Why I'm letting my Napster trial expire, and sticking with Apple's iTunes.
I signed up for a free two-week trial of Napster recently, and my trial has just ended. I decided not to continue with the service, but I was intrigued by many of the comments I read in the Napster message boards while I was there. It seems that the two main arguments of those who support Napster are that iTunes users are stupid, and that Apple doesn’t offer choice like Napster does.…
Article comments
26 - jered bogli
I'm an ipod owner who subscribes to emusic. Does that make me dumb? They don't have the best selection really... But they have enough obscure punk and hardcore that I'm happy with the service
Nobody has mentioned that emusic works just fine with the ipod. Nobody has really paid attention to emusic. No pesky "protection" to circumvent, just pay money, get music. Just like going to the store... but you get no art and no lyrics and nothing to actually touch...
The other agrument that is rarely touched upon is the record industrys arguement that P2P is killing the industry. I would go so far as to postulate that the major lables continually releasing S*%T is the reason they are losing money... Just an idea - people have no desire to pay for crappy music!
27 - Phillip Winn
Nope, emusic is not dumb at all. With no DRM, the songs work on any player (well, any player but Sony's, and even their *most* recent finally play MP3), and I found some very nice artists on emusic back when I was a member.
28 - MySchizoBuddy
This article seems dated. lot of things have changed since then.
29 - WRC
Nice article. I am confused. I understand that I can download songs from iTunes onto an iPod, CD or hard drive. What is the file format of the download? How can I then change that format into MP3 for download to my son's MP3 portable?
Also, How would I convert the MP3 songs from my son's MP3 portable, my hard drive, or from Napster (that I purchased for $0.99) into a format that can be loaded and played on the my iPod? Thanks
WRC
30 - Chris Evans
This is a REALLY great and thorough article. One of the best I've read on Blogcritics. I personally prefer iTunes because for one, I have an iPod, and mostly listen to music on that, and two, because it is SO annoying that songs are randomly only samples and you can't hear the whole thing without buying it on Napster. That's SO stupid.
31 - SFC SKI
THe only problem with iTunes is that anything you buy from iTunes is a protected proprietary file and cannot, to my knowledge, be converted into MP3. If you use iTunes to rip youtr own CD's thoose can be converted and burned as MP3's. Overall, this doesn't bother me, but I have had 2 iPod's (40GB and 20GB) that failed to work properly despite all their tips, guidelines and updates. I daresay it was the updates that caused problesm, it worked with the software out of the box, but after tyhe 1st update, it was never able to load or play songs again. I don't plan on trying my luck on another. I am completely dissatisfied with Apple's iPod support, FAQ's, software updates , ultimately it's all about quality control and customer service, both of which I find wanting.
32 - Chris Evans
Well actually, as Phillip stated in the article, if you burn songs that you've bought from iTunes, and then rip them, they are mp3s.
33 - SFC SKI
I missed that, I wonder what he uses to rip them from prtected AAC format.
34 - Phillip Winn
WRC/Ski, you can burn the protected AAC files to Audio CD using iTunes, at which point they're just normal audio, so you can rip them back from CD into the computer as unprotected MP3 files, no problem. I use iTunes for the whole process.
You do lose a little bit of audio quality in the process, but if you're listening on a portable device, you really won't notice.
WRC, also, the iPod can play any MP3 file without difficulty, but if you downloaded songs from Napster, they're not MP3s. They're another protected and proprietary format, WMA. *If* Napster gives you the right, you can use the same process of burning to Audio CD and re-ripping as MP3. However, Napster sometimes charges $.99 for a song and then doesn't give you the right to burn it to CD, at which point you'd have to track down some cheat software or something.
I can't really help you with that part, and it's a big reason why I avoid Napster. :-)
35 - uao
Fascinating article, Phillip. (I realize I'm 9 months late)
The Napster argument is a funny one: it costs $10,000 to fill one up. Bless their pure, innocent souls ;-)
File share users are still disinclined to pay for any music service; an iPod was designed to hold mp3's, as far as most are concerned, regardless of where they came from.
The iTunes model is the simpleat, but it does suffer from missing artists and $1 per song is just too much for a serious music consumer; it costs more than most CD's, but unlike a CD it has no intrinsic cash value: you can't sell it at the corner used CD shop for a quick buck.
Napster's model is awful; if I stop renting music, not only do I have no music to listen to, I have dead files cluttering up disc space. Screw that.
The third option is Rhapsody, which is a monthy subscription service, but it isn't the same as owning music; no pay, no service, making it more like an interactive internet radio station than anything lese.
Given the three, I'd be more likely to go with iTunes, becaise they could be converted to mp3's using the method in the article, giving them transferability and permanence.
A buck each it steep though; maybe a dime each. Or how about a sliding scale price, where the popular stuff gets "bid" up (thus rewarding first downloaders) and the unpopular stuff drops to loss-leader prices (thus encouraging prolific downloading)?
As an aside, I really wanted to promote iTunes as an affiliate, and I sure don't recommend the affiliate program to anyone; it's handled through a third party, has no meaningful customer service, is cumbersome to work with, and earns peanuts not worth stooping to the floor to pick up. They'd make more money if they'd launch an intelligent program, so I could get behind them.
36 - Phillip Winn
uao, I remember before the advent of the iTunes Music Store, people were wishing they could download just the songs they want. Quite a few people were mentioning prices, too, and they usually ranged between $.25 and $1.50. Nobody mentioned a dime. And frankly, $.99 has been demonstrated to be "the sweet spot," selling enormous numbers of songs.
Frankly, most people who claim that a buck is too much are busy downloading the songs illegally anyway, and wouldn't pay even a dime, when it came down to it.
Incidentally, a sliding scale is the worst idea possible. It's foolish to think that a sliding scale would top out at $.99 and go down from there. The labels want a sliding scale, too, but it's so they can price some things higher than $.99, and exert control over artists that way.
At $.10/track, nobody gets any money, and the system dies. It's that simple.
37 - uao
Frankly, most people who claim that a buck is too much are busy downloading the songs illegally anyway, and wouldn't pay even a dime, when it came down to it.
Yikes, I'm not sure I like the sound of that insinuationn...
I was being somewhat facetious when I mentioned a dime, but not completely.
Think about it: I could go into Tower records and get some budget "best-of" CD containing 12 greatest hit, and pay $9.99 for the songs, the cover, the jewel case, and any notes included.
Or, I could get those same 12 tunes at iTunes for $11.88 minus the jewlcase, cover, and portability that gives it a real market-price value as a trade-in object.
Should a song by an unknown band that I'm curious but unsure about go for the same price as a well-known classic? Does that involve a decision on my part, the buyer?
And before dismissing people (I'm sure you didn't mean me) as "illegal file-sharers anyway" aren't those same illegal file sharers the market online download services are trying to tap?
10 cents a song would get iTunes more revenue than 0 cents a song, which is what they're getting from current file sharers.
But I'd be willing to be bid up to 25 cents.
38 - uao
And I'd start the sliding scale at a dime, not a dollar. I still think the increase in downloads would offset the loss in profit-margin (since the cost to the label is $0.00 in manufacturing and distributing, beyond server costs). Maybe not at a dime, but I bet the tipping point is at a great deal lower than a dollar.
39 - Phillip Winn
I said "most," not all! uao, I'm sure you're safe. :-)
I've dealt with these issues in more depth in other articles, while this was dedicated primarily to a comparison of two competing services, but I'll try to summarize:
1. $.10 is unrealistic, and results in a net loss for everyone involved, from artist to label to website. It simply costs more than that to make the track available, period.
2. iTunes does a lot better than you're implying. For $9.99 you can get many/most complete albums, complete with cover (embedded within the tracks), liner notes (in PDF format), and often bonus material (for newer albums). No, you can't resell the album to a used CD store for a buck; that's true.
3. Your metric for pricing songs breaks down pretty easily. You're arguing that unknowns should cost less while known classics should cost more. Many people argue that old albums should cost less, not more, while new artists are those who most desperately need as much revenue as possible. Creating a sliding scale as you've suggested puts all of the power in the hands of the labels, not the consumer.
4. My point with the file-sharing argument was this: there are several different categories of people, and while we can disagree over where exactly the break down, I think we probably will agree with some variation, there are three. 1-People who will pay any amount of money and jump through any hoops to be legal. 2-People who will never pay any money for something they can get for free. 3-People who will pay a reasonable amount, as long it's pretty easy to do so.
The labels aren't worried about people in the first two groups, only the third. Apple seems to have really hit the sweet spot for that third group, and I think it's unlikely that cutting the price per track would actually increase sales enough to cover the "loss."
Think about it: they would have to sell more than twice as many tracks if they cut prices from 99 to 50 cents, since their bandwidth and overhead costs wouldn't fall. Apple, for their part, is barely turning a proft on the iTMS at 99 cents, after losing money for the first quite-a-few quarters. Server and bandwidth costs are far more outrageous than most people realize. Trust me on this one -- I pay the bills for this site!
5. The labels are in control anyway, and the pressure from them on Apple is very seriously pushing for higher prices for popular songs, not lower for less-popular songs. So far Apple has stood their ground, but contracts need to be renewed eventually.
6. There is so much more than price to consider. Napster cut their price since I posted this, and still attracted almost nobody. They later were forced to raise it again. By the labels? Or their own red ink? It's unclear, but that's irrelevant. The point is, people choose iTMS in overwhelming numbers despite cheaper sources. That's worth learning from, I think.
40 - uao
Well no doubt you've studied the issue more deeply than I have. And you're right, my price comparison was unfair, you can get albums at iTunes, too. But I still think the hardcopy CD is a better deal than the digital eqivalent at the same price; I can do what I want with it, and it does have its intrinsic monetary value (which might seem like a silly point I keep making, but it is the same consideration one gives buying a car; can it be converted to cash? If so, that counts as "value")
I'm still trying to think of how iTunes could win over the millions who still do file-share.
Pricing, portability, and depth of artist selection are the three file-sharer complaints about legal alternatives I hear. And many of them would pay for music (type 3 as you've outlined above). But they're not going to join iTunes, where they'll never hear some of their favorite artists ever again because iTunes doesn't have the license. And which represents an enormous jump from what they're currently paying.
And file-sharers are accustomed to downloading in bulk; obviously, iTunes can't accomdate that, but it could give the illusion of accomodating it, either via pricing or membership terms.
If 100 hits sell for $99; and 1000 non-hits could be had for that some $99, I still think the record companies would benefit, much more than they would if the 1000-song downloader decided to go the p2p route instead, which gives them nothing. The 1000 songs cost the company no more to produce than 100 songs.
It's this kind of stuff people mean when they say the business model has to change. The record industry is still thinking in a units-moved mindset; this doesn't fit the realities of the digital era-- pay one monthly price is more likely to work (to avoid greed, a cap could be set on monthly downloads). But not with Napster-esque bogus sound files, but real, permanent mp3 or equivalent files.
But anyway, you've certainly educated me more on the issue, and I'll keep an eye out for your further pieces on the issue.
41 - uao
A fantasy regarding the sliding scale (It would never happen, but imagine the egalitarian possibilities:):
The prices wouldn't be set by the company, they would be based upon popularity; that'd make it almost like a real free-market. The new U2 opens trading at .25 and is up to .60 by midday, before settling in at a close of .51
The Rolling Stones tumble from .91 to .35 as fans thumb nose at the new single.
Insipid stuff like B5 would price itself right out of the market as it grew in popularity, forcing the B5 buyer to try an alternative, like the two-for-a-penny Cannonball Adderley tracks.
42 - SFC SKI
Phillip, thanks, I'll give that a try.
43 - jdawg
You know ... that sliding scale isn't as whimisical as it first appeared. Phil, I understand your point about label pressures. However, a sliding scale could put pressure where it belongs: on the artist. We all have suffered from the CD purchase that resulted in 2 great songs followed by 12 sucky ones. A sliding scale (assuming the artist recieved compensation royalties based on the same point in the scale) would encourage the artists to develop and release quality material. No longer would they be able to rely upon their hits to pull them along. I understand that the abilty to make individual song purchases does alleviate some of this pain - "The better the song, the more $.99 sales." Adding uao's logic - "The better the song, the more songs sold at the going rate." The early adopters/fanatics will pay a premium (group 1 above), followed by the majority (group 3), followed by the cheapskates/non-musicphiles (perhaps new group 4?)
I also agree that it may never happen because it would require all online music stores to agree on the principle.
Have a great New Year and thanks for the site. Great help to us all.
44 - Phillip Winn
jdawg, your naivete is almost amusing. Artists wouldn't set the prices, the label would. The pressure would be on the artists for sure -- to do whatever the label demanded.
Besides, take a look at the charts. If you think the best music is what's selling well, we're not looking at the same charts! The labels have almost all the control already, and a sliding scale -- which the labels are asking for! -- would give them complete and total control.
45 - Thad Wilkinson
I use Napster and I don't get the "renting music" thing. The ten bucks a month is for the ability to listen to full length versions of thousands of songs. If you want to own something then, like itunes, you buy it. It is two differnt services. Where's the renting part?
46 - Phillip Winn
Like you said, Thad, if you want to own something, you buy it. Stop paying your ten bucks a month, and see how long your downloaded Napster songs work.
When you're not buying, you're renting.
47 - Brad
Thank you for the info. I was a total audiophile for a number of years but it has been a while. Now just getting back up to speed about the iTunes / MP3 world.
For me iTunes wins.
Just like when you own a house instead of rent. You don't want to pay forever.
48 - Phillip Winn
Indeed, I mentioned above that I own a house, and in fact have now paid off one of my two vehicles, with the other's last payment in June.
The house is next. :-)
49 - Thad Wilkinson
Phillip, I haven't downloaded any songs unless I have purchased them. I listen to them on the Napster console. There are hundreds of songs I want to listen to occasionally or have intermittent access to, yet have no interest in owning. That is what the $10 per month is for. I listen to maybe 200-300 tracks per month that I would never purchase.
50 - Phillip Winn
Thad, that's fine. I'm just not the renting type; I don't pay for satellite radio, either.
My main point with this article was to explain the different models, and point out that Napster's advertising was disingenuous. Some people prefer to "rent" their music, and I can see the advantages to that. Some people prefer to "buy" their music, and I can see the advantages to that, too.
51 - Rick
Thank you Phillip for the excellent article and everyone else for your thoughtful comments. I've learned more from this blog in the past half hour, than I have over the past week researching this, since my wife bought me a 30gig iPod for our 25th wedding anniversary.
Anyway, I'm 53, no surprise given the length of our marriage, and over that time have collected only a few CD's, you see I'm not much of an audiophile. However, something I've noticed in the iTunes store versus Napster is ALL the free podcasts, videos, etc. Unless I'm missing something, that is an advantage for iTunes.
Just as a sidenote, based on this blog and given the fact I won't be downloading a great deal of music, iTunes seems to be the way to go.
Again, thanks for a really useful and informative article and subsequent blog.
52 - Phillip Winn
Rick, this article is now slightly more than a year old, and Apple added the podcasts and video content since this was written.
Amazingly, nothing else seems to have changed. The prices are all still the same, though Napster seems to have stopped calling potential customers stupid, which is probably a good thing.
They've not quite set the world on fire, Napster, and it appears now that I look more closely that they've started charging $5 more per month to actually listen to your music on a portable device with "Napster-to-Go". At the new $14.95 price-point, the service is now $179.40 per year. Or you can stick with the all-you-can-listen Windows PC-only service for the original $9.95.
53 - Ryan
I had a fairly long, well-written continuation of this debate, but for some reason your posting system gave an error stating, "Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy." This is extremely frustrating as I did not use anything close to an expletive, nor did I use anyone's name, let alone attack anyone.
Please review your submission code.
-Ryan
54 - Phillip Winn
The phrase "Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy." appears on *every* page immediately above the area where you post a comment. It's even in red with a different background color, to get your attention! Apparently, however, it failed to do so, and you only noticed it after getting an error message.
Ironically, you also missed the error message, similar in red, and also bold! Clearly the messages aren't clear enough. If you try to post the comment again, you should see something like "Error: [123] Banned word" and if you can email pwinn at blogcritics dot org with the details, we'll see what we can do.
55 - jason king
Freemymp3.com has a pretty cool solution using tunebite with napster and getting free music.
56 - badllama
I am fascinated by this debate but haven't hashed it all out. From what I can tell currently you can sign up for free, three listens to some tracks, then no more rental songs, but you can still buy tracks for .99/song. Ok, perhaps I am looking at this wrong, but isn't this basically itunes with a bonus. Itunes charges .99 cents per track with no perk. Napster charges .99 cents per track with some free rental time.
57 - badllama
I am fascinated by this debate but haven't hashed it all out. From what I can tell currently you can sign up for free, three listens to some tracks, then no more rental songs, but you can still buy tracks for .99/song. Ok, perhaps I am looking at this wrong, but isn't this basically itunes with a bonus. Itunes charges .99 cents per track with no perk. Napster charges .99 cents per track with some free rental time.
58 - Phillip Winn
badlama, that's certainly one way to look at it. Of course, not all tracks are individually purchasable from Napster, and some cost more than 99 cents, so it's not quite that simple.
For example, Metallica recently released their back library on both Napster and iTunes. All of the songs from their old albums are available for 99 cents each from iTunes, but most of them can only be purchased as part of an album from Napster.
Other than that, there are a variety of small ways in which I (and many others) think that iTMS simply does things better, including free tracks, free videos, and so on, but a couple of free listens may be worth more to you. Choice is good!
59 - Rob
Can someone help me chooce music store software, i cant use itunes, for some reason it doesnt work with my computer, can someone just put other alternatives out there for me
60 - Eric Brunner
Well the first time i heard of Napster was at work, because i work at Best Buy and i guess Best Buy owns napster. I tried it out for myself and love it! Its so much nicer having the streaming and being able to listen to the full song without buying it because i know i made so many mistakes on iTunes buying the wrong song because i couldnt hear the whole thing. I would definitely recommend trying it out. Its also really cool that when you download a song it goes straight into iTunes. You don't have to do any work at all. "There's no question that five years from now, our primary way of listening to music will be in streams of some sort." This quote was out of the January 21, 2010 Rolling Stone Magazine from the article Spotify, Amazon Challenge Apple's iTunes. I would definitely recommend not supporting iTunes anymore.
61 - Phillip Winn
Eric, I'm sure your employer is very proud.