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

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

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.

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!!!!

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

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

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.

I think I'll pass....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,