My curent version of iTunes scans my library and adds artwork to my cd rips. It only ads artwork to music that Apple offers on the iTunes store, ignores the rest of my 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.
Some iCloud Music Service Details, Others Companies Likely to Follow
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My curent version of iTunes scans my library and adds artwork to my cd rips. It only ads artwork to music that Apple offers on the iTunes store, ignores the rest of my music.
Nice, but....
I already stream my music, videos and any other file I choose from my own server to any device I use, and gosh already in my car. Sure, some of my setup is kludgy, but it doesn't cost a penny. I do like the idea of having an inferior copy replaced with the ones from Apple's servers, but I do not like being forced to be online to get my music (although realistically I am online 24/7).
Probably will sign up out of curiosity. But in order to stick with it, there has to be something compelling thats beats free.
Tom
I already stream my music, videos and any other file I choose from my own server to any device I use, and gosh already in my car. Sure, some of my setup is kludgy, but it doesn't cost a penny. I do like the idea of having an inferior copy replaced with the ones from Apple's servers, but I do not like being forced to be online to get my music (although realistically I am online 24/7).
Probably will sign up out of curiosity. But in order to stick with it, there has to be something compelling thats beats free.
Tom
I Edit All The Tags of Every Track I Receive
In any event, I won't be interested in paying Big Brother Apple to take care of my media. I fail to see the attraction of such a service.
I agree. I am an obsessive track-album tag editor, always changing the way tracks and albums are tagged all the time. Plus this looks like an invasion of privacy scenario to me. I don't want Apple examining my over 2TB iTunes Library. I just finished moving it from a 2TB drive to a 3TB drive when I ran out of room to the point where tracks kept failing to copy and downsize rip when the HD reached less that 1.5 GB remaining.
In any event, I won't be interested in paying Big Brother Apple to take care of my media. I fail to see the attraction of such a service.
Apple has a lot riding on iCloud. It's got to be more than music. The fact that Apple has NEVER done cloud services well is a big deal. Many other services "get it" ...>cough<Dropbox>cough<... They know how to implement services that just work, cross platform and seem to be able to offer at least small amount of service for free. Apple really needs to step up with their A game on this. No half baked crippled services. Can anyone say "Ping" ???
I tried
v:\Blackcomb> ping apple.com
Pinging apple.com [17.172.224.47] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 17.172.224.47:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
v:\Blackcomb>
v:\Blackcomb> ping apple.com
Pinging apple.com [17.172.224.47] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Ping statistics for 17.172.224.47:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),
v:\Blackcomb>
While this may be a free service to try out, eventually Apple will charge. Depending on what the 'ICloud' can do for each individual user might make it worth while.
For example: If a person travels or resides at more than one residence or listens to their music on different devices it may realy be a big plus.
However for the consumer that uses the same devices in the same residence it may not be that big a deal.
For example: If a person travels or resides at more than one residence or listens to their music on different devices it may realy be a big plus.
However for the consumer that uses the same devices in the same residence it may not be that big a deal.
Right now I personally believe that amazon's solution looks like it will be the best. I think that iTunes is the biggest drawback with apple's solution.
I say this because I don't like to take my computer to school anymore. When I do use one of the campus computers I found it really great to be able to play all my music from the web browser. Non of the campus pcs have itunes due to the fact they are all s**ty dells meant for word processors and research station. If apple oppened it up a web app I would put on the top of my list.
Itunes is the worst windows program that is "professionally" done alot of the common research computers found on campuses, libraries and work places can't run or will even let you install iTunes.
I say this because I don't like to take my computer to school anymore. When I do use one of the campus computers I found it really great to be able to play all my music from the web browser. Non of the campus pcs have itunes due to the fact they are all s**ty dells meant for word processors and research station. If apple oppened it up a web app I would put on the top of my list.
Itunes is the worst windows program that is "professionally" done alot of the common research computers found on campuses, libraries and work places can't run or will even let you install iTunes.
Apple is in a losing proposition. To coin a term, they're selling it wrong.
Amazon basically said, "we're just offering storage. What they choose to do with it is their business."
Google said, "hey, Amazon's right! I mean we've already offered major storage, but never centered around music. Let's do the same thing!"
Apple is saying, "hmmm...we have an opportunity to win this by winning the labels over and charging for a 'magical' experience. Let's do things right."
The winner in the end can only be Amazon if they keep it up, because quite frankly, they're doing it right.
- Amazon MP3 is WAY more convenient than iTunes. No bloated interface, no pitches for movies and games and whatnot. Just music.
- Amazon's offering doesn't care what you store.
- Amazon offers free streaming of the media in your cloud, whether you bought it from them or not.
- Amazon has a significantly wider selection of MP3s, especially older ones that just aren't available on iTunes.
- Amazon lets you now send music up to the cloud when you buy and automatically download it to whatever device(s) at the same time.
- Bill Amazon MP3s to the Amazon Store Card via One Click and it's a near seamless experience.
- If they integrate the Cloud Player with the 3G Kindle, then you can stream your MP3s while you read books. THAT is "magical".
In fact the only negative with Amazon's service has to do with the fact that the MP3 app won't tell you if you've already purchased a song. That means you'd better be on your game mentally with what songs you already own, otherwise you will buy them multiple times. Beyond that I love the service and can't frankly see Apple beating it if they plan to do anything but mirror Amazon.
Agree
"...I listen to, support and love indie bands-rarely buy big name artists music-but, you cannot expect any music service to negotiate with every single label or publisher in the world. ... "
totally agree...i also like indie music, like blues a lot, have several buds who have small bands, literally eeking out their rent so they can play music...they all are using a lot of resources available online for distribution, including facebook, myspace, cdbaby (which the guy mentions above) and tons of others, building slowly, but building.
i don't think the poster is very experienced in music distribution, although i'm sure he wants to help his son. a good kind of pops to have. there are enterprises set up to get music out to itunes, rhapsody, etc.
it's always, it seems, some one howling from outside the field of knowledge that calls for a lawsuit and the damn service isn't even online yet.....
"...I listen to, support and love indie bands-rarely buy big name artists music-but, you cannot expect any music service to negotiate with every single label or publisher in the world. ... "
totally agree...i also like indie music, like blues a lot, have several buds who have small bands, literally eeking out their rent so they can play music...they all are using a lot of resources available online for distribution, including facebook, myspace, cdbaby (which the guy mentions above) and tons of others, building slowly, but building.
i don't think the poster is very experienced in music distribution, although i'm sure he wants to help his son. a good kind of pops to have. there are enterprises set up to get music out to itunes, rhapsody, etc.
it's always, it seems, some one howling from outside the field of knowledge that calls for a lawsuit and the damn service isn't even online yet.....
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Would be nice if true. What do the carriers have to say about this? This will be another hit on their capacity.
Would be nice if true. What do the carriers have to say about this? This will be another hit on their capacity.
not a new concept
like taking AI and minority report in a less "gonna track that sentient down and relieve him of his humanness" way. personally it's kind of cool, although i never respond to most other peoples opinions about things i buy for myself, so for me it would be a trip to hear what "they" suggest for the "me" "they" are following.
...but this concept has been talked about for over a few years...linking you to shops, window displays, interior of stores, personalizing robotic voices when you approach a display, etc, etc, etc.
like taking AI and minority report in a less "gonna track that sentient down and relieve him of his humanness" way. personally it's kind of cool, although i never respond to most other peoples opinions about things i buy for myself, so for me it would be a trip to hear what "they" suggest for the "me" "they" are following.
@revelated.."Apple is in a losing proposition. To coin a term, they're selling it wrong"
....although you list some ideas that seem to make amazon a great place to store music (that you got anywhere)...i'm not clear that your long list is what the cloud is all about. maybe apple has been negotiating for other reasons than what interests you, but that's cool, because you can ignore icloud and use amazon.
i use amazon for some things, but don't seem to have the problem you do with paying on itunes vs a.
you may have some inside info about this whole service, but until apple gives out the details, seems early to reject an offering, at least for me.
....although you list some ideas that seem to make amazon a great place to store music (that you got anywhere)...i'm not clear that your long list is what the cloud is all about. maybe apple has been negotiating for other reasons than what interests you, but that's cool, because you can ignore icloud and use amazon.
i use amazon for some things, but don't seem to have the problem you do with paying on itunes vs a.
you may have some inside info about this whole service, but until apple gives out the details, seems early to reject an offering, at least for me.
Last edited:
Apple is taking the time to do it right, not like Google push another beta for 10 years.
Did anyone here use Lala before Apple bought it and shut it down? I did. It did exactly what is described here. It scanned your iTunes folder and mirrored the songs onto a profile that you could access anywhere. Good news is that Lala did also mirror songs that weren't downloaded from the iTunes store, as long as they had the song on their server.
I don't know about everyone else, but this is way way WAY too much tied in and holding friendly hands with the record companies for my liking.
You know, the industry that has screwed everyone for decades and become massively rich on the back of actual recording artists.
I don't personally want any cloud service that's in any way "in bed" with these people.
I just want a nice simple cloud service that can hold all my Data, be it music, movies or other data, that is good value, I can stream from wherever I am, and all the apps on the iPad etc are tweaked so they have seamless connection to the cloud, so when I go into the Photo app for example, I see my photo's on the cloud.
That's what I want. Not some scanning of my music library, automatic downloading, automatic payments? What a horrid mess that sounds and all way way WAY to nice and cosy with the record companies.
You know, the industry that has screwed everyone for decades and become massively rich on the back of actual recording artists.
I don't personally want any cloud service that's in any way "in bed" with these people.
I just want a nice simple cloud service that can hold all my Data, be it music, movies or other data, that is good value, I can stream from wherever I am, and all the apps on the iPad etc are tweaked so they have seamless connection to the cloud, so when I go into the Photo app for example, I see my photo's on the cloud.
That's what I want. Not some scanning of my music library, automatic downloading, automatic payments? What a horrid mess that sounds and all way way WAY to nice and cosy with the record companies.
I don't really understand the fuss, other than its a big company doing this.
1) isn't this just what lala did? Apple acquired them, I've not seen any mention of them since.
2) why is it costing a lot of money? is this just the labels being greedy arrogant money grabbers again? Like how you don't get redownloads from itunes because it'd cost apple again.
In an ideal world, this should be free to users because you've already paid for the music, and paid for your internet. You shouldn't have to pay again to stream it. Actually you could argue that amazon and google are more legitimate to charge (which they don't) because they're hosting actual backups of your files and storage costs money.
of course it won't be, and because its apple they'll get the press and it'll probably be a success, and then everyone else will copy and charge for it, and the labels will sit back and laugh at our idiocy
Wonder what apple will do with tracks that don't match? Will they physically upload? and why should I pay to get access to my music? If I'm paying a monthly fee, I want access to the entire catalogue - and my local collection simply being an easily accessible playlist/section within that to help navigation/discovery
I'm on google/amazon's side here, although I think they should have gone one step further and simply scanned your library and let you stream like apple plan to. My guess is that they didn't as they have storage/bandwidth capacity to allow the brute force approach, and their catalogues are probably not as extensive as apples. Plus the licensing issue (although frankly I'd let them take me to court on that one)
1) isn't this just what lala did? Apple acquired them, I've not seen any mention of them since.
2) why is it costing a lot of money? is this just the labels being greedy arrogant money grabbers again? Like how you don't get redownloads from itunes because it'd cost apple again.
In an ideal world, this should be free to users because you've already paid for the music, and paid for your internet. You shouldn't have to pay again to stream it. Actually you could argue that amazon and google are more legitimate to charge (which they don't) because they're hosting actual backups of your files and storage costs money.
of course it won't be, and because its apple they'll get the press and it'll probably be a success, and then everyone else will copy and charge for it, and the labels will sit back and laugh at our idiocy
Wonder what apple will do with tracks that don't match? Will they physically upload? and why should I pay to get access to my music? If I'm paying a monthly fee, I want access to the entire catalogue - and my local collection simply being an easily accessible playlist/section within that to help navigation/discovery
I'm on google/amazon's side here, although I think they should have gone one step further and simply scanned your library and let you stream like apple plan to. My guess is that they didn't as they have storage/bandwidth capacity to allow the brute force approach, and their catalogues are probably not as extensive as apples. Plus the licensing issue (although frankly I'd let them take me to court on that one)
All those streaming/cloud/etc services are not realistic options for a lot of people.
As an example, my ISP (which is the only option around here for high-speed internet) offers a generous monthly cap of 35GB (and that's download+upload combined). Yes, 35GB. And that's cable, not wireless.
After that it's 7.50$ per GB (up to a max of 50.00$ on top of my monthly bill).
As an example, my ISP (which is the only option around here for high-speed internet) offers a generous monthly cap of 35GB (and that's download+upload combined). Yes, 35GB. And that's cable, not wireless.
After that it's 7.50$ per GB (up to a max of 50.00$ on top of my monthly bill).
thinking about it, it'll be the details and mobile implementation that IMO define how successful apple will be with this.
If they can get the iphone/ipod wireless streaming/caching for when you're offline/local storage of favourites - get it workign well, and integrated with the main music player, then it could be worth paying for.
eg I have 100 favourite albums which are stored locally on my iphone, but 1000 more albums in my home collection. I do the online cloud thing, and my iphone music player simply shows me the entire 1000 albums (perhaps highlighting those that are locally available). If I play one of my regular songs it plays immediately. If I want one of the other songs in my collection it plays a compressed 30s clip of the start so you can still listen while you get a stream going.
perhaps add in some smart caching of recently played content, and/or progressive downloading to mitigate connectivity issues
If they can get the iphone/ipod wireless streaming/caching for when you're offline/local storage of favourites - get it workign well, and integrated with the main music player, then it could be worth paying for.
eg I have 100 favourite albums which are stored locally on my iphone, but 1000 more albums in my home collection. I do the online cloud thing, and my iphone music player simply shows me the entire 1000 albums (perhaps highlighting those that are locally available). If I play one of my regular songs it plays immediately. If I want one of the other songs in my collection it plays a compressed 30s clip of the start so you can still listen while you get a stream going.
perhaps add in some smart caching of recently played content, and/or progressive downloading to mitigate connectivity issues