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

[dBeats]

Yeah, but that's what he implied.

I didn't imply it, I just wondered. After reading the links, it appears Google is giving the labels an upfront payment for an undisclosed amount. I also noticed you can't actually download your music once it's matched. (I think, I'm not implying it ) So the 320kbps version is never on your system. At least iTunes match allows me to upgrade my music and keep it. I could end iTunes Match right now and still have all my 256kbps AACs forever.

It's the fundamental difference between iTunes and almost any other system. In the end I OWN my music and I don't have to worry about it one day disappearing on me due to change of T&Cs, or a change of mind.

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.

 

[samcraig]

I didn't imply it, I just wondered. After reading the links, it appears Google is giving the labels an upfront payment for an undisclosed amount. I also noticed you can't actually download your music once it's matched. (I think, I'm not implying it ) So the 320kbps version is never on your system. At least iTunes match allows me to upgrade my music and keep it. I could end iTunes Match right now and still have all my 256kbps AACs forever.

It's the fundamental difference between iTunes and almost any other system. In the end I OWN my music and I don't have to worry about it one day disappearing on me due to change of T&Cs, or a change of mind.

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.

Apple's match might be better if that's what you're after. Personally- I am OK with only being able to download what I've uploaded (vs a clean higher bitrate version). Afterall - my library is legit and I scanned it in at the bitrate I wanted to begin with.

 

[BaldiMac]

And in 2012 I guess we'll see. Whether it's $1 or 4% or somewhere inbetween. The fact remains - Google does not soley make their money off advertising.

As if that difference mattered to the point he was making.

 

[samcraig]

As if that difference mattered to the point he was making.

It matters. And I know you put a smiley face there. But we both like factual information. And the fact is - Google does not get 100 percent of their revenue from Ads.

 

[Spungoflex]

iTunes Match has worked flawlessly for me. I'd be interested to know what issues others are having.

It doesn't match a ******** of songs. That is far from "flawless".

 

[BaldiMac]

And the fact is - Google does not get 100 percent of their revenue from Ads.

Nobody claimed they did. Consider it a rounding error.

The point is that Google and Apple do have different motivations regarding your personal data. Apple's primary interest in your data is to improve their products. For the most part, their motivations are aligned with the consumer. Building trust and increasing the quality of the service sells more products.

Google also has that same interest. However, Google also has interest in your personal data to drive 96% of their revenues through advertising. These interests are not always going to align with the consumer. Google does a great job, in my opinion, of giving users access and control of their data, but they are going to "get right up to the creepy line and not cross it." (Eric Schmidt).

I think a good example of how the difference in motivations plays out in a subtle manner is the difference between "opt in" (Apple) and "opt out" (Google) when it comes to third-party tracking cookies in a browser.

 

[samcraig]

It's not a rounding error. It's factually incorrect. Hyperbole. And FUD. It has been said that all of Google's revenue comes from Ads. LagunaSol for one says it repeatedly.

Do you have proof that Apple's primary interest in our data is to improve their products? Because that's what they say?

As for the rest - I agree somewhat. Google has gotten better at changing defaults though. I'd say much better than Facebook. But that's another company with a whole other data mining agenda

Nobody claimed they did. Consider it a rounding error.

The point is that Google and Apple do have different motivations regarding your personal data. Apple's primary interest in your data is to improve their products. For the most part, their motivations are aligned with the consumer. Building trust and increasing the quality of the service sells more products.

Google also has that same interest. However, Google also has interest in your personal data to drive 96% of their revenues through advertising. These interests are not always going to align with the consumer. Google does a great job, in my opinion, of giving users access and control of their data, but they are going to "get right up to the creepy line and not cross it." (Eric Schmidt).

I think a good example of how the difference in motivations plays out in a subtle manner is the difference between "opt in" (Apple) and "opt out" (Google) when it comes to third-party tracking cookies in a browser.

 

[BaldiMac]

It's not a rounding error. It's factually incorrect. Hyperbole. And FUD. It has been said that all of Google's revenue comes from Ads. LagunaSol for one says it repeatedly.

Wow. So now you are arguing against someone in another thread. Again, 96% can reasonably be rounded to 100%. And the difference doesn't change the point.

Heck, that's revenue. I wouldn't be surprised if an even higher proportion of their profits came from advertising. Close to 100% even.

Do you have proof that Apple's primary interest in our data is to improve their products? Because that's what they say?

Just logic. They want to sell products, not ads. No evidence to support the idea that they are making significant amounts selling our information or ads.

 

[Risco]

Well I will keep both, as I prefer Apples encoding to mp3. Also should help get my uploaded stuff matched with iTunes Match after reading a post on here.

 

[samcraig]

Wow. So now you are arguing against someone in another thread. Again, 96% can reasonably be rounded to 100%. And the difference doesn't change the point.

Heck, that's revenue. I wouldn't be surprised if an even higher proportion of their profits came from advertising. Close to 100% even.

Just logic. They want to sell products, not ads. No evidence to support the idea that they are making significant amounts selling our information or ads.

"They get their profits from somewhere (and they are doing pretty well for themselves I might add) - they get them from advertising and information they gather from their user base."

jrswizzle had no idea Google offered paid services. He admitted it. His statement (and his belief based on his replies) was that Google's revenue was from advertising only.

I figured you read that statement/exchange. Either you didn't or you're "rounding up." I threw LagunaSol in there because you stated "Nobody claimed they did." You didn't say in this thread. Nobody is hyperbole. And he's not the only one that's said that.

96% can't just be rounded up when you are trying to state something is solely funded by X. Maybe you want to throw some important factual information under the rug - but I prefer to keep things above board when discussing these things. I'm pretty sure the folks at Google who work on business accounts would prefer that their contributions to revenue are counted and not just "rounded up"

And finally - you're entitled to your opinion re: Apple. But that's all it is. It's not fact. You really don't know what Apple's motives were, are or will be. As you said - there's no evidence. No evidence they are. No evidence there is not.

And of course they aren't making a ton selling your information because of Ads (at least) given that iAds is doing poorly. But they invested enough in the program to suggest (i.e. evidence) that they would have LOVED to have made it a significant revenue source.

 

[Oletros]

It's a streaming service. Unless you're on LTE and unlimited data plan I would imagine your experience will be very unsatisfactory (certainly in large parts of Europe where LTE is still immature)

Exactly it is not only a streaming service, you can sync the song for offline use

 

[uknowimright]

$1,516,200,000.00 is too big of a number to just discredit it by rounding up

 

[BaldiMac]

"They get their profits from somewhere (and they are doing pretty well for themselves I might add) - they get them from advertising and information they gather from their user base."

jrswizzle had no idea Google offered paid services. He admitted it. His statement (and his belief based on his replies) was that Google's revenue was from advertising only.

I figured you read that statement/exchange. Either you didn't or you're "rounding up." I threw LagunaSol in there because you stated "Nobody claimed they did." You didn't say in this thread. Nobody is hyperbole. And he's not the only one that's said that.

And yet, nowhere in your quote did jrswizzle say 100% of their revenues come from ads. Strange.

96% can't just be rounded up when you are trying to state something is solely funded by X. Maybe you want to throw some important factual information under the rug - but I prefer to keep things above board when discussing these things. I'm pretty sure the folks at Google who work on business accounts would prefer that their contributions to revenue are counted and not just "rounded up"

I think what you are doing is arguing an irrelevant factual discrepancy to cloud the point.

And finally - you're entitled to your opinion re: Apple. But that's all it is. It's not fact. You really don't know what Apple's motives were, are or will be. As you said - there's no evidence. No evidence they are. No evidence there is not.

No evidence? Look at their financials! Google's revenues and profits are driven by advertising. Apple's are driven by hardware sales. It's not a great leap to come to the conclusion that I did.

Then we have the decisions Apple has made. Making third-party cookies opt in. Not sharing information with publishers for subscription magazine apps. Not wanting to give Google access to more personal data through the default maps app. Limiting information collected by third-party advertisers on iOS.

And of course they aren't making a ton selling your information because of Ads (at least) given that iAds is doing poorly. But they invested enough in the program to suggest (i.e. evidence) that they would have LOVED to have made it a significant revenue source.

Speaking of lack of evidence. I think looking at Apple's track record, it's reasonable to assume that they would be operating iAds much like they do the iTunes Store. A bit over break even. A way to support developers, so they continue making great apps. That way, Apple can sell more hardware.

 

[milo]

"They get their profits from somewhere (and they are doing pretty well for themselves I might add) - they get them from advertising and information they gather from their user base."

He didn't say they got 100% of their profits from ads, and neither has anyone else, that's a strawman argument. And he's right, Google's business model for the most part is advertising and it is where they make the vast majority of their money. If anything, finding the specific number that 96% comes from ads doesn't contradict his point but backs it up.

And if someone did say that they make 100% from ads in another thread, dispute it in that thread. In this one it's disputing a statement nobody has made.

$1,516,200,000.00 is too big of a number to just discredit it by rounding up

What does that number refer to?

 

[LagunaSol]

It's not a rounding error. It's factually incorrect. Hyperbole. And FUD. It has been said that all of Google's revenue comes from Ads. LagunaSol for one says it repeatedly.

I would appreciate it if you didn't make up stuff I never said. Google is an advertising-based company. That doesn't mean (nor have I ever said) they don't make some money in other areas as well, like Google Docs, Sketchup Pro, selling apps and music in Google Play, etc.

You don't need to lie about other commenters to argue your point.

 

[samcraig]

And yet, nowhere in your quote did jrswizzle say 100% of their revenues come from ads. Strange.

I think what you are doing is arguing an irrelevant factual discrepancy to cloud the point.

No evidence? Look at their financials! Google's revenues and profits are driven by advertising. Apple's are driven by hardware sales. It's not a great leap to come to the conclusion that I did.

Then we have the decisions Apple has made. Making third-party cookies opt in. Not sharing information with publishers for subscription magazine apps. Not wanting to give Google access to more personal data through the default maps app. Limiting information collected by third-party advertisers on iOS.

Apple cares about protecting its revenue source. It's less about protecting our data. It's about not making it possible for others to steal Apple's revenue stream away from it. That's why they don't give or want to give our info to publishers. That's why they insist on the subscriber model they do. Do you really think that's all because Apple care so much about its customers in terms of their privacy no? They care about your $ going to them, not to someone else.

jrswizzle didn't say that verbatim. It's what he implied. It's what he, for all intent and purposes, confirmed by stating he had no idea Google had other revenue streams.

He didn't say they got 100% of their profits from ads, and neither has anyone else, that's a strawman argument. And he's right, Google's business model for the most part is advertising and it is where they make the vast majority of their money. If anything, finding the specific number that 96% comes from ads doesn't contradict his point but backs it up.

And if someone did say that they make 100% from ads in another thread, dispute it in that thread. In this one it's disputing a statement nobody has made.

What does that number refer to?

4% of 37.xB in revenue I'm assuming

And there's no need for you to play forum cop. I brought it up because, again, BaldiMac said no one has said that. Perhaps he meant no one in this thread. Perhaps not. I have no idea. I responded with a proof point that he was erroneous.

And I didn't say profits either. We're talking revenue.

I don't know why I'm surprised that some people don't read full threads and/or respond to posts taking into consideration the direction of the discussion as opposed to posting as if a single post was in a vacuum.

 

[LagunaSol]

And yet, nowhere in your quote did jrswizzle say 100% of their revenues come from ads. Strange.

Nor have I ever said so. Apparently samcraig can't let a little thing like truth get in the way of Android proselyting.

 

[samcraig]

I would appreciate it if you didn't make up stuff I never said. Google is an advertising-based company. That doesn't mean (nor have I ever said) they don't make some money in other areas as well, like Google Docs, Sketchup Pro, selling apps and music in Google Play, etc.

You don't need to lie about other commenters to argue your point.

Oh really?

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/16484810/

ETA: Explain "fully funded" to me please.

 

[LagunaSol]

I don't know why I'm surprised that some people don't read full threads and/or respond to posts taking into consideration the direction of the discussion as opposed to posting as if a single post was in a vacuum.

About as surprising as you attributing things to others that they never said.

And there's no need for you to play forum cop.

Apparently someone needs to if you're going to continue pumping out baloney.

----------

Oh really?

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/16484810/

ETA: Explain "fully funded" to me please.

Google is an advertising-based company. Their revenues from online advertising funds the development of Android (which, BTW, operates at a loss). What they take in from other sources is trivial as to be inconsequential.

Google intends to recoup this loss via online advertising. App & music sales will almost be a wash.

Why are people so ignorant about Google's business model? Everyone knows what it is, but the diehard Android fans can't bring themselves to admit it.

 

[samcraig]

Google is an advertising-based company. Their revenues from online advertising funds the development of Android (which, BTW, operates at a loss). What they take in from other sources is trivial as to be inconsequential.

Google intends to recoup this loss via online advertising. App & music sales will almost be a wash.

Why are people so ignorant about Google's business model? Everyone knows what it is, but the diehard Android fans can't bring themselves to admit it.

I never argued that they aren't advertising based. I am refuting your statement that Android is fully funded by advertising. And I'm refuting that Google ONLY makes money via advertising.

You agree that Google makes revenue on media sales and corporate accounts but still assert that Android and Google is fully funded by advertising? You don't see the contradiction there? Really?

People aren't ignorant about Google's business model. People like you just can bring themselves to admit that you're statement isn't an accurate one.

Do yourself a favor. In the future - state that most of Google's revenue is from advertising. Or even nearly all of Google's profit/revenue comes from advertising.

But the second you imply/state that Google is fully funded by advertising, it is YOU who is lying.

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple cares about protecting its revenue source. It's less about protecting our data. It's about not making it possible for others to steal Apple's revenue stream away from it. That's why they don't give or want to give our info to publishers. That's why they insist on the subscriber model they do. Do you really think that's all because Apple care so much about its customers in terms of their privacy no? They care about your $ going to them, not to someone else.

Exactly my point. Their interests regarding their customer's personal data align more with the customers. I never implied it was out of benevolence.

----------

And I'm refuting that Google ONLY makes money via advertising.

Any evidence that Google makes any significant profits outside of advertising?

 

[dalbir4444]

Exactly my point. Their interests regarding their customer's personal data align more with the customers. I never implied it was out of benevolence.

----------



Any evidence that Google makes any significant profits outside of advertising?

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

 

[LagunaSol]

I am refuting your statement that Android is fully funded by advertising.

No, you implied that I said Google only makes money from advertising. It's not true, and I never said it.

And I'm refuting that Google ONLY makes money via advertising.

I don't know who you're refuting this with, because I never said it.

You agree that Google makes revenue on media sales and corporate accounts but still assert that Android and Google is fully funded by advertising?

Absolutely. The purpose of Android since Day One is to get Google's ad-based services into as many consumers hands' as possible. Android is not about selling more Google Docs subscriptions or more copies of Sketchup Pro. Period.

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

Do yourself a favor. In the future - state that most of Google's revenue is from advertising. Or even nearly all of Google's profit/revenue comes from advertising.

I don't need to state this - it's a known fact.

Do yourself a favor and don't misrepresent what other commenters say or think.

But the second you imply/state that Google is fully funded by advertising, it is YOU who is lying.

As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again." I said Android, I did not say Google.

This is exactly what you said:

It has been said that all of Google's revenue comes from Ads. LagunaSol for one says it repeatedly.

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

 

[dalbir4444]

No, you implied that I said Google only makes money from advertising. It's not true, and I never said it.

What does fully funded mean to you?

 

[milo]

It's what he implied.

So all this argument over something nobody actually said? Let it go already.

4% of 37.xB in revenue I'm assuming

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

I brought it up because, again, BaldiMac said no one has said that. Perhaps he meant no one in this thread. Perhaps not. I have no idea. I responded with a proof point that he was erroneous.

And BaldiMac was right, nobody has said that, at least not in this thread. If someone has said it elsewhere, people reading this thread don't know about it. I'm not playing forum cop, I'm just pointing out that responding to a post in the same thread makes sense while responding to it in a different thread makes the person responding look like an idiot.

And I didn't say profits either. We're talking revenue.

True, I should have said revenue...but nobody has said they get 100% of revenue from ads either. The point still stands.

I don't know why I'm surprised that some people don't read full threads and/or respond to posts taking into consideration the direction of the discussion as opposed to posting as if a single post was in a vacuum.

People have read the full thread and rightly pointed out that nowhere in this thread has anyone said "100% of revenue from ads".

So enlighten us, since you're the expert on The Full Thread, quote the post where someone says "100% of revenue from ads".

I'm refuting that Google ONLY makes money via advertising.

Which nobody has said. You're arguing with nobody (yourself?).