Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Before even knowing anything about the service?
Google's track record even for iOS apps is really good too.
They do make good iOS apps, no question about it. Google Now is better than Siri IMHO.
But the Google Glass unveiling last year had to make you laugh. How could you not laugh at Sergey's self-indulgent Google Glass launch at last year's Google Uh/Oh
Not so. The iTunes music library made available would be the same as Spotify offers because it's the music labels and artists that decide what content is allowed on streaming services. They are not going to repeat the mistakes of the past and let Apple dominate this sector to.
The only way Apple could differentiate itself now is by offering better quality content to buy which means either lossless or 24bit. It would offer the perfect balance - stream compressed or download lossless.
If it's Spotify like, released in the UK and a similar price with the music I listen to (Spotify has it typically) and an app that allows for my own songs integrated with the downloaded ones (as well as offline playlists) I might consider moving.
???
Just because I have a few Google Sites doesn't mean every Google Site is mine. That's be as absurd as saying every website ever authored in iWeb was authored by iWeb was one person's. I made the page for Battery Status, and all the pages it links to. That other page you have a link to is not mine.
And Battery Status is for OS X, not phones.
And the customers in Google Play are even worse to deal with than those in the iOS App Store.
I choose to sell in the OS X App Store because customers tend to appreciate the time I put into the app and not say "OMG, $2!? IT SHOULD BE FREE! EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FREEEEE!" Yeah... No. I put thousands of hours into it, doing something you're either incapable or unwilling to do (coding it.)
the record labels get 70% of the revenue from streaming.
For example: Spotify pays 70% of their revenue to the record labels. That's why scale is required.
Again - so since Spotify does something, no other company should be in the market? Do you believe we should only have one manufacturer for phones, cars, homes, appliances, etc?
What personal information of yours or anyone else's has google sold? And are you aware that Google's apps (on android) don't have ads? And are you also aware that (and although just a rumor) the service would be paid without ads?
Yes - he comes off as quite angry. I've noticed it - and so have others. Perhaps you need to read more than the quote I was responding to. Because it didn't live in a vacuum. See his other posts.
Jesus christ, what has happened to MacRumors? I remember when there used to be decent discussion on here, and now we have the likes of this as one of the top comments on articles?!
TIL: Apple fans hate the 'stupid' Google Fiber and 'stupid' driverless cars.
I personally just look forward to seeing what this streaming service is like. Nothing more, nothing less.
??
Why listen to the thousand radio stations that are commercial free on iTunes when you can pay money for it with Google???>>?
________________________________________
Why listen to the thousand radio stations that are commercial free on iTunes when you can pay money for it with Google???>>?
How incredibly shortsighted. With Spotify you can listen to your music, and also experience all kinds of new music for the very same price. Why would you revel in paying more for less? That's just mind-boggling.
I agree. I used to be pretty adamant about buying/owning music. Until I realized that after a while I get tired of the same songs/artists. When my new car allowed me to listen to my iPhone though USB/BT, I downloaded a few streaming apps [settled on Slacker], and love the experience. Can listen to like artists, different music depending on mood, etc. and switch it all up when I want. I can create various playlists of those songs/artists I like, so I'm not really missing anything...
I'm using the free service at the moment, but would love to settle on a decently priced paid service, with unlimited/offline capabilities. Most are still a tad expensive for my tastes [$10/Month], so holding out hope. I'd have no issue paying $4/Month for a solid unlimited service...
So you're telling me that you'd rather pay, say, $500 per month for a car that you own rather than $100 per month to drive essentially any car on the planet for as little or as long as you want?
I certainly don´t know what Apple is going to offer, but I can speculate (and that´s what I do) based on how Apple wants their iTunes music store to become more relevant, now that they have some competition with Spotify and other services.
And the reasons for and why iRadio doesn´t and can´t compete with Spotify or other services like the one Google is going to introduce today have been talked about several times. iRadio is going to be just an additional radio service to iTunes, they are going to complement each other. Apple wants to increase their iTunes revenue further, iRadio is the solution to do this. It´s not that hard to grasp, is it? But if all you have to contribute is some useless comment, don´t be surprised if what I said is going to come true. And yes, I am going to continue to post my ideas and speculation about things that Apple does, because instead of you, I always take my time and critically analyse if there´s also some benefit for me or just for Apple.
Why would I listen to Apple´s radio, when there´s great digital radio stations already out there? Why would I even care? They better come up with something insanely great or iRadio is just going to be ignored. And that´s a pretty valid statement to make.
Last edited:
This is not solely about comparing compression schemes. The AAC encoder that Apple uses does some horrible things like normalizing, before they AAC encode their masters, so the music you are buying is not what the artist intended. Worst thing is that they also offer that useless "Mastered for iTunes" option for albums and songs, where they could´ve just used the CD masters and encoded with Apple´s lossless ALAC encoder instead. But they are not doing that. They basically overcharge for something that still is compressed.
Also, Spotify offers 320kbit/s CBR, while Apple does TVBR 256kbit/s (that´s how iTunes Plus works) at best.
If you buy a CD, you´re better off in every way. iTunes is for people who just don´t care about quality at all or want something convenient to use for their everyday listening. If you want quality, you want lossless.
That´s not what he meant. He was talking about the fact that when you buy from their iTunes store, you are able to re-download your songs to your devices if you want. However, if sometimes some record deals change, Apple has the freedom to revoke access to those files and you cannot download them again. It´s like when you buy movies or TV shows from them, you are never 100% sure that you have access to your bought stuff forever. The only solution to that is to make a backup of your iTunes folder and sync that to your devices.
...at least you're self aware.
You automatically proclaim something is dead despite having NO CLUE what that unannounced product is. THEN you automatically assume the reason Apple can come to an agreement is because they want more money.
Were you there during the negotiations? NO
Speculation is fine but don't talk as if you personally work for Eddie Cue and no whats going on when in reality...you don't. Hence your tripe was/is just as useless as my 'useless comment'
Speculation and 'Critical Analyses' aren't the same thing. Until iRadio AND Google's service are both announced, you can't do the latter only the former.
