3 ms·

I now listen to the majority of my music on Youtube. Most of the songs I want to listen to are there. For free. And legally. It kills me that Google, owner

by brown 15y ago

I now listen to the majority of my music on Youtube. Most of the songs I want to listen to are there. For free. And legally. It kills me that Google, owner of Youtube, would not directly integrate Youtube and Google Music. I can only assume this is once again a limitation imposed by the RIAA. Sigh.

code_duck 15y ago
Grooveshark has some significant improvements related to Youtube - songs each have their own pages with a Video section, and you can click to play Youtube videos in a modal window. It's in their 'preview' site at the moment.
Toddward 15y ago
I'm curious how you would have them integrate. Google announced during the event that they were working with YouTube to allow artists to sell tracks directly against their YouTube channels. What else would you do? EDIT: Actually, the answer is kind of obvious now that I've pondered it a little bit. We can only hope that a deeper integration is in the pipeline.
ethank 15y ago
YouTube and Google Music are separate product teams. Google Music is run through Android. Of all the bone headed product decisions made at Google, the fact that Android owns Google Music makes me say "WHY?????" Its not an RIAA limit (and somehow, you all extend much more power to the RIAA than they have in these matters). It's a Google endemic product org issue.
- minalecs 15y ago
  i think the difference is that for example vevo has ads supporting the music you listen/watch through the youtube channel. As of now there's not the ad alternative through google music. as someone else said they did announce youtube integration through artists hub as well as linking to purchasing the track from youtube. http://music.google.com/artists/ http://music.google.com/artists/ - at the bottom is screenshot of what it will be like.
  - ethank 15y ago
    But imagine if the product teams were united.
JoshTriplett 15y ago
Music labels and other such organizations extort huge piles of money from YouTube for the "privilege" of hosting those songs. The pile of ads you see along with those videos go to paying that extortion.
drivebyacct2 15y ago
I don't know how people listen to music on Youtube. The audio quality on those videos at less than 720p is unacceptable. Even people that walk around listening to 128kbps mp3s can tell when I ask them to swtich from 360/480 to the 720p stream.
- jrockway 15y ago
  I think the non-HD videos actually have monaural sound. When you switch to 720p, you get your stereo back.
- radicaldreamer 15y ago
  Instant gratification beats quality for most people.
- itsnotvalid 15y ago
  There is noticeable difference between 360p and 480p stream on Youtube already. They somehow managed to degrade that much for little bitrate difference.
nextparadigms 15y ago
You do have a Youtube music player in google+ now, though. But yeah, this is definitely a record labels' decision ultimately. I'm surprised they even went along with the artist hub.
VMG 15y ago
I case you didn't already know: http://www.grooveshark.com http://www.grooveshark.com

by brown 15y ago

code_duck 15y ago

Grooveshark has some significant improvements related to Youtube - songs each have their own pages with a Video section, and you can click to play Youtube videos in a modal window. It's in their 'preview' site at the moment.

Toddward 15y ago

I'm curious how you would have them integrate. Google announced during the event that they were working with YouTube to allow artists to sell tracks directly against their YouTube channels. What else would you do? EDIT: Actually, the answer is kind of obvious now that I've pondered it a little bit. We can only hope that a deeper integration is in the pipeline.

ethank 15y ago

YouTube and Google Music are separate product teams. Google Music is run through Android. Of all the bone headed product decisions made at Google, the fact that Android owns Google Music makes me say "WHY?????" Its not an RIAA limit (and somehow, you all extend much more power to the RIAA than they have in these matters). It's a Google endemic product org issue.

minalecs 15y ago
i think the difference is that for example vevo has ads supporting the music you listen/watch through the youtube channel. As of now there's not the ad alternative through google music. as someone else said they did announce youtube integration through artists hub as well as linking to purchasing the track from youtube. http://music.google.com/artists/ http://music.google.com/artists/ - at the bottom is screenshot of what it will be like.
- ethank 15y ago
  But imagine if the product teams were united.

JoshTriplett 15y ago

Music labels and other such organizations extort huge piles of money from YouTube for the "privilege" of hosting those songs. The pile of ads you see along with those videos go to paying that extortion.

drivebyacct2 15y ago

I don't know how people listen to music on Youtube. The audio quality on those videos at less than 720p is unacceptable. Even people that walk around listening to 128kbps mp3s can tell when I ask them to swtich from 360/480 to the 720p stream.

jrockway 15y ago
I think the non-HD videos actually have monaural sound. When you switch to 720p, you get your stereo back.
radicaldreamer 15y ago
Instant gratification beats quality for most people.
itsnotvalid 15y ago
There is noticeable difference between 360p and 480p stream on Youtube already. They somehow managed to degrade that much for little bitrate difference.

nextparadigms 15y ago

You do have a Youtube music player in google+ now, though. But yeah, this is definitely a record labels' decision ultimately. I'm surprised they even went along with the artist hub.

VMG 15y ago

I case you didn't already know: http://www.grooveshark.com http://www.grooveshark.com