Soundcloud officially fucks you now.

[supamonsta]

well tell me guys,

is it now totally impossible to have a significant discussion over there?

(thanks for the ones that replied and discussed the "HD" thing)

FFS, can't you stop laughing and everytime make people feel like they were not welcome on YOUR forums?

Tone Deft & ThimotyAllan: your pics are funny, but you are not. Will you grow up one day?

StringTapper : I hope you didn't really believe that I think that 320K mp3 files are HD. Did you have nothing better to do, than reading my whole post only to quote something you could use to show how much dumb a whiner I am??


anyway, I'll have to find another forum where it's possible to discuss things and stuff without beeing laughed at.

And I'm pretty sure you won't miss me, since some of you may reply that I wasn't useful here...

Now you can tell I'm whining, because I really am. Pissed of by all this irony and useless garbage some of you post everytime someone posts something that doesn't fit your opinions/interests.

[crumhorn]

So what features would people want to see in a music (and other media) sharing and download service? What would be a reasonable business model and a fare price to charge in your opinions.

I ask because I'm looking for a project after being made redundant. I've worked most of my adult life in software development and want to try setting up something of my own. Obviously I'm looking for a business model that would cover all the costs and make a modest income for myself into the bargain.

I've already got a bunch of ideas, mainly centred around the idea of collaboration. Forming ad-hock groups connected by email, instant messaging, SMS, twitter or whatever. I'd also like it to integrate with social networking and bookmarking sites to facilitate publishing your work on the web.

My first idea for the charging model would be to give a useful amount of bandwidth and storage space FOC and start charging when you go over that amount. Also the idea of networks of collaborators gives the opportunity for invitation based membership and rewards (extra megabytes etc) for getting other people to join up.

One thing I have learned is that for something to succeed on the internet it has to have a very simple basic premise that will sell it. You can hang other services off of that, but the basic idea has to be simple and have obvious benefits.

Anyway, feel free to ignore me if you think I'm being a bit cheeky by posting this here. But I would really appreciate your inputs.

Feel free to PM me if you don't want to pollute the forum.

[boska]

Agree with the simple part, make it as plain and simple as possible. A good name might also help

If you can offer way more service in terms of distribution, promotion, availibility etc., you would be in your right to charge more than existing services, as this would make the service more attractive than storage space and communication tools imo... but I doubt you will be able to do that. I am more concerned with finding solutions for internet music distribution that will leave any money for the ARTIST, unlike spotify...

[Leon Tricker]

So what features would people want to see in a music (and other media) sharing and download service? What would be a reasonable business model and a fare price to charge in your opinions.

I really like Bandcamp, and frankly I would pay for the service they offer.

My 'ideal' would be a service that merged what Bandcamp, MySpace, Twitter, and Facebook provide. Because I like Bandcamp, but it be great to be able to add a bio, live dates, a discography, and a news page... and to contact your 'fans' with updates, and for them to be able to leave comments.

The biggest costs to the provider - I guess - are promotion of the service and storage space. I'd be happy to pay, say, £5.00-£10.00 per month for a reliable service that enabled me to upload, and people to download, as much as they like. Oh yeah, and artists should be able to offer their music for free or at a cost.

Let us know how you get on!

[supamonsta]

I like bandcamp too, but I'm just starting using it so I can't really tell. It obviously seems to lack the ability to input biography, and there seem s to be no networking with it.

My main wish is a system that offers "HD" streaming, so that you can upload your wavs or hi rate mp3s and the listener has it 100% un-over-compressed.

I don't care giving 30-50$ for a year of good services. (I'm charging against soundcloud, just only because they now ask $$$ for stuff that was free).

I don't know if your "project" will fill a blank, so much hosts and services already exist, and seem really good enough...

But I wish you good luck

Anyway, feel free to ignore me if you think I'm being a bit cheeky by posting this here. But I would really appreciate your inputs.

Feel free to PM me if you don't want to pollute the forum.

why would this pollute the forums? you are in the good topic

afraid of being laughed at? don't see why, people are sooo gentle in this place those times...


cheers mate

[sunaivod]

Just signed up for that 29euro/year

It's less then a package of cigarettes a month, gotta smoke a little less now. Not a big deal
+ you get a visual player which u can design yourself, which is very nice.

http://www.sunaivod.com for my visual player.

[supamonsta]

sunavoid :

now that you are "Lite user", could you confirm that the sound stream is now again "HD" ?

I'll try the free trial tonight, if the lite account allows this, I'm in.

cheers

[sunaivod]

sunavoid :

now that you are "Lite user", could you confirm that the sound stream is now again "HD" ?

I'll try the free trial tonight, if the lite account allows this, I'm in.

cheers

Hey, I've searched it up in their FAQ:

"In order for users to hear music rapidly on the SC platform, we re-encode every track to high quality 128 kbps Mp3s. However, if you make your file « downloadable », then the users who have access to it will be able to download the original file (whether it’s Aiff, Wav or Mp3)."

If u aiming at "streaming quality" (HD is for video right?)
IMO the streaming quality is good enough If people wanna have high quality they should download it or buy it (by just dropping the url where your track can be bought),
Just try the free trial, maybe it's good enough for you. (Don't know how many tracks you got..)
Good luck

[supamonsta]

ok then, I'll have to accept the loss of "HD" audio streaming...

only 2 "options" made me want to go "lite":

-ability to replace audiofiles
-"HD" audio streaming

I won't pay only to be able to replace audio files that are streamed like in everyother myspace, bandcamp service (bandcamp allows this).

I don't really need to upload more than 120 minutes for now (= 20 tracks).

I just noticed "virb", seems good, I'll check if the streaming is better...

cheers

[jon_moore]

ok then, I'll have to accept the loss of "HD" audio streaming...

only 2 "options" made me want to go "lite":

-ability to replace audiofiles
-"HD" audio streaming

I won't pay only to be able to replace audio files that are streamed like in everyother myspace, bandcamp service (bandcamp allows this).

I don't really need to upload more than 120 minutes for now (= 20 tracks).

I just noticed "virb", seems good, I'll check if the streaming is better...

cheers

128k streaming rate is for the users benefit. You may have a blisteringly fast and reliable broadband connection but the story isn't the same for everyone. If you want to ensure the maximum number of people can access you streams without stuttering, 128k is the best option.

The choice is yours though.

[crumhorn]

Encouraging to know people would be happy to pay for the right level of service. I'm thinking of using Amazon Web Services or something similar as a back end. you can store a GB of data for about 10p a month + bandwidth charges. Supports bit Torrents out of the box and can replicate your files in different geographical locations, etc.

@monstrejumo

Not afraid of being laughed at - I'm used to it - but some people might see it as spam and I din't want the thread to degenerate into a row about spamming the forum.

I know what you mean about finding a hole in the market. I'ts pointless trying to compete with the likes of flikr, myspace, facebook,... need to be more canny than that. I plan to adopt the Bill Gates "embrace and extend" motto. But then I'm not planning to take over the world, simply offer a professional level of service and find enough users to pay the mortgage.

@all

I need to make a road map, milestones, deliverables, and all that boring stuff.
Feel free to contact me if you have any ideas to contribute.

I'll post again when there is something worth reporting.

[supamonsta]

128k streaming rate is for the users benefit. You may have a blisteringly fast and reliable broadband connection but the story isn't the same for everyone. If you want to ensure the maximum number of people can access you streams without stuttering, 128k is the best option.

I understand. Connexion seems a bit faster these times (while still not being really "blisteringly fast").

Guess I'll have to do specific mixing/"mastering" stuff on the tracks so as to have them sounding quite acceptable while streamed at 128k... (or perhap's don't listener people give any shit about sound quality... but I do!!)

@Crumhorn: hope you'll manage it, you should perhap's post a new topic to get specific ideas?
I'll be interested to follow your building project.

[LoopStationZebra]

Pissed of by all this irony and useless garbage some of you post everytime someone posts something that doesn't fit your opinions/interests.

Dude. omfg. You've got nearly 1000 posts. Surely you know by now how things work around here. Right? FFS. Grow a pair. And fast, lol.

[supamonsta]

I'm a too much sensible guy

[LoopStationZebra]

lol. It's okay. We love you just the way you are.