Entertainment For Lively Minds
Spotify - not that new, just better - Napster's been streaming unlimited content for some time
Great though it is and a lot more elegant and speedy, I can't understand why Spotify has been hailed as such a revolutionary breakthrough. Aside from the collaborative playlists which is Spotify's USP, it's been possible for at least the last 3-4 years for Napster subscribers to listen to just about anything they want on their PCs (note PCs!)either through streaming or by downloading for a tenner a month and for an extra fiver, put it all onto their MP3 players (up to 3 allowed). Our whole family has more or less unlimited access to music both in the house and when mobile for that one £15 payment with no likelihood of ads being increased in frequency in the near future and with a much wider range than Spotify and most new albums available the minute they're released. Granted it all gets lost if the subscription is cancelled but that's never bothered me.
Although Napster's just shot itself in the foot with a disastrous software "upgrade" which has royally hacked off many of its loyal subscribers, it still ought to be a powerful rival to Spotify but there's no reason for not running both.
Maybe it's because this has been denied to the iPod/iTunes cognoscenti due to the necessary DRM and perceived lack of cool...
- More from poolhallrichard.
- Login or register to post comments
-
There's an element of truth to this
but whenever we've tried Napster we've found it incredibly clumsy and messy. The beauty of Spotify is, it's simple and it works intuitively.
I do however have a lot of sympathy for the Napster people who must be grinding their teeth at the amount of free publicity Spotify is getting from people like me. It's a cruel world.
Also
You can't sign up for a free trial with Napster without giving them your credit card details. People generally don't want to do this for something they're trying. It's not welcoming, whereas with Spotify the door is wide open.
It's all about timing and interface. Napster (and Rhapsody) were both too early, and both too clunky.
Reliant on Napster still existing
You're also reliant on Napster continuing the service and not going bust. There have been instances of music providers closing and suddenly your DRM music is unplayable. For example, look at this story about the closure of the Virgin Music service, which includes the statement: "Now, however, all Club members will be unable to play any of those tracks once the service expires, because they will be unable to renew the monthly licence that gave them access. " (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7012012.stm)
If you're comfortable that Napster are going to stay in business then fine - personally I wouldn't guarantee that your music will still be playable in five years. That's been my primary concern. I will buy from iTunes if it's something that I think might be transient, I still buy physical CDs for something that's rare or that I think I'll still be listening to in 10 years time. That probably makes me a dinosaur in today's terms.
You've listed 5 reasons why
Spotify is better in your post.
The beauty of Spotify
is in it's elegant interface and the speed of streaming.
The 'no credit card' sign-up and ease of use is the icing on the cake.
Not being a PC user, I can't specifically comment on Napster - but I'd certainly never trust any service that relied on me paying a subscription to keep accessing the specific music I'd bought.
The choice napster offers
is far far greater, and Spotify will have to go al ong way before i catches up. That, for me, is the clincher, even if it could be argued Spotify works slightly better.
Napster's a library really
where you pay to borrow unlimited amounts of stuff and get to take it wherever you want. The point is that you don't actually "buy" the music in the sense of owning it. I don't mind paying monthly for being able to take unlimited amounts of whatever I want to the beach, on the train or in the car as well as listen to it on my PC. I still buy CDs and use Spotify now for most of my streaming because it is, as I said in my original post header, better than Napster for streaming in most departments.
Whether Napster's still going to be around in 5 years time is anyone's guess - but who's going to bet on whether Spotify are as well? Napster have just been bought by a big US electronics retailer so the only killer threat I could see is if iTunes goes into subscription music.
"Whether Napster's still
"Whether Napster's still going to be around in 5 years time is anyone's guess - but who's going to bet on whether Spotify are as well? Napster have just been bought by a big US electronics retailer so the only killer threat I could see is if iTunes goes into subscription music."
Well, the vast majority of Spotify users aren't paying anything and aren't downloading to PCs so they won't care if it vanishes altogether. And as for being bought by a big US electronics retailer, don't forget that the no.2 US electronics retailer, Circuit City, has just closed down, and four years ago wouldn't everyone have thought that Virgin would have been a reliable name?
As a subscription service, fine. As a way to buy music that you want to keep listening to, well, it's up to you...
I was a Napster subscriber
I was a Napster subscriber for a couple of years. It was pretty good value for money, a tenner a month for all the music you want to listen to on tap, and unlike Last FM, easy to listen to complete albums. But there never seemed to be many advocates of it on here. A great service really. I can see where you're coming from poolhallrichard, for me it easily deserved the sort of coverage Spotify is getting now, and Spotify isn't quite as 'revolutionary' if you're used to living with similar paid-for services. But I've ditched it now, in favour of Spotify, which is at least compatible with my Macbook, Napster never sorted that one out!
Napster & PCs Vs I-Tunes & Macs
I have been using Napster for 3 or more years now along with my clunky old PC and my clunky Creative player. And have grown increasingly irritated by journos waxing on about Apple products because of their stylish and slinky interface - the ubiquity of the phrase I-Pod gartes like hell. For me it boils down to one issue: functionality. Napster has given me access to a massive library of music and Ive been able to take it with me where ever I want to go and even upgrade PC without losing or needing to transfer files. Napster allows me to buy tunes (79p a go). I can then burn a CD and remove all DRM! But basically Im not interested in owning the music or the user interface or the other packahging & add-ons, I just want to listen to the tunes and see if I like how it sounds. Isnt that what it was all supposed to be about?
Oh, and it's
'iTunes' and 'iPod' rather than 'I-Tunes' and 'I-Pod' :-)
Excuse me!
That's Me In My Place. Please keep an eye on my fuutre postings in case 'iViolate' any other Apple related propriatorial copyright issues
For The Word massive
I would have thought that the choice of albums on offer would be the key decision really. From my perspective, if one service has a wider choice, than issues of technicality of format fade into the background to a certain extent.
And Napster cleans up on amount of musc available. Spotify has, for example, no Joanna Newsom, an album which has clearly given a small selection of the massive a huge amount of pleasure. So you go to iTunes, spend 7.99 on it, and you may as well have just paid for Napster in the first place.
Technichal problems would have to be colossal before Napster's vastly superior catalogue slipped into second place.