Apple's iCloud may offer remote storage of movies, TV shows at launch

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
In addition to agreements with music labels, Apple is also said to be pursuing licensing deals with movie and TV studios that would allow users to remotely store and stream copyrighted video content via the forthcoming iCloud service.



The information comes from two sources allegedly involved in the ongoing negotiations, who spoke with Greg Sandoval of CNet. The report published on Monday claims Apple has "stepped up" its efforts to convince major Hollywood film studios to issue licenses that would allow customers to store content on Apple's own remote servers.



Apple is said to have been in discussions with studios for over a year, but has not yet signed a deal. The company confirmed earlier Tuesday that it will unveil its "upcoming cloud services offering" dubbed iCloud at next week's Worldwide Developers Conference Keynote, but offered no other details.



One major snag said to be in the way of a deal with Hollywood studios is the so-called "HBO window," in which three of the top six film studios have a distribution deal with HBO. Under the terms of that deal, when a movie premieres on HBO, other outlets must halt sales or distribution of the title.



Industry insiders reportedly expect that an agreement will be reached to address the HBO window issue, though whether that deal can be struck by the June 6 keynote remains to be seen. Still, it's possible that Apple could announce agreements with the studios that are not affected by the HBO window: Disney, Paramount Pictures and Sony Pictures.



Apple is believed to have reached agreements with three of the four major music labels, as Sony Corp., EMI Group and Warner Music Group are said to be in agreement. Universal Music Group, the largest recording company, is rumored to be close to a deal.







Reports have said the iCloud service will scan and mirror users' iTunes libraries, offering access to content in the cloud. It's likely that a movie and TV show streaming service would work in a similar fashion, verifying what content a user owns and grating them access to their library from any Internet-connected device.



Sources have told AppleInsider that iCloud will be a successor to the current MobileMe service, which offers cloud-based syncing of contacts and calendars for $99 per year. The new service will be unveiled alongside iOS 5 and Mac OS X 10.7 Lion by Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs next week.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Reports have said the iCloud service will scan and mirror users' iTunes libraries, offering access to content in the cloud. It's likely that a movie and TV show streaming service would work in a similar fashion, verifying what content a user owns and grating them access to their library from any Internet-connected device.



    I've always wondered what would happen if the record companies could scan my library and then request proof that I still have the CD I bought in 1992 that I ripped but no longer have because I...er...uh, "lost" it. That and a whole bunch more that were...ya know...stolen from my dorm room in college. And what if stuff I have from 20 years ago was ripped at a lower bit rate? Are they going to charge me to stream their higher bit rate version from the cloud? Or assume that I stole it?



    In the P2P arena, record labels just nailed downloaders for every track they downloaded. What's to stop them from releasing their army of lawyers on cloud users?



    Serious questions, no?
  • Reply 2 of 48
    bigdaddypbigdaddyp Posts: 811member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beakernx01 View Post


    I've always wondered what would happen if the record companies could scan my library and then request proof that I still have the CD I bought in 1992 that I ripped but no longer have because I...er...uh, "lost" it. That and a whole bunch more that were...ya know...stolen from my dorm room in college. And what if stuff I have from 20 years ago was ripped at a lower bit rate? Are they going to charge me to stream their higher bit rate version from the cloud? Or assume that I stole it?



    In the P2P arena, record labels just nailed downloaders for every track they downloaded. What's to stop them from releasing their army of lawyers on cloud users?



    Serious questions, no?



    Shoot, half my music and probably 2/3 of my Dvd collection were destroyed by teething, destructive or otherwise curious children.
  • Reply 3 of 48
    amador_oamador_o Posts: 67member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beakernx01 View Post


    I've always wondered what would happen if the record companies could scan my library and then request proof that I still have the CD I bought in 1992 that I ripped but no longer have because I...er...uh, "lost" it. That and a whole bunch more that were...ya know...stolen from my dorm room in college. And what if stuff I have from 20 years ago was ripped at a lower bit rate? Are they going to charge me to stream their higher bit rate version from the cloud? Or assume that I stole it?



    In the P2P arena, record labels just nailed downloaders for every track they downloaded. What's to stop them from releasing their army of lawyers on cloud users?



    Serious questions, no?



    That was the first thing that popped in my head too.



    What stops me from saying my Mac is just my PVR? I don't own the movies that are on my Uverse box, but I'm allowed to keep them on there as long as I have their service.
  • Reply 4 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beakernx01 View Post


    I've always wondered what would happen if the record companies could scan my library and then request proof that I still have the CD I bought in 1992 that I ripped but no longer have because I...er...uh, "lost" it. That and a whole bunch more that were...ya know...stolen from my dorm room in college. And what if stuff I have from 20 years ago was ripped at a lower bit rate? Are they going to charge me to stream their higher bit rate version from the cloud? Or assume that I stole it?



    In the P2P arena, record labels just nailed downloaders for every track they downloaded. What's to stop them from releasing their army of lawyers on cloud users?



    Serious questions, no?



    I would think so. A lot of stuff I have, also, was ripped off vinyl or VHS or for one reason or another, does not seem to be readily available anywhere in digital form. I doubt Apple will be able to 'mirror' any of that stuff. Which is too bad. (It's also why I currently have 3 copies of everything. You just can't get a lot of it.)
  • Reply 5 of 48
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by beakernx01 View Post


    I've always wondered what would happen if the record companies could scan my library and then request proof that I still have the CD I bought in 1992 that I ripped but no longer have because I...er...uh, "lost" it. That and a whole bunch more that were...ya know...stolen from my dorm room in college. And what if stuff I have from 20 years ago was ripped at a lower bit rate? Are they going to charge me to stream their higher bit rate version from the cloud? Or assume that I stole it?



    In the P2P arena, record labels just nailed downloaders for every track they downloaded. What's to stop them from releasing their army of lawyers on cloud users?



    Serious questions, no?



    1) The record labels aren't scanning your iTunes libraries, Apple is.



    2) Apple has been scanning your iTunes library for years with Genius Playlists and Genius Selections.



    3) Before it gets mentioned and throws the thread out of whack, when Apple charged 30¢ for DRM free audio they also updated the track to 256Kbps and the pricing model was now mostly $1.29, hence the 30¢ optional charge.



    4) Apple's upgraded music on iTunes didn't cover any tracks you didn't buy from the store so it's possible that this won't let you have a copy of every audio or video item available on iTunes Store simply because the metadata is the same. Even their Genius feature doesn't work with every track in my library even though the meta data is accurate. They'd have to scan the contents, but even if they only include the checksums for the iTunes app encoders used over the last decade for various bit rates I think that would be asking too much.



    5) The point is to encourage and strengthen Apple's ecosystem whilst protecting the content owners. The only way I can see that happening is if Apple allows only content you've bought from them to be available on the cloud as a guaranteed download. Anything else would have to be your manual storage in a digital online "locker."
  • Reply 6 of 48
    Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't want to store music or video "in the cloud".



    Disk space/flash memory is cheap and is getting cheaper all the time. Soon we'll have mobile devices with more memory than we know what to do with. Why do I need to stream something from a digital locker? My phone/iPod IS my digital locker. If I lose it, it's all backed up on my Mac.



    Before too long there will be mobile devices with a terabyte of storage on them. For 99% of people that is more than enough.



    Honestly, the whole cloud service is a complete and utter waste of time and money. I already have Dropbox if I want to store documents or put photos online and that is FREE. I used to have iTools, then .Mac and that was a complete waste of money. Unless iCloud is free, I fail to see how it will be worth having. Even then, I can't see myself using it.
  • Reply 7 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    In addition to agreements with music labels, Apple is also said to be pursuing licensing deals with movie and TV studios that would allow users to remotely store and stream copyrighted video content via the forthcoming iCloud service.



    The information comes from two sources allegedly involved in the ongoing negotiations, who spoke with Greg Sandoval of CNet. The report published on Monday claims Apple has "stepped up" its efforts to convince major Hollywood film studios to issue licenses that would allow customers to store content on Apple's own remote servers.



    Apple is said to have been in discussions with studios for over a year, but has not yet signed a deal. The company confirmed earlier Tuesday that it will unveil its "upcoming cloud services offering" dubbed iCloud at next week's Worldwide Developers Conference Keynote, but offered no other details.



    One major snag said to be in the way of a deal with Hollywood studios is the so-called "HBO window," in which three of the top six film studios have a distribution deal with HBO. Under the terms of that deal, when a movie premieres on HBO, other outlets must halt sales or distribution of the title.



    Industry insiders reportedly expect that an agreement will be reached to address the HBO window issue, though whether that deal can be struck by the June 6 keynote remains to be seen. Still, it's possible that Apple could announce agreements with the studios that are not affected by the HBO window: Disney, Paramount Pictures and Sony Pictures.



    Apple is believed to have reached agreements with three of the four major music labels, as Sony Corp., EMI Group and Warner Music Group are said to be in agreement. Universal Music Group, the largest recording company, is rumored to be close to a deal.







    Reports have said the iCloud service will scan and mirror users' iTunes libraries, offering access to content in the cloud. It's likely that a movie and TV show streaming service would work in a similar fashion, verifying what content a user owns and grating them access to their library from any Internet-connected device.



    Sources have told AppleInsider that iCloud will be a successor to the current MobileMe service, which offers cloud-based syncing of contacts and calendars for $99 per year. The new service will be unveiled alongside iOS 5 and Mac OS X 10.7 Lion by Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs next week.



    I love all of this new and very cool technology. I love Apple and all it brings to the market that can, and usually does, make my professional life easier as far as daily task and my production business goes. I don't know why, but this Cloud based content storage seems a little less than dependable. The life line to that content is the internet. So, if the service craps out in my neck of the woods, I cannot access important scripts, spreadsheets, video and audio content if I need it right then. I love the thought and the technology behind it but, depending on your area, upload vs download, this CLOUD based storage ability, although inspirational and amazing, seems unlikely to be helpful for me as a business owner. I hope they prove me wrong next week and make me a believer!
  • Reply 8 of 48
    farshadfarshad Posts: 15member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EmperorsNewClothes View Post


    Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't want to store music or video "in the cloud".



    Disk space/flash memory is cheap and is getting cheaper all the time. Soon we'll have mobile devices with more memory than we know what to do with. Why do I need to stream something from a digital locker? My phone/iPod IS my digital locker. If I lose it, it's all backed up on my Mac.



    Before too long there will be mobile devices with a terabyte of storage on them. For 99% of people that is more than enough.



    Honestly, the whole cloud service is a complete and utter waste of time and money. I already have Dropbox if I want to store documents or put photos online and that is FREE. I used to have iTools, then .Mac and that was a complete waste of money. Unless iCloud is free, I fail to see how it will be worth having. Even then, I can't see myself using it.



    100% Agree . Plus data caps on my phone and internet will make this more useless. Not to mention in NYC you cant keep a signal.
  • Reply 9 of 48
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,591member
    I am less interested in music and movies in the cloud than how iCloud will, if at all, integrate with mobileME, and iwork.com. All that is being reported / speculated upon is the media storage / locker, and I hope to be enthused when it becomes a reality, but as of right now I am not so sure. My hope is that the concept will one day result in more (much) video and movie content available to rent through ATV. I would also like a music subscription streaming service based on Genius Selections. For me that would be a great way to hear new music. I know such services exist but I have never been too happy with the ones I have tried.
  • Reply 10 of 48
    popnfreshpopnfresh Posts: 139member
    Huge amounts of storage are so cheap and portable these days, why would I want to keep my music collection in the "cloud" where I would need a broadband internet connection just to listen to it? My music collection is happy just where it is.
  • Reply 11 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EmperorsNewClothes View Post


    Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't want to store music or video "in the cloud".



    Disk space/flash memory is cheap and is getting cheaper all the time. Soon we'll have mobile devices with more memory than we know what to do with. Why do I need to stream something from a digital locker? My phone/iPod IS my digital locker. If I lose it, it's all backed up on my Mac.



    Before too long there will be mobile devices with a terabyte of storage on them. For 99% of people that is more than enough.



    Honestly, the whole cloud service is a complete and utter waste of time and money. I already have Dropbox if I want to store documents or put photos online and that is FREE. I used to have iTools, then .Mac and that was a complete waste of money. Unless iCloud is free, I fail to see how it will be worth having. Even then, I can't see myself using it.



    We're a long way from a terrabyte on an iPhone. My idevices are feeling full at this point. Not having to synch to a computer to get my media would be nice. You do realize that's probably the point right? Synch without a computer doesn't make sense to you or sound like a service you wouldn't use?



    On a side note, IMO HBO (and others) need to get over their overprotective attitude and support the new model. Love game of thrones for instance... not on itunes... i ditched cable years ago... so my only choice is a torrent. If I didn't have to take the extra steps to transcode, add meta data etc and only had to pay the 2.99/ ep I'd do it in a heartbeat, but who wants to watch a show your friends already watched last year? These guys just love to shoot themselves in the foot.
  • Reply 12 of 48
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by popnfresh View Post


    Huge amounts of storage are so cheap and portable these days, why would I want to keep my music collection in the "cloud" where I would need a broadband internet connection just to listen to it? My music collection is happy just where it is.



    Local and remote storage are not mutually exclusive. I think the better question is would an iTunes Store customer not want to have unlimited access to the content they've purchased?



    A defining feature of the App Store is that you can always re-download the item for free. I don't store app on my iDevices and have, at times, re-downloaded from my iDevice on an as-needed basis.



    It seems to me that the iTunes Store could also benefit from this peace-of-mind service that Amazon's music store already offers without the rigamarole of having to write to the iTunes help desk to get them to reissue my content.
  • Reply 13 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by farshad View Post


    100% Agree . Plus data caps on my phone and internet will make this more useless. Not to mention in NYC you cant keep a signal.



    There's free wifi on half of every corner of Manhattan's streets. Libraries, Post offices, starbucks, ever hear of these places? Not to mention wifi at home. Why would you need to synch GB's over 3G? Sure maybe a small Doc or a song or a photo or two here and there, but if you just got to your friends house a realized you forgot the movie you wanted to watch with them wouldn't you just borrow their wifi?
  • Reply 14 of 48
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,007member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    1) The record labels aren't scanning your iTunes libraries, Apple is.



    2) Apple has been scanning your iTunes library for years with Genius Playlists and Genius Selections.



    3) Before it gets mentioned and throws the thread out of whack, when Apple charged 30¢ for DRM free audio they also updated the track to 256Kbps and the pricing model was now mostly $1.29, hence the 30¢ optional charge.



    4) Apple's upgraded music on iTunes didn't cover any tracks you didn't buy from the store so it's possible that this won't let you have a copy of every audio or video item available on iTunes Store simply because the metadata is the same. Even their Genius feature doesn't work with every track in my library even though the meta data is accurate. They'd have to scan the contents, but even if they only include the checksums for the iTunes app encoders used over the last decade for various bit rates I think that would be asking too much.



    5) The point is to encourage and strengthen Apple's ecosystem whilst protecting the content owners. The only way I can see that happening is if Apple allows only content you've bought from them to be available on the cloud as a guaranteed download. Anything else would have to be your manual storage in a digital online "locker."



    Frankly I think this is obvious but well explained for those that don't seem to get it. I suspect there will only be 'aliases' on the client's cloud too, simply referencing the data stored already on Apple's servers. They are not going to duplicate everything millions of times for all their clients. I also think the iPhone's etc will only need the same reference files soon, no need to have the actual data if you are happy to stream, although it will be optional to really have the files.
  • Reply 15 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EmperorsNewClothes View Post


    Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't want to store music or video "in the cloud".



    I hear you. But a lot of people would prefer to have someone they trust (Apple) do this for them.
  • Reply 16 of 48
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,233member
    I love the whole "we will have a terrabyte" argument. When? Not now so this service is valuable now. My iPad has 16G. Enough for a movie which isn't HD. Not enough for a TV season.



    And I want apps on the machine. The rest I can stream.
  • Reply 17 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacinReed View Post


    I love all of this new and very cool technology. I love Apple and all it brings to the market that can, and usually does, make my professional life easier as far as daily task and my production business goes. I don't know why, but this Cloud based content storage seems a little less than dependable. The life line to that content is the internet. So, if the service craps out in my neck of the woods, I cannot access important scripts, spreadsheets, video and audio content if I need it right then. I love the thought and the technology behind it but, depending on your area, upload vs download, this CLOUD based storage ability, although inspirational and amazing, seems unlikely to be helpful for me as a business owner. I hope they prove me wrong next week and make me a believer!



    You're computer will most likely synch as well. (Lion anyone?) It already can with iDisk. Apple wouldn't make you reliant upon the cloud, it's "in addition" to all of your devices. Also we don't know anything about Apple's backup protocol. Most of the remote servers I've had experience with are redundant and synchronized at least every 24 hours. I would expect Apple to do the same so that they can avoid the massive hit they would take to the brand if this service ever had a large failure.
  • Reply 18 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post


    We're a long way from a terrabyte on an iPhone. My idevices are feeling full at this point.



    I think you'll be surprised at how quickly that happens. Of course, some people will always manage to fill their devices up regardless of how much storage they have.



    iCloud looks like yet another stab by Apple at trying to do something "in the cloud". Will it be any more successful than all their previous attempts? Maybe. Maybe not. One thing is for sure. Unless it's free, a lot less people will use it than they anticipate.
  • Reply 19 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    I love the whole "we will have a terrabyte" argument. When? Not now so this service is valuable now. My iPad has 16G. Enough for a movie which isn't HD. Not enough for a TV season.



    And I want apps on the machine. The rest I can stream.



    Exactly and who's to say capacity will grow. Knowing Apple we'll probably have iPads and iPhones 1.25 mm thick in 5 years with the same 16, 32 and 64GB capacities. Ok, maybe 32, 64 and 128 GB.
  • Reply 20 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EmperorsNewClothes View Post


    I think you'll be surprised at how quickly that happens. Of course, some people will always manage to fill their devices up regardless of how much storage they have.



    iCloud looks like yet another stab by Apple at trying to do something "in the cloud". Will it be any more successful than all their previous attempts? Maybe. Maybe not. One thing is for sure. Unless it's free, a lot less people will use it than they anticipate.



    Well I do know that they have fairly large (for a flash "pen" drive) fairly small give the 1 and 2tb capacity, but they were quite unstable and seem to have been pulled from the market. I think part of the service will be free (the itunes part movies and music) the other will be paid (documents photos etc).
Sign In or Register to comment.