Music labels: Apple’s cloud music service to make Amazon’s and Google’s efforts look shabby

“First Amazon and now Google have launched services that enable users to store music libraries on the companies’ servers and access them from a variety of devices,” Greg Sandoval reports for CNET. “Google unveiled the beta version of its music storage service yesterday at its I/O developer conference in San Francisco. Amazon unveiled its Cloud Player and Cloud Drive offerings in late March.”

“But the services offered by Amazon and Google are not all that they can be because those companies had to tippy-toe around copyright issues,” Sandoval reports. “Since neither company was either able or willing to obtain licenses from the four major labels, neither of them could deliver the same range of options that Apple will be able to offer with its upcoming cloud service, according to multiple music industry sources.”

Sandoval reports, “Exactly what those options are, the sources wouldn’t say. Nonetheless, the hope in the music industry is that Apple’s music service will make the competing offerings look shabby by comparison and force Amazon and Google to pay the licensing rates the labels are asking… Lots of people at the four major labels… hope [Apple’s] service [will] launch at Apple’s Worldwide Developer Conference on June 7.”

Read more in the full article here.


  1. I worked in a music store for 9 years. I have 8TB of media. I can’t wait till I drop 100 or so gigs of just 1 artist into the cloud. Apple is going to shit! I need a wing in Carolina for myself. Yes 90% is ripped from CDs at store. We would open music to play at the store and I took it home to rip. It was a 10,000 sq ft store. There is no iPad iPod device that can hold me so I’m waiting with baited breath.

    1. That would be “bated” breath, bag-licking music pirate.

      “Bated [is] a contraction of abated through loss of the unstressed first vowel (a process called aphesis); it means “reduced, lessened, lowered in force”. So bated breath refers to a state in which you almost stop breathing as a result of some strong emotion, such as terror or awe.”

    2. Everybody get balls on the Internet. You people wouldn’t say shit to my face. I guarantee it. Effing pussies.
      I’ve gotten rid of more music than most of you ever own.
      Suck it douche bags.

  2. Give the cloud a break and stop filling it with [music files] traffic. If they are thinking I will upload my files first only to downstream later, they are not thinking it right, even if the service is free and/or comes with a lot of whistles.

    My iPad is about the only device I use to play my music, and since the files are stored locally, no cloud service is required or necessary. And yes, I can play it wherever I am, wherever I go.

    Why do I want to load my music to the cloud?

    1. You are thinking of the method Amazon and Google use. Apple’s intentions, to the best of my knowledge, is to already have licensed copies of the major labels catalogs already on the server. iCloud will simply create a database of your library (very small file) and serve you music on demand from their music files. No major content uploads. This is why it is expected to be a smoother operating service.

    2. So that you can sync on any Apple device you own (ATV, MB, iMac, iPhone, iPad, iPod touch…). If you have anywhere near the amount of music that our first poster had pilfered over the years, you can’t fit it all on an iPad/iPod/iPhone. An iCloud would let you keep it all there and sync different playlists at different times, without having to go back to the mother ship iTunes machine.

    3. You have a very small music collection. If you want to access all of your music and have more than what will fit on an iOS device, (and don’t want to carry a laptop with you), then having net access to your library could be nice.

      Of course, this raises the question as to why it needs to be in the cloud, as opposed to just enabling sharing of iTunes directly from your computer at home.

      I’ve used several methods for sharing my iTunes collection over the net and AudioGalaxy Mobile does this really well, especially for large libraries (mine is over 750GB total).

      To me, this makes much more sense than uploading to the cloud and then accessing from there later.

      Although, Apple could be building a true cloud service as opposed to just a storage facility. There could be numerous advantages to this.

      1. All the people that push the home-streaming-server idea make me wonder if they have ever run a Web site. Why would you run your own server when you can run your site from a colocated or hosted server for small change? Home networks do not have the reliability of professional server farms; many ISP’s upload bandwidth (e.g. cable, ADSL) is severely cramped; to say nothing of the hardware, energy use, etc implications of every home user trying to keep a server up and ready 24/7 for about a 1% duty cycle (for most folks). Apple’s solution (if it’s indeed what they are proposing) of maintaining just a few copies of media files, for serving to 100’s of millions of users anywhere based on verification of ownership/licenses, is such a far more elegant solution that I’m flabbergasted every time I hear people argue for this everyone-running-their-own-media-server idea. Frankly, most people have neither the time, nor the expertise, nor the money for the extra hardware, and it’s certainly far better for everyone for them not to be clogging local ISP pipes with an unnecessary upload every time they stream to their iPod and pulling extra electricity down 24/7 for something they will barely use…

    1. I doubt that’s right. Lala recognized and allowed downloading of ripped and non-iTunes purchased songs; it worked great, except for mis-tagged tracks and some indie artists that they didn’t stock. And for those, they still allowed uploading/ storage/downloading of your own files, just as they would for tracks that you made/recorded yourself. It’s amazing how much people missed out on, who didn’t try Lala while it existed. It really was brilliant.

      1. “drz” is completely right. Apple absorbed and killed Lala because they wanted the patents and to quote Steve Jobs, “you can’t compete with free”. They are a major media mogul now and will do whatever they can to make as much profit as they can. Eventually after they’ve added a few more streaming “features” and the physical CD is almost gone from the marketplace, Apple will then move to remove the ability to rip or play non protected files under the assertion that legacy MP3/AIFF use equals theft. You can bet your life on it.

        (RIP Skype)

        1. I could picture Apple creating a “personal cloud” or “personal Lala” where they store your playlist and make it accessible from anywhere but the actual files reside on your own hard drive.

  3. Amazon and google have enough media whores who will claim otherwise. If they can have analysts and cnbc rave about an abysmal quarter by amazon they will do anything. Google blatantly omits the 500 million dollar charge in their announcement, then slips it in their 10Q. They get the best of both outcomes. They avoided a bigger hit to their PPS after they released earnings. They avoid taking the hit in the next Q release by slipping it into the 10Q at the last moment.

    Was there a flashing news from cnbc like Bartiromo did to apple last December Q by highlighting a gross margin that had already been announced inthe release. By the way that gross marginturned out to be far less than the actual of greater than 41 percent.

  4. Oh … but … as all Android users will assert … unlike MacHeads, *they* are not imprisoned in Apple’s walled garden … no, instead they’re still stuck outside it wishing they could get in.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.