Slashdot Mirror
Google Shies Away from Digital Music Sales
mytrip writes to tell us that Google has announced that they will not be getting in on the digital music sales market anytime soon. Analysts have been predicting the response of a "GTunes" service for months but Chris Sacca, head of business development at Google, dispelled those rumors in a recent address at the annual National Association of Recording Merchandisers conference in Florida. Sacca emphasized the need for "ecosystem development" and partnerships within the industry stating that they were the "big opportunity" in the digital music business.
Digital music is a rough market to be in. The only ones making any money are Apple, and that's from iPods. If the music industry had any concept of developing a new market instead of sucking it dry for the last penny maybe you'd see more companies anxious to get involved. The current business model of suing file traders and restrictive DRM is probably just driving away customers.
Legitimate digital music is really a step backwards. With vinyl, cassettes and CDs there was a certain standard that meant if you bought music you could use it pretty much anywhere. The equivalent standard for digital music is seen as too easy to copy, so they've insisted on DRM. But the real problem is not that MP3s are easy to copy per se, but that computers have changed the rules of the game. The music industry needs to shift their focus to developing a better product, instead of crippling everything and then getting mad when people don't buy in.
filetype:mp3
time is a perception of a being's consciousness
time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
Google abandoned the "Google = search" idea long ago. Since Google makes 99% of its revenue from advertising, they've been diversifying the way they can serve you ads. How is a beta Jabber server "search"? How is a JavaScript map client "search"? (Sure you can "search" for businesses, but the results are pretty unreliable.) How is a JavaScript spreadsheet program "search"?
For more information, click here.
That was definitely once true, but I'm not sure it is any more. Google has branched out a considerable amount in recent times, way beyond its core product (searching).
e.g.:
Etc, etc.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Some of those are search-related, but they were also search-related when yahoo!/netscape/msn/etc did them 5 years ago.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I'm surprised anyone would think Google would want to be a music store. It doesn't really fit their methods and style. Google is not a retailer, they do not take content from a commercial third-party and distribute it, with markup, to consumers. This is nothing like how they currently make their billions.
I have no doubt the minds at Google have thought of how to use music content, but I suspect one of the reasons they aren't jumping in right away is because, to put it lightly, the RIAA folks are not pleasant people to share a market with.
In my estimation, if Google were to focus on music content, it might be something like Google Video, only taken to the next level somehow; Perhaps it would be an advanced form of Internet radio, where each user gets a personalized stream of the music they like, and Google uses their context and marketing technology to make a tidy profit off of the millions of attentive ears. And of course, the music content they included would have to be free...
It's really sad when race-baiting gets modded up. ;\
Google know they can't make it good (Read: no DRM), so they aren't doing it at all.
Once the music industry finally pulls its finger out, we'll see our gTunes (beta) within a few months.
Nobody else has this sig.
Their main goal is making everything searchable. Going into Digital Music Sales would mean nothing for them. Unlike microsoft, which pokes its nose everywhere google has well defined goals. Or perhaps they have something great to work on. It's always a surprise.
Spam: Any activity on internet to gain popularity without paying to advertising companies like Google.
Google, unlike Microsoft does not suffer from Mr. Creosote syndrome (that nagging sensation that if anyone else is making money on a particular product or service, then you should be too). Google could stay busy for a good number of years with the irons they already have in the fire. Microsoft had better shed a few more pounds (I'm being polite) before they dine again. They have plenty on their plate already too.
and offer artists the majority of the profit (aside from what is required for operating expenses).
:-)
Google could probably offer them all the profit, just like they do on uploaded videos, which requires even more bandwidth. I think they have such a profitable adword model by now that they don't even need that with a music service. That would be really interesting to see how it would unfold, especially if going to a music.google.com would let you see weekly promotions, or in traditional Google style, computer automated promotions for the artists most voted for by a community. They'd get a little more visible area on the front page, and a part of their profile there. Artists would feel incentive to make good music, and they'd know they got pretty much all the profit thanks to adwords getting bandwidth costs basically out of the way. I think more than one Internet user would find it interesting.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
If Google were to get into the music business at all, something along the lines of Pandora, or maybe even satellite radio, would make more sense. The ability to search and listen to any music that is to your liking and fine tune those searches as you go.
But am I the only person here who read TFA and noticed the word "sell"? What was Google doing at the annual conference of the National Association of Recording Merchandisers, anyway? It would be far more in line with Google's search business to have a gTunes "music search" engine, where bands can upload their own music and fans can search for it for free. Wouldn't that seem far more like a "proven" and "web 2.0" concept in the light of YouTube and Google Video?
Wouldn't it be more like Google to use their gpay online payment system to "enable" bands to sell music themselves, direct to the consumer? Or for bands to receive a payment for every song downloaded that has had a catchy advertising jingle appended to the end? Local radio has already established that listeners will suffer listening to advertising in exchange for their favourite music (god alone knows why!), and Google's advertising could be far better targeted.
Apple must have made a massive investment in administrative infrastructure negotiating with record labels and establishing contracts and DRM that they can all live with - that was all necessary in order to bring convenient online ordering of already popular artists to their portable music player. But Google has no investment in the status quo here, and isn't interested in selling iPods - it would be far more convienient to them to have a standard "publishers agreement" and terms of service open to anyone with a Google account. Any wannabe rock-star can then sign up and upload their own MP3s, Google is a "common carrier" and just like eBay they can pull the account of anyone selling music they receive an infringement complaint about.
Despite the number of assertions I read about increasing record sales in the last few years associated with P2P users discovering bands (I don't know whether this is a long-term trend over the last decade, or just a statement that was just thrown around during Napster's height?) nothing that has occurred involving music and the internet has followed the model that the traditional music publishing industry is comfortable with. I don't see why Google should be any different, and I don't see why they should ignore music, seeing as how they've already taken an interest in books and video.
Stroller.