Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

Napster Sells 5 Million Songs 340

Posted by CmdrTaco from the will-they-be-here-a-year-from-now dept.
mattmcal writes "CNet reports that Napster has already sold 5 million songs. The number is impressive despite lagging behind Apple which maintains a 56% market share according to SiliconValley.com. The integration with portable devices must play a key role in the download volume which Apple has also developed for the mini iPod."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Napster Sells 5 Million Songs More

Napster Sells 5 Million Songs

Comments Filter:

  • question.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:05AM (#8372757)
    Are these 5 million indivually-packaged 99 cent songs, or are they including songs shipped out under subscription plans as "sales?"

    • More importnaly.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Chris_Stankowitz ( 612232 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:11AM (#8372814)
      Are these 5 million indivually-packaged 99 cent songs, or are they including songs shipped out under subscription plans as "sales?"

      More importanly, how many of these songs *don't* suck!


      Yes, this is Humor!

      • Top-10 downloads

        Britney Spears: Toxic
        Maroon 5: This Love
        Nickelback: Someday
        No Doubt: It's My Life
        Jessica Simpson: With You [Album Version]
        Jet: Are You Gonna Be My Girl
        3 Doors Down: Here Without You [Album Version]
        The White Stripes: Seven Nation Army
        Nickelback: Figured You Out
        Eamon: I Don't Want You Back [Ultra Clean Version]


        .. not too many it seems :)

    • Re:question.... (Score:3, Informative)

      by wo1verin3 ( 473094 )
      According to the press release [roxio.com] it is seperate. They've broken up the revenue streams in to categories, sold downloads and subscriptions are seperate.

      LOS ANGELES, Calif. - February 23, 2004 - Napster(R), a division of Roxio (Nasdaq: ROXI), today announced that it has recently become the first PC-only digital music service to sell over five million downloads. The Company also announced that it has served hundreds of millions of page views since its late-October launch and has attracted over 1.5 million bas

      • Re:question.... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Ryosen ( 234440 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:20AM (#8372899)
        Hmm...5 million songs sold to 1.5 million users. While the numbers might sound impressive that only breaks down to just over three songs per user. That doesn't speak too highly of their offering.

        • Re:question.... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by pikkumyy ( 445891 )
          I disagree. Average three songs per user is a huge amount when considering that probably all of these songs are available via eMule and others for free.

          Also the "7-day free trial" must have made a number of curious people register without purchasing anything. So I'd say an average *money paying* user has purchased an album's worth of music.

    • Re:question.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by asdf 101 ( 703879 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:30AM (#8372970)
      More important than the sheer volume of songs is the profitabilty of iTunes vs. that of Napster.

      Apple is looking at iTunes, not to earn millions from pennies++ over every song they sell there, but rather to obviously profit from the hefty margins on the iPod sales they generate when they dangle the "lifestyle" and "portability" carrot "via" iPod through iTunes.

      So the question is basically, even after having gotten to 5 million, just how well are those volumes working for Napster vs. the volumes that iTunes has (even is you assume for a moment that iTunes has sold just as many songs)?

      The Answer: no comparison. Napster should be lagging far behind. Because iTunes revenues are miniscule compared to those from the iPod sales that iTunes generates invariably from use of its iTunes store.

      Only stating the obvious.

      • Re:question.... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hpavc ( 129350 )
        Agreed, its well known ITMS doesn make money *PROFIT* on its music sales directly. If this is true and volume doesnt matter. Napster has to be bleeding.

        Frankly I would think ITMS would have better negotiation ability for costs as wel. Napster just doesnt seem to me as having the ability to get a the best deal. Given their history and all.

        • Re:question.... (Score:3, Informative)

          by timeOday ( 582209 )
          Agreed, its well known ITMS doesn make money *PROFIT* on its music sales directly.
          Correction: it is well known that Jobs once stated that, at the time, ITMS wasn't making money off music sales.
      • I don't know that you can say Apple is making more money off of this than Napster, when you don't know the details of the Napster deal. Maybe they have to pay less royalties - do you have any numbers to back it up? Granted, its unlikley they are making money hand over fist when apple is allegedly barely breaking even over iTunes sales, but that doesnt mean Napster is in the exact same situation. Plus, Napster makes money off of subscriptions, which Apple doesn't have.

      • Samsung Napster mp3 player (Score:5, Informative)

        by Chris Pimlott ( 16212 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @11:31AM (#8373600)
        I keep seeing this over and over. Everyone seems to have forgotten that Napster does have a hardware mp3 player [napster.com]. Samsung makes it, but it carries the Napster name, and you can bet they get a piece of each sale.
      • The story that Apple realizes profit from the iTMS not by selling songs, but by driving iPod sales is a good one, and no doubt there is a lot of truth to it, but I think it is foolish to take it at face value.

        Right now, its in Apple's interest to make sure iTMS appears like an unattractive business to get into, because it discourages potential competitors, and the investors who might fund competitors. Meanwhile, the iPod story keeps Apple investors happy.

        In time though, as volumes increace, as their init

  • Apple surely have this one sewn up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:07AM (#8372771) Journal
    • They're running at a low cost (at least in their terms :-)
    • they've got a reputation for 'cool' design
    • It's easy for them to match the h/w and s/w
    • They were there first, at least with a viable legal business model


    Everyone else is an also-ran for the forseeable future, IMHO. It'd take a pretty big hitter (and Napster aren't big enough) to break it, with a significant investment. Frankly Apple are doing what the RIAA etc. should have paid someone to do a long time ago...

    Simon.

  • Imagine how many songs if HP would have stayed? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rueben ( 112216 ) * <rueben26&gmail,com> on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:07AM (#8372774)
    If HP had stayed by Napster's side, I wonder how much more successful things would have been... It is good to see more companies adopting online music downloading for a price, while the RIAA campaigns against it, however it would be nice to have some stiff compatition against iTunes. Remember, competition is a good thing..

  • Numbers Game (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Liselle ( 684663 ) * <slashdot@lisWELTYelle.net minus author> on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:08AM (#8372782) Journal
    Since Napster has a subscription-based service in addition to selling individual songs for a fixed price, what does "5 million songs sold" mean? TFA is useless for this. Are they counting the songs that people download under the monthly-subscription model as songs? If so, it's not quite as impressive, no?

  • Not from me (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:09AM (#8372791)
    They did not sell any to me. I was looking to buy some songs, but Napster's meagre catalog did not have them. They were only available via "outlaw" p2p.

    If the RIAA is going to stem piracy and make money, they should actually take some effort to sell the music.

  • Great! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nicedream ( 4923 ) <brian@@@nopants...org> on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:09AM (#8372792) Homepage
    You know, I don't care as much who comes out ahead in the online music store wars, just as long as they are seen as a viable alternative to purchasing shiny plastic discs at the mall.

    I just got an iPod mini on Friday and was playing around with iTunes. I NEVER intended to pay for digital music, and always expected I would just get it from Kazaa, etc. But when I saw how easy Apple makes it to buy music, I was hooked. I spent about $35 on music, and this is someone who buys 1, maybe 2 cds a year. Things are only looking better from here.

    • Re:Great! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Unwise One ( 609996 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:25AM (#8372939)
      A similar comment from another angle.

      I hate buying CDs, or at least new ones. The idea of paying $10 to $20 for an album when there are likely to be only one or two good tunes on each one was enough to keep me away except for Xmas shopping.

      For personal reasons, I never liked stealing the music via Napster/Kazaa/Whatever either.

      With iTunes I have spent more this year on music than I have in the last two or three combined. Heck, I've even downloaded songs I used to own on cassette many years ago.

      I've heard from audiophiles that the quality is less, but to my tin ear the sound of the download burned to CD and that of a store-bought CD is identical.

  • Subscription? (Score:5, Informative)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) * <homerun@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:09AM (#8372793)
    In one of the articles....

    "Gorog said he resists comparisons with other subscription services because of incongruities in the way subscriber numbers are reported. But he expects the business will mature as users realize it's cheaper to pay a flat fee for access to 500,000 tracks than to pay $1 a song."

    It's important to note that you still have to pay if you want to burn a song to a CD or otherwise use it outside of your computer. You do, however, get to use the song on up to three computers. Just a point of clarification because the article might lead one to believe that for a subscription fee you get unlimited downloads to use as you please and you really don't.

    Keep Smilin'!

    Erick

  • gripes. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DarkHelmet ( 120004 ) * <mark&seventhcycle,net> on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:10AM (#8372806) Homepage

    Sorry, but I'm still not turned on to the idea of online music downloads.

    1. To me, $0.99 per song is still a jack. If a track has 13-15 songs per album, that's $13 - $15 for all the tracks on the CD. Considering that I get no artwork, no packaging, no permanent format, that's a rip off.
    2. The file format is lossy. I'd be paying for a lower quality representation than what I could buy at a store for the same price.
    3. DRM is a bitch.
    4. I can get the same thing, or a higher quality version online.

    Sorry, but there has to be some more incentive for me to buy into the system.

    1. $0.50 a song is a good starting point, $1.00 for a FLAC version of the song.
    2. Printout art available when purchasing all the songs on the CD.
    3. ISO downloads. A lot of CD's come with extra's for the PC. Quite simply, it's one of the things that makes me buy the CD rather than just donwload the song (other than actually liking the band). Add this, and I'll start reconsidering.
    4. Stop being a bitch about giving this stuff to my friends. Do you know how many friends I've turned on to certain groups of music just by giving them a song? *cough* WeedShare [weedshare.com] anyone? Apple and Napster can learn from this.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, the arguments are very old in this post, and it's all been said before. But nothing's being done, and I'm still not being converted over. Considering how much of a computer user I am, this is rather surprising.

    • Re:gripes. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by displaced80 ( 660282 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:19AM (#8372890)
      A couple-few of those points aren't a problem (at least with iTunes)

      Each song may well be $0.99, but a full album is most often $9.99.

      You do get artwork. It appears right there in iTunes. Not tried it, but you can most likely copy & paste (or just drag) it to save/print it. There's a host of programs (including AppleScripts for iTunes on the Mac) which makes automating that a breeze.

      The format's lossy, true. It's up to you if you can't possibly stand less than 44,100/16-bit.

      The extras is a good point. But then I don't see online music stores as replacements for real CDs, just complimentary.

      If I want to share purchased music with friends, I create the playlist of my eeeeeevil DRM music, and click Burn. I can hand over the CD physically, or ISO it or re-rip it for sending electronically.

      • Re:gripes. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by millahtime ( 710421 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:30AM (#8372973) Homepage Journal
        Don't forget about the whole problem of if you cancel Napster you loose all the music you downloaded after a little while. I would consider that to be a big problem that iTMS doesn't have.

      • Each song may well be $0.99, but a full album is most often $9.99.

        True, but what happens if I were to say download one song, and then want the whole CD? Do I pay $9 + $2, or do I pay $13-$15 total. There's no reward for sampling.

        You do get artwork. It appears right there in iTunes.

        Interesting. Guess you got me there.

        The format's lossy, true. It's up to you if you can't possibly stand less than 44,100/16-bit.

        It's not so much about if I can stand it or not, it's that I'm getting an inferior re

    • Re:gripes. (Score:2, Informative)

      by shidoshi ( 567151 )
      >To me, $0.99 per song is still a jack. If a track has 13-15
      >songs per album, that's $13 - $15 for all the tracks on the CD.
      >Considering that I get no artwork, no packaging, no permanent
      >format, that's a rip off.

      Picked at random: Maroon 5, their album Songs about Jane. 12 tracks. Album price, $9.99.

      If you buy each track individually and end up paying $12 instead of $10, that's your choice.

    • Re:gripes. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:22AM (#8372916)
      You say "converted" like you need to choose between the two. What is the problem with buying full physical CD albums for when you want the whole she-bang, and going to iTunes when you want a one-shot song you heard on the radio for a buck? Physical CDs and digital music are not mutually exclusive, friend.

    • Re:gripes. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Peyna ( 14792 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:23AM (#8372920) Homepage
      Most people can't tell the difference between a quality MP3 and a CD; because they aren't listening that closely.

      It wouldn't be too hard to study this, hook someone up to headphones, blindfold them, and play them identical excerpts from a CD and then MP3 and make them guess which was which; or just say which was "better quality."

    • Re:gripes. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by GuySmiley ( 71599 )
      Totally agree. Apple claims that the 99c gets broken up to 65c for the label (band gets a few pennies) and the 34c covers cost of bandwidth, iTMS, overhead. Apple says they don't make money on music, but on iPods.

      I don't know if Napster got a better deal with the labels, but the margins are slim.

      What interests me is what if bands themselves could plug into the Napster/iTMS directly and avoid the middle man altogether. Bands would increase revinues 10X and songs could be 50c by avoiding the 'RIAA' cut.

      • Re:gripes. (Score:2, Interesting)

        by hyc ( 241590 )
        Yep. A band can make at most about 7 cents a track for their recording royalties, and usually makes less. The label keeps everything else.

        I personally will not pay real money for lossy-compressed audio.

        All we (musicians) really need is a music search engine that brings listeners to our web sites, and Paypal accounts.

        My band's current CD is online in low-quality MP3 (24kbps) for free. It's a try-before-you-buy offering, you can download it relatively quickly, give it a listen, then decide for yourself. If
    • Just FYI, iTMS does give out album art with every track purchase, and most albums sell for a package price far less than buying individual tracks, always less than buying it on CD.

    • eMusic (Score:5, Informative)

      by autechre ( 121980 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @11:03AM (#8373302) Homepage
      1. The most expensive option (per track) is $10 for 40 songs per month. They show you the album cover, but that seems to be all you get.

      2. The file format is lossy, but it's also VBR MP3, which can't be distinguished from CD quality audio by many people.

      3. DRM is a bitch. That's why they don't use it. Also, much of their music is available to those outside of the U.S., which is something almost no one else offers.

      So what's stopping you? I know that a lot of your "favorite artists" may not be on there, but wouldn't you like to support artists/labels that are willing to give you music on your terms? You can preview any track, and download your first 50 tracks for free.

      (As an example, if you like synth pop, go to freezepop.net. Download the free MP3s. If you like them, you can get all 4 of their CDs for $32 [or buy them individually, of course.] Lyrics are on their site. This is the kind of band that gets my money.)

      Don't like synth-pop? I can recommend something else. There are plenty of bands out there making great music who actually want you to hear it.

    • Sorry, but I'm still not turned on to the idea of online music downloads.

      Ever tried getting them for free [sourceforge.net]? Yes, of course it's legal. And, while IMHO the best, it's not even the only way [magnatunes.com]. If you like a band, and you feel like it, just send them a couple of bucks: what you consider they are worth, not more.

      1. Yes $.99 is high. But no higher than CDs. If you want all of an album, you only pay $10 (on both Apple Store and Napster). Since the DRM doesn't prevent you from writing a CD, there isn't anything stopping you from having a permanent format. On top of all that, you no longer have to buy 13 crappy songs to get the two that you like. For that reason the 15 songs you get from Apple should have more personal value to you than the 15 you get from a CD at Best Buy.
      2. The file format is lossy, but the files are
      • Yes $.99 is high. But no higher than CDs. If you want all of an album, you only pay $10 (on both Apple Store and Napster). Since the DRM doesn't prevent you from writing a CD, there isn't anything stopping you from having a permanent format. On top of all that, you no longer have to buy 13 crappy songs to get the two that you like. For that reason the 15 songs you get from Apple should have more personal value to you than the 15 you get from a CD at Best Buy.

        First of all I usually pay around $10 for an a

        • Re:gripes. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by gnu-generation-one ( 717590 )
          "DRM is not an issue unless you want to use a non-supported player or pirate music"

          Nice troll.

          DRM is the difference between knowing you'll be able to listen to music, and not knowing that you'll be able to listen to music.

          Know what hi-fi you'll have in 3 years time? Are you sure it'll be supported by your chosen DRM scheme? Howabout if you have the choice of one hi-fi that supports the scheme, and a better hi-fi that doesn't?

          Going to be on Windows/MacOS all your life? Howabout at work? Good luck lis

    • Re:WeedShare (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Technician ( 215283 )
      Unfortunately, weedshare seems to be another DRM format not supported by my hardware.

      How many times do I have to say it. My hardware is unable to install your required software.

      Stick to industry standards that the hardware already supports. There isn't much out there that can't play MP3's. Very few people are selling MP3's.

      Clip from the site,

      System Requirements:
      A Windows 98 or later PC and a current media player that supports the Windows Media Format. We also recommend a broadband Internet connectio

  • Profitable? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by despik ( 691728 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:11AM (#8372817) Homepage
    So are they even, um, breaking even? Given what Steve Jobs said about iTMS and iPods...
  • Who cares how many songs they sell if they're not making enough money to survive. Hell, their parent company has be laying people off recently.

  • Well we know that... (Score:3, Funny)

    by physicsboy500 ( 645835 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:12AM (#8372828)
    You'll never shut down the real napster!

  • nah, it's the MS DRM (Score:5, Interesting)

    by I8TheWorm ( 645702 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:15AM (#8372848) Journal
    iintegration with portable devices must play a key role in the download volume

    Forget that.. it's the fact that Napster forces use of the MS DRM that keeps me from using it.

  • The question is... (Score:3, Funny)

    by nathanhart ( 754532 ) <virusfarm@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:15AM (#8372852) Homepage
    The question is, how many people bought the 90 seconds of silence for $.99 track off Napster aswell

  • Competition is good (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Competition is a good thing, because is should lead to lower prices. Unfortunately, when there are only a few suppliers, collusion, rather than competition, is more likely to happen.

  • Use of Napster name (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Zog The Undeniable ( 632031 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:16AM (#8372866)
    Firstly, although I can't see myself using one of these services in the near future, well done to Roxio for trying a different business model.

    However, I think the "Napster" branding is an odd decision. Who is still likely to go to napster.com in the hope of finding free music, seeing as it was shut down for years? And in terms of brand image, Napster always stood for getting-something-for-nothing, so isn't it a bit like launching a legitimate online software store called "serials.ws"? I wonder what Shawn Fanning would make of it, as it was his nickname in the first place.

  • Buying Music "In Bulk" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Landaras ( 159892 ) <neilNO@SPAMwehneman.com> on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:16AM (#8372868) Homepage
    One interesting thing that the article mentions that Napster is doing that Apple is yet to, is allow people to buy tracks "in bulk" for a small discount.

    Members can now buy packs of 15, 25 or 50 tracks for US$13.95, $21.95 and $39.95, respectively.

    I sincerely wish Apple would do something like this, espescially since I believe they would save a bit on credit-card processing fees (see one of my earlier posts [slashdot.org]).

    They could even do this without cluttering up the iTMS interface by keeping the same "buy song" button. Just have any songs bought be charged against pre-purchased credit before it goes to your credit card on file.

    - Neil Wehneman
    • This reminds me of an episode of the dear departed Drew Carey show. Lewis had just returned from a discount music store, "Music by the Pound" that sold those really deep-discounr CDs no one wants.

      "I got the shopping cart, got a few pounds of rock, a few pounds of classical...."
    • Apple doesn't give a discount, which I know is the major part of the point you are making, but they do allow for prepurchasing in large chunks. iTunes has an "allowance" feature that lets you prepay a certain amount. It was designed with kids in mind whose parents don't want them just buying as much music as the credit card allows.

      Also, there are gift certificates you can purchase, that when redeemed work like allowances. You can purchase them through iTunes itself, through the online Apple store [apple.com], or even

  • Napster aggressive marketing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:19AM (#8372885)
    A week or two ago, I saw at a gas station, on the rack with all those plastic phone cards: Napster cards.

    It seemed like a clver idea. On the other hand, I was not inspired to buy one at the time.

  • Paid individually or University subscription? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GuySmiley ( 71599 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:19AM (#8372891) Homepage
    Did each song generate 0.99$ or are these from the University contracts allowing all students to download at will. This is a huge difference. Does anybody have the contract details of the University deals? Is it a blanket fee or reduced charge per song? If students get 'free' unlimitted downloads and are all on T1/T3 lines, of course, 5e6 songs are easily downloaded. This is not surprising.

  • Kazaa Usage (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jetkust ( 596906 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:24AM (#8372928)
    iTunes, Napster, and others probably have a lot more to do with decreased usage of Kazaa than the RIAA lawsuits. Eventually Kazaa just becomes too much of a pain in the ass to use considering the alternatives.

  • profitable or tax loss? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fermion ( 181285 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:28AM (#8372955) Homepage Journal
    Apple says it makes no money on music, and it is possible they don't. If we believe the number, the division brings in about half a million that Apple get to keep. So it would seem that any other service would try to minimize start up costs, are at least those that could not be deferred. So why it is that Napster claims to have lost 15 million in the first two months of operation? During that time, they probably brought in less than half a million after paying royalties. Even if much of this loss was start up costs, do they actually expect to make millions of dollars a month off the 20 cents of so they keep from each track sold?

    Perhaps some accounting type can shed some light on how so much money can be spent on a market that, for the foreseeable future, is only going to generate a million or so after royalties. Haven't we left magic money fairies behind us in the dot com bust? Or are the respected economists of the 80's back to haunt us.

  • Google has some applicable cache hits.

    Mercury News | 02/19/2004 | Smiles fade at Napster [google.com]
  • Apple has admitted that it makes most of its money off of Ipod sales. Where is the similar secondary market for napster? Maybe they are coming out with the NPOD but right now they have to be losing a huge amount of money!

  • Apple Market Share (Score:5, Funny)

    by zomper514 ( 235646 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:32AM (#8372998) Homepage Journal
    I never thought I would see the words apple and 56% market share in the same sentence.

  • iTunes is wonderful, but... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I can't use it here in the UK (*). Napster is ok, but I still find the depth of tunes is not really to my tastes, plus I own and iPod, so WMA files really don't float my boat when it comes to music on the move.

    Add to that the DRM issues and to be honest, I don't really want that much hassle when I decide to upgrade/reinstall my PC, so in the long term, both iTunes and Napster won't do it for me I'm afraid. Call me a stick in the mud, but I'm not supporting anything that deprives me of my basic consumer rig
  • On Macworld, they said they had about 70% of the market.
    Not it's 56%.

    I guess it only can go lower now

  • Comparing Apples and Kitty Kats (Score:5, Informative)

    by amichalo ( 132545 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:47AM (#8373126)
    Usually I like to interject my own thoughts, but I will let the numbers speak for themselves:

    4/28/2003 - iTunes Music Store for Mac launches
    5/5/2003 - iTMSfM sells 1 millionth song
    5/14/2003 - iTMSfM sells 2 millionth song
    7/22/2003 - iTMS sells 6.5 millionth song
    10/2003 - Napster launches
    10/2003 - 300,000 Napster 1st week sales / 1.5MM iTMS sales same week
    10/2003 - iTMS for Windows launchs (~13MM songs sold to date)
    12/9/2003 - iTMS sells 20 millionth song
    12/16/2004 - iTMS sells 25 millionth song (2.5MM/mo.)
    2/2004 - Napster sells 5 millionth song (1.25MM/mo.)

    On the bottom 1/3 of this [internet-nexus.com] page is a chart and analysis of the numbers too.

    WARNING: My two cents -
    Interesting that while Apple's numbers are much higher than Napsters', and Apple had to overcome the initial proof of concept that it would even work, so many REMAIN critical of the service.

    Interesting still is that those same critics won't even spend a few dollars to give iTMS a *TRY* before they ink their mal-informed pens.

  • Bad catalogs... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mtrupe ( 156137 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:50AM (#8373157) Homepage Journal
    The great thing about the heyday of Napster/Kazza/others was the great availability of rare recordings-- Live Rush stuff, really old Pink Floyd, hard to find CSNY. The record companies have made it so, once again, we are not "allowed" to listen to this great stuff.

    I checked out Napster just today. $9.99 a month and $.99 for a download. Big whoop. If I want to buy an album its still going to be $10-$20, depending on how many songs are on it, but now I get to pay an extra $9.99 a month to have the privilege to download.

    IMHO, if you only download a couple of songs without getting the album, you are missing some great traks (b sides). Of course, this is only true to real music, not the boy band and rap crap that is popular these days....

    • Amen. I always looked at online music procurment as a way to get the songs that I could not purchase off the top 40 rack at my local target. Yet any "modern", "legal" -- file sharing service assumes that I would want to buy crappy top 40 of today or yesterday.

  • I have tried both Napster and iTunes (Score:4, Interesting)

    by x.Draino.x ( 693782 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @10:53AM (#8373196)
    Here's my problem with iTunes.. If you format your computer and did not back-up your downloaded music you have to PURCHASE it again. I believe if I'm paying for music online and do not receive a CD that I own a license and should be able to re-download it again for free. This was a nice little shock after spending $50 on music then losing it. Napster will re-sync your collection if your hard drive crashes, etc. No fee, just hit re-sync and it will download it all again for you. But you are still able to back it up if you choose to. This problem with iTunes will definitely stir some stuff up in the future when some average joe's hard drive crashes and he loses $300 worth of music. It's about the same as someone breaking in your car and jacking your life-long CD collection.
    • If you format your computer and did not back-up your downloaded music you have to PURCHASE it again.
      Translation: If I do something completely idiotic, there's no one and nothing to protect me from myself.

      What you describe is not like someone breaking in your car and "jacking" your lifelong CD collection. It's like you got high, took it to the dump, and threw it in.

    • Re:I have tried both Napster and iTunes (Score:5, Informative)

      by etpinge ( 756063 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @12:11PM (#8374084)
      Been there done that.... trashed a box after downloading a few songs. The music wouldnt even synch to the iPod or back from. Couldnt use an iPod extractor to get the music back to the computer.

      I emailed Apple iTMS and explained the situation. They tweaked some settings and my music was available for download and reauthorizing onto machines free of charge.

      iTMS support said they normally do not support such a request, but since they responded within 1 hour of the original email request with a positive response, and within the another hour to mysecond email requesting that users should be able to deauthenticate machines from within iTMS, I think they would be open to assisting us blockheaded users.

  • Define "sold" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SuperChuck69 ( 702300 )
    Does their definition of "sold" include "comped"? It usually does.

    Crapster has been trying to get me to download "5 trial songs" ever since they got back into business. If I downloaded these, would they count toward Crapster's running total? That's not a terribly fair assessment if you ask me...

  • Yeah, integration with portables plays a role (Score:3, Interesting)

    by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @11:13AM (#8373410)
    And surely in the long run that role is NEGATIVE. Having a music collection tied to a single company is crazy, stupid idea (for consumers that is).

    Maybe we need to distinguish between *integration*, which is a fine thing, vs. what you actually get today, which is *lock-in*, that is, exclusive integration with only one brand.

  • Napster sucks (Score:5, Informative)

    by GarfBond ( 565331 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @11:25AM (#8373517)
    I don't know if any of you have ever tried napster, but I made the mistake of subscribing to their "premium" service. Here's a slight edit of a post I made to my blog:
    After using it for about 5 minutes, I can tell I hate it. In no particular order, here's a couple reasons why:
    • The program tells you $10 for unlimited plays, but that only gets you streaming. Wanna keep the songs? Pay another $1 a pop. (To their credit, this is a problem with all streaming services)
    • 96kbps WMA sucks. I never thought I could actually easily tell difference audibly, but let me tell you, the LOTR ROTK soundtrack makes it quite apparent. By comparison, Rhapsody uses 128kbps WMA (still not great, but better)
    • A good chunk of songs in there are marked "buy only," meaning, your napster premium account isn't so premium after all. This sucks. Compare that with Rhapsody, where although they only do a streaming service, many songs marked "buy only" on napster are very much available for streaming through Rhapsody. Some examples: Audioslave, anything by Soundgarden, and Greenday.

  • A battle that cannot be won (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kd4evr ( 712384 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @11:26AM (#8373530)
    I view this pay-per-download thing just as a painful transition to a better world.

    The technology has advanced enough to enable any Johnny B to make as many copies of digital anything as he wants. No RIAA, DMCA, CIA, or YMCA is going to stop the inevitable.

    Wrong strategy: Instead of pursuing those who try to profit distributing fakes to people and are the big players costing the consumer as well as the author rights owner, the reseller and the producer big bucks, companies try to maximize their current net gain by restraining the choices of the regular Johhny B. As if the mainstream and biggest selling hits were immortal works of art that need to be treasured in vault rather than a day-to-day fad, only to be forgotten if not accessed in the same month.

    Right strategy: Adapt. Face the fact that for a product to succeed, it must be cheaper and better than something one can-do-himself in his home.

    The age of expensive CDs is over. Vynil was cheaper to buy than to copy, but people always liked to use cassete tapes for copies - who was nuts enough to pursue that?

    Customer will, eventually, stop at some point to let themselves be squezzed out of every penny. Not to mention the third world who is quick to pick on some of the technology, but much less willing or able to follow royalty and copyright practice.

    Prices will have to fall, be it media sets or download options. High prices and limited access are only a road to oblivion. Furthermore, new inventions may well push current technology out of the market.
  • Has anyone tried Rhapsody? If so is the selection and/or quality up to par? I've been considering it for a while now after seeing it running at best buy. 10-15 bucks a month to listen to unlimited songs, and .99 cents to burn a song onto cd(which from there could go on to whatever mp3 player you're using..). To me it seems like it gives the best of both worlds.

  • Sold songs? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @11:53AM (#8373853) Homepage
    What they've been selling is revocable licenses to decrypt. When they go belly up, a lot of people are going to find that out the hard way.

  • A sad press release from a desperate company (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @12:25PM (#8374241)
    This is not 'news'. It is a slick piece of PR from a desperate company. Since the launch of pay-per-song Napster, the parent company Roxio has seen its share price decline from $11 to $3.50, a 68% decline. Yesterday the stock hit a 52-week low (amid a generally happy NASDAQ environment). For this company to generate a mere $5mm in revenues in 3 months can only be described as an unmitigated failure, as the market price of ROXI clearly demonstrates.

    The editors of /. need to treat corporate PR with a healthier degree of skepticism.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=roxi

  • Two Quick Points.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DoctorScooby ( 669432 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @12:31PM (#8374321) Journal
    1) When Napster gives a marketshare number, the Slashdot masses go on the offensive and try to tear that number apart. When Apple gives a marketshare number, we accept it without question, despite the fact that they are well-known for their questionable sales tactics and misleading facts and figures. Does this imply any sort of bias? Open your eyes and take a step back, you'll start to understand what's happening here on Slashdot. A seemingly grassroots groundswell of support for Apple and their brand of proprietary software, and a seemingly grassroots groundswell of disdain for the GPL.

    2) People here are also attacking Napster because of its DRM as opposed to Apple's DRM (which is like saying "I much prefer the Guillotine to the Gas Chamber, they really thought about my comfort in designing it"). However, the most interesting part of AAC is that it is an open-ended DRM, which is to say, it can be strengthened after the market has widely embraced it. Think about it - right now, Apple gives you nearly limitless freedom to pirate, copy, share, and distribute files bought from iTMS. They say the RIAA is good with it. Does that sound like the RIAA to you? Apple admits they lose money on the transaction, hoping to make it up in iPod sales (yes, this is the same Apple who is now charging for iLife).... In 2-3 years, when they have cornered the market, they will change the terms and conditions of sale, just as they did with the "forever free" .Mac accounts, for example.

    Right now, Apple listens to their customers. They do this because they are fighting for marketshare. When you reward them with a monopoly, they will become a monopolist in attitude as well as fact. The goal of Apple and the RIAA is not to beat MS' DRM format, the goal is to beat piracy and kill open formats. And they will, to a large extent; with their hardware and software lockins -- this is quite possible and, in fact, probable -- and is the same idea MS has with their Longhorn / Bios / hardware anti-piracy lockin.

    I know you love Apple, but sometimes you have to protect yourself from the ones you love.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close