Ever since I saw the post Which online music sites do you use and why? on Quora a few weeks ago, I’ve been testing out every music service that I could find online, determined to find the best one. Just this morning I came across the post The State of Internet Music on YouTube, Pandora, iTunes, and Facebook on Gizmodo. There’s a quote that immediately sums up what I’ve been fighting with in my search.
We don’t listen to albums now; we listen to collections of songs. – Tom Silverman
After what felt like the end of my search yesterday, I couldn’t help but feel like all the music that I’ve collected over the past few years in my iTunes library is going to sit stagnant as I adopt any new service. Apple has yet to release a “cloud/streaming” option, but perhaps when that comes it will be the best solution for me. For now, here’s my take on a few services that I have frequently used and a few others that I checked out…
Pandorais a great quick-fix, supplemental service. You pick a song, artist, or genre to search for and it creates a playlist/radio station of similar songs. It automatically saves that playlist/station until you choose to delete it. You can add items to the list to vary what it plays, like/dislike songs, but other than that there’s not much to it. Mobile versions available. Free (Ads, Limited skips, 40 hours/month) – Premium $36/year
Grooveshark is good for creating quick playlists of music you like by selecting it from current playlists or searching for it. Just like Pandora and several other services, you can favorite tracks and save lists. Free (Ads) – Premium $3/month or $30/year
Last.fm is an excellent site. The biggest appeal for me here isn’t the music service itself, but its scrobbler. Last.fm is linked with nearly every other service out there. You connect the service to Last.fm and then any song you play on another service is sent to Last.fm and is automatically added to your profile. This is useful to keep track of your listening habits, to display your history with various blog widgets, and to use with Last.fm’s own recommendation system. Last.fm is vast. You can buy tracks, add them to your library (collection of music), find recommended music, “love” tracks, tag tracks, create playlists, keep a journal, find events, look up charts, etc. Mobile versions available and there are many plugins you can find to incorporate Last.fm into nearly anything. Free – Premium $3/month
Hype Machine & We Are Hunted both are pretty similar. They both claim to have the latest emerging music and they are both pretty limited, but they both have a place in the music service list. Both of these sites, along with TheSixtyOne are excellent places to find new music. They all seem to pretty much focus on emerging indie stars. Free
Rdio’s biggest advantage over another service, MOG, is that they allow you to scan your iTunes library to automatically add “all” of your music to your Rdio collection (it was only able to match a third of my iTunes collection). You can create playlists, keep a running queue, see new releases, recommendations, and top charts. Invite only. $5/month Unlimited Online Listening – $10/month Unlimited Online & Mobile Listening
Until Google or Apple decide to finally come out with some sort of cloud/streaming solution, I have decided to settle on MOG as my go-to service. MOG is sort of a cross between Pandora and Rdio. What made me switch from Rdio is that I actually found every song I was searching for to match a playlist of current chart toppers that I had made in my iTunes library. I also really like the Radio slider. When you pick a song/artist to play you can use a slider to decide if you’d like the auto-created playlist to be comprised of that artist alone or if you’d like to stir it up Pandora-style and add music from similar artists. I found this to be the perfect blend of having the music I love in one place while having the option to introduce myself to new music that I will most likely love as well. The more I played around with MOG, the more I grew to love it. Here’s a few things worth mentioning… the pop-out window/player, I’m going to mention the slider again, Last.fm scrobbling can be enabled, you can pick nearly any artist or any song and actually find it available, you can create a queue, pick favorites, create/share playlists, and keep a blog. Also there is what seems like an endless list of playlists from both users and artists. The one feature I’m missing is the ability to keep a library/collection and scan my iTunes, but these are features that support says are coming. It’s one of those things I keep thinking I feel I need because I’m used to it, but at the same time I’m pretty happy with just picking a song, adding a little variety and giving the thumbs up or thumbs down as I go. 3 Days Free Trial – $5/month Unlimited Online Listening – $10/month Unlimited Online & Mobile Listening (Includes Ability To Listen Offline)
Of course there are hundreds of options out there, but these were my favorites… with the exception of Spotify, but sadly, it’s not available in the US and I’m too sore at it to give an explanation of its features.
Okay, so I have mixed feeling about this one. On the one hand, WIRED is one of those magazines that I think really represents good design and I love flipping through it… not only for the articles (which are always awesome), but also because it has a beautiful layout and interesting typography that is hard to find sometimes. I also would hate to see the paper version die. BUT the iPad app IS the paper version… with much more functionality, video clips, interactive content, etc. It’s like having the magazine come alive in your hands. Now that is cool. (Video embedded below.)
I would take the printed version over the online version any day, but the iPad version versus the printed version? I have a feeling the iPad version will win me over. It’s the same layout and great design with added bonuses. This is another one of those apps that will make me get the iPad. Imagine what other magazines could do with it. Popular Science would be another good tech magazine to do this. What about National Geographic embedding short videos when you click on a photo so you could see more? Or giving a voice over if you wanted to hear fun facts? Bon Appetit could upload videos with each recipe or how-to videos in sections where they explain unique cooking techniques. Sports Illustrated also comes to mind… of course there are sections I wouldn’t want to “come alive,” but what about including clips from games? Or mini-sports games in the app. The possibilities are endless.
I hate to say it, but if print is on it’s way out in the future… jumping on the mobile bandwagon seems like it could save a lot of magazines and newspapers. Of course, that might speed up the process, but I can’t help but think we’re headed that ways anyways. This might actually be a good stimulus to get more people reading magazines. For all those people with short attention spans who can’t take the time to read, maybe interactive reading apps like this could get them to read and find out more about what they are looking at.
Who knows. All I know is, this makes me want an iPad even more. I’m waiting a bit to see what Android Froyo does with tethering (through my DROID). I’m pretty curious about Google’s plans. My only concern is – if Google creates a tablet will all these apps eventually come to Android?
I had to pass this on. Popular Science just finished posting 137 years worth of their magazines online. Not only are they online – the archives are free and can easily be viewed via browser or mobile.
The gadget geek in me is jumping up and down, but so is the designer side of me. It’s very cool to read about and look at photos of past technology, crazy inventions, and (what were) futuristic ideas. At the same time, it is amazing to compare the designs from various dates such as 1874, 1940, 1972, and 2010. Design and the technology printing those designs was constantly changing as well. People were creating new ways to share ideas and information. Layouts changed from plain, standard column text to full page ads and articles with lots of photos and flexible regions of text.
SlideScreen can either run as a home screen replacement, or as an app that you just call up when you want to use it. There are three main sections on SlideScreen’s “home screen.” The upper section features updates to your email, phone, text messaging, and calendar. The middle section slides up and down and features local weather, time, date, battery power, and a few other icons that would normally be found in Android’s default status bar. The bottom section features stocks, Twitter, and Google Reader updates. At any time you can move the middle bar up to make the bottom section fully accessible via a cycling menu. You can also move the middle bar all the way down to cycle through your top section of personal updates.
The home button can be set to go to your default Android home, or made to go to the SlideScreen home. The menu button, with one touch, brings up your app library with a small area at the top to set 8 shortcuts. With a second touch of your menu button, SlideScreen brings up a choice of Phone or SlideScreen settings.
While it is very slick and a beautiful app, it still leaves a lot to be desired. If we’re adding Twitter support, where’s Facebook or instant messaging support? And where, I ask, is support for the regular Email application. I use Gmail which is nice on SlideScreen, but I also use Email to sync with my nonGmail addresses. Those addresses also happen house my business email. I’d also like some control over how much space each line item takes up, what color they are, and the order in which they appear. Hopefully the developers continue to add features and customization options.
All in all, this app is beautiful. I tested this app via the free version and used it for all of 5 minutes before purchasing the Pro version for $6.99 from the Android Market (SlideScreen). Take a look at the YouTube walkthrough (below) that Larva Labs has posted.
This morning I came across an article on ReadWriteWeb that briefly explored the concept of having mobile web apps versus mobile apps that need to go through an acceptance process. The apps may or may not end up in one of the mobile app stores. I’m a big fan of mobile apps in general.
I have an iPod Touch and have used many free and paid apps which I have purchased through the App Store. I also unlocked my iPod Touch for a time and took the chance to use some apps through Cydia. Recently, I bought the DROID and have been using apps which I purchased from the Android Market. On occasion, I also use mobile web apps.
In a location where phone service is not always available, I use many an app that does not rely on having service. Mainly these apps are for passing time (playing games) or catching up on a little reading with apps like Kindle for iPhone. A good majority of the apps I use on my phone or my iPod do require an internet connection whether it is wireless or 3G. For those apps, I wouldn’t really mind if the apps were replaced by web counterparts. A few web services that I use now (Xpenser, Meebo, Facebook) either only have a web app, or are inferior apps on either iPhone or Android OS and I would rather use the web interface. Some apps lack a user friendly, attractive UI and I would much rather just see development go into a web interface. If it’s something I use frequently, it’s quite simple to bookmark a web site on my phone’s desktop to return quickly.
A clear upside that I can see to a movement towards mobile web apps is that HTML5, CSS etc. is much more accessible than the development tools necessary to create apps for certain app stores. It would most certainly bring an increase in development and the web apps would most likely be accessible from all phone OSs. It would be nice to see apps that were just as good on Android as they are on the iPhone.
Of course, there are many downsides as well. First, it would be hard to charge for web apps, although I suppose there could be subscription type fees applied. Second, like the current stores, there would be an overwhelming amount of shovelware out there and would most likely open the phones to web delivered virus attacks. You would also need a signal in order to access the apps and at first, page transfers will be slower than moving around in native apps.
Native apps are preferred for now, but I’m guessing there will be a big increase in web app development next year, especially as the divide between phone OSs continues to grow. If developers could make a web app that could compete with similar apps across the various app stores and find a way to make a profit, it could start a wave of innovative new web apps that everyone could benefit from.
In the past week, there have been several articles on both ReadWriteWeb and TechCrunch suggesting that Twitter Japan might start charging for access to tweets. TechCrunch posted a piece, 6 Reasons Why Twitter Japan’s Subscription Model Might Work. The post cited that Japanese mobile users are already used to having to pay for several services similar to Twitter. They also stated that Japanese users are sometimes more interested in the personal lives of celebrities and growth on Twitter Japan is accelerating compared to Twitter usage elsewhere that is beginning to flat line.
I’m very skeptical of having to pay for tweets. The first concern that came to mind was that I doubt many people would want to have to pay for tweets to begin with. Yes, there are some obsessive fans out there, but what if they are fans of 50 celebrities who all start charging for access to their tweets? I’m guessing each update would be a few cents, but that could certainly add up quickly. Next, what is to stop certain people from aggregating tweets of several people and releasing them under their own account? They could follow a few celebrities themselves, retweet the tweets and then charge a lump sum so that their own followers would then get the updates of a number of celebrities. I’d rather follow and pay for one stream instead of pay for 50 individually.
I can certainly see charging corporations a small subscription fee for tweeting. Many companies are benefiting greatly through both sales and customer relations as a result of their social media interactions, including Twitter. If Twitter wants to make money, it seems like it would be much easier to charge people a subscription fee instead of charging to view individual streams. Of course, as soon as they start charging subscription fees, I’m guessing many will decide to go with other microblogging services to get their link, news, and status publishing fix.
Listen to this post
