[quote=Wall Street Journal]
Google Inc. is preparing as early as Tuesday to unveil a new online music service similar to a service recently launched by Amazon.com Inc., according to people familiar with the matter, a move that escalates the battle to create the next generation of Internet businesses for storing and listening to music.
Google, like Amazon, hasn't secured licenses from the four major recorded-music companies, according to these people, and is likely to include a system that functions much like a remote hard drive.
Users of the service are expected to be able to listen to songs they have uploaded to the service in a so-called streaming mode but won't be able to download the files themselves. That limit appears to be a bid by Google to hinder the service from being used to spread pirated music.
A Google spokeswoman had no comment.
Google is likely to announce the service Tuesday at its annual Google I/O developers conference in San Francisco, these people said. Initially, the service is to operate in a testing mode, and not be available to the public at large.
The service is unlikely to be tied to an online music store like Amazon MP3, which gives users the option of adding new songs to their music locker at the time they buy them.
The system Google is likely to unveil is known within the technology and music industries as a "passive" locker. Such systems generally are believed by people in the music industry not to require licenses from record companies. But that kind of system also tends to offer a fairly limited set of features. Amazon Cloud, for instance, is considered by many in the industry to be a first step toward a more ambitious offering that Amazon could create once it has licenses in place.
With licenses from music companies, a locker-service operator could give users instant access to songs stored in central servers, rather than making those users upload every song in their music collections.
The launch comes as Apple Inc. is in negotiations with major record labels to secure licenses for a much more robust online music service than either Amazon's or the one Google has in the works, according to these people. It is unclear when Apple might launch such a service, but most of the technical work has been complete for months, according to people familiar with the matter. An Apple spokesman declined to comment.
Spotify AB, based in Sweden and the U.K., has been attempting for months to secure licenses that would allow it to launch its music service in the U.S., but it hasn't been able to persuade major music companies to let it bring the service, which is popular in Europe, to the U.S.
That is mainly because record-company executives don't believe that Spotify makes enough money. Recent limits on how much music a user can listen to without paying could make the service more attractive to record labels, according to people familiar with the matter.
Many record companies felt blindsided by the launch of Amazon Cloud, and the Seattle-based online retail company hasn't significantly upgraded its service since it launched.
[/quote]
Read more: [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576313862695045964.html#ixzz1Lw2N5Zt4[/url]
It's called Youtube.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;29735002]It's called Youtube.[/QUOTE]
This post contains text that has not been authorized by WMG. The text has been deleted. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/t/howto_copyright"]More about copyright[/URL]
Soundcloud is like the Youtube for music.
[QUOTE=Khaos-23;29735660]Soundcloud is like the Youtube for music.[/QUOTE]
yeah but this is google so it must be better. :v:
Amazon is doing it too
This is going to be great :dance:
It has already been shown at the Google I/O opening.
The player app is already available on the Android Market. It doesn't really compete with other players in functionality, and is pretty boring without access to their cloud service.
If you're in the US, you can request an invite to the online music beta @ [url]http://music.google.com/[/url] .. Still waiting for mine
As long as it involves "paying" I'd rather stick with listening to unknown but free music. Free chiptunes FTW.
It's not a music store
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrNhKcxBbZo[/media]
It is however U.S. only. Joy!
So this is their reaction to Spotify Free no longer being a good service? Well if anyones gonna make it efficiently, it's google. Rich enough to actually host it across the world. That's IF it's what I'm expecting.
I wouldn't pay for it. I know there are already other ways to do this for free (since I have a 24/7 desktop with plenty of space that can act as a media server).
All of the UIs look nice, though. And it's Google. And it's shiny and new.
US only...
Why does all the good stuff has to be "US only?"
I can't click the Request Invitation button, gives a Bad Request error. :saddowns:
Apparently Google already made Google Music but it was for China only. They made it cause they wanted to try to curb piracy and somehow profit. Only saw a short bit of it from some documentary about Google.
[editline]11th May 2011[/editline]
[url]http://www.google.cn/music/homepage[/url]
"US Only"
Suddenly don't care anymore.
FUCKING GOOGLE AGAIN
TO THE BRANDTMOBILE
Suck it Apple!
I prefer iTunes, even though I've only purchased one song on it, which was a 2pac song.
Grooveshark FTW
I dont really like how google is trying to get into every form of media.
[QUOTE=VistaPOWA;29743572]US only...
Why does all the good stuff has to be "US only?"[/QUOTE]
Spotify :smith:
[QUOTE=SteelReal;29747172]I dont really like how google is trying to get into every form of media.[/QUOTE]
oh dear a business is expanding
Part of the reason services like this are so often limited by what country you live in is copyright laws, which vary quite a bit from country to country. It's a pain to try and work in every country, so they just stick with ones they can effectively pull off.
Getting an Android in a few months, and this just sweetens that deal oh so much.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
