Napster, Yahoo say iTunes is doomed?

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Napster, Yahoo say iTunes is doomed

January 3, 2005 - 18:24 EST__ Apple rivals say the iTunes Music Store's 99-cent pricing is the wrong formula for digital music, and that subscription-based models are the future. With the top-of-the-line iPod, "You can fit 10,000 songs on it," Napster CEO Chris Gorog says. But "to do that would cost you $10,000 if you bought the songs from Apple. With our plan, customers can get 10,000 songs on their device for $180 a year. It's an enormous value." A Yahoo executive also said subscription is the way to go. "Selling 99-cent singles isn't working as a business model for us or for consumers," says Dave Goldberg, who runs Yahoo's music division, which includes Musicmatch. "We sell hundreds of downloads," Goldberg says. "But we don't make money on them. Subscriptions is a much better business for us."



They may be right...this could possibly happen. But, just because it's Apple, does it have ot be big news? like they're so proud of the fact they can bash Apple? Every time I see aarticles knock on Apple like this it really ticks me off...

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    am sure that Apple knows what it is doing. If there is a need to adjust their plans, they will do that to. iTunes won't just disappear of course. There is merit in the assumption that is made, that a subscription might workt better in the end.

    But lets face it, not every song on the iPod is legally bought eiter, or any other mp3 player for that matter...
  • Reply 2 of 16
    Quote:

    Originally posted by O-Mac

    "We sell hundreds of downloads," Goldberg says. "But we don't make money on them. Subscriptions is a much better business for us."



    Wow, if "better business" is categorized by hundreds of downloads, I'd hate to see what "worse business" looked like. I'm pretty sure Apple has sold millions of downloads.
  • Reply 3 of 16
    pbg3pbg3 Posts: 211member
    They're not making any money because they're not using their stores to sell expensive Mp3 players
  • Reply 4 of 16
    gene cleangene clean Posts: 3,481member
    They're not selling because people are not buying from them. It hurts to say (for them), but they buy from iTMS. iTMS just sold over 200 million songs these days. So, who's doomed again?
  • Reply 5 of 16
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    I'd like to see a subscription service from Apple



    Seems pretty attractive to me. Especially if the songs were freely transferrable to the iPod as they are for other portable players on the PC side.
  • Reply 6 of 16
    mimacmimac Posts: 869member
    I believe Apple has got the right business model as far as music downloading goes because generally most people want to buy a single song at a time, not a whole album. The only problem that could affect sales of downloadable music is if high street music stores cut their album prices to acceptable levels therefore making it less attractive to buy whole albums from iTunes.



    Personally I'd prefer to purchase a CD with top notch sound quality than download an inferior quality music file. Maybe this is where a seperate subscription service would benefit those who buy a lot of albums and don't mind compressed music.
  • Reply 7 of 16
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MiMac

    I believe Apple has got the right business model as far as music downloading goes because generally most people want to buy a single song at a time, not a whole album. The only problem that could affect sales of downloadable music is if high street music stores cut their album prices to acceptable levels therefore making it less attractive to buy whole albums from iTunes.



    Personally I'd prefer to purchase a CD with top notch sound quality than download an inferior quality music file. Maybe this is where a seperate subscription service would benefit those who buy a lot of albums and don't mind compressed music.




    I want to own my music. Apple knows this.



    Napster is a name looking for a company looking for a product.



    The old napster made sense because people wanted to own the music, even if it was stolen.
  • Reply 8 of 16
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    I'm willing to hear out someone who's got a real alternative to iTMS. If people want subscriptions, they'll sell, and both the subscribers and the publishers will win.



    But the shrill "OMG HTIS WILL 0WN TEH APPEL!!!1" rhetoric is getting old, fast. Tell us what you're offering. Tell us why you think it's better. But please, let the market decide whether it's an "iPod killer" or an "iTMS killer," OK? Is that too much to ask?
  • Reply 9 of 16
    I wasn't sure from Napster's web site, but it seemed to me that you had to buy the songs to put them on your MP3 player. So you get to pay $0.99 per song on your player PLUS the $10/month?



    I could be misunderstanding this, though.
  • Reply 10 of 16
    I still think a subscription service, while great for a company, is not that attractive for a majority of music customers. If all you want is access to the latest top-40 hits, you already get that on the radio for free. Music purchasers tend to have a "collector" mindset--even those I know who simply use free download services generally have huge collections of mp3 they are proud of, and don't just throw away when they are tired of. These people would never move to a subscription model.



    I'm a bit extreme, I'll admit, as I have some 1,500 cds, hundred of tapes and records, and 80gig of mp3s. But the fact is, I'm very profitable to the music biz, and I'm not alone. And I won't subscribe to my music, I want to own it.
  • Reply 11 of 16
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tchwojko

    I wasn't sure from Napster's web site, but it seemed to me that you had to buy the songs to put them on your MP3 player. So you get to pay $0.99 per song on your player PLUS the $10/month?



    I could be misunderstanding this, though.




    Yeah, that's the impression I got too. If that's the case, if subscriptions actually did turn out to be popular, they could be added to iTMS very easily.
  • Reply 12 of 16
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Well, here's the most telling part of that story:



    Quote:

    "We sell hundreds of downloads," Goldberg says. "But we don't make money on them. Subscriptions is a much better business for us."



    We've had several of these articles done before and I reply to them the same way. As a customer, I'm not going to do what's best for you, the company, but what's best for me. You have to make me happy and make youself money. I'm not a charity nor do I expect a free lunch. Also, iTunes and song downloads are perfectly viable for Apple because they figured out that downloads are a vehicle to deliver iPod sales, not a profit center by itself. That's where Apple makes its money and it makes sense for customers and for the company that way. If these guys want to make money on music, try using it as a vehicle.



    I don't have anything against subscriptions, but the black-or-white line being drawn is pretty arbitrary IMO.
  • Reply 13 of 16
    19841984 Posts: 955member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by O-Mac



    Napster, Yahoo say iTunes is doomed



    "We sell hundreds of downloads," Goldberg says. "But we don't make money on them. Subscriptions is a much better business for us."





    They cannot even speak properly yet are in charge of these music ventures? They all seem to have a chip on their shoulders. I swear Apple has been doomed for over a decade now.
  • Reply 14 of 16
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,125member
    This is another FUD release from that Moron of Napster Chris Gorog.



    They've basically bet the company on subscriptions..what else are they gonna market? They are already a distant second place.



    Hell Apple hasn't stated they would never go to subscriptions..if they take off Apple can always revamp future iPods/iTunes to support subs.



    No on is really worried. Look at the 3rd party market for iPods. It's abundantly clear what system has mindshare. So much for the "Napster" name helping.
  • Reply 15 of 16
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    So much for the "Napster" name helping.



    It has always amazed me that they haven't realized that the way they're using that name, it works against them. Someone who understands a human language needs to remind them that names identify specific things, and the thing called "Napster" now is not what people remember when they think of "Napster." It has none of the advantages—illicit and otherwise—that the original site had, and every visit that a curious person makes will simply remind them of that.



    It's not rocket science, really. But they've bet the company on it, so I suppose we'll just have to watch them flame out in a blaze of bold rhetoric.
  • Reply 16 of 16
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    I heard many windows evangalists in the mid 90s saying that win 95 would doom apple, they were to be gone by 1998, but they werent.



    Arround the same time, Direc tv and dish network said that cable would be doomed because thir saevice WAS cheaper...that didnt happen.



    About 4 years ago, I read a ton of stuff that pointed out that "Palm is doomed" Because of Windows CE (aka windows pocket pc edition) that didnt happen, they coexist nicely



    I remember reading that xbox would doom PS2, it hasnt.



    now lets flip the coin:

    When iPod was new, I remember reading that it is too expencive and clunky, the mainstream would look rite past it to the Rio and Creative units...that turned out well...For apple



    OSX was supposed according to these people to doom apple, It would aleinate lovers of Mac/OS (clasic) and the hardware cost would stop unix geeks dead in their tracks...that was dead wrong!



    The tech media has always been a little biast, untill the last 18-24 months or so when power players like Leo Laportte(TechTV KFI, and his sites) and Walt Mossberg (WSJ) who started shedding light on the new Apple. Those two and a few other trailblaizers are responsable for takeing apple from geek/rich eleitist status to the mainstream cool image that it has today.
Sign In or Register to comment.