iCloud - No Music Streaming! Wow...

[chrisbrendel]

Pretty excited, but...

As has been mentioned over and over, downloading is nice across platforms.

However, I would love to have streaming integrated into iTunes through iCloud. I am still on an unlimited plan with AT&T, and this is the main reason I've held on. True, the quality of streaming over 3G won't be great, but having the option would be nice. I do have a dropbox account which allows me to stream my music, but that's not as pretty.

If Apple had followed through with the iTunes Match and implemented streaming, there would be no need for actual cloud storage. Why not grant users access permissions to the servers that already hold the music if they have paid for it through iTunes? That way we can stream or download. I'm not highly educated in networking abilities and limitations, but why not run it similar to a corporation's network?

Like this:

Server holds public and private files (music/videos), worker (you and me) wishes to access public files (free music/videos) which is granted due to open permissions; however, worker attempts to access companies private files (paid music/videos) and is denied because s/he lacks permissions (hasn't paid for it). Worker is promoted (purchases said music/videos) and now has new permissions put in place by IT (Apple in this case), with the option to view files from server (stream), or "save as..." onto desktop (iDevice).

Again, I don't know if this is feasible on such a large scale, but it definitely seems possible.

Revisiting the 3G argument, LTE is here and (hopefully) fast-approaching for the iPhone, so quality won't really be an issue. Data plan usage, of course, will continue to be a problem but how is that different than Netflix or dropbox on iDevices?

All in all, I'm excited about iCloud, and I hope they look into this possibility in the future, whether it be the HDD cloud method, or something along the lines of a network with permissions.

I have over 50 gigs of music, and true there is some music I probably haven't listened to in a year or longer, but I refuse to get rid of it and want to know that I can access it without having to use all of my iDevice's memory, limiting the number of apps I can store. The majority of my storage right now is devoted to apps, leaving only a few gigs for actual music/videos.

My apologies for the length.

Oh, and "Hi, I'm new here."

-cb

 

[b166er]

I was pretty shocked that (at least for now) we won't be able to stream from iCloud. I honestly did think that was the whole point of iCloud up until today. Don't get me wrong, I am excited either way, but I was looking forward to not needing a lot of space on my devices to take a lot of stuff with me on the go.

It seems weird they went with the download route vs streaming but they have their reasons and for now it is certainly looking a lot better than what we currently have. All I can really say is I am very happy I am grandfathered to unlimited data (until they find a way to boot us off those plans).

I usually don't put that much music on my iPhone anyway, unless I am planning a trip. And my iPad has just a few songs on it. I find it kind of silly to use an iPad to listen to music, unless you are on a plane or a long road trip and you're doing other things on it.

 

[walie]

Mobile devices have all ways been about a compromise between what you want and what you need. I want my entire music library on my device but I don't need it. Do you need all the pictures, movies, apps and music between you last sync and your next? This is a choice you have to make and sometimes you might get it wrong. But apps can already easily be re-downloaded if you REALLY need it and it's not on there and photos can already be easily stored online..

Kinda goes against the while Post-PC era doesn't it? With streaming, you don't have to compromise.

 

[mtnDewFTW]

I was actually hoping for a cloud streaming service, but then I thought of the stupid 2GB cap on AT&T and I believe Verizon also has a limit, so it'd be kind of stupid for Apple to go against all the carriers in the US. And I don't wanna have to pay over. I believe Cult of Mac wrote an article on how much data streaming music uses up, and you really can't get many hours out of streaming music to your device. It would have been perfect if AT&T still had the unlimited data plan, or hell, even 5GB would be a start, and Apple offered music streaming straight to your device. But I wouldn't care much for streaming music with a 2GB data cap on my network.

 

[b166er]

I was actually hoping for a cloud streaming service, but then I thought of the stupid 2GB cap on AT&T and I believe Verizon also has a limit, so it'd be kind of stupid for Apple to go against all the carriers in the US. And I don't wanna have to pay over. I believe Cult of Mac wrote an article on how much data streaming music uses up, and you really can't get many hours out of streaming music to your device. It would have been perfect if AT&T still had the unlimited data plan, or hell, even 5GB would be a start, and Apple offered music streaming straight to your device. But I wouldn't care much for streaming music with a 2GB data cap on my network.

but you're still going to use data every time iCloud pushes stuff to your device while your not on wifi. I'm sure we will be able to pick and choose exactly WHAT is streamed to WHICH devices (at least I hope so) but the whole concept of iCloud is going to use a ton of data even without music streaming.

 

[Rat-Boy]

Every time we pull in to our neighborhood, I have to listen to my son complain about Pandora not working due to the poor signal strength in it.

No thanks to a streaming service.

I wouldn't use it even if it was available.

In fact, if it became my only option, I would dump the iPhone all together for a phone that holds the music on it.

(Of course, I know Apple isn't THAT dumb.)

 

[spidertaker23]

I completely agree that it is a let down that it isn't a music streaming service since amazon and google both allow streaming.

Honestly, since iCloud doesn't stream music is isn't really a cloud music service honestly. All iCloud accomplishes is putting you music in the cloud so you can sync with the cloud instead of you pc. Honestly how often are you wanting music from your library on your iPhone/iPad when you are away from home and time to wait for it to download?

Cuz honestly if you are at home you can just sync it from your pc.

Honestly, it seems like all apple cared about was selling more iPads to people without pcs and the rest was a tack on.

I just want to have seamless access to my 40gb of music. I guess I will just have to keep using audiogalaxy .

 

[Gen]

OP, I hope you understand that streaming the same song takes more time and bandwidth than downloading it.

All of your music is available in the iCloud - pick whatever you want to listen to; downloads in under 10-20 seconds per song on AT&T's 3G. Then you have the song stored locally on your iOS device without having to again download it. Instead of them offering you the entire collection at ones, you pick and choose what/when you want on which device.

 

[spidertaker23]

OP, I hope you understand that streaming the same song takes more time and bandwidth than downloading it.

All of your music is available in the iCloud - pick whatever you want to listen to; downloads in under 10-20 seconds per song on AT&T's 3G. Then you have the song stored locally on your iOS device without having to again download it. Instead of them offering you the entire collection at ones, you pick and choose what/when you want on which device.

I disagree. Using audiogalaxy it starts the stream pretty quickly. Downloading songs you would have to download a few songs like ... lets say an album. That would take 10 to 15 minutes. Streaming it would just stream it as it needs it. Basically if it is streaming ... it's like having pandora ... but for you music.

 

[Gen]

I disagree. Using audiogalaxy it starts the stream pretty quickly. Downloading songs you would have to download a few songs like ... lets say an album. That would take 10 to 15 minutes. Streaming it would just stream it as it needs it. Basically if it is streaming ... it's like having pandora ... but for you music.

Which sound quality is better? Streaming or locally stored?

 

[marksman]

Actually this solution is much better for the consumer than streaming.

Worst case scenario is you can essentially emulate streaming.

However you could also maximize your available bandwidth and downloading by downloading play lists over wifi and then listening to them a few times.

If you were out of town and decided in your hotel room you wanted some new music for your day out sight seeing, you could choose a playlist of some music and download it. Say this is 400 megs. You download it, easy peasy. Now over the next few days you listen to that playlist 6 times. You spend 400 megs over your hotel wifi.

Instead you have a streaming solution so you stream the music over the next couple days and end up streaming 2.4 gigs of the same music.

Now let us say you use the first scenario but decide you want to change things up or listen to a few different songs. You can still grab them, download them to your device and listen to them, essentially emulating streaming. In most cases you will be able to download music faster than you stream it, so it won't take long to get into a position of listening to music.

The bottom line is this is a much more flexible solution for consumers and it is much more valuable. You can actually do a lot to protect how much bandwidth you use, which is essentially impossible with a Google or Amazon streaming only solution unless you are always using wifi.

I don't put my entire music library on my phone now, and would not do it with iCloud. iCloud will replace iTunes for this.. so you can just load stuff you want, when you want. This means with a minor amount of planning you can load up what you want, even if you are just at a coffee shop with free wifi. You don't need to bring your laptop with you.

Or you could download over Wireless which would be the equivelent of streaming, but the upside is you would keep the music on your device, so you could listen to it all again without more bandwidth charges.

Really the positives outweigh the very minor negative by a good amount if you analysis it. Sure I thought streaming was the right way to go, but when they announced this and I digested it and started putting the pieces in place, this was the much better way to go. I never really considered streaming over wireless to be a good solution or one I would use very often anyways. This is something I will use much more frequently, and effectively.

 

[Jsingh]

I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about this. I may be wrong but I think streaming can be easily implemented and probably already is but was not mentioned specifically as "streaming."

The iTunes Match description says:

"Play back matched songs at iTunes Plus quality. Even if your original copy was of lower quality."

I don't think Apple will go through the trouble of uploading 20,000+ of your songs to the cloud only so you could download them individually and store them on your devices.

Lets say you upload 80 gigs of music to iCloud using iTunes match. Instead of selecting and downloading each of the songs individually or selecting which songs to sync via itunes, I think they will be available to stream. Maybe in similar fashion to Photo Stream, only 1,000 of your most recent songs will be stored and synced with you iDevice locally and the rest be streamed.

Look at how the mobile iTunes store "streams" song previews. They went from 30 seconds to 60 seconds recently….which still works great over 3G. Try it. I think it's a taste of full song streaming to come. Maybe wishful thinking but definitely possible.

 

[dspalton]

anyone know how to get the iTunes stuff working in the UK at all?

David

 

[Bernard SG]

I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about this. I may be wrong but I think streaming can be easily implemented and probably already is but was not mentioned specifically as "streaming."

The iTunes Match description says: I don't think Apple will go through the trouble of uploading 20,000+ of your songs to the cloud only so you could download them individually and store them on your devices.

Lets say you upload 80 gigs of music to iCloud using iTunes match. Instead of selecting and downloading each of the songs individually or selecting which songs to sync via itunes, I think they will be available to stream. Maybe in similar fashion to Photo Stream, only 1,000 of your most recent songs will be stored and synced with you iDevice locally and the rest be streamed.

Look at how the mobile iTunes store "streams" song previews. They went from 30 seconds to 60 seconds recently….which still works great over 3G. Try it. I think it's a taste of full song streaming to come. Maybe wishful thinking but definitely possible.

Actually, what I understand is that you won't "upload" any song to iCloud. The songs are in Apple's iTunes store servers, linked to your device via iCloud.

I find this debate about streaming/not streaming somewhat worrying, due to some people's way of thinking.
Bandwidth is a finite resource, which is known to be very environment-unfriendly. A sensible way to approach this kind of service is doing it in a smart way that minimizes data traffic.
There have been some talk, based on Apple's patents applications that the service will actually be a hybrid approach between download and streaming: chunks of your music file will be stored on your device and other chunks will be obtained by stream. I can see Apple putting some adaptive algorithms so that frequently accessed files will be entirely downloaded on the device, while others will be there only in chunks.

 

[londondude]

saves uploading the tune. no time waiting to do that.

 

[wovel]

Exactly. I was very relieved to find out it was syncing service and not a streaming one.

plus what happens when you are not in range of wifi or have no cell service? then you wouldn't be able to listen to anything... I think it is pretty well thought out

Same.

I fell less alone..

You can then just sync at home via iTunes if you want to store it on your device. What the heck is the advantage here? The point was not having the need for local storage. Why even call it a "cloud" then - just a different way to sync.

Tony



THEN WHY NOT JUST DO THIS FROM ITUNES AT HOME!!

Boy, you fanboys are completely insane.

Tony

Because some of us go places other then home, might not even be home for a long time. I have no use for a streaming service when I am walking down the street in Australia, but I may want to swap out some songs when I am away from home for two weeks. You have a vey narrow view of the world.

Who is your unlimited 3G with on your iPhone?

The first paragraph is that age old argument between those that don't KNOW what they want to listen to daily and those who think they do. If you think you do, that's great. I put on my device what I think I like to listen to, but in MANY cases I want something that's not there. So there is no right answer here.

As for your final paragraph, yes that would definitely help.

Tony

I don't either. That is why this service is far superior to any streaming service. I can swap out my music whenever I want, and I am still not tied to a data connection to listen.

That's just YOUR opinion. Others like me feel differently.

Of course it's not life or death if I can't listen to a song that I want to hear but not on my device. But it's also not life or death if I can't listen to ANY song if you want to go even further with that idea.

I just want to be able listen to what I want to listen to when I want to listen to it - it's my PREFERENCE. If you think you can be more selective and don't care if you occasionally can't listen to things you might want to - that's YOUR preference, which is also fine. (And BTW - I mostly feel like listening to ALBUMS, not so much individual songs, as is the case for many of us).

Entertainly is never about "need", it's always about "want".

Tony

Then there is no difference between this service and any streaming service.

 

[iSee]

Funny, I just went through a week of posts by people around here explaining why a music streaming service was a terrible idea.

So now it's really the opposite of that and that's bad too, apparently.

Could be that these are different groups of people... You know there isn't just one fat guy creating all the posts that aren't yours, right?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Then there is no difference between this service and any streaming service.

Except there is.
With this, I have to:
1 - have room on my iPhone for the music I want (not easy when my iPhone is nearly always full).
2 - wait till the song is downloaded

If I had the option of streaming, then those two problems would go away. And if they kept the downloading feature that it currently uses, both sets of people would be happy.

 

[GimmeSlack12]

Music streaming sucks.

 

[Interstella5555]

Look guys, my point is that the whole purpose of a music storage cloud is so that you don't have to store as much music locally on your device. If you DO want to store it on your device, just sync to iTunes, which you can soon do through WiFi anyway.

For those with large libraries where everything might not fit onto the iPhone and we are stuggling to manage our libraries, a streaming service would have had SOME value (although not extraordinarily valuable). But paying just to avoid syncing your device at home seems useless t me, or of a very small benefit.

Ultimately I don't care, as I probably wouldn't do either. I just want a 64 GB iPhone, and to the extent the cloud does not renove the need for storage, I guess it makes the chances of this more likely.

Tony

I have a huge library and streaming does absolutely nothing for me. What advantages of having streaming over a 128GB iPhone? That I have to have a data connection? That it uses up data on capped data plans? That it eats more battery? That if the cloud goes down I have no access to my media? Yup, those are some great advantages right there.

 

[Tones2]

I have a huge library and streaming does absolutely nothing for me. What advantages of having streaming over a 128GB iPhone? That I have to have a data connection? That it uses up data on capped data plans? That it eats more battery? That if the cloud goes down I have no access to my media? Yup, those are some great advantages right there.

Music streaming has NO advantage over a 128 GB iPhone. So can I have YOUR 128 GB iPhone? - I'd love one.

Unfortunately, I'm still stuck with my always 100% full 32 GB iPhone. For which I have NO room to download anything that's not on the phone. If I could do that, I would do it at home.

Once again, I could care less if iCloud streams or not, because I use an app on a media server to do that flawlessly. And I HATE music streaming for all the same reasons everyone who hates it above have mentioned. HOWEVER, until we get a 128 GB iPhone (like 2015, if ever), there is no other option to have access to my entire 100 GB library at any time other than music streaming. So because of that, it would be cool if iCloud allowed this, but like I said, there are certainly other options that cost $10 or less as a one time fee (Audiogalaxy, StreamToMe, Zumocast, etc). So no big deal.

And like I've also already said here, even the download option would be fine if we could actually be able to delete media right on our device to make room for the next download. But that's not available either. Apple never seems to think through an entire solution - there always seems to be something that is not entirely right.

Tony

 

[aohus]

this thread is hilarious.

how far will iFanboys go?

if Apple doesn't offer it, say it sucks.

Music streaming is essentially what i thought iCloud would be all about. Apparently they cowered down to Carriers/Music Labels, something Google didn't do. iCloud is turning more into a failure. Lack of music streaming is a dealbreaker for me.

I'm having fun with my music streaming service with Google.

My DroidX. Twirling icon resembles its buffering to stream. Just a 2 second buffer on 3G and away it streams! The files are not on my DroidX. Its on Google's cloud service.

 

[marksman]

What can you do with streaming that you can't do with iCloud?

I can list all kinds of things in the opposite direction.

Streaming alone is not a better solution, it is not even close to as good a solution.

 

[Bernard SG]

Hey Mr. Android Fan, couldn't you post a bigger picture so we can better understand your point?

 

[Michael CM1]

When you stream data, that means you stream it eeeeevery time. If you download it, you do the one download and you're done. I'm also assuming that streaming audio would be just like streaming video and not as good as an actual downloaded file.