backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 44 comment(s) - last by emboss.. on Sep 23 at 11:02 PM

Music publishers make a play for new physical music format

For most of recorded music's life, delivery was tied to a physical medium of some sort. Physical formats included the vinyl record, cassette tape and the CD many of us still use today. With the advent of the digital age and digital music, the physical medium for music is a dying breed.

The lack of interest in physical media for music has led to sharp declines in profits for music publishers. Most every music publisher sells digital tracks today, but the profit margins on digital music are much slimmer than what music companies see on CDs and other physical mediums.

Today, some of the largest music publishers in the world announced that they are backing a new physical music format that they hope music lovers in the digital age will embrace. The format is called slotMusic and is nothing more than MP3 tracks stored on a microSD card. Many mobile audio devices from MP3 players to mobile phones can use the microSD format.

The format will allow users to purchase digital tracks without needing to have access to a PC or internet connection. To hear the music on the slotMusic cards would require no software or passwords, the tracks are DRM-free as well. Tracks would reportedly be encoded at up to 320 kbps in MP3 format.

"slotMusic offers consumers an immediate, tangible, and high quality alternative to CDs and digital delivery," said Danielle Levitas, vice president, Consumer, Broadband & New Media, IDC. "This year, more than 1.2 billion mobile phones will ship globally, outstripping portable media players by nearly an order of magnitude - and this trend is accelerating."

One significant detail that the backers of the new physical format have yet to announce is the price of slotMusic cards. The card themselves are nothing more than standard 1GB microSD cards. If music publishers try and sell them at a premium simply for the microSD card the format will have a tough road ahead.

Another big potential problem for the new format is that the top music player on the planet -- Apple's iPod -- lacks support for microSD. The iPod alone accounts for nearly 60% of all music players on the market. Another huge potential issue for the slotMusic format backers is that programs like the Nokia Comes with Music plan are starting to gain momentum.

With music fans being able to buy a phone and get all of the music they want free for a full year -- from the same publishers that are backing the slotMusic format -- the future doesn't seem very bright for slotMusic. Sony Ericsson is also going to offer music phones with unlimited music downloads.

On top of portable devices with free music, the fact that the iPod doesn’t support microSD coupled with the fact that the iTunes store is the largest music retailer around, overall slowing sales of music is another factor to contend with.

Music based video games like Guitar Hero and Rock Band are fast becoming one of the preferred music buying formats. A perfect example is Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, the game massively outsold the latest Aerosmith album. Even established bands with significant followings like Metallica are realizing that playable tracks for music-based games are potentially one of the best formats for music distribution available today. Many credit the renewed popularity of Metallica to Guitar Hero and Rock Band. If the slotMusic format isn’t doomed from the start, it certainly has some major hurdles to overcome.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Or....
By quiksilvr on 9/22/2008 12:32:58 PM , Rating: 5
Just accept the fact that physical media for music is dead and make DRM free mp3's the standard at high bit rates and low prices. Otherwise expect piracy to continue.




RE: Or....
By theplaidfad on 9/22/2008 12:39:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Just accept the fact that physical media for music is dead


I guarantee you that if I were to poll the 100+ people I work with, that 80% of them buy CD's. On the other hand, if I worked with a bunch of geeks and nerds, it would probably be 80% the other way.

I do not disagree that physical media should be dead, just thought I would point out that it is indeed not dead.


RE: Or....
By Staples on 9/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Or....
By hellokeith on 9/22/2008 5:25:20 PM , Rating: 1
Staples,

Wish I could give you a 5. Pirates are pirates regardless of the market. They claim free speech, privacy, and all other kinds of wacky unrelated things in order to support their illegal/immoral/unethical practices (of which they are well aware of their wrongdoing).

Also, you will always see them posting negative comments about progress in the area of legal-and-paid-for digital media distribution, because they know it becomes more and more likely they will be discovered, sued, fined, and possibly jailed under valid laws they know they are breaking.


RE: Or....
By Ryanman on 9/23/2008 12:33:08 AM , Rating: 2
ah, too bad you're wrong. I pirate certain amounts of music for a couple reasons
1. One hit wonders (or any rap song) - why pay 15 bucks for a single track? not me. Sorry dude, that's a total rip.
2. DRM - had a blast this weekend spending six hours trying to dig up working torrents for myfairplay after one of my clients lost his ipod and had 12,000 ACC files on his backup hard drive. Thanks apple, you guys are a bunch of asshats. I hate your hardware, I hate your software, I hate your arrogance, and I can't stand your music service.
3. Artists - I'm tired of everyone sitting in multimillion dollar houses whining about piracy. "but wait ryan, what about the poor workers are record studios?!?". Get a grip. We all know they still get full salary.

Does this mean I pirate everything? Absolutely not. I got a couple great Anberlin songs recently - around 9 to be exact. Realized that supporting a decent band wouldn't hurt me and I'd get higher quality music. To date I've bought 10+ albums after being a pirate. Maybe I just want to give my money to people who deserve it.


RE: Or....
By wvh on 9/22/2008 6:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
I would buy more CDs if they were cheaper. Especially if they'd be directly from the artist. I just can't stomach paying more for 3 CDs than for a CD player. I have to listen to a lot of music just to find something I like.

It's not uncommon for a CD here to be priced around 20 euros (about 29.5 dollars). To me, that's just too expensive for the few times I listen to it – I would never have found all the great underground bands I enjoy if I would have had to buy all the crappy music I've listened to on the way. And the radio is no help, thanks to those very same record labels pushing bland non-music. The music industry itself is failing in delivering the music the listener wants or might want.

This whole industry needs to reinvent itself pretty urgently (add my voice to the choir)... and this is not it.


RE: Or....
By Spivonious on 9/22/2008 12:50:59 PM , Rating: 4
Why would I trade uncompressed digital audio in a convenient package for compressed mp3s? Plus, I like having something physical. Heck, I'd prefer vinyl but it's impossible to find these days. Once you've heard vinyl on a good tube stereo system, everything else just sounds plastic.

And did you just say that $1 per song is expensive? You need to get a better job.

If record companies really want customers back in the stores, then they need to make CDs $10 or less. Every time I go into the record store I see a few albums that I'm interested in but know nothing about. I'm not shelling out $15-$20 for something that might be total crap. I have, however, impulse-bought $10 CDs many times.


RE: Or....
By amanojaku on 9/22/2008 2:03:02 PM , Rating: 2
I like the idea of getting individual tracks since most CDs aren't worth the polycarbonate and aluminum they're printed on. $1 per song is a fair price, too, although some songs (e.g. like Beethoven's 6th Symphony) can be an album all by themselves.

There's nothing wrong with compressed audio; the problem is lossy audio vs. lossless. You can get a lossless compressed track. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless#Audio But, yeah, vinyl is nice. I want to try out one of the laser turntables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_turntable


RE: Or....
By Hare on 9/23/2008 12:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
There's nothing wrong with lossy compression. People always complain about MP3 saunding bad but in an ABX-test people can't differentiate a CD from a well encoded MP3 (decent encoder and bitrate >256 vbr). I'm an audiophile and have a few grand stereo set but at least I'm able to admit that MP3 and AAC tracks sounds great. It's just that most people listen to 128kbps radio rips or use their motherboards analog output.


RE: Or....
By quiksilvr on 9/22/2008 6:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, $1 a song is too expensive for a 128 kbps mp3. $1 for a 320 kbps mp3 (a quality that is near indistinguishable to CD except maybe at high midranges) that comes with CD front/back cover art and official lyrics is a much better idea. Frankly I think 128 kbps is disgusting and it should at least be 192 to make it remotely good.

Besides, the world isn't made up of Amazon and iTunes. There are many sites that let's you download mp3s for a $0.25 (granted its 128 kbps and at rare occasions higher bit rates but you get what you pay for; can't say the same for Amazon and iTunes).

If you are a collector and/or like something physical I'm not going to bog you down for it. All I'm saying is that the music industry needs to start making the transition to high quality mp3s at reasonable prices otherwise piracy will continue. And who knows? Maybe they will eventually have 640 kbps mp3s that will outclass CDs and even compete with vinyl LP (I know that Vinyl LPs are amazing when ideal but are much harder to keep in mint condition than digital data).


RE: Or....
By Spivonious on 9/23/2008 10:02:47 AM , Rating: 2
If you had a decent stereo system you would easily be able to tell the difference between any bitrate mp3 and the CD.


RE: Or....
By Hare on 9/23/2008 12:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
Complete and utter BS. Plug your computer to an external DAC and do the same thing with your CD player. If you can tell an MP3 (320kbps vbr) from a CD original in an ABX test you have better ears than 99.99% of people.

Btw. I have a decent stereo system and have been a hi-fi enthusiast for quite some time.


RE: Or....
By Xerstead on 9/23/2008 3:00:13 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree with the 'easily' in your statement. But as most people do not have a high-end music system it's not such a big issue.
Most people downloading will be listening to the tracks from their PC, walkman or car. None of these compete in sound quality with a good home stereo. Functionality and ease of use is more important. Providing the sound quality is 'good enough' the majority will not complain and will pay for it.
I do see the need for higher bit-rate files for those, including myself, who have a higher expectation of what constitutes 'good enough'.
Playing mp3s from my PC sounds the same as playing the CD from my PC. This is not quite as good as playing the original CD through my stereo but it still sounds much better than any of the any of small-mid sized, and most full sized, stereos I've listened to. (Auzentech X-fi Prelude via digital coax to my home cinema kit.)
I do also like having somthing physical for my money, but the stack of plastic discs in the corner of my room is too big already. The flexability of playlists without having to change disc every time wins the argument for me. Back-up is easy as 1 DVD takes up less space than 100 CDs.


RE: Or....
By comc49 on 9/23/2008 1:41:46 AM , Rating: 1
cd have better quality then vinyl and for me i dl 10-15 new songs a day so $1 per song is too much for me


RE: Or....
By Spivonious on 9/23/2008 10:01:24 AM , Rating: 2
Your opinion doesn't count because you steal the songs anyway.


RE: Or....
By DASQ on 9/22/2008 2:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree, I do like having the box with the pictures and whatnot. Just to line my shelves.

Of course I'd rip the CD the first time I used it, and it would then be back in the box for the rest of eternity.


yet another MP3 market
By crleap on 9/22/2008 2:45:33 PM , Rating: 4
I. Refuse. To. Ever. Pay. For. Compressed. Audio.

EVER.




RE: yet another MP3 market
By AnnihilatorX on 9/22/2008 3:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The only benefit CD has over online distribution is the loseless quality benefit, and album bundles.

You invent a physical format without those, you are doomed.


RE: yet another MP3 market
By emboss on 9/23/2008 11:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get the hate for lossy compression. It lets you use the space that is otherwise basically wasted for something useful.

For example, CDs are 44100 samples/sec, 16-bit, stereo. That's 1411 kbps. I'd much rather be using that huge bitrate for higher-quality audio that's been compressed. You could easily do 96 Ks/sec 24-bit audio, or 5.1 surround (~235 kbps/sec per channel is heaps; for a reference point the 5.1 audio on DVDs is usually ~75 kbps/channel) in that. Either one would sound better than straight CD audio. The only thing going for PCM is that it's easy to build a physical player.


RE: yet another MP3 market
By achintya on 9/23/2008 3:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm.. What if the same compressed audio comes in a lossless format? Maybe even a higher quality than offered by a CD? 5.1 surround perhaps?


RE: yet another MP3 market
By UNHchabo on 9/23/2008 5:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
My biggest problem with MP3s is that I listen to a ton of music that has no gaps between tracks. Prog rock, live albums, etc. MP3s don't handle this well, because of the way the format was defined. I rip to FLAC, then convert to Ogg to put on my Rockbox'd Sansa.

http://www.rockbox.org/

Shameless plug - I started an open-source project to handle the conversion from FLAC to Ogg (it also can convert to MP3); check it out:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/flacsquisher


Why use mp3s
By phatboye on 9/22/2008 12:51:07 PM , Rating: 5
If they are going to be using 1GB SD cards why not use a lossless audio format, or better yet how about save both formats to a SD card. I'm not too familiar with lossless formats but shouldn't 1GB be enough to hold 15 lossless audio tracks + the mp3 versions?




RE: Why use mp3s
By the goat on 9/22/2008 1:10:29 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If they are going to be using 1GB SD cards why not use a lossless audio format, or better yet how about save both formats to a SD card. I'm not too familiar with lossless formats but shouldn't 1GB be enough to hold 15 lossless audio tracks + the mp3 versions?


I wholly agree. With a 1GB card as standard they can include lossless compresses audio at better then CD quality without breaking a sweat. Even "extra long" CD's holds less then 800MB of uncompressed PCM stereo audio.

If this new format truly just stores compressed mp3s on flash cards there is no reason to switch from standard CD's.

This new physical format should use EPROM memory not flash memory to store lossless compressed HD audio at a reasonable price with no DRM. That would be very attractive to the market.


RE: Why use mp3s
By achintya on 9/23/2008 3:55:08 PM , Rating: 2
A simple back of the hand calculation reveals that a normal CD is 700MB and a 320kbps rip of the same will be a maximum of 200MB. This is enough to fit on a 1 GB card with room to spare. Even if we take those special extra-long CD's storing 800MB the entire data fits neatly in 1GB.

With lossless compression this can be easily reduced to near about 2/3 of the original size.

And if we consider just the high fidelity MP3's, then a 256MB card is enough to fit all the data along with digital images of the cover art, lyrics etc. Why spend more?
If the album consists of 2 discs then a bigger card (ie 512MB) can be used. Still a bit cheaper than a 1GB card.


By AnnihilatorX on 9/22/2008 2:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
Physical media album bundle like this is doomed to fail.
Online music sales mean that you have flexibility to cherry pick the hit songs you want to get, and ignore all mediocre ones.

Gone are the days you can charge 10 bucks for a CD of 12 tracks with only say 2 good ones. Now you can buy just 2 for 2 bucks, which is quite sad to the music industry really. They should not have permitted single track sales in the first place, or charge much higher. Now the public has accepted 99 cents for a single song, it would be hard going back




By strikeback03 on 9/22/2008 3:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They should not have permitted single track sales in the first place, or charge much higher.


No, what they need is for their artists to produce more good music. The public certainly isn't going back to paying for music they don't want - either they will pay for the portion they do, or just steal all of it.

My biggest problem with digital downloads is that the preview capability is poor. I listen to a lot of trance and there can be several remixes of the same song. But if the 30-second preview doesn't happen to cover a different portion, who knows if it is the right mix.

The only reason I would consider buying one of these cards is if I were traveling without a computer and just HAD to have a song immediately. Otherwise why would I want to be switching cards around for only one album worth of songs.


By AnnihilatorX on 9/22/2008 5:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is though making every songs good is impossible without reducing quantity produced. Artists can either make fewer, higher quality songs, or stick to current system of few hits, and bunch other less interesting ones.

Most good songs become hits which gets played on air by radios so preview isn't a problem for most.


By nofranchise on 9/23/2008 4:10:15 AM , Rating: 2
You know - musicians don't work like factory workers...

quote:
Most good songs become hits which gets played on air by radios so preview isn't a problem for most.


Hahaah - no. Most good songs certainly do not get played on the radio. Mainstream crap gets played on the radio.

Artists need to change their focus back to live performances. That's where they are going to make their money. As a bonus it will be much easier for them to control their income.

The 99 cents a track deal is destroying the album. If you dl one song and do not immediately like it, you won't dl the rest of the songs from that album. But everybody who listens to music with half a brain, knows that often an album takes some listening to before it becomes brilliant - or crappy. Some albums never get old - others are nauseating in mere hours.


By TheDoc9 on 9/22/2008 6:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
Charging more wouldn't change anything. The problem is the shady nature of the industry itself.

-People cherry pick songs because they've been brainwashed to them on the clear channel radio stations.

-CD's don't sell anymore for this reason. Often there are actually many good tracks on a CD, but advertising only one song in combination of the availability of instantly downloading it has changed the nature of the market so much that CD's have all but lost their place.

-The market has become extremely competitive. So much so that few contracts are ever awarded anymore. In fact most artist can only make a living as song writers too, and they do this as employees of large record companies - Giving up the rights to the tracks they write for a yearly salary.

The $.99 MP3's actually have an incredible markup for something that has no manufacturing or materials costs, and is available in unlimited quantities instantly - it's a dream product. The problem is that the music industry has always had too many middle men and this is what's killing their single track mp3 profits.


Stupid waste of time and money
By fibreoptik on 9/22/2008 12:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
This thing is dead before launch.

Epic fail.




RE: Stupid waste of time and money
By wayout41 on 9/22/2008 1:28:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yup no question. Internet music shops have been proven with itunes and the ipod. I just don't understand why recording companys fail to see it. If they are worried about profit club together and start their own shop so none of the profits are going to itunes.


RE: Stupid waste of time and money
By austinag on 9/23/2008 1:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
5 years ago, good idea. Today, FAIL.


physical formats aren't dead
By bdjohnson on 9/22/2008 2:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think physical formats are still very useful, provided that they give some additional functionality over a digital file. This slotmusic format obviously doesn't. I am a DJ and I still buy vinyl records regularly because I can physically manipulate them in a way not possible with CDs or mp3 files (without expensive equipment anyway). Plus loads of older music on vinyl is cheaper than cd or download.

Vinyl might outlast CDs because wax still has a niche that can't be fully replaced with digital formats.




RE: physical formats aren't dead
By andrinoaa on 9/22/2008 5:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
The record companies have killed the golden goose. Why on earth am I going to pay $30 for a beatles cd, let alone a new artist? When I know perfectly well how much a cd blank costs. They have gauged out from the mug punter long enough. Forget a new format, charge a realistic price for a cd and we will come back!


By SkeeterLDR2004 on 9/22/2008 7:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
Physical formats are still around only because the major labels are working hard to keep them around. The Sony BMGs and EMIs of the world know that electronic downloads will be their death ultimately. The only reason for major labels existence was that it was difficult to market yourself as an artist back in the day. The internet has negated the need for economies of scale in the music industry and soon all artists will be their own "label". The record labels are just trying to fight the inevitable with the introduction of a useless format.


By foolsgambit11 on 9/22/2008 12:34:34 PM , Rating: 3
It is.

One of the major advantages of digital media is the fact that you can get it nearly instantly, in your underwear. Most people in the developed world these days have access to an internet connection. I doubt enough people will opt to go to a store to buy a new album as long as the option exists to buy it at home. The overhead for internet delivery is much lower than brick-and-mortar, to such an extent that a B&M store just won't be able to compete with online distributors.

Maybe if they did kiosks, internet connected, it could work. But they better allow people to just buy the music to put onto their own microSD cards, or slotMusic cards they've previously bought and downloaded the content to their own computer or mp3 player (assuming it truly is DRM free). In other words, they better sell just the tracks, a la carte.

In other words, there's no competitive advantage to this business practice, so barring collusion between all the major vendors to prevent online sales, it's doomed from the start.




By chmilz on 9/22/2008 7:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In other words, they better sell just the tracks, a la carte.


Nailed it. Physical media with MP3 tracks can't possibly compete with digital distribution where you get the same thing easily and immediately. Either differentiate the product by offering lossless, 5.1, official music videos, lyrics, vocal removal for karaoke, etc., or let go of the past.


Half the story
By Motoman on 9/22/2008 10:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
The new popularity of .mp3s as the purchased medium is only half the story.

I personally have, I don't know, maybe 400 CDs at home. Only a handful are less than 5 years old. The reason being that I started seeing DRM on new CDs - couldn't easily rip them to .mp3.

So I stopped buying music, period. I don't pirate anything. I don't download illegally ripped music off teh intarweb. I just...stopped.

The reason, 100%, is because of DRM on my paid-for disks. the music industry started treating me like a pirate, so I stopped treating them like someone I wanted to do business with.

If you want me to start buying music again (I want the CD - no pure electronic for me), make DRM illegal. Then I'll start buying again. As long as there's any chance that a new CD might be DRM-laden, I'm not buying anything.




RE: Half the story
By Motoman on 9/22/2008 10:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, sorry - it also bothers me how expensive CDs have gotten, and how little of that price gets to the artist.


No way!
By jackedupandgoodtogo on 9/22/2008 12:51:55 PM , Rating: 1
There's no way I would ever buy pre-loaded microSD's for physical music. First, they're way too easy to lose, if you have a bunch of them (they're tiny! Imagine dropping one in your car seat). Two, I'd much rather use CD's than try to fumble with inserting a microSD into my car stereo or usb reader. Lastly, there's no need for this. If the music industry just wants higher margins, they need to figure out a way to sell it online. Nothing better for margins than paying only the cost of creating the content and distribution. I suspect the reason why they're still clinging to the physical media is because they're looking at the repurchase market: the people who lose or destroy their first copy. That would create a much higher margin, since if it's downloaded, it could technically never get destroyed or lost.




RE: No way!
By Woobagong on 9/23/2008 3:12:27 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I see a major problem with acceptance. I still prefer the poly carbonate discs (sturdy, waterproof, small and light, low price, lots of players). They are just too good to be dropped. Why change a running system? I see no advantages but rather a bunch of killercriteria disadvantages.

Online proof of purchase and a perpetual download right for it, that's the way to go. This would even give the possibility to provide upgrade's for older content.

It's a dagger in the back for all cd/dvd vendors, I realize that. So the service could be provided by them? Hm, difficult.

Never change a running system. ^^


It is a stupid idea
By PAPutzback on 9/22/2008 12:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
Unless the plan is to stick it in a pc and copy it over to their library. No one wants to swap discs, flash or anything else any more. Just load up the player with all their music.




Uh oh!
By DonkeyRhubarb on 9/23/2008 3:55:22 AM , Rating: 2
If it's easy enough to lose a CD, imaging how often these things would get lost...




FAIL!
By pro5 on 9/23/2008 9:49:55 AM , Rating: 2
"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki