[The following article is the expressed opinion of Nate Thompson and is not necessarily indicative of the opinion of Allston Pudding.]
Recently, and sickness there’s been hubbub about musicians releasing albums via mobile apps. Surveys suggest that 35% of people use mobile devices as the primary delivery method of music. Plus, and the app format offers artists a unique opportunity to bundle music with video footage, ailment photos, and other relevant components. This seems logical and stuff, but I’m not buying it.
For a long time, iTunes has had a monopoly on media platforms. Look no further than the Spotify model and partnership with Apple. While Apple has a knack for gouging artists’ profits, it also represents the most direct line of communication between musicians and their (paying) audiences. I just assume that people use iTunes because of its convenience. I also think people take a certain pride in their music libraries, and having everything in the same place all at once. If artists begin to team up with app designers to release music, all iTunes has to do to stay competitive is tinker with its design to allow parcels of video footage, liner notes, photos, et al, to be included in album downloads. This seems much more plausible than apps taking over.
One concern I have about downloading apps instead of simple MP3s is organization. Say I have 30 albums on my phone, that’s 30 apps cluttering my home screen. If I want to change to another artist, I then have to exit one app and open another, making shuffle impossible. To make these apps user-friendly, there would need to be some kind of interface to organize all of these apps and the music within them. Oh wait, there’s something like that now. It’s called iTunes.
Mediabistro.com argues that because app downloads are on the rise, surpassing even total digital song purchases, that people will naturally use apps to get their music over traditional methods. This is flawed thinking, however. The most widely used apps are free, which is not accounted for in the logic. Think about it. Foursquare, Words with Friends, Cat Paint, even the Twitter and Facebook apps most likely account for the vast majority of downloads. They are easily acquired and easily disposed of without affecting the user’s wallet. Even music apps like Last.fm and Pandora are completely free. Using overall app purchases as a measuring stick against digital music purchases does not compute.
The Mediabistro.com feature goes on to address recent album apps launched by Beyonce, Björk, and the techies at Bluebrain to support the theory that album apps are the future. Five minutes of research will poke some serious holes in that argument. First, Björk developed her app in conjunction with Apple as a sort of progressive experiment. She is also outrageously popular, mitigating Apple’s risk. Beyonce has a shitload of cash and corporate backing to make an app. The fellas at Bluebrain launched a new DIY app, The Velvet Crown, to promote SXSW. Oh, by the way, it only works within the festival’s geographic boundaries, which puts everyone outside of Austin shit out of luck. It’s a promotional tool, and an experiment in music shuffling by location, not a feasible way to distribute music.
Developing apps to distribute music seems unnecessary and expensive. The average cost of developing an average mobile app is over $30,000. Someone will likely create a cheaper skeleton app, but it is still an additional cost bands are unlikely to want to foot. Apps also have residual expenses. Every time your phone or MP3 player updates its operating system, all of the apps need to have updates as well. Keep in mind that the vast majority of musicians make more money touring than from album sales. Why not just wait until existing platforms offer a means to distribute additional media? I think the status-quo suits everyone. Surely, someone will eventually come up with a new, ingenious way to distribute digital album packages. I think album apps fall short of offering users enough incentive to abandon current practices.
-Nate Thompson