[iamben]

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. The way we consume changed dramatically over the last 20 years, and with change, it means where, how and who profits changes.

I'm all for competition but I feel it's going to end up ruining it for those that consume, and ultimately those who create - in both music and movies.

Spotify is as close to 'perfect' as I think we've seen a streaming service so far. Most, if not all of the people I know who'd prolifically or casually pirated music (but rarely, if ever bought it), now pay for Spotify. Most, if not all those who bought music now pay for Spotify instead. Because it's easier. And it's all there - and it doesn't cost you to experiment and change your mind.

But when artists (Taylor Swift, etc) start leaving because it doesn't pay as much as the heydays, and start moving to services that promise more cash, everything becomes more fractured. The reason people pay is because it's easier that pirating. Napster was easy. Everything was there so you consumed. But no one wants to pay for 5 services / install 5 apps / whatever. So they'll just end up not bothering, and by that point they won't be buying either. And everyone will lose.

[freehunter]

Exactly. And if music I want isn't on Spotify... I just don't listen to it. For better or worse. I like Garth Brooks, but I haven't listened to his stuff in ages because it's just not available to me. I don't own a CD player and I have a 16GB iPhone so local music is out even if I wanted to pirate it.

I mean, I'm not even going to switch to piracy. Local music is out and it's not coming back for me. If Mr or Miss Big Name don't want me to listen to their music, there are a thousand other bands I will switch to.

[diminoten]

Spotify is not as good as Google Music.

Why does everyone forget Google Music? And you can't leave Google Music to boot -- not without leaving YouTube too!

[freehunter]

People forget about Google Music because Google seems to have forgotten about Google Music. Same with Google Voice. They don't push it, no one will use it. Personally for me, I switched from Google Music to Spotify because Google boycotts Windows Phone. I don't have the patience to put something in my workflow that doesn't work on every platform I use.

[ewzimm]

There are a lot of good streaming music services, but Spotify is the only one that seems to be committed to working everywhere on every device. That means a lot more to most people than having a specific artist or audio quality.

[toomuchtodo]

> Spotify is not as good as Google Music.

> Why does everyone forget Google Music?

I believe you've answered your own question. Spotify doesn't have to be better, users just must enjoy the experience more.

“No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.” —CmdrTaco, Slashdot (regarding the ipod versus the Nomad)

[morkfromork]

The problem I have with Google music is every time I upgrade the OS or hard drive it counts that as a new device. Max of 10 devices. You can only remove 4 devices from you account per year. I ran out of devices so no more Google Music.

[mynegation]

No, Spotify is better than Google Music, at least for me. When I went to Spotify's mobile site they did not require cc number before I even seen anything, Google music did. Spotify gave me tens of not hundreds pre-canned playlists, Google Music iOS app presented me the blank slate and nothing else.

If you think Google music is better, it would be interesting why you think it is.

[orbitingpluto]

I noticed that Google Play plays at 320kbps while Spotify plays at 128kbps (or lower). I don't splurge on $200+ headphones so I don't notice a quality difference, but I suppose some people can.

Google Play can be murderous to a data plan, but they also allow you to upload your own music. I don't think Taylor Swift is on a Google Play subscription either, but you can upload your mp3 and then have it available to you.

[mynegation]

Thank you, this is the kind of answer I would expect in defence of Google Play. I do notice the difference between 128 and 320 kbps on some musical pieces. I am not Spotify Premium now and they stream 320 to premium users.

The point about uploading your music is very valid one, it is just that I personally do not want Google to have it and manage it between devices myself.

[diminoten]

Google Music has radio stations, as many (if not more) "precanned" playlists as Spotify, it's a higher quality music (as another user mentioned, double the bitrate), it has more music (if it's on YouTube, it's on Google Music), it's Google so the UX is solid (and if it's not, you know it's continually getting worked on), and not to mention the integration it has with Android -- as a Google product, it gets first-class treatment by its devs (Google would never release a sub-par Android app for one of its top tier offerings).

I have $7/month to spend, and I want the best I can possibly get for that $7. Google Music is that product.

[radley]

That's unlikely. Music has historically been fractured:

- radio stations only playing certain genres

- stores only carrying certain labels, hits

- releases only on vinyl or cassette, but not CD

- available on CD, but not digital download

- available for digital download, but not streaming

and so on...

Music flows through channels.

[api]

Maybe not, but I am afraid one consequence might be less really great music and less people pursuing it as a dedicated career. Not that it was ever easy, but it's only getting harder.