The service took one step toward wider distribution today when Apple (AAPL) approved its iPhone app (for a glimpse of the app, see the video at the bottom of this post). But that won’t help U.S. users until the big music labels–Warner Music Group (WMG), Sony (SNE), EMI and Universal Music Group–agree to American distribution deals.

But before we get to that, let’s back up and explain what Spotify is: A streaming-music service that lets you listen to whatever you want whenever you want, as long as you have a Web connection. A free version comes with ads, and if you want to do away with those, you can pay for a subscription.

Does that sound familiar? It should. There are plenty of models like this available in the U.S. right now, from RealNetworks’s (RNWK) Rhapsody to MySpace Music, a joint venture owned by News Corp.’s (NWS) social network and the big labels. For various reasons, equivalent (and legal) models have been much harder to come by in Europe, which explains part of the appeal there. The other explanation is that Spotify works beautifully.

But don’t take my word for it. Ask Slate.com columnist Farhad Manjoo (“The best streaming music service in the world”). Or better yet, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (“Spotify is so good”).

Meanwhile, investors–primarily European ones–have been throwing money at Spotify, and the big music labels’ international arms are enthusiastic partners (and equity shareholders). And the company’s boosters have been pointing to a U.S. launch as early as the fourth quarter of this year.

So let’s assume this happens. What then? The problem with the digital music business, as company after company has found out, is that it’s a miserable business:

• Selling music by the track is a low-margin affair that only works if you have enormous scale–Apple sells some two billion songs a year.
• It’s been nearly impossible to get more than a few hundred thousand people to pay a monthly fee for music–ask Rhapsody or Best Buy’s (BBY) Napster, which have been slogging away at this for years without gaining any traction.
• And it’s been impossible to support a free service with advertising while ponying up big licensing fees to the labels–ask Imeem, et al.

So why will Spotify be any different? Depends on whom you ask. Some figure that it has the best chance of working as a mobile service and that since phone users aren’t used to the idea of getting all the music they can eat on their phones for free, they’ll pay up if given the chance. Others think the big labels have gotten wiser and/or more benevolent about their licensing fees and are willing to wring less out of Spotify at the start in the hope that it will pay off down the road.

Still others just shrug and figure it will work out somehow because…well, one of these days, someone has to figure out how to make this work. “Everybody loves the product,” says an industry executive familiar with the company’s plans. “And there’s a hope that the business model is realistic.”

I have heard rumbling that not all of the big labels are equally enthusiastic about a U.S. licensing deal. It’s unclear whether that’s due to something specific about the U.S. market or to internecine squabbles at particular labels. But Spotify will need at least three of the big four to play along. And then we can see just how realistic the model really is.

And just to be clear: The video is a joke. But the preroll ads that run before it–the two I’ve seen before are for Amway and some kind of fast food chain called Red Robin–are real. I think. Also not a joke: The New York Times (NYT)  is surveying readers to see what they’d think of paying $5 a month for Web access to the paper.

In related news, tomorrow is the first annual “Freelancers put on your pants day,” according to ASSME, which is a sort-of-serious blog/support group formed in the wake of last fall’s mass layoffs.

But! The company does have some free advice about how papers could help themselves. For instance–maybe they should overhaul their Web sites.

That’s what Google (GOOG) exec Jonathan Rosenberg suggests. In a novella-sized blog post–Rosenberg modestly calls it a “treatise”–published earlier this week, the senior vice president ruminates about, well, everything. As I said, it’s really long.

But Rosenberg does spend some time thinking about the ways newspapers can deliver a better online product (thanks to Slate.com for highlighting):

…the old-fashioned business model of bundled news, where the classifieds basically subsidized a lot of the high-quality reporting on the front page, has been thoroughly disrupted.

This is a problem, but since online journalism is still in its relative infancy it’s one that can be solved (we’re technology optimists, remember?). The experience of consuming news on the web today fails to take full advantage of the power of technology. It doesn’t understand what users want in order to give them what they need. When I go to a site like the New York Times or the San Jose Mercury, it should know what I am interested in and what has changed since my last visit. If I read the story on the US stimulus package only six hours ago, then just show me the updates the reporter has filed since then (and the most interesting responses from readers, bloggers, or other sources). If Thomas Friedman has filed a column since I last checked, tell me that on the front page. Beyond that, present to me a front page rich with interesting content selected by smart editors, customized based on my reading habits (tracked with my permission). Browsing a newspaper is rewarding and serendipitous, and doing it online should be even better. This will not by itself solve the newspapers’ business problems, but our heritage suggests that creating a superior user experience is the best place to start.”

If the Googlers are technology optimists, I’m a business skeptic–I think that the best place for newspapers to start is by cutting costs and generating more revenue. But maybe I’m missing something. Would a better-designed New York Times site make you more likely to, say, pay for a subscription to the New York Times? Let me know.

In an unusual homecoming and odd job switcheroo between two Internet execs, former Yahoo media head Scott Moore is returning to Microsoft to lead its U.S. content efforts, according to many sources both inside and outside the company.

Moore (pictured here) will become U.S. executive producer, responsible for leading the content and programming strategy for the MSN online service. He will return to Microsoft’s Seattle area HQ in mid-March and report to Greg Nelson, GM of the MSN Global Media Group.

Microsoft (MSFT) declined comment about Moore’s new job, but sources said news of the appointment will be officially announced Monday.

But a memo about Moore’s new gig went out internally to some of the MSN staff earlier today, sources said. In fact, the return of Moore had been widely rumored inside Microsoft, even though there were several other internal and external candidates considered–including another former Yahoo, one source said–for the job.

Moore left Yahoo (YHOO), which was first reported here, last November due to unhappiness over the turmoil at the company and also to pursue a start-up idea he had about a local news site.

Moore even talked about the idea on the record with BoomTown (see video below), just as he was leaving Yahoo’s Santa Monica-based Media Group. Since he left Yahoo for good in December, Moore has been working on his start-up plans and took time off to go on a safari trip to Africa.

(Here’s a link to Moore’s Africa photos, in fact, which are quite good.)

But with the economic downturn making it harder for new start-ups to get funded on good terms, a desire to be back in the Seattle area, where his children live, and a new effort by MSN to compete better in the content business with top-ranked Yahoo, sources said Moore felt the powerful job at Microsoft would be a terrific challenge.

In what is a case of Web exec musical chairs, Moore had previously been replaced at Yahoo–in a rushed appointment–by Jeff Dossett. Dossett came to Yahoo from, wait for it, Microsoft, where he had held the job Moore is now taking.

In that move, also first reported here, Dossett was given a different title at Yahoo than Moore, as SVP of the U.S. Audience Group (Moore was SVP of the Media Group at Yahoo).

When he first started talking to Yahoo, Dossett (pictured here) was actually up for a job to run business development for Yahoo. But Moore’s sudden decision to leave had his boss, Yahoo’s EVP of U.S., Hilary Schneider, scrambling to fill the post. Dossett’s experience at MSN made him the obvious choice.

Now Moore’s appointment puts the pair in head-to-head competitive positions in the online content business, a clash that has been consistently won by Moore, when he had Dossett’s job at Yahoo and Dossett had Moore’s job at MSN.

Moore should also be comfortable at Microsoft and move into his job more easily. Previous to coming to Yahoo in mid-2005, he was president of MSNBC.com and publisher of Slate.com. He had worked at Microsoft for a decade.

Moore will oversee Microsoft’s involvement in the MSNBC.com joint venture again, along with all of Microsoft’s domestic content programming, which makes up a bulk of its efforts in the area.

And with Moore back on board, how MSN will better compete with the content juggernaut Yahoo is–due to Moore’s efforts, in part, and one of the troubled company’s stronger units–will be interesting.

That’s because Yahoo’s news, finance, sports and other properties typically rank as No. 1 online by far.

Time Warner (TWX) online unit AOL has also tried recently to improve its content offerings and has gotten some traction. It recently upped the ante with its new MediaGlow online studio effort of niche blog sites.

At the very back of this pack, Microsoft has made innumerable efforts in the content space over the years, mostly unsuccessful–Underwire!, Mungo Park!–and has settled more into the aggregation model.

But it still has a lot of interesting original content efforts under way, such as an unnamed celebrity-focused site property it is reportedly launching within the next week with former Yahoo media exec–and Moore’s former boss–Lloyd Braun.

Ironically, Moore launched a Yahoo celebrity site, omg!, initially pushed by Braun when he was at Yahoo, which has been successful.

Here is the video interview I did with Moore at his Yahoo going-away party about his future plans. Below that is another one I did when he was czar of Yahoo content, in which he talked extensively about the future of content on the Web.

EBay (EBAY) sellers are still trying to sucker buyers into paying extra for a copy of the Nov. 5 copy of the New York Times, but prices have come way down. This likely has to do with the fact that the Times (NYT) printed an extra 50,000 copies after the first run sold out.

Meanwhile, a MediaMemo correspondent reports from Washington D.C. that commemorative copies of the Washington Post’s special edition–which people stood in line to buy last week–are mounting up, unsold, throughout the city:

There are a lot of week-old commemorative edition newspapers available for the buying. I was at one Safeway and two 7-11s in Washington, all three flush with copies of the Post. And in NW DC there are side vendors–different guys from the news kiosks–selling stacks of them.”

But don’t gloat, Web publishers. Your Obama bump is diminishing, too. Take a look at this Hitwise data, via 24/7 Wall Street, that show what happens to political sites like Huffington Post, Slate.com and Politco in the aftermath of an election–their audience starts melting away.

All of the sites will tell you they’ve planned for that, of course. But they were probably also planning on an expanding market for Internet ad dollars. And that’s no longer a given.