Napster CEO blames Microsoft for his company's mediocre showing

It seems that Napster chairman and CEO Chris Gorog could learn a thing or two from Ed Zander about harshing on other companies when frustrated by one's own business woes, as Gorog recently placed some of the blame for Napster's inability to gain market share squarely at Microsoft's feet. After saying "There is no question that their execution has been less than brilliant over the last 12 months," and citing technical glitches in Microsoft software and device hardware, Gorog qualified his statements by conceding that the Big M has a more difficult task than Apple in that it must coordinate with many different device manufacturers. Still, instead of playing the blame game, perhaps the company that named itself after a P2P piracy network in a very transparent attempt to gain street cred should re-evaluate some of the decisions being made at home before pointing fingers abroad.

[Barney @ Mar 2nd 2006 8:18AM]

He should have blamed the RIAA instead.

[Josh @ Mar 2nd 2006 8:24AM]

I'm sure it's Microsoft's fault that Napster has unnecessarily strict DRM terms (which are defined by the content provider, not MS). I'm sure it's Microsoft's fault that everybody hates the look and feel of the Napster client. I'm sure it's Microsoft's fault that that same crappy client locks up and freezes whenever they query the server (ever hear of a background thread?).

As I Napster subscriber, I am strongly thinking of switching to Yahoo or MSN Music, both of which still use Windows Media. It has nothing to do with Microsoft. Napster doesn't listen to customer complaints.

[tank @ Mar 2nd 2006 8:30AM]

He should blame himself for changing his company to a one trick pony. All he had to do was look at Apple's bottom line to see that there's no money to be made in selling digital music. Apple's happy if iTunes Music Store breaks even, this moron needs to turn a profit and still hasn't figured out how.

Do they even sell the Napster branded mp3 player anymore?

[Blunt @ Mar 2nd 2006 8:44AM]

Playing the blame game at this juncture is just not the right thing to do. Instead, he should be getting himself in a boat or a raft and helping evacuees get out of New Orleans.

[Cyberwhore @ Mar 2nd 2006 8:46AM]

He also believes that the windows media formats will rule the world.

"Ultimately, the consumer electronics giants ... are all going to come to this Windows Media party," he said. "This is really going to be the ubiquitous format."

What a muppet.

[Greg hates Lemmings @ Mar 2nd 2006 9:13AM]

Napster is awesome but i changed to itunes cause the ipod and his drm wma was been screwing up lately

[Wayde @ Mar 2nd 2006 9:34AM]

I understand this fully. Napster has every right to blame Microsoft.

Just as I am now blaming Microsoft because I am not a millionaire yet - I even code using there coding tools? What could I possibly be doing wrong?

Perhaps I need to change my business plan to stop blaming others, and just get on with it...

[Dan @ Mar 2nd 2006 9:36AM]

Maybe somebody should clue this guy in that his service is failing because it sucks.

Just a thought.

[Uchendu Nwachukwu @ Mar 2nd 2006 10:21AM]

None of the subscription music sites I've tried are perfect, but Napster's client software is one of the worst aroumd. I think that has a lot to do with why Napster is underperforming so badly.

Right now I am a Yahoo subscriber, and I like the service very much. The client isn't perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than Napster's software.

[BRYAN @ Mar 2nd 2006 10:31AM]

I really hope this works out. Not for Napster, but for Microsoft. The subscription model for music distribution is absolutely amazing. Napster is just selling us Microsoft's format. Its no different than Rhapsody or Yahoo Unlimited. I would think that Yahoo is more of a threat, since they are charging 1/3 for the exact same service. Microsoft will likely start to push this format heavily in December, when VISTA launches, and their own Microsoft/MTV subscription service will be built into Windows Media Player 11. Unless its cheaper, I am sticking with Yahoo.

If you havent tried a subscription yet. It is worth your time.

[bigMIKE @ Mar 2nd 2006 10:58AM]

I will try a subscription format when one of them works with a Mac.

It would be nice if they could run on an iPod, too. But that would just be a bonus.

[Wildness @ Mar 2nd 2006 11:04AM]

I looked at Napster once...ONCE...I want to own my music, not rent it for a monthly fee. Anyone with a clue can release that Napster is nothing more than another take your money and get nothing tangible for it service - kind of like all that intagible stuff people pay their cell phone company for (but, for some stupid reason, it works for them...go figure).

[Chris @ Mar 2nd 2006 11:07AM]

TO: BRYAN

How much music can you download in a month? How many months in a row can you download that much music? And at what point does the whole thing become ridiculously pointless because you have more music to listen to than you have time?

Do you even like music? Or do you only like what's hot right now?

And finally, do you enjoy paying for music for the rest of your life that you don't actually own?

[JT @ Mar 2nd 2006 11:09AM]

I think that Apple could launch a subscription service at the flip of a switch. It will be done if there's a clear message from the market. Still, for the moment, their gazillion songs sold do nothing to push in that direction.

[Daniel @ Mar 2nd 2006 11:17AM]

The whole subscription model just absolutely rocks (at least as far as legal downloading goes). I really hope MS develops a good subscription front end and music device of its own. If Apple would get on the subscription bandwagon I would probably buy an iPod. It's the only thing keeping me from doing so.

It's funny when I hear my friends who have iTunes talking about how they downloaded this song or that song for 99c each. And I'm sitting there going, "If you like those tracks, you should hear the rest of the album... Oh that's right, you can't afford to!"

[Daniel @ Mar 2nd 2006 11:28AM]

As far as the argument about subscription members never actually "owning" their music. Guess what, NONE of us ever actually own another artist's music. We just pay $16 or whatever to own a disc with a copy of it for a while, until either we lose the disc, damage it, or CDs become completely obsolete.

And do you really want to have to keep all the media you've ever purchased in your life in some massive bookcase somewhere just to be able to reload your iPod or whatever with it later on? No thanks. I would rather be a lifetime member of some service, just the way we all are with cable and our ISPs, and have instant access to an entire library of music available to me at any time, depending on what I am in the mood to hear. Pretty soon, all of our cell phones are going to be UMPCs and we're going to want infinite music selection with us. And iTunes users definitely never OWN the music they buy at 99 cents a pop. It's DRM'd out the wazoo. And they sure as heck better not ever reformat or buy a new PC and forget to back it all up.

And yes, I can download a lot of music a month. Once you become a subscription member, you understand. It's a journey of exploration that you begin. One song leads to another, to another, and so on... Lots of fun.

[Chris @ Mar 2nd 2006 11:34AM]

Daniel,

Terrible arguments. I'm listening to a full album I bought over 15 years ago and I still love it. Music is meaningful to me. You would rather have a hard drive full of potential data bricks than have a hard drive only a quarter-full of songs you actually enjoy.

I've found tons of new music through iTunes. And the music I've bought through iTunes is DRM free now.

If hard times fall on me and I need to cut back on my "services" such as cable or Napster that I pay for each and every month, I don't lose a lifetime of music.

[Daniel @ Mar 2nd 2006 12:12PM]

Chris,

I see your point. However, the thing about subscription services is that you DON'T have to keep a hard drive (or MP3 player) full of music that you may or may not listen to. If you get tired of something, you are free to just trash it. And it may be that years later, you hear some part of that album again and want to listen to it. You are free to just play it online or download it again. It's really no different than Internet access. You don't store a copy of every single web page you like in case you ever have to shut off your ISP connection do you? Plus, it's only $10 a month dude! Come on.

As far as your "DRM free" iTunes music, it's DRM free because you burned it to a CD-RW and then ripped it back in again...am I not correct? You probably have an RW specifically for that purpose and have to go through that each time you buy something new. That's a lot of work to ensure you don't accidentally lose your licensed copy in the future.

Also, if hard times fall on me and I need to suspend my music subscriptions, I will most likely continue to purchase CDs from time to time. That's reality. We don't just completely stop purchasing music during our lives, with or without subscription programs.

For me, it's worth it to have the freedom to really explore a lot of artists that I would NEVER risk the money on in a store or iTunes. I've found some really cool obscure music this way.

[Daniel @ Mar 2nd 2006 12:27PM]

You're right, Jon. Our "shitty services bites". We really should blame ourselves!!

[Brandon @ Mar 2nd 2006 1:25PM]

I'm with Daniel on this one. The ability to explore the 1.6 million songs on Rhapsody at will is amazing.

[dave95 @ Mar 2nd 2006 2:29PM]

The ability to own your music (at least have a physical copy) is the best IMO. Listening to music 10 years ago right now. If I had Napster, I would still be paying a monthly fee to listen to this one song that happen to bring back such great memories. And no telling what the subscription fee would be 10 years from now.

This music lover will not be rent music for the rest of my life.

[Kadoo @ Mar 2nd 2006 2:29PM]

I personally like napster. I also like itunes.

Napster gives me the ability to try out music. Sometimes I hear something I think I like, then realize I don't. If I really like something I go buy the CD.

I read blender and pitchfork.com a lot so I like to back up reviews with a listen to form my own opinion.

I see Napster like XM or sirius radio you are paying for a service. Napster works for me because it's an on demand service.

I used to buy 200 dollars in CD's a month. Now with napster I only buy second hand cds. It actually saves me my money.

[cuby @ Mar 2nd 2006 2:39PM]

me am gorog! me posit that subcription service hampered by MS hardware inadequacy, also smash server with bone. tribe remain committed to subscription model, wave of future, like pointed rock.

[carl @ Mar 2nd 2006 2:44PM]

I'm not even sure why I'm responding here because I know no one's about to change their mind on subscription music if they're so used to getting ripped off by itunes, but here we go...

I'll happily pay $60 a year for the rest of my life for a subscription service because I get tremendous value from it. I listened to and enjoyed more music last night from yahoo than $60 would have bought me in a music store. And I'll probably do the same tonight as well. And it's not whatever's hot right now. For instance, I can stream, download, or take with me any of the ~86 John Coltrane albums (some of which I've enjoyed for years on CD, and which have meaning to me) that Yahoo has available. Or I can listen to that K-Fed single (FIRE!) and berate it happily without feeling guilty for giving up a buck.

Music can still have value and meaning Chris, even if it has been acquired in a manner different from yours. Thanks though for being condecsending to others.

And if I decide I have to buy it so it's mine mine mine, Yahoo will sell it to me for $.79 per song at 192 kbps, or about $9 an album. Like it or not, that's a better deal than ITMS (though you could easily get it chaper on an russian music site, but that's another story). it won't play on your ipod though unless you reencode it.

Re: the DRM, it's pretty straightforward and the problems I rarely incur are easily solved.

Do I sound like a yahoo shill? sure, but it's because I like it that much. And no I'm not on the payroll (quite the opposite really), just like others aren't on itunes' payroll.

Re: Napster. I tried it when it came out and tolerated its terrible interface and performance until yahoo came for $10 cheaper per month so I dropped Napster like a bad habit. Zero regrets on that move, and Yahoo has only improved since then. I wish I could comment on Rhapsody, but I haven't tried it.

okay, that's it. I'm glad I didn't convince anyone of anything. Sigh.

[Daniel @ Mar 2nd 2006 4:10PM]

I think this debate is really all about the future. In general the world is moving away from so much "mine, mine, mine", as Carl eloquently put it in his post above, and more to a collective body of knowledge and art that we all share. It seems silly for each person to constantly pay a separate steep fee for content in order to claim that you "own" the work for a given number of years until the next format war comes along. Only the artists actually OWN the work. This way we are sharing, instead of claiming.

And as far as the math goes, whether you are downloading or buying a CD, it's roughly 79-99 cents a song or more. To put 10,000 songs on your iPod this way is around $10,000. Do you know how many years and how much music I could have enjoyed for ~$80 a year via subscription? About 100 years. And are you really going to enjoy the exact same music collection for more than a few months anyway?

Something no one is mentioning here is that models like iTunes and the iPod are actually fueling more illegal downloads. People gotta fill up those 60 GB iPods one way or another!!

[Chris @ Mar 2nd 2006 5:19PM]

Wow! Why do Apple fanboys have to be so closed minded? They can never see any value in something unless Jobs has blessed it with his approval, then once he does they will go on forever about how its the greatest thing ever and Apple is so revolutinary for using said technology (See, Intel Pentium v. PowerPC).

I think subscription music will be the same thing. For many people SubMusic does not have much if any value, generally people who do not listen to a broad and changing variety of music. For them, it is simply cheaper to buy the CDs and singles that they like. However for many people who like to listen to new and/or varying amounts of music SubMusic is an awesome alternative. I tend to listen to the same 80-90s Modern and Alternative Rock, however I also dabble in tons of other genres. The abiltiy to hear about some band or song you never heard about and simply listen to it instantly is really cool. I've added tons of songs to my collection this way. I'll continue buying CDs of my favorite albums for my portables and listen to other songs on my YME! Unlimited (its cheaper if you don't get the support for portables).

[beareeyeaan @ Mar 2nd 2006 10:12PM]

i like the old ceo; you guys remember him?

[Brenton M @ Mar 2nd 2006 11:41PM]

Some people like the idea of subscriptions to their music, each their own. sure you can pay $X for the rest of your life; so long as the company doesn't change their costs or pricing model, or altogether go bust.

where does that put you?

[Moh @ Mar 3rd 2006 3:41AM]

This is so stupid. Who ever told you that you cannot buy a track for c99 on yahoo, or napster? They do whatever apple does and more. You don't have to subscribe. you can buy if that's what you want. Heck subscription came in the wma world later with janus. You simply have the extra option of renting the music if you want to, just like netflix, blockbuster, xm, sirius....as a yahoo unlimited subscriber, if i want to "own" a track, it's c79.