OSX Lion, iOS 5, and iCloud

[txlaw]

Since a lot of us are invested in GOOG, MSFT, RIM, DELL, NOK, INTC, LVLT, etc., I figure we all will want to look at this stuff.  Probably most of us already have, but just in case.

 

http://www.apple.com/

 

I was impressed.  I'm interested in hearing what others think.

[Guest misterstockwell]

That page uses the buggy invasive QuickTime--no thanks

 

As for the Apple annuncements, I agree with the stock....meh

[Guest VAL9000]

The event was yawn-inducing, but I think we're a bit spoiled by Apple's usual razzle-dazzle.  This is, after all, a developer conference.  A lot of what was presented is important to devs.

 

I didn't see much in the way of strategic evolution.  I liked the reinforcement of the native app + cloud model, leading to a stickier application environment and better customer retention.  The iCloud system has potential but I think the offering is half-baked as is.  I'm  surprised they didn't go bigger, but perhaps they're taking baby steps.  Moving away from the PC tether is a good move for them.  Will this impact PC sales?  We'll see by how much.

 

The new iOS feature set is nice (catch-up, as Peter said, is a fair description).  Split keyboard!  The updated notification system is important.  iMessage is a tough call.  Apple has a lot of devices in the wild, but the lack of interoperability could cause the network effect to kick in.  Wouldn't people rather use Facebook or Skype for this?

[ERICOPOLY]

I like their idea of just letting you use a copy of the music already in their cloud (from any one of your devices) if you can prove you already have a copy somewhere on one of your drives.  And these can just be files you ripped from your old CD collection, not necessarily anything you bought via iTunes store.

 

I suppose even if you have a terabyte of music data, it's still only $25 a year.  Amazon charges $1,000 a year for a terabyte of online storage.

 

[Guest VAL9000]

I like their idea of just letting you use a copy of the music already in their cloud (from any one of your devices) if you can prove you already have a copy somewhere on one of your drives.  And these can just be files you ripped from your old CD collection, not necessarily anything you bought via iTunes store.

 

I wonder if by "uploading" your music they check to see if you ripped the music yourself or if you're using a widely distributed pirated/bootlegged copy.  I'm really skeptical about this whole concept.  I'll wait a few years before embarking on that journey <shoves skeletons back in closet>.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

This is a completely new way of doing cloud music.  Surprised by the "yawn" and "nothing new" attitude.

 

[Guest Hester]

This is a completely new way of doing cloud music.  Surprised by the "yawn" and "nothing new" attitude.

 

 

I've got to say I really am too. Considering every crappy company with the word "cloud" in the description is selling at 10 times sales, it really surprises me that investors aren't eating this up.

 

Maybe it will take some time to set in.

 

[txlaw]

I definitely think you could characterize the iOS updates as baby steps.  In fact, a lot of the improvements are features that have already been part of Android.  Still, incremental updates like these are good and have the effect of keeping iOS/MacOS one of the frontrunners in the platform war.  

 

The iMessage system is very interesting.  In order for it succeed in the biz world, I think Apple will need to agree with Google and Microsoft to make their messaging systems interoperable.  That would be real troublesome for RIMM.  Also sucks for the carriers who love to charge exorbitant rates for SMS.

 

Lion updates are pretty awesome for only $30 (if you already have a Mac).  I really like the gesture UI additions.  Also a nice way to get people who have Macs to buy from the App Store even if they don't have other Apple devices, since everything syncs (albeit only over wifi).  We continue to see the convergence of iOS and the MacOS.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a device in two to three years that combines the aspects of the MacBook Air and iPad and that has both interfaces available for use depending on how you're using the device.

 

The music deal is very interesting.  Pretty smart to get people to legitimize their less than legal music by paying $25 a year.  It could potentially be like the Netflix of music.  New songs are bought for $1 and you get access to the a catalog of older music for an annual fee.  VAL is right, I think, to worry about having your music scanned to see how much pirated music you have.  Apple and the record labels might try to keep a record of the people who appear to be the worst offenders.

 

iCloud and untethering from the PC is very good.  Sucks that you can only sync over wifi, but that highlights the problem we are having with spectrum shortages and the last mile problem.  

 

I was surprised there was no new iPhone announcement.  

 

All in all, though, I thought it was a pretty eventful Keynote.  Certainly beats the "new" Windows 8 UI announcements, which seem rather quaint in comparison.

[Guest VAL9000]

This is a completely new way of doing cloud music.  Surprised by the "yawn" and "nothing new" attitude.

I yawn because I don't find the offer compelling.  My belief is that the world will adopt the Netflix model - all you can eat streaming from a catalogue of media for a monthly subscription price.  This, to me, is the right solution.  Offering something less than that is underwhelming, hence the yawn.  I'm going to pass on this.

[txlaw]

This is a completely new way of doing cloud music.  Surprised by the "yawn" and "nothing new" attitude.

I yawn because I don't find the offer compelling.  My belief is that the world will adopt the Netflix model - all you can eat streaming from a catalogue of media for a monthly subscription price.  This, to me, is the right solution.  Offering something less than that is underwhelming, hence the yawn.  I'm going to pass on this.

 

I think that's what Apple is trying to get at with their new Match service.

 

Netflix gives access to older video content at a fixed monthly price.  For relatively new content, there is still a window where pay per view (through movie theaters, MVPD, YouTube, and other storefronts) and purchase is the business model.

 

Apple is trying to do the same thing for music, only the older audio content is initially based on the user's existing audio library.  New music is accessed through purchase, broadcast/subscription model (XM/Sirius), broadcast/ad model (regular radio, Pandora, etc.), and ad-supported on-demand listening (e.g., YouTube,Vevo).

 

It will be interesting to see what type of window that record labels put into place for music before new music gets added to the old music catalogue.

[Guest VAL9000]

I think that's what Apple is trying to get at with their new Match service.

It's a philosophically different way of doing it, but I see what you're getting at.

 

My take is that this has a very low user benefit and will result in a very high cost to the user.

 

Apple has done a very smart thing here.  There are basically two music formats in use: AAC (with DRM) and MP3 (no DRM).  Apple is offering you the capabilities to supply a full MP3 library and convert that library to an AAC-based, Apple managed library.  All competitors, however, are unable to offer the same switching solution.  Apple's DRM restricts non-Apple devices from playing those files.  So, anything you buy non-Apple can be Appleized.  Anything Appleized cannot be un-Appleized*.  Uh oh.

 

* You can remove DRM for $.30-$.60 per track.

 

 

[txlaw]

I think that's what Apple is trying to get at with their new Match service.

It's a philosophically different way of doing it, but I see what you're getting at.

 

My take is that this has a very low user benefit and will result in a very high cost to the user.

 

Apple has done a very smart thing here.  There are basically two music formats in use: AAC (with DRM) and MP3 (no DRM).  Apple is offering you the capabilities to supply a full MP3 library and convert that library to an AAC-based, Apple managed library.  All competitors, however, are unable to offer the same switching solution.  Apple's DRM restricts non-Apple devices from playing those files.  So, anything you buy non-Apple can be Appleized.  Anything Appleized cannot be un-Appleized*.  Uh oh.

 

* You can remove DRM for $.30-$.60 per track.

 

 

Not true.  iTunes Match upgrades your old songs to 256kbps AAC DRM-free.   

 

Furthermore, you do not have to have an Apple device.  If you have iTunes on Windows 7, you will be able to use the service.

 

If you have an Android device, on the other hand, you are out of luck.  Unless Google can negotiate the same sort of deal with the record labels.

 

[txlaw]

I think that's what Apple is trying to get at with their new Match service.

It's a philosophically different way of doing it, but I see what you're getting at.

 

My take is that this has a very low user benefit and will result in a very high cost to the user.

 

Apple has done a very smart thing here.  There are basically two music formats in use: AAC (with DRM) and MP3 (no DRM).  Apple is offering you the capabilities to supply a full MP3 library and convert that library to an AAC-based, Apple managed library.  All competitors, however, are unable to offer the same switching solution.  Apple's DRM restricts non-Apple devices from playing those files.  So, anything you buy non-Apple can be Appleized.  Anything Appleized cannot be un-Appleized*.  Uh oh.

 

* You can remove DRM for $.30-$.60 per track.

 

 

Not true.  iTunes Match upgrades your old songs to 256kbps AAC DRM-free.  

 

Furthermore, you do not have to have an Apple device.  If you have iTunes on Windows 7, you will be able to use the service.

 

If you have an Android device, on the other hand, you are out of luck.  Unless Google can negotiate the same sort of deal with the record labels.

 

 

we don't know the TOS yet do we? This guy, who knows the business, says it is DRM in the cloud. one thing we do know. it is not a streaming service. and it's a ball of confusion. There are more questions than answers.

http://www.michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=292

 

According to Apple, your existing catalog of non-iTunes bought songs, if available through iTunes, will be upgraded to DRM-free AAC files. 

 

In any case, it doesn't really matter.  The point is to get people to start paying for access to both old audio content and new audio content by making things easier for users.  Basically, the 80% of your catalog that you got by using Napster, Limewire, BitTorrent, etc. will be monetized by the record labels. 

 

Will new songs be DRM-free?  Yeah, you can buy DRM-free songs.  But in a world where everyone is streaming music rather than listening to client-side copies, who cares about DRM?  That's where we're going, after all.

 

[Guest VAL9000]

 

Not true.  iTunes Match upgrades your old songs to 256kbps AAC DRM-free.   

 

Furthermore, you do not have to have an Apple device.  If you have iTunes on Windows 7, you will be able to use the service.

 

If you have an Android device, on the other hand, you are out of luck.  Unless Google can negotiate the same sort of deal with the record labels.

 

Yeah let me clarify that because there's lots of room for interpretation.  Everything you buy from Apple is stuck in Apple's world, unless you pay the premium for no DRM.  Songs with DRM can't be moved over to an alternate cloud library - this is what I'm referring to, not devices.  So, to restate: If you buy something in Apple's store, you can't move it without paying more.  But if you buy from other stores, you can always move your purchases to Apple for free.  It's still a one-way solution and a net win for Apple vs. their competitors.

 

This brings me back to an earlier discussion about Apple's moat.  The whole existence of DRM is a significant benefit to Apple.  In this model, for every 1,000 songs that you have purchased in iTunes, you increase your switching costs by $300.  When customers think about switching from an iPad to a Motorola Xoom, they will have to account for the additional $300 it will cost them to supply that new device with their library.  Unless Apple provides iTunes from Android (doubtful?).

 

This same effect was felt with Windows and Windows software.  Switching costs are just way too high for businesses and consumers to consider non-Windows operating systems.  The result was having to buy all new non-Windows software.

 

[Guest VAL9000]

Will new songs be DRM-free?  Yeah, you can buy DRM-free songs.  But in a world where everyone is streaming music rather than listening to client-side copies, who cares about DRM?  That's where we're going, after all.

The issue here isn't DRM per say.  It's about access to the media that I own.  If everything is streamed, am I able to stream from everything?  For example, can I load up my Xbox and play my iTunes library?  Can I play Google Music on an iPhone, or will Apple say no to competing media apps?  There's a culture of command and control at Apple, and as a customer who is aware of it, I'm not getting the warm'n'fuzzies.

 

[zarley]

I really have to agree with VAL9000, peter_burke, and the other yawners.  My ordinary response to Apple's product launches is:  Oooh.  Shiny, I want.  But this cloud music idea is meh.  Giving up my MP3 catalog to Apple so they can stream it back to me really has nearly zero appeal.  I agree that a netflix/rhapsody style subscription is a better model -- certainly for me anyway.

 

In fact, I'm a little skeptical of the benefit of most large scale cloud computing concepts.  Yes it makes sense for some things and for some people/firms, but I really don't want everything I do subject to server and bandwidth constraints that are well out of my control, and subject to hacking/loss.  Plus, I have way more data (music, movies, pictures, etc.) than I could ever want to host on a cloud.  A simple, low cost, cloud based data back-up system might be appealing, but having standard storage options that cost $80 per TB makes it hard for me to even consider that, for now.

 

I guess I'm meh on the whole cloud concept, Apple or otherwise.  I'm pretty sure that just means I'm getting old.  :)

 

 

[txlaw]

The point really is that, going forward, users pay for access to music on an individual or household basis.  Therefore, I believe the DRM vs. DRM-free paradigm gets discarded over time since it all is essentially delivered or monitored via the cloud where the record labels know who is accessing the music.

 

In other words, I believe that in two years or so, you will always pay one price if you want to "buy" a "new song" for all-the-time access, and that access right will essentially incorporate DRM (whether network-based or file-based).  Alternatively, you will be able to access "new music" through ad-supported and subscription-supported services like XM, Pandora, etc.  Whether "new music" will eventually be moved to an "old music" subscription catalog is an open question, but I suspect they will have to go that route at some point.

 

An important question that Peter Burke and VAL have brought up is whether there will be alternative music services or ways to get access to your music services on whatever device you choose.

 

My understanding is that your locally stored copies of non-iTunes music do not get removed upon use of iTunes Match; instead, they get replaced with DRM-free files.  If I'm right about that, then if you switch to a Google device instead of an Apple device, you can upload all your DRM-free music that is locally stored to Google Music (or to Amazon's music storage service, for that matter).  If Apple actually removes locally stored music, then we have a problem.  I doubt that will happen because we will all cry bloody murder.

 

Essentially, there is a one-shot $25 upfront payment to legitimize your pirated catalog.  If you stop paying the $25, you will no longer be able to sync your music via iCloud on your various Apple devices.  However, with the transition to a catalog subscription model, Apple is likely betting that you will pay $25 next year to have an expanded catalog of "old music" that includes music you have not downloaded illegally.

 

That's my guess.  If Apple doesn't release a streaming version of iTunes, then I'm wrong.  But I think they will once all the carriers are well into the 4G buildout.  In other words, iTunes Match is a way to get people used to paying $25 on an annual basis for a catalog of music.  iTunes wants to be the Netflix of music.

 

With respect to "new songs" bought from iTunes, Apple has not indicated that you will no longer be able to buy DRM-free locally stored copies of your music.  Unless they're planning otherwise, you should be able to transfer the local files to your new Android or Windows device without any problems.

 

Eventually, though, we get to a world where music is streamed or verified as paid-for over the cloud.  At that point, the streaming iTunes service could be on more than just Apple devices.  So, just like the iPhone has Google Maps, Android will likely have iTunes, which you will be able to access via the browser or via an app. Again, iTunes becomes the Netflix (or Spotify) of music in the US.

 

Alternatively, if streaming iTunes is only available via an app on Apple devices, then the labels will likely allow a non-iTunes service to have the same functionality.  Otherwise, the record labels and Apple are looking at major antitrust actions, especially given that the EU has already gone after those guys before regarding iTunes.

 

------

 

I'm speculating on all this, of course. 

[txlaw]

If you stop paying the $25, you will no longer be able to sync your music via iCloud on your various Apple devices.

 

I should have said, you will no longer be able to sync your music on your devices that run iTunes (Apple devices and PCs).

[Guest misterstockwell]

This is beyond stupid. Why would I pay Apple for this? I have 2TB of high quality lossless music that I can listen to anywhere. You'd have to be an iIdiot to pay for the privelege of listening to your own music.

 

Much more entertaining and interesting was yesterday's Xbox/Kinect presentation. All voice or gesture, with integrated Bing search, Live TV, netflix, hulu, etc. The games are incredible.

[txlaw]

This is beyond stupid. Why would I pay Apple for this? I have 2TB of high quality lossless music that I can listen to anywhere. You'd have to be an iIdiot to pay for the privelege of listening to your own music.

 

You're paying Apple and the record labels for the portion of your music collection that is not legit, so to speak.  The carrot is the ability to legitimize your existing music collection and to replace the audio files you have with higher quality versions.  The vast majority of people do not have "high quality lossless" versions of all their music.  At least, that's my experience. 

 

Eventually, perhaps even after just one year, the $25 annual fee becomes a catalog subscription a la Spotify.

 

Much more entertaining and interesting was yesterday's Xbox/Kinect presentation. All voice or gesture, with integrated Bing search, Live TV, netflix, hulu, etc. The games are incredible.

 

I'd like to see this, actually.  Can you provide a link to the presentation?

[txlaw]

eventually apple takes us to streaming? goog and amzn believe streaming is here now. Notice how many questions there are about this service? My experience is that when products are hard to understand, as this one is, adoption is slow.

 

Sure, but remember that Apple has very close relationships with the carriers.  Apple is not going to release a fully functional music streaming service -- one that doesn't just involve streaming the music you already have in your library -- until you can do it on every Apple device without many technical problems. 

 

I mean, there is very little functional difference between streaming your existing music library and syncing your existing music library between devices.  The only real difference I can see will be for people who want access to their music library on their work computer or on someone else's computer.  With respect to the work computer, if somebody already has an iPhone or iPad, they won't need to stream their existing library onto their work computer.  And how often are you streaming your music on someone else's computer?

 

Furthermore, what will the carriers have to say about streaming all your music to your mobile devices using Google Music and Amazon's service?  Time to institute more draconian caps on their data services?

 

That's why I think Apple will roll out streaming when the 4G networks start being deployed in full force and after the carriers give their blessing.

 

By the way, I don't like that the carriers have such power.  I just think that's the way it is . . . for now.

 

With respect to the service being hard to understand . . . this was WWDC.  Rest assured that before the services actually release, there will be a barrage of iAdvertising spelling out what the services actually do (or purport to do).

[txlaw]

Check this article and WWDC video out. 

 

http://gigaom.com/apple/think-icloud-is-reactionary-think-again/

 

Just makes you realize how visionary Jobs is.  You should also read the Steve Jobs Playboy article and watch the joint interview with Jobs and Gates at the AllThingsD conference to see how forward thinking both those guys are.

 

Clearly, the partnerships with the carriers and music labels are helping to determine when Apple releases certain functionality.  These partnerships have served Apple well in the recent past, so it seems unlikely that they would rock the boat, especially since Jobs has stated in the past that they could have been a contender against MSFT in the past had they just done a better job with partnerships.

[Guest VAL9000]

I'd like to see this, actually.  Can you provide a link to the presentation?

 

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/xbox/VideoGallery.aspx

 

Should be the default video, Jun 6 - 90 mins.  The gesture and voice recognition are amazing (assuming they work as advertised).

[DCG]

Regarding online music streaming: Most major record labels have been strongly fighting that. Companies like Spotify, Grooveshark, Last.fm offer that service, but record labels are constantly trying to get them shut down. Part of the problem is that laws regarding piracy differ per country.

 

Regarding announcements at the WWDC outside of iCloud, Lion and iO5 feature some great new changes. Apple is not usually the first company to come up with features/products. What they are great at is looking at other products on the market and greatly improving upon them. They come up with ideas to improve products that no other companies seem to be able to come up with, and focus on taking ideas from other companies and making them easier for people to use.

 

I've been an Apple shareholder for several years and have learned to pay absolutely no attention to short-term moves in the stock price.

[Guest misterstockwell]

I see nothing visionary at all. Squeezeboxes/Slimserver have allowed me to stream my own music anywhere, anytime, for years, even to other devices wherever I may be on earth. Why do people allow Jobs to pick their pocket at every turn?