• ReadWriteWeb, Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:50 AM

What's the big fuss about Amazon launching a suite of music products, which lets users store their tracks online, and then stream them over the Web or to any Android device? "The launch has the tech world abuzz, not only because Amazon beat Apple and Google to the punch ... but because Amazon hasn't even received the record labels' permission to host these tracks on its servers as of yet," reports ReadWriteWeb.

 

Likewise, "Apple is rumored to be working on a similar service and I've already seen evidence of Google Android devices gaining music storage and synchronization in the cloud, but neither company has delivered yet," writes GigaOm. Still, "If you're a music lover looking for a paradigm shift in the way you consume tunes, this won't be it," insists MediaMemo.

"Amazon skipped to the head of the cloud line by not bothering to get new deals at all, and says it doesn't need a special license to let people listen to music they already own."

"Announcing a service before a company has such deals in place can cause headaches for technology companies," notes The Wall Street Journal. "Google began touting a music service in May of last year but even after months of negotiations with major record labels, the company's Google Music service has yet to materialize.

To date, "The outlook for music retailers not named Apple has been cloudy at best," explains USAToday.com. Even after this most recent launch, however, "It remains to be seen whether Amazon can whack away at Apple's digital music dominance.

Meanwhile, as The New York Times points out: "Several experts in digital music say that the music locker business is still legally ambiguous. For example, though some companies let people upload their music and listen to it elsewhere without any outcry from the labels, others, like MP3tunes, have been sued by music labels."

Read the whole story at ReadWriteWeb »