BTW, I find it somewhat ironic that companies are offering this sort of service. MP3.com offered remote streaming of your music library and was pretty well sued into oblivion for it. While I think it should have been allowed then, I find it odd that it wasn't yet now it's become acceptable to the suits.
What is acceptable always changes. Sometimes it?s a slow moving cultural change, but often it?s because ?suits? figure out how to make a buck from it.
Apple has already leveraged some degree of Lala's streaming tech, with 30-second song samples being available on the iTunes Preview website, allowing users to view and listen to content available from the service without opening iTunes.
I thought Lala used Flash, and Apple's uses Quicktime.
I haven't used either though, just read it on the web. Anyone know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingKuei
I don't see how or why Apple would invest the amount of money it would need to to store hundreds of millions of users' iTunes collections without being able to monetize it somehow, or at least generate some kind of incremental revenue or market share by doing so. The feature is nice, but I don't see how it improves their market position, so why spend the $$$ to make it free. This is Apple, not Google.
Although they have ways of minimising what's actually stored (by recognising when you and I have the same song, and just storing it once), I agree that simply storing music online doesn't seem to earn them money. They can already advertise and sell related songs via genius on iTunes.
Google does earn money though, and Apple may be looking at new models of earning.
I personally suspect that MobileMe is being shaped into a user's entire setup. Your "master user directory" is stored online, and your Mac/iPhone/Slate/aTV just hold part of your data depending on how much room they have locally.
This allows Apple to sell a "500GB iPhone", with 8GB local storage. It also means you could conceivably connect to any iPhone/Slate/Mac and login with your MobileMe account and get all your data, apps, music, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames42
BTW, I find it somewhat ironic that companies are offering this sort of service. MP3.com offered remote streaming of your music library and was pretty well sued into oblivion for it. While I think it should have been allowed then, I find it odd that it wasn't yet now it's become acceptable to the suits.
It's hard to know how to define streaming your own music. I mean, what if you call it "online backup", and then your iPhone just "restores" a song if you try to play it but it's not on your local device?
Do you remember what MP3.com actually lost based on?
I've got a subscription to Spotify and I love it. All my playlists are out there on the cloud and I can listen to music from any PC or smartphone connect to the net. It's great for work, for on holiday and at parties.
If I can access my own collection (which includes a lot music that isn't available on Spotify) then all the better!
Why exactly are you turned off by it? You do know that your data is stored locally and never leaves your machine and devices? This would be a free or paid for service that offers an additional option to access your audio.
"According to multiple sources in the music industry, Apple has been shopping around the idea of a streaming music service that would allow users the ability to back up and access their music from any Internet-connected device."
"An upcoming major revision of iTunes will copy each user's catalog to the net making it available from any browser or net connected ipod/touch/tablet,"
"After installation iTunes will push in the background their entire media library to their personal mobile iTunes area. Once loaded, users will be able to navigate and play their music, videos and playlists from their personal URL using a browser based iTunes experience."
This doesn't sound at all vague to me, and it most definitely does not sound 'local'.
"According to multiple sources in the music industry, Apple has been shopping around the idea of a streaming music service that would allow users the ability to back up and access their music from any Internet-connected device."
"An upcoming major revision of iTunes will copy each user's catalog to the net making it available from any browser or net connected ipod/touch/tablet,"
If the iTunes library file is being uploaded to an online profile connected to all the music in the iTunes store then we have a stepping stone to full wireless sync. Would be rather nifty if that library file could be accessed via a web portal, edited using an iTunes-like interface, and changes to sync settings for media get pushed to Macs, iPhones and other slate-shaped iDevices.
I imagine that's a bit beyond what is being initially mooted though.
How close is that server farm to being operational?
Two of the three previous posters miss the point. The service is free if you have uploaded your library from the hard drive.
I feel mixed about this. The advantages:
-the service is free
-the service will stream the music you already own if iTunes has it
the disadvantages:
-piracy will allow users to upload any content they wish without paying for it
-will not allow users to find new music because it's just the content you own
I would almost guarantee that this will only work with content purchased via the iTunes Store. Thus the "value add" of purchasing digital downloads. I don't think anything will be uploaded anywhere. It will simply connect to your existing iTunes Store account and allow you to stream anything it knows you have purchased. If you own a ton of CD's, you'll be out of luck for streaming them.
Quote:
I would rather have the streaming service just because I own the music that has influenced me. I would be willing to pay for a subscription service so I can find new music without feeling I'm taking a risk on owning it.
Then why not simply subscribe to Rhapsody? I've had a subscription for several months and I absolutely love it. It's great having access to all that music and for the cost of about one album a month. Plus it serves practically the same purpose as this iTunes service will except that I can listen to anything on the service, not just the things I own.
I would almost guarantee that this will only work with content purchased via the iTunes Store. Thus the "value add" of purchasing digital downloads. I don't think anything will be uploaded anywhere. It will simply connect to your existing iTunes Store account and allow you to stream anything it knows you have purchased. If you own a ton of CD's, you'll be out of luck for streaming them.
I actually think streaming authorized music would be easier for Apple, but the article implies that it will be uploading music, otherwise a simple internet connected device would not be able to access your personal music (ripped but not purchased via iTunes).
From the article:
"According to multiple sources in the music industry, Apple has been shopping around the idea of a streaming music service that would allow users the ability to back up and access their music from any Internet-connected device."
"An upcoming major revision of iTunes will copy each user's catalog to the net making it available from any browser or net connected ipod/touch/tablet,"
"After installation iTunes will push in the background their entire media library to their personal mobile iTunes area. Once loaded, users will be able to navigate and play their music, videos and playlists from their personal URL using a browser based iTunes experience."
But I don't see how or why Apple would invest the amount of money it would need to to store hundreds of millions of users' iTunes collections without being able to monetize it somehow, or at least generate some kind of incremental revenue or market share by doing so. The feature is nice, but I don't see how it improves their market position, so why spend the $$$ to make it free. This is Apple, not Google.
Apple does not need to store your copy of, say, Weezer's new single to be able to stream it to you online. That's not how lala works, and iTunes.com will most likely be a souped-up version of lala.
Also, there is no reason for Apple to warehouse 400,000 copies of that track to be able to stream it to the 400,000 iTunes users who have that track in their library, since only a small fraction of those users will stream the track at any one time.
I suspect a web-based iTunes would give you access to a streaming version of either every track you've ever bought on iTS plus (maybe) streaming version of the other MP3s in your iTunes library that are commercially available and meet Apple's non-piracy criteria.
More like Apple bundles this into MobileMe to allow paying members access to their music collection over the web, either streaming from their home device (TimeCapsule/AppleTV) or from their MobileMe accounts online. I would LOVE to have this functionality so that I don't have to load down my laptop and iPhone with my entire music collection. Most everywhere I go has a decent Internet connection, and my connection at home uploads at 5Mbps sustained, sufficient enough to stream music anywhere I want over the web.
But I don't see how or why Apple would invest the amount of money it would need to to store hundreds of millions of users' iTunes collections without being able to monetize it somehow, or at least generate some kind of incremental revenue or market share by doing so. The feature is nice, but I don't see how it improves their market position, so why spend the $$$ to make it free. This is Apple, not Google.
I agree, more likely to make it's way into mobileme, which Apple has long been planning to fully ramp up now that they gave it an overhaul. As Google offers more & more free online apps via iGoogle & Google Apps Apple is going to be looking for some solid ways to make the paid mobileme service more attractive.
I also fully expect to see iWork.com get an overhaul & possible become part of mobileme either as a business type package or maybe as a discounted service if you already have basic mobileme.
Apple just bought Lala last month. So unless one of two items has occurred (Apple and Lala working in secret for many, many months; or Apple just bought Lala for its patents) this is way to soon for Lalas' tech to show up in any of Apples' products.
20MB one of the best internet connections in the country?
I'm currently paying $29.99 per month for 22MB from Comcast.
My business uses their Comcast Business Class internet service which gives me 100MB
for $99.
I never have downtime & often times i'm clocking 24 / 25mp at home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3
I live in NY and get 20Mbps from FIOS. I have one of the best Internet connections in the country. That is not the point. From dealing with Simplify Media from the beginning I have seen many an issue with them especially recently. It also takes awhile to refresh your library if you have some new music that has been added or subscribe to many podcasts as I do. Info living on iTunes servers is faster. BTW it does not take twice as long unless you have a really slow data connection. There is no constant go-between you and iTunes like Simplify.
I trust my internet connection but I trust iTunes more than Simplify Media. iTunes is much faster and stable on the iPhone. This not only includes audio but video as well which Simplify does not offer.
You're dealing with an Apple fan but not a fanatic. I am one who believes the tablet won't be a huge hit. That doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have more to offer than Simplify. From my own experiences iTunes is faster than Simplify. I'm also one of the people who didn't bitch and moan when Simplify charged an upgrade price. I paid.
20MB one of the best internet connections in the country?
I'm currently paying $29.99 per month for 22MB from Comcast.
My business uses their Comcast Business Class internet service which gives me 100MB
for $99.
I never have downtime & often times i'm clocking 24 / 25mp at home.
I'm sorry, but I have to doubt your claims as well. Can you post a link to that 'deal'? Most of us are stuck with $40-$50 a month for asynchronous 10 mb/s service.
Even Comcast's own web site lists their 'speedboost' web service, which is only 12 mb/s for $19.99 a month, and that is only for the first 6 months.
According to the 'small print' on their web site: "Comcast?s current monthly service charges for the advertised services range from $42.95 to $59.95"
Comments
BTW, I find it somewhat ironic that companies are offering this sort of service. MP3.com offered remote streaming of your music library and was pretty well sued into oblivion for it. While I think it should have been allowed then, I find it odd that it wasn't yet now it's become acceptable to the suits.
What is acceptable always changes. Sometimes it?s a slow moving cultural change, but often it?s because ?suits? figure out how to make a buck from it.
Apple has already leveraged some degree of Lala's streaming tech, with 30-second song samples being available on the iTunes Preview website, allowing users to view and listen to content available from the service without opening iTunes.
I thought Lala used Flash, and Apple's uses Quicktime.
I haven't used either though, just read it on the web. Anyone know?
I don't see how or why Apple would invest the amount of money it would need to to store hundreds of millions of users' iTunes collections without being able to monetize it somehow, or at least generate some kind of incremental revenue or market share by doing so. The feature is nice, but I don't see how it improves their market position, so why spend the $$$ to make it free. This is Apple, not Google.
Although they have ways of minimising what's actually stored (by recognising when you and I have the same song, and just storing it once), I agree that simply storing music online doesn't seem to earn them money. They can already advertise and sell related songs via genius on iTunes.
Google does earn money though, and Apple may be looking at new models of earning.
I personally suspect that MobileMe is being shaped into a user's entire setup. Your "master user directory" is stored online, and your Mac/iPhone/Slate/aTV just hold part of your data depending on how much room they have locally.
This allows Apple to sell a "500GB iPhone", with 8GB local storage. It also means you could conceivably connect to any iPhone/Slate/Mac and login with your MobileMe account and get all your data, apps, music, etc.
BTW, I find it somewhat ironic that companies are offering this sort of service. MP3.com offered remote streaming of your music library and was pretty well sued into oblivion for it. While I think it should have been allowed then, I find it odd that it wasn't yet now it's become acceptable to the suits.
It's hard to know how to define streaming your own music. I mean, what if you call it "online backup", and then your iPhone just "restores" a song if you try to play it but it's not on your local device?
Do you remember what MP3.com actually lost based on?
I thought Lala used Flash, and Apple's uses Quicktime.
I haven't used either though, just read it on the web. Anyone know?
Lala deos use a little Flash for the simple player, but Apple uses HTML5 for the iTunes Store and iTunes Preview site.
PS: You can now set YouTube to only use HTML5 when playing video. Save your RAM and CPU!
If I can access my own collection (which includes a lot music that isn't available on Spotify) then all the better!
Why exactly are you turned off by it? You do know that your data is stored locally and never leaves your machine and devices? This would be a free or paid for service that offers an additional option to access your audio.
"According to multiple sources in the music industry, Apple has been shopping around the idea of a streaming music service that would allow users the ability to back up and access their music from any Internet-connected device."
"An upcoming major revision of iTunes will copy each user's catalog to the net making it available from any browser or net connected ipod/touch/tablet,"
"After installation iTunes will push in the background their entire media library to their personal mobile iTunes area. Once loaded, users will be able to navigate and play their music, videos and playlists from their personal URL using a browser based iTunes experience."
This doesn't sound at all vague to me, and it most definitely does not sound 'local'.
"According to multiple sources in the music industry, Apple has been shopping around the idea of a streaming music service that would allow users the ability to back up and access their music from any Internet-connected device."
"An upcoming major revision of iTunes will copy each user's catalog to the net making it available from any browser or net connected ipod/touch/tablet,"
You'll still have your local copy. Chill out.
You'll still have your local copy. Chill out.
Why would I need to 'chill out'? I simply won't use the service.
I imagine that's a bit beyond what is being initially mooted though.
How close is that server farm to being operational?
Two of the three previous posters miss the point. The service is free if you have uploaded your library from the hard drive.
I feel mixed about this. The advantages:
-the service is free
-the service will stream the music you already own if iTunes has it
the disadvantages:
-piracy will allow users to upload any content they wish without paying for it
-will not allow users to find new music because it's just the content you own
I would almost guarantee that this will only work with content purchased via the iTunes Store. Thus the "value add" of purchasing digital downloads. I don't think anything will be uploaded anywhere. It will simply connect to your existing iTunes Store account and allow you to stream anything it knows you have purchased. If you own a ton of CD's, you'll be out of luck for streaming them.
I would rather have the streaming service just because I own the music that has influenced me. I would be willing to pay for a subscription service so I can find new music without feeling I'm taking a risk on owning it.
Then why not simply subscribe to Rhapsody? I've had a subscription for several months and I absolutely love it. It's great having access to all that music and for the cost of about one album a month. Plus it serves practically the same purpose as this iTunes service will except that I can listen to anything on the service, not just the things I own.
I would almost guarantee that this will only work with content purchased via the iTunes Store. Thus the "value add" of purchasing digital downloads. I don't think anything will be uploaded anywhere. It will simply connect to your existing iTunes Store account and allow you to stream anything it knows you have purchased. If you own a ton of CD's, you'll be out of luck for streaming them.
I actually think streaming authorized music would be easier for Apple, but the article implies that it will be uploading music, otherwise a simple internet connected device would not be able to access your personal music (ripped but not purchased via iTunes).
From the article:
"According to multiple sources in the music industry, Apple has been shopping around the idea of a streaming music service that would allow users the ability to back up and access their music from any Internet-connected device."
"An upcoming major revision of iTunes will copy each user's catalog to the net making it available from any browser or net connected ipod/touch/tablet,"
"After installation iTunes will push in the background their entire media library to their personal mobile iTunes area. Once loaded, users will be able to navigate and play their music, videos and playlists from their personal URL using a browser based iTunes experience."
But I don't see how or why Apple would invest the amount of money it would need to to store hundreds of millions of users' iTunes collections without being able to monetize it somehow, or at least generate some kind of incremental revenue or market share by doing so. The feature is nice, but I don't see how it improves their market position, so why spend the $$$ to make it free. This is Apple, not Google.
Apple does not need to store your copy of, say, Weezer's new single to be able to stream it to you online. That's not how lala works, and iTunes.com will most likely be a souped-up version of lala.
Also, there is no reason for Apple to warehouse 400,000 copies of that track to be able to stream it to the 400,000 iTunes users who have that track in their library, since only a small fraction of those users will stream the track at any one time.
I suspect a web-based iTunes would give you access to a streaming version of either every track you've ever bought on iTS plus (maybe) streaming version of the other MP3s in your iTunes library that are commercially available and meet Apple's non-piracy criteria.
More like Apple bundles this into MobileMe to allow paying members access to their music collection over the web, either streaming from their home device (TimeCapsule/AppleTV) or from their MobileMe accounts online. I would LOVE to have this functionality so that I don't have to load down my laptop and iPhone with my entire music collection. Most everywhere I go has a decent Internet connection, and my connection at home uploads at 5Mbps sustained, sufficient enough to stream music anywhere I want over the web.
But I don't see how or why Apple would invest the amount of money it would need to to store hundreds of millions of users' iTunes collections without being able to monetize it somehow, or at least generate some kind of incremental revenue or market share by doing so. The feature is nice, but I don't see how it improves their market position, so why spend the $$$ to make it free. This is Apple, not Google.
I agree, more likely to make it's way into mobileme, which Apple has long been planning to fully ramp up now that they gave it an overhaul. As Google offers more & more free online apps via iGoogle & Google Apps Apple is going to be looking for some solid ways to make the paid mobileme service more attractive.
I also fully expect to see iWork.com get an overhaul & possible become part of mobileme either as a business type package or maybe as a discounted service if you already have basic mobileme.
I'm currently paying $29.99 per month for 22MB from Comcast.
My business uses their Comcast Business Class internet service which gives me 100MB
for $99.
I never have downtime & often times i'm clocking 24 / 25mp at home.
I live in NY and get 20Mbps from FIOS. I have one of the best Internet connections in the country. That is not the point. From dealing with Simplify Media from the beginning I have seen many an issue with them especially recently. It also takes awhile to refresh your library if you have some new music that has been added or subscribe to many podcasts as I do. Info living on iTunes servers is faster. BTW it does not take twice as long unless you have a really slow data connection. There is no constant go-between you and iTunes like Simplify.
I trust my internet connection but I trust iTunes more than Simplify Media. iTunes is much faster and stable on the iPhone. This not only includes audio but video as well which Simplify does not offer.
You're dealing with an Apple fan but not a fanatic. I am one who believes the tablet won't be a huge hit. That doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have more to offer than Simplify. From my own experiences iTunes is faster than Simplify. I'm also one of the people who didn't bitch and moan when Simplify charged an upgrade price. I paid.
20MB one of the best internet connections in the country?
I'm currently paying $29.99 per month for 22MB from Comcast.
My business uses their Comcast Business Class internet service which gives me 100MB
for $99.
I never have downtime & often times i'm clocking 24 / 25mp at home.
I'm sorry, but I have to doubt your claims as well. Can you post a link to that 'deal'? Most of us are stuck with $40-$50 a month for asynchronous 10 mb/s service.
Even Comcast's own web site lists their 'speedboost' web service, which is only 12 mb/s for $19.99 a month, and that is only for the first 6 months.
According to the 'small print' on their web site: "Comcast?s current monthly service charges for the advertised services range from $42.95 to $59.95"