• Your favorite

    Apple

    ,

    iPhone

    ,

    iPad

    ,

    iOS

    ,
    Jailbreak
    , and
    Cydia
    site.
  • More Details Emerge about Apple’s iCloud


    It’s no secret that Apple will be unveiling the long awaited iCloud service next week, and now a few more details are beginning to emerge. Steve Jobs is set to take the stage at Moscone Center next week for Apple’s World Wide Developers Conference and it’s already been made clear that iOS 5, Mac OS X Lion and iCloud will be the main focus of the event.

    Apple has delayed iCloud in order to obtain licensing agreements from all of the major record labels before launching the service. Now that Apple has everything in place, they are free to launch iCloud at the WWDC next week.

    According to The Wall Street Journal, “The agreements will let Apple offer an easy way for consumers to create and listen online to their entire music collections, without the time-consuming work of manually transferring or uploading songs.”

    This feature alone will make Apple’s iCloud service a very attractive option to what’s currently available from competing companies. So far, it looks as though iCloud will allow users to stream music from the cloud to any mobile or desktop device. It will also come with a monthly service charge.

    One question remains, however, will this ‘scan and match’ system of scanning a users hard drive, apply only to songs purchased though the iTunes Store, or include every song on the users hard drive? If every song is available, then this will be a key selling point for iCloud.

    “Many in the music industry see such offerings as a key next step in the evolution of digital media, in which music, and eventually video, is convenient and ubiquitous.” There is some indication that Apple will allow video streaming with iCloud at some point as well.

    Current digital music locker services, such as Amazon Cloud Player and Google Music, require users to first upload their music libraries to the site before being able to listen to any songs in the cloud. This can be a time intensive task, especially for people with large music libraries. Also, many internet service providers have usage limits in place and going over monthly allotments can result in serious consequences for the subscriber.

    By this time next week, we’ll know all there is to know about Apple’s iCloud digital music locker service. Hopefully, Apple will hit another home run with this one.

    Source: The Wall Street Journal
    This article was originally published in forum thread: More Details Emerge about Apple’s iCloud started by Wiley John Wright View original post
    Comments 25 Comments
    1. ShredNasty's Avatar
      ShredNasty -
      Wow. IMO an epic fail. First off, where are you going where you'll have a device and webz, but no hard drive? I'm sorry, but I can't understand why everyone is excited or what the point of this is. If you have a laptop, take it with you when you travel. If you own an iPhone, put your music on it. If you own neither, what are you going to play it on? It's redundant. Add a monthly fee to it and web dependency?

      Edit; Monthly subscription AND international data fees......to stream music you could have put on your iPhone? Yep. It's a FAIL.
    1. spazturtle's Avatar
      spazturtle -
      "Hopefully, Apple will hit another home run with this one."
      Just like mobile me was when it first launched.
    1. Wesss's Avatar
      Wesss -
      This feature doesn't appeal to me, WAH WAH WAH. Also this is not 4chan.
    1. texan's Avatar
      texan -
      Ubuntu One.......
    1. baRRy boRRis's Avatar
      baRRy boRRis -
      I don't understand why there is so much hype about paying to only listen to music when when you'e connected to reasonably snappy internet.

      If you're going somewhere without your computer, it's odds on that your iPod is in your pocket.
    1. stickyd8's Avatar
      stickyd8 -
      Quote Originally Posted by ShredNasty View Post
      Wow. IMO an epic fail. First off, where are you going where you'll have a device and webz, but no hard drive? I'm sorry, but I can't understand why everyone is excited or what the point of this is. If you have a laptop, take it with you when you travel. If you own an iPhone, put your music on it. If you own neither, what are you going to play it on? It's redundant. Add a monthly fee to it and web dependency?

      Edit; Monthly subscription AND international data fees......to stream music you could have put on your iPhone? Yep. It's a FAIL.
      Clearly, you are pretty clueless and don't own much digital media. For someone that travels a lot, this is a godsend. I have over 700Gb of movies, TV Shows, and music on my home computer. Sure, I can load up my iPad and/or iPhone with several movies and a bunch of music, but iCloud will allow me to access ANY of my media without having to pick and choose what I want to listen to or watch before I go out of town. It's more of a convenience factor. People's moods change. What if I'm in the mood for an action flick, but I only loaded my devices with comedies. It allows for major flexibility. Also, with the media scan, Apple automatically upgrades your media to a higher quality if yours is sub-par. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that iCloud will be a monthly subscription service. I have a feeling that it will be $99/year (like MobileMe is now), and include all of their current MobileMe services along with all of the other cloud options. We won't know for sure until Monday, so before you jump the gun and start saying how this is a complete failure, let's wait to see what is actually offered. It's definitely already better than Google and Amazon's offerings.
    1. feidhlim1986's Avatar
      feidhlim1986 -
      Why do I have to click further into a story to see the comments. Why does only 1 only ever show on the story page.?
      You click on a story Headline to get to the story page but all you see then is


      You have to then click "view original post" to see more than more comment.
      Why is MMi so broken and awful looking?
    1. andypropaganda's Avatar
      andypropaganda -
      You sir, are a moron. Yes, another monthly fee does not sound good, but this service, just like all the other cloud services, makes a lot of sense. I have a 16gb iPhone. I have a 30gb music library. Do the math. Also, I'd rather not drag my laptop to work with me so that I can listen to my music library. Lately I've been using Grooveshark, but I'd rather have 1 unified library. This makes a lot of sense. Think of all the scenarios before you post mindless banter.
    1. Loxs's Avatar
      Loxs -
      @andypropaganda and @stickyd8, is all of your content purchased through itunes? have music that dates back to things called CD's and movies I have ripped to my pc from DVD's. Do you think apple are going to allow me or you to stream non itunes media? I have about 20 albums from itunes no way would I pay $99 a year to have access to that everywhere. I don't see the point. What if you wanted to get a cheaper movie download from amazon and use with icloud probably won't happen.

      Its just forcing everyone to iTunes for their digital media.

      LONG LIVE LOCAL STORAGE.
    1. stevelucky's Avatar
      stevelucky -
      Quote Originally Posted by Loxs View Post
      @andypropaganda and @stickyd8, is all of your content purchased through itunes? have music that dates back to things called CD's and movies I have ripped to my pc from DVD's. Do you think apple are going to allow me or you to stream non itunes media? I have about 20 albums from itunes no way would I pay $99 a year to have access to that everywhere. I don't see the point. What if you wanted to get a cheaper movie download from amazon and use with icloud probably won't happen.

      Its just forcing everyone to iTunes for their digital media.

      LONG LIVE LOCAL STORAGE.
      You're making some big assumptions here. Who said that it would only be available for media purchased from iTunes? Why don't we all calm down with the "Epic Failure/Epic Win" talk until we find out what this thing actually is?
    1. Loxs's Avatar
      Loxs -
      Quote Originally Posted by stevelucky View Post
      You're making some big assumptions here. Who said that it would only be available for media purchased from iTunes? Why don't we all calm down with the "Epic Failure/Epic Win" talk until we find out what this thing actually is?
      You think its a big assumption? How else would apple get record companies to agree to it.

      Apple: Oh hi sony! were gonna give people access to your music library regardless of weather or not they have purchased the song from us.

      Sony: Sure **** it, we don't like making money anyways.

      Apple: Us Neither!
    1. feidhlim1986's Avatar
      feidhlim1986 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Loxs View Post
      You think its a big assumption? How else would apple get record companies to agree to it.

      Apple: Oh hi sony! were gonna give people access to your music library regardless of weather or not they have purchased the song from us.

      Sony: Sure **** it, we don't like making money anyways.

      Apple: Us Neither!
      Google Music allows you to upload ANY drm-free music. Google has zero agreement with any Music Company.

      But then again, Apple isn't Google and will probably only allow iTunes purchased media because Apple doesn't allow anything that isn't theirs on anything. It's a safe assumption to make
    1. metaljay's Avatar
      metaljay -
      Quote Originally Posted by ShredNasty View Post
      Wow. IMO an epic fail. First off, where are you going where you'll have a device and webz, but no hard drive? I'm sorry, but I can't understand why everyone is excited or what the point of this is. If you have a laptop, take it with you when you travel. If you own an iPhone, put your music on it. If you own neither, what are you going to play it on? It's redundant. Add a monthly fee to it and web dependency?

      Edit; Monthly subscription AND international data fees......to stream music you could have put on your iPhone? Yep. It's a FAIL.
      didnt think of it like that, i agree with everything you said though
    1. dhamien's Avatar
      dhamien -
      Quote Originally Posted by ShredNasty View Post
      Wow. IMO an epic fail. First off, where are you going where you'll have a device and webz, but no hard drive? I'm sorry, but I can't understand why everyone is excited or what the point of this is. If you have a laptop, take it with you when you travel. If you own an iPhone, put your music on it. If you own neither, what are you going to play it on? It's redundant. Add a monthly fee to it and web dependency?

      Edit; Monthly subscription AND international data fees......to stream music you could have put on your iPhone? Yep. It's a FAIL.
      I have well over 32gigs of music. What do you propose I do? You surely must be able to see the advantages of cloud computing. This is the first step. In the future, everything will be there.
    1. Loxs's Avatar
      Loxs -
      Quote Originally Posted by feidhlim1986 View Post
      Google Music allows you to upload ANY drm-free music. Google has zero agreement with any Music Company.

      But then again, Apple isn't Google and will probably only allow iTunes purchased media because Apple doesn't allow anything that isn't theirs on anything. It's a safe assumption to make
      I just don't see record companies sticking with apple if they are allowing the uploading and streaming of pirated material. Also these record companies would get nothing from it. I think it will just make your purchased itunes library available anywhere just seems like the obvious thing to me. This would still be very welcome considering you can only download a song from itunes once!
    1. feidhlim1986's Avatar
      feidhlim1986 -
      Quote Originally Posted by dhamien View Post
      I have well over 32gigs of music. What do you propose I do? You surely must be able to see the advantages of cloud computing. This is the first step. In the future, everything will be there.
      Get an iPod Classic I kid
      Cloud is just the industry buzz-word to replace the word internet.
      Gmail, Google Docs, iWork.com, every single website and internet service ever, are examples of "Cloud" Computing. I hate the term because it makes people think it's a brand new fangled idea, when it's not. It's just now home and mobile consumer broadband is finally becoming fast enough for "Cloud" services to enter the mainstream.
    1. Loxs's Avatar
      Loxs -
      Quote Originally Posted by dhamien View Post
      I have well over 32gigs of music. What do you propose I do? You surely must be able to see the advantages of cloud computing. This is the first step. In the future, everything will be there.
      I like privacy, sure they have security in place (see sony psn) but the idea of my data being stuck out there in the cloud where potentially ANYONE could get access to it is a little bit unsettling.
    1. billchase2's Avatar
      billchase2 -
      Quote Originally Posted by ShredNasty View Post
      Wow. IMO an epic fail. First off, where are you going where you'll have a device and webz, but no hard drive? I'm sorry, but I can't understand why everyone is excited or what the point of this is. If you have a laptop, take it with you when you travel. If you own an iPhone, put your music on it. If you own neither, what are you going to play it on? It's redundant. Add a monthly fee to it and web dependency?

      Edit; Monthly subscription AND international data fees......to stream music you could have put on your iPhone? Yep. It's a FAIL.
      I completely disagree with you. Nowadays, most areas have some sort of data access, whether it be EDGE, 3G, LTE, Wi-Fi, etc. This also makes having tons of local storage unnecessary. Sure, I like to have some songs stored locally if I'm flying somewhere or am stuck in a basement for a while, but I don't need my entire collection.

      Myself, along with many others, will find this service incredibly useful and will be happy to pay a fee for it. While it may not be perfect for you, that hardly makes it a "FAIL".
    1. feidhlim1986's Avatar
      feidhlim1986 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Loxs View Post
      I just don't see record companies sticking with apple if they are allowing the uploading and streaming of pirated material. Also these record companies would get nothing from it. I think it will just make your purchased itunes library available anywhere just seems like the obvious thing to me. This would still be very welcome considering you can only download a song from itunes once!
      Record companies get nothing from Apple allowing you to put pirated music on your iPhone so a cloud service would be no different, whether the songs are on your iPhone's local storage or being streamed to the iPhone makes no difference. Google Music does not allow you to download music you have uploaded, thus preventing you from giving your login to a friend and "sharing" songs.

      But I agree that this being Apple, they'll restrict any service to iTunes Purchased Songs only.
    1. bigorangekitty's Avatar
      bigorangekitty -
      Quote Originally Posted by stickyd8 View Post
      Clearly, you are pretty clueless and don't own much digital media. For someone that travels a lot, this is a godsend. I have over 700Gb of movies, TV Shows, and music on my home computer. Sure, I can load up my iPad and/or iPhone with several movies and a bunch of music, but iCloud will allow me to access ANY of my media without having to pick and choose what I want to listen to or watch before I go out of town. It's more of a convenience factor. People's moods change. What if I'm in the mood for an action flick, but I only loaded my devices with comedies. It allows for major flexibility. Also, with the media scan, Apple automatically upgrades your media to a higher quality if yours is sub-par. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that iCloud will be a monthly subscription service. I have a feeling that it will be $99/year (like MobileMe is now), and include all of their current MobileMe services along with all of the other cloud options. We won't know for sure until Monday, so before you jump the gun and start saying how this is a complete failure, let's wait to see what is actually offered. It's definitely already better than Google and Amazon's offerings.
      I have to kind of agree with shrednasty, and here's why. A lot of people like myself, who I travel, already have access to all their files etc...through media servers and the like. I understand the "cloud", and think it could be nifty if done correctly. I just want full control at all time of my files. So that leaves the average person and what they think.

      The average person wants to know: What tangible item do they get from the "cloud"? with a cd, you have a cd. with an mp3, you have an mp3 file on your hard drive. With a movie, you have a DVD, or a video file. The average person who wants to OWN something wants something tangible to OWN. Otherwise, it feels like renting, like netflix.

      this will come down to how Apple implements it (restrictions? cost?), and marketing.

      my .02 cents