Cloud-based music circa 1892

I happened across this link and found this article simply too interesting not to share.  You can read the original article here.

What 'cloud-based music' looked like in 1892

by Chris Rawson

If you've ever spent time on hold with tech support, you've likely listened to a lot of tinny, cheesy music coming from your phone as you grit your teeth and count the seconds. Instead of making things better, hold music seems to make the minutes stretch into hours. Believe it or not, in the late 19th century people used to pay to listen to music over the phone. A French service called Théâtrophone was basically a steampunk version of Pandora Radio that allowed subscribers to have live music pumped into their homes at a price of 50 centimes for five minutes -- roughly one or two euros in today's money.

Microphones set up on stage would pump live music to a central switchboard, and from there it would go out to hotels, restaurants and homes across Paris. Scientific American wrote a piece on the théâtrophone system way back in 1892, and at that time there were about 100 of the devices running throughout Paris. The system sounds downright hokey today, but it was ingenious for the time; keep in mind that this pre-dates wireless transmission via radio, much less modern improvements, such as iPhones and internet-based "cloud" storage for music. The théâtrophone system actually ran for quite a while, and it wasn't shuttered until 1932.

Today, we're able to cart around weeks worth of music in a device about the size of a deck of playing cards, and if Apple's "iCloud" service really takes off, it may reach a point that we'll be able to store and stream more music than we'll actually be able to listen to in one lifetime. Meanwhile, the next time you're on hold with tech support and forced to listen to Huey Lewis and the News against your will, just be thankful that's not the only way you can get tunes into your ears.

Ping... what's the point?

So anyone not living under a rock has most likely seen information on Apple's newest venture, "Ping" in the past few weeks.  Ping is Apple's answer to social media phenoms like Facebook and Twitter utilizing a new network from which we can share our musical tastes, see what our favorite artists are listening to, and see eachother's new <ahem> profiles.  I dont believe they are wrong in wanting to jump onto the social bandwagon, just flawed in their approach.  Other music services have integrated into these other platforms successfully... just look at iLike and Spotify among others.  they have utilized the tools (read: API) that are out there and integrated into the places we already reside rather than requiring us to create yet another new profile to participate.  Why must Steve Jobs always recreate the wheel?  Granted, his quest to "build the better mousetrap" usually yields righteous results- but I fear that this one may fall flat.

So how does this affect artists?  Well, if you are a Major Label talent with a huge following already it has been an easy transaction.  At launch, most of my favorite mainstream artists had pages...  Apple did a good job of making sure the the stud horses of the stable were included at launch but what about the others?  Will they get lost in the herd?  Initially, Tunecore was the only 3rd party mentioned loading content and now it has opened up to a few more aggregators such as the Orchard and CD Baby.  According to Digital Music News, Apple plans to open up to other labels and aggregators but at this point it is slow going.  As far as I can tell at this point, independent groups have no option for inclusion other than the use of a 3rd party.

In the end, will Ping be a game-changer?  Probably not.  Truth is, Apple should have accessed some of the already prevalent technologies in the marketplace to strengthen their launch.  I don't know if John Q Public is going to be willing to join yet ANOTHER social network.