×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple To Beat Google On Cloud Music

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the hey-guys-what-else-can-we-stream dept.

Businesses 160

yogidog98 writes with this excerpt from a Reuters report: "Apple Inc has completed work on an online music storage service and is set to launch it ahead of Google Inc, whose own music efforts have stalled, according to several people familiar with both companies' plans. Apple's plans will allow iTunes customers to store their songs on a remote server, and then access them from wherever they have an Internet connection, said two of these people who asked not to be named as the talks are still confidential."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

160 comments

Amazon beat them both (4, Insightful)

Enry (630) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906748)

I'm slightly interested to see what Apple does, but it's likely they'll integrate only with iOS devices and iTunes. Amazon's works with web browsers and Android devices (and I hope they release an API soon). Google will likely be the most open in terms of mobile support and maybe more likely to have an API to integrate their cloud with third party apps.

Re:Amazon beat them both (4, Insightful)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906800)

I'm slightly interested to see what Apple does, but it's likely they'll integrate only with iOS devices and iTunes.

I don't know what they'll do, but you can be sure they'll use the term "revolutionary new service."

Re:Amazon beat them both (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35906976)

revolutionary and magical new service.

there, fixed that for you. and people will believe it.

Re:Amazon beat them both (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907012)

which will change everything all over again again!!11!!

Re:Amazon beat them both (2)

cozzbp (1845636) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907380)

revolutionary and magical new service.

there, fixed that for you. and people will believe it.

Like all of apple's magical products, it will be made with pixie dust, unicorn blood, and leprachaun bones.

Re:Amazon beat them both (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907014)

And rest assured that we will be seeing daily updates on Slashdot about the sales of Apple's service and how this means all other competitors should just close up shop and give up. Also Linux sucks.

Re:Amazon beat them both (4, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907032)

Be honest: do you really expect any company to announce a new product or service, and say something like, "It's kind of boring, really, and you'll probably hate it, but we hope to sucker a few people into spending their hard-earned coin on it. Thanks for coming by today."

If you make a new product that you want to sell to the world, then yeah, it's sort of Marketing-101 that you behave as if you're excited about it. If your competitor makes a new product that you wish you had made, then yeah, it's sort of Marketing-101 that you behave as if it's no big deal and it'll never succeed in the market - all while furiously trying to finish your own offering that does the same thing.

I've never understood why Apple's use of basic marketing strategy seems so *outrageously* offensive to some people - every company does it. So is it just that Apple tends to back up their marketing with fairly solid products, rather than saying "It's amazing!" while they wink and hand you a fresh turd and a DIY polish kit?

Re:Amazon beat them both (3, Insightful)

degeneratemonkey (1405019) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907160)

It's not the marketing hype that garners resentment. It's the fact that, for some incredible reason, many Apple fans actually believe that hype.

I have a manager in my company who is completely enamored of Apple. He tweeted about walking past an Apple talk at GDC. He buys every iteration of every Apple device. He actually believes that Apple is fundamentally changing the world with their devices. He's an idiot, and he's not an outlier.

Re:Amazon beat them both (5, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907356)

I guess what I don't get is, why does somebody else's appreciation for something bother you so much in the first place?

I'm not a particularly big fan of wine, but I don't get worked up into a lather when wine tasters talk about the sweet tannins and smoky aftertaste of the oak, chocolate and honey notes - I just shrug, and say "I'll have a Guinness, please." I'm not a particularly big fan of Scandinavian death metal, but I don't get overly worked up when people talk about some sort of operatic death metal album as "the best album, hands-down, ever made," I just shrug and say "Oh, so they found a way to improve on At Folsom Prison?"

There's this odd foreshortening of perspective in some geeks where they seem to get terribly emotionally involved in whether or not somebody else likes something that they don't. See: vi/emacs; Linux/Windows/MacOS; BSD/GPL; Apple/Google; etc. etc. It's not even that somebody is *criticizing the things they love.* It's that *somebody else likes something different,* which seems to just rock their whole universe off its foundations.

It seems that only the most literal-minded of idiots would hear Apple describe the iPad as "magical," and think, "My god, they actually are trying to tell people they manufacture it out of unicorn farts." Marketing speak is marketing speak: nobody *really* believes that they're going to get the bikini model pictured next to the Toyota Camry. Nobody *really* believes that the iPad is, literally, a magical device, operating under its own set of physics unlike anything else in the world.

Re:Amazon beat them both (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907582)

POTY. Very well said.

Re:Amazon beat them both (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907620)

There's this odd foreshortening of perspective in some geeks where they seem to get terribly emotionally involved in whether or not somebody else likes something that they don't.

I think that's pretty much human nature. People are the same way about cars or whatnot, and music too, even if you yourself are above it. Being a geek is somewhat trendy these days, but how many people over the years got shit for being into computers?

Re:Amazon beat them both (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#35908344)

I think that's pretty much human nature. People are the same way about cars or whatnot, and music too, even if you yourself are above it.

I suppose they are, but there is actually a reason for it with technology: Network effects. People always talk about growing the pie and all that, but the simple fact is that if people are using Apple products instead of (rather than in addition to) Linux-based products then it very much impacts people other than the ones who buy the Apple kit, because of the network effects. People make content and drivers and so forth for the platforms that people use. So if geeks want content and drivers and so forth for the platforms they like, they have to get everyday people to use those platforms. And the effectiveness of Apple's reality distortion field is very much one of the impediments to that.

Re:Amazon beat them both (1)

Triv (181010) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907880)

There's this odd foreshortening of perspective in some geeks where they seem to get terribly emotionally involved in whether or not somebody else likes something that they don't.

(stereotypes ahead)

If you've spent years realizing, by outside standards, that you're not athletic, or socially adept, or popular, or catered to, you realize the thing you CAN be is right. Being right about things that are quantifiable is risky, but being right about things that are completely subjective delivers the superiority payload while carrying very little actual risk.

--Triv

Re:Amazon beat them both (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907970)

that's it, slashdot is dead. You're officially a normal person. What I want to know is where all the aspies went to?

Re:Amazon beat them both (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#35908328)

What if the person who is a wine snob is in a position to force toy to drink wine?

What happens when they try to you how you should enjoy your beer with the same qualities of wine?

What happens when they keep telling you you beer is what's wrong with the world, and you should drink wine?

And by using the term *magical* they are being insulting, and trying to divorce reality from the device.
Meaning they hide technical qualification under a special blanket so people won't think about it.

I don't care if someone likes something different, just don't lie about it and turn it into some kind of worship.

Re:Amazon beat them both (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907516)

No, Apple rubs it in slashdot's face that it's not the engineers and technical innovation that sells stuff. Like so many have pointed out Microsoft had windows tablets long before Apple did. Same with most everything Apple does, people point to some reason why the competitor is a technically superior product - and then Apple wins. Hell, sometimes it's just rebranding an age old idea that never caught on like Facetime.

The attitude remind me of certain IT systems that technically work fine - except nobody uses it. In every project manager's book that is a failure, the success is the project that has users and make people change how they work. I wouldn't go so far as "fundamentally change the world", but I know plenty people that have changed by using iDevices. Many people who'd never before have had a smart phone, for instance.

The only reason Apple got some loving here is because they used BSD as the basis of OS X - not that the kernel has any significant part in what makes Apple a success. FreeBSD and friends don't even register as desktop market share without everything Apple built on top, sure they're happy to not have to license a proprietary kernel but that's what they would have done. Also they don't need to be so intimidating as Microsoft because if you want their products you have to buy their hardware.

Re:Amazon beat them both (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907682)

No, Apple rubs it in slashdot's face that it's not the engineers and technical innovation that sells stuff.

Huh? Apple is a good example of how engineering and technical innovation do matter, when used to solve problems people care about. The egomania required to think apple is "rubbing it in slashdot's face" when they create things people outside slashdot's narrow set of super-nerds wants borders on mental illness.

Re:Amazon beat them both (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35908266)

"Like so many have pointed out Microsoft had windows tablets long before Apple did."

And they sucked. I had one. It was Windows with a pen that acted like a mouse. There was very little reimagination of the OS to be more pen based. There were a FEW apps, but even then it was horrible to work with. That said, the Newton was a functional computer far before Windows ever had a tablet. It was years ahead of any other technology in its class I had one 15 years ago. Palm had something, but it was a toy in comparison...I owned both because I didn't like to carry cargo pants to put my 'portable' newton away. Palm wasn't bad, but it was limited badly. Even the Palm was an upgrade in usability to anything Microsoft put out. The fact was, without a paradigm jump, the Windows tablet was nothing more than a touch screen Windows mockup. And it sucked.

And everytime someone points to a 'technically superior product', they forget to talk about how unusable it is, how little software, how amazingly bad it actually is. The original iPods everyone here hated? Were the easiest to use. They didn't feel like plastic pieces of crap. They were fast at getting the sounds in. The 'competitor' that was often thrown around took hours to get the songs in. 'But it could load without itunes' was what everyone said...I'm kinda glad there was a slick interface to manage the files (even if it might have been nice some other time to just drop and drag).

But the 'technically superior' products seem to look at the hardware without realizing that hardware means nothing without software.

"sure they're happy to not have to license a proprietary kernel but that's what they would have done"

The Kernel was actually written by one of the VP's at Apple. The kernel was his...he used BSD and dropped it into it as a replacement for the old kernel. He could have easily written an OS to go along with it, but it was free. And he gave away one of the most advanced free kernels around in doing so.

The fact about Apple is that if you don't like their products, you can just not use them. They are a small enough force in the industry that unless you have a personal preference, you can find other OS's that work for your software. Those of us that use Apples will tell you that its crude and unrefined and a pain to use...but thats why we use Apple. I use to program Windows -- and I still maintain a large Windows network...and yet my main machine is a Mac. It kills me to RDC into my servers to use them because I can't stand the OS. At the same time, I'm generally the guy that the nerds come to in this operation because I'm the most knowledgable. Maybe this is why I hate Windows so much. If I needed to stick with a CLI, I'd use UNIX. Hell, a lot of my work is done under terminal on the Mac. But not all...thus I couldn't switch to UNIX.

But no one is forcing you to do ANYTHING with Macs. Ya don't like it? Don't fucking log into an Apple posting to tell us how smug Mac users are. I don't got to LINUX posts and talk smack about it. I don't know other Mac users doing this either. You never find Mac users logging into Windows posts to do this either...generally, Windows bores the hell out of us and we don't care. And yet you find the time to do this...

What does that tell you about yourself?

Re:Amazon beat them both (1)

dadioflex (854298) | more than 2 years ago | (#35908352)

It's not the marketing hype that garners resentment. It's the fact that, for some incredible reason, many Apple fans actually believe that hype.

It's kinda how normal people feel about Fox news viewers.

Re:Amazon beat them both (2)

cpicon92 (1157705) | more than 2 years ago | (#35908076)

I think what bothers some people is the fact that Apple actually manages to convince a large portion of the population that its products actually are revolutionary...

Re:Amazon beat them both (2)

DaveSlash (1597297) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907098)

I haven't heard anyone point out that the Ubuntu One Music Store exists. https://one.ubuntu.com/music/ [ubuntu.com]

You are missing the point (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907236)

Ubuntu is not cool enough. Apple is uber-cool. If steve job farts, it is no ordinary fart - it is revolutionary, never-seen-heard-smelt-before world-changing fart which changes everything all over again!

Re:Amazon beat them both (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907302)

Do a lot of people really use Ubuntu One Music store to buy music?

Re:Amazon beat them both (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907360)

I'm slightly interested to see what Apple does, but it's likely they'll integrate only with iOS devices and iTunes.

I don't know what they'll do, but you can be sure they'll use the term "revolutionary new service."

Which they bought from lala.com. (Opens up breakfast-40 and pours out onto ground for defunct amazing music service)

Re:Amazon beat them both (1)

fortapocalypse (1231686) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907044)

I burned some supposedly high quality mp3s from Amazon and it still sounds like crap on my CD player.

If I pay for it, it better be as good as listening to a CD when I burn it to CD.

People wonder why p2p is such a problem. Hmm. Tough to figure out.

Master recording -> FLAC, please!

But, subscription music has and will be where it is at, not buying specific songs, which is sooo January 8, 2001.

How will this beat Google? (3, Insightful)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906762)

Assuming you MUST use an iOS device and MUST use iTunes as is Apple's norm. How is this going to beat more open platforms like Amazon or (I assume) Google. Especially as Android overtakes iOS in terms of users.

Re:How will this beat Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35906810)

How is this going to beat more open platforms like Amazon or (I assume) Google.

By not going offline for two days?

Re:How will this beat Google? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906918)

How is this going to beat more open platforms like Amazon or (I assume) Google.

By not going offline for two days?

Apple? The folks with company that runs Mobile Mea Culpa? Who's email and hosting servers can, incredibly, stay up for weeks at a time?

Sir (or madam or whomever) you have a fine sense of the absurd.

Re:How will this beat Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907036)

I hope you're trolling, because comparing Apple's servers to Amazon's is fucking retarded.

Re:How will this beat Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35906816)

They're not talking beating as in winning, they're talking beating as in getting to market with it first. (Of course, Amazon has more of a claim on that than Apple does)

Re:How will this beat Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907112)

Yeah, talk about a terrible headline. This is predicting an earlier launch, not predicting a victory as a service. TFA has (basically) the same headline, so I suppose... Go Slashdot! Regurgitate the article!

Re:How will this beat Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35906896)

It's going to beat them because there's so many iOS devices out there. Even if Android does overtake iOS, Apple has a lot of devices out there and you can't deny that. Not to mention that iOS users probably won't care if Google or Amazon products aren't available since Apple has their own solution.

Re:How will this beat Google? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#35908308)

My concern with Google is they have a pretty good record at fucking up things that aren't search and then dropping them. So if I were going for a cloud based music solution it would have to be Amazon or Apple. Imo, Google has the most to prove.

Re:How will this beat Google? (2, Interesting)

Americano (920576) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906948)

I don't know anything about the service that doesn't come from speculation I've read in news reports, so your guess is as good as mine. But, here's some points to consider:

1) It might be a compelling alternative if it's simpler to use, integrated out of the box with your iTunes account and Apple device(s) - iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, Apple TV, and Macs running iTunes - not just iPhones.

2) Android has a ways to go before it overtakes *iOS* in terms of users. We're talking about the entire platform, not just the smartphone segment.

3) Amazon's "open" platform might not be so "open" after the recording industry gets done with their legal challenges to the Cloud Drive service.

4) Google may be a big company, but they don't have the one really big stick - namely, the iTunes music store - that Apple does. Apple may actually be able to get the music industry to agree to non-extortionary terms that Google & Amazon simply don't have the leverage to negotiate.

Re:How will this beat Google? (2)

Voyager529 (1363959) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907528)

4) Google may be a big company, but they don't have the one really big stick - namely, the iTunes music store - that Apple does. Apple may actually be able to get the music industry to agree to non-extortionary terms that Google & Amazon simply don't have the leverage to negotiate.

You're right, but it would be funny as hell to hear the Google negotiations.

"We want to start a cloud music service so your customers have more ways to pay for your product"
"That'll be *puts pinky to mouth* Ten BEEEELION dollars."
"we were thinking more like...less than that, plus revenue sharing"
"Well I'm sorry then, but I'm late to a meeting with Steve Jobs for his iStream project negotiations"
"Alright then, we'll just have to save up our money then. I think we're going to have to downsize, starting with our DMCA takedown department...I'm sure those Rapidshare links will flush themselves in several months...and I dunno if we really have the bandwidth for those awfully popular VEVO videos on Youtube..."
"...let me go make a phone call."

Re:How will this beat Google? (0)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906970)

Because Apple will have invented it first, and any newcomers will simply be ripping off a revolutionary new technology.

Only one copy of each tune is needed (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907152)

"Invented?" Oh and I suppose they will now patent the idea of storing music on servers so you can use it from anywhere.

When I thought of this (obvious) idea 20 years ago or so, I realized that in theory, only one copy (ok with several backups)
of each tune or movie or whatever was required to exist.
If people were to be charged money for it, each tune would just need a list of owners allowed to access it and stream it.

Then I thought. That's a pretty silly idea. People should just play a flat fee if any for access to all the content. The proceeds
could be distributed according to some kind of measurement of how much each item gets streamed. These are all obvious
ideas from a few hours of thought about the problem long ago. It's the execution, not the idea, that counts, and Apple has
execution down.

Re:How will this beat Google? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907038)

iTunes is as far as I know available for 99% of the desktop market (that is, Windows and Mac) so essentially your argument boils down to the iOS device. I don't think they mind that at all, if you want the Apple service you must use Apple hardware.

Re:How will this beat Google? (2)

splerdu (187709) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907082)

> Apple Inc has completed work on an online music storage service and is set to launch it ahead of Google
If you read the summary, It'll be by releasing first.

Re:How will this beat Google? (1)

808Lupine (226972) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907300)

I think by "beat" they may mean Apple will be the first to market. It won't necessarily be more open, or a better service, but it will be first.

Re:How will this beat Google? (2)

Fahrvergnuugen (700293) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907964)

How is this going to beat more open platforms like Amazon or (I assume) Google

You do realize that there are 59% more iOS devices [wsj.com] than there are Android devices, don't you? And that this would likely also work with iTunes on the desktop which has a gigantic install base...

If it is real, how could it "lose"?

First to bat (-1, Troll)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906770)

Wow, never seen anything like this before! A service that will allow you to host all your music in the cloud!

Oh wait. [mspot.com]

Re:First to bat (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906788)

Once upon a time, this is also what MP3.com tried to do, but the music industry buried them.

mp3.com's problem was innovation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35906866)

It was too hard then, and even now, for the music industry to understand how much sense it made for them to catalog and pre-convert all of the audio so that all users had to do was prove they owned a CD by verifying it. It really was an efficient system, and it's too bad they were sued out of doing it.

Re:mp3.com's problem was innovation (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906930)

Yup. Music's big four are really adept at stunting their own growth. If they see a third party adding value--and thus profiting--their first instinct is to shut it down because nobody is allowed to profit other than them. My feeling is that if they'd let MP3.com do their thing, they might have seen a temporary drop in revenues, but nowhere near the ongoing dip in major label sales we've seen over the past few years. And there wouldn't be nearly the level of bad blood in the market.

Re:mp3.com's problem was innovation (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907080)

Seeing the story about Amazon's cloud music service a few weeks ago just reminded me of the existence of Spotify. I decided to try out the premium service and I love it. I don't see why I'd pay similar amounts to use an Amazon/Google/Apple based hosting service for the year, plus have to buy music on top of that. The Amazon service is good in that they don't count stuff you buy on Amazon towards your storage space, but I still think Spotify has them beat on variety. The only reason you might not want spotify is if 320kbps MP3 isn't good enough quality for you. You can synch as many playlists as you want to play offline, so it's pretty much the same as using iTunes and synching to an iPod for people who don't have a cheap or flat rate data connection, except you have a much larger catalogue of music to choose from.. and you can play local music files in Spotify too.

All this storing your own music/video in the cloud stuff will be pointless once good subscription services and connections are widely available. In some places you can already do HD streaming without any fuss.. we're almost there, and I'm looking forward to it :)

Re:First to bat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35906830)

and ... now with 10 gb free!

Re:First to bat (2)

Phleg (523632) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907100)

That's the exact same mentality people had when Apple released the the iPod and the iPad. It's a shame those ideas didn't take off, either.

Re:First to bat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907252)

To be fair, the first generation was, indeed, crap!

wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35906774)

according to several people familiar with both companies' plans

How do people manage to get access to both Google's and Apple's plans while not being able to keep their mouths shut?

Re:wtf (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907222)

I presume they work for a major label - that would be the only legit reason to know the plans of both companies with regard to this product. And I expect that being the case, they have a number of incentives to keep their mouth shut, not least the pack of vicious attack lawyers.

Amazon: Been There Done That (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35906814)

Meanwhile, Amazon beat both of them. But hey,whatever it takes to further the Google vs Apple meme. right?

Re:Amazon: Been There Done That (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906848)

Well, Microsoft launched their online drives that you were able to mount on any computer and synchronize among all your devices to keep local copies.

That was sometime ago that I tried, I think that what they now call skydrive (and you see product placement all over the tv series).

So the only difference is that this is Apple, and this is limited to music... for now.

Re:Amazon: Been There Done That (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907212)

No. An online file locker is a bit different than a sync service.

Either way, both are pretty ancient ideas that are hardly revolutionary being implemented by anyone during this century.

Thank goodness (-1, Troll)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906822)

they know where I am at all times and where I have been so that the RIAA's precious rights can be protected.

Re:Thank goodness (1)

Scareduck (177470) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906886)

Yup. "The cloud" is just another way to rip people off while making it more expensive to play music you ostensibly own (mobile devices increasingly come with per-megabyte limits). Why is this attractive to ANY customer? The last time I tried to buy MP3s at Amazon, I was assaulted with a hard sales pitch for their cloud services, now apparently the default for download if you don't look closely. No, never.

Re:Thank goodness (1)

SocialEngineer (673690) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906946)

I've actually found Amazon's cloud service incredibly useful. I listen to music on a myriad of devices; my Android phone, my laptop, my desktop, my work computer.. While I typically don't rely on the cloud service to stream music (unless I'm at a machine with limited storage), it's nice to be able to download my music to all my devices when I want rather than having to manually copy them or utilize my Dropbox account (which I tend to keep full of other stuff). Any time I purchase an album on Amazonmp3 (at least once or twice a month, if I can keep myself restrained), I have it loaded onto the cloud service. Then, when I'm ready to listen to it on a certain device, I just log into my account and download the album. I'm not going to bother uploading all my previously purchased tunes (seeing as how I've got them all loaded and backed up at appropriate locations), of course, but it is nice for situations when you think you've copied an album over to another machine and delete it off of another device (such as my phone), but then discover that you didn't.

Re:Thank goodness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907190)

> it's nice to be able to download my music to all my devices when I want rather than having to manually copy them

See, I don't get this. First, even manually copying them is trivial, is it not? Either drag and drop or if you're a command line kind of person, cp MyAlbum /mnt/wherever.

But why do it that way? I have an automated script using rsync that copies my collection to all my devices from my HTPC to desktop PC, netbook, and my phone. Any online music I buy just gets dumped into a directory from which it auto-propagates to all my devices. There's nothing to manually do *at all*.

And that way, I do not have to have an internet connection to listen. It's available anywhere and everywhere I want, under my own terms, not those imposed by some streaming service that could disappear at any time. And it's safe from the failure of any one device's disk drive or storage.

Re:Thank goodness (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907250)

Many devices have rather limited storage.

We have reached the point where a significant amount of supplemental storage in the cloud is cheap enough and big enough that you might want to use it in order to make up for the rather limited storage available on mobile devices (especially Apple mobile devices).

My music collection can't fit on my phone. Being able to stream it to my phone is useful when compared to trying to pick and choose what subset of my music collection will go on the device itself.

Re:Thank goodness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907688)

I guess it depends on your phone. Mine has an SD slot, and big-ish SD cards are cheap these days. But I don't have a TB of music or anything - maybe a few tens of GB, so it fits on a phone just fine.

There's one good thing this time round... (0, Troll)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906888)

...and that is that Apple fanbois will not have to queue up in the wee hours of the morning or night for this service.

This phenomenon has always intrigued me. How someone can line up in the cold, hungry and with limited bathroom facilities in order to be the 'first' to have a device, which by the way, becomes mainstream a few weeks after.

All the while, some clever gentle man is making millions as the fans 'suffer'.

This world is clearly interesting, isn't it?

Re:There's one good thing this time round... (3, Funny)

NekSnappa (803141) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907106)

Really. I mean it's not like opening day of a movie based on a comic book or anything.

Re:There's one good thing this time round... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907398)

Worst. Comparison. Ever!

Comic Books ^H^H Graphic Novels are important works of art and literature. The latest shiny fad from Apple is nothing but twaddle, which only fools and sheeple will waste their time on.

Re:There's one good thing this time round... (1)

intheshelter (906917) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907742)

Or people who care more about how well something works out of the box rather than being able to install Linux on a toaster. . .

Skynet (2)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906902)

will take Apple down next [slashdot.org].

Re:Skynet (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907140)

Wait. It all makes sense now. Skynet wasn't really a military computer network but was actually developed by the combined efforts of the RIAA and MPAA to take down Internet piracy (and anything that threatened their business model). Skynet was programmed with a rigid interpretation of copyright law, became self-aware and soon reasoned that humans would commit copyright violations every time they thought of or hummed a song. It reasoned that the only way to prevent all copyright violations from occurring would be to destroy humanity. It took over a military computer system and the rest is future-history. Insidious!

Not first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35906922)

And they wall-garden grew a few feet higher.

"wherever there's an internet connection" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35906972)

> store their songs on a remote server, and then access them from wherever they have an Internet connection

Meanwhile, I store my music locally on my own devices and have it accessible both where I have an internet connection *and wherever I don't*.

What is this strange obsession with more restrictive, controlled, and less flexible things that people seem to have?

When will Google start signing artists? (0)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906982)

The record publishers, the funding behind the RIAA, live off the work of both living and dead artists. But the publishers don't seem to publish their content directly for online distribution. It somehow seems natural that Google could begin taking the place of the recording industry. So I wonder not "if" that will happen, but "when" that will happen.

Wake me up... (2)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 2 years ago | (#35906988)

....when Apple starts a subscription service. I don't need cloud access nor do I want to take the time to upload my collection to the net. I really don't think they'd want me uploading 200gb of hand ripped audio files, anyway. Until then, I'll just stick with listening to my own music on my mp3 player and streaming everything else via PC/cellphone with my $10/m Rhapsody account.

Re:Wake me up... (3, Funny)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907136)

....when Apple starts a subscription service.

Wow! I thought you guys were a myth or some sort of statistically anomaly. I really didn't think the "Consumer That Wants To Rent Music via Monthly Subscriptions" actually existed.

So, do you know more of your kind? Where do you live? Do you breed? Is it true that you were created in a lab from record executives scrapings and dead lawyer parts?

Re:Wake me up... (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907598)

Lemme try to break it down:

Renting music is exactly like renting movies. There are certain movies I'll buy shortly after DVD release. There are other movies I'll buy at the bargain bin. Still others I'll get from Netflix. Some I'll watch when they're on broadcast TV and nothing better is on. They all compliment each other.

I'm a Napster subscriber, and have been since 2005. For $15 a month, I can stream whatever I want, and download protected WMA files. DRM, yes...but I clearly don't own them. I do this in order to determine whether a song or album is worth purchasing before I actually go out and buy it. Some songs I don't like enough to justify the purchase, so they eventually get deleted. Sometimes I'll put on a random playlist.

The anti-music rental camp seems to believe that renting music is at the complete exclusion of music purchases. I've got a sickening stack of receipts from iTunes, Napster, Amazon, and even buy about half a dozen CDs per year, on top of renting the music. Yes, rental-only is bad. Rental+purchase is not.

Re:Wake me up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907690)

I am a myth. I enjoy all the music I want for $15/month. I can take some with me when I'm not connected to the Internets. I don't regret listening to the occasional crap because I didn't have to pay to own it. I don't have to worry about losing my electronic media because I don't have to pretend that I actually own it. I'm not forever tied to one company so I can maintain "ownership." Being a myth is bliss.

Re:Wake me up... (1)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907714)

For $10/m, I get to listen to everything that comes out (within reason) as much as I want. I probably listen to 15-20 new releases a month, plus I get to dig through all sorts of old stuff I've never heard of.

I have a rather enormous music collection at home and it would be impossible, financially and storage wise, for me to buy everything I'm interested in. When I find rarities that I really like, I buy them. If I see something new that I really like, I try to buy it directly from the artist when possible. And, when I do want to listen to an album, it's not always readily accessable due to the size of my collection. $10/m for a subscription service is a really nice compromise.

Do I want to only rent music? No. Do I want to only rent some music? Yes.

Re:Wake me up... (1)

JohnnyConatus (904626) | more than 2 years ago | (#35908172)

Despite owning an ipod, three generations of iphones, an iPad, and an Apple TV - I received most of this stuff as perks - I recently joined the "renting" music demographic so that I could stream music to my living room using the Napster app on my Logitech Revue.

After a few months I have zero regrets because for ~$10/month I have access to millions of songs on-demand. For a dedicated music fan, just the ability to fully preview albums is worth the $120/year in the number of bad purchases it has saved me.

On the mobile front, though, I have to note that the Napster audio quality is crap. Once there's a Rhapsody app for Google TV I'll likely switch.

Sorry, amazon already beat them both. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907058)

Since when does slashdot care who comes to market second? When its apple.

Still Vaporware... (3, Insightful)

Z_A_Commando (991404) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907060)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to "beat" Google, doesn't Apple actually have to have a service that's available to the public? Until then, this supposed cloud-based iWhatever is vaporware, just like Google's supposed service.

Bad idea (1)

Nihn (1863500) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907070)

Am I the only one with half a brain on this planet? This fad of "cloud" saving has got to be the dumbest thing to emerge from the idiots who convinced people that their personal information would always be safe and then either lost it all or it was compromised by hackers. How about just keeping your damn files, information, or anything else of value OFF THE INTERNET!!!!!!! You want safety? You want to ensure your info? It's called an external drive or usb flash drive. It keeps ALL you put on it and it's within your own environment meaning you can always access it, modify it, or erase it at your own leisure. Letting someone you never met or know personally having access to your info or data is just......stupid. I never entered anything personal on the net because I'm not an idiot, companies feed off of idiots, who else buys into this failed idea.

Re:Bad idea (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907286)

I use Mspot, myself, and I don't use it to "store" my music. I use it to keep my music accessible so I can access my collection from just about anywhere, without having to sync everything when I get a new song. (Also so I can use voice to pick a song on my phone.)

Really, I could give less of a crap if somebody gets into my music- they might be able to delete it from Mspot, but the local copy on my computer that it syncs from stays intact.

Re:Bad idea (1)

geek (5680) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907312)

Yes, you are the only person on the planet with only "half a brain." You're special.

Licensing Status (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907076)

I wondered if Apple had a leg up with the labels due to their senior status in the market, but TFA says, "Apple has yet to sign any new licenses for the service and major music labels are hoping to secure deals before the service is launched, three of the sources said."

So, Amazon, Google, and Apple are on roughly equal footing as of now. Well, perhaps Amazon has a bit more negotiating power.

Re:Licensing Status (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 2 years ago | (#35908128)

It will be interesting to see how this evolves, now we've got the three headed hydra of music streaming. I would like to see the Big GAA (google, apple, amazon) get so intertwined with the RIAA that the RIAA can't exist without them, then merely change the ball game in a way that the RIAA can't possibly prevent, or even just kill the RIAA off entirely. This may be the only real way to destroy that copyright monster, by eating it away from the inside.

Storage size... (1)

Conrthomas (1993390) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907092)

I highly doubt that they'll allow me to store my 70GB of music on one of their servers....

Re:Storage size... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907276)

....well, they will. It will just cost you a pretty penny.

That's one big problem wit this whole "cloud" thing. It quickly becomes too expensive to be useful.

It might work with small quantities but there's a small overlap between "too big for the device" and "small enough to be cheap enough to put in the cloud".

Re:Storage size... (1)

mekkab (133181) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907348)

then the service is useless. Because cloud back-up only becomes useful when I can save my whole iPod (80gb+). Anything less is a kids toy.

Oh neat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907094)

We're posting rumors as facts in headlines on Slashdot now.

Should be easy for itunes (2)

highlander76 (901551) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907178)

All those songs in itunes are already stored somewhere. And Apple already has a list of songs that a user has purchased. So wouldn't Apple's "music storage cloud" basically be adding a streaming service? No real extra cloud storage required?

I'm sure the RIAA has some cockamamey restriction against a simple implementation though.

7digital (1)

twokay (979515) | more than 2 years ago | (#35907234)

I like 7digital.com a lot. They have a pretty damn good library (in the UK at least) and have had a "Digital Locker" since sometime near the end of 2010 i think. You can stream your purchases online through a decent HTML5 player, and download as many times as you like.

Also some selected albums (eg. lastest Radiohead) have FLAC downloads for a couple of quid extra. Better than those £12.99 WAV/FLAC download prices you see everywhere else. Hopefully they start encoding more FLAC.

ED (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907428)

Its wreally good post i like it http://33drugs.net/

Subsonic.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907454)

Isn't this what me and about a dozen of my friends have been using Subsonic for (and my 1.5TB music collection for?) It has ipod/iphone and android clients, all work great?

and Nokia beat 'em both (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35907866)

It was called "Comes With Music". What's the point of the article?

Apple shooting themselves in the foot? (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#35908170)

Just wondering, since Apple makes a VERY hefty profit on marking up those models that have more memory capacity than the "basic" model of iPod/iTouch/iPad, I wonder how much they stand to lose when consumers no longer have a need to have a 32GB iAnything because it's all stored in the cloud.

Dont think so. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35908186)

Before everything, there was hotmail, yahoo mail, and they belonged to yahoo and microsoft. then came gmail. look what happened.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...