Posted on 12/07/2009 8:45:37 AM PST by Star Traveler
That might very well be the case. However, when I see the word “cloud” regarding any internet/computer service, I start walking away, carefully :)
Yeah, I know the feeling on that one... :-)
I don't know if you have an iPhone, but the synching of things on the iPhone is sorta "in the cloud" so to speak. You make a change on one of your computers with an address in your phone book and it gets changed on your iPhone, automatically. That's sort of "cloud-like" behavior, if you know what I mean.
Of course, you don't have to use that capability if you don't want to and you can turn it off, on the iPhone, too.
And then, some outfits do back-up for your computer file on their servers (sorta like being "in the cloud" so to speak). But also I've seen some of these services do a compression and an encryption of your file that can only be opened by you, so that you're only sending encrypted and locked data out over the "cloud" to their servers.
All I'm saying here is that you're going to see a lot more of this "cloud" stuff and it will probably require an item-by-item examination as to whether it's valid or not (for your purposes).
by Michael Arrington on December 7, 2009
Sometimes you have to apply the smell test to what your sources are telling you, and the rumors we’re hearing about Apple’s purchase of music service LaLa are definitely smelling a little off. $80 million for LaLa? That isn’t what we’re hearing.
LaLa was purchased for $17 million by Apple, according to our sources with indirect knowledge of the deal. And the company supposedly had $14 million in cash in the bank, meaning the actual purchase price was really $3 million.
That’s in line with recent competitive sales like iLike ($20 million) and iMeem ($1 million). LaLa had plenty of cash in the bank, but they were burning $500k/month, say our sources. There’s just no reason Apple would pay $80 million for the company.
We also believe that LaLa was acquired mostly for the star engineering team and the awesome recent Google deal more than for the product. iTunes in the cloud isn’t something we should hold our breath for. $3 million for top-of Google music results and a top team of engineers makes a lot of sense. $80 million not so much.
LaLa has raised $35 million and was valued at $180 million or so in it’s last round of funding. The reason for the misreports on the $80 million sale may have to do with those numbers. We’ve heard that the purchase price was “forty or fifty cents on the dollar” from one source, meaning 40% or 50% of the $35 million in venture capital the company has raised. But a misunderstanding of what that means could easily have people thinking it was 40% or 50% of the last round valuation, which gets you the $80 million number.
If we get additional sources on this story either way we’ll update. LaLa, which used to love to talk to us, has become scarce when we call or email.
Posted by Dennis Sellers
Dec 8, 2009 at 7:00am
As you’ve doubtless heard by now Apple has officially bought Lala (purportedly for US$80 million [Star Traveler comment: LaLa Was Bought By Apple For $17 Million, Not $80 Million], less what half of what investors valued the company at in 2008), which, last September, unveiled “the first and only free fully licensed service to instantly provide anywhere web access to an existing music library such as iTunes.” Which begs the question: what is Apple going to do with it?
The company’s goal is probably to allow Apple to implement a new iTunes feature that would allow users to stream their purchased media content remotely. In fact, rumors of such a service surfaced earlier this year.
Purportedly, the service would allow iTunes shoppers to build up a digital video collection (music, movies, TV shows, etc.) without having to worry about the intensive storage space involved. iTunes Replay would, per the rumors, stream music, TV shows and movies purchased on iTunes, so you wouldn’t have to download them after purchasing, freeing up hard drive space.
“One of the main complaints users have with video purchases on iTunes is that they are forced to either throw away their files after watching them, or find a place to store the large files either on their hard drive or by burning them to DVDs,” notes AppleInsider. “By storing their video content for them and allowing users to stream it for viewing as often as they want, Apple would essentially be offering a media center alternative.”
Currently, the iTunes media player doesn’t let you stream complete songs, just 30-second snippets. Lala technology could change this. And, as noted by PC World, Apple’s Genius feature, which uses your existing library to recommend new tracks, would be more useful if you could actually listen to all the suggestions.
PC World also thinks that Apple will integrate Lala’s social features into iTunes (which makes sense) and release an app (as well as an iPhone/iPod touch version) that would “let you stream tracks forever at a rate of 10 cents per song.” The latter I’m not sure about. The streaming songs say in an online “locker,” but are accessible via any device with a browser and Internet connection. This raises the possibility of Apple losing revenue if some folks stop purchasing downloads and rely totally on streaming instead. On the other hand, maybe most folks are like me and want to purchase and “own” music, movies and videos, whether the purchases are physical or digital.
Apple care specialist and president of Boston-based Tech Superpowers Michael Oh tells eWeek that he thinks Apple is certainly planning on capitalizing on the music streaming market, “the only type of digital music service that has been able to gain traction, either through subscription-based or ad-supported models.”
No matter how large a playlist may be, people will continue to want to hear, and share, new music, Oh argues, and being able to chose your own tracks is essential to the market uptake for streaming. “Once people have the ability to choose their tracks, then they don’t seem to care whether they offer that music or not,” he tells eWeek. However, Oh notes that the other piece element of digital streaming success stories is the ability to lure customers into buying that music once they’ve streamed it. “It is quite interesting how there’s a direct tie between new music that you like and still wanting it mobile, so you’ll actually end up downloading it,” he says.
If he’s right, I think Apple will go the subscription route and not the ad-supported streaming route. The latter hasn’t proved to be terribly successful, as far as I can tell; look at the death of SpiralFrog and Ruckus.
paidContent is probably onto something when it notes that Apple almost certainly won’t launch a radical new web-based streamer or locker distinct from the core iTunes brand. The site says that, more likely, we can expect such features as: integrating remote music access with the MobileMe suite that now offers web-based mail, calendar, contacts, photos, gallery and backup but no songs (where music goes in iTunes, expect remotely accessed movies and TV to follow).
On the other hand, Ars Technica thinks Apple acquired Lala for the talent, not technology to launch a music streaming service any time soon. The site says that the company offers no technology that Apple needs to purchase, and comes with licensing issues. Besides, Lala never turned a profit.
“So, it’s difficult to see anything tangible that the acquisition provides Apple,” writes Ars Technica. “The alternative take, one that a different unnamed source fed to The New York Times, is that this acquisition follows the PA Semi model. In that case, Apple bought a fabless PowerPC design firm, but not with the intention of actually using any of its existing products; instead, all indications are that it simply wanted access to the engineering talent, which it’s now deploying to provide improved ARM chip designs for future portable devices. On balance, the purchase appears to give Apple the chance to bring in engineers that will be useful now, and could be even more so if it chooses to enter streaming or subscription services. But, for the moment, there’s nothing about the purchase that seems to provide the company with any key technologies it was missing in terms of diving into markets. Until another company demonstrates that there’s money to be made (or iPods to be sold) through streaming, there’s no reason to think that a move of this sort is immanent.”
My take: after mulling over all the evidence and speculation, I think 2010 will see Apple launch the so-called iTunes Replay. And it will be subscription, not ad, based.
By Brian Garner
Published: 08:00 PM EST
Google was in serous discussions with music streaming service Lala before it was sold to Apple earlier this month.
Google and Apple have been battling to purchase some of the same companies in an attempt to gain leverage in the highly competitive tech sector. According to the Wall Street Journal, Google had been in serious talks with online music streaming company La La Media Inc. before Apple closed the $85 million deal earlier this month.
In November, Google purchased mobile advertiser AdMob Inc. for $750 million in a deal that trumped Apple's rumored attempts at acquiring the company. The Wall Street Journal's sources indicate Apple wanted to acquire AdMob as a defensive tactic to keep Google from obtaining inside knowledge about the workings of the App Store.
Both companies find themselves growing in ways that have begun to overlap with each other, creating competition where none had existed before. As Google has branched out from search to become a player in the mobile, desktop, and media arenas - Apple has grown from a hardware and software company into a content provider and mobile powerhouse.
The companies have become so competitive that Google's CEO Eric Schmidt resigned from Apple's Board of Directors in August. At that time Apple CEO Steve Jobs commented, "Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple's core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric's effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest."
Both Google and Apple are awash in cash, with $22 and $34 billion respectively, meaning that both have the resources to continue to compete over promising new technologies and companies that would bolster their positions in the market.
The WSJ reports, "More acquisitions could be in the works as Silicon Valley deal making heats up overall. As the worst of the recession appears to have passed, tech companies are eager to pick up promising technologies before prices climb."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.