How I Landed My Dream Job

For most of my life, I had dreamed of working in the music industry. The catch? I didn't see any jobs which didn't require either a) making no money (I'm not greedy, but I don't want to live in credit card debt), or b) fucking over the artists. The latter gave me more trouble than the former. In the traditional music model, where was there room? There wasn't.

Thank God for the internet.

But even among all the technologies out there claiming to enable and ensure artist success, one stuck out to me: Topspin--they weren't just building tools, they were building solutions for how artists could legitimately ignore the traditional label structure and make a living on their own. This is the story of how I landed my dream job with Topspin.

Earlier this spring, I noticed my idol Ian Rogers had made the shift from heading Yahoo! music to heading Topspin. Here was a guy with nearly limitless options in the digital music world, and he took a position with a stealth startup with a 3-page website. Really? Surely there must be more to it.

There was. The more I learned, the more I was enthralled. Topspin was founded by Peter Gotcher (who, among MANY other things, holds an Oscar and a Grammy for creating ProTools recording software) and Shamal Ranasinghe (who managed MusicMatch for many years, including their acquisition by Yahoo!) and described themselves as enabling bands to become their own businesses. I was intrigued, to say the least.

Doing a bit of research on LinkedIn, I discovered my friend Mike Harkey (with whom I had chatted extensively about my attempted startups NewkBox and Scenem) had been a business school classmate of Shamal's at Stanford. I asked Mike if he would be kind enough to pass along Shamal's contact info, and he was kind enough to give me a very nice introduction.

Unfortunately, my e-mail to Shamal ended up in his spam folder. Oops. Luckily, a few weeks and a phone call later, Shamal uncovered my e-mail and shot me one in return. I then did a phone interview with a manager and with Shamal.

Then silence. Topspin was in the process of moving offices, and Shamal told me they needed a bit of time before he could come back to hiring decisions.

Luckily, being the Ian-stalker that I am, I noticed Ian posted something about a job on Twitter, so I took that as a sign that I should call Shamal again. I did, he said he'd talk to Ian the next day. Well, the next day I also received a rather lucrative job offer from a consulting firm in Dallas, so I had to apply a bit more pressure to Topspin. Within 10 minutes of my e-mailing Shamal, Ian called me (surreal, yes), sang my praises for 8 minutes, and spent 1 minute telling me they wanted me to start tomorrow. The offer letter came in 10 minutes later, with a note from Ian requesting an "I <3 TYWHITE" t-shirt (as featured in picture above).

I was sold. But I had to be absolutely positively sure they were for real (keep in mind, they were still in stealth and hadn't publically revealed any funding), so I asked them to fly me out. They said absolutely and had only rushed the offer knowing I had to make a decision on the other job soon.

When I arrived in Santa Monica, I was greeted by Shamal and a sparse office that had more musical instruments than computers. As the employees trickled in, they were all smiling, kind, and smart. They had all read my blog, been to my website, and probably knew more about me than I know about myself. Even one guy who hadn't started yet, but swung by the office briefly, had checked me out. This was a tight-knit group who knew exactly what they were doing, both with computers and with other people. Sold.

I did lunch with Ian (how many people would pay how much money for that opportunity?), where we saw his idol (ironic?) ride by on a one-speed. It was storybook. He then layed out why he chose Topspin over all the other opportunities he had. Sold.

I took an afternoon break (while Ian, Shamal, and Peter ran off to a Billboard cover shoot) to wander around Santa Monica (and take a nap) before returning to the office to sign my contract. When I returned, Ian was chatting it up with my old friend from middle school DA Wallach, whose band, Chester French, is making quite a splash even before their album drops. Unbelievable.

I signed my contract and have never looked back. I started last week and it truly has been a dream come true. These people are brilliant, creative, and highly motivated to produce the best products on the market. It's everything the digital music business should be: beautiful, powerful tools that sit behind the scenes helping the artists build their relationships with their fans. While it's been a journey to get here, the true journey lies ahead, as we play our (hopefully sizeable) role in changing the music industry forever. I'm not sure I've ever been more excited to be a part of something.

Thanks to all who have helped me get this far, and to those who will continue to help along the path to the future.

Subtle but important update for TuneCore

TuneCore, the service that allows independent artists to easily distribute their music across digital music services like iTunes and Amazon, just unveiled the ability for artists to see weekly trends and zip codes of people who buy their music through iTunes. This is HUGE in any number of ways: everything from booking tours to seeing responses to marketing efforts or big concerts. The issue, though, is how many artists truly understand the depth and importance of this data? I would love to see TuneCore either open their APIs to allow third parties to help bands manage these numbers in relation to other band activity (and internet buzz, etcetc) to try to make sense of why these numbers are showing what they are and what can be done to make the most of them.

Huge Tool: The LinkedIn Answer

Last Tuesday I was at a They Might Be Giants concert in Dallas, and amidst the usual witty banter between the Johns, John Flansburgh asked the audience “So do you think we should get on this Facebook thing?” There were some strong boos and some strong yeas, but to my surprise the majority of the crowd remained silent, or merely chuckling at the question itself.
The truth is, Facebook isn’t something people associate with music (though Facebook is trying to change that with their partnership with iTunes). I guarantee there were multiple people in the audience turning to their friends and whispering “Isn’t that what MySpace is for?” Just like it might be weird to get a Facebook Friend request after taking a business meeting with someone, but it might be appropriate on LinkedIn. Each site is, when all the initial excitement wears off, a tool for a specific purpose.
MySpace is for entertainment. It allows full creativity in making your profile as ugly as you dare, and is a hub for up-and-coming musical and comedy acts to share their material and plug themselves. Gone are the days of promoters and street team managers—bands manage all that by messaging their MySpace “friends.” It used to also be for people, but that was only when people on the internet were a form of entertainment, rather than an extension of real life.
Now Facebook is for people. People being the majority of people who don’t go to the internet looking for new relationships necessarily, but just want to keep track of what their real life friends are up to. Therein lies the beauty of the Social Graph—Facebook is a tool for keeping track of real life friends. Facebook has thus focused on communication and photos.
LinkedIn has survived in the face of possibly the worst design in internet history (recently upgraded to workable) because ultimately it was a very good tool for keeping track of business contacts (it’s syncing to Outlook was a fan favorite). In fact, one could argue that the poor design and difficulty in navigation may have been something of a comfort to business people who often see computers that way in the first place. If Facebook or MySpace (or Google's Orkut) buys LinkedIn and tries to integrate it, they will need to focus on the business-specific aspects of the site and be sure not to alienate long-time users by taking the focus away from that functionality.
Look at some of the other big guns: Google’s homepage is famously simple, focusing entirely on its search tool; Craigslist does nothing but provide a tool for online classifieds; eBay went through a craze, but now gets most of its traffic from stores and most of its revenues from PayPal (a smart pickup when they were on top of the world), both tools for facilitating ecommerce between existing merchants and everyday consumers; YouTube won in video not because it was the best in a lot of ways, but because it was the easiest tool to share videos with friends.
In the end, every truly successful website will boil down to being a tool—the others will have their fads, but will die off relatively quickly if they don’t evolve into valuable tools. While we have a fascination with this internet thing as though it were in an infomercial on tv, in the long run it’s going to boil down to a new set of tools for humans to get around their everyday lives. But perhaps by then we’ll be entertaining ourselves by taking family vacations to Mars.

The Spectrum of Musical Experience

Yesterday morning I was in Chicago with my college roommate, ripping air guitar solos to Jupiter Sunrise's "Arthur Nix," much the same way we did in our freshman dorm room. Last night I got off the phone with one of my senior year roommates, then turned on the radio and heard three songs from The Beatles, culminating in "With A Little Help From My Friends." As I fell asleep, I put on a playlist of songs I have yet to share with anyone.
All three musical experiences elicited a deep emotional response, but in completely different ways. Such is the mystical nature of music--it is at once both deeply personal and reliant on shared experience. Many of us turn to it when there's no one else to turn to, and also use it as a mechanism for connection and shared memory with others.
My own consumption of music tends to follow a similar pattern: find out about a new artist or song through an artist I already enjoy, experience the music as personally as possible (alone in my room or car), then pass it along to others in the hopes that they might have a similar personal experience with it that we can then relate to each other through. To this day I send out CDs to friends almost monthly as a way to keep us tied together. As the Better Than Ezra song goes: "Someone out there's listening to the same song and feeling the same way that I do."
Sometimes (often) this phenomenon occurs on a massive scale. Radio pushes the same few songs at a time all over America and the world. As a result, people buy (hopefully) millions of albums and pack stadiums to see their favorite bands live. Perhaps no greater connection happened than when The Beatles played The Ed Sullivan Show on February 9, 1964 while an estimated 73 million people watched.
To this day, the easiest way to unite a room full of people is to play a Beatles song. We had a cookout for our families outside our apartment the night before graduation and it was a no-brainer to make the mix cds almost exclusively Beatles--it's happy music that nearly everyone knows and loves. Even Spencer's grandma was doing a little boogie to "Good Day Sunshine."
Taking experience one step further is live music--fans and potential fans flock to see bands play live, now moreso than ever. Whether it's a dive bar with ten people watching or Albert Hall filled to capacity, strangers come together over a common love of music.
Possibly my favorite quote about the potential depth of experience with live music comes from an interview I was lucky enough to do with Andy Hull of Manchester Orchestra: "The first time I ever felt evil at a show, which was when I knew I had to play music, I went to a Ben Kweller and The Anniversary concert, and The Anniversary was playing 'Sweet Marie,' and I remember the inside of my body just twisting inside and out and just feeling like I shouldn't be here, but the only thing I really need to do is be here. It happened again to me three years later watching The Blood Brothers, and I was just thinking 'This is evil, and I love it.' I'm not a sadistic weirdo, it's just that feeling of being drawn into something."
Nothing will ever replace the experience of live music. However I believe the internet has the power to enhance experiences, both personal and communal, with music. I see it in my daily reading of music blogs and bands' MySpace pages, where millions of people come to find out the latest news on their favorite bands and discover new music; but perhaps more importantly to our discussion, they comment the hell out of those posts. They actively seek extensions of the music they love. They want a greater experience.
The question then becomes: how? It seems to me that the potential power of the internet is not even close to realized, especially when it comes to music. Sure, people can listen to or buy nearly any song they want with a quick click, they can watch videos, and can post a few lines of their own about their feelings on music. But now they want more--more access to the artists, more music, more (or at least better) ways to discover new music.
It strikes me that iTunes, in all its glory, is stuck in the first iteration of the digital music revolution. There are hundreds of startups who all think they have the answer to the next iteration, but few attract enough users to back up their claims. Furthermore, they each seem to seek out their own niche. The biggest problem is that they all focus on evolution rather than revolution. People want free music? Okay, we'll sort of give it to them (not in a format that they can put on their iPod) and support it with ads. If iTunes is Digital Music 1.0, these startups are merely versions 1.x. No one is ambitious enough to really take on the music industry as a whole.
Do I have the answers? No. But I believe the future of music will rely very heavily on the internet, and will do so because the internet will allow for a greater musical experience. Some of the innovation may come from paying closer attention to what people say they want, but there is also a portion that will stem from a solid understanding of both how people experience music (both personally and communally) and the capabilities of the internet.
Any ideas? What would enhance your musical experience (be it via the internet or not)? If you dream it, we can do it.

V-Day Special: My true love--the internet (and counterpoints)

I just had a long and interesting conversation with my friend Jayna about the merits and shortcomings of the internet (which, oddly enough, came on the heels of my half-serious proposal that I move back to Milwaukee and study astrophysics). The fundamental difference between us (at least as I see it) is that, given the option, I would prefer to live in the future, whereas Jayna prefers a romanticized past. I can't say who is "right"; I think there are a number of very good points on both sides, which is why I'm sharing it and asking where you all stand?
(sorry for the awkward formatting and spelling and such--I guess that's one drawback of conversations via internet rather than in real life, huh?)

Jayna (in response to me questioning whether my fascination with the universe can really be considered a "love"): uh, yeah
your face brittens up and you get silly
but maybe you love tech start ups just as much
you probably do, i just like the litterary nature of you turning your world into books and discover the universe after an english degree

me: love is a pretty strong word for it--i'd call it closer to a fascination. i'd have to get to know it a lot better before i'd throw out a term like love.

Jayna: oh, you boys are all the same
you pretty much know if you love something
its just a matter of if you are willing to put in the hard work

me: that's true and i agree with you there, but that doesn't change my view that this is much more of a fascination than a love
i love the internet, i'm fascinated with space and physics

Jayna: yeah, i get it
thats cool
i guess i dont really get the love of the internet thing
but i get a love of the universe

me: i mean, the internet is like the universe on a much smaller scale. it started as a single piece of code on a single computer, and burst rather rapidly into an ever-expanding network with tons and tons of different uses and iterations.

Jayna: yeah, i thought you would make that connection

me: plus it's a place where geeks like me can have a field day
haha
of course!

Jayna: still doesnt turn me on
sad to say

me: that's fair
for many people it doesn't
i've been fascinated since i was about 4 or 5 and my brother started chatting over the internet with his friend reed on our commodore 64

Jayna: i wonder, what kind of a field day do you have on the internet
i tend to find it alienating after a while

me: well, finding out a lot about the universe, talking to friends, reading about politics, coming up with contacts for a company that is based entirely on the internet, etcetc

Jayna: yeah, i guess your imagination takes you

me: it's nearly as boundless as your imagination--if you are adept enough with it you can create and do anything
it's maleable technology
and frankly it's still very very early on in its existence and power
our kids are going to wonder how we survived in a world where we couldn't constantly be connected to every square mile of the earth over the internet
from anywhere
i think the real beauty in facebook is that it's the first big thing on the internet to truly model real life. granted i think many of the whole applications features and trying to become an ad network and all those business moves have diverted from the original concept of a social graph (which is why i don't facebook much anymore), but the concept itself was revolutionary and i think is an indicator of what's to come

Jayna: so as a social networking tool, you think it is successful

me: well, yes and maybe.

Jayna: i just cant get away from the voyeristic outlook of the whole thing
we used to express our character then the cult of personality proved a stronger force of power

me: yes, in its original iteration, the idea of the social graph was a successful model of real life and created a sort of extension of ourselves over the internet. the maybe part is in the definition of social networking, or more accurately what makes a successful social networking tool--one that models real life? one that introduces you to new and relevant people? one that creates a whole different network on which to interact? a good deal of that is up to personal preference

Jayna: now what is it
we express an image of ourselves in a third relm ont ehinternet

me: define time frame on your last comments--is that within facebook or within recent human existence?

Jayna: we are more distanced from ourselves as we are overly consumed in others lives and how they view our own life

me: i don't believe that's true at all
i think that only through other people do we find ourselves
i think the whole being consumed in others lives and how they view our lives has been a personality trait of many humans for many years. i don't think that's changed with the internet.

Jayna: if human interaction is how we define ourselves, then doesnt the internet lack a fundamental aspect

me: how so? it's just another form of interaction
it opens us up to far more people

Jayna: without human contact, without a voice or a face, a gesture. its a projection of human's interacting
like plato's cave
i agree that we are fundamentally consumed in others lives but i also believe that is a negative aspect of societies
it think its better played down in the media and new technologies will only worsen it

me: you have too short a view of the internet. yes, that's what it has been to this point, but look at the hot technologies these days--lifecasting, internet phone services with video capabilities, video things in general--it's bringing real people together more and more as the technology to do so develops
so you'd also argue that reality tv, and tv in general, and radio before it, and newspapers before that are all signs of the downfall of society because we care increasingly more to find out more and more about other human beings?

Jayna: real people with the infrastructure to support this rapidly changing technology
yes, exactly
not exactly, actually
i think you know where i would draw the line to your statement

me: so you think we'd be better off as jungle elephants, living by ourselves and wandering, only to come together to mate and then separating again so that we could exist in our own little world and not know what other creatures of our species are like?
no i don't know where you'd draw the line, it's an evolution over time and i think it's shortsighted to dismiss the internet as separate from that evolution

Jayna: for the most part, i tend to romantasize that image and flirt with the idea that it would be better
yes
:(

me: so you don't want to be smart? you don't have an innate itch to learn, not necessarily in the academic sense, but skills and knowledge that can help you live a more fulfilling life?

Jayna: and how can you understand something as an evolution in teh first 50 years of it
you are being presuptuous as well
that is taking it very far
all i know for sure is that i would rather being having this conversation with you at a bar and in "real life" then like this

me: because of its reach, potential for greater exponential growth (like similar technologies before it), and because of its encompassment of previous technologies. it fits the evolutionary graph perfectly.
that's fair but in a month you're going to be in india and a few years ago there's no way we could've been having this conversation

Jayna: isnt an evolutionary graph subject to change like anything else :)

me: absolutely!

Jayna: a few years ago we would meet at a bar after work like normal people
and while im in india i intend to be in india
not projecting myself into a vertual space which i could od from anywhere

me: but it's not going to have crazy shifts and such--technology to this point follows humans and humans are predictable. now, a few years down the road when we build technology that can outthink us on enormous levels, the graph may see a shift, or perhaps a completely new graph will begin as the machines we've created go on to create their own technologies
that's fair, but don't you find some consolation in the fact that you CAN contact people back home in case of an emergency or just because?

Jayna: yeah and i could have done that thirty years ago aswell
i dont dislike all technology
i just think we need to seriously ponder the effects of teh internet on our lives and society

me: 30 yrs yes, but 100? not so much.

Jayna: 100 yrs ago my family was in india
i would have just walked to their hut
:)

me: oh sure it's a constant struggle, but it's not a new one--it's one we go through with every new technology, which is why so few major changes are adopted overwhelmingly quickly (just take a look at the news stories from the early 90s on the internet, or newspaper articles about radios)
that's not the point at all! the point is unversal connectedness and becoming a global society!

Jayna: you feel a part of a global society
because of the internet
of is this something you imagin in 50 yrs
the internet gives us access to an elight global society for sure
like being a tourist of the owrld

me: i feel much moreso a part today than i would've 50 years ago, and i imagine in 50 years we'll feel even moreso as the technology evolves

Jayna: it doesnt replace lived experiences

me: it's not supposed to!
and again, the access to elite global societies is such a short-sighted view of this stuff

Jayna: then how can you creat your global society

me: the internet is not a replacement for real life, it's an extension of it

Jayna: so you think we will end famin and thirst and then have universal internet access
or does the internet come first

me: obviously i'd prefer the whole thirst and famine and war to be ended first, but look at the efforts of the OLPC program and intel's coming answer to it to see that the internet is spreading to these areas as they are developing

Jayna: i just think those problems are symbolic of the inability of our 'global society' to be function on a universal level
that seems to be how you imagin this new interaction
as a great equalizer
that doesnt exist

me: would you not agree that on a broader, longer-term scale we seem to be improving such things? the internet is helping us recognize these issues and bring them to the forefront so that we can assist with them

Jayna: to the forfront meaning what
we know about darfer (sp?) but what can we do with this info

me: meaning to the attention of those with the power to change these problems for the better

Jayna: those people always knew about it

me: are you kidding? how many people have mobilized and donated to causes like darfur based entirely on the internet?

Jayna: so you believe those donations are an answer

me: no. again, the internet is not a replacement for real people taking real action, but it helps those people doing positive things gain both monetary and moral support

Jayna: you can through money on a problem to make this new global society feel better about the problem but that doesnt chang ethe institution that creates and mantains it

me: so what alternative would you posit in that case?

Jayna: there you go, an org. puts up a web site and people donate. they are donating to a project idea
not a hard reality

me: do you think the internet is a distraction to those people promoting and implementing change?

Jayna: yes
i think most of the "change" today is

me: how so?

Jayna: green washing
global warming lectures
its a way to make us feel like we are doing are small part and fall a sleep at
it keeps us from thinking deeper

me: again, what do you posit as an alternative?

Jayna: human interaction
simple time and energy

me: and how would we "think deeper" if we didnt know about any of this stuff?
the more we know the more we can take action on causes we truly believe in

Jayna: we dont have to think deeper we have to act deeper
are actions have to count more

me: not everyone is going to dedicate their lives to alternative fuel, but by pushing that message on a broad scale, you're more likely to influence more people to take up the cause and act seriously
fine act deeper but how do you find out about these things then?

Jayna: local initiatives
if we all cared a bit more about what was happening around us instead of what star is preggy or who just ODed
i know i am not that person but i think it would be nice if there were more of them
i know it is not that simple

me: okay so my "village" of milwaukee magically discovers this global warming problem and 1/1000th of our population (a HUGE proportion) decides to take up the cause seriously and act upon that. unfortunately, our small village can't have a global impact without communication to other villages that need to join in the crusade. additionally, if 1/1000th of our population in milwaukee is dedicated wholly to making a difference in this cause, other important things get neglected
sure some people use the internet to read about britney, but they would've watched it on tv before, or would have listened to it on radio before that, and would have read about it in newspapers before that

Jayna: im not soley talking about the internet inregards to this media sensation
tv and radio included

me: people are naturally curious about the lives of other people, and putting certain people in the spotlight allows many people to live vicariously through them and also have something to interact with others about

Jayna: i have somehting i want to say about the global issues thing you jsut mentioned but i should get some work done

me: im not promoting it, and it's by no means the main utility offered by the internet, but the internet is not the first technology to be taken from it's original purpose to be utilized for other outlets of human curiosity as well (namely, each other)


Conversation to be continued tonight over drinks. Please please please weigh in on this!

when poking turns to sheep throwing

ah, facebook, the ever-creepier "social networking" website that allows you to connect with people you know or would like to know or are just kinda curious about. the fascination, nay, obsession began my sophomore year at davidson--people couldn't get enough of it. you could "friend" the people you were already friends with and see things about them that you probably already knew! and (omg) you could even "poke" them! if you did enough digging, you could even find out who was dating whom!
then they added high school facebook. pshh, those kids aren't nearly mature enough to use this high-level technology. luckily they kept us separate to, you know, avoid creepy college kids spying on the younglings.
then it was really strange that the new freshman class could "friend" each other before ever meeting, as long as they had their college e-mail address (and it was even stranger that my friend michelle, a junior-to-be, friended them all, too).
then there was the news feed scandal--putting a feed of all of friends' facebook updates took all the fun out of stalking! at a quick glance, you could see that tommy now likes the movie "anchorman" or that jill and billy broke up. what's the fun in that if you don't have to dig for the dirt?
then they opened up facebook to everyone. oh, man. in our davidson bubble, this meant that incoming freshmen could friend each other and join groups even before getting their college e-mail accounts (i wrote a response to this phenomenon for our school newspaper). i was even "friended" by my 31 yr old brother last week! weird.
the most recent obsession, which has pushed traffic away from myspace and into facebook, are facebook apps. facebook opened their api to developers who could create new applications of their own to help beef up the facebook experience. popular apps include iLike (lets you listen to and download music, plus see information on concerts--oh, and of course post everything on your profile), top friends (so you can rank your friends), and where i've been (a map of where you've been and where you want to go).
what do facebook apps add? quantifiably, nothing at this point. i threw a sheep at a friend the other day, and spanked another. is that that much cooler than poking? or couldn't i just write on her wall saying "i wanna throw a sheep at you" or something to that extent?
my biggest issue is that while the facebook demographic shifts older (it, like most social networks, is now largely made up of the 30-45ish demographci), the facebook apps seem to get more and more childish. there are a few more serious ones out there, but to have success as an application, you have to spread virally like crazy--and that ain't easy.
not to mention the fact that they've alienated the early adopters--many of my friends have stopped (or largely stopped) using facebook, and my roommate even declared last week "i hate mark zuckerberg."
so can facebook survive? my brother jed attended a facebook apps developers conference last weekend. here are his comments:
"Facebook was very interesting. I learned a ton, but I'm not convinced that there is a lot of value for older folks yet. What would be the "killer app" that gets all of us old farts to start using it regularly? Basically the platform is open for you to develop whatever you want and stick it inside the Facebook border frames. If you happen to advertise on your section/application, you get 100% of the revenue, which is a good deal. Or you can use your app to drive traffic to a different site and capture revenue there via ads or commerce. But the key is to think of something viral enough that people want to share it with their friends because that is essentially the only way to drive traffic to your app. Nothing in there currently (of 3,000+ apps already developed since the platform opened in May) seems like a particularly good example of something that would either make money or attract older users. Most of the popular apps are either juvenile ("tag, you're it") or related to showing how cool your low resolution pictures/videos are. Good for a certain (young) audience, but kindof a turnoff for older folks.

Included Nat on this email so he has a "heads up" that I will be quizzing him on Wednesday night about the usage of Facebook by his students and his colleagues. And as for you, Ty, do you think that your cohort will continue to use Facebook now that you're into the professional world? I understand that it's useful for "self-expression" and "street cred", but all the apps seem to be so light-weight. It's all about portraying yourself to the world and keeping tabs on your friends. Can you imagine people using Facebook for different reasons? Can you imaging a more complicated app (one that takes a while to learn about, for example) spreading virally the way a "poke" app does?"

so what do y'all think? are there bigger extensions for facebook? does it have lasting power? can a more complex app than a new way to poke people spread widely enough to survive? are there other possible uses for facebook's platform? i'd really love to hear, both because my brother and i are intrigued, and because we at click2remember haven't written off the possibility of developing a facebook app.