February 23, 2012 · 0 Comments
That’s according to Greg Sandoval at CNET, who reports that Google execs are telling record labels that customer sign-ups and revenue are lower than expected.
We’re not the least bit surprised.
Google Music launched with no content from one of the four major labels — Warner Brothers.
From all four major labels.
Who needs another half-baked music store? Even if it is from Google.
The big bonus was supposed to be Google’s music locker service, which backs up your music library to Google’s servers so you can access it from devices. That sounds great in theory, but it requires you to upload the songs from your computer, which is painfully slow.
Apple’s similar solution for iTunes user, iTunes Match, is much faster because it simply scans your library then plays duplicates of the songs you already own. (It also costs $25 per year, while Google’s locker is free.)
Google Music also allows users to share songs via Google+. But Facebook and its music. partners like Spotify totally trumped that feature, too, by letting you share songs from those services with Facebook. And Facebook has 800 million active users, versus about 90 million registered (but perhaps not very active) users on Google+.
Google has never shown any talent at creating and marketing finished consumer products. The lackluster reception of Google Music is just the latest example. It’s also more proof that Google is in desperate need of more focus, and more discipline.
By Emma Brown