WWDC 2011 iCloud Announcement: More Details Emerge

New rumors concerning iCloud, the music service Apple will announce at the Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC 2011), suggest that Apple has tied up deals with four major record labels and will initially offer the service at no charge.

iCloud "initially will be offered for a free period to people who buy music from Apple's iTunes digital download store, allowing users to upload their music to Apple's computers where they can then play from a Web browser or Internet-connected Apple device," writes the LA Times, citing unnamed sources "familiar with the negotiations."

iCloud won't stay free, however, these sources say: The LA Times adds, "the company plans to eventually charge a subscription fee, about $25 a year, for the service. Apple would also sell advertising around its iCloud service."

CNET offers additional details on when iCloud might be available and what music it would support:

Streaming will not be available on Monday but will be offered soon, the sources said. They added that an Apple digital locker will store only music purchased at iTunes. The company is said to have plans to store songs acquired from outside iTunes sometime in the future. A year ago, when Apple first discussed a cloud-music service with the labels, creating digital shelves for people to store all their songs was part of Apple's vision.

Apple has reportedly signed licensing agreements with Sony Music Entertainment, EMI, Universal, and Warner Music Group, which would set Apple's cloud music offering apart from its rivals'. Amazon and Google recently launched their own cloud music offering, though failed to negotiate deals with record labels ahead of the debut of the services.

While Apple has said little about what to expect from iCloud, the company took the unusual step of pre-announcing its WWDC 2011 announcement, saying in a press release that the company would "unveil its next generation software - Lion, the eighth major release of Mac OS X; iOS 5, the next version of Apple’s advanced mobile operating system which powers the iPad, iPhone and iPod touch; and iCloud, Apple’s upcoming cloud services offering."

See our rumor roundup on what iCloud might look like here.

Comments

[wilray]

10:34 AM on 06/06/2011

Get offa my cloud

http://youtu.be/O3F4GmbHl5g

[wilray]

08:31 AM on 06/06/2011

Let's see. Assuming that Bianca is correct this service cost $25 per year to use. Of course, you must also pay for the individual iTunes. Plus you will get advertising. So how is this better than what the other services are offering?

I think I'll stick with my ad free service. For $35 more per year than Apple's service or about
the cost of 35 iTunes, I can access 11 million songs on demand.

[JohnSawyer]

02:47 AM on 06/04/2011

Why not $25 a year for the service with no ads, and free with ads?

[Steve Ballmer]

11:30 PM on 06/03/2011

Gimme a break! Microsoft came up with all of this first!

http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

[Folklorist]

09:39 PM on 06/03/2011

Crazy idea: How about you wait until the thing is revealed and explained before criticizing it for its egregious excesses or shortcomings? If it sucks, then you'll have plenty of time to gloat and enjoy every word you write. If it doesn't, well then lots of you won't let that deter you from mocking iCloud and people who find it interesting anyway--but at least you'll be credible, unlike now.

[Pectin]

10:58 PM on 06/04/2011

Why wait, when you can post disparaging remarks based on hearsay right now?

[becky bradshaw]

07:28 PM on 06/03/2011

Apple needs to review the honesty of their marketing. Many consumers do not understand that Apple has abandoned North America. A striking example was Senator John McCain, who was recently embarassed to learn in a nationally televised interview, that Apple had moved to China (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/09/john-mccain/john-mccain-errs-saying-ipads-iphones-are-made-us/).

If a Senator, a politician who was the Republican nominee for President 3 years ago, is confused about one of the largest companies in the world, then there is an obvious problem.

Apple should either 1. (Best) Discontinue using the Apple brand, which is the source of the confusion, or, 2. (Better) Embark on an education initiative such that all Americans understand the Apple situation.

This same problem exists for Dell, Hewlett Packard, Texas Instruments, etc. All need to clarify their status with the public.

[alterego55]

07:13 PM on 06/03/2011

Apple is still trying to control and lock up its users. Give it up already. For $25 a year, you can store 100 GB of anything on Google cloud. Android and other OS's will make it easy and seamless. Of course, Apple will make it difficult if not impossible to do with iOS.

[Mediorite]

05:04 PM on 06/03/2011

They should fix iTunes first.

[fgbouman]

06:30 PM on 06/03/2011

Amen!

[BrotherJohn2010]

04:38 PM on 06/03/2011

Why does the press play this viral marketing game with Apple every time a technology revolution is about to be released? Can we wait till iCloud 2.0 after they've worked the bugs out of 1.0?

[LightShadow62]

04:20 PM on 06/03/2011

So you will need to pay Apple at least $25 a year to hold YOUR music, then they will dump ads on you media stream plus you will have to pay for the data access to listen to your music. What a crock.
You can also bet that Apple will within the next 18 months make iCloud an integral part of the iOS making it impossible to use media on their devices without a iCloud subscription.

[ProudToBeVeryLiberal]

04:24 PM on 06/03/2011

The members of the Apple church would gladly pay $25 a year to have the Apple logo tattooed on their forehead...

[alterego55]

10:39 PM on 06/03/2011

I'll raise you another $25 on that one, no wait, $250.

[David Chu]

12:13 AM on 06/04/2011

The first sentence of the article starts with "new rumors".

Wait till monday and you can do all the Apple/Apple Sheep bashing you want.

[LightShadow62]

03:32 AM on 06/04/2011

You are right, I should really wait to see how many other charges Apple will attach to their iCloud service before I pass judgement on just how pointless cloud storage is for all but major companies needing to sync hundreds of systems across the globe.

[SpinDown08]

02:35 PM on 06/03/2011

iCloud! For people who are too lazy to load their iPod...........

[J242]

03:36 PM on 06/03/2011

Or for those who have to buy a new one and want access to their music before going home and synching it all. Or who have a ton of content already filling up their drives but would like access to their library without having to carry around an external drive, etc...

I can see benefit from this but it's also not really a big deal except for the potential backup potential. Having an online backup of all your content? If they do it right, that's a solid concept right there.

[LightShadow62]

04:25 PM on 06/03/2011

A service for those who absolutely can't wait a couple of hours to possess a piece of music. These are the same people who sit in front of the microwave and scream "HURRY UP!!!"

[DRaymond]

02:10 AM on 06/06/2011

Yes but there are a LOT of places offering cloud backup services, and in some form or other offline backup services have been around for decades.

[Krek]

12:42 PM on 06/03/2011

It must be great to be an iTunes user. You get to pay record labels twice to listen to the same piece of music, once when you buy it, and then again when you stream it. If you buy your music through iTunes you also get to pay Apple twice. A double-dippers bonanza - and the iTunes user pays for it all.

[J242]

03:38 PM on 06/03/2011

How much does it cost to back up a 40 gig music and 60 gig video library without carrying around an external drive with you at all times? I think it's all going to come down to the implementation. If it's secure, fast and reliable as well as allows you to download local copies of your content I think this could be a big win. If it just streams, eh, not so much. Only time will tell I 'spose. We don't have all the details yet so I'm not making any judgement calls on it yet.

[Euges]

03:56 PM on 06/03/2011

Lawyers for the big labels have been on record at "Fair Use" trials as stating their idea of "Fair Use" is for us to pay each time we listen to a song.

[J242]

05:45 PM on 06/03/2011

Yup. Apple slapped them down and got them in line but most people aren't willing to think about that let alone admit to it.

[luvbrothel]

12:26 PM on 06/03/2011

This all seems a little unnecessary to purchase. Why not, for a little more, just purchase your own domain with an ftp and you can access your music you upload to it from anywhere. And you can upload anything you want, not just music purchased through iTunes.

[J242]

03:44 PM on 06/03/2011

Most domains have limits on the bandwidth restricted down to a few gigs of traffic per month. If you want an unlimited data host you're looking at more than $100 a year. My iTunes library is close to 100 gigs. Find me a web host that will give me that kind of space along with no traffic caps for less than $25 a year that is actually RELIABLE and I'll concede the point.

One could also build a Windows Home Server (PP1, not Vale) which gives you your own IP and as long as it's online you can use it for file sharing, media streaming, etc but you'll be spending about $500 on it which is the cost of 40 years worth of this service. Not trying to argue or anything, just point out the realities of the ideas you mention and how I don't see them as being reasonable alternatives in comparison UNLESS the service Apple offers only streams purchased content and doesn't allow you to download local copies or sync your devices to it.

[David Landry]

04:16 PM on 06/03/2011

Let's see ... 100 gigs of iTunes, at about 5MB per song, that's about 20,000 songs, and let's say $0.99 per song .. that would be nearly $20,000 worth of music ---- Either you can easily afford $100 a year to protect your $20K investment, or you spend all your money on iTunes and can't afford to even eat.

And I doubt that Apple is going to allow you 100 Gigs of storage at $25 per year for very long ... did I say "doubt"? Sorry, this is Apple, of course they're not going to allow you to pay $25 for a service that is worth at least $100 a year (Dropbox would charge $20/mth for that much storage, and you can be sure Apple is not going to charge less.)

[alterego55]

10:43 PM on 06/03/2011

Or Google cloud, 100 GB and more bandwidth you can use - for $25. Or, on the Amazon EC2 you can get a full Linux server with 10 GB for free, for a year.

[jabreal00]

12:18 PM on 06/03/2011

Wait a minute, so you mean to tell me that I will still have to purchase songs from iTunes only to let Apple charge me a fee (that will go up each year) to store it in the cloud? The reason why these companies are moving towards cloud services is this is a new way of monetizing the internet. They all want a subscription based business model.

I will stubbornly hold out and continue to use my hard drive where I am the gate keeper of my information.

[J242]

03:47 PM on 06/03/2011

Yeah, because Apple is so known for constantly up-charging for their services. lol How can you even say Apple will charge more per year? Did they ever start increasing the cost of mobile me? .Mac? iTunes regular DRM'ed tracks? No, negatory and nadda. Why do you assume they'll somehow change their entire policies after so many years for this one possible product and start increasing fees?

[Euges]

04:02 PM on 06/03/2011

Most songs on iTunes are now $1.29. And Mobile Me failed so bad they can't seem to give it away now.

[brandon20678]

12:15 PM on 06/03/2011

Why are people acting like we never had music using cloud before? Apple Amazon already has this and other services what’s so special about apple?

[David Landry]

04:18 PM on 06/03/2011

It comes in white (copyright,Apple 2011.)

[BrotherJohn2010]

04:42 PM on 06/03/2011

lol

[alterego55]

10:44 PM on 06/03/2011

Ha!

[J242]

04:33 PM on 06/03/2011

And Amazon's service is getting a lot of really negative reviews on their uptime as well as file corruptions. There were touch-screen phones before the iPhone, they just did it right and raised the bar for everyone else. Same thing with tablets and MP3 players. I hope they can do the same with cloud based music services but only time will tell.