Last week, rock veteran Neil Young chimed in with his assertion that the digital music files we listen to today are of much lower quality than the original recordings. Speaking at the D: Dive Into Media conference, he said that the technology now exists to deliver much higher-quality audio to music fans, and that he had even talked to Steve Jobs about a possible solution.

How Serious is the Problem? ... And How to Fix It?

Exactly how bad is this problem? By Young's estimation, what we hear in most files today is "only 5% of the data of the original recording". That may be a slight exaggeration, depending on how the files are encoded. Certainly, lower bit rate files (such as 128kbps MP3s) have a noticeably degraded quality to them, compared to a CD. But most sources have graduated to higher quality files now that broadband speeds allow for it. A standard track on iTunes is a 256kbps AAC file and premium Spotify subscribers can listen to many songs at 320kbps, which is about 22% of a CD track's bit rate.

When it comes to streaming audio on mobile devices, the quality buck pretty much stops at whatever the data connection can handle. On 3G networks, streaming CD-quality audio just isn't feasible. Over a good WiFi connection, things look a little more promising, but there are still limitations if the user experience is to be preserved.

Young: We Need an iPod For Audiophiles

So what does Young propose as a solution? From the sound of it, he'd like to see a sort of mega-iPod with more disk space and internal guts optimized to playback massive files. Such a device wouldn't be designed to include one's entire library, but rather only a selection of audiophile-quality albums. Presumably, it would tend to be used with superior quality earphones or speakers, which is another important factor in the quality of what we hear.

Even if a device akin to what Young describes were produced and sold, how big of a market would there be for it? The quality of the audio found on sources like iTunes, Spotify, MOG, Amazon and Google Music is apparently good enough to convince millions of people to pay for access to it. At the end of the day, most of the content on the pay music services is certainly good enough. Musicians and audiophiles can pick up on the degradations in quality, but for the average listener, it's pretty subtle. The device that Young describes would have to be marketed toward the audiophiles for whom 320kbps simply won't cut it.

Last week wasn't the first time Young has criticized the state of digital music. Some may dismiss his stance as nothing more than a grumpy, old-school perspective, as though he's just an old guy that doesn't get the new-fangled ways of the Web and digital media. This isn't the case. Young may be a veteran of the music industry, but he's well aware of what's changed about it and why. During the same interview in which he slammed MP3's, he said that "piracy is the new radio" and encouraged new artists to forgo record labels in favor of doing it themselves.

There's Nothing Wrong With Analog

As Young pointed out, Steve Jobs may have been a digital music pioneer, but "when he went home, he listened to vinyl." This is true not only of the generation that grew up on LPs, but also of a growing number of younger music fans today. Vinyl sales have been surging for the last few years, with 2011 seeing a 39% increase in sales over the previous year. Digital music sales grew last year too, but by considerably less.

For music fans with the deepest concern for audio quality, it seems analog is increasingly the way to go. That's okay. We can have our digital revolution in music and still fall back on analog formats. Just like with books, the value offered by digital music is primarily about volume, convenience and ease of production and distribution. And just like sitting down with a good, paper-bound book, putting on a vinyl record is more about quality and the overall experience.

Digital and Analog Can Coexist Peacefully

Digital and analog don't need to be at war with one another. What many labels and artists are doing now is sell records on vinyl and include a coupon for a free, high-quality digital download in the record's sleeve. That allows people to enjoy the album as it was intended and also throw it onto their iPod or smartphone for listening on the go.

It's also possible to go the high-quality route in a digital-only format. When The Beatles' catalogue was remastered and reissued in 2009, the material was released on CD and, for the first time, via iTunes. For diehard fans who wanted more than what iTunes could offer, they also sold an apple-shaped (no, not that Apple) thumb drive containing every album in superior quality, lossless FLAC format, as well as as 320kbps MP3s.

However things may evolve, it's evident that digital music has brought us great value, but it's done so at a cost, namely quality. This may not be perceived as a problem by every consumer, but for those who take the craft of creating and recording music most seriously, it's one well worth solving. Whether it's solved through a hybrid of analog and digital music consumption or through some new, high-capacity device for playing back lossless digital audio, the challenge isn't an insurmountable one.

Vinyl sales chart courtesy of Digital Music News.

Apparently, iTunes Match has been inadvertently replacing certain tracks with the "clean" version of the same song, Cult of Mac reported.

It looks like what's happening here is the system is misreading metadata for certain tracks and cross-referencing with radio-friendly edits of the same song. At the very least, this has happened with four hip hop tracks as reported by Cult of Mac.

To some, this may smack of the nothing-dirty-please, prim-and-proper censorship for which Apple has gained a reputation in the iTunes App Store. More likely than not, it's just a bug. The company may not want filthy porno-filled apps populating its App Store, but that's quite different from allowing people to listen to a profanity-laden Jay-Z song that they purchased (or otherwise) acquired on their own accord.

Apple has acknowledged that this is an issue and is reportedly working on a fix.

Rather than charging for storage, as Apple and Amazon do, Google is allowing users to store up to 20,000 tracks for free. So how will they make money? They've partnered with three of the four major music labels (Warner Music didn't sign on) and several independent ones to sell high-quality, 328 kbps MP3 files to users. Google will take a 30% revenue share on each track sold.

The new music store, which is now live in the Android Market, already has 8 million songs in it, and that number will rise to 13 million in the coming weeks. Still, that puts it about 7 million songs behind iTunes, which has deals in with all four major labels, most indie labels, and even convinced The Beatles to get on board two years ago. That said, the iTunes Store has been live since 2003 and it's had all that time to build up its catalog. For only being live less than hour, Google Music is catching up to the likes of Apple and Amazon pretty fast.

Google Throws in a Few Perks

To help draw listeners in, Google is offering high-quality audio, free storage, some unique social features and artist exclusivity.

As expected, Google Music is integrated with Google+, the young social network that is increasingly at the heart of Google's product strategy. When users share music on Google+, those tracks are available to their friends for free for up to one listen. This is also true of entire albums shared on Google+.

To make the product more appealing at launch, Google named several artists that are releasing new material exclusively Google Music. The new studio album by rapper Busta Rhymes is being released exclusively on Google Music, and several other artists, such as Pearl Jam and the Rolling Stones, are releasing exclusive live alums through the new service. Notably, another artist on the list is Coldplay, who recently pulled their catalog from Spotify over concerns about low royalty payments.

Devoted users of Apple products may still be lured by iTunes Match, which doesn't require a lengthy bulk file upload. Still, for the price (free), Google Music can probably convince a lot of people to sit and wait for their files to transfer.

A Leg Up For Independent Artists

Although Google has partnered with most of the major labels, it's hard to miss that part of what they're launching could serve to further undermine the importance of record labels and other twentieth century relics of the music industry.

Through its Artist Hub, Google Music is giving artists tools to market themselves and sell their music directly to fans. For a one-time fee of $25, any artist can set up a profile, upload an unlimited amount of their music, manage photos and even set their own prices.

If Google Music takes off, this may well prove to be a viable source of revenue for emerging artists, many of whom are wary of the low royalty payments offered by streaming services like Rdio and Spotify. Artists can also sell tracks directly through YouTube, which is already a prominent source for music discovery.

Just as with signed artists, independent artists who upload their music to Google's storefront will get a 70% cut of all revenue generated by MP3 sales.

That's about to change, according to a report from the New York Times. Google is currently in negotiations with music labels to launch an MP3 store as part of Google Music. The move would put Google in more direct competition with Amazon and Apple, the latter of which is the market leader in digital music sales.

The news comes just as Apple is putting the finishing touches on iTunes Match, a cloud-based music storage service that can be purchased as an add-on to the company's popular digital music ecosystem. Rather than require users to upload every song they purchase (as Google and Amazon do), iTunes Match will scan one's local collection of music and find each song in Apple's massive library of music. Those tracks are then made available to the user from any Apple device.

One thing Apple has that Google doesn't is dominance in the personal music player hardware market. Yes, Google has smartphones and tablets, but Apple has smartphones, tablets and iPods. It remains unknown at this point whether Google will develop iOS apps for Google Music. Since it's selling content, Google may opt to forgo Apple's revenue-sharing requirements and create an HTML5 Web app, much like Amazon did with Kindle Cloud Reader. For now, Google Music is only available on Android devices and via the desktop.

Resistance From Music Labels

Google reportedly had a hard time shoring up deals with music labels ahead of the initial launch of Google Music, so they launched it anyway. Traditional content owners have often been wary of Google, who has gained a reputation among some legacy media organizations as being too soft on piracy. The company has extended a few olive branches recently, making public efforts to discourage copyright infringement and buttering up media executives.

For its part, Apple has secured the licensing rights necessary to make iTunes Match possible, and it obviously already has agreements in place with major music labels that enable it to sell digital music from the iTunes Store.

Google has an uphill battle to fight if it expects to take on Apple in this space. Amazon might provide a fairer fight. Either way, Google is hoping to bolt additional revenue streams onto its business model, which remains heavily bolstered by the money it makes search advertising.

The first snag many noticed was the estimated download time for the software. As more people downloaded iOS 5, some began to see prolonged wait times, sometimes up to a few hours. The problems only got worse from there.

It's not clear exactly how widespread the problem was, but the term "3200 error" briefly became a trending topic on Twitter.

Music tech blogger Elliott Van Buskirk published a detailed account of his experience trying to upgrade to iOS 5, screen shots and all. For quite some time, his iPhone was effectively bricked, wiped clean of its data, but unable to connect to Apple's servers for a proper update.

Our experience wasn't quite as riddled with error messages, but the initial software download did take an extraordinary amount of time.

This morning, Apple seems to have caught up with the demand and 9to5 Mac reports that the iOS 5 upgrade is running smoothly.

Image via Evolver.fm

Analysts also say that these apps are increasing in price during a period of rising healthcare costs and a significant rise in the number of professional-aged people without health insurance.

These are items that are billed as being for the health and wellbeing of the sick and suffering but are really no more than gimmicks that play into fears about our health and our bodies.

We reported a few weeks ago about the FTC levying fines against two app makers that claimed users could erase their acne using colored lights from the iPHone.

This predication comes on the day of the F8 conference in San Francisco, where many Facebook developers are being encouraged to make "meaningful" apps for the rollout of Timeline on September 29.

The new rules have not thrilled publishers, but reactions have been mixed. Some media companies, like Hulu and the New York Times, have decided to play along with Apple and offer a significant cut of their subscription revenue to the tech giant in exchange for access to millions of iTunes customers. Others, like Amazon, have opted to build HTML5 Web apps as a way to circumvent the new rules.

Their Web app is essentially a stripped-down version of their desktop website, with some extra controls and UI elements built in. It's not amazing, but it's comparable to some existing iPad apps for news content and it renders well on tablets. Most importantly, from their standpoint, it maintains the publication's paywall without the need to shell out 30% of their revenue to Apple each month.

Still, being pulled from such a widely-used platform has to hurt subscription revenue, at least at first. PaidContent estimates that the FT iPad app may have had as many as 10,000 users.

It remains to be seen what kind of impact this will have on the FT's overall subscription revenue. While it may take a hit initially, if they can properly market the Web app to tablet owners (iPads, Android tablets or otherwise), perhaps they can manage to make up the difference.

But now that the dust has settled and the glimmer has faded from today's keynote at WWDC, we have to ask, has Apple really triumphed here? Did we see the future of digital music unveiled onstage?

There are several pieces to the Apple and iTunes music strategy going forward, including the following:

• The introduction of iCloud: Free (yay!) as part of iOS 5, iCloud will allow users to give users access to their music (and other files) across devices, including iPhones, iPads, iPod Touches, Macs and PCs.
• iTunes in the Cloud: As part of iCloud, users will be able to buy music through iTunes and have it stored in the cloud.
• WiFi Syncing: Again, as part of iOS 5, devices will be able to sync over wireless and your iDevice will sync and backup to the iCloud without your having to plug in an annoying white cord.
• iTunes Match: This new service, announced as the famous "one more thing" at today's keynote, will allow users to store their music in the cloud, even if they haven't purchased their music from iTunes. If iTunes scans your library and finds a match, it will make that song available through iCloud, for $25 a year. Says Apple "all the music iTunes matches plays back at 256-Kbps iTunes Plus quality - even if your original copy was of lower quality."

"This Changes Everything!" - Except Not Really

At first blush, the thought of having your entire music collection available through iCloud sounded like an amazingly awesome deal. And for those of us who have amassed large record collections outside of the iTunes marketplace, it felt as though we were being pardoned for sins against the $.99 download - whether we came across our mp3s through ripping, legal filesharing, or piracy.

But it's important to note that Apple's new offer does not involve music streaming. True, you can have your music collection synced across devices (up to 10 of them). But you will still have to download the music you want to play on to your iPhone or iPad or iPod Touch or Mac. You won't be able to access your entire collection and randomly shuffle between all the glorious gigabytes.

And so Google and Amazon breathe a sigh of relief, because when it comes to music storage in the cloud, Apple's offering is "nice, but not revolutionary," as Evolver.fm's Eliot van Buskirk observes. Google offers streaming (via the Web, for free, for some of your collection) but no marketplace. Amazon offers streaming (via the Web, for a cost per GB) and a marketplace. Apple offers storage (cheaper than Amazon's) and one helluva marketplace - but no streaming. In other words, music in the cloud is still very much up for grabs.

The Future's So Bright, I Gotta...

There are at least 2 camps when it comes to music. The first has amassed a sizable music collection and, whether it's all digitized or not, wants to be able to to tap into those songs and listen to them anytime, anywhere. The second is less concerned with music ownership and is content to subscribe to some of the latest music services. It's the benefit of "anytime, anywhere" without the burdens of ownership, without worrying about buying new shelves to hold your records or more storage space to hold the mp3s.

The problem faced by the first camp - the one that admittedly I find myself in - is that that collection of music is so large and eclectic that it's impossible to put on an iPhone or iPad and if stored locally takes up a goodly portion of a PC hard drive. If you store it externally, there's always the problem of syncing and access and streaming. I think Apple believes that it's targeting that market with its announcement today. Your digital music can now be stored in the cloud and you can choose to download songs and playlists as you deem fit.

But as EchoNest's Paul Lamere points out, "This is not the iCloud I'm looking for." Like many, Lamere believes that the future lies in subscription music services, and he sees Apple's decision to build simply a glorified music locker as a failure of imagination. With the record labels willing to make a deal (or so it seemed), why do we not have an iTunes subscription option?

After all, more and more, people are turning to subscription services like Rdio or MOG to fulfill their music-listening needs. People without a vast record collection (and some who are sick of having to purchase new copies every time the music format du jour changes) are opting to rent rather than own their songs. (See Sarah Perez's recent article on whether or not these sorts of services are "worth it".)

I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For

Apple's promise of amnesty for non-iTunes purchases may appear to be a nod towards those of us who've acquired our music (cough) elsewhere, but I have to wonder if the same sorts of complaints about subscription services - they don't have my eclectic, hipster tastes, man! - will also plague iTunes Match.

With all the buzz leading up to WWDC, I think many music fans were waiting for Apple to announce something that really changed the game when it came to our music experiences. It doesn't seem as though we heard that on stage today.

One of the best features of Android devices is the set-up process: you simply sign in with your Google account information, and, automatically, everything is synced to the device from the cloud, including your email, calendar and contacts, and, on newer versions of Android, your apps.

Where Android struggles, however, is on its content offerings - the Android Market is not an iTunes-like store where users can download or rent TV shows, movies, podcasts or educational material (e.g. "iTunes U" type content). In fact, it was only this month that Google launched Android Market's "Movies" service, which provides a limited selection of movie rentals.

And Google Music is nothing more than an online storage site with a music player user interface as its front-end. A fun recommendations feature was thrown in for extra measure, but it's not ground-breaking by any means. To actually get your music into Google's service, you have to download desktop software, and then tediously upload your entire MP3 collection over the course of several days, depending on the size. (By now, most of our collections are quite large - 10s of GBs, if not 100s of GBs).

That said, cloud-based music and video streaming, single sign-in, plus account, email and application sync, are all things that current Apple mobile devices can't do today without the use of third-party applications.

Sounds like an opportunity for Apple!

iCloud: Far More than Cloud iTunes

If Apple truly wanted to best Android, it wouldn't simply build a "Cloud iTunes," it would rebuild the entire back-end of its mobile lineup to be cloud-enabled. What that means is not only would you sign in with your Apple account, and have your Apple email, contacts and calendar information sync down to the device, all of your apps would sync, too. And where you left off in those apps, and the data they contained. And all of your media purchases, whether music or video. And the way your apps were organized. Etc, etc.

Hazarding a Guess: That Twitter and Facebook Integration is Tied into iCloud

But here's where my guessing game goes off course from the known rumors - instead of having your Apple account function as a single standalone account, it would be more like a "profile" where you could register your other social networking accounts, too. Your Facebook account, your Twitter account, and others could be associated with your Apple ID so when you sign into your phone or tablet during the first-time setup process, it's immediately Facebook-enabled and Twitter-enabled with your social networking account information. This takes the "Twitter is deeply integrated into iOS5" rumor for a little spin.

The benefit of having this functionality is so obvious, it's surprising to me that I haven't heard more people talk about this. No, it's not so you can tweet your photos or post them on Facebook (although obviously, that would be included) - it's so you can STOP SIGNING INTO TO YOUR HUNDREDS OF APPLICATIONS with unique username and password combinations created for each and every app.

Instead, application developers will be encouraged to include Facebook and Twitter login capabilities into their apps, and these would tap into the Facebook and Twitter account information associated with your personal device. Imagine: your whole phone, Facebook-enabled. Or Twitter-enabled. You can just start launching and using apps, no more nagging "sign up for an account" boxes!

This may or may not be presented as a part of the iCloud service, but it would be great if it was. Instead of having to set up this social networking info on each new Apple device, you would only need to sign in with one username and password - your Apple account. Everything else would follow. In doing so, Apple wouldn't just be on par with Google Android's single sign-on offering, it would have trumped it. All that music, video and app syncing would just be icing on the cake.

"Radios have historically been speakers where broadcasters control what blares out," Robertson writes on his blog today about his first partnership with a digital radio manufacturer. "A new day is upon us where listeners are wrestling control away from broadcasters and can now control what comes out of their radios. "

Robertson, whose controversial career is best known for music locker and lawsuit magnet MP3.com, launched DAR.FM in February. He contends that this new service is wholly in the clear legally, but it's already come under some criticism for free-loading on the streaming costs faced by the radio stations he enables consumers to record.

Once again, however, Robertson has created a service that's sure to please consumers. Making talk radio a media more under control of listeners sounds cool and may work better at popularizing digital audio content than podcasting has, with its user experience challenges. ITunes, the dominant podcast subscription technology available, does not make the whole experience much fun.

DAR works on a variety of other devices including this one. Competitors include RadioShift from Rogue Amoeba, StreamRipperX and Radioshift.

Could technology like DAR, in a variety of consumer technologies like the Grace Digital Radio, lead to a convergence of traditional radio and podcasting in a more compelling offering? I think it might.

The service uses progressive download technology, says HTC, which means your content will start playing almost immediately. This is different from the iTunes model, which requires users to download the full file before being able to view the video.

In early reviews, HTC's Watch app is said to be speedy and responsive, with videos that start playing within 10 seconds of purchase.

The new service grew out of HTC's purchase of Saffron Digital back in February 2011 for $48.5 million. Saffron was known best for its video optimization technology, which allowed for streaming video delivery across different types of mobile handsets.

The goal behind HTC's investment was to enable the handset manufacturer to further differentiate its devices through improved user experiences that ship on top of the underlying Android software.

This, it should be noted, is competitor Samsung's strategy as well.

In March, Samsung revealed four new Hubs - branded app portals it plans to install on new Android devices, including its Galaxy S II smartphones and Galaxy Tab tablet PCs. The hubs allow Samsung users to interact with music, media, e-books and social networking content.

Smartphone Gets Smarter

As for the HTC's latest gadget itself, the HTC Sensation 4G is a high-end smartphone that forgoes the traditional wide screen for a thinner, longer screen. The phone offers impressive specs, including a 1.2 GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon processor, 4.3-inch Super LCD screen with a 960x540 display, a dual-LED flash for its 8-megapixel camera and support for 1080p HD video. In the U.S., the phone will be available on T-Mobile (supporting T-Mobile "4G," meaning HSPA+), in Europe on Vodafone and on other, unannounced carriers in Asia.

The Sensation will run Google's latest version of Android, code-named Gingerbread (Android 2.3.2) plus an updated version of the HTC Sense user interface. The new Sense UI will now offer customizable lockscreens which display photos, social networking updates, and weather or stock alerts. It will also bring new 3D effects, widgets, improved animations and updates to core apps. In particular, AllThingsD recently noted that the update will improve the issue of "shutter lag," a common ailment on smartphones where the time between pushing the button and snapping the photo is delayed. For those taking pictures of kids or pets, this may be the most welcome improvement of all.

There's no word yet on when other HTC phones may receive the update Sense UI or the HTC Watch app.

But a report from CNN suggests that Apple is working to improve the quality of its music downloads.

But as digital music is quickly becoming the norm, efforts are underway to improve its sound quality - or at least give retailers some options of working from the higher grade 24-bit files. CNN reports that talks are underway between the music studios and Apple to do just that. It's not the first time that Apple has made these efforts, as back in 2009, it doubled the bit-rate of its tracks.

Of course, better quality, higher bit-rate files are just part of the solution here. Many devices don't support 24-bit files. "Paul McCartney can master The Beatles albums all he wants, (but) when you play them through a Dell computer, it sounds like you're playing them through a portable television," says music executive Jimmy Iovine.

The desire for a better quality music is evident in Radiohead's release of its latest album, which allows fans to pay a little extra for uncompressed files. But as ReadWriteWeb editor Richard MacManus laments, that takes "so damn long to download!"

The opening anecdote: 8-year-old Madison who spent $1,400 to decorate her mushroom home in the iPhone game Smurf's Village.

She didn't realize the Smurfberries she was buying were real purchases. "After all," writes reporter Cecilia Kang, "lots of children's games require virtual payments of pretend coins, treasure chests and gold to advance to levels."

Madison's story isn't the first, and her family's problems aren't unique. Indeed, these sorts of purchases have made kids' games like Smurfs' Village incredibly popular - and profitable. But parents (anyone, really, Smurf fans or not) balk at the $99 charge for a wagon of Smurfberries.

The New Economy of In-App Purchases

In-app purchases have been available in Apple's apps, and Google just introduced these for its Android phones and tablets as well. The Washington Post calls these purchases part of a "new economy." In October of last year, ReadWriteWeb's Sarah Perez reported that these purchases generate more revenue than do mobile ads.

But is this sort of thing coming at the cost of unsuspecting parents and children?

Smurf Village and other similar games have added warnings to their apps, reminding users that the virtual goods cost real money. And for its part, Apple says it tries to prevent episodes like Madison's by requiring a password when making in-app purchases. Parents can change the settings to restrict downloads and transactions as well.

Cult of Mac reports today that The Washington Post story has prompted U.S. Congressman Edward J. Markey to write a letter to the FTC, urging the commission to investigate in-app purchases.

In the meantime, parents who hand over their iTunes passwords to their kids would be wise to set the restrictions on their devices. For the iPhone, you can do so by going to General Settings, then to Restrictions, and click the "In-App Purchases" to "off," which will prevent that content from being purchased and downloaded.

The concern comes, in part, as a response to news on Tuesday that Apple had rejected Sony's e-reader app as it allowed users to buy as well as read books from the Sony Reader store. That rejection caused immediate speculation (verging on panic) that this would have huge ramifications for other apps that do something similar - namely, the Amazon Kindle app, the Netflix app, the Barnes & Noble Nook app, and so on.

The Wall Street Journal reports that publishers have been notified that by March 31, "newspaper and magazine apps that don't take payments through the iTunes store will be rejected."

Apple traditionally takes a 30% cut from developers' app sales, but it's not known what the company's share of subscription revenues would be. For its part, Apple contends that by managing the billing, it will help publishers sell more content. Indeed, many publishers have long lobbied for Apple to add the subscription feature as it will improve delivery over the current system, which until now has forced users to buy a new app for each new "issue." And as sales of digital magazines have been less than stellar, a better billing and delivery system may not be a bad thing.

That is, of course, unless you're a publisher who's built your business model on selling digital content through your own website, rather than via the iTunes store.

According to a report by Andrew Wallenstein at PaidContent tonight, Sony is experimenting with the following, when you buy one of three new movies on iTunes:

"A search button allows you to input a word, and any mention of it in the script will be retrieved along with a link to the exact moment in the movie in which the line was uttered. A 'clip & share' function lets the viewer take select scenes and post them to social networks. There's also a playlist with songs from the film, which are linked to to places on iTunes where those songs can be purchased."

I cannot imagine watching a Resident Evil movie, but perhaps one of my Facebook friends will shoot a clipping of the best part into my Newsfeed and change my mind.

May all old media industries find inspiration in these experimental new features and come up with ways to make their products exciting enough to purchase in a digital world filled with free content.