Is Napster on its death bed?
p2p news / p2pnet: Is the ‘new’ Napster on the verge of going down the tubes? Again?
Despite massive support from the Big Four record labels, which shoe-horned it into universities across America, and non-stop hype from mainstream media, the disinterred version of the application that launched p2p file sharing has been a dud since day one.
The original indie app was buried by the Big Four, eventually returning in castrated form under Roxio, now trading as Napster.
Since then, Napster has had constant injections of working [read survival] capital, high-priced promotion using every PR trick in the book, a switch from straight sales (flop) to music rentals (flop), product launches in Europe, and continued backing from the music cartel.
In its most recent effort to convince the world (and its investors) it’s viable, Napster says it now has more than 500,000 subscribers paying for downloans.
Notwithstanding, “The development follows reports of impending layoffs, and a possible fire sale or liquidation ahead,” reports Digital Music News, going on:
“Sources to Digital Music News first made the claims over the weekend. Those reports have been denied by Napster, though continued quarterly losses and Apple`s dominance in the paid download market remain serious concerns.”
Digital Music News says for the fiscal second quarter, Napster posted net losses of $13.6 million.
“Previously, losses hit a record $19.9 million, though revenues have continued to climb in 2005.” Meanwhile, “Gorog pointed to a healthy ‘$100 million on our balance sheet’ in comments Wednesday, though a classic cash burn scenario could be underway,” says the story.
Napster will provide additional details on its operations and performance during its third quarter earnings call next month, says Napster.
Meanwhile, history is repeating itself.
Corporate version or not, Napster is again being sued for copyright violation, this time by Nashville’s MCS Music America.
Also See:
paying for downloans – Napster Passes Half Million Subscriber Milestone, January 18, 2006
Digital Music News – Napster Crosses 500,000 Subscribers, January 16, 2006
again being sued – Napster sued: copyright case, December 22, 2005
January 20th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Man, what happens when napster goes under?? Everyone who has been shelling out money like saps will lose all their music and have to download it again….. when it happens im sure it will make people think twice about signing up for any other subscription service…
January 20th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
By now, I’m sure everyone has the music they’ve been looking for either from their own CD collection or P2P downloads. I can’t imagin anyone dishing out money to a company that burns through cash as fast as Napster. Too risky for me.
It’s better to own non DRM’d product.
January 20th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Even if Napster goes under I haven’t lost anything.
I paid for access to the music from a staring point in time to and ending point in time. If I have access to the music for the complete period of time that I have paid for then I have gotten my money’s worth.
If I have 2 month’s left to go on my NTG card and the service is offline then I will have lost 2 months of access time that I paid for.
I haven’t bought or rented music that was mine to begin with.
I have boughten/rented time to access that music.
I sell at work for example cigs at $10 to $11 a pack. Many people
buy 2 packs at a time. They enjoy $20 worth of cigs and then when that’s gone what have they to show for $20?
Pleasent memories and perhaps a disease or two.
The value you recieve from the money you spend on something is reletive to each person.
People seem so obcessed with using P2P because it’s “free”
In Canada it is legal (downloading not uploading)
It’s the kid in the cookie jar syndome. Giggle, giggle I got free music. ooooooooh I’m a cool rebel.
I have over aprox 3,500 songs or more from P2P and I use P2P
but I still use Napster because I don’t always have the time to search and download from P2P
$15 a month is nothing compared to what some people waste (IMHO) on stuff like cigs, booze, drugs, and porn.
ddnet4130@yahoo.ca
January 24th, 2006 at 7:10 am
Buying consumable items such as food, cigarettes, and booze, isn’t in my mind the same as buying to own a product that isn’t consumable. Music can be listened to over and over again, without ever diminishing the original. However rental may be for you, it’s not for me.
I made this point of the possibility at the startup of Napster that this very thing might happen. That those holding rental rights to music might reach a point where prepaying for whatever they sought might turn into not being able to continue to use those songs, even with the account paid up if it went under.
Even Napster knew it had a problem with the model proposed. It has been trying the best it knows how to convence people the money is worth the product. I don’t see it, quite literally. You’re paying for songs, they aren’t yours to do with as you see fit after the payment, much the same as buying on line with drm laced songs. I don’t see the value in it. Didn’t yesterday, don’t today, and won’t tomorrow. For a lossy mp3, the money is far too much for far too little. Not to mention this isn’t tangible property like a physical cd that has far better quality and artwork for the same price. However Sony shot the music cartels in the foot with the rootkit affair and as far as I am concerned they are all painted with the same brush. I wouldn’t have a phyiscal cd if it was given to me now. Can’t trust them to be honest nor concerned with anything beyond the collection of their income.
Maybe the rental model works for some, it doesn’t work for me.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
BRAVO!