Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pandora Files For IPO

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the what's-in-the-box-what's-in-the-box dept.

Businesses 68

itwbennett writes "Internet radio service Pandora Media on Friday filed documents with the SEC for an initial public offering of common stock. In its S-1 filing, Pandora said it has more than 80 million registered users and a more than '50% share of all internet radio listening time among the top 20 stations and networks in the United States.' While Pandora said the 'number of shares to be offered and the price range for the offering have not yet been determined,' MarketWatch reports that the music service hopes to raise up to $100 million."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

no subject (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35191830)

muhahaha

80 million registered users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35191838)

80 million? I think several hundred thousand are just my throw away accounts.

I wonder if the people who buy the stock look at that figure and think, "80 million registered users! Wow!"

Or do they think, "Yeah, whatever."

Pandora has never been profitable, but is coming close.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The check is in the mail. I won't cum in your mouth. Blah, blah, blah....

Re:80 million registered users (1)

triso (67491) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192540)

Haa! Is that amount before or after they closed every non-US account. I DEMAND A RECOUNT.

Re:80 million registered users (1)

yuriyg (926419) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192778)

80 million? I think several hundred thousand are just my throw away accounts.

so... 79 million?

Re:80 million registered users (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192780)

"80 million accounts"

And how many active accounts? I think I might have used Pandora once in 2010...

And this really makes me want to invest my life savings:
"Our revenue increased rapidly in each of the fiscal years ended January 31, 2007 through January 31, 2010; however, we expect our revenue growth rate to decline in the future as a result of a variety of factors, including increased competition and the maturation of our business, and we cannot assure you that our revenue will continue to grow or will not decline."

Wonderful news! So essentially you guys are going IPO, cash out, then watch it crash and burn? Excellent strategy! Glad you told us ahead of time, perhaps you'll get less jail-time since you warned everyone that you'll be stealing their money.

Re:80 million registered users (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35193518)

It also doesn't specify how many of these registered users are paying users, like myself. That's an important detail - not only are they unlikely to be throwaways, but they are also tossing $30 into the pot every year...

But Why (2)

Bucc5062 (856482) | more than 3 years ago | (#35191842)

Other then greed, why do this? I listened to Pandora since almost its birth. I followed the struggles with royalty payments, I slightly complained, but quickly accepted the ads and today they seem to be doing well, growing and producing a good product. This will be good for the owners, but my experience shows that when you sell (or sell-out) it typically does not end well for the employee.

I wish them luck, but in a way, the creators have lost my respect and with that, it is easier for me to walk away for now they will think of the share holder, not the customer (and spare me the this is good for consumer crap. /.'ers have said time and time again that CEO are beholding to the stockholder first).

Re:But Why (3, Informative)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35191938)

Other then greed, why do this?

If this gives them a shot at growth & profitability and it means they get to stick around since they're not profitable yet. You can count on one hand the chances of them being here in another year or two if they keep losing money. If they close their doors you can say "I listened to Pandora since almost its birth ... to its death.

On a side note, the folks at Pandora are trying to change 'radio', which works out for all of us in the end. Don't deny them a little treasure for all their hard work and their perseverance.

Re:But Why (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192002)

The problem is this: Before, Pandora was fundamentally motivated by a desire to provide a useful service to its listeners, such as introducing them to music they may never have heard before. This includes bands attached to indie non-RIAA labels, for example.

But with stockholders running the show, the primary motivation will be profit rather than service, and that means that the RIAA can manipulate them into playing more of their canned crap and less of the interesting stuff. The result: the listeners suffer.

Re:But Why (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192114)

And if they don't the end result is death for Pandora. Give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe, just maybe, they will still be able to offer some of what you're looking for without turning to utter crap. If you felt that this was the end result of all publicly traded companies you wouldn't be involved with anything resembling modern technology and you sure as hell wouldn't be on Slashdot.

I don't expect my Pandora Tangerine Dream channel to become laced with Lady Caca just yet. Chill and give it a chance.

Otherwise, if you're willing to pay all the bills, I'm sure they'd accept your counteroffer.

Re:But Why (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#35197082)

Ooo, non-RIAA labels. So, remind me again, why have I been geographically discriminated against again? I hadn't discovered Pandora for very long before they got MAFIAA-handled into kicking non-US users, but I *liked* it. I might well have subscribed. Glad I didn't, though, since the RIAA seems able to dictate that I can't even listen to music that is in no way associated with them.

Re:But Why (1)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192210)

THIS.

I think this is a very, very smart move. Mind you - I hate the way the stock market is handled but in principle this is a great way for Pandora to raise some extra capital to expand into some larger markets.

Imagine if they teamed up with Apple and you could get Pandora on your Ipod - then if you come across a song you really dig you can buy it instantly from within the Ipod interface, for example.

Or imagine a similar application of Pandora being used in a car stereo to replace the radio. I don't think seeing mobile broadband access in vehicles is unthinkable (and heck, probably already out there - I'm sure you guys would know).

As another poster mentioned - this may even allow them to enter into other countries which would be amazing as any time I leave the States for travel I'm without my trusty Pandora for the whole duration.

So plenty of options out there - and I'd love to buy stock in a company whose product I actually use and enjoy - not just want to invest in purely with profit margins in mind. Hopefully other shareholders would have a similar outlook - but I doubt it. I hate, hate, hate, when companies begin working in the interest of their shareholders and not their clients, though you'd think the two views would be the same.

Anywho, Pandora, if you're reading this - I've got plenty more ideas. I'm totally for hire. :)

Re:But Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35195706)

Not to rain on your parade but a lot of what you suggest already has been done

Imagine if they teamed up with Apple and you could get Pandora on your Ipod - then if you come across a song you really dig you can buy it instantly from within the Ipod interface, for example.

I know the Pandora android app on my phone already has a link from the song to the Amazon mp3 page to buy the song, I am pretty sure the iPod/iPhone already does this as well with iTunes

Or imagine a similar application of Pandora being used in a car stereo to replace the radio. I don't think seeing mobile broadband access in vehicles is unthinkable (and heck, probably already out there - I'm sure you guys would know).

My aforementioned android phone can be hooked into my car stereo with a cassette tape adapter, replacing my radio with Pandora (it's wonderful), an iPhone would work just as well, and many new cars have an auxiliary audio input to avoid the need to buy adapters or fm transmitters. Some new luxury cars are also already coming with built in mobile broadband, I saw a commercial for one that would read your facebook newsfeed, so I imagine it's very likely a Pandora app has been done (although really is reading a facebook newsfeed really necessary??)

As another poster mentioned - this may even allow them to enter into other countries which would be amazing as any time I leave the States for travel I'm without my trusty Pandora for the whole duration.

This would be awesome

Anyway, I agree with the idea that this is a very smart move on Pandora's part and hope they keep being awesome and don't be come driven by shareholder profit

Cheers

Re:But Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35195828)

Dude. Where you have you been lately? Hiding under a rock? They have Pandora on iPod Touch and iPhone and like every other smart phone in the world. I listen to Pandora in my car all the time. Mobile broadband exists buddy. It's called 3G networks and it's moving to 4G soon. 10mbps/sec anywhere you go. And any song you click on in Pandora you can already buy with iTunes. I can't tell if you are kidding or you really just haven't been following tech much lately.

Re:But Why (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#35197010)

Imagine if they teamed up with Apple and you could get Pandora on your Ipod - then if you come across a song you really dig you can buy it instantly from within the Ipod interface, for example.

Just opened the Pandora app on my iPhone... Click button, and song page opens in iTMS for purchase (while the song continues playing in background, haters). So, yeah, already doing this with no teaming beyond submitting an app to the store.

Some of your other ideas (international use) are interesting.

Biggest problem with replacing car stereo is the onerous cost of cellular data plans from most US carriers.

Re:But Why (1)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35200658)

Man, I'm getting behind in the times. However, my trusty ipod classic is still kicking so I've had no real need to upgrade my mp3 player. However my cellphone plan renewal is coming up soon so definitely worth taking a second look at... :)

(correct me if I'm behind the times again, but) I think it'd be neat if you could purchase something more of a blanket plan that'd cover all your devices - and what you're really paying for then isn't per device but for total usage across all those devices. To me that'd simply make more sense and would foster more rapid adoption of mobile broadband technologies. Maybe go as far as having something like a keychain sim card you carry with you and plug into whatever device you'd want connectivity for - though that'd probably over complicate things. Though there could be an advantage if you want to have lots of personalization associated with such a device. Take that another step further and each keychain could access that owner's set of music straight from the web/cloud/whatever it's called at the time, contacts, or whatever other information you'd want to be portable without being dependent on a specific device. Granted there'd have to be a lot of thought put into such a device in order to maintain security but I think things are slowly heading to that mentality.

Re:But Why (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#35204970)

The idea of shared data/voice/cellular usage is a good one for consumers, but probably not so much for cell companies who want to maximize the incoming money. And how much do the various governments get taxwise on a per device basis? I'm sure they wouldn't like to lose that. Good idea though, and isn't that some of the thinking behind moving sim cards from device to device?

There is some noise that Apple's datacenters are to provide exactly the kind of music service you suggest. Who knows if it is true or not.

Re:But Why (1)

Alarash (746254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35191992)

If it means I can use the service again, being based outside of the US, then I'm all for it.

Re:But Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35192004)

I'm glad you're taking a stand against this. I'm sure you reject anything other than a raise that keeps pace with inflation, accept paycuts in case of deflation, and turn down any stock options your company offers. Given a choice between working for Pandora and having the opportunity to get stock options and be a partial owner of the company I work for and working for a company that just pays me a salary guess where I'd work? Want to attract talent? Pay them with something that can make them wealthy.

Re:But Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35192026)

/.'ers have said time and time again that CEO are beholding to the stockholder first

It ain't just /. - it's a legal requirement. CEO has a fiduciary duty to the stockholders.

Re:But Why (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192052)

the creators have lost my respect and with that, it is easier for me to walk away for now they will think of the share holder, not the customer

I'm curious, if you have these kinds of issues with small companies that go public, why are you here [yahoo.com] ?

Re:But Why (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#35197016)

I'm curious, if you have these kinds of issues with small companies that go public, why are you here [yahoo.com] ?

Because Taco was a jackass even before he sold out, so... big whoop.

Re:But Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35192170)

There are a few reasons a company will decide to issue an IPO:

1. If they are losing money, then an IPO will let them keep the lights on while they work toward profitability. This assumes you can convince people you business is likely to become profitable in the future.

2. Even if the business is already profitable, they might IPO if they believe that a large capital influx will let them expand quickly to become even more profitable, or if they want to stay ahead of the inevitable competition.

3. Their venture capital backers can cash out of their investment (+ a nice profit) all at once, instead of having to recoup their investment over years of taking a cut of the operating profits.

Of course, it doesn't take much critical thinking to see the potential negative side of all this. #1 is an opportunity to convert hype to cash before everyone decides the business is actually unprofitable. #2 is a chance to grow the firm like a cancerous tumor as money is thrown at terrible ideas, leading to a spectacular flameout later. #3 is probably the real reason for most any IPO, but can act as a gateway to #2 if management is tempted by the cash to reach beyond their grasp.

Re:But Why (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192498)

Let me explain to you about starting a company. Most new ventures (commercial or non-commercial) fail. The most common reason for a venture to fail is the inability of the founders to adapt to the changing scale and growing maturity of the vendor. You not only have more customers, you have *different* customers. You have more people working on the problem than you can get to know, much less supervise.

Ventures that succeed usually have founders that at some point develop an "exit strategy", a plan to take themselves out of the picture or to shift most of the day to day burdens to somebody with more professional competence at running an ongoing concern. Sometimes that happens when plans for the next step call for a bundle of cash. People don't just hand you a bundle of cash. They insist on being able to name the managers.

Wanting a bundle of cash may be greedy, but you need that cash for creating the next big thing.

Re:But Why (1)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192558)

Oh, there's nothing wrong with wanting to cash out, and an IPO is one of the main ways of doing that. Congratulations to everyone getting the big payday.

The downside is that as a public company, the management (new or otherwise) will be duty-bound to find ways to maximize revenues for their shareholders. Unless they're very judicious about it, it'll be very easy (and highly probable) to step over the line into the Land of Uncool, as so many others have.

Re: But Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35193058)

Greed is good.

Re:But Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35194244)

Who cares if they cater to shareholders instead of customers? Here's a hint: you are neither. Advertisers are their customers; listeners are their products.

And by the way, sometimes a company needs an injection of cash to stay afloat. Not every company owner who went through an IPO immediately jumps ship, leaving the company to sink. Many of them actually stick around to see the company flourish.

Re:But Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35195852)

Long before an IPO happens, any company has already sold out as you put it. Private investors have already been pumping millions in for operating capital (you don't think those ads are paying everyone's salary, do you?). This gives them a bigger chunk of capital to work with. Making a jump from private to public comes at a great expense (both monetary and regulatory) so it's not something you just do to get paid.

Re:But Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35196108)

> Other then greed

THAN. Other THAN greed. Then and than are different words with different meanings.

Re:But Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35197056)

Looks like you're OCD is playing up again. Go to you're happy place. They're you will find peas and quite.

mmmmmm yeah hooo boy (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35191848)

i'm nude

Music is too obscure (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35191856)

I've tried Pandora a couple times, but they often play songs I've never heard of --- or music from groups I like but not songs I like. It's a lot like when you buy a CD and there's only 2-3 songs and the rest is 'blah'

Re:Music is too obscure (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35191866)

If you want Top 40 radio, there are many other places to find it.

Re:Music is too obscure (4, Insightful)

s7uar7 (746699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35191870)

It sounds like you should stick to playing downloaded MP3s. One of the joys of this type of service is discovering music you otherwise might not have; inevitably there will be tracks or artists you don't like though.

Re:Music is too obscure (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35191902)

While I agree with you there, often Pandora will play stuff that's just ridiculous. I've got a progressive metal channel I listen to and at least once a day it throws in Justin Beiber or something equally insane.

Re:Music is too obscure (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35191968)

While I agree with you there, often Pandora will play stuff that's just ridiculous. I've got a progressive metal channel I listen to and at least once a day it throws in Justin Beiber or something equally insane.

In some households that Beiber kid is just as 'dangerous' as progressive metal. His commercial with Ozzy only solidifies his metalness (even though it did look like an outtake from the Michael & Janet Jackson Scream video). Just wait another 40 years and you'll see drug ravaged Beiber, draped with sagging tattoos, doing his 80's style midi-sequenced version of War Pigs and spouting off about his 3rd ex-wife in a drunken rage. Ahh, good times are just around the corner.

Re:Music is too obscure (1)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192220)

They do need more work on their algorithms. My dub station keeps pickig up house music no atter how many songs I unrec. I could ban the whole genre, but I hate genre classification to begin with -- occasionally a good fit can be found in the house genre for my station, so I don't want to do that. It would be one thing if, after unreccing several hundred vanilla house music numbers, it only offered e stuff fro the fringes of the genre, but the algorithms do not seem to be able to actually do that.

On the other hand, my genre-defying heavy-instrument jazz channel works peachily, only pulling in the occasional jam band which is not that anoyying to unrec.

Punting to facebook for cross-user interaction was a mistake IMO. They should have encouraged linking other people's stations and run a popularity contest to give visibility to good station maintainers.

I may pay up again, we'll see. It's short money. If it starts to deteriorate I am so gone, though.

Re:Music is too obscure (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35191896)

What is Pandora?

Pandora is personalized internet radio that is designed to help you discover new music you'll love mixed in with music you already know.

Re:Music is too obscure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35191936)

My problem isn't with the obscurity, but with the poisoning. You end up with these jackasses that do crap like upload cutesy childrens' cartoon themes, stick at bunch of off-topic tags on them (like death metal, rock, etc...), and then for some reason, they pop up in completely unrelated radio channels. Then there are the self promoting tools that couldn't even make a good random trance loop doing much the same to spam their drunken "Look! I can press buttonz!" bullshit.

Oh, hey look, the captcha is "admonish."

Re:Music is too obscure (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192940)

I've tried Pandora a couple times, but they often play songs I've never heard of --- or music from groups I like but not songs I like.

The point of Pandora is for you to customize your station by voting thumbs up or down on each song. That allows you to customize it to your musical taste. It's good to hear some artists that you're not familiar with as it broadens your horizons.

Re:Music is too obscure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35194766)

I can "thums down" songs all day long, but it doesn't seem to make a positive impact to my playlist. Incidentally, I had forgotten about my Pandora account for at least a year or so until all this news about the IPO came out. It's still playing too much music I just don't want to hear.

I usually end up pulling out a CD. I don't have a phonograph player, or I'd be one of those dickheads.

On their way down... (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35191920)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grooveshark kicks their ass all over the place. At first I thought Grooveshark would get sued out of existence, but it seems most record labels are signing deals with them now.

Re:On their way down... (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192040)

It's not bad, but until there's a client that allows per-track recording (instead of simply saving the stream to a file) I won't see it as an alternative for my purposes. It's hard to beat Last.fm and Vagamule in that regard.

Re:On their way down... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35192546)

Seems broken in Chrome.

Onto the radar they go (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35191950)

Now they are large enough, the RIAA will target them.

Re:Onto the radar they go (3, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#35191966)

Pandora is legit, and the RIAA already gets their metric ton of flesh from them (i.e., far more than a comparable terrestrial radio station would have to pay).

Re:Onto the radar they go (1, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192018)

What does being 'legit' have anything to do with things? We are talking the RIAA here.

Re:Onto the radar they go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35192036)

Stop being a dumb nutsack.

Digital performance rights on the Internet (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192854)

What does being 'legit' have anything to do with things? We are talking the RIAA here.

We are talking about digital performance rights - and it means that that SoundExchange may have some money for you:

The split:

45% to the lead performer (s)
5% to other performers
50% to the recording's copyright owner.

FAQ: What is a featured artist? [soundexchange.com]

45,619 performers registered
5,881 copyright owners
$537 million dollars distributed.

The 50/50 split between the performing artists and the copyright owner is some light years removed from the Slashdot stereotype.

The performer and the copyright owner can, of course, be one and the same.

"Going legit" makes the IPO possible.

"Going legit" puts the Pandora "app" on every Internet enabled audio and video device sold in the states.

That immeadiately sets you apart from all but a bare handful of the 20,000 or so audio streams accessible through your PC's Internet radio tuner.

replica handbags (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35192088)

Hello,ladies and gentlemen!We manufacture and sell famous various brand of replica handbags,belt,and wallet.for example,Louis Vuitton,Hermes,Chanel,Prada , Burberry,Gucci,Fendi,Miumiu,Balenciaga,Dior, Mulberry,Chloe,Jimmy Choo,and so on! pls feel free to choose the one you like.Have a nice day! http://www.behandbags.com/ [behandbags.com]

Beginning of the end (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192126)

And so begins the end of Pandora.

Once a company goes public, the focus goes purely to profit. "Being awesome" becomes secondary. Or tertiary. Or worse.

It's been nice knowing you Pandora. :(

Re:Beginning of the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35192276)

And so begins the end of Pandora.

Once a company goes public, the focus goes purely to profit. "Being awesome" becomes secondary. Or tertiary. Or worse.

It's been nice knowing you Pandora. :(

Google became insanely more awesome after they went public. The additional resources meant things like gmail and google voice.

Re:Beginning of the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35195592)

...but Google had been turning profits for three straight years when it went public. Pandora has yet to prove themselves to be anything other than a money pit.

Re:Beginning of the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35192414)

Psssst, the goal of ANY company is to make money. It's also your goal when you apply for a job.

Re:Beginning of the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35193382)

Hint: many of the most successful public companies look at profit 5-15 years down the line, wherein the loyalty of the customer is actually a crucial element.

I wish them luck, but... (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192428)

I've never had much luck with their genome tech. I just can't understand how I can be listening to David Bisbal one minute and suddenly be listening to Reba McEntire.

Re:I wish them luck, but... (1)

wytcld (179112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192984)

The trick is often to start from the more "out" artist. Pandora's associations tend to return towards the norm. So if you start with a mainstream musical act you'll get inundated with those more mediocre, but similar. If you start from the outer fringe, you'll still get a fair sampling of mainstream stuff, but a more interesting sampling. For instance, if you want to hear some great blues guitar, and like the British shadings of that, you'll do much better asking for Peter Green than Clapton. You'll still get plenty of Clapton, but it'll be the better, bluesier Clapton. Similarly, a Captain Beefheart station will give you a better selection of Zappa than a Frank Zappa station.

Personally, I find it obnoxious that starting with nearly any artist in mainstream rock brings up Lynyrd Skynyrd - but it only takes turning thumbs down on them twice to ban them from your particular station. There are also oddities, like that starting from "David Crosby," while it plays lots of good stuff (somewhat contradicting my rule of starting from outside the mainstream), it's all men. And if you start from "Joni Mitchell" it's all women. This totally misses that David and Joni were (hopefully still are) close friends who deeply influenced each other's compositions and were part of the same moment and movement. Dumb. But you can always add secondary artists to your channel to fix these holes in Pandora's algorithms.

Re:I wish them luck, but... (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#35197040)

And Joni wrote "Woodstock".

Interesting idea about using more obscure examples of a genre. Problem is, suppose I know Clapton, but not Peter Green? How would I make that jump starting with Peter Green?

BTW, Clapton without coke is like Miles Davis sans heroin.

Excellent Music Discovery App (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35192430)

Pandora is an excellent app for music discovery. I love the Music Genome project, and I think it is so far the best way of classifying and ranking music. Other methods of music discovery like Smart Recommendation based on user data and classification by genres, or even direct recommendation from other users miserably fail when your taste in music is highly eclectic.

Grooveshark is good, but it is pretty pathetic when it comes to discovery of artists and music that you have never heard before.

If Pandora going public means that they are going to increase their contribution to the Music Genome project by adding more artists, more genes and hire more professionals to make the ranking system better, I am all for it. And honestly, they deserve it.

PS: Check out these two blog entries by esr. He echoes my thoughts on Pandora the best.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1670
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1909

Not good enough already? (1)

dschmit1 (1353767) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192508)

Pandora has seemed to grow ever worse at delivering the music i enjoy on a regular basis, so for when I'm not in a particularly discovery-type mood I've already moved on to Grooveshark. Wish Pandora had their features too, maybe the IPO capital will allow them to absorb grooveshark? hmm...

Re:Not good enough already? (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35192560)

maybe the IPO capital will allow them to absorb grooveshark? hmm...

Please, no.

Better they use the cash to improve what they already have instead of purchasing something that will never be properly integrated.

Re:Not good enough already? (1)

lxs (131946) | more than 3 years ago | (#35197086)

Sounds like a bad deal for Grooveshark.

UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35192870)

That's nice. When are they coming back to the UK then?

Re:UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35197130)

Who cares? They'll be a bloated corpse by the time they have floated across the Atlantic. They've sold their ass to Wall Street and their soul to the record industry. There won't be much left to enjoy.

Availability outside the US (1)

Rexdude (747457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35193324)

Since 2007, they've blocked access to non US listeners, citing license restrictions thanks to the RIAA. Hope this will change now.

Re:Availability outside the US (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 3 years ago | (#35194772)

Yeah, I used to listen to Pandora all the time in Sweden until they started with that idiotic IP-blocking. Before I could just enter a random valid US zip code to get access. Using proxies is such a messy and fragile solution. Come one, Pandora, the web is global! I do use Spotify and Grooveshark quite a lot but Pandora was the best when it came to discovering new music.

Good news / Bad news (4, Interesting)

SPrintF (95561) | more than 3 years ago | (#35194056)

The great thing about Pandora is that you will hear a lot of music you have not heard before and will probably like.

The problem with Pandora is that you will hear a lot of music you have not heard before and will probably like and want to buy.

I have subscribed to Pandora for one year. In that year, I have purchased more music than in the previous ten. This is not an exaggeration.

If I was a music producer, I would happily give baskets of cash to Pandora, out of sheer self interest.

Re:Good news / Bad news (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#35196194)

If I was a music producer, I would happily give baskets of cash to Pandora, out of sheer self interest.

That would make them just like all the radio stations. It's probably inevitable, but I like to think it might not happen. Then again, it'd be nice if their catalog was a bit larger.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?