1. I think Google might be interested in Napster for two reasons...
1. The "Napster Name". With iTunes and Napster being the two most recognizable names when it comes to music downloads, that kind of brand name recognition is worth it's weight in gold.

2. Since Napster has been having financial problems, they'll probably be the cheapest service to acquire.

Posted at 10:15AM on Jan 31st 2006 by Musica360.com

2. I agree that Napster will probably go for cheap (and Google can probably handle whatever Napster's debt load is). But it still seems like a weird way for Google to enter the market.
What strikes me is that Google has proven that online advertising produces much more cash than digital music sales. So it seems strange that Google would want to diversify into a lower-profit area and one where there's no obvious technology synergy.
What seems easier to understand is the possibility that Google would leverage Napster's brand and then wrap a search service around it. It's been reported that Google is hard at work on some DRM technology, so it's possible that they might try to pull off some legal p2p model, a la Napster 1.5, but who knows?

Posted at 12:30PM on Jan 31st 2006 by Tommy Perkins

3. "What seems easier to understand is the possibility that Google would leverage Napster's brand and then wrap a search service around it. It's been reported that Google is hard at work on some DRM technology, so it's possible that they might try to pull off some legal p2p model, a la Napster 1.5, but who knows?"

That makes a lot of sense. I never considered that.

Posted at 2:52PM on Jan 31st 2006 by Musica360.com

4. Makes perfect sense to me that Google wants to expand its horizons with a ready made venture into the music biz. This may be the saving grace of P2P's because I believe Google will make a run for iTunes and Yahoo Music platforms to be the top runner in downloads. In other words, by investing into tech that outdoes the existing top runner platforms, Google will be king. What better way to do that than buy out an existing business with all its resources. "Cuts To The Chase".

Posted at 7:16PM on Jan 31st 2006 by Bert Gagnon

5. I agree, they're probably after the brand...They probably couldn't easily acquire any of the other major digital music services, like Virgin Digital or Rhapsody, etc., which are already associated with larger companies/brands. Napster is relatively small and somewhat independent, and the name brings to mind music downloading.

Posted at 12:03AM on Feb 2nd 2006 by Harold J. Johnson

6. Here's my stab. Couple of business models. 1) Give the music away (cost of penny per stream) + sell sponsored ads (pennies per ad) = small profit x many users = big profit. 2) Stoke up the demand for subsriptions. Each sub sold provides a gross profit of a couple of bucks each month. Nice. 3) Sell tracks - not much in it, but sell enough of 'em and it'll pay.

My own wish list. Kill off Fairplay. Yay!

I reckon the deal will be for a couple hunnies - 150 to 250.

Posted at 4:18AM on Feb 2nd 2006 by Greg

7. "Kill off Fairplay. Yay!"

Not! It seems that in doing business with the majors, DRM is a necessity and Fairplay is ALOT better than WMA's DRM. You must be objecting to the fact that the Apple controls the majority of the digital music market. But there are still alternatives. If you don't like Fairplay, then you still have a ton of options that use WMA files.

Hell, I'm a Mac owner in a Windows world but I don't wish Windows would be killed off (well maybe just a little). I could buy a Windows box if I want to, but I choose not.

Posted at 7:46AM on Feb 2nd 2006 by Musica360.com

8. I'm not an advocate of the new old business models of sell very cheap and it brings in volume. It's already been proven that the penny sale for download (as attractive as that may seem) plus advertiser dollars does not add to big profits. Behind the scenes cost is a major factor. The profits do not come from the sale of downloads and advertiser dollars just about pays for website operations. The money comes from other outside sources such as email selling, click ads and so on. The privacy policies on these P2P sites states that information about you is not collected when you visit the site, but information about you from downloads is fair game. Since you are there to download music, you have paid for that download with supplying them with your email and now they can sell your email. I love these kind of loopholes and maybe Google will change the rules when or if they enter the market.

Posted at 8:02AM on Feb 2nd 2006 by Bert Gagnon

9. This was debunked several days ago by Google. I know this blog is anti-Apple/Pro-Napster, but please try to report the facts.

Posted at 11:53AM on Feb 2nd 2006 by Billy K

10. Really, you think this blog is pro-Napster? Do you even read this blog? Why don't you try reading a couple of our posts on Napster and get back to us on that one.

And BTW, the debunking had not yet occurred at the time of the blog post (I was out for a couple days so didn't get it when it hit, but the debunking is up now). We don't generate rumours, we just circulate em like crazy. Especially when just about every wire service in the country is doing the same thing. So, um, yeah.

Posted at 9:13PM on Feb 2nd 2006 by Sharky Laguana