Comments on: Have You Reached a “Streaming Limit” in Google Music Yet? (Updated)

By: Michael Hart

Michael Hart — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:40:00 +0000

This reasoning is stupid. Google profits from you regardless of whether or not they have your personal information. Personal information only makes ads more relevant. Ads that you would see if you were logged in and they knew everything about you, or not and they knew nothing about you but your approximate location.

Why do you think Google lets people opt out of ad tracking cookies? Because at the end of the day, it makes a _relatively_ small difference. If you click ads, they profit. You see ads regardless of being logged in or not.

No, users are not “paying with privacy”. We receive a better service. It’s not even a loss of privacy; as I’ve started, the algorithms that find more relevant ads are no more invasive than algorithms that store a text file on your computer’s hard drive or search for a file on your hard drive (while scanning through *every single file*, even if it’s not relevant). Do you then blame Microsoft or Apple because their operating systems are accessing and analyzing your private files?

Better, more relevant ads are not a downside to being logged in; it’s a feature, a bonus. If they make you more likely to click an ad, then that means that, yes, while Google makes more money, you should too be happier and more satisfied with your experience. Otherwise, don’t click the ad.

It’s truly not worth debating; you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Gain an even basic understanding of how computers work on fundamental levels, and I think you’ll quickly realize how wrong this perception is.

By: swayda

swayda — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:53:00 +0000

The fact is you pay for Google services with your privacy, just like you pay for a car with money. Google is comparable to a “reputable car dealer” as opposed to a “shady used car dealer,” but you are still paying them with your privacy. This is how a publicly held company with shareholders fund projects like Chrome, Google Music, and Android. Because you are paying, they should make all terms of the service known to you, including any limits.

By: TheUI

TheUI — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:13:00 +0000

Do no evil, they took his dergggg!

By: TheRandom1

TheRandom1 — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:30:00 +0000

I may have hit this… but music works so buggy on my phone I pretty much stopped using it. Maybe if Google ever fixes the “cannot load stream” error I’d notice it, but for now it’s just a POS app I can’t use.

By: otter34

otter34 — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 05:06:00 +0000

So Google automatically puts your music on their cloud then limits your access

By: Eric James Salcido

Eric James Salcido — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 04:26:00 +0000

You say “The majority of users will never reach it” without giving us a number?! I must challenge this, number nao!

By: Karl

Karl — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 03:06:00 +0000

my friėnd’s sister makes $83/hr on the comṖuter. She has been łaid off for 7 months but last month her check waš $7743 just working on the computer for á few hours. Read more on this web site : LazyCash5.Com

By: balthuszar

balthuszar — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 02:42:00 +0000

who said anything about them losing anything int he cloud…and couldnt access? yes, but only temporarily…chill out

By: David Wanless

David Wanless — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:57:00 +0000

Yeh that’s me. And yeh it probably is because of all the devices, but to be honest I would never have signed up so many devices had I known there was a limit.

It’s just easy to use one account to sync up mine and my wife’s music, My sis and friend listen to all the same music I like so I just let them use my music collection.

Odd thing is that my phone allowed me to still play music, however my computer couldn’t play anything online. And my wife texted me in the morning saying her iphone Gmusic app was giving her an error too. And the iphone gmusic app doesn’t register an official device.

By: Michael Hart

Michael Hart — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:48:00 +0000

This assumption is flawed, as Google never abuses your privacy. Algorithms are not people; your privacy is NEVER compromised when Google serves you an ad.

The algorithms used by hard drives to store data or processors to process data are just as violating as algorithms used to find relevant ads.

By: Michael Hart

Michael Hart — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:43:00 +0000

Even if a cap were documented in their EULA/TOS or help articles, you likely wouldn’t ever read it there either.

I imagine this limit is triggered when you listen to more music than possible for 1 user (more than 1 device playing music for 12+ hours each in a 24 hour period, for example). This would be a fairly obvious scenario of account sharing, and I am almost certain this is what it’d take to hit this limit (as someone who’s streamed music from Google Music for over 24 hours straight with no issues).

By: Michael Hart

Michael Hart — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:38:00 +0000

You trust a company that was almost exclusively used for piracy for legitimate content?

Very smart. You should get in the stock market. /sarcasm

By: Omar Ibrahim

Omar Ibrahim — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:33:00 +0000

/me looks at the megaupload fiasco

By: Michael Hart

Michael Hart — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:32:00 +0000

It is very possible that such users are victims of phishing. The ToS could have very well been broken by someone else using their account. How can he confirm it hasn’t?

Regardless, such scenarios obviously affect a fraction of a minuscule portion of users.

By: Michael Hart

Michael Hart — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 00:24:00 +0000

Verifiably “thousands”?