Apple's cloud-based iTunes music streaming service is 'completed' - report

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 67
    desarcdesarc Posts: 642member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post


    I hate having to walk back to my office to wake my MacBook and launch iTunes in order to stream something to the living room. But with cloud streaming, I can just stream it all directly from Apple's cloud servers. Yeah, I like this idea alot.



    FWIW, my macbook wakes up when i pull up my iTunes library on my ATV2. tell the machine to never sleep, just sleep the display. Power draw is relatively insignificant on a laptop with drives spun down, processor idle and screen off. Heck, my iTunes library is on an external HD connected to the laptop that's smart enough to wake up when it's needed and sleep when it's done, too.



    also, @ cloud computing being used because it's too much effort to walk into the other room.
  • Reply 22 of 67
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    From the labels' perspective, there would be no way to tell if a ripped CD file was from a purchased copy or a borrowed copy or a repurchased used copy or a shared file. Streaming rights to such tracks would amount to the labels declaring that once a CD copy of music is sold those tracks become available for streaming to as many people who have access to the ripped files, by whatever mechanism.



    Needless to say, pretty much the definition of the industry's nightmare, so I doubt they would ever grant any such right (at least without charging onerous fees).



    Which is why I think it?s more likely that only files that are registered with your iTS purchase list will be available to you.



    Even if Apple could get away with it allowing people to purchase content from, say, Amazon just to upload it to iTunes to steam would not be beneficial. To me it sounds like that would reduce their iTS music hold and help deteriorate their ecosystem.
  • Reply 23 of 67
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Which is why I think it?s more likely that only files that are registered with your iTS purchase list will be available to you.



    Even if Apple could get away with it allowing people to purchase content from, say, Amazon just to upload it to iTunes to steam would not be beneficial. To me it sounds like that would reduce their iTS music hold and help deteriorate their ecosystem.



    Agreed. Look at how updates and already purchased notifications work in the MAS. Apple clearly wants people to buy into the ecosystem from the beginning, and are willing to orphan previous transactions in order to encourage you to do so (although to be fair there are technical reasons why not trying to track the status of non-MAS purchase makes sense).
  • Reply 24 of 67
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,155member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post


    personally I would love for my 20GB music library to be stored in the cloud, which would free up space on my 16GB iPhone for large apps (navigation, for example) or more video recording on-the-go without maxing out the memory. Plus all of my photos available, at all times, wherever i am, is a good thing.



    Yeah? And with residential bandwidth not exactly the fastest in this country how long, exactly, would it take you to upload that 20GB? A couple of weeks? And don't forget the data caps that a lot of providers are fixing to impose, like at&t on May 2.



    So yes, those well off enough to have an OC3 into their home this will be great. For the rest of us not so much.
  • Reply 25 of 67
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dish View Post


    The correct saying is "I couldn't care less". Unless you meant it as you said it which case you are actually interested in the service.



    ...



    this service might also be used in desktop and laptops allowing a persons entire suit of software and profile settings to follow them no matter what computer they log onto.



    ...




    I don't normally correct others grammar....



    Quote:

    this service might also be used in desktop and laptops allowing a persons entire suite of software and profile settings to follow them no matter what computer they log onto.



  • Reply 26 of 67
    rhyderhyde Posts: 294member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    Yeah? And with residential bandwidth not exactly the fastest in this country how long, exactly, would it take you to upload that 20GB? A couple of weeks? And don't forget the data caps that a lot of providers are fixing to impose, like at&t on May 2.



    So yes, those well off enough to have an OC3 into their home this will be great. For the rest of us not so much.



    Data caps are on the order of 250GB/month. 20GB shouldn't seriously cut into that unless you stream a lot of video (in which case the 20GB would probably the the least of your worries).
  • Reply 27 of 67
    yensid98yensid98 Posts: 302member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post


    Maybe I am in the dark here... But I can care less about this proposed service.



    Enough music resides on my iDevices at all times for my listening pleasure. Why should consumers care about this product?



    I agree 100%. Why rely on Wi-Fi access or cell phone data coverage to play back music? What happens when I'm driving and going in and out of coverage areas? What about data caps?



    I don't see any benefits to streaming my content all the time.



    What I want from Apple is the ability to re-download any file I bought from them at no additional charge. Music, Movies, and Videos. Just like I can with apps.
  • Reply 28 of 67
    ssls6ssls6 Posts: 49member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by yensid98 View Post


    I agree 100%. Why rely on Wi-Fi access or cell phone data coverage to play back music? What happens when I'm driving and going in and out of coverage areas? What about data caps?



    I don't see any benefits to streaming my content all the time.



    What I want from Apple is the ability to re-download any file I bought from them at no additional charge. Music, Movies, and Videos. Just like I can with apps.



    I think for a lot of people, it will save considerable flash memory which is good for everyone but flash makers.
  • Reply 29 of 67
    rayconraycon Posts: 33member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post


    This is a very good question. I think my library is about 50/50, so I am in a similar boat. Unfortunately my guess is that it will only work with purchased content. The way I envision it, is that we won't actually upload anything to the servers really. Apple will just do a scan of our libraries, and see what all we have purchased. We will then have access to stream this from Apple, like an unlimited rental model. But only for music they know we purchased.



    Again, this is just my guess.



    Just your guess, but a very good one. It's got the makings of Apple written all over it. They don't want to be allowing cloud storage of "illegally obtained" songs, do they?
  • Reply 30 of 67
    Apple has arrived late to provide music cloud service and the cost is way too expensive. You can register for the cloud service on my website and receive 5 GB of music space for free. If you purchase one music album then you will receive 20 GB of space to stream your music anytime you want. Just look for cloud player on the far right of my website.
  • Reply 31 of 67
    yensid98yensid98 Posts: 302member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ssls6 View Post


    I think for a lot of people, it will save considerable flash memory which is good for everyone but flash makers.



    But that's what I'm getting at. Why save on flash memory to deal with all the issues of streaming all your content? Flash memory allows a user to use any data they want at any time for no additional fee and without the need to remember where they bought the data. It just works.



    With streaming everything you may be able to save money on a device with less flash memory, but you may have to pay a higher internet fee in addition to knowing which files you bought from Apple and which you didn't, are you going to be a stable internet connectivity site, how close are you to reaching your internet data limit, etc. It just seems like a lot of headache for the benefit of maybe saving a maximum of $100 on a device. That's of course assuming the streaming service is free.



    I doubt many will use a service like this. If Apple is really going this route they've got to have a better solution than what we've thought up.
  • Reply 32 of 67
    titeuntiteun Posts: 6member
    This locker idea sounds great as far as convenience but noone will pay for this and more importantly, it sounds to me. Like accessing your own set of music files is a waste of resources.. Let's say you upload your copy of "let it be" by the beetles . Then 1,000,000 other people upload their copy too.. It's wasted space for Apple, wasted time for the user, and not eco friendly.. There are only so many songs and it seems wasteful to me. Why not have a system that knows if you own the song and of you do, you just automatically have access to it from the central streaming library. Is it a matter of licensing?
  • Reply 33 of 67
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ssls6 View Post


    I think for a lot of people, it will save considerable flash memory which is good for everyone but flash makers.



    What about bandwidth? Will I be able to stream content from their servers to my iPhone over the carrier?s network indefinitely? What will be the bitrate, same as iTS at 256Kbps or something lower for streaming?



    At 256kbps I get 2.57GB per 24 hours of streaming.
    256,000 bits x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours = 22,118,400,000 bits



    22,118,400,000 bits ÷ 8 (byte conversion) = 2,764,800,000 bytes or 2.57 gigabytes
  • Reply 34 of 67
    alienzedalienzed Posts: 393member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    From the labels' perspective, there would be no way to tell if a ripped CD file was from a purchased copy or a borrowed copy or a repurchased used copy or a shared file. Streaming rights to such tracks would amount to the labels declaring that once a CD copy of music is sold those tracks become available for streaming to as many people who have access to the ripped files, by whatever mechanism.



    Needless to say, pretty much the definition of the industry's nightmare, so I doubt they would ever grant any such right (at least without charging onerous fees).



    But that's what is going on already. Fact is users can already play what they have, regardless of where it came from. What Apple could offer the labels is means of tracking plays, which would be data I'm sure the labels would kill to have. They would literally kill to have it.
  • Reply 35 of 67
    There may be room for another box...



    Say, an inexpensive iTunes Media Server...



    With say an A4 or A5 CPU, limited RAM and lots of (and expandable) storage.



    This would act as an intermediary between MobileMe and your local iTunes storage.



    Media purchased from Apple would be available to be streamed/downloaded from MM at no charge (only a pointer/token is stored on Apple's servers).



    Other media could be streamed from your local iTunes Media Server to you iDevices.





    At some point in time Apple and the Record Companies will find a way (amnesty period?) to allow you to include non-Apple/Record Company media to be handled as purchased items with a token on MobileMe.



    One way this could be handled is by a fee service that scans your local media and legitimizes it.



    There will always be some media that cannot be tokenized on MobileMe -- and this could be uploaded and made available for streaming for a fee.



    In each case, the local iTunes Media Server could be used for staging (uploading/downloading holiday media at Christmas) and backup.



    I currently use a Mac Mini with 2 2-TeraByte External drives as a media server -- I am running out of room, and looking for a better solution.
  • Reply 36 of 67
    dishdish Posts: 64member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    iTunes has been adopted and I have to remember what files I have added to the app and which I access from either QuickTime or Movist(VLC) because iTunes won?t upload it. It?s not the most convenient thing but I still use iTunes for video storage, rentals and purchases, and Apple has seemingly disallowed other containers/codecs for legal reasons.



    congratulations! You are exceptional.
  • Reply 37 of 67
    dishdish Posts: 64member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    I don't normally correct others grammar....



    no no, I actually meant suit as in suit of armor. In the cloud your software and profile will become likened to a "suit of armor" worn or carried on your person at all times no matter what computer you login to.
  • Reply 38 of 67
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dish View Post


    no no, I actually meant suit as in suit of armor. In the cloud your software and profile will become likened to a "suit of armor" worn or carried on your person at all times no matter what computer you login to.



    OK... Sorry!
  • Reply 39 of 67
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alienzed View Post


    But that's what is going on already. Fact is users can already play what they have, regardless of where it came from. What Apple could offer the labels is means of tracking plays, which would be data I'm sure the labels would kill to have. They would literally kill to have it.



    Sure, but the labels aren't too fond of the current situation, and that horse is long out of the barn. Making it so those same files can stream to some undermined number of people on any device they happen to be using takes the current situation and cranks it up to 11. So I don't think they'll be too keen on new licensing terms that allow for that, without additional payments.



    I'm not saying it's right or makes good business sense, but I'd never bet against the labels demanding the most restrictive scheme possible. If they had their way streaming your own files in your own house would be considered a "public performance" and they'd extract additional fees for that.
  • Reply 40 of 67
    It is too shortsighted to think that the NC facility will be used primarily as personal cloud-based library.



    Apple already has the Apps -- iPhoto, Aperture, iMovie, GarageBand, Final Cut Pro, Pages, FaceTime, AirPlay, etc. as well as those from third party developers -- sold at modest prices. With these Apps and Apple products, Apple products users have become the major if not significant contributors to social sites including Flickr, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.



    With proper integration, Apple can unleash the creativity of Apple Products users to develop similar ecosystems that can rival the likes of Flickr, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.



    And, if there is a curated or premium site for the best creations, Apple might even develop a better alternative to Flickr, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.



    [Curation will drastically reduce the junk one sees in the likes of the aforementioned site. However, the curation must be more general and not too restrictive to avoid crippling creativity. The rules and policies must be spelled thoroughly from the start to avoid ambiguity.]



    Such an alternative site would make the Apple Ecosystem even less dependent on current corporate sources of audio (music) and video and mass media (television, movies, etc.)



    For more personal, group or corporate exclusive use, such a service, as outlined above may be integrated with MobileMe -- to allow exclusive use of certain creations for purposes like family sharing, lecture/seminar/conference presentations and other uses as the creator deems fit.



    Apple Ecosystems
Sign In or Register to comment.