Does Spotify Have What it Takes to Challenge the iTunes Juggernaut?

[Boring Editorial Update: Changed the title of this post because it sounded too similar to the previous post]

For months I've been reading lots of buzz about Spotify, the music software that allows users unlimited streaming from a catalog of over six million tracks and is being dubbed around the Blogosphere as potentially the first real threat to Apple's iTunes empire. As of now, Spotify is only legally available for free (with advertisements) in the UK, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Spain, with users in most of Western Europe allowed premium (ad-free) access for a monthly fee. You'll notice the US is conspicuously absent from the list of officially-sanctioned countries, as the RIAA and Spotify are still in negotiations for US licensing deals.

Determined to try the service for myself, I utilized a workaround for creating my own account that took advantage of the 14 day "travel access" window allowed to all free account users (premium subscribers have no cap). Basically I spoofed a UK IP address and used it to activate my account. Unfortunately, as of yesterday, free accounts from anywhere require an invite code, so if any of you US-based people want to try the service out yourself, you're shit out of luck for now. Never fear, I've been using Spotify for nearly a month and I can tell you exactly how much of a "game changer" it really is (or isn't).

First off, the catalog of songs is quite impressive and can easily lead a music nerd like me to spend two hours following the breadcrumbs to more and more new music. For example, I am currently working on a playlist of nothing but awesome 90's Hip Hop songs, but the music library on my computer doesn't have as much 90's music as I would like, so instead of spending weeks hunting down songs via the iTunes, Amazon, and torrent trackers I just fire up Spotify and search for almost anything I want. This inevitably results in me veering off course as one artist conjures up nostalgia for another. Most of the time I find whatever pops into my head, it's not perfect, but no worse than the alternatives and almost as good as OiNK (RIP -ed.) used to be.

Why is it so easy to wander off into tangential directions? Because Spotify's user interface is laughably easy to learn. This is a major component of it's potential to lure users away from the iTunes ecosystem. Everything is powered by the search box and the left navigation pane, without the clutter of many images and buttons vying for your attention (look at the iTunes Store home page to see what chaos looks like). Spotify always displays the last five items searched in the left pane, so if you do stroll away from the path it's easy to find your way back. Another helpful feature are the Similar Artist links that appear at the top of most artist pages. Clicking on these links can open your ears to new music you previously had not heard or even didn't know existed.

Listening to songs is nice, but if Spotify is going to be the 'iTunes killer' some have made it out to be, then it needs to give users easy access to repeatedly listen to the music they like. This is where the Spotify shows the bulk of it's promise, but with one big caveat--mobility. See, right now I can only enjoy this music on my computer. Downloading these tracks to my hard drive is out of the question, unless I want to purchase them from 7Digital.com (the only store integrated with Spotify), which is a nice store but definitely not as robust of a catalog as other competitors.

In fact, most of the songs in my playlists cannot be purchased through Spotify, which means I have to find them elsewhere (torrents, iTunes, etc.) if I want to enjoy them on my iPhone...today, that is. As of last week mobile apps for iPhone and Google's Android platform are available, but only for users in officially-sanctioned countries (i.e. not the US) and only for premium subscribers. This means I haven't been able to take the iPhone app for a spin, but the video demo below illustrates how immensely convenient it makes it to enjoy your music wherever you are.



That offline access perhaps the most significant feature Spotify has that other streaming apps (imeem, last.fm, Pandora, etc.) have yet to figure out and it's the one thing that should make Apple nervous. Now, as long as users sync everything while they have access to a wireless connection (much like syncing music with iTunes before you leave the house), their music will always be up to date. It's a type of convenience that hasn't been seen before and it has the potential to change how we consume music, but will it make any money?

That last question is tough to answer. I do know that most users will always choose to tolerate some ads in exchange for free content, but ad-supported business models need a certain percentage of users to pony up for premium content in order to stay solvent. So far the added value of paying for a service that is mostly usable for free hasn't swayed enough users from the competition to part with their hard earned cash, but none of those services offer the convenience, sound quality, and speed (did I mention, Spotify is P2P-based, and thus has near instant buffering?) that Spotify does. For this reason, I think it would be a smart business decision for mobile access to always be a feature for premium users. Or perhaps they could strike a compromise and offer a "Lite" version of the app for free users that doesn't allow offline listening?

Whatever the case, Spotify's long-term outlook depends on how much revenue they can generate for their content partners. In fact, there's already talk about tweaking the business model before the curtain rolls up on US availability. The bulk of this revenue will have to come from the number of users that can be converted to paid subscribers, but people aint gonna pay unless it truly makes the service noticeably better. Perhaps if they could envision a world in which virtually any song they want can be accessed from their phone and their own library always stays sync'd no matter where they are, then parting with the cash would seem like a smart choice. Spotify might not be there today, but it's the first service I've seen with a puncher's chance of making that vision a reality.

>>>Continue reading "Does Spotify Have What it Takes to Challenge the iTunes Juggernaut?"

Another Festivus Miracle! The RIAA Pledges to Stop Suing its Customers

[photo courtesy of Flickr user Toshi Hoo]

The slow death rattle for the major record labels continues. After 10 years, the geniuses at the RIAA finally decided that it's probably not smart for business to continually sue your own customers. I know, it's a revolutionary concept.

Much like their unceremonious retreat from DRM-laden digital music, the brain trust at the RIAA realized their customers aren't necessarily "criminals" for downloading music for free and that maybe they don't shop at iTunes or Rhapsody because they want a little more control over the music they buy. Of course, rather than focus their energy on harnessing the powerful marketing power of free digital distribution, the RIAA instead plans to redirect their lawyers towards Internet service providers.

I suppose the silver lining in all of this is that from now on the worst that can happen for downloading copyrighted music is your ISP cutting you off completely. It's still a stupid penalty, but at least it's preferable to spending thousands of dollars defending yourself against a rigged judicial process. So, for now I will rejoice in the end of this sordid chapter in music history and crack a beer in celebration that I managed to escape the clutches of the RIAA over all these years and have TONS of music to show for it.

>>>Continue reading "Another Festivus Miracle! The RIAA Pledges to Stop Suing its Customers"

Surprise! MySpace Music is Every Bit as Lame as You Would Expect it to be

The much hyped, and often delayed, MySpace Music finally made its big debut to the public this week and the response has been tepid around the blogosphere. Now, I will admit that I don't particularly like MySpace very much. I find their interface very annoying (I'm a facebook user) and think too much of their core audience is obsessed with showcasing how beautiful they think they are instead of actually connecting with people in any way that isn't completely vapid. Still, I recognize the important role MySpace has played in music discovery over the past five years (honestly, remember how hard it was to sample new music for free before MySpace was around?) and was somewhat intrigued to see if MySpace Music could deliver on its promise to unseat iTunes as the premier destination to discover and purchase music. So far, I see little chance of that happening anytime soon.

For those of you who may not know, MySpace music is a joint venture between News Corp. (parent company of Fox Interactive, who owns MySpace) and the four major record labels who comprise the RIAA. See, the majors were upset digital downloads took off in popularity sooner than expected (thanks to the iPod and iTunes) and that their existing revenue-sharing contracts with Apple didn't give them a large enough share of download profits. Their answer was to create a music ecosystem that provided both revenue from music streaming (in the form of advertising) and download purchases. All the content would be controlled by them and the profit sharing would be setup more in their favor, thus finally creating a long term business model for digital music (in theory). The only problem is the people who designed MySpace music don't really understand how their target demographic prefers to consume this content.

I find it very ironic that MySpace Music launched the same week that Muxtape finally returned from its brief RIAA-mandated purgatory as a shell of its former self. MySpace Music includes much of the same features that Muxtape used to provide. You can create playlists and share them with friends (though only with other MySpace users, who must also be in the US, and only if you call embedding the playlist on your profile "sharing"), as well as purchase songs on your playlists from Amazon (though Muxtape actually allowed you to purchase from iTunes as well as Amazon, and it still did this part better than MySpace Music). Of course, the key difference between the two services was that Muxtape allowed users to upload whatever content they wanted to share, whereas MySpace users can only consume songs the RIAA allows artists to upload. Nevermind that the only way to download a track found on Muxtape to your computer was to buy it on Amazon or iTunes, the RIAA views all unsanctioned streaming as "stealing." Therefore, one of the most useful and simple music sharing services was killed and in its place the RIAA gives us this shit.

Obviously a major selling point of MySpace Music is the built-in user base of their flagship social network. But as News Corp., Google, Facebook, and advertisers across the Internet have learned, a large audience doesn't always translate to desirable consumers. Also, do you really want the same people who made Tila Tequila and Katy Perry household names shaping the future of the music industry? Me neither.

What's more, there are already many places where people can discover, share, and buy music (Last.fm, iLike, imeem, and Mog are a few examples) that do it way better than MySpace Music does. In each and every one of those examples the RIAA had nothing to do with their creation, which means they served the interests of music fans above the interests of faceless corporations. Until the powers behind MySpace Music understand how to do that effectively, I don't imagine it will be as successful of a business model as they hoped.

>>>Continue reading "Surprise! MySpace Music is Every Bit as Lame as You Would Expect it to be"

Pitchfork Aims to Pickup the Baton Dropped by MTV 10 Years Ago

With Trent Reznor, Radiohead, MySpace, YouTube, the iPod and bit torrent slowly dismantling the record industry as we know it, it was only a matter of time before somebody set their sights squarely on the other media conglomerate that's been sucking the life out of music, MTV.

We've all heard the tired-but-true gripes with MTV a thousand times over. They never play videos. The videos they do play suck. Too much focus on buffoonish rap music. There's WAY too many reality shows. Etc., etc., etc. For whatever reason, no suitable competitor has ever challenged their superiority on cable TV, but with more people looking first to the Internet (and away from MTV, radio and record stores) to discover and acquire new/old music, the time is ripe for someone to fire the first real shot across MTV's bow via an Internet cannonball.

Indie criticism juggernaut Pitchfork Media is just that someone as they announced this week the creation of Pitchfork.tv, a 24-hour web music video channel that promises to "[document] independent music as it happens". The new venture is set to launch April 7 and promises music videos, live concert footage, mini and long form documentaries, exclusive interviews and other content. All of which is said to be available in high quality on-demand full-screen viewing.

Now, for those of us who read Pitchfork on a regular basis are well aware they aren't above harsh criticism themselves, but it's hard to deny that they do a good job covering the (mostly) independent music scene and offer a significant pipeline into musical content (good and bad) that many people would otherwise not know existed. Both of these components (along with its large audience) should serve them well in being able to succeed in their mission. Moreover, sponsorship, advertising and cross-promotional opportunities should give them the flexibility to keep the service 100% free, while potentially opening up a significant revenue stream that may inspire others to follow in Pitchfork's footsteps.

Currently, web video remains a largely unproven source of revenue. The main problem being an inability to monetize the large pools of traffic that web video can attract. In this regard, even YouTube, which is owned by the most successful and powerful Internet advertising corporation on Earth (Google), has been unable to turn their 16 billion monthly page views (according to ComScore data) into a profitable revenue stream. While this will absolutely be a challenge to Pitchfork.tv, they do have the benefit of having a more easy-to-define target demographic (ie. it's easier to target ads that users won't ignore) than YouTube and can also lean heavily on the blogosphere, which is almost certain to send waves of traffic over to their videos (especially if they are easy to share with others).

If they play their cards right (say, tie in sales of higher quality content that is playable on iPods/Zune/mobile phone/and television screens or partner with the big Summer music festivals to provide live streaming content) Pitchfork.tv could become a huge success and serve as another watershed moment in a series of watershed moments for the music industry. My hope is that the site becomes everything I think it could and should be, while other visionaries follow suit with their own web video networks and MTV fades into oblivion. What a happy day that would be!

>>>Continue reading "Pitchfork Aims to Pickup the Baton Dropped by MTV 10 Years Ago"

Trent Reznor Teaches Radiohead a Thing or Two About Digital Distribution

First things first, February was an ATROCIOUS month for this blog. Seven posts in 29 days? That isn't the kind of production I expected from myself when I started this blog. Last month was a hectic month for me and I rarely left myself any time (or energy) to write. There's so many things I need to change that I think I get discouraged too easily whenever I conceptualize everything as a whole. For now, I'm going to make it a goal to just start writing and sort out the other shit later (which will include a redesign of this space). Sorry for being so horrible at life.

Anyway, the rapid demise of the major label-controlled record industry continued this week with the surprise release of a new Nine Inch Nails album titled Ghosts I-VI. What made this release so 'surprising' wasn't the lack of advance warning (after all, nobody knew a new NIN was even in the works, let alone completed), or the fact that is was released via a direct-to-consumer approach on the NIN.com website. What made it stand out was Reznor's creative (and might I add, superior) improvement on the whole digital pay-or-don't pay model that Radiohead popularized with In Rainbows.

Instead of asking consumers to name their own price, Reznor decided to offer Ghosts in a variety of formats (high quality 320kbps MP3, FLAC or Apple Lossless) and packages, ranging from free to uber-expensive. For the casual fan there's a free download of Ghosts I, which includes eight tracks, available through NIN.com or via bit torrent networks. In the coming weeks parts II-VI will be made available for free download. While those who want the complete four part collection can download it through the Nine Inch Nails website or the Amazon Download Store (I recommend this option, since the download speed is much faster) for the affordable price of $5, which includes a beautifully designed digital booklet and collection of desktop wallpapers (in both standard and widescreen formats). Mr. Reznor also beat Radiohead by giving fans the choice between paying via credit card or PayPal.

For the more serious NIN fan there's a standard 2-CD set for $10 (available April 18th, but with free download privileges thrown in). Die-hards can choose the $75 Deluxe Edition, which comes complete with the 2-CD set, download code, data DVD with all 36 tracks in multi-track format (under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license explicitly for creating custom remixes) and a high definition 96/24 mix on Blu-Ray disc. And the super duper uber-fans can shell out $300 for the Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition package (limited to 2,500 copies and now sold out) which includes everything in the Deluxe Edition plus Ghosts on four 180-gram vinyl records and two hardcover photo books.

What Reznor has done here is perfected the "Radiohead Model" and made it scalable (thanks to bit torrent and Amazon) and flexible to the point where the consumer can choose whatever level of commitment fits their interest. He made good on his critiques of Radiohead's execution and showed the world that fans value content that can adapt to their digital lifestyles. From the casual user who just wants music that will work on all their digital devices (and doesn't treat them like a criminal for shifting that content back and forth) to the hardcore fan who wants an interactive experience, Trent has you covered. He has also proven that customers will pay a premium for extra content, so long as it carries added value to the end-user. And I can't think of anything that adds more value than allowing the user to create their own remix and post their work on Remix.Nin.com, where a community of users can listen, vote and discuss your creation.

Admittedly, not every band can pull off such an ambitious undertaking, but certain aspects (like employing bit torrent distribution and high quality digital formats) can be mimicked by virtually any type of band. Indeed, the times are changing and it's great to see the artists wrestling away control from the record labels and determining their own fates. I can't wait to see what they think of next.

>>>Continue reading "Trent Reznor Teaches Radiohead a Thing or Two About Digital Distribution"

Link Roundup - 2/14

Here's a long overdue edition of stuff that I found interesting around the cyberspace:

- Thom Yorke DJ's on NPR. Immediately afterward President Bush threatened massive cuts in the National Endowment of the Arts if NPR didn't agree to give equal time to Toby Keith [NPR]

- Death of the CD Watch: Day 927 - Borders tries  desperate attempt to revitalize sagging music sales. [Idolator]

- Speaking of the dying music industry, the founder of The Pirate Bay gives rare interview to a Russian news program and is defiant as ever. Viva La Resistance! [Wired]

- Scarlett Johansson's album of Tom Waits covers is finally coming out and David Bowie contributes some vocals. While this is news, it also gives me an excuse to post a photo of the future Mrs. Ivan Juarez-Mrazek [Pitchfork]

- Epicurious reviews Marylin Manson's "Mansinthe"    brand of Absinthe and compares its odor to "sewer water." I don't need to write my own punchline here [Epicurious]

- Get that special music snob in your life a Valentine's day card he/she will love! [Action-Squad]

>>>Continue reading "Link Roundup - 2/14"

Buying Digital Music Finally Doesn't Suck

For years I've steered clear of digital music stores. I'm not opposed to buying MP3's, it's just that the music labels have made it too damn hard to enjoy (or even own) your digital downloads. Sure, iTunes has a good selection of music, but if you don't own an iPod then you are shit out of luck trying to load that music on your MP3 player. And yes, I am aware you can burn iTunes tracks and rip them back to your computer in regular old MP3 format; but taking a compressed file, uncompressing it (burning the CD) and then re-compressing it (ripping it back to your computer) will ruin the audio quality of your files. Plus, why should I have to run through so many hoops (and decrease my sound quality in the process) just so I can shift my content to other devices?

Herein lies the major problem with iTunes and most other digital music stores. No matter which way you get your content, whether it is 'purchasing' individual  tracks with restrictions on where you can and can't listen to them (a la iTunes) or paying a monthly fee for unlimited downloads (Napster, Rhapsody, Yahoo! Music) that expire the second your membership is terminated, the fact is that buying digital music is largely still miles away from matching the value of a CD. Yes, it is cheaper and more convenient (if you define 'convenience' by not having to leave the house) to buy music in digital form, but the restrictive DRM will always make it more attractive to download music for free from Bit Torrent sites or P2P networks.

I was one of those people for years (and still am). Yet, I would gladly pay for music if it could match the quality and convenience of what I can get for free, albeit illegally. Luckily Amazon understood this dilemma and used their considerable clout to do something proactive about it.

Launched in September of last year, the Amazon MP3 Store offered customers the opportunity to buy music free of all DRM restrictions. At first they only offered music from one major label (EMI), but as of last week they have signed on all four majors. I have no idea if the labels are participating in the Amazon store merely to humor their critics who say DRM is the main reason digital downloads aren't the cash cow the labels hoped they would be, or if they truly believe in this as a long-term business model. What I do know is that it is a step in the right direction and I am rooting for it to succeed.

With that in mind I decided to give Amazon a try and see for myself. In the last week I have purchased three albums from Amazon, which is approximately three more than I had purchased in the previous several years combined. Not only is purchasing music a cinch (especially if you have an Amazon account), but downloading the files is quick and easy. Once you download and install the Amazon MP3 Downloader (not a requirement, but I strongly recommend it) all it takes is one click for your purchased files to download and be added automatically to your iTunes or Windows Media Player library (with artwork included). How's that for convenience? Amazon also went through the trouble of encoding the majority of their songs in variable bit rate MP3 format, which provides the most efficient balance between file size and audio quality (as any former OiNK user how important this is).

While Amazon hasn't released any official sales numbers, spokesman have said they are "really pleased" with their early results.  Let's hope the numbers back up that enthusiasm and force the major labels to abandon this DRM nonsense altogether. Until then, you can bet I will continue to buy digital music from Amazon and nowhere else.

>>>Continue reading "Buying Digital Music Finally Doesn't Suck"

Link Roundup - October 15th

OK, so I am officially retiring the name "Throwin' It Down" for my weekly collection of links. I never really liked that name and I don't even have a good reason for using it in the first place. Instead, I have decided to go with a title that is far more direct and to the point. All references to "Throwin' It Down" will henceforth be erased from the record. Anyway, on to the links...

• Universal Music Group has plans to announce a new digital music player and bundled download service that provides consumers with "free major label music." I'm sure it will play nice with your existing MP3 collection (ie. the stuff you really downloaded for free) and won't cause any compatibility issues for your computer. UMG has a pretty good track record with being user-friendly, so there's no need to worry. [Wired Listening Post]
• Apparently, 2007 was a year in which all rock music totally blows. Sure, if you limit your definition of "rock music" only to UK bands, but that isn't really fair now is it? [The Guardian]
• Yay! A judge ruled that it is illegal to use backdoor programs to buy tickets from Ticketmaster before the public has a chance to buy them. Wait, we actually needed a judge to clarify this for us? [Billboard ]
• The Washington Post gives us a primer on how bands "sellout" by allowing their music to be used in commercials. For reasons passing understanding, nobody from the Black Eyed Peas was interviewed for this piece. [Washington Post]
• Unconfirmed reports say 1.2 million people downloaded In Rainbows on the first day. That's roughly 1,999,995 more downloads than the Screech sex tape! [Pitchfork]
• Rumor has it The Eagles are going to play the halftime show of the Super Bowl. Yawn. [SPORTSbyBROOKS]
• Happy 69th birthday to Fela Kuti! The world lost you way too soon. [Idolator]

*Photo credit: Flickr user Jeanne P. Meyer

>>>Continue reading "Link Roundup - October 15th"

The Radiohead Revolution?

So, I just finished downloading my copy of In Rainbows (which is awesome, btw) and was thinking to myself that years from now I might look back on this day as the beginning of the end for the music industry as we know it. Granted, there are still many unknowns that need to be answered before we can judge the success of Radiohead's DIY business model as a sea change for the industry or merely a modest success for an already wildly popular band. What we do know is that Radiohead's trail-blazing (at least, for a band of their stature) ways have already inspired several big name artists to flip the bird to the major record labels.

Just yesterday the blogosphere was abuzz with the news that Trent Reznor, the man behind Nine Inch Nails, is leaving Interscope now that his contract has expired and intends to stay a "free agent" for the foreseeable future. And in Wednesday's edition of the Daily Telegraph comes news that Oasis and Jamiroquai have plans to release their next albums for free via digital download. Also in the same article is word that The Charlatans (or Charlatans UK as they are known in the States) plan to do the same.

If this trend continues then the industry will truly be turned completely on its head. It makes sense, since basic economic principles dictate that the cost of producing music will continue to fall until it eventually approaches zero, so what are the major labels going to do when that happens? One would think the RIAA and its members have some sort of strategy, but my guess is they are too busy suing consumers to really be bothered with such menial tasks. Which is actually a good thing since they are hardly the type of people who would embrace innovation anyway. The sooner they get eliminated from the equation the better it will be for music artists and consumers alike. >>>Continue reading "The Radiohead Revolution?"