Honest question, why does google want to get into every damn online market? They are freaking awesome at launching moonshots like Self-driving cars, maps/streetview, Glass etc. why they even care about 'smaller problems' (comparitively) like online music that is fraught with licensing problems and lawyers?
There are so many problems in the world that Google could solve with it's resources and can turn into billion dollar markets. They are pretty much becoming MSFT rather than AAPL in doing so.
Well, online music is not particularly new or smaller problem.
The problem is online music is fraught with litigation challenges. Of course, only GOOG or any other tech giant could fight them off with their resources. But at the end of the day, will it really lead to multi-billion dollars in returns?
I'm not defending their choice per se, but I can see how they see this move as potentially worth the trouble. It could for example give them an edge when it comes to the adoption of Android devices. Directly it might not generate enough revenue, but it can be an important piece within an all-encompassing ecosystem they are trying to create, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Further, things like this give them competitive ammo in G+ vs Facebook & android vs iOS, which are battles over far larger chunks of data than this service alone will generate.
To be fair, is not that crazy and it is consistent with making the android platform stronger. One of the reasons I love my WP8 is Xbox music which IMHO doesn't really have a match in Android world.
US only whereas all their main competitors are available in more markets and have more features (from what I've seen through the I/O demo of the service). Definitely starting on the back foot.
Music licensing is a difficult and likely very expensive thing. It's reasonable to assume they're launching US-only and building revenue first, then tackling worldwide as they are able.
It was started in Sweden so I presume they launched there. The UK was one of the early markets though but they were in several European countries very quickly.
I know that licensing is difficult and takes time but Google has plenty of money. They don't need to build revenue in one country before they can launch in another. They need to launch everywhere to get uptake on this, especially when the market is so competitive.
The lack of integration (and overall terrible UI) of Spotify is actually one of the key things to drive me from Android to Windows Phone for a subscription music service.
It's not perfect, but this makes me a little bit curious about Android again, maybe in 2 years I'll jump ship again but Microsoft has a pretty solid offering at this point and a sizable lead in the subscription music market.
They finally fixed that in the most recent update (as of about a week ago?) They also added filtering, so you no longer have to just blindly scroll around to find a song.
- Pretty sure it still doesn't have landscape mode
- Doesn't consistently honor next/previous track commands from headset/bluetooth controls
- Abruptly pauses when Navigation talks, where Play Music muffles itself briefly
They should've released this since Google Music. I was surprised they released a service with such an "obsolete" business model of actually selling songs, like iTunes, last year, when they should be looking forward. But I guess there are still a lot of people who'd rather buy each song for $1 than pay $10 a month. Still, they should've launched both.
Now, where's the Netflix competitor? That should've arrived a long time ago, too. And what about a books subscription service? Are they still serious enough about Google Books to do that?
I don't know, it's just surprising to me that an "innovative" company like Google chooses to replicate decade old business models with their ever so slight take on it, instead of trying to come up with their own disruptive business models. They can't just enter in a market 5-10 years later with marginal improvements and expect to beat the leaders just because they are "big".
The Netflix competitor is paid Youtube channels, except it only works in a few countries and it's not as good as Netflix.
Google has bet everything on social and are creating these satellite services to fuel G+ usage and adoption. You won't see anything revolutionary coming out of GOOG for a while.
I currently use Spotify and there is no way I'll be switching to a Google product. In fact I'm trying to reduce my dependence on Google products.
So basically radio? Not at all as attractive as Spotify, where you create your own playlists (that, and off-line mode on my phone are the two killer features of Spotify for me).
Two complaints: what is with Google's naming these days? "Google Play Music All Access"? If Gmail was launched today it would have been called Google+ Mail Unlimited. What's wrong with "Google Music"?
Secondly- why would I use this over a specialist like Spotify or Rdio? I know why Google want me to, but as of right now I don't see the benefits from switching to a specialist provider that is dedicated to music to a generalist company that has a passing interest in the area.
The product is Google Music. All Access is a feature of the product. In the same way Google + is a product and Hangouts (Google + Hangouts) is a feature of that product. (Although I'm not sure why they through Play in the name. Take that out and the name is fine).
The product name is actually "Google Play Music". It had been "Google Music" during the beta and before the change from the Android Market to Google Play.
It is not that much of a stretch. I've been uploading my music to Google Play Music since it launched (as just Google Music). I like it. I'm streaming my owned music as I type this. I've purchased a few things from the Google Play Music store and that also gets put in with my uploaded stuff. So it only makes sense that the next step for them in this area is to offer a paid subscription to their entire music catalog for streaming.
Definitely Microsoft-ian naming. It's as if there's some hierarchy of product branding like some java package definition:
com.Google.Play.Music.AllAccess
As to why you'd use it, I'm hoping they are going to compete by offering functionality (the demoed playlist lookahead and the swipe to ignore feature looks pretty cool) and perhaps ramping up features faster than their competitors.
But another goal is to just have a service that attacks their competitor's strengths (mainly Apple, also Amazon). If streaming is popular, music purchases are not and music stores suffer = Google starves it's competition.
It seems odd that it's more expensive to stream music than it is movies. At least you get the latest content, I suppose, rather than movie streamings' limited content.
50 comments
[ 1.0 ms ] story [ 93.0 ms ] threadThis gave me an option to sign up. I can play music through the web, but there's no update to the phone app yet.
There are so many problems in the world that Google could solve with it's resources and can turn into billion dollar markets. They are pretty much becoming MSFT rather than AAPL in doing so.
The problem is online music is fraught with litigation challenges. Of course, only GOOG or any other tech giant could fight them off with their resources. But at the end of the day, will it really lead to multi-billion dollars in returns?
It's inevitable when you get into the platform business. This is a check mark for comparison charts, nothing more.
Money. The other things you listed aren't money makers.
Yet. It's nice to see Google focus on a mix of cash cows, short-term easy risks and longer-term speculative ventures.
Music licensing is a difficult and likely very expensive thing. It's reasonable to assume they're launching US-only and building revenue first, then tackling worldwide as they are able.
I know that licensing is difficult and takes time but Google has plenty of money. They don't need to build revenue in one country before they can launch in another. They need to launch everywhere to get uptake on this, especially when the market is so competitive.
I'm working in Ireland right now trying to use my US account. Perhaps they don't have an out of country error?
It's not perfect, but this makes me a little bit curious about Android again, maybe in 2 years I'll jump ship again but Microsoft has a pretty solid offering at this point and a sizable lead in the subscription music market.
Now, where's the Netflix competitor? That should've arrived a long time ago, too. And what about a books subscription service? Are they still serious enough about Google Books to do that?
I don't know, it's just surprising to me that an "innovative" company like Google chooses to replicate decade old business models with their ever so slight take on it, instead of trying to come up with their own disruptive business models. They can't just enter in a market 5-10 years later with marginal improvements and expect to beat the leaders just because they are "big".
Google has bet everything on social and are creating these satellite services to fuel G+ usage and adoption. You won't see anything revolutionary coming out of GOOG for a while.
I currently use Spotify and there is no way I'll be switching to a Google product. In fact I'm trying to reduce my dependence on Google products.
Secondly- why would I use this over a specialist like Spotify or Rdio? I know why Google want me to, but as of right now I don't see the benefits from switching to a specialist provider that is dedicated to music to a generalist company that has a passing interest in the area.
com.Google.Play.Music.AllAccess
As to why you'd use it, I'm hoping they are going to compete by offering functionality (the demoed playlist lookahead and the swipe to ignore feature looks pretty cool) and perhaps ramping up features faster than their competitors.
But another goal is to just have a service that attacks their competitor's strengths (mainly Apple, also Amazon). If streaming is popular, music purchases are not and music stores suffer = Google starves it's competition.
any details around the locker component; namely storage size?
Its cool because you can experiment all you want with new music and not run up huge bills. Its okay to get into music again.