Share what you know with millions of people
Focus is the best place to turn what you know into remarkable content
0
Cloud-based music lockers? Will you use them? I won't.
Just curious if folks are excited at all by Google's announcement yesterday of a competing product to Amazon's cloud music locker. Does anybody really use these? Seems like most folks that are into cloud-based music would leverage a service like Rhapsody vs. going through the trouble of uploading GBs worth of music to a locker.
If somebody is using them, maybe you can explain the benefits.
Events
- Dos and Don'ts of Small Business Marketing May 29 @ 11 am PT
- Lead Nurturing 202: The Next Generation May 31 @ 11 am PT
- The Tricks to Paid Media June 6 @ 11 am PT
- Display Advertising for Brand Awareness June 20 @ 11 am PT
Related Activity
3 Answers
Of course there is always the other issue - that of bandwidth. On my sub-1Mbps connection stranded in paradise, streaming music from the cloud would sound... a little choppy.
There's a real world out there folks....
Google and Amazons cloud based locker is a hobbled attempt to grab mindshare before Apple comes out and does it right. Google and Amazon have no support from record labels. Apple will. Therefore everything you purchase via iTunes will probably go right to your locker as well as your hard drive.
Given the way Apple does things, it will be integrated and simple.
All that aside, I really don't care about having ALL my music with me ALL the time. I have always done well with the smallest storage iPod and at best listen to 10% of what is on it.
In general I am not interested in cloud computing of any kind.
1 - I spend way too much time on the road and even when not in a plane, I may not have access to the internet all the time. The world is not that connected yet.
2 - I have way too much data and too much large data, audio and video projects. I am not just doing internet, word processing and email. I don't trust the cloud. I have double redundant backups, clones and incremental and offsite. I am not worried about losing my data. I would in the cloud.
These are best-effort but compromised steps in the process toward an end game that envisions a legitimate personal library of music, untethered from a particular computer or device, that can be played anywhere on anything.
Of the two (Google or Amazon), Amazon has more appeal IMO because they have a store attached and their service, which effectively backs up your purchases without requiring you to manually upload the purchased file. This alone is a benefit that iTunes currently doesn't offer. Pair their free online backup of new purchases with Amazon's typically cheaper prices and new release deals, and I think that Amazon is currently a better deal for consumers than iTunes.
Google stands to capture users who aren't yet using something else and may already be using other Google services like Gmail etc. For these users, it may be more comfortable to use Google if they are in the market for a music locker. It also fits their long term plans for Chrome OS and Android.
However, when it comes to uploading your personal collection of music files, these two services place all potential risks on the user and seem to shield themselves from any liability. This is explained better in a blog post I wrote yesterday: "The Elephant in the Locker: Current Cloud Music Model Seems Risky for Users" http://blog.jydesign.com/2011/05/elephant-in-locker-current-cloud-music.html
Also, my hope is that the long term model will not be uploading files to HDs in the 'cloud', but rather an app-based model for digital music ownership. I've touched on this concept in another blog post: "The future of iTunes store: Apple must deliver music like it does apps..." http://blog.jydesign.com/2011/04/future-of-itunes-store-apple-must.html
Regards, J.
Answer This Question