With Napster, you also pay nothing for the software, which was designed from the ground up to look and feel similar to the old Napster software, but has a few odd bugs in its “Library” section yet. They will undoubtedly be fixed soon, but they annoyed me last week. Using Napster Light, you can browse and search and listen to 30-second samples, just as with iTunes, and download a track for 99 cents for burning, just as with iTunes. The restrictions are actually a bit more restrictive, but since you can burn the track to CD, the difference doesn’t really matter.
Napster Light is so like the iTunes Music Store that it is hard to imagine someone choosing to use it on any basis other than a hardware choice. Everything Napster Light does, the iTMS does better, and the iTMS provides four free tracks every week and better organization and Audible audiobooks and Pepsi bottle promotions.
But then there is the Napster service, which is different. If you pay $9.95 every month, you can download most tracks and play them on your computer for no extra charge. You can’t burn them, but you can listen to full-length songs. If you want to put them on a WMA10-compatible portable player it will cost you an extra $5 per month, and if you want to burn them to CD, it will still cost you 99 cents per track. Also, there are still some artists, some albums, and even some songs that cannot be downloaded unless you pay the 99 cents. I noticed quite a few albums in which a single song was “Buy Only,” which would drive a complete-album freak like me pretty crazy, but I think I’m an exception in that sense. Most tracks are included in the $9.95 monthly, with the exceptions running pretty heavy in the Christian music and other sub-genres.
Listening to full-length tracks is a big advantage of Napster over iTunes, and since you get to choose the tracks, it may even be a better deal than satellite radio, which for the same price gives you lots of channels, but none you can control song-by-song. Or, since you have to choose the tracks, it may not be as good a deal as satellite radio, which for the same price gives you lots of channels which you don’t have to think about to listen to. Its all in how you look at it, I suppose.
Still, $9.95 a month to download as many songs as you want sounds like a good plan, a killer feature. So why not Napster? Because the music is rented.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - SFC SKI
"The reasoning behind both arguments is flawed, since most people would do neither."
Got it in one. Great post, thanks.
2 - StandardAI
That's pretty stupid to say that only Apple has the rights to AAC.
3 - Eric Berlin
I suspect I'm a fairly typical iPod owner: I heard iTunes was super easy to use and free. As soon as I got a decent computer with lots of storage space, I set up iTunes and spent several days ripping the hundreds of CDs that I owned. It was easy and the ability to kick back or work while rolling through thousands of songs on shuffle mode was bliss. I've since added a bunch of songs that I bought from the iTunes store alongside a track or two that I obtained via "other means." Add in the iPod, and I can walk/exercise/drive with whatever I want, whatever I want it (including feeding podcasts).
So am I stupid? Maybe I am. But I'm pretty happy about it.
4 - RJ
I'm still in the Dark Age. No iPod here!
But I do use...uh..."other sources" to find songs I like online. For free, to boot!
Then I can listen to them on my computer, or burn them to a CD.
Works for me!
5 - Matt
Phil--great article. No question that Napster is Apple's bitch, and will be as long as you are a slave to Napster vis a vis the rental format. One question--when you download from iTunes (something I've yet to do) do you have a choice of format, or is it automatically AAC? If its only AAC--do most burning software apps recognize that as a burnable format? Why can't you just rip it from AAC to MP3 without burning to a CD? Thanks
Eric B--You just described my iPod experience to a T, except for buying from iTunes, Haven't done that yet. I guess I am stupid, and loving it!
6 - Aaman
iTunes is better than Napster, but it's many notches below Windows Media Player, at least as a media player - not as a store. Store-wise, it is fine.
One of the main reasons I prefer Windows Media Player is the fact that I can play and catalog multiple media types - music, video, etc. iTunes doesn't do that - yet. Also, I find more support for the media formats used on my players and media sources.
7 - Phillip Winn
Matt, as far as I know, you can only burn FairPlay-encoded AAC files from within iTunes itself. iTunes makes it pretty easy to burn a CD, but the "convert to MP3" menu item that is available for non-protected AAC files (and AIFF files, and others) is grayed out with a FairPlay-protected song. There is probably a way to hack things, but I try to stick with relatively mainstream methods for things.
Aaman, WMP doesn't run on my Mac, or rather I should say that the WMP on my Mac doesn't have any of the features you describe. Since I run iTunes there, I find it pretty easy to run iTunes on my windows box, too. I used to run Winamp and Macamp to accomplish much the same thing.
I tend to use VLC to play video, which handles things even WMP chokes on -- which are pretty rare, I'll grant.
8 - Shawn King
"One question--when you download from iTunes (something I've yet to do) do you have a choice of format, or is it automatically AAC?"
Automagically AAC format.
"If its only AAC--do most burning software apps recognize that as a burnable format?"
Hmmm....good question....I've only ever used iTunes for my burns so I have no idea.
"Why can't you just rip it from AAC to MP3 without burning to a CD?"
Apple imposed limitation.
BTW, great article detailing the differences.
9 - Phillip Winn
Oh yes, sorry, I should have answered the first part. It's not only always AAC, it's always 128kbps FairPlay-encoded AAC.
Napster, to be even-handed, is always 128kbps Whatever-encoded WMA.
There are websites that exist in the gray areas of non-North American copyright law that offer lots of format choices, but none of the U.S.-based major-label commercial services offer any choice at all that I've seen.
Thanks, all. I wondered if I was over-simplifying or making it to complex, but hoping I hit the sweet spot. :-)
10 - john
Am I the only person on the planet who uses his iPod for his German lessons?
11 - Matt
umm....yes.
12 - SFC SKI
I would use the iPod for foreign language lessons and audiobooks, as soon as I get around to it.
I rip CD's to my iTunes folder and then load my iPod, I don't have a CD burner, nor do I need one to load up my iPod.
13 - bpc
Here's the major difference for me right of the bat.
iTunes: You download it, install it and can browse the store right away. No one asks you for any info till your ready to buy something.
Napster: Download, install, then it asks you for a username, credit card info. I hate this
14 - Phillip Winn
bpc, true, but then Napster also gives you free full-length samples in exchange for that credit card info, at least during the initial trial.
15 - btn
Napster + 10,000 songs to fill an iPod = $0.00 (if you take advantage of their 14-day free trial and strip the DRM, which probably violates Napster's service agreement and some law...) Thank you, Napster, for helping AAPL to sell more iPods! I especially appreciate the 30-second spots where you prominently display the Apple logo on TV. :)
16 - Phillip Winn
I doubt one could download 10,000 songs in 336 hours, and I couldn't find anywhere remotely close to that that I actually wanted and don't already have.
But yeah, there definitely are people out there taking advantage of the trial to download music and strip the DRM (though the Winamp method has apparently been disabled, as I mentioned in the post).
It's tough to be the underdog, and doubly-tough when the market leader isn't fat and lazy. Apple isn't, yet, and the iPod still has everybody beat design-wise, with the patents in place to ensure that continues. I wouldn't like to have the job of selling Napster, which is probably why they had to resort to someone who thinks "stupid" is a great way to gain customers.
17 - Lono
I have an iPod and have filled it with 3,500 songs, and not bought a single one through iTunes. I catalogue all my Cds on my PC now... and so do it through ITunes (you don't much have a choice with the iPod). the only downer in all of this (and it is a big one) is the redudancy.
I have so filled up my PC with 20 gigs of CD music for my iPod that this weekend I am going to get an external hard drive for my PC (80 gigs, about $100) to move all my music to.
So, I have all my Cds. Plus, I have them all burned onto my computer. So, I can move them all to my iPod. So instead of storing 400 Cds, I am basically storing 1200. My plan though is to move all the music off my PC onto the hard drive. Then, box up all my Cds (they are obsolete), and just work off my iPod. The hard drive is for back up, basically, in case someone snakes my iPod.
18 - Temple Stark
>>What happens if you ever decide to quit paying $9.95 a month? All of the music quits working.
This was your lede.
Nice piece. I'd be an iTunes / Apple user because I'm on a Mac. Still it was interesting - and not laid out too simplistically for a general audience - to read how you detailed the differences.
I haven't yet bought from the iTunes store but almost have a few times. There just hasn't been something I absolutely need. Yet.
And I was going to say it's the new Navigator vs. Explorer (until I realized that sounded like a battle of the SUVs), but you pointed out that Apple hasn't grown lazy - yet. They get a little control freakish, but lazy never ever comes to mind when I think of Apple.
I also don't own an iPod as my computer at work and at home is filled with music.
19 - Joss Rowlands
Great article, Phil.
Here's my 2 cents worth...
I'm an Apple user, and have been for 20 years. I love iTunes, and equate the process of downloading music from the ITMS and burning to CD to that of going to the store, picking up my CD/Album, getting back on the bus, going home and putting said CD/album into a player or onto a turntable. The big advantage of the iPod is I can take it with me for listening to books,music and my Italian lessons(!).
I've tried Napster, and just found the process of 'renting' music to be silly. After all, if I pay for something, I prefer to own it.
20 - Phillip Winn
Temple, I realize that is the most important bit in the article for many, but leading with that would put this article into the "anti-Napster" category in many people's minds before they had a chance to read the balanced view.
I thought I was pretty fair, though in the end, I'm a buyer and not a renter. Burying the lede was the only way to be fair, I suspect.
21 - Temple Stark
Didn't think of it that way.
Oh yeah it was definitely fair. You gave it a go without ripping on it sight unseen - and then you explained why yoou didn't like it. A good read, indeed. If I could "Advance" it, I would :-)
22 - Aaman
I'm with Temple here - although I own a few portable players, almost every where I go is filled with media sources, and populated with music - meaning I do not use my portable players much.
I would never sign up for a rental music service though - a film rental service is another deal - can't live without it:)
23 - Ruben
I own an ipod and I am an itunes user. Recetly i bought a smaller flash player to workout and soon discover that had to unprotect my entire library if i wanted to listen those tracks in my new device. Frankly Apple design is unbeatable, and itunes usability and content offering is amazing but pisses me off that Apple doesn't let me avail freely of music that i've paid and own .
I recently installed Napster and has three nice feature vs itunes:
1/ i can play the music i buy anywhere i want
2/ wma encoding takes half the space than mp3, means i can store twice the amount of tracks in my small device
3/ even if my flash device is not napster to go compatible, i can still drag and drop music from my library into the flash device from Napster nice ui.
24 - Chris
I have both an iPod/iTunes and Napster account. Because I spend more time in front of the computer than on the go, Napster's streaming works for me. I listen to MORE than $9.95 worth of music a month, so I couldn't recoup that kind of volume by paying $0.99 a track.
On the other hand, when I DO want to keep a track, I download it from Napster or iTunes, whomever has it, burn it and put it on the iPod.
I don't see why people are so intent on one over the other. The whole "adverse to renting" is bull, since you "rent" your phone number, "rent" your car (until you turn it in for a new one), and many people "rent" apartments, which is a far greater sin, IMHO, than "renting" your music.
25 - Phillip Winn
Chris, I own a home and two cars, renting none of the above. I own my telephone, too. Phone service is a service, but it is transient, unlike music. Napster is betting that people will view music the same way anyway. I think they're overly optimistic, but the market will let us know for sure.
Ruben, Napster doesn't let you "avail freely of music that you've paid and own," either. Try sticking some of those songs on your iPod! You can only play your Microsoft-protected songs on Microsoft-approved devices, just as with Apple.
You own one player that is compatible with each service, and neither player is compatible with the other. And yet you single out Apple as incompatible. That's darn fine marketing on the part of Napster, but it's factually inaccurate.