So what will be different about a youtube music app versus spotify, amazon music or even google play music?
all the covers and once illegal uploads, will be covered by the service and the artist will get paid for those once illegal tracks (because of music recognition software).
No one else is able to offer user generated content like that.
If done right it could be the game changer that kills the other services.
********** "Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
1. "$7.99 a month not to get ads" In response to Reply # 0
That's pretty much all I got out of this.
>all the covers and once illegal uploads, will be covered by >the service and the artist will get paid for those once >illegal tracks (because of music recognition software).
Yeah article says nothing about that, and considering to some degree that already exists, it's nothing new.
>No one else is able to offer user generated content like that.
Because they aren't user generated like *You*Tube.
>If done right it could be the game changer that kills the >other services.
Except the only thing different about it from what it is now is that there's a tab that says music, and you're paying $7.99 not to get ads.
Jury's still out on whether those illegal full album streams will still be available in this new service.
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃ Big PEMFin H & z's "I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles
"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."
5. "Your assumption about this service is incorrect." In response to Reply # 0 Thu Nov-13-14 01:34 PM by stone_phalanges
Music that is appearing illegally, like unauthorized bootlegs etc. Will stay just as they are. If the label didn't want them available digitally then this service in and of itself will not change that. However, the authorized music (ie. the stuff that is likely already on Spotify and every other streaming service) will be available without advertisements.
It really is stupid, and pointless, and when I see people using Youtube to listen to music it saddens me.
Youtube is not available offline.
Youtube has no background audio on mobile (you have to keep the screen on)
Youtube has no library management or organization, though this service may change that.
Youtube is for videos.
Why not just stop using Youtube to listen to music so Google can stop doing stupid things.
Also, is this an age thing, like, are you 17 or something.
9. "Yeah you don't understand this new service, I've played with the beta. " In response to Reply # 5
>Music that is appearing illegally, like unauthorized bootlegs >etc. Will stay just as they are.
YT has a service that recognizes these songs and pays the rightsholder just like an authorized recording.
If the label didn't want them >available digitally then this service in and of itself will >not change that.
However, the authorized music (ie. the stuff >that is likely already on Spotify and every other streaming >service) will be available without advertisements.
There is that as well.
> >It really is stupid, and pointless, and when I see people >using Youtube to listen to music it saddens me. > >Youtube is not available offline.
Didn't bother to read the story, yes it will be available offline with the new service.
>Youtube has no background audio on mobile (you have to keep >the screen on)
The new app has this.
> >Youtube has no library management or organization, though this >service may change that.
Again, new service will eventually have this.
> >Youtube is for videos.
No, the new service is for video and music.
> >Why not just stop using Youtube to listen to music so Google >can stop doing stupid things. > >Also, is this an age thing, like, are you 17 or something.
I am 37, I watch my 20 and younger fam listen to music exclusively on YT. YT is building on this to create a more spotify like experience (plus videos) which is what I am describing as the killer app.
********** "Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
12. "RE: what makes you think they're 128?" In response to Reply # 8
If it's just allowing you to download the user generated content on youtube using music recognition software (which is what I took from this announcement), that tells me Youtube isn't going to be personally uploading perfect FLAC's/320kbps/V0 versions of these albums to replace the user posted ones which are all in garbage quality.
I could be wrong, but still, doesn't sound like an appealing service to me.
16. "Works great but seems to be somewhat random currently" In response to Reply # 0
I tried out an artist know for being unavailable on streaming sites:
Led Zepplin.
Several songs were completely blocked others were playable with background audio and downloading, others still were playable but without background audio or downloading. I searched for several of their albums and while some had wider availability than others they all had songs or some feature missing, be it offline play, downloading, or possibly being blocked by the label.
Overall I would say its a good start. The availability of some of the features feels a bit random at this point, but its possible that Google hasn't yet fully spread it's licensing magic to everything in the catalog.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
The Lesson
