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. '"

11 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 Tyrannosaur · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  2. 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.

  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. 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).

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.