This article is bogus. How odd the author of an article on iCloud doesn't even know what iCloud is. iCloud is not a streaming service and won't decrease flash NAND consumption at all.
Actually, I was pretty surprised that Jobs didn't announce streaming your own music collection. I thought for sure he was going to cap NAND memory at its current levels (or drop them slightly) and announce that iCloud streaming was the new way to listen to your music collection.
That may yet be in the cards; it may just be a licensing issue with th RIAA.
He did mention it. iTunes Match was the one more thing and 10th feature of iCloud discussed.
Excuse me whilst I brush this off as pointless rubbish. I doubt all NAND-Flash in the world will struggle because Apple decided to rebrand MobileMe (come on, we all know thats what it is). Its a sync service, local storage is still required. NAND wont suffer - especially if SSDs drop any further in price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
This article is not worth the paper it is printed on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
The analysts are wrong. People are still going to store stuff locally, even when the "cloud" comes along. It's not like Apple is giving everybody terrabytes of free storage space where they can do what they want. And even if somebody does upload something to the "cloud", they'll still keep the originals on their local drives.
And, you can't just store whatever you want and upload it to iCloud. What about movies, videos, porn and stuff that really takes a lot of data? People will still have to store that kind of stuff locally.
As new iPhones, iPads, iPod touches and stuff like Macbook Airs get released, then these will be using plenty of flash memory. And as flash memory gets cheaper, then Apple will be putting more memory in their hardware. There are already reports of the Macbook Airs coming with 128 gb of flash. So to sum it up, this is just some analyst speculating and making shit up. The only difference between the analyst and any random person posting here is that they get paid for making shit up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers
This doesn't make any sense. If anything iCloud will mean more flash on the client side and more spinning disks on the server side. This is especially true because iCloud syncs to flash memory. Some of these analysts are either blatantly trying to manipulate the market with false information or are totally incompetent. They at least say that there are no near term implications. Did they really need to suggest that Apple might someday completely rewrite iCloud so that it doesn't require local storage? Seems pretty far fetched.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb
This article is bogus. How odd the author of an article on iCloud doesn't even know what iCloud is. iCloud is not a streaming service and won't decrease flash NAND consumption at all.
Agree with all these posts (and the others like them). Not to mention, this quote from the original article:
Quote:
IHS estimates that iCloud could theoretically decrease storage needs by as much as 100GB per user, based on a rough calculation of "a rate of 4MB per song at Apple's stated cap of 25,000 songs."
So we are getting the 128 GB iPhone in the fall? Is that what this is saying? Because then that leaves less than 30 GB for apps, data, video, photos, etc...
Apple is not 'going to the cloud'. iCloud is, as has been pointed out, a means of synching and sharing content. If anything I'd say that memory will be in more demand as more content is stored locally on more devices.
Apple is not 'going to the cloud'. iCloud is, as has been pointed out, a means of synching and sharing content. If anything I'd say that memory will be in more demand as more content is stored locally on more devices.
I'm glad someone understands what iCloud is.
It should be noted that several of iCloud's features are just rebranded MobileMe with is rebranded .Mac which is rebranded iTools. We've been using "the cloud" for as long as we've been on the Internet and yet we still consume more and more local storage. This will not change. I fully expect the next iPhone to have a 64GB option and the next iPad to have a 128GB option.
BTW, despite having now owned 3 iPads all with 16GB and never using more than a couple GB at any one time I have now found myself using it for video quite often and hitting my capacity limit. Therefore I will be buying the largest capacity option when the iPad 3 arrives.
I think Apple understands that with multiple device homes (or multiple device singe owners, for that matter) the challenge is to offer a non techy hands off way of managing both multiple devices and content. We have spent countless forum hours here discussing these things and for the average person its either an incomprehensible pain in the arse, or just too much of a pita to bother with. To offer an 'everyperson' hands off way of managing devices and content is huge winner imo, and a sure way to retain customers.
I still don't know how iCloud will handle family accounts, mutliple id's within family accounts, etc. Its a complicated issue - that much I know.
Quote:
It should be noted that several of iCloud's features are just rebranded MobileMe with is rebranded .Mac which is rebranded iTools. We've been using "the cloud" for as long as we've been on the Internet and yet we still consume more and more local storage. This will not change. I fully expect the next iPhone to have a 64GB option and the next iPad to have a 128GB option.
BTW, despite having now owned 3 iPads all with 16GB and never using more than a couple GB at any one time I have now found myself using it for video quite often and hitting my capacity limit. Therefore I will be buying the largest capacity option when the iPad 3 arrives.
You edit on your iPad? What do you shoot on, and how is the iPad iMovie? I haven't tried yet but no doubt will in the future. I use an Canon T1i for video and the files are big.
You edit on your iPad? What do you shoot on, and how is the iPad iMovie? I haven't tried yet but no doubt will in the future. I use an Canon T1i for video and the files are big.
Consumption, not creation. I also have moved to reading quite a bit on it, but that isn't taking up much storage.
Here's what I've been hoping for, for a long time:
iCloud on your own server/disk. I would love to have full multi-device sync/backup abilities, but I'm just not going to put my personal data out on public servers. A few things wouldn't be that big a deal, like music, but I'm not putting family photos/videos, financial data, business contracts and documents, personal diary, etc. out in the cloud. Ever. And of course that stuff is all co-mingled with everything else, on multiple devices.
It has to be easy, and can't involve rolling my own entire solution from scratch. What I want is the equivalent of running my own iCalendar via private WebDAV server just by pointing my client at a local device rather than iCloud.
So I have two questions:
1) Anyone else onboard with this desire?
2) Does anyone have any clue if some portion of this might be possible? Not interested in pure speculation, so this may have to wait for a few days after introduction.
Except that iCloud only syncs automatically over Wifi. iCloud also isn't a replacement for flash storage or storing your data locally. It is syncing. You are storing your own data to all of your devices instead of just one. So you are sticking with "old school" local storage.
No cellular syncing? Oops, I missed that completely! So... iCloud is gonna be next to worthless after all? Just like FaceTime? What's going on?
Thanks for blaming Apple for the carriers' inability to build good networks.
The cellular networks are pretty decent in many countries around the world. I don't see why iCloud, Facetime shouldn't work over 3G, should the user prefer. Both Skype, Bambuser, Spotify etc. works over 3G.
The thing is, it DOES work.. if you've got two iPhones, or one iPhone and an iPad you could just set up one of them to share wifi to the other.. and then it works.. Perhaps the real reason is Apple is afraid users without flat rate will get upset?
Comments
Actually, I was pretty surprised that Jobs didn't announce streaming your own music collection. I thought for sure he was going to cap NAND memory at its current levels (or drop them slightly) and announce that iCloud streaming was the new way to listen to your music collection.
That may yet be in the cards; it may just be a licensing issue with th RIAA.
He did mention it. iTunes Match was the one more thing and 10th feature of iCloud discussed.
Excuse me whilst I brush this off as pointless rubbish. I doubt all NAND-Flash in the world will struggle because Apple decided to rebrand MobileMe
This article is not worth the paper it is printed on.
The analysts are wrong. People are still going to store stuff locally, even when the "cloud" comes along. It's not like Apple is giving everybody terrabytes of free storage space where they can do what they want. And even if somebody does upload something to the "cloud", they'll still keep the originals on their local drives.
And, you can't just store whatever you want and upload it to iCloud. What about movies, videos, porn and stuff that really takes a lot of data? People will still have to store that kind of stuff locally.
As new iPhones, iPads, iPod touches and stuff like Macbook Airs get released, then these will be using plenty of flash memory. And as flash memory gets cheaper, then Apple will be putting more memory in their hardware. There are already reports of the Macbook Airs coming with 128 gb of flash. So to sum it up, this is just some analyst speculating and making shit up. The only difference between the analyst and any random person posting here is that they get paid for making shit up.
This doesn't make any sense. If anything iCloud will mean more flash on the client side and more spinning disks on the server side. This is especially true because iCloud syncs to flash memory. Some of these analysts are either blatantly trying to manipulate the market with false information or are totally incompetent. They at least say that there are no near term implications. Did they really need to suggest that Apple might someday completely rewrite iCloud so that it doesn't require local storage? Seems pretty far fetched.
This article is bogus. How odd the author of an article on iCloud doesn't even know what iCloud is. iCloud is not a streaming service and won't decrease flash NAND consumption at all.
Agree with all these posts (and the others like them). Not to mention, this quote from the original article:
IHS estimates that iCloud could theoretically decrease storage needs by as much as 100GB per user, based on a rough calculation of "a rate of 4MB per song at Apple's stated cap of 25,000 songs."
So we are getting the 128 GB iPhone in the fall?
The opposite seems logical to me.
iCloud is just another place to sync to, it's not a streaming service, so you still need the local storage.
Plus 1
End of discussion
What about movies, videos, porn and stuff that really takes a lot of data? People will still have to store that kind of stuff locally.
iPorn?
Spankster?
iCloud is just another place to sync to, it's not a streaming service, so you still need the local storage.
Why can't I stream from iCloud?
Idisk streams.
What fool would store all of his data in a cloud? Not me...this article ain't worth texting about.
Why not?
Do you mean that internet does not work?
Local storage is just waste. The "cloud" is where stuff should be.
Just force telephone companies to charge reasonable for data service.
And one day we can dump the telephone companies and just use VOIP, Apple messenger and other internet based technique.
Local storage is just waste. The "cloud" is where stuff should be.
This is abject nonsense. Thousands of reasons to use local storage.
Just force telephone companies to charge reasonable for data service.
Can't be done.
And one day we can dump the telephone companies and just use VOIP, Apple messenger and other internet based technique.
Which is why it can't be done.
The invention of the 'horseless carriage' caused a marked decline in the production of buggy whips.
Are you implying that Apple's iCloud will cause a marked decline in NAND?
iCloud is just another place to sync to, it's not a streaming service, so you still need the local storage.
not only will you still need it, you'll need more since all of your documents can now be synced everywhere.
Apple is not 'going to the cloud'. iCloud is, as has been pointed out, a means of synching and sharing content. If anything I'd say that memory will be in more demand as more content is stored locally on more devices.
I'm glad someone understands what iCloud is.
It should be noted that several of iCloud's features are just rebranded MobileMe with is rebranded .Mac which is rebranded iTools. We've been using "the cloud" for as long as we've been on the Internet and yet we still consume more and more local storage. This will not change. I fully expect the next iPhone to have a 64GB option and the next iPad to have a 128GB option.
BTW, despite having now owned 3 iPads all with 16GB and never using more than a couple GB at any one time I have now found myself using it for video quite often and hitting my capacity limit. Therefore I will be buying the largest capacity option when the iPad 3 arrives.
I'm glad someone understands what iCloud is.
I think Apple understands that with multiple device homes (or multiple device singe owners, for that matter) the challenge is to offer a non techy hands off way of managing both multiple devices and content. We have spent countless forum hours here discussing these things and for the average person its either an incomprehensible pain in the arse, or just too much of a pita to bother with. To offer an 'everyperson' hands off way of managing devices and content is huge winner imo, and a sure way to retain customers.
I still don't know how iCloud will handle family accounts, mutliple id's within family accounts, etc. Its a complicated issue - that much I know.
It should be noted that several of iCloud's features are just rebranded MobileMe with is rebranded .Mac which is rebranded iTools. We've been using "the cloud" for as long as we've been on the Internet and yet we still consume more and more local storage. This will not change. I fully expect the next iPhone to have a 64GB option and the next iPad to have a 128GB option.
BTW, despite having now owned 3 iPads all with 16GB and never using more than a couple GB at any one time I have now found myself using it for video quite often and hitting my capacity limit. Therefore I will be buying the largest capacity option when the iPad 3 arrives.
You edit on your iPad? What do you shoot on, and how is the iPad iMovie? I haven't tried yet but no doubt will in the future. I use an Canon T1i for video and the files are big.
You edit on your iPad? What do you shoot on, and how is the iPad iMovie? I haven't tried yet but no doubt will in the future. I use an Canon T1i for video and the files are big.
Consumption, not creation. I also have moved to reading quite a bit on it, but that isn't taking up much storage.
iCloud on your own server/disk. I would love to have full multi-device sync/backup abilities, but I'm just not going to put my personal data out on public servers. A few things wouldn't be that big a deal, like music, but I'm not putting family photos/videos, financial data, business contracts and documents, personal diary, etc. out in the cloud. Ever. And of course that stuff is all co-mingled with everything else, on multiple devices.
It has to be easy, and can't involve rolling my own entire solution from scratch. What I want is the equivalent of running my own iCalendar via private WebDAV server just by pointing my client at a local device rather than iCloud.
So I have two questions:
1) Anyone else onboard with this desire?
2) Does anyone have any clue if some portion of this might be possible? Not interested in pure speculation, so this may have to wait for a few days after introduction.
Except that iCloud only syncs automatically over Wifi. iCloud also isn't a replacement for flash storage or storing your data locally. It is syncing. You are storing your own data to all of your devices instead of just one. So you are sticking with "old school" local storage.
No cellular syncing? Oops, I missed that completely! So... iCloud is gonna be next to worthless after all? Just like FaceTime? What's going on?
No cellular syncing? Oops, I missed that completely! So... iCloud is gonna be next to worthless after all? Just like FaceTime? What's going on?
Thanks for blaming Apple for the carriers' inability to build good networks.
Thanks for blaming Apple for the carriers' inability to build good networks.
The cellular networks are pretty decent in many countries around the world. I don't see why iCloud, Facetime shouldn't work over 3G, should the user prefer. Both Skype, Bambuser, Spotify etc. works over 3G.
The thing is, it DOES work.. if you've got two iPhones, or one iPhone and an iPad you could just set up one of them to share wifi to the other.. and then it works.. Perhaps the real reason is Apple is afraid users without flat rate will get upset?