PDA

View Full Version : Apple Paying Music Labels Up to $150 Million for iCloud Streaming Rights?




MacRumors
Jun 3, 2011, 08:32 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/03/apple-paying-music-labels-up-to-150-million-for-icloud-streaming-rights/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/major_music_labels.jpg


The New York Post reports (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/apple_pays_music_bigs_OcxlGqT1E0P5P9vzosxtyK) that Apple is paying the four major music labels up to a total of $150 million for the rights to include their music in its iCloud music streaming service set to be introduced on Monday. The revelation comes just as Apple reportedly finalized a deal (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/02/apple-finally-signs-universal-music-icloud/) with Universal, the last of the four major labels to sign on to the deal.Apple will fork over between $100 million and $150 million in advanced payments to the four major music labels in order to get its iCloud off the ground, three separate sources told The Post.

The Cupertino, Calif., tech giant has agreed to pay the labels between $25 million to $50 million each, as an incentive to get on board, depending on how many tracks consumers are storing.The report also claims that Apple has finalized deals with the corresponding music publishers, officially opening the door for a launch. Previous reports had indicated that Apple was putting the final touches on agreements with the publishers.

Multiple news outlets have reported since yesterday that iCloud will debut as a free service, with Apple eventually looking to charge in the neighborhood of $25 per year for the service. Sources have also claimed that iCloud will be limited at first, supporting only content purchased from the iTunes Store, but that Apple is working to expand iCloud to support music obtained from other sources in the future.

Article Link: Apple Paying Music Labels Up to $150 Million for iCloud Streaming Rights? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/03/apple-paying-music-labels-up-to-150-million-for-icloud-streaming-rights/)



GeekLawyer
Jun 3, 2011, 08:34 AM
Maybe Apple is going to put its LaLa acquisition to use. And we've all been thinking about this iCloud thing in too narrow of terms.

We'll know for sure on Monday.

NebulaClash
Jun 3, 2011, 08:36 AM
If there's one thing Apple has plenty of, it's cash on hand. Might as well use it to get idiot partners to cooperate to do what's in their best interests anyway as Apple drags them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

elhungarian
Jun 3, 2011, 08:36 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

Wonder how many people don't own iTunes music

Full of Win
Jun 3, 2011, 08:38 AM
If it's iTunes only content, this will be another failure from Apple.

iTunes only content on icloud = Ping 2

ghostlines
Jun 3, 2011, 08:38 AM
It seems Apple just wants to cover it's bases incase the music labels sue them later for not striking deals with them.
But Apple already has deals with them for iTunes so couldn't they just setup iCloud as cloud storage and let people stream their purchases from there?

$150 Mil seems like a lot to me. But hey maybe it's just peanuts to Apple.:cool:

toddybody
Jun 3, 2011, 08:40 AM
That seems inexpensive considering how many labels it is...congrats Apple

d0minick
Jun 3, 2011, 08:40 AM
I firmly believe that this will be much more then a storage locker. It is going to be a streaming service over 3g. At least I hope.

Why would they shell out that much for locker permission. And people would buy that instead of free with google and amazon?

please be all-you-can-eat streaming! :D:D:D

bsforever
Jun 3, 2011, 08:40 AM
Will it be international or US only like how spotify started in EU countries only?

ghostlines
Jun 3, 2011, 08:41 AM
If it's iTunes only content, this will be another failure from Apple.

Well maybe they'll acquire Dropbox later, but they should try and focus on one thing for a while and be good at it. And let other companies eat too, they don't have to create an all in one cloud storage service right off the bat.

d0minick
Jun 3, 2011, 08:42 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

Wonder how many people don't own iTunes music

I got about a 3k catalog. Not one from Apple.

levitynyc
Jun 3, 2011, 08:45 AM
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)

So stupid. Why do you need to license something that people already bought? Does every CD player maker have to pay the record labels?

hppy29
Jun 3, 2011, 08:45 AM
Will it be international or US only like how spotify started in EU countries only?

Unless anyone here works for Apple, the answer to your question will remain a secret until Monday.

Small White Car
Jun 3, 2011, 08:47 AM
That seems inexpensive considering how many labels it is...congrats Apple

This is just an up-front tip. The equivalent of a free drink in a casino.

I'm sure they'll get money monthly, too. In other words, this may be a small amount of money, but it's essentially "for" nothing other than saying "hey, like us!"

talkingfuture
Jun 3, 2011, 08:48 AM
Investing that much must mean that they will do whatever is needed to make it more successful than MobileMe.

0815
Jun 3, 2011, 08:49 AM
So much money to give Apple the right stream music that you already purchased from their servers (not even allowing to stream music that you purchased on CD or through other legal means) ?

Hope the rumors are wrong and there is more to the iCould ....

tharoc
Jun 3, 2011, 08:49 AM
Record labels are no better quality group of people than the ladies that occupy the red light districts throughout the world...

Bodypainter
Jun 3, 2011, 08:50 AM
i don't understand that! can anyone explain it to me? Why does apple pay the record companies anything at all?

we bought those files, we store them on our hard disk and if you stream them from "your" cloud they are the same, only the space where you store them us different.

will we also have to pay if we copy the files to another hard disk? or maybe when we sync with our iPods and iPhones? maybe the record companies could start charging us when we use a different headphone or when we play it on a different hifi - car or at home?

isn't it a wonder we can just rip a cd in iTunes? I am sure nowadays you'd have to pay extra for that. maybe 5 us$... or more?

fattire357
Jun 3, 2011, 08:51 AM
Investing that much must mean that they will do whatever is needed to make it more successful than MobileMe.

It'll never be successful as long as the only two tiers of subscription are:

1. free trial
2. paid subscription


They need to have some free subscription, kind of like dropbox and their 2GB plan. I wouldn't be paying monthly for dropbox if it wasn't for being lured in :).

mrklaw
Jun 3, 2011, 08:52 AM
If there's one thing Apple has plenty of, it's cash on hand. Might as well use it to get idiot partners to cooperate to do what's in their best interests anyway as Apple drags them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

I can't believe it should cost anywhere near that kind of money.

But I *can* believe that labels would demand that kind of money.

And perhaps with a cash rich company like Apple, this is worth it to try and force the business model onto the likes of Google/Amazon etc? It'll perhaps encourage labels and publishers to seek injunctions/damages against them.

A little like Apple forcing the agency model on everyone else when it set up ibooks. IMO thats a bad model that discourages competition amongst retailers. But if you're last to market and in a challenger position, its a smart thing to do, to neutralise advantages your competitor has.

fattire357
Jun 3, 2011, 08:53 AM
Record labels are no better quality group of people than the ladies that occupy the red light districts throughout the world...

Hey, don't be dissing on the prostitutes. we both know they have much more character than a record company. :chuckle:

Small White Car
Jun 3, 2011, 08:54 AM
we bought those files, we store them on our hard disk and if you stream them from "your" cloud they are the same, only the space where you store them us different.


That's what Amazon does and Amazon doesn't pay the labels.

Thus we have to conclude that iCloud will be something different, yeah?

0815
Jun 3, 2011, 08:54 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

Wonder how many people don't own iTunes music

The bigger question is: how many people own music purchased OUTSIDE of iTunes ... probably a lot, and those are the once that are getting screwed if the rumors turn out to be true

BJMRamage
Jun 3, 2011, 08:57 AM
we all know Apple wouldn't do this but it could be a major selling point if they did....

FREE music storage locker for all your songs available anywhere with your iPod/iPhone/iPad or Apple computer. NOT synacble with PC/Android/whatever.

they take the $ hit and then get more Apple buyers.

OllyW
Jun 3, 2011, 08:58 AM
The bigger question is: how many people own music purchased OUTSIDE of iTunes ... probably a lot, and those are the once that are getting screwed if the rumors turn out to be true

I would't say they'll be getting screwed, there's just not much of an incentive for them to sign up to iCloud.

FriarNurgle
Jun 3, 2011, 09:00 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

Wonder how many people don't own iTunes music

I'm one. I have over 40GB of music and none of it is from iTunes. Everything is ripped from CDs or even vinyl, some is downloaded but those were free downloads from band sites. It's amazing what you can find at the library, flea markets, or garage sales.

0815
Jun 3, 2011, 09:00 AM
we all know Apple wouldn't do this but it could be a major selling point if they did....

FREE music storage locker for all your songs available anywhere with your iPod/iPhone/iPad or Apple computer. NOT synacble with PC/Android/whatever.

they take the $ hit and then get more Apple buyers.

How about:
- free storage for music you bought through iTunes (no additional storages needed on apple servers)
- small fee for your own music that you upload to the servers (maybe per GB)

NebulaClash
Jun 3, 2011, 09:01 AM
a) Non-iTunes music will get to the cloud later.

b) iTunes is the biggest electronic music retailer on the planet, so no matter how many people chime in to say they don't have any iTunes music, there are millions of people who do have iTunes music. That is a good start for this service.

ftaok
Jun 3, 2011, 09:02 AM
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)

So stupid. Why do you need to license something that people already bought? Does every CD player maker have to pay the record labels?

Because the people who "bought" the music from iTunes have so for a limited scope in terms of usage. Streaming the music over the internet wasn't part of the deal. So Apple is paying the record companies and publishers (on behalf of iTunes customers) to allow the users access to music in a different manner.

Whether Apple needed to strike these deals or not is really for the lawyers to decide. Perhaps Apple wants to play nice with the content owners so as to get favorable deals laters (i.e. early release movies for aTV, more exclusive music content, etc).

If you're a record company and one company wants to deal with you, while the other two giants don't, wouldn't you be more receptive to work with the one company who's willing to work with you?

d0minick
Jun 3, 2011, 09:03 AM
Record labels are no better quality group of people than the ladies that occupy the red light districts throughout the world...

And why are those ladies not of good quality? Because they provide a service you morally disagree with?

How can someone have distaste against ladies who bring happiness into the world.:confused::confused:

It is someones money, spend it how you want. No need to be higher then thou.

Žalgiris
Jun 3, 2011, 09:04 AM
I need a spare stasis pod, because i won't survive till monday. :D

fattire357
Jun 3, 2011, 09:05 AM
we all know Apple wouldn't do this but it could be a major selling point if they did....

FREE music storage locker for all your songs available anywhere with your iPod/iPhone/iPad or Apple computer. NOT synacble with PC/Android/whatever.

they take the $ hit and then get more Apple buyers.

I actually think this is a good idea. The problem with cloud syncing right now is that everyone is doing it. Apple is arriving late to the game. Google Music Beta is free (for now), and Amazon.com is free for the amount of music most consumers use. They are going to take a huge hit from customers that prefer a cheaper option.

I cancelled my free trial of Mobile Me when I realized Google offers all the services of Mobile Me I needed... paying $99 for something I can get elsewhere for free is absurd. Some do it, but most don't. Hence Mobile Me = fail.

bbeagle
Jun 3, 2011, 09:06 AM
What if this was a streaming service over 3g, and Apple also negotiated with AT&T/Verizon/etc. to allow the streaming music to not be part of the user's data plans? Users would pay $25/year to unlimited stream over 3g, or maybe even free for unlimited streaming over 3g with ads?

This would be a definate advantage of iPhones vs. Androids.

BJMRamage
Jun 3, 2011, 09:06 AM
How about:
- free storage for music you bought through iTunes (no additional storages needed on apple servers)
- small fee for your own music that you upload to the servers (maybe per GB)

I figured it would be like that. Free for songs you have purchased already from iTunes.
and pay to store more...though would be nice to say discounted for music they have and you purchased elsewhere. though could see that getting complicated.

Would be nice to see FREE 3G usage of iCloud as in they paid AT&T and VERIZON to get no charge to iPhone/iPad users for the iCOuld 3G service too.

for me I'd use the FREE way and look into why my Streamedy or other streaming stuff isn't working right.

toddybody
Jun 3, 2011, 09:07 AM
This is just an up-front tip. The equivalent of a free drink in a casino.

I'm sure they'll get money monthly, too. In other words, this may be a small amount of money, but it's essentially "for" nothing other than saying "hey, like us!"

Perhaps...though we wont know future costs. I'm sure they'll be
recurring fees on a yearly/quarterly basis, but I think this amount is more than "saying hey like us"...they are in fact buying rights to stream the music as they see fit.

Anyhow, I thought it relatively cheap in comparison to some costs Netflix incurs for streaming rights (recent 1mil per MadMen Episode).

Stay well yo! Represent the DC well (I'm in Frederick MD)

ftaok
Jun 3, 2011, 09:07 AM
Another thought on this topic.

Perhaps Apple is paying the record companies/publishers to allow iTunes users to access music obtained from other sources without the need for the user to upload their own music.

Let's say that I just bought the new Coldplay album and ripped it to iTunes. Perhaps iTunes will link the ripped songs with my iTunes account and allow me to access the album over the 'net without me having to upload to iCloud. Surely iTunes has that Coldplay album on the server, so when I go to the clould, I play the version of the Coldplay that stored on Apple's servers.

I would say that this would work for a major portion of users, regardless of whether you bought the music via iTunes or not.

They may have other ways to detect whether the music is legit (e.g. Amazon purchase, etc) and allow for iCloud access to those songs as well.

ciTiger
Jun 3, 2011, 09:08 AM
I don't buy music on iTunes but if this means MobileMe for 25$ a year I'm on board lol

jayducharme
Jun 3, 2011, 09:09 AM
Once your media is stored in the "cloud," who will have ownership of it? If, for instance, you miss a payment of your cloud fees, what happens to your media? Do you get to keep it, or does "the cloud?"

kavika411
Jun 3, 2011, 09:09 AM
...depending on how many tracks consumers are storing.

Good News:

This definitely suggests the ability, either starting Monday or in the future, to stream more than just iTunes-purchased music.

Bad News:

The term "storing" suggests actually uploading your music. I was hopeful (naive, I guess) that uploading wouldn't be necessary; I'd hoped that there would be a scanning of your music and iCloud would simply stream to you "Apple's copy" of the song. (It seems so silly that the data center would hold thousands, if not millions, of copies of one single song in each person's "locker." How many digital copies of a Beatles song does there really need to be?)

GLS
Jun 3, 2011, 09:10 AM
If it's iTunes only content, this will be another failure from Apple.

iTunes only content on icloud = Ping 2

You must be a barrel of fun at parties.

danielchow
Jun 3, 2011, 09:10 AM
curious, i wonder if this is the same $150 million that microsoft "gave" apple many years ago.

BornAgainMac
Jun 3, 2011, 09:11 AM
I paid a small fortune on iTunes so I am set if this is true. I hardly have anything that wasn't purchased from iTunes today.

fattire357
Jun 3, 2011, 09:12 AM
Another thought on this topic.

Perhaps Apple is paying the record companies/publishers to allow iTunes users to access music obtained from other sources without the need for the user to upload their own music.

Let's say that I just bought the new Coldplay album and ripped it to iTunes. Perhaps iTunes will link the ripped songs with my iTunes account and allow me to access the album over the 'net without me having to upload to iCloud. Surely iTunes has that Coldplay album on the server, so when I go to the clould, I play the version of the Coldplay that stored on Apple's servers.

I would say that this would work for a major portion of users, regardless of whether you bought the music via iTunes or not.

They may have other ways to detect whether the music is legit (e.g. Amazon purchase, etc) and allow for iCloud access to those songs as well.

This will never happen because if Apple makes a mistake then they are giving out music for free. Huge liability.

At least if someone uploads pirated music to the cloud Amazon or Google can say, we don't verify the data, they are the ones that uploaded the pirated music.

nanotlj
Jun 3, 2011, 09:14 AM
I do not get the point for apple to pay $$$ to music labels JUST for streaming songs purchased on itunes. That does not make sense at all.
I purchase music from itunes and thus OWN it (of course not the copyright). I pay for icloud storage. What the heck does this have anything related to music label? Since the icloud cost eventually levels to customers, this just means I pay double to music labels.
Apple should do something similar to Amazon or Google cloud. It has nothing to do with music labels.

Centient
Jun 3, 2011, 09:14 AM
Understand that the labels are going to get additional fees, but all things considered that doesn't seem like a lot of money. I'm wondering if this pricing was driven by the run around Google and Amazon just performed on the labels and publishers?

Watching two huge players like those just walk away from negotiations, and still largely get what they wanted anyway, must have been disconcerting. It's not like the RIAA can sue them out of existence, or seriously threaten to pull distribution deals either. There had to have been some concern among the labels and producers that Apple would just follow suit and they'd risk getting nothing at all.

nashpdotcom
Jun 3, 2011, 09:14 AM
I'm so tired of seeing everyone on here cry about it only being things that you purchased through iTunes. Are you really that closed minded to think that Apple would limit it to JUST that. Was LaLa that? Is Google Music or Amazon that? Is MOG or Rdio that? Do you not think this deal they've made is pretty much a reset to the way they handle the record labels music?

Am I that crazy to think that it'll be a subscription streaming service AND a dropbox like storage location all in one?

I can bet anything on it that this will NOT only be for things you purchased in iTunes. That would cripple the service. If a random person on a message board knows this, don't you think apple knows this as well?

silentnite
Jun 3, 2011, 09:16 AM
I'm a little confused but will icloud include mobile me and if it does this would be good news at $25. This is could mean the end to backing up all my itunes music or will it? I guess it's always safe to back up everything important no matter where it's stored.:D

SeanMcg
Jun 3, 2011, 09:17 AM
i don't understand that! can anyone explain it to me? Why does apple pay the record companies anything at all?

we bought those files, we store them on our hard disk and if you stream them from "your" cloud they are the same, only the space where you store them us different.

will we also have to pay if we copy the files to another hard disk? or maybe when we sync with our iPods and iPhones? maybe the record companies could start charging us when we use a different headphone or when we play it on a different hifi - car or at home?

isn't it a wonder we can just rip a cd in iTunes? I am sure nowadays you'd have to pay extra for that. maybe 5 us$... or more?

The article that was linked was woefully short on details, which is not unexpected, and based on unofficial sources. As usual, the MR crowd is filling in the rest with assumptions.

I could see where Apple could be paying for the rights to stream songs that people buy in the future, instead of delivering the file. But until someone can provide full details, I'm not going gripe about it, and definitely not going to get hyberbolic.

Is media licensing screwed up? Sure. As someone else mentioned, Apple is dragging these labels into the 21st century. They've got the tech, the market position, the money and the lawyers to do it. 150 Million is more of a nuisance fee to them.

jdaco6
Jun 3, 2011, 09:18 AM
This must be more than an online digital locker with this amount of money being spent.

I assume Apple will offer a subscription service to steam all of the music in iTunes for a monthly fee as well as free streaming for songs purchased via itunes. This then negates any problem areas such as allowing people to upload non Apple purchased content as they can simply subscribe to the spotify style service and rent the music.

So a two tier service

1. Free, stream any song purchased in iTunes
2. Monthly Subscription service like Spotify

This would then explain all the revenue sharing deals and the payments. Thoughts?

kavika411
Jun 3, 2011, 09:19 AM
I do not get the point for apple to pay $$$ to music labels JUST for streaming songs purchased on itunes. That does not make sense at all.

I agree with your sentiment. I am hopeful that the fact that Apple is paying them so much money there is something more to this than simply giving you a streamed copy of what you purchased. I am hopeful that it is in furtherance of Apple housing single copies of songs, figuring out a secure way to know if you indeed "own" the song (both iTunes-purchased and non-iTunes-purchased), and allowing you to stream a virtual copy of your library from iCloud. I know most people don't think that the labels would never allow this, but again, what the heck is Apple paying them so much money for?

NebulaClash
Jun 3, 2011, 09:22 AM
Hey, guess what?

We'll find out on Monday!

odedia
Jun 3, 2011, 09:24 AM
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)

So stupid. Why do you need to license something that people already bought? Does every CD player maker have to pay the record labels?

In some countries, you have to pay the record labels for every CD-R that you're purchasing, it's some sort of "piracy tax".

Dcuellar
Jun 3, 2011, 09:25 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

This all reminds me of when I worked at an airport retailer. They had a plasma screen which looped music videos all day when one day a passenger passes by and tells me that it was illegal for us to have that on the screen. He made me contact the corporate office and verify that we were paying for the right to have music videos displaying on the screen. Lucky for us we did.

One way or another the music labels/publishers have managed to get paid over the years. I am not surprised Apple felt obligated to seek their permission.

Jimrod
Jun 3, 2011, 09:25 AM
Once your media is stored in the "cloud," who will have ownership of it? If, for instance, you miss a payment of your cloud fees, what happens to your media? Do you get to keep it, or does "the cloud?"

I think there are a lot of question marks over the whole thing at present - rights, ownership and privacy are going to be big factors in take-up of iCloud. Here's some questions I posted elsewhere - these are off the top of my head and will likely reflect the average consumer as I haven't done much research into it (as can be shown in the naivety and I'm sure Apple will clear up some details on Monday).



"It's a great idea in principal, being able to get your files anytime, anywhere - but (and it's a big but) what about all the potential downsides?

You don't own your files physically, you merely "rent" them (at least in terms of rented storage) from a company to whom you have to pay a subscription - therefore being able to hold you to ransom.

Is your content still entirely private? People used to be turned in to the authorities by photo processing companies for having marijuana plants in the background of a photo - just who will be able to access your files? I know everything nowadays is able to be rounded by being "anti-terrorism" so what's to stop your files being made available to government agencies or even members of the local councils etc? (who could bear personal grievances with you)

What if you have no internet connection or 3G+ signal while on holiday etc? Will storage in new devices still be large/accessible enough to take many files with you? What about hackers? Even large operations like Sony have been brought to their knees by them - iCloud would make Apple an ideal target in the future - they're going to have to make sure it's bomb-proof to succeed.

I think techy types will jump at it but the general public may well take a lot more convincing - that said the same thing was said about the iPad and look at the tablet market now..."

palmerc2
Jun 3, 2011, 09:26 AM
Yeahhhhhhhhh.....with 75GB of music, and only maybe a few items purchased on iTunes...I won't be using this service anytime soon, if at all

TMar
Jun 3, 2011, 09:29 AM
Complete waste of money...

philoscoffee
Jun 3, 2011, 09:31 AM
This is a big win for the record companies if it means that they will get paid again for music that people have already bought or, more importantly to them, downloaded/pirated for free. Assuming that iCloud will allow you to stream anything in your music library as rumoured, and not just what was bought via iTunes, that is…

sinsin07
Jun 3, 2011, 09:31 AM
Here’s how many hours of music streaming you can do on a 2GB data plan.

96kbps (Radio Quality) — 45.76 hours of streaming per month

160kbps (3G Quality) — 27.52 hours of streaming per month

320kbps (CD Quality) — 13.79 hours of streaming per month

CultOfMac (http://www.cultofmac.com/this-is-how-much-media-youll-be-able-to-stream-through-icloud-over-3g-feature/97964#more-97964)

nashpdotcom
Jun 3, 2011, 09:32 AM
Everyone is approaching this with the mindset of the past. I doubt the labels are even thinking the same way they used to. It's not even about if you own the song or not. Doesn't matter if you pirated it or not. The whole goal of this entire thing IMO is to get both the people who paid for the songs, and the ones who pirated the songs all together under one business model.

The labels realize they are NOT winning this war by forcing you to buy the music. So a subscription model is the only form of profit going forward.

If you have illegal downloads you'll still have that in iCloud. It's not fair to the ones who purchased the songs, but that's the way it'll be. Doesn't matter how you got the songs, everyone will still pay the subscription fee, plus pandora type ads, tie that all in together with everyone getting a percentage of this money and you'll see where the business model is.

Centient
Jun 3, 2011, 09:33 AM
This is a big win for the record companies if it means that they will get paid again for music that people have already bought or, more importantly to them, downloaded/pirated for free. Assuming that iCloud will allow you to stream anything in your music library as rumoured, and not just what was bought via iTunes, that is…

You're missing the latest rumors. It very much sounds like iTunes purchased music is the only music you'll be able to stream. Supposedly Apple is hoping to expand to non-iTunes purchased music "sometime in the future.". Which is why you're seeing some negativity and cynicism about the service now. Many folks are feeling pretty disappointed.

Of course we'll have confirmation one way or the other in a few days.

ftaok
Jun 3, 2011, 09:35 AM
This will never happen because if Apple makes a mistake then they are giving out music for free. Huge liability.

At least if someone uploads pirated music to the cloud Amazon or Google can say, we don't verify the data, they are the ones that uploaded the pirated music.Never say never. No system will ever be foolproof and I think all parties know this. I think the record companies/publishers see this as free money since piracy will still occur. They can recoup some money that they've lost to piracy.

As for Apple's liability, I would guess that this service would be limited to music that's obtained legitimately, or at least more legit than torrent-obtained
music. And perhaps that's what the money is for, to relieve Apple of liability should the iCloud be loaded up with pirated music.

tigres
Jun 3, 2011, 09:36 AM
Curious why they just don't take the Google and Amazon path and use the middle finger to the labels.

In the long run, could be a lot less than 150MM in legal fees.

Seems odd to keep feeding this 30 year old model. IDK

0815
Jun 3, 2011, 09:37 AM
Everyone is approaching this with the mindset of the past. I doubt the labels are even thinking the same way they used to. It's not even about if you own the song or not. Doesn't matter if you pirated it or not. The whole goal of this entire thing IMO is to get both the people who paid for the songs, and the ones who pirated the songs all together under one business model.

The labels realize they are NOT winning this war by forcing you to buy the music. So a subscription model is the only form of profit going forward.

If you have illegal downloads you'll still have that in iCloud. It's not fair to the ones who purchased the songs, but that's the way it'll be. Doesn't matter how you got the songs, everyone will still pay the subscription fee, plus pandora type ads, tie that all in together with everyone getting a percentage of this money and you'll see where the business model is.

You are assuming that the music industry is able to think, change and adapt ....

nashpdotcom
Jun 3, 2011, 09:40 AM
You are assuming that the music industry is able to think, change and adapt ....

If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but this seems like the obvious thing that'll happen Monday at WWDC.

SeanMcg
Jun 3, 2011, 09:43 AM
If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but this seems like the obvious thing that'll happen Monday at WWDC.

Well, as others have said, they aren't so much adapting as being pulled kicking and screaming. :)

Schizoid
Jun 3, 2011, 09:44 AM
Sony probably paid some agency $150 Million to design that crap logo!

0815
Jun 3, 2011, 09:44 AM
If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but this seems like the obvious thing that'll happen Monday at WWDC.

Well, I honestly hope that I am the one who is wrong - I hope that all this rumors are just baseless rumors and that everyone will be happy on Monday.

wd89
Jun 3, 2011, 09:46 AM
I'm beginning to think I'm the only person that still buys Compact Discs for ALL my music.

I record the songs from the CDs and the radio onto Cassette Tapes (backup purposes and nostalgia from being a 90s kid)

Very cheap and I can't see the "obsession" of having access to your music from anywhere

Centient
Jun 3, 2011, 09:48 AM
Curious why they just don't take the Google and Amazon path and use the middle finger to the labels.

In the long run, could be a lot less than 150MM in legal fees.

Seems odd to keep feeding this 30 year old model. IDK

A few possibilities come to mind.

Amazon/Google download/access model works, but is kind of cumbersome on the front end. Apple likes to design products with the least tech savvy consumer in mind. I've been using Amazon cloud since day one, but I can see where it might be too much for some people to bother with.

Playing nice with business partners is a relationship Apple can afford to pay for.

There are probably some legal concerns as well. Like who is responsible for providing storage space and access to pirated music? That could be a problem for Amazon, Google, and other similar services. Apples reported arrangement keeps them clear of that for now.

iTunes only music gives people an additional incentive to buy exclusively through iTunes. More money for Apple.

Then there's always the possibility that something cool has been worked out between Apple and the labels. Something that makes this service really stand out over Google, Amazon, and others.

KnightWRX
Jun 3, 2011, 09:50 AM
Hey, guess what?

We'll find out on Monday!

I'd stay as far away as possible from iCloud threads until then if I were you, you look like you won't survive the weekend without blowing a gasket at this point. :D

0815
Jun 3, 2011, 09:51 AM
I'm beginning to think I'm the only person that still buys Compact Discs for ALL my music.

I record the songs from the CDs and the radio onto Cassette Tapes (backup purposes and nostalgia from being a 90s kid) :o

Very cheap and I can't see the "obsession" of having access to your music from anywhere :confused:

I still buy most music on CDs ....

But I didn't know that you still can buy Cassette Tapes :D (I still have a huge stack of Cassette Tapes with recordings from the radio from the 80s)

kalsta
Jun 3, 2011, 09:52 AM
If there's one thing Apple has plenty of, it's cash on hand. Might as well use it to get idiot partners to cooperate to do what's in their best interests anyway as Apple drags them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

I imagine the music labels are a bit scared to take Steve's hand wherever he leads them. They were reluctantly lured to the iTunes feeding trough by farmer Steve. Now they are hooked on it, but Steve keeps moving the trough around, and I dare say they're more than a little suspicious of where they're going to end up.

http://content.snapixel.com/serve-content/EBS0/m_widereye_f912057377/Stock-Photo-of-Young-pigs-feeding.jpg

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 3, 2011, 09:52 AM
What if this was a streaming service over 3g, and Apple also negotiated with AT&T/Verizon/etc. to allow the streaming music to not be part of the user's data plans? Users would pay $25/year to unlimited stream over 3g, or maybe even free for unlimited streaming over 3g with ads?

This would be a definate advantage of iPhones vs. Androids.

Sure. Now just come up with why AT&T & Verizon would do this? Their shareholders will not appreciate them choosing to refuse all that added revenue solely to help Apple's service look more appealing. I love how Apple fans (of which I'm generally one with lots of Apple stuff) tend to frame how great Apple's service will be by other players just cutting their revenue throats to help Apple.

The only way for it to NOT count against the data plan is if someone comes up with a business model where someone else pays for it for you (ads are unlikely to do the job, else we would already have ad-model "free" 3G service on many phones). That's what so-called "free" WIFI is now at places like McDonalds, Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, etc. It's not magically free wireless Internet; those retailers are choosing to pay for it (for now) as a benefit for their customers.

The equivalent would be Apple choosing to pay for that 3G to make iCloud streaming free for Apple's customers. Why do I NOT see that happening? Can anyone?

So, if Apple doesn't pay for it for us, who will pay for it? Hint: look in the mirror.

henrycooksey
Jun 3, 2011, 09:52 AM
In a previous rumor thread, someone described the licenses as either "licences like what spotify has" or "licences like what netflix has"...

Either way, $150,000,000 goes a long way. A very, very long way, in fact. That's nearly (well, 45mil euros) three times what spotify pays in a year in streaming revenues, and that's with 1m subscribers.

Apple would be getting considerably ripped off if they've paid $150,000,000 and don't give us music streaming like Spotify's service.

sishaw
Jun 3, 2011, 09:54 AM
Well, streaming my iTunes anywhere would have some minor convenience advantages--I wouldn't run my iPhone battery down at work, for example. But I'm hoping it's more, that there's also a real streaming service like MOG or Spotify, but integrated with iTunes.

Spotify will eventually come to the US and make a big splash. MOG and Grooveshark are also valid options that I use. I'm thinking that Apple must be positioning itself to compete, which it can't really do without a true streaming service. Well, maybe it's wishful thinking.

We'll know on Monday.

GQB
Jun 3, 2011, 09:55 AM
I really do hope that iCloud is a lot more than just music streaming tho'.
Of all the things it could do, making my music collection available everywhere (when I already have it available everywhere on my iPhone) is the thing I'm least interested in.

Sometimes I think Steve's weakest link is his assumption that everyone builds their lives around their music collection. (<cough... Ping... cough>)

jclardy
Jun 3, 2011, 09:55 AM
If it's iTunes only content, this will be another failure from Apple.

iTunes only content on icloud = Ping 2

Everyone is still assuming the only feature of iCloud will be music streaming.

It is being announced at a developer conference with a huge poster that says Lion + iOS5 + iCloud = WWDC. That leads me to believe this will be much bigger than just streaming music.

farmermac
Jun 3, 2011, 09:58 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; fr-fr) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

I wonder how music and song files that are not available will be handled. I have a lot of foreign (to USA) music that is not even available through any distributors in the us but I still want access to

wd89
Jun 3, 2011, 09:58 AM
I still buy most music on CDs ....

But I didn't know that you still can buy Cassette Tapes :D (I still have a huge stack of Cassette Tapes with recordings from the radio from the 80s)

A few remaining CD/Cassette/Radio combos are still be sold in the big stores in the UK but the cassettes themselves are a rare find. I tend to buy in bulk when I see them. My friends laugh at me but while they're "wasting money" downloading their chart music every week... I just hit record on my tape deck whilst the Top 40 is on!

rolfbert
Jun 3, 2011, 10:01 AM
Everyone is still assuming the only feature of iCloud will be music streaming.

It is being announced at a developer conference with a huge poster that says Lion + iOS5 + iCloud = WWDC. That leads me to believe this will be much bigger than just streaming music.

yeah, probably too big for my 0,3mbit download and 0,06mbit upload speed

hansende
Jun 3, 2011, 10:03 AM
Back in the day I downloaded "a few"" songs from Napster and imported "a few" CD's I borrowed from friends. I hope I can store these in the (i)cloud someday. Am I alone in my thinking?

skellener
Jun 3, 2011, 10:03 AM
Sources have also claimed that iCloud will be limited at first, supporting only content purchased from the iTunes Store, but that Apple is working to expand iCloud to support music obtained from other sources in the future.Limited to iTunes at first could mean the music part of iCloud will go over like Ping. Hope the rest of iCloud is more compelling.

hansende
Jun 3, 2011, 10:05 AM
If I am flying in an airplane but the plane does not have WiFi will I be able to listen to my songs if they are stored in the cloud?

nashpdotcom
Jun 3, 2011, 10:07 AM
Everyone is still assuming the only feature of iCloud will be music streaming.

It is being announced at a developer conference with a huge poster that says Lion + iOS5 + iCloud = WWDC. That leads me to believe this will be much bigger than just streaming music.


I believe there's a reason it's right next to iOS and Lion in the banner. iCloud will be the go to location for EVERYTHING you do in Lion or iOS.

-Take a picture, automatically starts syncing to your account in the background.
-Working on a document, automatically saves and is ready for the next place you need it at.

iCloud will be Mobile Me, iDisc, LaLa, all rolled into one name.

BJMRamage
Jun 3, 2011, 10:07 AM
If I am flying in an airplane but the plane does not have WiFi will I be able to listen to my songs if they are stored in the cloud?

of course....look out the plane window, what do you see? iClouds!

OSMac
Jun 3, 2011, 10:08 AM
If I am flying in an airplane but the plane does not have WiFi will I be able to listen to my songs if they are stored in the cloud?

Just reach out the window and grab some :)

BJMRamage
Jun 3, 2011, 10:08 AM
I believe there's a reason it's right next to iOS and Lion in the banner. iCloud will be the go to location for EVERYTHING you do in Lion or iOS.

-Take a picture, automatically starts syncing to your account in the background.
-Working on a document, automatically saves and is ready for the next place you need it at.

iCloud will be Mobile Me, iDisc, LaLa, all rolled into one name.

that sounds right. the umbilical cord between desktop and mobile!!

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 3, 2011, 10:10 AM
If I am flying in an airplane but the plane does not have WiFi will I be able to listen to my songs if they are stored in the cloud?

No.

Unless there's some kind of sync-like buffering where you've pre-loaded (again sync-like) what you'll want to listen to in wireless internet-free zones like that (and subways, etc), if you can't link to this iCloud, you can't stream from/to it.

This problem is one of the most fundamental issues to the dream of having everything in the cloud (and it's beyond Apple's ability to solve within iOS, OS X, and/or Apple hardware development; instead, they must depend on other partners to cover their parts). Paired with this other perception of "thin clients" (little to no local storage, everything is streamed), it means that when you can't link to the iCloud such thin clients would be dumb clients incapable of doing (perhaps) anything until you are again able to make a connection.

I just don't see us getting there. Syncing & local storage seem to be a requirement until there is wireless internet everywhere. I have a hard time seeing us get to a wireless internet everywhere world even over the next decade or more (especially with the likes of Verizon & AT&T dominating the space).

nashpdotcom
Jun 3, 2011, 10:11 AM
that sounds right. the umbilical cord between desktop and mobile!!

Correct.

Object-X
Jun 3, 2011, 10:11 AM
I'm wondering if not "upgrading" my music library with higher bit rate will pay off here? If we don't need to upload our current library, then will the songs we purchased all be available at the higher bit rate? And since I'm on the subject, I seem to recall some recent rumors that Apple was going to increase it again. Could this be how?

Dcuellar
Jun 3, 2011, 10:14 AM
Sure. Now just come up with why AT&T & Verizon would do this? Their shareholders will not appreciate them choosing to refuse all that added revenue solely to help Apple's service look more appealing. I love how Apple fans (of which I'm generally one with lots of Apple stuff) tend to frame how great Apple's service will be by other players just cutting their revenue throats to help Apple.

The only way for it to NOT count against the data plan is if someone comes up with a business model where someone else pays for it for you (ads are unlikely to do the job, else we would already have ad-model "free" 3G service on many phones). That's what so-called "free" WIFI is now at places like McDonalds, Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, etc. It's not magically free wireless Internet; those retailers are choosing to pay for it (for now) as a benefit for their customers.

The equivalent would be Apple choosing to pay for that 3G to make iCloud streaming free for Apple's customers. Why do I NOT see that happening? Can anyone?

So, if Apple doesn't pay for it for us, who will pay for it? Hint: look in the mirror.

I understand your angle, but to me the carrier that has the lowest price for their data rates will win the hearts of all future iPhone holders. In turn, revenue will go up from using other services.

In my case, I am grandfathered into the unlimited plan. If I weren't I'm going to end up with the carrier with the best plan.

davidgrimm
Jun 3, 2011, 10:14 AM
I'm sure I'm missing something here, but what's the value of storing my music in the cloud? I'm old fashioned, but I like my music stored on my local device. Its more reliable than my link to the cloud.

nashpdotcom
Jun 3, 2011, 10:16 AM
I'm sure I'm missing something here, but what's the value of storing my music in the cloud? I'm old fashioned, but I like my music stored on my local device. Its more reliable than my link to the cloud.

I'm sure you won't lose the local storing option, but now you'll have both options.

organerito
Jun 3, 2011, 10:17 AM
I got about a 3k catalog. Not one from Apple.

i got a 15k catalog, about 10, not 10k, from Apple. I got my music from my CD's and some from emusic. Most of it is lossless, except the emusic files.

davidgrimm
Jun 3, 2011, 10:19 AM
I understand your angle, but to me the carrier that has the lowest price for their data rates will win the hearts of all future iPhone holders. In turn, revenue will go up from using other services.

In my case, I am grandfathered into the unlimited plan. If I weren't I'm going to end up with the carrier with the best plan.

IMHO, clearly the GSM technology seems superior, unfortunately the company that dishes out the GSM here in the US is clearly inferior. I've been a customer with them for years and paying top dollar for the privilege and NOW their spending money to get their network so it doesn't suck? Can I have a refund for all those years of crap service? Sorry, I get pissy when I pay for something and do not get it.

MacAddict1978
Jun 3, 2011, 10:20 AM
If it's iTunes only content, this will be another failure from Apple.

iTunes only content on icloud = Ping 2

I actually agree.

I'm not down with paying money to access things I already paid money for and own. For $25 a year, the service would have to be compelling with what it offers/does, and my Amazon account lets me put whatever I want in the cloud. Not having to upload my iTunes tracks it less of a hassel, but I doubt most people's music libraries have more than 20% of the library coming from iTunes.

I can't really see many times one would need to stream their music with phones, mp3 players, etc. that all have ample storage on them already.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 3, 2011, 10:20 AM
I understand your angle, but to me the carrier that has the lowest price for their data rates will win the hearts of all future iPhone holders. In turn, revenue will go up from using other services.

In my case, I am grandfathered into the unlimited plan. If I weren't I'm going to end up with the carrier with the best plan.

But that's the trick. Who has the best data plan for iDevices? When you have only 2 players in a space, there is virtually no incentive for them to compete on price. Price wars are profit-hurting wars. Both of those players like nice fat margins.

Furthermore, there's no need for them to think about concepts like making up for it on other services. Leave the prices largely uncompetitive and people will pay for those other services anyway. In monopolies/duopolies of desirable commodities, that's always how it goes. If the people want it, they'll pay for it. Keep raising the fees and they'll keep paying (more for it).

In a genuine competitive marketplace, the costs should be going down as some hungrier competitors will fight with price. In this particular market, every time a price-oriented competitor pops up, they get bought out.

BlackMangoTree
Jun 3, 2011, 10:21 AM
These services don't work with capped broadband plans. Fail!!!!!!!

NebulaClash
Jun 3, 2011, 10:29 AM
Wow, Steve Jobs must be an idiot to not see what all you posters see. Yeah, he must not have thought about using iCloud for more than music, and he must not realize that people might not have all of their music from iTunes, and he's totally unaware of capped broadband issues, and he certainly misses the point that sometimes you might not have access to WiFi.

Good thing you are all here to educate Steve on these totally obvious issues that Apple couldn't possibly have taken into consideration when building iCloud.

Or you could wait until Monday.

newagemac
Jun 3, 2011, 10:30 AM
i don't understand that! can anyone explain it to me? Why does apple pay the record companies anything at all?

we bought those files, we store them on our hard disk and if you stream them from "your" cloud they are the same, only the space where you store them us different.

will we also have to pay if we copy the files to another hard disk? or maybe when we sync with our iPods and iPhones? maybe the record companies could start charging us when we use a different headphone or when we play it on a different hifi - car or at home?

isn't it a wonder we can just rip a cd in iTunes? I am sure nowadays you'd have to pay extra for that. maybe 5 us$... or more?


If all you want to do is just do a "dumb" streaming from your own hard drive space in Apple's cloud then sure Apple doesn't need to pay them anything. But Apple seems to want to provide a better service than just that. For example, the rumor about Apple upgrading your songs to a higher quality and streaming it back to you definitely would require some type of deal.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 3, 2011, 10:31 AM
I'm sure I'm missing something here, but what's the value of storing my music in the cloud? I'm old fashioned, but I like my music stored on my local device. Its more reliable than my link to the cloud.

We don't have a complete answer yet. But if the focus is solely on music, the value of iCloud is ready access to music NOT synced and ready access to buying more music anywhere you have Internet access. In short, there's some value in convenience of anywhere, anytime access.

Barring that, it seems an iCloud service at $25 or more dollars is probably going to have to come with a bunch of other benefits to justify the cost (which is not just the $25+ but also the potentially added costs in the 3G tolls because streaming services probably encourage more 3G data burn).

I think this is going to be a tough sale for Apple because it requires the involvement of the likes of AT&T, Verizon, etc for its benefits to be realized to the fullest. I'm sure the parts that Apple controls will be "gee whiz" but regardless of what is revealed, the problem will still be that to make some kind of cloud service work anywhere & anytime, you have to have an anywhere & anytime connection to it. That's a 3G/4G (almost requirement) which comes with those companies working to constrain how much data is streamed with GB tiers and pricing. More simply, it appears an Apple iCloud service is going to be encouraging much MORE wireless Internet usage while the keepers of the wireless Internet access are encouraging much LESS usage with tiers and pricing adjustments.

What's missing in all of this is some rumors of how Apple is going to bypass those bandwidth gatekeepers... how Apple is going to make it possible for us to anytime & anywhere connect to the iCloud WITHOUT having to pay the tariffs to AT&T, Verizon, etc. As long as the latter is involved, wallets will be emptied as wireless internet demand goes up.

charlituna
Jun 3, 2011, 10:31 AM
Wonder how many people don't own iTunes music

Quite a few. And more have a mix.

According to my sources, the free is only what you bought on iTunes. There is a charge for the upgrade that lets you use all music regardless of source. The bulk of which goes to the labels etc.

And the $100-150 million per label is on top of that cut.

davidgrimm
Jun 3, 2011, 10:31 AM
I'm sure you won't lose the local storing option, but now you'll have both options.

I hope so. I spend a lot of time out in the "sticks" on a motorcycle. The cloud doesn't extend there very well and my singing is not very good.

I've recently made the switch from early adopter to old timer. I've just lost my desire to replace things that work for me with things I don't know. Well, except for new motorcycles, but they don't really work differently from the prior year models.

GQB
Jun 3, 2011, 10:32 AM
Curious why they just don't take the Google and Amazon path and use the middle finger to the labels.

In the long run, could be a lot less than 150MM in legal fees.

Seems odd to keep feeding this 30 year old model. IDK

And people wonder why the record companies' assumption is that geeks are theives at heart.
I'm curious... how do you think Ford would feel if you could make unlimited copies of their cars digitally? Would you say that they're 'evil' for wanting to prevent that?

(disclaimer... I think the record companies are jerks for the way that they rip off artists and try to resell crap over and over. But that's another issue.)

blackpond
Jun 3, 2011, 10:35 AM
This will never happen because if Apple makes a mistake then they are giving out music for free. Huge liability.

At least if someone uploads pirated music to the cloud Amazon or Google can say, we don't verify the data, they are the ones that uploaded the pirated music.

Another way to look at this though is: why care if they upload pirated music? The act of piracy has already occurred. And now, with this new Apple deal, the labels are making streaming royalties on pirated tracks.

davidgrimm
Jun 3, 2011, 10:35 AM
Back in the day I downloaded "a few"" songs from Napster and imported "a few" CD's I borrowed from friends. I hope I can store these in the (i)cloud someday. Am I alone in my thinking?

No you're not. I have 3,919 items in my iTunes library, most of them came from CDs I purchased and then imported. Any "only iTunes" solution will not be very useful for my music. Video is another story since its harder to get your video library loaded into iTunes.

hansende
Jun 3, 2011, 10:36 AM
No.

Unless there's some kind of sync-like buffering where you've pre-loaded (again sync-like) what you'll want to listen to in wireless internet-free zones like that (and subways, etc), if you can't link to this iCloud, you can't stream from/to it.

This problem is one of the most fundamental issues to the dream of having everything in the cloud (and it's beyond Apple's ability to solve within iOS, OS X, and/or Apple hardware development; instead, they must depend on other partners to cover their parts). Paired with this other perception of "thin clients" (little to no local storage, everything is streamed), it means that when you can't link to the iCloud such thin clients would be dumb clients incapable of doing (perhaps) anything until you are again able to make a connection.

I just don't see us getting there. Syncing & local storage seem to be a requirement until there is wireless internet everywhere. I have a hard time seeing us get to a wireless internet everywhere world even over the next decade or more (especially with the likes of Verizon & AT&T dominating the space).

Also if I am in a travelling out in the country away from cell phone coverage and wi-fi the same is true?

HyperZboy
Jun 3, 2011, 10:36 AM
Is that really the SONY Music logo?

It looks like some blood lump I sneezed out of my nose last week during the cold/flu and terrible nosebleed I had.

rolfbert
Jun 3, 2011, 10:37 AM
Wow, Steve Jobs must be an idiot to not see what all you posters see. Yeah, he must not have thought about using iCloud for more than music, and he must not realize that people might not have all of their music from iTunes, and he's totally unaware of capped broadband issues, and he certainly misses the point that sometimes you might not have access to WiFi.

Good thing you are all here to educate Steve on these totally obvious issues that Apple couldn't possibly have taken into consideration when building iCloud.

Or you could wait until Monday.

Like he overcame the limitations of not being able to play Blu Ray, or not having decent GPUs? I'm really looking forward how mighty Steve is going to delimit everyones broadband connection...

Full of Win
Jun 3, 2011, 10:38 AM
We don't have a complete answer yet. But if the focus is solely on music, the value of iCloud is ready access to music NOT synced and ready access to buying more music anywhere you have Internet access. In short, there's some value in convenience of anywhere, anytime access.

Barring that, it seems an iCloud service at $25 or more dollars is probably going to have to come with a bunch of other benefits to justify the cost (which is not just the $25+ but also the potentially added costs in the 3G tolls because streaming services probably encourage more 3G data burn).

I think this is going to be a tough sale for Apple because it requires the involvement of the likes of AT&T, Verizon, etc for its benefits to be realized to the fullest. I'm sure the parts that Apple controls will be "gee whiz" but regardless of what is revealed, the problem will still be that to make some kind of cloud service work anywhere & anytime, you have to have an anywhere & anytime connection to it. That's a 3G/4G (almost requirement) which comes with those companies working to constrain how much data is streamed with GB tiers and pricing. More simply, it appears an Apple iCloud service is going to be encouraging much MORE wireless Internet usage while the keepers of the wireless Internet access are encouraging much LESS usage with tiers and pricing adjustments.

What's missing in all of this is some rumors of how Apple is going to bypass those bandwidth gatekeepers... how Apple is going to make it possible for us to anytime & anywhere connect to the iCloud WITHOUT having to pay the tariffs to AT&T, Verizon, etc. As long as the latter is involved, wallets will be emptied as wireless internet demand goes up.

1. There are plenty if other streaming services, such as NetFlix and Pandora. AFAIK, these did bot have to get special permission from AT&T or Verizion.

2. Many will have locat WiFi and not stream over 3G

Dan--
Jun 3, 2011, 10:38 AM
What this whole thing would enable is a cheap music (media) players with almost no local storage, but with a connection.

However, in order to be really useful, you need to have ubiquitous access - for free, or VERY low cost. We don't really have that, and aren't really getting there real soon, as Darryl points out.

Unless there's some kind of sync-like buffering where you've pre-loaded (again sync-like) what you'll want to listen to in wireless internet-free zones like that (and subways, etc), if you can't link to this iCloud, you can't stream from/to it.

This problem is one of the most fundamental issues to the dream of having everything in the cloud (and it's beyond Apple's ability to solve within iOS, OS X, and/or Apple hardware development; instead, they must depend on other partners to cover their parts). Paired with this other perception of "thin clients" (little to no local storage, everything is streamed), it means that when you can't link to the iCloud such thin clients would be dumb clients incapable of doing (perhaps) anything until you are again able to make a connection.

I just don't see us getting there. Syncing & local storage seem to be a requirement until there is wireless internet everywhere. I have a hard time seeing us get to a wireless internet everywhere world even over the next decade or more (especially with the likes of Verizon & AT&T dominating the space).

charlituna
Jun 3, 2011, 10:39 AM
Why would they shell out that much for locker permission. And people would buy that instead of free with google and amazon?

Because the labels will argue that the streaming is a form of broadcasting which they didn't give Google and Amazon the right to do. And unlike Dropbox etc, A&G are pitching this specifically to post and stream music so they can't claim they are providing an empty box and be in the clear.

Even if A&G get around any law suits over the streaming, the labels could pull content at the next contract talks. And argue that Amazon has to pull all that content out of their cloud service because they have no rights to it in any form or fashion. Which would kill the service

Apple was willing to share the wealth, ask before doing and keep things friendly with the labels. So no worries for them

Sackvillenb
Jun 3, 2011, 10:39 AM
I have to say, I find the marketing and branding of "cloud" based services rather amusing... since it's essentially just a synonym for server... or internet... :rolleyes:

But, the "cloud" is pretty darn useful! I think it's biggest limitation now is just the infrastructure needed to convey this data... not so much for speed or capacity (depending on your country), but cost... I know many places have reasonable fees for internet usage with appropriate or even large data caps... like the U.S., in general, for example... but other places (*cough* Canada *cough*) have such high internet fees with such low data bandwidth caps that it will prevent users from really using the cloud... unless you have lots of money to burn...! :) But this should change over time... I hope...

ten-oak-druid
Jun 3, 2011, 10:41 AM
You know I am really starting to think this is not about storing your music but rather paying for the right to stream water music is available.

Amazon didn't go after licenses from the music industry for users to just store their music on the cloud. Why would Apple do this?

There is no way Apple could hide the cloud and we all know they like surprise people. So they probably leaked stories about this being a service where you upload files instead of what it really is.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 3, 2011, 10:42 AM
Wow, Steve Jobs must be an idiot to not see what all you posters see. Yeah, he must not have thought about using iCloud for more than music, and he must not realize that people might not have all of their music from iTunes, and he's totally unaware of capped broadband issues, and he certainly misses the point that sometimes you might not have access to WiFi.

Good thing you are all here to educate Steve on these totally obvious issues that Apple couldn't possibly have taken into consideration when building iCloud.

Or you could wait until Monday.

Steve will have to pull a lot of revolutionary rabbits out of his hat on Monday to address the 2 I've bolded above. Personally, I'm sure iCloud is about more than just music. After that one, all of the other points you make require other players (music industry, wireless Internet players) to do something that seems like anything that overly helps Apple and us consumers (via lower prices or free) comes at their direct expense.

Those rabbits will need to be whoppers to overcome this problem. OR, iCloud fans who really want streaming everything to/from the cloud will have to just be happy paying up for that kind of service (which is not just Apple's new fee to iCloud, but also the data fees).

It doesn't matter how much Apple has thought about it. In the end, SOMEONE will have to pay for the connection to the iCloud. It will not be Apple paying on our behalf. Some kind of ad model won't cover the cost (else, we would already have free 3G service plans paid for by ads). It won't be the remarkable generosity of AT&T and Verizon waving fees to help Apple be more successful. Who's left?

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 3, 2011, 10:44 AM
Also if I am in a travelling out in the country away from cell phone coverage and wi-fi the same is true?

Right. Just think about the "cloud" like a unlimited hard drive. You can put the hard drive anywhere you like, but to access what's on it whenever you want to access it, you need a connection to it. Where there is no way to connect to the Internet there is no access to the cloud.

Brendon Bauer
Jun 3, 2011, 10:46 AM
And the $100-150 million per label is on top of that cut.

$100-150 million total, not per label. Unless your "sources" know more :p.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 3, 2011, 10:47 AM
1. There are plenty if other streaming services, such as NetFlix and Pandora. AFAIK, these did bot have to get special permission from AT&T or Verizion.

2. Many will have locat WiFi and not stream over 3G

Right. But the dream of access ANYWHERE and ANYTIME is not possible if we limit it to "when I can get local WIFI." If you have access to local wifi why not just use something like Pogoplug http://www.pogoplug.com/ and stream from your own cloud (all of your content, not just what you've purchased from iTunes)?

And, I didn't say they have to get permission from AT&T and Verizon. They don't. AT&T and Verizon are probably more excited about an iCloud offering than we are. After all, anything that motivates people to want to burn more 3G data is great for business billings.

blackpond
Jun 3, 2011, 10:48 AM
It doesn't matter how much Apple has thought about it. In the end, SOMEONE will have to pay for the connection to the iCloud. It will not be Apple paying on our behalf. Some kind of ad model won't cover the cost (else, we would already have free 3G service plans paid for by ads). It won't be the remarkable generosity of AT&T and Verizon waving fees to help Apple be more successful. Who's left?

You're assuming everyone who uses the service will be out and about. I for one would be happy to use it in the home with my broadband connection. Am I the only one who consumes media at home these days?

henrycooksey
Jun 3, 2011, 10:50 AM
If this iCloud thing really is up there with IOS 5 and Lion, would it really be just about music, and would music even be delivered under that name. I'm just thinking about the logical flow of the event, so there's IOS5, then Lion, then iCloud, which glues the two together, finally breaking the PC/Mac-iPhone/iPad/iPod connection and making things more portable. But then, one more thing... iTunes subscriptions?

I'm finding it hard to imagine icloud as just a music service... otherwise there'd be an itunesesque music note in the logo/icon.

vrDrew
Jun 3, 2011, 10:53 AM
Reading through the comments, its increasingly obvious why most of you people DON'T run successful technology and media companies.

While the full extent of iCloud's capabilities is still far from clear, most people seem to be overlooking one HUGE advantage of Apple's approach (ie. licensing and paying the music labels) over that of Amazon and Google: It will save consumers the hassle of having to UPLOAD their music files.

Even consumers with fairly fast download service (ie. >10 mb/s) still have pitifully slow UPLOAD speeds. Think about how long it would take you to upload a 15 - 30 gB music library. And think about how doing so would impact your usage caps.

iCloud will, instead, scan through you music library: If it recognizes a music file, it will instead "tag" your account to a copy of that file ALREADY ON the iCloud servers. It will not only prevent 30 million iTunes users from wasting the bandwidth to upload their own personal copy of Lady Gaga's Poker Face - but it will also save Apple the storage costs of maintaining 30 million copies of the same music file. THAT'S what Apple's $150 million payment gets them, us, and the Internets.

The details of how, exactly, this will play out still are to be revealed. I don't know, for instance, how its going to handle untagged mp3s. Or even music that was ripped from CDs - although I think its likely that most of these will be recognized the same way that iTunes uses the Gracenotes database when you rip a CD to iTunes.

hansende
Jun 3, 2011, 10:54 AM
When you download a song it is streamed to you once. When it comes from the cloud it is streamed as many times at it is played. Seems that will clog up the internet and cell phone lines especially when it is used for video (like Netflix).

KingCrimson
Jun 3, 2011, 10:55 AM
If it's iTunes only content, this will be another failure from Apple.

iTunes only content on icloud = Ping 2

Yes Apple has failed all the way to $60 billion cash horde. :apple:

OllyW
Jun 3, 2011, 10:55 AM
You're assuming everyone who uses the service will be out and about. I for one would be happy to use it in the home with my broadband connection. Am I the only one who consumes media at home these days?

If you are restricted to iTunes purchased content on iCloud won't you already have those songs at home? :confused:

shartypants
Jun 3, 2011, 10:56 AM
I love how forward thinking Apple is, I really hope the rumor is true that iCloud will detect music you already own and then just give you access to it from iCloud. It makes the most sense, people are going to listen to music they have (whether obtained via another source, CD or illegally), so why not give them access. The huge advantage for Apple is that they don't have to store massive number of copies of the same music. Although I don't like ads, I can definitely see them having ads (at least for any free or trial version), another way to attract the record labels.

blackpond
Jun 3, 2011, 10:57 AM
The details of how, exactly, this will play out still are to be revealed. I don't know, for instance, how its going to handle untagged mp3s. Or even music that was ripped from CDs - although I think its likely that most of these will be recognized the same way that iTunes uses the Gracenotes database when you rip a CD to iTunes.

With regard to the technology used in Shazam - tagging doesn't matter. The music itself identifies what it is.

Jayomat
Jun 3, 2011, 10:58 AM
25$ per year per user.. how many iOS devices? 100mio$? these 150mio$ are peanuts compared to the money apple can potentially make out of this.

blackpond
Jun 3, 2011, 11:00 AM
I love how forward thinking Apple is, I really hope the rumor is true that iCloud will detect music you already own and then just give you access to it from iCloud. It makes the most sense, people are going to listen to music they have (whether obtained via another source, CD or illegally), so why not give them access. The huge advantage for Apple is that they don't have to store massive number of copies of the same music. Although I don't like ads, I can definitely see them having ads (at least for any free or trial version), another way to attract the record labels.


Correct.

Even the point of pirated music. It makes no difference if it's pirated, ripped, whatever. The labels found a way to get money from pirated tracks by earning streaming royalties from them.

henrycooksey
Jun 3, 2011, 11:02 AM
My question, really, is what would the point be in allowing people to listen to a high quality version of a pirated track, but not allowing people who have not pirated the track to have access to that version?

i.mac
Jun 3, 2011, 11:02 AM
And Amazon and Google do better versions for free. Stupid :apple:

That may the reason both companies are doing do much beter than apple...

KnightWRX
Jun 3, 2011, 11:03 AM
Yes Apple has failed all the way to $60 billion cash horde. :apple:

Did they make that money from Ping ? The argument that Apple has never failed at anything because they have 60 Billion $ just doesn't work.

Apple has good stuff and they have bad stuff. That the good stuff brings in money doesn't save the bad stuff from being plain bad.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 3, 2011, 11:03 AM
I have to say, I find the marketing and branding of "cloud" based services rather amusing... since it's essentially just a synonym for server... or internet... :rolleyes:

But, the "cloud" is pretty darn useful! I think it's biggest limitation now is just the infrastructure needed to convey this data... not so much for speed or capacity (depending on your country), but cost... I know many places have reasonable fees for internet usage with appropriate or even large data caps... like the U.S., in general, for example... but other places (*cough* Canada *cough*) have such high internet fees with such low data bandwidth caps that it will prevent users from really using the cloud... unless you have lots of money to burn...! :) But this should change over time... I hope...

Canada is just ahead of where this is going on this topic. Over time, watch as the duopolies continue to pinch the tiers down from where they are to ever-tighter levels. And watch as costs of access go up. Why will the do this? The excuse will be "due to increasing demand".

Their possible solution will be to raise rates to try to manage demand growth and/or build out lots of additional infrastructure to thoroughly accommodate the demand. The former is loaded with high margin profitability as people will just pay anyway. The latter is loaded with profit-killing cost. Knowing what you know about AT&T & Verizon, which do you think they will choose?

In the U.S., we're now down to "big 4" players, which is really just a "big 2" with another "medium 2" below them. Tmobile has made some increased efforts lately to try to win some business from AT&T on price. So AT&T is buying Tmobile. AT&T is bigger than Tmobile and could probably win a price war, but they like pricing (high) where it is, so they'd rather just eliminate another competitor and maintain their margins.

No one should have any illusions that we are moving toward a future with lower costs of wireless Internet anywhere & anytime you want it for ready cloud access UNLESS someone invents some other communications medium that can be kept from AT&T & Verizon. Good luck with that one.

The last best chance for something favorable for wireless Internet users was when the spectrum was freed up for the digital TV transition. That was entirely new spectrum to be used for additional wireless broadband & cellular communications. Apple & Google appeared to show some genuine interest in buying it, which could have made them direct competitors for AT&T & Verizon. Many others were interested too. Had any others been permitted to buy some of that spectrum, users like us could have some additional choices for wireless Internet and cellular service. But guess who got to take just about all of that spectrum?

Competition is good. Too bad we don't have real competition in wireless web access services.

You're assuming everyone who uses the service will be out and about. I for one would be happy to use it in the home with my broadband connection. Am I the only one who consumes media at home these days?

Not at all. I do that too. But then I don't need an iCloud service for access to data that is right there at home with me. I can already wirelessly access everything in iTunes via home sharing and buy or rent everything in the iTunes store. All of my iTunes purchased and NON-purchased content is readily available to me at home. Why do I need an iCloud there (especially if we keep the concept of iCloud to being some kind of anywhere, anytime access to all things iTunes)?

vrDrew
Jun 3, 2011, 11:08 AM
With regard to the technology used in Shazam - tagging doesn't matter. The music itself identifies what it is.

Its possible that iCloud will use Shazam's "sound fingerprint" technology to identify songs. But think that its unlikely, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, it would be incredibly time-consuming. Going through and playing even five or ten second clip of every song in a 10,000 file music collection would take days. And it would be extremely wasteful of not only bandwidth, but also processor cycles.

But secondly, and more importantly, I don't think Apple and the music companies want to do this. It would enable consumers to "upgrade" from a lo-fi, possibly bootleg, possibly partial version of a song - to a full-fidelity, full-length one. Its one thing to give people cloud access to music they already bought on CD or iTunes. Its another thing entirely to enable widespread piracy. (Theoretically, pirates could distribute files contained 5 or 10 seconds clips of virtually every piece of recorded music.)

RoelJuun
Jun 3, 2011, 11:08 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

Wonder how many people don't own iTunes music

Exactly. I don't have any but that is no surprise. I like cd's and lp's, better sound and you can just rip it to your pc.
Downloading it on your device instantly is great, but still I don't know anyone (!) that has one single iTunes track downloaded. It might have to do with the fact that you can buy it on cd cheaper and downloading is even cheaper.

toddybody
Jun 3, 2011, 11:12 AM
Did they make that money from Ping ? The argument that Apple has never failed at anything because they have 60 Billion $ just doesn't work.

Apple has good stuff and they have bad stuff. That the good stuff brings in money doesn't save the bad stuff from being plain bad.

You're totally wrong, Apple has never made a mistake. Ever


...I'm getting so tired of those ltd types

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 3, 2011, 11:16 AM
When you download a song it is streamed to you once. When it comes from the cloud it is streamed as many times at it is played. Seems that will clog up the internet and cell phone lines especially when it is used for video (like Netflix).

Exactly right. But won't those who sell wireless internet bandwidth love it that way? Burn that 3G data baby.

My iTunes plus songs seem to be about 10MB each on average. AT&T sells 3G streaming plans at $25 for 2GB, or 2000MB. That means for $25 I could stream up to about 200 songs before I'll need to pay AT&T again. If I iCloud stream via 3G for say 1 hour a day, I'll probably be streaming 15 4-minute songs in that hour. Over a 30-day month at just 1-hour of 3G streaming per day, I'll stream 450 songs and burn through about 5GB+ to do so. AT&T will love selling me that 5GB+ for about $60.

Now, if I also use my 3G iDevice to watch some Netflix, youtube, access the web, get emails, etc, I'm also burning 3G data. AT&T will love that too.

Soon the iCloud adds access to iTunes movie streaming. Some of my iTunes movies are bigger than 2GB as a single film. Stream one via 3G and that's $25 or more by itself. Stream a couple of movies on the go each month from the cloud and AT&T can really cash in.

So the reality of the cloud access problem will hit and hit hard. But I can just switch to a lower cost provider of 3G wireless internet at Verizon? Oh yeah, their rates are about the same. Switch to someone else? Right, there's no one else.

The concept of the anywhere & anytime "cloud" is fantastic. The math behind it though can get ugly. As I posted earlier, perhaps the logo should include a vacumn cleaner over a wallet?

NebulaClash
Jun 3, 2011, 11:19 AM
Reading through the comments, its increasingly obvious why most of you people DON'T run successful technology and media companies.

While the full extent of iCloud's capabilities is still far from clear, most people seem to be overlooking one HUGE advantage of Apple's approach (ie. licensing and paying the music labels) over that of Amazon and Google: It will save consumers the hassle of having to UPLOAD their music files.

Well stated (no doubt the reason you got downranked). I'm surprised people think they will lose local access to their media when they do not have a Net connection. You will still have your media on your devices as much as you want.

People must think Apple is made up of technical idiots going by the whining in this thread. We should save this thread for Monday so people can see how worried they were over nothing.

The Beatles
Jun 3, 2011, 11:21 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)

If it's iTunes only content, this will be another failure from Apple.

iTunes only content on icloud = Ping 2

You must be a barrel of fun at parties.

Ha no doubt. Full of Wind is more like it :P

To each his own, we always have the "mute button"

cvaldes
Jun 3, 2011, 11:21 AM
You're assuming everyone who uses the service will be out and about. I for one would be happy to use it in the home with my broadband connection. Am I the only one who consumes media at home these days?
Your individual usage case is irrelevant.

Apple is looking at the needs of the broader marketplace, not just homebodies like you. Besides, they already have technology to allow for home sharing of media.

ftaok
Jun 3, 2011, 11:22 AM
Exactly right. But won't those who sell wireless internet bandwidth love it that way? Burn that 3G data baby.

snip

The concept of the anywhere & anytime "cloud" is fantastic. The math behind it though can get ugly. As I posted earlier, perhaps the logo should include a vacumn cleaner over a wallet?
I would surmise that streaming via iCloud can be adjusted so that when on 3G, the bit rate could be dropped down to 64 or 128 kbps. If you're on wifi, then crank it up to 11.

314631
Jun 3, 2011, 11:23 AM
Wow, Steve Jobs must be an idiot to not see what all you posters see. Yeah, he must not have thought about using iCloud for more than music, and he must not realize that people might not have all of their music from iTunes, and he's totally unaware of capped broadband issues, and he certainly misses the point that sometimes you might not have access to WiFi.

Good thing you are all here to educate Steve on these totally obvious issues that Apple couldn't possibly have taken into consideration when building iCloud.


Of course he doesn't need to be educated about these issues. He knows what they are and will have identified them almost immediately. But I'm still supremely confident the concerns people are raising will be real factors when this service is launched or unveiled next week.

Steve probably thinks he can easily convince enough of the Apple cult that giving him some more of their hard-earned dollars for what I think will be another half-assed service is reasonable. And based on recent history it's a bet I'd make too in his shoes. :)


Or you could wait until Monday.

You might want to try spending time on another site if DISCUSSIONS posted to a DISCUSSION FORUM about RUMORS irritates you. Just a thought.

Piggie
Jun 3, 2011, 11:25 AM
The way this article is written, does does like only iTunes purchased media will be allowed on the system to start with.
It then, to me anyway, hints that OTHER purchased software would be allowable at a later date. Perhaps meaning from other online music stores who can also verify the authenticity of the tracks.

I know most people naturally want to be able to also enjoy their CD music, and or music from anywhere else they may have collected over many years.
But there is no way they are going to know how you obtained your personal collection.

I do hope it's not going to be what we think it is.

I was hoping and expecting a PROPER cloud data storage service, and iOS 5 linked into it, so with my iPad I can save/load documents, music, photo's, videos, and app data to and from the iCloud, directly from within every app in the future.

I fear it's not going to be anything like this, which will be a shame.

Not long before we know for sure, so let's keep our fingers crossed its going to be a lot more and a lot better than we are currently fearing.

cube
Jun 3, 2011, 11:25 AM
I'm beginning to think I'm the only person that still buys Compact Discs for ALL my music.

I record the songs from the CDs and the radio onto Cassette Tapes (backup purposes and nostalgia from being a 90s kid)

Very cheap and I can't see the "obsession" of having access to your music from anywhere

I don't download. I only buy discs. Better and cheaper.

gnasher729
Jun 3, 2011, 11:27 AM
No you're not. I have 3,919 items in my iTunes library, most of them came from CDs I purchased and then imported. Any "only iTunes" solution will not be very useful for my music. Video is another story since its harder to get your video library loaded into iTunes.

What would be possible (not saying that will happen): iTunes (the software on your computer) compares all songs on your computer with the songs on the iTunes store, and if your song is in the iTunes store (whether bought from there or ripped from CD) you can stream it.

That should cover 80% of my music :mad:


Its possible that iCloud will use Shazam's "sound fingerprint" technology to identify songs. But think that its unlikely, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, it would be incredibly time-consuming. Going through and playing even five or ten second clip of every song in a 10,000 file music collection would take days. And it would be extremely wasteful of not only bandwidth, but also processor cycles.

But secondly, and more importantly, I don't think Apple and the music companies want to do this. It would enable consumers to "upgrade" from a lo-fi, possibly bootleg, possibly partial version of a song - to a full-fidelity, full-length one. Its one thing to give people cloud access to music they already bought on CD or iTunes. Its another thing entirely to enable widespread piracy. (Theoretically, pirates could distribute files contained 5 or 10 seconds clips of virtually every piece of recorded music.)

Would only work if Apple is incredibly stupid. Any ten second clip would only be matched against ten second clips on the iTunes store - there shouldn't be that many! And there are lots of shortcuts. Most songs on your computer have musician, album title and song title on them - they should be matched up quite easily (obviously a check would have to be made if the music in the song is what the title says), so everything that you recorded from CDs should happen very, very quickly.

JS77
Jun 3, 2011, 11:29 AM
This sounds more and more like a Spotify Killer to me... annual subscription for "all you can eat" music from the record labels - why else would they pay such large sums upfront?

Infact, I'm positive this is what it is... Spotify are currently trying to get US record labels to sign up to their service, but they don't have the deep pockets that Apple does. Apple have most likely lured them away from Spotify with a cash advance.

Still think the iCloud logo/icon is lame though.

cube
Jun 3, 2011, 11:29 AM
What would be possible (not saying that will happen): iTunes (the software on your computer) compares all songs on your computer with the songs on the iTunes store, and if your song is in the iTunes store (whether bought from there or ripped from CD) you can stream it.

That should cover 80% of my music :mad:

No. They wouldn't know if you bought it.

The Beatles
Jun 3, 2011, 11:31 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)

Everyone is approaching this with the mindset of the past. I doubt the labels are even thinking the same way they used to. It's not even about if you own the song or not. Doesn't matter if you pirated it or not. The whole goal of this entire thing IMO is to get both the people who paid for the songs, and the ones who pirated the songs all together under one business model.

The labels realize they are NOT winning this war by forcing you to buy the music. So a subscription model is the only form of profit going forward.

If you have illegal downloads you'll still have that in iCloud. It's not fair to the ones who purchased the songs, but that's the way it'll be. Doesn't matter how you got the songs, everyone will still pay the subscription fee, plus pandora type ads, tie that all in together with everyone getting a percentage of this money and you'll see where the business model is.

You are assuming that the music industry is able to think, change and adapt ....

Yeah I'm not sure that'll work in regards to allowing pirated music. All I would have to do is barrow my friends HD with 400GB of music and Apple would scan the drive thinking I had 400GB of music. I couldn't see them allowing that. Soon we will see but it's my opinion that the coolest thing at WWDC for me will be the release date of Lion!

franswa za
Jun 3, 2011, 11:33 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

Wonder how many people don't own iTunes music

me, zero bought from itunes, if that is what you mean....

someone in south africa is preventing amazon, apple etc from selling music..

legalsounds works well! and i have digitised 2000+ of my CDs collectd since 1984

:rolleyes:

ps- too much muzak, too little time

314631
Jun 3, 2011, 11:35 AM
What would be possible (not saying that will happen): iTunes (the software on your computer) compares all songs on your computer with the songs on the iTunes store, and if your song is in the iTunes store (whether bought from there or ripped from CD) you can stream it.

That should cover 80% of my music :mad:

It would be possible. But it would not be possible for Apple to identify that the files in your library were legally acquired or downloaded illegally from some nefarious filesharing site. This is important because at $25/yr Apple is not going to be able to do a full blown online music streaming service clone. It has to be limited in some way so as not to compete directly with Napster and Spotify who charge a whole lot more. And the music industry needs to keep that competition with Apple.

So I am certain the big content companies are going to require Apple to only permit you to access music they can be sure you lawfully acquired. And the only music Apple can identify as lawfully acquired is the music you purchased from iTunes using your account history. The mp3 files themselves cannot be identified as legally purchased through any technical means.

NebulaClash
Jun 3, 2011, 11:41 AM
You might want to try spending time on another site if DISCUSSIONS posted to a DISCUSSION FORUM about RUMORS irritates you. Just a thought.

You might try reading my posts before making such comments, for I know where I am and I'm just trying to remind people that getting so angst-ridden over something that will be answered in 72 hours is silly.

juicedropsdeuce
Jun 3, 2011, 11:43 AM
If it's iTunes only content, this will be another failure from Apple.

iTunes only content on icloud = Ping 2

Exactly. I am amazed so many people are excited to pay to stream music they already paid for. WTF??

As Netflix and Pandora prove, most people in the 21st century don't feel the need to buy media anymore. People want everything on demand all the time, not just their crappy iTunes library which is perpetually out of date. :rolleyes:

KnightWRX
Jun 3, 2011, 11:44 AM
You might try reading my posts before making such comments, for I know where I am and I'm just trying to remind people that getting so angst-ridden over something that will be answered in 72 hours is silly.

So you're getting angst-ridden over people who get angst-ridden ? ;)

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 3, 2011, 11:44 AM
It would be possible. But it would not be possible for Apple to identify that the files in your library were legally acquired or downloaded illegally from some nefarious filesharing site. This is important because at $25/yr Apple is not going to be able to do a full blown online music streaming service clone. It has to be limited in some way so as not to compete directly with Napster and Spotify who charge a whole lot more. And the music industry needs to keep that competition with Apple.

So I am certain the big content companies are going to require Apple to only permit you to access music they can be sure you lawfully acquired. And the only music Apple can identify as lawfully acquired is the music you purchased from iTunes using your account history. The mp3 files themselves cannot be identified as legally purchased through any technical means.

Unfortunately (for ultimate convenience sake) I think you are right here.

The only variation that I can see that might be acceptable would be some kind of amnesty-type arrangement in which you can add a link to an iTunes master for any NON-iTunes purchased music in your library for a small(?) fee... something similar to the transition to iTunes plus. The scenario would be one in which you choose what you want added to your iCloud access pool and pay so much per song to do so. I could see the music industry being sold on the idea if the amount per song was high enough.

Of course, the math gets ugly again for those dreaming of storing their whole library of music (not purchased via iTunes) even if the fee was small. For example, if someone has 5K songs they've ripped from CD and this fee was set at- say- 39 cents each, they could add them all for almost $2K.

It becomes harder to imagine the music industry being interested if the fee went too far below about that level. And the fee becomes increasingly painful to the dreamer wanting to put it all in the cloud at too much higher than that level.

Nevertheless, I could see that scenario coming, along with a million gripes about being asked to pay again for music already owned... if you wanted it accessible via the iCloud service.

tigres
Jun 3, 2011, 11:47 AM
And people wonder why the record companies' assumption is that geeks are theives at heart.
I'm curious... how do you think Ford would feel if you could make unlimited copies of their cars digitally? Would you say that they're 'evil' for wanting to prevent that?

(disclaimer... I think the record companies are jerks for the way that they rip off artists and try to resell crap over and over. But that's another issue.)

You lost me at geeks are theives, then came the Ford mention... Oh my:rolleyes:

franswa za
Jun 3, 2011, 11:51 AM
Exactly. I am amazed so many people are excited to pay to stream music they already paid for. WTF??

As Netflix and Pandora prove, most people in the 21st century don't feel the need to buy media anymore. People want everything on demand all the time, not just their crappy iTunes library which is perpetually out of date. :rolleyes:

zigacktly my dear watson!

in 10? years time with better and hopefully affordable bandwidth globally, we could stream/sync/backup our own stuff from the moon and back.......... 'till then as others have said, keep your 'pod handy..

but closer to the topic...... GOOD for apple to have succeed to get the major labels on board! well done! and we know we shall pay for it, eventually

apple probably keeps only one copy of an album/track on iCloud, also mentioned by others....... saves Mycloudspace (trademarked by francois swanepoel)

:D

sfjava
Jun 3, 2011, 12:06 PM
i don't understand that! can anyone explain it to me? Why does apple pay the record companies anything at all?

we bought those files, we store them on our hard disk and if you stream them from "your" cloud they are the same, only the space where you store them us different.

will we also have to pay if we copy the files to another hard disk? or maybe when we sync with our iPods and iPhones? maybe the record companies could start charging us when we use a different headphone or when we play it on a different hifi - car or at home?

isn't it a wonder we can just rip a cd in iTunes? I am sure nowadays you'd have to pay extra for that. maybe 5 us$... or more?


I'd assume it's similar to radio licensing.

AaronEdwards
Jun 3, 2011, 12:07 PM
This sounds more and more like a Spotify Killer to me... annual subscription for "all you can eat" music from the record labels - why else would they pay such large sums upfront?

Infact, I'm positive this is what it is... Spotify are currently trying to get US record labels to sign up to their service, but they don't have the deep pockets that Apple does. Apple have most likely lured them away from Spotify with a cash advance.

Still think the iCloud logo/icon is lame though.

iCloud is cheaper, but you would have to pay for the music you wanted to store on the cloud. Spotify on the other hand would cost you either $10 or $15 per month, but you would have access to 13 million songs. And you would be able to store about 3000 of them on your mobile for offline listening that wouldn't eat up your data plan.

Apple won't be able to offer that for $25/year.

I don't see how iCloud could be a Spotify killer.

Thunderhawks
Jun 3, 2011, 12:08 PM
You lost me at geeks are theives, then came the Ford mention... Oh my:rolleyes:

In a few years when everybody is on the streaming icloud bandwagon it will be almost uninteresting to steal music.

The convenience of having every song , movie etc. available all the time is just too good.

I don't need to really OWN the music I want to listen to.

Why are people in angst that it will only stream their music and have their panties in a twist that they would pay twice?

And, on the issue of streaming pirated music storage vs. legally acquired, why would Apple even want to open that door?

AaronEdwards
Jun 3, 2011, 12:16 PM
I would be amazed if Apple actually offers a streaming service like Spotify. Why? Because Apple is making a lot of money selling music on iTunes, they won't make nearly as much from a streaming service.

While Apple was the future when they started selling digital files instead of CDs, now they are the past by selling digital files instead of selling the right to stream.

gnasher729
Jun 3, 2011, 12:24 PM
It would be possible. But it would not be possible for Apple to identify that the files in your library were legally acquired or downloaded illegally from some nefarious filesharing site. This is important because at $25/yr Apple is not going to be able to do a full blown online music streaming service clone. It has to be limited in some way so as not to compete directly with Napster and Spotify who charge a whole lot more. And the music industry needs to keep that competition with Apple.

Why would it matter at this point? That would be like a car wash being afraid of cleaning stolen cars. If there is an album on my computer, then I either downloaded it from a legitimate site (iTunes Store or Amazon), ripped it from my CDs or LPs, copied it illegally from a friend, or downloaded it illegally. No matter how the music got on my computer, if there is something wrong, then the damage has been done long ago and there is nothing they can do about it. (Actually, the music industry could do something about it: Sell a license for x$ per month that allows you to have any of their music on your computer, wherever it comes from, and play it. Just collect the money for the license, and leave the distribution to people).

But also, why would anyone think that there would be any music on my computer that I don't own? There are at least 100 CDs that I bought in the last twelve months alone.

bbeagle
Jun 3, 2011, 12:25 PM
I don't need to really OWN the music I want to listen to.


That is a very smart statement. I agree, that this is the future.

Why do we find it necessary to own music, movies or books? So we can use them whenever/wherever we want to. 20 years ago, it was necessary to actually physically own them.

Because of how connected we are all becoming with the internet, physical copies will not be necessary. This will change our mindsets, and your children will think it's crazy to actually own anything 'abstract' like music, movies or books.

juicedropsdeuce
Jun 3, 2011, 12:34 PM
That is a very smart statement. I agree, that this is the future.

Why do we find it necessary to own music, movies or books? So we can use them whenever/wherever we want to. 20 years ago, it was necessary to actually physically own them.

Because of how connected we are all becoming with the internet, physical copies will not be necessary. This will change our mindsets, and your children will think it's crazy to actually own anything 'abstract' like music, movies or books.

Exactly. People who buy music, especially from iTunes, make me LOL. They are stuck in a time warp. :rolleyes:

kas23
Jun 3, 2011, 12:48 PM
Exactly. I am amazed so many people are excited to pay to stream music they already paid for. WTF??


You are surprised, really? People were not only excited, but later proved that they were readily willing to part with money for music files of an extremely influential British rock group that have been physically available for over 40 years. In many cases, they were willing to part with their money for music they already owned on a physical medium. It's no surprised, especially when it comes to Apple, that a fool and their money will soon part.

Now, I am very willing to pay Apple for quality consumer electronics. However, Apple recently paid out over $100 million to the record companies. I assume they will want to gain this money back...at the expense of their customers. Therefore, one paying Apple for iCloud is little different than sending a check directly to the record companies to gain the ability to listen to music they've already legally purchased. Sorry, no thanks Apple.



Why do we find it necessary to own music, movies or books? So we can use them whenever/wherever we want to. 20 years ago, it was necessary to actually physically own them.

Because of how connected we are all becoming with the internet, physical copies will not be necessary. This will change our mindsets, and your children will think it's crazy to actually own anything 'abstract' like music, movies or books.

The problem is, while Internet access is becoming more ubiquitous, access is becoming more expensive. Furthermore, the current trend is to limit our access to the Internet. In addition, last time I tried to stream a movie or music to my iPhone 4 and iPad 2, quality was poor due to choppiness. Therefore, before we denounce "owning" relatively extremely tiny media files (except for movies), technology to allow us Internet access is going to have to improve, become more widespread, and cheaper.

AaronEdwards
Jun 3, 2011, 01:06 PM
Why would it matter at this point? That would be like a car wash being afraid of cleaning stolen cars. If there is an album on my computer, then I either downloaded it from a legitimate site (iTunes Store or Amazon), ripped it from my CDs or LPs, copied it illegally from a friend, or downloaded it illegally. No matter how the music got on my computer, if there is something wrong, then the damage has been done long ago and there is nothing they can do about it. (Actually, the music industry could do something about it: Sell a license for x$ per month that allows you to have any of their music on your computer, wherever it comes from, and play it. Just collect the money for the license, and leave the distribution to people).

But also, why would anyone think that there would be any music on my computer that I don't own? There are at least 100 CDs that I bought in the last twelve months alone.

The damage is already done, but it's still time for the record companies to sue. I wonder if Apple has promised the record companies that they will check and report illegal files being uploaded on iCloud. I bet that information would be golden for companies. And why would Apple condone or be an accessory to copyright infringement.

rockosmodurnlif
Jun 3, 2011, 01:15 PM
The Sony Music logo is ugly. Onto the comment.

Exactly. I am amazed so many people are excited to pay to stream music they already paid for. WTF??

As Netflix and Pandora prove, most people in the 21st century don't feel the need to buy media anymore. People want everything on demand all the time, not just their crappy iTunes library which is perpetually out of date. :rolleyes:
How is your collected library of music out of date? It's supposed to be music you like.

Krovem
Jun 3, 2011, 01:23 PM
Apple has plenty money, they do what they want. Im sure they are making the right decision.

djrobsd
Jun 3, 2011, 01:50 PM
Why bother even releasing this thing if you're only going to be able to play music you bought on iTunes?! I have 15,000 songs. Only 200 of them were purchased on iTunes.

Epic Fail... You're late to the party Apple. I've already signed on with Amazon and now Google just sent me my invite today so I'll be trying that, given that Google will be able to store all 15,000 of my songs...

Go google!!!!!! And get with the program Apple.

Moyank24
Jun 3, 2011, 01:55 PM
Why bother even releasing this thing if you're only going to be able to play music you bought on iTunes?! I have 15,000 songs. Only 200 of them were purchased on iTunes.

Epic Fail... You're late to the party Apple. I've already signed on with Amazon and now Google just sent me my invite today so I'll be trying that, given that Google will be able to store all 15,000 of my songs...

Go google!!!!!! And get with the program Apple.

You should save the rant until after you find out exactly what services they will be offering. Nothing has been confirmed and yet people are complaining about what they think it's going to be or not be.

The only epic fail here is the assumptions that people are making. Seriously, complain when you know for sure it's a fail. Until then...well you know what happens when you assume.

henrycooksey
Jun 3, 2011, 02:20 PM
Just read the iCloud trademark application, and it includes this section:

"subscription services, namely, providing subscriptions to text, data, image, audio, video, and multimedia content, provided via the Internet and other electronic and communications networks; downloadable pre-recorded text, data, image, audio, video, and multimedia content for a fee or pre-paid subscription, provided via the Internet and other electronic and communications networks;"

among other things, of course, but this looks interesting.

Mr. F
Jun 3, 2011, 03:28 PM
What about the musicians who actually make this music?

I'm guessing that not a whole lot of this cash is going to filter down to them. This pile is going into amenities for the big dinosaurs of the collapsing music industry. Cut out these middlemen, they are no longer valid.

wackymacky
Jun 3, 2011, 03:35 PM
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)

Only 25 million per record company seems quite low given the millions of song tracks involved. No doubt it must be limited to what you've alreay bought from iTunes, and hence the record companies have had a payment for already.

I still am not really sure tough of the utility of this, given I can carry the majority of my music with me on my phone, and at home my music is available to my hi fi, being hooked up to my home network.

marksman
Jun 3, 2011, 03:38 PM
a) Non-iTunes music will get to the cloud later.

b) iTunes is the biggest electronic music retailer on the planet, so no matter how many people chime in to say they don't have any iTunes music, there are millions of people who do have iTunes music. That is a good start for this service.

Yeah I don't have any itunes music but you are right. A lot of people do, and if it is as simple as people essentially clicking a button and being able to stream anything they have already purchased on itunes, the simplicity and ease of use will be a huge motivating factor for a lot of people.

Not having to manage your itunes music yourself and having it all available immediately without any extra steps will be quite enticing to a lot of people I suspect, especially if the price is right.

I do hope they allow the ability to add our own music, but this actually improves the value of buying music in iTunes I think. As you can just go click on a song buy it and then be streaming it to any of your devices right away. It is pretty enticing.

henrycooksey
Jun 3, 2011, 03:40 PM
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)

Only 25 million per record company seems quite low given the millions of song tracks involved. No doubt it must be limited to what you've alreay bought from iTunes, and hence the record companies have had a payment for already.

I still am not really sure tough of the utility of this, given I can carry the majority of my music with me on my phone, and at home my music is available to my hi fi, being hooked up to my home network.


For their European countries, Spotify only pays out 47m Euros, which i think equates to about $60m, per year to all of their associated labels. Therefore, with the amount of money involved, Apple could still be doing streaming like Spotify.

the8thark
Jun 3, 2011, 03:47 PM
People are talking here about icloud as it's mostly music. I think the cloud will have little to do with music. Why?

1. The banner Lion + iOS5 + cloud = WWDC makes me think it's on the same level as the 2 OS's. And something that important has to be more than just music.

2. WWDC is not Apple's ipod/music yearly keynote. They have a keynote for the music stuff later in the year. If icloud was mostly music oriented it would not get a WWDC showing. It'd get a showing later in the year at the music keynote.

So me I think icloud will be the glue between iOS and Lion. Knitting them both together. Sure Apple got the music labels involved. But me that's just a side note to the real use of the cloud.

On Monday (Tuesday morning my time) we'll all know for sure.

henrycooksey
Jun 3, 2011, 03:51 PM
People are talking here about icloud as it's mostly music. I think the cloud will have little to do with music. Why?

1. The banner Lion + iOS5 + cloud = WWDC makes me think it's on the same level as the 2 OS's. And something that important has to be more than just music.

2. WWDC is not Apple's ipod/music yearly keynote. They have a keynote for the music stuff later in the year. If icloud was mostly music oriented it would not get a WWDC showing. It'd get a showing later in the year at the music keynote.

So me I think icloud will be the glue between iOS and Lion. Knitting them both together. Sure Apple got the music labels involved. But me that's just a side note to the real use of the cloud.

On Monday (Tuesday morning my time) we'll all know for sure.

I'm still convinced all of this music stuff will be the 'one more thing' this keynote, basically introducing a subscription model in iTunes and a music locker to work with iCloud... It's just a thought, but it would be a neat way of explaining the disparity between iCloud itself and the music rumors we keep hearing about.

Worf
Jun 3, 2011, 04:28 PM
If it's iTunes only content, this will be another failure from Apple.

iTunes only content on icloud = Ping 2

http://www.cultofmac.com/icloud-may-sync-and-stream-even-pirated-music-thanks-to-apple-licensing-deal/98061

Why do you think they brought the big money? Also Google was pushing for this in their own negotiations but when their negotiations fell apart and they took up a storage model along with Amazon, this only made it easier for the Publishers to accept this feature for :apple:.

Also I doubt iCloud will be limited to music functionality, it's a MobileMe makeover!

MacNewsFix
Jun 3, 2011, 05:14 PM
$150,000,000? That's it?!!

I can just picture Tim Cook scouring inside the sofas at 1 Infinite Loop to come up with that amount. ;)

charlituna
Jun 3, 2011, 05:17 PM
Another way to look at this though is: why care if they upload pirated music? The act of piracy has already occurred. And now, with this new Apple deal, the labels are making streaming royalties on pirated tracks.

It has nothing to do with piracy. It's all about the original deals not including broadcasting the songs. To get that right Apple had to agree to a bulk pay and a cut of all signups. Apple may have been able to argue that if someone is only streaming iTunes purchases they should be covered by the 70% of the original buy.

Piggie
Jun 3, 2011, 05:27 PM
The bigger question is: how many people own music purchased OUTSIDE of iTunes ... probably a lot, and those are the once that are getting screwed if the rumors turn out to be true

Well of course, it's obvious, or should be to everyone, that the MAJORITY of people in the world have music, the MAJORITY of which is not purchased via iTunes.

Despite what a few people who live in a neat and tidy IT bubble may think the real world does not revolve around Apple and iTunes.

It remains to be seen if Apple are aiming directly at this small IT Bubble of people who are into the whole iTunes thing, or are casting their net far and wide to offer something useful to the mass population out there.

ericinboston
Jun 3, 2011, 09:28 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

Wonder how many people don't own iTunes music

I don't. Not a single track. I have thousands of cds (and still buy them for $9 apiece when brand new at Amazon or similar) as well as own maybe 10 MP3 tracks from Amazon just because I came across them and they are unavailable on any kind of digital format.

I think there are more people out there (then Apple or Fanboys believe) that do NOT own a single iTunes-purchased-song...and then what about the % of people that own less than 30 iTunes tracks?

koruki
Jun 4, 2011, 01:18 AM
If it's iTunes only content, this will be another failure from Apple.

iTunes only content on icloud = Ping 2

Another failure from Apple like iPod, iPhone and iPad.

I don't buy content from iTunes cause its not lossless but to call something "another failure" from apple before it is released has failed many times before even for the best of them :o

Moyank24
Jun 4, 2011, 01:35 AM
I don't. Not a single track. I have thousands of cds (and still buy them for $9 apiece when brand new at Amazon or similar) as well as own maybe 10 MP3 tracks from Amazon just because I came across them and they are unavailable on any kind of digital format.

I think there are more people out there (then Apple or Fanboys believe) that do NOT own a single iTunes-purchased-song...and then what about the % of people that own less than 30 iTunes tracks?

I think we can all agree that a lot of our libraries are filled with music not purchased from iTunes. But, the fact is, that last February iTunes hit the 10 billion songs sold mark. So, obviously there are people out there that do have libraries filled with songs purchased from there as well.

Wouldn't you think that Apple knows this? Or do you think that Apple just assumes that every song every iPod and iPhone owner owns was purchased from iTunes? It seems like everyone is jumping to conclusions and then complaining about it.

Let's see what happens Monday and then make judgements.

caspersoong
Jun 4, 2011, 02:28 AM
I wonder how much they would have to pay if Steve Jobs weren't there cutting deals.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 4, 2011, 09:36 AM
I think we can all agree that a lot of our libraries are filled with music not purchased from iTunes. But, the fact is, that last February iTunes hit the 10 billion songs sold mark. So, obviously there are people out there that do have libraries filled with songs purchased from there as well.

Let the math be your guide.

10 Billion songs sold / approx. 150 million iTunes accounts = about 67 songs sold per account.

Of course, some iTunes accounts have never bought a song and some may exist where every song they own was purchased via iTunes. But in the average, you can see that unless someone considers their entire music collection "whole" in maybe a couple hundred songs, odds are high that many (maybe I could even say "most") libraries are probably dominated with music NOT purchased by iTunes.

After all, if you think about a CD as averaging about 10 songs, you can match the average of 67 songs by owning & ripping only 7 CDs. It's hard to imagine even the poor college students NOT ripping the home CD collection (maybe owned by parents or siblings) in at least that kind of volume. Forget friends, libraries, piracy, free song promotions (I think most of my own "purchased" music from iTunes came from 7/11 Slushee "free music" promotions), etc.

Eric S.
Jun 4, 2011, 10:48 AM
Definitely a thumbs down for me. 95% of my iTunes collection is ripped from my own CDs, I will not pay to listen to my own music, and I have no interest in streaming when I carry my entire library in my pocket.

jonnysods
Jun 4, 2011, 06:04 PM
$150m isnt that much to apple anymore.

The icloud thing is going to be pretty big.

techkidd4400
Jun 5, 2011, 08:29 AM
Record labels are no better quality group of people than the ladies that occupy the red light districts throughout the world...

True enough. And, Apple is not any better either. We are moving from buying music from 4 greedy music distributors (not real competition) to one that streams and downloads. What happened tp the promise of competition for the music-buying money from music lovers that the Internet was suppose to bring about?

techkidd4400
Jun 5, 2011, 08:39 AM
Definitely a thumbs down for me. 95% of my iTunes collection is ripped from my own CDs, I will not pay to listen to my own music, and I have no interest in streaming when I carry my entire library in my pocket.

Hopefully, Apple has thought about this and will not charge customers for streaming if they have already purchased the same music from iTunes. I am not sure what they can do about ripped CDs. Remember, the fees Apple is paying to the 4 music distributors is for Apple's license to publicly stream the music; the end-user who has iTune tracks already has a license to hear the music under copyright.

maclaptop
Jun 5, 2011, 09:50 AM
Also I doubt iCloud will be limited to music functionality, it's a MobileMe makeover!
I'm really curious about MobileMe. I want to be able to enjoy it instead just using it as I do now. Getting screwed at the current price / performance ratio is getting old. As so many other alternatives grow bigger and better at a fraction of the cost, many may tell Apple to shove it and be done with Apple Tax and their insatiable need to screw over the customer. New time capsules required, what a crock.

Eric S.
Jun 6, 2011, 04:28 PM
Hopefully, Apple has thought about this and will not charge customers for streaming if they have already purchased the same music from iTunes. I am not sure what they can do about ripped CDs. Remember, the fees Apple is paying to the 4 music distributors is for Apple's license to publicly stream the music; the end-user who has iTune tracks already has a license to hear the music under copyright.

Well now we know: you will be charged to listen to your own music that was not bought through the iTunes store. No thanks. Why should I agree to that if I have the music right here in my pocket?

I also expect there will be numerous glitches in "matching" the user's collection to theirs, if album cover art matching is any guide.