Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Music, a new music streaming service, is coming soon

youtube.googleblog.com

311–320 of 332 posts

Re: YouTube Music, a new music streaming service, is coming soon

#311
post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the movie theater and the previews.

I liked previews more when they didn't spoil the entire movie. Movie theaters are okay for louder movies. I regret watching a quiet place in a theater. The loud audience did their best to ruin the experience.

Some theaters charge a little more and have a one-warning policy before ejecting customers for talking or using cellphones. I watched A Quiet Place in such a theater and thoroughly enjoyed the experience - the high-quality surround sound was great for a movie that relies so much on sound design.

Re: YouTube Music, a new music streaming service, is coming soon

#312
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this the height of arrogance that Google charges for this and it enrages me on a level I freely admit is irrational and pointless. But just the gall: 1. Get FREE creative work from musicians, film types, tv types, and tons of bright friendly ordinary people 2. Monetize the hell out of it (fine) 3. Allow a sewer community of racists bullies and other terrible people to develop in comments section (negligent but…

You fail to mention that YouTube allows people to monetize off the content they create. There are a whole lot of content creators whose sole income source is YouTube. Many of those videos wouldn't exist if there was no monetary incentive. So, yes, YouTube does profit off a lot of content it doesn't own, but it generates a ton too.

Not really. The truth is more that Google lured independent content creators to their platform with monetization, and is now driving them away by gasligighting them with obscure and impossible to follow rules, to make room for cable tv news shows and inane reality tv stars.

Most of my favorite youtubers have been demonetized, and had to change their content if they wanted to survive. The Alternative History channel was gaslighted pretty bad and their G-rated animated mini-documentary videos got flagged for hate speech(?), while Logan Paul made tens of thousands of dollars from YouTube monetizing his disrespecting a Japanese corpse.

Re: YouTube Music, a new music streaming service, is coming soon

#313

The way Google brands products reminds me of Microsoft when they tried to attach an unrelated product to a moderately popular consumer brand (Looking at you Groove Music, I mean Xbox Music, I mean Zune Music) There is nothing wrong with Google Play Music apart from the 'Play' misnomer. Google Music should be a standalone product that competes with Spotify. It's a well defined and well understood category. YouTube is…

Just so you're aware, you already get background playback on mobile devices if you pay for YouTube Red.

You COULD play any YouTube video in the background on Chrome on iOS until about a year ago. YouTube specifically sabotaged their site by registering hooks that stop the video when the browser loses focus, so you can't even view something in another tab, much less turn the screen off. This "feature" is a regression with no benefit to the user, and Google was so ashamed at what they did that they didn't even tell anyone.

Luckily, you can thwart it by: 1) Requesting the desktop version of a YouTube video 2) Replacing youtube.com with hooktube.com in the address bar

Perhaps soon Google will disable the use of labels in GMail and then charge you for "GMail Red" to get access to them again.

Shitty move on their part.

Re: YouTube Music, a new music streaming service, is coming soon

#314

The way Google brands products reminds me of Microsoft when they tried to attach an unrelated product to a moderately popular consumer brand (Looking at you Groove Music, I mean Xbox Music, I mean Zune Music) There is nothing wrong with Google Play Music apart from the 'Play' misnomer. Google Music should be a standalone product that competes with Spotify. It's a well defined and well understood category. YouTube is…

To be fair YouTube has been primarily a music streaming service for years. All of the top viewed videos are music, this mostly adds an alternate UI.

Re: YouTube Music, a new music streaming service, is coming soon

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just so you're aware, you already get background playback on mobile devices if you pay for YouTube Red.

I find this the height of arrogance that Google charges for this and it enrages me on a level I freely admit is irrational and pointless. But just the gall: 1. Get FREE creative work from musicians, film types, tv types, and tons of bright friendly ordinary people 2. Monetize the hell out of it (fine) 3. Allow a sewer community of racists bullies and other terrible people to develop in comments section (negligent but…

Disabling background play in the YouTube app is driven from the licensing deals they have with record labels. If they don't (make a reasonable attempt to) show the ads they don't have permission to show the video/play the music.

I suspect they could theoretically allow background play for other content but that would be confusing to users.

Re: YouTube Music, a new music streaming service, is coming soon

#316

The way Google brands products reminds me of Microsoft when they tried to attach an unrelated product to a moderately popular consumer brand (Looking at you Groove Music, I mean Xbox Music, I mean Zune Music) There is nothing wrong with Google Play Music apart from the 'Play' misnomer. Google Music should be a standalone product that competes with Spotify. It's a well defined and well understood category. YouTube is…

It's almost as if google hired the people from microsoft who did it over there

The only thing I can surmise is that they either just want no part of competing in the music arena (there are definitely folks within Google that want to, are working to compete, and probably have made some great things to boot) but it definitely has never felt like something Google was pushing for in terms of it being it's flagship product / project. In a sense Google+ never really felt that way to me either, beyond just being annoyingly invasive during the rollover and there after.

It feels like with Google's back catalog of audio (via Youtube and otherwise) plus their ability to ID and catalog all types of data makes me feel that their ultimate, final form music service could be the most certain home run / competition killer ever rolled out but to me that doesn't seem AT ALL compatible with Google's new product roll out method which seems to be: quietly release new product / project and hope it catches on for being really great at what it does.

Their method of roll out, from my POV, makes them look smarter when a project without an inaudible roll out becomes a smash hit and also makes them look less "of a failure?" when their roll out of a project winds up being an eventual failure (I think they learned this lesson for the final ultimate time with Google+, if I had to guess).

I don't know if their "ideal roll out method" (from my POV, from my mind) is compatible with releasing a true "Google Music" Project / Product / Service.

In my (our?) mind(s) I (we) can clearly see all the cogs and ability and musical data and artist / music metadata to power and skin a potential "Google Music" so what is or has stopped them from releasing such a product, ultimately?

Re: YouTube Music, a new music streaming service, is coming soon

#317

The way Google brands products reminds me of Microsoft when they tried to attach an unrelated product to a moderately popular consumer brand (Looking at you Groove Music, I mean Xbox Music, I mean Zune Music) There is nothing wrong with Google Play Music apart from the 'Play' misnomer. Google Music should be a standalone product that competes with Spotify. It's a well defined and well understood category. YouTube is…

Despite the existence of Spotify, Pandora, Google Music, etc. There is a huge group of people (among the largest on youtube) that listen to music using youtube playlists. This was definitely true when I was in college a few years ago. I think the main reason is that (partly thanks to copyright violations) YouTube a very reliable source for finding any song you're looking for, from ultra-popular to my-buddy-made-a-tra…

I'm not an audiophile in terms of music quality although I'll always spring for the highest quality version I can obtain when I have the choice but so long as that's not ~Top 3 on your list of important features of your musical source than I imagine Youtube might just be the best option for a given listener who has the capability to connect to the internet, has a speaker or musical setup to play music via the computer / internet / Youtube and the ability to connect Youtube / any internet audio source up to your daily musical needs (dock in bathroom while getting ready in the morning, AUX in car, headphones / dock at work, AUX in car, bluetooth boom box at the skatepark after work, dock to wind down to audio tapes while getting ready for bed).

Depending on what "general" field of music you tend to listen to the most Youtube is arguably the best source of music in the world if you have the capability and ability to use the internet and relay it to a speaker for yourself. The reason I say 'depending' is because when it comes to popular music, historical or forgotten music, less popular music, older artists, obscure artists, obscure songs, music from non-music releases (soundtracks, music embedded into tv or movies or games, live recordings, etc.) and that's just music -- not even getting into talk radio, podcasts, interviews, sports news, sports talk, political news, political talk, and the thousands if not millions of sub-categories and genres you could dig into for more entertainment.

Youtube is undoubtedly the best source for 99% of that type of material. Now the reason that I can't say 100% is because Soundcloud really does happen to have a large and disproportionately (oddly enough) relevant segment of what's going on in music today.

I think if you are the type of person who is really into EDM and going to festivals than Soundcloud might be a better all around music app for you -- depending on what you like to listen to them most.

For the vast majority (90%+) of my casual music listening I am listening to Soundcloud. A lot of the artists I listen to are outside of the US and their artist names and/or track names might be in a language I don't understand or even be represented by characters or kanji that I can't even start to interpret let alone type into a search bar.

From the outside looking in without any context or history with Soundcloud you may not see the appeal but if I sit here and try to rationalize things without injecting my own personal opinion I guess I'd just say that Soundcloud, over the last 5-7 years, has without a doubt been the largest source for individuals and labels / label A&Rs / music executives / taste makers / influential DJs / etc. to discover and enjoy new music by new artists in a very direct way. This has led directly to many of the artists we know and hear of today being a product of discovery via the Internet and Soundcloud.

When the Spotifys, Google Musics, Pandoras, and iTunes-types talk in private I always wonder how much they pay attention to the canyon between how successful Soundcloud is in so many needed / important / relevant criteria (in terms of metrics any competing music service would dream to hit) yet at the same time being a terrible failure in terms of earnings and as a picture of a company you'd want to emulate.

I wonder how much of the insanity of Soundcloud being broke yet making their biggest artists into millionaires factors into the other competing services going about business.

You obviously have to do lots of things wrong to be as big as known as Soundcloud is yet be broke.

Also, you obviously have to do lots of things right to be as big and as known as Soundcloud, be broke, and still be able to deliver that service that has kept so many faithful patrons and contributors coming back for more all these years.

It's like a train crash that you can't look away from. Sadly enough, I have lots of important memories and slices of entertainment on that train so there's more reasons than "I'm a morbid human" for watching it explode into a fiery ball of failures.

Re: YouTube Music, a new music streaming service, is coming soon

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they should have just let people upload audio files with a title card, rather than fragment the service into another app. Would have fixed the bandwidth/battery problem and kept the interface, network, etc.

Lots of music just have a static image anyway, I wonder if YouTube couldn't figure something out to automatically re-encode such videos into audio-only streams, making them less bandwidth intensive. I'm no coder but that doesn't sound like something impossible to do.

If the image is a single keyframe of the video, the remaining frames have an empty delta and shouldn't take much (if any) space.

Re: YouTube Music, a new music streaming service, is coming soon

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this the height of arrogance that Google charges for this and it enrages me on a level I freely admit is irrational and pointless. But just the gall: 1. Get FREE creative work from musicians, film types, tv types, and tons of bright friendly ordinary people 2. Monetize the hell out of it (fine) 3. Allow a sewer community of racists bullies and other terrible people to develop in comments section (negligent but…

Disabling background play in the YouTube app is driven from the licensing deals they have with record labels. If they don't (make a reasonable attempt to) show the ads they don't have permission to show the video/play the music. I suspect they could theoretically allow background play for other content but that would be confusing to users.

The stuff I want to background is not music, lately it's been a lot of conference talks, and most of the time there's not even an ad.

Even when I've used YouTube for music, the ads are always pre-roll. If I watch the pre-roll ad, why not let me background at that point?

Google could allow backgrounding for content with no ads. They could allow backgrounding of non musical content if you've watched the ad (they can detect if it's music and what song it is, that's how they pay royalties to labels on songs uploaded by random people). They could allow backgrounding of musical content if you've watched the ad.

YouTube doesn't attempt to handle any of these scenarios. Handling these scenarios would involve an investment of software and possibly legal resources — only to improve the experience of millions and millions of users, and to conserve tons of energy, without making Google any money, and even potentially reducing revenue to YouTube Red (or Premium or whatever it is next week). Why would a company in a monopoly position do that? I get WHY Google won't do this. It's not about licensing, it's about money and motivations. But I'm not going to pay into it.

Post reply on HN