Lala May Have Just Built The Next Revolution In Digital Music(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Lala May Have Just Built The Next Revolution In Digital Music
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/10/20/lala-may-have-just-built-the-next-revolution-in-digital-music/
24 comments
I couldn't agree more.
Why do I want to pay 10 cents to preview songs that I can find on Youtube/Last.fm/Seeqpod/Grooveshark/MySpace/Favtape/iTunes (my preferred method)/Amazon/AmieStreet? Or I can simply download by looking up the album name + rapidshare on Google for free.
Because it is only a matter of time before the labels ruin the Youtube music-video experience.
In the meantime you are absolutely right. Driving up into the mountains with a few friends a month ago, we hooked an iPhone into the casette-deck and spent the whole drive thinking of awesome tracks to share, then streaming them directly from Youtube. It was like having the whole of human musical creation right there with us.
In the meantime you are absolutely right. Driving up into the mountains with a few friends a month ago, we hooked an iPhone into the casette-deck and spent the whole drive thinking of awesome tracks to share, then streaming them directly from Youtube. It was like having the whole of human musical creation right there with us.
I wouldn't worry too much about RIAA clamping down on YouTube. One thing I've come to learn about the internet is the resolve of people -- freakin' genius people -- to find new ways to pirate content. And, oh, also porn.
AFAICT it's not just a "preview", it's a perfectly adequate way to play the music, so long as you want to play it from an internet-connected computer.
You could also get around that limitation by just recording your audio output in software to file, but then you are being dishonest :)
I figure the web audio is lower quality anyways, so there's incentive to pay 80 cents more.
I figure the web audio is lower quality anyways, so there's incentive to pay 80 cents more.
On iTunes, you can only listen to a snippet of a song, correct? I find snippets to be worthless; I can't make a bying decision based on them.
Furthermore, most non-mainstream music is not available on youtube/lastfm/seeqpod/skreemr/myspace/etc.
Furthermore, most non-mainstream music is not available on youtube/lastfm/seeqpod/skreemr/myspace/etc.
[deleted]
When pricing and quality of service change the game, they don't seem like they're much different from what existed before - the negative slashdot review of the ipod being the classic example.
This service would put online music, finally, at a price point where I could actually use it. I would love to preview songs for 10c instead of have 30 seconds of the song, and uploading my music to a web site has been what I've wanted to do for a long time - why do I have 30g of music on the hard drive of both my computers?
I'm not saying this is definitely what's going to do it, but it seems to me like it has the potential to be awesome, and remember to try and see past your hacker bias.
This service would put online music, finally, at a price point where I could actually use it. I would love to preview songs for 10c instead of have 30 seconds of the song, and uploading my music to a web site has been what I've wanted to do for a long time - why do I have 30g of music on the hard drive of both my computers?
I'm not saying this is definitely what's going to do it, but it seems to me like it has the potential to be awesome, and remember to try and see past your hacker bias.
Another finger in the dam that has turned into a sieve. Favtape is where it's at - an unlimited collection of all the music in the world.
The winner of this game will be the one which sorts the music in ways that make sense - when I'm in a Barry White mood, I want to hear that type of music. When it's time for Dolly, then I don't want 50 cent intruding.
The sale of music is done for. The money is going to come from concerts and merchandising. Sure, let these guys make money now that they still can, but it's ending.
The winner of this game will be the one which sorts the music in ways that make sense - when I'm in a Barry White mood, I want to hear that type of music. When it's time for Dolly, then I don't want 50 cent intruding.
The sale of music is done for. The money is going to come from concerts and merchandising. Sure, let these guys make money now that they still can, but it's ending.
Using the site’s helper application (available on Windows and Mac), Lala can scan your iTunes music library and add every song you already own to your Lala web library, essentially giving you online streaming access to any song you already have on your computer.
Anyone remember MP3.com? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_v._MP3.com
Though these guys are actually working with the labels, so they should be ok.
Anyone remember MP3.com? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_v._MP3.com
Though these guys are actually working with the labels, so they should be ok.
If this leads to being able to have a "Streamable" song at a real rate of .10 - and is the new barrier for buying for other services (apple, yahoo music, napster) etc. then yes revolutionary -
If it works it kills anywhere.fm's premise since it doesn't require uploads. (assuming there library is fairly comprehensive)
Edit: not that they care now, but its an interesting thought..
Edit: not that they care now, but its an interesting thought..
I don't don't use Anywhere.FM for that. I use it to index all my music, and to send playlists to my friends. Lala doesn't do either.
[deleted]
Also, am I the only one worried about the whole "Gives you a web copy of music on your hard drive" deal?
This seems like a great way to get data on possible infringers. "Well, this user has a 50gb library of mp3s. No way that's legal. Lets fire off an infringement notice to this IP."
And don't pretend this couldn't ever happen.
This seems like a great way to get data on possible infringers. "Well, this user has a 50gb library of mp3s. No way that's legal. Lets fire off an infringement notice to this IP."
And don't pretend this couldn't ever happen.
Just like with digitally purchased television, the price point is too high.
It needs to be priced so that people don't even have to THINK about clicking the buy button, before they do it. Especially when it comes to entire albums.
The less time you give to people to think about it, by lowering the price, the more you reduce the chance of them going, "Well, this album is $10, $12, $15.. but I have to buy x, y, and z this month, I guess I'll wait for now, or download it instead" and instead, have them go, "Well, it's almost no money. click".
It needs to be priced so that people don't even have to THINK about clicking the buy button, before they do it. Especially when it comes to entire albums.
The less time you give to people to think about it, by lowering the price, the more you reduce the chance of them going, "Well, this album is $10, $12, $15.. but I have to buy x, y, and z this month, I guess I'll wait for now, or download it instead" and instead, have them go, "Well, it's almost no money. click".
I've been using the service for some time now, and I think the price point is right in the sweet spot. 10c buys you the capability to play that song an infinite number of times in its entirety (online). Plus, just like other music stores, they give you deals on the full albums. For instance, Queens of the Stone Age: Era Vulgaris (11 songs) is 80c. And, as the article mentions, previewing songs or albums (full songs, not 30s clips) is FREE. I think I've spent about $10 total and I've got 15 albums in my "web collection". I'm at a computer pretty much all day anyway, so this is the perfect solution for me.
But right there, you had the catch.
(online)
Now, if it was 10c and I could put it on my iPod, or use winamp or something, they'd have something.
(online)
Now, if it was 10c and I could put it on my iPod, or use winamp or something, they'd have something.
Over time it will become less and less of a catch. In my opinion, music_on_the_cloud > music_on_a_disk. I assume they'll come out with a version of the player that caters to Android or iPhone (or possibly any web-enabled device with a Flash player). It's not full freedom, but it's also not even close to full price.
And what if your internet goes down?
What if you lose your job and can't afford your internet connection?
All of a sudden you lose access to that library of music. Let alone if the service itself goes down.
What if you lose your job and can't afford your internet connection?
All of a sudden you lose access to that library of music. Let alone if the service itself goes down.
True, but it's $0.80 cheaper than the nearest alternative. At $0.10 a song, you can easily download an (or close to) an entire album for $1, and I could go for that any day of the week.
Yes, but then you can only listen to it on the web. Not on your iPod or if your internet goes down or.. the list goes on.
To paraphrase Uncov:
Selling music to the masses for the first time with the phonograph: revolutionary
Storing a near-perfect digital reproduction of music on an low-cost compact disc: revolutionary
Digital music compression, allowing the distribution of billions of tracks across the internet: revolutionary
An online music store that lets you preview tracks for a fee: not revolutionary