Do I want the cloud(s)?

[AlmaataKZ]

With me being an iTunes user and Apple planning to inroduce the iCloud, what benefit can it bring?

For the main system why would I want to put something i already have on my HD onto a remote storage and have to stream it via the internet instead of playing locally? Ok, there are secondary benefits like back-up or choice of music (presumably via paid access so not fundamentally different to buying) but what is the 'core' benefit?

Fo rportable playback, again, why would I have to stream on the move (need for connection, battery life, roaming charges...) when I have a local copy on the ipod already?

I doubt the cloud will come with a step up in quality to even 16/44 not to mention 24/96.

So why would I want it?

What is the point? A set of secondary benefits?

 

[professorhat]

It's where currently a lot of people see things going i.e. everything will be online and you'll access it wherever you are from online applications. As times progress, the idea is that your life will mostly be stored on the internet and you'll access it from a device in whatever location you'll be in.

If things go this way, this is why you'd want it. On the other hand, working in IT, I know that at the moment if you're not offering some service with the word "cloud" in it, then critics will say you're living in the dark ages. The ubiquitous use of the word "cloud" within my industry is one of my major annoyances currently. I personally don't see it happening like this - "cloud" (or online) services have been around for donkey's years (Hotmail anyone?), but large companies won't ever offload all their data and applications required for the day to day running of their business to unknown parts of the internet, and similarly, I don't believe people will do the same with their private lives.

However, I'm sure there are a number of people who will find it extremely useful to always be able to access their music collection online, so I don't think it will be a total failure.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

good points, professor.

I find it unnatural to have data stored in cloud *instead* of local. parts and/or additional copy I can find uses for.

as for online access, again, it does not have to be cloud. I can access my data online when it is stored on a local nas...

I would also like to see a quality jump in mainstream digital music but cloud makes it even less likely as 'larger files + remote' is worse than 'smaller files + remote'.

 

[professorhat]

as for online access, again, it does not have to be cloud. I can access my data online when it is stored on a local nas...

I would also like to see a quality jump in mainstream digital music but cloud makes it even less likely as 'larger files + remote' is worse than 'smaller files + remote'.

Ah, you see, but that's where online storage comes in useful - although you can access your NAS from the internet, you're reliant on your own broadband internet connection for that. Very likely your upstream connection to the internet is around the 512 kbps to 1 Mbps (unless you have the fastest Virgin package) - this wouldn't be sufficient to stream most music over the internet. However, if your music is stored at one of Apple's data centres, this will likely be on the internet backbone, meaning as long as your download speeds are up to speed wherever you are, streaming higher definition music becomes a possibility.

 

[DandyCobalt]

Having all your data (music etc) in the hands of an enormous corporation, who can switch it on or off at their whim (or if they have been hacked - could that happen, surely not?) sounds like a fine idea - don't you just love "progress"?

Vinyl becomes ever more appealing

 

[chebby]

Here in the UK (with our typically low download speeds) it is more likely to be...

"Patchy iCloud with a little iDrizzle at times and an unsettled outlook for the time being."

 

[professorhat]

Having all your data (music etc) in the hands of an enormous corporation, who can switch it on or off at their whim (or if they have been hacked - could that happen, surely not?) sounds like a fine idea - don't you just love "progress"?

Vinyl becomes ever more appealing

Indeed, which is why I'd prefer the Apple solution whereby your offline music collection is automatically available online - best of both worlds (if of course you need the online world).

 

[BenLaw]

Isn't spotify 'the cloud'? I like that.

Don't want to store any more personal info under someone else's control than necessary.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

Having all your data (music etc) in the hands of an enormous corporation, who can switch it on or off at their whim (or if they have been hacked - could that happen, surely not?) sounds like a fine idea - don't you just love "progress"?

Vinyl becomes ever more appealing

Indeed, which is why I'd prefer the Apple solution whereby your offline music collection is automatically available online - best of both worlds (if of course you need the online world).

exactly. remote copy instead of my local copy - No, thanks.

remote copy in addition to my local copy - maybe, but not too exciting, especially if there is no quality increase.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

So, we now know what iCloud is.

'stores and wirelessly pushes your content to all devices'.

OK, let's see -

I have about 5000 tracks. say 50% is ripped cds in alac. 30% is aac from itunes store and abt 20% hi-rez stuff in alac. With normal synching to ipod I am already limited to 24/48 so miss out on 24/96. if I use iCloud I drop to 256 aa.c no 24/48 hi-rez or even cd-rez support.

I consider apple computers and portables high quality devices. But iCloud does not support high quality music. There is a gap.

I also very much doubt that music matching (my ripped tracks vs itunes database) will produce good results in terms of completeness.

so by the time I finish synching I get through 30% ok (lossy stuff from itunes), then I get most (or just some?) of the rips and hi-rez stuff but at half- to tenth of the bitrate?

 

[professorhat]

So, we now know what iCloud is.

'stores and wirelessly pushes your content to all devices'.

OK, let's see -

I have about 5000 tracks. say 50% is ripped cds in alac. 30% is aac from itunes store and abt 20% hi-rez stuff in alac. With normal synching to ipod I am already limited to 24/48 so miss out on 24/96. if I use iCloud I drop to 256 aa.c no 24/48 hi-rez or even cd-rez support.

I consider apple computers and portables high quality devices. But iCloud does not support high quality music. There is a gap.

I also very much doubt that music matching (my ripped tracks vs itunes database) will produce good results in terms of completeness.

so by the time I finish synching I get through 30% ok (lossy stuff from itunes), then I get most (or just some?) of the rips and hi-rez stuff but at half- to tenth of the bitrate?

Yes, but to be fair, I really don't think this service is aimed at users who want CD quality music. It's aimed at people who have an iDevice which won't store all their music. Now, it doesn't have to as they can access any music they've got stored in their iTunes at home from their iDevice - okay it's maybe not CD quality, but that won't bother a lot of people, especially those who purchase most / all of their music from iTunes.

Since I rip all mine from CD, this isn't much use to me, but if it weren't $25 a month for the "Scan and Match" service, it might well be something I'd occasionally use. I've got a 32 GB iPhone which has 26 GB of music on it, but I've got 160 GB of music in my home collection. If I was out and about and suddenly wanted to hear a track that I didn't have synced with my iPhone (e.g. at a party), I could using this service. It's not something I'd pay $25 a month for, but I can see its usefulness to some people who might think that was worth it, especially if they travel a lot.

 

[John Duncan]

It's $25 a year.

 

[professorhat]

So it is! My bad - thought it was quite steep!