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. "
Google is getting closer to making the internet a better place... where there is always a free option and not ONLY sold by cash hungry mongrels. I welcome Google in all their endevours. I wonder if the expected Google free version will just be like Yahoo music videos or something...
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
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
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.
I think you'll find Google tend to be better focused. Microsoft wants to tie you into the spiderweb of their product line, rather than sell you something you'll be tickeled with. Google seems to have the grasp of catering to what the market likes.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
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.
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.
Although I don't find a reason to believe them (Google analysts) anymore. GooglePC, GoogleOS, Google browser, Google some-sort-of-internet-appliance, and now iGoogleTunes.
I'll believe it when I see the beta.
Auron may be different, Cally, but on Earth it is considered ill-mannered to kill your friends while committing suicide.
It's usually only .99 per song on iTunes if you buy a la carte.
Most full-length albums on iTunes are $9.99, whether it has ten songs or twenty. Once in a while, they charge $19.98 for a double-length album, and occasionally they can't get permission to sell an album from a label without hiking the album price up a few bucks, but for the most part this has been the case.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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.
"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)."
I love how people will declare something as bad, insufficient, unnecessary, or in this case 'NOT great' simply because it is not what they want/like. Obviously $.99/song IS great. Just look at the millions of songs that have been downloaded at that price. I don't think any consumer would mind lower prices, but why would a company lower them if they have the most successful product on the market?
$60 a year, unlimited downloads to your PlaysForSure player.
No, $60 a year gets you unlimited plays on your PC for as long as you keep sending money, but downloads to your player (which must support Janus DRM; not many do) requires an extra fee (see footnote 5 at the bottom of that page).
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
Except for one thing: most paid-download music sites already use the Windows Media Audio format. And most non-Apple portable music players support DRM-protected .WMA files, too.
Google will have to either 1) support Apple's DRM-protected AAC format, 2) support Microsoft's DRM-protected WMA format, or 3) create its own DRM-protected format and convince portable music player makers to support Google's own format.
Why is it that people act like AllofMP3.com is a legal service? It's not. It's barely treading the legal waters in Russia, and is definitely illegal outside of it. It's more of a matter of not having the resources to get it shutdown. And since, it's most likely owned by the Russian mob, or someone who wouldn't stand a chance againt the Russian mob, do you really want to give the site your credit card number and personal identifying information??
All that said, I can't agree that a song isn't worth 99 cents. I can agree that its often not worth record agencies getting 55 cents out of the 99 cents. But I know a ton of muscians trying to make a decent living, doing great work. And since I value my time pretty darn, well, I'd say saying here's a dollar for your effort isn't that bad.
I don't need to hear arguments of scale. I'm just talking basic value. Just because somethings easily reproduced shouldn't take away its intrinsic value. If I can give a quarter, 50 cents, or some random amount of cash to a stranger, standing on street with their hand held out. I think I can give a dollar to someone who's work has brought beauty into my life.
you're missing the point. google does not produce an ipod. so they'd be producing a consisten and simple interface to WHAT?
part of the reason interfaces can be simple and consistent is because the number of variables are controlled and greatly reduced. Not so if you're dealing with a multitude of hardware and software specifications. They need an IPOD-type device as good as the IPOD or better - and an interface as good as ITUNES or better, and a catalog as good as ITUNES or better. And they need those things yesterday, as time is of the essence. Otherwise, they're one of the million other guys selling music on the web, which is to say, no competition to Apple.
this is more about a stock run-up. Google is a stock run-up, and the media is regularly seeded with google talk to keep that stock price moving.
un burrito me trampeó.
And Google *is* a cash-hungry mongrel. Just because you don't buy the free videos, doesn't mean Google isn't doing it for the cash.
... and then they built the supercollider.
And any new player that doesn't use Windows Media is a good thing.
I hate this. "Windows Media sucks"...how?
I'll doubt many here have listened to a proper WMA v9 (with WMP 10) VBR file. They'd be hard pressed to call it a shit codec.
It plays on most players out there, from no-names to big names (as opposed to iTunes' AAC, which plays on iPods and only iPods. It's a good codec, with decent hardware and software support (AmaroK (and JuK) would easily support it out of the box if Taglib's author would accept the freely available patches to deal with WMA tags).
So it might just support DRM. So does MP3. So does AAC. So what? There's nobody holding a gun to peoples' heads and telling them to use DRM. If you don't like DRM from online stores, the simple solution is to go and buy the CD. That way, you can have whatever codecs you like, DRM-free (so long as you hold down the shift key on new releases, which isn't really a big deal, is it?)!
Someone please tell me the big objection to WMA. I'm dying to know.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
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!
Someone please tell me the big objection to WMA. I'm dying to know.
It's not an open standard[1], it's controlled by Microsoft, and any further use of it assists Microsoft.
I didn't say Windows Media 9 was a bad codec. In fact, it's rather damned good.
Apple may apply DRM to AAC, but at its heart, all of the content is still MPEG-4, H.264, and AAC. Also, Apple didn't and doesn't operate from a monopoly position.
[1] Microsoft submitted the Windows Media Video 9 codec to SMPTE as VC-1. There is currently a patent pool for VC-1 administered by MPEG LA. It is not yet an open standard, and won't be for some time, if ever.
Why is it that people act like AllofMP3.com is a legal service? It's not.
IANAL, but I suspect you aren't either. allofmp3.com appears to be legal, even if it is just by technicality. At worst, it is illegal, but consumers are innocent infringers. So there is no legal reason for a consumer not to use the service.
It's barely treading the legal waters in Russia, and is definitely illegal outside of it.
In other words, you are saying it is legal. And since it is legal in Russia, it is legal to import to other countries.
It's more of a matter of not having the resources to get it shutdown.
It's more like not having the legal standing to take them down. The RIAA certainly has the resources to launch a civil suit against the site, even if you believe the government doesn't have the resources for a criminal case.
And since, it's most likely owned by the Russian mob, or someone who wouldn't stand a chance againt the Russian mob, do you really want to give the site your credit card number and personal identifying information??
Credit card transactions are handled by a third party which is used for many transactions in Russia. I have yet to hear any instances of credit card fraud relating to allofmp3.com and I certainly haven't experienced it.
Sure, that information could fall into the wrong hands, but so could the information you provide to your bank, or even your credit card company. Make sure you have a one-time-use number or that you're not liable for fraud and the problem is solved.
Re: Pricing
I, for one, don't care about the price. I'll pay $0.99 a song, especially if most of it goes to the artist. Show me where I can purchase this music with encoding options, no DRM, and with the bulk of the profits going to the artist, and I'll sign up immediately.
The artist isn't going to see my money as long as they're attached to the RIAA. If I can't get it legally without funding the RIAA, I won't have it at all.
Something like iTunes is fine for getting a few hit songs that you want (in which case its not that expensive at all, I mean thats less than a large fries at a fast food restaurant), but not for filling up your music collection.
Calling what you download from Yahoo! your "music collection" is like renting a bunch of videos from Blockbuster and calling it your "movie collection".
It may be in your house now, but it's going back to the store when the rental period has lapsed.
Anything I download from iTunes is playable until I delete it or lose it somehow.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
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.
And your analogy is off anyways. Music subscription services don't have 'rental periods' like Blockbuster, you keep it as long as you pay for it. Its not going to drive me into financial ruin to stay subscribed, as their price is a fraction of my cable bill, phone bill, electric bill, rent, or pretty much any reoccuring payment. Unless I am downloading fewer than 10 songs a month, I'm saving money compared to what I would pay at iTunes. And if I really want to quit and keep something longer, I can 'purchase' it at 80% the price of iTunes (though usually in that case I would just go out and purchase the album).
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.