Slashdot Mirror
Bands Bypass iTunes With iPhone Apps
iminplaya writes to tell us that the band "The Presidents of the United States of America" (yes, the peaches guys), are trying to expand their engagement with fans by selling their music via Apple's App store, something others have experimented with but never dealt with on this level. "The app, called 'The Presidents' Music — PUSA,' sells for $2.99 on the App Store (iTunes link) offers users access to four full albums, including the band's early 'lost' recordings. This includes the previously-unavailable FroggyStyle — 'unless you have one of the 500 cassettes the band sold in 1994, you've never heard this before,' reads the app description. The app also features a number of extras and exclusives that the band says are updated regularly, and fans can read the band's blog directly from the app on their iPhones or iPod touches. The music, however, is not actually contained within the application itself; instead, it is streamed to the app from a server, requiring the user to be connected to a network of some kind (iPhone users on the cell or WiFi network, iPod touch users on WiFi) in order to access the media."
Please buy my app (profanespeak) to read my comments on this article.
*sigh*
More bands should be offering their music for free on the Internet itself. Look at how well Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead (for starters) have done with their Internet releases.
If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
Personally, I know them better for their song "Lump" (which Weird Al parodied as "Gump") better than I know them for "Peaches".
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
If the content is streaming, I don't see Apple having a problem with this. After all, I can stream numerous radio stations already through iTunes or through an iPhone app. I don't think Apple will be concerned unless the app allows you to save the music. Besides, there's probably some agreement the developers have to agree to that states no app will directly compete with iTunes.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
If looked at purely as a method of accessing the artists' work it seems ineffectual. However, as a total package this is a genius appeal to the "always on" "web 2.0" environment of today's Internet. For 2.99, a price I think many will pay, users recieve a portal on their mobile device into the world of their favorite artists. Bios, extra content, tour dates, blogs, and ALL their music in one place. Sounds like something a fan would gladly pay 2.99 to have access to.
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
These guys are great in concert, and now this! Awesome idea from an awesome band.
They use 5 strings between bass and guitar.
After reading the article, I gotta say I hope bands don't start doing this for the following reasons
1)Relies on access to the Internet. So...you can't access it when you're not connected? Running the radio in the iPod touch or iPhone drastically reduces battery life. No thanks.
2)Relies on 3rd party website outside iTunes. Relying on iTunes as the 'gatekeeper' to all your DRMed files is bad enough (thankfully, that's going away though). A separate entity is on even thinner ground...if their website changes or goes belly-up, it won't work.
3)Requires separate application. Can you imagine how clumsy it would get if every band operated like this? I guess someone would have to come up with another application to keep track every bands' varied releases-and who knows if the music, album art, video etc would be categorized in the same way.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
If the artists really want to sell their album for $2.99, wouldn't iTunes let them? This probably has more to do with artists' publicity than their music - it's like a ticker for the band, with the streamed music an added functionality.
It is a neat idea though - particularly if the music is not network linked, it's just like selling your own CDs in the market. The Tap Tap Revenge app already does this - you can download tracks through the app and the tracks reside on the phone. You can listen to them anytime through the TTR app, even in airplane mode.
My sig has been answered.
From the article:
What an amazingly new concept. I guess just having a web page wouldn't get you the $2.99 up front.
One of the reasons people buy iPhones is for integration both on the phone and desktop. You know, all your music in one place. This will also have limited use for Touch users who wan't to listen to music without be near wifi. I for one do not want 100 apps from various artists scattered across my phone.
She's lump, she's lump, she's lump, she's in my iPhone
FYI, PUSA is pronounced as puss as in a cat and the a is pronounced as in fail.
The RIAA is patting PUSA's back for coming up with such a juicy plan. Next thing you'll know, the RIAA will be handing out awards to PUSA for deep penetration into a new audience. Damn those PUSAs and their control over their listening mates.
They are charging $2.99 to access a streaming radio station. Two catches. You can only listen to it from your iPod, and the station only plays songs from one band.
'unless you have one of the 500 cassettes the band sold in 1994, you've never heard this before'
That's quite a claim, unless they're claiming to have invented an unbreakable ARM scheme for cassette tapes in 1994 ;)
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
I also respond to these questions, with this.
Sorry to post on this thread, but can someone fix the freaking GMC ad that keeps taking over the whole page (redirects to only show the ad)? It's really annoying and only seems to happen in firefox.
Okay, so the band is bypassing iTunes to release music. Yet strangely, Apple didn't think this app "competed" with any existing Apple-branded software.
Only enforce rules when it suits you, eh?
The shortcomings of their approach are well described above, and not worth discussing. Meanwhile, a more entertaining error has landed on U2.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
They turn on the Band Bypass Filter!
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
I love PUSA. Love them. I have their Mount Rushmore concert taped from MTV on VHS, complete with the Mount Rushmore Hug Of The Day, and I still have dreams set to "Mach 5". However, I do not, and WILL not, own an iPhone, so I guess I don't get access to this sort of thing.
This is a confusing message I'm being sent.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
I love PUSA. Love them. I have their Mount Rushmore concert taped from MTV on VHS, complete with the Mount Rushmore Hug Of The Day, and I still have dreams set to "Mach 5". However, I do not, and WILL not, own an iPhone, so I guess I don't get access to this sort of thing. This is a confusing message I'm being sent. Only people with iPhones can get this music, and people with iPhones have enough money to throw around to not need this.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Firstly, it just bypasses iTunes in loading new music onto your phone - there seems be a not-inconspicuous "BUY NOW" button, which I would guess would take you to the iTunes Store so you can... purchase the song!
I've seen similar apps on the store, GameRock being the one I use. It seemed appealing enough - access to all the music game's library of music (Guitar Hero (1..n), Rock Band 1/2, etc), but honestly, it sucks.
Firstly, you can listen to the setlists contained in each game, yes, but they're shuffled. You can only go next track and pause (and the pause only works for a little while - pause too long and you'll lose the song). Oh yeah, there's a nice big BUY NOW button so you can purchase the track. You can browse the setlist, but that's only if you want to buy a different track than the one currently playing. It's slow switching tracks (several seconds to pull new track information, then several more seconds to start playing), ugh. And the quality's fairly crappy too - like 128kbps (or lower) MP3.
It's a great way to sample an artist's other works, I'll admit, but it certainly doesn't beat actually having the song loaded on your iPod. The random shuffle, the slow next track make it useful as say, a radio that plays one artist only (or in my case, music from one game), but not much more.
The BUY NOW would explain why Apple freely approves these kinds of programs - more iTunes store revenue.
I cannot wait for Linux to be on the iPhone....or for a polished Android, you would think that it is a no brainer which will come first, but you really never know with how slow and stubborn the mobile market is at adapting.
To see a few of my Android apps goto: www.hartwired.com
The app lets you listen for free, then buy from the iTunes store. This is hardly bypassing. It's actually another avenue into iTunes. It's an ad. And you have to pay for it, too.
I think this whole discussion is hilarious, actually. Imagine that Apple announced that you could "buy PUSA's music" via streaming. There would be 10000 comments about how streaming is not ownership and what a ripoff it is.
unless you have one of the 500 cassettes the band sold in 1994, you've never heard this before
Three words: tape dubbing, torrents.
Do you have any evidence to offer to support that? I'm not convinced that only artists which hit it big elsewhere make sales online. Since there are labels like Magnatune that offer much better deals for the artist, I'd be interested in learning how well those artists fare—how much do they make? How many listeners do they get (approximately)? How many more people come see them in live performances after having learned about them from some online distributor?
I'd be surprised if there is survey data to back the idea that you have to be popular via some other promotion scheme to sell tracks online to the extent that you can continue to afford to live on your income from being a musician.
Digital Citizen
Is there some reason why anyone should be concerned with what Apple's position is here? If you bought the iPhone, you should own it and it should play whatever you want it to play at any time. It's sad that anyone would raise Apple's perceived position on this as an issue, as if they rightly should be allowed to stop any activity you undertake with your iPhone.
Digital Citizen
This is VERY impractical.
Since Apple doesn't allow iPhone developers to design apps that run in the background, its a huge effin' stretch to say Apps are any competition for iTunes... As soon as you lock the phone, it will quit playing. There's no option to turn the screen off unless it is locked, so the amount of battery usage is tremendous, lest we ignore all the random things it might be doing in your pocket. I'm also pretty sure it won't play music through iPod/iPhone compatible hardware either... Apps sure don't play through MY car stereo... A 1/8" stereo jack will work, but you can't charge it so you've got yourself those pesky battery issues again.
Conversely, the iTunes app runs when the phone is locked. It's also guaranteed to play on an iPhone/iPod compatible device.
A decent solution would be backgrounder from the Cydia package manager, but that requires a jailbroken phone, which of course caters to a comparatively minuscule niche of nerds. *raises hand*
Ultimately though, using Apps in this manner fails on the sheer inelegance alone. My opinion, of course.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
I concur. And it's even worse than you describe. As I understand it, not all iTunes is DRM-free. Some tracks that Apple distributes still have DRM and there are plenty of other reasons to reject doing business with Apple including:
I'd rather reward distributors that treat me well, like Magnatune.com which never had DRM (and therefore had no two-faced explanation about how they'd like to get away from DRM). Magnatune lets me play and share all tracks from their catalog (they're all under the CC By-NC-SA 1.0 license and I don't have to buy anything to get copies of tracks under this license). Magnatune doesn't treat their artists differently by letting them buy better promotion on Magnatune's website. Magnatune earns my lifetime subscription fee. Apple earns the outrage of my non-technical friends who bought various Apple products and later discovered the lock-in, proprietary, and expensive loss of their rights.
Digital Citizen
When is music going to go back to being an art, not a product?
This is a STUPID idea.
It wastes bandwidth for a reason that can easily be obviated by simply buying music.
I might have considered buying an iPhone, before this.
Now, there's no way in hell I will even consider one.
And in case you think I am an Apple hater, I've owned four iPods and three Apple laptops in the past five years.
But this ? This is a child's toy, and is a waste of money and time in a way that makes me wish for the collapse of western civilization.
At which time iPhones won't be worth so much as one 7.62mm
cartridge.
I happen to think that this business model is very broken and a money loser. Websites sell advertising to pay for bandwidth. These guys are trying to sell an unlimited amount of bandwidth usage for a fixed price. This is going to collapse within the next 6-60 months leaving a whole lot of people who bought this app wondering where the songs they 'paid for' are.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
I still cannot mix it into my playlist on my itunes.
This is going back to the subscription service that Walmart had that collapsed several months ago.
For a service like this to endure it has to do the following thing:
1. Sell a product, not a service agreement.
2. This product has to be complete self contained item, not subject to someone elses server getting shut down because the server is needed to operate whenever I want to listen to the music (ie a service agreement).
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
One should be concerned with what Apple's position is here if one bought an iPhone, because regardless of your opinion on whether it is right or wrong, Apple certainly does stop some activities people undertake with their phones.
Band Cuts Apple in for 30% Share of Sales
Right, because on the iPhone, with its ultra high end audio front end, you can tell the difference between 128K and 192K mp3.
Most of the music you are getting from those games has already been warped and flattened to 'sound good' to the general public when played from a CD anyway so stop pretending you can tell the difference.
A real audiophile has no problem calling bullshit on the 'omg its so low quality!@$!' crowd. The general public doesn't care, and those of us who know sound, know you can't tell the difference on YOUR PHONE anyway.
Go back to bragging about your Asus motherboard with onboard tube amp and the amount of sound dampening material you've put in your PC case, its far more fun to laugh at you that way.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
So if you think Apple is going to lose money from this, you're an idiot.
This is an app from a band that if they were lucky as a pig in shit, people bought two of their songs from iTunes. In reality, most people bought one.
Thats what hurts the record companies. People aren't buying a CD of 6-15 songs for $10-20 anymore, they go buy the one song they hear on the radio for a dollar and thats it. The record companies loose out on truck loads of money because users no longer have to by the crap they don't want to get the tiny portion they do want.
So all this is, is a way to get $3 from people wanting to buy that one-hit wonder instead of a dollar.
Apple won't care, its great for them, instead of buying that one song for $0.99 where Apple ends up giving a good portion of that away to the labels, and other costs of serving the music. Now they sell one app, which is certainly smaller than a song since it streams the audio from else where, and now they've made $0.90. Thats almost as much as the entire sale of the single song. And they don't even send you the audio! They only have to send you the tiny app.
The record label is happy because they just made twice as much off that one hit wonder, so they have to give out some streams of the audio, big deal, copies of bits are free, and bandwidth is practically free so its not a big deal to them.
What happens next? Why, Ads of course! They stream the audio to you, why not inject a little advertising, its for YOUR benifit, they can tell you about all the other great bands that you can buy as iTunes apps.
Now, congratulations, you have just paid $3 to get the same thing I currently get on the radio. No, I take that back, radio is far more reliable than AT&T 3G service so you've got a bad radio that has an selection thats extremely limited (even compared to most radio stations) playlist, and likely advertising in the near future.
So I restate, if you think Apple will be upset about this, you're an idiot. Everybody involved will make more money (except for the parents of the kids buying this sort of crap) from this. Its just another attempt to hold on to the old business model. What scares me is that from reading the slashdot entries to this point, hardly anyone has realized this. Sheep.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Maybe that's what other people do, but I buy albums. Lots of albums. From iTunes and eMusic. I make a big playlist and play it all day - I don't have time to stuff around with individual songs, but then again I'm not 13.
Anyway, isn't this just the same as Ye Olde Days of Vinyl? We had albums, we had singles. How is this different?
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
Eh, isn't the point of the iphone that its mp3 player quality is on par with the ipod itself? I've never used one for music playback, but ASSUMING (and i may be wrong) that its headphone out is of the same quality as an ipod, then with not-terribly-expensive headphones it shouldn't be hard to tell the difference between 128kbps and 192kbps.
A commonly stated fallacy, even among relatively well informed audio gurus, is that limitations in one part of a signal chain can obscure limitations in other parts of the signal chain. This isn't necessarily true. It depends on what exact kind of distortion is added. I first noticed that 128kbps mp3s weren't really CD quality while listening to a CD I burned (obviously from 128 kbps MP3s) in my dad's loudass 1973 BMW 2002 BEFORE he installed all the sound damping stuff. Just because the dynamic range was obviously obscured by the cabin noise, doesn't mean the distortion in the high end caused by 128 kbps mp3s was also obscured. Going back to the CDs to rip higher bitrate MP3s improved the situation considerably.
Nonetheless, I'm not an anti-MP3 bigot either. I've heard people try to argue that 320kbps isn't even "CD quality." Aside from the fact that its technically lossy, I doubt anyone would reliably be able to distinguish 320kbps mp3 from the CD source in a blind test. I suspect you agree that 192kbps is a pretty reasonable "threshold" for avoiding audible artifacts in MP3s... seems like most music sounds good at that bitrate.
But finally and most importantly: People shouldn't complain about the quality of a one time $3 fee to access a whole bands discography regardless of who that band is.
Readers should consider two other apps: Bloom and NANO were created by musicians as a means to engage new fans, and also to provide an interactive experience that is true to the medium. These apps are themselves abstract compositions. DISCLAIMER: NANO is the fruit of my studio. LINK: http://www.rustcycle.com/nano
Music for coding. Genetic algorithm driven visuals. http://www