mSpot Beats Google to Cloud-Based Music Service

Image for article titled mSpot Beats Google to Cloud-Based Music Service

Putting our music collections in the cloud would be a wonderful thing. So wonderful, even, that Google and Apple have been working on doing just that for months. But why wait? mSpot's letting you Android users do it now.


mSpot has been streaming movies to all four major carriers for some time, but today they announced that they were jumping to the front of the line for cloud-based music on Android handsets.

Here's how it works: any unencrypted music files you own are stored in the cloud, to be played back at any time on your Android phone or PC. The first 2GB you upload are free, while 10GB will cost you $3.00/month and 100GB (a whopping 80,000 songs) will go for $14.00/month.

The catch is that mSpot doesn't have a deal in place with the major record labels, who may be a bit nonplussed to see their content spread widely without additional royalties. But until they make a legal case of it—and until Google and Apple finally release their own services—mSpot will remain the biggest cloud-based music game in town. [mSpot via Media Memo]



I was going to go on about how completely useless it would be to put my own music onto the cloud, especially when I have to pay for it and when phone companies are starting to ration data, once again.

But I was stuck with an interesting thought when I read the last paragraph. If I upload my own music to a server, and listen to that music from the server, and only I have access to that music. Where exactly does the RIAA get the idea that they're entitled to any royalties? Should I insert a metaphor here?

Obviously, a subscription is dumb enough, when I could get a 16GB mini-SD card for a few bucks. I can only imagine having to look at or listen to ads while I listen to my own music collection. Could you imagine if your iPod played 30-second ads, every 5 songs, but you owned the music and you owned the iPod.