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

Google to Unveil Streaming Music Service at Google I/O Tomorrow

johndoejohndoes said:
Once again Google beats Apple to the punch.
Click to expand...

Please, YouTube beat everyone to the punch with music streaming. Really, I'm surprised Google gets away with facilitating such piracy. At this point, a lot of artists have voluntarily put their stuff up on YouTube, so that's how I get anything new I want. Other than that, CDs.

----------
Todd B. said:
I don't see how any of those examples = "knocking it out of the park".

Google Maps for iOS is pretty much non-functional (no contacts support, no history, horrible turn by turn), Google Translate is gimmicky, Google Now is also gimmicky (and was pretty much stale after 15 minutes of using it).
Click to expand...

How the heck is Translate gimmicky? It's really simple and useful.
The turn-by-turn in Google Maps is almost as good as in Apple Maps if you ignore the massive processor usage that drains the battery.
 
ThunderSkunk said:
If it's not music I own, I can just listen to the radio.
If it is music I own, I want to be able to listen to it independent of whether or not I have an internet connection.

I don't understand the fascination with streaming music.
Click to expand...

1. Spotify's single mobile app is superior to Apple's.
2. Apple has two apps, iTunes and Music; both suck and having two apps is stupid and extremely inconvenient.
3. Spotify has a download option and works without internet.
4. iTunes is a nightmare to keep synced and backed up. Apple will delete tracks that you bought from their store without notifying you, so if you don't have a back up too bad; and good luck finding that track. So much for the Post-PC BS.
5. Apple has inconsistent encoding across their store 128 & 256; Spotify has 320.
6. If Google's service and app are better, I can just cancel Spotify and switch.
7. Or, if I decide to go to Android at some point I can just switch. iTunes? Guess you have to buy all that music over again.

Good luck with that.
 
bozzykid said:
Why? Because not everybody wants to buy a whole CD or play lossless files. No one is forcing you to buy music online.
Click to expand...

AAC > MP3 for music. It stores better quality in the same file size. Besides, if you're going for the album, CDs are cheaper. I can't believe the iTunes Store used to use MP3s. Horrible.

----------
Object-X said:
1. Spotify's single mobile app is superior to Apple's.
2. Apple has two apps, iTunes and Music; both suck and having two apps is stupid and extremely inconvenient.
3. Spotify has a download option and works without internet.
4. iTunes is a nightmare to keep synced and backed up. Apple will delete tracks that you bought from their store without notifying you, so if you don't have a back up too bad; and good luck finding that track. So much for the Post-PC BS.
5. Apple has inconsistent encoding across their store 128 & 256; Spotify has 320.
6. If Google's service and app are better, I can just cancel Spotify and switch.
7. Or, if I decide to go to Android at some point I can just switch. iTunes? Guess you have to buy all that music over again.

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Have you ever, ever used iTunes once in your entire life? I could stick music I bought from the iTunes Store (not that I buy music from it) on anything. I don't know where you got the deleting tracks thing from. I've bought like 5 songs from the store, and none of them have been touched and are synced fine.
 
Say goodbye to Spotify :D. Google can afford to undercut them.

Google's app should be much better than Spotify's. Apple is smart not to jump in the middle of it with another app like Spotify's.
 
toaster64 said:
AAC > MP3 for music. It stores better quality in the same file size.

----------



Have you ever, ever used iTunes once in your entire life? I could stick music I bought from the iTunes Store (not that I buy music from it) on anything. I don't know where you got the deleting tracks thing from. I've bought like 5 songs from the store, and none of them have been touched and are synced fine.
Click to expand...

I've used iTunes for years, and stopped once I tried Spotify. Apple's two app solution is a mess and inexcusable.
 
prizm said:
I was under the impression Apple was losing the narrative, but now I officially believe it. I can't believe how asleep at the wheel this once great company has become. Everyone, and I mean everyone is outclassing, out hyping, out doing Apple on the world stage.

What happened to this company? What do all those employees with all those hundreds billions of dollars do? It would appear they've been put in a sleep hold. Not longer at the tip of the arrow it's sad and shocking really.
Click to expand...

Who really cares. Apple is just another company. Go with the company / product that meets your needs.
 
I don't understand all these "Me too!" services... do any of them actually offer things that Spotify doesn't?

Pandora: We don't let you pick the songs you listen to!
Spotify: That's retarded - but there's an app for it if you really want it.

Google: We charge you $10/month for it!
Spotify: That's retarded - but you can pay for it if you really want to.
 
prizm said:
I was under the impression Apple was losing the narrative, but now I officially believe it. I can't believe how asleep at the wheel this once great company has become. Everyone, and I mean everyone is outclassing, out hyping, out doing Apple on the world stage.

What happened to this company? What do all those employees with all those hundreds billions of dollars do? It would appear they've been put in a sleep hold. Not longer at the tip of the arrow it's sad and shocking really.
Click to expand...

There are a BILLION mobile devices out there... but Spotify only has 30 million users (and only 6 million paying customers)

Let Google make a streaming music service... it won't be the end of the world...
 
ArtOfWarfare said:
I don't understand all these "Me too!" services... do any of them actually offer things that Spotify doesn't?

Pandora: We don't let you pick the songs you listen to!
Spotify: That's retarded - but there's an app for it if you really want it.

Google: We charge you $10/month for it!
Spotify: That's retarded - but you can pay for it if you really want to.
Click to expand...

How can you judge Google's service until they announce it? They may have something better than Spotify. Spotify offers mobile streaming and higher encoding for their premium price. Sounds like Google will be offering the same. The free service for Spotify only works on a PC, Google doesn't really make PC software, so I don't think your analogy works.
 
I think it could be a semi-game changer if Google does this thing tomorrow and comes in at half the price of Spotify and Rdio to offer desktop and mobile streaming at $4.99 per month.

What would be the real game changer is if Apple finds a way to offer streaming of their entire catalogue for no monthly cost. The cost is built into the purchase price of a 5S or later or you can add it to the iPhone 5 for a one-time fee of $25. Mark the new iPhones up 25 bucks even on contract and split a portion of that with the record companies around the world for every iOS device sold. That would be a game changer.

Then, the people who want to still "own" the music or want to stream offline can buy like we do today and everyone else can stream for no monthly fees. That would revolutionize the music industry for this decade like the iPod did for the last decade.
 
CBZinger said:
Why is everyone gung ho on subscription services? I'd rather own my music than succumb to the pricing models of these sites that you have to keep a membership on. The music is mine. I bought it, I own it, period. That's my right. I enjoy streaming audio through the likes of Spotify, Slacker and Pandora but if I want to buy music to keep for later in a library these apps offer me that capability to buy it outright, and that's as they should keep it. I can always go back to offline and listen to it (ever hear of no cell service when listening to a subscription service while driving?), then that's my prerogative as well.

Did anyone happen to notice that the as-yet-to-be-named subscription service they're talking about is going to compete with a similar service offered by YouTube? It's just another way that Google can pilfer cash from people, and both services will end up competing with each other, eventually to fall dead in the water just like every other subscription service that has tried to work and keep its members.

I'll wait and see if this is going to be very successful. Googlers will rejoice but I'll hold off on any further laudible praise unless they can prove it's worth. I think this will be another service they'll shut down in no less than 2 years just like half the other projects they've killed that had promise.
Click to expand...

If you think you "own" your music when you purchase digital, jokes on you. So have fun buying CDs, in reality the cost of 1 cd is that of a huge streaming music library that incudes new releases. Seems like a simple choice, price isnt even comparable, even if you are worried about music ownership. A problem that doesn't even really exist, because for 999 out of 1000 people, it is meaningless. Take off your tin foil hat.
 
ArtOfWarfare said:
I don't understand all these "Me too!" services... do any of them actually offer things that Spotify doesn't?

Pandora: We don't let you pick the songs you listen to!
Spotify: That's retarded - but there's an app for it if you really want it.

Google: We charge you $10/month for it!
Spotify: That's retarded - but you can pay for it if you really want to.
Click to expand...

Nobody knows what or if Google is going to charge until tomorrow.

But I do think it's a little hypocritical to chastise Google as most of your posts do when your Paid App that does what is built into Apple's iOS is hosted on Google services.

https://sites.google.com/site/goldeneggdrop/battery-status

You charge a $1.99 for a service that is built into the core OS? Why would anybody "Pay" for such service?

It's odd that you can take jabs at Google but use it's services for your own apps tech support.

But hey, who am I to judge?
 
CBZinger said:
Why is everyone gung ho on subscription services?
Click to expand...

I used to spend about $100 a month on music. I own over 1,500 CD's and records. There were periods where I didn't buy anything for a while so my number is pretty low for anyone who really listens to music regularly.
I prefer to be on a subscription service for $10 a month because I can listen to fringe things I might not have bought before because I was afraid it might suck. I don't have to worry if the latest record by my favorite artist sucks because I don't own it. I can't tell you how many of the albums I own have only been listened to 1-5 times because its horrible.
If a band I like releases something dumb like a greatest hits/remastered album with just one or two bonus tracks I don't have to rebuy the whole album.
My music is portable. When I'm in the car or on the road or on vacation I don't have to worry about whats loaded on my mobile device. I don't even have to buy a device with large storage capacity. I alway go for the lowest capacity device available.
To me Pandora is pretty useless. I don't like the magic DJ in the sky thing. I want to listen to what I want to listen to, but even with Spotify I can do the DJ in the sky thing if I'm feeling lazy and I have people over.
The one thing I hate about the subscription service is the fact that the artists are getting raped. It takes way too many plays for them to make any money. Most artists are going to starve if people stop buying their albums.
I feel really bad about it. I'm not spending money on buying albums anymore. I try to take that money I don't spend and see even more live shows than I did before. Maybe buy something at their merch table.
Honestly my albums are mostly just space hogs. Another plus for the music services.
 
Michael Scrip said:
Haha... good point.

Google the Destroyer :)
Click to expand...

If you think that's a good thing.

People seem to be all for choice except when it comes to Google. If Google was the only choice for services some people would be just fine with that.
 
Renzatic said:
Sites like Youtube and Vimeo are all DMCA safe harbors. That means they're not held directly liable for anything uploaded to their servers, but if a copyright holder comes across any infringing content, Google is obligated to take it down at their request.
Click to expand...

Hence why just about anything from one of the big 4 networks is taken down immediately (well other than the stuff they up themselves).
 
iSunrise said:
And from Apple´s perspective, their reasoning is that, because they have such a huge customer base already, they can be greedy to no end and ask prices that are WAY lower than any other company that is currently offering a comparable service.
Click to expand...

Or their reasoning is based on what they are trying to offer. Perhaps it's not Pandora or Spotify but Lala. Perhaps even Lala as part of iTunes Match. If it is that then for many songs at possible they wanted a smaller per play fee because the labels get a fee simply because a user matches a song, so it's double dipping. Just like it would be for streaming purchases.

For songs a user hasn't matched they might be fine with the higher allegedly demanded rates.

Or perhaps in keeping with Lala they want a scaled system with one listen being free for any but after that you either need to buy it or be a Match member.

They could resurrect the old 'Similar Artists', flesh out the info pages, go to a Lala style following and playlist sharing etc and many folks would be quite happy with that. Thy don't need another whatever cause they have the original and it is just dandy for them
 
4TheLoveOfTech said:
Nobody knows what or if Google is going to charge until tomorrow.

But I do think it's a little hypocritical to chastise Google as most of your posts do when your Paid App that does what is built into Apple's iOS is hosted on Google services.

https://sites.google.com/site/goldeneggdrop/battery-status

You charge a $1.99 for a service that is built into the core OS? Why would anybody "Pay" for such service?

It's odd that you can take jabs at Google but use it's services for your own apps tech support.

But hey, who am I to judge?
Click to expand...

It offers more than the core OS.

1 - The statuses are shared across the network, which is quite useful if you run a computer lab with hundreds of wireless devices.
2 - It makes predictions about death dates and keeps track of when batteries were replaced. Knowing your battery is going to die in 3 days is more useful than knowing it's at 10% (for example. It monitors your usage patterns. Some users get by with a single set of batteries for a year. Others burn through batteries every other week.)

My next project is going to involve a web service so I'm planning on purchasing some web real estate and migrating away from a Google Site soon - I set up my site there before I had any money to fund my projects with.
 
Object-X said:
I've used iTunes for years, and stopped once I tried Spotify. Apple's two app solution is a mess and inexcusable.
Click to expand...

There's one app, iTunes for Mac, which does everything. If you're buying music on your iOS device as well, there is iTunes and the music app. How often are you buying music that you need them to be together? I'm glad that they're separate so I can shove the iTunes app in the back and not deal with it when I'm listening to music.

Spotify is a different thing. You're essentially buying as you play (well actually all-you-can-eat), so there's no reason to have two apps. Sure you might like Spotify better, but don't say it's because iTunes doesn't sync well (it does), because it loses your purchases (it doesn't), and because there are two different apps.

Personally, I just use iTunes with music from CDs and YouTube. I wouldn't want to pay monthly for songs I could just own or play on YouTube if I don't. Maybe it's just because my music library is relatively static since I hate most new music.

----------
ArtOfWarfare said:
I don't understand all these "Me too!" services... do any of them actually offer things that Spotify doesn't?

Pandora: We don't let you pick the songs you listen to!
Spotify: That's retarded - but there's an app for it if you really want it.

Google: We charge you $10/month for it!
Spotify: That's retarded - but you can pay for it if you really want to.
Click to expand...

Spotify isn't free.
 
Google sounds fine if you're paying, but no free tier means no way. I'll stick with Xbox music's free tier. It's like Spotify but has a great win 8 app and has more music than Spotify, which is also great. Apple's service sounds like a joke. Late to the party, and horrible features. Apple is getting old and slow.

----------
toaster64 said:
[/COLOR]

Spotify isn't free.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. You get an ad every 5 songs, but it's free. Just like Xbox music.
 
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