Slashdot Mirror
Universal and Sony Plan "Free" Music Service
Damon Tog writes "Macworld reports that Universal Music Group has enlisted the help of Sony to join forces in a new music service. The price of the subscription is expected to be built-in to the cost of digital music players, leaving the music 'free' to the consumer. 'The plan is still in flux and faces several hurdles, BusinessWeek notes. Among them is finding a business model that allows the hardware makers to subsidize the cost of the music. In addition, the labels have tried to develop their own online music services before without success.'"
The reason there have been so many failed music stores, especially when they have been built by the root content distributers themselves, is they don't want to take the time (and therefore money) to sit down and develop (not just build) an easy to use, intuitive, open music distribution software. They are marketing driven, and as such, this software it looked at from a marketing stand point. Full of buzzwords and trends, but no strong basis on what people want.
/rant
People want music in several formats.
People want music that plays over all devices they own.
People want music in varying quality, and are willing to scale the pay of a song to the quality.
People are not willing to pay more than a song is worth. (This is the biggest issue for the labels)
If a service is build instead of a program, the company will be successful.
insight through the mind
This is a sign that more of the labels are starting to realize they need to change with the times and will (hopefully) stop blaiming the lack of interest in buying CDs on piracy alone. With any luck more things like this will start to happen soon as companies start to test the waters of new business models.
This could be a great thing for both consumers and corperations, if they are willing to start trying new business models, it means we as customers could very well wind up with new innovative ways to enjoy media that doesnt leave you feeling like you just got ripped off.
http://interserver.net/
The most important question is the one that the major labels always forget to ask: what value does this bring to consumers? With Amazon selling MP3s, why pay $100 extra for a player, which is designed to break in 18 months?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Macworld reports that Universal Music Group has enlisted the help of Sony to join forces in a new music service.
Initial reports indicate this offer is really "heating up", but that's only because the music players use Sony batteries.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
... and the other question that immediately presents itself: when the partners involved in this deal lose interest after a couple years of lackluster sales, what will become of that nice device that you paid for- probably paid a lot for, given the "built in" subscription cost? Will you be able to load music onto it from other sources, or will it be bricked once the associated service is shut down?
- Free as in speech (you're free to do what you want with it)
- Free as in beer (you get it for free)
- And now there's free as in Sony (we're free to fuck you after we have your money)
No thanks, Sony and UMG. Fool me once, can't get fooled again.So, would said player let you load any of your own music on it? Or is this a device where you get to hear how great whatever artists a limited set of studios thinks are good enough for you?
It's like radio, but with more room to roam in your cage.
The problem is that selling cages to consumers has traditionally led to them escaping, or not entering in the first place in great numbers...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
First, anyone who thinks it's "free" is nuts. Any price "bundled" into the player or phone service will per passed along to the end user.
And as such, here's a better question: What happens to the music when you stop paying the subscription?
Most subscription services of that type cancel all of your music when you're done. Are you going to want to pay two or three years worth of subscription fees and end up with nothing?
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
What manufacturer would take on an open ended commitment of $60/yr? Even with Apple's legendary profit margins, they would be losing money by absorbing a $60 levy on their low-end iPods ($79 Shuffle, $149 Nano) and that's just in the first year! I can't see the situation being any better for other MP3 player makers.
From TFA, Apple allegedly get $0.29 from every $0.99 iTunes sale, i.e. the record companies get $0.70; I'd bet that $0.29 has to fund the credit card charges and infrastructure costs while the $0.70 is pure profit for emailing one master song copy to Cupertino. Does the music industry not realise what a good deal they have here? Pretty much every attempt at 'going solo' by a major has ended in disaster, indeed the quoted article states that Sony are closing their on-line music stores: how much did they lose there?
I think we're witnessing the beginning of the end of the 'traditional' music company and these sort of suggestions are just spasms from a body that doesn't know it's head has been cut off...
This is a great move, because it will reveal the absurdity of the present locked player situation. Its a classic stage in industry evolution. Stage one is, some company (Apple) comes out with a format for purchased tunes which will only play on its own player.
This creates two incentives. The first is to increase the sale of tunes, since the other players depend on the tunes not the player as their main business. So they want more tunes sold. But as long as there is an Apple monopoly of sold tunes, this isn't going to happen, and there is nothing they can do about it.
The second incentive is to compete with Apple as a retailer.
So, because of the success so far of the Apple strategy, all they can really do is emulate it: come up with another store, another player, a different format, and tunes locked to it. Since they have to overcome an incumbent, they will be reduced to making his attractive by initially lowering the price of the tunes and using a different locked format, to make people use their player. This will be a replay of competing format wars that we have seen with hardware formats in the past.
We will then move to the stage, which we have seen previously in media with different consumer formats, where consumers still refuse to buy the stuff because they hate incompatible formats. After a while of this an unlocked standard will emerge. I don't mean a standard that is not copy protected, but one does not lock purchased tunes to players from one particular vendor, or make them be purchased by one specialised bit of software or currency. It will work just like CDs and DVDs do now: buy your content wherever you want from one of a variety of independent outlets, using whatever payment means you want, and play it on the player of your choice, from one of several manufacturers.
The Apple strategy has worked well for a while, but it has within it, like all DRM based attempts to tie up your use of what you buy, the seeds of its own destruction. It is not a sustainable business model longer term. The present model for music and CDs was. The only thing that is destroying it is overpricing from the content publishers.
Apple is far better placed to deal with the implosion of the business model. Its trivial to take locking off the iPod and iTunes store. And if the money falls out of the tunes market, it hardly affects them. For the content owners, their whole model is falling to bits in well defined stages that we have previously seen in other format wars. It is what is coming towards us.
This is the ideal system for the major labels:
Large amount of fairly steady, predictable revenue every month, no matter what people actually want
-they get monthly fees whether or not you use a device or the associated service [say, if the device is lost or broken]
-they are also paid PER DEVICE, so you wind up paying multiple times for the same music [cuz they'll want you to buy a second 'player' for your car, another for your home, and one for each of your household to walk around with (sharing devices is VERBOTEN!)]
They get to push themselves as 'the brand'
-since this money goes into a pool, probably only shared by the big 4 labels, it probably will be split based on market share. So, there is a greater incentive for labels to push the label instead of individual bands [get EMI music, cuz it's got all the best bands]. They could care less if music from band A or band B is downloaded, so long as A & B are licensed from them.
Throws a whole new load of mud on accounting
- as in, which bands/artists/composers get paid what? Now, with Apple, it's pretty clear. You buy a song A. Band X, composer Y, etc.. "should" be paid some money. This would be possible to audit [presuming even basic logs are kept]. With this new system, there is no reason for any logs to be kept, as if the devices 'rent' is paid, it can play whatever it wants.
- and, if you've already bought the music you listen to, this 'rental' fee becomes 100% profit, as there are no artists to reimburse
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
The real question is: who put them in charge? Their proposed exit strategy for media distribution sounds as "shoot us in the leg". If I had any stok or option on those companies I would consider selling them now before is too late.
People want music that plays over all devices they own.
People want music in varying quality, and are willing to scale the pay of a song to the quality.
People are not willing to pay more than a song is worth. (This is the biggest issue for the labels) No, no, no. Nono. No!
We've figured it out now. People want free (as in beer) music! That's why we have rampant piracy and such lackluster sales. Right? Duh. Those mindless buggers care for nothing but free. But since these music-playing handheld machines still are selling like hotcakes, there must be some way we can get money from them instead!
Obviously we just have to make music "free", and people will buy... erm, rent... er, hang on... enjoy (yes!) our music again!
Trust us, our plans are brilliant this time!
Oh... and I shouldn't write this... It's supposed to be a secret, but here goes: Since this "free" service obviously needs to be limited to the specific devices that are paying us, there must be some DRM involved. That means that we can at any time change this into a pay-per-play scheme. See how clever we are!!!
We should have done this sooner! World domination! We've learned now! Those selfish consumers want nothing but free, so we'll give them "free", all right. Ha! this time, we cannot loose! Brilliant, I tell you!
I lost my sig.
If some real investigative journalism were going on, the article would be titled "How Sony and Universal plan to lobby Congress to force hardware makers to pay the record companies for a crappy music subscription service that consumers don't want."
I think most everyone else had best not be drinking anything when they read his plaintive cry, though. Bad for keyboards and monitors...
1. Have these guys ever heard of antitrust laws?
2. Don't they realize that their antitrust combination to try to defeat Apple would be a flagrant violation of antitrust law?
3. Why are they incapable of just trying to compete with someone in a fair and open way?
4. Who in the US would be stupid enough to patronize their new venture and thus subsidize their RIAA lawsuits against the American people.
5. SONY BMG are the guys who just testified in Capitol v. Thomas that it is illegal for people to copy their cd's onto their computers for personal use.
Anyone who would buy anything from these companies is an idiot.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful