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. "
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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
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.
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?