Yup: Later this month you’ll be able to buy the rock/rap/country dude’s new “Rebel Soul” album via Apple. If you can’t wait that long, you can get “Let’s Ride,” his new single, for $1.29.

The reason this matters, a teeny tiny bit, is that up until now Kid Rock has been one of the last few prominent acts to keep his stuff off iTunes. The reason, he told CNN’s Piers Morgan last year, was that Apple’s pricing policies — which generally require acts and labels to sell their stuff at specific price tiers — were “un-American.”

Apple hasn’t changed its mind, so apparently Kid Rock has. (For the record, Kid Rock has also said he was an Apple shareholder and a huge Steve Jobs fan.)

The list of iTunes holdouts, which at one time included acts like the Beatles and Radiohead, is now pretty much down to AC/DC and Garth Brooks. (Thanks to Jason Herskowitz for reminding us that now the big digital music showdown is usually with Spotify. You won’t find Taylor Swift’s best-selling new album, for instance, on the streaming music service.)

Note that like the Beatles, Kid Rock appears to be an Apple digital exclusive — Amazon still doesn’t have him.

But after a major company-wide restructuring and the divestiture of several non-core businesses, CEO John Chambers (pictured here at D5) is finding that turning the massive Cisco ship around — something he seemed to have started two quarters ago, and which continued last quarter, isn’t coming easy.

There’s the global economy to worry about. All that messy complicated news coming out of Europe about sovereign debt and cuts in government spending around the world has a way of eating into technology budgets both at Cisco’s government customers and at its large enterprise customers.

Cisco’s guidance for the quarter ending in July was especially worrisome for investors, who promptly sent Cisco’s share price plummeting by more than 8 percent in after-hours trading. Cisco called for revenue to grow between 2 percent and 5 percent, which works out to sales in the range of $11.4 billion to $11.8 billion, well off the consensus forecast of $12 billion.

Guidance on earnings was equally disappointing. At 44 cents to 46 cents a share, the midpoint lags the consensus by two cents.

So what’s going on? I asked Chambers about it in a phone interview with AllThingD held after the conclusion of Cisco’s conference call with analysts.

AllThingsD: John, the markets clearly don’t like very much what they saw today. So, from a high level, what happened — good, bad and indifferent — with this quarter?

Chambers: The first thing from a high level is that we’re executing pretty well on our vision and strategy, and we did exactly what we said we would do. We guided for growth of 5 percent to 7 percent for the year and for the first nine months we’re at 7.5 percent [revenue]. We said profits faster than revenues, and we’re at 9.5 percent. Earnings per share increasing 13 percent year over year for the first nine months and gross margins down just 1 percent primarily on product mix. We’re winning versus our key competitors and winning at a pretty fast rate. When you’re number one or two in most product categories, holding your own in switching and making it very challenging for the Huawei’s of the world, the Junipers and Hewlett-Packards … Juniper and HP we’re pulling away from and we’ll see if we can maintain it. Huawei, for the first time we’re getting much better and competing against them and understanding their weaknesses. And if you look where we are in terms of the bigger picture, we’re in the right markets. We’re in the mobility market. We’re in video. We’re in the cloud market. We’re in the social networking segment. We’re pulling them all together, and our customers are buying the architecture in a pretty good amount. Even in service providers, where most people thought they would never move toward having preferred vendors, we’re seeing something close to that at some service providers and at many of them they are starting to think about going all-Cisco.

So on things we can control and influence I think we’re in pretty good shape. In terms of the market, I’d like to add another couple of points [of growth] in service providers, another couple of points from commercial customers. The public sector is at 3 percent. I’d take that for the year, but we think it’s going to be flat, give or take a couple points.

The issue is the enterprise. And there the problem is not that they don’t have the money or that they don’t understand that it’s important to get productivity. It’s that they’re uncertain. When they are uncertain, that’s because of economic issues primarily because of Europe. And uncertainty on government policy. Then you see people deciding not to invest. And that affects not only capital spending but jobs.

So I think the market understood what we’re saying and I think most people would give us credit for being a very good indicator of what the point in time change is. But this is not necessarily a given for what is going to happen in the second half of the year. I’m just trying to be as transparent as I know how.

The July quarter is usually your seasonally strongest. Given that your guidance was relatively weak compared to the consensus, what are we to make of the quarter coming up? Is it a secular weakness or mostly the economy? Are your competitors just taking it on the chin worse that you are?

Let’s look at Juniper. It’s down 6 percent a year and routing down 9 percent. Huawei is growing 11 percent a year, but its service provider segment is growing only 3 percent. HP’s networking business is back to the levels in their switching business to what they were when HP first bought 3Com. There’s an explosion in the data center business, it’s to the point that companies who have been there a long time like IBM or HP, we’re growing 67 percent and their servers are flat or slightly down. So the results speak for themselves in terms of what we’re doing right in some areas. But we’re learning to tie things together in a way that saves customers money, saves them time to market and allows them to achieve their business goals quicker. That is the game we’re playing for. The major thing we’re after is getting the enterprises spending again. Customers — almost uniformly — are saying that my business is okay, not great, they expect it will go up gradually, and that they’re probably going to spend more in the second half of the year than they did in the first. But immediately as a follow-up to that, they all say that’s true only if they’re not surprised by something from the economy. That’s the kind of uncertainty we’re seeing, and in talking with my peers in the industry who are in similar markets, they can finish my sentences. The question is whether it’s temporary or is it a blip? We just don’t know yet.

So given the restructuring we’ve been talking about for the last year or so, is Cisco the right size? Your overall headcount is down more than 8,000 from a year ago, but it’s up by more than 1,300 since the last quarter. Are you at the right size or are there more changes coming?

Out of the 1,353 people we added, the vast majority were either advanced services or engineers. We needed more engineers. The additions were around either building products or converting services. In terms of our organization structure, we re-did Cisco. We’ve learned from what we did well in the past, and you wouldn’t see the turnaround as quickly as we did if the structure weren’t so strong. But we needed to restructure how our customers buy, and how we build products. We needed to be nimbler and simpler in how we get decisions done. And that is a journey. In the past we tended to get a market transition, good or bad, and take off on a good one or address a bad one, and we would end up gaining market share almost always coming out of these. We’ll see if we do it again this time. But we weren’t constantly reinventing ourselves to avoid hitting the next wall or the next inflection point. That is what we’re trying to do. This is a continuous journey. While we were four or five inches around the waist, I think there’s still more work to be done in our middle levels. I think you’ll see us address that in the next year or two. Does that mean we’re going to adjust the market given that the market may have slowed? I’m not sure it has yet, we’ll know in a couple of quarters which way it’s going. The answer is, not in a major way. It’s too early to say which way this market is going. We’re not going to over-react or under-react.

You just made a major acquisition with NDS, about $5 billion. You still have a lot of cash on the balance sheet. What’s your stance on acquisitions?

Ongoing at Cisco we will do innovation through internal development, including internal start-ups, through strategic partnership, and acquisitions and intergrating all of the above. NDS is one of multiple moves that we will make, not just in the video space for us, but it was also a major cloud play for us and a major social media move if we do this right. It plays right into the sweet spot of our service providers and content providers. Our ideal target has not changed: 100 engineers with a product that is just about to come to market, where our customers say that if they were owned by Cisco they’d buy a lot of it. The $5 billion price is higher than what we’ve traditionally paid, but it’s on the order of Stratacom and Tandberg, for which we paid about $3 billion each. But our ideal target is smaller, and you’ll see us continue to be selectively active in the market.

You’re said to be heavily focused on gross margins. One point that came up on UCS: You say it’s growing like crazy, off a low base, but one of the analysts pointed out this week that it has the overall effect of bringing down the gross margin a bit. How are you addressing that?

That’s true on specifics. UCS by itself, even with a premium versus our peers, is going to be below our gross margin of 65 percent. So, by definition, as you add more of those it has a major effect on gross margin. When you combine UCS with our Nexus 2000 and 5000 switches the blended version gets the margin higher, though still not as high as the overall gross margin. Our challenge on gross margin, and the reason why we’re going to focus aggressively on each gross margin area this year, is that it’s more of a product mix issue than it is an issue of pressure on gross margins on any specific product. In terms of the base for UCS, it’s getting close to a $2.5 billion run rate and probably closer to $3 billion by now. So the base is getting larger, and in North America our market share is close to 20 percent and globally our best guess is 14 percent as best as we can tell. So that’s pretty good execution.

At this point, as he did last time we talked, Chambers asked me what song I’d pick to musically illustrate Cisco’s quarter, sticking with a tradition started a few quarters back and continued last quarter. I told him I wanted it to be a surprise, but that I think he’d like it.

This quarter, I dedicate to Cisco Ringo Starr’s “It Don’t Come Easy.” The hard work of transformation done, Cisco is finding that, despite being leaner and meaner, it has still got some way to go and finds itself in a tough market. In the video below, Ringo performs with fellow Beatle George Harrison at the 1971 Concert for Bangladesh. As everyone at Cisco knows, nothing worth having comes easy.

Meanwhile, since we’re showing Apple ads, here’s a newish one I hadn’t seen yet, reminding us that Apple still has that Beatles exclusive.

“Yellow Submarine” is just what it sounds like — an illustrated version of the band’s 1968 movie, which is both trippy and kid-friendly (so British!). The book was first published in 2004, but the new version features interactive goodies like song samples and bits from the animated movie.

It’s a bunch of fun and will work on both iPads and iPhones, but you’re really better off enjoying this one on the former.

If you wanted to be churlish, you could note that the free book also serves as a promotion for a compilation album based on songs featured in the book.

Less churlish: Worth noting, yet again, that a year-plus exclusive is unheard of in digital music. Apple says it has sold 10 million songs and 1.8 million albums during that time; still love to know what they paid for that privilege.

If you wanted to get into it, you could have an interesting debate in which someone argues that caring about music isn’t always analogous to paying for recorded music. But whatever. For now, let’s stipulate that the “don’t take stuff that isn’t yours” sentiment is a good one.

That said: Not to be too be churlish, but if the Beatles and the people who control their music don’t want you to steal, shouldn’t they make their music widely available online?

As you may recall, last fall the band’s music finally became available in legal digital form, via an iTunes exclusive. And now, 10 months later, Apple’s store remains the only place you can buy Abbey Road, Let I Be, Revolver, etc. You can’t buy them via Amazon, and you can’t hear them via subscription services like Spotify, MOG, etc.

Online music exclusives aren’t unusual, but they’re usually very short. I’ve never heard of an act locking itself to one digital outlet for this long. And if you don’t want people to steal stuff, it would make sense to make it as easy to buy as possible, no?

If the Apple exclusive lasts a year, then it should expire in mid-November. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it lasts through the end of 2011 and possibly beyond, so that Steve Jobs and company can wring the benefits of another Christmas sales cycle: Remember that lots of iTunes content gets purchased right after the holidays, when people have new gadgets to play with/fill up.

Meanwhile, the Music Matters clips have some great animation, at the very least. You can see a collection of them at this YouTube channel. Here’s a sampling featuring the Jam, Stevie Wonder and Jay-Z (couple NSFW swears on that last one).

But! Here’s a small data point you can add to the “maybe things are getting better, or at least less worse” argument: Nielsen Soundscan says U.S. music sales (by unit) are up 1.6 percent for the year to date. It credits the increase to a boom in digital, which had been flattening out a year ago.

Again, it’s early in the year. And even if sales do end up positive for all of 2011, that’s one year versus more than 10 years of decline. So I’d be hesitant to make too much of any of this.

Still: The numbers do sync up with an earlier report I pointed out last month, which showed sales were down a mere 1.3 percent at the time. They also align with Warner Music Group’s Q1 numbers, which showed growth, too.

I haven’t heard anyone in the music industry explain why they think digital is up dramatically so far this year. Nielsen’s chart below flags the arrival of the Beatles on Apple’s iTunes last fall, but I have a hard time believing the “Love Me Do” bump extended into March and April. Anyone want to hazard a guess?

Here’s the full data dump, for those who care. And please, please, please don’t get excited about the vinyl sales increase–even after a 14.2 percent jump this year, vinyl represents less than 2 percent of sales.

Total Albums w/TEA +1.6%

(Track Equivalent Albums)

Overall Albums -1.5%

Physical Albums -8.3%

Digital Albums +16.8%

Digital Tracks +9.6%

Physical Formats:

CDs -8.8%

Vinyl +37.0%

By Current/Catalog:

Current -7.0%

Catalog +5.4%

That’s what BlueBeat.com is paying EMI Music and its subsidiaries for selling unauthorized copies of the label’s music–including some 67,000 Beatles songs–back in 2009.

At the time, BlueBeat had argued it had the rights to do so because it was using “psycho-acoustic simulation” to make the recordings, which it sold for a quarter a piece. But the courts have ruled that this theory was just as ridiculous as you think it is.

BlueBeat’s lawyer Archie Robinson tells the Associated Press, presumably with a straight face, that his client did just fine in the end:

“We basically settled the case for their attorney fees,” Robinson said. “I felt that was sort of an acknowledgement on their part that they don’t have the damages they claimed.”

To sum up: The only place on the Web where you can legally get the Beatles is Apple’s iTunes, which still has exclusive rights to the band’s catalog. Or, of course, on, Google’s YouTube:

The cable programming giant has sold its Harmonix unit, which published the game, to investment fund Columbus Nova LLC. It hasn’t disclosed a price, and if it’s not material it won’t have to. And my guess is that it won’t: Viacom bought the games business for $175 million in 2006, when the games were on the upswing, and if I had to bet, I’d say it will end up selling it for less.

Let’s take a minute here to point out something obvious, but which we always seem to forget–media consumption trends move very, very fast. You only have to go back two years to find Warner Music Group’s Edgar Bronfman Jr. demanding that the music labels get their fair share of the “enormous opportunity” the games were creating.

And just a year ago, (some) people were convinced that a special Beatles version of Rock Band was going to be a very, very big deal.

Now gamers are on to something new: Microsoft’s Kinect, for instance, seems to be selling very well this month. But I wouldn’t bet on it staying hot a couple of years from now.

Such steep discounts are a cornerstone of Amazon’s strategy to gain traction in a market in which iTunes remains the dominant player. At the same time, a debate has arisen among music labels about whether such discounts risk undermining the value of their products.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

And then take some more time: Apple has started to increase the length of the free music samples it offers at its iTunes music store, from 30 seconds to 90 seconds.

Will that help Apple and the music industry move more product? It shouldn’t hurt, right? And anything they can do, they should do: Download sales are starting to droop.

This move has been in the works for months, but Apple had been unable to get clearances from music publishers. I’m still not sure if Apple will be doing this throughout the store: As of early Thursday morning, most of the songs I checked, in a decidedly unscientific survey, still had 30-second samples.

But my hunch is that Apple will adopt the 90-second standard as widely as it can, and that the inconsistency we’ve seen so far is just because it hasn’t gotten around to changing everything yet.

For instance, if you want to sample the Beatles’ version of “Twist and Shout”, you can hear 90 seconds of the song, but you can only hear 30 seconds of “Day Tripper.” Etc.

The only consistency I’ve found so far is that no Sony acts seem to offer the extended samples. But, again, my gut is that’s a temporary aberration.

Meanwhile Amazon, which runs a very distant second to iTunes in digital music sales, seems to still be offering the shorter samples.

Here is one of the oddest videos out on the Web right now.

It’s a six-minute ad for a Norwegian television talk show called “Gylne Tider” in which a strange collection of some very whatever-happened-to celebrities lip-synch to the Beatles’ “Let It Be.”

There is former James Bond, Roger Moore; former George Costanza, Jason Alexander; former skating thug Tonya Harding.

And many, many more:

Answer: Nope. Consumers had room for two million Fab Four songs, and another 450,000 albums in their digital catalogs, it turns out. That’s from EMI, via Billboard.

Top album: “Abbey Road.” Top song: “Here Comes the Sun.” Both excellent choices.

Probably didn’t hurt that the George Harrison song is one of the ones Apple is using in its new campaign. Also, it’s a great freaking song:

The really important point to make about the Beatles on iTunes, at least from Apple’s perspective: It will be be nice for the company if it sells a lot of Beatles songs. But it’s really great for them that they get to advertise iTunes using Beatles songs.

And remember, once people get to iTunes, it doesn’t matter to Apple if they buy Beatles songs, Angry Birds or episodes of “House.”

You can put a price on that kind of marketing campaign. But whatever Apple paid (I have a hunch it was a big sum, at least part of which was up front), it will end up getting its money’s worth.

And while Warner, and the rest of the industry, had been hoping that Google might launch a music service that would give sales a boost this year, that doesn’t look likely. The new hope: Google arrives sometime next year.

That’s the line from Warner CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. during his company’s earnings call this morning. Bronfman said he’s hoping that Google and other services “will come online in calendar 2011,” and that they’ll create “very significant opportunity both for consumers and the music industry.”

Any more detail than that? Nope.

But Bronfman did have a few nice things to say about Spotify, the much-hyped music service that has yet to launch in the U.S. Warner has renewed its European licensing deal with the service, which offers both free and subscription options, and Bronfman murmured some hopeful things about getting something done in America.

In Europe, the new Spotify deal “was a long time coming, [and] was not easy for us, and not easy for them,” Bronfman said, and says he’s “hopeful” the two companies can reach an agreement.

As I’ve previously reported, music sources say that Spotify and Sony have essentially reached an agreement for a U.S. launch. And the consensus seems to be that the service is close to getting something done with Universal Music Group, the world’s largest label.

So the question for Spotify is whether it needs to get Warner on board before it can launch in the U.S., something it continues to insist it wants to do this year.

Spotify officials have previously said that they’d only go forward with three of the big four labels on board, which makes sense–no point in launching a service that doesn’t have lots of the music people want to hear.

On the other hand, if the Spotify guys wait to get Warner–or EMI Music Group, the other major label–on board before launching, they could get held up for quite some time.

Speaking of EMI Music, what does Bronfman think of the label’s deal with Apple that brought the Beatles to iTunes? He thinks what most of you think: “I don’t know how impactful, after 10 or 12 years of digital business, their coming to iTunes will be,” he said.

But it does give Apple the ability to run a very cool marketing campaign, and that will get more people into iTunes. And that’s good for Warner–and everyone else who sells stuff there.

*You really can’t stress this point enough: We’re a decade past Napster, but the music industry still runs on CD sales. In Warner’s case, digital now accounts for 25 percent of overall revenue.

Beatles songs are finally available in Apple’s iTunes store. But ATD’s Peter Kafka says that iTunes is all about apps these days, while digital music sales have flattened out–and even the Fab Four may have a hard time changing that.

The deal was outlined by Jeff Jones, chief executive of the Beatles’ corporate entity, Apple Corps Ltd., and Roger Faxon, CEO of EMI Group Ltd., which owns and distributes the band’s recordings. The meeting took place at EMI’s London headquarters this past July 14, less than a month after Mr. Faxon took the reins at EMI.

Under the terms, Apple Inc.’s digital media store is the Beatles’ exclusive online retailer at least until January, Mr. Faxon said in an interview Tuesday, after the much-awaited deal was announced. It marks the first time that Beatles songs have been available for digital-download sales.

“Jeff and I sat down shortly after I arrived” as CEO of EMI, Mr. Faxon recalled. “We agreed this really was the moment to do this. After that it was very easy to cut a deal.” They code-named the initiative “Bastille,” as it coincided with Bastille Day.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Good question, says EMI Music, the label that distributes the band’s music.

Apple has exclusive digital rights for the Beatles “into 2011,” says spokesman Dylan Jones, and he notes that the exclusivity doesn’t expire on the first of January. But he confirms that the exclusivity does indeed have an expiration date.

So when that date comes, we should expect to see the Beatles everywhere else you can get music online, right? Namely Amazon, and the subscription services that rent music by the month, like Spotify, Rhapsody and Microsoft’s Zune? Or Google, if and when it launches its music service?

“That’s a question, isn’t it,” Jones says, and doesn’t offer more.

Couple of theories here:

• The easiest explanation is that the Beatles music will follow the path of other digital exclusives, and become widely available after Apple gets its run.
• It’s also possible that Apple and the Beatles will renew their exclusive before it expires. That hasn’t happened before, but if Steve Jobs really, really wants to make it work, I guess he could.
• The most intriguing possibility: The Beatles leave iTunes once their deal ends–and don’t come back to digital again. Seems silly, but big traditional media loves “windowing” their content, and I suppose someone might convince the band this would be a clever way to go–show up, make a splash, walk away and then try it again down the road, like a band that’s always going on a farewell tour. Hope not!

And Apple has an ad campaign cued up, of course.

If you’re the kind of person who keeps track of this stuff, you should note that the ads feature five songs:

• “I Want to Hold Your Hand”
• “All You Need Is Love”
• “Let It Be”
• “Yesterday”
• “Here Comes the Sun”

And if you’re really keeping count, you’ll note that there are two “Paul songs,” one “John song,” one “George song” and one “Lennon-McCartney song.” Alas, no Ringo.

Everything else is pretty straightforward, and designed to please both completists and samplers: $149 gets you the entire Beatles box set that the band put out a year ago on CD, or you can pick and choose.

If you really want to gripe, here’s something: Apple (and/or the band) doesn’t know how to handle the mini-songs on the second half of “Abbey Road” and has made the silly decision to sell them as individual tracks.

So if you really want to hear all 23 seconds of “Her Majesty,” but you don’t want to buy the whole album, you’ve got to shell out $1.29. But whatever. Buy the whole album.

And let’s be clear: Getting the band’s stuff on Apple’s store won’t fundamentally change anything.

• The band members will see more money. But they have plenty already.
• It’s possible that the Beatles’ label, EMI Music Group, may get enough short-term cash to keep it out of Citigroup’s hands. But there are very few of you reading this who care about that.
• Apple will see a spike in iTunes music sales. But Apple moved on from iTunes music sales a long time ago: ITunes is all about apps these days, and Steve Jobs would like it to be more about TV and movies, too. Meanwhile digital music sales flattened out this year, and even the Fab Four will have a hard time changing that.
• It does mean that bloggy types can stop making random guesses about when the Beatles will come to iTunes. So that’s pretty great, really.

And look. It’s cool that the band will be on iTunes. It’s embarrassing that it hasn’t been, but now that we’re past this, we can just consider the-better-late-than-never move a “pivot,” right? Fundamentally: More good music, available more places, is a good thing.

The thing I’m most interested to learn this morning (or whenever we do find out) is whether you’ll be able to buy the band’s output on a song-by-song basis. [UPDATE: Answered.]

If the band is trying to maximize revenue, it would try to force Jobs to break from store policy and sell their music in only album format. But that would be hypocritical, since the Beatles, like most other bands of their era, were about singles for a very long time.

And wouldn’t it be cool if you’d never heard “Flying” before, and then someone played you the trippy instrumental track from “Magical Mystery Tour,” and then, $1.29 later, you could be walking around with the tune in your iPod? Right?

What’s that? You’ve never heard “Flying” before? No problem: You can hear it on YouTube, of course:

And if you’re looking for other Beatles songs, Google’s video site is happy to oblige. They’ve even made a 41-song mix for you. No credit card required.

The deal resulted from talks that were taking place as recently as last week among executives of Apple, representatives of the Beatles and their record label, EMI Group Ltd., according to these people, who also warned that there is still a chance that Apple could change plans at the last minute.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Apple plans to make an iTunes-related announcement Tuesday at 7 am PT. “Tomorrow is just another day,” a notice on Apple.com reads. “That you’ll never forget. Check back here tomorrow for an exciting announcement from iTunes.”

Not much to work with there, though one could argue that “Check back here”–i.e., at Apple.com–suggests a Web-based iTunes Store. That said, “you’ll never forget” would seem to point to an “iTunes Anywhere” subscription service or some cloud-based version of iTunes. Which is what Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster is expecting as well.

“We believe Apple could announce a cloud-based iTunes service for content streaming to connected devices,” he said in a note to clients this morning. “Apple is developing a data center in Maiden, NC that we believe could serve as the hub for such a service. The company has indicated that the data center is on track to be completed by the end of CY10 and it will begin using it then. With Apple’s growing family of connected devices (iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Apple TV, and Macs) it only makes sense that Apple would deliver a cloud-based media service to leverage its competitive advantage in the space: devices. As part of this, the new Apple TV with limited storage, a lower price, and a focus on accessing content over the internet would fit in nicely. We see this device, and the potential iTunes cloud-based service, as a stepping stone for an all-in-one, connected Apple television.”

Seems a savvy guess to me, particularly since it’s been about a year since Apple bought streaming music outfit Lala and we haven’t yet seen anything come of that acquisition. ‘Course it could also just as easily be iOS 4.2 or the debut of the Beatles catalog on iTunes.

Peter Kafka has a few thoughts on this as well.

After yesterday’s press event at which Facebook and Microsoft declared their never-ending love for each other via a search integration into the Bing service of a lot of data from the powerful social networking behemoth, I sat down to talk about it with Yusuf Mehdi, a longtime exec at the software giant.

It is the first sign of a major deployment of a deal announced last year between Microsoft (MSFT) and Facebook.

The theme, according to Mehdi, who demoed the new social features and quoted the Beatles, was search with “a little help from your friends.”

After execs from both companies spent a lot of time air-kissing each other over the whole thing and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg happily threw some raspberries at search giant Google (GOOG), BoomTown sat down with Mehdi for an interview.

Here’s the video of that, done in an odd fake living room–no idea on the many old radios–at Microsoft’s Silicon Valley HQ:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101014/microsoft-bings-yusuf-mehdi-talks-about-facebook-search-lovefest/feed/ 4 http://allthingsd.com/20101014/apples-ping-wants-rock-and-roll-but-no-sex-and-drugs/ http://allthingsd.com/20101014/apples-ping-wants-rock-and-roll-but-no-sex-and-drugs/#comments Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:00:00 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=24506 Ping may never move beyond the “interesting idea, executed poorly” stage. But it might! And in any case, it’s Apple, so if you’re a music act you ignore it at your own risk.

Which means those acts need to create a “profile” for Steve Jobs’s social network. An Apple (AAPL) document making the rounds (Apple has confirmed its authenticity to me) explains how. You can read the whole thing at the bottom of this post.

Most of it concerns technical specs about things you don’t care about, like video formats. Here’s one part you might be interested in–some of Apple’s edicts regarding the content of artists’ profiles:

• Videos, photos, and text posts should not contain pornography, hate speech, racism, nudity, or any references to or depictions of drug use.
• Posts should not include advertisements or links to sites outside of iTunes.
• Posts should not contain links to other content providers.

The first item is sort of obvious, but still worth noting. Because theoretically, if the Beatles ever do make it to iTunes, they’re going to have a hard time promoting some of their songs. Like this one.

But that rule seems like the kind of thing that Apple can change or ignore at will–just like its “no porn except sometimes” ban in the iTunes app store. And anyway, artists have always found ways to put up with, or ignore, these kinds of restraints.

The rules about not posting to links outside of iTunes are more worrisome. Because it’s telling music acts to ignore the digital assets they’ve painstakingly built up on MySpace, Twitter, Facebook and anywhere else on the Web.

Makes sense for Apple, but not for anyone else.

artist_bestpractices_1.0-1

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101014/apples-ping-wants-rock-and-roll-but-no-sex-and-drugs/feed/ 3 http://allthingsd.com/20101013/liveblogging-the-bing-facebook-bromance/ http://allthingsd.com/20101013/liveblogging-the-bing-facebook-bromance/#comments Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:46:53 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=35474

BoomTown motored on down to the Microsoft campus in Silicon Valley on a fabulously sunny day to liveblog the latest Bing event.

The software giant is updating its search service, announcing deep integration–part of a deal announced last year–with Facebook.

The theme, according to Microsoft (MSFT) SVP Yusuf Mehdi, quoting the Beatles, was search with “a little help from your friends.”

Let’s hope it’s not: “Help, I need somebody.”

11:35 am PT: Mehdi kicks off the show, announcing the line-up, which includes Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Well, it just got 100 percent more interesting here in this nondescript auditorium.

Mehdi talks a little bit about the future of search and making it better. He talks about social being an important part of it.

While I’d have gone with Barry Manilow, he quotes the Beatles.

Mehdi is followed by Microsoft Online Services Division President Qi Lu, who throws more love bombs at Facebook.

“With the partnershop of Facebook and Bing, we will be able to unlock…how people in a social relationship can be first-class citizens in a search experience,” said Lu.

It sounds so lofty, even though it is mostly trading movie review recommendations or good places to take the kids on a rainy Sunday.

Lu thanks Zuckerberg effusively and invites him onstage.

11:54 am: No hoodie.

Zuckerberg is also “honored to be here,” giving us a little history lesson about the origins of the social networking giant and its various and sundry efforts.

I’ll be honest, the lack of donuts is making me distracted.

He’s not actually saying more than bromides about “what would social search look like.”

And looking around at who would be the right partner in the arena. Microsoft! Of course! That giant investment way back when was nice too!

“They’re really the underdog here,” said Zuckerberg in the first interesting comment, noting that overdogs–that would be Google (GOOG), which he does not mention by name–never innovate much.

His take: Underdogs are the best.

12:01 pm: Mehdi is back to show off the wares in a demo.

First, what’s there. Web search in Facebook and Facebook status updates on Bing.

Zzzzzzzz. Get to the good stuff!

First, a module that brings in a Like module from Facebook into the search, with all the other information provided by Bing.

It is, said, Mehdi, particular for a person.

“This is going to profoundly change how we search,” he said of personalized experiences.

Mehdi also shows off a way to differentiate your friends who have names of famous people, who are the ones who come up on search first.

Interesting, but people search is not the biggest problem I have.

He also says more is coming, such as friend experts surfacing in search and Like in every result on a page that it was possible. Yipes!

Also, thank the Lord, the ability to turn it off.

12:15 pm: Now Facebook exec Dan Rose comes up and starts talking about the Facebook-Microsoft bromance.

Apparently, four years is an eternity in Silicon Valley in terms of a relationship.

Actually, four weeks is long, so congrats you two crazy kids!

I’d celebrate with a donut if they were here.

“More and more” social in Bing, said Rose.

It’s a match made in digital heaven!

12:22 pm: Q&A time!

So what more? The press is so unsatisfied! Yes, we are.

Zuckerberg takes the lead. New interfaces! More!

A privacy question. “This is Instant Personalization,” said Zuckerberg, who said that Facebook has five partners in that effort.

He explains Instant Personalization, saying he wants to clear up misconceptions.

It’s private enough, you oversharers!

“Just because it is all public information about you, this is really good,” he said.

But is it by default? Of course, it is. That’s Facebook modus operandi!

Opt-out should be tattooed on employees at Facebook as a requirement.

Bing does put up a warning at the top of the page, but only five times. Then, you need to go foraging to turn it off.

Next: Does Bing search queries get sent back to Facebook? Not necessarily.

But, “everything is going to be social eventually,” said Zuckerberg, as long as it is public.

Public is apparently the new black.

More questions about new Facebook Groups and other deets, none of which is that bracing.

Apropos of nothing, I am considering asking a question about the ever-exciting Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) scandal, just to jack up the volume.

I try to ask a question about Zuckerberg’s underdog comment, but no more time.

But Zuckerberg sort of addresses it, going on about why he has picked Microsoft as the favorite.

While he does not say it, it’s because Facebook is the overdog here and, as you know, every overdog needs an underdog.

Speaking of cartoon heroes, here is the opening of that classic television show:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101013/liveblogging-the-bing-facebook-bromance/feed/ 4 http://allthingsd.com/20100925/apple-makes-some-progress-with-ping-still-a-long-way-to-go/ http://allthingsd.com/20100925/apple-makes-some-progress-with-ping-still-a-long-way-to-go/#comments Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:58:18 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=23863 Apple has made a small but important change to Ping that improves it considerably. It’s not enough to make the much-maligned social network a real winner, but it’s a good start: An update to iTunes now allows you to interact with Ping directly from your music player, instead of having to make a visit to Ping itself.

So now you can recommend songs to your friends, and see the music they recommend, at the same you’re actually listening to songs.

It’s a such an obvious feature that it’s hard to believe that Apple (AAPL) didn’t include it in Ping’s launch. But that just shows you how rough that launch has been. (Click image to enlarge)

And even this tweak shows you how far Ping needs to go to be a genuinely useful service. For starters, it’s still tethered much too closely to Apple’s music store: If Apple doesn’t sell a song, for instance, Ping doesn’t really care what you think. So don’t bother recommending a Beatles tune.

Ping also doesn’t track what you play, even though Apple’s own “Genius” recommendation service does (as do competitors like Last.fm). That could be quite a useful feature, given proper opt-in privacy options.

But most important is that Ping lives in a gated suburb that most of your friends never visit. If Apple is really serious about social, then it has to find a way to integrate Ping with Facebook, Twitter and the rest of the networks your pals are already using. My hunch is that we’ll see that eventually.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100925/apple-makes-some-progress-with-ping-still-a-long-way-to-go/feed/ 6