You might try reading my posts before making such comments, for I know where I am and I'm just trying to remind people that getting so angst-ridden over something that will be answered in 72 hours is silly.
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 Paying Music Labels Up to $150 Million for iCloud Streaming Rights?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You might try reading my posts before making such comments, for I know where I am and I'm just trying to remind people that getting so angst-ridden over something that will be answered in 72 hours is silly.
Exactly. I am amazed so many people are excited to pay to stream music they already paid for. WTF??
As Netflix and Pandora prove, most people in the 21st century don't feel the need to buy media anymore. People want everything on demand all the time, not just their crappy iTunes library which is perpetually out of date.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Unfortunately (for ultimate convenience sake) I think you are right here.
The only variation that I can see that might be acceptable would be some kind of amnesty-type arrangement in which you can add a link to an iTunes master for any NON-iTunes purchased music in your library for a small(?) fee... something similar to the transition to iTunes plus. The scenario would be one in which you choose what you want added to your iCloud access pool and pay so much per song to do so. I could see the music industry being sold on the idea if the amount per song was high enough.
Of course, the math gets ugly again for those dreaming of storing their whole library of music (not purchased via iTunes) even if the fee was small. For example, if someone has 5K songs they've ripped from CD and this fee was set at- say- 39 cents each, they could add them all for almost $2K.
It becomes harder to imagine the music industry being interested if the fee went too far below about that level. And the fee becomes increasingly painful to the dreamer wanting to put it all in the cloud at too much higher than that level.
Nevertheless, I could see that scenario coming, along with a million gripes about being asked to pay again for music already owned... if you wanted it accessible via the iCloud service.
Exactly. I am amazed so many people are excited to pay to stream music they already paid for. WTF??
As Netflix and Pandora prove, most people in the 21st century don't feel the need to buy media anymore. People want everything on demand all the time, not just their crappy iTunes library which is perpetually out of date.
zigacktly my dear watson!
in 10? years time with better and hopefully affordable bandwidth globally, we could stream/sync/backup our own stuff from the moon and back.......... 'till then as others have said, keep your 'pod handy..
but closer to the topic...... GOOD for apple to have succeed to get the major labels on board! well done! and we know we shall pay for it, eventually
apple probably keeps only one copy of an album/track on iCloud, also mentioned by others....... saves Mycloudspace (trademarked by francois swanepoel)
iCloud is cheaper, but you would have to pay for the music you wanted to store on the cloud. Spotify on the other hand would cost you either $10 or $15 per month, but you would have access to 13 million songs. And you would be able to store about 3000 of them on your mobile for offline listening that wouldn't eat up your data plan.
Apple won't be able to offer that for $25/year.
I don't see how iCloud could be a Spotify killer.
You lost me at geeks are theives, then came the Ford mention... Oh my
In a few years when everybody is on the streaming icloud bandwagon it will be almost uninteresting to steal music.
The convenience of having every song , movie etc. available all the time is just too good.
I don't need to really OWN the music I want to listen to.
Why are people in angst that it will only stream their music and have their panties in a twist that they would pay twice?
And, on the issue of streaming pirated music storage vs. legally acquired, why would Apple even want to open that door?
I would be amazed if Apple actually offers a streaming service like Spotify. Why? Because Apple is making a lot of money selling music on iTunes, they won't make nearly as much from a streaming service.
While Apple was the future when they started selling digital files instead of CDs, now they are the past by selling digital files instead of selling the right to stream.
While Apple was the future when they started selling digital files instead of CDs, now they are the past by selling digital files instead of selling the right to stream.
Why would it matter at this point? That would be like a car wash being afraid of cleaning stolen cars. If there is an album on my computer, then I either downloaded it from a legitimate site (iTunes Store or Amazon), ripped it from my CDs or LPs, copied it illegally from a friend, or downloaded it illegally. No matter how the music got on my computer, if there is something wrong, then the damage has been done long ago and there is nothing they can do about it. (Actually, the music industry could do something about it: Sell a license for x$ per month that allows you to have any of their music on your computer, wherever it comes from, and play it. Just collect the money for the license, and leave the distribution to people).
But also, why would anyone think that there would be any music on my computer that I don't own? There are at least 100 CDs that I bought in the last twelve months alone.
That is a very smart statement. I agree, that this is the future.
Why do we find it necessary to own music, movies or books? So we can use them whenever/wherever we want to. 20 years ago, it was necessary to actually physically own them.
Because of how connected we are all becoming with the internet, physical copies will not be necessary. This will change our mindsets, and your children will think it's crazy to actually own anything 'abstract' like music, movies or books.
Exactly. People who buy music, especially from iTunes, make me LOL. They are stuck in a time warp.
You are surprised, really? People were not only excited, but later proved that they were readily willing to part with money for music files of an extremely influential British rock group that have been physically available for over 40 years. In many cases, they were willing to part with their money for music they already owned on a physical medium. It's no surprised, especially when it comes to Apple, that a fool and their money will soon part.
Now, I am very willing to pay Apple for quality consumer electronics. However, Apple recently paid out over $100 million to the record companies. I assume they will want to gain this money back...at the expense of their customers. Therefore, one paying Apple for iCloud is little different than sending a check directly to the record companies to gain the ability to listen to music they've already legally purchased. Sorry, no thanks Apple.
The problem is, while Internet access is becoming more ubiquitous, access is becoming more expensive. Furthermore, the current trend is to limit our access to the Internet. In addition, last time I tried to stream a movie or music to my iPhone 4 and iPad 2, quality was poor due to choppiness. Therefore, before we denounce "owning" relatively extremely tiny media files (except for movies), technology to allow us Internet access is going to have to improve, become more widespread, and cheaper.
Last edited:
The damage is already done, but it's still time for the record companies to sue. I wonder if Apple has promised the record companies that they will check and report illegal files being uploaded on iCloud. I bet that information would be golden for companies. And why would Apple condone or be an accessory to copyright infringement.
The Sony Music logo is ugly. Onto the comment.
How is your collected library of music out of date? It's supposed to be music you like.Exactly. I am amazed so many people are excited to pay to stream music they already paid for. WTF??
As Netflix and Pandora prove, most people in the 21st century don't feel the need to buy media anymore. People want everything on demand all the time, not just their crappy iTunes library which is perpetually out of date.
Why bother even releasing this thing if you're only going to be able to play music you bought on iTunes?! I have 15,000 songs. Only 200 of them were purchased on iTunes.
Epic Fail... You're late to the party Apple. I've already signed on with Amazon and now Google just sent me my invite today so I'll be trying that, given that Google will be able to store all 15,000 of my songs...
Go google!!!!!! And get with the program Apple.
Epic Fail... You're late to the party Apple. I've already signed on with Amazon and now Google just sent me my invite today so I'll be trying that, given that Google will be able to store all 15,000 of my songs...
Go google!!!!!! And get with the program Apple.
You should save the rant until after you find out exactly what services they will be offering. Nothing has been confirmed and yet people are complaining about what they think it's going to be or not be.
The only epic fail here is the assumptions that people are making. Seriously, complain when you know for sure it's a fail. Until then...well you know what happens when you assume.
Just read the iCloud trademark application, and it includes this section:
"subscription services, namely, providing subscriptions to text, data, image, audio, video, and multimedia content, provided via the Internet and other electronic and communications networks; downloadable pre-recorded text, data, image, audio, video, and multimedia content for a fee or pre-paid subscription, provided via the Internet and other electronic and communications networks;"
among other things, of course, but this looks interesting.
"subscription services, namely, providing subscriptions to text, data, image, audio, video, and multimedia content, provided via the Internet and other electronic and communications networks; downloadable pre-recorded text, data, image, audio, video, and multimedia content for a fee or pre-paid subscription, provided via the Internet and other electronic and communications networks;"
among other things, of course, but this looks interesting.
dino death dance
What about the musicians who actually make this music?
I'm guessing that not a whole lot of this cash is going to filter down to them. This pile is going into amenities for the big dinosaurs of the collapsing music industry. Cut out these middlemen, they are no longer valid.
What about the musicians who actually make this music?
I'm guessing that not a whole lot of this cash is going to filter down to them. This pile is going into amenities for the big dinosaurs of the collapsing music industry. Cut out these middlemen, they are no longer valid.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Only 25 million per record company seems quite low given the millions of song tracks involved. No doubt it must be limited to what you've alreay bought from iTunes, and hence the record companies have had a payment for already.
I still am not really sure tough of the utility of this, given I can carry the majority of my music with me on my phone, and at home my music is available to my hi fi, being hooked up to my home network.
Only 25 million per record company seems quite low given the millions of song tracks involved. No doubt it must be limited to what you've alreay bought from iTunes, and hence the record companies have had a payment for already.
I still am not really sure tough of the utility of this, given I can carry the majority of my music with me on my phone, and at home my music is available to my hi fi, being hooked up to my home network.
Yeah I don't have any itunes music but you are right. A lot of people do, and if it is as simple as people essentially clicking a button and being able to stream anything they have already purchased on itunes, the simplicity and ease of use will be a huge motivating factor for a lot of people.
Not having to manage your itunes music yourself and having it all available immediately without any extra steps will be quite enticing to a lot of people I suspect, especially if the price is right.
I do hope they allow the ability to add our own music, but this actually improves the value of buying music in iTunes I think. As you can just go click on a song buy it and then be streaming it to any of your devices right away. It is pretty enticing.
For their European countries, Spotify only pays out 47m Euros, which i think equates to about $60m, per year to all of their associated labels. Therefore, with the amount of money involved, Apple could still be doing streaming like Spotify.
People are talking here about icloud as it's mostly music. I think the cloud will have little to do with music. Why?
1. The banner Lion + iOS5 + cloud = WWDC makes me think it's on the same level as the 2 OS's. And something that important has to be more than just music.
2. WWDC is not Apple's ipod/music yearly keynote. They have a keynote for the music stuff later in the year. If icloud was mostly music oriented it would not get a WWDC showing. It'd get a showing later in the year at the music keynote.
So me I think icloud will be the glue between iOS and Lion. Knitting them both together. Sure Apple got the music labels involved. But me that's just a side note to the real use of the cloud.
On Monday (Tuesday morning my time) we'll all know for sure.
1. The banner Lion + iOS5 + cloud = WWDC makes me think it's on the same level as the 2 OS's. And something that important has to be more than just music.
2. WWDC is not Apple's ipod/music yearly keynote. They have a keynote for the music stuff later in the year. If icloud was mostly music oriented it would not get a WWDC showing. It'd get a showing later in the year at the music keynote.
So me I think icloud will be the glue between iOS and Lion. Knitting them both together. Sure Apple got the music labels involved. But me that's just a side note to the real use of the cloud.
On Monday (Tuesday morning my time) we'll all know for sure.