AfterDawn: Tech news

Napster posts small loss for Q3

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 07 Feb 2008 15:31 User comments (6)

Napster posts small loss for Q3 Yesterday, the subscription-based online music retailer Napster announced that thanks to a 15 percent jump in revenue from subscriptions the company has posted a much smaller Q3 loss for 2007 than the comparable quarter a year before.
For the three month period that ended December 31st, Napster posted a net loss of $2.8 million USD, a huge drop compared to the $9.5 million USD loss they posted the year before for the same period.

The company, which survives primarily on its monthly music subscription service, announced last month that it will begin selling DRM-free tracks in MP3 format, putting another nail in DRM's coffin.

Napster also said revenue for the quarter was $32.8 million USD, up 15 percent from the comparable quarter a year ago. The company also stated that they finished the quarter with 743,000 subscribers, a minuscule decline from the previous quarter.

Previous Next

Related news

 

6 user comments

17.2.2008 18:34

Really who uses this anymore after they switched sides, and decided to take peoples money? This company is irrelevent and does not contribute to the free information movement what so ever.

27.2.2008 20:59

honestly if they marketed right they had the potential to become huge.

they had huge name recognition, and a great idea selling a monthly subscription with unlimited downloads.

drm was so easy to get by it was basically free music for an entire month as much as you could download for 15 dollars.

i think they could come back and do much better if they just made a few changes.

38.2.2008 8:57

Originally posted by jetyi83:
drm was so easy to get by it was basically free music for an entire month as much as you could download for 15 dollars.
Precisely my point, which is why I still have it. Unfortunately, if more people "learned" about that, rather than use P2P, they wouldn't be posting ANY losses. I pay for Napster just to give back to the "industry" so to speak, and not be a complete leech/mooch like the people who really cry about DRM. The real problem with DRM on sub services like this, is that Microsoft had their hands in the till, and neither they, nor the market leader in MP3 devices, Apple, wanted to budge to allow their the file formats to work with the players.

And about that "switched sides" comment... you do realize that Shawn Fanning was sued and that a group of companies went out and paid for the name "Napster" and rebranded it right? It's not like they blindsided anyone using the old P2P program into paying for music all of a sudden. And even if they did, what a shame it would be to part with some of your cash to entertain thyself?

49.2.2008 21:31

It's not about getting it for free at all, although yes I'm sure it surely is an incentive to use p2p. Look I gladly pay for independent music that are not signed with record labels because I know exactly where the money is going. We do not need the middle man, and what a greedy middle man it is! I'm all for the demise of record labels as we know it, and would love independent creativity to flourish. I refuse to "give back to the industry" because i would rather give back to the artist. Now I love to pay for things that I love. For instance, I love ancient toned war movies, like brave heart, troy, Alexander, 300 and the like. I gladly go to my local video store and buy them used.

511.2.2008 11:29

Originally posted by Shegax:
I refuse to "give back to the industry" because i would rather give back to the artist...I gladly go to my local video store and buy them used.
LOL, you do neither in this case, since buying it used is giving back to the store that bought the CD or DVD in the first place! I'm not going to bash doing so, because it's cheaper and at least you're not freeloading!

61.4.2008 17:50

If this is the case and they are still in the black then i dont see a big loss.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive