Google Continues To Play Catch-Up With 'All Access' Music Service As Critics Sound Off

Google CEO Larry Page on stage at Google I/O 2013: "We should be building things that don't exist." (Jonathan Hall/ Forbes)

On Wednesday during the closing segment of a three-and-a-half hour keynote presentation at his company’s developers conference, Google CEO Larry Page chided the media for its interpretation of his company’s relationship with other technology firms. Making one of his first public appearances since missing company events with vocal cord ailments last year, Page made it clear that he was unhappy with the portrayal of Google as a divisive figure in Silicon Valley.
“Every story I read about Google is kind of ‘us versus some other company’ or some stupid thing, and I just don’t find that very interesting,” said Page. “We should be building things that don’t exist.”


Early critics of Google’s new music service, however, would argue that the Mountain View, Calif.-based company is doing the exact opposite of what its cofounder wants. Announced at Google I/O shortly before Page’s appearance on stage, “Google Play Music All Access” places the $303 billion (market capitalization) tech behemoth squarely in the path of companies like Spotify and Rdio in a crowded music streaming space that provides users no shortage of options.
While Google’s music application had been a rumored announcement a day before the conference, most held their commentary on the search giant’s new foray into audio streaming until after the service was unveiled at I/O. At the conference, it was initially met with applause from the Google-hospitable crowd–as were most products–but it didn’t take long for skeptics to call out the company in light of Page’s pronouncements.
“Google fans seem to eat this kumbaya stuff up, to really believe it,” wrote John Gruber, a blogger who runs the Apple -friendly site Daring Fireball. “But Google is the company that built Android after the iPhone, Google Plus after Facebook  and now a subscription music service after Spotify.”
Those skeptical of All Access point to its similarities with preceding competitors, of which there are plenty. With regards to the actual music, Google’s service offers millions of songs across 22 genres from the major labels of Universal Music, Sony Entertainment Group and Warner Music Group, though its catalogue on a macroscopic level seems undifferentiated from the likes of Rdio, for example. The use cases for All Access also offer little variance, with user-curated playlists drawing comparisons to features on Spotify. The “laid-back” radio-like streaming approach that was championed by Google Engineering Director Chris Yerga at I/O, can be likened to Pandora.
Priced at $9.99 a month–similar to Spotify but more expensive that Pandora at $3.99–All Access seems like a development created more out of necessity than out of innovation, says Forrester analyst and Forbes contributor James McQuivey.
“If Google failed to make a play for the music business, it would later regret it because its customers would remain forever tied to another digital service even if Google Android and Chrome devices continue their dominance,” he said. “That explains why Google Play is adding All Access.”