More

Apple's Cloud Music Service Could Win, Despite Its Lateness

Apple Cloud Music Service

First Posted: 05/20/11 04:40 PM ET Updated: 07/20/11 06:12 AM ET

If Apple unveils a cloud music service at its Worldwide Developers Conference in early June, as expected, it will be months behind rival services from Google and Amazon. But, analysts say, despite being late, Apple will likely reassert its domination of the digital music space.

In the tech world, being the first to bring a product to market is an important coup. For companies in an industry characterized by its obsession with the new, getting to the finish line ahead of competitors can help determine the success, or failure, of its latest offering.

But Apple, which has repeatedly defied expectations by triumphing wildly with products like the iPad, is a company that possesses the rare ability to show up late to the party and still outshine everybody in the room. Now, the world is watching to see how Apple will fare in the burgeoning business of cloud music services, which allow consumers to upload music to a company’s servers, so that it can be accessed from any device with an Internet connection.

Analysts expect that a cloud music service by Apple will be a more fully-developed iteration than either Amazon’s or Google’s services. That likelihood, combined with Apple’s existing status as the premier destination for digital music, as well as news that the company is close to signing deals with all four major record labels for such a service, puts Apple in position to triumph over its rivals.

“There’s first mover advantage to some degree, but this is a new area,” said Mike McGuire, a VP of research at Gartner, a tech consulting firm. “The other side of that coin is that the first mover also gets the arrows in the back.”

While Amazon and Google have managed to outpace Apple by months, both of their cloud music services have already been heavily criticized, both by the unhappy music industry seeking its cut of the profits, and from consumers, who have found the quality of the services to be lacking.

Though Amazon’s service is not strictly limited to music (users could store photos or other files as well), the company has marketed the product as a music player. Still, Amazon’s Cloud Player has been reviewed as a relatively bare-bones operation, with limited format support and missing an iOS app.

Google’s service, Google Music Beta, arrived in early May to much fanfare, despite its invitation-only availability. Critics immediately attacked the service for unreasonably long upload times, as well as spotty streaming that causes songs to stop and start during play.

“Google is more of a storage and backup service,” said McGuire. “For Apple the idea is to make something more compelling than iTunes.”

Analysts predict that Apple, when it comes to market, will arrive with a feature-rich product that will not only allow for quick, painless uploads, but go beyond simply storing and streaming music, potentially even emulating aspects of young streaming services like Grooveshark which create playlists based on user tastes. Plus, any product Apple offers is likely to be connected to its iTunes music store, already the digital music leader with 66 percent market share. Amazon, in second place, has about 13 percent.

“Imagine if you’re accessing your collection in the cloud and you decide you want to complete an album, you can purchase it right there and it appears everywhere, anywhere,” said Paul Resnikoff, publisher of Digital Music News, a site that covers the industry, describing a feature Apple could potentially offer.

Apple has reportedly signed licensing deals with Warner Music Group, EMI Music, Sony Music Entertainment and is close to signing a deal with Universal Music Group -- the four major record labels in America.

But the biggest problem both Google and Amazon could soon face is that neither has signed any licensing agreements with the music industry. And the music industry is not pleased.

Sony Music released a statement saying it was "disappointed that the locker service that Amazon is proposing is unlicensed” that they hoped Amazon would choose to “resolve the situation quickly by agreeing to a license with us.”

Amazon countered that licenses were unnecessary, adding that storing customers’ music in the cloud was equivalent to letting them back up files on an external hard drive. Google, too, chose not to reach licensing agreements before setting up Music Beta.

The issue is not only that record labels might try to take both companies to court, but that the lack of a licensing agreement prevents their services from taking advantage of certain key features that could vastly improve user experience. Especially key is how licensing could affect the length of music uploads.

While Google and Amazon are seriously hampered by upload speeds that mean it can take an hour to upload two albums to the cloud, licensing agreements like those that Apple has reportedly reached, would allow Apple to use a “scan and match” technology. With “scan and match,” no upload is necessary -- instead, a user’s songs are checked against a database, and then streamed from a song catalog already in the cloud.

“In half an hour, you could have 30,000 songs uploaded,” said Resnikoff.

And, though Apple will be months behind, in one key aspect, they’re years ahead: With iTunes, Apple has been the largest music retailer in the country since 2008. The store reached its ten billionth download in January of this year.

Through iTunes, Apple has on file the credit card accounts of more than 200 million users, meaning that getting customers to sign onto a new music service would be far simpler than if it had to start fresh. What’s more, any customer who keeps music in an iTunes library, or has songs purchased from Apple in its proprietary MP4 format (which cannot always be played on non-Apple devices), would likely have a far easier time in the uploading process than if they had to convert files to MP3 format for Amazon or Google.

Of course, given that Apple’s cloud music service has still not been officially announced, it’s difficult to speculate as to what the product will actually turn out to be. Apple has experienced failure in the music space before, with flopped social network Ping.

“We’re kind of in this wait-and-see phase right now,” said Resnikoff. “We’ve seen these processes drag out before.”

Still, experts say that even if Apple’s service arrives late, it will be its competitors who will be left playing catch-up.

“Apple has the power. They can drop something on a marketplace and have a huge impact the next day. If you talk to someone on the street they’re not following this race but they are taking a lot of cues from Apple,” said Resnikoff “Apple said songs are 99 cents. They gave you the smartphone. The herd has been following Apple. They can heavily influence how people listen to music going forward.”

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

If Apple unveils a cloud music service at its Worldwide Developers Conference in early June, as expected, it will be months behind rival services from Google and ...
If Apple unveils a cloud music service at its Worldwide Developers Conference in early June, as expected, it will be months behind rival services from Google and ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 67
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wilray
50,000 Screaming Fans (Ignore that other number)
01:57 PM on 05/23/2011
Okay, this was a no brainer. You can get Lady Gaga's latest album for 99 cents. That's right the whole album can be purchased at Amazon for the cost of a single song, but that's not all. Because Amazon give 20 gigabytes free storage with the purchase of your first album with their new cloud drive. I thought that would be added to the 5 free gbs, but it is inclusive. After a year if you decide not to continue your storage drops back to 5gb. 20gb of storage is normally $20 per year. Basically by buying Gaga's album "Born This way" today for 99cents you are getting $34 in free gifts.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wilray
50,000 Screaming Fans (Ignore that other number)
04:36 PM on 05/22/2011
While you're waiting for Apple to unveil its service, here is another one for you to checkout. It's called Megabox http://www.megabox.com It is in beta. but you can sign up and start using it. It is similar to Amazon's service in that you can upload music to your own storage. It doesn't give a cost for storage, so it might be free. Also like Amazon you can purchase music as well. In fact, it has a couple of choices for purchasing; one is for Amazon.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjredder
09:17 AM on 05/22/2011
Apple's version will end up being dubbed "most successful" by the tech press for two reasons
#1- Apple owns the tech press. Seriously, finding an article critical of Apple is like finding the fountain of youth: no one can do it. With enough writers paid off with free devices, Apple gets all the free positive press that some SWAG iPad 2s can buy. Tech media sees Apple through rose-colored glasses, barely mentioning the Chinese manufacturing sweatshops or commenting on the useless iterations being released relentlessly year after year without purpose. (Tech is not changing enough that we need a new iPhone every year, and yet go look at any tech website and you'll find at least one article about "iPhone 6 rumors". They just released iPhone 4 last year1)
#2- Apple's cloud service will be intended to wring more money out of consumers, while Amazon and Google are really more of a storage option for music people already own. How much do you think Apple will charge for their service? Amazon's fee is $20/year. Will Apple's service somehow be less than that? Don't count on it. Apple is the only one trying to bring in the music labels, which means that there's an expectation of big profits, and the music labels will want their cut.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnTheMac
Now, why don't you go home and get your shine box?
11:04 PM on 06/12/2011
" How much do you think Apple will charge for their service? Amazon's fee is $20/year. Will Apple's service somehow be less than that? Don't count on it."

Some stuff just sits there embarrassing you for a long time!
08:42 AM on 05/22/2011
This would have been cool a few years ago, when memory was expensive. Nowadays even my phone got 32gig, enough for tons of music.
photo
DRaymond
Network administrator, voiceovers
02:29 AM on 05/22/2011
Yet another scheme to get you to pay more money for wireless data. Sure your phone already has plenty of space for music to play, but no, you need to put it on Apple's server so that you can then have to spend data plan megabytes every single time you listen to it! Ka ching! Just when gigabytes of local storage get really cheap they come up with a scheme so that you don't use them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wilray
50,000 Screaming Fans (Ignore that other number)
04:27 PM on 05/21/2011
Apple's Cloud Music Service Could Win, Despite Its Lameness
12:05 PM on 05/21/2011
The sole reason it will work by Apple is because they will have the service available OUTSIDE of the US as well. Amazon and Google's services are locking out so many people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
InspiredByTruth
12:31 AM on 05/22/2011
Doesn't matter. Its another pay-for-privilege scheme, except in this case you really can't brag about selling apple the rights to rummage through your computer files and eventually lose them in a Sony style hack.
09:22 AM on 05/21/2011
I don't trust cloud computing. Call me old fashion, but putting so much resources on one centralized location is a foolhardy endeavor. Hackers of all types will be attracted to this, and since perfect computer security is impossible to guarantee, it's only a matter of time before someone hacks into the system and wreak havoc on all the end users.
07:47 AM on 05/21/2011
I'm a little disappointed that the article didn't mention Apple's purchase of the music streaming service Lala.com back in 2009. Lala's model is more than likely going to be the basis for Apple's new service, which will give it an even more advantage over Google and Amazon.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tanker10a
06:57 AM on 05/21/2011
Oh Man! If this comes to fruition, I wonder how my MobileMe account is going to be affected. the thought of not having to have both of my hard drives cluttered and having only one music library shared between all of my devices and streaming it throughout my house; That is going to be a jam. Accessing my entire library from my iPhone and not having to synch... I wonder how much this is going to cost? either way, I am in!
photo
Feurio
Religion poisons everything
06:47 AM on 05/21/2011
Apple causes ‘religious’ reaction in brains of fans, say neuroscientists

http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2011/05/apple-religious-reaction-brains-fans-neuroscientists/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
InspiredByTruth
12:33 AM on 05/22/2011
Shame. Look at how horrific they treat their workers for said holy over-priced relics.
http://utopianist.com/2011/01/15th-employee-commits-suicide-at-foxconn-iphone-factory/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiaisAwesome
Live free or die trying
06:27 AM on 05/21/2011
Streaming is the wave of the future: People stream music via Pandora now and movies via Netflix. It is only a matter of time before all hard drives are now remotely streamed over wifi and 'space' becomes infinite.

The only downside is that it means people have control over your information, what you watch and what you listen to and I find that very creepy. Technological advancement always takes a back seat to personal privacy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tanker10a
06:52 AM on 05/21/2011
I agree with you. I use Pandora to listen to various radio stations.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wilray
50,000 Screaming Fans (Ignore that other number)
01:30 PM on 05/23/2011
MOG will be releasing a Freemium service. I use their pay service since I consider it the best with the lowest price point. It has more options, you can listen to exactly the music you want to listen to when you want to listen to it, or you can choose to do radio stations. You can even choose to play the entire album with the songs in their original order, which is really great for concept albums and artist such as Pink Floyd.

http://mashable.com/2011/04/27/mog-freemium/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StainlessSteelRat
02:25 AM on 05/21/2011
What to expect from Cloud? A very short product cycle
02:20 AM on 05/21/2011
Apple making good deals
http://yuppygadget.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
robnelsong
Dire Wolfman
01:42 AM on 05/21/2011
The paradigm of owning physical copies of albums, supplemented by some downloads, and getting introduced to new music by a really hip local college radio station works for me. The cloud product may in theory offer unlimited selections of music in a high fidelity format for a reasonable cost, but at this point in time, it is a Version 1.0.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jasonedward
All ways are my ways.
12:34 PM on 05/21/2011
Another difference is that owning the physical album (CD) means you have lossless quality at a bitrate of 1.4Mbps. The hi-fi electronic purchases are only 256kbps. This is fine for small speakers and head/earphones, but not so good on elaborate home sound systems.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
robnelsong
Dire Wolfman
12:50 PM on 05/21/2011
Absolutely. I have done the A - B test of a CD and an MP-3 of the same song through a high quality sound system, and the difference is staggering.