Napster in talks with Google over music service

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Internet giant Google is considering an extensive alliance with Napster, which could include an outright acquisition, as it plots its move into the digital music world, reports the New York Post.



Citing unnamed sources within the music industry, The Post says Google has been pushing to align with Napster -- rather than build its own online music store -- a sign that Google sees subscription services, rather than the individual download model that Apple's iTunes is built on, as the future of digital music.



Representatives for both Google and Napster declined to comment on rumors of an acquisition or an alignment.



However, last week a Napster spokeswoman told Reuters at an annual music industry conference in Cannes, France, "The company is not looking to be sold, the management is not looking to step out."



Napster, once synonymous with the pirating of music, also recently laid off 10 of its middle managers.



Robert Peck, an analyst at Bear Stearns, said in a recent research note that he believes Google is in the midst of creating its own iTunes competitor.



Peck predicted the company would roll out a music service in the next three to six months, saying such a move would be "logical" and that it "fits with Google's recent moves and its ultimate goal of organizing the world's information."



The research note, released last week, prompted Apple shares to slump 2.2 percent.



Update:



A Google spokesperson, in an emailed response to CBS MarketWatch this afternoon, said the search giant has "no plans to acquire Napster, nor do we have plans to develop a music store at this time."
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    crees!crees! Posts: 501member
    I heard about this on the radio this morning. I guess Google wants to buy Napster since they don't know anything about design aesthetics, period. Just look at their "video store". The only way they would get a decent product out the door in that time frame would be to buy it off someone. Saying decent might be pushing it too.
  • Reply 2 of 29
    Great! Now if they only had something to play those songs on, perhaps with headphones....

  • Reply 3 of 29
    Based solely on the fact that Apple shares fell by 2% after Google/Napster talk rumors started, AppleInsider announces this to be a definite connection? IMO, AppleInsider has been the most reliable Apple rumor site (especially when ThinkSecret can't decide whether Apple computers are selling or not), but this isn't a rumor, it's barely even speculation. Yesterday, it rained. Today, I stubbed my toe. Therefore, was it the rain that caused me to stub my toe?



    Crees, I agree with you on the design issue. Google has developed some excellent online services and AJAX applications, but their UI design is awkward. Things are improving (for example, a delete button at last appears in Gmail) but so far Google's best design is its search engine, and even that could use the eradication of the 'lucky' button. Does anyone even use that thing?



    Sit back and wait for the 'competition is good' comments.
  • Reply 4 of 29
    voxappsvoxapps Posts: 236member
    I think Google is the corporate embodiment of "Short Attention-Span Theater". Their search technology is awesome. AdSense and AdWords are hugely successful. But many of their other efforts are pathetic. They remind me of last decade, when "analysts" droned on about how anything Microsoft touched would dominate the marketplace. (Remember Microsoft Money?)



    As an illustration, go to Google and click the "more" link. Note how most of what's on the "second page" is "beta"? Some have been beta for years!



    Check out the "Catalogs" link. Some of the catalogs are from 2002! Oh, never mind - it's "beta". On any other corporate site, information this out of date would have been pulled in, say, 2003, or the Web developer would be looking for a new job. I guess the billions in market value haven't allowed Google to hire one person who could keep that site up to date.
  • Reply 5 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jdbartlett

    Things are improving (for example, a delete button at last appears in Gmail) but so far Google's best design is its search engine, and even that could use the eradication of the 'lucky' button. Does anyone even use that thing?



    I attended a Google talk given at my university and when asked, the Google spokesman basically said that people missed the lucky button in various usability tests for their website. People might not use it but they certainly felt something was amiss.
  • Reply 6 of 29
    murkmurk Posts: 935member
    Google denies: http://www.macminute.com/2006/01/31/google-napster/

    Quote:

    "We have no plans to acquire Napster, nor do we have plans to develop a music store at this time," Google spokeswoman Sonya Boralv said in a statement.



  • Reply 7 of 29
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Voxapps

    I think Google is the corporate embodiment of "Short Attention-Span Theater". Their search technology is awesome. AdSense and AdWords are hugely successful. But many of their other efforts are pathetic.



    That's what you get when your firm is run soley by a bunch of geeks.

    Great technical prowess, lousey implementation and marketing.



    The key behind Apple's success is both it's marketing and attention to usability, and aesthetics. All under the watchful eye of the master of detail, Steve Jobs.
  • Reply 8 of 29
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by murk

    Google denies: http://www.macminute.com/2006/01/31/google-napster/



    Good! I'm happy you put that correction in!
  • Reply 9 of 29
    What makes Google think it will succeed where all of the other Music Store wannabes haven't?



    They'd be better off signing up for the iTunes affiliate program and putting relevant iTunes song links into search results rather than trying to take on the iTMS head on.
  • Reply 10 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gates_of_Hell

    What makes Google think it will succeed where all of the other Music Store wannabes haven't?



    Well, because they're Google of course.



    And because, well they made search work better than anyone else before them, so, naturally they can do anything.



  • Reply 11 of 29
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Look at how the NBC, ABC, ESPN, Comedy Central, etc. shows are presented on the iTunes Store.



    Look at how the CBS shows are presented at the Google video store. Hell, try to figure out what the Google video store even is, exactly.



    Google apparently couldn't design an online store if they had a gun to their head, and buying Napster doesn't really change that.
  • Reply 12 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    Look at how the NBC, ABC, ESPN, Comedy Central, etc. shows are presented on the iTunes Store.



    Look at how the CBS shows are presented at the Google video store. Hell, try to figure out what the Google video store even is, exactly.



    Google apparently couldn't design an online store if they had a gun to their head, and buying Napster doesn't really change that.






    I have little faith in Google's ability to strategically innovate their way to the next level. They are technogeeks #1. They don't have Apple's strategic or systems planning experience and seem to muddle their way through anything not advertising or search. I suspect given the right circumstances, Apple may crush Google in 10 years time.



    Story link: http://news.com.com/Google+shares+pl...?tag=nefd.lede
  • Reply 13 of 29
    eaieai Posts: 417member
    Theres an awful lot of companies right now who are trying to do everything - google, amazon, microsoft being the examples I can think of off the top of my head. Why can't they just stay out of eachothers markets?



    I'm starting to go off google, just a bit...
  • Reply 14 of 29
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    Simple. The easiest was in some instances to grow revenue is just enter a new market. This is particularly true if you have a big name to trade off and the money to invest in getting started.
  • Reply 15 of 29
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    One thing that is important is not to look at the version 1 of these products.



    MS often comes out with ver 1 products that are almost unusable. But they don't give up. They keep honing the product until, even if it's not particularly good, is useable. Think of Windows 1 and 2. Or MS Mobile software, now up to version 5.



    Most of the market works off the principle of "it's good enough".



    Sometimes persistence pays off. While the Google store is pretty bad, if they decide that they want to stay in that business, they will improve it. The first step has already been taken by them admitting that it isn't good. Once they understand that, they can move on.



    That still doesn't mean that it will ever be successful. But only time will tell.



    But, Apple has to work on it as well. There isn't any guarantee that Apple will win this battle over the longer term.



    They can't sit back the way Palm did, and assume that they won the war.



    Apple has to get CBS on board, even though it seems as though they are doing whatever it takes NOT to be with iTunes.



    HBO has stated that they DO want to be on iTunes; so where are they? Apple has to move there. Even though I don't like the Soprano's, many do. Get it up! Other HBO fare should get there as well, and soon!



    Then they need Showtime.



    Fox has to be convinced as well. They are going slow on this, but they have to get to iTunes before anywhere else. We need Idol, and Survivor.



    The same thing is true of WOR, and the other small broadcast networks.



    Apple has to have an overwhelming number of companies with content. That's the only way they will keep ahead.



    They also have to be smarter about how these bits and pieces are billed. A 3 minute bit shouldn't cost as much as a full 43 minute show. It makes no sense. In the beginning, people will bite because it a novelty. But once that wears off, people will think more about that.
  • Reply 16 of 29
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    They also have to be smarter about how these bits and pieces are billed. A 3 minute bit shouldn't cost as much as a full 43 minute show. It makes no sense. In the beginning, people will bite because it a novelty. But once that wears off, people will think more about that.



    Couldn't agree more. While there is a definite argument to be made against variable pricing and subscription services for iTunes, the same is simply not true for video; they are entirely different.



    I should be able to subscribe to the daily show for $5 a month, with an option to buy a episode I really like to keep permanently for an extra buck or something
  • Reply 17 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    One thing that is important is not to look at the version 1 of these products.



    MS often comes out with ver 1 products that are almost unusable. But they don't give up. They keep honing the product until, even if it's not particularly good, is useable. Think of Windows 1 and 2. Or MS Mobile software, now up to version 5.



    Most of the market works off the principle of "it's good enough".



    Sometimes persistence pays off. While the Google store is pretty bad, if they decide that they want to stay in that business, they will improve it. The first step has already been taken by them admitting that it isn't good. Once they understand that, they can move on.



    That still doesn't mean that it will ever be successful. But only time will tell.




    All of what you say has a grain of truth. However, in consumer markets getting it right sooner (or even right out the gate) maybe what is called for. Especially in this particular field. Consumers are used to plonking down, grabbing the remote and turning on the TV. Dirt simple. This is the standard.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    They can't sit back the way Palm did, and assume that they won the war.



    Agreed. I don't see Apple doing this (at this point anyway). In fact, I think they are being quite aggressive.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    HBO has stated that they DO want to be on iTunes; so where are they? Apple has to move there. Even though I don't like the Soprano's, many do. Get it up! Other HBO fare should get there as well, and soon!



    Don't assume that Apple is the hold up here. I actually doubt it is.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    Apple has to have an overwhelming number of companies with content. That's the only way they will keep ahead.



    Agreed.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    They also have to be smarter about how these bits and pieces are billed. A 3 minute bit shouldn't cost as much as a full 43 minute show. It makes no sense. In the beginning, people will bite because it a novelty. But once that wears off, people will think more about that.



    I completely disagree. People buy what is valuable to them and they don't necessarily measure entertainment value by the minute. They don't buy like they are buying ground beef. To some a 3 minute bit is worth $1.99 but a 43 minute bit isn't worth a dime. Movies aren't priced by the minute or music or concerts. I think you are wrong here.
  • Reply 18 of 29
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

    [B]All of what you say has a grain of truth. However, in consumer markets getting it right sooner (or even right out the gate) maybe what is called for. Especially in this particular field. Consumers are used to plonking down, grabbing the remote and turning on the TV. Dirt simple. This is the standard.







    Agreed. I don't see Apple doing this (at this point anyway). In fact, I think they are being quite aggressive.







    Don't assume that Apple is the hold up here. I actually doubt it is.



    I don't think that Apple is the holdout either. But after HBO's president, or CEO made that public statement, Apple should have been over them like a colony of Army Ants.



    Quote:

    I completely disagree. People buy what is valuable to them and they don't necessarily measure entertainment value by the minute. They don't buy like they are buying ground beef. To some a 3 minute bit is worth $1.99 but a 43 minute bit isn't worth a dime. Movies aren't priced by the minute or music or concerts. I think you are wrong here.



    The one price fits all of the video store has been criticized by many, not just me.



    Movies don't have to be priced by the minute because they are all somewhat long. When the story is over, it's over.



    But a very short skit simply isn't worth the same as a full show, or movie, which Apple isn't offering as yet. Do you think that they will be able to offer full movies for download the way they do now with shows, for the same $1.99? I doubt it.



    If they take a short skit from Saturday Nite Live, and sell it for $1.99, what happens if NBC decides to offer the entire program as well?



    Something has got to give.
  • Reply 19 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    I don't think that Apple is the holdout either. But after HBO's president, or CEO made that public statement, Apple should have been over them like a colony of Army Ants.



    What makes you assume they weren't?



    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    But a very short skit simply isn't worth the same as a full show, or movie



    Maybe. Maybe to you. Maybe it is to others. This isn't ground beef. You (and others with the same complaint) seem to be assuming that different instances of entertainment are interchangeable. They are not.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    Something has got to give.



    Possibly.
  • Reply 20 of 29
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

    [B]What makes you assume they weren't?



    I don't KNOW it. But two months have gone by, and we've heard nothing. Having been involved in the industry, I know that these deals can happen overnight, if the two parties are eager to do a deal. As the prices are fixed, as we both seem to know, what's the problem? HBO wasn't shy about revealing their eagerness. We haven't heard anything from Apple in return. Not even a "we would be very happy to have content from HBO on iTunes".





    Quote:

    Maybe. Maybe to you. Maybe it is to others. This isn't ground beef. You (and others with the same complaint) seem to be assuming that different instances of entertainment are interchangeable. They are not.



    This is a very common complaint. It's not just from a few malcontents.



    You haven't responded to my question of how you would resolve the skit vs. the whole show pricing problem.



    Are you saying that the entire show containing the skit should be priced the same as the skit alone?



    And that you think movies will be priced the same as well?



    Then how would you resolve the question of songs being priced less than albums?
Sign In or Register to comment.