Talk:Napster (streaming service)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Giant ad for Rhapsody

Is this article even encyclopedia worthy? c'mon, let's get it right between what is useful knowledge and what is fluff. 24.60.253.36 04:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral POV issue: it's up to the reader to decide what's "good" and what's "undesirable".

Someone could probably just change them to "Features" vs "Criticisms" and all would be fancy. Gamiar 08:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually if it has to do with Rhapsody at all it should be kept, I've fixed it to represent the rhapsody I know.. I know the Mac users are fumed at Rhapsody because Real does not distribute a Mac version of Rhapsody, the problem may not be Real's so much.. Apple prevented Rhapsody from infiltrating on the glorified iPod domain by preventing iPod's new frimware from playing rhapsody's DRM.. Note, companies use firmware upgrades like this to control the market of the player, limiting consumers to few selections, its why Apple is so successful in cornering the itunes stuff.. But I'll drop the bomb on this parade, the music files are no better than the original CD's and if you encode from CD's the sound quality is infinitely better than any song you download from Apple's service or any music service for that matter.. And If youa re listening to a Elvis Costello CD, you may pay about 24 dollars for a CD downloaded from iTunes because Elvis Costello's CD's tend to have like 16 songs with about 8 acoustic versions and such.. Don't be suprised if musicians start making many short songs for sale on iTunes or Rhapsody.. I personally only use Rhapsody to listen to music online, I don't use it with my mp3 player.. If you like to listen to music this way, this is right for you, if not, what can I say.. PS- iPod uses a little hard_disk, and hard disk's crash, if you hard disk crashes, apple will not replace it.. That's why I don't own one.. So Apple makes money on its market's ignorance.. --Rofthorax 08:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI, current versions of rhapsody are iPod-compatible again. --April Arcus 02:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't buy albums from RealRhapsody - except to burn them to CD. I believe the author is confusing RealRhapsody and the Real online music store - the Harmony section should be deleted

The latest version of Rhapsody (3.0) lets you buy tracks and merges in the Harmony functionality - RobLa 04:09, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think the part about this being only available in the US and that it has DRM, is not worth mentioning since all you need is a credit card to purchase Rhapsody service, and you can burn songs to CD.

Needs rewrite

This article is a giant list of bullet points. It needs to be rewritten into a proper article. There are also some POV issues, I renamed the sections on "good features" and "bad features". Rhobite 21:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Real Rhapsody and audiogalaxy's rhapsody, I see a potential conflict or lawsuit.

Are they the same, or are they different? I know they are different, but it's puzzling that no one has said anything about this anywhere on the net.

The are the same service, just distributed by two different companies. It is one of the businesses that Listen (the creators of Rhapsody) explored.

Songs Diminishing

I'm a little bit angry at Rhapsody/Real because of their diminishing amount of music available. I signed up for a 3-month subscription, and so far I've been rewarded with increasingly less music to play. When I signed up you could listen to all sorts of stuff, including "major" artists, and just add it to the playlist and you were golden. Now I'm having to turn to p2p services and get my music that way (which is not the way I wanted to play it, and rhapsody in some instances doesn't even offer the music up for buying, even though I probably wouldn't buy it, that would be too expensive). It seems pretty annoying to me that I pay for music and then they actually remove content (I've seen this in several cases, such as my playlists suddenly being filled with 30-second spots). Just a rant :)

-YuriASF 24.197.24.37 (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The music licensing issue is not entirely the fault of Rhapsody. Music licensing agreements with these music services are done with major record labels who set agreed pricing for albums, and in many cases, individual tracks within them. Some tracks are licensed to Rhapsody at a promotional rate which expires, meaning that the service will carry those tracks on their Unlimited service for a limited time. Other albums are licensed for Unlimited play based on their tracks, and you'll discover one or two that are purchase only. Others are not available at all in any digital form. It is not true that Rhapsody is actually reducing the number of tracks in their catalog - they are increasing over time. It's just that you may perceive a reduction based on albums you were already familiar with being available now converted into purchase-only or no longer available status.

Part of this is the fault of the labels who are trying to extract as much money as possible to license their libraries, and the other is the fault of Rhapsody who obviously sets a maximum tolerable price they will consider to include a track in their "unlimited plan." This is true of every music service, however. MusicNet, which provides the libraries for most of the other music services using Windows Media format, offers clients a library ranging from just under one million tracks to well over three million (and at varying bitrates). It's up to the music service itself to decide what level of service they wish to subscribe, and offer customers.

-Phillip 72.226.207.178 (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

POV addressed?

I just stumbled upon this article, and it looks relatively NPOV to me, yet the NPOV warning is still displayed. Has this been addressed, or am I missing something? I'll wait a few days before removing it. --Rehcsif 19:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The limitations and success sections sound rather negative to me. I don't think the POV has been fixed. --24.4.254.87 06:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I second this looks just fine to me .

Long Tail

Is it worth mentioning that their business is a long tail ? Kendirangu 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rhapsody 4.png

Image:Rhapsody 4.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rhapsody logo.png

Image:Rhapsody logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible deal with MTV and Rolling Stone?

Shouldn't it be mentioned that MTV seems to have some sort of deal with Rhapsody? Because every time I watch a music video on MTV or VH1, there's always an ad at the bottom of the screen telling you to buy the song on Rhapsody. Correct me if I'm wrong. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the same with RollingStone.com- if you get Rolling Stone, you get a rollingstone.com account that doubles as a free Rhapsody account and any music you listen to on their website is Rhapsody rebranded. --User:64.39.143.183 14:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Audio format and quality

Why no mention of Rhapsody's audio format and quality? Do they still use AAC @192kbs, or have they switched to MP3? I see they now have an MP3 store, which I assume sells audio in MP3 format. What kbs do they use? Why would they downgrade from AAC to the older MP3 format? --JHP (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that there are several different formats depending on whether it is a stream or a download, as well as the device. Streams appear to be AAC (iPhone, Android, Windows client) or MP3 (Flash player). Downloads appear to be WMA (subscription downloads from Windows client to Playsforsure devices) or MP3 (bought tracks). Here are some links

http://rhapsody.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/258/kw/wma/r_id/166

http://rhapsody.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/187/session/L3NpZC9jTlVsUVhsaw%3D%3D/c/1017/kw/AAC/p/1062/r_id/166/sno/1

Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Artists royalties?

It would nice if somebody could describe what kind of money are paid to the artists by Rhapsody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.247.235 (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Fraudulent Charges

I feel the following information would be a useful addition to this page:

Rhapsody has been known to frequently continue charging customers for their service after the account has been cancelled. Numerous customers have reported cancelling their subscription only to have charges creep back onto their monthly credit card statements. In some cases charges disappeared for the month (or months) following the request to end the subscription and then reappeared shortly thereafter. Some individuals reported this happening multiple times over extended periods of time (sometimes in excess of a year). When subsequent calls are made to once again attempt to cancel the subscription-based service, the caller is informed that Rhapsody's database shows no record of previous cancellation attempts.

If you google around, you'll find tons of places like the link cited where people are complaining about this very practice. However, this paragraph has been deleted, because it was deemed to be "original research".

I feel this information is very useful and important to include in its wikipedia article. Thoughts on how it can be included?

24.245.105.112 (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Find a reliable source and you're good. consumeraffairs.com is not a reliable source. Have they been found guilty of fraud? Just provide a link to that legal finding. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Classical music needs better indexing and buffering

Classical music is indexed by the name of the movement (e.g. Andante) which makes it difficult to determine which piece you are listening to (e.g. 2nd Symphony).

Also many pieces with name segments (i.e. Strauss's Alpine Symphony) force unwanted buffering between the segments when the piece is performed in one long segment. This is unlike the movement breaks associated with more traditional symphonies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sduraybito (talk • contribs) 00:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Napster (streaming music service). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100409105142/http://blog.rhapsody.com/2010/04/kindalikeabigdeal.html to http://blog.rhapsody.com/2010/04/kindalikeabigdeal.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120714005604/http://rhapsody.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/258/kw/wma/r_id/166 to http://rhapsody.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/258/kw/wma/r_id/166
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scopecreep.com/Rhapsody/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)