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

Where do tablets belong?

Last night, I had a sudden thought: where does my tablet belong in my tech life? I have always loved the thought of having a need and purpose for every piece of technology I own. For instance, my computer does all of my heavy lifting (photo and video editing) while my phone does all of communicating and daily living tasks. My Chromecast ? That is for tossing music and videos to my TV. Google Home Mini ? What a great little assistant for quick information and getting my day started. I use my Xbox for gaming while my Huawei Watch gives me quick updates and almost-hands-free communication. So, where does my Kindle come in? I originally bought my Kindle Fire to be a consumption device and makeshift pseudo-laptop as mine is not very portable. I thought I would use it for all of Netflix watching as I moved about the house as well as for reading plenty of books; I even intended it to be useful to bang out a quick blog post or article. We probably had a great relationship at first...and ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Digital well-being is the trend of the year

Digital well-being is this year's buzzword With the keynote of WWDC officially over, it is safe to say one thing: digital well-being is the trendy topic of the year. I/O last month and WWDC have demonstrated that the key players in mobile devices (seemingly) want you to put your phone down. However, which company has the right idea in how to do it? Both iOS 12 and Android P have showcased coming features to address "digital well-being". For all intents and purposes, these words just mean that Apple and Google "want" you to spend less time on your phone; at least, that is the image they are portraying. Both iOS and Android offer new dashboards Now, how are they both doing it? While they differ in the approach, they have very similar tools. For instance, both operating systems will allow you to set timers on apps so that you can spend as much or as little times in those apps as you choose. If you go over, you get shut out of the app. In additio...
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