PDA

View Full Version : The iPod is the best player for digital music. And satellite...


MacBytes
May 27, 2005, 09:37 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: The iPod is the best player for digital music. And satellite radio kicks butt in terms of content. Put the two together and what do you get? A music revolution. (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050527103757)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

munkle
May 27, 2005, 10:12 AM
Note to journalists/marketing people: please stop using the term 'revolution' for everything!!! A new feature does not a revolution make!


Radio content just doesn't interest me that much. It's never going to be able to compete with the music I already have on my Pod and for spoken content, the idea of podcasting is a lot more intriguing. From the way the author talks it does sound very similar to podcasting, allowing you to download the content onto your pod but surely that would bring up a whole slew of copyright/DRM issues. And please excuse my ignorance, but just how universal would a SatPod (oooh, see what I did there! :p) be? Would it work all over the world, or just in America?

GregUofMN
May 27, 2005, 10:14 AM
Why the hell would anybody pay for radio? I live in Minneapolis and I only listen to a couple local stations anyway, much less have a need for stations all across the country. Most of the music that I want to listen to is already on my iPod. Think about it, does anybody know of someone that consistantly uses the Radio section of iTunes? Probably not.

Remember that Jobs is dead on by saying that people want to own their music not rent it (like services Napster, Real, etc). This directly applies to satalite radio because it would, in essence, be another variation of the "renting" music philosophy. People want to play a particular song or CD over and over and have control over when they want to listen to it, not every blue moon. This is probably why the new iPod Shuffles have both repeat playlist and shuffle options.

I look at it this way:
iPod - $400 - $500
iPod accessories - $100 minimum
average iTunes Store downloads - $50 - $100 annually, (I'd assume)
XM/Sirius subscription - worthless additional charge.

I might be "cool" to have this feature on your iPod, but it's unnessisary for the majority.

mainstreetmark
May 27, 2005, 11:49 AM
Remember that Jobs is dead on by saying that people want to own their music not rent it (like services Napster, Real, etc). This directly applies to satalite radio because it would, in essence, be another variation of the "renting" music philosophy. People want to play a particular song or CD over and over and have control over when they want to listen to it, not every blue moon. This is probably why the new iPod Shuffles have both repeat playlist and shuffle options.


Is he?

Napster, and it's brethren, and Siruis and it's brethren, are to date, mild commercial successes, and have done so in the face of overwhelming iPod=Cool mentality in the media and on the streets. They may all go under, but, they may (and quite likely) thrive on for quite a while. Napster has a constant revenue stream, where as iTMS depends on thousands of people whimsically downloading a track when they feel like it.

You may also find that one day, you've listened to all your songs and all your CD's and have nothing new to listen to. In my 5 years of commercial radio exile, I've found that this is exactly the situation I'm now in -- I don't live in a town with lots of good underground rock&roll clubs, so I don't get any new music, and the only tolerable radio station is NPR.

I don't want to purchase every song I ever want to hear.

I would love to be able to listen to a genre'd, non-commercially moderated, "radio station" and expose myself to the newer groups out there.

I would especially love for iTMS to have a Live365 type service, where you're basically tuned in to someone's homebrewed station (not that stupid iMix crap), and when a song comes on that you like, you click "Buy Song" and you got it (or, if you're on the iPod with the magical satrad stream, just 'tag' the song for future downloading while sync'd).

But please, MacRumors faithful, and Followers of Jobs, HE is not always right. There are people who, in fact, DO wish to "rent" music - either in the form of a mp3 player with a constantly evolving mix of music, or a (again, non-commercial) radio station.

(there are folks who like to listen to the commercial radio stations, but they're probably stuck in traffic. How many American's have a station called "The Point" or "Cool FM" in their town?)

MondayNgt
May 27, 2005, 12:50 PM
> Why the hell would anybody pay for radio?

For the same reason that anyone would want to pay for television ;)

nagromme
May 27, 2005, 02:51 PM
Guess I'm lucky. I have 3 or 4 good commercial-free public radio stations. Two of them play contemporary music nearly 24/7--and not the same repetitions as the commercial stations. Alternative stuff, or mainstream stuff with the OTHER songs from the album, etc.

skid_mark
May 27, 2005, 03:16 PM
People pay for digital radio over digital cable and satilite .. the one we have in canada is quite good www.galaxie.ca

jobberwacky
May 27, 2005, 03:38 PM
A US-only gadget. Satellite radio seems an almost exclusively US fad. So either Apple has to make a US-only model of its iPod and thus complicate logistics and marketing, or everyone in the world has to pay extra for an unusable feature.

I doubt Apple is going this way. They are, after all, a global player.

Phobophobia
May 27, 2005, 04:31 PM
This isn't going to happen. Podcasting combined with the iTMS could easily overtake satellite radio.

Chaszmyr
May 27, 2005, 04:42 PM
> Why the hell would anybody pay for radio?

For the same reason that anyone would want to pay for television ;)

Perfectly stated. For music lovers, I can easily imagine people considering paying for satellite radio. However, I think that Americans overwhelmingly like TV better than radio.

GregUofMN
May 27, 2005, 06:51 PM
> Why the hell would anybody pay for radio?

For the same reason that anyone would want to pay for television ;)


Don't you know that video killed the radio star?!? :D

I think the general public would agree that there is a difference from public or free TV which gets you about 6 partially viewable channels (PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, UPN, Univision... hehe) versus paying for upwards of 500 clear and vastly different cable channels.

Maybe I'm "blessed" living in a town that has a multiple variety of radio stations. If I lived in the middle of nowhere (please don't take offense to that) and had only a handful of country or religious stations to listen to, I would probably subscribe to a service.

However, point taken. Gracias.

GregUofMN
May 27, 2005, 06:55 PM
Is he?

But please, MacRumors faithful, and Followers of Jobs, HE is not always right. There are people who, in fact, DO wish to "rent" music - either in the form of a mp3 player with a constantly evolving mix of music, or a (again, non-commercial) radio station.


I can't possibly think that he is always right if his company continues to make computer monitors that are 3000 freakin' dollars! That's just crazy.

PS: "The Point" or "Cool FM"??? DAMN THAT CLEAR CHANNEL!!! :D

Qunchuy
May 28, 2005, 05:04 PM
Why the hell would anybody pay for radio?...
I pay for an XM subscription because I like being able to choose among '70s songs and Broadway showtunes and "old time classics" and comedy and headline news and sappy love songs and etc., all while I'm driving across country. Especially in the middle of Tennessee or Nebraska, those are not typically easy to find on the free airwaves.

If I wanted to listen to specific songs, I'd definitely buy the CD or an iTMS track. But for "genre" programming, a satellite radio subscription works fine for me.