last100 » Rhapsody

Real’s Rhapsody enters App Store submission hell, could bode well for Spotify?

Steve O'Hear — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:58:27 +0000

Adopting a similar PR strategy to Spotify, U.S.-only music subscription service Rhapsody ($14.99-a-month) has published details of its iPhone app, mid submission process to Apple’s App Store. While submitting an app alone far from guarantees that it will ever see the light of day through Cupertino’s official channel, by showing off the app now, including a video demo (below), it does ensure that any dirty linen on Apple’s part is aired in public. It also helps to build consumer demand from existing Rhapsody subscribers who also own an iPhone in preparation for a backlash should the app be rejected.

And rejection is certainly a possibility.

While other music streaming services have been green lighted by Apple, like European-based Spotify, it’s the on-demand nature of the service that potentially competes too heavily with the iPhone maker’s own iTunes. Unlike traditional Internet radio-type offerings, subscribers can pick a specific song or album from a catalog of eight million tracks for near-instant playback.

In other words, it’s like having the largest iTunes library in the world or kinda.

That is, it would be, if Rhapsody’s iPhone app enabled you to cache playlists for offline playback when you’re outside 3G or WiFi coverage, a feature that Spotify offers, even if like Rhapsody, the app has also yet to be approved by Apple. Rhapsody says it plans to offer caching in a version 2.0 of its iPhone app, presumably taking a one step at a time with regards to App Store submission hell.

Should Rhapsody’s iPhone app be rejected, it could actually help Spotify’s case, especially in the context of the current FCC investigation into the whole App Store submission process. Spotify is a relatively new startup, albeit one backed by the major record labels, and is currently a Europe-only offering, while Real’s Rhapsody has been around for a lot longer and is an American company. Real also hasn’t been shy of upsetting Apple’s legal team in the past either.

Rhapsody on iPhone from Jamie on Vimeo.

---
Related Articles at last100:

Amazon MP3, Wal-Mart and Rhapsody just made buying music more confusing following iTunes’ lead

Steve O'Hear — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:21:57 +0000

With the major labels cajoling Apple into upping the cost of the most popular tracks on iTunes, I wondered how long it would take other music download stores to follow suit. Not long it seems – less than a day in fact – with paidContent and Ars Technica reporting that Amazon, Wal-Mart, Lala and Rhapsody have followed Apple’s lead and introduced ‘variable pricing’.

Of course, none of this down to the stores in question. The major labels set wholesale prices for tracks, and each download store then follows suit, give and take varying margins and the odd, possibly loss making, promotion here and there. Some might argue that ‘variable pricing’ alone isn’t necessarily a bad thing, although it does sacrifice the simple buying experience that Apple first introduced with its 99c per track rigid pricing structure on iTunes. What’s certainly short sighted is to use ‘variable pricing’ as an excuse to raise the upper limit of price per track, especially in a time of recession and when less and less people still pay for music anyway.

There’s also a complete inconsistency in pricing across each store on a track by track basis. It’s not even as simple as paying more for the most popular tracks. For example, Amazon is cheaper than iTunes on some top 40 tracks and vise versa. As paidContent notes: “comparing like with like can be difficult”.

Update: ComputerWorld’s Seth Weintraub is reporting that the major labels are giving Amazon more favorable terms over Apple– cheaper wholesale prices — which would be consistent with past behavior.

Sources at Apple tell me that Apple is getting different prices than Amazon from the recording idustry. The record companies are, and have been for awhile, favoring Amazon. In fact, Amazon is selling songs for less than the price that Apple pays for them in some cases.

The motive: The majors are determined to weaken Apple’s power in the music industry, and with some success, punishing them for selling all those damn iPods.

---
Related Articles at last100:

How to tune up a tone deaf Rhapsody

Guest Writer — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:43:01 +0000

This is a guest post by Michael Pinto who is the Creative Director of Very Memorable, Inc. a design firm that specializes in the youth market and interactive media.

Over one year after EMI took the first step to offer DRM-free downloads (April 2007) Rhapsody has decided to play catch up. Rhapsody is a joint venture between Real Networks and MTV, and that’s where its problems start: At this point for the youth market MTV is no longer associated with music – if anything on cable it’s been replaced by MuchMusic and on the web there are upcoming dynamic brands like Pitchfork.tv that are poised for high growth.

The sad reality is that while MTV is doing better than ever before, its original core competency has faded with time. But even if you go with the nostalgia value of MTV, then it’s a poor idea to keep the name “Rhapsody” which carries no branding weight – if anything the service should incorporate the MTV moniker in some shape or form, even if it’s something as simple as download.my.mtv. If Rhapsody is to break out of its generic funk it’s going to need to take advantage of the creative packaging that MTV Networks use to be well known for – but up to this point has been ignored.

However the problem goes deeper than a superficial identity issue: The very idea of “downloadable music” goes against the core of MTV’s DNA. MTV was always about “music videos” which shouldn’t be confused with music itself as a standalone product. Music videos are an art form onto themselves which MTV brought into the mainstream. A good video can make an average song shine: And as genre music videos are waiting for an overdue renaissance which logically should involve MTV. In fact the very idea of MTV giving up on being the home of music videos to YouTube and Pitchfork.tv should make Viacom executives weep.

So instead of playing “me too”, Rhapsody should be selling something different and be willing to do something bold to change the game. Yes, right now you can buy music videos on iTunes, but it’s a very poorly done section of the service. The offerings are sparse compared to what you can get on YouTube and the navigation doesn’t allow you to explore what is offered. What if Rhapsody took advantage of this and did a service that just sold DRM free high quality mpeg files? MTV can add value to picture by including exclusive interviews and other goodies. In fact if music videos can become a marketable medium onto their own, MTV could cut the old record labels out of the game by working with new upcoming artists.

Also see: How to save the Zune

Lastly, MTV and Real Networks have to think about what the next phase of the technology will bring and how they can be the disruptive technology for a change. It’s inevitable that the next phase of mobile media will be streaming video in some shape or form. With the youth market being focused on mobile devices as the center of their life, Rhapsody should make its mission to bring a streaming music video network to this medium. This would play strongly to MTV Networks ability to sell advertisers on sponsoring a music video network, which is how they got their start in 1981.

About the Author

Michael Pinto is the Creative Director of Very Memorable, Inc. a design firm that specializes in the youth market and interactive media. He is also the Publisher of Anime.com and Fanboy.com.

---
Related Articles at last100:

Rhapsody launches DRM-free MP3 music store

Steve O'Hear — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:09:00 +0000

Another day, another DRM-free music store

Rhapsody, the joint venture by Real Networks and Viacom’s MTV Networks, is the latest digital music service to launch a DRM-free music download store. Although the company isn’t ditching Digital Rights Management software altogether – its music subscription service still relies heavily on copy-protection technology – the new Rhapsody MP3 Store is selling DRM-free MP3s priced at .99c per track or $9.99 for the complete album, which is pretty much inline with the rest of the industry.

Rhapsody MP3 Store will face stiff competition from a host of similar services, not least Apple’s iTunes and Amazon’s own MP3 store. Along with other DRM-free competitors to iTunes, the store’s website is extremely keen to highlight that tracks are compatible with Apple’s iPod music players. “Fill your iPod or any other music player with the tunes you want”, reads the site’s About page.

Rhapsody Vice President Neil Smith told Reuters: “We’re no longer competing with the iPod, we’re embracing it.”

Rhapsody also does a good job of explaining the broader benefits of a DRM-free service.

… when you buy a song or album from Rhapsody you can do whatever you want with it. Put it on your iPod or any other MP3 player, play it on as many computers as you want, or burn it to a CD as many times as you want.

Also see: Digital music: 2007 year in review – for full analysis of how and why the music industry is ditching DRM

The service is also attempting to stage a comeback for the album format (music to the major record labels’ ears, we’re sure):

At some point during this digital revolution, we lost track of the album. You may remember it; roughly an hour of music with hit singles and underappreciated tracks, seamless transitions, and a true story – all of it created by your favorite artist. Well, the Rhapsody MP3 Store is bringing it back. You’ll save money when you buy full albums and hear the music the way it was intended to be heard.

Where the Rhapsody MP3 Store genuinely scores higher than competing services is that tracks can be previewed for free in full length, not the usual 30 seconds limit. On the downside, however, as with iTunes there isn’t the ability to re-download purchased tracks in the event that your music is lost through a computer hard drive failure or similar. Instead, customers are advised to create their own backup copies.

---
Related Articles at last100: