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

Are Chromebooks right for Mom?

With Mother's day coming up, many people will be looking for that perfect gift which many times can be a new laptop. However, there are thousands of options based on size, color, storage capacity, ram, et cetera. The most important starting point is operating system. Now, if you have a ton of money or just really love your mother (joking!), you could opt for the Macbook or iPad. They are excellent "computers" for everyday tasks that would be perfect, but unfortunately, that will set you back a few months of rent or mortgage or whatever. So, while I have no issue with Apple, and I actually love the simplistic design, I may advise against that. So, that leaves you with either the old reliable Windows PCs of which there are many or the somewhat newcomer that is the Chromebook. Now, Chromebooks tend to be cheaper and run faster, but are they really the right choice for Mom (or you if you choose to treat yourself)? The first question to ask is, "what do you do with ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Checking in on me?

Admittedly, it has been a slower news day in my tech sphere, and I have not had a ton of time to do more research. But I find myself wondering tonight: how many people check in, and do you think it is a good idea to do so? While I understand privacy concerns, I leave my life mainly open for the public. I tend to share my life with the world through Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. At any given time, those in my circle on social media know where I am, what I am doing, and who I am doing it with. Why do I do this  you ask? Is it vanity of making others jealous, or is it simply to let others know? Well, honestly, it is a little both. The most important issue others see with this lifestyle is that I am letting the entire world know where I am. I get the hesitation with checking in on social media. For instance, if someone would wish to harm me for some strange reason, they would know where to find me. Also, if someone would desire to rob me, they would know that I am not home. T...
Post a Comment
Read more

In-display sensors or facial scanners: which will take off?

The fingerprint sensor may be moving back to the front...under the screen. Could this be the next big trend in mobile technology (see previous entry about current trend)? Or, will companies move the Apple way and opt for facial recognition for security? With the debut of the iPhone X, Apple shifted away from the fingerprint sensor and debuted FaceID. Utilizing (arguably) some of the most advanced cameras and sensors, the iPhone X negated the need for fingerprint, bio-metric security by using 3D facial recognition to verify identity. In doing so, the home button vanished from the iPhone along with the ability to scan fingerprints. Several months later, at CES, Vivo demoed the first phone using in-display fingerprint scanner technology ; the idea being to remove bezels on the front as well remove the sensor from the back of the body. Prior to CES, many believed that Samsung would be the first to debut the technology, but they were held back by mass-producing and technological restra...
Post a Comment
Read more