Comment by reaperducer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by reaperducer | Hacker News Reader

Apple today announced two new live global radio offerings

...and that's where you lost me.

Global radio doesn't work. Hundreds of companies and thousands of people have tried it, and it's never worked. People are different all over, they're not the same, so they don't all want the same thing.

I stopped listening to the BBC World Service when it stopped being about Britain and started being "The world's radio station™," because it just got boring and repetitive.

"Centralcasting" is what almost killed radio in America the 1990's. Jacor/Clear Channel ate hundreds of stations across the country and had a computer in Kentucky decide what music should be played for an entire nation. It didn't work. People flocked to iPods and streaming to get away from the homogeny. Those stations that kept true to their local content survived, and some thrived.

Even Sirius learned this with its satellite radio stations, and the DJs no longer pretend to be some monolithic continental presence in the sky, and instead talk about wherever they're broadcasting from, and some even bend the playlist to match their geography, so it changes through the day as they switch from a host in Detroit to one in Boston to one in DC to one in L.A. When I was in broadcasting it was called a POD — Point Of Difference. Why can DJ A give me that DJ B can't?

KCSN/Northidge and WXRT/Chicago are both AAA radio stations, but they don't play the same songs. They're tailored to what their LOCAL audiences like. That's a good thing. Apple Global Mega Huge Music One has no local audience, and zero feedback other than a subscriber count.

When I listen to a pop station in London, I hear different music than when I listen to a pop station in Los Angeles or Melbourne. That's good. I listen to music from stations all over the world, and in genres I don't ordinarily like, simply because I enjoy the discovery of new songs and artists that I never heard of.

Apple has enough money to keep this online for a very long time, even if no one listens. But why? Who is it good for? Aside from a branding exercise, or trying to give one more checkmark for its bundled services package, what's the point?

> People are different all over, they're not the same, so they don't all want the same thing

You are right, but right about the wrong thing.

A few weeks ago there was a submission here on HN about a site that shows a world map with the locations of radio stations with internet streams marked, and plays one at random from a circle around the center of the map.

I spent quite a while going all over the world at random listening to what their stations were playing.

Yes, I heard a vast difference between pop stations in the United States and pop stations in Australia and pop stations in England. I heard a vast difference between pop stations in different states in the US, too.

But I also heard a lot of similarity. No matter if I was listening to random stations in Russia, or South Korea, or Nigeria, or New Zealand, or various states in the United States, I heard a lot of the same artists.

So yes, people don't all want the same thing. But it seems that in most places there are enough people who do like the same thing enough to want to listen to it along with the things that are more specific to their region.

That's all that Apple needs to get listeners. They won't become the only station for many people, but they could easily become a station that many people around the world do regularly listen to in addition to stations that focus on their regional music.

But I'm not sure that geography is the best way to segment & present music going forward? I live in Texas, but that doesn't mean I'm always in the mood for Texas music.

This will be interesting to watch—variations in music scenes around the world have made music rich and diverse, but most artists now (at least attempt to) launch to a global audience. In this new scenario, the diversity I think pulls from being able to gain traction without going through the traditional gatekeepers. There's also a lot more interesting fusion happening as artists are exposed to so many other artists worldwide.

I do agree with your larger point that centralcasting can make for boring playlists, so this product isn't for me. But I've also found that there are people who don't want to do all the effort of discovery and curation of their music—they just want to hit play and have a soundtrack for the day going. This feels like Apple trying to solve for that use case.

I live in Texas, but that doesn't mean I'm always in the mood for Texas music.

I'm not sure what "Texas" music is, even though I lived there for many years.

Maybe you're interested in listening to rap music. Rap music on radio stations in Houston isn't the same playlist as rap music on a radio station in New York, or Paris.

Rap is actually a great example of this, because rap is very geographic. Montreal, Paris, and even London have rap music that is vastly different from rap music in New York or Los Angeles or, again, Houston.

What Apple could/should do is make regional flavors of its stations, rather than going for this "global" cliche. Then people from different places could learn about music from other places, even if it's the same genre.

They do this based on shows. There's a show from New York, a few from London, some from LA, and then a bunch of artist-led shows. They're all run on a schedule so you can tune in to the ones you're interested in.

> I live in Texas, but that doesn't mean I'm always in the mood for Texas music.

But you are not in mood for egyptian music either, so there is definitely some correlation between your location and type of music you like.

If they were being globally-minded about these "global" stations, Country would not be the second station they make. What a misfire.

Older US Country music is pretty popular globally. Modern country, less so, but the classics of the genre actually have really large global appeal.

If they were being globally-minded about these "global" stations, Country would not be the second station they make. What a misfire.

I think you're letting you biases show. I've heard country music on radio stations from Germany to Japan to Mexico. There are even country music artists from Europe that show up on American radio stations.

I think Apple has enough data and enough smart people looking at that data to know what genres to pick.

Country music is pretty popular in West Africa be user the topics they sing about are universal (e.g. Love, family, overcoming hardship) and the lyrics are easily understood. Why shouldn't country be popular? It's basically pop music but with only guitar chords, vocals and themes about rural living.

With the advent of Tunein and similar services, our family has taken WXRT with us everywhere since moving out of Chicago.

We appreciate their culture and it gives us a sense of home no matter where we are.

We're different, and yet... The song Senorita has been in the top 50 in almost every region of the world for a very long time now. So we're different, but we're also the same.

Beats1's main schedule centers around three shows, broadcasting from Los Angeles, New York, and London. Those are the primary markets for which they're aiming, and the music each of the three main DJs plays is different. American and British movies and television tend to play well around the world, and I'm not sure radio is that much different.

Is Beats1 the best radio station for local Tunisian listeners? Is it ever going to be the #1 station in Morocco? Probably not, but many people (especially young people?) in nearly every area of the world consume a lot of western content, presumably enough to keep Apple happy.

I mean, if you're saying you want a radio station that takes chances and plays music you like without repeating the same top 40 hits endlessly, I'm with you. I'm not sure the geography plays as much of a role as you think it does, though. In theory a station could broadcast worldwide and still take chances and avoid repetition.

TL;DR: ClearChannel doesn't suck because they own stations in every US market. They suck because they suck, and it's unfortunate that they own channels in every market because that means it's hard to escape their suck.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com