AOL and XM Joining Forces for Online Radio

Josh writes "BetaNews is reporting that AOL and XM are joining forces to make available 20 XM music channels plus 130 of its own available to anyone on the internet for free starting this summer. AOL members will have free broadband access to 70 XM channels, although apparently there are plans for a $5/month option for non-subscribers. The deal means AOL Music specials will make it onto XM's channels, and XM promos will be heard across AOL Music's properties."

Yeah, free...

[jspayne]

AOL members will have free broadband access to 70 XM channels, although apparently there are plans for a $5/month option for none subscribers.

Free, if you are paying for AOL.

Sirius already has free access to all of its music stations - if you have a subscription to Sirius.

Jeff

When will satellite radio become profitable?

[bfline]

Listen to the XM CEO on NPR.org [npr.org]

XM Satellite Radio has added more than a half million subscribers in the last 3 months and shares of XM have quintupled over the last 2 years. Questions discussed in the npr broadcast: Can XM continue its meteoric growth? When will satellite radio become profitable? Is there room for both XM and rival Sirius?

What a great idea!

[jaakko]

I would gladly pay a monthly fee for hearing music that I can't choose, and maybe advertisements every now and then! It's like radio, but it costs money and bandwidth!

Re:Yeah, free...

[isa-kuruption]

So does XM, http://listen.xmradio.com/. I'm listening right now.

The real advantage to this, of course, is that XM increases it's potential customer base. Customers who will use the XM via AOL option will fall in love with a couple channels and end up getting units and paying the $12.99/mo. Of course, I'm all for this... I'm a shareholder (tm).

Re:Yeah, free...

[justforaday]

Free sure has taken on some funny meanings lately...Also see the "free" upgrade to Dark Age of Camelots story that ran a few days ago. You get a "free" upgrade so long as you pay their monthly service fee...

Re:Howard Stern and $500 million reasons

[Anita Coney]

The Sirius deal with Stern is going to go down in history as a huge failure. Offensive humor only works because it breaks rules. Thus, Stern is only successful because people get shocked at what he does. They'll comment such as, "Can you believe what Stern got away with this morning?!"

After a few years of Stern having no limits, people are going to get bored and stop listening.

Music wants to be free

[RocketRainbow]

As a musician I believe that music ought to be free. I can't bear the thought of my work only going to horrible radio stations that are going to try to make the kids buy things they don't want.

But I'm powerless to stop it.

When my album is recorded my preference will be to make it available for download from a simple website. This will provide excellent exposure for my performance and encourage people to visit my performance. Very few musicians make good money from CD sales - they traditionally kept the public enjoying the performance and sparked enthusiasm for visiting a show. The very best of us perform in large stadiums, earning thousands of dollars in a single night (of lip-synching).

I'll be encouraging the kids to build up nice big playlists so they don't have to listen to the radio tell them what to buy. I don't think that AOL internet radio is a useful step at this point.

If you enjoy radio, then I suggest you listen to Triple J - available from the ABC website www.abc.net.au.

Re:Howard Stern and $500 million reasons

[fishdan]

Wow -- I have a feeling you're trolling but I'll bite. People don't listen to Howard Stern because he breaks the rules. People listen to him because he's FUNNY, and frequently insightful. Whether or not they'll pay $10/month to listen to him is another question, and we'll just have to wait and see -- but I do know that the radio industry is full of people who missed on on huge opportunities by betting against Howard Stern.

Re:Yeah, free...

[adamanthaea]

This bit of the article makes me worry a bit: "An enhanced high-bandwidth version of the service will feature 70 XM stations for around $5 USD per month, although specific pricing has not yet been set. XM plans to replace its current Web radio offering, which became free to subscribers last week, with the AOL-powered service when it launches." XM just upped the monthly fee by 3 dollars for "free" Web radio. Quite frankly, I almost never use it. If I'm at my computer, I have the actual receiver going into my computer. If I'm somewhere else on the network, sometimes I will use it if I'm at a computer with speakers. When I'm at home, I can't really use it because of the limitations of dial-up. Does this mean that for the extra 3 bucks that XM subscribers will still get the 70 XM channels plus all the AOL stuff? Or would I have to shell out even more (which I can tell you right now is not going to happen) or do I get the option to drop the Web radio and get back to the old monthly cost?

XM technology, Sirius content

[Reignking]

From a strategic point of view, this seems consistent with what XM has done and says it will continue to do -- be ahead of Sirius on technology. They had their satellites up first; they've got the first walkman-sized radio, and now they've got a way to allow millions of more users hear their signal. XM is focusing on how users hear them, while Sirius is focusing on what users hear...

Re:What a great idea!

[ScentCone]

music that I can't choose

That should read: 'don't have to choose'

That's the whole point if these services are run right: you get to enjoy good music without wading through thousands of titles and deciding what should be played. It's like going to a good restaurant, and telling the chef you trust to just fix you a really nice dinner. Some unexpected pieces are part of the experience, and just like the chef (who costs you more than the food would at the grocery store), you're buying someone's time and expertise - and trusting them to get it at least mostly right most of the time.

Places like RadioIO [radioio.com] have been doing a pretty good job at this for a while now. It's worth the cost of a six pack of Guiness to have someone else spend all month digging up music for me to hear.

Re:What a great idea!

[cowscows]

Exactly. When TV over the internet becomes a reality, I don't want to have to find 30 different channels that I like and send each of them $1/month to subscribe. I'd rather buy a package deal, where I just pay one bill, where someone else will keep track of whether a particular channel is having financial or technical difficulties, etc. It only sucks with current cable TV because we're stuck with huge monopoly companies that are basically free to treat us poorly.

If the industry doesn't get too swamped by legislation and unfair competition, it'd be feasible for there to be hundreds of these different companies offering different packages. Competition will force them to offer smaller and more focused packages, so I can find what I like, and maybe get some new stuff that's similar, and that I might not have discovered on my own.

While the internet and micropayments could create an economy without the middle men skimming some of the money, I'd be pretty happy with an economy consisting of a wider range of middle men, forcing a lot more competition between them. They would be less distributors and more aggregators/organizers. We're going to need that if we want the internet's vast info stores to be useful. Note the success of, oh....say, Google?