[ericole]

I'll never understand this. I LOVE music - play an instrument and sing in groups. I also have a lot of recorded music; but I listen to it at specific times, when I'm in a mood.

I'll never understand so many people's constant need to have music non-stop, wherever they are. Have you ever turned the radio off, rolled down the window, and listened to the world go by? How about talking to the people standing in the line next to you?

[sandbag1]

[quote] "Either with our own music?imagine a way of sharing your iTunes library so your portable device can stream music from it anywhere?or a central server via a subscription service. No longer will we have to worry about which music we carry with us, and iPods will be little more than receivers with screens that tap into wireless networks"





Tell me what this article is suggesting that Simplify Media doesn't already do or for that matter Airfoil.

[kahaloa]

Correction. You need to consider ASCAP and BMI. They are part of the music industry, too.

[Rhywun]

Ugh... "the cloud" again. Give it up. Most people want to OWN their music, not rent it. And they want it to play on demand, and without having to cross their fingers that the network or service isn't down, again. Also, I'm not holding my breath waiting for the price to connect to "the cloud" to go down, either. It has done nothing but go up--with, admittedly, faster speeds, but with the same mediocre reliability as always (I have to reboot my cable modem several times a week).
PS. My iPod contains music from a dozen different sources, many of which do NOT overlap with the content of the iTunes store. I don't relish the idea of paying for 12 different subscriptions.

[XSemperIdem5]

So where would you be getting the signal? You can't have a signal everywhere. Will it be like those old VZW commercials: "Can you hear me now?". It would be nice to have such an option but not as the only option of course. More as a supplement. You can carry your faves on your iPod and stream the rest if you want it.

[Chris Breen]

XSemperIdem5 said:

So where would you be getting the signal? You can't have a signal everywhere.

I'm not picking on you specifically, but it's this kind of statement that makes me wonder how people who frequent such a forum as this and have witnessed massive leaps in technology and communication can suggest that having media in the ether is inconceivable.

Someone mentioned Simplify Media. With that I can stream the contents of my iTunes library to my iPhone or iPod touch over a Wi-Fi connection. No problem. I could conceivably do exactly the same thing with a service such as Rhapsody or Napster if such an option was offered. (After all, I can do it now with my laptop over Wi-Fi.)

So the missing piece is greater wireless coverage, which is certainly in the future with technologies that throw coverage farther. We're not talking flying cars here. This is in the works and will be no more of a miracle ten years from now than GPS is today.

[MarkNN]

It'll be interesting when Apple adds an sdcard-slot to the iPod. SDcards keeps music portable and is a preferred format to compact disc. And, who wants to just RENT music? :)

[MrLarrity]

I am not interested at all in subscription based music. Music is art that I like to own and sometimes share; this is why I think Rhapsody sucks and why I love iTunes.

I am also not sure about the cloud idea for security reasons. Plus, I assume this would be WiFi or cell network based, so where will all of this bandwidth come from? I can't imagine constantly streaming music remotely on anything other than wireless N networks with download speeds less than 10mbps. My ATT DSL is only 6 right now and they call that "Extreme". Only those lucky enough to have FIOS or Uverse upper tier services could pull off the cloud idea without long lags. I know others would argue differently, but I am thinking of widespread bandwidth usage. The US just isn't there yet for mass cloud downloading.

If anyone cares to counter what I've said, please feel free to enlighten us with what you know, because I am very interested in more positive possibilites.

[Chris Breen]

MrLarrity said:

If anyone cares to counter what I've said, please feel free to enlighten us with what you know, because I am very interested in more positive possibilites.

Okay.

Not all music is art. Much of it is disposable. Assuming you have some age on you, go back and look at the music you listened to in high school. How much of it do you listen to now?

Music is also something that can be explored. Once people hit a certain age (er, that Middle one) they tend to stop exploring and instead grumble about "that noise the kids call music today." You know, just like your parents did. With a subscription service you have the freedom to learn about new music without having to buy a new album or song every time you want to try something new. If you find some keepers, cool, buy them. It's not an either/or proposition.

This whole "ownership" notion seems so fuddy as well as duddy to me. Do you always eat the same meal every night? Watch exactly the same movies and TV shows over and over again?

Bandwidth: Again, assuming you have some age on you, do you recall when the IIfx was "wicked fast"? When 3 megapixels seemed like a big deal? When 1Mbps bandwidth was expansive? If you do, what makes you think that the standards we have today are those we'll have tomorrow? It takes very little imagination to see where we're going -- faster and more available bandwidth everywhere.

[MrLarrity]

Wow! Although I think it is cool to have my email responded to by Chris Breen, I am going to debate some of your points.

Yes, music is art, unless it is just total noise. Just because I don't like a particular genre, doesn't mean it isn't art to some poor soul.

As for having some age, I don't have that much, but I am over 30 with a long and wide stretch of music appreciation. The music of my youth is the 80's and 90's and yes I still listen to what I did in high school. (Nirvana, STP, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Smashing Pumpkins, Alice in Chains, A Tribe Called Quest, B.I.G., OutKast, 2Pac, Public Enemy, etc). I still listen to all of this and more because it is great music.

However, I also listen/ed heavily to Rock and R&B from the 60's and 70's which I get from my dad, like Dylan, Zeppelin, Beatles, Eagles, Cream, etc.

When music is that good, yes I want to own it. So when I have kids, I can pass down these jewels of fine music to them that will inspire, entertain, and hopefully culture them as I was, to expand their horizons and world view. So yes, ownership of music is not old fashioned, it is essential if you truly love it and are touched by it. Music and album art are to be cherrished forever (or so we hope). Music is not like crappy movies or TV shows, music moves us like nothing else; we've been creating and enjoying music for 5,000 years now and counting.....

I can agree with you on the bandwidth issue, but the United States is far behind on this, and continues to fight the investment into increasing bandwidth. Sure, one day things will improve and we will catch up, but I am not going to wait to hear my music until then, I want it now. I remember 8 tracks, albums, and cassettes, even CDs. Heck, minus the CDs, I've had to re-purchase much of my original music from iTunes (or other sources) just to have it on my iPods or now iPhone.

I am not trying to dis technology, I only wish that my technology will better enhance my music experience, not restrict it with rented models that keep me from enjoying the music of my past and youth, and then sharing it with future generations. Besides, music today mostly does suck!

[Chris Breen]

MrLarrity said:

Yes, music is art, unless it is just total noise. Just because I don't like a particular genre, doesn't mean it isn't art to some poor soul.

I'm not of the camp that believes art is purely subjective. And music needn't be total noise to be disposable. Look at Brittany Spears' stuff, Phil Collins, Kenny G, John Tesh, Yawn-ee, (insert whatever name you like in here). It may be pleasant or evoke memories for you, but that doesn't elevate it to art.

Quote

As for having some age, I don't have that much, but I am over 30 with a long and wide stretch of music appreciation. The music of my youth is the 80's and 90's and yes I still listen to what I did in high school. (Nirvana, STP, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Smashing Pumpkins, Alice in Chains, A Tribe Called Quest, B.I.G., OutKast, 2Pac, Public Enemy, etc). I still listen to all of this and more because it is great music.

Give it another 10 years. ;)

Quote

However, I also listen/ed heavily to Rock and R&B from the 60's and 70's which I get from my dad, like Dylan, Zeppelin, Beatles, Eagles, Cream, etc.

Okay, so of those albums how many can you really stand to listen to any more? Even Robert Plant can't stand listening to "Stairway to Heaven" and when was the last time you listed to Hotel California or Sgt. Pepper? I own all this stuff too, but I'm done with it.

>So yes, ownership of music is not old fashioned, it is essential if you truly love it and are touched by it.

I agree. But the music you own isn't the only music on the planet. And it seems short-sighted to me to listen to only what you're familiar with. And ownership breeds that kind of familiarity and a measure of isolation (the isolation that causes people to mouth the "today's music is crap" sentiments).

>Music is not like crappy movies or TV shows

You should tour my record collection some time. Some of it is exactly like crappy movies and TV shows.

Quote

I only wish that my technology will better enhance my music experience, not restrict it with rented models that keep me from enjoying the music of my past and youth, and then sharing it with future generations.

I don't get this. Are you saying that if you were to pay Napster $5 a month to stream music to your computer, a Napster representative would come to your house and take away your CDs and iPod?

Again, it's not either/or. It's an alternative and a really nice one for people who want to listen to new music instead of the same-old-same-old.

As for sharing with future generations, sharing works both ways. My daughter hasn't hit 10 yet and has already had it with much of the music I like. She no longer considers it a gift to listen to the stale music from the old days. Instead, we pull up channels and charts in Rhapsody, give 'em a listen, and talk about what we hear. (For example, she's taken a liking to Acid Jazz and I have too. And we agree that Linkin Park seems incapable of producing a record that doesn't have EVERY DANGED INSTRUMENT IN THE CITY PLAYING AS LOUD AND LONG AS IT CAN.)