Probably. But that's hard to do after having such a long-standing standard of unlimited Internet to the home. Also, us Americans like all you can eat. I think they would likely just raise pricing on Internet services. Oh the joys of commercialism.
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.
Time Warner and Amazon Forge Ahead as Apple Negotiates With Content Providers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Probably. But that's hard to do after having such a long-standing standard of unlimited Internet to the home. Also, us Americans like all you can eat. I think they would likely just raise pricing on Internet services. Oh the joys of commercialism.
It would nice to have some kind of streaming service, but considering all this legal BS involved, I don't think in my case it would be viable. Most of my music doesn't even come from the big record companies (man I love Beatport), so if the streaming service doesn't have my songs and I can't upload them because they aren't mainstream and licensed, it's of no use.
My music library is about 100 GB. In a few years the iPhone will have 128 GB storage, and until then I've got 32 on my iPhone, internet radio apps, and iTunes sharing.
My music library is about 100 GB. In a few years the iPhone will have 128 GB storage, and until then I've got 32 on my iPhone, internet radio apps, and iTunes sharing.
I suggest trying this new player first before deciding it is the next big thing.
I just uploaded 2 CDs of 18 songs. It took 50 minutes to upload 18 songs over my cable modem. Upload speeds are generally not that good on cable.
I have to admit, it will take forever to upload all of my music to something like this. Also as a previous poster pointed out, streaming from the cloud will use precious bandwidth. Unless you have unlimited data plans I see a limited use for this. Those are the 2 flaws.
I just uploaded 2 CDs of 18 songs. It took 50 minutes to upload 18 songs over my cable modem. Upload speeds are generally not that good on cable.
I have to admit, it will take forever to upload all of my music to something like this. Also as a previous poster pointed out, streaming from the cloud will use precious bandwidth. Unless you have unlimited data plans I see a limited use for this. Those are the 2 flaws.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
Good for amazon and time warner. I wish more companies would help drive the last nails in the coffins of the content providers.
Good for amazon and time warner. I wish more companies would help drive the last nails in the coffins of the content providers.
Since LaLa already had content deals in place to stream music, why didn't those deals carry over to Apple when Apple bought 'em? I would've thought that those content deals would have been part of the value of the company.
I get that fully integrating LaLa's service with iTunes to allow for an iTunes streaming service/cloud solution would require new deals with the content providers. And Lala may not have had as deep of a content library as iTunes. But as a starting point, couldn't Apple have either (a) Kept Lala going instead of shutting it down, until they were ready to integrate it with iTunes; or (b) Simply renamed it something like "iTunes Streaming" and kept it going (with whatever music Lala had available under it's existing content deals)?
I guess option B wouldn't be so hot, since Apple can make a bigger splash with their streaming/cloud product by waiting until they are ready to launch a fully integrated service. But option A might've made some sense, because it seems like Apple might've actually lost some potential extra leverage with the music industry by shutting Lala down. . . If they'd kept it going, they could've said, "Hey, we're already streaming your music through Lala anyway because you sold them streaming rights before we owned them, so you might as well play ball with letting us integrate this with iTunes."
Or maybe not. But shutting down Lala didn't seem very beneficial for Apple regardless -- unless killing LaLa was just supposed to drive more people to buying tracks on iTunes (when in reality it probably just drove more people to Torrents, Pandora, etc., while leaving the streaming-music market open to new competitors that will scoop up users that Lala could have kept for Apple).
What am I missing?
I get that fully integrating LaLa's service with iTunes to allow for an iTunes streaming service/cloud solution would require new deals with the content providers. And Lala may not have had as deep of a content library as iTunes. But as a starting point, couldn't Apple have either (a) Kept Lala going instead of shutting it down, until they were ready to integrate it with iTunes; or (b) Simply renamed it something like "iTunes Streaming" and kept it going (with whatever music Lala had available under it's existing content deals)?
I guess option B wouldn't be so hot, since Apple can make a bigger splash with their streaming/cloud product by waiting until they are ready to launch a fully integrated service. But option A might've made some sense, because it seems like Apple might've actually lost some potential extra leverage with the music industry by shutting Lala down. . . If they'd kept it going, they could've said, "Hey, we're already streaming your music through Lala anyway because you sold them streaming rights before we owned them, so you might as well play ball with letting us integrate this with iTunes."
Or maybe not. But shutting down Lala didn't seem very beneficial for Apple regardless -- unless killing LaLa was just supposed to drive more people to buying tracks on iTunes (when in reality it probably just drove more people to Torrents, Pandora, etc., while leaving the streaming-music market open to new competitors that will scoop up users that Lala could have kept for Apple).
What am I missing?
Shocked it was amazon
I did not see amazon being the first one with a Cloud music player. I did not see them taking such a love to android in the first place but over the last three weeks it seems they have a department solely to develop competing applications for android.
The companies that I did expect it in order of first to to last sort of would have been Google, Apple, british petroleum, and i would have expected Microsoft last.
Google I would guest would either be first of second behind Apple. I would expect google because right now they are one of the world leaders in cloud computing. It would seem like something they will not have much of an issue arranging.
Apple has the number one desktop music player and it would seem fitting that they would be one of first companies to be able to extend it to be a cloud player for purchased songs.
BP was a joke. Microsoft I see would be scrounging looking to rework Google and apples Cloud Streaming.
I did not see amazon being the first one with a Cloud music player. I did not see them taking such a love to android in the first place but over the last three weeks it seems they have a department solely to develop competing applications for android.
The companies that I did expect it in order of first to to last sort of would have been Google, Apple, british petroleum, and i would have expected Microsoft last.
Google I would guest would either be first of second behind Apple. I would expect google because right now they are one of the world leaders in cloud computing. It would seem like something they will not have much of an issue arranging.
Apple has the number one desktop music player and it would seem fitting that they would be one of first companies to be able to extend it to be a cloud player for purchased songs.
BP was a joke. Microsoft I see would be scrounging looking to rework Google and apples Cloud Streaming.
Minus one fact. The record company hate Apple more because Apple has way to much power. They would much rather let Amazon get an early lead here than let Apple gain any extra ground.
I think it is good that Amazon did this. First thing I did was upload 5 gigs of my favorite music from my 30 gig library for when I want to stream it.
The large media conglomerates won't be interested in signing onto any new technology until they can effectively monitor it for ratings purposes.
Ratings = Ad Sales = $$
And even then, they'll force you to watch at least two and a half minutes of spots per each hour of programming you want to watch.
For example I love ABC News to death but if you spend any time at all on their website, you'll realize how ludicrous it is that every time you want to watch a video relating to a news story, you have to watch a :60 ad for a prescription drug before hand.
I hate commercials, funny thing is, my paycheck is supported by them...
Just so you know TimeWarner Cable is NOT part of TimeWarner Inc. since 2008. So TWC is, contrarily to what the article says, NOT part of a big media conglomerate anymore...
Time Warner Cable is now an entirely different company from the other Time Warner. It was sold to shareholders in 2009.
So are they poisoning the water for Apple's moves in those areas? Interesting that they are ramming their projects through and pissing off the 'to big to fail' megopolies...
I still think iTunes and an iPod is the best way to go... Maybe I'm just old school?
Yes.
Sure, if they piss off the labels by doing something without asking they risk the other side walking out when their contracts come up for renewal.
2 and 3 are unneeded. THey have a record of everything you bought. They use that to trigger access. Same as Apple could
