Skip to main content

Seven features that would make a cloud iTunes offering immediately superior


After thinking a little more about the post I wrote on Saturday about how Apple's deals with the major labels aren't really that much of an advantage, I started thinking about what Apple could do with their cloud music offering that would truly make it immediately and obviously superior to what Google and Amazon have to offer. Any conversation I have with like-minded music geeks about music in the cloud always ends up the same way: that the products so far are interesting, but aren't really worth our while. Too slow, too inaccessible, not enough storage, not worth the cost. 

But what features could Apple offer that would trump Amazon and Google, and just as importantly, actually make it worth spending money on?

Make it sync exactly with iTunes
Deals with the major labels will only do so much. Apple needs to figure out a way that your cloud iTunes library looks exactly like your desktop iTunes library. I'm one of those music/Apple geeks that The Onion made fun of with an "immaculately maintained iTunes library", and so if my smart playlists and tags don't mirror what I have at home, it's a service that's only going to have limited use for me. I'll only turn to it when I'm desperate to hear something that I don't have on my iPod. This is a feature that's a must for me for a cloud iTunes to be more than a curiosity.

Make it an actual music locker/backup for your music
This is highly unlikely, both because of the label's copyright concerns and user's privacy concerns, but if they could have it actually upload the exact music files that you have on your machine which could be downloaded again in case of a hard drive fail, that would give them a huge advantage.

 Amazon already has a limited version of this, in that if you buy music from their mp3 store, it'll store them for you at no charge to the space and allow you to download the files, giving you a backup of everything you buy in the Amazon store.

Have an unlimited-space cloud music player, like Lala
I guess there are plenty of people who have music libraries below 20 GB, but I don't know very many. Now, I tend to be friends with some hardcore music nerds, and I know I'm biased towards my kind, but until a service can offer something that the music nerds will use and love, nothing is going to lead the pack.

Only require uploads for songs not in the iTunes library
This is the feature that people seem to think that Lala had: that you start the uploader program, and if it matches something in the library, it doesn't require the lengthy upload process for that song. People keep claiming that Lala had, but if they did, then I had a LOT of music that wasn't in the Lala library, because it took months for all my music to be uploaded.

Allow listening to full albums and songs without adding to your library
This was the real beauty of Lala, and I don't get why no one else has done it. I assume it's because paying those royalties eats way too much into the profits. But being able to go and check out a full album out of curiosity was fantastic, and thereason I really miss Lala.

Drop Ping and incorporate Lala's social features
I discovered a lot of great music simply through seeing what the people I was following were listening to and liking. This is almost a given in any cloud music offering that Apple will have, but they need to make it much better. Ping is worthless.

Ability to listen to your cloud library on the iPhone (at least)
This is another feature that's all but certain, but it's going to take some real smarts to make it good. If streaming my music starts eating a big chunk of my usage minutes, why wouldn't I just turn back to the iPod app instead of listening in the cloud?

Anything else you'd like to add?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why you should be clicking the Google +1 button

One of the things that most makes me feel like I'm beating my head against a wall is when I'm trying to convince people to click reaction buttons like the Facebook Like button or Google +1 button on web pages. I think that most people just don't really think to do it when they read something that they like, but they should, because as Avinash Kaushik brilliantly termed it , it's applause.  Now, I kind of get why people shy away from the using the Facebook Like button: because it shows up on your Wall, has a chance to show up in people's stream and now shows up in the ticker. All of those things are great for people trying to promote their content and get more clicks, but it's not so great for those of us just trying to get feedback on what people are liking and if they're actually reading what we're writing. Even if you're not actively embarrassed to have people know that you like it, it just feels a little more intrusive than a lot of people wan...
Post a Comment
Read more

Some scattered thoughts on the money of digital music

If you haven't already read Digital Audio Insider's interview with Camper Van Beethoven's Jonathan Segal ¹, it's a must read for anyone with even a slight interest in digital music and the money of the industry. Segal has tons of thoughts on just about every aspect of digital music, but best of all, he brings in these thoughts as someone whose initial music industry experience was in the days of purely-physical media, when "pirating" meant copying something onto a blank tape. My main takeway is general and obvious but an important reminder: we are in a transition time for music, and what it will become is anyone's guess. I think Segal's take on merchandise and live performances taking the place as artist's primary source of income as "asinine" is too harsh to be true, but I do think that we're in such a state of transition that any shot at predicting artistic income in the future is completely in the dark. Such predictions are really ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why are we still judging work done by time spent?

Every morning, when I fill in the hours on my work's electronic timesheet, I'm struck by how odd it is that we're still judging our work by the time spent on it. It's odd because it's old-fashioned. In the paper and phone world, you could really only do work when you were at work. But we do work all the time now. I check my email when I first wake up. Does that mean I start my day at 6:30 am? Should that be reflected on my timesheet? How about when I respond to an email or check Basecamp when I'm on the bus? Does my work day start then? How about when I look at Google Analytics at night or think about email newsletters when I'm in the shower (which I'm somewhat ashamed to admit I did this morning)? On the other side, if someone finishes the work that they're meant to do, why should they feel like they need to stay at work until 5:00, just because that's the official time of the work day? I don't think anyone would argue that time spent ...
Post a Comment
Read more