PDA

View Full Version : iTunes Match: $24.99/year, Matches Ripped Tunes, Offers Them In The Cloud




Pages : 1 [2]

lilo777
Jun 6, 2011, 06:42 PM
this will make a lot of people very happy.

Yeap. Those people at Google and Microsoft must be very happy today :p



AaronEdwards
Jun 6, 2011, 06:45 PM
And when you stop paying to Apple for their service - you keep exactly what you had in the first place. So how is it better? Add to this the fact that Apple will not even stream this music to you.

You have some music you downloaded a couple of years ago, it was encoded with a bad codec or at a really lousy bitrate. Now you Apple lets you convert it into better files with a higher bitrate. And you only have to pay $24.99 for as much as you want. Thanks Apple!

jowie
Jun 6, 2011, 06:46 PM
Still, without streaming, this is already behind the competition. I can get 10GB free (well with the purchase of 1 album) on Amazon and stream it on anything with a browser and it doesn't take up any of my storage space on anything except my home computer. Sure it's not my full iTunes library and it takes eons to upload, but streaming is really convenient if you have a decent internet connection.
There's no reason for them not to offer streaming at a later date. This is all big news for now. Services are upgraded and improved over time.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 6, 2011, 06:46 PM
Free audiobooks? LibriVox (http://librivox.org/).
Free software? There's lots of it.

Are you guessing the poster's source or do you know? I acknowledge that there's lots of free content available on the Internet... like this public domain stuff apparently available at that link (though what looked like Russian writing on the home page gave me immediate pause). In my own case, I have a fair amount of "free" songs I got via Pepsi & 7/11 "free music" promotions, and I've been given a whole lot of CD's as Christmas gifts over the years. But I have the CD's and the receipts (even $0 receipts) for all that.

AaronEdwards
Jun 6, 2011, 06:47 PM
There's no reason for them not to offer streaming at a later date. This is all big news for now. Services are upgraded and improved over time.

15 billion songs sold is reason enough not to offer it.

Eric S.
Jun 6, 2011, 06:49 PM
15 billion songs sold is reason enough not to offer it.

Why? You still have to buy the songs; you just wouldn't have to keep local copies (on every device at least).

iRobby
Jun 6, 2011, 06:50 PM
God only knows how Apple managed to persuade record labels to do this.


http://images0.cpcache.com/product/243166940v3_480x480_Front.jpg

$150 -$200million

AaronEdwards
Jun 6, 2011, 06:52 PM
Are you guessing the poster's source or do you know? I acknowledge that there's lots of free content available on the Internet... like this public domain stuff apparently available at that link. In my own case, I have a fair amount of "free" songs I got via Pepsi & 7/11 "free music" promotions, and I've been given a whole lot of CD's as Christmas gifts over the years.

I'm just pointing out sources for free audiobooks and software.
And as I posted earlier, people with 20,000 digital songs are most likely pirates. Not all. But a crushing majority. Most people don't own 2000 albums that they have ripped, nor have they bought 2000 albums on iTunes.

AaronEdwards
Jun 6, 2011, 06:54 PM
Why? You still have to buy the songs; you just wouldn't have to keep local copies (on every device at least).

No, you just need to get crappy illegal versions and have Apple upgrade them for you. No need to pay for anything else than $25.

AaronEdwards
Jun 6, 2011, 06:55 PM
$150 -$200million

That's peanuts.

Hberg
Jun 6, 2011, 06:58 PM
Match only provides you with an AAC DRM Free 256-Kbps iTunes Plus (lossy) quality copy of your song. If you have lesser quality recording of the song, then this could be a good thing; however, if you rip CDs to a lossless version, then you would be getting copy that is of lesser quality. I record all my CDs using the Apple Lossless (ALAC), so the Match feature is of lesser value to me, and the same may be true for other lossless recordings (FLAC, WAV, Etc.).

Looking at the bigger market, I am sure the Match will be of greater value.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 6, 2011, 06:59 PM
So Aaron, do you believe iTunes Match is a music upgrade service for $24.99 or a streaming service? Do you believe that music from any source is going to be able to be permanently replaced on local hard drives for as little as a one-time cost of $24.99 or that as soon as you stop paying, access to the non-Itunes-purchased content is going to cease?

I think it's a cheap subscription service that won't replace non-iTunes-purchased songs in any permanent way but let you listen to 256K masters while you are a "subscriber" at $24.99/yr. Others seem to believe that they are going to be able to both upgrade < 256K AAC music as well as "buy" permanent replacements for even pirated music for as little as $24.99. Where are you on this?

Edit: never mind: I see in post #259.

karlwig
Jun 6, 2011, 07:05 PM
This is an awesome deal for those with ripped music. I guess those rumors about Apple paying the record companies a lot of money were true.

I still don't know why Apple had to pay them anything. This is just a service that makes syncing easier for those who already bought the music.

It's legal to copy your own music onto several devices. In fact, here in Norway Apple was forced to remove the DRM because it was considered illegal.

Mak47
Jun 6, 2011, 07:06 PM
First person to accurately explain how the matching service works wins a prize of immeasurable value. ;)

It seems pretty simple to me.

1. iTunes creates a virtual library in iCloud for your Apple ID.

2. Your iTunes purchases are automatically placed in your library.

3. You subscribe to iTunes Match service and pay your $25.

4. iTunes scans a portion of every audio file in your existing library, skipping purchased music that is already in the cloud.

5. Songs where the audio matches what's already on iTunes servers are copied into your library.

6. Songs that couldn't be matched (could be any number of reasons) will be copied from your computer into your iCloud library.

7. You can now access your iCloud library from your iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad, Mac or PC running iTunes.

Here's where my logical speculation comes in:

8. Your iCloud library shows up like an iTunes home sharing library would. Technically, you'd be streaming the music, but you wouldn't have to go to some external web portal to get to it.

9. iTunes home sharing already gives users the option to copy files from a shared library to another computer. This is currently not available for iOS devices. It seems likely that a "download from the cloud" option will be available for those devices in the future. It is only logical to assume that Apple will employ the same system for the user's iCloud library.

10. While it probably won't be spelled right out for you, the term DRM free was used for a reason. Once you copy those songs into your library from the cloud, they're yours. There's no way around that. There's nothing necessarily stopping someone from manually replacing the original files with the new ones if they are inclined to do so, but it will probably require you to jump through a few hoops.

Perhaps my understanding of this is too simplistic, but any other way wouldn't be likely to "Just Work". That's what Apple is going for here, ease of use and overall simplicity. The instant downloads to multiple devices feature alone blows away every other online music service. Anyone who would buy anywhere else must simply enjoy suffering.

As for the piracy issue, Steve Jobs has said it many times--you can't stop it. Trying to do so is a losing game. All you can do is develop a service that provides a better product and a better experience for the end user. That's what they're doing here. We can all get water for free if we're willing to do the work, but we usually pay for it don't we? It's the same idea.

The labels at this point had no expectation of making money from the music that was pirated over the last 15 years. It was a loss that has long been written off. This model gives them a way to recoup a little bit of revenue that they never would have seen otherwise. Additionally, it helps create a vibrant and user friendly digital music buying experience that will serve to reduce piracy in the future. Simply put, they would have been stupid to turn it down.

As for future piracy? Think about it, if you want a song and have four different devices you want to play it on are you going to:

1. Go online and find a place to steal it
2. Change the metadata and add artwork so it doesn't look like crap in your library
3. Copy/sync it to each of your other three devices one at a time

Or...
Pay Apple $1.29 and have it all done in seconds.

This is going to be a very innovative service that will surely grow and adapt as time progresses. There is nothing else out there that competes with it in a meaningful way. Apple will use this to their advantage and will continue to grow in a big way as a result of iCloud and some of the other features they're offering with both of their new OS's.

bradyholt
Jun 6, 2011, 07:06 PM
So is the iTunes match running in beta right now? What do the TOS say. Does apple have the right to supply info when the software suspects (using wave form analyzing) pirated downloaded music.

If there will be no sharing info other than artists album song info I would pay double for what they are offering. Getting rid of my crappy mp3, I for one am in. What about all my alac songs either from ripped cd's or converted from flac? Hopefully it will recognize that the bitrate is higher than 256 and leave it alone.

caspersoong
Jun 6, 2011, 07:12 PM
I was really skeptical about this but iTunes Match is awesome. The price is really reasonable as well. I never thought Apple would make it free.

reactions
Jun 6, 2011, 07:20 PM
thank you for clarifying the service as i and many others were a bit confused what we exactly get for $25

that said. i already have a play list of songs i share across my ipod, ipad, and iphone. it involves - GET THIS GUYS - a few clicks to sync that play list on each device.

Now you are telling me it's easier to pay $25 a year for something that already can be done on the fly?

i can see if i'm not around my computer on my wifi connection traveling ( I DO TRAVEL OFTEN) but it's not a compelling service. it's neat and offers some convenience but not enough for lots of people to sign up.

now if you said the entire music library was open to streaming then you have my interest.

It seems pretty simple to me.

1. iTunes creates a virtual library in iCloud for your Apple ID.

2. Your iTunes purchases are automatically placed in your library.

3. You subscribe to iTunes Match service and pay your $25.

4. iTunes scans a portion of every audio file in your existing library, skipping purchased music that is already in the cloud.

5. Songs where the audio matches what's already on iTunes servers are copied into your library.

6. Songs that couldn't be matched (could be any number of reasons) will be copied from your computer into your iCloud library.

7. You can now access your iCloud library from your iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad, Mac or PC running iTunes.

Here's where my logical speculation comes in:

8. Your iCloud library shows up like an iTunes home sharing library would. Technically, you'd be streaming the music, but you wouldn't have to go to some external web portal to get to it.

9. iTunes home sharing already gives users the option to copy files from a shared library to another computer. This is currently not available for iOS devices. It seems likely that a "download from the cloud" option will be available for those devices in the future. It is only logical to assume that Apple will employ the same system for the user's iCloud library.

10. While it probably won't be spelled right out for you, the term DRM free was used for a reason. Once you copy those songs into your library from the cloud, they're yours. There's no way around that. There's nothing necessarily stopping someone from manually replacing the original files with the new ones if they are inclined to do so, but it will probably require you to jump through a few hoops.

Perhaps my understanding of this is too simplistic, but any other way wouldn't be likely to "Just Work". That's what Apple is going for here, ease of use and overall simplicity. The instant downloads to multiple devices feature alone blows away every other online music service. Anyone who would buy anywhere else must simply enjoy suffering.

As for the piracy issue, Steve Jobs has said it many times--you can't stop it. Trying to do so is a losing game. All you can do is develop a service that provides a better product and a better experience for the end user. That's what they're doing here. We can all get water for free if we're willing to do the work, but we usually pay for it don't we? It's the same idea.

The labels at this point had no expectation of making money from the music that was pirated over the last 15 years. It was a loss that has long been written off. This model gives them a way to recoup a little bit of revenue that they never would have seen otherwise. Additionally, it helps create a vibrant and user friendly digital music buying experience that will serve to reduce piracy in the future. Simply put, they would have been stupid to turn it down.

As for future piracy? Think about it, if you want a song and have four different devices you want to play it on are you going to:

1. Go online and find a place to steal it
2. Change the metadata and add artwork so it doesn't look like crap in your library
3. Copy/sync it to each of your other three devices one at a time

Or...
Pay Apple $1.29 and have it all done in seconds.

This is going to be a very innovative service that will surely grow and adapt as time progresses. There is nothing else out there that competes with it in a meaningful way. Apple will use this to their advantage and will continue to grow in a big way as a result of iCloud and some of the other features they're offering with both of their new OS's.

karlwig
Jun 6, 2011, 07:58 PM
If this actually turns out to be right, that Apple have convinced the record companies that for $25/year they will allow people to convert pirated songs into legal songs, then this will be the biggest news from WWDC. Nothing else will come close.

Which is why I think people are misunderstanding it.

Also, Apple has sold 5 billion songs through iTunes since February 2010. Letting people convert illegal songs would seriously impact that revenue stream.

What do you mean, "allow people to convert pirated songs into legal songs"? Pirated music can already be copied for free onto iPads and iPhones via the usual synching. This method just makes the iDevices ready on the go, without the need to plug them into your Mac/PC.

If anything, I'm surprised Apple had to pay record companies anything. This is really just a form of wireless could-syncing to access personal music that you already paid for. Did record companies expect people to buy the same songs multiple times for each device? I mean, how much money would they really lose out on from this? Why do people think this deal is so unlikely?

Yes, if there's files you don't own legally, you get access to them too -- but you already had that, remember? And revenue from people who choose to pirate all their music is already zero, so even if this service is used by pirates -- well, now they at least pay something.

zim
Jun 6, 2011, 08:12 PM
Considering that Mobile Me is now free I have now some extra cash so heck ya, I'll be signing up for the service :)

lilo777
Jun 6, 2011, 08:20 PM
You have some music you downloaded a couple of years ago, it was encoded with a bad codec or at a really lousy bitrate. Now you Apple lets you convert it into better files with a higher bitrate. And you only have to pay $24.99 for as much as you want. Thanks Apple!

Is that really what cloud services are for? Why did you use bad codec in a first place? You should have used Windows - plenty of god codecs. And if the codec was bad (or bitrate) will Apple be able (or want to) match your songs? We'll see.

GS17
Jun 6, 2011, 08:29 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

*
Originally posted by RafaelT:
This is an awesome deal for those with ripped music. I guess those rumors about Apple paying the record companies a lot of money were true.


I still don't know why Apple had to pay them anything. This is just a service that makes syncing easier for those who already bought the music.

It's legal to copy your own music onto several devices. In fact, here in Norway Apple was forced to remove the DRM because it was considered illegal.




That's Apple's way of taking out the competition, after this the labels will go after google and amazon asking for money

GS17
Jun 6, 2011, 08:34 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

*
Originally posted by twoodcc:
this will make a lot of people very happy.


Yeap. Those people at Google and Microsoft must be very happy today


I don't know why, but I knew somebody will drag microsoft into the discussion

polaris20
Jun 6, 2011, 08:37 PM
So I have almost 50,000 songs. Mostly ripped from my own CD collection. Do I have to pay in multiples of 24.99 per year? Or was that just an example? Limitless for 24.99?

You have over 4000 CD's? Impressive.

E.Lizardo
Jun 6, 2011, 08:44 PM
Well this sounds pretty good...I have 22,000 songs. However, many of mine are remixes that are definitely not on iTunes. So I would definitely have to think about what's available before I sign up...Apple should allow iTunes to scan all my stuff beforehand and give me a report of what's missing before I fork over the $25.

But I would really like to see the proof that the iCloud can truly stream over cell phone technology for say 60+ minutes at a time. For example, I would like to plop my iPhone into a boombox at a friend's pool and listen to tunes over the cell network for several hours.

Also, how will the cell carriers like folks streaming 256k mp3s over their network for use cases like mine? Data plans gonna change soon?

There is no streaming.

Eric S.
Jun 6, 2011, 09:12 PM
No, you just need to get crappy illegal versions and have Apple upgrade them for you. No need to pay for anything else than $25.

Maybe I missed the point, but I don't see what that has to do with whether songs are streamed or downloaded.

On another subject, I'm wondering how Apple intends to deal with the metadata for the songs. For example, the online database of song/album titles makes a lot of errors in song titles, lists some double albums as two single albums, etc., and Apple is often unable to supply the correct album art. I've spent many hours cleaning up all these little issues. Would Apple sync all of my metadata, or would it just grab some generic info for the matched songs? There are still a number of unknowns about this service.

rufwork
Jun 6, 2011, 09:31 PM
Songs that are matched are upgraded to 256KBps, AAC...

Neither of these are upgrades for my tracks. :eek:

cmfilms
Jun 6, 2011, 09:49 PM
I'm curious of the scan of your library is a one-time action or will it continue for the year.

For example, if I impulse-buy a CD at Target and load it into iTunes, will I get a fresh scan and the cloud-sharing too or do I have to wait for my annual membership renewal?

reden
Jun 6, 2011, 10:20 PM
Most of my iTunes library are game soundtracks or obscure stuff that isn't on iTunes. I guess I won't be using this service, but it sounds quite spiffy.

Woah, you're such a hipster dude. You're so cool.

edwurtle
Jun 6, 2011, 10:23 PM
If my iCloud music library is twice a large as my iPhone's storage, how does the iPhone decide which music to download from the cloud? It can't possibly download all of it. Does it magically decide with no user input?

Old method: adjust sync settings in itunes on your pc/mac
New method: ??

I hope there is a way to adjust sync settings directly on the iPhone. If I have to connect and sync via mac to adjust these settings then what's the point of iCloud.

fpnc
Jun 6, 2011, 10:25 PM
If you attempt to sync an iTunes purchased song that has DRM shouldn't it download the iTunes Plus content to your iOS device since iTunes does not currently host DRM'd files? Either that, or it just won't sync DRM'd files which could be an early indication that iTunes Match won't work with DRM'd files. Now wouldn't that be a slap in the face to everyone who legally purchased DRM'd songs and music videos from the iTunes Store?

I'm going to test this out as soon as I can.

pdjudd
Jun 6, 2011, 10:45 PM
If you attempt to sync an iTunes purchased song that has DRM shouldn't it download the iTunes Plus content to your iOS device since iTunes does not currently host DRM'd files?

According to Jason Snell of MacWorld - you would still get the DRM files since the record companies consider them a separate purchase. Apple may not sell DRM files, but they still offer them under limited circumstances.

legacyb4
Jun 6, 2011, 10:52 PM
Apple's website says:

Here’s how it works: iTunes determines which songs in your collection are available in the iTunes Store. Any music with a match is automatically added to your iCloud library for you to listen to anytime, on any device.

which I interpret to be "streamed" and not downloaded (purchased music is mentioned as being downloaded).

=I believe iTunes match must be streaming non-iTunes-purchased content. Else media "amnesty" for only $24.99 is almost like proof that crime does pay. Pay it once, legitimize your whole library, cancel, and all that pirated content is now DRM free legit forever. I just can NOT believe that that is how it is. We'll all learn soon enough when official word starts coming out about all the questions not answered today.

immortalix
Jun 6, 2011, 11:00 PM
Cap.

I honestly call this DOA because we have to pay a $25 a year label tax. Compared to Google Music same 20k worth of songs is 100% free. Apple we have to pay $25 a year to have access to the same songs we already paid for.

Consider the $25 a tiny convenience fee bundled with a music quality upgrade. To upload 20k worth of songs to Google Music would literally take days on the average internet connection, and whenever you buy new music, you have to wait for the new album to upload. Plus when you upload to Google Music or Amazon, you upload your own music that may be missing album covers and such. iTunes Match works almost instantly and will come complete with the song information. Or you don't have to pay the $25 fee and upload your songs manually to iCloud as well, but you don't get as much storage space as Google--can't complain, Apple must have forked over a ton of money to the music industry to get this. I, for one, will sign up for iTunes Match if it is indeed as advertised--$25 for a complete better quality match of my music library online in minutes.

Eric S.
Jun 6, 2011, 11:03 PM
which I interpret to be "streamed" and not downloaded (purchased music is mentioned as being downloaded).

What I've read disagrees. For example from Macworld:

Apple’s $25-a-year iTunes Match uses an active locker. Much like with iTunes’ Genius feature, a database of the music you have in your iTunes library (purchased as well as other music you’ve ripped or acquired) is uploaded to Apple. Once Apple has that record, you can treat that music just as you can purchased music. If you want to re-download it, you can, in 256kbps AAC format. This is a very big deal if you ripped a lot of your music in the old days as 128kbps MP3 files and then later disposed of your CDs.

http://www.macworld.com/article/160339/2011/06/itunesncloud.html

marksman
Jun 6, 2011, 11:10 PM
It seems pretty simple to me.



9. iTunes home sharing already gives users the option to copy files from a shared library to another computer. This is currently not available for iOS devices. It seems likely that a "download from the cloud" option will be available for those devices in the future. It is only logical to assume that Apple will employ the same system for the user's iCloud library.

This is where you are probably wrong. They are not just going to expand the home network sharing. This is going to be a new set up specifically for iOS devices and the intent will be to protect the content from being extracted. It is not designed to replace your content library at home, it is simply a way to essentially mirror it. I see very little chance the system will intentionally allow you to upgrade your home library with new files.

You will be able to access these mirrored files to load on any iOS device as long as you have the iTunes Match Subscription. Once that subscription runs out, access to those files disappears, entirely. At that point you would have to again revert to relying on your home library that you had BEFORE you used iTunes Match. They are going for this to ultimately replace itunes in the long run not just be a mirror of it. They will start with it mirroring it, but it is highly unlikely the record labels agreed to let people launder their music and be free and clear with new files on their home computer. There is little chance that is how it is going to work.

For $25 a year you will have the rights to download any iTunes Match music stored in iCloud. That is it. You won't be able to put it on your pc, then move it over to another pc and then load it up on your android phone.

KingYaba
Jun 6, 2011, 11:12 PM
I'm very interested in this. All those used CDs I have... awesome.

jmcrutch
Jun 6, 2011, 11:42 PM
If I was a used CD store owner I would start offering "ripping" services - bring your laptop to my store and rip as many CDs as you want for $10 a session. You don't get to take the CD with you.

Andronicus
Jun 6, 2011, 11:47 PM
If I was a used CD store owner I would start offering "ripping" services - bring your laptop to my store and rip as many CDs as you want for $10 a session. You don't get to take the CD with you.

Ha, great idea!

Question, is iTunes match available today? Or with the iOS release in the fall??

tienathlon
Jun 6, 2011, 11:52 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A400 Safari/6531.22.7)

Hello. I have a question about iTunes match. How does Apple know that the music is ripped from a legal CD not from illegal source? Or they just accept those piracy mp3?

hexonxonx
Jun 6, 2011, 11:56 PM
I still have 306 songs that I never upgraded to iTunes +. The way this is setup, they will automatically be upgraded without me paying the $67.71!

teme
Jun 7, 2011, 12:04 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A400 Safari/6531.22.7)

Hello. I have a question about iTunes match. How does Apple know that the music is ripped from a legal CD not from illegal source? Or they just accept those piracy mp3?

They can't know that. I think this service is too good to be true (that's why I assumed it's actually a streaming service), because it basically upgrades all your skippy low-quality old mp3's to official high-quality iTunes Plus tracks. I find it really hard to believe that record labels would allow it. For example, if you have U2 discography ripped from scratchy CD's, and you planned purchasing those tracks again from iTunes Store, you don't have to purchase them anymore - just buy iTunes Match and use it to get the high quality U2 discography in iTunes Plus format.

JAT
Jun 7, 2011, 12:12 AM
If I was a used CD store owner I would start offering "ripping" services - bring your laptop to my store and rip as many CDs as you want for $10 a session. You don't get to take the CD with you.

I'm not so sure advertising felonies is a good business plan.

jmw1480
Jun 7, 2011, 12:12 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I am not so sure this won't turn out to be "streaming" after all. There's been a lot of interpretation today of what little has been officially said about this very new service, and I for one don't believe there would be all this effort to just simply give us wireless sync. iTunes in the Cloud may be available - at least in part - today, but no one's seen Match yet. Only time will tell.

Sined
Jun 7, 2011, 12:20 AM
You upload 20,000 songs that you have illegally downloaded. Even if you paid for this service for the next 50 years, you would still only have paid 6 cents per song.

People wouldn't have to buy music at all, then can just download a song illegally and then have it sync on iTunes Match for an allowed copy.

Artists would get no money what so ever.

If anyone actually thinks Apple got the record companies to agree to this, then you're delusional.

Most likely the terms for the service will be clarified.

6 cents is better than 0.

fpnc
Jun 7, 2011, 12:21 AM
If you attempt to sync an iTunes purchased song that has DRM shouldn't it download the iTunes Plus content to your iOS device since iTunes does not currently host DRM'd files?
According to Jason Snell of MacWorld - you would still get the DRM files since the record companies consider them a separate purchase. Apple may not sell DRM files, but they still offer them under limited circumstances.
Thankfully, it looks like MacWorld is wrong <well, not exactly, see my update below>. I was just able to download the iTunes Plus <not quite, see below> version of a protected (DRM'd) music video to my iPod touch that Apple told me two years ago wasn't even eligible for the payed upgrade to iTune Plus (I think because the title had been slightly changed from <song title> to <song title featuring ...>. I also downloaded another protected song but I haven't checked yet to see if it is the iTunes Plus version.

Now the only question is what happens when I sync my iPod back to my Mac? Will the iTunes Plus songs replace the ones on my Mac that have DRM? Will the new iTunes Plus versions be replaced with what I have on the Mac, or will nothing happen (i.e. the iTune Plus version stays on my iPod and the protected version stays on my Mac). It should be pretty easy to tell since the original, protected video was only QVGA (320x240) while the version that is now on my iPod is 640x480.

<update>Well, nothing happened when I synced the iPod. However, I then deleted the files from my Mac and re-synced and both files that were downloaded to my iPod touch were copied over to my Mac. What I found then was interesting. The song and music video were still protected but the video had been updated to the 640x480 version so at least that was something. Thus, if anyone has any of the very early QVGA music videos from previous iTunes purchases then they should try to find a way to download the latest versions. I think I have a few other QVGA videos, I'm going to try to update those too.

In any case, it appears (after all) that Jason Snell was correct. You can't update your protected music using the new iCloud download service from Apple. Thus, people who may have pirated the music will eventually get to update everything for a flat fee of $25, but those who actually purchased protected music in the 128Kbps format from iTunes may still have to pay the iTunes Plus upgrade fee for each song (currently $0.30 per song or $0.60 per music video and in my particular case I'd have to spend nearly $170 to update everything that I currently have in the original, protected iTunes format).

We'll have to wait to see how it will work with iTunes Match but if the protected iTunes songs aren't automatically updated to the 256Kbps iTunes Plus format it will seem like a slap in the face to everyone who purchased protected content from iTunes.

pezasied182
Jun 7, 2011, 12:23 AM
I like the music portion of iCloud. That means I can delete all the music from my iPhone and download what I want to listen to when I want to, and delete it when I'm done. As right now over half of my storage is taken up by music. I could cut it down to only 1-3 gigs for space.

I really like that you can delete songs and playlists off of your iPhone in iOS5

Andronicus
Jun 7, 2011, 12:27 AM
I like the music portion of iCloud. That means I can delete all the music from my iPhone and download what I want to listen to when I want to, as right now over half of my storage is taken up by music. I could cut it down to only 1-3 gigs for space.

Yes, exactly what I am thinking. I'll do that now actually.

iRobby
Jun 7, 2011, 12:31 AM
how are you all using the music part of iCloud now?

tatonka
Jun 7, 2011, 12:57 AM
I was actually thinking, this could be an insanely simple way to clean my music library in terms of correct tags, names and artwork .. I hope they add that as a feature, since the technology is basically there anyways.
I know there is tagalicious and similar programs out there that do it, but the results where not that great when I tested some of those in the past, which is why I never fully got behind any of those programs.

T.

PS: Any word/rumor of when and how that service is coming to the rest of the world?

chrono1081
Jun 7, 2011, 01:12 AM
I honestly can't believe this. All the fuss about the data center, the negotiations with the labels, and all they come up with is a backup service? I'm very dissapointed. I expected this for free but with an option to pay something like $99/yr or something for the ability to get extra storage and STREAM

I expected a revolutionary service that would almost eliminate the need for local storage and allows us to have ALL our content available on all of our devices

Please explain to me how iCloud does NOT do that? Did you even see what its about or how it works?

For $25 a year you can download all your music from a server to your devices. Simple.

swingerofbirch
Jun 7, 2011, 01:17 AM
I just downloaded iTunes 10.3, and it will not let you redownload tracks you received for free, which for me, is a lot of tracks through out the years, with the 3-5 that are free each week, along with free sampler packs. If I can't redownload them I guess they don't count as purchased items, and I guess they expect you to upload those separately with iTunes Match? I'm not sure if they will match them or make you upload them? It's very confusing. And I was a bit disappointed in that.

teme
Jun 7, 2011, 01:24 AM
Please explain to me how iCloud does NOT do that? Did you even see what its about or how it works?

For $25 a year you can download all your music from a server to your devices. Simple.

Downloading tracks from iCloud and deleting them after listening is much more troublesome than streaming music. If you could stream your whole 20000+ songs iTunes library, you'd save a lots of space on your iPhone for apps etc.

tigress666
Jun 7, 2011, 01:28 AM
I just downloaded iTunes 10.3, and it will not let you redownload tracks you received for free, which for me, is a lot of tracks through out the years, with the 3-5 that are free each week, along with free sampler packs. If I can't redownload them I guess they don't count as purchased items, and I guess they expect you to upload those separately with iTunes Match? I'm not sure if they will match them or make you upload them? It's very confusing. And I was a bit disappointed in that.

At first I was about to refute that cause I know it had at least one song on there I got for free (It was one of the first itunes I got and I got those with some Pepsi promotion where one in three caps had a code for a free itunes song where it basically gave you credit to download one song of your choice).

But then I also tried to find another song I got free free using a Starbucks promotion card (it was one of the two songs a week they give away free but it was for a specific song). And that one is not on there.

So maybe it depends on the promotion that it was given away on too?

danrees
Jun 7, 2011, 01:41 AM
Thankfully I will be moving to the US for a year in a few weeks so will be able to take advantage of these iCloud goodies.

Hopefully an opportunity to permanently upgrade my 128kbps library to 256kpbs. When I was a teenager I literally had stacks of CDs about 100 high and only ripped these at 128kpbs (5GB was lot back then).

Nabby51
Jun 7, 2011, 01:59 AM
I agree with most that streaming is a great option. However, with data caps from ISP's continuing to shrink, at what point will this become a problem? I use an average of around 1GB of data on my cell phone per month and if I were to stream my entire music library my data usage would skyrocket.

As far a legitimizing pirated music, I highly doubt that. There is a lot of red tape potential there. The only solid selling point I can see from Apple's stand point is that they told the record companies that getting some money for your music is better then getting no money at all. On the other hand, who is to say that the record companies don't come for the top users of the "matching" service and ask them to provide proof of purchase. And let's be honest, pirates will be pirates, and they will continue to be so. However, offering this matching service may get some people on the side of paying up for their music in one way or another.

The other item I see here is the potential for future sales. Once apple gets you in on their services you will be inclined to just buy the music from them later on. I have acquired my music from services other then iTunes for two major reasons: The price and the quality of the songs (I can live with 256kpbs that is their current offerings). However, now that this service has come about my future purchases may be through iTunes and that is the catch. Being able to sync with up to 10 devices for a single purchase, that is a massive selling point. This seems to include Windows PC's as well so there is another bonus.

iRobby
Jun 7, 2011, 02:20 AM
I downloaded iTunes 10.3 went to preferences and checked automatic downloads for ibooks apps and Music then went to iTunes Store on my iPhone to purchase a song and it didn't automatic download on my iTunes PC. i had to manually download it under Purchased. what do I need to do to get the auto?

MrSmith
Jun 7, 2011, 02:33 AM
So do I have to wait for them to build a data centre here before I get the service...?

gnasher729
Jun 7, 2011, 02:38 AM
If I was a used CD store owner I would start offering "ripping" services - bring your laptop to my store and rip as many CDs as you want for $10 a session. You don't get to take the CD with you.

1. That was criminal yesterday before iTunes Match, and it is criminal with iTunes match. Expect to go to jail for it.

2. Pirating music was possible yesterday before iTunes Match, and it is possible today with iTunes Match. Nothing has actually changed. So why haven't you done this before?

3. Why would anyone use this service, when you can easily copy anyone's complete music collection (illegally, of course)?


They can't know that. I think this service is too good to be true (that's why I assumed it's actually a streaming service), because it basically upgrades all your skippy low-quality old mp3's to official high-quality iTunes Plus tracks. I find it really hard to believe that record labels would allow it. For example, if you have U2 discography ripped from scratchy CD's, and you planned purchasing those tracks again from iTunes Store, you don't have to purchase them anymore - just buy iTunes Match and use it to get the high quality U2 discography in iTunes Plus format.

But what you say should be obvious to Apple and to the record companies, and they signed contracts, and these contracts will cover this. I personally think that most people have a budget how much they can spend every month on music, and that's what they spend. So if you bought this U2 discography there will be other music that you don't buy because of this. If you get your U2 records for free, you will buy other stuff. And you pay $25 for it for the rest of your life.

But I thought Amazon should be quite happy about this. Because some people prefer Apple's AAC to Amazon's MP3, and now these people can buy at the cheapest place, wherever that is (for example Amazon), and still get 256KBit AAC quality.

iRobby
Jun 7, 2011, 02:47 AM
I downloaded iTunes 10.3 went to preferences and checked automatic downloads for ibooks apps and Music then went to iTunes Store on my iPhone to purchase a song and it didn't automatic download on my iTunes PC. i had to manually download it under Purchased. what do I need to do to get the auto?

I figured it out iTunes on the PC has to be closed. it automatically downloads when you reopen iTunes

fpnc
Jun 7, 2011, 02:48 AM
Okay, by using iCloud downloading I was able to update six protected music videos that I purchased from iTunes several years ago that were still in their original QVGA (320x240) format. Thus, these files are still protected but at least they are now in a larger, higher-quality format (640x480 or similar, and yes, I confirmed that when they are played they look much better, sharper and clearer). A few of these were never made available to me as iTunes Plus upgrades and I certainly wouldn't have purchased them again at full price just to get the larger sizes.

I also re-downloaded a song that had some errors in the encoding (purchased a year or two ago), the new download fixed that problem.

In any case, at least iCloud is giving me something in return for my long and loyal purchase history with iTunes.

msubugzy
Jun 7, 2011, 03:26 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Have to say this one of the most entertaining threads on MR in a while...everybody needs to calm down and wait...how this will all work I'm sure will become much more clear in the coming days and weeks...anybody on here claiming they know exactly how this will all function from a practical sence are just talking out their ass. Until we have the full functionality in hand (or iDevices) nobody (outside of Apple) really knows how all these little details will work.

So in summery everybody needs to put their heads down on their desks, take a few deep breaths, and calm down.

MrSmith
Jun 7, 2011, 03:43 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Have to say this one of the most entertaining threads on MR in a while...everybody needs to calm down and wait...how this will all work I'm sure will become much more clear in the coming days and weeks...anybody on here claiming they know exactly how this will all function from a practical sence are just talking out their ass. Until we have the full functionality in hand (or iDevices) nobody (outside of Apple) really knows how all these little details will work.

So in summery everybody needs to put their heads down on their desks, take a few deep breaths, and calm down.
Ne'er a truer word... Though it's a good diversion from what I really need to think about.

fpnc
Jun 7, 2011, 03:45 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Have to say this one of the most entertaining threads on MR in a while...everybody needs to calm down and wait...how this will all work I'm sure will become much more clear in the coming days and weeks...anybody on here claiming they know exactly how this will all function from a practical sence are just talking out their ass...
But for iOS devices we already know how the iCloud downloads for iTunes' purchased content works since that is already enabled. The only part we don't know is how the iTunes Match will work. <update, I see, this thread is about iTunes Match, I was confusing this thread with the general discussion about iCloud and iTunes music. So, yes, we don't know how iTunes Match will really work.>

However, I think it was interesting that before Steve Jobs actually introduced iTunes Match he said twice that this "one more thing" was actually a "little thing" and I don't believe that he was trying to be funny. Even Steve didn't appear that excited about iTunes Match. He also said that he believed that very few people would find a need for iTunes Match.

Cybbe
Jun 7, 2011, 03:58 AM
Please explain to me how iCloud does NOT do that? Did you even see what its about or how it works?

For $25 a year you can download all your music from a server to your devices. Simple.

What I find slightly disturbing about Apple's cloud offering is the (seemingly) complete lack of web access. Say you are at work. Depending on your privileges, you might not be able to download and install iTunes. Does Apple offer a web interface for accessing your music? Doesn't seem like it. The service seems to be limited to Apple devices and software, and as such it does few things I cannot already do (sure, I can't have all my music on my iPhone, but I can still have a few thousand songs with me at any given time).

What are the advantages of this service compared to, say, Spotify, Napster, or even Zune Pass (which I know is not available on Mac), except price? Unlimited streaming (plus downloads in some cases) vs streaming of what you already own?

Of course, if this will sanitize a library of music obtained through non-commercial channels it starts getting interesting, but I severely doubt Apple will offer anything but streaming of these songs.

Artey
Jun 7, 2011, 05:04 AM
A lot of people are not seeing the usefulness of iTunes Match. How many songs in your library have wrong or incomplete MP3tag info, bad quality or missing cover art? This service will solve all of that, for 99% of your music and will allow you to keep all that music in sync over all your iDevices through iCloud. Furthermore it will legitimize your entire library, wherever that music came from.

What I find interesting on top of that is once you subscribe to that service; what is to stop you from ever buying from the iTunes store again? Just download the song you want in whatever crappy quality, iTunes Match it and you'll have it in great quality, fully tagged, cover arted and with iCloud privileges. That is until you've reached that 25,000 limit.

I don't really need the ability to stream my library without having it physically on my iDevices. Most places I listen to my music I don't have the bandwidth and or data volume available to stream 256 kbps music anyway. Not if I'm gonna be browsing at the same time!

globalist
Jun 7, 2011, 05:45 AM
A lot of people are not seeing the usefulness of iTunes Match. How many songs in your library have wrong or incomplete MP3tag info, bad quality or missing cover art? This service will solve all of that, for 99% of your music and will allow you to keep all that music in sync over all your iDevices through iCloud. Furthermore it will legitimize your entire library, wherever that music came from.


Umm, if that's the case them I really hope it first asks me - preferably on a song by song basis - if I really want to get that song and update the metadata from the itunes cloud.

I mean let's say I have a custom compilation album "The Very Best of 60s" and I don't want the Beatles' Let It Be track on it be tagged as being on the Let It Be album.

Also, I hope their audio data matching algorhithm is thorouugh enough to recognize outtake, alternate or mono versions of songs. Again, so as to not screw the local metadata which I've spent many hours perfecting.

alistairroe
Jun 7, 2011, 05:59 AM
What happens if you stop paying $25 a year after a few years, or switch to another device? Do your songs that you legitimised become unavailable on your devices?

fiver55
Jun 7, 2011, 06:05 AM
True, but this part: What if I don't have cellular or wifi access? I can't listen to that music.

Think about it. If you can sync non-iTunes tracks from your computer and then download them again anywhere else, you just found the easiest way to share an entire library with any of your friends. Log into your iCloud account on your friend's Mac, sync his hard drive to your iCloud, log back in at your own Mac and download all the new files onto the Mac.
But then again, I guess this is not much different from putting all the music on an external hard drive and sharing that.

OllyW
Jun 7, 2011, 06:07 AM
What happens if you stop paying $25 a year after a few years, or switch to another device? Do your songs that you legitimised become unavailable on your devices?

Steve Jobs said there's no DRM on the tracks so there's no way they can stop them working. You'll just lose the ability to sync the tracks from iCloud to your devices if you stop paying the fee.

kallisti
Jun 7, 2011, 06:54 AM
There is no streaming. Lets say I download a song on my iPad, it goes to the cloud right? Well when I grab my phone, I will see it in iTunes, but if I want to listen to it I will have to download it from the cloud. Now it is taking up space on my iPhone.

I could have done the same thing if I synced my devices and just added the songs onto each.

All this service is, is a backup. There is NO streaming (except for photos, and even that has limitations)

Listen Im not expecting the streaming feature of music and photos for free or $25/year, but it should be an option. I was ready to pay $99/year for this, and I"m extremely dissapointed that this isn't even an option.

What about my iDisk now? I have 20gigs from mobile me, what happens to that?

You are wrong. iTunes match is a streaming service. The other aspects of iCloud are not streaming. But iTunes match is. From what you have written Apple provided EXACTLY what you wanted.

**Edit. Watched the keynote again. There is no mention of streaming. My bad. Apologies.

Mike Oxard
Jun 7, 2011, 07:04 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Have to say this one of the most entertaining threads on MR in a while...everybody needs to calm down and wait...how this will all work I'm sure will become much more clear in the coming days and weeks...anybody on here claiming they know exactly how this will all function from a practical sence are just talking out their ass. Until we have the full functionality in hand (or iDevices) nobody (outside of Apple) really knows how all these little details will work.

So in summery everybody needs to put their heads down on their desks, take a few deep breaths, and calm down.
http://image.oneposter.com/product/22647-1-400x400.jpg

Centient
Jun 7, 2011, 07:49 AM
Steve Jobs said there's no DRM on the tracks so there's no way they can stop them working. You'll just lose the ability to sync the tracks from iCloud to your devices if you stop paying the fee.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this for some reason. Help me out here.

I see what you're saying about maintaining the annual $25 fee to continue to access converted music. However I'm getting confused when Steve said the converted tracks would be treated just like iTunes purchased tracks and "pushed" to your device. I take "push" to mean downloaded, which makes me think you retain the copies of the converted tracks even if you don't re-up with the iTunes Match service.

jonnysods
Jun 7, 2011, 07:56 AM
For $25 a year Apple have dragged everyone into their ecosystem of purchasing songs. How could the labels not be excited about that? And now they are getting more and more used to the iTunes store, and then will be ready to use the Mac App Store.

Genius. And, I will be using the $25 service when it comes to Canada!

NachoGrande
Jun 7, 2011, 08:00 AM
I only have about 50-100 songs max that were ripped, it would just be cheaper for me to redownload the songs I want and just toss the other crap I don't listent to.

The need to have a onetime match service to make it worth it.

samcraig
Jun 7, 2011, 08:03 AM
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this for some reason. Help me out here.

I see what you're saying about maintaining the annual $25 fee to continue to access converted music. However I'm getting confused when Steve said the converted tracks would be treated just like iTunes purchased tracks and "pushed" to your device. I take "push" to mean downloaded, which makes me think you retain the copies of the converted tracks even if you don't re-up with the iTunes Match service.

I think it will take some trial/error and people using it to determine for certain. It is confusing. If you actually get copies of the tracks using "match" - then most people really could get the service for one month and never really need it again.

redfirebird08
Jun 7, 2011, 08:05 AM
I'm glad they are finally offering the ability to download old purchases. Seems like this should have been a feature of online music stores to begin with.

EDIT: Damn, apparently it downloads 128 kbps protected purchases instead of upgrading them to 256 kbps files. That sucks.

extradryny
Jun 7, 2011, 08:29 AM
Audiogalaxy FTW! That streams all my music from my computer free.

My highest hope for iCloud was simply was that it was an AudioGalaxy where I didn't have to leave my home computer on when I left the house (and hopefully higher fidelity streaming). Sadly -- although I do see why iCloud is neat -- it's not that.

There is a actually a great opportunity for AudioGalaxy here. Most people don't realize that what they hoped iCloud would be pretty much already exists.

One thing AudioGalaxy needs to do ASAP is improve the UI in the app. It's bad.

alent1234
Jun 7, 2011, 08:39 AM
some of us pay for electricity and don't want to leave the computer on all the time. or mess with our wireless router/FW to open the ports

legacyb4
Jun 7, 2011, 08:46 AM
Rereading the iTunes Match blurb, I'd agree here too.

Apple is very specific about the ability to "listen to anytime" instead of simply "tap to download to your device" and your ability to "store your entire music collection" instead of "save to your device". Likewise, they point out that most of the unmatched tracks will likely be "in iCloud".

You are wrong. iTunes match is a streaming service. The other aspects of iCloud are not streaming. But iTunes match is. From what you have written Apple provided EXACTLY what you wanted.

extradryny
Jun 7, 2011, 08:48 AM
some of us pay for electricity and don't want to leave the computer on all the time. or mess with our wireless router/FW to open the ports

Agreed - thus my high hopes for iCloud. But until iCloud offers streaming (only a matter of time), you can just give your 25 bucks to the electric company instead of Apple and stream away for free via AudioGalaxy.

Lord Bodak
Jun 7, 2011, 08:54 AM
You are wrong. iTunes match is a streaming service. The other aspects of iCloud are not streaming. But iTunes match is. From what you have written Apple provided EXACTLY what you wanted.

There is absolutely no way that iTunes Match is a streaming service. Think about it-- if you bought your music from iTunes you don't get streaming, but if you ripped your music yourself, you do? That would be a big slap in the face to everyone who buys music from iTunes.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 7, 2011, 09:13 AM
What happens if you stop paying $25 a year after a few years, or switch to another device? Do your songs that you legitimised become unavailable on your devices?

I know what appears to be the majority here thinks that as little as one payment of $25 is going to result in being able to upgrade AND DOWNLOAD (to local storage) all of their music not purchased from the iTunes store. If so, that is a crazy good deal if anyone has much music- especially older tracks not already at 256K AAC.

BUT, I won't believe the speculation until it is proven. I really think that the media owners would not go for their individual cuts of just $25/yr as justification to go for this. For example, before this, the conversion was 30 cents PER SONG. Now, some here are believing that one could potentially upgrade thousands of songs for as little as $25. That means anyone with more than 84 songs that could be upgraded would find the $25 price to be the better deal. And if you have a lot more than 84 songs to upgrade it would become a bargain.

Thinking about the standard perception of the media owners as "greedy" and how they seem to assume everyone is a pirate until proven innocent, I just don't see this being sold to all 4 of them for their individual cuts of $25/yr. As many have posted, if you do get to download the DRM free replacement tracks permanently, you could just pay the $25 ONCE and largely be set. The incentive to maintain the subscription in year 2 would only persist if you aren't adding new music at 256K AAC (and it mattered to you to get it into that format), which seems less likely now that 256K AAC is the default in iTunes and the iTunes store has the music most easily available at relatively low costs.

What about the music-sharing pirates? If this makes it easy to upgrade tons of old music to 256K AAC, I would guess the new standard for file sharing will be these DRM free files at 256K. So even the crowd that would steal music if it was priced at 1 cent per song will probably be stealing this quality standard going forward. If so, they won't have the need to keep paying the $25/yr to not upgrade pirated 256K AAC songs.

Thus, I fully expect that after the excitement cools down and the realities seep out, we're going to find that the only way to access the 256K AAC masters of matched music not purchased in the iTunes store is via streaming it from an iCloud library. I bet we don't get to permanently download it to our local media libraries, and thus this fuels support for keeping a $25/yr subscription rather than paying $25 ONCE and downloading a bunch of higher quality replacement tracks.

All you have to do is think about the business pieces instead of the "what's the best scenario of me?" dreams. What arrangement is most likely to keep that $25/yr coming in? What arrangement is most likely to motivate all 4 of the "greedy" music companies to play ball? Etc. The answers are not one in which a 20K-song pirate can spend $25 ONCE replace all of his/her old 128K Napster downloads with 256K AAC DRM-Free tracks and thus proving "crime does pay".

I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but even the carefully-chosen wording on the Apple website http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/ about iTunes Match almost entirely supports a stream-only scenario for non-iTunes-purchased content. The only wording that argues the other side is "for you to listen to anytime, on any device" without an asterisk that says "continuous internet connection required". All the rest of that wording- especially "automatically added to your iCloud library", which is not your "local" (hard drive) library.

As such, I would bet pretty strongly that it will be "stream only" from iCloud for non-iTunes-purchased media. No internet connection? Either those songs will be unavailable until you can reconnect, or in some protected space on the playback device not transferrable in any permanent way to local storage.

imahawki
Jun 7, 2011, 09:39 AM
I know what appears to be the majority here thinks that as little as one payment of $25 is going to result in being able to upgrade AND DOWNLOAD (to local storage) all of their music not purchased from the iTunes store. If so, that is a crazy good deal if anyone has much music- especially older tracks not already at 256K AAC.

BUT, I won't believe the speculation until it is proven. I really think that the media owners would not go for their individual cuts of just $25/yr as justification to go for this. For example, before this, the conversion was 30 cents PER SONG. Now, some here are believing that one could potentially upgrade thousands of songs for as little as $25. That means anyone with more than 84 songs that could be upgraded would find the $25 price to be the better deal. And if you have a lot more than 84 songs to upgrade it would become a bargain.

Thinking about the standard perception of the media owners as "greedy" and how they seem to assume everyone is a pirate until proven innocent, I just don't see this being sold to all 4 of them for their individual cuts of $25/yr. As many have posted, if you do get to download the DRM free replacement tracks permanently, you could just pay the $25 ONCE and largely be set. The incentive to maintain the subscription in year 2 would only persist if you aren't adding new music at 256K AAC (and it mattered to you to get it into that format), which seems less likely now that 256K AAC is the default in iTunes and the iTunes store has the music most easily available at relatively low costs.

What about the music-sharing pirates? If this makes it easy to upgrade tons of old music to 256K AAC, I would guess the new standard for file sharing will be these DRM free files at 256K. So even the crowd that would steal music if it was priced at 1 cent per song will probably be stealing this quality standard going forward. If so, they won't have the need to keep paying the $25/yr to not upgrade pirated 256K AAC songs.

Thus, I fully expect that after the excitement cools down and the realities seep out, we're going to find that the only way to access the 256K AAC masters of matched music not purchased in the iTunes store is via streaming it from an iCloud library. I bet we don't get to permanently download it to our local media libraries, and thus this fuels support for keeping a $25/yr subscription rather than paying $25 ONCE and downloading a bunch of higher quality replacement tracks.

All you have to do is think about the business pieces instead of the "what's the best scenario of me?" dreams. What arrangement is most likely to keep that $25/yr coming in? What arrangement is most likely to motivate all 4 of the "greedy" music companies to play ball? Etc. The answers are not one in which a 20K-song pirate can spend $25 ONCE replace all of his/her old 128K Napster downloads with 256K AAC DRM-Free tracks and thus proving "crime does pay".

I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but even the carefully-chosen wording on the Apple website http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/ about iTunes Match almost entirely supports a stream-only scenario for non-iTunes-purchased content. The only wording that argues the other side is "for you to listen to anytime, on any device" without an asterisk that says "continuous internet connection required". All the rest of that wording- especially "automatically added to your iCloud library", which is not your "local" (hard drive) library.

As such, I would bet pretty strongly that it will be "stream only" from iCloud for non-iTunes-purchased media. No internet connection? Either those songs will be unavailable until you can reconnect, or in some protected space on the playback device not transferrable in any permanent way to local storage.

The massive graphic shows it pushing to, among other things, a Macbook. I am anxiously awaiting the specific feature set like everyone else but streaming doesn't do me a lot of good. I don't always have access to the internet and data caps are becoming MORE of a reality, not LESS.

cyberfed
Jun 7, 2011, 09:41 AM
I don't know man, if you watch the keynote it surely sounded to me like songs matched were available for download to any of your apple devices and would NOT require streaming. So once matched you have a "real" copy of that song local on your machine, forever, DRM free.

When I saw the Keynote I thought to myself as many have "um didn't this just open the door for music pirates to get legal copies songs they downloaded?"

Again from the keynote the answer would be YES, however it will surely be interesting to see how the fine print lays out.

My opinion, in theory, based on what was announced. The following scenario is possible.

Joe the 'music pirate' with 100,000 songs he has collected over the years could sign up for iTunes match. iTunes would scan his library and determine which songs it already has its in database, lets say it finds 95,000 songs. Joe would be provided 95,000 DRM free songs that are 'legal' and available for DOWNLOAD to any of his apple devices (up to 10). So Joe takes his other mac laptop and does a "download from the cloud", he now has those 95,000 songs FOREVER.
Joe cancels his $25 subscription and has essentially 'music laundered' almost his entire collection.
:eek::eek::eek:

I know what appears to be the majority here thinks that as little as one payment of $25 is going to result in being able to upgrade AND DOWNLOAD (to local storage) all of their music not purchased from the iTunes store. If so, that is a crazy good deal if anyone has much music- especially older tracks not already at 256K AAC.

BUT, I won't believe the speculation until it is proven. I really think that the media owners would not go for their individual cuts of just $25/yr as justification to go for this. For example, before this, the conversion was 30 cents PER SONG. Now, some here are believing that one could potentially upgrade thousands of songs for as little as $25. That means anyone with more than 84 songs that could be upgraded would find the $25 price to be the better deal. And if you have a lot more than 84 songs to upgrade it would become a bargain.

Thinking about the standard perception of the media owners as "greedy" and how they seem to assume everyone is a pirate until proven innocent, I just don't see this being sold to all 4 of them for their individual cuts of $25/yr. As many have posted, if you do get to download the DRM free replacement tracks permanently, you could just pay the $25 ONCE and largely be set. The incentive to maintain the subscription in year 2 would only persist if you aren't adding new music at 256K AAC (and it mattered to you to get it into that format), which seems less likely now that 256K AAC is the default in iTunes and the iTunes store has the music most easily available at relatively low costs.

What about the music-sharing pirates? If this makes it easy to upgrade tons of old music to 256K AAC, I would guess the new standard for file sharing will be these DRM free files at 256K. So even the crowd that would steal music if it was priced at 1 cent per song will probably be stealing this quality standard going forward. If so, they won't have the need to keep paying the $25/yr to not upgrade pirated 256K AAC songs.

Thus, I fully expect that after the excitement cools down and the realities seep out, we're going to find that the only way to access the 256K AAC masters of matched music not purchased in the iTunes store is via streaming it from an iCloud library. I bet we don't get to permanently download it to our local media libraries, and thus this fuels support for keeping a $25/yr subscription rather than paying $25 ONCE and downloading a bunch of higher quality replacement tracks.

All you have to do is think about the business pieces instead of the "what's the best scenario of me?" dreams. What arrangement is most likely to keep that $25/yr coming in? What arrangement is most likely to motivate all 4 of the "greedy" music companies to play ball? Etc. The answers are not one in which a 20K-song pirate can spend $25 ONCE replace all of his/her old 128K Napster downloads with 256K AAC DRM-Free tracks and thus proving "crime does pay".

I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but even the carefully-chosen wording on the Apple website http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/ about iTunes Match almost entirely supports a stream-only scenario for non-iTunes-purchased content. The only wording that argues the other side is "for you to listen to anytime, on any device" without an asterisk that says "continuous internet connection required". All the rest of that wording- especially "automatically added to your iCloud library", which is not your "local" (hard drive) library.

As such, I would bet pretty strongly that it will be "stream only" from iCloud for non-iTunes-purchased media. No internet connection? Either those songs will be unavailable until you can reconnect, or in some protected space on the playback device not transferrable in any permanent way to local storage.

imahawki
Jun 7, 2011, 09:43 AM
When I saw the Keynote I thought to myself as many have "um didn't this just open the door for music pirates to get legal copies songs they downloaded?"
This has been addressed OVER AND OVER. Just because you have a "clean" copy with pristine metadata etc. doesn't make it legal. If I shoplift a CD and then rip it to iTunes, just because you can't tell by LOOKING at the files that its not legal doesn't make it suddenly legal.

At best I guess it does provide a track LAUNDERING service so you don't have "ripped by XXXTREME!!!!" in your metadata but it doesn't magically make the tracks legal!

helpinghand
Jun 7, 2011, 09:45 AM
This is a streaming service of music you already own, with a max of 25,000 songs plus the songs you purchased. If you purchased 128K songs, that is what will be streamed to you device.

It does not replace your existing copy of the song in your itunes lib.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 7, 2011, 09:45 AM
The massive graphic shows it pushing to, among other things, a Macbook. I am anxiously awaiting the specific feature set like everyone else but streaming doesn't do me a lot of good. I don't always have access to the internet and data caps are becoming MORE of a reality, not LESS.

I understand, but the massive graphic is in a section of content that is associated with iTunes store-bought content. This would be far from the first time that implied benefit presentations were used to make everyone think things would be a massive win for end users at other stakeholders expense. It's a very common ploy in advertising.

I think the massive graphic is illustrative of how iTunes store purchased (and thus fully verifiable) content is going to work. I think the bottom section of the page beginning with the title "Itunes Match" is actually self-contained in terms of what benefits that offers. Note how it's "massive graphic" appears to show our ripped content fully INSIDE a cloud image, not shooting out of a cloud to our iDevices.

baleensavage
Jun 7, 2011, 09:55 AM
As many have posted, if you do get to download the DRM free replacement tracks permanently, you could just pay the $25 ONCE and largely be set. The incentive to maintain the subscription in year 2 would only persist if you aren't adding new music at 256K AAC (and it mattered to you to get it into that format), which seems less likely now that 256K AAC is the default in iTunes and the iTunes store has the music most easily available at relatively low costs.
If you are just using iCloud to upgrade your old MP3s, then you are right, there will be no reason to renew. But I would guess that the songs you upload, etc. don't stay in your "digital locker" once you cancel your subscription. So if you want to download a non-iTunes purchased album to your iPod, then you're going to have to do it the old fashioned way, by syncing unless you pay the annual charge. I can't see how they could "downgrade" any upgraded songs from this service if you cancel and I also can't see how they would allow you to store a whole bunch of non-iTunes songs in the cloud indefinitely without paying.

The one thing that has me confused is how they are going to deal with piracy. It seems to me that if this works as it says it does, then people could start distributing extremely low quality MP3 files for people to just pop in their iTunes library to upgrade for $25 a year. At least before you had to download a large file if you wanted any semblance of quality in the song. Now, the pirates can just send out a small file that sounds like garbage with the sole purpose of upgrading it.

Of course if you're pirating music, are you really going to trust Apple with the info about all the songs you've stolen? You'd be only a subpoena away from being totally screwed, so maybe it's not a bad thing after all. This could just be an easier way for music labels to nail the people who are doing lots of file sharing.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 7, 2011, 09:58 AM
I don't know man, if you watch the keynote it surely sounded to me like songs matched were available for download to any of your apple devices and would NOT require streaming. So once matched you have a "real" copy of that song local on your machine, forever, DRM free. When I saw the Keynote I thought to myself as many have "um didn't this just open the door for music pirates to get legal copies songs they downloaded?" Again from the keynote the answer would be YES, however it will surely be interesting to see how the fine print lays out.

Again, I know it looks like that in the Keynote, but all you have to do is think about the business "whys":

Why would Apple be interested in their tiny little cut of 30% ONE TIME of $25 to facilitate this?
Why would the music industry who always seems to choose the most "greed-oriented" option possible, now choose to be extraordinarily generous with end users for only their small slice ONE TIME of $25?
why would the bandwidth partners already so in bed with Apple be happy with us downloading all this content ONCE rather than streaming all of it over and over and paying the iCloud connection tolls everytime we're away from free wifi zones?

Most simply, whenever something looks too good to be true- especially for the crooks- it usually is.

Keynote speeches never cover all of the fundamental details. The speech is also spun to maximize happiness & excitement NOT lay out the negatives. For example, in the iPad rollout speech it was "the entire Internet" when in fact, it was "the entire Internet*". The magic of the asterisk is that it can be visible even in Steve's teleprompter, but it usually isn't spoken in the speech. You find out later that it wasn't actually the entire Internet but only what Apple has deemed as the entire Internet in the future (which is not to include big chunks of the Internet that exist in the present).

More on point, in this case, it sure did sound like that. But I bet what we think we heard and the final implementation is different. If it is as we heard, there is a massive win for us end users with little-to-no tangible benefit for Apple, music industry, and AT&T/Verizon/Comcast/etc stakeholders (beyond tiny little slices of $25). When do WE get to win when there's money at stake and those kinds of players are on the other end of the see-saw?

Scott549
Jun 7, 2011, 10:02 AM
My head is spinning after reading this thread. I've got 17,000 songs in my iTunes library. Almost all legal. I've got my highest bitrate versions on the desktop computer. I've got an archive of about 15,000 pre-2011 songs ripped at 80kpbs on my iPod Touch. After I ripped the 80kbps versions I deleted them from my hard drive so I wouldn't have duplicates. I've changed metadata on probably half of my library -- e.g. I usually change the "alternative/punk" genre to "rock/pop." How is iTunes Match going to work in my situation? I guess time will tell, but if it's just going to make my head spin even more, it's not going to be worth using.

DiamondMac
Jun 7, 2011, 10:04 AM
Image (http://image.oneposter.com/product/22647-1-400x400.jpg)

http://rlv.zcache.com/the_evil_cupcake_mousepad-p1447396845441757467pdd_325.jpg

baleensavage
Jun 7, 2011, 10:06 AM
The other thing that I'd be curious about is what tech they are using to tell what the songs are. If they're just using MP3 ID tags and track length like the Gracenote database, it seems to me that you could just make a whole bunch of garbage audio files, label them up like a real album and then have iTunes upgrade them to the real song. It would take a little work to have all the songs be the right length, but with Garageband, it wouldn't be that tough, just time consuming. Of course, it's also very likely that they'd have some type of audio fingerprint tech in there (like what YouTube uses) to prevent this, which would mean you have to have a baseline of audio quality to get the upgrade.

Scott549
Jun 7, 2011, 10:08 AM
Another question -- if they intend this as an online backup, does that mean when I buy a new iPod I can download everything to the new iPod? 17,000 songs at 10 seconds per song (really fast connection) would take 170,000 seconds, which is about 4 months, which is obviously totally unworkable.

redfirebird08
Jun 7, 2011, 10:09 AM
Of course if you're pirating music, are you really going to trust Apple with the info about all the songs you've stolen? You'd be only a subpoena away from being totally screwed, so maybe it's not a bad thing after all. This could just be an easier way for music labels to nail the people who are doing lots of file sharing.


I think that's exactly what is going on here. I also think they will ultimately nix the "download" idea and go with a streaming service. The main thing here is getting a chance to scan people's libraries for pirated content.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 7, 2011, 10:12 AM
The one thing that has me confused is how they are going to deal with piracy. It seems to me that if this works as it says it does, then people could start distributing extremely low quality MP3 files for people to just pop in their iTunes library to upgrade for $25 a year. At least before you had to download a large file if you wanted any semblance of quality in the song. Now, the pirates can just send out a small file that sounds like garbage with the sole purpose of upgrading it.

Again, if it works as I'm best guessing, the pirates will still have their files on their local iTunes hard drive. They DO NOT get to download replacements for ANY songs NOT purchased from the iTunes store. The pirate can enjoy streaming 256K AAC files from iCloud as long as they keep paying $25/yr, but as soon as they quit that subscription, they will only have access to their original files by sync.

This still rewards piracy but now the principal reward (music quality upgrade) comes at an annual subscription of $25 instead of nothing. It also makes the bandwidth gatekeepers happy (AT&T and Verizon, etc) will LOVE a model that streams most of your music from the iCloud much more than letting you download it ONCE and then potentially streaming next to nothing (I wouldn't be surprised to find out that maybe AT&T and Verizon even threw some subsidy money into the pot to get the iCloud price down to $25).

I just don't see the working model of upgrading songs at 30 cents per being switched to $25 to upgrade perhaps thousands of songs. At more than 84 songs being upgraded, the $25 plan yields less money for considerably more benefits than just the upgrade.

Furthermore, if you assume that people's music libraries are already populated with most of the music they want to possess, they'll only be adding relatively small amounts of new music going forward. If they buy that music from iTunes, they don't need the upgrade after ONE round of $25. If they pirate that music from file sharing sources, they will probably be dealing in 256K AAC DRM free copies so they won't need upgrades either. If they rip it from friends CDs, library, etc, they will probably rip it at 256K AAC, so they won't need the upgrades. Why maintain the $25 subscription beyond ONE round if it allows you to upgrade and then download 256K AAC replacements for permanent use?

The more I think through the business side concepts, the more convinced I become that this is going to be streaming only (of non-iTunes-purchased content). Quit the subscription and you lose access to the 256K AAC files NOT purchased in the iTunes store, reverting back to whatever quality of files you have on your local hard drive.

baleensavage
Jun 7, 2011, 10:17 AM
More on point, in this case, it sure did sound like that. But I bet what we think we heard and the final implementation is different. If it is as we heard, there is a massive win for us end users with little-to-no tangible benefit for Apple, music industry, and AT&T/Verizon/Comcast/etc stakeholders (beyond tiny little slices of $25. When do WE get to win when there's money at stake and those kinds of players are on the other end of the see-saw?

Oh, it's a massive win for Apple either way. It's just one more reason for you to buy iPods and iPads instead of the competition. Think about it. You can push all your pirated music on the fly in better quality to your iPod. With iTunes, Apple has one goal in mind, to sell iPods. That's it and there's no question that this will help sell iPods.

The real question is how Apple got the music labels to agree to this. And that's where the exceptions and restrictions are going to come into play. And it may be as simple as the fact that Apple may have just created an open channel to the music studios of information about what's in people's library, so they can file lawsuits. I'd look really close at the EULA if you are upgrading pirated music using iTunes match. Plus, whether they share with the labels or not, once you put your music in the cloud, your entire library is only a subpoena away from being in their hands anyway.

redfirebird08
Jun 7, 2011, 10:25 AM
Oh, it's a massive win for Apple either way. It's just one more reason for you to buy iPods and iPads instead of the competition. Think about it. You can push all your pirated music on the fly in better quality to your iPod. With iTunes, Apple has one goal in mind, to sell iPods. That's it and there's no question that this will help sell iPods.

The real question is how Apple got the music labels to agree to this. And that's where the exceptions and restrictions are going to come into play. And it may be as simple as the fact that Apple may have just created an open channel to the music studios of information about what's in people's library, so they can file lawsuits. I'd look really close at the EULA if you are upgrading pirated music using iTunes match. Plus, whether they share with the labels or not, once you put your music in the cloud, your entire library is only a subpoena away from being in their hands anyway.


Even so, what are the music labels going to get out of it? Satisfaction of putting people in jail? Because most of the people they would sue can't actually afford to pay the punitive damages (probably in the millions based on past lawsuits).

baleensavage
Jun 7, 2011, 10:26 AM
The more I think through the business side concepts, the more convinced I become that this is going to be streaming only (of non-iTunes-purchased content). Quit the subscription and you lose access to the 256K AAC files NOT purchased in the iTunes store, reverting back to whatever quality of files you have on your local hard drive.
I'm not convinced. Everything Apple has said, seems to imply download only. I'd actually rather a streaming service. It won't take up space on my iPod. If I want the files on my iPod, I'll just sync them.

I think Apple was able to convince the music labels to jump on this one because they just got screwed hardcore by Amazon and Google. I'm also sure there is some stuff they are not telling us in there to curb piracy, but like anything, the pirates will find a way around it. Of course maybe the music labels just finally realized that $25 a year is better than nothing :P ;) (and no I don't think that last sentence is true BTW).

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 7, 2011, 10:27 AM
baleensavage, you make some excellent points there (post #346). I'm trying to think in business revenue upsides for the music industry and they may be heavily focused on how to win the individual lawsuits game. Instead, of thinking about how to increase revenues from music sales, they may have already decided to try to increase revenues by mass legal actions. That does seem to fit into why they would do this for only a tiny slice of $25.

redfirebird08
Jun 7, 2011, 10:31 AM
baleensavage, you make some excellent points there (post #346). I'm trying to think in business revenue upsides for the music industry and they may be heavily focused on how to win the individual lawsuits game. Instead, of thinking about how to increase revenues from music sales, they may have already decided to try to increase revenues by mass legal actions. That does seem to fit into why they would do this for only a tiny slice of $25.



They'll never get the kind of money they think they will. They've sued kids for millions of dollars in the past, as if the kid can afford to pay the punitive damages (which are ludicrous in the first place if you assume a song is worth $1). The best they'll get out of it is the satisfaction of putting thieves in jail. As far as society goes, however, it'll just be further strain on our already overcrowded prison system.

samcraig
Jun 7, 2011, 10:32 AM
baleensavage, you make some excellent points there (post #346). I'm trying to think in business revenue upsides for the music industry and they may be heavily focused on how to win the individual lawsuits game. Instead, of thinking about how to increase revenues from music sales, they may have already decided to try to increase revenues by mass legal actions. That does seem to fit into why they would do this for only a tiny slice of $25.

Well part of the potential upside could be that Apple could (we all better watch the EULAs) share demographic data - the likes of which they could never do before once someone clicks on MATCH. Up until now - in theory - Apple only knew what tracks you bought, looked at, samples, etc. With this match service they can grab a LOT more info from you as to what music you like and sell that data. Or provide it for those music vendors that have an agreement.

baleensavage
Jun 7, 2011, 10:34 AM
baleensavage, you make some excellent points there (post #346). I'm trying to think in business revenue upsides for the music industry and they may be heavily focused on how to win the individual lawsuits game. Instead, of thinking about how to increase revenues from music sales, they may have already decided to try to increase revenues by mass legal actions. That does seem to fit into why they would do this for only a tiny slice of $25.
I agree completely. I'm certain there's going to be a catch in there somewhere. I'm just not convinced it's streaming only. It may be as simple as the service is only going to recognize MP3s that are purchased from competing services or that are ripped in iTunes. There will be no benefit for music pirates if iTunes says, sorry, you can't upgrade this because we can't recognize it. Then you're just getting an online storage locker for your pirated music for $25 a year. The key is going to be in what music is recognized and matched. And that's where you're going to see an ongoing cat and mouse game between Apple and the pirates.

redfirebird08
Jun 7, 2011, 10:43 AM
Here's an interesting stat on the RIAA's legal campaign against pirates:

From 2006-2008, the RIAA spent a combined $64 million in legal/investigative fees but only received $1.4 million in settlement money from the pirates. The lawyers were the only people winning in the lawsuits.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100713/17400810200.shtml

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 7, 2011, 10:48 AM
They'll never get the kind of money they think they will. They've sued kids for millions of dollars in the past, as if the kid can afford to pay the punitive damages (which are ludicrous in the first place if you assume a song is worth $1). The best they'll get out of it is the satisfaction of putting thieves in jail. As far as society goes, however, it'll just be further strain on our already overcrowded prison system.

Don't be so sure. What makes the otherwise law-abiding person choose to steal music is that there seems to be no consequence. A good stream of legal actions- even if they never yield big dollar returns- can motivate the borderline pirates to stay on the legal side of the line. There's big revenues in the crowd making the right (pay for the stuff they want) decision.

Furthermore, those that are prosecuted and can't pay don't get away with NOT paying. They still owe the money and pay over time (maybe never all of it, but then they're never free of the monthly bill). If you could get out of big lawsuit fines by simply not having the money to pay, every such settlement would simply result in no payments because every prosecuted entity would leverage various means to be sure they couldn't pay the settlement if the end result is not in their favor.

Blatant example: the O.J. Simpson civil trial fine. He could not pay it. But every time he has since appeared to be making any money from anything, the fine collectors have been there to seize the money. It's unlikely he'll ever be able to pay off that fine, but anything he tries to do to make money until he dies will have a hand outstretched to take the proceeds and pay it toward the outstanding fine balance.

redfirebird08
Jun 7, 2011, 10:58 AM
Don't be so sure. What makes the otherwise law-abiding person choose to steal music is that there seems to be no consequence. A good stream of legal actions- even if they never yield big dollar returns- can motivate the borderline pirates to stay on the legal side of the line. There's big revenues in the crowd making the right (pay for the stuff they want) decision.

Furthermore, those that are prosecuted and can't pay don't get away with NOT paying. They still owe the money and pay over time (maybe never all of it, but then they're never free of the monthly bill). If you could get out of big lawsuit fines by simply not having the money to pay, every such settlement would simply result in no payments because every prosecuted entity would leverage various means to be sure they couldn't pay the settlement if the end result is not in their favor.


That's why I said the "kind of money" they hope/think they'll get. They can go after a person for $10 million all they want, but they'll never get it if that person is only making $40,000 per year. So they end up settling for a fraction of what they originally wanted, even though they spent MILLIONS on the lawyers in the first place. Did you see my post with the stats on how much the RIAA has spent in legal fees compared to their settlement income? Over a three year period, they spent $64 million in legal fees and only received $1.4 million in settlement income. That's a bad business model.

Now I do agree that a ton of prosecutions could potentially scare people away from pirating. But if the public becomes aware that the RIAA is only able to get these prosecutions because Apple handed a bunch of user information to them, then other pirates in the future will avoid using the iTunes Match service.

Bear
Jun 7, 2011, 11:01 AM
...
The real question is how Apple got the music labels to agree to this. And that's where the exceptions and restrictions are going to come into play. And it may be as simple as the fact that Apple may have just created an open channel to the music studios of information about what's in people's library, so they can file lawsuits. I'd look really close at the EULA if you are upgrading pirated music using iTunes match. Plus, whether they share with the labels or not, once you put your music in the cloud, your entire library is only a subpoena away from being in their hands anyway.How did Apple get the labels to agree to this? Money! Money now and possibly more money later.

As for pirated music and the service? Part of what Apple paid and will probably be paying for is to legitimatize pirated music.

And now for a thought... You know how music purchased from iTunes has purchaser info in it? I bet anything stored in iCloud will have your information in it when you download it. Now imagine the pirates who don't think about that when they put it up for download by others. The Music industry can now somewhat prove who put the music out there and go after them. The one loophole in this is stolen units. What if the thieves gather music off that and put it up for downloads? Yes you can strip the purchaser information from the tracks, but how many people will think of doing that?

So your $25 a year is going in part to pay for the service and probably in part to the music labels. However I hope the labels don't get paid for music they never controlled.

Oh on your subpoena comment, again how will they know what was legally purchased and what was pirated unless the tracks they get have watermarks in them. If you look at my short iTunes purchase history, it's maybe 1% of my music library (so far). I guess one should keep all their CDs even if they only save the discs in the most compact way possible to prove they paid for all that music.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 7, 2011, 11:11 AM
That's why I said the "kind of money" they hope/think they'll get. They can go after a person for $10 million all they want, but they'll never get it if that person is only making $40,000 per year. So they end up settling for a fraction of what they originally wanted, even though they spent MILLIONS on the lawyers in the first place.

No they don't settle if by "settle" you mean they take what the loser of the case can afford to pay. The fine is still $10 million (for example), and the loser will pay toward that fine until they pay it off in total or they cease making money (such as by killing over). I doubt the music industry expects to ever get the $10 million from the $40K/yr individual; what they are hoping to accomplish is to make lots of other $40K/yr individuals choose to stay on the right side of the law.

Did you see my post with the stats on how much the RIAA has spent in legal fees compared to their settlement income? Over a three year period, they spent $64 million in legal fees and only received $1.4 million in settlement income. That's a bad business model.

Unless it motivates many others to NOT pirate.

Besides, it's a bad business model to spend all that must be spent to prove anyone guilty of any crime. I hear it costs the state several million dollars to completely convict each murderer of their crime. There's no ROI in that at all- the remedy is NOT a fine of any sort.

If we decide that attempts to enforce the laws must be profitable at face value ELSE there's no purpose in enforcing all unprofitable laws, then there would be little-to-no law at all. Everything would be tolerated as measured by ROI. Imagine that world for a while.

Now I do agree that a ton of prosecutions could potentially scare people away from pirating. But if the public becomes aware that the RIAA is only able to get these prosecutions because Apple handed a bunch of user information to them, then other pirates in the future will avoid using the iTunes Match service.

If it goes that way, the RIAA would have up to what- 170 million(?) libraries to consider pursuing. The relative quantity of up-and-coming pirates of the future who "outsmart" the angle by not "iMatching" would be inconsequential if one of the goals of this is as some have suggested. And if you get a lot of action on the legal front against past & present pirates, some of those future pirates might choose not to break the law when facing the decision for themselves. Funny how prosecution of a few for breaking the laws can motivate the many to stay within the laws.

baleensavage
Jun 7, 2011, 11:12 AM
Oh on your subpoena comment, again how will they know what was legally purchased and what was pirated unless the tracks they get have watermarks in them. If you look at my short iTunes purchase history, it's maybe 1% of my music library (so far). I guess one should keep all their CDs even if they only save the discs in the most compact way possible to prove they paid for all that music.
The same way they do now when the RIAA files a lawsuit against an individual, except now they don't have to come to your house and confiscate your hard drive first, they just send a subpoena to Apple instead. They obviously can't form a case from just that, but it's one more thing in a chain of evidence along with all your internet records that your ISP is tracking. And depending on the EULA, it may be even simpler than that.

baleensavage
Jun 7, 2011, 11:15 AM
No they don't settle if by "settle" you mean they take what the loser of the case can afford to pay. The fine is still $10 million (for example), and the loser will pay toward that fine until they pay it off in total or they cease making money (such as by killing over). I doubt the music industry expects to ever get the $10 million from the $40K/yr individual; what they are hoping to accomplish is to make lots of other $40K/yr individuals choose to stay on the right side of the law.
Not to mention for a lot of people, the legal fees alone to defend themselves are enough to deter them. I wouldn't want to have to pay out of pocket to go up against the RIAAs army of lawyers. So their scare tactics work for me anyway as I'm sure they work for many others too.

danrees
Jun 7, 2011, 11:17 AM
They'll never get the kind of money they think they will. They've sued kids for millions of dollars in the past, as if the kid can afford to pay the punitive damages (which are ludicrous in the first place if you assume a song is worth $1). The best they'll get out of it is the satisfaction of putting thieves in jail. As far as society goes, however, it'll just be further strain on our already overcrowded prison system.

Interesting in the UK at least, damages can only be proportionate not punitive, i.e. the record companies would have to prove how much actual revenue they have lost - which is arguably $15 per album nless you are uploading (which I guess you are under a BitTorrent type mechanism).

I am sure this must be the case in most other European countries.

redfirebird08
Jun 7, 2011, 11:20 AM
No they don't settle if by "settle" you mean they take what the loser of the case can afford to pay. The fine is still $10 million (for example), and the loser will pay toward that fine until they pay it off in total or they cease making money (such as by killing over). I doubt the music industry expects to ever get the $10 million from the $40K/yr individual; what they are hoping to accomplish is to make lots of other $40K/yr individuals choose to stay on the right side of the law.



Unless it motivates many others to NOT pirate.

Besides, it's a bad business model to spend all that must be spent to prove anyone guilty of any crime. I hear it costs the state several million dollars to completely convict each murderer of their crime. There's no ROI in that at all- the remedy is NOT a fine of any sort.

If we decide that attempts to enforce the laws must be profitable at face value ELSE there's no purpose in enforcing all unprofitable laws, then there would be little-to-no law at all. Everything would be tolerated as measured by ROI. Imagine that world for a while.



If it goes that way, the RIAA would have up to what- 170 million(?) libraries to consider pursuing. The relative quantity of up-and-coming pirates of the future who "outsmart" the angle by not "iMatching" would be inconsequential if one of the goals of this is as some have suggested. And if you get a lot of action on the legal front against past & present pirates, some of those future pirates might choose not to break the law when facing the decision for themselves. Funny how prosecution of a few for breaking the laws can motivate the many to stay within the laws.


Why are you assuming that everyone will sign up for the service in the first place? A lot of people won't bother with it, even if they aren't pirates. As far as settlements go, they are never as severe as what the plaintiff originally asks for. Your point about the government is irrelevant compared to a company. The RIAA is a company. It gets revenue from the labels. The labels are seeing a decline in revenue over time, not just because of piracy but also because of the crappy product they are putting on the radio these days. Why spend money to listen to Lady Gaga when I have dozens of purchased albums by great bands like Led Zeppelin, the Beatles, Pink Floyd, and so forth? I have zero interest in listening to or purchasing the "popular" music of today. And I'm sure I am not the only one who feels this way about the state of the music industry. The bottom line is the RIAA cannot afford to keep spending the kind of money they are on legal fees, not with declining revenue and declining interest in their current product.

The Wedge
Jun 7, 2011, 11:37 AM
Why pay 25 a year for things that everywhere else will be free.

Because I'm not poor nor cheap, and this service will probably be superior. Wow you're complaining about 25$? Pretty sad.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 7, 2011, 11:55 AM
The bottom line is the RIAA cannot afford to keep spending the kind of money they are on legal fees, not with declining revenue and declining interest in their current product.

On that point, I can't argue. Nor can I argue with points about the subjective quality of modern music vs. the subjective quality of past music (but the subjectivity is just eye- er ears- of the beholder). Some will passionately argue things the other way.

As to "can't afford", the #1 reason the recording industry cites for declining revenues is piracy... not a problem with demand or sales potential; it's a problem with out-of-control theft. Thus, they believe if they can reduce the volume of piracy, revenue growth can resume. Whether that's true or false is somewhat irrelevant. If they do nothing and piracy is the fundamental cause, their fortunes continue to erode toward zero. If the do something and it scares the borderline pirates to behave themselves, they may be able to reverse their revenue declines.

If one can get the milk for free, they rarely buy the cow. The harder it is to get the milk, the more cows get sold. For a long time now, piracy has been perceived as easy and low/no risk: "that guy's doing it with no consequence; why not me too?" But there are also guys getting away with every other kind of crime too. It no more justifies the same kind of logic.

I suspect we may have a whole generation of people who have come up at a time where they had free access to all kinds of media... so much so they take it for granted... maybe even think about it as some kind of right. I sure see a lot of posts over a lot of threads that regularly justify piracy with everything from all variations of "greedy music industry" to "artists get ripped off anyway" to variations of "it's not piracy because I didn't get it from places like Pirate Bay."

My favorite of this group of people are the one's who see no fault with it but are "studying for a career in the music industry". Irony doesn't get much better than that.

vivid-mist
Jun 7, 2011, 12:00 PM
Pardon me for not trudging through every page in this thread, but can someone answer a question for me (sorry if it's already been asked).

I have a lot of music ripped in flac which I had to convert to Apple Lossless in order to listen to on an iPod and in iTunes. So according to this iTunes Match service, if the music is in the iTunes Store, then what I will be getting over the cloud is the lower quality aac right?
But what if the music isn't recognised? Will the full alac or m4a be uploaded and pushed back? In which case, wouldn't I prefer to receive the higher quality I own? (even if uploading takes a bit of time). How will this all work together?

Thanks guys :)

Usquebaugh
Jun 7, 2011, 12:01 PM
Wish we could delete the first 13 pages of this discussion, the last couple have been great!

I keep going back and forth on whether non-purchased music will be download eligible or stream only. Considering MobileMe was $99 a year to sync contacts and calendars across devices, $25 a year to allow synced streaming of your library seems like a reasonable, Apple-style charge.

On the other hand, a lot of people will have legitimately large legally obtained music libraries that weren't purchased on the iTunes store (probably the vast majority of anyone with libraries large enough to push the 25k song limit, can't imagine there are many who have made that many purchases of iTunes), and asking them to pay continuously for access to their own music seems harsh enough to discourage people to sign up for Match and just stick with local syncing.

Assuming Apple wants people to jump on the service, a one-off in that case is plausible. Perhaps they just figure if you have pirated the music, it's there already and getting even a little for it is some kind of win. Would be great to know how $24.99 was decided on, if the service indeed 'launders' your music collection I think they could have charged more for it!

redfirebird08
Jun 7, 2011, 12:02 PM
As to "can't afford", the #1 reason the recording industry cites for declining revenues is piracy... not a problem with demand or sales potential; it's a problem with out-of-control theft. Thus, they believe if they can reduce the volume of piracy, revenue growth can resume. Whether that's true or false is somewhat irrelevant. If they do nothing and piracy is the fundamental cause, their fortunes continue to erode toward zero. If the do something and it scares the borderline pirates to behave themselves, they may be able to reverse their revenue declines.




The thing is, it's not even the same industry that it was 15 years ago. 15 years ago consumers had to pay $15 if they wanted a few songs from an album. Now they can pay $3 for those three songs instead of shelling out the extra $12 for songs they don't want. Even if the RIAA manages to scare everyone away from piracy, their profit margins will never get back to where they were in the 1990's. They were basically able to make a ton of cash with only a couple of good songs on an album. That's not the case anymore. Now I'm sure they would rather have the $1 per song revenue instead of zero revenue from pirates, obviously. But it will never be what it once was for them.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 7, 2011, 12:11 PM
But what if the music isn't recognised? Will the full alac or m4a be uploaded and pushed back? In which case, wouldn't I prefer to receive the higher quality I own? (even if uploading takes a bit of time). How will this all work together?

The working concept is that the "master" file you stream from iCloud will be the lower quality 256K AAC files, however you could still sync your Lossless files and take them with you instead of streaming.

If there is no match for the file, Apple says those can be uploaded and stored on iCloud and then streamed to you from there.

Prefer the higher quality? My suggestion would be (continue to just) sync the files rather than trying to stream them from iCloud. Not only is there $25 in it, but there's also going to be the toll from AT&T or Verizon for any non-free-wifi streaming you choose to do. That lossless files are bigger files. It wouldn't take very many of them streamed through 3G to burn through a 2GB for $25 cap. You might want to estimate your average lossless file size and then do the math vs. 2GB to see how many of those songs you could stream before having to give AT&T or Verizon more money.

I personally believe that it is almost always going to make more sense to sync and not stream. $25 is nothing. But the AT&T and Verizon tolls will add up quickly when streaming lots of media over the course of even a few days travels. I did the math in another thread. In my own case, my 256AAC files look like they average about 10Mb each. 2000MB (for $25 from AT&T) divided by 10MB = 200 songs. It's easy to play 200 songs in a day or three. That's only about 13 hours of music.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 7, 2011, 12:31 PM
The thing is, it's not even the same industry that it was 15 years ago. 15 years ago consumers had to pay $15 if they wanted a few songs from an album. Now they can pay $3 for those three songs instead of shelling out the extra $12 for songs they don't want. Even if the RIAA manages to scare everyone away from piracy, their profit margins will never get back to where they were in the 1990's. They were basically able to make a ton of cash with only a couple of good songs on an album. That's not the case anymore. Now I'm sure they would rather have the $1 per song revenue instead of zero revenue from pirates, obviously. But it will never be what it once was for them.

Believe whatever you wish. 15 years ago the population of potential music buyers on the planet was about 4.8 Billion people. Now, there are 6.9 Billion people. In 15 more years, the estimates are that there will be about 8 Billion people. And while the "wealth" here at home feels like it's increasingly pinched, a lot of people elsewhere are emerging markets and making more money than they've ever made before.

If you mitigate the piracy and the new world of digital tracks are locked to iTunes accounts which may or may not be able to be passed on to heirs (for example, try selling any of your iTunes-purchased music to someone else right now), there's an awful lot of new buyers coming, some of which can rebuy all the music of the past and buy some of the music of the future.

If the next generation or two could be moved to seeing piracy as too risky/criminal/abhorrent, industry revenues would likely be much greater than they've ever been- even with people picking & choosing the songs they want to buy, instead of getting stuck with entire albums. As for profitability, if you & I are right about older music being better than newer music and if the future music buyers agree, there is an awful lot of profit in music already long since recorded and then sold as a digital file. The group that was the #2 revenue generator from music sales for the decade of the 2000s last recorded a new song in 1970 (unless you count 2 "new" songs from the Anthology albums).

I know we consumers want to see everything from a "what's best for us" standpoint. But talk to anyone that actually works in that industry and they won't agree that any way we spin wanting music to be free or near free for us is right. They want to be paid for the creations they manage- past, present & future. Their livelihoods depend on being paid for it. We can see them as "outdated business models," "greedy corporate crooks," or however we want to cast "them", but it doesn't change the fact that they own something that people want to own and that the latter should not steal it by any justifications... even the worn out "but everybody else is doing it".

curtisinoc
Jun 7, 2011, 12:34 PM
Here's my concern with iTunes Match:

I have about 100 gigs of music (mostly ripped from cd's) and they're all organized "just the way I like it". I've changed a lot of the "default" info on a cd such as "artist" to help me organize my huge music collection.

For example, if the cd's default value for a song and artist shows as:
Song: "I'll Be"
Artist: "Jay-Z featuring Foxy Brown"

I've changed that to:
Song: "I'll Be (f-Foxy Brown)
Artist: "Jay-Z"

I've made these types of changes throughout my large music collection for organizational purposes (on iTunes, iPhone, iPods etc...) and it has worked good for me.

Question: since "uploading" to iCloud/iTunes Match isn't a "physical upload" (how I understand it at this point), will all of my song/album info remain the way I have them organized once it's on iCloud? Hope this makes sense

Although its in it's infant stages, I like the idea of storing my music on iCloud. For $25/year, I think it's worth it for the simple fact of having a "backup" of my music.

redfirebird08
Jun 7, 2011, 12:44 PM
I know we consumers want to see everything from a "what's best for us" standpoint. But talk to anyone that actually works in that industry and they won't agree that any way we spin wanting music to be free or near free for us is right. They want to be paid for the creations they manage- past, present & future. Their livelihoods depend on being paid for it. We can see them as "outdated business models," "greedy corporate crooks," or however we want to cast "them", but it doesn't change the fact that they own something that people want to own and that the latter should not steal it by any justifications... even the worn out "but everybody else is doing it".


I fully agree that they should be paid. I do think it's a two-way street though. The best thing about iTunes is that it gave consumers the ability to say "no" to crappy filler songs on albums if the consumers only wanted to buy a few tracks. If they want our money, they should have to earn it. The system in the 1990's was way too cushy for the industry. It allowed them to get lazy in the product they were putting out. Setting piracy aside, the industry has sort of returned to the 1950's situation where singles ruled the day.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 7, 2011, 12:47 PM
curtisinoc, my best guess answer to your question is that you'll still retain it as you've adjusted it at home. Everything you choose to sync (as you do now) will still show as you've adjusted the tags.

If iCloud is streaming and you stream rather than sync some of your media, it seems likely how it shows on your iDevice away from home is however it is tagged by Apple. I suppose there is a chance that iCloud might be set up to retain user customized tag adjustments while still streaming the underlying master file audio (and that would be an impressive, proactively thoughtful touch by Apple) but I would bet on the former.

If iCloud is a replacement-oriented service for songs you've NOT purchased via iTunes, I'm guessing that replacing what you've adapted with the 256K AAC will probably involve you having to go in and retag again... if you want to replace the music. Again, that nice touch could show itself here too.

Personally, I believe iCloud for non-iTunes purchases is going to be a streaming service, so it won't allow us to replace our music with 256K AAC files and thus whatever format we have now and however we have it tagged will persist in the local (hard disk) iTunes library.

But the only correct answer to your question is when Apple answers it directly... or in the Fall when you can see first hand.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 7, 2011, 12:53 PM
I fully agree that they should be paid. I do think it's a two-way street though. The best thing about iTunes is that it gave consumers the ability to say "no" to crappy filler songs on albums if the consumers only wanted to buy a few tracks. If they want our money, they should have to earn it. The system in the 1990's was way too cushy for the industry. It allowed them to get lazy in the product they were putting out. Setting piracy aside, the industry has sort of returned to the 1950's situation where singles ruled the day.

That's right. The best thing about that from a music quality standpoint is that a singles-oriented world also puts the pressure on the artists to put max effort into every track, as it's not the record companies composing the filler for the albums. The heat is increasingly on to try to make every album a "best of" type album so that every digital song buyer sees buying the whole album as better than buying 3-6 or so individual tracks. That's also how the pricing is now set up.

Maybe the cushy period that encouraged one-hit albums will give way to a revival of an abundance of outstanding music from many artists in the future? That will be great. I'm not sure how many more years I can live in the past musically with no new music coming out from the "good old days".

redfirebird08
Jun 7, 2011, 12:59 PM
That's right. The best thing about that from a music quality standpoint is that a singles-oriented world also puts the pressure on the artists to put max effort into every track, as it's not the record companies composing the filler for the albums. The heat is increasingly on to try to make every album a "best of" type album so that every digital song buyer sees buying the whole album as better than buying 3-6 or so individual tracks. That's also how the pricing is now set up.

Maybe the cushy period that encouraged one-hit albums will give way to a revival of an abundance of outstanding music from many artists in the future? That will be great. I'm not sure how many more years I can live in the past musically with no new music coming out from the "good old days".


The biggest disappointment to me is how the rock genre has collapsed. Maybe the stuff from the past is just the absolute best we'll ever get and so no one can come along to at least rekindle demand in the public for it. I also think the labels themselves aren't putting in the effort to market lesser known rock bands. Even Lady GaGa started as a rock singer and gave up on the genre because she realized it was a dead end in the industry. The focus is all pop and rap at this point.

curtisinoc
Jun 7, 2011, 01:03 PM
curtisinoc, my best guess answer to your question is that you'll still retain it as you've adjusted it at home. Everything you choose to sync (as you do now) will still show as you've adjusted the tags.

If iCloud is streaming and you stream rather than sync some of your media, it seems likely how it shows on your iDevice away from home is however it is tagged by Apple. I suppose there is a chance that iCloud might be set up to retain user customized tag adjustments while still streaming the underlying master file audio (and that would be an impressive, proactively thoughtful touch by Apple) but I would bet on the former.

If iCloud is a replacement-oriented service for songs you've NOT purchased via iTunes, I'm guessing that replacing what you've adapted with the 256K AAC will probably involve you having to go in and retag again... if you want to replace the music. Again, that nice touch could show itself here too.

Personally, I believe iCloud for non-iTunes purchases is going to be a streaming service, so it won't allow us to replace our music with 256K AAC files and thus whatever format we have now and however we have it tagged will persist in the local (hard disk) iTunes library.

But the only correct answer to your question is when Apple answers it directly... or in the Fall when you can see first hand.


Thanks Darryl . . . Yeah, I guess we'll just wait and see. It would be awesome if Apple did think of this (that users have tagged their collection differently) than what may be on their servers . . this could actually be a "deal-breaker" for me.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 7, 2011, 01:08 PM
That's just cycles. When the Beatles auditioned for Decca in 1962, the belief (which was also building within the industry at the time) was in the feedback they got...

"guitar groups are on the way out"
and
"the Beatles have no future in show business"

It's always only a matter of time until things come around again. I won't believe that all the great rock that can be created has been created. I think the business is just going where the easiest money seems to be right now. There have been times when Folk, Polka, and Yodeling music dominated the business as well (no offense to any fans of those kinds of music). Today's pop & rap might be looked back upon in 15 years like we see disco and yodel now. Eventually the pop & rap artists will start sounding too much like stuff recently recorded and the music buyers will turn the page to something else (hopefully great rock before I'm too old).

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 7, 2011, 01:11 PM
I understand curtisinoc. I'm right with you there. It would be hard to estimate how many of those fine customizations I've made to tags over the years to unify how everything appears, works with other stuff (even :apple:TV lists) and so on. It would be a fantastic (even Apple-like) touch to leverage our own tagging adaptations linked to the underlying audio track when ours differs somewhat from theirs. That might be hoping for too much, but it would sure be a nice touch.

curtisinoc
Jun 7, 2011, 01:38 PM
I understand curtisinoc. I'm right with you there. It would be hard to estimate how many of those fine customizations I've made to tags over the years to unify how everything appears, works with other stuff (even :apple:TV lists) and so on. It would be a fantastic (even Apple-like) touch to leverage our own tagging adaptations linked to the underlying audio track when ours differs somewhat from theirs. That might be hoping for too much, but it would sure be a nice touch.

Well stated . . who knows???? Maybe they already thought of this, but I doubt it :rolleyes:

the8thark
Jun 7, 2011, 02:23 PM
People are talking what about pirated music?

Well to me people will pirate music. The music industry can't stop it. They just sue the ones who sell the pirated tracks. But Jonny home pirater who just uses the pirate tracks for his own entertainment will never get sued. it would cost the record industry more in lawyers fees then they would get back in a successful settlement.

So this $25 I say is a pittance of a fee. But it's a way of generating income from pirated music. I'm sure Apple is just using this money in part to upkeep the icloud servers. Apple figured out a way to get cash out of people who pirated (avoided paying for the music). The record industry got no money from the pirates. So +1 to Apple for a pretty nifty idea.

And on the other side the pirates have the piece of mind of legitimising their music. Sure it's not for the audiophiles. For most people who could not afford or chose not to pay for music in the past, it's a great deal. $25 to in essence legitimise our past crimes. Anyone who complains about this is either not the intended target audience of this service or just unfairly paying out a good service.

And about the Amazon/Google services. I'm sure the record industry lawyers are busy at work trying to find a way to find any little law they have broken so they can clamp down on them. But lucky for Amazon/Google the loophole they are using seems pretty solid for the time being.

It really shows the character of Apple here. Sure Apple is not god. But they didn't follow the same immoral path of Amazon/Google. They struck up the deal with the record industry. They did the right thing. To make sure all parties are involved and happy.

When this $25 service comes to Australia will I get it? Heck yes. It's brilliant. 25K songs a year and not 25K forever would make it even better. But I think time will tell which it is.

********************

And I have a question.
What if itunes match gets it wrong? And incorrectly tags my songs and I get the wrong stuff in return? I've often thrown in CDs into itunes and what itunes says the CD is, is very wrong. To this end I'm going to make a backup of my itunes folder before I do this itunes match just incase it gets a few wrong. Then I can get the borked up matched tracks from the backup.

********************

This thread is filled with iOS users jubilant that they now think they can covert their illegally downloaded files.
Of cause. Apple found a way to make money off the pirates. That is something the record industry could not do.

Also it makes more money of people people who actually bought the CDs from the store. Sure I could re rip them in 256 AAC. But finding and ripping almost 1K cds (many of which are singles) would take a very long time. I'm sure many people would be willing to pay $25 to have it all done for them and much quicker too.

Sure there are many ways to cheat the system. But I'm sure Apple is not worried about one or 2 tracks. But for the large libraries it would take either too much time or too much expertise for the average person to do. Mush easier to just pay the $25 and get Apple to do all the work for you.

********************

Another question.
Sure the Match will find tracks with exactly the same meta data as in the cloud. But what about people like me? I've edited the track titles and other various parts of the store bought cd ripped tracks I own. Will these meta data edited tracks be correctly matched or even matched at all from the cloud?

I don't want to have to re-edit 2k+ tracks one by one to be just how the cloud likes them to get the match. I think this is something we will find out in due course.

********************

If this is a streaming service from the cloud. It'll use our bandwidth. Say hypothetically 2MB per minute of music. And say 4 weeks a month. That's 168 hours in a week x 4 weeks x 2MB a minute. That's 1344MB a month if you stream the 256 AAC every second of the day. That's ok for most Mac users. But for iOS users who are on like 500MB a month and stuff like that, this could seriously eat into their bandwidth caps. That's if this is taken to be a streaming service and not an file upgrade service.

********************

I just had another idea.

If this is a streaming service it would do 2 things.
1. Make the ipod classic less attractive to purchase.
2. Make the smaller flash HD iOS devices much more popular.

You could have your 20,000 music list on your 16GB iOS device. And listen to any track you want. You'd just need enough free ram (or whatever) to buffer the stream. And you're good to go. So you would need to have a 160GB hard drive in your pocket (ipod classic) to have all your tracks at your fingertips.

Sure having a device spitting out 3G and Wi-Fi so close to your crotch all day makes me a little nervous. But it could push more sales of the iOS devices. People then could have one device with all their apps, and whatever on it, and all of their music (through icloud streaming) on it too.

Zimmy68
Jun 7, 2011, 03:59 PM
Has anyone noticed that Apple isn't counting songs you get free on iTunes (i.e. free song of the week, Starbucks, etc) as purchased items?

It shows under the purchased section but is not included in the "re-download purchased items" section.

Eric S.
Jun 7, 2011, 04:59 PM
Has anyone noticed that Apple isn't counting songs you get free on iTunes (i.e. free song of the week, Starbucks, etc) as purchased items?

Yup. People have noticed.

fpnc
Jun 7, 2011, 07:02 PM
The ONLY model that fits with everything that was shown at the WWDC keynote and which also fits everything that Apple has yet posted on the topic indicates that iTunes Match will be a download/sync service that won't support streaming. That's it, and if you argue for anything else you are just introducing your own assumptions or rationalizations about the service (given what we actually know at this point in time, this could change with clarifications from Apple).

Now, the question of what songs will be matched is another issue. Perhaps Apple has developed a method to eliminate content which has come from the most commonly pirated sources (I doubt it). Maybe they are thinking that anyone who has pirated a large amount of music would think twice about allowing Apple to scan their entire collection. In fact, the terms of use for iTunes Match might actually address the pirating issue (i.e. "Warning, the music will be randomly checked for pirated content."). How would they do this, I don't know. But just a little FUD could prevent the significant pirates from trying to use iTunes Match.

In any case, I put my bet on the fact that iTunes Match will be a simple download/sync service just like the remainder of Apple's iCloud.

Another unanswered question might be what happens if you have protected iTunes content in the old 128Kbps format and you subscribe to the iTunes Match service. My GUESS is that nothing happens, you won't get downloads to replace those songs in the new iTunes Plus format. Is that somewhat of a slight or insult to the existing iTunes customers who may still have a large amount of this lower-quality, DRM'd content? Yes, probably, but you still get the automatic sync for that music without even having to pay for iTunes Match.

JabbaII
Jun 7, 2011, 08:05 PM
One can only presume Apple worked out a deal with the record labels in the US. Jobs did say matching is for music owned by the user. He did not say pirated music would be "forgiven" if you use iCloud.

For what I can see, iCloud gives more evidence that pirates do not own the music in the first place.

I see the $24.99 an attempt at getting some money that they aren't going to get in the first place.

Australian Newspaper

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mp3s/apple-icloud-legitimises-music-pirates-20110607-1fq76.html



Copyright law expert and senior lecturer at the University of Queensland Kimberlee Weatherall said that even if people passed their pirated music collections through iCloud they could still be targeted.

"You could still be sued for the act of downloading, which involves the making of an unauthorised copy not covered by any licences Apple might have," Weatherall said.

"It makes sense for the labels to license and get a cut from these uses – at present, they get nothing from any unauthorised downloads and uses of unauthorised downloads."

jahman
Jun 7, 2011, 08:50 PM
Why are people talking about streaming? Match has been fairly clearly described as a replication and storage service. The intention is that any music you've ripped into your iTunes library yourself at less than 256kbps AAC will be overwritten on all your Apple devices with a perfect 256kbps AAC copy direct from the publisher. At any time you will be able to erase the song from a device and be free to download it from iCloud again. There is no streaming service; no streaming service was announced. I watched the whole Keynote and I've read a fair few tech articles today so I'm pretty sure I'd have noticed.

I think this is ideal for me as it will allow me to store my ripped CD at reasonable quality in the cloud and I won't have to worry about backing it up at home saving a lot of money on disk space and time and hassle trying to fix rips that haven't worked which is a real PITA. I will bite Steve Job's hand off to pay as little as $25 for this service. A professional ripping service in the UK will charge £1000 for 350 albums on a 1TB disk. That's a lot of years at $25 for 25,000 songs although, of course, Apple only has to store each song once for all of us plus a row per song owned by each customer on its database somewhere.

I'm a bit of an audiophile and I really want my collection ripped to lossless FLAC but for listening on the move through my iPhone, 256kbps AAC is a perfect size to quality compromise not to mention the sheer simplicity of propagating the library over my MBA, iMac, iPhone and iPad. Apple has some real thinkers working for it and Amazon and Google won't be catching up for a long time I'm sad to say.

imahawki
Jun 7, 2011, 09:52 PM
Why are people talking about streaming? Match has been fairly clearly described as a replication and storage service. The intention is that any music you've ripped into your iTunes library yourself at less than 256kbps AAC will be overwritten on all your Apple devices with a perfect 256kbps AAC copy direct from the publisher. At any time you will be able to erase the song from a device and be free to download it from iCloud again. There is no streaming service; no streaming service was announced. I watched the whole Keynote and I've read a fair few tech articles today so I'm pretty sure I'd have noticed.

I think this is ideal for me as it will allow me to store my ripped CD at reasonable quality in the cloud and I won't have to worry about backing it up at home saving a lot of money on disk space and time and hassle trying to fix rips that haven't worked which is a real PITA. I will bite Steve Job's hand off to pay as little as $25 for this service. A professional ripping service in the UK will charge £1000 for 350 albums on a 1TB disk. That's a lot of years at $25 for 25,000 songs although, of course, Apple only has to store each song once for all of us plus a row per song owned by each customer on its database somewhere.

I'm a bit of an audiophile and I really want my collection ripped to lossless FLAC but for listening on the move through my iPhone, 256kbps AAC is a perfect size to quality compromise not to mention the sheer simplicity of propagating the library over my MBA, iMac, iPhone and iPad. Apple has some real thinkers working for it and Amazon and Google won't be catching up for a long time I'm sad to say.

Is my iMac considered a "device"? I think that's the main question still. Does this "upgrade" your original library for people with lower resolution rips. Hell a lot of my library is 128kbps AAC CONVERTED from MP3. There is mucho room for improvement.

JabbaII
Jun 7, 2011, 10:07 PM
In US does itunes have full coverage of music? In Japan, not all record labels are onboard with itunes. I guess these will need to be uploaded to the cloud from your mac/pc?

Eric S.
Jun 7, 2011, 11:33 PM
Is my iMac considered a "device"? I think that's the main question still.

Apparently Steve Jobs thinks so.

"We're going to demote the PC and the Mac to just be a device - just like an iPad, an iPhone or an iPod Touch," Jobs, dressed in a black sweater and jeans, said yesterday.

GeekAhead
Jun 7, 2011, 11:53 PM
Is iTunes Match live now ? Or do we have to wait for the iOS 5 launch ?

maccc
Jun 8, 2011, 01:25 AM
x

deefer68
Jun 8, 2011, 05:05 AM
Has anyone seen anywhere if it will be possible to buy extra cloud space and if so for how much?.
The 5gb for free is a nice size, and apparently items bought from itunes won't count towards this but for thoise of us that has 25gb+ of music that has been imported from CD's more space will be a requirement.

jahman
Jun 8, 2011, 05:34 AM
Is my iMac considered a "device"? I think that's the main question still. Does this "upgrade" your original library for people with lower resolution rips. Hell a lot of my library is 128kbps AAC CONVERTED from MP3. There is mucho room for improvement.

I would say so. After all, iPad 2 and soon iPhone 4S/5 have dual core CPUs and are as powerful as fairly recent general purpose netbooks It's not a demotion of the iMac but a convergence of desktop, laptop and pocket devices into a general purpose computing device category IMHO, each suited to specific use cases and all connected via the cloud. It's been a long time coming though. This type of ubiquitous computing whereby your own unique, configuration can be replicated across any device was envisaged a long time ago.

ratzzo
Jun 8, 2011, 05:39 AM
Personally all I see is having to pay 25 bucks to Apple so that they move some music between devices... I can do that myself and it's not as tedious as SJ put it to be. I do like the 256kbit upgrade though.

jowie
Jun 8, 2011, 06:38 AM
Has anyone seen anywhere if it will be possible to buy extra cloud space and if so for how much?.
The 5gb for free is a nice size, and apparently items bought from itunes won't count towards this but for thoise of us that has 25gb+ of music that has been imported from CD's more space will be a requirement.
I might be wrong, but I think if you sign up for iTunes Match, the limit is in number of songs, not in GB. The free 5GB is just for documents etc, afaik.

But it would be interesting to find out if there will be upgrade options for "iDisk" space.

ScubaCinci
Jun 8, 2011, 03:40 PM
I *tried* reading through this thread. Most of it is conjecture or extrapolation of the ambiguous information supplied by Apple. Everyone is doing their best to understand. It's frustrating although since this doesn't officially launch for a few months (iOS5 anyway) I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I don't think this can be definitely answered but...

My understanding (probably wrong) if you pay the $25/yr.
> The cloud app scans your music and identifies the music per its "massive library".
> Any songs not originally purchased by iTunes will be "matched" to the legitimate iTunes copy.
> Any of my songs not found will be uploaded to the cloud.
> All of my iDevices will look to the cloud (assuming I permit it) and any music not on the device will be downloaded to the device so that all devices are in sync with what is in the cloud. These songs will be in Apple's AAC 256 bit rate format except for the ones uploaded which will remain as is.
> I can cancel my subscription and *keep* the shiny new iTunes approved music?

I wonder how it handles it when a device is full? Can I choose which items to sync? The 256 bit rate AAC files are going to be larger than many of what I have now so odds are their total storage will exceed the size of one or more of my devices. :confused::confused:

Edmund0Dantes
Jun 8, 2011, 03:42 PM
Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but I think the talk about a piracy amnesty (effectively) is a case of jumping the gun?, isn't it the case that when you rip a cd that you own using iTunes it places iTunes meta data into the encode files, perhaps that's how they are matching, by decoding the meta data into the grace note ID (and perhaps using acoustic fingerprinting) to determine the track?

I would not be surprised if it only applies to music ripped using iTunes, so music gathered from other means would not be matched (although would still be uploaded as part of the 25,000 limit). Still, it would be a pleasant surprise if this where not the case.

hpman247
Jun 8, 2011, 08:45 PM
I think everyone should read this. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/06/what-you-need-to-know-about-itunes-match-your-questions-answered.ars

There are no loopholes as I wrote earlier. The service is exactly as Apple described it. Even pirated music counts. So technically we can upgrade any mp3s that we have in less than 256 to 256. For me this is fantastic as over half of my collection of 15,000 songs is less than 256!

malnar
Jun 8, 2011, 09:02 PM
I *tried* reading through this thread. Most of it is conjecture or extrapolation of the ambiguous information supplied by Apple. Everyone is doing their best to understand. It's frustrating although since this doesn't officially launch for a few months (iOS5 anyway) I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

I don't think this can be definitely answered but...

My understanding (probably wrong) if you pay the $25/yr.
> The cloud app scans your music and identifies the music per its "massive library".
> Any songs not originally purchased by iTunes will be "matched" to the legitimate iTunes copy.
> Any of my songs not found will be uploaded to the cloud.
> All of my iDevices will look to the cloud (assuming I permit it) and any music not on the device will be downloaded to the device so that all devices are in sync with what is in the cloud. These songs will be in Apple's AAC 256 bit rate format except for the ones uploaded which will remain as is.
> I can cancel my subscription and *keep* the shiny new iTunes approved music?

I wonder how it handles it when a device is full? Can I choose which items to sync? The 256 bit rate AAC files are going to be larger than many of what I have now so odds are their total storage will exceed the size of one or more of my devices. :confused::confused:
I think it's going to be like the "Purchased" tab is in the iTunes app - you'll see all of your music in there and you choose what you want to have on your device, it downloads, and, I would presume, there'll be a "remove" function as well. It has to function how iTunes functions on computers now - you have to have the choice of what you want and how much - or else this is a complete failure.

As for cancelling and keeping the files, I think people are being tremendously naive about this. Apple's going to lock this down with some kind of safeguard - DRM, whatever you want to call it - to prevent exactly this from happening. They're not stupid.

ScubaCinci
Jun 8, 2011, 09:04 PM
I think everyone should read this. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/06/what-you-need-to-know-about-itunes-match-your-questions-answered.ars

There are no loopholes as I wrote earlier. The service is exactly as Apple described it. Even pirated music counts. So technically we can upgrade any mp3s that we have in less than 256 to 256. For me this is fantastic as over half of my collection of 15,000 songs is less than 256!

Very nice, thanks for sharing that link.

It makes sense if you think about it. Music you downloaded, got from a friend or otherwise obtained without paying is in your possession already so the RIAA/artists have no chance of ever collecting royalties from that music. Suddenly, all these people pony up $25 - even if only for one year - to legitimize those music files and they get a least something and even a 3 year old will tell you when it comes to money, something always beats nothing.

They'll never recoup the money they would have received if people bought all that music to begin with but there are millions of :apple: iPod. iPhone, iPad owners so that $25 can add up to quite a hefty sum!

yodaxl7
Jun 9, 2011, 03:03 AM
Cap.

I honestly call this DOA because we have to pay a $25 a year label tax. Compared to Google Music same 20k worth of songs is 100% free. Apple we have to pay $25 a year to have access to the same songs we already paid for.

Google stuff is in beta and not may folks have it (developers mainly). Once, it is out of beta, we will learn the price. I have read somewhere that it is streaming the higher quality songs they match for non-itune music. So, they are not giving you those versions.

It is better to download a song. That way you can re-listen to it over and over for a period of time. Googles' way is that you would have to upload all of your songs and stream constantly. Way isp are capping our bandwidth, apple's solution is better.

If you have a lot of music, itune match is for you. If you have 250 songs, it cost ten cents per song. If you have more than 1000 songs, it is basically free. It cost less than .001.

For me, itune match is cool, not needed. I listen to radio or whatever. Pandora is for me. I like the idea that I can re-download a music that I have bought from itune.

Lennholm
Jun 9, 2011, 05:42 AM
For all you posters asking about pirated music...PLEASE DEFINE PIRATED MUSIC.

It's pretty straight forward really; any music you have acquired in a way that is not sanctioned by the copyright holder, which in most cases means music that you haven't paid for (if the copyright holder chooses to give it away for free, ofcourse it's not pirated)

pagansoul
Jun 9, 2011, 06:20 AM
I'm just pointing out sources for free audiobooks and software.
And as I posted earlier, people with 20,000 digital songs are most likely pirates. Not all. But a crushing majority. Most people don't own 2000 albums that they have ripped, nor have they bought 2000 albums on iTunes.

I am one of those people who have 2000 CDs and have ripped every one of them to my iTunes library. I only have about 200 songs purchased from Apple and another 1000 off Amazon (many sample albums and a few large classical album collections). I downloaded the new iTunes and can see all my old purchases with the little cloud icon on my iPad. I even downloaded a few. When the Cloud is available I will buy and see how much of my music will be matched. I ripped my music at 360VBR so it's more of a convience to be able to load off the cloud if I forget to add something to my Pad. A lot of my music I would not even have to load as I don't currently listen to it but I simply keep everything backed up.

Trek2100
Jun 9, 2011, 08:24 AM
I have watched the keynote and the indvidual video clips several times.
1. The 5GB does NOT apply to music.
2. It mention a 25,000 cap.
3. Any music you have other than from iTunes and is in the iTunes library will be matched, converted and stored. I'm not sure whether you need the subscription for all your personal music or only the music you own that is not in the library.
4. If you have a non "i" device like an iPod classic, nano, shuffle, etc., I believe you would still have to sync with iTunes as is currently done. Perhaps you could still do the manual sync with the iPhone, etc., as well. Steve said you could cut the cable. Did not hear him say it was mandatory.

The Norman
Jun 13, 2011, 06:28 PM
This is going to be so interesting to see in action. There are so many variables involved. Those of you with thousands of crappy mono mp3's from Napster are in for a wonderful upgrade. Those of us with perfectly organized Lossless collections must wait to see what they do with our metadata...
I, for one, am so glad that all of my friends will be getting a 256aac upgrade. We all win! Those crappy mp3's are worse than my grandparents' AM radio!

curtisinoc
Jun 13, 2011, 08:31 PM
This is going to be so interesting to see in action. There are so many variables involved. Those of you with thousands of crappy mono mp3's from Napster are in for a wonderful upgrade. Those of us with perfectly organized Lossless collections must wait to see what they do with our metadata...
I, for one, am so glad that all of my friends will be getting a 256aac upgrade. We all win! Those crappy mp3's are worse than my grandparents' AM radio!

(a non audiophile question here) :
what's better: mp3 @ 192 kbps or aac @ 256 kbps? And if one is better than the other, is there a "noticeable difference" for the normal/non-audiophile?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

morespce54
Jun 17, 2011, 10:16 AM
I just hope they'll do a better job matching songs than they do with the "Find album artwork" option from iTunes. Geez, right now, this function is such a hit and miss...

DiamondMac
Jun 17, 2011, 12:41 PM
I do have a question that may not be answered yet but I will ask anyway

Let's say I downloaded a CD illegally and the iTunes Match copies and ports it the way it is supposed to.

Will that CD's music be found in my "previous purchase" category? Or will I be able to download that CD later if my computer dies and I need to add the music to the new computer?

n4uaj
Jul 9, 2011, 02:18 PM
My question is will iTunes Match give me quality copies of LP's that i have imported using the ION USB turntable with no pops and scratches? That would be more than awesome. I know that as long as I use the correct album name and artist that 98 percent of the time the album cover is correct. Also I wonder will it be done per the album or by track. An example would be like the Blue Hawaii soundtrack album from 1962 is imported but the one on iTunes now has a song or two not on the original.

ftaok
Jul 9, 2011, 02:36 PM
I do have a question that may not be answered yet but I will ask anyway

Let's say I downloaded a CD illegally and the iTunes Match copies and ports it the way it is supposed to.

Will that CD's music be found in my "previous purchase" category? Or will I be able to download that CD later if my computer dies and I need to add the music to the new computer?

My guess is that any "matched" song will show up in iTunes/iCloud under a separate tab. You'll have your Purchased tab and your Matched tab. I would then extend my guess to say that you'll only have iCloud access to your Matched songs as long as you keep your subscription current, but if you have a back up copy on CD or a hard drive, it'll work regardless of your subscription status.

brapmac740
Jul 9, 2011, 03:12 PM
I was wondering when they would smarten up and get some money out of pirated tunes...

MonkeySee....
Jul 12, 2011, 04:46 AM
Can't someone point me in the direction of a thread that discusses people sharing iTunes, iPhoto (photo stream) data on seperate idevices.

Eg. me and the wife having access to our music and photos.

Thanks

PeteJames
Feb 8, 2012, 08:49 PM
"paying a fee to have access to [their] own music collection."

Why would anyone want to do that? :eek:

I thought a while ago that the day might come when apple takes over your laptop and scans it and forces you to pay for anything you didn't buy from the itunes store lol. It could be on it's way!

jowie
Feb 9, 2012, 03:47 AM
My question is will iTunes Match give me quality copies of LP's that i have imported using the ION USB turntable with no pops and scratches? That would be more than awesome. I know that as long as I use the correct album name and artist that 98 percent of the time the album cover is correct. Also I wonder will it be done per the album or by track. An example would be like the Blue Hawaii soundtrack album from 1962 is imported but the one on iTunes now has a song or two not on the original.
In my library I have 412 tunes that are sourced from vinyl that I know of. Out of these, 9 were matched by iTunes Match. Having said that, your result may well be higher... I seem to be an odd case, but my entire library of 13.6K items was only about 20% matched.

jowie
Feb 9, 2012, 03:58 AM
"paying a fee to have access to [their] own music collection."

Why would anyone want to do that? :eek:
That's an incredibly limited understanding of what iTunes Match does for you.

You have access to your entire music collection, wherever you may be, without thinking about it. It's cloud storage for up to 25,000 songs. In my case, my 13,500 or so songs come to about 135 GB. So if you extrapolate from that, it's offering me up to 250 GB of storage space for £21.99 per year. Where else can you get that level of cloud storage for that price?

What I also love is that it effectively adds the feature I have been longing for for years - an iTunes Server that I can manage from any Mac. Previously I could only login to another machine where my music was stored and then I could only read that information. Now, I can stream my own music on my machine at work, edit ID3 tags, playlists etc, all without downloading a single tune.

That's well worth the money for me.

I thought a while ago that the day might come when apple takes over your laptop and scans it and forces you to pay for anything you didn't buy from the itunes store lol. It could be on it's way!
I would say if anything they've done the opposite. You can even now download items from the iTunes Store that you didn't even buy there... For all Apple know, you could've obtained them illegally!

Eric S.
Feb 9, 2012, 04:18 PM
That's an incredibly limited understanding of what iTunes Match does for you.

You have access to your entire music collection, wherever you may be, without thinking about it.

I already have that. It's called iPod Classic.

It's cloud storage for up to 25,000 songs. In my case, my 13,500 or so songs come to about 135 GB. So if you extrapolate from that, it's offering me up to 250 GB of storage space for £21.99 per year. Where else can you get that level of cloud storage for that price?

Who cares? I don't want iCloud storage. I don't want access to my music controlled by Apple at some distant facility, subject to network outages and whatever price increases they may impose in the future. And I also don't want to deal with mismatches, incorrect or missing album art, or incorrect song titles and track info, all of which I have spent many hours correcting in my music database.

...

That's well worth the money for me.

And for me, I have everything I want now for free. Apple's asking me to pay for stuff I don't want, so the choice is pretty simple.

Now what I could use is some online storage for general data use like, oh I don't know... iDisk? Which is something I have used since the day it was offered and now Apple is dropping it. Thanks a lot Apple, just the latest in a long line of dumping on your long time customers.

jowie
Feb 10, 2012, 05:49 AM
I already have that. It's called iPod Classic.
Who cares? I don't want iCloud storage.
Okay, so we've ascertained iTunes Match isn't for you, obviously. So don't buy it, nobody's forcing you :)

I don't want access to my music controlled by Apple at some distant facility, subject to network outages and whatever price increases they may impose in the future.
It's stored at a distant facility, but you could just as easily download every track from your library to every device. So it doesn't have to rely on the network... It's for convenience and saving on storage space.

If they put up the price? You just leave the service. You lose nothing, all songs are still on the devices you stored them on. And any songs you upgraded to iTunes Plus will stay with you forever.

And I also don't want to deal with mismatches, incorrect or missing album art, or incorrect song titles and track info, all of which I have spent many hours correcting in my music database.
That's a total misconception. I've spent YEARS organising my collection, correcting ID3 tags and creating smart playlists. iTunes Match doesn't change any of that. Even if it matches a song, it keeps all your metadata exactly as you had it. If it wasn't for that, I wouldn't be using the service... And I think Apple realised they couldn't do that without annoying a lot of users.

And for me, I have everything I want now for free. Apple's asking me to pay for stuff I don't want, so the choice is pretty simple.
Which begs me to ask, why are you bothering spending time moaning about it? Apple sell lots of stuff I don't want. I don't complain about it though... :D

Now what I could use is some online storage for general data use like, oh I don't know... iDisk? Which is something I have used since the day it was offered and now Apple is dropping it. Thanks a lot Apple, just the latest in a long line of dumping on your long time customers.
Ah okay... That's the real gripe. I can't say I share your annoyance, I always found iDisk slow and unreliable. Dropbox was always much faster, and free, so I stuck with that. I would highly recommend it if you don't already use it.

Eric S.
Feb 10, 2012, 04:59 PM
That's a total misconception. I've spent YEARS organising my collection, correcting ID3 tags and creating smart playlists. iTunes Match doesn't change any of that. Even if it matches a song, it keeps all your metadata exactly as you had it. If it wasn't for that, I wouldn't be using the service... And I think Apple realised they couldn't do that without annoying a lot of users.

That would make it better, certainly, but somehow I don't believe it's all that easy.

Which begs me to ask, why are you bothering spending time moaning about it? Apple sell lots of stuff I don't want. I don't complain about it though... :D

It's more a case of historical progression. Apple used to do a lot of things that I found interesting, and sell products (i.e., computers!) that I wanted to buy. Now, with its ever-increasing focus on consumer electronics, there is rarely anything Apple does that has any interest for me. It's just frustrating, that's all, that their technical development has gone in this direction. I understand that they're making money hand over fist, but unless you're an Apple stockholder I don't see how that makes any difference.

Ah okay... That's the real gripe. I can't say I share your annoyance, I always found iDisk slow and unreliable. Dropbox was always much faster, and free, so I stuck with that. I would highly recommend it if you don't already use it.

Well the real gripe is what I stated above. But yes, Dropbox is probably where I'm headed before MobileMe sinks beneath the waves. But there it is, another investment that once would have been made in Apple is going elsewhere.

jowie
Feb 10, 2012, 05:37 PM
That would make it better, certainly, but somehow I don't believe it's all that easy.
Well it's certainly not perfect... Still lots of issues to iron out, like half-matched albums and some items that just stay as "waiting", but one thing I've not had is any problems with the integrity of my library.

It's more a case of historical progression. Apple used to do a lot of things that I found interesting, and sell products (i.e., computers!) that I wanted to buy. Now, with its ever-increasing focus on consumer electronics, there is rarely anything Apple does that has any interest for me. It's just frustrating, that's all, that their technical development has gone in this direction. I understand that they're making money hand over fist, but unless you're an Apple stockholder I don't see how that makes any difference.
I understand your frustration now. Although I guess I'm quite lucky... There are items I've not been interested in buying, but on the whole I've always found something of Apple's that has been of interest to me. For years I've been dying for some way to manage my library from any machine, so worth it to me for that alone. But then I'd have been happy with a piece of software called "iTunes Server", but that's not Apple's way.

Well the real gripe is what I stated above. But yes, Dropbox is probably where I'm headed before MobileMe sinks beneath the waves. But there it is, another investment that once would have been made in Apple is going elsewhere.
I tell you what really p*sses me off right now about the move from MobileMe to iCloud... No Snow Leopard support. My newest personal machine is an older white MacBook which can't run Lion, and my work machine is newer but I can't upgrade until my company get round to it... But I could own a Windows PC older than either of these machines running Vista, and I'd get iCloud support. That really does take the p*ss!