The interview is a bit long (around 45 minutes) with some fluff (what are your favorite gadgets?) but Reznor clearly recognizes in what direction the music industry and online content are going, which I found very interesting. Here's a quick summary of some of the more interesting bits:
- Reznor explains that since music is essentially free due to downloads, he doesn't feel it's necessary to require payment.
- When they offered the option to pay, only 18% of people did so. But, offering limited edition physical products worked out well.
- His feeling is that it's more beneficial for a greater number people to hear his music, even if it's for free, because the result is more ticket sales / merchandise purchases.
- They're looking to build a platform for artists to distribute their music which will give power to the artists. They're still playing with potential business models that are fair for the artist and fan.
- NIN is developing an iPhone app to connect fans by location, and will hopefully create a "live blog" of concerts for those who can't physically be there.
- He has had some interest in live-streaming concerts, and is pushing for venues to have an open-camera policy so that fans all over the world can enjoy the experience, even if they can't physically be there.
I'm not a NIN fan personally, but it's nice to see a prominent figure in the music industry with their head on straight.
Reznor is a great guy, but I hope there's a future where people who make awesome stuff can get paid based on that, not based on charity, limited editions, and tie-ins. We need a new economic model for goods with real production cost but no reproduction cost.
>We need a new economic model for goods with real production cost but no reproduction cost.
Not only do I think that is impossible but I'm not convinced that it is a good idea. Has any economist ever done any quantitative analysis when the marginal cost of (re)production is zero? I suspect that there are only obvious models that answer the question by saying that goods with production costs of zero should be priced at zero. In the short term there are all sorts of things you can do to maximize profits when the marginal cost is zero, but in the long run the price will fall to zero.
This wistful hope that recorded music will be worth anything is kind of like my wistful hope that a viable economic system will come along that doesn't have a nasty tendency to concentrate the wealth in the hands of those that already have the capital.
Is that future you hope for really better than the one where something with a marginal cost of zero is priced in the market as it should be? I strongly suspect that the total amount of music recorded over time will continue to increase even as the cost falls to zero. I'm not sure what is so great about being able to sell digital music anyways. The limited editions seem infinitely superior to me as a consumer and are a great way to add a little bit of scarcity to a good that isn't scarce.
Came here to say the same thing, I was impressed on how articulate Renzor is throughout the interview. Plus, he clearly 'gets' the direction things are moving.
Trent said it in the context of incumbents and what he had to do to succeed in the music industry. With that context he was saying that the indie musician will have a hard time making any money on iTunes.
For me, the most important trait I look for in a co-founder is trust. If that element is absent, I think building a long-term partnership would be too difficult, no matter how wonderful they may be in other areas. They also need to be reliable, as you need someone who's going to stick it out through the highs and lows. Apart from that, I look for an overall high level of intelligence and someone who compliments my skill set (e.g. someone with a killer sense of design).
No matter how much you trust your co-founder (and you should definitely choose someone you trust a great deal) make sure that there are adequate legal documents in place to protect your interests. If, years down the road, the person you trust ends up not being so trustworthy, you don't want to end up screwed. (I speak from painful experience....)
As far as telling other people goes, I find that HN comes up most often when I tell my friends about the interesting stories I find here. The reaction from non-technical people is usually something to the effect of: "Where the hell do you find this stuff??" The reaction from technical people is usually something like: "Yeah, I already read that on HN." With regards to the first group, it seems that they always find the stories interesting, but never show any signs that they'll make HN one of their news sources, and I'm fine with that.
For me, things such as the meteor video or an article about the Broken Windows Theory are fine, and I don't foresee any "Karl Rove eats deep fried baby flesh" articles soon, but I'd like to keep it that way. The community at HN is the root of the reason I keep coming back.
My first piece of advice would be this: don't bank on YC funding. Sure, it would be great if you got accepted, but that shouldn't stop you from pursuing your idea. Especially if it is still just an idea - work on it at home, in your spare time, and then evaluate your options once you have done everything you possibly can do on your own.
If you decide that you need outside funding, and even Mountain View is too far, then your options for YC (or a similar program) become more limited. The next YC round will be in Cambridge, but there is TechStars in Boulder, Colorado which is obviously much closer, but may still be too far. The only other programs I have heard of are in the Philly / DC areas.
Like you said though, there are more traditional routes. A Google search for 'arizona angel network' brings up over 2m hits. My point is that, I'm sure there are options, you just need to look for them, and then evaluate.
I found this really interesting, because we covered this exact topic in a psychology course that I took while in university, and I think that it is often mis-quoted / mis-used. The conclusion that was drawn from scientific research was that the vast majority of experts all shared a common trait - they all had at least 10,000 hours of deliberate practice (not that anyone who practiced for 10,000 hours would definitely be an expert). Deliberate practice was defined as practice which: has a goal / task that relates to improved performance, there are explicit instructions as the the best methods of improvement, there is immediate feedback on the performance, and the person repeatedly performs these actions. Obviously his isn't leisurely practice like playing catch in your backyard if you're a baseball player. The experts also didn't practice for 1 hour per day for 30 years like someone in the comments mentioned; the average was about 4 hours per day if I remember correctly. The research had also noted (much like the Matt Maroon article) that this does not mean, for example, that ANYBODY can play in the NBA. What they are really pointing out is that those who are in the NBA probably had at least 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. They also noted that some fields of expertise (such as the NBA) have built-in physical constraints (ex: height) which must be considered. Their study actual dealt with the field of music (violin playing, specifically) which has fewer constraints than something like basketball, and the results were significant.
I was struck a few years ago by an interview with an olympic athlete. She was asked how she found the discipline to keep a grueling practice schedule. She answered that what many see as discipline is actually passion.
If you're having trouble finding discipline, the answer may lie in finding a way to love what you're doing more.
This is very important. Having the iron discipline to work very hard for a long time at something you don't really like, in order to achieve some unrelated goal (for example getting rich) is also known as obsessive-compulsive disorder. The worst thing is that this approach sometimes works - I have met guitar virtuouses who definitely have this disorder. But if it's at the expense of your well-being, it is probably not worth it.
There is a lot of this in the startup community. I'm pretty sure the early life of Cisco is a pretty good example, but unsuccessful instances are all around you.
6 months ago when I put 90% of my savings into CDs, people around me told me I was playing it too safe...let me tell you, right now I am one happy person.
You should have put it all into the highest yielding (and thus riskiest) money market accounts. The government ended up giving them the same coverage as your CDs (not that you could have known that would happen...).
Aza Raskin is developing some really cool technology over at Mozilla, dealing with things such as user interface and intuitive design. I expect that some of what he is producing now will be standard within the next couple of years, for example Geode, which was discussed yesterday (http://labs.mozilla.com/2008/10/introducing-geode/).
I just started reading 'Founders at Work' and find it kind of funny that they cite Steve Jobs in this article, when during his interview, Woz said that some of their best ideas (when building Apple) came after several days of not sleeping.
My own anecdata are somewhat conflicted on this issue. I always did well in school, understanding the key issues in a design problem (aerospace engineering) long before my classmates, and I always attributed it to my sleep habits (8-10 hrs daily).
On the other hand, some of my finest moments of clarity have come after all-night cramming sessions. It's as if you fatigue all the usual pathways and are open up to entirely new ways of seeing things.
"... Woz said that some of their best ideas (when building Apple) came after several days of not sleeping ..."
Don't confuse working on a problem for a long time, understanding it very clearly with having the idea in your head and regurgitating a solution in one long stint. Woz emphasized this in his 2005 Startup School talk. Understanding an idea so completely in your head you can simplify it no more.
I'm not confusing anything, just restating what he said in his interview with Jessica. The actual quote is "When you get very, very tired -- and I had been up for four nights all night long; Steve and I got mononucleosis -- your head gets in this real creative state and it thinks of ideas that you'd normally just throw out."
There was a study a few years ago (unfortunately I don't have the link handy) that showed that the lack of sleep is directly correlated to a spike in creativity.
- Reznor explains that since music is essentially free due to downloads, he doesn't feel it's necessary to require payment.
- When they offered the option to pay, only 18% of people did so. But, offering limited edition physical products worked out well.
- His feeling is that it's more beneficial for a greater number people to hear his music, even if it's for free, because the result is more ticket sales / merchandise purchases.
- They're looking to build a platform for artists to distribute their music which will give power to the artists. They're still playing with potential business models that are fair for the artist and fan.
- NIN is developing an iPhone app to connect fans by location, and will hopefully create a "live blog" of concerts for those who can't physically be there.
- They're continuing to work on Year Zero with either a serial TV show or graphic novel, which will integrate the album and ARG [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Zero_(alternate_reality_ga... ] that they produced.
- He has had some interest in live-streaming concerts, and is pushing for venues to have an open-camera policy so that fans all over the world can enjoy the experience, even if they can't physically be there.
I'm not a NIN fan personally, but it's nice to see a prominent figure in the music industry with their head on straight.