Google Play Music All Access Is Version 1.0

Google announced and demonstrated Google Play Music All Access at the Google I/O Conference today. A logical phase in the evolution of the Google Cloud Music strategy.

I signed up for a 30 day “free” trial. If I decide to pay for a monthly subscription it will cost me $7.99 a month ($9.99 if I decide to buy later).

Google positions Google Play as a Version 1.0 cloud music store. Google Music released in May 2011 translates Google Play into two-year beta. The question you may be asking is what did Google do in two years with Google Play? My direct response is “parity” with the rest of the cloud music players Pandora, Rdio, iTunes and Amazon Cloud Player. I respect “parity” can be an enormous undertaking but this makes Google Play a follower not a leader in the crowded cloud music marketplace.

She’s Not There

Three “natural” technology competitive advantages Google failed to capitalize on with Google Play 1.0.

1) YouTube integration (limited to Share YouTube Video now). This is a trump card for Google, especially since Google announced a YouTube subscription model just recently.

2) Google+ integration. Social networking with Google Play should be a slam dunk. Google Play Hangouts as a listening party makes perfect sense.

3) Voice activated Google Play is missing. “Okay Google. Play me Three Dog Night’s Celebrate.”

Google Play as the “Spotify” killer greatly exaggerates the situation.

High on my list is to hear Google Play on an HTC Beats Audio so I can better discern Google Play’s sound on a smart phone.

That’s my first take on Google Play.

58 Lambert Drive, Milford, CT

4 Replies to “Google Play Music All Access Is Version 1.0”

  1. I’m curious why you would be a member of EFF? You do understand that their policies do not support the sustainability and fair compensation for artists. While they’re reluctant to admit it, EFF is funded by Google.

    You do realize that the tech industry views music as a speed bump on the road to empire building. Don’t you?

    Unless you believe recorded music has no value and is simply an incentive to sell concert tickets and t-shirts, being a member of EFF is an affront to most of the musicians you write about here.

    1. You are horribly misinformed and misled about what the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s charter represents in terms of our digital freedoms. The opinions you are expressing about EFF, Google etc. are incorrect and have been debunked as far back as 2008.

      What you are failing to comprehend is that I am a technologist with very open and liberal views.

      I debated taking you to task for your inaccuracies. Your naiveté and assumptions about how loyal a fan/customer/music journalist I am misses the fact that I have purchased ALL my music since the first 45 rpm record in the early 60s. I am very supportive of an artists right to be paid for their music. Yes I am a Spotify customer (and they are paying artists and the labels). I draw the line at music piracy. I do not nor will I ever pirate music. I know the cost of software piracy full well as an ex-Microsoft employee. You have never heard my speech on piracy to EVERY student I have ever taught and that numbers in the thousands.

      I respect the RIAA but reserve the right to question its authority and over reaching tactics.

      Digital copyright is rewriting the artist and record label landscape. You might be surprised to learn how many musicians support the Electronic Frontier Foundation and our InterWeb freedoms, beginning with Michael Stipe, David Byrne and Eddie Veder for starters.

      “For the times they are digitally changing”

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.