Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Music Ending Cloud MP3 Storage, Streaming Option (billboard.com)
Amazon is planning to retire its Music storage subscription service, the plan that enabled Amazon customers to upload their own music to the company's servers. From a report: Amazon Music Storage subscription plans, which let users upload music from their Mac or PC and stream them alongside the in-app on-demand and radio options, will be accepted until Jan. 15, 2018. Then, the service will run until January 2019, when it will be removed entirely. As of Monday this week, free plans -- which allow for 250 songs to be stored in the cloud -- are no longer able to upload new music to their MP3 locker.
Why is Cloud based servers so bad for people..... This is the reason why. The shut up shop quickly
Wait until everyone buys their Echo for Christmas - and then tell them they can't use it with their music post-purchase. I think that's called bait and switch.
Then you can sell them on your music subscription.
Backup your data to the cloud they said, all your data will be safe they said... /deleted
I absolutely loved this service. I'd upload my mp3s and get to play from the same library no matter what device I happened to be using. It really simplified library management.
Is there anything else out there like it? I'm a little tempted to just go with Plex and run it myself, but I always worry that my hardware will fail or my home internet connection will go down.
gets shut down.
amazon must be hurting if the fringe mp3 'cloud' users here that actually took advantage of 'unlimited' are affecting their margins enough for them to shut it down.
if you use amazon for picture storage or backups, i'd start backing that shit up **NOW**
captcha: concern
Google did it. Amazon is doing it.
From the start I viewed this as a way to get pirates used to streaming services. Now, old pirates that uploaded their music and streamed are faced with a choice to either go back to your old ways are stick with streaming services. Of course they want the latter because they hope that you've somehow changed in this period of streaming music.
But have you?
A clever person could build an mp3 tool to discover, categorize, and play such content.
So when you were 33 years old you just happened to have Patsy Cline CDs lying around? And your supervisor just happened to have a system loud enough for an entire department to hear it? And the entire department fitted in that room?
Your on the internet using slashdot...a cloud-based service serving webpages.
Call me a luddite, but why would you want to upload your mp3s to a cloud service? They're not exactly hefty files, and storage is cheap as it's ever been, plus there's software that makes managing libraries pretty easy. Putting them in the cloud seems like a good way to end up sans music when:
1. You find yourself in a place with bad reception
2. The service shuts down or undergoes maintenance
Strikes me as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Then again, I'd also venture that the decision to shut down the service was influence by the MAFIAA foaming at the mouth over potential piracy, so hats off to Amazon for providing a service that pisses them off.
Amazon, Google, etc. They all launch a service, get people to use it, but not enough people, and then pull the plug.
I have Apple Cloud, whatever its called, for music storage, myself. And it's great, I can stream or pull down my music anywhere I go. But I still need to keep it on my computer (don't save any space), out of fear that they might pull the plug one day. Or just have a server crash.
These companies shouldn't just arbitrarily end services like these. If they have a lot of users, at least put the service up for bids from other developers or companies to take it over.
I just tried to do this exact thing on Monday. Try as I might, I couldn't get the songs to upload. All the web-based tutorials showed upload icons on the Amazon Music app, but it simply wasn't there on my system. Even Amazon's help pages still said it should work.
I have an Echo, and I just wanted to add a few CDs to it so that we could listen to them. The 250-song limit was already extremely restrictive.
What I really want is the ability to stream from my own server. This is a feature that Apple is likely to push, since I believe they've always supported in-house iTunes servers (I'm not really in the Apple ecosystem, so I might be mistaken). If Apple does add this feature and make a big push next year, I hope it forces Amazon and Google to follow suit.
and with no stake of 'ownership' of the material posted here or commented here. There's a difference when one has a personal feeling of 'ownership' of the material, in this case, the files uploaded that are totally legal possessions from their original sources (cd, purchases, whatever), and a need to access those files again later.
Nobody really goes back to /. with the intention of going "hey, i want that post I made on June 13th, 2006".
apples-oranges.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Having just purchased Amazon's Echo, this immediately removes one major reason for having it. Are they shooting their own foot because of the costs of success? In general, I refuse to store anything in the cloud, because I cannot control the storage. The only related service I use is DropBox, because it will immediately make remote copies on all of my installed machines. That just makes it a smart ftp service.
In no particular order...
Plex
Kodi
Emby
MediaPortal
Subsonic
Servetome
Madsonic
iTunes?
OpenFLIXR
Tvmobili
Mediatomb
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...die by the "cloud".
The "cloud" was always a joke/scam. Just a euphemism for storing stuff on other peoples' servers... something people were doing long before the cutesy word was invented, except now apparently it's morally acceptable to rape^H^H^H^Hmine your data for any informational revenue the place hosting it can find. Then kick you to the curb whenever they feel like it later on down the road after you've reworked your life to be dependent on their services.
Not to mention that being dependent on the "cloud" for more and more of your data is utterly incompatible with the increasing dependence on data-limited cell plans. And the FCC wants to consider cellular service equivalent to residential broadband.
I'd say the FCC, cell carriers and everyone else can take the "cloud" and shove it up their asses but that doesn't sound painful enough.
I'm sure almost no one uses the cloud to replace local storage, but as a convenience in addition to local storage. I certainly don't. But, sure, go ahead and insult people that don't exist.
I love the convenience of Amazon Music, but I'll be able to come up with an alternative. I have all my media on multiple spinning-rust platters and aluminized plastic. It's not going anywhere.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Because I honestly don't get it. I mean don't you guys have smartphones? I just keep all my tunes on a MicroSD in my smartphone and thanks to bluetooth I have no problem playing them anywhere be it at home or on the road and it doesn't cost me a dime or cause me to give my tunes to some third party to snoop and delete at their whim.
Call me old fashioned but I'll take storage I control over some corp any day of the week!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I was merely pointing out the irony of the person to whom I was replying using a "cloud-based" service while dismissing out of hand the possibility of using one.
context of the comment was clear. just because you choose to ignore it doesn't make your comment salient.