'YouTube Music is a Bad Product in Desperate Need of Improvement Before Anyone Will Care To Use It' (androidcentral.com)

Andrew Martonik, writing for AndroidCentral: YouTube Music as a service has been around for about three years now, though it really only existed in earnest once the revamped version of the YouTube Music app and dedicated website, as we know it today, launched in May. Whether you look at it as three years or just six months old, one thing is clear: YouTube Music isn't finished yet, is filled with issues and is incredibly frustrating to use on a daily basis considering it costs the industry-standard $10 per month.

YouTube Music is so unfinished and lacking features that I question whether Google has any intentions of following through with its vision of replacing Google Play Music entirely. Put simply, I can't believe Google thinks anyone will pay $10 per month for it when all signs point to Google itself not caring about YouTube Music's success. YouTube Music effectively doesn't work with Google Home. [...] YouTube Music also still doesn't work with Android Auto, which is just as inexcusable as not working with Google Home.

Comments

What

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA was saying how it was taking significant sales away from them. Well which is it?

Re:What

[Errol backfiring]

Those ones. If no one cares about the service, it must be a huge lot of lost sales.

Re: What

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is what I think it is it isnâ(TM)t so much unfinished as just complicated and in search of the right user

Re:What

[jellomizer]

Any number > 0 is significant.
Just like Apple Fan Boys they are Google Fans who will buy anything Google.

Re: What

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe your not using it right

Re: What

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is what I think it is it isnâ(TM)t so much unfinished as just complicated and in search of the right user

I downloaded the android app when I heard about Google's plans to end Play Music.

Youtube music is so fucking bad that it's almost unusable. Check out the reviews, or if that's not good enough, try using it.

Stop me if you've heard this one before

[Anonymous Coward]

Google launches a service that competes with itself, but doesn't shut the old service down. The new service withers on the vine because of dueling VPs (glad to see Microsoft's culture is working out somewhere else, too). Google abruptly cancels the service a few years later.

Re:Stop me if you've heard this one before

[Daetrin]

That's inaccurate!

Sometimes when it becomes clear that people don't want to switch they eventually cancel the old service instead, forcing everyone to either switch to the new, buggy, service with less features or leave the Google ecosystem entirely. (e.g. the old Google News & Weather app vs the new Google News app.)

Re:Stop me if you've heard this one before

[jwymanm]

I know, Google is a joke. You can't enjoy any of their products without having the thought in your mind it'll be gone tomorrow on some asshole VP's whim. None of them appear to eat their own dog food either. They probably all have fucking iphones under the table playing their Apple music. Because who the fuck in their right mind (and this is coming from someone who only uses Android/Youtube Music) will stick with/pay for a service that is going to abruptly end or get worse. They only care about their pressure behind the scenes AI gathering usage and user opinion. They don't give a damn about what people even think anymore.

Re:Stop me if you've heard this one before

[careysub]

Many of us have learned not to adopt new Google services, period. They have taught us patiently over and over by rolling out Cool New Stuff and then deciding that it wasn't monetizing adequately (if they ever tried to do so, often they didn't) and pulled the plug, with little or no notice oftentimes.

Was it free? Not really, I am paying for it like other people do through Google's highly profitable ad business, and through my employer indirectly who uses their web business offerings and even GC. They just can't imagine that it makes sense to keep running services at modest cost as loss leaders to keep people happy with their ecosystem, and ready to adopt new offerings.

If Google offers anything new now I ignore it, since they are going to take it away anyway in a few years. They convinced me, finally, and I believe them.

Youtube Music?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Youtube's business model was to steal everyone's content, make money on it for free without paying the content creators, and then profiting to the moon on it?

I thought Youtube was a 100% copyright infringement business in which they are immune to the legal system which everyone else has to respect?

It appears on top of all this, Youtube wants you to pay even more so Youtube can steal other's content and make even more money on it, all without ads?

Brilliant. Too bad lawyers are too vagina to stand up to the grand larceny.

Re:Youtube Music?

[tepples]

I thought Youtube's business model was to steal everyone's content

Content ID with the block function available to copyright owners shows that this is not the intent.

Re:Youtube Music?

[Anonymous Coward]

Content ID is a joke. Flipping the video still gets around it.

YouTube Music is Free, Not $10/month

[Anonymous Coward]

:"I can't believe Google thinks anyone will pay $10 per month"

Journalism at its finest? Download the app or go to music.youtube.com . Works without paying for it. Amazing right?

And it works great over BT as well, including play/pause/skip functions.

Re:YouTube Music is Free, Not $10/month

[jellomizer]

I found that the normal YouTube App has crippled itself for You Tube Red only features, such as playing audio while the App is in the background, and makes a point to nag you about it all the time.

No. Google is a bunch of flakes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I question whether Google has any intentions of following through with its vision of replacing Google Play Music entirely.

Question away. Google is a bunch of flakes and they are throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
They are nothing but an advertising company and in trying to appease the Gods of Wall Street, they are struggling to find a path for growth.
And that's what all these other services are - shit thrown at the wall. It shows that Google management doesn't have a clue for the future - and quite frankly, neither does anyone else.
This should be a lesson about "visionaries" and how they are nothing but emperors with no clothes.

Re:No. Google is a bunch of flakes.

[jellomizer]

That is the big problem with Google, they will often do these grand reveled, but not follow thru.

Not a suprise

[110010001000]

This isn't a surprise. Google does most things halfway and will eventually cancel it.

Re:Not a suprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds better than what Amazon does.. putting half-baked, bug-riddled apps into production.

Re:Not a suprise

[rtb61]

Do you really want to know why they routinely fail. It is really quite simple, they are an advertising platform, that is their forte, that is their focus, everything else is bait for that platform. Now seriously, if you are fishing, do you really care about how good or bad that bait is for the fish or just that it will tempt them to bite the hook. So the bait needs to be just good enough to get the fish to bite and then hopefully as far as the advertising fisherman is concerned hooked. So they routinely cut short on the bait and loose the fish because they did not bite hard enough because the bait although it smelled good, in reality tasted quite bad.

It is in the googlites political blood, the SJW freak attitude, the sales lies, the political manipulations, scamming advertisers because deep down they hate them, the forever beta product and how do no evil become yeah do evil when a profit is involved, it is their nature to try to create just barely good enough bait, 'er' product, even targeted advertising is bait for advertisers, as Google routinely manipulates what those people paying for ads see, create the false impression of how much their advertisements are seen and if the spend is high never seeing the competitors ads but if the spend starts to shrink, flood them with competitors ads, see how manipulation works and like all cons, it works best on the greediest, mwa ha ha.

Re:Not a suprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds better than what Amazon does.. putting half-baked, bug-riddled apps into production.

and still better than M$

Maybe start by helping people migrate?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had a Google Play Music subscription for a few years, and have built up a huge library of stored music, customized playlists, curated ai driven... whatever. I tried to use YouTube Music for a while, but it felt like starting over on a service with less features. There's currently no way to migrate my library over, and all the the suggestions mostly generic. It also doesn't help that my work throttles the youtube domain, so the streaming is lower quality/slower. It also doesn't seem to get new releases as quickly as Google Play Music, or is missing some albums altogether that are on the other service. Chromecast supports seems flaky on Youtube Music and often fails, while Google Play Music works perfectly. For the time being, I've just fully reverted to Google Play Music.

Same could be said for YT itself

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Why do I have recommendations in my feed, that have absolutely nothing to do with anything I've ever watched, ever before?

YT is a mess....christ only knows how bad YT music is...

Re:Same could be said for YT itself

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do I have recommendations in my feed, that have absolutely nothing to do with anything I've ever watched, ever before?

To try and entice you to watch and become interested in even more things.. Seems obvious to me

Re:Same could be said for YT itself

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just a recommendation to something you might find interesting. It's just a recommendation that's trivial to ignore.

Re:Same could be said for YT itself

[Anonymous Coward]

So why does it come back even after I explicitly tell it that I'm not interested and that maybe, just maybe there is a pattern of me automatically doing so for clickbait trash videos even if they are on a subject that I'm interested in?

He's wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

ndrew Martonik, writing for AndroidCentral is a fucking idiot. I don't have any problems using YouTube Music. It casts just fine from my devices to my audio equipment. The best part is that the advertisers don't yet understand that YouTube Music isn't a video product and therefore, having a 15second commercial that doesn't actually tell you what or who is advertising is just a stupid waste of money (on the free version).

Google is gonna get sued over the ads.

[t0qer]

I use good old youtube for listening to music in my car during my morning commutes. Using the google assistant, I say, "OK Google, youtube Chemical Brothers" and I used to get chemical brothers playback starting flawlessly on my drive without looking at my phone.

Last 6 months or so YT has employed strategies to curb this kind of use. Routinely the "Youtube Music" add with "FREE TRIAL MONTH" pops up and won't go away until I physically look for the "No thanks" button. That sort of distraction can lead to an accident. They've also employed the "Are you still listening?" and "Autoplayback paused" Luckily the latter 2 can be skipped by pressing a button on my bluetooth radio transmitter.

Re:Google is gonna get sued over the ads.

[Hodr]

. That sort of distraction can lead to an accident.

Lots of legitimate complaints to be had about youtube. Distracting you while driving is not one of them.

Re:Google is gonna get sued over the ads.

[Anonymous Coward]

I use good old youtube for listening to music in my car during my morning commutes. Using the google assistant, I say, "OK Google, youtube Chemical Brothers" and I used to get chemical brothers playback starting flawlessly on my drive without looking at my phone.

Last 6 months or so YT has employed strategies to curb this kind of use. Routinely the "Youtube Music" add with "FREE TRIAL MONTH" pops up and won't go away until I physically look for the "No thanks" button. That sort of distraction can lead to an accident. They've also employed the "Are you still listening?" and "Autoplayback paused" Luckily the latter 2 can be skipped by pressing a button on my bluetooth radio transmitter.

You should probably just download all that shitty music you listen to so you don't have to deal with this anymore. Download it from youtube if you wish.

Re:Google is gonna get sued over the ads.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason why you're distracted is because you refuse to listen to ads and would rather operate the music machine. You either listen to the ads with the music, or you pull over outside of traffic to operate the music machine, or you stop using Youtube music.

Re:Google is gonna get sued over the ads.

[Anonymous Coward]

I use good old youtube for listening to music in my car during my morning commutes. Using the google assistant, I say, "OK Google, youtube Chemical Brothers" and I used to get chemical brothers playback starting flawlessly on my drive without looking at my phone.

Last 6 months or so YT has employed strategies to curb this kind of use. Routinely the "Youtube Music" add with "FREE TRIAL MONTH" pops up and won't go away until I physically look for the "No thanks" button. That sort of distraction can lead to an accident. They've also employed the "Are you still listening?" and "Autoplayback paused" Luckily the latter 2 can be skipped by pressing a button on my bluetooth radio transmitter.

Try NewPipe for youtube and soundcloud access without the ads, the comments etc. with a background player that actually works and the ability to create playlists and have subscriptions without an account with google as well as the ability to save the video or audio directly.

Re:Well I took a subscription

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be nice to have all this expendable cash. While us plebs who only make low 6 figure salaries need to make choices on what to pay for.

A better app won't matter at the current price

[DarenN]

It doesn't matter until the pricing model improves. Before streaming, the majority of people did not spend $120 a year on albums, which would be roughly 12 albums a year. Some of the streaming services are doing ok now, but until the price point drops to somewhere between $5 and $7 a month and until the messy regional licensing stuff gets sorted out, they're all going to stagnate.

They have to choose - lose the extra revenue for the real music buffs or get everyone onboard and earn less per subscriber, but for more people. Maybe charge extra for high fidelity recordings. I was making the point to someone recently that Netflix is competing against cable minus sports, so it looks competitive because it's less than a cable subscription. The music streamers are competing against radio, which is free at the point of consumption, so it looks comparatively less competitive.

Re:A better app won't matter at the current price

[michiganbob]

Before streaming, the majority of people did not spend $120 a year on albums, which would be roughly 12 albums a year.

Do you have actual numbers on that? Anecdotally, in high school I spent way more than $120 a year on CDs. I doubt that was uncommon back then.

Re:A better app won't matter at the current price

[Anonymous Coward]

Before streaming, the majority of people did not spend $120 a year on albums, which would be roughly 12 albums a year.

Do you have actual numbers on that? Anecdotally, in high school I spent way more than $120 a year on CDs. I doubt that was uncommon back then.

Anecdotally, the majority of people are not in high school. Also, the majority of people are not you (I fact checked that one myself).

Re:A better app won't matter at the current price

[michiganbob]

Anecdotally, the majority of people are not in high school. Also, the majority of people are not you (I fact checked that one myself).

And obviously I'm not trying to prove anything with my anecdote, because that would be silly.

I'm just asking if DarenN has any stats on his spending estimates.

Re:A better app won't matter at the current price

[Anonymous Coward]

roughly 12

4. That's 4 albums, not 12.

Re:A better app won't matter at the current price

[Aighearach]

Yeah but in a tight month I could sell them back to the store. If I bought them used I could get back over 50% of what I paid, if I bought new maybe 35%.

Also then I had a bunch of LPs, cassettes, and CDs sitting there on a shelf, I could look at it and have feelings about my music collection.

Just being able to listen to the songs, I mean, does that actually have value? Is it still a scarce resource? Am I supposed to feel wealthy because some company gave me access to their stuff? Surely not in the same way as if I had personally acquired a pile of my own stuff.

It seems to me that people are actually paying for the service of file storage and remote playlist management, rather than access to the music. People that don't want to pay to have somebody store their music on a server where they can easily access it across devices, and to have playlists that work with that, they're just buying convenience.

I don't pay for convenience, and predictably, I have 20 year old "unsorted" folders with a bunch of music I rarely listen to because I forgot it existed until I saw the name again. If I was using a paid service, it could remind me about songs that are popular with other people who listen to whatever I did remember to listen to. I don't value those types of services, they piss me off. But surely it is the value that people pay for.

Re:A better app won't matter at the current price

[DarenN]

It's a fair question. In this link 1997 music sales in the US were around 750 million units, in 1996 that was around 780 million and in 1998 it was around 850 million which averages out at less than 3 albums per person. According to this the peak was 953 million units per year. The estimated total sales figures from the first link give approximately $13 per CD, which matches my recollections of those long ago days :)
Those figures are for the US, Europe and rest of world was lower (I am not in the US so my recollection will be different).

I don't have data on average CD's-purchased-per-person as that does not seem to be available (it's all units sold and revenue) but if we do a rough exercise and say that the population of the US was 282.2 million in 2000 and that half the population weren't buying music at all, that leaves us with an average of 6 albums per person for around 80 dollars per year, or 6 dollars per month.
You were clearly a music aficionado if you were spending way more than 120 per year on CDs!

My point really is that they can either go for quantity or quality. At $5 or $6 a month they will get more people than at $10 or $14. Only they can say if the numbers will add up.

Re:A better app won't matter at the current price

[DarenN]

Most albums were 10-15 as I recall. Really popular bands would have fancy artwork and music videos and that was 19.99. Paying 30 for an album meant you were getting the one with the t-shirt and poster.

Goodbye Google

[Toxiz]

In the past I have thought, I will use google because they are a huge company. They aren't going to get bought or dismantled anytime soon. I won't have to deal with finding all new products.

Death of Google reader: OK, it's a big internet I can find another way to aggregate RSS feeds. And google says that's a dying technology anyhow.

Death of Google homepage: This one hurt a bit more. It was nice having a configurable homepage that I could point to the most personally relevant info on the web. I guess I can just make bookmarks and hit 5 different sites when I sit down.

Destruction of Google finance: So it's been a little less useful since google homepage died, but it's still nice to have my portfolio organized the way I want. All I have to do now is click on the shortcut. But wait, they just destroyed google finance. I can no longer even decide the top three stocks I want to show up on that page.

Death of Google hangouts: Great I finally got my entire group of family and friends to all use the same chat client. Now google says they are killing this by the end of next year. Hangouts, by the way, is the one reason chrome gets installed as soon as I build any PC.

So you are telling me that google has yet another project that they have released and are putting no love into. Go ahead, sign up, spend three years cultivating an app to play the music you want to listen too. Don't worry it will be fine. Google is a huge company. I'm sure you won't waste all of your effort getting this configured and trained, only to be abandoned on the growing list of google services that just cease to exist.

I have a pixel 3. I have youtubeTV for $35 a month. I use google search and chrome (huge advertising target). So, please don't tell me they don't make money from me using their products.

I think I'm done with Google. I really tried to be part of their ecosystem. They don't seem to care. So, I can't see myself caring to delve further into this bottomless pit of abandoned services.

Re:Goodbye Google

[Anonymous Coward]

im not far behind you -- im on a pixel 2 and am thinking about fucking google off for good.

they send all keystrokes you type in chrome out to google for 'telemetry'. fuck that!

I like it.

[SensitiveMale]

Sure, I use through a subscription to YT Plus (or whatever it's called), but YT music is great in the car.

Who the honest fuck cares?

[nightfire-unique]

Spotify is great. Why would anyone use anything made by Google if there are alternatives?

Good news is Google will most likely fold Music in another year or two, and the question will be moot.

Re:Who the honest fuck cares?

[wbr1]

I used Premium Google Play Music for 3-4 years. Due to finances, I cut it. I recently got a spotify premium trial (after using free spotify for a few months). GPM beats it hands down in terms of navigation, recommendations, etc. I am certainly biased by the long use of GPM, but when I try to look as subjectively as possible I still think GPM wins. Also, I have uploaded a large amount of my old vinyl and CD collection to GPM, whihc is handy. I also have it all on a plex server, but even with a beast of a server at home and a good connection, plex is slow and clunky. It also does not pre-buffer files in the playlist so there are LONG delays between tracks.

I really dread what is going to happen with a half baked app from Google that will probably fail and be dropped.

Re:Who the honest fuck cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because I prefer the ability to listen to music without the need of being connected online. Also privacy reasons. I also don't like to support business models that pay artists fractions of a penny per stream. Files and CDs are the way to go.

Re:Who the honest fuck cares?

[nightfire-unique]

Ya... Google Play Music was ok from a UI perspective (odd, being a Google product). Unfortunately if you were running AdAway, a long-standing never-fixed bug would cause it to repeatedly loop trying to hit their ad servers, even with a paid account. Cut my battery life in half before I found the culprit. Unsurprisingly, WONTFIX from Google.

Cancelled my account, switched to Spotify. Idiots.

Spotify Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Spotify has a decent product but are total dicks. Their business model is roughly that of the guys who walk onto the trains in NY and start shouting "IF YOU GIVE ME MONEY, I WILL STOP TALKING!"

Seriously, try leaving the unpaid version of Spotify playing for a while. They basically put on the loudest and most offensive ads they can find in the hope that it will make people pay for their service.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I would question why AndroidCentral Exists.

[Anonymous Coward]

A crap stain of a website.

I pay the $10/mo for the sweetner - no ads on YT

[FryingLizard]

main reason I use it is b/c it gets the whole family YT without the ads (as a side-perk), which I value very much b/c my 8-yr old is a YT fiend on her ipad and I prefer her un-brainwashed by commercials.
Off topic but...
Her personal choice (I monitor her YT history) is to watch endless home-made vids created by other 8-12 year olds, which - while occasionally annoying to overhear - are harmless kid silliness and much richer creatively than the hours of garbage-grade mass produced kid cartoons my generation watched on broadcast TV.
At one point I put netflix on her ipad and took it off two days later b/c she started binge-watching entire series of crap (sound familiar? ;-) - on YT that doesn't happen b/c - like anyone - she can't resist the random links and ends up watching quite a variety of stuff.
The "Annoying Orange" channel tho. Damn. Aptly named. That's fine tho; kids are meant to like some things that irritate their parents. ;-)

Just don't use it.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're paying for YouTube music, you also get Google Play All Access, which is a great music service.
Just use that until YouTube music is useable.

I prefer curated playlists so I use DI.FM

[kriston]

If you prefer curated playlists like I do, use DI.FM. It started with electronic music but evolved into a full music service with channels in all genres. The 64 kbps AAC+ mode saves a ton of bandwidth.

Google seems to be trying everything they can to recoup the operating costs of YouTube.

Re:I prefer curated playlists so I use DI.FM

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you prefer curated playlists? I can understand the random DJ set here and there, but to me it seems anachronistic, in this day and age, to have anyone else choose my music.

Re:I prefer curated playlists so I use DI.FM

[kriston]

I can't be bothered with putting playlists together. Even if it just requires me to hit "like" on a song I'm listening too, that's too much bother for something that is supposed be a passive entertainment source.

I know the genres I am into and when I want to hear Goa-Psy Trance, I don't want to break out my browser or app and drill down into my "liked" categories. I just want to tune to the channel and enjoy listening to the music.

Some of the stream-based radio platforms like SiriusXM and RadioTunes (meta-parent of DI.FM) and even Apple Radio have dialed this in pretty well, and if I don't like what's playing, I have copious alternative choices a tap way. Slacker was good until they switched from streaming to music file downloads. There's something special about beatmatched seamless transitions from song to song.

For me, changing channels and getting my fix is better than drilling down into likes, collections, and genres.

Re:Well I took a subscription

[Anonymous Coward]

6 figures isn't a low salary, unless there is a dot involved

Re: I pay the $10/mo for the sweetner - no ads on

[Anonymous Coward]

You really should watch some of those vids. The content is downright scarily inappropriate for some of them. There's vids on YouTube detailing the worst of the vids targeted at children.

But what do I know, I watched Warner Bros as a kid and only realized the other day that Speedy Gonzalez rendition of La Cucaracha was the one that included drug references, lol.

Public Domain

[Anonymous Coward]

With the stuff they call music now... you are better off getting some public domain no copyright music.

Forget the 'industry' and the filth they churn out... it ain't worth the plastic it's printed on.

When they make it too expensibe, just abandon their products completely.

GAME OVER.
we won't play anymore.
Time better spent reading a book and learning useful things.

Wait, Youtube has a "music product"?

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Youtube has a "music product"? I use Youtube all the time and can't recall ever seeing anything about it.

Tell me again, why would I want to get my music from Youtube?

Re: Wait, Youtube has a "music product"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's lossless?

No, wait...

Good for music suggestions and obscure artists

[scradam]

I used to pay for Pandora, and I've used Spotify along with a few others. Yeah, the YouTube music app is a little quirky, but it's improved lately. Because YouTube Music can play music that is uploaded by random users instead of only the artists or their labels, I can listen to a lot of obscure (and old) stuff that I can't find as easily anywhere else. I actually really appreciate whatever 'algorithm' it uses to suggest new music to me too. I've found more new, interesting music via YouTube music than I have via any other service. The rate with which other services promote big label garbage music for the masses seems more stark than it does on YouTube. I think the YT Music app is pretty decent considering that I can listen to nearly any music ever made without having to pay any more than $10 per month ($15 in my case since I have the family plan - and yeah, no commercials on regular YouTube is pretty great too).

Lemme know if anyone else has had better success being introduced to new music via a service other than YouTube though. I'd be interested in trying that too.

Re:I pay the $10/mo for the sweetner - no ads on Y

[Anonymous Coward]

and much richer creatively than the hours of garbage-grade mass produced kid cartoons my generation watched on broadcast TV.

Hey smurf on you, you smurffing smurf.

I still think about the Gummy Bears sometimes when I get high.

Cheetara forever!!!

It's actually better than Spotify

[Anonymous Coward]

I use it and I think it's a good service. Spotify does not have even the half of more obscure music and compilations that can be found on YouTube and therefore on YT Music. I will switch when I'm able to find some decent Dungeon Synth collection or European Ambient Black Metal artists. Spotify throws way all the niche music, it's a normie platform.

Music? No, Ads

[dohzer]

You don't pay the $10 for the music. You pay it for ad-free YouTube which also happens to give you the music app for free.

Still no Sonos integration

[Schumacher]

Let's not forget about Sonos integration. It's NOT possible to use Youtube Music with Sonos yet! They keep saying it's on the roadmap, going on at least 7 months now...

Family with kids under 13 not allowed.

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a youtube red subscription and enjoyed the music and the ad-free youtube as well as watching a few youtube originals. Then I bought mobiles and google home minis for my two boys who are 9 and 13. Both have family link child account. So under google music I changed plan to a google music family plan. This worked great. The kids where censored from inappropriate music. no more "wings on my penis" being played to giggles and so on. Then I got the message that my google red subscription was to expire since I'd changed plan and I needed to upgrade to youtube family Premium. So I did that... and bing go the kids music stops working. You can not share a youtube premium family membership to under 13's. After some chatting with google support. I had to drop back to google play music family membership and loose any paif youtube plan. Not happy since I now have to endure ad's in youtube and can'nt watch the Origin (other than the two free expisodes) Google you suck. I can't take up a single adult only for me youtube premium and the family premium blocks the kids from music.

Re: Well I took a subscription

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a low salary in Surveillance Valley, wherea studio apartment in the ghetto rents for $2500/mo

Fred

[Anonymous Coward]

I have tested out all music services and still have a Pandora account but i switched from Spotify to Google music because I found Google music to provide a better setup. Googles Android app sucks but i mostly listed on my desktop.

Because Google is a better deal

[brunes69]

With Spotify, I pay $10 a month and get ad-free music on Spotify.

With Google, for the same price, I get ad-free music on Google Play, ad-free music on YouTube music, ad-free YouTube videos on YouTube Premium, original series and movies on YouTube Premium, and additional features on the YouTube app on my phone.

Re:Because Google is a better deal

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy gets it! Youtube has ads? I haven't seen an ad on YouTube for several years because I subscribe to Google Music. If people only knew how good a deal it actually is!