Print 15 comment(s) - last by inighthawki.. on Nov 18 at 8:10 PM

Google Music app allows users to purchase new music right from their Android device or PC  (Source:
The app can be found in the Android Market

Back in May, Google announced its music service and launched Music beta at its I/O Conference for developers. Now, Google Music is finally here and ready to challenge the likes of Amazon's Cloud Drive and maybe even Apple's iTunes.

Music beta allowed users to upload up to 20,000 songs from their music collection to the cloud for free and stream it on any PC or Android mobile device.

Now, Music beta has grown into Google Music, and it offers a number of features for both avid music fans and artists.

Google Music is basically a cloud-based music storage service. Listeners can automatically sync their entire music library via the cloud across all types of Android devices as well as PCs. User-made playlists stay just the way they are across these different devices as well.

Google, of course, wants you to buy music in addition to bringing your own collection to the table. To help you out (rather, to help open up that wallet of yours), Google has released a new music store in the Android Market, which is fully integrated with Google Music.

The new music store offers over 13 million tracks from various artists. Songs or entire albums can be purchased right from a PC or Android-powered device, and the songs will be added to your Google Music library automatically.

The music store offers music from artists associated with many different labels, such as Sony Music Entertainment, EMI, Universal Music Group, Merge Records, Warp Records, Matador Records, Naxos, Merlin and XL Recordings.

Well-known artists are even offering extras exclusively to Google Music users. For instance, The Rolling Stones will offer a live concert album called Brussels Affair (Live, 1973), which has never been released before. It's only the first of a six-part unreleased concert series that will only be available to Google Music users. Other artists that will offer content exclusively to Google Music users are Coldplay, Shakira, Pearl Jam, Busta Rhymes, Dave Matthews Band and Tiësto.

Google Music isn't just for the listener, though. It's also for artists who are trying to get their music out to the listeners. Google Music helps artists out by offering the Google Music artist hub. This allows artists to build a page where tracks can be uploaded. The artist can then set a price for their content and sell it directly to listeners. All artists, whether they're new or well-known independent artists, can participate.

Google+, of course, would not be left out of the mix. Google Music will allow users to share one purchased song with your friends and family on Google+.

Google Music was officially released earlier today in the U.S. The app can be found here in the Android Market.

Source: The Official Google Blog

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By plonk420 on 11/16/2011 9:30:00 PM , Rating: 2
please, please, please, for the love of God, sell lossless music already!

RE: Lossless
By zozzlhandler on 11/16/2011 9:39:50 PM , Rating: 3
Or even better, lossless HD music... please?

RE: Lossless
By Tequilasunriser on 11/16/2011 11:23:06 PM , Rating: 2

I'd really like to take advantage of my 24bit 96KHz DAC more often.

RE: Lossless
By Zorlac on 11/17/2011 6:19:21 PM , Rating: 3
The only reason I still buy CDs...I am not going to support crappy compressed formats

RE: Lossless
By NellyFromMA on 11/18/2011 2:22:32 PM , Rating: 1
lol, you won't support 'crappy compressed formats' but you'll support crappy 'artists' by buying their cds? lol...

btw, it's sad when people look to a CD as their best point of audio reference when regarding fidelity and then get all audio-smug... tsk tsk

RE: Lossless
By nafhan on 11/17/2011 9:52:27 AM , Rating: 2
Lossless sounds really awesome on my $8 Skull Candy earbuds. :)
Seriously though, most people are happy with 256kbps AAC or MP3, because they can't tell the difference between that and lossless (generally due to the equipment they are using to listen).

RE: Lossless
By The Raven on 11/18/2011 3:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
...uhh and their environment. Who listens to recorded music just sitting down in silence without ambient noise? <1% of the world population.

So when I am driving down the highway (which is where people do the majority of their listening) in my Corolla I really don't care. And I can get a hell of a lot more files on my 8gb player with a lossy format.

On the other hand, I do enjoy Amazons 320kbps files that they provide. It is not perfect, but I do appreciate an effort to offer quality recordings.

But I am just explaining why people don't care and why companies who have to foot the bandwidth and hosting costs compromise on the issue.

RE: Lossless
By inighthawki on 11/18/2011 8:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
I think even for those not in that situation, the majority of people won't tell a difference anyway. 95+% of the people who buy music probably won't even notice a difference, let alone care.

No offense to you guys who like lossless and ultra high quality tracks, but there's not much of a financial reason to support it yet. You guys may buy the tracks in lossless format, maybe even pay more for them, but you will still make up a tiny percentage of the overall revenue stream, and that's why they haven't really done it yet.

Microsoft's been there, done that
By Da W on 11/17/2011 2:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's called a zune pass. And iT's been around for a while.
You can't store music in the cloud (and why would you want to do that?) but:

-you can stream any piece of music you want (and load your monthly data cap if you want to)
-download unlimited songs to your phone or pc
-wirelessly sync between your phone / zune and pc everytime you recharge your phone at home
-you can buy songs at the same price as google or apple if that's your thing, but i'm more into unlimited music rental for 10$ a month.

All that with minimum bandwith usage since you only download your song once, and then store it on your HARD DRIVE.

What's the deal with all these cloud offering from apple and google, advertised as the best thing since sliced bread?

Also, how long before music lobbyist groups force cloud provider to surrender access to your account to verify any piece of potentially illegaly downloaded music?

RE: Microsoft's been there, done that
By name99 on 11/17/2011 3:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
What's the deal with all these cloud offering from apple and google, advertised as the best thing since sliced bread?

Apple's offering is NOT about streaming. It is about syncing your music easily across all your devices. The idea is you can listen your same collection of music at home, at work, and on your iPhone, and the collection will stay in sync as you acquire new music, change the metadata of files, change playlists, etc.
The storage in the cloud is merely a means to that end, it is not the point of the exercise. Neither is streaming the point of the exercise. Apple does not technically stream audio (they download it and cache it transparently) and they did not even use the word streaming in early iTunes in the Cloud advertising.

As I understand it, Google are trying to achieve the same thing as Apple, but I have no idea if it works as well in terms of things like changing metadata, or transparent caching, or keeping playlists in sync.

Comparing this sort of service --- keeping files in sync --- to a very different service like Zune Pass or Spotify --- rent music and listen to what you like as long as you keep paying the rent --- is just stupid. Both are valid services, which appeal to different people.

Free listen on Google+
By zozzlhandler on 11/16/2011 9:38:22 PM , Rating: 3
I think the article stated it wrong. My understanding is that for each song or album you buy, anyone you share it with on G+ can listen to it once for free (that's listen to an entire album once in the case of buying an album, for each person in your circles you share it with).

Tried the beta, hated it
By tayb on 11/16/2011 10:21:55 PM , Rating: 1
It took me FOREVER to upload my music and then I would say about 30% of the songs failed to upload due to DRM. Not only that but streaming music KILLED my battery life and when I was outside of network range I had no music. In the end I put all my music back on my phone.

I suppose I can still stream 70% of my music no matter where I am but it's all on my phone anyway because the experience was so bad to begin with. I have to yet find myself with access to a computer and internet but without my cell phone.

I have yet to give iCloud a shot but from what I've read it sounds like a much better overall service and solution.

RE: Tried the beta, hated it
By Netscorer on 11/17/2011 6:41:16 AM , Rating: 2
My experience was different. Most of my music is DRM free and besides few tracks that needed to be reencoded for Google Music to properly store them, the rest of the upload was smooth and relatively fast (average of 1 minute per uploaded song one time process).
To combat poor signal areas Google allows you to download music for offline listening. It's very easy to do per song or whole album level. Besides, I rarely found situation when my music was not available. Google aggressively caches the music ahead whenever it has chance, so if the signal strength varies (like when you are driving on a highway), it is enough to combat certain patches of bad or no signal.

Overall nice experience and the best policy (20,000 songs free storage) in the business. Compare this to any other service and there no one even close.

By Paj on 11/17/2011 9:23:16 AM , Rating: 2
Seems pretty cool. I lost a whole bunch of music earlier in the year due to a dodgy backup (still have most of it on CD, but its still a pain). Something like this sounds great, and I've long been looking for a worthy successor to Itunes.

By NellyFromMA on 11/18/2011 2:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
I used to think it'd be a hard sale getting the tech saavy of the past couple generation to put their data on the 'cloud' more and more, but going by the comments here, people are eating it up. Meh -_-

"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki