I know what the changes were because I've used Google music for a long time. But, it must not be clear in this article what Google music was before this update as evidenced by all of the comments.
I know what the changes were because I've used Google music for a long time. But, it must not be clear in this article what Google music was before this update as evidenced by all of the comments.
…
I have had plenty of inconsistent experiences with iTunes Match. First when a direct copy of albums that are in the top 50 best selling of all time matches half the songs and uploads the other half sourced by the CD itself makes zero sense. That's an annoyance more than a problem but still really unnecessary. I've also had so many buffering lock-ups on my iPhone 5 in great LTE reception it's head scratching. For that reason I've dumped it and gone back to just physically loading the phone. The TV and iPad don't seem to have the problem though.
I'm not understanding all the copy complaints. Most of this type of thing is driven and controlled by the labels and distributors to begin with.
Google Music us a useful backup product since it can be used anywhere since all you really need is a browser, and handy on crappy locked down corporate PCs. The fact it's free is a plus. Overall, still geared towards Android users for sure. Meh.
I tend to agree with you but the vast majority of people on this site have no idea what Google music was. Because of the way the article is written, it seems as if the cloud storage was a newly added feature in addition to match. It just seems to be an intentionally misleading and incomplete article. I'm not even sure why it's on this site. It's really a non-event. It does not do what iTunes match does. You can't download a copy from Google's music store like you can with iTunes match. You can only temporarily stream it while your copy is uploaded. You have to admit that part is clearly missing from the article.
There are serious problems with iTunes Match. Here is a 33 page (and counting) thread that is currently alive and well at the Apple Support Community.
https://discussions.apple.com/message/20582554?ac_cid=tw123456#20582554
And that means absolutely nothing.
Freedom is slavery.
There's nothing else than music information that's sent to Google's servers. If they were sending anything else the EU would already have blocked it.
I understand that can be too much for some, I personally wouldn't care if they knew what I listen to, and google is pretty clear in their privacy policy :
What's important is that it's free.
But again, I prefer streaming/caching on Spotify for 10 euros/month.
DaHarder just got banned. Let's crack open the champagne.
DaHarder just got banned. Let's crack open the champagne.

I tend to agree with you but the vast majority of people on this site have no idea what Google music was. Because of the way the article is written, it seems as if the cloud storage was a newly added feature in addition to match. It just seems to be an intentionally misleading and incomplete article. I'm not even sure why it's on this site. It's really a non-event. It does not do what iTunes match does. You can't download a copy from Google's music store like you can with iTunes match. You can only temporarily stream it while your copy is uploaded. You have to admit that part is clearly missing from the article.
It was a bit like iDisk, which Apple first launched in 2000 and now Google has made it more like iTunes Match which Apple launched over a year ago in 2011.
Where others lead Google follows, what else is there to know?
"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.
"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.




Just wanted to give you props on phrase-makin' there. Great verbal gymnastics!
(Whatever their merit, and however this distinguishes GOOG from any large corporation following its mandate to grow and propagate.)
Answered elsewhere. But will add that if Google had no way of making money directly or indirectly from this, you'd be right, but since they do, you're (by "classical" definition) wrong.
And randomly reminds me of a story my mother told me of her teen-age days as a clerk in a variety store that sold bubble bath for 7 cents a pack on weekdays, but ran a Saturday "sale" when they'd change the signage to two for 15 cents...... 
Will you post "Apple: Don't be Original" when Apple finally makes OS X touch-enabled like Windows 8 - which has many, many failings and compromises that should never have been made, but got this part (occasional when convenient, but not constant use of touch) right?
Oh, and it's "its" in the possessive pronoun case....
For anyone who hasn't already seen 'em, whatever your browser choice (I go back and forth twixt FF and Chrome, and lately mostly FF) these bits from MS's IE campaign are kinda clever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD9FAOPBiDk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DbgiOCTQts
http://browseryoulovedtohate.com/
An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou... ...life is complete.
An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou... ...life is complete.




Try it.
That is the best way to gain experience.
Hope it brings what you require.
Thanks for all the generous comments recently!
Bring us the girl, and wipe away the debt.
Bring us the girl, and wipe away the debt.
Actually LaLa.com was doing it in 2009 if not earlier. That tech is very possibly one of the reasons that Apple bought LaLa in the first place. Pity they never hung onto the other features. If they had copied those features and added them to Ping they might have had something that wouldn't crash and burn in a year.