Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
$25/year is too much for just letting you listen to songs you've already paided for. Gmail/Hotmail + Dropbox already does everything MobileMe does better.
Even if they add the streaming feature to MobileMe, then drop the price to $25/year it's still to much for that service.

I expect more from Apple. They pretty much have never let me down before. I'll trust the whole picture is something much more amazing.
 
I just dont know why I'd use this when I can stream my music from home anyway :confused:
 
I wouldn't be surprised if the Amazon and Google services were just used to get the labels to agree to Apple's plan. With those services out there, Apple then could go to the labels and say, "We'll start a service like these other ones out there, and you won't get a penny, or you can agree to license and you'll get some money possibly even for pirated tracks." Of course the labels are going to say yes at that point. And Amazon and Google helped the plan because now that Apple has a deal, they will be able to go get deals.
 
I'd rather store things locally, not have to worry about buffering and save $25 a year.

Yeah, like I need Apple to store my 45GB of music... because a small partition on my 6.5TB of storage I own might just burst at the seams...

Oh, and I have to give them MORE of my money, besides the THOUSANDS of dollars I've given them for hardware and software and music already....

Nah, I'll pass....
 
Yeah I'm going to trust a Cult of Mac article over common sense. There is no chance in hell the recording industry will ever permit pirated content on any legally licensed music service. And nor should they.

I hear people saying this over and over, but If you think this through, I may see it differently. If they get paid a few cents per track that you have in your iCloud account, why would they care if you bought that track from iTunes or ripped it from a CD or your buddies CD or even downloaded it illegally? It's actually a win-win for them, since now they are getting paid for tracks that they have lost the revenue on.

If I was them, I would be thinking that way and if they aren't, they should be.
 
There's no way that the labels would agree to let Apple host all of the music files that you have because there's no guarantee that you actually purchased those files or legitimately ripped them from a CD. This isn't surprising at all.

Everyone should be taking all of this with a grain of salt and waiting for Monday.

bbbbut, bbutt, butttt I just can't wait Sir.

I like to rip and be negative even without knowing any facts or have any comprehension skills to read the post.

The devil makes me do it (nothing is ever my responsibility) with everything I don't know anything about.

and one more thing:

If I don't get what I want immediately and for FREE, you know I am going postal

Waaaaaaaaaaaah, Waaaaaaaah, Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Winning, duh!

Charlie
 
I cannot believe that the new iCloud system is just storing of iTunes media.

As a premium user of Spotify I believe Apple will bring out a competing service - if Apple can fill the holes in the catalogue that Spotify has then Apple can wipe out Spotify in an instant and pretty much have the online music market to itself.

This has to be the way to go surely?

To be honest I do not want to buy anymore music, I just stream from my spotify account - in my home and in my car - offline syncing allows me to store locally a hefty playlist on my iphone and mac. The system is fantastic.

The only music I buy on iTunes now is stuff that I really want that Spotify does not have, for instance my favourite band Arcade Fire is nowhere to be seen on Spotify.
 
Yeah, like I need Apple to store my 45GB of music... because a small partition on my 6.5TB of storage I own might just burst at the seams...

Oh, and I have to give them MORE of my money, besides the THOUSANDS of dollars I've given them for hardware and software and music already....

Nah, I'll pass....

I agree, plus I already pay them $99 for mobileme which is worth about $10 a year, tops. What a waste of money, at least when they had cell phone locating as an exclusive to Mobile me I could kind of justify the expense...plus no ads in email has some value to me but the amount of storage, the fact that they now give away the iphone locating means that mobile me is a huge waste and I don't feel like adding any amount of $ for additional service...iCloud/storage/whatever it is called better be included in Mobile Me price.
 
I misunderstood this whole iCloud thing. I thought this was supposed to be a music streaming service similar to what Netflix offers for movies. I don't understand why people need to purchase music tracks then pay again to stream them from a browser? most music tracks in the world can be listened to on youtube for free and most people carry their music around on their ipods.

There has to be more to it.
 
Unless the vast majority of your music collection is purchased from iTunes I fail to see why anyone would buy this service.

You mean the 88% of the market that iTunes dominates with now over 10 billion songs downloaded? Yeah, no one would use this. :rolleyes:
 
I misunderstood this whole iCloud thing. I thought this was supposed to be a music streaming service similar to what Netflix offers for movies. I don't understand why people need to purchase music tracks then pay again to stream them from a browser? most music tracks in the world can be listened to on youtube for free and most people carry their music around on their ipods.

There has to be more to it.

I would assume it includes movies and photos, not just music.
 
88% :eek:

I think you've got that wrong, the latest figures give Apple 33% of the US market share.

Download market. 33% of the total market is gigantic for one player to have. Either way, my point still stands. It's either a poor use of english or just an absurd logical leap to conclude that "I can't understand what possible use there might be, therefore NOBODY would use this"....

But I suppose I should expect that logic by now on these boards. (not from you, the OP... just to clarify)
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Am I the only one who finds this incredibly dull?
 
About the cloud...

Just for those of you who are uncertain about what iCloud could be in the end: Think about what the cloud stands for, where this terminology comes from.

For those who think that the cloud is the Internet, think again. Think not different for once.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Am I the only one who finds this incredibly dull?

No:)

Waiting for Monday, so we can get excited about the next MacDefender post and white iphone.
 
About the cloud...

Just for those of you who are uncertain about what iCloud could be in the end: Think about what the cloud stands for, where this terminology comes from.

For those who think that the cloud is the Internet, think again. Think not different for once.

I used to work for a Tier 1 telco/ISP. The "cloud" traditionally referred to the PSTN (public switched telephone network) and then eventually the network of ATM packet switches when the backbone providers migrated to a data-based infrastructure for telephony and data.

The "internet" refers to a protocol, an agreement between networks to speak a common language. But colloquially it refers to the internetwork infrastructure, the top packet-switched layer of which we in the telco world coined the phrase "the cloud" to refer to.

So in today's use, "cloud" computing refers to Software as a Service (SaaS) schema which involve applications and data accessed/stored outside the enduser's LAN, WAN or Frame Relay, rather than client-server relationships that are under one roof.

E-file by Intuit (the company I work for) is an example of SaaS, as is TurboTax Online.

Why is it relevant? Because iCloud is basically going to mark the transition from accessing duplicated or shared libraries stored physically on a LAN to accessing your library whenever, wherever and however you want... over multiple types of mobile devices, multiple transports (wifi, 3G, 4G, etc.).

This will be a benefit to mobile computing for one major reason: It will reduce flash storage requirements, possibly enhancing battery life (though losing some to the energy cost of wireless transmission), but mostly lifting the barrier to the form factors and sizes that mobile computing devices can take on. Additionally, you wouldn't ever worry about your data becoming corrupted... and Apple need not multiply its storage and backup times the number of cloud customers, because it can serve multiple customers from a few locations... with some of the most impressive global load balancing of any WAN I've ever seen (think about how rarely iTunes ever lags, relative to the number of customers it serves worldwide).

In three years, you'll not worry about forgetting to sync Finding Nemo 12 .... you'll stream it to your car over 4G LTE and your kids will stop screaming. That convenience, and convenience of access to an unlimited number of titles regardless of device storage capacity, not waiting to sync up content, etc. is worth billions of dollars.
 
Last edited:
Which is why Google and Amazon had the right idea in not even asking them. Apple had to ask them because my guess is your not actually uploading any of your music. iCloud is just streaming a song from its service if its flagged that you bought it. Which is why they needed a licensing agreement.

I don't see this working unless your entire library can be used for it. Can you imagine only being able to put songs you downloaded from iTunes on your iPod?

They didn't spend 80 million for Lala to close it.

Lots of people don't buy CD's any more.

Lots of people have huge music and movie libraries which are not easily taken on the road, unless you want to schlepp around multiple devices.

Even making playlists for the day on the go is cumbersome and requires synching etc.

So, most likely we will see a combination of being able to store itunes bought music AND this is IMO the important part:

One component will be a streaming service of anything that is in Apple's catalog.

That streaming is like a radio station or satellite station, hence Apple needed to pay for the extension of the itunes rights.

Another component will be storage of anything with nobody caring how it was acquired.

Depending on an a la carte selection, they can offer a base package of

$ 25 for streaming music with 2GB free storage for anything and then go up from there to mobile.me pricing.

Now the whole thing gets a little more attractive.
 
If what you're saying makes no sense for anyone to use, why do you think Apple would create something like this?

It seems obvious that it has to be something else.


I agree why in the hell would Apple spend loads of money on a HUGE data center (in NC) unlike any of its kind just for music storage?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.