Slashdot Mirror
Google to Compete with iTunes?
mikeythecmptrguy wrote to mention a Forbes report on analyst predictions that Google may be gearing up to compete with iTunes. From the article: "Analyst Robert Peck speculated that it makes sense for Google to create a rival for the popular iTunes service by Apple Computer, given the explosive growth of unique visitors to the iTunes' Web site. 'Further, Nielsen indicates that iTunes users form a distinct target audience with brand preferences along autos, alcohol beverages, magazines, and television,' he added. "
I welcome Google, if this analyst prediction (read: guess, at best an educated one) for what Google "may" be doing turns out to be true.
Why?
Because Google won't be using Windows Media.[1]
And any new player that doesn't use Windows Media is a good thing.
To expand a little bit, though, on why I doubt this is so, at least in the near term (aside from the fact it would be yet another music service in a sea of music services that are all dominated by the market leader): the thing that makes iTunes most attractive, aside from its own independent ease of use, is the seamless and transparent integration with the iPod, and the fact that everything is integrated into one application. There is no going to a web site here, downloading files there, and importing them into a music player here.
How is a web-based service going to accomplish this? Is Google going to write Windows (and Mac OS X) applications that bridge the service to a media player? Or perhaps standalone applications like Google Earth? I mean, yeah, savvy people here will say they don't mind downloading individual files, managing them in some other application, and/or manually dragging them to their music player and meticulously managing their own file and directory structures.
However, most normal people don't want to do this, and that's just yet another part of the many reasons why the iTunes/iPod combination is so successful, even in the face of intense attempts from other giants attempting to topple it.
[1] No, they won't be using Windows Media, just like they're not using it for Google Video, including the paid service.
until we have an american or more international version of allofmp3.com I'm not going to be happy. 99 cents a song is too much. Price for size and popularity makes more sense anyway. But let me ask you this question, in your quest to use itunes, how many of you have paid $20 for a 20 song cd? Don't you think that's a bit too much? Even if it is full of songs you actually like ....
HMM... someone who wants to give their GOOG a boost and get rid of it before it drops?
It would be interesting to see if they are more pedestrian tastes or trendy.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Google will have the same problem as Microsoft in this area, lack of a consistent platform and user play-back device. I think that Apple's success rides on the fact that they control the entire pipeline (sans content creation) and provide the user with a consistent and simple interface, with relative freedom for the user to listen when and where they want. I think that any other distributor will have a problem if they do not control or at least have a very strong influence over the distribution and play-back pipeline.
I tried Googling for more info about this but all I got was some general information about the iTunes service and this at the bottom of the screen:
"According to local laws and policies, some search results are not shown."
I'm wondering which format Google will be selling songs in. Methinks that it will either use a popular format with widespred compatability (mp3 or something like it) or go the iTunes route, and simulatneously release a free (and hopefully good) music player and organizer that supports a new compression. It would be interesting to see Google go head to head with Apple in a music format war.
Apple hasn't so much created a technology as they have a lifestyle that specifically includes iTunes and an iPod, not any old mp3 player and download service. No competitor has come close. Google will be no different in that regard. Apple comes with a cachet that Google annot approach when it comes to "coolness" with Joe Sixpack.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Unless Google can figure out a way to get this to work with iPods... and makes an interface that doesn't suck (Google Video Store is very lacking compared to the ITMS)... AND has something "unique" to their service (lower price isn't going to work) they are screwed...
Going with an actual application instead of an AJAX interface is a departure from Google's business plan... but it is inevitable if they even think they may want to get into this market...
-nick
This should be fun.
Google-heads vs. Apple-heads.
GARGHHH! Do no evil (*) and Trendy Jeans & Turtleneckers.
*restrictions apply
...but otherwise I'd be skeptical of an analyst who thinks iTMS is a "web site".
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Google, please don't repeat the Google Video fiasco. Get a rock-solid product going--even if it's bare-bones--before shoving it out the door. I am not suggesting you hold it back until it's a "finished product," contrary to your usual way of doing things. Rather, what I'm saying is, if you are going to release it in "beta," make sure the functionality that is available is actually functional and lives up to that Googly-goodness that we have come to expect.
If this turns out to be true it would seem to indicate a shift from google innovating to a more microsoft-like strategy of trying to copy a competitor. I'm not sure how well this would work out, however. Most people I know love their ipods and they are happy with itunes. Plus, a lot of people are crazy about apple; they can release any new product and people will flock to buy it.
...then I don't think Apple has anything to worry about.
Honestly, I hope that Google does good, and I think some competition in the marketplace would be a good thing, but they have not impressed me so far.
From the summary: Further, Nielsen indicates that iTunes users form a distinct target audience with brand preferences along autos, alcohol beverages, magazines, and television,' he added.
While I believe that this sentence is true, it is also incomplete. iTunes users also form a distinct target audience with brand preferences along MP3 players. Unless Google can somehow find a way to sell music that both plays on iPods and satisfies the record labels' requirement for DRM, they're not going to get anywhere. The only technology that can do this is FairPlay, and it's not for sale or license at any price.
The explosive growth of unique visitors to the iTunes Music Store is the result of one thing: the explosive growth of sales of iPods (particularly to new users). While it is interesting that there are trends among the buyers of iPods, I don't see how Google, or anyone else for that matter, will be able to offer a real competitor to the iTunes Music Store. I have no doubt of Google's ability to launch a great music service, but there's simply no way they can sell a product that really competes with the iTunes Music Store.
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
Since Google are the kings of search, they know exactly how much demand there is for EVERYTHING. They can sift through their data and see what markets have a huge demand and then dominate them. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years Google entered new markets that had nothing to do with technology and surprised everyone with massive sales, all because they can read the minds of millions of people and know what they need and want in a way that no marketing company could ever even dream of.
You can bet that any market they enter will be one with a much larger demand than supply, since they are the easiest to be profitable with. I wonder how many times a day "mp3" is entered into a google search bar.
Yeah, it's called emo.
Seems like old news to me... haven't they been trying to compete with iTunes with their video store? And doing a pretty bad job [Seattle PI] so far.
napster to compete with iTunes? MSN to compete with iTunes? Rhapsody to compete with iTunes?
Yeah, okay, they do, but iTunes won't be dethroned UNTIL the iPod is. Google may come the closest, but I doubt it. Just cause it says "Google" on it doesn't mean it will automatically become the most popular.
If it is anything like their video service it will be horrible. Using the same type of DRM would make portable players useless since you need an internet connection to play them. Ridiculous and completely useless to me. Hopefully they will get a clue and move to a more workable system.
$60 a year, unlimited downloads to your PlaysForSure player. Sure, they aren't as pretty as the iPods nor are they are easy to use, but they play music in a random loop with good sound quality.
While iTunes is great, $.99 a song is NOT great especially considering I can pick up a CD for cheaper than that is -- packaging and all. And you know... some people like the album art in REAL LIFE, along with the lyrics so you can sing along horribly (as is the case with me).
So if Google comes along with something better than THAT... i'd be suprised.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Cuz Google Tunes will probably look like Google Video.
I use Itunes because Itunes works with my Ipod. I buy stuff through the Itunes music store because it's the music store hooked up to ITunes. It's that tight and effective integration that makes it so powerful. If I want new music, my first instinct is to just click the music store button and find something there. I can have whole albums in a couple minutes, loaded onto my ipod and everything.
Even if my ipod could use the DRM of some other music store I probably wouldn't bother with it even if the songs were slightly cheaper.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Google has produced no really interesting things in the last year or so. Actually, most of their new products are quite bad, yet fanboys keep pushing for the google-is-cool mantra. There's no way they could make a desktop application as good as itunes, and a decent store in order to compete with Apple if they use the same mediocre approach they've used with google video or google desktop. Maybe it's just because we're yet to see what's all about them, but so far they have adopted a microsoft-like business model where everything *must* be bound to their core product (search) otherwise it's no good.
I think the huge advantage Google has over most competitors is a spare cash. After all, it wouldn't cost them so much to subsidise most of the price of each song to RIAA or any other proper authority, and then offer users a song at any price which will be attractive. And with iTunes's 0.99$ a song, you don't have to knock off this much - every little helps, so even 0.50$ will seem pretty good :)
I like that with video, Google let the content owner decide how much to sell for, and Google just added their own fees on top. Much better than the Steve Jobs I think all songs are worth $0.99 model, and don't you dare contradict me, even if it's your music I'm selling model. However, as others have said, if they can't sell fairplay drm'ed aac files to iPod owners, they're market will be small.
Vote for Pedro
I am sick and tired of every other week some self-proclaimed "expert" will predict Googles next big move. Sorry, please forgive me but I think I lost it somewhere back there with the Google browser or the Google operating system. I get the same thing reading articles about Ruby. People don't see that the big Ruby craze is generated by book publishers and writers who are unable to find a new title for the next .NET or Java book. Hell, Ruby has been around much longer than both. What next: C will become the new "hot" programming language? Geez. Go peddle your "Web 2.0" crap somewhere else thankyou.
>It would be interesting to see Google go head to head with Apple in a music format war.
The format war was already won by Apple. They won it with their hardware. No one else's music is going to sell well, unless it plays on an ipod.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Real Networks did come close: they re-engineered iTunes completely and all the fanboys cried "foul".
I'm not sure if it's a "lifestyle" or "flash in the pan". Many people who have ridden the fad are complaining about DRM. Many feel suckered. Going around feeling "suckered" is not a compleling "lifestyle".
Remember, Rob Enderle is also "an industry analyst" which usually means shill. When they work for an investment firm, it's Salomon all over again.
Google's got interesting technology, none of it theirs beyond the search engine. Maps? AJAX. Google Talk? GAIM. Have we seen any kind of clear synergy suggesting a stable, extensible platform? No.
What they *have* is a strong infrastructure for hosting and serving data and a hard-on for repeatedly proving their servers won't get borked by constant enterprise-level usage. That's impressive.
Passing themselves off as a media portal is another demonstration of how butch their server tech is, but the thing you tend to notice is that when their technology gets further from their servers and closer to your desktop, the more mediocre it gets.
All of this is subject to change. But for now, their signature is showing off what they can achieve with asynchronous relations between their servers and your browser. Everything else is hype: "Do no evil" withers in the face of Chinese grousing. Interoperability goes poof when rushing video to market.
It's all about the bandwidth with Google. Don't fool yourself otherwise.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
I am an analyst (although somewhat amature) and I "PREDICT" that Google could enter any online market and succeed and take significant market share if not dominate in said market. Given their history of buying up the best technology and the best people and providing them with a stimulating productive atmosphere. Besides they can always throw money at it until they succeed.
serenity now!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10478202
Google May Be Close To Creating God Competitor
1.26.2006
by AeroIllini
Industry analysts announced today that they believe Google may start entering into the business of deities.
"This is a logical move for Google," said the analyst in a note never intended for publication. "With the success of their Google Maps and Google Earth planet-creating technology, expanding to entire universes and mythologies is the next logical step. This fits neatly into Google's ultimate goal of organizing the world and it's information."
Continuing his wild speculation, the analyst said, "We believe that Google may roll out a beta Deity, on par with one of the lesser Egyptian gods, by summer. We would like to note, however, that Google has not confirmed our theories, and that all this is based on a conversation we had last week while stoned."
The analysts maintained a $666 price target on this stock.
"The selection of this target price was right in line with the possibility that Google would roll out a direct competitor with God. But we have faith that because of Google's 'Do No Evil' policy, this competitor will quickly supplant God and take His rightful place in the Heavens."
Should Google decide to enter the Deity market, it would find it crowded. The current market leaders include the Judeo-Christian God (nasdaq - GOD), with 2.2 billion customers, the Islamic Allah (nasdaq - ALLH), with 1.3 billion customers, and Vishnu (nasdaq - SHVA), with 900 million customers, among many others. Google is expected to report its fourth-quarter earnings next Tuesday.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
I love both companies but Google better hire some UI engineers if they want to compete with I-Tune because their video store was one of the worst I've ever seen and some of there other apps are just awful from a UI perspective (save for google.com).
I've never seen AllofMP3.com before. It looks great and the prices look excellent too. But, I notice that it is a Russian site.
Are AllofMP3.com downloads legal in the United States? Do they use DRM on their songs?
Why don't I just go ahead and save some analyst's copy editor some time by putting together a list of the next few headlines they'll need:
Google To Take On Photoshop
Google To Start Chip Fab
Google To Declare Indpendence
Google vs. Mecha-Godzilla!
*eyeroll*
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Google Video sucks. I can't wait for a suckful Google iTunes clone that features a few hundred foreign songs I couldn't give a crap about.
we would expect Google to rollout A beTa sErvice within 3 to 6 monthS. we note that googLe has nOt ValidatEd our expectationS, and that oUr thinking is based on mosaic theory.
Just hope you dont like any groups called 'Tiananmen Square' or 'Falun Gong'.
Google is more likely to provide itms url's from it's song linke result than to turn into a iTunes competitor. Instead, look for a partnership between Google and Apple whereby Google auto-advertises for Apple in this manner.
They want to index the worlds information, not distribute it. It's only when there is an inadequate sandbox to store the information that Google fills a void (read: google video). Music does not suffer from this.
But you can imagine what that will do with both parties' stock prices.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
Because what consumers really need another online music store. Of course, if it's anything like their poorly received video store, I don't think that Apple has a lot to worry about.
They already have a very good music search feature, why not just grow that service and use the same click-through ad model? It even has links to music download services, which makes it much easier to evaluate which music store has the music you want. It'd be nice if they could grow this service using the same click-through model for ad revenue that they've used in the past.
Why yet another music store? How many damn music services do I have to subscribe to? Imagine how people would react in the 80's & 90's if the CD's you bought from Tower Records could only be played on your Tower Records CD Player, and you needed a seperate Rockaway Records CD Player for other tracks. Yet for some reason we accept it in the online world.
They must have made this decision before the Disney buyout of Pixar was known. They are so hosed I wouldn't even know where to begin.
Anyone think that they would support the OGG format?
Artifical Intelligience is no match for natural stupidity.
'Further, Nielsen indicates that iTunes users form a distinct target audience with brand preferences along autos, alcohol beverages, magazines, and television,' he added. "
In other words, iTunes users form a specialty (niche ?) market and the bulk of the population does not use iTunes. So Apple has no DRM lock-in and iPod could be displaced. I'm not arguing that this will happen, I'm just debunking the myth that Apple/iPod is untouchable because of iTunes DRM lock-in. iPod is untouchable at the moment because no competitor makes a product that is competitive.
While Google does have a tremendous database of what people think, the iTunes music store has a pretty similar amount of data, all related to what people search for, what people request, and what people actually buy.
While Google has more scope in terms of what they are looking at, Apple's knowledge of what people actually buy is pretty valuable too. Amazon has also leveraged this kind of data to great advantage.
An example of where Apple might actually have more accurate data - only Apple knows what the most common things are that are typed in that search field while people are looking at TV shows. It's my guess that this is part of what dictates what shows we see appear on iTunes (that and of course media agreements, as I'll bet Disney is pushing some content from thier side as well). I imagine that's why they just added the A-Team... I'm going to buy an episode or two against my better judgement. Who can resist?
Now if only they would get Sliders...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I am sorry but does Apple make a great fortune on the iTunes Store? Last time I heard, they were just breaking even. The whole point of the store was to sell more ipods. It work in my case. I never purchased music before iTunes because I didn't like searching all day through Walmart or BestBuy for CDs. Once I had purchase a music collection from iTunes, I bought an iPod to listen to it. Now, what is in it for Google? Is $.10 or $.5 profit per song really worth the effort or are they releasing their own "ipod killer" along with their own proprietary DRM to satisfy the Music Gods.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Now we know the final step:
1. Become Call yourself an "analyst".
2. Randomly select any technology, platform, website or whatever that's currently "en vogue" - let's call that X.
3. Declare that Google will / should (your choice) enter the X market / create a competitor to X.
4. PROFIT!!!
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Apple hasn't so much created a technology as they have a lifestyle ...
[serious]
I hope not, "lifestyle" often equals "fad".
[/serious]
[humorous]
Personally I'm hoping the iPod is not another flower-power or dalmation print iMac.
[/humorous]
Google should just put their money into an open source DRM implementation. Waive licence fees. Any manufacturer can add it to their device and any software can be made compatible with it for no extra charge. Works with all media.
The lowest common denominator will win in the DRM game: Apple, the current leader ain't sharing and the and MS cost you an arm and a leg and doesn't ven work properly.
Because Google won't be using Windows Media.[1]
And any new player that doesn't use Windows Media is a good thing.
I totally agree with that. There is nothing sweeter than to see two giant competing to sell media, and neither of them using WMV.
How Google addreses the interoperability angle - I think they either start offering videos at iPod resolutions for free, or like you say they create some kind of local Google client that transcodes the video for you while protecting it to some extent. It all depends on how much leverage they have with content providers, though I would imagine said providers are a little irked right now and possibly not willing to discuss the matter until they see a real flow of income. On the other hand perhaps Google can convince them it's what would bring the income that other providers are seeing with ITMS...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Unless Google can figure out a way to get this to work with iPods...
Well if there is no DRM it will work just fine.
One way Google could address this, is not only to release thier own iTunes alike to browse/buy music and video... but also a replacement OS for the iPod that supports their own DRM.
I'm actually a little surprised we have not seen this happen already.
I am a little surprised with the sophistication of GMail that the Video store is so primitive. I had thought they might try to replicate an iTunes experience in the browser.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As long as it is as good as google video what could possibly go wrong?
Microsoft announces the creation of the first virtual Satan . . . . codenamed Longhorn.
One of those must have been me.
When Quicktime told me (on an XP pc) to update I did. It installed iTunes also (I didn't figure out how to disable this) and I belive I was taken to the iTunes web site.
Forced page hits should not count as real page hits.
Google will never compete with iTunes as a pay-for-service for any product that they can't give away in some form. I believe Google sees the problems with copyright and how hard it will be to enforce it as the time goes on (in fact, I believe Google will be one of the guys helping me in my quest to break down IP in some ways).
Google loves to aggregate data, sort it, maybe turn it into some other form (picture, map, etc) and spew it back to the user in a way that is useful to them. They'll throw some AdWords advertising on it as well.
Google's long term goal is certainly making advertising easier on the end user -- we'll each get the ads we want, and we'll end up with ads that actually lead us to clicking and buying. Google doesn't need music as music is finding its own resources for distribution. The iTunes format is great, and I think it will have some explosive growth for a while, but I believe that in the long run digital-music-for-sale is not going to be viable. Apple needs the iPod, Google doesn't have it. Wait until the average user who has an iPod now finds other means to get music in an anonymous and impossible-to-track format.
The next step is for Google to push the boundaries of legality. I'm not sure what that means, exactly, but Google has the power and the computers and the braintank to figure out a way to overturn almost every cartel distributors control over their current information.
We seem to get an article along these lines every few weeks. Google to get into music. Google to make games. Google to develop ethical strip mining facitities.
Generally I'm a little suspicious of them Google is an advertising supported service provider. It's what they do. While they could expand into music sales, I think it's more likely that they'll do something really quite different.
Hidden Markov Model?
If you can read this sig, you're too close.
Mr. Burns: Smithers, why haven't I heard of this "Google Deity"? He's as rich and wicked as I, but he seems to enjoy tax exempt status!
Smithers: Actually, sir, with our creative book-keeping and corporate loop holes we only pay three dollars a year.
Mr. Burns: [Shocked] You're right, we're getting screwed!
Google Kills Godzilla!!
Do you see what I did there?
Anyone remember the catastraphy that was Google Video store? Do we really want a google itunes? I would like un DRM'd legal bought MP3's , but not from google. Google is an advertising company and if they want to make a music store they need , A: A graphic designer (google video store looks like crap) B: A UI expert (Google video is impossible to navigate) C: A website that isn't .google.
Bill Gates is a very rich man today... and do you want to know why? The answer is one word: versions. Dave Barry
Me, I buy used CDs and get cheap, high quality, no-DRM tunes. I guess I'm just not cool.
Nielsen indicates that iTunes users form a distinct target audience with brand preferences along autos, alcohol beverages,
By 'alcohol beverages' they mean these iTunes users will tend to drink more Hard Cider and certain other brands.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I love google, but I am starting to think that they do nothing new, they don't create, they imitate. Granted they do it better, and more popular...Sounds like BASF of the 90's...Oh wait, is BASF at 434?
I welcome Google, if this analyst prediction (read: guess, at best an educated one) for what Google "may" be doing turns out to be true. Why? Because Google won't be using Windows Media.
;)
Funny, I welcome this possibility because I doubt that Google will use Apple's AAC format! Every device I have that can play digital media has no problem with Windows Media Audio (not to say I don't avoid it like the plague, though, but that's just 'cause it sucks compared to something decent like ogg-vorbis or more workable and universal like mp3) but if I bought something from iTunes, let me see . . . first I'd have to hold out for a new version of Hymn, then I'd have to convert the file to another format, losing quality if I wanted to play it on my flash player (which doesn't support FLAC, alas, but then again I'd only be able to fit a single album on there then anyways).
But wait, parent, you just described a situation that leaves me no room to understand how they're actually going to impliment it. So they won't be using WMA, but I doubt Apple will open up their own format for it (and hopefully they won't, from my point of view!). Then what's there to happen? I'm hoping, hoping, hoping that Google would fill the niche of "no-DRM", a smaller market for sure (since the biggest labels won't be doing business with you) but it's part of the market that remains virtually untapped (oh, there are a few (like Allofmp3), but certainly not Stateside.
But let us be honest. There isn't any real option here that it isn't easy to argue that Google wouldn't do. Therefore, well, uhh, I might be going out on a limb here (well, okay, to be serious I'm probably parroting what half of the comments here say) and declare that this analyst's prediction is bull. Think about it, if Google did the same thing as Google video then it'd have to be a player that plays a format that works only with their player. There's so little market for that, I doubt they'd bother. Unless they get a deal with Apple, no one will care. And in the unlikely, hell-freezing-over event of that, then I don't care
These proprietary formats just breed apathy in me . . .
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
Yes, lets mindlessly bash Microsoft for providing a DRM audio format that many companies can license and use, and praise Apple for creating a completely closed system that doesn't let other parties participate in, whether it's making an mp3 player or selling music online.
Vote for Pedro
I wouldn't be supprised if google tried to do the whole iTunes thing with flash and ajax in the browser. It's already being done with sites like http://www.audiri.com/ They keep track of your playlist, and you can reorder it and stuff just like iTunes, but all from the web.
iTunes users form a distinct target audience with brand preferences along autos, alcohol beverages, magazines, and television,' he added. "
I just hope they're not using all those things at once!
I've been waiting for an alternative for iTunes for a while now
Number of songs on my iPod: 2493
Number rented from iTunes: 0
'nuff said
I ripped all my CD's and I'm in the process of digitizing the vinyl. None of it is DRM.
The thing I like about the iPod is having it all with me whereever I go. Now that I have a convenient way to play the stuff, I'm back to buying music again. Buying Non-DRM music. Not renting the, rules may change at any time, stuff you get from Apple.
hmmm iTunes VS gTunes... ahhhhhh ggghhrrrr frrrshhhhh core dumped!
I can't resist having two god sent mp3 players/organizers/stores
oh, wait! no... i smeel and gPod comming!!!
I believe this analyst to be horribly mistaken (not a new thing, I know) by recent actions taken my google with their video service. The problem lies with the fact that google doesn't want to be another itunes. They don't have any apparent desire to create an online store in any real form. Google does not make its profits from selling to consumers. Google does so by selling advertising space.
As has been google's standard operating procedure, they will seek to pair advertisers with content providers. Just as google now joins websites seeking to sell ad space with advertisers, so they will bring together "commercials" with video content. Believe it or not, google's future clients do not include the likes of CBS, NBC and other broadcasting conglomerates. Google's target clients will be independent video creaters as well as current television producers (delivering their content directly to the viewer, through google). In the end, google will not be charging for the vast majority of its video content and thereby greatly distancing itself from rivals such as itunes.
Hmmmmm - and what's that got to do with Google?
1. US: http://video.google.com/
2. Rest of world: http://www.bittorrent.com/
3. Profit!
Hmmmmmmmm...
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Except for the fact that AAC isn't at all proprietary; AAC is a part of MPEG-2 meaning that it is highly standarized, and is a practical replacement for the MP3 codec as it offers better quality sound at a lower bitrate.
So what you really hate is the DRM emposed on the media, but guess what? No company is interested in selling their media these days without DRM. So you have a choice to make: boycott all companies that sell DRM'd media (basically your only option is Indie stuff, which if you're okay with that..), or buy into a DRM system that's incredible easy to crack (as FairPlay, Apple's Licensed DRM, is).
"Proprietary formats"? No, that's what WMA is. Microsoft's idea of creating their own standard just because they want a licencing cut of everyone using it. Apple's AAC-protected would be that way, only they've made it *perfectly* clear they are not interested in licencing it to anyone. (Hell, there's even a DRM module for OGG. Not that anyone would ever use it).
So please, no more FUD.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
1) I'm not sure it's fair to assume everyone running a business in Russia is a mafioso. Especially a group that has passed the legal scrutiny AllOfMp3 has been subjected to.
2) And I'm not sure it's ripping people off. ROMS is collecting royalties here and delivering them directly to the artists. They're not getting significantly less than if I bought a CD in Moscow, then flew home with it. If anyone is getting ripped off in the music industry, it's artists and consumers, I think this system works better for both of them. Ripped off is always a question of "compared to what?"
3) If you have a legal argument to run against the service, I'd be anxious to hear it. But just calling them shady and hoping it sticks doesn't get you much traction.
4) I never really meant to defend an absolutist hardline, that all DRM everywhere is necessarily E-V-I-L, I just wondered what sort of DRM (if any) Google would employ, and was playing with their motto and recent news. I was probably being too cute, though, and your point is taken here.
5) You raise another interesting point about trying to sell everyday Americans on the idea that DRM hurts them, and the risks of losing them if we conflate such a view with more controversial ones. It's like you're reading out of the EFF handbook on how to be a model citizen.
I've thought about this problem too, and while I will not admit my endorsement of AllOfMp3 is less sound than my anti-DRM position, I must admit it is slightly more controversial.
But it's not significantly more controversial on Slashdot. This, of all places, should be the forum to air these views, to have them carefully considered, before widely endorsing them to folks who don't even know what DRM stands for.
I'm tempted to argue that there's little risk of alienating any audience if you've checked your facts, as I feel I have. And that chilling discussions, even discussions about the legality of services like AllOfMp3, can never be helpful. But I've been wrong before, so I'm happy to meet you in the middle, that we should restrict these discussions to places like Slashdot until our positions can be a bit more scrutinized. Incidentally, given the forum, this exonerates everything I originally posted.
That's my two cents, hopefully it leaves you as "fucking rich" as the first time.
This is all part of Google's plan.
Google provides web page previews, organization and makes money with side ads.
Google wants to provide video previews, organization and make money with video ads -- their video store is the first step along that process.
hmmm, wonder what's next. Oh yeah. They want to provide music previews, organization and make money with audio ads.
Makes sense to me.
I wonder how they'll get into 3D...
if they come up with a really catchy name.
...creating its own iTunes competitor, which we've dubbed 'Google Tunes'
yep, I can see it taking off
Ive been trying to get my Video Podcast approved for iTunes for at least a few weeks. So I cannot get it to the iPod... Does this mean I might have a chance with Google and they might approve or publish my iPod Video?
J
G'Tunes.
It'll be dedicated to Milli Vanilli, Vanilla Ice, and Easy-E.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You can burn each album you buy on iTunes to a CD 7 times. You can make seven backup copies, one of which is bound to last at least a few years.
Then take each of those seven, and then copy them a dozen times with something like Toast, and then store those copies cryogenically in a vault, so they can be unfrozen millennia from now and still listened to. That's 91 copies of your music, all for $10 plus the cost of blank CDs.
Duh.
I want my google facial recognition search engine so I can find all those drunk pictures of me on the internets.
It is not quite true that no company is interested in selling their media without DRM. At least one, magnatune, sells their media in a variety of formats with no DRM.
Wouldn't surprise me. They've been competeing with God since 1998.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
I don't use iTMS, because I don't like the DRM and I'm not prepared to apply workarounds.
But I do use the iTunes application, which I find a bit clunky.
When Google started to give away Picasa, one common thing was to compare it with iPhoto. At the time I didn't have access to a Mac, so I couldn't compare them (I have done since: Picasa's a much nicer user experience), but I noted that if Google were to release a music application with a Picasa-like approach, then I'd drop iTunes in a heartbeat.
Google: give me a Picasa for music ("Mucasa"? Maybe not...) and I'll use it. Use it as a portal into a store, an advertising conduit, a way of collecting information about listening habits -- I'm fine with any of that.
I can't tell you how many people I know that have gotten iPods because "they're cool" and because they just didn't know better, then got their iPod home and became completely intimidated by the iTunes environment, which cunningly gives the impression that you need to buy all your iPod music from iTunes. There are ways around this, but the technically-challenged are bullied into buying songs they already have. If Google does indeed embark on this mission to challenge iTunes, I hope they'll keep this in mind for casual users, as well as provide options for those who are a bit more in-the-know as far as technology goes. A solution with alternatives would be grand.
The current market leaders include the Judeo-Christian God (nasdaq - GOD), with 2.2 billion customers, the Islamic Allah (nasdaq - ALLH), with 1.3 billion customers, ...
<PEDANTIC>Actually, that's the same guy.</PEDANTIC>
But AAC is proprietary. AAC is actually part of MPEG-4. MPEG may be a standard, but that doesn't mean it isn't proprietary. You want to have your device play it, well then just purchase a license!.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.