If a large enough collection is put in the cloud, you don’t need to store any of it. No more managing your music. Just on-demand it! So convenient. The music is stored somewhere already, so it is just a matter of duplicating it. At some point, storage becomes cheap *enough*. Of course, this doesn’t cover every single song ever. So for those, it would make sense to store it on your own. But that service can be easily synchronized into the cloud, and then you would pay the same provider for that privilege. Small technical hurdle.

Another way to think about it is in efficiencies. If you and I store the same 50 songs, it would be more efficient to store them with the service provider, so they can be in charge or resampling or reencoding it so that it best utilizes their bandwidth and keeps up with encoding technologies. It is in their best interest (if they want happy customers) to keep lots of copies around in different bitrates so that they can maximize their pipes and deliver your content. If they let you try and stream 320kbps OGG, a) it might not work on your phone, b) the bitrate might be non-optimal for the network.

From the provider’s perspective, if they get all customers to commit to not having music at all, but rather subscribe to it, they are happier. Control of content, control of distribution (oops, that’s a monopoly, but whatever), and (somewhat) happy customers. Not the question you asked, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

Finally, and I put it in the cases above, it would likely be technically easier to centralize the storage with the provider, rather than deal with everyone’s network issues. So if you store your MP3s at home, you have to have a machine on with the storage live, have a network connection up, have software to manage that network connection and share the music and handle credentials, and then, the networks must talk. If it’s all one network, it makes it easier. And easier, ideally, means a better experience for the user.

Now, this doesn’t even scratch the surface of content management. But hey, you asked about storage/networking .

But it’s still a little opaque to me: if ‘storage is free, bandwidth is where you pay,’ why is it cheaper/better to pay a provider for streaming rather than storing it locally?

It is popular, and I’m sure there are other models in tech-forward countries like Korea and Japan. The awesome comes with the songs that released either exclusively or early using the service.

Of course, Korea is not the same mobile landscape as the US. With higher population densities and government subsidies (okay, the US has plenty of those), coverage is ubiquitous.

I would say that storage is free, bandwidth is where you pay. And you end up paying the provider of said bandwidth plus the fees to cover the licensing of the material. Since in the US, the copyright complexities and general craziness of the recording industry, and the propriety-stuff-first thinking of the wireless carriers, it becomes orders of magnitude harder. But only from a business perspective. This is all easy from a technology standpoint, and really, advantageous from a cost perspective.

But Kryder makes a related point in the SciAm article: incremental change in storage capacity can lead to transformative change in the user experience. “Who would have predicted the success of hand-held digital audio players? We completely missed seeing the iPod coming….Today the density of information we can get on a hard drive is much more important to enabling new applications than advances in semiconductors.”