6 ms·

Google’s Music Beta first look: it’s miserable

62 points by ssclafani 15y ago

marcusbooster 15y ago
For what it's worth, LifeHacker liked it: http://lifehacker.com/5800500/first-look-at-google-music-our-favorite-features-in-googles-cloud-music-player http://lifehacker.com/5800500/first-look-at-google-music-our...
- igorgue 15y ago
  Certainly a more "specialized" review, the VentureBeat review looks like it was done by a complete retard, seriously sync /= upload (and upload is slow if you have big files you know? audio snob, yeah right). Dammit, I'd like an invite, specially since I wanted to build something similar for a while (not so cloudish though) Google got it right for me apparently.
- yanw 15y ago
  So did NewsGrange :http://newsgrange.com/hands-on-with-google-music-on-the-web-the-best-music-locker-yet/ http://newsgrange.com/hands-on-with-google-music-on-the-web-...
- willifred 15y ago
  From the Lifehacker review: > It's also worth noting that they're looking to crack down on piracy, so depending on how well it works and how much of your music is illegal, that could be a deal killer for some. This would be a deal killer for me and nearly everyone I know.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    How can Google possibly know whether the files you upload were bought legally or not?
    - radicaldreamer 15y ago
      hashes, ID3 tags, and distribution patterns?
    - zmmmmm 15y ago
      I would think the music industry isn't past seeding P2P networks with watermarked files and then suing Google to get a court order to scan people's collections en masse.
    - fragmede 15y ago
      They can't tell if your copy is legal or not, but if your copy of an album hashes to the same as the copy found via TPB, they'd consider it suspect. I think there's enough variation in CD ripping software and various encoder profiles that different rips of the same album using different software is not bit-for-bit the same. That would also be trivially defeatable, so I'm not sure what it'd get Google to do that.
  - jeffgreco 15y ago
    Sure sounds like something a company that's still trying to make deals with record labels might say, but not necessarily do.
  - Lazlo_Nibble 15y ago
    There aren't many better ways to ID people who've downloaded music illegally than to have them upload copies of those music files to a central location where they can be easily analyzed. Hell, I'd love a chance to run stats on that dataset and I don't even have any skin in the game. Some things you could look for: - Files with the names of known release crews hidden away in an ID3V1 comment somewhere; - Files uploaded by multiple people with identical incorrect (misspelled arists/titles) or unique (rip logs, comments, ratings) metadata; - Files with timestamps earlier than the title's official street date (assuming the dedicated upload client preserves those dates); - Multiple uploads of files with bit-for-bit identical audio content that doesn't correspond exactly to any official digital release (like identical MP3 encodes of a non-perfect CD rip, or identical versions of anything sourced from vinyl or cassette -- like a lot of the stuff on boutigue MP3 blogs); - Files with audio data identical to anything ever subject to an official takedown notice, or downloaded by the RIAA from BitTorrent, Usenet or a Megaupload-type file sharing site. Any given release will only have been distributed in a handful of legitimate digital versions -- basically the CD release(s) and any licensed digital download services. Any file uploaded to an online music locker that doesn't match those legit sources will be suspect, and any of those files what are uploaded to Google in bit-for-bit identical versions by multiple people will be a huge red STOLEN flag. I have very little illegally-downloaded music relative to the size of my entire collection, but I still wouldn't go anywhere near a service like this. The data extractable from the audio files people upload would significantly reduce the effort needed for the record companies to go after even small-time downloaders. That's never really been feasible before.
Kylekramer 15y ago
So, the tl;dr of the miserableness followed by my commentary: 1. Have to use the Music Manager to upload music; no drag and drop (Yup, that sucks) 2. Somewhat buggy phone app (Sucks) 3. Looks too much like Grooveshark (Uh, I guess? Only so many ways to skin a cat and make a music player) 4. Caches music, and they banned Kongregate for caching Flash games (This is a pretty big stretch, especially since the linked article doesn't even come close to supporting the claim caching was the reason for the ban) 5. It uploads files from iTunes, and Apple has shown a history of disliking that with Palm (A: Who cares if Apple gets mad about what I do with my music I legally purchased B: There is a pretty big difference between uploading music you've purchased from iTunes and iTunes allowing non-Apple products to sync with it) Seems like sensational linkbait that has a few legit complains and a lot of filler.
- ChuckMcM 15y ago
  Well the meta comment is that nearly every single product Google has 'shipped' lately has been met with 'man this sucks.' followed by a period of iteration, followed by either its death (Wave), zombieness (Reader), or appreciation (Docs). I don't know if the "press" (and I use that term lightly because the community is a mix of professionals and amateurs) really has a process for dealing with this sort of release cycle. People like game magazines with their deadlines were accustomed to getting early beta/late alpha stage games so that they could have a review in print when the game shipped 12 - 16 weeks later but even then there were some interesting failures (when they published a review for a game that ended up never shipping). For me, the interesting thing about Google's music service (other than Amazon totally toasted them in the execution of this strategy :-) is that they are wading into lawyer infested waters knowingly. That makes me wonder if we're coming to the 'end times' when folks can see the rights strategies (for music at least) finally settling into some new normal for the 21st century. Now I don't doubt muscians could still shoot themselves in the wallet like authors did with the book deal [1] but they are a bit more willing to taste test this new world. [1] http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/03/google-books-decision-privacy-concerns-are-real http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/03/google-books-decision-p...
  - jsdalton 15y ago
navs 15y ago
Ah dang, U.S. only. Sometimes it feels like the internet is only for Americans.
- thomasgerbe 15y ago
  Spotify doesn't work in the U.S. Sometimes it feels like the internet is only for Europeans.
  - lukencode 15y ago
    Chin up guys, neither work in Australia
    - nkassis 15y ago
      Your cousins in Canada feel your pain, hell all I have to do is drive 30 minutes and I can use all this cool stuff.
      - thomasgerbe 15y ago
        I'd love to watch CBC's Hockey Night in Canada and view some TSN videos but alas, only available in Canada.
  - TillE 15y ago
    Congratulations, you've named the one popular service that's only available in a few (seven) European countries and not the US. Which has plenty of great alternatives. Unlike Germany, which has one (Simfy), and it's shit. Nearly everything but Spotify is US first, everywhere else later. Often never. Which only makes sense, since so many major tech companies are American.
    - VMG 15y ago
      What is the difference to grooveshark?
- cageface 15y ago
dendory 15y ago
Google Music is not available in your country. Pretty much says it all as far as I'm concerned.
yanw 15y ago
It's a testimony to the effectiveness of link-baiting when pretty much the only bad review gets the most attention. Other than the fact that some of their grievances are unrelated to the actual functionality of the product, they don't seem to realize that it's an invite-only beta.
jsz0 15y ago
If you have a fairly reliable Internet connection it's worth looking into something like Subsonic instead. You run it but you get tons more features, storage, more privacy, clients for basically every device -- even ones without Flash support, and it's mostly trivial to install and configure. Not for everyone of course.
- dave1010uk 15y ago
  Subsonic looks good. My setup is a sshfs mount on my phone (Debian-based Nokia N900) from my home "media server". Some day I'd like to set up a VPN & a UPnP/DLNA server to do video transcoding.

62 points by ssclafani 15y ago

For what it's worth, LifeHacker liked it: http://lifehacker.com/5800500/first-look-at-google-music-our-favorite-features-in-googles-cloud-music-player http://lifehacker.com/5800500/first-look-at-google-music-our...

igorgue 15y ago
Certainly a more "specialized" review, the VentureBeat review looks like it was done by a complete retard, seriously sync /= upload (and upload is slow if you have big files you know? audio snob, yeah right). Dammit, I'd like an invite, specially since I wanted to build something similar for a while (not so cloudish though) Google got it right for me apparently.
yanw 15y ago
So did NewsGrange :http://newsgrange.com/hands-on-with-google-music-on-the-web-the-best-music-locker-yet/ http://newsgrange.com/hands-on-with-google-music-on-the-web-...
willifred 15y ago
From the Lifehacker review: > It's also worth noting that they're looking to crack down on piracy, so depending on how well it works and how much of your music is illegal, that could be a deal killer for some. This would be a deal killer for me and nearly everyone I know.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  How can Google possibly know whether the files you upload were bought legally or not?
  - radicaldreamer 15y ago
    hashes, ID3 tags, and distribution patterns?
  - zmmmmm 15y ago
    I would think the music industry isn't past seeding P2P networks with watermarked files and then suing Google to get a court order to scan people's collections en masse.
  - fragmede 15y ago
    They can't tell if your copy is legal or not, but if your copy of an album hashes to the same as the copy found via TPB, they'd consider it suspect. I think there's enough variation in CD ripping software and various encoder profiles that different rips of the same album using different software is not bit-for-bit the same. That would also be trivially defeatable, so I'm not sure what it'd get Google to do that.
- jeffgreco 15y ago
  Sure sounds like something a company that's still trying to make deals with record labels might say, but not necessarily do.
- Lazlo_Nibble 15y ago
  There aren't many better ways to ID people who've downloaded music illegally than to have them upload copies of those music files to a central location where they can be easily analyzed. Hell, I'd love a chance to run stats on that dataset and I don't even have any skin in the game. Some things you could look for: - Files with the names of known release crews hidden away in an ID3V1 comment somewhere; - Files uploaded by multiple people with identical incorrect (misspelled arists/titles) or unique (rip logs, comments, ratings) metadata; - Files with timestamps earlier than the title's official street date (assuming the dedicated upload client preserves those dates); - Multiple uploads of files with bit-for-bit identical audio content that doesn't correspond exactly to any official digital release (like identical MP3 encodes of a non-perfect CD rip, or identical versions of anything sourced from vinyl or cassette -- like a lot of the stuff on boutigue MP3 blogs); - Files with audio data identical to anything ever subject to an official takedown notice, or downloaded by the RIAA from BitTorrent, Usenet or a Megaupload-type file sharing site. Any given release will only have been distributed in a handful of legitimate digital versions -- basically the CD release(s) and any licensed digital download services. Any file uploaded to an online music locker that doesn't match those legit sources will be suspect, and any of those files what are uploaded to Google in bit-for-bit identical versions by multiple people will be a huge red STOLEN flag. I have very little illegally-downloaded music relative to the size of my entire collection, but I still wouldn't go anywhere near a service like this. The data extractable from the audio files people upload would significantly reduce the effort needed for the record companies to go after even small-time downloaders. That's never really been feasible before.

Kylekramer 15y ago

So, the tl;dr of the miserableness followed by my commentary: 1. Have to use the Music Manager to upload music; no drag and drop (Yup, that sucks) 2. Somewhat buggy phone app (Sucks) 3. Looks too much like Grooveshark (Uh, I guess? Only so many ways to skin a cat and make a music player) 4. Caches music, and they banned Kongregate for caching Flash games (This is a pretty big stretch, especially since the linked article doesn't even come close to supporting the claim caching was the reason for the ban) 5. It uploads files from iTunes, and Apple has shown a history of disliking that with Palm (A: Who cares if Apple gets mad about what I do with my music I legally purchased B: There is a pretty big difference between uploading music you've purchased from iTunes and iTunes allowing non-Apple products to sync with it) Seems like sensational linkbait that has a few legit complains and a lot of filler.

ChuckMcM 15y ago
Well the meta comment is that nearly every single product Google has 'shipped' lately has been met with 'man this sucks.' followed by a period of iteration, followed by either its death (Wave), zombieness (Reader), or appreciation (Docs). I don't know if the "press" (and I use that term lightly because the community is a mix of professionals and amateurs) really has a process for dealing with this sort of release cycle. People like game magazines with their deadlines were accustomed to getting early beta/late alpha stage games so that they could have a review in print when the game shipped 12 - 16 weeks later but even then there were some interesting failures (when they published a review for a game that ended up never shipping). For me, the interesting thing about Google's music service (other than Amazon totally toasted them in the execution of this strategy :-) is that they are wading into lawyer infested waters knowingly. That makes me wonder if we're coming to the 'end times' when folks can see the rights strategies (for music at least) finally settling into some new normal for the 21st century. Now I don't doubt muscians could still shoot themselves in the wallet like authors did with the book deal [1] but they are a bit more willing to taste test this new world. [1] http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/03/google-books-decision-privacy-concerns-are-real http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/03/google-books-decision-p...
- jsdalton 15y ago

navs 15y ago

Ah dang, U.S. only. Sometimes it feels like the internet is only for Americans.

thomasgerbe 15y ago
Spotify doesn't work in the U.S. Sometimes it feels like the internet is only for Europeans.
- lukencode 15y ago
  Chin up guys, neither work in Australia
  - nkassis 15y ago
    Your cousins in Canada feel your pain, hell all I have to do is drive 30 minutes and I can use all this cool stuff.
    - thomasgerbe 15y ago
      I'd love to watch CBC's Hockey Night in Canada and view some TSN videos but alas, only available in Canada.
- TillE 15y ago
  Congratulations, you've named the one popular service that's only available in a few (seven) European countries and not the US. Which has plenty of great alternatives. Unlike Germany, which has one (Simfy), and it's shit. Nearly everything but Spotify is US first, everywhere else later. Often never. Which only makes sense, since so many major tech companies are American.
  - VMG 15y ago
    What is the difference to grooveshark?
cageface 15y ago

dendory 15y ago

Google Music is not available in your country. Pretty much says it all as far as I'm concerned.

yanw 15y ago

It's a testimony to the effectiveness of link-baiting when pretty much the only bad review gets the most attention. Other than the fact that some of their grievances are unrelated to the actual functionality of the product, they don't seem to realize that it's an invite-only beta.

jsz0 15y ago

If you have a fairly reliable Internet connection it's worth looking into something like Subsonic instead. You run it but you get tons more features, storage, more privacy, clients for basically every device -- even ones without Flash support, and it's mostly trivial to install and configure. Not for everyone of course.

dave1010uk 15y ago
Subsonic looks good. My setup is a sshfs mount on my phone (Debian-based Nokia N900) from my home "media server". Some day I'd like to set up a VPN & a UPnP/DLNA server to do video transcoding.