Proposals
The iTunes Station, WAPL The Apple
March/22/2008 01:55 AM
In a previous article of mine I describe a new type
of subscription service. It
was more of a try before you buy solution.
I believe that Apple can have a plan to start a subscription based service for music. But unlike all of the comments about how people don't want to rent music, this is more like XM Radio. Imagine paying a small monthly fee to Apple in exchange for unlimited listening to many channels of music. I don't think the service will work if Apple doesn't automatically make channels get music for their particular genre. Nearly identical to the way that XM has an 80's channel. It would need to be similar to a radio station.
Apple would need to differentiate between renting music and a music station with many different channels. All songs are purchasable, the channels only play songs that you can buy. Unlike radio where you listen to what they want to play, with The iTunes Station you pick the channels you want to listen to and you may even have options to filter it specifically to your tastes. For instance, I like 80's music, but only from about 84-89.
Apple probably already had something like this in mind and the newest iPods and iPhone are fully capable of playing music channels from The iTunes Station.
I would certainly consider trying it to see or hear rather some new music. Since I listen to mostly my own music instead a radio stations I'm sure I miss out on songs I would buy.
You can take this a step further and Apple could provide The iTunes Station for free with advertisements between songs just like a regular radio station. They could also provide this service over the internet as an internet radio station. There would be a ticker tape that could be clicked on taking you to the iTunes track in the iTunes Store for purchasing. How would they benefit? They would focus on playing music you don't already own (when local to your machine). This way if you hear something you want to buy, click a Buy button while the song is playing from The iTunes Station and you own it. There are several models that could be used for this type of service, I describe just two of them.
The key for Apple is to remove the perception of renting music. Presenting it as a radio station (WAPL The Apple) will accomplish that.
I believe that Apple can have a plan to start a subscription based service for music. But unlike all of the comments about how people don't want to rent music, this is more like XM Radio. Imagine paying a small monthly fee to Apple in exchange for unlimited listening to many channels of music. I don't think the service will work if Apple doesn't automatically make channels get music for their particular genre. Nearly identical to the way that XM has an 80's channel. It would need to be similar to a radio station.
Apple would need to differentiate between renting music and a music station with many different channels. All songs are purchasable, the channels only play songs that you can buy. Unlike radio where you listen to what they want to play, with The iTunes Station you pick the channels you want to listen to and you may even have options to filter it specifically to your tastes. For instance, I like 80's music, but only from about 84-89.
Apple probably already had something like this in mind and the newest iPods and iPhone are fully capable of playing music channels from The iTunes Station.
I would certainly consider trying it to see or hear rather some new music. Since I listen to mostly my own music instead a radio stations I'm sure I miss out on songs I would buy.
You can take this a step further and Apple could provide The iTunes Station for free with advertisements between songs just like a regular radio station. They could also provide this service over the internet as an internet radio station. There would be a ticker tape that could be clicked on taking you to the iTunes track in the iTunes Store for purchasing. How would they benefit? They would focus on playing music you don't already own (when local to your machine). This way if you hear something you want to buy, click a Buy button while the song is playing from The iTunes Station and you own it. There are several models that could be used for this type of service, I describe just two of them.
The key for Apple is to remove the perception of renting music. Presenting it as a radio station (WAPL The Apple) will accomplish that.
|
The future of Xbox Live Arcade?
March/26/2006 11:01 PM
Here are my thoughts and a few questions I recently posed to Major Nelson and Ross Erickson.
Now that Xbox Live has been fleshed out into something that can evolve and grow I think we (the Xbox Live gamers) should get some notion that our purchases are not tied to the Xbox 360. I completely understand why games purchased for the original Xbox Live Arcade did not transfer over. From this point forward please allow me to play all purchased games in the Arcade on future versions of the Xbox. If I buy Bejeweled today on the Xbox 360 Arcade I want to be able to play it on all future Xbox consoles. This also promotes the backward compatible model.
I would like to be able to play the arcade games that I've bought for the 360 on the 720 when it comes out. I'm hesitant to spend too much money on Arcade games if I'm really only getting a few years of play out of them. Because we all know that what rocks about the Arcade games is that it's mostly time wasters and simple gameplay fun. These are the type of games that people play forever. They are simple, pretty and accomplish nothing. I think I've spent about $80 so on arcade games. These are the kind of games I want to keep, not upgrade every year.
Now that Arcade is all online (no disk required) and all arcades (future Xbox) from this point forward will follow a similar model I don't think it's to much to ask especially since a lot of these games can be played for free (PC) online.
Answers provided by Ross Erickson, Games Portfolio Manager (Xbox Live Arcade/MSN Games.com).
Q 1. Will I be able to play Xbox Live Arcade games I buy now on future Xbox consoles?
A 1. Given that we just barely shipped the 360 into the marketplace just 5 months ago, and that traditional console lifecycles are 5+ years, it’s a bit premature to start planning and making guarantees about any future console so far in advance, especially in light of the fact that digital distribution of entertainment content is still in its infancy. Our intention is to always provide customers value and new entertainment experiences on any platform like Xbox 360
Q 2. Will I be able to play Xbox Live Arcade games I buy now on future Xbox consoles for free or will I have to pay for an upgrade?
A 2. We haven’t announced (nor would we even discuss for many years) any new console beyond the 360 so this is entirely premature.
Q 3. Will I have to transfer them from my 360 or will I be able to download them?
A 3. Again, you’re getting way ahead of yourself on this. Enjoy the games you bought today for what their worth (mostly $5 and $10).
I know my questions are a bit premature, but they will come up again in the future so I want to thank Ross for taking the time to answer them now.
MY GAMERTAG THEMACJEDI
iTunes vs Subscription Services
March/15/2005 06:59 PM
There is a fundamental difference between Music and
Movies and Steve Jobs gets it. I explain the
difference between Subscription based music
services and Renting Music.
I just finished reading this article http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000210035724/ and I think he is confused about the music industry.
Subscribing to a music service is a seriously small niche market and Apple knows this. That won't keep Apple from taking that niche though.
When I refer to the renting of movies I'm including going to the theatre, you have a limited amount of time to view the movie but at the theatre you're on their schedule. And many people only after renting lots of movies will purchase their favorites. This is vastly different than listening to music.
Things you can do while listening to music include cleaning, reading, running, biking, lifting, playing, driving, relaxing, working (lots of verbs) you get the idea. How many of these can you do while watching a movie? Few if any, why, because watching a movie is a verb itself unlike listening to music which is usually secondary to what else you're doing.
I've heard Steve Jobs say that "You may watch your favorite movie a few times but you listen to your favorite music hundreds if not thousands of times" and I totally agree. So what sense does it make to subscribe to something that you're going to use so much, It doesn't. Subscribing to a music service is no different than satellite radio, once you stop paying for the service it's gone.
Services, how does music become a service, if you're getting married and need a DJ. But casual listening to music will never be a service. Subscription based music is an attempt to turn listening to music into a service. Examples of services, electric company, Xbox Live, .mac, internet provider, trash pickup you get the idea. How does renting music fit into services, I don't think that it does.
What will Apple do to rain on the other companies subscription service? Several articles online indicate that Apple is already looking to take over the renting of music. I have an idea that truly differentiates subscribing to a music service and renting music.
Renting Music my way, imagine not just paying a flat fee every month but instead paying a single rental fee per song or album. Think about it, you go to the iTunes Music Store and see the O.C. album, well you know the music you hear on the O.C. is cool, but you don't know if it's cool enough to buy. So just rent the album for a month for a one time fee of $1. At the end of the month you have the option to buy that album and get $1 off the price since you already paid that to rent it. This approach gives you opportunity to actually demo full songs for a fee and If you buy it you're not out any additional money, if you don't buy it or don't like it, it only cost you $1 to find that out.
How is this different than the subscription service that the others have, it doesn't tie you into a monthly fee (Napster $15 per month). People hate monthly fees and companies love them because it generate regular revenue. The plan I outlined gives you the ability to listen to music for a certain amount of time before deciding if you want to pay full price, and the fee is one time not recurring.
My plan puts renting music almost on par with renting movies. Small fee to check it out for limited amount of time. My plan differentiates subscribing to a music service and truly renting music.
If Apple takes this type of approach to renting music I believe they could easily kill off companies like Napster.
I just finished reading this article http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000210035724/ and I think he is confused about the music industry.
Subscribing to a music service is a seriously small niche market and Apple knows this. That won't keep Apple from taking that niche though.
When I refer to the renting of movies I'm including going to the theatre, you have a limited amount of time to view the movie but at the theatre you're on their schedule. And many people only after renting lots of movies will purchase their favorites. This is vastly different than listening to music.
Things you can do while listening to music include cleaning, reading, running, biking, lifting, playing, driving, relaxing, working (lots of verbs) you get the idea. How many of these can you do while watching a movie? Few if any, why, because watching a movie is a verb itself unlike listening to music which is usually secondary to what else you're doing.
I've heard Steve Jobs say that "You may watch your favorite movie a few times but you listen to your favorite music hundreds if not thousands of times" and I totally agree. So what sense does it make to subscribe to something that you're going to use so much, It doesn't. Subscribing to a music service is no different than satellite radio, once you stop paying for the service it's gone.
Services, how does music become a service, if you're getting married and need a DJ. But casual listening to music will never be a service. Subscription based music is an attempt to turn listening to music into a service. Examples of services, electric company, Xbox Live, .mac, internet provider, trash pickup you get the idea. How does renting music fit into services, I don't think that it does.
What will Apple do to rain on the other companies subscription service? Several articles online indicate that Apple is already looking to take over the renting of music. I have an idea that truly differentiates subscribing to a music service and renting music.
Renting Music my way, imagine not just paying a flat fee every month but instead paying a single rental fee per song or album. Think about it, you go to the iTunes Music Store and see the O.C. album, well you know the music you hear on the O.C. is cool, but you don't know if it's cool enough to buy. So just rent the album for a month for a one time fee of $1. At the end of the month you have the option to buy that album and get $1 off the price since you already paid that to rent it. This approach gives you opportunity to actually demo full songs for a fee and If you buy it you're not out any additional money, if you don't buy it or don't like it, it only cost you $1 to find that out.
How is this different than the subscription service that the others have, it doesn't tie you into a monthly fee (Napster $15 per month). People hate monthly fees and companies love them because it generate regular revenue. The plan I outlined gives you the ability to listen to music for a certain amount of time before deciding if you want to pay full price, and the fee is one time not recurring.
My plan puts renting music almost on par with renting movies. Small fee to check it out for limited amount of time. My plan differentiates subscribing to a music service and truly renting music.
If Apple takes this type of approach to renting music I believe they could easily kill off companies like Napster.