No Beatles on iTunes Anytime Soon....enough already!

Interesting comments from Paul McCartney on Billboard. Places the blame for delays with the Beatles being on iTunes firmly at the feet of Apple Corp and EMI. I know that the Beatles are a really big catch in terms of profile, but is this pre-occupation with a band that stopped making music more than two decades before most teenagers were born, sending out the right message?

The legitimate paid download market has not succeeded in fighting off illegal alternatives. Nor does it show any signs of doing so anytime soon. Hence the shift of focus towards free legal alternatives such as MySpace and Comes With Music (and before anyone tells me not to call CWM "free", even Car Phone Warehouse stated it was "free", and for that matter "unlimited", on a TV ad this week).

Perhaps the Beatles going digital is all that's left that's interesting to write about the paid download sector now that the interesting stuff is happening elsewhere and that DRM-free is taking ludicrously long. Whatever the reasons, if iTunes can eventually boast that it is "the place to download the Beatles legally online" it draws further, unwelcome distance between itself and the more youth focused alternatives. Sure, you could argue that this would represent smart segmentation of the online audience. But it's not in anyone's interests that kids only download for free, no one's interests except for those of the kids of course.

And don't forget to join the 'Music as Free' debate at Music Industry Blog

Do Multi-Year Exclusive Phone Handset Deals Make Sense?

When Apple launched iPhone in Europe it bucked traditional wisdom. Rather than striking short term exclusive deals with an operator in each market for 3-6 months, it chose to sign multi-year relationships. Matthew Key, then O2 UK CEO, confirmed this time period at the UK launch.

The press coverage, discussion and hype around iPhone was extensive, even before the iPhone officially launched in Europe. But the initial deals with O2 UK, Orange France, and T-Mobile Germany had only modest success during 2007 and early 2008 in converting that into sales.

While Apple secured an initial pr boost -- but one which Apple could have secured with shorter exclusive periods -- over the medium term Apple is completely dependent on a single operator to deliver a good network, customer service and brand experience that matches Apple's brand promise. If an operator fails, then Apple and iPhone suffers.

Long term exclusive operator deals may make more sense in the US. There, no single handset will work on all mobile networks so there is less to lose with an exclusive deal. The GSM/3GPP iPhone is compatible with either AT&T or T-Mobile but won't work on Sprint, Alltel or Verizon's networks. AT&T has certainly performed well for Apple in pushing iPhone. By contrast, going non-exclusive in Europe leads to vastly greater reach than any single operator could possible match as all operators use the same mobile standard and so all can offer the same handset.

In 2008, when Apple launched the iPhone into a swathe of new countries, Apple changed strategy and supplied multiple operators. Apple will have the data to compare the new batch with the exclusive deals from 2007.

Those operators sitting on exclusive multi-year iPhone deals must make sure they up their game if they wish to renew. Apple may decide it no longer needs their help and is strong enough to switch. Poor customer service, poor sign-up processes, patchy network performance, arbitrary restrictions on speeds, and so forth will destroy their case to be a partner to the Apple brand with its promise of quality and simplicity.

Music Mistakes, Myths and Misconceptions

Regular readers may be interested in following a short series of posts I've run on the MusicIndustryBlog called 'Music Mistakes, Myths and Misconceptions'. Each post takes a look at 10 issues concerning one aspect of "Music as Free"

Music Mistakes, Myths and Misconceptions. Part 1: File Sharing

Music Mistakes, Myths and Misconceptions. Part 2: Ad Supported

Music Mistakes, Myths and Misconceptions. Part 3: Subsidized

Mobile Data Revolution Brought to you by Apple

Admob just published their October metrics report. First, I should say - congratulations to Admob. They are at nearly SIX BILLION (5.8 billion to be exact) ad requests per month. That's a huge number compared to where they were a year ago. And, they don't represent the entire market.

There's a lot more mobile web browsing going on than they see. And what is crazy - or not so crazy - is that the majority of it is still on your basic feature phone. An astonishing four percent IS on iPhones. You have to go down to #10 on the list to get to another mid-sized device with a larger than average screen. The RAZR ranks #2. This creates an interesting development dilemma for content providers, but more on that later.

Page three of the report is dedicated to the impact of the iPhone on the market. It's definitely worth a read. I won't steal their thunder by listing all the highlights here. Topline - they had nearly 150 million requests from iPhones in the US alone. The requests about doubled between end of September and end of October. (Can't wait to see Apple/AT&T's Q4 earnings ... how many of these devices are you guys selling?)

How about 17 percent of ad requests coming out of Mexico coming from the iPhone? Can't remember which carrier Apple launched with there. T-Mobile won't tell me how much they are pricing iPhone data plans at in the US. (Kidding)

Admob and this industry are just getting started. Apple announced 200 million downloads a couple of weeks back. They haven't said what percentage are paid and what percentage are free. Let's assume the majority are free (I'll use myself and go with a sample size of n=1). There is a tremendous audience there that will likely be served ads in the future to support the free download model. Admob has some cool ad formats they've developed for the iPhone that we're just starting to see. Their report sites 400 iPhone apps and sites currently being served. I expect to see the traffic from iPhones continue to increase as more applications use their product.

The Safari browser on the iPhone is great, etc., but I only use it as a last resort if there isn't a widget or app that will get me what I need.

This is getting to be pretty exciting. Stay tuned.

Mobile Data Revolution Brought to you by Apple

Admob just published their October metrics report. First, I should say - congratulations to Admob. They are at nearly SIX BILLION (5.8 billion to be exact) ad requests per month. That's a huge number compared to where they were a year ago. And, they don't represent the entire market.

There's a lot more mobile web browsing going on than they see.

And what is crazy - or not so crazy - is that the majority of it is still on your basic feature phone. An astonishing four percent IS on iPhones. You have to go down to #10 on the list to get to another mid-sized device with a larger than average screen. The RAZR ranks #2. This creates an interesting development dilemma for content providers, but more on that later.

Page three of the report is dedicated to the impact of the iPhone on the market. It's definitely worth a read. I won't steal their thunder by listing all the highlights here. Topline - they had nearly 150 million requests from iPhones in the US alone. The requests about doubled between end of September and end of October. (Can't wait to see Apple/AT&T's Q4 earnings ... how many of these devices are you guys selling?)

How about 17 percent of ad requests coming out of Mexico coming from the iPhone? Can't remember which carrier Apple launched with there. T-Mobile won't tell me how much they are pricing iPhone data plans at in the US. (Kidding)

Admob and this industry are just getting started. Apple announced 200 million downloads a couple of weeks back. They haven't said what percentage are paid and what percentage are free. Let's assume the majority are free (I'll use myself and go with a sample size of n=1). There is a tremendous audience there that will likely be served ads in the future to support the free download model. Admob has some cool ad formats they've developed for the iPhone that we're just starting to see. Their report sites 400 iPhone apps and sites currently being served. I expect to see the traffic from iPhones continue to increase as more applications use their product.

The Safari browser on the iPhone is great, etc., but I only use it as a last resort if there isn't a widget or app that will get me what I need.

This is getting to be pretty exciting.

Stay tuned.

Why Music Can't Just Be Free: continuing on the debate

My "Why Music Can't Just Be Free" post has stirred up a hornets nest of debate and comment. As Jupiter's weblogs don't enable comments I've decided to continue the debate on my other weblog MusicIndustryBlog. My opinions are just that, and Jupiter has always believed that good opinions are shaped through debate. So if you want to join the debate join me over there. For those of you that have sent emails or direct messages via Twitter I will reply to you just as soon as I find time.

Note: my colleague Ian Fogg points out that I inferred in my previous post that SourceForge are a developer when they in fact a developer platform.

Why Music Can't 'Just Be Free'

The French music industry body Socit civile des Producteurs de Phonogrammes en France (SPPF) is suing four US based developers of P-to-P applications, including the BitTorrent client Vuze, Limewire and Morpheus and Shareaza. (The latter is the one that is stimulating vitriol in the tech blogosphere as it is developed by open source development platform SourceForge.)

Under newly revised French law the US companies can be tried in the France as their applications have not implemented filtering mechanisms to block out copyrighted material.

A couple of arguments are being leveled at the SPPF. The first that these applications aren't designed for copyright infringement. It's not the fault of the developers that they are being used as such. This argument of course has been since the original Napster trial. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't wash. However much there is legitimate usage, the vast majority of usage is not legitimate. All the developers need to do is support their claims off innocence by embedding filtering mechanisms into their apps. If they counter claim that this would restrict the liberty of their users, then they can't any longer argue that they don't support illegitimate usage of their technology.

Another argument being aired is that the music industry should stop being so hung up on trying to get paid online, indeed one story eve referred to "the Music Industry's obsession with copyright". That's like saying "the car industry's obsession with cars". Copyright is the oxygen of the music industry. Without it there is no industry. Sure there may be cases for changing some industry practices but copyright remains the essence of making money from music.

Music cannot just be "for free" anymore than cars or houses can "just be for free". If people aren't paid they don't make the product. Sure music will still exist, but you'll swap nicely programmed download stores and well stocked high street stores for buskers and millions upon millions of artist pages, all clamouring for your attention. Perhaps that sounds appealing? The problem is, most of them would sound a fraction as good as they would if they'd been able to give up their day jobs and been given proper equipment, studio time, mentoring and artist development support. And even those that would still manage to sound ok, would struggle to find their way to your PC or mobile screen as they wouldn't have any marketing support to help them get there.

I'll close with an account of how we first ended up with music copyright collection, which says as much to today's "music should be free" argument as it did then, 150 years ago:

"In 1847, the composer Ernest Bourget visited the Paris Concert Caf Ambassadeurs in the company of his colleague Victor Parizot. At the time, Bourget was a popular composer of chansons and chansonnettes comiques. Among other pieces, the orchestra played the music of Bourget. When the waiter presented the composer with the bill for the sugared water that he and his colleague had consumed as the fashionable luxury drink of the period, Bourget refused to pay claiming that the orchestra had repeatedly played his music - without paying anything: and so [took the] sugared water in return for playing his piece. The dispute between the composer and the owner was brought before the court. On 8th September 1847, the Tribunal de Commerce de la Seine prohibited the owner from playing works of the composer without his consent. The exclusive right of the author to public performances that had been anchored in the French law of 1791 was thus put into practice for the first time. And on 26th April 1849 the Cour d'Appel de Paris sentenced the owner of Ambassadeurs to pay compensation - i.e. in this case royalties - to Bourget."

Why Music Can't 'Just Be Free'

The French music industry body Socit civile des Producteurs de Phonogrammes en France (SPPF) is suing four US based developers of P-to-P applications, including the BitTorrent client Vuze, Limewire and Morpheus and Shareaza. (The latter is the one that is stimulating vitriol in the tech blogosphere as it is developed by open source development platform SourceForge.)

Under newly revised French law the US companies can be tried in the France as their applications have not implemented filtering mechanisms to block out copyrighted material.

A couple of arguments are being leveled at the SPPF. The first that these applications aren't designed for copyright infringement. "It's not the fault of the developers that they are being used as such". This argument of course has been used since the original Napster trial. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't wash. However much there is legitimate usage, the vast majority of usage is not legitimate. All the developers need to do is support their claims off innocence by embedding filtering mechanisms into their apps. If they counter claim that this would restrict the liberty of their users, then they can't any longer argue that they don't support illegitimate usage of their technology.

Another argument being aired is that the music industry should stop being so hung up on trying to get paid online, indeed one story even referred to "the Music Industry's obsession with copyright. That's like saying "the car industry's obsession with cars". Copyright is the oxygen of the music industry. Without it there is no industry. Sure there may be cases for changing some industry practices but copyright remains the essence of making money from music.

Music cannot just be "for free" anymore than cars or houses can "just be for free". If people aren't paid they don't make the product. Sure music will still exist, but you'll swap nicely programmed download stores and well stocked high street stores for buskers and millions upon millions of artist pages, all clamouring for your attention. Perhaps that sounds appealing? The problem is, most of them would sound a fraction as good as they would if they'd been able to give up their day jobs and been given proper equipment, studio time, mentoring and artist development support. And even those that would still manage to sound ok, would struggle to find their way to your PC or mobile screen as they wouldn't have any marketing support to help them get there.

I'll close with an account of how we first ended up with music copyright collection, which says as much to today's "music should be free" argument as it did then, 150 years ago:

"In 1847, the composer Ernest Bourget visited the Paris Concert Caf Ambassadeurs in the company of his colleague Victor Parizot. At the time, Bourget was a popular composer of chansons and chansonnettes comiques. Among other pieces, the orchestra played the music of Bourget. When the waiter presented the composer with the bill for the sugared water that he and his colleague had consumed as the fashionable luxury drink of the period, Bourget refused to pay claiming that the orchestra had repeatedly played his music - without paying anything: and so [took the] sugared water in return for playing his piece. The dispute between the composer and the owner was brought before the court. On 8th September 1847, the Tribunal de Commerce de la Seine prohibited the owner from playing works of the composer without his consent. The exclusive right of the author to public performances that had been anchored in the French law of 1791 was thus put into practice for the first time. And on 26th April 1849 the Cour d'Appel de Paris sentenced the owner of Ambassadeurs to pay compensation - i.e. in this case royalties - to Bourget."

Facebook Phone Launches

3 launched their Facebook phone in the UK today. See Guardian.

I got the chance to see some early demos of the phone, but not the final version. Really liked the concept that I saw. Will be interesting to watch and see how this type of interface works on a phone. I think it's more intuitive for the consumer than the PC analogies that have been carried over. Will be interesting to watch. I'm really excited about where phones will be in a few years when more of these social networking/graphing features are incorporated into the UI as 3 has done.

Facebook Phone Launches

3 launched their Facebook phone in the UK today. See Guardian.

I got the chance to see some early demos of the phone, but not the final version. Really liked the concept that I saw. Will be interesting to watch and see how this type of interface works on a phone. I think it's more intuitive for the consumer than the PC analogies that have been carried over. Will be interesting to watch. I'm really excited about where phones will be in a few years when more of these social networking/graphing features are incorporated into the UI as 3 has done.