Apple Reaches Cloud Music Deal With Sony, Universal Last Major Label Still to Sign

People seem to have forgotten about ping, but Next to a new notification system, Ping is a major interest of mine. I think Ping is Apple's secret weapon they hope the competition has forgotten about.

They didnt forget about it...most people just call it Facebook

Just to know. In what way does the approach of google and apple differs when it comes to cloud music? Google has its cloud for music now too, so why does apple have to sign the labels?

I think with Apple, you would own your music. With Google you would rent your music... Unfortunately, most people just steal their music...

it's not out yet, can't be sure of anything of course.

NONETHELESS I have been waiting for this forever.

Without some "cloud" implementation, managing music with multiple computers and locations is a gigantic PITA.

I am so looking forward and pray it's done right.

I'm not quite sure what the Cloud music is, is it like you can listen to /download lots of songs with no limit if you pay some money monthly? Like Spotify?
If they allowed users to use it for free with ads just like Spotify does it'd be awesome.

Cloud music can be like Spotify or Amazon/Google Music.
Spotify offers lots of songs with no streaming limit if you pay some money monthly. Amazon and Google music offer a virtual hard drive which allows you to upload your (bought) music. The uploaded music can be streamed to your devices. I think that kind of service will Apple offer.

I hope Spotify will be soon available in Germany. I can hardly wait!

It sounds nice but I think that I won't use the new service. I've got already a Spotify Premium account which is just amazing ;)

Don't kid yourselves. Whenever Apple finally gets around to launching their iCloud offering, there will most assuredly be a clause in the EULA that states something about how they are not responsible for the security and stability of your data (music). They have to. There is just no way that they can realistically assume responsibility for the security and stability of all of that data. If any of it were lost for any reason (and bad things do and will happen at some point) they could be held liable for that lost data to their users without some type of clause in their user agreement.

That being said, I'm sure they'll have all sorts of redundancies built into everything, but things can still happen. To put a play on words of Apple's recent iPhone ads: If you don't have a backup ... well, you don't have a backup. (And Apple's iCloud product should not be treated as a backup.)

If I rip a bought CD and upload it to google, what would be the difference with the Apple way?

Not much. Except maybe you won't have to upload it to Apple. iTunes may scan your computer for music and then make it instantly available through the cloud service. So that means if there is let's say a 10GB limit to how much music you can upload, that means you're not spending the time uploading 10GB of music and can get it instantly. Or, even better, if Apple doesn't have to store millions of copies of the same songs like Google and Amazon have to, then Apple could offer the service without a storage limit. If it's on iTunes, then it doesn't count towards a limit. And most music is on iTunes (minus my Garth Brooks collection :mad:)

yeah, really.

If I rip a bought CD and upload it to google, what would be the difference with the Apple way?

The CD will melt in the drive!

I WANT cloud music services ... yet right now I'm not really exactly certain why I need them or how I will actually utilize them. I understand that this is, like many things, sort of a paradigm shift, and one that affects different people in different ways.

For the person who's never gotten "control" over his/her music collection, cloud based services open up a new door. Compare to the late 90s when most people still couldn't master the complicated process of time-shifting TV programming using VCRs. Enter the DVR and 10-12 years later the entire TV-watching public time-shifts.

Well, I mastered my music collection a long time ago. I remember the days when I used to ponder what type of furniture or specialized cabinetry I would like to have to house all the CDs I owned. Call me "small-minded" because I wasn't envisioning the future. Fast forward a few years when I finally decided to get rid of all the CD jewel cases (recycled - not the easiest thing to do with those darn things) and put my CDs into binders.

Then I ripped the entire collection onto my computer, figured out how to hard-wire my computer to my home stereo, began using the iPod functions of my iPhone, purchased a 160GB iPod classic and car connection kit, and later AppleTV2s to stream my collection throughout my house.

So, right now for me, I've already got access to all the music I own (around 150GBs worth) just about anywhere I need it. Yet, I know that I'm thinking in a small-minded way and that having cloud-based music will certainly trump my own ability to master my collection - just in ways that I cannot really get a grip on right now.

Just felt like sharing all this ... sorry for the long post.

Just to know. In what way does the approach of google and apple differs when it comes to cloud music? Google has its cloud for music now too, so why does apple have to sign the labels?

To my limited knowledge, Google has yet to sign with any labels, and are in a way refusing to adhere to a "standard" to pay the "fees" or "royalties" or "licensing" for this new paradigm of "cloud music".

The music industry is looking towards Apple, for a new standard in "policy" so they (the music labels) can apply the same "standard" across the board. (The irony).

iDisk