4 ms·
It’s not really comparable. You cannot play any song at a moments notice on your Walkman, just what you are physically carrying with you.
by minitoar 6y ago
It’s not really comparable. You cannot play any song at a moments notice on your Walkman, just what you are physically carrying with you.
- dleslie 6y agoI almost never want or need a large library when I listen to music; I have an inclination to listen to an album or long DJ mix and that will be what I listen to for the next hour. Moreover, you just compared the two and noticed a difference. They are comparable, and Youtube is inferior for listening to music you've paid for if you don't feel inclined to pay a subscription fee for the privilege of listening to it.
- minitoar 6y agoIt’s not comparable in the sense that you’re comparing an offline experience with an online one. It’s like comparing a knapsack of books to a library.
- dleslie 6y agoGoogle Music was an offline-capable service. It's valid to compare Youtube Music to offline services because paying users had the expectation it would work.
- minitoar 6y agoYou were comparing a Walkman which is only offline last I checked.
- dleslie 6y agoTake note of what features I compared: > Good job Google, you made something worse than a Walkman. A Walkman could clip on your belt and you didn't have to worry about jostling it or touching it wrong and so having it do something wrong. Google Music was able to operate offline, and it didn't require your attention while playing. A Walkman is offline and didn't require your attention while playing. Youtube Music requires your attention while playing. Not requiring your attention while playing is a critical, minimal feature of a mobile music device.