Pay-as-you-listen

Apple is all set to launch its own music download service, according to rumours sweeping the net, probably started by a blabber-moused record company executive.

The announcement is likely to be delayed while hostilities continue in Iraq - wartime is not a good time to be announcing a new entertainment product. But when it finally arrives, it could be accompanied by a new version of the company's market-leading iPod music player.

If, or when, it arrives, it will be up against at least half a dozen music services run by the music labels themselves, and some third party offerings too. How will the new Apple service distinguish itself? Well, it will help that it will be the first to work properly with Apple Macs. But the new service could also distinguish itself by offering some features music lovers really want.

Here is a little wish-list of features that this iPod addict will be looking for in the new service.

-- What's the top priority? A huge catalogue? Relaxed rules on what you do with the downloads? Neither. Instead, let's see a bit of Apple's customary ease of use, and elegance of design. That's because this new service won't be up against the other legit music download services (which don't work on the Mac platform, and which are not hugely popular anyway). It'll be up against peer-to-peer sharing software - much of which is a spyware-poisoned, advertising riddled, nightmare to use. I suspect plenty of users be willing to stump up a little just to avoid those systems' tortuous procedures for finding, then downloading, pirated music. If the system is fast, elegant and simple then users will begin to worry about the next thing...

-- Music: we'd like lots of it, please, including bands we've heard of - and their back catalogues too, thanks. Remember, Mr Jobs, we're interested in bands and particular pieces of music - not record labels. So searches need to work across catalogues, seamlessly. I don't want to have to find out which label the Turin Brakes are signed to - I just want their last single, quickly.

-- Do inventive things with the catalogues, and the integration Apple can provide across its iLife suite of software. Have the online service give us suggestions for good tracks to put in our iMovies, or some ideas for something to accompany iPhoto slideshows. And plumb the purchasing process into the iApps, so we're not having to fiddle around with credit cards or username/password combos every time we want to buy a 99 cent single.

-- Give us a choice of subscriptions, or one-off purchases. Online music has the opportunity to be the net's second biggest impulse buy (after, I suspect, porn) and it could even become number one. Take top spot by taking a tip from the web's greatest entrepreneurs: make it easy for punters buy now. Make sure the rumours of 99 cents a track come true. If subscriptions are a must, tie them to, or throw in gratis, membership of the otherwise overpriced .Mac service.

-- Make sure it works well with the iPod - and that we can burn our downloaded tracks to CDs. This might seem an obvious one for the company that brought you the line "Rip.Mix.Burn.", much to the chagrin of the record labels. But if Apple inflicts hefty copy protection on its users, it'll be an indication the record labels still don't really get it - and Apple has had to abandon standards to pacify the suits. The simple fact is, when people download tracks, they want the same feeling of ownership they get when they buy a CD. They've bought the song: don't stop them transferring it to another computer, or iPod, or a CD for the car or the commute.

-- Finally (and this one is for the music labels): go on, let go. Accept that a background level of piracy is always going to exist. There will always be people who - because they're cheapskates, or because they're poor students using university computers, or because they're simply a bit dishonest - want to copy music. Their ancestors were probably busy with twin tape decks in the 1980s, and they don't represent a great loss (although some may graduate to become big music buyers in the future). An attempt to force draconian copy protection measures, through operating systems or any other method, will harm the law-respecting, music-buying majority. And it won't work anyway: all it will do is temporarily annoy a geeky minority who'll likely have the time and inclination to crack the protection pretty quickly.

Of course, record company execs would say this wish-list is a recipe for disaster. They would argue that they will quickly see their back catalogues free for all under such a system. The trouble for them is, those back catalogues are already there. Luckily for them, the peer-to-peer systems for distributing that pirated material are so unreliable and unfriendly only a minority of net users use them regularly, for now. But this situation won't last forever. Before the developers get their acts together, the labels would be well advised to ensure they've got something much more compelling. There's still time to persuade the normally law-abiding majority to get back on the straight and narrow.