ImaginativePRO Blog

GOOGLE'S NEW CHROMECAST IS THE ANTI-APPLE TV AND IS IS ALSO AVAILABLE FOR STREAMING MUSIC THROUGH YOUR AUDIO SPEAKERS

CHROMECAST HAS BEEN REDESIGNED TO FIT YOUR TV, AND YOUR VIEWING HABITS, IN A WAY APPLE TV NEVER WILL.

Today, Google has revealed two new Chromecasts. One is for your TV. One is for your speakers. Both cost $35. And a new app can suck in all of your streaming subscriptions, search them, and get you watching them in seconds.

Google Chromecast for your television (Click Image To Enlarge)

Google Chromecast for your audio speakers (Click Image To Enlarge)

It’s the anti-Apple TV approach. Google’s hardware is cheap, and purposefully forgettable. But more importantly, it uses the apps that are already on your phone to juggle all of the things you want to watch.

New Apple TV and remote (Click Image To Enlarge)

This is Google's big play in TV. Rather than have you download more apps, deal with more logins, and wave a remote at the big screen, Google is countering Apple with what Google does best: connecting your world via invisible Google gunk, to make watching a smarter TV as mindless as ever.

Which approach will prove right?

SO FAR, APPLE'S BUT IT HAD A HUGE HEAD START

If there’s ever been a metric of Google’s sometimes quiet scale, it’s this: In two years, even though your mom has probably never heard of it, Google has sold 20 million of its original Chromecast—a tiny HDMI dongle that connects to your phone and slides into your TV, to stream movies and TV shows.

AppleTV, which launched way back in 2007 with the full Steve Jobs treatment, sold about half that many by 2013, though sales have accelerated as of late, pushing them to 25 million units sold in roughly eight years.

So Apple TV, once a flop of an experiment, is rapidly gaining momentum. But even though Google’s design traditionally hasn’t been placed on a pedestal alongside Apple’s, it can actually have as great of an impact on the market—and even signal winds of design change. Since launching the Chromecast stick, Amazon and Roku both launched similar minimal media devices. Living rooms, once dominated by set-top boxes, have seen an invasion from discreet, USB-style sticks powered by cellphone guts.

Google Chromecast for TV works with all your apps to you can view their content on your TV (Click Image To Enlarge)

JUGGLING YOUR CONTENT, FROM YOUR PHONE

Chromecast’s biggest update is really its app. Formerly just a portal for your Chromecast settings, it’s now a full-blown media hub on your Android or iOS device.

The app sets itself up by scanning your phone for other apps. If it detects that you have Netflix and HBO Go installed, then the content of those apps will simply be added to Chromecast. You’ll see a queue from each service with their own suggestions of what you should watch.

Most notably, you don’t need to log in to these apps again, nor do you need to tell your Chromecast, via your TV, to download them. Google is juggling the backend of all these services, using your phone as your digital thumbprint, to reduce user friction and keep the experience couch-friendly. So all you have to do is tap the thing you want to watch—and while technically your phone will deep link you over to the Netflix app to play the content, and technically the Chromecast itself is running its own version of the Netflix app that’s already buffered this content to make it play smoothly—to you, it just plays.

All of this seamlessness will be Google's sell for making the phone the hub of its TV experience. Meanwhile, Apple TV with apps will function more or less like another phone, with all-new, separate app downloads and logins. And while developers salivate over the idea of Apple TV showing a path to true interactive content, there's no reason Chromecast couldn't do the same through a phone.

Google product manager Micah Collins explains. 

"The real estate from this point forward is the Chromecast app in a device in your hand.  That’s the strategic opportunity that I think is giving us reason to go down this path."

Google Chromecast for TV is a wire not a dongle stick (Click Image To Enlarge)

A WIRE, NOT A DONGLE OR A TROPHY

In terms of its industrial design, the new Chromecast is, notably, no longer a stick. It’s a Beats headphone-like puck that hangs, like one long wire, off the back of your TV or near your speaker. Why a puck? Michael Sundermeyer, hardware design lead on the project, calls it "uniquely Google," a visual play off the Chrome logo that can be more of an icon than a glorified USB stick could have been.

Functionally, the round shape allows the Chromecast to fit several antennas with different orientations to capture floating radio waves with dependability. "Having multiple antennas with different orientations and purposes is a way you make Wi-Fi reception reliable," Sundermeyer explains. For the Chromecast Audio, the puck features a 3.5mm jack, RCA, and optical jack for plugging into any speaker you like to stream services like Spotify, Pandora, and Google Play Music.

For the video version of Chromecast, which streams HD (not 4K) content, Google designed what it believes is the thinnest magnetically shielded HDMI cable in the world to connect from the puck into the TV, even within the tiniest gaps of a wall-mounted set.

Sundermeyer explains. 

"It was a lot harder than any of us believed. HDMI cables tend to be really thick, rough things. They barely bend at all.  We wanted something that just the weight of the puck would make it drape a certain way . . . [and it] had to fit with the design, strong enough to withstand shoulders of twists and bends."

To get the mix of shielding and flexibility, Google enlisted its own mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, and designers, who spent months sandwiching materials like kevlar and molded plastics until they got the cord just right. And, if you really think about it, maybe it’s not so crazy that Google spent so much time on the wire. Because when you actually install the Chromecast, it dangles from the back of your TV, hidden in the shadows of wiring, rather than featured like a sleek trophy of capitalism on your media shelf.

The Chromecast is, in essence, a wire, a symbolic product that’s almost mocking Apple’s prominence on your shelf, while reinforcing the idea that Google’s value—and what really matters—is really the information piping through the line.

STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY

When you consider that the Chromecast is really just your cellphone identity playing out on your television, it’s easy to see what Collins meant by the "strategic opportunity" at play: The cellphone could scale Chromecast to handle other services in your home. Apple TV isn’t just an entertainment device, after all. It’s Apple’s trojan horse for Homekit and the greater Internet of Things hub in your home. (Notably, Microsoft had the exact same play planned for your Xbox One, though it will probably never come to fruition at this point since the Xbox has been repositioned as a gaming machine to tackle the PS4.)

It seems that the Nest thermostat will be Google’s Internet of Things hub. But when you think about just how challenging it will be to control a whole home of lightbulbs with a remote aimed at a 50-inch screen, the solution seems simple: This would work so much better on a multitouch screen that’s always in your pocket, but could be easily extended to any shared screen in your home.

Of course, Apple won't go that route. It makes too much money off hard products to leverage the true power of its own preeminent smartphone—leaving Google just the "real estate" it needs to take over your TV, your home, and maybe even your future, starting at just $35.

COMMENTARY:   Engadget prepared the following comparison between the new Google Chromecast TV vs ROKU Streaming Stick vs Amazon Fire TV Stick:

Click Image To Enlarge

I use the original Chromecast for TV and just love it, but I use it mostly to watch YouTube videos. Love the fact that the new Chromecast for TV automatically recognizes any apps you may have installed on your mobile device (phone and tablets) and seamlessly allows you to interact with each app without having to "boot" them separately like you need to do the older Chromecast for TV.  This is a nice feature which Apple TV also incorporates, but Apple requires you to hook it up to your regular TV and use the remote control.  With Chromecast TV you are completely mobile and can take Chromecast TV on the road and hook it up to any TV that has an HDMI port. Your mobile device is your remote control. I have two HDMI ports on my Vizio, and my old Chromecast TV works great, albeit a bit slow at times. The newer Chromecast for TV's WIFI performance is supposed to be significantly better and faster, eliminating the latency caused by the buffering of the older version and the result is much better video and audio performance. Can hardly wait to upgrade, and at $35.00 it makes this so much easier.

Here's the video of Google's unveiling of the new Chromecast for TV on September 29.  

  

BREAKING:  AMAZON BANS SELLING CHROMECAST AND APPLE TV 

Effective September 30, 2015, Amazon announced that it will stop selling media-streaming devices from Google Inc. and Apple Inc. that aren’t easily compatible with its video service, the latest example of the company using its clout to promote products that fit with its own retailing strategy.

The Seattle-based Web retailer sent an e-mail to its marketplace sellers that it will stop selling the Apple TV and Google’s Chromecast since those devices don’t "interact well" with Prime Video. No new listings for the products will be allowed and posting of existing inventory will be removed Oct. 29, Amazon said. Prime Video doesn’t run easily on its rival’s hardware.

Roku Inc.’s set-top device, Microsoft Corp.’s Xbox and Sony Corp.’s PlayStation, which work with Amazon’s video service, aren’t affected, it said. Amazon’s Fire TV stick, which plugs into an HDMI port to connect televisions with streaming services such as Netflix and Prime Video, is the company’s best-selling electronic device.

  

Courtesy of an article dated September 29, 2015 appearing in Fast Company Design and an article dated September 29, 2015 appearing in Engadget and an article dated October 1, 2015 appearing in Bloomberg

Follow Me:   Twitter: turk5555    Facebook: 797743955    LinkedIn: turk5555 

Subscribe To My Blog Newfeed

PANDORA DOMINATES INTERNET RADIO WITH MOST OF ITS USERS LISTENING VIA MOBILE DEVICES

Nearly all time spent with digital radio, Pandora takes place on mobile

Music listeners are a mobile bunch, based on recent research by Triton Digital. The firm, which provides digital services to traditional and online radio companies, monitored clients’ weekday streaming activity from 6am to 8pm through the month of May 2015 and found that mobile accounted for 75.8% of US digital audio listening during the analysis, vs. a 24.2% share for desktop. 

Click Image To Enlarge

Triton conducts this analysis on a monthly basis, and past figures indicate that mobile isn’t stopping expansion any time soon. For example, in January 2015, it accounted for 72.4% of digital audio listening, vs. 27.6% for desktop.

eMarketer expects US adults to spend an average of 43 minutes daily with digital radio in 2015, or 11.9% of total digital time each day, and nearly all of that will be on mobile (38 minutes). Leading digital radio service Pandora will account for 27 minutes of daily radio time, or 7.5% of total time spent with digital, with mobile taking in 23 minutes.

Other research points to Pandora’s huge mobile presence. When February 2015 polling by Triton Digital and Edison Research asked US smartphone owners which digital radio apps they had downloaded, Pandora led by a long shot, at 50% of respondents.

Pandora also shines among mobile apps as a whole. According to May 2015 research by comScore, Pandora was the seventh most popular smartphone app among US smartphone app users, with a 44.0% reach. And March 2015 research by Sandvine Incorporated found that Pandora accounted for 3.33% of downstream mobile internet traffic in North America during the peak period (when bandwidth utilization is heaviest).

Click Image To Enlarge

Advertisers on Pandora are following the earbuds. eMarketer estimates from March 2015 forecast that Pandora net mobile ad revenues worldwide would total $752.0 million this year—up 31.7% and representing nearly 80% of the services’ total ad revenues. Most of that spending will come from the US, where Pandora mobile ad revenues will total $737.0 million.

Pandora recently reported second quarter 2015 revenues of $285.6 million, a 30% year-over-year increase. Advertising revenue was $230.9 million, a 30% year-over-year increase.  Subscription and other revenue was $54.6 million, a 31% year-over-year increase.  Total revenues for the trailing 12-month period exceeded $1 billion.  Revenue is expected to be in the range of $1.175 billion to $1.185 billion for the year ending 2015.   If the latter guidance total holds, Pandora will represent nearly one-third of total forecasted internet radio ad revenues for the year 2015.

COMMENTARY:   In January 2015, XAPP Media prepared "The Internet Radio Trends Report," showing how popular internet radio has become among users and its importance as an interest ad medium.  Here are a few exerpts from that report. 

User Growth: Up and to the Right

The first consideration for advertisers or anyone assessing the industry will no doubt be audience size. eMarketer reported in 2014 that U.S. monthly digital radio listeners had grown to 160 million. That is over 50% of all U.S. citizens and 63% of Internet users. The audience is expected to grow to 183 million by 2018, significantly outpacing population growth. Nielsen reported in January 2015 that 67% of all music listeners access streaming services in a typical week.

The conclusion for marketers is simple. Internet radio now reaches a large audience and can be an important channel for reaching consumers. However, the story doesn’t end here.

Time Spent Listening Growth

The more important trend may be the growth in time spent listening. Consumer audio listening habits are changing. On a per-user basis of weekly listeners, the growth has been impressive. Edison Research’s 2014 Infinite Dial report showed that listening time more than doubled over the past five years, exhibiting a 13.5% compound annual growth rate.

Click Image To Enlarge

eMarketer also reported Accustream data that illustrates how user growth and time spent listening have dramatically increased the number of listening hours on Internet radio. Between 2009 and 2014, the data show that listening hours on Shoutcast, Napster, Rhapsody and Pandora have grown from 0.86 billion monthly listening hours to 4.22 billion in 2014 – a five-fold increase. This growth is impressive and only represents a portion of the Internet radio listening market. Accustream also forecasts listening hour growth rates to range from 20-30% over the next two years. Nielsen data reported in January 2015 showed an even faster growth rate of 60.5% for audio streams in 2014. Nielsen’s conclusion: “streaming music is surging.”

More Listening, More Ad Exposure

If we consider data from Edison Research’s 2014 Share of Ear study we can estimate that Internet radio listening now averages about 14 hours and 12 minutes per month across the listening population. Listening hours are critical. They represent opportunities to reach real people with advertising messages.

Click Image To Enlarge

A review of four leading Internet radio pure plays in November 2014 revealed an average of 2.68 minutes of ads per hour. At 14:12 hours of listening per month, that reflects about 38 minutes of ads. Recent analysis shows the average Internet radio spot length is 25.88 seconds, which translates into about 88 ad impressions per month, per listener.

Revenue Growth

Not surprisingly, growth of industry revenue has accompanied the rise in audience size and listening hours. There are two sources of revenue that most Internet Radio streamers draw from: subscriptions and advertising. There is no public information on subscriber revenue other than Pandora and some estimates on Spotify’s model. However, there is now attention focused on advertising revenue.

Click Image To Enlarge

An analysis by BIA/Kelsey suggests the 2014 U.S. ad revenue of $2.09 billion will grow to $4.01 billion by 2017. That is a compound annual growth rate exceeding 24%. BIA/Kelsey and eMarketer estimate that Internet radio ad revenue will grow from about 11.7% to 20% of overall radio industry revenue during the period. Additionally, SNL Kagan reports that music represents nearly 20% of all mobile entertainment revenue.

Courtesy of an article dated July 23, 2015 appearing in eMarketer, the January 15, 2015 "Internet Radio Trends Report 2015",  and an article dated February 12, 2014 appearing in Hyperbot.com

Follow Me:   Twitter: turk5555    Facebook: 797743955    LinkedIn: turk5555

Subscribe To My Blog Newfeed

APPLE CAVES TO TAYLOR SWIFT, WILL PAY ARTISTS ROYALTIES DURING 3-MONTH APPLE MUSIC TRIAL PERIOD, BUT DON'T FEEL SORRY FOR APPLE

APPLE IS SKILLED at attracting praise. Often, the tech giant deserves that praise. This is not one of those times.

On Sunday, high-ranking Apple exec Eddy Cue tweeted that the company would, in fact, pay royalties to musicians during the three-month free trial period of its new music platform Apple Music.

This decision was a reversal of an earlier policy that became the center of controversy this weekend when megastar Taylor Swift wrote a blog post slamming Apple for its plan not to pay artists while Apple Music was in its trial phase.  Sift said.  

“It is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing,”  

She added that she would be withholding her most recent album, 1989—that of “Shake It Off” fame—from Apple Music.

 

Last week, BuzzFeed reported that Swift had pulled her wildly popular "1989" album from Apple Music because of the streaming service's decision not to pay royalties during its three-month trial period. That followed her decision last year to remove "1989" from Spotify because she didn't think the company gave enough money to artists.

Click Image To Download

Apple has always positioned itself as a company that stands by musicians.   So Apple changed its policy.  Cue wrote on Twitter. 

“We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple.”

Apple's Eddy Cue Tweets in response to Taylor Swift's music pullout (Click Image To Enlarge)

Swift responded saying she was “elated and relieved,” and Apple came out looking like the good guy in a crowded industry in which artists and the tech companies that profit from them are often butting heads.

Click Image To Enlarge

Cue told Billboard in an interview today.

“We never looked at it as not paying them.   We had originally negotiated these deals based on paying them a higher royalty rate on an ongoing basis to compensate for this brief time. But when I woke up this morning (Sunday, June 21) and saw what Taylor had written, it really solidified that we needed to make a change.”

And yet, the only change Apple is making is paying artists what they should have been paid all along. If Apple were really so pro-artist, would it have instituted a policy that withheld royalties from artists in the first place?  It doesn’t seem surprising that artists would balk at the prospect of not getting paid. But Apple’s roots in the music industry run deep—all the way back to the birth of the iPod. It seems reasonable to believe that Apple thought it could get away with not paying because it didn’t think anyone would be bold enough to speak out against a company that is already such a force in music. And if anyone did protest—props to you, T Swift—the decision would be easy enough to reverse—and might even score Apple Music some good press.

Jeff Rabhan, an artist manager and chair of the Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music at New York University, says.  

“They only did the right thing because they got caught,” 

A Band-Aid on an Open Wound

Apple has always positioned itself as a company that stands by musicians. With iTunes, it saved the industry from the Napster era of pirated music and has helped artists actually sell music even as streaming services threatened to shrink artists’ income. So while Rabhan applauds Apple’s decision to pay artists their fair share, he calls the original plan “a slap in the face” to musicians who have bought into Apple’s promise. Rabhan says.  

“I think Apple felt that they could get away with it because they’re Apple. They felt the artists would just go along with it.”

Had Apple planned to do the right thing all along—that is, paid artists for their music—there wouldn’t have been a story. But its apparent change of heart has garnered big headlines—and more publicity for Apple Music. The company even got a full-throated endorsement from Taylor Swift out of it. That’s worth every penny of the millions of dollars Apple will now pay artists as a result of this change—millions, let’s not forget, that Apple can well afford.

'It’s the model that doesn't work.' - JEFF RABHAN

Meanwhile, smaller rivals like Spotify have been vilified by artists, including Swift, who pulled her music from Spotify in November 2014, arguing that artists deserved to make more from the platform.

 

Rather than bowing to Ms. Swift, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek wrote a blog post defending its royalty agreements, claiming that the company has paid $2 billion to labels, publishers, and music owners. That stance turned Spotify into the poster child for the ongoing battle between artists and streaming services, a reputation Rabhan says is not altogether warranted.

Rabhan says. 

“They’ve (Spotify) become the beacon of the negativity surrounding streaming, but they haven’t specifically done anything wrong. It’s the model that doesn’t work.”  

Spotify is still a young company, he argues, struggling to make a profit, and it pays about 70 percent of revenue to music rights holders. That’s not much different than the 71.5 percent Apple is paying. The only difference is Spotify’s future might actually depend on those margins. Apple’s does not.

For Apple to prove it truly stands with artists, Rabhan says, it would have to fundamentally change the way these contracts are negotiated, striking deals directly with the artists instead of music labels. Until that happens, he argues, Apple has done little more than “put a Band-Aid on an open wound” that cuts across the industry.

If anyone deserves the credit, Rabhan says, it’s Swift, who he says has emerged as the most unlikely advocate for artists’ rights. She’s not a crusty old-timer or an unknown artist with a lot to lose. She’s the most relevant star of our day, the person who needs the money least, but is using that power to stand up for emerging artists. Rabhan says.  

“I would have never expected it to be her, but Taylor Swift is the voice of artists right now in a sea of silence.”

COMMENTARY:   Taylor Swift also doesn't think music streaming services appropriately value her art.

In an interview for Time magazine's cover story in mid-November 2014, Swift commented on her decision to pull all of her songs from the streaming service Spotify.

She reiterated opinions she voiced in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in July, saying that artists should value their art and make sure that people are paying enough money for it. 

Swift also notes that Spotify could hurt music sales. Music is available for streaming on Spotify even to those who don't pay for a premium subscription (those users are shown ads).

Swift told Time.

"[People] can still listen to my music if they get it on iTunes.  I’m always up for trying something. And I tried it and I didn’t like the way it felt. I think there should be an inherent value placed on art.  I didn't see that happening, perception-wise, when I put my music on Spotify. Everybody's complaining about how music sales are shrinking, but nobody's changing the way they're doing things. They keep running towards streaming, which is, for the most part, what has been shrinking the numbers of paid album sales. With Beats Music and Rhapsody you have to pay for a premium package in order to access my albums. And that places a perception of value on what I've created. On Spotify, they don't have any settings, or any kind of qualifications for who gets what music. I think that people should feel that there is a value to what musicians have created, and that's that. I wrote about this in July, I wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. This shouldn’t be news right now. It should have been news in July when I went out and stood up and said I'm against it. And so this is really kind of an old story."

Artists generally don't make nearly as much money putting their music on Spotify as they do selling digital albums and songs on services like iTunes.

Spotify says it pays 70% of its revenue to labels — which will amount to about $1 billion this year — but some artists feel they don't get a big enough cut. The streaming service revealed last year that it paid record labels an average of less than a penny per play, and that's just the money going to labels, not the artists.

Scott Borchetta, the CEO of Swift's record label Big Machine, told Time on Wednesday that the label earned only $500,000 from domestic streaming on Spotify in the past year. Spotify told Time that the amount the service paid for streams of Swift's music in the past year was actually $2 million if you account for global streams as well as domestic.

But it's unclear how much of that money was seen by Swift. Spotify paid the $2 million to Universal, which holds the rights to Swift's music, and then her label Big Machine got a cut.

CONCLUSION:  KUDOS to Taylor Swift for becoming an unlikely lightning rod for music artists everywhere.  She has become the "Joan of Arc" for all music artists by standng up to Apple.  Score: Swift 1, Apple 0.  Spotify needs to get its act together and change its royalty policy as well.  

Whether the music labels will allow individual artists to negotiate royalty deals directly with Apple, Spotify and other online music platforms could be difficult to do since they incur a lot of costs to get an album produced, promotied and distributed.  I am sure they will not give up their legal rights to the artist.  Will this force artists to develop their own music production and distribution companies? That remains to be seen.

Courtesy of an article dated June 22, 2015 appearing in Wired and an article dated November 13, 2014 appearing in Business Insider

Follow Me:   Twitter: turk5555    Facebook: 797743955    LinkedIn: turk5555

APPLE UNVEILS APPLE MUSIC AT WWDC15; SPOTIFY AND PANDORA BRACE THEMSELVES FOR INTENSE COMPETITION

Apple has finally jumped into the music streaming race, unveiling Apple Music at WWDC this afternoon. The company revolutionized digital music with the iPod and iTunes, but is now playing catch up, trying to align itself with the current era of subscription offerings.  Apple CEO Tim Cook saud,  

"We’ve had a long relationship with music.  And music has had a rich history of change, some of which we’ve played a part in."

The service will bring music downloads, streaming radio, and a streaming music service into a single app. Like most digital services, it promises to learn your tastes and recommend great new songs accordingly.

 

The service will cost $9.99 a month, or $14.99 for a family plan of up to six individuals, with a three-month free trial. In order to use the family plan, you'll need to have iCloud Family Sharing active. By contrast, Spotify offers a two-person subscription package for $14.99. Apple says its new music service will be available June 30th, with Android coming in the fall. Apple had hoped to shake things up by offering a tier priced between $5 and $8, but unfortunately couldn’t get the music industry on board. The end result is a product that has little to differentiate it from what is already in the market in terms of price and selection. The 30 million tracks on Apple Music are also going to be found on Spotify or Rdio. Apple is hoping features and exclusive content will be enough.

What Apple Offers With and Without Paid Membership (Click Image To Enlarge)

Paid Apple Music users will be able to download albums and playlists to play offline, while free users will only be able to listen to Apple Music radio stations with limited skipping. The company has rebuilt iTunes Radio and reportedly staffed it with big-name artists like Dr. Dre, will.i.am, Pharrell, and Drake acting as DJs. It is also bringing on experienced talent like BBC’s Zane Lowe to help curate stations. Jimmy Iovine, who has been heading up Apple’s renewed push into music, reportedly tried to sign other big names like Kanye West and Beyoncé to exclusive deals, but lost out to Tidal, a rival service recently launched by Jay Z and a consortium of high-profile musicians.

 

The first station is called BeatsOne and will be available in 100 countries. It's going to be playing tunes around the clock and will be anchored by three DJs: Zane Lowe, Ebro Darden, and Julie Adenuga.  Subscribers can skip as many tracks as they like. Apple's Eddie Cue says,  

"The music it recommends to you isn't just algorithms, it's recommendations made by our team of experts."

Apple Music provides regular streaming, music radio stations with DJ's and Connect, a social network for music artists, which gives you direct insights of what artists are doing right now (Click Image To Enlarge)

This is pretty much the same pitch that Beats made when it launched. Users who signed up for that service will find their accounts transferred automatically to Apple Music when the latter launches on June 30th.

 

Apple also showed off a feature called Connect that lets artists upload music, photos, and messages which are shared with their fans. It's basically a blog fans can subscribe to, then comment and like individual posts. This is similar to the exclusive behind-the-scenes material that Tidal has been sharing from its cadre of artists.

Drake came onstage to show off Connect. He said as a child he wondered if he or anyone from Canada could make it big in the world of rap. Luckily technology was there to help.

"The dream of being a new artist like myself five years ago and connecting directly with an audience has never been more close or reachable."

He will be releasing his next album, obviously, on Connect.

There is some cool Siri integration. You can ask it to play a particular artist or track. You can also give it a more general query, like "play the top track from the summer of 1982," or whatever year you happened to have graduated from high school. But Apple says you don't need your iPhone present — you'll be able to sync songs to your Apple Watch without it.

 

The big question is whether Apple needs to differentiate to succeed. It is entering a market dominated by Spotify, which has racked up over 60 million users, with 20 million paid subscribers. Spotify has had the run of the land since it came to the US from Europe in 2011, but with over 800 million credit cards on file, Apple has a chance to quickly assemble a large user base and give Spotify its first true challenger. If it can get people who purchase a new Apple device to sign up for a free trial, it may end up bringing a large number of new users into the streaming music market that up until this point were not convinced to give a paid service a try.

COMMENTARY:  Apple's announcement of Apple Music and integration with SIRI, the iOS personal assistant, is probably sending shockwaves throughout the music streaming landscape, particularly with industry leaders Spotify and Pandora.  Daniel Ek, CEO of Spotify, one of the leaders in the music streaming space, reacted to the Apple Music announcement with a flippant tweet:   "Oh, OK"  The smug reaction by Spotify's CEO comes after his company closed a $526 million funding round.   Ek can afford to react smugly given that Apple Beat, the predecessor to Apple Music, really wasn't much competition (See below).  However, that smugness may be shortlived.

Click Image To Enlarge

Click Image To Enlarge

Spotify is building its defenses against the oncoming Apple Music onslaught, turning to international investors to strengthen its financial position.  The Swedish streaming service latest funding round, gives it an influx of cash that The Wall Street Journal says brings Spotify to a valuation of $8.4 billion, up from $5 billion last September.

Spotify began this latest funding round in early April, and was originally seeking $400 million to reach a valuation worth double that of competitor Pandora.  The successful round means that Spotify has now pulled in more than $1 billion from investors, but even with that influx of money and 20 million paying subscribers,  Spotify's future is not entirely secure. The company's business model means it still operates at a loss — the Swedish firm has to pay almost 70 percent of its revenue to label owners and musicians for rights and royalties.

The half-billion dollars taken during during this funding round show that the business world still believes in Spotify, but it will need to either renegotiate how it pays labels, or start convincing more of its 60 million users to part with their money if it wants to stay on top in an increasingly crowded marketplace. The company is already attempting to diversify by adding videos and podcasts but its competition is growing too.  Established competitors such as Rdio and Pandora are still fighting for users, while new entrants backed by big names, such as Jay Z's Tidal, enter the fray.  

Click Image To Enlarge

For all its fanfare, Apple Music is not fundamentally all that much different from what Spotify has been doing for the past nine years.  Casey Rae, the CEO of the Future of Music Coalition, says. 

“If Apple is serious about 100 million subscribers, the product will need to be an awful lot more compelling than what is already on the market.” 

The Apple Music announcement is good news for Spotify too—millions of people are paying for its service.  And millions more are using its free, ad-supported option, an alternative that Apple doesn’t appear to be offering. Even if those 20 million paid subscribers ditch the Swedish service, Spotify will still have millions of fans—and the revenue that comes from advertising to them.

Longtime music analyst Bob Lefsetz in a blog post says Apple is not going to be a Spotify killer.  

“Turns out to win, or at least play the game in a meaningful way, you’ve got to have a freemium offering.  And Apple Music does not.  Those already desirous of paying for streaming already do, and getting someone to switch is difficult.”

So, yeah, Spotify is unimpressed, and it wants you to know that. On Monday, after Apple announced Music, the company’s CEO Daniel Ek tweeted, “Oh ok,”according to reports, though the tweet has since been taken down.

What Apple has going for it are its well over 200 million (as of November 2014) paying iTunes users.  The big question now is: How many of these loyal iTunes users will convert into music streamers?  Apple iTunes users were buying/renting single songs or albums, not streaming tunes like users at Spotify or Pandora.  If iTunes users convert into music streamers, will they be willing to pay for that service?  It is quite possible that they are already getting their music streams from Spotify or Pandora, so it gets interesting trying to predict whether they will dump Spotify or Pandora, and move to Apple Music to get their daily music streaming fix.  

Click Image To Enlarge

Unlike Apple Music, Spotify and Pandora have been offering FREE music streaming (albeit it with some limitations).  I have never known Apple to offer FREE anything, except for apps (which are usually crammed with ads).  Will Apple offer freemium music streaming like Spotify and Pandora? I have a feeling that they might be forced to do just that, in order to pull away users from Spotify and Pandora.  This maybe in a limited form like "Three Free Months" or "Buy One Music Album, Get 10 Free Music Streams."       

However this all turns out, we should know rather quickly, perhaps within 3 to 6 months, whether Apple Music will become a "Spotify or Pandora Killer."  Stay tuned for more on this topic.

Courtesy of an article dated June 8, 2015 appearing in The Verge, an article dated June 2, 2015 appearing in Digital Music News, an article dated June 8, 2015 appearing in The Verge, an article dated June 8, 2015 appearing in Gizmodo, an article dated June 10, 2015 appearing in The Verge, an article dated June 10, 2015 appearing in Wired

Follow Me:   Twitter: turk5555    Facebook: 797743955    LinkedIn: turk5555

THE GRANVELA MRICE E300 EARPHONES COST ONLY $20.00, BUT THEY SOUND LIKE THE $1,149 JH AUDIO 16 PRO HEADPHONES

In March, a review titled “Top-Tier Sound For Pennies” appeared on the well-respected web forum head-fi.org. The author, a headphone aficionado who goes by the handle AndroidVageta (AV), gave five stars to some Chi-Fi earbuds that cost less than a food truck lunch. He compared the dynamic range and clarity of these cut-rate buds to the JH16 Pro, a set of in-ears (with eight driver per ear) that retails for $1,149.

A pair of JH Audio 16 Pro in-ear headphones like these cost $1,149 and are the earphones of choice by celebrities like Lady Gaga and Justin Timberlake (Click Image To Enlarge)

Incidentally, the JH16 is the same model that The Absolute Sound praised as “the sonic ‘mountaintop’ among in-ear headphones.”

“For the $12 I spend shipped (sic) for these Baldoor E100’s all I can say is that they are simply amazing. Not simply amazingfor the price, mind you, but amazing compared to anything(AV’s emphasis) I’ve ever heard or have owned.”

Click Image To Enlarge

Disposable buds that sound as good as the outrageously expensive IEMs that Justin Timberlake and Lady Gaga wear onstage? To quote Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction: “That’s a bold statement.”

Despite all the hype rhetoric, AV’s “PSA” barely registered on the audio Richter scale: 6 measly comments, ranging from appreciation (“Nice review man!”) to agreement (“I really am massively impressed.”) to disbelief (“No way.”). The E100 EarBell, a throwback style bud distributed by a Chinese company called Mrice, was destined for hi-fi obscurity. Just another cheap gadget tossed on the Chi-Fi scrapheap.

A few days later, though, AV’s Head-Fi review surfaced on Reddit, where it generated 230 responses from frugal readers in search of a bargain. As interest ramped up, Reddditors noticed that these el cheapo IEMs were becoming a scarce online commodity.  Wrote AV in the long and laughably inane comment thread:

“They’ve apparently sold out everywhere else.” 

AV coyly taking credit for the sudden popularity of an earphone that most audiophiles had never heard of until now.

“Maybe I shouldn’t have been so vocal about them as now it’ll be hard for me to get a second pair!”

Just like that, the E100 cult was born.

Hold the Tragus

There was one slight caveat to this deal of the century. For optimum audio performance, these magic buds had to be positioned within the ear—no joke—sideways. This precarious orientation was hardly ideal, especially if the listening sessions involved any head movements. To address this problem, a crude fix was suggested by fellow Redditor robertmeta:

“I was able to use tape to keep them in without horrible discomfort.”

Stuffing buds in the ear sideways and securing them in place with tape was certainly unorthodox (not to mention bizarre, uncomfortable, and highly impractical), but the sound was supposedly godlike.  AV gleefully observed.

 “It should be noted that wearing [the E100s] like this greatly enhances the bass but surprisingly leaves the rest of the sound unaffected.  Lessens sound stage a bit but it already has plenty to spare.”

Click Image To Enlarge

Many were confused by what one Redditor referred to as the “weird fit.” To illustrate the exact alignment of the buds within the ear, AV snapped a profile selfie. This made all the difference. After initially berating the E100s (“…these are $15 earbuds, and they sound like $15 earbuds.”), Mad_Economist had a sonic Epiphany. Of course, being a degenerate audiophile, he had to add his own outlandish tweak to the proceedings.  

“…holding the tragus, anti-tragus, and leg of helix ‘shut’ around the bud while pressing the bud inward at a slight angle consistently produces a sound much closer to what OP is describing: very warm, with a fairly large soundstage and a surprising amount of bass impact.”

For those who didn’t read ENT journals for kicks, a link to a medical photo was posted so that every Redditor could distinguish their tragus from their ear hole (auditory meatus).

Click Image To Enlarge

Audiophiles Aren’t Crazy

If an audiophile raves about a $12 bud and says that if you stick it in your ear sideways it will sound better than a professional IEM that costs over a thousand dollars, and if another audiophile agrees and claims that it will sound even better if you pinch your ears together at three precise points simultaneously, while applying pressure to the bud at a “slight angle,” proceed with caution.

The natural inclination is to dismiss the entire Reddit/E100 psychodrama as sheer lunacy and not proceed at all, but that would be a mistake. AV, robertmeta and Mad_Economist are audiophiles, not schizophrenics. They may be eccentric, but they are first and foremost critical listeners. Cut through the babble and one thing is certain: These guys know a sweet bud when they hear it.

Click to Open Overlay Gallery CHRISTIE HEMM KLOK/WIRED

Given these circumstances, it’s completely reasonable to suspect that the crazy Redditors might actually be onto something. Maybe the E100 really is a hidden gem buried deep in the vast Chi-Fi industrial complex. And—even more importantly—maybe there’s a different earphone model in the Mrice line with a similar (if not identical) sound signature that doesn’t require mastering the sideways “weird fit,” memorizing diagrams from Gray’s Anatomy, taping the tragus, or pinching one’s ears like the village idiot.

Plan B

It turns out there is a sane alternative to the E100. Scroll down Amazon’s “Mrice” offerings, and there it is, halfway down the page: the GranVela E300.  This generic looking in-ear phone doesn’t require users to violate the laws of ergonomics or twist their ear cartilage into a knot in order to summon the intoxicating Mrice house sound.  For $14.93 (or $17.30 for model with an inline mic/remote) the E300 “Capsule” is literally plug-and-play.  Hardcore audiophiles may be wondering:  Has the magnificent E100 SQ been sacrificed in the pursuit of such trivial considerations as comfort, dignity and social acceptability?  Negative.  AV’s 5-star review of the Mrice E300s describes exactly how the Mrice E100s sound:  "Awsome."  Now, kneel at the altar of the mighty and benevolent Chi-Fi gods.

Baldoor, a Chinese competitor of Chintek, has produced a clone of the E300 called the GranVela MRice E300. They sell for $19.90 on Amazon.com (Click Image To Enlarge)

Clone Wars

The design of the Mrice E300 and the Chintek E300 are so similar, it’s impossible to tell them apart. The only difference is that the Chintek E300 has fancier packaging and costs about $10 more. Helen Chintek wasn’t even aware that the Mrice E300 existed until I pointed it out to her. The fact that a competitor had not only copied one of her company’s industrial designs but also its name (Baldoor) and model number didn’t seem to faze her.

Baldoor's GranVela MRice E300. They sell for $19.90 on Amazon.com (Click Image To Enlarge)

She explains.  

“In China, there are thousands of earphone factories.  Some good quality, some bad quality.”

She was confident that the Mrice E300 was an inferior copy of her original Chintek E300.

“To copy our outside design is very easy, but the inside technical and sound quality of the earphone will not reach our standard.”

She later backtracked, however, and admitted that it was possible the two models were identical inside and out. It’s not unusual for “ghost shift” employees at Chinese factories to churn out an extra batch after hours, and sell it at a steep discount out the back door. Asked it this might explain why the Chintek E300 costs roughly $10 more than the Mrice E300, Ms. Chintek replied,

“That could be true! Our engineers only focus on design and quality. The factory side is responsible for assembly.”

Concerned Mrice might be stealing Chintek’s intellectual property, she added:

“We will check and complain if they are copying us.”

Mrice didn’t respond to interview requests. The takeaway: In the cutthroat Chi-Fi racket, if you’re not cheating, you’re not trying. Save $10, and buy the clone.

Killer Sound

Even by Chi-Fi standards, the Mrice E300 offers an absurd price-to-value ratio. So, what do you get for your hard-earned $15? The audio blog consensus is that these buds project the classic V-shaped sound signature.  Mrice (or Chintek) audio engineers essentially copied the “Rock” setting on many equalizers: fader bars up on the treble and bass, with the mids suppressed. While it’s true that the highs skew bright, and the lows have surprising impact and extension (almost woofer-like, really), the mids—and let’s face it, this is where the meat of the music resides—are in no way an afterthought. Listen to the E100s at a moderate volume level, the human loudness contour kicks in, and suddenly that signature V-tuning is softened, producing a sound that’s perceived as fairly balanced. Bottom line: Most people who sample these buds think they sound like fancy IEMs.

As mentioned, the high and low frequencies are enhanced. Some audio snobs will dismiss this sonic manipulation as artifice. But many more will find it exciting and, quite possibly, addictive. Likewise, certain critics will discern a slight degree of sibilance and deem it offensive. Ignore these trolls. The other detail worth mentioning is microphonics, those annoying mechanical vibrations transmitted through the cord via friction. It’s not airplane-earphone bad, but it’s noticeable. Memo to Mrice (or Chintek): a smidgen more insulation would be nice. And add several more inches of length to the cable while you’re at it. Consumers will gladly pay the extra 25 cents. To neutralize the microphonics, consider using a shirt clip (not included, but easy to add to your e-cart). Those criticisms aside, one nice thing about the cabling is its triangular shape. Besides being unique to the eye and nice to the touch, it’s a smart design choice which results in fewer tangles when you uncoil the headset.

One more thing: Yes, the silicon tips are crappy. These broad, S-M-L computer-generated sizes will make a Goldilocks fit impossible for some. The smart move is to swap them out for triple flanges. The accommodating shape provides a superior seal, increasing comfort and sound isolation.

Buds For All My Friends

Should you buy the Mrice E300s? At this price, you’d be a fool not to. Better yet, buy an entire case and give them away as a token of your largesse. People will think you’re some kind of audiophile bigshot. The return on your meager investment will be repaid many times over: free meals, exotic vacations, job promotions. Desirable members of your preferred sex will suddenly find you interesting. Don’t forget to buy a case for yourself, too. The build quality of these things isn’t half-bad (gold-plated 3.5mm plugs at this price-point?). Still, like all in-ear phones sans detachable cables, the wires that terminate at the bud will eventually fray, and the unit will fail. Which is OK. Because, hey, 15 bucks! Think of E300s as beater buds for audiophiles. These daily drivers are ideal for the gym (microphonics be damned), daily commutes or anytime you don’t want to risk trashing those precious JH Audio IEMs.

COMMENTARY:  I am a huge fan of Skullcandy ear plugs because they produce great sound at all levels of the sound spectrum (trebble to bass) and they are solidly built.  I don't like the flat rubber cords because they knarl up all the time, but they are strong and can take all the abuse you can muster.   The Baldoor GranVela MRice E300 certainly appear to match the best in ear plugs if you believe in the hype that they compare favorably to the $1,149 JH Audio 16 Pro earphones.  The best way to find out is to buy a pair from Amazon.

Courtesy of an article dated June 5, 2015 appearing in Wired

Follow Me:   Twitter: turk5555    Facebook: 797743955    LinkedIn: turk5555

MUSIC MAPPED OUT: HOW CONSUMERS ARE INTERACTING WITH MUSIC ACROSS THE U.S.A.

Just about everyone connects with music, but where we live plays a big part of how we listen to, buy and engage with our tunes. For example, music aficionados in the Pacific region (California, Alaska, Oregon, Hawaii and Washington) make up the largest group of subscription streamers in the U.S., at more than 7.5 percent. Meanwhile, tune enthusiasts in the Mountain region (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) rank second-highest for listening to music (CDs, digital tracks, albums, etc.) as a primary activity—meaning they listen specifically to listen rather than being in a space where music is playing in the background. When you add in background music, the Mountain region boasts one of the highest overall listening rates across the country.

Click Image To Enlarge

Courtesy of an article dated May 9, 2014 appearing in Nielsen

APPLE SELLS ONLY 6 MILLION iPODS IN Q4 2013, SO IS THE iPOD ERA FINALLY ENDING?

Apple's game changer is riding into the sunset

Over the holidays, Apple's iPad and iPhone sold better than they've ever sold before: 51 million iPhones and 26 million iPads in a single quarter. The lowly iPod, however, didn't do nearly as well. The company moved just 6 million of the trademark MP3 players, a 52 percent decline compared to the same period last year. All told, iPod accounted for just $973 million of the company's record $57.6 billion revenue last quarter. While some would probably be happy to claim they ran a slightly-less-than-a-billion-dollar business, it's getting pretty small for a company the size of Apple. You might even call it a hobby — if not now, then by this time next year.

Click Image To Enlarge

What happened to the iPod?  Simple cannibalization, for one: every one of those 51 million iPhones can take the place of an iPod. (Steve Jobs famously called the iPhone "the best iPod we've ever made.") And as people increasingly get their music from streaming services, a constant internet connection could be key, something you don't get with an iPod or even a iPod touch unless you have a Wi-Fi hotspot to pair with.

The decline of MP3 players shouldn't be news to anyone though, certainly not to anyone who follows Apple closely. In June, 2009, Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer admitted that cannibalizing the company's MP3 players was all part of the plan:

Click Image To Enlarge

Since 2009, iPod sales have declined time and again. For five years, every quarterly financial call would include a dedicated mention of how the company's "music product" sales had slipped by a million units here, a couple million units there. Every time, Apple would soften the blow by saying how the iPod still had a 70 percent market share in MP3 players in the US, and remained the top-selling MP3 player around the world.

But in the middle of last year, the company changed its tune. It failed to introduce any new iPods (unless you count the cheaper $229 iPod touch) and removed that dedicated section from its quarterly conference calls.

10 Years of the iPod -- From its introduction in October 23, 2001 through mid-2011. (Click Image To Enlarge)

The lack of new iPods could certainly be responsible for the most recent decline in sales. Usually, purchases pick up drastically every time Apple releases a new iPod, and this year they clearly did not. Still, that's not the whole story: as you can see in the chart above, the peaks had been shrinking even before Apple stopped updating the iPod nano like clockwork.

The iPod line as of September 2012 from left to right are the iPod Shuffle, iPod Nano, iPod Classic, iPod Touch. (Click Image To Enlarge)

The late Steve Jobs unveiled the first iPod on October 23, 2001.  He promised a new "breakthrough digital device," and the rest is history. 

 

In 2001, Apple's Steve Jobs unveiled the iPod a new "breakthrough digital device"  that could store up to 1,000 "digital songs in your pocket," and was "ultra-portable" so you could take it anywhere.  The original iPod was the size of a standard deck of cards. measuring 2.4" wide, 4.0" tall and only .78" thick.  It also weighed only 6.5 oz, less than most cell phones. The iPod's body had a stainless steel back that sported the iPod logo.

But does the lack of attention and decline in sales mean the company's killing off the iPod entirely? That's completely uncertain. It's not the first time we've gone without an iPod refresh, and there appear to be plenty of dollars left to scrape out of the bottom of the iPod barrel. And even that assumes that Apple isn't about to pull another Mac Pro. After neglecting the Mac Pro for nearly three whole years, it unveiled a radically redefined version of the workstation computer in 2013 with the resounding phrase "Can't innovate anymore, my ass."

It might be premature to write the iPod's obituary, but barring another such move, it seems like the MP3 player's days are finally running out.

COMMENTARY:   I tend to agree that the Apple iPod is "dead."   The same thing can be said about all dedicated portable digital music players.  The smartphone has become the de-facto portable music player (and digital camera, as well) these days, so it doesn't make economic sense to own a dedicated portable music player (or even a digital camera).  It's duplication of devices. Bye bye iPod.

Courtesy of an article dated January 27, 2014 appearing in The Verge

SINGER BEYONCE RELEASES SURPRISE ALBUM TITLED 'BEYONCE', SELLS 450,000 ALBUMS VIA SOCIAL MEDIA IN 24 HOURS

Beyoncé’s surprise album launch last week says so much about the changing media landscape that it’s kind of hard to know where to start. But one thing that stands out to me is the way social media has enabled the music business to revive a business model that looked increasingly moribund: whole album sales.

According to Billboard, Beyoncé’s self-titled album, which is only available for download in its entirety, sold 450,000 units within 24 hours of its release on iTunes Friday night, and close to 850,000 by the end of the weekend, putting it on course to sell one million copies by Monday evening. At $15.99 per album, that makes a tidy sum indeed. Fans will be able to buy individual tracks beginning December 20.

 

Naturally the unusual approach to launching the album has elicited a great deal of comment: Beyoncé and Columbia dispensed with the usual months-long promotional blitz, with its tired routine of TV appearances, releasing singles, heavy radio rotation, and all that. Instead she just announced the album on Instagram with the single word “Surprise!” and counted on social media to do the rest. Of course this generated plenty of coverage on news Web sites, blogs, and then more “traditional” media like broadcast radio and TV (she also graced fans with a live performance of future single “XO”).

The album itself is very au courant: a complete multimedia product, it includes videos for every song and four bonus videos, making it a “visual album.” But there’s a pleasant irony in the fact that all this digital media innovation is focused on selling a complete album with 14 songs, all (presumably) forming one coherent artistic statement; why, it could be 1973 again.

 

Seriously, I can’t remember the last time I bought a whole album. Sure, people of a certain age still venerate and celebrate the great albums of the past: the 35^th anniversary edition of Fleetwood Mac’s “Rumors” generated quite a bit of buzz (and probably a good number of tokes) earlier this year. But more recently it seemed that, in our world of on-demand media consumption, where we are dismayed to find our attention spans challenged by Vine, the album was a thing of the past.

The numbers certainly seemed to suggest as much: from 2004 to 2012, total album sales fell 53% from 667 million to 316 million, according to Nielsen SoundScan and Nielsen BDS, even as total music sales (including singles, music videos, and so on) rose from around 820 million units to 1.66 billion units over the same period.

Beyonce album cover. (Click To View Promotional Video)

There’s no question that Beyoncé is atypical: first and foremost, she is Beyoncé, and this, in combination with other factors -- the novelty of the surprise album, a holiday season debut -- probably combined to make her release a success where others might have flopped. But if a million fans are willing to shell out $15.99 for a whole album, rather than waiting six days for individual tracks, maybe there’s life in the long form after all.

 

COMMENTARY:   Beyonce explained on her Facebook page that Beyonce is a “visual album,” and that she “sees music.” We’re glad she does, because the videos onBeyonce are awe-inspiring.

Beyonce said.  

“It’s more than just what I hear.  When I’m connected to something, I immediately see a visual or a series of images that are tied to a feeling or an emotion, a memory from my childhood, thoughts about life, my dreams or my fantasies. And they’re all connected to the music… I didn’t want to release my music the way I’ve done it. I am bored with that. I feel like I am able to speak directly to my fans. There’s so much that gets between the music, the artist and the fans.”

Here are a few images taken from the 14 sounds included in her Beyonce album.

Click The Image To Enlarge

Courtesy of an article dated December 16 2013 appearing in MediaPost Publications The Social Graf

KATY PERRY CELEBRATES HER 29TH BIRTHDAY WITH A SPECIAL 'ROAR' CONCERT AT A COLORADO HIGH SCHOOL

Katy Perry celebrated her 29th birthday by giving a private concert at the Colorado high school whose spirited lip dub video to her pop anthem "Roar" became a 

Perry chose the winning video, which was shot in a single take and featured over 2,000 students and staff at Lakewood High School in Lakewood, Colo., lip-syncing to Perry's lyrics group by group, from student athletes to cheerleaders to members of the pep band and more, for its school spirit. 

Perry told "GMA."

"It was thousands of kids coming together to 'Roar' and that's what this competition means to me."

That tremendous sense of school spirit was on display today as Perry arrived in the ultimate pep rally fashion at the school, walking through a sea of thousands of students in orange and black, and took to the stage in a cheerleading uniform to perform, live on "Good Morning America."

The students, whose school mascot is fittingly a tiger, transformed their gym into a concert venue, complete with banners and signs reading "One World, One Roar," for the singer arrival.

Perry, who just released her new album, "Prism," turned 29 today, but said she often feels like a teen at heart. 

Perry said to a packed audience of thousands. 

"I'm 29. I feel great.  I still feel like I'm 13 sometimes. Obviously you can tell by my music and my spirit. I'm so excited about this record and I just love all the participation and the unification …of all of you guys coming together and roaring."

Perry got the crowd roaring with a spirited performance of her hit, "Roar," which featured a jump-rope routine. She also sang her new single, "Walking on Air," and her classic, "Firework."

 Courtney Coddington, Lakewood High School's student body president who directed and produced the winning video, and fellow senior Gavin Rudy, an aspiring filmmaker, edited it. Coddington said it was "awesome" how the entire student body collaborated on the winning video.

The school presented Perry with a special Varsity letter jacket and a birthday cake for the occasion.

Lakewood High School's "Roar" video was one of hundreds submitted after Perry put a call out on "Good Morning America" for high schools to submit their own rendition of her mega-hit "Roar," igniting an online frenzy that made local headlines around the country.

Perry scoured through submissions and was inspired by the stories and the creativity. The singer narrowed it down to Lakewood High School and four other finalists -- Pickerington High School Central in Ohio, Cooper High School in Abilene, Texas, Spanish Springs High School in Sparks, Nev., and Verrado High School in Buckeye, Ariz. -- and said picking a winner was "one of the hardest decisions" she's ever had to make.

Courtesy of an article dated October 25, 2013 appearing in ABC News 

KOREAN-WAVE ENTERTAINER PSY RELEASES NEW VIDEO, 'GENTLEMEN' ON YOUTUBE, IS IT A HIT? BETTER THAN "GANGNAM STYLE"?

Will South Korean rapper Psy top his "Gangnam Style" video that caused an international sensation? It's hard to say so far — the video for his new single "Gentleman" was released early Saturday morning.

The song's catchy beat, charismatic dancing, and humorous video production are all there, but it's not going to be easy for the superstar to beat his first breakthrough hit on YouTube. "Gangnam Style" is still smashing records with more than 1.5 billion views and counting.

 

The audio version of "Gentleman" first debuted on Thursday, and now it's time to see if lightning strikes twice for Psy's video prowess.

The video was introduced in a live performance by Psy, live-streamed on YouTube at 5:30 a.m. ET on Saturday, and it's being replayed for 24 hours here:

 

What do you think? Do you like this new "Gentleman" video more than "Gangnam Style?" Take our poll, and then let us know you think of Psy's new video in the comments below.  Here's the original "Gangnam Style" video:

 

COMMENTARY:   Psy's new video "Gentlemen" is really a misnomer, it's more the anti-thesis of Psy's character in "Gangnam Style."  If you watched the new video, Psy is definitely no "Gentlemen," based on his outrageous and zany antics, some of them quite crude, if I may say so. Just the same, I found the new video very entertaining, with the same high impact pulsating electronic music beat and dancing routines as in "Gangnam Style."  It is always difficult to beat your previous successes, or even come close to matching them, for that matter.  "Gangnam Style" has 1.5 billion views, more than any other YouTube video history.  "Gentlemen" presently has 253,000 views.  Looking forward to everybody's feedback.  

Courtesy of an article dated April 13, 2013 appearing in Mashable