Technologizer

The Sonos S5 ($399) was one of my 2009 boxes of the year. With good reason. Sonos is a sophisticated but easy to implement and easy to operate whole-home audio solution. Featuring content from both our local music collections and various online sources. The S5 broke new ground in the Sonos lineup by integrating rich, powerful speakers into their connected receiver. Sonos is not an inexpensive solution (especially since you won’t stop with just one room), but it’s clearly the best at what it does. Yet, what’s next?

A Sonos email survey I received a few days ago alluded to several interesting expansion possibilities. As I still have a loaner unit on hand, I’ve got a few ideas….

Continue reading this story…

I’m at the amazing South by Southwest Interactive conference in Austin, where I ran into a couple of folks from the Rhapsody music service who gave me a quick peek of something I’ve been waiting for since Rhapsody hit the iPhone in September: an update to the iPhone app that lets you download music over 3G or Wi-Fi to the phone so plays directly from the handset rather than streaming over the Internet. The company says it’s finishing it up and planning to submit it to the App Store shortly.

Caching music locally guarantees that a song won’t die in midplay if your Internet connection flakes out. It lets you listen in places where the Internet doesn’t go, like most airplanes. And it uses way less battery power. Basically, it should make a $15-per-month Rhapsody to Go subscription look a lot more attractive. (The usual rules of subscription music apply: You can listen all you want as long as you pay the monthly fee, but if  you cancel service all the albums you’ve added to your collection go away.)

Once Rhapsody for iPhone does offline music–I’m assuming Apple will approve it without delay–the one feature it’ll lack that you’d want is the ability to play in the background while you use another app. That’ll only happen if Apple enables third-party multitasking. But Rhapsody says that it plans to add music downloading soon to its Android app, which already runs fine in the background.

Here’s a video preview of the iPhone app from Rhapsody:

Demented genius entrepreneur Michael Robertson thinks that Apple bought Lala to help it quickly offer a service that puts iTunes users’ existing music collections in the cloud. Makes sense that he’d think that makes sense: He founded MP3.com, which offered a similar service almost exactly a decade ago. (It was wonderful–and the music companies successfully sued it out of business almost immediately.)

Some of us are a wee bit fixated on the fate of nifty music service Lala now that it’s part of Apple. Peter Burroughs has a story in BusinessWeek with a hopeful-sounding headline: “Apple Will Let Google Continue Using Lala.” It refers to the agreement between Google and Lala that puts links to free Lala music (and purchase options) in some of Google’s music-related search results.

After reading Burroughs’ story, I’m not so sure how hopeful to feel. Google’s RJ Pittman told him that Apple and Google “are agreeing to continue to leave the service as is” and that Lala will “remain live for the forseeable future.” But it’s Apple that’s going to determine Lala’s future–and Apple spokesman Steve Downling’s only comment to Burroughs was that Apple doesn’t comment on acquisitions.

So I’m left with all the same questions I’ve had since news of the acquisition broke.

How much (if any) of Lala will make its way into iTunes and/or other Apple services such as MobileMe? Lala lets you buy streaming only-songs for a dime apiece (and listen to them via an interface that already looks like iTunes in your browser); it gives you access to streaming versions of songs you possess in MP3 form; and it has some cool community features that let you peek at what your pals are listening to. A Lala-ized iTunes could be wonderful, but it’s also possible that Apple bought Lala for its engineering talent, not its service.

Will the Lala site and service continue on? It’s hard to believe that Apple would just leave it as. Over time, it’s surely either going to get sucked into iTunes, or cease to exist.

Will Apple put Lala’s impressive iPhone app on the iPhone App Store? (“Approve” doesn’t feel like the right word when you’re talking about a piece of software now owned by Apple.) It’s not necessarily a terrible sign if it doesn’t show up–Apple may merely be so excited about the app that it’s working on an Apple-ized version.

Will the Google deal continue on? I hope so, but I won’t be traumatized if it doesn’t–in part because Google has a similar arrangement with iLike.

Apple almost certainly isn’t going to share any of its intentions for Lala–whatever happens will just  happen. Building any of the service’s capabilities into iTunes would take a while, so I’m not going to feel downright pessimistic until (A) any aspects of Lala in its current form go away, and /or (B) major new releases of iTunes and/or the iPhone arrive with no signs of Lala influence. In the short term, no news may well be good news…

Good grief, it’s almost 2010! For the second year, we’re asking you to make bold predictions about where tech-related products, companies, technologies, and people will go in the coming year–and are offering a prize to encourage your contributions.

This year, the prize is a biggie: It’s Olive’s Olive 4 Hi-Fi Music Server, which lets you convert your entire collection of CDs into high-quality digital form for listening over your stereo or across your network.The Olive has a color touchscreen; a 500GB hard drive and a built-in CD drive; and Wi-Fi, Ethernet, and digital and analog audio outputs. It’s a $1499 value and is provided courtesy of Olive.

Continue reading this story…

Rumor on the Internet today has it that Apple is in “advanced ” talks to buy one of my favorite music services, Lala. Even if the conversation is real, it doesn’t mean it’ll amount to anything. But anyone who’s ever used Lala can grasp why Steve Jobs & Co. might be tempted to make it their own.

The company has an oddball history that includes a period as a CD-swapping service and a foray into radio, but for over a year, it’s focused on pretty much being what iTunes might be if it were an entirely Web-based service. You can buy streaming-only songs for a dime apiece, but the first listen to any song is free. Like the late, lamented original MP3.com, Lala replicates your music collection on its servers so you can listen to it anywhere–but Lala does so much more easily…and it does so legally. It wraps everything up in a user interface that looks like iTunes’ browser-based twin brother, and adds hooks to services such as Facebook and Google.

After much delay, the company recently finished work on a new product that would make its ties to Apple even closer: an iPhone app that brings most of the Web-based service to Apple’s smartphone. Lala has submitted it to Apple but it’s not yet approved for App Store distribution. However, it gave me a prerelease copy for review, and it’s as spectacular as the Web version–all of a sudden, the iPhone’s relatively skimpy memory isn’t nearly as much of an issue, since you can stream all the music you’ve got in iTunes on a PC or Mac to your phone. You can also listen to and buy songs from Lala’s 8-million song store. It’s all surprisingly fast for a streaming service, and it even caches recent music you’ve listened to so you’re not completely out of luck if you don’t have an Internet connection.

I’m fond of multiple iPhone music apps (Slacker is one favorite), but Lala is the most interesting one to date.

So why, specifically, might Apple want to snag Lala? Cnet’s Greg Sandoval gives two reasons: Lala founder Bill Nguyen is a smart entrepreneur (true) and Lala’s billing system might save Apple a ton of cash (possibly true, but profoundly tedious). I’d love to think that Apple might merge all of Lala’s goodness into iTunes itself, creating a seamless experience across Mac, PC, iPhone, and iPod. But I’m also concerned that if the service itself isn’t what has Apple excited, it might just go away. (It may be the first iPhone music app that’s good enough that it could cut into sales of songs on iTunes.)

After the jump, some screen shots of Lala for iPhone in action. One way or another, I hope you get to try it soon…

Continue reading this story…

This is…odd. The Beatles are finally releasing their remastered catalog in digital form–both high-quality FLAC files and 320-Kbps MP3s. But they’re not selling it on iTunes or any other online music merchant. They’re releasing it as a limited edition of 30,000 16GB USB drives that fit into an “exquisitely crafted” commemorative apple.

The box set includes fourteen albums, fourteen short documentaries, cover art, and expanded liner notes, and will go for $280. That’s more than the recent CD release, and more than you’ll pay when this stuff does become available for online purchase. (Most of the Rolling Stones’ albums go for eight bucks a piece as downloads.)

The ordering page for the apple doesn’t  say anything about whether it’s easy to get the music onto an iPod or other device. I hope it at least doesn’t do anything to make it difficult…

Why the unorthodox means of going digital? I can think of a few reasons.

The lads are used to commanding a premium price for their music, which is tough online. (Sticking it on a USB drive lets them hawk it as a limited edition, but every digital download is, by definition, an unlimited edition.)

Their business model as a corporate entity essentially consists of selling their fans the same music over and over–for more than forty years now! The limited-edition apple gives ‘em the ability to do it at least one more time before it goes online. I’m already suspicious that some sort of non-limited edition USB version is on its way.

Not being available for download has become a Beatles trademark. The apple lets them go digital while keeping the tradition alive. And the longer they string out the saga, the bigger a deal it’ll be when they do go online.

A couple of predictions:

The Beatles’ music will be available from the major download stores within eighteen months–and maybe a lot sooner than that.

Tragically, the fabled Apple press event in which Steve Jobs’ ‘one more thing” is the Beatles and Paul McCartney and/or Ringo Starr take the stage to make music won’t ever happen. One day, the music will just be there, and we’ll eventually forget it hadn’t been all along.

So would you spend $280 for USBeatles?

Google search launches music feature.

Once again, Google-FCC correspondence.

Google navigation for iPhone, maybe.

Netflix coming to the Wii?

Windows 7 as Wi-Fi router.

Apple Stores to dump Windows.

Color e-ink in the works.

Sneak peak at iPhone Lala.

Surprisingly sensible dual-screen laptop.

Windows 7-XP battery tests.

________________________

Like 5Words? Subscribe via RSS.

A little over a year ago, I wrote about Lala’s extremely nifty music service and mentioned a version for the iPhone which the company said would be available soon. I couldn’t wait to use it…but “soon” never arrived.

But it sounds like “soon” may come…soon. Wired’s Eliot Van Buskirk reports that Lala expects its iPhone app to be available in the iTunes App Store by the end of the year. It’s contingent on Apple approving it, of course, and I can’t quite tell from Eliot’s story whether Lala has already submitted the app or just expects to do so shortly. But it sounds like it’s Lala for the iPhone with all the goodness I saw back in 2008: The ability to buy streaming-only songs for a dime apiece and downloadable ones at cheap prices–and to stream music that’s already in your library from Lala’s servers for free.

Lala told Wired that the app will also cache the last few hundred songs you’ve listened to on the iPhone, which would help address the one major limitation of music streaming: It doesn’t work when your device isn’t connected.

Lala’s been in the news a lot this week: On Wednesday, it announced an app that lets Facebook users give Lala music to their pals, and it has news coming next week that reportedly involves its music showing up in Google results.

I don’t think there’s such a thing as a music service that’ll make everybody happy all the time–at least not until someone comes up with one that lets you stream or download all the music you want and keep it forever for free. But between iTunes and Sirius XM and Rhapsody and Slacker and Pandora and umpteen other services, iPhone owners have access to more music via more types of services than users of any other handheld device. Now if Apple would just make it possible to listen to music delivered via non-Apple apps in the background while you’re using other apps…

This morning’s rumor about Google launching a music service is gradually getting rounded out. Michael Arrington of TechCrunch has blogged about a LaLa and iLike press event scheduled for next Wednesday that he says involves the incorporation of those companies’ music services into Google results. Search for an artist on Google, and you’ll be able to stream music (for free, at least the first time around?) and download it (for  pay?) via relationships with the two music companies. Greg Sandoval of Cnet has a few more details, and says the news doesn’t involve Google unveiling a true music service of its own.

This doesn’t sound like a transformative moment for Google or for music. Actually, as described by Arrington and Sandoval, it sounds at least generally similar to a fun feature Yahoo has offered for a couple of years through a partnership with Rhapsody. (In Yahoo’s version, you can listen to 25 songs a month for free.)

Maybe there’s more to this than we know about just yet. But for now, the aspect of the deal I’m happiest about is the possibility of it putting some money in LaLa’s corporate pockets. It’s a wonderful service, and I hope it’s financially successful enough to stick around for a long time to come.

Google takes its mission of organizing the world’s information and making it universally accessible and useful really seriously. But music’s one great big area of information that it hasn’t done much to organize to date. That might be about to change: TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington is reporting that the company is striking deals with the major labels and will soon launch a music service, possibly to be called Google Audio. And that’s about all he has to say–it’s not even clear whether the service would involve streaming, downloading, or both.

I have no guesses what it might involve, but we in the U.S. could sure use something akin to Spotify…

I’ve been talking to the Sonos folks for years. And everyone I know who owns their connected music system absolutely raves about it. Yet, I’ve never joined in given the steep price of entry (starting at ~$1000) and BYOS (bring your own speakers) requirement. Fortunately, Sonos has been listening and their new all-in-one S5 ($400) begins shipping next week.

In what’s become an annual tradition, I recently met up with Sonos CEO John MacFarlane to take a look at the new product. The S5 is a bit larger than the Bose SoundDock II ($300), weighing in at about 9lbs. But it packs in so much more, including the the components for the Sonos mesh network to stream DRM-free iTunes, Pandora, Rhapsody, etc with sound that John says “crushes” Bose. He went on to tell me that their primary focus with this all-in-one unit was nailing audio quality, going as far as consulting with Skywalker Ranch on performance. While I’m no audiophile, the full-bodied music emanating into a crowded Marriott lounge sounded quite good. And, in terms of volume, I have a feeling Sonos could have overtaken the room had we cranked it. (The S5 houses 5 speakers, including a sub woofer.)

The target audience for the S5 is music-loving iPhone or iPod Touch owners, who would use their handheld (and the free Sonos app) to control their entire Sonos infrastructure. (Although, one could optionally pick up a dedicated Sonos controller, starting at $250.) And John alluded to support for a pair of additional mobile platforms coming next year.

The S5 provides integrated WiFi functionality yet, to maintain high availability audio streaming, Sonos units will only talk to each and hardwired connections. So, for true wireless freedom, many potential S5 owners will need to pick up a Zone Bridge ($99) to take the whole thing airborne. Given current networking reliability and my own experiences streaming video wirelessly (high def, no less), I’m not sure this is necessary. So while Sonos will indeed control the horizontal and vertical to ensure the music never stops, I wonder if this additional hardware requirement does more harm than good in providing another barrier to entry.

Of course, there are many ways to crack the home audio streaming nut. Some have AppleTV connected to a home theater system which is controlled via Apple’s iPhone remote while others cling to their aging Squeezeboxes. Not to mention, there are scores of nice, affordable iPhone/Touch speaker docks and clock “radios” these days. However, for my current minimalist gypsy lifestyle, Internet radio habit, and desire to keep my phone available as a phone, the portable Sonos S5 may be the proper solution to stream audio around my place. I only wish it could speak directly to my wireless router.

(This post republished from Zatz Not Funny.)

Here’s what DoubleTwist was talking about in its Steve-Jobs-is-an-evil-overlord ad from last week: The company has released a new edition of the Mac version of its media-management software with Amazon’s MP3 Downloads store built in. That makes it a more formidable alternative to iTunes–and DoubleTwist’s key attraction remains the fact that it supports hundreds of phones, media players, and other devices rather than just iPods and iPhones:

As with the rest of DoubleTwist, the store feels like a minimalist, defeatured iTunes. There’s no information about the artists or albums, no listener reviews, and no links to concert information. DoubleTwist also doesn’t provide access to Amazon’s video download store (it does, however, let you manage and convert unprotected videos you already have, as well as photos).

Basically, all you get is a search box and the ability to listen to samples and purchase tracks and albums:

In some ways, DoubleTwist’s extreme simplicity is a pleasant break from the bursting-at-the-seams behemoth that iTunes has turned into. Other than the expansive gadget support, the best thing about it is its pure speed: You can be in and out of the music store with a purchase far faster than in Amazon’s browser-based interface or in iTunes’ Music Store. (Every time I click the iTunes Store link in iTunes, I gird myself to mentally drum my fingers while it loads.)

All in all,the new DoubleTwist doesn’t justify an ad which seems to suggest its significance is worthy of comparison to the original Macintosh, or that users of iTunes (which DoubleTwist largely mimics) are zombies. But it’s well worth checking out, especially if you’ve got a Mac and a device that comes with poor vendor support for OS X, or none at all. (DoubleTwist says that the Amazon store will come soon to its Windows version.)

I’m a long-time fan of the Squeezebox and have been continually impressed by feature additions over the last three years. Today an email popped up in my inbox announcing another firmware update and some major feature upgrades. Most importantly, Logitech is introducing an App Gallery that will organize all of the Squeezebox service options in the now-familiar “App Store” format. It also appears that Logitech may have finally corrected the way it allows Squeezebox users to access their own music collection versus streaming services. Those two functions have had separate top-level menus until now, but it appears that is changing.

As I have an older Squeezebox version, I’m curious to see how some of the features are implemented. For example, on the website describing the new App Gallery, there are apps listed for Flickr and Facebook. My screen real estate would not seem to support those features. Also, while details of the new firmware mention that Squeezebox Duet owners don’t have to switch between SqueezeNetwork and SqueezeCenter menus anymore (streaming versus personal music collection), there is no mention of earlier Squeezebox hardware. I’m looking forward to checking these upgrades out at home tonight.

Meanwhile, Logitech has other Squeezebox news out today too. People who buy one of the new Squeezebox Radios (yes, they are now available), will get “early access to the new Queen Absolute Greatest Hits album before it hits stores.” So for any Bohemian Rhapsody fans, go pick up your new Squeezebox Radio now. Or, you could always hold out for the December launch of the new Squeezebox Touch.

(This post republished from Zatz Not Funny.)

Weird but true: For Apple, 2009 has turned out to be the year of inner beauty. Most of the company’s new products, including the iPhone 3GS and the latest MacBooks, are virtually indistinguishable from their predecessors, but which pack meaningful improvements inside. The trend continues with the fifth-generation iPod Nano. For the first time, Apple’s annual reinvention of its most popular music player isn’t about aesthetics–in fact, the new Nano is the same size as the old one and differs visually only its slightly larger screen and slightly smaller clickwheel, the camera on its backside, and the slicker and more vividly colorful (and, I’m hoping, more scratch-resistant) finish on its aluminum case. But the latest Nano carries more new features than any of more outwardly revised predecessors.

In fact, this is the first Nano that feels a little less like a music player and a little more like a Swiss Army Knife. Much of what Apple has added has nothing to do with music: The Nano is now a video camera, a stand-alone voice recorder, and a pedometer. And the major new music feature–an FM radio–is so retro that I’d long ago assumed that Apple would never add one to one of its products. Like most Swiss Army Knives, the new Nano doesn’t match every single-purpose product in every respect, but the improvements add up to a fun upgrade that retains a logical place in the iPod family even in the era of the much fancier and more versatile iPod Touch.

Continue reading this story…

When Real said that it had submitted a version of its Rhapsody music service to the iPhone App Store, I was still smarting from the Google Voice Voice debacle and feared the worst. Would Apple decide that Rhapsody would confuse users and reject it, or send it into limbo? But the news tonight is good: Rhapsody was approved and should be live on the App Store as you read this. And it’s quite good–maybe the best thing to happen to music on the iPhone (and iPod Touch) since the iPhone, in fact.

In most respects, it’s very much like the Rhapsody that’s been available for PCs for eons, but with an iPhone-esque interface that’s a close cousin to Apple’s own iPod app. You can search for albums, songs, and artists from Real’s catalog of 8,000,000 tracks; add them to your queue for listening; create playlists and save music to your library; browse preprogrammed radio stations in various genres and autogenerated ones based on the work of any artist; and read about artists as you listen to their work. Everything’s integrated with PC-based Rhapsody, so the music you save to your library shows up anywhere you can listen to the service.

All of this music is streaming, so it’s available anywhere you can get cellular or Wi-Fi access, and isn’t anywhere you can’t (such as on airplane flights, for instance, unless Wi-Fi is available and you pay to connect your iPhone or Touch to it). Real says it may release a version of Rhapsody that can store music locally; for now, it’s integrated the app with the iTunes Store. When you listen to something you like so much that you want to own it, you can tap and hold the song title to bop over to iTunes and purchase it in downloadable form.

In most respects that matter, Rhapsody is well done. The quibbles I have all stem from my attempts to listen to it on the road via my car stereo. Like all iPhone streaming audio apps, it occasionally loses its connection; when it does, it gives you an error screen without any buttons or clear indications of what you should do. (I exited the app and reconnected, but I’d rather that it gracefully reconnected on its own.) And it’s lacking two features which I wish all iPhone music apps had: landscape mode view and the ability to keep the iPhone screen on indefinitely when it’s plugged into a power source. (Okay, it’s also missing the ability to play in the background while you use another app, but there’s nothing that Real can do about that.)

If music fans have a major issue with Rhapsody on the iPhone, I think it’s going to relate to the cost, not the app or the service. Real is making iPhone users pay for a $14.99 a month Rhapsody to Go subscription, the plan designed for handheld listening. But on other portable devices, Rhapsody permits downloading to the gadget itself so you can listen without an Internet connection; Rhapsody for the iPhone is closer in capabilities to the PC version which costs $12.99 a month. And even that is pricey given that archrival Napster charges $5 a month for unlimited streaming and five downloads a month. (Napster says it’s written an iPhone app but music rights issues would make it unrealistically expensive to offer; maybe Real is locked into the price it’s charging by licensing issues.)

Ultimately, I think that Rhapsody is worth fifteen bucks a month to some folks, since it gives the iPhone unlimited on-demand listening for the first time and costs as much as an album-and-a-half from iTunes. (If it could store songs on the iPhone itself, it would definitely be worth it–and I’m fearing the worst again just thinking about whether Apple would approve such a version.) In any event, I’m glad the service has landed on the iPhone; this is the first time that a subscription music service has been available on an Apple device, and it’ll be fascinating to see if it it catches on. (There’s a seven-day free trial–if you give it a try, let us know what you think.)

After the jump, some screen shots.

Continue reading this story…