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.
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.
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.
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 $19.98 for a double-length album, and occasionally they can't get permission to sell an album from a label without hiking the album price up a few bucks, but for the most part this has been the case.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Cuz Google Tunes will probably look like Google Video.
I use Itunes because Itunes works with my Ipod. I buy stuff through the Itunes music store because it's the music store hooked up to ITunes. It's that tight and effective integration that makes it so powerful. If I want new music, my first instinct is to just click the music store button and find something there. I can have whole albums in a couple minutes, loaded onto my ipod and everything.
Even if my ipod could use the DRM of some other music store I probably wouldn't bother with it even if the songs were slightly cheaper.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Google has produced no really interesting things in the last year or so. Actually, most of their new products are quite bad, yet fanboys keep pushing for the google-is-cool mantra. There's no way they could make a desktop application as good as itunes, and a decent store in order to compete with Apple if they use the same mediocre approach they've used with google video or google desktop. Maybe it's just because we're yet to see what's all about them, but so far they have adopted a microsoft-like business model where everything *must* be bound to their core product (search) otherwise it's no good.
I think the huge advantage Google has over most competitors is a spare cash. After all, it wouldn't cost them so much to subsidise most of the price of each song to RIAA or any other proper authority, and then offer users a song at any price which will be attractive. And with iTunes's 0.99$ a song, you don't have to knock off this much - every little helps, so even 0.50$ will seem pretty good :)
"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).
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
Yeah, even if iTunes sells them cheaper by the album, the price of an album in Russia is about $3. The Russian download services reflect this. And the Russians also have obligatory licensing after publication, sorta like what we have for radio, so their catalogue is hypothetically unlimited.
With AllOfMp3 or the other Russian sites (mp3search.ru or musicmp3.ru), you can get tracks for something like 4 to 12 cents per song, ala carte or not, encoded in the format/bitrate you specify, with or without an artist's permission. ROMS (the Russian ASCAP) has routinely asserted the legality of these sites, and this legality has been supported by Russian legal authorities (the Moscow police, judges and Russian lawmakers have all attested to the legality here).
You can legally import them, in the US at least, just as if you went over to Russia and bought a physical album for $3 in a record store, as long as you intend it for personal use.
It's just price differentials, it's just like if you could buy your Big Macs in China and have them shipped instantly to your mouth for free. Welcome to the information age and the economic chaos/freedom it's bringing.
More importantly, the tracks from these services are completely DRM free.
The best version of this you can get outside of Russia is eMusic, which is subscription based, about 25 cents per song, completely DRM free. Their catalogue is mostly limited to smaller labels though.
So one big question is whether or not there will be meaningful price competition, the other big question for me is whether or not "Don't Be Evil" means "Don't Use DRM" or if it means "Buckle under the pressure of the RIAA, as if it were the hot new China."
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
Between Apple's AAC and Microsoft's WMA, which is cross platform and which is Windows-only?
This is a trick question, right?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
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??
Relax. They use SSL encryption.
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.