Without paying I can watch one video on my TV while browsing other videos on my laptop to queue up.
With paying as soon as look up a video on my laptop I get an error on the tv "only one device allowed"
Pay for movie theater ticket, get served 30+ minutes of ads.
(edit) Pay for DVD, get unskippable "antipiracy ads".
Torrent the movie, and you'll be watching the movie in under 3 minutes of download.
If you're non-paying customer, with some services, you may get around with a VPN. If you're paying for the service - virtually everyone uses your billing address, so you're paying to have access denied.
Just had that experience with GPM recently (other services are no better)
In Thailand, there is (was?) a 5-minute-long (literally) memorial video dedicated to King Rama IX before every movie. Everyone in the theatre is expected to stand for the video's entirety - after the 30 minutes of ads and trailers.
It's akin to a debate about whether Apple was right to push copies of U2's albums onto all iTunes users , and someone chiming in with, "But I don't mind U2!"
Man, you aren’t kidding. I’m a spoiled Seattleite who can walk to two IMAX theaters attached to a non-profit science center, Paul Allen’s Cinerama, and an indie theater. I had the experience of going to a big name multiplex theater in another city recently, and I just had to shake my head at how awful the experience was for how
much it cost.
Pick your ticket online, show up a few minutes earlier, enjoy a decent appetizer, and get a drink or two while the movie is on. Whatever floats your boat. I find it's a much better experience and frankly not that much more expensive than sitting through hell my local multiplex
This way, when you make your seat selection, you can choose if you want the convenience and slight distraction of waiters, or if you just want the comfy chair and no waiter.
But still, I've torrented every DvD I own and the discs rot in the attic. I never cared about the extras anyway time to watch is ~a hundred times lower.
There are at least 2 sites that have a way better selection than any video store, amazon or Netflix ever will have.
Except that some hosts force you to watch an ad (30 secs) it is literally the most comfortable way to consume anything.
Now it's one or the other, and I can't even get around it by playing music on another device since I use Google Play Music.
Shame Google Play Music is going away, it does some cool things. It lets me upload my own music so I can actually listen to Tool on a streaming service. It lets me build up a collection of music without necessarily endorsing it with a positive rating. And of course it has most albums I go looking for.
But it's a Google product, so of course once it's made its way into your routine it gets canceled. I had hoped that the payment model would delay that a bit longer...
: Tool is super pretentious and says they don't make songs, they make albums. So their music is not available on any services that would allow for buying singles, even if you could also buy the album. It's only available (last I checked) on Pandora where you're going to get nothing but singles and have no ability to listen to the full album.
-Adding a song to a playlist causes the entire playlist to refresh back to the top
-The app is borderline useless without a connection - queuing songs doesn't work, modifying playlists is inconsistent at best, and the app seems to arbitrarily undownload albums
- There's no ability to sort or filter a playlist. Spotify has let you search within a playlist or sort by artist for how many years, and Google can't hash out the same functionality.
-Sometimes modifying playlists seems to desync them between the device and server, or something. I'll click a song, which starts for a brief second and then skips 3-5 songs down the playlist. Likewise, sometimes songs skip halfway through, sometimes they refuse to play at all...This is for me the basic functionality of a music app and GPM fails at it. These problems seem server related because they're 100x worse when casting.
At least it comes with YouTube Red. Though the existing YT Music app inexplicably does not allow you to queue videos on a chromecast. Regular youtube, I can add a dozen music videos to an editable queue. YT music, you must play each individually. Does Google have product managers?
Thanks for your work on GPM. Don't know when you left the team, but there was a time when it was pretty even to the other offerings and it's still got its qualities. After all, I'm still paying for it.
What makes you say that? From the linked blog:
> If you are a subscriber to Google Play Music, good news, you get a YouTube Music Premium membership as part of your subscription each month. And if you use Google Play Music, nothing will change -- you’ll still be able to access all of your purchased music, uploads and playlists in Google Play Music just like always.
Years and years of experience with cloud-hosted products and anything that requires official support to continue to function.
Their refresher series on linear algebra is seriously amazing as is other content. :)
I will agree there's not a lot of options, though.
No more ads. Ability to download videos for a long commute / plane ride.
I don't have a YouTube account, and don't plan on creating one either.
Most of the time even if I pause my Google Play Music and open a new Youtube tab to watch a video I get the you can't watch two things at once notice. Very annoying.
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 a different product, used by different people, for different purposes and in different ways. Now you're confusing everything. Can I get audio-only version of YouTube videos or just YouTube music videos or does it have to be an audio-only upload? Does that mean you can have audio-only YouTube videos now (even without putting in some reference image?)? Is it going to kill my bandwidth if I try to stream on LTE? Is it going to replace Google Music? Are my playlists in Google Music and YouTube going to be replaced? Will there be YouTube comments on music (I hope not)? Can anybody upload to YouTube music? A year ago Google added mediocre support for podcasts to Google Music instead of building a dedicated app - will YouTube Music handle podcasts? URGH!
All they needed to do was to add background playback to YouTube and maybe a little link to the YouTube video in Google Music, and if you're watching a music video on YouTube, a link to a streaming service of your choice (like Google Music, Spotify or Apple Music).
Given how poorly this has been thought through, you just know in 2 years there will be another rebrand.
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-track-on-ableton-once. New singles will always hit youtube, but won't always hit every streaming service, but this has gotten better in recent years.
IMO, record studios aren't satisfied with the (relatively tiny) revenue from X million views on their youtube videos, it started out as a marketing channel for them, but now they believe the play-on-demand nature is cutting into their earning (it is). From YouTube's end this is a move to appease record studios concerned and simultaneously extract more money from an existing user base.
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.
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?
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 ok it's gotten a little better)
4. Make it hard for visitors to extract original media even though you're purporting to be a hosting service (lame but I can live with it)
5. Cripple playback in basic ways for petty reasons (you're starting to really suck)
6. Try and CHARGE people to undo 5 (Gah!!!!! Die!!!)
I pay for a lot of things. I pay Hulu extra for the ad free version. I pay HBO for HBO Now even though I have a pirated Go login. I buy tv shows on iTunes. I'll even buy movies off friggin' Amazon if it means not pirating them. But I will never pay Google to achieve BASIC playback capabilities on other people's content just on PRINCIPLE. Never. Greedy greedy little leeches. YouTube is a great thing but the people who run it have turned Bad.
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.
I suspect they could theoretically allow background play for other content but that would be confusing to users.
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.
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.
My point is not that YouTube shouldn't add better Music support. My point is that it won't/can't replace something like Spotify.
Calling it now, within 5 years there are at least 5 different Google services for streaming music (up from 3 now, Play Music/Youtube/Youtube Music) at least 2 of which are also somehow messaging apps.
It's even plausible, one for VR music videos, one for streaming in your self driving google car?
1.5 YT Music (basically a music-oriented front-end to YouTube)
2. Google Play Music All-Access
3. YouTube Music Premium (from the article)
4. (or 3.5) VEVO
I particularly enjoyed this quote:
> The days of jumping back and forth between multiple music apps and YouTube are over.
As the above list shows, this is demonstrably false. Given that YouTube Red (or YouTube Premium as they'll soon be rebranding it as) is also part of this package, Google Play Music All-Access is beginning to resemble something of an AV-oriented Prime membership. Lots of benefits, not a lot of focus, but hey, maybe they'll buy up PornHub and add PornHub subscriptions to the stack whether you want it or not, just to make your recurring monthly payments a bit stickier.
All these different music apps and messaging apps... What's going on at Google?
What a mess.
See for example the Instant messaging apps they have done:
0) Google Wave
1) Google Talk
3) Google Duo and Google Allo
4) Android Messaging
5) other ?
and of course of course the Task mess good has implemented in Google Assistant, Google Tasks, Google Calendar and Google Keep.
Seriously Google needs to plan better their brands and services.
If this is your lens then their drunk sailor march of products is not much of a surprise. In fact, those who see it as a monopoly might even suggest its "failures" are intentional, or at least ultimately a (regulatory) positive for The Google.
Side note: In the hands of just about anyone else, Wave would have - and probably still could - bury Slack. Wave was the future. A future that would have been mucked by ads. That was its downfall.
Possibly. I see these products more of putting a bunch of smart programmers in a room with no management. Everyone wants to throw out the old and build something new. I've seen it myself at many companies, just at a much smaller scale. Google can get away with this because their search cash cow.
A good analogy is team building for a single product and only having experienced master programmers. Is there enough interesting work for a team of only master programmers? Teams usually work best with a mix of experience so that the grunt work for one member is learning/great work for another.
I mean they did open source it and hand it off to Apache:
Me and another online friend agreed that Wave was just too hip and cool and ahead of itself that regular users would never appreciate it, and I think Google realized as well, it would of been cool to have seen Google Code feature Wave as a feature of Google Code back in the day, maybe it would of made it more popular back then.
It still saddens me to see Microsoft (CodePlex) and Google (Google Code) both shutdown GitHub alternatives which just needed more love and care given to them.
"Too hip"? Early on MySpace was too hip. Twitter, FB, etc. all too hip. That said, eventually such things mainstream. Given how well Wave reflected actual conversation I think it could have caught on. Again, it was better than Slack, and look where Slack is.
No disrespect of Slack. But Wave was actually something special.
Not sure I am following? Looking at top 10 apps for all smartphones they own five of the top ten. Then at websites it is a similar story.
Can you explain?
Thiel takes them to task in Zero to One. Worth reading just for that.
Purely from a payment processing point of view, unless Google wants to fight Visa, MasterCard and other institutions this will never happen. There are a lot of restrictions around content and payment processors that you would assume is covered by freedom of speech that in a practical sense isn't.
There is an obvious hole right there that I'm sure they could fill with a blockchain or anonymous gift cards. Or both! They could be the leading service provider for using the blockchain to verify gift cards in a distributed ledger and use it as middleware to convert gift cards into Google Points. What are Google Points good for? Anything cash is good for! So buying ad placements (on Google), music subscriptions (provided by Google), extra cloud storage (in the Google Cloud of course, 'scuse me, Google One), stock (in GOOG) and groceries (via Google Express).
Or you know, they could just inherit whatever agreements PornHub has with their existing payment processor that covers PornHub Premium on their way to reinventing Prime. That isn't as sexy as making 5 more payment apps though. Definitely not as sticky and not enough blockchain.
For me this makes it incredible useless. I doubt they actually want to build anything intuitive for that problem.
Why do you think I'm being sarcastic?
Credit card companies don't want to be held responsible if your CC payment is being used for the sexual exploitation of people. They don't want to be associated with revenge porn, etc. I'm sure there's a puritan reasoning in there too somewhere, but TBF I doubt that's the primary reason given how big the porn market would be for companies like that.
Tried to start a site that wasn't for but did allow adult content and every payment processor closed their shutters on us
Visa and MC should be broken up, or at the very least regulated to the extent they can't cough without regulatory oversight.
It does, the same way it covers everyone else: corporations are actors who have freedom of speech, a fundamental component of which is the ability to choose what speech they will and will not participate in, either as initiator or intermediary.
With bank transfers, no one except law regulates what you can pay for. With EC, same. With VISA/MasterCard/PayPal, selling cuban cigars in Germany from a German company to a German customer gets you banned.
I guess someone should tell them about the paradox of choice, branch dilution and the fact that despite Google being big, they're not an entire market unto themselves.
Google: make 1 big, single, integrated service and when a startup supplants you in your selected market, just buy them for $15 billion.
Except they are only doing the first part, putting out a lot products. At some point they have to kill off the other products and put the combined resources behind the one that wins. All I see is more products getting released.
I can only think of counter examples... everywhere google spreads too thin they lose market share to competitors. Messaging is the prime example.
Personally, I don't know of any other Google search projects, other than Google Search itself.
They tried that with Google Plus. It didn't work so they tried to buy Twitter. That also didn't work, so we have the Google we have now.
And I guess, given the context, two similar comments can be tolerated. ;-)
Seriously though, YouTube is not a music service, or at least it looks like they don't want it to be, since the interface isn't really great for that case. It also kills phone battery if you use it that way, so YouTube music is an experience upgrade.
I have to disagree there, it's become my new de-facto music service on my desktop/tablet, at least since I failed to properly move my iTunes database and lost/unorganized large parts of my music collection.
The autoplay and mix playlist features are great for discovering new artists, even tho the algorithm can get a bit repetitive and after a while starts populating many lists with the same songs, having the music videos to many songs is also a great added bonus.
I'm no coder but that doesn't sound like something impossible to do.
Based on the press release, it doesn't seem so. It's basically just added a "music only" option, but otherwise it seems to just be a curated section of Youtube that only involves musical content. The same experience you get with vanilla Youtube seems to be applicable.
And looking at the pricing, you still get all the battery pitfalls baked into Youtube unless you buy premium.
Honestly, it feels more like an attempt to curate Youtube rather than developing a music app. Right now the top video content competes with the published Music content and likely just creates a really weird imbalance in the algorithm toppers.
Personally, I think they could have just handled this with some better organization within Youtube, but here we are with a new app.
P.S. Sometimes, people break out the humor for good reason. I mean, really?
However, this announcement muddies the waters a bit.
> If you are a subscriber to Google Play Music, good news, you get a YouTube Music Premium membership as part of your subscription each month.
Cool, I guess, except I don't go to YouTube for Music. I really am incredibly interested in YouTube Red. I mean YouTube Premium, I guess.
> To extend the features of YouTube Music Premium beyond the music app, we’re soon introducing YouTube Premium, the new name for our YouTube Red subscription service. [describes YouTube Red] If you’re already a YouTube Red (soon to be YouTube Premium) member, don’t worry you’ll still enjoy your current price.
So, if you have Google Play Music, do you get YouTube Premium?
“When YouTube Premium launches, YouTube Red members will automatically receive access at their current price. In countries where YouTube Red is currently available, a new member can also secure this price ($9.99 in the U.S.) by joining now at youtube.com/red.”
I agree it’s very confusing.
I subscribe to google play music but if I look at my youtube red status is says member. So I assume, I will continue to enjoy it at no extra cost. I chatted with google and they said the same but the wording is really confusing...so who knows.
> I subscribe to google play music but if I look at my youtube red status is says member. So I assume, I will continue to enjoy it at no extra cost. I chatted with google and they said the same but the wording is really confusing...so who knows.
That's reflecting the current pricing structure, no? Currently, buying play music also gets you read. From the article, it looks like you no longer get Red (renamed Premium), you instead only get YT Music.
Buying GPM which gets you YTR won’t get you premium? It’s the same price!!
Also, I subscribed when living in the US and now live in Canada. I'm wondering if I can somehow retain the grandfathered price or an equivalent discount whenever I switch my Google account to know that I live in Canada now. Somehow I'm guessing not... $9.99 Canadian is actually less than $7.99 US most of the time, but YTR isn't available on this side of the border, so I can't lock that in. (YT Premium will be here, the announcement says, at some unspecified later date.)
Canada seems to have the same $7.99 grandfathering deal (but in Canadian dollars) for its early subscribers. Time to ask Google support what they can do, I guess...
I wanted to like amazon music but I could not because of the lack of these features.
Also, if I choose to listen on the new device, it starts playing whatever was playing on the last device, which usually is not what I want since I have different offline lists on different devices. If I'm already playing something on the device, don't ask me to listen to what was on the other device, honor my latest input please.
1) Terrible playlists curated by people (most likely using popularity data) that didn't know anything about the genres or how they should flow.
2) Family Sharing that let family members use my credit card to order stuff.
For a while I worked at building my own playlists on Amazon Music, but the straw that broke the camel's back was a relative inadvertently ordering a cat tree on my dime.
It works really well. I have my raspberry pi plugged into my amplifier, and play through that. I control it with my phone or laptop, whichever is nearer.
This thread implies that there can be a war between apps fighting for control
I've never really used the media keys, so have no idea how it really works in practice. Might have a play when I get home later.
Btw! Thank you for all your hard work! I am die hard for Google All Music Access! I was happy when Google grandfathered me on to YouTube Red too. You guys have done great work overall.
I kinda like the social aspects of Spotify but I really like having random OSTs/DJ mixes all in the same spot
The only reason why I'm not with Spotify, but with Google Music (or now Apple music as test) is because I have a lot of songs that are just not covered in their catalogues that I uploaded myself.
Source - https://www.droid-life.com/2018/05/16/youtube-music-price-la...
Will YouTube Music launch with feature parity w/Google Play Music and offer an upload function so that users can stream tracks they upload themselves?
Except that it's been available on Pandora for years, which is the only major streaming service that doesn't allow you to listen to full albums.
> And if you use Google Play Music, nothing will change -- you’ll still be able to access all of your purchased music, uploads and playlists in Google Play Music just like always.
Google is so strong with ML today, and not stopping, I don't know what will allow smaller competitors to stay differentiated.
I just had a call with a G recruiter, and pretty much 100% of the roles they have in all their European offices are ML-related roles, on most products. And they hire without ML experience, which I think is a sign of how much they are investing in ML.
This is no news, but having this call and seeing how little non-ML they had was really eye opening on how much this is G's focus now, and it can only be exponential I assume.
And yet, YouTube recommendations are terrible lowest common denominator nonsense. It’s just “more of the same” for some surface level definition of “same”. There doesn’t seem to be any playfulness to the learning algorithm at all. No Bayesian experiments. There’s no flex.
Amazon too... so much data, so many smart people.
Why can’t these companies lead me on a garden path of delights? Why can’t they take my hand and walk with me through the full content space? Why do I continually feel that there are vast delightful segments of the catalog I will never see unless I query for them?
That being said, YouTubes recommendation algorithm is mostly garbage. I don't believe it has any insight into the actual content or quality of the videos it recommends.
Except it's not. About 70-80% of my recommandations on YouTube are about bread now.
But no, he's immune.
YouTube simply knows what you'll find tempting to watch by being just a bit more radical than you currently are, in a spiral.
Which is, indeed, garbage...
The music we listen to is way easier to analyse, even if we have some variation in what we like. Sometimes im in the mood for classical, sometimes its rap. Easy to differentiate and offer me playlists for each genre.
It irks me that after being a subscriber for many years, Google Play still doesn't have anything like Spotify's Discover Weekly. The Google Play Music recommendations are just so god-damn awful. I don't know if it's actually the case, but they come across as ads, not recommendations i.e. Some record label paid lots of money to be "recommended" frequently.
It's been pretty good for me with new releases. I mean, it's not perfect but I listen to mostly indie rock and it's turned me on to a lot of stuff I enjoy, and it never suggests top 40. I also never use the thumbs up/down.
One glaring issue is that you can only easily thumb-down individual songs. There used to be a "Not Interested" button hidden the 3-dot drop down menu, I used that all the time but it never seemed to work - probably why they removed it.
You might be assuming that YouTube recommendations are optimized for your enjoyment. In fact, they might be optimized to maximize advertising revenue.
It is known (or has been frequently alleged) that the advertising revenue tier that videos are eligible for influences their position in rankings, for example. Some videos earn more from ads than others, and YouTube ranks the high-earning videos above low-ranking videos purely for that reason. It's very possible that the "lower common denominator nonsense" videos are the popular ones, with broadest appeal, that earn the most advertising revenue for Google.
Because the goal is not to suggest the videos that you're most likely to like. The goal is to maximize revenue. That pirated rip of a How It's Made episode will make them next to nothing, but that 10 minute partnered video "DO GIRLS POOP?!?!??!" will make them how ever many thousands of dollars the creator payed to promote it + ad sharing.
I'm sure doing movies recommendation is easier than youtube videos. For example I watched "this is america" recently. I liked the video, but mostly because of the video, not the music. How does youtube understands that I want more of this type of imagery and not sound? Very hard.
That might also explain why we services like Spotify doing a good job at discovery, but I can't think of a service doing the same for videos.
But I agree with you, lots of example of google not doing a good job with ML. At the same time, it seems like they are doing a good job with ML on other (maybe simpler) things, such as gmail/inbox, search, etc.
They even had a fricken desktop app for Linux to play their personalized radio! Today, well the basic tracking funtionality still works...
So meanwhile we get emotionally-stunted video recommendations from a savant toddler. It's really harmful.
If they use the same algorithm YouTube uses to pick videos for me, Spotify doesn't have to worry at all. It just gives me the same things over and over and I never discovered anything worthy from their video suggestions. I have to actively search to find anything new.
Weird. I'm having the opposite experience, where I'm not having luck finding an ML team, even with research experience. What teams/products are hiring for ML-related roles without experience?
Why are Google Apps always so unfinished and not thought through?
So does it stop me from just watching Music Video for free on Youtube?
If not, then why would I subscribe?
Surely I must be missing something here.
> In a briefing this week, the company promised it will be closing gaps between the two services over the next month, so Google Play Music members don't lose the features they've grown accustomed to, including a cloud-based MP3 storage locker.
* Anyone paying today will be grandfathered in at their current price into Youtube Premium. If you aren't paying, Music will cost $10, Premium will be $12 for new subscribers.
This is why any kind of videoless playback is disabled without Red subscription.
My theory is that it's too hard to get video/audio sync like that, so they don't allow it. Same for sending youtube audio to Sonos.
Copyright holders still might be the reason though.
Workaround for this is to buy an HDMI splitter and send the audio to a sound system then use Chromecast, but Sonos is just so convenient.
Will be interesting to see how this fits into their new model.
Oh, and btw, with tools like NewPipe, I can listen without ads.
NewPipe, on the other hand, has a low memory footprint, boots up immediately, has a clean interface, doesn't remove features, lets me queue up videos in the background, lets me choose audio-only, etc. The only thing it's missing is Chromecast, but then again I haven't updated NewPipe in a while, and Chromecast kinda blows anyway.
I'd say Google should just discontinue the YouTube app and use the NewPipe codebase, but I won't say that because I know they'd destroy it.
NewPipe literally blows people's minds when I show it to them. They can't grasp how there can be another app for YouTube that's better. Sadly, these people are too afraid to use F-Droid, even though the Play Store has its share of malicious software.
One big problem with this that I can tell you about right away, is that you only get 720p. NewPipe deals with some DRM bullshit to allow playing of higher resolutions, which VLC does not do.
Just remember that for copyright holders of those songs you're effectively doing the same thing as just torrenting the mp3. ;)
With tool like guns, I can get my my groceries without paying money. But that’s not very relevant to the general grocery experience.
If you uploaded tracks you'd frequently get the radio edit played back.
Although they aren't removing music or changing it, they just don't put it in their curated or autogenerated playlists.
I find it shocking that Google is permitted to charge money for a feature like that, when as far as I can tell most of the music on Youtube was uploaded without permission of the copyright owner.
It says something in there along the lines of video and audio may not be separated. On the basis of which, they ran a witch hunt on all 3rd party YouTube apps on the Play Store, which had a background playback feature.
This in itself makes no sense, as separating video and audio during playback had always been possible on the desktop by simply switching to a different tab in your browser or minimizing the window.
But obviously, this wasn't about showing integrity. They published YouTube Red with its background playback feature just a few months after this witchhunt.
And since the Play Store is their property, they didn't even need a legitimate basis for throwing these apps out. They own the market, so they were able to just shut out the competition.
Don't build your life on Google property...
The app looks beautiful and obviously they took a lot of effort to build it but this small detail makes it completely unusable unfortunately.
I understand that they are trying to sell Youtube Red this way but there's probably a better way than sabotaging their own app.
It's a shame this restricts other youtube videos too though, such as creators / original content / etc. I'd really also love to use Picture-in-Picture on iOS.
As for the Picture-in-Picture, there is a somewhat hacky solution. If you go to the video in Safari and install Pipifier (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/pipifier-pip-for-every-web-v...) you can use it to start Picture-in-Picture. I don't use it that often due to the extra steps involved, but it does work.