Universal Partners With Google To Rival iTunes

Another online music download service is set to enter the ring. The difference this time? The partnership is between Universal and Kingpin, Google. The pairing off was announced earlier last week, but now more details have emerged on the business plan. The service called gBox, (not a euphemism), will be different to traditional offerings such as iTunes, as Google will play the role of advertiser and Universal will pick up the cash from the sale. The dangerous-duo are set to launch on August 21, 2007.

The system actually seems fairly smart and sounds like it may prove to be a threat to the stranglehold Apple has on the market at the moment. Here is how it is intended to work:

Universal will purchase advertising space from Google; the adverts will appear when a relevant search is made for an artist. These will then direct the customer to gBox, where the artists work will be for sale. The prices are competitive and this is key to any potential success. At 99 cents for a DRM free track, the prices at gBox will be undercutting iTunes by a full 30 cents. For an inexplicable reason you may opt for a DRM enabled track for the same price. We are guessing that option will not be as popular.

Certainly this paves the way for more competition in a market that is currently monopolised by Apple. However, any start-up company with no iPod support is bound to be on the back foot and Universal's image of being greedy piggy will not help their situation in the slightest.

Source:http://gizmodo.com

Google's Greatest Act of Charity

Google has been recognized for a number of positive environmental and public policy initiatives to benefit people around the world. But its most under-appreciated act of charity is the fact that it serves ad-haters.

I don't know who generates all of Google's pay-per-click advertising revenue, but it's not me. I can't think of the last product I purchased as a result of an online ad. I can't think of the last time I clicked on an online ad.

That's only partially because I use Firefox and AdBlock Plus at home and at work. I usually don't bother blocking specific ad providers unless they're serving something that's really annoying. The main reason I don't click on online ads is that ads are inherently untrustworthy and they're not relevant to my interests.

If I let Google know more about my interests, I might see more relevant ads. Maybe, in a moment of weakness, I might buy something as a result of such an ad. But I work hard to avoid that by not using search personalization.

Google worries about people like me. In the Form 10-Q it just filed, Google lists ad blocking among the potential risks to its revenue. "Technologies may be developed that can block the display of our ads," the filing says. "Most of our revenues are derived from fees paid to us by advertisers in connection with the display of ads on web pages. As a result, ad-blocking technology could, in the future, adversely affect our operating results."

I'm not sure why Google frames this as a possible future. The technology is here now. Late last year, Forrester published a report that found 81% of high-speed Internet users employ pop-up blockers and spam filters. The report, "Consumers Love to Hate Advertising," describes how I feel, and how many others feel, apparently.

Advertisers invariably react to ad blocking by trying to figure out ways to prevent it or by trying to make advertising more engaging. Neither strategy works, at least as far as I'm concerned.

If there's anything that's likely to me dig in my heels and refuse to ever do business with a company or purchase its goods, it's advertising designed to avoid being blocked.

And the idea that advertising can be made more appealing presupposes that the viewer is open to persuasion to begin with. While I can't claim to be immune to branding messages, I do consciously resist them. No amount of McDonald's advertising, for example, is going to make me hunger for a Happy Meal. And I know I'm not alone in this.

Maybe resistance is futile and I'm being manipulated subconsciously to prefer Apple computers, Peet's coffee, TiVo and Jet Blue over competing brands. But I like to think there's rational thought behind my brand affinities that's not based on the number of ad impressions I've been exposed to.

Whatever the case, I'm grateful that anti-ad heretics aren't excommunicated from the Internet. I can only imagine how irksome it would be if I had to pay a few cents for access to every ad-free Web page I viewed. So thanks, Google, for all the free information. I owe you one.

Source:www.informationweek.com

Google: Is gPhone Dialing Up Once Again?

Here we go again--when it comes to all the speculation swirling around whether Google will jump into the cell phone market, not with new software, but with a handset of its own.

To wit, we've already reported the myriad possibilities and puzzle pieces pointing to a possible cell-phone market entry by the search giant. More than a hundred engineers dedicated to the mobile market; the hiring of Danger Inc. co-founder and T-Mobile Sidekick developer Andy Rubin; the acquisition of wireless and net upstart Grand Central; the lead role the company took in laying down the ground rules of the upcoming FCC wireless spectrum auction; its cozy partnership with Apple and its iPhone, with Google CEO Eric Schmidt sitting on Apple's board.

Which brings us to today and the front page story by our partners at the Wall Street Journal waxing philosophic about just how truly possible a "gPhone" is. But the Journal mentions several compelling new developments: that Google has developed prototype handsets; that the company has opened discussions, preliminary though they are, with Verizon and T-Mobile (did I mention the Rubin hiring?); and the spending of "hundreds of millions of dollars" on focused mobile spending.

There's a lot going on here. Seems like everyone recognizes the importance of wireless as the key catalyst in tech. Nokia released earnings today and the company announces that it sold 100 million handsets over the last quarter alone. That's a staggering figure, and with BlackBerry's continued success even in the face of the buzz iPhone still generates, the wireless market might be so hot that Google won't be able to afford to ignore it. Remember, that was the same argument used to convince everyone that Apple was entering the mobile market.

"If the wireless access growth really grows aggressively, which we really haven't seen much growth there to date, there is an opportunity for Google to monetize that," says Cowen's Jim Friedland.

When it comes to wireless, Google has made no bones about ponying up the funds to own spectrum and build out a network. The company's VP in charge of its wireless initiatives, Chris Sacca, tells me: "What do we have to do to insure Americans have choice of where they go on the internet, and make sure the internet is accessible to the broadest number of people possible." He says "we'll do what it takes," with the company already announcing it would spend nearly $5 billion to own a wireless spectrum. That's all network-oriented.

A handset is a different animal, though insiders at Google I'm talking to won't completely rule it out. However, they do say it's a long shot. Sniffing around; playing around; toying with different technologies. That's what Google does with its multi-billion dollar R&D budget. Something might come of it; or not. But before you jump to a gPhone as a forgone conclusion, keep in mind that Google is a software company. Like Microsoft And we haven't seen Microsoft release a branded PC of its own. And Xbox, Microsoft's big foray into hardware, has lost about $4 billion.

Google hasn't learned much from Microsoft, but that's a lesson the search giant should keep handy.

Source:www.cnbc.com