Napster passes half-million mark

Online music service Napster on Wednesday said it had passed 500,000 premium paid subscribers for its platform.

The company said it also has 50,000 subscribers through a college access program.

[thenet411]

Napster is WAY better than iTunes

For me, anyway. I am actually kind of shocked that there is only 500,000. I would think the number would be in the millions by now. <br />I evaluated iTunes and Napster before buying a single track and I realized that Napster is a better deal. I listen to music exclusively in my car and on my computers. For just $9.95 a month, I can stream all of my favorite songs (the WHOLE song, not just a 30 second clip)to my computers. Then, I assemble my favorite songs into playlists and when I wanted to take them with me, I just purchased them and burned them to a CD. Now, I have a Creative Zen and for only $14.95 a month, I can have every one of my favorite songs (as many as my Zen will hold, anyway) with me wherever I go! As long as I put my Zen in the cradle once a month to verify mu sub to Napster, they just keep on playing. Its a lot cheaper than actually buying all those tracks. <br />iTunes has nothing like that. All you can do is listen to 30 second clips and buy tracks. Thats it. Not only that, but iTunes limits the number of times you can burn to a CD after you buy it! Now, if you are technically competent, you can just rip a track off of a CD and reburn it to more, but the limit in the iTunes software just smells of censorship.

[djjuice]

RE:Napster is WAY better than iTunes

So you pay $9.95 a month and $14.95 a month?<br />So what if you go on vacation and cant plug your player into <br />your computer or don't have internet? You could be without your <br />music since you have to keep "verifying" your account. WIth <br />Napster you just rent your music you don't own it. The reason <br />itunes does nothing but let your purchase the songs is perfect. I <br />want to OWN the music I purchase and not rent it. I fill up my <br />iPod and never have to plug it in. So if you don't download any <br />music for a month you paid for nothing? I can purchase 5 songs <br />off itunes and never have to use it again. This is why iTunes <br />beats the competition.

[Musica360.com]

ahh yea,,, about that...

I guess who is better depends on your point of view:<br />1. There are still people who prefer to own their music as <br />opposed to renting. That's a debate thats been raging for awhile <br />so I won't go there. You prefer to RENT your music that's your <br />preference. With Napsters current financial troubles bubbling to <br />the surface... if they go under.. you'll have nothing to show for <br />it.<br /><br />2. YOu can't compare PAYING $9.95 a month to listening to 30 <br />second soundclips for FREE. They're totally different beast. The <br />deal with the majors constitutes that anything streamed over 30 <br />is radio and they have to be paid for it. Hence music clips on <br />almost all music sites (including A-LA-CARTE Napster) is limited <br />to 30 seconds. If you want TO PAY FOR LONGER CLIPS then you <br />certainly can get them. But let's not mix up the two.<br /><br />3. Napster and the majority of other services use Protected <br />Windows Media files whose DRM is ALOT more stringent than <br />the Fairplay that Apples uses. Hell there have been plenty of <br />articles written about this point so the following statement " only <br />that, but iTunes limits the number of times you can burn to a CD <br />after you buy it!" is represent of ALL services featuring Major <br />label tracks. And Windows Media is the worst offender. Even <br />people who prefer the other services over iTunes can attest to <br />that. So let's not spread misinformation.<br /><br />4. That fact that iTunes is the most popular service (83% market <br />share) is because they create the store and the player and none <br />of the other services work as seemlessly together as the iPod/<br />iTunes combination. Combine that with the fact that more <br />people would still rather OWN their music than rent. I do think <br />that the subscription model is the future, but rest assured, <br />should people start to move in that direction. So will iTunes.

[hob0t]

Napster Blows

Napster isnt even Napster, it is an itunes wannabe, when it closed and "re-opened" to sell music, it violated everything that the real napster was about.

[thenet411]

Sure, if you are a thief

Music is NOT free. Napster was fun while it lasted, but we all knew it wouldn't stay that way. If you hadn't figured that out, you might want to go back to school. Sure there are still P2P networks where music, movies, and software are "free", but those lame networks are responsible for over 70% of the spyware and viruses that infect the computers of the technically incompetent. It will not last.

[nozza_prog]

Napster vs iTunes

It really depends on your preferences but I would say if you are a heavy user or have a very random music taste then Napster is a clear choice.<br /><br />I am probably considered a very heavy user. Since I started my napster subscription I have downloaded nearly 10,000 tracks. iTunes charges (79p i assume thats 79c in the US) per track, that would be £7900s worth of music on iTunes - on napster its cost me about £100. And when my music taste changes in 6 months, its only cost me about another £100 to carry my music around with me wherever I want (I have a Zen and the 'Napster2Go' subscription). <br /><br />If you are not likely to buy the eqivalent of a CD a month then iTunes would probabl work best for you but if you would normally buy more than that, then there is no reason to not use Napster.<br /><br />Admittedly the concept of not 'owning' your music is a scary thought, and I would be extremely irritated if Napster just dissapeared leaving me with no music. But the same is true for iTunes, the files are still copy protected and the music is still in no way 'yours'. <br /><br />From what I can tell, subscription services are the way forward, Virgin launched a new service which looks to be a Napster clone. The problem is Apple has a large fan base, its fan base is large and very very loyal, they often do not see that the grass may be greener on the other side (*Cough* Windows XP background)<br /><br />I wish the record labels will just realise that in modern times they just can't stitch people for what they used to. I will never buy another audio CD again. Ever. You buy a CD only to find it will not play in your CD player or your computer or it has software developed from trojan technology in it designed to restrict its use (Evil stare at Sony). Surely if you have bought the CD you can do what you want with it. I do not even OWN a CD player, i soley listen to music on my computer. <br /><br />DRM is a very annoying technology but I think its here to stay and unfortunately Napster is full of it. Luckily Napster makes a good job of hiding it assuming you keep paying your subscription. <br /><br />Windows Vista the next version of windows will have DRM technology built right into it. You will not be able to play some media or files without having a special monitor which supports 'secure' output. <br /><br />I recently saw an article about a blue ray disk player which would 'self destruct' if it thought it was playing a copied disk. If the player ever got an internet connection and found a disk it played wasn't 'legal' then it would flash its own bios forcing the drive to have to be sent to the manufacturer for repairs. I will personally not stand for this and will refuse to buy any hardware or software which makes things that restrictive for the user. <br /><br />Its time consumers stood up for their rights, if things go the way they seem to be soon enough a man with a black suit and shades will be standing over you in the movie theatre, in your living room or in your bedroom making sure you are not pirating something. <br /><br />&lt;/End Rant&gt; Ok. Got a bit carried away on the subject of DRM. <br /><br />If you do listen to music a lot, I seriously suggest Napster. I've already converted a few friends. <br /><br />Summary: Napster good, DRM bad.

[chase-p]

Re: Napster vs. iTunes

Considering you're in Britain, Napster does make a little more <br />sense... 79p British equals US$1.39. I still prefer iTunes because I <br />don't buy every month. I also, however, have a subscription to <br />eMusic, because those are non-DRM mp3, and I find some pretty <br />cool music there. It's not really A question of what's better, it's <br />what fits your needs.<br /><br />BTW, how much you paying per month in UK for Napster?

[Musica360.com]

A few misconceptions...

&lt;dmittedly the concept of not 'owning' your music is a scary <br />thought, and I would be extremely irritated if Napster just <br />dissapeared leaving me with no music. But the same is true for <br />iTunes, the files are still copy protected and the music is still in <br />no way 'yours'.&gt;<br /><br />Untrue. Because even if iTunes disappeared you could rip mp3's <br />from a burned cd.<br /><br />&lt; The problem is Apple has a large fan base, its fan base is <br />large and very very loyal, they often do not see that the grass <br />may be greener on the other side (*Cough* Windows XP <br />background)&gt;<br /><br />Actually the iPod's popularity has nothing to do with the <br />platform/os wars. The majority of iPod users are Windows <br />owners. That's what made the iPod the success it is now not the <br />Mac 4% Market share, though OS X is definitely better ( * COugh* <br />Graphic Design Background)