Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Google Launches 'Music Beta' Cloud Service

this cloud based music service just isn't a product i really care about or want. why have to deal with connectivity issues when my iphone can hold the few thousand songs i care about anyway. so . . . i don't see myself jumping on board. prob just wait to see what apple's solution is and dive in or not at that point. i'd assume the apple ecosystem will just work better with my macbook and iphone anyway. eh, whatevs.
 
gloomcookie1 said:
So, curious how this raised the bar against Apple?

Movie renting? You still can't buy from the Android Market.

The music uploading is only uploading - you still have to buy your music from iTunes or Amazon.

The use of 3rd party hardware is nice - but that's brand new to Apple's Made for iPod, etc.

Same OS across all systems I'm sure will be nice too - but just like Apple and soon WinPhone7, Blackberry, etc. - your device has to be able to support it.

I will say Android Market for Google TV "could" be a boon - still not convinced mobile apps on a TV outside of Netflix, Hulu or movie/tv/podcasting apps even make sense in a broad sense (as in I've never felt the urge I need to twitter from my TV).

Don't get me wrong - it looked promising for google heads for sure, not seeing how this means Apple needs to "step up their game" as opposed to them just keeping their game going like they have been.
Click to expand...

Not true. I can rip my CDs and upload the music to Google's service and stream from there. No need to use Amazon or iTunes. I actually see it as a positive that the record companies aren't involved in this.
 
ghostlyorb said:
If it's NOT free... I'm walking. I'm not paying for another thing every month.. especially if I can hold everything on my iPhone or iPad... if I need more room, an iPod Classic would suffice.
Click to expand...

The iPod classic you're going to buy to hold your music - it better be free right? lol
 
ten-oak-druid said:
A $1200 computer will do most things better and a longer lifespan than a $500 computer anyway. It doesn't matter what OS you run.
Click to expand...

a $500 laptop with sandy bridge will run anything OK. most people don't care about the fact that an imac has an IPS screen which is most of the cost of it
 
I think this is a good thing. It is good to see competitors. This is what is going to constantly make things better.

Apple is going to have to really step it up at WWDC! :D

Can't wait!
 
Swift said:
Ever wonder why Google and Amazon launch their services so half-baked? Beta? Again? Without record label approval? Without movie or TV company deals in place? Because they want to dazzle you with their "functionality." Before what's coming from Apple.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand why people think label support is an important thing.

So what?

The labels can't do a thing about Amazon or Google.

Look at Amazon, beat Apple to the punch w/o the labels AND sells product for less money.
 
LillieDesigns said:
It definitely feels more like Apple vs. Google than Apple vs. Microsoft nowadays. Crazy how fast things change.
Click to expand...

Is it any surprise? A lot of people at Google came there from Microsoft, including this guy:

google-io-2011-day-10124.jpg
 
ten-oak-druid said:
A $1200 computer will do most things better and a longer lifespan than a $500 computer anyway. It doesn't matter what OS you run.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. The $1200 computer gets you a bit more memory, a bit more HD, and likely a sturdier enclosure... Most people don't "need" any of these things for what they do. With regards to a long lifespan, well the hardware is built to the same standard in both.... I suppose you could say a machine with 4gb of ram will have a longer lifespan than a 2gb machine because software is getting more and more bloated and eventually the minimum will be 4gb.
 
anyone following Google's Keynote?

they are seriously stepping their game up and addressing a lot of issues. I'm impressed!
 
Google == Beta

Google seems to be unable to finish products before rolling them out. They're becoming marketing-driven instead of engineering-driven. Which makes perfect sense when you think about it. Google makes 96% of their profits from advertising.

Google might have finished Music and rolled it out later if Google I/O weren't happening right now. They needed a dog and pony show to distract the world from droid's post-openness. And their own version of Locationgate. (Let's see how long it takes for them to update all the versions of droid to fix that.)

But it's not just Google releasing beta-quality products. Look at RIM's half-baked PlayBook with no native e-mail app. And Motorola's Xoom that still doesn't have a pad-capable OS. And all the El Cheapo iPad clones: the Coby Kyros, Sylvania Magni, and Camangi FM600 are all out there. Somewhere.

Don't believe me? Here's proof:

http://www.cobyusa.com/?p=prod&prod_num_id=10494&pcat_id=1013

http://www.amazon.com/Sylvania-GNET31201X6S-10-Inch-G-Netbook-Processor/dp/B001O0E5SS

http://www.lifeatmost.com/tablet-pc/camangi-fm600-7-inch-android-tablet-running-froyo/
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
The really insane thing about "cloud storage" for music is that it only makes sense for ripped CDs, a dying practice. Apple *already* has "cloud storage" for all their music - it's called the iTunes Store.

Why would they want a million people re-uploading music files they've already got a copy of and could serve out from a single source?

Physically uploading your own files to some service? Who is going to do that? Oh, yes. Geeks! But not consumers. Why would anyone want to do that?

If it's not effortless and automatic, it's dead in the water.
 
Beta party

It's in beta because Google have to wait and see how Apple's iCloud is going to look like so they can copy it more precisely.
 
rk1985 said:
Not true. I can rip my CDs and upload the music to Google's service and stream from there. No need to use Amazon or iTunes. I actually see it as a positive that the record companies aren't involved in this.
Click to expand...

Uh, so you are buying CDs to get your new music, which does involve the record companies.

If all you are talking about is uploading your existing collection of music, then it makes no difference where you got it from (Amazon, iTunes or CD -- all of which involved the record companies).
 
ptysell said:
I really don't understand why people think label support is an important thing.

So what?

The labels can't do a thing about Amazon or Google.

Look at Amazon, beat Apple to the punch w/o the labels AND sells product for less money.
Click to expand...

Becuase all Amazon and Google are giving you is storage and a software player - they're not giving you free music.

What label support is going to give you is if Apple can pull off where you buy a song from iTunes that you can play anywhere without having to download/rip and then reupload to a different service. Which actually is what Amazon is doing - I think Amazon actually has a pretty nifty model in place with both books and music in this respect becuase when you purchase either you can have it added to your music storage or the Kindle app for books across multiple devices or computers.

As far as Amazon selling music for less - that is directly becuase of label support - and due to the record companies trying to make sure Apple couldn't dictate prices to them but rather give the record companies leverage to dictate the prices to them. Amazon wouldn't have been able to do that without label support.

Same reason that Youtube is only "renting" movies and not TV shows and you don't have the ability to purchase.

Same reason not all books sold on Amazon can be read to you on the Kindle becuase the publishing companies/authors didn't give permission becuase that would cut into sales of audio books.

No one is really sticking it to the man per se on any account.
 
WestonHarvey1 said:
The really insane thing about "cloud storage" for music is that it only makes sense for ripped CDs, a dying practice. Apple *already* has "cloud storage" for all their music - it's called the iTunes Store.

Why would they want a million people re-uploading music files they've already got a copy of and could serve out from a single source?

Physically uploading your own files to some service? Who is going to do that? Oh, yes. Geeks! But not consumers. Why would anyone want to do that?

If it's not effortless and automatic, it's dead in the water.
Click to expand...

As I understand it the general goal is to have one copy of each song on their servers and stream it to multiple users with out them having to upload. Google and Amazon just couldn't get the deals with the record companies.
 
juicedropsdeuce said:
Hey kid, if you think Apple is gonna give you 150gb of online storage for a reasonable price, you need to stay back a few grades. It will be cheaper to buy 2 iphones than pay apple for storage.

MobileMe = $100 and you get 20gb. LOL.
Click to expand...

And Google give you 400GB space for $100 for Photos so no reason why they could not offer the same or better for music
 
Following the iO stream.

12:36PM Android Open Accessory announced! Think "Made for iPod," but by Google.

DRINK!

12:37PM We've got a fitness demo about to go down. And some dude just yanked his pants off and hopped on a treadmill. A strange amount of laud from the crowd.

Never mind. I'm done watching.
 
Could this mean a free version of mobile me is now possible? Apples needs to work really hard now. I can't see them doing anything but offer up a free version or really step it up with customer satisfaction
 
SockRolid said:
Don't believe me? Here's proof:

http://www.cobyusa.com/?p=prod&prod_num_id=10494&pcat_id=1013

http://www.amazon.com/Sylvania-GNET31201X6S-10-Inch-G-Netbook-Processor/dp/B001O0E5SS

http://www.lifeatmost.com/tablet-pc/camangi-fm600-7-inch-android-tablet-running-froyo/
Click to expand...

How is that proof of anything? Those "El Cheapo iPad clones" have nothing to do with Google. This is the result of an easy to distribute open source OS... Which brings me to:
SockRolid said:
They needed a dog and pony show to distract the world from droid's post-openness.
Click to expand...
Everything that was announced today at I/O is going to be open. Did you watch the keynote at all?
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
alent1234 said:
a $500 laptop with sandy bridge will run anything OK. most people don't care about the fact that an imac has an IPS screen which is most of the cost of it
Click to expand...

No it won't. I hear Windows users with their $500 laptops complaining all the time. Get a good computer and life will be better. Get your sandy bridge with the additional components needed to make it run well.

I had a Dell user tell me recently that "you get what you pay for". He was right. His Dell was over $1000. The $500 machines subsidize the cost of the better machines to bring the price down a little.

mingoglia said:
I completely disagree. The $1200 computer gets you a bit more memory, a bit more HD, and likely a sturdier enclosure... Most people don't "need" any of these things for what they do. With regards to a long lifespan, well the hardware is built to the same standard in both.... I suppose you could say a machine with 4gb of ram will have a longer lifespan than a 2gb machine because software is getting more and more bloated and eventually the minimum will be 4gb.
Click to expand...

Most people need a better machine but don't know it. They are wasting their money.
 
gloomcookie1 said:
As far as Amazon selling music for less - that is directly becuase of label support - and due to the record companies trying to make sure Apple couldn't dictate prices to them but rather give the record companies leverage to dictate the prices to them. Amazon wouldn't have been able to do that without label support.
Click to expand...

And that is the laughable part of why Apple shouldn't play ball with the RIAA and just release what they want when they want.

There is no advantage for Apple to play by the 'rules'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back