(Several Peer Impact users and developers have pointed out errors in my summary of Peer Impact, below. I am resurfacing this post with corrections in bold type.)
As of now, it looks as if Mashboxx and
Peer Impact will be the two first authorized P2P services; both are scheduling
summertime launches. It seems that Peer Impact is a little further along and is accepting beta testers now. Peer Impact
targets a middle ground between a traditional download store like iTMS and a P2P environment; the half-million-track
catalog is licensed and wrapped in the same sort of copy-protection that governs use of Napster To Go tracks.
[This is wrong. Napster To Go is a rental program, not a purchase program like Peer Impact, and its files are
wrapped differently. Peer Impact permits burning and transferring.] The main difference from a user's
viewpoint is that downloads are acquired from other users; if nobody else has purhcased a track you want, then Peer
Impact serves it to you directly. Once you own a track, you are encouraged to keep Peer Impact running all the time,
making your library available to other users. When you participate in an upload, you earn Peer Cash—service credit that
can be accumulated and used to buy music. Peer Impact saves bandwidth expenses by distributing the workload, and users
enjoy rewards that might be compared to frequent flyer miles.
The Peer Impact client is attractive, and prices are based on the iTMS model—99 cents per track with variable album
costs. The usual array of community features are implemented, slanted toward enabling active users to promote their own
collections, upsell tracks, and collect credits. A FAQ is here;
screen shots here.
What will be the advantage of using Peer Impact as a favorite online music source? Time will tell; the selling points
seem lightweight. The strongest appeal of unauthorized P2P is its long tail; Peer Impact's catalog is lass than half as
big as Napster or Rhapsody—proportionally even smaller compared to iTMS. Download speeds will not be faster than
centralized serving, most likely. [This point is argued by Peer Impact developers. I do not retract my
statement, for what it's worth. See this thread in the Peer Impact forums.] As to reward
credit, it's hard to imagine most consumers caring that much about earning five percent (the maximum reward) of a
99-cent track. [This is wrong. Users earn five percent of each upload; a single track can earn back it entire
price in 20 upload participations. I knew that; my sleep-deprived error in thinking made the next sentence
possible…] Entrepreneurial types might hope to built up massive credit, but to do so one must first purchase a
deep library. [This is less true than stated. A purchased library of any size could earn back more than its
cost. There is clear entrepreneurial opportunity here.] Oh—and iPod users needn't bother; the WMA-wrapped
files can't get into their devices.
Peer Impact is a model, and its chief purpose might be as a benchmark. The sheer existence of an authorized P2P
service opens doors. Mashboxx will be next, fueled by
Snocap's registry service. The times are
hopeful, but the music industry doesn't get one crucial point: It's all about access. Every query must be fulfilled, or
the service simply isn't part of the on-demand world.
1. What does authorized mean? This is a bunch of crap. Authorized by whom? The RIAA? What about software developers? What about individual artists? They could easily sue users of Peer Impact or Mashboxx just the same the RIAA sues users of Limewire or eDonkey. Content is authorized, not file-sharing software.
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Messenger