Well this is just great!! Recently I wrote about Pandora’s entry into the iPhone app market. Pandora lets you create “radio stations” of your favorite music by picking an artist and then Pandora finds other music that it thinks you will like. From there you can customize the results until you have crafted the perfect station for you.

Now it sounds like Pandora may throw in the towel, much to the consternation of its users, me included. The reason being is the fees that they are now being required to pay in order to play music online.

Last year, the Copyright Royalty Board handed down a decision that internet radio stations would have to pay a performance fee to artists each time a song is played. This is something that traditional radio currently isn’t required to do. This fee coupled with standard licensing fees means that Pandora will pay 70% of its revenue toward these requirements. All this is supposedly being done on behalf of the musicians who put so much hard work into their music. I have no doubt that musicians work hard for their money. I only doubt the sincerity of those imposing these fees.

Pandora currently has ads on its website that are part of the site design and change periodically when you input feedback on music choices. This is an unobtrusive solution to displaying the ads and are often times well designed. Pandora’s founder Tim Westergren has even suggested running audio ads periodically while listening. I don’t have a problem with this either.

A TechCrunch article over the weekend suggests that maybe Pandora should be the sacrificial lamb in this ongoing battle with the RIAA and the internet. In the article, Mike Arrington says that perhaps sacrificing Pandora will show the RIAA and the artists how wrong their position has been. I definitely agree that there is greediness although I don’t know how much of it comes from the artists. To me this just seems like an area that is being picked on out of fear.

Pandora is unlike anything else out there. Short of buying every song you might want to listen to, the ability to customize your listening is an absolute dream. The problem is that Pandora and other internet radio is a great place to find new music to which you might not otherwise be exposed. As a matter of fact, I have purchased quite a bit of music that I was exposed to through internet radio. To kill off Pandora and others who play music online is not the way to go.

Our only hope is that the powers-that-be are so stupid that they will eventually cast themselves into the pit of irrelevance.

written by JM

Hey there, I’m back. My apologies for falling off the grid there for a while. There has been lots going on and I’m trying to get back in a groove.

I wanted to talk about the newest addition to the sidebar of the site. There is a new icon for LinkedIn, the business oriented social networking site. You may recall my tirade on social networks not long ago. So have I changed my tune? Not really. I have contemplated what LinkedIn has to offer and want to try to make an experiment out of it.

For the most part, social networks seem to be more about entertainment than anything else and that’s fine. For me, I want to see what is possible with a site like LinkedIn and how it can help grow what I’m doing here. I see it as a perfect opportunity to use such a service to it’s potential. Taking something relatively small and making more out of it.

So, if you interested in adding to your own business circle, hit me up on LinkedIn.

written by JM

Hello all. It’s been far too long since we last spoke….or at least since I wrote something. You get the idea. I’ve been working on a huge project that is almost done and has sapped a lot of creative energy out of me. So much so that I haven’t even wanted to write. My goal to post more has taken quite a hit.

The subject of projects brings me to the keyboard to pound out this post. Particularly the “dirty” words….dare I say them…SPEC WORK. DUM DUM DUM!!! Spec (short for speculative) work is the practice of soliciting work for a project (usually from multiple sources) for no payment. Typically there are open calls for submissions where, under the guise of a contest, the “client” asks for entries for their project and a “winner” is chosen. My heavy use of quotation marks could offer clues on how I feel about this. In the industry, spec work is seen as a detriment to ethical practices in the client/producer relationship.

Recently I heard of a new site called Pixish via Daring Fireball. Pixish is a site that aims to bring buyers together with image makers, according to their front page. Right beside their logo on the home page is the proclamation that they are “in beta, baby!” This has become a popular practice of launching websites that are half-baked, saying that it’s in beta. Since their launch, Pixish has called down the thunder from those accusing them of facilitating spec work. I don’t want to be too hard on Pixish. From what I can gather Derek Powazek, the man behind the site, is trying to fill what he sees as a void in the world of purchasers of creative work. That it’s too expensive and time-consuming these days to find the right creative material for their needs. Though he seems sincere, Pixish has admittedly made mistakes.

On some level, I do think spec work is taking place at Pixish. Understandably they don’t want that label but it may be hard to shake. Both the budding and the desperate artist are free to do what they want, but I will argue they are potentially doing themselves more harm than good. I know how difficult it can be to find work both freelance and full-time. I have been a victim of those seeking to have work done with no intention of reward. What’s worse is that it was someone I trusted. Unfortunately, there are those who have no business designing anything and those foolish enough to hire them getting together out there which makes it even more challenging.

To me, a better service would be one that allowed artists to post their portfolio and opt-in to the a project rather than doing the work and then getting nothing for it. The onus should be on the potential client to make a decision based on a body of work, not on a finished product tailored to their specifications. There are some services like that such as Guru that work similarly. With Guru, a project is posted, artists supply quotes, a decision is made by the client on the candidates, and the work is done according to the terms.

It’s hard enough to get people to understand the value of design without practices that only cheapen it. My hope is that Pixish might evolve into a truly useful site that helps creatives. After all, they are the ones that put themselves on the line.

written by JM

For the last couple of weeks, the second round of the MacHeist bundle sale has been in effect. MacHeist creates “missions” for members to carry out consisting of puzzles that, when solved result in receiving free Mac software. In December of 2006, MacHeist began the sale of its first bundle of Mac apps created by independent Mac developers. The sale lasted for one week and was a notorious success. Notorious in that there were those who felt the sale of 10 indy apps for $49 was robbery, the developer community being the victims. The winners are the consumers, the charity you choose to have 25% of your purchase price go to, and of course MacHeist itself. It’s estimated that they made hundreds of thousands in profit.

Participating developers allow their chosen software to be sold in the bundle presumably for a flat fee (Actual terms of the agreements aren’t disclosed). This year the sale, which ends today, has been going on for 2 weeks. This year the goals were higher and the bundle slightly larger, still for $49. As of this writing, they have made nearly 1.9 million dollars minus the amount that goes to the developers and the 25% to charity. There are some really great useful apps included in the bundle and some that you might never end up using. However, some of the apps alone are more than the bundle’s purchase price at any other time.

MacHeist II got off to a wiz-bang start this time around with a scandal whereby some blog sites were defaced as if by a hacker. As it turns out, the “graffiti” was done with full knowledge of the site owners at the apparent expense of their hosting service providers due to investigations into the issue. This was somehow a marketing push for this years bundle which went awry…or did it. It certainly gained attention from the Mac press which as we know is the point. All publicity is good publicity.

Still, MacHeist has its detractors. The arguments are essentially the same as last time. Are such deep discounts on independent software the best thing for the developer community? Are participating developers getting a good deal out of the whole thing? As John Gruber of Daring Fireball commented last year “Just because someone is satisfied with a bad deal doesn’t mean it isn’t a bad deal.”

I find myself conflicted by the whole thing. As a consumer, it would almost be insane to not take advantage of such a great deal. As a member of the Mac community and fan of its software, I have to ask myself am I acting in the best interest of the platform. I realize that alone, my purchasing or not purchasing the bundle would have little effect. However, we do things sometimes on principle that are in the best interest of others and not ourselves. This weeks MacBreak Weekly didn’t help solve the conundrum. Leo and company had a discussion with Rich Siegel of Bare Bones Software about the bundle and his decision not to participate in it. His reasons include having to support a great number of new customers who paid at best a few dollars for any given app in the bundle, devaluation of the software, and MacHeist’s business practices in general. His points are valid and while they may be generalizations to some extent, I’m not going to argue against them. After this discussion, I had my mind made up that purchasing the bundle wasn’t the best thing to do.

Then I read some comments on Merlin Mann’s 43 Folders about the MBW episode. One of these comments came from one of the developers that is participating in the sale. His feeling was that the amount of users that he is gaining and the overall exposure outweighs any concerns about getting the shaft on compensation. In general, there wouldn’t be a huge number of people that need tech support for any given app. I tend to agree with that. Also, these developers stand to make more money on upgrades down the road. Here’s an example of someone directly involved in the sale that is happy with the results. That can’t be wrong…right?

I think we might actually have a case of both sides being right. A developer that chooses not to be involved in the sale has every right not to and can have their reasons for not doing so. You can’t fault them for that. On the other hand, a developer that thinks they have more to gain by participating than not can’t really be argued with either. They decide to pay the costs for what amounts to advertising for their product. It all depends on your perspective.

I won’t be getting the bundle although I plan on buying some of the apps in it. Those who do buy the bundle should feel good about getting a good deal and becoming acquainted with software that they might not have known about otherwise. Likewise, those who have purchased or will purchase any of the software from the bundle directly from the developer can feel good about supporting the Mac indy developer community.

written by JM

I guess when it comes to technology I tend to be a little old school. You see, email is still the best way to get in touch with me. Outside of the phone, this is true for my friends as well. However, for people under 30 the social network is the communication tool of choice.

Social networks are all the rage. Millions upon millions have been made in this market to go along with millions and millions of users. There’s MySpace, Facebook, Orkut, LinkedIn and many others. If I’m not mistaken MySpace still boasts the largest numbers with Facebook in second place. However, the “cool kids” seem to be flocking to Facebook, so that could change. It doesn’t stop there. These days, any new venture on the web seems to have a social network aspect to it. It’s a way for you to communicate with people that are interested in what you are interested in. That’s good, right?

I used to have a MySpace page. It seemed like it could be fun. A way to easily show off your latest pics, tell people what your favorite music is, and even blogging. Heck, some people have regained contact with friends they haven’t seen in years. For various reasons, I gave it up. Not the least of which was because everything about MySpace was just ugly and clunky. Even with a fast interweb connection, it was usually slow as molasses. The other thing for me is the page you’re on right now.

My decision to have my own website seemed to me to be a better idea than putting a lot of work into a page that wasn’t really mine. Having my own page allows me to be more versatile and to…ahem, call the shots. That and I didn’t want yet another user name and password.

Ultimately, social networks aren’t for everyone and one’s decision to join a network will greatly depend on if your friends belong or want to belong to it. Instead, why don’t you give your friend a call and hang out…ya know, in person.

written by JM