I can understand how this might be legally contentious, but the only thing it could be reported for is the name, I would think? The Google Play logo there is not me embedding it into the app, since it's displaying the webpage itself. Correct me if I'm wrong?
You want to avoid making it look like it's actually "endorsed" by Google, or a product of Google's, despite interop with one of Google's products. The name can be an issue here, so you might want to come up with something spiffier and original, and point out that it works with Google's service elsewhere.
IANAL, but here's my take: anything men make is copyrighted. Getting rid of that is difficult or even impossible (depending on originating country and one's interpretation of the law)
Nothing physical can be trademarked. It's the idea of some features in a particular field that forms a trademark (in this case, the right-pointing triangle, the phrase "Google Play" in the 'app store' field) you break a trademark as soon as 'the typical consumer' might be confused who he is talking to.
So, the particular logo likely is copyrighted, and the idea behind it trademarked. If you redraw the logo (using some artistic expression; a 1:1 copy won't do), you are free from copyright claims, but may still be breaking trademark law.
It seems like he may be making a play to get this acquired by Google so that they can offer a desktop app. That's why the branding. I can't think of a better way to get Google's attention than to blatantly violate their trademarks - though it might be the legal department, not M&A, that reaches out to him :-)
That's not an insult, it's supremely awesome that this is even possible and that this dev made it happen. I'm using it now. But there are a few of these types of things for Google Music, there's a similar Chromebook app.
Thanks! When I initially forked the repository, I hadn't planned on including features like the theme or the notifications, but once I realized how much I liked the product and wanted to continue to develop it, I figured I should ask the original creator for permission to keep the fork independent and he agreed. Very generous of him!
Outside of implementing the notifications this offers nothing for me that the original one, from James Fator, doesn't already do. I dislike the table display and the attempt at making the appearance be more Cocoa-esque in favor of the Google web design. You might also want to think of changing the app name and icon also as it is misleading.
Thank you so much for this! It's just a Safari wrapper, but it's the first native solution I've seen. Google is really horsing around with Google Music, it's sad that I pay them the same amount I would (and did) Rdio and Spotify and get treated with shitty Flash web players and no native apps.
edit: 15 minutes in – it's not extremely polished but I really love it! Finally, no more annoying music.google.com Chrome tab.
To be fair, no native desktop apps. Their android App is great - by my experience much better than Spotify's. And while I do prefer a desktop app to a browser app, their browser app is more feature complete than Spotify's desktop App.
The iOS one is, too, a poor web wrapper yucks. For instance, you can't listen to your offline albums without Internet, because each time the app starts it "loads the library", which is utterly frustrating and redundant.
Works well and looks great. It would better meet my needs with Chromecast support, but I don't see a way to do this on MacOS without having embedded the Chrome browser instead of Safari: https://developers.google.com/cast/docs/downloads
"The Google Cast SDK and API libraries support the development of Android, iOS, and Chrome sender applications"
AirPlay audio streaming would also work for me, such as the way iTunes works, but I assume that Apple keeps that locked down as well.
Great work. It looks really slick, and from the comments so far it appears many people are excited to have a native app. That said, I'd be interested to here why exactly people want a native app. The web app already has notifications and has suited me just fine, so I'd be interested to hear what others find useful about a native app.
I don't use Chrome as my main browser and Google Music experience sucks in FF (I wonder why....) and isn't even that great it Chrome itself. Maybe its because I have all 20K song slots used across 3000-odd artists but its still annoying. So I keep a chrome instance open just for GMusic. You can't hide the application if you want to use notifications, if you do hide it the notifications trigger foregrounding. Also, native notifications are always a plus in my mind.
I would like to see an actual native application that caches songlist / artist and doesn't run like shit. But I'll take what I can, I guess. On the otherhand, the Android experience is phenomenal.
Just curious, why would you want Application-specific passwords? They're far more insecure and still have access to all your Google services. Application-specific password would only make sense if Google actually let you limit access to a certain subset of Google-features.
They are not necessarily more insecure? And the great part about them is the fact that if an app goes rogue then its password can be revoked. Also, while they can access my data, they can't change data. No one can log in with an application specific password and steal my account.
They are one less factor needed in order to access an account that has 2FA enabled, so in that regard, I consider them less secure.
You're right about the part where they cannot hijack your account, but change data? Sure they can. They can delete all your emails, calendar events, contacts, images on picasa, the list goes on. It has unrestricted access to all Google-services associated with your account.
Because I can revoke Application-specific passwords and they are more limited in that there are a set of settings that they can't change (can't change my email address, change my password, setup forwarding, add more application-specific passwords, etc).
"The Google Play music player is currently available in select territories." - Damn, its not working in Canada.
Why isn't this released by Goolge already? A Google version of iTunes which can synch with an Android device would be a great addition to OSX/Windows.
This isn't snarky, it's the right answer! Mavericks prevents opening unsigned apps when you double-click, but Right-Click -> Open will launch a pop-up asking "Are you sure you want to open this?", allowing you to bypass the protection. It's a real thing.
You should allow apps downloaded from places other than App Store. Go to Security & Privacy under System Preferences, and on the general tab, select "Anywhere" under "Allow apps downloaded from:" option.
If it doesn't let you launch, you may need to find the app in Finder and open it from the right click menu. Seems that OS X requires you to do this so that it knows you explicitly want to launch it. It remembers this after the first launch so you can use it normally afterwards.
There's also G-Ear player, available on the app store. It works very well, though it's not as good at search as the web app is - so sometimes it's easier to add music to your library using the web app.
I've always wanted to do something similar. The 20k track limit on Google Music makes me prune my online collection every so often which is annoying. I think it would be a fun project to write a basic web streaming player that pulls mp3s from S3/Cloudfront. I would gladly pay Google a fee to increase the storage limit though.
Last.fm scrobbling was the first thing I looked for as well. It's pretty much a necessity for me at this point that any software-based music player I use needs to support last.fm scrobbling. There's several Chrome extensions that take care of it for the in-browser player as people below have mentioned.