MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
53,056
14,809



itunes_10_icon_150.jpg


Following up on news from earlier this week regarding Apple having signed EMI Music to a deal to permit cloud-based music streaming of the label's content, Bloomberg now reports that Sony has reached a similar deal with Apple. With Warner Music Group having already agreed to a deal, Universal remains the lone holdout among the major labels, although sources indicate that Apple and Universal are close to a deal.
Apple has reached licensing accords with Sony Corp.'s music division, EMI Group and Warner Music Group, the people said. Universal Music Group, the largest recording company, is close to a deal, another person said. The company also would need to reach agreements with music publishers, which control different rights than the labels.
Sources have indicated to Bloomberg that Apple could preview the new cloud-based music streaming service at its Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) in San Francisco early next month. A public launch would presumably follow relatively soon thereafter.

Article Link: Apple Reaches Cloud Music Deal With Sony, Universal Last Major Label Still to Sign
 

scottparker999

macrumors member
Aug 4, 2009
98
0
If they manage to nail this, it could mark another great year for Apple.

A service like this could also do wonders for Ping!
 
Comment

caccamolle

macrumors 6502
Feb 18, 2005
359
0
it's not out yet, can't be sure of anything of course.

NONETHELESS I have been waiting for this forever.

Without some "cloud" implementation, managing music with multiple computers and locations is a gigantic PITA.

I am so looking forward and pray it's done right.
 
Comment

iDisk

macrumors 6502a
Jan 2, 2010
825
0
Menlo Park, CA
An official Apple announcement like this, seems more appropriate for the September event. Will wait and see.

iDisk
 
Comment

iCole

macrumors regular
Jun 10, 2010
190
21
Just to know. In what way does the approach of google and apple differs when it comes to cloud music? Google has its cloud for music now too, so why does apple have to sign the labels?
 
Comment

iDisk

macrumors 6502a
Jan 2, 2010
825
0
Menlo Park, CA
Just to know. In what way does the approach of google and apple differs when it comes to cloud music? Google has its cloud for music now too, so why does apple have to sign the labels?

To my limited knowledge, Google has yet to sign with any labels, and are in a way refusing to adhere to a "standard" to pay the "fees" or "royalties" or "licensing" for this new paradigm of "cloud music".

The music industry is looking towards Apple, for a new standard in "policy" so they (the music labels) can apply the same "standard" across the board. (The irony).

iDisk
 
Comment

Macsterguy

macrumors 6502a
Jun 5, 2007
706
24
Texas
Just to know. In what way does the approach of google and apple differs when it comes to cloud music? Google has its cloud for music now too, so why does apple have to sign the labels?

I think with Apple, you would own your music. With Google you would rent your music... Unfortunately, most people just steal their music...
 
Comment

iCole

macrumors regular
Jun 10, 2010
190
21

yeah, really.

If I rip a bought CD and upload it to google, what would be the difference with the Apple way?

To my limited knowledge, Google has yet to sign with any labels, and are in a way refusing to adhere to a "standard" to pay the "fees" or "royalties" or "licensing" for this new paradigm of "cloud music".

The music industry is looking towards Apple, for a new standard in "policy" so they (the music labels) can apply the same "standard" across the board. (The irony).

iDisk

Yeah but what would be the difference for the customer?
 
Comment

mroddjob

macrumors member
Jun 29, 2010
78
0
I think, Google, and Amazon require users to upload their collection of music, so in a way it is just acting as an online cloud backup of your own files, they are just providing you some fancy way of streaming your files back to you. This way they don't have to pay any licence fees.
Apple's way is to have just 1 copy of each song stored on their system and they can stream all the songs you own from the database they will have on their system, which i guess requires some sort of licence. This is much less hassle for users and requires much less space to store it all. (which begs the question, what do apple need all that storage space for?)
 
Comment

iCole

macrumors regular
Jun 10, 2010
190
21
Could this also mean that you could redownload an on iTunes bought song? That would give an added value to the iTunes store.
 
Comment

Vol7ron

macrumors 6502
Jun 11, 2009
281
189
Derry, NH
yeah, really.

If I rip a bought CD and upload it to google, what would be the difference with the Apple way?



Yeah but what would be the difference for the customer?

because technically that is illegal. The license given to you when you buy that CD allows you to listen to it on 1 device at any one time. By putting it into the "cloud" you could have multiple devices listen to it at any one time. That is what the music industry doesn't like
 
Comment

futbalguy

macrumors 6502
May 16, 2007
278
58
I think part of it is that with the Apple cloud, we wont actually have to upload our music. Apple would just scan iTunes or your computer to see what songs you already have and then they would allow you to stream those songs from their servers. But they wouldnt have to keep a separate copy of each song for every person.
 
Comment

jmcrutch

macrumors regular
Jul 27, 2010
249
78
I WANT cloud music services ... yet right now I'm not really exactly certain why I need them or how I will actually utilize them. I understand that this is, like many things, sort of a paradigm shift, and one that affects different people in different ways.

For the person who's never gotten "control" over his/her music collection, cloud based services open up a new door. Compare to the late 90s when most people still couldn't master the complicated process of time-shifting TV programming using VCRs. Enter the DVR and 10-12 years later the entire TV-watching public time-shifts.

Well, I mastered my music collection a long time ago. I remember the days when I used to ponder what type of furniture or specialized cabinetry I would like to have to house all the CDs I owned. Call me "small-minded" because I wasn't envisioning the future. Fast forward a few years when I finally decided to get rid of all the CD jewel cases (recycled - not the easiest thing to do with those darn things) and put my CDs into binders.

Then I ripped the entire collection onto my computer, figured out how to hard-wire my computer to my home stereo, began using the iPod functions of my iPhone, purchased a 160GB iPod classic and car connection kit, and later AppleTV2s to stream my collection throughout my house.

So, right now for me, I've already got access to all the music I own (around 150GBs worth) just about anywhere I need it. Yet, I know that I'm thinking in a small-minded way and that having cloud-based music will certainly trump my own ability to master my collection - just in ways that I cannot really get a grip on right now.

Just felt like sharing all this ... sorry for the long post.
 
Comment

Thunderhawks

Suspended
Feb 17, 2009
4,057
2,118
I WANT cloud music services ... yet right now I'm not really exactly certain why I need them or how I will actually utilize them. I understand that this is, like many things, sort of a paradigm shift, and one that affects different people in different ways.

For the person who's never gotten "control" over his/her music collection, cloud based services open up a new door. Compare to the late 90s when most people still couldn't master the complicated process of time-shifting TV programming using VCRs. Enter the DVR and 10-12 years later the entire TV-watching public time-shifts.

Well, I mastered my music collection a long time ago. I remember the days when I used to ponder what type of furniture or specialized cabinetry I would like to have to house all the CDs I owned. Call me "small-minded" because I wasn't envisioning the future. Fast forward a few years when I finally decided to get rid of all the CD jewel cases (recycled - not the easiest thing to do with those darn things) and put my CDs into binders.

Then I ripped the entire collection onto my computer, figured out how to hard-wire my computer to my home stereo, began using the iPod functions of my iPhone, purchased a 160GB iPod classic and car connection kit, and later AppleTV2s to stream my collection throughout my house.

So, right now for me, I've already got access to all the music I own (around 150GBs worth) just about anywhere I need it. Yet, I know that I'm thinking in a small-minded way and that having cloud-based music will certainly trump my own ability to master my collection - just in ways that I cannot really get a grip on right now.

Just felt like sharing all this ... sorry for the long post.

Feeling your pain:)

I still have 600 real old albums to convert when I retire (yeah right) with many European artists' music which was never converted to digital.

Used cases with shelves on it, put over under furniture and beds etc.etc.

Same for CD's. I converted whatever I could from albums to CDs.
Now converting CD's to digital.

While we back up it's still always a worry to lose some gems.

So, maybe this is an option as a reasonably priced back up?

Until all streaming is reliable without buffering ( I know Apple is working on it) and the data plans are not killing us, my iphone or ipod is just fine.
 
Comment

macnews

macrumors 6502a
May 12, 2003
601
2
Idaho
Big Announcement next Monday regarding this and the 10th Anniversary.

I have no idea if this is true but all these signings happening with the mystery store stuff - maybe something to do with it?
 
Comment

kevingaffney

macrumors 6502a
Aug 17, 2008
576
54
Assuming all your music will be stored in the cloud rather than individual devices, how will this work for users travelling to different countries. With roaming charges, it would not be viable. I spend a lot more time on vacation listening to my music collection than at any other time of the year. Also, not everywhere has a strong signal, so will that limit it's use further?
 
Comment

Themaeds

macrumors regular
Feb 4, 2011
174
0
Just to know. In what way does the approach of google and apple differs when it comes to cloud music? Google has its cloud for music now too, so why does apple have to sign the labels?

Probably because they are going to charge for it. Google didn’t sign a deal because it's unnecessary....they are just providing space for someone to keep their music and a player. You arent "renting" music from google, they are just housing what you already have.
 
Comment

Blakjack

macrumors 68000
Jun 23, 2009
1,800
311
If they manage to nail this, it could mark another great year for Apple.

A service like this could also do wonders for Ping!

People seem to have forgotten about ping, but Next to a new notification system, Ping is a major interest of mine. I think Ping is Apple's secret weapon they hope the competition has forgotten about.
 
Comment

dustinsc

macrumors regular
Nov 21, 2009
230
52
If I rip a bought CD and upload it to google, what would be the difference with the Apple way?

Not much. Except maybe you won't have to upload it to Apple. iTunes may scan your computer for music and then make it instantly available through the cloud service. So that means if there is let's say a 10GB limit to how much music you can upload, that means you're not spending the time uploading 10GB of music and can get it instantly. Or, even better, if Apple doesn't have to store millions of copies of the same songs like Google and Amazon have to, then Apple could offer the service without a storage limit. If it's on iTunes, then it doesn't count towards a limit. And most music is on iTunes (minus my Garth Brooks collection :mad:)
 
Comment

iSee

macrumors 68040
Oct 25, 2004
3,528
255
Assuming all your music will be stored in the cloud rather than individual devices, how will this work for users travelling to different countries. With roaming charges, it would not be viable. I spend a lot more time on vacation listening to my music collection than at any other time of the year. Also, not everywhere has a strong signal, so will that limit it's use further?

Pretty sure it will be optional.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.