It seems like everyone wants to get a
piece of the Apple pie this week -- even old, crazy
Napster. According to an article in InformationWeek, Napster has issued a damning statement to investors "warning" them of the "possible" impact the iPhone
might have on its business, due to the incompatibility of the online distributor's
WMA formatted music and the Apple device. "Our software is not compatible with the iPod," the statement included, thus noting one of the more obvious aspects of the company's dilemma, and went on to proffer that it does not expect the Napster service to be compatible with the iPhone either. Of course, Apple has never been overflowing with hospitality towards non-Cupertino-blessed formats, but it seems like Napster may have shot itself in the foot by attempting to position themselves as
direct competition to the juggernaut. The rest of the statement didn't comment on Napster's apparent confusion concerning its own business practices (whether it wants to compete with Apple, or play nice), or question if not selling iPod/iTunes compatible music had contributed to their fiscal year losses of $36.8 million. When reached for comment, a spokesman for the company said emphatically, "we just can't stop doing this to ourselves, whatever it is that we seem to be doing, and we're worried it could affect sales."
posted July 3rd 2007 10:03AM
Could someone clarify the quote from the Napster rep? It's not making much sense to me. Maybe it's early and the coffee hasn't kicked in. Or maybe the quote needs a little more context to know what he's referring to.
ha ha!
Investors that need to be warned about Napster are probably better off looking for a new career.
This whole story is stupid. From the sound of the article, it looks like it was mentioned in Napster's 10-K filing, where companies are basically required to state any competition or other outside influences that could affect their business. Companies like CBS Radio and Clear Channel, the two satellite radio companies, and anyone else providing digital audio service should have the same statement in their 10-Ks.
This is also how the satrads are fighting the claims from the NAB that they don't have competition. Virtually all of the large terrestrial radio conglomerates list both XM and Sirius, along with Apple, in their 10-Ks.
ya know what would solve this *and* create more competition in the industry at the same time.
DROP DRM!!!
this is the reason why i dont legally purchase online music. three letters. drm. i buy the content, i want my damn fair use rights to the content. i was *this close* to signing up for imesh until i realised that their music is DRM'd. it's a business model that shits on the consumer.
its easy to buy undrm files ...
go to itunes music store !
end of discution
www.emusic.com - regular old MP3. & legal. Depends on what you're listening to, but I've found the more bizarre the better your chances of finding it.
As for Napster - I don't understand that quote either. Maybe her, "we just can't stop doing this to ourselves" was in reference to the stupid business model they run, and their ability to succinctly point this fact to investors.
Seems like a strange line to release to the public. Maybe it's a plea for helpful ideas.
Don't tell anyone... but there's this top secret little program out there. Name: QTFairUse. Get this, you can actually use this little bugger to REMOVE the DRM from songs you buy off iTunes! I know, I know, it seems too good to be true. I mean, with no DRM to bother you, what would you have to post on engadget about? That's heavy man. Anyway, just wanted to tip you off. Keep it on the DL though, know what I'm sayin?
@ tony
1/4 of what itunes has (EMI) is certainly not satisfactory.
would it be okay if someone told you that you could only listen to 1/4 of the musical acts that you enjoyed?
"this is the reason why i dont legally purchase online music"
iTunes Plus has no DRM. CDs have no DRM and are better quality than anything you can download online. If you going to steal, at least admit it for what it is and don't try ethically justify it.
@ Kai; especially at the extra price they charge you for it.
I mean, fgs... Napster deserves to go under just because it chose WMA as a format to store their DRM infested music with.
You anti-DRM people are absolute IDIOTS. The only way subscription music services can exist is with DRM. Otherwise people would buy one month for $15, download 20 gigs and cancel.
Fact is Napster and the other subscription services are the best thing to ever happen to music distribution. I can't think of going back to the days of buying a CD based on an album cover or the artists' reputation or some 30 second snippet I heard. With subscription services I have complete music freedom to find new bands, listen to whole tracks before I download and I have no restrictions. Y'all who pay per album or track are serfs to the narrow exposure to music you have.
The attitude that you have to own your music is incredibly antiquated. It's like saying there's no point in getting cable because you have to pay your bill every month. Or that XM sucks because they won't let you listen without paying. I'm more likely to have to utility cut off my gas and take cold showers than I am to stop my subscription service. And if these companies ever go out of business or if the record companies stop doing this deal, well, every form of DRM ever created has been hacked.
LONG LIVE DRM!!!!!!
@ MikeN
yes, i know about QTfairuse and fairuse4WM, but this just a means to get around what shouldn't exist in the first place. what is the consumer's interest in buying music and then having to illegally strip it of it's DRM when they could just illegally download music and save the money and the hassle?
the consumer's interests are not what's being looked out for.
@ jason
cd's also cost 13-20 dollars for 3 songs that i'd listen to. i'd much rather buy those 3 songs for 1.30 a piece WITHOUT DRM instead of buying a full CD.
itunes plus you say? right, as ive mentioned before (and every tech blog has mentioned, do you even read engadget?), *ONLY EMI MUSIC* is drm-less. that's 1/4 of the the itunes music collection. what happens when they dont have my album/songs? then is it okay for me to complain about my content being restricted to the point where i can't put it on my mp3 player?
Maybe Napster should just go whining and crying to Redmond. Bill might feel bad enough to buy them so they have a future.
Um.... EMI? DRM-Free music on iTunes... I'm just sayin'.
Napster doesn't just use a non-Cupertino-Blessed format. They aligned themselves with Microsoft, eponymous iPod killer (any day now!) and enemy to truth, justice and the American wa... er, okay they're rabit capitalists, forget that last one.
Anywho... Doy, Napster! The "Whatever we're doing" is PICKING APPLE'S COMPETITOR! Sheesh. How, pray tell, is Napster still alive with such obviously incapacitating brain damage. And can I have the names of their investors, because they'll apparently give money to anything.
-Pie
rabbit capitalists?
Well, yeah! Look at those two front teeth Bill Gates sports. And how can you NOT notice Steve Balmer's ears? Coincidence? I think not!
-Pie
DRM is the reason I'll never buy a proprietary player.
I haven't used Napster in years. I steal all my music from Limewire.
it's not about the players, it's about the crap that's attached to the music.
every player is "proprietary" by definition of the word. yet, they all play naked mp3s, so you'd think that the standard for downloading purchased music would be naked mp3's.
yet, it's not.
They should do what everyone does to Microsoft, take the issue to the european commision (and its us counter-part) and say they're being anti-competitive.
w1n.
"You anti-DRM people are absolute IDIOTS. The only way subscription music services can exist is with DRM. Otherwise people would buy one month for $15, download 20 gigs and cancel."
Or, because of DRM, i just wont buy anything at all, and no one will make *any* money.
"Fact is Napster and the other subscription services are the best thing to ever happen to music distribution. I can't think of going back to the days of buying a CD based on an album cover or the artists' reputation or some 30 second snippet I heard. With subscription services I have complete music freedom to find new bands, listen to whole tracks before I download and I have no restrictions. Y'all who pay per album or track are serfs to the narrow exposure to music you have."
Pandora.com and various other genome-esque projects give me complete freedom to find new bands...and they're free. (gasp)
"The attitude that you have to own your music is incredibly antiquated."
Antiquated like the US constituion, perhaps.
"It's like saying there's no point in getting cable because you have to pay your bill every month. Or that XM sucks because they won't let you listen without paying."
I have no problem with paying, I just want to use the content in the manner in which fair use dictates i should be able to use it.
I like Pandora a lot, and I used it extensively before I got my Urge subscription service, but you're still spoon fed music based on what you already like. You can't take the great new post-punk band from London and listen to a few tracks. Besides, the value proposition of subscription services is incredible. I download at least $75 worth of music each month, and I'm actually pretty selective.
Don't want DRM? Here's one for you... I heard of these weird "compact disc" things you can buy. Basically, you buy this shiny plastic disc and put it in any "compact disc player" you can find (apparently even computers have them). You can listen to the music on it at any time, and what's more, you can copy the music from that disc on to your computer and a portable music player. It can be an iPod, or it can be a Zune, or it can be a Sansa, or whatever the hell you want.
No big, bad corporation will force you to choose their player to listen to their music, and if you accidentally delete the files, you can copy them from the "compact disc" again.
Isn't technology wonderful?!
If you went to the store and bought a DVD that you only play in certain branded players, and were pissed, and the salesman told you:
" I heard of these weird "VHS" things you can buy. Basically, you buy this shiny plastic rectangle and put it in any "VCR" you can find (apparently even TVs have them). You can watch your movies on it at any time, and what's more, you can copy the moves from that VHS to your tivo or even to another vhs. It can be a sony, or it can be a mitsubishi, or it can be a phillips, or whatever the hell you want."
tell me you wouldnt smack that salesman in the face like you deserve to be for making such an assanine comment.
@kai - The problem with your argument is that DVD>VHS and CD>MP3(or AAC or whatever)
How exactly could they NOT be a competitor to iTunes? And how exactly, could they distributre music that would in any way be compatible with the iPod? No one can realy legally sell RIAA Label music that is compatible with the iPod except for Apple, since they are required by the RIAA Labels to include DRM, and Apple will not allow anyone but themselves to use their Fairplay DRM, which is the only DRM the iPod supports?
Wait..Napster? Didn't their CEO claim they could kick iTunes butt? Yeah:
http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/14/the-engadget-interview-chris-gorog-ceo-of-napster/
"Well, the idea is this. We don't really compete with iTunes. We feel we could compete with iTunes all day long and frankly kick their butt."
How's that working out for you, dude?
I miss the old Napster - that was the shit, wasn't it? I foolishly thought it would be around forever. Had I known, I wouldn't have deleted half the stuff I downloaded to make room for other stuff, foolishly thinking that I would always be able to go back & get it again for FREE FREE FREE!
I guess it was Napster that got the ball rolling on this digital music culture we now have (with help from the world's lamest band - Metallica).
Had you told me then then, that we would be paying to legally download songs, and Apple would be the biggest company behind that, and they would also have the top DAP (back when it was still called an MP3 player)
I would have laughed you right out of the room. Preposterous you silly, silly fool!
"we're worried it could effect sales"
Get a copy editor, Engadget. The writer's spelling mistake has the spokesperson saying the opposite of what they meant. I know it's just a gadget blog but the recent mistakes on this site, big and small, should have you guys thinking a little more before you blog.
The iphone didn't screw Napster.. Napster screwed Napster!!
Haw- there's a lot of things they can't compete with... like just about everything out there.
@Kai
Sadly, your analogy doesn't quite work, but good try. It is remarkably simple to copy a CD to an MP3 player, using whichever file format you wish. Transferring between DVD and VHS and so forth is a much more difficult process, and thus you would be quite right to punch the sales assistant.
So yes, what I said was assinine, but the amount of whining over an easily resolvable problem is far more irritating. From the rants people keep posting on Engadget, you would think they had no choice but to buy music online in this fashion to get it on to their chosen media player, and that simply is not the case.
I haven't bought a CD for years, In fact if someone gave me 1000 cds and said I couldn't sell them on I wouldn't be arsed picking them up.
A workmate brought in a hard disk with 20,000 tracks on it and I couldn't be bothered to troll through to pinch free music.
Music has become so utterly valueless to me know that the notion people pay 1 buck a track just beggars my belief and I think this is a growing trend.
I bought my nephews Ipods and loaded them to the hilt, they were bored in a week and now they both sit unused in our kitchen cupboard.
I occasionaly load up my sat-nav-pda with a driving collection for a road trip, but that's just a case of ..click MP3 folder..ctrl-right click..drag to memory card.
The cheapifying of music by file sharing is a much deeper and more profound problem than the revenue lost of the big players, it's the start of a loss of meaning for the human race.
The same is happening to photography. There are websites that sell stock photos for cheap rewarding the photog 25¢ for each picture someone downloads. Technology is making it easier to consume. Though it doesn't fair well for those looking to benefit from their creations--it does open the doors to those works to more people to experience.
We're in a time of transition so nothing will be stable in this fast moving world until laws are specifically made to adress all the various issues that arise from online pirating. Though if it's like physical bootlegging, I doubt they'll find a viable solution anytime soon.
Napster: The pity fuck of digital music distribution.
why not do both?
I do.
Really now, does anyone actually use WMA unless they absolutely have to?
Apple called, says they don't know who Napster is.
I guess I'm one of the few folks that think that spending $15 a month on $30 worth of music (an album every 2 weeks) is a great deal.
You can talk about competition and choice and that it's silly to go with Napster and WMA, but it seems to me that the only choice here is to buy an iPod or to not buy an iPod. You can only blame Apple for not making Cupertino open, and I for one refuse to give them money for an over-priced piece of hardware made of low-quality internal components.
www.YourMusic.com - All CDs $6.99 with free shipping - 100% legal