The more I think about it, the more I wonder how it is that Apple and iTunes have got themselves into such a dominant position in the download market. All I can see is a marketing rip-off.
Napster's basic proposition is that you don't necessarily have to own the music you listen to so why not rent it? iTunes meanwhile expects you to pay the same price as you paid before for outdated formats (ie CDs) for something you can only play on their own proprietory hardware and software. When they launched the latest iPod, they said you could get around 20,000 songs on it. Do the maths - 20,000 x £0.79 = £15,800 to fill up your iPod. Same price from Napster - £15.99 per month. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
I've been downloading legal Napster-to-Go tracks for about a year now and still am yet to see the catch. OK, I have to use a Zen Micro or Toshiba Gigabeat but both are OK players and I still have a further 3 PCs on which I can download music to or listen to streams on. I've started to explore artists and genres I hadn't thought of before at minimal cost and every so often I find I need to actually own an album so i go out and buy it on CD (eg Springsteen's Seeger Sessions or Ryan Adams' 29).
I don't care that it might not be the coolest way to listen to music. It works for me.
