Napster VS Itunes
- Started
- Last post
- 20 Responses
- thinkmule
Itunes outsold napster 5 to 1 last week.
I don't see how napster can compete with itunes especially since itunes i is available on both platforms now.
I hate the napster commercials too.
- ********0
itunes hands down
- mirola0
does anyone use iTunes much? they don't do it in the uk yet. if they did i'd be hammering that thing. interesting to hear though that apple are hardly making any money on the songs sold on itunes themselves. the labels still get a shitload of till from it and guess how much the artist gets? 9cents per tune. i bet they're well chuffed.
- CyBrainX0
Why would anyone on Earth use the iStore when you can subscribe to Napster and pay $10 per month for UNLIMITED DOWNLOADS?!!!!!!!!!!!!
My only problem is that Napster won't develop for the Mac, but I won't buy from the Apple Store.
- SPORTYTHI3F0
IRC hands very down
- brundlefly0
I read ( http://www.macrumors.com ) that mcdonalds has bought, for 99¢ each one billion songs from apple, and pepsi has done the same, 1,000,000 already bought for giveaways in feb. I think itunes has aligned themself well to prepare for the microsoft onslaught coming up.
- mirola0
i hear napster has got hardly any tunes on there. is this not true?
- mirola0
i was just checking napster's premium service and it says that you can download as much music as you want for $9.95 a month and play it on 3 different machines but if you want to play it on a portable device you have to pay 99cents (above the monthly fee!) for the privelidge.
- welded0
I'm Canadian so I don't get to choose from either. I get http://www.puretracks.com which is very much broken in anything but late versions of IE. I guess that's to be expected...
- ribit0
...and what is a "portable device"?
- CyBrainX0
funny, but also a stab at the RIAA bastards, who's suffering only brings me joy.
- upso0
just to comment on that 9 cents thing.. i dont think that is true. my band's label is soon to have its full catalog on itunes and im under the impression the bands get as much as the label wants to give them.. so in our cast 50% per sale.
it all depends on how shiesty the label is.
- mirola0
yeah it totally depends on the label. a label like mute would give 50% whereas virgin would give more like 11%
i've heard some people talking about how the recording industry has to sort it's act out and start selling mp3s online like itunes but basically, the record labels are getting a huge percentage of the takings from the sale of mp3s. so basically if napster and itunes take off in a big way, the labels aren't going anywhere. the riaa are in a win win situation.
- CyBrainX0
Of course it's a win-win situation for the RIAA, especially with iTunes. 99¢ per song is about the same as buying the CD, only they don't have to provide the packaging, in other words, most of their expense.
- sexypixel0
well judging by the way napster catalogue their music it will be a flop.... In the dance section they have micheal jackson, celine dion and luther Vandross,
yeah, get down
- chokethefat0
intel vs amd
- sexypixel0
satin vs god?
- elwolverton0
The reason I will continue to use iTunes over Napster is because Napster prefers quantity over quality. I could download all the songs I want!...at a very shitty quality. iTunes is the only place I feel comfortable downloading, because when I transfer those songs onto CD, they don't sound like they've been filtered through a donkey's ass. Sorry Napster, you're short lived.
- niku0
i think apple is fine not getting much $ for music downloads based on the sales of a certain sexy little white jewel.
- mirola0
yeah, i'm all for that. i just wish itunes would get sorted out in the uk pretty quick