×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Starts Testing Google Music Internally

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the then-a-five-year-beta-period dept.

Google 119

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

119 comments

Seriously, why? (-1, Troll)

deviok (2026782) | about 3 years ago | (#35621532)

Yeah, yeah, you can buy songs like usual and then store them "in the cloud". Sorry, but I expect the store to let me download the songs I've paid for anyway, just like Good Old Games or Steam or many other online stores.

And what comes to streaming the songs you've bought, why bother paying $25 a year for that? Just get Spotify or rdio and you can stream any song you like. No need to pay for the songs you want to stream.

Sorry, but this is useless service. The competitors have done it better and cheaper and there is no use for this when you can just get a real streaming service and get access to millions of songs right away. 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.

Re:Seriously, why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35621580)

Considering that the service is by no means public and the details of it (including pricing) are rumour at best, you sure do know a lot about it.

Re:Seriously, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35621694)

The details of the service are described in the article. So now people are being chastised for reading the linked article. Awesome.

Re:Seriously, why? (2, Insightful)

Inner_Child (946194) | about 3 years ago | (#35621798)

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.

Re:Seriously, why? (2)

clang_jangle (975789) | about 3 years ago | (#35621972)

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?

Re:Seriously, why? (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 years ago | (#35622688)

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.

Re:Seriously, why? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35621596)

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?

Re:Seriously, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35621848)

Uhhh... Cause $25 / year is far cheaper than $10/month that spotify/rdio cost?

And plenty of music isn't available on either of those services

And rdio is a buggy piece of crap

And spotify is only available in like 6 countries

Need I go on?

Re:Seriously, why? (2)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | about 3 years ago | (#35621880)

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."

Re:Seriously, why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35621984)

Spoken like a true apple zealot. Ever noticed that Jobs has moved into advertising. Hmm, can't think of any company that's been doing that since day 1. Are you upset because Apple is jealous of Google? Of course not, you're a blinkered fanboy.

Apple's "app store" is just copying what Linux has been doing since the 90s. Ah, but they put a paywall on it. So what. The ill fated Lindows did this years before your beloved apple thought of it. Are you crying foal that Apple copied Linux application distribution? No? Fanboy again.

OS X? Copied from an ancient operating system with a terrible dumbed down GUI. Are you booing that Apple copied this, no? Fanboy again.

Ipods? Many years late to the game copying umpteen other portable music players. Heck, Sony were doing them in the 80s. Upset Apple copied others once again?

  Mac architecture? Blatant copy of ancient x86 PCs that have been around forever. But Apple screw it up to make it incompatible with standard slots by replacing BiOS with EFI. Upset Apple got it wrong with PPC and ended up copying x86? Yes, yes, no? Fanboy!

Care to name something you believe Apple did first other than successfully manage to build a cult following that cannot see beyond what they're told to see?

Re:Seriously, why? (1)

uglyduckling (103926) | about 3 years ago | (#35622124)

Apple produced the first consumer computer with a proper GUI. Apple invented the pull-down menu, ubiquitous across almost all GUIs until the smart phone era. I'm not sure who you think Apple copied OS X from - they bought up NeXT and therefore didn't copy that part of it. If you're repeating the ancient myth that they copied the GUI from Xerox PARC, well for starters as I said there were plenty of new innovations in the Lisa/Mac GUI that built on the PARC GUI (the Alto had a modal button-based GUI more akin to a DOS-style fullscreen interface), secondly they licensed designs and employed ex-PARC people to continue development, which isn't copying.

Re:Seriously, why? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#35622378)

Xerox filed suit against Apple because Apple had never licensed anything related to PARC. The suit was largely in response to Apple suing MS so as to ensure that if Apple was able to win their case that the prime beneficiary would be Xerox. MS ended up winning which mooted the suit which was eventually dismissed. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation [wikipedia.org]

Re:Seriously, why? (1)

uglyduckling (103926) | about 3 years ago | (#35622698)

Since you're posting Wikipedia articles, I'll follow up with this article [wikipedia.org] . To quote: "The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple... Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product. Much later... Xerox also sued Apple... the dismissal of Xerox's legal complaint was not based simply on late filings, but rather a lack of legal merit to Xerox's case as it was presented." So if Wikipedia is to be trusted (debatable) I think my point stands, although it looks like the agreement between Apple and Xerox was more complicated/tenuous than straight licensing.

Re:Seriously, why? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#35622984)

That article doesn't say what you think it says. An understanding is not a license, and that's the point. Generally when there is a license that gets explicitly stated. You're quite literally the first person I've ever seen try to claim that Apple licensed the technology. It's not unusual for there to be some wheeling and dealing when it comes to IPOs, individual investors rarely if ever get in on the IPO because the assets are spoken for before they hit the market.

Re:Seriously, why? (1)

uglyduckling (103926) | about 3 years ago | (#35625380)

Yes, but they didn't steal/copy it, did they? I overstated it by saying license, but clearly there was an arrangement between the two companies, later Xerox saw Apple suing Microsoft and wanted in, but their case got thrown out. Clearly the common belief that Apple copied/stole the GUI concept from Xerox is at best an overstatement, and at worst an absolute myth, both because of this agreement or understanding, and also because there were plenty of things in the Mac/Lisa GUI that were new inventions (like pull-down menus).

Re:Seriously, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35622150)

Apple did everything better than before: made a better MP3 player, easier to buy Music, an OS with UNIX kernel/userland with a clean GUI (which Open Source was not able to copy since . . . forever). Apple, no, Steve Jobs is a genius, because he has the technical expertise to demand from his development team what no other CEO can, at the same time he has a sense how simple things should be . . . something which Microsoft never ever will achieve.

And this is all said by non Apple Fanboy . . . when something is done better, you should admit it. Apple adapted UNIX as core of MacOS-X because ... it's the best core . . . for an operating system.

Re:Seriously, why? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#35622396)

Everything? Anybody that claims the iPod is better than other MP3 players of the day hasn't ever actually used the competition. The organization system was ripped off of Creative who had both patented and implemented it before the iPod was released. Granted it's easier to just plug in a player to the USB port and move music over, but that is a trade off and results in the player having to search for new content every single time it turns on.

Re:Seriously, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623086)

Except Mac OS doesn't have UNIX kernel. It uses XNU [wikipedia.org] , which even stands for "XNU's Not UNIX" even if the OS itself as a whole is certified UNIX.

Re:Seriously, why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623346)

Why do you assume it will cost $25? Or cost money at all?

This is Google here we are talking about. Most likely they will also offer a Googlfied* plan as well as a monthly price plan. That way they will have a much larger potential market and consumer base.

You also say competitors have done it cheaper and better, yet you are comparing a something to a figment of your imagination because Google's service doesn't even exist yet.
Plus you state a direct lie. There exists NO service that pays you to listen to streaming music, like you claim. (That is the only way to be cheaper than $0 after all.)

I know it's all the rage to hate on the top technical companies these days for being so successful, but at least put a bit more thought and creativity into it instead of obvious lies that are so obvious as to not even need citations to disprove since your claims are fully made up and exist no where else.

*My spell checker claims Googlfied is not a word :P It's when Google says a service is "Free" because they don't get the money from you, but instead infuse the service with ads and get the money from advertisers. In the end it costs you $0 in actual money, and costs are only measured in how the ads are delivered to you to put up with.

monopoly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35621540)

Time for google to take over more of the world.

Re:monopoly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35621598)

More mega corp then monopoly. Just keep buying and building. Doesn't matter what it is so long as it makes money or eats into the profits of competitors in your core areas.

Internal music (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35621604)

"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...

schizophrenic gets soiled diaper award (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35621638)

hard to tell which smells worse? the fog of tax free (for some) war can do that? did we say tax free? pardon, the non-taxpayers actually profit ($billionerrors$) on the heavy weapon (keeping ALL sides supplied including mexico) murder massacre business outings. so that's good?

we support the views of this former person
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8&NR=1&feature=fvwp ("stop killing")

we do not support the material in this cnn propaganda video from yesterday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXB75IK6pL4 ("we can win this, with my help")

possible expectdead reposes (& there are many); maybe these could be recycled into pate for the unchosen?-- eat poop$!@#$ & die, etc

same guy? clone? confused? we must focus... on the images. we must....saw a picture of one of those godaffy psycho-killer freaks being paraded around our military bases (may have paid for them, along with our holycost tithing's) like royalty, only to become our very worst 'enemy' just weaks/leaks later? focus-pocus?

babys rule, with tiny chubby soft fingers, advanced dna etc..... unclear?

Cloud, eh? (2)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | about 3 years ago | (#35621702)

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.

Re:Cloud, eh? (1)

manitee (2974) | about 3 years ago | (#35621950)

> These guys are notorious for doing funky stuff that either instantly changes the landscape (Chrome, Picasa)

I'm not sure how Chrome instantly changed the landscape other than creating another also-ran browser.

Re:Cloud, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35622192)

Eh? You really think that Mozilla team finally doing something about their abysmal preformance after all these years had nothing whatsoever at all to do with the appearance of a new, fast browser that runs circles around their Firefox - AND that started eating into their share of the browser pie?

Re:Cloud, eh? (1)

Mitaphane (96828) | about 3 years ago | (#35622478)

I'm not sure what the OP is referring to about Picasa, but he is definitely on the mark about Chrome. Maybe you haven't noticed IE9's or FF4's UI; both have taken cues from Chrome's original design (tabs on top, pinning tabs, etc). Chrome has also started a browser arms race in terms of performance. The browser is rapidly acquiring market share; at the current rate of growth, it looks like it will overtake FF in the next year or two (http://www.thechromesource.com/tag/chrome-market-share-2011/).

Re:Cloud, eh? (0)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#35622950)

It's unlikely that Chrome will over take Firefox any time soon. Firefox just has too much of a lead and hasn't allowed the browser to stagnate the way that MS did with IE. The problem is that it's just not as good a browser over all as the competition. Google isn't leaving it as the minimalist browser that they started with, and as soon as they make a browser that has the sort of broad appeal that Firefox does, they're going to face the same challenges that Firefox does in pleasing the userbase. Additionally, Google has to be careful when competing given that they're also in related markets and could easily find themselves in antitrust territory if they're not careful. Not that it hasn't been willing to violate antitrust regulations in the past.

Additionally, with the way that the web has been evolving Javascript has been getting more and more important.

Re:Cloud, eh? (1)

farble1670 (803356) | about 3 years ago | (#35623702)

It's unlikely that Chrome will over take Firefox any time soon. Firefox just has too much of a lead and hasn't allowed the browser to stagnate the way that MS did with IE. The problem is that it's just not as good a browser over all as the competition

if that has true, then chrome wouldn't have any significant market share. it has ~25%. 25% goes way outside of the bounds of the edge case geeks that are looking for a minimalist browser.

what google chrome has is a trusted, reliable, well known name. firefox does not. the average person asks: what's a firefox? is it a company? no? then what is it? mozilla? huh? it's a foundation? if a user has a choice between "google chrome" and "mozilla firefox", they'll choose the google one.

Re:Cloud, eh? (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | about 3 years ago | (#35624770)

so you apparently think that average person lives under the rock in some desolate place. Firefox in europe is at 40% mark, it's hard not to know about the browser that 2 in 5 use for some time already. Besides why do you think that average person who is ignorant in case of firefox, suddenly knows that Google is a multibillion company and not that internet/search thingie you type stuff in and get results, maybe email too.

Re:Cloud, eh? (2)

timeOday (582209) | about 3 years ago | (#35622036)

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.

Re:Cloud, eh? (1)

Roogna (9643) | about 3 years ago | (#35622072)

Why would they bother to sue, iTunes -audio- files have not been DRM protected in years. The record companies might sue Google, because, well they sue everyone they don't make money from, but Apple has nothing to do with the equation as far as Google goes.

Re:Cloud, eh? (1)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | about 3 years ago | (#35622436)

Would transferring your iTunes library include the song's metadata? I use Windows Media Player and not iTunes, but I have playlists set up like my own Top 40, which is just the 40 songs I've played the most, calculated by play count. I have things playlists based on my own subjective ratings of a song. iTunes keeps track of playcount and rating, right? I can copy the MP3s holding individual files, but can I take my playcounts or song ratings with me to another player/music software? With WMP I can.

With Apple's solution, on the other hand, you can't transfer this data out of iTunes and so if you want to get a non-Apple MP3 player, you have to redo all your music ratings. This is why iTunes represents vendor lock-in, and probably has more than a little bit to do with the anti-trust complaints Apple is dealing with. This is Slashdot. We want Free/Open* software, with Free/Open data. We demand this from other companies. Why not Apple?

*There are substantial and profound differences between Free Software and Open Source Software. In the context of "Things Your iTunes Library Is Not," the two are EXACTLY equivalent.

Re:Cloud, eh? (2)

uglyduckling (103926) | about 3 years ago | (#35622146)

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?

Re:Cloud, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35622240)

Not all of my devices have space for all of my music, and every time I buy a new song I don't want to have to manually sync them all.

Re:Cloud, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35622576)

But you have to:
- set it up to work
- leave your PC on all the time
- debug it when it stops working, update when you get a new PC or router, in other words maintain it.
- worry about any security holes (you probably have a hole in your home firewall for streaming music)
- hope what you use will be compatible with any new media player/tech coming up (You might think you'll always use Android or iOS, but what if your new job dictates you use Blackberry or Windows7?)
- back up your music automatically

For a lot of people, this is a PITA. If Google does it, you still have the first bullet (setup) but that should be easier. Everything else should just work. Google's service will probably also do things your solution won't or can't do easily (adjusting fidelity to bandwidth, caching your most requested streamed music to conserve bandwidth, etc)

Re:Cloud, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623756)

The #1 thing missing from ChromeOS right now is a way to access your music library. This is the obvious solution.

Re:Cloud, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623952)

To me, playing from the cloud would have limited appeal, but a cloud based syncing solution would seem to be the killer app here - create a playlist one place and it spreads automatically. Download a new song? It is immediately available on all devices. Sure hooking up your i[thing] to your laptop is easy, but if/when you have lots of devices (car, portable, laptop, desktop, media center, etc.) keeping things current can become a effort.

Re:Cloud, eh? (4, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 3 years ago | (#35622062)

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?

Re:Cloud, eh? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 years ago | (#35622332)

I know about a dozen people with androids that stream from services like Pandora etc... They hook their phone up in their car via bluetooth and away they go.

Re:Cloud, eh? (1)

hob42 (41735) | about 3 years ago | (#35622736)

My family has 5 laptops and 2 desktops as primary computers, plus three smartphones. I have ways of storing my music centrally and making it accessible, but the simplicity of a cloud service to make it available at home, at work, at a friend's house, when I'm visiting my family, when I'm on vacation...

Plus, if this service turns in to something like Lala, they can provide cheap access to music you might like to listen via streaming to but don't want to bother paying full price for. I'll pay $10 to have 100 songs I can listen to on demand whenever I have internet access way before I spend $10 for a single CD.

Re:Cloud, eh? (1)

adolf (21054) | about 3 years ago | (#35624570)

Subsonic is free and GPL. I use it to make my music available at home, at work, at a friend's house, when I'm visiting my family, when I'm vacation...

It works on my iPod, it works on my Droid, it works on my laptop, it works on my desktop, it works on my friend's Mac.

Etc.

Re:Cloud, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35622898)

I completely disagree with this.

Streaming is about being able to access your music and metadata quickly and easily from anywhere, any device.

Sure, portable storage is cheap and you COULD spend the time syncing music between all these devices. If you have a large music collection like me, then you have choose which music is copied where, and you'll end up wanting to listen to something that's not available ....

These days, I stream my music from my main computer to my iPhone where-ever I am. I haven't used iTunes in a long while and have no need to sync my music to my iPhone. I can access new music I download almost instantly, and have access to all 25k of my songs... it's much easier this way ;-)

Re:Cloud, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623156)

My streaming provider (spotify) lets me take music offline, so basically i just sync the playlists i want and im good to go.

Re:Cloud, eh? (1)

melikamp (631205) | about 3 years ago | (#35624076)

No one is obsessed with streaming, except for advertisers. Everyone else is perfectly content with "playing before download is finished". Mandatory streaming is the only way to deliver ads on every listen.

Re:Cloud, eh? (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | about 3 years ago | (#35624366)

+5000 to this post.
I don't understand why people have this obsession about wasting bandwidth 'because they can' - especially wirelessly - I think even wired it's done unnecessarily.

Google: The Disingenuous Evil Empire (2, Informative)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | about 3 years ago | (#35622186)

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.

Re:Google: The Disingenuous Evil Empire (3, Insightful)

tsj5j (1159013) | about 3 years ago | (#35622312)

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.

Re:Google: The Disingenuous Evil Empire (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 years ago | (#35622610)

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.

Re:Google: The Disingenuous Evil Empire (2)

farble1670 (803356) | about 3 years ago | (#35623804)

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.

Re:Google: The Disingenuous Evil Empire (1)

guruevi (827432) | about 3 years ago | (#35625054)

I wonder if it would be profitable for a food place like Subway that makes 25c sandwiches (really, hardly any meat and the sandwiches have shrunk from a liberal foot x 3" to something akin to a Wal-Mart hot dog bun) to be sponsored entirely by compulsory advertising. Has our whole economy become sustainable by using ads as an exchange of goods and services?

Re:Google: The Disingenuous Evil Empire (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 years ago | (#35622730)

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

He's dead, Jim.

Re:Google: The Disingenuous Evil Empire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35622836)

Dont forget, george bush master minded 911 and the aliens are disguised as mexicans so they can invade our country without being noticed.

Re:Google: The Disingenuous Evil Empire (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | about 3 years ago | (#35623140)

Advertising Company that uses highly invasive technology.

"Advertising" doesn't completely cover it. What they really are is an Content Brokerage. People who have content got to Google to get help selling it, and people who want content go to Google to try to find it, and Google matches up the two parties. This in itself would be okay, except Google has no competition, and uses its corpus of data in order to front-run content and service seekers and steer business to the highest bidder (or just to Google's own service), even if it wasn't what the seeker was looking for.

This is an ancient problem. The automatic telephone switch was invented by an undertaker [wikipedia.org] because he was convinced the operator at the telephone exchange was listening in to calls and discovering when people were dying, and then telling her husband, a competing undertaker.

Re:Cloud, eh? (1)

yoha (249396) | about 3 years ago | (#35624378)

Apple is the clear leader in media management (photos, music), and this is an effort to get the Android platform to compete adequately with iOS. The Android store has chock full of music management software, which highlights the deficiency in the Android platform.

Re:Cloud, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35625348)

What I don't understand is what is *REALLY* going on.

Relevant advertising in your music... what's so hard to understand about that? For instance if you're listening to Kirk Cobain a lot they can insert a small "text-to-speech" ad between songs for razor blades, sleeping pills, and such. Not for suicide help lines though... after all in the words of Eric Schmidt Google knows what we "should be doing next".

is goo--goo going to own our music? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35621718)

google music? we won't have music without paying for google music et al. we'll stick with ungooed just plain music for now, thanks

he who controls the trade routes....

Re:is goo--goo going to own our music? (1)

osu-neko (2604) | about 3 years ago | (#35621894)

google music? we won't have music without paying for google music et al. we'll stick with ungooed just plain music for now, thanks

he who controls the trade routes....

Paying? Remember, this is Google we're talking about. The "product" will be a free "beta" app until doomsday...

so we'll just have to overpay for the music itself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35622066)

that's great. we thought there was some sort of greed motive. you could understand, with all those big-wigs on the deed? thank god. you're html/punctuation is ?affective? free? is that forever? can we quote you? doomsday? adjectives? we must focus.... where do all those fauxking billions go?

Google music? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35621744)

For some reason, that reminds me of this: [livejournal.com]

AINULINDALE:

ILUVATAR: Ahem.
AINUR: Wow! Existence!
ILUVATAR: *blows pitch pipe* LA!
AINUR: LA LA LA!
ILUVATAR: LA LA!
AINUR: LA LA!
MELKOR: This sucks. BUM BUM BA DUM!
AINUR: Um. . . la?
ILUVATAR: Ahem. LA!
MELKOR: Boop bop-a-doo-bop!
ILUVATAR: LA, dammit.
MELKOR: Bwam bardle ningle boom.
AINUR: . . .
ILUVATAR: Right, you're out of the band.
MELKOR: Fine, I was leaving anyway.
AINUR: . . .
ILUVATAR: What are you waiting for?
AINUR: Oh. Right. Newly created world. Sorry. Great jam session, big guy!
ILUVATAR: Yeesh.

Google is Iluvatar (that should make Google fanbois happy), but who's Melkor? Apple? Microsoft?

Store Existing Libraries (1)

wall0645 (1665631) | about 3 years ago | (#35621828)

So you can put the music you have acquired over the course of your lifetime on there and be able to stream it? Anyone dumb enough to put music they've downloaded illegitimately on there?

Re:Store Existing Libraries (1)

earl_sven (1446271) | about 3 years ago | (#35621890)

Anyone dumb enough to put music they've downloaded illegitimately on there?

So how do they know my music is illegitimate? I'm pretty sure ripping CDs is considered Fair Use in some jurisdictions. How do you propose they would distinguish between my bought and paid for ripped library, and Joe Bloggs torrented collection. Merely storing mp3s or whatever there couldn't constitute evidence of illegal downloading etc.

Re:Store Existing Libraries (1)

wall0645 (1665631) | about 3 years ago | (#35622030)

An example could be the songs you buy from iTunes. They have your email (or rather, the email associated with the iTunes account that purchased the song) in the song metadata, no? Multiple accounts having that same metadata = piracy? I don't know.

Re:Store Existing Libraries (1)

earl_sven (1446271) | about 3 years ago | (#35622214)

But surely it's not difficult to strip out that metadata. Not saying that Google might not be planning some sort of 'locker' service, but using it to detect piracy/infringement? It would be unworkable IMO.

Re:Store Existing Libraries (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 3 years ago | (#35622170)

IIRC either Italian law or the national PRO regulations forbid third parties to do backups of protected multimedia content. Possibly just offering generic backup space is enough not to be affected. Of course it's retarded, but similar laws could be around elsewhere and Google already demonstrated with street view and wireless data sniffing (the latter I do not approve) that they should care more about regulations.

so, 'music'(.com) is owned by a crowd of royals? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35621864)

? People ?

        * Andrew Keller * Crispin Porter + Bogusky * Barry Lowenthal * The Media Kitchen * Beverley Hammond * Veritas communications * Bob Kantor * MDC Partners * Chris McDonald * MDC Partners * Chuck Porter * Crispin Porter + Bogusky
        * Craig Pladson * Colle+McVoy, Inc. * Danny Getachew * VITRO * Darryl Ohrt * Source Marketing * David Denham * Colle+McVoy, Inc. * David Doft * MDC Partners * David Porzio * MDC Partners * Faris Yakob * kirshenbaum bond senecal + partners * Gail Helmer * Bryan Mills Iradesso * Gavin Swartzman * MDC Partners * Glenn Gibson * MDC Partners * Gustav Martner
        * Crispin Porter + Bogusky
        * Hunter Tura
        * Bruce Mau Design
        * Jacob Lake
        * Ramona
        * Jane Hearn
        * TEAM Enterprises
        * Jeff Benjamin
        * Crispin Porter + Bogusky
        * Jill Meiser
        * Trend Influence
        * Jillian Tate
        * Integrated Media Solutions
        * Jonathan Heit
        * Allison & Partners
        * Katie Kempner

        * Subtej Nijjar
        * Crispin Porter + Bogusky
        * Tom Sullivan
        * VITRO
        * Winston Binch
        * Crispin Porter + Bogusky

looks like some of the chosen own more of music than even other chosens. don't see goo-goo there directly yet.

what is the #1 search result; keyword; music? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35621988)

not yet? not everywhere? so it makes adsense to be able to direct us to the unopen source of all music? does the reason music begs to be expensive is because so many royals 'own' it? each chosen one might need more money in one(1) day, than most of us would in a lifetime? the silence is deafening? freedumb reigns? at least we're doing an excellent job of maintaining our last rites, which is to be silent.

Isn't this why EMI sued MP3Tunes? (2)

TAZ6416 (584004) | about 3 years ago | (#35621926)

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 [michaelrobertson.com]

Re:Isn't this why EMI sued MP3Tunes? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 3 years ago | (#35622070)

Yes. That is why they're now negotiating for a deal to do it. And despite the buzzword compliance, it could be pretty sweet if you get to both download your music and have it available on an online streaming service as well as upload your own music to add to the online streaming. I'm not holding my breath for it though, I'm sure there'll be some gotchas.

Will be better than iTunes (1)

Evelas (1531407) | about 3 years ago | (#35621946)

Anything google makes will be better than that crappy program.

it's even better than music all by itself? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35622140)

must be, 'cause now both apple & goo-gooo want to OWN it. fuddles got tossed out of this race? so long as the 'better' ones get to own music, that's good? is a crappy program required to listen to music?

Me too! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35621952)

Perhaps it's a part of the new "Google Me" platform. Or is it "Google Me Too"?

Ehrm,... (4, Insightful)

jaroslaw.fedewicz (1539623) | about 3 years ago | (#35621974)

> 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?

Re:Ehrm,... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 3 years ago | (#35622762)

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?

Because what Google will do is have a canonical copy of everything and link it to you. YOU won't store the file. It won't be like Dropbox. Google will store the file and know exactly when you access it.

Re:Ehrm,... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35623944)

Because what Google will do is have a canonical copy of everything and link it to you. YOU won't store the file. It won't be like Dropbox. Google will store the file and know exactly when you access it.

Or not because the chances of anyone with a brain ever agreeing to such a service are nil!

Re:Ehrm,... (1)

e4g4 (533831) | about 3 years ago | (#35625092)

Or not because the chances of anyone with a brain ever agreeing to such a service are nil!

Which leaves a large portion of the population who will.

what are you saying? (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | about 3 years ago | (#35622866)

that you've already paid for it and should have something like this to help you listen to it, without incident?
that you don't listen to big-label stuff anyway?

Google books? (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 3 years ago | (#35622184)

Might this project morph into a google books scenario? Where google actively scans in all the worlds music and gives everyone access (for money). I realize that the google books thing is on hold till they bribe enough politicians for an enabling law, but that's easy enough (politicians are easy though not cheap).

then blocked by the royal court (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35622256)

then, sadly (speeches given), we'll have to pay, to read, or listen to, anything at all? so that's gooed too? not much grey area?

Return of Lala (1)

hob42 (41735) | about 3 years ago | (#35622664)

Thank you, Google. Ever since Apple bought Lala just so they could shutter it, I've been waiting for someone else to fill the gap. Apple will have a hard time buying out the competition this time.

Re:Return of Lala (1)

dannynono (809467) | about 3 years ago | (#35624342)

I'm hoping it's the return of Simplify Media - which Google purchased around the same time as Apple/LaLa. Simplify didn't require the user's library to be uploaded though.

Orphaned albums? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35622684)

I wonder if they'll try to corner the market in orphaned albums, the same way as they wanted to with books?

Me too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35622792)

It is very sad to see Google copying Apple in any way. Google started as an innovative company: Google Search, Adwords, Adsense, etc. Now it is a copycat company: Android, Music Streaming service, App Store, etc. Simply pathetic. Don't tell me Google bought Android before iPhone was released. Before saying that crap, remember that Erick Schmidt was from Apple's Board of Director when iPhone was being developed and obviously used privileged information to secure Google position buying Android before Apple launched iPhone (one of the reasons he was expelled from Apple's board). Google is forgetting that search and adwords are their core business and both are sucking as hell with no innovation for years, while google, like microsoft, attacks in all fronts without succeeding in any.

Competitive aspect (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | about 3 years ago | (#35622856)

TFA (yes, I read it/them) partly emphasizes this as competition with Apple - would that part help the consumer, or would it hurt? (It might hurt because it seems Apple's business interests have been acting as a counterweight to the big labels' business interests, a force of resistance that may end up being diluted with the labels facing two separate heavyweights)

Re:Competitive aspect (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 3 years ago | (#35623150)

I'm sure Google has thought about that a great deal; Apple's ability to bench-press their suppliers is nothing short of epic in the world of monopolistic manipulation, perhaps comparable to that of Walmart.

That being said, what will happen will probably resemble Walmart's case: Google's presence on the market isn't going to significantly diminish the number of people already bound to Apple music players, which can only work properly through iTunes. Even though there are other grocery stores, Walmart still forces their suppliers to drop their prices simply because they're so vast. (Except, in that case, the retailer is the bigger evil.)

Most likely, Google will have to prove (through business success) that it can go toe-to-toe with Apple in terms of being taken seriously as a retailer, and then they'll get to name rates independently of Apple. Only once we have a defacto duopoly will we see the four labels try to use the other as leverage—a future that I expect they're planning on, as a means to raise prices threateningly.

At the very least, though, expect to say goodbye to disappearing YouTube videos, since Google will have a massive licensing deal underneath, and be benefiting from them by collecting metrics.

Re:Competitive aspect (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | about 3 years ago | (#35623398)

Yeah, the thought-process progression from paragraphs 1 to 3 is what I'm afraid of.
For some reason, I hadn't thought of connecting this to issues with music on YouTube, but it makes sense. :)

Launching without everything? (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | about 3 years ago | (#35622912)

(I understand that audio from whatever source would enable them to test the system internally)
(Internal rather than public might avoid some infringement issues anyway*)
* I am not a lawyer, etc.

Would it make sense for Google to publicly launch this without all of the Big Four on board?
Sometimes with past developments, some of the big four have gotten on board before the others.

P.S.
I wonder how Google's coming along with negotiating with the indies - they're likely to be more cooperative, but not necessarily, and it's simply a large volume to deal with at any rate.

Licensing rights for digital lockers, WTF? (1)

devent (1627873) | about 3 years ago | (#35623022)

From the TFA:
"CNET and others have reported that Google is negotiating for the right to store users' existing music libraries on the company's servers, the sources said."
"Licensing rights for digital lockers of this sort is largely uncharted territory for the labels. There are no templates for these kinds of deals lying around and the record companies want to move cautiously as they assess Apple's and Google's plans."

My brain just exploded.

Did I understand that correctly? Why is that Google need to negotiate a license agreement to store music from customers on their servers? What have the music industry to do if Google wants to store my data for me on their servers?

What is next, Google needs to negotiate rights with the Authors Guild if they want to save text from their customers on their servers and they need to negotiate rights with the BSA if they want to save binary data?

PS:
"Welcoming Google to the party: At the 2009 Vevo launch party, Google CEO Eric Schmidt (center) visited with Doug Morris (left), the then CEO of Universal Music, and Rolf Schmidt-Holtz, former CEO of Sony Music. "

Why do I have the urge to pick up a gun and make some target practice as I saw the CEOs in their black suites?

Simplify Media (1)

dannynono (809467) | about 3 years ago | (#35624304)

Havent seen anyone else mention this, but last year google purchased Simplify Media - a cross-platform streaming music/photo app. Continually improving, it _was_ the only decent solution for streaming one's own music collection to any iOS device and also had a nice desktop utility connecting the remote into a local iTunes application (pre-dating Apple's shared libraries).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...