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
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.
"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
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.
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?