6543107
story
Comments: 277 +- Technology: Google To Take On iTunes? on Wednesday October 21, @10:46PM
Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday October 21, @10:46PM
from the battle-of-the-bands dept.
from the battle-of-the-bands dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgoogle.gif); width:104px; height:38px;
google
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmusic.gif); width:60px; height:49px;
music
An anonymous reader writes 'Multiple sources say Google is preparing to launch Google Audio. According to people familiar with the matter, Google has been securing content from record companies. Is Google about to go head-to-head with Apple's iTunes?'
Related Stories
Submission: Google to Take on iTunes? by Anonymous Coward
Executive ability is prominent in your make-up.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
What about the player? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What is more important is the supplier aspect of this. What labels will it be? What and how much of Indie stuff? What all formats? Will it be better than Amazon in terms of content and delivery?
Re:What about the player? (Score:5, Interesting)
My favorite client is QMPDClient, which is cross-platform and has a good user interface for easily switching between the Library view (3-section Artist/Album/Songs), the Directories view (which shows the Music directory as a folder tree), and the Playlist view (for saving or loading playlists). The directory view is the big selling point for me, because I have my music folder well organized by genre, artist, album, but not necessarily well organized as far as ID3 tags go.
Here's a screenshot: http://dump.bitcheese.net/images/batidij/qmpdclient-win32.png [bitcheese.net]
It's definitely worth a try...
MPD: http://mpd.wikia.com/ [wikia.com]
QMPDClient: http://bitcheese.net/wiki/QMPDClient [bitcheese.net]
Other MPD Clients: http://mpd.wikia.com/wiki/Clients [wikia.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
an alternative to itunes would be great, but it would have to sync non jailbroken iphones ipod touch / whatever comes next and apple clearly doesn't want any program other than itunes doing that. see palm.
Huh? I assume you're trying to reference Palm's Pre, but that whole debacle doesn't have anything to do with Apple devices syncing with non-Apple software.
Re:What about the player? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe better software exists, and it probably isn't as useful to serious photographers but everyone I've shown it to from Grandparents to early teens have become loyal users.
Parent
Its a Fractal (Score:5, Interesting)
This, if true, will only hasten the divide between the two tech darlings Google and Apple.
Apple has a vested interest in maintaining their defacto monopoly on online music sales though their vertical product pipeline. The Zune is no real threat, as Microsoft does not have the mindshare. Google, with Android, have significant clout, and potentially enough mass to unseat Apple from the head of the online music sales table.
Apple has done very well with the iPhone, but if history is our guide, they did very well with the original Macintosh. Fast-forward a few years to now, and the story is being repeated. Apple is dominant with their iPhone platform, but Steve Jobs is too obsessed with removing buttons from mice to loosen his grip on the brand. This has help Apple survive, but it ultimatly leads to Apple's cyclical demise.
Anyway, Google launching a music app will cause Apple to remove Google maps, and Youtube integration from their products. In the end, Google (openness) will win over the closed Apple system. Yes, the Apple devices will be pretty, but the Google stuff will work well enough, be less expensive, and have 95%+ of market share. (Its like we've seen that before somewhere....)
Re: (Score:2)
You are dreaming. They simply can't - even if they want to.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple and Steve Jobs historically hate being tied/dependent on anyone else.
iWork is a beautiful example of Jobs wanting to no longer have to deal with Microsoft. On paper, it makes sense, but in the cold hard truth of reality, Pages.app is no where near the sophistication of Word for Mac. But Jobs wants it to be pretty, and functional enough.
Either way, Apple hates being tied to vendors, and I see Google being divorced sooner than later.
Re:Its a Fractal (Score:5, Insightful)
Either way, Apple hates being tied to vendors,
Which is funny to me, as they seem to have no problem tying people to them.
Parent
Re:Its a Fractal (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has done very well with the iPhone, but if history is our guide, they did very well with the original Macintosh.
Not any version of history I've seen. The Mac struggled for a while before finding a niche in desktop publishing, where it languished while PC-compatible machines caught up, overtook it and took over the world. The desktop metaphor took over the computing world, but mostly through Windows.
History is no guide, unless you believe the players have learnt nothing from it.
Steve Jobs is too obsessed with removing buttons from mice
Like many commentators, you've missed the point. He is focused on quality, and the vision he has for Apple seems to include removing anything that detracts from that goal. I can't say if he's 'obsessed' as I don't personally know the man.
Back on topic - competition is great. Now that Apple have pushed back the limits on music purchasing and pushed DRM off the table (aided greatly by Amazon), players like Google can step up and provide a music ecosystem similar to iTunes. Hopefully Google will include new features that draw users towards their product, stimulating Apple to work harder to compete.
I hope Google produce something amazing.
Parent
Re:Its a Fractal (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the real reason Apple is so reluctant to allow apps on the iPhone is fear that one malicious app could destroy the ecosystem. That's why they first decided to not allow apps, at least not until they had the store set up.
I personally think Apple needs to have two delivery methods to the iPhone: the app store, where Apple can act as your gatekeeper, and through the developer environment, where you compile from source code and assume all responsibility for whatever bugs are in the software. Thus the only way to distribute outside of the app store would be to give away the source code. (The same thing goes for Android: either trust the app store tied to your phone or compile the code yourself)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Giving away the source code wouldn't necessarily eliminate the issue of a malicious app "destroying the ecosystem", as you put it. Apple is never going to allow widespread "sharing" of apps unless they have the finger on them for this very reason.
Apple has always maintained a tight control over their systems, there's absolutely no reason to expect that to change now.
Re:Its a Fractal (Score:4, Informative)
(The same thing goes for Android: either trust the app store tied to your phone or compile the code yourself)
No, it doesn't. In Android I can load an .apk (android install package) from anywhere and install it on my device. The only caveat is that I must enable this functionality in some option menu, otherwise I get an error message suggesting me to enable said option if I want to install the application.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hear what you're saying, but I think Steve Jobs' benevolent dictatorship is what has made Apple so successful. If it wasn't for Jobs being a demanding tyrant, Apple products would be mediocre at best. The guy isn't exactly known for being friendly, but I admire his strive for perfection.
Jobs has outstanding business sense. If he realises something isn't working, he'll change his approach. I don't think he's particularly tied down to any particular path. That's something a lot of commentators miss. The iPh
Re:Its a Fractal (Score:5, Insightful)
You're totally missing the point, and if you ever entered the portable music player business you would crash and burn horribly.
People don't want flashy gadgets with a million and one features which are hard to use. iPods took over the market because they are easy to use, and buying or managing your music is an absolute snap.
Other competitors were free to do the same, but they never did, because they think just like you do: they totally dismiss the power of usability and ease of use. Most people in the world aren't Slashdot geeks.
User interaction design and usability doesn't just apply to portable music players, it applies to just about anything you interact with in everyday life. A lot of people are so used to mediocre engineering and design that they take these frustrations for granted. Apple is a company that spends their time addressing these issues and making things easier for the user, but sadly few other companies do.
Read "The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald Norman sometime, it's a real eye opener.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your post clearly explains why ipod is popular. However, the GP just pointed out that "Popular" does not imply "Superior" (a word that was used to describe Apple products)...
If you had a product that was much more popular than all its competitors and which was visually distinct, wouldn't you claim that it was "Superior" too? It's just marketing. Don't sweat over it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you certifiably insane? They have no such monopoly. You can buy music all over the place, without DRM. I've been buying music on-line for years, and I think the last iTune I purchased was 2005. Heck, Amazon's downloader (native versions for Win, Mac and I think Linux) will download albums and add them to iTunes for you, utterly transparently, and they have since at least 2007,
Re:Its a Fractal (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you can buy music all over the place. But for the vast, vast majority of online music buyers when they think 'I want to buy a song', they think 'iTunes'. Apple (and other independent research firms) put their online music market share at something like 80%. That's certainly not a monopoly in the legal sense, but it is in the practical sense.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
that doesn't make it a monopoly in a legal, or practical sense.
A sufficiently large market share may alone be enough for the company to be considered monopoly, at least in some jurisdictions. I'm not sure how it works in U.S., but in EU, for example, if you have a sufficiently large market share, onus is on you to prove that you're not a monopoly, and the harder your share is, the harder it is to prove.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree with you as far as the online music sales monopoly goes: Apple's real interest isn't in dominating the online music store business as much as it is maintaining dominance in the music player business. They want to sell iPods first, and the online store is merely an accessory. So no, I don't think Apple would retaliate by banning Google apps, especially if it could hurt sales of iPhones and iPods in any way. The music store is a valuable chess piece, but one Apple would sacrifice to protect the mor
Re:Its a Fractal (Score:5, Interesting)
The recession didn't start in 2007, it started in late 2008. For Australia the height hit in feb/mar 2009 and is practically over now.
2007 was when economies were booming.
As for you GP post I agree, it will be Apple's pathological need for control that will be its downfall, it's all happened before. Google is positioning itself to take advantage of Apple's fall, especially since most of Google's ties to Apple have been severed.
Parent
Re:Seriously - is Google innovative at all? (Score:5, Insightful)
I put forward that you cannot survive a year without touching/using a google technology. If you truely believe google tech is mediocre.. go a year without google search/mail/reader/youtube/maps/docs/books/code/chrome/images/news/android and of course.. no clicking google ads.
Search engine? There were plenty of search engines before Google came along
Agreed, but why did google become so popular? It was great and very minimal. We didn't want "web portals" filled with ads, news, and junk.. just a simple place to find sites from. Was that innovative? heck no.. was it very intelligent? yes.
Parent
Re:Its a Fractal (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably not, but you are one of the 500 million people who are allowed to use amazon MP3 store. The rest of us can't.
Buying DRM-free music online is pretty damn hard without itunes here...
Parent
WSJ reports that it's NOT competition for iTunes (Score:5, Informative)
It's a music search feature (Score:5, Interesting)
According to TechCrunch, it's a music search [techcrunch.com] with the option to do limited streaming. So you can search for music, preview them, then either use those services to buy or use iTunes/Amazon to buy it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
eh.... (Score:5, Funny)
Which in today's terms means 'we made this whole thing up' just to fill a gap in the so-called news...
Lala (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope it's not a crappy knock-off, like when they launched Google Video.
Even the goodwill of their name couldn't save that horrible site.
No wonder a couple months later they bought YouTube.
This time maybe they'll buy Lala.com.
If you want a good browser-based iTunes store, that's it.
No (Score:3, Interesting)
Is Google about to go head to head with iTunes? No, but they are about to go head-to-head with Amazon.
A little sample of what's to come (Score:5, Interesting)
Google audio (BETA)
Lyric Search: Carry a laser down the road that I must travel
Did you mean: Kyrie eleison down the road that I must travel?
Re:A little sample of what's to come (Score:5, Funny)
Lyric Search: This song blows but'll still make millions.
Did you mean: Nickleback?
Parent
Spotify not ITunes will be the big competitor (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in Sweden 1 in 5 of the population has a Spotify account. I think Google would do themselves a service by coughing up a huge sum of money and buying Spotify which already has pretty much all music you would want, android, ipod, apple, pc applications, high quality ogg vorbis streams and a very loyal user base.
Spotify is the next big thing, the US just hasn't seen it yet, their business model is great, and their software works really well.
Spotify may not be for sale, but Google has deep pockets and a link up would knock out MS and Apple easily I think.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I had a paid account for a month, then switched back to free as the intrusion of the advertisements was next to nill. I simply don't notice. They hardly ever advertise for products I'd even want anyway; I listen to heavy metal and other alternative music; The amount of times I've had mobile phones (I already have a great phone), pop music (can't stand it) and other useless chod pushed into my ears would be amusing if it didn't cost Spotify every time it happened.
I'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, they've made their "free" (ad-supported) service too good.
Which is exactly why it would be a good fit for Google. The ad-support is where Google makes its money, primarily, so it makes sense. I'm sure if Google would purchase them, they'd be able to fix the poorly directed ad thing very quickly, as I've noticed a reasonably good correlation between the ads presented to me on gmail (when I actually log in via the web rather than a pop reader) and what I'm reading/discussing at the time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone without access to Spotify, what's the benefit of Spotify versus the all-you-can-eat style music subscriptions like Rhapsody or Napster?
Sensational headlines vs reality (Score:4, Informative)
Another example of "Sensational headlines sells", before this ./ post even went live more details became available that in fact this is about adding music to the search results and that the songs found can be played through iLike, last.fm, lala, etc.. and offer 'Click to buy' links to iTunes and Amazon.
So no, Google is not taking on iTunes or Amazon, in fact it will help sell their music.
That doesn't mean however this isn't a very nifty feature :)
Screenshots and more info are available at:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/21/google-to-partner-with-ilike-and-lala-for-new-music-service/ [techcrunch.com]
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/21/google-music-service-the-screenshots/ [techcrunch.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And even if it was, they also contributed to Firefox, until they decided to start over with Chrome.
Re:Google did a few years ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Google did a few years ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, it's about a music store.
It makes sense for Google to have a content store for their Android phones, and it's clear Apple doesn't want to play nice with competitors (Palm Pre, anyone?). I just hope Google do it so well that they frighten Apple into dropping prices and restrictions.
It's a market that's begging for a little real competition.
Parent
Re:Google did a few years ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
Prices may drop, but Apple's philosophy from the beginning was "the store is here for iPod owners, since the other stores were all Microsoft's bitches and we won't pay for a WMA DRM license". In other words, Apple is still very much tied to the hardware, and isn't likely to give it up soon.
On the one hand, the iTunes Store turns a modest income, but it's peanuts compared to the income that the computers, iPods and iPhones generate. Apple might actually be happy to have the iTunes Store become irrelevant if it means people buy more iPods.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I thought the iTunes Music Stores predated Microsoft's Plays For Sure program.
Wikipedia seems to agree with me, as their iTunes history page states that iTunes Store support was added to iTunes in 2003, while Plays For Sure started in 2004.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Profits on the iTunes store are decent (iTunes store revenue was $1.018 billion in Apple's fourth quarter.. this also includes licensing fees for iPod/iPhone accessories from third parties, they don't break it down any more), but also irrelevant. The existence of the tightly coupled iTunes store and iTunes player drives the sales of the very, very, very successful iPhone ($2.3 billion in the fourth quarter) and somewhat less successful, these days, iPod (apparently, people are buying iPhones instead... only
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly, Google attained it's search monopoly naturally. Natural monopolies occur when there is no competition or one product is so superior that other competitors cannot come close to matching it. This is what happened with Google but they should still be monitored for abuse. Thus far google has maintained it's dominant market position naturally.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The first link (sponsored) on the search page for "web browser" is "Try Google's New Browser." The first link (non-sponsored) on the search page for "photo manager" is "Picasa 3: Free download from Google."
I'm
Re: (Score:3)
If you think about it and read the reports, it seems as if this is exactly what Google is doing: sticking to search. The difference is that this time it's about searching for songs to download and/or purchase.
Re:Why audio? (Score:4, Funny)
The same thing we do every night Pinky, try to take over the world!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, that came out wrong, I was just watching that horse running off down my garden and thinking about a door that I could do to go a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like the fuel economy of Deisel fuel, but my car requires gasoline!!! I'm tired of those restrictive car manufactures telling me what my engine must use and how I can and can't use my own products!
Yes, you do sound as retarded as that statement.
You are using an OS that doesn't show up on the radar as more than a large duck, sorry if they don't support it, you knew they didn't when you bought the thing.
I'm so super pissed that iTunes doesn't run on the OS I wrote, those bastards are restricting my ability