Slashdot Mirror
Google Music Goes Live With Google+ Integration
angry tapir writes "Google Music, the company's cloud-based online music service, is now available to all users in the US and includes song and album sales, as well as an integration with the Google+ social networking site. Introduced in test form and by invitation only in May as a cloud-based song storage and playback service, Google Music will also let users buy albums and songs from all major music labels, except Warner."
The collection is impressive, as is the freedom (yes, it will also work with iOS devices), along with integration with Android.
I have two sources for digital music - Amazon mp3 and now Google Music (not counting other channels). More choices, more competition.
And good to see a better alternative to itunes (yuk!).
(Now get on with your Google hate - that's the flavor of the month here on slashdot these days)
*Sigh*. Yet another fantastic music service not available in my country.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Have you used it? iTunes requires a horribly bloated app installed on your computer and clunky syncing of music between said computer and your iOS device. Google music needs none of this (with the exception of a small app to upload your music you already have to the cloud). I have all 12,500 songs in my collection available to me wherever I am, no need to pick and choose what music to take with me. It was Google took us to the post PC world that Jobs kept pontificating about.
iTunes requires a horribly bloated app installed on your computer and clunky syncing of music between said computer and your iOS device.
No, currently you download music anywhere and all your devices have access to that music at once, wherever they are... you see all the playlists from any device, if a song is not stored locally then you can simply ask to download it.
Some of that is made better with Match, since it will upload and store for you songs not in iTunes.
I'm not sure Google's music offering could really be more pleasant to use than this... It's great that they have this as an alternative but they are just basically barley keeping up with Apple at this point. Do they even have the same deal where they will make any of your ripped songs available over the cloud also?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Google Music will also let users buy albums and songs from all major music labels, except Warner.
Will they let users buy albums and songs from other Google+ users who record their own albums and songs?
Last I checked, pirating music was way easier than buying it legitimately and no one cares which country you are in. Could the music industry, just perhaps, stop being a joke?
Spotify, Amazon mp3, Google music; all not available in Australia. iTunes charging so much that it's usually cheaper to buy the physical CD from America and have it shipped across the friggin' ocean. Well, at least there's Grooveshark ... until SOPA closes it down.
iTunes requires a horribly bloated app installed on your computer and clunky syncing of music between said computer and your iOS device.
Google music needs none of this (with the exception of a small app to upload your music you already have to the cloud).
It's not really a comparison you can make. iTunes does more than upload music into the cloud so I'm not sure how you arrived at "bloated". I'd list everything it could do but I'd sound like a cheerleader and I'm not sure it would make a difference. I'll just leave it at it's a dessert topping and a floor wax.
Google Music does not require money to store 20,000 of your own songs and stream them on any computer or Android phone/tablet you have handy. I'd say that's quite a deal.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
This whole thread seems like "Super Smash Bros., Cloud Music Edition".
Google Fanbois versus Apple Fanbois.... FIGHT!
#DeleteChrome
That would be a success, but it's actually $0.99 - $1.29 per song.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
A lot of people have missed one of the most important things about this announcement. Indie musicians, without a label, can sign up, sell their music, and keep 70% of the sales revenue.
For years, we've bemoaned the RIAA and the giant labels for screwing artists out of their fair share. They're parasites controlling the distribution channels and deciding what pop-artist of the year they'll be pushing down our throats. Artists are lucky to get into the double digit percentage of sales revenue for their music, instead of pennies for a $20 disk.
If a talented indie artist or band can put their music on Google Music and get comparable exposure to the artists pushed and promoted by the large labels, it will drastically change the dynamics of the artist/label relationship. Evaluation of music by merit instead of marketing might. There will be a viable way to make a living without signing over one's soul and rights to a label.
This cuts out the traditional middle men in the music production process, and that's what terrifies the RIAA.
Google has the money to buy out the major labels, but instead of doing that, they made a very shrewd strategic decision to instead use the advances in technology to democratize music distribution. That's big, and that shouldn't be underestimated.
I'm still resisting buying digital music until they start selling in a lossless format like flac. For some reason no major stores are willing to do this. I want my high quality archive copy damn it!