Skip to main content

Sorry Google, but Spotify will still offer me what YouTube cannot

Image result for NEW YOUTUBE MUSIC
IMAGE: Google

One of the worst kept secrets in the tech world has finally been announced: YouTube and Google Play Music are finally going to start converging. The new YouTube Music app will start rolling out next week with the long term plan to phase out Google Play Music. The new app will compete with Spotify with a $9.99 per month plan that will let you have unlimited skips, ad-free listening, and background playing; there will also be a free version that allows listening with ads. The current YouTube Red will become YouTube Premium for just an additional $2.00 per month on top of the YouTube Music subscription. Because the point of this article is about music playing, I will not talk much about that.

Image result for NEW YOUTUBE MUSIC
IMAGE: Google

At first glance, this seems great right? There was no need for both YouTube Music and Google Play Music as they are competing streaming platforms owned by the same company (Google) so it makes sense to actually consolidate apps as opposed to offer competing ones (even for Google). This will better prepare them to take on Spotify and Apple Music. So far so good.

Admittedly, I tend to go back and forth between Spotify and Google Play Music, and yes, I am one of those dreaded FREE users. I love the playlists of Spotify, and I have found that it offers excellent suggestions to my created playlists; I also don't find ads intrusive to my listening experience. However, the one thing it does not offer is playback of locally stored MP3 files which is where Google Play Music shines.

I love the fact that I can upload my over 1000 songs to either Google Play Music or my device, and then I can play them whenever I wish. This is what originally brought me back to Google Play Music which I started using for all of my streaming needs at the time as well. However, I found that the playlists were sub-par and the music suggestions were greatly lacking. With integrated AI, it sounds like YouTube Music may be significantly better in these areas so now is the time to commit fully to Google's streaming service right? Wrong!

As far as music streamers go, I am pretty easily satisfied. I would like to listen to solid playlists, make a few of my own, listen to the music that I own, and have access to all of my favorite podcasts. It would seem that YouTube Music would be perfect for a free user like me, but there is one significant thing missing from YouTube Music that will send me right back to Spotify as soon as Google Play Music goes under: background listening.

While I completely understand the regular, free YouTube app not allowing me to stream videos in the background (it is a video site after all), I do not understand this decision at all in terms of music streaming. People seldom listen to music with just the app open unless they are in their vehicle or otherwise engaged at home; people love to multi-task. When I am at home, I often like to play some music while looking through my phone, and when I have my headphones in, I am often looking at other things as well. Spotify and Google Play Music both allow this functionality, and this, as well as the ability to upload my own music, made Play Music perfect for me. Why would Google remove core functionality?

Granted, I am a free user, and my opinion is irrelevant currently. However, free users are the most frequent converters to premium users; people want to make sure they like the service before diving in with cash. So while subscribing would remove this issue for YouTube Music, the service may not have that opportunity. Those massive amount of free users that either don't have the money right now or have no need for ad-removal will spend their time on Spotify as it will give them the best experience. And if they should ever decide to upgrade, where do you think they will spend their money? The streaming platform they have been on forever or one they are not familiar with because it did not provide an ideal experience in the past? I think the answer is pretty clear, personal libraries be damned.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Self-Driving Cars

The future of the world seems to be autonomous. We have reached a point that the future is going to be in Artificial Intelligence; Google has even said they are an AI-first company. The idea behind this push is for machines to learn and adapt to our needs. We want machines to work easily for us. One category of machines that is being pushed to work for us (and without us) is automobiles. Even when transportation consisted of horses pulling a buggy, humans have always been "behind the wheel". By that, I mean that humans have always controlled where, when, why, and how a vehicle will be moving. We have now reached a point where the future will consist of cars that control speed and direction without the need for human control. Aside from convenience, the main reason for the push: removing human error. It is no surprise that the vast majority of automobile accidents can be traced back to human error. Whether it is not watching the road, driving too fast, or simple reckless b...
Post a Comment
Read more

Roseanne, Roseanne. Thank you for demonstrating why you should think before posting

IMAGE: Getty Images (Composite from PageSix) A while back, I wrote a piece encouraging people to be mindful of their digital footprint and the things they say and do on social media. As someone who has seen some very questionable things posted online, I thought it was important to encourage others to take caution with what they share. As for those who are forced to see and hear another's ridiculous thoughts, I wrote a  piece  just days ago about the ability to unfollow and avoid others so that you are not forced to suffer through their farcical thoughts. Now, imagine my delight this morning, when I happen to stumble upon article after article detailing the nonsensical and inflammatory remarks on Twitter made by this country's most obnoxious T.V. mom. For those who may not have caught up on the news this morning, Roseanne Barr decided to enjoy her Memorial Day weekend by tweeting every ridiculous thought to come through her narrow mind ranging from accusations against Geo...
Post a Comment
Read more

iPhone 7

It is that time again: Apple has launched a new iPhone, and the masses will flock tomorrow to get their hands on the "best one yet". However, I believe that this line is beginning to be slightly misleading. Is it the best iPhone? Yes. Is it the best phone? I would say no. At the same time, I do believe that it is a solid device. Admittedly, I have not had an iPhone since 4; I also had a MacBook Pro and iPad 2 at the time. I used to be fully in the iCorner. I believed that the ecosystem they designed was unbeatable, and their hardware was second-to-none. These days I have a slightly different perspective. That is a different story, however. Let's look at the iPhone 7 (and plus) just on its own merits. In the days of 6" plus screens, built in DSLR's (hyperbole), and pixel-less screens, the iPhone is a jack-of-all trades, master of none. I have not personally tested the phone, but like all tech announcements, I watched the live streaming event. I did not see any...
Post a Comment
Read more