Slashdot Log In
Google to Compete with iTunes?
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Jan 26, 2006 04:46 PM
from the googtunes dept.
from the googtunes dept.
mikeythecmptrguy wrote to mention a Forbes report on analyst predictions that Google may be gearing up to compete with iTunes. From the article: "Analyst Robert Peck speculated that it makes sense for Google to create a rival for the popular iTunes service by Apple Computer, given the explosive growth of unique visitors to the iTunes' Web site. 'Further, Nielsen indicates that iTunes users form a distinct target audience with brand preferences along autos, alcohol beverages, magazines, and television,' he added. "
Related Stories
[+]
Google Music Store Inches Closer? 282 comments
smallguy78 writes "Forbes is once again reporting on Google plans to launch its own competitor to iTunes, a Google music store. From the article: 'The music industry is broadly unhappy with the fixed pricing and lack of subscription options at the market-leading iTunes Music Store and likely to support alternative services.'" We have touched on this subject previously. This most recent report would seem to indicate the launch will happen sooner rather than later.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Great! (Score:5, Interesting)
Why?
Because Google won't be using Windows Media.[1]
And any new player that doesn't use Windows Media is a good thing.
To expand a little bit, though, on why I doubt this is so, at least in the near term (aside from the fact it would be yet another music service in a sea of music services that are all dominated by the market leader): the thing that makes iTunes most attractive, aside from its own independent ease of use, is the seamless and transparent integration with the iPod, and the fact that everything is integrated into one application. There is no going to a web site here, downloading files there, and importing them into a music player here.
How is a web-based service going to accomplish this? Is Google going to write Windows (and Mac OS X) applications that bridge the service to a media player? Or perhaps standalone applications like Google Earth? I mean, yeah, savvy people here will say they don't mind downloading individual files, managing them in some other application, and/or manually dragging them to their music player and meticulously managing their own file and directory structures.
However, most normal people don't want to do this, and that's just yet another part of the many reasons why the iTunes/iPod combination is so successful, even in the face of intense attempts from other giants attempting to topple it.
[1] No, they won't be using Windows Media, just like they're not using it for Google Video, including the paid service.
Re:Great! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great! (Score:3, Insightful)
And Google *is* a cash-hungry mongrel. Just because you don't buy the free videos, doesn't mean Google isn't doing it for the cash.
Re:Great! (Score:2, Insightful)
Although I don't find a reason to believe them (Google analysts) anymore. GooglePC, GoogleOS, Google browser, Google some-sort-of-internet-appliance, and now iGoogleTunes.
I'll believe it when I see the beta.
Re:Great! (Score:4, Funny)
It's like the managers sit around and get really, really stoned and say, "Man, what can we put the Google name on this time?"
Of course, that wouldn't make me want to work there any less. Quite the contrary.
Parent
Re:Great! (Score:3, Funny)
On
Re:Great! (Score:3, Insightful)
Google will have to either 1) support Apple's DRM-protected AAC format, 2) support Microsoft's DRM-protected WMA format, or 3) create its own DRM-protected format and convince portable music player makers to support Google's own format.
Re:Great! (Score:3, Interesting)
Not necessarily. Look how bad RealPlayer is. Look how bad practically all the third-party video players are. Doesn't really matter anyway - because whatever format they use, it will have DRM, so it won't be compatible with the non-DRM version of the same format.
You hate WMA, I hate AAC, we all hate proprietary! (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, I welcome this possibility because I doubt that Google will use Apple's AAC format! Every device I have that can play digital media has no problem with Windows Media Audio (not to say I don't avoid it like the plague, though, but that's just 'cause it sucks compared to something decent like ogg-vorbis or more work
Re:You hate WMA, I hate AAC, we all hate proprieta (Score:4, Informative)
So what you really hate is the DRM emposed on the media, but guess what? No company is interested in selling their media these days without DRM. So you have a choice to make: boycott all companies that sell DRM'd media (basically your only option is Indie stuff, which if you're okay with that..), or buy into a DRM system that's incredible easy to crack (as FairPlay, Apple's Licensed DRM, is).
"Proprietary formats"? No, that's what WMA is. Microsoft's idea of creating their own standard just because they want a licencing cut of everyone using it. Apple's AAC-protected would be that way, only they've made it *perfectly* clear they are not interested in licencing it to anyone. (Hell, there's even a DRM module for OGG. Not that anyone would ever use it).
So please, no more FUD.
Parent
Re:that makes sense (Score:3, Informative)
This is a trick question [pcquest.com], right?
Could this be (Score:2, Insightful)
iSnob? (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be interesting to see if they are more pedestrian tastes or trendy.
Re:iSnob? (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically the demographic that Apple aimed for (and nailed perfectly) was the hipster in their 20s who was listening to the latest indie rock CD while driving in their new Jetta on the way to Starbucks. And despite claiming such influential independence, the above group tends to make identical purchases. Whether it's beer (Heinekin or Amstel Light), music (The Strokes), automobiles (VW Jetta or Golf, but it's always the 2.0L since they don't actually care about the engine), or where they buy their clothes (Urban Outfitters).
Of course that's a gigantic generalization, but there is a definite hipster target market.
Parent
Google = Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Google = Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you'll find Google tend to be better focused. Microsoft wants to tie you into the spiderweb of their product line, rather than sell you something you'll be tickeled with. Google seems to have the grasp of catering to what the market likes.
Yup, absolutely (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if my ipod could use the DRM of some other music store I probably wouldn't bother with it even if the songs
Re:Google = Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
part of the reason interfaces can be simple and consistent is because the number of variables are controlled and greatly reduced. Not so if you're dealing with a multitude of hardware and software specifications. They need an IPOD-type device as good as the IPOD or better - and an interface as good as ITUNES or better, and a catalog as good as ITUNES or better. And they need those things yesterday, as time is of the essence. Otherwise, they're one of the million other guys selling music on the web, which is to say, no competition to Apple.
this is more about a stock run-up. Google is a stock run-up, and the media is regularly seeded with google talk to keep that stock price moving.
Parent
Tried Googling for more info (Score:5, Funny)
"According to local laws and policies, some search results are not shown."
Format? (Score:3, Interesting)
Good luck Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple hasn't so much created a technology as they have a lifestyle that specifically includes iTunes and an iPod, not any old mp3 player and download service.
Apple have created neither a technology nor a lifestyle, they've popularised a technology and tapped into a lifestyle. The download serice is far less important then you think too - ipods were huge in Australia prior to the itunes launch.
Everyone I know (in the Netherlands) with an iPod has either ripped or pirated mp3s on it.
No competitor has come close. Google will be no different in that regard. Apple comes with a cachet that Google annot approach when it comes to "coolness" with Joe Sixpack.
Apple got in first, but they've really only tapped a tiny fraction of the potential market. If google licenses fairplay or (gasp) sells non-drm'd mp3s.... then who knows?
Unlikely because Apple is unlikely to license the former & the music industry is extremely unlikely to allow the latter.
Parent
This won't work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Going with an actual application instead of an AJAX interface is a departure from Google's business plan... but it is inevitable if they even think they may want to get into this market...
Ooh! (Score:5, Funny)
Google-heads vs. Apple-heads.
GARGHHH! Do no evil (*) and Trendy Jeans & Turtleneckers.
*restrictions apply
This may just be the Forbes writer's fault... (Score:5, Funny)
Make sure it's ready, please (Score:3, Insightful)
Know Thy Target Market (Score:3, Interesting)
From the summary: Further, Nielsen indicates that iTunes users form a distinct target audience with brand preferences along autos, alcohol beverages, magazines, and television,' he added.
While I believe that this sentence is true, it is also incomplete. iTunes users also form a distinct target audience with brand preferences along MP3 players. Unless Google can somehow find a way to sell music that both plays on iPods and satisfies the record labels' requirement for DRM, they're not going to get anywhere. The only technology that can do this is FairPlay, and it's not for sale or license at any price.
The explosive growth of unique visitors to the iTunes Music Store is the result of one thing: the explosive growth of sales of iPods (particularly to new users). While it is interesting that there are trends among the buyers of iPods, I don't see how Google, or anyone else for that matter, will be able to offer a real competitor to the iTunes Music Store. I have no doubt of Google's ability to launch a great music service, but there's simply no way they can sell a product that really competes with the iTunes Music Store.
One massive advantage Google has... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can bet that any market they enter will be one with a much larger demand than supply, since they are the easiest to be profitable with. I wonder how many times a day "mp3" is entered into a google search bar.
Re:One massive advantage Google has... (Score:3, Interesting)
By which I mean that yes, they have formidable analytic capability, but it is centered around publically accessible information. Since Google's foundation is providing that capability to the public, Apple can simply use Google's own search capability to mine the internet, or they can leverage a competitors search capability, or both. They can hire people (as they already do) to assess their particular market.
Googl
Notsure the lead is that great (Score:3, Interesting)
While Google has more scope in terms of what they are looking at, Apple's knowledge of what people actually buy is pretty valuable too. Amazon has also leveraged this kind of data to great advantage.
An example of where Apple might actually have more accurate data - only Apple knows what the mos
Re:One massive advantage Google has... (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, name a product Apple has managed to have dominant sales in for any length of time. Every single time they come out with a product that's pretty good and popular, they manage to lose dominance in a short amount of time. They're much better at selling to the minority than to the majorit
What could that be... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, it's called emo.
no news (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, okay, they do, but iTunes won't be dethroned UNTIL the iPod is. Google may come the closest, but I doubt it. Just cause it says "Google" on it doesn't mean it will automatically become the most popular.
Re:no news (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if a company manages to beat one of those products on technical merits (and even making the attempt is out of reach of all but a handful of companies right now), the existence and interaction/interdependence of the other two will keep Apple on top. No iPod user will switch to a music player that doesn't play their ITMS collection or doesn
Buy more AAPL! (Score:4, Funny)
No more predictions (Score:4, Interesting)
No actual evidence given by analyst in TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's got interesting technology, none of it theirs beyond the search engine. Maps? AJAX. Google Talk? GAIM. Have we seen any kind of clear synergy suggesting a stable, extensible platform? No.
What they *have* is a strong infrastructure for hosting and serving data and a hard-on for repeatedly proving their servers won't get borked by constant enterprise-level usage. That's impressive.
Passing themselves off as a media portal is another demonstration of how butch their server tech is, but the thing you tend to notice is that when their technology gets further from their servers and closer to your desktop, the more mediocre it gets.
All of this is subject to change. But for now, their signature is showing off what they can achieve with asynchronous relations between their servers and your browser. Everything else is hype: "Do no evil" withers in the face of Chinese grousing. Interoperability goes poof when rushing video to market.
It's all about the bandwidth with Google. Don't fool yourself otherwise.
Wild Speculation (Score:5, Funny)
1.26.2006
by AeroIllini
Industry analysts announced today that they believe Google may start entering into the business of deities.
"This is a logical move for Google," said the analyst in a note never intended for publication. "With the success of their Google Maps and Google Earth planet-creating technology, expanding to entire universes and mythologies is the next logical step. This fits neatly into Google's ultimate goal of organizing the world and it's information."
Continuing his wild speculation, the analyst said, "We believe that Google may roll out a beta Deity, on par with one of the lesser Egyptian gods, by summer. We would like to note, however, that Google has not confirmed our theories, and that all this is based on a conversation we had last week while stoned."
The analysts maintained a $666 price target on this stock.
"The selection of this target price was right in line with the possibility that Google would roll out a direct competitor with God. But we have faith that because of Google's 'Do No Evil' policy, this competitor will quickly supplant God and take His rightful place in the Heavens."
Should Google decide to enter the Deity market, it would find it crowded. The current market leaders include the Judeo-Christian God (nasdaq - GOD), with 2.2 billion customers, the Islamic Allah (nasdaq - ALLH), with 1.3 billion customers, and Vishnu (nasdaq - SHVA), with 900 million customers, among many others. Google is expected to report its fourth-quarter earnings next Tuesday.
But will it run on GoogleOS? (Score:5, Funny)
Google To Take On Photoshop
Google To Start Chip Fab
Google To Declare Indpendence
Google vs. Mecha-Godzilla!
*eyeroll*
Re:allofmp3.com (Score:2)
Of course, few albums have as many as 20 songs, and still fewer have 20 good songs.
Re:allofmp3.com (Score:2)
Re:allofmp3.com (Score:4, Insightful)
Most full-length albums on iTunes are $9.99, whether it has ten songs or twenty. Once in a while, they charge $19.98 for a double-length album, and occasionally they can't get permission to sell an album from a label without hiking the album price up a few bucks, but for the most part this has been the case.
Parent
Re:allofmp3.com (Score:4, Insightful)
All that said, I can't agree that a song isn't worth 99 cents. I can agree that its often not worth record agencies getting 55 cents out of the 99 cents. But I know a ton of muscians trying to make a decent living, doing great work. And since I value my time pretty darn, well, I'd say saying here's a dollar for your effort isn't that bad.
I don't need to hear arguments of scale. I'm just talking basic value. Just because somethings easily reproduced shouldn't take away its intrinsic value. If I can give a quarter, 50 cents, or some random amount of cash to a stranger, standing on street with their hand held out. I think I can give a dollar to someone who's work has brought beauty into my life.
Parent
Re:allofmp3.com (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL, but I suspect you aren't either. allofmp3.com appears to be legal, even if it is just by technicality. At worst, it is illegal, but consumers are innocent infringers. So there is no legal reason for a consumer not to use the service.
It's barely treading the legal waters in Russia, and is definitely illegal outside of it.
In other words, you are saying it is legal. And since it is legal in Russia, it is legal to import to other co
Re:allofmp3.com (Score:5, Informative)
With AllOfMp3 or the other Russian sites (mp3search.ru or musicmp3.ru), you can get tracks for something like 4 to 12 cents per song, ala carte or not, encoded in the format/bitrate you specify, with or without an artist's permission. ROMS (the Russian ASCAP) has routinely asserted the legality of these sites, and this legality has been supported by Russian legal authorities (the Moscow police, judges and Russian lawmakers have all attested to the legality here).
You can legally import them, in the US at least, just as if you went over to Russia and bought a physical album for $3 in a record store, as long as you intend it for personal use.
It's just price differentials, it's just like if you could buy your Big Macs in China [economist.com] and have them shipped instantly to your mouth for free. Welcome to the information age and the economic chaos/freedom it's bringing.
More importantly, the tracks from these services are completely DRM free.
The best version of this you can get outside of Russia is eMusic, which is subscription based, about 25 cents per song, completely DRM free. Their catalogue is mostly limited to smaller labels though.
So one big question is whether or not there will be meaningful price competition, the other big question for me is whether or not "Don't Be Evil" means "Don't Use DRM" or if it means "Buckle under the pressure of the RIAA, as if it were the hot new China [cnn.com]."
Parent
Mafia (Score:3, Informative)
2) And I'm not sure it's ripping people off. ROMS is collecting royalties here and delivering them directly to the artists. They're not getting significantly less than if I bought a CD in Moscow, then flew home with it. If anyone is getting ripped off in the music industry, it's artists and consumers, I think this system works better
Re:allofmp3.com (Score:3, Interesting)
I pay less than two cents per song from Yahoo! Unlimited. $10 a month for as many songs as you want. Something like iTunes is fine for getting a few hit songs that you want (in which case its not that expensive at all, I mean thats less than a large fries at a fast food restaurant), but not for filling up your music collection.
Re:allofmp3.com (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling what you download from Yahoo! your "music collection" is like renting a bunch of videos from Blockbuster and calling it your "movie collection".
It may be in your house now, but it's going back to the store when the rental period has lapsed.
Anything I download from iTunes is playable until I delete it or lose it somehow.
Parent
Re:Yahoo Music Service anybody? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how people will declare something as bad, insufficient, unnecessary, or in this case 'NOT great' simply because it is not what they want/like. Obviously $.99/song IS great. Just look at the millions of songs that have been downloaded at that price. I don't think any consumer would mind lower prices, but why would a company lower them if they have the most successful product on the market?
Parent
Re:Yahoo Music Service anybody? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, $60 a year gets you unlimited plays on your PC for as long as you keep sending money, but downloads to your player (which must support Janus DRM; not many do) requires an extra fee [yahoo.com] (see footnote 5 at the bottom of that page).