Google Opens its Digital Music Store; Invites Users to Discover & Share

[Rob Williams]

Jumping on the digital music store bandwagon, Google has finally unveiled its hopeful iTune-killer, simply called Google Music. The company launched a beta for the service earlier this year that allowed its users to upload up to 20,000 songs to the cloud for free, and now that the service is out of beta, it offers much more, and could give competing services a run for their money.

Read the rest of our post and then discuss it here!

 

[marfig]

>> The company launched a beta for the service earlier this year that allowed its users to upload up to 20,000 songs to the cloud for free, and now that the service is out of beta, it offers much more, and could give competing services a run for their money.

20,000 songs I think would pretty much cover my entire mp3 and CD collection, excluding the classical titles. And I do have a big CD collection (close to 200 CDs). The fact they offer more now would pretty cover my whole needs...

... if I ever wanted to keep my collection on someone else's server that I can't control, I don't own, and which most probably (Google in particular is known for their we-own-you-now EULAs) has an EULA stating they can change the rules at anytime they please.

Thank goodness I have very sedentary computer usage habits. A main computer and a laptop. I can manage my collection just fine between these two.

 

[MacMan]

This so-called "hopeful iTunes killer" is getting a bit of flack in the press lately:

http://gizmodo.com/5860265/google-music-is-a-complete-letdown

Johny Evans at Computerworld goes so far to suggest that something doesn't quite seem right, and mabye there could even be some 'hanky-panky' going on, when he writes:

"Do these deals match?

There's also an iTunes Match-style music locker service which lets you stash up to 20,000 songs for free. Announcing this, Google's Jamie Rosenberg took a veiled shot at iTunes, saying: "Other cloud services think you have to pay for music that you already own."

It is remarkable that music labels are permitting Google to deliver full track playback and music locker services. Apple coughed up millions for its locker license, and labels make cash out of that.

Has Google paid the same rate? If not, regulators may want to ask what clout Google -- the world's leading search engine with the biggest smartphone OS market share -- used to get what might then seem to be a preferential deal."

http://blogs.computerworld.com/19291/can_we_trust_googles_apple_itunes_killer

The jury is still out on Google's latest attempt to take over the world, but for me, I wouldn't don't trust this company one itty-bit.

 

[marfig]

Gizmodo, hmm? Riiight.

 

[Rob Williams]

20,000 songs I think would pretty much cover my entire mp3 and CD collection, excluding the classical titles. And I do have a big CD collection (close to 200 CDs). The fact they offer more now would pretty cover my whole needs...

I have 9,058 tracks in my collection which is based on about 500 CDs (I haven't counted recently), so I could see a 20,000 limit being hit rather quickly with some people.

Thank goodness I have very sedentary computer usage habits. A main computer and a laptop. I can manage my collection just fine between these two.

Well, the goal of the service isn't just to let you upload your entire music collection; it's goal is to allow you to upload your entire music collection and access it anywhere. If you only listen to music at home, the service really isn't for you. Personally, I'd never upload my collection because I prefer to listen to my music in FLAC - and nor would I want to use 40MB of bandwidth every time I listen to a song.

What I do like about services like these is that they allow me to purchase one track at a time, rather than an entire album. There have been times when I've wanted a hit single from the 90s or later, and services like these proved perfect (I admit that I've spent hundreds on iTunes... it's hard to pass up full albums for half the price of what they'd be in-store or on Amazon).

It is remarkable that music labels are permitting Google to deliver full track playback and music locker services. Apple coughed up millions for its locker license, and labels make cash out of that.

I'm not certain (and can't look right now), but doesn't Google require you to actually upload your own music, versus iTunes that merely searches the names and gives you brand-new licenses to the music?

Gizmodo, hmm? Riiight.

No kidding.

 

[Doomsday]

OFF TOPIC: go to gooogle ..slowly type ....let it snow .... and see the magic

 

[OriginalJoeCool]

Cool.

 

[TheCrimsonStar]

zomg awesome