Slashdot Mirror
Google Music Store Inches Closer?
smallguy78 writes "Forbes is once again reporting on Google plans to launch its own competitor to iTunes, a Google music store. From the article: 'The music industry is broadly unhappy with the fixed pricing and lack of subscription options at the market-leading iTunes Music Store and likely to support alternative services.'" We have touched on this subject previously. This most recent report would seem to indicate the launch will happen sooner rather than later.
From the Fine Article:
One of two things has to give here: either the music industry's unhappiness is sustained because Google has enough principle to do on-line music equitably (which, by definition will be unhappiness for the music industry); or Google capitulates and in the process violates their "Do No Evil" credo.
This could be a misstep for Google if they appear to be in the pockets of an increasingly strident and miserable music industry. Please let them do the right thing.
Of course, for the gazillionth time, the only right way to do this is unencumbered media. Hey, I can hope.
If Google launched their own player along with the store, I could envision a pricing model that based the price of the songs on the number of plays it was receiving from its purchasers.
Over time, the cost of this track would become less and less and all of the "filler" tracks would slide fairly rapidly.
Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ -- Exercise for the rest of us.
Probably, filtering out stories who's headline ends with a question mark would augment the overall quality of the Slashdot content and, especially, the headlines.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
This headline reminds me of the "Far Side" strip where two cavemen are standing outside of their cave with a glacier wall just inches away, and one of the cavemen is saying, "Say, Thag, wall of ice closer today?"
I can see a version of this strip where the cavemen are Steve Jobs/Apple and the glacier is Google...
If a baby duck is a "duckling," why would anyone want to eat "dumplings?"
Of course there's no mention of file format. Since the audio players out there generally play some combination of MP3, AAC, and WMA, it's only reasonable to assume that the store will sell in one of those formats. Since we know it will need DRM to make the labels happy, that pretty much narrows it down to PlaysForSure WMA. If that's the case, there're already plenty of competitors out there. What will make this store different from Rhapsody, Yahoo, Napsters, etc?
This guy's the limit!
Afaik, Apple won't allow non fairplay DRM on their ipod .. so I ask on what device will this music play on?
.. I know I'd be happy with 'em.
How many people are going to want to have two devices, one to play their hundreds of dollars in itunes music (that only plays on ipod) and another to play songs purchased from Google.
Anyway if they end up using an Open DRM format
>"The music industry is broadly unhappy..."
hence why customers are broadly happy with iTunes - it's FAIR!
$60 / month for up to 12 DRM laden, non transferrable 128kbps windows audio files. If the labels are dictating the terms you know the deal will suck ass.
Going by google's general productline, gTunes[:-s] could be a server centric music player - only problem is that'l fall flat on its face.
Still if it does come out, I expect Google to fit it in with its 'organise the world's information' line.
Perhaps just using their search algorithm to find the music you want to buy is enough.. perhaps...
Perhaps the eternally elusive missing link has been found...
Step 1. Anything
Step 2. Google
Step 3. Profit!
"The stupider people think you are, the more surprised they will be when you kill them..."
How does the music store interact with players, especially the iPod?
Can users easily manage their music libraries?
What kind of file formats will be available?
Overall, the article makes it sound like Google is very focused on the music industry. I understand this to a point, but Google's users won't be too happy if the music industry seems like it is in too much control. Users are willing to pay, but they expect a certain level of freedom and choice. The user experience is at least as crucial as buy in from the music industry. Or, in other words, Google needs to consider both supply and demand.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Going by google's general productline, gTunes[:-s] could be a server centric music player
:-)
I guess you meant Gtunes *Beta*
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
I think most consumers will simply see this as another place where you can download music. The prices and file formats will be different, but that's about it.
Looking for political forums? Check out "The World Forum".
This is news for nerds and the headline is using the imperial system? Metric, please, metric.
Is there anything that pleases the music industry? I am simply tired of reading about these whining gazillionaires.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Introducing "Goosic" or what about... "Moosic"... or something as wonderful as "Mugoosicgle"?
Or how about something that just as describing as "Ekiga", which is real easy to remember.
Sarcasm intended.
When I read the comment pulled from the article:
"The music industry is broadly unhappy with the fixed pricing and lack of subscription options at the market-leading iTunes Music Store and likely to support alternative services."
I thought to myself, "If the music industry is broadly unhappy, then Apple is probably doing something right."
What we should be hearing is how Google is stepping up to offer alternative services that address a gap that consumers are experiencing. Instead that quote would indicate that Google is stepping up to offer alternatives to the music industry. Frankly, I don't hear too many people (myself included) in the mainstream complaining about the options. I'm all for capitalism and competition and welcome Google to the game. However, I'm going to remain skeptical about this until I fully understand where Google is going with this.
--
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Churchill
From TFA: "The music industry is broadly unhappy with the fixed pricing and lack of subscription options at the market-leading iTunes Music Store and likely to support alternative services."
What part are they unhappy about? Making tons of money not enough, they want more? The only thing that could lead the music industry to be "unhappy" with iTunes is that they want to charge more per download, whether it be through higher price-fixing or subscriptions that seem like a good deal, but aren't. That's all they care about. Unfortunately, the MPAA doesn't get to dictate how the market works, too bad for them. Unless Google starts off with an online music store a good bit cheaper than iTunes and somehow manages to completely kill off the iTunes store before jacking up the prices, the music industry isn't going anywhere, and neither will any new efforts from Google or anyone else.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
'The music industry is broadly unhappy with the fixed pricing and lack of subscription options at the market-leading iTunes Music Store and likely to support alternative services.'
Oh, really?
Well, I'm broadly unhappy with the music industry's desire to charge like wounded bulls for mediocre content and infest their media with single-platform proprietary DRM. I just *wonder* what sort of 'subscription models' the music industry is hanging out for. Guess what? I'm usually pretty supportive of google's enterprises, but if if I can't listen to the music on my iPod *and* my daughter's el cheapo MP3 player *and* my PowerBook *and* my work linux box *and* burn it to a CD so I can show it to my non-MP3-player-owning friends and relatives -- I'm not interested.
Oh, and I like Celtic folk, Afro-Celtic world music, blues, prog, electronica, choral and a bunch of other minority genres. I spent about A$70 on music last month, almost all from little indy labels. The Big Names of the music industry can take their overproduced teen manufactured product and stick it where the sun don't shine.
It is a woman's prerogative to change other people's minds.
I hope that Google does this, and does so with the same standards and aplomb that they have used for all of the other Google services. I like Google, not because of the do no evil clause, but because their services work, they work well, and the costs are... well, affordable.
If MS or the RIAA could find a company that works as well as ITMS or that works better than ITMS, they would have done so. Clearly, they are in need of a partner company that has both the technology know-how and the backbone to make it work. Google definitely fits in that category. I hope that if such a bargain is struck, that the *AA finds themselves holding on for dear life to the tail of a very BIG tiger....
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I guess this will open up a lot more opportunities for advertising on gtunes.. Relevant-genre/artist music-snippet ads maybe?
Hi hope it's as great as the Google Video store!!!
What would happen if the **AA allowed Google to launch a music/movie service *without* DRM? The vast majority of material on legitimate services like iTunes is available DRM-free on the p2p networks and usenet. But people still use iTunes because it's more convenient and not legally risky.
Would iTunes or any other legitimate music/movie service be *less* successful without DRM? I don't think so. Which begs the question: what's the **AA's business case for DRM?
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
The music industry is broadly unhappy with the fixed pricing
All Apple has to do to keep the industry happy is rearrange that to "price fixing".
I've just finished reading Simon Reynolds' very interesting history of the British post-punk scene "Rip It Up And Start Again". There are sections in there discussing the indie labels like Rough Trade, Mute, Stiff and others which were set up and funded by enthusiasts. This was a world where music could only be distributed physically on casette or vinyl which presented huge barriers to entry. Yet these people not only overcame them they ushered in arguably the most creative period for British music since the 60s and created a few big stars along the way (whom they gave a fair share of the royalties to, no advances with profits being split 50/50 after the cost of pressing the records had been recovered).
How much easier would it be to set up something similar today when semi-pro and even pro quality recording equipment is so much cheaper and physical distribution is almost irrelevant? Yet, as least so far as I can tell, no one is trying this? Why is there no equivalent of the Rough Trade shop on-line entering into pure distribution deals with new bands to allow them to sell downloads without a record deal and enriching our lives by introducing us to stuff we probably wouldn't have heard otherwise? Not to mention encouraging (and possibly making commercially viable) the sort of experimentation which history has shown time and again is the best way for music to evolve both artistically and commercially.
I can second that last part... I'm friends with an API developer at Google, and my boss is friends with someone higher-up in marketing... both have told us that Google has no plans for an OS.
and why should they? 2 years from now, no one is going to care about what OS you are running, anyway. We will have true Windows emmulation on OS X shortly, and WINE seems to do great things for windows apps under linux... pretty soon your choice of OS isn't going to matter in terms of what software you can run.
Beyond that, we are heading towards a service-based model, which moves us away from the OS as a productivity space anyway. Google would do better to put their efforts into these services than mucking about with an OS and fighting a (probably loosing) battle with MS on that front. Better to take the fight to the internet, where they are stronger anyway.
All the artists on http://www.mvine.com/ receive 50% of the after tax revenue for downloads, and all the music sold, in Ogg Vorbis and MP3 formats, is free of DRM. There are also many free music videos to download too.
Will music from Google work on my iPod?
If not, it's a non-starter.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
This is sort of a delicious irony because I remember in the 90's the big question about any computer system was "Will it run MS Office?"
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
'The Public is broadly unhappy with the price fixing and lack of subscription options at the non-existent Music Industry Digital Music Store and likely to support iTunes.'
The music industry is broadly unhappy with the fixed pricing and lack of subscription options at the market-leading iTunes Music Store and likely to support alternative services.
Call me crazy, but I actually like iTunes. I like that all the songs are $1. I like their selection, the interface, how easy it is to get what I want on my iPod, etc. I don't want to pay more for music. I stopped buying CD's a long time ago and it is the $1 price point that got me to purchase music again. If it goes up I'll do what I did with CD's years ago and stop buying music again. The last thing I want is a subscription service. Honestly, who here wants a subscription service for music? Raise your hands.
Now ask me how much of my time I waste worrying about the music industry only making a crap-load of money rather than a whole shit-load. Their whining about "mean old apple and fixed pricing" is enough to make a person sick.
Good post. Although recognizing that the marginal cost of a digital music track for sale is zero doesn't mean that "[t]here is no way to regulate the prices by traditional means." The economics are still the same!
Imagine the physical CD media of a popular record. Marginal cost is now not zero, probably instead closer to $1. How should we price it - expensive, to acquire the price insensitive "gotta-have-it" types, or cheap, to attract the "it-could-be-cool" casual buyers?
As you surmise, the answer in both cases is to set price such that profit is maximized. In one case, there are no costs, so the optimum price could be lower than otherwise, but not necessarily. Either way, companies will want to experiment in order to model the price sensitivity of their customers.
---
I don't think that old tracks would necessarily be cheaper, either. Many customers of old and/or niche music are price insensitive -- other close substitutes don't satisfy them. Again, this isn't something that can be answered without real data as opposed to WAGs (we can try - this is slashdot, after all), but that's just a theory of mine.
beware the jabberwock, my son! the jaws that bite, the claws that catch!