By Invitation: TecnoMan reply
Ok, so what is the great thing about p2p music?
Well, let's forget for a moment that it is free. Obviously, that is
a great fact and clearly boosting p2p music transfer, but at
the same time this is an unsustainable model for the industry,
any industry. We will come back to the monetary discussion
later; that is for sure.
What are my needs as a consumer?
I want music and I want it now. Why wait to go to the store if
I can get it fast from my pc with an adsl connection? Digital
music is the future, no doubt about this.
Secondly, I want all the music. This is, current portals are only
serving certain music records music. Where is my music one-
stop-shopping? Some back-up for this assert follows:
excerpts from
http://mp3.about.com/od/buymp3music/gr/emusic_review.htm
emusic.com : “Half a million titles. Unfortunately, the major
music labels don't like this, so eMusic carries only independent
labels. While the selection of music is very large and the site is
easy to use, you won't find many popular tunes here.”
Itunes.com : “Over a million songs from all five major labels”
Weblisten.com : “site features over 250,000 MP3 and WMA
titles from top artists”
Realplayer.com : “The makers of the RealPlayer offer over
500,000 songs”
There are many more: walmart.com, napster.com, msn
entertainment,
This means you still need to have accounts in many portals in
order to get any music. Well, this is normal if you think that this
is also the case in brick-and-mortar music stores, where music
records do not distribute to all stores.
In the third place, I also want to listen to the music before I
buy it; this is possible already as many portals give you the
opportunity to listen 30 seconds of each track. As this is
normally done through streaming audio and not downloadable
files, some performance problems can spoil our user experience.
Now how does p2p compare to commercial portals in the
aspects mentioned below?
In p2p, current quality is very diverse, both in terms of
connection speed as well as availability of music. These
disadvantages are compensated by the fact that the user need
not pay for the music.
The “best sellers”, if such expression could be used, in p2p
music networks are in many cases large files compiling the
whole discography of a musician/group, which I find good if you
want to get to know new music. Clearly this does not exist in
the normal stores because it would be too expensive and thus a
niche market product.
The issue that Elius mentions is that there is no control over
ownership and therefore people decide not to pay – apart from
your morals, it is always faster not to pay ;) -. The only thing I
can say in favor of downloading music before paying is the right
to know, that is that the user can listen to the music before he
buys it. As I said earlier many portals allow this 30 sec test of
each track. Is this enough? Can we find ways to allow the user
to listen to the whole track and then decide? How can we
protect the music rights and give a good service at the same
time?
Let’s make a pause now and think about these issues.
Comments replies to what I’ve said so far are welcome.
Anyway, I promise more is about to come…
TecnoMan
Monday, May 30, 2005
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
(Soul?) Searching
Hi
have you tried Google desktop search (http://desktop.google.com/entpromo.html)?
I installed it last week.
It's scaringly effective. Superfast. Cached everything, I mean EVERYTHING in my computer. Which is very useful, as I was getting crazy since I could not find emails anymore. But is a little scary too. I think in the future, as we continue to be more and more online, it'll be the end of privacy. That's it...your life, open source.
Adios
Elius
have you tried Google desktop search (http://desktop.google.com/entpromo.html)?
I installed it last week.
It's scaringly effective. Superfast. Cached everything, I mean EVERYTHING in my computer. Which is very useful, as I was getting crazy since I could not find emails anymore. But is a little scary too. I think in the future, as we continue to be more and more online, it'll be the end of privacy. That's it...your life, open source.
Adios
Elius
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
010101010101 Music and Content - Part I
Hi...
last week I had a great debate with my superfriend "TechnoMan", around digital music and content. I want to open and summarize the discussion here. Since it's a pretty big subject, this is the first of a series of three postings (we could do also a prequel/sequel, like Star Wars, if you find it interesting...;)
The Debate - as it happened - in Brief
Over a nice dinner, "TechnoMan" started to talk about how he now has a huge library of digital songs. Since he's using Emule, Azureus, etc. music is just one click away and...free. He can use his music on his iPod, laptop etc. anywhere he wants, and use, share, manage the music as he wishes.
A Coronita in my hand, I reply that I think what is saying is an euphemism for stealing music, and I tell him that I don't think it's really so cool to steal music from the artists that make it. The difference between stealing a CD in a store and "downloading" music for free over the internet is that in a store there are anti-theft systems, guards and so on, plus they will have a physical proof that you actually took something without paying.
"TechnoMan" reply is twofold: first, the world of content is changing, and we are moving from a phisical world to a digital world. The music industry better provides an alternative to paying €20 for a CD, and does this quickly, if it wants to survive. Second, the intention of people who use Emule etc. is not to undermine the artists who produce the music, by to cut the "middle-man" out of the process. Most of the €20 paid for a CD goes to distributors, marketing the artist, Sony etc. The portion that goes to the artist is minimal.
I replied by saying that, although I agree with the fact that €20 is an excessive price for a CD, I also believe that it's not only money that goes to evil marketing and advertising, but is money that goes out to fill the "transactional costs" implicit in the fact that on one side we have a huge demand for music and content, and on the other we have a big, fragmented offer (the artists) and somehow the two have to meet. This is what the role of music distribution is about and is not so evil after all. They are companies, and they have to make a profit.
"TechnoMan" quickly said that the Internet was doing exactly that funtion: in a very democratic way, people and artists are able to meet in a virtual space. Unknown artists with a good product can meet wide audiences, and are actually happy if their music is discovered and spread to many people. Plus, he said he would not mind paying a small price for the music, provided it would go directly to the artists.
My reaction to that was to think about the meaning of "democracy", and I believe that very few people actually can say they have an iPod, a fast internet connection a cool computer and so and so forth. Most people are either struggling with old PCs and narrowband connectivity, or worse, for some the entry barrier of internet and computing is too high. Secondly, even if there is one person buying digital music, there are 100s or 1000s that download music illegally.
This is my version of what happened during the debate. I welcome comments (specially from "TechnoMan", to ensure that the representation of what was said is fair).
In the next two postings I would like to address the many topics and ideas deriving from the debate, which also directly relate to the subject of this blog, since my company develops and sells digital content for wireless phones. Examples of topics/issues:
What should the music and content industry do?
Is it possible to imagine a business models that satisfies all parties?
How to pay the artists?
How to prevent theft?
How to reward innovation?
What is moral and what is not in downloading and using digital music and content?
...
Let me know what you think...
Ciao
Elius
last week I had a great debate with my superfriend "TechnoMan", around digital music and content. I want to open and summarize the discussion here. Since it's a pretty big subject, this is the first of a series of three postings (we could do also a prequel/sequel, like Star Wars, if you find it interesting...;)
The Debate - as it happened - in Brief
Over a nice dinner, "TechnoMan" started to talk about how he now has a huge library of digital songs. Since he's using Emule, Azureus, etc. music is just one click away and...free. He can use his music on his iPod, laptop etc. anywhere he wants, and use, share, manage the music as he wishes.
A Coronita in my hand, I reply that I think what is saying is an euphemism for stealing music, and I tell him that I don't think it's really so cool to steal music from the artists that make it. The difference between stealing a CD in a store and "downloading" music for free over the internet is that in a store there are anti-theft systems, guards and so on, plus they will have a physical proof that you actually took something without paying.
"TechnoMan" reply is twofold: first, the world of content is changing, and we are moving from a phisical world to a digital world. The music industry better provides an alternative to paying €20 for a CD, and does this quickly, if it wants to survive. Second, the intention of people who use Emule etc. is not to undermine the artists who produce the music, by to cut the "middle-man" out of the process. Most of the €20 paid for a CD goes to distributors, marketing the artist, Sony etc. The portion that goes to the artist is minimal.
I replied by saying that, although I agree with the fact that €20 is an excessive price for a CD, I also believe that it's not only money that goes to evil marketing and advertising, but is money that goes out to fill the "transactional costs" implicit in the fact that on one side we have a huge demand for music and content, and on the other we have a big, fragmented offer (the artists) and somehow the two have to meet. This is what the role of music distribution is about and is not so evil after all. They are companies, and they have to make a profit.
"TechnoMan" quickly said that the Internet was doing exactly that funtion: in a very democratic way, people and artists are able to meet in a virtual space. Unknown artists with a good product can meet wide audiences, and are actually happy if their music is discovered and spread to many people. Plus, he said he would not mind paying a small price for the music, provided it would go directly to the artists.
My reaction to that was to think about the meaning of "democracy", and I believe that very few people actually can say they have an iPod, a fast internet connection a cool computer and so and so forth. Most people are either struggling with old PCs and narrowband connectivity, or worse, for some the entry barrier of internet and computing is too high. Secondly, even if there is one person buying digital music, there are 100s or 1000s that download music illegally.
This is my version of what happened during the debate. I welcome comments (specially from "TechnoMan", to ensure that the representation of what was said is fair).
In the next two postings I would like to address the many topics and ideas deriving from the debate, which also directly relate to the subject of this blog, since my company develops and sells digital content for wireless phones. Examples of topics/issues:
What should the music and content industry do?
Is it possible to imagine a business models that satisfies all parties?
How to pay the artists?
How to prevent theft?
How to reward innovation?
What is moral and what is not in downloading and using digital music and content?
...
Let me know what you think...
Ciao
Elius
Monday, May 02, 2005
To write or not to write
Hi there,
ok, i'll write...
First,
it's interesting to me that although I haven't checked in for a long time, Google has put a 4/10 ranking (PageRank) on my blog. Google really loves blogs...and more and more they are becoming a way to share and publish information. (Here's a definition of blog, Quimet:" A short form for weblog, a personal journal published on the Web. Blogs frequently include philosophical reflections, opinions on the Internet and social issues, and provide a "log" of the author's favorite web links. Blogs are usually presented in journal style with a new entry each day.")
Second (related) consider this title:
Newspaper Circulation Declines 1.9%
By JOSEPH T. HALLINAN Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNALMay 3, 2005
Daily U.S. newspaper circulation took its biggest tumble in nearly a decade, falling 1.9% in the six-month period ended March 31, according to figures released by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111505806081322343,00.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
The domination of the Internet is becoming ever more apparent. This year it's possible that the combined ad revenues of Google and Yahoo! will be superior to the combined ad revenues of the major TV networks in US. Amazing. There is actually a big confusion in the advertising market because they haven't figured out what their business is going to look like in the future: people don't watch TV anymore!!!! Tremendous opportunities in this area
Third (related?)
When are US consumers going to fall in love with their mobile phones? As you may know, I am an entrepreneur in the wireless space: we have launched our first product (a mobile community, for dating: www.clubm8.tv) few weeks back. Results so far are very good (we have got thousands of users already), but still not amazing as in other countries. Which is, of course, good and bad. Bad, because I have to manage my cash flows (and wireless carriers pay you on average 90 days after they collect the money from their customers - incredible). Good, because I'm here, and hopefully we will benefit from an early entry in the market. I will keep you posted on this
For now, thanks for listening/reading
Ciao
Elio
ok, i'll write...
First,
it's interesting to me that although I haven't checked in for a long time, Google has put a 4/10 ranking (PageRank) on my blog. Google really loves blogs...and more and more they are becoming a way to share and publish information. (Here's a definition of blog, Quimet:" A short form for weblog, a personal journal published on the Web. Blogs frequently include philosophical reflections, opinions on the Internet and social issues, and provide a "log" of the author's favorite web links. Blogs are usually presented in journal style with a new entry each day.")
Second (related) consider this title:
Newspaper Circulation Declines 1.9%
By JOSEPH T. HALLINAN Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNALMay 3, 2005
Daily U.S. newspaper circulation took its biggest tumble in nearly a decade, falling 1.9% in the six-month period ended March 31, according to figures released by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111505806081322343,00.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
The domination of the Internet is becoming ever more apparent. This year it's possible that the combined ad revenues of Google and Yahoo! will be superior to the combined ad revenues of the major TV networks in US. Amazing. There is actually a big confusion in the advertising market because they haven't figured out what their business is going to look like in the future: people don't watch TV anymore!!!! Tremendous opportunities in this area
Third (related?)
When are US consumers going to fall in love with their mobile phones? As you may know, I am an entrepreneur in the wireless space: we have launched our first product (a mobile community, for dating: www.clubm8.tv) few weeks back. Results so far are very good (we have got thousands of users already), but still not amazing as in other countries. Which is, of course, good and bad. Bad, because I have to manage my cash flows (and wireless carriers pay you on average 90 days after they collect the money from their customers - incredible). Good, because I'm here, and hopefully we will benefit from an early entry in the market. I will keep you posted on this
For now, thanks for listening/reading
Ciao
Elio
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
