Google Debuts New Android-Focused Music Download Store

[MacRumors]

Google yesterday officially unveiled its full Google Music service, including a music download store offering a number of the same features as Apple's iTunes Store. The new Google Music store arrives as part of the Android Market and seems designed to attract users to the Android platform by offering an alternative to Apple's iTunes ecosystem. Like the iTunes Store, Google Music offers per-track pricing typically ranging from $0.69-$1.29, with over 13 million tracks available for purchase.

The store offers more than 13 million tracks from artists on Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, EMI, and the global independent rights agency Merlin as well as over 1,000 prominent independent labels including Merge Records, Warp Records, Matador Records, XL Recordings and Naxos. We've also partnered with the world's largest digital distributors of independent music including IODA, INgrooves, The Orchard and Believe Digital.

You can purchase individual songs or entire albums right from your computer or your Android device and they'll be added instantly to your Google Music library, and accessible anywhere.

Google Music also includes some of the same cloud-based services offered by Apple as part of iCloud and iTunes Match, features that Google rolled out in beta form earlier this year without the support of its own music store. With Google Music, all music purchases from the market are stored online, with users also able to upload up to 20,000 of their own tracks for free.

The company is also integrating the new music service with its Google+ social networking platform, allowing users to post individual tracks to their Google+ pages where friends can take advantage of a one-time free stream of each track.

Google is also rolling out an "artist hub" feature, which allows any signed or unsigned artist with distribution rights for their material to create a dedicated Google Music page for a one-time $25 fee. Artists can use their pages to share information and sell their music, with artists able to set their own pricing and receiving 70% of revenue.

One missing piece for Google is Warner Music Group, one of the four major music labels in the United States and which has yet to reach an agreement to have its content distributed through the store. Warner, which is said to still be in talks with Google, is the third-largest record label and holds approximately 20% of the market.

Article Link: Google Debuts New Android-Focused Music Download Store

[FakeWozniak]

The logo looks awfully close to Apple's iCloud sans the headphones. I sure hope they don't sue Google over this. That would cross the line, IMO.

[ryuok]

Other than the search engine, I haven't seen anything great from Google.

[kas23]

Good. With Apple, you pay $25 to have to upload the majority of your music collection. With Google, you pay nothing to have to upload all of your music collection. I guess we'll see which one wins. On the premise that the Android has twice the base of iOS, I'll say Google "wins" this one (while directly earning no money).

I do find it most interesting how Apple had to get in bed and pay the music labels while Google bypassed them and still got their blessing (sans Warner Bros).

[Mr Fusion]

Though it's not complete without Warner Bros, competition with iTunes = good.

[Tailpike1153]

Originally Posted by FakeWozniak

The logo looks awfully close to Apple's iCloud sans the headphones. I sure hope they don't sue Google over this. That would cross the line, IMO.

With all the lawsuits flying around, I wonder when Apple's legal team would find the time to work on "Google's latest infringement." But considering how the late Mr Steve the dogs loose, it wouldn't suprise me. Definitely would be sad but it wouldn't suprise me.

[BeamWalker]

Yet another Service germany won't get (like iTunes in the cloud, itunes Match etc.). Disappointing.

[ChristianJapan]

Great; competition is good and keep Apple continuing doing better for us. It's positive

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.7; en-gb; GT-I9100 Build/GRJ22; CyanogenMod-7) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

I'm patiently waiting for a worldwide release.

Hopefully they'll develop an iOS and WP7 app for some nice cross-platform cloud compatibility.

[voonyx]

Google Music is great. Even though it took forever to upload all my songs, once I was done, I couldn't imagine it any other way. Storage for 20,000 songs for free? Who wouldn't want that?

[kas23]

Originally Posted by Tailpike1153

With all the lawsuits flying around, I wonder when Apple's legal team would find the time to work on "Google's latest infringement." But considering how the late Mr Steve the dogs loose, it wouldn't suprise me. Definitely would be sad but it wouldn't suprise me.

I just checked it out closely and they're not the same design. While they look similar, there's only so many ways you can draw the outline of a cloud. I don't think Google will lose any sleep over any potential lawsuit.

Originally Posted by voonyx

Google Music is great. Even though it took forever to upload all my songs, once I was done, I couldn't imagine it any other way. Storage for 20,000 songs for free? Who wouldn't want that?

Anyone who is a fan of a "product" with an Apple logo on it who believes they will be a better person by giving money to Apple, so they can then only have to upload about 60% of their music library.

[spazzcat]

Originally Posted by kas23

Good. With Apple, you pay $25 to have to upload the majority of your music collection. With Google, you pay nothing to have to upload all of your music collection. I guess we'll see which one wins. On the premise that the Android has twice the base of iOS, I'll say Google "wins" this one (while directly earning no money).

I do find it most interesting how Apple had to get in bed and pay the music labels while Google bypassed them and still got their blessing (sans Warner Bros).

With Apple, they first try to match your songs, so you only upload part of your music collection.

[motoracer1486]

Originally Posted by ryuok

Other than the search engine, I haven't seen anything great from Google.

You need to start looking with your eyes open then.

[Kyrra]

Originally Posted by ryuok

Other than the search engine, I haven't seen anything great from Google.

Ads. Google is probably the largest online advertiser out there.

[Mattsasa]

So am I understanding right.

You can upload your own music (up to 20k songs) and google will store them, and steam them to any computer or android device, and you can redownload them to any device at any time. All of this for free? No Ads?

[guch20]

iTunes is doomed! Just like it was when the Zune launched, then again when Amazon Music launched, then again when Amazon Cloud launched...stupid iTunes.

[voonyx]

Originally Posted by Mattsasa

So am I understanding right.

You can upload your own music (up to 20k songs) and google will store them, and steam them to any computer or android device, and you can redownload them to any device at any time. All of this for free? No Ads?

Correct. Pretty awesome setup.

----------

Originally Posted by guch20

iTunes is doomed! Just like it was when the Zune launched, then again when Amazon Music launched, then again when Amazon Cloud launched...stupid iTunes.

I know you're being sarcastic, and iTunes definitely isn't doomed, but this is something that Google definitely did right (unlike the 60,000 iPhone killers they release every week).

[kas23]

Originally Posted by spazzcat

With Apple, they first try to match your songs, so you only upload part of your music collection.

And where exactly in my post did I suggest otherwise? I said you'll have to upload the "majority" (meaning: not all) of your library with Apple and "all" (meaning: all) of your songs with Google.

[X5-452]

Originally Posted by kas23

Good. With Apple, you pay $25 to have to upload the majority of your music collection. With Google, you pay nothing to have to upload all of your music collection. I guess we'll see which one wins. On the premise that the Android has twice the base of iOS, I'll say Google "wins" this one (while directly earning no money).

I do find it most interesting how Apple had to get in bed and pay the music labels while Google bypassed them and still got their blessing (sans Warner Bros).

There are some clear distinctions you're missing though. For one, with iTunes Match you don't upload the "majority" of your library. The majority is paired with content from the iTunes music store and then you are able to re-download at DRM free 256 kbps AAC files. Google Music, on the other hand, does not pair and match anything. You are required to upload the contents of your library, which can be quite time consuming.

I don't think Apple really had to go to bed with the labels anyway. I think they mainly had to convince them that by offering iTunes Match they would not stealing even more power from them. Further to that thought, the biggest concern for the labels was that people would have legal access to copyright material, even if they had never acquired the original file via legitimate means. You're also fooling yourself if you think Google bypassed everyone. Services like these do not exist unless there have been lengthy discussions with the copyright holders.

[guch20]

Originally Posted by kas23

I just checked it out closely and they're not the same design. While they look similar, there's only so many ways you can draw the outline of a cloud. I don't think Google will lose any sleep over any potential lawsuit.




Anyone who is a fan of a "product" with an Apple logo on it who believes they will be a better person by giving money to Apple, so they can then only have to upload about 60% of their music library.

With iTunes Match, you only have to upload songs that aren't available on iTunes. They have more music than any other source. If you have to upload 60% of your music, it must all be music you created in your basement.

[Yvan256]

We're sorry, the document you requested is not available in your country.

Also, from what I've read they sell music in the MP3 format at 320kbps. If I'm paying I'd rather get AAC at 256kbps. Well actually I'd rather get lossless, but apart from CDs there's no legal ways to get lossless files. And between music and movies, I already have enough plastic discs.

[spazzcat]

Originally Posted by kas23

And where exactly in my post did I suggest otherwise? I said you'll have to upload the "majority" (meaning: not all) of your library with Apple and "all" (meaning: all) of your songs with Google.

I would't want to have to upload all my music. It was bad enough uploading 1800+ songs.

[kas23]

Originally Posted by ryuok

Other than the search engine, I haven't seen anything great from Google.

You should try the Contacts and Calender syncing feature then. It's like iCloud, but works and minus the battery drain.

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by FakeWozniak

The logo looks awfully close to Apple's iCloud sans the headphones. I sure hope they don't sue Google over this. That would cross the line, IMO.

Well, that logo was presented at Google I/O back in May, before the iCloud presentation?

[Madhawk]

Competition is always welcomed.