PDA

View Full Version : Some iCloud Music Service Details, Others Companies Likely to Follow




MacRumors
May 26, 2011, 05:39 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/26/some-icloud-music-service-details-others-companies-likely-to-follow/)


Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_23/b4231035679728.htm) provides an overview of how Apple's music service might compare to the recent services launched by Google and Amazon. Notably, Apple is taking the time and spending the money to reach agreements with the major music labels to support the service.

Amazon reportedly didn't even try prior to their cloud music launch, while Google's talks broke down after a year of negotiation. Both existing services are limited due to the lack of licenses. Label executives are said to have been negotiating "aggressively" to make sure they profit from the shift to the cloud.

Businessweek is able to describe what the service will look like based on those familiar with the negotiations: Armed with licenses from the music labels and publishers, Apple will be able to scan customers' digital music libraries in iTunes and quickly mirror their collections on its own servers, say three people briefed on the talks. If the sound quality of a particular song on a user's hard drive isn't good enough, Apple will be able to replace it with a higher-quality version. Users of the service will then be able to stream, whenever they want, their songs and albums directly to PCs, iPhones, iPads, and perhaps one day even cars.It's not clear how Apple intends to pay for and charge for the service. The licenses will reportedly cost a lot, and Apple will have to pass those charges to the customer in some form.

According to Businessweek, many are waiting to see what Apple can accomplish as labels expect that once Apple's service launches, others will soon follow with similarly licensed services.

Article Link: Some iCloud Music Service Details, Others Companies Likely to Follow (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/26/some-icloud-music-service-details-others-companies-likely-to-follow/)



dashiel
May 26, 2011, 05:45 PM
1) Hopefully this isn’t limited to just tracks purchased in iTunes
2) If they added this for television/movies I’d be very happy.

mikeinternet
May 26, 2011, 05:47 PM
1) Hopefully this isn’t limited to just tracks purchased in iTunes

I second this. Most of the music in my library is not available through iTunes.

Aniday
May 26, 2011, 05:48 PM
I'm assuming "quickly mirroring" means that they see what you have and just make those songs available to you in the cloud so you don't have to upload the files yourself (that would be impractical and take forever considering the size of people's library's these days and most ISP's refusing to give people decent upload speeds)

If this assumption is true my question is: Is the mirroring only available to songs you've previously purchased on iTunes so you have to upload the rest you didn't get from iTunes (or even not have to option for them to be in the cloud, eek)
Or would everything in your library be mirrored regardless of where you got the files?

I'm guessing the former.

Eddyisgreat
May 26, 2011, 05:48 PM
hrm. Wonder if they can differentiate between legitimate MP3s ripped from the owners CD vs bootlegs.

I mean wait, why would they need to do that? We all own 100 or so gigs of legitimate MP3's right .

Porchland
May 26, 2011, 05:51 PM
I'm assuming "quickly mirroring" means that they see what you have and just make those songs available to you in the cloud so you don't have to upload the files yourself (that would be impractical and take forever considering the size of people's library's these days)

If this assumption is true my question is: Is the mirroring only available to songs you've previously purchased on iTunes so you have to upload the rest you didn't get from iTunes (or even not have to option for them to be in the cloud, eek)
Or would everything in your library be mirrored regardless of where you got the files?

I'm guessing the former.

Limiting you to songs you've purchased through iTunes (or even through other services) sounds more like what the labels would allow, but why would Apple need to scan your iTunes database? Don't they already know what they've sold me?

The full paragraph in the Businessweek article that MacRumors quoted doesn't make a lot of sense.

It says the streaming would be for the tracks you already have:

Armed with licenses from the music labels and publishers, Apple will be able to scan customers' digital music libraries in iTunes and quickly mirror their collections on its own servers, say three people briefed on the talks.

And then it says the streaming will be a monthly fee that replaces 99-cent downloads:

And the music industry gets a chance at the next best thing after selling shrink-wrapped CDs: monthly subscription fees, à la Netflix (NFLX) and the cable companies. "We will come to a point in the not-so-distant future when we'll look back on the 99¢ download as anachronistic as cassette tapes or 8-tracks," says Ross Crupnick, a music analyst at NPD Group.

There's obviously a market for pay-per-download and there's probably a market for an all-you-can eat subscription service, but I don't see Apple trying to sell people on a model that requires to pay for each track and pay for streaming.

I think Apple is either going to (1) allow you to stream all of your downloads, (2) sign up for an all-you-can eat subscription, or (3) allow you to choose -- similar to the same way they allow you to buy a movie for one price or rent it for a lower price -- but I don't see much of a market for paying an extra X dollars a month to stream tracks that you'll still have to pay to download.

ChristianJapan
May 26, 2011, 05:51 PM
Streaming is nice; but I also would need download capabilities to a device for offline as most of us has limits in the data plans which don't allow streaming 24/7.
Having the iCloud as backup solution would be perfect, also for $75 a year.

Ah, movies please too, those eating up lots space on my NAS and again a backup would be good in the cloud.

Actually Apple could make it much easier by allowing re-download of content once purchasaed (I'm sure there are a number of threats in that topic)

plinden
May 26, 2011, 05:53 PM
I would be very surprised (pleased, but surprised) if this includes songs that are available on iTunes but that I didn't buy from iTunes.

I don't see how the music companies would allow it - you'd be "laundering" pirated tracks into legal iTunes tracks. (After all, anyone who rips a CD is a pirate, according to the music companies)

rockosmodurnlif
May 26, 2011, 05:54 PM
I hope there's more to this iCloud than music.

seamer
May 26, 2011, 05:55 PM
If it processed tracks obtained outside iTunes, it could legitimize a lot of our collections at a decent price. I'd be interested to see the actual details upon release. If it's an account, definitely. However, if it's per song I'd have to decline.

Gene S
May 26, 2011, 05:55 PM
Label executives are said to have been negotiating "aggressively" to make sure they profit from the shift to the cloud.



So the record companies finally get their wish. We pay once, to buy the song via iTunes, CD, etc.. Then pay again to actually listen to it. (Cloud service.)

No thanks, I'll pass.

darbus69
May 26, 2011, 05:55 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

apple is of course doing it right-I for one will pay for a quality, feature laden service...

Morod
May 26, 2011, 05:56 PM
How about making iDisk a bit quicker first?

eNcrypTioN
May 26, 2011, 05:57 PM
I would absolutely love to be able to stream my iTunes library in my car. I hope iCloud brings this feature to vehicles one day. For now I'll just have to settle with my iPod and an AUX cable. None the less iCloud sounds like it's shaping up to be an impressive service. :D

japanime
May 26, 2011, 05:58 PM
hrm. Wonder if they can differentiate between legitimate MP3s ripped from the owners CD vs bootlegs.

I mean wait, why would they need to do that? We all own 100 or so gigs of legitimate MP3's right .

I do. But I grew up in the era of vinyl records. When CDs came out, I bought as many of them as I could afford to replace my vinyl. So, I have literally thousands of CDs — all of which I've ripped and so they now collect dust in the garage!

ChristianJapan
May 26, 2011, 05:58 PM
Another question will be: how to deal with multiple iTunes accounts ? will those be consolidated or will I need to sit on two clouds ?

s1m
May 26, 2011, 05:59 PM
I agree that this would be great if they could scan my iTunes library and mirror that for all my tracks. I havent bought much through iTunes as I prefer to own the CD.

However going forward if they only allow streaming of iTunes bought tracks this might push me to buy through iTunes in the future and break my dependency on old technology...

The biggest issue for me will be downloading on the go and how that will impact my download limit on my iPhone...

OllyW
May 26, 2011, 06:01 PM
How about making iDisk a bit lot quicker first?

That's more like it. :)

darbus69
May 26, 2011, 06:02 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

it does not say "mirror only what you bought from iTunes in your iTunes music librar" It sounds like apple is going the distance and licensing which encompasses users entire libraries, regardless of origination of the music. At dome point in time the record labels need to give up the stranglehold and learn to go with today's music delivery system.

chasemac
May 26, 2011, 06:02 PM
"The licenses will reportedly cost a lot, and Apple will have to pass those charges to the customer in some form."

Na. I'll pass on this. I paid for the music the first time and I already pay for the data plan and any overage charges that may ensue. Will see what it really is pretty soon though.

gnasher729
May 26, 2011, 06:02 PM
It's not clear how Apple intends to pay for and charge for the service. The licenses will reportedly cost a lot, and Apple will have to pass those charges to the customer in some form.

Apple can easily make it available for free for all Macintosh and iPod / iDevice owners, increasing the value of these devices and therefore sales. Just take it as free advertisement.

Slix
May 26, 2011, 06:05 PM
We'll see. I might not even use this much, or at all. All my music fits on my iPod, and likely will for a few years down the road, and when it doesn't, I'll just get a larger iPod.

iZac
May 26, 2011, 06:05 PM
The part about it assessing "quality" and replacing it with a better one on the cloud would suggest that the service might just host a single file and allow you (and others) unlimited access to it because it shares the same file name / length etc. as the one on your computer. In a similar way that iTunes scans for artwork and the CDDB scans for CDs.

But yes, based on that scenario, the probability of cloud piracy would be vast. Now, music that you have purchased from iTunes / other music stores will be tagged as such and CDs will have hard copies that you can insert and prove you own via the CDDB, so there is at least some loose form of authentication for those (of course bands that have started delivering content via USB sticks are screwed by this, but that's a minority.)

So perhaps there will be tiered versions:

Free: cloud syncs all content that you purchased from iTunes / other online store as well as CDs that you insert into your drive and can prove that you've bought. (I know this can be pirated / spoofed as well, but who on earth downloads Audio CD ISOs?) - uses Master file from iTunes server

Paid: Everything else not from those normal purchase methods that you can upload to your own iTunes / Ping account - uses your own private limited space on server

I dunno, just a thought?

OllyW
May 26, 2011, 06:06 PM
Apple can easily make it available for free for all Macintosh and iPod / iDevice owners, increasing the value of these devices and therefore sales. Just take it as free advertisement.

It would be nice if it could happen but I very much doubt it.

Porchland
May 26, 2011, 06:09 PM
I hope there's more to this iCloud than music.

I fully expect that any Apple cloud service would include cloud storage and wireless syncing of photos (and possibly videos). That would be a much more elegant solution to taking, editing, transferring and storing photos on multiple Apple devices than what it available now, and it would give Apple a hook for branding the service as an extension of iLife.

Mike Oxard
May 26, 2011, 06:12 PM
"Users of the service will then be able to stream, whenever they want, their songs and albums directly to PCs, iPhones, iPads, and perhaps one day even cars."

What do they mean "one day even cars" ? Is this talking about streaming directly to your car stereo without plugging it into your iPhone (i.e. a new car stereo) or will it be for streaming over wifi only, so you can't stream it to your car stereo via your phone? Wifi only would be practically useless.
:confused:

ten-oak-druid
May 26, 2011, 06:12 PM
1) Hopefully this isn’t limited to just tracks purchased in iTunes

I want to say I doubt it as the competition (amazon) allows for music to be uploaded. Actually Amazon specifically sets up their cloud for you to upload your own music. You can upload your purchased music but it isn't a given. You have to tell it to after purchasing. This is how amazon got around getting licenses. You can upload any music you like.

But then again when you think of how much better kindle books are managed compared to ibooks, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's cloud options are less than Amazon's.


"Users of the service will then be able to stream, whenever they want, their songs and albums directly to PCs, iPhones, iPads, and perhaps one day even cars."

What do they mean "one day even cars" ? Is this talking about streaming directly to your car stereo without plugging it into your iPhone (i.e. a new car stereo) or will it be for streaming over wifi only, so you can't stream it to your car stereo via your phone? Wifi only would be practically useless.
:confused:


Probably 3G/4G car stereos enabled of the future. And Apple will probably launch a satellite in a few years to service north america and compete with SiriusXM in content delivery.

Tymmz
May 26, 2011, 06:14 PM
This is great, but some people like myself are already streaming their songs and movies from home to our idevices.

I don't see the point in all this.

Rog210
May 26, 2011, 06:14 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I must be missing something here, what is the licence from the labels for, exactly?

I buy a CD, rip it, then upload the file somewhere so I can access it remotely. Where's the need for a licence to do that?

It's a moot point for me anyway, the days of me giving the major labels money are long gone and I eagerly await their demise. I won't rehash the myriad reasons why they're scum here.

slu
May 26, 2011, 06:17 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

FYI, Lala (which Apple acquired) scanned your whole iTunes library and automatically allowed you to stream the items that matched items in their library. Anything that did not exist in their library could be uploaded and them streamed like anything else. I would be shocked if Apple's solution did anything else. Now Lala was free. I don't expect Apple's solution to be free. But if it offers this functionality via a browser and iOS app, it will be a big hit.

Combustion
May 26, 2011, 06:17 PM
Launch internationally and you will instantly dominate Amazon and Google. Who am I kidding? I just want to be able to have iCloud (or whatever it gets called) available here in Australia either at the same time or very close to it. Not like iTunes that took years to come across, and similarly when movies was added to iTunes.

Macopotamus
May 26, 2011, 06:22 PM
I hope this is how it works, this would be much more efficient than uploading our media library.

Macopotamus
May 26, 2011, 06:25 PM
I second this. Most of the music in my library is not available through iTunes.

Yup, me too. That would kill iCloud from the get go.

ArtOfWarfare
May 26, 2011, 06:25 PM
If the sound quality of a particular song on a user's hard drive isn't good enough, Apple will be able to replace it with a higher-quality version.

Sounds to me like you'll be able to use songs you've acquired by means other than the iTunes store, if they're considering the possibility that your copy of the song is inferior to their copy.

I can't imagine Apple would drop the prices on songs and go to a monthly subscription fee... can you imagine the backlash they'd get from people who've bought hundreds of dollars worth of music from iTunes, only to now have it both:

1.) Cost them money to play it henceforth.
2.) Cost other people nothing to buy it.

That's not just wrong, it's stealing. Or something like that. It'd be like Apple suddenly saying every movie on your computer was just a rental and you only had 24 hours left to watch them before they'd be automatically removed, regardless of whether you paid for them.

jdechko
May 26, 2011, 06:36 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

FYI, Lala (which Apple acquired) scanned your whole iTunes library and automatically allowed you to stream the items that matched items in their library. Anything that did not exist in their library could be uploaded and them streamed like anything else. I would be shocked if Apple's solution did anything else. Now Lala was free. I don't expect Apple's solution to be free. But if it offers this functionality via a browser and iOS app, it will be a big hit.

I'm hoping very much that this will be the way the iTunes Streaming service works. I just hope there's not a per song "upgrade fee". At $0.30 a song, a lot of people couldn't use it. Hell, at $0.01 per song I probably wouldn't use it.

timinbovey
May 26, 2011, 06:37 PM
This is obviously going to be a service geared to the "music for the masses" crowd. Like my wife or my (adult) children. Not me. Probably not my son, either.

If it's limited to iTunes availability (which since we can't upload......) hundreds and thousands of independent artists will NOT be available. Further, artists who have opted to NOT be a part of the RIAA, or are NOT with a major label (one of the 4 big ones, basically -- three of which are located in countries other than the USA) would never receive a penny through the licensing deal anyway. (And yes, I know the RIAA is made up of hundreds, if not thousands of "labels" 98% of which are under the umbrella of one of the big 4)

I've been at this music collecting thing for 50 years. Know how much vinyl is in my house? Not to mention the shellac (78's). Tons of obscure bands -- many who only did one or two 45's, in small studios, with no more distribution than the band themselves? NONE of this music will survive through this system. Tons of this music is in my computer and my ipod.

My Son is a musician, blues at that, and most of his collection is tracks of vintage blues material, not connected to the big four. Bet that won't stream. Interesting -- he's released 4 CD's. All of which are available on iTunes. As are thousands of other independents. You wanna bet that when the bean counters tally up the tunes/tracks/streams all the independent tunes will just count as "another track" and big business will get the $$ due to the independent artists? Or will the indies not be available in the cloud? Since I own the label my Son recorded on, and he's published by my publishing company, I have yet to be contacted by Apple to make his tunes available in their new streaming service. If they had to make a deal with the big labels, are they making deals with all the thousands of indies? Or are they just getting screwed?

There are MANY questions here. Perhaps the independents will wind up banding together and suing Apple for their share of stream rights?

The more I think about it, the more interesting it gets.

There is a HUGE amount of independent music out there. Ever browse CD Baby? That's independent music, man.

BLACKFRIDAY
May 26, 2011, 06:46 PM
It would be nice if it could happen but I very much doubt it.

That has been Apple's strategy for a while. They can actually put the whole of MobileMe for FREE without incurring much loss but GREAT sales which can easily contribute to such a thing.

But the thing that plays the important role is:

1. Maintenance
2. License costs, etc.

If it's not ad-supported which MobileMe and streaming service will always be, there has to be some kind of cost.

lilo777
May 26, 2011, 06:52 PM
It looks like this service will not be free which means that the customer trades one time gain (quicker uploading of his music - not really that big a problem) for long term pain - he will have to pay for the service every time he uses it. No wonder music labels are so interested in this service to succeed.

darbus69
May 26, 2011, 07:02 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

This is obviously going to be a service geared to the "music for the masses" crowd. Like my wife or my (adult) children. Not me. Probably not my son, either.

If it's limited to iTunes availability (which since we can't upload......) hundreds and thousands of independent artists will NOT be available. Further, artists who have opted to NOT be a part of the RIAA, or are NOT with a major label (one of the 4 big ones, basically -- three of which are located in countries other than the USA) would never receive a penny through the licensing deal anyway. (And yes, I know the RIAA is made up of hundreds, if not thousands of "labels" 98% of which are under the umbrella of one of the big 4)

I've been at this music collecting thing for 50 years. Know how much vinyl is in my house? Not to mention the shellac (78's). Tons of obscure bands -- many who only did one or two 45's, in small studios, with no more distribution than the band themselves? NONE of this music will survive through this system. Tons of this music is in my computer and my ipod.

My Son is a musician, blues at that, and most of his collection is tracks of vintage blues material, not connected to the big four. Bet that won't stream. Interesting -- he's released 4 CD's. All of which are available on iTunes. As are thousands of other independents. You wanna bet that when the bean counters tally up the tunes/tracks/streams all the independent tunes will just count as "another track" and big business will get the $$ due to the independent artists? Or will the indies not be available in the cloud? Since I own the label my Son recorded on, and he's published by my publishing company, I have yet to be contacted by Apple to make his tunes available in their new streaming service. If they had to make a deal with the big labels, are they making deals with all the thousands of indies? Or are they just getting screwed?

There are MANY questions here. Perhaps the independents will wind up banding together and suing Apple for their share of stream rights?

The more I think about it, the more interesting it gets.

There is a HUGE amount of independent music out there. Ever browse CD Baby? That's independent music, man.

I listen to, support and love indie bands-rarely buy big name artists music-but, you cannot expect any music service to negotiate with every single label or publisher in the world. I buy all my indie music from iTunes and will continue to support them any way u can. I believe apple will put into place a compensation system for those indie artists in the iTunes ecosystem, apple has supported theses artists in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

ciTiger
May 26, 2011, 07:04 PM
Everybody waiting on Apple to see how it goes... So... What else is new? :rolleyes:

LunaticSX
May 26, 2011, 07:05 PM
This indicates that it won't only be limited to music you've downloaded from iTunes:

"Apple will be able to scan customers' digital music libraries in iTunes and quickly mirror their collections on its own servers, say three people briefed on the talks. If the sound quality of a particular song on a user's hard drive isn't good enough, Apple will be able to replace it with a higher-quality version."

For one, Apple already has a record of what you've purchased on iTunes, so they don't need to scan your library on your computer for those tracks. For another, if it only works for music originally downloaded from iTunes then the only reason they'd need to replace a low quality track with a higher quality one is if you still have old tracks from before they switched them all to iTunes Plus. This isn't likely to be significant enough to call it out. It's most likely that this is a reference to tracks you've ripped yourself off of CDs at a low bit rate. It MAY be limited to tracks that at least have metadata indicating that they've been ripped by iTunes, so there's some belief that they've been legitimately ripped off of a customer's CD instead of downloaded. There's no doubt that there's plenty of music being shared that's been ripped by iTunes, but none of the most offensive "scene" releases of music are. (Of course someone's likely to create a tool that'll get around this by updating all your music's metadata, but distribution of that tool will still be small.)

Replacing low quality tracks in a user's library with higher quality ones from the iTunes Store is one reason why Apple would have made sure to make deals with the music labels. The labels would normally see this as a separate "sale" of each track. They simply don't recognize the idea that once you've bought music in one form that you have the right to use it in another form unless you pay for it again. This is why they fought so hard against allowing people to legally rip their own CDs. Fortunately the consumer won on that one, but that's a rare exception.

The labels have already been trying to either shut down or force licensing out of any service that allows you to upload your own music and stream it. Google and Amazon are so large they thought they might be able to get away with it, or at least that they could manage the court costs when they're sued and keep their services running for 3 to 5 years while the lawsuits are drawn out.

Striking a deal with Apple both gives the labels ammunition for licensing demands and/or lawsuits against Google and Amazon, and it gives them hope that a better service from Apple will curb adoption of the Google and Amazon services. With low(er) adoption, Google and Amazon are more likely to settle with the labels because the money they're making on their services will be greatly diminished.

A few final notes:

Obviously if you've got music on your hard drive that isn't available on the iTunes Store, if Apple allows you to use those at all those are going to have to be uploaded over your network connection. Even if someone else has uploaded a higher quality version Apple's rights to replace your files with higher quality ones are surely going to be limited to music they already have a licence to sell.

Next, thanks to the database files iTunes keeps on your hard drive the "scanning" process is actually only going to consist of a single upload of one of those files, rather than actually seeking all over your hard drive for files with the right file extensions. This'll make the initial sync even faster. It won't detect anything that isn't already in your iTunes library, of course. With Apple's flair for integration, though, any new tracks you add to iTunes will certainly be quickly updated in your cloud service. You may need to manually sync, or it might just do it automatically when you add the tracks in iTunes, as long as you have a network connection.

Interestingly, this could allow you to save space locally and still get higher quality music by intentionally ripping something onto your hard drive at a low quality and letting Apple "replace" it in your cloud service with a higher quality version from the iTunes Store. :)

Finally, as far as pricing I wouldn't be surprised if this is bundled into the price of whatever Apple chooses to call the replacement for MobileMe, e.g. "iCloud."

lilo777
May 26, 2011, 07:06 PM
Everybody waiting on Apple to see how it goes... So... What else is new? :rolleyes:

What do you mean. Are Amazon and Google waiting? It looks like Apple is waiting to see how those two will do.

Sol
May 26, 2011, 07:09 PM
Surely there will be issues with tracks that are not named exactly the same as those on Apple's servers. To simplify sorting I always put the name of a guest artist in the song title in parenthesises eg. Another Way to Die (feat. Jack White) instead of the default way of naming both artists in the artist field. If Apple scans my library to mirror its contents on the cloud, then they might not include all such tracks because they would be unrecognisable.

In any case, I fail to see why a cloud service is needed in the first place. Capacities of iPods seem to double every generation and a half so in a few years we will be storing entire libraries in iPod Nano size devices. To an extent that is already possible if the option to mirror in 128 kbs option is used in iTunes.

Justinf79
May 26, 2011, 07:15 PM
I hope there's more to this iCloud than music.

Well I'd imagine that all your like contacts and data that MobileMe currently syncs would be available also. Perhaps photos and movies as well.

slu
May 26, 2011, 07:17 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

This is obviously going to be a service geared to the "music for the masses" crowd. Like my wife or my (adult) children. Not me. Probably not my son, either.

If it's limited to iTunes availability (which since we can't upload......) hundreds and thousands of independent artists will NOT be available. Further, artists who have opted to NOT be a part of the RIAA, or are NOT with a major label (one of the 4 big ones, basically -- three of which are located in countries other than the USA) would never receive a penny through the licensing deal anyway. (And yes, I know the RIAA is made up of hundreds, if not thousands of "labels" 98% of which are under the umbrella of one of the big 4)

I've been at this music collecting thing for 50 years. Know how much vinyl is in my house? Not to mention the shellac (78's). Tons of obscure bands -- many who only did one or two 45's, in small studios, with no more distribution than the band themselves? NONE of this music will survive through this system. Tons of this music is in my computer and my ipod.

My Son is a musician, blues at that, and most of his collection is tracks of vintage blues material, not connected to the big four. Bet that won't stream. Interesting -- he's released 4 CD's. All of which are available on iTunes. As are thousands of other independents. You wanna bet that when the bean counters tally up the tunes/tracks/streams all the independent tunes will just count as "another track" and big business will get the $$ due to the independent artists? Or will the indies not be available in the cloud? Since I own the label my Son recorded on, and he's published by my publishing company, I have yet to be contacted by Apple to make his tunes available in their new streaming service. If they had to make a deal with the big labels, are they making deals with all the thousands of indies? Or are they just getting screwed?

There are MANY questions here. Perhaps the independents will wind up banding together and suing Apple for their share of stream rights?

The more I think about it, the more interesting it gets.

There is a HUGE amount of independent music out there. Ever browse CD Baby? That's independent music, man.

I have 2 CDs on iTunes as well. I would expect to get compensated the same way others are. Unless you deal directly with Apple to get your music on iTunes, I don't know why you would expect them to contact you. They would deal with Tunecore or Cd Baby or whoever you work with and you'd get paid by them like you do for downloads

We also had our music on Lala before Apple acquired them and shut them down and we got paid $0.01 for every stream via Tunecore. Don't see why it would be different.

Mak47
May 26, 2011, 07:18 PM
This could get interesting. Yes, there will certainly be some kind of costs associated with this service--the question is how will they be passed on to the consumer?

I think it's unlikely that there will by any kind of per song or per use charge. It's hard enough to get people to pay for music. Increasing the price would not help the situation. It could perhaps be included with a MobileMe subscription, but that doesn't jive with the talk of that becoming free (Google already offers similar services at no charge).

My guess is that this is seen as a major increase in convenience for users, which will lead to higher sales revenues. As a result, I wouldn't be shocked to see this offered as either an ad supported program or either free or very low cost. The idea being Apple makes more money in the long run by selling more songs, more mobile devices and more Macs.

I also won't be surprised to see the RIAA file huge lawsuits against the unlicensed competing services. It's really difficult and unpopular for them to go after individual users, but Google and Amazon are big targets. Lawsuits that they will likely win. There is no way to prove that the files they're storing aren't pirated, if they didn't agree to license the songs they sold for cloud streaming then they're most certainly violating their initial agreements with the record labels. Apple signing and paying for licensing creates a precedent that a license is appropriate as well.

This could at the very least kill off those competing cloud services. Amazon only has sales of digital music/video to attempt to recoup the costs with. Google only has Ads. Apple recoups through sales of high dollar merchandise, digital sales and potentially ad revenue. Even if Apple offers the service for free, with the likely reduction in competition they'll make out in the long run.

Sir Cecil
May 26, 2011, 07:20 PM
And what of all the tracks in one's collection that have been edited, by making compilations with fade-out/fade-in, or shortened/segued with only parts of tracks left, or with corrections like removal of digital clicks etc?

slu
May 26, 2011, 07:26 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

And what of all the tracks in one's collection that have been edited, by making compilations with fade-out/fade-in, or shortened/segued with only parts of tracks left, or with corrections like removal of digital clicks etc?

I would imagine you could upload these tracks like any other track that is not found in the iTunes store.

Mak47
May 26, 2011, 07:43 PM
This is obviously going to be a service geared to the "music for the masses" crowd. Like my wife or my (adult) children. Not me. Probably not my son, either.

If it's limited to iTunes availability (which since we can't upload......) hundreds and thousands of independent artists will NOT be available. Further, artists who have opted to NOT be a part of the RIAA, or are NOT with a major label (one of the 4 big ones, basically -- three of which are located in countries other than the USA) would never receive a penny through the licensing deal anyway. (And yes, I know the RIAA is made up of hundreds, if not thousands of "labels" 98% of which are under the umbrella of one of the big 4)

I've been at this music collecting thing for 50 years. Know how much vinyl is in my house? Not to mention the shellac (78's). Tons of obscure bands -- many who only did one or two 45's, in small studios, with no more distribution than the band themselves? NONE of this music will survive through this system. Tons of this music is in my computer and my ipod.

My Son is a musician, blues at that, and most of his collection is tracks of vintage blues material, not connected to the big four. Bet that won't stream. Interesting -- he's released 4 CD's. All of which are available on iTunes. As are thousands of other independents. You wanna bet that when the bean counters tally up the tunes/tracks/streams all the independent tunes will just count as "another track" and big business will get the $$ due to the independent artists? Or will the indies not be available in the cloud? Since I own the label my Son recorded on, and he's published by my publishing company, I have yet to be contacted by Apple to make his tunes available in their new streaming service. If they had to make a deal with the big labels, are they making deals with all the thousands of indies? Or are they just getting screwed?

There are MANY questions here. Perhaps the independents will wind up banding together and suing Apple for their share of stream rights?

The more I think about it, the more interesting it gets.

There is a HUGE amount of independent music out there. Ever browse CD Baby? That's independent music, man.

Apple doesn't deal with independent artists directly, nor do they deal with very small independent labels directly. All of these people go through third party companies to get their music sold on iTunes. I'm sure that any label entity that Apple deals with directly has been negotiated with and has signed off. If it's a small label, the negotiation probably went something like "Here's the deal--take it or leave". Most would take it unquestionably, iTunes is the biggest music store in the world, they don't want to not be there.

For the others who go through third parties, they've all signed (or clicked through T&C's) that give the third party company the right to negotiate for the artists and labels they work with. They will certainly be compensated in some way if there is compensation to be had--but according to the terms laid out with that company--not with Apple directly.

As for the publishers...that's an interesting story. They are most likely dealing with the various organizations that represent publishers. There are only three in the US. Most other countries only have one. Publishers and writers agree to allow those groups to negotiate for them in these situations as well.

As for the truly obscure music that many of us (including myself) love. That won't change. There is no way to digitally recreate the sound of vinyl, or the thrill we get when we hunt down those really hard to find records. I don't see how this service impacts that in any way. The digital revolution has happened in music, and there are still some that can appreciate the analog formats. While this service doesn't cater to us in particular, it won't hurt what we like.

ten-oak-druid
May 26, 2011, 07:44 PM
Everybody waiting on Apple to see how it goes... So... What else is new? :rolleyes:

Same as it ever was...

http://www.edwinhimself.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Talking-Heads-Once-in-a-Lifetime.jpg

donlphi
May 26, 2011, 07:45 PM
After iTunes scans your library, Apple will tag any ripped music from CDs or ripped movies from DVDs as illegal content and you will be reported to the copyright police, forced to pay a fine of $10,000 and up to 5 years of prison.

$10,000 should cover the cost for one person to use the service.
:D

toddybody
May 26, 2011, 07:46 PM
Hmm...the mentioning of scanning drives and replacing "lower quality music" with higher quality seems to imply that it registers your music collection and allows cloud access to songs that match your library...even for music bought/ripped apart from iTunes(e.g., I own 3 songs, 2 from iTunes, 1 ripped...iCloud recognizes everything in my library, and allows me access to the songs any place I want).


This would be incredible.

JPR
May 26, 2011, 07:51 PM
Maybe ther'll bounce it off a satelite like xm/sirius?

phpmaven
May 26, 2011, 08:00 PM
I would be very surprised (pleased, but surprised) if this includes songs that are available on iTunes but that I didn't buy from iTunes.

I don't see how the music companies would allow it - you'd be "laundering" pirated tracks into legal iTunes tracks. (After all, anyone who rips a CD is a pirate, according to the music companies)

If you think about it, the labels will be getting paid for every song in your library. What do they care where you got it. They will get paid for every track you have, whether or not you bought that track from Apple. Now they will finally get some compensations for any tracks you may have purloined.

Now Apple may be the one to say, we're not going to pay a royalty for every song in your library unless you bought it from us. However, if they charge by the song as opposed to a certain amount of storage, which I would assume they will, then they may not care either, since you will be paying fot it.

It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

unobtainium
May 26, 2011, 08:02 PM
I can't figure out why I would need this. If I'm out listening to music on my iPhone, I may lose my 3G connection in the middle of a song (subway, concrete building, poor network coverage area, etc.). I also get a limited amount of cellphone data per month, and streaming music would quickly eat up 1 GB.

If I'm at home, I've already got the songs on my computer's hard drive, right? Why would I need to stream them? If I'm running out of space, it would make more sense to upgrade to a higher-capacity device. So come on Apple...give us a 64 GB iPhone 4S in September :D

maroontiger2k9
May 26, 2011, 08:07 PM
Surely there will be issues with tracks that are not named exactly the same as those on Apple's servers. To simplify sorting I always put the name of a guest artist in the song title in parenthesises eg. Another Way to Die (feat. Jack White) instead of the default way of naming both artists in the artist field. If Apple scans my library to mirror its contents on the cloud, then they might not include all such tracks because they would be unrecognisable.

In any case, I fail to see why a cloud service is needed in the first place. Capacities of iPods seem to double every generation and a half so in a few years we will be storing entire libraries in iPod Nano size devices. To an extent that is already possible if the option to mirror in 128 kbs option is used in iTunes.

this will undoubtedly be the biggest challenge for me on iCloud... i am notorious from changing my ARTIST tags to one single artist and putting "(Feat. _____) in the SONG NAME... it just better that way so when you navigate an ipod, you can view the entire album from an artist, without having to go to the ALBUM view...

i think another solution to this is ALBUM ARTIST... but w/e.. i learned that too late in the game :cool:

maroontiger2k9
May 26, 2011, 08:12 PM
What do they mean "one day even cars" ? Is this talking about streaming directly to your car stereo without plugging it into your iPhone (i.e. a new car stereo) or will it be for streaming over wifi only, so you can't stream it to your car stereo via your phone? Wifi only would be practically useless.
:confused:

apple will come out with iStereo... an itunes integrated stereo that will feature REMOTE app integration for use with the iphone/ipad/ipod and voice integration to play whatever you want it too :cool: /prediction :apple:

TOYSTER17
May 26, 2011, 08:23 PM
Google negotiated with the music labels for more than a year to create a cloud music service, then launched an unlicensed service similar to Amazon's when talks foundered. According to two music executives familiar with the discussions, Google was prepared to pay more than $100 million up front to the four major music labels for licenses, but talks broke down over the music industry's concern that search results in Google and YouTube often point to pirated music.

It seems as long as music labels insist Google do something about pirated music appearing in their search results, they might never reach a deal, which would be a shame.

Bear
May 26, 2011, 08:29 PM
While in theory this cloud service sounds like pit's possibly a neat idea, I for one would have to know what we're getting and how much it's going to cost.

Also, I'd like to know that the big labels aren't getting paid for music they have no rights over. I have dozens of albums that were produced and released independently. If the big labels got money for these, it would be like they were stealing from small artists.

timinbovey
May 26, 2011, 08:30 PM
Apple doesn't deal with independent artists directly, nor do they deal with very small independent labels directly. All of these people go through third party companies to get their music sold on iTunes. I'm sure that any label entity that Apple deals with directly has been negotiated with and has signed off. If it's a small label, the negotiation probably went something like "Here's the deal--take it or leave". Most would take it unquestionably, iTunes is the biggest music store in the world, they don't want to not be there.

For the others who go through third parties, they've all signed (or clicked through T&C's) that give the third party company the right to negotiate for the artists and labels they work with. They will certainly be compensated in some way if there is compensation to be had--but according to the terms laid out with that company--not with Apple directly.

As for the publishers...that's an interesting story. They are most likely dealing with the various organizations that represent publishers. There are only three in the US. Most other countries only have one. Publishers and writers agree to allow those groups to negotiate for them in these situations as well.

As for the truly obscure music that many of us (including myself) love. That won't change. There is no way to digitally recreate the sound of vinyl, or the thrill we get when we hunt down those really hard to find records. I don't see how this service impacts that in any way. The digital revolution has happened in music, and there are still some that can appreciate the analog formats. While this service doesn't cater to us in particular, it won't hurt what we like.


Exactly. My Son's music on iTunes is there through the deal with CD Baby for digital distribution. We have heard nothing from either Apple or CD Baby that rights/fees for streaming have been or are being negotiated. Considering there are hundreds of thousands of independents in on the same CD Baby deal (among others) I wonder how this will all shake down.

But it this works out the same way BMI/ASCAP does, the independents will get NOTHING. I know for a fact, that my Son's music has been played hundreds of times on radio stations across the US and around the world. I know for a fact his songs are regularly played on a nationally syndicated radio program, carried on over 100 stations. Now, I know that compared to Lady Gaga or that Beiber kid, his stuff amounts to basically nothing. However, over 9 years of plays from one CD on radio, should have garnered at least a few cents from ASCAP. But no. Because their system doesn't really count the "little guy" even if you're a member

The same thing is likely to happen here with independents. He does receive payments from iTunes for digital downloads on a regular basis. We'll see.

slu
May 26, 2011, 08:31 PM
If you think about it, the labels will be getting paid for every song in your library. What do they care where you got it. They will get paid for every track you have, whether or not you bought that track from Apple. Now they will finally get some compensations for any tracks you may have purloined.

Now Apple may be the one to say, we're not going to pay a royalty for every song in your library unless you bought it from us. However, if they charge by the song as opposed to a certain amount of storage, which I would assume they will, then they may not care either, since you will be paying fot it.

It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

I would guess the labels get paid by stream of a song, not by what is stored.

slu
May 26, 2011, 08:37 PM
Exactly. My Son's music on iTunes is there through the deal with CD Baby for digital distribution. We have heard nothing from either Apple or CD Baby that rights/fees for streaming have been or are being negotiated. Considering there are hundreds of thousands of independents in on the same CD Baby deal (among others) I wonder how this will all shake down.

But it this works out the same way BMI/ASCAP does, the independents will get NOTHING. I know for a fact, that my Son's music has been played hundreds of times on radio stations across the US and around the world. I know for a fact his songs are regularly played on a nationally syndicated radio program, carried on over 100 stations. Now, I know that compared to Lady Gaga or that Beiber kid, his stuff amounts to basically nothing. However, over 9 years of plays from one CD on radio, should have garnered at least a few cents from ASCAP. But no. Because their system doesn't really count the "little guy" even if you're a member

The same thing is likely to happen here with independents. He does receive payments from iTunes for digital downloads on a regular basis. We'll see.

I would be shocked if you didn't get paid from CD Baby for this service. Like I said above, we got paid per stream from Lala and they did the same basic thing, with contracts with the labels. It was no money really, but we did get paid.

mantan
May 26, 2011, 08:38 PM
I can't figure out why I would need this. If I'm out listening to music on my iPhone, I may lose my 3G connection in the middle of a song (subway, concrete building, poor network coverage area, etc.). I also get a limited amount of cellphone data per month, and streaming music would quickly eat up 1 GB.

If I'm at home, I've already got the songs on my computer's hard drive, right? Why would I need to stream them? If I'm running out of space, it would make more sense to upgrade to a higher-capacity device. So come on Apple...give us a 64 GB iPhone 4S in September :D

I'm in the same boat. I just can't figure out what the benefit is. Paying extra to access music I've already bought and have to utilize a 3G connection to get it seems pointless for the majority of users.

I guess I could see being able to share an iPod in the family without worrying about space. But most families just end up getting multiple devices.

A model like the Rhapsody system which gives you unlimited streaming to tracks/month to your device, but you lose access when you stop subscribing may work.

But like I lot of people, I realized I spent more on 4 years of Rhapsody subscription fees than I would have spent buying the tracks on iTunes and lost access to those songs the moment we let our subscription lapse.

louis Fashion
May 26, 2011, 08:46 PM
I can't figure out why I would need this. If I'm out listening to music on my iPhone, I may lose my 3G connection in the middle of a song (subway, concrete building, poor network coverage area, etc.). I also get a limited amount of cellphone data per month, and streaming music would quickly eat up 1 GB.

If I'm at home, I've already got the songs on my computer's hard drive, right? Why would I need to stream them? If I'm running out of space, it would make more sense to upgrade to a higher-capacity device. So come on Apple...give us a 64 GB iPhone 4S in September :D

Is Verizon going to give be all the could - music I can eat? I don't think so.

jettredmont
May 26, 2011, 08:48 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I must be missing something here, what is the licence from the labels for, exactly?

I buy a CD, rip it, then upload the file somewhere so I can access it remotely. Where's the need for a licence to do that?

It's a moot point for me anyway, the days of me giving the major labels money are long gone and I eagerly await their demise. I won't rehash the myriad reasons why they're scum here.

One known, one possible.

Known: a license would be required for Apple to keep a "master" copy of each song instead of requiring upload/download. So, if you buy Song X, and 5 million other people also have Song X, all Apple needs to do is note in its database that you have access to Song X, and from then on you can stream Song X from the one copy Apple keeps on its servers. This is a massive cost saver for Apple (allowing them to pass some of that savings on down), as well as a time saver for you (you don't have to wait for your new purchase to be copied over to the server before you can stream it, such as you do with Amazon's service).

Possible: It is quite possible that Amazon and Google will end up paying out to the RIAA massive fees due to lawsuits. Just because they are doing it doesn't mean it is legal. Just because you and I call it a file storage service doesn't mean that the player aspects when you store a music file don't hit upon public performance or encouraging copyright infringement.

hitekalex
May 26, 2011, 09:12 PM
I'm in the same boat. I just can't figure out what the benefit is. Paying extra to access music I've already bought and have to utilize a 3G connection to get it seems pointless for the majority of users.

+1.

This whole hype about "cloud music" just makes no sense. Local flash storage on mobile devices is abundant, reliable and cheap. 3G bandwidth is scarce, expensive and unreliable.

Do I really want to be suffering through trying to stream music on my commute to work going through tunnels, subway stops and dead spots? All the while paying extra $$$ to Apple for "cloud storage" and to AT&T for chewing up my limited 3G data plan? This is pure insanity.

I really think Apple is on the wrong track here. Instead of this "music locker" nonsense - they should beef up their iDisk service and give us something like 100GB of cloud storage for a reasonable cost.. Where I can store ANY type of content I own, and have it universally accessible on any Mac or iDevice. Apple is uniquely positioned to kill DropBox here, as only they can natively integrate cloud file system into iOS 5 and Lion.

But trying to charge us AGAIN for the content we already own to have it stream from "the cloud"? Good luck with that Apple. You won't be seeing a penny of my money spent on this.

ten-oak-druid
May 26, 2011, 09:25 PM
All these companies with clouds of this sort are just looking at better ways to market to you. They already build profiles of you based on your purchases. Now they will know all your musical tastes even it you buy your music on used cd's at the local store.

So now the sponsors will grab music from your own collection when the add pops up. Who knows, perhaps one day you will be amazed as all the store fronts you walk by on a slow day on main street or the mall, will be playing all the music you enjoy? It will be amazing. You will want to go in and shop. Of course being a slow day, your device will be noticed in the vicinity and to grab your attention your playlists accessed. You will of course give permission for this when you check some box allowing sponsors to market to you in exchange for some benefit (like reduced storage costs on the cloud). The teenagers working in the stores will catch on to the phenomenon and get a kick out of watching the music change up and down the strip to your preference. "Oh my god my parents listen to Lady Gaga too. She is so old school."

bosephus61
May 26, 2011, 09:37 PM
Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/26/some-icloud-music-service-details-others-companies-likely-to-follow/)


Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_23/b4231035679728.htm) provides an overview of how Apple's music service might compare to the recent services launched by Google and Amazon. Notably, Apple is taking the time and spending the money to reach agreements with the major music labels to support the service.

Amazon reportedly didn't even try prior to their cloud music launch, while Google's talks broke down after a year of negotiation. Both existing services are limited due to the lack of licenses. Label executives are said to have been negotiating "aggressively" to make sure they profit from the shift to the cloud.

Businessweek is able to describe what the service will look like based on those familiar with the negotiations:It's not clear how Apple intends to pay for and charge for the service. The licenses will reportedly cost a lot, and Apple will have to pass those charges to the customer in some form.

According to Businessweek, many are waiting to see what Apple can accomplish as labels expect that once Apple's service launches, others will soon follow with similarly licensed services.

Article Link: Some iCloud Music Service Details, Others Companies Likely to Follow (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/26/some-icloud-music-service-details-others-companies-likely-to-follow/)


So just as all the services want to move to cloud; all the ISPs (wired and wireless) want to start charging you for all bandwidth not on wifi. Seems like a major issue in the making.

liquidsuns
May 26, 2011, 10:02 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

I have a question that's probably stupid, but I'm interested to know; if the plan is to allow you to stream non-iTunes purchased music, how would Apple actually know what the song is? When you purchase a song through iTunes, it has an ID number, but when you rip a CD or torrent a song, there is seemingly no way for iTunes to know what the song is beyond whatever name you gave it.

I guess one ID method could be length of song, but you could conceivably just record dead air, tag it with the track and artist and then.... just...what? How could iTunes know the difference?

FriarNurgle
May 26, 2011, 10:18 PM
Can I just put a mic up and record songs from the radio or online stream and then get a better quality from Apple... for free? It's perfect. The RIAA lawyers will be out on the streets in no time.

QCassidy352
May 26, 2011, 10:31 PM
licenses cost a lot... bandwidth costs a lot... and local storage is cheap. Oh, and it can be used anywhere, any time. So yeah, not seeing the point of this one.

Spacejunc
May 26, 2011, 10:34 PM
part of me thinks that Apple will wow us with an Ad(or rather iAd) supported version of the cloud music service for free. It would take the competitors by surprise.

ChazUK
May 26, 2011, 10:45 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.4; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRJ22) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

I wonder if this library scanning will have any implications on people who download leaked albums before they're released? I do not pirate music myself but I wonder if such access to people's libraries coould be used to combat piracy (their fault if it does).

I think what I'll do is build a PC with the lowest power consumption possible, set it up as a media server, tuck it away and use Audiogalaxy or the like to access my music on my terms. Cross platform accessible and under my control.

cisco1138
May 26, 2011, 10:50 PM
I miss LaLa

kingtj
May 26, 2011, 10:57 PM
In the 80's, the "record clubs" were still pretty popular. I remember, like many of my friends, signing up for those "get 8 CDs for 1 penny" type of offers from Columbia House and BMG, buying a few more choice CDs when they had good deals on them, and then fighting to cancel. (That part typically involved receiving still more discs you didn't request that they kept automatically mailing out, or them screwing up and sending you things you weren't ever supposed to get. So of course, you kept those too.)

I wound up with close to 100 discs from those services.....

Then, there were a couple people I knew who were SO into music, they actually built up a literal music library; a whole room of their house full of shelves containing nothing but CDs. Easily more than many radio stations have in their collections.

Realistically, I don't think ANY of these online services would really allow streaming of ALL of that content to any one subscriber. Once you get a certain amount of music amassed in your personal collection, you have some responsibility to create you own "self service" digital version of that collection... There are plenty of good media server solutions out there to share/stream it all yourself.


I do. But I grew up in the era of vinyl records. When CDs came out, I bought as many of them as I could afford to replace my vinyl. So, I have literally thousands of CDs — all of which I've ripped and so they now collect dust in the garage!

cisco1138
May 26, 2011, 10:58 PM
[SIZE=1]
I wonder if this library scanning will have any implications on people who download leaked albums before they're released? I do not pirate music myself but I wonder if such access to people's libraries coould be used to combat piracy.

My curent version of iTunes scans my library and adds artwork to my cd rips. It only ads artwork to music that Apple offers on the iTunes store, ignores the rest of my music.

Thomas Davie
May 26, 2011, 10:59 PM
I already stream my music, videos and any other file I choose from my own server to any device I use, and gosh already in my car. Sure, some of my setup is kludgy, but it doesn't cost a penny. I do like the idea of having an inferior copy replaced with the ones from Apple's servers, but I do not like being forced to be online to get my music (although realistically I am online 24/7).

Probably will sign up out of curiosity. But in order to stick with it, there has to be something compelling thats beats free.

Tom

akm3
May 26, 2011, 11:02 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Ping!

TripHop
May 26, 2011, 11:18 PM
Surely there will be issues with tracks that are not named exactly the same as those on Apple's servers. To simplify sorting I always put the name of a guest artist in the song title in parenthesises eg. Another Way to Die (feat. Jack White) instead of the default way of naming both artists in the artist field. If Apple scans my library to mirror its contents on the cloud, then they might not include all such tracks because they would be unrecognisable.

In any case, I fail to see why a cloud service is needed in the first place. Capacities of iPods seem to double every generation and a half so in a few years we will be storing entire libraries in iPod Nano size devices. To an extent that is already possible if the option to mirror in 128 kbs option is used in iTunes.I agree. I am an obsessive track-album tag editor, always changing the way tracks and albums are tagged all the time. Plus this looks like an invasion of privacy scenario to me. I don't want Apple examining my over 2TB iTunes Library. I just finished moving it from a 2TB drive to a 3TB drive when I ran out of room to the point where tracks kept failing to copy and downsize rip when the HD reached less that 1.5 GB remaining.

In any event, I won't be interested in paying Big Brother Apple to take care of my media. I fail to see the attraction of such a service. :confused:

skellener
May 26, 2011, 11:20 PM
Apple has a lot riding on iCloud. It's got to be more than music. The fact that Apple has NEVER done cloud services well is a big deal. Many other services "get it" ...>cough<Dropbox>cough<... They know how to implement services that just work, cross platform and seem to be able to offer at least small amount of service for free. Apple really needs to step up with their A game on this. No half baked crippled services. Can anyone say "Ping" ???

LoganT
May 26, 2011, 11:31 PM
I'm hoping it's a subscription to all the music in the iTunes store.

koobcamuk
May 26, 2011, 11:39 PM
All these companies with clouds of this sort are just looking at better ways to market to you. They already build profiles of you based on your purchases. Now they will know all your musical tastes even it you buy your music on used cd's at the local store.

So now the sponsors will grab music from your own collection when the add pops up. Who knows, perhaps one day you will be amazed as all the store fronts you walk by on a slow day on main street or the mall, will be playing all the music you enjoy? It will be amazing. You will want to go in and shop. Of course being a slow day, your device will be noticed in the vicinity and to grab your attention your playlists accessed. You will of course give permission for this when you check some box allowing sponsors to market to you in exchange for some benefit (like reduced storage costs on the cloud). The teenagers working in the stores will catch on to the phenomenon and get a kick out of watching the music change up and down the strip to your preference. "Oh my god my parents listen to Lady Gaga too. She is so old school."

I want whatever you are smoking.

AidenShaw
May 26, 2011, 11:41 PM
Apple has a lot riding on iCloud. It's got to be more than music. The fact that Apple has NEVER done cloud services well is a big deal. Many other services "get it" ...>cough<Dropbox>cough<... They know how to implement services that just work, cross platform and seem to be able to offer at least small amount of service for free. Apple really needs to step up with their A game on this. No half baked crippled services. Can anyone say "Ping" ???

v:\Blackcomb> ping apple.com

Pinging apple.com [17.172.224.47] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 17.172.224.47:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

v:\Blackcomb>

bushman4
May 26, 2011, 11:52 PM
While this may be a free service to try out, eventually Apple will charge. Depending on what the 'ICloud' can do for each individual user might make it worth while.
For example: If a person travels or resides at more than one residence or listens to their music on different devices it may realy be a big plus.
However for the consumer that uses the same devices in the same residence it may not be that big a deal.

ghostface147
May 26, 2011, 11:57 PM
I just want to know how much they are going to charge. I know it's not going to be free.

Hueyfreeman
May 27, 2011, 12:14 AM
Right now I personally believe that amazon's solution looks like it will be the best. I think that iTunes is the biggest drawback with apple's solution.

I say this because I don't like to take my computer to school anymore. When I do use one of the campus computers I found it really great to be able to play all my music from the web browser. Non of the campus pcs have itunes due to the fact they are all s**ty dells meant for word processors and research station. If apple oppened it up a web app I would put on the top of my list.

Itunes is the worst windows program that is "professionally" done alot of the common research computers found on campuses, libraries and work places can't run or will even let you install iTunes.

revelated
May 27, 2011, 12:20 AM
So the record companies finally get their wish. We pay once, to buy the song via iTunes, CD, etc.. Then pay again to actually listen to it. (Cloud service.)

No thanks, I'll pass.

Apple is in a losing proposition. To coin a term, they're selling it wrong.

Amazon basically said, "we're just offering storage. What they choose to do with it is their business."

Google said, "hey, Amazon's right! I mean we've already offered major storage, but never centered around music. Let's do the same thing!"

Apple is saying, "hmmm...we have an opportunity to win this by winning the labels over and charging for a 'magical' experience. Let's do things right."


The winner in the end can only be Amazon if they keep it up, because quite frankly, they're doing it right.

- Amazon MP3 is WAY more convenient than iTunes. No bloated interface, no pitches for movies and games and whatnot. Just music.

- Amazon's offering doesn't care what you store.

- Amazon offers free streaming of the media in your cloud, whether you bought it from them or not.

- Amazon has a significantly wider selection of MP3s, especially older ones that just aren't available on iTunes.

- Amazon lets you now send music up to the cloud when you buy and automatically download it to whatever device(s) at the same time.

- Bill Amazon MP3s to the Amazon Store Card via One Click and it's a near seamless experience.

- If they integrate the Cloud Player with the 3G Kindle, then you can stream your MP3s while you read books. THAT is "magical".


In fact the only negative with Amazon's service has to do with the fact that the MP3 app won't tell you if you've already purchased a song. That means you'd better be on your game mentally with what songs you already own, otherwise you will buy them multiple times. Beyond that I love the service and can't frankly see Apple beating it if they plan to do anything but mirror Amazon.

writingdevil
May 27, 2011, 12:25 AM
"...I listen to, support and love indie bands-rarely buy big name artists music-but, you cannot expect any music service to negotiate with every single label or publisher in the world. ... "

totally agree...i also like indie music, like blues a lot, have several buds who have small bands, literally eeking out their rent so they can play music...they all are using a lot of resources available online for distribution, including facebook, myspace, cdbaby (which the guy mentions above) and tons of others, building slowly, but building.
i don't think the poster is very experienced in music distribution, although i'm sure he wants to help his son. a good kind of pops to have. there are enterprises set up to get music out to itunes, rhapsody, etc.
it's always, it seems, some one howling from outside the field of knowledge that calls for a lawsuit and the damn service isn't even online yet.....

Full of Win
May 27, 2011, 12:28 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Would be nice if true. What do the carriers have to say about this? This will be another hit on their capacity.

writingdevil
May 27, 2011, 12:34 AM
I want whatever you are smoking.
...but this concept has been talked about for over a few years...linking you to shops, window displays, interior of stores, personalizing robotic voices when you approach a display, etc, etc, etc.
like taking AI and minority report in a less "gonna track that sentient down and relieve him of his humanness" way. personally it's kind of cool, although i never respond to most other peoples opinions about things i buy for myself, so for me it would be a trip to hear what "they" suggest for the "me" "they" are following.

writingdevil
May 27, 2011, 12:41 AM
@revelated.."Apple is in a losing proposition. To coin a term, they're selling it wrong"

....although you list some ideas that seem to make amazon a great place to store music (that you got anywhere)...i'm not clear that your long list is what the cloud is all about. maybe apple has been negotiating for other reasons than what interests you, but that's cool, because you can ignore icloud and use amazon.

i use amazon for some things, but don't seem to have the problem you do with paying on itunes vs a.

you may have some inside info about this whole service, but until apple gives out the details, seems early to reject an offering, at least for me.

Žalgiris
May 27, 2011, 12:42 AM
What do you mean. Are Amazon and Google waiting? It looks like Apple is waiting to see how those two will do.

Apple is taking the time to do it right, not like Google push another beta for 10 years.

Žalgiris
May 27, 2011, 12:47 AM
Beyond that I love the service and can't frankly see Apple beating it if they plan to do anything but mirror Amazon.

Wait and see.

onedem
May 27, 2011, 12:57 AM
Is borrowing a CD from a friend an illegal act?

If not, is a cloud music sharing service based on a social network (like songs only listenable by your facebook friends) illegal?

theGAPkid
May 27, 2011, 01:02 AM
I'll stick to Spotify. £10 p/m for unlimited streaming and offline support for over 3,000 songs, it does me just fine.

Jazurm
May 27, 2011, 01:03 AM
Did anyone here use Lala before Apple bought it and shut it down? I did. It did exactly what is described here. It scanned your iTunes folder and mirrored the songs onto a profile that you could access anywhere. Good news is that Lala did also mirror songs that weren't downloaded from the iTunes store, as long as they had the song on their server.

Piggie
May 27, 2011, 01:32 AM
I don't know about everyone else, but this is way way WAY too much tied in and holding friendly hands with the record companies for my liking.
You know, the industry that has screwed everyone for decades and become massively rich on the back of actual recording artists.

I don't personally want any cloud service that's in any way "in bed" with these people.

I just want a nice simple cloud service that can hold all my Data, be it music, movies or other data, that is good value, I can stream from wherever I am, and all the apps on the iPad etc are tweaked so they have seamless connection to the cloud, so when I go into the Photo app for example, I see my photo's on the cloud.

That's what I want. Not some scanning of my music library, automatic downloading, automatic payments? What a horrid mess that sounds and all way way WAY to nice and cosy with the record companies.

mrklaw
May 27, 2011, 01:43 AM
I don't really understand the fuss, other than its a big company doing this.

1) isn't this just what lala did? Apple acquired them, I've not seen any mention of them since.

2) why is it costing a lot of money? is this just the labels being greedy arrogant money grabbers again? Like how you don't get redownloads from itunes because it'd cost apple again.

In an ideal world, this should be free to users because you've already paid for the music, and paid for your internet. You shouldn't have to pay again to stream it. Actually you could argue that amazon and google are more legitimate to charge (which they don't) because they're hosting actual backups of your files and storage costs money.

of course it won't be, and because its apple they'll get the press and it'll probably be a success, and then everyone else will copy and charge for it, and the labels will sit back and laugh at our idiocy

Wonder what apple will do with tracks that don't match? Will they physically upload? and why should I pay to get access to my music? If I'm paying a monthly fee, I want access to the entire catalogue - and my local collection simply being an easily accessible playlist/section within that to help navigation/discovery


I'm on google/amazon's side here, although I think they should have gone one step further and simply scanned your library and let you stream like apple plan to. My guess is that they didn't as they have storage/bandwidth capacity to allow the brute force approach, and their catalogues are probably not as extensive as apples. Plus the licensing issue (although frankly I'd let them take me to court on that one)

Yvan256
May 27, 2011, 01:45 AM
All those streaming/cloud/etc services are not realistic options for a lot of people.

As an example, my ISP (which is the only option around here for high-speed internet) offers a generous monthly cap of 35GB (and that's download+upload combined). Yes, 35GB. And that's cable, not wireless.

After that it's 7.50$ per GB (up to a max of 50.00$ on top of my monthly bill). :eek:

mrklaw
May 27, 2011, 01:57 AM
thinking about it, it'll be the details and mobile implementation that IMO define how successful apple will be with this.

If they can get the iphone/ipod wireless streaming/caching for when you're offline/local storage of favourites - get it workign well, and integrated with the main music player, then it could be worth paying for.

eg I have 100 favourite albums which are stored locally on my iphone, but 1000 more albums in my home collection. I do the online cloud thing, and my iphone music player simply shows me the entire 1000 albums (perhaps highlighting those that are locally available). If I play one of my regular songs it plays immediately. If I want one of the other songs in my collection it plays a compressed 30s clip of the start so you can still listen while you get a stream going.

perhaps add in some smart caching of recently played content, and/or progressive downloading to mitigate connectivity issues

ranReloaded
May 27, 2011, 02:13 AM
Apple should only pay to the labels provided they Actively go after Google's and Amazon's services as well. That would be fair.

moore2772
May 27, 2011, 02:20 AM
I just think it would be cool to be able to do an entire sync into the cloud without having to use a computer. I don't care if it is just a cloud-based mirror of iTunes that keeps a backup, etc. just like the computer does. That way, all your ipads, iphones & ipods could do their own syncs anytime, any place. Right now, if your iPhone dies, you'd have to wait until you are at your computer to restore it. Not a big deal, unless you're out of town. I have a feeling Apple is looking more along a major sync idea, perhaps as part of a revamped MobileMe rather than just another cloud storage system.

Saladinos
May 27, 2011, 02:51 AM
Woah- this is really crud. One of two things are happening here:

1. Apple has gone back on the "people don't want to rent their music" thing. Not bad for customers (because Apple are wrong), but I don't see them admitting it, so #2 is more likely:

2. Apple are going to charge you up to $1.29 per track, and hope that being able to stream it will make MobileMe worthwhile. MobileMe is in no way worth the $99/year, and this won't make it so. I'm not going to pay extra to stream my own tracks to me, especially not if its limited to iTunes purchases (I have bought tracks from other DRM-free stores, such as Amazon).

Apple are repeatedly dropping the ball IMO. They go in the right general direction, but increasingly the product they come out with is not the product I want. They used to.

wackymacky
May 27, 2011, 02:52 AM
licenses cost a lot... bandwidth costs a lot... and local storage is cheap. Oh, and it can be used anywhere, any time. So yeah, not seeing the point of this one.

I agree with this.

Plus as for iTunes songs, Apple knows exactly what you've bought over the years with your iTunes account, they don’t need to scan your machine.

When some s4it stole my computer at home a year or two back, Apple let me down load my entire library again.

-on the basis that I was a "good" customer: they were also able to see on their records that I had bought about 10 apple computers and heaps of other peripherals over the years)

satkin2
May 27, 2011, 03:29 AM
The way I'm reading this is that the iCloud will scan your iTunes library and make available anything in your library that is available on iTunes.

So if you've bought tracks on CD or from another download source, or even aquired tracks from elsewhere and they are available to buy on iTunes then it will be imediately available for you to stream via iCloud.

Up to this point, Apple in escence only need one version of the track available to be streamed by millions of users. Not a massive use of space, they already have the tracks, just large bandwidth usage.

For tracks not on iTunes, like AC/DC then you'll be able to upload your own tracks to the cloud. I think this is the part where fees will come in. Uploading would see duplication of tracks using storage space that Apple have to provide.

The uploading of non-recognised tracks could also prove useful for Apple to identify the tracks or artists that are most popular but not on iTunes, they can then focus their attention at these artists to get them onto the store, thus widening the appeal of iTunes. I'm meaning they'd do this for your independant artists rather than big name acts who have decided not to sign up to the iTunes model.

bushido
May 27, 2011, 05:33 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

thx but ill stick to my college server where i can upload 50GB of songs for free to steam already ;)

WestonHarvey1
May 27, 2011, 07:55 AM
Wait... you're telling me I actually have to *pay* for this virtually useless feature? And then pay again when it eats up my bandwidth?

This is truly a solution in search of a problem.

caspersoong
May 27, 2011, 08:14 AM
I notice there are less and less comments on this issue. Again, iTunes Music Store in more countries please.

realmike15
May 27, 2011, 08:38 AM
1) Hopefully this isn’t limited to just tracks purchased in iTunes


I will only purchase this service if it's not. I'm an album guy, 90% of the music in my iTunes library is from a physical disc. If they limit it to iTunes purchases, I'll just use a Third-Party App to stream the music from my Home PC.

Of all the announcements and rumors this year, this is by far the most exciting. If Apple plays their cards right, users won't have to worry nearly as much about the storage capacity of their devices.

Thunderhawks
May 27, 2011, 08:51 AM
"The licenses will reportedly cost a lot, and Apple will have to pass those charges to the customer in some form."

Na. I'll pass on this. I paid for the music the first time and I already pay for the data plan and any overage charges that may ensue. Will see what it really is pretty soon though.

I wouldn't pay again for what I paid for already.

Converting my vinyl and buying them all as CD's again was enough.

For whatever the subscription would cost, you can get Sirius XM with many things to listen to on your iphone and if it must be a special song/your library, you can load up your iphone with those or take an ipod classic.

I just can't see any value in this other than backup.

gri
May 27, 2011, 08:54 AM
My library consists to 99% of CDs I bought and than imported, I may have maybe 5 or so albums in there that were bought through Amazon. So, would APL also scan all those tracks?

boston04and07
May 27, 2011, 08:58 AM
thinking about it, it'll be the details and mobile implementation that IMO define how successful apple will be with this.

If they can get the iphone/ipod wireless streaming/caching for when you're offline/local storage of favourites - get it workign well, and integrated with the main music player, then it could be worth paying for.

eg I have 100 favourite albums which are stored locally on my iphone, but 1000 more albums in my home collection. I do the online cloud thing, and my iphone music player simply shows me the entire 1000 albums (perhaps highlighting those that are locally available). If I play one of my regular songs it plays immediately. If I want one of the other songs in my collection it plays a compressed 30s clip of the start so you can still listen while you get a stream going.

perhaps add in some smart caching of recently played content, and/or progressive downloading to mitigate connectivity issues

This.

It would allow people to not eat up their bandwidth if they don't want to, while also giving everyone access to their entire library from anywhere. This, plus the old Lala model (of allowing us to upload tracks that aren't in the iTunes store) could really be great. Who knows - it could expand over time to be an entire wireless syncing solution. I think you're on to something.

BLACKFRIDAY
May 27, 2011, 09:14 AM
If you think Apple is going to scan your library NOW, you are fooling yourselves.

Apple has been scanning your libraries for years with your own permission with their genius idea of 'Genius'. They have already mastered their own collection and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of people who have turned on Genius in iTunes.

i.e. the algorithm(s) is(are) there. The only thing Apple needs now is to implement it(them) in the best possible way in reference to the cloud.

I think something big is planned for this WWDC. People are going to be surprised.

Just my 2 cents.

RyanGirtler
May 27, 2011, 09:24 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

FYI, Lala (which Apple acquired) scanned your whole iTunes library and automatically allowed you to stream the items that matched items in their library. Anything that did not exist in their library could be uploaded and them streamed like anything else. I would be shocked if Apple's solution did anything else. Now Lala was free. I don't expect Apple's solution to be free. But if it offers this functionality via a browser and iOS app, it will be a big hit.

This

a.jfred
May 27, 2011, 09:42 AM
"The licenses will reportedly cost a lot, and Apple will have to pass those charges to the customer in some form."

Na. I'll pass on this. I paid for the music the first time and I already pay for the data plan and any overage charges that may ensue. Will see what it really is pretty soon though.

My issue with this: what about those of us who have absolutely NO desire to put their music in the cloud? Now I'm having to pay higher prices so someone else can use a service that I won't use?

I need more details.

skellener
May 27, 2011, 10:03 AM
Your own iCloud - Audio Galaxy (http://www.audiogalaxy.com)

blackpond
May 27, 2011, 11:07 AM
This is a fascinating approach that I would expect the music industry simply adores.

By offering a value-add to existing libraries through streaming they will be able to make money on pirated tracks.

Lotso
May 27, 2011, 11:28 AM
I didn't like the way Lala handled your music. I didn't like how they converted all of my songs to mp3's. I would like Apple to let me upload/stream my lossless music. Just like Audiogalaxy currently does.

Anything less than that and I will be sad. :(

eNcrypTioN
May 27, 2011, 11:29 AM
Can't wait to see what Apple brings out. Seeing that data is becoming expensive and providers are taking away unlimited data plans and increasing costs on our end for data consumption, I think I'll just stick with my iPod for now. No fee for data, and no buffering when you use an iPod.

SockRolid
May 27, 2011, 11:33 AM
Re: ..."Users of the service will then be able to stream, whenever they want, their songs and albums directly to PCs, iPhones, iPads, and perhaps one day even cars."...

1. And perhaps one day we will be able to stream our songs and albums directly to our living rooms. First to Apple TV, then to OEM consumer audio manufacturers' products with "Apple Inside."

2. And inevitably "songs and albums" will be expanded to "songs and albums and TV shows and movies." Again, first to Apple TV, then to either an actual Apple-branded HDTV set or to OEM TV sets. "Apple Inside" again.

BrennerM
May 27, 2011, 01:15 PM
Here's my guess at the payment model:

FREE:
- Any song you purchase (past/present/future) through the iTunes store will be instantly available in iCloud for FREE

FEE PER-SONG:
- Any song you have which matches an iTunes song but was not purchased through iTunes (no upload required - will iTunes version of song)
- Any song which does not match an iTunes song (upload required)

They may also do a limited-time offer at the beginning to scan and upload your entire library for a fixed fee or perhaps even free

revelated
May 27, 2011, 05:31 PM
@revelated.."Apple is in a losing proposition. To coin a term, they're selling it wrong"

....although you list some ideas that seem to make amazon a great place to store music (that you got anywhere)...i'm not clear that your long list is what the cloud is all about. maybe apple has been negotiating for other reasons than what interests you, but that's cool, because you can ignore icloud and use amazon.

i use amazon for some things, but don't seem to have the problem you do with paying on itunes vs a.

you may have some inside info about this whole service, but until apple gives out the details, seems early to reject an offering, at least for me.

Wait and see.

You don't get it.

People don't want a service that's benefitting the record companies who won't hesitate to sue someone for copying their own CD for their own purposes, yet refuse to get with the natural evolution of technology. Don't you understand how they work? They want you to:

- Pay for a CD at an inflated rate. NO SINGLES. They don't want you to pick and choose the good songs. They want you to buy a CD full of CRAP at near $20 a pop to get to the one or two good ones. Trust me, I've been there, done that.

- If you want to copy that CD they want you to pay them AGAIN, otherwise you're branded a pirate.

- If you want to stream YOUR music they want you to pay for the privilege of streaming it.

- If you want to store your music online they want a cut of the price you pay for storing it online. They don't want you to storing what they consider "their" property without paying them a fee.

- They want your music DRM'd so you can't distribute it without paying a license fee every time you play it.


People don't want to do any of the above. If I buy music, I will buy the songs I choose to buy. If an artist has a 15-track CD and of those, two songs are good, I will buy the two songs. If they are an artist I really do enjoy - say, Peter White, George Benson - then I will support them by buying the whole digital CD. When I buy it, it's all MP3. If I put it online, it goes into a service where there is no price for me to store or stream it.


Apple is NOT - I repeat, NOT - in the habit of "free". That already puts them at a disadvantage. The only reason people even use iTunes is because they use iDevices. For someone like me who uses Android, the sky's the limit.

Apple has no choice but to come at this smart. They have to copy Amazon. It's the ONLY way they will succeed.

IF they try to charge for stuff that others offer for free, they will fail. See: MobileMe.

If they try to offer something that doesn't work correctly or nearly as good as others, they will fail. See: iDisk.

If they try to offer something that forces you to use iDevices to take advantage of it, they will fail. See: iTunes.

If they try to offer something that is not web accessible from virtually ANY device, they will fail. See: iTunes.

Rodimus Prime
May 27, 2011, 05:36 PM
Apple should only pay to the labels provided they Actively go after Google's and Amazon's services as well. That would be fair.

if apple did that then Apple and the record companies would be busted very quickly for anti trust. That is not legal to do.

Knuthf
May 27, 2011, 06:04 PM
This is a fascinating approach that I would expect the music industry simply adores.

By offering a value-add to existing libraries through streaming they will be able to make money on pirated tracks.

Who owns the music - those that compose it, or those that distribute it? "Who are the Pirates?" - Who is "The Music Industry" - the "Labels" or the composers and performers?
Give the music back to those that made it - we do not need the brands and labels. Apple is aligning with Marxist strategies that is doomed to die.

Google is based on providing us the service of telling us what we should know. I prefer to decide that myself, and if needed educate myself. Advertising is needed to make us believe that lesser products are better than what they objectively are. I dislike that people can be bribed to tell others lies and place allegations and false claims.

Amazon is simpler dissemination of knowledge in exchange for funds using the electronic media. If you do not want the book, you do not have to buy it, making this a service that will survive - also "selling" music. But it is easy to replicate.

To inspect and monitor what individuals keep is a notion that lives in the last Marxist state, where coporate interest are honoured before the right of the individual. Steve Jobs" Remember "Glasnost" in another country. It is time to liberate the "Land of the Brave".

Knuthf
May 27, 2011, 06:17 PM
Your own iCloud - Audio Galaxy (http://www.audiogalaxy.com)

I keep my own music library - also on my mobile. My mobile has more music than my laptop and does not run Android. Audiogalaxy is another attempt for world dominance by peeping, and is just another Big Brother that can kep an eye on things.

Vanilla
May 29, 2011, 11:32 PM
I always wondered why Apple studiously avoided providing a NAS-type media hub with server versioned iLife/iTunes suite etc. Looks like they are betting on Cloud-based services for consumers rather than attempting to "apple-ify" home networking....I think they're right...

AidenShaw
May 29, 2011, 11:40 PM
I always wondered why Apple studiously avoided providing a NAS-type media hub with server versioned iLife/iTunes suite etc. Looks like they are betting on Cloud-based services for consumers rather than attempting to "apple-ify" home networking....I think they're right...

A home media hub that acts as a cache for cloud services would be killer.

(The "master copy" of all your media is in the cloud, but a local "black box" caches a local copy so that access times are great, and excess bandwidth charges are minimal.)

MNealBarrett
May 30, 2011, 08:57 PM
Like a lot of people, I have lost legitimately-purchased iTunes songs over the years, for various reasons. I lost a bunch when I had a hard drive crash about 6 years ago, before I diligently backed up my iTunes collections. I've also lost songs due my GF purchasing them through my account on her laptop, and not telling me about it so I can sync our libraries.

I am really, really hoping that this will allow me to finally get back all those songs I've lost. I am hoping that, when iCloud becomes available, each iCloud account (after setting it up) would be populated with the songs you've purchased over the years. That's not how it will work, apparently. That's how it SHOULD work, but Apple is pretty crafty/evil. They WANT you to have to re-purchase songs you've lost. They don't want this to turn into a way for you to get those songs back for free. So it will work as an extension to the Genius sidebar, scanning your iTunes library and only populating the iCloud account with songs you have in your library. Which will suck.