One thing is for certain, the same file will take up more storage and more bandwidth than iTunes.
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.
Apple makes me download a clunckey client that is slow as molasys on my wuper fast wuad core PC with 6gb ram, no slouch of a box. The web interface for teh google playwe works nicely in Firefox and Chrome and loads FAST.
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.
Not that is has any impact on your review at all (which sounded fair) but did someone switch around the keys on your keyboard?!?!
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Is Google offering higher than 256Mbps music? I thought they were also at the .99 and $1.29 pricing.
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.
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...
How come AAC is bigger than MP3 at the same bitrate? That link showed a 15% difference between the two.
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.
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.
...
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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."
Comments
One thing is for certain, the same file will take up more storage and more bandwidth than iTunes.
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.
Google Music isn't a beta project tho.
And that's supposed to make it better?
Software/UI: Google wins
Apple makes me download a clunckey client that is slow as molasys on my wuper fast wuad core PC with 6gb ram, no slouch of a box. The web interface for teh google playwe works nicely in Firefox and Chrome and loads FAST.
Not that is has any impact on your review at all (which sounded fair) but did someone switch around the keys on your keyboard?!?!
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.
How do you qualify the "roughly equivalent"? File sizes? Audio quality for the average listener?
http://ipod.about.com/od/introductio..._qual_test.htm
mp3 takes up less space than aac
320>256
My brain just imploded!
How come AAC is bigger than MP3 at the same bitrate? That link showed a 15% difference between the two.
Not that is has any impact on your review at all (which sounded fair) but did someone switch around the keys on your keyboard?!?!
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...
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.
Is Google offering higher than 256Mbps music? I thought they were also at the .99 and $1.29 pricing.
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.
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...
My brain just imploded!
How come AAC is bigger than MP3 at the same bitrate? That link showed a 15% difference between the two.
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.
They need to focus on their core business.
This adds nothing to their core business.
It simple an attempt to copy Apple at every turn as they have been doing since ES took over.
Can you imagine what Steve would feel about this announcement?
Is Google offering higher than 256Mbps music? I thought they were also at the .99 and $1.29 pricing.
256Mbps? No wonder the Android phones need the 4G just to download a single song
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.
...
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.
Is iTunes match still a beta feature? Honest question. Seems to have a lot of initial issues.
https://discussions.apple.com/thread...art=0&tstart=0
No problems. All it took was a bit of patience. It is actually pretty cool. Glad I went for it.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
mp3 takes up less space than aac
320>256
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."