PDA

View Full Version : Apple Racing to Include Movies and TV Shows in iCloud Service?




MacRumors
May 31, 2011, 02:05 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/31/apple-racing-to-include-movies-and-tv-shows-in-icloud-service/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/05/ipad_2_display.jpg


Earlier today, Apple announced (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/31/steve-jobs-to-introduce-icloud-ios-5-and-mac-os-x-lion-at-wwdc-keynote/) that Steve Jobs will anchor the keynote at next week's Worldwide Developers Conference, also taking the unusual step of pre-announcing that Jobs will introduce the company's "iCloud" streaming service at the event.

While virtually all of the recent discussion about iCloud has been about Apple securing agreements with music labels and publishers to allow users to store their purchased songs on Apple's servers for streaming to a variety of devices, CNET reports (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20067614-261.html) that Apple may also be racing to secure agreements for movies and TV shows in time for the service's debut. The most specific information seems to be regarding movies:In the past several weeks, Apple executives have stepped up their attempts to convince some of the major Hollywood film studios to issue licenses that would enable Apple to store its customers' movies on the company's servers, two sources close to the negotiations told CNET. Apple began discussing a cloud service with the studios over a year ago.The report notes that talks with film studios are ongoing, but one stumbling block appears to be the "HBO window", an agreement between the cable channel and studios Warner Brothers, 20th Century Fox, and NBC Universal that requires those studios to temporarily stop sales and distribution of their content while it is being aired on HBO. Enforcement of such an agreement on cloud services may not be acceptable to Apple and its users who expect to be able to watch their content at any time.

The studios, led by Time Warner, do however seem to believe that cloud distribution is fundamentally different from other mechanisms and thus exempt from the HBO window, although it is unclear if the issue can be cleared up in time for next week's iCloud introduction. But even without such an agreement, Apple could launch the movie portion of the service with other major studios such as Disney, Paramount, and Sony that do not have blackout arrangements with HBO.

Information on potential TV content for iCloud seems to be based on speculation at this point, with the report pointing to Apple's existing "Multi-Pass" and "Season Pass" features that have allowed users to purchase bundles of content as foundation upon which a cloud-based service could be easily built, but it is unclear what the status of any discussions to that end might be.

Rumors of Apple looking to include movies and TV in a cloud-based service are not new (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/03/02/apple-to-stream-video-as-well-as-music-and-tv/), but sources have generally been silent about the negotiations as attention has focused on getting music deals done.

Article Link: Apple Racing to Include Movies and TV Shows in iCloud Service? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/31/apple-racing-to-include-movies-and-tv-shows-in-icloud-service/)



jasonxneo
May 31, 2011, 02:11 PM
Wow this will be a great addition to the new iCloud

NebulaClash
May 31, 2011, 02:11 PM
Perhaps this is one of the reasons Apple pre-announced iCloud. Puts the studios on notice that this thing is moving ahead, some guys will be on board the train as it leaves the station, and wouldn't you like to clear up these agreements fast so you can get Steve to announce your products too?

bushido
May 31, 2011, 02:14 PM
yay i'll reach my data limit before "spongebob" even ends but i assume its wifi only bc mobile net involves more licensing deals and if its wifi only, then i dont rly see the point cuz u could just use ur tv

macnisse
May 31, 2011, 02:15 PM
Sweet indeed, can't get enough movies in the cloud, perfect companion to the iPad and Apple TV :)

OllyW
May 31, 2011, 02:16 PM
If this is true iCloud will definitely be US only.

kiddnets
May 31, 2011, 02:17 PM
so how would this work - would you be able to upload movies/TV shows you already purchased or have in Itunes or is it only special purchased items through apple.

bpeeps
May 31, 2011, 02:17 PM
Seems like they are pushing hard and fast to get iCloud officially announced and out. I hope they take the time to work out any beta issues, not interesting in seeing the downfalls of MobileMe again. Anywho, who's excited? :D

ChristianJapan
May 31, 2011, 02:18 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)

Yes... That would make really sense to me if all the move content can be placed back into to cloud, save from local disasters and everywhere available. Nice !

Snowcat001
May 31, 2011, 02:19 PM
Great movies.... the rest of the world doesn't even has movies on iTunes yet...:(

yourstation
May 31, 2011, 02:23 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

I hope Apple give some options for very large storage. I would need 3tb to handle my tv, movie and music!

ciTiger
May 31, 2011, 02:27 PM
Ah! Great news if this comes true! But Apple would have to allow serious storage space for this...

RonHC
May 31, 2011, 02:28 PM
This is known as the longest week of June for Apple fans...
Can't wait for June 6th

Piggie
May 31, 2011, 02:29 PM
The more I hear about iCloud, the more convinced it's going to be something I will never use.

I could well be wrong, but I'm getting the impression it's just going to hold copies of stuff you buy from iTunes and that's it.
It's not going to be some "Personal data storage area" to upload your own stuff.

I could see this just being like some iTunesCloud and that's all it is.

Hope I'm wrong as I never buy anything from iTunes, only apps.

REM314
May 31, 2011, 02:29 PM
I suppose all this focus on iCloud means that iOS 5 will be very iCloud focused as well. If true it would make me very sad since Ive been hoping for a large UI change or at least a lot of UI improvements.

FriarNurgle
May 31, 2011, 02:31 PM
My data cap just took a crap.

Piggie
May 31, 2011, 02:31 PM
Ah! Great news if this comes true! But Apple would have to allow serious storage space for this...

But they don't need hardly any storage space as they are holding the data already.
You will just need some secret code linked to your iTunes account and it will "Look like" the data is in your account, but it's not there, it's only just a link to the master copy that Apple will stream to you if you request it.

nwcs
May 31, 2011, 02:31 PM
If apple gives me access to what I've already purchased through iTunes for video this will be nice. I bet it would tie into apple tv first, thoug. So much more convenient than having iTunes running for streaming. But they still need to get the apple tv to handle the iTunes extra features. Glaring absence since the home sharing stuff started.

ipoppy
May 31, 2011, 02:34 PM
If this is true iCloud will definitely be US only.

Maybe, but only for the kick off. Then will be spread over any possible country as long as licence/agreements permits.

starbird
May 31, 2011, 02:34 PM
The more I hear about iCloud, the more convinced it's going to be something I will never use.

I could well be wrong, but I'm getting the impression it's just going to hold copies of stuff you buy from iTunes and that's it.
It's not going to be some "Personal data storage area" to upload your own stuff.

I could see this just being like some iTunesCloud and that's all it is.

Hope I'm wrong as I never buy anything from iTunes, only apps.

Music will be anything you have in iTunes as iTunes/music allows for an easy/legal way to get your music in. Video (TV/Movies) will be limited to what you have/will purchase from iTunes, and maybe any of those Digital Copies you get with some BD/DVDs (Disney is a big fan of including these). Since these items require you to authenticate who you are and tie them to an Apple ID, I can see them allowing these as well. Anything you import? Likely to have to manually sync that. Though I wonder if MetaX will allow you to edit the metadata for account?

toddybody
May 31, 2011, 02:35 PM
So Apple will store my ripped and handbraked movies for me on the iCloud? Sweet deal

ChristianJapan
May 31, 2011, 02:35 PM
If this is true iCloud will definitely be US only.

dont scare me off; though there is a high chance for it ... GoLive first is US and global weeks later (if at all). Wait one more week and we know

drewyboy
May 31, 2011, 02:36 PM
What I'm starting to see is that iCloud will be a place that simply stream movie, music, tv shows you've purchased, NOT only from iTunes, but anything legally purchased. Now, how they do that, I don't know. I came to this conclusion by article this past weekend, i believe, in which iTunes will take any songs you have and give you a higher quality on the cloud.

So, rather than having a NAS at home w/ my music, movies, tv shows (all legal) and using plex, the idea would be I can have it "activated" on iCloud so I can stream it, if iTunes has it in their library, to any of my apple devices. Hanging out at friends house, choose movie on my iphone, then airplay to their AppleTV!!!

This is what it seems to be shaping up to be, and IF so, I will more than likely get on board. Otherwise, Plex will always be there for me.

lkrupp
May 31, 2011, 02:37 PM
so how would this work - would you be able to upload movies/TV shows you already purchased or have in Itunes or is it only special purchased items through apple.

The thing about uplaoding your own stuff is how does Apple know or how do you prove your stuff is not violating copyright. Say you illegally ripped (pirated) a friend's DVD movie to your iTunes. Now you want to upload that pirated movie to iCloud? I would assume Apple could be held liable for copyright infringement just like Limewire is being nailed for file sharing.

Porchland
May 31, 2011, 02:38 PM
so how would this work - would you be able to upload movies/TV shows you already purchased or have in Itunes or is it only special purchased items through apple.

I don't see a market demand for "licenses that would enable Apple to store its customers' movies on the company's servers," so I assume this is code for "licenses like what Netflix has."

Kusanagi6913
May 31, 2011, 02:39 PM
FINALLY--this is what I want to see. Give me a chance to take my prized paid for content and put it all in an environment that does not require me to sync it to a physical device (with cables and power supplies) and likewise, that can allow me to enjoy it whether I am in Europe, my home town or next door.

I just don't understand the naysayers who have been snitty about this.

"Physical storage is so cheap--I want it next to me" --well Iron Man--take your happy butt to Best Buy and walk around like a clown if you like but there is a recession going on and most people in big cities do not have tons of space to spread old CD's, books and storage drives around--but by all means keep seagate in business.

I've been screaming for this since 2002--I just do not have it in me to carry around content in my house--not with kids, friends and family coming over. With iPad, Apple TV and my iPhone--I can enjoy the content when and where I want--especially since I paid for it.

Now-we just need to get the movie companies to drop that phony exclusion zone of varying months since a movie I own is airing with commercials and edited on some lame network tv station.

Love Steve Jobs. Love Apple. Love common sense technology geeks.

Piggie
May 31, 2011, 02:42 PM
Yeah, I really can't see this.

Say you went and downloaded torrents of free mp3 tracks, a few GB of totally pirated unofficial music. Apple are happily going to upload that into the cloud are they?

Hmmmmm, somehow I doubt it.

I'm still thinking it may be for iTunes purchased tracks only. There's probably some code in the iTunes files they can regognise or soemthing like that.

Then again, perhaps Apple will be the biggest online store of Pirated Audio on the planet soon. Who knows :D

Kusanagi6913
May 31, 2011, 02:42 PM
I don't see a market demand for "licenses that would enable Apple to store its customers' movies on the company's servers," so I assume this is code for "licenses like what Netflix has."

WTF R u talking about?

Clearly they are looking to take people who have purchased legitimate iTunes media content since inception and move it to iCloud. I'm looking specifically at those of us who purchased early movies like Zoolander and 1st seasons of shows like 30 Rock which were not in the best res--I bet they will do like music and upgrade the quality as well.

Did you just pull this out of your butt or do you have a rational reason why a clearly stated agenda for uploading a customers own content would be "not in demand" and instead it become a rental service for content they don't own???

Wake up.

grmatt
May 31, 2011, 02:47 PM
Ooo. I kinda predicted this. ;)

Hmmm... My Theory
Really just putting two and two together. What was the one thing the many people liked better about the Zune than the iPod? Zune Pass (subscription-based music downloads). Essentially, just from a technical standpoint, Zune Pass was to music, what Netflix is to movies/tv.

Apple could indeed be combining the two into a subscription-based music/movie/tv service.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12377925&postcount=47

Tones2
May 31, 2011, 02:55 PM
Since I stream everything from a home server already with a $5 app I didn't see how I would be able to use this.

However, one thing I could definitely use this for would be for streaming DRM protected TV shows and movies which I can't do with a streaming app (at least not very well), so I would certainly welcome that service, especially without having to upload.

Tony

Mak47
May 31, 2011, 03:06 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_8 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E401 Safari/6533.18.5)

I can see the following scenario:

iTunes/ Apple related content=free cloud access

Content from "other" sources=pay for additional capacity

Licensing could be paid similarly to ASCAP & BMI's models for live performance royalties where copyright holders are paid based on an assumed market share from those additional space subscriptions.

Copyright holders would be all over that, they would be able to recover something from all the pirated music out there, and Apple would be incentivizing legitimate purchases in the future.

louis Fashion
May 31, 2011, 03:08 PM
FINALLY--this is what I want to see. Give me a chance to take my prized paid for content and put it all in an environment that does not require me to sync it to a physical device (with cables and power supplies) and likewise, that can allow me to enjoy it whether I am in Europe, my home town or next door.

I just don't understand the naysayers who have been snitty about this.

"Physical storage is so cheap--I want it next to me" --well Iron Man--take your happy butt to Best Buy and walk around like a clown if you like but there is a recession going on and most people in big cities do not have tons of space to spread old CD's, books and storage drives around--but by all means keep seagate in business.

I've been screaming for this since 2002--I just do not have it in me to carry around content in my house--not with kids, friends and family coming over. With iPad, Apple TV and my iPhone--I can enjoy the content when and where I want--especially since I paid for it.

Now-we just need to get the movie companies to drop that phony exclusion zone of varying months since a movie I own is airing with commercials and edited on some lame network tv station.

Love Steve Jobs. Love Apple. Love common sense technology geeks.

All well and good, but one nuke and your content is gone. Back up my friend, back up.

gkarris
May 31, 2011, 03:09 PM
Sweet indeed, can't get enough movies in the cloud, perfect companion to the iPad and Apple TV :)


..until you get your Internet Bill... :eek:

NCBandit
May 31, 2011, 03:13 PM
I see iCould as a big opportunity to open up and expand on the Apple TV experience. Right now, with Apple TV, you can only access content that is available for renting since it has to be streamed.

Now imagine you can browse and purchase content that is available for purchase as well as rent, and it gets stored in iCloud! This would give you access to all of the content in iTunes from your Apple TV. Maybe they even add music browsing / purchasing since it can be saved to the cloud.

And lets keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily have to focus on everyone's old stuff and getting copies of currently burned/stored stuff up in the cloud. This could be Apple looking ahead and really putting momentum to an all digital / streaming world. I'm not saying they are going to abandon all non-iTunes purchased content, just that it may not be their priority.

Like others have said, the dream is to have all your content available to browse and access anywhere at anytime. If I have to purchase all my movies going forward on iTunes, and it gets me anywhere access (iPhone/iPad/Mac/Apple TV) - i'm sold ten fold! People were hesitant to change when Apple / iTunes did this for music - and look at where that is today.

Excited to see what Monday will bring.

Kusanagi6913
May 31, 2011, 03:19 PM
All well and good, but one nuke and your content is gone. Back up my friend, back up.

In all seriousness, I don't take your comment seriously man. I'm sorry. There are too many cloud based services happening for businesses and fortune 500's all over the world right now (web 3.0) and the idea that any of the posters here have a clear grasp on mainstream American needs (judging by the comments) is just silly. People want to store their content--as long as the price is reasonable and the services accompanying such can be innovative (be it Netflix, sharing content or what have you) then I just see this doom and gloom prognosticating as just more of the hate Apple--and then kiss their butt by being 1st in line to buy.

Face it--most of the comments of "not getting it" doesn't really endure those commenters well--particularly in the face of the hatred that existed around iPhone, Mac Air and so on--and how did that work out?

CFreymarc
May 31, 2011, 03:22 PM
I'm glad that the "HBO window" has been mentioned in this article. There has been a lot of research into just how much streaming video services are cutting into premium and basic cable TV services. The Hollywood types have been wrestling trying to fit online streaming into the current "release waterfall" of movie productions. Before streaming took off, it was

0) Industry film festivals
1) First run theaters
2) Second run theaters
3) Premium cable television
4) Video retail
5) Video rental
6) Basic cable television
7) Broadcast television
8) Retro theaters / film festivals

The exact order of 4 to 6 juggles a lot and some levels are skipped all together based on the performance of the film. IMO, Apple is trying to place their streaming service right at 3 while many says video streaming belongs somewhere at 4 to 6.

This should be fun. Like to see what third party API iCloud launches with. I can see iPhone apps having user data stored on iCloud freeing up lots of space and services.

ridley182
May 31, 2011, 03:23 PM
All I want to say is: THANK YOU GOOGLE AND AMAZON!

Thanks to your incompetence and naivette, I will be able to enjoy not only cloud-based music services on my iPhone, but I will also be able to enjoy movies and TV shows.

Of course, thank you Apple as well for your patience, and also for being plain awesome! :D

unlinked
May 31, 2011, 03:25 PM
Maybe, but only for the kick off. Then will be spread over any possible country as long as licence/agreements permits.

Exactly,just like Netflix has.

FriarNurgle
May 31, 2011, 03:27 PM
Then again, perhaps Apple will be the biggest online store of Pirated Audio on the planet soon. Who knows :D

HAHA!
Thank you for that.

edk99
May 31, 2011, 03:27 PM
I see iCould as a big opportunity to open up and expand on the Apple TV experience. Right now, with Apple TV, you can only access content that is available for renting since it has to be streamed.

Now imagine you can browse and purchase content that is available for purchase as well as rent, and it gets stored in iCloud! This would give you access to all of the content in iTunes from your Apple TV. Maybe they even add music browsing / purchasing since it can be saved to the cloud.

And lets keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily have to focus on everyone's old stuff and getting copies of currently burned/stored stuff up in the cloud. This could be Apple looking ahead and really putting momentum to an all digital / streaming world. I'm not saying they are going to abandon all non-iTunes purchased content, just that it may not be their priority.

Like others have said, the dream is to have all your content available to browse and access anywhere at anytime. If I have to purchase all my movies going forward on iTunes, and it gets me anywhere access (iPhone/iPad/Mac/Apple TV) - i'm sold ten fold! People were hesitant to change when Apple / iTunes did this for music - and look at where that is today.

Excited to see what Monday will bring.
Other then having your content available anywhere anytime with iCloud you can buy a movie in iTunes and stream it to Apple TV right now. You just can't buy it on Apple TV. So for home use I don't see a need for iCloud.

But this may be nice for vacations if you have wi-fi available you could bring your Apple TV with and stream your library.

Piggie
May 31, 2011, 03:29 PM
Since I stream everything from a home server already with a $5 app I didn't see how I would be able to use this.

However, one thing I could definitely use this for would be for streaming DRM protected TV shows and movies which I can't do with a streaming app (at least not very well), so I would certainly welcome that service, especially without having to upload.

Tony

Indeed, I must admit to thinking you have the right idea.

Why pay someone to hold "Some" of your data. Why not just hold everything on a home NAS device, and then stream it from your home to yourself wherever you are in the world without any extra costs?

LoganT
May 31, 2011, 03:33 PM
The cool thing about cloud storage is it allows you to have all the music wherever you are, but only store exactly what you want at the time on your device.

shartypants
May 31, 2011, 03:33 PM
This is cool. I wonder if we will have access to TV shows we bought years ago. I hope they plan to revamp AppleTV as part of iCloud, it will need it I imagine.

ten-oak-druid
May 31, 2011, 03:34 PM
I couldn't tell at first if that was the ipad or Samsung's tablet in the photo. I had to look closely. Samsung did such a good job copying the ipad.

This whole cloud thing is odd to me. Amazon didn't bother with licenses as the content they allow on their cloud is uploaded by the user. For apple to be rushing to put movies on the cloud it sounds like it is part of the itunes store.

satcomer
May 31, 2011, 03:37 PM
I sure HOPE this will included things in iTunes that I have not gotten from the iTunes Store. As others had said, Handbrake is my friend for archiving my older DVDs and many my older CDs have greatly added to my Music Library.

fabian9
May 31, 2011, 03:38 PM
If this is true iCloud will definitely be US only.

I think at least music will be US, UK and Australia at the very least - hence Apple inviting journalists from those countries specifically. That's what I'm hoping for anyways... :)

Robin4
May 31, 2011, 03:45 PM
If this is true iCloud will definitely be US only.

I am not so sure about that. Didn't Apple try include the foreign press by inviting them last week? There might be a reason for that. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1159568

Edit: I just read the last post, yep I was thinking the same thing.

CMelton
May 31, 2011, 03:46 PM
Like to see what third party API iCloud launches with. I can see iPhone apps having user data stored on iCloud freeing up lots of space and services.

this really appeals to me.

CFreymarc
May 31, 2011, 03:51 PM
All I want to say is: THANK YOU GOOGLE AND AMAZON!

Thanks to your incompetence and naivette, I will be able to enjoy not only cloud-based music services on my iPhone, but I will also be able to enjoy movies and TV shows.

Of course, thank you Apple as well for your patience, and also for being plain awesome! :D

Competition is good.

HobeSoundDarryl
May 31, 2011, 03:52 PM
What I'm starting to see is that iCloud will be a place that simply stream movie, music, tv shows you've purchased, NOT only from iTunes, but anything legally purchased. Now, how they do that, I don't know. I came to this conclusion by article this past weekend, i believe, in which iTunes will take any songs you have and give you a higher quality on the cloud.

So, rather than having a NAS at home w/ my music, movies, tv shows (all legal) and using plex, the idea would be I can have it "activated" on iCloud so I can stream it, if iTunes has it in their library, to any of my apple devices. Hanging out at friends house, choose movie on my iphone, then airplay to their AppleTV!!!

This is what it seems to be shaping up to be, and IF so, I will more than likely get on board. Otherwise, Plex will always be there for me.

Meanwhile in other news, just about every company that controls Internet bandwidth is putting the pinch on unlimited Internet. Wired or wireless, there are already caps in place by the majors which is only the first step. It's set up to be much like the airlines and their fee happy innovations: see what the consumer will tolerate.

In my own situation, Comcast is the key provider and they've set the initial cap at 250GB. If I'm a movie fan and I download movies at about 2GB each from the iCloud, I can pull in up to about 125 movies in a month. However, I (and everyone else) should have no doubt that 250 will soon become 125, then 75 or so, then maybe tighter still.

As much as we all want to imagine the many benefits of storing it all in this iCloud, it still has to flow back to us through someones pipes and/or someones 3G or 4G. Haven't you noticed that the companies that mostly control those pipes also happen to be the companies that love consumers paying fat monthly fees to receive video programming via cable & satt subscriptions now? Do we really live in illusions that Apple's iCloud is somehow going to overcome the issue with these "middlemen" being heavily motivated to protect their cash cows (either by constraining the flow with caps or by raising their Internet access rates, OR BOTH?)

We've seen rumors of Apple working deals with the music companies and now video companies. Where's the deals with the gatekeepers through which all this media is supposed to flow? Or are all who are so looking forward to storing all their media in the iCloud just happy to repeatedly pay for streaming content they own?

Conceptually, the vision of it is fantastic. The efficiency in storing media once for many to use is much superior to storing a million copies with individuals. But the delivery is a mess and worsening. Apple isn't the middleman, just as Apple doesn't provide the lovely deals we get from AT&T & Verizon for iPhone service. The middlemen don't exist to cut their own (revenue) throats to make Apple's next big things work.

Tones2
May 31, 2011, 03:58 PM
One thing that I have yet to se ANY cloud service provide, including apps that stream from your home server, is the ability to view EMBEDDED lyrics in your music file while streaming. This is actually a pretty big deal to me as I enjoy viewing the lyrics when listening.

There are not even any seperate lyrics apps that can identify what is being streamed in order to at least automatically search the internet for lyrical content - all of them either use the iPod player as its source or you have to manually type in the song, which is a hassle.

The closest app that can kinda do something similar is iSub, that will search an external service for lyrics while you stream from your home server, but the quantity and accuracy of the lyrics is pretty terrible.

I hope that in some way the iCloud serve will allow for uploading of content and also presentation of embedded lyrics on playback, although the possibility of it having this is probably less than 1%.

Tony

bushido
May 31, 2011, 04:00 PM
Maybe, but only for the kick off. Then will be spread over any possible country as long as licence/agreements permits.

just like we got hulu and netflix in europe? ... not

Tones2
May 31, 2011, 04:01 PM
Meanwhile in other news, just about every company that controls Internet bandwidth is putting the pinch on unlimited Internet. Wired or wireless, there are already caps in place by the majors which is only the first step. It's set up to be much like the airlines and their fee happy innovations: see what the consumer will tolerate.

In my own situation, Comcast is the key provider and they've set the initial cap at 250GB. If I'm a movie fan and I download movies at about 2GB each from the iCloud, I can pull in up to about 125 movies in a month. However, I (and everyone else) should have no doubt that 250 will soon become 125, then 75 or so, then maybe tighter still.

As much as we all want to imagine the many benefits of storing it all in this iCloud, it still has to flow back to us through someones pipes and/or someones 3G or 4G. Haven't you noticed that the companies that mostly control those pipes also happen to be the companies that love consumers paying fat monthly fees to receive video programming via cable & satt subscriptions now? Do we really live in illusions that Apple's iCloud is somehow going to overcome the issue with these "middlemen" being heavily motivated to protect their cash cows (either by constraining the flow with caps or by raising their Internet access rates, OR BOTH?)

We've seen rumors of Apple working deals with the music companies and now video companies. Where's the deals with the gatekeepers through which all this media is supposed to flow? Or are all who are so looking forward to storing all their media in the iCloud just happy to repeatedly pay for streaming content they own?

Conceptually, the vision of it is fantastic. The efficiency in storing media once for many to use is much superior to storing a million copies with individuals. But the delivery is a mess and worsening. Apple isn't the middleman, just as Apple doesn't provide the lovely deals we get from AT&T & Verizon for iPhone service. The middlemen don't exist to cut their own (revenue) throats to make Apple's next big things work.

I totally agree with this. What I really want is 128 GB (or at least 64 GB) on my iPhone. Forget the cloud then.

Tony

Porchland
May 31, 2011, 04:05 PM
WTF R u talking about?

Clearly they are looking to take people who have purchased legitimate iTunes media content since inception and move it to iCloud. I'm looking specifically at those of us who purchased early movies like Zoolander and 1st seasons of shows like 30 Rock which were not in the best res--I bet they will do like music and upgrade the quality as well.

Did you just pull this out of your butt or do you have a rational reason why a clearly stated agenda for uploading a customers own content would be "not in demand" and instead it become a rental service for content they don't own???

Wake up.

Apple doesn't need your copy of the movie; Apple just needs to know that it sold you the movie -- and it already knows that, BTW -- to provide you the license to stream it.

This whole construct of online storage of music, movies, etc., is something that Amazon came up with to get around the fact that it doesn't have the license rights to allow you to download the music, movie, etc., again or to stream it from Amazon's servers.

Noob.

bushido
May 31, 2011, 04:08 PM
Apple doesn't need your copy of the movie; Apple just needs to know that it sold you the movie -- and it already knows that, BTW -- to provide you the license to stream it.

This whole construct of online storage of music, movies, etc., is something that Amazon came up with to get around the fact that it doesn't have the license rights to allow you to download the music, movie, etc., again or to stream it from Amazon's servers.

Noob.

why on earth would i stream a movie to my iDevice if i could just sync it with iTunes and save some data + can u imagine a movie over 3G, pixel mess here we come

Porchland
May 31, 2011, 04:11 PM
why on earth would i stream a movie to my iDevice if i could just sync it with iTunes and save some data + can u imagine a movie over 3G, pixel mess here we come

1. You can already do that, so you're saying that iCloud is moot as a streaming service as far you are concerned.

2. Netflix for iPhone.

Kusanagi6913
May 31, 2011, 04:18 PM
Apple doesn't need your copy of the movie; Apple just needs to know that it sold you the movie -- and it already knows that, BTW -- to provide you the license to stream it.

This whole construct of online storage of music, movies, etc., is something that Amazon came up with to get around the fact that it doesn't have the license rights to allow you to download the music, movie, etc., again or to stream it from Amazon's servers.

Noob.

Listen Brainiac---I appreciate you stating common sense for those who've spent 3 pages not understanding this--but I was clear in my post that this service has appeal for those of us who have purchased content from iTunes and are tired of storing it on our PC's, Time Capsules and other devices when we just want to pull it down as needed.

As for where you tried to be clever and demonstrated your assness--let's be clear---Apple knows who bought their data (they may also know who comes on Macrumors criticizing them 24-7 and likewise being the 1st noob in line to buy an iPhone--is this u?) Point is--this isn't for Apple's sake but for the IP companies--THEY WANT TO KNOW that you legitimately own their content.

To be fair, I wouldn't doubt Jobs is trying to do many of the naysayers here a solid and have them wipe under the bridge the cases of "3 gb's of illegal music" some of these posters claim to have stored and allow some of these 'customers' to come into the light in amnesty. I can assure you that the movie companies will NOT allow this to be the case.

Lastly, are you daft? Amazon invented this??? Yeah-sure they did. Let's see where they are 3 mos from now? How much would you like to bet they'll be rolling out a cloned version of whatever Apple has complete with fee and complete with no uploads of content without some due diligence.

Noob indeed.

bushido
May 31, 2011, 04:21 PM
1. You can already do that, so you're saying that iCloud is moot as a streaming service as far you are concerned.

2. Netflix for iPhone.

sry forgot about Netflix as this is still US/Canadian only

frunkis54
May 31, 2011, 05:18 PM
If this is true iCloud will definitely be US only.

they don't have clouds overseas? :D

carl62
May 31, 2011, 05:29 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

If true, then this would tie in quite nicely with moving to SSD's in future iMacs and MacBooks as users wouldn't necessarily need such large hard drives...

Kusanagi6913
May 31, 2011, 06:15 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

If true, then this would tie in quite nicely with moving to SSD's in future iMacs and MacBooks as users wouldn't necessarily need such large hard drives...

Great post. I agree. The iCloud should offer simple innovations that speak to common sense tech geeks and the mainstream consumer. I want space in my house and car and likewise, I want to consumer content and use it anywhere. By and large this should mean that I can carry smarter, thinner devices (as well as in my home) without having to constantly upgrade clumsy bulky new storage sizes.

I imagine before long--my watch will be able to pull BIG content from the cloud without needing to be a size of a brick (and ultra-warm) on my wrist.

caspersoong
May 31, 2011, 07:51 PM
If it is free after all this, that would be awesome.

kalsta
May 31, 2011, 08:40 PM
The thing about uplaoding your own stuff is how does Apple know or how do you prove your stuff is not violating copyright. Say you illegally ripped (pirated) a friend's DVD movie to your iTunes. Now you want to upload that pirated movie to iCloud? I would assume Apple could be held liable for copyright infringement just like Limewire is being nailed for file sharing.

Firstly, Apple's negotiations appear to be about allowing users to access Apple's copies of the media files, not uploading a zillion of their own copies. The model makes a lot of sense. So one would assume it will only recognise iTunes store purchases.

It would be great though if there was a way to recognise legitimate DVD ownership (through serial numbers or something), and move that great hoard of a DVD collection into the iTunes sphere overnight. I can't see that ever happening, but it would be absolutely wonderful for DVD owners. Admittedly though, it would render the months I just spent ripping and compressing my entire collection an utter waste of time.

AidenShaw
May 31, 2011, 08:55 PM
Firstly, Apple's negotiations appear to be about allowing users to access Apple's copies of the media files, not uploading a zillion of their own copies.

Note that any reasonable cloud service for millions of users would use SIS (single-instance store) software. If hundreds of thousands of righteous Apple users had downloaded the same pirate rip of a blu-ray movie, and tried to upload it to the Icloud - the software should recognize that the Icloud already has a copy of those bits, and quickly link them to the single-instance copy.

So, I'm not arguing your point about the focus of Apple's negotiations, but saying that a "zillion" people uploading private copies of stuff won't be happening if they used a common source for their copies.

Even if there are a hundred rips of Justin Bieber's latest CD, that means that Apple would only have a hundred copies, not a hundred million.

h0mi
May 31, 2011, 08:55 PM
If Apple would support Ultraviolet, the problem would go away but that would be too easy, and allow people to use their itunes content on non apple devices.

Sol
May 31, 2011, 09:09 PM
If iTunes users have music and videos ripped from CDs and DVDs, wouldn't they be opening themselves to litigation by the music labels and film studios if Apple scanned the contents of their iTunes libraries? I am no lawyer but it seems risky to use iCloud before knowing for sure that Apple will not be sharing the contents of your iTunes library with the rights holders who would then have proof of content piracy. Hopefully users will be able to opt-in for this service instead of having it on by default.

AidenShaw
May 31, 2011, 10:00 PM
If iTunes users have music and videos ripped from CDs and DVDs, wouldn't they be opening themselves to litigation by the music labels and film studios if Apple scanned the contents of their iTunes libraries?

The courts have not been holding ISPs responsible for the transgressions of their customers. The ISPs can save a set of bits, return a set of bits, and send the set of bits off to the wild.

It's not the ISP's liability if their customer does not have appropriate rights to the "set of bits".

For "bits" purchased from Itunes, Apple has no need to "scan" the bits. They can simply link to the original Itunes sources.

For uploaded rips, Apple would need to be careful to avoid anything that would facilitate piracy. Low-level SIS (single-instance store) would not be an issue, since that's a close to hardware level compression technique (don't store more than one copy of this file/cluster/sector).

If Apple processed your data, and saw that you had a 128 Kbps rip of Justin Bieber's "Somebody to Love", and Apple decided to link instead to a 384 Kbps copy that someone else had uploaded - then Apple could have some issues.

bobob
May 31, 2011, 11:25 PM
Steve Jobs walks out on stage, raises his hands and says:

"This is the last time you'll have to pay for content, ever! Guaranteed."

The crowd leaps to it's feet for a fifteen minute standing ovation and spontaneously carries Steve off the stage, through the door, and out into the California sun.

capt601
May 31, 2011, 11:38 PM
I agree completely. Great idea but the boon will be to AT&T, Verizon and other mobile companies bottom lines. somehow I don't see them going back to unlimited data plans. And cable companies are next. Some have already started and the others will soon follow if everyone is downloading movies from the cloud.

Meanwhile in other news, just about every company that controls Internet bandwidth is putting the pinch on unlimited Internet. Wired or wireless, there are already caps in place by the majors which is only the first step. It's set up to be much like the airlines and their fee happy innovations: see what the consumer will tolerate.

In my own situation, Comcast is the key provider and they've set the initial cap at 250GB. If I'm a movie fan and I download movies at about 2GB each from the iCloud, I can pull in up to about 125 movies in a month. However, I (and everyone else) should have no doubt that 250 will soon become 125, then 75 or so, then maybe tighter still.

As much as we all want to imagine the many benefits of storing it all in this iCloud, it still has to flow back to us through someones pipes and/or someones 3G or 4G. Haven't you noticed that the companies that mostly control those pipes also happen to be the companies that love consumers paying fat monthly fees to receive video programming via cable & satt subscriptions now? Do we really live in illusions that Apple's iCloud is somehow going to overcome the issue with these "middlemen" being heavily motivated to protect their cash cows (either by constraining the flow with caps or by raising their Internet access rates, OR BOTH?)

We've seen rumors of Apple working deals with the music companies and now video companies. Where's the deals with the gatekeepers through which all this media is supposed to flow? Or are all who are so looking forward to storing all their media in the iCloud just happy to repeatedly pay for streaming content they own?

Conceptually, the vision of it is fantastic. The efficiency in storing media once for many to use is much superior to storing a million copies with individuals. But the delivery is a mess and worsening. Apple isn't the middleman, just as Apple doesn't provide the lovely deals we get from AT&T & Verizon for iPhone service. The middlemen don't exist to cut their own (revenue) throats to make Apple's next big things work.

capt601
May 31, 2011, 11:41 PM
Great post. I agree. The iCloud should offer simple innovations that speak to common sense tech geeks and the mainstream consumer. I want space in my house and car and likewise, I want to consumer content and use it anywhere. By and large this should mean that I can carry smarter, thinner devices (as well as in my home) without having to constantly upgrade clumsy bulky new storage sizes.

I imagine before long--my watch will be able to pull BIG content from the cloud without needing to be a size of a brick (and ultra-warm) on my wrist.

Sounds great but that data is going to cost you. Mobile providers are not going to let you get it free. And what about when you are out of cell coverage (never happens with at&t :))?

Mr Fusion
Jun 1, 2011, 12:00 AM
This is how I look at it:

- I can't access it everywhere. Airplane, tunnel, elevator, poor 3G service? That's a lot of "dark territory."

- Even if I did have my media in the iCloud, I'd still have a backup at home. So it's not saving me HDD space.

- Streaming even more data = more $$$ to Ma Bell and friends.

Am I missing something here? :confused:

Kusanagi6913
Jun 1, 2011, 12:29 AM
Sounds great but that data is going to cost you. Mobile providers are not going to let you get it free. And what about when you are out of cell coverage (never happens with at&t :))?

I am with you 100% this is going to cost. Ofcourse it is. I'm an entrepreneur on my 3RD business. Ofcourse Apple is in this to make money. I'm not picking on you but I see these posts and they just floor me with the silliness of it.

They are unveiling something called iCloud. 3 or 4 pages so far dedicated to whining about "why (I) need this when I have storage devices and the costs for storage devices keep falling?" and the "seems stupid--why would someone want to stream their music -- I already do it with my cumbersome setup in my house".
Now, we get the discussion point that--"hey sounds great but I bet you anything they're going to CHARGE YOU!---huh? what do you think about that?" :eek::eek:

Listen--Apple is going to charge and yes, there is a problem if they are including video and a raft of other services in terms of data coming through that pipe to be streamed somewhere like a coffee shop or hotel where wifi is maybe not ideal. And what's your point?

I pay for cable. I pay for insurance. I pay for a lot of things I wish was cheaper or MORE convenient but everything has it's price and unless this argument is coupled with--I live off the grid so I don't have to do any of this--then stop posting on this message board.

Bottom line--this is an ingenious service based on the little that we know for one reason and one reason only--storage of entertainment content--books, movies and music--as well as productivity software--should be accessible anywhere--when I want it and without some cumbersome set-up--provided that I paid for it legally. Simple--end of story.

Likewise, I'm willing to bet that for the Apple TV naysayers who hate the device--I have a hunch that this new iCloud will have something to say on finally putting apps on the device. And yes--I bet you'll have to pay for it.

jprocha
Jun 1, 2011, 01:20 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)

The biggest issue that will affect this is data caps. Mobile devices are losing unlimited data left and right and now data caps are being proposed for home Internet connections... This would be great but it's important to remember this problem.

Moyank24
Jun 1, 2011, 02:03 AM
Sounds great but that data is going to cost you. Mobile providers are not going to let you get it free. And what about when you are out of cell coverage (never happens with at&t :))?

I am with you 100% this is going to cost. Ofcourse it is. I'm an entrepreneur on my 3RD business. Ofcourse Apple is in this to make money. I'm not picking on you but I see these posts and they just floor me with the silliness of it.

They are unveiling something called iCloud. 3 or 4 pages so far dedicated to whining about "why (I) need this when I have storage devices and the costs for storage devices keep falling?" and the "seems stupid--why would someone want to stream their music -- I already do it with my cumbersome setup in my house".
Now, we get the discussion point that--"hey sounds great but I bet you anything they're going to CHARGE YOU!---huh? what do you think about that?" :eek::eek:

Listen--Apple is going to charge and yes, there is a problem if they are including video and a raft of other services in terms of data coming through that pipe to be streamed somewhere like a coffee shop or hotel where wifi is maybe not ideal. And what's your point?

I pay for cable. I pay for insurance. I pay for a lot of things I wish was cheaper or MORE convenient but everything has it's price and unless this argument is coupled with--I live off the grid so I don't have to do any of this--then stop posting on this message board.

Bottom line--this is an ingenious service based on the little that we know for one reason and one reason only--storage of entertainment content--books, movies and music--as well as productivity software--should be accessible anywhere--when I want it and without some cumbersome set-up--provided that I paid for it legally. Simple--end of story.

Likewise, I'm willing to bet that for the Apple TV naysayers who hate the device--I have a hunch that this new iCloud will have something to say on finally putting apps on the device. And yes--I bet you'll have to pay for it.

Interesting you chose to quote that specific statement and failed to address the meat of his concern. Most people aren't questioning the fact that Apple is going to charge for this. Data cost and usage is the real concern. How much will it use? Not everybody has unlimited data or even has an option to upgrade to an unlimited plan. For someone that has 2GB/month (or less) how much can they really get out of this service?

I guess we'll find out next week...but if this turns out to be a data hog, it's not going to be worth it for a lot of people, no matter how great it is.

d4rkc4sm
Jun 1, 2011, 02:13 AM
tangled is a sweet sweet movie. ive seen it so many times, i doubt i will download it from icloud so it is useless to me.

OllyW
Jun 1, 2011, 02:48 AM
tangled is a sweet sweet movie. ive seen it so many times, i doubt i will download it from icloud so it is useless to me.

Are you expecting iCloud to only have the one movie which was used in an iPad publicity shot which MacRumors just happened to use for this story? :confused:

Bizarre.

onetoescape
Jun 1, 2011, 04:48 AM
If this goes the way I want it go this could be huge for me. Apple Tv in in each room. Go to basic Tv with sports. Spend the difference onto content. Game changer if it goes this way. No longer kids fighting over watching the same movie in there bedrooms etc.

bushido
Jun 1, 2011, 08:51 AM
movies and tv shows would obvs be itunes content only, i doubt they would allow u to upload anything u ripped etc. so what is the difference to streaming which u can already do???

DJinTX
Jun 1, 2011, 09:51 AM
Other then having your content available anywhere anytime with iCloud you can buy a movie in iTunes and stream it to Apple TV right now. You just can't buy it on Apple TV. So for home use I don't see a need for iCloud.

But this may be nice for vacations if you have wi-fi available you could bring your Apple TV with and stream your library.

Some of us, including me, do not want to leave their Mac on and running iTunes all the time to be able to stream a movie they own. If Apple knows which movies TV shows I have purchased and I can just stream their copy directly to my Apple TV, this is a much better solution. Likewise, I don't want to have to go to the other room and buy a TV show in iTunes, then return to the living room to then start watching it. Making Apple TV a one stop shop is ideal and much more practical and convenient for users.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 1, 2011, 09:55 AM
If this goes the way I want it go this could be huge for me. Apple Tv in in each room. Go to basic Tv with sports. Spend the difference onto content. Game changer if it goes this way. No longer kids fighting over watching the same movie in there bedrooms etc.

Again, I too love the conceptual pieces of the idea. What it seems lots of people are still ignoring is the practical. How big is ONE movie to be streamed from this iCloud? There's the iTunes price or maybe we'll finally get some kind of subscription option which will still have some cost associated with accessing the content itself. AND- and this is the important one- there's the toll to be paid to the gatekeepers (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc)- those who control the pipes through which this content must flow.

Paying to rent or even buy some iTunes media is no big deal. But, let's say you want to do what onetoescape wants to do: cut the cable cord as much as possible and then use the "savings" to "cover" their iCloud replacement option.

We know the general fees for the media itself.

We (almost certainly perceive) there will be some charge for iCloud service (someone is going to pay for that NC facility)

We seem to keep ignoring the gatekeeper portion. Movies I've got on my Apple TV tend to average just over 2.5GB. Note what AT&T charges so that someone can stream just 2GB: http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/ipad.jsp to their iDevice.

Sure, that's 3G pricing for accessing media and our home broadband is likely to cost less than that. But notice that home broadband has already begun to tighten that noose. We have tiers, we have caps. Will the gatekeepers stop where they are or will their tighten those levels so they can make more money? If we don't like the tightening to come, where are we going to go? In my area, I'm fortunate to have 2 (TWO!) broadband suppliers: Comcast & AT&T. When Comcast tightens their tier pricing too much, do you really think that AT&T will offer a much bigger pool of broadband capacity? Some people only have 1 (ONE) choice for broadband in their area.

I think what you see at the above link is inevitably coming for home broadband. Maybe not as tight (and exploitive) as that, but I expect usage above certain levels to involve additional fees (becoming much more expensive than we pay now). Why? There's lots of money in it for the duopolies that control your broadband options. And consumers pretty much have nowhere to go as hardly any competition facilitates buyer exploitation.

AND, have you not noticed that the very same companies that control your broadband are also in the business of selling video programming via subscription? They have ZERO incentive to ever allow a company like Apple to take their video subscription revenue when Apple's streams must flow through their pipes. It's impossible to cut the cord when Apple's solution must flow through the very same cord. I guarantee that any revolution that starts significantly eroding the cash cows of video subscription models will be accompanied by broadband price hikes and/or much more expensive tiered pricing such that it will prove to be (barely) cheaper to stick with cable or satt, including a bunch of channels you never watch.

Personally, I love the conceptual benefits of iCloud-type services. But the reality is that Apple doesn't own the middle ground between their iCloud and your computer or iDevice. Those that do already illustrate that they want to charge $25 for just 2GB (or about 80% or so of just 1 movie stream).

I want to cut the cable cord too. I want the perceived savings of not paying for a bunch of channels I never watch and instead getting what I want to watch when I want to watch it commercial free via iTunes and this iCloud. The trick then is since those between the iCloud and us completely control the pipes, how do they replace all that money they lose should we all adopt the cable-cutter concept? And griping about outdated business models and all that is fine, but it still doesn't change the fact that the only way the middle men support Apple taking their video distribution business is if it somehow makes them MORE money by allowing it to happen. Guess where that "more money" will come from? Hint: not Apple.

bobob
Jun 1, 2011, 09:58 AM
Three words - - Apple Satellite Network - - launching soon on a planet near you!


(What'd ya think all that extra cash was for?!?)

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 1, 2011, 10:17 AM
I've long since thought Apple should buy Dish Network and allocate some of that bandwidth on Dish for these purposes. While that could solve the problem I illustrated above (home broadband), there would still need to be a solution for iCloud access "on the go" (and beyond north America). (It is easy to imagine the Apple ego being fed by having satt dishes with the Apple logo stuck on homes & building all over the country.)

It's possible to buy blocks of bandwidth in wireless spectrum and thus become a competitor of AT&T & Verizon, etc, but few companies choose to do that... presumably because the net profit in it is not appealing enough to make it work for them.

When the digital TV transition occurred there was all this new wireless spectrum made available from freeing up a bunch of former analog TV channel spectrum. Both Apple & Google appeared to be genuinely interested in bidding for that spectrum. Had either won it, it was a great way to address this "on the go" access issue. But guess who grabbed just about all of that spectrum? The broadband gatekeepers love their duopoly control (and pricing).

onetoescape
Jun 1, 2011, 10:21 AM
Again, I too love the conceptual pieces of the idea. What it seems lots of people are still ignoring is the practical. How big is ONE movie to be streamed from this iCloud? There's the iTunes price or maybe we'll finally get some kind of subscription option which will still have some cost associated with accessing the content itself. AND- and this is the important one- there's the toll to be paid to the gatekeepers (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc)- those who control the pipes through which this content must flow.

Paying to rent or even buy some iTunes media is no big deal. But, let's say you want to do what onetoescape wants to do: cut the cable cord as much as possible and then use the "savings" to "cover" their iCloud replacement option.

We know the general fees for the media itself.

We (almost certainly perceive) there will be some charge for iCloud service (someone is going to pay for that NC facility)

We seem to keep ignoring the gatekeeper portion. Movies I've got on my Apple TV tend to average just over 2.5GB. Note what AT&T charges so that someone can stream just 2GB: http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/ipad.jsp to their iDevice.

Sure, that's 3G pricing for accessing media and our home broadband is likely to cost less than that. But notice that home broadband has already begun to tighten that noose. We have tiers, we have caps. Will the gatekeepers stop where they are or will their tighten those levels so they can make more money? If we don't like the tightening to come, where are we going to go? In my area, I'm fortunate to have 2 (TWO!) broadband suppliers: Comcast & AT&T. When Comcast tightens their tier pricing too much, do you really think that AT&T will offer a much bigger pool of broadband capacity? Some people only have 1 (ONE) choice for broadband in their area.

I think what you see at the above link is inevitably coming for home broadband. Maybe not as tight (and exploitive) as that, but I expect usage above certain levels to involve additional fees (becoming much more expensive than we pay now). Why? There's lots of money in it for the duopolies that control your broadband options. And consumers pretty much have nowhere to go as hardly any competition facilitates buyer exploitation.

AND, have you not noticed that the very same companies that control your broadband are also in the business of selling video programming via subscription? They have ZERO incentive to ever allow a company like Apple to take their video subscription revenue when Apple's streams must flow through their pipes. It's impossible to cut the cord when Apple's solution must flow through the very same cord. I guarantee that any revolution that starts significantly eroding the cash cows of video subscription models will be accompanied by broadband price hikes and/or much more expensive tiered pricing such that it will prove to be (barely) cheaper to stick with cable or satt, including a bunch of channels you never watch.

Personally, I love the conceptual benefits of iCloud-type services. But the reality is that Apple doesn't own the middle ground between their iCloud and your computer or iDevice. Those that do already illustrate that they want to charge $25 for just 2GB (or about 80% or so of just 1 movie stream).

I want to cut the cable cord too. I want the perceived savings of not paying for a bunch of channels I never watch and instead getting what I want to watch when I want to watch it commercial free via iTunes and this iCloud. The trick then is since those between the iCloud and us completely control the pipes, how do they replace all that money they lose should we all adopt the cable-cutter concept? And griping about outdated business models and all that is fine, but it still doesn't change the fact that the only way the middle men support Apple taking their video distribution business is if it somehow makes them MORE money by allowing it to happen. Guess where that "more money" will come from? Hint: not Apple.

Different countries different problems. Im on a uncapped 100mb service so the problems you will face will be different however I do take your point. I feel there will a "premium" service will be launched by the broadband companies as more and more traffic goes this way. My problem is the content over here isnt as fast.

blackpond
Jun 1, 2011, 04:20 PM
Again, I too love the conceptual pieces of the idea. What it seems lots of people are still ignoring is the practical. How big is ONE movie to be streamed from this iCloud? There's the iTunes price or maybe we'll finally get some kind of subscription option which will still have some cost associated with accessing the content itself. AND- and this is the important one- there's the toll to be paid to the gatekeepers (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc)- those who control the pipes through which this content must flow.

Paying to rent or even buy some iTunes media is no big deal. But, let's say you want to do what onetoescape wants to do: cut the cable cord as much as possible and then use the "savings" to "cover" their iCloud replacement option.

We know the general fees for the media itself.

We (almost certainly perceive) there will be some charge for iCloud service (someone is going to pay for that NC facility)

We seem to keep ignoring the gatekeeper portion. Movies I've got on my Apple TV tend to average just over 2.5GB. Note what AT&T charges so that someone can stream just 2GB: http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/ipad.jsp to their iDevice.

Sure, that's 3G pricing for accessing media and our home broadband is likely to cost less than that. But notice that home broadband has already begun to tighten that noose. We have tiers, we have caps. Will the gatekeepers stop where they are or will their tighten those levels so they can make more money? If we don't like the tightening to come, where are we going to go? In my area, I'm fortunate to have 2 (TWO!) broadband suppliers: Comcast & AT&T. When Comcast tightens their tier pricing too much, do you really think that AT&T will offer a much bigger pool of broadband capacity? Some people only have 1 (ONE) choice for broadband in their area.

I think what you see at the above link is inevitably coming for home broadband. Maybe not as tight (and exploitive) as that, but I expect usage above certain levels to involve additional fees (becoming much more expensive than we pay now). Why? There's lots of money in it for the duopolies that control your broadband options. And consumers pretty much have nowhere to go as hardly any competition facilitates buyer exploitation.

AND, have you not noticed that the very same companies that control your broadband are also in the business of selling video programming via subscription? They have ZERO incentive to ever allow a company like Apple to take their video subscription revenue when Apple's streams must flow through their pipes. It's impossible to cut the cord when Apple's solution must flow through the very same cord. I guarantee that any revolution that starts significantly eroding the cash cows of video subscription models will be accompanied by broadband price hikes and/or much more expensive tiered pricing such that it will prove to be (barely) cheaper to stick with cable or satt, including a bunch of channels you never watch.

Personally, I love the conceptual benefits of iCloud-type services. But the reality is that Apple doesn't own the middle ground between their iCloud and your computer or iDevice. Those that do already illustrate that they want to charge $25 for just 2GB (or about 80% or so of just 1 movie stream).

I want to cut the cable cord too. I want the perceived savings of not paying for a bunch of channels I never watch and instead getting what I want to watch when I want to watch it commercial free via iTunes and this iCloud. The trick then is since those between the iCloud and us completely control the pipes, how do they replace all that money they lose should we all adopt the cable-cutter concept? And griping about outdated business models and all that is fine, but it still doesn't change the fact that the only way the middle men support Apple taking their video distribution business is if it somehow makes them MORE money by allowing it to happen. Guess where that "more money" will come from? Hint: not Apple.

I understand the viewpoint you're presenting but don't completely agree. I've been happily using Pandora One almost nonstop for a year and a half, frequently view television and movies through Netflix and iTunes, as well as consume a fair bit of bandwidth as I work through the day. I'd consider my household to be pretty average in that regard. I've never come close to hitting a monthly cap with Comcast. It's not a concern whatsoever.

I agree with your argument that Internet providers will eventually try to limit data to such services. But by that time it will be their game to lose. The public will have already bought into the concept of streamed media and will demand it. And they'll get it. Either from the current providers or new ones competing for their business.

On a side note, some of your comparisons are a little off. For example, why would a mobile phone be streaming a 2.5GB movie file? Surely a much smaller resolution would look just as good.

So don't toss out your love for the conceptual benefits of iCloud-type services just yet. They're already used and enjoyed today by millions of people.... and that number is growing.

twoodcc
Jun 1, 2011, 05:51 PM
now this would be great, but what about the storage? if the user it limited to 20 GBs, that's not a lot of movies

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 1, 2011, 06:05 PM
I understand the viewpoint you're presenting but don't completely agree. I've been happily using Pandora One almost nonstop for a year and a half, frequently view television and movies through Netflix and iTunes, as well as consume a fair bit of bandwidth as I work through the day. I'd consider my household to be pretty average in that regard. I've never come close to hitting a monthly cap with Comcast. It's not a concern whatsoever.

That's now. Where I am Comcast "unlimited" internet is capped at 250GB/month. It's not easy to eat 250GB in a month. Even with an iCloud and lots of streaming at home, I doubt my whole family could go through that.

But I have no expectation for that tier to stay at 250GB, anymore than I expected the Airline fees on the second bag to stop with the second bag (and it didn't) nor the AT&T unlimited 3G on demand plan to last with the first iPad with 3G launch.

Right now Comcast gets a big subscription price for broadband internet and another big subscription price for cable TV. If an iCloud-type service can make this dream of cutting the cable cord really fly with lots of Comcast customers, what move will Comcast want to make to prevent the defections? Since an iCloud service MUST flow through Comcast's pipes, the answer is very easy. Make that broadband expensive enough either by raising the fee AND/OR by lowering the tier so that fees go up for heavy broadband users (aka iCloud streamers) and they can make their cable pricing- even "as is" now- seem like the much better deal.

On a side note, some of your comparisons are a little off. For example, why would a mobile phone be streaming a 2.5GB movie file? Surely a much smaller resolution would look just as good.

These are conversions from DVD resolutions with Handbrake, admittedly focusing on trying to preserve the quality of the DVD picture rather than putting the squeeze on compression aiming for smaller file sizes. Note however that iDevice screens are already at resolutions well above full DVD quality. Could the compression be cranked up for iDevices to make the file sizes smaller? Sure, but I'm just going by efficient rips (H.264) as well as the file sizes available for sale/rental in the iTunes store.

Perhaps you are imagining another layer of download options at a more compressed (lower resolution and/or lower quality level) than what we get now from iTunes on iDevices, AppleTVs and our computers? However, it seems like the trend for that is in the other direction (bigger files) at HD quality (720p now but room to grow when Apple finally gets around to offering 1080p for streaming).

I just don't see them adding another layer of video formats for little screens (iPhone, iPod) and maybe "medium" screen (iPad) when the hardware trend for those seem to be going toward "retina" displays (if not already there). If so, you need higher resolution video to actually maximize the images on those displays not lower (like these DVD rips at around 2.5GB).

Besides the dominant concept of this iCloud is getting your content anywhere, anytime which almost begs for at least some of that streaming to be via 3G/4G, currently priced at $25 for 2GB.

p3gamer
Jun 14, 2011, 07:41 AM
I believe that Movies and TV shows will be included, it's just when?

There will probably be an iTunes Match "Plus" that includes movies and TV shows. Guessing price point is between $25-$75 dollars a year(maybe too high or too low).

Just like iTunes Match will playback your music at 256 Kbps, movies and shows will also playback at a higher quality.

One more thing...(probably not, but some wishful thinking)

If a deal is made between the movie and tv companies, I wonder if that will impact Apple's decision to include Blu-ray drives in future hardware. Even if Blu-ray is added before or long after movies and shows are added, I still have to wonder if adding Blu-ray drives is/was part of the on-going talks.

I don't claim to have knowledge on how the BDA(Blu-ray Disc Association) operates or on the true reasons Apple hasn't put Blu-ray drives in their computers. Maybe it's the cost, maybe it's because they want to get into a digital only format or something else.