Peter Kafka

Recent Posts by Peter Kafka

Google Launching Its Cloud Service Tomorrow, Without Big Music's Approval

You’ve seen Amazon’s cloud music service. Now get ready for Google’s music service.

They’re going to look pretty similar.

Google is preparing to show off a new music service at tomorrow’s I/O conference. And like Amazon’s launch earlier this year, the company is doing it without the approval of the major music labels and publishers.

Google Music will roughly mirror what Amazon showed off in March: A service that loads copies of music that users already own into an Internet-based server, which lets them stream the songs over the Web and onto Android phones and tablets. The Wall Street Journal first reported on Google’s plans.

Google had originally planned a more robust version of the concept, which it was going to introduce with cooperation from the labels. But as I reported last month, talks between Google and the labels, which started a year ago, have hit an impasse, and Google has apparently decided that it would rather launch a reduced version of a music service than none at all.

“Unfortunately, a couple of the major labels were less focused on the innovative vision that we put forward, and more interested in an unreasonable and unsustainable set of business terms,” says Jamie Rosenberg, who oversees digital content and strategy for Google’s Android platform.

The lack of licenses means that Google’s music service won’t have at least one thing that Amazon already has: The ability to sell songs to consumers. On the other hand, Rosenberg says that his service will have features that Amazon doesn’t, including a service that automatically creates playlists for users.

And at least initially, Google’s offering will have more free storage than Amazon does: The service–which rolls out in an invite-only beta tomorrow–will offer users the ability to store up to 20,000 songs without charge. Amazon’s service launched with 5 gigabytes of free storage, or the rough equivalent of about 2,000 songs, though it offered users the chance to upgrade to 20 gigabytes for a nominal fee.

Rosenberg says he expects Google Music to roll out to all U.S. Google users within weeks of launch. He wouldn’t offer specifics about future pricing plans, and said they might depend on the reception of the product’s launch. “I think we’re honestly going to learn from the beta experience, and think about opportunities for the long-term model,” he said.

But Rosenberg suggested that Google Music was designed to be at least partially free. “I think as Google typically does, I think the free aspect will continue to be very generous,” he said.

Meanwhile Apple is working on its own version of the same concept, but Steve Jobs and company seem to be having better luck with the labels than their counterparts. As of late April, Apple had signed on two of the four major music labels to a new licensing pact. Some music label executives expect to see a service launch next month.


comments so far. Add yours.

  • http://www.facebook.com/arelwani Ashok Relwani

    Just a niche cloud service for the Android users, nothing else, nothing more. And more expense to GOOG with no offsetting revenues. margin Eroooooooooooosion

  • Anonymous

    Shareholder to Larry Page: “Show Me the Money!”

  • Anonymous

    I seriously doubt this will be niche. Being able to upload 20,000 songs for free is a huge benefit mostly to pirates and the few music buffs who legitimately purchased their music.

    The labels must be fuming over this.

  • http://twitter.com/googleamonopoly googlemonopolyeu

    ” the major labels were … more interested in in an unreasonable and unsustainable set of business terms”

    “I think as Google typically does, I think the free aspect will continue to be very generous”

    Let’s see, music labels sell music for money. That’s how they make their money. Google calls their terms unreasonable and unsustainable.

    It contrasts itself to the labels by saying we generously give free.

    Well, free yields no income.

    So Google has to go make it’s money by dealing in slimy crap advertising, which it has massively discounted and devalued and dragged that industry down too.

    The only company with an unreasonable and unsustainable set of business terms is Google. Let’s see how much traffic would be lost from YouTube if pirated content was completely removed (over 50%), let’s see how many AdSense dollars would evaporate if Google was forced to clean up stolen content in search.

    If Google wants to make the rules with other people’s content it has three choices:
    1. Pay the asking price presented by the content company
    2. Purchase such content company (which Google continues to try to do)
    3. Continue stealing and devaluing others content and hide behind legal mumbo jumbo.

    Obviously, #1 is the most ethical thing to do and #3 is the least ethical.

  • https://profiles.google.com/bozidar Bozster

    LOL at “niche” comment.. You do realize there’s nothing niche about Android or anything that Google does..

    Just like Android raped iOS in a super short time, this and Amazon type services will kill iTunes idiotic model.

  • http://www.missionalcommunityoutreach.org/ Karl Kelso

    Google seems to be on a role. First jumping out there with Google TV and now with this media cloud storage. They unfortunately have the misconceived notion that just because they build it and that they are “Google”, then all the content providers will automatically jump on board. Just because Google wants to innovate for the consumer does not mean that studios are going to give up control over their content. If Google is not careful they will make enemies out of all of the music and video content providers and end up with nothing to give away free.

  • http://profiles.google.com/lukeplatimer Luke Latimer

    Labels are Content providers?? Are you kidding me? They rob artists day in day out and their terms are completely unreasonable because they are desperately holding onto a corpse called a business model while the rest of the world is trying to find a way to pay artists what they deserve

  • http://www.khaledscorner.com ????

    can’t wait to try it

  • Anonymous

    As sad as this may seem, i predict that this service will never leave the U.S. Shores. Much like Google voice :/

  • http://twitter.com/pablo069eh Paul of Waratah

    Who wants cloud? …soon there will be ads with the cloud! I’ll bet in the future, I’ll have to listen to ads to hear my own playlist…just like FM radio!
    Google /Amazon have to make $$$$ somehow!I store my music on my Mac as AAC files at 256 kbps and re Amazon ~ 5 GB will not enable 2000 songs stored. More like 500-550! Why I have 2600 files on my iPhone, and a lot of those are classical and or /jazz, taking up over 15-18mb a song!

  • http://profiles.google.com/sorin.gears Sorin Lascu

    This might work out. No one in their right mind pays for music, not at the current tariffs anyway. iTunes is at least a step in the right direction by letting me choose what tracks I want instead of paying for shit I don’t like, but still the prices could use a drop.

  • http://www.myvouchercodes.co.uk online shopping uk

    Next thing coming is probably free apps streamed to your devices…?
    Free Google versus privileged Apple, warfare of the Internet age…

  • http://ARMdevices.net/ Charbax

    Wow 20’000 free music uploads, genius. That can be as much as 40GB if each song is 2mb. Google doesn’t need to store more than one copy of each song. I think Google should screw the labels and do as Mp3.com tried to do 10 years ago, make it a platform for independent artists, $3-5 per month for unlimited music streaming. Give 100% of that money to the artists directly.

  • http://www.tptbh.com/ NO-OK.com TheOn.it MsnOn.it

    who will win the online music battle? Apple? Google? Amazon?

  • http://www.about.me/liamdaly Liam

    Hope it is not just US only

  • http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/ PKafka

    Google will store a copy of every song uploaded from every user. That’s how both Google and Amazon are able to give themselves legal breathing room – they can argue that they’re simply acting as an external hard drive.

  • http://rustb.lt The Rust Belt

    Troll harder.

  • http://rustb.lt The Rust Belt

    I think this should be the other way around. Music labels should pay Google and Amazon for innovating in areas labels should but are unwilling to.

  • Anonymous

    Google calls their terms unreasonable and unsustainable.

    They probably were. Look at the history of Pandora, for example. Their royalty requirements were so high that the service was unprofitable for several years.

    Let’s see how much traffic would be lost from YouTube if pirated
    content was completely removed (over 50%), let’s see how many AdSense
    dollars would evaporate if Google was forced to clean up stolen content
    in search.

    Google doesn’t have a magic wand that they can wave and delete all pirated material. As is, they make it very easy to file DMCA claims on stuff that shows up on Youtube.

  • http://www.bodhost.co.uk/cloud-server-hosting.php CloudhostingUK

    It will work for most of the vast online organizations.

  • http://www.playlist.pk Pakistani music

    I think its a great work done.

  • http://www.musicaddict.ro Bogdan

    Hello, label owners, WAKE UP, it’s 2011, people want to listen to music whenever they want and for free. As long as you don’t buy a physical CD, it’s absolutely idiotic to pay for music. Yeah I know musicians need to earn money, but MOST OF THE MONEY GO TO THESE BIG LABELS. I’m a musician and I know what I’m talking about.

  • http://profiles.google.com/monkotronic Vance Greenway

    google sells information. big money is in knowing what songs people are listening to when and where. they give it to you for free to watch what you do with it. they sell that information. if their brand of “free” wasn’t profitable, where comes the billions in revenue annually? screen ads? hardly. google removes pirated material from youtube; shares ad revenue on material the industry lets remain. nothing under the table there at all.

Latest Video

View all videos »

Search »

When I first heard about Facebook, in 2005, I thought it was really stupid. And the same with eBay 20 years earlier.

— Reed Hastings, in a talk with Wired staff at its London offices