20 ms·

> This is a great example of why I don't move all my data to the cloud Music is a great use-case for keeping data in the cloud. You can have a consistent music

by rm999 13y ago

> This is a great example of why I don't move all my data to the cloud Music is a great use-case for keeping data in the cloud. You can have a consistent music library and can use any player client-side. Personally I prefer the spotify "all-you-can-listen" model, but I have a bunch of MP3s that aren't on spotify that I seamlessly stream from dropbox (either to winamp or the spotify client, which allows you to sync local files).

piyush_soni 13y ago
>Music is a great use-case for keeping data in the cloud. Yes, but ideally, when it's your cloud. Just because all these major cloud players can just stop their service on their whim.
- networked 13y ago
  >all these major cloud player can just stop their service on their whim If you are concerned with minimizing monetary loss rather than preserving working copies of your media [1] you can treat that as an argument for choosing a media provider that allows you to pay a monthly fee. If (when) their service gets discontinued you switch to another one; the only problem you would face is migrating your favorites, bookmark, playlists and the like [2]. [1] Which makes sense when the specific things you want to access (watch, listen to, read, play, etc.) are not rare and can be found elsewhere. [2] Incidentally, this is something you could offer as SaaS. Edit: See http://resp.in/ http://resp.in/, http://www.getunify.com/ http://www.getunify.com/, the FOSS project https://github.com/mauimauer/portify https://github.com/mauimauer/portify, etc.
  - fletchowns 13y ago
    If (when) their service gets discontinued you switch to another one; the only problem you would face is migrating your favorites, bookmark, playlists and the like [2]. I don't think this is a good strategy, you are putting yourself at the mercy of content license negotiations that are done by a bunch of idiots with their heads up their asses that you have absolutely no control over. There is no guarantee that the music you "rent" from one service will be available for you to "rent" on another service.
- lukifer 13y ago
  Thanks for reminding me to set up OwnCloud [1]. :) [1] http://owncloud.org http://owncloud.org
  - OGC 13y ago
    I prefer Seafile, owncloud didn't work properly. As in, failed at syncing files.
    - lukifer 13y ago
      Noted, I'll try that too. Thank you!
- goldenkey 13y ago
  Server. Cloud. If it's your personal music it's not going to matter whether you have a cluster of servers or your single VPS with a service running on it. This cloud buzz is like ajax of 5 years ago. Can we use the terms 'online' and 'hosted' rather than this vague cloud buzzwordry? It's a plague upon tech sites and tech marketing.
mathieuh 13y ago
I think they complement each other rather than directly compete with each other. I have all my files stored locally, but I also have them all uploaded to Google Music so I can listen to them on my phone. Even if Google Music shuts down, I have local copies.
- shinratdr 13y ago
  This is the smart strategy. If you're that concerned about the hands you're putting your music in, then all or nothing isn't a good plan. Instead, diversify and maintain. I use iTunes Match, Google Music and keep everything locally as well as a backup on my server. It all happens automatically when music is added to the local library. Nothing is lost, and redundant access is gained.
momerath 13y ago
For those who are shaking their heads at the idea of their collection fitting on dropbox, or listening to single tracks of whatever is on Spotify, I recommend Subsonic. I stream my whole collection from my home connection to my phone. http://www.subsonic.org/pages/index.jsp http://www.subsonic.org/pages/index.jsp
smrtinsert 13y ago
There is so much lost when moving to the cloud. Off the top of my head: You tie your data to one provider instead of simply physical media, you lose discoverability (will your kids browse your album choices 30 years from now?), exporting/importing quality is at the mercy of the provider (for example Amazon dropped several dozen mp3s when I migrated a few gigs to Google), and of course you place your data at the mercy of a business, (is any tech company eternal and/or always interested in providing cloud services?) The cloud is way overdone, after giving a variety of services a go over the last few years, I'm actually pulling back.
- fletchowns 13y ago
  That's why you run your own "cloud" music service. Personally I use Subsonic, and it is amazing. http://www.subsonic.org/pages/index.jsp http://www.subsonic.org/pages/index.jsp
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - acheron 13y ago
    Sounded really good until I got to the part about needing to pay a subscription fee.
    - toomuchtodo 13y ago
      We all need to eat.
      - nitrogen 13y ago
        But it seems those music listeners in this thread are the type that prefer a single up-front cost over a recurring subscription.
    - vacri 13y ago
      You don't need to. It's a freemium model - paying a subscription gets you some extra features, like apps for mobile.
Dirlewanger 13y ago
No thanks to the cloud regarding my music. Even though I use the crap out of Google Music, it sucks at keeping track of diffs between locally and the cloud. I change album art and other metadata all the time. Real pain in the pass. And then there's always the case of where one won't have Internet access, especially when driving.
goldenkey 13y ago
Can we just say online instead of 'the cloud'? That's what you mean, does it matter if it's only a single server or a virtualized XEN cluster? No.
altero 13y ago
> Music is a great use-case for keeping data in the cloud Since when? For start it drains battery much faster. Oh and you know, it does not work offline!
- icebraining 13y ago
  Plenty of cloud/online music services allow you to cache music offline to avoid those problems.
  - altero 13y ago
    So to copy album into phone I have to upload to web, than download it to phone? I could also use USB 1.0 or serial port with similar speed. Until network will be more reliable and faster than my hdd, there is not much to discus.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      What's the USB speed when you're three miles from home?
      - altero 13y ago
        20 MB/s, my phone has USB Host :-)
hipaulshi 13y ago
I strongly agree with this comment. I still wish there is an easy solution for hosting all my music in different original format without a high cost, but also playable through a cloud player. Music is something that I need it constantly but don't really mind if it is lost in a few years. I used to run Subsonic on beagleboard but it barely keeps up with converting flac to mp3 at stream time. I am looking at http://meetlima.com/ http://meetlima.com/ but I don't think that is what I want. iTune integration will become a huge issue unless it pops up as a Shared music.
cenhyperion 13y ago
I'm somewhere in between. I stream my music from a server that I own and control. Virtually unlimited storage + full control of the data = :)

by rm999 13y ago

piyush_soni 13y ago

>Music is a great use-case for keeping data in the cloud. Yes, but ideally, when it's your cloud. Just because all these major cloud players can just stop their service on their whim.

networked 13y ago
>all these major cloud player can just stop their service on their whim If you are concerned with minimizing monetary loss rather than preserving working copies of your media [1] you can treat that as an argument for choosing a media provider that allows you to pay a monthly fee. If (when) their service gets discontinued you switch to another one; the only problem you would face is migrating your favorites, bookmark, playlists and the like [2]. [1] Which makes sense when the specific things you want to access (watch, listen to, read, play, etc.) are not rare and can be found elsewhere. [2] Incidentally, this is something you could offer as SaaS. Edit: See http://resp.in/ http://resp.in/, http://www.getunify.com/ http://www.getunify.com/, the FOSS project https://github.com/mauimauer/portify https://github.com/mauimauer/portify, etc.
- fletchowns 13y ago
  If (when) their service gets discontinued you switch to another one; the only problem you would face is migrating your favorites, bookmark, playlists and the like [2]. I don't think this is a good strategy, you are putting yourself at the mercy of content license negotiations that are done by a bunch of idiots with their heads up their asses that you have absolutely no control over. There is no guarantee that the music you "rent" from one service will be available for you to "rent" on another service.
lukifer 13y ago
Thanks for reminding me to set up OwnCloud [1]. :) [1] http://owncloud.org http://owncloud.org
- OGC 13y ago
  I prefer Seafile, owncloud didn't work properly. As in, failed at syncing files.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    Noted, I'll try that too. Thank you!
goldenkey 13y ago
Server. Cloud. If it's your personal music it's not going to matter whether you have a cluster of servers or your single VPS with a service running on it. This cloud buzz is like ajax of 5 years ago. Can we use the terms 'online' and 'hosted' rather than this vague cloud buzzwordry? It's a plague upon tech sites and tech marketing.

mathieuh 13y ago

I think they complement each other rather than directly compete with each other. I have all my files stored locally, but I also have them all uploaded to Google Music so I can listen to them on my phone. Even if Google Music shuts down, I have local copies.

shinratdr 13y ago
This is the smart strategy. If you're that concerned about the hands you're putting your music in, then all or nothing isn't a good plan. Instead, diversify and maintain. I use iTunes Match, Google Music and keep everything locally as well as a backup on my server. It all happens automatically when music is added to the local library. Nothing is lost, and redundant access is gained.

momerath 13y ago

For those who are shaking their heads at the idea of their collection fitting on dropbox, or listening to single tracks of whatever is on Spotify, I recommend Subsonic. I stream my whole collection from my home connection to my phone. http://www.subsonic.org/pages/index.jsp http://www.subsonic.org/pages/index.jsp

smrtinsert 13y ago

There is so much lost when moving to the cloud. Off the top of my head: You tie your data to one provider instead of simply physical media, you lose discoverability (will your kids browse your album choices 30 years from now?), exporting/importing quality is at the mercy of the provider (for example Amazon dropped several dozen mp3s when I migrated a few gigs to Google), and of course you place your data at the mercy of a business, (is any tech company eternal and/or always interested in providing cloud services?) The cloud is way overdone, after giving a variety of services a go over the last few years, I'm actually pulling back.

fletchowns 13y ago
That's why you run your own "cloud" music service. Personally I use Subsonic, and it is amazing. http://www.subsonic.org/pages/index.jsp http://www.subsonic.org/pages/index.jsp
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- acheron 13y ago
  Sounded really good until I got to the part about needing to pay a subscription fee.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    We all need to eat.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      But it seems those music listeners in this thread are the type that prefer a single up-front cost over a recurring subscription.
  - vacri 13y ago
    You don't need to. It's a freemium model - paying a subscription gets you some extra features, like apps for mobile.

Dirlewanger 13y ago

No thanks to the cloud regarding my music. Even though I use the crap out of Google Music, it sucks at keeping track of diffs between locally and the cloud. I change album art and other metadata all the time. Real pain in the pass. And then there's always the case of where one won't have Internet access, especially when driving.

goldenkey 13y ago

Can we just say online instead of 'the cloud'? That's what you mean, does it matter if it's only a single server or a virtualized XEN cluster? No.

altero 13y ago

> Music is a great use-case for keeping data in the cloud Since when? For start it drains battery much faster. Oh and you know, it does not work offline!

icebraining 13y ago
Plenty of cloud/online music services allow you to cache music offline to avoid those problems.
- altero 13y ago
  So to copy album into phone I have to upload to web, than download it to phone? I could also use USB 1.0 or serial port with similar speed. Until network will be more reliable and faster than my hdd, there is not much to discus.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    What's the USB speed when you're three miles from home?
    - altero 13y ago
      20 MB/s, my phone has USB Host :-)

hipaulshi 13y ago

I strongly agree with this comment. I still wish there is an easy solution for hosting all my music in different original format without a high cost, but also playable through a cloud player. Music is something that I need it constantly but don't really mind if it is lost in a few years. I used to run Subsonic on beagleboard but it barely keeps up with converting flac to mp3 at stream time. I am looking at http://meetlima.com/ http://meetlima.com/ but I don't think that is what I want. iTune integration will become a huge issue unless it pops up as a Shared music.

cenhyperion 13y ago

I'm somewhere in between. I stream my music from a server that I own and control. Virtually unlimited storage + full control of the data = :)