Google to preempt Apple's iCloud with new music service on Tuesday

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
A new report claims Google will show off a new music service resembling Amazon's Cloud Drive on Tuesday at the company's I/O conference.



Peter Kafka of MediaMemo reported on Monday that Google Music will be unveiled on Tuesday without the cooperation of major music labels. Though the search giant had originally planned a "more robust version" of the service, talks between Google and the labels have stalled, according to the report.



?Unfortunately, a couple of the major labels were less focused on the innovative vision that we put forward, and more interested in in an unreasonable and unsustainable set of business terms,? said Jamie Rosenberg, who oversees digital content and strategy for Google?s Android platform.



Without music licenses, Google will be unable to sell songs to users of the service, Kafka said. The company plans to offer free storage up to 20,000 and include a feature that automatically generates playlists in order to differentiate itself from competing services.



Google Music is expected to launch with an invite-only beta on Tuesday, and then roll out to all U.S. users "within weeks." Google executive Zahavah Levine told CNet that the service will require a browser that supports Flash, making it incompatible with Apple's iOS devices.



Rosenberg declined to comment on future pricing plans for Google Music, though he did say that at least part of the service is designed to be free of charge. ?I think as Google typically does, I think the free aspect will continue to be very generous,? he said.



Rival Amazon launched its Amazon Cloud Drive and Cloud Player services in late March, offering 5GB of free storage, enough for roughly 2,000 songs. After the launch, reports emerged that the online retailer had released the service before securing new licenses with the music labels. Media industry members were stunned, with some viewing the service as illegal.



Amazon's cloud music service launched with support for streaming via the Web and on Google Android devices, but the company quietly began supporting Apple's iOS devices last week. iOS users who navigate to the site will receive a warning that the mobile Safari browser is not supported, though the service does indeed work.



Meanwhile, Apple is prepping its own service, which is expected to be named iCloud. AppleInsider reported late last month that the company has been using the iCloud name internally and plans to support more than just music. The service would be integrated into both iOS 5.0 and Mac OS X Lion and would sync and store information such as bookmarks, email, contacts and iCal events.



Last month, reports claimed that Apple had completed work on a cloud-based iTunes music streaming service and signed licensing deals with at least two of the four major music labels.



Apple's new $1 billion, 500,000 square-foot data center in Maiden, N.C., is expected to play a vital role in supporting the rumored service. The company's executives have already stated that the massive server farm will support iTunes and MobileMe when it commences operations this spring.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 45
    michael scripmichael scrip Posts: 1,912member
    It's always good to rush to beat Apple at something.



    So... how different will Google's "music locker" be from the one Amazon just launched? I guess it's never a bad idea to have more than one free service to choose from.



    I'm also interested to see what Apple comes up with too...
  • Reply 2 of 45
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 18,978member
    Just another thing thrown at the wall with the hope that it sticks.



    Just like Microsoft, with its bombshell of $7B - $8B bid for Skype.....http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories (in the meantime, Apple does FaceTime at a tiny fraction of the cost).



    Got to feel bad for their shareholders.
  • Reply 3 of 45
    addicted44addicted44 Posts: 821member
    I am honestly surprised Google opted to build this on Flash. I understood the support for Flash on Android, since it provided them with a differentiator. But I thought they were genuine about their like for open technologies. Amazon has shown that you obviously don't need Flash to build such a service, and to see Google go towards flash is just really surprising to me.



    I guess Google is in completely "all hands on deck" mode as far as Android is concerned. Nevermind "Don't be evil", nevermind "open source", forget about "open web". All that matters now is Android. Lets just hope the usage of Flash (the number 1 source of vulnerabilities on any platform, right now) will not come back to bite them in the backside.



    The only thing I am curious about is if this was the direction Schmidt wanted to go in, or if its the direction Larry Page is taking them in.



    I sincerely hope there is more to Google I/O though. Although their track record has been pretty bad, with the only success being Android, they have always released interesting products at the very least. An incomplete music service, which has already been beat to the market by Amazon, and will be upstaged by a more complete version from Apple in about a month, will be below expectations.



    Edit: Wow...Google really is "whoring" themselves out for Android. I went to www.google.com, and what do i see, but a text ad for the Nexus S. The only other time I have seen an ad on google.com was for Chrome, which still makes sense, since its a browser with google.com completely built in. I did not expect this either.
  • Reply 4 of 45
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    1) How many of these "hurt lockers" are we gonna see before Apple shows everyone how it's done? Even though Apple's online services have been less successful I can't help but think their data center + duration of this rumour + the recent scolding and firing from Jobs on the MobileMe launch + Amazon and Google rushing to market with a preemptive "me too" service with no label backing means that Apple has a winner.



    2) Flash-based service?! Google used to be all about supporting open standards. This almost sounds like they are purposely excluding iOS-based devices.



    3) Not having native app access at launch tells me it's rushed.



    4) Why leak this the night before the the keynote?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


    It's always good to rush to beat Apple at something.



    That's what I was thinking.



    Quote:

    So... how different will Google's "music locker" be from the one Amazon just launched? I guess it's never a bad idea to have more than one free service to choose from.



    I'm also interested to see what Apple comes up with too...



    Looks like more storage and their version of Apple's Genius playlists.
  • Reply 5 of 45
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Just another thing thrown at the wall with the hope that it sticks.



    Just like Microsoft, with its bombshell of $7B - $8B bid for Skype.....http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories (in the meantime, Apple does FaceTime at a tiny fraction of the cost).



    Got to feel bad for their shareholders.



    I personally can't stand Skype, even though I have relatives overseas. I just use email. They may not like it but I didn't decide to go to Europe.
  • Reply 6 of 45
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member
    I just got an invitation to participate!



    -----------------------------------------------------------------



    Dear Beta User,



    Welcome to our half-assed music service! We at Google strive to beat everyone at everything and can never complete anything before releasing it.



    Please enjoy these initial 20 songs from our partnership with Muzak. In the coming months we will be adding tens more songs for your listening pleasure.



    Please focus testing on our innovative "listen to your music from your Gmail inbox" feature.



    Thank you for your participation!
  • Reply 7 of 45
    christopher126christopher126 Posts: 4,254member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Just another thing thrown at the wall with the hope that it sticks.



    Just like Microsoft, with its bombshell of $7B - $8B bid for Skype.....http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories (in the meantime, Apple does FaceTime at a tiny fraction of the cost).



    Got to feel bad for their shareholders.



    I know I'm an Apple fan...but this is exactly my impression of Google's attempts at anything that isn't Search.



    Hurry up and hope that it takes! I think I read from someone here on AI who said, Google software always feels like it's a Beta release. Personally, I just don't like it and prefer Apple's "polished" approach much better.



    Best
  • Reply 8 of 45
    dagamer34dagamer34 Posts: 494member
    The least they could do is create a mobile-specific music browser.
  • Reply 9 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post


    I am honestly surprised Google opted to build this on Flash. I understood the support for Flash on Android, since it provided them with a differentiator. But I thought they were genuine about their like for open technologies. Amazon has shown that you obviously don't need Flash to build such a service, and to see Google go towards flash is just really surprising to me.



    I guess Google is in completely "all hands on deck" mode as far as Android is concerned. Nevermind "Don't be evil", nevermind "open source", forget about "open web". All that matters now is Android. Lets just hope the usage of Flash (the number 1 source of vulnerabilities on any platform, right now) will not come back to bite them in the backside.



    The only thing I am curious about is if this was the direction Schmidt wanted to go in, or if its the direction Larry Page is taking them in.



    I sincerely hope there is more to Google I/O though. Although their track record has been pretty bad, with the only success being Android, they have always released interesting products at the very least. An incomplete music service, which has already been beat to the market by Amazon, and will be upstaged by a more complete version from Apple in about a month, will be below expectations.



    Edit: Wow...Google really is "whoring" themselves out for Android. I went to www.google.com, and what do i see, but a text ad for the Nexus S. The only other time I have seen an ad on google.com was for Chrome, which still makes sense, since its a browser with google.com completely built in. I did not expect this either.





    Well said, Addicted44! Google is what happens when "programmers" lead the way and are left to their own devices...you basically get crap like DOS, Windows 3.0, Windows ME, Windows '98, Windows XP, Vista, Flash, IE, Windows CE, G-Mail, Windows Mobile, FrontPage, Publisher, Word, Hotmail, MSN, Outlook Express, Outlook, MSWorks, AOL, WMA, etc., etc. Which quite frankly all feels 70% done and half-assed at that! Ugh!



    With Apple you get Stevoreno (Steve Jobs, AKA "The Steve") who is able to control and direct said "programmers" into producing software that is intuitive like iTunes, Safari, iLife, iWork, OSX, iOS, etc., etc.
  • Reply 10 of 45
    sheffsheff Posts: 1,407member
    On one hand, this is pretty crazy that competitors like Amazon and Google are competing with a non-existant/ not released product. On the other hand, Apple had better do something quick, or they risk being late to their own party.
  • Reply 11 of 45
    patranuspatranus Posts: 366member
    So what does Apple get by playing by the rules and working with the studios?



    Beaten to the market by Amazon and Google.



    Good work guys.
  • Reply 12 of 45
    michael scripmichael scrip Posts: 1,912member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post


    So what does Apple get by playing by the rules and working with the studios?



    Beaten to the market by Amazon and Google.



    Good work guys.



    What happens if the music labels raise a stink to Google and Amazon... and Apple is left with the only functioning service?



    The last thing you want to happen with your music service is to piss off the music labels.



    I dunno... I'm not really excited about a music locker anyway. Good for them, though.
  • Reply 13 of 45
    bsgincbsginc Posts: 78member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    A new report claims Google will show off a new music service resembling Amazon's Cloud Drive on Tuesday at the company's I/O conference.



    Peter Kafka of MediaMemo reported on Monday that Google Music will be unveiled on Tuesday without the cooperation of major music labels. Though the search giant had originally planned a "more robust version" of the service, talks between Google and the labels have stalled, according to the report.



    ?Unfortunately, a couple of the major labels were less focused on the innovative vision that we put forward, and more interested in in an unreasonable and unsustainable set of business terms,? said Jamie Rosenberg, who oversees digital content and strategy for Google?s Android platform.

    [ View this article at AppleInsider.com ][/url][/c]



    Really. How dare those music labels prevent Google from releasing it's more robust version. Just because they would like to earn money by selling the music that they went to the trouble to produce, publish, and market (spent money to do those things).



    Really, it's unreasonable and unsustainable to be beholden to such outdated methods of doing business. Interfering with Google's ability to let users enjoy the fruits of the music industry's labor for free is so yesterday. How dare them! Free the music. Free the music.



    /sarcasm
  • Reply 14 of 45
    patranuspatranus Posts: 366member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


    What happens if the music labels raise a stink to Google and Amazon... and Apple is left with the only functioning service?



    The last thing you want to happen with your music service is to piss off the music labels.



    I dunno... I'm not really excited about a music locker anyway. Good for them, though.



    Not going to happen.



    It will shake out like any other thing Google does.



    Launch product first, ask questions later.



    Google does this with every product since they really don't own that much IP.
  • Reply 15 of 45
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post


    So what does Apple get by playing by the rules and working with the studios?



    Beaten to the market by Amazon and Google.



    Good work guys.



    Q: What does Apple get by being beaten to the market? with a cellphone?



    A: Over 50% of the world?s profits.





    Q: What does Apple get by being beaten to the market by 3 decades with tablet?



    A: A current monopolizing of profits and units sales.



    We have no parting gifts but thanks for playing.
  • Reply 16 of 45
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post


    Not going to happen.



    It will shake out like any other thing Google does.



    Launch product first, ask questions later.



    Google does this with every product since they really don't own that much IP.



    It?ll shake out because they don?t own that much IP? Are you saying they can?t be sued and can?t settle for a large out of court settlement and failed services trying to usurp the rumours of what Apple is planning to offer? You should note that Amazon and Google have a lot of cash on hand, revenue and profits.
  • Reply 17 of 45
    michael scripmichael scrip Posts: 1,912member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post




    Launch product first, ask questions later.



    Google does this with every product since they really don't own that much IP.



    They don't own the music either.



    Google launches many products. This time... they're using other people's stuff (music)
  • Reply 18 of 45
    firefly7475firefly7475 Posts: 1,502member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post


    Really. How dare those music labels prevent Google from releasing it's more robust version. Just because they would like to earn money by selling the music that they went to the trouble to produce, publish, and market (spent money to do those things).



    Really, it's unreasonable and unsustainable to be beholden to such outdated methods of doing business. Interfering with Google's ability to let users enjoy the fruits of the music industry's labor for free is so yesterday. How dare them! Free the music. Free the music.



    /sarcasm



    I can't be on the Music labels side on this. My music is my music. Regardless of whether it's stored on flash, a hard drive, or cloud storage I lease... it is still my music.
  • Reply 19 of 45
    orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post


    Really. How dare those music labels prevent Google from releasing it's more robust version. Just because they would like to earn money by selling the music that they went to the trouble to produce, publish, and market (spent money to do those things).



    Really, it's unreasonable and unsustainable to be beholden to such outdated methods of doing business. Interfering with Google's ability to let users enjoy the fruits of the music industry's labor for free is so yesterday. How dare them! Free the music. Free the music.



    /sarcasm



    Why should the labels dictate whether I store the music I PAID for on a harddrive connected to my computer via a USB cable or in a data center connected to my computer via my cable modern?



    If the labels had their way we'd all have to pay to buy the song on CD then pay again to listen to the same song on an iPhone and then pay a third time to listen to the song on a cloud music player.
  • Reply 20 of 45
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    I can't be on the Music labels side on this. My music is my music. Regardless of whether it's stored on flash, a hard drive, or cloud storage I lease... it is still my music.



    I don?t think they are trying to prevent you from backing up your content, but are trying to get these big companies to license their access if they are going to add server-based jukebox features. I don?t think that is unreasonable.



    I also don?t think Apple?s service will be like Amazon or Google?s service which is pretty much basic server backups with a playlist option for your music. You can?t get anymore low rent than that and call it a music service.
Sign In or Register to comment.