Future iPod Killer Feature!

Is an iPod with TiVo-like features and integrated XM radio THE killer feature?

  • Yes! Such an iPod would result in Apple dominating the music industry and become a powerful distribu

  • No way! Who wants to pay for music?!

Results are only viewable after voting.
V

vitaboy

Registered
It's probably already been mentioned before, but it occurred to me as I was posting a message regarding iPod sales figures. But a killer feature for the iPod more than anything else would be an integrated digital satellite radio receiver.

We're starting to see XM radios being offered in some luxury cars, and yes, it requires a subscription to access some 500 crystal-clear, commercial free channels of digital music of almost any genre you want. But think about it.

With a 20 GB hard drive, the iPod can become the TiVo of digital music. Such an iPod would be the thing that makes music subscriptions successful. It will be the death of crappy RIAA-backed services like MusicNet and PressPlay.

Imagine being able to tell your iPod, "I want to subscribe to the Top 40 channel" or "Give me classical jazz only." The iPod will then automatically begin downloading select pieces by scanning the 500 XM music channels and making them available in a folder called "iPod XM Select."

No matter where you go, even without a Mac, you can get fresh music that you can listen at your leisure and constantly get new music. You'd still have your iTunes-based music as your "core" collection, but the XM stuff would be always changing the mix, keeping it fresh. To satisfy the lawyers, XM-radio downloaded music wouldn't be copyable back to a Mac and would be restricted to it own folder, but still, having the ability to access terabytes of music anywhere, anytime - how cool is that?

I think a lot of people would be willing to pay $10 or $12 a month for such a service, and Apple could form a partnership with Sirius so that they can take a cut of the subscription fee.

What does everyone think?
 
I think the genius part of it is, the XM feature (which would probably be expensive) would only be offered in the top-of-the-line iPod. So only people who really want it and willing to pay for it would have to pay for it. And even if decide you want to cancel your subscription to XM radio, the iPod would still be as functional as any other.
 
XM radios for cars start at like $300 .. if you were make a portable XM radio and cram it into an iPod case making it only slightly bigger .. that thing is gonna cost a grand.
 
But with the 10 GB iPod already at $499, we're not talking much of a stretch there. Besides, costs will go down as they run the technology through several iterations. Maybe this time next year, Apple would be able to offer an XM-radio TiVo iPod for $699, which while expensive, wouldn't be that outrageous for such a device. Remember, we're only talking high-end iPod here, marketed to real audiophiles willing to pay for XM radio subscriptions. Over time, the technology can be offered to everyone at a low enough cost.

But the ramification of an XM-radio iPod are huge if Apple can jump start that market. If Apple sells several million of these iPods, that's a pretty sizeable market and Apple/Sirius suddenly becomes a force for distribution.

The biggest concerns and challengers consumers have is that the music labels and RIAA are able to maintain a lock on the distribution piece. New artists are basically forced to sign with a big label if they want a chance of getting their music widely played and distributed. The Internet allows some artists to distribute on their own, but such efforts lack the marketing resources that only the big labels can provide. So because they have total control over distribution, they are able to screw the artist over while continuing to charge $15 per CD while pointing the finger at groups like Napster for causing a decline in CD sales.

With XM radio in the hands of millions, artists would no longer be as dependent on the labels because the music could be streamed directly to millions of users, all of whom are paying to receive music! So the musician would know by allowing their work to be distributed via XM, they will in fact be compensated.

Apple can suddenly became a technology enabler that allows musicians the luxury of not signing with a big label and distributing and selling music on their own terms. Apple can do for musicians what desktop publishing did for small businesses which were reliant on expensive print shops.

That's potentially revolutionary, IMHO.
 
I don't so much care about XM, I just want regular radio for when I go to the gym and they have those TVs where you can tune in via selected frequencies. I don't have an iPod yet, but if I get one, it's going to be annoying having to take both the pod and my stupid radio headset or having to choose between them.
 
Originally posted by vitaboy
But the ramification of an XM-radio iPod are huge if Apple can jump start that market. If Apple sells several million of these iPods, that's a pretty sizeable market and Apple/Sirius suddenly becomes a force for distribution.

The biggest concerns and challengers consumers have is that the music labels and RIAA are able to maintain a lock on the distribution piece. New artists are basically forced to sign with a big label if they want a chance of getting their music widely played and distributed. The Internet allows some artists to distribute on their own, but such efforts lack the marketing resources that only the big labels can provide. So because they have total control over distribution, they are able to screw the artist over while continuing to charge $15 per CD while pointing the finger at groups like Napster for causing a decline in CD sales.

With XM radio in the hands of millions, artists would no longer be as dependent on the labels because the music could be streamed directly to millions of users, all of whom are paying to receive music! So the musician would know by allowing their work to be distributed via XM, they will in fact be compensated.
Click to expand...

XM and Sirius DO NOT change the distribution model of the music industry - they are merely a new broadcasting medium. The two satellite broadcasters are founded by and partnered with established big corporations that have little interest in making music more accessible to consumers.

One of XM's partnets is Sony (who owns Sony Music), it is also founded by Clear Channels and DIRECTV, both established corporations (one as the largest US radio operator, the other, satellite TV operator) that haven't really championed easy access to entertainment media for consumers.

Sirius isn't much better. Much of their content is from AOL/TW, who I doubt very much want to make content freely available to people, also Sirius is partnered with Sony.

Satellite radio isn't cheap, so I doubt some indie band can muster up the cash to broadcast their music through either networks.

I think iPod with satellite radio will have the whiz bang factor, but it's pretty useless otherwise. Satellite radio is most attractive to long distance commuters who want reliable broadcast no matter where they are. Besides, we are paying so much money for content for all fronts already: at least $20.00/month for the net, $25.00/month for cable (pretty basic package). The fees all seem small seperately, but add them up and it's a lot!

-B
 
Originally posted by phatsharpie


XM and Sirius DO NOT change the distribution model of the music industry - they are merely a new broadcasting medium. The two satellite broadcasters are founded by and partnered with established big corporations that have little interest in making music more accessible to consumers.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I guess that does put a damper on things. And I agree that the costs of all the things you have to pay for do add up - cell phone, landline, cable/DSL, etc.

But I still feel long-term, digital satellite radio can become more than a broadcast medium and into a distribution medium. If only the content companies would wake up and embrace the technology instead of applying old rules to it.

I mean, TiVo is revolutionary because it allows easy time shifting of content. If the content companies embraced the idea of time shifting, they wouldn't be held slave to trying to make sure you're there at a certain day at a certain time of the week to watch the show. Yeah, the VCR also allows time-shifting, but 99% of the population can't figure how to program the darn thing anyway. If they embraced technologies like TiVo and ReplayTV, then they would realize that TV can be a distribution medium as well as a broadcast medium. But that's the problem, isn't it? The content companies don't even dare to question existing assumption of what is or what should be.

So who know - maybe digital satellite radio will never take off because it's just not compelling enough or maybe it'll never become compelling enough because the owners of the technology are afraid to embrace it. Time will only tell.
 
80$ US from Clarion for the add-on. Only, Clarion uses "Sirius", XM's competitor, which looks to be better. 12$/month, no contracts, on a month-to-month basis.

$25 to $50 at most to add the feature in a bulk setting as Apple's manf. process.

Originally posted by themacko
XM radios for cars start at like $300 .. if you were make a portable XM radio and cram it into an iPod case making it only slightly bigger .. that thing is gonna cost a grand.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top