Friday Fives at Six: music

Showing posts with label music. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Another music site

I came across this website, called StereoMood.com recently, but it does a good job of playing music by theme. I've been digging it lately. It's not fantastic for discovery, like hype machine is, but it has the benefit of playlists by 'mood', so you don't have to think for yourself.

No time for a full write-up, but it plays with limited lag, even at my office that seems to throttle anything that might help me enjoy my day. So, that's a big plus.

Monday, January 5, 2009

Hype Machine: Just let music bloggers influence you!

There are a bunch of music sites trying to introduce you to new music and stream it to you for free. They use algorithms based on the characteristics of the music (Pandora), on what your friends like or on what people you don't know but who like the same musician also like (last.fm). There are a bunch of others, too (like tumblr, 8tracks, Shazam with its iPhone app, and SeeqPod).

There are also a lot of people deliberately trying to influence your taste in music. Tons of them are blogging about songs they want you to like. Hype Machine pulls these blogs into one place so you can let these bloggers be influential. You can listen to the music, and if you want to read the review, you can click through to read the blog post.

I'm not sure what the legal requirements for them are, but these bloggers write about songs and add tracks to their posts. I'm guessing some get taken down and a lot are remixes (which may help avoid some copyright issues?). But you can listen to the site like a radio station, add songs and blogs to your favorites (and tweet about it) and connect with friends, or you can click through to buy the track from Amazon, eMusic or iTunes (which is how they make money).

What's great is that right now, they're rounding up the top 50 artists, albums and songs of 2008 and releasing them over the course of this week. The 2008 Zeitgest is available here, powered in part by imeem, and embedded below. Though, not all albums are streaming full versions of every song from imeem.

I'd love to know what music sites you use. I'm bballan on basically all of them, so hit me up with a friend request.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

MP3s vs. M4P: Don't risk needing to buy The White Album again

Image via WikipediaIsn't it weird how everyone refers to any music file as an MP3? Like Kleenex, Xerox and Rollerblade it's a recognized brand name. What you probably don't know is that you aren't buying MP3's from iTunes.

You're buying M4P files. They have DRM (Digital Rights Management) so that you can only load it onto Apple devices. That's not a big deal for as long as you own an iPod, but the second someone else makes a better device, you'll be out in the cold on your music library. [There are ways around it, but it's a load of trouble.]

I bring it up because I read some stats claiming that Amazon's music store is a flop because it's just not as easy to use as iTunes so people aren't buying it. I recently bought a bunch of music from Amazon's webstore. It was very easy. On my mac after purchase, Amazon has you install a download manager which automatically imports your songs to the iTunes library. Totally easy, basically one step and the best part is that I'll be able to take my music with me on any device I ever buy without hassle.

The only other piece of advice I can give is to change some of the settings in the Preferences window. Under Advanced, make sure two boxes are checked. First, 'Keep iTunes Music folder organized'. Second, 'Copy Files to iTunes folder when adding to library'. For me, when I download a new song from Amazon or an audiobook from Audible, I just open it with iTunes and it is organized automatically in my folder and in my Library.

The bottom line: it's your music. Make sure you know how to keep it in your control. You don't want to be a victim like you were when they made the switch from cassettes to CDs and were forced to buy the White Album again, do you? [Not that The Beatles are actually available digitally, yet].

Thursday, December 11, 2008

The perfect set-top box: it's about the pipes and the remote

What would the ideal set top box have in it?
It definitely needs tv, maybe games, and it has to connect to my existing downloaded content and the most importantly it needs the internet (a DVD player would be nice, too, in the short term).

#1 on the list is definitely television content. There is hardly a way for anyone to do without the content regularly delivered via the cableco. Most content can be had on demand, but the live events and news are always going to need to be streamed. The 'guide' that shows you what is on and when is probably the biggest advancement of content consumption since the tv was invented. And yet, the potential is so much higher.

What about a google search? Or relevant information about what I'm watching? What about bringing my fantasy team into a page on the guide that updates in real time while I watch football (it's been possible for at least 2 years)? What about the recipe being made on the cooking show I'm watching? Or the IMDB page for the movie I'm watching? Maybe overlay it on the screen. Yahoo is still working on tv widgets, which is the beginning of a solution.

The point is there is lots of secondary content relevant to what I'm watching on tv that would be great to have along side it. There are opportunities for ads in the guide, which might bring the gatekeeping cablecos along. The box could provide suggestions of what to watch (like TiVo) but from the full content library (Hulu, Netflix, etc), not just previously recorded programs.

Which gets me back to a point I've been making for a long time: cable cos suck. By making it so hard for people to hack their own set-top box together, they have limited innovation substantially. There's nothing about what I've suggested above that you couldn't already do on your pc. The hard part today is incorporating the tv, which the cable companies walled-in (CableCARD was a poor attempt to fix that).

The biggest problem with existing set-top boxes is that they can only have one cable input, compared to the cableco box that has two (so you can record one thing while watching something else). Any 3rd party set-top box you get you has to take the one output that would normally go to the TV and be in the middle, which eliminates the two source possibility. This has managed to get me to pay them $7 a month per box. TiVo charges $12 per month. I do believe that they have a better product and it would be worth paying more for, except that they can't get two sources if you have digital cable. Has a culture that used to buy VCRs and DVD players really abandoned the hardware model? I'm not that sure. So, why can't people continue to pay a portion of a monthly charge to the cable company with the rest going to a company like TiVo, who also gets to sell the hardware. I really think people would pay for a the right hardware with the right software (I still believe Boxee could be that software).

With Obama talking about national broadband, there is a chance we can cut the power of cablecos and make everyone get a richer experience. It's possible, we nationalized the highways once-but that's another post (hopefully coming soon, but requiring actual research).

So, how would you control the ideal box I've been describing which has tons of different features and configurations. With a touch screen remote (like the ipod touch-which I mentioned wanting to use as a remote way back when). But, the tv experience is often a lean-back experience, the tactile feel of a real remote makes browsing without looking away from the tv much easier. Well, you could do like the old palms and have people learn different gestures to do specific tasks, or a swipe across the screen could change modes. But that might not be ideal. I think I would want like 4-5 physical keys to switch to my favorite settings/modes and a home screen with everything else. But, that's a more tactical implementation discussion. I believe people would get past it or that you could solve the browsing issues by having a full keyboard as well.

The remote really is the key. You could get Picture-In-Picture with the remote as a screen with little speaker to keep an eye/ear on when the game comes back from commercial. It could be where you keep your fantasy scores (or otherwise replace the laptop on the coffee table). The finger flick of the iphone would be a good way to browse the program guide without bringing it up on the screen if desired.

The beauty of the touchscreen interface is that its a blank canvas so you can do anything with it. The question is whether we are over engineering this solution. I might be in this exercise, but I think we could all stand to get more from our tv experience.

How would you change it?

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Boxee Money Makers

[So, immediately after I mentioned horror stories in cable company customer service, I got great service from my cableco. Although, that was in response to the literally immediate failing of my television and internet. Conspiracy? Prob not, unless it goes down tonight too]
Here are some of my ideas for Boxee to generate revenue. I'm focusing mostly on the video services, but Boxee also provides the ability to listen to music. [Also, please understand that I could talk for hours about each of these options. I tried to balance brevity with background.]

1. Get onto the cable or telco's set top boxes.
Cable companies control the television through their cable boxes. Getting into those boxes opens up a new world of potential user to your software.
This has to be the most unlikely of all of my suggestions because the cable companies don't want to give up control over the television. TiVo has been trying this strategy for a while with limited success. Even though they have gotten themselves on some Comcast and DirecTV boxes as a premium service, these agreements haven't reached their full potential. The cable monopolies continue to dominate. IPTV services like U-VERSE and FiOS might want a differentiator (which FiOS brought with whole home DVR).
However, for a long time the music industry thought it had a nice monopoly. As the distribution and consumption habits changed, Apple has taken control of nearly everything through iTunes (even though their DRM should turn off consumers and drive them to Amazon, but that's another post). Itunes even has made inroads into downloaded television programs and if they ever decide to focus on AppleTV, it could put a lot of pressure on the incumbent boxes. Maybe it's time for the cable companies to get out in front of this thing. The right software on an existing box can transform that loud, slow, unextensible box into something really strong. [Aside: it's amazing how lacking the existing boxes are. People are forced to put up with it because they don't know what could be better, but that's another post].
Why shouldn't the cable companies be happy to take $7 a month (what they get now) from any number of set top boxes and let box keep the premium above that?

2. Get on ANY set top box
There are tons of companies working on being the set top box that finally bridges the gap between computer and television. It seems unlikely that many of them will be able to successfully make their value proposition work to end consumers, unfortunately. The low chance of success of these companies could be an opportunity for Boxee to be basically outsourced UI design and help them conserve cash (especially right now). If you can be the software on every box, you can be the Microsoft of home media. You can make it easier for people to switch between boxes because of the common interface. That could drive hardware sales similar to sales of stereos and VCRs in years long since passed. Which could appeal to today's hardware companies.
Obviously this plan probably has a lot more development costs associated with it. Think of why they chose to build on Apple machines first, one type of hardware makes development way easier.

3. Make deals with content providers
Similar to how Netflix made a deal with Roku, why couldn't Boxee make a deal with Netflix? Why couldn't Boxee make deals with every content provider, Including the traditional networks?
If CBS needs more eyeballs watching its shows, wouldn't they be willing to pay a share of revenue for those eyeballs? Obviously, Boxee could be more targeted in its advertising than traditional television (as all new media products propose to be) so that should have value to advertisers and in turn content providers. This would be low-risk for the providers as it could be completely variable pricing based on the impressions, potentially with guarantees, etc.
Further, who knows how Hulu will be operating in a few years. Hulu could be buyers of original content not shown on TV first and basically become the world's first online 'network' with syndicated and original content (Boxee could become that as well, but Hulu has the head start here). That makes companies like Hulu and Joost and even YouTube potential partners (assuming they can figure out their own sufficient revenue streams).

4. Sell premium content
If Boxee provides the on-demand viewing we've all been waiting for, in addition to the helping us discover new content that we want, Boxee could sell downloads, rentals, individual channels (like a la carte pricing IPTV has been promising).
You can even leverage the social networks that Boxee is tapping into. When a friend buys a program, you could let them share a version that has commercials in it. Potentially, a whole load of friends would be buying the same content.

5. Launch an app store for plug-ins
Similar to how Apple does it with the iPhone. They provide value in the being the operating environment. If they can make plug-ins easy to buy and install, people might do it, but there are major hurdles to clear in order to get people to pay and download anything. Depending on how the above strategies play out, you may still have only a core of users who dowloaded Boxee already, in which case they would be more likely to pay for add-ons. I'm not sure exactly what those add-ons would look like, but that's why it's an app store and not a feature request. This is can be considered a modified 'freemium' model.

When I first wrote these down, I thought they were groundbreaking (or at least creative). Are they still that way? I'm not as sure. When I finally get to my post about the ideal mediacenter (based on technology that is around today), it will be more clear where I'm coming from.

However, Boxee's focus on Apple and Linux gives it a great foundation with people who are generally ready to find and install software. It also makes a bet on Boxee look a lot like a bet on Apple. The only real concern is whether they might be too early.

As always, readers, the floor is yours. What do you think?

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Boxee brings your content and the internet's to your TV (well, computer)

Image via CrunchBaseImage via CrunchBaseVery few people that I know have Macs or run Ubuntu (Linux). Otherwise, I would have written about this program earlier.

Boxee is a great program that brings content from your computer and the internet to your computer. It's very easy to use, and though still in an alpha (read: very early) stage, it runs reliably with video quality as good as your sources. The major drawback is that it only runs on Apple or Linux machines (you can also hack it onto an AppleTV pretty easily). Frankly, this program has had me checking out how cheaply I could get a Mac Mini on eBay to plug into my TV (not cheaply enough, I might repurpose an old windows PC with linux, though a proper video card is expensive and might be tough to make work). Currently, I'm using a DVI to HDMI cable from my Macbook Pro to get the video onto my TV--it works great. The Apple Remote works to easily browse through the interface to access the different content. Also, you can pull in video RSS feeds, like the TED conference videos.

In addition to the typical mediacenter features, it has social aspects as well. You can set up friends (yes I have invites, just ask!) and recommend shows that you watch to friends with boxee or connect it to twitter to tell the world how much you loved $100 Baby.

Overall, the features of this product are great, assuming you already have hardware that can run it. For more on how to use Boxee check the links at the end of the post. Here's a video intro:

quick intro to boxee from boxee on Vimeo.

More importantly, it's part of the trend towards getting your tv to act as the on-demand device that was promised in that IBM commercial that I referenced when I first wrote about Hulu. This is an amazing trend and one that I have been looking forward to for years. Every major network has full length episodes online. The NCAA streamed March Madness games live online last year (though not in HD, which made it tough suboptimal when I plugged my computer into my TV via VGA). Meanwhile, nearly everyone has a horror story of dealing with the cable company that has a monopoly on providing your service. Maybe Boxee (along with all of the recent set top boxes being made) can be the beginning of a major change in the way we treat our cable infrastructure. This is a topic that I've been meaning to bang out a post about for a while. So, I'll stop here for now.

Boxee raised $4MM from some very respectable VCs in Fred Wilson from Union Square Ventures Bijan Sabet from Spark Capital to join its board. So, next up for Boxee is to find revenues. I have a lot of ideas about how they could make it happen, which is the topic of another post that has been in the works for a while (and that I've been telling anyone who will listen, along with what the ideal mediacenter looks like). Not surprisingly, Fred is anti-hardware for Boxee the company (but loves the mac mini as a mediacenter), so that's out of the picture.

So, if you have a mac or run linux, let me know and I will happily send you an invite to Boxee!

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Coming Home

Justin Bias, one of the up and coming stars of tomorrow just released his debut album, Coming Home. I've gotten my hands on an advance copy and already ripped and posted it to the internet on another cool website, called muxtape. It's literally a website where you can go and create mix tapes.

There's even another website, called muxfind that helps you search for people with taste similar to yours (assuming you posted a muxtape).

Anyways, go check out Justin's work. Then, when you decide you like it, go pick up a copy!

Unfortunately, you'll have to get a physical copy rather than download it because Justin is totally indie (as in independent) so you can't get it from the Amazon music store or iTunes, yet. One day, distribution could be centralized. That is, after the labels figure themselves out.

Sunday, April 6, 2008

The Future of Music [Rant]

The launch of muxtape (which you should check out) has lead a lot of people to talk about the future of music. I thought I would take this chance to throw my two cents out into the fray. (Not all of these are original arguments, but when I first had this discussion they were pretty novel)

About two years ago, when I was looking to switch jobs, I interviewed with Warner Music Group's Digital Strategy group. I was drawn to the position because I thought that they were faced with one of the biggest challenges a large company has faced maybe since the best horse carriage maker had to deal with the Model T. After a few rounds of interviews, I was having a discussion with one of the guys on the team about what the real value add is of the record labels. My opinion is that before the internet and crowd-sourcing and wiki's and all that other great stuff that has made finding great content easier (and actually possible), the record companies had a HUGE and valuable role. They were the tastemakers, manufacturers and distributors. They 'discovered' the artists, they helped them produce the music and then they distributed and marketed it. They controlled the entire value chain because they provided access to resources unavailable to starving musicians-and they were good at it.

Once upon a time, recording studio time was unfathomably expensive because of all the intense equipment (in addition to the expensive producers/technicians in there). Then, assuming that a hit single came out of that session, you still had to get someone somewhere to play it. Sure, a band could play some small venues and keep growing their fanbase, but to really hit it big, you needed radio play (or MTV, but that requires a music video and all those extra costs, too). If people actually wanted to buy your album, you would have make physical copies of it and get large quantities them to stores.

What's changed?

Almost everything. The cost of production is much lower. A band can get high quality recording equipment to use in the garage. Manufacturing is possible because making mp3s costs basically nothing and no one even buys CDs anymore. Furthermore, distribution is possible, because you could create a website or myspace page and offer downloads or shipping. Even iTunes might let some indie bands on there for a cut of the sales (basically the strategy they are using for iPhone apps). During my interview, I made the case that big record labels are losing a major portion of the value proposition they bring to musicians, big and small. Musicians might soon be confronted by the possibility that signing with a label might cost them more than its worth. Basically, giving the label its customary cut may not be as profitable as going it alone. Youtube videos and myspace pages can and are being used successfully to reach and interact with fans.

So, what do the labels have to offer?

Marketing. In the most recent past this was making big acts into huge acts. Going forward, how can they keep provide this value for the long tail of indie bands? I don't think they can, and I think we'll see a lot more small acts doing it on their own. Furthermore, as radio stations become less relevant, getting played is less important and another leg of the labels' value proposition is broken. The guy from WMG did not agree with my view. He seemed more concerned with wringing the last few pennies out of the last Snoop track by selling ring tones and putting music in video games. It seems to me that they were content to negotiate a royalty stream on their existing library (which is fine, but I think shortsighted).

If I was a record label, I would focus on my pipeline of new acts. When I interviewed with WMG, I made the additional point that the success of a record label is not tied to its own brand. When listeners want to hear a song, they aren't looking for the newest album produced by WMG. They're looking for acts that they like. What if WMG became really good at helping me find music that I would like? Pandora and last.fm already do a great job, so they might be too far behind already. But, presumably, the record labels have an expertise in A&R that could be leveraged (to borrow an obnoxious consulting term) to build a great channel for the average joe to discover new and exciting acts. There is already a ton of music out there that I've never heard or even heard about. And if production and distribution only get cheaper in the future, there will probably be even more music to never hear.

Isn't there some kind of value in the label as a brand? Couldn't the expertise in A&R be one of its core strengths? Maybe all of the value add is behind the scenes, and there will never be value in that brand to consumers, but the same was probably said about the chips in your computer, until Intel came along with the Intel Inside campaign.

What if there was a connection between me and the WMG brand similar to what I have with, for example, Zappos.com. I trust that if I get shoes from Zappos that don't fit, they'll replace it or refund my money. Well, why can't a record label build the same level of trust with its customers as a random website selling shoes? I see some difficulties. For example, the relationship is really between artist and listener. However, the label could help foster the first interaction between artist and listener. Like a music matchmaker setting you up on blind dates with music. The lawsuits also probably aren't helping.

So, where do we go from here? What's the future of music?

Fred Wilson, by all accounts a smart guy, thinks that we'll have completely on-demand music, with very few people actually interested in even downloading the tracks. Not only are people going to stop buying the physical CDs, they're going to stop downloading songs! He thinks the web services that provide the tracks will be ad supported, like today's radio stations. Or else, people will pay a penny each time the listen to a track on-demand. I think one of those (or both) will happen (though I don't see us abandoning our files entirely for ad supported music). This basically makes us all like the patrons of the arts from Beethoven's days, although we'll pay after the creation happens, rather than commissioning a symphony in C.

Am I right?

I don't know for sure and it's still too early to tell. However, In the two years since I interviewed with WMG, Radiohead and Trent Reznor have left labels to sell (or give away) their music on their own, both ventures seem to be successful (though Trent may not have felt it at first). Plus, I wouldn't want to have owned this stock.

Friday Fives at Six