Apple Signing iTunes Cloud Music Deals: Reports - Cloud Computing - News & Reviews - eWeek.com
The Cloud is upon us. The day we stop spending our dollars on disk storage and invest on more bandwidth to utilize the emerging Cloud-based Services seems closer than ever. Focusing on the music industry, the question now is: which cloud - music player - service do we pick ?
We know three popular players: Amazon, Google, and now Apple. Google and Amazon provide an online music player, a tool that allows the end-user to upload his music library to the companies' servers. Only then, the user can choose to access and stream his/her online music via a number of various devices: other laptops, mobile phones, tablets, etc.
Amazon users can only work with songs in AAC or MP3 format. Google users can only use PCs or Android based services. Amazon allows the user to upload up to 1,000 songs (with the option to purchase more storage), and Google allows up to 20,000 songs (although service is still in Beta version).
What's interesting is that both Google and Amazon launched their service without consulting with the music labels. They probably did so to gain the first step in the Cloud Race.
Apple on the other hand decided to work on the legal factors first, before launching its iCloud music service. Sony Music, EMI, Warner Music deals are already done. Reports also suggest that Universal will sign as early as next week.
What does this mean to the Apple user?
First, no uploading inconvenience. Once Apple will have the license from the top four major labels, it will be able to scan users' playlist to see what songs they own, and then provide them with an almost-instant streaming access to masters recordings. Google and Amazon will not be able to mimic this features because of the licensing restrictions.
Second, faster service. Apple recently applied for a patent that protects its new cloud technology regarding music streaming. In short, Apple will be able to put a small fraction of the song (probably the beginning few seconds of a song) on the user's local device such as an iPhone. When a song is selected, the iOS software would fill in the gaps by obtaining the rest of the track from a specific file in the cloud. This means that when a user is randomly selecting his next song in the playlist, the experience will seem instantaneous. While the first 10 seconds are loaded from the local hard disk, the rest of the song is being downloaded from Apple's servers and then merged smoothly within the playback. This avoids the "buffering" pause and provides the user with a better and more convenient experience, not to mention the reduced usage of disk capacity which is critical especially in mobile phones.
Music Industry: Deal or no Deal ?
The music labels were once saved by Apple's iTunes store. When piracy reached its peak, iTunes store helped reduce the losses that the music labels incurred by reducing the margins but reaching out to a larger internet crowd (long tail ?).
If the cloud players invade the mobile devices, the music labels need to find a way to monetize from that new environment. Apple's approach not only presents a potential edge to the music consumer as I mentioned earlier, but also give the labels a new source of licensing fees. Whether that money comes from the consumers or Apple's pocket, at the end of the day, a fraction of the 0.99$ per song goes to the music label, and now another fee will be paid to host that song on the Apple clouds.
The music industry should work with Apple. Building on their previous relationship to fight music piracy, these deals could set a precedent that will force other services (i.e. Google and Amazon) to pay-up for licensing rights.
We know three popular players: Amazon, Google, and now Apple. Google and Amazon provide an online music player, a tool that allows the end-user to upload his music library to the companies' servers. Only then, the user can choose to access and stream his/her online music via a number of various devices: other laptops, mobile phones, tablets, etc.
Amazon users can only work with songs in AAC or MP3 format. Google users can only use PCs or Android based services. Amazon allows the user to upload up to 1,000 songs (with the option to purchase more storage), and Google allows up to 20,000 songs (although service is still in Beta version).
What's interesting is that both Google and Amazon launched their service without consulting with the music labels. They probably did so to gain the first step in the Cloud Race.
Apple on the other hand decided to work on the legal factors first, before launching its iCloud music service. Sony Music, EMI, Warner Music deals are already done. Reports also suggest that Universal will sign as early as next week.
What does this mean to the Apple user?
First, no uploading inconvenience. Once Apple will have the license from the top four major labels, it will be able to scan users' playlist to see what songs they own, and then provide them with an almost-instant streaming access to masters recordings. Google and Amazon will not be able to mimic this features because of the licensing restrictions.
Second, faster service. Apple recently applied for a patent that protects its new cloud technology regarding music streaming. In short, Apple will be able to put a small fraction of the song (probably the beginning few seconds of a song) on the user's local device such as an iPhone. When a song is selected, the iOS software would fill in the gaps by obtaining the rest of the track from a specific file in the cloud. This means that when a user is randomly selecting his next song in the playlist, the experience will seem instantaneous. While the first 10 seconds are loaded from the local hard disk, the rest of the song is being downloaded from Apple's servers and then merged smoothly within the playback. This avoids the "buffering" pause and provides the user with a better and more convenient experience, not to mention the reduced usage of disk capacity which is critical especially in mobile phones.
Music Industry: Deal or no Deal ?
The music labels were once saved by Apple's iTunes store. When piracy reached its peak, iTunes store helped reduce the losses that the music labels incurred by reducing the margins but reaching out to a larger internet crowd (long tail ?).
If the cloud players invade the mobile devices, the music labels need to find a way to monetize from that new environment. Apple's approach not only presents a potential edge to the music consumer as I mentioned earlier, but also give the labels a new source of licensing fees. Whether that money comes from the consumers or Apple's pocket, at the end of the day, a fraction of the 0.99$ per song goes to the music label, and now another fee will be paid to host that song on the Apple clouds.
The music industry should work with Apple. Building on their previous relationship to fight music piracy, these deals could set a precedent that will force other services (i.e. Google and Amazon) to pay-up for licensing rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment