Google Music announced, tightly integrated with Google+ - Page 2

Don't be crazy!

I dont know, but when I listen to 256k itunes music, it sounds slightly better than FM quality, when I listen to the 320k mp3 versions I have to be listening on a higher end system to really notice a differance between it and CD.

And that's supposed to make it better?

Not that is has any impact on your review at all (which sounded fair) but did someone switch around the keys on your keyboard?!?!

Google will have to quickly revamp their offerings.

Music is nice but I'm probably spending more on other content like apps. Android Market isn't doing badly here but one thing I like about iTunes is that it's a one stop shop for everything.

It's not that hard to use though it could use a bit of revamping.

My brain just imploded!

How come AAC is bigger than MP3 at the same bitrate? That link showed a 15% difference between the two.

12 hour workdays make me not care about the red underlines apperantly, that and I had to alt tab back to Chrome and finish getting the like 100 free tracks...

I wish Google would spend more of its vast resources innovating in the consumer space instead of just copying Apple.

Google Music is such a feature-for-feature rip-off of iTunes that it's almost comic.

The one thing I do like about this music service is the independent artist portal with its AppStore-like revenue split model. It is essentially a MySpace rip-off , but can potentially be more powerful as it would reach a larger audience. That is, unless Google Music flops like so many of the company's other "me too" services.

I started using iTunes Match and it's perfectly stable and really slick. I synched my 22,000 song library in about two hours while I was at work. It actually started working right away. So I personally have no need for Google Music. It'll probably do Ok for Android users, but the lack of Warner Music participation, and the ridiculous amount of time it would take to upload a large music library may turn off most users.

Yes, but that is probably meaningless, as Apple uses its own formatting that typically sounds significantly better then higher bit rate songs from competing services. I am sure Google will try to claim the music is of higher quality just because the bit rate is higher. Apple has an incredible long history of compression with audio almost dating back to when the company was founded. I doubt Google is going to beat iTunes quality.

first, Google rolled out their music service as an upload only thing before Apple introduced their match service...

Next: Apple relies on big software running on the device, and can only work on IOS. Google splaywe and store is all web standards based. It can work on anything.

they are not copying apple, they are distributing music in their own way.

And really I find it funny that people on an apple forum would be pissed about being supposedly copied...1st Steve 1:1 "Good artists copy great artists steal" Thus sayeth the Jobs...

Obviously the guy on that link is utterly clueless and doesn't know what he is doing. I think he is comparing 256 VBR MP3 to 256 CBR AAC. There is no other way to explain the difference in size between the two. At the same bit rate both AAC and MP3 have pretty much the same size.

Can you imagine what Steve would feel about this announcement?

256Mbps? No wonder the Android phones need the 4G just to download a single song

The problem is. They may have introduced their beta first by rushing to market, but the truth is Apple's program was leaked by the press long before they wanted to present it. So it gives competitors like Google a shot at trying to beat them to what ever they are planning.

If only Apple didn't have to work with partners.

No problems. All it took was a bit of patience. It is actually pretty cool. Glad I went for it.

Likewise. I was skeptical. But it works beautifully, and seamlessly.

The one silly feature is, it appears one can't have a musc library in an iOS device and stream via iTunes Match. It asks whether you want to erase your music library in the iOS device.

Is it really either/or!?

Otoh, for AppleTV, it is just perfect.

Haven't tried ATV yet. I'll check it out tonight.

I was confused by the message too. I had to delete my songs off of iPhone first, then put them back on via Match. I understood that's how it works now. No more syncing with iTunes on my iMac. I've been downloading my favorite playlists to my iPhone and iPad all day.

[QUOTE=MeniThings;1989510]I wish Google would spend more of its vast resources innovating in the consumer space instead of just copying Apple.

Google Music is such a feature-for-feature rip-off of iTunes that it's almost comic."

Last time I checked iTunes Match is NOT a streaming service. Google Music IS a streaming service (and more) which is exactly what I want. I don't see how this is a feature for feature copy of apple! I don't want to store a bunch of music on my phone when it can just stay in the cloud. I still have the option to store some locally if I am going to be away from cell reception but that's a rarity.

I always rip my cd's to 320 kbps mp3's using exact audio copy and lame anyway, because they sound good and play on almost anything, unlike aac files. iTunes match would save time by not having to upload music to the server, but overall it would not be any kind of free upgrade in quality for me.

Between Spotify and google music I can have my whole collection available and a lot of music I don't even own available for a mere 10 bucks a month (or free if you don't need/want Spotify).

Works for me, goodbye iTunes. (slow and bloated anyway)

Maybe he was comparing files with different metadata? Adding the album art can bump up the file size, for example. Take a stripped mp3 vs. an aac that actually has additional info and *poof* you might see a larger aac even at a lower bit rate?

yawn...

Those numbers reflect how many bits per second are "played". So a 320kbps song that is 3 minutes long is 7.2MB. That same song at 256kbps is 5.76MB. Those are CBR encodings and rough estimates for VBR which tries to average out highs and lows to obtain the desired bit rate.

While the AAC format (based off Apple's QuickTime container format) does have a bit more overhead than MP3, it is negligible when compared to the actual song data. The AAC file format also offers a lot more metadata and different types of data to be stored, so it may simply be a case of the AAC file containing more detailed information.


I'd also like to say, that this will in no way have any affect on Apple or iTunes. This is Google's attempt to cut into Amazon's share, which is the content store most used on Android devices. Also, Google has not had any luck in getting their user base to actually pay for much of anything (thanks to Google's MO of handing out everything for free), I don't think this new service is going to help much either. Google is getting into every market that is associated with personal information, which includes music tastes, in order to further their user profiling - the more detailed information they have on you, the more valuable you are to them as a commodity.

A couple of quotes from Eric Schmidt...

"We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”

“I ACTUALLY think most people don’t want Google to answer their questions, they want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."

Correction: They don't automatically appear, you have to choose to share.

I like this a lot better then I like itunes. I use a Windows/linux machine, (I love gaming) from what I find itunes is a bloated joke. It is horrible to use and the reason I gave my iPod to my roommate. iTunes has a horrible habit of crashing on windows machines whether it is a Intel or AMD it is still runs like crap. Google music is web based so I can do my homework in my linux partition and still can listen to all my music from my computer. Yeah the upload takes a while.

Demoted. This is a free country. Lets keep it that way.

$25 a year to have 20,000 of my songs matched as opposed to having to upload over 200 GB's of music is an amazing deal in my book. The 4,000 or so that iTunes Match hasn't been able to Match as of yet are taking their sweet time despite maxing out my upload bandwidth. I can't even imagine having to upload my entire collection. It'd take an eternity with the brutal upload speeds WOW plans offer, all the while limiting my bandwidth available for other purposes.

There are certainly elements of iTunes Match that aren't perfect, but it's early and even with the occasional bugs and oddities, it's a pretty incredible service at a pretty reasonable price. It's not for everyone and it certainly needs to improve, but after trying Google Music out for a bit early on and seeing the full rollout today, I'm confident in the fact that sticking with iTunes Match is the best deal for me. Between Match, Spotify Premium and wonderful remote desktop apps for my 3G iPad, I don't foresee myself ever having a major mobile music need again.

And I have absolutely no problem whatsoever paying for these services at all.

If Google services weren't free, I wouldn't even consider using them. And even though they're free, I only use search occasionally and a Gmail account for "junk mail" when I have to sign up for things on the internet like this forum. I've never gotten spam or seen ads on my MobileMe/iCloud e-mail. I had no problem paying for that benefit either.

It's actually quite nice to be able to have internet-based experiences that aren't littered with bullshit. That's worth money to me.

Google will continue to be successful for some time at offering mediocre if not terrible products to people who either have terrible taste, low expectations, entitlement issues or some combination of all three and more. Google will still be financially successful in the end because all the crap services exist simply to mine data that ultimately helps to increase their ad revenue. I simply have no interest in getting overly involved in a race towards mediocrity.

it's pretty plain what is happening. Apple, Google, and Amazon - and next year MS - are all trying to "lock in" their respective customer base into their respective ecosystems, using your music stored in their clouds as the big anchor that keeps you there.

it isn't that you can't switch or move your stuff if you know how. but it gets to be a royal pain in the butt, one that most consumers don't want to bother with. so they will stay put in whatever ecosystem they are set up first with. sheer inertia.

Google's ecosystem includes all those other Google cloud services too. YouTube is its ace in the hole. plus all the Android hardware of course. it tends to be sloppy, but a lot is "free".

Amazon's ecosystem is not nearly as extensive. it's for shopaholics mainly - the bargain hunters. it needs more. maybe they will buy the remains of Yahoo next year to beef up.

MS is going to try to compete with its Windows 8, Mango, etc. next year, featuring the Xbox Live hardcore base plus whatever is left of Nokia's base. i dunno if it is all going to jell.

and then there are the wannabes, like Sony, Samsung and other OEM's that don't have the breadth of services on their own but are trying to assemble their own limited packages, like internet TV's. plus all the small independents with specialized products looking for niches (Roku, TiVo, SlingMedia, etc.) and partnerships. But all these are pretty much limited to techies and hobbyists i think, not the broad consumer market.

Apple of course has the oldest and most fully developed ecosystem - the famous "walled garden." certainly the most polished, and with competitive but generally higher prices. once consumers (not techies) get themselves set up with several integrated Apple devices plus iCloud and iTunes Match, they are very unlikely to switch in the future because it all works pretty nice. and Apple doesn't need to dominate the others as long as it takes most the profits while they cut each other to shreds.

The big player still on the sidelines is Facebook. they want to be your ecosystem too, but don't have their own hardware yet. maybe they never will. they might team up with Amazon instead - that would be a powerful combo. or they might buy the remains of RIM next year for cheap.

the other big players who haven't figured out their strategy yet are the cablecos, like Comcast and AT&T with U-Verse. will they partner up to expand their services, or go it alone? we know they do not want to be just dumb pipes.

so in 2012 i think the competition will get a lot more complicated, and there will be a lot deals/surprises. this will result in quite a bit of consumer confusion. if the post-Jobs Apple is smart, they will stick to making the best products and integrated ecosystem they can instead of trying to be complicated like the others just to "compete." a large chunk of consumers will always want good stuff that Just Works.

That's why they have been closing down a lot of services.

I don't think they lack focus. They are just very big.
Apple is also investing in search technology, but in a different way (Siri).
They make computers, phones, AppleTV, have an online store for apps and music...
Do they lack focus as well? Don't think so.

It's about time ITunes gets some serious competition. This is good for all of us as Apple is getting a bit arrogant and their platform too closed lately.

The main thing I'm excited about with this is the lack of iTunes to manage my music. I've been using Google Music since it first came out, and while it definitely has some issues, it is constantly improving. I like that I don't have to install anything to use it, either.

Now, give me access to iTunes Match via a web-based cloud player, and the ability to delete purchased songs/shows/apps/etc. from iTunes' "Purchased" list so I can control exactly what appears on there and what doesn't, and I'll be happy. The biggest issue Google Music has is the uploading. I only have around 3000 songs, nowhere near the 20,000 limit, a decent upload speed (Comcast business class), and I'm still annoyed at the time it takes.

Neither company is completely there yet, but the music management scene is looking sooo much better right now than it was 1 year ago, before iTunes Match, iCloud, and Google Music. Give them another year to work out the kinks and we'll see some amazing stuff, I hope.

Final thoughts: competition breeds innovation. Even if Google Music doesn't attract large number of defectors (as many have mentioned, having a music collection in one ecosystem tends to hold people there quite well), the mere existence of it, as long as it has success in a decent regard, will cause others, Apple included, to improve.

Get off your high perch horse. You sound like the greedy 1% of this world.

There are innovators and then there are imitators. If you come up with a fresh idea and make it work, you're an innovator. If you took a concept that people are trying to make something of, and you took it to another level, you're an innovator.

Apple didn't invent everything in their products, but they took concepts and brought it to another level, and that is still considered innovation. Examples include man-machine interfaces such as mouse, touch, voice (Siri). MP3 players -> iPods, digital music stores -> iTunes, ebooks -> iBooks, software downloads -> App Store.

If you took an existing product and made something similar, perhaps at a lower price with less features, you're an imitator. Yes, I'm talking to you Google! Gmail, Google+, Google Music, Android are all examples of products that do nothing but imitate, not innovate. The only thing ever to come out of Google that can be considered innovative is their search engine. They weren't the first to come up with a search engine but they did take it to another level.

Google is the new Microsoft. All your efforts to dominate the tech industry are in vain because we can smell your stinky products from miles away.

Gmail offers new features.

Google + offers new features.

Google Music offers new features.

They all push their respective boundaries.

And the best part is, all of these services are integrated or are about to be.

Your entire argument just got served.

- Again, Google Music is a rip-off of iTunes. I'm not sure why you're isolating one recent feature (cloud) and saying that's all iTunes is. Strange. Google Music has blatantly copied iTunes, 8 years after the fact. This includes the basic sales model, core layout, and a host of features like Staff Picks and free track of the day, among many other things.

- Google Music doesn't work on my tablet. So I don't see an advantage to browser-based music store/player. I personally hate Google's browser approach, as is evident in their generally awful suite of clunky services.

- I'm not sure why you're stating that people on an Apple forum are "pissed". I believe the more appropriate word is "unimpressed" because Google lacks innovation. And that's unfortunate.

- The Steve Jobs quote is irrelevant. You sound like a brainwashed Google fanboy.

Soooo all of you are making value judgements on Google Music after having used it right?

Just making sure we're dealing with sound arguments and not the furious rantings of a bunch of fanboys.


And now Gmail is a bad product? lol. Wow.

[QUOTE=faZZter;1989563]

- iTunes Match is a streaming service. Only better. On my PC and Apple TV, iTunes streams my entire music library without downloading. This is because these computers/devices are connected to a home Internet service that can take constant streaming without hitting data caps. On my iOS device it goes one step further. It streams the song, but also keeps the download. This is desirable since most songs I stream I usually want to hear again, and therefore significantly cuts down on much more limited cellular bandwidth. It's actually a cool feature. Seeing it as a disadvantage is odd and short-sighted.

- The more advanced AAC format at 256 Kbps is superior to MP3 at 320 Kbps. Better sound but in a smaller file. So it's a win-win. I had thousands of low-to-medium quality MP3's I've accumulated over the years that are now automatically upgraded to high quality AAC. This is a good thing.

- I like Spotify too. I use the free version as a way to discover new music in its entirety before buying. I prefer owning my music so I'm continuing with iTunes. Google Music is not an option because it's a poor imitation of the real thing. They don't even have Warner Music on board. Lame.

One can hope more competition in this field can only help musicians get a cut for their creativity. That said, Google is slowly becoming Microsoft like in the '80s...they don't invent anything, they just shamelessly copy. All those expensive engineers and this is the best they can do? First take on Facebook and now Apple? Really?

So you're suggesting that a) Google Music is just like iTunes and b) a single store where you can get multiple things belongs to Apple and Apple only and anyone else who makes such a store is shamelessly copying?

You lot really have a strange definition of copy.

This is by far the most attractive & important feature of Google Music.

You can't store and stream music from the cloud with iTunes Match. You still have to download it.

You're correct... You had the freedom to not agree with the User Agreement and not sign up to post in these forums. That agreement clearly outlined what is exceptable behavior and the consequences you would face if you did not adhere to them.

If you can't join in a discussion without staying on topic and without adding something to it, you shouldn't have entered the discussion in the first place. Almost everything where there are two or more sides in opposition is moderated in some fashion... Debates, court hearings, sports, etc.

So while it is a free country, there are rules and laws that participants need to follow and there are those that make sure everyone stays within bounds.

Without moderation you end up with the Jerry Springer Show.

I do agree to some extent, but the difference here is that Microsoft (of the 90's) pretty much forced themselves down people's throats... There just wasn't any choice then. Microsoft had the computer industry locked to their platforms through shady tactics and unfair contracts that promoted anti-competitive behavior.

Today's Google is reminiscent of Microsoft in so much that they're extending their reach into every market they can. But by no means is Google a platform vendor that has the ability to take any market hostage. Google is nothing more than an ad company that wants to be in every market segment that threatens to take away user information and user exposure. Because of this, their main focus has nothing to do with the end user, it has nothing to do with offering the best products or services, but basically good-enough alternatives to what's already out there and attracting a lot of user attention.

I certainly beg to differ. It may not have some HUGE impact, but it will hit iTunes. Even personally, off the top of my head I know at least a handful of people with Android phones that continually bought music from iTunes, tossed it on their SD card and went on their way. I'm sure they can't be the only ones. Having it's own store cuts out the need for that.