![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Taking a Nap
Feb. 10th, 2005 11:55 pmI pay monthly for Netfix. I also pay monthly, now, for Satellite radio (Sirius), and for cable television and for internet service. All of these provide entertainment, and except for Netflix, news, that that I pay a monthly premium for. Sure, I could get radio over the air, television too, but since I demand a little more from these services, I choose to pay more for quality and variety.
I rent movies, rather than buy, in most cases. I own less than 30 right now, which surprises me that I own even that many. I have friends that own hundreds of DVDs, and even old VHS taps after that. I happen to own a couple of IKEA shelves worth of CDs - somewhere around two hundred, and we won't even talk about the number of mp3 files are on the computer I'm composing this post on.
I'll admit it, I used the old Napster, now so many years ago - wait, I take that back, we mac users didn't officially have Napster, we had Macster, that used the same network, and I have a few music files from there. Not as many as you might think since I was on dial-up in those days, and there was the joy of having to wait hours to get a song, if you got a good copy at all.
Please don't tell the RIAA.
These days, I still have to admit that I like to get a single or two here and there, not having to buy the whole album. Certainly for me, iTunes was a good deal...and coming from Apple was a delight for the Apple fan in me. I had already bought an iPod, back in 2001. Of course, I really didn't need Apple's help in filling my iPod, I had more than 5GB of music on my computer before Apple sold it's first tune.
Now as we know, several other companies have come to sell music online, all of them selling music that won't go onto an iPod. I understand that there's a certain amount of frustration in that. There's a lot of business decisions there, and of course Apple is notorious for keeping things to themselves, especially when their being successful with something like they have never been before.
Of course there's people competing, and they're trying different tactics, they've been trying to sell competing hardware, and competing in the music sales arena. As with so many things, no one seems to put the whole package together just like Apple does.
Still, one of Apple's best competitor's in the music sales arena is the new Napster, raised from the dead by Roxio, the company who once sold popular CD-burning software, but has sold that off to concentrate one business, to be a music reseller. The problem is, despite big fanfare, and a high profile name, known more for music theft than for acquisition, the company has been losing money for the last few quarters.
So it's time for the new Napster to go for broke. Thanks to a Digital Rights Management breakthrough by Microsoft, (Yes, Apple has there's too) Napster can allow you to subscribe, monthly to music, and move it to MP3 players. Well, compatible ones, and that list doesn't include the most popular one, the iPod.
So you can choose from thousands, even millions of tracks, and for $15 bucks a month, you can listen to it. It sounds good, but lets thinks about it, is it really such a good deal? Perhaps it might be if you want to hear songs and then never listen again, but radio is good for that, or maybe Yahoo's Launchcast stations.
Napster came out with an ad campaign called Do the Math. It premiered during the Superbowl, remember? Probably not. While Apple and Pepsi had ads, and they rated rather low with viewers, Napster's ad was rated lowest for retention, message and cleverness. It was considered the worst ad on the entire broadcast. This was the kickoff of a $3 million dollar ad campaign to show off the new subscription service. Doesn't look like they did the analysis for cost effectiveness.
So, they are saying with their ad that the idea of spending 99 cents per track sucks, and spending $15 a month for the rest of your life is much better. Hmm, that's $180 a year. sure, you don't have to keep all of the same tracks, but if you wanted to keep one song, forever, you have to keep paying. If you don't synch up, or you forget to synch up so your MP3 player or computer can tell that you paid this month, you music files lock up. Dead.
Of course Napster's trying to convince you that you'd spend $10,000 filling up that huge iPod you got. Well, Most people never fill a 40 gig iPod, nor do they do it all through iTunes, anyway, using CDs and such to fill it. Besides, with Napster, none of their tracks can be used on an iPod anyway, just as Apple wants it.
Of course, there's one big thing that Napster's not trumpeting here. If you want to take your song off of that computer or MP3 player, that's where the problem starts. You have to buy it to burn it. Then you've payed to use the track each month and your paying 99 cents just to be able to burn it. where's the bargain in that?
So the question is, will people see that there is little bargain in renting music? I understand the appeal in constantly changing playlists, but again, radio is a better medium for this than having to actively look for new content and download it. This service seems to be targeted towards the young, that don't have a lot of music in CDs and want to build a library, but when they miss a payment, or want to burn a mix CD, will they think they got such a deal?
Napster's putting their entire company on this venture. If it works, then consumers get another choice, which is good in the marketplace, but it's questionable that people are as disposable with music content as they are movie rentals. The music rental service seems more akin to the idea of the failed DVIX system, where you would pay for each time you viewed the movie, but kept the DVD-type disc at home, than it is Netfilx.
I think people will always be willing to pay for entertainment. the market has grown exponetially for the last several years, but there's certain experinces you pay for the moment, like theater, and concerts, but then there's somethings you just want to own outright, even if it's just that copy of Muskrat Love.
Of course, if it doesn't work, and Napster goes under, then none of their subscribers will have their tunes at all.
I don't think I'll buy stock in that just yet.
I rent movies, rather than buy, in most cases. I own less than 30 right now, which surprises me that I own even that many. I have friends that own hundreds of DVDs, and even old VHS taps after that. I happen to own a couple of IKEA shelves worth of CDs - somewhere around two hundred, and we won't even talk about the number of mp3 files are on the computer I'm composing this post on.
I'll admit it, I used the old Napster, now so many years ago - wait, I take that back, we mac users didn't officially have Napster, we had Macster, that used the same network, and I have a few music files from there. Not as many as you might think since I was on dial-up in those days, and there was the joy of having to wait hours to get a song, if you got a good copy at all.
Please don't tell the RIAA.
These days, I still have to admit that I like to get a single or two here and there, not having to buy the whole album. Certainly for me, iTunes was a good deal...and coming from Apple was a delight for the Apple fan in me. I had already bought an iPod, back in 2001. Of course, I really didn't need Apple's help in filling my iPod, I had more than 5GB of music on my computer before Apple sold it's first tune.
Now as we know, several other companies have come to sell music online, all of them selling music that won't go onto an iPod. I understand that there's a certain amount of frustration in that. There's a lot of business decisions there, and of course Apple is notorious for keeping things to themselves, especially when their being successful with something like they have never been before.
Of course there's people competing, and they're trying different tactics, they've been trying to sell competing hardware, and competing in the music sales arena. As with so many things, no one seems to put the whole package together just like Apple does.
Still, one of Apple's best competitor's in the music sales arena is the new Napster, raised from the dead by Roxio, the company who once sold popular CD-burning software, but has sold that off to concentrate one business, to be a music reseller. The problem is, despite big fanfare, and a high profile name, known more for music theft than for acquisition, the company has been losing money for the last few quarters.
So it's time for the new Napster to go for broke. Thanks to a Digital Rights Management breakthrough by Microsoft, (Yes, Apple has there's too) Napster can allow you to subscribe, monthly to music, and move it to MP3 players. Well, compatible ones, and that list doesn't include the most popular one, the iPod.
So you can choose from thousands, even millions of tracks, and for $15 bucks a month, you can listen to it. It sounds good, but lets thinks about it, is it really such a good deal? Perhaps it might be if you want to hear songs and then never listen again, but radio is good for that, or maybe Yahoo's Launchcast stations.
Napster came out with an ad campaign called Do the Math. It premiered during the Superbowl, remember? Probably not. While Apple and Pepsi had ads, and they rated rather low with viewers, Napster's ad was rated lowest for retention, message and cleverness. It was considered the worst ad on the entire broadcast. This was the kickoff of a $3 million dollar ad campaign to show off the new subscription service. Doesn't look like they did the analysis for cost effectiveness.
So, they are saying with their ad that the idea of spending 99 cents per track sucks, and spending $15 a month for the rest of your life is much better. Hmm, that's $180 a year. sure, you don't have to keep all of the same tracks, but if you wanted to keep one song, forever, you have to keep paying. If you don't synch up, or you forget to synch up so your MP3 player or computer can tell that you paid this month, you music files lock up. Dead.
Of course Napster's trying to convince you that you'd spend $10,000 filling up that huge iPod you got. Well, Most people never fill a 40 gig iPod, nor do they do it all through iTunes, anyway, using CDs and such to fill it. Besides, with Napster, none of their tracks can be used on an iPod anyway, just as Apple wants it.
Of course, there's one big thing that Napster's not trumpeting here. If you want to take your song off of that computer or MP3 player, that's where the problem starts. You have to buy it to burn it. Then you've payed to use the track each month and your paying 99 cents just to be able to burn it. where's the bargain in that?
So the question is, will people see that there is little bargain in renting music? I understand the appeal in constantly changing playlists, but again, radio is a better medium for this than having to actively look for new content and download it. This service seems to be targeted towards the young, that don't have a lot of music in CDs and want to build a library, but when they miss a payment, or want to burn a mix CD, will they think they got such a deal?
Napster's putting their entire company on this venture. If it works, then consumers get another choice, which is good in the marketplace, but it's questionable that people are as disposable with music content as they are movie rentals. The music rental service seems more akin to the idea of the failed DVIX system, where you would pay for each time you viewed the movie, but kept the DVD-type disc at home, than it is Netfilx.
I think people will always be willing to pay for entertainment. the market has grown exponetially for the last several years, but there's certain experinces you pay for the moment, like theater, and concerts, but then there's somethings you just want to own outright, even if it's just that copy of Muskrat Love.
Of course, if it doesn't work, and Napster goes under, then none of their subscribers will have their tunes at all.
I don't think I'll buy stock in that just yet.
