Napster Blames Microsoft for Lack of Sales 319
An anonymous reader writes "AustralianIT is reporting that Napster has blamed their inability to compete with Apple's iTunes on technical glitches from Microsoft. From the article: '"There is no question that their execution has been less than brilliant over the last 12 months," Napster chairman and chief executive Chris Gorog said at a New York conference. "Our business does rely on Microsoft's digital rights management software and our business model also relies on Microsoft's ecosystem of device manufacturers."'"
I think I see the first problem (Score:4, Funny)
Now if that doesn't set off warning bells...
Re:I think I see the first problem (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, no profit for you.
Re:I think I see the first problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, there's nothing new here. It's the age old story of the software industry:
1) Rely on Microsoft.
.
.
1+x) Die a horrible death.
Although I think Napster has other facets of its business that may account for its eventual demise outside of Microsoft, such as marketing a product that customers don't want -- highly publicized crippling of digital music files.
Re:I think I see the first problem (Score:2)
Yes, instead of joining the MS bashing elite, perhaps we should focus on the fact that the devices suck, the music is crippled, and iTunes and the iPod are better devices. No Napster music on the iPod? Well, no duh your product isn't selling like hotcakes. Music plays on iTunes
Business 101 (Score:2)
Re:I think I see the first problem (Score:2)
You'd be surprised at the number of companies that are funded and startup with nothing but liquidity to microsoft as their main objective. And many of them are successful.
Visio for instance, was funded and started purely to make a product that worked well in the MS Office suite, and as they had planned, microsoft bought them for a hefty price.
Similarly with MS Flight Simulat
Re:I think I see the first problem (Score:2)
No, that AC rant smells like Ballmer to me. Didn't you get a visual of a tubby AC throwing a chair?
Re:I think I see the first problem (Score:3, Insightful)
LOLOMG! (Score:2)
Re:LOLOMG! (Score:2, Insightful)
"Virgin demands Apple license iTunes DRM"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/06/apple_vs_v irgin/ [theregister.co.uk]
"iTunes, DRM and competition law"
http://www.reckon.co.uk/open/iTunes [reckon.co.uk]
"Apple Avoids French Courts Opening FairPlay DRM"
http://digital-lifestyles.info/display_page.asp?se ction=business&id=1769 [digital-lifestyles.info]
I know Apple is seeing as gods here and this will be modded down to oblivious but hey face it, in this field they are as monopolistic as microsoft. Why is it so hard for some compani
Re:LOLOMG! (Score:2, Insightful)
Why can't we all just get along? (Score:2)
Re:Why can't we all just get along? (Score:2)
Uh, I think he just did. By maintaining a closed DRM and refusing to license it and manufacturing the only hardware that supports it, Apple has established a monopoly on the online music market just as surely as Microsoft has on the OS market.
-Eric
Re:LOLOMG! (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple's "monopoly" is opt-in. Apple isn't signing illegal OEM deals to prevent the shipment of competing products, the way Microsoft did in the 90s. You're free to buy any player you want at the local Wal-mart.
Apple (Score:2)
Re:Apple (Score:2)
Because Apple refuses to license the DRM technology they're using. They're making too much off iTMS, they want it all to themselves. Real attempted to sue them to get them to license it, but I don't think they've succeeded, at least as yet.
Re:Apple (Score:2)
Re:Apple (Score:2)
Re:Apple (Score:2)
If you mean "devise their own DRM, media player plugins and server infrastructure" - well, there's a whole heckuva lot more work needed to do that than there is in just hooking into Windows Media Player - and unless you're a
Re:Apple (Score:2)
Apple wrote their own DRM (or at least bought exclusive rights).
Apple isn't doing anything unique - selling music as a digital file isn't remotely their idea.
So why would the expense of rolling their own hurt Napster more than it does/did Apple? Especially if they are complaining that the current DRM system "has been less than brillian
Re:Apple (Score:2)
unless you're a really big name... who can offer a unique selling point
Apple has a unique selling point: integration into iTunes, and thus the iPod.
You go out, buy an iPod. It's got something like 70-80% market share, all your friends have one. You install the software that comes with it - iTunes. First thing you see: BUY MUSIC FROM THE iTUNES MUSIC STORE!
Apple was also first to market with the iTMS. (Yes I know other companies were legitimately selli
Choice (Score:2)
Actually this isn't precisely true, and I know because I just installed iTunes (on my work PC) for the first time in several years. The first thing you see once you get past the setup screens is a dialog asking "Do you want to go to the Music Store, or to your Library?"
Re:Apple (Score:2)
Because making a hardware player, bringing it to be the forefront of its market, then tying it to its music store and locking out competitors from using its DRM scheme is considerably more difficult than it appears.
Re:Apple (Score:2)
And thats where you have a point: NOTHING prevents Napster from implementing the excact same DRM restrictions as Apple.
Re:Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Apple (Score:2)
I've read a number of people who like the idea of 'renting' and maintain that they don't listen to their archive - I for one *rarely* dip into my arch
Re:Apple (Score:2)
'cause in 13 yrs (didn't test the math, I'll take your word for it) there will be a different or at least additional 2000 songs you will give a shit about.
As I stated, sure, this won't be for everyone, some people really do listen to only (or mostly) older music, and so if you in fact stop (or sufficiently decrease) your spending habit you may come out ahead by owning it outrig
Re:Apple (Score:2)
Re:Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
But you've got Yahoo, Napster and 50 million PlaysForSure groups complaining that Apple won't license FairPlay to them, so that they can compete. And I don't blame Apple. Call me a fanboy if you want.
If I were Apple, I'd do the same damn thing. None of those who want to get in on things have supported Apple's hardware very well or at all, have they?
Not pure anti-MS! (Score:2)
Napster has to write software that works with Micrsoft DRM software, which has to interoperate with software from any number of hardware vendors.
This is the classic problem that Linux people are familiar with: uniform hardware support is nearly impossible, due to hardware quirks. You've got N motherboard manufacturers that your software tries to work with. Sometimes it is impossible to write one piece of soft
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not pure anti-MS! (Score:2)
That's why I used the word "has" -- in the sense that, if they want to stay in business, they must choose M$ DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not pure anti-MS! (Score:2)
Apple is an integrated hardware/software company. Napster isn't, and probably couldn't become that in time.
I'm guessing that Napster was doomed; that there was no way out.
Re:Not pure anti-MS! (Score:2)
Easy: Open Source / Open Standards, mixed with some proprietary control...
Re:Not pure anti-MS! (Score:3, Insightful)
No, in practise they haven't unless they
a) want to get into the DRM system market, which requires a completely different business model than being a music service. The two big ones (MS's WMA and Apple's FairPlay) have other business reasons to be there, Napster doesn't.
b) release an iPod-a-like. Otherwise they have to go after all sorts of different hardware manufacturers and end up exactly where they are today, only now they
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not pure anti-MS! (Score:2)
I think the problem with PlaysForSure is simply that the devices are unappealing compared to the iPod, and they're not significantly cheaper. So there's no particular reason not to get an iPod unless you r
Re:Not pure anti-MS! (Score:2)
It's something like that. It's just people do not put words "standard" and "MicroSoft" in the same sentence for sake of principle. M$ provides the specs, the hw reference design and does all the testing (a-la WHQL).
"I think the problem with PlaysForSure is simply that the devices are unappealing compared to the iPod,"
That's the first problem. Second one is iTunes: I yet to see any other player which reaches the golden ratio of features and simplicity. E.g. Sony faile
Re:Not pure anti-MS! (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't work with either of my mp3 players even though they claim to support it.
It doesn't work very well if you want to burn cd's either.
(( You eat up your copy license when the track is converted not when the CD is burned. This causes several problems not least you select a buch of tracks to burn, media player converts them all eating up a "copy" for each track then decides there is not enough room on the CD and bails out -- 16 rights to copy which
Not the commercials? (Score:3, Funny)
Are they sure it wasn't the spooky commercials they were playing on late night TV a while back? Those things still give me the creeps.
Re:Not the commercials? (Score:2)
They can't be as bad as Rhapsody's crack-addled spokesman. He sounds like he's torn between channeling the OxyClean guy and wandering off the stage to shoot himself. If you haven't seen it, it's on Real's press page. [realnetworks.com]
One huge technical glitch... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bingo! (Score:2)
If the price is right, the quality is good, and the convenience is there, then sharing will not be a problem. Why go through the hassle of file sharing programs if you can get the song you want without any hassle for a fair price.
Apple is the American retailer that comes closest to this model, but it still has DRM and a set quality level. Napster II has a long way to go -- clunky DRM and subscription based. The Russian retailer All of MP3 [allofmp3.com] has the best model IMHO -- select the quality you want and pay by
Re:One huge technical glitch... (Score:4, Interesting)
But I was shocked last year, when I had a freind show me her Dell laptop, with iTunes, and a couple of other music players, and the dozens of different formats of music she had, and how some songs would play on some players, but wouldn't even import to other players, some songs wouldn't play at all, and of course the thing was stuffed to the gills with spyware and adware. Stuff she had legitimately paid for, she couldn't use. Stuff that I've ripped contrary to RIAA's wishes (but not contrary to US fair use rights, in most cases), I can use just fine.
So this is the thing. It's about usability. This is what the whole Personal Computer revolution is based on. The evolution from Mainframes and Minicomputers, running systems that only experts can use, to a Personal Computer, that the average joe can afford to buy, and figure out how to use. And the Copyright Fascists want to roll the industry back. People are paying thousands of dollars to buy computers, and finding out the hard way, that they can't use them in the way they want to or expect to - and in some cases, if they were technically savvy enough to figure out how the DRM was supposed to work, maybe they can get by. But more often then not, they've inadvertently moved something to another folder, reinstalled the OS to fix an adware or virus problem, or upgraded to a different music player, and all of a sudden, things don't work anymore, and all they know is they paid through the nose for music they can't listen to anymore.
A big part of the explosion of the internet in the mid-to-late 1990's was because of broadband, and Napster. You think adoption rates are going to continue to expand when broadband companies are clamping down (tiered rates, privacy violations, crappy service, monopolistic pricing) and the Copyright Fascists are clamping down with DRM that makes things much harder to use? On the same vein, do you think that folks are going to be rushing out to pay $5000 for an HDTV, and $40 per title, to watch HD DVD content, only to find out that the key for their TV, or maybe their amp, or switch, has been revoked by the Copyright Fascists? This industry has thrived on ease of use. And they're ready to flush it down the toilet - because they believe they'll be able to make more money, when it's really about power and control, and they're going to find that their market is a lot smaller than they thought it was.
What a poor attitude! (Score:2)
Perhaps it was just the spin the article's author took, but I was shocked at Chris Gorog's poor attitude. It's Microsoft, no it's the device players, no it's ... it's ... as Yoda said, "That is why you fail." ;-)
Methinks it isn't the smartest business move to badmouth your "partners". I get the sense that he's just providing cover for the anticipated acquisition - or trying to provide a rationale for a prospective buyer. E.g., "no, really - it's not us, it's MS et al. Once they get their stuff together, N
Do What Apple did (Score:2, Funny)
Quoth the article (Score:2)
Sounds less like an ecosystem, and more like the inside of a Big Brother house, or maybe some fungus growing at the foot of an iPod shaped monolith.
Re:Quoth the article (Score:2)
Re:Quoth the article (Score:2)
I believe they meant a economic ecosystem, since MS's DRM is set up to allow hardware and software manufacturers to compete with one another. By comparison the iTunes/iPod system is set up to allow Apple to sell you music.
Of course, you could just buy and rip CDs (what I do) or buy from stores that do not sell DRMed content (I mean the non-Russian ones), but that tends to limit the range of music that they can sell.
Re:Quoth the article (Score:2)
A marketshare pissing contest between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs should actually be called an "egosystem".
Re:Quoth the article (Score:2)
Heh. I often wonder if one or both of them (in particular Jobs, he always seemed the "nefarious" type) live on top of a dark, ominous hill in a tall, black building that gets hit by lightning more often than is statistically likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They're right, in a way. (Score:3, Insightful)
I love this comment, along with all the pro-apple comments that are going on in this thread. But consider this: If Microsoft was the monopoly in this field and other companies (like the beloved Napster brand) were having trouble competing because they were having to "get by" without the Micros
Except this is not right (Score:2)
Also remmmeber Ipod is NOT a monopoly like MS is. Ipod came later to a market with a lot of player. Heck there is still a lot of concurrence. That the other suck does not ma
Insightfull my ass (Score:3, Interesting)
Now go into your average electronic store and OOOOOH, a dozen different brands of portable media players. Even different formats. Minidisc, AAC, MP3, WMA, CD, WAV.
Yeah sure, the iPod's sell best BUT that is not what makes a monopoly. Nobody in their right mind would call Dell a monopoly even if they are one of the
a problem of branding. (Score:2)
Apple's fortunes smiled on them because they provide end-to-end service. Content. A delivery mechanism. Output device. THEY HAD A STEP "B"!!!
I suppose it helps that iTunes has always been a pay-to-play
Re:a problem of branding. (Score:3, Insightful)
And third... (Score:2)
You don't bet the fortunes of your company on performance on another company.
Use open OGG, then... (Score:2)
So what?! It's not the fans' fault if the business model of music distribution is outdated/broken, and if the prescribed cures are even worse than the disease (or a disease in themselves)...
As to the labels, faced with the choice of not reaching their audience anymore, or consenting to unencumbered formats (CD used to be one, remember?), how long do you think they'll prefer selling nothing at all
I blame Napster (Score:2)
I blame Napster for relying on Microsoft's "DRM ecosystem".
Obvious (Score:2)
Does anyone else think the choice of "PlaysForSure" as a name is pretty odd? "SurePlay" or something would have been better - the only people I have ever heard say "for sure" are German peopl
PlaysForSure (Score:2)
Carries an implied doubt that it will in fact Play For Sure. If you knew the answer with confidence you would just say it Plays.
Its a bit like if I write a dogy patch for somebody which I think will work and I say "sure, it'l work" on my way out the door.
Re:Obvious (Score:2)
Re:Obvious (Score:2)
Mr Gorog? (Score:2)
The iTunes store and Apple have been around for some 5 years now. If anything, Apple's share has gotten bigger, not smaller, although many dozens of other devices and stores have come
Freudian Slip? (Score:2)
Hey, maybe that's what he meant? Napster going out of business would be a change in the competitive landscape, albeit a very small one (to anyone who doesn't use Napster). I think that's quite a bit more likely to come true than Apple losing any significant part of the market.
I'd say it's probably more to do with (Score:2)
Re:I'd say it's probably more to do with (Score:2)
1) Strip out all the DRM using Windows Media cracks readily available.
2) Cancel their subscription.
It works if it's cheap enough (Score:2)
Plus now I can stream to my Roku from Yahoo, so I'm not investing big in it.
Re:I'd say it's probably more to do with (Score:2)
And that the actual Napster client itself is far-and-away the most frustratingly poorly designed and poorly coded piece of software that I use on anywhere close to a regular basis. (Yay for "free" subscriptions though...)
Drop the DRM (Score:2)
The DRM is a big turnoff, they don't have a trust relationship to customers that Apple has. As it stands you have to virtually marry an online music store (or at least enter into a long term relationship) so they can ope
Re:Drop the DRM (Score:2)
Whoever follows this model, even with it's obvious "problems", would win over iTunes.
So simple, and also the easiest to implement.
Cry me a river (Score:2)
Wow someone thininking about the reason (Score:2, Interesting)
Fear not, Napster (Score:3, Interesting)
As a funny side note:
We appreciate your interest in the Connect music store, but our store currently only works with Internet Explorer 5.5 and above. You don't seem to be using that particular browser at the moment, so, unfortunately, we'll have to part ways until we support the browser you're currently using or you upgrade to the latest version of Internet Explorer. Please click the Download link below if you'd like to upgrade now..
Well, Somehow I don't think so...
Re:Fear not, Napster (Score:3, Interesting)
This service is not currently available in your area.
Please feel free to explore our Sony global sites for other exciting products and services.
If you feel you have reached this page in error, please click here to contact our Customer Service department.
So let me get this straight.
Not available in more places then itunes.
Not available to people who are not running IE.
Incompatible with ipod.
Yup, that'll catch on.
Anybody else? (Score:2)
I know it is not an ecosystem but the first word that popped in my head was 'dinosaur'
Re:Anybody else? (Score:2)
Maybe (Score:2, Funny)
Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
It's their fault, not Microsoft's (Score:2)
Actually (Score:2)
1) Even when you do buy your options with what you can do with the song are incredibly limited.
2) The application itself is gaudy and awkward to use.
3) Incompatability with apple's ipod, the market leader in mp3 devices.
4) A limited selection of mp3 players that work with it's "napster to go" rent service.
One of my good friends uses napster and the napster to go service. The service its
What a shock (Score:2)
Seriously, who thinks that Napster (the big flash in the pan from several years ago) has such brand name recognition that a largely unconnected - and undistinguished - music business deserves to make money off the brand name years later?
1. Facilitate massive copyright violation and get really popular
2. Stop facilitating massive copyright violation
3. ???
4. Profit!!!
Man bites dog (Score:2)
If DRM needed, should be Open. (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple really needs to maintain Fairplay exclusively or cede yet another market to Microsoft. Remember when Palm had a PDA monopoly? Remember when Sony owned Video Games. Apple is just desperately trying to hang on to that one niche that Microsoft hasn't crushed with it's computing monopoly and mountain of Cash (Yet).
Apple won't license fairplay for the same reason they don't license OSX, they make money selling hardware. What happens if they license fairplay?
1: Stiffer competition in hardware sales, in fact Apple will find itself at a competitive disadvantage, as competing players will have fairplay and playforsure.
2: Apple forced to license play4sure from microsoft. Because of the competitive disadvantage they would be in, Apple would be forced to licence ($$$) play4sure from Microsoft. Can you see how distastefull this is.
Now where are we. Apple has now lost it's competitive advantage and was forced to pay money to arch rival computer monopolist microsoft, just to stay competitive. No wonder they won't open Fairplay up.
So music services, quit your damn whining and make a free, open DRM solution available to both music services and HW companies and break free of the big two.
DRM != Open (Score:2)
Of course, they always seem to get cracked anyway, but the closed, obscure, undocumented systems usually stay 'secure' long enough for the manufacturer to sell them to the music labels and other content
Re:If DRM needed, should be Open. (Score:2)
1) The DRM.
I have a vested interest in getting a new iPod if I have an investment in iTMS music. Sure, you can transcode the music, but do you think that the senator with the iPod is going to know/care how to do that?
2) The dock connector.
I need an iPod if I want my car to work with my player. I need an iPod if I want all of those myriad of accessories to work with my player. Sure, I can use line out for all these
Biting the hand that feeds (Score:2)
Yeah, and if you keep making jabs at the sole provider of your technology, you might find yourself watching from the sidelines. Or, you might have to get in bed with RealNetworks, which is basically the same thing.
DRM killing Napster (Score:2)
I can envision a new industry, where artists sign with small labels or produce their own music, and sell DRM free music on the web, and have small batches of CDs pressed at reasona
Don't blame Microsoft, blame the RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
In other news (Score:2)
You pick Microsoft with it's track record and what do you expect?
Go Old School (Score:2)
There is no DRM on an established media. The content providers are not taking any more risk than with the CD's they sell of the shelves at the record store or target. The customer owns the "master" and it is not tied to any particular technological device or operating system. They would be 99.9% compatible with anything that ca
The problems are just to many (Score:3, Interesting)
Then their is the pricing model. Anyone with a brain knows that this is worse even then the bookclub model (I don't know if americans have it so let me explain, bookclubs sign people up on the street (nowadays mostly immigrants or other people who ain't very street smart) to be able to buy books/cds/dvds cheaply from their catalog. The scam? You have to buy 2 books every period minimum and the contract lasts for 2 years. Since their catalog is really limited you end up buying stuff you do not want).
At least you get to keep the books from bookclub after you cancel (and paid for two years worth of stuff you don't want).You loose all your napster music if you ever cancel.
You are also locked in to only using their service with hardware that supports their DRM. It only works on Windows. (iTunes works on Mac and Windows) Oh and the format used is often reviewed as the worst of the bunch.
There is also no 'gifting' it. You can buy somebody some iTunes songs for their birthday. But napster? Oh, wow, one month of listening to music except I can't listen to them on my iPod, gee thanks.
As for their complaint that MS software ain't up to it. Well fucking duh. NOBODY uses MS software. How do you think the whole winamp model works eh? Because MS own software is to crap for words.
So you got a name that lost its meaning, trying to sell stuff people can't use, by artist people don't want, for a price people are not prepared to pay, on conditions that people don't like, using software people loathe, to be played on a tiny handfull of devices that people don't like.
Gee, yeah that sounds like a good business plan to me.
Then again all this MS funded fud is not meant to be a real business. MS doesn't have to own the online music store market. All it has to do is delay anyone else from doing so until inertia takes over.
In fact that is what Napster seems to be banking on. That MS can pull another IE and that somehow their inferior product will become the norm.
IE vs Netscape happened because IE was bundled. Perhaps MS should sponsor Dell to give a free MP3 player with their PC's? Pre loaded with Napster?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting... (Score:2)
Until now.
Re:Blame yourselves (Score:2)
afaict the riaa won't let you sell thier music without drm and apple is quite prepared to break things for and threaten others who try and make ipod compatible drm'd music
Re:Oh boo hoo... (Score:2)
What? You think YOU can write a better application that is just this side of spyware and malware without having mass user revolt? You think YOU can integrate video games and an application for listening to streaming media, and not have it come out like some bizarre Mecha-Streisand [google.com]??
Re:Napster and Microsoft are just as bad as eachot (Score:2)
I don't get what you're trying to say here... I've been using an iPod as an MP3 player exclusively for two years, never having bought music from any online store, but rather ripping my CD collection. To me, that's exactly what an mp3 player is all about. What do you mean?