Google Offers Free 4-Month Play Music Trial Subscription to Celebrate July 4th

[KB_Sez]

This is the ONLY way they are getting users for YouTube RED. Does anyone know ANY ONE that is paying for this crappy service?

They think that all the subscribers and viewers of PewDePie are going to pay to watch his videos on RED... Really? Don't they already know they are mostly 8-14 year old kids who don't have $10 a month for the service?

What else is on there? All I ever hear people talk about is the music... It's a mess and I haven't been able to find a single person who actually pays for the service.

In celebration of July 4th, Google is offering new U.S. subscribers to its Play Music streaming service a four-month trial completely free of charge.

Play Music subscribers can choose from a library of over 35 million tracks, which usually costs $9.99 per month, so the offer amounts to a $40 saving and users can cancel the subscription at any time.

Article Link: Google Offers Free 4-Month Play Music Trial Subscription to Celebrate July 4th

 

[dewski]

Renting music. No thanks.

It is the future. My generation doesn't buy music. I buy about one album a year. It's worth the convenience of being able to pull up any song, any time when you need to.

 

[lordofthereef]

Hmm. I think music industry would just go away and we can no longer listen to professionally created music anymore. Profit is not the only concern for them.

I'm not sure what, in your opinion, they care about. But money is a driving factor. If it wasn't, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

 

[KidAKidB]

Please don't hate on me, I know this isn't the best place to write this and this is JUST my opinion. But I have been with play music for a month now (actually I'm doing youtube red basically 9$/mos gets rid of ALL ads on youtube and also gives you the music subscription) and I really love it and much much than apple music which I've been since it started.

It feels nice that the suggestions are spot on. I don't get Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Drake, Justin Beiber and Dr Dre non stop in my suggestions. I cannot reiterate how many times I have said "not interested" and "dislike" on Rihanna and Taylor Swift and every single day they show up in my "for you" lists. I get that they are popular, but I thought these were supposed to be based off our preferences and your "likes". And yes, I went through the "choose your artist" thing in the beginning and the suggestions are getting worse. Now I'm getting Kanye. Keep in mind, I don't have a SINGLE pop song in my list.

I think for majority of people that love rap and I guess Apple's real target audience apple music rocks. But I think if your taste isn't Taylor, Justin or rap, then Apple Music is pretty bad and will only suggest what Apple thinks everyone should like.

Google Music suggested that BS in the beginning too, which I get since I didn't have a library or any "thumbs up", but after 1 time saying I can't stand Rihanna and adding more songs/liking in my library, I don't see that sh.. anymore.

I get the privacy issue and the reason google suggestions are so powerful (they are an aggregate of everyone else liking the songs that I like, etc). But honestly, at least I don't feel like Apple being in bed with Swift is being forced on me.

Again, MY OPINION. Wondering if anyone else feels the same.. or if there is anyone out there that isn't in love with rap and whatever genre that Swift switched to recently to make more money.

I agree with you 100%. It's tiresome to see Apple in bed with Taylor Swift and other celebrities.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

There's so much right with Google Play Music. For me, however, it is YouTube Red. So you're telling me this subscription gives me access to over 38 million songs AND ad-free access to YouTube for 9.99 a month? Sign my ass up! You can have your one-week exclusive Drake, Taylors, and whoever else. But I'm on YouTube ALL THE DAMN TIME. What does Apple have to equal that?

Do love that The Wiz soundtrack is on Apple Music, though.

Good point.

Apple have no answer to YouTube. It was a mistake not to buy them years ago. It is now a strong selling point for Google.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I agree with you 100%. It's tiresome to see Apple in bed with Taylor Swift and other celebrities.

Well, it's tiresome to see Apple in bed with celebrities as their sole marketing pitch. It's just so ordinary.

 

[Shirasaki]

I'm not sure what, in your opinion, they care about. But money is a driving factor. If it wasn't, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

Or another discussion about another topic.
Anyway, let's put it aside and move on.

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

Maybe because people older than 25 or 30 gradually realise owning something is much better than renting something? At least I believe if I own something it would be better. (I am just one step away to 30th)

Nope. That's not it. I am over 50 and bought music all my life spending a small fortune over my lifetime and still not able to afford everything I would have liked to have listened to. Now I spend far less and am able to listen to far more. It's a great deal for me. Plus there is no way I could fit my whole library on my phone. And ripping all my many CDs and uploading it to someplace like Google would be a time consuming process not to mention fill my hard drive. And again, I still wouldn't have everything I wanted.

 

[newyorkone]

Nice Post. On the surface, very reasonable opinion. Not one that I agree with, but reasonable nonetheless. The reason I don't agree with it is you're doing exactly what a lot of others are doing. You're conflating what Apple describes as personal data with what they describe as non-personal data. Also, Apple collects and uses both types of data. They recently updated the privacy policy on May 31st. http://www.apple.com/privacy/privacy-policy/ They're pretty explicit in the fact they collect copious amounts of data. If you do read that policy, take note of the section regarding non-personal information. Look at what Apple classifies as non-personal and see if you agree with their assessment. Also, take note of the section at the bottom that reads Protection of Personal Information. While reading that, keep in mind it only applies to information that can be used to identify or contact a single person. That section is not applicable to the data that Apple considers non-personal (and that's a heck of a lot of data).

That word salad is the long way of saying what Apple considers personal data and what you consider personal data most likely ain't the same thing. Both companies collect massive amounts of data. Google does it primarily to drive their ad machine. But they also do it to improve their products and services. You seem to think Apple doesn't want their customer's data. But they lay it out in black and white they're collecting just like Google. For a company that has a massive amount of people thinking they don't collect data, they sure do a darn good job of... collecting data. It helps improve their products and services, but it also goes to fuel their ad machine. Wanna know how I know? Because they say it does.

Yes, I always read the privacy policy, disclaimers, etc.

However, anyone trying to say that Apple is the same as google in regards to personal privacy is in complete denial of history and facts. The truth is in the past and present actions of these companies. Don't believe me. Search for it...

 

[samcraig]

Yes, I always read the privacy policy, disclaimers, etc.

However, anyone trying to say that Apple is the same as google in regards to personal privacy is in complete denial of history and facts. The truth is in the past and present actions of these companies. Don't believe me. Search for it...

How is this line of conversation even germane to the thread topic of a free offer to try their music service? I guess if one is afraid of Google knowing what music you own/listen to, there might a a little merit. Otherwise, this is just a rehash of the same discussion any time Google and Apple are mentioned together - or even separately. Lots of FUD in this thread. Apparently people are afraid to do their own research vs bandwagoning on regurgitated fallacies.

 

[69Mustang]

Yes, I always read the privacy policy, disclaimers, etc.

However, anyone trying to say that Apple is the same as google in regards to personal privacy is in complete denial of history and facts. The truth is in the past and present actions of these companies. Don't believe me. Search for it...

Facts... like the one's you presented? Oh, wait.

 

[Plutonius]

It is the future. My generation doesn't buy music. I buy about one album a year. It's worth the convenience of being able to pull up any song, any time when you need to.

No complaints about anyone who wants to rent music. I however, will not .

 

[lordofthereef]

Or another discussion about another topic.
Anyway, let's put it aside and move on.

I think it's pretty on point for what this topic is about. But if you don't want to discuss further I can certainly respect that.

 

[mi7chy]

Yes, I always read the privacy policy, disclaimers, etc.

However, anyone trying to say that Apple is the same as google in regards to personal privacy is in complete denial of history and facts. The truth is in the past and present actions of these companies. Don't believe me. Search for it...

Fear mongering for the clueless.

 

[Hastings101]

This is the ONLY way they are getting users for YouTube RED. Does anyone know ANY ONE that is paying for this crappy service?

If all someone watches is YouTube then no ads and background play might be useful. Personally I think it's a crap deal compared to something like Amazon Prime or even just Spotify+Netflix, but if YouTube is your version of TV it's not a bad thing to subscribe to. I prefer "traditional" movies/shows/music, but some people are really into the whole YouTuber thing.

 

[AdonisSMU]

i love play music. i don't pay for the subscription, i upload my songs to their cloud. the best thing about GPM is the main page of "recently played". i cannot stand having to comb through my library and find what i want to listen to, when i mostly want to listen to something i've played recently. i cant believe other services dont have this. also, **** streaming services where you dont actually own the music you are streaming. you will have to pay for the rest of your life and the artists see a fraction of what you pay. if you are listening to taytay, kanye, etc that doesn't matter but for smaller artists it does

Apple Music does have this as a playlist ... its called recently played.
[doublepost=1467749155][/doublepost]I like electronic music and the music they hit me up with is usually right on the money even in genres I don't normally associate with.

 

[Sevendaymelee]

Then sign up since it does that... imagine if they had this thing called settings that let you pick the bit-rate.... oh wait, they do!

I was talking about the DAC inside our crappy smartphones. No matter what, it's going to be garbage through a great system.

 

[Shirasaki]

Nope. That's not it. I am over 50 and bought music all my life spending a small fortune over my lifetime and still not able to afford everything I would have liked to have listened to. Now I spend far less and am able to listen to far more. It's a great deal for me. Plus there is no way I could fit my whole library on my phone. And ripping all my many CDs and uploading it to someplace like Google would be a time consuming process not to mention fill my hard drive. And again, I still wouldn't have everything I wanted.

Oh, sorry that I forgot about personal taste of music. Or I should say that conclusion is drawn poorly.
Maybe I will try streaming services out, but I still prefer owning music. Personal preference.

 

[Shirasaki]

I think it's pretty on point for what this topic is about. But if you don't want to discuss further I can certainly respect that.

You drives my curiosity.
Even though money is the main factor, sometimes like political issue would take the lead.
One thing is for sure however, that if there is no profit to do something then no one would do it. Money is just one type of such profit.

 

[LordVic]

Nope. That's not it. I am over 50 and bought music all my life spending a small fortune over my lifetime and still not able to afford everything I would have liked to have listened to. Now I spend far less and am able to listen to far more. It's a great deal for me. Plus there is no way I could fit my whole library on my phone. And ripping all my many CDs and uploading it to someplace like Google would be a time consuming process not to mention fill my hard drive. And again, I still wouldn't have everything I wanted.

THIS!!!!!

I have a modest music collection (Around 300 CDs, and probably had a good 50 Cassettes), that I purchased over most of my life (i'm 36 now). I used to save my allowance when I was a kid ($20 /mth!) and every couple months take the subway into the downtown core and spend my saturdays in Sam's Record Store, HMV, Tower Records, and about another dozen used music shops.

Its first a shame that kids today won't experience this, as I feel it was something big part of my youth. But, on the othre hand, I look at the money and costs and what you get in comparison today with streaming.

over the course of years, I've probably spent at least $5,000 on all that music.

For $5,000 today, you get over 500 months worth of streaming services. THATS 41 YEARS OF MUSIC on today's streaming services. And all of those services have infinitely better selection than my own collection.

Streaming services are a huge boon for music listeners.

 

[Shirasaki]

Streaming services are a huge boon for music listeners.

Especially for users just want to listen to new songs all the time. For them, buying new albums for every single song they listen to is a huge waste of money.

 

[Sevendaymelee]

THIS!!!!!

I have a modest music collection (Around 300 CDs, and probably had a good 50 Cassettes), that I purchased over most of my life (i'm 36 now). I used to save my allowance when I was a kid ($20 /mth!) and every couple months take the subway into the downtown core and spend my saturdays in Sam's Record Store, HMV, Tower Records, and about another dozen used music shops.

Its first a shame that kids today won't experience this, as I feel it was something big part of my youth. But, on the othre hand, I look at the money and costs and what you get in comparison today with streaming.

over the course of years, I've probably spent at least $5,000 on all that music.

For $5,000 today, you get over 500 months worth of streaming services. THATS 41 YEARS OF MUSIC on today's streaming services. And all of those services have infinitely better selection than my own collection.

Streaming services are a huge boon for music listeners.

Yes but what they lose is the tactical side of the issue. Being 36 myself, I know all about this subject. When we were teenagers in the early to mid 90's, we didn't get tons of CDs at once. You would typically pick one up here or there when you had the money. You would carefully pick your selection, take it home, rip it open, take the booklet out, start the record and go song by song, reading along with the lyrics and checking out the artwork. Because it was only one record, you memorized the songs inside and out... you developed a relationship with those songs and that album before you ever bought another one.

Do you get that with an all-you-can-eat streaming service? No, absolutely not. You have all of this music at your finger tips all at once and at any second you can stop a track and switch to something else. It becomes cheap and disposable. You lose any sense of "personal". It becomes like junk food. You eat it, you **** it out and move on to something else.

That's why owning an actual record will always be better imo no matter how much more expensive it is. I'd rather have 30 records I cherish than 300,000 that I barely sampled.

 

[Shirasaki]

Yes but what they lose is the tactical side of the issue. Being 36 myself, I know all about this subject. When we were teenagers in the early to mid 90's, we didn't get tons of CDs at once. You would typically pick one up here or there when you had the money. You would carefully pick your selection, take it home, rip it open, take the booklet out, start the record and go song by song, reading along with the lyrics and checking out the artwork. Because it was only one record, you memorized the songs inside and out... you developed a relationship with those songs and that album before you ever bought another one.

Do you get that with an all-you-can-eat streaming service? No, absolutely not. You have all of this music at your finger tips all at once and at any second you can stop a track and switch to something else. It becomes cheap and disposable. You lose any sense of "personal". It becomes like junk food. You eat it, you **** it out and move on to something else.

That's why owning an actual record will always be better imo no matter how much more expensive it is. I'd rather have 30 records I cherish than 300,000 that I barely sampled.

Your comments are in my deep heart. I never thought about such things myself. But yeah, I learn to sing every single song (almost all of them are Japanese while I don't speak Japanese natively), and feel them, understand them. I don't think streaming service can bring me much like this to me.

 

[LordVic]

Yes but what they lose is the tactical side of the issue. Being 36 myself, I know all about this subject. When we were teenagers in the early to mid 90's, we didn't get tons of CDs at once. You would typically pick one up here or there when you had the money. You would carefully pick your selection, take it home, rip it open, take the booklet out, start the record and go song by song, reading along with the lyrics and checking out the artwork. Because it was only one record, you memorized the songs inside and out... you developed a relationship with those songs and that album before you ever bought another one.

Do you get that with an all-you-can-eat streaming service? No, absolutely not. You have all of this music at your finger tips all at once and at any second you can stop a track and switch to something else. It becomes cheap and disposable. You lose any sense of "personal". It becomes like junk food. You eat it, you **** it out and move on to something else.

That's why owning an actual record will always be better imo no matter how much more expensive it is. I'd rather have 30 records I cherish than 300,000 that I barely sampled.

I do miss that. Great times of my youth.

Thanks for bringing down memory lane.

Times have changed though eh.

 

[Shirasaki]

I do miss that. Great times of my youth.

Thanks for bringing down memory lane.

Times have changed though eh.

Changed so everyone just consume everything once and discard them forever.

Miss the old time we feel shocked/impressed/moved/sad/etc when listening to a song.

World is moving on with such a speed no one can anticipate.