I have had free satellite radio for six months, and because it "SUCKS!" I still choose to listen to music that I choose. So I am not trying to promote either Pandora or discredit Slacker. Though based on the names and the interfaces, the choice is pretty simple right off the bat.
You talk about streaming, you talk about the old days, you get mad at those who don't embrace technology changes and lament for the 'old' days of music. The thing TIm Westergen is telling people to write their Congressmen about will affect all 'radio,' and yes, Slacker as well. But that is a compeltely different topic.
It seems TIm has found a way to utilize an ad based free model. What is Slacker's model? They are banking on downloads and people paying for the premium option. My guess is they don't survive too much longer. The thing about Pandora is the more you use it, the more it knows your interest. PAtience is a virtue here, and you don't have to be a music guru to figure it out. Either you like it or you don't. It is a adaptable recommendation system.
Recommendaiton systems are the thing that are going to separate these types of businesses in the long run-- technology will plane out, options will be the same--- and the recommendation system that requires the least input from the user but can generate the most focused resluts will be on top. As you said-- YOU have to FINE TUNE your station on Slacker. YOU do the work, YOU do the heavy lifting to get to the music you like. For hose that partake in entertainment in the 'lean back' mode, Slacker is not the option. For those that partake in music in a more interactive way, why not pay the $4 a month for a full on subscription service where you are limited by number of skips and music choice.
And that is the difference. Why point the finger at a smart guy like Tim who has tried something different and kept it afloat. Different services for different audiences, only I don't think Slacker really has an audience.
I am not promoting either service-- I've enjoyed Pandora at work from time to time, but still enjoy creating my own playlists and choosing the songs and artists I listen to. But the way you touted Slacker's service as better because as a listener you had to do all the work, completely missed the point of what streaming recommendation based Internet 'radio' is trying to do.
Do you drink and type sometimes, because it sure seems like it. I know there are times when I do - this is not one of those times.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
no line on that horizon - choruss and its stupidity
this interaction with my own social media is a ephemeral task. but i do enjoy partaking from time to time.
here i sit drinking cold saki and listening to an illegal version of the new U2 album-- and i feel okay about that illegal bit because i have already pre-ordered the album and paid for it. i am a firm upholder of copyright law and IP rights-- but come on, discovery is the best market. i have already encouraged multiple music fans to buy the album because of my thoughts on it. and i still paid for it.
bringing me to the topic of Warner Bros. effort of Choruss. An organization to place a royalty fee into college tuition to help pay for the enormous amount of money lost because college students are 'illegally downloading' music as opposed to buying it. i argue that they probably don't have the funds to pay for it in the first place, and i doubt it is truly the college students that are 'file sharing- downloading- p2ping music content' that is disrupting the music industry. i pity the exec that truly believes so. how can a demographic that has little expendable income affect a market so? they are looking for handouts and it is a sad day if universities would allow them to encroach on the tuition fees they already charge. would love to see the oversight in this transaction... charging a blanket fee that will somehow reimburse copyright holders? i fear not. i say, let the dinosaurs die out as they hold onto aged incumbent ideas of their business--
if you are going to go after the money- there are better ways than targeting college students. seriously.
create better content- break the mold and distribute in ways that make sense. forget the p2p networks. they only exists because of the restrictions that old dinosaurs want to attach. focus on content-- cutting corners only works for so long. it is arrogant to think that an industry can create its own market, especially in a market founded on art -- listen to those that make up your market and you can see a better path to go down.
...or sue college students, or tax their tuition-- that sounds like a good answer for the music industry....
An idea like Choruss is absolutely wrong. it is defeat and submission all in the same action.
here i sit drinking cold saki and listening to an illegal version of the new U2 album-- and i feel okay about that illegal bit because i have already pre-ordered the album and paid for it. i am a firm upholder of copyright law and IP rights-- but come on, discovery is the best market. i have already encouraged multiple music fans to buy the album because of my thoughts on it. and i still paid for it.
bringing me to the topic of Warner Bros. effort of Choruss. An organization to place a royalty fee into college tuition to help pay for the enormous amount of money lost because college students are 'illegally downloading' music as opposed to buying it. i argue that they probably don't have the funds to pay for it in the first place, and i doubt it is truly the college students that are 'file sharing- downloading- p2ping music content' that is disrupting the music industry. i pity the exec that truly believes so. how can a demographic that has little expendable income affect a market so? they are looking for handouts and it is a sad day if universities would allow them to encroach on the tuition fees they already charge. would love to see the oversight in this transaction... charging a blanket fee that will somehow reimburse copyright holders? i fear not. i say, let the dinosaurs die out as they hold onto aged incumbent ideas of their business--
if you are going to go after the money- there are better ways than targeting college students. seriously.
create better content- break the mold and distribute in ways that make sense. forget the p2p networks. they only exists because of the restrictions that old dinosaurs want to attach. focus on content-- cutting corners only works for so long. it is arrogant to think that an industry can create its own market, especially in a market founded on art -- listen to those that make up your market and you can see a better path to go down.
...or sue college students, or tax their tuition-- that sounds like a good answer for the music industry....
An idea like Choruss is absolutely wrong. it is defeat and submission all in the same action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
