Apple Signs EMI, Cloud Music Deals Almost Done

[smiddlehurst]

Look everyone a living example of an Apple Fanboy.

I think google and Amazon know that the RIAA can not really touch them on how they are currently doing it. Space is cheaper then more than likely what RIAA was demanding in fees. RIAA business model is very out dated and they are still struggling to stay relevant in today's internet world.

Umm, have you seen what the RIAA have done with YouTube? At the absolute minimum they'll insist that Google / Amazon police the service to identify obviously pirated music. Actually, I seem to remember Google Music Beta already having something like that... hang on... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/gadgetreviews/google-music-wont-allow-users-to-store-illegal-songs/24538

Google has a variety of tools at its disposal to identify illegal files. Via a method known as digital music watermarking, record companies can encode files with a variety information, including when and where the song was purchased. If Google Music detects multiple copies of the same information, it can filter the files that contain it, preventing users from uploading the files. Conversely, Google could also be forced by record labels into only accepting music uploads that feature that sort of identifying information.

If the RIAA are smart (yeah yeah, I know, bear with me) they won't touch the services themselves, just use them as a tool to catch and prosecute pirates. A few tests cases and you'll soon see the service die anyway as those who aren't tech-savy enough to strip identification from ripped files realise they're likely to get caught.

And here's the problem Google especially will have: the business model may be outdated but they're not working with the content providers to build a better one, they're trying to enforce something that, basically, only really works for Google. They tried this before with Google TV (actually their attitude towards copyright and IP has historically been rather poor across the board) and, for the first time really, content providers were in a position to stop them. The net result was customers got screwed.

In the long run Apple's approach to this is the right one. Get the content providers on-board and change the system slowly in a way that works for the consumer AND leaves something approaching a viable business model for the provider while transitioning all involved to the new system slowly and as gently as possible. Otherwise you end up with a very, very broken system and a lot of conent creators unable to make a living.

 

[rdlink]

Here lies the death of capacity updates just to try to push this cloud crap down our throats.

Thanks but no thanks. Can't get a good signal everywhere, pointless and lame in my opinion.

To quote iEvolution's great-great grandfather:

Here lies the death of upgrades to livery stables just to try to push this automobile crap down our throats.

Thanks but no thanks. There aren't paved roads everywhere, so it's pointless and lame in my opinion.

 

[RoelJuun]

I don't mind so much about this cloud-music on my iDevices. Especially not when only bought from iTunes. I prefer cd's.

I do mind about a proper synching system for contacts/mail/ical etc. An online cloud storage seems nice too. It almost sounds like MobileMe to me. Just revamp MobileMe, make it work for everyone and make it 'cheap'. I'll be on the bandwagon for sure.

 

[rdlink]

Why are the music industry people "scumbags"??? Because they want to make money?

For the same reason all media companies are scumbags. Because they continuously attempt to use artificial restrictions to protect their profit margin, instead of dealing with the reality that technology has changed the paradigm. You think it really costs $16 to produce and distribute a CD? Or $20+ for a DVD?

These are the same companies that won't even talk to Netflix about streaming first run movies. And the same companies that won't even talk to Apple about renting their lame a** primetime tv shows. And the same companies that put draconian rental terms around their streaming rentals for all providers (i.e., forcing the consumer to watch a movie within 24 hours or lose it).

 

[chaosbunny]

Do you seriously think the Government is going to monitor what songs you listen to?

Why not? They are monitoring what calls I make and what mails I write after all, that's common knowledge.

Now think about it, everyone was quickly blaming Mariliyn Manson for the Colombine shooting because they found some of his records in the shooters room. Way easier than blaming parents/school/society or the pharma industries drugs he was on.

I don't think this idea is as far fetched as you think.

Don't you think someone will think of a reason to monitor whatever can be monitored, as proven by the past?

I'm sorry but I'm sick of some witty tinfoil hat comments whenever someone brings up concerns about possible dangers of such technology.

Or do you believe governments & corporations tell the truth all the time? The numerous scandals that pop up all the time seem to suggest otherwise.

 

[OllyW]

Why not? They are monitoring what calls I make and what mails I write after all, that's common knowledge.

Now think about it, everyone was quickly blaming Mariliyn Manson for the Colombine shooting because they found some of his records in the shooters room. Way easier than blaming parents/school/society or the pharma industries drugs he was on.

I don't think this idea is as far fetched as you think.

Don't you think someone will think of a reason to monitor whatever can be monitored, as proven by the past?

I'm sorry but I'm sick of some witty tinfoil hat comments whenever someone brings up concerns about possible dangers of such technology.

Or do you believe governments & corporations tell the truth all the time? The numerous scandals that pop up all the time seem to suggest otherwise.

I think you are very paranoid.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

I still don't understand what we're getting here.

All this fuss so I can copy my own music to a server? When all my devices are now larger than my music collection? Did Apple really build a multi-billion dollar data center just to replace the iPod Classic?

If this were really about a subscription music service, then that would make sense.

 

[Popeye206]

For the same reason all media companies are scumbags. Because they continuously attempt to use artificial restrictions to protect their profit margin, instead of dealing with the reality that technology has changed the paradigm. You think it really costs $16 to produce and distribute a CD? Or $20+ for a DVD?

These are the same companies that won't even talk to Netflix about streaming first run movies. And the same companies that won't even talk to Apple about renting their lame a** primetime tv shows. And the same companies that put draconian rental terms around their streaming rentals for all providers (i.e., forcing the consumer to watch a movie within 24 hours or lose it).

Just because they are trying to figure out how to make money with the new paradigm of digital distribution does not make them scumbags.

Funny... you probably really dig movies that cost $100 million to make, yet are upset the companies that made the movie are trying to make money back on it. You know they are a business. It's their job to make money, plus actors, writers, and musicians all want to get paid too.

Just because we're moving to electronic, does not mean it should be free or low cost. However, as we know, competition and the market will ultimately determine the price.

BTW... I'm all for cheaper... but I don't think the industry is scumbags because they are sorting this all out.

 

[Popeye206]

Why not? They are monitoring what calls I make and what mails I write after all, that's common knowledge.

Now think about it, everyone was quickly blaming Mariliyn Manson for the Colombine shooting because they found some of his records in the shooters room. Way easier than blaming parents/school/society or the pharma industries drugs he was on.

I don't think this idea is as far fetched as you think.

Don't you think someone will think of a reason to monitor whatever can be monitored, as proven by the past?

I'm sorry but I'm sick of some witty tinfoil hat comments whenever someone brings up concerns about possible dangers of such technology.

Or do you believe governments & corporations tell the truth all the time? The numerous scandals that pop up all the time seem to suggest otherwise.

You watch too many movies.

The reality is... the government could care less about you unless you do something wrong like murder someone. Companies (like Apple or Google) could care less about you except to try and link your interests to other products or services you may like. Yeah... advertising... but it's a reality of life, it makes money (look at Google).

Sorry to say, other than in the movies, there are no huge conspiracies under way to destroy the world or chase you down with men in black suits based on what music you listen too.

 

[treese]

This certainly sounds like a cool technology, but my main concern is Apple could easily drop capacity in their devices (or simply never improve it) and in essence force people to sign up for this service in order to access their own data.

 

[Popeye206]

I still don't understand what we're getting here.

All this fuss so I can copy my own music to a server? When all my devices are now larger than my music collection? Did Apple really build a multi-billion dollar data center just to replace the iPod Classic?

If this were really about a subscription music service, then that would make sense.

The idea is to unlink your content from your device. This way you get several benefits. One would be to use any iOS device to access the same library anywhere. The other is back-ups. The other is devices with lower storage capacity can still have access to larger libraries by automatically swapping out content as it's needed. So effectively you could have a 16GB iPad and still access 50GB of music and content on demand.

 

[chaosbunny]

You watch too many movies.

The reality is... the government could care less about you unless you do something wrong like murder someone. Companies (like Apple or Google) could care less about you except to try and link your interests to other products or services you may like. Yeah... advertising... but it's a reality of life, it makes money (look at Google).

Sorry to say, other than in the movies, there are no huge conspiracies under way to destroy the world or chase you down with men in black suits based on what music you listen too.

Actually, I don't watch many movies at all.

Sounds like you watch too many movies and too much advertising, may I recommend a newspaper or a good book.

So the government doesn't care about us, that must be why providers have to store every email under telecommunication law.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

The idea is to unlink your content from your device. This way you get several benefits. One would be to use any iOS device to access the same library anywhere. The other is back-ups. The other is devices with lower storage capacity can still have access to larger libraries by automatically swapping out content as it's needed. So effectively you could have a 16GB iPad and still access 50GB of music and content on demand.

Really doesn't sound like much. In a few years, almost everyone's iOS devices will have more storage capacity than most music collections.

Using other people's iOS devices - how often does that happen?

On the off chance that you are walking around with an unsync'd device and you've purchased some new stuff on another - well, infinite re-download rights takes care of that without Apple having to build tons of dedicated storage or force people to first upload their music over their slow and soon to be capped broadband connections.

These features I suppose would all be a nice-to-have, but Apple can't be investing billions in a nice-to-have. It's not revolutionary and isn't going to change how anyone does anything.

 

[Piggie]

I hope I shall be proven wrong, but something's telling me that this is going to be the most locked down and disappointing cloud based system ever, and won't replace any of the current cloud based systems people are using today.

Is it actually going to be anything really, or will it be like an online music library so you just stream your bought music onto your iDevice from the cloud, so you never have to actually have the data on your iDevice?

And that's all it will be?

I was hoping for a full cloud based file storage area for all purchased and private data.

 

[steadysignal]

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)

Just waiting for the "only iTunes purchased music" hammer to fall. When / if it does, this will be slightly more popular than Ping is currently.

once again, full of win is just that.

nail=head.

spot on.

the delay on this announcement about mobileme and whatever it is to become is painful - is MoMe to become the bloat of cloud services? heavy cloud, no rain? maybe that too will run through iTunes...

 

[iSee]

This sounds awesome!!!

But... When I think rationally about it, it's probably going to cost more than it's worth to me.

 

[Glideslope]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Why do I have this feeling that once Apple has signed and closed these deals, Amazon and Google will be stung with a cease & desist from the RIAA for their cloud music efforts, leaving just Apple as the only place to go for cloud music.

A wise person this one is, yes.
Most people don't get Apples Strategic Planning.

 

[sishaw]

To quote iEvolution's great-great grandfather:

Here lies the death of upgrades to livery stables just to try to push this automobile crap down our throats.

Thanks but no thanks. There aren't paved roads everywhere, so it's pointless and lame in my opinion.

Ha ha! Perfect. I was about the say the same thing, but less cleverly and with more words.

 

[Themaeds]

They can _not_ absorb possible damages. The maximum possible fine is $150,000 per song. With maybe three million different songs on their servers, that could be $450 billion. The exact amount would be "all the money they have".

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul

 

[ciTiger]

Nice! I'm really curious to see what the "iCloud" service will offer...

 

[dgree03]

This service WILL require itunes only purchased music. Why else would they need licensing deals, if they were going to "match" your current collection to the itune cloud music then let you stream?

So if they do that they would probaly have to assure the RL's that someone cant just go download GaGa's album off a torrent and then be able to sync that with a valid license from apple.

Also this will most certainly be linked to homesharing, where you need a username and password, and you are only authorized X amount of computers.

Unlike amazon and google cloud, apples might be more data sufficient and quicker, but it will certainly be more limited and likely more expensive(they need to pay for those licensing deals somehow)

 

[guzhogi]

I'm gonna take a wait & see approach to this. There's so many things we don't know about this, and so many ways this could be done, I think it best to reserve judgement until it comes out.

 

[gnasher729]

This service WILL require itunes only purchased music. Why else would they need licensing deals, if they were going to "match" your current collection to the itune cloud music then let you stream?

Why the licensing deals? 1. What Amazon and Google do is risky. They _think_ what they do is legal, but if the record industry can convince a judge otherwise, they are in deep, deep trouble. Very much worth avoiding. 2. While it can be argued that it is Ok if I upload a song and then they let me download or stream the exact same song without having a license, if they matched your copy of the song to mine and let you download or stream the song that I uploaded, that is most certainly copyright infringement and needs a license. 3. Apple may not _need_ a licensing deal, but it will certainly improve their relationship with the recording industry, especially compared to Amazon. So the next time Apple and Amazon have to have any negotiations with the recording industry, Apple will be in a much better position.

 

[important]

Streaming will kill the iPhone battery + iPod Touch access?

In addition to the data cap issue that's been raised on this thread (and others) a few times, unless Apple comes out with better battery life on new iPhone models, streaming music to the device for a few hours is going to kill the battery life, based on the performance of the current devices.

And since it seems like the Touch is the future of the iPod - how would users access their cloud music when they are not on a wifi network (for example, commuting to work)? Are we going to see 3G/CDMA-capable models this fall?

 

[apockalipse]

Cloud Computing/Streaming Overhyped

The concept of cloud computing is a great idea until you consider the data caps adopted by service providers. It will never take off and reach its full potential if you are going to get penalized for streaming too much content. You can't always be on a wifi connection, especially in your car. The inevitably subscription fees will only be part of the total cost. A 2GB limit is not that much one you begin streaming most of your music and movies. Until the industry changes and comes up with a better option, cloud services will never amount to the future that they are trying to convice us it is.