Apple Expected to Charge for Cloud-Based Music Storage Service

CNET reports that Apple is expected to charge customers a fee in order to use its forthcoming cloud-based music storage service, a new product said to be rapidly approaching completion. The company could, however, offer a free introductory period to give customers a chance to test out the new service and gather a user base.

Music industry insiders told me that Apple has indicated it could offer the service free of charge initially but that company will eventually require a fee. Google is also expected to charge for a similar service.

The report points to claims that Apple may charge a $20 annual fee for the service, although that information remains unconfirmed with many sources apparently not being privy to those details.

Apple's cloud-based plans have been said to be linked to a MobileMe revamp that could see certain aspects of cloud storage become free, even if the music storage component requires a modest annual fee.

Apple is not the only significant player looking to move to cloud-based music storage. Amazon late last month rolled out its Cloud Drive service with limited free storage augmented by various levels of paid storage. The company has, however, received some push back from record labels who were not included in discussions with Amazon. For its part, Google has been taking the Apple route and trying to work with record labels on a cloud-based music storage service, but the search and advertising giant has reportedly been "going backwards" in its talks with no signs of a resolution in the near future.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

113 months ago

No real surprise here. Apple has been charging for MobileMe. Why not this service.


Just ruined my freakin day. I was really hoping it would be an added benefit instead of a paid feature.


Ick. :rolleyes:
Why would I pay for that?


Should have bloody known >:(


Well they won't be charging me.


You wouldn't consider paying $20 per YEAR?
Rating: 6 Votes
113 months ago
I just hope they charge enough so that they make a big profit so that they can continue the service.
Rating: 5 Votes
113 months ago
Of course they are.
This kind of thing has to be paid for somehow. Common options:
1. Pay subscription
2. Ad supported
3. Loss-leader to help sell something profitable.

This rumor is suggesting that Apple is going with a combination of 1 and 3.
Rating: 5 Votes
113 months ago
Not a surprise, even amazon charges a small fee for a decent amount of storage.
Rating: 5 Votes
113 months ago
If I'm paying, I'd rather just have an all-you-can-eat subscription option and be able to stream to any song on iTunes.
Rating: 5 Votes
113 months ago

Just ruined my freakin day. I was really hoping it would be an added benefit instead of a paid feature.


Well that definitely counts me out as a potential user. (Yes i'm cheap)


Entitlement? No offense as many feel the same way. I just don't understand how some can realistically expect such a product/service to be free for how new it is.
Rating: 4 Votes
113 months ago
I'm down with $20/year - but only if that includes the full MobileMe suite.
Rating: 4 Votes
113 months ago
No real surprise here. Apple has been charging for MobileMe. Why not this service.
Rating: 4 Votes
113 months ago

It'll be a pathetic excuse for a cloud if it'll only stream in the US (which if they continue with this 1 datacenter model will be the case). Amazon will beat them here, hands down. Have you seen how many datacenters they have?

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2008/11/18/where-amazons-data-centers-are-located/

^ That vs 1 datacenter...lets think...who's going to get the better performance...

Also, the point of the cloud is redundancy. What happens WHEN the 1 datacenter goes down (e.g power problems, network problems, natural disasters, etc)? Apple's will be wiped out in one move, Amazon just fail over to another DC location.


Uhhh, perhaps you missed the massive Amazon outage last week?
Rating: 3 Votes
113 months ago

Oh look smart remarks without substance must be a fanboy. :p


It's not a smart remark, it's truth. You can stream your own media to yourself with a DIY solution but it will cost you for (a) the hard drives which are storing your media, (b) the upload bandwidth consumed by your home server, (c) the hydro costs of keeping your server running 24/7, and (d) the time it takes for any setup and maintenance.

Obviously many people have no problem paying these "costs" and would prefer them over a hard cash outlay (even $20/year), but that doesn't mean these costs don't exist and shouldn't be factored into the value proposition.
Rating: 3 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]