Why not just use Audiogalaxy for free and stream your whole collection to iPhone, Droid, PC, Mac or whatever. I have almost 300GB streaming anywhere. Great interface too! http://www.audiogalaxy.com
I don?t think they are trying to prevent you from backing up your content, but are trying to get these big companies to license their access if they are going to add server-based jukebox features. I don?t think that is unreasonable.
I also don?t think Apple?s service will be like Amazon or Google?s service which is pretty much basic server backups with a playlist option for your music. You can?t get anymore low rent than that and call it a music service.
I don't think that's reasonable at all. Why would the service provider needs to pay for a license to provide a useful way for users to access music placed there by the users? If you forget the location of the storage for a second, the music lable's argument would be equivalent to asking all the music player software makers to pay for a license to allow users to use their software. Simply ridiculous.
Google executive Zahavah Levine told CNet that the service will require a browser that supports Flash, making it incompatible with Apple's iOS devices.
Thus locking out tens of millions of potential users. Way to cut off your nose to spite your face.
In terms of clients, FaceTime is basically useless compared to Skype - single platform, wifi only, no calls to normal phones, no SMS or screen-sharing. I don't really know why Apple even bothered, and get the feeling they had to released a neutered version of Skype to appease the american telecoms who don't want competition on SMSing or Long Distance calling...
When Apple announced FaceTime, they stated that it was going to be developed as an open standard. Not surprisingly, they're focusing on FaceTime for Apple products first. But, if they're true to their word, then eventually anyone will be able to get a hold of a FaceTime SDK.
What's wrong with a little screw you directed at Apple? It's not like Apple hasn't done the exact same thing to others. Like when they forced up the price of ebooks to the detriment of Amazon. Or the intentional breaking of 3rd party device syncing via iTunes. Or all the trash talking about Flash.
"Screw you" may be emotionally satisfying, but it's bad business policy. Apple's "breaking" of third party devices was not emotionally driven. More likely, it was to maintain their "whole widget" design philosophy. Opening up iTunes to other devices would mean that they'd have to test for every conceivable MP3 player on the market, which would essentially make Apple another Microsoft.
On the Flash front, Apple issues with Flash were not locker room "trash talk". Their main issue with Flash was too much overhead and instability. Case in point, I frequently encounter "The Flash plug-in has crashed" errors, and even if it doesn't actually crash, it does slow things down. A lot. Apple doesn't want anything to interfere with a transparent user experience--to the extent that they can control that. Flash takes that control out of Apple's hands.
Quote:
Chances are if Apple ends up with licences for streaming, it'll be because the studios want leverage to go after Amazon and apparently soon Google. They'll have a precedent with someone licensing that access. Consumers will only be hurt in the process. Except that as Amazon stated, there's no need for a separate license to do what they're doing. As has been pointed out, you can accomplish the same thing Amazon is doing via iDisk (though clumsier).
If Apple ends up with licenses for streaming, it will be because they've developed good relationships with major labels--they've proved that they can be a good conduit through which customers and labels can do business. This is another example of how the "closed" environment of iOS/iTunes/Store is superior to Google's "open" free-for-all. Google has no relationship with the labels, so it'll be interesting to see how they can persuade them to move away from Apple.
Well, I guess they don't really need choose between iOS and Google. The bigger issue for labels is, how is Google's "open" philosophy going to prevent piracy/theft/malfeasance?
Comments
I don?t think they are trying to prevent you from backing up your content, but are trying to get these big companies to license their access if they are going to add server-based jukebox features. I don?t think that is unreasonable.
I also don?t think Apple?s service will be like Amazon or Google?s service which is pretty much basic server backups with a playlist option for your music. You can?t get anymore low rent than that and call it a music service.
I don't think that's reasonable at all. Why would the service provider needs to pay for a license to provide a useful way for users to access music placed there by the users? If you forget the location of the storage for a second, the music lable's argument would be equivalent to asking all the music player software makers to pay for a license to allow users to use their software. Simply ridiculous.
Google executive Zahavah Levine told CNet that the service will require a browser that supports Flash, making it incompatible with Apple's iOS devices.
Thus locking out tens of millions of potential users. Way to cut off your nose to spite your face.
In terms of clients, FaceTime is basically useless compared to Skype - single platform, wifi only, no calls to normal phones, no SMS or screen-sharing. I don't really know why Apple even bothered, and get the feeling they had to released a neutered version of Skype to appease the american telecoms who don't want competition on SMSing or Long Distance calling...
When Apple announced FaceTime, they stated that it was going to be developed as an open standard. Not surprisingly, they're focusing on FaceTime for Apple products first. But, if they're true to their word, then eventually anyone will be able to get a hold of a FaceTime SDK.
What's wrong with a little screw you directed at Apple? It's not like Apple hasn't done the exact same thing to others. Like when they forced up the price of ebooks to the detriment of Amazon. Or the intentional breaking of 3rd party device syncing via iTunes. Or all the trash talking about Flash.
"Screw you" may be emotionally satisfying, but it's bad business policy. Apple's "breaking" of third party devices was not emotionally driven. More likely, it was to maintain their "whole widget" design philosophy. Opening up iTunes to other devices would mean that they'd have to test for every conceivable MP3 player on the market, which would essentially make Apple another Microsoft.
On the Flash front, Apple issues with Flash were not locker room "trash talk". Their main issue with Flash was too much overhead and instability. Case in point, I frequently encounter "The Flash plug-in has crashed" errors, and even if it doesn't actually crash, it does slow things down. A lot. Apple doesn't want anything to interfere with a transparent user experience--to the extent that they can control that. Flash takes that control out of Apple's hands.
Chances are if Apple ends up with licences for streaming, it'll be because the studios want leverage to go after Amazon and apparently soon Google. They'll have a precedent with someone licensing that access. Consumers will only be hurt in the process. Except that as Amazon stated, there's no need for a separate license to do what they're doing. As has been pointed out, you can accomplish the same thing Amazon is doing via iDisk (though clumsier).
If Apple ends up with licenses for streaming, it will be because they've developed good relationships with major labels--they've proved that they can be a good conduit through which customers and labels can do business. This is another example of how the "closed" environment of iOS/iTunes/Store is superior to Google's "open" free-for-all. Google has no relationship with the labels, so it'll be interesting to see how they can persuade them to move away from Apple.
Well, I guess they don't really need choose between iOS and Google. The bigger issue for labels is, how is Google's "open" philosophy going to prevent piracy/theft/malfeasance?