Sidebar Sidebar
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 to Offer Storage, Not Subscription Access

gnasher729 said:
Quite a challenge to create such a system, but not impossible.
Click to expand...

Definitely right. It's actually very possible. And it doesn't have to be just for music. Single instance storage is nothing new. Plenty of systems exist that check for similarities between files so that only the differences are stored.

Cablevision got sued for this a few years ago because they wanted to record TV shows on their servers and then serving them to their DVR customers. The broadcasters stepped in and said that it was copyright infringement because they were re-broadcasting a single recording to multiple users and thus was not fair use.

So, Cablevision revised their system so that there was technically a unique recording for each one of their customers, but they only had to store a single copy on their end. My guess is that they didn't actually do anything technically except maybe add an ID number, but apparently it was enough to win in court.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...e-dvr-stays-legal-supremes-wont-hear-case.ars
 
Cool idea, but no good for someone like me. My music library is all in lossless format and takes up 500gb.
 
BornAgainMac said:
Apple knows what I purchased. I hope I can have them just reference all that when I stream to my iPhone for example. No uploading to the cloud since they have copies of everything I purchased on iTunes for the most part.

It also solves the pirated cloud content issue and time consuming uploads. Just allow you to use the cloud for products purchased from Apple.
Click to expand...

I think you're probably right but may be underestimating the downside for legally obtained music not sourced from iTunes. Like many others, I've ripped an extensive CD collection to MP3. Apple wouldn't support any streaming in these cases if you're right. Why support playing it in iTunes on a computer or portable device then? How is that really any different?

LaLa solved this problem the right way in my view. Download a small app (part of iTunes) to process your "on-site" library and determine what sounds should be available. For the minority not recognized (e.g., live music, esoteric artists, or personally recorded material), uploads provide a means to add to the master libary maintained by Apple. Yes, this doesn't prevent streaming of songs that were illegally obtained, but LaLa also seemed to have navigated that legal issue. In essence they asked you to confirm that you rightfully owned the music rather than formally verifying it.
 
Last edited:
OK, I'm missing something...

Backup my music. Yeah, that would take, oh, I don't know how many days!!
 
This is not about music. Music does not take up much space. This is about TV and Movies. If a user has a few hundred HD TV shows and a large collection of movies, it can take up lots of space. Remember, It's not just the space for the movie, it is the space for the backup of the movie.

This will save me from trying to find new places to connect yet another 2TB HD.

Note: I hate the name Thunderbolt. When you type TB, are you typing Thunderbolt or Terabyte? Very confusing.
 
If the service is only for iTunes purchases, it won't do zip for people like me who've never purchased from the iTunes store, yet have built up an iTunes library of over 20,000 songs ripped at full bit-rate from CD's or converted from vinyl needledrops.

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this, though. If Apple could find a way to index my collection and offer it through the cloud - even at a reduced bit-rate - it would seem too good to be true.
 
Colonel Badger said:
You're forgetting one thing. They already have a good proportion of your music. It's called the iTunes Store. All they will do is scan your collection for music they already sell. For those tracks they already have they would simply "link" that track from the iTunes Store to your account, meaning zero upload for you and zero additional space for them. You'd only need to upload those tracks they can't identify.

M.
Click to expand...

From a licensing perspective, this could not work for a free service unless the labels allow it. Under 20th Century Fox v. Cablevision, for such a service to go unlicensed and not be deemed a copyright infringement, each end user needs to upload their own content to the cloud and Apple would need to have a copy of each song for each user who uploads it. If all users were streaming the track from one copy, then the labels would need to license the use.
 
Mattie Num Nums said:
... and how will they prevent streaming pirated music?
Click to expand...

Probably by restricting the cloud to tunes purchased via iTunes, which by definition are not pirated.

Perhaps this was your point? I seriously doubt, given the relationship it has with the music labels, Apple will allow its servers to be used for a storage free-for-all for the very reason you state.
 
I agree with others here in their thinking that purchased iTunes songs (media) will be automatically there. then through Genius-type scanning any other songs you have that Apple/iTunes has will be there....

the only songs/media needed to upload will be those not in their catalog. And I can imagine it being like...you have 100gb of music, of which 60gb was found via iTunes servers. you can upload the remaining 40gb...up to the 50gb of free space. (or whatever magic FREE gb allotment is made).

All music streamed will be of a compressed format for streaming purposes. Then if you have more music/media than space allotted on the FREE side, you could purchase more space, though it will continue to sync any songs/media already in their server.


just my thoughts though.


**wasn't iTunes home-sharing originally for iTunes purchased music but then switched to all music?**
 
Small White Car said:
What? How do you figure?

Let's say... Service only streams to devices logged in with the correct MobileMe name. Only allow a set number of devices to be associated with the name and make it so it uses the MM name that is synced with iTunes (so that it's a big deal to change and not something you'd sign in and out of constantly).

That'd do it. Upload whatever you want, then.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood the post you quoted. I am pretty sure by "pirated" he/she is referring to music which was obtained unethically/illegally. At least thats how I read it. Only an issue because if you have/use pirated media on your own machines it is between you and the owner. If Apple hosts those illegally obtained files for you, now they are involved as well.
 
MacMan86 said:
No way will this involve uploading your iTunes library to the cloud and there's two very simple reasons why not:

1) Apple servers would be hosting vast amounts of pirated music - neither the labels nor Apple would be ok about this.
2) Between all the users of the service, there would be 100,000 copies of Lady Gaga's latest album on their servers. If you're running a data centre, this level of 'redundancy' would be insanely inefficient.
Click to expand...

That's where data deduplication come into play. There is no need to have 100,000 copies of a file. Simply 1 copy and 100,000 pointers to that file. If you've ever used Dropbox, you might have noticed this. If you upload a large file that someone else has uploaded to the Dropbox servers, the uploaded file only takes a few seconds to "transfer". I'd imagine that there would a massive about of dedup going on in an iTunes cloud. Uploading your iTunes collection could be quicker than you think.
 
why does everbody think that apple won't implement strictly what lala did allowing everyone to upload entire library intsead of purchases? this seems silly and a waste of their time. who here actually has purchased the majority of their music on itunes and hasn't ripped at least on cd? just think this is a problem that could end up as a bad case of pr
 
tarkeybear said:
..is why we need to duplicate all user's (or subscriber's) content up on the cloud?
If I legitimately purchase a song from iTunes, then iTunes and the label should know I have a fair-use license to enjoy that music.

If I lose my music and need to recover it, a simple database search should show that I paid for it once, and allow me to download it again (kind of like the app store model).

If me and a million other users have the latest black eyed peas hit, isn't it more efficient for Apple to keep one copy on file on their servers than a million copies up on a cloud?

I could see a cloud data center being more useful for keeping unique copies of content (home or video or audio files (i.e. youtube)), than keeping multiple copies of the same file?

what am I missing here?
Click to expand...

you're missing the epic profiteering of the RIAA, Apple, every music label ever, and the fact that music and record execs are stuck in the dark ages.

You sir, are a dreamer. bravo.. I dream of the day when all of that exists.
 
Small White Car said:
Makes sense. Apple's business model is based around people buying and owning music, not renting it.

I always assumed this new facility would support Apple's business, not turn it upside down. This particular rumor goes along with that line of thinking so I'm inclined to believe it.

Also, I long ago decided that Apple knows MobileMe isn't really worth $99, but rather than lowering the price they seemed determined to make it "worth it." This would certainly go a long ways towards that. A streaming rental-music service would bring in more money but a lot of it would go to the music labels. A bunch of new MM subscriptions, on the other hand, would be money that Apple gets to keep.
Click to expand...

Although they've gone for the renting model on the Apple TV.
 
For me to be able to stream my iTunes library to my Apple TV without having to use home sharing (especially for TV shows) is a great selling point for me. I agree it will probably reference existing files rather than upload.

Imagine how many people would try and upload at the same time!!! It would crash the internets...

Probably iTunes purchases only initially, until they can move to a wider model, once the music execs put away their Rubix Cubes and join the modern world.
 
J-Kid said:
why does everbody think that apple won't implement strictly what lala did allowing everyone to upload entire library intsead of purchases? this seems silly and a waste of their time. who here actually has purchased the majority of their music on itunes and hasn't ripped at least on cd? just think this is a problem that could end up as a bad case of pr
Click to expand...

they won't limit it to purchases that would be stupid. They'll just have a limit on # of devices that can access it, like with iTunes authorizations, so .. say 5.

Device 1- iPhone
Device 2- iPad
Device 3- MacBook Pro
Device 4- Your spouse/kid/grandpas iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch
Device 5- Home computer

If you need more auths, you pay. dearly.
 
J-Kid said:
why does everbody think that apple won't implement strictly what lala did allowing everyone to upload entire library intsead of purchases?
Click to expand...

Because Apple deals directly with music labels and said music labels would sue the crap out of Apple for storing and serving pirated music.
 
krazykayaker said:
That's where data deduplication come into play. There is no need to have 100,000 copies of a file. Simply 1 copy and 100,000 pointers to that file. If you've ever used Dropbox, you might have noticed this. If you upload a large file that someone else has uploaded to the Dropbox servers, the uploaded file only takes a few seconds to "transfer". I'd imagine that there would a massive about of dedup going on in an iTunes cloud. Uploading your iTunes collection could be quicker than you think.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the physical act of uploading all the GBs of data in an iTunes Library, responding to those saying "I have 500GB of music - this would take years!". I was saying this wouldn't happen. I agree, if the service could hold all your library, Apple would have a means to store one copy of everything.
 
just me or does the icon look very much like mobile me icon? and with mobile me possibly going free? a big apple event next wednessday? seems like very suspicious timing.
 
alent1234 said:
cool idea for 2007 or 2008 but not today

i have an iphone 3G, 3GS, 4 and a HTC Inspire. a year from now there will be an iphone 6 as well. i'm on the cheapo android phone and my wife is on the iphone and i use old iphones as ipods. that's more and more storage every year at home.

i just reinstalled iOS on my 16GB 3G and it's now only music. my old 3GS is only for apps and i'll probably put some videos on it

as i add more old phones at home i see less and less of a need to use the cloud when i have all this flash storage at home. not like you need anything powerful to play music
Click to expand...

sounds like a giant cluster frack to me but if it works for you, more power to ya.

Still my music library exceeds my portable storage, so I'd like access to the whole thing remotely when I want it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back