Slashdot Mirror


How Google's Pixel 2 'Now Playing' Song Identification Works (venturebeat.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report from VentureBeat, written by Emil Protalinski: The most interesting Google Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL feature, to me, is Now Playing. If you've ever used Shazam or SoundHound, you probably understand the basics: The app uses your device's microphone to capture an audio sample and creates an acoustic fingerprint to compare against a central song database. If a match is found, information such as the song title and artist are sent back to the user. Now Playing achieves this with two important differentiators. First, Now Playing detects songs automatically without you explicitly asking -- the feature works when your phone is locked and the information is displayed on the Pixel 2's lock screen (you'll eventually be able to ask Google Assistant what's currently playing, but not yet). Secondly, it's an on-device and local feature: Now Playing functions completely offline (we tested this, and indeed it works with mobile data and Wi-Fi turned off). No audio is ever sent to Google.

129 comments

  1. How big is an "acoustic fingerprint"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another lump of unremovable pre-installed stuff taking precious space on your phone.

    1. Re:How big is an "acoustic fingerprint"? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yet another lump of unremovable pre-installed stuff taking precious space on your phone.

      The Google spokesperson wouldn’t give us an exact size for the database file (which is not surprising, since it changes every week and is based on your country) but did say the whole feature should take up less than 500MB. Again, if you never turn the feature on, don’t worry — you won’t lose this space.

      If you don't turn it on, it doesn't ever download the fingerprint database.

  2. works offline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How in the actual fuck is this possible? They have an audio an audio signature of every song built in?

    1. Re:works offline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Sure, why not? Do you honestly think that something which amounts to a checksum takes very much space? Probably a few bytes per song.

      If we figure 32 bytes per song times 50,000 songs, that's only like 1.6MB of space needed.

    2. Re:works offline? by lucm · · Score: 5, Informative

      How in the actual fuck is this possible? They have an audio an audio signature of every song built in?

      Yes. And this is not surprising; the data needed to identify songs is tiny. Essentially it's just vectors (big numerical arrays), they don't need to store the whole mp3.

      More and more can be done locally on the devices. For instance, look at what is actually needed to detect English speech using CMU sphinx:
      https://github.com/cmusphinx/p...
      (look at the hmm model)

      This used to require huge computing power and storage, but now it can work on a mobile device.

      Another example: once upon a time you needed Google datacenters to do gender and age recognition on photos. Now you can download pre-trained models for that, and the result can fit on a mobile device. Or you can download the entire dataset (500k photos of celebs) and train it yourself on your own servers;
      https://data.vision.ee.ethz.ch...

      Or you want a model to recognize basically any kind of object in a photo?
      https://github.com/tensorflow/...
      (there's a model specifically designed to run on mobile devices)

      i know it's disturbing but this is where things are today. Just a few years ago, this XKCD comic was true:

      https://xkcd.com/1425/

      Now you can actually download the code and models to do that completely offline and in a few ms.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re: works offline? by nazsco · · Score: 1

      yet, the actual results database is so bad, that shazam and google both fail to identify most of the jazz songs I try with their service.

      now I just record in whatsapp and send to a music friend who reply not only with the correct track but a few similar suggestions.

      screw ai.

    4. Re:works offline? by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      It helps if you only listen to the top 40.

      If you're listening to Ayurvedic by Ozric Tentacles, that might not be in the on-device fingerprint database.

    5. Re:works offline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

        Essentially it's just vectors (big numerical arrays), they don't need to store the whole mp3.

      Why shit on mp3 and try to re-invent the wheel with vectors?

        mp3 does all the hard work (psychoacoustics, compression, mp3 frames)

      Even if you use extremely low bitrates that causes new audio artifacts. ITS STILL perfectly acceptable as a fingerprint.

    6. Re:works offline? by lucm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why shit on mp3 and try to re-invent the wheel with vectors?

      First, nobody is shittng on mp3. As for the reason to use tiny vectors instead of storing big mp3 files, I'm not sure why I have to explain it to you but it comes down to two things.

      1) Storage
      2) Availability of advanced, high quality vector processing libraries like BLAS or LAPACK

      this being said, it was just my guess, for all I know maybe they are storing data in sqlite3 or in the headers of a jpeg file that shows your mom pleasuring herself with a maglite.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    7. Re:works offline? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Did you account for the titles of the songs? Names of the albums?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    8. Re:works offline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Names of albums is unimportant as the same song can be featured on multiple albums. People only care about artist and song and text compresses extremely well so, to be generous, go ahead and double that value to accommodate.

      A 3.2MB local database is probably not going to be a big deal for anyone.

    9. Re:works offline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a shame that MP3s are so huge and complex that Google has a storage and indexing capacity problem

    10. Re:works offline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a follow up to this, I just conducted a quick test by piping a full listing of my music library into a text file.

      That's 32,078 tracks listing the FULL PATH which includes the drive letter, "Music" directory, artist name, album year, album name, disc number, track number, artist name (again), track name and MP3 file extension. A single sample looks like this:

      D:\Music\65daysofstatic\[2016] No Man's Sky - Music For An Infinite Universe\Disc 01\01 - 65daysofstatic [Monolith].mp3

      The size of the raw text file is 3.26MB, compressed as ZIP it's 515KB and compressed as 7z it's 392KB.

    11. Re: works offline? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Jazz is famous for improvisation/jamming and having many, many recordings of any given song. By comparison, a few notes and some rhythm will pretty much nail most commercial pop songs. Different style of music.

    12. Re:works offline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Simple, they just upload a copy of the audio through the DMCA filter they have set up for Youtube and parse out the artist/title from the resulting take-down notification.

      And yes I did read that it is done off-line but that's not as funny.

    13. Re:works offline? by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think that something which amounts to a checksum takes very much space? Probably a few bytes per song.

      But you would need a ton of checksums per song, since they're only capturing what - 10 seconds of each song. You'd need a checksum for every possible 10 second window of every song.

    14. Re:works offline? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      A 3.2MB local database is probably not going to be a big deal for anyone.

      More than two floppy disks full of data? Not a big deal? What has this world come to...

    15. Re: works offline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      jazz songs ?

      why do you want to stress their app with sending random data ?

    16. Re: works offline? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It uses a microphone and analog to digital converter, there is background noise, and they don't have a known start and stop point. The incoming bitstream is not by any stretch of the imagination an invariant, so however it works "that ain't it."

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    17. Re: works offline? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      They aren't analyzing MP3s. If you record a song played through speakers and picked up by a microphone then converted to digital no two MP3s will have the same signature.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    18. Re: works offline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are using some sort of checksum, because they obviously aren't storing entire copies of the songs for comparison, so yes, that's pretty much how it works.

    19. Re: works offline? by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Checksum is shorthand terminology - music fingerprinting is probably more accurate, but everyone knew what they meant.

    20. Re:works offline? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that would also be copyright infringement. There's lots of legal reasons why you want to distance yourself more than that.

      You don't need to store the actual tones/frequencies - just the relative intensity across a few data points.

    21. Re: works offline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Further, mist of the data in a music library consists of the song audio itself. You haven't accounted for the system's ability to identify a song based on a fragment of its content in spite of the lossy audio channel. It's got to be substantially more than just a hash and a title being stored.

      If I would venture my own guess, and let me stress that this is a guess, I would speculate that perhaps Google has devised some sort of fractal audio fingerprinting and song indexing scheme.

    22. Re: works offline? by Albanach · · Score: 1

      It's got to be substantially more than just a hash and a title being stored.

      Why is that? A fingerprint contains a huge amount of data, yet a fingerprint reader will condense it down into a small number of points and represent the entire thing as a digit or string of digits. Why can't a computer do the same with music, creating what is essentially a hash and matching that to a database of titles?

    23. Re: works offline? by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      Which few seconds of When the Levee Breaks would be sufficient for a fingerprint? If the system is always listening, it always get the beginning, so it needs that, no more. Soundhound needs more since it gets called at any point in a track.

      Somehow, though I wonder - if the music is playing on my device, I loaded it on there. The metadata must be somewhere, though if not, then I got an unlabeled track. Really? That's possible, but the value proposition escapes me.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    24. Re: works offline? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Interesting

      32 thousand CDs, using slim jewel cases at 5mm thickness, means you have a CD tower 160 metres tall. Given a standard height of three metres per floor, your CD stack is over 53 stories high.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    25. Re: works offline? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      If the system is always listening, it always get the beginning, so it needs that, no more.

      That's the one thing I couldn't understand about their whole system. Thank you.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    26. Re:works offline? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I remember King's Quest... something... had around 14 floppies.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    27. Re: works offline? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      And at 16 grams per CD, your collection weights 512 kilograms, or over half a metric ton without the slim jewel cases.

      With the slim jewel cases, with a weight of around 43 grams each, your collection weights a total of 1.888 metric ton.

      The E.P.A.'s weight statistics show that the average weight of a 2003 car or light-duty truck, like a pickup, sport utility, van or minivan, was heavier than in any model year since 1976, when the average peaked at 4,079 pounds (1850 kg).

      Congratulations on your CD collection being heavier than a small pickup truck.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    28. Re: works offline? by Megol · · Score: 1

      Well there are plenty of songs that start with silence... ;P

    29. Re: works offline? by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 1

      Rock songs are three chords played in front of thousands of people.

      Jazz songs are thousands of chords played in front of three people.

      --
      They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    30. Re: works offline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the guy must like singles. Or perhaps there are a few more than 1 track per CD?

    31. Re: works offline? by Hall · · Score: 1

      His library is certainly not small by any means. Your library is completely out of the ordinary though.

    32. Re: works offline? by Hall · · Score: 1

      He said he has as many CDs as the poster above has of songs (32k).

    33. Re: works offline? by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      Which few seconds of When the Levee Breaks would be sufficient for a fingerprint? If the system is always listening, it always get the beginning, so it needs that, no more. Soundhound needs more since it gets called at any point in a track.

      Somehow, though I wonder - if the music is playing on my device, I loaded it on there. The metadata must be somewhere, though if not, then I got an unlabeled track. Really? That's possible, but the value proposition escapes me.

      It doesn't get the beginning if you turn on the radio half way through the song.

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
    34. Re: works offline? by Hall · · Score: 1

      yet, the actual results database is so bad, that shazam and google both fail to identify most of the jazz songs I try with their service.

      Shazam and the like frequently fail to ID classical songs, even the most well-known ones. I presume it's because these services haven't "fingerprinted" every different orchestra's or symphony's version of different songs. Even though the notes are the same, there are no doubt differences that are detected by these fingerprinting mechanisms.

    35. Re: works offline? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Actually I belong on Slashdot, so I know what a checksum is, and I don't use the word to mean "some technique I don't understand so I'm going to call it a checksum." Clearly that is not the case for many that come here today.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    36. Re: works offline? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Did they call it a checksum or did they say it "amounts to a checksum"? The latter is actually true.

    37. Re: works offline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entirety of my list, which contains the full path, is enough space for the song title, artist name and song fingerprint. Any squabbling over database file sizes is going to be over no more than a few megs.

      You also forget about compression, which would take the database down to a fraction of that.

    38. Re:works offline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, no.

      An entire song's identity can be represented by a single, small fingerprint (waveform or spectrogram). Applying fuzzy logic, they could identify the same songs, from any point, even through varying playback quality.

    39. Re: works offline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? They won't be identical, but they will be close enough to be able to make a match.

    40. Re: works offline? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      You evidently don't understand the word "amounts". Look it up and get back to me.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    41. Re: works offline? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      Slashdot has gone as far down hill .

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    42. Re: works offline? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You evidently don't understand metaphor, figurative language, and idioms.

    43. Re: works offline? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Goodbye microchad. Good luck learning about computers!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    44. Re: works offline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, not a checksum at all then. Got it.

    45. Re: works offline? by OffTheWallSoccer · · Score: 1

      If the system is always listening, it always get the beginning, so it needs that, no more.

      That's the one thing I couldn't understand about their whole system. Thank you.

      If you enter the premise (restaurant, bar, etc.) mid-song, then the phone won't have access to the beginning of the song.

      Assuming Pixel 2 can still identify a song that it only heard from the middle, then the audio fingerprint must cover characteristics of the entire song.

      Another poster mentioned how a scan of a human fingerprint stores only specific interesting datapoints. So maybe Google's audio fingerprint includes a few bytes representing average BPM, a few bytes representing vocal range, etc. I'm not a musician or an audiophile, so I don't know the interesting characteristics.

    46. Re: works offline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot has gone as far down hill .

      Yes, thanks to stupid little shits like you who don't know what they are talking about. You obviously know nothing of waveforms, spectrographs or fuzzy logic. Hell, you don't even understand basic English grammar.

      Now fuck off back to Facebook, junior.

  3. small database by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "The Pixel 2’s on-device database for Now Playing is based on Google Play Music’s top songs, the Google spokesperson revealed. Google wouldn’t share the exact number of songs in the database, but the spokesperson did note it’s in the high 10s of thousand"

    So it's only top songs, and only a limited number.
    Aren't these things meant to have high numbers of songs so that you can find out what that obscure song is, not just the latest taylor swift one?

    1. Re:small database by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing it tries to phone home when it doesn't find a local match. I doubt VentureBeat tried it with anything obscure, but I highly doubt Google is gonna give a "we don't know" answer without exhausting their resources.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    2. Re:small database by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, these things are to help you identify that pop song you've heard a few times already but don't know what it's called or who it is.

    3. Re:small database by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, but this is just "ambient" song recognition. If you specifically want to look up a song, you can still ask the Assistant, or tap the mic button in the google search widget or the Play Music app, and it will send audio to the cloud and get you a quicker & more accurate response from the much larger online database.

    4. Re:small database by MangoCats · · Score: 2

      Aren't these things meant to have high numbers of songs so that you can find out what that obscure song is, not just the latest taylor swift one?

      Uh... no. The point is to ID that song that your friends were listening to and you are hearing it again and you want to know what to call it so you can impress your friends next time it comes on, or better still, sell you a $0.99 copy to download to your phone.

      Obscure songs are... obscure. Use the online database if you want to ID obscure stuff.

    5. Re:small database by TranquilVoid · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to the article the local song database is updated once per week based on the changing popularity of songs on Google Play. The least popular songs are replaced rather than expanding the database in perpetuity, and if you never enable the feature the database is never downloaded.

    6. Re: small database by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      That doesn't address how it might identify songs not in the local database. The database holds roughly 10k songs, but songs which are removed from the database don't cease to exist and I'm guessing it will phone home to identify them.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    7. Re: small database by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I just assumed you'd come to the same conclusion as I did, which is that it simply will fail to identify the songs and not phone home to look up a master database. It's a good point, even if my assumption is correct, nothing says they won't change it to do a dynamic lookup in the future without notification.

    8. Re: small database by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I just assumed you'd come to the same conclusion as I did, which is that it simply will fail to identify the songs and not phone home to look up a master database.

      What part of my initial comment made you think I would have come to that conclusion? The first thing I said was literally:

      I'm guessing it tries to phone home when it doesn't find a local match.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  4. It means you're listening to top 100 pop music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good for you, Emil Protalinski. You're probably a boring person, but great at pop culture.

  5. OK by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    So it knows every song played in the gym, why can't it be used to _tune out_ that song playing right now with my noise-supressing headphones, since it knows every tone in advance and hasn't to guess?
    Then I could hear _my_ music playing in my headphones.
    Would also be great for the barmen in nightclubs and other places playing loud music.

    1. Re:OK by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Although I think you're being funny, no, this couldn't be used in that way. Noise cancelling headphones work by using destructive interference, which requires an exact opposite waveform of the sound being cancelled out. Since the analog waveform of the music would be affected by any number of factors (the quality of the speakers playing it, the equalizer settings of their audio equipment, the bitrate of their source, the echoing of the sound off various objects, multiple speakers playing the audio, which would result in multiple "copies" of the music reaching your ear just very slightly delayed from one another, etc, etc), you couldn't use a "canned" waveform (the original MP3) to cancel out the actual waveform reaching your ears.

      Now, while it might be possible, using AI, to try to do a best match of the ambient sound against a canned waveform, and cancel out only the ambient sound that seems to match, it still would not work perfectly. That would result in echos and certain portions of the frequency spectrum still being heard, which would sound very strange.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    2. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ...since it knows every tone in advance...

      It doesn't.

      > ...and hasn't to guess?

      It does, more or less. A human fingerprint database doesn't contain complete reproductions of a human's fingerprints, but rather a significant number of _samples_ from each fingerprint. These song ID databases are the same: not enough data stored to reproduce the song, but enough data to _identify_ the song after listening it to it for a little while.

      In short, it's _very_ lossy compression.

    3. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That said, I could still see a feature where you identify the song, download it, invert it, and play it at the same time. It should be computationally reasonable. Also, it won't cancel perfectly, but I bet it will do better than current white noise based systems.

    4. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't have to be exact. Sure, "exact" reproduction of the original 16-bit source would cancel out the full 96 dB dynamic range of an CD audio, which is enough to go from blasting your eardrums out at a rock concert down to quieter than the ambient background noise in a library. However, the use case requested isn't library-level silence at a rock concert!

      In practice, a mere 30 dB reduction of PA audio at the gym would be enough that you wouldn't really notice it while listening to your own music. You only need 6 * # bits dB SNR, so you only need to 5 bit accuracy / predict the signal to 1/32 of the peak-to-peak signal level to achieve a 30 dB reduction. Getting 5 bits of accuracy from a 16-bit source is almost literally child's play.

      Furthermore, your worry about echo / reflections delays could be solved by continuously performing a correlation between expected and received signal, and then using that to solve the time delay of each measurable echo and tweak the DSP parameters for cancellation signal [1]. A relatively static listening position would easily be able to do a really good job of canceling out the interference effects of multiple speakers. Yeah, it would probably mess up a bit if you moved around, but why not build a 3D model of the predicted speaker locations and reflecting surfaces? Add in the input from your phone's location service, and it could predict the changing impulse response as you move around the room.

      [1] The key here is knowing the actual source material. Autocorrelation could do a half-assed job at computing the echo delays just by comparing the received signal to itself, but comparing the received signal to the actual source would give much better results.

    5. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So it knows every song played in the gym, why can't it be used to _tune out_ that song playing right now with my noise-supressing headphones,

      it's easier to listen/cancel as explained in previous comment

      > Then I could hear _my_ music playing in my headphones.

      Isn't that like a standard feature in noise-cancelling headphones? For long time now.

    6. Re:OK by Megol · · Score: 1

      Cool idea but probably hard to make work... Probably, there are a lot of smart people.

    7. Re:OK by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Streaming a song with the phase reversed is still streaming a song, and the maker would have to pay royalties.

    8. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could get some active noise cancelling headphones. My 20 year old noise cancelling Kenwoods still work great.

  6. Bite it, you scum by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    I'll bet Google Pixel 2 won't be able to identify the songs on my playlist.

    https://youtu.be/99KkbFjZR20

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Bite it, you scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like nobody but you knows about GG Allin.

    2. Re:Bite it, you scum by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      It's not like nobody but you knows about GG Allin.

      Google Pixel 2 doesn't know about GG Allin. I'm willing to bet on it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Bite it, you scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really sure about that? Google sells GG Allin's music on Google Play.

    4. Re:Bite it, you scum by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Not the live bootlegs.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Bite it, you scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I can't argue with that. Touche.

    6. Re:Bite it, you scum by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      Pfft, any artist that even has a Wikipedia entry, let alone one with as many words on it as GG Allin's, can hardly be described as obscure. You are so overground.

    7. Re:Bite it, you scum by OneoFamillion · · Score: 1

      Yep, but if anyone decides to upload those bootlegs to Youtube (or, I suspect, anywhere on the accessible web), it's only a matter of time before Google will analyze and start recognizing it. Not to mention that they might use some kind of advanced heuristics to recognize songs even if they are not 1:1 with their analyzed samples. In fact they already must be, since live soundscapes are always full of secondary noise.

    8. Re:Bite it, you scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bet Google Pixel 2 won't be able to identify the songs on my playlist.

      https://youtu.be/99KkbFjZR20

      Would it not be more consistent to shit on your phone and then nail it into a burning coffin before dying of a heroin overdose like a big fucking baby?

  7. what about meta-data back to google later? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so it's not using online services to perform this... but when you do connect I'll bet it sends data somewhere about what it heard, thereby enabling google to suggest music you may like from their various partners

    1. Re:what about meta-data back to google later? by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      You'd lose the bet; no history is kept - not even locally.

  8. Re:battery impact? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 2

    Who really cares about how this is done. I'm much more interested in what the battery impact of such a useless feature is. Seriously, how often do most people use this feature, such that it would be useful having this run 24/7/365?

    Just don't turn it on if you care that much. It isn't on by default.

  9. I call bollocks by bitchtits · · Score: 0

    Bollocks. It's all on the device?... no wi-fi... no 4G... 16GB... My fat arse!

    1. Re:I call bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why? Because you don't trust Google not to phone home or because you naively assume that it's not possible?

      We were doing accurate voice recognition on Pentium 1 PCs with 32MB RAM more than 20 years ago. Why do you think that a vastly more powerful system, such as modern smartphone, can't handle this?

  10. Of course no audio is sent to Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the CIA intercepts it.

  11. Re:battery impact? by lucm · · Score: 1

    I'm much more interested in what the battery impact of such a useless feature is.

    It's unlikely to move the needle.

    Songs usually last for a solid 2-3 minutes, so that limits the processing to maybe 500 analysis per day. That's basically like doing 500 searches per day, on fast storage (probably cached), probably using some kind of vsm or inverted index, or maybe a radix tree. Minimal cpu usage, minimal i/o, no gpu usage. I suspect the weather apps is more harmful for the battery than this kind of thing because it involves the network stack.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  12. lemon, meet lemonade by lucm · · Score: 1

    yet, the actual results database is so bad, that shazam and google both fail to identify most of the jazz songs I try with their service.

    now I just record in whatsapp and send to a music friend who reply not only with the correct track but a few similar suggestions.

    screw ai.

    Pareto principle, amigo. Pop, hip-hop and country will always take the bulk of the market, and therefore the bulk of the attention of this kind of tool.

    But instead of seeing this as a problem, maybe you should see it as an opportunity. You probably have a huge collection of the kind of music you like; you coud build specialized models and sell them. Or even better, create a specialized shazam-like app where people can purchase those additional models, and you'll make good money, then Google will buy you out.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  13. Re:battery impact? by chipschap · · Score: 1

    I suppose this feature might be of intense interest to some, of casual interest to others, but many, such as myself, ask, "This is on my phone why?

    Making phone calls on a phone has long ago become a secondary, even a tertiary, feature.

  14. DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm guessing this will eventually be used to block the playing of any song that doesn't have an approved origin.

  15. Re: Fsck the DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps, but then we won't buy such phones!

  16. Re:battery impact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Making phone calls on a phone has long ago become a secondary, even a tertiary, feature.

    Yes. Yes it has, and it will never be a primary feature again. Get over it. Complaining about it every time makes you look like an idiot at best, or like the Local Man Who Never Watches TV and Doesn't Even Own A TV at worst.

  17. Re:battery impact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    *facepalm*

    You act as though everyone is only going to listen to full songs of exactly 2-3 minutes when in reality people will be listening to song fragments and jumping from track to track at any time. It's not like it's going to recognise a song and then magically read the minds of the listener to know how long to turn off until the song gets changed. It will have to continuously monitor, 24/7.

  18. Weasel Words by PPH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No audio is ever sent to Google.

    No. But the playlist along with location data probably is. Either in real time or forwarded when the network becomes available.

    And then this is turned over to ASCAP/BMI to verify that commercial establishments you were in have paid their fees.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Weasel Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is google we are talking about. ALL your personal data is immediately supplied to the Democrat party and the NSA/CIA deep state crisis actors who are WAITING to use it to confiscate your guns and emprison you and your family.

  19. Re:contact him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Totally bogus. I actually tried this and found out it is a set-up for spam.

  20. Could still work by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    As you say, it can't use a canned MP3 to generate a noise cancelling waveform... but since the device is listening and can compare the acoustic properties to the reference master, it should be able to make a mapping that could get pretty close.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  21. Re:battery impact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There are enough real reasons to hate Google, that one doesn't need to fabricate false ones. Those of us that don't like Google have even more motivation to call out bullshit complaints than fanboys, because fake problems desensitize people to real problems, often then thinking all complains come from opposing fanboys.

  22. phail by lucm · · Score: 1

    *facepalm*

    You act as though everyone is only going to listen to full songs of exactly 2-3 minutes when in reality people will be listening to song fragments and jumping from track to track at any time.

    Before facepalming people, maybe you should RTFA. The service they describe is not for someone actively listening to music, it's to detect automatically whatever is playing in the background. For instance, when you're at Starbucks.

    I'm not a fan of Google usually but this is a pretty interesting feature. Shazam is cool but most of the time when I hear a song that I like, my interest doesn't go as far as actually unlocking the phone and starting the app. But glancing at the lockscreen and seeing what is playing in the background, that I would do for sure, and it would add just a little bit to my quality of life.

    And it's not just for good songs. For instance, the other day I heard a song in Spanish by a duo that included someone who clearly doesn't speak Spanish. I had to look it up because I found it annoying, and I realized it was Justin Bieber and Daddy Yankee (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK-RJiYKBYw). With things like this "playing now" gadget, I would have known immediately and it would have fueled my dislike of that Bieber person without forcing me to do anything other than own a decent smartphone.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:phail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like you're illiterate then.

      If someone has music playing in the background which is being changed at random intervals, whether because the song ended and the next began or because someone switched tracks, the app cannot know that unless it's continuously monitoring.

    2. Re:phail by lucm · · Score: 1

      Looks like you're illiterate then.

      If someone has music playing in the background which is being changed at random intervals, whether because the song ended and the next began or because someone switched tracks, the app cannot know that unless it's continuously monitoring.

      Nobody said it wasn't continuously monitoring. That's not the same as continuously recognizing.

      I can see why you're confused; you have no idea how technology works. You must shit your pants when you see a dvr skipping commercials (OMG THEY HAVE THE ENTIRE CORPUS OF TV ADS IN THAT BOX AND IT'S CONSTANTLY COMPARING THEM TO MY TV SHOW OMG OMG").

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re:phail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody said it wasn't continuously monitoring. That's not the same as continuously recognizing.

      Uh, yes, it's exactly the same thing. What the fuck do you actually think monitoring does, how do you think that differs from "recognising" and what would be the purpose of your definition of "monitoring" if it did nothing?

      I don't know how you think it will magically be able to determine what song is currently playing (which can change at any time) unless it's constantly monitoring (or "recognising" as you say) what is being played.

      You're wrong, you just don't want to admit it.

    4. Re:phail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read the fine article:

      To save battery life when you’re listening to continuous music, Now Playing only runs every 60 seconds, the Google spokesperson explained. That means if the last detection was 30 seconds ago, you’ll only get an update on the next song that is playing in another 30 seconds, plus the time it takes for the actual recognition. If after 60 seconds no music is playing, the system will wait for music to be detected before attempting a new song identification. This also explains why long after a song is over, your lockscreen will still show whatever was previously playing.

    5. Re:phail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words...

      Songs usually last for a solid 2-3 minutes, so that limits the processing to maybe 500 analysis per day.

      ...is completely wrong. Thanks for confirming.

    6. Re:phail by Megol · · Score: 1

      If so there have to be a continuous monitoring of song changes in order to trigger the recognition algorithm - and I'd call that continuous recognition.

      This is basic logic.

    7. Re:phail by lucm · · Score: 1

      If so there have to be a continuous monitoring of song changes in order to trigger the recognition algorithm - and I'd call that continuous recognition.

      This is basic logic.

      This is, in fact, very "basic" logic. The same kind of logic that can make anything be anything else, since it's anything.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  23. It works offline... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    But then pre-packages the information to be sent surreptiously with your daily or weekly Google report.
    I dunno what people find so useful in assistants, crap like this, plus embedded AI to identify objects when you are taking photos and whatnot, but I see it as overengineering stuff and offering little to no convenience (when not actually making things even harder to do) while using you as testbed for future data collection schemes and whatnot.

    This function in particular can only go both ways: either collect the data to send later and use it to sell more music to you, or as some future implementation of DRM that we're simply not quite aware of. It's giving more vain justifications for people to get used to the idea of having always on listening devices. We're not long from getting to a point where no one can know for sure if they are getting recorded all the time because a personal device, or devices of other people around you might have an always listening function in it recording everything. This is the type of future we're walking towards because people are blindly following shitty trends mandated by these corporations.

  24. It's not just a bug.. it's a feature! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not just a bug.. it's a feature!

  25. They’re stuck by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    Google, Samsung, Apple... all their phones can now do pretty much everything their customers need, and are powerful enough where there’s not much practical gain in upgrading. These companies are basically stuck trying to sell us high priced gadgets which in truth are pretty much commodities now.

    This new feature from Google doesn’t seem useful to me at all. But, given the choice between a phone able to do this and a phone which can turn me into an animated, talking poop emoji... I’d take this, thank you very much.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  26. Dear Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    My phone said it closed Firefox and Here maps to save power.... but I haven't run these for days.

    IMPLEMENT A FOOKING CLOSE APP FEATURE, FFS.

    Why are these apps even hanging around once I've finished with them. The choice to keep apps running and only close them when Android thinks they should be closed WAS LOST WITH v5. Prior to v5, apps would be gracefully packed away, after v5 you made the assumption that apps would/could save their state completely and restore it and forcibly wiped background apps from memory regardless of state when you chose.

    These choices were dumb. Apps cannot restore server connections or completely restore the state every time, which is why people them force kept the app open to prevent you closing it randomly.

    You then compounded this fooking dumb choice, with these 'power saving' things. Stupid features which even close MP3 players when the screen is off.

    How about you step back and do this properly.

    Apps are closed by the user when the USER is finished with them. You don't randomly close stuff and apps don't need special permissions or steps to stop you randomly closing them.

    Is it so hard? Firefox and Here should not be running when I've done with them, there should be a proper close. You don't need to fix this shit you created with more shit.

    At the moment you cannot make software reliably run on Android because of the OS. Only mini-apps can reliably use it. Everything else needs to register a special notification (to say its running, WTF...) or they will be closed at random in their run cycle.

    Backtrack on this dumb "no close needed" idea. It's had its day.

    1. Re:Dear Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what happens when you "swipe out" an app? It does not really close? Yeah I know there are a bunch of background services separately on Android but I though at least "closing" the app by tapping on the "overview" button (yes had to Google that name..) and then swipe the apps to the side? What does it really do? I cannot figure these poops out any more, what is running when, what is listening, what is capturing... I guess that goes with customers becoming products or whatever.

  27. Sounds like an answer to a question nobody asked by guacamole · · Score: 1

    So everyone knows there exist several shazam-like apps and services that will identify a song that's playing. I have personally used this service maybe two times within the past four years. The 500MB of storage space wasted on the Now Playing data base is just not worth it..

  28. If you've ever used Shazam or SoundHound, you prob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Google Assistant / Now has been doing it for years too. You know, the core of the platform your talking about

  29. Must be new here by lucm · · Score: 2

    What a shame that MP3s are so huge and complex that Google has a storage and indexing capacity problem

    What a shame that you didn't RTFA and missed the part where they explain that it works while the device is not connected to internet

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:Must be new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I didn't read the summary, not the article - so the joke's on you.

  30. Re:battery impact? by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 2

    "This is on my phone why?

    "

    Because you installed it by mistake and are too silly to remove it?
    Because you needed something to complain about?

    Can you tell us? Why did you put it on your phone?

  31. Re:battery impact? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

    If you want a phone that's just a phone, you can still buy one very cheaply. If you want a 1440p-display pocket computer with an OLED screen and an always-on connection to the Internet, the phone part is basically free.

  32. The only thing not sent to Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thatâ(TM)s is the only thing you do with your phone that isnâ(TM)t sent to the mother roach.

  33. Offline? Sure it does... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Secondly, it's an on-device and local feature: Now Playing functions completely offline (we tested this, and indeed it works with mobile data and Wi-Fi turned off).

    Offline in the Apple sense, I'm sure, where the mobile/WiFi indicators say that they're off but are still fully operational. Try it after removing the SIM and forgetting all WiFi networks.

  34. Google voice search has done this for years! by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    OK, so maybe it doesn't do it offline. But who cares? I can already ask my Moto G "What song is this?" It listens, and tells me what's playing. I've used it numerous times, and it got it right every time!

  35. Now Google can track who are your friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    better than Facebook.

    Just correlate who are listening the same songs over 10-20 mins and they know who are travelling together.

    Big brother just got bigger, and NSA/FBI just got another mountain of "associations" they can mine.

  36. Evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "No audio is ever sent to Google."

    The evidence doesn't support that claim.

  37. Curious by Shogun37 · · Score: 1

    Why is this even a feature? if I put it on my device, I likely know the artist and album. If it's playing from an online service, they know the album and artist. Or, is having the microphone on all the time the real feature?

    1. Re:Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhh... Don't tell anyone.

    2. Re:Curious by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      It's for identifying songs that you hear from random sources (boom boxes, restaurant background music, etc.) that you didn't load and/or isn't coming from your own device.

      And the 'Always On' (intermittent, actually - it runs every 60 seconds) means that you can get the info from your lock screen, and the local database means that it doesn't need need any form of internet connection - no impact on your data plan.

      Not that I fit their use case. I'd leave it switched off (the default).

  38. Where this can go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps a silly question, but if it is now possible for a phone identify a song based off a short random sample, is it possible for to scan all locally-stored content and/or linked content for infringing material? How about a man-in-the-middle looking at network traffic?

  39. Re:battery impact? by chipschap · · Score: 1

    It isn't optionally put on the phone, it is put there by Google and requires rooting the phone to get rid of it.

    And to the person who said I should stop complaining about smartphones, I was making an observation. There's a difference. If it came across as a complaint, then I could have expressed it better.

  40. quick search tells me something else... by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1
    https://www.news-intrest.net/2...

    It’s worth noting that Now Playing is turned off by default. You have to explicitly turn it on in the setup flow when first starting your Pixel 2 or Pixel 2 XL, or in Settings (as shown above).