Advertisement: Introducing the new iPod touch. Now with FaceTime, Retina display, HD video recording and Game Center. From $229. Buy Now.
“But Google locker subscribers would have the additional option of having their purchases transferred directly to their cloud-based account,” Christman reports. “And the company is seeking the right to provide each customer with the ability to listen to a full-track stream of every song once — as Lala.com did before it was acquired in December by Apple — after which the customer would be limited to a 30-second sample of that song.”
Christman reports, “Google is seeking an initial three-year licensing agreement from the labels for each territory it launches its music service, although sources say they don’t know where — or when — the service will be launched first. The final form of a Google music service is bound to change from this initial proposal, which the company has detailed in a term sheet and in meetings with label executives. Some sources say that Google’s proposals represent ‘a good start,” but others say they will meet plenty of resistance, particularly on issues of compensation.'”
Read more in the full article here.
Oh goodie, now the Google employee stalkers will know what I search for with Google Search, what places I’ve visited in Google Earth/Maps, what web sites I’ve visited in Chrome and now what music I listen too with Google Music.
There is even some weird script running on Google News, checks for Chrome perhaps?
Firefox with BetterPrivacy, NoScript, Ghostery and TrackMeNot, the only way to surf the net.
Welcome to 10 years ago google!
Make yourself a tinfoil hat. Cheaper and also protects you from the gumint spys.
Google…even better at “me too” than Microsoft? Time will tell…
Google does this, Google does that, Google does this, Google does that. I’m getting tired…..
Guess what their business strategy is….., if any.
It’s called ‘Do this do that’ approach to high tech business.
‘Do this do that’ might be better than ‘Do nothing’ U.S. Congress strategy.
Five of us in my family – thats $US125 per year every year. No thanks. That’s more money for the music I now buy and own without a yearly fee.
Maybe make it a $US10 per year fee.
Lala was a fantastic music service and its free, full track previews were one of the best things a music lover could have. Would I pay $25 a year for the opportunity to listen to entire albums from artist I have never heard of, just to see if I want to buy the full product in the end? Why yes, I would.
I discovered so much new music that way from Lala, I’m glad that there’s a company that sees it was a great feature.
Just because it doesn’t have the word “Apple” on it, doesn’t mean its bad. I was hoping when Apple aquired lala they would integrate all of lala’s features into iTunes, but it’s pretty clear they just wanted to kill a competitor. The lala iPhone app, which was awaiting approval, truly WAS an iTunes killer.
You would have had all your music in the cloud, including music you already owned on CD, you could listen to songs all the way through one time, then decide to purchase, and you could either buy an mp3 download from 79 cents to 99 cents, or purchase a “Web song”, which only played while online, for ten cents.
Web albums were about a dollar, while mp3 albums were often cheaper than iTunes. Lala also had a much more eclectic selection of music than iTunes.
No wonder they killed it. I love iTunes but as a music lover sometimes you want something that goes a bit deeper and gives you more options to discover and purchase music, and if Google is willing to step up and provide that experience I’m all for it.
I, too, am disappointed with what Apple has (or hasn’t) done with the Lala purchase. I was hoping for some new innovation in iTunes, but so far, it looks like a “buy out the competition” move.
Hopefully, time will prove that wrong, and Apple will indeed put some Lala into iTunes.
If you have a buy to own service, an artist can spend time to create good music and sell lots of copies, and maybe eve N make some money.
If you have a subscription service how much of your monthly fee goes to the artist with a few good songs, and how much goes to the artist with the most songs, of very low quality? There is no incentive to produce something good, just as longs as you produce lots of it.
When you divide the $25 per year across thousands of artists how much does each one actually get?
@rjcylon
Funny, I’ve discovered just as much music via Pandora + iTunes, and it hasn’t cost me a damned thing. If you can’t figure out whether a song is worth your while after a 30-second preview, then you are one picky listener. What are you afraid of, that maybe that 30 seconds is the only good part of the song?
And I have my entire music collection, all 2,671 songs of it, in my pocket, and backed up on an external hard drive, just the way I like it. “Stored on the cloud” means “someone else has your music”, and “you need the internet to listen to it”. Really convenient… until you find yourself without internet access or the cloud provider has service problems.
Consumers are pretty well saturated with digital listening options. At this point in time, a new option had better be earthshaking if it wants to gain traction. I just don’t see any huge need for “cloud storage” for music. For the vast majority of consumers, their entire music collection fits on their iPod, and they can take it with them wherever they go.
And as for paying a fee for unlimited access to music, that’s called the subscription option. If anyone wanted that, Rhapsody would have run Apple out of business ages ago.
——RM
Will the labels go along with this like they did with Amazon just to try to reduce iTunes power?
What! No annoyingly snarky comments from MDN?
The Google Hurt-Locker: After 3 years when the license renewal with music labels comes up, the labels will demand each song be charged at $1.69 or rescind the agreement, Google will balk, and your license for the music expires, and the locker is emptied. You lose everything just like the dead Yahoo music.
@LordRobin
Yes, I am a picky listener. That’s why I would pay $25 a year for the opportunity to sample a wide variety of music… ON DEMAND. And yes that’s called “a subscription”. And I’ve been subscribing to emusic.com since 2002, so it’s not something I am adverse to. It’s not as big as iTunes, but if you like independent artists, it often has a wider selection. Apple did not run emusic.com out of business ages ago.
But emusic, and this Google Service, are not a rhapsody-type subscription where you are “renting” the music. Basically with this new Google service you are paying a small annual fee to sample an entire album, with the option to purchase the entire track. It’s the best of both worlds. And for people who devour music like I do, it would be a big hit, just like lala was.
Apple didn’t buy lala because no one liked using it. They bought it because it was such a great music experience it was competing with their dominance of the industry. If I hear a song on public radio and I want to hear it again, or a specific album I read about on pitchfork, lala let me do it immediately. That’s why I miss it so much.
30 second previews don’t even give you a hint of what a song sounds like, especially if it’s a 10 minute house track or film score.
As far as Pandora, I listen to it all the time on my iPhone. It’s a great radio station app. What it is not is an instant gratification, on-Demand app that lets you listen to specific songs, like lala, or this new Google service.
Are people against this just because it’s not Apple? Who cares who makes what as long as its a great product or service.
I don’t trust Google with my music collection. I rather store them on my own Apple laptop and backups rather than to find out one day that Google has hijacked my music collection and hold them for ransom.
Plays…for…sure… Until it doesn’t.
I am not a “cloud guy” at this point. And I also reserve a healthy distrust for any company who wants to consolidate my data on their servers. My distrust of Microsoft in this situation would verge on a phobia (no longer healthy, but certainly warranted). My distrust of Google would be quite strong. My distrust of Apple, at this point, would be along the lines of “stay vigilant.”
And then Apple will come out with the same service for free!
Buh bye, Google!
I think Google is a company with an identity crisis. Maybe because all the different engineers they have hired over the years. They should focus on search and ads and stop wasting share holders money on shit like this.