So, the music industry wants a cut even when you are streaming music that you've already paid for. If they had their way, they'd charge you a performance fee every time you overhear somebody's ringtone.
It's not greed, it's a job. It just is what it is. Ignoring it won't make it go away.
Even if Amazon and Google get away with their services, think how much they'll waste in resources to defend their risky moves. All for what? To hit market first? To make it before Apple? You've gotta be kidding me! It's like free beta testing for Apple to see what works and what doesn't, to hear complaints and comb reviews.
Apple comes out with a better product and the assurance that you, the consumer, are doing the right thing. Obviously there is no right or wrong here, but Joe Shmuck wants to feel safe when he makes his decision to go to the cloud, and Apple is going to offer that.
As was already pointed out, Apple doesn't need to be first to the market... they just need to be the best. Demand will follow.
Took me too long to fully realize Google's data mining practices and just haw brazen they are about it.. and how ubiquitous the practice is. Won't go back, ever. Sadly, most people have no clue what they are giving up when they buy into the brand. Or maybe they don't care. Not to say that others don't participate, but with Google, it's sort of their established MO that they aim to steal private info right out from under your nose.
The same can be said for their advertising practices, programming language use and their TV initiative, to say the least.
Apple will surely be seen, at least by the labels, as the "Legal" alternative to Amazon's and Google's approximations of this type of service, cementing the advantages of being iTunes users.
Apple's had a history of fairness, among the corporate world and with consumers, even if that can't be said to be the case with developers, on both sides.
Trying to earn the trust of the labels and the studios hasn't been easy for any company, but Apple certainly has earned more respect than others.
They may not have the trust of the labels and studios according to comments on the DoJ's investigation into Apple's influence over the recording industry and it's use of iTunes.
While not any proof they've actually done anything wrong, there is "word on the street" that the labels were pressured by Apple not to make a deal with Amazon, and perhaps Google as well.
If the labels don't like what Amazon and Google have done then they should sue them. And if the labels have analyzed the situation and discovered that there's no legal case to be made, then they should stop whining about it.
Can't get more concise than that...unless you add "data mining" to the definition of "to Google!" Just like most things nothing is really ever free.
PS. You guys should check out the free App "Ghostery." It blocks all this data mining crap including Google Analytics and Google Adsense! It was recommended by MacWorld last week! http://www.ghostery.com/
PPS. No Affiliation: Just like the App.
PPS. I sure wish I knew how to add a photo to this message. B/C I could show what it looks like in the menu bar and what the alert screen looks like. Oh well.
Best
There you go. This is what ghostery blocks on appleinsider
They may not have the trust of the labels and studios according to comments on the DoJ's investigation into Apple's influence over the recording industry and it's use of iTunes.
While not any proof they've actually done anything wrong, there is "word on the street" that the labels were pressured by Apple not to make a deal with Amazon, and perhaps Google as well.
I really doubt this is true. Apple really does not need that sort of protection, and cannot afford the reputation hit when (not if) it is caught at it. M$ and Intel have already shown the trouble that leads to.
They also cache the music locally on the device so you aren't left without music when the connection is down. This is also "creating a copy" by most definitions and the very thing that apps have been thrown out of the app store for doing.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but technically and legally, Google is on very shaky ground.
Apple should be able to work things out. Heck Microsoft has had a subscription music streaming service for quite awhile now.
iCloud with record label agreements means one thing - Some type of payment will be required to use it. Either you will have to have paid for the music within iTunes or you are going to be charged a rental or subscription fee.
Google and Amazon will give you storage space to upload your current collection and stream without any additional fees (outside of wanting more storage).
Two different strategies. We will see who wins. People seem to love the Zune $15/mo service (those who have it). Not sure the average person is willing to shell out another monthly fee (in big numbers) for music streaming though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Though Amazon and Google beat Apple to the punch by launching their own cloud-based music streaming services, record labels are reportedly hopeful that Apple's rumored "iCloud," backed by licensing deals, will be the better product.
Cloud services from both Amazon and Google were launched without the appropriate licenses from music labels. Accordingly, the labels hope that Apple's product is vastly superior to the current options, Greg Sandoval of CNet reported Wednesday.
"The risk for the record labels is that the services from Amazon and Google could prove good enough for most music consumers and that the companies don't feel compelled to upgrade," the report said.
Sources at the major labels reportedly do not know when Apple plans to launch its rumored iCloud service. But they now hope that Apple chooses to unveil the product at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference, which begins June 6.
Sources also suggested that Google could be in for a legal fight with the labels for its Music Beta service launched on Tuesday. The search giant reportedly transcodes some of the music that is uploaded to its servers, which could be defined as creating a new copy and would require Google to obtain a publishing license.
The ability to stream music to Internet-connected devices without the need for local storage is expected to be a major component of Apple's iCloud service. But in April, AppleInsider exclusively reported that the company is also expected to include information from its current MobileMe service, including bookmarks, e-mail and contacts.
Unlike Amazon and Google, Apple has allegedly inked a deal with Warner Music and at least one more major record label for its iCloud service. Those agreements could allow Apple to stream music without requiring users to upload their own files.
But Google's product, as well as the Amazon Cloud Drive service, sidestep the need for licensing issues by having users upload their music and stream their own locally saved content to Web browsers and Android handsets.
Apple is said to have completed work on its own music streaming service, and with licensing deals in place, the company could allegedly announce it very soon. The iPhone maker is also said to have purchased the iCloud.com domain, providing a potential name for the anticipated service.
There you go. This is what ghostery blocks on appleinsider
And you can see the red notification dot too.
Yep, JP that's what I want to show! Thanks
And...this little Ghostery bubble fades after a few seconds when you go to a new website...note the lines through the programs! This shows the Bubble on AI
Kinda all depends on what is deemed "appropriate".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but technically and legally, Google is on very shaky ground.
Maybe, maybe not. But the real question is whether the labels would risk losing a lawsuit? If they go after Google and Amazon, it opens the door for a lot of other services or even for Apple to back out of their deal. Kind of like Apple v Pystar. The implications of Apple losing the lawsuit would have been huge. And I think the labels case in this instance would be far less secure than Apple's against Pystar.
Unlike MS, Apple will not release anything until it "just works"; no matter how long it takes. There're no betas like Google
Well, MobileMe didn't actually have a flawless launch either, and .Mac was just horrible. Both paid services... Apparently Jobs went nuts about it (or so I've read somewhere), so at least it looks like it was just a screwup, instead of intentionally trying to recruit your users for beta testing your software
Well, MobileMe didn't actually have a flawless launch either, and .Mac was just horrible. Both paid services... Apparently Jobs went nuts about it (or so I've read somewhere), so at least it looks like it was just a screwup, instead of intentionally trying to recruit your users for beta testing your software
There I plenty of cicumstantial evidence that Apple has both learned its lesson and is taking online services very seriously. The data center and future rollout of MobileMe changes are two things to which I refer.
Google's service was a good first start. Since they couldn't get studio support, it's essentially just Dropbox for music.
Apple should really be able to do something far more potent, given their existing relations through iTunes. The bar is higher over here, for Apple.
Agreed. I do not see Apple announcing yet another online backup service that is no different than SugarSync or Dropbox and marketing it as a place for you to keep a backup of your music tracks -- that you have to upload yourself.
I see either:
1. A subscription-based music service that will allow you streaming access to the full iTunes catalog (if all the labels are on board at launch), allow you to make playlists, genius mixes, etc. -- but everything is streaming, i.e., you're not actually downloading AACs of anything; or
2. "Streaming" access to all of your paid downloads that will actually be over-the-air syncing to all of your devices that play music, but it's not actually streaming. If you download Radiohead's "Lotus Flower" on your computer iTunes account and add it to your Current Hits playlist, your iPhone and iPad will automatically download the track OTA and add it to the Current Hits playlist on those devices. If you move a song up to Track 1 on the Current Hits playlist on your iPad, your other devices will sync accordingly. It's basically the same approach as iBooks matching up your current page number of a book you are reading on multiple devices.
No. 1 is a brand new service that would require streaming licensing from the labels. No. 2 is basically an extension of current updating and syncing that would require a change to the current licensing agreement with labels to allow for multiple downloads of the same track without paying again.
I'm actually not sure which of these I would rather have.
Comments
I want Google and Microsoft out of my life completely.
My sentiments exactly AppleZilla. I just got rid of my last use for Windows and deleted my Parallels SW. It's a good day.
I only use Google for search. But seriously considering switching to Yahoo.
So, the music industry wants a cut even when you are streaming music that you've already paid for. If they had their way, they'd charge you a performance fee every time you overhear somebody's ringtone.
It's not greed, it's a job. It just is what it is. Ignoring it won't make it go away.
Even if Amazon and Google get away with their services, think how much they'll waste in resources to defend their risky moves. All for what? To hit market first? To make it before Apple? You've gotta be kidding me! It's like free beta testing for Apple to see what works and what doesn't, to hear complaints and comb reviews.
Apple comes out with a better product and the assurance that you, the consumer, are doing the right thing. Obviously there is no right or wrong here, but Joe Shmuck wants to feel safe when he makes his decision to go to the cloud, and Apple is going to offer that.
As was already pointed out, Apple doesn't need to be first to the market... they just need to be the best. Demand will follow.
Beta Forever
Free Forever
...Data Mining Forever!
Took me too long to fully realize Google's data mining practices and just haw brazen they are about it.. and how ubiquitous the practice is. Won't go back, ever. Sadly, most people have no clue what they are giving up when they buy into the brand. Or maybe they don't care. Not to say that others don't participate, but with Google, it's sort of their established MO that they aim to steal private info right out from under your nose.
That's quite clever actually.
I'm not so sure especially if the licensees were not obtained from the record company as this article states.
The same can be said for their advertising practices, programming language use and their TV initiative, to say the least.
Apple will surely be seen, at least by the labels, as the "Legal" alternative to Amazon's and Google's approximations of this type of service, cementing the advantages of being iTunes users.
Apple's had a history of fairness, among the corporate world and with consumers, even if that can't be said to be the case with developers, on both sides.
Trying to earn the trust of the labels and the studios hasn't been easy for any company, but Apple certainly has earned more respect than others.
They may not have the trust of the labels and studios according to comments on the DoJ's investigation into Apple's influence over the recording industry and it's use of iTunes.
http://www.mobiledia.com/news/71868.html
While not any proof they've actually done anything wrong, there is "word on the street" that the labels were pressured by Apple not to make a deal with Amazon, and perhaps Google as well.
I wish Apple would hurry up and announce/release this service. The suspense is killing me.
Unlike MS, Apple will not release anything until it "just works"; no matter how long it takes. There're no betas like Google, either.
I feel your pain tho; I'm waiting as well.
Apple should really be able to do something far more potent, given their existing relations through iTunes. The bar is higher over here, for Apple.
Can't get more concise than that...unless you add "data mining" to the definition of "to Google!" Just like most things nothing is really ever free.
PS. You guys should check out the free App "Ghostery." It blocks all this data mining crap including Google Analytics and Google Adsense! It was recommended by MacWorld last week! http://www.ghostery.com/
PPS. No Affiliation: Just like the App.
PPS. I sure wish I knew how to add a photo to this message. B/C I could show what it looks like in the menu bar and what the alert screen looks like. Oh well.
Best
There you go. This is what ghostery blocks on appleinsider
And you can see the red notification dot too.
They may not have the trust of the labels and studios according to comments on the DoJ's investigation into Apple's influence over the recording industry and it's use of iTunes.
http://www.mobiledia.com/news/71868.html
While not any proof they've actually done anything wrong, there is "word on the street" that the labels were pressured by Apple not to make a deal with Amazon, and perhaps Google as well.
I really doubt this is true. Apple really does not need that sort of protection, and cannot afford the reputation hit when (not if) it is caught at it. M$ and Intel have already shown the trouble that leads to.
They also cache the music locally on the device so you aren't left without music when the connection is down. This is also "creating a copy" by most definitions and the very thing that apps have been thrown out of the app store for doing.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but technically and legally, Google is on very shaky ground.
Apple should be able to work things out. Heck Microsoft has had a subscription music streaming service for quite awhile now.
Google and Amazon will give you storage space to upload your current collection and stream without any additional fees (outside of wanting more storage).
Two different strategies. We will see who wins. People seem to love the Zune $15/mo service (those who have it). Not sure the average person is willing to shell out another monthly fee (in big numbers) for music streaming though.
Though Amazon and Google beat Apple to the punch by launching their own cloud-based music streaming services, record labels are reportedly hopeful that Apple's rumored "iCloud," backed by licensing deals, will be the better product.
Cloud services from both Amazon and Google were launched without the appropriate licenses from music labels. Accordingly, the labels hope that Apple's product is vastly superior to the current options, Greg Sandoval of CNet reported Wednesday.
"The risk for the record labels is that the services from Amazon and Google could prove good enough for most music consumers and that the companies don't feel compelled to upgrade," the report said.
Sources at the major labels reportedly do not know when Apple plans to launch its rumored iCloud service. But they now hope that Apple chooses to unveil the product at its annual Worldwide Developers Conference, which begins June 6.
Sources also suggested that Google could be in for a legal fight with the labels for its Music Beta service launched on Tuesday. The search giant reportedly transcodes some of the music that is uploaded to its servers, which could be defined as creating a new copy and would require Google to obtain a publishing license.
The ability to stream music to Internet-connected devices without the need for local storage is expected to be a major component of Apple's iCloud service. But in April, AppleInsider exclusively reported that the company is also expected to include information from its current MobileMe service, including bookmarks, e-mail and contacts.
Unlike Amazon and Google, Apple has allegedly inked a deal with Warner Music and at least one more major record label for its iCloud service. Those agreements could allow Apple to stream music without requiring users to upload their own files.
But Google's product, as well as the Amazon Cloud Drive service, sidestep the need for licensing issues by having users upload their music and stream their own locally saved content to Web browsers and Android handsets.
Apple is said to have completed work on its own music streaming service, and with licensing deals in place, the company could allegedly announce it very soon. The iPhone maker is also said to have purchased the iCloud.com domain, providing a potential name for the anticipated service.
That's quite clever actually.
Except that it isn't... it's a glorified online storage drive. And it's been done before.
http://www.mediamaster.com/
http://www.mediamax.com/
http://www.mp3tunes.com/
etc...
Except that it isn't... it's a glorified online storage drive. And it's been done before.
http://www.mediamaster.com/
http://www.mediamax.com/
http://www.mp3tunes.com/
etc...
Don't forget iDisk
There you go. This is what ghostery blocks on appleinsider
And you can see the red notification dot too.
Yep, JP that's what I want to show! Thanks
And...this little Ghostery bubble fades after a few seconds when you go to a new website...note the lines through the programs!
Pretty cool!
launched without the appropriate licenses
Kinda all depends on what is deemed "appropriate".
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but technically and legally, Google is on very shaky ground.
Maybe, maybe not. But the real question is whether the labels would risk losing a lawsuit? If they go after Google and Amazon, it opens the door for a lot of other services or even for Apple to back out of their deal. Kind of like Apple v Pystar. The implications of Apple losing the lawsuit would have been huge. And I think the labels case in this instance would be far less secure than Apple's against Pystar.
Unlike MS, Apple will not release anything until it "just works"; no matter how long it takes. There're no betas like Google
Well, MobileMe didn't actually have a flawless launch either, and .Mac was just horrible. Both paid services... Apparently Jobs went nuts about it (or so I've read somewhere), so at least it looks like it was just a screwup, instead of intentionally trying to recruit your users for beta testing your software
Well, MobileMe didn't actually have a flawless launch either, and .Mac was just horrible. Both paid services... Apparently Jobs went nuts about it (or so I've read somewhere), so at least it looks like it was just a screwup, instead of intentionally trying to recruit your users for beta testing your software
There I plenty of cicumstantial evidence that Apple has both learned its lesson and is taking online services very seriously. The data center and future rollout of MobileMe changes are two things to which I refer.
Google's service was a good first start. Since they couldn't get studio support, it's essentially just Dropbox for music.
Apple should really be able to do something far more potent, given their existing relations through iTunes. The bar is higher over here, for Apple.
Agreed. I do not see Apple announcing yet another online backup service that is no different than SugarSync or Dropbox and marketing it as a place for you to keep a backup of your music tracks -- that you have to upload yourself.
I see either:
1. A subscription-based music service that will allow you streaming access to the full iTunes catalog (if all the labels are on board at launch), allow you to make playlists, genius mixes, etc. -- but everything is streaming, i.e., you're not actually downloading AACs of anything; or
2. "Streaming" access to all of your paid downloads that will actually be over-the-air syncing to all of your devices that play music, but it's not actually streaming. If you download Radiohead's "Lotus Flower" on your computer iTunes account and add it to your Current Hits playlist, your iPhone and iPad will automatically download the track OTA and add it to the Current Hits playlist on those devices. If you move a song up to Track 1 on the Current Hits playlist on your iPad, your other devices will sync accordingly. It's basically the same approach as iBooks matching up your current page number of a book you are reading on multiple devices.
No. 1 is a brand new service that would require streaming licensing from the labels. No. 2 is basically an extension of current updating and syncing that would require a change to the current licensing agreement with labels to allow for multiple downloads of the same track without paying again.
I'm actually not sure which of these I would rather have.