Citing insiders in the music industry, CNet reported Tuesday that Apple is expected to charge — if not at first, then eventually — for its music cloud service. The long-rumored iTunes cloud will allow users to stream their music and media to Internet-connected devices, negating the need for content to be stored locally on a connected device like an iPhone or iPad.
Exactly how much Apple might charge for the service remains unknown. In fact, Apple has apparently told music executives that it has "completed" work on its streaming music service, but has not given specifics on how the product will work.
Instead, Apple has only reportedly offered up a description of the service in "broad strokes" to music executives. Sources have indicated that Apple will allow users to store songs they have purchased from the company's iTunes Music Store and other locally stored content and listen to them on multiple devices.
Apple is said to have already inked a deal with Warner Music for the iTunes cloud. Another report from last week claims that Apple has reached agreements with two of the four major music labels, though it is not known if Warner is one of the two, or if it is a third that has agreed.
Apple's rival Amazon launched its own digital music locker last month, allowing users to upload their own music files to Amazon's servers. The online retailer offers 5GB of free online storage, and premium accounts that are expandable up to 1,000GB for a fee, while customers who purchase an MP3 album are entitled to 20GB of storage for one year.
But Amazon has also faced backlash from the music industry, as it did not secure any licensing agreements from record labels before launching its service. In addition, Google's own plans for a cloud-based music streaming service are said to be at a standstill in negotiations with the labels.
41 Comments
If you can store your data on your home machine and use that as the server to the cloud, then that's a far better solution than requiring you to store your data on your host's servers (the way Google and RIM do). I think it's perfectly fair for Apple to provide the former for free, and the latter for a charge. I think that's really what's going to happen here, and the "music industry insiders" aren't recognizing it for what it really is.
Apple currently has "home sharing" between devices that use the same Apple ID on a local network. All they need is to change that LAN sharing to WAN sharing, and keep the Apple ID requirement. Home Sharing becomes Remote Sharing.
If Apple's Cloud is essentially selling storage for content the user already owns, why does Apple have to get permission from anyone?
If you can store your data on your home machine and use that as the server to the cloud, then that's a far better solution than requiring you to store your data on your host's servers (the way Google and RIM do). I think it's perfectly fair for Apple to provide the former for free, and the latter for a charge. I think that's really what's going to happen here, and the "music industry insiders" aren't recognizing it for what it really is.
Apple currently has "home sharing" between devices that use the same Apple ID on a local network. All they need is to change that LAN sharing to WAN sharing, and keep the Apple ID requirement. Home Sharing becomes Remote Sharing.
Came here to say exactly this. I really look forward to my Mac becoming my server while my iPad and iPhone are the clients. Should be a lot of fun and really useful!
If Apple's Cloud is essentially selling storage for content the user already owns, why does Apple have to get permission from anyone?
Because the record companies don't understand the internet or computers and would freak out through their current iTunes contracts if they feel taken advantage of, regardless of whether or not they are actually being taken advantage of.
If Apple's Cloud is essentially selling storage for content the user already owns, why does Apple have to get permission from anyone?
Because of how convoluted licensing is. It's the reason why Amazon was forced to give everyone a "Cloud Drive" for their music, creating tens of thousands of copies of a song instead of a single copy that people who purchased it could access. (And why Amazon couldn't put your previously purchased music on the cloud drive automatically)
If Apple did really work out a deal with the content providers, they'll most likely do the single copy/license model, which will save them a ton in storage, but it means they have to pay companies for Streaming rights in addition to Download rights... Oh, and if you want it as a ringtone? You have to pay another license for that. It's insane.
I think that artists should get paid when you purchase a song. but I don't think that we should have to pay each time we want to use said song a little differently (Ringtone, On Device, Streaming, etc).