The online music wars have heated up -- again. Since the launch of Napster, the Internet has become a playground for people who hate paying for music.

Now, with iTunes Match allowing people to access music from the cloud, Google entering the marketplace, and Spotify promising a “new direction,” the world of online music is about to change once again.

A Brief History of Music Downloading

The earliest days of peer-to-peer file sharing through Napster were exciting times, but laughably ineffective by today’s standards. Downloading track by track didn’t last long, the inconvenience of the method conspiring with Metallica and Dr. Dre to put the kibosh on Napster. Other services like Limewire and KaZaA soon appeared, however the writing was on the wall.

Next came the torrent, a genius idea allowing people to download entire albums all at once without any easily identifiable record of the transfer. Finally, people began uploading music to file-hosting services like Mediafire and Megaupload. While these were all innovations in their time, none of them addressed the basic problem with online music -- downloading.

Online Radio

Online radio was an early attempt to address grievances of downloaders. Services like Pandora and Last.fm created customized playlists based on personal preferences. Pandora soon became a staple of the modern American workplace, while Last.fm became the “go to” social network for music. While Pandora was just for listening, Last.fm was a place to share what you listen to both on and off line, as well as discuss your favorites and learn about new bands from other users. Still, online radio, no matter how well tailored to one’s taste still has a fundamental flaw: People can’t much control what they listen to. If you want to hear a certain track or artist, you can start a radio station based around them. However, you’re only going to get that first track (if that -- the musician might have filed a complaint) before random play begins.

Cue the Cloud

Cloud computing offered a fix. Music could be hosted in the cloud, accessible to everyone. With record companies hemorrhaging revenue, cloud-based online music jukeboxes offered a business model for the 21st Century record industry. Spotify took an early lead, with backing from the music industry, Facebook, and the all-important and ineffable cache. Early chatter had Rdio and Grooveshark as the main competitors. Now, however, it seems that known quantities will attempt to challenge Spotify’s supremacy -- Google and Apple, rivals themselves.

Spotify Vs. iTunes Match Vs. Google Music

A comparison of the three services reveals that they aren’t really the same thing at all. Rather, they offer three different models of post-cloud computing music:

· Spotify: Spotify includes all music from your own personal library, as well as a massive (over 13 million songs) music library. For a small fee you can get rid of advertisements and sync music to your mobile device.

· Google Music: Offers hosting for up to 20,000 songs as well as what you purchase through the Android store. You cannot download to a different storage device unless you purchased them through the Android store. The service is not much different from iTunes Match, raising the specter of another Google Buzz failure.

· iTunes Match: iTunes Match is quite similar to Google Music. The only difference is that the amount of music you can store is unlimited. Furthermore, you upgrade the quality of your music to 256 kbps if the music is available at the iTunes store.

Spotify’s Big Changes

No one knows what Spotify’s big change is. However, the most popular rumor holds that the Spotify will launch its own MP3 store. This isn’t terribly groundbreaking, but it is a move onto iTunes turf. The move, if indeed this is what Spotify has planned, would largely be symbolic. However, the symbolism is quite plain: Spotify has a plan for the long haul and intends to compete directly with the biggest dog on the block.

The Future of Music

With cloud-based music services, the music and tech industries seem to have found common ground on a music sales and distribution model for the 21st Century. While few people are willing to pay for hard copies of music anymore (or even digital ones for that matter), people will pay a small fee to avoid the hassle of searching and downloading.

Still, despite the hubbub surrounding Google Music and iTunes Match, it’s not clear these products provide the same services, nor that they’re meaningful competitors to Spotify, the current reigning king of Internet music. Indeed, Google Music and iTunes Match seem firmly rooted in digital music’s past with an emphasis on preserving individual tracks purchased separately. With a stylish platform, Facebook integration, and word of mouth publicity no amount of money can buy, Spotify is still well placed to conquer the world of digital music one listener at a time.