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.
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."
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
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...
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.
Cuz Google Tunes will probably look like Google Video.
"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
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...
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."
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?