The Celestial Jukebox: Here At Last(?)

I distinctly remember hearing Jim Griffin give a speech on his vision of the Celestial Jukebox 10 years ago at a conference in LA.  He was eloquent, provocative and ahead of his time.  I particularly remember his analogy with cash:  in most parts, cash is available to me 'on-demand'.  That is, I don't need to carry nearly as much around given the acceptance of credit/debit cards and other payment mechanisms (mobile phone, etc).  Indeed, I usually fly into a new country with no travelers cheques or local currency as I did in the past, given the 'on-demand' nature of cash.

The celestial jukebox is the concept of being able to listen to music
on-demand without having to carry the physical files around.Services like Spotify, Lala, Rhapsody, Playlist.com and even YouTube are trying to make this happen, which is now being picked up by non-industry press (like this article in Portfolio).  It has taken a good decade and, as noted, the concept is just about there.

I have reservations about these services as viable businesses, especially the ad-supported ones, given the licensing agreements they have with the labels — something I've noted before and TechCrunch just commented on.  But I could see them being part of value-added services or subscription services provided by, say, an ISP or cable provider.  I also think Sirius should offer this as part of their 'premium audio' value proposition.

As usual, the challenge now is less on the technology front and has more to do with business model and consumer behavior.  It seems that consumer behavior is changing; hopefully business models will enable some of these services to survive and provide a great service to consumers.

Sun Sets On Satellite Radio, But Premium Radio Plays On

This is a post that was recently published on Gigaom.  The comments are interesting as there are clearly day traders and others that are passionate about Sirius.  Ironically, while their kneejerk reaction is to defend Sirius and bash anyone that trashes it, my post actually spoke to the long-term prospects of Sirius.  Guess they didn't read it. 

**************

Martine Rothblatt, founder of the company that became Sirius XM Radio, earlier this week expressed doubts about Sirius in its current incarnation, saying that the “better time for satellite radio was 10 years ago.”  While I’ve long argued that Internet radio would surpass satellite radio with the adoption of broadband wireless, and while that is indeed becoming the case, it’s besides the point. Sirius need not be confined to delivering content via satellite.

Albert Cheng, EVP of digital media for Disney-ABC Television Group, noted on a panel discussion
on Tuesday that “ABC thinks of itself as a multiplatform entertainment
company, with numerous distribution avenues, not simply a traditional
broadcaster any longer.” Sirius needs to embrace a similar approach.
I view Sirius not so much as a satellite radio service but rather a
provider of “premium radio.” The HBO of radio, if you will. That is,
its investment into aggregating premium content and programming
ostensibly warrants the premium that end users are asked to pay. How
that content is packaged and delivered will vary according to the
various distribution platforms available to end users. 

Sirius is thus no different than HBO, Showtime, ABC or even The New
York Times. Granted, the satellites that it’s spent hundreds of
millions of dollars to deploy and operate may become obsolete or
redundant in the coming years, but an obsolete distribution platform
shouldn’t impact whether Sirius can make a business out of aggregating
and providing “premium radio.”  Of course, whether they can do so, how
long it will take and how big of a business it can be all remain to be
seen.

Performance Royalty For US Terrestrial Radio Is Only Fair

There are hearings on Congress on whether terrestrial radio should pay a performance royalty for the music they play.  They have not had to do so, unlike the radio industries in other parts of the world, for historical reasons.  The music industry has been lobbying to right this decades-long wrong and their arguments seem to have sympathetic ears in Congress notwithstanding the political capital of the NAB.  I'm not always sympathetic to the arguments of the labels but, in this case, I am. 

Quite simply, I don't think US terrestrial has a leg to stand on.  They claim that they serve a promotional role for the music they play and that they should therefore be exempt (while internet & satellite radio isn't).  As Billy Corgan testified, there is no doubt that radio is a heavy promoter of music.  So what.  They are still using a copyright and the owner of the copyright ought to get paid for it, especially if their IP can be licensed on a statutory basis.  Their argument is absurd:  they pay Rush Limbaugh for his content and go after people that try to re-broadcast it but they won't do the same for the music they play.

It is time for this to be changed and I hope it happens.  It may well hasten the departure of music from FM radio but that would be a market decision.  In fact, some enterprising labels may calculate that they do indeed derive a greater promotional benefit and offer to waive the royalties for stations playing their repertoire.  But that should be the prerogative of the copyright holder. 

On Hacking Education

Union Square Ventures recently hosted a Hacking Education session where they got a group of leading thinkers, educators & entrepreneurs to brainstorm disruptive ways to improve the US's education system.  I forwarded Fred's notes from it to a few friends of mine that are in education and thought I'd share the thoughts (rant?) from one who is a teacher at a top private school.  I'm all for technologists figuring out ways to radically improve 'broken' systems, but there's a real-politik aspect that my friend's comments raise that will need to be considered.  But it's great to see passionate people discussing how to improve a system that we all agree needs a lot of improving.

****************
Do you want the gut response or the more intellectual one first? (A is the gut response, B is the more studied one.)

A.

It looks to me like a list compiled by people who have
very little to actually do with young people and have even less of an
idea of what they are like physically, emotionally, or intellectually.
From the looks of their resumes, there is almost no one who was on this
committee/board who has actually spent more than a few months in a
classroom with kids.

Most of what they came out with seems to me to be self-referential, self-indulgent, and self-congratulatory. 

The
internet has changed education, of course it has, as it has changed
everything in the world. (Largely for the better, I think, though not
entirely.)

Language that talks about "the marginal cost of an incremental student" makes me very angry.

Someone
talking about how we are currently using an educational model built to
train an industrial worker has no idea about the great variety of
pedagogical methodology, as well as the fact that that simply isn't
true – and no, I don't just mean at the prep school where I teach or
its ilk. It's a fun, soundbite-ish thing to say, but it's not the case.
You can say that this country teaches as though it's 1965, but to say
it teaches as though it's mid 19th century Coketown and teachers are
"Gradgrinds" is willfully ignorant. Why willfully? So someone can
twitter about it. Technology is not a panacea.

It's fun to say "learning is bottom up and education is top down."
It sounds really cool. But yes, sadly, you still have to learn your
multiplication tables, and talking about them with the kid next to you
won't actually do that, even if you're networking your iphones. There
is no substitute for someone actually in front of students, walking
around in a circle, talking, cajoling, coaxing, threatening, promising,
advising, reinforcing – teaching.

Libraries need to be re-thought instead of packing them with books
that kids, and adults, don't read. I completely agree. But no, Jeff
Jarvis and Bob Kerrey, Starbucks does not fulfill that role. Not
everything in education is about accessibility and ease. There are
times in life when we need to bite our bottom lips and struggle.
Struggle matters. Character matters. And reading books and learning to
look up words and fight through romantic poetry with complex
metaphors…those things matter.

These are the same people who love cell phone novels. No words over
three syllables! Keep it moving – try to have a rape, a murder, two
weddings and a funeral with seventy three characters in fourteen lines
of text! (Yes, I've read one.)

This isn't elitism. This is knowledge.

The list mentions
how teachers were equated by some there as "a 1970's bank teller".
(And, incidentally, in response to Jeff Jarvis again, in which he
remarks that teachers are "newspaper reporters in the 1990's"…those
newspaper reporters changed the world in concrete, important ways.) We
discussed Edith Wharton's "Souls Belated" in class the other day.
Online education will not give students an empathetic understanding of
Lydia's plight – it's too hard, and it's too subtle, and by the time
adult education comes around and someone reads that story, the chance
to actually employ that knowledge in pursuit of a better world is gone.
I like the sentiment that we should transfer control from institutions
to individuals, but the vast majority of American and international
education is aimed at individuals between the ages of 5 and 18.

Autonomy is a process; it's not an emancipation.

B.

There
is a lot of good stuff in here. For example, open curricular sharing is
an interesting thing – it has been done online for years, but the
problem is that the quality is below mediocre, and the lessons are
pitched way too low for my audience. I understand that my school is not
the norm, but it is my world and that's how I respond to it.

I am very much on-board with re-evaluating spaces for learning.
Stanford University has done incredible things with that in Wallenberg
Hall and the Stanford Center for Innovations in Learning.

Sampling
and measuring students work online has limited applicability in the
real world. Potential employers or colleges have neither the time nor
the inclination to wade through a student's work. Using student portfolios 
rather than final exams and argumentation rather than PowerPoint (the
last bastion of the lazy student – it used to be posterboard, and once
was – sigh – dioramas) are far more effective methods.

Sorry for the rant…hope this was…I don't even know what I hope it was.

***********************

Atwitter on Twitter

Twitter has been blowing up of late.  Recently, I've had more and more non-techie friends asking me about twitter, what it's about, why one should try it, etc.  I've tried explaining twitter a few ways but still don't think I can do so in a concise way.  To some people it's "facebook status updates, but public".  To others, it's encapsulated in a picture depicting friends hanging out.  It's hard because it is a communication platform used in a number of different ways: as a way to interact with friends, as a source of real-time information from events as they unfold (as with the mumbai attacks), as a way to communicate with one's 'tribe', as a marketing tool, and on and on.  Kind of like how blogs is a catch-all term referring to a communications platform used in many different ways.  So it's not surprising that Evan Williams, one of the pioneers behind blogging, was a founder of twitter.  Go Ev.

Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.