Rather than being broadcast on HBO, a standard cable channel or even network TV, "Lilyhammer" is going straight to audiences via the Web. Netflix hopes that by making some content available exclusively through its service, it will attract new users and potentially even gain some additional leverage with other content providers.

2011: A Rough Year For Netflix

Netflix's own new initiative comes after what can hardly be described as a good year for the company. Between its subscription rate increase, loss of a key content deal, botched plans to spin off its DVD business and loss of 800,000 subscribers, the latter half of 2011 alone was a bit of a nightmare for the once-beloved company.

It also comes a time of heightened tensions between Netflix and some of its content providers, who have more traditional relationships and revenue streams to worry about. First, the company lost a key contract with Starz Entertainment. Now DVDs of Warner Bros. movies are subject to a 56-day waiting period before users can rent them, and a 28-day window before they can be added to one's queue. Netflix hasn't exactly pushed back against such efforts from Hollywood, so perhaps it deserves part of the blame. Regardless, it's clear that big content providers are nervous about the potential impact streaming services could have on traditional models.

Original Content: A Savior?

This being the case, the move toward original content is a wise, indeed necessary, one. Will it be enough to turn things around? It's hard to say what kind of impact "Lilyhammer" alone will have, all the show is apparently already very popular in Norway. What's perhaps more important is the milestone that this represents.

One of Netflix's next forays into exclusive content will be interesting to watch. "Arrested Development," the discontinued Fox comedy with a major cult following, will return for a new season, but will only be available on Netflix.

This will be the year that online streaming services try to position themselves as an even more attractive alternative to cable by offering their own content. Even if the new trend doesn't destroy any legacy models, it could bolster the leverage of streaming services when it comes time to negotiate with legacy players over content deals.

Having heard those complaints loud and clear, the company has decided to axe Qwikster altogether and keep their DVD rental service as part of the Netflix brand. This summer's price hike will stay in place, but the company hopes to stop the slow exodous of customers by capitulating on the Qwikster issue, which had proved wildly unpopular.

"It is clear that for many of our members two websites would make things more difficult, so we are going to keep Netflix as one place to go for streaming and DVDs," Netflix CEO Reed Hastings wrote in a blog post. "This means no change: one website, one account, one password... in other words, no Qwikster."

The prospect of having two separate Websites with different login credentials and movie queues did not sit well with many customers, who have grown accustomed to managing everything from a single account with a common interface. The backlash was quite loud online, and it apparently wasn't just chatter and empty threats. Evidently, the company has been seeing enough canceled subscriptions (some of which were expected) to warrant a change of plans.

Even as the company gives in to customers' wishes and backs off of an unpopular decision, many commenters on the Netflix company blog remain disastified, many of them demanding that Hastings step down as CEO and criticizing the company's recent series of PR gaffes. Some people remain hard to please, but Netflix is hoping that this latest move will begin to turn things around.

Some users reported recently that their attempts to stream content to multiple devices simultaneously were met with an error message telling them they weren't allowed to do so. As it rolls out its controversial pricing plan changes, the company may be tightening the screws on viewers who abuse the system by piggybacking on somebody else's subscription. The change will also have an impact on families, who often share the same Netflix account across devices.

Technically, Netflix has long had these limitations in their rules, but they've never enforced them. Customers with either the one-disc-at-a-time or streaming-only plan are supposed to be limited to streaming from one device at a time. Pricier plans that include multiple discs also enable concurrent streams, starting with the two disc plan for $20 per month.

This being the case, Netflix wouldn't be totally out of line in enforcing its own rules. That said, now is probably not the best time to do it. The company has already outraged customers by increasing its rates and recently disappointed investors by losing a vital content licensing contract with Starz Entertainment.

In many households, multiple people use the same streaming service on multiple devices, especially among families. A plan that enables four simultaneous streams from the same account costs $30/per month. When combined with other streaming service plans, the pricing can begin to approach the cost of a cable subscription.

It appears that the the streaming limitations experienced by some users are not a widespread issue. It's possible that Netflix was experimenting with such a change, but quickly backed away, realizing that it probably can't afford even a few more irritated customers right now.

Sure we do. But we've never had anything like Spotify before.

Why is Spotify Different?

What makes Spotify different from its competitors, both free and paid, is that it offers you an option to play all the music you want on-demand, for free. The free level of the service is supported by ads.

That's a big difference from something like the free services provided by Pandora or Last.fm, for example. With those and others like them, you tell the service an artist you like and they'll build a customized radio station around that selection featuring that artist's tracks and those from similar artists.

But to actually stream any song you want, at any time, you had to pay. The rates were typically $5/month for uninterrupted streaming on your PC and $10/month for streaming to any device, including mobile.

Spotify offers those same paid options, too. But unlike the competition (e.g. premium services like MOG, Rdio, Rhapsody, etc.), it goes the "freemium" route to build up its user base. What that means is that instead of offering a brief, free trial, Spotify actually offers the entire service for free, for as long as you want. With a freemium business model, the hope is that as you continue to use the service you'll eventually desire the paid-only features that only a subscription plan can offer.

On Spotify, these upgrades include ad-free listening, offline access, mobile applications, enhanced sound quality, exclusive content and more.

Spotify's BIG Music Catalog

There's another reason why Spotify is intriguing - its catalog. If iTunes is the gold standard for digital music, now with 18 million tracks, then Spotify comes a close second with 15 million songs.

In May, we looked at several of the other digital music catalogs, and found that Spotify, then at 13 million tracks, was already far ahead of its competition. At that time, Slacker had 8 million songs, Rdio 8.5 million, MOG 11 million, Napster 10 million, Rhapsody 10 million and Grooveshark 6 million.

If anyone can compete with iTunes, it's Spotify.

On PC & Mobile

Spotify also has another trick up its sleeve - cross-platform access. While iTunes requires you buy from iTunes, getting that music copied onto non-Apple devices takes special software, like the (third-party) DoubleTwist player for Android users, or Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 Connector for those using Windows Phone.

With Spotify, the company offers native clients for nearly all platforms, including both Mac and Windows, as well as iPhone, Android, Windows Phone, Palm and Symbian. (Sorry BlackBerry.) And even better, there's no copying involved. Spotify's music is stored online, "in the cloud," not as physical files that have to be saved to the hard drive of your device. (The only exception being with offline listening - then, files would need to be saved locally).

Even with Apple's forthcoming iCloud service in iOS 5, it's still about storing physical files to your Mac, iPhone, iPad or iPod. iCloud is just the go-between that makes the syncing happen. With Spotify, you're streaming, not syncing. And the cloud, not the iCloud, is the future of a hyper-connected world, Spotify would say.

Get an Invite!

Spotify says, via this morning's blog post, that U.S. users can now sign up for an invite to the service. Those who can't wait can jump ahead in line by signing up for a premium offering instead.

My wife and I are empty nesters, but we have a cell plan that also includes my stepson. The three cell phones cost us $175 per month with AT&T, and that is for my iPhone data plan and messaging plans. We live in an urban area where we can choose between DSL and cable options, although in our apartment building AT&T DSL/U-Verse is our only choice for Internet connectivity unless we want to go to a broadband wireless plan.

Why use Vonage? Well, the AT&T U-Verse VOIP wasn't attractive, just because I already give them so much of my dough to begin with. And yes, I can save $5 a month if I combine both U-Verse and wireless into a single combined bill; the last time I did that when I had to change my billing, it took forever to get sorted out.

Add to this our Netflix account, which was $22 per month, and that will rise to $28 a month if we don't adjust things and keep to the same plan of rental DVDs and streaming. I like the video streaming when I travel because it allows me to watch the movies I want in the hotel without having to pick from their selection, but my wife isn't as much of a fan of streaming.

Add to this the cost of actually going to the movies: in our apartment building is a five-screen theater, which makes it very convenient. We probably see two movies a month, and at St. Louis prices, that is still about $30 per month.

So add everything together, and it comes out at a surprising $297, so the Netflix increase is less than two percent of this total. Note that we don't have an actual land-line telephone, and this total doesn't include the cost of my office communications either.

Close to $300 a month for communications and entertainment? Wow. Remember when TV was free and you could pay $20 a month for dial-up? But at least we have high-speed Internet, and I can get movies that I want to watch whenever and wherever I may be in the world.

It was inevitable that Netflix would change its pricing structure. The company started as a DVD-by-mail operation at $7.99 a month and operated with that as its primary business model until the unlimited-streaming option became available in 2008. It is a wonder that it took this long for Netflix to unbundle the two options and make them separate sources of revenue.

"[W]e have realized that there is still a very large continuing demand for DVDs both from our existing members as well as non-members. Given the long life we think DVDs by mail will have, treating DVDs as a $2 add on to our unlimited streaming plan neither makes great financial sense nor satisfies people who just want DVDs. Creating an unlimited DVDs by mail plan (no streaming) at our lowest price ever, $7.99, does make sense and will ensure a long life for our DVDs by mail offering."

Netflix is restructuring its infrastructure to reflect the split between streaming and DVD divisions. Andy Rendich, Netflix's chief service and operations officer, will lead the DVD-only division.

If successful, the move will help Netflix expand its user base from its approximate 23.6 million subscribers, as well as increase revenue from existing members who want both the DVD and streaming options. Increased revenue will help Netflix build the war chest it will need for innovation, device expansion and, most importantly, content partnerships with movie studios and content producers.

Netflix launched streaming-only in the U.S. in November, 2010. As international expansion began and the company looked to serve every possible customer, a split like the one announced today was necessary. With it come pricing changes that Netflix devotees will have to learn to deal with.

What do you think? What Netflix subscription is right for you? Are you willing to pay almost $16 to get both DVDs and unlimited streaming?

Why Pogoplug?

There are no storage limits or long upload times, explains the company, differentiating its offering from similar cloud services, like Google Music or Amazon's Cloud Player. Both of those services require you to move your MP3s from your computer's drive to the companies' servers and they're only for music.

With Pogoplug, your computer is the server and more file types are supported.

Pogoplug Now Offering Freemium Software - And Free Invites for You!

There are two levels of service with the new software. For free, you can download the client and stream your media to any other device, including iOS devices (iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch), on your same local network. To make your files available online, however, there's a $29 fee. This allows you to install the software on all your machines, too, which means you can make every single file you own available "in the cloud," whether they're stored on a Windows PC or on your Mac.

Special for ReadWriteWeb readers: Click this link for a free upgrade to the premium service! (Limit: first 200 readers)

The Web interface offers three new apps for accessing your files: an online jukebox for streaming music, a cinema app for videos or movies and a gallery app for viewing photos, already organized using their own metadata.

While the idea of "cloud drive" isn't all that unique, the company is offering a unique spin on the concept - a cloud drive you own and control, instead of one run by a major corporation like Amazon, Google, Microsoft or Apple.

Of course, another big company had the same idea not too long ago - Opera Software, makers of the Web browser of the same name. With Opera Unite, the organization proclaimed it would "reinvent the Web" by turning any computer into both a client and server. The concept itself, as a standalone entity, didn't take off with users, and the technology is now baked into the Web browser instead. Opera may have just been a bit ahead of the time with the cloud streaming concept, or it could be that people don't want the hassle of managing their own cloud. (Did I leave my computer on? Is my home Wi-Fi down?) Still, for only $29, users with larger collections of media might find the small hassle worth price, as it's far cheaper than using a third-party cloud storage service.

The Ustream integration will let Ning users embed both live and recorded video into their sites. In addition to the video content, the new feature will also make available live chats so that people watching the event can also participate.

Ning boasts over 2 million Ning networks, and the video broadcasting integration is well-suited for many of these, particularly ones associated with education. The Ustream feature is only available, however, to Ning Plus and Pro subscribers (not to the Ning Minis, which are free for educators).

But with the possibility to broadcast tutorials or workshops or discussions, it does seem as though this video integration will make upgrading to a paid subscription very appealing for many users of the social network.

But now that the dust has settled and the glimmer has faded from today's keynote at WWDC, we have to ask, has Apple really triumphed here? Did we see the future of digital music unveiled onstage?

There are several pieces to the Apple and iTunes music strategy going forward, including the following:

• The introduction of iCloud: Free (yay!) as part of iOS 5, iCloud will allow users to give users access to their music (and other files) across devices, including iPhones, iPads, iPod Touches, Macs and PCs.
• iTunes in the Cloud: As part of iCloud, users will be able to buy music through iTunes and have it stored in the cloud.
• WiFi Syncing: Again, as part of iOS 5, devices will be able to sync over wireless and your iDevice will sync and backup to the iCloud without your having to plug in an annoying white cord.
• iTunes Match: This new service, announced as the famous "one more thing" at today's keynote, will allow users to store their music in the cloud, even if they haven't purchased their music from iTunes. If iTunes scans your library and finds a match, it will make that song available through iCloud, for $25 a year. Says Apple "all the music iTunes matches plays back at 256-Kbps iTunes Plus quality - even if your original copy was of lower quality."

"This Changes Everything!" - Except Not Really

At first blush, the thought of having your entire music collection available through iCloud sounded like an amazingly awesome deal. And for those of us who have amassed large record collections outside of the iTunes marketplace, it felt as though we were being pardoned for sins against the $.99 download - whether we came across our mp3s through ripping, legal filesharing, or piracy.

But it's important to note that Apple's new offer does not involve music streaming. True, you can have your music collection synced across devices (up to 10 of them). But you will still have to download the music you want to play on to your iPhone or iPad or iPod Touch or Mac. You won't be able to access your entire collection and randomly shuffle between all the glorious gigabytes.

And so Google and Amazon breathe a sigh of relief, because when it comes to music storage in the cloud, Apple's offering is "nice, but not revolutionary," as Evolver.fm's Eliot van Buskirk observes. Google offers streaming (via the Web, for free, for some of your collection) but no marketplace. Amazon offers streaming (via the Web, for a cost per GB) and a marketplace. Apple offers storage (cheaper than Amazon's) and one helluva marketplace - but no streaming. In other words, music in the cloud is still very much up for grabs.

The Future's So Bright, I Gotta...

There are at least 2 camps when it comes to music. The first has amassed a sizable music collection and, whether it's all digitized or not, wants to be able to to tap into those songs and listen to them anytime, anywhere. The second is less concerned with music ownership and is content to subscribe to some of the latest music services. It's the benefit of "anytime, anywhere" without the burdens of ownership, without worrying about buying new shelves to hold your records or more storage space to hold the mp3s.

The problem faced by the first camp - the one that admittedly I find myself in - is that that collection of music is so large and eclectic that it's impossible to put on an iPhone or iPad and if stored locally takes up a goodly portion of a PC hard drive. If you store it externally, there's always the problem of syncing and access and streaming. I think Apple believes that it's targeting that market with its announcement today. Your digital music can now be stored in the cloud and you can choose to download songs and playlists as you deem fit.

But as EchoNest's Paul Lamere points out, "This is not the iCloud I'm looking for." Like many, Lamere believes that the future lies in subscription music services, and he sees Apple's decision to build simply a glorified music locker as a failure of imagination. With the record labels willing to make a deal (or so it seemed), why do we not have an iTunes subscription option?

After all, more and more, people are turning to subscription services like Rdio or MOG to fulfill their music-listening needs. People without a vast record collection (and some who are sick of having to purchase new copies every time the music format du jour changes) are opting to rent rather than own their songs. (See Sarah Perez's recent article on whether or not these sorts of services are "worth it".)

I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For

Apple's promise of amnesty for non-iTunes purchases may appear to be a nod towards those of us who've acquired our music (cough) elsewhere, but I have to wonder if the same sorts of complaints about subscription services - they don't have my eclectic, hipster tastes, man! - will also plague iTunes Match.

With all the buzz leading up to WWDC, I think many music fans were waiting for Apple to announce something that really changed the game when it came to our music experiences. It doesn't seem as though we heard that on stage today.

To be fair, with the launch of the newly revamped application, mSpot is providing only three of the four service types mentioned above.  You can't play music on demand just yet.

But when asked if the company was considering such a move, mSpot's co-founder and CEO Daren Tsui said, "we're looking into that." He also mentioned that he has several ideas for additional paid-only features that mSpot will debut later this year - features which could entice its free users to move into the premium tiers, he said. Tsui wouldn't detail what these features are, however. But he did say that while the features themselves may not be novel, the way they're packaged into mSpot's hybrid system is.

And what could be better than music on demand, we ask? We expect that's one of the hooks that mSpot has in mind. If so, this mashup music service could be the one that finally sells streaming music naysayers on giving "the cloud" a shot. Whether you prefer to purchase your own tracks, serendipitously discover new music through radio plays or listen to curated streams, mSpot has it. And maybe one day, on-demand tunes too.

For now, the service is free, and you get 5 GB of storage free. For $3.99/month, you can have 40 GB instead. Other tiers will be introduced this year, with access to more features. The iOS version, as well as PC and Mac versions of this updated service will launch later this year, as well.

Mspot's Features

Mspot also offers a few bonuses that not all its competitors have: live lyrics that display while music plays, "cached mode" for offline access to tunes (even for entire playlists), automatic export of metadata, cover art and playlists from iTunes, automatic, wireless syncing from PC to cloud (i.e., when you add more music to your desktop music collection it immediately syncs to mSpot), and continuous playback of songs even in areas where cellular coverage is spotty.

In addition, with the newly updated mobile application (beta), you're given 5 GB of free online storage for storing the MP3's you own, access to hundreds of Internet radio stations, access to mSpot's own 80 to 85 programmed stations and a Pandora-like personal radio player that builds a station based on artists or genres you like.

And unlike Amazon's new Cloud Player app, when you stream your own music online via mSpot, it isn't just a means to an end - it also helps to serve up recommendations. As your listening preferences change, so do these recommendations.

Not bad for a free app.

For those unaware, mSpot is not a newcomer to mobile music, despite its low-profile name. The company has been building mobile apps for over 6 and a half years now, including the white label radio apps for AT&T, Sprint, U.S. Cellular and others. The company also has other entertainment-focused apps like mSpot Movies.

To learn more about the service or to try out mSpot for yourself, head to www.mspot.com.

To ditch the advertisements and skip songs you don't like, a $3.99/month subscription (Slacker Radio Plus) was made available. And today, Slacker has launched another option: a $9.99/month Premium Radio subscription for playing the songs, albums or artists you want to hear on demand. This is similar to a number of other services out there today, including two of our favorites, MOG and Rdio.

Which one is right for you?

MOG and Rdio are only two of the cloud-based streaming music subscription services available today, so this isn't meant to be a comprehensive review. Others, like Napster, Grooveshark, Spotify, Rhapsody, Microsoft's Zune and others are also available, with similar pricing.

But MOG, Rdio and Slacker are, let's be honest, some of the newer, and cooler* services** these days (for U.S. users***), each offering unique features, from social sharing of playlists to free cloud storage for your own tracks and more.

*Cool, as you know is an entirely subjective word. Did we mention this was a blog?

**We think Grooveshark is pretty cool too, but is still facing questions about its legality. The company maintains there's nothing illegal about its service, but in truth, it's operating in a gray area of the law and has since been pulled from iTunes because of that. Spotify may be the coolest of the bunch, but is not available commercially in the U.S. market. Napster and Rhapsody are nice too, but are old brands doing new things, as opposed to new startups doing new things. That doesn't make their services unworthy of consideration, but they are not being reviewed in this article.

***Yes, this review is U.S.-centric, sorry overseas readers!

What is Slacker Premium Offering?

With Slacker, the new Premium service offers over 8 million tracks from the four major labels and thousands of indies. You can search, play and replay specific songs or entire albums. And you can create playlists both online and on your mobile. Currently, Slacker has apps for iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, Android and BlackBerry phones. Offline playback is supported on these devices, too.

Users can also access the 150+ pre-programmed Slacker Radio stations based on musical genre, and can view and play the top 50 most popular songs for that genre's station.

While listening to music, users can favorite tracks for easy retrieval later. And like the Plus offering, this service is available ad-free, and with unlimited song-skipping. It even offers the ability to view song lyrics.

Slacker notes on the subscriptions page of its website that with 8 million tracks, Slacker has 6 times more songs available than its top competitor. That's a fair comparison, given that Pandora's catalog only includes 800,000 unique songs. While not all of Slacker's 8 million tracks are available on demand - that's up to the labels' discretion - all those that are available on demand on competing services would be available on Slacker, too.

Although Slacker does trump Pandora's catalog hands-down, the service's real competitors are not other "radio" applications, but on-demand subscription services like Rdio and MOG.

Here, the competition is a bit tougher.

How Music Discovery & Management Compares

With MOG, for example, you have access to features similar to Slacker - favorite tracks on demand, top charts, playlists and more. But while Slacker breaks down the charts into "top 50's" by genre, MOG offers "Top 50" charts for all music being played on its service, available by song, artist or album. (This is on its mobile app, to be clear).

The serendipitous discovery on MOG comes instead from a curated "Editor's Picks" playlist and "Featured Playlists" from other MOG users. There are also featured "Radio Picks" if you prefer the radio format over the on-demand format.

From the Web, you can favorite other MOG users' playlists or build your own and these then become available on your mobile. But in the mobile app itself (iPhone and Android only), you can only favorite a track or artist. You can't add a given track to a playlist on the fly, as you can on Slacker.

Meanwhile, on Rdio, the emphasis is more on social discovery of music through friends rather than through "editors" or strangers with similar interests. In a "recent activity" section on the mobile app's dashboard, you can see your friends' activity on Rdio, including music they've added or who they're following. This is a decidedly hit-or-miss experience for discovery of new tunes, however, unless all your friends like almost exactly the same music you do (which is never the case, we've found).

Rdio also features a "heavy rotation" section so you can see what's popular on the service overall, but this is more limited a snapshot than what MOG and Slacker offer. There are not multiple charts, by genre or otherwise.

On Rdio's iPhone app, a recommended music section has been added, offering a somewhat iTunes-esque "genius-like" list of suggestions based on the songs you've already played. Unfortunately, this same feature has not yet made it to all other mobile platforms yet. (Rdio is available on iPhone, Android, Windows Phone 7 and BlackBerry.)

However, Rdio users can save tracks to their "collection" (an online music collection built using the songs already in your iTunes media library), and they can add tunes to playlists from the mobile app. That means MOG is the only one of the three without playlist management from mobile. For what it's worth, Rdio's app is also one of the better designed streaming music mobile applications available today.

Catalogs! Who Has Your Tunes?

Slacker touts a catalog of over 8 million tracks, and Rdio says it has 8.5 million tracks. MOG, however, has recently bumped up its catalog to offer 11 million songs, making it the largest of the three we're examining today. (For comparison's sake, iTunes now offers 13 million songs, Napster has 10 million songs, Rhapsody, 10 million, Grooveshark, 6 million, Spotify, 13 million.)

All three streaming services say they offer songs from the major labels, however, so these shortcomings will only affect users with more indie or esoteric tastes. Much of MOG's indie selection comes from major indies (Beggars Group, Dischord Records, Matador, Thrill Jockey, Merge Records, Domino, Warp Records) and major indie aggregators (ADA, Redeye, RED, IODAlliance, INgrooves, Virtual Label Group, Finetunes, IRIS, CDBaby - self-released artists, and Tunecore - self-released artists).*

*Yes, those names only mean something to you if you're really into indie music.

Though MOG's app isn't the best in terms of its design, or even features (due to its lack of playlist management on mobile), the ability to stream the most songs may be its top selling point.

So what's Slacker's main attraction then? It doesn't have MOG's catalog or Rdio's deep social sharing integrations, but it does offer a lot of "top 50" stations - which is great for those who want to explore music based on popularity, instead of those who already know what they're after.

Depending on your mobile platform of choice, and the features that you value most - social, design, catalog or discovery - one of these three can easily fulfill your needs. If not, there are the others we mentioned above, plus iTunes of course...and torrents, we suppose, if you're naughty.

While both Amazon and Google's offerings have the same basic concept behind their design, there are some notable differences between the two, as detailed below.

"Cloud Drive" is the brand name of Amazon's cloud-based streaming music service. Although the focus, at present, is on providing an online home to your MP3 collection, the service already supports other types of files, too, including documents, pictures and videos. In this way, it's more akin to Google's Docs service, because, as with Docs, you can upload almost any of the most commonly-used file types to Amazon's cloud.

The caveat with Amazon's service is the price. You get 5 GB of online storage for free, which equates to around 2,000 songs, assuming you are just using the service for music and nothing else. Anything more, and you have to pay. There are storage plans available with yearly fees attached. These include the following annual plans: 20 GB ($20), 50 GB ($50), 100 GB ($100), 200 GB ($200), 500 GB ($500) and 1,000 GB ($1,000).

However, not only do your Amazon.com MP3 purchases not count towards your storage total, the company is also running a special through the end of the year which allows you to upgrade to the 20 GB plan just for buying one album from Amazon. There's a caveat here as well, that "free" upgrade is only good for one year from the date of the purchase. Afterwards, if you don't sign up to pay for the $20/year 20 GB plan, you'll be automatically downgraded to the free 5 GB plan.

For playing music from your online storage, Amazon's Cloud Drive includes a music streaming service called Amazon Cloud Player. This online app provides basic music controls, playlist support and filters for sorting by Albums, Artists, Genres and Songs. It supports the playback of MP3 files, like those which Amazon itself sells, plus AAC files, like the non-DRM files sold on iTunes. It also supports playlist import from Windows Media Player and iTunes.

The player works on both the Mac and PC platforms, plus Android phones. A somewhat kludgy workaround is available now for iOS devices (iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad), but it's not as polished as the native Android application. It's also not considered an "official" means of streaming your music by Amazon. The company clearly states on its website that "iPad and iPhone are not currently supported platforms for either the Amazon MP3 Store or Amazon Cloud Player." This is mentioned in a side note at the bottom of a chart featuring the Cloud Player's current status for the Web, Android, BlackBerry and Palm mobile operating systems. The fact that iOS didn't even make the chart further hints at Amazon's planned Android-based tablet, reportedly in the works now. By refusing to support iPhone and iPad, Amazon's tablet has a competitive advantage over Apple devices, and Amazon's MP3 store will have a similar advantage over iTunes. (Well, at least until Apple launches "cloud iTunes," that is).

Google Music: Storage for 20,000 Songs for Free, No Music Store

Like Amazon's Cloud Drive offering, Google's Music service is also being launched without the record labels' support. Google's failure to negotiate a proper deal with the labels led to the delay in the launch of Google Music, according to reports.  However, in Google's case, this is a far worse problem than for Amazon because at least Amazon already had a (legal and licensed) online MP3 store where it sells music. Google does not. For end users, that's certainly a shame, but for Google's own purposes, it may not matter as much. Unlike Amazon, Google's main goal isn't to sell more MP3's to end users, it wants to sell Android-based phones. More philosophically, and core to everything Google does, its goal is also to get more people online, using the Web and Google services, all so they can see and click on more ads.

To make up for its missing "store" component, Google is enticing users with features instead. The new service offers things like automatic playlist creation tools and, perhaps more importantly, more free storage. During its initial phase, Google offers beta customers the ability to store up to 20,000 songs for no charge. Google is measuring storage prices in "songs," not GB, for what it's worth. Regardless, Google is offering roughly 10 times the amount of storage as Amazon does, and for free. That's a compelling advantage, and one Google can easily afford. Unfortunately, this "free" option is only available "for a limited time," says Google.

Like Amazon's Cloud Drive, Google Music will involve a lengthy upload process where you use a downloadable client software application installed on your Mac or PC to copy songs from your computer to the cloud. Also like Amazon, a Flash-based Web player will allow you to play your music from your computer, including Google's own Chrome OS operating system. And finally, while Amazon offers a native Cloud Player app for Android, Google will instead update its own Music application for Android, a core app that ships on all Android phones, with support for Google Music. We had previously seen this application in the wild, thanks to users on a popular mobile forum site, XDA-Developers, who discovered a way to install the newer version of the Music app on their phones. They discovered songs could both be streamed and synced to Google's Cloud right from the mobile device itself. Amazon, however, only allows uploads (syncing) from a PC. But both Google and Amazon will support the ability to download songs to your mobile device for offline listening, it appears.

A notable difference between Amazon's Cloud Drive and Google Music is the scope of its offering. While Cloud Drive supports other file types beyond just songs, Google Music, as the name suggests, is for music only. For online storage of other files, Google offers Google Docs, also available as a native Android application.

For now, Google Music will be invite-only - Google I/O attendees will receive invites, as will users of Motorola's Xoom Android-based tablet computer on Verizon, according to TechCrunch.

Geographic Restrictions

Both Amazon's and Google's products are limited to select geographic regions, it should be noted. Currently, Amazon offers Cloud Drive to the U.S., plus Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the U.K.

At launch, Google Music will be U.S.-only.

Note: This article will be updated after Google's official announcement today. Current sources are AllThingsD andTechCrunch, both of which confirmed these facts with Google.

Image credit: lead - LifeofAndroid; player screenshots, forum user RazorHail

Instead, with the SublimeVideo service, a plugin-free Web player is provided that uses HTML5 to display the embedded videos Web publishers want to host online. When a user visits a site using an older browser, a "fall back to Flash" mode switches the player to use Adobe Flash technology for more universal compatibility.

But as of today, SublimeVideo is available to all, no invite required.

Pricing Plans

The company struggled with the pricing plans, it admits, saying that figuring out the right model was "more difficult than we initially expected." Jilion surveyed some 2,000 users about their expectations and based much of its decision surrounding pricing on the feedback it received.

"We decided that all plans will only be differentiated by their volume levels," notes the company, "and not their feature sets." That means you don't have to buy a bigger plan to get the features you need - everyone has access to the same options.

Another nice addition to the service is something called Peak Insurance. This flexible feature lets a publisher temporarily exceed their video pageview limit (as is the case when a video goes viral), without having to upgrade their plan.

Early users of the service include LittleBigPlanet.com, a game website owned by Sony Computer Entertainment, design-focused site MethodandCraft.com and Campl.us, home to the popular Camera+ mobile application.

All plans are available now. Interested publishers can choose theirs here.

But is Amazon's cloud-based music storage service really all that innovative? Some journalists and analysts are saying it's not. Do you agree?

To be impressed with Amazon's offering, you have to ignore the numerous startups already serving this space. For example, Rdio, the on-demand music streaming service from Skype, Kazaa and Joost creators Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis, lets users store an unlimited amount of music from their own personal collections online. Rdio users download the Rdio Desktop software program, which scours for tracks saved to a computer's hard drive. Those files are then matched with the tunes in Rdio's own collection.

The price is a bit more than Amazon's service, which starts by giving you 5 GBs for free. Instead, Rdio charges $4.99/month for Web access or $9.99/month for Web + mobile access. But the bonus here is that you also have access to Rdio's entire collection of music totaling over 7 million songs. With Amazon, you can only access your own files or those you choose to purchase from Amazon's MP3 store in the future.

If you aren't interested in a subscription service and just want to store your own music "in the cloud," smaller startups have already provided this capability for many months. In August 2010, for example, Audiogalaxy launched a mobile music streaming service which lets you stream music directly from your home computer to your mobile phone for free. Unlimited storage is provided here, too. After all - it is your own computer.

Another alternative service, Audiobox.fm, works on Android, iPhone/iPod Touch and the Web while storing files on its own servers. It's $3.99/month for 11 GB. There's also Grooveshark, Rhapsody, Napster, Soundcloud, Last.fm, Pandora, Songbird and others, all bringing music streaming to both online and mobile users.

5 GB for Free? Who Cares! We Have 100 GB of Music, Don't You?

Then there's this question: who does 5 GB even work for? Many digital music consumers have collections that span decades, including CDs imported into iTunes, MP3 files traded for free during the wild west days of Napster and torrenting plus carefully curated playlists of tracks purchased in later years from online stores like iTunes, Amazon and eMusic.

To get a better understanding of Amazon's pricing, consider this: a 100 GB collection, stored in Amazon's cloud, is $100.00 per year. 1,000 GB is $1,000 per year.  These are not prices that make sense when you can get access to 7 million tracks at Rdio for $10 per month. Or 10 million tracks at MOG for the same rate.

Forrester: This isn't Innovation

Even ignoring Amazon's competition, Amazon's service itself just isn't all that innovative. Or so says Forrester analyst Mark Mulligan. "...Let's not get carried away," he wrote in a blog post today. "As logical a next step in the digital music market that locker services might be, they’re not an innovation in the music product. They’re simply giving people access to the music they have on the devices they own. Consumers simply expect this."

Darned right we do. For the prices Amazon charges, we should expect access to subscription music, not just paid access to our own files. And we expect to be able to stream that music to all our devices. Amazon isn't even providing that - it's limited to the Web and Android phones. What about our TVs, cars, home stereos? What about our iPhones? Streaming music services like Pandora, Rdio, MOG and others are integrating themselves into all sorts of appliances and consumer electronics products. You can stream Pandora from a Samsung Refrigerator. Rdio from your Sonos system. MOG from your car. Where can you stream Amazon? Select mobile phones? The Web? How earth-shaking.

In fact, "Amazon's Cloud Music Move Isn't Earth-Shaking" is the exact headline Peter Kafka used to describe the launch over on AllThingsD.

"The future of cloud-based music is here today," he wrote. "It looks a lot like the past."

"Amazon’s Cloud Drive/Cloud Player combo sounds cool, because it has the word 'Cloud' in it. It’s quite useful, too. But if you’re a music lover looking for a paradigm shift in the way you consume tunes, this won’t be it."

His main complaints? Amazon doesn't provide access to your files on all your devices and it doesn't help you discover new music. These were Mulligan's complaints, too. He even went so far as to say that "locker services will not save the music industry." What will, Mulligan notes, is a generation of high quality music experiences that are: social, participative, accessible, relevant and connected.

"Amazon just ticked off the C," he says.

If you're an independent film lover, than big name online movie sites like Netflix, Amazon Video on Demand and Hulu Plus probably don't do it for you. They're full of blockbuster hits, mainstream movies and TV shows.

If, however, you're into cult classics, film noir, international hits and more, Fandor, the "online service for indie film fans," is for you.

Just going onto the site and looking at the selection of categories, you can immediately see that this isn't going to be your standard, mainstream drivel. As the company notes in its release, "You know you're not in Hollywood anymore when you click on 'Seafaring & Swashbucklers', 'Anarchic Comedy' or 'Dysfunctional Families.'"

"Indie film fans simply don't care about the same things as traditional movie-goers," said Chris Kelly, a social technology evangelist who sits on Fandor's board of directors. "Indie fans want to be enriched or moved by the film, which is a personal thing that's hard to predict based on past viewing habits or a Q&A. They are highly suspect of being marketed to, invest heavily in discovering new things, but depend very much on personal recommendations for taste making. It's a natural fit for social."

The service has been in beta for several months but is launching to the public today. Users can sign up for a free month trial. From there, the service is $9.99 a month and is available on both the Web and on Boxee.