Google has their own on demand streaming service they had it for over a year now. Its called google music all access. And wouldn't that make apples purchase of beats copying google
Google countered Apple's Beats acquisition. They were filled with righteous anger - all hell-fire and brimstone because the press was making a big deal of how much Apple spent on Beats.
A well placed source said these were the exact words by Larry:
"What the f***? We are the big spenders. We spend billions on acquisitions. Why is the press making such a big deal of 3 billion? We use that much to wipe our snot when we sneeze. Why, if I was that bald guy I'd throw this chair right across the room!"
Then he looked for the first streaming service that wanted 3 billion and bought Songza. The price is not revealed to the general masses, but the source said that the exact amount was 3 billion + $1.
There's a difference in buying a company that loses money with 5 million mooching non paying customers.
Compared to a company bringing in 1.5 billion a year with hardware sales and making more money off losing less money off 250,000 subscribers than songza makes on 5 million with only 3 months of sales.
1) Watch Apple.
2) Do whatever Apple does.
3) Repeat.
How is google copying apple?
Google has had an on demand service for a year now. (ITunes radio is a internet radio service not a streaming service.) If anything Apple's purchase of beats was to gain a foothold in the on demand streaming sector. It seems google wanted new features for google music all access.
Not for your edification, which would be probably be wasted, but here's an interesting Beats headphone sighting, on none other than Manuel Galbán, the great Cuban all-round musician, in a magnificent video made before his death in 2011. I think the DVD/CD package was just released recently. One of the best music videos ever. Some classy Cubans here.
You can just picture Dr. Blank drooling all over himself rocking back and forth in a padded room, muttering, " but it's not real music... it's not classical jazz with real guitars, tyuijhnvcyfhgngvbvmhvmhvmhvm...."... !
You can just picture Dr. Blank drooling all over himself rocking back and forth in a padded room, muttering, " but it's not real music... it's not classical jazz with real guitars, tyuijhnvcyfhgngvbvmhvmhvmhvm...."... !
How did I manage to forget about dr blank already?
I've used the Songza website occasionally and it's very simple to use to get some decent streaming music. I mainly use it to listen to old Motown and 60's groups which I pretty much grew up on and the selection is decent, although not as good as iTunes or Spotify. It's understandable Google would snap up something like this. They'll just take the interface and those employees who already have streaming music experience and at least they won't get totally embarrassed. There's no point in reinventing the wheel. For Google, acquiring Songza is simply a shortcut so it doesn't fall behind. Google has the money, so why not spend it. $15 million peanuts to Google to get an instant streaming service. When rival companies do something, it's almost guaranteed others will follow even if they don't have a clear strategy. Everything Apple does, Google usually tries to follow. That's why I don't understand why Apple doesn't acquire a search engine and send Google a clear message about the perils of being a constant copycat.
Google didn't acquire Songza to get a music stream service. They have had that for quite a few years now with Google Play. To that, they added All Access last year. All access works by using computer algorithms to create channels. Songza does it using humans. Google bought Songza because they realize that for some things, human interface is necessary and it nicely complements their smart channeling using algorithms. It's a smart buy and as you said, 15 million is chump change to improve their existing streaming service.
Comments
Google has their own on demand streaming service they had it for over a year now. Its called google music all access. And wouldn't that make apples purchase of beats copying google
Apple has iTunes Radio. Thanks for trying.
As far as headphone quality, apple could literally afford to buyout any and all headphone tech they desire...
What apple really needs to do is to find a new reason to be worshipped by consumers and produce a new cultural icon.
Buying icon companies likely diminish their cultural relevance.
The next products need to be unforgettable and define a generation......
$1B in revenue on those puppies. So, there's something there.
Think Jony Ive will put out his own? I do.
I'll be they didn't spend $3B on it.
Wrong.
Google countered Apple's Beats acquisition. They were filled with righteous anger - all hell-fire and brimstone because the press was making a big deal of how much Apple spent on Beats.
A well placed source said these were the exact words by Larry:
"What the f***? We are the big spenders. We spend billions on acquisitions. Why is the press making such a big deal of 3 billion? We use that much to wipe our snot when we sneeze. Why, if I was that bald guy I'd throw this chair right across the room!"
Then he looked for the first streaming service that wanted 3 billion and bought Songza. The price is not revealed to the general masses, but the source said that the exact amount was 3 billion + $1.
Sites are reporting the sale at $39 million.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10940358/Google-buys-Songza-for-a-reported-39m.html
None of these streamers make money.
1) Watch Apple.
2) Do whatever Apple does.
3) Repeat.
Keep in mind this is how Microsoft grew.
How is google copying apple?
Google has had an on demand service for a year now. (ITunes radio is a internet radio service not a streaming service.) If anything Apple's purchase of beats was to gain a foothold in the on demand streaming sector. It seems google wanted new features for google music all access.
You can just picture Dr. Blank drooling all over himself rocking back and forth in a padded room, muttering, " but it's not real music... it's not classical jazz with real guitars, tyuijhnvcyfhgngvbvmhvmhvmhvm...."... !
How did I manage to forget about dr blank already?
Rather sad to admit, but his continuous psychopathic rants got to me, and not in a good way... :no:
I've used the Songza website occasionally and it's very simple to use to get some decent streaming music. I mainly use it to listen to old Motown and 60's groups which I pretty much grew up on and the selection is decent, although not as good as iTunes or Spotify. It's understandable Google would snap up something like this. They'll just take the interface and those employees who already have streaming music experience and at least they won't get totally embarrassed. There's no point in reinventing the wheel. For Google, acquiring Songza is simply a shortcut so it doesn't fall behind. Google has the money, so why not spend it. $15 million peanuts to Google to get an instant streaming service. When rival companies do something, it's almost guaranteed others will follow even if they don't have a clear strategy. Everything Apple does, Google usually tries to follow. That's why I don't understand why Apple doesn't acquire a search engine and send Google a clear message about the perils of being a constant copycat.
Google didn't acquire Songza to get a music stream service. They have had that for quite a few years now with Google Play. To that, they added All Access last year. All access works by using computer algorithms to create channels. Songza does it using humans. Google bought Songza because they realize that for some things, human interface is necessary and it nicely complements their smart channeling using algorithms. It's a smart buy and as you said, 15 million is chump change to improve their existing streaming service.