go look at the pandora app. i don't see anyone complaining about that. This would essentially be the same thing except every song would be of your choice bc it's YOUR music.
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.
More Details on Apple's Cloud-based Music Locker
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
go look at the pandora app. i don't see anyone complaining about that. This would essentially be the same thing except every song would be of your choice bc it's YOUR music.
I take it, you do not see this ahead?
A world without Books, CD's or DVD's for sale in charity shops to help fund services in need.
A world there you cannot give a CD, DVD, Book etc that you no longer want to a family friend as a gift.
A world where you cannot sell on a Book, CD, DVD, Game to get a little bit of money back, perhaps to buy a new thing you want.
This to me seems where the industry wants to take us.
Everything is purchased by the individual, can only be used by the individual and locked totally to them, so it can never be passed on, given away, or sold by yourself to anyone else.
Can no one else see this is where it COULD go if we all just "go along with it"
You'll go nutz in couple decades when our CPU's aren't even in our homes anymore. Start to get used to the idea of "cloud" slowly
Back to the seventies - history repeats itself
My favorite is the dropbox cloud approach, which is a nice hybrid: I have everything local but I have it accessible in the cloud and synced to all the machines I care about. (Won't work for my music lib since too big) ... but while we have no affordable fast internet everywhere, this is the solution of my choice. That way I can work on the local data while 'offline' and it syncs back to the cloud once I am online again.
Nice to see that Apple is putting out a solution that will work for my music lib, and I hope it is a similar hybrid approach. I just hope it is true that it allows to add music not purchased in the iTunes Store ... I have tons of CDs that I ripped into my iTunes library (I was buying CDs since they day CDs came out in the last century and have a quite big collection).
This is a good thing in my opinion, better for the environment, and technology is taking us in directions that we not have been able to imagine years ago.
This is what I've been hoping for. You purchase a "license" and your content is available anywhere on any device. You can download it locally as well, but it's there in the cloud waiting for you. Movies/Music/Games etc. The end to buying on multiple formats, worry about losing/deleting etc. But I'm not sure this model will end up beating out music/movie subscription services.
this is 2011, we have something called dedupe where the computer strips out redundant data in similar files. i bet every song in amazon's storage locker is unique but with dedupe they only store it once
If I can stream and download to a iDevice I would be a happy camper. Should be users choice based on need. Streaming in many cases will not make it.
And SJ knows soon WHAT you listen WHERE and WHEN and HOW OFTEN. I'm sure there is marketing to be done. At least when iPhone or iPad are used.
And SJ knows soon WHAT you listen WHERE and WHEN and HOW OFTEN. I'm sure there is marketing to be done. At least when iPhone or iPad are used.
You'll go nutz in couple decades when our CPU's aren't even in our homes anymore. Start to get used to the idea of "cloud" slowly
not going to happen
the entire history of computing is giving more power to more people. the cloud has always been there, even with the first PC's. but the trend is to give more features to less powerful devices
Really not getting this. Storage is a lot more cheap and plentiful than bandwidth. And the amount of music you can carry on an iphone - to say nothing of an ipod classic - is enough to listen to for days on end, 24 hrs a day, without repeat. Well, I'm glad if some find it useful, but I'll stick to local storage, thanks.
Personal preference really. I would personally pay for peace of mind knowing that my mechanical hard drives are not going to crash. Even backup and being redundant is not enough sometimes. If someone is willing to guarantee that I will never lose my content that I store on their shares then I am all in.
Personally my thought process will change on this when SSD's start getting more popular and larger.
I pity the children of the future when I think back to how I am my friends used to swap Video's, CD's and Computer games with each other, as we only had enough Birthday/Christmas money to afford to buy so much, so we had great fun and enjoyment swapping what we had between friends.
In the same way my elderly mother goes to her weekly meeting and they all bring books they have read in, so others can read their books when they have finished with them. Not everyone can afford to buy new every time.
If single use ownership is the wave of the future and that results in people buying more stuff, stuff like CDs, DVDs, and Digital Books which are basically infinite unconstrained resources (i.e., no supply issue for any of these), then prices for them will go down. So this is unlikely to be a negative for the consumer.
I have my iPhone with me at all times and it has enough songs on it that I don't feel constrained. So streaming doesn't seem too exciting. Also, I doubt AT&T's New York cell coverage will be able to handle it to make this a nice experience.
I have my iPhone with me at all times and it has enough songs on it that I don't feel constrained. So streaming doesn't seem too exciting. Also, I doubt AT&T's New York cell coverage will be able to handle it to make this a nice experience.
The cellphone providers are doing all they can to reduce bandwidth usage. About a year ago I switched to the 200MB/mo. data plan to save $$$ on my AT&T bill.
I don't understand how this application of the cloud is very useful. It will be something I would consider using only if I am near a WiFi connection, plus the ability to use DropBox for any kind of file trumps something that only works for music.
Is the practical application going to provide control over whether it is active over WiFi vs. 3G? I am not paying another $15/mo. (or more) to AT&T just to listen to music.
I don't get it.
I don't understand how this application of the cloud is very useful. It will be something I would consider using only if I am near a WiFi connection, plus the ability to use DropBox for any kind of file trumps something that only works for music.
Is the practical application going to provide control over whether it is active over WiFi vs. 3G? I am not paying another $15/mo. (or more) to AT&T just to listen to music.
I don't get it.
you are focusing too much on the physical items. maybe bc i like to live simple/minimal....but nowadays too many people want so many physical possessions. to me, less is more.....
I believe any new innovation is designed specifically to be a personal imposition on me, regardless of how fanciful my assumptions.
The cellphone providers are doing all they can to reduce bandwidth usage. About a year ago I switched to the 200MB/mo. data plan to save $$$ on my AT&T bill.
I don't understand how this application of the cloud is very useful. It will be something I would consider using only if I am near a WiFi connection, plus the ability to use DropBox for any kind of file trumps something that only works for music.
Is the practical application going to provide control over whether it is active over WiFi vs. 3G? I am not paying another $15/mo. (or more) to AT&T just to listen to music.
I don't get it.
when ur at ur home you'd be connected to wifi so usage wouldn't be a problem. i don't know why anyone pays for the $15/month plan that's a complete ripoff to begin with.
Problems:
--Dependence on an internet connection. Deal breaker right there. Subways? Forget it.
--Buffer times
--Connection instability/loss
--Already way overstrained data networks contributing to the above
--Battery life will suffer if it's wifi
--And if it's 3G, well there's another bill in the mail every month. A recurring bill in the form of data charges to listen to my music I already paid for? No thank you. No, no, no thank you.
Since when did every device in the house need a monthly bill to go with it? AT&T provides a pretty crappy service as it is to begin with, why shuffle any more money right into their pockets?
Dependence on an internet connection and a bill in the mail are enormous deal breakers.
To the people saying "Oh, well Apple isn't taking your hard drive away", no, they aren't, but this is the first step. In 20 years hard drives will be obsolete, as everything will be cloud based, and you'll be forced into the cloud whether you want to be or not.
This service is a completely stupid idea for anyone who has an iPod with a big enough hard drive to store their stuff. I can see the appeal for those with more than 160 GB of music, but other than those people, I see literally zero benefits to be had by this, and a slew of problems/frustrations to be gained.
--Dependence on an internet connection. Deal breaker right there. Subways? Forget it.
--Buffer times
--Connection instability/loss
--Already way overstrained data networks contributing to the above
--Battery life will suffer if it's wifi
--And if it's 3G, well there's another bill in the mail every month. A recurring bill in the form of data charges to listen to my music I already paid for? No thank you. No, no, no thank you.
Since when did every device in the house need a monthly bill to go with it? AT&T provides a pretty crappy service as it is to begin with, why shuffle any more money right into their pockets?
Dependence on an internet connection and a bill in the mail are enormous deal breakers.
To the people saying "Oh, well Apple isn't taking your hard drive away", no, they aren't, but this is the first step. In 20 years hard drives will be obsolete, as everything will be cloud based, and you'll be forced into the cloud whether you want to be or not.
This service is a completely stupid idea for anyone who has an iPod with a big enough hard drive to store their stuff. I can see the appeal for those with more than 160 GB of music, but other than those people, I see literally zero benefits to be had by this, and a slew of problems/frustrations to be gained.
That's my point. You don't have to. Most of the ereaders have the ability to swap books as loaners. This is all still very, very new to our society and I am sure that as we progress this is the way it will become.
You never OWNED any of this stuff. You owned the physical media, and you had an unlimited license to you. The technology is just clarifying this.
If you had actually owned it, you could have copied it as much as you wanted-- legally-- and resold the copies to others. You have been capable of doing this, but it was illegal; it also was difficult to enforce the law. Now the technology is actually starting to match your legal rights. It's actually wonderful. You are not losing anything you had legally, but the true owners (the content creators and the people who support them financially) can stop getting ripped off by criminals.
i'm sure you have an equivalent....
maybe you won't get this cloud service anyways....so what's your point in arguing? lol
You, sir, get it. The technologies create new capabilities that will adapt to the market. The luddites are only capable of seeing innovation as a loss.
Not sure this will completely stop piracy, but it will further deter it. However if you can store it on a drive without any sort of DRM. This service will do nothing for piracy.