[daveloyall]

Grr... Is google seeking praise for slightly loosening the shackles?

This "YouTube Go" MIGHT be a media player. It MIGHT operate on files. It MIGHT be possible to share a video via some mechanism other than bluetooth.

The other day I was trying to convince to a user that she should want to own her content, rather than rent it... when I suddenly realized that he doesn't know what a file is. Moreover, he doesn't realize what it is good for...

Once you have a (DRM free) file, it's yours. You physically possess it. That means you can copy it, share it, back it up, print it, pipe the raw ones and zeros to your PC speaker, whatever. The next generation might not get that...

The fact of the matter is that until I was college-aged, nobody taught me more about computers than Microsoft did. I read every .txt file and .hlp file that existed on my C:\ drive. Not to mention the physical manuals... Then I went on to Linux, etc.

So I KNOW what a file is. You and I can have a conversation about mtimes. We can rattle off a list of traits that each file must possess to BE a file.

What the heck is Google teaching this next generation?

[exolymph]

Owning is just so much less convenient than renting access. I vastly prefer the experience of using Spotify and Netflix to the experience of maintaining my own music and media collections.

[ki85squared]

While I agree, renting access often comes with the trade-off of losing control of your content. Netflix's content licensing agreements are finite, and your favorite movie or show could be gone next week. When you own the files, you own them for however long you desire.

[exolymph]

True, there are always tradeoffs. This particular tradeoff doesn't bother me because I can always get a copy of a particular file if I need to, e.g. if Netflix pulls down a show I like.

[Ajedi32]

For music at least, you can get the best of both worlds with Google Music. Any songs you purchase, you own. You can download them, back them up, migrate them to a different service, whatever. For songs you don't own, you can still stream them and save them offline as long as you're subscribed.

AFAIK no real equivalent to this exists in the video streaming world yet. Plex is starting to come close though: https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/26/plex-cloud-online-server...

[daveloyall]

You can download them TWICE. I guess after that you smell like a pirate.

[thirdsun]

I understand that people have different priorities, but as others already mentioned licensing deals end and you might find yourself without access to countless favorite albums at some point, despite having paid Spotify & Co. for years. And that's not even discussing the huge amount of obscure, leftfield music and rare stuff that won't be available on any streaming platform, ever. For me, as a music enthusiast and collector, the selection on streaming platforms is way too limited. The same applies to films and shows - there the situation is even worse. Netflix selection is very, very poor and of course they know it, which explains the heavy focus on original and exclusive content.

[1_2__3]

This is what everybody thinks the first few years.

[WalterBright]

It isn't just Google. There's no user concept of a file on the iPhone, either.

[daveloyall]

When I kvetch about this kind of thing, my wife likes to remind me: it's everything.

It's hard to find a can opener that will last a long time. Food is made as cheaply as possible. Movies are carefully crafted to maximize profit, not to tell stories. Advertisements lie.

If you deconstruct it all down as far as you can go, you land on money. Well, I do. She says its "human nature". Whatever that is.