CLOUD: What do you think of the all-Cloud approach for Music software?

[tedinmexico]

Several huge companies including Microsoft and Adobe are pushing heavily the all cloud approach for using their software. For those who don't know, it means the software is on a server, and you store your files on the server; so you must be on the internet to operate and use the software, like Adobe Audition (Adobe Creative Cloud)

To me this is completely unworkable for CPU intensive DAWS and Synths, and because servers go down. I read on Amazon that Adobe is already getting heavy criticism from customers. And so is Microsoft. Read on the Net about people trying to use Office 365. Companies are complaining that the server has gone down for days. Can you imagine trying to mix a complex song with 30 tracks, half midi, and with complex synths like Omnisphere (which is not Cloud) using an internet connection?

Last week I had the awful experience of trying to buy a microsoft product thru B&H Photo. I spent 3 hours trying to get into the server download page to download the software (Word 2013) and failed. All I got was "Internal Server Error."
The software was impossible to download. Server down. I cancelled the order, and would never try again. I have had it with the Cloud approach to software.

What do you think?

There is no way I am going to put my music computers on the Net to use a music software. I am also afraid of viruses infecting my computer. I am completely dependent on my Apple Logic software. No one is getting near my computer.

[Timfonie]

An all-cloud approach for music software is absolutely terrible, and for me a totally no-go because:

1. It requires an continuous and very reliable high speed internet connection and server up-time.
2. Latency will be too high.
3. It adds to the complexity of a DAW-setup with increased chances of failure
4. Control of the software is given totally in the hands of the software companies, which means:
..... a. They can change or remove software as they like
..... b. They can force a subscription-model on the users
..... c. They can see everything you do with the software
..... d. They can go out of business and leave their customer with nothing

[4damind]

Clouds are a good thing for non-critical public stuff. Things you would also share in forums and where it's not a big problem if you have temporary no access to it. It's a no-go for all other things.
There is not only the problem that you need a high speed internet connection with a good bandwidth for uploads (where many having big problems also in leading industrial countries like here in Germany).
If they (or the internet provider) have problems because server crash, broken connection etc. you have a problem too.
Because all depends of the companies providing this service you must trust them (and hope they having no backdoors for NSA etc).

Providers like Microsoft Drive scanning the data of their users eg. for explicit material and this will be reported to the Center for Missing & Exploited Children. I will not say that this is wrong but this shows: data in the cloud are not private.

I would never put my DAW projects to the cloud, never! I don't trust this companies not to mention that my internet connection is not stable enough and doesn't have the needed performance 24/7 to upload/update several hundreds of MB.

[iPlogger]

I always prefer local copies and local applications. I do find Dropbox very useful in transferring files. But I have not yet adopted 'cloud' apps. Things like Quicken, Photoshop/Lightroom, etc. I have a tough time moving my work to the internet or requiring the use of a browser-based or internet-required application for work. I don't even use iCloud, though I did try it out once when Alchemy Mobile added this feature (admittedly, it was kinda nice to get all my songs on my older iPad 2).

If the data is stored on-line, but I also have a local copy, that makes me feel a little better.

...on the other hand, my e-mail is all on-line.

[Jace-BeOS]

I wish certain ideas would stay dead.

The dumb terminal accessing subscription Internet services only is one of them. Read up on "Internet appliance" from the early 2000s. This is a repeat. The "Internet appliance" failed because the product was a rush-to-market game and no one actually figured out how to do it well. Interfaces sucked, performance was piss poor, and the offerings were not compelling. They also were supposed to connect up your fridge, toaster, and whatnot. The expense of the dumb terminals (they called them thin clients) was also such that people realized it was more cost effective to buy a regular computer. And all the early adopters were screwed when the products were prematurely yanked off the market when the FUD pushing pundits grew impatient (the Wall Street-speculation of the second coming of the dot com boom didn't happen overnight).

Then the cellular-connected iPhone and iPad came along and gave us a case of "best of both worlds" (thin client Internet appliance with brilliant user experience AND standalone computing device, albeit with a walled garden) and suddenly every corporation had to jump back into the "services as product" fad.

Not only is service as product drawing the interest of companies that have already oversaturated their markets (and are eroding their own relevance with high prices, anti-user policies, and lack of creating anything new), it's presumptuous about people's financial abilities and Internet bandwidth access to push everyone "to the cloud". Of course a wealthy company in a wealthy area, used to selling premium licenses to businesses, is going to assume everyone has high speed Internet with infinite bandwidth and no data caps. Companies test their products while being connected to Internet backbones, but it never performs that way for Jane Doe in Buttarmpit Rural America (or even John Doe on shitty DSL in Urban-Junior-town). And it's completely opposite the trends of the ISPs, who think they're in the business of selling contracts, when they're really in the business of providing service; service that requires investment in infrastructure (and we know rank capitalism hates spending money to make money). ISPs are refusing to roll out any more fiber because it costs them money to install and maintain. Like the automotive industry promotes the petrol-as-addiction problem of the sparse USA, ISPs have an addiction: wireless. It answers all their board of directors' dreams: the cheap answer to selling contracts that require little infrastructure costs (which is also ludicrous because there's not enough available spectra for all the required bandwidth of a wireless-only data, voice, television infrastructure, and their lobbying has already succeeded in buying previously protected spectra from the government). They then install bandwidth limits and data caps to deal with the much more finite resource of wireless (selling "unlimited" bandwidth premium packages that have limits), and are trying to sell preferred bandwidth to specific non-end-user customers (like advertisers and select streaming media companies).

We don't have the infrastructure for it but that doesn't stop them myopically pushing for everyone to pay to subscribe to it.

[Jace-BeOS]

By the way, currently the cloud stuff of Adobe isn't entirely run on the host servers. Mostly it's that you need to subscribe to a service to get software to authorize and start, and definitely to get updates.

There is zero infrastructure for running DAWs and doing print-sized photo manipulation entirely on a remote server, but they'd love to have it that way. It would end all piracy (that they claim costs them billions but doesn't really; their own behavior does that).

True server-only stuff is Google Docs and such. Apple's iCloud is storing data there and they have a surprisingly robust web version of their productivity suite (basically the competitor to Google), but you can still run local software and store data locally. Office 365 is just Microsoft trying to catch up with both of the precious companies. But it sounds like it too is locally installed software since you were trying to install it as a downloadable product purchase.

Absolute thin clients and server-side only software for serious content... We aren't there yet.

By the way, this fad of browser-based productivity software is also a repeat. Remember java? That was the thin client motif around or even before the Internet appliance failed fad. Microsoft managed to kill that one pretty good. Sun didn't exactly do a decent job with it either, since java applets are ugly, clumsy, slow, and requires a local installation of interpreter software that provides plenty system security holes, just like Adobe's Flash. Patched and blocked and patched on a regular basis.

These concepts aren't fundamentally wrong or useless but their execution is thus far piss poor. But they keep pushing it because they need something else to sell when they have sold their existing junk to everyone already. When you own a hammer, you want to find a way to make everyone hire you as their nails. Or something.

[tedinmexico]

Correction: The actualy Adobe Software programs are not on the Internet, but to be downloaded for use. Then the user has to get periodic authorization and make payments for as long as you use it. If you fail to make a payment, you can be denied access to all files you have stored on the Cloud. This is what one of the disgruntled user says on Amazon.com. The digital Adobe Creative Cloud license on Amazon.com has 54-1 star reviews and 6-2 star reviews out of a total of 71 customer reviews. People are really up in arms over this stinker marketing strategy. Although I own and use Adobe Audition 2. I would never, ever purchase an upgrade or other product from Adobe again. I am done with them.

[frizzbee]

An all-cloud approach for music software is absolutely terrible, and for me a totally no-go because:

1. It requires an continuous and very reliable high speed internet connection and server up-time.
2. Latency will be too high.
3. It adds to the complexity of a DAW-setup with increased chances of failure
4. Control of the software is given totally in the hands of the software companies, which means:
..... a. They can change or remove software as they like
..... b. They can force a subscription-model on the users
..... c. They can see everything you do with the software
..... d. They can go out of business and leave their customer with nothing

+1 Couldn't have said it better. Especially #4 is terrible!

[trusampler]

No brainer -don't support this crap! Continue to do it the old fashion way, analog hard drives and back up, trust yourself,not this new form of digital everything.. They will eventually own u if you fall for this crud.