显示标签为“Service”的博文。显示所有博文
显示标签为“Service”的博文。显示所有博文

2011年5月11日星期三

Google’s Digital Music Service Falls Short of Ambition

 

But the service that the company unveiled on Tuesday, called Music Beta by Google, fell short of those ambitions. There is no store, the streaming function comes with restrictions, and, like Amazon’s Cloud Drive service announced in March, using it requires a long upload process.


What came between Google and its ambitions was an obstacle familiar to many digital music start-ups: despite months of negotiations, the company could not obtain licenses from the major record companies.


In interviews, Google executives put the blame squarely on the labels. “Generally there were demands on the business side that we think were unreasonable and don’t enable us to have a sustainable, scalable music business,” said Zahavah Levine, director of content partnerships for Google’s Android unit and the lead negotiator with the labels.


Music Beta was introduced on Tuesday at Google I/O, a developers’ conference in San Francisco.


Neither Google nor the labels would specify which points they stumbled over. But their disagreement follows a long pattern of friction in which the labels demand high prices for licenses or withhold the licenses altogether. The stubbornness of the labels has earned them a particular caricature in Silicon Valley: the bridge troll, demanding payment for passage.


“They tend to not look at these things as opportunities, but as someone taking advantage of their business,” said Fred Goldring, a former top music lawyer who invests in media and technology companies. “Until they figure out how they’re going to deal new technology on their terms, they don’t make a move. And when they finally do, it’s usually too late.”


The labels believe they are protecting their content and maximizing income for themselves and their artists. But as technology companies and industry analysts see it, the labels’ conservatism in striking deals that involve their licenses hinders technological development and ultimately harms the marketplace by reducing consumer choice.


“The history of the digital music marketplace is littered with the ramifications of record label conservatism,” said Mark Mulligan, an analyst at Forrester Research.


Music Beta, which Google is offering by invitation only while in its trial state, will allow users to store 20,000 songs at no charge and stream them to Android phones, tablets and other devices. As with Amazon’s Cloud Drive, the company does not need special licenses as long as it stores each user’s files separately and then streams them back only to that user, intellectual property lawyers say.


But to sell music, or to operate a master jukebox of every available song and then matching users’ collections to it — widely viewed as the most efficient form of cloud music — Google would need licenses from the labels. Google’s plans were described by many record label executives who have been in discussions with them but spoke on condition of anonymity because their talks were private.


Google and Amazon have not been the only companies negotiating with the labels for cloud music services. Apple is preparing its own, and Spotify, a popular European subscription service, has been locked in talks for two years over American distribution rights. In most of these cases the disagreements are over lump upfront payments or concerns that a service that charges users too little could cannibalize other sales and devalue music overall, executives say.


Ted Cohen, a consultant and former major-label executive, said that when both sides of such negotiations have bad faith, customers suffer. “Neither side is playing fair with the other,” he said. “They go into the negotiations believing that the other side of dishonorable. It’s rare that both sides see that the common goal is to create a consumer experience that people value and are willing to pay for. Things don’t come to market because of this.”


But whether Google and Amazon have abandoned their bigger plans or were just scaling them back temporarily was unclear. In an interview, Ms. Levine denied that the abrupt introduction of Music Beta was a negotiating tactic. But music executives said that since Amazon introduced Cloud Drive — with almost no advance notice to the labels — it has been in discussions over licenses, and these executives, speaking anonymously, said they expected Google to eventually return to the negotiating table.


A more robust digital music service would attract more users to Google. But Mr. Goldring said that it was the labels that really needed to strike a deal.


“At the end of the day they’re clearly hurting themselves,” he said, “because they’re leaving money on the table.”


Claire Cain Miller contributed reporting.


 

Bits: YouTube Expands Video Rental Service

Updated 5:48 p.m.: Adding details about the new movie rentals and correcting the spelling of Salar Kamangar, the head of YouTube’s, last name.


YouTube on Monday confirmed reports that it will expand its online streaming movie rental service.


YouTube will double its movie rental catalog by adding 3,000 movies to the service. The movies are, for the first time, from big-name studios like Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal Pictures and Warner Brothers and include recent releases like “Inception,” “The King’s Speech” and “Little Fockers.”


New releases will rent for $3.99 and others for $2.99. Viewers will generally have 30 days to begin watching a movie and 24 hours to complete it once they start watching it.


Last month, publications including The New York Times, reported that Sony, Universal and Warner Brothers had agreed to rent movies on the site.


The expansion of the rental business is a big step toward a new revenue stream for YouTube — in addition to the ads it shows next to short video clips uploaded to the site — as Google focuses on making YouTube profitable. It is also YouTube’s latest effort to mature from just showing amusing home video clips to a site that offers professional content as it competes with services like Netflix, iTunes and Amazon.com for viewers and advertisers.


Perhaps as a way to court the studios, YouTube said it would also add marketing videos for movies, like free trailers, interviews with actors and behind-the-scenes clips.


In addition to courting the big movie studios, YouTube has also been nurturing video creators and bought a company, Next New Networks, to help it mentor small video creators and build their audiences.


“YouTube isn’t about one type of device or one type of video,” Salar Kamangar, head of YouTube, wrote in a company blog post.


“But you’re spending just 15 minutes a day on YouTube, and spending five hours a day watching TV,” he wrote. “As the lines between online and offline continue to blur, we think that’s going to change.”


 

2011年5月10日星期二

Bits: YouTube Expands Video Rental Service

Updated 5:48 p.m.: Adding details about the new movie rentals and correcting the spelling of Salar Kamangar, the head of YouTube’s, last name.


YouTube on Monday confirmed reports that it will expand its online streaming movie rental service.


YouTube will double its movie rental catalog by adding 3,000 movies to the service. The movies are, for the first time, from big-name studios like Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal Pictures and Warner Brothers and include recent releases like “Inception,” “The King’s Speech” and “Little Fockers.”


New releases will rent for $3.99 and others for $2.99. Viewers will generally have 30 days to begin watching a movie and 24 hours to complete it once they start watching it.


Last month, publications including The New York Times, reported that Sony, Universal and Warner Brothers had agreed to rent movies on the site.


The expansion of the rental business is a big step toward a new revenue stream for YouTube — in addition to the ads it shows next to short video clips uploaded to the site — as Google focuses on making YouTube profitable. It is also YouTube’s latest effort to mature from just showing amusing home video clips to a site that offers professional content as it competes with services like Netflix, iTunes and Amazon.com for viewers and advertisers.


Perhaps as a way to court the studios, YouTube said it would also add marketing videos for movies, like free trailers, interviews with actors and behind-the-scenes clips.


In addition to courting the big movie studios, YouTube has also been nurturing video creators and bought a company, Next New Networks, to help it mentor small video creators and build their audiences.


“YouTube isn’t about one type of device or one type of video,” Salar Kamangar, head of YouTube, wrote in a company blog post.


“But you’re spending just 15 minutes a day on YouTube, and spending five hours a day watching TV,” he wrote. “As the lines between online and offline continue to blur, we think that’s going to change.”


 

Google to Unveil Service to Let Users Stream Their Music

 

SAN FRANCISCO — Google plans to introduce its long-awaited service to allow people to upload and store their music collections on the Web and listen to their songs on Android phones or tablets and on computers.


The announcement of the new service, a so-called cloud-based music player, will be made on Tuesday at Google I/O, the company’s developers conference here, which will run through Wednesday.


The service, to be called Music Beta by Google, is similar to one introduced by Amazon in March, although it will store considerably more music. And like Amazon, Google does not have the cooperation of music labels, which means that users cannot do certain things that would legally require licenses, like sharing songs with friends and buying songs from Google.


But Google’s announcement at this time was unexpected because it has been negotiating with the music labels for months to try to make a deal to team with them on a cloud music service.


“A couple of major labels were not as collaborative and frankly were demanding a set of business terms that were unreasonable and did not allow us to build a product or a business on a sustainable business,” said Jamie Rosenberg, director for digital content for Android. “So we’re not necessarily relying on the partnerships that have proven difficult.”


After Amazon introduced its service, music label executives said they were disappointed and exploring their legal options.


Neither Google’s nor Amazon’s cloud players make true many Web companies’ dream, which is for people to be able to listen to their music whenever they want, on any device. Ideally, Web companies would keep a copy of every song in the cloud, creating a kind of Internet jukebox, and give users instant access to those they own without uploading. But that would require licenses.


“This whole upload thing just seems like a significant barrier to wide consumer adoption, because even with broadband it just takes a long time” to upload, said David Pakman, who invests in digital media start-ups for the venture capital firm Venrock, and helped found a similar music service, Myplay, in 1999.


But Amazon forced Google’s hand, he said. “If you’re faced with another six months of brutal negotiations and your competitor just launched this, you just get in the market and get a lot of users.”


Mr. Rosenberg characterized Music Beta as a first step in a broader cloud music service and said Google hoped to continue negotiating with the record labels to get licenses to offer other things, like a music store that sells songs or a service that suggests new music to listeners.


For Google, the new service is a way to compete with the iPhone by giving Android users the ability to easily use their music collections. Android users could previously store MP3 music files on their phones but it was a cumbersome process. Amazon’s service, Cloud Player, also works on Android phones, but stores many fewer songs free.


Since songs stored by Google will stream from the Web, they are not always as accessible as songs stored on iPods, because people can’t listen to them in places without data connections, like airplanes. But Google stores copies of recently played songs and certain songs that users choose for offline access.


The music labels have long argued that they should be paid when people listen to songs on various devices. Google, Amazon and Apple, along with start-ups like Spotify and the now-defunct Imeem, have struggled to strike agreements.


Apple is still expected to be working on such a service. It acquired Lala, a cloud music service, and built a data center in North Carolina that could store users’ music collections. It also has relationships with the labels through iTunes.


Google and Amazon, meanwhile, say they do not need licenses to store music for users and play songs on multiple devices because users upload the songs they own, just as they would if they backed up their computers. “This is really a personal storage service in the same way that you would put songs on an iPad or you would put songs on a backup hard drive, so this service does not involve licenses for the music industry,” Mr. Rosenberg said.


The service is invitation-only to start. Verizon Xoom owners will receive invitations and others can sign up at music.google.com. Users download an application to their computer and upload their music, which could take many hours. The songs will be available on any device linked to the user’s Google account using a mobile app or a Web-based player, as long as they support Flash, which excludes iPhones and iPads.


Users can store 20,000 songs free, as opposed to Amazon’s service, which stores up to 1,000 songs without charge.


The service syncs activity on different devices, so if users create playlists on their phones, the playlists will automatically show up on their computers.


“We looked at the power of Google to deliver a compelling cloud-based service and essentially married those technologies with what we felt was lacking in the Android experience up until now,” Mr. Rosenberg said.