A new player in the music streaming business

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This is going to fly in the face of those who say the music industry is locking streaming services out of the online streaming business. Sony has already rolled out a music streaming subscription service in Europe on Wednesday, and it will be coming to North America next year. Music Unlimited will be available on the PS3 platform first, and spread to Sony's other products such as mobile devices later.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_800097.html

[Ajani]

It's a move in the right direction (sort of)... I strongly suspect that one of the aims of the music industry is to cut Apple's dominance and also not allow Google to get dominant, which is why they are letting other companies get the foothold on streaming first...

A few points:

Is the music available mostly Sony's catalog or is there wide support from other labels?

Allowing me to stream unlimited music on TVs, PS3s and Computers is a first step, but is way behind the desire of users to stream music on their Smartphones & Tablets.

Anyway, hopefully we'll see a lot more streaming services gaining traction in the next year...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It's a move in the right direction (sort of)... I strongly suspect that one of the aims of the music industry is to cut Apple's dominance and also not allow Google to get dominant, which is why they are letting other companies get the foothold on streaming first...

Ajani, you really need to cut the music industry conspiracy crap, it is unfounded, and you have absolutely no proof to support the claims.

A few points:

Is the music available mostly Sony's catalog or is there wide support from other labels?

With a 6 million song catalog, it would be hard to believe that it is Sony own catalog only.

Allowing me to stream unlimited music on TVs, PS3s and Computers is a first step, but is way behind the desire of users to stream music on their Smartphones & Tablets.

That is already in their plan. However, at this point streaming is most common on computers, as smartphones and tablets are used mainly for video at this point, at least according to NDP and Broadcast magazine.

Anyway, hopefully we'll see a lot more streaming services gaining traction in the next year...

If anyone wants in, it is there for the takers. The music industry is not shutting anyone out at this point.

[Ajani]

Ajani, you really need to cut the music industry conspiracy crap, it is unfounded, and you have absolutely no proof to support the claims.



With a 6 million song catalog, it would be hard to believe that it is Sony own catalog only.



That is already in their plan. However, at this point streaming is most common on computers, as smartphones and tablets are used mainly for video at this point, at least according to NDP and Broadcast magazine.



If anyone wants in, it is there for the takers. The music industry is not shutting anyone out at this point.

RE my music industry conspiracy theories: perhaps the real question is why so many persons (myself included) have such a dim view of the industry? If the view is both unfounded and wrong (as you believe) then clearly the industry is in dire need of doing something to boost its public image... All we see (regular consumers) are insistence on heavy royalties and DRM schemes - both of which only punish legitimate purchasers of music... So we have no reason to believe the industry has any interest in doing anything other than screwing us...

Also the service sounds like more Pandora style nonsense rather than truly giving you freedom to listen to exactly the song you want, when you want:

To use Music Unlimited, customers will be charged 3.99 pounds (about $6) per month for basic service or 9.99 pounds (about $15) a month for the premium version. Like Pandora, Music Unlimited lets people say whether they like a track or not. Based on those responses, the service tailors the upcoming playlist to make it more appealing to the respective user's musical tastes. Sony also said that people can have an "unlimited" number of song skips on the ad-free service.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20...?tag=cnetRiver

I'm sure the Pandora style approach is based heavily on a survey of customer wants and not on what the music industry will allow

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

RE my music industry conspiracy theories: perhaps the real question is why so many persons (myself included) have such a dim view of the industry?

Perhaps because you read too many opinions of the online press, especially from computer based pundits who believe that everything on the web should be free. Their non stop assault on DRM, and the music industry going after pirates(which seems like David versus Goliath) both contribute to the poor rep the industry has gotten lately.

If the view is both unfounded and wrong (as you believe) then clearly the industry is in dire need of doing something to boost its public image...

The only thing that will boost its public image is to give songs away for free. Until they do, they will always seem like demons to you, and everyone else.

All we see (regular consumers) are insistence on heavy royalties and DRM schemes - both of which only punish legitimate purchasers of music... So we have no reason to believe the industry has any interest in doing anything other than screwing us.

This is BS. Regular consumers don't have an issue with DRM, because there is no DRM on CD's. There is a ton of downloadable music out there with no DRM. This is a red herring point you continue to raise over and over, and it really is a non issue these days.

Also the service sounds like more Pandora style nonsense rather than truly giving you freedom to listen to exactly the song you want, when you want:

Itunes already covers that area and has a lock on it pretty much. There is no point when you come this late in the game to try and compete with Apple, you will lose your shirt if you do. This makes good business sense, and I am sure that you know this.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20...?tag=cnetRiver

I'm sure the Pandora style approach is based heavily on a survey of customer wants and not on what the music industry will allow

No you are not sure of this, as you have nothing to support this surety. Sony made this decision themselves(if you read the article), because they saw no point in trying to compete with Apple who has control of 70% of the market. Between Apple and Amazon, 79% of the market is basically wrapped up. Why spend a ton of money rolling out a itunes style business just to capture 20% or less of the market? Combine that with a market that is been totally flat this year, and has not shown significant growth in the last two years. It just does not make sense to open a music store in this kind of environment.

One thing is for certain Ajani, you don't understand how the music industry works, and it certainly does not work like you think it does. The music industry does not stop anyone from opening a online music store, but the business environment certain can. Your continued parroting on what the music industry doesn't allow is not going to make a mis-truth suddenly become a truth.

[atomicAdam]

I have a good idea on how to beat Apple and iTunes.

1) Allow full 16bit and 24bit song downloads. Not compressed MP3s
2) Make an interface software better than iTune. Something that runs quickly w/ or w/o the extra BS.
3) Allow a one time streaming demo of a full album/song.
4) Incorporate all the small/unlabeled artist that are out there.
5) Organize and suggest bands/artist to users based off their downloads/quires.

[Ajani]

Perhaps because you read too many opinions of the online press, especially from computer based pundits who believe that everything on the web should be free. Their non stop assault on DRM, and the music industry going after pirates(which seems like David versus Goliath) both contribute to the poor rep the industry has gotten lately.



The only thing that will boost its public image is to give songs away for free. Until they do, they will always seem like demons to you, and everyone else.



This is BS. Regular consumers don't have an issue with DRM, because there is no DRM on CD's. There is a ton of downloadable music out there with no DRM. This is a red herring point you continue to raise over and over, and it really is a non issue these days.



Itunes already covers that area and has a lock on it pretty much. There is no point when you come this late in the game to try and compete with Apple, you will lose your shirt if you do. This makes good business sense, and I am sure that you know this.





No you are not sure of this, as you have nothing to support this surety. Sony made this decision themselves(if you read the article), because they saw no point in trying to compete with Apple who has control of 70% of the market. Between Apple and Amazon, 79% of the market is basically wrapped up. Why spend a ton of money rolling out a itunes style business just to capture 20% or less of the market? Combine that with a market that is been totally flat this year, and has not shown significant growth in the last two years. It just does not make sense to open a music store in this kind of environment.

One thing is for certain Ajani, you don't understand how the music industry works, and it certainly does not work like you think it does. The music industry does not stop anyone from opening a online music store, but the business environment certain can. Your continued parroting on what the music industry doesn't allow is not going to make a mis-truth suddenly become a truth.

Red herring? I mentioned DRM and Royalties and you chose one to attack... So my point remains valid... Only you believe that a download should cost as much as a CD...

In Addition to jacked up download prices, there is also the intellectual dishonesty of constantly touting the estimated number of illegal songs downloaded and claiming that to be the number of lost sales for the industry, which then serves as a basis for requiring more royalties on downloads... Anyone with a basic command of economics or human behavior knows that there is a large difference between what people will consume when it is free versus what they would consume if they had to pay for it... So the Industry has a bad reputation for good reasons - they've earned it... And the continued refusal to treat the public with respect and have an honest discussion only makes the situation worse for the industry...

Also I never said they should try and compete with iTunes, so I have no idea why you brought that into the conversation... It is irrelevant... I am talking about the idea of a personalized radio station versus being able to just play the exact song you want when you want...

Finally, the idea that customers would rather have personalized radio stations than the ability to access a song directly is preposterous... So you can keep using the evidence argument all you want, but that's about as ridiculous as claiming that customers all want the stupid cable packages selected by the cable providers rather than to select exactly the channels they want... Customers don't have a choice... We have to accept what the movie, TV and Music industries give us OR pirate material... Your (you and the rest of the industries) lack of regard for what consumers want is the major reason there are so many problems... So instead of seeing us all as pirates who don't want to pay for content, perhaps you should focus on providing us with the service we want, rather than just trying to force us to accept what you want to give us...

You can say I don't understand the industry all you want. but the fact that the industry is having all these problems means that all you industry insiders don't really understand your own industry... Or you would have solved all these problems a long time ago... So perhaps you should try listening to us consumers instead of lecturing us...

[Geoffcin]

Well I agree. Let's give this whole thread a rest.