From Google’s beta-stage measurement analysis of topics, designed to accurately measure overall interest in a broader topic area, not just one specific search term.
Results are relative to previous interest, but Google doesn’t offer absolute search volumes.
I don’t know why I bother, but what is the source, and what is the metric of ‘interest over time’?
What’s the point, really?
I don’t know why I bother either, as this web site is a consistent source of pandering nonsense, in and around some worthwhile posts (making the pandering stuff all the more infuriating actually). But to answer your question if no one else does, these seem to be based on Google searches, so the graphs at some level represent numbers of searches, despite the lack of an identified y axis.
So this first of all renders the headline misleading; surely more goes into something being popular than its appearance in a Google search. And second of all, as with the recent musical instrument post, it is a foolish misstatement to equate the specific reality of a Google search with the general, substantive value of “interest.” Yes of course at some level anyone searching for something on Google is “interested” in the subject, but anyone with a smartphone understands the fleeting, suggestive, addictive factors that prompt searching. This post could easily and accurately have been titled something like “Digital Music Services and Google Searches, 2004-present.” But web-based writers rarely opt for accuracy when they can induce page views instead.
This website is such a waste of time, I’ve never visited here and not let disappointed. Dude basically Googled music services and copied and pasted their trends graphs into this “article”?
Digital Music News is clickbait for the music business curious. I’m never visiting again.
Entry of Apple to shadow waters of streaming have jolted all INTOXICADOS of Daniel Ek’s religion!
Only XM got kick in the ass from record sales of cars in USA!
Time to CONVERT RADIO & STREAMING to primitive discovery based $100B MUSIC STORE!
Google has to to it and take control of the biggest media opportunity or the rest of the participants of MUSIC MARMALADE have to force Google to be part of new $200B music industry!
I hope Larry Page, Susan Wojcicki, Robert Kyncyl, David Krane and Rich Miner are not part of UNTI-MUSIC games! Google shareholders are deprived of participation in the greatest media monetization opportunity.
Thermostats for $4B bucks or $1.4 Tubes streaming music to the tubes WONT DO! YouTube still CANNOT make enough cash to pay for electricity and the servers!
Actually, this was left out of the footer:
From Google’s beta-stage measurement analysis of topics, designed to accurately measure overall interest in a broader topic area, not just one specific search term.
Results are relative to previous interest, but Google doesn’t offer absolute search volumes.
Web searches are not a very useful metric. New upcoming services that are in the news will heavily dominate as will services with a strong web browser presence. App store searches would be more helpful though even that would be heavily biased toward free apps.
Why isn’t Beatport mentioned?
The ads on top of the graphs make this article almost impossible to read. I understand the need for ads, but don’t obscure multiple images and make the reader click on every one to understand the article.
If this continues, I will have to get my info from elsewhere.
Gawd…..DMN is so whored up with ad banners and.click chasers it’s sickening. Scumbuggery at it’s finest. NEWS? Lmfao