Just freshly launched last week, iHeard is a new Internet Radio search engine. And the scary part is that it makes finding and listening to any Internet Radio station very very (very) easy.
Too easy.
Seattle-based Fusa Capital Corp. unleashed iHeard last Tuesday, allowing users to find free Internet radio stations from around the globe - and hear them - within a single destination website.
Organized by genre, country and language, the iHeard engine even indexes online simulcasts offered by AM/FM radio stations, and plays the streams right inside the original window. Unlike Radio-Locator, you're not just shunted off to another website - it all plays seamlessly within your browser. A choice of streaming formats depending on the station you're listening to is provided, including RealPlayer, Windows Media Player, Winamp and iTunes.
Iheard is the latest addition to Fusa Capital's network of search sites: which includes podanza.com (Podcasts), newstowatch.com (News Aggregator) and searchforvideo.com (self-explanatory).
The question is, can you access it from your smartphone and then listen in your car? (The answer is yes, I just did it.)
Really, Internet radio is a non-issue.
When they have to begin paying for the music they are broadcasting, the entire industry dies, overnight.
When there is a business model for Internet radio, it could change things. For right now, it is 100% irrelevant to what is going on with Satellite Radio.
Totally disagree StackPointer. There are close to 1 million internet radio stations available on the net. If that is available in the car the lack of competition argument is over.
Also if Ryan's research is correct, that internet radio is available in the car, that leads to the conclusion that every single terrestrial radio station that streams on the net is now available nationwide in the car through smartphone and bluetooth technology.
Ryan - Can you please test if my conclusion above is correct? Can you get the WFAN net stream on your smartphone and bluetooth it to your car radio? Please post your results. Thanks.
Mobile internet radio is the one reason I will never invest in satellite radio. Whether or not you choose to consider it competition Stack, it will be a major threat to satellite radio by the end of the decade. It has the potential to offer a lot more services and choices than satellite radio. Yes, it will be more expensive, but I'd be willing to bet there's a lot of people out there willing to pay the extra cost.
There were already 35 million cell phone internet subscribers as of one year ago - you simply can't ignore that threat.
Oh, don't worry-
The thin playlists and FM think that has infilrated XM (thanks to Jon Zellner and Steve Kingston) will combat the incredible choice and great music programming on internet radio...
"It has the potential to offer a lot more services and choices than satellite radio. Yes, it will be more expensive, but I'd be willing to bet there's a lot of people out there willing to pay the extra cost."
Exactly why satellite radio will thrive. Distribution mechanisms always change in media. CONTENT IS KING. Analysts project 17 million subs for Sirius/XM this year, 20 million+ by the end of next year. The possibilities are limitless because of CONTENT! Internet radio is out there, but the content sucks!
CRAP till they add Bitrate for each stream
nothing like clicking on the first 5 streams and they are all a crappy 32k stream
who wants to listen to that crap
>>> There are close to 1 million internet radio stations available on the net. If that is available in the car the lack of competition argument is over.
LOL. How many of those are paying for the content they broadcast? (Not that I think for a moment there are 1 million such stations).
If they aren't paying for the content, they have no workable business model and therefore do not represent competition to XM/SIRI because they lack any staying power.
It doesn't matter; the merger is history at this point. No way do I think DOJ is going to sign on to creation of a satellite radio monopoly.
Muscle13, you are right to some extent - but the value of that content is different for everyone. Some people (i.e., a very big chunk of paying satrad subscribers) just want to have a good selection of music without commercials and without having to download everything to an iPod. Mobile internet radio would lure away a lot of those subscribers.
Stack -
Are you concerned that they allowed a merger between the AFL and the NFL in 1970? After all, didn't that create a monopoly in professional football? Or did it put all of the talent on the same playing field?
Actually, internet radio has been around a long time, and I don't know why this is the moment everyone is getting worked up about it. Real Audio had a radio station search finder similar to the one this piece is talking about, and I've been using my Dell Axim PDA to stream radio for a couple of years now. Lots of variety, a very fractured market. There are even stations devoted to George Carlin, so you can listen to his routines anytime you want. The sound quality is garbage, however, and not suitable for even a casual music listener, much less an audiophile. But I suppose that problem can be solved too eventually. So, does this make SatRad go the way of the cassette tape?
Not yet.
That iHeard site sucks. I just tried several searches and all returned no results. I tried several band names, both popular and not-so-popular. I also tried a genre search and a search based on the name of an Internet radio station I regularly listen to. Again, no results.
I'll stick to ShoutCast.com and RadioRoku.com.
>>>>>>Are you concerned that they allowed a merger between the AFL and the NFL in 1970? After all, didn't that create a monopoly in professional football? Or did it put all of the talent on the same playing field?
Congress had to pass a law exempting that merger from antitrust statutes because, by law, the merger would not have been allowed otherwise. Specific commitments were obtained by Congress in connection with the legislation.
I suppose if Congress passes a law allowing a merger between XM/SIRI, that would be that. I don't think that's going to happen, though. The merger you are asking about is, in no way, analogous to the XM/SIRI merger. The DBS merger would make a much more reasonable comparison -- and you know what happened there... (BTW, is it you who keeps bashing me for my analogies? Because yours is about as far in left field as one can imagine).
You keep on comparing the merger to utilities and commodities. I compared it to an entertainment service. Which of those categories does satellite radio fit into?
The point is - competition that divides content and talent is destructive competition. This is what we saw with VHS vs. Betamax and Blu-ray vs HD-DVD. This is what we saw with the NFL and NBA before their mergers. The competing parties fight with each other over exclusive contracts, and the consumers lose as a result.
How good was it for consumers for NASCAR to switch from XM to Sirius? How good is it to have MLB on one service and NFL on the other? How good is it to buy a car with XM if I want Stern, or a car with Sirius if I want MLB?
They need to put aside the exclusive contract BS and focus on making a better overall product for subscribers. Yes Stack, I am aware they won't magically merge all the channels overnight, but they need to put a better overall product out there, with ALL of the content, if they want to coexist with iPods and mobile internet/cell phone radio over the long term.
Stack: "When they have to begin paying for the music they are broadcasting, the entire industry dies, overnight. "
MUSCLE: "Totally disagree StackPointer. There are close to 1 million internet radio stations available on the net. If that is available in the car the lack of competition argument is over. "
Wasn't there an article on here a few months back about internet radio starting to pay broadcast fees? If this is true, then Stack is correct. The industry literally dies overnight. There will be only a handful of them left, bought by big corporations to keep them running.
And Muscle, 99.9% of internet radio stations can ill-afford top-tier programming. In your eyes, this is hardly competition (but in many eyes, commercial-free music is the #1 content).
>>>>>>> How good was it for consumers for NASCAR to switch from XM to Sirius? How good is it to have MLB on one service and NFL on the other? How good is it to buy a car with XM if I want Stern, or a car with Sirius if I want MLB?
I have no problem with any of the above. This is the nature of competition -- the object for XM is to have better content, gets its receivers in move vehicles, and give consumers a compelling reason to subscribe. The object for Sirius is the same. It is certainly, indisputably, far better than to put all this in the hands of a single entity which can then charge more for it, cut the quality of it, run more ads on it, and generally deplete the quality -- leaving consumers no other choice for satellite radio.
>>> They need to put aside the exclusive contract BS and focus on making a better overall product for subscribers. Yes Stack, I am aware they won't magically merge all the channels overnight, but they need to put a better overall product out there, with ALL of the content, if they want to coexist with iPods and mobile internet/cell phone radio over the long term.
Actually, they will QUICKLY be playing the same music channels on both services. It won't matter which service you subscribe to, you'll get the same dumbed-down crap. What they won't be doing is putting premium content (MLB, NFL) on both sats, because they have got to go spend more money with the content provider to do that.
Hopefully, it doesn't matter--it is pretty difficult to envision the DOJ standing back and sanctioning a merger to monopoly.
The royalty will certainly change the internet radio industry, but it won't end it. It'll definitely reduce the number of channels, but you'll probably see a lot of services use more ads or switch to subscription services to pay the bill. But there will still be a ton of channels out there, and it might pave the way for a few big pockets (Yahoo, Real, etc.) to take control of the market.
If you're looking for a true monopoly, look no further than the RIAA.
>>> If you're looking for a true monopoly, look no further than the RIAA.
Funny; don't mention Utilities but RIAA is a fine analogy!
RIAA is a monopoly, but they are also heavily regulated (like Utilities). The RIAA cannot deny access to its content, by law. True, entities have to pay for the use, but RIAA does not set the fee. As with most monopolies, they are not allowed to run rough-shod over everyone.
XM/SIRI are looking to create an unregulated monopoly, and that is a totally different thing and one which obviously is not, and cannot be, to the benefit of consumers.
JB: "The point is - competition that divides content and talent is destructive competition. This is what we saw with VHS vs. Betamax and Blu-ray vs HD-DVD. This is what we saw with the NFL and NBA before their mergers. The competing parties fight with each other over exclusive contracts, and the consumers lose as a result.
How good was it for consumers for NASCAR to switch from XM to Sirius? How good is it to have MLB on one service and NFL on the other? How good is it to buy a car with XM if I want Stern, or a car with Sirius if I want MLB? "
You make some good points here, and this is the one downfall of competition.
However, what are the consequences if these two do merge? Lack of competition *MAY* reduce the costs of content (but the flip-side is also true----NFL may want more money because there are more listeners in a combined company). But the consumers also *LOSE* the ability to choose a provider and associated costs/content along with that choice. The content on a combined company may also become ubiquitous and dumbed down to "please everybody" (or please nobody). The negatives of a merger outweight the benefits IMHO.
We already know that several channels will be cut if they merger. What if it's your favorite that gets the axe?
In general, this is why competition is good for the consumer in the end.
"What if it's your favorite that gets the axe?"
I cancel. It's that simple. And it's why they don't have the power to drop unique channels (well, unique channels that actually have listeners).
Satellite radio needs subscribers a lot more than subscribers need satellite radio, and the merger won't change that.
Muscle13, you say "Internet radio is out there, but the content sucks!" I beg to differ. I have one of those devices that let's me wirelessly stream internet radio through my regular stereo and my radio alarm clock. I also have Sirius in my home. Ironically, I never listen to Sirius in my home, while I ONLY listen to a selection of about 20 internet talk and jazz stations. (I use Sirius to record Stern for playback in my car, and don't use Sirius for any other purpose). My prediction is that once Stern's contract is up at Sirius, subscriptions will plummet (because content is basically the same on internet radio and satellite, it's just a case of weeding out the chaff), and internet radio will become the new focus - which may already be happening, just too slow to notice.