Support NeoGAF

[Zep]

I just saw the commercial where they talk about it being cheaper to have napster, then having an I-pod and 10,000 songs.

Do they think Americans are that fuckin stupid? or are there enough dumbass people in this world to fall for their plan...?

 

[demi]

Can't talk, suscribing to Napster brb

 

[Deleted member 4784]

Can't talk, suscribing to Napster brb

ROFL that statement coupled with your avatar... hahahaha :lol

I don't know much about how the Napster service works and operates now, but I believe that the majority of people out there first became introduced to downloadable music through Napster origially. Maybe Napster is expecting for those same people to hop on their bandwagon unaware of the fact that their service isn't back free of charge.

 

[Nightbreeze]

What is napster now anyway? Can you even burn the songs onto a cd?

 

[Joe]

what they said IS true and its actually a good idea/subscription plan. i dont see whats wrong?

 

[ChumsGum]

I believe it's where you pay $15 a month and you can download as many songs as you want.

 

[FightyF]

what they said IS true and its actually a good idea/subscription plan. i dont see whats wrong?

The clear benefit of the iPod is portable music...but their subscription plan doesn't offer you a portable player to play the music. It's incomparable...

I'm sure that the Napster service is cheaper than a new car...that'd be true as well.
But does it make sense to compare the two? No...

I can see what they are alluding to, but it's still a ridiculous comparison.

 

[IntestineBoy]

I can see what they are alluding to, but it's still a ridiculous comparison.

I don't think you do. If you wanted to fill up your iPod legally using only iTunes, it'll cost ya 10K or however much. If you wanted to use napster to fill your player, it'd be 15 a month.

Its not that misleading.

 

[Freestyler]

But if you buy songs from iTunes, they're yours forever. You have to keep paying that $15 a month to Napster FOREVER if you want the songs to work, no?

What say you wanna keep a few songs but stop paying for the subscription, what happens then?

 

[Triumph]

But if you buy songs from iTunes, they're yours forever. You have to keep paying that $15 a month to Napster FOREVER if you want the songs to work, no?

And that's the crux of it, in't it? It's dumb to keep paying these fuckers every month unless you're gonna be downloading a shit ton of music. And I'd like to OWN and be able to manipulate anything I download, instead of having it be linked to a monthly subscription fee and not being able to burn it to a cd. Meh.

 

[aaaaa0]

It all boils down to if you like to keep listening to the same tracks forever, or do you treat most music as disposable and listen to lots of new stuff every month?

If you end up listening to lots of new music every month, and you tend not to re-listen to old music, then Napster is fine. Treat it as a customizable radio channel where you set the tracks you want to listen to.

Napster lets you discover new music that you might like really easily, because it's got a pretty good recommendations engine, as well as the ability to just query what anyone else is listening to right now, or what's popular with other Napster members.

Because it doesn't cost money just to try some tracks out, I've spent hours just wandering the recommendations engine looking for interesting things to sample. That's definitely not something I'd do if each track cost 99c to download or if I could only hear 30 secs of each track before deciding whether or not I'd pay for the full thing.

For me personally, I think Napster is a much better choice than say, XM or Sirius, since I don't care about talk shows, radio news or sports, or any of XM's exclusive content. Napster works anywhere I have a PC (at work indoors), and anywhere I can take my MP3 player (in a plane, underground, wherever).

For me personaly, I think Napster is a much better choice than iTunes, since I don't care about keeping 90% of my music (it's just background noise to listen to), and I like constantly having a feed of new stuff without having to pay for each track individually, especially since 90% of it I'll get sick of and toss in a week or two.

For the 10% of music that's actually good enough to keep, I'd much rather pay a couple bucks more than iTunes and buy the physical CD -- I'd get the art and liner notes, higher audio quality than AAC, and an unprotected professionally stamped CD that I can rerip myself or whatever.

iTunes makes sense for some people, and Napster makes sense for others. Some people will never go legit, and just pirate.

Everyone's decision will be different -- but IMHO choice is a GOOD THING, not a bad thing.

 

[maharg]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with the ipod there is SOME copy protection. ie, if you buy a new ipod and copy all your music to it, that becomes some kind of second generation copy that you can't copy as much anymore?

To be 100% legit, you don't really own your music on any of these things. It's just a matter of time.

 

[mrklaw]

$10,000 =55 years of Napster subscription. Chances are you won't run it that long - your priorities will change blah blah. And that subscription can get you way more than 10,000 songs. In theory you could download all the Napster collection (although you'd probably just stream them)

even with Napster-to-go, you can still choose to purchase a track for 79c to burn it to a CD or keep it after you cancel your subscription.

 

[Jill Sandwich]

I'll stick to buying cds from Amazon affiliate stores or eBay and ripping them, until they stop making those little silver platters.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

And that's the crux of it, in't it? It's dumb to keep paying these fuckers every month unless you're gonna be downloading a shit ton of music.

It doesn't seem that exorbitant. $15 a month is pretty comparable to paying for one album a month. Seems like a cheaper alternative for some, considering how many images some people post in the "What are you listening too?" threads. Of course the downside is if the service goes bust you're left with nothing.

 

[Willco]

I like to own my music, not rent it. Lame.

 

[mrklaw]

I like to own my music, not rent it. Lame.

Its called choice.

 

[Willco]

Its called choice.

Anyone who chooses not to own their music is lame too.

 

[DJ Sl4m]

I'll never pay for a compressed song, when they start offering lossless like flac, ape or wav files I'll think about it.

 

[sefskillz]

To clear up some of the confusion earlier, when you download music on napster it actually puts it on your harddrive, it can then be played by any other application (winamp etc). So, you don't have to keep paying the 15$ / month.

 

[DJ Sl4m]

To clear up some of the confusion earlier, when you download music on napster it actually puts it on your harddrive, it can then be played by any other application (winamp etc). So, you don't have to keep paying the 15$ / month.

Yea I figured as much, besides there are ALways ways to get around music that would somehow expire.

 

[Willco]

But you can't listen to it on portable devices unless you're subscribed and it cost 99 cents per song to burn to CD, correct?

 

[aoi tsuki]

I'll never pay for a compressed song, when they start offering lossless like flac, ape or wav files I'll think about it.

Same here, but there'd still have to be some kind of savings for me to use the service beyond the occasional CD i can get a hold of physically.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

But you can't listen to it on portable devices unless you're subscribed and it cost 99 cents per song to burn to CD, correct?

I think there is a plugin to output the napster music to expire free mp3s. Could be wrong on that though.

 

[Archaix]

But you can't listen to it on portable devices unless you're subscribed and it cost 99 cents per song to burn to CD, correct?

No, the subscription plan lets you move it to a portable device. I don't believe the song itself "expires" once your subscription ends. You can't burn it to a CD without buying it though.

 

[Bat]

There are tons of stuff, mostly big name artists, that isn't on napster (except for a pay per song option), while itunes (and other music stores) basically have everything. So it's misleading in that sense, as well.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I like to own my music, not rent it. Lame.

Hell, some people pay a monthly fee for a radio service. This way at least you can be as specific as you want in your demands for music.