Josh Ong
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.
William Gallagher
Wesley Hilliard
Chip Loder
Thomas Sibilly
Christine McKee
45 Comments
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...
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 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.
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?
It's always good to rush to beat Apple at something.
That's what I was thinking.
I'm also interested to see what Apple comes up with too...
Looks like more storage and their version of Apple's Genius playlists.
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.