Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Media Music Businesses

Motorola Unveils iRadio 128

Posted by Zonk from the why-would-i-listen-to-the-radio-on-my-phone dept.
sayanchak writes "Motorola is introducing iRadio in its 2nd edition of the ROKR cell phone. An article in Reuters says that iRadio will be a subscription music service that will go on sale this year. This will put Motorola in competition with other such services like XM Satellite Radio Holdings and Sirius Satellite Radio." From the article: "The iRadio service will cost about $7 (4 pounds) a month but the price may vary depending on which wireless phone service the subscriber uses, according to Motorola. U.S. service providers including Cingular Wireless and Verizon Wireless are planning mobile music download services for this year. Sprint Nextel has already launched music download and streaming services. Motorola did not reveal any service provider partnerships but said it hopes to sell the service in conjunction with wireless operators, which could sell subscribers a wireless download of a song that they discovered through iRadio."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Motorola Unveils iRadio More

Motorola Unveils iRadio

Comments Filter:

  • One can only wonder how bad is the user interface for this thing going to be, given the Motorola track record of extremely unusable software.

  • I will buy something that just starts with "i" (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @05:25PM (#14387247)
    Anything that is cammel case and starts with "i" I will buy

  • Excellent! I needed help with New Years resolution (Score:5, Funny)

    by nizo ( 81281 ) * on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @05:26PM (#14387257) Homepage Journal
    The iRadio service will cost about $7 (4 pounds) a month...

    Can I choose to pay the 4 pounds a month instead of dollars? I did resolve to lose some weight and I figure at 4 pounds a month I can keep the service for at least a year until I am down to a reasonable weight.

    • Ah, but remember Shakespeare - they want their pound of flesh, but nary a drop of blood!

      The blood is for the cell phone provider (aka blood-sucking leeches) who disable all the fancy usb-upload/download features on your phone so you have to waste airtime with your pix, ringtones, etc., or get someone to unlock it.

      I love my cell phone, but if they keep on trying to foist crap like that on me, its going to become VERY mobile - I'll toss the damn thing!

      • If I wanted portable music, there are already a to

  • Let me be the first to say... (Score:4, Funny)

    by mgrassi99 ( 514152 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @05:27PM (#14387270)
    ...that any company (other than Apple) that names their product iAnything should have 15% iDeducted from their iStock price for being iUncreative. It was catchy when Apple started doing it (if they were even the first), but now its kind of "their thing" and it just sounds, well, stupid when other companies do it.

  • I don't see... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @05:28PM (#14387277)
    Motorola is introducing iRadio in its 2nd edition of the ROKR cell phone. An article in Reuters says that iRadio will be a subscription music service that will go on sale this year.

    I fail to see how this is superior to a Treo 650 with free shoutcast streaming audio.

    • Re:I don't see... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dr_dank ( 472072 )
      I fail to see how this is superior to a Treo 650 with free shoutcast streaming audio.
      You'll have to once the providers wise up to this and block common streaming audio ports.

  • Idiot Radio (Score:3, Funny)

    by Zork the Almighty ( 599344 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @05:32PM (#14387313) Journal
    The first thing I thought of when I read the title was "iRadio = idiot Radio". Of course I own an iBook. Oh well.

  • iYiYi (Score:2, Funny)

    by zrk ( 64468 )


    iPredict iOne of iThese iServices will iMerge with another within 1 iYear. iI don't iThink there's enough of a iMarket to iSupport all of iThese.
    • iWonder what the i stands for in all of these devices. One might presume it's Internet, which is a word almost always capitalized so it doesn't make much sense for it to be always lower case in the product name. An iPod is not dependent on the Internet to work though, and the iMac can work without a web connection too, it doesn't even need to be activated like an XP system has to.

      If there's still iTV available, I'm going to invent one and make a fortune before some other iDiot thinks of it.
    • I predict that in a year or two, we're going to hear from some annoyed customers when Motorola shuts off this service because it's not profitable.

  • Who want's more subscriptions? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fak3r ( 917687 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @05:35PM (#14387335) Homepage
    Really, is anyone else bothered that more and more media is going from free to subscription? Think about it, tv used to be free, now virtually evenyone has cable/satellite subscriptions. Radio used to be free, still is, but now everyone is jumping to satellite radio and their attached subscriptions. Taping shows on your vcr is still free, however now everyone and their dog runs Tivo, sending a monthly check to them for the priviledge. Personally when you're raising a family and making a budget I don't see how all of these subscriptions are neccessary. Of course we have to have our monthy cell phone bills...

    • Of course, eventually there will be a time where these providers will drop "commercial free" radio because they can't support it on subscriptions alone.

    • Nope not bothered (Score:3, Insightful)

      by badriram ( 699489 )
      Well I already subscribe to music, thanks to yahoo. I subscribe to cable, internet, and cell phone as well.
      For it is much easier, and i am not bothered by not being able to listen to songs from yahoo when my subscription expires, because i know what i signed up for and I get a blanket coverage to listen to everything they have to offer.

      The reason i am not bothered by it is because most are not expensive services, esp music @ $12 and internet @ $30, with howmany ever people at your home that want to use it.
    • If you want a continuing service (program information on your TiVo, broadcast content, cellular phone, etc), then you should be prepared to pay a continuing fee, or subscription. Radio and TV were never free: they were and are paid for by sponsors or advertisers in exchange for your corresponding purchases. So the question is, are things really "going to subscription" or are you just wanting more continuing services than before?
      • product placement will be everywhere within the next few years. Its already all over the place on TV (just watch the Apprentice). I'm waiting for the next pop diva to list all of her brand-name clothes, make-up, etc. in the next top 40 hit ...

    • Taping shows on your vcr is still free, however now everyone and their dog runs Tivo, sending a monthly check to them for the priviledge. Personally when you're raising a family and making a budget I don't see how all of these subscriptions are neccessary. Of course we have to have our monthy cell phone bills...

      I don't claim to know how many people own Tivos, but as other pvr systems become less expensive I expect Tivo's service will be less relevant. As well, you can finally buy affordable recordable DVD

    • Re:Who want's more subscriptions? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Apparently you don't have TiVo/DVRs, because you do not get the difference in utility.

      I cannot pause live television on VCR. I have to grab a tape, put it in, record, and then afterward go back, rewind, try to find where I left off. I also cannot set season passes for my favorite shows to record automatically every time it comes on with a VCR, nor can I just hit two buttons on a VCR and suddenly the movie on HBO that comes on in a few hours will be recorded, no fuss, no Flashing-12.

      To complain about subscri
    • ...virtually evenyone has cable/satellite subscriptions...

      Not me. UHF/VHF (ie: rabbit ears)

      ...everyone is jumping to satellite radio...

      Nope. Good ol' FM radio is still fine with me.

      ...everyone and their dog runs Tivo,..

      No again. Still using a VCR.

      ...monthy cell phone bills...

      No way. Regular POTS phone line, and only because DSL requires it.

      I understand your arguments against subscriptions, and I don't like them either. That's why I don't buy into them. A company doesn't want your $100 once, it's wan

    • The problem is - there are too many of these subscription services now.
      You almost have to pay an intermediary to give you the chunks of all of them that you need. For example, I should be able to subscribe to satellite radio as another piece of my cable service. If you have a 'set-top' box that can limit your attention to one media stream at a time, I believe the providers will be able to divide up my $20-$30/month into chunks for the music service, the scheduled TV program service, and the TV program '
    • No kidding. Companies are getting pretty damned addicted to the subscription model, but what they don't get is that I can only afford so many subscriptions at a time, and at that point I will hold off on buying other products until my income increases.

      Subscription services will always miss out on the impulse buyer, which is a very key player in the entertainment industry. Subscriptions require thinking about your budget.

      Additionally, $7/mo is way too much. I mean, seriously, everybody thinks they can jus

    • Think about it, tv used to be free, now virtually evenyone has cable/satellite subscriptions.

      TV never had 100+ channels for free. You chose between getting 7 channels for free, or getting 100+ for very little (Dish is about $25/month). And it's not "virtually everyone". It may be a large majority, but that still leaves tens of millions of households excluded.

      As a matter of fact, I believe the transition to DTV/HDTV will result in many people switching back to free TV. There's only a handful of cable/sat

    • Think about it, tv used to be free, now virtually evenyone has cable/satellite subscriptions.

      We originally moved to cable TV to get away from commercials, but now we get to pay for those too although we still have more channel choices than broadcast.

      Taping shows on your vcr is still free, however now everyone and their dog runs Tivo, sending a monthly check to them for the priviledge.

      That can be fixed with a large hard drive. Look into MythTV [linuxjournal.com].

  • iDon't See (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ericdano ( 113424 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @05:38PM (#14387361) Homepage
    I don't see how these "services" are any good. Verizon keeps pushing it's "Amazing videos" in it's mobile service. Why would I want to watch a video on my phone? I teach kids who have bought ring tones. They would rather see a phone in the form of a RAZR that can hook up with iTunes. None of them have raved about their video enabled phones. All of them have raved about their new iPods (Mini, Nanos, Videos).

    I think there is a lot of disconnect between what people want and what execs think people want.

    • I think there is a lot of disconnect between what people want and what execs think people want.

      Well, but that's a circle isn't it? people don't want iPods until iPods come along. Before iPods, they were perfectly happy with regular MP3 players. But Apple proposed a new, better product and created a new want.

      Maybe people will finally want TV-phones, when they realize they can watch football at work or something. I don't think they will, personally, but you can't blame the promoters for trying.
    • Actually, it's the implementation that seems to be the problem in the US, not the technology. The phones Verizon use to display their video would be rather capable, IF they played user-encoded video (easily). As it stands, they're hoping people (not knowing any better) will shell out lots of money for a terrible service that costs them a minimum amount to provide. I use a Sharp V903SH (imported from Japan), which plays perfect video at 320x240 (and has an external backlit remote to plug normal headphones in
      • This is true. I really don't see why I'd want to download a music video from IF I could transfer the same file TO my phone from my computer. Right now, you can't do that (as far as I can tell). And, outside the ROKR phone, you can't play iTunes songs. Seems rather dumb to me. Why can't we just be able to buy and use a phone that supports video (like the iPod with Video), music (like the iPod), and is in a package like a RAZR, and that I, the user, can put whatever I want on it. MP3s or AACs that I own, vide

    • Welcome to "the convergence" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @08:08PM (#14388472) Journal
      why-would-i-listen-to-the-radio-on-my-phone

      Why would I listen to the radio on my phone? Because I want to listen to a particular station and can't get it any other way.

      I have done this a lot, since 1967 or so:

      - The campus carrier current station had a bundle of leased lines available to feed the audio to students that had moved out of the dorms. They were leased by frat houses, individual student fans or groups of them, and station engineers that were no longer in dorms but neeced to monitor the station. (I lucked out and didn't have to pay for mine, since another ex-engineer was living next door and let me string a wire to tap his.)

      - Sometimes a station I can't get with a program I want to hear has station moitor audio feeding "music on hold" - and I'll call in and be put on hold to hear the program.

      - I've used the internet to listen to feeds from stations far away similarly. Sometimes a syndicated program is so politically incorrect that nobody in the area will carry it - but it's streaming on stations in other parts of the country. Sometimes I'm in a place (like inside an office building) where the signal won't reach. Why use a multi-grand desktop to listen? Because it's there, and alternatives aren't.

      And of course I'll use my cellphone for this - in preference to a landline phone, leased line, or DSL bandwidth - if I'm moving, or if it's a toll call. (My cell plan has all-you-can-eat free nights and weekends.)

      Why would I want to watch a video on my phone?

      Why would I want to watch a movie or a video on my laptop? Because it's more convenient when on-the-go than watching it on my TV. Why would I want to do it on my (cell)phone? Because it's more convenient than my laptop - by an order of magnitude.

      Why would I want to put a telephone application on my expensive desktop or laptop computer?

      A) Because I have the expensive desktop or laptop computer for other reasons, whether I use it for a phone or not, and the online phone service is cheaper than a standalone phone subscription.

      B) Because I can't get some functionality any other way - at least for a reasonable price.

      (Example: Full-function PBX, with hundreds of extensions fed from a handfull of trunklines, and other "value added" features like follow-me, call forwarding, conference calling, three-way/consult calling, menu systems, etc. Rent it from the local Bell for a bundle, buy it and a service contract from another vendor for a smaller bundle, or install an open-source application and a cheap phone-interface card in a commodity desktop. Guess which I'd chose for my next startup in garage-shop phase...)

      But all of this begs the underlying issue:

      This is the start of the long-touted "convergence" - when all communication:
      - two-way audio (voice phone calls and two-way radio)
      - two-way audio/video (videoconferencing)
      - N-way audio and audio/video (conference calls)
      - Broadcast audio
      - Broadcast audio/video
      - Remote computer access.
      - Computer/computer communication
      and a bunch of others, both wired and wireless, converge into a single unified network. As this proceeds the terminals for humans (short of implants) are converging into just three major forms:

      - A fixed-location device (the convergence of the desktop computer, settop network box, video/audio recorder, TV, and HIFI into a "media center").
      - The laptop (a large-format portable).
      - The handheld (a small-format portable).

      One way to get to the full-function handheld is to add voice to a computer-only handheld/tablet (i.e. the Blackberry). The other is to add functionality to a cellphone. Adding entertainment broadcast (TV, Radio), narrowcast (XM-like subscriptions), and unicast (video/audio on-demand) functionality is a logical early step on the rount from the handheld "phone". It may be saleable as a "bundled unit" until replaced by so
      • Gah. Missed the "preview" button. B-( ... on the rount from the handheld "phone" make that "on the route".

        On the other hand, there are executives betting a lot of moneyt that there ARE people who will want this ... It wouldn't take many people ... to make Mr Executive a bundle, would it?

        Especially since many of these executives are bell heads who have been having         their lunch eaten by VoIP and cellphone services - and need a new product to avoid bankruptcy.

        Maybe they're just frantically grabbing at flotsa

  • Asinine (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Golias ( 176380 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @05:41PM (#14387385)
    On the heels of mostly failing to sell a phone with iTunes bolted on, they are now trying to jump into a market (subscription-based music downloads) where nobody is making money.

    I've got a Motorola phone right now, and for the most part I'm miserable with it. Sure, it has a lot of spiffy features, but it kind of sucks as a phone. Not only is it of limited reliability, but they made all kinds of goofy interface decisions.

    For example, I need to be "in a call" for about two seconds before I can turn on the speakerphone feature. It's impossible to answer it on the speaker, or place a call over it. Instead I must talk to the person with the phone to my ear for a couple seconds, say "hang on", press a button on the face of the phone just so, wait another half second, ask the person on the other end to say something to indicate that it worked, try pushing the button again if it didn't, rinse, repeat.

    How stupid is that? The whole point of a speakerphone is to avoid fucking around with it. If I take a call when I'm on the road, it's actually safer to just keep listening through the earpiece.

    A minor annoyance, yes... but one of many with this piece of crap.

    The Japanese market went ga-ga for cameras, text-messaging, ring-tones, etc., but from what I've seen, most Americans want a phone that works easilly and reliably as a phone more than anything else. Someday, a phone maker will become clueful about this fact, and they will sell them like hotcakes. I know I'll be in line for one.
    • Try pressing the speak phone button when call comes it...it guess what turns on the speaker phone and answers the call
      • There is no "speak phone button." There is a generic button which becomes assigned to turn the speaker phone on after the call has been engaged for a couple seconds.

        Besides, the call connects on the earpiece when you open the hinge, so you can't hit the button before answering.

        It gets better, that button in nestled just inside the hinge on the right side, and is very fussy about how you press it... so it's almost impossible to reach by feel while the phone is still up against your ear. You have to take it
        • Nextel phones have a "speakerphone" button on the outside of the case. But of course, guess who your mobile phone service provider must be.

          My i530 also says "Take call from (person)" when I open it. I think there's an option where you can disable auto-answering when you open the hinge. My personal phone is a candy bar Nokia 6015i, which is a bit more battered, but has a more intuitive UI than the Motorola.
        • Sounds like a RAZR. Same complaints from me as a simple starter.

          While some of the little (read cheap) Nokias do the job well enough, when you want a quad-band phone with long battery life, and GPRS/EDGE things get much harder!

          I love my blackberry (7290), but only because I don't use it as a phone. Simple little things like any micro-usb plug can charge the thing (laptop, iPod charger with micro-usb cable, Airport Express, or my RaZR charger) all work fine. For the RAZR, you actually have to buy software
    • I personally really like my Motoral v265. It has all the basic features I need. Decent battery life if you don't use the camera (which I don't). Built in speach rec so I can dial by name without teaching it names and solid reception (I live in Western Kansas, this is a REAL issue for me).

      It doesn't play mp3s. It has no preloaded games. It does the job. I don't see myself getting rid of it any time soon.

    • The Japanese market went ga-ga for cameras, text-messaging, ring-tones, etc., but from what I've seen, most Americans want a phone that works easilly and reliably as a phone more than anything else. Someday, a phone maker will become clueful about this fact, and they will sell them like hotcakes. I know I'll be in line for one.

      Actually, what most people want out of a cell phone, besides just working, is to make them look cool and chic. Small portable items that we carry with us become fashion statements

    • I also have a motorola- the default menu configuration* when I flipped open my phone had the camera button as the left soft key.. but if you dig into menus enough to get a good enough "history" and you keep hitting the "back" softkey that replaces the back soft key, you eventually turn the camera on trying to get to the main menu. Also- there are too many delays. Look, I'm not running 10 different apps at a time.. I HATE it when I try to "abort" a call I make by mistake only to find it take 3 or 4 seconds
    • I completely agree with Golias. I am sick of all the extra crappy features the phones these days come with. I never use the camera on my phone. Three reasons:

      1) It sucks my precious battery time
      2) It produces crap images
      3) It costs more per month via Sprint to actually send a photo to someone....

      What I really what is a phone:

      1) I don't have to plug it in every freaking night...
      2) I want the phone to be like my watch... as I walk around, the battery is charged.
      3) easy to navigate with a nice user interfa
    • I've had four Motorola phones now, and only one has been decent. The one I have now, the Motorola v710 is rated by most companies as the worst cell phone made of all time. It does allow me to answer with the speakerphone on (if I receive a call and it isn't currently on, thats true), but has all of your other complaints. What REALLY ticks me off is the crappy service. I had an LG phone with no problems. Move to a more advanced Motorola phone and can barely use the damned thing. I personally am really lookin
    • So true. The same clue-train Google rode right past Yahoo and Apple rode right past Creative et all.

      In America at least, people want stuff to be simple and work reliably. I have for years wanted a phone I didn't have to pinch between my finger and thumb to use. Ah well...

    • but from what I've seen, most Americans want a phone that works easilly and reliably as a phone more than anything else. Someday, a phone maker will become clueful about this fact, and they will sell them like hotcakes. I know I'll be in line for one.

      The ROKR is that phone. For me. And it is selling like hotcakes. 8 local Cingular (reseller) stores in my area were sold completely out 2 weeks before Christmas. I found one at the regional Cingular headquarters - their last one. Yeah I read the reviews fi

      • So when a call comes in, you have to interact with it in order to NOT take the call? That's counterintuitive- So you're working on your Impala, hands all greasy, when your ex-gf calls. On any normal phone, you just ignore it and it ignores her, but on your ROKR you have to push a button? No thanks...

        Now, if it could recognize your voice and only answer when you say "Take call" or something like that, that would rock. Other than that, and the lack of a SD slot for expansion, it sounds like a pretty cool pho
        • By default - you have to hit a button to take the call. I changed my setting options to take the call automatically after 5 seconds (to give me time to press ignore if I don't know the number).

          I don't give my number out to anybody I don't want to have it. X-wife doesn't even know what state I'm in. And if she did ever get my cell number and call - I'd just tell her to fuck off until I pressed disconnect. No biggie.

          The slow transfer thing does suck a little though. I wanted to load a big audio book I

  • Hah! (Score:2)

    by Onan ( 25162 )
    The use of itunes was the one good thing about the previous piece of crap. I guess that replacing it with their own proprietary subscription service will at least hasten the complete demise of this thing.

    I'm sure that users will be _thrilled_ with the notion of needing to pay for their music twice in order to listen to it on their phones and on anything else.

  • So the article mentions specifically that the iTunes software is NOT going to be included. Hrm. Did any of the bad press the first ROKR get revolve around the mobile iTunes software or the integration of a phone and iTunes? Not that -I- recall; if memory serves Moto was lambasted for a trivial 100 song limit, no expandability, and the inability to sync over Bluetooth.

    So how to fix? Take away the one part that WAS GOOD, and that falls into line with what the GROSS majority of users are currently DOING: using
    • Note to Motorola's CEO:

      Maybe publicly trashing your software partner's flagship product [computerworld.com] isn't the greatest idea. (Especially when Steve Jobs is involved.)

      Just a thought.

    • Re:"Upgrade": take something broken and break it m (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Or perhaps Motorola got rid of the lamest thing about the ROKR- the 100 song limit- by dropping Apple and iTunes.

      Dropping the Apple imposed limits for the E2 allows the phone to carry 70 hours of music.

      -works for MOT (but not in handsets)

    • Do you think Motorola wanted that 100 song limit on the first ROKR? Hell no. Apple required it so the phone couldn't compete with iPod. Moto had to comply if they wanted iTunes.

      If they drop iTunes, they can remove the 100-song limitation.

      Disclaimer: I work for Motorola, but not on any products mentioned in this post or in the story. Nothing I say is based on insider info.

  • Or as it's called when translated from Corporate-Speak, "Hey Apple Please Buy This From Us As A Cheap And Easy Way To Get Satellite Radio On iPods".
  • The best internet radio out there is Yahoo lunchcast. I can rate songs and also prohibit them from ever being played again if i choose. Having Yahoo launchcast on my phone or my car would be great. I could use the phones interface to rate the songs. Then it would learn what i like and cater to my preferences. Of course someone probably has that patented.

    http://www.stockmarketgarden.com/ [stockmarketgarden.com]
  • Ought oh, they used an "i" in their product name. Apple must be charging up their iAttorneys as we speak.
  • That's great. Now I can listen to all lesbian-punk-country all the time.

  • Pay per use is undesirable for consumers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DECS ( 891519 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @06:13PM (#14387661) Homepage Journal
    Pay per use is a great way to make money, but customers don't like it. Subscriptions paying for necessary utilities are tolerated, but entertainment subscriptions are a hard sell, unless they provide high value vs. the cost. Pop music does not qualify as a service people are willing to pay/minute for, rather than just carry around their CDs or their iPod.

    I'd much rather pay a known cost upfront for something than "subscribe" to yet another ongoing cost. Does the rest of the world agree? Consider:

    Subscriptions that work:

    - Cable/Sat TV works because it offers things you simply can't get elsewhere; make those things available on DVD, and notice how people start collecting DVDs of the few shows they watch, and abandon 150 channels of nothing on. Users who want regional/sports/news content you can't get without a subscription may hang on to their cable.

    - Magazines, Newspapers & other periodicals work because they offer a stream of new content you can't get elsewhere. These markets are being eaten alive by the availability of content on the open Internet however. MacWorld used to be a monthly book, now its a pretty skimpy magazine.

    Subscriptions that failed miserably:

    - Nobody's paying for Microsoft's WMA, now that there is iTunes and real audio CDs left (and not WMA-only CDs, as was the plan).

    - Subscription software has been an extremely hard sell, despite Misrosoft's attempts at converting Windows and Office to subscription style licensing). Online games like WoW are selling subscriptions because they offer content and play otherwise unavailable elsewhere. That's why Blizzard guards its client so well. If you could plug into open "worlds" of entertainment, Blizard's game would die quickly.

    - Pay per use subscriptions to Internet access were steamrolled by competition from fixed cost, all you can eat plans as soon as they became available.

    So basically, I'd say that in order to sell a subscription with wide market appeal, you have to have exclusive, compelling content not generally available in any other form, and you have to actually get something, not just temporary access to it.

    Pop music DOES NOT fit this model, and niche markets for audio content are not going to be made available for the cell phone market. Beyond the failure of the subscription model, who the heck is going to want to listen to radio on a cell phone? And who will want to continue to pay for it, particularly if they are billed even more for using it regularly?

    And while service cutouts are a minor irritation when trying to have a conversation, dropouts and service unavailability are serious problems for people trying to listen to music live; waiting to download music using existing (SLOW) data services would be equally problematic. "Hey I want to listen to that song... look up... download.... ... continue downloading..." = sucks.

    I don't think the significance of the win of iTMS over WMA has been absorbed by the music industry, from the labels to the would be distributors (cell phone providers). People overwhelmingly want to buy things they "own," and not to pay for the privelage to listen for a period of time.

    Apple's win with the iPod came from offering a product that allowed users unfettered use of the music they already had (you don't pay a per miniute fee for having your iPod on), an easy path to get new music at a "known cost," and additionally, access to online music via iTMS at fixed, "known" costs. You aren't penalized for listening to an iPod for a longer time (per minute fees), or over a period of time (per month fees). That encourages iPod use, and makes it more rewarding as you use it more.

    WMA and pay-per-listen cell phone plans ding you the more you use them, discouraging regular use. Guess why they aren't catching on?

    Motorola, after delivering a poor iPod bundled in an unimpressive phone, now thinks they can turn the system upside down and shake money from their (potential) userbase by charging them per use.
    • - Nobody's paying for Microsoft's WMA, now that there is iTunes and real audio CDs left (and not WMA-only CDs, as was the plan).

      Ummm.... Hate to break it to ya, but between Napster, Yahoo, AOL, etc., WMA based subscription music retailers have over 1 million user base who pay $~10+ every month.

      And these services are growing at better than 10% every year.

      I wouldn't exactly call that failure.

      • Failure can be relative.

        If suddenly out of left field, RC Cola came out with a product that grabbed 80% marketshare in the cola market, that fact that Coke & Pepsi were still selling some cola would not be good news for them.

        Just 3-4 years ago, Apple was disregarded as a distant third player in the media category, with Microsoft poised to dominate audio in the unquestioned way they dominate desktop PC OS and Office app markets. Microsoft conspired with media labels to roll out exclusive, WMA locked down

    • Motorola doesn't care if you subscribe (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JimTheta ( 115513 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @07:03PM (#14388061) Homepage

      Motorola, after delivering a poor iPod bundled in an unimpressive phone, now thinks they can turn the system upside down and shake money from their (potential) userbase by charging them per use... charges accrue whether you use it or not + they go up as you use it more.

      Back it up a sec. Motorola couldn't give a rat's ass about whether you subscribe or not. Why did they make this feature? Because they know that the providers want it. If the providers like it, then they'll push Moto phones. And cell phone makers need providers to push their phones, because most phone purchases are cost-subsidized via provider's service contract.

      What you need to remember is, the providers are greedy as shit. If they can charge you, they will. Cell phone makers get money from one source: phone purchase price. Providers do not share service fees or anything with them. If a cool phone feature will jeopardize a provider's ability to gouge you, phones won't have it. Conversely, if a phone feature gives a provider another thing to sell you, they'll piss their pants over it.

      Do you think Moto wanted to gimp the Bluetooth on Verizon phones so you have to pay to transfer photos off them (which only benefits Verizon)? Do you think Moto wanted to limit the ROKR to 100 songs (which ensures ROKR can't compete with iPod)? Hell no. Use your brain.

      Disclaimer: I work for Motorola, but I'm not involved with any of the above-mentioned products. (And I think ROKR was a dumb move also. The silver lining is that it shows providers and Apple that what they conceded wasn't enough for customers. Music phones will only get better now, though slowly.)

      • The underlying problem is that Motorola's customer is the cellular network operator, not the end-user. We'd have much more choice if we simply bought phones in the same way as a PC or any other electronic device.

        Unfortunately, people like to get those "free" phones from the operators, even if they always come with a 2-year service contract that actually means paying for the phone many times over.
    • There are plenty of people enjoying subscription music. I use Yahoo! currently because they are the cheapest. Why don't I switch over and buy all my music through iTunes, or on CD? I like the ephemeral nature of the service. Today I listened to music labelled as "Dance", "Dirty South", "Classical", and "Fusion". I even listened to some Danish folk music for a little while, for goodness sake.

      I can't imagine purchasing all that music. Researching artists. Storing it. Backing it up. Buying expensive g

  • What an awsome idea? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) on Tuesday January 03, 2006 @06:18PM (#14387715)
    Let's see, the two main players in this industry aren't making any money. Let's start another venture of the same sort.

    What the hell are the people at Motorola thinking?

    Oh, let me guess. The stupid executives have convinced each other than the pay-for-radio scheme is mainly impeded by the lack of compatible hardware, and not the fact that people don't want to pay for crappy audio programs that they can improve upon themselves via their own playlists. So since motorola controls a platform/distribution medium, they might as well jump on the pay radio bandwagon because that's all that's holding people back? Yea right. Fools. I wonder.. does wearing a necktie all day choke the blood to peoples' brains?

    Never mind. It doesn't matter. I guess it should come as no surprise. The bigger these corporations are, the more bone-headed their ideas seem to be, and the more unreceptive they are towards anything innovative or creative.

    You'd think at this point, with Google's success, some of these other companies would have figured out that treating employees very well, paying them very well, and not outsourcing everything to third world countries, might, just might result in some innovative and marketable ideas... I guess it's going to make more time, and more King Kong movies before these companies get a clue.

    • What the hell are the people at Motorola thinking?

      Motorola developed this feature because then providers will push their phones. Providers will cream their shorts at the thought of the new revenue stream, and then push Moto phones at a subsidized cost (or free!). Once the phone gets into your hand, Moto couldn't care if you pay for iRadio or not.

      See my other post [slashdot.org] in this story.

      You'd think at this point, with Google's success, some of these other companies would have figured out that treating empl

      • Motorola's motivation is that they are as usual complete dickheads when it comes to consumer marketing. Their largely accidental success with the RAZR has them thinking they are da bomb now.

        I predict that within 3-4 quarters the RAZR effect will have completely petered out and we will be seeing a return of the "How Motorola squandered its lead" stories again.

        • Motorola's motivation is that they are as usual complete dickheads when it comes to consumer marketing.

          Regarding being dickheads, I'm gonna need examples. I've only paid attention to the industry since I started working in it, and that's only been two years. (Before I started working, I didn't even want a phone. Wouldn't have one if they didn't give me one for work.)

          Regarding the RAZR, your prediction has merit. Me and my coworkers joke about wondering how long we're gonna ride the RAZR-train. "But

  • I'm sure I am not the only one that feels that this money would be better spent on building more cell phone towers to increase the coverage. Once you have that figured out, then you can work on building me something I think is NICE, but not CRITICAL to what one feels a mobile phone should do.
  • How come Apple didn't secure some sort of copyright on using a lower case "i" on technology products? To a normal person these sound like they are made by Apple.
  • Let's see...

    My MP3 player lasts for about 12 hours on a good battery charge.

    My phone has around three hours of talk time.

    Assuming iRadio uses battery life at about the same rate as a regular call, I will be UNABLE to actually USE THE PHONE after three hours or so. But at least I got to listen to tunes! I don't really need to call anyone.*

    Actually, this product has already failed. /\/\ has failed to line up ANY cellular launch parters. Without their support for streaming without using cell minutes, this i
    • After fucking up PPC so bad, Stevesy just wanted to give Moto one last chance because he's a nice guy. They asked him for iTunes on their phone and now they're bitter because the Steve doesn't want to ever talk to them again. Classic inferiority complex.
  • I cannot even count the number of times that my motorola phone would bomb out. Also, how reliable is this going to be? If it uses cell service it sure as hell wont be as good as XM
  • Let's see Mobile Phone service monthly expense = $ 90.00 + 7.00 for downloading radio? Oh, Sirius SatRadio monthly too? Hmmm... I don't think even post GenX'rs are this math challenged to recognize usury rents when they see them.

    iTunes has plenty of Brandwidth left to modulate its value-add to the music stream. Jobs can invent, who'd thunk?, iTDR digital radio streams in a heartbeat. Then there is the innovative concept of iTHF, Hi-Fi AAC which really delivers the sonic equivalent of CD.

    MOT has very b
  • Remember those Nokia phones that had an FM radio on it? And they were like $180 MSRP? ...Yeah. There's your radio.
  • I own a Sony K750 and my radio reception is free!? I don't see why ANYONE would want to pay for radio? Bizarre!
  • Anyone with an EDGE-enabled phone, and a desire to hear more than their local radio stations, probably knows this is potentially awesome.

    Sure, shoutcast is great on my Nokia 6620, but HE-AAC (AAC+) hits a sweet spot at 48kbps... something many of the stations simply don't do, being MP3 and all. That means way better quality at lower bitrates... good for listeners and the providers.

    Personally, I'd pay for this in a heartbeat... so long as it isn't as god damned repetitive as the playlists on ClearChannel or

  • iJust wonder, is it that I'm too old to understand the beauty of this, or are there others (younger) than me who think similarly?

    iMean that, why would I buy a subscription to some radio, when even my mobile can receive all the freely available alternatives? (iAlso have a radio in my car that, believe it or not, can receive free radio broadcasts.) iCannot believe that the content of these pay-radios would be any different from any other commercial one, they're still formatted radios anyhow. - iOn the other

    • You just don't understand where they are coming from; Most of these news articles are posted to promote sales, not that anyone is really interested in it.
  • Unless I can listen to "Station FM" (West Indian pirate station in London) This is useless to me! I wouldnt pay UKL0.02 for it.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Close