mdelvecchio
macrumors 68040
and i cant think of ANY example where apple got into a new field and kicked the crap out of the old hats. can you? hmmm.....
gotta go, phone call -- on my apple cell phone!!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Expected to Charge for Cloud-Based Music Storage Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
and i cant think of ANY example where apple got into a new field and kicked the crap out of the old hats. can you? hmmm.....
gotta go, phone call -- on my apple cell phone!!
mdelvecchio
macrumors 68040
as do i. right now you cannot use a custom domain name on mobileme email. thats why i use Google Apps, which offers this MX record functionality for free.
Then what the hell was the point in your little rant?! Your whole argument was based on a rare outage. My original point was that Amazons 10 datacenters will work better than Apples 1...my point still stands.
FYI: I was very aware of the outage. I run a cloud virtualization (Xen based) company built on S3, GoGrid and Rackspace.
MagnusVonMagnum
macrumors 603
What a freaking RIP-OFF. You could buy 20 new songs a year for that instead (well not on Apple anymore sine they royally screwed everyone on some BS basis of "85 cents songs" to offset the "$1.29" ones except that as most of us predicted, there are hardly any 85 cents songs in existence yet a heck of lot of $1.29 ones. In other words, all they did was jack up prices to cover crap artists who can't sing and don't write their own songs and make farting noises and call it art.)
Meanwhile, what good would this service do? Do you seriously think they're going to let you access your music that you did NOT buy from iTunes??? (i.e. your CD collection dumped to iTunes) NO WAY. You'd have to UPLOAD the entire library first. How LONG would that take? Ridiculous. Then you miss a payment and they delete it all.... It's far more likely it's only for songs you already bought (in which case you could already just 'buy' them again and download them for free; in other words the service is worthless).
What most people would prefer I think is a flat fee music-on-demand service where you can listen to ANY music you want from the entire library. Pandora, Sonus, etc. already offer this service so Apple's "retrieve your own library online" is stupid, IMO. You could rent some storage somewhere and just upload your music there and download it anywhere on the Net WITHOUT APPLE even being involved. The whole thing strikes me as a cash grab from Apple to make you pay for the music you already paid for ALL OVER AGAIN. Bought 100 songs? 5 years you bought 'em again. No value.
My entire music library is only 70GB in AAC without music videos. That would almost fit on an iPod Touch 64GB or USB 64GB stick as it is, let alone my Netbook which has 160GB on it and my MBP which has 500GB. So the ONLY way this service could be useful is if I could access ALL MY MOVIES from anywhere on the Net. That would require 2.6TB of storage, though. I don't see Apple covering that and I wouldn't even want to TRY to upload all those movies from my own library (and Apple doesn't even sell (let alone in good quality) 40% of them and 95% of the HD ones.
No, a flat fee for unlimited rentals (music and movies) would be a good deal. I don't see Apple offering that any time soon, if EVER.
Meanwhile, what good would this service do? Do you seriously think they're going to let you access your music that you did NOT buy from iTunes??? (i.e. your CD collection dumped to iTunes) NO WAY. You'd have to UPLOAD the entire library first. How LONG would that take? Ridiculous. Then you miss a payment and they delete it all.... It's far more likely it's only for songs you already bought (in which case you could already just 'buy' them again and download them for free; in other words the service is worthless).
What most people would prefer I think is a flat fee music-on-demand service where you can listen to ANY music you want from the entire library. Pandora, Sonus, etc. already offer this service so Apple's "retrieve your own library online" is stupid, IMO. You could rent some storage somewhere and just upload your music there and download it anywhere on the Net WITHOUT APPLE even being involved. The whole thing strikes me as a cash grab from Apple to make you pay for the music you already paid for ALL OVER AGAIN. Bought 100 songs? 5 years you bought 'em again. No value.
My entire music library is only 70GB in AAC without music videos. That would almost fit on an iPod Touch 64GB or USB 64GB stick as it is, let alone my Netbook which has 160GB on it and my MBP which has 500GB. So the ONLY way this service could be useful is if I could access ALL MY MOVIES from anywhere on the Net. That would require 2.6TB of storage, though. I don't see Apple covering that and I wouldn't even want to TRY to upload all those movies from my own library (and Apple doesn't even sell (let alone in good quality) 40% of them and 95% of the HD ones.
No, a flat fee for unlimited rentals (music and movies) would be a good deal. I don't see Apple offering that any time soon, if EVER.
You can use your own domain, but you can't host anything requiring server-side scripting (wordpress, mediawiki, etc). Unless that has changed in the past year (which would be welcome news).
LOL@ people that really expected this service to be free.
As if it doesn't cost apple any money to keep the server up and running and to hold your data.
Cloud services are a joke because there are so many places (at least in my area) where you cannot even get 3G speeds because the signal quality is so poor.
Furthermore, the area I work at blocks out cell reception so it would be pointless for me.
Another point is once this Cloud service is made they won't even bother updating iPod/iPhone capacities because they'll want you on the cloud service so they can get you to pay monthly fees for capacity.
Cloud storage is a terrible idea for multimedia storage.
As if it doesn't cost apple any money to keep the server up and running and to hold your data.
Cloud services are a joke because there are so many places (at least in my area) where you cannot even get 3G speeds because the signal quality is so poor.
Furthermore, the area I work at blocks out cell reception so it would be pointless for me.
Another point is once this Cloud service is made they won't even bother updating iPod/iPhone capacities because they'll want you on the cloud service so they can get you to pay monthly fees for capacity.
Cloud storage is a terrible idea for multimedia storage.
$20/year is a reasonable charge, but it seems terribly disproportionate to the $99/year for MobileMe. I'm guessing if there's any validity to this rumor, we'll see some price restructuring for MobileMe. At least I'd hope so.
I'm curious to know exactly WHAT "cloud" they're going to store my music in? There IS no CLOUD! Cripes, people, it's the same darn internet it always was. Piles of servers and hard drives, all connected by cables and wires and fiber optics, et. al. right here on EARTH. There's NO CLOUD. Why the HECK they had to start calling it that is what? Basically a Microsoft marketing term, right? So, lets get past that BS right now.
Of COURSE they're going to charge for it. Do you think for a moment that Apple, or anyone else can provide storage for all the songs, videos., etc that users have on their individual devices, AND provide bandwidth for that much streaming, AND maintain it, etc for free? Be real people.
Remembeer, the record labels are DEMANDING that EACH song by EVERY user be uploaded and kept seperate. So if 126,577 people have the SAME exact song on their device, it will have to be uploaded 126,577 times so each has their own secure copy to access. Which also makes me wonder, will Apple (or anyone else) be allowed to have backups available? Or will hundreds of thousands of users and their files have to be re-uploaded when there's a failure?
Basically, this is the SAME THING as uploading your very own music files to your own server, or the server of your choice and accessing them as you choose. In effect, having your own "cloud". I have a web site. As part of the deal, I get unlimited server space and bandwidth. Presently have probably 80 gigs of mp3's there (all of my own creation, no music company stuff) but I could easily upload hundreds of gigs of music there, and have access whenever and where ever I want it, at no cost to me. Of course I don't have a spiffy user interface to facilitate easy retrieval and organizing like iTunes, etc. But still, I could do it easily enough. So could all of you.
This is just another way to get you to pay to listen to music you already own. Except for very specialized situations, I just don't see a need for it.
Of COURSE they're going to charge for it. Do you think for a moment that Apple, or anyone else can provide storage for all the songs, videos., etc that users have on their individual devices, AND provide bandwidth for that much streaming, AND maintain it, etc for free? Be real people.
Remembeer, the record labels are DEMANDING that EACH song by EVERY user be uploaded and kept seperate. So if 126,577 people have the SAME exact song on their device, it will have to be uploaded 126,577 times so each has their own secure copy to access. Which also makes me wonder, will Apple (or anyone else) be allowed to have backups available? Or will hundreds of thousands of users and their files have to be re-uploaded when there's a failure?
Basically, this is the SAME THING as uploading your very own music files to your own server, or the server of your choice and accessing them as you choose. In effect, having your own "cloud". I have a web site. As part of the deal, I get unlimited server space and bandwidth. Presently have probably 80 gigs of mp3's there (all of my own creation, no music company stuff) but I could easily upload hundreds of gigs of music there, and have access whenever and where ever I want it, at no cost to me. Of course I don't have a spiffy user interface to facilitate easy retrieval and organizing like iTunes, etc. But still, I could do it easily enough. So could all of you.
This is just another way to get you to pay to listen to music you already own. Except for very specialized situations, I just don't see a need for it.
Well, I don't know about this guy specifically. But I own over 20,000 vinyl records. Average 10 tracks each, that's 200,000 songs right there. Not to count at least that many 45's. A collection I've gathered over 50 years. Not to mention 78's, cylinders, etc.
Ever shopped a used music store? Movie store? Goodwill? I have thousands of movies myself, many of which I only paid a dollar or even less for.
I download hundreds of songs from emusic for about half the iTunes price.
It's pretty easy to amass a large collectiion without ever paying retail, and being completely legal.
I can't even begin to count the LP's that have been GIVEN to me over the years by people who went to CD and didn't want them anymore, taking up room. Literally station wagons full -- back when station wagons were HUGE. Cost? How about 0 cents per track, except the time spent playing them into the computer. And I'll be damned if I rebuy all the vinyl I bought through the 60's, 70's and 80's.
Ever have someone GIVE you a few hundred CD's because they're all now in their computer and ipod, and they don't want them taking up the room anymore? Sure, thats probably not legal, however, they made a copy and gave the originals away! It certainly wasn't a legal violation on my part! Are they supposed to put them in the trash? I suppose so.
Any idea how many CD's you can buy out there at 50 cents a pop at second hand stores and garage sales? Somehow, that's still legal!
I know I'm not the only one like me out here! Just saying... you're not considering the possibilities. And there's no way I would EVEr pay to stream my stuff from the internet (there is no "cloud")
If 30 million people like the song "My Hero" by Foo Fighters, 30 million people don't need to upload that same song. I predict the service will scan your library and then say "We've found 750 out of 775 matching tracks" and possibly allow you to upload the tracks that are not on iTunes. So instead of uploading 775 songs, you would only have to upload 25 songs.
MacAddict1978
macrumors 68000
Amazon does give a decent amount of free storage. 5 Gigs for music is pretty impressive. I have a 20 Gig collection, but I'd only need about 3 to store the stuff I'd really want on a whim anyway.
Would apple give it to you free for a few purchases like amazon? Hmm.
Personally, I don't see much use for such services except as a backup solution. Sure it would be convenient to want to hear some odd ball track and being able to pull it from the cloud, but my life wouldn't end, and I wouldn't pay money for the novelty of it.
*LTD*
macrumors G4
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
Of course they'll charge for it. This kind of stuff will pile up fast. No free lunch. On the upside, there's increased level of accountability and service. Apple will be accountable to your dollar.
Of course they'll charge for it. This kind of stuff will pile up fast. No free lunch. On the upside, there's increased level of accountability and service. Apple will be accountable to your dollar.
notjustjay
macrumors 603
The $1-per-song figure is also grossly inflated when you consider that many albums cost $7.99 to $9.99 and come with between 10-20 tracks. Look at the "Songs for Japan" album, for example. Good value there.
Spot on, couldn't agree more. It's a marketing gimmick, and I've always hated that "dumbed down" term "cloud storage" for the average Joe-sumer. I hate that I have to use it for some of my clients for them to "get it". 🙄
cloud based this and cloud based that, what about the traffic that comes with that? , i pay a lot for mobile internet and i`m not willing to pay a **** load more just so i can use my ipod, why wold i pay my cell phone network every time i want to listen to a song i already pay`d for.
As far as i`m concern cloud based stuff shod be introduced when cell phone network providers are willing to give unlimited traffic plans at a decent cost, until that time it`s pure nonsense.
As far as i`m concern cloud based stuff shod be introduced when cell phone network providers are willing to give unlimited traffic plans at a decent cost, until that time it`s pure nonsense.
chaosbunny
macrumors 68020
I will not use any cloud stuff anyway, if it's free or not doesn't matter. No need for government and corporations to gather even more data on everybody. It's a sour pill wrapped in a thin layer of sugar. Everybody embracing this cloud stuff seems to either be not very well informed or simply doesn't value freedom and the simple democratic rule of "innocent until proven otherwise".
Ubuntu
macrumors 68020
Yes, but it'll probably be the other way round here a - large fee for a poor amount of storage/quality of features.
obviously you aren't going to be a paying customer. what's so difficult about this?
This is where I think the puck is headed.
Make your own cloud.... With our all new TimeCapsule, now called iServer
This new service sounds pretty poor tbh. I probably wouldn't use it even if it was free.
Main reason being the places I wish I had a certain album with me tend to get hardly any phone signal anyways, let alone a 3g connection fast enough to stream music. Also the charges for going over your data limit are hilariously high. Stream a movie or two, a couple of albums and a tv show and my data is done for the month?
Also I think cloud storage is great as part of a back-up solution for my professional work, though I feel it is kind of lackluster for consumer use. Sure the tech-savvy elite may have some use for it. Sure its nice to know some of your precious documents, photos are somewhere safe if the worst happens.
Main reason being the places I wish I had a certain album with me tend to get hardly any phone signal anyways, let alone a 3g connection fast enough to stream music. Also the charges for going over your data limit are hilariously high. Stream a movie or two, a couple of albums and a tv show and my data is done for the month?
Also I think cloud storage is great as part of a back-up solution for my professional work, though I feel it is kind of lackluster for consumer use. Sure the tech-savvy elite may have some use for it. Sure its nice to know some of your precious documents, photos are somewhere safe if the worst happens.