Checkout the new MRz music streaming box.  Its on Kickstarter, and its amazing!
 
Put all your music on the cloud and have total control.    You can source any music including vinyl, tape, and your CDs.  All of your downloads.  Recordings you have made at concerts.  And it supports traditional music streaming like Spotify and Apple Music.
 
All of your music, on one service.  And the top of the device supports wireless charging, for your smartphone!  This streaming box is amazing - and its on Kickstarter:

The device supports all audio formats, and my method of ripping or playing.  It is a very flexible design, so future audio formats can be integrated into the device.  It currently supports MP#, WMA,OGG, DSF, DFF, ISO SACD (DSD), Wave, AIFF, ALAC, APE, FAC, and more.  By supporting multiple high-resolution formats, the device will last for many years!
The most common connection method will probably be WIFI; which means multiple people can use the streaming box, at the same time.  It supports the new WIFI/Streaming speakers that are on the market, supports multi-room playback, and gives you more control over playlists.

Learn more on their Kickstarter page.  





​

There are hundreds of music services now.   The streaming services are very similar, in most cases.  It takes courage to go beyond the average, but it is so easy now to start a music streaming service, that most companies are satisfied to try and grow via marketing and advertising, instead by real innovation.

Spotify is the leader, and deservedly so.  They have a big selection, and the best user interface.  Their pricing is not bad, and their family plan does help families a lot.   Spotify is our favorite.

Deezer is active in higher definition music, as is Pono and Tidal; we think high definition music is important, and should be supported.

Apple Music is not as good as Spotify, and when it launched they chose to have a smaller sampling rate - which can lead to lower quality.  While that is a concern, we feel it is still an interesting choice , especially for iOS users, since it integrates so nicely on Apple devices.
​

There are Two music services we are not currently recomending:
​
1. Amazon Music - This is part of Amazon Prime, and has a smaller catalog than all of the services mentioned on this page; which is disappointing.  There is nothing very innovative with this service, and you just have to wonder: why settle for less?  To our thinking, if someone can afford Amazon Prime, they could probably afford Spotify; or put it this way, if Amazon is going to charge over $100 for Amazon Prime, why can't they have even an average-sized catalog?   Their dream is that you use Alexa, via your voice, to play music; so what a shame their catalog and their service is not as good as Spotify.

2. Google Music - Google has always been confusing, with more than one music service, and it just never feels like Youtube music is used an in effective way, in their paid offerings.  We do not think most young people will want to pay Google for music streaming.  We also have concerns about privacy issues with Google; for example, Managing your privacy on Google products is overly complicated, and thus is too hard for some users.  

Many music services are evolving, and new ones are still starting.  We will evaluate the industry from time-to-time, to see what is worth recommending, and what not.  Spotify is so good, that anyone whow wants to take market share from Spotify has to be significantly better; and that takes more courage (and investment) than most companies are willing to risk.  We believe that the most interesting areas right now are in connected devices offering music, and in high definition music;.  There needs to be more development and focus on higher-quality music reproduction!
 
​ 

   
We were going to do a long post but Engadget did a very good one, check it out.
 
Their current site, Play.Google.com/music, is boring and looks like something designed by a high-schooler.  Spotify is so much better,  just from a UI standpoint!  In general, Google does not do very well with user interfaces; Google+ is another example.  Also there is (was?) something called YouTube Red; terrible branding.

Youtube should just stay free - what is what people want.  The real problem is that Google thinks it can tell people what they ought to want; instead of just listening.

The bottom line is this: right now, there is NO compelling reason for anyone to get their music streaming from Google.   BUT: I know the solution - so contact me, Google...

Spotify has the best UI. It looks great on both a computer and on mobile.  Its easy to use, things do not feel hidden, and nothing feels missing.  I give them an A for their UI; it is much better than any other music streaming service.

Apple is better than Pandora but not that impressive.  Apple users are somewhat of a 'captive' audience; Apple is unique in this way. I feel that there is nothing compelling about Apple that will draw in many non-Apple users.  Apple has potential to improve, however.

Google is another matter.  Their three music services are confusing, and with no end in sight, and Google user interfaces do not impress; Google+ is an example of a an unimpressive user interface, far less capable than other social networks, like Facebook.   I don't see Google making inroads on Spotify from a design point of view.

There are now over 200 music streaming services in the world. Many of the smaller ones were designed by 7Digital and some of those have very good user interfaces.

But Spotify is clearly the best.  UI matters - a lot.  Not everyone gets it right - and in fact, few do.
​

Everyone talks about the quality of music; comparing the CD to vinyl, different bit rates, and so on.  As an old-school audio buff, I wish there was better quality digital music.  Sadly, our world has such strong trends towards convenience over quality.

There is no single standard, or even language term, for high definition audio.  its a complex subject.  Standalone efforts at HD music like the Pono group have basically failed to get traction in the marketplace or even much investment.  Thus, the resurgence of vinyl, its the only way to get HD music in a simple and cost-effective way that will also stand the test of time; the equipment and the content will always be available.

Tidal is the one music streaming service that has made an effort in quality, and I applaud them.   Spotify is basically 'good enough', Tidal is better, and Pono is above that.  

Long term, I believe that music streaming services like Tidal and Spotify are the path to a solution (more than new standalone startups) as they can start slowly in this area, with moderate investment, and improve it and grow it over time.  The key factor really would be everyone working together.

But will these companies music companies work together?  It seems unlikely.  Apple, for example, launched their service at a lower bit rate than Spotify.  That makes no sense at all - why go backwards?   It suggests that Apple has no real commitment to HD music and this again comes down to the the usual situation with Apple, where the captive audience of Apple users being an easy to market to.  Thus, Apple has no pressure to do much better.

Google has such huge size with their brand, and long reach with Youtube.  But the confusion with having three services, and weak user interfaces, is matched by their lack of commitment to HD audio. If Google were really serious about HD audio they would have bought Tidal, invested in Pono, and done more for HD audio standards.  Google is the one company that could really set the industry in motion toward an HD audio standard, if they were really committed to quality.  But ultimately, Google's sheer size and high profits via search spoils them; and will hinder them from truly committing to other markets like music.  My opinion is that they just "do stuff' and it kind of works, but not always very well, and thus they never really have that singular, deep focus that is needed to succeed. Google is not 'hungry' to succeed.  Google is probably the most disappointing of anyone in the music market right now.
​

I again will start with praise for Spotify.  The brand message is clear and consistent, and the entire image breeds confidence. They are #1 in music streaming and will continue to be so.   They hit the 'sweet spot' in each area (UI, quality, and simplicity).

Tidal's branding suffered from an uneven launch, but they have kept up steady progress and I am hopeful that Tidal will continue to grow and be effective in this industry.   I am fan of Tidal and hope they commit to true HD audio in the future.  Tidal is making an effort to support artists - unlike Google who is going the other way by hurting independent producers on Youtube.

I feel that Google is basically a mess.  I don't personally know anyone who is impressed with Google music.  The confusion of having three services hurts branding.  The huge success of Youtube frustrates Google, I believe, because it is largely not monetized - but having a paid level of Youtube is just dumb. Teens will never pay for Youtube - plus, on the paid accounts the advertising is stripped away so all of those independent producers on Youtube get no income from such pages.  This means that Google will hurt these producers.   Finally, as many have pointed out, naming the paid-Youtube service "Youtube Red" is not good branding - just do a Google search for the very similar phrase 'red tube', for example and see what comes up.  

What is ironic is that the enormous content of Youtube could be used in a productive way, to Google's benefit - but ONLY if they do it the right way.  Here is exactly how Google should do its music branding:

• Keep Youtube free.  Don't fix something that is not broken! Make a formal commitment to continue support all the independent producers on Youtube - don't abandon them.
• Have an audio-only music streaming service, that has a full catalog (like Spotify); call it MusicStreaming.com, which is a branding that would give great clarity and recall for users; have all your music there - meaning, the most complete catalog of anyone because it can include all the music from youtube - just without videos.
• Have a free level, like Spotify does, and that free level would include all the music from Youtube.  Those pages would  naturally have ads and therefore, your content providers on Youtube get paid once again. Everyone is happy!  Instead of abandoning these small producers the way Youtube Red does, Google could give them even more support.
• Commit to HD music.  Buy Tidal and offer their music as your highest tier; invest a significant amount in Pono, and form an industry group to bring everyone to a single (and evolvable) standard for HD music.  Commit to a long term plan to move the world to HD audio.
• Do a better job at Marketing.  Look at work already works; Amazon Prime is a great example of a broad and deep loyalty program.  What if Google had a really useful membership, for all of its services?  Then a paying music customer could be given discounts on hosting, and  cheaper storage for backups, and savings on the paid levels of email.  Tie it all together, so people feel there is more value there in a Google account.  Others, like Amazon, are already doing this;  its really not hard to do.

In other words, Google could succeed if they made a consistent, funded, and effective effort, that had a very clear branded name (like MusicStreaming.com), a true membership program to reward loyal users, and a long term commitment to bring standardized HD music to the world.  This could change the world of music.

Youtube music is a significant differentiator for Google.  The URL MusicStreaming.com is another potential differentiator. Finally, deeply committing to HD audio is also a differentiator. Take all of this together, and with a good UI, means Google could become #1 in music.  

NOTE:  I have praised a few companies in this article (Spotify in particular) - so let me make clear, we are not investors in any of these companies nor beholden to them in any way.
​