The reason apple has not done anything yet, is because it's not as easy as people think. They're not going to damage their brand by releasing some crappy service. This amazon service will probably be the equivalent of watching movies on YouTube. When apple does introduce a cloud based service it will be a far superior service.
You don't think Apple will have something very similar? It's there to stop end-users abusing the system. Uploading illegal content and sharing the links with others and streaming non-stop 24/7. If you are using the system "normally" then you won't run into any trouble.
I'm sure that Apple will (actually does) have something similar. The Mobile Me agreement has similar terms, but not quite as egregious. The Amazon terms are particularly bad. They basically have full access to anything you upload whenever they decide it is OK, make no guarantees of any kind, offer no SLAs, can discontinue your service at any time, and if they do, they will not refund any of your money. All of this for a service that can cost as much as $1,000 per year.
Day 1: Mac users will take their 5 GBs from Amazon and buy an album to qualify for their 20 GBs. They'll upload their albums (and other data, as more than music is permitted) as a form of backup. If they're an Android users, some of them may use it as a music player (FWIW on an ethernet-connect Mac, the player has to buffer for 6-10 seconds between songs - annoying); Apple users might use it out of curiosity.
Day 60: Apple will announce a MobileMe-based cloud player that's better integrated with Apple devices and all the curious will move to their model.
As people have mentioned, this is about having the best non-wired access to content that's already been paid for. The lag between songs indicates to me that they haven't quite nailed the streaming thing yet, but I for one appreciate Bezos spurring Apple and others to compete. As much as I'd like to think that Apple will innovate regardless of the competitive environment, a little added incentive never hurts.
The reason apple has not done anything yet, is because it's not as easy as people think. They're not going to damage their brand by releasing some crappy service. This amazon service will probably be the equivalent of watching movies on YouTube. When apple does introduce a cloud based service it will be a far superior service.
That's a lot of faith in a company that's released shonky services like iWork.com or Ping! Even iDisk is a bit clunky compared to the likes of Dropbox.
I love the design of Apple's products and OSs, but I'm far from the only one that finds their online services lacking. I wouldn't hold my breath for anything more than a "hobby" service for a while...
What's going to happen to peoples content that have paid for this service if it fails in a year or two due to lack of take-up? Hasn't this already happened with one of Microsoft's cloud-based services?
I would assume the companies would send out an e-mail notifying the users of the coming shutdown of the service and allow them plenty of time to move whatever they have stored in the cloud to an offline source.
If you don't act on it, then it's your loss, not theirs.
Not sure what you mean. I'm not a Mac guy. But TechCrunch reported it not work with iOS. Can't play music. (also can't upload because of Flash)
I mean, can you stream your media from the locker on Safari on an iOS device, from a 3rd-aprty browser that uses the Mobile Safari framework, or a server-side 3rd-party browser like Opera? IOW, are there work arounds to get iOS access of this Amazon service?
Have to politely disagree with you there: it is about sales. No one will create one of these services out of the goodness of their heart. The idea will be that by giving away a storage option the user will use the online store of their storage provider -- in this case, Amazon.
Will this be a good strategy? You tell me. I'm an old guy compared to many of you, so I'm skeptical about introducing a third party into things. I use AirPlay . . . a lot, as well as Remote. But a cloud service?
But many you -- that is, younger people -- may not feel that way, and don't mind having your music and video tied to a cloud environment. You tell me.
All I know is that the first time the cloud service was down for any reason when I wanted to use it I would be livid. The acceptable error rate for a business like this is zero.
It might be about sales -- but that's from a purely Amazon perspective. The viewpoint of the user is that they still own their music, but now have more access options.
Obviously Amazon's intent is that the additional value add from the Cloud services will encourage you to buy your music from them.
From Apple's perspective, a similar cloud offering will presumably only be accessible by iTunes and iOS devices -- thus selling more devices (and music -- but Apple only really sells the music to sell devices).
Amazon in the span of 2 months has become the #1 competitor to Apple's business model. They've completely hijacked Android away from Google. It's phenomenal to watch.
Amazon has become Android's iTunes / Appstore. Amazing. The transition isn't complete yet, but with millions of credit cards on file with Amazon, and Amazon selling books, music, newspapers, applications, cloud storage service, etc... Google has just overcome a major hurdle and competitive advantage that Apple once held by themselves.
I'm not sure of the direction that Microsoft, RIM, and HP will have to compensate in this area, but I'm sure Amazon might look for ways of bringing those platforms under their marketplace umbrella. (Though they should try to perfect the Android side of things first before they expand.)
I don't know what Amazon is doing nor what Apple is planning, but I agree in general. Streaming your own content is no go for most of the world, for smartphones and tablets. 3G cannot handle it. WiFi at home... maybe, depending on the service. The demand for bandwidth is insatiable.
What *is* important though is to be able to get your songs from anywhere onto your device wirelessly. Like DropBox.
That is, streaming is less important than SYNCING.
It looks like songs are automatically cached on the Android player so bandwidth might not be too bad. Any songs you regularly listen to are really being played from the local cache. It is just the stuff you don't listen to regularly that has to stream.
What about ISPs now doing their best to limit bandwidth and charging more money for the people who are heavy data users? This is a real problem that will get worse with time.
I don't know how much bandwidth I use but I know it must be plenty. My computer is on 24/7 and streaming internet radio all the time. When the radio isn't playing I'm listening to conference calls or using Skype to make telephone calls. I'm a Netflix subscriber too.
Is there a program out there that I can download to tell me just how much bandwidth I'm using? I'll want one to monitor my usage whenever the day comes that my ISP puts a cap on my usage.
Streaming your own music seems like a great idea. The thing is that if you have an iPod why do you need to stream your music? Is cloud storage so much better than carrying around a device that weighs almost nothing that you'd want it? You don't need to make any service agreements with your own iPod. Right now a small iPod could hold enough MP3 music to last you a week without hearing the same song twice.
Having online storage is a good idea in case you loose your music device. Use the cloud for that. Streaming just uses your bandwidth and could one day add to your monthly bills.
um... I'm not about to read the entire agreements of this BS.. but given what the OP outlined, and what you outlined.. I think you missed the real takeaway... apple clearly outlines reasonable expectations while protecting themselves.
Amazon is basically saying they don;t even secure anything and if it gets stolen by hackers it isn't on them along with having a metric.. that any user that actually uses their services more than an average will get booted... pfft!
that shit is born to lose.
Yea, anything that the rest of the world does is Fscked up in a fanboys eyes. Quit drinking koolaid loser.
Well apart from Apple announcing iTools in 2000, that is.
Cloud streaming service, Apple has had it for years, I can drop music into my iDisk and play it from the iDisk App on my iPhone or iPad.
It's like Apple TV a "hobby" Apple has been dabbling in for years.
What Amazon is "introducing" isn't greatly different to iDisk.
Of course Apple invented everything. Thanks for reminding us. I like how Apple Fanboys only go back far enough to give Apple the credit. Go back a little further and see who really pioneered it. Fanbois = Fail
With all this trust going to the many "cloud" services out there (Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, etc...) I am curious when its going to turn back around. Although I do use some of these services, I would like it if it were under MY control, not some weirdly written TOS with my files and data on some server in a warehouse.
I have my own server at home on an always on internet connection (minus the times my ISP drops the ball). So, why not utilize it as my "cloud", and stream video, music, use it as a dropbox, personal social networking for just my own friends, etc... Nothing is stopping this, yet I see so few products out there. I would think Apple, espeically with their Mac Mini Server, iWork Suite, Mobile Me, iTunes, AirPlay, iChat Server, Mail Server, etc, would be able to build a really awesome "iCloud" that stays at your house, under your control.
With all this trust going to the many "cloud" services out there (Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, etc...) I am curious when its going to turn back around. Although I do use some of these services, I would like it if it were under MY control, not some weirdly written TOS.
I have my own server at home on an always on internet connection (minus the times my ISP drops the ball). So, why not utilize it as my "cloud", and stream video, music, use it as a dropbox, personal social networking for just my own friends, etc... Nothing is stopping this, yet I see so few products out there. I would think Apple, espeically with their Mac Mini Server, iWork Suite, Mobile Me, iTunes, AirPlay, iChat Server, Mail Server, etc, would be able to build a really awesome "iCloud" that stays at your house, under your control.
Thoughts?
99.999% of people out there don't want to run their own server, manage it or pay the ridiculous electric bills that will come with it
Amazon in the span of 2 months has become the #1 competitor to Apple's business model. They've completely hijacked Android away from Google. It's phenomenal to watch.
Amazon has become Android's iTunes / Appstore. Amazing. The transition isn't complete yet, but with millions of credit cards on file with Amazon, and Amazon selling books, music, newspapers, applications, cloud storage service, etc... Google has just overcome a major hurdle and competitive advantage that Apple once held by themselves.
I'm not sure of the direction that Microsoft, RIM, and HP will have to compensate in this area, but I'm sure Amazon might look for ways of bringing those platforms under their marketplace umbrella. (Though they should try to perfect the Android side of things first before they expand.)
wouldn't surprise me if google lets them have the android market flat out. with google concentrating on advertising, search and metrics i don't think they want to maintain the market.
99.999% of people out there don't want to run their own server, manage it or pay the ridiculous electric bills that will come with it
The Mac Mini (according to Apple), is a very efficient machine, that cannot exceed 85W due to its power supply. Most of the time, it will sit idle, using 1/4 the energy of a 40W bulb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple Website
Advanced power management.
Mac mini is a great example of Apple’s energy-efficient design philosophy. It uses less than 10 watts of power when idle — a 25 percent reduction from the previous generation. That’s something no other desktop computer can do.
As for people not wanting to run their own server, I can understand that. It sounds scary, intimidating, and only for the geeky. Apple is KING of marketing, with the "It just works" mentality with their computers and devices. They could make the whole server thing very easy to setup and use for regular people. You could even buy "iCloud Apps" that install with one click on your server, that you then can use anywhere in the world using just a browser. I think Apple could make it that easy. Remember when having a smartphone was only for the business-minded? Now I see 5 year olds with their own iPhones.
Amazon is on his way to become the itune of the Android market. Apps, books, music, tv, movies. Not a bad idea imo.
now all they have to do is fight in court to be allowed on iOS and its total ownage. imo Apple is abusing is monopoly on iOS so they deserve a spank.
It's already allowed (through mobile safari). You probably should argue how Apple needs to allow sideloading of apps instead of emotional statements like "deserve a spank".
It's already allowed (through mobile safari). You probably should argue how Apple needs to allow sideloading of apps instead of emotional statements like "deserve a spank".
its more a joke than being emotionnal... if Amazon can allow its full services within safari they its Ok, but I dont see how you can saved data for offline used without an app. The rule on pricing and in app purchased by Apple are clearly an abuse of there monopoly, you are at a point where Apple wants to control pricing even outside there ecosystem. This cant be alllowed, but I am pretty sure the FTC is going to make a move on this pretty soon.
Have to politely disagree with you there: it is about sales. No one will create one of these services out of the goodness of their heart. The idea will be that by giving away a storage option the user will use the online store of their storage provider -- in this case, Amazon.
Will this be a good strategy? You tell me. I'm an old guy compared to many of you, so I'm skeptical about introducing a third party into things. I use AirPlay . . . a lot, as well as Remote. But a cloud service?
But many you -- that is, younger people -- may not feel that way, and don't mind having your music and video tied to a cloud environment. You tell me.
All I know is that the first time the cloud service was down for any reason when I wanted to use it I would be livid. The acceptable error rate for a business like this is zero.
Your music is tied to the cloud environment, unless you choose to have it done that way. The way I have it structured is that when I buy an MP3 from Amazon that it will store to the cloud and download the MP3 to my mac or my Android device (depending which one I'm using). So in essence it provides an offsite backup and a download at the same time. In addition, it allows me to reduce the number of songs on my Android devices so that I have more space if I need it, because if there is a song that I decide I want to listen to, I can quickly re-download it from the cloud.
Comments
You don't think Apple will have something very similar? It's there to stop end-users abusing the system. Uploading illegal content and sharing the links with others and streaming non-stop 24/7. If you are using the system "normally" then you won't run into any trouble.
I'm sure that Apple will (actually does) have something similar. The Mobile Me agreement has similar terms, but not quite as egregious. The Amazon terms are particularly bad. They basically have full access to anything you upload whenever they decide it is OK, make no guarantees of any kind, offer no SLAs, can discontinue your service at any time, and if they do, they will not refund any of your money. All of this for a service that can cost as much as $1,000 per year.
Day 60: Apple will announce a MobileMe-based cloud player that's better integrated with Apple devices and all the curious will move to their model.
As people have mentioned, this is about having the best non-wired access to content that's already been paid for. The lag between songs indicates to me that they haven't quite nailed the streaming thing yet, but I for one appreciate Bezos spurring Apple and others to compete. As much as I'd like to think that Apple will innovate regardless of the competitive environment, a little added incentive never hurts.
The reason apple has not done anything yet, is because it's not as easy as people think. They're not going to damage their brand by releasing some crappy service. This amazon service will probably be the equivalent of watching movies on YouTube. When apple does introduce a cloud based service it will be a far superior service.
That's a lot of faith in a company that's released shonky services like iWork.com or Ping! Even iDisk is a bit clunky compared to the likes of Dropbox.
I love the design of Apple's products and OSs, but I'm far from the only one that finds their online services lacking. I wouldn't hold my breath for anything more than a "hobby" service for a while...
What's going to happen to peoples content that have paid for this service if it fails in a year or two due to lack of take-up? Hasn't this already happened with one of Microsoft's cloud-based services?
I would assume the companies would send out an e-mail notifying the users of the coming shutdown of the service and allow them plenty of time to move whatever they have stored in the cloud to an offline source.
If you don't act on it, then it's your loss, not theirs.
Not sure what you mean. I'm not a Mac guy. But TechCrunch reported it not work with iOS. Can't play music. (also can't upload because of Flash)
I mean, can you stream your media from the locker on Safari on an iOS device, from a 3rd-aprty browser that uses the Mobile Safari framework, or a server-side 3rd-party browser like Opera? IOW, are there work arounds to get iOS access of this Amazon service?
Have to politely disagree with you there: it is about sales. No one will create one of these services out of the goodness of their heart. The idea will be that by giving away a storage option the user will use the online store of their storage provider -- in this case, Amazon.
Will this be a good strategy? You tell me. I'm an old guy compared to many of you, so I'm skeptical about introducing a third party into things. I use AirPlay . . . a lot, as well as Remote. But a cloud service?
But many you -- that is, younger people -- may not feel that way, and don't mind having your music and video tied to a cloud environment. You tell me.
All I know is that the first time the cloud service was down for any reason when I wanted to use it I would be livid. The acceptable error rate for a business like this is zero.
It might be about sales -- but that's from a purely Amazon perspective. The viewpoint of the user is that they still own their music, but now have more access options.
Obviously Amazon's intent is that the additional value add from the Cloud services will encourage you to buy your music from them.
From Apple's perspective, a similar cloud offering will presumably only be accessible by iTunes and iOS devices -- thus selling more devices (and music -- but Apple only really sells the music to sell devices).
Amazon has become Android's iTunes / Appstore. Amazing. The transition isn't complete yet, but with millions of credit cards on file with Amazon, and Amazon selling books, music, newspapers, applications, cloud storage service, etc... Google has just overcome a major hurdle and competitive advantage that Apple once held by themselves.
I'm not sure of the direction that Microsoft, RIM, and HP will have to compensate in this area, but I'm sure Amazon might look for ways of bringing those platforms under their marketplace umbrella. (Though they should try to perfect the Android side of things first before they expand.)
I don't know what Amazon is doing nor what Apple is planning, but I agree in general. Streaming your own content is no go for most of the world, for smartphones and tablets. 3G cannot handle it. WiFi at home... maybe, depending on the service. The demand for bandwidth is insatiable.
What *is* important though is to be able to get your songs from anywhere onto your device wirelessly. Like DropBox.
That is, streaming is less important than SYNCING.
It looks like songs are automatically cached on the Android player so bandwidth might not be too bad. Any songs you regularly listen to are really being played from the local cache. It is just the stuff you don't listen to regularly that has to stream.
I don't know how much bandwidth I use but I know it must be plenty. My computer is on 24/7 and streaming internet radio all the time. When the radio isn't playing I'm listening to conference calls or using Skype to make telephone calls. I'm a Netflix subscriber too.
Is there a program out there that I can download to tell me just how much bandwidth I'm using? I'll want one to monitor my usage whenever the day comes that my ISP puts a cap on my usage.
Streaming your own music seems like a great idea. The thing is that if you have an iPod why do you need to stream your music? Is cloud storage so much better than carrying around a device that weighs almost nothing that you'd want it? You don't need to make any service agreements with your own iPod. Right now a small iPod could hold enough MP3 music to last you a week without hearing the same song twice.
Having online storage is a good idea in case you loose your music device. Use the cloud for that. Streaming just uses your bandwidth and could one day add to your monthly bills.
um... I'm not about to read the entire agreements of this BS.. but given what the OP outlined, and what you outlined.. I think you missed the real takeaway... apple clearly outlines reasonable expectations while protecting themselves.
Amazon is basically saying they don;t even secure anything and if it gets stolen by hackers it isn't on them along with having a metric.. that any user that actually uses their services more than an average will get booted... pfft!
that shit is born to lose.
Yea, anything that the rest of the world does is Fscked up in a fanboys eyes. Quit drinking koolaid loser.
Well apart from Apple announcing iTools in 2000, that is.
Cloud streaming service, Apple has had it for years, I can drop music into my iDisk and play it from the iDisk App on my iPhone or iPad.
It's like Apple TV a "hobby" Apple has been dabbling in for years.
What Amazon is "introducing" isn't greatly different to iDisk.
Of course Apple invented everything. Thanks for reminding us. I like how Apple Fanboys only go back far enough to give Apple the credit. Go back a little further and see who really pioneered it. Fanbois = Fail
I have my own server at home on an always on internet connection (minus the times my ISP drops the ball). So, why not utilize it as my "cloud", and stream video, music, use it as a dropbox, personal social networking for just my own friends, etc... Nothing is stopping this, yet I see so few products out there. I would think Apple, espeically with their Mac Mini Server, iWork Suite, Mobile Me, iTunes, AirPlay, iChat Server, Mail Server, etc, would be able to build a really awesome "iCloud" that stays at your house, under your control.
Thoughts?
With all this trust going to the many "cloud" services out there (Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, etc...) I am curious when its going to turn back around. Although I do use some of these services, I would like it if it were under MY control, not some weirdly written TOS.
I have my own server at home on an always on internet connection (minus the times my ISP drops the ball). So, why not utilize it as my "cloud", and stream video, music, use it as a dropbox, personal social networking for just my own friends, etc... Nothing is stopping this, yet I see so few products out there. I would think Apple, espeically with their Mac Mini Server, iWork Suite, Mobile Me, iTunes, AirPlay, iChat Server, Mail Server, etc, would be able to build a really awesome "iCloud" that stays at your house, under your control.
Thoughts?
99.999% of people out there don't want to run their own server, manage it or pay the ridiculous electric bills that will come with it
Amazon in the span of 2 months has become the #1 competitor to Apple's business model. They've completely hijacked Android away from Google. It's phenomenal to watch.
Amazon has become Android's iTunes / Appstore. Amazing. The transition isn't complete yet, but with millions of credit cards on file with Amazon, and Amazon selling books, music, newspapers, applications, cloud storage service, etc... Google has just overcome a major hurdle and competitive advantage that Apple once held by themselves.
I'm not sure of the direction that Microsoft, RIM, and HP will have to compensate in this area, but I'm sure Amazon might look for ways of bringing those platforms under their marketplace umbrella. (Though they should try to perfect the Android side of things first before they expand.)
wouldn't surprise me if google lets them have the android market flat out. with google concentrating on advertising, search and metrics i don't think they want to maintain the market.
now all they have to do is fight in court to be allowed on iOS and its total ownage. imo Apple is abusing is monopoly on iOS so they deserve a spank.
99.999% of people out there don't want to run their own server, manage it or pay the ridiculous electric bills that will come with it
The Mac Mini (according to Apple), is a very efficient machine, that cannot exceed 85W due to its power supply. Most of the time, it will sit idle, using 1/4 the energy of a 40W bulb.
Advanced power management.
Mac mini is a great example of Apple’s energy-efficient design philosophy. It uses less than 10 watts of power when idle — a 25 percent reduction from the previous generation. That’s something no other desktop computer can do.
As for people not wanting to run their own server, I can understand that. It sounds scary, intimidating, and only for the geeky. Apple is KING of marketing, with the "It just works" mentality with their computers and devices. They could make the whole server thing very easy to setup and use for regular people. You could even buy "iCloud Apps" that install with one click on your server, that you then can use anywhere in the world using just a browser. I think Apple could make it that easy. Remember when having a smartphone was only for the business-minded? Now I see 5 year olds with their own iPhones.
Amazon is on his way to become the itune of the Android market. Apps, books, music, tv, movies. Not a bad idea imo.
now all they have to do is fight in court to be allowed on iOS and its total ownage. imo Apple is abusing is monopoly on iOS so they deserve a spank.
It's already allowed (through mobile safari). You probably should argue how Apple needs to allow sideloading of apps instead of emotional statements like "deserve a spank".
It's already allowed (through mobile safari). You probably should argue how Apple needs to allow sideloading of apps instead of emotional statements like "deserve a spank".
its more a joke than being emotionnal... if Amazon can allow its full services within safari they its Ok, but I dont see how you can saved data for offline used without an app. The rule on pricing and in app purchased by Apple are clearly an abuse of there monopoly, you are at a point where Apple wants to control pricing even outside there ecosystem. This cant be alllowed, but I am pretty sure the FTC is going to make a move on this pretty soon.
Have to politely disagree with you there: it is about sales. No one will create one of these services out of the goodness of their heart. The idea will be that by giving away a storage option the user will use the online store of their storage provider -- in this case, Amazon.
Will this be a good strategy? You tell me. I'm an old guy compared to many of you, so I'm skeptical about introducing a third party into things. I use AirPlay . . . a lot, as well as Remote. But a cloud service?
But many you -- that is, younger people -- may not feel that way, and don't mind having your music and video tied to a cloud environment. You tell me.
All I know is that the first time the cloud service was down for any reason when I wanted to use it I would be livid. The acceptable error rate for a business like this is zero.
Your music is tied to the cloud environment, unless you choose to have it done that way. The way I have it structured is that when I buy an MP3 from Amazon that it will store to the cloud and download the MP3 to my mac or my Android device (depending which one I'm using). So in essence it provides an offsite backup and a download at the same time. In addition, it allows me to reduce the number of songs on my Android devices so that I have more space if I need it, because if there is a song that I decide I want to listen to, I can quickly re-download it from the cloud.
I like the flexibility.