TechRadar UK Blogs: News Blog

On 15 January, internet radio service Pandora will no longer be available to UK listeners.

Now I'll be the first in line to accuse the big, bad record companies of an unnecessarily Draconian approach to the game of rights and royalties, but I don't blame them in this case; I blame us, the site's users.

Pandora is cutting us off simply because it can't afford to have us listen any more. Why? Because the UK's current legislation covering internet radio is far more favourable to the music industry than the equivalent US regulations.

Just to emphasise, Pandora is a completely legal service, and pays the required fees and royalties for the service it offers. This is exactly why it's turning its back on the UK, because present UK regulations demand a per track licensing fee that makes it virtually impossible for service providers to break even.

So it's the music industry's fault, then? No, it's ours.

We've done nothing

US consumers have been far more proactive in lobbying and petitioning their government against rights organisations. And it's made a real difference. With the exception of a few individuals who have taken the cause to heart, we've done nothing.

Worse, Pandora's demise- due to our indifference - leaves a gaping hole that will be fertile ground for pirate music stations to step into. And that only strengthens the music industry's already strong position.

I'm listening to Pandora while I write this, and will genuinely miss it when it's gone. Thanks to Pandora my musical horizons have broadened, and many a working day has been made more bearable.

But apathy comes at a high price, and I can't help but feeling that Pandora's silence will be partly the result of our own.

* Want to help save internet radio? Petition 10 Downing Street to look into our music licensing laws.

So according to Microsoft's calculator, Facebook is worth£7.3bn. That's pretty good going for a site that's only existed for threeyears. But should this Web 2.0 deal make us afraid of Bubble Burst 2.0?

Microsoft has just handed over a £117m wodge of cash for aneffective 1.6 per cent stake in the social networking site. The prize? Exclusivethird-party advertising rights on a site that's gaining 200,000 new users aday.

Back off Google!

On the surface, then, it's easy to understand why Redmond was so keen toget in on the act - and shoulder past Google in doing so. The demographics makesense too - with 60 per cent of Facebook's users outside the US, it is by far the most globalsocial networking platform in existence.

This global perspective also brings Google back into the argument. As Jupiter Research points out, Google completely dominates web search traffic in the UK, France and Germany, while in the US its share is only 54 per cent. This may be all about Microsoft gaining enough traction in non-US markets to offer a viable advertising platform to Google.

And beyond the advertising potential offered by the currentdeal, the possibility of integrating its instant messaging technology intoFacebook in the future must surely have also occurred to Microsoft. Plus there's the not-to-be-underestimated lure of a high-profile success over one of its big-hitting rivals (because Microsoft sorely needed one).

Will the Web 2.0 bubble burst?

But to me it's also the clearest sign yet of the beginningsof an over-inflation of the Web 2.0 bubble. I'm not talking late '90s scale,but the signs are slightly worrying.

Ultimately, Facebook's value is based entirely on its userbase and the potential for growth - and revenue - that the current rate of sign-up suggests.Given how easily both those factors can change, it's a worryingly thinfoundation to build such a high valuation on.

And while Microsoft is in a theoretically strong position inbeing advertising partner to such a fast-growing site, that is also unlikely tobear fruit immediately. Online advertising continues to be a tough nut tocrack, and personal profile-generated ads has more potential than profit at this stage.

Is this a silly money move?

There's no guarantee that Microsoft will ever generate £117m ofprofit from this partnership. Or to put it another way: When was the last timeyou clicked on an ad in Facebook? Or Gmail for that matter? For me, the answeris, as of now, that I never have.

Of course, Microsoft's size means it can afford to be wrong herewithout any serious consequences. But if we're going to start seeing silly moneychanging hands for a stake in businesses with value that's more suggested thanreal, I'm going to start worrying.

Because we've been here before, and it didn't end well.

Olympus' flagship E-3 digital SLR was announced in Tokyo yesterday, and itlooks like quite a camera - and worth the long wait.

But of equal interest to me was the company's announcementthat it plans to have a 20 per cent share of the worldwide digital SLR marketwithin five years.

This bold target is clearly a sign of healthy confidence in its ownproducts, but against the kind of competition Olympus faces, I'd have to change 'bold' to 'impossible'. The D-SLR market is currently dominated by Canon (46.7 per cent) andNikon (33 per cent), with Olympus on a distant 5.9 percent.

So with four out of five digital SLR sales coming from thetop two manufacturers, it's clear where Olympus'improved sales are going to have to come from. Simply put, Olympus has to convince potential Nikon or Canon buyers to opt for one of its camerasinstead. And I can't see that happening.

SLR sweet spot

With a launch price of £1,099 (body only), the E-3 is aimedat what is widely regarded as the 'sweet spot' of the D-SLR market.

The problem is that its rivals also have designs on thislucrative space, and have been quite active themselves in recent months. Canon,with the EOS-40D, and Nikon, with the D300, have both launched very strongcameras in the second half of 2007.

And Sony, Olympus'closest rival for market space at 6.2 per cent, has just unveiled the A700, the first fullyrealised result of the marriage between Sony's corporate clout and Minolta's inherited camera legacy.

The E-3 certainly looks a good camera, and Olympus'optics can't be faulted, but put it alongside these high-class rivals (and there are others too) and the20 per cent aim seems hard to justify.

Four Thirds

Of course, forthcoming SLRs may change that. But all arelikely to feature the Four Thirds image sensor system, given that Olympus is its chief architect and supporter.

And herein lies the problem for Olympus.

The higher up the market you go, the more Four Thirds'limitations are apparent. The smaller sensor size means an increased risk ofnoise at higher resolutions. And while Olympus has to be praised for its work in combating this, the inherent limitations ofthe system simply can't be overlooked.

The fact that none of the other leading camera makers haveshown any sign of moving to Four Thirds tells its own story as the market movesforward.

Until this changes, or unless Olympus hassome other tricks up its sleeve, a 20 per cent market share looks likewishful thinking.

----------------------------

Related content:

Olympus announces E-3 digital SLR

Hands on: Sony A700

Canon EOS-40D review

Nikon announces D300 digital camera

In Sony BMG's latest triumph in public relations, its chieflawyer has argued that copying a song you already own (such as onto your own PCfrom a legally purchased CD) is stealing.

Of course, the strict legal position in the UK is just that, but reaching back to the days of recording music from the radio onto cassette tape, nobody's ever made any fuss so long as it was for your own use.

Not surprisingly, Sony BMG head of litigation Jennifer Pariser's comments in the US have sparkedplenty of reaction. In her ideal world you would pay separately for each deviceyou listen to a song on - a Sony device, I'm sure it's safe to presume.

There's maybe some grey area here as to whether Pariser wasgiving Sony's official position, or her own. But I wouldn't be surprised if itwas both.

And if a senior representative of such a high-profilecompany is willing to take such an antagonistic stance, on recordno less, then perhaps I should do the same.

Simply put, if Sony tries to put such a system intopractice, I will never ever buy anything associated with the company everagain.

Of course, this assumes that we'll actually get to find outwhat Sony is up to. That would at least show that it learned something from thePR fiasco caused by including hidden rootkit software on its CDs in 2005.

Pariser speculates that Sony BMG has halved in value since 2000. Sure, piracy has had an effect, and believe it or not Ilargely support measures to crack down on illegal copying and downloading of music.

Foran up-and-coming band putting all their time, money and energy into succeedingin a cut-throat industry, music piracy from so-called 'fans' actually does a lot of harm.

But saying it's 'stealing' to seek to enjoy music you boughtand paid for on another device (that you also bought and paid for) is, in myopinion, totally insulting.

Because if we accept this, then we have to ask - what comesafter that?

A limit to how many times I'm legally allowed to listen to aCD? Or better still, a pay-per-listen scheme on CDs - where true fans pay more for wanting to listen to their favourite tracks regularly? How about a law prohibiting anyone but you hearing the music? After all, you're the only one who paid for it, not so?

No thanks, Sony. Me and my legally purchased music collection can live without suchpolice state values.

Three months ago I had a bit of a go at Virgin Media. Sohaving just moved house it gave me the perfect opportunity to ditch Virgin and switchallegiance to the shiny world of Sky.

And yet I didn't. In fact I've just signed up to Virgin allover again. Why? Two letters: BT.

In my haste to share my frustrations about Virgin in July Iforgot one fundamental point: Sky's all-in-one package relies on having a BTline, and Virgin's does not.

Yesterday I started the day with the seemingly simple goalof getting a BT phone line up and running in my new home. For the sake ofconvenience I was happy to sign up to BT's Total Broadband service too, maybeeven BT Vision. But I underestimated the bureaucratic life-sapping power of BT.

I dialled the BT call centre, and it took 28 minutes to get throughto a real human. Mercifully I was spared any kind of elevator music in thebackground - half an hour of 'Greensleeves' could really have killed me off.

I was then told that the number I had dialled - which the BTwebsite said was the number to call for new connections - was not in fact thenumber to call for new connections.

To make me feel better, however, I was given a number tocall that would bypass the call centre and take me straight through to someonewho would be able to help me. This is a number I will keep forever, I canassure you.

I dialled the number. This time I got access to a real humanstraight away, who helpfully said they would put me through to the direct salesteam, and then promptly transferred the call... you guessed it... back into theoriginal queue.

This was simply too much to bear, and I put the phone down. Idid consider the irony of being unable to activate a phone line by actually phoningthe phone company on one of its own phones. But it didn't make me feel anybetter.

So I went back to Virgin, simply because it meant not havingto deal with BT again.

And after criticising Virgin's service in July, I have toadd that the guy I spoke to was friendly and helpful. On top of that, he was areal human and I only had to wait about three minutes to speak to him.

I'm cynical enough to suspect that this was down to luck,and that next time I phone Virgin I'll be on the phone for two hours to make upfor it. But yesterday, against all the odds, Virgin regained an old customer.And BT lost a new one.