• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Microsoft plan: let subscriber download Napster's entire catalog for $180/yr?

Status
Not open for further replies.

sonicfan

Venerable Member
WHat do you all think of this? Would it beat the iPod??? Pros, Cons???

Microsoft plan lets subscribers download away Napster's entire catalog of songs could be had for $180 a year

Jefferson Graham, 12.21.04, 11:36 AM ET

USA TODAY

LOS ANGELES -- Chris Gorog is convinced people won't continue to pay $1 a song for online music.

That is despite Apple's record string of recent achievements, including 200 million songs sold at its iTunes Music Store, and nearly 4 million iPod digital music players moved into consumers' homes this year.

Gorog runs Apple rival Napster, which offers digital downloads and a music subscription deal. Consumers get unlimited access to listen to 700,000 songs for $9.95 monthly.

The hitch is that to move songs onto a portable digital device or to a CD costs extra: $1 a song. That's one of the reasons digital music fans have not taken to the subscription model -- also offered by Real Networks' Rhapsody -- in a big way.

But Gorog thinks that will change next year. And he has other heavyweights such as Yahoo and Microsoft in his corner.

Microsoft earlier this year developed a new copyright protection plan that allows for the transfer of subscription songs to portable players. For $5 more a month, consumers can transfer Napster's entire catalog to their device -- and listen as often as they'd like -- as long as they subscribe.

With the top-of-the-line iPod, ''You can fit 10,000 songs on it,'' Gorog says. But ''to do that would cost you $10,000 if you bought the songs from Apple. With our plan, customers can get 10,000 songs on their device for $180 a year. It's an enormous value.''

The caveat is that Microsoft's copyright plan doesn't work with iPods, or virtually any player now on the market.

Only a handful of devices, including MP3 players from iRiver and Gateway, work with the subscription plan offered by Napster and by FYE.com. But in January, devices from Virgin, Creative Technology and Rio will offer software upgrades to make their most recent models compatible with Microsoft's technology. Many more devices also are expected to follow next year.

''We're really happy with the way the momentum is building,'' says Mike Coleman, a Microsoft product manager.

That may be news to consumers. Colorful billboards and ads for the iPod and iTunes are on seemingly every street corner, and Apple is having a record year.

Beyond a new Web site -- www.playsforsure.com -- there's very little mention of Microsoft's innovation, and hardly a ripple in advertisements for big-box retailers, which have devoted most shelf space to the iPod.

''One of the reasons Apple has such a huge advantage right now is their aggressive marketing. It's really paid off,'' says Paul Resnikoff, the editor of newsletter Digital Music News. ''If Microsoft is serious about their initiative taking off next year, they've got to get the word out.''

Apple has a 65% share of digital music player sales, according to NPD Group. While rivals have been aggressively launching rival units with slightly lower prices and more features, most critics say iPods are still the easiest to use and the better value.

At a recent industry conference, Music 2.0, panelists were eager to shoot a few holes through Apple's recent success. Apple's Chris Bell dismissed industry speculation about slowing iTunes sales, and showed monthly download statistics that had 10.8 million songs sold in May, increasing to 16 million in September.

After the presentation, rivals weren't appeased. They argued that in the long run, for-sale downloads were doomed.

''Selling 99-cent singles isn't working as a business model for us or for consumers,'' says Dave Goldberg, who runs Yahoo's music division. It includes Musicmatch, which offers both downloads and subscriptions.

''We sell hundreds of downloads,'' Goldberg says. ''But we don't make money on them. Subscriptions is a much better business for us.''

Music labels charge a wholesale rate of about 65 cents a song, and most services offer them for 99 cents each, leaving a razor-thin profit that also has to factor in credit card fees, marketing and overhead. The services favor subscriptions because they generate more profit and bring in steady revenue each month. Resnikoff says services profit about $4 per subscriber on the $9.95 subscriptions.

While Apple has a commanding share of the digital download market -- and sold 100 million songs from July to December -- rivals are doing well with subscriptions.

RealNetworks says it has 650,000 subscribers to its music services, which include Rhapsody. America Online says 350,000 subscribe to its MusicNet. Napster, which is splitting off from software company Roxio, has been shy about reporting subscriber numbers. It says 73% of revenue comes from subscriptions.

Gorog, CEO of both Napster and Roxio, says he agreed to sell Roxio in August to Sonic Solutions for $80 million partly because of his belief that subscriptions are the future. ''We wanted to concentrate 100%'' on Napster. The sale was finalized Monday.

The Napster portable subscription is available now in a test mode. In the first quarter, Napster will begin to loudly alert customers to ''Napster to Go,'' Gorog says.

To make it work now, users must work from within Windows Media Player. When it becomes part of Napster, it will work from within the Napster software.

''This is our way to explain to consumers how radically better the subscription model is,'' Gorog says. ''We think prerecorded CDs will be with us for some time, but 10 years from now, this will be the primary way people consume music.''

Link to story
 

Drozmight

Member
I'd probably bite on this.... I can seriously see myself downloading that many songs and $180 for all of them would be a steal. I wish Apple had that deal where you can listen to any song in the library for $5 a month or whatever, and download them for a $1. I'd do that also.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Two stupid points. For $1 a song, thats the same as buying the music from a store. So no reason why consumers will refuse to pay that. The $10k argument against ipod is similarly stupid.

If the DRM is good enough, why do you have to pay more to listen to your music away from your PC?
 

fugimax

Member
Eh...this is like the House Vs. Apartment argument.

Would you rather throw money each month in to something you don't own, and as soon as you stop paying towards, you lose..

or, would you rather pay slightly more, but when all is said and done, have something to show for it.

The only difference is as of yet, selling your digital music "when you're done with it" hasn't really caught on yet...in the future, I can see an eBay-like service where you can sell individual songs and people can either bid on them, or buy them for some percentage of the current retail price for that song.
 

Macam

Banned
It's hard to say for certain whether this will catch on or not, but I have my doubts. Napster's brand name may be more recognizable than Apple's according to recent surveys and such, but I think the simplicity and appeal of Apple's iTunes/iPod combination is still too strong for any real break in its armor, at least given Apple's consistent attention to their music business at the moment.

Microsoft has made a habit of attempting to diversify in these last few years, with relatively mild results, such as with their Media Centers and the new features in WMP10 (which I still find to be a burdensome mess of a player). Microsoft, for all their clout, still has problems really selling people on non-Windows and non-Office products. Also, given that iPods account for a majority of the sale of portable music players at the moment, not making this service compatible could hurt this Microsoft/Napster deal in the same way that Real and Apple's critics demonize Apple for not licensing Fairplay. Not to mention that to use this service, people would also need a new music player since virtually none on the market are currently compatible with it so that's another potential hurdle. Unless they initially do some bundling offers, heavy marketing, and actually make a stable, easy-to-use software program, it just strikes me as some overeager attempt to put a crack in Apple's armor at the moment...something Apple could easily counter I imagine by issuing a firmware iPod update and a couple iTunes Music Store alterations.

And frankly, I'm not sold on the idea of subscribing to music. Paying for satellite radio is one thing and something I view as useful given that I drive a lot, particularly out of town. But at the moment, buying used CDs off Amazon has proven to be far cheaper than any online service at a dollar a song, with higher quality recordings, and no DRMs to speak of. People seem largely okay with online rental DVD services like Netflix, but as we're seeing recently, with increased competition, the margins have become incredibly tight (just by the prospect of Amazon entering the market), so I don't really see this model taking off in the long run.
 

SteveMeister

Hang out with Steve.
And then when you cancel your subscription, you can no longer listen to the songs you paid $180 per year to download. Basically your MP3 player will be full of useless data. At least with the iTunes Music Store, once you buy a track or album it's yours forever. Does Microsoft's plan allow you to burn tracks to CD's?

The other thing that people gloss over is the fact that most albums on iTMS are $9.99, and most of those have more than 10 tracks. So you don't always end up having to pay $.99 per track anyway.
 

Phoenix

Member
The rental model is beyond stupid and the one thing that they don't tell you is that as soon as you stop paying the rental fee you have NOTHING. And if the price increases and you don't want to pay? You have nothing. If someone comes out with something better and you want to move over to that - nothing. Renting is for things that you don't want to keep - people generally want to keep their music.

If you're going to pay for music monthly - satellite radio is the lesser of the two evils.
 

marko

Member
I like napster subscription model. I am not too happy about them wanting to charge $15 a month to transfer songs to a portable player, that is pushing it. They should keep the $10 price point for portable transfers.

I like it because I listen to a ton of music I would probably not purchase or have access to. Yes, I could purchase 120 songs for the price I pay for a year of napster, and maybe I should be doing that, but I do like the variety.
 

border

Member
Unless the DRM is cracked, this sounds like a terrible idea. It's like the audio version of Divx...

Will they let you burn the music as an audio CD? That way you could just get a CD-RW, and rip everything back into a non-DRM MP3.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom