Google to preempt Apple's iCloud with new music service on Tuesday

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 45
    magicjmagicj Posts: 406member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post


    Well said, Addicted44! Google is what happens when "programmers" lead the way and are left to their own devices...you basically get crap like DOS, Windows 3.0, Windows ME, Windows '98, Windows XP, Vista, Flash, IE, Windows CE, G-Mail, Windows Mobile, FrontPage, Publisher, Word, Hotmail, MSN, Outlook Express, Outlook, MSWorks, AOL, WMA, etc., etc. Which quite frankly all feels 70% done and half-assed at that! Ugh!



    <.<



    >.>



    Psst.... those are (mostly) Microsoft products.
  • Reply 22 of 45
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,808member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    2) Flash-based service?! Google used to be all about supporting open standards. This almost sounds like they are purposely excluding iOS-based devices.



    And setting themselves up for failure. People like to take their music with them on the go, to listen to anytime, anywhere. Some Flash-based cloud music service isn't going to unseat the iPod anytime soon.
  • Reply 23 of 45
    orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    And setting themselves up for failure. People like to take their music with them on the go, to listen to anytime, anywhere. Some Flash-based cloud music service isn't going to unseat the iPod anytime soon.



    If it works anything like the Amazon service you can still store songs on your device and any music you play from the cloud is automatically cached so is available even if you don't have an internet connection.
  • Reply 24 of 45
    foljsfoljs Posts: 383member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    I personally can't stand Skype, even though I have relatives overseas. I just use email. They may not like it but I didn't decide to go to Europe.



    Except if you mean "I can't stand Skype [because it's badly done, but I like other video chat services]", I don't see how your personal preference for email has any relevance here...



    Not to mention that it is off topic, anyways...
  • Reply 25 of 45
    foljsfoljs Posts: 383member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    If it works anything like the Amazon service you can still store songs on your device and any music you play from the cloud is automatically cached so is available even if you don't have an internet connection.



    So, since 90% of the people can fit their ENTIRE music collection in the Phones/iPods (16 GB and less), what benefit does this cloud storage music thing gives exactly?



    Being able to listen to my music when I'm at a foreign desktop in another office?



    Having new uncached music play so-so depending on Wi-Fi, 3G availability?
  • Reply 26 of 45
    magicjmagicj Posts: 406member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by foljs View Post


    So, since 90% of the people can fit their ENTIRE music collection in the Phones/iPods (16 GB and less), what benefit does this cloud storage music thing gives exactly?



    Agreed.



    Also, why would I pay for a cloud subscription fee on top of the money I already paid to get my songs on iTunes.



    Just for the record, I see the same questions for Apple's upcoming cloud product. To me, "The Cloud" looks like solution in search of a problem in the consumer space.
  • Reply 27 of 45
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Personally I'm moving towards needing 32GB minimum on my iDevices. I seem to be collecting a lot of DJ Mixes and Podcasts which brings my collection up to 8GB including podcast episodes.



    Then I have videos for various purposes which is another 8GB. Throw in a few higher-end games and you'll see how I need 32GB.



    I've seen people that can fit their entire music collection under 16GB but these people also take GBs of photos and videos eg. on their iPhone and download a lot of apps. These all add up.



    I see the primary solution of the cloud to be wireless syncing. Think of Dropbox-style stuff but fully integrated with iDevices for all kinds of media. All your apps, media, anything, with you at all times, everywhere, seamlessly, without having to think about it.



    The problem now is, how do I get even 8GB of stuff on the cloud and be reliably synchronised and delivered on-demand over 3G, 4G, WiFi, whatever?



    Dropbox is highly successful because it focuses primarily on documents. Evernote is successful because it focuses on snippets of information.



    Music, video and photos is at least an order of magnitude greater in terms of storage and bandwidth required.



    Even if I had the bandwidth to put 4GB of songs on any of these music cloud services, I would never have enough bandwidth (particularly 3G) to enjoy them on-demand for even a week, even assuming the streaming works.



    Here's what I see Apple's "cloud" needs to do at minimum:

    1. Throw iDisk out the window and have full Dropbox-style integration for any file.

    2. Have over-the-air activation and updates through WiFi so an iPhone and iPad can be used without having ever to need a PC.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by foljs View Post


    So, since 90% of the people can fit their ENTIRE music collection in the Phones/iPods (16 GB and less), what benefit does this cloud storage music thing gives exactly?



    Being able to listen to my music when I'm at a foreign desktop in another office?



    Having new uncached music play so-so depending on Wi-Fi, 3G availability?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by magicj View Post


    Agreed.



    Also, why would I pay for a cloud subscription fee on top of the money I already paid to get my songs on iTunes.



    Just for the record, I see the same questions for Apple's upcoming cloud product. To me, "The Cloud" looks like solution in search of a problem in the consumer space.



  • Reply 28 of 45
    mac.worldmac.world Posts: 340member
    If I want free music, I have Pandora. Why would I want a power hunger,CPU gobbling, Flash based cloud music service? I see zero need for cloud based storage of music, which does no good when you are on the road (unless you want to eat into you download limit) and when any phone or iPod/mp3 player already hold thousands of songs.



    Regardless if it is apple or google, I don't see cloud storage for music being much of a hit. Google is just making things worse for themselves, by NOT having any major music labels behind them.
  • Reply 29 of 45
    sambansamban Posts: 171member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post


    I just got an invitation to participate!



    -----------------------------------------------------------------



    Dear Beta User,



    Welcome to our half-assed music service! We at Google strive to beat everyone at everything and can never complete anything before releasing it.



    Please enjoy these initial 20 songs from our partnership with Muzak. In the coming months we will be adding tens more songs for your listening pleasure.



    Please focus testing on our innovative "listen to your music from your Gmail inbox" feature.



    Thank you for your participation!



    It's mandatory in googleplex to wear BETA tester helmet & goggles so that they can only see and hear BETA TESTERS.

    Honeycomb was actually ALPHA hence locked in until BETA
  • Reply 30 of 45
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,483member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    I personally can't stand Skype, even though I have relatives overseas. I just use email. They may not like it but I didn't decide to go to Europe.



    Your post made me chuckle as I have the exact same feelings. In my case I came to the US but the premise still holds.
  • Reply 31 of 45
    nairbnairb Posts: 253member
    The music companies have had a go at Amazon about not getting special licences from them for their cloud storage. Hopefully Amazon will take them to court and win allowing owners of music to store it where they will.
  • Reply 32 of 45
    superbasssuperbass Posts: 688member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post




    Just like Microsoft, with its bombshell of $7B - $8B bid for Skype.....http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories (in the meantime, Apple does FaceTime at a tiny fraction of the cost).



    Got to feel bad for their shareholders.



    Uh, the $8 Billion is for the users and brand, not the client.



    Skype has over 663 million users, according to wikipedia. Windows users, Apple Users, iPhone owners, Nordea owners, Android owners, etc. etc.



    Combining Skype with Microsoft Messenger and Windows Live messenger will probably give them a "phone company" with close to 1 Billion users, which is pretty damn impressive.



    In terms of clients, FaceTime is basically useless compared to Skype - single platform, wifi only, no calls to normal phones, no SMS or screen-sharing. I don't really know why Apple even bothered, and get the feeling they had to released a neutered version of Skype to appease the american telecoms who don't want competition on SMSing or Long Distance calling...
  • Reply 33 of 45
    orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post


    Google is just making things worse for themselves, by NOT having any major music labels behind them.



    Not true as right now anything would be an improvement on the current state of music on Android.



    Personally I think the group who are really shooting themselves in the foot here are the music labels. Android is a major platform. The music labels should be trying to make it as easy as possible for people to buy new music.
  • Reply 34 of 45
    caliminiuscaliminius Posts: 944member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    1) How many of these "hurt lockers" are we gonna see before Apple shows everyone how it's done? Even though Apple's online services have been less successful I can't help but think their data center + duration of this rumour + the recent scolding and firing from Jobs on the MobileMe launch + Amazon and Google rushing to market with a preemptive "me too" service with no label backing means that Apple has a winner.



    So, how can you have a "me too" service to something that doesn't exist? As you stated, Apple thus far hasn't show anyone "how it's done" when it comes to cloud services.



    Quote:

    2) Flash-based service?! Google used to be all about supporting open standards. This almost sounds like they are purposely excluding iOS-based devices.



    What's wrong with a little screw you directed at Apple? It's not like Apple hasn't done the exact same thing to others. Like when they forced up the price of ebooks to the detriment of Amazon. Or the intentional breaking of 3rd party device syncing via iTunes. Or all the trash talking about Flash.



    Chances are if Apple ends up with licences for streaming, it'll be because the studios want leverage to go after Amazon and apparently soon Google. They'll have a precedent with someone licensing that access. Consumers will only be hurt in the process. Except that as Amazon stated, there's no need for a separate license to do what they're doing. As has been pointed out, you can accomplish the same thing Amazon is doing via iDisk (though clumsier).



    Quote:

    3) Not having native app access at launch tells me it's rushed.



    Who says there isn't a native Android app (or maybe an iOS app too)? All I got was that the web version was Flash based, meaning a no-go for iOS devices.



    Quote:

    4) Why leak this the night before the the keynote?



    What's so strange about that? How many times has Apple had a leak about an announcement that was happening the next day? Doesn't seem particularly unusual.
  • Reply 35 of 45
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    Not true as right now anything would be an improvement on the current state of music on Android.



    Personally I think the group who are really shooting themselves in the foot here are the music labels. Android is a major platform. The music labels should be trying to make it as easy as possible for people to buy new music.



    How is a Flash player an improvement over the current state of locally stored music from ripped CDs, iTS, and Amazon MP3 Store, as well as all the other ways in which you can stream music from the cloud?



    The music labels have already tried to unseat Apple?s dominance by giving Amazon?s music store what Jobs had asked for years earlier. Amazon may have gainsaid some traction but not nearly enough to shift any power back to the labels.



    If the labels can make deals with Apple, MS and Amazon I can?t see why they can?t make deals with Google unless Google?s goal is to get rights without paying much of anything, if anything.
  • Reply 36 of 45
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


    So, how can you have a "me too" service to something that doesn't exist? As you stated, Apple thus far hasn't show anyone "how it's done" when it comes to cloud services.



    Ask Amazon and Google. It’s an attempt to one up based on rumours, hence preemptive.



    Quote:

    What's wrong with a little screw you directed at Apple? It's not like Apple hasn't done the exact same thing to others. Like when they forced up the price of ebooks to the detriment of Amazon. Or the intentional breaking of 3rd party device syncing via iTunes. Or all the trash talking about Flash.



    1) You really need to look into what Amazon was doing to their publishers. That was the real screw.



    2) There is nothing wrong with screwing your competition fairly, but there is something wrong with screwing your customers as method to that madness will screw you in the end. Without support iOS-based devices this service will not be a commercial success.



    Quote:

    ]Chances are if Apple ends up with licences for streaming, it'll be because the studios want leverage to go after Amazon and apparently soon Google. They'll have a precedent with someone licensing that access. Consumers will only be hurt in the process. Except that as Amazon stated, there's no need for a separate license to do what they're doing. As has been pointed out, you can accomplish the same thing Amazon is doing via iDisk (though clumsier).



    No license needed to do what Amazon is doing is not the same thing as no license needed to do what Apple or others might do.



    Have you even checked out Amazon’s service. It’s just a basic storage system like iDisk, which also plays audio from the App Store app. It can’t do playlists but it has nice scrubbing features like in the iPod app. I full expect a modern product from this data center not what Amazon has thrown together.



    Quote:

    Who says there isn't a native Android app (or maybe an iOS app too)? All I got was that the web version was Flash based, meaning a no-go for iOS devices.



    Yes, not go for iOS devices. The article makes clear "that means no Apple devices”. If the author was aware of a native app don’t you think he would have stated it? I surely do.



    Quote:

    ]What's so strange about that? How many times has Apple had a leak about an announcement that was happening the next day? Doesn't seem particularly unusual.



    Oh yeah?! Show me where Tim Cook leaked all the juicy details the night before Steve Jobs got on stage for a keynote. How about Jon Ives or Scott Forstall? Can you name a single Apple exec that leaked Jobs keynote address highlights the night before? I can’t.
  • Reply 37 of 45
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,380member
    Solipsism, as others are fond of saying about competing services, isn't all this talk about iCloud a bit premature "since it's vaporware"?
  • Reply 38 of 45
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Just another thing thrown at the wall with the hope that it sticks.



    Just like Microsoft, with its bombshell of $7B - $8B bid for Skype.....http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories (in the meantime, Apple does FaceTime at a tiny fraction of the cost).



    Got to feel bad for their shareholders.



    let's see



    i can upload 20,000 songs from my itunes, listen to them from anywhere on my laptop or $20 android phone that only has 8GB of storage. i might even get rid of my music from my ipad for this and use the space for something else



    why pay apple for flash memory when you can stream your own music in any order you want from the google cloud?
  • Reply 39 of 45
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


    So, how can you have a "me too" service to something that doesn't exist? As you stated, Apple thus far hasn't show anyone "how it's done" when it comes to cloud services.







    What's wrong with a little screw you directed at Apple? It's not like Apple hasn't done the exact same thing to others. Like when they forced up the price of ebooks to the detriment of Amazon. Or the intentional breaking of 3rd party device syncing via iTunes. Or all the trash talking about Flash.



    Chances are if Apple ends up with licences for streaming, it'll be because the studios want leverage to go after Amazon and apparently soon Google. They'll have a precedent with someone licensing that access. Consumers will only be hurt in the process. Except that as Amazon stated, there's no need for a separate license to do what they're doing. As has been pointed out, you can accomplish the same thing Amazon is doing via iDisk (though clumsier).







    Who says there isn't a native Android app (or maybe an iOS app too)? All I got was that the web version was Flash based, meaning a no-go for iOS devices.







    What's so strange about that? How many times has Apple had a leak about an announcement that was happening the next day? Doesn't seem particularly unusual.



    too bad for the music studios there is a tech called deduplication. people can upload 10,000 copies of a song and the server will strip out all the redundant bits so the data is only stored only once. saves on storage space and intel CPU's are so powerful these days you can dedupe and put the data back together in real time
  • Reply 40 of 45
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post


    Well said, Addicted44! Google is what happens when "programmers" lead the way and are left to their own devices...you basically get crap like DOS, Windows 3.0, Windows ME, Windows '98, Windows XP, Vista, Flash, IE, Windows CE, G-Mail, Windows Mobile, FrontPage, Publisher, Word, Hotmail, MSN, Outlook Express, Outlook, MSWorks, AOL, WMA, etc., etc. Which quite frankly all feels 70% done and half-assed at that! Ugh!



    With Apple you get Stevoreno (Steve Jobs, AKA "The Steve") who is able to control and direct said "programmers" into producing software that is intuitive like iTunes, Safari, iLife, iWork, OSX, iOS, etc., etc.



    Mmmm.... I agree with your "crap" opinion of many of those products.



    I do have some knowledge/experience with MSWorks... and feel that I must come to its defense.



    Don Williams, while still at Apple, put together the people and project * to create the "Works" program that would become MSWorks.



    * This was not an Apple project -- rather an outside project that was done independently (with Apple's knowledge).



    Every week or so, Don would bring the latest development version of Works by our store and show it to our management, staff and customers -- for acclamation, evaluation and feedback.



    It evolved into quite a nice little suite of programs.



    Don ended up licensing Works to MIcrosoft.



    Later, after Don and I had both retired, we discussed "Works" in some detail -- Don made tons of $, but was under contract to make changes to, and maintain the product for a certain period of time.



    AIR, some of the "required" changes dumbed-down "Works"so MS Works was less competitive to MS Office.



    I know it's anecdotal, but according to our staff (who had used/seen before and after MS Works was never as good as the original "Works".
Sign In or Register to comment.