Beta
×

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 Music Goes Live With Google+ Integration

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the let-the-music-war-begin dept.

Google 240

angry tapir writes "Google Music, the company's cloud-based online music service, is now available to all users in the US and includes song and album sales, as well as an integration with the Google+ social networking site. Introduced in test form and by invitation only in May as a cloud-based song storage and playback service, Google Music will also let users buy albums and songs from all major music labels, except Warner."

cancel ×

240 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great news!!! (-1, Offtopic)

mmontuori (2508452) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081234)

This is great news! Finally!!! http://www.montuori.net/ [montuori.net]

Just what market needed... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081324)

The collection is impressive, as is the freedom (yes, it will also work with iOS devices), along with integration with Android.

I have two sources for digital music - Amazon mp3 and now Google Music (not counting other channels). More choices, more competition.

And good to see a better alternative to itunes (yuk!).

(Now get on with your Google hate - that's the flavor of the month here on slashdot these days)

Re:Just what market needed... (3, Informative)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081340)

Why would I use this when I can use Spotify? For that matter, Google Music doesn't even work outside US, which is incredibly stupid as it is your own collection of music, not some streaming service.

Re:Just what market needed... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081400)

Spotify doesnt have everything i have in my collection. Spotify also requires software be installed, gmusic is browser based which makes it more workplace friendly for me.

Re:Just what market needed... (5, Insightful)

agent_vee (1801664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081454)

Your entire collection of music available, browser based (no installation needed), no ads, unlimited streaming, mobile access on android and iphone with offline listening, and it's FREE!

Re:Just what market needed... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081856)

Your entire collection of music available, browser based (no installation needed), no ads, unlimited streaming, mobile access on android and iphone with offline listening, and it's FREE!

Umm, didn't you already have the ability to sync your music files to your phone? How many gigs of music do you really need to carry around? How much is just packrat/hoarding mentality? ("omg, what if I want to listen to my Englebert Humperdinck albums while taking a long walk alone on the beach, even though I live in Wyoming?") If you're a luddite and have an iPod instead of an Android phone, is there any benefit at all to letting Google scan your hard drive?

Google Music requires me to install a program that scans my hard drive looking for music, and it seems to keep a list online somewhere of the music I have. Is this not asking for trouble? Is this not asking for abuse by the RIAA's goon squads? Is this not going to open the door at least to the possibility of a major abuse of privacy with legal and financial implications? "Don't be Evil" isn't reassuring enough for that kind of risk, especially when the only benefit from the risk is the convenience of sharing music with an Android phone (which I don't have).

Re:Just what market needed... (2, Interesting)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082086)

Umm, didn't you already have the ability to sync your music files to your phone? How many gigs of music do you really need to carry around? How much is just packrat/hoarding mentality?

At any one time, I might only want a few songs from my collection. The thing is that list will change from day to day. Now with Google Music on my Xoom, my cellphone and my desktop, I don't have to worry about the hassle of "syncing" between them all. It just works.

Google Music requires me to install a program that scans my hard drive looking for music, and it seems to keep a list online somewhere of the music I have. Is this not asking for trouble?

Are you going for the Glenn Beck rhetorical question award? He probably has that patented you know. Good thing you logged in AC.

the only benefit from the risk is the convenience of sharing music with an Android phone

And your tablet, and your pc, and your tv if you have more than a cable box attached to it. It also syncs with all of your devices automatically with no further intervention. Why are you so against this? It seems like the logical conclusion of my data being every I want it to be without me having to worry about it.

Re:Just what market needed... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38082228)

Why are you so against this? It seems like the logical conclusion of my data being every I want it to be without me having to worry about it.

Because:
a) there's an army of barbarian lawyers at the gates screaming that it's not my data;
b) the logical conclusion of my data being where I want it to be doesn't need to include Google or anyone else having a copy of my data: while that's a possible conclusion, it's not the only possible conclusion, but rather one that guarantees a loss of privacy;
c) it's linked to all of Google's other information about me, and this is being compiled at a time when Google is expressly attempting to build identity verification into their services.

Re:Just what market needed... (1, Flamebait)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082270)

Pull the tinfoil a little tighter dude, I think I saw a black helicopter coming in. O_o

Re:Just what market needed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081888)

As long as your music collection is really small

Re:Just what market needed... (2, Insightful)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082102)

As long as your music collection is really small

You can fill your Google Music with 20,000 tracks. That is not "really small" by 99.999 percent of people's definition. I don't think that will be a problem. People on Slashdot trolling? That's still a problem.

Re:Just what market needed... (5, Informative)

MikeyO (99577) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081468)

Because spotify costs money (I either have to pay a monthly fee, or I have to buy a copy of windows or a mac or so). They say [spotify.com] this is because they haven't figured out how to display ads on linux yet. Oh and you can't store music locally on linux. This doesn't doesn't sound like the type of software I'm psyched to pay for. Oh even though I might be paying for a "premium" account. It would be unsupported...

Re:Just what market needed... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38082420)

You should register with the Pirate Bay. They offer free accounts, no bandwidth limit restrictions, no geolocation restrictions, they have a wide variety of musical genres and selections to choose from and you can even download music from Warner Brothers, no questions asked and no premium service fees required. And best of all, none of the multimillionaire executives of the RIAA are getting rich off of this service.

Register today for the best Internet based music service in the industry:
https://thepiratebay.org/register [thepiratebay.org]

Re:Just what market needed... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38082184)

Why would I use this when I can use Spotify? For that matter, Google Music doesn't even work outside US, which is incredibly stupid as it is your own collection of music, not some streaming service.

You can stream from outside the US just not buy music. I have been using the beta from Japan since it started,

Re:Just what market needed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081650)

Any different from your Apple hate? Didn't think so.

Re:Just what market needed... (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081800)

Are you able to add your mp3's from Amazon and Google to your central storage machine and play them from any device at any time? I ask because if I can't add music to my streaming server I don't buy it.

Re:Just what market needed... (2)

Tr3vin (1220548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081854)

Yes, you can download the MP3s from Google Music. Unfortunately, they limit you to two downloads for each song, but on the plus side they are 320kbps encodes. I think something similar is true for Amazon, but I have never used that service.

Re:Just what market needed... (1)

Laughing Dog (913885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081966)

Amazon lets you download the music. It's DRM-free, which is how they originally differentiated themselves from iTunes. Since they launched Cloud Player, they've started saving copies there for you whenever you buy music. I haven't had occasion to download the same song more than once (as I have current backups and my hard drive has not yet moved on to the great beyond), but I'm under the impression that it's unlimited. You can also upload your own music and other files to your account.

Mod parent up - Google is using DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38082234)

This is the difference between Amazon and Google (for MP3 service). Google adds DRM, Amazon does not. Apparently they pulled a fast one on everyone today because no one seems to have noticed they are adding DRM to the DEFAULT Android music player. I hope they catch as much pushback as Apple did and abandon the DRM soon. I'd like to see this service succeed. Note the "DRM" they are using is weak, however. But they are not following even the normal Android APIs and hiding their own proprietary playlist formats away from the users and other apps.

Re:Mod parent up - Google is using DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38082338)

Sounds like the kind of thing Microsoft would do.

Re:Just what market needed... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38082124)

The Google Music Manager is a piece of shit. It skips uploading perfectly ripped, encoded and tagged files at random and refuses to even try reuploading them when manually readded.

The Android client also doesn't work well. There is no "quit" (as in completely stop what is playing and terminate the app) and it frequently doesn't grab album art, even though it's correctly embedded in every single mp3.

Re:Just what market needed... (0)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082226)

I have not experienced either of these issues and I have been using Google Music almost since it opened up. Maybe you're doing it wrong.

US Only :-( (5, Insightful)

SlightOverdose (689181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081336)

*Sigh*. Yet another fantastic music service not available in my country.

Re:US Only :-( (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081370)

Still no Google Voice here in Canada either.

Re:US Only :-( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081396)

L2Proxy?

Re:US Only :-( (3, Interesting)

SlightOverdose (689181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081484)

Proxies and VPNs are a pain in the arse to use, and I certainly don't want to be buying music only to lose access to it because Google closes the loophole. (It's like a game of whackamole sometimes, as many services will block known proxies and VPNs to stop this happening).

I presume once it's out of Beta they'll work at bringing it to other countries, so here's hoping it eventually makes it to Australia.

Re:US Only :-( (5, Informative)

Phurge (1112105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081844)

I'm in Australia, but access the internet at work via US servers. Just tried to buy music through Google Music - but it requires a US credit card. My Australian and UK credit cards didn't work.....

Re:US Only :-( (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082126)

only to lose access to it because Google closes the loophole

The songs are standard MP3, no DRM, so whatever you buy (and download) you keep, loophole or no.

Re:US Only :-( (1)

SlightOverdose (689181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082260)

True - but I can do that now through dozens of different music stores available in my country without VPN hacks and fake billing addresses.

The selling point for Google Music is the 'Cloud Storage' - I can redownload whenever I like, and access on any device. Without that feature, I might as well just stick with existing stores.

Re:US Only :-( (4, Insightful)

BatGnat (1568391) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081410)

It's almost as if Google is a U.S. company or something.

What about the rest of us?

Re:US Only :-( (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081444)

bittorrent

Re:US Only :-( (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081600)

It is a U.S. company.

Re:US Only :-( (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081860)

Really? I thought it was Chinese. Isn't that why they spelled Googol wrong?

Re:US Only :-( (1)

danomac (1032160) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081880)

*whooosh*

The content copyright holders are national corpora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081716)

- tions. Separate deals must be negotiated with each national label in each country. The mind boggles at all the attorney fees.

Some countries may never get the service.

I wrote an eCommerce app a while back. My client struck deals with us distributors for the products she sold, but I could never get her to understand that the Internet was global, and that people from other countries would want to buy her wares.

Re:US Only :-( (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081742)

That's because we rock....literally.

Re:US Only :-( (4, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081756)

Don't feel so bad when it comes to Canada it'll be stalled by beurocracy and the telcos then they'll cry that its unfair to them since its a foreign company moving in. Then they'll just drop the data caps for intternet packages even lower.

Re:US Only :-( (4, Interesting)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081916)

Let's be clear here. Google has introduced features higgledy-piggledy into Canada, and presumably the rest of the world. Can I hide search results in Canada? No. But I _do_ have to suffer through "auto-complete" and site preview on their search engine. Giving us half of the features is worse than none at all, because it makes things slower without making them better.

But hey - Google doesn't give a shit, because they're working towards two goals: Market domination and stock price.

Re:US Only :-( (2)

loyukfai (837795) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082172)

Yeah, but understandably, to fulfil the legal requirement of a country, in particular for music and video, is probably more complex than many of us think.

Re:US Only :-( (1)

loyukfai (837795) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082220)

That being said, I don't understand why the music and video industry doesn't come together and has some international distribution agreement, even if one is willing to pay for the content, the fact is that (mostly) outside the US, one wouldn't be able to make a purchase without resorting to using VPN.

And that's still probably illegal, even if he did pay for it.

Copy-and-Paste (1, Redundant)

Goody (23843) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081448)

They might as well copy iTunes. How are those knock-offs of Facebook and Microsoft Office working out?

Re:Copy-and-Paste (4, Insightful)

jarrettwold2002 (601633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081464)

I'm not defending Google Music here, but Facebook and Microsoft Office are knockoffs of other products, and they're doing pretty well XD

Re:Copy-and-Paste (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081514)

XD

XD

Re:Copy-and-Paste (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081522)

I think he means to say that Google Docs and Google Plus suck ass.

Also, Google doesn't know what the fuck it's going to do next, and its only good product is slowly but surely being overwhelmed by bloat.

They had a good run which ended about 3 or 4 years ago.

Re:Copy-and-Paste (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38082174)

You suck ass and you had a good run until you started troll-tarding. Suck it Google-hater.

Re:Copy-and-Paste (5, Interesting)

aussiedood (577993) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081516)

Have you used it? iTunes requires a horribly bloated app installed on your computer and clunky syncing of music between said computer and your iOS device. Google music needs none of this (with the exception of a small app to upload your music you already have to the cloud). I have all 12,500 songs in my collection available to me wherever I am, no need to pick and choose what music to take with me. It was Google took us to the post PC world that Jobs kept pontificating about.

Have YOU used iTunes lately? (5, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081610)

iTunes requires a horribly bloated app installed on your computer and clunky syncing of music between said computer and your iOS device.

No, currently you download music anywhere and all your devices have access to that music at once, wherever they are... you see all the playlists from any device, if a song is not stored locally then you can simply ask to download it.

Some of that is made better with Match, since it will upload and store for you songs not in iTunes.

I'm not sure Google's music offering could really be more pleasant to use than this... It's great that they have this as an alternative but they are just basically barley keeping up with Apple at this point. Do they even have the same deal where they will make any of your ripped songs available over the cloud also?

Re:Have YOU used iTunes lately? (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082200)

No, currently you download music anywhere and all your devices have access to that music at once, wherever they are... you see all the playlists from any device, if a song is not stored locally then you can simply ask to download it.

I haven't used the service you're speaking of so I have a couple of questions. Do you have to download the song then listen or does it start streaming as soon as you click it like Google Music? Also, does this service cost money or is it free like Google Music?

Re:Have YOU used iTunes lately? (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082258)

I have not - I stay away from malware/virus as much as I could. But three of my friends recently lost all their music, thanks to itunes. I will remind them to look up the option of Google Music. Thank you.

Re:Copy-and-Paste (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081696)

iTunes requires program == wrong but Google Music requires program == good? A little two-faced, are you? Not to mention that browsers can already upload files, so WTF Google?

Also, I'm pretty sure Google Music must require Flash, so that's another bloatware you forgot to mention. I can't check since Google Music is USA-only, unlike iTunes which is available in 35+ countries [wikipedia.org] .

On top of that I imagine that Google Music offers music in the extremely old MP3 format at 128kbps instead of AAC at 256kbps.

Goole Music still has a lot of upgrades to do before I'll even consider using their services.

Re:Copy-and-Paste (2)

neonmonk (467567) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081962)

Please explain why you assume it must require Flash? Baseless assumptions.

The audio format is mp3 @ 320kbps. Wrong again.

Re:Copy-and-Paste (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082108)

The audio format is mp3 @ 320kbps

Ah great. So that's a poor codec, yet huge files. In other words: worst of both worlds. Well done, Google. I really want to pay for this now!

Re:Copy-and-Paste (2)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082240)

Poor codec? You can tell the difference between an mp3 encoded at 320 and whatever hypothetical other codec you seem to think isn't "poor"? Bull.

Re:Copy-and-Paste (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082266)

You can hear the difference between MP3 and any other decent codec (OGG, AAC, whatever) at low bitrates. That doesn't mean that difference is suddenly magically gone when you turn up the bitrate. It just means you're wasting bandwith, because you could have gotten the same or better results using a different codec at a lower bitrate.

Re:Copy-and-Paste (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082280)

Thanks for not answering the question. Your bias is showing and your credibility is waning. Have a nice night.

Re:Copy-and-Paste (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082322)

How did I not answer your question? MP3 is known for having a worse quality/bitrate ratio in comparison to other, more modern codecs. That fact doesn't change when you put the bitrate all the way up. Sure it sounds fine and indistinguishable from anything else. You're just burning bandwith for no good reason though.

Re:Copy-and-Paste (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082370)

Sure it sounds fine and indistinguishable from anything else.

Thank you, you finally answered my question.

Re:Copy-and-Paste (2)

dingen (958134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082430)

But it still makes no sense to use MP3 in this day and age. If it's quality you're after, why don't go lossless and enjoy perfect quality? Yet if it's efficient use of bandwith you're after, why not use a codec that actually manages to get the best sounding music in the least amount of bits? I still fail to see how the choice of MP3 at 320 kbps is anything but, like I said, worse of both worlds.

Re:Copy-and-Paste (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082272)

Wow. I knew RDF makes people stupid, but never knew it also turns the stupid into retards.

Re:Copy-and-Paste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081818)

Maybe you have your songs where ever *you* are but I can guarantee you that it won't work worth shit if you were out on my bike trail. I, on the other hand, have access to my 20,000 songs *everywhere* I go on the face of the planet.

Re:Copy-and-Paste (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082248)

Maybe you have your songs where ever *you* are but I can guarantee you that it won't work worth shit if you were out on my bike trail

I guarantee you it will work worth much more than "shit" (what's the fascination with feces?) on your bike trail since it is trivial to pin songs onto your device.

Re:Copy-and-Paste (3, Informative)

PNutts (199112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081998)

iTunes requires a horribly bloated app installed on your computer and clunky syncing of music between said computer and your iOS device.
Google music needs none of this (with the exception of a small app to upload your music you already have to the cloud).

It's not really a comparison you can make. iTunes does more than upload music into the cloud so I'm not sure how you arrived at "bloated". I'd list everything it could do but I'd sound like a cheerleader and I'm not sure it would make a difference. I'll just leave it at it's a dessert topping and a floor wax.

Re:Copy-and-Paste (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081544)

Does iTunes let you upload, store and stream your own music?

Re:Copy-and-Paste (2)

NameIsDavid (945872) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081656)

iTunes Match does, yes. And tracks with under 256kbps that exist in the iTunes store are replaced with 256kbps AAC versions.

Yes. (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081660)

Does iTunes let you upload, store and stream your own music?

ITunes with Match does.

Re:Copy-and-Paste (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081552)

How are those knock-offs of Facebook and Microsoft Office working out?

Their AltaVista knock-off seems to work pretty well.

Ron Paul top tier in Iowa and New Hampshire (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081452)

Revolution PAC needs $240k to mail info packages to 200,000 Republican Supervoters (people who voted in the 2008/2010 Republican Primaries) in Iowa and New Hampshire. Join me and others in helping to fund this effort: supervoterbomb.com Ron Paul 2012!!

Re:Ron Paul top tier in Iowa and New Hampshire (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081896)

Fuck off

Survivor? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081456)

Ever notice that they don't let negros on Survivor? I wonder why that is.

Oh I see (2)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081494)

That's why they finally rolled out + access to those of us that use Google Apps, they were about to launch a service requiring money!

Re:Oh I see (4, Informative)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082132)

Google Music does not require money to store 20,000 of your own songs and stream them on any computer or Android phone/tablet you have handy. I'd say that's quite a deal.

Well, whoopey-doo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081504)

Getcher ya-yas here, boyz.

Still US only (2, Insightful)

wik33 (2505880) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081588)

When Google will spread the service globally?

Gee, that's nice (4, Interesting)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081692)

Google Music will also let users buy albums and songs from all major music labels, except Warner.

Will they let users buy albums and songs from other Google+ users who record their own albums and songs?

Re:Gee, that's nice (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081782)

Yes, in fact they will. Artists can upload their own music and sell it.

Only in the U.S. (5, Insightful)

echusarcana (832151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081720)

Only in the U.S.... so really, who cares?

Last I checked, pirating music was way easier than buying it legitimately and no one cares which country you are in. Could the music industry, just perhaps, stop being a joke?

Re:Only in the U.S. (1, Informative)

Phurge (1112105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081874)

Last I checked, pirating music was way easier than buying it legitimately and no one cares which country you are in. Could the music industry, just perhaps, stop being a joke?

Hear Hear. When will the music industry wake up?

Re:Only in the U.S. (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081920)

Never? I'm sure the masses of kids these days have figured out the same thing. Pirating is easier than buying it, especially when it's free. Well there goes another generation.

Re:Only in the U.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081984)

Last I checked, pirating music was way easier than buying it legitimately and no one cares which country you are in. Could the music industry, just perhaps, stop being a joke?

That is a sad truth isn't it. I'd gladly pay for music and movies since: (a) I don't buy so much it would significantly strain my wallet, and, (b) I'm all for instant gratification and waiting hours or days for a torrent download is too long to wait. Unfortunately there is no iTunes media store access where I live or any similar service. I have money to spend and Music and Movie industries are telling me... "No thanks we don't want your money." because selling their products in smaller countries is not cost effective due to legal issues (read: the overhead of maintaining their artificial trade barriers is to high in smaller countries).

Re:Only in the U.S. (1)

Heddahenrik (902008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082288)

I don't think that an industry that have bought your politicians and are trying to shut down Internet as we know it should be considered a joke. It's a terrorist organization, and a far deadlier one than any Al Qaeda. With the copyright and patent monopolies the very few are stealing the opportunities from the poor, and the suffering this is causing is immense. Due to these monopolies, you have to be something like Google to create this very simple service that actually most programmers easily could have mad if they were allowed.

It's definitely time for an Occupy IP-monopolies movement!

Re:Only in the U.S. (1, Insightful)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082394)

Last I checked, pirating music was way easier than buying it legitimately and no one cares which country you are in. Could the music industry, just perhaps, stop being a joke?

Don't worry, you're doing your level best to put them out of business. Hard to be a joke when you're out on the streets. FYI, the big bad old "music industry" is actually made up of a tiny handful of rich fatcats and an enormous number of passionate amateur musicians in their early 20s who wanted a job that got them closer to their passion in any way possible. Forget about the guys at the top...it's the hordes of young adults with stars in their eyes who suffer most from piracy.

Of course, no-one on Slashdot will ever see or believe this. Just like pirating music is easy, so is self delusion.

Fucked again (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081726)

Spotify, Amazon mp3, Google music; all not available in Australia. iTunes charging so much that it's usually cheaper to buy the physical CD from America and have it shipped across the friggin' ocean. Well, at least there's Grooveshark ... until SOPA closes it down.

Re:Fucked again (1)

moozey (2437812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082038)

Is Google Music meant to be cheaper than iTunes? Regardless, as a fellow Australian, I share your concerns.

Re:Fucked again (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38082078)

I don't know what Google Music is charging. The point is that buying from iTunes in America is apparently much cheaper than buying from iTunes in Australia (even when our dollar is stronger). This is because there is absolutely no competition here in the downloadable music space. They only have to set their prices to compete with domestic CD retailers.

Re:Fucked again (2)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082096)

It's OK, now we have Zune ;-)

99 cents an album! (0)

Mark4ST (249650) | more than 2 years ago | (#38081820)

At 99 cents an album and no DRM, this service is sure to be a success. That price is reflective of the overheads of digital distribution, and makes it competitive with bitorrent.

That price is temporary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38082002)

If you want something, get it now before the price changes. There is no way that price will be kept for long.

The real question is does Google actually have the right to sell the music? Unless something changed in the last 24 hrs, Google only had a deal with ONE music company. All others were still in negotiation.

Re:That price is temporary (1)

maxdread (1769548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082050)

"Google Music will also let users buy albums and songs from all major music labels, except Warner."

I might be able to understand not clicking through to the article before asking questions but come on, it was in the summary.

Re:That price is temporary (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082114)

They announced EMI, Universal and Sony, not Warner yet. And a boatload of indie labels.

Re:That price is temporary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38082256)

I really, really want to use this service, but I'm in Australia. :(

But there is DRM (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38082188)

How else would they enforce the "share once" limit to G+ users?

Re:99 cents an album! (5, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082392)

That would be a success, but it's actually $0.99 - $1.29 per song.

RIAA/Music Industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081912)

Lawsuits and suing over how they want more money in 5... 4... 3...

20K limit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38081996)

You can only upload 20K songs. Now for some that's probably okay, but I have a bigger library. Amazon lets me upload my entire library with only minor file restrictions.

It makes no sense to me. My library's that big because I've been buying music all my life. Aren't I the sort of customer Google and iTunes (who also has a 25K file limit for their new cloud service) want?

What's with all the music services lately? (2)

dingen (958134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082068)

I really don't get the enormous amount of new music services that have arrived the last few years. Doesn't everybody who cares about music have his favorite stuff on his computer & phone already? What's the use of yet another service that plays everything you already have on all of your devices already?

cheaper jersey (1)

jersey123456 (2485408) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082076)

Coaches who were already beating the shirts of the players take bold available. So do the athletes who went to the acclaim NHL jerseys [jerseymall.biz] of the professions and have added the ability to stay on the cruise next to the grocery store store.For those who adopt the hockey academy, defeated the daring questions such powers such as Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota are available. My shirt You can NBA jerseys [jerseymall.biz] admire the amateur or aggregation in the Hockey Alliance and Wholesale NFL jerseys [jerseymall.biz] the Canadian Juniors. What acquisition depends on what the lure MLB jerseys [jerseymall.biz] of the game.

The long and winding upload (1)

waltlaw (600062) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082106)

I joined when it was invitation only and it took 11 days (24/7) to upload my music. Nice to have a free backup for Itunes.

Thank you for posting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38082138)

Thank you for posting.Waiting for updating.wholesale women replica shoulder bags on line store [cheapbagshopping.com]

So now I have to boycot Google too! (1)

Heddahenrik (902008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082232)

So Google becomes a content seller and part of the RIAA and MPAA kind of mafia industry too? We already know that a big part the money we buy music/movies for is used to buy politicians to impose ever more draconian laws that restricts common people's rights and steal our money and freedom.

It's quite possible to have fun without buying content! Kill the information monopoly companies (entertainment industry), or you are to blame for the end of freedom!

Good grief (4, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38082340)

This whole thread seems like "Super Smash Bros., Cloud Music Edition".

Google Fanbois versus Apple Fanbois.... FIGHT!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>