N is for Napster N is for NUTS!!!!

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Cake

    $10,000 to fill an iPod?

    That's a joke. I have several hundred CDs that I've bought and can freely rip into iTunes and load onto my iPod.





    several hundred CDs = several thousand dollars. Especially considering CDs used to go for $15-20 average.



    The $10,000 to fill an iPod isn't exactly true, but it still does cost a lot to fill one, the thing is, most people already have a music collection so they don't need to go out and afford another cost(filling the iPod) as soon as they get one. Additionally, since full albums typically run for $10, you can get to ~10,000 songs before hitting $10,000, but it'd still set you back a couple thousand at least.



    I have about 579 songs I've purchased from the iTunes music store. I know I haven't spent $579, but I have still spent quite a bit on it.
  • Reply 22 of 44
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    Also, if you use lossless compression, it does not take very many CDs to fill up an ipod - my iPod mini holds between 80 and 90 songs using AIFF.
  • Reply 23 of 44
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Surprised no one has mentioned this angle yet... who says you have to fill an iPod with just music? If it was only about music, I'd never ever be interested in more than the iPod mini.
  • Reply 24 of 44
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Wrong Robot

    Napsters all-you-can eat downloads could open the flood doors for a new wave of music piracy. It's fairly easy to make an unprotected audio duplicate once you have the file in your possession(rented or not) Enterprising folks could in theory, rent napster's whole catalogue and over the process of a month or two, have it all reconverted to something that can be redistributed. Yes, quality might take a hit, but, the opportunity is just staring them in the face.



    What DRM are they currently using? Has it not been properly cracked yet (to allow de-DRM without loss of quality)?
  • Reply 25 of 44
    I agree with many here, I have my doubts about subscription services. Once they realize they don't really own anything they are buying they will bail. I betcha the churn rate on this service will make cellular look stable.



    Apple should have a commercial that makes two points:



    1. Burn any song you want to disc and use it forever.



    2. Show people with large CD collections who stand up and say "I already have a good inventory for burning - Apple helps me add to the compilations".



    I think America is an ownership society. People want to own things once they have worked hard to buy them. People will think twice about losing access via a subscription service if they leave.



    Seems like Apple has a big headstart on title availability as well-a million songs?. Will Napster be able to match it quickly?
  • Reply 26 of 44
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    I just subscribed to napster as a test to see how sucktastic it was, I have been a subscriber for less than an hour and already i am ready to unsubscribe (30 day trial so no $$ loss)



    this thing is damn near a carbon copy of ITMS, just slower...much slower and the color scheme was plaid out by a blind man.



    But to the product, the songs, well, I thought (and still think) iTunes compression was bad, oh boy this is much worse!



    and you download the songs, then you are presented with an option to "buy" the track for 99 cents.



    God; this thing sucks!!!
  • Reply 27 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally posted by e1618978

    Also, if you use lossless compression, it does not take very many CDs to fill up an ipod - my iPod mini holds between 80 and 90 songs using AIFF.



    But, the drawback there is that you will have to deal with more 'skipping' as the iPod re-caches songs onto it's 32MB ram. It's not a desired solution for many. Additionally, the iPod earbuds aren't even that good so as to be able to tell the difference between uncompressed and compressed. ADDITIONALLY, .aif is not lossless compression, .aif is uncompressed.
  • Reply 28 of 44
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    and you download the songs, then you are presented with an option to "buy" the track for 99 cents.



    Ooh, double-dipping. Nice! (Actually, I see some advantage to this kind of "preview" ability, but for $15 per month, not that much.)
  • Reply 29 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DifferentLee

    I agree with many here, I have my doubts about subscription services. Once they realize they don't really own anything they are buying they will bail. I betcha the churn rate on this service will make cellular look stable.



    Apple should have a commercial that makes two points:



    1. Burn any song you want to disc and use it forever.



    2. Show people with large CD collections who stand up and say "I already have a good inventory for burning - Apple helps me add to the compilations".



    I think America is an ownership society. People want to own things once they have worked hard to buy them. People will think twice about losing access via a subscription service if they leave.



    Seems like Apple has a big headstart on title availability as well-a million songs?. Will Napster be able to match it quickly?




    Couple things



    1. yes, they should make this point



    2. no they shouldn't make this point, as valid as it is, it doesn't mesh with Apple's iTunes/iPod iDea. The real point apple has to drive home is the "end your subscription and there goes X amount of dollars" Instead of trying to bicker with napster over technicalities of how many songs cost how many dollars, they need to just lay it out flat.



    3. iTunes is international, So singling out America is void, But the point is still valid, People typically don't want to rent when they can own.



    4. Napster is facing in the digital music realm what apple is facing in the desktop computer realm, a shitload of momentum. Right now, digital music is owned by apple, they have such a large share of that market, and their system is so good, that any other company would have to not only outperform apple on every front, but they'd still probably fail due to so much momentum against them. There are mp3 players that are superior to the iPod, with more features, more options, more formats supported, cheaper..etc. but that doesn't matter because everyone WANTS an iPod. Napster will not be able to match quickly, and they will likely fizzle out into oblivion.
  • Reply 30 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer



    and you download the songs, then you are presented with an option to "buy" the track for 99 cents.







    aha, the plot thickens. That changes a lot. Personally, I think it's a good system to have, renting with the option of owning. But the subscription fee, it's required to browse? or do you get 30 seconds if you're unsubscribed?
  • Reply 31 of 44
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    If I had to guess, I'd say you pay them, then pay them more.
  • Reply 32 of 44
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Wrong Robot

    But, the drawback there is that you will have to deal with more 'skipping' as the iPod re-caches songs onto it's 32MB ram. It's not a desired solution for many. Additionally, the iPod earbuds aren't even that good so as to be able to tell the difference between uncompressed and compressed. ADDITIONALLY, .aif is not lossless compression, .aif is uncompressed.



    I have been listening several hours so far, and no skipping. How frequent is it? A 32 MB buffer can hold about 3 minutes of music - maybe I need to listen to a longer song to hear the skip?
  • Reply 33 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    If I had to guess, I'd say you pay them, then pay them more.



    I'll pay you more *shakes fist*
  • Reply 34 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally posted by e1618978

    I have been listening several hours so far, and no skipping. How frequent is it? A 32 MB buffer can hold about 3 minutes of music - maybe I need to listen to a longer song to hear the skip?



    It's mainly a problem for people that listen to a lot of classical, avant garde, indian, african, experimental..etc. music where tracks may be over 20 minutes average. If the bulk of your listening is in the 2-4 minute range, then you should be fine with it. I still wouldn't do it for the aforementioned headphone issue, and since I like to have a lot of songs(Don't like getting caught with "I really want to listen to X right now, but I don't have it! damn")
  • Reply 35 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Wrong Robot

    There are mp3 players that are superior to the iPod, with more features, more options, more formats supported, cheaper..etc.



    you're forgetting ease of use/user interface. the iPod is simply easier to use than all the other players. that's the main reaosn i have an ipod rather than something else.
  • Reply 36 of 44
    What is interesting about the Napster $10,000 point is that it really is not an attack on Apple. I mean they think it is, but really it is just a comment on the price of music period. Most songs bought on a CD cost around a buck per song as an average price. iTunes music store is no different.
  • Reply 37 of 44
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Wrong Robot

    aha, the plot thickens. That changes a lot. Personally, I think it's a good system to have, renting with the option of owning. But the subscription fee, it's required to browse? or do you get 30 seconds if you're unsubscribed?



    Napster has a pay download service like Apple and they have a subscription service. The subscription service gives you unlimited downloads for a set price. Now for a couple bucks more a month you can transfer those downloads to your portable music player. If you ever want to burn those songs however it costs 79 (or maybe 99 don't know) cents to do so for each track.
  • Reply 38 of 44
    I didn't see the ad but if Napster said $10,000, they are misleading people. Apple charges .99 per song, not $1 so 10,000 songs would only cost $9,900.
  • Reply 39 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent

    I didn't see the ad but if Napster said $10,000, they are misleading people. Apple charges .99 per song, not $1 so 10,000 songs would only cost $9,900.



    well, with tax it'd actually be more than 10K, but napster doesnt carry much credibility with this ad anyways.
  • Reply 40 of 44
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ipodandimac

    well, with tax it'd actually be more than 10K, but napster doesnt carry much credibility with this ad anyways.



    None of my iTunes Music Store receipts show any tax being collected.
Sign In or Register to comment.