Slashdot Mirror


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. '"

23 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. Google should just buy the RIAA! by ksd1337 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The RIAA is relatively small. Google should just buy the entire thing.

    1. Re:Google should just buy the RIAA! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "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.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    2. Re:Google should just buy the RIAA! by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 5, Insightful

      i sure hope this is a troll and not someone *that* misinformed...

  2. Google has a major problem by CmdrPony · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's their half-assed attempts to create new products, and releasing them way too early. It's not only with Google Music, it seems to be a company wide practice and can be seen with Google+, Google TV, their coding languages, even Android and quite much any product they put out. Gmail was put out with the same tactic, but it actually offered much more than competitors did back then (good amount of space and great interface).

    However, every one of Google's recent products just are not offering anything new, anything better or anything more. In most cases it's actually completely reverse. What they offer is a lot less than competitors do. And yet they still continue the bad practice, and are once again starting a new service that offers significantly less. People will just lose interest and never try to product again. I suspect this will happen with Google Music, Google+ and every other product they put out with the same tactic.

    Please Google, finish and polish what you start before releasing them!

    1. Re:Google has a major problem by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only does Google put out products early but they cancel them quickly too. They are starting to hit HP syndrome where they quickly halt investments if it does not produce a sizable return in just a single 6 week quarter. the cost accountants are running the show in order to boast its shareprice. I have seen the change within the first year as anyone else has.

      Google+ was declared a failure within 1 month. I mean come on! Gmail was not popular either at first and I bet if these accountants were in charge of Google back in 2007 gmail would have been canned within 60 days as well because it did not boast the shareprice as well.

      I understand it is a business and needs constant 6 - 8 week growth spurts to bring a higher share price to make investors happy and justify the CEO's compensation, but they are killing the goose with the golden egg to quickly. Companies that start to do these things always end up being sorry later. Again, HP syndrome.

      If I were a shareholder I would be tempted to sell. It still has a high price not to mention all these ventures that quickly open and close cost money and show a company that is acting frantically desperate.

    2. Re:Google has a major problem by Hatta · · Score: 4, Funny

      Please Google, finish and polish what you start before releasing them!

      That would be the swedish thing they could do.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Google has a major problem by d4fseeker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uhhm, what?

      Google+ introduced Circles, shortly afterwards Facebook magically made it possible to share posts with only certain groups
      This was one of the most-asked-for and never granted features before G+ came along!

      Google+ used a top-screen-bar to keep easy access on your notifications, shortly afterwards Facebook introduced _THE SAME_ feature in a major redesign.

      You gotta wonder... who copied who on the details. (Games, come on... it's pretty obvious that people who chat want to play games, that dates back to Usenet and IRC!)

    4. Re:Google has a major problem by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I were a shareholder I would be tempted to sell. It still has a high price not to mention all these ventures that quickly open and close cost money and show a company that is acting frantically desperate.

      On the contrary, it shows a company that has a lot of skill at judging what will and what will not add to their bottom line. It shows a nimble management.
      G+ has not been declared a failure (except perhaps in your jaded opinion). Far from it.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:Google has a major problem by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google+ was declared a failure within 1 month. I mean come on!

      By whom? Certainly not anyone at Google. For whatever reason, they need—or want very badly—Google+ to succeed. They're going to great lengths to accommodate their last shot at breaking into the social networking scene. Only since the release of Google+ have they made a serious attempt to create a consistent visual "theme" across all of their services, and they're even reducing the functionality of their other services (e.g. the removal of the + operator from Search) to allow for Google+-related features.

      Google's betting a lot on Google+.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  3. weird reversal by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  4. Re:Here's a chance to grab my money Google. by GuruBuckaroo · · Score: 4, Informative

    You mean exactly like Amazon's music store?

    --
    Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
  5. Warner Music is owned by a Russian oligarch by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the 1990s, Warner Music was the largest record company. Now they're third. Warner Music is owned by a Russian oligarch, Leonard Blavatnik, who bought it last July. If Google had wanted Warner Music, they could have bought it then. It sold for $3 billion (actually only $320 million in cash plus the assumption of debt) a few months ago.

    Google probably doesn't want to own a record company. It would be a distraction.

    1. Re:Warner Music is owned by a Russian oligarch by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to mention completely violate their motto.

      That didn't stop them when they bought Doubleclick. You know all that big brother advertising evilness Google is famous for? Doubleclick was well known for it.

    2. Re:Warner Music is owned by a Russian oligarch by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Warner Music is owned by a Russian oligarch by utkonos · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just because a person has a Russian last name does not make them an oligarch. According to wikipedia: "Born in the Soviet Union, he attended University in Moscow. He emigrated with his family from Russia to the U.S. in 1978, and received a masters in computer science from Columbia University and an MBA degree from Harvard Business School in 1989. In the West, he is known as Len Blavatnik."

      That is hardly the profile of an oligarch. Sounds more like an American who made it big. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch).

  6. Sticking is the problem by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Sticking is the problem by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      You mean like Gmail, Maps, Search, Google Earth? Those all wore a Beta tag for years and years.

      By any definition, I would say they have stuck.

      I find it telling that you wanted them to allow your business on G+ from day one, and at the same time fault them for not testing and completing something before releasing it. Clue: They beta tested it with individuals to shake out the bugs and see if it works before unleashing it on businesses.

      Then your get all huffy and stomp off because they didn't beta test on your business?!!???

      Apparently they care more about the integrity of your business than you do!

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  7. Re:Revenue by LeperPuppet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    not a giant player who dictates terms to THEM...

    Well, they wouldn't be in that position if they'd tried actually innovating over the last decade instead of running around shrieking about piracy. Instead they let another company monopolise their newest distribution channel.

    If they want a strong competitor to Apple, they're going to have to play nicely with others and somehow beat Apple on prices or features, neither of which they're likely to let Google do.

  8. A comparison you're going to hate by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?"

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:A comparison you're going to hate by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      The trouble is that XBOX is still on the balance sheet as a net operating loss because of the billions of dollars they sunk into it. All they've accomplished is to stop losing money year over year. They're still in a giant hole compared with having put the same money in US treasury bonds or whatever else you like. And there is every indication that going forward, mobile devices will become faster and start replacing consoles as gaming devices for ever more resource intensive games, which creates a serious question as to whether they will ever even make back their initial investment.

      They gained 4% market share in search last year, and are now at 30%.

      Bing's market share is attributable almost entirely to it being the default search engine in Internet Explorer. And Internet Explorer's market share has been on a slow decline for about a decade with no indication of stopping. Incidentally, what does it say about Bing that it's the default in Internet Explorer but has lower market share than Internet Explorer does?

      The free stuff doesn't count.

      The free stuff produces ad revenue. Is ad revenue somehow not money?

  9. Have you listened to big label music lately? by Torodung · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The music industry consists of fit, attractive dancers whose voices autotune well and they won't deal with Google unless they have to, which they will because they only care about the money and fame.

    FTFY.

  10. Re:Why negoitate? by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sony as a whole is rather large, but their music division is not that big.

    The real issue is that nobody could ever buy all the major music labels and make it past the antitrust authorities.

    Of course, they could just buy whichever one has the most attractive catalog and then fire most of the management and replace them with people with souls and then stop acting in lockstep with the rest of the cartel. I would love to see the reaction of the other labels if one of them suddenly started selling tracks for less than half the cartel price and giving new artists well-balanced contracts instead of bending them over. It would be like watching a corporation have a heart attack.

  11. Re:Revenue by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    not a giant player who dictates terms to THEM...

    Well, they wouldn't be in that position if they'd tried actually innovating over the last decade instead of running around shrieking about piracy. Instead they let another company monopolise their newest distribution channel.

    If they want a strong competitor to Apple, they're going to have to play nicely with others and somehow beat Apple on prices or features, neither of which they're likely to let Google do.

    They wouldn't be in that position if they'd had the wit to realize that the end of the shiny-plastic-disc era was upon them, and had worked with Shawn Fanning and Napster rather than suing them into oblivion. They had their chance to seize control of content distribution on the Internet ... and blew it. And what happens when industries miss opportunities like that is that they die. Unfortunately, like SCO, like every zombie flick ever made, these guys just keep coming back and causing even more damage because they still don't get it.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.