Matt Medeiros made a good point a few weeks ago when Apple released its new iCloud Service. Apple has been able to successfully double-charge people (in a sense) and no one has even noticed. The new iCloud system is great, I really enjoy being able to sync my calendars, contacts, and email wirelessly on all my devices… but what about my music collection?
Apple’s iCloud is free, but only up to 5GB. If users want more space, they must upgrade the space for a yearly fee. This makes sense, 5GB for free is actually pretty sensational, and I can see why they charge for more space, servers and bandwidth aren’t cheap. However, I’ve got a sizable music library that I’ve collected over the years. To date it’s well over 30GB. So how much is it going to cost me to hold my entire iTunes music collection on the cloud? Oh… it’s $100/yr for 50GB? hmmm, that’s kind of pushing it just to be able to sync.
But wait a second… aren’t songs purchased on iTunes already on their servers (aka iCloud)? So in essence, the songs, unless a user has ripped or purchased them elsewhere online, are originally held on Apple’s servers. We all know that when a user wants a song / album they must pay Apple to acquire the rights to play and download said songs. BUT, if you want to sync them using iCloud you pay them AGAIN to have the right to send them back up to their servers and sync these songs to all your devices. What’s up with that? Even though I understand the costs of maintaining servers and paying for bandwidth and all that shenanigans, I still feel that Apple is cheating their customers a little bit here. If the songs are already on the cloud, they should really just build in an option for users to sync right there from iTunes without paying extra to download and then send back up to iCloud.
What are your thoughts?