The Digital Home

Sirius XM is at it again. The company that has faced numerous financial issues over the past few years has finally released its much-anticipated app for the iPhone and iPod Touch. There's just one problem: it leaves out much of the good stuff.

The Sirius XM app (and its missing channels).

(Credit: Sirius XM)

The new app allows users to access some of the service's sports, talk, comedy, and music channels. The available channels include, Oprah Radio, MLB Home Plate, NFL Radio, NHL Home Ice, Mad Dog Radio, The Foxxhole comedy channel, and NPR.

Users will also have access to a variety of Sirius XM music channels, including E Street Radio, The Grateful Dead Channel, Eminem's Shade 45, Radio Margaritaville, Siriusly Sinatra, and others. All told, users will be able to listen to 120 channels. Any music track can be purchased in iTunes while listening to it in the Sirius XM app.

But it's the omissions that will undoubtedly sway public opinion. According to Sirius XM, "some select programming, including MLB Play-by-Play, NFL Play-by-Play, Nascar Radio, and Howard Stern, will not be available on the iPhone and iPod Touch."

In its press release, Sirius XM didn't provide any reason why some of its most popular channels aren't included. But after some digging, I found that those omissions may be due to "mobile-performance rights."

"Sirius and XM offer all of the channels for which we have mobile-performance rights," the company wrote on its iPhone app's FAQ page. "For that reason, certain channels which may be available on your satellite radio or online radio service may not be available on a mobile device like the iPhone."

Sirius XM is giving users a free seven-day trial with the app. After that, it's charging a fee to access the content. I called a Sirius XM customer service representative to see how much it would cost to get that service. He told me that as a current Sirius XM subscriber, I would need to pay an additional $2.99 per month after the seven-day trial. Those who currently do not subscribe to the service will be forced to pay $12.95 per month for access.

Sirius XM has suffered through yet another losing quarter. Last week, the satellite radio company reported a net loss of $236.6 million for the first three months of the year.

Although it posted a tough first quarter, CEO Mel Karmazin expressed optimism. Sales grew to $587 million from $270.4 million a year prior, he noted. His company's operating costs dropped 23 percent year over year. And there is more evidence than ever that Sirius XM is slowly inching its way toward profitability, he said in a statement.

Not everyone is impressed. Fellow CNET Blog Network member Steve Guttenberg wrote that Sirius XM is "sticking it" to subscribers. He believes that customers aren't getting enough for what they're paying.

I understand his point. As a Sirius XM subscriber, I wasn't pleased to hear recently that it was raising prices. But that doesn't taint my evaluation of the service. For me, the "Sirius Everything plus the best of XM" package is worth $16.99 per month.

Google and Universal Music Group last week announced Vevo, a music video site that will feature Universal's music videos running on YouTube technology. I use YouTube as my primary source of watching music videos, and I'm not convinced that I, personally, need a Vevo-like site in my life.

That doesn't mean there isn't room for a site like this. Vevo could still become a great site--but not if it just streams music videos. Here are five features that I'd like to see on Vevo at launch:

1. High-quality video Whenever you try to watch music videos on sites other than MTV.com, the video quality is usually poor. But if Vevo offers outstanding video quality, it will certainly make pople notice. If you're going to a site to watch music videos, wouldn't you expect them to look good? Yeah, me too.

2. An awesome community I love reading comments on YouTube. Popular music videos have hundreds, if not thousands, of comments from both fans and haters alike who want everyone to know their opinions. Vevo needs a community like that to be successful. Watching music videos is fine, but if Vevo really wants to keep people coming back, allowing them to comment is a must. There's a reason why most sites allow users to post comments; they keep people interested in content they've already consumed. That's what Vevo needs.

Today is an important day for file sharers: the RIAA has abandoned its mass lawsuit policy. In fact, the organization claims it will stop suing individuals who pirate music (except for the most egregious offenders) and instead, lean on ISPs to battle piracy.

The Recording Industry Association of America will alert an Internet service provider whenever it believes a user is sharing music files illegally. That ISP will then notify the person that he or she has been caught file sharing and warn that if further activity is witnessed, it may throttle back the customer's service. There's currently no word on how many e-mails must be sent by the ISP before the throttling begins, but a similar idea was nixed by the EU recently over a parliamentary contention that the proposed "three strikes" policy violated civil and privacy rights of the affected individuals. So far, none of that backlash has hit the U.S.

Will it? I certainly hope so.

See, while I'm pleased to hear that the RIAA has decided to abandon its ludicrous idea of suing individuals to get the millions across the globe that engage in file sharing to stop, I'm struck by how deep the RIAA's distaste for file sharing really goes.

I'm even more shocked by how little the music industry really understands about us.

A new report suggests that Apple and three of the "Big Four" record labels are in talks to bring DRM-free tracks to iTunes, and once and for all do away with copy protection on the world's largest music store.

I applaud the companies for finally coming together and trying to remove draconian policies while adapting to our changing times, but this news even surprises me a bit.

To me, the bigger news here is not that Apple is trying to bring DRM-free tracks to iTunes--it needs to, thanks to Amazon.com's DRM-free store--but rather that iTunes is an unbridled success, even though DRM abounds on the service.

Any tech lover will tell you that buying songs from Amazon is preferred. After all, why would anyone want to support DRM? And although demographic data isn't readily available, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say Amazon's customers have a heavy population of individuals that are knowledgeable about tech and realize that buying copy-protected tracks only hurts us over the long term.

iTunes customers are entirely different, though. Unlike Amazon customers, I think the majority of iTunes customers are mainstream consumers that don't possess strong tech knowledge, and they're more concerned about convenience and impulse than doing what's best for consumers. After all, if they really cared about what the Recording Industry Association of America is doing to us (and the artists, by the way), they wouldn't buy songs from iTunes, would they?

Stop complaining about DRM. Please.

Even better news: you can now subscribe to this show. Just add it up right here!

And as always, drop me a line or follow me on Twitter!

I don't think MTV's new music video site is enough to beat out YouTube and MySpace. But will it eventually get to a point where it will? Find out in my latest video.

Even better news: you can now subscribe to this show. Just add it up right here!

And as always, drop me a line or follow me on Twitter!

Besides the fact that Apple's threat to possibly shut down the iTunes store if regulators approve a royalty hike for artists is utterly ridiculous, the news that artists are actually getting excited about making $0.15 per track instead of the $0.09 they're making now is laughable.

Of course, the musicians were quick to point out that Apple's (and the record labels' by the way, which they fail to cite) idea to change the fee structure from a set payment to a percentage isn't fair either. Apple and other retailers want to set the royalty rate to six percent or $0.048 per track, while the record labels are looking to put the rate at eight percent or $0.056 per $0.99 iTunes track.

Granted, Apple's idea is more than a little ludicrous considering the artists are already making almost twice that on each track and it's fine paying up to the record labels, but why haven't the musicians finally seen the light and spoken out against the labels too? They're trying to undercut the price as well and yet, the musicians have nothing to say to them?

What a joke.

Why do the record labels get a pass when Apple and the rest of the music services are being lambasted by musicians when the record labels are treating them just as poorly? I know, I know: it's all about who pays your bills. Fine. I can accept that. But don't you think that maybe (just maybe) some of these musicians would wise up and realize that their beloved employers are treating them like garbage and the vast majority aren't making nearly as much as they should on each sale on iTunes?

In this episode, I discuss why the RIAA never made sense and its policies are the dumbest I've heard in a long time.

And as always, drop me a line or follow me on Twitter!