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+
Several years ago everybody was going portal. Every search engine added shopping, communities, finance tips, travel, free mail account and tried to lure users into spending as much time as possible on their site as possible to get their cash and more cash from advertisers.
Then came Google with a simple interface and did one thing: search. And basically everything Google released since then was build around search. Even the videos. But music is very hierarchically organized: Artist - Album - Track. You seldom have to search for something, maybe you'll use Google to search for the lyrics if you cannot remember the name of the track.
Now everybody predicting that Google will go into music just falls into the portal trap. Hey, they did search, they have news, they do mail, so they must aim to become a portal, hence they will try to do everything and so they must want to do music.
Think: Google = search. If the product does not fit, there is no way to make money from it for Google and they won't do it (there will always be exceptions, but that is the general rule so far).
memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
I prefer the Yahoo service over iTunes. The subscription model is more to my taste than purchasing. A lot of times though, I remember a snatch of lyrics, and you can't search for snippets of lyrics on Yahoo. Where do I turn? Google of course, to find the name of the song and/or band. Then I search to see if Yahoo has them. An integrated "snippet of lyrics" search for Yahoo music would be good. After I post this, I'll have to check to see if somebody has written a plugin that mashups these features into Yahoo music. If it exists, cool, but I've had trouble with Yahoo plugins crapping out. Google should partner with the other services to offer enhanced music search capabilities. It would play to their core competancy.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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...
that a half-baked story predicting that Google will enter the wireless provider market in order to support the foray into their online music business. GMusic store will allow you search 7 billion recordings using lyrics, instruments used, and sound patterns.
Also, in 3 to 6 months Microsoft will apologize to their employees, customers, and vendors for falling so far behind as an MVNP and music distributor. But Balmer will commit to catching Apple, Google, and AllOfMp3.com within the next 3 to 4 quarters. It's Microsoft's top priority next to releasing Longhorn, WinFS, security, DRM, the next version of SQL Server, Exchange 2007,.NET,.ORG, ethic, combinatorial global business synergies and leverage points and Windows on the Power PC.
Lastly, Apple frustrated with the iPOD to car stereo interfaces and refusal by many automobile manufacture to integrate the iPOD directly into their automobiles will purchase an Korean automobile company and begin manufacturing iCars. These cars will include new design innovations including ergonomic steering wheels and see through dash panels. Initially the automobiles will run on Honda gasoline engines, but Jobs will announce in the first 4 years of production that the iCar (and soon to be released iSUV) will switch to Toyota engines that can run on electricity, gasoline, jet-fuel, whiskey, and the sweat of some breeds of Tibetan mountain goats.
Step aside Dvorak I have spoken.
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.
On the contrary, they stick fairly close to their core competency compared to certain other tech companies. Plus, I'd hardly call what they're doing "overextending" when they have a $100 billion market capitalization.
That they deny being enticed by the idea of selling music online is a good sign IMO, it means they don't need to try to grab a piece of every pie that has anything to do with the word "Internet".
If I were (one of the guys) in charge of Google, right about now I would be looking to create GMusic, a Google record label.
Offer fair prices on albums, and offer artists the majority of the profit (aside from what is required for operating expenses).
With all the piracy/lawsuits/RIAA crap that has been happening lately, I'm pretty sure at least a few major bands would jump at the chance to be part of a less evil label, and consumers would be happier/more inclined to buy from a label that actually supports their artists.
Registered Linux user #421033
If they're not looking into getting into the digital music market, what was the head of business development doing at the annual National Association of Recording Merchandisers conference? Sounds kinda shifty to me. :-P
Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?
They're really about providing free advertising funded services. Search is free. gmail is free. Groups are free. Presumably they don't want to deal with the inconvenience of paying consumer customers, who after paying a few dollars want everything. Business customers pay a lot more and are no more demanding.
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.
I would like to formally announce that I, jjeffries, user #17675, will also not be entering the digital music sales market. I feel that it would detract from my primary function of making realistic Hitleresque mustaches from leftover bicycle handlebar tape.
thank you,
jjeffries
user #17675
I don't believe this. Why would Google send one of their top execs to give a speech at an organization of music retailers saying they have no interest in selling music?
If you read the article, there are some interesting points where Sacca argues Google is already in the music business, meaning that when people hear about an artist or song, they search for it on Google. It seems like what they're saying is "we get a ton of traffic that we can easily identify of people who seem likely to buy music, we're not interested in building a music store because we know from Google Video we can't design stores, you guys sell music... maybe YOU can make a Google music store, and pay us a little sumthin sumthin."
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.
The music industry is in the middle of a revolution still (and they don't want to be in it :-p), and I think more than one Google exec may have been happy they didn't get into this business when they're now starting to see the crap Apple is starting to get, about e.g using DRM at least as much for anticompetitive practices as reducing listening rights, in a sort of an unholy alliance between their corporation and the music industry.
:-)
The only way I think Google could get in and win would be if they made a nice little site for indie musicians, completely staying clear of anything labelled Shakira, Backstreet Boys, or that young, rich lady that played with her boobs and sucked a penis on a video tape.
If they made something clever there, things could be interesting. Like giving uploading bands/musicians a profile page, their albums, songs, and downloads, and let them either release them as e.g. a Creative Commons license (most "free"), a free but copyrighted license, or if wishing to go commercial, for a custom fee where 95%+ went to the artists (Google could probably finance most of their bandwidth on adwords like on Google Videos). Then build a community around that where you can discuss and support the artists on forums on their respective pages, and have top lists, etc. Have monthly/weekly featured artists in different genres.
I mean, a service to pretend RIAA don't exist and just let musicians get promoted Google's ways without a need for music companies. I think I would check out such a service.
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.