4 ms·

Apple obviously wasn't interested in Lala's users, and I don't expect they were interested in code, so was it a talent acquisition or did Apple just do this to

Apple obviously wasn't interested in Lala's users, and I don't expect they were interested in code, so was it a talent acquisition or did Apple just do this to remove a competitor to future online music services? Edit: spelling

lurch_mojoff 16y ago
Regardless of the merits of Lala's service, I highly doubt that the biggest music retailer in the U.S. had a reason to be afraid of any competition from them. Certainly not reason enough to be forced to buy them. Apple are infamously frugal when it comes to M&A, so this must be either "buying technology" or "buying talent". I guess we'll see which once the iTunes "cloud" service is launched.
- Volscio 16y ago
  What if it doesn't launch?
  - jk8 16y ago
    lala.com will not relaunch. Talent or technology will be integrated into iTunes and the consumers will get a something new.
alanstorm 16y ago
When Apple bought Lala they did more than remove a future competitor. They removed a platform from the board that was making Flash (Lala used a flash interface) a relevant technology for some users. The also removed Google's best music search partner from the board. Both of the previous were potential channels where Apple could lose sales. This is just tinfoil hat speculation, I don't have anything to back it up. However, this is the way that high level, powerful executives and a certain class of start-up founder think about markets.
- 27182818284 16y ago
  >They removed a platform from the board that was making Flash (Lala used a flash interface) a relevant technology for some users. That is a little out there, isn't it? It would be like buying a small company because their servers used GNU/Linux instead of OS X. If they were targeting places that made Flash "a relevant technology for some users," wouldn't they target Pandora, Farmville, graphic design schools that teach freshman Flash, etc?
  - alanstorm 16y ago
    Oh, I acknowledge it's out there (ergo the tinfoil hat comment). However, to your specific examples: Pandora already agreed/decided to build an iPad/iPhone application, Zynga (creators of Farmville are in a financial position to turn down Apple's overtures, plus Zynga's business model/content is a bit of a poison pill. Going after graphic design schools would be political suicide, so it's off the table.
    - jstevens85 16y ago
      Lala submitted an iPhone app for approval just before they were bought. http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/28/its-almost-here-exclusive-video-of-lalas-upcoming-iphone-app/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/28/its-almost-here-exclusive-v...
      - alanstorm 16y ago
        One that was (unless I'm mistaken) never released.
smilliken 16y ago
It didn't occur to me earlier, but Lala actually has a few patents: http://www.google.com/patents?q=%22la+la+media%22&btnG=Search+Patents http://www.google.com/patents?q=%22la+la+media%22&btnG=S... Particularly, "Network Based Digital Rights Management System" (http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=esKwAAAAEBAJ&dq=%22la+la+media%22 http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=esKwAAAAEBAJ&dq=%...) could be valuable for Apple.
tzs 16y ago
There was at least one report (I think it was here on HN) that said Apple had planned to have a replacement service up by now, but they ran into trouble negotiating licenses. The report said that Lala's licenses were not transferrable on an acquisition. Non-transferrable licenses are quite believable, if the record companies considered Lala an experiment to test the waters. They'd put safeguards in to make sure that the licenses didn't end up at some place like Apple, so they (the record companies) can decide the pace of growth of this kind of service. Note that if you check the date of the acquisition, and the date of the close of the service, it's something very close to six months, which sounds like the kind of grace period that would be plausible to allow for shut down of the non-transferable licenses.

lurch_mojoff 16y ago

Regardless of the merits of Lala's service, I highly doubt that the biggest music retailer in the U.S. had a reason to be afraid of any competition from them. Certainly not reason enough to be forced to buy them. Apple are infamously frugal when it comes to M&A, so this must be either "buying technology" or "buying talent". I guess we'll see which once the iTunes "cloud" service is launched.

Volscio 16y ago
What if it doesn't launch?
- jk8 16y ago
  lala.com will not relaunch. Talent or technology will be integrated into iTunes and the consumers will get a something new.

alanstorm 16y ago

When Apple bought Lala they did more than remove a future competitor. They removed a platform from the board that was making Flash (Lala used a flash interface) a relevant technology for some users. The also removed Google's best music search partner from the board. Both of the previous were potential channels where Apple could lose sales. This is just tinfoil hat speculation, I don't have anything to back it up. However, this is the way that high level, powerful executives and a certain class of start-up founder think about markets.

27182818284 16y ago
>They removed a platform from the board that was making Flash (Lala used a flash interface) a relevant technology for some users. That is a little out there, isn't it? It would be like buying a small company because their servers used GNU/Linux instead of OS X. If they were targeting places that made Flash "a relevant technology for some users," wouldn't they target Pandora, Farmville, graphic design schools that teach freshman Flash, etc?
- alanstorm 16y ago
  Oh, I acknowledge it's out there (ergo the tinfoil hat comment). However, to your specific examples: Pandora already agreed/decided to build an iPad/iPhone application, Zynga (creators of Farmville are in a financial position to turn down Apple's overtures, plus Zynga's business model/content is a bit of a poison pill. Going after graphic design schools would be political suicide, so it's off the table.
  - jstevens85 16y ago
    Lala submitted an iPhone app for approval just before they were bought. http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/28/its-almost-here-exclusive-video-of-lalas-upcoming-iphone-app/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/28/its-almost-here-exclusive-v...
    - alanstorm 16y ago
      One that was (unless I'm mistaken) never released.

smilliken 16y ago

It didn't occur to me earlier, but Lala actually has a few patents: http://www.google.com/patents?q=%22la+la+media%22&btnG=Search+Patents http://www.google.com/patents?q=%22la+la+media%22&btnG=S... Particularly, "Network Based Digital Rights Management System" (http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=esKwAAAAEBAJ&dq=%22la+la+media%22 http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=esKwAAAAEBAJ&dq=%...) could be valuable for Apple.

tzs 16y ago

There was at least one report (I think it was here on HN) that said Apple had planned to have a replacement service up by now, but they ran into trouble negotiating licenses. The report said that Lala's licenses were not transferrable on an acquisition. Non-transferrable licenses are quite believable, if the record companies considered Lala an experiment to test the waters. They'd put safeguards in to make sure that the licenses didn't end up at some place like Apple, so they (the record companies) can decide the pace of growth of this kind of service. Note that if you check the date of the acquisition, and the date of the close of the service, it's something very close to six months, which sounds like the kind of grace period that would be plausible to allow for shut down of the non-transferable licenses.