Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Boom. No more iPods. (Or wallets)
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7792
 Reply with quote  

but for real though


when the power goes out you still got music

when your car dies you can still have music

but not when its trapped in the cloud

gotta have that shit as a disc/ or ready on a mp3 device


p.s. just sayin ya know

i understand having it in the cloud, but to rely on it in the cloud is retarded
Post Thu May 12, 2011 8:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
redball wrote:
When the power goes out do you think about switching over to oil lamps? When your car breaks down do you regret not getting a horse?


I actually think both of these things. Whenever gas goes up, I'm like "I wish I had a horse"--though it might be more expensive to maintain a horse. I dunno.


Over the life of a horse it is likely more expensive. Though the upfront cost for a cheap, reliable horse is probably less than for a reliable car. It's the residuals that get ya.

I'm picturing Neuro riding a horse, strapped with an iPod, carrying a torch in one hand and a drawing of a one eyed monster in the other, screaming to all that can hear, "The Cloud is coming! The Cloud is coming!" Hyperbole? I got that.
Post Thu May 12, 2011 8:42 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

Neuro wrote:
but for real though


when the power goes out you still got music

when your car dies you can still have music

but not when its trapped in the cloud

gotta have that shit as a disc/ or ready on a mp3 device


p.s. just sayin ya know

i understand having it in the cloud, but to rely on it in the cloud is retarded


On the short run I agree with you. In the long run I disagree.

What I've advocated here and elsewhere is that the cloud should enable you to do more to protect your data and easily move things around. I am not saying that in 2011 you should abandon local storage of your data. In the scenario where my cable Internet went down my 3G is still good. In the case of some catastrophic event that takes down both Cablevision's service and Verizon's at the same time (of which there has been two in the last decade, 9/11 and the northeast blackout) I have my music on my laptop and about half of it on my phone.

In 5 to 10 years you'll likely think of Internet service more like how you think of phone, cable, or electric service now. Today, that's not realistic.
Post Thu May 12, 2011 8:50 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
english bob



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 839
Location: england, uk
 Reply with quote  

why only have music in the cloud(?) stick the whole os up there..

http://www.google.com/chromebook/#features


they'll put stables in the cloud soon enough too, so keeping a horse will become a viable option.
Post Fri May 13, 2011 2:56 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7792
 Reply with quote  

CUPPERTINO, Calif., May 19 (UPI) -- U.S. technology giant Apple Inc. is close to signing licensing deals with a third and fourth music company to launch a cloud-music service, sources told CNET.

The primary feature of a cloud-music services is the ability of users to access music they own through any device that connects to the Internet. In addition, Apple would be able to "scan and match" music the user owns, which would allow the user to avoid the time-consuming step of uploading songs onto Apple's server.

Sources told CNET that Apple has signed an agreement with EMI Music and has a deal in place with Warner Music Group. It is also pursuing deals with Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment, Digital Trends reported Thursday.

The four deals would give Apple a leg up over Google and Amazon in the cloud-music business that has no proven track record among consumers.

CNET said it expects Apple to charge a fee for the service, which includes the expectation that consumers will pay to access music on numerous devices, even though they already own the music.

By signing the deals, which could occur by the end of next week, Apple, however, could be ready launch a cloud-music service at the Worldwide Developers Conference on June 6.



Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2011/05/19/Apple-signs-deals-for-cloud-music-service/UPI-32271305833015/#ixzz1MugUdvsO
Post Fri May 20, 2011 11:06 am
 View user's profile Send private message
icarus502
kung-pwn master


Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11291
Location: ann arbor
 Reply with quote  

Google Wallet.
Let your phone be your wallet!

google.com/wallet
Post Thu May 26, 2011 4:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7792
 Reply with quote  

how about i just ship my wallet to them in the mail and go live in a cardboard box
Post Thu May 26, 2011 4:03 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

Got my Google Music invite today. The web interface is twice as nice as Amazon's. So is the Android player. Add that Google has yet to ask for money to store any of this and you have a winner.
Post Thu May 26, 2011 5:42 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
remind



Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Posts: 2202
Location: NJ
 Reply with quote  

When everyone is having Demolition Man sex, I'll stick my dick in the nearest wall outlet.
Post Thu May 26, 2011 7:05 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
laurapalmer



Joined: 10 Jul 2002
Posts: 1474
 Reply with quote  

redball wrote:
Got my Google Music invite today. The web interface is twice as nice as Amazon's. So is the Android player. Add that Google has yet to ask for money to store any of this and you have a winner.


Damn. I am wicked jealous.
Post Thu May 26, 2011 7:14 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Asterax



Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1883
Location: Maine
 Reply with quote  

laurapalmer wrote:
redball wrote:
Got my Google Music invite today. The web interface is twice as nice as Amazon's. So is the Android player. Add that Google has yet to ask for money to store any of this and you have a winner.


Damn. I am wicked jealous.


They has been sending invites out to users since early last week. You may be able to get one if you request here: http://music.google.com/about/
Post Thu May 26, 2011 7:33 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

That's exactly how I got mine. Poopsnack posted about it earlier in the thread.
Post Thu May 26, 2011 7:39 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Oh Daesu



Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 1848
Location: Vancouver
 Reply with quote  

Not available to Canadians dammit.
Post Thu May 26, 2011 10:33 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
mzehe916



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 4544
Location: Switzerland
 Reply with quote  

You know, I will say that by restricting usage to only the U.S. can be damaging. I say this more in reference to songs on youtube. If I only want to hear a sample of songs from an artist because I hear their name somewhere and I get a "restricted by umg" code or something then I am 10 times more likely to illegally download the songs just so I can see if I like them. I will purchase songs later if I do like them, but not always. But, if I am allowed to hear songs in advanced then buying the album comes easy after I've heard it.

I know they have their reasons, but dayummmm....I just want to hear the music!
Post Fri May 27, 2011 1:42 am
 View user's profile Send private message
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6871
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

For each country they offer service to they'll have to do a legal review of copyright laws. I believe that fair use and first sale more or less protect services like Amazon's and Google's. Those same provisions must exist in other legal systems for these services to be offered there, and they must determine whether other legalities prohibit the service. Lastly, even when the same legal standing might be evident on paper, they'll have to make sure there's no case law showing different interpretations from the US system.

Apple is circumventing those issues by seeking deals directly with the industry, which has its advantages but also seems like it might further handicap smaller labels and could either speed up or slow down deployment overseas. It could speed it up because if they get a worldwide distribution license then they'll be able to easily operate globally. If they have to negotiate each market separately then it will take months to enter new markets. The other advantages to Apple's approach is that they're less likely to be sued, they can avoid the uploading process for most music, and they will be able to resample the music files to provide better service (or worse, depending on your ears) to lower bandwidth consumers.

Apple is less likely to be sued because it's the major labels who have trigger-happy lawyers, but a smaller label that doesn't strike a deal could sue for various reasons... either because they're treated the same as major labels (i.e. no upload, resampling) or because they're not. In the first scenario they'd be sued for the same reason earlier music services were, they aren't serving the customer their original file, opting instead for either a copy already on the server (that the customer never owned) or a resampled copy (modifications to the content by third party invalidate parts of fair use). In the second it's because they'll have struck these deals with major labels that allow for a better user experience but without a deal struck with the minors they would be differentiated (user would have to upload content, content could not be resampled), creating an unfair advantage.

It's also worth noting that these agreements will mean that Apple's service won't likely stream as high of quality audio. It's an advantage and a disadvantage. It'll cut data usage and promises a smoother, interruption-free playback. However, it means that most or all of the music will be at some set bitrate, which is likely far less than you could otherwise rip the files. It may also mean that cell phone playback will be at an even lower bitrate. It's possible they could stream at the ripped bitrate, but not for content that's not uploaded. More likely would be that the max bitrate is whatever they sell in the store.
Post Fri May 27, 2011 8:23 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:48 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon