Anyone else waiting on a Google Music invite?

[Lean L]

so you have one device that can "hold quite a bit". Is that the only thing you listen to music on? Do you copy your mp3's everywhere you want to listen like your desktop, latop, phone, tablet and so on?

If you don't see the advantages to cloud services such as amazon, google, soon to be apple, and so on... then I don't know what to say.



Pandora is a different thing all together IMHO

It's kinda stupid to stream music from the internet that you own tbh. I sync my music across all my computers and a local server and across some different sites. That way I am not using bandwidth unnecessarily. Maybe when unmetered 100mbs internet becomes the norm, this will become very useful. Until then it's kind of a gimmick by my book.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Go DJ for an event and then tell people you can't access your music because the wi-fi isn't working or the tubes are clogged, etc. You ain't gonna get a good response.

There are many reasons to be against this service. It's OK for those who have permanent and always working wi-fi with unlimited data, but for anything else... it ain't gonna be so peachy.

You have got to be kidding. First, you wouldn't be DJing anything, which is what I was laughing about. Second, obviously no one that actually DJs is going to be using this as their primary methods of accessing the music, its stupefyingly baffling that you're even mentioning it. Then, there's the fact it would actually be great for DJing as you would have backups that you can access on a variety of devices in the event whatever you have your music stored on fails. Guess what, if your hard drive fails they're not gonna be happy either (and really, that's pretty much just as likely as the scenario you're positing).

Actually, I can't think of any to be against it. Sure, it might not be the best for you or one you'd want to use, but be against it? Like the person on here that was trashing Netflix and saying they hated it (and therefore it was apparently complete crap), it just makes no sense at all. You're still free to do whatever you're currently doing as well as use this service.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I'm with Trident here on being skeptical about these new music cloud services, but for me, it's because I don't particularly consume my music in a lot of places. I either listen to my music on my Zune, on my computer at home, or streaming through my XBOX from said computer. That's it. Other than having a free backup of your music collection, I don't see the advantage of storing your music in the cloud rather than storing it locally where you listen. It's not like it's difficult or impossible to keep your collection synced between devices, plus you don't need internet access.

That is the point, as well as making it easily accessible across your devices.

Its not rather than, its in addition to. This is complementary, not intended to replace (at least not right now).

You could feasibly use it as your primary storage for music and maybe pictures and e-books. A lot of people are already doing this with e-mail so I'm not really sure what there is to be skeptical of.

The point is, this is an option so that if you want to use it that way you can, but you can still do whatever works for you. Eventually it'll get to where you buy a license to a song and then don't even have to worry about anything technical (like formats, codecs, etc). Likewise, it will grow so that its feasible for video.

Even in this day and age, a lot of people are not backing stuff up at all, or maybe just stuff like documents. This makes it simple and easy to backup your stuff beyond that. This is really just the start and eventually you won't even think about it, and everything will be auto synced even easier for you.

 

[rudeguy]

Go DJ for an event and then tell people you can't access your music because the wi-fi isn't working or the tubes are clogged, etc. You ain't gonna get a good response.

There are many reasons to be against this service. It's OK for those who have permanent and always working wi-fi with unlimited data, but for anything else... it ain't gonna be so peachy.

what are you...the esurance saver guy?

 

[SLCentral]

I applied for an invite within minutes of the page going online. I hope they give out a bunch...would love the opportunity to try out the service. I certainly hope they develop an iOS app - limiting the service solely to Android users would be a big mistake by Google.

The same goes for Apple - if they launch a cloud-music service only for iOS, that too would be a major limitation. I can definitely see Apple launching iTunes for Android alongside their cloud service. It's the same idea as when they launched iTunes for Windows back in 2003, right after the launch of the original iTunes Store. It was a major shock back in 2003 that they crossed platforms, and I can definitely see them doing it again.

 

[Lean L]

I applied for an invite within minutes of the page going online. I hope they give out a bunch...would love the opportunity to try out the service. I certainly hope they develop an iOS app - limiting the service solely to Android users would be a big mistake by Google.

The same goes for Apple - if they launch a cloud-music service only for iOS, that too would be a major limitation. I can definitely see Apple launching iTunes for Android alongside their cloud service. It's the same idea as when they launched iTunes for Windows back in 2003, right after the launch of the original iTunes Store. It was a major shock back in 2003 that they crossed platforms, and I can definitely see them doing it again.

They had no market share... they still have a rather small market share. Keeping the ipod to only macs was suicide.

 

[blurredvision]

The same goes for Apple - if they launch a cloud-music service only for iOS, that too would be a major limitation. I can definitely see Apple launching iTunes for Android alongside their cloud service. It's the same idea as when they launched iTunes for Windows back in 2003, right after the launch of the original iTunes Store. It was a major shock back in 2003 that they crossed platforms, and I can definitely see them doing it again.

Putting iTunes on Windows was what allowed Apple to dominate the digital music market. Back then, they were an entirely different company though. They almost seem like they'd be cocky enough now to keep iCloud only on iOS devices because they think they can. Would be interesting to see how it would play out that way.

 

[cronos]

I'm with Trident here on being skeptical about these new music cloud services, but for me, it's because I don't particularly consume my music in a lot of places. I either listen to my music on my Zune, on my computer at home, or streaming through my XBOX from said computer. That's it. Other than having a free backup of your music collection, I don't see the advantage of storing your music in the cloud rather than storing it locally where you listen. It's not like it's difficult or impossible to keep your collection synced between devices, plus you don't need internet access.

Not *just* a free backup of music collection, but a free backup of music collection that you can access anytime anywhere there's internet!

You don't need to stream to listen to it. Use it for storage, sync what you need when you have wi-fi, and then you can listen to it from your chosen device.

In fact this is what I use my Amazon Music Cloud for. I rarely ever use the streaming to listen, I just sync some playlists to my phone and change them up every once in a while. It is very handy to not have to go to your main computer to add/replace the music on your phone.

 

[freegeeks]

dont need it, i already have my own "cloud", it's called a 10 TB NAS + Mac Mini + Plex

 

[ViviTheMage]

I am not waiting.

 

[Krazy4Real]

I requested an invite. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[ultimatebob]

With all of these cloud music services showing up, it's only a matter of time that some ships a car with a built in 4G wireless connection for music steaming from car stereo. Now THAT will be cool.

 

[AstroManLuca]

It's called "Pandora" and "Slacker." Virtually inexhaustible library of music on the cloud, and unlike Google Music and Amazon, they don't cost ANYTHING!

 

[darkswordsman17]

It's called "Pandora" and "Slacker." Unlike Google Music and Amazon, they don't cost ANYTHING!

Amazon doesn't cost anything either.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Amazon doesn't cost anything either.

Yes it does, you have to buy the music before you can play it. Pandora, Slacker, last.fm, and similar services cost nothing at all.

I'm not a music enthusiast so I'm fine with just typing in a band I like and hearing random stuff from all different artists. I don't feel like I need to own any music.

Seriously, I own maybe a couple hundred songs if I count all the MP3s and CDs I've bought over the years. They're all sitting on my hard drive in MP3 format, gathering dust, because I've heard them all a bunch of times. Building a big music collection would either be very expensive or very illegal, and either way it would be time consuming as well.

 

[TwiceOver]

Why wait. GrooveShark works great. Slacker, pandora. I guess google will do it better somehow.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

can they just get on with it already and let me host my consciousness in the cloud? Who needs a body.

 

[amdhunter]

I just use songbox with dropbox on my iphone. Works perfect.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

We're sorry. Music Beta is currently only available in the United States.

 

[amdhunter]

We're sorry. Music Beta is currently only available in the United States.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Yes it does, you have to buy the music before you can play it. Pandora, Slacker, last.fm, and similar services cost nothing at all.

I'm not a music enthusiast so I'm fine with just typing in a band I like and hearing random stuff from all different artists. I don't feel like I need to own any music.

Seriously, I own maybe a couple hundred songs if I count all the MP3s and CDs I've bought over the years. They're all sitting on my hard drive in MP3 format, gathering dust, because I've heard them all a bunch of times. Building a big music collection would either be very expensive or very illegal, and either way it would be time consuming as well.

Fair enough although that's not a great comparison as you don't own any of that music and a lot of people won't have to spend money, even legally (as they already own CD collections, and there's actually a ton of free music out there too, not to mention promotions and other legal means you can often get music). To me, owning a collection as well as utilizing those services is the best option, as if there's something I really like I can buy a high quality version if its available.

 

[darkswordsman17]

can they just get on with it already and let me host my consciousness in the cloud? Who needs a body.

Well it might not be long before you can store your memories:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19191_7-bizarre-advances-in-animal-cyborg-technology.html

(its #4 on the list).

 

[TridenT]

You have got to be kidding. First, you wouldn't be DJing anything, which is what I was laughing about. Second, obviously no one that actually DJs is going to be using this as their primary methods of accessing the music, its stupefyingly baffling that you're even mentioning it. Then, there's the fact it would actually be great for DJing as you would have backups that you can access on a variety of devices in the event whatever you have your music stored on fails. Guess what, if your hard drive fails they're not gonna be happy either (and really, that's pretty much just as likely as the scenario you're positing).

Actually, I can't think of any to be against it. Sure, it might not be the best for you or one you'd want to use, but be against it? Like the person on here that was trashing Netflix and saying they hated it (and therefore it was apparently complete crap), it just makes no sense at all. You're still free to do whatever you're currently doing as well as use this service.

LOL BULLSHIT.

The amount of times wireless internet has failed me versus how many hard drives I have had fail me. That's infinity:0.

Saying you should give up all your fucking hard drive based storage to go all cloud is STUPID AS FUCK. (Which is what some here are promoting) The cloud is not always there and the amount of events I have gone to where there is wireless internet? ALMOST NONE. (I went to one last month, there was none. It was partially in an industrial warehouse, or under a bridge, or in some studio, wherever) The idea that I can just give up everything and go cloud is ridiculous. We have too many bandwidth restrictions from wireless carriers for it to happen and we don't have strong enough wireless signals to make it happen either. Besides that, you need it to be easy to access, which it almost never is... I mean how often do you think someone who is running an event is like, "Oh yeah, we're gonna need that wi-fi access points password (And do this for 10 other places too) because we stream all our music from Google Music. HERPADERP, DON'T JUDGE ME." At least the ones I go to... it's not that well structured.

Until we have wireless signals that penetrate 500ft of concrete and give 1GB/s bandwidth to millions... I really don't think this is practical. (The idea of going all cloud)

 

[TridenT]

With all of these cloud music services showing up, it's only a matter of time that some ships a car with a built in 4G wireless connection for music steaming from car stereo. Now THAT will be cool.

Yeah it will! Just like paying $25+ month for it too!

 

[ultimatebob]

Yeah it will! Just like paying $25+ month for it too!

Hey now... people are already paying $15 a month for Sirius subscriptions. An in-car 4G wireless connection could be MUCH more useful, since you could download not just music but movies,games,e-mail,directions, etc.

Hell, you could probably even use it for tethered networking to your laptop or tablet for an extra $10 a month or so.