or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Music labels expect Apple's 'iCloud' to be gold standard ahead of Google, Amazon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Music labels expect Apple's 'iCloud' to be gold standard ahead of Google, Amazon

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 
Though Amazon and Google beat Apple to the punch by launching their own cloud-based music streaming services, record labels are reportedly hopeful that Apple's rumored "iCloud," backed by licensing deals, will be the better product.

Cloud services from both Amazon and Google were launched without the appropriate licenses from music labels. Accordingly, the labels hope that Apple's product is vastly superior to the current options, Greg Sandoval of CNet reported Wednesday.

"The risk for the record labels is that the services from Amazon and Google could prove good enough for most music consumers and that the companies don't feel compelled to upgrade," the report said.

Sources at the major labels reportedly do not know when Apple plans to launch its rumored iCloud service. But they now hope that Apple chooses to unveil the product at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference, which begins June 6.

Sources also suggested that Google could be in for a legal fight with the labels for its Music Beta service launched on Tuesday. The search giant reportedly transcodes some of the music that is uploaded to its servers, which could be defined as creating a new copy and would require Google to obtain a publishing license.

The ability to stream music to Internet-connected devices without the need for local storage is expected to be a major component of Apple's iCloud service. But in April, AppleInsider exclusively reported that the company is also expected to include information from its current MobileMe service, including bookmarks, e-mail and contacts.



Unlike Amazon and Google, Apple has allegedly inked a deal with Warner Music and at least one more major record label for its iCloud service. Those agreements could allow Apple to stream music without requiring users to upload their own files.

But Google's product, as well as the Amazon Cloud Drive service, sidestep the need for licensing issues by having users upload their music and stream their own locally saved content to Web browsers and Android handsets.

Apple is said to have completed work on its own music streaming service, and with licensing deals in place, the company could allegedly announce it very soon. The iPhone maker is also said to have purchased the iCloud.com domain, providing a potential name for the anticipated service.
post #2 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

... (Google) reportedly transcodes some of the music that is uploaded to its servers, which could be defined as creating a new copy and would require Google to obtain a publishing license. ...

They also cache the music locally on the device so you aren't left without music when the connection is down. This is also "creating a copy" by most definitions and the very thing that apps have been thrown out of the app store for doing.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but technically and legally, Google is on very shaky ground.
post #3 of 53
First the music labels try hard to work with Amazon, Zune, etc. to break Apple's stranglehold on digital music distribution & now they're "rooting" for Apple to help them into "forcing" Google & Amazon into paying licensing fees for the cloud storage services. O-kay.

Am I missing something here?
post #4 of 53
I wish Apple would hurry up and announce/release this service. The suspense is killing me.
post #5 of 53
Apple is getting beaten by its own game.
Its really sad.

Google is trying to replicate Apple.
Google isn't playing by the "rules".

Apple is playing by the "rules".

For playing by the "rules", Apple get beaten to the market.

So what does Apple get for "player by the rules from the RIAA?
Nothing.

What does the RIAA get from Apple?
Trying to force licensing deals.

I really hope Apple played hard ball with the RIAA and has some sort of advantage built into their contract.
post #6 of 53
Google 'beat' Apple to it? Well their service is still in Beta i.e. not the finished article.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tru_canuk View Post

First the music labels try hard to work with Amazon, Zune, etc. to break Apple's stranglehold on digital music distribution & now they're "rooting" for Apple to help them into "forcing" Google & Amazon into paying licensing fees for the cloud storage services. O-kay.

Am I missing something here?

It's a love-hate relationship. They love Apple for providing them with so much revenue. But hate Apple because of the power the popularity of iTunes gives them. Golden handcuffs.
post #7 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

...technically and legally, Google is on very shaky ground.

The same can be said for their advertising practices, programming language use and their TV initiative, to say the least.

Apple will surely be seen, at least by the labels, as the "Legal" alternative to Amazon's and Google's approximations of this type of service, cementing the advantages of being iTunes users.

Apple's had a history of fairness, among the corporate world and with consumers, even if that can't be said to be the case with developers, on both sides.

Trying to earn the trust of the labels and the studios hasn't been easy for any company, but Apple certainly has earned more respect than others.
post #8 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by tru_canuk View Post

First the music labels try hard to work with Amazon, Zune, etc. to break Apple's stranglehold on digital music distribution & now they're "rooting" for Apple to help them into "forcing" Google & Amazon into paying licensing fees for the cloud storage services. O-kay.

Am I missing something here?

LOL When you put it that way its pretty funny.

"

The enemy of my enemy is my ally even if the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy and my enemy was previous my ally. ~Music Labels, circa 2011. Thats sooo not gonna catch on.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #9 of 53
Amazon and Google have given Apple a gift by launching their services without more cooperation with the record labels. They have painted themselves into a corner by branding themselves so heavily as the "open" option. Theoretically it should put them more on the side of users but, since it alienates them more from the record labels, in practice it separates them from consumers because the end experience of most consumers relies on cooperation with record labels more than most consumers realize.
Apple then gets to step into that vital intersection and make gold out of the scraps of straw.
post #10 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by c4rlob View Post

Amazon and Google have given Apple a gift by launching their services without more cooperation with the record labels.


More like no cooperation. Which is going to bite them in the butts in the end cause Apple will have some crazy awesome feature that Amazon and Google can't replicate cause it will put them over the line on 'shaky' legal ground and the labels won't want to play since they were ignored before.

And once again folks will be saying that Apple might be late to the party but they entered with the best costume etc.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #11 of 53
So, the music industry wants a cut even when you are streaming music that you've already paid for. If they had their way, they'd charge you a performance fee every time you overhear somebody's ringtone.
post #12 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

They also cache the music locally on the device so you aren't left without music when the connection is down. This is also "creating a copy" by most definitions and the very thing that apps have been thrown out of the app store for doing.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but technically and legally, Google is on very shaky ground.

Making a copy isn't illegal as that would make backing up your songs on a separate hard drive in case of failure illegal. Should only one copy absolutely exist at any point in time? Do we really want to walk down that road?

It's not the copy that's illegal but sharing it publicly by sticking it on a server for all to download.
post #13 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus View Post

Apple is getting beaten by its own game.
Its really sad.

Google is trying to replicate Apple.
Google isn't playing by the "rules".

Apple is playing by the "rules".

For playing by the "rules", Apple get beaten to the market.

So what does Apple get for "player by the rules from the RIAA?
Nothing.

What does the RIAA get from Apple?
Trying to force licensing deals.

I really hope Apple played hard ball with the RIAA and has some sort of advantage built into their contract.

1) When you have a dominant position there are times when it behooves you to play by the rules. I think this is the what Apple should do as the largest music store on Earth. Amazon is comparatively small and so it can get away with some things. Same goes for Google who has no music store. That said, in a dominant position there are times when it doesnt behoove you to play by the rules. Its no different than life.

2) I think you underestimate what Apple can bring to the table with a well planned media cloud. I dont see Apple getting beaten at their own game. Theyve had iDisk storage and playback of media for a couple years now on iOS. Its a nice player that works smoothly and offers scrubbing options just like in the iPod app for music you stream. It doesnt do playlists, but its an old app, not Apple new service that Amazon and Google have rushed to market based on rumours. But I digress. Apple has rarely been first to market with any product and yet they dominate the profits of all business legs. So what is getting beaten?

3) Have you read up and checked out Google and Amazons music services? I have tested Amazons and have read up on Googles. I find nothing compelling, sophisticated or convenient about either of them.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #14 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SalmanPak View Post

So, the music industry wants a cut even when you are streaming music that you've already paid for. If they had their way, they'd charge you a performance fee every time you overhear somebody's ringtone.

Dude, why do you think ringtones in the past cost more than the actual song? They ACTUALLY did that!
post #15 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

1) When you have a dominant position there are times when it behooves you to play by the rules. I think this is the what Apple should do as the largest music store on Earth. Amazon is comparatively small and so it can get away with some things. Same goes for Google who has no music store. That said, in a dominant position there are times when it doesnt behoove you to play by the rules. Its no different than life.

2) I think you underestimate what Apple can bring to the table with a well planned media cloud. I dont see Apple getting beaten at their own game. Theyve had iDisk storage and playback of media for a couple years now on iOS. Its a nice player that works smoothly and offers scrubbing options just like in the iPod app for music you stream. It doesnt do playlists, but its an old app, not Apple new service that Amazon and Google have rushed to market based on rumours. But I digress. Apple has rarely been first to market with any product and yet they dominate the profits of all business legs. So what is getting beaten?

3) Have you read up and checked out Google and Amazons music services? I have tested Amazons and have read up on Googles. I find nothing compelling, sophisticated or convenient about either of them.

Problem is that the music industry will whine when Apple beats Amazon and Google to a pulp and they have no control anymore.

It's not about "rules" or "being in favor". RIAA just wants more f$*(ing money.
post #16 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

But Google's product, as well as the Amazon Cloud Drive service, sidestep the need for licensing issues by having users upload their music and stream their own locally saved content to Web browsers and Android handsets.

That's quite clever actually.
post #17 of 53
Beta Forever
Free Forever

...Data Mining Forever!
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
post #18 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

They also cache the music locally on the device so you aren't left without music when the connection is down. This is also "creating a copy" by most definitions and the very thing that apps have been thrown out of the app store for doing.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but technically and legally, Google is on very shaky ground.

This is complete bollocks - the only reason Google could be on very shaky ground is because of the stupidity of the music industry and the cronies such as apple that support it in its current state.

Have you never thought that you are on 'very shaky ground' because everytime you copy a song to your ipod/iphone/ipad you are creating a copy.

Personally I am hoping google and amazon become all powerful here and just dismiss the ridiculous music industry - they seriously hold back innovation.
post #19 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post

Beta Forever
Free Forever

...Data Mining Forever!

Can't get more concise than that...unless you add "data mining" to the definition of "to Google!" Just like most things nothing is really ever free.

PS. You guys should check out the free App "Ghostery." It blocks all this data mining crap including Google Analytics and Google Adsense! It was recommended by MacWorld last week! http://www.ghostery.com/

PPS. No Affiliation: Just like the App.

PPS. I sure wish I knew how to add a photo to this message. B/C I could show what it looks like in the menu bar and what the alert screen looks like. Oh well.


Best
post #20 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patranus View Post

I really hope Apple played hard ball with the RIAA and has some sort of advantage built into their contract.

This has virtually nothing to do with the RIAA. If copies are made, Apple needs to acquire both sync licenses from the label and probably a publishing license from the publisher of each song. The RIAA would only get involved if all the member companies wanted to sue Apple or another vendor.

The problem is that regardless of whether Apple (or any of the companies) store one copy of a song and use your playlists to trigger that copy to your device or whether it's simply a "backup" and every user uploads all of their material, the end result is the same - an end user is (usually) paying for the privilege of having all their songs accessible on any device. While this can be construed to be nothing more than a hardware backup device, if someone's making money at it, one can argue that the labels deserve a cut. On the other hand, if you think of "the cloud" as a big hard disk, maybe they don't deserve a cut.

As we all know, copyright law hasn't kept up with technology, so it's hard to say how the labels perceive this from either a legal or a business perspective. If being able to play music on any device and keep them in sync increases music sales, it's good for everybody. And even if it doesn't increase sales, as long as it has no negative impact on music sales, it doesn't hurt the labels or the artists. But the labels and their lawyers have never been logical about all this.

Personally, I don't think there's going to be quite the demand for such a service as Apple and others think there is. It's a "nice to have in a few circumstances". I don't see it as a "must have".

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Have you never thought that you are on 'very shaky ground' because everytime you copy a song to your ipod/iphone/ipad you are creating a copy.

Maybe, maybe not. One is permitted under the copyright law to make a copy for personal use. Technically, that copy is supposed to be a backup, but the courts have never punished someone who, for example, purchased a CD and copied it to another media or another CD for their own personal use.
post #21 of 53
I can't wait. I used to be against it, but I want a total service. Storage, media, email, search... everything.

I want Google and Microsoft out of my life completely.
post #22 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post


I want Google and Microsoft out of my life completely.

My sentiments exactly AppleZilla. I just got rid of my last use for Windows and deleted my Parallels SW. It's a good day.

I only use Google for search. But seriously considering switching to Yahoo.
post #23 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SalmanPak View Post

So, the music industry wants a cut even when you are streaming music that you've already paid for. If they had their way, they'd charge you a performance fee every time you overhear somebody's ringtone.

It's not greed, it's a job. It just is what it is. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

Even if Amazon and Google get away with their services, think how much they'll waste in resources to defend their risky moves. All for what? To hit market first? To make it before Apple? You've gotta be kidding me! It's like free beta testing for Apple to see what works and what doesn't, to hear complaints and comb reviews.

Apple comes out with a better product and the assurance that you, the consumer, are doing the right thing. Obviously there is no right or wrong here, but Joe Shmuck wants to feel safe when he makes his decision to go to the cloud, and Apple is going to offer that.

As was already pointed out, Apple doesn't need to be first to the market... they just need to be the best. Demand will follow.
post #24 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post

Beta Forever
Free Forever

...Data Mining Forever!

Took me too long to fully realize Google's data mining practices and just haw brazen they are about it.. and how ubiquitous the practice is. Won't go back, ever. Sadly, most people have no clue what they are giving up when they buy into the brand. Or maybe they don't care. Not to say that others don't participate, but with Google, it's sort of their established MO that they aim to steal private info right out from under your nose.
post #25 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

That's quite clever actually.

I'm not so sure especially if the licensees were not obtained from the record company as this article states.
post #26 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimmyDax View Post

The same can be said for their advertising practices, programming language use and their TV initiative, to say the least.

Apple will surely be seen, at least by the labels, as the "Legal" alternative to Amazon's and Google's approximations of this type of service, cementing the advantages of being iTunes users.

Apple's had a history of fairness, among the corporate world and with consumers, even if that can't be said to be the case with developers, on both sides.

Trying to earn the trust of the labels and the studios hasn't been easy for any company, but Apple certainly has earned more respect than others.

They may not have the trust of the labels and studios according to comments on the DoJ's investigation into Apple's influence over the recording industry and it's use of iTunes.

http://www.mobiledia.com/news/71868.html

While not any proof they've actually done anything wrong, there is "word on the street" that the labels were pressured by Apple not to make a deal with Amazon, and perhaps Google as well.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #27 of 53
If the labels don't like what Amazon and Google have done then they should sue them. And if the labels have analyzed the situation and discovered that there's no legal case to be made, then they should stop whining about it.
post #28 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougMcNerd View Post

I wish Apple would hurry up and announce/release this service. The suspense is killing me.

Unlike MS, Apple will not release anything until it "just works"; no matter how long it takes. There're no betas like Google, either.

I feel your pain tho; I'm waiting as well.
post #29 of 53
Google and Amazon are amateurs. They don't want to pay for anything.
post #30 of 53
Google's service was a good first start. Since they couldn't get studio support, it's essentially just Dropbox for music.

Apple should really be able to do something far more potent, given their existing relations through iTunes. The bar is higher over here, for Apple.
post #31 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Can't get more concise than that...unless you add "data mining" to the definition of "to Google!" Just like most things nothing is really ever free.

PS. You guys should check out the free App "Ghostery." It blocks all this data mining crap including Google Analytics and Google Adsense! It was recommended by MacWorld last week! http://www.ghostery.com/

PPS. No Affiliation: Just like the App.

PPS. I sure wish I knew how to add a photo to this message. B/C I could show what it looks like in the menu bar and what the alert screen looks like. Oh well.


Best

There you go. This is what ghostery blocks on appleinsider




And you can see the red notification dot too.
post #32 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

They may not have the trust of the labels and studios according to comments on the DoJ's investigation into Apple's influence over the recording industry and it's use of iTunes.

http://www.mobiledia.com/news/71868.html

While not any proof they've actually done anything wrong, there is "word on the street" that the labels were pressured by Apple not to make a deal with Amazon, and perhaps Google as well.

I really doubt this is true. Apple really does not need that sort of protection, and cannot afford the reputation hit when (not if) it is caught at it. M$ and Intel have already shown the trouble that leads to.
post #33 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

They also cache the music locally on the device so you aren't left without music when the connection is down. This is also "creating a copy" by most definitions and the very thing that apps have been thrown out of the app store for doing.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but technically and legally, Google is on very shaky ground.

Apple should be able to work things out. Heck Microsoft has had a subscription music streaming service for quite awhile now.
post #34 of 53
iCloud with record label agreements means one thing - Some type of payment will be required to use it. Either you will have to have paid for the music within iTunes or you are going to be charged a rental or subscription fee.

Google and Amazon will give you storage space to upload your current collection and stream without any additional fees (outside of wanting more storage).

Two different strategies. We will see who wins. People seem to love the Zune $15/mo service (those who have it). Not sure the average person is willing to shell out another monthly fee (in big numbers) for music streaming though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Though Amazon and Google beat Apple to the punch by launching their own cloud-based music streaming services, record labels are reportedly hopeful that Apple's rumored "iCloud," backed by licensing deals, will be the better product.

Cloud services from both Amazon and Google were launched without the appropriate licenses from music labels. Accordingly, the labels hope that Apple's product is vastly superior to the current options, Greg Sandoval of CNet reported Wednesday.

"The risk for the record labels is that the services from Amazon and Google could prove good enough for most music consumers and that the companies don't feel compelled to upgrade," the report said.

Sources at the major labels reportedly do not know when Apple plans to launch its rumored iCloud service. But they now hope that Apple chooses to unveil the product at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference, which begins June 6.

Sources also suggested that Google could be in for a legal fight with the labels for its Music Beta service launched on Tuesday. The search giant reportedly transcodes some of the music that is uploaded to its servers, which could be defined as creating a new copy and would require Google to obtain a publishing license.

The ability to stream music to Internet-connected devices without the need for local storage is expected to be a major component of Apple's iCloud service. But in April, AppleInsider exclusively reported that the company is also expected to include information from its current MobileMe service, including bookmarks, e-mail and contacts.



Unlike Amazon and Google, Apple has allegedly inked a deal with Warner Music and at least one more major record label for its iCloud service. Those agreements could allow Apple to stream music without requiring users to upload their own files.

But Google's product, as well as the Amazon Cloud Drive service, sidestep the need for licensing issues by having users upload their music and stream their own locally saved content to Web browsers and Android handsets.

Apple is said to have completed work on its own music streaming service, and with licensing deals in place, the company could allegedly announce it very soon. The iPhone maker is also said to have purchased the iCloud.com domain, providing a potential name for the anticipated service.
post #35 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

That's quite clever actually.

Except that it isn't... it's a glorified online storage drive. And it's been done before.

http://www.mediamaster.com/
http://www.mediamax.com/
http://www.mp3tunes.com/
etc...
post #36 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Greg] View Post

Except that it isn't... it's a glorified online storage drive. And it's been done before.

http://www.mediamaster.com/
http://www.mediamax.com/
http://www.mp3tunes.com/
etc...

Don't forget iDisk
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #37 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcg View Post

There you go. This is what ghostery blocks on appleinsider


And you can see the red notification dot too.

Yep, JP that's what I want to show! Thanks

And...this little Ghostery bubble fades after a few seconds when you go to a new website...note the lines through the programs! This shows the Bubble on AI



Pretty cool!
post #38 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

launched without the appropriate licenses

Kinda all depends on what is deemed "appropriate".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but technically and legally, Google is on very shaky ground.

Maybe, maybe not. But the real question is whether the labels would risk losing a lawsuit? If they go after Google and Amazon, it opens the door for a lot of other services or even for Apple to back out of their deal. Kind of like Apple v Pystar. The implications of Apple losing the lawsuit would have been huge. And I think the labels case in this instance would be far less secure than Apple's against Pystar.
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by abarry View Post

Unlike MS, Apple will not release anything until it "just works"; no matter how long it takes. There're no betas like Google

Well, MobileMe didn't actually have a flawless launch either, and .Mac was just horrible. Both paid services... Apparently Jobs went nuts about it (or so I've read somewhere), so at least it looks like it was just a screwup, instead of intentionally trying to recruit your users for beta testing your software
post #40 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

Well, MobileMe didn't actually have a flawless launch either, and .Mac was just horrible. Both paid services... Apparently Jobs went nuts about it (or so I've read somewhere), so at least it looks like it was just a screwup, instead of intentionally trying to recruit your users for beta testing your software

There I plenty of cicumstantial evidence that Apple has both learned its lesson and is taking online services very seriously. The data center and future rollout of MobileMe changes are two things to which I refer.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Music labels expect Apple's 'iCloud' to be gold standard ahead of Google, Amazon