I have used it on several occasions. For basic searches it's a fine service. It's not as comprehensive or detailed as what Google offers but for a lot of folks they only need a general search engine and for that DDG is a good option. With that said in my experience the results are not very far from what you'll get from Bing, sometimes nearly identical AAMOF. Not surprising since many DDG results are sourced from them. My guess is they're pretty reliant on MS for revenue.
Not to compete with but to add value to Google Music. For $8 a month for all-you-can-consume I don't think there's any other music service that comes close in either catalog or features at the moment. You get professionally curated playlists (a'la Beats) based on activity and time of day, ability to specify track or artist or album selections similar to Spotify, music video tracks via Youtube and their licensed content partners, zero ads...
Other than it being a Google-provided service which makes it a non-starter for a small but vocal group I think it's a darn compelling value for music lovers.
Unless you download and convert music from iTunes for free, which has been an option for many years.
I wonder why Google weren't included with Pirate Bay, etc?
I wonder why Google weren't included with Pirate Bay, etc?
Besides Google removing copyright-infringing YouTube content when made aware of it and licensing/paying royalties just as Apple does I can't think of any reason.
I'm wondering how you as a content creator add music to this YouTube music key. If it's just as easy as uploading a YouTube video this is game changing.
I'm wondering how you as a content creator add music to this YouTube music key. If it's just as easy as uploading a YouTube video this is game changing.
As well as installing all available Google-blocking browser extensions, because otherwise they manage to track you even if you aren't using their search engine or other online services.
I use DDG, but Vimeo is not a replacement for YouTube yet.
I've been waiting for a YouTube replacement for so long. %99 of content on there is garbage. A lot of you tubers don't even like YouTube anymore. The Google+ integration only made it worse
I wish Apple would step in and bring a clean environment but I heard there's not much money in these kinds of sites.
I just hope Apple is working on not one, but three social platforms:
music + music store to compete with soundcloud, mixcloud, myspace
video + video store to compete with youtube and vimeo
photo to compete with pinterest and flickr
Don't mix them up. Just let it do one thing very well.
Ah, and don't listen to Bono. His idea of having the band members in 3D is just plain silly. It is about the music. I have no desire to play with a 3D Bono. Keep It dead Simple & Stupid.
Not to compete with but to add value to Google Music. For $8 a month for all-you-can-consume I don't think there's any other music service that comes close in either catalog or features at the moment. You get professionally curated playlists (a'la Beats) based on activity and time of day, ability to specify track or artist or album selections similar to Spotify, music video tracks via Youtube and their licensed content partners, zero ads...
Other than it being a Google-provided service which makes it a non-starter for a small but vocal group I think it's a darn compelling value for music lovers.
In what way do you feel this is better than Beats?
In what way do you feel this is better than Beats?
It's equal to Beats with its professional human-curated playlists, same streaming quality, similar 20M+ catalog of music, and the bonus of video performances.
People won't pay a monthly subscription for music. Some people might for a little while, because of the novelty, but long term they won't. The subscription thing is crazy out of control. monthly for phone, monthly for music, monthly for storage, monthly for sofware 1, monthly for software 2, monthly for tv, monthly for blah, blah, blah. NOT VIABLE.
I think you've got it backwards. Beats has over half a million paying subscribers. Spotify has over 10 million. Music sales, meanwhile, are on a steep decline. Why continuously pay to buy new music when you can get a monthly, no contract subscription for less than the cost of a single album and access any music you want anywhere and anytime? I think $8-10/mo. is pretty reasonable for such a service.
That is, I think it's worthwhile so long as 1) you actually listen to music, 2) the service provides access to all the music you want, 3) the music can be easily downloaded on any device for offline listening, 4) the service provides an intuitive and efficient user interface for searching, discovering and playing the music you want, and 5) NO ADVERTISING.
Incidentally I cut my cable TV a long time ago. I got tired of paying through the nose for content that was 95% garbage and advertising wrapped in an obnoxiously unintuitive interface. I get all my entertainment and news online and through Apple TV now.
It's equal to Beats with its professional human-curated playlists, same streaming quality, similar 20M+ catalog of music, and the bonus of video performances.
Well given a choice between two similar services with similar pricing, call me crazy but I'm inclined to choose the one from the company that respects my privacy and treats me like a valued customer.
Well given a choice between two similar services with similar pricing, call me crazy but I'm inclined to choose the one from the company that respects my privacy and treats me like a valued customer.
Well I suppose when Beats offers a Youtube-like video service that profiles new performers as well as the established for no additional charge then they will be similar. For now they aren't.
So call me crazy but when one service offers more features and value than another. . .
Well I suppose when Beats offers a Youtube-like video service that profiles new performers as well as the established for no additional charge then they will be similar. For now they aren't.
So call me crazy but when one service offers more features and value than another. . .
I'm not interested in 95% of what YouTube is promoting. I tend to listen more to indie groups, which Google has been actively trashing. It seems with every other press release and news story, Google demonstrates how far apart its values are from mine.
Also, "more" does not equal "better". Android has demonstrated that rather well.
Comments
Yes indeed. Gatorguy uses that too I am sure.
I wish I could pay Google to leave me alone and not track me.
"DuckDuckGo" is our friend.
I like to use DDG and all, but not being able to set a date range makes it of very limited value to me, regardless of its other qualities.
Not to compete with but to add value to Google Music. For $8 a month for all-you-can-consume I don't think there's any other music service that comes close in either catalog or features at the moment. You get professionally curated playlists (a'la Beats) based on activity and time of day, ability to specify track or artist or album selections similar to Spotify, music video tracks via Youtube and their licensed content partners, zero ads...
Other than it being a Google-provided service which makes it a non-starter for a small but vocal group I think it's a darn compelling value for music lovers.
Unless you download and convert music from iTunes for free, which has been an option for many years.
I wonder why Google weren't included with Pirate Bay, etc?
I wish I could pay Google to leave me alone and not track me.
Hey that's a great suggestion for new Google Service, pay them to stay our of your life. They could call it "Google Protection":)
It's called not using any of their services
Or not driving on the public streets, or stepping out in front of your house, or not having WiFi, etc.
It's called not using any of their services
As well as installing all available Google-blocking browser extensions, because otherwise they manage to track you even if you aren't using their search engine or other online services.
It includes the old music service. You'd have known that if you read the article.
I've been waiting for a YouTube replacement for so long. %99 of content on there is garbage. A lot of you tubers don't even like YouTube anymore. The Google+ integration only made it worse
I wish Apple would step in and bring a clean environment but I heard there's not much money in these kinds of sites.
Taylor Swift isn't going to like this....
It could save iTunes from streaming services if more artists do what she did.
I just hope Apple is working on not one, but three social platforms:
Don't mix them up. Just let it do one thing very well.
Ah, and don't listen to Bono. His idea of having the band members in 3D is just plain silly. It is about the music. I have no desire to play with a 3D Bono. Keep It dead Simple & Stupid.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/12/how-youtube-music-key-will-redefine-what-we-consider-music/
Thanks. Now after digging around a bit, I wonder if us who choose not to monetize our videos can take part in this too.
Not to compete with but to add value to Google Music. For $8 a month for all-you-can-consume I don't think there's any other music service that comes close in either catalog or features at the moment. You get professionally curated playlists (a'la Beats) based on activity and time of day, ability to specify track or artist or album selections similar to Spotify, music video tracks via Youtube and their licensed content partners, zero ads...
Other than it being a Google-provided service which makes it a non-starter for a small but vocal group I think it's a darn compelling value for music lovers.
In what way do you feel this is better than Beats?
It's equal to Beats with its professional human-curated playlists, same streaming quality, similar 20M+ catalog of music, and the bonus of video performances.
People won't pay a monthly subscription for music. Some people might for a little while, because of the novelty, but long term they won't. The subscription thing is crazy out of control. monthly for phone, monthly for music, monthly for storage, monthly for sofware 1, monthly for software 2, monthly for tv, monthly for blah, blah, blah. NOT VIABLE.
I think you've got it backwards. Beats has over half a million paying subscribers. Spotify has over 10 million. Music sales, meanwhile, are on a steep decline. Why continuously pay to buy new music when you can get a monthly, no contract subscription for less than the cost of a single album and access any music you want anywhere and anytime? I think $8-10/mo. is pretty reasonable for such a service.
That is, I think it's worthwhile so long as 1) you actually listen to music, 2) the service provides access to all the music you want, 3) the music can be easily downloaded on any device for offline listening, 4) the service provides an intuitive and efficient user interface for searching, discovering and playing the music you want, and 5) NO ADVERTISING.
Incidentally I cut my cable TV a long time ago. I got tired of paying through the nose for content that was 95% garbage and advertising wrapped in an obnoxiously unintuitive interface. I get all my entertainment and news online and through Apple TV now.
It's equal to Beats with its professional human-curated playlists, same streaming quality, similar 20M+ catalog of music, and the bonus of video performances.
Well given a choice between two similar services with similar pricing, call me crazy but I'm inclined to choose the one from the company that respects my privacy and treats me like a valued customer.
So call me crazy but when one service offers more features and value than another. . .
Well I suppose when Beats offers a Youtube-like video service that profiles new performers as well as the established for no additional charge then they will be similar. For now they aren't.
So call me crazy but when one service offers more features and value than another. . .
I'm not interested in 95% of what YouTube is promoting. I tend to listen more to indie groups, which Google has been actively trashing. It seems with every other press release and news story, Google demonstrates how far apart its values are from mine.
Also, "more" does not equal "better". Android has demonstrated that rather well.