Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...

vansmack wrote:
˙˙˙ʎɐqǝ ɟo ɟɟo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ɹǝʌǝ ʇuop

Apparently Smackie, you got the Aussie model.

Ctrl + Alt + G'day

Clever bastards…

Google, SayNow, and Twitter team up to make Tweeting from Egypt possible via voicemail
By Laura June  posted Feb 1st 2011 6:19AM

Google's announced on its official blog a small project they've quickly cobbled together to help Egyptians (who –in the midst of protests – are having serious connectivity issues) communicate via Twitter. With almost no connection to the internet through normal channels, Google has made it possible for anyone to send a Tweet simply by dialing one of several international phone numbers (+16504194196, +390662207294 or +97316199855) and leaving a voicemail. What happens next? The service Tweets the message using the hashtag #egypt via the Speak to Tweet account.

XS4ALL, a dutch ISP, has set up 42 free dial-up accounts accessible only from egyptian telephone numbers: http://www.xs4all.nl/~scorpio/egypt.txt

chaz wrote:
Any predictions Smackie?

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/12/sprint-promises-industry-first-at-february-7th-event/#disqus_thread

This is sure to be one of them:

Kyocera Echo (Dual touch-screen phone)

vansmack wrote:

chaz wrote:
Any predictions Smackie?

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/12/sprint-promises-industry-first-at-february-7th-event/#disqus_thread

This is sure to be one of them:

Kyocera Echo (Dual touch-screen phone)

Interesting…

kosmo wrote:
Interesting…

I'm concerned about the developers taking advantage of the special screen.  Obviously Kyocera is going to hand some cash over to the big folks to develop their apps specific to the dual screen, but I have tough time seeing the regular developer writing an app for 99% of the phones and then spending the time to make their app take advantage of the extra screen.

Some cool possibilities though.

This is a really dumb idea:

Last.fm radio app goes premium on home and mobile devices

$3 a month.  No thanks.

vansmack wrote:
This is a really dumb idea:

Last.fm radio app goes premium on home and mobile devices

$3 a month.  No thanks.

No "prestigious black icon" for you, then.

beetsnotbeats wrote:
No "prestigious black icon" for you, then.

Haha,  Nice.  For those that don't know what is being referenced:

"A prestigious black icon"

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

WOW!!! That alone is worth the membership!!!

Wonder if it sounds any better than their super thin MP3 files? Their downloads sound horrible. Not sure what they do but they always have much less gain than most other MP3s from other sites. It's something more than just the bit rate that makes them sound so low but I don't know quite what it is. Have even seen bands bitch about that.

eh, $3/month is a very fair price.  lest we forget, music isn't free.  providing the last.fm service isn't free either (hell, just think of how much they spent on R&D for that prestigeous black icon!!! ;))  seriously tho, how is this a dumb idea?

wired had a great article about how the consumer had won the digital download wars with the labels.  music is now DRM-free, available in high quality encodings, catalogs are largely available, etc.  the article concluded that if you're still illegally downloading music, maybe you're just a tightwad who doesn't want to pay for music at all.  upside: we should get used to paying for music again… i'm still working on that myself.
 
jag - if the MP3 from last.fm are quieter that from other sources, it's simply the (volume) level at which they are recorded/encoded.  making the levels low limits their use in other commercial purposes.  you wouldn't want to make a CD from the mp3s, etc.

Bummer…I thought he meant The Director.

vansmack wrote:

beetsnotbeats wrote:
No "prestigious black icon" for you, then.

Haha,  Nice.  For those that don't know what is being referenced:

nkotb wrote:
Bummer…I thought he meant The Director.

beetsnotbeats wrote:
No "prestigious black icon" for you, then.

i lol'ed.  nice one.

sweetcell wrote:
eh, $3/month is a very fair price.  lest we forget, music isn't free.  providing the last.fm service isn't free either (hell, just think of how much they spent on R&D for that prestigeous black icon!!! ;))  seriously tho, how is this a dumb idea?

In today's marketplace, how do you not give the users the option of (1) free with ads or (2) paid subscription with no ads?

sweetcell wrote:

nkotb wrote:
Bummer…I thought he meant The Director.

beetsnotbeats wrote:
No "prestigious black icon" for you, then.

i lol'ed.  nice one.

Yes, nearly got me in trouble in my meeting.

vansmack wrote:

sweetcell wrote:
eh, $3/month is a very fair price.  lest we forget, music isn't free.  providing the last.fm service isn't free either (hell, just think of how much they spent on R&D for that prestigeous black icon!!! ;))  seriously tho, how is this a dumb idea?

In today's marketplace, how do you not give the users the option of (1) free with ads or (2) paid subscription with no ads?

i'm guessing that some marketing types crunched the numbers and decided there wasn't any/enough money in free-with-ads on mobile and home systems.  or maybe they think mobile and home users are most willing to pay for a subscription, so let's not offer them an option.

sweetcell wrote:
i'm guessing that some marketing types crunched the numbers and decided there wasn't any/enough money in free-with-ads on mobile and home systems.  or maybe they think mobile and home users are most willing to pay for a subscription, so let's not offer them an option.

And I'm telling you that the Marketing types are wrong.  That's why it's a dumb idea.

With everything moving to the cloud, what is the added value of Last.fm any longer?  The only chance they have to is to keep creatures of habit, which you won't do by moving a free service to a paid-only service.

You don't need a marketing degree to figure that out - just common sense. 

I said their downloads sound lower; hence, worse; than most other give-away MP3s elsewhere. Almost all in other places are designed to be not quite as good as a purchased product but Last.Fm's are so low that they need adjusted with some sort of software just to play them on your own MP3 player along with other freebie files with the same bit rate or you end up dealing with big differences between songs. Besides, it's up to the bands whether or not they want to give them away for free and the bands don't have any control on the excessive loss via Last.fm. Guess that's why so many are now resorting to other services for distributing free downloads.

Don't get me wrong, Last.fm is providing a decent service (not one I'm 'buying' though) but there's plenty of other options out there that offer the same or similar services and many that give away better sounding MP3s. It's definitely not one of their strong points. Their strong point is showing off to the world what you are listening to and offering a pick and play service much like Pandora, something the RIAA and others tried to stop several years ago. In fact, those type of organizations are probably where most of their profits are going.

vansmack wrote:
You don't need a marketing degree to figure that out - just common sense. 

Especially in today's crappy economy!