2/4/2005
Music-to-rent? Good idea, or more background noise?
As Napster prepares to launch their new Napster-To-Go service, I’m not sure whether to laugh, or to feel sorry for them. As published yesterday in the San Francisco Chronicle and by Reuters, Napster is planning to launch a $30 million dollar ad campaign promoting their new music-to-rent service by attacking Apple, and the iTunes Music Store, who currently dominate the online music and hard-drive-based music player market.
Napsters’ claim in their upcoming ad blitz is that paying a monthly fee of $14.95 to download all the music you want is a better deal than actually buying your music for $.99 per song from the iTunes Music Store. They try to justify this by claiming that filling an iPod, which could hold 10,000 songs depending on the model, would cost $10,000 to fill with music from the iTunes Music Store. But with a music player that plays music in the Windows Media format, you could download all the music you want from Napster-To-Go for just $14.95 per month to fill your music player.
First of all, I don’t think that many iPod users are filling their iPods with music purchased exclusively from the iTunes Music Store. Sure, there may be some people out there doing this, but most people already own music prior to buying a portable music player, and start by filling their players with an existing digital music library, or start building their library by ripping their CD’s to their computer. And second, to suggest that people out there aren’t downloading music from P2P networks, or otherwise obtaining music without paying for it, would be ridiculous. Right?
The real question here isn’t how you obtain your music, but rather a question of ownership, and fair-use rights. People like to own things, and to know that it’s theirs to do with as they please. The concept of “renting” music, on the most basic level, tells a person right from the start that it’s not theirs, and only by paying someone every month, are you allowed to do with it as someone else sees fit. In order to play the music that you download from Napster, under the Napster-To-Go plan, you have to maintain a monthly subscription. What happens if you choose to go with a different online music download service offering a better deal, or decide that you just don’t like what Napster is offering? Adios music library, that’s what! You don’t pay, you don’t play. All of the music that you’ve downloaded will be disabled, and you’re back to square one.
And if you want to burn any of the music that you’re “renting” from Napster to a cd? Well, guess what? You’re going to have to pony up another $.99, in addition to your monthly subscription fee, which is the same price that the iTunes Music Store charges for each song. And this is what I’m talking about. Until you actually buy that song, or album, you can only use it as Napster pleases. And when it comes to digital media these days, this is one of the biggest issues facing consumers, the freedom to exercise your fair-use rights with the product that you’ve paid for.
In all fairness, this is a sore spot among users of the iPod and the iTunes Music Store as well. Music purchased from the iTunes Music Store can only be played on five authorized computers, and only on the iPod. Having the choice of only one portable music player isn’t really an issue, because lets be honest, the iPod stands alone when compared to its competitors. But for Apple, or anyone else for that matter, to tell people what their fair-use rights are, is rubbing a lot people the wrong way. Imagine 15 years ago, someone from the RIAA showing up at your house and serving you with papers saying that they were taking you to court over the mixed tape that you made for your girlfriend from cd’s or cassettes that you legally purchased.
And the worst part of the Napster-To-Go service is their tactics. The only way that they can see to capture people’s attention is to throw some big numbers at them, trash the competition, and while people are doing the math, they go through their pockets for loose change. It’s the kind of magic trick your Uncle Wally did at your 7th birthday party. While he’s waving his hanky around, you don’t see him palm the quarter that he’s about to pull out of your ear. We all fell for it at age 7, but do we want to fall for it at 37, as Napster waves their $14.95 price tag, and the promise of unlimited music downloads, in our faces. And while we’re oohing and aahing, we forget that we’re paying for something that will never be ours, unless we actually buy them for $.99 per song, and that if Napster ever goes belly-up or they kill Napster-To-Go, we’ll be tuneless.
And let’s not forget how quickly Apple’s DRM was broken, and how easy it is to strip off all restrictions from music purchased through the iTunes Music Store, courtesy of The Hymn Project. Will the Microsoft DRM used by Napster be any different?
I understand how hard it must be for Apple’s competition to stand by and watch as Apple dominates. The difference between Apple and the competition is that Apple got where they are by blazing the trail. With the iPod, Apple took the personal music player to a level that the competition can’t even fathom. Not only does the iPod have the best user interface and features of any music player, it has style and class. And comparing iTunes to Windows Media Player is like comparing a Ferrari to a Yugo. They’ll both get you around, but one will do it with style and functionality, and the other with your friends pointing at you and laughing. But that has always been the difference between Apple and the competition. If you’re going to do it better, why not dress the part.
Filed under: iPod Stuff, Rants