Fox News Reports: "Radio Is Dead, Is iTunes Next?"

[DToTheJ]

Okay, I found it partly amusing that Fox News had a story with the headline "radio is dead."

But this is an interesting about how iTunes, which helped to drive people away from the radio for their music listening needs, could be extinct itself in the ever-evolving listening environment.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/01/radio-dead-itunes-slacker-pandora/

 

[MattParker]

Okay, I found it partly amusing that Fox News had a story with the headline "radio is dead."

But this is an interesting about how iTunes, which helped to drive people away from the radio for their music listening needs, could be extinct itself in the ever-evolving listening environment.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/01/radio-dead-itunes-slacker-pandora/

The basic point of the article is: Why buy a cow when milk is free? Why pay to download music files and transfer them to a portable music player when with a smartphone (OK, and a data plan) you can get Pandora for free. At least until Pandora starts charging - like CBS' Last.FM already has.

Why shouldn't Fox report it. News Corp doesn't have much interest in radio. They have TV stations, a TV network and cable channels. They syndicate a few radio shows but are not big player in that field. Rupert Murdoch has no reason to protect "rusty towers in the sky" in the US. Besides, the statement is accurate. Rupert's Wall Street Journal has been reporting the demise of radio for sometime.

 

[TheBigA]

Yeah it's a poorly written article based on an unproven and false assertion. Also confused to attempt to link or compare Pandora and iTunes. iTunes killed off the album, it killed off the brick and mortar store, it killed off major labels, but it didn't kill off radio. iTunes is about buying. Pandora is about listening. Two different functions. They don't seem to know what they're talking about. But who cares? It's the internet and we all just say whatever we want, regardless of if it's true.

This article also completely ignores all the development we know taking place within Apple regarding cloud music sites. The next generation of Pandora is in the sky. Before we declare that Pandora has killed iTunes, let's give Apple a few months to launch their new app. But even then, they won't replace iTunes. Just augment it.

 

[landtuna]

As usual, Fox News is a mile wide and a quarter-inch deep.

Radio is much more than music. Even if music on radio disappeared completely, and it won't, there is enough content value left to provide quite a few year's worth of infotainment.

Sidebar to Fox News - I don't use iTunes and never will. There is a whole population of people just like me. If I had to place a bet on which would die first, radio or Fox News, my money wouldn't be on Fox.

 

[TheBigA]

Rupert's Wall Street Journal has been reporting the demise of radio for sometime.

And yet that same publication syndicates its own radio network, begging AM stations to clear WSJ features.. This is one of those cases of opportunism. We think you're going belly up, but would you please help us market out 18th century technology? Hypocrites!

 

[flashback]

Yeah it's a poorly written article based on an unproven and false assertion. Also confused to attempt to link or compare Pandora and iTunes. iTunes killed off the album, it killed off the brick and mortar store, it killed off major labels, but it didn't kill off radio. iTunes is about buying. Pandora is about listening. Two different functions. They don't seem to know what they're talking about. But who cares? It's the internet and we all just say whatever we want, regardless of if it's true.

This article also completely ignores all the development we know taking place within Apple regarding cloud music sites. The next generation of Pandora is in the sky. Before we declare that Pandora has killed iTunes, let's give Apple a few months to launch their new app. But even then, they won't replace iTunes. Just augment it.

radio isn`t dead ,nor are albums and brick and mortar stores are alive and well.

 

[landtuna]

If I had to place a bet on which would die first, radio or Fox News, my money wouldn't be on Fox.

It's apparently later here than I thought and some cells have already retired for the evening.

What I obviously meant to say was "my money wouldn't be on radio".

Sorry for the interruption. :-[

 

[TheBigA]

radio isn`t dead ,nor are albums and brick and mortar stores are alive and well.

Really? Try to buy music in one lately?

 

[flashback]

radio isn`t dead ,nor are albums and brick and mortar stores are alive and well.

Really? Try to buy music in one lately?

i do all the time.major chains like best buy at times but also a small indianapolis chain for the most part.

they ain`t dead yet.

 

[TheBigA]

they ain`t dead yet.

Compared to the world before iTunes (which is the frickin' point) they're on life support.

 

[landtuna]

Compared to the world before iTunes (which is the frickin' point) they're on life support.

Several other important changes have occurred in addition to the introduction of iTunes.

1. Popular music, in general, isn't what it once was and overall purchasing has declined (as a percentage of total population).

2. Back in the day we could buy 45's with a single (or double-sided) version of our favorite song for $1. Albums ranged from $7-$10. Then the labels got greedy and sold limited numbers of singles and upped the album price to $15-$18 and beyond. Since the music was still worthwhile we continued buying but as soon as individual songs were available again albums suffered.

3. Online downloading from pirate sites meant less purchasing from every source.

4. The proliferation of online streaming music services (radio and otherwise) meant you didn't have to buy music. You could dial it up when desired. Or you could record it and burn your own custom CD's.

5. Now with the general recession and less discretionary spending music purchases are off some more. And with the availability of online purchasing it is much easier for most people to buy online rather than visit their local record store.

iTunes is part of this but it isn't responsible for all of the decline in brick-and-mortar record shops.

 

[johnbasalla]

Of all these things that some are prematurely claiming as "dead", the one that is most alive in the U.S. is RADIO. In sizeable markets, all existing radio stations find a buyer. In Cleveland, Ohio a 1,000 watt AM daytimer way up at 1540 did not go dark, it was bought by sports broadcasters as a second or overflow station, not unlike ESPN and then ESPN2. Then there are so many people/oganizations wanting an OTA station, that the FCC is fudging new rules so they can grant more licenses. Many of these may become non-comms. Don't overuse the "dead" word, it's not accurate. "Shrinking" may be accurate in some quarters, but "dead?" No way.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

I don't know about radio, but iTunes isn't going anywhere until the iPod is no longer the main means of storing music.

 

[MattParker]

I don't know about radio, but iTunes isn't going anywhere until the iPod is no longer the main means of storing music.

If you are using those brand names generically, yes. However, all iPods are music players but most music players are not iPods. Today, most music players sold are Smart Phones and most Smart Phones are not iPhones. Only Apple products are locked in to iTunes and its music store. Overall, the article makes a valid point and I'd expect to see Apple's market share of online music sales (both flat-rate subscriptions and a la carte) continue to decline ... unless the music services come up with more attractive pricing or Pandora and the rest fail to improve their algorithms for picking music the user will like.

 

[Roger That]

Today, most music players sold are Smart Phones and most Smart Phones are not iPhones.

Source?

Only Apple products are locked in to iTunes and its music store.

Completely false. Apple products are not locked into anything. You can use a number of alternatives to iTunes with your Apple products and they work great. And you can get music from anywhere and have it work fine (Amazon, illegal downloads, etc).

It's probably ignorance on the consumers' part, but people choose to use iTunes for one reason or another (Likely convenience). If iTunes is providing them with what they want, why would it go away? Unlike radio, Apple will evolve. If what iTunes is giving the consumer isn't what they're looking for it will get changed.

As for Pandora, their inflated numbers and BS hype has been designed specifically to attract investors. They aren't measured like traditional radio, so they can say whatever they want...and have.

 

[MattParker]

Today, most music players sold are Smart Phones and most Smart Phones are not iPhones.

Source?

Only Apple products are locked in to iTunes and its music store.

Completely false. Apple products are not locked into anything. You can use a number of alternatives to iTunes with your Apple products and they work great. And you can get music from anywhere and have it work fine (Amazon, illegal downloads, etc).

It's probably ignorance on the consumers' part, but people choose to use iTunes for one reason or another (Likely convenience). If iTunes is providing them with what they want, why would it go away? Unlike radio, Apple will evolve. If what iTunes is giving the consumer isn't what they're looking for it will get changed.

As for Pandora, their inflated numbers and BS hype has been designed specifically to attract investors. They aren't measured like traditional radio, so they can say whatever they want...and have.

Apple iOS' world market share is 14.4%. In the US it's the 35% and predicted to drop over the next few years.

Apple doesn't give the customer what he wants. It gives them what Tech Nazi ("no apps for you") Steve Jobs wants them to have. Apple had a Smartphone monopoly; now they don't. Jobs' contempt for the customer is catching up with him. Now customers can get equal or better smartphones running Android without having to jail-break their phones to get what they want (and having to jail-break it again if they connect to iTunes). iTunes is a major resource hog which insists on making unwanted and unasked changes to users' PCs.

 

[TVradioguru]

I agree Apple isn't the only smartphone on the market today, but it is probably one of the best. Unlike Windows or Android, Apple controls the user experience to a much more predictable level for the average consumer. Not unlike radio when you think about it.

There are a lot of people in this world that prefer a reliable and predictable device/service, than an open-source device that can be easily hacked, attacked by viruses, have poor battery life, or surf porn.

Don't want an IPhone because you want to have 'open source' options? Great! Don't buy one. But calling Steve Jobs a Tech Nazi because they go a certain direction, is rather childish and over the top.

 

[Roger That]

Apple iOS' world market share is 14.4%. In the US it's the 35% and predicted to drop over the next few years.

Apple doesn't give the customer what he wants. It gives them what Tech Nazi ("no apps for you") Steve Jobs wants them to have. Apple had a Smartphone monopoly; now they don't. Jobs' contempt for the customer is catching up with him. Now customers can get equal or better smartphones running Android without having to jail-break their phones to get what they want (and having to jail-break it again if they connect to iTunes). iTunes is a major resource hog which insists on making unwanted and unasked changes to users' PCs.

So...you've succeeded in proving that Apple doesn't provide what YOU want, but your personal anecdotal evidence won't be the substitute for real evidence. The vast VAST majority of iPhone users do NOT jailbreak their phones, nor have any desire to. The idea that the way you feel is the way the bulk of Apple's consumers do is completely laughable. TVradioguru makes a great point: A controlled, predictable user experience is what drives a lot of the love for Apple products. Outside of nerds and developers, it doesn't enter their mind that they're "missing so much."

And PS...I'm a tech nerd, and I'm not disagreeing with the points you've made regarding Android being a great, open platform. Only that you think that anyone above a small minority cares.

 

[MattParker]

Don't want an IPhone because you want to have 'open source' options? Great! Don't buy one. But calling Steve Jobs a Tech Nazi because they go a certain direction, is rather childish and over the top.

I don't think so. Nothing new. The same arguments were when AOL tried to keep people nice and safe and not exposed to the dangers of the big bad Internet. Steve Jobs deserves the title (borrowed from the owner of soup restaurant on Seinfeld) because of his high-handed tactics in restricting access to apps. What is unjustified are your untrue slurs against the Android operating system. I have no objection is Steve Jobs wants to run a selective app store. What I object to is running closed-shop app store while not allowing users to explore other options if they want to. The guy is a control freak with no regard for anyone or anything but himself - going back to his refusal to allow designers to put a fan in the original Mac, which offended his aesthetic sensibilities, but would have kept the systems from over-heating and breaking down. His treatment of Woz, the true genius behind Apple, was reprehensible.

 

[TVradioguru]

Okay this is where we go from opinion to pure speculation and rumor. But please, do tell us all about Steve Wozniak's relationship with Steve Jobs. Or rather, tell us about how Steve Jobs did "Woz" wrong. Do be careful though, you never know who you're talking to on a discussion board. Making claims as you're some sort of an insider may cause embarrassment.

Were you at the conference in Valencia? If so, then I may have run into you.