PDA

View Full Version : Amazon Cloud Player



Mark Miksis
2011-03-28, 21:20
http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=amb_link_355091782_4?ie=UTF8&node=2658409011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=049EMNTK3XADJAYJWC7E&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1291940422&pf_rd_i=163856011

Interesting...

mherger
2011-03-28, 22:09
Is this Cloud Drive the user friendly offer of S3?

--

Michael

erland
2011-03-28, 22:28
Is this Cloud Drive the user friendly offer of S3?

Probably, at least S3 seems to be used for the storage, from their description:


Amazon Cloud Drive provides customers with reliable, secure server storage. Each file is stored within Amazon Simple Storage Service (S3); the same highly scalable, reliable, fast, data storage infrastructure that Amazon uses to run its own global network of web sites.

Access to your Cloud Drive is controlled through your Amazon.com user ID and password. All communications are encrypted using HTTPS, so that your data can pass securely over the Internet.


New MP3 purchases from Amazon MP3 Store apparently doesn't use up any storage space, so you only need to purchase extra storage for stuff you like to upload yourself.

Can a Squeezebox handle streams over HTTPS ? If they can, I think it would be interesting to see a Squeezebox integration with Amazon Cloud Drive, unless we already have something through the existing Amazon app that already works ?

Mark Miksis
2011-03-28, 22:42
S3, but with no bandwidth charges. So yeah, streaming this to a Squeezebox wold be very cool. :)

autopilot
2011-03-29, 09:27
So this is basically like MP3tunes?

I'm not sure I understand the point. If your going to stream from the cloud, why limit yourself to your own collection and not use Spotifiy/Napster/Rhapsody? (especially considering, from what I read, that you will need to pay for anything over 5gb and bitrates are limited with Amazon)

andyg
2011-03-29, 09:51
It's basically the same as MP3tunes with less format support and no available API. HTTPS streaming would be a problem too, but if it's using S3 it'll hopefully support plain HTTP as well.

likescookies
2011-03-29, 13:11
Playing music from the Amazon cloud makes a lot of sense to me. There are times when I'd like to listen to an album that I own but don't want the hassle of going and waking up the computer so the Boom can stream from it. The Amazon system would solve that.

Goodsounds
2011-03-29, 14:01
Playing music from the Amazon cloud makes a lot of sense to me. There are times when I'd like to listen to an album that I own but don't want the hassle of going and waking up the computer so the Boom can stream from it. The Amazon system would solve that.
With a simple one-time setup (simple for even a tech dummy like me), you leave your PC at sleep instead of off and then when you want to listen, the Boom (or any other SB) wakes your PC when you turn it on. It's very easy and works consistently.

likescookies
2011-03-29, 14:27
Like a wake on LAN setting? Interesting. Will look into this--thank you.

Still, having to navigate up the tree to connect to the PC, then at the end putting everything back the way it was so my wife doesn't get mad at me would definitely still lend some appeal to the free Amazon solution.

Henry66
2011-03-29, 14:43
Wake on LAN turns my computer on from a cold shutdown (not sleep mode). In fact, this is how I turn my computer on most mornings.

I believe there is also a Server Power Control addon that can also turn the server computer off when desired.

aubuti
2011-03-29, 15:24
Like a wake on LAN setting? Interesting. Will look into this--thank you.

Still, having to navigate up the tree to connect to the PC, then at the end putting everything back the way it was so my wife doesn't get mad at me would definitely still lend some appeal to the free Amazon solution.
Not "like" WOL, but WOL, pure and simple. And there's no setting, other than the power button on the Boom (or the Boom's remote). When the Boom (or other SB) powers on it sends a WOL "magic packet" to the last server it was connected to.

Mark Miksis
2011-03-29, 16:08
It's basically the same as MP3tunes with less format support and no available API. HTTPS streaming would be a problem too, but if it's using S3 it'll hopefully support plain HTTP as well.

I'm assuming it uses S3, but I don't know. Also, AFAICT, there is no http streaming for SB support. You have to use the web player or Android player.

OT, it also seems to want to compete with other (non-music) cloud storage services, but at 4X the cost of Google Apps.

pmerrill
2011-03-29, 16:43
It's basically the same as MP3tunes with less format support and no available API. HTTPS streaming would be a problem too, but if it's using S3 it'll hopefully support plain HTTP as well.

I thought that MP3tunes was going to be great but the interface really sucks. I was hoping it would be a little like dropbox, or well integrated into iTunes so when you start your PC up the program syncs your selected songs in the background but the program is awful.

It also appears that MP3tunes may be on it's way out of existence.

Any thoughts or opinions from the community?

Goodsounds
2011-03-30, 00:40
And there's no setting, other than the power button on the Boom (or the Boom's remote).

On two different Win PCs I've used, WOL was disabled as the default setting. The Wiki WOL page described what needed to be done, it took me longer to find the right information than it ultimately took to make the changes indicated.

aubuti
2011-03-30, 03:35
On two different Win PCs I've used, WOL was disabled as the default setting. The Wiki WOL page described what needed to be done, it took me longer to find the right information than it ultimately took to make the changes indicated.
Sorry, I meant no setting on the SB or SBS. But you're right that WOL is often not enabled by default on the pc.

pski
2011-03-30, 15:28
Probably, at least S3 seems to be used for the storage, from their description:


New MP3 purchases from Amazon MP3 Store apparently doesn't use up any storage space, so you only need to purchase extra storage for stuff you like to upload yourself.

Can a Squeezebox handle streams over HTTPS ? If they can, I think it would be interesting to see a Squeezebox integration with Amazon Cloud Drive, unless we already have something through the existing Amazon app that already works ?

Why wouldn't you just stream from the server you already have?

In my mind the Amazon Cloud Player is a non-issue: no support other than AAC and MP3.

P

jhonsberger@msn.com
2011-03-30, 16:44
500 bucks a year to store 500 gb's of data .What a deal!l LOL.

andyg
2011-03-30, 16:53
With unlimited transfer (apparently) it's much cheaper than current S3 offerings, and it's great for offsite backup.

Mark Miksis
2011-03-30, 17:22
With unlimited transfer (apparently) it's much cheaper than current S3 offerings, and it's great for offsite backup.

But it's still 4X the cost of extra storage on google apps.

jhonsberger@msn.com
2011-03-30, 18:19
With unlimited transfer (apparently) it's much cheaper than current S3 offerings, and it's great for offsite backup.

I think I'll stck to my two portable external hard drives to store my data ,one which is at my office,away
from my house.

Total cost = 300 bucks .

Dogberry2
2011-03-31, 08:56
Cloud Player and suchlike might be okay for some people, kinda like MP3s, iPods and earbuds are good enough for some people. But I won't be using it. If somebody else has possession of and control over "your" music collection, then you don't own it, you're merely being granted the use of it. I see no need to rely on Amazon to take care of my music collection for me. I'll keep my CDs and FLAC files, and especially the dozens of vinyl albums I've digitized into FLAC because they aren't available on CD. I paid for 'em, they're mine, and I'll retain control of them. Something I learned in life is not to put too much faith and trust in unnamed bozos running things out there somewhere in the cloud.

aubuti
2011-03-31, 09:57
Agreed it would be sheer madness to put one's only copy of something in Amazon's storage or any similar service. But I can't imagine people uploading everything to the cloud and then proceeding to delete all those files from their hard drives.

jhonsberger@msn.com
2011-03-31, 10:07
Agreed it would be sheer madness to put one's only copy of something in Amazon's storage or any similar service. But I can't imagine people uploading everything to the cloud and then proceeding to delete all those files from their hard drives.

I agree and your comments only make Amazon's pricing structure all the more ridiculous.
500gbs for 500 bucks a year .Geez!

btpier
2011-04-02, 14:53
500gbs for 500 bucks a year .Geez!

$500/yr for 1/2 a TB of enterprise level data storage is not a bad price. I work for a Fortune 50 company that gets *very* good discounts on enterprise storage arrays and we pay easily 2x this price just to buy the arrays, not to mention the man power to care and feed them, the electrical power to run and cool them, etc.

Not everything can be compared to the price of a consumer product.

pski
2011-04-02, 18:06
$500/yr for 1/2 a TB of enterprise level data storage is not a bad price. I work for a Fortune 50 company that gets *very* good discounts on enterprise storage arrays and we pay easily 2x this price just to buy the arrays, not to mention the man power to care and feed them, the electrical power to run and cool them, etc.

Not everything can be compared to the price of a consumer product.

How nice for you !

jhonsberger@msn.com
2011-04-03, 14:11
$500/yr for 1/2 a TB of enterprise level data storage is not a bad price. I work for a Fortune 50 company that gets *very* good discounts on enterprise storage arrays and we pay easily 2x this price just to buy the arrays, not to mention the man power to care and feed them, the electrical power to run and cool them, etc.

Not everything can be compared to the price of a consumer product.

But Amazon's cloud service is geared for consumer not business
music and photo storage.

I didn't see them touting this service for business use.

This really is a consumer product and due to its pricing structure,I don't see much success for this service.

paulster
2011-04-07, 17:34
But Amazon's cloud service is geared for consumer not business
music and photo storage.
But it has to be engineered to enterprise levels as you can imagine the public outcry if Amazon suddenly 'lose' a load of customers' data, which we all know they wouldn't have bothered to back up themselves.

pippin
2011-04-07, 18:27
$500/yr for 1/2 a TB of enterprise level data storage is not a bad price. I work for a Fortune 50 company that gets *very* good discounts on enterprise storage arrays and we pay easily 2x this price just to buy the arrays, not to mention the man power to care and feed them, the electrical power to run and cool them, etc.



But Amazon's cloud service is geared for consumer not business
music and photo storage.

I didn't see them touting this service for business use.


But they've got S3 which IS a business product (actually a large proportion of web sites with big traffic are using it, among them quite a few other music services).
And that has a pretty similar pricing structure. With full backups and all of that.
They start at 1680$ per year per TB for low volumes and go down to 660$ per TB per year for large volumes.
Again: That's with full redundancy, with lower SLAs they get even cheaper.

ezkcdude
2011-07-08, 13:26
Are there any plugins for this now?

erland
2011-07-08, 21:50
Are there any plugins for this now?

Amazon has to release an API first.