Apple's Cloud-Based Music Service Ready to Go?

[Russell L]

It makes perfect sense for Apple's cloud to store only purchases made through iTunes. I've got well over 160 GB of music in iTunes, almost all of it NOT purchased from iTunes, so I would imagine it would be a pretty expensive proposition for me (and probably Apple, too) if I wanted it all stored "in the cloud".....

 

[EmpyreanUK]

What's being hinted at here strikes me as rather pointless, too.

If Apple maintained databases of who owns what from one humongous library, then streaming it from a centralised repository would make sense —*everybody would be listening to the same copy of the same song, and it would save an enormous degree of duplication.

If, however, they decided to continue along the route we're currently going along, in which each individual/household has their own library of music they like, tagged how they like and encoded how they like, then it makes far, far more sense for us to store these libraries locally. The network distance between the user and the stored file (which would anyway be unique to each user) would be a lot smaller, which is a more efficient use of data transfer (i.e. your music is streamed upstairs from your NAS to your computer, requiring a couple 'hops' and only operating in one subnet).

 

[juicexct]

http://www.audiogalaxy.com/

already does this for all the music in your itunes library

 

[Cyacene]

For me (and from what it sounds like, most of you), this will have limited functionality, as I already have all my music backed up on my terabytes of storage.

My mother-in-law however, doesn't even own a computer, she has an iPad and is completely in love with it. She bought the 16GB version last year and has never been happier. Except, she does not have iTunes installed anywhere so cant back up her files. Now, when she buys a TV show (cant rent them here in Canada), she is forced to delete something that she has previously purchased. If Apple could just allow re-downloads of something you have already purchased, this would be huge. It would remove the need for a computer entirely for a lot of people that are perfectly happy getting buy with just an iPad or iPod Touch. Even if this was WiFi only, it would still have a significant value for a lot of people.

 

[dmula]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

I wish it would work exactly like Lala.

 

[Ruahrc]

That would be kind of Green IT. We all store copies of files Apple anyway have spinning on their disks. What a waste of disk space on global scale.

Except its not very "green" to shuttle data all over the place because you no longer have a local copy. Think of the terabyes and terabytes of streaming bandwidth required for everyone to listen to the latest hit song via the cloud. What a waste of bandwidth on a global scale, and arguably, bandwidth comes at much more of a premium than disk/storage space.

Not really sure what to make of this yet- but it is highly likely that I will have no use for it, as I keep my library as ALAC files too. That would be impractical from a storage and bandwidth standpoint to put on the cloud. I just hope that some improvements to iDisk come as a result of this.

Ruahrc

 

[Micjose]

c'mon apple!

 

[marksman]

In the immortal words of "Tim the Enchanter"...GET ON WITH IT!!!!

Haha... that is too funny.

Everyone understand now why the iPhone 5 is a gigantic failure if LTE isn't included?

Data transfer rates = Whole Ballgame when it comes to cloud-based storage and access.

No?

Music doesn't need LTE to stream. It doesn't even need 3g.

 

[marksman]

De leet

 

[buckers]

This mean they're gonna redo iTunes and the Store? Or would that be too good to be true?

 

[CIA]

Finally! I've been looking for a way to quickly blow through my mobile data caps and incur massive overage fees... This may be it!


I'll stick to local storage. Thanks.

 

[vincenz]

All those music labels will have no choice but to sign on after seeing what Apple can do for them.

 

[Dcuellar]

http://www.audiogalaxy.com/

already does this for all the music in your itunes library

And Subsonic is better...

If you have an iPhone you can use iSub. Best combination out there.

Honestly, though... I'm really interested in seeing what iTunes will do with the cloud. While audiogalaxy and subsonic work, they require you always have YOUR computer on. If the price is right I'm going to the cloud.

 

[ChristianVirtual]

Except its not very "green" to shuttle data all over the place because you no longer have a local copy. Think of the terabyes and terabytes of streaming bandwidth required for everyone to listen to the latest hit song via the cloud.

True, when streaming would be only way. On my wish list is also a transparent access via iDisk. That would allow you to keep the files stores with Apples cloud (remote filesystem) but still control via local iTunes.

Or: a new FW will allow to decide to pull a local copy on a (registered) device for offline consumption.

I hope SJ learned that we normal people have to deal with Telecom provider unable to deliver on Mobile IT dreams (to realisitic costs and usability)

 

[OzyOly]

I'm still skeptical about this coming out in 2011. MobileMe/Cloud Service have been rumoured since last year and nothing has come of it...

 

[SockRolid]

May be related to the Apple Store employee "no vacation" days

If Apple is actually planning to roll out a cloudified iTunes and/or MobileMe, then maybe the late-May "no vacation" policy at the Apple Stores is for training their sales staff on the new features. Or maybe not. Who knows?

 

[Dcuellar]

If Apple is actually planning to roll out a cloudified iTunes and/or MobileMe, then maybe the late-May "no vacation" policy at the Apple Stores is for training their sales staff on the new features. Or maybe not. Who knows?

That makes sense.

 

[cvaldes]

Music doesn't need LTE to stream. It doesn't even need 3g.

Correct.

You can get perfectly acceptable streaming music at 96 kbps.

It's not 1995. We're not using 64K ISDN modems.

 

[aibo82]

I HATE the whole idea!

I used to walk to a shop buy a CD with a HARD copy it was MINE I paid for it! a physical copy I had controll over.

Then we had MP3's with that lovely DRM removed to let us do WHAT WE WANT and had a PHYSICAL file on my laptop or pc it was MY FILE.

So what we saying now?

Upload all YOUR music your PAID for back to Apple or whatever company running it so they have the whole controll to pull it all when they want!

No copys, no files, all on the server and it dont stop there it will be personal stuff soon eventualy everything cloud based and your trust in the company to keep this all safe!

NO WAY I'll stick to my few terabyte hard disk and stream it from MY PC not THERE servers!

 

[DudeDad]

I'm sure Comcast would love me to upload my 300+Gb of Apple Lossless music! Seriously, I think that

1. If you have ripped music already available in iTunes, your version will not get uploaded, but you will be able to access those songs

2. Anything you upload will be uploaded in a smaller, compressed format....it won't be streamed as a lossless file

3. Before we accept or reject this, let's see what apple has in mind

4. Do not use this as your only backup! If you have lossless files, don't expect to get them back at way from apple. Back up, back up, back up!

 

[aibo82]

Correct.

You can get perfectly acceptable streaming music at 96 kbps.

It's not 1995. We're not using 64K ISDN modems.

I can get perfectly pin sharp 256 kbps music via my laptop or ipod why do I want to listen to a crappy bass muffled 96 kbps job?

I paid £300 for heaphones this cloud based stuff will sound awfull as they really let you hear poor quality! its ok for the £20 plastic jobbies you get that mask it!

 

[aibo82]

Bassicaly we are paying for music and getting internet radio in return!

Apple are the winners!....it dont wash at all with me!

 

[SeattleMoose]

Cloud? No Thanx

I have my whole iTunes library on a flash drive that is not dependent on ANYTHING (remote servers, ISP, reception, etc.) other than being inserted.

If you think cloud is great...GFU!!!!

 

[jason2811]

I don't really get the point of this. Most people (obviously not all) have music collections smaller than 16GB and 32GB. What purpose does it serve to keep this music in a cloud rather than on the device? To top it off, you can only access when you have data service.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Gah! A zillion dollar server farm, to be filled with more copies of the same mp3s we already have? Aeyyyyeeeesh


Use that sucker as an online backup solution to tie into time machine and tossin in a year free with every Mac sale. Kill!