Three services recently announced their plans for a cloud computing service for music. Google was the first to rumor that Music Beta by Google was in the works. Then Amazon released Cloud Player, available with a free 5 GB storage space.
Now, the gauntlet has been thrown down. Apple announced Monday that iCloud, the newest computing service offered by Steve Jobs & company, will be released in the fall.
With so many choices looming around, which one could possibly receive the plurality of the consumer vote? Let's put them to the test.
ROUND 1: INTEGRATION
This could be the most important aspect out of all of them. Apple has shown that more expensive products but complete horizontal integration can succeed demand, even in a recessed economy. This is a heavy decision.
Google Music — Google earns kudos for adding Google Music to the many, many applications already available to Gmail's users (this will happen once the beta is a full-blown application.) Users can listen to their music on any computer at any time, so long as it's connected to the Internet. It also allows users to download a free application on Android phones, theoretically eliminating the need for an iPod. While the app is not available on older Droid models, most recent models with powerful computing power will be able to use the update.
But here's a huge problem for Google Music: Because Google was not able to settle with the Big Four record labels, DRM files (purchased songs) are not able to be uploaded on the music cloud. This could be a problem if you're like me, having at least 1,000 songs downloaded from iTunes. Look for this to be resolved in one year, but it's very likely it won't be.
Amazon Cloud Player — Cloud Player is also available for many smartphones, including apps for Palms, Droids and Blackberrys. However, a huge miss on Amazon's part: integration with the Kindle. Several people read and listen to music at the same time, and what better way to do so than to combine electronic devices into one integral device? Don't be surprised if you see a new version of a Cloud-compatible Kindle by summer 2012.
Apple iCloud — No offense (as I write this on my wonderful MacBook Pro), but Apple holds several similarities to Scientology: Both are considered by many to be international cults that shell out more stuff correlating to how much money you can burn. But any time a user purchases a song from iTunes, that music is automatically updated to all of the user's Apple devices, not to mention that — for a small fee — all the user's music will be available on the iTunes server. The only problems here: If it's not on iTunes, it can't match up to iTunes' server. And everything you own better damn well be from Apple.
Round 1: Draw (Google and Apple)
ROUND 2: PRICING
It's still a big deal, considering more people are tightening their belts and wallets are thinning. For many, this will still be a heavy factor.
Google — Right now, it's free. What more can we say?
Amazon — Amazon is charging a whopping dollar per GB of storage every year, more than any of the services. So if you select that 50 GB plan (like I would), that's $50 out of your pocket. You may start out with a free 5 GBs, but most people will find this to be not enough.
Apple — Apple's website states additional storage costs $25, whether you want 5,000 or 20,000 songs.
Round 2: Google (for now)
ROUND 3: STORE
It's hard to get the public to trust you if you can't play fair with the labels and the artists. Let's see who has the edge here.
Google — No store, no points. Moving on.
Amazon — Amazon's store is pretty big (16 million songs in all), but doesn't have as many songs as iTunes, which has 2 million more.
Apple — In addition to outnumbering the number of songs on Amazon, iTunes still serves the most legal music downloads in the world, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.
Round 3: Apple
ROUND 4: EASE OF USE
It doesn't matter who you are or how much money you spent on your service, inefficient programs are annoying. How do the players stack up here?
Google Music — After installing Music Manager, the device that uploads songs to Google Music's servers, on my computer, the first thing I noticed was the sheer slowness of the product. It's been two hours and I've only downloaded 200 songs!
But the scrolling and searching elements are vastly similar to any music library software, including cover art sections and even scroll bars that allow you to move through the music at your own pace. This seems like a non-element, but it's actually a luxury over the Internet.
Amazon — Again, Amazon is slow and doesn't upload songs with Digital Rights Management stamps. The service acts similarly to Google's, but the browser is more stripped down.
Apple — It's possible that this is complete bull, but Apple says that in addition to automatically pushing all content through the cloud, iCloud will also upload your music in a matter of minutes instead of days. And if for some reason your music isn't on one of your devices, tap the download button in the upper right-hand corner and it will be there.
Also Apple says it will upgrade all music files to 256 kbps AAC files, some pretty high quality for any Internet audiophiles. But this DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. Once a lossy file (such as an mp3) is compressed, there is no way to retrieve that data. So it could be a file good enough for an audiophile, but the sound sure won't be.
Round 4: Apple (for now)
Notice: This is not going to be like "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome." It will not be two men enter, one man leave. This will be a drawn out clash between two computing behemoths.
This is now the Wild West of the music industry.
Which service are you most likely to use? Comment below!
