one of the oldest and deepest entrenched music magazines, is citing
multiple sources as having revealed secret details
upcoming music service.The new Google Music comes at a
price -- $25 a year to be precise -- but it makes Apple's iTunes (in
its current implementation) look like a dinosaur. First the
basics; the service will offer direct digital downloads much like
Apple.An album download will reportedly generally cost $7.
Most tracks will cost 70 cents, "superstar tracks" will
cost 91 cents, and "catalog tracks" will cost 49
cents.Your $25 subscription fee comes with a free online
music "locker" -- a secure storage site in the cloud – in
which you will be able to place your purchases. From there they
can stream your music to any compatible internet connected computer
or device. The size of the locker was not revealed
to the sources.If that feature is not enough to make Apple
blush, this will as well -- Google will be offering a
one-time full preview,
reportedly of every track in its library, similar to what Lala.com
before Apple acquired it, killing
the full-length previews. Full previews certainly outdo
iTunes 20 second previews of 4 minute tracks.The app for the
service would reportedly be entirely web-based, so you don't have to
worry about installing pesky applications on your machines.
Additionally Google is reportedly planning on including a mild social
network/song sharing service, similar to Apple's
new Ping network, with Google Music.And the biggest
upside of all for Google is that the company obviously has vastly
more ability to redirect internet traffic to its service than Apple.
While Apple can boast reaching hundreds of millions of users with its
iDevices, Google can literally boast reach over a billion users
worldwide.The biggest trouble spot for Google, according to
the report, is shaping up to be reticence from music labels.
Some industry officials called the proposal "a good start",
but others promised that it would see resistance particularly on the
issue of track costs and previews.According to the sources
Google's proposal calls for a "50-50" revenue split between
master rights holders and Google, with music publishers receiving a
10.5% share. It's unclear if that 10.5 percent is deducted
before the split, or if it will come out of one of the two parties'
shares.The sources say Google is seeking to lock labels into
a 3-year contract from the launch of the service in terms of pricing
and features agreements.Users would also be able to use their
web app to scan their hard drives and upload files to their music
locker -- including music from other services (iTunes, Rhapsody,
etc.), songs ripped from CDs (which the RIAA
contends is "stealing"), and even songs obtained from
P2P networks. The latter is a thorny issue in the negotiations
for labels, but they reportedly realize that it may be inevitable and
are pushing Google to, in return, tighten restrictions on its search
results to filter
out P2P software and torrent sites.It remains to be seen
how music labels ultimately react to the proposal, but planned
service certainly sounds like a good deal for customers. And
with music labels already fed up with Apple, they may begrudgingly
embrace Google's terms as the lesser of two evils (in their eyes).
Armed with superior technology and brand reach, it might finally put
an end to the era of iTunes reigning supreme in the world of digital
quote: Motorola, which makes and sells smartphones based on Google's Android operating system, agreed to use Skyhook's XPS location technology in April.When Google Vice President of Engineering Andy Rubin learned of this he called Motorola Co-CEO Sanjay Jha to impose a "stop ship" order, preventing Motorola from shipping Android wireless devices featuring Skyhook's XPS software.Rubin claimed that using XPS in Android phones would make them incompatible. Motorola ended up shipping its Motorola Droid X smartphone in mid-July using Google's location software instead of the Skyhook XPS technology.
quote: Google only has one product that makes money
quote: 22. Google’s established practice in determining Android compliance consists of two steps. The first step requires each Android-enabled device, and its embedded software, to be run against the Compatibility Test Suite (CTS), a software-based test platform that objectively evaluates whether the device and software are compatible with the published Android specifications. The second step involves a review of the device and software based on an amorphous outline of additional, non-standardized requirements known as the Compliance Definition Document (CDD). This entirely subjective review, conducted solely by Google employees with ultimate authority to interpret the scope and meaning of the CDD as they see fit, effectively gives Google the ability to arbitrarily deem any software, feature or function “non-compatible” with the CDD.23. On information and belief, Google has notified OEMs that they will need to use Google Location Service, either as a condition of the Android OS-OEM contract or as a condition of the Google Apps contract between Google and each OEM. Though Google claims the Android OS is open source, by requiring OEMs to use Google Location Service, an application that is inextricably bundled with the OS level framework, Google is effectively creating a closed system with respect to location positioning. Google’s manipulation suggests that the true purpose of Android is, or has become, to ensure that “no industry player can restrict or control the innovations of any other”, unless it is Google.
quote: All's fair in business, we suppose. But Google is now basically acting like heyday-era Microsoft here, throwing its weight around and screwing over small companies for its own gain. Google Android boss Andy Rubin went as far as to call Motorola co-CEO Sanjay Jha "multiple times" to impose a "stop ship" order on the company's phones, according to Skyhook's complaint.Also, most companies don't have mantras like "don't be evil." And now, neither can Google -- not with a straight face, at least.This move sounds especially evil because Android is supposed to be an "open" mobile platform for handset makers, with an open ecosystem -- one that theoretically lets handset makers and application developers control their own destinies. But it turns out "open" is only "open" in Google's world if it furthers Google's aims.
quote: In 2005, Google expressed an interest in Licensing Skyhook's XPS technology. In 2007, after the expiration of an evaluation license between the parties, Google asked Skyhook to provide Goggle with data from Skyhook's confidential and proprietary database of known Wi-Fi access points. Growing sceptical of Google's motives, Skyhook declined to provide this highly confidential information to Google. Ultimately, Google elected not to license Skyhook's technology for commercial use. Instead shortly thereafter Google began offering Google Location Services in competition with XPS positioning system.
quote: Now in a absolute sense, there is a small issue, in that Google could have been magnanimous here, but come on, at the end they are a for profit company and we have to give them atleast that much freedom to try and make some money or recognisation or ... for something they are providing for free along with others in the Android community.
quote: I know you're a smart man, and I know you'll agree with me that the internet in the United States, whether we like it or not, is moving towards the mobile market.
quote: 2)Look at AT&T; they used to have a monopolistic hold on the telephone market, and now look at them. They sold the same overpriced crap for 30 years, and it came back and bit them in the ass.
quote: If I have to pick between evils, I'll pick Google. I'd rather see Apple fall first before Google, as Steve Jobs is more despicable than even then.Sorry, that's just how I see it. At least Google doesn't write applications so they destroy your ability to use your CD Burner, unlike i-virus-tunes
quote: If you believe in openness, if you believe in choice, if you believe in innovation from everyone, then welcome to Android.
quote: The Android platform only has a few required items from Google. That was one of them. Surprisingly, Search provider is not one of them which explains the Samsung Fascinate that use Bing for some odd reason. Motorola was trying to make some money going to Skyhook, but forgot to read their licensing agreements.
quote: Also, the CD burner issue is fairly common. My wife accidentally let iTunes get installed with a Quicktime update. I didn't even notice it was on there until I found out that I couldn't burn audio disks anymore. Had to do a restore to get rid of iTunes. Solved the problem. I think it is a copy-protection bug that doesn't play nice with many burners.
quote: If you import any non-Itunes song, the track skips (by Itunes' design of course), forcing you to ditch the song and buy it from Itunes.
quote: The main things is that this is not a debate about Apple and bringing up Apple is just a way to try to avoid discussing the ethics and behaviour of Google.
quote: Apple needs to stop shoveling cripple-ware, less functional crap down our throats.
quote: At least Google doesn't write applications so they destroy your ability to use your CD Burner, unlike i-virus-tunes.
quote: Now, this is Skyhook's side of the story and we're sure Google will make a persuasive argument of its own, but let's just back up for a moment here and point out the obvious: Google's never, ever come out and clearly said what's required for devices to gain access to Android Market and the branded apps like Gmail -- even though we've been directly asking about those requirements since Android first launched. Remember when Andy Rubin told us that there would be full-fledged "Google Experience" phones with no carrier or handset manufacturer limitations? Or when we were told that phones with skins like HTC Sense or additional features like Exchange integration wouldn't have Google branding? And then all of that turned out to be a lie? Yes, Android might be "open" in the sense that the source code is available, but there's no doubt Google's wielded incredible power over the platform by restricting access to Market and its own apps -- power that hasn't been used to prevent carrier-mandated bloatware or poorly-done manufacturer skinning, but has instead apparently been used to block legitimate competitors like Skyhook from doing business.
quote: This seems to have been a problem like 5 years ago.
quote: No it wasn't a problem! They were just "burning it wrong", right Jobs?