Pandora vs. Last.FM

This is a great post by Steve Krause discussing the nature vs. nurture of Pandora vs. Last.FM...two music recommendation sites I've touched on before.


Though it is merely a side note, my favorite comment is:



"...better algorithms are nice but better data is nicer."

I mentioned in the often-referenced Big Picture post that I was wary of pure folksonomy for this reason (discussed under the usability section). I certainly like the theory behind Last.FM's approach regarding software that collects data in addition to user-submitted tags (though it is a tad big-brother). My spin involved restricted options for meta data and open-ended tags for other areas. Ideally, software could search for typos and plurality issues, but be subject to a human editorial process.


Though I've already states that my personal preference is for clean data and algorithms based on genre (not popularity) a la Pandora, Krause's suggestion of somehow combining the two approaches reminded me of where I most often hear about new music...my friends. Not virtual "friends" that I'd allow to join my personal network on a social networking site, but people I know and trust. So why not allow users to limit the recommendation factors only to others that they place on their recommendation list. All other's opinions are eliminated, only the opinions of the flagged users are factored into the algorithm (of course, this can be turned off, allowing all social data to be considered).

Google is a market

Not directly related, but this is a great blog post as to Google's true nature as a market rather than a search engine. This is certainly arguable as Google's payment and integrated rating system becomes public knowledge. My favorite quote of this post:


"Buygoogle has been ranting that the Google Video Store, which so many have criticized for lacking content, organization and aesthetics, isn't really an iTunes competitor at all - it's actually the beginning of a marketplace for content. (When Google opens this up for individual content producers to get paid this will be obvious.)"


See the "pricing" section of my big picture post to see what I think Google might offer as options to sellers.

Price-fixing probe

A formal inquiry into price-fixing was recently launched by the US Department of Justice. It would not surprise me if this is the case, though it is somewhat strange to think that a company representing artists (take note of that last word) would want to voluntarily suggest that all content produced by their artists is worth the same as content produced by other artists. At some point, everyone involved, including Apple, will have to come to terms with the fact that not all music is created equal.

Although it would be sad to find that these companies were engaging in such, it would also be exciting . I say this because it may help explain why pricing in the online music business is so static, aside from Apple's insistence on maintaining the 99cent/79p model and everyone else's propensity to follow suit. Although I definitely agree with Apple that an general price increase will drive music fans back toward piracy, I respect the label's right (and Apple's as well) to make more money for a product that is in high demand. I also would suggest that there are tracks on iTunes today that would sell significantly more copies if the price was lower, thereby increasing profitability for the label and Apple, and increasing visibility for the artist.