3 ms·

> Google seems to be using the library of music it has on YouTube to retroactively backdoor a streaming service that plays the YouTube videos without the video.

by Drew_ 6y ago

> Google seems to be using the library of music it has on YouTube to retroactively backdoor a streaming service that plays the YouTube videos without the video. This is almost certainly not true. The on demand music available for YouTube Music was not previously available and all of it appears to be "auto-generated by YouTube" according to the description (eg: the audio for Thriller was only recently uploaded/auto-generated in 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z85lxckrtzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z85lxckrtzg). All of that music was likely licensed in the same way it was GPM and for any other DSP.

B-Con 6y ago
For a lot of the official content, yeah, that sounds right. But for the "unofficial" content? Absolutely, they were already arguably the largest music streaming sure to begin with, do they back fitted themselves into a proper streaming service. I saw the writing on the wall years ago. There was just no way execs wouldn't leverage such an obvious opportunity.
- kevincox 6y ago
  I think the choice to merge Google Play Music into YouTube makes perfect sense. When you have the largest music streaming service (probably YouTube) why would you want to run another one. I love the idea that anyone can easily publish songs that I can listen to (no need for music labels) and that I can share playlists that friends can add arbitrary YouTube songs to without a subscription. The major issue is that they did a terrible job at it. To list a couple of issues: - Your uploaded music and the YouTube collection are completely separate (unlike GPM) - It buffers almost nothing ahead, even in bad network conditions so it fails on road trips. - The song suggestions are awful. (way worse than GPM) - Even if you dislike a song it will still suggest it for you (often frequently) - A lot of features missing (sure, they wouldn't get them all, but so many are gone). The list goes on. I was a GPM subscriber for a long time. I used to work at Google so I decided I would help beta-test YouTube Music. However it quickly became clear that it wasn't going to be a good replacement for GPM. I ended up switching away from YouTube Premium and YouTube Music.

by Drew_ 6y ago

B-Con 6y ago

For a lot of the official content, yeah, that sounds right. But for the "unofficial" content? Absolutely, they were already arguably the largest music streaming sure to begin with, do they back fitted themselves into a proper streaming service. I saw the writing on the wall years ago. There was just no way execs wouldn't leverage such an obvious opportunity.

kevincox 6y ago
I think the choice to merge Google Play Music into YouTube makes perfect sense. When you have the largest music streaming service (probably YouTube) why would you want to run another one. I love the idea that anyone can easily publish songs that I can listen to (no need for music labels) and that I can share playlists that friends can add arbitrary YouTube songs to without a subscription. The major issue is that they did a terrible job at it. To list a couple of issues: - Your uploaded music and the YouTube collection are completely separate (unlike GPM) - It buffers almost nothing ahead, even in bad network conditions so it fails on road trips. - The song suggestions are awful. (way worse than GPM) - Even if you dislike a song it will still suggest it for you (often frequently) - A lot of features missing (sure, they wouldn't get them all, but so many are gone). The list goes on. I was a GPM subscriber for a long time. I used to work at Google so I decided I would help beta-test YouTube Music. However it quickly became clear that it wasn't going to be a good replacement for GPM. I ended up switching away from YouTube Premium and YouTube Music.