Michael Braun's Blog

Word on the street is that Apple has purchased music streaming company Lala. This gives Apple the technology to deploy music streaming through iTunes and open up a new way for Apple to sell music. Rather than actually owning the song file and being able to do whatever you want with it (which is how the iTunes Music Store works now), you would be able to purchase the rights to play a song and listen to it when connected with the internet. Because of this added control, the company will charge you much less for the song. Currently Lala charges $.10 to own the rights to stream the song. So, is this a great new feature that Apple can offer?

In some ways, it is great. If you use your iPhone as your primary music player, you are with an internet connection at all times (at least, when not crippled by AT&T’s network). You could pay a set monthly rate and stream all the music you want, without noticing that the files aren’t actually on your iPhone. And the streaming would work right through iTunes so that you could listen to music and use other applications at the same time (something not currently possible with most iPhone apps). Similarly, if you want to listen to a wide variety of music and have a frequent internet connection, this is the cheapest way to accomplish it.

In other ways, who cares? Paying to have a lot of music available to you isn’t advantageous to many people. Let’s take books as an example. Right now, you can drive to the library and check out as many books as you want. You can take them home, read them, and return them when you are done (or within a reasonable time limit). But what’s all the rage (supposedly) in this down economy? The hyper-pricy Kindle and other eBook readers, which force you to purchase heavily-DRMed digital files. While going to the library is obviously more of a hassle than simply downloading books, there is still a limitation in how much people read; thus the library model isn’t as popular. It’s similar with music; unlimited music is appealing in theory, but less so in practice.

So maybe this purchase of Lala will add a lot to iTunes and maybe it won’t. We aren’t likely to know for quite a while anyway, as integration of this technology with iTunes won’t happen quickly. I would expect any new announcements to come with word on new iPods in Q1 2010 or later.

As some of you may know, the Beach Boys’ 1966 album Pet Sounds is my favorite album of all time. It is an absolute masterpiece, straight through. The end track, “Caroline, No” is especially poignant. Written by Brian Wilson and Tony Asher, it features lyrics calling out to an old love who has become lost and sad after the end of their romance. From an earnest perspective, this song is a heart-breaker. Here are the lyrics.

Where did your long hair go?
Where is the girl I used to know?
How could you lose that happy glow?
Oh, Caroline no.

Could I ever find in you again
things that made me love you so much then?
Could we ever bring ‘em back once they have gone?
Oh, Caroline no.

But try reading the lyrics again from a more feminist perspective. What is the singer really saying? He broke up with Caroline (or she broke up with him). She’s changed, and he’s unhappy about it. Yet should not Caroline be allowed to cut her hair, to be sad that her romance ended? She’s changed, but the singer can’t seem to get over himself, saying that Caroline breaks his heart. But he doesn’t want to find ways to love her anew; instead he wants to find the things that made him love her back when they were still together.

Poor Caroline. She gets out of a relationship with this loser of a guy, gets a haircut, and let’s herself bemoan lost romance for a while. Then, the guy keeps calling, telling her that she’s changed for the worse, that she seems like she is dying, just because she isn’t dating him anymore. Even worse, if she listens to all of Pet Sounds, she can see that the singer is definitely depressed. She stuck through tough times with him, but in the end it didn’t work out. So how is that her fault?

Anyway, I still love this album and “Caroline, No” is an exceptional song. But reading the lyrics from a different perspective can definitely bring out a new side of the song.

Fresh rumors are sprouting that Google plans on releasing a phone (or device of some sort) as designed, built, and branded by Google. While this could end up being bunk, or while the device might just be another Android device, some rumors have it pegged a little differently. Specifically, these rumors envision the device to be a VoIP phone, using Google Voice, that would allow for calls to be placed over the internet. Recent speculation envisions the phone as using a similar screen as the Droid (so, larger and higher resolution than the iPhone), thus moving it into the tablet area.

This rumor has my interest piqued. I’ve been excited by rumors of an Apple tablet, but a tablet from another company, especially Google, could be very exciting. In my own life, I am seldom away from a wifi connection, meaning a VoIP phone could work for me. Though I’m far from thinking about ditching my mobile phone, there’s something romantic about relying on the internet instead of a cell phone company. As one commentator points out, it would be easy to augment current wifi networks with a portable internet device like the Mifi from Verizon.

But here’s the problem with my fantasies. A tablet device cannot replace my computer, even if it can get me to leave my laptop at home for a day. And if I am doing work on my tablet, I need a way to sync that work back to my computer. Without this crossover ability, the tablet either becomes a secondary computer filled with constant struggles to figure out where and what are the latest files; or a crippled device that I can use only for light internet browsing and occasional email. Neither is appealing.

An Apple tablet would have the added benefit of Apple’s excellent sync technology, including potential integration with their MobileMe system and their excellent backup system Time Machine. I doubt Apple would release a tablet without considering how files could be synced between the device and the user’s primary computer. But Google’s solutions for these same tasks are much less reliable. Google seems likely to solve problems of syncing by encouraging users to put data “in the cloud” and use services like Google Docs for document editing. This solution is not nearly as appealing as actual synchronization between tablet and computer.

I will obviously take a serious look at any tablet-like device that comes out. I think it’s an exciting new type of product. But until my questions of synchronization are answered and my concerns about managing two powerful devices assuaged, there seems little way I can justify the purchase of a secondary computing device. Whether the Google device is a cell phone, a VoIP phone, or just a tablet computer, it must talk to my MacBook or I won’t be buying.