Google Music Downloads To Go Ahead Without Sony Or Warner

An anonymous reader writes "Google has sent out press invitations to an event on Wednesday where it's expected they'll unveil their long-rumored Google Music download service. CNET reports that while Google already has an agreement in place with Universal, talks with Sony and Warner Music Group are still in progress, and won't be finished by the time Google Music launches. 'The negotiations between Google and the labels by and large have not gone well for either side. The labels are eager for a serious iTunes competitor to emerge and believe Google has the technological know-how, money, and Internet presence to give iTunes a run for its money. ... Yet, the company is once again launching a major part of its music service without acquiring licenses and this may serve to widen the rift between the company and some of the labels. '"

Comments

weird reversal

[Spy Handler]

The labels are eager for a serious iTunes competitor to emerge and believe Google has the technological know-how

Normally, more competition = (lower price || better service)

Right now iTunes dominates and has no competition, for all intents and purposes. The record labels don't like that, since Apple is holding them by the balls and forcing them cheap 99cent pricing and other things. So they want more competition for Apple.

But if they get their way, and more competition appears, the record labels will be able to raise prices and make more money?

Amazon is good

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been buying and downloading cheap MP3's from Amazon for a while. Not sure why it isn't considered a "serious" competitor of iTunes.

Re:Amazon is good

[JWW]

What the record companies don't realize is that what they provide is no longer required in the era of internet downloadable music.

It is curious that they "want" another competitor for iTunes because they can't compete in the internet music scene. But eventually when Amazon, Google, and iTunes control all the digital distribution and all other distribution has withered away, why will there be a need for record companies. Why shouldn't Apple, Google, and Amazon get their OWN recording artists and cut out the completely and utterly useless RIAA middlemen?

I so want Google, or Apple or Amazon or all of them combined, to buy (via hostile takeover) one of the remaining big "record" companies. Then they can fire all of the management and show the surviving companies what companies that are really innovative can do in the music industry.

The RIAA is in the unique position of selling their goods to people who hate them. I do buy music through iTunes so that I have legal copies, although I do load the DRM free music on every device I have, which I know is not what they'd prefer. But I am buying music legally.

However, if they get SOPA passed and IMHO jeopardize the entire internet (which my job is based on), I will stop holding my nose while buying music through iTunes, and just stop buying music completely.

Re:Amazon is good

[fa2k]

[Amazon's] download client is two years out of date (Ubuntu 9.10) and does not support 64 bit architectures[...]

Apple is evil, but they always make it as easy as possible to buy from them.

So it's easier to use a Windows client in Wine, requiring a 9-step process to install it?

Re:Google has a major problem

[icebike]

Your entire takeaway is based on google hate.

It is a company that throws a lot onto the wall and sees what sticks. You should have known that going in. Its what they do. It works for them.

They are good a shedding un-productive products, sidewiki, Buzz, App Inventor etc., instead of running themselves into the ground maintaining stuff that has no market draw and no hope of a revenue stream.

Google Music is New, Better, and More. Its also Different, easy to manage, and (soon) will have a revenue stream. I put my music in, its automatically on my devices, no cables. No asking Uncle Steve (rip) if its OK. It just works. One second after creating a playlist on line its on my phone. On my tablet.

I can buy or upload music from any source available to me, not just ONE. For free. How is this less?

Google Plus is showing every sign of being everybit as big as Gmail. Its a totally new concept. Its not facebook, its not myspace.

Its time for you to stop the hate. Use it or don't use it, but claiming their services are old, broken, or not perfect is just so misplaced and wrong. Go back and cable up your iphone to your macbook and sync your itunes.

Re:Who cares?

[icebike]

Well said.

When Apple, Amazon, and Google pry the distribution away from the labels, how much longer will those labels be able to control production?

When local bands start acquiring a following, will they be able to go "indi" via one or more of these outlets without signing anything but a retail agreement for distribution? Will they simply hire a recording studio to record and polish their tracks without all the contractual lock downs and indentured servitude the labels impose?

Sticking is the problem

[SuperKendall]

It is a company that throws a lot onto the wall and sees what sticks.

Nothing will stick if they will not finish it before it's out in public.

I was pretty interested in Google+ when it launched. But because I had a paid Google Apps account for my business, I could NOT use my business email account for Google+!! Madness for a major feature like Google+ at launch, to screw over your paying customers.

Now they support Google+ from an apps account. But you know what? I don't think I care anymore. And in fact because of that backhanded slap to a paying customer, I am totally migrating off Google Apps after this year.

You can't just throw random half-baked things out and expect the bake sale to go well.

Re:Here's a chance to grab my money Google.

[Twinbee]

Three things:

1: Last time I heard, Amazon's music store isn't in the UK and many other parts of the world.

2: I don't think just *anyone* can put their music up for sale easily on Amazon's store. You have to go through hoops. I'm hoping Google will make the system universal so that anyone can sell their music almost instantly if they want to.

3: I browse videos more often, and Google will suggest other videos of a similar nature, making it easier to find ones you like. Videos are often more fun to look at anyway.

A comparison you're going to hate

[93 Escort Wagon]

Reading this, and thinking about how Google+, Google TV, etc. have floundered so far... in a lot of ways, Google's attempts to move into new markets reminds me a lot of Microsoft's "strategic" moves over the past several years. I'm not convinced Google has an overarching strategic plan. A lot of their moves lately seem like "me too" decisions made without anyone really thinking very far ahead.

It's almost like the only thinking that went into this was "hey, we have lots of money; and that really seems like an area we should get into - where's the checkbook?"

Re:A comparison you're going to hate

[Animats]

Microsoft's "strategic" moves over the past several years...

The difference is that Microsoft stays with something until they dominate the industry. The original XBox lost money from beginning to end. Now Microsoft's game operation is profitable, and they and Nintendo are on top, Sony is in trouble and Sega is forgotten.

Recently, a Microsoft exec made the comment that Microsoft is happy with Bing's progress. They gained 4% market share in search last year, and are now at 30%. Five more years and they might pass Google. Once Bing passes Google. they become the "must be on" ad network.

(Take that threat seriously. Twelve years ago, the top search engine was Lycos, "the catalog of the Internet". Where are they now? Myspace and Yahoo have tanked. Microsoft is still here. The one-product companies haven't done so well. And Google is a one-product company - ads are 96% of revenue. Despite many attempts, Google has never had a second winning product that generates serious revenue. The free stuff doesn't count.)

Re:Google should just buy the RIAA!

[TaoPhoenix]

"Do you mean "buy the whole music industry"?"

Yes.

That would pulverize the current attack dogs when all those lobbyists are owned by the (relatively benign) Google.

Just suppose? Google gives out free songs. In return for its other deals.

Then the Smarms on Washington would be crushed.

Re:Warner Music is owned by a Russian oligarch

[TheGratefulNet]

agreed.

to see how far the google fingers have dug themselves in to OUR network (the internet is supposed to be our network, not googles) install adblock and noscript (likely you already have these installed) and then block google's domains, googleapis, all the rest of the google domains. then clear cache and re'run' your favorite websites for a few days. see how much functionality that should be there is now missing?

this 'do no evil' bullshit was always bullshit and its still bullshit. they have their fingers in every main website and even some secondary ones, these days.

Those arguments make no sense

[SuperKendall]

Even if they supply non-DRM tracks,

All tracks are DRM free AAC files, and have been for years. You can play them on a Zune.

and they are below say 50p

They are what the music companies would allow them to be on any service.

iTunes is a mediocre player for the PC

Then use Mediamonkey, once you down long the song you can use anything that supports standard AAC audio to play it back and organize it (still has all the of the needed ID3-like tags and such).

And I doubt they'd supply the rarer tracks I'd be interested in anyway.

iTunes has a far wider collection of stuff than anyone, and allows indies to publish. I'm not saying they will have everything but if they don't have it it's unlikely you will find it anywhere.

And I bet they make you jump through hoops for anyone wanting to upload their tracks to sell.

That's just silly. You really think Apple is harder to publish with than EMI? Good luck getting a contract on your next xylophone solo album at EMI.

Re:Google should just buy the RIAA!

[MrDoh!]

If Google offers an easy way for bands to host their own content (Google Music and Youtube) without a label, allowing people to search for music (that's doable), and splitting revenue for ad sales when people listen/watch, then...
Do you need labels anymore?
In the old days, wasn't most of their job distribution? Hate to break it to the music industry, but I think the Internet has that aspect neatly taken care of.
Promotion? For a new band? That's not the winner/runner ups of the latest Idol/Factor show? hmmm...