Slashdot Mirror
Motorola Unveils iRadio
sayanchak writes "Motorola is introducing iRadio in its 2nd edition of the ROKR cell phone. An article in Reuters says that iRadio will be a subscription music service that will go on sale this year. This will put Motorola in competition with other such services like XM Satellite Radio Holdings and Sirius Satellite Radio." From the article: "The iRadio service will cost about $7 (4 pounds) a month but the price may vary depending on which wireless phone service the subscriber uses, according to Motorola. U.S. service providers including Cingular Wireless and Verizon Wireless are planning mobile music download services for this year. Sprint Nextel has already launched music download and streaming services. Motorola did not reveal any service provider partnerships but said it hopes to sell the service in conjunction with wireless operators, which could sell subscribers a wireless download of a song that they discovered through iRadio."
Motorola is introducing iRadio in its 2nd edition of the ROKR cell phone. An article in Reuters says that iRadio will be a subscription music service that will go on sale this year.
I fail to see how this is superior to a Treo 650 with free shoutcast streaming audio.
I'm just curious to know if all this cellular music is now just sitting in the unwanting hands of Motorola, and Apple's just cheering on at the sidelines. Is this the case, or a smooth marketing move?
"To be is to do." -Socrates
"To do is to be." -Jean-Paul Sartre
"Do-be-do-be-do." -Frank Sinatra
I think there is a lot of disconnect between what people want and what execs think people want.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
eCommerce
eMail
eDonkey
eWords
eBay
eBusiness
eCard
eWallet
Wonder what the next popular letter will be.
Well I already subscribe to music, thanks to yahoo. I subscribe to cable, internet, and cell phone as well.
For it is much easier, and i am not bothered by not being able to listen to songs from yahoo when my subscription expires, because i know what i signed up for and I get a blanket coverage to listen to everything they have to offer.
The reason i am not bothered by it is because most are not expensive services, esp music @ $12 and internet @ $30, with howmany ever people at your home that want to use it. However cell phones are expensive, and some cable does get out there. Not to mention only a few channels on tv were free, I cannot ever think of when my fav. channels, which include discovery, history, nick, g4, comedy central and cartoon network were ever free.
I guess all my round about blabering comes down to, I do not mind paying for something I want, and service model is great when the content keeps changing.
Apparently you don't have TiVo/DVRs, because you do not get the difference in utility.
I cannot pause live television on VCR. I have to grab a tape, put it in, record, and then afterward go back, rewind, try to find where I left off. I also cannot set season passes for my favorite shows to record automatically every time it comes on with a VCR, nor can I just hit two buttons on a VCR and suddenly the movie on HBO that comes on in a few hours will be recorded, no fuss, no Flashing-12.
To complain about subscription fees is equally silly - suggesting that "normal" television is "free" makes me laugh, because you haven't been paying attention. I pay for SIRIUS so that I don't deal with half my time spent on commercials (they have a few on specific channels, but I haven't heard a commercial on a music station in about three months, and I spend at least an hour a day in my car). I pay for HBO to avoid having thirty of my sixty minutes taken up by Levitra.
Is it always going to be commercial-free? Perhaps, perhaps not. HBO's managed to keep it mostly that way for a long time. I don't see why other channels couldn't last, especially with the growing trend in people choosing to subscribe for their television.
Pay per use is a great way to make money, but customers don't like it. Subscriptions paying for necessary utilities are tolerated, but entertainment subscriptions are a hard sell, unless they provide high value vs. the cost. Pop music does not qualify as a service people are willing to pay/minute for, rather than just carry around their CDs or their iPod.
... continue downloading..." = sucks.
I'd much rather pay a known cost upfront for something than "subscribe" to yet another ongoing cost. Does the rest of the world agree? Consider:
Subscriptions that work:
- Cable/Sat TV works because it offers things you simply can't get elsewhere; make those things available on DVD, and notice how people start collecting DVDs of the few shows they watch, and abandon 150 channels of nothing on. Users who want regional/sports/news content you can't get without a subscription may hang on to their cable.
- Magazines, Newspapers & other periodicals work because they offer a stream of new content you can't get elsewhere. These markets are being eaten alive by the availability of content on the open Internet however. MacWorld used to be a monthly book, now its a pretty skimpy magazine.
Subscriptions that failed miserably:
- Nobody's paying for Microsoft's WMA, now that there is iTunes and real audio CDs left (and not WMA-only CDs, as was the plan).
- Subscription software has been an extremely hard sell, despite Misrosoft's attempts at converting Windows and Office to subscription style licensing). Online games like WoW are selling subscriptions because they offer content and play otherwise unavailable elsewhere. That's why Blizzard guards its client so well. If you could plug into open "worlds" of entertainment, Blizard's game would die quickly.
- Pay per use subscriptions to Internet access were steamrolled by competition from fixed cost, all you can eat plans as soon as they became available.
So basically, I'd say that in order to sell a subscription with wide market appeal, you have to have exclusive, compelling content not generally available in any other form, and you have to actually get something, not just temporary access to it.
Pop music DOES NOT fit this model, and niche markets for audio content are not going to be made available for the cell phone market. Beyond the failure of the subscription model, who the heck is going to want to listen to radio on a cell phone? And who will want to continue to pay for it, particularly if they are billed even more for using it regularly?
And while service cutouts are a minor irritation when trying to have a conversation, dropouts and service unavailability are serious problems for people trying to listen to music live; waiting to download music using existing (SLOW) data services would be equally problematic. "Hey I want to listen to that song... look up... download....
I don't think the significance of the win of iTMS over WMA has been absorbed by the music industry, from the labels to the would be distributors (cell phone providers). People overwhelmingly want to buy things they "own," and not to pay for the privelage to listen for a period of time.
Apple's win with the iPod came from offering a product that allowed users unfettered use of the music they already had (you don't pay a per miniute fee for having your iPod on), an easy path to get new music at a "known cost," and additionally, access to online music via iTMS at fixed, "known" costs. You aren't penalized for listening to an iPod for a longer time (per minute fees), or over a period of time (per month fees). That encourages iPod use, and makes it more rewarding as you use it more.
WMA and pay-per-listen cell phone plans ding you the more you use them, discouraging regular use. Guess why they aren't catching on?
Motorola, after delivering a poor iPod bundled in an unimpressive phone, now thinks they can turn the system upside down and shake money from their (potential) userbase by charging them per use.
Motorola, after delivering a poor iPod bundled in an unimpressive phone, now thinks they can turn the system upside down and shake money from their (potential) userbase by charging them per use... charges accrue whether you use it or not + they go up as you use it more.
Back it up a sec. Motorola couldn't give a rat's ass about whether you subscribe or not. Why did they make this feature? Because they know that the providers want it. If the providers like it, then they'll push Moto phones. And cell phone makers need providers to push their phones, because most phone purchases are cost-subsidized via provider's service contract.
What you need to remember is, the providers are greedy as shit. If they can charge you, they will. Cell phone makers get money from one source: phone purchase price. Providers do not share service fees or anything with them. If a cool phone feature will jeopardize a provider's ability to gouge you, phones won't have it. Conversely, if a phone feature gives a provider another thing to sell you, they'll piss their pants over it.
Do you think Moto wanted to gimp the Bluetooth on Verizon phones so you have to pay to transfer photos off them (which only benefits Verizon)? Do you think Moto wanted to limit the ROKR to 100 songs (which ensures ROKR can't compete with iPod)? Hell no. Use your brain.
Disclaimer: I work for Motorola, but I'm not involved with any of the above-mentioned products. (And I think ROKR was a dumb move also. The silver lining is that it shows providers and Apple that what they conceded wasn't enough for customers. Music phones will only get better now, though slowly.)
My stupid web site
why-would-i-listen-to-the-radio-on-my-phone
Why would I listen to the radio on my phone? Because I want to listen to a particular station and can't get it any other way.
I have done this a lot, since 1967 or so:
- The campus carrier current station had a bundle of leased lines available to feed the audio to students that had moved out of the dorms. They were leased by frat houses, individual student fans or groups of them, and station engineers that were no longer in dorms but neeced to monitor the station. (I lucked out and didn't have to pay for mine, since another ex-engineer was living next door and let me string a wire to tap his.)
- Sometimes a station I can't get with a program I want to hear has station moitor audio feeding "music on hold" - and I'll call in and be put on hold to hear the program.
- I've used the internet to listen to feeds from stations far away similarly. Sometimes a syndicated program is so politically incorrect that nobody in the area will carry it - but it's streaming on stations in other parts of the country. Sometimes I'm in a place (like inside an office building) where the signal won't reach. Why use a multi-grand desktop to listen? Because it's there, and alternatives aren't.
And of course I'll use my cellphone for this - in preference to a landline phone, leased line, or DSL bandwidth - if I'm moving, or if it's a toll call. (My cell plan has all-you-can-eat free nights and weekends.)
Why would I want to watch a video on my phone?
Why would I want to watch a movie or a video on my laptop? Because it's more convenient when on-the-go than watching it on my TV. Why would I want to do it on my (cell)phone? Because it's more convenient than my laptop - by an order of magnitude.
Why would I want to put a telephone application on my expensive desktop or laptop computer?
A) Because I have the expensive desktop or laptop computer for other reasons, whether I use it for a phone or not, and the online phone service is cheaper than a standalone phone subscription.
B) Because I can't get some functionality any other way - at least for a reasonable price.
(Example: Full-function PBX, with hundreds of extensions fed from a handfull of trunklines, and other "value added" features like follow-me, call forwarding, conference calling, three-way/consult calling, menu systems, etc. Rent it from the local Bell for a bundle, buy it and a service contract from another vendor for a smaller bundle, or install an open-source application and a cheap phone-interface card in a commodity desktop. Guess which I'd chose for my next startup in garage-shop phase...)
But all of this begs the underlying issue:
This is the start of the long-touted "convergence" - when all communication:
- two-way audio (voice phone calls and two-way radio)
- two-way audio/video (videoconferencing)
- N-way audio and audio/video (conference calls)
- Broadcast audio
- Broadcast audio/video
- Remote computer access.
- Computer/computer communication
and a bunch of others, both wired and wireless, converge into a single unified network. As this proceeds the terminals for humans (short of implants) are converging into just three major forms:
- A fixed-location device (the convergence of the desktop computer, settop network box, video/audio recorder, TV, and HIFI into a "media center").
- The laptop (a large-format portable).
- The handheld (a small-format portable).
One way to get to the full-function handheld is to add voice to a computer-only handheld/tablet (i.e. the Blackberry). The other is to add functionality to a cellphone. Adding entertainment broadcast (TV, Radio), narrowcast (XM-like subscriptions), and unicast (video/audio on-demand) functionality is a logical early step on the rount from the handheld "phone". It may be saleable as a "bundled unit" until replaced by so
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way