Google planning Spotify-style subscription music service - report
As rumors swirl of a Pandora-style Internet radio service from Apple, Google is said to be working on a paid subscription music service akin to Spotify.
Google's plans were revealed this week by both The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, which revealed that Google is currently in negotiations with music companies. The search giant reportedly plans to offer a paid subscription music streaming service to complement its own Google Music storefront.
Google's music service competes with Apple's iTunes, and even undercuts it by offering the ability to match and upload a personal music collection for free. Apple's iTunes Match charges $24.99 per year for the same functionality, as does Amazon.
Google's apparent interest in expanding its music services comes as Apple is also reportedly working on an Internet radio offering similar to Pandora. Apple's plans are said to have been held up by negotiations with record labels that own the rights to the music.
"Radio Buy" buttons were also discovered hidden in Apple's iOS 6.1 software update released earlier this year. The images were taken as evidence that Apple is preparing its iOS mobile operating system for the eventual launch of its Internet radio service.
Google's plans were revealed this week by both The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, which revealed that Google is currently in negotiations with music companies. The search giant reportedly plans to offer a paid subscription music streaming service to complement its own Google Music storefront.
Google's music service competes with Apple's iTunes, and even undercuts it by offering the ability to match and upload a personal music collection for free. Apple's iTunes Match charges $24.99 per year for the same functionality, as does Amazon.
Google's apparent interest in expanding its music services comes as Apple is also reportedly working on an Internet radio offering similar to Pandora. Apple's plans are said to have been held up by negotiations with record labels that own the rights to the music.
"Radio Buy" buttons were also discovered hidden in Apple's iOS 6.1 software update released earlier this year. The images were taken as evidence that Apple is preparing its iOS mobile operating system for the eventual launch of its Internet radio service.
Comments
Well of course they are. Anything anyone is doing in media Google is going to do also.
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Well of course they are. Anything Apple is rumored doing in media Google is going to do also.
Well, at least this.
Google's music service competes with Apple's iTunes, and even undercuts it by offering the ability to match and upload a personal music collection for free. Apple's iTunes Match charges $24.99 per year for the same functionality, as does Amazon.
Anything you can do, I can do better. I can do anything better than you.
No you can't.
Yes I can.
No you can't.
Mine is free.
(Crickets)
^ Oh look, another troll popped up. Nothing like lying to try and make a point, is there?
Off the top of my head I know Google won't update your music to higher bit rates (like iTunes does) and songs I purchase in iTunes (or Amazon) don't count towards my limit where Google has a fixed limit.
Of course, Google will always have a harder time offering any type of music service given their relationship with record labels. Just the other day the RIAA was criticizing Google for not doing enough to downgrade searches for illegal music. I'm sure that will help their negotiations immensely.
In addition to Eric's specific comments, there's the matter of Google's massive invasions of privacy. Someone might offer you a free ice cream cone if you let them peek in your bedroom windows, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
In addition to Eric's specific comments, there's the matter of Google's massive invasions of privacy. Someone might offer you a free ice cream cone if you let them peek in your bedroom windows, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
You make a good point but I've come to the conclusion, at least based on what I've seen anecdotally, that the vast majority of people don't care about lack of privacy. And then there are those like Robert Scoble who think that privacy is pretty much dead anyways.
So Google is going to "innovate" in streaming music?
im still waiting for them to innovated email and calendars bc they are basically using the same open standards invented decades before but they haven't innovated the way we use, or protocols, of email and calanders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
I've switched the default search on my Safari to Bing. Not quite as good, but that's how much I hate these Google twerps. Never thought I'd see the day when the old Micro$oft bugaboo would become an ally.
Personally, I have selected Yahoo, for the same reasons. It's fine.
Still using Google maps occasionally, but only out of necessity. I will happily drop them as soon as Apple brings Maps to the Mac.
More likely, most people don't know that by accepting the ice cream cone that Google has the right to peer in their bedroom windows any time they want.
Regardless, I don't care about 'most people'. I care about my own right to privacy - and have as little to do with Google as possible. Mapquest covers most of my mapping needs. Bing covers most of my search needs. And not a chance I'll ever voluntarily use Google Docs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shameer Mulji
You make a good point but I've come to the conclusion, at least based on what I've seen anecdotally, that the vast majority of people don't care about lack of privacy. And then there are those like Robert Scoble who think that privacy is pretty much dead anyways.
Was that before or after his expletive-filled rant about Google?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
More likely, most people don't know that by accepting the ice cream cone that Google has the right to peer in their bedroom windows any time they want.
Regardless, I don't care about 'most people'. I care about my own right to privacy - and have as little to do with Google as possible. Mapquest covers most of my mapping needs. Bing covers most of my search needs. And not a chance I'll ever voluntarily use Google Docs.
Here's a story from last evening that might put things in context. I need to order a workstation on really short notice and went on-line rather than a custom build. On checkout I used a credit card. The vendor sent a "'security question" to verify my identity: What year was I born. No biggie, CC fraud is rampant. Then they asked two more questions, both of which caught me completely off-guard.
1. Who lived at 256 **** ****** Dr, (Answer is my deceased mother )
2. What color is the Ford ****** I have.
That's apparently the kind of "private info" that's in the hands of CC providers and credit reporting agencies, and what looks to be available to any company willing to pay for the reports. Yet your focus is on Google's anonymized data used to present you with an ad. Your concerns are misplaced and overly-dramatic IMHO.
Even closer to home, if anyone wants to know all about who YOU are, regardless how much you care about your privacy, a Bing search will tell them. Try it for yourself. You don't even need your real name to start.
Just using Bing someone can find your age, where you went to college, who your professors were, everything you've done for a living, the names of some of your co-workers, the places you've made home, the other business you tried your hand at, whether it was successful or failed, your hobbies, your marital status and nearly anything else anyone would like to know. Where did your "privacy" suddenly go at Bing? Personalized ad delivery is hardly a big issue comparatively.
What do you think?
OT: Every single time I've had to answer those type of questions none of the answers have been valid ones so I've chosen None on each question. Have never failed one either. Perhaps that means they don't have enough info on me but I don't see how that would be possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
OT: Every single time I've had to answer those type of questions none of the answers have been valid ones so I've chosen None on each question. Have never failed one either. Perhaps that means they don't have enough info on me but I don't see how that would be possible.
It was a little disconcerting to realize they would even know to ask those questions.
I can imagine, especially about a deceased mother. Even though none of mine had any correct answers they had questions about where I've lived and what kind of car I've owned which made me had to think address and vehicle back, step by step, as nothing popped out as obvious. That as a bit disconcerting in itself as I'm not one to look at the past like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbit
Do people actually use this service? Seems like a waste of money. Download or purchase the songs yourself and then put them on your phone. Uses too much data to stream it. Rip CDs if you have to lol. Definitely not worth paying for (or using google's free service)
Yes, I do. As does pretty much everyone I know.
"Download or purchase the songs yourself and then put them on your phone"
Well thats problem, the steps you mention are laborious. With spotify, it's just search,click, play.
So the fact that other people violate your privacy makes it OK for Google to do so?
Sorry, I don't approve of any of that. I'm certainly not going to say Google is OK just because they're not the only ones doing it. Leave it to the Chief Google Shill to justify blatant privacy violations.