Amazon Cloud:Pros, Cons & What It Means for You
At first glance, Amazon's new Cloud Drive service looks like just a rad new version of Dropbox, with gigs of digital space on Amazon's sturdy servers and an easy interface for web and Android users. But take a closer look -- with its streaming music player, it's actually very well positioned as a newer, easier, better iTunes.
Until now, there's never been an easy way to share music between devices. At least when it comes to Apple products, users have to load their files into iTunes, then go through a rigamarole of authenticating devices and synching them to the device holding the files. The music is only accessible on that satellite device, and storage on the device can fill up quickly.
But with Amazon's new Cloud Drive service, those days of cords and cursing may be over. Each user gets a digital space called a "locker", and these lockers can hold music files purchased from anywhere and then stream them using Amazon's Cloud Player application, accessible through the web or any smartphone.
How It Works
Getting set up is, ahem, a breeze. After installation, the Amazon MP3 Uploader automatically scans your computer for any music files or playlists, compares them to your locker, then imports the new files.
1.
2.
3.
Listening to music is theoretically just as easy. The Amazon Cloud Player streams to any web browser, and there's an Android app. Mashablediscovered a way to hack it to play on iOS devices, though it isn't perfect.
Another con is cost. After the first 5 gb, it's about a buck a gig, which can add up quickly for any significantly-sized music collection.
But player problems aside, for anyone who's ever lost a music collection after a hard drive crash, this idea makes a lot of sense. And generally, having access to a large storage space that's secure and easily accessible seems like a fair deal.
So, is being first best? Google has been rumored to be working on a similar cloud storage system, and now that it's being threatened Apple is sure to throw its hat into the ring.
But for now, Amazon is here, it's free and it's easy. And you can't ask for much more than that.
(Image: Flickr member turtlemom4bacon licensed for use under Creative Commons)
Categories:
When wireless providers start tiering data plans, streaming music from "the cloud" is going to be expensive...
i think it's a great idea and i'm really happy that Amazon is becoming a part of so many great things.
but like NathBattles said..it'll be pretty damn expensive when providers start tiering data plans...wish they didn't have to do that.
At first glance, Amazon's new Cloud Drive service looks like just a severely handicapped version of Dropbox. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently
... it doesn't have a native client on any desktop OS, requiring you to manually upload files or scan for a small set of file types.
... it doesn't have a native client for iOS, which happens to be a wildly popular mobile device OS.
... it doesn't sync with any computer platform, so it can't be used to keep multiple systems in line.
... it doesn't do drag and drop photo albums (or in fact any albums at all).
... it can't be used for sharing.
... it doesn't have revision control, allowing you to revert to a previous version of a file.
There are a lot of cloud storage solutions out there, but I think the comparison with Dropbox is off base.
curby, this is for music only...think of it as a music only version of Dropbox. Hence, you are not supposed to be able to revise the files or share the music or add photo albums...among many other limitations. Also, rumor is that Apple will be doing this for iTunes so why would they allow Amazon to create their own app?
Here in Canada, the ISPs were about to have tiered internet but the government is "investigating" it so they have to put it on hold. They even released the pricing plans. If a family uses Apple TV or netflix and start streaming all your music etc, eventually it'll get very expensive.
News of this service has been making the blogsphere rounds as a general file storage service. I mean, Lifehacker just had a comparison between Dropbox, Could Drive, and Sky Drive.
I'm not sure whether it's supposed to be music only (aside from some of Amazon's music-centric features such as the cloud player) but if people are going to speak of it in such general terms, it needs to be evaluated and compared on those terms. If this article started with "This looks like a Dropbox for your music," that would put the entire discussion in a different, and IMHO more accurate, light.
2c
Curby, I thought your comment might be referring to that first sentence. Sorry if the comparison to Dropbox makes it unclear; I agree with all of your points, and you're right in saying that the lack of sharing makes it dissimilar. At the same time, it was the first thing I thought of when I saw the announcement, and it's the example that makes the most sense to me.
In probing a bit, it became clear that it's definitely a direct challenge to Apple. I chose to focus on that aspect here, because I thought it would be the most useful information for our readers. But I personally will use it for backup file storage only, and not as a music player, so that's how I approached this post.
Thanks for sharing all your points, and for being polite as you did so. In the end, I think that the discussion that take place in the comments add a lot of value to the posts, and you're doing a great job to clarify and refine the points made.
I find it interesting that Amazon beat Apple to punch with regards to the cloud music offering. Back in 2008 I started using Lala.com to stream music to my desktop while at work. Basically it was similar to Pandora except you could pick and choose specific songs for a nominal fee. Apple bought them out and shut them down over a year ago, but have yet to utilize their technology...rather disappointing. iTunes is a cash cow for Apple, but I'm so terribly sick of it. Every damn time I open it I'm asked to upgrade to the newest version...unfortunately it's too inconvenient for me to switch b/c of my iPhone.
@TimmyDrizz, there's evidence that Apple took the time-consuming step of making the labels happy by talking to them about their service and making sure that they're okay with it, probably with monetary compensation. Amazon didn't.
The surprise here isn't that Apple came later. After all, look at Bluray drive adoption, cut and paste functionality on mobile devices, etc. The surprise is that they're taking time to reach out to industry partners, instead of playing hardball as they've been infamous for.
Followup, with a headline you wouldn't have dreamed of five years ago: "Music labels to Google: We're counting on Apple"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-
"Since neither [Google nor Amazon] was either able or willing to obtain licenses from the four major labels, neither of them could deliver the same range of options that Apple will be able to offer with its upcoming cloud service, according to multiple music industry sources."
'Hacking' 카테고리의 다른 글
| Cookie with HTTPOnly Flag (XSS Protection) (1) | 2013.02.02 |
|---|---|
| Cloud and Compliance Issues (0) | 2013.01.25 |
| Metasploit : Bind TCP ? Reverse TCP? (1) | 2012.11.06 |
| Samsung Galaxy S III Hacking (0) | 2012.09.27 |
| HTML5 Top 3 Vulnerability (2) | 2012.09.25 |
