Google Launches Free Scan and Match Music Service to Compete With Apple and Amazon

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by LagunaSol

I doubt they ever originally intended getting into the app and music sales business, until they saw what Apple was doing with it.


This is not factual statement, I don't believe it, I've never said it. It's a lie.

Explain what Fully Funded means.

And I am sure Google had every intention of getting into apps, movies, music, etc because an ecosystem is what it is all about. No ecosystem = no loyalty.

[milo]

Originally Posted by samcraig

Explain what Fully Funded means.

The post you linked uses that term to describe Android, not Google.

[dalbir4444]

Originally Posted by milo

And if that's the case, his math is off by a factor of a thousand.

How so?
0.04 * $37B = $1.8B = $1,800,000,000

[LagunaSol]

Originally Posted by samcraig

Explain what Fully Funded means.

iOS is fully funded by hardware sales. Does Apple make money on ads and app sales? Sure. A pittance.

The bottom line is this:

Apple funds its mobile OS development - and bases its profit plan - on hardware sales.

Google funds its mobile OS development - and bases its profit plan - on advertising.

You can split hairs and twist words and dig up old posts all you'd like, but this is the simple truth. That's all I have to say on this topic.

Have a Google day!

[uknowimright]

Originally Posted by milo

And if that's the case, his math is off by a factor of a thousand.

lol what?

[dalbir4444]

Originally Posted by LagunaSol

iOS is fully funded by hardware sales. Does Apple make money on ads and app sales? Sure. A pittance.

The bottom line is this:

Apple funds its mobile OS development - and bases its profit plan - on hardware sales.

Google funds its mobile OS development - and bases its profit plan - on advertising.

You can split hairs and twist words and dig up old posts all you'd like, but this is the simple truth. That's all I have to say on this topic.

Have a Google day!

You are the one twisting words. The question was fully funded. Anyways, I think this topic's gone on long enough and you're not about to admit that you were wrong.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by dalbir4444

Come on guys, he's saying that advertising is NOT THE ONLY source of their revenue. He never said it's a major portion.

Absolutely. The problem is that he's arguing a point that nobody is disagreeing with.

Originally Posted by dalbir4444

You are the one twisting words. The question was fully funded. Anyways, I think this topic's gone on long enough and you're not about to admit that you were wrong.

As pointed out earlier, samcraig's initial statement was: "It has been said that all of Google's revenue comes from Ads. LagunaSol for one says it repeatedly."

The quote from LagunaSol was about Android, so regardless of whether you want to force a strict definition of "fully funded", the initial statement was still wrong.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by LagunaSol

iOS is fully funded by hardware sales. Does Apple make money on ads and app sales? Sure. A pittance.

The bottom line is this:

Apple funds its mobile OS development - and bases its profit plan - on hardware sales.

Google funds its mobile OS development - and bases its profit plan - on advertising.

You can split hairs and twist words and dig up old posts all you'd like, but this is the simple truth. That's all I have to say on this topic.

Have a Google day!

The word you mean to use then is mostly as in mostly funded. Fully funded is not accurate

[SlCKB0Y]

Originally Posted by LagunaSol

How many people actually know about this or do it?

Well presumably most people don't even care about it. For those that do care and are motivated to do something about it, that information was a simple Google search away and was the first result.

[SlCKB0Y]

Originally Posted by dBeats

If Google's system takes off, I'm sure the Labels will cry foul about lost revenue and then we'll see what happens. For now it seems the labels think getting the lump sum up front is a good deal, meaning they don't have much faith in the long term income potential like they do with iTunes Match.

How could you possibly deduce that to be the case? How do you even know that the upfront payment model wasn't Google's stipulation?

And even if you're right, who really cares about what the Music industry thinks in terms of technology in music since they pretty much had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century with digital Music? Those people have absolutely no vision regarding digital music delivery mechanisms and are complete luddites.

These same people whose opinion you seem to care about so much previously considered that the internet would be the downfall of the music industry, and now, less than a decade after it's release, iTunes is the worlds most popular music vendor.

[phpmaven]

Originally Posted by BigHonkingDeal

Just checked.... They are m4p files. Can you give me a hint how to convert them to MP3?

Thanks!

create mp3

[Mike Valmike]

Originally Posted by samcraig

The word you mean to use then is mostly as in mostly funded. Fully funded is not accurate

It's accurate enough. It characterizes the situation in a manner consistent with the facts, where arguing the opposite (as you are doing) misleads.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by Mike Valmike

It's accurate enough. It characterizes the situation in a manner consistent with the facts, where arguing the opposite (as you are doing) misleads.

Maybe for you. I prefer full disclosure of the truth. Not somebody's "interpretation." Sort of like saying someone is "a little" pregnant Or condoms are completely effective

[SlCKB0Y]

Originally Posted by LagunaSol

Their revenues from online advertising funds the development of Android (which, BTW, operates at a loss).

Do you have a source for this? I'm pretty sure Google makes enough money from Android ecosystem sales and licensing Gapps (Gmail, Google play, Maps, Youtube etc) to vendors to cover development costs of Android.

[SlCKB0Y]

Originally Posted by LagunaSol

Google funds its mobile OS development ... on advertising.

Source? And what proportion of Android development costs come from advertising rather than ecosystem revenue and gapps licensing?

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by SlCKB0Y

Source? And what proportion of Android development costs come from advertising rather than ecosystem revenue and gapps licensing?

This is my point exactly. LagunaSol tells me that I can't let truth get in the way...

And yet - he states things like Android is fully funded by advertising. If Google has more than one revenue stream - no matter how small and no matter if you think it's splitting hairs or not - the TRUTH is - it is not FULLY funded. It might be majorly funded or almost entirely funded. But not FULLY.

We're ready to go into full production with our new product, sir
So we received full funding from our investors? We don't have to use any of our own funds?
Yes. We are fully funded.
We have the 1,000,000 needed then - we don't have to use any of our savings? That 1,000,00 came from our investors?
Well - we have $960,000 - but that's just as good as fully funded. You can just round up...


But I digress...

[oplix]

Does google actually come up with any of it's own ideas for products or is it copy/paste on a endless macro?

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by oplix

Does google actually come up with any of it's own ideas for products or is it copy/paste on a endless macro?

Google is the new Microsoft amongst the more hardcore Apple fans these days, it seems.

Hey guys! You know competitor X? I hate them so much for all their copying!

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

Google is the new Microsoft amongst the more hardcore Apple fans these days, it seems.

Hey guys! You know competitor X? I hate them so much for all their copying!

You know who copies the most? Canon, Konica, Brother - man - those copiers are nuts!

[sazivad]

Originally Posted by samcraig

…you can opt out [of Google web search history].

I know I did.

But, I'm sure there are those who didn't opt out because they don't know web search history exists, and if they ever found out about it would go ballistic about evil companies trying to sell our data.

For no reason.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by samcraig

You know who copies the most? Canon, Konica, Brother - man - those copiers are nuts!

I see what you did there.

[bluespark]

Originally Posted by dalbir4444

IMO you're wrong. Unless you have something which could change my mind.

In your opinion? It's a matter of fact that AAC is non-proprietary, and it's supported by numerous players and devices from many manufacturers. Changing your mind is irrelevant when you would assert opinion as a response to verifiable fact, but you still might wish to read a bit. Here's this, for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

[dalbir4444]

Originally Posted by bluespark

In your opinion? It's a matter of fact that AAC is non-proprietary, and it's supported by numerous players and devices from many manufacturers. Changing your mind is irrelevant when you would assert opinion as a response to verifiable fact, but you still might wish to read a bit. Here's this, for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

I was referring to the bottom portion of the quote. You should have read the post right after the one you quoted.

[Snowy_River]

Originally Posted by AppliedMicro

Granted, it's not vendor-specific (really made a mistake thinking that).
But there are enough players without support for AAC, with the Sandisk Sansa Clip/Clip+ line being notable examples that are still being sold. For a small, inexpensive player, they are really good ones (audio quality is much better than the iPod shuffle, and at least on par with the iPod touch).

But I might consider switching to AAC - even tough open source (Rockbox!) support is - unfortunately - limited in some areas.

Huh. I didn't know that. As I said, every player I've checked in recent times, including basic players built into feature-phones, have all had AAC support. I remember when I discovered that my old car stereo, with its big selling point of supporting MP3 disks, turned out not to support AAC, I was mildly annoyed. However, the AUX Input allowed me to connect my iPod well enough. Now, just recently, I had occasion to go and buy a new car stereo, and I specifically asked about that, and was told that there was not a stereo in the store that didn't support AAC now. So, while my information was incomplete, from my sampling it does seem that the vast majority of players do now support AAC format... FWIW...

[dBeats]

Originally Posted by SlCKB0Y

And even if you're right, who really cares about what the Music industry thinks in terms of technology in music since they pretty much had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century with digital Music? Those people have absolutely no vision regarding digital music delivery mechanisms and are complete luddites.

This is kind of the problem though isn't it? The reason iTunes worked was that the deal has to care about them while coming up with a solution for digital delivery. It's like telling your local grocery that since they don't offer "Pea Pod" delivery, your just going to steal their stuff instead.