“We are hearing some more chatter today regarding a possible alliance with AAPL and its iTunes unit. While on Feb 10 we heard a rumor that DIS was interested in potentially buying a stake in AAPL’s iTunes, today we’re hearing that GOOG could be interested in an alliance with AAPL and its iTunes unit. While these rumors don’t seem to be gaining much traction, we’re bringing it to your attention since this is the second week in a row we’ve heard some kind of iTunes chatter,” briefing.com reports.
Full article (paid subscription required) here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews reader “J Alex” for the link.]
Note that Google’s music search is already partnered with Apple’s iTunes. If you search for music/artists using Google, iTunes is one of the stores returned from which to buy. We assume that this rumor, if it has substance, would be about more than the current Apple/Google relationship.
Advertisements:
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iMac and MacBook Pro owners: Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using dial-up service. Only $49.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
Related article:
RUMOR: Disney to buy stake in Apple’s iTunes Store, could be preface to iTunes Store IPO – February 10, 2006
So how DO you get iTunes results to return in Google? Just having done several song/album searches on Google, some mentioning the band name and some not (with the band name in the front on some searches and at the end in others)< I got Product Search links to Napster.com (for songs) and CDUniversie, MusicOutfitter.com, Bidville, eBay and Art.com (for albums), but I didn’t see any iTunes listings. I hope this isn’t a change…
MW “Major” as in that’d be a major bummer if Google is no longer returning iTunes search results. (I suppsoe they could argue that iTunes links require the opening of another program besides the browser to work, while the others don’t… but still.)
if i was apple, i wouldnt partner with google.
i dont think they have any substance.
they seem to be a company that knows theres alot of money in the it industry and just sort of jumps on to the current ‘big’ thing.
google themselves cant even desrcribe what they are.
vultures would be a good start.
Well, are we back again to Dave Winer’s reportage over at Scripting News from the middle of last June that Google is prepping an iTunes clone based on RSS 2.0, and fully podcast capable?
Is there a need to partner with anyone at this time?
Apple is the new cool kid on the block, and the rich kid, Google, across the street wants to hang with him. But the Apple kid didn’t become cool because of his wealth, it was his creativity and imagination.
Google, from what is clearly obvious by their site’s design and function, is not creative at all. Granted, it is fast and vast and is probably dying to have Apple come in and give it a cool new look and interface. Who doesn’t? As such, the combination is too one-sided; Apple does the work and Google gets the benefit. It won’t happen. Google is too much like Microsoft and nowhere near creative enough to catch Apple’s interest as a partner.
I’ve seen this before. Apple forges an alliance with another group then gets hurt in the end. Who was that group?
Hmm…
Wait…
Oh yeah, Microsoft.
I don’t wanna see google ads on my itunes.
i rather see imac promos. much more refreshing.
I love the way they refer to chatter as if it’s some sort of conversation they’ve overheard as part of a cold war spy operation. That’s where my brain took me.
Hey, Mike, just for clarity’s sake:
Google is the “new kid” having just moved into that house across the street – they haven’t been around that long – 5 years? Apple has been in business for nearly 30 years.
I agree with your other assertions that Google would benefit more than Apple – just wanted to clear up the mixed-up analogy.
“Google interested in alliance” There were whispers of this on Survivor Panama: Exile Island. Google is fighting for immunity.
I agree, I do hope Apple keeps clear of Google. They seem to me to be unsure what to do with their wealth. I certainly wouldn’t be putting my money into it today.
Screw Google. Their model is dying and they know it. Apple is the way of the future.
Come into the light . . .
There aren’t many reasons why Apple could benefit from such an alliance, but one obvious advantage would be that Google wouldn’t face the anti-Apple resistance that some users feel and would also be able to sell iTunes tracks to users of other music players.
I have doubts that it’s necessarily a good idea from Apple’s point of view, but it’s still an idea that warrants further investigation. After all, if somebody is to provide music for players other than iPods, it would make more sense for that provider to be allied to Apple, than to be an all-out rival to Apple.
google’s model is dying?
um… they have an awesome platform for distribution
which is the core of MS’s power too..
don’t think it’s worth anything? wow..
I liked the discussion yesterday, I think, that mused on the possibility of spinning off ITMS. This could eliminate the cause of the Apple Corps lawsuit, pave the way for Beatles catalog of music, and ease conflict of interest issues now that Jobs sits on the board at Disney (a major content producer). Perhaps all this chatter is coming from backroom talks involving a spinnoff.
“Google, from what is clearly obvious by their site’s design and function, is not creative at all.”
Google’s does exhibit creativity. Some of it is under the hood, as the basis for their search algorithm. Their models for advertising have also been fairly creative. Is their site pretty? No, but it’s a web page, not hardware you carry around. In most areas in which they are involved, their stuff works better than most (video store excepted). That suggests creativity to me, even if it is all hidden under the hood. Just as a lot of Apple’s creativity is under the hood in their software.
Why does this JO insist on using ABRVs for all the CO names? It’s a PITA to read and FUBAR to look at, IMHO. Ditch your POS Dell, you SOB, and get a Mac ASAP. Maybe then you’ll learn to write properly.
The abbreviations he uses are the stock ticker names. So if somebody reading the article wants to look up the stock, it’s already there for them.
In more formal news articles, it’s usually done “Apple (APPL)”. Same information.
lol saber as if
AAPL
Yu dummy
I know they’re stock ticker designations. He should define it once in parentheses but use the full name throughout the text when referring to the companies. For instance, “today we’re hearing that Google (GOOG) could be interested in…”
“Google, from what is clearly obvious by their site’s design and function, is not creative at all.”
What kind of idiocy is this!? The main Google page is basic by design! It was a reaction to all the superfluous garbage that Yahoo, MSN and all the other search engines were putting in five years ago in the quest for the perfect user portal, ignoring the fact that frequent searchers would spend longer times waiting for the junk to load!
Oh, and do you LIKE those obnoxious flash and animated banner ads on those other search engines? Give me Google’s text ads any day of the week.
Think just two seconds about this and compare to Apple’s own design simplicity: iPod. Five buttons and a scroll wheel. Versus most of the other players out there, with a dozen or more buttons to access and control all the underused functions.
Or the iMac/FrontRow remote. What is it, also just five buttons? Didn’t Jobs himself compare it against a Windows Media Center remote with 45 freaking buttons? Well jeez then, Apple, from what is clearly obvious by their products’ design and function, is not creative at all. (No Creative pun intended)
You do know of Google Maps (http://maps.google.com), which came out of nowhere and smashed Mapquest to smithereens in useability and features. Like Apple, G-Maps took some old(er) ideas and kicked it into the stratosphere. Don’t tell me that’s not creative.
Google ain’t a saint and they’re not perfect, but neither is Apple. And your accusation that Google’s simple design = no creativity, is an insult to Apple itself. Just because Google tried (miserably, as they themselves admitted) to introduce a competitor to the iTunes store is no reason to jump all over Google.
So well put mossman! As Apple has shown time and again, simplicity is the essence of creativity. In its simplicity of user interfaces (searching, maps and whatever comes next) Google shows refreshing creativity in my opinion…
I’ve posted this before, that I think Apple should hook up with Google on video distribution. If Cringely’s prediction is right that Google is planning its own net infrastructure by buying up all the dark fiber, then Apple’s HD movie store is only going to work practically, that way.
Also, Apple should spin off its iTMS, so that it can become its own label and cut out the middleman, and avoid the Beatles lawsuit. This will also nip in the bud some of those monopoly and tieing lawsuits.
Hopefully NOT gonna happen.
Apple doesn’t need Google….for what?