Advertisement: Protect your iPad with the invisibleSHIELD.
“After Apple acquired Lala.com last December, the thinking among some music insiders was that Lala’s streaming-music technology could easily be plugged into iTunes–once Apple obtained the proper music licenses,” Sandoval reports. “Lala.com, a music service launched in 2006 and shut down by Apple last May, possessed technology that scanned hard drives for existing music libraries and then enabled users to play back the same songs from Lala’s servers via Web-connected devices.”
“But eight months after the acquisition, Apple is telling executives at the four top labels that if Apple offers any cloud-music features within the next few months, they will likely be ‘modest in scope’ and not include the kind of functionality that Apple outlined in meetings with the labels, such as storing users’ music on its servers, sources told CNET,” Sandoval reports. “They added that Apple still hasn’t negotiated the kind of licensing deals it would need to distribute music from the cloud.”
Sandoval reports, “Delays launching a cloud music service might disappoint some iTunes users, but if Apple is focusing resources on a cloud-video service it could be welcomed by those who have maxed out hard drives with films and TV shows. Sources at the major film studios have said this year that Apple plans to create ‘digital shelves’ that enable iTunes users to store movies and other media on Apple’s servers. Another potential puzzle piece that appears to be falling into place is the server farm Apple is building in North Carolina. Apple executives said last month following their most recent earnings report that the facility, which some have begun calling ‘the Orchard,’ is on schedule to be completed by the end of the year.”
Full article here
Building a strong foundation takes time.
All. Wild. Speculation.
For years the big 4 record labels have been colluding to give Apple worse deals than all the other iTunes-like services out there. Anti-trust anyone?
Pure speculation on my part, but if Apple can reinvent and/or revolutionize the tablet segment with the iPad and classify a new “super smartphone” segment with the iPhone, what’s to stop them from doing something different with the music industry? In other words, why go to the big four?
There are some great artists, bands, music styles, etc. out there, totally ignored by the big four. This is because they all have to concentrate on what is mainstream to make money. They can no longer afford to help music evolve the way that it should.
Apple and its iTunes can help smaller (but very hungry and broadminded) labels move everything forward. Apple has already laid down the foundation with the iTune LP format and iAd.
It’s not only time to think different. It’s time to listen and hear differently. And somehow I think this is what Jobs and company have in mind. Apple is just giving the big four the offer of first refusal. Let them suffer the consequences if they say no.
Cubert:
SEC to busy looking at Apple’s data collection, for an antitrust investigation of the long overdue record label’s colusion…
“They added that Apple still hasn’t negotiated the kind of licensing deals it would need to distribute music from the cloud.”
I think this is the crux of the issue. The music labels were probably salivating over a new, steady revenue stream. It would be in line with their normal MOA for them to have asked for more than a reasonable portion of the gross.
@Yippie I’ve always wondered why Apple has never got into the “label” business (or in the traditional of nu-metal, nu-label… /lame) and the only reason I’ve come up with is because they can’t do it without risking losing the support of the big four. Sure they need the labels and the labels needs itunes but without the labels there is no itunes, at least short term.
But that’s a whole other argument… so let’s just assume that itunes can survive under any circumstance. What’s stopping Apple from allowing ANYONE to upload their content to be sold via itunes (maybe this is possible now) and use the 30/70 split they use for app developers? Sure they could impose minimums (as in, you have to have a certain number of sales over a period of time or they kick you off.. or whatever, I’m sure someone smarter than me can figure that out) so it’s not flooded with some guys crappy recordings or terrible songs but legit artists could self-publish their music, buy some iad space, buy some itunes ad space and then take 70% of the profit. Makes sense? The distribution and advertising is all built-in. Music can be purchased on millions of devices and even more millions of computers using iTunes.
They certainly are in a better position than most companies to do this. Imagine if they got the support of bands like Nine Inch Nails or Radiohead (though unlikely) who promote Apple as being a label without being a label. Allowing them complete control on their music and only taking 30% (it seems high but I get the impression that a young band doesn’t get 70% of their sales).
@YipYipYippee
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue wink” style=”border:0;” />
But Prince won’t market his music on iTunes! How can Apple succeed without Prince?
@ Observer
I have thought the same thing. iTunes can basically serve Indie music artists much as the App Store serves independent software developers. I can only assume that Apple held off on doing so because it wanted to evolve its marketing architecture before thoroughly riling up the music industry.
There is one big thing that has, so far, stopped Apple from becoming a music label:
Apple Records.
As part of their settlement with Apple Records, if they become a music label, they are opening themselves up to another big lawsuit.
I’m not suggesting that it wouldn’t be worth it, but it is definitely something that has to be weighed against the benefits, and the timing will need to be just right to make sense if it.
Observer:
Nothing prevents you (or anyone else) from getting your recordings into iTunes (assuming they don’t violate any laws of the land concerning profanity, hate speech, etc). Any individual or a band can get their music distributed on iTunes via middle-men such as CDBaby, Tunecore or similar. You sign up with any of these independent distribution companies, pay some very modest fee, they obtain UPC bar code for your album/single, you upload your uncompressed audio and artwork and in six to eight weeks, your music is sold on iTunes. There are no minimums (you can sell one song per year and you won’t be de-listed). The middle man will take his cut, though, which is about 8 cents per track. All in all, you get around 70 cents from each track sold (more if sold in EU, where songs are more expensive).
Apple should forget cloud music. No one wants that. What apple should do is make a better than facebook thing using mobile me. So, if you are a mobile me subscriber, then you can post unlimited videos, pictures, and network with other me.com people too…..
I should have elaborated and said that the “big four” can continue to distribute and sell through iTunes. I was thinking the same as some of you mentioned, “Apple being a label without a label”. Just that’s it’s cloud based rather than through iTunes. iMusic (or more generically iMedia) comes to mind… Anyway, just typing out loud.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Absoultely NOT interested until they support Blu-ray equivalent services (minimum 1080p24 & 7.1 sound).
@Shadowself
You mean streaming 1080p and 7.1 over broadband and wireless networks? What company is providing that service to you now?
You’re grandiose proclamations ring a bit hollow, because no one I know is receiving 1080p from the clouds.
Does Netflix offer 1080p/7.1?
@ G4 Dualie
No one is streaming this now. Apple is not even offering this for download. Why should I pay for content of lower quality than I can get elsewhere? That’s why people by Apple products: Top tier quality. Anything less is not consistent.
Why should anyone step backward? Apple can offer many different options ranging from iPhone 4 resolution up through 1080p24 or better. However, if they don’t offer the *option* to get it at 1080p24 or better then I’m not interested. I won’t move backward. (And yes, I have a 50 Mbps connection to my home.)
Like I said, if no one is streaming this now, why bother to state you aren’t interested until they do?
I’m not interested in shopping at Starbucks until they begin selling Martha Stewart’s Pickled Pigs Feet, but what’re you gonna do?
I guess we’ll have to live with our choices, huh?
@Shawdowself ” That’s why people by Apple products: Top tier quality. Anything less is not consistent.”
In terms of their content distribution it is very consistent. They’ve never offered top tier quality for music either. I think it’s just Apple working within the current climate. Not everyone has access to broadband and I would assume that, like music, the version of 720p they offer is “good enough”. Just as people will buy CDs so they can rip it as lossless, people will still buy blurays if they’re looking for the best possible picture/audio.
In a few years (maybe more) I wouldn’t be surprised that 1080p24fps was available but there’s probably a reason that no one is offering it.. just doesn’t seem possible.
It’s called a Data Center, not a Server Farm.
Cnet as crappy as always.
Cloud-based music does not make as much sense as cloud-based video. Audio content is small and you can carry around hundreds of songs, even if the device is an iPod shuffle. Video files are huge. Even on computers with hundreds of GBs of storage, they take up too much space over time (and most video files you watch once and then never again). Since I can already get streaming video “on-demand” using services such as Hulu and Netflix, and even YouTube (for mostly non-commercial content), Apple needs to hurry up with cloud-based video as part of iTunes and its mobile devices.
Lala was an amazing service. Just as their iphone app was awaiting approval, apple bought them out. Looks to me now that they were just killing the competition. Lala was very easy to use and had the distinct feature of letting you listen (legally) to a song or album, all the way through, 1 (one) time. It was a great way to discover new music. I doubt we’ll ever have that luxury again. It’s a shame too.