Napster Sells 5 Million Songs 340
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."
question.... (Score:5, Interesting)
More importnaly.... (Score:5, Funny)
More importanly, how many of these songs *don't* suck!
Yes, this is Humor!
Re:More importnaly.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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]
Re:question.... (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Re:question.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
Re:question.... (Score:2)
Samsung Napster mp3 player (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Samsung Napster mp3 player (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Samsung Napster mp3 player (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't believe everything you read (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:Apple surely have this one sewn up (Score:4, Insightful)
companies like napster have quite an uphill battle.
Re:Apple surely have this one sewn up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple surely have this one sewn up (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Mod parent down! He stole my post! (Score:2, Funny)
Imagine how many songs if HP would have stayed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Imagine how many songs if HP would have stayed? (Score:3, Funny)
yeah... I'm sure HP is kicking themselves for joining apple instead.
~Turd
Re:Imagine how many songs if HP would have stayed? (Score:3, Interesting)
Numbers Game (Score:5, Interesting)
Not from me (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Ease of use - No more trying to track down songs and not being able to find them for months. If I see it on iTunes, I can have it right then. This is especially good for full albums.
2. Good quality - No more 56kbps mono files mixed with 192kbps stereo files. No more shitty rips with skips in them.
3. Uniform ID3 tags - Nothing pisses me off more than opening up an MP3 I just downloaded and seeing the album name or artist name is "++{Ripped by tHe eNfOrCeRz}++" or something equally lame.
4. Probably some other stuff that I can't be bothered to think of at this time.
In the end, it's worth it to me.
Re:define "viable alternative" (Score:5, Insightful)
Recording sound is all about compromise. Don't base your judgment of one format over another based on a single word like 'lossy'. Listen to a few songs on the music store and let your ears be the judge.
Re:define "viable alternative" (Score:2, Informative)
CDs are a compromise, just like anything else
They're a pretty good compromise though. It's the principle of not wanting a lossy-encoded version; just knowing that you're listening to something 'inferior' can be enough of a problem.
The main problem with
Re:define "viable alternative" (Score:3, Informative)
CD's do have a limited range, but it's not that limited. The problem is
Re:define "viable alternative" (Score:5, Informative)
The "problem" with CD's is the 44.1 K sample rate. A 22KHz sound wave only gets represented by two bits, and with many of the crappy early digital encoders from the 80s, it might not even be sampled from alternate peaks of the wave.
Of course, the typical American geek's hearing pretty much ends around 16 KHz (at best), so you could do as CD zealots do, and insist that anything above that frequency doesn't really matter... except it does, because of the way it colors overtones, which are what gives most sounds their timbre. If you put a typical music-lover in a booth and make them listen to a double-blind test between a live microphone feed of a singer with piano accompaniment, and the same live feed where everything above, oh... say 17 KHz is filtered out, they will spot the difference.
However, most of people's concerns about the compromise of "the digital sound" turned out to be unfounded. Early CD players (and some of the cheaper ones today) sounded too bright and tinny as a result of inferior D/A conversion algorhythms.
When an LP is "cut", the low-frequency waves are dialed way down in amplitude, because otherwise you would have a grove that moves outside the stylus's range of motion! A pre-amp in the turntable (based on an industry standard established by the RIAA) boosts the bass back up again. Unfortunately, this electronic equalization results in massive, boomy, slightly unnatrual bass. Through the 70s, the stereos which did the best job of tweaking LP sources to sound natural gained the reputation of being the best playback equipment. Listening to a good-condition LP on a top-notch 70s "hi-fi" stereo is an extremely rewarding experience.
When CD players arrived in the early 80s, the same stereos that played back LP recordings with a "warm, rich" sounded bright, harsh, and shrill when playing back the same recordings on CD.
Over the years, better logic, better error-correction, and better playback components (as well as better digital encoding in studios) have all resulted in CD's that sound every bit as good as LP's.
In the late 80s and early 90s I was a total LP bigot, but to not change my position these days would be ignoring the evidence given by my own ears. Hearing "Dark Side of the Moon" on a $300 Rotel CD player through high-quality speakers is every bit as satisfying as hearing the LP on a $4000 air-baring, laser-guided turntable, if not more so.
So yea, CD's are not a bad compromise at all.
However, 99% of the time I'm listening to music, it's either on a portable player, in my car, or at my computer desk. In those environments, AAC is not only good enough, it's very difficult to notice the difference between it and the CD.
Loudness wars (Score:3, Funny)
If the CD's get any louder, the next global war will be fought with Styx and 'Stones.
Re:define "viable alternative" (Score:3, Interesting)
I HAVE noticed however that the AAC's I have downloaded are very good quality, even at 128. And some of my CD's that I have ripped at higher bitrates sound worse. So that tells me that some CD's just aren't recorded too well to start, while iTunes AAC's were recorded off of master recordings.
So the recordings I download may
Subscription? (Score:5, Informative)
"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
Re:Subscription? (Score:2, Insightful)
Napster == Your rent data.
Who want's to do that?
gripes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but I'm still not turned on to the idea of online music downloads.
Sorry, but there has to be some more incentive for me to buy into the system.
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)
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)
Re:gripes. (Score:2)
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)
>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)
Re:gripes. (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:gripes. (Score:2)
Personally, not being an audiophile, and NOT having the audiophile quality equipment, I can't tell the difference until the quality is pretty darn low OR I am listening to certain tracks (very few fit this).
To be honest, I think that the gp has it right--in a blind test MOST (not all) people wouldn't be very good at hearing the difference, even at lower qualities.
personally, I don't have a problem with Apple's iTunes. I like the idea. What I don't like is that is STILL s
Re:gripes. (Score:3, Informative)
In most cases I can't tell the difference between 192 and 256. Or 192 and a CD.
For bands that I really like (Rush, Dream Theater, etc) I'll encode at 192. Also this seems to work out well for reissue/remaster type CD's. Most of the sound seems to be captured in
Re:gripes. (Score:3, Insightful)
And I still don't really notice the sound difference. The way I see it, this is the equivalent of how we all used to make 2nd or 3rd generation copies of records back in the 80's. Or tape blocks of songs off the radio. (I still have a lot of these tapes (TDK SA/90's) and h
Re:gripes. (Score:2)
Re:gripes. (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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
Re:gripes. (Score:2)
eMusic (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:gripes. (Score:2)
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.
Re:gripes. (Score:3)
Re:gripes. (Score:3)
First of all I usually pay around $10 for an a
Re:gripes. (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:Rebuttal (Score:3, Informative)
I buy what I listen to. I discard what I don't.
If you look on my computer, you'll see mostly songs extracted from CD's I own, and Remixes [ocremix.org] which are free.
I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever with downloading music for free. Doing so has been the source of every purchase I have ever ma
Profitable? (Score:3, Interesting)
They're still going to go out of business (Score:2, Interesting)
Well we know that... (Score:3, Funny)
nah, it's the MS DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
Forget that.. it's the fact that Napster forces use of the MS DRM that keeps me from using it.
Re:Can you work around it? (Score:2)
Re:Can you work around it? (Score:2)
The question is... (Score:3, Funny)
Competition is good (Score:2, Insightful)
Use of Napster name (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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
Music By the Pound (Score:3, Funny)
"I got the shopping cart, got a few pounds of rock, a few pounds of classical...."
Re:Buying Music "In Bulk" (Score:2)
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)
It seemed like a clver idea. On the other hand, I was not inspired to buy one at the time.
Re:Napster aggressive marketing (Score:2, Informative)
Paid individually or University subscription? (Score:5, Insightful)
Kazaa Usage (Score:4, Interesting)
profitable or tax loss? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Some google cache links (Score:2, Interesting)
Mercury News | 02/19/2004 | Smiles fade at Napster [google.com]
How is Napster Making Any Money? (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple Market Share (Score:5, Funny)
iTunes is wonderful, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Market share? (Score:2)
Not it's 56%.
I guess it only can go lower now
Comparing Apples and Kitty Kats (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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....
Re:Bad catalogs... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have tried both Napster and iTunes (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I have tried both Napster and iTunes (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A battle that cannot be won (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
All this talk about Napster v. Itunes.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Sold songs? (Score:3, Insightful)
A sad press release from a desperate company (Score:5, Interesting)
The editors of
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=roxi
Two Quick Points.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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"
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.
Re:purchase songs? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That is theft. downloading is not (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That is theft. downloading is not (Score:2)
IANAL. YMMV.
Re:purchase songs? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apple's share of the market. (Score:2)
How am I stuck with ACC? I can always make them into MP3's if I want. The iPod plays everything except VO and WMA...big deal. 90% of all my songs on my iPod are MP3's not ACC...but ACC sounds better at the same bit rate compared to any MP3 or WMA I've ever heard
Re:Apple's share of the market. (Score:2)
Only a complete moron would judge market share as important. Ever thought of technical excellence, quality and just plain FUN to use? Something nothing has matched the amiga for IMHO
Not going to happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
As for point 3, your "or better" stipulation is silly, as most music from the past 30 years was not mastered in anything higher than CD quality.