Blog Post

Music in the Cloud: Heavenly or Pipe Dream?

Stay on Top of Emerging Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!
Source: Flickr user erin MC hammer

Let’s face it, remembering to sync just stinks. With MobileMe, Apple introduced “over-the-air” syncing, allowing your contacts and emails to appear on your phone and computer automatically without intervention. Small amounts of data make it easy. However, if you want music, that’s a whole different story.

Currently, you need to manually hook up your iPhone or iPod to your Mac in order to sync, and most music collections exceed the size of the average music player. Kevin Tofel over at GigaOm Pro proposes the idea (subscription required) of moving all your music to the “cloud” and then streaming your music to your player. This way, your entire music collection is available over an Internet connection. Kevin mentions that ZumoDrive already offers the ability to play music synced to the cloud, so why not extend that to other services? If you can purchase music via your iPhone, why not stream it? Great idea, but not the way Kevin suggests it.

For one, we’ve already been down this road of keeping your collection in the cloud. Before clouds meant anything but rain, came up with a similar idea. In January 2000, it introduced a service that let you stream your entire music collection via its website. You simply proved you owned a particular CD and then it unlocked the album from its digital locker and allowed you to listen to it. Unfortunately, the record industry didn’t like this service since they thought it represented unauthorized duplication and distribution. It’s been a decade and the music industry has accepted that digital music is a fact of life. The case might have gone differently today. minimized the need to actually move the data around and was ahead of its time.

A big problem with using the cloud to sync your music is the sheer size of data. A few songs are great, but whether you use DropBox or ZumoDrive, a large MP3 collection would be prohibitively expensive to keep in the cloud, and take forever to upload over a consumer-grade broadband connection. Additionally, while the cloud can be convenient, it can also go up in smoke at the drop of a hat. Just ask anyone with a T-Mobile Sidekick. A song collection represents hundreds of hours of ripping or thousands of dollars in online purchases. It would be risky to keep solely in the cloud. While you would still have the music on your computer, keep in mind that “syncing” is not “backing up,” because when syncing goes haywire, it has the ability to erase data from your computer. SugarSync recently did that to me, and man it stung!

An Alternative

Personally, I prefer to use Pandora and to bring my music with me. With their ability to customize stations, I’m able to hear songs I already own as well as discover new artists. While it’s not identical to my music collection, it provides a majority of the same songs and same artists. If you want your exact music collection accessible anywhere, software already exists to do that. Simplify Media allows you to stream your iTunes collection to another computer or to your iPhone and it even works on slower Internet connections. This keeps the data on your computer and hopefully safely backed up.

Backups are really the key, though. As so many of us move to online backup services such as Mozy, Carbonite, and Backblaze, why couldn’t they extend their services like Kevin suggests and allow streaming of your backed up music collection? A good online backup should be an exact duplicate of your music collection. Carbonite already provides instant remote access to your online files and I’m sure Mozy and Backblaze will be sure to follow. Bandwidth, of course, is an issue, but I’d gladly pay a few extra bucks a month to have my MP3 collection backed up and accessible to me anytime anywhere via a web browser or my iPhone. That should be a good value add for these companies and earn them a bit of extra revenue.

Good idea Kevin, though I disagree with the implementation. Too bad that was a decade ahead of its time. It should take the Newton team out for a beer and talk about what that’s like!

10 Responses to “Music in the Cloud: Heavenly or Pipe Dream?”

  1. I’ve been using – they offer the fastest way to post iTunes playlists in the cloud. They let me play my friends playlists with music videos from YouTube, and Yahoo. This seems to be a much larger library of online music because I rarely find a track they don’t have. They have a full screen listening mode that turns my Playstation 3 into the ultimate MTV.

  2. has no one thought about how this would slaughter your iPhone’s battery?

    listening to my music stored on my iphone i can do for about 24 hours or so. Listening to it over the cloud, or by streaming it, and I’ll probably be looking at about 6!

  3. The cloud for music is fine. If you have an iPhone (forget iPods). And you have a reliable connection, like WiFi (AT&T’s network, forget it). And you aren’t doing anything else with your phone, since streaming would require a third-party app.

    So, in other words, you can only reliably stream music from the cloud under very limited circumstances…so limited that it is nearly useless.

    • “you can only reliably stream music from the cloud under very limited circumstances…so limited that it is nearly useless.”

      Definitely a limitation, but my proposal outlined music caching, much like Slacker Radio does with BlackBerry devices. May not be the answer, but it removes the “nearly useless” attribute. ;)

  4. Awesome commentary Dave and thanks for reminding me of! But the thrust of my specific implementation idea is that Amazon is best poised to make this a reality. They have the storefront and DRM-free content, plus their S3 service can cost pennies per GB. All they need is to leverage their scalable storage space and add a playback function the storefront client already on Android and webOS devices.

    I remember how the music industry was up in arms earlier this decade with but I think times have changed. The industry can’t stop me from making multiple copies of their content I buy through Amazon today, for example. So the only real difference if I store those files locally and stream them (which I can already do) or if those files are stored by Amazon. It’s not a huge leap in my mind, but as you correctly said, was a decade ahead of its time! ;)