Wireless iPod feasible

On Feb 22, 2005, at 9:19 AM, ksundberg wrote:

> My college-attending daughter says it would be nice if Apple made an
> iPod that could download songs wirelessly from the Apple iTunes Music
> Store. That way, when she's out and about during the day she could
> download a song she hears on the radio.

This idea is getting a lot of buzz in the biz rags. The theory, as I
understand it, is that you give people a chance to make an impulse
purchase and you will make billions of dollars -- because somehow all
of the end-users won't notice when they've racked up charges of a few
hundred dollars, one song at a time.

Hence, smart people in the tech rags are generally inquiring what the
people writing for the biz rags are smoking. My thinking is that if
you're hearing it on the radio, you're hearing it for free -- and
therefore if you want a song, all you need to do is record the radio.

You can tell your daughter that the way to do her model is with a $0.59
notepad and a $0.19 Bic Biro. There was an attempt by AT&T to have the
phone listen to the radio for you and identify the artist and song
name; AFAIK, once they started charging a dollar for that service, it
died rapidly.

> Does something like this make any sense as a product? Is it implying
> that the iPod should or would merge with cell phone or PDA technology?

There are plenty of good reasons why Apple might want to do this now
that the iPod has eradicated the Newton from the public mindset. But
those reasons involve $400 handsets with 40% profit margins, not $1
songs with 1% profit margins.

Best,
Jeff

>[At the moment, I don't think such a product is tremendously viable,
>since it would have to be either Wi-Fi (power problems) or a cell
>phone (complete redesign, plus not enough bandwidth in most
>situations). Also, if the goal is buy something heard on the radio,
>that would imply that the iPod should have a radio as well, along
>with the capability of identifying songs that are playing (Sony had
>a failed device that did that some years ago). None of these are
>terrible ideas necessarily, but they all feel as though they're
>either too much of a niche feature or too difficult technically or
>would involve too much of a tradeoff on size or battery life or the
>like. Maybe one day, and I think we will see wireless technology
>appear in the iPod eventually. -Adam]

I've got to disagree with Adam's nay-saying. :-)


[Darn those Playlist Magazine editors, always popping up to disagree with naysaying. :-)]


This is, in fact, the future of music players. Is it going to happen
this year? Probably not, but a connected player that can purchase and
download music? Cell phones with integrated music features are coming
sooner rather than later. And cell phone network bandwidth is
improving rapidly. In terms of "hearing the sound on the radio,"
technology exists today (I saw it in action during a trip to Europe)
that lets you dial a number, hold your phone up to the source of the
music, and get that music identified.

Also, it's funny that such a request comes from a college student,
since at the Music 2.0 conference I heard a panel of college
students, all of whom pirate music on peer-to-peer networks, say that
this is one feature (hear it, buy it) that they would DEFINITELY pay
money for. Suggests to me that the first company that can implement
this well is going to make a lot of money.

So, this is said with all the love in the world, but I think Adam's
being an old fogey here. All of this stuff is going to happen, and
sooner than you think.


[OK, time for a calendar event that repeats yearly to see how long it takes. I don't disagree that this stuff will happen, as I said, just that I don't see it happening soon. :-) -Adam]


--
Jason Snell: jsnellintertext.com - AIM/iChat: mw jsnell
www.teevee.org - sports.intertext.com

On Feb 22, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Jeff Porten wrote:

> This idea is getting a lot of buzz in the biz rags. The theory, as I
> understand it, is that you give people a chance to make an impulse
> purchase and you will make billions of dollars -- because somehow all
> of the end-users won't notice when they've racked up charges of a few
> hundred dollars, one song at a time.

But this *works*. iTunes is getting most of my music-buying money now
because it's easy to spend $2 or $3 at a time. I don't get the "I need
new music" feeling, because I'm getting music from iTunes 2 or 3 songs
at a time, and so I never go to a music store. I'm not spending more
at iTunes than I did at bricks-and-mortar music stores, but the chance
to make the impulse purchase has completely changed my music-buying
patterns.

It probably doesn't work as well as the biz-rag pundits want it to work
-- but then, what does?

> Hence, smart people in the tech rags are generally inquiring what the
> people writing for the biz rags are smoking. My thinking is that if
> you're hearing it on the radio, you're hearing it for free -- and
> therefore if you want a song, all you need to do is record the radio.

But quality matters, and control matters. Hearing a song on the radio
is nice - but it's worth 99 cents to be able to hear that song in
192Kbps AAC quality when you want.

And your point (snipped) about $1 songs with 1% profit margins is taken
-- but hey, there *is* a profit margin, and the first requirement for a
business to be viable is that it run in the black.

Charlton


--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilburchromatico.net
cwilburmac.com

> You can tell your daughter that the way to do her model is with a $0.59
> notepad and a $0.19 Bic Biro. There was an attempt by AT&T to have the
> phone listen to the radio for you and identify the artist and song
> name; AFAIK, once they started charging a dollar for that service, it
> died rapidly.

There is a service available to mobile phone users here in the UK, called
Shazam, that will identify almost any track you play to it and text (SMS)
the result back to you. It's been around a few years so I guess it must
make enough money to survive. Given the state the audio must be in after
it's been through a mobile phone it's also remarkably good at identifying
tracks.

<http://www.shazam.com>

--
Patrick Keene,
pmhkpmhk.co.uk

At 10:41 -0800 UTC, on 2005/02/22, Jeff Porten wrote:

> On Feb 22, 2005, at 9:19 AM, ksundberg wrote:
>
>> My college-attending daughter says it would be nice if Apple made an
>> iPod that could download songs wirelessly from the Apple iTunes Music
>> Store. That way, when she's out and about during the day she could
>> download a song she hears on the radio.
>
> This idea is getting a lot of buzz in the biz rags. The theory, as I
> understand it, is that you give people a chance to make an impulse
> purchase and you will make billions of dollars -- because somehow all
> of the end-users won't notice when they've racked up charges of a few
> hundred dollars, one song at a time.
>
> Hence, smart people in the tech rags are generally inquiring what the
> people writing for the biz rags are smoking. My thinking is that if
> you're hearing it on the radio, you're hearing it for free -- and
> therefore if you want a song, all you need to do is record the radio.

But by the time you've heard a song and decided you like it and want to have
it, it's already gone. You'd have to wait until it is played again and then
be ready to record it.

Eearlier on TidBITS-Talk we discussed Internet MP3 streams offering (useful)
meta data (which currently they don't, most of the time). A WiFi enabled iPod
could allow people to listen to MP3 streams that provide such meta data
(artist, song and album name) and offer a 1-click button to buy at the iTMS,
or at least a 1-click button to "search this song at the iTMS". I would be
surprised if that would not be a huge hit.

Apple could set up a system where every MP3 stream on the Net that meets the
tech requirements (offering enough meta data to make a search at the iTMS
stand a reasonable chance at success) can join and thus dynamically be added
to a list of radio stations available to every iPod on the planet.

Apple could combine it with its reseller program (or whatever it is called)
that today already allows anyone to link to the iTMS and receive some sort of
bonus if that link resuts in a sale. That should give those who offer
Internet MP3 streams enough incentive to offer the necessary meta data.

Who knows, it might even mean the end of having to pay for the right to
broadcast music, since every song being broadcast would essentially be an
add, saying "buy me now!".

--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>

There's a lot of talk going on about a bluetooth based ipod being
released sometime soon (energy drain is less than with a
wifi/airport-based ipod type device). If you had one of those, then you
may be able to download songs bought from your mobile phone or see
playlists on your friends ipod etc and stream it across.

Also remember that Apple just released powerbooks with bluetooth 2.0.
Why the interest in upgrading to 2.0 unless you have a device in the
works (such as an ipod) to make use of it?

Paul

On 2/23/05 8:25 AM, "Sander Tekelenburg" <tekelenbeuronet.nl> wrote:

>> Hence, smart people in the tech rags are generally inquiring what the
>> people writing for the biz rags are smoking. My thinking is that if
>> you're hearing it on the radio, you're hearing it for free -- and
>> therefore if you want a song, all you need to do is record the radio.
>
> But by the time you've heard a song and decided you like it and want to have
> it, it's already gone. You'd have to wait until it is played again and then
> be ready to record it.
>
> Eearlier on TidBITS-Talk we discussed Internet MP3 streams offering (useful)
> meta data (which currently they don't, most of the time). A WiFi enabled iPod
> could allow people to listen to MP3 streams that provide such meta data
> (artist, song and album name) and offer a 1-click button to buy at the iTMS,
> or at least a 1-click button to "search this song at the iTMS". I would be
> surprised if that would not be a huge hit.

Only if the music is available for electronic download. Two of my favorite
bands, Zeppelin and the Beatles are not. Dave Matthews doesn't like single
downloading, 'cause you're "missing the art of the album".

Okay, true, I have more Zeppelin than iTunes or anyone else will ever have,
and Dave Matthews will never be music I'll pay for in time, much less money,
but just because you hear it on the radio, internet or otherwise, doesn't
mean it's available to download.

john

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

--On February 23, 2005 6:25:43 AM -0800 Sander Tekelenburg
<tekelenbeuronet.nl> wrote:
> A WiFi
> enabled iPod could allow people to listen to MP3 streams that provide
> such meta data (artist, song and album name) and offer a 1-click button
> to buy at the iTMS, or at least a 1-click button to "search this song at
> the iTMS". I would be surprised if that would not be a huge hit.

iTunes store has an affliate program too so someone offering a clickable
link could make money themselves, not just Apple. I see that as a huge
selling point for people offering the MP3 streams.

Kevin

The problem, as I see it, with the "hear it, have it" model for iPods is
that it is, ultimately, currently rather ill-defined.

The question is where the music is heard. If we are saying that the music is
initially heard on the iPod, then we have the question of what an iPod is
going to be next. Needless to say, Steve Jobs is about as predictable as a
Florida hurricane (and, trust me, I know whence I speak), but one does get
the impression that less is more, podularly speaking. We've seen the
addition of a colour display, with the ability to display images, but the
important thing to remember is the point in common between audio and
pictures - they're both digital files resident on the 'pod's hard disc. So,
ultimately, the iPod Photo didn't really add all that much, conceptually.
And the shuffle (if ever there's a word that needed a capital, it's that
one) shows a minimalism which suggests, at least to me (not that the other
Steve ever asks this Steve anyway) that radically new features such as radio
reception are unlikely under the current iteration of the iPod, involving,
as it does, the use of an external data source. It simply seems not to fit
in with the existing iPod model (iPodel?). Even if we do get radio reception
on a pod, we're not likely to have the ability to record built in, I don't
think - that would require, in addition to a tuner, an analogue-to-digital
conversion system, and we're suddenly getting way beyond ourselves, but not,
I very much doubt, too far beyond the clammy paws of the copyright lawyer
brigade.

So we're going to have folk listen to music from other sources, like it and
then want it. The question then is how the listener finds out what the song
is. The music recognition ideas talked about elsemessage might work, but
we're then getting into, basically, turning our pods into small internet
devices, with all the problems associated with security, power,
connectivity, costs and so on.

Basically, I could blather on about this at quite alarming length, but I
think you get the picture. There's so much about the idea that is so very
unpodular, and I don't see it happening...

Biggles

At 11:57 -0800 UTC, on 2005/02/23, John C. Welch wrote:

> On 2/23/05 8:25 AM, "Sander Tekelenburg" <tekelenbeuronet.nl> wrote:

[...]

>> Eearlier on TidBITS-Talk we discussed Internet MP3 streams offering (useful)
>> meta data (which currently they don't, most of the time). A WiFi enabled
>>iPod
>> could allow people to listen to MP3 streams that provide such meta data
>> (artist, song and album name) and offer a 1-click button to buy at the iTMS,
>> or at least a 1-click button to "search this song at the iTMS". I would be
>> surprised if that would not be a huge hit.

Btw, this model would of course not require iPods. It could be slapped onto
iTunes.

> Only if the music is available for electronic download.

True. But it could function as marketing research: when the iTMS gets hit
with lots of requests for some artist/album/track they don't carry it would
tell the copyright owner that he is missing out on x sales by not selling
through the iTMS.

Were I a marketing-droid I'd probably love it.


--
Sander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/>

At 6:20 AM -0800 2/23/05, Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>On Feb 22, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Jeff Porten wrote:
>
>> This idea is getting a lot of buzz in the biz rags. The theory, as I
>> understand it, is that you give people a chance to make an impulse
>> purchase and you will make billions of dollars -- because somehow all
>> of the end-users won't notice when they've racked up charges of a few
>> hundred dollars, one song at a time.
>
>But this *works*. iTunes is getting most of my music-buying money now
>because it's easy to spend $2 or $3 at a time. I don't get the "I need
>new music" feeling, because I'm getting music from iTunes 2 or 3 songs
>at a time, and so I never go to a music store. I'm not spending more
>at iTunes than I did at bricks-and-mortar music stores, but the chance
>to make the impulse purchase has completely changed my music-buying
>patterns.

Anybody know if there is any research comparing online (i.e.
delivered via the internet) music buying habits vs physical music
buying habits? (i.e. a mall store, Amazon.com, etc?)

In my personal experience I'd say that I'm buying much MORE music
than I was before iTMS. I just find buying music any other way
tedious.

Nick

At 6:25 AM -0800 2/23/05, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
>Apple could set up a system where every MP3 stream on the Net that meets the
>tech requirements (offering enough meta data to make a search at the iTMS
>stand a reasonable chance at success) can join and thus dynamically be added
>to a list of radio stations available to every iPod on the planet.

This standard is already here, Radio Data System. From :
<http://radio.about.com/library/bldef-108.htm>:
This technology allows stations to transmit additional types of
information via encoded digital signals that can be received and
displayed by the user's Radio. For instance: an RDS-capable Radio can
display the title and artist or current song playing, local traffic
information, an advertiser's phone number while a commercial is
playing, etc.

Assuming the radio stations have a more or less standard format for
transmitting the artist and title its a stones throw to parlay this
into a search for the song. Or if you wanted to go back to Apple
holding a database, they could have an active stream of song titles
and artists from many radio stations then they'd just have to compare
a time stamp and station call sign (available via RDS) and you could
pull out the appropriate song in iTMS if its available.

I think some stations even publish their song list in advance, but
they're only allowed to do this if they're broadcasting in only
analog. From:
<http://www.musicchoice.com/what_we_are/faqs.html#Programming>

Q. Can I get a playlist?
  A. We are unable to offer a playlist. The Digital Performance Right
in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 passed by Congress prevents us from
disclosing such information. The Digital Law states that if one is
transmitting a digital signal, song information cannot be
pre-announced. It is a Music Choice policy not to release a playlist
of upcoming or previously played songs.


I assume this would apply to digital radio as well.


Nick

On Feb 23, 2005, at 4:42 AM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:

> But by the time you've heard a song and decided you like it and want
> to have
> it, it's already gone. You'd have to wait until it is played again and
> then
> be ready to record it.

Unless you left your Mac running in the morning to record your favorite
radio station all day.

What strikes me about these discussions is that we're talking about
technology that was available when I was in college. We called them
cassette tapes. Since CD players were silly expensive at the time, it
was usually better to make your "masters" by taping radio stations, and
then making your own mixes. You could dupe tape-to-tape (we ALL had
dual deck players, it was almost rude not to have one), but you lost so
much quality that a good radio signal was the best way to go.

Note that we could only do this 45 minutes at a time, and that the mix
process was decidedly analog. Hunting through 12 hours of digital
audio might be inconvenient, but it's not that KIND of inconvenient.

> A WiFi enabled iPod
> could allow people to listen to MP3 streams that provide such meta data
> (artist, song and album name) and offer a 1-click button to buy at the
> iTMS,
> or at least a 1-click button to "search this song at the iTMS". I
> would be
> surprised if that would not be a huge hit.

Provided you were within range of an open access point. Or a
T-Mobile/Boingo/Wayport/Mrs McGillicuddy's Hotspot, and you've entered
all of your usernames and passwords into your iPod. (Tech support
call: "Why can't I get online with my PowerBook?" "Is your iPod turned
on?" "Oh. Sorry.")

OR you could just add a section of iTMS where you can say, "show me
what WTFR was playing today between 1 and 2 pm." A few audio clips
later, and boom, you're there. This would be easily possible today,
and seeing as how there are obvious opportunities to incent radio
stations to provide this data, I'm guessing that it doesn't exist
because RIAA has decided that it would be Bad For All Mankind.

Finally, responding to a few other posts about this being the future
after ubiquitous wireless broadband exists... sure, there are all SORTS
of cool things you can do when everyone has two-way T3 pipes to their
Bat Utility Belt. But then I have to wonder -- if I have always-on
network access, why exactly am I carrying around a 40 gig hard drive
anymore?

By which I mean, there's always great stuff in the future. It's just
not the same stuff you're expecting.

Best,
Jeff

On Thursday, February 24, 2005, at 01:56 PM, Nicholas Barnard wrote:
> In my personal experience I'd say that I'm buying much MORE music
> than I was before iTMS. I just find buying music any other way
> tedious.
>

Me too, and iTunes/iTMS rocks my world. I'm buying fewer CDs either on
Amazon or in stores (I get better prices and a better selection on
Amazon), and I'm happier with the music I buy. I always used to get
stuck with clunker albums I bought because I loved the one or two songs
I heard. Now I'm less likely to stick my neck out to buy a CD unless
I'm pretty sure I'm going to like it.

There is a lot of research about online music purchases, but the
problem is that access to the studies cost big bucks; Jupiter has a
very strong collection:

http://www.jupiterresearch.com/bin/item.pl/research:service/105/

You can find good information on the synopses, and the PR releases
often have more details.

Diligent searching on the business news sites will turn up good
information, though a lot of it will be walled for the price of a
subscription or a a fee.

Marilyn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Porten [mailto:civitanjeffporten.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 10:32 AM
> To: tidbits-talktidbits.com
> Subject: Re: Wireless iPod feasible

> What strikes me about these discussions is that we're talking about
> technology that was available when I was in college. We called them
> cassette tapes. Since CD players were silly expensive at the
> time, it was usually better to make your "masters" by taping radio
> stations, and then making your own mixes. You could dupe tape-to-tape
> (we ALL had dual deck players, it was almost rude not to have one), but
> you lost so much quality that a good radio signal was the best way to go.

Bah, it sucked. DJs talking over the beginning, crossfades from one song to
another, missing the first bit of a song because you didn't hit Record fast
enough. If you wanted to get rid of the extra stuff at the beginning and
end, it was time consuming and meant losing overall quality in the duping
from tape to tape.

> Note that we could only do this 45 minutes at a time, and
> that the mix
> process was decidedly analog. Hunting through 12 hours of digital
> audio might be inconvenient, but it's not that KIND of inconvenient.

128Kbps MP3 for 12 hours, that's about 5.5GB and 12 hours of content to look
through, probably with only a vague sense of the time frame in which a song
played. Once you find what you want the mixing is a lot easier but the
finding part is pretty inconvenient.

> Provided you were within range of an open access point. Or a
> T-Mobile/Boingo/Wayport/Mrs McGillicuddy's Hotspot, and
> you've entered
> all of your usernames and passwords into your iPod. (Tech support
> call: "Why can't I get online with my PowerBook?" "Is your
> iPod turned
> on?" "Oh. Sorry.")

The current mish-mash of WiFi hotspots (different providers, terms,
technologies) does not work for this kind of wireless access, particularly
not for handhelds that are supposed to be more appliance than computer.
However forthcoming wireless systems, "3G" in the mobile phone world and
WiMax could make it a lot more practical.

> OR you could just add a section of iTMS where you can say, "show me
> what WTFR was playing today between 1 and 2 pm." A few audio clips
> later, and boom, you're there. This would be easily possible today,
> and seeing as how there are obvious opportunities to incent radio
> stations to provide this data, I'm guessing that it doesn't exist
> because RIAA has decided that it would be Bad For All Mankind.

Rather than Apple hosting it, "WTFR" can already post their playlist on
their own web site with direct links to iTMS. Some Internet audio streamers
do this already, both with iTMS and CD retailers like Amazon. I can't think
of a reason why the RIAA would be against it, it would mean more direct
sales whereas radio play itself is nothing more (or less) than promotion. I
don't think the radio broadcasters want to post their playlists. I think
they consider playlists somehow proprietary information, not something they
want to give away to competitors. They may also not want to show in black
and white just how much they suck ("Hmm, average of 6 songs per hour, song X
played 20 times yesterday. No thanks!").

> of cool things you can do when everyone has two-way T3 pipes to their
> Bat Utility Belt. But then I have to wonder -- if I have always-on
> network access, why exactly am I carrying around a 40 gig hard drive
> anymore?

Very true. A lot will depend upon what kind of service is offered and what
you're willing to pay (and how). The disk-based device may be more expensive
but have a higher one-time cost whereas a network-based device will at least
have a monthly charge for the network and most likely another charge for
access to the music (unless you're accessing a private server containing
only your own purchased music). What if you could access Napster's
subscription service over a wireless connection? What if you could rent an
online "locker" for music you purchased? It will be interesting to see if a
network service comes along that can beat disk-based devices on some or all
of the important factors such as price, reliability, and convenience.