This was downgraded because it's false. Amazon allows you to upload your own music. As will apple, according to the allthingsd rumor (take that for what it's worth...it's still a rumor)
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's Cloud-Based Music Service Ready to Go?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This was downgraded because it's false. Amazon allows you to upload your own music. As will apple, according to the allthingsd rumor (take that for what it's worth...it's still a rumor)
not going to search for the comment, which the comment i've quoted here was a reply to, but basically the commenter was saying how stupid it is for people to speculate on an unannounced, rumored product...
as if it were hocus-pocus. we can speculate on products like these because we KNOW they [apple] are going to launch this service soon. it would make sense for an announcement to come at WWDC. as i said in a previous post, Amazon has already launched their service, so we know all the details of that service. therefore, we can speculate based on what Amazon is doing. it makes sense that apple would only allow content purchased from itunes to be stored on their servers. i'm not complaining because it makes sense to restrict storage only to itunes-purchased content. apple also know what media you've purchased from them in the past, and so i would image that all previously purchased content would be able to be stored there as well, but we will see.
no, ultimately we do not know for sure how apple's service will differ from amazon, but we DO know that it will differ in some aspect or another...apple always differentiates themselves from the rest of the pack.
It was my comment. I was not commenting about the speculation in this thread, but rather commenting on the posters who essentially claimed that apple was the most unethical company based on some of the speculation in this thread. Speculation is okay. It's fun, and that's what macrumors Is for. I just found it hilarious that some took such an indignant moral stance on apple based on that speculation. That is what I found stupid, not the speculation.
I highly doubt this. Apple was quite unequivocal that wwdc was going to be about the future of iOS and Mac os x. The one way I can see this happening is if its part of a much larger OS level push into the cloud.
True. It's very likely apples service will be similar to amazons.
I don't see why this makes sense. The only reason is the cost of storing and streaming those files. But if amazon can do it, surely apple can too. Because unlike amazon, this will help sell more iOS and Mac os x devices, which apple will make huge profits on. The only reason I can see this happening is if the music labels insist on it, bur since amazon pulled a fast one on them, it's unlikely they will make their official licensing less desirable than the unofficial route.
and boring. seems like we've been hearing about Apple's potential cloud-based this-and-that for ages. Hope something actually launches before 2012.
Given how much the RIAA hates even legitimate ripping, I seriously doubt Apple would let you do that. Besides, the storage requirements would be enormous. My lossless library runs some 400GB, for example. Multiply that by thousands of users. Plus, it would take several days, 24 hours a day, to upload, presuming my ISP doesn't slap me down with a hidden bandwidth limit before I finish.
This is what I was referring to. As is said, there's nothing wrong with speculation (that's my fav part of macrumors)... it was just getting a bit humorous to see some comments that lead to actual beliefs. As always with Apple... I love em', but I'll believe it when I see it too.
I agree - if this new cloud merely gives online storage to iTunes-purchased music, then this is not very exciting.
However...
1. I'm betting that the online storage of iTunes-purchased songs will be a free service, and will be in addition to the copy you download as you always have.
2. I'm betting that - despite the majority of opposing opinions - that you will also be able to upload some of your non-iTunes purchased music, and that a certain amount of space, like a few gigs, will be free.
3. I'm betting that iDisk will be a part of this (although it will likely be re-branded) and, therefore, you will be able to use some of that free space to upload documents.
I guess my point is that I think/hope Apple will be offering at least a little more than you mentioned and, more importantly, the "basic plan" will be free of charge.
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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
So let's say you're right, and it streams at some lower kbps. So this service would offer you the ability to hear degraded music... when you have internet access... And it'll use up your monthly data (assuming it's 3G rather than wifi).
This is better than an iPod/iPhone... How? Or not even better -- this is a useful supplement how?
I just really don't get it. You give up control, bit rate, and independence from the Internet and get...?
Full of Win said:
So let's say you're right, and it streams at some lower kbps. So this service would offer you the ability to hear degraded music... when you have internet access... And it'll use up your monthly data (assuming it's 3G rather than wifi).
This is better than an iPod/iPhone... How? Or not even better -- this is a useful supplement how?
I just really don't get it. You give up control, bit rate, and independence from the Internet and get...?
I was ecstatic upon reading the headline and then I thought about it.
Having a "cloud-based" service is more of a pain than an efficient practical vehicle, other than for those people who have and listen to an inordinate amount of music (or high-quality music). (But who is really going to listen to more than 8GB of music a week? Unless you are in the music business, listening to more than that amount of music in a week's time begs the questions: when do you get the time to communicate with friends and family, watch tv, or just listen to your own thoughts.) Really what we are dealing with isn't just a "cloud-based" service to vehicle music more seamlessly, but a steppingstone to something more grand.
Apple has been trying to do away with hardware altogether - progressively producing macs, phones, tablets, and music players that have been thinner and lighter. Maybe what we'll see in future iterations is a reformed OS that does away with the need for memory size because everything - music, movies, apps, and any other extraneous media - will be based in the cloud. So the rumor that a home button will be excluded in future devices may very well be true, since there will be no need to deal with frozen apps and crashing browsers - nothing will be stored locally.
Obviously something like this will have a lot of pitfalls. Namely, the fact that Apple will effectively take their need for propriety to a whole new level since they will have a control over everything that is stored on their server. Furthermore, the cloud-based model has its own limitations: will it be able to work underground, a mile high, and in those 3G-incompetent areas. Moreover, the trend of decreasing, yet costlier data plans will really throw a ratchet in such a plan. Still, if Apple can successfully implement such a service, it will be by choice that consumers jump on board and ditch their old hardware and ideals about how an operating system should work.
So, while a cloud-based service may not be the best idea for streaming music, it can definitely take on a life of its own if Apple proves that it can take "cloud-based" out of buzzword-dom into a realm of practicality never before seen.
For now, I'm more than good with Airplay and my 160GB classic.
Having a "cloud-based" service is more of a pain than an efficient practical vehicle, other than for those people who have and listen to an inordinate amount of music (or high-quality music). (But who is really going to listen to more than 8GB of music a week? Unless you are in the music business, listening to more than that amount of music in a week's time begs the questions: when do you get the time to communicate with friends and family, watch tv, or just listen to your own thoughts.) Really what we are dealing with isn't just a "cloud-based" service to vehicle music more seamlessly, but a steppingstone to something more grand.
Apple has been trying to do away with hardware altogether - progressively producing macs, phones, tablets, and music players that have been thinner and lighter. Maybe what we'll see in future iterations is a reformed OS that does away with the need for memory size because everything - music, movies, apps, and any other extraneous media - will be based in the cloud. So the rumor that a home button will be excluded in future devices may very well be true, since there will be no need to deal with frozen apps and crashing browsers - nothing will be stored locally.
Obviously something like this will have a lot of pitfalls. Namely, the fact that Apple will effectively take their need for propriety to a whole new level since they will have a control over everything that is stored on their server. Furthermore, the cloud-based model has its own limitations: will it be able to work underground, a mile high, and in those 3G-incompetent areas. Moreover, the trend of decreasing, yet costlier data plans will really throw a ratchet in such a plan. Still, if Apple can successfully implement such a service, it will be by choice that consumers jump on board and ditch their old hardware and ideals about how an operating system should work.
So, while a cloud-based service may not be the best idea for streaming music, it can definitely take on a life of its own if Apple proves that it can take "cloud-based" out of buzzword-dom into a realm of practicality never before seen.
For now, I'm more than good with Airplay and my 160GB classic.
Last edited: