Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

Steve Jobs on Syncing Media Content to the Cloud: 'We're Working on It'

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
50,972
12,488
https://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png




During the Q&A portion of this evening's All Things Digital interview, Apple CEO Steve Jobs was asked about how the balance of power in control of media content has been shifting. After noting that content providers such as movie studios and record labels are starting to see viewers as their real customers rather than theaters and record stores and that the shift is beginning to cause changes in how we consume media, Jobs addressed the need to consumers to be able to sync their content in cloud-based systems.
"You want to share your content that you bought amongst your various devices. You can do that today with a wire. You can't do that without a wire. We need to work harder on that. We need to do better. Anytime soon? We're working on it."
Apple has been rumored to be using its acquisition of streaming music service Lala Media late last year and possibly its new North Carolina data center to launch cloud-based services for music and other media. Despite yesterday's shutdown of Lala's former streaming service yesterday, however, music industry sources indicate that a launch of cloud-based iTunes services is not imminent.

Article Link: Steve Jobs on Syncing Media Content to the Cloud: 'We're Working on It'
 

gwangung

macrumors 65816
Apr 9, 2003
1,106
19
Hm. 99 times out of a 100, that means they're working on a slick, elegant solution. Even if someone beats them to market, it'll probably be slick and elegant enough to win if they get within six months of said competitor.
 
Comment

JamonBull

macrumors 6502
Dec 14, 2009
255
323
Australia
Hopefuly the Aussie isp's will improve their service for us to get the best out of it. But it will be great when it hits!

The Aussie ISP's won't be doing anything until the National Broadband Network is rolled out. So we are still a maximum of four years away from having internet speeds and download allowances large enough to justify online media content syncing IMO. I'll be all for it when it happens though.
 
Comment

rjtyork

macrumors regular
Jun 10, 2009
183
298
I'm definitely excited about this. My only potential problems with it are that 1, I don't want to pay for it. Its kind of ridiculous to think that the best or only way to get to my digital entertainment library that I ALREADY OWN is going to cost me money because I keep it in the "clouds". 2, I have a HUGE digital entertainment library. Lots of videos, lots of music. At least 400 gigs worth. I like it being on my computer locally, but streaming it to other places is quite a nice feature. BUT, how long is it going to take to stream a movie to my iPhone, iPad, :apple:TV or a friend's computer? Especially over 3G? I don't want to wait 20 minutes to load a movie. It would have to work a little like Netflix. 3, if it's the ONLY way to get to my library, I WILL NOT pay for it. That's ridiculous. Especially if I don't have internet at a time that I want to listen to a particular song or watch a movie. I want my digital entertainment to be locally stored, too. Not having access to the internet is a frightening thing nowadays. Imagine how much more frightening it could be. Lol and finally, 4, How safe is my data? I don't really like the idea of someone else watching my pornos, deleting my music, or otherwise screwing with my digital entertainment. It's easier to hack a cloud than it is a personal computer. Again, local storage HAS TO STAY. But, this could be a cool feature. It might be another year away from being the best thing to happen to music, though.


EDIT: Wow, I ramble.
 
Comment

theheadguy

macrumors 65816
Apr 26, 2005
1,131
1,341
california
Hm. 99 times out of a 100, that means they're working on a slick, elegant solution. Even if someone beats them to market, it'll probably be slick and elegant enough to win if they get within six months of said competitor.
Agreed. Did you ever use Lala? They provided Apple with a pretty nice headstart.

RIP Lala... the service was shut down last night.
 
Comment

spillproof

macrumors 68020
Jun 4, 2009
2,028
2
USA
I would like to be able to listen to my "not man enough by society's standards" songs while not having stored on my actual device.
 
Comment

-AG-

macrumors regular
Jan 24, 2010
111
7
Austalia
Id say that 2 things that i really hope they are working on are, ability to stream from your iTunes account via wifi to your phone/touch device.

This way you dont have to be actually on your laptop/mac to be able to access music and or videos that you are sharing out.

other thing being the ability to put a timer on when downloads of podcasts happen, eg when we in australia roll onto off peak/ free download hours.

But this would require the ability to start/ stop downloads without needing to tell the mac to quit. unlike atm.
 
Comment

QuarterSwede

macrumors G3
Oct 1, 2005
9,481
1,559
Colorado Springs, CO
Agreed. Did you ever use Lala? They provided Apple with a pretty nice headstart.

RIP Lala... the service was shut down last night.
Yes they do. I had only been a user for a few months when Apple bought them. And in the last month I really started using it. I bought 2 albums just because of the full album preview. LOVED that.
 
Comment

JoshBoy

macrumors demi-god
Oct 12, 2008
444
286
Sydney, Australia
The Aussie ISP's won't be doing anything until the National Broadband Network is rolled out. So we are still a maximum of four years away from having internet speeds and download allowances large enough to justify online media content syncing IMO. I'll be all for it when it happens though.

I agree 100%, because of upload and download added to my monthly allowance we are limited. I smashed through 54gig last month with out trying, 4 gig was due to uploads and I do not use torrents so it has to do with mobileme and my website changes.

We need to fall in line with America (for once ;) ) with their unlimitted use on data
 
Comment

rscott505

macrumors member
Feb 11, 2008
59
0
I just don't get cloud computing

Maybe I'm just missing something, but I like having the media for which I purchase the right to consume on my own local device(s). There are times when we are not connected to the Internet. Even if we were through AT&T on the 3G network, the experience will not be as seamless as if the media was locally stored. I was just in New York City and was appalled by how bad the 3G network is there. I thought it was bad in Philadelphia and everyone was exaggerating in New York. But, I could not make one call without it being dropped. And forget about wireless data. I just don't believe the networks can handle that much data being transferred. Can you imagine trying to stream your music on a crowded 9 train or a PATH train? I just don't see it.

Of course, don't even get me started on data being erased. Just ask all the sidekick users that lost their data when the servers crashed. Wait until the servers are down and tell me how much you love having your data stored in the cloud.

Sorry, I just like having the media stored locally. If they keep this option, I guess no harm, no foul. Otherwise, I just don't get it.
 
Comment

Arnia

macrumors member
Jan 27, 2010
75
0
Maybe I'm just missing something, but I like having the media for which I purchase the right to consume on my own local device(s). There are times when we are not connected to the Internet. Even if we were through AT&T on the 3G network, the experience will not be as seamless as if the media was locally stored. I was just in New York City and was appalled by how bad the 3G network is there. I thought it was bad in Philadelphia and everyone was exaggerating in New York. But, I could not make one call without it being dropped. And forget about wireless data. I just don't believe the networks can handle that much data being transferred. Can you imagine trying to stream your music on a crowded 9 train or a PATH train? I just don't see it.

Of course, don't even get me started on data being erased. Just ask all the sidekick users that lost their data when the servers crashed. Wait until the servers are down and tell me how much you love having your data stored in the cloud.

Sorry, I just like having the media stored locally. If they keep this option, I guess no harm, no foul. Otherwise, I just don't get it.

If it works like Spotify does, then I think most of your concerns will be moot. I use Spotify more than iTunes (on the desktop) or the iPod app now. One of the key things with the service is that instead of requiring users to pay for what they already have, they pay for (ad free) access to all the music they *don't*. If you don't want to pay, you can get a limited access with ads on the desktop. The cost isn't exorbitant however even with the premium accounts.

Spotify also caches locally (either explicitly, with you able to pick playlists you want available offline, or a small cache from the songs you have played lately) so I can still listen to music when I'm out of signal. It works over EDGE as well as 3G networks, dynamically scaling bandwidth meaning that it is rare I am out of signal (generally only on the train or tube, when I'm in London).

Finally, it allows me to share my music with my friends. If I hear a track I like, perhaps found using 'related artists' or 'artist radio', I can throw it to a friend. They send me music in return, and we all learn about more sorts of music.

The whole 'owning' things like music always sounds strange to me. As far as I'm aware you've never owned the music; at most you've owned the medium with a licence to use the content. Now, with electronic copies, does it make sense to say you own anything at all? It feels just as confused as many accuse copyright holders of being, confusing physical and intellectual property. The Spotify service sidesteps this, of course, because if you pay for it then you're not paying for any particular track. You're paying for access to a huge library of tracks all at once.
 
Comment

Eric S.

macrumors 68040
Feb 1, 2008
3,599
0
Santa Cruz Mountains, California
Maybe I'm just missing something, but I like having the media for which I purchase the right to consume on my own local device(s).

I absolutely agree, at least for music. I have a device that fits in my pocket, will contain 3x the music I own now, that I can take anywhere on earth, and that I don't have to pay any monthly or subscription fee for. Why would I want to put my music in the cloud and experience network connection problems, downtimes, and dead spots, plus the risk of it being hacked or lost, and asked to pay for it besides?
 
Comment

WilliamLondon

macrumors 68000
Dec 8, 2006
1,699
13
Maybe I'm just missing something, but I like having the media for which I purchase the right to consume on my own local device(s)...Sorry, I just like having the media stored locally. If they keep this option, I guess no harm, no foul. Otherwise, I just don't get it.

In the short term you're absolutely correct - our infrastructure to the cloud isn't there yet for us to fully utilise the cloud.

However, imagine those restrictions aren't there and full connectivity is in place - at that point it makes absolutely no sense for everyone to have copies of the same file on their local devices (what a waste). Stream it from somewhere else (wherever that is).

Right now we're transitioning. It will take awhile of course but we have to start moving in that direction. Seems the infrastructure is the limiting factor, and this may *force* an upgrade (earlier) to support our actual needs.
 
Comment

technopimp

macrumors 6502a
Aug 12, 2009
645
216
Awesome...we'll be able to sync and stream everything from the cloud just in time for AT&T to restrict our data usage and make it either prohibitively expensive or downright impossible to do so. Why does it seem like the device/content providers and carriers are always diametrically opposed in where they're headed technology-wise?
 
Comment

Eric S.

macrumors 68040
Feb 1, 2008
3,599
0
Santa Cruz Mountains, California
In the short term you're absolutely correct - our infrastructure to the cloud isn't there yet for us to fully utilise the cloud.

However, imagine those restrictions aren't there and full connectivity is in place - at that point it makes absolutely no sense for everyone to have copies of the same file on their local devices (what a waste). Stream it from somewhere else (wherever that is).

Right now we're transitioning. It will take awhile of course but we have to start moving in that direction. Seems the infrastructure is the limiting factor, and this may *force* an upgrade (earlier) to support our actual needs.

Once the content is out of my hands, it is out of my control. And I'm not giving up that control, ever.
 
Comment

power2macs

macrumors newbie
Jun 2, 2010
1
0
current mobleme syncing

U guys may all be right [and prob know better than I], but since we are talking explicitly about syncing, why do you expect it to be any different than the current syncing avail w MobileMe [contacts, calendar, et al]?

Under the current paradigm the syncing allows content to be avail locally on all devices. I understand that media implicitly requires multiples the bandwidth required by contacts, for instance, but that's what wifi is for, is it not?
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.