Slashdot Mirror
Google Starts Testing Google Music Internally
Krystalo writes "Google employees have begun testing Google Music internally. Talks with at least some of the top publishers and the four largest record labels are still ongoing. The delays are largely due to the fact that Google is negotiating for cloud music rights and not just the authorization to distribute the songs themselves. The search giant wants to be able to store users' existing music libraries on the company's servers. Labels are in similar discussions with Apple."
Time for google to take over more of the world.
Considering that the service is by no means public and the details of it (including pricing) are rumour at best, you sure do know a lot about it.
Agreed. Systems we have seen are far, far better than system we haven't seen. What the hell were Google thinking when they hadn't launched it yet?
"testing Google Music internally."
So where do they put the speakers? I hope they are wireless, and you just have to swallow them . Or maybe a suppository
A new cure for irregularity...
The details of the service are described in the article. So now people are being chastised for reading the linked article. Awesome.
Ok, so it's a streaming service (a la Last.fm & Pandora), you can buy music from (a la Amazon & Apple) with the backing of Google. I get it that because it has Google's ecosystem that it has a really good shot at surviving. What I don't understand is what is *REALLY* going on. These guys are notorious for doing funky stuff that either instantly changes the landscape (Chrome, Picasa) or bombs horribly (Buzz). This smells funny - almost too obvious for Google. There has to be something which truly sets it apart, not another 'me too' product. Maybe it's small label work? I'm not really sure.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
google music? we won't have music without paying for google music et al. we'll stick with ungooed just plain music for now, thanks
he who controls the trade routes....
But there's absolutely nothing about pricing. Mr. Microshill is pulling numbers out of his ass, then trying to shoehorn in some sort of glowing praise for WP7. This is his MO.
Today is red jello day - all workers must eat all of their red jello. Failure to comply will result in five demerits.
. . . to the term, "house music".
So you can put the music you have acquired over the course of your lifetime on there and be able to stream it? Anyone dumb enough to put music they've downloaded illegitimately on there?
Uhhh... Cause $25 / year is far cheaper than $10/month that spotify/rdio cost?
And plenty of music isn't available on either of those services
And rdio is a buggy piece of crap
And spotify is only available in like 6 countries
Need I go on?
? People ?
* Andrew Keller * Crispin Porter + Bogusky * Barry Lowenthal * The Media Kitchen * Beverley Hammond * Veritas communications * Bob Kantor * MDC Partners * Chris McDonald * MDC Partners * Chuck Porter * Crispin Porter + Bogusky
* Craig Pladson * Colle+McVoy, Inc. * Danny Getachew * VITRO * Darryl Ohrt * Source Marketing * David Denham * Colle+McVoy, Inc. * David Doft * MDC Partners * David Porzio * MDC Partners * Faris Yakob * kirshenbaum bond senecal + partners * Gail Helmer * Bryan Mills Iradesso * Gavin Swartzman * MDC Partners * Glenn Gibson * MDC Partners * Gustav Martner
* Crispin Porter + Bogusky
* Hunter Tura
* Bruce Mau Design
* Jacob Lake
* Ramona
* Jane Hearn
* TEAM Enterprises
* Jeff Benjamin
* Crispin Porter + Bogusky
* Jill Meiser
* Trend Influence
* Jillian Tate
* Integrated Media Solutions
* Jonathan Heit
* Allison & Partners
* Katie Kempner
* Subtej Nijjar
* Crispin Porter + Bogusky
* Tom Sullivan
* VITRO
* Winston Binch
* Crispin Porter + Bogusky
looks like some of the chosen own more of music than even other chosens. don't see goo-goo there directly yet.
Because there have been rumors going around about Apple doing this since since forever. Google's got serious Apple envy: first Android and Android Market then tablets, now "cloud iTunes."
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
You should try Mog.
MIcrosoft is not mentioned. Hmmm....
http://michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=336
Anything google makes will be better than that crappy program.
Paranoia trumps reading comprehension? He said "Hell, even Zune for Windows Phone 7 has such a streaming service and it's far better than what Google is trying to offer here." That's not exactly the kind of wording one would use to bestow "glowing praise", is it?
Caveat Utilitor
> The delays are largely due to the fact that Google is negotiating for cloud music rights and not just the authorization to distribute the songs themselves.
> The search giant wants to be able to store users' existing music libraries on the company's servers.
Would you mind, Mr. Big Label Representative, if I ask, pardon for jumping in, what the bloody hell does your label have to do with _my_ music collection? May I suggest you shove your bloody greed up your stinking bottom, sir?
Spoken like a true apple zealot. Ever noticed that Jobs has moved into advertising. Hmm, can't think of any company that's been doing that since day 1. Are you upset because Apple is jealous of Google? Of course not, you're a blinkered fanboy.
Apple's "app store" is just copying what Linux has been doing since the 90s. Ah, but they put a paywall on it. So what. The ill fated Lindows did this years before your beloved apple thought of it. Are you crying foal that Apple copied Linux application distribution? No? Fanboy again.
OS X? Copied from an ancient operating system with a terrible dumbed down GUI. Are you booing that Apple copied this, no? Fanboy again.
Ipods? Many years late to the game copying umpteen other portable music players. Heck, Sony were doing them in the 80s. Upset Apple copied others once again?
Mac architecture? Blatant copy of ancient x86 PCs that have been around forever. But Apple screw it up to make it incompatible with standard slots by replacing BiOS with EFI. Upset Apple got it wrong with PPC and ended up copying x86? Yes, yes, no? Fanboy!
Care to name something you believe Apple did first other than successfully manage to build a cult following that cannot see beyond what they're told to see?
not yet? not everywhere? so it makes adsense to be able to direct us to the unopen source of all music? does the reason music begs to be expensive is because so many royals 'own' it? each chosen one might need more money in one(1) day, than most of us would in a lifetime? the silence is deafening? freedumb reigns? at least we're doing an excellent job of maintaining our last rites, which is to be silent.
that's great. we thought there was some sort of greed motive. you could understand, with all those big-wigs on the deed? thank god. you're html/punctuation is ?affective? free? is that forever? can we quote you? doomsday? adjectives? we must focus.... where do all those fauxking billions go?
Apple produced the first consumer computer with a proper GUI. Apple invented the pull-down menu, ubiquitous across almost all GUIs until the smart phone era. I'm not sure who you think Apple copied OS X from - they bought up NeXT and therefore didn't copy that part of it. If you're repeating the ancient myth that they copied the GUI from Xerox PARC, well for starters as I said there were plenty of new innovations in the Lisa/Mac GUI that built on the PARC GUI (the Alto had a modal button-based GUI more akin to a DOS-style fullscreen interface), secondly they licensed designs and employed ex-PARC people to continue development, which isn't copying.
must be, 'cause now both apple & goo-gooo want to OWN it. fuddles got tossed out of this race? so long as the 'better' ones get to own music, that's good? is a crappy program required to listen to music?
Apple did everything better than before: made a better MP3 player, easier to buy Music, an OS with UNIX kernel/userland with a clean GUI (which Open Source was not able to copy since . . . forever). Apple, no, Steve Jobs is a genius, because he has the technical expertise to demand from his development team what no other CEO can, at the same time he has a sense how simple things should be . . . something which Microsoft never ever will achieve.
And this is all said by non Apple Fanboy . . . when something is done better, you should admit it. Apple adapted UNIX as core of MacOS-X because ... it's the best core . . . for an operating system.
Might this project morph into a google books scenario? Where google actively scans in all the worlds music and gives everyone access (for money). I realize that the google books thing is on hold till they bribe enough politicians for an enabling law, but that's easy enough (politicians are easy though not cheap).
Google wants to provide you with books, because they want to know what you read. With Search, because they want to know where you "go" online. With free e-mail, to track what you are discussing. And now with music, so they can parse your psycho-demographic profile even more minutely.
They do this in order to sell *you* to the highest bidder, and/or the NSA. They are not a "tech" company, they are an Advertising Company that uses highly invasive technology. Technology which an entire dribbling, drooling, consumerist generation has plugged into their frontal lobes like bit players in a bad PKDick movie. Except that it's not Soylent Green anymore. It's Soylent Shiny.
I keep waiting for our Charleton Heston Moment, but I fear it may never come.
then, sadly (speeches given), we'll have to pay, to read, or listen to, anything at all? so that's gooed too? not much grey area?
Xerox filed suit against Apple because Apple had never licensed anything related to PARC. The suit was largely in response to Apple suing MS so as to ensure that if Apple was able to win their case that the prime beneficiary would be Xerox. MS ended up winning which mooted the suit which was eventually dismissed. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation
Everything? Anybody that claims the iPod is better than other MP3 players of the day hasn't ever actually used the competition. The organization system was ripped off of Creative who had both patented and implemented it before the iPod was released. Granted it's easier to just plug in a player to the USB port and move music over, but that is a trade off and results in the player having to search for new content every single time it turns on.
Thank you, Google. Ever since Apple bought Lala just so they could shutter it, I've been waiting for someone else to fill the gap. Apple will have a hard time buying out the competition this time.
I wonder if they'll try to corner the market in orphaned albums, the same way as they wanted to with books?
That's not exactly the kind of wording one would use to bestow "glowing praise", is it?
Well, for a comment about Microsoft on Slashdot, it's pretty close.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Since you're posting Wikipedia articles, I'll follow up with this article. To quote: "The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple... Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product. Much later... Xerox also sued Apple... the dismissal of Xerox's legal complaint was not based simply on late filings, but rather a lack of legal merit to Xerox's case as it was presented." So if Wikipedia is to be trusted (debatable) I think my point stands, although it looks like the agreement between Apple and Xerox was more complicated/tenuous than straight licensing.
It is very sad to see Google copying Apple in any way. Google started as an innovative company: Google Search, Adwords, Adsense, etc. Now it is a copycat company: Android, Music Streaming service, App Store, etc. Simply pathetic. Don't tell me Google bought Android before iPhone was released. Before saying that crap, remember that Erick Schmidt was from Apple's Board of Director when iPhone was being developed and obviously used privileged information to secure Google position buying Android before Apple launched iPhone (one of the reasons he was expelled from Apple's board). Google is forgetting that search and adwords are their core business and both are sucking as hell with no innovation for years, while google, like microsoft, attacks in all fronts without succeeding in any.
TFA (yes, I read it/them) partly emphasizes this as competition with Apple - would that part help the consumer, or would it hurt? (It might hurt because it seems Apple's business interests have been acting as a counterweight to the big labels' business interests, a force of resistance that may end up being diluted with the labels facing two separate heavyweights)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
that you've already paid for it and should have something like this to help you listen to it, without incident?
that you don't listen to big-label stuff anyway?
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
(I understand that audio from whatever source would enable them to test the system internally)
(Internal rather than public might avoid some infringement issues anyway*)
* I am not a lawyer, etc.
Would it make sense for Google to publicly launch this without all of the Big Four on board?
Sometimes with past developments, some of the big four have gotten on board before the others.
P.S.
I wonder how Google's coming along with negotiating with the indies - they're likely to be more cooperative, but not necessarily, and it's simply a large volume to deal with at any rate.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
That article doesn't say what you think it says. An understanding is not a license, and that's the point. Generally when there is a license that gets explicitly stated. You're quite literally the first person I've ever seen try to claim that Apple licensed the technology. It's not unusual for there to be some wheeling and dealing when it comes to IPOs, individual investors rarely if ever get in on the IPO because the assets are spoken for before they hit the market.
From the TFA:
"CNET and others have reported that Google is negotiating for the right to store users' existing music libraries on the company's servers, the sources said."
"Licensing rights for digital lockers of this sort is largely uncharted territory for the labels. There are no templates for these kinds of deals lying around and the record companies want to move cautiously as they assess Apple's and Google's plans."
My brain just exploded.
Did I understand that correctly? Why is that Google need to negotiate a license agreement to store music from customers on their servers? What have the music industry to do if Google wants to store my data for me on their servers?
What is next, Google needs to negotiate rights with the Authors Guild if they want to save text from their customers on their servers and they need to negotiate rights with the BSA if they want to save binary data?
PS:
"Welcoming Google to the party: At the 2009 Vevo launch party, Google CEO Eric Schmidt (center) visited with Doug Morris (left), the then CEO of Universal Music, and Rolf Schmidt-Holtz, former CEO of Sony Music. "
Why do I have the urge to pick up a gun and make some target practice as I saw the CEOs in their black suites?
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Except Mac OS doesn't have UNIX kernel. It uses XNU, which even stands for "XNU's Not UNIX" even if the OS itself as a whole is certified UNIX.
Why do you assume it will cost $25? Or cost money at all?
This is Google here we are talking about. Most likely they will also offer a Googlfied* plan as well as a monthly price plan. That way they will have a much larger potential market and consumer base.
You also say competitors have done it cheaper and better, yet you are comparing a something to a figment of your imagination because Google's service doesn't even exist yet.
Plus you state a direct lie. There exists NO service that pays you to listen to streaming music, like you claim. (That is the only way to be cheaper than $0 after all.)
I know it's all the rage to hate on the top technical companies these days for being so successful, but at least put a bit more thought and creativity into it instead of obvious lies that are so obvious as to not even need citations to disprove since your claims are fully made up and exist no where else.
*My spell checker claims Googlfied is not a word :P It's when Google says a service is "Free" because they don't get the money from you, but instead infuse the service with ads and get the money from advertisers. In the end it costs you $0 in actual money, and costs are only measured in how the ads are delivered to you to put up with.
You have to do internal testing to find the brown noise, which is the real purpose of project Google Music.
Havent seen anyone else mention this, but last year google purchased Simplify Media - a cross-platform streaming music/photo app. Continually improving, it _was_ the only decent solution for streaming one's own music collection to any iOS device and also had a nice desktop utility connecting the remote into a local iTunes application (pre-dating Apple's shared libraries).
Yes, but they didn't steal/copy it, did they? I overstated it by saying license, but clearly there was an arrangement between the two companies, later Xerox saw Apple suing Microsoft and wanted in, but their case got thrown out. Clearly the common belief that Apple copied/stole the GUI concept from Xerox is at best an overstatement, and at worst an absolute myth, both because of this agreement or understanding, and also because there were plenty of things in the Mac/Lisa GUI that were new inventions (like pull-down menus).
Mp3.com tried to do this about 10 years ago and suffered a defeat so crippling at the hands of lawyers they were essentially shut down.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/00/09/06/1914245/Judge-Orders-MP3com-to-Pay-118M-Damages
... at least in China, I've been using it for months. The only catch here is that you can't pay for it and the streaming and downloading seems to be handled by a third party website (something like top100.cn). So I don't really know what they're talking about when they say "internally testing," unless that means that the google music everyone in China knows (and most of them love) is going to be somehow inherently different from what the rest of the world will be getting (though that wouldn't be particularly surprising, considering our internet situation here).
You get no say in where I store data.
Hi,
Its probably because google wants to say backup all of your music in the cloud but it has one issue:
- without DRM on songs, it can tell a song that was legitimately ripped by someone owning the CD as opposed to downloading it from rapidshare or bittorrent.
which means music companies need to weight the effect of google making pirate music harder to lose and potentially easier to spread (sharing links to your "cloud" music collection)
Thats my sense. Its entirely logical in the whole "we are in business to make money" way.
...it's called the "CD" or "Compact Disc".
You can buy them on the Interweb or in shops, there's lots of different types depending on what sort of music you like, and they come in a nice hard plastic case that, if you store in reasonably dry conditions out of direct sunlight, automatically act as a backup of your music collection.
I use a piece of software called a "CD Ripper" that allows me to encode the CD to tracks that I can then download to a music player and/or carry about with me much easier.
I also came across a truly amazing device called a "USB Hard Disk" that I can use to backup those encoded tracks onto a second hard disk - but even if both hard disks fail, I can just re-rip my CDs.
Yes, those CDs are amazing things indeed!
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
If google does this right, they could become vene bigger then appl'es itunes with this....if its done right. /. story) would not cut it when you own 1500 mp3s....
They would first have to offer a great business model for keeping access to what you purchased, somehow,
losing your emails (previous
They would almost make money right away by using pointers to files instead of letting people upload their files...sort of like upload to you music book blackeyedpees (which they already have a copy of....) ask you is this the song you want, or is your song a different version of the song...and if you should answer, no its the same song as on the cd...then they would say instantly that your upload is finished and add a pointer to their file and finalise that, you have a copy of it backed up and own it on your google music account...
3rd and last but not least, you would have to figure that they now have access to your library of which the music companies can turn and now say...ok for each copy you backed up we are charging you 3 cents each...which means is a fair price for copyrights, but should you have 1000 or so songs, can be a bit expensive, maybe they could have some sort of capping for this, but it will be inevitable though,, as the music industry is starting to change to the times, they are finding ways to mark and tag what you got and listen to....this being # way.!