Amazon's Cloud music storage is here..

http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/...unveils-cloud-based-music-service?ft=1&f=1039

and

http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=amb_lin...W&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1292044122&pf_rd_i=5174

"We haz ways uv keeping yr music safe"

discuss...

 

If you buy downloads from Amazon I figure it's a good thing.

What about the 72 + gigs on my hard drive, though?

 

Cool...the future is slowly getting here finally!

 

$1000 per year for a terabyte.

https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/learnmore

 

Sounds like the tagline for "Back to the Future IV".

 

You did notice all the CDs and laserdiscs in the trash in Back To The Future II, right?

 

I have my own cloud.

 

I think this picture will be appropriate for many of the responses that will inevitably appear on this thread...

 

I looked at this, could get 20Gb for free for a year if I get a $5 or so MP3 album.

But.

I'm happy with my iTunes collection + BackBlaze network backup. I really don't need a cloud, just moving stuff into my iPod or iPhone from iTunes is fine for my needs. Less complexity.

 

Have they never heard of external hard drives? This sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

 

Amazon have been offering commercial virtual hosting and storage for a while now, and this is just an extension of that. No, it's not in search of a problem, it's another paradigm. Like Gmail.

There are interesting ramifications.

 

That's crazy! You can get far more space for a cheaper price by creating your own server.

 

Just for grins I uploaded one of my yearly comps. Playing it now.

 

Amazon may need to iron out the pricing but if you have a sizable amount of downloads and home made rips it's an option and give them credit for offering it to customers.

 

Three things:

a) Wow, that's expensive.

b) if all my data is in the cloud, won't my broadband costs go through the roof?

c) If everyone's pulling all their data from the cloud, won't that put huge loads on the infrastructure?

 

It isn't the same thing. Amazon's cost includes an allowance for data transfer over the internet, and its storage is on multiple redundant drives in Amazon's datacenters. A better comparison would be the cost of co-locating your own server with a TB of RAID storage at an ISP - and then paying for the upload/download data traffic.

I am not saying that Amazon's price is necessarily good value, but it is silly to compare it to the cost of getting your own external drive at home.

Tim

 

What makes me laugh, is the part about the labels fighting this. These places sell storage, what you load in has nothing to do with them. Can I sue a self storage place because some crook stored my stolen TV in one of their units?
I guess the labels will never, ever learn!

 

For now, I will certainly stick with redundant hard drives, one set at home and the other I store in my office. I wonder how long it will take for the price to drop to make this worthy of consideration?

While I like the backup aspects of using their servers, there are privacy isssues as well...

 

What happens if I stop paying? Will my cloud evaporate?

 

I don't have time to read all the details, but is it correct that only mp3s purchased from Amazon can be loaded? If so that's pointless. I'll get excited when they make a 2TB version that accepts ALL formats, and can be streamed over my iPhone...I guess that will be in about 5 years.

 

No you can upload anything (word documents, excel, images etc etc)

also, see below

I like that bit.. "All new Amazon MP3 purchases are stored for free" Does anyone know if the file is physically there or is it just added to your library pointing to a common single file store (this would make more sense, actually)?

 

I am hoping these services become cheaper. I use Rhapsody for $9.99 a month. I would want the 100 or probably the 200 GB option to replace Rhapsody. I could store higher than Rhapsody quality MP3s or FLACs. But at $9.99 a month for millions of songs it seems like a much better deal even if the quality is lacking.

 

No - not just Amazon MP3's - other formats/content can be loaded, as I read it, but only via a subscription fee.

 

Note the Terms of use

5.2.Our Right to Access Your Files. You give us the right to access, retain, use and disclose your account information and Your Files: to provide you with technical support and address technical issues; to investigate compliance with the terms of this Agreement, enforce the terms of this Agreement and protect the Service and its users from fraud or security threats; or as we determine is necessary to provide the Service or comply with applicable law.

 

That would probably make sense for all music, not just stuff purchased from Amazon. No need to have 1000 versions of Pet Sounds in 192kbps mp3 on Amazon's hard drives. Just have one and everyone that has rights to it can stream from the same set of files.

Otherwise it seems like an lot of wasted storage space.