Who's joining? About to try it out.

5GB free storage
$1/GB/yr for extra (from 20-1000GB)

New Amazon MP3 purchases don't count towards the quota

3/29/2011 8:50:12 PM

I don't really understand how Amazon's music service is any different than a service like Rhapsody where you pay a flat fee and get unlimited access to whatever you want on your computer or phone. You can even download unlimited albums/songs to store locally when you're not connected.

3/29/2011 9:11:57 PM

Since when have they had a subscription service like that? Amazon has an MP3 store where you buy individual songs/albums, not a streaming service like Rhapsody or Zune. This new cloud thing just lets you access stuff from anywhere and play music from it in a web browser.

3/29/2011 9:16:59 PM

^^yeh, this is more about the cloud service rather than purchasing song service. I have tons of songs already, so I don't care for a streaming service; but cloud storage for playback from multiple devices is what I'm looking for.

3/29/2011 9:23:14 PM

I guess this has to start somewhere. In 10 years there probably won't be much of a need at all for local storage. But for right now, I couldn't possibly care any less about uploading 5GB of my mp3s to some amazon.com server when I can stream all 200+GB of my stuff through Orb.

What I'd like to see is a rehash of what mp3.com did about 10 years ago. You could put a cd in your PC drive and run it through a program that read it and instantly granted you access to a copy of that cd they had stored online. You could then listen to that music from any computer you were logged into your account from. It would be great if there was an easy way to somehow convert what you've already purchased from all sources into the cloud without having to upload them yourself. I'm sure there would be tons of ways to take advantage of a system like that, but it's not like you can't just illegally download some mp3s now and upload them back up to the cloud.

3/29/2011 9:42:47 PM

Quote :

"Since when have they had a subscription service like that? Amazon has an MP3 store where you buy individual songs/albums, not a streaming service like Rhapsody or Zune. This new cloud thing just lets you access stuff from anywhere and play music from it in a web browser."

Service like what? You mean Amazon? I still don't see how it's different than Rhapsody or a similar subscription service. You can store unlimited albums/songs from Rhapsody for one flat rate a month. I don't want to have to think about buying each individual song/track. That's so old fashioned. I want everything there is all the time with the option to store it locally if you're not connected to the internet.

I can open Rhapsody on my iPhone and play any song or album they have. Sure it's not as large as the iTunes store but it usually has anything I want (more than 11,000,000 songs). Not far behind iTunes.

Why should I have to worry about purchasing music I want to listen to? I'd much rather just pay a flat rate and have everything. Plus Rhapsody's radio channels are pretty decent.

Personal cloud storage for media that isn't your own is stupid. It's already all out there. Just give me access to everything.

[Edited on March 29, 2011 at 10:09 PM. Reason : your own as in media you created]

3/29/2011 10:08:10 PM

Quote :

" I still don't see how it's different than Rhapsody or a similar subscription service. You can store unlimited albums/songs from Rhapsody for one flat rate a month. "

They're completely different.

Rhapsody/Zune grant you access to their library. You upload nothing and you don't buy individual tracks*.
This gives you a place to upload your library of tracks that you can then listen to like you would a Rhapsody/Zune, but it's limited to your content. Not their's.

* Yes, you can buy tracks using Rhapsody/Zune, you just don't have to in order to listen to most of their content.

3/29/2011 10:36:17 PM

I'll be interested in this when they release the API and people start writing tools that will let me mount my cloudspace as a network drive

3/29/2011 10:52:33 PM

^Didn't they already do it for Amazon S3? I hear it sucks.

3/29/2011 11:36:20 PM

I work pretty heavily with EC2 (which is what I thought this thread was about). There is a restful api as well as a very good java cli for most functions on s3 and ec2

3/30/2011 12:20:05 AM

How is this different than Dropbox?

[Edited on March 30, 2011 at 1:31 AM. Reason : I signed up when I got the e-mail btw...you never know when it might be helpful.]

3/30/2011 1:31:18 AM

I just did another research paper on cloud computing services featuring Amazon, Google and MS. Right when I was reading some academic sources, saw the news bit about the mp3 cloud yesterday. I love me some Amazon EC2.

3/30/2011 1:50:08 AM

Quote :

"^Didn't they already do it for Amazon S3? I hear it sucks."

S3 charges for all kinds of shit though. Cloud is a flat yearly fee for individuals. It's a completely different usage and distribution model (individual versus distribution).

I'm with Jadn. I signed up hoping they will allow people to script it. If they do, it'll be a quick demise for the plethora of cloud storage companies who are just using S3 as their provider (aka Dropbox and box.net)

3/30/2011 6:51:48 AM

Free 20GB plan for 1 year with new MP3 purchase

3/30/2011 7:10:27 AM

whoops
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Amazon-faces-backlash-over-rb-3699819521.html

Quote :

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - A new Amazon.com Inc service that lets customers store songs and play them on a variety of phones and computers is facing a backlash from the music industry that could ignite a legal battle. Amazon's Cloud Drive, announced on Tuesday, allows customers to store about 1,000 songs on the company's Web servers for free instead of their own hard drives and play them over an Internet connection directly from Web browsers and on phones running Google Inc's Android software. Sony Music, home to artists such as Shakira and Kings of Leon, was upset by Amazon's decision to launch the service without new licenses for music streaming, said spokeswoman Liz Young. "We hope that they'll reach a new license deal," Young said, "but we're keeping all of our legal options open." Amazon beat rivals Google and Apple Inc into the market for such "music locker" services, which are meant to appeal to consumers frustrated by the complexities of storing their favorite songs at work, home and on their smartphones. Apple and Google were expected to launch their services at the end of last year."

3/30/2011 9:11:31 AM

Quote :

"They're completely different. "

Yeah I was being partially sarcastic. I realize it allows you to upload your own tracks. But 95% of what I have Rhapsody has. I just feel adding the whole uploading, messing with files, etc into the mix is annoying and outdated.

Sure it's nice to have YOUR music uploaded somewhere but I'd rather just pay for everything and have access to it anywhere.

Then again I've started listening to mostly FLAC/lossless stuff and it's all so big it's hard to find an online solution without paying for massive amounts of online storage.

3/30/2011 1:25:45 PM

^^ You knew it was coming.

3/30/2011 2:44:49 PM

LOL at the music nazis ...

Streaming vs Storing are very different.

1)I upload something I own to a server which I can download it from (temporarily) and play it .....

2)I pay a fee for the right to listen to music from a remote source, where I do not actually own the full rights to carry the music around in a tangible way.

Which is the amazon cloud service offering?

[Edited on March 30, 2011 at 3:05 PM. Reason : .]

3/30/2011 3:04:57 PM

Shakira has no idea, she was just hoping to get some money out of this

3/30/2011 3:22:25 PM

Quote :

"2)I pay a fee for the right to listen to music from a remote source, where I do not actually own the full rights to carry the music around in a tangible way."

I see your point but services like Rhapsody DO allow you to download anything and carry it around without internet access. Sure it's not technically YOUR album that you paid for. I just want the option to listen to an album without buying it for $10 or whatever and still be legit about it. I can listen to 100 albums a month for the same price as 1 album a month. I can put all 100 of these albums on my iPhone without having to stream them for one flat rate. On the front end there's really no difference. I get unlimited access to everything with the option to download if I want. With Amazon you still have to acquire each individual album.

3/30/2011 3:31:29 PM

^ right ... which is why I am saying the music industry should have no say in how you store and listen to your music after you have PURCHASED THE MUSIC OUTRIGHT...

3/30/2011 3:48:07 PM

gladinet.com just updated their cloud service data management app to support Amazon Cloud Drive.

Free basic download or 50 bucks for the Pro version that supports realtime sync and backup.

Backing up all my stuff now with it, and it seems to work pretty well. This will save me about 50% over mozy/box.net etc, and the restore process is so much fucking better. No stupid filesize limits, no bandwidth limitations. I'm in

4/3/2011 10:15:32 PM

I just use live mesh and skydrive

5GB free syncing and 25GB total free storage

[Edited on April 3, 2011 at 10:49 PM. Reason : .]

4/3/2011 10:48:44 PM

^5gb isnt nearly enough for me cover my core data backup, and skydrive has a stupid 50mb/file limit. I have a decade of graphics and product design work that I need to keep backed up, and a LOT of it is larger than 50mb/file, and altogether is like 25gb.

If Live Sync or SkyDrive had for-pay options to get around the current limitations, I would have gladly gone that route.

4/3/2011 11:11:10 PM

yeah its only adequate for casual use. i was able to load >50mb files though by mounting as a network drive and uploading that way.

4/3/2011 11:28:32 PM

^^ I prefer the MS solution. For backups myself and my dad have our network drives backing up across the net.

I have yet to use one for personal use. However I'm about to try out "HomePipe" on my android tablet and see how it goes.

4/4/2011 5:22:16 PM

Can someone explain why you'd stream music from a cloud service anyway?

I just don't get it. You can't put enough music to satisfy yourself on your phone/other portable device? I can understand the virtues of streaming music within a home network, having centralized storage available to a stereo, a radio in the kitchen/garage/outside.... but from the cloud? Why?

4/4/2011 5:40:19 PM

because it prevents you from having to load music to mobile devices

4/4/2011 5:48:22 PM

^

I have ~200GB of music. 100GB of which is organized, which is the pool from which I listen to 100% of the time (the other 100GB is random shit, unorganized, duplicates, etc.).

Of that 100 GB, I have listened to ~50GB at least 1 time in the last year. It's much easier to just upload that 100GB one time and stream from anywhere, instead of relying on constant uploading/downloading to different devices. It also lets me have what I want, when I want.

4/4/2011 5:56:59 PM

So, instead of taking five mins to change out some music on your phone, to get you by for the week, you'd rather suck down that much bandwidth? Not to mention have to deal with draining your phone battery from having to use its radio? (Or any other wire less device in lieu of phone).

Not to mention, you won't put all 100 GB in the cloud, due to cost...

4/4/2011 9:10:30 PM

^the time to switch things out is highly variable. and who cares about all that bandwidth? i'm already paying for it, I might as well use it. Not to mention, I can normally have my phone plugged in 75% of the time when I'm streaming... no biggie for me. And I've routinely had nearly 100GB in the cloud for streaming.

4/4/2011 9:19:58 PM

meh, I just have Zune for music. I'd rather pay the monthly subscription to never have to worry about storage, backup, syncing, playlists or any of the other bullshit.

4/4/2011 9:24:54 PM

The bandwidth thing is what the real hold up is for me. Every carrier is pushing fpr capped data plans, and shit like that. Not to mention, if I want to listen to music and browse at the same time and I'm on a mobile device; either the music, or the browsing speed will suffer.

What quality can you stream at, too? I'm not a snob, wrt audio rips, but I can hear a difference in some, and prefer something around iTunes+ quality (I know its not the best, I don't care to get into that, just giving a common setting)...

You have 100GB in the cloud? Or you stream from a home server.... is there no difference? Its been ambiguous to me, as to what the cloud comprises of.... I always figured it had to be third party server space, but I guess it's starting to mean using the internet as a pseudo local network?

4/4/2011 9:55:23 PM

All I know is that on my WP, I go into the Zune client, push play and about 5 seconds later music starts playing. Sounds good to me, and I don't have to deal with any management.

4/4/2011 10:14:42 PM

I'm really liking the cloud player so far. I'm only using it with the three albums I've bought from Amazon over the past few days, but I can live with the interface. If they (or somebody) releases a native iOS app that works OK I'll likely jump on a 50GB plan.

4/5/2011 6:12:10 PM