Paloma Faith kind-of misses the naked photo point

The myriad of difficult privacy and security issues that fall out from the hacking of the iCloud? Paloma Faith isn't that bothered:

She told The Sun on Sunday: ''I don't feel like I've ever done anything that I'm particularly ashamed of.

''I would rather they didn't see naked pictures of me, but if they did, I can honestly say I've never taken an untasteful one.''

That's a bit like being told that there are burglaries in the area, and shrugging with a "well, at least if they pinch the silver, I've had a chance to polish it first."

Also: why would you even share your thoughts on mobile phone hacking with the the News Of The World? It's like going to Russia to talk about territorial integrity.

Gordon in the morning: Misunderstanding Mumford

Mumford and Sons pretty much have themselves pegged:

The group’s banjo player, WINSTON MARSHALL, reckons they’re one of the wettest bands in the business.

He said: “We’re not, like, hard men. We’re emotional. We’re not rock’n’roll.

“If AC/DC apologised, that’d be the end of their career.

“But someone doesn’t say hello to us and we’re like, ‘I cannot believe the gall!’”

I'm not quite sure that Marshall would recognise what he was describing as "wet"; I think he was going for "sensitive" or "polite".

But then Gordon seems to struggle to understand anything the band says. Take this:

[Marcus][ revealed: “Every day I use my phone and I have no idea how it works.

“Whereas I see an acoustic guitar played with gusto and I understand just how it works.”

I think that's pretty clear - the difference between advanced technology and more basic kit; the difference between knowing, say, how a guitar makes a C and how your phone knows that there's a burger bar round the corner and can give you turn-by-turn directions to get there.

The gap between having an understanding of your tools, and your tools being a mystery.

Gordon, though, doesn't appear to get it:

The group’s frontman MARCUS MUMFORD admits they haven’t even worked out how to use mobile phones.

No, he really isn't admitting that. He's not saying that at all.

Still, there's an upside:

Just as well – iPhones would be useless keeping 60,000 fans entertained at the O2.

Actually, Gordon's wrong here, too:

Noel Gallagher comes with ringdings

I know we're not meant to really take Noel Gallagher's forgeyish disdain for modern life seriously, but even so...:

He said: “I just want a basic 1994 Nokia mobile. I can keep it in my back pocket and just do the basics with it – phone and text. What would I need a camera on it for? iPhones are for Cockneys and ****s. And they are far too big.”

How dull must Gallagher's life be if he can't think of any reason he might want to have a pretty good camera in his pocket?

But still, let's take him at his word. He doesn't want an iPhone because they're too big, and all he needs is a 1994 Nokia.

In 1994, Nokia announced the 2110 (it actually started shipping the following year). It weighed 236 grammes, and was 148 x 56 x 25 mm.

The iPhone4s weighs 140 grammes, and is 115 x 59 x 9 mm.

But, hey, if Noel would rather have a phone that does less, and is taller and thicker, and heavier, because it's somehow smaller, that's his choice.

Apple to "ban" something, claims The Sun

The Sun headline on the story about Apple filing a patent to 'prevent' iPhone cameras working at gigs is a little shouty:

Apple to 'ban iPhone gig filming'

And doesn't quite match up to the story underneath.

What Apple have done is file a patent describing a system which would allow a venue to install equipment which could detect iPhones in the house, and then block the cameras in them:

If an iPhone were held up and used to film during a concert infra-red sensors would detect it.

These sensors would then contact the iPhone and automatically disable its camera function.

People would still be able to send text messages and make calls.

Is it just me, or would everyone rather than disabled the ability to make calls and send text messages during the set?

Clearly, this is one of the most stupid ideas Apple has ever come up with - yes, stupider than the Newton. Not only does "this phone won't work in a concert" sound like a compelling reason to buy a different phone, but the complicated system relies on the venue's equipment being able to contact the iPhone. So you just flick the device into airplane mode, it stops sending and receiving messages, and how then will the supersensor switch the camera off?

Why even bother?

The new technology is seen as an attempt to protect the interests of event organisers and broadcasters who have exclusive rights to concerts.

Yes, DVD sales of gigs must be really hurt by someone sticking small chunks of the gig filmed from one position, with lots of bits of people's heads in the way, on a wobbly, tiny camera onto YouTube. That's a genuine fear.

The paper speculates that this is really intended to allow Apple to show willing to the copyright industry when negotiating iTunes rights.

Hmm... a totally useless but expensive system it can sell venues, and a good but meaningless story to tell rights holders? Perhaps Apple's idea isn't so stupid after all...

[UPDATE: Codepope explains in the comments why switching off airplane mode wouldn't work...]

Gordon in the morning: How are the app sales going, Gordon?

It's not clear how sales of the Bizarre app - it's a monthly subscription - are going, but the competition to win some sort of meeting with JLS suggests a desperate bid to drive take-up.

Still, lovely to see a bit of salesmanship from Gordon:

The Bizarre application is FREE for the first 30 days of subscription and £1.19 per month after that.

It is available for iPhone and Android handsets, which are sold in all good mobile phone retailers across the UK.

Does he really think people are going to be going "blimey, that sounds so good I might go and buy a three hundred quid phone just to get that app... if only I knew where I could find such a thing..."?

Music Week reflects readership's misunderstanding of online pricing

Music Week has launched an iPhone app, inviting you to tap into its music industry reporting wherever you happen to be. And how much does it want for this?

£9.99.

Well, that's a little heavy - a tenner for a single newspaper app, but it is working in a specialist sector, and times are hard, and I guess ten pounds is just about fair... what? What's that you're saying, Gordon Macmillan?

The £9.99 price gives readers access to the music trade title's content for 30 days. Then it is time to renew.

One hundred and twenty pounds a year?

Sure, they're writing for people working in an industry which is desperate to believe that the price of what they sell online should go up, rather than down, but even hardened music executives might spot that this is chronically overpriced.

The Spectator is pushing it, but at least they only try to shake you down for £2.39. Maybe - in the same way record companies have forgotten they don't need to charge for pressing, distribution and warehousing with online deals - Music Week has forgotten to pass the savings in newsprint and ink and vans and retail mark-up onto the consumer.

[via @simonth]

We comes to i

New Media Age is reporting that We7 is about to launch an iPhone client:

Before the end of the year, We7 will offer listeners the option to pay a monthly subscription in return for receiving ad-free streams as well as mobile access via an iPhone app, mirroring Spotify’s premium offering.

So, in other words, you'll have to cough up to get the iPhone streaming, but at least you won't have the ads.

Incidentally, how much must O2 be delighted its all-you-can-eat data plans for the iPhone are going to be put to such use?

NMA also says this:

The ad-funded streaming model is thought to be a strong contender for fighting piracy, with 95% of all digital music estimated to have been shared illegally.

What does that actually mean? It would be nice if there was a source for this high-sounding estimate, at least as a start, but since "digital music" includes stuff encoded on CDs, and paid-for, and legitimately streamed and legally shared tracks, and music on digital relays of radio programmes and instances where the music has been licensed in reverse, and people who've recorded their own works and works in progress in the studio, the entire paragraph seems to be an enormous nonsense.

Aiden wants to be treated like Nine Inch Nails

Apple's wobble and revision when faced with the Nine Inch Nails iPhone app has now knocked on into being a question of moral relevance, with Aiden demanding to know why, if the NIN app is fine, theirs is being blocked:

What can I really say that Trent Reznor hasn't? "I want to fuck you like an animal?" Oh wait, he said that. "I am a big man and I have a big gun. Got me a big ol’ dick and I like to have fun, held it against your forehead, I'll make you suck it, maybe I'll put a hole in your head, you know, just for the fuck of it." Yeah, he said that, too, all on a record called The Downward Spiral. I have purchased that album five times in my life. I first got it on Cassette when it came out in 1994, I bought it a couple of times on CD and last year I purchased it on iTunes right after I went out and picked up the vinyl. Why? Because it's a great fucking record.

I don't want to go on the same rant as him, although I probably share the exact same feelings.

So what if a crappy punk band from Seattle sings about the deception of religion as a whole? So what if they sing about Catholic priests molesting little boys? Who really cares at all if they wail about a Hungarian Countess that was born in the 1500's and killed over 600 women? Who Cares? The PMRC? Ted Haggard? Congress? Jesus? Oh wait, no… JESUS ISN’T FUCKING REAL.

Yes, maybe we talked a little bit of shit while doing the commentary for the iPhone app about Christianity, about sex and about... Fuck I can't even remember because it's so fucking insignificant. Why don't you be a little clearer in what it was that we need to watch out for? Oh wait... I thought I lived in America where my freedom of speech right was protected by the constitution?

That's right, I forgot. I actually live in Hell. Oops. Remind me to tell someone I have a complaint to submit in the box on the wall.

Aside from the content issue, the app was also rejected because you want to "protect" the value of the iTunes store and having an app with embedded content "competes" with what is ultimately your monopoly. Ironic and hypocritical, no, since Apple owns both channels?

I just want to say thank you Apple for not approving our iPhone app. Thank you so much. To celebrate this great occasion, I'm going to visit your iTunes Music Store and download The Slim Shady LP; I really want to hear that song he sings about killing his wife and dumping her body in the ocean. Awesome!!!

William Control / AIDEN

PS: Any by the way, we have sold over 325,000 albums so far in our career without widespread mainstream media exposure. So, we must be relevant to someone.

There's a point in there somewhere, although it's a little bit lost in the pointless detailing of how many records the band have sold, and the somewhat overwrought writing of the complaint. I guess that's only to be expected, given the band, though.

Nails hammer Apple

To be frank, ranked in the list of Apple embarrassments, the Nine Inch Nails u-turn won't really make the top ten (it's no Newton) but the decision to restore Nine Inch Nails' app to the app store is quite important. It suggests that Apple have managed to get back a bit of perspective after the wobble post-baby shaker.

Curiously, Cupertino have nothing to say about the change of heart:

Apple have refused to explain their change of heart, saying: "It's not something we comment on."

- but they were happy enough to comment on the time they reversed their decision and did ban baby shaker. So, still a small problem with consistency, there.

Apple pulls Nails

The Nine Inch Nails iPhone app was something a triumph for everyone involved - it showed Apple's mobile platform was capable of sexy, alluring, grown-up uses; it gave Trent Reznor reach into a different market. It was wonderful.

Was. Apple have now yanked it because of 'offensive content'. Presumably, in the same way that post-Brand, the BBC have gone compliance crazy, having had its reputation tarnished by the baby shaking monstrosity, Apple are now hitting the delete button as soon as anything that would upset the faintest of maiden aunts is discovered.

Apple's DRM heading to court

The iPod is great, but what if you don't want to use iTunes to sync your music to it? For a while, you could consult a website called BluWiki, which offered crowdsourced advice on how to use other software to load your device. But then Apple leaned on BluWiki, and the forum was closed.

The computer comnpany suggested that, should BluWiki have continued to share the advice, it could be considered to be inviting people to "circumvent the DRM". God forbid that if you pay a couple of a hundred quid for a music player, you be able to decide how to use it.

Now, though, the lawsuits are flowing in the opposite direction, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation co-sponsor a claim that Apple are stifling free speech:

According to the EFF, Apple alleged this type of discussion constituted copyright infringement, as it strongly guards iTunes' status as an exclusive content delivery and management tool for all iPod and iPhone hardware.

Fred von Lohmann, EFF senior staff lawyer, argued: "It's legal to engage in reverse engineering in order to create a competing product, it's legal to talk about reverse engineering, and it's legal for a public wiki to host these discussions."

Free speech versus DRM. Which is better? There's only one way to find out...

BPI charts company tries surprising 'pay to buy' model

Just making its debut on the iTunes app store is a little application from the Official Chart Company which lets you look at the charts. Music Ally is surprised:

But hang on, any savvy iPhone user can simply visit the Radio 1 website every Sunday and get that info...

Ah, but there is a unique selling point:

Well, the OCC is hoping its app’s extra features will make it tempting, with the ability to preview and buy tracks on the iTunes Store, stream videos for some tracks from YouTube, browse that week’s new releases, and click through to artist websites.

Aha - so it's a useful tool to allow people to move from grazing the charts onto buying the music. That's quite savvy. Giving away a nice shiny app to play with charts in the hope of making some sales. Good wo... hang about, what's this?

It costs £1.79 to download the app, although...

Although you get your money back? It's free if you're in the UK? That comes with a free iTunes purchase?

although this will soon rise to £2.99.

Oh. So you want me to give you three quid for a device to sell music to me? You know what else lets me click through to artist websites? Google. You know what that costs me? Nothing.

Katy Perry gets uplift from fast fingered friends

Nice little statistic buried deep inside the Christian Science Monitor:

Tim O’Brien, head of business development at Tapulous pointed to a recent track by Katy Perry, the chart-topping American pop singer. More than 250,000 users [of iPhone app game Tap Tap Revenge] loaded “Hot N Cold,” Mr. O’Brien says, and of that number, 56,000 ended up purchasing the song from iTunes.

It's a nice little extra sale, on top of the modest fee for licensing the tune. With something making a small but unexpected profit, it's probably only going to be five minutes or so before label heads start to demand larger shares of revenue and/or issuing lawsuits.

[Tip of the hat: Musically]

Apple hooks up with Snow Patrol

In a bid to make the prospect of a new Snow Patrol album even more thrilling, Polydor and Apple are launching a superspecial iPhone app, reports Music Week:

The application, which will be downloadable online, will enable fans to access a raft of extra content including artwork, behind-the-scenes images and lyrics via the touch screen of their handsets, marking the first time a music artist has made use of the iPhone’s extra capabilities.

If you think that sentence suggests a tenuous grasp on the technology underpinning the marketing idea, you might be right. Music Week continues:

The popularity of the iPhone and iPod Touch homescreen applications has shot up in recent months as consumers look for ways to customise their handsets.

You don't think, perhaps, the increasing popularity of apps "in recent months" might have more to do with, erm, the launch of the apps store on July 10th and them suddenly becoming available, then?

Meanwhile, Bruce Houghton at Hypebot has worked himself up into a state:

if labels allow Steve Jobs to control content delivery vehicle then only iPhone and iTouch users will experience all that an artist is trying to convey. New album cover applications must be multi-platform and open source or the music industry risks a repeat of Apple's pre-mp3 stranglehold on music sales.

Apple had a pre-mp3 stranglehold on music sales? Back in 1997? Or does Houghton mean "before mp3 stores became widely available, because the music industry was too afraid to sell files that weren't wrapped up in DRM?

Apple weren't strangleholding the market while the music industry prayed for a more open standard - the industry deliberately chose to ignore an option that would have handed back a little more control to the customer; if Apple strangled them, it was consenual erotic asphyxiation.

Houghton does have a point - it would be much happier for everyone if this new stuff was available in an open format instead of being tied to a single brand or store, but for that to happen, the record labels would have to accept that their extra-value material would be published in a way that people could take it and use it and share it on without payment. It's hard to see why, given the current mindset of the big labels, they'd invest cash in developing stuff designed to persuade people to buy an official download only for the exclusivity to evaporate in the same way that of the original song had, too.

Still, Houghton is clearly alarmed, even appending a message to the foot of his blog post:

SPREAD THE WORD: PLEASE DIGG, STUMBLE & EMAIL THIS POST

Yes! Email it to ten people, and instruct them to reply to you with details of the ten people they've emailed it to within the hour, or the music industry will DIE. It's a plan for a label to try a pilot scheme which basically involves tacking a couple of extra files onto a digital download. It doesn't quite require the caps lock urgency of a call to petition for a stay of execution for a prisoner to be killed at sun down.

Shins shillers

Nice spot by Chris Albrecht at GigaOm: apparently both the Zune and iPhone/iPod are using The Shins in a bid to attract sale. Clearly, the band were keen to ensure everyone knows their music is available across a range of platforms and devices, and aren't just, you know, like whorish or anything.

Tuesday's iTunes killer

Vodaphone is about to launch a mobile music store which is being touted as no sort of iTunes killer at all.

Oh, alright, it is:

Rob Lewis, chief executive of Omnifone, which developed MusicStation, believes the service will help operators exploit the full potential of their networks and the relationship they have with customers in a way that the iPhone does not.

"A device like iPhone, at the end of the day, ties a consumer to an Apple strategy forever. It does not utilise the 3G data network; it is not even 3G compatible. It does not allow over-the-air downloads; it only allows downloads from iTunes using a credit card, and it certainly does not allow unlimited downloads wherever you are," he said.

Analysts believe the iPhone will be a powerful, but niche, product, and the full potential of mobile music lies in making it easier to buy and play tracks on a mobile phone. This year alone, more than 1.13bn mobile phones will be sold worldwide, according to estimates from the industry expert Gartner, while 110m iPods have been sold since 2001.

This, of course, does rely on consumers being a bit... well, slow. Because otherwise, they might weight the "ease" of downloading on their handset against not actually owning the track - Vodaphone have gone with a rental model; not having the track on anything other than your phone; limited phone storage meaning that if you like more than a few hundred songs, you'll be constantly deleting, reloading, deleting, reloading and, of course, seeing through the pricing trick:

£1.99-a-week

Which sounds okay - although at £104 a year, you'd only start to see an advantage if you'd have bought more than 131 tracks on iTunes - but, of course, you also have to pay Vodaphone for the datatransfer as you suck these songs down. And at least when you sync your iPhone with iTunes, you can copy across anything you've ripped from CDs you already own.

Mobile music stores are built on the hope that customers are either very, very stupid, or very, very rich.