´óÏó´«Ã½

The thing, there are different user groups. Normally you would say that music & entertainment should be a no brainer in all groups.
However, if I have a look at this , this is not true. Even though music is relevant in all groups. In some groups it is more relevant than in others.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Firstly,
"So We7's plan is to load up your phone with music when you're on a wi-fi connection and store it on your phone, to be accessible whenever you want it."

So exactly like Spotify then?

Secondly:
Afaik, it isn't ad suported. To use it on a mobile device you need a premium plus subscription. So £10 a month.

When O2 killed off unlimited data last October it muted 3G audio streaming. I now have to pay an extra £5 just to cover my social media data.

I already have started loading up my device at home on my own personal radio station. Genius playlists do the job perfectly well without the adverts.

This article seems to be a publicity piece for the We7 service. It mentions Spotify, in passing, but there's no meaningful comparison of the two offerings. And no mention of others such as LastFM. And then there's the lazy assumption that iTunes rules.
(oh, and the final two sentences are a little clumsy: bet, betting)

Like 3dBloke says, this is essentially, "We7: like LastFM, but you can pre-load playlists like Spotify does". If the journalist knew his topic, he'd relate it to LastFM's recent decision to drop free mobile support, and he'd compare the prices of the two very similar services: £3 a month for LastFM without preloading, £10 a month for We7 with preloading.

He'd also discuss that this £10/month is the same as Spotify's £9.99 a month - giving people a simple choice: choose your own music, or let a machine do it for you?

He'd also never dream of comparing this to iTunes, which is a completely different service, serving a completely different market (pay-for-each downloads overwhelmingly of chart music) on a mainly different set of devices (the medium-small iPhone market, compared to the huge Android + Symbian + Blackberry market).

´óÏó´«Ã½: please employ better journalists. Or let you commentors do it for you xxx

3dBloke makes a point, one that I had started thinking as I read the article, but I would take it further.

"We7 has decided, both on the web and on mobile phones, that radio is the future. In other words, what its users are now mainly being offered is a personalised radio station - you tell it you like Katy Perry or Vampire Weekend and it plays you a stream of songs that match your taste. The music is free, but supported by advertising unless you upgrade to an ad-free subscription service"

Isn't that exactly what last.fm does? And as for caching it locally, that is borrowed from spotify premium. No originality will mean that it fails to attract people.

I disagree with his comment about 'the lazy assumption that iTunes rules.' I know a lot of people with iphones and the fact is nearly all of them do buy music from apple.

"Whatever happened to the mobile music revolution? You know, the idea that your phone would become a digital juke box, the main way to access and pay for the world's music? So far, it just hasn't ..."

What on earth are you on about?! Every man, woman and child in the western world does exactly that!

What you mean by your article is that the technologies involved aren't regulated enough...because people like you can only make a living by extorting money out of the population...because, no-one in the real world would pay for this vacuous imbecility.

Why can't people enjoy the silence of their own thoughts? Why do they feel the need to constantly have the distraction of recorded sound? OK I don't like music, but I really do not understand what it is that names people need to constantly have the jingling of recorded music all day and night - don't they have anyone to talk to? Or perhaps they haven't got anything to say?

8. At 11:18am on 07 Mar 2011, Horatio McSherry wrote:
"Whatever happened to the mobile music revolution? ... So far, it just hasn't ..."

What on earth are you on about?! Every man, woman and child in the western world does exactly that!"


WRONG, I don't. In fact the opposite has happened. Surrounded by a surfeit of offerings I have practicaly given up listening to recordngs. With me, I now either find it live or not at all.

I agree with you final comment though "no-one in the real world would pay for this vacuous imbecility." 'cos that's what far too much of it has become.

Horatio McSherry - I think you will find that they don't. Apart from the ridiculous statement that 'every man woman and child in the western world' does this, it is also plainly not even slightly true.

in fact i would go as far as to say downloading music on mobile phones is almost non-existent compared to downloading via mp3 players (most of which have wifi now) and pcs, and then transferring to phones. At most people will use spotify or lastfm and simply stream it. The cost of data usage on any phone is prohibative for any downloads as unlimited data contracts are virtually non-existent!

Any what do you mean 'people like you make a living by extorting money'!!?? Is that not libellous? How on earth did that get past the moderators? How about reasoned and informed debate not random slander and gibberish?

I use my phone for both music and podcasts, and occasionally actual radio. I don't use it for nasty, limited, DRM-laden, costly services that do a less good job than I can do on my own.

I think it's pretty clear what has, and what has not, failed here.

@John_from_Hendon
When you are spending 12 hours travelling on a weekend, music and podcasts become a lifesaver.

As many poster have already pointed out there are loads of services out there that already offer similar (if not better) services than what We7 are proposing/launching.

Spotify is huge with users I know as it's a great service and isn't too costly. The Zune pass also seems to be a success with friends I have with WinPhone7 handsets.

However, many prefer just to sync music from their PC's to their phones. It may not be legal but I think you would find that many users prefer the "share with your mates" approach rather than the "pay to play" model. Sharing has worked for decades for people whether it be LP's, CD's or MP3's and it won't go away anytime soon.

The main reasons for this are bandwidth costs and availability. The mobile operators do not want us using up masses of bandwidth unless we are prepared to pay for it. That's fair enough if you ask me but you can't expect someone to pay a subscription fee and additional service fees just to listen to music. Until this is resolved and on-line services offer all artists (still can't get Led Zep, AC~DC or the Beatles on Spotify) then it's just not going to happen.

What will perhaps change things is if one of the bigger players do go into this space - and there's been rumours (and that's all they are at the moment) that now Apple have a new massive data centre that "cloud-based" music or streaming of music will be something else that they'll offer. Would be logical for them to do that - extend their reach - but at what cost?

The main reason I don't want this sort of thing on my phone is that a phone needs to maintain battery life during the day and playing music or streaming audio over 3G or WiFi uses a lot of battery power.

So, I have a separate music player that doesn't do this and has much better battery life.

I also buy all of my music on CD and rip it myself, or if I can I buy good quality music (FLAC) direct from the artist and thus cut out the record companies.

The one and only thing I miss out on this way is discovering music I haven't heard already by accident, but there are plenty of ways to do that if you want on the 'net so really it's not a problem.

The We7 app is now available in it's updated version (eg free music on the go and WiFi downloads) already. What Rory failed to mention (but Wall Street Journal did) is the update to the We7 app isn't available on iOS until at least April, with speculation it is due to issues surrounding the closed nature of the Apple App Store.

One issue with all of these services is highlighted in the article - people don't want to pay for the ad-free, service. But, at the same time, nobody is really listening to the ads and advertisers are getting poor responses (so this revenue stream will eventually begin to dry up). Whether it's an app or website, people are always happy to get something for free, and find ways to ignore (or block) ads. Advertisers are quickly realising that having a banner on a million websites doesn't necessarily pay off when we've become accustomed to ignoring them.

Every service is hoping to convert people to a paid subscription, which is the only way they'll ever break even or make a profit. When that doesn't happen, it's game over.

This is why such services will never become as big as they hope, or boast they will be, at least until the consumer begins to accept the concept of paying for content. Given how many people expect everything on the net to be free, from news to music, video and games (having had easy access to material illegally for many years), it will take more than just coming up with some amazing service to change the way we think about content.

One thing that makes it particularly hard is that you might pay £10 a month for access to content you never actually own, and you won't even have any physical product to consider your own - either to sell on or put in the loft to look at in the years to come for sentimental reasons (or hand down to your children).

For all the benefits of being able to get whatever you want in a matter of a few clicks, there will always be that downside. I think most of us will actually miss this when we get old and have little more than an old hard drive or flash drive filled with media that we might not even be able to play without continuing a subscription like some never-ending mortgage payment.

#9 John, to explain the answer to your question would be like describing to a person who doesn't have a sense of humour why laughing is important. But here's my tuppence worth of opinion to help you...

Music is important to me. It's not a distraction, it's an enhancement.
And, like some of the other posters, I travel a lot on my own for work. Silence is wonderful but the right music replenishes my soul.

If you still don't get it then that's fine. You'll not miss what you didn't have in the first place.

I'd just like to say firstly, thank you to all of you who decided to get so hot under the collar with your comments - and make swipes at the Journo; wasn't his style meant to provoke a debate?

I feel the technologies & service is not quite here yet; network provider wise. I'd rather not use have to use ITunes, SPOTIFY and LASTFM...... I would like to choose just one that has all what I want and is not costing me so much, so that would be a step forward.

Also, if the journalist knew his subject he'd mention the All you can eat data with three's one plan. whilst all other networks are reducing data allowances, Three are increasing it, and they've just announced All you can eat data on PAYG too.

this gives services like Spotify and We7 the chance to grow without end users worrying about data bills, and would be worth highlighting

#16 agree with you there. Until we get a device that REALLY SEROUSLY does everything on the go at a minimal cost and without killing the battery then we have to accept current limitations.

As per the poster at #16 I buy CDs for sound quality and permanent/physical ownership. My ipod is for music, my phone is...suprisingly used as a phone. It's also for safety. If my phone gets nicked, then I can still play my music. If my ipod gets nicked then I still have a phone.

Yes I'm old (41) and that's the reason for my antiquated methods but they still work perfectly fine.

Sorry but I can't see this new scheme being any different to lastfm or spotify both of which I doubt will be around 5 years from now.

With limitations on bandwidth employed by the carriers I can't see how these systems make long term sense. The majority of people still like to "own" their music (Whether they paid for it or not) and with the upsurge in powerful smartphones with large memories similar to an ipod and high quality mp3 players I don't see this changing anytime soon.

I would imagine that one of the reasons mobile music by cell phone hasn't been successful, is that the quality of sound from nearly all models is poor and tinny to say the least. MP3 is generally far superior in this regard.

I'm sorry but what is the point of this device anyway. A telephone is a device for talking to someone else through, An MP3 or Mpeg4 is designed to enable you to listen to music that you have legally purchesed whilst travelling. A transistor radio was designed to enable you to music on the go. and you can only ever listen to one radio station at a time.There is no point to streaming music when the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and other broadcasters do it for you many for free over the 'airwaves'
A camera or camcorder is a device to take images or record moving pictures upon.
More importantly it is advisable that you do not wear headphones whilst driving a car or riding a bike as you are not aware of noises from other road users and could have an accident.
Personally as a luddite We should get rid of all this modern stuff and have richer lives.

@virtualfang
Except modern smartphones have gone way beyond just being for phone calls now. They are essentially pocket computers.

Just because a music file is in MP3 format or whatever, it doesn't not mean it has been legally purchased.

As for radios - what if you are in a location that has next to no radio reception, but good 3G coverage? (there are such areas). Or what about if there isn't a radio station that matches your music tastes?

Why does it matter to you if one device (a smartphone) can do all this?
If you don't want one, just don't buy one.

ps - if you are so against technology, then why are you using a computer with an internet connection to post a comment on a technology blog.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The trouble with radio in this country is that generally speaking it simply does not deliver what people want.

We have around 450 or so radio stations in this country - most offering a pretty similar playlist. Statistics show that just under 50% of people in the UK listen to the radio on a moderately regular basis, mostly while travelling.

In the US they have ten THOUSAND radio stations broadcasting to only five times the population size. A huge number of them a specialist music stations - something like 1900 country stations, 1200 Christian stations and so on working through may types of music.

Around 90% of people, including younger listeners, listen on a regular, daily basis and will listen to more than one station, depending on, mostly, their music tastes.

Local radio personalities are hugely important in the US, where local really does mean local - though they do take syndicated programmes.

Radio can work in line with modern technology - many people do NOT want to create their own radio play list, they want to be surprised, excited, informed and entertained by a knowledgeable radio team.

Unfortunately, the last time I heard a station in this country remotely like that was when XFM was running on a special licence with a young Gary Crowley doing his thing.

XFM is now just another big-company owned brand without any edge at all.

Why don't the young listen to radio?

In the US they do - here, they don't. It is not difficult to work out why.

How can you begin an article with "Whatever happened to the mobile music revolution?" and not once mention the iphone? Most people have all the music they want with them all the time.

Not Peter Gabriel again. His OD2 download service disappeared without trace leaving me and many others with hundreds of legally acquired tracks we could no longer play when we bought new computers, because the OD2 relicensing facility doesn't work.

Oh come on. Music apps simply don't work. In the internet age we have today, nobody wants to pay for music anymore. Music services like spotify simply do not have the collection of music that satisfy all tastes fully. Seriously, when you pay for music, its usually like a 128kbps MP3 which wont satisfy me at 99p or 79p thank you. i'd rather download a high quality 24bit WAV at at least 1411kbps or FLAC.

Not sure if it's just me but I just bought a 16gb sd for my Android, and stick all the music off my computer on it. It's mostly Soundcloud mixes which I can just grab (legitimately) for free

@virtualfang

What century were you living in again? My device does everything, why would anyone in their right mind want to carry several pieces of hardware around when you can have it all in one.

Would it not be easier to download music you like and create your own playlist? Or is this simply the laziness of paying someone to create a playlist for you?

I love using Spotify (Full free version) and its awesome, I can listen to all the music I want to without worrying about downloading, and getting into trouble.

I would love to see spotify free (limited) released for phones, as it would be a great way of getting more people interested in getting the premium version.

For those wondering, I have the full free version, so no 20 hour limits for me as I was lucky enough to have used spotify before they introduced the limited version.

@ Louis

Tyrbiter gave a good opinion in that.

Still whatever works for you is fine; just don't assume we all think it will work for us.

I already listen to we7 on the iPhone using the wifi2hifi app - it streams the audio output of the computer to the iOS device

Thirdechelon43 wrote:

Oh come on. Music apps simply don't work. In the internet age we have today, nobody wants to pay for music anymore. Music services like spotify simply do not have the collection of music that satisfy all tastes fully

#########

That would be why Spotify now has 1,000,000 paying users and hasn't even launched in the US yet.

Personally I find Spotify to be the ultimate way of accessing a varied selection of music. If someone tends to listen to the same 10 or 20 albums then £10 a month is probably far from cost effective. If your tastes change and you like to try out lots of different artists then Spotify is perfect.

I am relatively young yet still feel that I should not get everything for free on the Internet, music particularly is something I do not mind paying for as I feel the artists deserve to be paid.

I would also like to point out that sharing of "Spotify URIs" is a common way that people I know recommend music to each other, something that will not be possible with We7. Sharing and collaborating on playlists is also another feature that, whilst under used, makes the service superior.

Sorry if this sounds like a bit of an advert for Spotify, I admit I am a fan-boy. At least it makes a change from the usual "iDverts" that appear on this blog ;o)

Found a good blog for latest free itunes gift codes

itunesgiftcodes DOT wordpress DOT com/

or just google itunesgiftcodes wordpress if you dont trust my link :)