They should have called it Google> or Google! or Google$I agree. They should have just done something like Google Music +
or Google Music Plus. It would have kept with Google +.
You are just a Hater-Troll. Go start your own forum topic and let's see how many will follow you.
And I stick with what I said, if this was an Apple offering the usual android people here would be saying it's lame and it can't beat spotify and how apple is doing things that have already been done and have no innovation. It's a good thread to refer to see the cognitive dissonance of android users.
Man there is a lot of Google news today.
Name change coming for MR?
Looks like Google really pulled ahead here. It further proves that Apple is falling seriously behind. After using All Access for 24 hours, I think the layout, search smoothness, and song selection are unreal.
Is there an Apple users forum out there that has yet to be overrun by Google and Samsung astroturfers?
I'd love to see one.
Do you ever contribute to a discussion, or are you just here to point fingers? All I've ever seen you do is post shrill, paranoid, and completely baseless accusations any time someone says something remotely positive about Google or Samsung.
They are not completely baseless actually
which I could be one of, you know. A Google Goon. I only rarely ever talk about Android or Google around here, and don't bash Apple over everything they do like you'd expect a good Google Goon to do. But I could be playing a long con game. Digging myself in deep, entrenching myself, getting friendly with everyone so they'll drop their guard, and thus make themselves more vulnerable to suggestion.
Like take the Galaxy S4. It isn't nearly as bad a phone as some people here make it out to be. Despite the fact that I mostly consider myself an Apple fan, and will probably continue buying their products for the foreseeable future, I do find it to be a pretty decent little device. Easily on par with the iPhone 5, in my opinion.
![]()
Well I agree and just to be clear, I'm not accusing anyone here. I just thought it was interesting, I saw those stories a few weeks ago and haven't found an excuse to post them.![]()
I hope it starts a price war. $9.99 is too much to listen to music that you don't own. The introductory price of $7.99 is better but $4.99 would be about right. And you should be able to keep 10 songs per month.
Wait. So you want a service with unlimited listening for $5 a month AND be able to keep ten songs, when a la cart ten songs would cost $10+? Do you see why that is just a tad on the unreasonable side? I can get on board with wanting the price to stay around $5, or offering a song or two to keep at $10, but what you are asking will never happen.
I buy 2 or 3 albums a year. $30.00. $4.99 x 12 months is $60 / year. No one would say no to that deal. You'd probably get every iPhone and iPad owner to get that deal. They would profit more than they do now.
I don't think anyone would say no tot he deal. Except the record labels. If you are getting unlimited streaming PLUS getting to keep 10 songs a month, what's in it for the record label? Everyone would buy an iMac too if they dropped the price in half and gave you unlimited software updates, sure (or insert silly anaology here). The point is, the industry wouldn't be getting the compensation they want, thus they will never go for it.
The other reason I think they need to come it a price lower than $7.99 is that with Netflix you get unlimited movies for that price. A movie has a higher intrinsic value than a song. In the value for money calculations that people do $7.99 for unlimited music will not seem like a good enough deal by itself.
Also they would have to protect against sharing of user ids and passwords unlike Netflix. The other thing is there are all kinds of free music streaming services already. Now you want me to pay???!!!"What's in it for me?", people will ask.
It is quite a bit different. Netflix does not have blockbuster movies as they are released. They go through a process of being released at the theater or made available at a high price to watch them with iTunes Movies. Then they go through a second tier of being available on PPV, Itunes, Vudu or other rental services. If you are lucky, they will then end up on Netflix at some point.The other reason I think they need to come it a price lower than $7.99 is that with Netflix you get unlimited movies for that price. A movie has a higher intrinsic value than a song. In the value for money calculations that people do $7.99 for unlimited music will not seem like a good enough deal by itself.
Also they would have to protect against sharing of user ids and passwords unlike Netflix. The other thing is there are all kinds of free music streaming services already. Now you want me to pay???!!!"What's in it for me?", people will ask.
Apple is apparently God.
It seems that you need a credit card from an eligible country in order to sign up for the trial even if you get past the server error. Canadian with a pre-existing Google Music account here (signed up for while in the US).Are you in the US? Serious question, I since moved (so had an existing Google Music account) and got the login page right away, but the trial button gave me that error message until I used a US VPN.
but Pandora sucks. you cant simply play what you want i always end up just skipping till i reach the limit cuz it never plays what i want.
this has the best of both "worlds" like Spotify which i will stick with cuz it does not get added to my data volume on my iPhone.
gonna laugh if apple announces "iRadio" when everyone else offers both in one deal