PDA

View Full Version : Amazon Responds to Apple's iCloud With Music Storage Upgrades, iPad Player




MacRumors
Jul 6, 2011, 06:12 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/06/amazon-responds-to-apples-icloud-with-music-storage-upgrades-ipad-player/)


Earlier this year, Amazon launched its Cloud Drive and Cloud Player (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/29/amazon-launches-cloud-based-storage-service-and-music-player/) services, offering users the ability to store music and other digital content on Amazon's servers for access from a variety of Internet-connected devices. With Apple's iCloud announcement last month, some have been wondering whether Amazon might tweak its offerings to compete with iCloud.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/07/amazon_cloud_drive.jpg


In response, Amazon today announced (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1582734) several changes that do exactly that, expanding the music storage capabilities of its Cloud Drive service and launching an iPad-optimized Cloud Player. Among the specific changes:

- Unlimited music storage with any paid plan: Users signing up for any paid storage plan, including the lowest tier priced at $20 per year for 20 GB of space, automatically receive unlimited storage space for music in MP3 and AAC formats. The change leaves the full paid storage amount available for other content such as photos and documents. This offer is available for a limited time.

- Free storage of all Amazon MP3 Store purchases: Most applicable for those users opting to stick with the free 5 GB plan, Amazon will now store all past and future Amazon MP3 Store purchases free of charge and without counting toward the 5 GB limit. The feature had previously been limited to purchases made since the debut of Cloud Drive and Cloud Player.

- Cloud Player for iPad: Amazon has launched an iPad-optimized web player for music stored through the Cloud Drive service. Despite a lack of official support for iOS devices until now, Amazon Cloud Player has been partially functional (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/09/amazon-cloud-player-gains-ios-compatibility/), but the new changes should significantly increase usability for iPad customers.

The "iTunes in the Cloud" component of iCloud is partially active now, allowing users to automatically download newly-purchased content to all iCloud-enabled devices and to support easy re-downloading of previously-purchased iTunes Store content. The full iCloud service is set to debut later this year alongside iOS 5, and will provide users with 5 GB of free storage, not including purchased music, apps, books, and Photo Streams. Additional storage will be available at as-yet unannounced prices.

The full iCloud launch will also see the debut of iTunes Match, a $24.99/year service that will allow users to store their entire music collections in the cloud for syncing across devices, either by matching to iTunes Store tracks or by uploading directly into the cloud.

Article Link: Amazon Responds to Apple's iCloud With Music Storage Upgrades, iPad Player (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/06/amazon-responds-to-apples-icloud-with-music-storage-upgrades-ipad-player/)



radiogoober
Jul 6, 2011, 06:15 PM
All that work from Amazon, and the world replies "Who cares?"

Edit: I actually tried buying music from amazon once. It was the biggest pain the ass ever. I had to download a new app or something, queue up the music, it was horrible. I deleted every trace of it from my computer and will never buy music from them again.

.... but i'll still continue to buy everything else from them with the free 2nd day air shipping!

Michael Scrip
Jul 6, 2011, 06:17 PM
Ok... so it's still for Amazon's music and stuff...

At first I was thinking it was a DropBox style service.

Day48
Jul 6, 2011, 06:21 PM
i've heard of an idea like this before.....:rolleyes:

nemaslov
Jul 6, 2011, 06:21 PM
If it ain't in Lossless....no thank you!

MSlaw
Jul 6, 2011, 06:24 PM
Hmm, built into the device, or from some third party...I'd pick the former.

bushido
Jul 6, 2011, 06:27 PM
AWESOME, this is actually pretty neat as apple doesnt really understand what cloud access to music means. redownloads of ur music from the store r fine but pointless as they fill up ur iphone space just as much as synching the music in the first place

doctor-don
Jul 6, 2011, 06:35 PM
All that work from Amazon, and the world replies "Who cares?"

Edit: I actually tried buying music from amazon once. It was the biggest pain the ass ever. I had to download a new app or something, queue up the music, it was horrible. I deleted every trace of it from my computer and will never buy music from them again.

.... but i'll still continue to buy everything else from them with the free 2nd day air shipping!

With my purchase of a recent album for 99, I get free 20GB storage. This sounds like it will be 20GB in addition to music, and that's a good thing.

"Peas, peas, peas. Eating goober peas."

If it ain't in Lossless....no thank you!

Who knows whether it is lossless when he hears it? What a comment that means little when played on most devices.

Hmm, built into the device, or from some third party...I'd pick the former.

Having access to the music on my computer or on my phone makes your statement irrelevant.

Rajani Isa
Jul 6, 2011, 06:35 PM
AWESOME, this is actually pretty neat as apple doesnt really understand what cloud access to music means. redownloads of ur music from the store r fine but pointless as they fill up ur iphone space just as much as synching the music in the first place

Then what you want is a /streaming music/ service.

beg_ne
Jul 6, 2011, 06:37 PM
Thanks Amazon...but I'll stick with the "anywhere" cloud service that can actually be accessed from outside the US.

BC2009
Jul 6, 2011, 06:41 PM
Hmm, built into the device, or from some third party...I'd pick the former.

I fully agree. Plus iCloud will give me cloud backups of my device, document syncing, and support for app-data syncing between various instances of the same app on multiple devices (assuming app developers take advantage of the API). Music storage is the least of my concerns since my music does not take much space on my device compared to apps or movies.

AWESOME, this is actually pretty neat as apple doesnt really understand what cloud access to music means. redownloads of ur music from the store r fine but pointless as they fill up ur iphone space just as much as synching the music in the first place

It is certainly better than what Amazon previously offered, but those of us in the US typically don't plan on using our limited costly data plans to constantly stream music from iCloud (or Amazon). It makes far more sense to just store the music on the device unless you have a huge collection of music. And iCloud will still let you store the ones you most want to listen to now, and then get the ones you forgot to sync when you want them. I for one prefer to have my music & movies on my device and not be dependent on the cloud connectivity to get to my stuff (i.e.: i prefer the replicate / work-locally / replicate model). To me the "cloud" makes for a good fall-back solution when I go on vacation and forgot to sync the kid's favorite movie (still waiting for Apple to announce movies over iCloud).

This is especially true with my iPad since i want it to sync to my iPhone, but often it is not on 3G since I don't like to pay for the monthly plan unless I am going on vacation. Instead, I can use the iPad while riding in the car or anyplace without connectivity, and then have my apps do their replication when I am online.

I think Apple is the only one who gets the part of the "cloud" that pertains to apps. Google thinks you should be online-all-the-time (e.g.: maps, gmail, etc...). Amazon thinks the cloud is only about a hard-drive in the sky with music streaming. Apple is the only one creating an API to allow the "pick up where you left off on your other device" model and "allow me to actually get something done while offline and then replicate changes when back online".

Too many folks think "cloud = music streaming" -- personally, if I wanted an iPod, I would have bought an iPod. I bought an iPhone and iPad for apps -- music is a peripheral function to me.

Popeye206
Jul 6, 2011, 06:41 PM
And they just whipped this up on what server farm?

Maybe they are doing this on spare store space in their existing farm???

Besides... for me, the Apple Eco system wins here. Most of my purchased music is already from iTunes and I want this on all my iOS devices without any hassle. The Android crowed will love this. I'm sure that's who it's really targeted at.

harrylee773
Jul 6, 2011, 06:41 PM
This is more like what I was hoping for from iCloud. I don't want to have to redownload my music from one device to the next; taking up storage space on each and I don't want a streaming service along the lines of pandora, last.fm, et al- I want my music, accessible from the web, whenever I want. Taking into account that I have unlimited music storage for free from Amazon (I got a 20gb plan with an album purchase) that does what I want, I'll probably be passing on the iMatch service unless it changes before launch.

kresh
Jul 6, 2011, 06:49 PM
And they just whipped this up on what server farm?

Maybe they are doing this on spare store space in their existing farm???

Besides... for me, the Apple Eco system wins here. Most of my purchased music is already from iTunes and I want this on all my iOS devices without any hassle. The Android crowed will love this. I'm sure that's who it's really targeted at.

you're kidding, right :eek: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_S3)

drwatz0n
Jul 6, 2011, 06:51 PM
And they just whipped this up on what server farm?

Maybe they are doing this on spare store space in their existing farm???

Besides... for me, the Apple Eco system wins here. Most of my purchased music is already from iTunes and I want this on all my iOS devices without any hassle. The Android crowed will love this. I'm sure that's who it's really targeted at.

Amazon has one of the greatest server infrastructures known to man. Besides a slight hiccup a few months back, it's worked pretty flawless for them and every other user of their services (S3, etc.)

mdatwood
Jul 6, 2011, 06:52 PM
All that work from Amazon, and the world replies "Who cares?"

Edit: I actually tried buying music from amazon once. It was the biggest pain the ass ever. I had to download a new app or something, queue up the music, it was horrible. I deleted every trace of it from my computer and will never buy music from them again.

.... but i'll still continue to buy everything else from them with the free 2nd day air shipping!

Buying from Amazon is dead simple. It's less to install than iTunes.

Ok... so it's still for Amazon's music and stuff...

At first I was thinking it was a DropBox style service.

It will take music from anywhere, not just Amazon purchased.

If it ain't in Lossless....no thank you!

Do any of the big players offer lossless downloads yet? My guess is that they never will because no one will notice, except for the negatives of larger files, longer downloads, and more bandwidth used. 256k AAC is good enough for almost all applications.

macduke
Jul 6, 2011, 06:54 PM
My biggest concern with iCloud is the storage space. What sucks is if you're a user of multiple iOS devices. For instance, I have iOS 5b2 installed on my iPad 2 and iPhone 4, and every night when I plug them in they say in the morning that iCloud couldn't finish the backup because it ran out of space. Well ok, that's going to be a problem for a whole bunch of users. I don't want to have separate iCloud accounts for each device. As it is, I can't use my iTunes account with all my purchases on iCloud. They have to be separate. A lot of people are going to be confused unless Apple fixes this stuff up. Right now iCloud is rather confusing, but it's still a beta.

If you have multiple iOS devices, then shouldn't Apple give you more free storage? Why penalize users who buy more of their stuff? What's the point of having backups if it always says its full? Or is this just a beta issue?

iLunar
Jul 6, 2011, 06:55 PM
I think this is clearly to set them up with services that will be used in the new revamped Kindle Tablet.

winston1236
Jul 6, 2011, 06:59 PM
And they just whipped this up on what server farm?

Maybe they are doing this on spare store space in their existing farm???

Besides... for me, the Apple Eco system wins here. Most of my purchased music is already from iTunes and I want this on all my iOS devices without any hassle. The Android crowed will love this. I'm sure that's who it's really targeted at.

amazon actually has ridiculous server space, remember when Anonymous tried to take their site down with request and failed?

HiRez
Jul 6, 2011, 07:03 PM
Can't blame Amazon for competing...but...did they really just lower the price to beat Apple's...a service that isn't even available yet? Sheesh, the whole industry just stands around and waits to react to Apple, they can't even set their own pricing without peeking. Pathetic.

Fwink!
Jul 6, 2011, 07:07 PM
Heh, I bought the lady gaga album for 99 cents which gave me a free upgrade to the 20gb plan that day. Apparently I am getting the unlimited music storage upgrade as well. Sorry apple, but you lost this one.

I'm currently backing up ALL my own (self produced music) to the amazon cloud. And loving it. With 20gb left for documents and photos etc. while playing (streaming) playback to my ipad.

Just too nice, and the fan bois sing, doo dee doo boo hoo hee hoo hee hoo hee boo hee hoo

I'm looking at $20 for 2 years of unlimited music with no goofy re-downloading or whatever.

ThisIsNotMe
Jul 6, 2011, 07:11 PM
AWESOME, this is actually pretty neat as apple doesnt really understand what cloud access to music means. redownloads of ur music from the store r fine but pointless as they fill up ur iphone space just as much as synching the music in the first place

I disagree.

Apple *does* understand what could access means and with the high price of bandwidth/bandwidth caps and the relative low price of SSD has taken an alternative route.

Glideslope
Jul 6, 2011, 07:12 PM
Who Cares. :apple:

malman89
Jul 6, 2011, 07:15 PM
And they just whipped this up on what server farm?

Maybe they are doing this on spare store space in their existing farm???

Besides... for me, the Apple Eco system wins here. Most of my purchased music is already from iTunes and I want this on all my iOS devices without any hassle. The Android crowed will love this. I'm sure that's who it's really targeted at.

What everyone else has said PLUS it's just like Gmail - who actually has a full Gmail account? Only the few will truly pour their whole libraries into this. I've had mine for a couple years and I'm at 10%. Granted, for the longest time I deleted everything, but for almost 2 years now I've archived it all and still at a tiny 10%.

Celeron
Jul 6, 2011, 07:17 PM
Personally I think this is awesome. I get a lot of music from Amazon. Its cheaper a lot of times than iTunes. $0.69 vs. $1.29. I'll take Amazon please. Amazon has also been doing DRM free music since the beginning, something I also have an appreciation for.

I like that I can keep all my Amazon.com purchased music "in the cloud" for free and not have to store them locally, if I don't want to.

There's a lot of hate in this thread and I'm not sure why.

*LTD*
Jul 6, 2011, 07:32 PM
At this point, who cares.

All these entities "responding" to Apple. Guess the result.

Fwink!
Jul 6, 2011, 07:35 PM
couple of minor caveats,
1. Native audio files are seen as taking up space - .wav, and I'm assuming .aiff also. havn't tried other high res formats (flac, apple lossless).
2. These formats don't play thru the ipad cloud player.

shartypants
Jul 6, 2011, 07:36 PM
iCloud is still better, Apple upgrades your music to a higher bit rate (and better for them as well since they only have to store a great majority of the music once). Amazon knows Apple has the advantage here and is desperate to keep customers from going over to iTunes.

Michael Scrip
Jul 6, 2011, 07:40 PM
It will take music from anywhere, not just Amazon purchased.


Oh I know... it's just that "Cloud Drive" sounded like more than just music storage...

mattwolfmatt
Jul 6, 2011, 07:43 PM
There's a lot of hate in this thread and I'm not sure why.

Hi, you must be new here. This is Macrumors.

Zimmy68
Jul 6, 2011, 07:46 PM
Hmm, I went to a MP3 album I bought on Amazon last year and it still wants me to buy it again.
When does this go into affect?

i.mac
Jul 6, 2011, 07:48 PM
Can't blame Amazon for competing...but...did they really just lower the price to beat Apple's...a service that isn't even available yet? Sheesh, the whole industry just stands around and waits to react to Apple, they can't even set their own pricing without peeking. Pathetic.

Agreed.

It seems that no one on planet earth has the mind capacity or the c*j*nes (will power, or b*lls) to do something that is better than what apple can/will do.

PhoneI
Jul 6, 2011, 07:49 PM
Not sure if this type of service makes sense if I am capped at 2GB of data a month.

hehe299792458
Jul 6, 2011, 07:50 PM
Not sure if this type of service makes sense if I am capped at 2GB of data a month.

Agreeds. 2Gb/30days =70MB/day. 10 songs

mattwolfmatt
Jul 6, 2011, 07:52 PM
Agreeds. 2Gb/30days =70MB/day. 10 songs

I'm pretty sure this is 2GB of total storage in the cloud. Not 2GB of data transferred.

PhoneI
Jul 6, 2011, 07:53 PM
I'm pretty sure this is 2GB of total storage in the cloud. Not 2GB of data transferred.

So I have to have the music loaded on my device anyway to use? Then what is the point?

*LTD*
Jul 6, 2011, 07:53 PM
- Cloud Player for iPad: Amazon has launched an iPad-optimized web player for music stored through the Cloud Drive service. Despite a lack of official support for iOS devices until now, Amazon Cloud Player has been partially functional (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/09/amazon-cloud-player-gains-ios-compatibility/), but the new changes should significantly increase usability for iPad customers.

NO WAY!!! OMG THAT'S AMAZING! Can I please have a half-baked Amazon "cloud player" that should "increase in usability" at some point . . . when we already have DEDICATED tools and services that are fully a part of the Apple ecosystem! I can't wait!!

Hey, Amazon: You're good for books and some other stuff. Great checkout system, and I get recommendations too. Beyond that, no one really gives a damn. You're an online Walmart. You have no cachet. So please release your pretend-iPad that's also "partially functional" (seems to be the trend these days) so we can pan it already and move on.

AidenShaw
Jul 6, 2011, 08:05 PM
So please release your pretend-iPad that's also "partially functional" (seems to be the trend these days) so we can pan it already and move on.

At least you're keeping an open mind and are willing to examine their offering before coming to a conclusion.

:rolleyes:

TG1
Jul 6, 2011, 08:14 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason why Amazon doesn't create a native app for their Cloud Player for iOS? The web-based player has improved, but a real app would certainly be a more polished experience. :confused:

coolfactor
Jul 6, 2011, 08:19 PM
My biggest concern with iCloud is the storage space. What sucks is if you're a user of multiple iOS devices. For instance, I have iOS 5b2 installed on my iPad 2 and iPhone 4, and every night when I plug them in they say in the morning that iCloud couldn't finish the backup because it ran out of space. Well ok, that's going to be a problem for a whole bunch of users. I don't want to have separate iCloud accounts for each device. As it is, I can't use my iTunes account with all my purchases on iCloud. They have to be separate. A lot of people are going to be confused unless Apple fixes this stuff up. Right now iCloud is rather confusing, but it's still a beta.

If you have multiple iOS devices, then shouldn't Apple give you more free storage? Why penalize users who buy more of their stuff? What's the point of having backups if it always says its full? Or is this just a beta issue?

Since you have a copy of iOS 5, you must be a registered legitimate developer and therefore you have direct channels of communication to give Apple exactly that sort of feedback. Or am I missing something?

*LTD*
Jul 6, 2011, 08:19 PM
At least you're keeping an open mind and are willing to examine their offering before coming to a conclusion.

:rolleyes:

It'll be a snoozer. But feel free to wait and see.

Competitors will need something mind-blowing to even make a dent. And Amazon is no HP + Rubinstein, or a Samsung who with even their deep experience is barely able to make anyone notice.

coolfactor
Jul 6, 2011, 08:20 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason why Amazon doesn't create a native app for their Cloud Player for iOS? The web-based player has improved, but a real app would certainly be a more polished experience. :confused:

Laziness, cost-savings, to be platform-neutral... you pick one.

chiefpavvy
Jul 6, 2011, 08:21 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason why Amazon doesn't create a native app for their Cloud Player for iOS? The web-based player has improved, but a real app would certainly be a more polished experience. :confused:

Apple wouldn't allow it and/or they want to push people to Android and presumably the upcoming Amazon tablet.

Google doesn't offer it for Google Music either, and it sucks. I love Google Music overall but lack of iOS compatibility (yeah you can get it running over Safari but it is clunky and unpredictable).

I actually think I prefer Amazon to Google Music now, however. The ability to re-download the stuff you upload (Google doesn't allow this) and an iPad player that actually works...I think I'll be moving to Amazon and sending Google Music to pasture. For now.

As for the whiners about lossless, none of them allow it. Google Music takes FLAC but converts it to 320kbps MP3 on upload. The reason for this is simply the massive size of lossless audio. Do you really want to stream lossless to a mobile device? Not likely. Add to that the fact that only 1 or 2% are "audiophiles" who even notice the difference between lossless and 256k MP3 let alone AAC (which is vastly superior - but who really notices?!)

coolfactor
Jul 6, 2011, 08:22 PM
Not sure if this type of service makes sense if I am capped at 2GB of data a month.

So make sure you're on a WiFi network most of the time.

thetexan
Jul 6, 2011, 08:25 PM
iCloud was a bit of a disappointment for my needs, at least how it interacts with music. Basically it's just iTunes in the cloud instead of iTunes on your home computer. I want to be able to access my music via a web browser which Google and Amazon allow. It's nice to be able to pull up a web browser at work and just play my music.

Now I just wish either would allow me to setup "share" access to my library so I could share my collection with friends. I'm sure the record labels would have a stroke if either allowed that though, so it's just a dream of mine at this point.

squirrellydw
Jul 6, 2011, 08:27 PM
Who cares, I use plex installed on my own server and can get my music from anywhere.

ccraig13
Jul 6, 2011, 08:31 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)

Thus begins the cloud wars...

mdriftmeyer
Jul 6, 2011, 08:35 PM
I fully agree. Plus iCloud will give me cloud backups of my device, document syncing, and support for app-data syncing between various instances of the same app on multiple devices (assuming app developers take advantage of the API). Music storage is the least of my concerns since my music does not take much space on my device compared to apps or movies.



It is certainly better than what Amazon previously offered, but those of us in the US typically don't plan on using our limited costly data plans to constantly stream music from iCloud (or Amazon). It makes far more sense to just store the music on the device unless you have a huge collection of music. And iCloud will still let you store the ones you most want to listen to now, and then get the ones you forgot to sync when you want them. I for one prefer to have my music & movies on my device and not be dependent on the cloud connectivity to get to my stuff (i.e.: i prefer the replicate / work-locally / replicate model). To me the "cloud" makes for a good fall-back solution when I go on vacation and forgot to sync the kid's favorite movie (still waiting for Apple to announce movies over iCloud).

This is especially true with my iPad since i want it to sync to my iPhone, but often it is not on 3G since I don't like to pay for the monthly plan unless I am going on vacation. Instead, I can use the iPad while riding in the car or anyplace without connectivity, and then have my apps do their replication when I am online.

I think Apple is the only one who gets the part of the "cloud" that pertains to apps. Google thinks you should be online-all-the-time (e.g.: maps, gmail, etc...). Amazon thinks the cloud is only about a hard-drive in the sky with music streaming. Apple is the only one creating an API to allow the "pick up where you left off on your other device" model and "allow me to actually get something done while offline and then replicate changes when back online".

Too many folks think "cloud = music streaming" -- personally, if I wanted an iPod, I would have bought an iPod. I bought an iPhone and iPad for apps -- music is a peripheral function to me.

Even if you have a huge collection of music, the majority of it rots from it's rare times one ever listens to it. There is a tipping point in which human beings collect too much of any type of good or service and end up wasting their money.

Rocketman
Jul 6, 2011, 08:39 PM
Hmmm. Amazon "appstore". Amazon "cloud". Coincidental timing in each case. Hmmm.

Rocketman

theone09
Jul 6, 2011, 08:47 PM
Personally I think this is awesome. I get a lot of music from Amazon. Its cheaper a lot of times than iTunes. $0.69 vs. $1.29. I'll take Amazon please. Amazon has also been doing DRM free music since the beginning, something I also have an appreciation for.

I like that I can keep all my Amazon.com purchased music "in the cloud" for free and not have to store them locally, if I don't want to.

There's a lot of hate in this thread and I'm not sure why.

Agree!! and you don't need to wait it to load up to your iDevices, it's always there for you to listen on the street!! Cool thing is i can now stream my music from amazon thru airplay too :)

AidenShaw
Jul 6, 2011, 08:51 PM
Hmmm. Amazon "appstore". Amazon "cloud". Coincidental timing in each case. Hmmm.

Rocketman

You are ignorant of the real history.

Amazon announced their "cloud" service in August 2006 - quite some time before the Iphone was announced.

I'd say that Apple is the one running the copying machines here, except that "cloud" has long been a generic term.

itsokay
Jul 6, 2011, 08:57 PM
bring it on. :cool:

rock15478
Jul 6, 2011, 09:02 PM
I'm surprised not many have responded with this...

Google Music Beta?

I have 16,000 songs uploaded now. My entire music collection. Completely available anywhere. Completely free.

Granted, you have to buy the music (or steal it) from somewhere, but I'm someone who has my entire music collection ripped and hate the thought of needing to keep it backed up.

And Google stores this all on the cloud for me... for free.

The uploading happens behind the scenes. You just link your itunes library.

I honestly really really REALLY want to like iCloud. I love Apple products and all my computers are macs...

However, I have an Android phone and do love google products as well...

And so far, I can do everything that iCloud is GOING to offer (not even available yet) via my Android phone and google products. Everything. For absolutely nothing. Now, believe me, I really want to love iCloud. Can someone please convince me otherwise? I'm all ears. I'm really not a Google fan boy either, or Apple hater by any means

*LTD*
Jul 6, 2011, 09:13 PM
You are ignorant of the real history.

Amazon announced their "cloud" service in August 2006 - quite some time before the Iphone was announced.

I'd say that Apple is the one running the copying machines here, except that "cloud" has long been a generic term.

We had tablets years ago.

It took Apple to do it right. You'll see the same with iCloud.

the8thark
Jul 6, 2011, 09:22 PM
Unless Amazon have done a deal with the Music Labels, you'll still only have access to your own music on Amazon's cloud. So if you want 20GB of music up there, enjoy uploading all 20GB of it. Unlike Apple where you only need to have your itunes list sync with what's in the itunes servers and within (I would guess) less than 1 hour you can be listening to anything you own on any of your iDevices.

To me this is a half-hearted "me too" attempt. Without Music Label support (to stop the huge uploads via allowing music streaming), access to the service on other Safari mobile browsers (the press release says this "To access Cloud Player for iPad, customers simply open their Safari browser"), and something equivalent to iTunes Match this whole service is just not as good as the Apple offering.

Add in all the App syncing and other stuff the Apple version has and you can really see how the Amazon version falls short. If I was to choose between the two services, Apple's and Amazon's, Apple's would win everytime. The Amazon service would really need to get much better before I'd ever consider it. (That's if I was a US citizen and in a place able to consider both, but I'm not from the US, still I can have an opinion on these things).

aristotle
Jul 6, 2011, 09:24 PM
Heh, I bought the lady gaga album for 99 cents which gave me a free upgrade to the 20gb plan that day. Apparently I am getting the unlimited music storage upgrade as well. Sorry apple, but you lost this one.

I'm currently backing up ALL my own (self produced music) to the amazon cloud. And loving it. With 20gb left for documents and photos etc. while playing (streaming) playback to my ipad.

Just too nice, and the fan bois sing, doo dee doo boo hoo hee hoo hee hoo hee boo hee hoo

I'm looking at $20 for 2 years of unlimited music with no goofy re-downloading or whatever.
Good luck on using it outside of the US. Even if you are an American customer, you lose access to your music in the Amazon cloud as soon as you try to access it outside of the US.

If you never travel outside of the US then you might not care but it seems a little stupid don't you think?

rdlink
Jul 6, 2011, 09:40 PM
Agree!! and you don't need to wait it to load up to your iDevices, it's always there for you to listen on the street!! Cool thing is i can now stream my music from amazon thru airplay too :)

And in other news, tomorrow marks the end of yet another carrier's unlimited data plan. Good luck "on the street."

chiefpavvy
Jul 6, 2011, 09:40 PM
Good luck on using it outside of the US. Even if you are an American customer, you lose access to your music in the Amazon cloud as soon as you try to access it outside of the US.

If you never travel outside of the US then you might not care but it seems a little stupid don't you think?

Easily by-passed with a VPN which any traveler ought to have anyways.

chiefpavvy
Jul 6, 2011, 09:42 PM
Who cares, I use plex installed on my own server and can get my music from anywhere.

That's fine and dandy, but it relies on YOUR internet connection. I'd rather rely on S3's connection which is a bazillion times faster... :D :D

rdlink
Jul 6, 2011, 09:43 PM
I'm surprised not many have responded with this...

Google Music Beta?

I have 16,000 songs uploaded now. My entire music collection. Completely available anywhere. Completely free.

Granted, you have to buy the music (or steal it) from somewhere, but I'm someone who has my entire music collection ripped and hate the thought of needing to keep it backed up.

And Google stores this all on the cloud for me... for free.

The uploading happens behind the scenes. You just link your itunes library.

I honestly really really REALLY want to like iCloud. I love Apple products and all my computers are macs...

However, I have an Android phone and do love google products as well...

And so far, I can do everything that iCloud is GOING to offer (not even available yet) via my Android phone and google products. Everything. For absolutely nothing. Now, believe me, I really want to love iCloud. Can someone please convince me otherwise? I'm all ears. I'm really not a Google fan boy either, or Apple hater by any means

Yet to see a decent music player on any Android device (I've owned 4).

Vegasman
Jul 6, 2011, 09:43 PM
Laziness, cost-savings, to be platform-neutral... you pick one.

How about Apple wouldn't approve it?

Vegasman
Jul 6, 2011, 09:45 PM
We had tablets years ago.

It took Apple to do it right. You'll see the same with iCloud.

If there is one area that Apple has not proven they can "do it right", it is with cloud related functionality.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 6, 2011, 09:48 PM
We had tablets years ago.

It took Apple to do it right. You'll see the same with iCloud.

Umm the cloud has been done right for quite some time.

Dropbox works really well.
Google system works really well.

Apple iCloud from what I have seen on it offers nothing that is not already out there and working well.
Dropbox handles my files, Google handles everything else.
Top it off I have 7 gigs of free space currently on Drop box and it is growing. I more than likely will cross 10 gigs by the end of the year completely free as well.

Apple is not beating that.
Apple is not beating Amazon free services as well on Cloud drive. Google cloud music system will be cheaper and chances are will be free for a very long time to come up to a certain point.

neko girl
Jul 6, 2011, 10:02 PM
Who knows whether it is lossless when he hears it? What a comment that means little when played on most devices.
There's plenty of literature on the matter, I suggest you read it. Moreover, he's not talking about storing lossless on the cloud, necessarily, but just a simple way of converting it before it moves to the cloud. iCloud certainly has this feature, so does syncing to my iPhone or iPad.

Google Music doesn't support this feature, either.. and everything I purchased as CDs is not on Google Music as a result. There's also quite a few online purchases that are there as lossless in my library, also ignored by Google Music's sync service.

$20 for an incomplete cloud locker of music isn't anything I'd want to pay for.

It's an important feature, and iCloud supports it from the start.

charks
Jul 6, 2011, 10:15 PM
Personally I think this is awesome. I get a lot of music from Amazon. Its cheaper a lot of times than iTunes. $0.69 vs. $1.29. I'll take Amazon please. Amazon has also been doing DRM free music since the beginning, something I also have an appreciation for.

I like that I can keep all my Amazon.com purchased music "in the cloud" for free and not have to store them locally, if I don't want to.

There's a lot of hate in this thread and I'm not sure why.

Completely agree. I've yet to find an album cheaper through iTunes vs. Amazon. And as a previous poster mentioned...dead simple to download.

aristotle
Jul 6, 2011, 10:16 PM
Easily by-passed with a VPN which any traveler ought to have anyways.
LOL Thanks for the laugh. I needed that. The average consumer will not know enough to do that. If Apple is smart, they will allow iCloud subscription service from around the world like they do right now with iTunes purchases.
Umm the cloud has been done right for quite some time.

Dropbox works really well.
Google system works really well.

Apple iCloud from what I have seen on it offers nothing that is not already out there and working well.
Dropbox handles my files, Google handles everything else.
Top it off I have 7 gigs of free space currently on Drop box and it is growing. I more than likely will cross 10 gigs by the end of the year completely free as well.

Apple is not beating that.
Apple is not beating Amazon free services as well on Cloud drive. Google cloud music system will be cheaper and chances are will be free for a very long time to come up to a certain point.
Uh huh... right. Dropbox is a clumsy alternative to iDisk and Google's system is clumsy at best.

Don't get me wrong, I do use Gmail for filtering spam and I used Google calendar briefly but their service is not as great as you claim it to be. I also tried Dropbox but I never have actually used it.

Do you work for Google or something?

chiefpavvy
Jul 6, 2011, 10:21 PM
LOL Thanks for the laugh. I needed that. The average consumer will not know enough to do that. If Apple is smart, they will allow iCloud subscription service from around the world like they do right now with iTunes purchases.

Who knows? Did the content owners allow such a provision in their deal? Doesn't seem likely. They will most likely be restricted to USA like the others.

res1233
Jul 6, 2011, 10:36 PM
The trend in this thread seems to be to downvote anyone who naysays this new Amazon cloud offering, but here I go... On the go is when I often listen to my music, and usually that means you have to do it over 3G. This service would run up your data usage needlessly. Why should you use up twice the data to listen to the song twice? Does this make sense to anyone? Doesn't it make more sense to have the song download to your device for listening later? The only improvement Apple needs to make is to let you listen to your music while it downloads. Once that's in place, this service will no longer make any sense. I can see this as a very likely change in the near future.

*LTD*
Jul 6, 2011, 10:53 PM
Umm the cloud has been done right for quite some time.

Dropbox works really well.
Google system works really well.

Apple iCloud from what I have seen on it offers nothing that is not already out there and working well.
Dropbox handles my files, Google handles everything else.
Top it off I have 7 gigs of free space currently on Drop box and it is growing. I more than likely will cross 10 gigs by the end of the year completely free as well.

Apple is not beating that.
Apple is not beating Amazon free services as well on Cloud drive. Google cloud music system will be cheaper and chances are will be free for a very long time to come up to a certain point.

Owning the whole widget is an auto-win for Apple in this case. It usually is.

iCloud is fully integrated into iOS 5 and Lion. THAT is the major selling point. That undergirds all of iCloud. The fact that it's made for and integral to the iPad is absolutely huge.

Seperate, outside surface tech can't beat that.

Rodimus Prime
Jul 6, 2011, 10:55 PM
Owing the whole widget is an auto-win for Apple in this case. It usually is.

iCloud is fully integrated into iOS 5 and Lion. THAT is the major selling point. That undergirds all of iCloud. The fact that it's made for and integral to the iPad is absolutely huge.

Seperate, outside surface tech can't beat that.

so only works fully on less than 7% of computers out there... Compare that to drop box that works on 100% of computers.
So much for being a game changer when how it works is so limited.

PCClone
Jul 6, 2011, 10:56 PM
[QUOTE=bushido;12891451]AWESOME, this is actually pretty neat as apple doesnt really understand what cloud access to music means. redownloads of ur music from the store r fine but pointless as they fill up ur iphone space just as much as synching the music in the first

R u serus? Can't tell 4 sure what u r trying to saa.

chiefpavvy
Jul 6, 2011, 11:02 PM
Owing the whole widget is an auto-win for Apple in this case. It usually is.

iCloud is fully integrated into iOS 5 and Lion. THAT is the major selling point. That undergirds all of iCloud. The fact that it's made for and integral to the iPad is absolutely huge.

Seperate, outside surface tech can't beat that.

I agree on the integration, I think iCloud will be great. Not necessarily too stunning at launch but it will improve no doubt.

That said, MobileMe has generally been agreed upon as a disaster any way you slice it and it had a lot of iOS integration as well...

res1233
Jul 6, 2011, 11:11 PM
AWESOME, this is actually pretty neat as apple doesnt really understand what cloud access to music means. redownloads of ur music from the store r fine but pointless as they fill up ur iphone space just as much as synching the music in the first

R u serus? Can't tell 4 sure what u r trying to saa.

I think we're just as unsure about what you're trying to saa[sic].

silentnite
Jul 6, 2011, 11:20 PM
Nice try Amazon but no thank you. I tried to download a MP3 from Amazon a few times it took forever. I gave up.:eek:

twoodcc
Jul 6, 2011, 11:33 PM
well competition is a good thing. i'm not all about the cloud stuff for my music, but i'm sure many people are

aristotle
Jul 7, 2011, 12:24 AM
so only works fully on less than 7% of computers out there... Compare that to drop box that works on 100% of computers.
So much for being a game changer when how it works is so limited.
Enough with the trolling. It also works on 90%+ of all tablets out there as well.

You are so transparent.

citi
Jul 7, 2011, 01:41 AM
LOL Thanks for the laugh. I needed that. The average consumer will not know enough to do that. If Apple is smart, they will allow iCloud subscription service from around the world like they do right now with iTunes purchases.

Uh huh... right. Dropbox is a clumsy alternative to iDisk and Google's system is clumsy at best.

Don't get me wrong, I do use Gmail for filtering spam and I used Google calendar briefly but their service is not as great as you claim it to be. I also tried Dropbox but I never have actually used it.

Do you work for Google or something?

User error. Dropbox is the simplest thing you could ever use. Google calendar syncs with everything, and has exchange support. What else do you need?

stevensr123
Jul 7, 2011, 02:17 AM
I'm loving all these bitter fanboys on this thread :rolleyes:

how about you admit the fact this seems like a really good alternative to icloud, offering features that icloud don't offer etc instead of saying amazon are pathetic and are only doing this because apple are releasing icloud.

the only ones saying they are doing this because of apple, is apple fanboys who think the whole world resolves around apple and everything the competition are doing, is because of apple :rolleyes:

res1233
Jul 7, 2011, 02:51 AM
I'm loving all these bitter fanboys on this thread :rolleyes:

how about you admit the fact this seems like a really good alternative to icloud, offering features that icloud don't offer etc instead of saying amazon are pathetic and are only doing this because apple are releasing icloud.

the only ones saying they are doing this because of apple, is apple fanboys who think the whole world resolves around apple and everything the competition are doing, is because of apple :rolleyes:

Or how about admitting that streaming is a poor substitute for a local copy because it means you have to waste your bandwidth on redownloading the song every single time you want to listen to it? Personally, I'd rather use my precious megabytes on the occasional Netflix movie rather than on my music. iTunes provides local copies of all your music, so you don't have to constantly contact the cloud. I really don't see why anyone would want to switch to this service. It isn't better than iTunes. It just isn't.

Before anyone says it, Movie streaming is a whole different beast. Movies take up far too much room for local copies of them to make a whole lot of sense. You could fill up a 32GB iPhone in very little time if you start putting your favorite movies on it. Not so with music. Local storage is usually sufficient for all your "favorite" music. With that said, Apple should offer streaming from iTunes at some point so that we can have the option. I can see it being a reality in the very near future. Even a 32GB iPhone or a 64GB iPad can run out of space with some people's libraries, so it would be nice to have streaming to fall back on when they do.

macsmurf
Jul 7, 2011, 03:01 AM
You are ignorant of the real history.

Amazon announced their "cloud" service in August 2006 - quite some time before the Iphone was announced.

I'd say that Apple is the one running the copying machines here, except that "cloud" has long been a generic term.

Yep. These days "cloud" doesn't really mean anything more than: "It's on the internet". :)

iCloud seems to be a syncing service for OS X. That's a nice feature. I'm not sure what it has to do with cloud computing, though.

the8thark
Jul 7, 2011, 03:19 AM
We had tablets years ago.

It took Apple to do it right. You'll see the same with iCloud.
This is a very good point. It takes years but Apple eventually do it right. Some of the other competitors spend the same number of years and never end up doing it right. Better take your time and get it right then never get it right at all.

stevensr123
Jul 7, 2011, 04:00 AM
Or how about admitting that streaming is a poor substitute for a local copy because it means you have to waste your bandwidth on redownloading the song every single time you want to listen to it? Personally, I'd rather use my precious megabytes on the occasional Netflix movie rather than on my music. iTunes provides local copies of all your music, so you don't have to constantly contact the cloud. I really don't see why anyone would want to switch to this service. It isn't better than iTunes. It just isn't.

Before anyone says it, Movie streaming is a whole different beast. Movies take up far too much room for local copies of them to make a whole lot of sense. You could fill up a 32GB iPhone in very little time if you start putting your favorite movies on it. Not so with music. Local storage is usually sufficient for all your "favorite" music. With that said, Apple should offer streaming from iTunes at some point so that we can have the option. I can see it being a reality in the very near future. Even a 32GB iPhone or a 64GB iPad can run out of space with some people's libraries, so it would be nice to have streaming to fall back on when they do.

you know it takes usage to use icloud as well you know?unless your gonna listen to song XXXX continuously on repeat or very often, there is no benefit for not streaming. also when you download music from icloud, is it temporary? or do you have to manually delete the song after you finished?


and why isn't it better? this amazon cloud allows you to listen to songs on multiple devices, your mobile, your ipad, your android, your computer, your laptop, meaning you get the ability to use it on many of your devices regardless of if it's IOS/osx, or not.

plus unlimited storage for all of your music? now that is winning#

Prallethrin
Jul 7, 2011, 06:48 AM
Got to love competition.

But the unlimited storage is "limited time" only. I take it Amazon can't really afford it if everyone wants unlimited space for music. LOL

iTunes Match is unlimited forever - as long as your song is sold by iTunes that is.

Nevertheless, I look forward to iCloud, it's going to be a serious part of Apple's ecosystem.
Both 3rd party and Apple's 1st party apps are going to be leveraging it for document "distribution", it's more than just music.

dr Dunkel
Jul 7, 2011, 07:05 AM
Like all eco systems, it is voulnerable to external influence. Apple is like Australia.

mwpeters8182
Jul 7, 2011, 07:16 AM
Uh huh... right. Dropbox is a clumsy alternative to iDisk and Google's system is clumsy at best.


If Dropbox has anything going for it, is that it falls into the category of "It just works." I've never heard anyone refer to Dropbox as clumsy. If anything, it's the opposite - I always want to have a little more control over what I do/don't sync, rather than just have the one big "My Dropbox" folder. I tried SpiderOak and Windows Live Mesh for a while, but I ended up going back using DropBox because it just works, without any fuss.

Sometimes people need to take off the Apple blinders around here...

Prallethrin
Jul 7, 2011, 07:41 AM
I've never heard anyone refer to Dropbox as clumsy.

Well, I will be your first. :p

Make a small change in a file that's in Dropbox, Dropbox re-uploads the whole damn file. :mad:

Now I don't know if iCloud is going to be any difference, but I sure hope so, because re-uploading files for every little change is utterly retarded.

riverfreak
Jul 7, 2011, 08:52 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_8 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E401 Safari/6533.18.5)


Uh huh... right. Dropbox is a clumsy alternative to iDisk and Google's system is clumsy at best.


If Dropbox has anything going for it, is that it falls into the category of "It just works." I've never heard anyone refer to Dropbox as clumsy. If anything, it's the opposite - I always want to have a little more control over what I do/don't sync, rather than just have the one big "My Dropbox" folder. I tried SpiderOak and Windows Live Mesh for a while, but I ended up going back using DropBox because it just works, without any fuss.

Sometimes people need to take off the Apple blinders around here...

Agreed. Dropbox is a stellar and indispensable service. To call it clumsy is bizarre.

milo
Jul 7, 2011, 08:53 AM
Limited time? Sounds like how the phone companies all started with unlimited data plans but later capped them.

This looks like a good deal, but Amazon is going to cut people off since it's unsustainable. I doubt Amazon will make money on the guys who pay $20 and uploads a few hundred gigs of pirated mp3s. Like many other Amazon offers, they'll take the loss for a while then walk it back.

riverfreak
Jul 7, 2011, 08:55 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_8 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E401 Safari/6533.18.5)

Limited time? Sounds like how the phone companies all started with unlimited data plans but later capped them.

This looks like a good deal, but Amazon is going to cut people off since it's unsustainable. I doubt Amazon will make money on the guys who pay $20 and uploads a few hundred gigs of pirated mp3s. Like many other Amazon offers, they'll take the loss for a while then walk it back.

Right. Or they'll collect stats on those uploaders and send the list to the RIAA/FBI for full prosecution. I think pirating music is punishable by death now in the US.

maclaptop
Jul 7, 2011, 09:25 AM
AWESOME, this is actually pretty neat as apple doesnt really understand what cloud access to music means. redownloads of ur music from the store r fine but pointless as they fill up ur iphone space just as much as synching the music in the first place
So true, Apple is rather clueless when it comes to many things.

But where they shine is in their ability to spin the words, spin the truth, and spin the story line to get their followers to believe them. Apple is nothing if not a brilliant marketing machine.

All one has to do is read the posts in this forum to see that the average user, hangs on Steve Jobs every word with breathless anticipation and reverence. They dote on him like he's been sent from heaven to cradle them and keep them safe.

Apple has become a smoke and mirrors company, and the public eats it up.

Just like David Copperfield and other Illusionists... at least half of Apples success is based on smoke and mirrors trickery.

In addition, it's this kind of "Magic" that really appeals to their female customers and kids. They just love this stuff.

So, in the final analysis, it doesn't matter what the real story is, or what the iToys like pads, pods & phones do, but rather how "cool they are are".

Currently nothing is quite as cool as the cloud.

neko girl
Jul 7, 2011, 09:31 AM
so only works fully on less than 7% of computers out there...
Considering that you are on MacRumors, it's much, much higher than 7% around these parts.

Also, Dropbox has a completely separate purpose from iCloud. Good luck finding anywhere close to a cheap solution when storing on Dropbox, for example. Dropbox will be your iDisk replacement, but not any sort of music cloud locker solution (unless you don't have a lot of music, and you enjoy clicking on individual MP3s to listen to them).

Rodimus Prime
Jul 7, 2011, 10:08 AM
Considering that you are on MacRumors, it's much, much higher than 7% around these parts.

Also, Dropbox has a completely separate purpose from iCloud. Good luck finding anywhere close to a cheap solution when storing on Dropbox, for example. Dropbox will be your iDisk replacement, but not any sort of music cloud locker solution (unless you don't have a lot of music, and you enjoy clicking on individual MP3s to listen to them).

Your right that Drop box is not a music storage system. I do not have to waste my limited free space to store music. Instead I can use another FREE system that works really well to stream music that I want to.

This compared to Apple where you have to pay for that privileged to do that. As for an easy system to handle music you have Amazon cloud which you can have it pull the your iTunes play list and upload songs based on that. Or use Google music which can track your iTunes playlist as changes are made and upload and changed your online playlist again based on those changes. A very simple system. Both are free.

Now Apple system you have to pay money for and from what I have seen it is still fairly limited on what it can be played on.

Back to the original point my entire response was because of *LTD* remark of "Apples will be the first to get it right." I was pointing out getting it right means only working completely for less than 7% (chances are less than 5%) when you start adding in all the system it needs to tie in to. To fully work you can only be in the Apple world. Have something that runs outside of that (windows, another phone ect) it does not just work. A good system can not be tied to a single OS or company but work on everything.

Dropbox works on all the major platforms out there. Amazons Cloud player the same thing. I am willing to bet Google Music will get on to WP7 and iPhone at some point in the future. iCloud on the other hand will never leave Apple devices.

aristotle
Jul 7, 2011, 12:06 PM
User error. Dropbox is the simplest thing you could ever use. Google calendar syncs with everything, and has exchange support. What else do you need?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Do you suffer from Asperger's

I'm being rude to you because you were rude to me. User error would imply that I did not know how to use it. I use google mail through IMAP on my iOS devices and in mail app daily but again, I have no other use for it other than with activities that might generate a lot of unwanted spam. It is the account that I give out if I'm not certain as to how a site will use my email address.
I refuse to use their web mail interface.

Dropbox is fine but I really have no use for it. I don't even use iDisk very often either. I find dropbox to be clumsily implemented. It is basically a synced watch folder instead of a mounted drive like iDisk which I prefer.

I write software for a living and I have been writing software on the windows platform for over a decade. So what do you do for a living?

As for the exchange emulation, I found it be error prone with weird artifacts in the calendars so I had to switch to CalDav on my iPhone. The email addresses were malformed in exchange mode for the attendees for meetings. I stopped using calendar sync after being told to stop it but it was convenient to have my team daily meetings show up on my iphone.

PS. I've also tried the Live Mesh/sky drive from MSFT but it is also a watch folder scheme like Dropbox. It raises some security concerns that another system could have access to my HD storage.

someone28624
Jul 7, 2011, 12:41 PM
This is awesome news. I'm going to get to have my music all in the cloud somewhere, and streamable to my device? Best news all day.

jprocha
Jul 7, 2011, 02:06 PM
The trend in this thread seems to be to downvote anyone who naysays this new Amazon cloud offering, but here I go... On the go is when I often listen to my music, and usually that means you have to do it over 3G. This service would run up your data usage needlessly. Why should you use up twice the data to listen to the song twice? Does this make sense to anyone? Doesn't it make more sense to have the song download to your device for listening later? The only improvement Apple needs to make is to let you listen to your music while it downloads. Once that's in place, this service will no longer make any sense. I can see this as a very likely change in the near future.

You can still have a copy of your music on your device. The biggest advantage of Amazon's cloud player it the ability to listen to it through a web browser on any computer. That's what iTunes should work on improving. I should be able to log into my name and play my entire iTunes library from where ever I am, on any browser. :cool:

Sackvillenb
Jul 7, 2011, 03:14 PM
Not bad. Cloud-based streaming of lots of media isn't a very good option in my area though, because although I can get great speeds, our bandwidth caps are low and very expensive... so data (through DSL and cable, let alone 3G) costs lots and lots of money... boo-urns...

But, in places with a more progressive telecommunications industry (and with more competitive markets), this should be pretty decent.

mdelvecchio
Jul 7, 2011, 03:23 PM
I'm looking at $20 for 2 years of unlimited music with no goofy re-downloading or whatever.

try it in the subway and get back to us. or while flying. then youll understand why syncing your music offers more value than streaming (renting) your music to some of us, and thats who apple is catering to with this service.

MJedi
Jul 7, 2011, 05:26 PM
Free storage of all Amazon MP3 Store purchases: Most applicable for those users opting to stick with the free 5 GB plan, Amazon will now store all past and future Amazon MP3 Store purchases free of charge and without counting toward the 5 GB limit. The feature had previously been limited to purchases made since the debut of Cloud Drive and Cloud Player.

I don't see any of the songs I had purchased before the launch of Cloud Player. I assume this is slowly being rolled out to their customers.

E3BK
Jul 15, 2011, 01:21 PM
Personally I think this is awesome. I get a lot of music from Amazon. Its cheaper a lot of times than iTunes. $0.69 vs. $1.29. I'll take Amazon please. Amazon has also been doing DRM free music since the beginning, something I also have an appreciation for.

I like that I can keep all my Amazon.com purchased music "in the cloud" for free and not have to store them locally, if I don't want to.

There's a lot of hate in this thread and I'm not sure why.

+1 on the Amazon cloud. I have no idea what the iCloud service will be like (though I'd really like to know what is going to happen to my iDisk that I store a lot of files on??) but between Amazon & Google's music services, Amazon wins hands down. Upgraded to unlimited for an album download and just realized you can download your music that is in the cloud to another device if you want/need. That's cool. The iPad player works pretty well. Better than Google Music, for now. I'm sure Google Music will improve.

I also prefer the Amazon MP3s since they are DRM free vs iTunes DRM. Someone was saying how they didn't like having to install something but it's just 2 clicks and it adds to your iTunes library automatically. The sound quality is fine. Most won't notice.

My other concern w/ iCloud is song recognition. iTunes doesn't recognize a lot of my music for Genius, how can I expect it to recognize it for iTunes Match?

I'm dying to try Spotify though. I hear it is better than all of them.

neko girl
Jul 16, 2011, 08:03 PM
I was pointing out getting it right means only working completely for less than 7% (chances are less than 5%) when you start adding in all the system it needs to tie in to.
Once again you are having trouble with numbers. Specifically:

Market share of iPods is not anywhere close to 7%. Apple is THE dominant player in this market. Growth of iOS-based iPods (read: iCloud compatible iPods) is vastly outpacing growth of non-iOS based iPods.
iTunes in Windows was mentioned as being compatible, so I'm not sure what your 7% means. This covers personal computers > 95% (I am guessing).