6 ms·

While probably the right move (no need to take responsibility for an app that is going to anger labels when your platform allows sideload), it is funny to see G

While probably the right move (no need to take responsibility for an app that is going to anger labels when your platform allows sideload), it is funny to see Google kicking out a company that is following the YouTube playbook word for word.

ffumarola 16y ago
"following the YouTube playbook word for word" Exactly, I guess they don't want to get in the middle of it. The disadvantages of building on someone else's platform, I suppose.
- gcb 16y ago
  They don't want competition. As the parent stated, that is youtube starting. And now they also have to protect amazon mp3 investment on them. Seems weird, but I bet theres lots of politics between google and amazon over android
  - trotsky 16y ago
    Isn't the planned google music (set to launch in 2011) service going to be more or less in direct competition with Amazon MP3 & Cloud player? I doubt they are protecting Amazon interests here.
    - gcb 16y ago
      Are you pretty sure it will not be a way to direct people to amazon? Google shopping is not about google selling stuff... and guess who's usually on top Either way, I'm still sure I'm not allowed to uninstall amazon mp3 app from my android super open and free dev phone
      - trotsky 16y ago
        I think that it's true. They have been trying to secure streaming and sales licenses from the labels for some time now. I suppose if that falls through (the labels are brutal at this stage of negotiations) they might team up with amazon, but I'd be surprised if that happened. They do have some precedent here, consider the google books ebookstore: http://books.google.com/ebooks http://books.google.com/ebooks
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  It's less of a risk here though, because as pointed out elsewhere in the thread, it's still easily available through http://mobile.grooveshark.com/android http://mobile.grooveshark.com/android. The loss of discoverability from being on the Market sucks, but the publicity from being removed reminded me to install it at least. Overall though, I think the ability to have your users install your app even if you get kicked off of the market is a fundamental advantage that Android has. It's going to be a detriment if you're a paid app, but if you're ad-supported, being kicked off the Market is not nearly as big of an issue. You just need to solve the publicity/discoverability issue.
  - ffumarola 16y ago
    Not all Android devices allow side loading, to my knowledge. So it doesn't seem to be an inherent advantage of Android. After all, you CAN jail break your iPhone.
MatthewPhillips 16y ago
Is it? I know that YouTube's early days were similar. But does Grooveshark have any content deals, because otherwise it is nearly 100% copyright infringement.
- jawn 16y ago
  Grooveshark has a content deal with EMI. I'm sure there are deals with other labels as well.
  - MatthewPhillips 16y ago
    Good to know, thanks.
- Kylekramer 16y ago
  Deals with these labels: http://grooveshark.com/labelslist http://grooveshark.com/labelslist TL;DR They got EMI (following a lawsuit), a few prominent indies like Merge, and 99% nobodies. Alongside a still in process suit from Universal Music Group.
jamesbritt 16y ago
While probably the right move (no need to take responsibility for an app that is going to anger labels when your platform allows sideload), Doesn't this indicate that Google admits potential culpability and concedes that it is their responsibility to police what goes into their app store? Seems a better approach would have been to shrug their shoulders and argue that the Android app store is merely an open conduit, not their curated set of apps. The implication is that they concede responsibility for whatever they don't remove.
- bostonpete 16y ago
  > The implication is that they concede responsibility for whatever they don't remove. I'm not sure I agree. Just because Google is asserting the right to remove apps from the store (e.g. to keep strategic partners from flipping out) doesn't mean that they're conceding that they're under any obligation to do so.
  - jamesbritt 16y ago
    * ... doesn't mean that they're conceding that they're under any obligation to do so.* Maybe not, but it seems like the kind of crack in the door a lawyer might jump at next time someone complains that an app offends them, or is copying their idea, or whatever.
taylorlb 16y ago
I think the paths are similar, but there is a key difference for me: YouTube's success didn't initially 100% rely on using other peoples copyrighted works without permission or compensation. No doubt music videos etc. helped immensely but funny cat videos and other amateur goofy content was a big part of its success. Whereas with Grooveshark, I am fairly confident that amateur authorized content doesn't factor into the equation. That said, if the major music rights holders would just license to them from the start at affordable rates they wouldn't need to violate copyright so I suppose it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem.

ffumarola 16y ago

"following the YouTube playbook word for word" Exactly, I guess they don't want to get in the middle of it. The disadvantages of building on someone else's platform, I suppose.

gcb 16y ago
They don't want competition. As the parent stated, that is youtube starting. And now they also have to protect amazon mp3 investment on them. Seems weird, but I bet theres lots of politics between google and amazon over android
- trotsky 16y ago
  Isn't the planned google music (set to launch in 2011) service going to be more or less in direct competition with Amazon MP3 & Cloud player? I doubt they are protecting Amazon interests here.
  - gcb 16y ago
    Are you pretty sure it will not be a way to direct people to amazon? Google shopping is not about google selling stuff... and guess who's usually on top Either way, I'm still sure I'm not allowed to uninstall amazon mp3 app from my android super open and free dev phone
    - trotsky 16y ago
      I think that it's true. They have been trying to secure streaming and sales licenses from the labels for some time now. I suppose if that falls through (the labels are brutal at this stage of negotiations) they might team up with amazon, but I'd be surprised if that happened. They do have some precedent here, consider the google books ebookstore: http://books.google.com/ebooks http://books.google.com/ebooks
jokermatt999 16y ago
It's less of a risk here though, because as pointed out elsewhere in the thread, it's still easily available through http://mobile.grooveshark.com/android http://mobile.grooveshark.com/android. The loss of discoverability from being on the Market sucks, but the publicity from being removed reminded me to install it at least. Overall though, I think the ability to have your users install your app even if you get kicked off of the market is a fundamental advantage that Android has. It's going to be a detriment if you're a paid app, but if you're ad-supported, being kicked off the Market is not nearly as big of an issue. You just need to solve the publicity/discoverability issue.
- ffumarola 16y ago
  Not all Android devices allow side loading, to my knowledge. So it doesn't seem to be an inherent advantage of Android. After all, you CAN jail break your iPhone.

MatthewPhillips 16y ago

Is it? I know that YouTube's early days were similar. But does Grooveshark have any content deals, because otherwise it is nearly 100% copyright infringement.

jawn 16y ago
Grooveshark has a content deal with EMI. I'm sure there are deals with other labels as well.
- MatthewPhillips 16y ago
  Good to know, thanks.
Kylekramer 16y ago
Deals with these labels: http://grooveshark.com/labelslist http://grooveshark.com/labelslist TL;DR They got EMI (following a lawsuit), a few prominent indies like Merge, and 99% nobodies. Alongside a still in process suit from Universal Music Group.

jamesbritt 16y ago

While probably the right move (no need to take responsibility for an app that is going to anger labels when your platform allows sideload), Doesn't this indicate that Google admits potential culpability and concedes that it is their responsibility to police what goes into their app store? Seems a better approach would have been to shrug their shoulders and argue that the Android app store is merely an open conduit, not their curated set of apps. The implication is that they concede responsibility for whatever they don't remove.

bostonpete 16y ago
> The implication is that they concede responsibility for whatever they don't remove. I'm not sure I agree. Just because Google is asserting the right to remove apps from the store (e.g. to keep strategic partners from flipping out) doesn't mean that they're conceding that they're under any obligation to do so.
- jamesbritt 16y ago
  * ... doesn't mean that they're conceding that they're under any obligation to do so.* Maybe not, but it seems like the kind of crack in the door a lawyer might jump at next time someone complains that an app offends them, or is copying their idea, or whatever.

taylorlb 16y ago

I think the paths are similar, but there is a key difference for me: YouTube's success didn't initially 100% rely on using other peoples copyrighted works without permission or compensation. No doubt music videos etc. helped immensely but funny cat videos and other amateur goofy content was a big part of its success. Whereas with Grooveshark, I am fairly confident that amateur authorized content doesn't factor into the equation. That said, if the major music rights holders would just license to them from the start at affordable rates they wouldn't need to violate copyright so I suppose it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem.