or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Google to counter Apple's iTunes with its own online music store
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google to counter Apple's iTunes with its own online music store - Page 2

post #41 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

One of the reasons I want to see Apple get their map system out as soon as possible.

Google may have done it well, but Apple will again redefine it.

My gosh, if you look at the companies Apple owns, it will be AMAZING what they create.

Not to mention we might finally get spoken turn-by-turn directions

I agree, Apple just does most things better. I just don't think google & MS consider the "consumer experience" the way Apple does.
post #42 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

LOL...so Apple is supposed to be the only provider of music now? WOW

And for all those who love to quote Jobs on that "We didn't enter the search business" crap...

Google bought Android in 2005...Jobs knew damn well years before he made that stupid ass statement that Google was entering the phone market (a mere YEAR after Apple entered the phone market).

He wasn't shocked...and his anger was late.

No Apple does not need to be the only provider of music, but does the world really need another digital music store? Amazon is filling the Android content hole (although they also make their content available to other platforms as well).

Yes, Steve knew they were entering the market, but the device they were making was an alternative to WinMo and Blackberries... It looked nothing like the iPhone. After the iPhone debuted, Google scrapped the designs they had and started making an iPhone clone... This is why it took almost two years before the first Android device actually shipped, Oct. 2008.

Then they did the exact same thing with tablets. They saw the iPad and decided they needed to do the same. Over a year later, Android 3.0 was released.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #43 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

AdBlock + Ghostery means you never see ads on YouTube. Not even in-video ads nor the ones preceding videos.

I've never seen the latter. Ever. I only heard that they exist from other people complaining about them. Never have I seen a single ad on YouTube.

Sounds good, Skil...I have Ghostery, will check out Adblock!

Ps. Always appreciate suggestions on apps, etc!
post #44 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

No Apple does not need to be the only provider of music, but does the world really need another digital music store? Amazon is filling the Android content hole (although they also make their content available to other platforms as well).

Yes, Steve knew they were entering the market, but the device they were making was an alternative to WinMo and Blackberries... It looked nothing like the iPhone. After the iPhone debuted, Google scrapped the designs they had and started making an iPhone clone... This is why it took almost two years before the first Android device actually shipped, Oct. 2008.

Then they did the exact same thing with tablets. They saw the iPad and decided they needed to do the same. Over a year later, Android 3.0 was released.

Well said!
post #45 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

No Apple does not need to be the only provider of music, but does the world really need another digital music store?

Yes..
post #46 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I have seen official press releases stating that they exist. Have you seen any official evidence that Google has licensed music?

Yup.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...wins-tech.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #47 of 90
Quote:

Sorry, but "people familiar with the matter said." is not an official announcement.

After all, if we believe "people familiar with the matter", Apple would already be selling 72" TVs and have iPhone 6 on the market as well as Haswell MacBook Pros.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #48 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

I agree, Apple just does most things better. I just don't think google & MS consider the "consumer experience" the way Apple does.

This is mostly true, due to the fact that their customer is not the end user. Make it good enough for other companies to use their software and services to hawk their own hardware.

Apple makes the whole widget and as such, the end user is their customer, so it is very important that the experience be insanely great.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #49 of 90
Come on with the promotion. The only time I used iTunes was when Amex paid me $7 per credit card to d/l just one damn application. Come on Google!

But I guess there is a market for lossy sound and 720p video that's marketed as HD. Some people just don't want DTS-HD but cassettes like Dinosaur Jr.
post #50 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Sorry, but "people familiar with the matter said." is not an official announcement.

After all, if we believe "people familiar with the matter", Apple would already be selling 72" TVs and have iPhone 6 on the market as well as Haswell MacBook Pros.

Then I guess you can wait until later today/tomorrow for the "official" version. Personally, I'm satisfied with the Bloomberg news article.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #51 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreiD View Post

Man, Google is getting really silly with so much copying.

Ok. What's up with people saying that Google is copying? So setting up a music space and making deals with the record company is copying now. Just because Apple did it years ago does not mean they have the rights to it. Google has been using the cloud for years, and now all of a sudden Apple wants to use the cloud. I don't look at that as copying, just using technology to your advantage. But with your mindset I could say "Look who is copying now?". And if Apple does come out with a mapping system, would they be copying Google again? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
post #52 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by emulator View Post

Come on with the promotion. The only time I used iTunes was when Amex paid me $7 per credit card to d/l just one damn application. Come on Google!

But I guess there is a market for lossy sound and 720p video that's marketed as HD. Some people just don't want DTS-HD but cassettes like Dinosaur Jr.

720p IS high definition video, by definition. 1080p is higher, but 720p is the minimum standard for high def video. High def sound is 24-bit/48 kHz or above.
post #53 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The problem is that Google's approach to anyone's intellectual property but their own is "we want to copy it without permission and without paying royalties". Look at what they tried to do with books before they were stopped.

Well, the Google guys were mentored by Steve himself...."Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal"

I guess Google is only Good because they're just copying, while Apple is great,
post #54 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Sig: I wish the iPad had arrow keys for moving the curser.

I can think of several ways that they could do that very effectively -- especially beneficial when Siri comes to the iPad.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #55 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In this case they're really getting licenses from the music companies. At least give them cred for doing it the "proper" way.

Yeah... But...

I still get the feeling that Google's motivation is:

If all else fails... do it ethically!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #56 of 90
Does Larry Page have ADD?
I really don't get what direction that company is going.
post #57 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

720p IS high definition video, by definition. 1080p is higher, but 720p is the minimum standard for high def video. High def sound is 24-bit/48 kHz or above.

Not to mention that 99% probably can't tell the difference between 1080i/p and 720p.
Hell, just turn on the TV and go from FOX to ABC to CBS to NBC to ESPN to CNN and you will see a variety of different sources being sent in 1080 and 720.
post #58 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I think these kinds of statements about copyright are asinine and basically just a mouthing of what the media corporations want you to believe.

I absolutely hate Google and try to avoid all their lousy products, but ...

"what they tried to do with books before they were stopped." ...

would have been a great boon to the human race and the only one really hurt would be the media corporations. The actual creators of the works are pretty much out of the loop in both scenarios (Google's way or the Media Corp.'s way).

Modern copyright law has basically *nothing* to do with protecting the rights of the creators. It focusses almost entirely on the rights of media distribution companies. It's pretty much the opposite of what would be good for the consumers or the creators. It protects the middle men, the hucksters, and the hoarders of other people's IP.

What if you were in business as a publishing house (or any media provider) and had paid the creator millions of dollars in advance to underwrite the creation -- then later millions of dollars more for sole publishing and distribution rights...

Then some pirate comes along with a scanner and a website -- republishes it free (but gets lots of ad income).

How is that a boon to anyone... How many people could afford to write (be creative) if there was no one to pay them to do so?

Who would pay money for something that others will rip off (causing loss of the investment)?

What you propose would result in only content that is created:
-- by dilettantes
-- by people to further an agenda (fame, political office, etc.)

Even Michelangelo, Leonardo, Gutenberg, Bell, Edison, Ford, James Patterson, Michael Sparks, Bill O'Reilley... deserve to get paid for their creativity.

How much of a loss would it have been to the human race never to have had the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta, the Mona Lisa, the printing press, the voice recorder, the Model T....

We support the creatives by buying their content -- not by paying someone (looking at ads provided by someone) who steals their content
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #59 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by psilentq View Post

Ok. What's up with people saying that Google is copying? So setting up a music space and making deals with the record company is copying now. Just because Apple did it years ago does not mean they have the rights to it. Google has been using the cloud for years, and now all of a sudden Apple wants to use the cloud. I don't look at that as copying, just using technology to your advantage. But with your mindset I could say "Look who is copying now?". And if Apple does come out with a mapping system, would they be copying Google again? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

FFS, people keep overlooking that Amazon is already doing exactly what Google is aiming to do and it already works for Android. No one is claiming that everything Google copies is from only Apple.

FTR, Google wasn't the first to do mapping. They came after MapQuest and I'm sure even they weren't the first.
post #60 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

...and leave Google holding their "dangly, Wobblies!"

Now That's a mental image...
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #61 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

No Apple does not need to be the only provider of music, but does the world really need another digital music store? Amazon is filling the Android content hole (although they also make their content available to other platforms as well).

Does the world need another digital music store? Then you mention Amazon as an alternative to iTunes, you do realise that Amazon is very geographically limited for their music store?
post #62 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

What if you were in business as a publishing house (or any media provider) and had paid the creator millions of dollars in advance to underwrite the creation -- then later millions of dollars more for sole publishing and distribution rights...

Then some pirate comes along with a scanner and a website -- republishes it free (but gets lots of ad income).

How is that a boon to anyone... How many people could afford to write (be creative) if there was no one to pay them to do so?
... We support the creatives by buying their content -- not by paying someone (looking at ads provided by someone) who steals their content

Google made an agreement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, roughly $125 million to the parties. Far from "stealing" anything, it still wasn't good enough.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/...agreement.html

Of course that still didn't stop MIT, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the University of Michigan, University of California, Cornell and other prestigious bodies from asking for a Google partnership to continue the project on a more limited basis. Nor did it stop the publishers from switching their lawyers attentions to those institutions.
http://singularityhub.com/2011/09/27...rings-lawsuit/

It's easier for some posters to claim theft than actually research the facts I suppose.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #63 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmillermcp View Post

FFS, people keep overlooking that Amazon is already doing exactly what Google is aiming to do and it already works for Android. No one is claiming that everything Google copies is from only Apple.

FTR, Google wasn't the first to do mapping. They came after MapQuest and I'm sure even they weren't the first.

I understand that, but Amazon is not integrated within Android. And since Google is not planning on buying Amazon, why not create your own and have it integrated into the phone. Just like Siri was not integrated until iphone 4s. I think we all agree that siri is better not that it is intergrated within the phone. And that answers the question of who would start using it if they have amazon as well. Integration my friend! Oh, and if it was mapquest, then Apple is copying MapQuest. What's the difference, copying is copying.
post #64 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

I am so tired of Google.

Please Apple:
1) Build the best search engine in the world.
2) License out iOS for free. People are intelligent enough to understand that if you want the full Apple experience they will buy Apple iOS devices.

Have Google done one single thing on their own?
Every single service they provide existed before Google started with them.

1) no, just use Google's (or MS's, etc) and bypass their ads
2) No, people are not intelligent enough. They'll buy cheap crap and blame Apple.
post #65 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Google made an agreement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, roughly $125 million to the parties. Far from "stealing" anything, it still wasn't good enough.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/...agreement.html

Of course that still didn't stop MIT, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the University of Michigan, University of California, Cornell and other prestigious bodies from asking for a Google partnership to continue the project on a more limited basis. Nor did it stop the publishers from switching their lawyers attentions to those institutions.
http://singularityhub.com/2011/09/27...rings-lawsuit/

It's easier for some posters to claim theft than actually research the facts I suppose.

"Agreement"

Paging Herman Cain....

That "agreement" was to settle a class action lawsuit. Publishers and authors felt it was stealing and sued google.
post #66 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

...
2) No, people are not intelligent enough. They'll buy cheap crap and blame Apple.

Exactly. Just like they do with Windows and Android.
post #67 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Google made an agreement with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, roughly $125 million to the parties. Far from "stealing" anything, it still wasn't good enough.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/...agreement.html

Of course that still didn't stop MIT, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, the University of Michigan, University of California, Cornell and other prestigious bodies from asking for a Google partnership to continue the project on a more limited basis. Nor did it stop the publishers from switching their lawyers attentions to those institutions.
http://singularityhub.com/2011/09/27...rings-lawsuit/

It's easier for some posters to claim theft than actually research the facts I suppose.

The problem is that the Author's Guild and Association of American Publishers did not have the right to reach that agreement. The agreement that Google insisted upon was that they could copy ANY work, copyrighted or non-copyrighted, for a fixed payment to the Author's Guild and Association of American Publishers - whether the authors agreed or not. Basically, even if you weren't a member of either group, Google would take your work and distribute it without you receiving a cent.

That's theft.

MIT, Harvard, et al are free to reach any agreement they want with Google. If they want to license their copyrighted works to Google, they have the right to do so - and I'd never object. They do NOT, however, have the right to license work that doesn't belong to them - which is what Google was trying to do.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #68 of 90
It still amazes me that Google doesn't get it. Apple has been succesful because it was able to create a connection with the consumer. It did this through great products and great marketing AND a CEO that cared about the quality of what he made. Amazon comes closest to matching these criteria while Google fails at all three: mediocre product, silly marketing and...well, who is their CEO these days? 95% of people couldn't tell you.

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply
post #69 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by JunkMailfever View Post

Well, the Google guys were mentored by Steve himself...."Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal"

I guess Google is only Good because they're just copying, while Apple is great,

I believe it was a Picasso quote. But here's the thing, Apple improves upon current technology and makes it their own while other people build /make "me too" products and not really provide anything new. 3D isn't desirable on a phone.
post #70 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Thx, Conrad...for responding for me. I just couldn't muster the energy!

he was mocking you.
post #71 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

No Apple does not need to be the only provider of music, but does the world really need another digital music store? Amazon is filling the Android content hole (although they also make their content available to other platforms as well).

Yes, Steve knew they were entering the market, but the device they were making was an alternative to WinMo and Blackberries... It looked nothing like the iPhone. After the iPhone debuted, Google scrapped the designs they had and started making an iPhone clone... This is why it took almost two years before the first Android device actually shipped, Oct. 2008.

Then they did the exact same thing with tablets. They saw the iPad and decided they needed to do the same. Over a year later, Android 3.0 was released.

Android is based in Java for the purpose of being hardware agnostic. Hence the Dalvik Virtual Machine. The BB hardware seen before was a software configuration around the hardware, not the only configuration.

Yes Android (and pretty much the entire smartphone market) shifted focus after the launch of the iPhone...that just makes sense. Look what happened to those who refused to advance fast enough in the new market Apple reshaped (RIM, Nokia, Windows Mobile)

And Android 3.0 can hardly ever be called an iOS clone...
post #72 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus View Post

Does Larry Page have ADD?
I really don't get what direction that company is going.

Outward.
post #73 of 90
For those interested a live blog of the Google Music announcement is going on over at Engadget. So far so good from what I read. . .

http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/16/g...les/#continued
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #74 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Sorry, but "people familiar with the matter said." is not an official announcement.

After all, if we believe "people familiar with the matter", Apple would already be selling 72" TVs and have iPhone 6 on the market as well as Haswell MacBook Pros.

With executives from EMI, Universal and Sony appearing alongside Google reps for the Google Music announcement now underway, I think that pretty well confirms that Google has licenses in place. Top that off with the Universal exec (Rob Wells, president of Universal Music's Global Digital Business department) excited about the "upcoming global rollout".
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #75 of 90
I wasn't expecting that it would remain free. Not at the 20k song mark quite yet, but I wonder if you can pay for more storage.

-Local downloads of purchased music to ANY computer
-Same music pinning
-20k song limit. no size limit
-sharing songs
-awesome web interface
-lightweight uploader
-allows for independent artists to upload their music without a label
-deep android/g+ intergration

I love it!

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply
post #76 of 90
Rather than "just another music service" Google's put their own twist on several features. The ones that stood out to me included:

Google Music will offer 20,000 songs to be stored for free. . . and no size limit .

Music purchases can be billed directly to phone bill, tho only TMobile customers initially.

Artists can upload their own music, and keep 70% of all revenue. No upload fees, etc. Kudos for that!

Independent, up-and-coming artists can set their own prices, offer 90 second previews or even free downloads, and set up their own artist pages.

Buy an album and your friends can have a one-time listen for free. Recommend a single track to a friend on Google+ and that friend gets a listen to the entire track, not just a sample.

Every track in the Music store (Android Market) has a 90 second preview, and every track is a 320kbps MP3.

Millions of songs available directly from the Android Market.

and it's not a Beta!!
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #77 of 90
Signed up and I'm liking it so far. Less bloat than iTunes, that's for sure.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #78 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Rather than "just another music service" Google's put their own twist on several features. The ones that stood out to me included:

Google Music will offer 20,000 songs to be stored for free. . . and no size limit .

Music purchases can be billed directly to phone bill, tho only TMobile customers initially.

Artists can upload their own music, and keep 70% of all revenue. No upload fees, etc. Kudos for that!

Independent, up-and-coming artists can set their own prices, offer 90 second previews or even free downloads, and set up their own artist pages.

Buy an album and your friends can have a one-time listen for free. Recommend a single track to a friend on Google+ and that friend gets a listen to the entire track, not just a sample.

Every track in the Music store (Android Market) has a 90 second preview, and every track is a 320kbps MP3.

Millions of songs available directly from the Android Market.

and it's not a Beta!!

I wonder about the uploading and selling of your own music. If it's not DRM'ed, what's to prevent download and resale of the songs? Are all uploads fingerprinted?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #79 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I wonder about the uploading and selling of your own music. If it's not DRM'ed, what's to prevent download and resale of the songs? Are all uploads fingerprinted?

Good question. But I think having music available in a form such as this will reduce piracy in general.

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply

Retina Macbook Pro - 2.6ghz

Galaxy Nexus - Jelly Bean!

Reply
post #80 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by sip View Post

I don't like Google, but I can understand that Android users just don't have the kind of service provided by Apple via iTunes for iOS and iPod devices.

)

I use iOS but I can understand not wanting services delivered through itunes.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Google to counter Apple's iTunes with its own online music store