Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I love Apple but these are bad news.
The more competition there is the better products get for the end user! :mad:

and FAIL.

iphone needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.

ipad needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.

apple do stuff well and make good products because that's what the heck they frickin do!

they dont need anything to prod them on but their own imagination. companies that innovate by imitation because they got caught with their pants down arent about better products for end users. that's why their stuff sucked in the first place.
 
Bad news. I would love Google to make a nice music player, personally. I couldn't care less about buying music from their store as I prefer physical discs. Something with the speediness of foobar and a similar GUI to itunes without all the crap like Ping would be great. Itunes runs perfectly fine on my MBP but often crashes and takes 10 seconds to load up on my ThinkPad even with a SSD.
 
google should probably just give up on this and let amazon be the default music provider for android. I'm sure now that they have their amazon app store, amazon could easily expand that so it's the amazon music and app store for android with their whole cloud player app ecosystem. It's probably better that way anyway since google as company has ADD; they need to just focus on android core features and not get sidetracked trying to be a music/video store also. Google would probably keep an android music store in beta for years anyway. Let amazon fight with the music labels.
 
The title of this is bad. It sounds like the problem has to do with contract negotiations with record labels. This in fact means that google is having trouble getting its itunes store competitor off the ground.

Itunes is the application for playing media and the itunes store is the business for selling media through itunes.

Itunes began without any store for purchasing music. You do not need to go to the itunes store to use itunes. The application imports music from CDs. Other audio and movie files can be added without visiting the store.

The store is just a convenience.

I'm sure google can make a media player to compete with Apple's itunes. The title of this thread should refer to the store, not the application.

As for the store, I don't understand why the record labels do not just advertise their own stores for music. They sell DRM free music files on itunes so why not on their own sites? And why not on other sites? What is the big deal? If I buy an mp3 file from sony directly I can put it in itunes.

Amazon does this. They sell you digital music and you can choose to put it in itunes or whatever application you choose.

I imagine the real issue is with the movies which still have protection in the itunes store.

Still, the movie companies sell digital movie files outside of itunes for itunes. On DVDs for instance you can get a digital copy and use itunes or other applications to unlock the file. Why do the movie companies not just open a store front of their own for this?
 
Is the difference that Apple is more willing to talk to and play ball with the content providers? Is it that Google has "changing its demands"? Is it about technical concerns? Are the content provides trying to guess who the winning horse will be?

Or (my guess) is it all about the revenue sharing model?

If I had to guess Apple can force a better deal and force the record company to bend more to what they want and with Google the record companies have more power to force what they want onto google.
 
I love Apple but these are bad news.
The more competition there is the better products get for the end user! :mad:

I dislike it when people keep saying that line over and over. Does competition really make products better? Where's the truth in that? If it's truly the case, why do we still see half-baked consumer products for the end user?

If anything, I feel that there seldom really is a better product for us because of competition. A competing product with better specs does not necessarily result in a better product. And frankly, judging by the gadget industry, Apple's been releasing consumer-satisfied products left and right despite better (in specs) products being released by their competitors.

Okay. So did competition [from other manufacturers] make Apple release a better product? No. Because from how the Internet reacts, every other manufacturer outspecs Apple and Apple "overcharges for something you can get with much more for much less"

But Apple does release products to get with the times, however, I feel that Apple products don't need high-end specs to provide consumer satisfaction.

Besides, the iOS today looks the same as the iOS from the iPhone 1 but with upgrades. Did competition spur Apple into doing the upgrades? I doubt it. They seem to have their own idea of where to direct their OS. Honeycomb on the other hand looks and functions very differently from Froyo. That [design decision] instead seems to be driven by competition.
 
Not suprrising as the record labels are run by insane lunatics.

Steve Jobs is a wizard however, and has them all under a magical spell.

History will probably view his management of the record labels as one of his most amazing accomplishments.

It seems ridiculous that Google could not negotiate reasonable terms with the record labels, but again they are run by insane lunatics.
 
It's out of their core competency

Notice? They're "open." They have "principles." They're renegades, and they don't have anybody to negotiate, hard-nose, one-to-one, with the old-line companies. They really look down on them anyway. Google Books? They just went ahead and copied millions of them, and then looked around like little angels when the Authors and Publishers said, "No way!" Google TV? Nice idea, but very poor execution -- and no deals with networks or movie companies. So you have to search, a la Google, for previews of movies only. No Hulu. It seems like there's no licensing at all, except maybe Netflix, but then, Netflix goes everywhere.

This is the fundamental problem with Google. Nobody makes any money anywhere they go, except, well, Google.

Google, Apple and Amazon could just freaking buy the music industry.

I heard EMI is up for sale.

You're probably looking into the future.

Absolutely correct!

What I meant is that a competitor, that might stick around, would be a good thing for iTunes store users in terms of both pricing & usability. I don't have any particular beef with iTunes store - it is fine, but who knows what sort of improvements some decent competition might bring.

What about Amazon? Jobs made the big fuss about ending DRM, but he kept negotiating with the labels unsuccessfully, because he didn't want variable pricing either. So all the labels gave DRM-free tracks to Amazon. No DRM, but variable pricing. Jobs had to cave eventually.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sounds like the Record companies are being their typical stupid selves. Only reason Apple is really able to get away with it is because they are Apple. It is not the closed system part but because they are Apple. I bet if the record company could they would say F you to Apple and pull out. I also would not be surpised if they regreat now making a deal with them when iTunes first launched.

The record companies might not like the deal they struck with Apple but I bet they like the fact that they got that money still coming in. In this day and age were almost everyone pirates there music at least with iTunes some people are still buying music. Some money is better than no money.


Amazon on it cloud stuff just said F-You to the record company and Amazon has enough sells like Apple iTMS that they can force the music company to bend over and take it.

Without getting licensing in place before launch I can see this bitting Amazon in the ass just like what happen to Google with the Google TV. No wonder why Apple is still talking to record companies.

http://www.mobiledia.com/news/85569.html
 
What about Amazon? Jobs made the big fuss about ending DRM, but he kept negotiating with the labels unsuccessfully, because he didn't want variable pricing either. So all the labels gave DRM-free tracks to Amazon. No DRM, but variable pricing. Jobs had to cave eventually.

seamless is only good for so much with the DRM.

i buy more and more off Amazon to get the open format.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
and FAIL.

iphone needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.

ipad needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.

apple do stuff well and make good products because that's what the heck they frickin do!

they dont need anything to prod them on but their own imagination. companies that innovate by imitation because they got caught with their pants down arent about better products for end users. that's why their stuff sucked in the first place.

Yes and Palm smartphones and Blackberries never existed before the iPhone.
 
I am more curious how the labels are going to try to renegotiate contracts with Apple once Steve moves on.

I am not too sure Tim Cook or anyone of his pay grade is as tough as Steve is when it comes to these label execs.

Apple comes to the table with a well thought-out plan that includes objectives, time lines and incentives for the other party. They are not just being tough, they are looking at the proposal from both sides offering a win-win.

The record labels are greedy and Apple knows how to feed the greed by offering the record companies an additional source of revenue with the needed safeguards to quell the label's fears.

While Steve may be in on the big picture and will make cameo appearances during the negotiations, he's not the lead negotiator.

Apple is so successful because they are not focused on making their share holder happy for the immediate quarter. They are focused on long term success, so they can take their time during negotiations, can buy companies long before it's apparent what they will do with them. By the time they tip their hand it's too late for potential competitors to jump or board before the train leaves the station.

I wouldn't worry about Apple without Jobs, he has put together a lean and efficient corporate culture that can go operate long and profitably without him.
 
and FAIL.

iphone needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.

ipad needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.

apple do stuff well and make good products because that's what the heck they frickin do!

they dont need anything to prod them on but their own imagination. companies that innovate by imitation because they got caught with their pants down arent about better products for end users. that's why their stuff sucked in the first place.

I have to disagree a bit. Competition drives innovation, even at Apple. They are great at creating new products....but they need a little prod now and again. We would have continued to get incremental updates like the 3GS (where a compass was touted as a major new feature) if the Android didn't close the gap. The result, an iPhone 4 that was a major leap.

We all accept paying $150 for a Nano when Sansa was selling high quality MP3 players at a third of that 5 years ago.

Competition is good for the consumer. It results in innovation and downward pressure on prices.
 
Last edited:
Of course Google's going to have growing pains. It's new territory for them. They'll get it sorted out.

It's not only new territory, it's outside their core competency. Like Cisco selling cameras or Google selling phones.

Competition is good for the consumer. It results in innovation and downward pressure on prices.

If competition results in innovation, why has the Windows PC not evolved into something better. Lord knows that arena is packed with competition.

The downward pressure on prices actually inhibits innovation. R & D is the first thing to go when the pressure gets high. The focus becomes, "How can we make this cheaper?" Let that go on for a couple decades and you get such poorly made PCs that they are disposable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If competition results in innovation, why has the Windows PC not evolved into something better. Lord knows that arena is packed with competition.

The downward pressure on prices actually inhibits innovation. R & D is the first thing to go when the pressure gets high. The focus becomes, "How can we make this cheaper?" Let that go on for a couple decades and you get such poorly made PCs that they are disposable.

The market doesn't need the PC to evolve anymore. From a hardware perspective, most people could use hardware made 5 years ago to do the simple applications they use.

On the other hand, PC software has evolved where there has been a need and competition drives it.

Building things cheaper at the sake of cutting costs and innovation doesn't work. The american automobile industry is a living proof of that.
 
The market doesn't need the PC to evolve anymore. From a hardware perspective, most people could use hardware made 5 years ago to do the simple applications they use.

On the other hand, PC software has evolved where there has been a need and competition drives it.

Building things cheaper at the sake of cutting costs and innovation doesn't work. The american automobile industry is a living proof of that.

You are correct on the first part. Apple removed the need for most people to need a PC with the introduction of the Ipad.

99% of the junk from China wouldn't exist if you were correct on the last part.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.