PDA

View Full Version : Apple's Discontinuation of Lala Streaming Music Service Not Likely Leading to Imminent Launch of Web-Focused iTunes




MacRumors
Apr 30, 2010, 02:19 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/30/apples-discontinuation-of-lala-streaming-music-service-not-likely-leading-to-imminent-launch-of-web-focused-itunes/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/04/30/151904-itunes_everywhere.jpg

With today's news that Apple is planning a May 31st shutdown (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/30/apple-acquired-lala-music-service-to-shut-down-may-31st/) for Lala Media, the streaming music service it acquired last December, speculation has arisen that Apple may be on the verge of launching its own cloud-based (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/19/apple-tapping-lala-media-team-for-cloud-based-itunes/) version of iTunes. MediaMemo reports (http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20100430/waiting-for-itunes-com-dont-hold-your-breath/), however, that industry sources are indicating that such a move would have to occur a bit further down the road.Sources tell me that in the past few weeks, Apple has started signaling to the labels that it's interested in a Web-based version of iTunes, its dominant music retail platform. But those conversations are preliminary at best.The music industry has reportedly rejected Apple's earlier proposals for a cloud-based iTunes, claiming that offering users the ability to stream a single purchased track to multiple devices should require the labels to receive greater revenue than they do under the current system, a position Apple and its customers would generally not be likely to accept.

The report notes that Apple could try to argue that users have the legal right to stream their purchased content to their own devices as they see fit, but such a move would antagonize the record labels and also likely hamper Apple's efforts to expand its content deals in other media segments such as television networks.

Article Link: Apple's Discontinuation of Lala Streaming Music Service Not Likely Leading to Imminent Launch of Web-Focused iTunes (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/30/apples-discontinuation-of-lala-streaming-music-service-not-likely-leading-to-imminent-launch-of-web-focused-itunes/)



elppa
Apr 30, 2010, 02:24 PM
The music industry is quite happy to give favourable terms to services like Spotify (which, by the way, they make even less money from), but if Apple wants a cloud based iTunes they stick up barriers.

the-oz-man
Apr 30, 2010, 02:26 PM
Is it too much to ask that I own my music AND stream it however I want to? I can do something like that right now thanks to some creative home server products. Apple would just make it work more easily for me.

PandaOnslaught
Apr 30, 2010, 02:27 PM
I dont see how this is a good thing, from the sounds of it, nabster 5.0, you pay to stream content, and dont get to store it? or you can store it also, if its the ladder, yes its cool but if its stream only and you pay to be able to listen, then whats the point, you can just go on youtube or myspace to listen to it, i think this is a really lame decision.

TheSlush
Apr 30, 2010, 02:30 PM
If the music industry perceives any opportunity to sell the same product to the same customer multiple times, they will fight to protect it. :mad:

Dagless
Apr 30, 2010, 02:30 PM
Didn't Apple used to have a browser based do-hicky? I'm sure I remember course mates streaming music from one computer to another through Safari.

ddrueckhammer
Apr 30, 2010, 02:31 PM
If Apple limits the number of devices you can stream to, I don't see a problem. One can already stream iTunes music in the home via home sharing. What is the problem with being able to stream it to your devices over the internet? The labels apparently didn't have a problem with Microsoft allowing Zune users to stream to each other in a limited area.

If the RIAA and labels keep blocking Apple's plans, maybe they should start striking up some conversations with artists behind the scenes to directly distribute their content once their contracts are up. How many artists would like to keep more than the paltry 7% the labels give them, especially if Apple would help with tour costs and advertising. At first, Apple would lose a ton of iTMS business but another way to look at it is that they would gain exclusive access to some of the biggest artists.

SirOmega
Apr 30, 2010, 02:33 PM
The only way to fix this garbage heap of a situation with the labels and apple (and everyone else) is compulsory licensing. Thats the only way to take the labels and their heel-dragging, head-up-their-ass approach out of innovation.

marc.cizravi
Apr 30, 2010, 02:33 PM
The music industry has reportedly rejected Apple's earlier proposals for a cloud-based iTunes, claiming that offering users the ability to stream a single purchased track to multiple devices should require the labels to receive greater revenue than they do under the current system, a position Apple and its customers would generally not be likely to accept.


Someone want to clarify the reasoning here?

I pay 99 cents to own the song, but have to pay more if I decide to stream it to my ipod, iphone, ipad, or foreign computer when I'm away from my home computer?

Stetrain
Apr 30, 2010, 02:34 PM
This seems like something that Apple would want to announce during its fall media event anyway.

dashiel
Apr 30, 2010, 02:40 PM
i really would have thought more than a decade on from napster the music companies would have shifted enough of their baby-boomer upper management drones out the door to prevent such short-sighted decisions. the only thing i can come up with is they know their industry is dead and those at the top are trying to squeeze the last few dimes out of the corpse before the industry decentralizes completely.

sassenach74
Apr 30, 2010, 02:40 PM
This is an example of how not to use commas.

So what? You've added zero to the thread.

I see the record labels are being greedy, no surprise there. I like the earlier suggestion of Apple having talks with the artists directly.

alexhasfun28
Apr 30, 2010, 02:42 PM
How about a regular iTunes September like launch like every other iTunes update every year. Not during a WWDC? If that's what some people are trying to say..

Googlyhead
Apr 30, 2010, 02:49 PM
Huh? They want me to pay more for what??

If I've already purchased a song, why on earth should I be forced to pay more simply to listen to it? Bleeding a stone dry!

optophobia
Apr 30, 2010, 02:49 PM
So what? You've added zero to the thread.

I see the record labels are being greedy, no surprise there. I like the earlier suggestion of Apple having talks with the artists directly.

Unlike Apple who only takes 30% of music sales :eek:....

Icaras
Apr 30, 2010, 02:51 PM
This is an example of how not to use commas.

I felt like I was in gridlock traffic reading that :D

paul4339
Apr 30, 2010, 02:52 PM
"... it's interested in a Web-based version of iTunes ..."

Yes, get rid of the current clunky iTunes client (or at least create an alternative web version).

(just make sure you don't create the iTunes web version in flash).

P.

Llywen
Apr 30, 2010, 02:53 PM
So what? You've added zero to the thread.

But lots of goodwill from all us who have to read this user's posts in future threads!

SubtltzSir
Apr 30, 2010, 03:07 PM
Whew. I'm glad it's way off (if ever) after reading this.

I originally suspected that the anonymous send of my entire iTunes library to them via Genius was for some nefarious purpose - like estimating how much disk space they'd need at their new data centre under construction to store all of my music and then charge me access fees to have on any of my computers/devices, anytime, anywhere.

No, that would make no sense. Now, back to my 30 hour sync to fit my 11k songs onto my 60G ipod at 128AAC.

ddrueckhammer
Apr 30, 2010, 03:10 PM
Unlike Apple who only takes 30% of music sales :eek:....

And incur all the costs and efforts required to sell it (bandwidth, storage, customer support, transaction costs etc.). What exactly do the labels do?

crees!
Apr 30, 2010, 03:13 PM
The report notes that Apple could try to argue that users have the legal right to stream their purchased content to their own devices as they see fit, but such a move would antagonize the record labels...

So I purchase a physical CD/single and I own a DVD player, home stereo and car stereo. The record companies then state I can only play it on one and only one of those devices, and if I want to play it on more then I have to pay more for that privilege? Let's put this in perspective here.

Nebulance
Apr 30, 2010, 03:14 PM
Someone want to clarify the reasoning here?

I pay 99 cents to own the song, but have to pay more if I decide to stream it to my ipod, iphone, ipad, or foreign computer when I'm away from my home computer?

yeah, it's retarded.

Then, by the same logic, aren't the CDs we burn for our own backup purposes, or even storage on a backup hard drive considered stealing -- we're <duplicating> the music, right? But, apparently, it's OK to back things up, but not OK to access it in various places, despite our purchasing of the music in the first place, way back when.

eme jota ce
Apr 30, 2010, 03:19 PM
I'd like to see Apple offer something similar to the Rhapsody service, but with better 3G support.

macffooky
Apr 30, 2010, 03:24 PM
I'm sure this is not unrelated to the demise of Simplify which allowed you to stream your (and others') iTunes library from your PC/Mac to your iPhone.

Becordial
Apr 30, 2010, 03:25 PM
So a licence to listen to music in certain ways (because that is exactly what streaming will be treated as) will cost more then it does now?

They just don't get it.

Rocketman
Apr 30, 2010, 03:28 PM
One thing we do know, is Apple has said how they think it ought to be. It is now simply a matter of time when Apple has sufficient market share or consumer feedback to press it onto license holders.

The license holders are too short sighted to realize convenience is what used to sell vinyl to teenagers, and convenience is what is going to sell content to consumer device users.

Rocketman

Jaro65
Apr 30, 2010, 03:29 PM
I'd like to see Apple offer something similar to the Rhapsody service, but with better 3G support.

I'm hoping that is exactly why they bought Lala.

e-coli
Apr 30, 2010, 03:30 PM
Dear recording industry,
I will never, and I mean never, pay extra money for the privilege of listening to the music I've already purchased just because I choose to listen to it in a different manner.

Besides, there are already plenty of ways to do this already...for free.

Please update your Jurassic business model.

RalfTheDog
Apr 30, 2010, 03:35 PM
So a licence to listen to music in certain ways (because that is exactly what streaming will be treated as) will cost more then it does now?

They just don't get it.

The way I read it, you can download from your computer to your iPod or Apple TV just as you do now for free. If you have a song on your computer in NYC and you want to listen to it in LA (or just down the street) you can stream it from Apple servers even if it is not downloaded to your device.

This is to give you access to music or movies you own, but you don't have with you.

What you can now do for free, you will be able to do for free. If you want to do extra stuff, the record labels will make Apple charge more.

louis Fashion
Apr 30, 2010, 03:44 PM
I saw a guy at Starbucks yesterday, he had this cool device that could play a CD. I don't think I have seen any of these thingies in stores yet. I was going to ask him where he got it, but he looked kinda scary..

Good idea though, pay for the CD and that's it, no music industry trolls attempting to get you to pay five times for the same song.

irahodges
Apr 30, 2010, 03:45 PM
The way I read it, you can download from your computer to your iPod or Apple TV just as you do now for free. If you have a song on your computer in NYC and you want to listen to it in LA (or just down the street) you can stream it from Apple servers even if it is not downloaded to your device.

This is to give you access to music or movies you own, but you don't have with you.

What you can now do for free, you will be able to do for free. If you want to do extra stuff, the record labels will make Apple charge more.

What do you consider the extra stuff? Is streaming the song you don't have with you "extra"? I believe the majority of people that commented, including me, are saying that is unacceptable.

dba7dba
Apr 30, 2010, 03:51 PM
I can see how apple might be interested in this. Just think of the service request calls they get from customers because their HD is FULL, and most of the time it's because of iTunes.

Big Kahuna
Apr 30, 2010, 03:51 PM
"This is gonna replace CD's soon; guess I'll have to buy the White Album again."

Agent K - Men in Black :cool:

louis Fashion
Apr 30, 2010, 03:54 PM
"This is gonna replace CD's soon; guess I'll have to buy the White Album again."

Agent K - Men in Black :cool:

LOL - I still have a turn table and record albums!

BJMRamage
Apr 30, 2010, 03:56 PM
PulpTunes does this already.....for FREE


I can turn on iTunes/PulpTunes and leave my computer connected. BOOM! i type in an address and I can listen to ALL of my music!

and even DL it if i want on the other machine.

PULPTUNES
www.pultunes.com


awesome.

shervieux
Apr 30, 2010, 04:02 PM
This is the greed of the music industry (although I have friends who are musicians and they disagree with me). To them, they only rent us the music, meaning if our original CD, Tape, whatever is destroyed we are to buy another one; not have a backup of it.

the record labels also want performance fees - ie, anytime a song is played on the radio, TV, used in a Movie, used in a sountrack, or even a 30 sec sampling. If the law goes through, then this will shut down many radio stations and music retailers (both retail and web), as they could not afford the costs.

There used to be a time when musicians loved that a radio station would play their music as it meant exposure and lead to concert deals and records sales. Now, they want to charge the radio stations for that.

Many radio stations are already saying if the cost is too high, they will not play songs from certain record labels, or they will shut down. Especially if they are listener supported rather than support through ads and sponsors.

williedigital
Apr 30, 2010, 04:10 PM
Music will soon be free. With the amount of overlap in US taste, I bet you can fit 50% of people's total itunes library on a 1tb drive, 75% on a 2tb, and 90% on a 4tb. At the typical rate of hard drive capacity increases, the whole internet trading of music will go away. It will be simply "oh, you bought a new hard drive? let me copy you meta itunes library v 1.41. You can take it home in an hour." The horse is out of the bard on this one, so labels are looking for any way to get people to pay for convenience (mobile streaming) or other added value (genius picking).

theneweyes
Apr 30, 2010, 04:24 PM
This is the greed of the music industry (although I have friends who are musicians and they disagree with me). To them, they only rent us the music, meaning if our original CD, Tape, whatever is destroyed we are to buy another one; not have a backup of it.

the record labels also want performance fees - ie, anytime a song is played on the radio, TV, used in a Movie, used in a sountrack, or even a 30 sec sampling. If the law goes through, then this will shut down many radio stations and music retailers (both retail and web), as they could not afford the costs.

There used to be a time when musicians loved that a radio station would play their music as it meant exposure and lead to concert deals and records sales. Now, they want to charge the radio stations for that.

Many radio stations are already saying if the cost is too high, they will not play songs from certain record labels, or they will shut down. Especially if they are listener supported rather than support through ads and sponsors.

Save for the few bestselling artists, most musicians you listen to don't make any money. Times are a-changin'

Eduardo1971
Apr 30, 2010, 04:36 PM
For second after reading the headline I thoughtr "Wow! Apple is bringing straming audio to iTunes!"

Imagine my disappointment when I realized this was not the case.

casik
Apr 30, 2010, 04:41 PM
BAH I don't understand why hardly anyone sees the way this will work efficiently! You won't be syncing your actual music files to their servers, but instead upload something that shows them what files you have purchased and will only display those files in your "online" iTunes library. I don't think they will give you the ability to listen to files NOT purchased off iTunes (in typical Apple fashion). This way you are only uploading small XML files or whatever and not a 250gb+ library from your computer.

All I can say is record labels DO get in the way of technological advancement.

Mac-Michael
Apr 30, 2010, 04:58 PM
Whoever supplies the hardware to the record industries should make them pay every time they use it. Make 'em pay when they turn on their phone or restart a computer. Damn greedy bastards.

*LTD*
Apr 30, 2010, 05:01 PM
One thing we do know, is Apple has said how they think it ought to be. It is now simply a matter of time when Apple has sufficient market share or consumer feedback to press it onto license holders.

The license holders are too short sighted to realize convenience is what used to sell vinyl to teenagers, and convenience is what is going to sell content to consumer device users.

Rocketman

You nailed it.

muskratboy
Apr 30, 2010, 05:11 PM
claiming that offering users the ability to stream a single purchased track to multiple devices should require the labels to receive greater revenue than they do under the current system

god, how i hate them.

the sooner we can put a knife into their kind of "service", the better.

muskratboy
Apr 30, 2010, 05:13 PM
Save for the few bestselling artists, most musicians you listen to don't make any money.

this is outright not true.

i guess it depends on what "any money" means.

many, many, many bands i listen to make a living doing nothing but being bands.

heck, many LOCAL bands make a living being in a band.

rich, they aren't. but it's a living.

muskratboy
Apr 30, 2010, 05:16 PM
The horse is out of the bard on this one

and i'm sure the bard is very, very happy about that. :p

fifthworld
Apr 30, 2010, 05:16 PM
I don't want to own music anymore. I just want to pay for the right to listen to a stream of it. Pay once to stream forever a song, or pay every time I listen to a song will be fine. Whatever. I don't care, I already spent to much money on these silly LPs, tapes, CDs, SACDs, AACs, etc. Lala, with its 10 to listen to a stream of a song forever, was very close to my ideal of a modern business distributing music. iTunes, Amazon, and all those business selling music that I have to download and store on my device are like prehistoric dinosaurs.

BJWanlund
Apr 30, 2010, 05:22 PM
The only way to fix this garbage heap of a situation with the labels and apple (and everyone else) is compulsory licensing. Thats the only way to take the labels and their heel-dragging, head-up-their-ass approach out of innovation.
Amen to that. I wish they'd just do that, and then they have license to do basically whatever they want, they basically have to get approval on everything (which they do anyway) but the compulsory licensing agreement would make the label discussions take MUCH less time than they (assumedly) already do.

Someone want to clarify the reasoning here?

I pay 99 cents to own the song, but have to pay more if I decide to stream it to my ipod, iphone, ipad, or foreign computer when I'm away from my home computer?
Actually, it's $1.29 for 99.99% of iTunes tracks now, but yeah, if the price goes up even more, it's curtains for the RIAA's still-recovering music sales.

So a licence to listen to music in certain ways (because that is exactly what streaming will be treated as) will cost more then it does now?

They just don't get it.

No, they don't. Neither do TV and movie studios, and anyone else who is dragging their feet on iTunes's incredible innovations. I'm not saying that iTunes is necessarily perfect as is.

But seriously, a Cocoa rewrite is badly needed for iTunes, which may be why they will be doing an iTunes release during WWDC, basically saying something to the effect of, "Hey, we completely rewrote iTunes in Cocoa, reducing filesizes and the spaghetti mess of code structures in the process, along with using better cross-platform coding methods to reduce feature and platform disparity, and less time spent on cross-platform coding. Here's some great new tools, let's see what YOU do with it" or something like that.

They wouldn't release a new iTunes during WWDC unless it was important to some kind of improvement in Macintosh/iPhone/iPod touch/iPad development. And yes, I used ALL of those to illustrate that maybe, with the consolidation of all the ADC memberships into one Mac Developer Program (and possibly a consolidation of the now 2 Developer Programs), that we will see great strides in development for ALL flavors of OS X.

BJ

strawmanruss
Apr 30, 2010, 05:40 PM
Because if I buy a CD, I should pay for every device in which I wish to play the disc, ne?

shervieux
Apr 30, 2010, 05:43 PM
Save for the few bestselling artists, most musicians you listen to don't make any money. Times are a-changin'

ok, let me change that to "This is the greed of the record labels". you're right, that is why most musicians are firing their managers and record labels. the musicians themselves are lucky if they see 5% to 10% of the money.

Most I know are now independent. they go to a minor recording studio, or have a recording studio in their home. burn their own CD's and sell them at performance or their own websites. plus they network with other musicians and put up websites that offer multiple artists.

Eric S.
Apr 30, 2010, 06:40 PM
the record labels also want performance fees - ie, anytime a song is played on the radio, TV, used in a Movie, used in a sountrack, or even a 30 sec sampling. If the law goes through, then this will shut down many radio stations and music retailers (both retail and web), as they could not afford the costs.

There used to be a time when musicians loved that a radio station would play their music as it meant exposure and lead to concert deals and records sales. Now, they want to charge the radio stations for that.

I thought they already got that. Don't radio stations have to keep count of the number of times they play songs and pay royalties to the record companies?

There are certainly costs for using songs on TV and in movies, potentially huge costs for popular artists.

Googlyhead
Apr 30, 2010, 06:50 PM
To them, they only rent us the music, meaning if our original CD, Tape, whatever is destroyed we are to buy another one; not have a backup of it. Surely that should mean foe the duration of the rental period they are obliged to provide a replacement free of excessive charges?

One thing we do know, is Apple has said how they think it ought to be. It is now simply a matter of time when Apple has sufficient market share or consumer feedback to press it onto license holders.
You mean more influence than iTunes already has? It's already got the power to make or break a new release, and catapult tracks to fame from obscurity. It's the essential outlet / store; the difference is apple themselves don't use this to apply specific pressure as we're used to the labels doing at every opportunity.

NiteWaves77
Apr 30, 2010, 06:59 PM
That's a very specious headline image you chose to include, Eric. Shame on you, you snake.

kernkraft
Apr 30, 2010, 07:05 PM
Whatever some corporate personalities want and whatever some marketeers want us to believe, in 2010, The Cloud remains a myth.

Winni
Apr 30, 2010, 07:22 PM
god, how i hate them.

the sooner we can put a knife into their kind of "service", the better.

So I understand that you are no longer fueling their engines by purchasing/renting stuff on the iTunes store? The iTunes store is a gorgeous business for "them": Zero costs because the entire infrastructure is provided by someone else; from here on, it's all pure revenue. That's just beautiful for "them".

Eric S.
Apr 30, 2010, 07:45 PM
That's a very specious headline image you chose to include, Eric. Shame on you, you snake.

Uh, what?

cocky jeremy
Apr 30, 2010, 07:58 PM
These greedy dicks are the reason i download music from torrents. You should make more money because we can stream a single track to multiple devices? Guess what you arrogant pricks, i can put a cd in multiple cd players. Should you raise the price of those, too? :rolleyes:

lazyrighteye
Apr 30, 2010, 08:56 PM
this is outright not true.

i guess it depends on what "any money" means.

many, many, many bands i listen to make a living doing nothing but being bands.

heck, many LOCAL bands make a living being in a band.

rich, they aren't. but it's a living.

Wow.
You clearly have no idea what it takes to make any kind of living as a musician.

I WAS the one
Apr 30, 2010, 09:48 PM
it will be a dream come true if you can buy songs anyware and use any computer to sync and upload. Just with name and password. WOW, they are entering a web space dominated by Google... OMG, wait. Apple vs Adobe... Apple vs Google, Apple vs Apple? The end?

LouieSamman
May 1, 2010, 12:42 AM
I want a cloud based iTunes. No more having to backup iTunes library.

CplBadboy
May 1, 2010, 02:52 AM
The music industry (like Apple) are just a bunch of greedy bastards They make me laugh about how they are so hard done by illegal downloads etc yet all their music exec's, singers, bands are all rich bastards cutting around with 30 man entourages, big cars blah blah blah. If i buy my music legally then i should be allowed to play it how the **** i want. iTunes cloud would be a great idea but it all comes down to how much money they can make between them. Its not that Apple are looking out for the customers its that Apple wants to make as much money out of as they can.

tkermit
May 1, 2010, 07:06 AM
Uh, what?

Wishful thinking:

http://grab.by/grabs/ccd53ebe0e4649ce01c25b2514b8491d.png

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/04/30/151904-itunes_everywhere.jpg

6andy6
May 1, 2010, 09:02 AM
Wow.
You clearly have no idea what it takes to make any kind of living as a musician.

Ummm - and thats different from anyone of a number of minimum wage folk out there. Musicians something special that shouldn't be needing to work hard to make a living like most of us???

lazyrighteye
May 1, 2010, 11:07 AM
Ummm - and thats different from anyone of a number of minimum wage folk out there. Musicians something special that shouldn't be needing to work hard to make a living like most of us???

Sorry Andy, that's not at all what I was inferring.
Musicians are regular folk too: no more entitled to anything than anyone. Muskratbot simply spouted off a common misconception that non musicians have of musicians. I just couldn't let comments like "many, many, many bands i listen to make a living doing nothing but being bands. Heck, many LOCAL bands make a living being in a band" go unaddressed. But apparently I need to elaborate.

If anything, I suggest musicians work harder than "anyone of a number of minimum wage folk out there" (which is not to say I suggest musicians are any better/worse than anyone). Why? Because many, many, many bands I listen to or have played with - every single one of those musicians also carried a full time job. Meaning, after working an 8-hour day the average musician doesn't go home and watch 3 hours of TV before going to bed (not that there's anything wrong with that). Instead, they will either go to practice or go to a bar and perform until about 1 a.m., get up the next morning and do it allover again. Meaning, the average musician is more inline with the millions of us that have to work TWO fill time jobs to make a living. ;)

And I'm not, for one second, asking for sympathy for the working musician. It's their choice. And most are all too happy to be able to share their music with anyone who cares to listen. And getting some form of payment for their efforts: a bonus.

So I just waned to callout a common misconception that if you're in a band, you're making a living doing nothing but "being a band." And I'm all too happy for those musicians in the bands that muskratboy listens to or sees. But they represent the vast minority, not the majority. Or, (more likely) unbeknownst to muskratboy, they all have regular 8-5 day jobs as well.

AND ALL THAT SAID (which is what I was hoping to avoid in my initial reply), I have a sneaking suspicion that iTunes streaming to any device (limited, much like it is today, to a predetermined number of devices) will come to iTunes and it will be free - but only to those that subscribe to MobileMe. And here's how it will work. Any MobileMe account holder can simply enable a "Share Everywhere" feature in iTunes. This will auto upload Apple a user's "iTunes Music Library.xml" file (as opposed to a user uploading massive GB worth of physical music files). Apple will then use the .xml file to point back to the user's iTunes account. And as long as that user has their iTunes open, they will be able to access their entire iTunes library, ripped songs, songs purchased form iTunes Store, etc. from a predetermined number of mobile devices. Thus, don't be surprised to see device storage capacities riddled moot. Why have an 64 GB iPod touch when it's capable accessing your 1 TB music library? And in eventually (easily a decade or more out), this will also effect laptops, where storing media (all media: Word docs, .psd files, etc.) will all be done in the cloud.

And that is a concept I can get behind.

tkermit
May 1, 2010, 11:30 AM
[...]storing media (all media: Word docs, .psd files, etc.) will all be done in the cloud.

And that is a concept I can get behind.

I'm paraphrasing from an article I've read yesterday - I think - but I'm unsure about how much we really gain if we're changing from the current situation of being tasked with managing our data - badly - to a situation where our task is to manage our privacy - badly.

TennisandMusic
May 1, 2010, 01:21 PM
Sorry Andy, that's not at all what I was inferring.
Musicians are regular folk too: no more entitled to anything than anyone. Muskratbot simply spouted off a common misconception that non musicians have of musicians. I just couldn't let comments like "many, many, many bands i listen to make a living doing nothing but being bands. Heck, many LOCAL bands make a living being in a band" go unaddressed. But apparently I need to elaborate.

If anything, I suggest musicians work harder than "anyone of a number of minimum wage folk out there" (which is not to say I suggest musicians are any better/worse than anyone). Why? Because many, many, many bands I listen to or have played with - every single one of those musicians also carried a full time job. Meaning, after working an 8-hour day the average musician doesn't go home and watch 3 hours of TV before going to bed (not that there's anything wrong with that). Instead, they will either go to practice or go to a bar and perform until about 1 a.m., get up the next morning and do it allover again. Meaning, the average musician is more inline with the millions of us that have to work TWO fill time jobs to make a living. ;)

And I'm not, for one second, asking for sympathy for the working musician. It's their choice. And most are all too happy to be able to share their music with anyone who cares to listen. And getting some form of payment for their efforts: a bonus.

So I just waned to callout a common misconception that if you're in a band, you're making a living doing nothing but "being a band." And I'm all too happy for those musicians in the bands that muskratboy listens to or sees. But they represent the vast minority, not the majority. Or, (more likely) unbeknownst to muskratboy, they all have regular 8-5 day jobs as well.

AND ALL THAT SAID (which is what I was hoping to avoid in my initial reply), I have a sneaking suspicion that iTunes streaming to any device (limited, much like it is today, to a predetermined number of devices) will come to iTunes and it will be free - but only to those that subscribe to MobileMe. And here's how it will work. Any MobileMe account holder can simply enable a "Share Everywhere" feature in iTunes. This will auto upload Apple a user's "iTunes Music Library.xml" file (as opposed to a user uploading massive GB worth of physical music files). Apple will then use the .xml file to point back to the user's iTunes account. And as long as that user has their iTunes open, they will be able to access their entire iTunes library, ripped songs, songs purchased form iTunes Store, etc. from a predetermined number of mobile devices. Thus, don't be surprised to see device storage capacities riddled moot. Why have an 64 GB iPod touch when it's capable accessing your 1 TB music library? And in eventually (easily a decade or more out), this will also effect laptops, where storing media (all media: Word docs, .psd files, etc.) will all be done in the cloud.

And that is a concept I can get behind.

Only problem there is that an xml file is just a text file that can easily be edited. Available playlists would have to be generated and maintained server side.

RazHyena
May 1, 2010, 03:07 PM
Wow.
You clearly have no idea what it takes to make any kind of living as a musician.

A band that makes music that doesn't suck will do just fine.

There's a lot of "musicians" out there that just can't cut it.

lazyrighteye
May 1, 2010, 04:57 PM
I'm paraphrasing from an article I've read yesterday - I think - but I'm unsure about how much we really gain if we're changing from the current situation of being tasked with managing our data - badly - to a situation where our task is to manage our privacy - badly.

Heh. Totally. There will most certainly be security issues.
I was speaking both broadly and, apparently, inaccurately (re: the function of xml files) - both of which are not firsts. ;)

lazyrighteye
May 1, 2010, 05:00 PM
Only problem there is that an xml file is just a text file that can easily be edited. Available playlists would have to be generated and maintained server side.

Interesting. Thanks.
Hmmm... How does something like Simplify work?

lazyrighteye
May 1, 2010, 05:17 PM
A band that makes music that doesn't suck will do just fine.

There's a lot of "musicians" out there that just can't cut it.

Wow - even funnier than muskratboy's assertion.
If only it were that simple...

RazHyena
May 1, 2010, 06:25 PM
Wow - even funnier than muskratboy's assertion.
If only it were that simple...

Sorry, but it is. :(

You seem to be taking this very personally. :confused: Why is that? No one wants to hear your band or something? :D

But I digress. What's this thread about again?

4nNtt
May 2, 2010, 12:16 AM
When will labels realize that a deal like this will help them sell more music? I think I'll go out and buy some cds from a second hand store to protest... you know you can't do that with iTunes content...

Also... making this a cloud service probably implies being able to re-download purchased music (like we can do on the AppStore)... wouldn't that make us more likely to buy digital music (and avoid the second hand stores that are much easier to find these days now that all the other music stores are going out of business)?

lazyrighteye
May 2, 2010, 01:02 AM
You seem to be taking this very personally. :confused: Why is that? No one wants to hear your band or something? :D

Nah, nothing pesonal.
Just an attempt to correct some misconceptions.

Eric S.
May 2, 2010, 10:30 AM
Wishful thinking:

Ah. Thanks. I didn't get the connection to the other Eric.

iphones4evry1
May 2, 2010, 12:21 PM
So what, Steve Jobs thinks he can just go around the world and tell all the other companies what to do? It's Steve's way, and that's that? I don't think so. Steve is becoming too controlling these days and it's starting to piss me off. I've always liked Apple, but they're starting to become too controlling.

tbob
May 3, 2010, 12:31 PM
I have been using Lala, and touting its benefits to all of my friends, for at least a year now. The service provides users with 4 great things:

1) Cloud music library
2) One-time listening to new tracks in their entirety
3) Social Music
4) Integrate new songs with my existing collection in listening queue

I was going to keep my mouth shut about Apple shutting down this service, but now that there's not even an iTunes answer to #1 in sight, I am outraged.

Thanks to Lala in regards to #2, I have bought far more music since I began using Lala than any other time in my adult life. Listening to an entire album without interruption or annoyance allows me to make a decision as to whether or not it's worth my money. #4 makes listening to new music a hassle-free experience. It saves me time not having to go to a band's myspace page, or click on some link once what I'm listening to ends. I can simply add the new music to my queue, and it comes up after the album I'm currently listening to has ended. Again, hassle-free, time-saving, and easy.

The iTunes store is clunky as compared to lala's quick responsiveness (I often log in on a slow internet connection), and the 30-second samples of songs in iTunes is useless to me, other than recognition of a song I already have heard. The iTunes store will do nothing to persuade me to purchase a song. It's a place I dread going, and only will go to purchase music if I have no alternative.

Thanks to Lala showing me what my friends are listening to (#3), I have also discovered, and purchased, more music in the past year than any other time in my adult life. I have formed friendships over music, and found people with similar listening tastes to follow. Were this type of social music to be integrated with something like Facebook or MySpace, in would come the obligation of 'friending', and the baggage that brings. In addition, the Social Music environment on Lala prevented you from being able to message anyone else (preventing needless bothering and spam). I fear its integration with other social media sites will open social music to spam, payola, and the social baggage that doesn't need to be associate with music.

As a student, I bounce between any of hundreds of computers on a daily basis. Using Lala was the nag-free solution to all of this. I can't see iTunes solving any of these problems, and I greatly resent Apple's decision to shut it down. Lala was a service that turned someone who otherwise would not have been a paying customer into someone who was glad to pay reasonable prices for songs and listen all day long.

At this point, it seems torrenting is a much easier way to listen to and own new albums.

I have been a fairly loyal Apple customer since I switched from PCs in 2005. The Lala shutdown, in addition to recent Apple moves, makes me re-think my decisions to buy the Adobe Suite for Mac instead of PC, to purchase Final Cut instead of Avid as my next video editing app, and to ever think about using Logic instead of Pro Tools.

Sincerely,
Tim Johnston

Eric S.
May 3, 2010, 01:20 PM
I have been a fairly loyal Apple customer since I switched from PCs in 2005. The Lala shutdown, in addition to recent Apple moves, makes me re-think my decisions to buy the Adobe Suite for Mac instead of PC, to purchase Final Cut instead of Avid as my next video editing app, and to ever think about using Logic instead of Pro Tools.

Yeah, it's annoying. Some of Apple's recent moves are reminiscent of Microsoft in the 1980s and '90s, when they regularly bought up and shut down, or through legal means otherwise impeded, smaller companies that threatened their core business, even though those smaller companies offered advanced technology that users really wanted. It's sad to see Apple taking the role they once fought against. Apple used to be a champion of "third-party opportunities," letting other companies expand the Mac platform's capabilities. But Steve Jobs always favored a more closed platform approach; he had to be dragged into opening the original Mac with a SCSI bus, for example. Now with recent moves like the iPad he seems to be pushing Apple more into closed products again.