What’s your take on Dan’s analysis? Next, in the graphic below, there’s some bonus information about some fairly recent climate anomalies that may have sparked some extra eco-interest, right? Although not in the graphic, the 2010 earthquakes must also be raising climate awareness, wouldn’t you think?

Multitouch makes “sense.”

The idea of multitouch sensors has been around for years, but multitouch has yet to see wide-spread implementation in computers. I think it’s coming. I think a wave of multitouch operating systems is going to redefine how we interact with computers. But I think they’ll be touchscreens and gesture-based systems too. I mean after getting used to the iPhone’s touchscreen, I’ve noticed that I want to touch my computer screen sometimes to move things etc. Anyone else catch themselves doing that?

Touch by chrisevans

Computing needs to be intuitive.

Computing needs to be more intuitive. UI advances will address that. Our brain’s hard wiring is capable of a lot more that pointing a mouse—we need to give it the chance to be more creative and boundless. By using our hands differently, with more intuitive movements, we’ll be helping our mind work more naturally. It will make a better fit between the brain and the computer by way of the body. One day we might we have chips that connect to our brain energy, right? Our brain is a super computer, right?

It all relies on intuitive design. Pranav Mistry talked about intuitive interface design in his SixthSense technology presentation. It virtually connects us to the computer via our gestures. According to Mistry, “We are looking for an era where computing will actually merge with the physical world.” Think about the games and apps we could make with that. While not nearly to the extent of SixthSense technology, Nintendo’s Wii is somewhat based on gesture recognition but the player has to hold the controller which recognizes movements in 3 dimensions. The Wii is essentially a wireless mouse with an extra dimension—it’s fun but I wouldn’t characterize it as intuitive. Even still, it’s extremely popular.

Mood-based technology might zap us to better understand how music relates to human emotions. In their press release, Syntonetic says they’ve “cracked the emotional codes found in music to create an intelligent system that deciphers every musical property in a song, including moods and emotions, as well as musical genres and sub-genres, styles, tempo/beat, vocals, instruments and production features.” The way I see it, we’re only on the brink of emotion technology. App enthusiast Diego Balbuena says, “I do think that these type of programs can be the next killer app” but he stresses the importance of the apps being human-like. The more users that use the app, the more data they’ll have, and the better the algorithms will be. Happiness is a warm iPhone.

Science

In his above TED talk, Daniel Pink makes a strong case relating the science of motivation to creativity and business. The verdict is that money is not a primary motivator for people doing creative work. Sure, it does play a factor today as people need enough money to meet their essential needs. Once those needs are met, money is out of the picture. I look forward to reading his upcoming book, Drive.

Spotify

I felt compelled to deliver the point—money is not an artist’s true motivation—in response to the exorbitant editorial negativity surrounding yesterday’s news of Lady Gaga getting paid $167 for 1+ million Spotify streams. Where I live—in the US—Spotify is not yet available so I have not been able to try the platform. Spotify is a new service and its revenue model is understandably in a shakedown period where they are still determining what works, what data they have, and how they can best leverage that data to generate revenue.

Mr. Ek [Spotify CEO and Founder] revealed how the company has been working on making its advertising as personally tailored to an individual’s tastes as possible. “We have a lot of information about people. We know our users’ age, gender, location and even mood – which figure out by through BPMs [beats per minute],” he explained. Depending on whether a person has listened to lots of fast or slow music, Spotify is trying to make its mood analysis as accurate as possible – so it can serve highly targeted adverts for users to properly engage with—which should in turn, increase the amount it can charge brands to advertise on the platform. Mr. Ek said Spotify was “beginning to figure this stuff out”. (Spotify chief, Daniel Ek, rules out 2009 US launch | Telegraph)

It sounds like Spotify is on track to me. I like the ad-based model and there are many variations to explore. I brainstormed launching an ad-based free music service back in 2007, and I think Spotify is the closest service to what I would have done, but they’ll need to continue to evolve, as do musicians.

Whether it is really relevant to measure the success of Spotify in this way remains to be seen as it is still a service in it’s infancy. Much like Twitter, it is phenomenally successful in terms of usability but is still finding its feet in terms of making money. As it continues to attract users its appeal to advertisers will grow and so too will the financial returns. How this filters down to the individual artist is then probably more of an issue with the labels than with Spotify. (A Ga Ga approach to marketing? | The Naked Pheasant)

Industry

It’s smart business to think years down the road by expanding your fan base even if it doesn’t pay off immediately. I think Lady Gaga and many other artists see that. The long-term benefit of those 1+ million streams is immense, and I think many people are blinded to that fact—such a level of exposure leads to sellout shows and non-music revenue streams. The one thing I dislike about the situation is that the major labels still have major pull and they can afford huge production and marketing investments. But the need for heavy financing is down—thank you, Internet. In today’s connected, music-abundant world why does any one artist get so popular? Is it hard work, affinity, or talent? To me, talent is relative—it’s not what you can build, but rather it’s what you can build with what you have. It’s the Internet Age—indie musicians have the power to take the industry back but they must embrace change and creativity to do it—they must creatively leverage the internet and mobile apps.

The connection from the fan to the band, financially, has been broken. The fan knows that their purchase will hardly help the band, or more precisely that the marginal benefit from their purchase to the band is near zero, so why do it? The cost to the fan is much higher than the marginal benefit to the band, so the fan just torrents the damn song. (Why Music Is Broken – The Artist To Consumer Connection)

P2P rocks—it turned the industry up-side-down letting the label-lords know they had lost control. I see P2P as a massive benefit for musicians. Do they have P2P streaming yet? They will. With all that said, I believe that many music fans are as-motivated-as-ever to pay for music when they know their money is going directly to the artist. Maybe subscription services like Spotify can find a way to work this, or endorsement deals that fans would want to support, into their business model. I think that fans—and people in general—need to feel like they are part of something and they want to feel empowered.

Artwork: jahdakinebrah/flickr.

The fan artwork you see above is a creative visualization of Pink Floyd’s Money. The image squares depict the story of the song lyrics. What motivates you? What do you think motivates music fans?