It's always difficult to enter a market that is so established. It's not impossible, and Google would certainly have ways to leverage their presence toward making a successful music service, it will definitely be difficult.
Who knows?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stourque
They will just give the music away for free.
And Google will intersperse ads within each song. Can you imagine Elvis singing:
"You aint nothin' but a houn' dog..." "This song sponsored by your local SPCA, who is providing rabies shots at half price this weekend." "...you ain't no friend of mine." "Go visit happyplaymates.com and you'll have a friend for dinner." "You can download an ad-free version of this song by clicking on...."
The Android operating system itself is a compensation they provide for your information, as is every google service, if they were truly not compensating a consumer, why are they so widely used?
I mean your post is just totally nonsensical.
Android is free and manufacturers of hardware devices are allowed to manipulate and add their bloatware to it. This is why it is widely used. Google doesn't have the consumer in mind at any point when it comes to their Android OS, IMO.
However, when it comes to Google Maps or the search engine I think they do.
Which Android phone do you own, and why did you choose it over an iPhone?
I just bought an iPone. I think it's awesome. But why can't we have custom 'text' sounds, or 'voicemail' sounds? Also, I had a 'dumb' phone for a long time that would at least blink a light if I missed a message or call. I figured the iPhone could or would do that. Everything else it does beyond expectations, but just these three things?... Basic cell phone things? I still love the phone, but really?
The devil you know is better than the devil you don't. iTunes saved the music industry even though your profits shrank. But what worse fate awaits you in the clutches of the Evil Empire?
Yeah, like Apple was the first to sell music online
I really could care less about the first bozo to do it. I care about the first guy to do it right, that's what counts. History is painted with unknowns who did it first, those who never persevered to get it right. Now we have a screwed up patent system that awards napkin scribblers money because they had the "idea"... We all have great ideas, those who implement those ideas to mass appeal should be compensated. If you did it first and nobody used it, then go away.
parallel effort to court periodical publishers with a One Pass digital subscription model that is cheaper than Apple's and allows publishers full access to subscribers' valuable personal data is also accompanying the Android 3.0 launch.
Um. Scary?!?!
This is one of the things I really like about Apple's supposed fascist model?Apple is looking out for the interests of the customer, which means making sure developers behave themselves. Google will have no such "watchdog" measures (that's what "open" seems to mean, these days), which means there's nothing to stop developers from gleaning any user data they wish without the customer's knowledge or consent.
This is all part of a pattern from Google?they're developer/market-oriented, whereas Apple is customer-oriented. Remember when Google was "busted" with people's personal data, IP info, and profiles, including passwords via StreetView? Google's response was, "oops, we didn't know we were collecting that data... Our bad. Really, we're not evil! Just look at our company slogan!" Yeah. Right.
On the other hand, I've always had the feeling that Apple actually cares about me, the customer. I've never been that concerned that Apple is somehow secretly collecting info about me and selling it to other people. It's entirely possible that they are tracking and logging every keystroke and storing it all in that fancy new farm in NC as part of some grand, nefarious design, and they're sooooooo good at covering their tracks that no one knows about it. But, when I remove my tinfoil hat at the end of the day, I feel pretty comfortable and safe using my Apple products. I feel less comfortable using Google products.
Google's philosophy is similar to Facebook's. The "customers" are advertisers. We are the commodity, and willingly give out our personal information to be traded/bought/sold to advertisers who want to sell us stuff. Google and Facebook don't care at all about the users?which is why they're constantly defending themselves against privacy concerns?i.e. if they had their druthers, they would have NO privacy settings at all.
Far be it from me to defend Google, but this is a business. Apple has thier way of monetizing thier offerings, as does google.
The Android operating system itself is a compensation they provide for your information, as is every google service, if they were truly not compensating a consumer, why are they so widely used?
I mean your post is just totally nonsensical.
I'm an apple guy, who is very on edge with the waters apple is dabbling in with their want for control. I dont want to be an ad whore, but apple is tetering on the edge of that value comparison in my mind, with the next 4 months of decisions they make regarding thier content providers....
I hope they are making the correct ones. I dont fully understand why they are squeezing their grip so tightly on a business that hardly adds anything to thier bottom line, relatively speaking.
Sorry, thats a bit off topic, bleed over from the big topic of the day.
I categorically disagree that Android (or any other Google "free" service) is somehow compensatory for the depth of intrusion into consumers' personal lives or the use of the search engine. And just because they are widely used doesn't mean they are good for consumers, anymore more than smoking or drinking are healthy habits just because millions of people do them.
Anyone who has any awareness of the history of technology and Apple's role in it over time, recognizes each of the decisions that Apple makes around supporting their ecosystem is consistent with their approach to how a platform should operate. You perhaps have failed to recognize this, that is understandable. But to insist that they are somehow "squeezing their grip so tightly" as if there is no choice by those who are participating in the ecosystem, is to demonstrate a lack of awareness and understanding about how the platform operates. While it is uncomfortable for some developers who have developed a reliance on redirecting people out of their apps to their websites in order to dodge Apple's fee requirements, it doesn't widely impact those that are running ad-supported free apps, or fee'd apps that follow the rules. Conversely, the print industry has for a long time, (much like the music industry) hardened their product approach to a level of inflexibility that backed them into a very compromised corner.
Originators of content (authors, etc.) get very little for thier efforts, all justified by the publishing houses as requiring huge overhead, and the slow erosion of content by advertising. When presented by a disruptive platform that could help reverse this unsavory trend (for consumers) they naturally balk at any approach that doesn't leave intact their control and modus operandi, which involves full access (like Google desires) to all consumer info to use or sell as they see fit.
I would support your decision (wrong-headed as it is) to attempt to hold hostage your next Apple purchase by not buying an Apple product, were it based on reality where the platform is concerned, but it is not.
Successful? For whom? Last I checked the music industry had the lowest sales ever last year. ITunes is not the saviour it was made out to be.
Successful for Apple. iTunes made it easy to legally download music to your own computer, and play it on registered devices. It was never Apple's goal to "save" the music industry, but one of the benefits for the record labels was there was a legal (i.e. profit-oriented) path to digital distribution of their content. But an added bonus was to independent artists?those who, for whatever reason, could not get that multi-gazillion $$ record deal. Independent artists can now get their music out to their fans and still own the content.
By "lowest sales", do you mean physical media distribution? Digital sales? Overall sales? What?
Comments
Originally Posted by AaronJ
It's always difficult to enter a market that is so established. It's not impossible, and Google would certainly have ways to leverage their presence toward making a successful music service, it will definitely be difficult.
Who knows?
Originally Posted by Stourque
They will just give the music away for free.
And Google will intersperse ads within each song. Can you imagine Elvis singing:
"You aint nothin' but a houn' dog..." "This song sponsored by your local SPCA, who is providing rabies shots at half price this weekend." "...you ain't no friend of mine." "Go visit happyplaymates.com and you'll have a friend for dinner." "You can download an ad-free version of this song by clicking on...."
Oh, ho-hum.
You left a word out, so I fixed it for you,
they will just give the music away for free.
haha!
The Android operating system itself is a compensation they provide for your information, as is every google service, if they were truly not compensating a consumer, why are they so widely used?
I mean your post is just totally nonsensical.
Android is free and manufacturers of hardware devices are allowed to manipulate and add their bloatware to it. This is why it is widely used. Google doesn't have the consumer in mind at any point when it comes to their Android OS, IMO.
However, when it comes to Google Maps or the search engine I think they do.
Which Android phone do you own, and why did you choose it over an iPhone?
I just bought an iPone. I think it's awesome. But why can't we have custom 'text' sounds, or 'voicemail' sounds? Also, I had a 'dumb' phone for a long time that would at least blink a light if I missed a message or call. I figured the iPhone could or would do that. Everything else it does beyond expectations, but just these three things?... Basic cell phone things? I still love the phone, but really?
The devil you know is better than the devil you don't. iTunes saved the music industry even though your profits shrank. But what worse fate awaits you in the clutches of the Evil Empire?
Yeah, like Apple was the first to sell music online
No, they were only the first to show how it should be done.
Yeah, like Apple was the first to sell music online
I really could care less about the first bozo to do it. I care about the first guy to do it right, that's what counts. History is painted with unknowns who did it first, those who never persevered to get it right. Now we have a screwed up patent system that awards napkin scribblers money because they had the "idea"... We all have great ideas, those who implement those ideas to mass appeal should be compensated. If you did it first and nobody used it, then go away.
parallel effort to court periodical publishers with a One Pass digital subscription model that is cheaper than Apple's and allows publishers full access to subscribers' valuable personal data is also accompanying the Android 3.0 launch.
Um. Scary?!?!
This is one of the things I really like about Apple's supposed fascist model?Apple is looking out for the interests of the customer, which means making sure developers behave themselves. Google will have no such "watchdog" measures (that's what "open" seems to mean, these days), which means there's nothing to stop developers from gleaning any user data they wish without the customer's knowledge or consent.
This is all part of a pattern from Google?they're developer/market-oriented, whereas Apple is customer-oriented. Remember when Google was "busted" with people's personal data, IP info, and profiles, including passwords via StreetView? Google's response was, "oops, we didn't know we were collecting that data... Our bad. Really, we're not evil! Just look at our company slogan!" Yeah. Right.
On the other hand, I've always had the feeling that Apple actually cares about me, the customer. I've never been that concerned that Apple is somehow secretly collecting info about me and selling it to other people. It's entirely possible that they are tracking and logging every keystroke and storing it all in that fancy new farm in NC as part of some grand, nefarious design, and they're sooooooo good at covering their tracks that no one knows about it. But, when I remove my tinfoil hat at the end of the day, I feel pretty comfortable and safe using my Apple products. I feel less comfortable using Google products.
Google's philosophy is similar to Facebook's. The "customers" are advertisers. We are the commodity, and willingly give out our personal information to be traded/bought/sold to advertisers who want to sell us stuff. Google and Facebook don't care at all about the users?which is why they're constantly defending themselves against privacy concerns?i.e. if they had their druthers, they would have NO privacy settings at all.
Far be it from me to defend Google, but this is a business. Apple has thier way of monetizing thier offerings, as does google.
The Android operating system itself is a compensation they provide for your information, as is every google service, if they were truly not compensating a consumer, why are they so widely used?
I mean your post is just totally nonsensical.
I'm an apple guy, who is very on edge with the waters apple is dabbling in with their want for control. I dont want to be an ad whore, but apple is tetering on the edge of that value comparison in my mind, with the next 4 months of decisions they make regarding thier content providers....
I hope they are making the correct ones. I dont fully understand why they are squeezing their grip so tightly on a business that hardly adds anything to thier bottom line, relatively speaking.
Sorry, thats a bit off topic, bleed over from the big topic of the day.
I categorically disagree that Android (or any other Google "free" service) is somehow compensatory for the depth of intrusion into consumers' personal lives or the use of the search engine. And just because they are widely used doesn't mean they are good for consumers, anymore more than smoking or drinking are healthy habits just because millions of people do them.
Anyone who has any awareness of the history of technology and Apple's role in it over time, recognizes each of the decisions that Apple makes around supporting their ecosystem is consistent with their approach to how a platform should operate. You perhaps have failed to recognize this, that is understandable. But to insist that they are somehow "squeezing their grip so tightly" as if there is no choice by those who are participating in the ecosystem, is to demonstrate a lack of awareness and understanding about how the platform operates. While it is uncomfortable for some developers who have developed a reliance on redirecting people out of their apps to their websites in order to dodge Apple's fee requirements, it doesn't widely impact those that are running ad-supported free apps, or fee'd apps that follow the rules. Conversely, the print industry has for a long time, (much like the music industry) hardened their product approach to a level of inflexibility that backed them into a very compromised corner.
Originators of content (authors, etc.) get very little for thier efforts, all justified by the publishing houses as requiring huge overhead, and the slow erosion of content by advertising. When presented by a disruptive platform that could help reverse this unsavory trend (for consumers) they naturally balk at any approach that doesn't leave intact their control and modus operandi, which involves full access (like Google desires) to all consumer info to use or sell as they see fit.
I would support your decision (wrong-headed as it is) to attempt to hold hostage your next Apple purchase by not buying an Apple product, were it based on reality where the platform is concerned, but it is not.
You left a word out, so I fixed it for you,
Successful? For whom? Last I checked the music industry had the lowest sales ever last year. ITunes is not the saviour it was made out to be.
Can you share with us how this alleged "depth of intrusion" has effected you personally?
If enough people say "Google is invading our privacy" others start believing it and will repeat it as fact sans proof.
Successful? For whom? Last I checked the music industry had the lowest sales ever last year. ITunes is not the saviour it was made out to be.
Successful for Apple. iTunes made it easy to legally download music to your own computer, and play it on registered devices. It was never Apple's goal to "save" the music industry, but one of the benefits for the record labels was there was a legal (i.e. profit-oriented) path to digital distribution of their content. But an added bonus was to independent artists?those who, for whatever reason, could not get that multi-gazillion $$ record deal. Independent artists can now get their music out to their fans and still own the content.
By "lowest sales", do you mean physical media distribution? Digital sales? Overall sales? What?