A Firefox for music?

By John Borland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: December 22, 2005, 4:00 AM PST


Lord's new five-person company, the ambitiously named Pioneers of the Inevitable, is building a piece of digital-music software called "Songbird," based on much of the same underlying open-source technology as the Firefox Web browser.

With their first technical preview expected early next year, the programmers want to create music-playing software that will work naturally with the growing number of music sites and services on the Web, instead of being focused on songs on a computer's hard drive. That's where iTunes, which plugs only into Apple's own music store, falls short, Lord argues.

Apple's iTunes is "like Internet Explorer, if Internet Explorer could only browse Microsoft.com," Lord said. "We love Apple, and appreciate and thank them for setting the bar in terms of user experience. But it's inevitable that the market architecture changes as it matures."

An Apple representative declined to comment.

It is undeniable that music software and services are moving increasingly off the hard drive and onto the Web. But if Songbird is to be the "Firefox of MP3" when it's done, it has a long way to go.

Indeed, analysts question whether a world awash in music-playing software from Apple, Microsoft, RealNetworks, Yahoo, Sony and others really needs another digital jukebox.

Among those giants, Microsoft's Media Player accounts for 45 percent of all PC music playing, Apple's iTunes captures 17 percent, and the rest fall off sharply from there, according to U.S. statistics from the NPD Group.

But even with those odds, Lord has enough of a pedigree to make the industry stop and take notice. A co-founder of the Internet Underground Music Archive, an online music site predating the MP3 boom, as well as one of the first employees at Winamp creator Nullsoft, he was most recently a product manager for the launch of Yahoo's music software and subscription service, after his last start-up, Mediacode, was purchased by the portal.

Songbird could have a built-in audience of open-source fans to give it a good start. And don't forget, just a few years ago, who would have counted on the success of the Firefox browser? Since its first full-version release a year ago, the Mozilla Foundation's Firefox has defied skeptics and managed to grab close to 8 percent or 9 percent of the browser market, although estimates vary.

And programmers working with the Mozilla Foundation say the Songbird project has their attention.

"We're excited to see an ecosystem of companies building technology around Mozilla," said Scott MacGregor, technical lead for the Thunderbird project, an open-source e-mail reader. "It's a healthy sign for Mozilla and open source in general."

Under the microscope
Even before the software has been released, Songbird has stirred up a hornet's nest of online critics and boosters on outside blogs and even on the company's own Web site.

Screenshots posted on the company's Web site show a software application clearly modeled closely after iTunes' browsing style. The parallels drew instant ridicule from Apple loyalists, who pointed out that Apple had in fact patented software with three "panes" for browsing through a media collection.

Until the software is released even in a preview stage, it's hard to tell whether that will indeed be a problem. But Lord says that's missing the point.

iTunes does have a good basic interface for browsing a music collection, but Songbird isn't tied to any one look, he said. It's built on technology that allows developers to change the look of the application with the same simple tools they use to write a Web page, and so will be extremely malleable.

That said, the five Pioneers of the Inevitable are a practical bunch, and will change their basic interface if it looks like there is any legal risk, he added.

Songbird's underlying programming technology is called XML User Interface Language, or XUL. Along with letting people create their own look for the software, this will allow music services or developers to write their own plug-ins, letting them add features or tap directly into their own digital-download stores.

That might mean that a listener could create a playlist that draws from his or her own hard drive, a Web-based subscription service like RealNetworks' Rhapsody, and an online music storage locker such as MP3Tunes, for example. The open-source foundation will let the software be easily ported to PC, Macintosh and Linux-based computers.

Lord cautioned that little of this has actually been built yet. The version that will be released early next year will largely be a demonstration of how a media player can be built on top of the Mozilla technology. Most of the advanced features people now expect from modern music software will be added over the course of further development, he said.

"What we've built is a user preview," Lord said. "This is meant to inspire and show the road map--and a glimpse of where we are on that road map."

How does this all make money? It's not yet clear. The company's business model is a work in progress too, Lord said.

One possibility is selling the technology to companies that want to create their own music store, but don't want to build their own software to do it. One analyst pointed to Procter & Gamble's recent release of a music service as an example.

"I can imagine Songbird as a Web interface for a brand like that," said GartnerG2 analyst Mike McGuire. "There would be interesting value there."

Sounds like it might be something powerful in the making...

If it turns out to "be all that" ...let's all cross our fingers that it used as a TOOL of Mass Creation for the People and NOT just as another WEAPON of Mass Destruction by the Cartels.

Someone should totally e-mail the government saying that the RIAA has WMDs.

"It is undeniable that music software and services are moving increasingly off the hard drive and onto the Web." Oh, really? Well, I for one deny it. I'm sure that the music industry would like nothing better than to monitor the public's listening habits with web-based music players. (For one thing, it would make it much easier to identify copyright infringers.) The music industry would like it even better if people stopped "buying" music, and the music files no longer resided on their computer, but rather "rented" music on per-play basis. Their delusional if they think that the consumer is going to buy into all this.

"It is undeniable that music software and services are moving increasingly off the hard drive and onto the Web."

These people are called n00bs. They'll believe anything told them so when a service comes along touting "Store all your music somewhere other than your computer hard drive" they immediately jump at it. This is what the RIAA wants. They want as many people to store them music on some remote server somewhere so when the day comes that they get their wish to zap hard drives and jail "infringers" then they'll be able to kill two birds with one, big stone.

"Microsoft's Media Player accounts for 45 percent of all PC music playing,"

Again, n00bs. Or, more importantly, boobs. I remember long ago when I first bought a computer. This was back in the good ole days before Microsoft secured their place in the browser war by integrating IE into Windows. When I first started up my computer and loaded up AOL (at the time the only ISP to allow payment by something other than a credit card) my first act was to purposely search out and download a Netscape browser. I used my power of choice.

Today, however, most people load up their computers, pop in a CD, and don't question anything when WMP pops up to play it (nor do they question anything when they pop in a Sony CD and get hit with XCP!)

I specifically had to educate my friends and family. The first time my niece tried to play a CD, WMP came up and I said "No, here, use Winamp." The same holds true for some of my friends. They all try to use WMP, but I stop them. Friends just shouldn't let friends use WMP (or RealPlayer, for that matter).

"One possibility is selling the technology to companies that want to create their own music store, but don't want to build their own software to do it"

Good concept, but one has to remember that newer music stores will be more prone to RIAA badgering to "Do it our way or else." (ie, "We want variable pricing") And since the software will be open source, letting the RIAA near it is akin to giving North Korea access to a uranium mine just to "have a look-see". In other words, the labels will alter the software to their wishes (like putting in a secret backdoor to monitor who listens to what), then using their clout to get away with violating open-source rules that say the code has to be posted online (much like the idiots who took the code to Peerguardian, loaded it with spyware and then refused to release the code).

So, no matter how much we cross our fingers, we all know that this will ultimately be used as a WMD by the labels. They'll put their aforementioned backdoor in, see what people are listening to, price accordingly, then use another piece of code they install to delete whatever people are listening to just to force them to repurchase it. ("Yes, we have your receipt right here, but, the price of that particular song has risen since you purchased it and our agreement with the label precludes us from allowing you to download a replacement copy")