Piper: Expect iTunes cloud, not music subscriptions, from Apple - Page 2

Hmmmm. . . Netflix stock down today! Coincidence?

Not quite tracking you ... isn't apple already doing dropbox via MobileMe?

I think Apple is bying out one of these two companies and will begin using apple shaped pieces of pepperonni on its pizzas. It only makes sense, did anyone besides me notice that the clocks used in the announcement are the exact same shape as a pizza? This is kind of a no-brainer....

Well,

• the new AppleTV would be able to buy a movie or TV show (or music) - and then start watching immediately.
• Wireless syncing for iPhones etc to the cloud (but hopefully it'll sync wirelessly via your local Mac if available!)
• full iOS/iTunes backup, possibly including back up of all your photos
• They could sell an iPad as "500GB with 16GB local" (phrased MUCH better).
• People could buy an iPad without needing a computer at all - just an AppleID.

I'd say this is stage one of the data centre. Stage 2 is with Lion - full copy of your whole user account on Lion, including apps (and a 64GB MBA could still have 200GB of documents/music/movies loaded).

That's why I said the "SMARTPHONE" market was not mature in 2007 when the iPhone was introduced and it's still not mature today..

Apple entered an emerging market and re-defined it by releasing a device with a multi-touch interface and internet and web capabilities that had never been done before.

To date, Apple have not entered into an established market with any of their core products..

From the Mac, to the iPod, iPhone, iPad to their digital content iTunes business.. Apple entered them all in their fledgling stages..

There is merit in an internet or cloud based streaming service, however I believe it needs to be a step away from, or solve the limits of local storage of your media. A cloud based service that allows access to your media on any connected device is where we need to go.

David Shepherd
doshepherdhowto.com

What you say is likely true! Apple already has a record of all your iTunes and App store downloads and purchases.

A streaming (and/or re-download) service to iDevices would involve little additional storage (an online token (pointer) to each song you own) -- just bandwidth.


In the bigger scheme of things, it would be nice to include content you have purchased and ripped.

This could be handled by:

1) iTunes local/remote "analyzing" * your ripped files (or the Original CDs and DVDs) to assure a legal file.

2) matching the content to that on the cloud.

3) issuing you a token for validated content

* YouTube analyzes content you upload to prevent unauthorized use of copyrighted content -- e.g. it won't let you use a portion of a ripped CD as a soundtrack in a home movie.


As an alternative, Apple and the record/movie/TV industry could offer an amnesty period, say, six months, to "tokenize" your content -- no questions asked.


Most of us have some content that cannot be validated:
-- Ripped LPs, VHS Tapes
-- Live recordings
-- Home movies
-- Pictures and slide shows

The option to upload and store some or all of these at a reasonable annual fee would be appealing.

.

Hmmmm. . . Apple stock down today! Coincidence?

.

I like that!

Especially the concept of;
-- Local storage for the content (including apps) that you currently use
-- secondary storage for all the content you bought (without messing with/losing SD cards)
-- you don't need a local computer, HDD
-- nothing' but your standalone iDevices (and a plastic boot SSD)

.

Not even close. Dropbox allows you to share folder with other people and it keeps these files synced across all devices and users. Now, on mobile devices the apps just show you the files that you can stream or download, but on ‘PCs’ the software actually keeps the content local to each user.

it works a lot more like Time Machine than MobileMe’s iDisk. Meaning, if I were to upload (say) last week’s episode of QI — a british comedic gameshow, of sorts — from eztv.it it wouldn’t simply start the upload like iDIsk, FTP and other file servers. It would check their entire DB, if that file was already on their server it wouldn’t initiate the upload, but would say the upload is complete and make a relevant link to that file within the folder as if I instantly uploaded it. Everyone shared in that folder can now see it, and all “PCs” shared to that folder will get a physical copy of it.

But what if I changed the name of that file? Say, from QI 8x09 (HDTV-ANGELiC) [VTV] LOLZ EZTV to something more userfriendly, like QI - S08E09 - House & Home. It doesn’t matter, it checks the file, not its name.

And that’s one way it’s like Time Machine. Time Machine backs up changes to files. If you simply change a name of a 1GB file it won’t take up another 1GB of space on your TIme Machine drive to maintain that change, only if the file itself is changed.

Additionally, you can delete any and all files within your Dropbox folders to give yourself more space, but then go to their site to restore these items at any time by showing deleted files. Note, these will only show you the name and dates, not take up your Dropbox space or local storage space. Only once you restore them to they count as part of your capacity.

So if someone accidentally deletes a file from Dropbox, don’t worry, you can easily restore it. You can permanently delete files, but you have to go to your deleted files within a folder and then chose the ones you want to permanently delete. This makes any permanent deletion a very willful act.

Finally, if you use Dropbox for backing up files that are constantly rewritten but use the same name, like taking notes for a class or writing a report, it will show you the previous revisions of these files, just like Time Machine. I use this for all my school work and it’s even saved my butt a couple times when i overwrote and saved a file accidentally.

Wow! Your right, that's fantastic and a much better model.

Besides their back-end being very complex yet nearly invisible to users that even “techy” people I know don’t seem to understand how it works despite using it, the website code and apps are are very “Mac-like”.

From Wikipedia something I suspected, but didn’t know…

I don't want live news. It's too antiquated - I see stories that I've already heard 3 times with little extra information, and tiny updates to stories that I missed hearing yesterday and want to know the full news! (edit: there's also stuff I'm not interested in. AND it's always 30 minutes... no matter how much or little news there is!)

I want interactive news. Cut up your nightly news program into every individual article, link them to earlier related articles and bigger investigative articles (like 60 minutes). Then let me turn on my "news" any time and just highlight stuff that's been updated.

Live news is occasionally useful, but I'd much rather the above!

iTunes LIVE applies as much to that as cloud services...and I agree...much more unforgettable.

Perhaps Apple scored big wins with ESPN and ABC...

It's called CNN.com.

Live news, maybe not so much. Live sports? That's a different level of boom.

I don't deny it's suffering, but you said it was "dead" not "dying." That's what i commented and disagreed on.. There are still billions of song sales being made, so no, it's not "dead."

Lady Gaga is still making money.

.

Well... I used LaLa for a while until it was discontinued,

My small brain has only so much room (a short stack) & older stuff goes into the dust bin!

So I Yahooed lala to refresh my memory.


Someone mentioned that the LaLa purchase gave Apple streaming rights to music.

According to this it does:

http://techcrunch.com/2008/10/20/lal...digital-music/

... and a lot more.

1) You can buy web songs (streaming only, no download) for 10 cents each. If you later buy the song for download the 10 cents is applied to the purchase,

2) It examines your iTunes library and allows you access to the streaming web song for any song it finds in your library.

3) It doesn't ask (or care) how you got the song in your iTunes library -- it figures you aren't going to rebuy the song anyway.

4) it has the major labels and lots of indies signed up.

++++++++++++++

After many of his predictions, speculations did not come true any further speculations by Munster should be suspect. I wish he were correct this time, but he does not even provide any plausible support for his prediction.

He predicted Apple would sell 45 million iPhones in 2009. He was off by tens of millions. Even his supporting projections is off by almost 10 million. During the Q4 2010, most of his estimates were off by a wide margin.

He predicted mini iPhones thinking it would be like the iPod series. Didn't he speculate that they would also reduce the price of the MacBook to $800??? His prediction for the iPad last April 2010 was also incorrect. And of course, his Apple stock projections have been off also.

Revenue --> $18.7B ($20.34B)
EPS --> $3.87 ($4.64)
iPhone --> 11M (14.1M)
iPod --> 10M (9.05M)
Macs --> 3.7M (3.89M)
iPads --> 4.5M (4.15M)
GM --> 37.0% (36.9%)

He even revised the above predictions 7 October 2010.

Does Apple Insider even look at his record? Why does AI give him so much attention?

Of course, if he keeps on speculating, one of them is bound to hit the ball. I hope this is one of them.

Oops, forgot the quote.

Apple already has this. Its the 27" iMac.
Add EyeTV and maybe Plex to meet the your requirements.

Yeah something says that the Beatles are just not big enough I mean why the logo. At the same time I think if seb leaking info he's going to have a short career at the mothership....

Suffering? More like a death rattle. The video game industry made triple that of the music giants in 2009. Moreover, the movie industry broke $10b domestic (US & Canada) in box office alone.

I suppose the housing market is just suffering a little bit as well?

In this day & age I can already stream nearly anything I want legally and for free.

Lady Gaga is by no means a measure of the whole. There will always be someone raking in cash, but these days artists make most of their money from touring. I would say, in the traditional sense, that yes it is dead.

...and just like i did earlier in the thread, i would say that you're wrong... When something is "dead" it no longer exists, and the fact that iTunes has sold billions and billions of songs in the past few years proves that the music business still exists.. Suffering, yes, in decline, yes.. Dead, no.


EDIT. ....and i never said suffering a "little bit," as in your above housing example trying to undermine or disprove my statement. I said "suffering," and yes, "suffering" is an accurate description. The industry is suffering...

I was expecting much better work from Apple web designers. The slogan read ``come tomorrow' ' just a second before 16:00 Paris time.
Oh, well, that iPhone alarm... We all know...