Don't forget to Mixx me when I'm gone! Jeremy Lim on Thu, 2008-01-03 19:03
Care to make a Mixx with me? Add me up on Facebook! Just make sure to let me know you're from Project Opus.
facebook exclusive? uberbelly on Fri, 2008-01-04 12:06
It's a great app and I can see it being big but are there any plans for it to be used right here on Opus? or any other sites?
The thing about Facebook is Jeremy Lim on Fri, 2008-01-04 12:52
The thing about Facebook is that it's a super-tight, 'walled garden' sort of environment. It has a million and one security measures that keep us in 'fair use'.
Since users are uploading songs, we have to keep the lid on the .mp3s nice and tight. This is done by only allowing friends of a user to view the user's Mixxs. If it was made public beyond a user's circle of friends, then we wouldn't be much different than internet radio, and then the usual 'happenings' happen.
As for whether or not it will be on Project Opus or other sites, we'd definitely like for it to. We'd have to look into a way we could still maintain our layers of security away from Facebook. Right now, our plans are to make sure Mixx Maker is stable and finds success in the Facebook environment first.
Math Melodic Energy Commission on Fri, 2008-01-04 18:34
Let's see now...
Or is this just a 'fair use' dream?
Revenue models - throw out the ideas David on Sun, 2008-01-06 13:46
I think we need to figure out a revenue model on this very soon as MIXXMAKER, is a very expensive app to maintain without revenue. For this product to be successful we need to figure out how to make money - which means how can we get money flowing to the artists.
So a hundred song mixx is interesting, but what about the more typical 20-40 song mixx? The $0.05 may be too small to cover the transaction fee.
How can we get someone to part with 5-10 bucks for a 20-40 song MIXX? Throw out the ideas!
Mixx your best pixx Melodic Energy Commission on Sun, 2008-01-06 16:15
The benefits to the Mixxer are:
At $.25 per track that comes to $5. to $10. in a single payment. Still very innexpensive. Could possibly be higher.
Having a minimum limit for a mixx would be good (say 20) this would induce experimenting with 2nd choice tunes to fill up a Mixx.
I may be off mark, but if Jeremy Lim on Mon, 2008-01-07 11:26
I may be off mark, but if I'm understanding correctly, your 'mass-licensing' idea sounds pretty sweet.
In retail stores, or restaurants, you have to license to play the music. A Mixx is sort of like a room. One person licenses the music, and everyone else can get in and listen to it. As for a price point, that's left to experimentation and precedent.
The only thing is how this would be implemented with transaction fees floating around. Would you have to load up a Mixx with 20 songs before you could invite anyone to it? What about the songs added thereafter?
I don't agree with the random fill-up thing. Not that it's not a smart idea (that both exposes, and sells), but it takes away from the idea of having context.
Mixx Masstery Melodic Energy Commission on Mon, 2008-01-07 12:03
Looking at it as mass-licensing is interesting. Especially if the Mixx contents could be reported directly to Socan so they could begin 'FAIR' distribution of the royalties they already receive from restaurants and cafe blanket licensing.
I suggested the 20 song minimum only to differentiate a 'Mixx" from a regular 'Download'. Mixxes would be like a Bulk Buy (or rental). Otherwise, if you made a 1 or 2 or 3 song Mixx than why shouldn't you have to pay the regular download fee of $.99 or whatever? Also a minimum would allow you to make a reasonable sized transaction.
Random fill-up would just be a smart Last-fm styled short cut to make a larger Mixx. For those that don't know their tunes but want to explore with style quickly. 'I only have time to pick 10 tunes but have to pay for 20 so why not let the robot do the choosing for a fill-up". The Mixxer could edit, delete or move on with the robot's choices.
Open source brainstormers unite for a resolution
delicious | 
digg