The discontinuation of Google Music marks the end of an era, and for me, it severs one of the few remaining positive connections I had with the company. Now integrated into YouTube Music, the service evokes memories of Google’s earlier days, a time when the company occasionally created innovative and enjoyable internet applications. Despite its eventual fate, it managed to operate for nearly a decade – a significant achievement for one of their products.

To be upfront, I have always been a proponent of obtaining music through unofficial channels. While I have embraced legitimate purchasing methods more recently, I possess an extensive music library accumulated over many years, which I have no intention of relinquishing. Therefore, when Google announced in 2011 the ability to stream my personal collection at no cost, it seemed almost unbelievable.

This offering was truly representative of the earlier iteration of Google, which focused on simplifying complex tasks – such as locating information online, creating email accounts, or collaborating on documents. They aimed to make these processes more accessible to everyone.

Google Music – a name we’ll use despite the numerous branding changes it underwent before its eventual absorption into a less desirable service – wasn’t the first to enter the music streaming or download market. However, its unique feature of allowing users to upload their existing music files and access them from anywhere, much like emails or documents, was remarkably generous.

This generosity extended beyond simply providing free server space for up to 20,000 songs and the necessary infrastructure for streaming. It also acknowledged alternative methods of media ownership. Google didn’t criticize users for possessing large MP3 collections; they didn’t subject these files to legitimacy checks or report users to copyright enforcement agencies, even though they had the capability to do so.

Google Music’s free media locker demonstrated the company’s understanding – or at least a segment of its product team’s understanding – that individuals have diverse preferences and aren’t always ready to adopt the business models dictated by technology companies. (This understanding has demonstrably evolved over time.)

Although a colleague, MG Siegler, expressed skepticism during the beta phase, I staunchly defended the service, pointing out Google’s pragmatic approach of starting small and focusing on future development rather than directly competing with Apple. Secretly, I was diligently uploading a substantial amount of music sourced from Audiogalaxy, Napster, and SoulSeek, envisioning a bridge between my established habits and the forefront of technology.

Over time, I developed a complex relationship with Google Music, similar to a devoted owner of an aging vehicle. Despite its frequently changing and often confusing interface, the app became indispensable to me. Even as Google’s media strategy evolved and became less defined, my Music locker consistently performed its primary function: hosting my music files. It consistently allowed me to access the imperfect, 128kbps version of The Bends that I downloaded in 2001, and provided a backup of my precious MP3s in case of hardware failure.

Regardless of whether I had ripped the music myself, acquired it through unofficial means, purchased it on Bandcamp, or obtained it from a vinyl record, Google Music accommodated it all. It seamlessly integrated my diverse music collection into a cloud player, and for this reason, I cherished it despite its imperfections and lack of sophistication.

Currently, due to the increasing prominence of YouTube as a music platform – a trend largely driven by a new generation’s inclination towards convenience and platform independence – Google Music exists as a diminished version of itself within the YouTube Music app, which itself is an iteration of other unsuccessful music initiatives.

Google likely determined that the negative publicity associated with discontinuing a popular service and depriving millions of users of a valuable tool outweighed the potential risks – a lesson learned from the fate of Google Reader (RIP).

Consequently (following the removal of inactive accounts), they opted for a less drastic approach: diminishing the quality of Google Music. Within the new app, my uploaded music has suffered a decline in functionality, becoming disorganized, difficult to search, and consistently presented as a secondary option. The once-reliable Music Manager, a staple on my Windows PCs for years, is no longer available, and adding new music now requires manually dragging files onto the YouTube Music tab. While the inconvenience of this minor physical effort may seem trivial, it highlights Google’s decision to shift the burden of effort onto the user, a stark contrast to the service’s original purpose.

I recognize that I may be an outlier among typical Google and YouTube users, and I have consistently demonstrated to the company that I am not a significant source of revenue. However, as soon as I realized Google would make accessing my music more difficult, I resolved to pay for a comparable service. I now subscribe to Plex, which, incidentally, is a far superior product. (Similarly, I began paying for Feedly after Google discontinued Reader.)

In a sense, I am grateful for this outcome. Completely severing ties with Google’s ecosystem is unrealistic for me, although I do so whenever possible (though the alternatives can sometimes be worse). Google Music was one of the remaining connections holding me within that ecosystem. While I intend to maintain a substantial amount of storage on their servers, if only out of principle, I am pleased that the company has acknowledged that their offering no longer aligns with my needs. This realization signifies one less reason for me to rely on Google’s services.

Every service offered by Google now, particularly with their recent branding changes, feels less like a solution to a problem and more like another means of asserting control over users. We were fortunate to experience the era of the unconventional Google, which pursued projects like Books, challenging established publishers, or Wave, an interactive experiment that remains ahead of its time. They undertook these initiatives simply because they were possible, whereas today, they prioritize preventing users from seeking alternatives.

Therefore, farewell Google Music. You served me well while you lasted, but ultimately, you demonstrated that we deserve better, and we won’t achieve that by waiting for Google to revisit its original principles.