Motorola exec slips Google's plans for iTunes competitor

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
While Google's plans to set up a music service have been rumored for years, Motorola's chief executive Sanjay Jha slipped in describing the service as if it were already available, in a conversation promoting his company's new Xoom tablet.



According to a report by The Guardian, while speaking at the Barcelona Mobile World Congress, Jha said Google's Android 3.0 Honeycomb would add value to Motorola's Xoom tablet because it "adds video services and music services" critical to competing with Apple's iPad.



"If you look at Google Mobile services [in Android] today, there's a video service, there's a music service," Jha said, before correcting himself by saying, "?that is, there will be a music service."



Where is Google Music?



The idea of Google breaking into the music business isn't new. Back in 2006, the company was rumored to be working with Napster to set up an iTunes competitor, a move that resulted in a 2.2 percent hit on Apple's stock despite its five year head start in music.



Last March, SimplyMedia, the developer of an iPhone app that allowed users to stream music and media from their desktop iTunes to iOS devices, pulled its title from the App Store. It was then revealed in May that Google had killed the app after purchasing the company, and planned to use its technology to power similar functionality for Android.



Last summer, the discovery of a "Google Music" logo reanimated rumors that Apple would face direct competition from the maker of Android in the music and media business.



In September, just one day after Apple launched iTunes 10, Google was reported to be securing licensing rights with music labels that would allow it to open a music store by the end of the year.



A tablet music tie-in



Motorola's comments suggest that Google hasn't given up, and instead hopes to launch its music store as the lynchpin of its Honeycomb tablet release. So far, Google's tablet strategy is closer to Apple's original Newton than its iPad, offering lots of cool looking features without a clear sense of what it would actually be used to do to justify its relatively high cost, with models starting at $800.







After giving up on Newton devices in 1998, Apple's tablet strategy was delayed while the company focused on building iTunes (2001), creating a music player, establishing a music business (2003), building a business in commercial TV (2005) and movie rentals (2008), launching a smartphone (2007) and building an App Store (2008), before finally returning to deliver the iPad (2010) as a blank canvas for using that vast library of apps, music, and video, starting at an aggressive $500 price.



Google does not have a standalone music app, nor a music store, nor a music or media device platform outside of Android smartphones, and its Android Marketplace is not living up to the company's expectations for selling apps.



By launching a music business targeted at the upcoming debut of its Honeycomb licensee's tablets, Google may jumpstart a new ecosystem. A 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.



However, Google faces the same issues Microsoft did in launching the Zune and its new Zune Marketplace in 2006: a device held back by a fledgling music store, and a music store held back by limited hardware sales. This may result in Google partnering with a company offering more experience in retail, such as Amazon, which already sells media and plans to enter the Android app business.



Google may also find it critical to expand its music strategy to actually leverage the installed base of Android users, nearly all of whom are on smartphones. The company pitched its new Android 3.0 Honeycomb release exclusively for tablets that do not yet exist on the market, saying that it planned to eventually bring many of those features to its smartphones users without offering details as to when that would happen.



A worthy competitor



Moves by Google to enter the established business of competitors have a mixed track record of success. Google essentially took the search and online advertising markets away from Microsoft and Yahoo ten years ago, and has become a leader in Maps, News, Translation, and other related online services. Its Android OS has virtually destroyed the market for JavaME, Flash Lite, Windows Mobile and Symbian as broadly licensed smartphone platforms.



Google has found it more difficult to enter other markets, making only minimal gains against Microsoft's Office suite with its own online web apps, and failing to best YouTube with its own Google Video, which required the company to buy its former competitor to enter that market.



Google has also experienced disappointment with efforts to create or enter existing markets with its Answers, Base, Buzz, Catalogs, Dodgeball, Google TV, Jaiku, Knol, Lively, Notebook, Orkut, Sidewiki, Nexus One, Wave and WebM initiatives.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 39
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,727member
    No doubt Google are also working on a new logo that is a fruit! Jeez they are sooo original with all their concepts.
  • Reply 2 of 39
    Will I, along with the other 42 people who have accounts, be able to use Google Wallet?
  • Reply 3 of 39
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    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?
  • Reply 4 of 39
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Do I want to give credit card details to Google?



    Do I want all my web browsing to be plastered all over with ads offering competing credit cards?



    I



    DON'T



    THINK



    SO
  • Reply 5 of 39
    The only way I see this working for them is with what they do so far which is ads, ads, and more ads. I for one don't want any experience that forces me into more ads. If an App exists in a paid versus Ad supported version (and I use it for anything more than very casual once every other week or less use) I will buy it cause I hate ads. This seems to be what Googles entire model is and for me that is a non-starter!
  • Reply 6 of 39
    m0tm0t Posts: 5member
    I know everyone has moved on - the phrase du jour is "iPad KILLER", but really, what happened to all those "iPod KILLERs".



    Isn't anyone trying to kill the iPod?
  • Reply 7 of 39
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by M0T View Post


    I know everyone has moved on - the phrase du jour is "iPad KILLER", but really, what happened to all those "iPod KILLERs".



    Isn't anyone trying to kill the iPod?



    It's already dead, remember? That's what all those analysts said when the iPhone was released. The 50 million or so iPods sold since then just proves it - it could have been 60 million.
  • Reply 8 of 39
    m0tm0t Posts: 5member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post


    It's already dead, remember? That's what all those analysts said when the iPhone was released. The 50 million or so iPods sold since then just proves it - it could have been 60 million.



    I guess that is the kind of fate the iPad can look forward to next year. So sad.
  • Reply 9 of 39
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,597member
    Google truly is the new evil. They take our personal internet data without compensating us, all the while making BILLIONS on our backs. They then try to position themselves as some kind of heros to the common man, the carriers and now the publishers because they are the "good guys", providing "a better deal". Hopefully this is going to bite them in the ass sooner rather than later when consumers wake up to the fact that they've sold their souls to this company as they monitor and monetize everything you do on the internet as they sell you to the highest bidder.
  • Reply 10 of 39
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Google has also experienced disappointment with efforts to create or enter existing markets with its Answers, Base, Buzz, Catalogs, Dodgeball, Google TV, Jaiku, Knol, Lively, Notebook, Orkut, Sidewiki, Nexus One, Wave and WebM initiatives.



    That's hilarious - they've used up half the alphabet already.
  • Reply 11 of 39
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post


    Google truly is the new evil. They take our personal internet data without compensating us, all the while making BILLIONS on our backs. They then try to position themselves as some kind of heros to the common man, the carriers and now the publishers because they are the "good guys", providing "a better deal". Hopefully this is going to bite them in the ass sooner rather than later when consumers wake up to the fact that they've sold their souls to this company as they monitor and monetize everything you do on the internet as they sell you to the highest bidder.



    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.
  • Reply 12 of 39
    As mentioned a few stories ago, the new phrase is no longer "iPad Killer" but "iPad Suicide Bomber".



    After Wave, I no longer tremble at the sound of the Google prefix.
  • Reply 13 of 39
    mhiklmhikl Posts: 471member
    Google has deep pockets but while they keep trying to re-invent the wheel, the video tube, the iPhone and iPad, Apple stock price keeps inching closer and closer to Google stock.



    Meanwhile, Apple improves their inventions and spend time divining new gizmos for the future so others will have more to run after. Google will eventually run out of money. We're sure running out of patience.



    iProducts + iStores + iTunes + iNtegraton + iDeas. The i's have it.
  • Reply 14 of 39
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Of course, since it's Google, the artists will never get paid. After all, data wants to be free, right?



    (For the Google fans who will be screaming and ranting about how unfair that comment is, it's not unprecedented. They tried to do exactly the same thing by copying every published work and putting it on the Web).
  • Reply 15 of 39
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    No doubt Google are also working on a new logo that is a fruit! Jeez they are sooo original with all their concepts.



    Yeah, like Apple was the first to sell music online
  • Reply 16 of 39
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post


    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?



    They will just give the music away for free.
  • Reply 17 of 39
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post


    Google truly is the new evil. They take our personal internet data without compensating us, all the while making BILLIONS on our backs. They then try to position themselves as some kind of heros to the common man, the carriers and now the publishers because they are the "good guys", providing "a better deal". Hopefully this is going to bite them in the ass sooner rather than later when consumers wake up to the fact that they've sold their souls to this company as they monitor and monetize everything you do on the internet as they sell you to the highest bidder.



    If google offered free laptops with the condition that your life became an open book to every and all who were interested, there would be a line that never ends. Its amazing what people will do for free stuff.
  • Reply 18 of 39
    Motorola Mobile is clueless -- even before the split MOT NEVER was good at software - still are not -- they have no IP of their own for a good smart device operating systems, and rely fully on Google for smart devices. It is sad this company has lost its rudder. MOT should have bought Palm before HP did!!!!



    MOT has had way too many boneheaded decisions, like the one to eradicate Macs when THEY made the CPUs in the computers, in favor of Wintel at the time.



    Maybe HP should buy MOT Mobile now... I don't see MOT Mobile surviving, as just another ME TOO Google Android licensee...
  • Reply 19 of 39
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post






    Motorola's comments suggest that Google hasn't given up, and instead hopes to launch its music store as the lynchpin of its Honeycomb tablet release. So far, Google's tablet strategy is closer to Apple's original Newton than its iPad, offering lots of cool looking features without a clear sense of what it would actually be used to do to justify its relatively high cost, with models starting at $800.





    Correction, DED.



    32GB Wifi Xoom is $600.
  • Reply 20 of 39
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


    Yeah, like Apple was the first to successfully sell music online



    You left a word out, so I fixed it for you,
Sign In or Register to comment.