Napster relaunches, shifts focus from hardware to web

According to news out today, Napster is attempting a fevered slide back into the game with a relaunch of its music-download service, featuring a heavier emphasis on web-based streaming capabilities. The new "4.0" platform the company is touting boasts improved compatibility, as playlists and content and be accessed from any computer, without the use of additional software -- though if you want to get that music onto a player, you're still stuck with Napster's proprietary application and list of compatible players. In addition to the accessibility revamp, the company says it has further plans to embrace DRM-free music in 2008, which makes sense, as the portal's music has heretofore been unplayable on Apple's products -- which have the largest market share. Can that rascally cat pick up the pieces? Only time will tell.

[Thanks, Jon]

[DickHardknocks @ Oct 16th 2007 10:14AM]

Its really sad when you think about it.

Napster basically began worlwide peer-to-peer file sharing.

Now, all it is is just another option which lags far behind Itunes, Limewire, and about 50 other peer-to-peer sites.

[DickHardknocks @ Oct 16th 2007 10:14AM]

Its really sad when you think about it.

Napster basically began worlwide peer-to-peer file sharing.

Now, all it is is just another option which lags far behind Itunes, Limewire, and about 50 other peer-to-peer sites.

[friendlyner @ Oct 16th 2007 10:28AM]

I have Napster to go and I think it's pretty sweet actually. I use it both with the little freebie mp3 player they provided and my Sansa 270. It works flawlessly with either one and I can handle the price of about 1 CD a month for unlimited music.

[Tom Hellier @ Oct 16th 2007 12:28PM]

Same thing here, the only flaw I can find with napster, is that when you use napster to go, album art isn't downloaded with it. (for me anyway) So I have to download it myself.

I gave the free mp3 player to my brother and I use a creative zen Vision:m. I chose that player because of napster, I can't afford to pay for all the music I have, I'd much rather pay about 15 pound a month and have unlimited easy access music without viruses. The library of Napster is not as large as it could be, it really should progress into video and podcasts.

I get slow downloads with Napster, but thats because of my Virgin 20mb broadband throttling certain services.

[jilie @ Oct 16th 2007 11:08AM]

"the portal's music has heretofore been unplayable on Apple's products -- which have the largest market share. " bhhuuhhahahahha, you couldn't miss this chance to advertise apple, eh engadget?

[Geoffrey Sperl @ Oct 16th 2007 2:21PM]

Dude, keep the phrase in context: "In addition to the accessibility revamp, the company says it has further plans to embrace DRM-free music in 2008, which makes sense, as the portal's music has heretofore been unplayable on Apple's products -- which have the largest market share."

That's not Engadget advertising Apple, that's Engadget speaking the truth about the current marketplace. For Napster to grow they need access to the iPod. Period. Only way to do that is to have DRM-free MP3, AAC, WAV, AIFF, or Apple Lossless files.

The real question will be: How can the subscription model continue with no DRM? And if there's no subscription how does that differentiate them from the likes of iTunes Plus or eMusic?

With knee-jerk overreactions like yours it's no surprise I have stopped reading the comments as much as I used to.

[Geoffrey Sperl @ Oct 16th 2007 2:25PM]

Dude, keep the phrase in context: "In addition to the accessibility revamp, the company says it has further plans to embrace DRM-free music in 2008, which makes sense, as the portal's music has heretofore been unplayable on Apple's products -- which have the largest market share."

That's not Engadget advertising Apple, that's Engadget speaking the truth about the current marketplace. For Napster to grow they need access to the iPod. Period. Only way to do that is to have DRM-free MP3, AAC, WAV, AIFF, or Apple Lossless files.

The real question will be: How can the subscription model continue with no DRM? And if there's no subscription how does that differentiate them from the likes of iTunes Plus or eMusic?

With knee-jerk overreactions like yours it's no surprise I have stopped reading the comments as much as I used to.

[Dster @ Oct 16th 2007 11:11AM]

DRM-free music in 2008? Full circle. Only took what, almost 10 years?

[Phil Perman @ Oct 16th 2007 11:35AM]

How on earth would they be able to run a subscription service without DRM? Politely ask people to delete their music when they end their subscription?

Subscription services are one place I have no problem with DRM existing in, as the business model just wouldn't work without it.

[Rick @ Oct 16th 2007 11:57AM]

Seems to me Napster is pretty late with these new features. Rhapsody has had a web version of their service for a while now and it already has streaming, playlists, etc...

[Joe Osowski @ Oct 16th 2007 12:50PM]

How is it Naspter is still in business? That is what crazed investors actually still have stock in this company?

[uagent @ Oct 16th 2007 1:56PM]

Because they're only a subsidiary of Roxio IIRC. Yeah, I imagine they'd have tanked pretty hard by now if they were on their own :P

[zebcarlson2007 @ Oct 16th 2007 1:51PM]

Napster to Go + TuneBite + Zune=

[Kennylad @ Oct 18th 2007 5:50PM]

Napster already sells DRM songs for 99 cents and also rents them for the subscription model... so they have two types of songs on the website already therefore I suspect changing one to DRM free won't cause any problems for the other! Napster is a fantastic way to check out music... with just two annoying problems the first not all songs can be got via the subscription model sometimes you get an album with half you have to buy and the other half you can rent... very annoying, but probably the record companies fault not Napster... the second problem is the album art thing mentioned before!

[adrian @ Oct 16th 2007 8:57PM]

Why bother. They must be bleeding cash.