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."

17 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Seriously, why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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?

  2. Internal music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "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...

  3. Cloud, eh? by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 2

    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'
    1. Re:Cloud, eh? by timeOday · · Score: 2
      Manybe I'm reading the wrong thing into this, but it sounds like you could also upload all the songs you already own and access those from anywhere, like a slingbox backed by google's bandwidth:

      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.

      Labels have never given out licensing rights for digital lockers, so it's not like they can just grab an old template and work off that

      So for example, you could imagine google suing Apple to let people move their entire iTunes collection from Apple to google music.

    2. Re:Cloud, eh? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is everyone so obsessed with streaming anyway? Streaming is okay when you're at home on a wired, reliable connection, but when you're out and about, if you own the music, you might as well have it stored locally on your device. Storage is cheap, music tends to be small (compared to video) and easy to transfer. I've been on roadtrips where listening to Pandora was unreliable because of poor cel coverage out in the sticks between cities. At those points I just fire up my local music and enjoy.

      If the world goes to streaming, we'll constantly be at the mercy of the network, and the network isn't reliable enough to work full time. And the nature of wireless networking means it never will be.

      Meanwhile, we've got portable devices with 32GB and 64GB of solid state storage. Why do we need to stream everything again?

    3. Re:Cloud, eh? by uglyduckling · · Score: 2

      I can already access all the songs I own from anywhere, using my smartphone and laptop. Are there really that many people desperate to access their music remotely who don't carry a device that already has the capacity to store all the music they could ever want?

  4. Re:Seriously, why? by Inner_Child · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:Seriously, why? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 2

    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.
  6. Isn't this why EMI sued MP3Tunes? by TAZ6416 · · Score: 2

    The search giant wants to be able to store users' existing music libraries on the company's servers

    http://michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=336

  7. Re:Seriously, why? by clang_jangle · · Score: 2

    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
  8. Ehrm,... by jaroslaw.fedewicz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > 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?

  9. Google: The Disingenuous Evil Empire by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Google: The Disingenuous Evil Empire by tsj5j · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Subway wants to provide us with food, because they want to know what we eat.
      Let's stop that "evil empire" by eating.

      The answer isn't to stop consuming, but rather to encourage increased competition.

    2. Re:Google: The Disingenuous Evil Empire by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Subway wants to provide us with food, because they want to know what we eat.

      No, Subway wants to provide you with food because you give them money when they do. Google, on the other hand, gets money when it delivers advertising to you.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Google: The Disingenuous Evil Empire by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      I keep waiting for our Charleton Heston Moment, but I fear it may never come.

      He's dead, Jim.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Google: The Disingenuous Evil Empire by farble1670 · · Score: 2

      Google, on the other hand, gets money when it delivers advertising to you.

      replace "google" with magazines, newspapers, TV, radio, and so on, and it doesn't sound so scary. the diff is that google can provide you with much more interesting services in exchange for your eyeballs then those other schemes.

  10. Re:Seriously, why? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    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!