Digital Noise: Music and Tech

According to a report in Forbes, phone giant Nokia has delayed the U.S. launch of its Comes With Music service until 2010.

Nokia first announced Comes With Music back in December 2007, then revealed more details almost a year later as the service launched in the U.K. Under the plan, cell phone buyers pay some extra money up front and, in exchange, get the right to download as many songs as they want from Nokia's music store for one year. Those downloads don't expire when the user's cell phone contract ends, but they are copy-protected, limiting usage to the phone and one computer that's registered with the service. Still, it seemed like a reasonable deal if Nokia could convince cellular carriers to subsidize some of the cost, and early reviews from the U.K. were mostly positive. I even suggested that Microsoft follow Nokia's lead whenever it launches its next-generation consumer-focused smartphones.

I thought the launch of the Nokia 5800 Xpress Music phone in the U.S. would be accompanied by the launch of the service in the U.S. as well, but it wasn't. So what's the problem? My guess is that Nokia's facing the same licensing economics that are limiting free download service Spotify to the European market only. Nokia may also be waiting for a more fundamental transition: the company has said that it's considering removing digital rights management limits from future iterations of the service, allowing the downloads to be played and shared between an unlimited number of devices. (In fact, the Comes With Music DRM scheme was bypassed almost immediately, proving for the umpteenth time that the concept is flawed.) It's only a matter of time: three years ago, nobody envisioned the content owners abandoning DRM on single-song downloads. Now, there's not a per-song download service that still uses it.

Follow Matt on Twitter.

It may be operating in a legal grey area, but Grooveshark is still my favorite on-demand music app--type in any song, artist, or album, and there's a pretty good chance that it's in Grooveshark's database, allowing you to begin playing it immediately. It's great not only for impulse listens, but also for creating playlists of songs you don't own and would never buy, like my favorite heavy metal hits from junior high school. So far, the lawsuit filed by EMI in May hasn't shut the site down or significantly decreased the number of songs available, so I'm holding out hope that they can reach a licensing deal.

These are not the dogs you're looking for.

This week, Grooveshark announced plans to submit an iPhone app to Apple's App Store. They sent me a version to test, and I'm pleased to report that it offers the same on-demand functionality--play any song you want, right now--as well as the ability for registered users to create and save playlists. But it's far from perfect, especially compared with the Web site.

Most notably: both over my home Wi-Fi connection and AT&T's 3G network, new songs or playlists sometimes stuttered a few times as they started playing. Search results are harder to filter on the iPhone, since you can't divide results into albums, songs, and artists, and the results aren't organized as intelligently. For instance, a search for "Pink Floyd Dogs" turned up many instances of the atrocious "Dogs of War" from the band's 1980s incarnation, but not the song "Dogs" from their classic 1977 "Animals" album. I had no such problem on the Web site. And some songs appear in search results and can be added to your playlist, but when you actually try to play them, you're presented with a "not available" error (probably a legacy of the company's legal tussles).

I also uncovered a couple of bugs or feature gaps with the playlist function. For instance, sometimes from the playlist menu, the buttons at the bottom of the app disappear, and you can't get back to the search screen (for example, to add a new song to your playlist) without exiting the app entirely. No fun.

All this is academic unless Apple decides to accept the app. Here, Grooveshark is in the same boat as Spotify, whose plans to build an iPhone app I covered last week. Like Spotify, Grooveshark will charge a monthly fee for using the mobile version of the service, but hasn't decided on pricing yet. So now Apple has to decide: is it better to please iPhone users by giving them low-cost access to any song on demand, or is it better to preserve iTunes for music downloads? I have a feeling that iTunes is not going to be sacrificed. In fact, if Apple wanted to offer subscription-based on-demand streaming music for iPhone, it would probably deliver it through iTunes and collect the subscription fees itself.

That's OK with Grooveshark: the company says it's planning to release apps for other mobile platforms as well.

Follow Matt on Twitter.

When I tried Spotify, the free on-demand music-streaming service currently available only in Europe, I was impressed by its iTunes-like user interface and how fast the songs loaded. So when I saw Monday's news that Spotify has submitted an iPhone app to Apple for consideration, I got excited.

(Credit: Spotify)

Then I read more closely: to use the mobile version of Spotify, you'll need a premium subscription. The service isn't available in the United States yet, but a premium subscription in the United Kingdom costs 10 pounds a month, which translates to about $16.50 at today's exchange rate.

That's in line with prices for other portable subscription music services, such as the Zune Pass or Rhapsody to Go. Those services aren't available for the iPod or iPhone, but Spotify's not doing anything groundbreaking here; it appears to be trying to fill a gap that Apple has left open by refusing to introduce its own subscription service.

The video demonstration also makes it look like users have to side-load playlists from their computer before accessing them on the device. I want what you get with the Zune Pass--the ability to stream songs on demand from any location with a Wi-Fi connection.

Corrected at 3:45 p.m.: This story mischaracterized a demonstration video for the application. It does show the ability to search Spotify for any song wirelessly. I got confused because it started with the caveat "playlists you've already created." It wasn't clear whether the search results were coming from those playlists, but they're not. My bad.

Free, on-demand streaming music is a rising tide: since the start of 2009, I've covered relatively new services like Spotify and Just Hear It, and there are plenty of established players like MySpace Music, Imeem, and Grooveshark.

Listen to Michael Jackson's music on Michael Jackson's official Web site. What a novel idea!

(Credit: Sony Music, Michael Jackson)

Instead of trying to stop the tide, Sony Music has wisely embraced it: starting today, the company will introduce streaming music players on the Web sites of its most popular artists, including popsters like Kelly Clarkson, John Legend, and Jacko himself. It makes perfect business sense: instead of letting some third party like Imeem sell advertisements against high-demand music, Sony can sell or display its own ads.

Of course, they couldn't make it too easy--finding the audio on Michael Jackson's site took a few clicks, including one that forced me to identify my country, and the songs were embedded in the Sony-specific MyPlay player, which is an interesting piece of technology but only lets you create playlists with songs from other artists with MyPlay players. More generally, I wonder if it's too late for these label-specific initiatives--I'm sure plenty of hardcore Britney fans have her Web site bookmarked, but most music listeners probably prefer to use services that let you compile lists from multiple artists on multiple labels.

Sony is also adding lyrics to these artists' sites, provided by the company's own Gracenote subsidiary. Excellent move. I can't believe it's taken this long, given the lack of decent lyrics sites out there. In fact, I still don't understand the reluctance to publish lyrics online--what are people going to steal? What money is the artist or copyright owner losing? Kudos for Sony for taking a baby step toward ending this silliness.

TechCrunch broke the story Tuesday that Seeqpod, a Web search engine for music files, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company is facing lawsuits from record company Warner and EMI because even though it doesn't post any material itself--it's just a search engine--it makes no effort to filter out copyrighted material.

Another one bites the dust.

So far, the site itself still up and running, but my absolute favorite name-it-and-play-it service, Songerize, which uses Seeqpod as its back end, appears to be broken. The labels have been targeting independent developers who use Seeqpod's API, so I wonder if the heat got to be too much for whoever was running Songerize. Seeqpod's troubles could also affect plenty of other sites, including Bandloop, an excellent and relatively new live music listing service that I wrote about in January.

If Songerize is indeed gone forever, you can turn to Imeem (although it has business troubles of its own) or, if you're lucky enough to be in a supported geographic region, Spotify. Other services also offer a limited number of streams for free--Lala.com gives you 50 before charging you $0.10 apiece, and Rhapsody lets you stream 25 songs a month without a paid subscription.

AUSTIN, Texas--At South by Southwest here, I had a short but interesting conversation Wednesday afternoon with Tim Quirk, the vice president of music programming for Rhapsody, wedged in around a set from Jersey punks Titus Andronicus (who had very tight and well-constructed songs with incredible energy and some interesting triple-guitar work, but I don't know if the singer's going to make it another three days).

Quirk, who's been with Rhapsody since before it was acquired by RealNetworks, suggested that streaming music on demand will change the mechanics of the music business because artists (and other stakeholders) won't be compensated based on how many people buy a song or a record, but rather on how many times people actually listen to it.

For labels, it won't make sense to sign cute, disposable artists, and prop them up with hired-gun songwriters and producers in hopes of selling a couple million units over a single summer. Rather, the real moneymakers will be bands whose fans absolutely can't live without their music, and who listen to songs over and over again, for years.

That requires finding artists who already have sizable fan bases and then cultivating them over the years. Terrestrial radio might become even less important--there's no reason to saturate the airwaves with a single song in hopes of selling as many copies as possible before the buzz moves to the next thing; instead, you'll want word to grow more organically, creating lifelong fans along the way.

Of course, this is all predicated on a big "if": somebody has to find a business model for streaming music that works for all parties involved. First, money has to change hands--whether it's through users paying a subscription (the Rhapsody model) or advertisers paying to reach those users (the model espoused by Spotify and others). Then the operators of these services will have to convince copyright holders to accept a level of payment that doesn't drive the operators out of business.

That level of payment may be lower than the percentage derived from CD sales today, which is a big stumbling block for labels to accept. But in the long run, streaming music will lead to greater music consumption overall. When you have no limits on the amount of music you can sample, you're more likely to become a music geek.

Quirk had some statistics to bolster this point: in traditional CD sales, nearly 50 percent of the revenue comes from the top 100 selling records. With Apple's iTunes, it's about 33 percent; lower prices translate to people willing to sample more music. With free peer-to-peer networks, it's less than 30 percent--again, it makes sense that users would sample more music when it's free.

With Rhapsody, it's even lower--less than 25 percent. I suggested that that's because Rhapsody self-selects for music geeks--who else would pay a subscription for unlimited music? But Quirk countered that his usage statistics suggest that Rhapsody turns people into music geeks. That is, once people realize that they can consume unlimited music for the same price, they begin exploring related songs and bands, checking out recommendations from friends that they never would have bothered with otherwise, and so on.

Follow Matt on Twitter.

I love covering music software because the pace of evolution is so fast. I guess everybody's looking for the next billion-dollar business (after iTunes) to help replace declining CD sales.

Last week, I blogged about Spotify, a free and legal music player that offers a massive library of music on demand. Unfortunately, Spotify's library has some big gaps because of legal disputes with rights-holders, and it's not available in the U.S.

A couple days later, software developer David Nelson contacted me about Muziic, a company he started with his dad--he's 15(!) and has gone from public high school to online private high school to pursue this project. After checking it out for a few days, I think it's got just as much of a chance of revolutionizing how we listen to music as Spotify does.

Great selection, but black-on-black doesn't get high marks in most usability tests.

Like Spotify, Muziic offers a free downloadable piece of client software with an iTunes-like interface and offers on-demand access to millions of streaming songs. Unlike Spotify, I had no problem finding huge catalogs from artists that are notoriously prickly about posting their music online, including Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, and Radiohead. It also did a great job with all of my more obscure test cases.

How did an unknown company run by a 15-year-old and his dad pull off this incredible licensing coup? Easy--they've basically built a customized front-end to YouTube. Any song that's been uploaded to YouTube is available in Muziic, including a lot of music that isn't available on most commercial services, like the full Pink Floyd's performance at Live 8 and Led Zeppelin's one-off performance in 2007.

Unfortunately, a dispute between Warner Music and YouTube earlier this year means that a lot of recordings owned by Warner are no longer available. But in a lot of cases, users have filled the gaps with (probably unauthorized) recordings from the artists--so while I can't get my favorite studio recordings from Neil Young or the Flaming Lips, there are dozens live nuggets from each of them.

With any luck, Warner and Google (YouTube's parent company) will resolve their dispute and these gaps will be filled. In the meantime, the Nelsons can work on some of the fit-and-finish problems I found with Muziic. The Web site doesn't render properly in Firefox 3.0. The high-quality audio option didn't work for me--I think it's supposed to render YouTube's default Flash audio into AAC on the fly, but the description doesn't make much sense so I can't really tell. (The default audio sounded fine anyway--at least no worse than MP3, which of course isn't so great.) They could use some professional design help--I couldn't maximize the player to fill the screen, there's a lot of unused space in the margins, and the black on black toolbar sliders are awfully hard to use for those of us who have no patience to download different skins.

Overall, though, this is a pretty interesting and impressive piece of work. Muziic also offers an encoder that apparently lets you upgrade your MP3s before uploading them to YouTube--I didn't test this as I'm more interested in listening than sharing, but I'll give it a look later this week and let you know what I think. More important, Muziic (and Spotify) are finally showing the world how compelling a free, legal, on-demand music service can be--nearly a decade after Napster introduced us to the concept.

Follow Matt on Twitter.

A follow-up to yesterday's post about Spotify, which is poised to become my new favorite online music service. Because the company is based in Europe (headquarters in London, R&D in Stockholm), we missed one another because of the time change, but the company got back to me with some answers to my questions late last night.

First, Spotify's unavailability in the U.S. isn't only because of the complexities of music licensing, but also because the company wants to make sure it can scale reliably in its home market before expanding overseas. Fair enough--one of the most amazing things about Spotify is the way it plays songs immediately, and I imagine they have to plan for traffic carefully to maintain that level of reliability. Second, Spotify corrected me about the free service--since Feb. 10, it's been available to all residents of the U.K. without an invitation. (Go. Get it. Now.) However, other European countries must still wait--again, that's because the company wants to make sure Spotify can scale before adding a flood of new users.

Finally, the company is still experimenting with audio advertising models to see what customers will put up with versus how much advertisers will pay, but it's expecting to limit advertisements to 30 seconds, and expects to insert fewer ads than commercial radio (which isn't saying much, at least in the U.S.). This is probably the most important aspect to get right--if the ads are too frequent or too intrusive, customers won't come aboard, but if they're too infrequent or easily skippable, advertisers won't pay enough to keep the service running. It'll be interesting to see whether Spotify is able to make the ad-supported version pay for itself, or uses it primarily as a way to drive upgrades to the paid service. The latter wouldn't be all that revolutionary, although I still think Spotify's user interface and speed of response are better than the competition's.

I've been reading good buzz about Spotify for several months now, but the noise seems to have reached a fever pitch with recent coverage by music industry blogger Bob Lefsetz and Sunday's announcement that the new U2 album, "No Line on the Horizon," is available on Spotify in several European countries right now--a week before its official worldwide release date of March 2.

Some quick background: the promise of Spotify is music, on-demand, from any computer with an Internet connection. Which sounds a lot like Rhapsody, Napster, Microsoft's Zune Pass, or any other of the countless subscription-based services that have come and gone...except that there's a free ad-supported version. Sort of like what Qtrax was promising, only with streams instead of downloads (and actually available instead of merely promised). Or perhaps sort of like Imeem, only without the confusing attention-deficit-disorder interface.

Or--let's be honest here--like all the dearly departed P2P services of yesteryear, only legal with partners including the four major labels plus independent digital distributors CD Baby and The Orchard. Songs are encoded in the Ogg Vorbis codec, which offers higher quality-per-bitrate than MP3, and distributed on demand using the Torrent protocol.

But of course there's a catch: Spotify is only available in some European countries, and the free version is invite-only, which has made me skeptical. It's like hearing stories about some magical land far away where fairies deliver golden music directly to your earbuds.

Where else are you going to find a bunch of Scientist tunes for free?

My curiosity got the best of me, and I finally wrangled an invitation to the beta version of the free service. I'm happy to report it works exactly as advertised and is unquestionably the best music service I've ever used.

Apart from finally delivering the promise of on-demand music that I've been waiting for since the first time I listened to an audio stream over the Web in 1996 or so, the Spotify designers must be praised for designing a beautifully simple and functional piece of software that combines the best of online and offline so you don't know (or care) which is which.