Magnatune and Creative Commons licensed music

I'm fooling around with making a machinima and I wanted to find some open-content licensed music that I could use freely as an audio clip. I found some music using the Creative Commons search and decided to purchase it from Magnatune. Yes, I was more than happy to pay. I just needed something that I could use freely.

I'd never used Magnatune before but the first thing that struck me is I could enter my own price for the album. I selected the default $8 and paid with Paypal. It was then that they gave me this message:

Give this album away for free!

You can pass these download instructions on to 3 friends. It's completely legal and you'll be helping us fight the evil music industry! Complete details here: http://magnatune.com/info/give

It's a new day, and I'm kind of liking it.

The looming leadership paradox

At the Metaverse U conference a week or so ago, Byron Reeves of Stanford asked, "Do you know who the guild leaders are in your organization?" He went on to comment that IBM had just completed a survey of its management and found that they had 1000s. I've been thinking of that off-and-on ever since.

The basic idea Byron was expressing is that the current generation of business leaders are sorely prepared to deal with the modern Enterprise 2.0 world with its flatness, lack of hierarchy, transparency, burstiness, lack of presence, and new metrics for measuring performance. He mentioned that the next generation of business leaders might better be selected from those that are adept at leading online virtual teams in executing complex missions. The very skills being developed by accomplished gamers.

So it was with interest that I read this Paul Hemp piece in Harvard Business: Does Your Leadership Development Strategy Include World of Warcraft?

This echoes a theme in the interview I did with HBS professor Linda Hill that appeared in the January issue, entitled “Where Will We Find Tomorrow’s Leaders.” One of Linda’s key points is that organizations risk overlooking potential leaders because they are “invisible” – that is, lack the high-profile personal characteristics such as compelling communications skills that we associate with leadership. Ironically, these invisible leadership candidates may in fact possess characteristics – for example, modest egos that don’t get in the way of collaborative work – that are ideally suited to tomorrow’s business environment.

And therein lies the paradox. How will the current generation of business leaders, with their gregarious "people skills" find, value, and promote this next generation of leadership? The current generation of leaders are making personnel decisions, and most haven't a clue about these new tools, and new ways of working. They don't use the tools, don't understand them, and are often frightened by the very organizational culture necessary to make them work.

The next generation of leader doesn't look anything like the current, and I don't see the one truly valuing the other any time soon. We are headed for a serious disconnect. It'll be interesting to watch how this all plays out.

Social media and mass communication survey

Interesting new study coming out of Canada on the growing importance of social media: SOCIAL MEDIA MORE IMPORTANT THAN MASS MEDIA, ONE IN TWO BUSINESS LEADERS SAY

One in two Canadian business leaders say social media is becoming more important than mass media. 46 per cent say social media tools such as Facebook, YouTube and blogs are becoming even more important than television, radio, newspapers and magazines.

I find this a little surprising, but it's good to see that so many realize that a major change in society is underway. But then it has this:

The survey also found that executives are sharply divided over the use of social media in the workplace. Two-thirds (66 per cent) said employees shouldn’t use social networking sites such as YouTube and Facebook at work, while 34 per cent said it is important for employees to participate in and understand the medium.

This tells me that they have awareness, but that they don't yet understand. They don't understand how it is impacting business practices, and the shift to burst. Progress none-the-less. I'm guessing most people see the train right before it hits them.

Why startups fail

A fascinating read by venture capitalist Fred Wilson: Why Early Stage Venture Investments Fail

But, where you really see the value of being nimble is in the failures. All but one failed to transform their business and all but one were unable to do that because of the large unsustainable burn rates they had built up. Even the one business that did transform itself, it went from a low cost business model to a high cost business model and they put themselves in a pickle when the transformation didn’t pan out.

To go back to Dick’s analogy, you can go down lots of blind alleys if the cost of doing so is low. But if you are spending a million dollars on each blind alley, you’ll be out of business in no time.

So it’s pretty clear to me that most venture backed investments don’t fail because the business plan was flawed. In my experience at least 2/3 of all business plans we back are flawed.

Most venture backed investments fail because the venture capital is used to scale the business before the correct business plan is discovered. That scale/burn rate becomes the cancer that kills the business.

So the bottom-line, your business plan is almost always flawed. If you put all your eggs in that business plan, only to find out you can't pull-it-off, you have no agility to change directions and still survive.

QOTD: Harold Jarche on what business are you in?

Geez, I like Harold Jarche, lots of good stuff in this post.

What business are you in - Silos or Networks?

Apple limiting iPhone purchases

So Apple will only sell you two iPhones at a time now. I was seriously considering purchasing four come December: The New York Times has the story: Apple Limits Sale of iPhones: Two Per Person and No Cash

SAN JOSE, Calif., Oct. 26 (AP) — Apple no longer accepts cash for iPhone purchases and now limits sales of the cellphone to two per person in a move to stop people from reselling them.

The new policy started Thursday, said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokeswoman. Before then, there was no cash restriction and the purchase limit was five per person.

I have a real problem with companies (and others) when they make the assumption that every customer is a potential criminal, cheat, etc. If you have a problem with the 2% (taking a wild guess) of the people buying iPhones then deal with it. But you don't treat the rest of us like we're evil.

More signs that Apple is losing their edge, the very reason many of us chose them over their competitor in the first place. It's not only about the bottom-line.

Apple revenue and iPod Touch sales

The Apple revenue announcement today said that sales of iPods were up 17% from a year ago. Does anyone have any idea what percentage of those sales might be Touches?

I had this to say when the Touch was announced:

I'm predicting that the iPod Touch will outsell the iPhone. AT&T is a noose around the neck of the iPhone that will ultimately hurt sales. Many of us don't want the voice. It's the least interesting application.

So I found this little tidbit of interest in the CNNMoney report on the Apple quarter:

Early data indicate iPod Touch sales are eating into iPhone sales, says Trip Chowdhry, an analyst with Global Equities Research.

And did you see this? Just amazing -- who would have thought?

After the good news today Apple's stock price is going up, up, up into the $186 range - putting its market cap ($161 Billion) above IBM ($156.45 Billion) for the first time in history.