Today in “looks good on the business pages, will probably look lousy on the balance sheet” news: AT&T has entered into an agreement with Napster where users will be able to download songs from the troubled digital-music vendor’s library to their phones. What could possibly be wrong with it? (Do you really have to guess?)
Well, first of all, the songs will cost $1.99 each, or $7.49 for five–i.e., a 50-100% markup over what users can pay for downloading songs off iTunes and Amazon, not to mention Sprint’s over-the-air download service. (Although apparently AT&T’s director of premium content, Rob Hyatt, isn’t too worried about the price, given that the next generation of music fans is what he likes to call “very price insensitive,” which I read as “they stick their parents with the cell-phone bill, or just don’t pay it at all.” Not that I have any experience with that sort of behavior!) And it probably goes without saying that the songs won’t be available on the iPhone–i.e., the most popular reason for consumers to switch to AT&T these days–but the company hasn’t announced which devices the service will work with. I’d think that announcing specifics on that front would be an important aspect when announcing a deal in a splashy, Monday-business-section way, if only because this is probably the one chance said agreement has to prick the consciousness before it gets hidden somewhere deep in the AT&T Wireless Web site.
I am not shilling for Sprint, but…
The Sprint service actually seems intriguing. As I understand from the marketing materials I’ve seen, the user can download music either to the phone or to a PC [Windows-only, sorry Mac fans!], AND copy tracks back-and-forth between the two. [On the PC, a proto-iTunes app is used to manage the library and move songs back and forth. Unclear is whether the user can add non-Sprint-music-service tracks in MP3 form to the library.]
Oddly, Sprint doesn’t seem to be promoting their service very heavily.
Oh yeah — and about this AT&T-Napster thing? You’re totally right. Going nowhere.
This is interesting re: the iPhone only insofar as (a) it explains why Jobs & co. were hot-to-trot to get the iTunes Wireless Store up and running before year-end; and (b) it competes with Apple by offering wireless (i.e. cell-based) downloads, as opposed to iTunes’ WiFi-only operation.
That also explains the pricing, which may seem silly but is at least consistent — the carriers seem to be trying to set a price premium for instant, out-and-about gratification, which has songs costing $2 to $3 if you just can’t wait to get back to your PC or a WiFi station. I continue to think these cell-based music services will get thumped by the PC-based stores, but the price for wireless downloads is holding steady.