Among my peers, the same question keeps getting asked: “When are SoundCloud going to start paying?”. Make no mistake: people are starting to resent the fact that they’re seeing all these plays and getting no payment per-stream. There’s a Catch-22 here: as the platform grows and delivers more plays for artists, so will the annoyance among rightsholders who are seeing those big numbers with zero payouts.

Here’s some observations as I see it:

1. SoundCloud needs to introduce ads
Right now, SoundCloud is in the same place as the pre-monetisation YouTube. They’re growing rapidly, and need to satisfy rightsholders who at some point will make a put-up-or-shut-up demand on them. Additionally though, their costs must be spiralling on an epic level. An audio platform is not a cheap one to run, being fairly bandwidth-heavy, so logic would dictate that at some point Soundcloud’s investors are going to demand a stronger push to monetise and offset costs. Advertising is inevitable: its the only way the requisite revenues can be generated. Look to YouTube for the precedents on this one.

2. SoundCloud is running a risk of being blindsided by Google, Spotify, Daisy etc etc.
In the last few weeks. the streaming music market has suddenly become a very crowded place, with Google rumoured to be stepping into the fray with potentially not one but two offerings, Access Industries investing in Daisy… even Tesco launching their own service. Among these newer players particularly, there’s some very deep pockets with other business interests that allow them to make highly competitive moves. With that massive hike in competition, it is now a label’s market again as each service strives to get the exclusives and premium content that will draw in new users. What the labels could also do though is use these services to seriously put the squeeze on SoundCloud’s payments (or lack thereof).

That said, these audio services currently all have one common difference from SoundCloud: you have to have an account to play music. That means that right now, their services are not 100% portable. A huge factor in SoundCloud’s adoption among labels was because we can post a player and have it travel all over the web to music websites, blogs, people’s social feeds etc, and people can listen immediately, no login required, from anywhere in the world. Its why so many people use SoundCloud. But what if Spotify, Google or another service were to offer an open platform for labels to undertake promotion with? Imagine an ad-supported player that could play anywhere AND monetise for the rightsholder. Would labels flock to that? You bet. Just as with YouTube, “premium” music (ie mid- to large-level artists) make up a huge proportion of plays. If that content were to vanish overnight, SoundCloud would have a big problem. Additionally of course it also reflects well on them; having premium artists on your service is an endorsement.

3. SoundCloud needs to demonstrate what the value of a fan on their platform actually is
Right now, I am seeing huge growth in fan numbers on SoundCloud for the artists I work with. On the face of it, that seems like a great development, especially when those numbers are in places starting to rival Facebook. But how can I then capitalise on this? Can I push a direct message to them? Not unless its attached to a new player. Can I advertise to them? No. Literally the only thing I can do is post more music to them – music which right now, pays zero per stream. So are those fans as valuable as Facebook fans or Twitter followers? No. Not even close. People could argue this is a slightly myopic view and to some extent they’d be right: on some campaigns I’ve seen around 1% clickthrough on the Buy button on my SoundCloud players. So, SoundCloud does drive awareness and sales… but the fact remains that YouTube does that too – but it also monetises directly. Furthermore, on YouTube I can run remarketing – an incredibly handy means to then target fans with your messages (eg. album out now, tickets now on sale etc).

4. SoundCloud needs to understand what kind of service it is
In some respects, I think SoundCloud has an identity crisis of sorts. They’re a music service, but not a dedicated one (evidenced by a very noticeable shift in terminology from “music” to “sound” and an emphasis on found sounds, SoundCloud Voices etc). They’re also a marketing platform, but not a closed, dedicated one in the manner of something like Topspin or Cash Music. SoundCloud always presented itself as a social network, but I think the reality is that the social element only really kicked in with the recent relaunch. So exactly what space do they occupy? Right now it feels vague, as if they’re a bit of this and a bit of that. Presenting yourself as the main repository for all audio on the web is admirable – but it does not excuse you from joining all other music audio services in paying rightsholders.

Let me put this another way: if a really well-evolved marketing platform were to launch, allowing globally embeddable players and a stronger featureset for connecting with fans, I would be advocating the use of that to my artists and labels – even more so if it was monetisable too. So then if I was not using SoundCloud for marketing to fans, what would I be using it for? Not as a streaming music service: there’s now a plethora of those, all of which pay rightsholders. What’s left then? An established audience, potentially… but not much else.

That, really, is the nub of it. Something needs to change.

I’m one of those people who hates to see old tech go to waste, mainly because I’m of the view that they’re still eminently capable of doing some useful things. You only have to see how much the Raspberry Pi has taken off to know that low-powered tech can still perform a lot of useful tasks. So, with that in mind I thought I’d see what could be done with my old handsets – and found rather a nifty solution. By simply installing Skype on them, then setting Skype to automatically answer with a video call, I can use the handsets as globally-accessible video cameras, letting me check on home when I’m away etc.

If you want to give this a go, its dead simple. Just do the following:

1. Install Skype on your old handset or iPod Touch.
2. Create a new account with the name of your choosing (e.g. Home.Cam.1.)
3. Once installed and logged in, go into Settings and check the box marked “Answer calls automatically”. Then if the option is there, check the box marked “enable video calling”.

That’s it. Install Skype on your current phone or computer, video call the other one and it should answer and immediately start streaming video.

To make this more secure, I’d recommend adding your “security cam” handset as a contact, then going into settings on the security camera phone and checking the option to only receive calls from contacts. That way, the only person who can call your security camera handset is you.

From there, all you need to do is position your phone wherever you want to and ensure its plugged into a power source, and you should be good to go. If you really want to round things out, buy a smartphone camera mount to set your phone up on a camera tripod. Simple – and a lot cheaper than buying a remote IP webcam and messing about with port forwarding on your router.

If for any reason you’re not in favour of that, just don’t click the links to products and go search them directly on the service. I’m fine with that too

With that in mind, I was looking for a cloud storage solution with the following criteria:

1) Must be accessible as a network drive on my Mac so I can simply copy files to/from it
2) Must also be accessible from mobile/tablet so I can get to files on the move
3) Must be private by default (ie content not accessible via public URL)
4) Must also have means to share links privately to other people

On paper at least, this appear to be a relatively simple request. However, as it transpired it was actually a really tricky one to sort out. The likes of Dropbox, SugarSync, Box and others all rely on more of a sync method, whereby your files remain on your hard drive but also sync up to the cloud in order to access them from anywhere. The failing of that for me was that I didn’t want these files on my hard drive; I just wanted them in the cloud. Those services also cost a lot when you’re only using them to store a large volume of files that you access intermittently.

FTP therefore seemed like the next best option – and as a friend advised, Transmit on the Mac lets you now mount webservers as network drives for seamless access. However regular FTP meant files would be public (unless some .htaccess wrangling was done – not my forte), and would also fail on point 4 above, because there’s no easy means to share a private file.

With all that in mind, I decided to look into OwnCloud; an open source, roll-your-own-Dropbox cloud storage service. OwnCloud is free and can install on any webserver, and so its #1 USP is that you aren’t paying per gigabyte to store your data, as is the case with all commercial providers. Usefully though, you can also mount OwnCloud as a drive over WebDAV. And, if that fails, you can simply use Transmit to map a drive to your OwnCloud file storage area. Crucially for me though, OwnCloud also passed on points 2, 3 and 4 above: files are kept private, but can be shared easily via their web interface or dedicated iOS and Android apps.

Installing OwnCloud is a cinch: you just download this install script, upload it to the server you want to install it on, then load it up in your browser at http://yourdomain.com/setup-owncloud.php to start. The script then does all the checking for you and assuming your webserver passes muster, it will do the install. Yes, its that easy. From there, the service can even index your music files and photos which can then be played or viewed in separate sections. You can even sync your contacts and calendar with it, should you so desire. Sharing files is easy enough too; you just click the “share” button and can either email a link to the file directly from the service, or can get a shareable URL to copy and paste.

So: that was the cloud storage set up, ticking parts 2, 3 and 4 of the criteria above. The only remaining issue was to set up the cloud storage as a network drive, using Transmit. Transmit isn’t a free app – it costs around £23 – but is generally regarded as the best-in-class FTP app for Mac. I do a lot of FTPing to artist sites etc, so have a very good reason to own it anyway. Its killer function in this context though, is its Drive function, which can mount any FTP/SFTP/WebDAV location as a network drive that you access in Finder.

Mounting the OwnCloud as a network drive was simple enough, and there are two ways you can do it. One is using WebDAV, but in truth I found this to be a little buggy, with some files not uploading correctly. So, in my case I just created an FTP connection to the files area of my OwnCloud install. This can be modified when installing to be any location you specify, but the default is at yourdomain.com/owncloud/data/USERNAME/files/.

That’s it! With that set up, I now have a network drive with (relatively) unlimited storage that I can access from anywhere – and when I’m not near my laptop, I also have a mobile app I can use to send links to assets as required. It took me all of 10mins to set up from start to finish and feels like the best solution for my needs. If like me you just need a place to store those intermittently-accessed files, this could be one solution to try out.

P.S. One other thing I should mention about OwnCloud that is pretty cool is its means to add external storage mounts. In plain english, this means you can connect your Dropbox or Google Drive accounts to OwnCloud and have them appear as another storage location within OwnCloud itself. Similarly you can also add in other FTP sites, or if you’re running OwnCloud on a local machine (e.g. a Raspberry Pi), you can easily add local drive mounts too. In my use case none of those are particularly necessary, but there’s no question that a top-level connector system to access all your cloud storage etc in one place could be very handy to some.

First up: Twilio and Zapier. Zapier is very similar to IFTTT; it allows you to feed one API into another to make something happen. A large number of services are supported and you connect them up to do things like tweet when a new Mailchimp campaign has been sent, for example. In this instance though, what I’ve done is set up a “zap” where if I text an email address to my own number, it adds that address to the Daily Digest mailing list. I often have people ask about signing up when I’m at events or meetings, so this is a perfect way to take action on that; I can just text their email to my Twilio number, and it then adds that address to the Daily Digest list, then sends a confirmation email to the subscriber. Simple, but hugely effective. In time I’ll probably buy a separate number so I can publicise the feature – ie “text your email to [number] to subscribe”.

If you do have a Twilio number, Zapier is really a must-have service as it just opens up the possibilites no end – particularly to non-developer types like myself. For example, you could have Twilio call you when one of your artists updates their Facebook page. Or you can have it text you when someone adds a new file to your Dropbox. The possibilities are endless, so do check it out.

Something else I found that could prove incredibly handy is this free-to-use app that allows you to text the number you want to call to your own Twilio number, then have Twilio call you back and connect you to the number you want to ring. If that sounds a little bizarre, let me elaborate: if I am abroad, calling the UK from my mobile could be incredible expensive. By having Twilio call me back and connect me through, I am paying $0.32/min (for Twilio to call my mobile) and a further $0.02/min (for the call from Twilio to the UK number). So, its a total of $0.34/min to chat – or 21p at the current exchange rate. If I was travelling in the USA, that same call would cost me £1.25/min to make. Ergo, there’s a significant saving to be made here.

Ultimately I think both Zapier and the call-client above highlight just how much is possible with Twilio. Even if you don’t plan to use it as a main phone contact number, for $1 and extremely low costs it is capable of delivering a huge amount of flexibility to you.

If I had one wish, its that Twilio perhaps wasn’t quite so developer-focussed. The power of the service demonstrates all the ways in which Skype falls short as a VOIP client, and from where I sit its plain to see that Twilio could be a serious challenger to them… if they wanted it to be. Right now, the subtext I get from all conversations with Twilio staff etc is basically “we provide the platform – its up to you to build on it”, which I totally understand, but which also shuts a huge number of people out.

Its also quite surprising how few Twilio apps are out there to make use of. I would have thought there’d be a huge number of open-source apps being made for people to use… but as yet, that’s not the case. I suspect that will change in time, but until then if anyone finds any good apps or directories of apps, please let me know in the comments section below.

Enter Twilio. For a while now I’ve been curious about this service, which interfaces telephony with the web. My mate Syd Lawrence has done some very clever stuff there, which in turn had me interested in what was possible from a marketing perspective. However what tipped me over the edge into using it was this post, explaining how you could use Twilio to dodge roaming costs when travelling. From that, I learned a few things. Firstly, you could buy a number for a tiny amount ($1 per month). Secondly, you could then do a LOT with that number. In some respects, Twilio is like a more powerful version of Google Voice – a service unavailable to anyone outside the US.

Twilio has solved my problem. How? By giving my business a flexible landline number (and a local London one too!) that my clients can call. How the number behaves it entirely up to me – and believe me, it can do some funky stuff if I so desire. In the simplest terms though, I can have the number forward on to either my home landline, or my mobile. Alternatively, I can just have it dial me on my computer, allowing me to use it in the same manner as a Skype phone number. As the above blog post demonstrates too, I can also use it to handle my being abroad, by having Twilio forward to a local SIM that I’ve bought in whatever country I am in. Similarly, whilst I am there I can use my laptop to call clients via the web and it won’t cost me the earth. Usefully, they also just see the same number calling them, so they always know it is me. It allows a reliability that my clients will appreciate (only one number to call, anytime, to get hold of me) and with that brings a touch more professionalism to my business.

So – how do you go about doing all this? Well, its pretty simple really:

1. Get a Twilio account and phone number. Go to Twilio.com and signup for free. To buy a phone number, you’ll need to add payment info.

2. Select your number. Its worth noting that you can buy numbers for many different territories. For example, I could buy a US contact number if I wanted to. So, if like me you’re in London, you can select a local 0203 number so clients won’t be wondering where they’re calling. Also worth noting is that you can search for numbers. In my case I was able to find a very memorable one comprising a bunch of double-digits (e.g. 44556633) with a bit of trial and error. Spend time on that – its totally worth it.

3. Once your number is set up, log in to Twilio and click on “Account” and then “Numbers”. Or, if you’re logged in, click here.

4. In that section you’ll see two entries: one for how voice calls to your number are handled, the other for how SMS is handled. In the voice section, paste the following in to create a simple forwarding instruction:

http://twimlets.com/forward?PhoneNumber=THEPHONENUMBERTOFORWARDTO

That will then ensure that any voice calls get bounced on to that number. Do the same for SMS if you also want text messages to go to the same place (e.g. your mobile).

5. Click on “Save Changes” and that’s it – your Twilio number will now forward on to whatever number you specified.

That’s it! Simple eh?

If there is one caveat around this, it is the pricing. Twilio charges $1 per month for your number. Beyond that, it then charges $0.01 (1 cent) per minute to receive a call if you are taking it on your Twilio number directly (ie using a VOIP client). If it is forwarding on, it will also charge you for making that call to the handset you’ve specified. To a regular landline (or a Skype In number), that price is $0.02/min. When forwarding to a mobile though, it can get more expensive – up to $0.32/min. For that reason, you might want to think twice about using forwarding to mobiles. Personally, I get around this by using the VOIP client wherever possible – and have a failsafe setup so that if I don’t answer via VOIP, it will then call my mobile to ensure clients can reach me. So far, that’s worked really well.

Whilst the pricing may mean the solution is potentially a costly one for some, I have to say that I find it entirely worth it. For one thing, my clients don’t need to save 3 different numbers to chase me on. For another, it means that when I’m at my home I can just take calls in a manner that ensures they won’t drop due to bad reception. For that alone, its 100% worth it. The travelling aspect will prove a huge bonus too, with the article linked to above claiming that a saving of around $350 was possible for the duration of that person’s stay.

This is just the simple stuff. Beyond that, you can do some really awesome things with Twilio and even incorporate it into other services you use. I’ll save that for a separate post though. For now, I really recommend having a play around with the service as its quite the eye-opener as to what’s possible. Go get stuck in!

Something that really caught my eye when using their web client though was the way in which many of the Deezer “apps” were basically just external websites that were using the Deezer API to provide their audio. This led me on a train of thought around both Deezer and Spotify apps, where I concluded that in many respects what we have here is a massive case of Emperor’s New Clothes. A chat with Syd Lawrence on Twitter basically confirmed that, too – which you read on Storify here.

Let’s start with the basics. Spotify’s desktop client is basically a jazzed up Chromium browser, as I understand it. The Spotify apps that run within it are, to all intents and purposes, websites. They’re code being pulled from elsewhere and run within the Spotify desktop client. Similarly, Deezer’s apps run in a similar manner – though often not even within the Deezer web client.

That being the case, one has to ask the question: why are the people behind these apps not broadening them out to run on the web, connecting in with all available services? Take the Earache Metalizer Spotify app, for example. I’d wager that with probably an extra 20% of time spent on it, that could have been adapted to also run within Earache’s website, pointing people to the streaming service of choice, be that Spotify, Deezer, Rdio or potentially something else.

This isn’t – and shouldn’t be – an “either/or” scenario. I would assume you could have the same app available in Spotify, Deezer *and* on your website if you so desired – and why not? It provides convenience to your users, after all. So why aren’t people doing this?

A recent development to further erode any argument against doing so would surely be the introduction of Tomahawk’s Toma.hk API. For the unfamiliar, Toma.hk is a top-level music sharing service. You tell it what song you want to share, and it spits back a shortened URL that will offer links to the song across all services it can find it on (Spotify, Deezer, Soundcloud, YouTube etc), and will provide a player if the song is found on an open service like YouTube or Soundcloud where an account isn’t required to listen. By offering an API, Toma.hk means people can now build webapps with the same functionality as a Spotify or Deezer app, but with the flexibility to link to any service it can interact with. You can even state what order you’d prefer results to be found in (ie “please find me the songs on Spotify first, then YouTube if not available” etc).

Playing devil’s advocate then, it would be very easy to take the concept of Earache’s Metalizer app and rebuild it using Toma.hk’s API, so that it could serve up heavy metal playlists for not just Spotify but Deezer, YouTube, Soundcloud – you name it. The site would be open to all and on paper at least would have far greater reach because it is not restricted only to users of one service. There’s nothing untoward about this either; all the services in question are 100% legal and, with the exception of Soundcloud, remunerate rightsholders.

In some respects it feels like the music industry has fallen under a classic marketing spell here. Various content owners and publishers have rushed to deliver Spotify apps (and Deezer ones too in some cases), whilst failing to look at the bigger picture. In my own experience, Spotify is an awesome service but still one limited by virtue of its requirement 1) to be operational in your territory and 2) for you to have an account. Taking this concept of locked-in apps and opening them up to a wider audience only makes good sense to me, as it ensures rightsholders are not limiting their offering to one or two services but instead putting the consumer first with maximum compatibility to their listening services. When you look beyond your own country especially, you realise that such a move isn’t just “a nice additional feature” – its critical to delivering awesome, engaging web experiences to as many people as possible.

So… who will be the first to step up?

What I’ve really noticed though is just how much Next Soundcloud has led to a surge in follower numbers – and in some cases how drastic those numbers are when compared to other social networks. Don’t believe me? Check out the rate at which SBTRKT gained new fans when the new version of Soundcloud went live (click for larger version of the image – graphs taken from MusicMetric):

Now look at how SBTRKT’s total fan numbers have grown in just the last month – Soundcloud has come out of nowhere and if it continues at this pace will soon beat Facebook:

Its worth noting too that SBTRKT is relatively out of cycle in terms of releases at present. The last track posted to his Soundcloud account was 3 months ago. This therefore is a growth happening without masses of promo occurring elsewhere (that I’m aware of anyway). [UPDATE: I've since been informed his new live album is out this week, so there has been a fair amount of promo activity - but not using Soundcloud]

Now admittedly, SBTRKT is more the exception than the rule here. Certainly among the artists I look after, none have quite matched this level of consistent growth. However most saw a hefty leap in early December (around 40% of their total fan count), with numbers easing off over Christmas and into January.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that in a very short space of time, a lot of artists have now picked up a huge number of followers to whom they can directly push new music. At a time when reaching your entire Facebook fanbase requires promoting your post, this is a powerful new means to reach more fans – and free beer to most of us as our artists already had accounts on Soundcloud to begin with.

Of course, there’s no metrics yet on the visibility of your track when posted to your feed but one would assume it to be more akin to Twitter, where the chances of your post being seen relate directly to the number of people a fan is following. Even factoring in a low visibility score though, the fact remains that posting a track on Soundcloud now will result in it reaching a LOT more people than it did before. In SBTRKT’s case, approx. 117k – not a number to be sniffed at.

When the Nexus 7 tablet arrived though, I figured it was time to revisit Android purely to see what had changed in the years since I’d last used it. I didn’t need this tablet; frankly price was the main factor as it wasn’t a bank-breaking amount to pay for one.

And here’s the thing: over time, I’ve found myself using the N7 more and more. Slowly, little things about it have started really winning me over – to the point where I’m even now sat here contemplating an investment in an Android phone again.

So what’s changed?

For me it has been a combination of two things. On the Apple side, I’ve lost that sense of excitement about what they’re creating and have a general feeling that of late their business hasn’t been so much about innovation as protection of their existing model. In many respects, they’re the new Microsoft. Little things like the Maps fiasco caught me out more than I thought they would (turns out I use Google Maps more than is probably healthy when it comes to finding meeting locations). Other things like the new Lightning connector screamed “expensive lock-in!” to me too, and really got me wondering why exactly I’d want to upgrade from a 4S to the new iPhone 5.

In the meantime though, Android was starting to win small but important battles for me:

Audio: The failure of my iPhone connectors on my home iPod docks got me wondering if proprietary routes really worked for me. Airplay felt like a great option at one point, but its a total lock-in. So, as detailed in a previous post, I invested in a £20 Logitech bluetooth receiver and haven’t looked back. Beyond that though something else I love is that on my N7 I can install shortcuts to control the audio setup. I have tinnitus, so often listen to music when going to sleep just to combat the ringing in my ears. Using the N7 and my Jambox, I can just hit the “Sleeping” preset on my home screen and have the volume set good and low. That way I don’t get any nasty surprises when I hit play on whatever I’m listening to. The shortcuts to Rdio, Spotify and Google Music are cool too – it just means I can flip open the tablet and in two taps have exactly the right volume and music from whichever service I choose.

Keyboard: Until recently the keyboard on the N7 was a total bust for me. It was just awful. However, with the latest Android update (4.2), a new Swype-style keyboard was introduced, and now it beats my iPhone and iPad ones hands-down. By swiping around the keys rather than tapping each letter out, I can get emails done far quicker. Its not perfect: expletives in particular seem to be censored out which doesn’t work for a committed swearer like myself, but hey – I’ll live with it.

Design: Of late, Google has really started upping the ante on its own products. Recent overhauls for Gmail, YouTube and even their Currents app have all raised the bar no end – and mercifully they avoid the skeumorphism of the Apple apps. Finally Android apps are starting to look really, really good. Not all of them – its far from perfect let’s be clear – but slowly and surely, the bar is being raised.

Fun: Its an odd term to throw in here, but somehow my N7 just feels more fun to use. The flexibility to tweak things far more than you can on iOS is a big appeal, such as the shortcuts I mention for my music above. The way Android handles sharing was always something I loved, and that remains the case today. With Android you get contextually-relevant sharing options. So in plain english that means that if you have, say, Pocket installed, you can hit Share and tap the Pocket icon and the web page in question is added. Whilst that’s possible on iOS, the flexibility isn’t there and it can be a real pain sometimes if like me you’re adding things to Pocket, Delicious and a few other services along the way. Beyond that though, Android just feels more flexible. The irony is that a lot of people used to like Apple’s laptops because they combined a user-friendliness (“it just works!” etc) with the power to more developer-level work too. These days it feels more like Android is delivering on this front whilst iOS remains a walled garden…

Of course, its not all rosy. The way in which the N7 handles standby is irritating, as it manages to really drain the battery when it is meant to be doing nothing. On my iPad, standby is as good as “off”; next to no power is consumed and you could come back to it a week later and it would be fine. Not so the N7: you’ll be lucky to get past 3 days of standby based on my experiences.

Beyond that, fragmentation also remains a big concern – perhaps the biggest of them all in fact. Make no mistake: if this N7 is rendered obsolete within months by Yet Another Android Upgrade, I’m going to be pretty pissed off. At this point, fixing that fragmentation should be Google’s #1 concern, no two ways about it.

What I’ve also found telling is the slow turning of the tide among respected tech figures. The largest of those has to be Guy Kawasaki, who was perhaps the original Apple evangelist. He’s now solely on Android, stating that when Apple first ran their big TV ads, the maxim was “Think Different” – and that this phrase should now be applied to Android due to its innovation and flexibility. Watch this interview with him for more on that front. Similarly John Battelle has now switched from iPhone to a Nexus 4, and whilst like me he’s not finding the going 100% smooth, he’s still enjoying the change and the various benefits that come with it – a superior camera and the fun of NFC for two…

Over on AdAge, Simon Dumenco wrote a piece describing Apple as “the most damaged big brand of the year”. As if that wasn’t strong enough, he likened them to Microsoft – surely the final slap in the face for any Apple diehard. Whilst I’m less down on Apple’s fortunes, it does indeed feel like a shift in public perception has occurred and perhaps they’re not as bulletproof as they once were under Steve Jobs. However to cite that as a reason people are switching over to Android is to do Google a disservice. I’d argue the primary reason people are moving is because they’re now seeing the level of quality in the hardware, and an emerging focus on quality interface design in the software too.

So will I be switching over from iPhone too? I won’t rush to, purely because my 4S is doing me perfectly well for now. However when that’s due for an upgrade, I might well be looking at Android handsets. Right now it feels like the innovative stuff is happening over there, and whilst its not 100% perfect, it feels like its getting better and better. Ignore it at your peril.

Over time though, with Facebook increasingly battling negative press around Pages, reach, privacy and a host of other problems, MySpace’s purchase and promised rejuvenation courtesy of Justin Timberlake and Specific Media actually started looking viable. Through the same period, a few friends of mine had been asking the same question: “Are we due a dedicated music social network?”. After all, Facebook has never been that well equipped for musicians (ever tried listening to music on an artists page of late?) and coupled with the aforementioned frustrations, it felt like a gap was opening that was ripe for the taking.

Enter MySpace. (Again.)

I was invited to preview the service in the summer. I have to say, based on the demo video I saw (the same one that has since been made public in the first round of PR), I was really impressed. New MySpace looked fantastic. There was a clear focus on design there, and conceptually it felt very much like it could indeed be the dedicated music social network that people had been pining for. Believe me, I was a naysayer previous to this meeting, but based on the video and my conversations with the team there, I was sold.

Having played around with the service for a while now, sadly now I’m not so sure.

If anything, New MySpace has proven that there’s a huge difference between great aesthetic design and great user experience. Something can look incredible and still be horrid to use: the two aren’t bound to one another. New MySpace bears this out, I’m afraid to say.

There’s a raft of complaints I could make about New MySpace. However the two main issues for me are these: firstly, I don’t know what I’m supposed to be doing there. Secondly – and possibly as a consequence – I just don’t feel any pull to visit the site and engage.

The grand irony of New MySpace to me is that it represents a classic grass-is-greener situation. For ages, me and my peers talked about a dedicated music social network. Now one has arrived and… well, it just doesn’t feel right. At least not the way MySpace is presenting it. The selection of music is limiting, and once again the walled-garden of music’s rights clearances rises to bite the service in the backside. In short, there’s not enough on there. Searching for any number of your favourite tracks leaves you disappointed. But wait, I can embed them from someplace else, like on Facebook, right? Well, no… If its not on MySpace, it doesn’t exist. At least not in the context of your social network and represented musical profile. So right off the bat, my actual musical persona is being clipped to match what they can represent me through.

Beyond that (rather huge) stumbling block, I found myself wondering what I was actually meant to be doing. I have the option to “connect” to, well, anything it would seem. Connecting to friends appears to be the same as friending someone on Facebook; you then see their posts and activity etc. However I can also “connect” to albums, artists, songs… you name it. Where does it end? What does connecting actually represent? Call me a cynic but it felt more like a means to profile my tastes even more exactly than on Facebook. “Darren likes the following songs by Neil Young…” etc. Awesome for the advertisers, but what do I get from connecting? It isn’t clear, and hence I see no reason to do it.

Ultimately, MySpace feels like one of those situations where simplicity was eschewed in favour of undertaking The Big Grand Design. But the problem is that this comes at the cost of a clean user experience and the much needed stickiness that keeps you returning and using the service. Of course, its early days and we’d be foolish to dismiss it outright… but as things stand, there’s just no “pull” factor; no reason to get back there and see what others have posted, nor any reason to go there and post yourself.

I sincerely hope it will improve and come to represent a challenge if not a replacement to Facebook. We need that. However it may be that New MySpace’s lasting legacy will be that it forced Facebook to improve how artists are represented on their service, or that it prompted someone like Google or Spotify to finally connect those missing dots in bringing music and social together in a meaningful, attractive manner. And, whilst that would be a failure for Timberlake and Specific Media, I have to be honest: if that did happen, I’d consider it no bad thing at all…