[Macworld]

Post your comments for Napster opens DRM-free MP3 download store here

[Rugby]

"We're sorry, Napster is not currently compatible with your operating system.
Napster is currently only compatible with Windows Vista/XP/2000.
Windows 95/98/ME/NT and the Mac OS are not supported at this time.
If you are planning on using Napster on this computer, the service will not be compatible and you should discontinue registration. If you are going use Napster on a different computer, with a compatible operating system, you can continue with your registration but you must download Napster on a compatible Windows Vista/XP/2000 PC."
smoooooth

[leicaman]

This is an attempt by the record labels to damage the iTMS. They are price fixing at prices they object to so they can break Apple's dominance. If they succeed, and destroy the iTMS, you can bet that day will end the DRM-free music. So not only is it mafia-like strong arming to get into a business, it's hypocritical to boot.

[TeaEarleGreyHot]

Stories of this nature in the future ought to include a information as to the quality of the download being offered at a particular pricepoint. Please. It would be easy for Snapster, etc., to offer downloads of highly compressed and low-quality music at a cheap price, and make it sound like they're competing with higher-quality sources, such as the album itself. I do seem to recall that one caveat of DRM-free music is that it was to be of lower quality. Without information about the quality of the download, stories like this increasingly risk becoming lint in the internet dustbin.

[SubFuze]

The web store and subscription service work perfectly fine on the Mac in Firefox, it's only the client application that requires Windows. You don't need the client to download MP3s...

[SubFuze]

Most tracks are 256k MP3s (some are 128k MP3s) with high resolution album art embedded.

[doglesby]

leicaman said:

This is an attempt by the record labels to damage the iTMS. They are price fixing at prices they object to so they can break Apple's dominance. If they succeed, and destroy the iTMS, you can bet that day will end the DRM-free music. So not only is it mafia-like strong arming to get into a business, it's hypocritical to boot.

Agreed. IANAL, but the terms market manipulation and collusion come to mind. I have to believe Apple's legal team is building a case. It's a shame, Apple didn't just throw up a site to sell tracks to iPod owners. It is doing more to promote music than anyone else. Amazon treats music like just another retail front. Apple is selling concert tickets, assembling iTunes essentials, even using its ubiquitous ads to sell music. The studios would be wise to recognize that Apple is their greatest friend.

[Speed_Racer]

Okay, so this is how many times Napster has tried to reinvent itself after its original incarnation was shut down by the music labels? Give it up, guys. It ain't gonna happen.

[jmeredith]

Nothing against Napster or Amazon for that matter.
However, I am perfectly happy with iTunes and have no desire to create another login, manage another account, learn another site, get more opt-in emails, share my credit card information, etc. The music I want that isn't being artificially held back is on iTunes.
I would love iTunes even more and buy more music if it was DRM free as it is with large parts of it.
Has there ever been anything from iTMS that's been pirated that can be traced back and if so what percentage.
You have perfectly happy, law-abiding iTMS customers, record companies and you just keep slapping us in the face. Yes we know how to use other sites but why would we want to. It's only your juvenile thinking that we will.
I do not have a MBA but if their business model is to piss off their law-abiding, content customers and make them sympathize with piracy you're doing a great job. Keep up the good work and enjoy those ever shrinking bonuses. You guys are geniuses!

[Rugby]

". What are Napster's minimum system requirements?
? Operating System: Windows 2000 or Windows XP. Napster is NOT supported on Windows 95, NT, 98, Me, or Macintosh. NOTE: Windows XP and Windows Media Player 10 are required to use the Napster To Go? service."

"While the iPod? is not compatible with the Napster To Go? service available only through the Napster software, it is compatible with Napster's subscription service, as well as MP3s purchased through the Napster web service. For $12.95 a month, iPod owners can enjoy access to all the following Napster features:

* Search or browse through the full Napster music catalog and programmed content.
* Stream an unlimited number of full-length tracks through the Napster software or web service. If you are using someone else's computer, access your collection and stream tracks from www.napster.com.
* Download and listen to an unlimited number of tracks from Napster's catalog of over 6 millions tracks on up to three PCs. Most subscription download tracks in Napster are WMA encoded at a bit rate of 192 Kbps, providing you with an exceptional sounding music file. (Napster software only)"

ermm where is this store ? Searching their web page only gives me "no Mac no iPod" comments, is it possible to include a link in the article ? I am not (never have been) interested in their "subscribe" to music scheme, just to buy - and is Free Napster the same or... ? I seem to get to "share" all the time...

[concentric]

When CDs were the norm, how many of us would drive out of our way to go to that new record store that opened in the next town? Maybe once out of curiosity, but then we're back at our local Best Buy or Target for the next purchase where we feel warm and cozy and we know we'll get a good deal. Why in the flippin' world would I leave the comfort of iTunes, where all of my music tracks are stored anyway, to sign up for Napster, which has proven to be either illegal or irrelevant time and time again?

[samrod]

How this isn't the textbook definition of collusion is beyond me. The top 3 labels agreeing, either explicitly or implicitly, to withhold their goods from Apple while providing them to competitors, with the specific intent of damaging Apple's dominance in that market. If the three labels have not explicitly agreed to this, it's called Tacit Collusion and still illegal. I can't figure out why a company as legitimately litigious as Apple has avoided defending itself in this regard. Is Apple trying to avoid biting the hand that feeds it as the hand smacks it around?

I guess perhaps that while Apple may be able to demonstrate collusion and that the labels' intents of shaking iTMS's market dominance are clear, Apple can not prove it's actually been damaged as a result. I don't know if damage is a requirement in a collusion suit, but at 85% market-share, perhaps Apple feels that it would lack sympathy from a judge or jury. Maybe it's just hard for the monopolist to cry foul.

P.S. Apple has neither achieved it with questionable tactics nor does it abuse it, but yes, Apple does have a monopoly in online music sales.

samrod

[hillstones]

I can't believe people are still dumb enough to be encoding in the outdated MP3 format. I thought the Crapster service died years ago when people decided they didn't want to rent their music. I don't think people will be running for MP3 files.