4 ms·

With all due respect, I feel like Google is large enough to refuse to be told what to do. If they really cared...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nine_k 4y ago
Refusing to be told what to do costs money. Say, Apple put its financial weight at labels with iTunes and iPod, and now we have 99¢ tracks as a norm. But to spend money on something, a company has to plan to get more in return. Apple did. What would be the plan for Google? What money-making machine of theirs would it enable?
- silisili 4y ago
  At one time Google had a first class music service, and I think they still rent and sell movies. As for money making, I think a guarantee of 'yours forever, no takebacks' would put them way out front of their competition. But perhaps most people don't care enough for that to be true.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    > yours forever, no takebacks MP3s available form Amazon, iTunes, Bandcamp at the very least all have this commendable property. And the sale is once and forever, while an enticing revenue source is a recurring one %)
- rakoo 4y ago
  Yeah, the only way things will change is if Google becomes a production studio. This won't be a better for situation for listeners nor for artists.
- izacus 4y ago
  It's telling that Apple isn't able to persuade American content corporations into DRM free videos either. They're now biggest supporters and implementors of locked down DRM across their device portfolio.
  - sircastor 4y ago
    The music industry was so terrified at what internet piracy was doing that they agreed to Apples terms. The film and television industry saw what Apple had done to music, and were terrified of what it would do to them. They held onto the only playable card they had.
di4na 4y ago
No they are not. The courts have been swift and merciless on this shit for music, video and similar things. Google may seem big but they do depends on the law still.
- silisili 4y ago
  In the current system where Google plays lame duck, sure. But all G has to do is say 'yeah if you want us to feature your content, you must agree to X' With 90% of the search market, half of phones, and who knows what percentage of the smartTV market, they could institute a death sentence to those they wanted to. IF they wanted to.
  - aemreunal 4y ago
    That sounds like a pretty big abuse of their power and potentially raises anti-trust concerns. They could easily wield that power for nefarious reasons and I don't think any of us would want that. We can change laws. Companies should abide by them, however insufficient they may be at a given point in time.
    - NackerHughes 4y ago
      > That sounds like a pretty big abuse of their power and potentially raises anti-trust concerns. They could easily wield that power for nefarious reasons and I don't think any of us would want that. As if google doesn't already abuse its power and weild it for nefarious reasons, or have massive anti-trust concerns? But god forbid they use their power to prevent others abusing theirs by forcing people to pay again and again for media they already own.
  - ehsankia 4y ago
    "How dare Google use their market dominance to do X" but also "Why doesn't Google use their market dominance to do X"
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
indrora 4y ago
I thought this too for the longest time. Then I heard an anecdote from one of my colleagues that does licensing: The music licensing industry heads (RIAA/MPAA/ASCAP/etc) are tiny fish monetarily, but they own everything and control it. If the RIAA doesn't like you, they can make you go away. The issue is that if anyone wants to fight them on Antitrust grounds, this turns the big light of Antitrust litigation around on those big fish that depend on Very Carefully not being in the spotlight. Putting it differently: if Google tried to do anything, their counter would be calling the licensing bodies anticompetitive, which puts Google in the crosshairs next.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Refusing to be told what to do costs money. Say, Apple put its financial weight at labels with iTunes and iPod, and now we have 99¢ tracks as a norm. But to spend money on something, a company has to plan to get more in return. Apple did. What would be the plan for Google? What money-making machine of theirs would it enable?

silisili 4y ago
At one time Google had a first class music service, and I think they still rent and sell movies. As for money making, I think a guarantee of 'yours forever, no takebacks' would put them way out front of their competition. But perhaps most people don't care enough for that to be true.
- nine_k 4y ago
  > yours forever, no takebacks MP3s available form Amazon, iTunes, Bandcamp at the very least all have this commendable property. And the sale is once and forever, while an enticing revenue source is a recurring one %)
rakoo 4y ago
Yeah, the only way things will change is if Google becomes a production studio. This won't be a better for situation for listeners nor for artists.
izacus 4y ago
It's telling that Apple isn't able to persuade American content corporations into DRM free videos either. They're now biggest supporters and implementors of locked down DRM across their device portfolio.
- sircastor 4y ago
  The music industry was so terrified at what internet piracy was doing that they agreed to Apples terms. The film and television industry saw what Apple had done to music, and were terrified of what it would do to them. They held onto the only playable card they had.

di4na 4y ago

No they are not. The courts have been swift and merciless on this shit for music, video and similar things. Google may seem big but they do depends on the law still.

silisili 4y ago
In the current system where Google plays lame duck, sure. But all G has to do is say 'yeah if you want us to feature your content, you must agree to X' With 90% of the search market, half of phones, and who knows what percentage of the smartTV market, they could institute a death sentence to those they wanted to. IF they wanted to.
- aemreunal 4y ago
  That sounds like a pretty big abuse of their power and potentially raises anti-trust concerns. They could easily wield that power for nefarious reasons and I don't think any of us would want that. We can change laws. Companies should abide by them, however insufficient they may be at a given point in time.
  - NackerHughes 4y ago
    > That sounds like a pretty big abuse of their power and potentially raises anti-trust concerns. They could easily wield that power for nefarious reasons and I don't think any of us would want that. As if google doesn't already abuse its power and weild it for nefarious reasons, or have massive anti-trust concerns? But god forbid they use their power to prevent others abusing theirs by forcing people to pay again and again for media they already own.
- ehsankia 4y ago
  "How dare Google use their market dominance to do X" but also "Why doesn't Google use their market dominance to do X"
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

indrora 4y ago

I thought this too for the longest time. Then I heard an anecdote from one of my colleagues that does licensing: The music licensing industry heads (RIAA/MPAA/ASCAP/etc) are tiny fish monetarily, but they own everything and control it. If the RIAA doesn't like you, they can make you go away. The issue is that if anyone wants to fight them on Antitrust grounds, this turns the big light of Antitrust litigation around on those big fish that depend on Very Carefully not being in the spotlight. Putting it differently: if Google tried to do anything, their counter would be calling the licensing bodies anticompetitive, which puts Google in the crosshairs next.