Apple should only pay to the labels provided they Actively go after Google's and Amazon's services as well. That would be fair.
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
I just think it would be cool to be able to do an entire sync into the cloud without having to use a computer. I don't care if it is just a cloud-based mirror of iTunes that keeps a backup, etc. just like the computer does. That way, all your ipads, iphones & ipods could do their own syncs anytime, any place. Right now, if your iPhone dies, you'd have to wait until you are at your computer to restore it. Not a big deal, unless you're out of town. I have a feeling Apple is looking more along a major sync idea, perhaps as part of a revamped MobileMe rather than just another cloud storage system.
Woah- this is really crud. One of two things are happening here:
1. Apple has gone back on the "people don't want to rent their music" thing. Not bad for customers (because Apple are wrong), but I don't see them admitting it, so #2 is more likely:
2. Apple are going to charge you up to $1.29 per track, and hope that being able to stream it will make MobileMe worthwhile. MobileMe is in no way worth the $99/year, and this won't make it so. I'm not going to pay extra to stream my own tracks to me, especially not if its limited to iTunes purchases (I have bought tracks from other DRM-free stores, such as Amazon).
Apple are repeatedly dropping the ball IMO. They go in the right general direction, but increasingly the product they come out with is not the product I want. They used to.
1. Apple has gone back on the "people don't want to rent their music" thing. Not bad for customers (because Apple are wrong), but I don't see them admitting it, so #2 is more likely:
2. Apple are going to charge you up to $1.29 per track, and hope that being able to stream it will make MobileMe worthwhile. MobileMe is in no way worth the $99/year, and this won't make it so. I'm not going to pay extra to stream my own tracks to me, especially not if its limited to iTunes purchases (I have bought tracks from other DRM-free stores, such as Amazon).
Apple are repeatedly dropping the ball IMO. They go in the right general direction, but increasingly the product they come out with is not the product I want. They used to.
I agree with this.
Plus as for iTunes songs, Apple knows exactly what you've bought over the years with your iTunes account, they don’t need to scan your machine.
When some s4it stole my computer at home a year or two back, Apple let me down load my entire library again.
-on the basis that I was a "good" customer: they were also able to see on their records that I had bought about 10 apple computers and heaps of other peripherals over the years)
The way I'm reading this is that the iCloud will scan your iTunes library and make available anything in your library that is available on iTunes.
So if you've bought tracks on CD or from another download source, or even aquired tracks from elsewhere and they are available to buy on iTunes then it will be imediately available for you to stream via iCloud.
Up to this point, Apple in escence only need one version of the track available to be streamed by millions of users. Not a massive use of space, they already have the tracks, just large bandwidth usage.
For tracks not on iTunes, like AC/DC then you'll be able to upload your own tracks to the cloud. I think this is the part where fees will come in. Uploading would see duplication of tracks using storage space that Apple have to provide.
The uploading of non-recognised tracks could also prove useful for Apple to identify the tracks or artists that are most popular but not on iTunes, they can then focus their attention at these artists to get them onto the store, thus widening the appeal of iTunes. I'm meaning they'd do this for your independant artists rather than big name acts who have decided not to sign up to the iTunes model.
So if you've bought tracks on CD or from another download source, or even aquired tracks from elsewhere and they are available to buy on iTunes then it will be imediately available for you to stream via iCloud.
Up to this point, Apple in escence only need one version of the track available to be streamed by millions of users. Not a massive use of space, they already have the tracks, just large bandwidth usage.
For tracks not on iTunes, like AC/DC then you'll be able to upload your own tracks to the cloud. I think this is the part where fees will come in. Uploading would see duplication of tracks using storage space that Apple have to provide.
The uploading of non-recognised tracks could also prove useful for Apple to identify the tracks or artists that are most popular but not on iTunes, they can then focus their attention at these artists to get them onto the store, thus widening the appeal of iTunes. I'm meaning they'd do this for your independant artists rather than big name acts who have decided not to sign up to the iTunes model.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
thx but ill stick to my college server where i can upload 50GB of songs for free to steam already
thx but ill stick to my college server where i can upload 50GB of songs for free to steam already
Wait... you're telling me I actually have to *pay* for this virtually useless feature? And then pay again when it eats up my bandwidth?
This is truly a solution in search of a problem.
This is truly a solution in search of a problem.
I notice there are less and less comments on this issue. Again, iTunes Music Store in more countries please.
I will only purchase this service if it's not. I'm an album guy, 90% of the music in my iTunes library is from a physical disc. If they limit it to iTunes purchases, I'll just use a Third-Party App to stream the music from my Home PC.
Of all the announcements and rumors this year, this is by far the most exciting. If Apple plays their cards right, users won't have to worry nearly as much about the storage capacity of their devices.
I wouldn't pay again for what I paid for already.
Converting my vinyl and buying them all as CD's again was enough.
For whatever the subscription would cost, you can get Sirius XM with many things to listen to on your iphone and if it must be a special song/your library, you can load up your iphone with those or take an ipod classic.
I just can't see any value in this other than backup.
My library consists to 99% of CDs I bought and than imported, I may have maybe 5 or so albums in there that were bought through Amazon. So, would APL also scan all those tracks?
This.
It would allow people to not eat up their bandwidth if they don't want to, while also giving everyone access to their entire library from anywhere. This, plus the old Lala model (of allowing us to upload tracks that aren't in the iTunes store) could really be great. Who knows - it could expand over time to be an entire wireless syncing solution. I think you're on to something.
If you think Apple is going to scan your library NOW, you are fooling yourselves.
Apple has been scanning your libraries for years with your own permission with their genius idea of 'Genius'. They have already mastered their own collection and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of people who have turned on Genius in iTunes.
i.e. the algorithm(s) is(are) there. The only thing Apple needs now is to implement it(them) in the best possible way in reference to the cloud.
I think something big is planned for this WWDC. People are going to be surprised.
Just my 2 cents.
Apple has been scanning your libraries for years with your own permission with their genius idea of 'Genius'. They have already mastered their own collection and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of people who have turned on Genius in iTunes.
i.e. the algorithm(s) is(are) there. The only thing Apple needs now is to implement it(them) in the best possible way in reference to the cloud.
I think something big is planned for this WWDC. People are going to be surprised.
Just my 2 cents.
My issue with this: what about those of us who have absolutely NO desire to put their music in the cloud? Now I'm having to pay higher prices so someone else can use a service that I won't use?
I need more details.
I didn't like the way Lala handled your music. I didn't like how they converted all of my songs to mp3's. I would like Apple to let me upload/stream my lossless music. Just like Audiogalaxy currently does.
Anything less than that and I will be sad.
Anything less than that and I will be sad.
Can't wait to see what Apple brings out. Seeing that data is becoming expensive and providers are taking away unlimited data plans and increasing costs on our end for data consumption, I think I'll just stick with my iPod for now. No fee for data, and no buffering when you use an iPod.
Businessweek forgot two little things
Re: ..."Users of the service will then be able to stream, whenever they want, their songs and albums directly to PCs, iPhones, iPads, and perhaps one day even cars."...
1. And perhaps one day we will be able to stream our songs and albums directly to our living rooms. First to Apple TV, then to OEM consumer audio manufacturers' products with "Apple Inside."
2. And inevitably "songs and albums" will be expanded to "songs and albums and TV shows and movies." Again, first to Apple TV, then to either an actual Apple-branded HDTV set or to OEM TV sets. "Apple Inside" again.
Re: ..."Users of the service will then be able to stream, whenever they want, their songs and albums directly to PCs, iPhones, iPads, and perhaps one day even cars."...
1. And perhaps one day we will be able to stream our songs and albums directly to our living rooms. First to Apple TV, then to OEM consumer audio manufacturers' products with "Apple Inside."
2. And inevitably "songs and albums" will be expanded to "songs and albums and TV shows and movies." Again, first to Apple TV, then to either an actual Apple-branded HDTV set or to OEM TV sets. "Apple Inside" again.
Here's my guess at the payment model:
FREE:
- Any song you purchase (past/present/future) through the iTunes store will be instantly available in iCloud for FREE
FEE PER-SONG:
- Any song you have which matches an iTunes song but was not purchased through iTunes (no upload required - will iTunes version of song)
- Any song which does not match an iTunes song (upload required)
They may also do a limited-time offer at the beginning to scan and upload your entire library for a fixed fee or perhaps even free
FREE:
- Any song you purchase (past/present/future) through the iTunes store will be instantly available in iCloud for FREE
FEE PER-SONG:
- Any song you have which matches an iTunes song but was not purchased through iTunes (no upload required - will iTunes version of song)
- Any song which does not match an iTunes song (upload required)
They may also do a limited-time offer at the beginning to scan and upload your entire library for a fixed fee or perhaps even free
You don't get it.
People don't want a service that's benefitting the record companies who won't hesitate to sue someone for copying their own CD for their own purposes, yet refuse to get with the natural evolution of technology. Don't you understand how they work? They want you to:
- Pay for a CD at an inflated rate. NO SINGLES. They don't want you to pick and choose the good songs. They want you to buy a CD full of CRAP at near $20 a pop to get to the one or two good ones. Trust me, I've been there, done that.
- If you want to copy that CD they want you to pay them AGAIN, otherwise you're branded a pirate.
- If you want to stream YOUR music they want you to pay for the privilege of streaming it.
- If you want to store your music online they want a cut of the price you pay for storing it online. They don't want you to storing what they consider "their" property without paying them a fee.
- They want your music DRM'd so you can't distribute it without paying a license fee every time you play it.
People don't want to do any of the above. If I buy music, I will buy the songs I choose to buy. If an artist has a 15-track CD and of those, two songs are good, I will buy the two songs. If they are an artist I really do enjoy - say, Peter White, George Benson - then I will support them by buying the whole digital CD. When I buy it, it's all MP3. If I put it online, it goes into a service where there is no price for me to store or stream it.
Apple is NOT - I repeat, NOT - in the habit of "free". That already puts them at a disadvantage. The only reason people even use iTunes is because they use iDevices. For someone like me who uses Android, the sky's the limit.
Apple has no choice but to come at this smart. They have to copy Amazon. It's the ONLY way they will succeed.
IF they try to charge for stuff that others offer for free, they will fail. See: MobileMe.
If they try to offer something that doesn't work correctly or nearly as good as others, they will fail. See: iDisk.
If they try to offer something that forces you to use iDevices to take advantage of it, they will fail. See: iTunes.
If they try to offer something that is not web accessible from virtually ANY device, they will fail. See: iTunes.
if apple did that then Apple and the record companies would be busted very quickly for anti trust. That is not legal to do.
Who owns the music - those that compose it, or those that distribute it? "Who are the Pirates?" - Who is "The Music Industry" - the "Labels" or the composers and performers?
Give the music back to those that made it - we do not need the brands and labels. Apple is aligning with Marxist strategies that is doomed to die.
Google is based on providing us the service of telling us what we should know. I prefer to decide that myself, and if needed educate myself. Advertising is needed to make us believe that lesser products are better than what they objectively are. I dislike that people can be bribed to tell others lies and place allegations and false claims.
Amazon is simpler dissemination of knowledge in exchange for funds using the electronic media. If you do not want the book, you do not have to buy it, making this a service that will survive - also "selling" music. But it is easy to replicate.
To inspect and monitor what individuals keep is a notion that lives in the last Marxist state, where coporate interest are honoured before the right of the individual. Steve Jobs" Remember "Glasnost" in another country. It is time to liberate the "Land of the Brave".
I keep my own music library - also on my mobile. My mobile has more music than my laptop and does not run Android. Audiogalaxy is another attempt for world dominance by peeping, and is just another Big Brother that can kep an eye on things.