get it. What does the $15 have to do with anything. I'm just not following your logic.

What I read was the poster liked the fact that he could purchase songs at the same time having the subscription. Of course in reality, no one would do this unless they needed to burn them to a CD since the subscription would always include those songs. Sure at the end of every month you'd have that sunk cost of $15, but then again access to the entire catalog is quite a deal.

[Felix Torres]

So in this scenario you just paid $20 for 5 songs . . .Huh, you paid $5 for those songs. :?:

Nope $20. Read his post . . . $15 for sub fee and then another $5 to buy the songs he liked.

Exactly: $15 for the subscription
$ 5 for the songs.

Try this: substitute XM satellite radio for subscription and what do you get?
He heard some songs on the radio he liked and went online to buy them.
Two separate transactions for two separate products.

Subscriptions are *not* d/ls.
They're not rentals.
They are listening fees.
What you get for your money is a different product.
Its is the difference between buying a dvd at Best Buy, renting it at Blockbusters, and watching it on HBO on demand...
That is why the studios charge a way lower fee of fractions of a cent (0.0015 cents per song per month to be precise; about the same rate they charge for internet radio, btw) instead of sixty-plus cents per song.

It is a different creature plain and simple; different economics, different usage, different customers.

Paradigm shifts are tough, I know; but eventually we all adapt to them, whether it be moving from Newton to Einstein or radio to TV...

[Macguy59]

"They're not rentals."

Interesting. Prior to being mentioned here I had not paid much attention to music by subscription so I've been reading articles about it elsewhere and what I've found is that most everyone refers to it as "renting music". I'm sure this model will attract certain users and as long as they don't try to go subscription only it will carve out it's own small niche. For people that prefer to own their music it doesn't make sense IMO. As for Apple's iTunes store being only a breakeven venture . . . the primary purpose of the store is to sell iPods. If they happen to make a small profit it's just icing on the cake.

"Its is the difference between buying a dvd at Best Buy, renting it at Blockbusters, and watching it on HBO on demand..."

I don't know what to tell you here. Perhaps my college education failed to prepare me for paradigm shifts but in my mind renting that DVD at Blockbuster and ordering it via on demand is the same thing albeit one requires much less effort.

[James Fee]

As for Apple's iTunes store being only a breakeven venture . . . the primary purpose of the store is to sell iPods. If they happen to make a small profit it's just icing on the cake.Sure and as I've said, the subscription model won't work with them unless the cost of selling songs at less than a dollar becomes impossible.
I don't know what to tell you here. Perhaps my college education failed to prepare me for paradigm shifts but in my mind renting that DVD at Blockbuster and ordering it via on demand is the same thing albeit one requires much less effort.Actually deep down it is not. The big difference is that there is physical media. That whole concept is why the RIAA has had so much trouble getting a business model that works. In a sick and twisted way, the subscription model is more like Divx (http://members.shaw.ca/the-doa/) than rentals.

[ale_ers]

So in this scenario you just paid $20 for 5 songs . . .Huh, you paid $5 for those songs. :?:

Nope $20. Read his post . . . $15 for sub fee and then another $5 to buy the songs he liked.

Exactly: $15 for the subscription
$ 5 for the songs.

Try this: substitute XM satellite radio for subscription and what do you get?
He heard some songs on the radio he liked and went online to buy them.
Two separate transactions for two separate products.

First of all I paid $20 for 1,000,000 songs or more realistically however many would fit on my player. I just decided to pay the $5 to 'keep' 5 of them, while this is not necessary the extra purchase allows me to burn the songs and if I quit the subscription tomorrow those songs are still mine.

Secondly, I do have XM radio, but it is not the same. It is defiantly part of the equation...think of it more like this: I hear a band on XM that I have not heard before, then I download all of their albums from Napster to Go and listen to them, then I purchase a few songs so that I can use them any way I want (burn, keep after I stop the subscription whatever).

Since music is very subjective, I think that the way you listen to it and purchase it is subjective also. While some may think this scenario is not for them...this is what I think will work for me. For the cost of 2 CDs a month, I have access to tons of music, some of it by someone else's programming (XM) which exposes me to new acts and some by my own programming for those act that I like.

I could easily justify the cost, because I used to buy more CD's than this a month, and then I would get stuck with a lot of songs that I didn't listen to...this is actually more cost effective for me.

[Janak Parekh]

I'm currently in the market for a high-capacity MP3 player. Napster to Go sounds great but the devices are very limited right now.
This is my biggest problem with the whole thing: you're reliant on Microsoft and the OEMs to play nice and release regular updates to support Janus and future DRM schemes. Not only is the current selection of devices is seriously lacking, I'm afraid that they'll roll something out in 6 months that won't be compatible with the new device I've just bought. And there seem to be a lot of "WMA devices" that people bought recently that are now outdated (I hope I'm wrong, and that ROM updates are pending, but I'm not so sure -- like Suhit's iHP-140, which is not on the To-Go list).

Another example: Any WMP10-based Pocket PC should in theory be compatible, but a lot of people have WM2003 and WM2003SE Pocket PCs that don't have WMP10 -- and Microsoft and/or the OEMs have decided not to release updates for them. :x

One interesting factoid about the iPod is that Apple has upgraded every iPod, including the oldest ones, to support AAC DRM. The one advantage of lock-in is that you get such closely-coordinated solutions. The whole thing between Microsoft and OEMs is much looser -- I wish Microsoft could negotiate tougher contracts with the OEMs that commit them to upgrades for a reasonable timeframe, and then I might trust a WMA-based solution.

(I've been using Rhapsody, and can totally see the value proposition of Napster-to-Go, so no problems there. ;))

--janak

[bdthurston]

Can you subscribe to Napster's service, then burn a mix CD from the music you are currently leasing, renting, "Experiencing", whatever. Then take that music and rip the songs as MP3's? Or does this only work with portable players?

If it does, it seems silly that you would be tied to only your computer and a compatible player, whereas with iTunes you can share music with up to 5 other computers and create CD's with the same song 10 times. :roll: It's a much more open model. And so far the RIAA doesn't have a problem with that. :lying:

[James Fee]

This is aimed at just people who want more content for their digital music players, not those who want to burn songs since you can't do it. The point is you have access to the entire catalog for you player, not build your own collection.

[ale_ers]

Can you subscribe to Napster's service, then burn a mix CD from the music you are currently leasing, renting, "Experiencing", whatever. Then take that music and rip the songs as MP3's? Or does this only work with portable players?

If it does, it seems silly that you would be tied to only your computer and a compatible player, whereas with iTunes you can share music with up to 5 other computers and create CD's with the same song 10 times. :roll: It's a much more open model. And so far the RIAA doesn't have a problem with that. :lying:

You’re kind of missing the point. You can burn songs if you pay for the song, just like iTunes. In fact that is what I did before Napster to Go. ITunes isn't a more open model...it is just the same model as Regular Napster (they call it Napster Light). Napter to go is different, cheaper, and yes has more restrictions.

The point of Napster to Go, is that you can download ANY song in their library and as MANY as you want. Listen to them on your computer (I think up to 3 computers) and transfer them to your player. It is a lot like the old Napster file sharing, except it is for a fee and legal.

Their commercial said it best, to fill you iPod with the 10,000 songs it holds it would cost you $10,000 with itunes. To Fill a WMA player with 10,000 songs it would cost you $15.