Amazon Music Shenanigans
In what world does Amazon Cloud Player think that they can continue to compete with Google Music Play by (starting at the end of the month) only allowing users to store 250 songs NOT purchased through Amazon mp3 free of charge, when Google lets users store up to 20,000?! I guess that they are hoping that their interface is that much better? Well newsflash, it's not.
I admit that I prefer purchasing my music through Amazon mp3, as their download system works better than Google's IMO. But at the moment I have ~6000 songs stored on each cloud drive, and only ~700 of them were purchased through Amazon. So guess what system I WON'T be using to store/listen to the majority of my music in the near future?
I guess it doesn't really matter to Amazon where I store my music that I DIDN'T buy through them if I'm not paying for a premium service (never mind that I ALREADY pay for Prime - since that doesn't seem to have any effect on their music cloud*), but if I can't use their system to store the majority of my stuff, then their own advantage over Google (easier to download from their cloud) isn't all that much of an advantage anymore. So I am LESS likely to continue to use them to purchase my music in the future. Instead there is a better than average chance that I will do my purchasing through Google from here on out. (Well, except for when the music I want is cheaper to buy through Amazon than Google. Because I am a slave to my wallet, damn it.)
In a way this is kind of a good thing, as it'll be good to just consolidate my music collection to ONE cloud location, and overall, I prefer Google's player to Amazon's anyway, so there's no real loss there. I'm just confused as to WHY Amazon thinks that people will chose to PAY to store their music through them if they can store it for free at Google? It makes no sense to me...
*I'm also still bitter that I pay for Prime and yet CAN'T access their book library because I don't own a Kindle device. I'd be more than happy to PURCHASE a Kindle App for my damn tablet, rather than using a free one, if it meant that I could access their library. But nope. You need to own their hardware. Again they can do what they want, but I think they are missing out on a golden opportunity here, because I can't be the ONLY person who has no intention of purchasing a Kindle, but who would pay a premium fee for the Kindle App if it meant we'd have access to that damn library. *sigh*
ON A COMPLETELY UNRELATED NOTE: For all those who asked for drabbles, I promise that I AM working on them, so don't think that I forgot or didn't get your request because I didn't respond. I did, I swear. They are just taking a while, as I suspected that they might.
I admit that I prefer purchasing my music through Amazon mp3, as their download system works better than Google's IMO. But at the moment I have ~6000 songs stored on each cloud drive, and only ~700 of them were purchased through Amazon. So guess what system I WON'T be using to store/listen to the majority of my music in the near future?
I guess it doesn't really matter to Amazon where I store my music that I DIDN'T buy through them if I'm not paying for a premium service (never mind that I ALREADY pay for Prime - since that doesn't seem to have any effect on their music cloud*), but if I can't use their system to store the majority of my stuff, then their own advantage over Google (easier to download from their cloud) isn't all that much of an advantage anymore. So I am LESS likely to continue to use them to purchase my music in the future. Instead there is a better than average chance that I will do my purchasing through Google from here on out. (Well, except for when the music I want is cheaper to buy through Amazon than Google. Because I am a slave to my wallet, damn it.)
In a way this is kind of a good thing, as it'll be good to just consolidate my music collection to ONE cloud location, and overall, I prefer Google's player to Amazon's anyway, so there's no real loss there. I'm just confused as to WHY Amazon thinks that people will chose to PAY to store their music through them if they can store it for free at Google? It makes no sense to me...
*I'm also still bitter that I pay for Prime and yet CAN'T access their book library because I don't own a Kindle device. I'd be more than happy to PURCHASE a Kindle App for my damn tablet, rather than using a free one, if it meant that I could access their library. But nope. You need to own their hardware. Again they can do what they want, but I think they are missing out on a golden opportunity here, because I can't be the ONLY person who has no intention of purchasing a Kindle, but who would pay a premium fee for the Kindle App if it meant we'd have access to that damn library. *sigh*
ON A COMPLETELY UNRELATED NOTE: For all those who asked for drabbles, I promise that I AM working on them, so don't think that I forgot or didn't get your request because I didn't respond. I did, I swear. They are just taking a while, as I suspected that they might.