There is a better and cheaper music cloud service other than Apple. I am using it and it works great. http://www.digitalundivide.com
Stop trying to advertise your crap site here. We don't want to see this and we aren't going to give you any clicks. Also, stop creating new logins to try to get around the rules. You aren't fooling anyone.
1. Do the right thing and purchase rights from the owners of the songs (and hopefully some of the money flows back to the artists)
2. Avoid being caught up in years of litigation
3. Don't anger the labels that feed iTunes
4. Make the iEcosystem even more superior to the competition
5. Don't risk losing a lawsuit that could cost hundreds of millions, or more, in damages
Amazon and google will/are taking a tremendous risk here....
the labels will not dare sue amazon. they will just stop selling CD's. the record companies aren't doing well financially and won't dare to sue a major retailer.
Whats the point if Amazon and Google are just going to do it anyways without the labels permission?
Doing it without their permission typically uses the existing contracts as an excuse to make it 'okay'. But then when those contracts have to be renewed, the labels don't. Or the labels go to court to get the contract voided and they pull their materials off Amazon.
Apple wants to avoid all that.
Plus remember that in a couple of cases, these record labels are owned by companies that also have video in Apple's system. Which they might want to be able to sell DRM free, or at a higher quality, or even rent by subscription. Piss off the parents and that will be harder to achieve
I think most people are underestimating how big this is going to be. This is not going to be about streaming music for the reasons many have pointed out (bandwidth availability of 3g). It is going to be about storage and smart syncing.
I bet this service allows people with MobleMe (which I am betteing will be free for a year to anyhone who bought any Apple product computer or iOS device) to store all their music, video, photos, and anything else they like in the cloud. The appropriate programs then (iPhoto and iTunes) will smart sync the files to our phones, iPads, Macs and iPods the amount synced based on how much storage we allocate. This way much less storage space is needed but you still have access to all your files across all devices anywhere there is Wifi or 3g. But it wont eat up badwidth because the stuff you listen to watch or use most often will already be on your device.
Now why you might ask when storage is cheap. Flash is still expensive. So this allows Apple to keep iOS device costs down but you still have access to your entire media collection. But more importantly the future of Macs is the Macbook Air or something similar with flash storage. A 64GB ssd is plenty if you dont have to store your ENTIRE iTunes and iPhoto librarys locally.
Doing it without their permission typically uses the existing contracts as an excuse to make it 'okay'. But then when those contracts have to be renewed, the labels don't. Or the labels go to court to get the contract voided and they pull their materials off Amazon.
Apple wants to avoid all that.
Plus remember that in a couple of cases, these record labels are owned by companies that also have video in Apple's system. Which they might want to be able to sell DRM free, or at a higher quality, or even rent by subscription. Piss off the parents and that will be harder to achieve
No record company is going to do this. That's just loosing a sale that you won't necessarily be able to get back. Amazon is going to get away with this because they can.
Apple lets you play any tune in the iTunes library after first listening to a 30-second ad. Boosts iAd revenue, makes money for the labels, people get to listen to full songs for free at the expense of first listening to an ad.
A better cloud service is cited on my homepage. The banner is on the right of the page. Apple arrived late to provide this type of music service. This service is already being provided.
but apple will do it better. it's probably why they're 'late'. unlike their competitors, apple has probably done a lot of research. it's why they purchased the n.c. property. it's why they invested over a $1b.
will they deliver perfection the first time out? probably not?no company does. however apple seems to get dinged for it. you can bet in the long run, it will probably be an awesome service.
There is no reason for the exact same file to be stored for every user that has that file. That?s some old school, basic iDisk storage, not the modern Dropbox and Time Machine storage technology.
It may not be as easy as it sounds. I have thousands of songs that are not even on iTunes. And even the songs I have that are on iTunes, 95% are lossless CD rips. What quality will Apple be streaming? Will it be like an internet radio station, that streams between 64kbps and 128kbps? It's very rare to get streaming content better than that.
What about songs that have slightly different metadata? Sometimes the album names are slightly different than the names Apple uses. Or if the song name is slightly changed? Apple will still have to store a boatload of user content. I've even edited songs I purchased from iTunes (like removing annoying introductions), and moved songs to another album.
I have no doubt that Apple will produce a great interface for this, and make it much better than anyone else's system. A lot of people will be very happy with it, I'm sure. I'm actually really interested to see what Apple comes up with here to make it useful.
It may not be as easy as it sounds. I have thousands of songs that are not even on iTunes. And even the songs I have that are on iTunes, 95% are lossless CD rips. What quality will Apple be streaming? Will it be like an internet radio station, that streams between 64kbps and 128kbps? It's very rare to get streaming content better than that.
In other threads I have tackled that issue. I think the most likely answer at this point is your purchased iTunes content. Anything else is moving away from center. It?s surely possible your other content will be uploaded and converted but I thought we should tackle the foundation issues before going wide.
It seems improbable that Apple will allow 1Mbps streaming. That?s just too impractical. In a previous post I detailed how much data would be used if you just happen to be streaming your lossless content from this ?locker? for a full 24 hours non-stop. I think the number was 257GB for the day. It was a just a scenario to show the excess of lossless for WAN streaming because some will think that 1Mbps per second isn?t an issue.
Quote:
What about songs that have slightly different metadata? Sometimes the album names are slightly different than the names Apple uses. Or if the song name is slightly changed? Apple will still have to store a boatload of user content.
With Dropbox and Time Machine meta data isn?t an issue. Neither is changing file names. Data in files use a more intelligent metric that is beyond my ken and only upload changes to files without destroying the previous file segment. It?s a good thing.
Quote:
I have no doubt that Apple will produce a great interface for this, and make it much better than anyone else's system. A lot of people will be very happy with it, I'm sure. I'm actually really interested to see what Apple comes up with here to make it useful.
I have no doubt the UI will be nice but I still wonder how useful it will be. I?m hoping they debut a lot more than some streaming service. I want to see real competition to Dropbox whose only fault is they can?t integrate into the OS the way Apple can.
The difference may be with Apple's service there won't be any uploading. If you own the song locally, you'll be able to play it remotely from their servers.
own it locally, and it was bought from itunes. Apple never need to look at your computer if that were the case: just your purchases history from iTunes, and they wouldn't need extra storage - just the ability for mass scale distribution.
Quote:
Apple already has a patent for this I believe!? Something about a mobile device containing a playlist only to access music remotely and being able to mix and match local and remote playing. I think it was from a couple years ago?
Comments
There is a better and cheaper music cloud service other than Apple. I am using it and it works great. http://www.digitalundivide.com
Stop trying to advertise your crap site here. We don't want to see this and we aren't going to give you any clicks. Also, stop creating new logins to try to get around the rules. You aren't fooling anyone.
Well, the points are:
1. Do the right thing and purchase rights from the owners of the songs (and hopefully some of the money flows back to the artists)
2. Avoid being caught up in years of litigation
3. Don't anger the labels that feed iTunes
4. Make the iEcosystem even more superior to the competition
5. Don't risk losing a lawsuit that could cost hundreds of millions, or more, in damages
Amazon and google will/are taking a tremendous risk here....
the labels will not dare sue amazon. they will just stop selling CD's. the record companies aren't doing well financially and won't dare to sue a major retailer.
Whats the point if Amazon and Google are just going to do it anyways without the labels permission?
Sounds like Apple is entering into agreements which are only going to handicap them in the long run.
Amazon and Google are also struggling with the labels, that is the main reason why they were stalled.
There is a better and cheaper music cloud service other than Apple. I am using it and it works great. http://www.digitalundivide.com
Let me tell you about Amway...
Whats the point if Amazon and Google are just going to do it anyways without the labels permission?
Doing it without their permission typically uses the existing contracts as an excuse to make it 'okay'. But then when those contracts have to be renewed, the labels don't. Or the labels go to court to get the contract voided and they pull their materials off Amazon.
Apple wants to avoid all that.
Plus remember that in a couple of cases, these record labels are owned by companies that also have video in Apple's system. Which they might want to be able to sell DRM free, or at a higher quality, or even rent by subscription. Piss off the parents and that will be harder to achieve
I bet this service allows people with MobleMe (which I am betteing will be free for a year to anyhone who bought any Apple product computer or iOS device) to store all their music, video, photos, and anything else they like in the cloud. The appropriate programs then (iPhoto and iTunes) will smart sync the files to our phones, iPads, Macs and iPods the amount synced based on how much storage we allocate. This way much less storage space is needed but you still have access to all your files across all devices anywhere there is Wifi or 3g. But it wont eat up badwidth because the stuff you listen to watch or use most often will already be on your device.
Now why you might ask when storage is cheap. Flash is still expensive. So this allows Apple to keep iOS device costs down but you still have access to your entire media collection. But more importantly the future of Macs is the Macbook Air or something similar with flash storage. A 64GB ssd is plenty if you dont have to store your ENTIRE iTunes and iPhoto librarys locally.
Doing it without their permission typically uses the existing contracts as an excuse to make it 'okay'. But then when those contracts have to be renewed, the labels don't. Or the labels go to court to get the contract voided and they pull their materials off Amazon.
Apple wants to avoid all that.
Plus remember that in a couple of cases, these record labels are owned by companies that also have video in Apple's system. Which they might want to be able to sell DRM free, or at a higher quality, or even rent by subscription. Piss off the parents and that will be harder to achieve
No record company is going to do this. That's just loosing a sale that you won't necessarily be able to get back. Amazon is going to get away with this because they can.
Apple lets you play any tune in the iTunes library after first listening to a 30-second ad. Boosts iAd revenue, makes money for the labels, people get to listen to full songs for free at the expense of first listening to an ad.
A better cloud service is cited on my homepage. The banner is on the right of the page. Apple arrived late to provide this type of music service. This service is already being provided.
but apple will do it better. it's probably why they're 'late'. unlike their competitors, apple has probably done a lot of research. it's why they purchased the n.c. property. it's why they invested over a $1b.
will they deliver perfection the first time out? probably not?no company does. however apple seems to get dinged for it. you can bet in the long run, it will probably be an awesome service.
There is no reason for the exact same file to be stored for every user that has that file. That?s some old school, basic iDisk storage, not the modern Dropbox and Time Machine storage technology.
It may not be as easy as it sounds. I have thousands of songs that are not even on iTunes. And even the songs I have that are on iTunes, 95% are lossless CD rips. What quality will Apple be streaming? Will it be like an internet radio station, that streams between 64kbps and 128kbps? It's very rare to get streaming content better than that.
What about songs that have slightly different metadata? Sometimes the album names are slightly different than the names Apple uses. Or if the song name is slightly changed? Apple will still have to store a boatload of user content. I've even edited songs I purchased from iTunes (like removing annoying introductions), and moved songs to another album.
I have no doubt that Apple will produce a great interface for this, and make it much better than anyone else's system. A lot of people will be very happy with it, I'm sure. I'm actually really interested to see what Apple comes up with here to make it useful.
It may not be as easy as it sounds. I have thousands of songs that are not even on iTunes. And even the songs I have that are on iTunes, 95% are lossless CD rips. What quality will Apple be streaming? Will it be like an internet radio station, that streams between 64kbps and 128kbps? It's very rare to get streaming content better than that.
In other threads I have tackled that issue. I think the most likely answer at this point is your purchased iTunes content. Anything else is moving away from center. It?s surely possible your other content will be uploaded and converted but I thought we should tackle the foundation issues before going wide.
It seems improbable that Apple will allow 1Mbps streaming. That?s just too impractical. In a previous post I detailed how much data would be used if you just happen to be streaming your lossless content from this ?locker? for a full 24 hours non-stop. I think the number was 257GB for the day. It was a just a scenario to show the excess of lossless for WAN streaming because some will think that 1Mbps per second isn?t an issue.
What about songs that have slightly different metadata? Sometimes the album names are slightly different than the names Apple uses. Or if the song name is slightly changed? Apple will still have to store a boatload of user content.
With Dropbox and Time Machine meta data isn?t an issue. Neither is changing file names. Data in files use a more intelligent metric that is beyond my ken and only upload changes to files without destroying the previous file segment. It?s a good thing.
I have no doubt that Apple will produce a great interface for this, and make it much better than anyone else's system. A lot of people will be very happy with it, I'm sure. I'm actually really interested to see what Apple comes up with here to make it useful.
I have no doubt the UI will be nice but I still wonder how useful it will be. I?m hoping they debut a lot more than some streaming service. I want to see real competition to Dropbox whose only fault is they can?t integrate into the OS the way Apple can.
The difference may be with Apple's service there won't be any uploading. If you own the song locally, you'll be able to play it remotely from their servers.
own it locally, and it was bought from itunes. Apple never need to look at your computer if that were the case: just your purchases history from iTunes, and they wouldn't need extra storage - just the ability for mass scale distribution.
Apple already has a patent for this I believe!? Something about a mobile device containing a playlist only to access music remotely and being able to mix and match local and remote playing. I think it was from a couple years ago?