When You Can Hold Every Song Ever Recorded In Your Pocket... Does $1/Song Still Make Sense?

from the think-it-forward dept

Martin Thornkvist, who runs a (very cool) indie record label in Sweden that believes in treating fans right, has written up an opinion piece where he tries to envision the role of the record label in five years. The opening is certainly right in line with my feelings of optimism for the music industry:

When it comes to the future of music I've always consider myself an optimist.

For one I'm certain that musicians and music fans have a prosperous future ahead of them. That's because music is the single most important ingredient in the music business soup and music is of course a result of artists' creative minds. And it's when musicians interact with listeners that a window for business is opening. Not before, and not just because some A&R person, marketeer or CEO open their wallet. That the relationship between musicians and fans is the foundation to the business is the single most important piece of knowledge that we all have to submissively recognize. This is the key to the future for the middle men we call record labels – we have to encourage the interaction and realize that it will live without us.

We as middle men have to remember that we always need to convince our customers (musicians and fans) why they should engage with us. Music on plastic discs or plain mp3s just ain't enough anymore. Competition is hard and consumers don't take bullshit anymore. If they love something you don't offer, they'll go create it themselves.

The whole thing is worth reading, but the final paragraph makes a really important point that we've discussed in the past, but which often gets forgotten in trying to understand trendlines and the music business. It's that storage is growing ever bigger and ever cheaper at an incredibly rapid pace -- and as such it won't be all that long until you can carry every song ever recorded on a device in your pocket:

In five years a hard drive available to ordinary consumers will carry 35 TB of data. Data = music. 35 TB = 2.5 million songs. Watch this development closely. It's easy to get blinded by Spotify, but imagine when file sharing on the street means transferring the entire music history. At least it is a wild card. Anyhow it seems that we will have to work on better ways of charging for music than 1 dollar a song. Don't you think?

Indeed. When you can carry every song ever... do people really think that $1/song is going to make sense?

145 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Storage Isn't Much Of An Issue Anymore

from the is-that-the-library-of-congress-in-your-pocket-or... dept

The trade group behind the SD memory card format today announced a new standard, called SDXC, that will support memory cards of up to 2 terabytes for devices like digital cameras and cell phones. While the amount of storage that can be crammed into smaller and smaller physical formats continues to grow, the idea of being able to carry around 2 terabytes of data in a device like a smartphone still seems pretty amazing. Combined with the growth of broadband networks, particularly wireless ones, are we nearing a point where the accessibility of data will no longer be a concern? Between being able to easily carry around most, if not all, of your data and always-on broadband networks making the rest of it constantly accessible, the point at which we can easily access any of our information from any location looks to be just over the horizon. That's not to say that plenty of obstacles remain, including our ever-growing demand for more and more storage space, and the need for more pervasive (and less restrictive) wireless broadband networks, but those obstacles are becoming less and less formidable all the time.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Browser Is The New Operating System

from the local-storage dept

A couple of weeks ago TechCrunch had a good write-up of the move toward open local storage APIs in web browsers. As websites have come to look more and more like applications rather than static pages, they've begun to bump up against the limits of what today's web browsers can do. Developers have responded by using a variety of proprietary plug-ins and workarounds to expand the browser's functionality. One example of this is local storage. There aren't a lot of good options for applications that want to store significant amounts of data client-side in a way that will continue to be available if the Internet connection goes away. Google has Google Gears, while Adobe has Flash. Each offers local storage, but neither is compatible with the other, nor are their APIs likely to be adopted by other browser vendors in the future.

Luckily, as part of the HTML 5 effort, it looks like the major browser vendors are moving toward a set of open APIs for local storage that will (theoretically, at least) enable developers to write an application targeting this functionality and have it work on any modern browser. It appears that the latest versions of Firefox largely already support the API, and support has been added to recent builds of WebKit, the foundation of Apple's Safari browser. The big laggard is Internet Explorer, which has some but not all of the functionality. But even IE users have the option of installing Google Gears, which has promised to add HTML 5-compliant local storage APIs. The broad support of these APIs by other browsers, along with the fear of giving the edge to its arch-rival Google, will put a lot of pressure on Microsoft to jump on the bandwagon.

What's really interesting about this is that browsers are starting to resemble operating systems in their own right. One of the most fundamental features of operating systems is to provide a consistent interface for data storage. OS developers call it a file system, rather than "local storage," but the concept is the same. And as websites come to increasingly resemble full-blown operating systems, I think browser vendors are increasingly going to have to solve the same kinds of problems that operating system vendors do.

For example, it has become increasingly common for my browser to slow to a crawl because one poorly-written, JavaScript-heavy website is sucking up all the CPU. Just as operating systems have preemptive multitasking to prevent one application from bringing the whole system to a crawl, browsers should have mechanisms to prevent one misbehaving website from bringing my browser grinding to a halt. Safari has an extremely primitive version of this - I'll sometimes get a dialog box informing me that a particular website's Javascript is creating problems and asking if I want to stop it - but there's a lot of room for improvement. The browser should automatically limit the amount of CPU one website can use when others are waiting. And I should be able to call up a "task manager" that shows me all the websites I've got open and gives their CPU and memory usage. When websites begin to resemble full-fledged applications, browsers are going to start behaving like full-fledged operating systems.

In a sense, this is the belated fulfillment of Netscape's "middleware" strategy to make the web browser the new operating system. As detailed in the Microsoft antitrust saga, Netscape's hope (and Microsoft's fear) was that the browser would supplant the operating system as the default platform for user applications. That's now starting to happen, although it didn't happen fast enough to save Netscape.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Help Define The Future Of Storage With The Techdirt Insight Community And Dell

from the be-smart,-make-money dept

It's been a little while since we last updated you on the Techdirt Insight Community, but there's plenty happening there that you're missing out on, if you're not a member. First, we've put together a site, sponsored by Dell, on The Future of Storage, which is powered by the Techdirt Insight Community. We're building an ongoing conversation around the future direction of the storage market. You can join in the conversation itself just by heading straight to the site and commenting on the posts, but if you have experience with storage area network technology, you should join the community itself and submit your insight on where you think the market is heading. The best insights not only get published to the site, but can earn you quite a bit of money. Basically, you can be smart, earn a bunch of money and get recognition for being smart all in one shot. Tough to beat that.

In the meantime, if storage isn't your thing, there are some other open cases within the Insight Community that may interest you, including ones on helping a major beverage company provide online value to its retail partners, the market for accounting software and a look at what Sales 2.0 might really mean. All Techdirt Insight Community cases work on the same basic premise: be really smart, write up your insights and earn money and reputation. We've got lots more coming from the Insight Community in the next few months, but there's no reason to wait. Join now, be smart and earn some money.

Leave a Comment..

Cheap Storage, Digital Pack Rats... Opening Up New Possibilities

from the everything-must-stay dept

Back when Google first launched Gmail, the big revolution wasn't necessarily in the interface, but the fact that it was offering 1 Gb of storage for online email, with the announcement noting that you should never have to delete email again. It turns out they were a little hasty in that claim, and even though the company has added a lot more storage, some people still found themselves running out of room and deleting stuff (and now even Google is charging extra for additional storage). However, it certainly is reaching the point where digital storage is so cheap that many companies are finding it easier to just save everything possible. There's no reason to throw out data any more. This has certainly resulted in some problems, such as when companies leak data -- but it's also leading to new potential tools and services, such as much better computer learning systems, that can simply process tons and tons of stored data to figure things out. So, perhaps the quest for better artificial intelligence will actually be served better not by all the attempts at better algorithms or other tricks -- but by the fact that there's so much data out there that no one's getting rid of, that we'll be able to create machines that learn how to be intelligent by going through all of it.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

40,000 Explanations For Why The Recording Industry Is Wrong About Business Models

from the start-counting dept

Among Apple's new iPod announcements was the inclusion of a 160Gb iPod Classic. As Steve Jobs noted, that means you could carry around 40,000 songs in your pocket. Forty thousand songs. Leave it to Bob Lefsetz to use this fact to point out how wrong the recording industry has been about music business models. He points out that this highlights how people want music -- in fact, they want lots of music -- and they want it conveniently and reasonably priced. That means at much cheaper prices (are you going to carry around $40,000 worth of music purchases in your pocket?) and without DRM.

He also highlights how the idiotic focus on getting more per song just as everything else about music and technology gets cheaper is hurting the record labels much more than it helps them. He compares the situation to how expensive it was to use mobile phones a dozen years ago. People were scared to use mobile phones because the charges were ridiculously high. You only used it in special circumstances. Today, however, the rates are much, much lower and that's massively grown the market for mobile services. Do you think the mobile operators would prefer to go back to $1/minute charges? Yet, why does the recording industry insist on $1/song charges when the infrastructure can support an entirely different model. Instead, make the music cheap and easily accessible. Take advantage of the infrastructure that allows people to carry around 40,000 songs in their pocket. Sell iPods that are pre-loaded with all kinds of music and watch them fly off the shelves. The record labels (and their supporters) will claim that it doesn't make sense to sell music for less when people are clearly willing to pay $1/song, but that's misunderstanding the market potential. People were willing to pay $1/minute for mobile phone calls too. And they were willing to pay $150/month for broadband access. But as all of those things got much, much cheaper it opened the markets up much wider, provided all sorts of new applications and services that made them more and more valuable -- and helped make the companies much richer by providing better services at cheaper prices. Why can't the recording industry understand that?

67 Comments | Leave a Comment..