Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple iCloud

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: Apple iCloud

#41

Post by alanthonyc »

teilo wrote: post #36
jokermatt999 wrote: post #3

Honestly, this is attractive enough for me to consider reinstalling iTunes. I've ranted a number of times on the numerous issues I've had with it, but this service is amazing, especially as someone who doesn't buy their music from iTunes. Why's that? Because for $25, all those older CD rips and music which was certainly acquired legally can now be obtained easily in 256 Apple lossless (edit: not lossless, duh). I don…

Your rips will not help you. The iCloud music service does not work with rips. You need to have the actual CD. iTunes will scan, it, identify it, and identify the individual tracks.

Source please.

I don't remember this, but it may have been in some fine print I missed.

Re: Apple iCloud

#42

Post by jshb »

mishmash wrote: post #27
chrisbolt wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the only limit is 25,000 songs. Bottom of http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/ : Limit 25,000 songs. iTunes purchases do not count against limit.

Thanks for the link. Taking songs legit for 1,000/$1.00 is incredible. Even with Apple's large downpayment(s), I still can't believe the record companies agreed to this.

The service is intended to turn ripped songs from already purchased CDs. It doesn't magically turn illegally downloaded music to legal ownership even if Apple's service can't/won't enforce the difference. It's still gray.

The bottom line: No one cares about music any more. It's worth less than $25/year.

Re: Apple iCloud

#43

Post by mishmash »

jshb wrote: post #42
mishmash wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the link. Taking songs legit for 1,000/$1.00 is incredible. Even with Apple's large downpayment(s), I still can't believe the record companies agreed to this.

The service is intended to turn ripped songs from already purchased CDs. It doesn't magically turn illegally downloaded music to legal ownership even if Apple's service can't/won't enforce the difference. It's still gray. The bottom line: No one cares about music any more. It's worth less than $25/year.

>The service is intended to turn ripped songs from already purchased CDs.

Apple didn't pay $150,000,000 a pop to the major labels to allow you to play music you legally acquired.

>It doesn't magically turn illegally downloaded music to legal ownership

  Step 1) Purchase an iTunes Match subscription
  Step 2) Convert MP3s to iTunes matched AACs
  Step 3) Delete MP3s
stare in amazement at this magic before you

Re: Apple iCloud

#44

Post by chrischen »

erikstarck wrote: post #19
siglesias wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's as simple as, consumers don't want to deal with the latency. I pick a song, it plays instantly, within half a second. Online players for now seem naive.

You obviously haven't tried Spotify. It's instantaneous.

So's YouTube. It's also free and available worldwide.

Re: Apple iCloud

#45

Post by mishmash »

Steko wrote: post #33
dreamdu5t wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False dichotomy. You can have an online music store without waging a format war and trying to control how people use their music.

"You can have an online music store without waging a format war and trying to control how people use their music." You can do this today only because Apple went to bat with the labels, won a bunch of freedoms, had a crapton of success and the labels (fearing Apple's leverage) gave even more freedoms to Amazon et al.

Exactly and some time down the line when Google/Amazon/Microsoft/Canocial inevitably offer an equivalent service/price it will be because Apple validated the model. The only interesting part will be if the labels make the iTunes clones pony-up the large upfront fees Apple did.

Re: Apple iCloud

#46

Post by cubicle67 »

joebadmo wrote: post #7

So, is there no web access to iCloud content? No way to share, for example, photos or documents publicly (or in the case of docs, between apps)? These seem like remarkably device-centric solutions for an increasingly web-centric world. Which is not surprising, I guess, for what is essentially a hardware company.

I didn't see any web access mentioned, but mobile me has always had web access for photos/email and the ability to make photo albums public or to password protect them (for group access). I don't see why they'd remove this

we'll know soon though

Re: Apple iCloud

#47

Post by mishmash »

pistacchio wrote: post #13

wandering what they'll do with those who paid (recently) for mobile.me

My MobileMe renewed... yesterday afternoon. Chatted the support up and he offered a full refund, however it would take 4-6 weeks to post, a partial refund in the next week or two, and no guidance beyond that because the MobileMe team didn't actually learn that they had been discontinued UNTIL THE KEYNOTE.

He was cool, and only made a few comments, but in the few he did, you could absolutely feel the repressed steverage.

:)

Post reply on HN