Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Music Labels Not Yet On Board With Apple's Cloud-Based iTunes Strategy

spice weasel said:
If, under this rumored Apple cloud-based service, users would still only have access to their own library, I don't see why the record labels are pitching a fit. So the music is streamed off of Apple servers rather than your home computer. You still only have access to the songs in your library. All that would change is the need for users to manually sync devices. What's the big deal?
Click to expand...

One situation is where the owner of a copy of the work accesses the very same copy he owns.

The other situation is where someone who does not own a copy of the work transmits a performance of the work.

The second situation is like someone who owns the song calling the DJ to make a request - the radio station needs the proper license, regardless of who made the request.
 
diamornte said:
There are only "four top music recording companies"? No wonder music really sucks these days.
Click to expand...


You are correct.

But the problem of media consolidation goes far beyond music. The scariest part of the phenomenon is the the consolidation of news outlets and broadcasters.
 
dgonzalez201 said:
If that were so, you could also do the same thing via wifi should you have MM/iTunes compatible devices around your house.

Right?
Click to expand...

The only way Apple could "do the same thing" is if it were to store a million different copies of platinum sellers, each one owned by an individuate customer.

Instead, they want to broadcast the same copy to a million individual customers.

Nothing wrong with that. But they need the proper license.
 
FaustsHausUK said:
Ask Apple to collect anonymous data about the music people own, stream and listen to, use those statistics to target purchase recommendations. Turn this into a positive for labels while making a service that is as user-friendly as possible.
Click to expand...

Maybe that is exactly what the labels asked for, but Apple is trying to screw them?

We can't know.
 
With ATT/cell phone industry 2 GIG limits, "the cloud" is dead.

Why should anyone stream TV/movies/music when they have a 2 gig limit?
Some people have 60 gigs of music on their Ipod, they can put their best stuff on their iphone, but as if they are gonna stream gigs and gigs of music at $10/ per extra gig.

Home broadband companies have been toying with this 250 gig 'quiet' limit due to torrents. Well 5 gig HD movies can also suck that up fast. I think a home with 3 teenagers can easily reach the 250 gig limit with just legal content.

Imagine someone trying to Dl a spreadsheet from their "Google Docs" and being told they hit their 250 gig limit? These limits will drive everything back to the desktop.

In the end, ATT, Cable companies control the 'content' again.

I rather pay ATT $3.99 for a HD movie via Uverse than pay $ for it online and then pay an additional data charge. Content via Uverse has no risk of data charges.

It will take a congressional law to make home broadband "unlimited" in terms of full "cloud computing". Remember the concept of "in the future your computer will have a small OS on the bios, and it will just boot a browser. Then all your content/software will be cloud based".

yah right.... not with data limits.
 
How is this apple's fault as i see some people blaming them for this? :rolleyes: They can't go against the grain and setup a cloud based itunes without their permission. I'm all for being a rebel but that would end up in litigation.

Do we remember what happened to mp3.com? I thought that was awesome and uploaded music to that website and then they got sued or something.

Mspot is trying something thats is cloud based too with 2GB's of cloud storage and it wouldn't shock me if google ended up trying to buy them. Mecanto also offers space in the cloud also but i haven't used it yet.
 
Reef555 said:
With ATT/cell phone industry 2 GIG limits, "the cloud" is dead.

Why should anyone stream TV/movies/music when they have a 2 gig limit?
Some people have 60 gigs of music on their Ipod, they can put their best stuff on their iphone, but as if they are gonna stream gigs and gigs of music at $10/ per extra gig.

Home broadband companies have been toying with this 250 gig 'quiet' limit due to torrents. Well 5 gig HD movies can also suck that up fast. I think a home with 3 teenagers can easily reach the 250 gig limit with just legal content.

Imagine someone trying to Dl a spreadsheet from their "Google Docs" and being told they hit their 250 gig limit? These limits will drive everything back to the desktop.

In the end, ATT, Cable companies control the 'content' again.

I rather pay ATT $3.99 for a HD movie via Uverse than pay $ for it online and then pay an additional data charge. Content via Uverse has no risk of data charges.

It will take a congressional law to make home broadband "unlimited" in terms of full "cloud computing". Remember the concept of "in the future your computer will have a small OS on the bios, and it will just boot a browser. Then all your content/software will be cloud based".

yah right.... not with data limits.
Click to expand...

i totally agree....... the (current?) situation in south africa is far worse with bandwidth being very expensive! :eek:

and for some strange reason we cannot purchase music through the south african itunes store!
 
Do they need to OK every feature or something?

Can I steam my iTunes Library??

Why do I have to wait for Boy George's record label to OK my freaking Phutureprimitive CD???

Huh?

Cant those Apple "Geniuses" setup the system, but not the iTunes store streaming??

God Apple does the dumbest stuff, can't beleive they ever used "Genius".. they sure make themselves look like relics with this idiotic thinking...

can't they figure this out on their own?
 
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