Napster And Rhapsody For OS X And Linux? Sort Of

Linux and Mac OS X users may have their differences, but the two groups share some common ground. Both, for instance, enjoy the benefits of working with stable, reliable, relatively secure operating systems with open-source pedigrees -- and as a result, both groups tend to think Windows is about as useful as a nagging chest cold.

Unfortunately, Linux and OS X users also share a problem that Windows users never worry about -- waiting, often in vain, for popular software that works on their systems. Case in point: Sorting through the small army of subscription-based music services to find one that offers major-label music as well as Linux or OS X support is like trying to find a needle in a haystack -- minus the needle.

Not everyone who uses Linux or OS X cares, or even realizes, what they're missing. That's especially true for OS X users who prefer to buy their music downloads outright, as opposed to renting access to a provider's online music catalog: Thanks to Apple's iTunes Music Store, they can stuff themselves (or, one hopes, their iPods) silly with 99-cent song downloads.

Linux users have it harder: iTunes doesn't play in Linuxland, and Apple is having too much fun tearing its Windows-based competitors limb from limb to care. It's a state of affairs that discourages many Linux users -- and, frankly, gives many of them a compelling reason to keep downloading music illegally, no matter how many old ladies and dead people the RIAA sues to make them stop.

But now there's another way: Two of the leading subscription services, RealNetworks' Rhapsody and the new-and-improved (i.e., legal) Napster, have recently introduced Web-based players that offer access to their music catalogs without using their Windows-based, standalone client software. Although both companies are using their Web players largely to promote their respective free music offers, the result is something many Linux and OS X users figured they would never see: a chance to use a mainstream, unlimited-download, online music service.

Given their limited feature sets, however, are they really any good?

Napster.com
In Napster's case, the answer to the "Is it any good?" question is a resounding "no." Although the company touts its Web-based music player and accompanying free service as an option for Mac and Linux users, the company doesn't provide these groups with an upgrade path from its free service to a worthwhile paid subscription.

In practical terms, the process of installing and using Napster's Web-based player is very simple. After completing a quick registration form, users can play any song in Napster's million-plus title catalog for free -- but each song can be played only three times.

Its music player, which is embedded in either Firefox or OS X's Safari, is a Flash-based application. Flash music players are a common sight these days; not surprisingly, the player performed well on a number of test systems, including Windows XP SP2, Mac OS 10.4.7, and an Ubuntu 4.0 Linux distro.

I was, however, surprised to find that the player's sound quality -- never a strong point when you're talking about Flash -- was even worse than usual, and significantly lower than Rhapsody's Web-based player. According to a Napster news release and various other sources, the player streams at just 32 kbps -- very low-quality audio, even compared to many of the free Shoutcast or other Internet radio streams that are now so easy to find online.

Shelling out the $10-per-month subscription fee does improve the situation for Mac and Linux users somewhat: You get unlimited plays of all songs in the Napster catalog through the Web player, and the audio stream uses a higher bit rate than the free users get.

However, by using the Web player rather than Napster's Windows-only client software, Linux and Mac users are denied most of the service's basic features. For instance, the Web player lacks the essential ability to create and save playlists. In fact, the player doesn't even allow users to queue songs, instead forcing them to load and play tracks one at a time. In other words, Napster's Web player lacks even the most basic features that a paying customer would expect from this type of service -- or, for that matter, from any PC-based digital audio player.

It's clear that Napster intends its Web player to serve solely as a marketing tool, rather than as a profit center in its own right. Napster strongly encourages users to share song links via blog entries, e-mail, or text messages; when the recipient clicks on a shared song link, Napster uses the same Flash-based player to deliver the song (and another ad).

While its lack of features renders Napster's Web player worthless as a "destination" app for paying customers, it poses no problem for users who simply want to hear more than a 30-second sample (a la Apple's iTunes Music Store) before they purchase tracks. Linux and Mac users looking for a decent subscription service, however, should look elsewhere.

Rhapsody.com

Rhapsody's Web-based service, Rhapsody.com, is clearly more ambitious than Napster's modest effort. While Rhapsody's software appears to be fairly stable (a statement that many users would apparently dispute, judging from the RealNetworks support forums), it may have trouble dealing with firewalls, if my experience is any indication. And if you do have trouble, Real is likely to make it worse, thanks to its spectacularly bad Web site, a nasty habit of lacing its technical support content with poorly timed marketing pitches, and customer service so bad it could double as a chat line for bored masochists.

Rhapsody.com's free Rhapsody 25 service takes a different and arguably less freeloader-friendly approach than Napster. Users get just 25 free on-demand song plays per month, along with access to a limited subset of the service's pre-programmed "radio" streams. In practice, most users can use up their 25 on-demand titles in the space of two or three hours, and the modest array of streaming channels Rhapsody 25 offers won't impress anyone who knows they can do much better, in terms of quality and quantity, elsewhere online.

Rhapsody really makes its impression, however, with the paid version of its Web-based service. For $10 a month, subscribers are allowed to stream an unlimited number of on-demand tracks from Rhapsody's two-million-plus-title music catalog. The paid service also provides full access to Rhapsody's pre-programmed streaming channels, which cover a huge number of genres, sub-genres, various groups of related bands, musical themes, and celebrity and employee playlists.

If you like programmed audio streams that really drill down into certain types of music, or if you simply like being able to wander through a massive music catalog without being forced to buy everything you hear, then Rhapsody.com is certainly worth trying. It's important to note, however, that many other features Rhapsody supports in its Windows client software, such as the ability to download subscription tracks for offline listening, transfers to supported portable players, and yours-to-keep purchases from the Rhapsody Music Store, are not available using the Web-based Linux or OS X players.

The Rhapsody.com software, known as the Rhapsody Player Engine, is delivered as an XPInstaller file. It's the same format Firefox uses to package its third-party extensions; in order to download and run it, I first had to add Rhapsody.com to the list of sites Firefox will allow to install software (accessible by clicking the "Exceptions" button in the "Content" tab of the Firefox 1.5 Options menu).

Unlike most Firefox extensions (which it definitely is not), the Rhapsody Player Engine seems to be a compiled, platform-specific mini-application instead of a truly cross-platform Web service. The Linux version officially supports Fedora Core 4 and SUSE Linux version 9 or above, although any distro that includes version 2.3 or above of the open-source GNU C library and runs on relatively current hardware is likely to have a pretty good shot at working, too.

As it turned out, I had no trouble installing the software on several different systems, including copies of Ubuntu Linux and Fedora Core 4, my aging G4 PowerMac running OS X, and on Windows XP itself. In each case, the player proved capable of loading and playing a six-second ad that preceded my first song selection, yet it sometimes stumbled when playing the songs themselves. In fact, no matter which platform I tried, the player stalled about a third of the time, never getting past the loading stage; the rest of the time, the songs loaded and played without any significant problems.

The nature of these glitches -- sporadic, yet consistent across several different systems -- suggested that I was dealing with a network problem, most likely involving my firewall. Since I could not find information on the Real's support site about the Rhapsody player's port assignments (and was not about to sift through a bunch of log files to figure them out), I dropped my Netgear hardware firewall long enough to confirm that doing so apparently got rid of the problem. If that's the case, then this is an issue that a few simple adjustments could fix -- if the necessary information about the Rhapsody Player Engine is, indeed, lurking online somewhere.

Setting aside a firewall problem that most users may never experience anyway, is a subscription to Rhapsody.com worth the money? I'm inclined to think so, although it's important to consider my opinion in its proper context. I probably spend more money than most people on music, and I certainly spend more than most people on all types of subscription-based, online content. I currently pay for subscriptions to both Rhapsody and Napster, for example, while still paying regular visits both to the iTunes Music Store and my local record store (which needs -- and deserves -- my business).

Still, if Rhapsody.com delivers the type of music you enjoy hearing, then it certainly is worth trying out for a month or two. (I recommend trying the Rhapsody.com player in free mode before you sign up for anything, given the trouble it had negotiating my home-office network.) Just remember: If you need to visit Real's Web site for any reason, always carry a compass and some breadcrumbs.

Alternatives
By now, many of you are wondering: Is this it? Aside from Apple's 300-lb. baby gorilla, doesn't any other online music service work with OS X or Linux? And the rest of you -- who already know the answer to that question -- are wondering: Why is this chowderhead sucking up to Big Corporate Music and ignoring [name of the company inspiring your fanatical devotion]?

First of all, this article deals with subscription-based online music options. Rhapsody leads the market in this category; Napster (thanks, perhaps, to its marketing strategy of "Do what Rhapsody does, except do it six months later") is not far behind. Even putting Napster in this review was a stretch, but at least its Web-based offering is moving in roughly the same direction as Rhapsody's.

By the way, if I'm wrong about that, speak up. If any other online music service supports Linux and/or OS X, offers a similar type of subscription-based service, and isn't based in a foreign country selected due to its lack of an extradition treaty with the United States, it's doing a great job of making itself invisible.

Second, I'm going to mention some alternatives right here. Note that none of these services deals in the same mass-market, major-label fare as Rhapsody and Napster, and they only sell tracks -- there's no subscription-based access option. As a result, these services are not forced to make the same deal with the devil that leaves Rhapsody, Napster, and the like saddled with DRM-encumbered files. And that, in turn, means they don't have to chain users to their own client software to enforce the rules -- or deal with Microsoft, whose Windows-only protected WMA format is pretty much the only DRM game in town.

Try these music-purchase sites on for size: