Cringely: One Possible Future for a Music Business | iLounge News

2014 iPad iPhone iPod Buyers' Guide from iLounge.com

News

Cringely: One Possible Future for a Music Business

Author's pic

By Dennis Lloyd

Publisher, iLounge
Published: Friday, July 25, 2003
News Categories: Digital Media

“I call my idea Son of Napster, or Snapster for short.

Napster failed because it was determined by the courts to violate intellectual property rights and because it did not have a successful business model, or any business model for that matter. Any successor to Napster must be both legal (if barely) and profitable. [...]

Snapster is all about ownership. Snapster will be a company that buys at retail one copy of every CD on the market. Figure 100,000 CDs at $14 each requires $1.4 million. Snapster will also be a download service with central servers capable of millions of transactions per day. Figure $100,000 for the download system and bandwidth for one year. Throw in $100,000 for marketing and $400,000 for legal fees and the startup capital required for the business is $2 million.”

« iPod voted ‘Best Gadget’ in InfoWorld’s Reader Choice Awards

‘iPod: The Missing Manual’ book released »

Related Stories

Comments

21

I agree with SF, the whole concept is total nonsense, the whole point of a corporation is that the stockholders and the corporation are seperate legal entities, this is a fundamental concept on which they are based. Any first year law (or even finance)student would know straight away this is the case, any lawyer who thinks otherwise should not be practicing.
The author refers to mutual funds but similar to the GM example owning shares in a mutual fund does not mean you own the individual stocks owned by the fund

Posted by Damo on July 29, 2003 at 8:00 AM (PDT)

22

“This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read. Owning stock in a company is not the same as owning assets of the company. I’ll give you an example. I own 100 shares of GM. Do you think I can waltz into the factory, grab a new Corvette, and drive off with it because I own it? If this guy talked to lawyers who thought this was a good idea, they’re dumber than he is.”

*****************************

“I agree with SF, the whole concept is total nonsense, the whole point of a corporation is that the stockholders and the corporation are seperate legal entities, this is a fundamental concept on which they are based. Any first year law (or even finance)student would know straight away this is the case, any lawyer who thinks otherwise should not be practicing.”

*****************************

Yeah.  Exactly.

Posted by Z on July 29, 2003 at 12:38 PM (PDT)

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Shop for Accessories: Cases, speakers, chargers, etc.