Apple signs cloud deal with Warner Music
A frugal Google?The features that Google and Apple are working on are supposed to be much richer than Amazon's, music sources said. One surprise about the competition among these Internet titans is that Google is having a hard time licensing music. All the industry sources I have talked to say that top labels were practically hyperventilating at the possibility that Google would make a foray into the space. They were thrilled that the sector would finally see a deep-pocketed iTunes competitor, one that could match the kind of hardware and software one-two punch that Apple delivers. Google's Android mobile operating system has proven popular with the public and top handset manufacturers. Google Music could have a large audience the day it launches. That said, Google and the labels also have a history of haggling over money. Warner, the company that has already signed with Apple, pulled its music videos from YouTube in 2009 following a contract dispute. The two sides eventually came to an agreement. Here's the big question now: Is Google serious about looking for an alternative way into cloud music, or is this a negotiating tactic? I wrote this week that acquiring Pandora, which the Web's most popular radio service, might help give Google some added negotiating leverage in talks with the labels. Here's the one card, though, that nobody in the music industry wants Google to play. The search company could just decide to pull out and stick with YouTube, which just happens to be one of the Web's most popular music sites. Anyone can listen to free music there by watching the scores of music videos there. If Google chose this path, it wouldn't be the first time the search company has indicated it would launch a standalone music service and then pull out. Music industry sources said Google has expressed interest in opening a music store multiple times in the past during discussions with record-label execs. In 2009, some of the big record companies were led to believe that a Google search feature that focused on music was the start of something bigger.Google directed people, who had keyed in the name of a song into its search field, to audio previews of the track. This was later scrapped and Google didn't make another peep about music until last year, when it started talking about the cloud. So, it's not guaranteed that we will get head-to-head competition between Google and Apple some of us hoped to see. We can console ourselves with this: by all appearances, Apple's cloud-music service is on the way.
Sunday, May 3, 2015
Sunday, April 19, 2015
Smart TV or media streamer-
Smart TV or media streamer?
If you do have a 4K TV, you will have to use your TV's built-in Netflix app (above) to see 4K content from them. Remember, just because your TV's Info button says "1080p" doesn't mean that's what the signal is from Netflix, that's just what your TV is receiving from the media box.Check outWhat is upconverting? and Ultra HD 4K TV Cheat Sheet for more info.Cost Tie, sort of (again) Generally speaking, a smart TV costs about $100, or around £80, more than a "dumb" TV. The better media streamers cost about the same. So technically it's a wash.It's not that simple, however. If you want to get a good, top-of-the-line TV, it's going to have smart features built in, whether you want them or not. So if you want to add a media streamer, you're going to be paying for the same apps (mostly, as mentioned above) twice.Bottom line That last part is the kicker. Most people are going to be faced with adding a media streamer to a TV that already has most of the streaming services. Looking at it that way, this becomes more complex than a simple tally of ties, wins, and losses. The question really is whether a media streamer is worth $100, or £80, when you already have a smart TV? Personally, I'd say yes, and I hate recommending people spend more money than they need to. It comes down to Amazon and iTunes. Being able to watch just about any show or movie whenever you want is huge, and most smart TVs just don't offer that ability. Many also have clunky, annoying interfaces, and they're not updated frequently. Sure there are some exceptions, but having a good media streamer means you can ignore a smart TV's apps, both when you're shopping, and when you've got it home. That's worth $100 to me, easily. Got a question for Geoff? First, check out all the other articles he's written on topics like why all HDMI cables are the same, LED LCD vs. plasma, active versus passive 3D, and more. Still have a question? Send him an email! He won't tell you what TV to buy, but he might use your letter in a future article. You can also send him a message on Twitter @TechWriterGeoff or Google+.
If you do have a 4K TV, you will have to use your TV's built-in Netflix app (above) to see 4K content from them. Remember, just because your TV's Info button says "1080p" doesn't mean that's what the signal is from Netflix, that's just what your TV is receiving from the media box.Check outWhat is upconverting? and Ultra HD 4K TV Cheat Sheet for more info.Cost Tie, sort of (again) Generally speaking, a smart TV costs about $100, or around £80, more than a "dumb" TV. The better media streamers cost about the same. So technically it's a wash.It's not that simple, however. If you want to get a good, top-of-the-line TV, it's going to have smart features built in, whether you want them or not. So if you want to add a media streamer, you're going to be paying for the same apps (mostly, as mentioned above) twice.Bottom line That last part is the kicker. Most people are going to be faced with adding a media streamer to a TV that already has most of the streaming services. Looking at it that way, this becomes more complex than a simple tally of ties, wins, and losses. The question really is whether a media streamer is worth $100, or £80, when you already have a smart TV? Personally, I'd say yes, and I hate recommending people spend more money than they need to. It comes down to Amazon and iTunes. Being able to watch just about any show or movie whenever you want is huge, and most smart TVs just don't offer that ability. Many also have clunky, annoying interfaces, and they're not updated frequently. Sure there are some exceptions, but having a good media streamer means you can ignore a smart TV's apps, both when you're shopping, and when you've got it home. That's worth $100 to me, easily. Got a question for Geoff? First, check out all the other articles he's written on topics like why all HDMI cables are the same, LED LCD vs. plasma, active versus passive 3D, and more. Still have a question? Send him an email! He won't tell you what TV to buy, but he might use your letter in a future article. You can also send him a message on Twitter @TechWriterGeoff or Google+.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)