i've got a great idea: streaming music online library

[uzybear]

ok, so you have your cellphone, and browse to a site and can stream any song you could ever want, for a monthly fee

folks go to the website, search for whatever music they want and push play, and it plays, streaming

you'd have to login and pay for the service; and the cost should be small, $5 a month or so, maybe $10

this exists now for pc's with rhapsody/yahoomusic etc., but people dont' listen to music a lot on thier pc's, the real trick for this would be in the mobile market; just think, a tiny mobile phone, and through your brandband internet connection, access to any music you could ever want


i think with the advent of wimax, something like this could be a big deal with mobile units, so you could have a mobile phone, with no hard drive, but access to all the music you could possibly ever want; you don't have to download it and fill up your ipod

you would also have a wimax (or whatever, but wimax looks like the next thing) chip in your car, and thus your car "radio" could also have access to any song ever

the thing is, right now, fucking WiFi is so damn small and restrictive (i think it has to be to avoid messing with other signals or somethin), you can't go anywhere and be online; and cellphones have broadband but it's not very fast; this is where a new technology is emerging, and it IS the next big thing, bar-none in my opinion: i.e. you'd pay a monthly fee just like with cellphones and you'd be online everywhere (ideally, of course, like cellphones, service will grow over time)

google is realizing that in the future, most of our data will be stored on servers, somewhere, and that you won't have a big harddrive in your laptop taking up space, heat, noise, power; fuck, look at the eeepc and olpc, and mac air, and all that rage, that's the thing now

but hell, this would even be a totally viable idea RIGHT NOW on anything that can connect to a broadband connection (i dunno, maybe mobile phone broadband is fast enough already???????)

i would pay for that and i'm fucking poor

[captain average]

there are a ton of free streaming music sites with large song libraries.

[uzybear]

which ones? i'm not talking about radio stations that play what they want; but where you can listen to whatever you want

is there something like that?

[slight-return]

I know user blue2blue is very happy with his subscription service -- he may be a good one to ask about

Napster and rhapsody come immediately to mind

[slight-return]

but people dont' listen to music a lot on thier pc's

FWIW, I'm in a demographic segment where that use model is pretty common

[fretwizz]

You haven't heard of internet radio?
Been around for years. Not a new thing.
Thousands of songs are streaming on IR as we speak.

You can still record the music as it streams in so it's no form of copy protection.
Also, in many cases, it's not too hard to circumvent the streaming link and
just download the file.

[uzybear]

dammit, i'm not talking about RADIO

the idea is, through broadband internet

-your on your cellphone and you browse to a webpage, or just a list of songs, and you an play anything, streaming

you choose the song



ahh rhapsody, that does it doesn't it? if you have rhapsody can you find any song you could want and play it????? if so, it's just the mobile aspect that needs doing; and you'd need speed enough to stream audio; thus why i'm thinking WIMAX, but perhaps modern cellphone internet speeds are enough, i dunno

[uzybear]

but people dont' listen to music a lot on thier pc's

FWIW, I'm in a demographic segment where that use model is pretty common

yeah i do too, i guess i'ts not so uncommon ;)


ps: i just like the idea of not needing freaking terabyte's of hdd space and having to download and organize a freaking bazillion songs on my own computer, but rather stream it; it's the way of the future, having most of our data on servers somewhere, accessable via internet

[captain average]

they sell phones with internet.

[slight-return]

it's the way of the future, having most of our data on servers somewhere, accessable via internet


guess what...it's also the way of the past!

centralized architectures for computation and data storage is a way trad architecture (dumb terminals, thin client terminals, hell even "use code sheets before you get to terminal")

I suspect (and like most predictions, place your bets and spin the wheel!) that we will continue to see a hybrid (or, perhaps, more accurately, distributed with local resources being a preferential node) data storage/computation model sort of driven by more and more abstraction


i wonder what rhapsody (and competitor's) library is like? and cost? and bitrates? i'm sure it's probably mega-compressed

easy enough to find out...

I'd also check with Blue2blue as he's into and satisfied with his service

[uzybear]

guess what...it's also the way of the past!

right you are; but all i see now is everyone rushing toward laptops that are:

-tiny
-no moving parts, no vents, no fans, no hdd

the ability to access data wherever you are (say wimax) and have massive amounts of it stored remotely, well, to me that's very intriguing; i imagine also to lots of folks the idea of setting up their own server is daunting


ps: i know cellphones have internet, but has anyone put the pieces together for something like rhapsody on cellphones? i'm not sure if 3G or whatever latest broadband tech is fast enough to stream

i mean, wouldn't you rather, than carrying an ipod you had to fill up yourself, with music you burned or downloadaed (and thus had to bloody store it on your own hdd's and have to buy a bunch of them), just have a little device with a little screen, and for $10/month or so be able to play any song in the universe? or audiobook, or lecture, or whatever; to me that's HIGHLY intriguing

[uzybear]

well it seems 3G is fast enough to stream a 64kbps or even a 128kbps audio stream; i wonder if anyone will come out with a rhapsody-like service for 3G once it gets adopted a bit more; it would be huge

[fretwizz]

I don't know what it's like elsewhere but down here in Australia
they're touting 3G broadband prices around $14-15/month with
a 1Gb download cap... which makes it prohibitively expensive.

I currently have an ADSL2 connection with an 80GB/month cap for $109.95.

The 3G just can't compete with that...

[uzybear]

a 1gb CAP? damn, i don't think it's that expensive here, but you're right, it's still quite expensive

i know that no one puts caps on DSL or cable internet in the USA anymore, but i'm not sure about 3G, i KNOW it's still expensive, and the cost of the the 3G plus the cost of whatever audio-service, yeah, it's still too expensive, but really, i would bet a good sum of money that something like this will replace ipods in the next few years

and btw, sprint has already started rolling out WIMAX in chicago, and then they'll be doing it in washingtonDC and somewhere else as well; and WIMAX is really really fast, fast enough for streaming video even, but again, it'll be expensive in the beginning no doubt

[slight-return]

the ability to access data wherever you are (say wimax) and have massive amounts of it stored remotely, well, to me that's very intriguing; i imagine also to lots of folks the idea of setting up their own server is daunting


i mean, wouldn't you rather, than carrying an ipod you had to fill up yourself, with music you burned or downloadaed (and thus had to bloody store it on your own hdd's and have to buy a bunch of them), just have a little device with a little screen, and for $10/month or so be able to play any song in the universe? or audiobook, or lecture, or whatever; to me that's HIGHLY intriguing

The advantageous thing about a hybrid model is that it isn't an either/or situation.
-If, for instance, a work is unavailable through subscription service ( the author chooses not to release through that service, the service chooses not to host that work, the work is not for general release such as a rough or personal content, etc) we can still access it
-If a user chooses to suspend/switch services, particular content can still remain in the posession of the user
-If one needs some operation in environments w/o comm network connectivity

local storage capability can be advantageous in those situations

As we move to a more abstracted storage model, "where" particular data is stored becomes less apparent (things like "setting up a server" becomes more transparent, for instance, we can have transparent redundancy, etc)

One use model note : one problem that can "follow us" that is somewhat analogous to, but not dependent on, storage type is managing/organizing the library for our convenient access. Regardless of where the data is, we still have the overhead of conveniently searching/selecting desired programming -- this can, itself require individual user participation.

[BlueStrat]

Why would anyone in their right mind want to listen to music on a cell phone? It already sounds like ass on a PC.

[slight-return]

Why would anyone in their right mind want to listen to music on a cell phone?


Probably largely for the portability factor
(note : the technology isn't limited to musical audio programming. News - both the NYT and WSJ for instance, have daily audio versions, SciAm, ec as well. Audiobooks, lectures, etc)

In a "convergent device" model, the device can tend to become less of a "cell phone" and more of an "AV interface with telecommunication capability".
The Euros have tended more to the multi-use model for quite a while

it can be important to remember that any single point of development doesn't have to be indicative of quality for the entire life of the technology (for instance, the first wax cylinders were not of particularly high quality, but recording technology improved)


It already sounds like ass on a PC.

It can depend largely on the system specs.

It's been said that audiophillia is kind of like the old Carlin bit
"everyone driving slower than you is an asshole, everyone driving faser than you is a maniac!"

to some, "sub $10K systems sound like ass" to others "digital media sounds like ass", "SS is cold", "tubes are a lie" ...the list goes on and on and on
hell, i've got one aquintence who sonotubed a stand-alone concrete pillar so that his turntable is decoupled from his friggin house!

[bohoo2u]

As a Rhapsody subscriber I must say that this concept has a long way to go. The main issue with this is the sound quality. I think Rhapsody streams at 128 kbps online. For the normal consumer the loss in quality is not noticeable, but if you have hi-end audio equipment you definitely notice. Honestly, if someone would stream at 320 kbps or even lossless (I think broadband in the next few years can handle that) I would be willing to pay double of what I pay for Rhapsody. Also, this concept assumes that you are always connected to the internet. How will this work on planes etc?


Also, Rhapsody and other subscription services have enough trouble getting their own client to work on PC's...I think it would be a disaster if they expanded their market.

Also, a lot of artists are resisting the subscription music model (or maybe its their labels). In recent months many of the artists that I could previous stream on Rhapsody are now classified as "Buy Only".

Overall I think this could work but it would take a lot of time and probably require more advanced companies to enter the industry.

[uzybear]

Why would anyone in their right mind want to listen to music on a cell phone? It already sounds like ass on a PC.

home slice, your PC can sound as good as the most expensive CD player on the planet; just

digital output with lossless music files > outboard DAC > to your stereo or headphone amp or what have you

you're misinformed ;) just like circuit city wants you to be

[uzybear]

The main issue with this is the sound quality. I think Rhapsody streams at 128 kbps online. For the normal consumer the loss in quality is not noticeable, but if you have hi-end audio equipment you definitely notice. Honestly, if someone would stream at 320 kbps or even lossless (I think broadband in the next few years can handle that) I would be willing to pay double of what I pay for Rhapsody

agreed; and is the main reason i don't myself subscibe; but honestly, for a lot of folk, it doesn't matter; itunes also has you download 128kbps which is one of the reasons i don't use them

a "cellphone" can sound just as good as an "ipod"; headphones are the key


and i completely agree with all the folks saying we need to be able to store our own music for times when we aren't online or don't want to be; totally agree