I just don't think this - or any similar offering from Apple - is going to work out for a few years.
It would be great to be able to stream your music collection on the move and avoid the need for large capacity phones, but the infrastructure just isn't there with the phone networks.
I can barely listen to a low-quality internet radio station on the way to work without it continually buffering every few minutes, so I don't fancy entrusting my MP3 collection into the cloud.
This sort of service is probably the future, but to be honest I think we're still 5 years away from it being a realistic proposition. Given how poor the coverage of 3G still is outside of urban areas, you'd have to hope that the introduction of 4G networks is a lot more widespread for any cloud based mobile services to take off.
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.
A. Without connecting a USB cable
B. Without iTunes deleting your library
C. Without iTunes not allowing you to connect your device to more than one computer
I don't think Amazon has a "big swing" threat here in terms of global usage but Apple needs to iron out the iTunes tethering and iTunes convoluted sync. I've said before, I understand where Apple is coming from especially prior to the iPhone. But it is time for Apple to catch up with where they are now and FREE iOS from iTunes as much as possible.
It will be very interesting to see how the iOS 5 Cloud does it. There will be hits and misses.
And we're looking at people who now have 1GB to 50GB etc of songs and videos. That's a lot for the cloud to process, obviously you use some kind of "list" of what to wirelessly sync. Most people would get by on 10GB of sync. But the bandwidth to do that kind of syncing every month... Oh boy.
I guess it's not as easy for Apple as it looks. Steve is the probably the only guy who can put his foot down and give some real direction to this, IMO. Even he has struggled with iTunes for years and when being interviewed (at All Things D or something like that) has said that they "have to work better on it" when it comes to iTunes syncing .
I just don't think this - or any similar offering from Apple - is going to work out for a few years.
This sort of service is probably the future, but to be honest I think we're still 5 years away from it being a realistic proposition.
But we got to start somewhere, right..?
They (Apple, Google and Amazon) believe the technology is sufficient right now, the war is moving on to the cloud. Amazon is doing better than Microsoft to see this coming, it already has well established on-line store and keen enough to foresee where the money will go..
They (Apple, Google and Amazon) believe the technology is sufficient right now, the war is moving on to the cloud. Amazon is doing better than Microsoft to see this coming, it already has well established on-line store and keen enough to foresee where the money will go..
Big tech companies have been known to make mistakes like this before in misidentifying what their users want though, and I don't think there is a market for this type of service yet.
It's one thing to put your files into a service like Dropbox where you can access them from your office WiFi , or even with photos, but the nature of music content means you want access to it on the move and I don't think any way other than offline storage works for this at the moment other than as a gimmick.
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 like the sound of the Amazon approach, and suspect that Apple's is going to be similar.
Apple already have a copy of every song you buy from iTunes on their servers -- why make another copy in somebody's 'cloud locker'. Likewise, songs bought from Amazon do not use any MB from you locker.
But, I'm sure most people's music collections also contain large numbers of songs that they didn't buy from iTunes (ripped from CDs, or ahem elsewhere!), but are sold in the iTMS. So, rather than storing potentially millions of different rips of exactly the same track on the online lockers, Apple could make use of Genius' song fingerprinting technique to determine which tracks you have that can also be served up from the iTunes cloud.
That only leaves the more obscure stuff that isn't sold by iTunes -- most people probably don't have nearly 5GB of this stuff. Me -- I have quite a lot of unusual British nu jazz and techno (Warp records stuff, for example) that will probably mean needing 10-15GB!
Link the cloud service up with Airplay (for cloud streaming) and Home Sharing (for cloud sync) you've got a winning combination that'll work whatever type of network (wifi, 3G) you're on.
OT, but speaking of AirPlay, I recommend people try AirFrame (link). Allows AirPlay streaming between any iOS devices on the same wifi network. Very cool for streaming my iPhone 4 videos or photos straight to my iPad.
I like the sound of the Amazon approach, and suspect that Apple's is going to be similar.
Apple already have a copy of every song you buy from iTunes on their servers -- why make another copy in somebody's 'cloud locker'. Likewise, songs bought from Amazon do not use any MB from you locker.
That idea alone is enough for Steve Jobs to pursue Apple to have its very own cloud-based music service / cloud locker; "Yer mine! Yer all are mine..!" (shout Steve)
You and I may laugh at it, but you know Steve Jobs, he is that kind of psychedelic CEO..
Its just another way for companies to make you pay for a product you do not own.
At least with MP3 you had to download the track to play it and store it yourself. Thus backing it up in the process.
This idea that you are going to have to keep all your files on an over the air server somewhere and then access it via the internets... whether that be 3G or Wifi or however you access it.
So what happens for the customers that have bad 3G access or no access to wifi hotspots?
I have given up on the need to buy physical discs now but i still like to know that once i pay for something i own it. This cloud service does not guarantee this.
When did this CLOUD thing become the new IT FEATURE?
Really folk this is nothing but a gimmick. Everyone is trying to outdo the next guy with some feature they tout as a game changer. Amazon in this case is pimping the cloud as a way to lure people into their music service. Music that they don't own but are given a license by the record industry to distribute. And this high and mighty talk about how thier consumers are dying for this is BS. That is a corner office managerial talking point. Keep saying people want cloud and they will beleive they need cloud.The tactic works in politics!
Its just another way for companies to make you pay for a product you do not own.
At least with MP3 you had to download the track to play it and store it yourself. Thus backing it up in the process.
This idea that you are going to have to keep all your files on an over the air server somewhere and then access it via the internets... whether that be 3G or Wifi or however you access it.
So what happens for the customers that have bad 3G access or no access to wifi hotspots?
I have given up on the need to buy physical discs now but i still like to know that once i pay for something i own it. This cloud service does not guarantee this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry
What a load if crap!
When did this CLOUD thing become the new IT FEATURE?
Really folk this is nothing but a gimmick. Everyone is trying to outdo the next guy with some feature they tout as a game changer. Amazon in this case is pimping the cloud as a way to lure people into their music service. Music that they don't own but are given a license by the record industry to distribute. And this high and mighty talk about how thier consumers are dying for this is BS. That is a corner office managerial talking point. Keep saying people want cloud and they will beleive they need cloud.The tactic works in politics!
I think you guys are missing the point of these cloud services. The 'locker' is just another way to access the music you already own. You'll have the MP3s/AACs on you local drive (if you wish), but copies accessible via the Internets. That way you can get access to the music that you own? from anywhere. No one is saying this music can only be stored in the cloud -- otherwise what is the difference between this and any of the number of streaming services like Spotify?
I just don't think this - or any similar offering from Apple - is going to work out for a few years.
It would be great to be able to stream your music collection on the move and avoid the need for large capacity phones, but the infrastructure just isn't there with the phone networks.
I can barely listen to a low-quality internet radio station on the way to work without it continually buffering every few minutes, so I don't fancy entrusting my MP3 collection into the cloud.
This sort of service is probably the future, but to be honest I think we're still 5 years away from it being a realistic proposition. Given how poor the coverage of 3G still is outside of urban areas, you'd have to hope that the introduction of 4G networks is a lot more widespread for any cloud based mobile services to take off.
I can already do this with a great app called Audiogalaxy. Plenty of others can do it too: ZumoCast, StreamToMe, etc. Works great! No need for these monthly fees...
I can already do this with a great app called Audiogalaxy. Plenty of others can do it too: ZumoCast, StreamToMe, etc. Works great! No need for these monthly fees...
I bet you can, but does it work when you have no WiFi or 3G signal?
Apple have been sitting on their asses with lala, the nc data center and mobileme. Amidst rumors of free mm and retraction of mm retail boxes, we are paying a pretty hefty sum for a very limited service. Amidst rumors of a data center, we are still getting pretty mediocre performance from mm. Amidst rumors of a cloud music service we still have to swap songs/audiobooks/podcasts/movies in our ipads because there's no damn space to put them there. Not even some provision of cloud storage for the media we buy via itunes.
Anyone who likes apple, has to see this as their biggest blind spot, they are leading everywhere else and trailing pathetically in the cloud domain.
They better get moving, because it's not just that the comp is catching up here, it's leaving them behind, and they are marring the whole ecosystem by being very hesitant, very lackluster, and very unproductive in anything to do with the cloud.
A real shame.
I don't agree with your comments. If Apple are delaying their entry to the "cloud" its for a good reason, while others go running in without looking ahead. Akin to a swimmer diving into a river that they have never swum in before, beware of trees and rocks etc.
Apple building the NC data centre is not to store tobacco from the NC harvest, its there for a reason. Its like a jigsaw puzzle, just wait and see how Apple slots all the pieces together, in the correct manner, unlike it's clueless competitors.
When did this CLOUD thing become the new IT FEATURE?
Really folk this is nothing but a gimmick. Everyone is trying to outdo the next guy with some feature they tout as a game changer. Amazon in this case is pimping the cloud as a way to lure people into their music service. Music that they don't own but are given a license by the record industry to distribute. And this high and mighty talk about how thier consumers are dying for this is BS. That is a corner office managerial talking point. Keep saying people want cloud and they will beleive they need cloud.The tactic works in politics!
And when Apple announces an extremely similar service later this year, it will be the greatest thing in the world. Really, go look at any of the comment sections for any time where an Apple cloud music service is rumored. You won't see all the negative comments that Amazon's service is getting.
Maybe it doesn't interest you, but apparently a lot of Apple fans are interested in a similar service. Well, unless it's from Amazon; then it's automatically crap.
Schmidt is a c... (you fill the blancs), and he is considered so by most people who follow tech new or are in the biz, and of course he is a clown too, what with the open oses that close all of a sudden, his blatant disrespect for privacy and numerous other issues...having said that he is soon to be a c... with amazon's huge servers for storage backing him, and as you say a pretty obvious alliance with amazon, all of which should serve the odious google very, very well.
See I don't only disagree (see my 1st post), but agree with you on this.
Yes that a%$# wipe is one c___, and probably one of the most odious carbon-based life forms on this planet, hopefully his cells have undergone mitosis the maximum 23 times and all life will soon expire.
Apple have been sitting on their asses with lala, the nc data center and mobileme. Amidst rumors of free mm and retraction of mm retail boxes, we are paying a pretty hefty sum for a very limited service. Amidst rumors of a data center, we are still getting pretty mediocre performance from mm. Amidst rumors of a cloud music service we still have to swap songs/audiobooks/podcasts/movies in our ipads because there's no damn space to put them there. Not even some provision of cloud storage for the media we buy via itunes.
Anyone who likes apple, has to see this as their biggest blind spot, they are leading everywhere else and trailing pathetically in the cloud domain.
They better get moving, because it's not just that the comp is catching up here, it's leaving them behind, and they are marring the whole ecosystem by being very hesitant, very lackluster, and very unproductive in anything to do with the cloud.
A real shame.
Fortunately, Apple is not concerned with your impatience; they will provide cloud based access like no one else can and render the existing technologies irrelevant.
I think they listen closer to the Apple rumors and try to beat them to the punch. These companies watch these sites to get their ideas and try to beat Apple to the punch on their announced products.
First, these services really need to take an open approach to hosting data. Why sign up for a music only type of locker? We want open data services that can store all we have.. music, videos, documents, everything and, just as importantly, use the front end (browsers, apps) that we already have.
Cloud needs to be seamless.
Second, these services need to think realistically about data limits involved. These 5 or 20 GB kind of starting data limits make it seem like they're not serious. The cloud is supposed to be limitless to the consumer so stop telling us about limits and start getting functionality right and limits removed.
Third, get rid of draconian policies that allow database admins unfettered access to our files. That runs risks most business and individuals aren't comfortable with.
They (Apple, Google and Amazon) believe the technology is sufficient right now, the war is moving on to the cloud. Amazon is doing better than Microsoft to see this coming
Here are 11 of the worlds largest data centers as of April 2010. You'll note Microsoft runs 4 of them - I have a feeling they saw this coming...
Comments
I just don't think this - or any similar offering from Apple - is going to work out for a few years.
It would be great to be able to stream your music collection on the move and avoid the need for large capacity phones, but the infrastructure just isn't there with the phone networks.
I can barely listen to a low-quality internet radio station on the way to work without it continually buffering every few minutes, so I don't fancy entrusting my MP3 collection into the cloud.
This sort of service is probably the future, but to be honest I think we're still 5 years away from it being a realistic proposition. Given how poor the coverage of 3G still is outside of urban areas, you'd have to hope that the introduction of 4G networks is a lot more widespread for any cloud based mobile services to take off.
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.
A. Without connecting a USB cable
B. Without iTunes deleting your library
C. Without iTunes not allowing you to connect your device to more than one computer
I don't think Amazon has a "big swing" threat here in terms of global usage but Apple needs to iron out the iTunes tethering and iTunes convoluted sync. I've said before, I understand where Apple is coming from especially prior to the iPhone. But it is time for Apple to catch up with where they are now and FREE iOS from iTunes as much as possible.
It will be very interesting to see how the iOS 5 Cloud does it. There will be hits and misses.
And we're looking at people who now have 1GB to 50GB etc of songs and videos. That's a lot for the cloud to process, obviously you use some kind of "list" of what to wirelessly sync. Most people would get by on 10GB of sync. But the bandwidth to do that kind of syncing every month... Oh boy.
I guess it's not as easy for Apple as it looks. Steve is the probably the only guy who can put his foot down and give some real direction to this, IMO. Even he has struggled with iTunes for years and when being interviewed (at All Things D or something like that) has said that they "have to work better on it" when it comes to iTunes syncing .
I just don't think this - or any similar offering from Apple - is going to work out for a few years.
This sort of service is probably the future, but to be honest I think we're still 5 years away from it being a realistic proposition.
But we got to start somewhere, right..?
They (Apple, Google and Amazon) believe the technology is sufficient right now, the war is moving on to the cloud. Amazon is doing better than Microsoft to see this coming, it already has well established on-line store and keen enough to foresee where the money will go..
But we got to start somewhere, right..?
They (Apple, Google and Amazon) believe the technology is sufficient right now, the war is moving on to the cloud. Amazon is doing better than Microsoft to see this coming, it already has well established on-line store and keen enough to foresee where the money will go..
Big tech companies have been known to make mistakes like this before in misidentifying what their users want though, and I don't think there is a market for this type of service yet.
It's one thing to put your files into a service like Dropbox where you can access them from your office WiFi , or even with photos, but the nature of music content means you want access to it on the move and I don't think any way other than offline storage works for this at the moment other than as a gimmick.
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?
Apple already have a copy of every song you buy from iTunes on their servers -- why make another copy in somebody's 'cloud locker'. Likewise, songs bought from Amazon do not use any MB from you locker.
But, I'm sure most people's music collections also contain large numbers of songs that they didn't buy from iTunes (ripped from CDs, or ahem elsewhere!), but are sold in the iTMS. So, rather than storing potentially millions of different rips of exactly the same track on the online lockers, Apple could make use of Genius' song fingerprinting technique to determine which tracks you have that can also be served up from the iTunes cloud.
That only leaves the more obscure stuff that isn't sold by iTunes -- most people probably don't have nearly 5GB of this stuff. Me -- I have quite a lot of unusual British nu jazz and techno (Warp records stuff, for example) that will probably mean needing 10-15GB!
Link the cloud service up with Airplay (for cloud streaming) and Home Sharing (for cloud sync) you've got a winning combination that'll work whatever type of network (wifi, 3G) you're on.
OT, but speaking of AirPlay, I recommend people try AirFrame (link). Allows AirPlay streaming between any iOS devices on the same wifi network. Very cool for streaming my iPhone 4 videos or photos straight to my iPad.
I like the sound of the Amazon approach, and suspect that Apple's is going to be similar.
Apple already have a copy of every song you buy from iTunes on their servers -- why make another copy in somebody's 'cloud locker'. Likewise, songs bought from Amazon do not use any MB from you locker.
That idea alone is enough for Steve Jobs to pursue Apple to have its very own cloud-based music service / cloud locker; "Yer mine! Yer all are mine..!" (shout Steve)
You and I may laugh at it, but you know Steve Jobs, he is that kind of psychedelic CEO..
Its just another way for companies to make you pay for a product you do not own.
At least with MP3 you had to download the track to play it and store it yourself. Thus backing it up in the process.
This idea that you are going to have to keep all your files on an over the air server somewhere and then access it via the internets... whether that be 3G or Wifi or however you access it.
So what happens for the customers that have bad 3G access or no access to wifi hotspots?
I have given up on the need to buy physical discs now but i still like to know that once i pay for something i own it. This cloud service does not guarantee this.
When did this CLOUD thing become the new IT FEATURE?
Really folk this is nothing but a gimmick. Everyone is trying to outdo the next guy with some feature they tout as a game changer. Amazon in this case is pimping the cloud as a way to lure people into their music service. Music that they don't own but are given a license by the record industry to distribute. And this high and mighty talk about how thier consumers are dying for this is BS. That is a corner office managerial talking point. Keep saying people want cloud and they will beleive they need cloud.The tactic works in politics!
I officially hate all this "Cloud" BS.
Its just another way for companies to make you pay for a product you do not own.
At least with MP3 you had to download the track to play it and store it yourself. Thus backing it up in the process.
This idea that you are going to have to keep all your files on an over the air server somewhere and then access it via the internets... whether that be 3G or Wifi or however you access it.
So what happens for the customers that have bad 3G access or no access to wifi hotspots?
I have given up on the need to buy physical discs now but i still like to know that once i pay for something i own it. This cloud service does not guarantee this.
What a load if crap!
When did this CLOUD thing become the new IT FEATURE?
Really folk this is nothing but a gimmick. Everyone is trying to outdo the next guy with some feature they tout as a game changer. Amazon in this case is pimping the cloud as a way to lure people into their music service. Music that they don't own but are given a license by the record industry to distribute. And this high and mighty talk about how thier consumers are dying for this is BS. That is a corner office managerial talking point. Keep saying people want cloud and they will beleive they need cloud.The tactic works in politics!
I think you guys are missing the point of these cloud services. The 'locker' is just another way to access the music you already own. You'll have the MP3s/AACs on you local drive (if you wish), but copies accessible via the Internets. That way you can get access to the music that you own? from anywhere. No one is saying this music can only be stored in the cloud -- otherwise what is the difference between this and any of the number of streaming services like Spotify?
This is about access, not ownership.
I just don't think this - or any similar offering from Apple - is going to work out for a few years.
It would be great to be able to stream your music collection on the move and avoid the need for large capacity phones, but the infrastructure just isn't there with the phone networks.
I can barely listen to a low-quality internet radio station on the way to work without it continually buffering every few minutes, so I don't fancy entrusting my MP3 collection into the cloud.
This sort of service is probably the future, but to be honest I think we're still 5 years away from it being a realistic proposition. Given how poor the coverage of 3G still is outside of urban areas, you'd have to hope that the introduction of 4G networks is a lot more widespread for any cloud based mobile services to take off.
I can already do this with a great app called Audiogalaxy. Plenty of others can do it too: ZumoCast, StreamToMe, etc. Works great! No need for these monthly fees...
I can already do this with a great app called Audiogalaxy. Plenty of others can do it too: ZumoCast, StreamToMe, etc. Works great! No need for these monthly fees...
I bet you can, but does it work when you have no WiFi or 3G signal?
Apple have been sitting on their asses with lala, the nc data center and mobileme. Amidst rumors of free mm and retraction of mm retail boxes, we are paying a pretty hefty sum for a very limited service. Amidst rumors of a data center, we are still getting pretty mediocre performance from mm. Amidst rumors of a cloud music service we still have to swap songs/audiobooks/podcasts/movies in our ipads because there's no damn space to put them there. Not even some provision of cloud storage for the media we buy via itunes.
Anyone who likes apple, has to see this as their biggest blind spot, they are leading everywhere else and trailing pathetically in the cloud domain.
They better get moving, because it's not just that the comp is catching up here, it's leaving them behind, and they are marring the whole ecosystem by being very hesitant, very lackluster, and very unproductive in anything to do with the cloud.
A real shame.
I don't agree with your comments. If Apple are delaying their entry to the "cloud" its for a good reason, while others go running in without looking ahead. Akin to a swimmer diving into a river that they have never swum in before, beware of trees and rocks etc.
Apple building the NC data centre is not to store tobacco from the NC harvest, its there for a reason. Its like a jigsaw puzzle, just wait and see how Apple slots all the pieces together, in the correct manner, unlike it's clueless competitors.
What a load if crap!
When did this CLOUD thing become the new IT FEATURE?
Really folk this is nothing but a gimmick. Everyone is trying to outdo the next guy with some feature they tout as a game changer. Amazon in this case is pimping the cloud as a way to lure people into their music service. Music that they don't own but are given a license by the record industry to distribute. And this high and mighty talk about how thier consumers are dying for this is BS. That is a corner office managerial talking point. Keep saying people want cloud and they will beleive they need cloud.The tactic works in politics!
And when Apple announces an extremely similar service later this year, it will be the greatest thing in the world. Really, go look at any of the comment sections for any time where an Apple cloud music service is rumored. You won't see all the negative comments that Amazon's service is getting.
Maybe it doesn't interest you, but apparently a lot of Apple fans are interested in a similar service. Well, unless it's from Amazon; then it's automatically crap.
Schmidt is a c... (you fill the blancs), and he is considered so by most people who follow tech new or are in the biz, and of course he is a clown too, what with the open oses that close all of a sudden, his blatant disrespect for privacy and numerous other issues...having said that he is soon to be a c... with amazon's huge servers for storage backing him, and as you say a pretty obvious alliance with amazon, all of which should serve the odious google very, very well.
See I don't only disagree (see my 1st post), but agree with you on this.
Yes that a%$# wipe is one c___, and probably one of the most odious carbon-based life forms on this planet, hopefully his cells have undergone mitosis the maximum 23 times and all life will soon expire.
Apple have been sitting on their asses with lala, the nc data center and mobileme. Amidst rumors of free mm and retraction of mm retail boxes, we are paying a pretty hefty sum for a very limited service. Amidst rumors of a data center, we are still getting pretty mediocre performance from mm. Amidst rumors of a cloud music service we still have to swap songs/audiobooks/podcasts/movies in our ipads because there's no damn space to put them there. Not even some provision of cloud storage for the media we buy via itunes.
Anyone who likes apple, has to see this as their biggest blind spot, they are leading everywhere else and trailing pathetically in the cloud domain.
They better get moving, because it's not just that the comp is catching up here, it's leaving them behind, and they are marring the whole ecosystem by being very hesitant, very lackluster, and very unproductive in anything to do with the cloud.
A real shame.
Fortunately, Apple is not concerned with your impatience; they will provide cloud based access like no one else can and render the existing technologies irrelevant.
Here's another perspective:
Amazon?s Cloud Music Move Isn?t Earth-Shaking
.
That really sucks!
Cloud needs to be seamless.
Second, these services need to think realistically about data limits involved. These 5 or 20 GB kind of starting data limits make it seem like they're not serious. The cloud is supposed to be limitless to the consumer so stop telling us about limits and start getting functionality right and limits removed.
Third, get rid of draconian policies that allow database admins unfettered access to our files. That runs risks most business and individuals aren't comfortable with.
I bet you can, but does it work when you have no WiFi or 3G signal?
Will Amazon's new service work without WiFi or 3G?
They (Apple, Google and Amazon) believe the technology is sufficient right now, the war is moving on to the cloud. Amazon is doing better than Microsoft to see this coming
Here are 11 of the worlds largest data centers as of April 2010. You'll note Microsoft runs 4 of them - I have a feeling they saw this coming...