Want to share my iPod?

Walking around New York city, I constantly see teenagers who share an iPod and a single pair of earbuds. They each put one earbud in one ear and in that way they can both listen to the same music while still being able to talk to each other.

Why is there no better solution? I think that a great innovation would be a pair of headphones that connect to an MP3 player wirelessly (most likely Bluetooth since WiFi is such an energy hog) and both pump out the same music for that single player. But the key innovation would be the communication part. Who wants to walk around the mall with their BFF while both listening to the same music if they can’t exchange the day’s gossip?

 So, give the wireless headphones a small mic (like the one used in wireless headsets for cellphones) and allow the conversation between the two headphone users to happen in a shared (and private) frequency.

Now, if the digital music player doesn’t have Bluetooth embedded in it (like the iPod), create a separate transceiver that will attach to the player and communicate with the wireless headphones.

I personally love walking the streets of New York listeing to my iPod. The music becomes the soundtrack of my day and many times it even determines my mood, depending on what iPod’s shuffle will bring my way. The idea of sharing that soundtrack with someone else as we both walk around and still able to talk to each other sounds really exciting to me.

Steve Jobs, are you listening?

EMI / Apple announcement: The beginning of the end for DRM

I never really thought I’d see this day, but today, EMI (one of the four large music labels) has announced that it will offer its music catalog DRM-free through iTunes (see also coverage in the NY Times). This means that users can buy any EMI song as an unrestricted MP3 file which they can then freely copy or use on any device, not just iPods.

Despite the groundbreaking nature of this announcement, it makes a lot of sense. Record labels have realized that DRM technology has done very little to prevent users from illegal copying and sharing of music. According to Steve Jobs, less than 3% of the music on iPods consists of DRM-protected files bought on iTunes. The rest are DRM-free files ripped from CDs. So, is EMI throwing in the towel? In a way yes, but that’s not the whole story. What they’ve finally realized is that they need to change the way they make money off of their recording artists. Instead of trying to force the market to consumer their product (music) their way (bundled in CDs or with restricted usage rights), they will let the market decide how to use the product (unbundled and flexible to use). And now they can concentrate on creating value-added services that go beyond the song itself (starting with the fact that they are charging more – $1.29 – for DRM-free songs). I wouldn’t be surprised if the recording labels started encroaching on areas that have traditionally been the bread and butter of musicians, like concerts.

How about Apple? Have they also thrown in the towel after the legal attacks on their highly restricted integration between iPods and iTunes? Call this a truce. Now nobody can accuse Apple of hijacking the market by forcing iTunes buyers to use iPods, since the DRM-free songs can be played on any device. Besides, why should Apple worry? For years people have speculated on what would be the “iPod killer.” Many have tried (including Microsoft – has anyone ever actually seen a Zune?) and all have failed. Not because iPods are necessary to play the music bought on iTunes (though I’m sure it’s helped), but because iPods are a marvel of design and functionality and because Apple is brilliant on building a brand. So, why should Steve Jobs care if iTunes songs will be played on non-iPod devices? Since the EMI catalog will be available DRM-free only at iTunes for now, Apple will actually gain more customers. It will be the owners of other digital devices that will come to iTunes to buy music. I don’t think it’s that far fetched to imagine Apple turning iTunes into a music store for all devices, with agreements to provide syncing for them as well. iTunes itself was never the strong point of the competitive strategy. That was the iPod. So, why not open iTunes to all and let iPod compete on its own merit, which is a formidable proposition anyway?

And there’s another huge benefit to Apple (and Steve Jobs) that comes from this announcement. They will be credited (again) with changing the digital media landscape and for managing to rid the world of the much hated DRM plague. Don’t you think that this alone will get them some more customers buying songs at iTunes? Not to mention it will make Steve Jobs feel even warmer and fuzzier inside than he already does?

Internet radio grows up.

The NY Times today have a nice short article that clearly explains some of the more popular Internet radio services out there. These are web-based music streaming services that allow you to create a personalized radio station that chooses songs for you based on certain criteria. Those criteria vary depending on the service. Two of those services show the difference between using experts and the collective intelligence of the crowd to provide better recommendations:

Pandora uses “musicologists” who classify hundreds of thousands of songs and artists based on their musical “genetic” makeup. For example, the “genome” of Madonna’s “Let it be” is comprised of “electronica influences, danceable grooves, a subtle use of vocal harmony, use of string ensemble and a vocal-centric aesthetic.” As songs get played for you on Pandora, you can vote them up or down and thus teach your station to play better music for you.

Last.fm uses know experts but instead employs mathematical algorithms to analyze the playlists and listening habits of its members to create recommendations. In addition, Last.fm promotes itself as a social networking site, à la MySpace. Pandora does this a little bit by allowing people to share their personal stations, but not to the extent that Last.fm does.

 Which one works better? I don’t know. I’m a loyal Pandora listener, especially for an instrumental jazz station that I have created and honed over the last few months. I have never used Last.fm. Whenever I go to its site, I get overwhelmed by the social networking bells and whistles. All I want is a simple, customizable radio station and that’s what Pandora gives me.

Maybe in the end that’s what matters the most. The quality of the recommendations by the two services is probably comparable. What’s different is their functionality and look and feel. One is a simple, no-frills, customizable radio station. The other is a full blown social network that’s centered around music and musical tastes.