iTunes stomps Napster in sales | iLounge News


iTunes stomps Napster in sales

“Music fans purchased and downloaded 1.5 million songs from Apple’s iTunes Music Store during the same period that Napster reported selling 300,000 songs during its first week of operation. More than 17 million songs have been purchased and downloaded from the iTunes Music Store since it launched in April 2003. According to Nielsen SoundScan, the iTunes Music Store had more than 80 percent market share of legally purchased downloads last week.”

Related Stories



Well iTunes has been out much longer. You should only compare iTunes Release Week with Napster’s Release Week…

Posted by Squibbles in Irvine, CA on November 6, 2003 at 3:31 PM (CST)


that is what is being said, in the iTunes release week, 1.5 million were sold, in the release week of Napster, only 300,000 were sold

Posted by rsacer in Irvine, CA on November 6, 2003 at 3:35 PM (CST)


Well, thats not a fair comparison, many people have iPods and they want to buy songs. Napster doesn’t have a hugely successful player to back its sales.

I’d really like to see the sales a year down the track, then it would be a fair number.

Posted by Adam in Irvine, CA on November 6, 2003 at 3:51 PM (CST)


Squibbles—iTunes sold MORE in its launch week, IIRC.


600,000/wk is the average for Mac Users only.

1,500,000 - 600,000 = 900,000 songs from Windows users… approx.

So, Windows users are buying 1.5 times as many songs as Mac users.  Not bad for a new launch in a crowded market, but given the fact that the Windows market share is roughly 30 times larger than Mac’s, there’s still a lot of room for growth.

Posted by azdude_15gb in Irvine, CA on November 6, 2003 at 3:54 PM (CST)


I think it’s a fair comparison… You’re right—Napster doesnt support (yet) a hugely popular player… You don’t think they should be faulted for that?

...unless you’re just trying to measure the success of the store INDEPENDENTLY.  I tend to think that it’s the whole solution that counts… which is why Apple is winning.

Posted by azdude_15gb in Irvine, CA on November 6, 2003 at 3:56 PM (CST)


sad being as how napster has such a bigger collection

Posted by zeve in Irvine, CA on November 6, 2003 at 4:04 PM (CST)


> Napster doesnt support (yet) a hugely popular player

You’re thinking like an Apple Guy. Think different!

With the recent bump in iPod sales, iPod accounts for 18% of portable music players. I don’t know if that’s by revenue, or by unit numbers. But I got the figure from an Apple fanboy site so I expect imprecision. For the iPod’s sake, hope that it’s unit sales.

Previously, the iPod was 12% of unit volume. Split the difference at 15% and that means non-ipod players account for 85% of the market. This is a best case estimate and discounts the years of portable music sales before the iPoid.

Except for odd abberations like older RIOs Archos players, most modern portable music players support WMA.

So by my reckoning, that means that Napster 2.0 supports 85% of the market, while iPod supports 15% of the market.

Or to put it another way, Napster already has over five times the potential market support of the iPod.

I think the main reason that iPod users buy music (instead of obtaining it through p2p) are because (i) there are few good p2p music apps for the Mac, and (b), iPod users tend to be older and more well-heeled, exactly the democgraphic that shuns p2p downloading the most.

There’s a reason why all those lame boomer albums are at the top of the Billboard Charts—their fans don’t know what Kazaa is. If they want it on a portable, they buy it from iTunes. Meanwhile, their kids are downloading their music from Kazaa et al like crazy. But not buying.

Posted by RealityCheck in Irvine, CA on November 6, 2003 at 5:49 PM (CST)


>Well, thats not a fair comparison, many people >have iPods and they want to buy songs. Napster >doesn’t have a hugely successful player to back its >sales.
>I’d really like to see the sales a year down the >track, then it would be a fair number.

What a load of bullsh!t.  If you’d stopped for half a second and thought about it, depending on who you ask (either a mac or pc person) the claims are that Apple has a 3 to 6% share of the entire computer market.  Most of the rest, easily 80%, is windows.  So a comparison between Napster and ITMS is very fair.  In fact, I’d even say Napster has a HUGE advantage.  And it still got tromped.  Why?  Because Windows sucks more than Monica Lewinski and Napster is a wanna-be has-been.

Posted by zim in Irvine, CA on November 6, 2003 at 7:09 PM (CST)



I have no idea what your point is.  If you’re saying what I think you are…


Posted by Jerrod H. in Irvine, CA on November 6, 2003 at 8:11 PM (CST)


I downloaded Napster yesterday. 

As soon as I saw “Cool, your account is now active” as the alert box after logging in, I knew it was a phony piece of crap.

The interface is clumsy and made to look like you’re getting search results from a p2p client (ie old Napster or Kazaa), instead of sorting items out like iTunes.

The monthly membership is very vague,  claiming $9.95 for unlimited downloads.  After reading the fine print it basically looks like a premium membership gives you unlimited downloads to listen to from your computer, but you can’t transfer or burn them onto a CD.  So I guess they’re just playlist files instead of WMAs. 

Take away the Napster name (because that’s all it is) and all you’ve got is a mediocre music service.

Posted by RoMoFo in Irvine, CA on November 6, 2003 at 11:02 PM (CST)


I know that Windows outstrips Mac users, but based on my own personal experience with the new Napster,and I-Tunes, I can see why Napster got trounced-ease of use.It would also explain why Ipod is #1 in unit sales.
  Napster was a pain to use, I-Tunes was not. I keep wondering why,if Napster,Rhapsody, and all of these other sites have research that clearly shows that MP-3 is the preferred format for most consumers,why are they so insistent on WMA? I know it’s because they all are aligning themselves with Apple’s competition,(Napster and Samsung,MM with Dell)but still… . I had to burn all the stuff I bought to CD,and convert it to MP-3,on top of having to figure out where to look for the stuff I bought to do the burn. I didn’t really find the selection to be all that different the I-Tunes,either. Both were a little too mainstream for my taste.Factor in that most Windows users(like myself) were subjected to pretty lousy stuff like MusicMatch,that only underlines why I-Tunes did as well as it did.
One other thing-I wasn’t feeling that lame boomer and Kazaa statement. I know people who are twice my age who know what Kazaa is.They also know how to use it too. I also bought a couple of those albums.I did draw the line at Rod Stewart,however. The reason that those albums are doing as well as they are may have something to do with the fact the majors are using different marketing methods to reach people. It could also be that in desperation, the majors are also allowing themselves to come out of self-induced comas long enough to remember that they were ignoring whole segments of the music buying public for years. When you insists on pushing narrowly marketed crap down the public’s throat,you kinda have to expect this as the end result. It could also be that some of these artists have a fan base that is pretty wide ranging,and are doing songs that can stand the test of time. I can only hope they take that approach and apply it to other genres of music as well. In fact, the major complaint I have with I-Tunes is that,again, it is a little too mainstream. I can only hope that they start branching out into more underground stuff (like Indie Rock,Rap and especially Dance),or otherwise, I may have to resort to using other “methods” again,not because I want to get something for free,but because I can’t buy it otherwise.

Posted by Christianicononev.2 in Irvine, CA on November 6, 2003 at 11:38 PM (CST)


the iPod accounts for ~30% of the market (mearured in unites) and over 50% (52% i think from steve jobs’s latest keynote pres.) (measure by revenue. Over half the dollars presently being spent per year on portable MP3 players are going to Apple.

Posted by sinclair in Irvine, CA on November 8, 2003 at 12:26 PM (CST)


Sinclair where are you getting these wacked out figures?

Apple themselves, quoting NPD Research in their last conf call, cite 18% unit share for iPod (up from 12% in similar Q 2002).

Posted by LiesDamnLies in Irvine, CA on November 8, 2003 at 12:32 PM (CST)


At Sea With MP3’s, Boomers Buoy Struggling Record Industry

“The growing success of albums by older artists

Posted by MoreDamnLies in Irvine, CA on November 8, 2003 at 12:36 PM (CST)


MoreDamnLies:The figures that have been quoted by Apple are supported by Forbes,BusinessWeek,Billboard,AP,Reuters,
ad nauseum. Everything else that you posted I do agree with,for the most part. I do disagree with the “only one in nine” quote,however.

Posted by Christianicononev.2 in Irvine, CA on November 8, 2003 at 7:05 PM (CST)

Subscribe to iLounge Weekly

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2018 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy