“The upcoming Google Video Store, announced Friday at the Consumer Electronics Show, already has lined up commitments to sell thousands of downloads, including recent television broadcasts of popular CBS shows and professional basketball games, as well as vintage episodes from series that went off the air decades ago. A launch date for the store has not been released,” May Wong reports for The Associated Press. “With Google’s marketplace, content suppliers can name their own price, from zero on up. The content owners who charge for video downloads must share 30 percent of the revenue with Google.”
“Although Google’s service allows content owners more pricing freedom, it isn’t necessarily as liberating for users,” Wong reports. “While all of videos downloaded through Apple’s [iTunes Music Store] can be transferred onto a portable player – albeit only its own iPod – for on-the-go viewing, that won’t be true at Google’s service. Google has developed its own copy protection technology that so far prevents content owners from moving their video downloads to a mobile playing device. In instances where the content provider adopts Google’s copy protection scheme, watching a video sold through Google will require users to be online so they can log on and view it via the company’s video player. CBS and the NBA are among the content owners adopting Google’s copy protections.”
“In another distinction from iTunes, Google Video so far works only on Microsoft Corp.’s Windows-based PCs and not yet on Apple’s Macintosh computers,” Wong reports. “By relying on its own proprietary copy-protection technology, Google threatens to compound the frustration that some consumers feel when they buy songs from one online source like the iTunes store, only to discover the music can’t be played on an incompatible gadget… Forrester Research analyst Josh Bernoff offered a possible explanation for Google’s decision: ‘It’s arrogance.'”
Full article here.
Advertisements:
Get Free Shipping on Top-Rated iPod and Mac Accessories
The New iPod with Video. The ultimate music & video experience on the go. From $299. Free shipping.
Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.00.
The New iMac G5. Built-in camera and remote control. From $1299. Free shipping.
Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using your dial-up service. $49.00.
Related article:
Google to launch Google Video Store; supports iPod for non-copy-protected content only – January 06, 2006
There can only be one!
Apple has so much of a lead, Google is nutz to enter this market, so is everyone else.
What seperate Apple from the rest is of course the devices.
Google none
M$ crappy devices
Sony PSP with some work but no DRM allowance
Apple iPod and video iPods, established platform (Mac’s) and third party software readily available for any conversion on PPC Macs (snapz pro x, hand brake etc)
The article is wrong about Mac compatibility:
From Google video web site:
The minimum system requirements for running the Google Video Viewer properly are:
– Windows 2000 or higher with latest updates installed
– Mac OS X 10.3 or higher
– Firefox 1.1+, IE 5.0+, or Safari 1.0+
Jake
Well, now, isn’t this a pretty kettle of fish?
I have one word for Google.
Nuts.
(Obscure WWII reference.)
Ehh. Proprietary DRM, I don’t care. As long it’s not a Windows-only DRM like you-know-what, it can be as proprietary as it likes.
Looking forward to giving the Google Video Player a spin on my Mac!
most analysts are wrong about technology. Most reporters are wrong about technology. They just don’t do their homework.
The biggest example is the commonly reported error that the only source for music for iTunes is the iTunes Music Store.
Joe Video User
Reference not that obscure. If anything ‘nuts’ is what Steve said to MS years ago when the tried to get Apple to surrender. Apple was surrounded in a desperate situation and they refused to surrender and fought their way out of it.
The DRM wars have just begun.
People bitch about Apple not licensing Fairplay. The reality is they can’t because that would lead to hacks, loss of control and ultimately, loss of content and then loss of viewers.
Google has been scarfing up unused Fiber and has some sort of grand scheme to deliver content via it. I’ll believe it when I see it.
The proof is in who actually sells content. Apple is selling NOW.
Enough with the announcements of systems coming soon.
SHOW ME THE VIDEO! SHOW ME SYSTEMS THAT WORK!
How many people are going to watch TV on their PC? I don’t want some pile of Dell and MS crappola heaped up in the family room next to my 53″ Sony monitor. My wife would crap a brick.
However, the boss has no problem with my MacMini sitting on the TV (it’s the 500GB firewire drive sitting next to it that she thiinks is ugly). We regularly watch DVDs I’ve ripped in the basement and sent up to the mini via ethernet. Even some iTMS video content at iPod display resolution looks ok (arguably better than VHS).
Apple has a working system and a standardized system of delivery (the internet).
I say bring on the competition and bring on the $299 MacMini!
Will someone again email this guy and correct him:
“By relying on its own proprietary copy-protection technology, Google threatens to compound the frustration that some consumers feel when they buy songs from one online source like the iTunes store, only to discover the music can’t be played on an incompatible gadget such as Creative Technologies’ Zen player. “
Frustration? What frustration? Frustration at not reading a help file, magazine, or clicking a button a few times.
Sweet Jesus. It’s easier than buying a CD at the store, putting on your Zen mps “player”, than it is to buy the music, rip a CD, then rip it back and dump into your Zen. ($3.00/gallon gas anyone???)
BC
I’m surprised the Open Source proponents haven’t launched a web crawler/search engine based on the open source philosophy. Google has web masters, ecommerce sites, etc. by the short and curlies.
Google’s practices are in fact too self serving more often than not. For example, when you do a search on Google you are not necessarily getting the most relevant result, just the ones that percolate to the top based on Googles proprietary algorithm. This algo is a well guarded Google secret. Wonder how their ad revenue business fits into their algo?
“By relying on its own proprietary copy-protection technology, Google threatens to compound the frustration that some consumers feel when they buy songs from one online source like the iTunes store, only to discover the music can’t be played on an incompatible gadget such as Creative Technologies’ Zen player. “
Those are the same type of people that bought a CD player and tried to cram their records in the front and wondering why they wouldn’t fit – You know it happens everyday that Apple Tech Support has to answer the call of some new mac switcher that is trying to install some windows program on their Mac and wondering why it won’t work…I’m sorry their is no cure for ignorance.
If Google wanted to be a real hard-nose about it they could develop software that would install on an iPod or WinMedia Video device, replacing the native software while allowing whatever content Google sells/allows.
This could work in a manner similar to the LINUX install that works on the iPod. It would piss Apple & Microsoft off, but they really could do little about it. No more than they can keep you from installing 3rd party apps on a desktop or laptop.
Dual boot or overwrite, Google could easily do this to any variety of devices. Follow the links to find out more.
http://ipodlinux.org/Main_Page
http://ipodlinux.sourceforge.net/index.shtml
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/feedback/linux_on_ipod/Linux_on_ipod_review.html
http://www.macworld.com/2005/05/secrets/julygeekfactor/index.php
http://ipodlinux.org/Podzilla
http://playlistmag.com/features/2005/03/linuxipod/index.php
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/developer/0,39020387,2119965,00.htm
http://linuxgazette.net/120/nirendra.html
http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS8241260316.html
I’m not saying it WILL happen, just that they easily could.
They’re just doing what they can. Maybe they’ll improve, maybe they won’t, maybe they just aren’t in a position to offer anything better. But you can’t fault them for trying.
I hope they DO improve, because they’re Mac-friendly, they’re not Microsoft, and because competition will only make Apple’s stuff better.
“Google has developed its own copy protection technology that so far prevents content owners from moving their video downloads to a mobile playing device.”
Oh yeah, this is going to go over big time. If there is anything that should have been learned from Apple’s iPod success, it’s that people want mobility. Of course, that is with their music. Running, walking, driving, riding, whatever. Whether or not that works for video is something that remains to be seen. I doubt it, but at the very least, I think most people are going to want the most basic right of being able to move it around their home or take it with them on trips.
” In instances where the content provider adopts Google’s copy protection scheme, watching a video sold through Google will require users to be online so they can log on and view it via the company’s video player.”
Oh yeah (again), consumers are going to love this, too. Remember how successful this concept made DIVX, Circuit City’s “alternate” DVD format?
“CBS and the NBA are among the content owners adopting Google’s copy protections.”
CBS I can understand, but the NBA???? Is piracy of sporting events that have already aired a major problem?
“By relying on its own proprietary copy-protection technology, Google threatens to compound the frustration that some consumers feel…”
I’d say that’s blinding obvious. However, one has to conclude that Google and the entertainment industries must think this viewpoint is totally without merit.
Will “they” never learn?
I personally see Google as the only true rival to apple’s innovation.
Google is a strong enemy… could become a strong asset (apple, are you listening?)
Video isn’t about how it gets to you, it’s about what content you can get for your setup. The ipod w/ video is an OK device. It is not entrenched in the market because it is relatively new and there is not that much content available for it. Whoever comes up w/ the best available content choice AND supports any personal multimedia player or even makes their own will win the battle. Winning the war will involve the best experience, selection, and price. Right now Apple has scored a single answered goal. With the instant paranoia of advertisers and writers the lack of content on itunes has allows other also-rans to score goals (albeit while the officials were looking at their own skates). Now Apple needs a go-ahead.
“Launched early last year, Google Video is the first open video marketplace where any video producer, large or small, can upload their content and distribute it for free or at a price. Video prices are set by the content provider with no minimum or maximum dollar-limit. Owners also have the choice to offer their content with or without copy protection – enabling them greater control over its distribution.
Additionally, content from Google Video can be viewed with a new player that can be downloaded for free from any playback page. It offers all the traditional playback options (play, pause, stop…) as well as a “thumbnail” navigation feature that enables users to browse through an entire video, or frames at a time, with a simple click of their mouse.
iPod and Sony Playstation Portable users will also be able to download and watch any non-copy-protected content from Google Video, and even get it specially optimized for playback on their devices. Google Video Store will be available throughout the world, however purchasing premium content in the Google Video Store will only be available in the U.S.”
http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/video_marketplace.html
Beware the Google!
Don’t worry about it not working on Macs. Sounds like we don’t want it anyway.
The company with the most to worry here is Microsoft.
They are having to compete on a level playing field with stronger rivals (Apple, Google, Real), with more established products (Media Centre is old, boring & limited portability vs the newness iPod/Google).
When there are a number of choices MS looses it’s shine as the ‘safe’ choice. Now Apple is considered the safe choice for songs, soaps and smoovies so the others are going to have to ‘try harder’ being second (like Avis).
I assume MS willl try their old trick of bundling their products with the OS to get customers by attrition rather than by excellence. But will the courts baulk at this?
Launched early last year, Google Video is the first open video marketplace where any video producer, large or small, can upload their content and distribute it for free or at a price.
—
Um.. video podcasts? Most people don’t have anything interesting to show total strangers.. besides awful homemade porn…
How is this better than a free video podcast?
Whacky DRM Wars said: “My wife would crap a brick”
If they are consistant and hard enough I might have a postion for her on my construction crew.
Doesn’t it make sense that:
Apple wants to sell ipods for one
and second, google wants visiters to their web site.
Why would google not totally support a product that, over the next year,
the video enabled ipod could see sales of ??? conservatively, 12 million. MIND you I’m not counting nano’s or shuffles, just video playing ‘pods.
as opposed to maybe 2 million PSP’s?
Even lower numbers when you consider other portable vid playing devices.
wouldn’t google want those ipod people? Will the nano play video this? Beuller, beuller? now we’re looking at, what, 15-20 million video enabled ‘pods?
I believe it’s more important apple sells hardware, ipod, than people going to the itunes store.
shoud have been a near perfect marriage, apple gets ipod money and we get a lot of google content.
MacDUDE,
I disagree with you, I don’t think Apple should stop OSX development because M$ has such a lead over them.
I’m glad Steve Jobs was “nutz” enough to go after a market where someone else owns 95%.