iCloud Free Trial, $25 Per Year, and Ads?

[Porchland]

so the studios are double dipping? I purchase the music then they want more money after I purchased the music so I can have my music I purchased on the cloud? Why would apple even agree to pay them twice if they already get money from the songs purchased on itunes? Apple should have just done it without them like amazon and google did.

My guess: iCloud's music feature will not be primarily for storage. Apple wants to allow users to (1) download and sync tracks to multiple devices, and (2) stream tracks to devices, and the current license agreements did not allow for either of those features.

I hope Apple went one step further and worked out subscription agreements with the labels that would allow users to continue downloading albums and single tracks at current pricing but would add a subscription plan for $9.99-$14.99 a month for users who want access to the full catalog.

The story a few weeks ago about Apple applying to patent a system for storing the first few seconds of a track on a device and then switch to streaming after the buffer catches up makes perfect sense for subscription plans; you download a short placeholder track to use for managing playlists, but you never have to download the actual track.

 

[firewood]

so the studios are double dipping? I purchase the music ...

This is another mental error. Check with the copyright office. The copyright on that music composition or performance doesn't list you as the legal assignee, artist or owner. So you purchased something else. Something far more limited. Not the music.

 

[Full of Win]

*shrug* suit yourself. Seems a bit Amish but to each his own.

That dude is so stupid, he went out and purchased music in high quality, DRM free, and in a format with the option to make multiple digital formats. Not only that, the physical CDs are an asset that has value and can easily resold later. Oh, and adding to his foolisness, the pressed CD's purchased will survive for decades. Let us all point and laugh at this moron.

 

[slb]

I'd rather store things locally, not have to worry about buffering and save $25 a year.

Then don't pay the $25, and the rest of us who don't want to manage backups or constantly sync a myriad of devices can enjoy the mobile convenience you'll miss out on. Every single Apple product announcement has this same crotchety grump who loudly proclaims his refusal to embrace new technology.

 

[ppc_michael]

I don't know, man. If it's locked to iTunes purchases, I don't like having a subscription fee for cloud access to music I am already verified as having paid for. It's already on their servers so I'm not even paying for storage space.

If these rumors turn out to be true, I have no incentive to move away from Subsonic, which allows access to all of my music and movies (iTunes or otherwise) for like a one-time $5 fee.

 

[Obi-Wan Kubrick]

It hasn't even been confirmed that they are songs only bought from iTunes and people are freaking out. Just wait till Apple goes official with iCloud.

 

[Northgrove]

If this is true, why would this service cost money?1!?!?!?!?! Apple already has the songs on their servers. They already transmit 1:30 of it for free to sample. Where is the extra cost to them? Why do they need to charge? This doesn't make any sense.

I agree. This feature would seem more like a feature of the next version of iTunes. VLC does a similar thing for free, with the difference that it's streaming from your computer instead. But in both cases (iCloud and VLC) -- the music is already there and stored.

Big deal to extend the "free streaming" from 1:30 to the full length if you already own the song. That even makes sense. Then you'd basically already be here... If both iTunes for iOS and Mac OS X were updated for this.

 

[Slurpy2k8]

That dude is so stupid, he went out and purchased music in high quality, DRM free, and in a format with the option to make multiple digital formats. Oh, and adding to his foolisness, the pressed CD's purchased will survive for decades. What a moron.

Who called him 'stupid'? Also, your signature is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.

 

[adbe]

Then don't pay the $25, and the rest of us who don't want to manage backups or constantly sync a myriad of devices can enjoy the convenience you'll miss out on.

It's only convenient if I can back up all of my music. Any less than the whole, and I need to backup services, and I need to shear my library to ensure that songs are correctly assigned to a backup target.

Alternatively I could just find a one size fits all approach that saves me messing around, and comes with a hefty dollop of that convenience you're promoting there.

Unless the user's entire library can be uploaded, this is not going to be useful to the majority of people.

 

[BlindMellon]

$25 a year? Wow, that's only $2.08 a month. Shoot, I spend more than that on iPhone apps every couple weeks.

Good price. I will subscribe in an instand

its actually going to be $25 per MegaByte....

SIGN ME UP!!

You guys do realize you'll be 1.) paying for the music, 2.) paying to store it and 3.) paying data charges to stream it back to yourself. All with ever expanding limited data packages.

Man, Apple saw you guys coming.

 

[Full of Win]

Who called him 'stupid'? Also, your signature is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.

Is your sarcasm detector broken. Buying physical CDs is a great idea, it gives you options in formats, its not hampered by DRM, and represents a tangible asset.

 

[Dcuellar]

What I'm hoping for is the ability to stream from my home computer. I'm already doing that with iSub and Subsonic now, but I want a more official method with better buffering. Don't get me wrong...iSub is almost perfect now, but there are some little things missing like coverflow that I could enjoy. I spent a lot of time organizing and making sure my music is all 320kbps which is why I prefer to stream from my home server. I remember there being a post on this site some time ago which spoke of Apple's plans to at least allow streaming from home if they couldn't get the permissions from the music labels. If they they did this I feel that would satisfy those who didn't purchase their music from itunes. Of course the downside is that you have to have a computer running 24/7.

I'm also looking forward to wireless syncing and other benefits of having a cloud. I want my calendars/contacts/etc synced without having to use the cable.

I think this is all possible and a realistic list of features that could be seen on Monday.

 

[skellener]

I would expect Apple to do $29 not $25.

 

[ugp]

I really hope it is not limited to iTunes purchases only. That is not very appealing compared to Amazon or Google's services that offer uploading of your own music.

 

[skellener]

Then don't pay the $25, and the rest of us who don't want to manage backups or constantly sync a myriad of devices can enjoy the mobile convenience you'll miss out on. Every single Apple product announcement has this same crotchety grump who loudly proclaims his refusal to embrace new technology.

You could also just use Audio Galaxy for free. It's your own music on your own computer an you can get to it from a myriad of devices and enjoy the mobile convenience of new technology.

 

[314631]

There are 1 or 2 other places on the internet where people can legally purchase mp3s, apart from iTunes...

You are missing the point. Apple can only verify music has been lawfully purchased when it comes from iTunes because they have your purchases on record. All the other files are unprotected mp3 files that could have been obtained any source. There's no way to prove you legally purchased an mp3 from the digital fingerprints on the files on your computer. And there's no way the music industry is going to turn a blind eye to pirated music for a cut of $25/yr Apple is supposedly going to charge people.

 

[jacollins]

I wonder how fast iCloud will take off with that data cap anchor that ATT and Verizon want...

 

[d0minick]

I would expect Apple to do $29 not $25.

Is there a reason they would do that other then round? Is that a tax issue?

 

[Full of Win]

I wonder how fast iCloud will take off with that data cap anchor that ATT and Verizon want...

Likely as fast as Pandora and other streaming services. One would assum that, as with the YouTube app, the quality would be reduced while on 3G.

 

[Nishi100]

IMO:

Free - Just iTunes music / movies, but movies are limited to <720p; only a select few computers / one iDevice (at a time?) and a few iAds and limited storage; doesn't store apps; have to manually sync - doesn't sync using cloud.
Paid - Any music (including ripped from a CD); any where; rentals, from iTunes; movies in 720p; syncing from cloud; stores apps and unlimited storage.

 

[mrklaw]

if you already have your local collection, isn't there already an app/collection of apps that lets you do this right now, using your existing internet connection? i.e accessing your computer from outside your home via the internet and streaming content? For music at least, the bandwidth required should be low enough for most people's broadband to handle it

 

[Cougarcat]

Is there a reason they would do that other then round? Is that a tax issue?

Apple has a $29 price point for a lot of things--accessories, Snow Leopard.

 

[SdPunk]

I just hope it will be more affordable than Mobil Me. I would like the opportunity to sync from all my Apple devices.

 

[skellener]

Is there a reason they would do that other then round? Is that a tax issue?

Dot Mac & Mobile Me $99, Leopard $129, Snow Leopard $29, iLife $49, iWork $79, Final Cut Studio $999, FCPX $299, Songs on iTunes $1.29 & $.99, etc........

 

[toddybody]

So, I have to pay for it, can only "upload" iTunes originated content, deal with ads (while paying them), and surpass my already expensive and finite data plan?

Apple, at least buy me dinner first