Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
59,312
23,294



155424-itunes_cloud.jpg


CNET reports that Apple is expected to charge customers a fee in order to use its forthcoming cloud-based music storage service, a new product said to be rapidly approaching completion. The company could, however, offer a free introductory period to give customers a chance to test out the new service and gather a user base.
Music industry insiders told me that Apple has indicated it could offer the service free of charge initially but that company will eventually require a fee. Google is also expected to charge for a similar service.
The report points to claims that Apple may charge a $20 annual fee for the service, although that information remains unconfirmed with many sources apparently not being privy to those details.

Apple's cloud-based plans have been said to be linked to a MobileMe revamp that could see certain aspects of cloud storage become free, even if the music storage component requires a modest annual fee.

Apple is not the only significant player looking to move to cloud-based music storage. Amazon late last month rolled out its Cloud Drive service with limited free storage augmented by various levels of paid storage. The company has, however, received some push back from record labels who were not included in discussions with Amazon. For its part, Google has been taking the Apple route and trying to work with record labels on a cloud-based music storage service, but the search and advertising giant has reportedly been "going backwards" in its talks with no signs of a resolution in the near future.

Article Link: Apple Expected to Charge for Cloud-Based Music Storage Service
 

ECUpirate44

macrumors 603
Mar 22, 2010
5,750
8
NC
Just ruined my freakin day. I was really hoping it would be an added benefit instead of a paid feature.
 

ForzaJuve

macrumors member
Jul 20, 2009
73
31
Any law suits today?

Yes, that's great, but I am surprised it's already noon and there have been no articles about who is suing who yet.
 

rorschach

macrumors 68020
Jul 27, 2003
2,193
1,182
If I'm paying, I'd rather just have an all-you-can-eat subscription option and be able to stream to any song on iTunes.
 

MrMoore

macrumors 6502
Nov 2, 2006
394
23
Arlington Heights,IL
Would this be included if you are a current MobileMe subscriber. My subscription doesn't end till 2012. If this is a replacment or revamp of MobileMe, would my subscription carry over to this feature?
 

mainstreetmark

macrumors 68020
May 7, 2003
2,228
293
Saint Augustine, FL

shirwan72

macrumors newbie
Mar 20, 2009
5
0
They charge for everything else, so what's new?!

With our UK tax, it will be just another cash cow.
 

dethmaShine

macrumors 68000
Apr 13, 2010
1,697
0
Into the lungs of Hell
I wish everything were free. :rolleyes:

On another note, if they need me to pay for streaming 'my own' content, then they can forget about it.

If they are going to stream all kinds of content, unlimited number of times, then $7, $10 and I'm happy.

But again, the basic service should be free.
 
Last edited:

Tones2

macrumors 65816
Jan 8, 2009
1,471
0
I'll stick to streaming audio AND video flawlessly off my own PC and have complete control and plenty of storage for free, using a $5 (one time charge) app. I see no benefits of the Apple cloud based scenario. But I can see huge disadvantages if Apple, in it's attempt to make money off this service, intentionally limits internal storage capacity in future devices.

Tony
 

AppleInLVX

macrumors 65816
Jan 12, 2010
1,196
665
Apple charging for a service that should be free with the hardware? Inconceivable!

I'll stick with my local storage, thanks. If you want to do me a favour, Steve, give me my calendar, contacts and email for nothing. Or don't. Google does, and I've been quite content so far.
 

ufkdo

macrumors 6502
Oct 30, 2010
344
3
Turkey
It will most likely be free for itunes purchases, fees will be determined by how much storage you need for other musics (in my opinion)
 

iSee

macrumors 68040
Oct 25, 2004
3,536
261
Of course they are.
This kind of thing has to be paid for somehow. Common options:
1. Pay subscription
2. Ad supported
3. Loss-leader to help sell something profitable.

This rumor is suggesting that Apple is going with a combination of 1 and 3.
 

AppleScruff1

macrumors G4
Feb 10, 2011
10,026
2,948
I just hope they charge enough so that they make a big profit so that they can continue the service.
 

Thataboy

macrumors regular
Dec 31, 2004
219
0
New York, NY
Of course they would charge -- is anyone surprised by this?

If you copy your actual files to the cloud (a la iDisk or Amazon Cloud Drive), then no additional licensing is required (no matter what the labels say). If Apple wants to keep master files in the cloud, and have you verify you own a copy so you can have streaming access to that file -- that requires new licenses.

Licenses aren't made out of peaches and puppies. They cost money. If you want to argue Apple should eat the costs, out of the goodness of their hearts, well go ahead and argue that in crazyland.

Now, Apple COULD use this as a value-add to a structured MobileMe service. Even if they do, I imagine they'd have a separate music-only fee for those who don't want e-mail/iDisk etc.

This could even pave the way to a subscription model -- if Apple has every song in the cloud anyway, and they've gotten streaming licenses, I imagine it wouldn't be tough to start a Napster/Rhapsody style subscription plan.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.