AfterDawn: News

Napster awarded Super Bore title

Napster has been awarded the Super Bore title for it's advertisement during the Super Bowl by viewers. Napster claims that its new Napster-To-Go service allows unlimited downloads for a monthly subscription of $14.99. However, these "unlimited downloads" are not what they seem, in fact they will "disappear" as soon as you stop paying your monthly fees. Napster’s ad claimed that it would cost anybody $10,000 to fill their iPod up with music tracks and only $14.99 a month with Napster.

Napster's service does have one good feature however; it will allow you to transfer your music to a number of Napster-compatible portable music players. But a claim that it takes $10,000 to fill an iPod just has the consumers laughing. The most music found on iPods comes straight from an owners CD collection or MP3 they already have stored on their computer (maybe MP3 they downloaded from Napster years ago eh?). Napster vowed to spend $30 million promoting its "music rental" service; maybe they should rethink that idea.



During the Super Bowl companies paid about $2.4m for a 30 second advertisement spot and of all 55 spots, Napster trailed in last. Music rental services don't sound so appealing to consumers; because it makes you think of a future where you have to pay royalties for every time you burn a track, transfer to a portable device and even for playing it. But don't worry eh? Even if you just listen to 1 second of the track, you'll only be charged for that second. Let's hope Digital Rights Management software and music industry greed will never lead to that.

Sources:
The Register
USA Today - Full ad rankings.

Written by: James Delahunty @ 7 Feb 2005 21:52

• Previous article

• Apple adds 1000 rare Chinese tracks to iTunes

• Next article

• Will Xbox 2 drop blue laser formats for the regular DVD format?

• 13 comments

• daemonzx6

  spending that much on advertising is kind of dumb, isn't it?

  7.2.2005 22:27 #1

• Dela

  Well they estimate that Apple spent about $100m advertising iTunes!

  7.2.2005 23:03 #2

• punx777

  well you gotta remember, its the most watched show on the planet..........and we wondered how fox stays alive :D.....
  
  i dont like this deal, i wouldnt feel right paying for something that used to be free.. i feel sorry for the guy who created napster... HE NEVER MEENED FOR THIS TO HAPPEN(dramatic moment)
  
  but on the other hand, why would i give any of my hard earned money to itunes, what have they done for us? other then ruin school for us.
  
  sorry mac enthusiasts.

  8.2.2005 02:11 #3

• jseale502

  The disapproval of Napster-to-Go is just a result of RIAA-phobia. There's really nothing wrong with the rental model IMHO, unless it gets abused (maybe as a result of arm twisting by the RIAA). Let's give Napster-to-Go a chance, PLEASE!!!!

  8.2.2005 02:19 #4

• jonngo

  Give then a chance? I don't think so.
  maybe this is just me but the price to
  download something that use to be free is too high

  8.2.2005 03:00 #5

• Hrdrk20

  Here in America, person can borrow up to 35 CD's and 7 DVDs from local libraries and they don't cost one cent.

  8.2.2005 05:49 #6

• snuffmull

  I laughed out loud when I saw that Superbowl ad. It was completely misleading.
  
  The only way Napster would be worth it is if someone comes up with a hack that allows you to convert the tracks to regular mp3's so you could keep them after your subscription is over. Then perhaps it would be cool.

  8.2.2005 06:32 #7

• def&blind

  .

  8.2.2005 08:51 #8

• GrayArea

  I agree with jseale502. A subscription based music service that is done right could work. Once wireless streaming technology matures there will really be no need to carry files around. If I can have the music I want when ever and wherever I am, what's the point of "owning" it? I'd buy unlimited access to the history of recorded music for say... $7.95 a month or so? This all being said, I'm sure the RIAA would try to screw it up somehow. Screwing people is what they do best. There will always be free music out there. If somebody wants to sell music at a fair deal I say why not. Note the FAIR DEAL part.

  8.2.2005 08:51 #9

• mikeyk

  Hmmm.....
  
  Very misleading. What happens when after 11 months of napster to go and you have to cancel it because of job loss, etc., etc.
  
  All those files....GONE.
  
  11 months at 14.99 a month.
  
  and nothing to show for it.

  8.2.2005 12:05 #10

• ag22

  I DLed napster, and if it was $5 a month, I would say its worth it, but $15 is rediculous. Ive spent $50 tops on y iPod cuz I get most my songs from friends CDs, and my CDs. Napster has some cool featues but now worth almost $200 a year.

  8.2.2005 13:31 #11

• djgizmo

  jonngo, I understand your POV, but those tracks / songs that were being traded / downloaded were being done so in such an obession that it overall devalued music. (we appriciated it less)
  
  Now, I don't agree with RIAA suing everyone. But as soon as Napster got popular, they should have jumped on the ban wagon and started a legal service back then with high quality downloads. IMO, the current copyright laws need to be re-written for the 21st century.
  
  Napster, iTunes, Monstertunes.net, Beatport.com, offer legal downloads. I'd rather pay for something I like then download free crap, which is why I haven't been on any p2p service for over a year.
  
  Napster has a great idea. For the majority of users the service would be great! How many songs could you download in 30 days? 100, 1000, 10,000? If you were really determine not to pay for them after that month or 2, there is ways around there encryption.

  9.2.2005 07:38 #12

• punx777

  when someone finds a (simple) patch for napster, email me ;)... but until then its rediculous.(dont know how to spell that :o)
  
  hey i dont know if anyone else knows about this, but download.com has a free music section, its not much but they got some good "garage"type band stuff.... i found a couple Joe Satriani type people that are actually pretty cool:) its a great way to hear new stuff,

  9.2.2005 19:35 #13