The iPod turns 14

14 years ago Steve Jobs announced the iPod, and this is how people reacted: https://t.co/uPimSbiC6j (via reddit) pic.twitter.com/8WuBYps6Mh

— Max Roser (@MaxCRoser) October 25, 2015

I love the idea that just possibly Steve Jobs read the post and went "hey, a glorified consumer gimmicks firm... that could just work..."

But that's not all. There's also this tweet in reply to that tweet:

@MaxCRoser Providing people with the ability to listen to music all day was one of the most socially idiotic things anyone has done.

— Dick Winchester (@DickWinchester) October 25, 2015

We already had the ability to listen to music all day before the iPod, didn't we? Unless there was some limit to how long you were allowed to have a radio switched on for, or the unspooling of a tape wasn't just a mechanical fault but a government-mandated event designed to cause a gap in music consumption.

I presume that Dick's real beef is that people listen to music with earphones - similar to one of Joe Elliott's moans. But, again, that's not exactly an invention of Apple (although you wouldn't put it past them to try and snaffle a patent on it).

Dre sort of apologises a little

Both Dr Dre and Apple have been forced to sort-of engage a bit with the allegations that Dre used to beat women up.

Dre had been ignoring these claims for years, but discovered that when someone makes a biopic about you and also ignores them, it becomes hard to pretend it didn't happen.

So, sit back and see how Dre tries to make amends for beating women up, and then ignoring them for decades:

"Twenty-five years ago I was a young man drinking too much and in over my head with no real structure in my life. However, none of this is an excuse for what I did. I’ve been married for 19 years and every day I’m working to be a better man for my family, seeking guidance along the way. I’m doing everything I can so I never resemble that man again.”

“I apologize to the women I’ve hurt. I deeply regret what I did and know that it has forever impacted all of our lives.”

This raises a whole bunch of questions - Dre being a man of whom the world's most famous leading question, 'when did you stop beating your partners', can legitimately be asked.

More pressingly, if Dre deeply regrets what he did, isn't a bit of a coincidence that this regret has only just bubbled over into acknowledging that what your accusers have said is true the week after the movie came out?

And finally: even if your regret is heartfelt, why would you end it with the line about "all of our lives"? You think that the best way to say sort-of-sorry for beating women is to remind people that, hey, it's affected you too.

Apple, for their part, have popped out a statement which shrugs and says "well, he's never hit a woman so hard he cracked her ribs while he's been here":

“Dre has apologized for the mistakes he’s made in the past and he’s said that he’s not the same person that he was 25 years ago. We believe his sincerity and after working with him for a year and a half, we have every reason to believe that he has changed.”

What galls most here is the word "mistakes", as if repeatedly attacking women was a bit like speeding in a built-up area because you didn't see the sign.

Maybe Dre really is contrite. But it'd be easier to believe if we spoke about what it was he did then less than what he doesn't do now.

65daysofstatic won't be your project

Catching up with a couple of stories from earlier in the week. First, the mighty 65daysofstatic were surprised to see themselves being named on a government press release:

So recently 65days received some funding from the British Phonographic Industry (BPI). This is no doubt a good thing for us. It’s appreciated and will be put to good use.

The funding was announced yesterday in a press release over at gov.uk, in which we are named along with 18 other bands or artists, as beneficiaries of this public funding to help “export [our] music abroad”.

Sometimes when you list things alphabetically, numbers appear before ‘A’, and so 65daysofstatic is at the top of the list of bands and artists, and not far below a quote from Business Secretary Sajid Javid declaring that this Music Export Growth Scheme is the government “banging the drum” (see what he did there?) for music and the UK’s culture industries.

The idea of 65daysofstatic being held up in any way as evidence that this hyper-Dickensian, fucking nightmare of a Tory government is apparently supporting the arts, when in actual fact they are destroying any kind of infrastructure for future creativity at the grassroots level and plunging the most vulnerable parts of society into further misery, leaves a bad taste in our mouths. So here are some notes from us, just for the record:

• Spending public money on the arts is clearly not a bad thing. It’s better than spending it on Trident, bailing out banks, subsidising sketchy right-to-buy tactics to help private landlords get richer, and so on.

• Arts-based public spending is so often justified, as it is again in today’s BPI press release, as being ‘good for the British economy’ (“an approximate return on investment of £8.50 for every £1 invested”). This entirely misses the point of why we need to support arts and creativity in the first place.

• The press release mentions that this public funding will be matched by the music companies behind the acts. This is the first we have heard of this. Either this is accurate, which seems unlikely at least in our case because if any of the music companies we work with were actually giving us money for nothing, they’d presumably have told us about it. On the other hand, it could be that the idea is music companies ‘match’ the funding figure, but then that money is actually added to the band’s ‘recoup’ with them via a record deal or whatever. This also seems unlikely, as it would mean that, on paper, if it is ultimately the artist that is required to match whatever funding they get, then actually they’re not getting any help at all. (Unlikely, but this is the music industry we’re talking about). The third option would be that this ‘matching’ is entirely fabricated for the purposes of the press release, which would suggest that somebody, somewhere, is so scared of the wrath of the Daily Mail, or whoever, for having wasted money on something as frivolous as the arts, that they literally invented non-existent extra funds from The Music Business to give the illusion of an industry that is growing in rude, capitalist health. To make it clear that this is A Sensible Business Decision and not Commie-Liberal Hippy Indulgence. No idea which of these, if any, is true. But it is odd.

• Similarly, if they think that they’re gonna get 65 to “attend writing camps overseas to help boost the revenues that come from publishing and sync deals” they’ve got another thing coming. Presumably this is more empty press release wrangling; a well-intentioned arts-funding-proposal-writer somewhere knew what business-friendly buzzwords were needed to catch the ear of a business secretary who might understand that ‘publishing and syncs’ as opposed to ‘record sales and touring’ are the remaining deposits of wealth that need pillaging mining in the world of music. But how patronising and wrong-brained this patronage is, whereby acts are given song-writing classes about how to better grow and focus their ‘product’ in order to help grow the British economy. WHO THINKS LIKE THIS? Probably Mumford & Sons. In fact they probably run the writing camps on the grounds of their L.A mansions or something.

• The proposal that 65daysofstatic put in for this funding was based on a hypothetical budget for a hypothetical American tour. It is very expensive to tour in America, but we’ll be eventually be putting out a new album in the shape of our No Man’s Sky soundtrack and we would like to be able to afford to play shows in a country where that game appears to be receiving a huge amount of attention. (To ‘grow our brand’, in music industry parlance). This BPI funding covers maybe a third of the deficit of the budget. Meaning that this hypothetical tour still costs, rather than makes, a lot of money. Furthermore, the majority of these costs are travel-related, so almost all this ‘music’ funding will actually be going to airlines and oil companies. The rest will go to pay our crew (which is obviously right and proper) and to musical equipment hire companies. The only part of it that would come to 65 is what are called ‘PDs’ (per diems), a daily allowance for each of us to be able to buy food, coffee and sometimes, debauched rockstars that we are, extra beer and wine.

They also bring Taylor Swift into it:

But still, until musicians do start getting paid fairly (which will be never), you fear that the conversation will never move on. Thanks to Taylor Swift, 65daysofstatic will now collectively earn approximately £40 for the three months of free Apple Music streaming than we would have earned otherwise. And really, thanks Taylor, that’s cool, it’s honestly better than not-having £40, but did you know Apple only paid £12 million in tax in the UK last year instead of the estimated £400 million that they should have? If you could take that up with them next time you fancy fixing things for struggling artists, it’d be really appreciated. We’ll even do you a remix for cheap in return.

In passing, I think we'd all love 65daysofstatic doing a Taylor Swift remix. I'm not sure we'll get Apple to invest £360million for it to happen, though.

The music industry stands behind Taylor Swift

Funniest sight of yesterday was a spokesperson from UK Music popping up on BBC News to praise the actions of Taylor Swift.

Almost as if they weren't representing the very music business companies who, when Apple demanded the three month free trial deal in the first place, just nodded and signed the paperwork.

Photographers versus Taylor Swift

After Taylor Swift won the battle with Apple to ensure that artists get to make money from their work, a photographer asked why her photographer contracts were okay, then:

“You say in your letter to Apple that ‘Three months is a long time to go unpaid,'” Sheldon writes. “But you seem happy to restrict us to being paid once, and never being able to earn from our work ever again, while granting you the rights to exploit our work for your benefit for all eternity…”

He goes on to say, “How are you any different to Apple? If you don’t like being exploited, that’s great… make a huge statement about it, and you’ll have my support. But how about making sure you’re not guilty of the very same tactic before you have a pop at someone else?”

Some people have been quick to defend Swift, saying it's unlikely that she's written the photographer contract. Which is true, but a person who is clearly in control of their career would at least have signed off on it.

The most egregious part of the Swift contract (itself not uncommon in the modern music industry) is that it gives Swift's management the right to smash people's cameras and equipment for non-compliance.

Now, the idea that a minor fracas over copyright could result in anyone deliberately destroying cameras might seem extreme, but it's not unusual. For example, if you purchase a ticket to a gig at, say, Southend's Cliffs Pavilion, the terms and conditions are written to allow staff to destroy your stuff:

The use of equipment to record or transmit audio and/or visual material inside the Venue is strictly forbidden. Unauthorised recordings, tapes, films or similar items may be confiscated and destroyed. Any recording made in breach of these conditions shall belong to the Venue and/or Promoter of the Event. Neither the Promoter nor the Venue will be liable for the loss, theft or damage to confiscated items.

As, increasingly, video and audio is being published to the web as it is consumed, either the Pavilion intends to march on Periscope servers with bats and torches; or else this is just basically a way to punish transgressors by smashing their stuff without any comeback.

Is Swift a hypocrite? Probably not - there's a wide difference between making musicians subsidise a major multinational's promotional campaigns and a photography landgrab, but it would be nice to see her take a lead in the question of photographer's rights in the same way she's taken on Apple.

In which Taylor Swift has a point, and wins the day

You'll have read this elesewhere, by now, but Taylor Swift's gentle-but-firm open letter to Apple (alright, open Tumblog) does gently nail Apple and leave them hung out looking like greedy butt-danglers:

I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.

The historically generous company which, for example, could have quite happily offered a discount on iMacs to educational institutions but chose instead to create a lower-spec model.

But could a flattering approach, even from Taylor Swift, work?

Actually, yes. It worked:

Now Apple says it will pay artists for music streamed during trial periods.
"We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple," tweeted executive Eddy @Cue.

Of course, it's not so much the candy coating of Swift's letter that worked. It was the greed-shaming of putting right in the front of people the idea that it was musicians and songwriters who were actually paying for that three month free trial, not the cash-rich Apple.

Being shamed by a popstar. Thank god that can still happen - but it's still shabby it took Taylor Swift for Apple to understand they were pulling a shit move.

No Siriprises: Apple launch streaming service

"Oh come on, you guys. Even though it's about a million years since we bought Dre's ugly headphone company to get their streaming technology, and we've been signing up DJs all over the place, couldn't you at least pretend that our new Apple streaming service is some sort of a surprise?"

Yes, after years of Spotify being posited as an iTunes killer, effectively with Apple Music, iTunes is going to try and kill Spotify.

We'll just sit here and wait for the first "have you seen the tiny royalties Apple Music are paying" stories which, with the service launching at the end of June, we're expecting some time round early September.

Apple are hoping that nobody reminds them about the can't fail music service Ping right now.

Formatwatch: Bono busy inventing something else nobody wants

You've got to hand it to Bono - just days after not realising nobody wanted his rump-reeking new record, even for free, he's coming up with another thing that people are neither seeking, nor requiring:

In a new Time magazine article, the singer has detailed the group's plans to help combat the illegal downloading of artists' music by creating a new file format which cannot be copied.

Unless there's some magic way it doesn't need to pass audio to an output, let me stop you right there Bono and say it doesn't work.

But do carry on.

The aim of the top secret project is to tempt fans to purchase full albums, not just individual tracks, once more so new material will once again become profitable for artists who aren't big on touring.

The problem here, Bono, is that 'bundling stuff into albums' is a thing that was convenient for labels and artists. It wasn't, ever, a thing that happened because music fans went to bed wishing that when they bought six songs they liked, they could get another four tracks they didn't like, and would never play.

Apple have already tried to resurrect the album format once - with the iTunesLP. That was meant to be an "immersive experience" with all sorts of extras which would make buying a bundle attractive again.

Nobody seems to have released one since last November's Justin Timberlake 20/20 Experience.

But, still, good luck, Bono.

U2: All that you can't leave behind

The triumphalist parping as U2 "made history" by foisting an unwanted record on people now has a historic counterblast: Songs Of Innocence is now the first record in history to have a special tool dedicated to its removal:

"Some customers asked for the ability to delete 'Songs of Innocence' from their library, so we set up itunes.com/soi-remove to let them easily do so. Any customer that needs additional help should contact AppleCare," spokesman Adam Howorth told the BBC.

Yeah. Apple didn't even stop to think before the release that some people might not want the bloody thing.

Apple did change things last week. Up until last Tuesday, someone in front of you tapping the front of their watch impatiently used to be a sign they wanted you to hurry up. Now, that gesture just means they're trying to wipe U2 off their devices.

U2: Why that 'free' album is dangerous as well as turgid

There's a good piece on The Register about why pushing an unwanted U2 album into people's faces is more than just impertinence:

Some have said that the offer would have been more palatable if a band with more "street cred" had been promoted.

But that's not really the point. Days before the U2 push, crooks were spamming fake Apple emails accusing marks of buying the film Lane Splitter on a computer or device that hadn’t previously been linked to their Apple ID. In reality it's not an Apple purchase notification, it's an attempt to trick users into handing over their Apple ID usernames and passwords to a phishing site, as Symantec details. The scam messages are distributed by the Kelihos botnet.

With Apple randomly messing with the contents of people's iTunes cloud libraries, this sort of email alert looks plausible: I just got a free album, maybe I just got a free film, victims may wonder. Celebrities had their private nude images spilled from their Apple iCloud accounts – have I been hacked too, others will ask when faced with an email notifying them of an unexpected purchase.

Apple want to trust us with using their products as an electronic wallet. Proving they can't be trusted with your keys doesn't seem a great idea right now.

Neil McCormick (who knows Bono) says why the Apple U2 'gift' was OK

Neil McCormick, who knows Bono, just popped up on Today to explain why people who are annoyed that Apple has foisted an undeletable U2 album into their personal music collections are wrong.

Neil, who knows Bono, muttered something about how the people complaining were the same ones who let Google serve ads next to their emails. Then he came out with this:

[They're] whinging because the biggest band in the world has put a free album in their box

Firstly, Neil, who knows Bono, One Direction are completely innocent in all this so I don't know why you're suggesting they've done anything at all.

Oh, maybe you meant that U2 are the biggest band in the world, like you're sending a dispatch from the early 1990s.

This suggestion that, somehow, it's okay because U2 are (or rather, once were) popular is fascinating - 'why are you complaining? They've had number one albums'.

Neil then went on to say that it didn't matter any way because it was all somehow in the cloud which also makes it alright, but then I had to go and watch some magpies throwing a mouse corpse around in the street. This isn't a metaphor; it was something that actually happened.

Quick message to Apple

Hi Apple.

Why is there a shitting U2 album in my iTunes this morning?

Why would you do that?

What do you think the advantage to me is of having, hidden amongst music that I actually like and want to have in my collection, a U2 album that I did not ask for, do not want, or would never seek out?

By all means, offer the record in your store. Advertise its availability far and wide. Float U2 on the magma atop a volcano, film the event in HD and book every advertising slot on every TV channel to show the results.

But do not, ever, insert unsolicited bullcrap into my iTunes library. Ever. You're making a Surface seem like a good idea.

I don't even seem to be able to delete the stinking things, either...

No, I don't want to "hide" them. I don't want them in my Cloud purchases. I want no connection with these tossers. I want them gone. I want them deleted.

Please don't ever do this again.

[This reminds me of the time that the BBC shoved unfunny sitcom Dossa and Joe onto Sky+ boxes without asking first.]

Apple sniff around Beats

Beats headphones - the universal signal to shopkeepers that someone easily separated from their money has entered their store - are about to be bought out by Apple.

It's unclear if they're interested in the streaming or the headphone part of the business.

UPDATE: Rory Cellan-Jones is currently on Today suggesting they're interested in the streaming bit of Beats. That makes the three billion price tag seem expensive; unless there's a motivation to acquire a more solid Android user base.

Apple worried, reckons Billboard

It turns out that the only people in the world who are surprised by the weak start for iTunes Radio are people at Apple who, according to Billboard, are surprised to discover if you offer people a decent, customisable streaming service, they become reluctant to buy:

iTunes Radio, which launched in September with much fanfare, so far only sees about 1%-2% of listeners clicking the buy button, while overall music downloads have been declining upwards of 15%, according to several label executives.

"Hey, you can come by and pet my kitten whenever you like. Whenever you want, just knock on the door and you can pet my kitten. 24 hours a day. Kittens on demand. Oh... would you like to give me some money and you can take the kitten home? No?"

Perhaps more worrying for Apple than this discovery that people aren't stupid is that, as streaming and other services kick in elsewhere, their importance is waning:

One independent label said that iTunes’s share of the label’s revenue has eroded from more than 70% in 2012 to about 50% today.

Apple have, in effect, have had the labels' nipples in clamps since the launch of the iPod - and the labels have squirmed, but they've liked the experience. Now, controlling 50% of the market is still a couple of screws on the clamp, but if that figure keeps falling the majors are going to start shouting their safe word. Without dominance, Apple's relationship with the mainstream music industry is going to change, and not in Apple's favour.

Apple, of course, aren't saying they're flying around in a blind panic, but you know there are frantic meetings going on where iPads are being furiously poked and boxes being thought out of.

For years, other companies dreamed of an iTunes killer. Turns out the might have just waited for natural causes to do their work.

HMV launches plans to defeat iTunes; realises it needs iTunes to be part of the plans

So, although it looked like it wouldn't make it through to offer confused elderly relatives a place to buy not quite the right CDs for the young 'uns this Christmas, HMV has survived in some form. Shrunk down, owned by a group known for restructuring; historical debts erased. Now, at last, the chain can focus on its unique selling point - being the only place you can go to buy recorded entertainment left standing. Right?

Hang on, they've just announced the completion of their image makeover. What did you guys come up with - something about your stores, right?

HMV has overhauled its online presence with a new, more editorially-focused site as it looks to re-exert its brand authority and customer experince through online channels.

Oh. Really? You're still thinking your a business which really has a future in being some sort of chatty webmagazine with some 'buy' buttons attached?

Why would you think that?

HMV chairman Paul McGowan said: “Everything we’re doing with HMV is focused on engagement, content and curation – all the things that HMV lost sight of in recent years.

“The passion within the business for the products we sell, the specialist knowledge and ability to recommend and guide our customers – from store staff to the team in head office – is second to none and the new hmv.com. brings that to the forefront.”

Did you ever go into an HMV before you bought the company, Paul? With all the best will in the world, nobody would ever have gone into an HMV store to ask musical advice from the staff, any more than you'd expect to get agricultural advice from the people who restock the dairy counters in Tesco. That's not to say that there weren't some HMV assistants who weren't passionate about music, but those that wee generally would have advised you to shop elsewhere.

The brand has recruited an editorial team to manage the site, while staff across the company’s chain of 142 UK stores will also be encouraged to contribute with content.

Given the PR disaster which followed HMV staff retaining access to official HMV channels that's quite a brave move.

However, at least this is something that you've fully thought through, right? It's not in any way a ragbag of half-formed ideas with a promise of better things to come, is it?

HMV general manager Caroline Pesch said: “As a hub for entertainment, a key element of the site is the sense of community and ease of use for finding local and relevant information. In addition to editorial features and reviews store staff can post their own picks and tips based on what’s happening on a local level. This is just phase one of the new site; as it develops we will be introducing lots more new and exciting functionality. The volume of content available will grow daily.”

Oh. Nothing says 'some stuff got written on a white board, and we think someone took a photo, and we're pretty certain there's something there we might be able to turn into some sort of web feature when we work out what the bloody thing says' like a vague suggestion that something "new and exciting" is coming in the future.

There's also an app, which Wired has heard all about:

[James] Coughlan, who was previously involved in building up Vodafone's digital music business, is first to admit that HMV has in the past "not really embraced the digital world in the way it should have done".

Yeah, that was Vodafone's digital music business that he built up. Because music is the first thing you think of when you hear Vodafone's name. Well, first thing after you've thought 'oh, the company that pretends its legally obliged to pay as little tax as possible'. And 'irritating bee commercials'. And 'spun off a military business'. But then, surely, you'd start to think about Vodafone's music.

There is, to be fair, a Vodafone Music twitter feed, which hasn't had a message since October 2nd. Erm, October 2nd, 2009. And vodafone.com/music just redirects to the Vodafone homepage. You can find out about Vodafone music, though, by searching on the site:

Vodafone Music has now closed
Vodafone Music is now closed, so you won’t be able to download any music from us anymore.

That's a pretty solid business built up there, then.

Never mind, though, James is now bringing his magic to HMV:

"What we're doing here by bringing a digital offering to market is we're amplifying what HMV's renowned for," he tells Wired.co.uk. "I see this lifting our physical business as well, because you probably are going to have experiences where you're in store and you're scanning physical products and the digital version may be a couple of quid higher than the physical copy you've got in your hand."

Interesting. The idea of having an app which appears to tell you that HMV's pricing policy is all over the place. Not entirely sure how advertising that your digital downloads are overpriced is really going to help, but you can't fault the honesty.

Still, Coughlan is at least dedicated to the idea of digital music. Isn't he?

Coughlan still believes that nothing really compares to holding a physical record

Oh.

But... he can at least tolerate the digital world, presumably?

"I fully support streaming and I think what it's done for the music business has been good. It's certainly ticked the box for the labels in being seen to act on what was going on over the last ten years with the likes of Napster and illegal downloads and doing their own education with the youth audience as to actually there is a value to music."

I'm not sure that sentence actually contained proper thoughts, so it'd probably be churlish to point out that Napster - the illegal version - closed down well over ten years ago. And that, arguably, streaming has done far more to undermine the traditional music business model by replacing the sense that music is a thing you collect and own than filesharing ever did.

Wired does praise something Coughlan has managed to arrange:

HMV has also managed to strike a deal with Apple that lets users download songs from the app straight into their iPhone's music library -- a first for a service other than iTunes.

Brilliant, right?

Except, almost as soon as the app launched last week, it vanished from the iTunes store. It turned out that if there was a deal with Apple, it fell apart pretty quickly:

Apple confirmed to The Guardian that the app was removed for "violating App Store guidelines", pointing to clause 11.13 in those guidelines: "Apps using IAP to purchase physical goods or goods and services used outside of the application will be rejected".

Early days for the fightback, though. And HMV does still have some stores on the High Street. Apple can't take that away from them.

Although a couple of the shops might be well placed for flogging iPhones from...

Bookmarks: The iPod

Did you know a British guy invented the iPod? No, no, not Jonathan Ive; Kane Kramer came up with idea - even patenting it, and building in DRM, back in 1979. Despite selling some preproduction units, he was ahead of his time; his patent lapsed and he even wound up being called as a witness when Apple was fighting its own patent battles. Wired has the full story and pics. And remember: this was from the year the Walkman was introduced:

Kramer came up with the idea for a pocket-sized, portable solid state music player with a friend, James Campbell. Kramer was 23, Campbell 21. The IXI System had a display screen and buttons for four-way navigation. In a report presented to investors in 1979, the IXI was described as being the size of a cigarette packet. Is this sounding familiar yet?

Back in 1979, a memory chip would store a paltry three and a half minutes of music. Kramer fully expected this to improve, and confidently foresaw a market for reliable, high quality digital music players which would be popular with both consumers and the record labels. It could actually be argued that he was still ahead of Apple after the firat iPod went on sale — that had a hard drive and Kramer had moved onto flash memory years earlier.

[With thanks to @curiousiguana]

iRadio: Can you feel the excitement?

Can you hear the world, holding its breath, for the launch of Apple iRadio?

Nope, me neither.

The sheer lack of people who say "you know what I wish? I wish I could stream music through the iTunes interface" has always been noticeable.

It's likely that Apple will make the service a success, simply through plonking the iRadio button on homescreens of devices, and maybe there'll be something to the service unveiled today that makes it essential, or desirable, but it's hard to see the problem with music streaming that needs Apple to solve it.

AllThingsD tries to describe what we can expect:

[It] should function like an enhanced version of Pandora — that is, it will be a free streaming music service that gives users more control of their songs than standard Web radio, but less than full on-demand services like Spotify.

That's... uh, clear. The idea is that the tracks you hear will be half-determined by you telling it what you want to hear, and half it scanning your iTunes history. You know that time you bought the Crazy Frog to burn onto a CD for a joke for your brother? THAT will be the guiding light that iRadio seizes on to build your playlists. That, and the thirty unplayed episodes of OpenSouceSex.

Even so, I'll bet Spotify and Pandora are feeling uncomfortable this morning.

Interestingly, Apple have only just managed to pull Sony on board. Are the majors happy?

The majors publishers had looked like they were going to be the holdout because Apple initially offered to pay them a rate of 4.1% of its advertising revenue, while the publishers had been withdrawing digital rights from the U.S. performance rights organizations BMI and ASCAP because they wanted higher rates. BMG, Sony/ATV, UMPG and Warner/Chappell executives had privately said they were seeking rates of 10%-15% of iRadio’s advertising revenue. But when Apple agreed to a 10% rate, Warner/Chappell last week signed the deal and now so has Sony/ATV.

Getting more than double Apple wanted to pay. That's quite a strong move by the majors. Let's hope they don't do that thing where they suddenly get insanely greedy.

While publishers will get 10% of revenue, they privately are calling this an introductory rate, meaning that after the iRadio service establishes itself, they expect that rate to increase. Likewise, they also say they expect Pandora to match the deals they are doing now with Apple.

"We won't hold our ground when we have the advantage and Apple really needs us for launch. Oh, no. What we'll do, right, is wait until the service is established, and carrying itself along under its own sheer weight of numbers. At that point, when we've got massive sums of cash flowing in from Apple, we'll be in a really strong position to threaten to refuse to take that money any more unless they give us more. At the same time, with Apple crushing Pandora into near-obscurity, that'd be exactly the moment to ask Pandora to give us more of the less money it's making. Genius plan, eh, guys?"

The Ping is dead! Long live the Ping!

Over at Cult Of Mac, speculation that Apple is going to try a social-network-music thing again.

Oh, sure, they got burned by Ping, but this time it'll be different:

Apple’s social service would no doubt give people the opportunity to establishing lasting connections, but the default will likely be to erase connections and dissolve the networks when everyone leaves.

More importantly, Apple could achieve what Ping never could, which is to give people the means to share and socially discover music and other content, always with the added benefit of offering a path to purchase for that content.

The USP seems to be that Apple won't store your data forever - Cult Of Mac describe this as "consequence free sharing", which would probably be useful if you find your curiosity driving you to listen to the Barron Knights one more time.

MIDEM: PRS think music made Apple

Remember how music was before Apple came along with the iPod and iTunes, and started to create a workable digital download market?

If you're too young to recall, imagine a headless chicken desperately trying to pull its own legs off so that it could hit anyone trying to buy an egg off it.

Music isn't particularly grateful for Apple's part in sorting out the mess and creating a world where people will pay for something they could get for free. Not at all, actually, as PRS CEO Robert Ashcroft appears to be moaning that Apple treats music bad:

Apple has more cash in the bank than the record industry has ever made in annual revenue, according to Robert Ashcroft, CEO of PRS for music, speaking on a panel about innovation within the music industry at Midem. "I would like to say that the music industry contributed a little bit of that to Apple."

Well, up to a point - although nobody really buys some Universal stuff from Apple, or downloads a bunch of PRS-regulated files. If anyone involved in Music deserves a bit of thanks from Apple, it'd be the artists.

Although, I suppose, you could argue that the industry's failure to sort out its own digital offering over more-or-less the decade it had the field open to itself is something Apple should be grateful for.

See You,Tube: Apple dump YouTube from iOS

Thoughtful bit over on Hypebot about Apple's decision to not renew its deal with YouTube to have a baked-in app on iPhones and iPads the moment you've finished making the unboxing video.

There's a slightly cloudy view about if this means people will start to create ad hoc HTML5 apps using Safari bookmarks (at a guess: nope) but this is the key bit:

When I shot this concert footage of my brother’s band, my iPhone encouraged me to upload that video to YouTube, as it still does today. In iOS 6, Apple’s default video destination of uploads will be Vimeo instead, as Mashable points out.

Have you been to a concert lately? There are a lot of iPhones there, many of them shooting audio and video footage. It won’t happen overnight, but gradually, Vimeo will replace YouTube as the place to see concert videos uploaded from iPhones.

It might not tip the balance in Vimeo's favour, but it's certainly going to strengthen Vimeo's position. You do wonder, though, if IAC has thought through what becoming the default location for all that iOS video might mean for its systems.