While music has recently become more mobile than ever with the advent and proliferation of portable media players, the surface of the mobility and ubiquity of music has only just begun to be scratched in terms of potential as a source of entertainment and as a source of revenue.
With the impending entrance of the iPhone into the cellular arena, and the continuing trend of mobile phones media capabilities continuing to rise, it is only a matter of time until a substantial amount of media entertainment will come from our media enabled phones. Right now, the entertainment scene including music and video on the phone is subsidiary at best to that compared to the entertainment we consume on our laptops or iPods. But the phone will soon become the power player amongst these devices and change the face of mobile media consumption.
This is going to happen in numerous ways, with many different forces (i.e. record labels, Cellular providers, and phone manufacturers) having to work together to create the all so coveted media enriched environment the consumer of today so desperately craves. So lets begin to explore what will be driving these innovations.
First, lets explore the role of streaming media to our mobile devices. This is the umbrella term that will pretty much be the framework for future media consumption in the mobile phone atmosphere. There are already products on the market that stream content from your home television to your adequately endowed cell phone. And even a 3rd party media streamer is in development to work with your Apple TV to even transfer your protected iTunes content to your mobile phone. However, these products are full of compatibility issues and they don't really produce the quality or dependability that consumers demand.
Yet as data networks improve with the development of WiMAX and other 4G technologies, the practicality and realization of streaming's true potential can be realized. People could truly not be limited by insufficient storage, meaning high quality content, even that with large file sizes, could be accessed at anytime, anywhere, with ease and speed. This has great implications for the music industry. For high quality digital tracks with additional metadata (i.e. video, webpages, photo's, etc.) to be delivered along with the music to a phone at anytime opens up this online store that can truly capitalize on people's impulsive nature by giving consumers the ability to purchase content at anytime through their mobile phone and have it successfully play in all of their many venues of choice (Car, computer, stereo, television). But to realize this dream, another innovation is going to have to emerge to help create this seamless media ecosystem.
As the amount of devices that we listen to our music and watch our video on increases, the ever dreadful problem of choosing the write file formats to best cater to consumers begins to emerge. In the recent past, the trend starting with Apple has been to create a proprietary file format (protected AAC) that can only be played on a single type of media player or cell phone, which creates a lot of interoperability issues.
This has been the case in the beginning of the digital music revolution because it was the only way the technology companies viewed distributing music digitally could be profitable to them. Case in point, Apple created the iTunes music store to sell iPods. However, this blogger might argue that iPods would sell themselves without any iTunes music store, just because they are so damn cool and trendy. But I digress.
Getting back to the importance of file formats, i think the past notion that proprietary formats are the best for the consumer is a dying sentiment, and now with evidence from the major players or Apple and Amazon, interoperability is in fashion, and oh how the consumers love this development. See, now that the major players are seeming to take the plunge and beginning to endorse DRM free tracks, interoperability becomes a real reality. While we are nowhere near the end of the tunnel, consumers will probably in the near future be able to buy all their music content at least with out any annoying DRM wrapper.
So what format does the future hold for us. Well as you can probably guess, it could be a toss up between formats. Unprotected AAC has gained a lot of popularity on other players such as those of Sony, Microsoft Zune, Nokia, and internet radio. This could mean a real competition for the all powerful Mp3, which by far as the most interoperability of all formats.
AAC is a new format so its quality is a little better than AAC's, but it's interesting that Apple is choosing to offer their first DRM free tracks in Mp3 format instead of the unprotected AAC. Could this be a preliminary forfeit making Mp3 the true format of the past and the future. Time shall tell, but whatever format is decided on, one thing is for sure, it won't have any DRM attached to it, for the mobility of music in the mobile phone atmosphere depends on it.
Which brings me to my next adaptation the music industry will have to achieve in order to benefit from the mobile phone technology. An important, and often overlooked part of the mobile media in the mobile phone industry, is the importance of service plans.
Right now, it is in my opinion, that data plans are not reasonably priced and that consumers cannot be expected to be paying over $100 a month for unlimited data and a sufficient phone minutes. For consumers to really begin to embrace the mobile media market on their cell phones, the first step has to be taken by the Cellular providers and lower the cost of the unlimited data plans. While it is unknown for sure what data plans Cingular will offer with the upcoming iPhone, it is sure to be a point of discussion on top of the $600 price tag that is being tagged on the phone itself. But data rates and phone plans are really only the tip of the iceberg.
The real key to an explosion of media on the phone and in a mobile environment is to embrace the subscription model. I think this model is perfect for really boosting the popularity of consuming music and video on a mobile devcie, because it matches the subscription phone service that you are already being provided by the cellular providers. However, I have some important stipulations that should be considered.
For a subscription based model of consuming media on a cell phone be implemented, there should also be an a la carte system, like iTunes is presently, to supplement those who prefer to buy their media. So this is what a reasonably priced subscription model should look like. For $35 a month, a user gets a substantial ammount of phone related privlages (minutes, text messages, multimedia messages) and unlimited data usage. To complement the unlimited data usage, for $15 a month, the phone user can have access to their choice of subscription service, be it Napster or a rumored iTunes subscription model. Also, the user, if he or she chooses, can in addition to the subscription model, can purchase a la carte any material they can access on the subscription service at no extra cost or complication.
This sort of subscription model gives the consumer true freedom to choose what media ecosystem to be a part of, choose how they purchase their media, and how they access it.
To be honest, the only real adaptation the music industry has to achieve is to give its consumers more freedoms and choices in how they digest the medium. This is truly the future of music in the mobile spectrum. A plethora of choices, possibilities, and configurations will eventually capture more consumers which I believe will inevitably result in more profit for the industry, and help it retain its once prominent status.
Consumers have been demanding this now for a decade, and in retaliation have resorted to illegal downloading because their demands have been ingored and not respected. Well with the continuing development of higher speed data networks in the cellular spectrum, the music industry gets a much undeserved second chance to claim back a generation that they lost, and make it right. So as the future gets closer and closer, the time for the industry to step up and heed the demands of this blog, gets closer and closer, and with that a new era of music and media can emerge. A truly mobile media.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Getting Closer to Streaming Paradise
This week, its been highly publicized that Sling Media, the developer behind the ever so popular SlingBox, is already working hard on bringing compatibility of their SlingBox media streaming device to the Apple TV.
While seeing a strong interest from developers in the Apple TV is not necessarily a surprise, the fact that Sling Media is going to try to enter this space of the iTunes ecosystem before Apple does is a very interesting development.
However, while this would be a great device for users of other media enabled phones such as the Treo, I believe people who are really invested in the iTunes model, which is the target audience for an Apple TV, will also likely purchase an iPhone. And it would be shocking to see if Apple did not develop similar capabilities into the iPhone at its inception or soon after. This may be related to some of the hidden features within Leopard or the iPhone that Steve did not quite want to let go when he announced the iPhone.
But I digress. I want to focus on the importance this sort of development would have on mobile media. This would be a giant first step into really removing all constraints of storage and allow users to truly enjoy their purchased media anywhere, anytime, providing there is a sufficient internet source around to handle the streaming of the copy of RoboCop you bought this morning of the iTunes store.
Coupled with the recent announcement of DRM-free music being offered from EMI, Apple seems to be highly invested into furthering this seamless iTunes ecosystem to other devices, namely the iPhone, and finally creating an environment where people can enjoy what they have purchased with little hassle, beautiful simplicity, and seamless integration into the devices they already or will in the future own.
Sling Media's development on making their device compatible with the Apple TV is important, because I believe it will persuade Apple even further into releasing this type of architecture and integrating it into their products.
Still the success of these kinds of streaming applications rests heavily on the continuing development of next generation wireless networks in this country. WiMAX will undoubtedly play a huge role in the future of this technology.
So it appears with these recent developments that we are getting closer to the streaming paradise of which we all dream.
While seeing a strong interest from developers in the Apple TV is not necessarily a surprise, the fact that Sling Media is going to try to enter this space of the iTunes ecosystem before Apple does is a very interesting development.
However, while this would be a great device for users of other media enabled phones such as the Treo, I believe people who are really invested in the iTunes model, which is the target audience for an Apple TV, will also likely purchase an iPhone. And it would be shocking to see if Apple did not develop similar capabilities into the iPhone at its inception or soon after. This may be related to some of the hidden features within Leopard or the iPhone that Steve did not quite want to let go when he announced the iPhone.
But I digress. I want to focus on the importance this sort of development would have on mobile media. This would be a giant first step into really removing all constraints of storage and allow users to truly enjoy their purchased media anywhere, anytime, providing there is a sufficient internet source around to handle the streaming of the copy of RoboCop you bought this morning of the iTunes store.
Coupled with the recent announcement of DRM-free music being offered from EMI, Apple seems to be highly invested into furthering this seamless iTunes ecosystem to other devices, namely the iPhone, and finally creating an environment where people can enjoy what they have purchased with little hassle, beautiful simplicity, and seamless integration into the devices they already or will in the future own.
Sling Media's development on making their device compatible with the Apple TV is important, because I believe it will persuade Apple even further into releasing this type of architecture and integrating it into their products.
Still the success of these kinds of streaming applications rests heavily on the continuing development of next generation wireless networks in this country. WiMAX will undoubtedly play a huge role in the future of this technology.
So it appears with these recent developments that we are getting closer to the streaming paradise of which we all dream.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Mixed Feelings
After having some time to consider Monday's announcement by EMI and Apple, I still have mixed feelings with their new system of selling DRM free music in the iTunes store.
First, the obvious problem with this new digital offering is the price hike. Raising the price to by 30% is not the right message to be sending to consumers. This is another addition to the continuing and seemingly unwavering entitled attitude that the record industry exhibits on a day to day basis.
Consumers have been clamoring for years that the price of music is too high. In fact, a strong case can be CD's impending death can be significantly contributed to the high price of music. So while it appears that the people who sell us music are deaf to our complaints as consumers, they decided they would be doing us a favor by offering us a product at a higher price than before when we could already get the same product in the record stores.
I guess what I would really like to see the record industry invoke is consistency within their product line. Why would you charge more for a essentially costless form of distribution for the same freedoms that you can get on a CD.
The $0.99 model was working fine, and actually provided a nice clean, generally accepted value for music, and to add confusion to the iTunes music store by offering a completely different kind of track with completely different rules at a higher price, when people already don't understand what DRM exactly is, it just seems crazy.
Shame on Apple for adding confusion to their simplistic design. This is one instance where Apple chose cool over functionality. Apple has been great at making these two things go hand in hand, but I can't see how this is going to work in the same way.
I did mentioned I had mixed feelings early, so now I can elaborate on the positives that might come to this. Apparently, albums of the new unprotected content will still cost $9.99. This is a huge accomplishment, and actually makes sense.
This, although probably small at first, could have an sizable effect on the album culture in music today, and might drive people to buy more albums. This is obviously good for the industry as the more music bought, the more money the make.
But on a grander scale, this could alter our societies current viewpoint on the way we listen to music. Right now we are a singles based culture, but if people can get unprotected content and a reasonable price, $9.99, then why wouldn't people be inclined to buy more albums. Kudos on the EMI and Apple making this a precedent from the beginning. This should force the other labels when they jump in the DRM free pool to adhere to this kind of pricing.
First, the obvious problem with this new digital offering is the price hike. Raising the price to by 30% is not the right message to be sending to consumers. This is another addition to the continuing and seemingly unwavering entitled attitude that the record industry exhibits on a day to day basis.
Consumers have been clamoring for years that the price of music is too high. In fact, a strong case can be CD's impending death can be significantly contributed to the high price of music. So while it appears that the people who sell us music are deaf to our complaints as consumers, they decided they would be doing us a favor by offering us a product at a higher price than before when we could already get the same product in the record stores.
I guess what I would really like to see the record industry invoke is consistency within their product line. Why would you charge more for a essentially costless form of distribution for the same freedoms that you can get on a CD.
The $0.99 model was working fine, and actually provided a nice clean, generally accepted value for music, and to add confusion to the iTunes music store by offering a completely different kind of track with completely different rules at a higher price, when people already don't understand what DRM exactly is, it just seems crazy.
Shame on Apple for adding confusion to their simplistic design. This is one instance where Apple chose cool over functionality. Apple has been great at making these two things go hand in hand, but I can't see how this is going to work in the same way.
I did mentioned I had mixed feelings early, so now I can elaborate on the positives that might come to this. Apparently, albums of the new unprotected content will still cost $9.99. This is a huge accomplishment, and actually makes sense.
This, although probably small at first, could have an sizable effect on the album culture in music today, and might drive people to buy more albums. This is obviously good for the industry as the more music bought, the more money the make.
But on a grander scale, this could alter our societies current viewpoint on the way we listen to music. Right now we are a singles based culture, but if people can get unprotected content and a reasonable price, $9.99, then why wouldn't people be inclined to buy more albums. Kudos on the EMI and Apple making this a precedent from the beginning. This should force the other labels when they jump in the DRM free pool to adhere to this kind of pricing.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Let the Revolution Begin
In yet another groundbreaking announcement involving Steve Jobs and the digital music industry, EMI and Apple came together earlier today to announce the beginning of a new era in digital music sales. In may, Apple will begin selling EMI's entire digital catalog without any DRM wrapper. Alongside the DRMless format, the unprotected tracks will feature "higher fidelity" than the previous offering. However, there is a catch for all these great new features. The consumer is going to have to hike up a little more cash. These new tracks will cost 1.29, or 30% more than the previous offerings. These tracks are going to be marketed as premium tracks, and will be sold alongside the regular tracks that are already on the iTunes Store.
I am feeling such a mix of emotion regarding this announcement. Lets start with the positives.
This has dealt a huge blow to the digital music industry. When one of the biggest label groups, which accounts for "70% of songs sold today", decides to go against the grain and offer there music in an unprotected format, the implications and the stakes are at an all time high. Apparently, EMI has done their research and found that people would prefer to buy unprotected tracks at a higher price at about a rate of 10 to 1. EMI's confidence entering the digital market without any armor to protect them is quite inspiring and will definitely be closely watched by the other big 3 label groups.
Another positive that should have happened a long time ago is the increased fideltiy in the audio tracks. This is long over due, and should help EMI sell more music for all those high fidelity nerds out there. I think that for some, the increased fidelity will prove to be as much as a selling point as the DRMless format. The details are a little scarce on the increased fidelity, so it will be interesting to see how this turns out.
Now to the negative aspects of this announcement.
Obviously, the price hike is not a positive to this development. I think that music has become so ubiquitous and a part of our daily lives, that the last thing the digital music market needs is a price hike. EMI and Apple are banking that the pros outweigh the cons of the price hike.
Another problem with this is that this is the first time that Apple has really strayed from its consistent pricing model of $.99 model per song. I think the labels will now see this as a weakness in Apple's seemingly impenetrable negotiating armor, and they will definitely try to exploit this.
For some users this could be seen as a step in the wrong direction for those who iTunes to have an optional subscription model. Apple has always been dedicated to the idea that people should own their music, and this announcement is just one step further into that model.
Its obviously too early to really see how the public will react, but the promise for the digital music industry seems a little brighter without the darkening shadow of DRM looming over.
I am feeling such a mix of emotion regarding this announcement. Lets start with the positives.
This has dealt a huge blow to the digital music industry. When one of the biggest label groups, which accounts for "70% of songs sold today", decides to go against the grain and offer there music in an unprotected format, the implications and the stakes are at an all time high. Apparently, EMI has done their research and found that people would prefer to buy unprotected tracks at a higher price at about a rate of 10 to 1. EMI's confidence entering the digital market without any armor to protect them is quite inspiring and will definitely be closely watched by the other big 3 label groups.
Another positive that should have happened a long time ago is the increased fideltiy in the audio tracks. This is long over due, and should help EMI sell more music for all those high fidelity nerds out there. I think that for some, the increased fidelity will prove to be as much as a selling point as the DRMless format. The details are a little scarce on the increased fidelity, so it will be interesting to see how this turns out.
Now to the negative aspects of this announcement.
Obviously, the price hike is not a positive to this development. I think that music has become so ubiquitous and a part of our daily lives, that the last thing the digital music market needs is a price hike. EMI and Apple are banking that the pros outweigh the cons of the price hike.
Another problem with this is that this is the first time that Apple has really strayed from its consistent pricing model of $.99 model per song. I think the labels will now see this as a weakness in Apple's seemingly impenetrable negotiating armor, and they will definitely try to exploit this.
For some users this could be seen as a step in the wrong direction for those who iTunes to have an optional subscription model. Apple has always been dedicated to the idea that people should own their music, and this announcement is just one step further into that model.
Its obviously too early to really see how the public will react, but the promise for the digital music industry seems a little brighter without the darkening shadow of DRM looming over.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Streaming's Role in Mobile Media
There has been a lot of exciting announcements for mobile media this week surrounding the CTIA conference.
A very cool announcement that took place about a month ago, has finally come to fruition. The popular slingplayer media streamer has landed in the mobile phone market, and promises to provide a very interesting case study into how consumers react to the ability to stream conent from their home tv, to their phone.
In a nutshell, the SlingPlayer Mobile for Palm OS will allow users with a palm enabled phone to stream live television from their home tv, to their mobile phone. While this system only works on palm phones, the results from this beta could reveal some interesting information about how people consume media on the run.
Now this service sounds great on paper, but I am skeptical of many things surrounding this kind of technology. Streaming technology is far from being perfected, and I still have trouble and problems while streaming content from a high speed internet access point on my home computer. So to think that this service being utilized on a mobile phone network kind of worries me. I can just imagine the crappy picture quality and constantly interrupted feeds, which would probably provide for a very negative viewing experience.'
However, setting aside bandwidth inefficiencies for the moment, I think this is the future of mobile media. I believe, as I have mentioned in previous blogs, that streaming content from home sources to mobile devices, removes some of the storage limitations that mobile products have to deal with, and also makes people's content available anywhere on any device.
Ultimately, I believe this is what people crave. Constant access on any device to all of their owned media content. Now, this is very idealistic, considering DRM's role in all of this mobile media mess, but if either more interoperability is created between DRM or if it is completely abolished, mobile media markets could flourish and become truly valued sources of entertainment.
A very cool announcement that took place about a month ago, has finally come to fruition. The popular slingplayer media streamer has landed in the mobile phone market, and promises to provide a very interesting case study into how consumers react to the ability to stream conent from their home tv, to their phone.
In a nutshell, the SlingPlayer Mobile for Palm OS will allow users with a palm enabled phone to stream live television from their home tv, to their mobile phone. While this system only works on palm phones, the results from this beta could reveal some interesting information about how people consume media on the run.
Now this service sounds great on paper, but I am skeptical of many things surrounding this kind of technology. Streaming technology is far from being perfected, and I still have trouble and problems while streaming content from a high speed internet access point on my home computer. So to think that this service being utilized on a mobile phone network kind of worries me. I can just imagine the crappy picture quality and constantly interrupted feeds, which would probably provide for a very negative viewing experience.'
However, setting aside bandwidth inefficiencies for the moment, I think this is the future of mobile media. I believe, as I have mentioned in previous blogs, that streaming content from home sources to mobile devices, removes some of the storage limitations that mobile products have to deal with, and also makes people's content available anywhere on any device.
Ultimately, I believe this is what people crave. Constant access on any device to all of their owned media content. Now, this is very idealistic, considering DRM's role in all of this mobile media mess, but if either more interoperability is created between DRM or if it is completely abolished, mobile media markets could flourish and become truly valued sources of entertainment.
Monday, March 26, 2007
What's the next big feature for cell phones?
This is certainly a subject up for debate. First phone's were outfitted with cameras. Next, phone's could play MP3's with built in players. Recently, in the United States, video on cell phones has become the next big picture. So what is next?
Well at the CTIA Wireless 2007 show, Texas Instruments seems to have taken the media platform for the cell phone one step further. It seems has though the creative minds at TI have figured out a way to put a working DLP projector into the compact configuration of a cell phone.
At the CTIA Wireless show this year, TI provided a "public demonstration of its digital light processing (DLP) 'pico' projector, a tiny movie projector that can fit inside a cell phone."
While the progression might seem obvious to some, I find this to be a monumental achievement, which will most definitely have huge implications on the mobile media marketplace.
The projector "contains three lasers, a DLP chip and a power supply and measures about 1.5 inches in length. With the projector, the cellphone can beam DVD-quality video onto a screen or a wall, thereby allowing to serve as a video player or television." This impact that this sort of technology will have on the mobile media market could be monumental.
The biggest hindrance with media on mobile devices today is that they don't provide an appropriate theater in which to view or listen to content. With a projector capable of displaying DVD-quality video on a screen or a wall, that resides in a mobile phone or Portable media player casing, could be the answer, and the boost the mobile media market needs to make it truly a valued source of entertainment.
This kind of technology could also integrate larger forms of media into the mobile media market, instead of just snack sized morsels of entertainment.
This will truly make media on-demand, meaning someone can watch any form of media anywhere there is an appropriate surface to project on. The convenience of the size and quality this product will offer, should really have an impact on the way we consume media in the mobile world.
TI did not give any time lines as to when the projectors will be available in phones, but the working prototype gives an indication that this technology is not to far off.
Well at the CTIA Wireless 2007 show, Texas Instruments seems to have taken the media platform for the cell phone one step further. It seems has though the creative minds at TI have figured out a way to put a working DLP projector into the compact configuration of a cell phone.
At the CTIA Wireless show this year, TI provided a "public demonstration of its digital light processing (DLP) 'pico' projector, a tiny movie projector that can fit inside a cell phone."
While the progression might seem obvious to some, I find this to be a monumental achievement, which will most definitely have huge implications on the mobile media marketplace.
The projector "contains three lasers, a DLP chip and a power supply and measures about 1.5 inches in length. With the projector, the cellphone can beam DVD-quality video onto a screen or a wall, thereby allowing to serve as a video player or television." This impact that this sort of technology will have on the mobile media market could be monumental.
The biggest hindrance with media on mobile devices today is that they don't provide an appropriate theater in which to view or listen to content. With a projector capable of displaying DVD-quality video on a screen or a wall, that resides in a mobile phone or Portable media player casing, could be the answer, and the boost the mobile media market needs to make it truly a valued source of entertainment.
This kind of technology could also integrate larger forms of media into the mobile media market, instead of just snack sized morsels of entertainment.
This will truly make media on-demand, meaning someone can watch any form of media anywhere there is an appropriate surface to project on. The convenience of the size and quality this product will offer, should really have an impact on the way we consume media in the mobile world.
TI did not give any time lines as to when the projectors will be available in phones, but the working prototype gives an indication that this technology is not to far off.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
What time is Media Time?
As the mobile media market matures and entrenches itself into our daily lives as the internet as done over the past 15 years, it is becoming more and more apparent to me that as person I am only inclined to take advantage of what the internet has to offer media wise at certain points in my day.
I have mentioned in past blogs that for mobile media to really take off and become a useful and valuable part of our day to day lives, that content providers really need to pay attention to the consumers wants and needs. I mentioned that snack sized media is seemingly what people want out of their mobile devices due to either their lack of an attention span, or the fact that that kind of sized media fits into where they use their mobile devices most. But another factor they need to pay attention to is when and where do people access their mobile content.
Mark Cuban has already done the leg work on this blog, revealing from his sources at Comscore.com, that about 50% of online video viewing during the weekdays, takes place between 7am and 5pm. During work!
This might come as a suprising statistic to employers but, I think these statistics have some validity to it. I remember my first experience in a corporate office was last spring and I was shocked by the amount of time people spent listening to online radio stations or watching short clips of online videos. Its something people do during, inbetween, and during breaks from their work during the day. And why not, these people are almost always captive in front of their computers at work, and its completely unrealistic to expect people to constantly work from 7am-5pm only on work related activities when they have access to a high speed network and the endless media delights of the internet.
So why aren't more companies marketing their content and programs towards the everyday worker. I would suggest online radio broadcasters to really consider focusing all of their efforts on making stations that users would enjoy at work or something that would cater to the working lifestyle. People don't necessarily have access to their music library at work, so thats why services like pandora or lastfm are so popular in the work place.
I think content providers like webcasters and even broadcast networks could pay more attention to this market. Its very similar to the reason why people listen to radio in the car. The captive audience at work could reap some serious benefits for media providers.
I have mentioned in past blogs that for mobile media to really take off and become a useful and valuable part of our day to day lives, that content providers really need to pay attention to the consumers wants and needs. I mentioned that snack sized media is seemingly what people want out of their mobile devices due to either their lack of an attention span, or the fact that that kind of sized media fits into where they use their mobile devices most. But another factor they need to pay attention to is when and where do people access their mobile content.
Mark Cuban has already done the leg work on this blog, revealing from his sources at Comscore.com, that about 50% of online video viewing during the weekdays, takes place between 7am and 5pm. During work!
This might come as a suprising statistic to employers but, I think these statistics have some validity to it. I remember my first experience in a corporate office was last spring and I was shocked by the amount of time people spent listening to online radio stations or watching short clips of online videos. Its something people do during, inbetween, and during breaks from their work during the day. And why not, these people are almost always captive in front of their computers at work, and its completely unrealistic to expect people to constantly work from 7am-5pm only on work related activities when they have access to a high speed network and the endless media delights of the internet.
So why aren't more companies marketing their content and programs towards the everyday worker. I would suggest online radio broadcasters to really consider focusing all of their efforts on making stations that users would enjoy at work or something that would cater to the working lifestyle. People don't necessarily have access to their music library at work, so thats why services like pandora or lastfm are so popular in the work place.
I think content providers like webcasters and even broadcast networks could pay more attention to this market. Its very similar to the reason why people listen to radio in the car. The captive audience at work could reap some serious benefits for media providers.
Royalty Rates killing Internet Radio
The CRB has given the internet radio community some bad news recently. The new royalty rates that the CRB plans to implement are significantly higher than those previously instated. The details of the CRB's announcement can be seen here. I will just go over the big changes. The CRB suggests that Retroactive fees of $.0008 per performance be paid for 2006, and $.0011 per performance in 2007, $.0014 in 2008, $.0018 in 2009, and all the way up to $.0019 in 2010.
Additionally to these per performance fees, the CRB has also stated that a $500 per channel per year fee be implemented. Although this is loosely defined, as to what makes up a channel.
These rates were decided upon by the recommendation of SoundExchange, which is a digital music fee collection body created by of course, the one, the only, RIAA.
These rates effectively destroy small and medium sized webcasters, and greatly injure the largest webcasters. For example, for a medium sized webcaster like radio paridise, the royalties would be in the range of "150-200% of total revenues". This is obviously a damaging blow to the small and medium webcasting industry, but at these rates it might not even be profitable or worthwhile for the biggest webcasters to continue to broadcast.
These royalty rates have huge consequences for the mobile media market. This is the area everyone was banking on radio making its glorious return to a respected form of media. When high-speed wireless networks become ubiquitous in this country, internet radio had great potential to be a respected source of entertainment, because it was not effected by the limitations and narrow minded tendencies of terrestrial radio.
Yet it appears the RIAA's SoundExchange wants to eliminate any possibility of a strong return of radio by pummeling internet radio with debilitating rates. These rates surpass those of terrestrial radio and satellites radio, causing a huge disconnect and seemingly unfair royalty structure for the internet radio industry.
However there is some good news. As of Tuesday, the CRB has granted the motion for appeals regarding these rates, and will reconsider their decision. Judging by the amount of outrage that has surrounded this announcement, I imagine that some changes will come to fruition. We will just have to wait and see.
Additionally to these per performance fees, the CRB has also stated that a $500 per channel per year fee be implemented. Although this is loosely defined, as to what makes up a channel.
These rates were decided upon by the recommendation of SoundExchange, which is a digital music fee collection body created by of course, the one, the only, RIAA.
These rates effectively destroy small and medium sized webcasters, and greatly injure the largest webcasters. For example, for a medium sized webcaster like radio paridise, the royalties would be in the range of "150-200% of total revenues". This is obviously a damaging blow to the small and medium webcasting industry, but at these rates it might not even be profitable or worthwhile for the biggest webcasters to continue to broadcast.
These royalty rates have huge consequences for the mobile media market. This is the area everyone was banking on radio making its glorious return to a respected form of media. When high-speed wireless networks become ubiquitous in this country, internet radio had great potential to be a respected source of entertainment, because it was not effected by the limitations and narrow minded tendencies of terrestrial radio.
Yet it appears the RIAA's SoundExchange wants to eliminate any possibility of a strong return of radio by pummeling internet radio with debilitating rates. These rates surpass those of terrestrial radio and satellites radio, causing a huge disconnect and seemingly unfair royalty structure for the internet radio industry.
However there is some good news. As of Tuesday, the CRB has granted the motion for appeals regarding these rates, and will reconsider their decision. Judging by the amount of outrage that has surrounded this announcement, I imagine that some changes will come to fruition. We will just have to wait and see.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Ad's infiltrating a new game
It might be hard to swallow, but its hard to imagine a media in the future that will lack the presence of advertising. This trend can be seen in the infiltration and proliferation of ads in the mobile phone industry becoming a reality. But Google has entered another market. It's no secret that video games has been a burgeoning industry in the past decade, and its seeing some of its most impressive growth recently. So its only a matter of time until in game advertising becomes a norm in the industry an d infiltrates our day to day gaming.
In the past couple days, the speculation about Google purchasing Adscape have become a reality. The specific details of the acquisition have not been revealed but some "estimate it at 23 million." Adscape specializes in in-game advertising and is driven by the mantra, that in-game advertising aids in making games that were otherwise not possible to make. The extra ad revenue that game developers receive from the advertising enables them to make better games apparently.
In-game advertising has been around for a bit. I know in sports games and even in RPG games, i have seen ads before and it hasn't really bothered me. Sadly it brings a sense of realism to the game, giving a more real world feel. I mean if the goal is for games to be as realistic as possible, when was the last time you were driving in car and didn't see a bunch of ads on the side of the road.
To a certain extent, I think in-game advertising is a great thing, as long as its not intrusive to the gaming experience, and does not become the focal point at any time. The advertising has to be ancillary to the gaming experience.
The next generation consoles have created this virtual marketplaces to accompany the gamer's experience, which provides a whole new world for advertisers to make their presence known. Playstation 3 has their recently announced Playstation Home. Its like second life specifically talilored to PS3 users. Gamer's create their own avatars and homes, and interact with other gamers, giving them the opportunity to purchase content, or just find a friend to play a game with. I think this is where advertisers will see the most effective arena for the advertising.
the marriage between gaming systems, the internet, and dynamic advertising creates new possibilities for advertisers to more effectively deliver relevant advertising to a ever expanding universe of gamers. As long as these advertisements remain secondary to the gaming experience and are done in good taste, I can see this as a great new market for advertisers to enter.
In the past couple days, the speculation about Google purchasing Adscape have become a reality. The specific details of the acquisition have not been revealed but some "estimate it at 23 million." Adscape specializes in in-game advertising and is driven by the mantra, that in-game advertising aids in making games that were otherwise not possible to make. The extra ad revenue that game developers receive from the advertising enables them to make better games apparently.
In-game advertising has been around for a bit. I know in sports games and even in RPG games, i have seen ads before and it hasn't really bothered me. Sadly it brings a sense of realism to the game, giving a more real world feel. I mean if the goal is for games to be as realistic as possible, when was the last time you were driving in car and didn't see a bunch of ads on the side of the road.
To a certain extent, I think in-game advertising is a great thing, as long as its not intrusive to the gaming experience, and does not become the focal point at any time. The advertising has to be ancillary to the gaming experience.
The next generation consoles have created this virtual marketplaces to accompany the gamer's experience, which provides a whole new world for advertisers to make their presence known. Playstation 3 has their recently announced Playstation Home. Its like second life specifically talilored to PS3 users. Gamer's create their own avatars and homes, and interact with other gamers, giving them the opportunity to purchase content, or just find a friend to play a game with. I think this is where advertisers will see the most effective arena for the advertising.
the marriage between gaming systems, the internet, and dynamic advertising creates new possibilities for advertisers to more effectively deliver relevant advertising to a ever expanding universe of gamers. As long as these advertisements remain secondary to the gaming experience and are done in good taste, I can see this as a great new market for advertisers to enter.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Mobile Ads...Good or Bad?
Recently I have been reading about mobile network operators tinkering with the possibility for advertising on the mobile device. This would be a very area for mobile network providers to enter because of people's general discontent with advertising and its seemingly inescapable grasp it holds on all forms of media.
An article on CNET News.com reveals that Nokia is planning on rolling out a mobile advertising service that they have developed that will give providers the power to offer personalized and targeted ads at mobile device users.
Now before we all get to bent out of shape about this, lets try to find some good in all of this evil corporate hullabaloo.
Wireless carriers are enduring "heavy losses" in their voice business. The network operators could potentially gain 50% of this ad revenue, which is supposedly going to be an estimated "11 billion dollars" by 2011. That is some serious cash that these networks obviously can't ignore.
The positives this might bring to the consumer is enriched data applications and more mobile media content. This could help fund the emergence of a truly media rich environment on the mobile device. Finally, network operators might put the resources they gain from this ad service to making the mobile media experience more seamless, enjoyable, and rich.
However, this might be too big of a price to pay. I can easily foresee this kind of advertising annoying users as a mobile phone is one of the only sacred places left that we don't necessarily have to endure abrasive, intrusive, and irritating advertisements that we encounter in any of our other media activities.
The only way this could work is if it was discrete, tasteful, and direct user benefits and improvements to mobile media capabilities were a direct effect of this sort of advertising becoming a reality.
An article on CNET News.com reveals that Nokia is planning on rolling out a mobile advertising service that they have developed that will give providers the power to offer personalized and targeted ads at mobile device users.
Now before we all get to bent out of shape about this, lets try to find some good in all of this evil corporate hullabaloo.
Wireless carriers are enduring "heavy losses" in their voice business. The network operators could potentially gain 50% of this ad revenue, which is supposedly going to be an estimated "11 billion dollars" by 2011. That is some serious cash that these networks obviously can't ignore.
The positives this might bring to the consumer is enriched data applications and more mobile media content. This could help fund the emergence of a truly media rich environment on the mobile device. Finally, network operators might put the resources they gain from this ad service to making the mobile media experience more seamless, enjoyable, and rich.
However, this might be too big of a price to pay. I can easily foresee this kind of advertising annoying users as a mobile phone is one of the only sacred places left that we don't necessarily have to endure abrasive, intrusive, and irritating advertisements that we encounter in any of our other media activities.
The only way this could work is if it was discrete, tasteful, and direct user benefits and improvements to mobile media capabilities were a direct effect of this sort of advertising becoming a reality.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Mobile Devices Used for Complimentary Purposes
The role of the mobile device in the future will evolve into something that acts as a gateway for people to experience media in a personalized fashion. These future devices will act as an enabler for a person to gain interactivity from any sort of media that is encountered.
This is where the importance of interoperability between systems comes into place, because no matter how all in one the devices we use in the future become, we will still be using our mobile devices as supplementary machines, mostly because of their limitations in size and input capabilities. For example, I cannot foresee when my mobile device will become the #1 place I like to watch video compared to a big screen TV. In the near future, I believe that the mobile devices will serve as complementary accessories to the larger media items like the TV.
To best illustrate my point I will use broadcast TV as an example for ways mobile devices could enrich our experiences. What if broadcast companies and Cell phone companies developed a way for the cell phones and and broadcast content to connect and provide a more enriching experience along with the program . Users could be suggested information that is related to what they are watching. It could create a level of interactivity into the broadcast format that might bring back some of the younger generation.
This goes beyond just having your laptop or internet enabled phone with you while you watch TV. It would kind of be like a side channel of content and information that would be delivered to a mobile device.
With the diverse amount of media experiences available to consumers today, traditional media portals can reclaim some of their former audiences with an enhancement in interactivity to their experience. I think if content providers and mobile device companies can realize that their respective devices can complement each other rather than just compete with each other, it can create an opportunity for an enriched and more enjoyable media experience.
This is where the importance of interoperability between systems comes into place, because no matter how all in one the devices we use in the future become, we will still be using our mobile devices as supplementary machines, mostly because of their limitations in size and input capabilities. For example, I cannot foresee when my mobile device will become the #1 place I like to watch video compared to a big screen TV. In the near future, I believe that the mobile devices will serve as complementary accessories to the larger media items like the TV.
To best illustrate my point I will use broadcast TV as an example for ways mobile devices could enrich our experiences. What if broadcast companies and Cell phone companies developed a way for the cell phones and and broadcast content to connect and provide a more enriching experience along with the program . Users could be suggested information that is related to what they are watching. It could create a level of interactivity into the broadcast format that might bring back some of the younger generation.
This goes beyond just having your laptop or internet enabled phone with you while you watch TV. It would kind of be like a side channel of content and information that would be delivered to a mobile device.
With the diverse amount of media experiences available to consumers today, traditional media portals can reclaim some of their former audiences with an enhancement in interactivity to their experience. I think if content providers and mobile device companies can realize that their respective devices can complement each other rather than just compete with each other, it can create an opportunity for an enriched and more enjoyable media experience.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The Marriage between input technologies and mobile interfaces
To truly cash in on the mobile media market, cellular network providers and cellphone manufactures need to collaborate more on creating user friendly interfaces in their mobile media applications along with creating complimenting user input technologies.
Navigating content and accessing media on the internet has become second nature to most users, and people are accessing content faster and easier than ever before. With innovations in interfaces and organization of content like that of YouTube, Google, combined with the customizable input technologies built into most internet browsers today, has caused users to have high expectations and little patience regarding how we interact with machines or devices in accessing information. While the combination of the QWERTY keyboard and mouse have produced a input duo that is well suited for accessing information from the internet and on the computer, it is obvious that these traditional input systems will not work for mobile devices like cell phones or portable media players. Here in lies the problem.
The importance of interface and input technologies is epitomized in the evolution and the success of Apple's iPod. The iPod revolutionized the way we access media on a portable media player by combining a unique and intuitive input system with a simple and clutter-less user interface, allowing the user to access content or media will little effort or thought.
The answer for mobile phones for the past couple years have consisted of two forms of input systems, the full QWERTY keyboard, which is obviously infinitely smaller on a mobile device, or just the keypad, which can utilize input systems like predictive text (T9). Both of these systems have their limitations, but these systems have served there purpose for the primary uses of their respective phones.
However, the future of phones holds much more than just text messaging, watered down internet browsing, and phone calls. The mobile phone is increasingly becoming more important to our media consumption. This poses a problem for the previous input technologies because they are not suited to perform the dynamic tasks that the phones and mobile devices of the future will be performing.
An recent example in an innovation of input technology coupled with user interface advances is the iPhone. This phone utilizes dynamic input, meaning the phones input methods and buttons change with respect to the task its performing. This is made possible because there are almost no physical buttons on the device, all but one button is located on the touch screen. By utilizing touch screen technology a phone can better adapt to its task at hand by utilizing the best input system for that task. Combined with the intuitiveness of the multi-touch input system, the iPhone has seemed to zoom ahead of competition in providing a interface and input system that complements and simplifies the process of accessing content and media on a mobile device.
This is a good example of how when cell phone manufactures design the input systems to compliment the applications or uses of the phone. Apple has provided a good start in this area, but for the mobile media market to really take off and for serious monetization of mobile content to become a reality, companies need to devote more resources and efforts to this marriage of input technology and interface. When these two things begin to work harmoniously on mobile devices and it becomes second nature to access content on a mobile device, just as it is accessing the same content on a personal computer, then and only then, will people fully embrace the technology and media and begin to spend money in a widespread fashion.
Navigating content and accessing media on the internet has become second nature to most users, and people are accessing content faster and easier than ever before. With innovations in interfaces and organization of content like that of YouTube, Google, combined with the customizable input technologies built into most internet browsers today, has caused users to have high expectations and little patience regarding how we interact with machines or devices in accessing information. While the combination of the QWERTY keyboard and mouse have produced a input duo that is well suited for accessing information from the internet and on the computer, it is obvious that these traditional input systems will not work for mobile devices like cell phones or portable media players. Here in lies the problem.
The importance of interface and input technologies is epitomized in the evolution and the success of Apple's iPod. The iPod revolutionized the way we access media on a portable media player by combining a unique and intuitive input system with a simple and clutter-less user interface, allowing the user to access content or media will little effort or thought.
The answer for mobile phones for the past couple years have consisted of two forms of input systems, the full QWERTY keyboard, which is obviously infinitely smaller on a mobile device, or just the keypad, which can utilize input systems like predictive text (T9). Both of these systems have their limitations, but these systems have served there purpose for the primary uses of their respective phones.
However, the future of phones holds much more than just text messaging, watered down internet browsing, and phone calls. The mobile phone is increasingly becoming more important to our media consumption. This poses a problem for the previous input technologies because they are not suited to perform the dynamic tasks that the phones and mobile devices of the future will be performing.
An recent example in an innovation of input technology coupled with user interface advances is the iPhone. This phone utilizes dynamic input, meaning the phones input methods and buttons change with respect to the task its performing. This is made possible because there are almost no physical buttons on the device, all but one button is located on the touch screen. By utilizing touch screen technology a phone can better adapt to its task at hand by utilizing the best input system for that task. Combined with the intuitiveness of the multi-touch input system, the iPhone has seemed to zoom ahead of competition in providing a interface and input system that complements and simplifies the process of accessing content and media on a mobile device.
This is a good example of how when cell phone manufactures design the input systems to compliment the applications or uses of the phone. Apple has provided a good start in this area, but for the mobile media market to really take off and for serious monetization of mobile content to become a reality, companies need to devote more resources and efforts to this marriage of input technology and interface. When these two things begin to work harmoniously on mobile devices and it becomes second nature to access content on a mobile device, just as it is accessing the same content on a personal computer, then and only then, will people fully embrace the technology and media and begin to spend money in a widespread fashion.
powered by performancing firefox
Monday, February 26, 2007
Lack of 3G in iPhone a concern
Apple aired a teaser ad during the Oscars tonight to promote the iPhone. Even though the iPhone isn't scheduled for release until June, Apple felt the Oscars might be a good time to stir up some more hype. I am surprised that Al Gore didn't answer one on stage, with all the Apple product placement in his Oscar winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth". Anyways, the advertisement didn't really show off any of the groundbreaking features of the phone, like the full html browser, or the visual voicemail. Which made me think of the one glaring undesirable spec about the iPhone. Its lack of 3G technology.
3G technology refers to the next generation wireless networks the cell phone companies have recently being implementing into their existing services. You might see the ads on TV from various carriers about which has the fastest network. Cingular or AT who has been the butt of the joke in most of these ads, is the proud carrier of the iPhone. The iPhone, instead of having the 3G, like the Samsung Blackjack, will offer only EDGE support initially.
This might hurt iPhone sales initially for a few reasons. First, by the time Apple releases their product in June, Cingular will have even more 3G phones out than they do now, which aside from the other innovations in the phone, makes it almost obsolete. Also, rumors have it that a 3G iPhone will quickly replace the EDGE version by Christmas or early January, which will make consumers hesitant to buy something that will become obsolete so quickly. Finally, without the latest and greatest in cellular technology implemented into the iPhone initially, consumers concerns about the first generation of a phone so groundbreaking and different will only increase and cause for them to wait and buy the 2nd generation of iPhones.
Apple probably knows this and is planning on releasing a replacement very soon after the initial release, but it still makes you wonder why they would release the self proclaimed savior to cell phones with antiquated technology.
3G technology refers to the next generation wireless networks the cell phone companies have recently being implementing into their existing services. You might see the ads on TV from various carriers about which has the fastest network. Cingular or AT who has been the butt of the joke in most of these ads, is the proud carrier of the iPhone. The iPhone, instead of having the 3G, like the Samsung Blackjack, will offer only EDGE support initially.
This might hurt iPhone sales initially for a few reasons. First, by the time Apple releases their product in June, Cingular will have even more 3G phones out than they do now, which aside from the other innovations in the phone, makes it almost obsolete. Also, rumors have it that a 3G iPhone will quickly replace the EDGE version by Christmas or early January, which will make consumers hesitant to buy something that will become obsolete so quickly. Finally, without the latest and greatest in cellular technology implemented into the iPhone initially, consumers concerns about the first generation of a phone so groundbreaking and different will only increase and cause for them to wait and buy the 2nd generation of iPhones.
Apple probably knows this and is planning on releasing a replacement very soon after the initial release, but it still makes you wonder why they would release the self proclaimed savior to cell phones with antiquated technology.
powered by performancing firefox
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Media Indigestion
An important factor to incorporate into future mobile media models is how people digest media. On Mark Cuban's blog today, the media mogul mentioned an analogy that eloquently describes the way in which we digest media on a daily basis. He likened online video and tv as snacks and meals respectively. This sums up perfectly the way I feel about online video content and its relation to TV.
I still flock to the TV to receive a much more enriching experience than that of online video. YouTube is the world's largest snack place, offering multitudes of snacks easily accessible to anyone at anytime. This type of content is great for to casually browse in a few moments of free time during the day, whether at the office or at school. It provides quick, to the point satisfaction with short media clips that are entertaining but generally lack substance. Conversely it is easy to become bored with these "snacks" and crave more general satisfaction. That is where the fulfilling and nutritional meal comes in. TV, or the type of content TV delivers, provides a generally more enriching experience, because the content is not so democratized and still professionally created. User generated content is great for a snack, but people still need substance.
No matter where we are watching or listening to the media we digest, whether it be on a computer, a Portable Media Player, or any other entertainment portal, when examining the mobile market, it is important to note the way people digest media. Offering short summarized videos of last nights sports highlights while I inhale a McGriddle at the local McDonald's seems like a natural fit. Offering the download of discounted TV shows while I wait for my tires to be changed, or while I am waiting for a doctor's appointment also seems reasonable. As we venture into the mobile media market, people will be more receptive to consume more and more media, as long as their media digesting habits are duly noted and paid close attention to. Otherwise it could end up becoming a huge failure because of a lack of adoption and consumption.
I still flock to the TV to receive a much more enriching experience than that of online video. YouTube is the world's largest snack place, offering multitudes of snacks easily accessible to anyone at anytime. This type of content is great for to casually browse in a few moments of free time during the day, whether at the office or at school. It provides quick, to the point satisfaction with short media clips that are entertaining but generally lack substance. Conversely it is easy to become bored with these "snacks" and crave more general satisfaction. That is where the fulfilling and nutritional meal comes in. TV, or the type of content TV delivers, provides a generally more enriching experience, because the content is not so democratized and still professionally created. User generated content is great for a snack, but people still need substance.
No matter where we are watching or listening to the media we digest, whether it be on a computer, a Portable Media Player, or any other entertainment portal, when examining the mobile market, it is important to note the way people digest media. Offering short summarized videos of last nights sports highlights while I inhale a McGriddle at the local McDonald's seems like a natural fit. Offering the download of discounted TV shows while I wait for my tires to be changed, or while I am waiting for a doctor's appointment also seems reasonable. As we venture into the mobile media market, people will be more receptive to consume more and more media, as long as their media digesting habits are duly noted and paid close attention to. Otherwise it could end up becoming a huge failure because of a lack of adoption and consumption.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Cut the Wires
As I mentioned in the previous post, the mobile media marketplace holds great potential for increasing media consumption in every form, including music, video, and broadcast. The technology for a constantly accessible wireless marketplace already exists, but our Portable Media Players (PMP) don't utilize this technology yet.
Wireless technology, with the exception of Microsoft's Zune, has not yet been fully implemented into our PMP. The lack of wireless connectivity in the PMP greatly hinders the opportunity for successful mobile media marketplace. For the sake of this article I will be using Apple's iPod as the example, since it is the leading PMP, and constantly drives change in this area of technology. In the near future it is likely that we will see technologies like Wireless USB and WiFI or WiMAX chips built right into PMP like the iPod. Evidence of these and similar technologies are already showing up in Apple patents related to the iPhone, but because of current DRM restrictions, these wireless technologies will not focus primarily on the sharing of media, but more on the consumption of media in our day to day lives.
In my MUIN 495 class this week, we discussed the possibility of giving consumers to purchase additional media with day to day purchases at places like Starbucks, McDonald's, or any other routinely visited business. For example, in addition to purchasing a latte in the morning, for $0.40 extra, I could purchase a podcast of my favorite morning show, or the highlights of last night's NBA games. These are only examples and as you probably know, the content offerings are infinite. This model seemed like a great idea to me, because people are more willing to spend a little more money when they are already purchasing something.
However, the logistics of people receiving their media without wireless capabilities, greatly inhibits this model from being successful. For the additional money being spent to be justified, the process of ordering and receiving the additional media has to be seamless, painless, and fast. Even though data transfer rates are very high within USB 2.0 and other connections, the plethora of proprietary inputs on PMP's makes it impractical for companies to invest in a certain PMP ecosystem and then alienate another one.
Wireless connectivity could bring the much needed interoperability into the PMP world, and allow for more companies to invest in ways to offer more content to more consumers. This seems like a win-win situation for business and consumers. More on this subject next week.
Wireless technology, with the exception of Microsoft's Zune, has not yet been fully implemented into our PMP. The lack of wireless connectivity in the PMP greatly hinders the opportunity for successful mobile media marketplace. For the sake of this article I will be using Apple's iPod as the example, since it is the leading PMP, and constantly drives change in this area of technology. In the near future it is likely that we will see technologies like Wireless USB and WiFI or WiMAX chips built right into PMP like the iPod. Evidence of these and similar technologies are already showing up in Apple patents related to the iPhone, but because of current DRM restrictions, these wireless technologies will not focus primarily on the sharing of media, but more on the consumption of media in our day to day lives.
In my MUIN 495 class this week, we discussed the possibility of giving consumers to purchase additional media with day to day purchases at places like Starbucks, McDonald's, or any other routinely visited business. For example, in addition to purchasing a latte in the morning, for $0.40 extra, I could purchase a podcast of my favorite morning show, or the highlights of last night's NBA games. These are only examples and as you probably know, the content offerings are infinite. This model seemed like a great idea to me, because people are more willing to spend a little more money when they are already purchasing something.
However, the logistics of people receiving their media without wireless capabilities, greatly inhibits this model from being successful. For the additional money being spent to be justified, the process of ordering and receiving the additional media has to be seamless, painless, and fast. Even though data transfer rates are very high within USB 2.0 and other connections, the plethora of proprietary inputs on PMP's makes it impractical for companies to invest in a certain PMP ecosystem and then alienate another one.
Wireless connectivity could bring the much needed interoperability into the PMP world, and allow for more companies to invest in ways to offer more content to more consumers. This seems like a win-win situation for business and consumers. More on this subject next week.
Monday, February 12, 2007
WiMAX: Media's Mobile Future
Media, as we know it today, has come a long way in terms of mobility and availability, but WiMAX could be the last step for revolutionizing modern media into a completely mobile enterprise. WiMAX is the developing technological standard for wireless broadband Internet over large areas, up to 30 kilometers.
WiMAX holds the potential to create an inescapable marketplace, a network that truly is always accessible, and generation that is undoubtedly “always on.” It is evident through the efforts of the cellular network providers that all types of media are moving into the mobile market. Music has been the leader in the mobile market with portable digital music players, but with WiMAX technology, opportunities exist for music to be mobilized in non-traditional fashions. Instead of a portable digital music player, streaming your entire library of music from your home computer anywhere in the world could become a reality. A car would no longer need a traditional radio, with WiMAX, you could just access the thousands and thousands of internet radio stations.
The constant connectivity would provide multitudes of ways to listen to music. Also, the technology would bring an even greater ability to personalize a users experience. For radio, a users tastes, habits and interests could be analyzed by the radio station to direct the user an optimized station with their musical interests in mind. Playlists could be altered on the spot from information gathered from the current listeners. Marketing and advertisements could be tailored towards the users interests to provide a more pertinent advertising method. With the implementation of WiMAX technology, personalized media portals will dominate the non “on-demand” markets like radio, and provide a more interesting and interactive experience.
This technology could really mean something for radio, but more importantly, it would vastly improve the mobility of media content and be a great boom for the consumption of content.
WiMAX holds the potential to create an inescapable marketplace, a network that truly is always accessible, and generation that is undoubtedly “always on.” It is evident through the efforts of the cellular network providers that all types of media are moving into the mobile market. Music has been the leader in the mobile market with portable digital music players, but with WiMAX technology, opportunities exist for music to be mobilized in non-traditional fashions. Instead of a portable digital music player, streaming your entire library of music from your home computer anywhere in the world could become a reality. A car would no longer need a traditional radio, with WiMAX, you could just access the thousands and thousands of internet radio stations.
The constant connectivity would provide multitudes of ways to listen to music. Also, the technology would bring an even greater ability to personalize a users experience. For radio, a users tastes, habits and interests could be analyzed by the radio station to direct the user an optimized station with their musical interests in mind. Playlists could be altered on the spot from information gathered from the current listeners. Marketing and advertisements could be tailored towards the users interests to provide a more pertinent advertising method. With the implementation of WiMAX technology, personalized media portals will dominate the non “on-demand” markets like radio, and provide a more interesting and interactive experience.
This technology could really mean something for radio, but more importantly, it would vastly improve the mobility of media content and be a great boom for the consumption of content.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Mobility in a DRM Free World
I often wonder what the consequences of abolishing all forms of Digital Rights Management, allowing people to truly have access to all of their media all the time, on any device. Yet, I am always stopped short, knowing that media companies have seen what happened to the music industry and its intellectual property with the proliferation of the Mp3, and that it will take some pretty good convincing to abolish DRM.
I think DRM and its existence essentially has two faces. On one face, I can see the need for DRM to protect intellectual property and ensure that people are motivated to continue to create meaningful content (not 2 minute you tube clips) which might help properly compensate artists. On the other face, DRM hurts the consumer by limiting the uses of media for which they paid good money. Here in lies our dilemma.
Today, Steve Job's posted an article on his thoughts on DRM and the role its playing and should play in the future of music and related medias. Some interesting statistics were mentioned in the article, one of which were that "only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats." This statistic shocked me. Considering all the grumbling you hear about DRM and how terrible it is, it doesn't really seem to be effecting that large of a percentage of the music we are listening to. Which brings me to the other thing Steve said. He mentioned that "DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy." If DRM only exists to halt music piracy, which it isn't even doing, then why do we even have it?
The record companies are weary of doing this because it would most likely take a huge chunk out of their lucrative CD sales. But I believe that people are listening to more music than ever before, and if they could more readily use and access without the barriers DRM poses to their music, it would continue to rise. Why not focus on capitalizing on the fact that because of things like the walkman, iPod, cell phones, and iTunes, music has become more a part of our daily lives than almost other media. Consumers will always pirate music, DRM is not stopping them from doing that now, but why not give honest people the benefit of the doubt and trust them to embrace DRM free music by paying for it.
Without DRM it makes the mobility of music and other media almost endless. We could eventually see people being able to access their content anywhere, anyhow, anytime. I think the record industry could make some money in that model.
I think DRM and its existence essentially has two faces. On one face, I can see the need for DRM to protect intellectual property and ensure that people are motivated to continue to create meaningful content (not 2 minute you tube clips) which might help properly compensate artists. On the other face, DRM hurts the consumer by limiting the uses of media for which they paid good money. Here in lies our dilemma.
Today, Steve Job's posted an article on his thoughts on DRM and the role its playing and should play in the future of music and related medias. Some interesting statistics were mentioned in the article, one of which were that "only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats." This statistic shocked me. Considering all the grumbling you hear about DRM and how terrible it is, it doesn't really seem to be effecting that large of a percentage of the music we are listening to. Which brings me to the other thing Steve said. He mentioned that "DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy." If DRM only exists to halt music piracy, which it isn't even doing, then why do we even have it?
The record companies are weary of doing this because it would most likely take a huge chunk out of their lucrative CD sales. But I believe that people are listening to more music than ever before, and if they could more readily use and access without the barriers DRM poses to their music, it would continue to rise. Why not focus on capitalizing on the fact that because of things like the walkman, iPod, cell phones, and iTunes, music has become more a part of our daily lives than almost other media. Consumers will always pirate music, DRM is not stopping them from doing that now, but why not give honest people the benefit of the doubt and trust them to embrace DRM free music by paying for it.
Without DRM it makes the mobility of music and other media almost endless. We could eventually see people being able to access their content anywhere, anyhow, anytime. I think the record industry could make some money in that model.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Zune Phone
So now that Apple has officially announced its iPhone, its time for Microsoft to respond to Apple's ever growing presence in the mobile media market. Yesterday reports that "Microsoft is working on its very own phone to be branded under the Zune moniker." The Zune phone would most likely be a smart phone and work "homogeneously with the Zune Market Place[...]and be able to sync with the Xbox 360." The phone would not run the Windows Mobile operating system, but instead have an interface similar to that of a Zune.
This new development is not surprising, considering Microsoft's shameless mimicking of the iTunes, iPod interface with its Zune and Zune Marketplace. Microsoft is obviously committed to winning a share of Apple's coveted position in the mobile media market. However the Zune phone, unlike the Zune music player, might actually have some advantages over Apple.
The most glaring advantage for a Zune phone would be its capability to collaborate with the millions of Xbox 360's already sold in the United States. Microsoft already owns a portion of this nation's living room real estate with their video game console. Apple is trying to claim a spot with their Apple TV, but Microsoft has a huge head start.
Microsoft has already been in the mobile phone business for a while, and most of today's smart phones run a version of Windows mobile. While the Zune phone probably won't run a version of Windows Mobile, Microsoft, unlike Apple, has some experience in the mobile phone market, giving them a possible advantage.
Also, the Zune music player already has the ability to share songs with other Zunes, something that the iPod can't do, but the problem with this is that so few people own a Zune. Microsoft has a unique advantage in the mobile phone department with their already heavily present Windows mobile operating system. If they can make the Zune phone capable of sharing songs with Windows Mobile phones, like Cingular's Samsung BlackJack, they could immediately enlarge their network and make that feature something that is actually worthwhile and useful to people immediately out of the box.
Even with the leg up in the living room and the mobile phone market, its tough to foresee Microsoft creating something more desirable than the iPhone. Microsoft has always fumbled in the design department, which is something mobile phone users obviously care about. The success of phones like Motorola Razr were completely dependent upon their design. They will have to duplicate Apple's proven success in creating a striking design, and seamless connection between the phone, computer, and the media stored on the computer to even have a shot at the title.
This new development is not surprising, considering Microsoft's shameless mimicking of the iTunes, iPod interface with its Zune and Zune Marketplace. Microsoft is obviously committed to winning a share of Apple's coveted position in the mobile media market. However the Zune phone, unlike the Zune music player, might actually have some advantages over Apple.
The most glaring advantage for a Zune phone would be its capability to collaborate with the millions of Xbox 360's already sold in the United States. Microsoft already owns a portion of this nation's living room real estate with their video game console. Apple is trying to claim a spot with their Apple TV, but Microsoft has a huge head start.
Microsoft has already been in the mobile phone business for a while, and most of today's smart phones run a version of Windows mobile. While the Zune phone probably won't run a version of Windows Mobile, Microsoft, unlike Apple, has some experience in the mobile phone market, giving them a possible advantage.
Also, the Zune music player already has the ability to share songs with other Zunes, something that the iPod can't do, but the problem with this is that so few people own a Zune. Microsoft has a unique advantage in the mobile phone department with their already heavily present Windows mobile operating system. If they can make the Zune phone capable of sharing songs with Windows Mobile phones, like Cingular's Samsung BlackJack, they could immediately enlarge their network and make that feature something that is actually worthwhile and useful to people immediately out of the box.
Even with the leg up in the living room and the mobile phone market, its tough to foresee Microsoft creating something more desirable than the iPhone. Microsoft has always fumbled in the design department, which is something mobile phone users obviously care about. The success of phones like Motorola Razr were completely dependent upon their design. They will have to duplicate Apple's proven success in creating a striking design, and seamless connection between the phone, computer, and the media stored on the computer to even have a shot at the title.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
