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.
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'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.
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.
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
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 :)
Yes, except that iTunes doesn't sell mp3s, in fact, none of the major online music companies do. If Google wanted to actually compete with iTunes, they will have to sell music in forms that can be played on the iPod, such as mp3 or ACC. Or, Google can go the complete other way and make their own music player to sell their music, but again, they will need to comete with the iPod. As long as Apple claims the market for music players, it will control the music sales. With Apple owning roughly 80% of the music player industry, why would Apple care who controls the other 20%. Let them fight over scraps while Apple takes the meat right off the bone!
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.
A couple years ago I was working at a retailer that sells electronics. People would come in looking for iPods but the store was out of stock. I would tell them that we have other MP3 players in stock and the response I would ALWAYS get is "What's an MP3 player?"
Right now the iPod and iTunes are too closely intertwined, and with the ridiculous popularity of iPods right now, it's NOT a good time to try and compete.
What I don't understand is why EVERYONE is so desperate to find a big name competitor.
I used the term "mp3" because it has been the most popular song format for a long time, hence it would be a term most searched for. I don't hear people say "Hey, how many AAC's you got?" I hear "How many mp3's you got?"
Second, name a product Apple has managed to have dominant sales in for any length of time. Every single time they come out with a product that's pretty good and popular, they manage to lose dominance in a short amount of time. They're much better at selling to the minority than to the majority and I seriously doubt the iPod will be any different. There's a couple decades of history that speaks volumes about that.
By which I mean that yes, they have formidable analytic capability, but it is centered around publically accessible information. Since Google's foundation is providing that capability to the public, Apple can simply use Google's own search capability to mine the internet, or they can leverage a competitors search capability, or both. They can hire people (as they already do) to assess their particular market.
Google is not the answer to everything--42 is, if you're keeping track--and I think in time people will see that with clarity. Right now everyone is just in awe of the valuation that everyone's awe has created.
In other words, people's fascination with the company is the thing that is really fascinating them, and that will likely spin out of control until people realize, "Woah, my feet aren't even on the ground," and then everything falls down.
Or not.
Either way, I think your conclusion is not right. Google's does not have unique consumer information that cannot be obtained through other avenues by Apple or another competitor.
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
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
I pay less than two cents per song from Yahoo! Unlimited. $10 a month for as many songs as you want. 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.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
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.