PDA

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




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jun 6, 2011, 02:42 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/06/itunes-in-the-cloud-with-itunes-match-24-99year-matches-ripped-tunes-offers-them-in-the-cloud/)


Today, in addition to Lion, iOS 5 and the other iCloud features, Apple rolled out iTunes in the Cloud. Free for songs you've purchased through iTunes, and for $24.99/year for a new service called iTunes Match.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/f1307386644.jpg


Syncing music is a pain, but iCloud will try to make that easier -- at least for song's you get through iTunes. Songs you've already purchased will show up in a purchase history and any music purchased can be re-downloaded to any device at no additional charge. Steve said it was the "first time we've seen this in the music industry."

If you buy a song on your Mac in iTunes, it gets pushed (not streamed) to mobile devices and vice versa. You'll always have your songs, automatically, wherever you are, on up to 10 devices. All this, for purchased songs, is free.

As far as music you've ripped yourself, iTunes has 18 million songs in the music store and Apple will use a feature called iTunes Match to give you the same benefits on songs you've ripped, as songs you've purchased. Library is scanned and matched and any songs that remain can be uploaded. Songs that are matched are upgraded to 256KBps, AAC, DRM-free, with all the benefits above, including push syncing and all the rest.

It's $24.99 per year, even for "20,000 songs."

Article Link: iTunes Match: $24.99/year, Matches Ripped Tunes, Offers Them In The Cloud (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/06/itunes-in-the-cloud-with-itunes-match-24-99year-matches-ripped-tunes-offers-them-in-the-cloud/)



cxny
Jun 6, 2011, 02:47 PM
Wow! That's better than I expected. Is 20,000 an example or a cap?

ThisIsNotMe
Jun 6, 2011, 02:47 PM
Unmatched content will be uploaded; upload time varies depending on amounts uploaded.
http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/

Interesting

nemaslov
Jun 6, 2011, 02:47 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?

toddybody
Jun 6, 2011, 02:47 PM
Im sorry, but that just seems like an incredible offer. Hesitation over my mostly non-iTunes ripped music was the biggest concern I had in the "iCloud". This is awesome.

MacBoucher
Jun 6, 2011, 02:48 PM
The Apple web page says Download iTunes 10.3 but it's still a link to 10.2 See my screenshot.

P51Mustangrulz
Jun 6, 2011, 02:48 PM
So here's what I'm wondering about iTunes Match...

I have a ton of music that was legally purchased through iTunes back before the iTunes Plus format was available.

Suppose they will match that with iTunes Plus versions? (I sure hope so!)

stridemat
Jun 6, 2011, 02:48 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?

It seems its $24.99 for as much as you want, but will it come to the UK.

hexonxonx
Jun 6, 2011, 02:48 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?

I could not find any mention of a limit. $24.99/year.

MathijsDelva
Jun 6, 2011, 02:48 PM
There's a max of 25.000 songs..

mattwolfmatt
Jun 6, 2011, 02:48 PM
What about movies and TV shows I've purchased?

What about music that isn't on itunes? I have 6000 songs, much of it classical. Probably 4000 isn't on itunes.

Just wondering . . .

iScott428
Jun 6, 2011, 02:49 PM
So here's what I'm wondering about iTunes Match...

I have a ton of music that was legally purchased through iTunes back before the iTunes Plus format was available.

Suppose they will match that with iTunes Plus versions? (I sure hope so!)

From what it sounds like they will try and match everything and if the music is matched that you will get the upgraded 256kbps version...

Rodimus Prime
Jun 6, 2011, 02:49 PM
Wow! That's better than I expected. Is 20,000 an example or a cap?

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.

jav6454
Jun 6, 2011, 02:49 PM
Piracy Laundry.... right there.

jlgolson
Jun 6, 2011, 02:49 PM
Wow! That's better than I expected. Is 20,000 an example or a cap?

I'd imagine it's an example. Haven't seen anything concrete, but I believe it's good for as many songs as you want.

MathijsDelva
Jun 6, 2011, 02:50 PM
Available in beta now in the U.S. only and requires iOS 4.3.1 on iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4 (GSM model), iPod touch (3rd and 4th generation), iPad, or iPad 2, or a Mac or PC with iTunes 10.3. Previous purchases may be unavailable if they are no longer in the iTunes Store. Download iTunes 10.3 free.

Requires iOS 5 on iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod touch (3rd and 4th generation), iPad, or iPad 2, or a Mac computer with OS X Lion or a PC with Windows Vista or Windows 7 (Outlook 2007 or 2010 recommended). Limit 25,000 songs. iTunes purchases do not count against limit.

Unmatched content will be uploaded; upload time varies depending on amounts uploaded.

Upload time varies depending on amounts uploaded.

Unmatched content will not be upgraded.

iScott428
Jun 6, 2011, 02:50 PM
There's a max of 25.000 songs..

You sure, I thought they made it pretty clear its limitless...

Ooops Guess not per MathijsDelva response...

RafaelT
Jun 6, 2011, 02:50 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.

rorschach
Jun 6, 2011, 02:50 PM
I wonder if the upgrade is one-time or if it's only available as long as you're paying $24.99 a month.

In other words, if I pay $24.99, does it simply replace all my non-iTunes song files with higher quality files? If so, people could just pay once to upgrade thousands of songs and then cancel. The benefit of continuing to pay would be that you could upgrade any new songs you add to your library.

bushido
Jun 6, 2011, 02:50 PM
damn it, its US only, i just knew this would happen :mad:

mcdermd
Jun 6, 2011, 02:50 PM
What if my iDevice cannot hold the 30,000+ songs I have in my library? Is this truly just a "push" service and not a "cloud library" I can play from on-the-go?

BigDukeSix
Jun 6, 2011, 02:50 PM
So, if I understand this correctly, it will cost me $25/yr to store the matching songs from my ripped CD's on the cloud?

scott911
Jun 6, 2011, 02:51 PM
so, does it improve the quality of old itune 128 kbps, transferring it back down to me at a more acceptable 256 kbps?

doctorjo5
Jun 6, 2011, 02:51 PM
SJobs said 20,000 because that is the number that google will allow you to upload into Google Music. He was digging directly at google.

Is there really a limit of 25,000? I would be surprised.

moseleyite
Jun 6, 2011, 02:51 PM
It seems its $24.99 for as much as you want, but will it come to the UK.

Here's hoping that a deal can be struck - I'd spend £25 quid on this. Fingers crossed.

sishaw
Jun 6, 2011, 02:51 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.

Google Music isn't going to be free indefinitely.

JonLa
Jun 6, 2011, 02:51 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.

Not really. I doubt very much you'll get a HD full of m4a files out of it. You'll be able to stream them over your router for as long as you pay the subscription though.

saxon48
Jun 6, 2011, 02:51 PM
So 25 bucks a year to legitimize several years' worth of downloaded music? Sign me up

http://img.tgfb.net/com/src/13025347208.jpg

Sky Blue
Jun 6, 2011, 02:52 PM
If i could replace my pirated stuff on my Mac, I'd do it. I don't really care about stuff in the cloud.

alexandero
Jun 6, 2011, 02:52 PM
US only? Apple doesn't seem to care much about other countries if they don't even mention such relevant facts in their keynote.

YourHerojb
Jun 6, 2011, 02:52 PM
I'm assuming the iTunes Matched songs only stay in the cloud library til the subscription is over, no way they'd make it a permanent thing.

Also, I'll assume my pirated music will work too.

GLS
Jun 6, 2011, 02:53 PM
So, those with huge libraries that were acquired in a variety of means....can have Apple scan and match...pay $25 bucks a year...and now, their libraries are "blessed" with legitimacy?

Helluva deal.

EricNau
Jun 6, 2011, 02:53 PM
I wonder... can this be viewed as a one-time upgrade fee? In other words, will I lose access to my matched songs if I don't renew ever year?

Rodimus Prime
Jun 6, 2011, 02:53 PM
Google Music isn't going to be free indefinitely.

my guess is it will be with the ablity to purchase more space later on.
Also knowing Google the beta will be years long. Just like Gmail was in "beta" for years. Right now Google Music shows a fair number of beta bugs but for the most part works great.

satirev
Jun 6, 2011, 02:54 PM
can anyone answer the following.

when the subscription is up, do we still have access to the matched music locally? just not over the cloud?

when is this service available?

ChristianJapan
Jun 6, 2011, 02:55 PM
thats really strange; everyone can now share ripped files and can legalize it afterwards ... fell a bit stupid to bought all songs over the years via iTunes ...

yetanotherdave
Jun 6, 2011, 02:55 PM
I hope US only is just for now, this is one of the few iTunes features I'd pay up for, and they're not letting me! :(

cxny
Jun 6, 2011, 02:56 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.

I disagree. This will be huge, no one else can come close and for $25.00 per year it is kinda like an tax paid to the labels. Let's face it only about 1 in 40 songs on the typical iTunes library was paid for.

Sky Blue
Jun 6, 2011, 02:56 PM
can anyone answer the following.

when the subscription is up, do we still have access to the matched music locally? just not over the cloud?

when is this service available?

Your local music isn't changed, so yes you would still have access.

Zimmy68
Jun 6, 2011, 02:56 PM
My questions.

I assume you can get your ripped music in the cloud but it wouldn't replace the stuff on your iTunes library without you manually doing it.

I have plenty of high bit rate MP3s that I ripped from FLAC & EAC, I wouldn't want the Cloud service to just overwrite my stuff.

But how you get it on your main iTunes library is a mystery.
Maybe they won't let you but why do they specifically mention DRM free?

Also, does it work with ITunes on PC/Macs?
Example, If I am at work, and I fire iTunes up on my PC desktop and my MacBook Pro, will I see all my music available to me?
That would be a winner for me.

Don't panic
Jun 6, 2011, 02:57 PM
why is it per year?
once you upload/match you ripped library, wouldn't it become the same as a purchased library?
my library has about 5000 songs, all legal but mostly from my CD collection. once i transfer it to the cloud, and i don't get an new music on CD next year, would i still have to pay the 25$?

d0minick
Jun 6, 2011, 02:57 PM
Really was hoping for some sort of pure streaming with their catalog.

At 25$ I will give it a try. I have to many apple devices to not give it a try!:D

Norcalchavo
Jun 6, 2011, 02:57 PM
Did I miss something? I didn't hear anything about accessing our Cloud iTunes Library with our iDevices or accessing it online, sort of like Lala but with an app on our iDevices for direct streaming.

ericinboston
Jun 6, 2011, 02:57 PM
...As far as music you've ripped yourself, iTunes has 18 million songs in the music store and Apple will use a feature called iTunes Match to give you the same benefits on songs you've ripped, as songs you've purchased. Library is scanned and matched and any songs that remain can be uploaded. Songs that are matched are upgraded to 256KBps, AAC, DRM-free, with all the benefits above, including push syncing and all the rest.

It's $24.99 per year, even for "20,000 songs."



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?

sishaw
Jun 6, 2011, 02:57 PM
thats really strange; everyone can now share ripped files and can legalize it afterwards ... fell a bit stupid to bought all songs over the years via iTunes ...

It's really amazing how people can find something to complain about.

If it makes you feel better, look at it this way: All those iTunes you bought gave Apple the profits to have the cash to make the deal with the record companies and music publishers to create the iTunes Match service and bring it home for only $25/year.

HarryKeogh
Jun 6, 2011, 02:58 PM
This is pretty nice but still looking forward to the day when memory is so cheap I could afford an iPhone and iPad with 128gb of memory (true, they have to make those first) so I could just listen to any of my 80gb of music instantly.

Bear
Jun 6, 2011, 02:58 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.

And as for Google Music:Music Beta is available free for a limited time. I doubt it will remain free based on what the Google Music page shows.

stridemat
Jun 6, 2011, 02:59 PM
God only knows how Apple managed to persuade record labels to do this.


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

sishaw
Jun 6, 2011, 02:59 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.



That is a good idea, seriously! Submit it to Apple! Or,maybe it will work this way, that would be nice.

HarryKeogh
Jun 6, 2011, 02:59 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.

If they don't have your song you can upload yours and they'll store it.

ericinboston
Jun 6, 2011, 02:59 PM
why is it per year?
once you upload/match you ripped library, wouldn't it become the same as a purchased library?
my library has about 5000 songs, all legal but mostly from my CD collection. once i transfer it to the cloud, and i don't get an new music on CD next year, would i still have to pay the 25$?

Because you are paying for the "service" of Apple doing all the work for you. Just like paying for any other kind of "service" that makes life easier/more fun than the old fashioned way.

nemaslov
Jun 6, 2011, 02:59 PM
can anyone answer the following.

when the subscription is up, do we still have access to the matched music locally? just not over the cloud?

when is this service available?

I would assume if you end your subscription, you just lose cloud access, You still have your songs on your computer but would not be able to play them via WIFI on other devises without the old syncing method.

uva25
Jun 6, 2011, 02:59 PM
At the very least, you can look at this as professionally, off-site backing up of your entire music library for $24.99/year. Seems pretty good to me. I do question what happens if you cancel the service in say 2 years. Will these versions (especially the converted ripped versions) still work.

teme
Jun 6, 2011, 03:00 PM
can anyone answer the following.

when the subscription is up, do we still have access to the matched music locally? just not over the cloud?

when is this service available?

You still have all the tracks in your local iTunes library. If I have understood correctly, iTunes Match allows you to stream matched tracks from cloud (and if they aren't available on iTunes, they are uploaded to the cloud) iTunes Match doesn't do nothing to your local library (it doesn't replace or delete any of your local files, it just uses those tracks to build up your cloud library). Apple's iCloud page says it's available in fall.

lilcosco08
Jun 6, 2011, 03:00 PM
This was a crappy "one more thing"

oclor
Jun 6, 2011, 03:00 PM
This is absolutely WORTHLESS!

I was so excited for this because I ran out of space on both my iPad and iPhone but now they are telling me all this does is store it in the cloud so i can DOWNLOAD it on different devices??? So it's just a backup???

I though I was going to be able to STREAM my music and photos so that they don't take so much space on my iPad/iPhone

Oh and I paid $99 to extend my mobileme subscription last month, thinking that when this came out I would just be compensated with extra storage, but they don't even seem to offer extra storage (not that storage is useful for anything anyways with this model)

I'm a die hard apple fan and this is the first time I have been very disappointed with them. This just doesn't make any sense, I don't see the point in it at all!

baleensavage
Jun 6, 2011, 03:00 PM
So, putting the pieces together, you get this for free with songs you bought from Apple. And iOS5 syncs on Wifi free.

So really, what you are paying for is an online backup (in 256K quality) of your iTunes library for $25 per year. In the grand scheme of things, that's not too shabby of a deal. And you get the added bonus of being able to sync your music over the cloud.

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.

sishaw
Jun 6, 2011, 03:00 PM
If they don't have your song you can upload yours and they'll store it.

I think Ericinboston is worried that he would have to do an excessive amount of uploading.

saxon48
Jun 6, 2011, 03:00 PM
US only? Apple doesn't seem to care much about other countries if they don't even mention such relevant facts in their keynote.

But the US is left out of the loop with stuff like Spotify...

Sackvillenb
Jun 6, 2011, 03:01 PM
I don't mind the price at all, $25 for a year is nothing. Compare that to $15 a months for a dumb game like Wow!!! (no offense to wow players... well, not too much offense anyway).

But I wonder how extensive their catalog is... I'm sure it has a lot of common music... but I listen to a lot of death metal and black metal, among other things... I wonder how much of that they have? :D

Bear
Jun 6, 2011, 03:01 PM
why is it per year?
once you upload/match you ripped library, wouldn't it become the same as a purchased library?
my library has about 5000 songs, all legal but mostly from my CD collection. once i transfer it to the cloud, and i don't get an new music on CD next year, would i still have to pay the 25$?You're paying for disk storage and data transfer. You know stuff Apple has to pay for.

OllyW
Jun 6, 2011, 03:01 PM
I wonder... can this be viewed as a one-time upgrade fee? In other words, will I lose access to my matched songs if I don't renew ever year?

He said there was no DRM on the upgraded songs.

sishaw
Jun 6, 2011, 03:01 PM
my guess is it will be with the ablity to purchase more space later on.
Also knowing Google the beta will be years long. Just like Gmail was in "beta" for years. Right now Google Music shows a fair number of beta bugs but for the most part works great.

The record companies will not allow that to happen, they will insist on being paid. Google may fight it longer than most, but not forever.

d0minick
Jun 6, 2011, 03:02 PM
I will say this.

Can the big music execs, who are on contract with Apple, resist the urge to force content matches for pirated music.

I hope apple addresses the privacy issues of this neat feature.

If this is private as long as you pay, then I do feel that the big music execs have finally found a way to make money on pirated music.

teme
Jun 6, 2011, 03:03 PM
At the very least, you can look at this as professionally, off-site backing up of your entire music library for $24.99/year. Seems pretty good to me. I do question what happens if you cancel the service in say 2 years. Will these versions (especially the converted ripped versions) still work.

It's not exactly back-up, because obviously you can only stream tracks from iTunes Match cloud, not download them to your computer. You still have to keep all the local files safe. After cancelling the service, you still have all the tracks in your local iTunes library, you just can't stream them from iTunes Match cloud.

repoman27
Jun 6, 2011, 03:03 PM
How long before someone figures out how to create 25,000 random files with the proper metadata to trick iTunes into providing up to 10 devices with 256 kbps AAC DRM-free tracks?

nemaslov
Jun 6, 2011, 03:04 PM
My questions.

I assume you can get your ripped music in the cloud but it wouldn't replace the stuff on your iTunes library without you manually doing it.

I have plenty of high bit rate MP3s that I ripped from FLAC & EAC, I wouldn't want the Cloud service to just overwrite my stuff.

But how you get it on your main iTunes library is a mystery.
Maybe they won't let you but why do they specifically mention DRM free?

Also, does it work with ITunes on PC/Macs?
Example, If I am at work, and I fire iTunes up on my PC desktop and my MacBook Pro, will I see all my music available to me?
That would be a winner for me.

Nothing overwrites what YOU HAVE/OWN. This just allows you to play those songs via WIFI on other devices. It does not download back to you more files. It's a bit like streaming radio.

You keep what you have.

Worf
Jun 6, 2011, 03:04 PM
The record companies will not allow that to happen, they will insist on being paid. Google may fight it longer than most, but not forever.

Google was insistent on allowing pirated music and in the end. when the deals fell apart, it only benefited :apple: in agreeing to the iTunes match service with the record companies.

nemaslov
Jun 6, 2011, 03:05 PM
This is absolutely WORTHLESS!

I was so excited for this because I ran out of space on both my iPad and iPhone but now they are telling me all this does is store it in the cloud so i can DOWNLOAD it on different devices??? So it's just a backup???

I though I was going to be able to STREAM my music and photos so that they don't take so much space on my iPad/iPhone

Oh and I paid $99 to extend my mobileme subscription last month, thinking that when this came out I would just be compensated with extra storage, but they don't even seem to offer extra storage (not that storage is useful for anything anyways with this model)

I'm a die hard apple fan and this is the first time I have been very disappointed with them. This just doesn't make any sense, I don't see the point in it at all!

It does NOT download music so you don't need the storage. Read it closer

Rodimus Prime
Jun 6, 2011, 03:05 PM
why is it per year?
once you upload/match you ripped library, wouldn't it become the same as a purchased library?
my library has about 5000 songs, all legal but mostly from my CD collection. once i transfer it to the cloud, and i don't get an new music on CD next year, would i still have to pay the 25$?
And you hit it on the head why I call it DOA. For something of your size there you have several free choices. Like Amazon Cloud drive or Google Music. Both would serve you great.

Why pay 25 a year for things that everywhere else will be free. Only reason I am even tempted to pay 25 for a 1 time fee is to remove the Apple DRM from a 318 songs. Heck of a lot cheaper than paying the upgrade price for them.
The record companies will not allow that to happen, they will insist on being paid. Google may fight it longer than most, but not forever.

The thing is both Google and Amazon are using a loop hole that the record company can not do anything about. It is all the users own song uploaded to the respective cloud.
Biggest given proof of this is the fact that there has not been any law suit filed against either one of them.

teme
Jun 6, 2011, 03:07 PM
Why pay 25 a year for things that everywhere else will be free. Only reason I am even tempted to pay 25 for a 1 time fee is to remove the Apple DRM from a 318 songs. Heck of a lot cheaper than paying the upgrade price for them.

iTunes Match doesn't remove DRM from your local files. You can stream them from iTunes Match cloud with better iTunes Plus quality, but your local files stay untouched.

iEvolution
Jun 6, 2011, 03:08 PM
You know what concerns me? His comment about trying to get rid of file systems locally.

I think we are approaching the end of capacity upgrades for the entire iOS eco-system & iPods.

I was hoping for a sneak upgrade of the iPod Classic to 220GB, but alas nope. :(

oclor
Jun 6, 2011, 03:09 PM
It does NOT download music so you don't need the storage. Read it closer

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?

jeff526
Jun 6, 2011, 03:09 PM
what happens if your local library becomes unavailable - hard drive dies.
Can you then download the Match as well as the Unmatched songs?
Or do the songs become unavaible?

cav23j
Jun 6, 2011, 03:09 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?

if you seen the keynote
it says nothing about giving the option to stream songs
only to download them onto another device

Rodimus Prime
Jun 6, 2011, 03:10 PM
iTunes Match doesn't remove DRM from your local files. You can stream them from iTunes Match cloud with better iTunes Plus quality, but your local files stay untouched.

suggest you go read about it again
Songs that are matched are upgraded to 256KBps, AAC, DRM-free, with all the benefits above, including push syncing and all the rest.

Don't panic
Jun 6, 2011, 03:10 PM
You're paying for disk storage and data transfer. You know stuff Apple has to pay for.

yes, i understand that for the first year, but once the match job is done, there is no more disk storage and data transfer than with the purchased songs.
besides, the storage is really only for the unmatched uploaded songs, any song that is matched, they already have it stored so there is no additional space used.

if both me and you have legally purchased/matched 'let it be', apple doesn't store it for us twice, it just gives us both access to the stored one.

which is also why they upgrade it to whatever their database quality is.

iEvolution
Jun 6, 2011, 03:13 PM
Well thats nice..I can't get the latest iTunes because I run 64-bit windows.

EricNau
Jun 6, 2011, 03:13 PM
He said there was no DRM on the upgraded songs.
I wonder how/if they prevent duplicate songs (both original and upgraded versions) from appearing on your computer.

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 03:14 PM
suggest you go read about it again

What if I don't want my files 'upgraded' to 256 AAC because I ripped all my music in LAME V0?

uva25
Jun 6, 2011, 03:14 PM
It's not exactly back-up, because obviously you can only stream tracks from iTunes Match cloud, not download them to your computer. You still have to keep all the local files safe. After cancelling the service, you still have all the tracks in your local iTunes library, you just can't stream them from iTunes Match cloud.
The way I read it, not all your music is uploaded to the cloud (only unmatched music) but all music on the cloud is available to download to any of your devices so if all your devices are destroyed, you can buy a new device and instantly download all of the music from the cloud to that device.

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 03:15 PM
The way I read it, not all your music is uploaded to the cloud (only unmatched music) but all music on the cloud is available to download to any of your devices so if all your devices are destroyed, you can buy a new device and instantly download all of the music from the cloud to that device.

What if you music library is larger than what your device can fit? I assume there's a way to decide what you want to download to your device?

saxon48
Jun 6, 2011, 03:16 PM
Any working links yet for iTunes 10.3?

oclor
Jun 6, 2011, 03:18 PM
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

tylerhbrown
Jun 6, 2011, 03:19 PM
This does nothing for me and my full 32 gig iphone. Looks like I won't be canceling my rdio subscription anytime soon.
THB

smiddlehurst
Jun 6, 2011, 03:19 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.

Uh, you have remembered that Google Music is only free WHILE IN BETA right? Oh, and I've got no problem with the charge for iTunes Match as:

a) a lot of content uploaded WILL be pirated and they're effectively licencing it all when you do upload.

b) iTunes content ripped at lower bitrates effectively gets a free upgrade without having to spend the time re-ripping

c) most importantly, I don't have to spend WEEKS (and I'm lucky, unlimited uploads, most would have to batch this over months) uploading my data and clogging my internet connection in the process. That's easily worth $25.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 6, 2011, 03:19 PM
What if I don't want my files 'upgraded' to 256 AAC because I ripped all my music in LAME V0?

that is a good question. I am not an audio phob so that not the big deal. My bigger issue would be my library size growing a lot over night.

Don't panic
Jun 6, 2011, 03:20 PM
What if I don't want my files 'upgraded' to 256 AAC because I ripped all my music in LAME V0?

i would assume you are out of luck then.
there is no physical backup of the matched music. basically you get access to the selected titles in THEIR library.
it might be different with the upload part, but i doubt it, i think the upload, on their sides will be standardized to 256 AAC.

Zimmy68
Jun 6, 2011, 03:22 PM
The record companies will not allow that to happen, they will insist on being paid. Google may fight it longer than most, but not forever.

As long as Google doesn't store a "proxy" version of your songs, there is nothing the record companies can do about it.

haravikk
Jun 6, 2011, 03:22 PM
I'm assuming here that the catch is that iTunes Match will be the only way to activate iTunes over iCloud. Without iTunes Match iCloud won't let you sync your music via the cloud, so you have to do it manually; not a big deal sure, but it's the hook they're hoping to keep you paying with.

So the point is that you pay the yearly fee (even just for a year), and instead of uploading all your songs to iCloud, they try to match as many of them to existing copies that they have. When you sync another device it'll just pull the iTunes copies of the music detected on your other machines. Presumably you'll also be able to sync your source machine as well so any poor copies of the music can be replaced with the iTunes copies, though I'm curious to know what it'll do with tracks you have that are already "better" (since it can be subjective, and higher bit-rate might not mean a better copy), maybe it'll give you the option to replace it as you like?

Only songs that aren't found on iTunes will be uploaded to iCloud as a result.


This can be seen in several ways; they're giving a way to minimise the amount of stuff you have to upload to iCloud, making for faster syncing and less space used-up on your iCloud account and you're getting (probably) better copies of music that you've ripped from CD's or… elsewhere.


All in all it seems like win-win to me. I don't actually have any devices to sync with, but I'll happily buy a year's worth just to update poor copies of music that I have that I imported ages ago, or bought back in the iTunes music store's infancy.


I hope though that it will allow streaming for songs that either aren't synced yet, or that you simply can't fit, as my computer has way more music than even a high-end iPad could hold, so what would happen then? I'd hope I could set aside 10gb for music on my iPad, and iTunes would only locally store the ones I listen to most, and stream any others that don't fit, or something like that anyway.

reactions
Jun 6, 2011, 03:25 PM
i dont get it - u cant stream?

what's the point

Gasu E.
Jun 6, 2011, 03:25 PM
SJobs said 20,000 because that is the number that google will allow you to upload into Google Music. He was digging directly at google.

Is there really a limit of 25,000? I would be surprised.

I imagine this is just for the short-term. They will probably provide an upgraded service once they see how well this one works out.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 6, 2011, 03:25 PM
Uh, you have remembered that Google Music is only free WHILE IN BETA right? They've already said they're going to charge later on, we just don't know what that'll be. Oh, and I've got no problem with the charge as:

a) a lot of content uploaded WILL be pirated and they're effectively licencing it all when you do upload.

b) iTunes content ripped at lower bitrates effectively gets a free upgrade without having to spend the time re-ripping

c) most importantly, I don't have to spend WEEKS (and I'm lucky, unlimited uploads, most would have to batch this over months) uploading my data and clogging my internet connection in the process. That's easily worth $25.

A) true
b) but you have to spend the time redownloading everything and then loss a huge amount of space on your Hard drive to it. For me 128-160kbps is fine and I can not really tell the difference going higher. Just more space is sucked up. Remember in music file quality you get deminsiong returns very quickly for size increases.

c) weeks? I had 35gigs uploaded in 3-4 days with Google servers being slammed so I was not even getting close to my max upload speeds and I was also keeping it low during the day so not to mess hurt anyone else at home on the network. I estimate I was running at 0.25-0.5 Mbps when my upload speed maxes out at around 2Mbps and that was during the night when I released the reins. During the day it was limited to 128kbps.

jeremiah256
Jun 6, 2011, 03:26 PM
So how does this affect our Mobile Me subscriptions? Do we still get to keep our 20 GBs and/or is the balance of our subscription used for iTunes Match?

uva25
Jun 6, 2011, 03:27 PM
yes, i understand that for the first year, but once the match job is done, there is no more disk storage and data transfer than with the purchased songs.
besides, the storage is really only for the unmatched uploaded songs, any song that is matched, they already have it stored so there is no additional space used.

if both me and you have legally purchased/matched 'let it be', apple doesn't store it for us twice, it just gives us both access to the stored one.

which is also why they upgrade it to whatever their database quality is.
True but the basic fact is that you can look at it that they are storing your music and keeping it available for you to download at any time. Yes, they are gaining mass efficiencies of scall but from my standpoint, it sure beats keeping a backup hard drive updated...and off site.

What if you music library is larger than what your device can fit? I assume there's a way to decide what you want to download to your device?

Yes, I would assume it would work like it does know where you check off what you want to sync to your device.

redfirebird08
Jun 6, 2011, 03:31 PM
You know what concerns me? His comment about trying to get rid of file systems locally.

I think we are approaching the end of capacity upgrades for the entire iOS eco-system & iPods.

I was hoping for a sneak upgrade of the iPod Classic to 220GB, but alas nope. :(


I have a 80 GB Classic that I am happy with, but I am waiting on a 100+ gig iPod Touch. Hopefully they will still end up making one with that capacity when flash prices become more affordable.

MarsDude
Jun 6, 2011, 03:32 PM
My wife and I now share an apple-id on our iPhones (and on our family-iPad). Good thing about it is: 1-time purchase of apps.

Now if we want to use the iCloud, we have to buy our apps 3 times probably, as every device needs his own apple-id account. This because my wife and I don't want to sync everything with eachother, and the iPad is for family use.

How about the Match service? This seems to be connected to your apple-id... Do we need to pay 3 x 24,99 if I, my wife and maybe later on my son, want to access the music on another location?

We could ofcourse get 1 'home' account for the music and match, but that way it would be a bit clunky as I'd have to log in to a different account on my MacBook to get the music in our Shared library. And no other device could take advantage of the service.

Lots of questions...

lilo777
Jun 6, 2011, 03:32 PM
This is absolutely WORTHLESS!

I was so excited for this because I ran out of space on both my iPad and iPhone but now they are telling me all this does is store it in the cloud so i can DOWNLOAD it on different devices??? So it's just a backup???

I though I was going to be able to STREAM my music and photos so that they don't take so much space on my iPad/iPhone

Oh and I paid $99 to extend my mobileme subscription last month, thinking that when this came out I would just be compensated with extra storage, but they don't even seem to offer extra storage (not that storage is useful for anything anyways with this model)

I'm a die hard apple fan and this is the first time I have been very disappointed with them. This just doesn't make any sense, I don't see the point in it at all!

But remember, Apple is in this business to sell you hardware. They overcharge people big time when they sell them flash memory manufactured by Samsung. Now that it's easier to sync your music between different devices you will have an incentive to maximize storage on all Apple devices that you buy. BTW, is iCloud really just a simple sync app?

baleensavage
Jun 6, 2011, 03:33 PM
So how does this affect our Mobile Me subscriptions? Do we still get to keep our 20 GBs and/or is the balance of our subscription used for iTunes Match?
iTunes match has nothing to do with your MobileMe subscription. This is a new feature/product that they are offering. Your MobileMe subscription is being replaced by iCloud and Apple did not address how that will be transitioned or what will happen to iDisk and the e-mail addresses.

slu
Jun 6, 2011, 03:33 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

So Lala for 25 bucks a year? I am ok with that.

Dagless
Jun 6, 2011, 03:34 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.

essinger
Jun 6, 2011, 03:34 PM
I don't really see this as all that great of deal. I mean for a little more money you can subscribe to Napster and get 6 MILLION songs and you don't have to match anything. I guess if the only music you like is the stuff you already got then it is alright.

extradryny
Jun 6, 2011, 03:34 PM
if both me and you have legally purchased/matched 'let it be', apple doesn't store it for us twice, it just gives us both access to the stored one.

which is also why they upgrade it to whatever their database quality is.

So is the reverse true then? That if Apple matches a lossless file, then I can only download a lossy iTunes version to my other iOS devices?

If that's the case, then for me iCloud is neither a library backup nor a library streamer, and its utility is unclear so far.

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 03:35 PM
iTunes match has nothing to do with your MobileMe subscription. This is a new feature/product that they are offering. Your MobileMe subscription is being replaced by iCloud and Apple did not address how that will be transitioned or what will happen to iDisk and the e-mail addresses.

MobileMe accounts are extended through June 2012, free of charge. Read about it at http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4597

baleensavage
Jun 6, 2011, 03:36 PM
My wife and I now share an apple-id on our iPhones (and on our family-iPad). Good thing about it is: 1-time purchase of apps.

Now if we want to use the iCloud, we have to buy our apps 3 times probably, as every device needs his own apple-id account. This because my wife and I don't want to sync everything with eachother, and the iPad is for family use.

iCloud lets you use 10 devices. So you actually are better off with iCloud than you were before when you were limited to 5 devices.

ciTiger
Jun 6, 2011, 03:39 PM
US Only? I hope that changes soon...

scott911
Jun 6, 2011, 03:41 PM
One vary positive thing I'm taking away is that Apple appears to be recognizing the value of higher quality files for music. And I only noticed one weiner saying he couldn't tell the difference in recording over 128 - 160 kpbs.

:D

H. Flower
Jun 6, 2011, 03:42 PM
Why no music streaming? What's the point of this beyond backup?

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 03:42 PM
One vary positive thing I'm taking away is that Apple appears to be recognizing the value of higher quality files for music. And I only noticed one weiner saying he couldn't tell the difference in recording over 128 - 160 kpbs.

:D

He probably listens exclusively on his apple earbuds so he can't tell the difference. :p

MarsDude
Jun 6, 2011, 03:44 PM
iCloud lets you use 10 devices. So you actually are better off with iCloud than you were before when you were limited to 5 devices.

But it syncs between all those 10 devices right? So the picture I took of a gift for my wifes birthday gets synced with her iPhone and she knows what she'll get. She needs a separate account then. So we have to buy our apps twice... Or am I missing something?

saxon48
Jun 6, 2011, 03:45 PM
One vary positive thing I'm taking away is that Apple appears to be recognizing the value of higher quality files for music. And I only noticed one weiner saying he couldn't tell the difference in recording over 128 - 160 kpbs.

:D

Definitely this. 256kbps AAC is a very stable quality. Sure, it's not FLAC (which would be a horrifically bad idea for a cloud service), but it will definitely suit the needs of most users.

colourfulclock
Jun 6, 2011, 03:46 PM
"iCloud lets you pirate all the music you wish Ė for $24.99 a year"

Interesting article, check it out here (http://www.startupproject.org/2011/06/icloud/).

seamer
Jun 6, 2011, 03:47 PM
This is absolutely WORTHLESS!

I was so excited for this because I ran out of space on both my iPad and iPhone but now they are telling me all this does is store it in the cloud so i can DOWNLOAD it on different devices??? So it's just a backup???

I though I was going to be able to STREAM my music and photos so that they don't take so much space on my iPad/iPhone

Oh and I paid $99 to extend my mobileme subscription last month, thinking that when this came out I would just be compensated with extra storage, but they don't even seem to offer extra storage (not that storage is useful for anything anyways with this model)

I'm a die hard apple fan and this is the first time I have been very disappointed with them. This just doesn't make any sense, I don't see the point in it at all!

As a die hard Apple fan, you knew MobileMe was on its way out. You only have yourself to blame for that. But since Apple is always cool on stuff that's purchased less than a month before an overhaul, I'd bet you can get a refund.

Blu-Ray
Jun 6, 2011, 03:48 PM
I'm very, very curious about what will be used for the matching logic....

nemaslov
Jun 6, 2011, 03:48 PM
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?
NO those files don't live on your devise they live on the cloud. You "play" from the cloud.

MattG
Jun 6, 2011, 03:51 PM
I don't really see this as all that great of deal. I mean for a little more money you can subscribe to Napster and get 6 MILLION songs and you don't have to match anything. I guess if the only music you like is the stuff you already got then it is alright.

Because at the end of the day, I don't own my music with Napster. With this system, I do. If I decide to tell Apple "******* you" and cancel my subscription, I still have my music.

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 03:52 PM
NO those files don't live on your devise they live on the cloud. You "play" from the cloud.

I'm confused. Where on Apple's website does it say you can stream your music from the cloud? It sounds like you can sync (a.k.a. download) your songs from the cloud but you can't simply stream songs. There's a big difference.

nemaslov
Jun 6, 2011, 03:53 PM
HEY!

You are NOT downloading the song files on your other devises so you don't need a lot of storage space- [robaly just the song names. . You are just playing those songs you already own at home on your computer. The cloud stores the music. That same friggin one copy of Free Bird is for all those millions of people who want to play it.

MarsDude
Jun 6, 2011, 03:53 PM
iCloud lets you use 10 devices. So you actually are better off with iCloud than you were before when you were limited to 5 devices.

Or maybe you can get a separate iCloud id but can still use the same id for the app-store purchases...

ericinboston
Jun 6, 2011, 03:54 PM
if you seen the keynote
it says nothing about giving the option to stream songs
only to download them onto another device

Thanks...well then I am laughing very hard now!!!

Jobs says that the Cloud is not a big hard drive and that it's so much more. Really Jobs?

If I can't stream off the Cloud, then what's the point?!...it IS just a big hard drive if all it's gonna do is "sync" (another word for download/upload/transfer).

Sheeeez. This is pretty lame if I can't stream. My local iTunes manages my 3 iOS devices just fine via "sync" thanks.

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 03:54 PM
HEY!

You are NOT downloading the song files on your other devises so you don't need a lot of storage space- [robaly just the song names. . You are just playing those songs you already own at home on your computer. The cloud stores the music. That same friggin one copy of Free Bird is for all those millions of people who want to play it.

So if I don't have access to wifi or 3g on my iphone then I essentially have no music on my phone?

If I have some songs synced on my iphone but play the rest from the cloud do I know where the song is being played from?

ericinboston
Jun 6, 2011, 03:55 PM
For all you posters asking about pirated music...PLEASE DEFINE PIRATED MUSIC.

oclor
Jun 6, 2011, 03:56 PM
NO those files don't live on your devise they live on the cloud. You "play" from the cloud.

You are wrong. Where are you getting this information from? There is no streaming, no "playing" from the cloud. iCloud is simply storage, so it's music that you have access to and by "access" they mean you can download them.

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 03:56 PM
For all you posters asking about pirated music...PLEASE DEFINE PIRATED MUSIC.

Music you didn't pay for? :confused:

Cander
Jun 6, 2011, 03:57 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.

Boy are you going to be surprised when Google Music goes out of beta.

essinger
Jun 6, 2011, 03:58 PM
Because at the end of the day, I don't own my music with Napster. With this system, I do. If I decide to tell Apple "******* you" and cancel my subscription, I still have my music.

Yeah, but it is worth pointing out that if you cancel Napster you still have the same music! Because you aren't getting any new music from this service.

vnowarita
Jun 6, 2011, 03:58 PM
anyone else messing with icloud on iPhone. I just unjailbroke for the heck of it and I see all these app updates and notice that the cloud is next to all of them. It also looked at purchases on iTunes and just threw on Rolling Stones Exile I had purchased last year. Friggin sweet!:D

Blu-Ray
Jun 6, 2011, 03:58 PM
NO those files don't live on your devise they live on the cloud. You "play" from the cloud.The files live on the cloud AND your devices (unless you choose not to download a specific music file on a specific device). The music files are not "streamed" to the devices. They have to be downloaded before you can play them.

ericinboston
Jun 6, 2011, 03:58 PM
Music you didn't pay for? :confused:

That may be your definition...but just because you didn't pay for the song (say you ripped it from a friend's cd or even downloaded the mp3 from an FTP site), what are people worried about? There's nothing in the MP3 that says "I'm pirated!!! Help!! Help!! Sue this person now!!!"

How in the world would Apple know if your mp3 of Borderline by Madonna is "pirated"?

If I sync my iPod to the same machine as my dad's and grab his music, is that pirating? What if I get a cd for my birthday?

All I'm saying is there are a LOT of posts on here about people asking about pirated music but not defining at all the scenario they are worried about.

imahawki
Jun 6, 2011, 04:00 PM
So if I don't have access to wifi or 3g on my iphone then I essentially have no music on my phone?

If I have some songs synced on my iphone but play the rest from the cloud do I know where the song is being played from?

Or if you're data is capped etc. There are a LOT of unanswered questions about this service. I can see people wanting streaming but frankly streaming does me NO good. My iPad is wi-fi only and its only a matter of time before ALL cellular data plans are capped. I'm not eating up my entire cap listening to music.

Also, no one gets AT&T service in my suite in the office here so if it were ONLY streaming they would now have no songs on their iPod/iPhone?

imahawki
Jun 6, 2011, 04:02 PM
That may be your definition...but just because you didn't pay for the song (say you ripped it from a friend's cd or even downloaded the mp3 from an FTP site), what are people worried about? There's nothing in the MP3 that says "I'm pirated!!! Help!! Help!! Sue this person now!!!"

This is the definition of piracy. Are you messing with us? How do YOU define pirated? Pirated music is music distributed in violation of copyright laws. That includes downloaded music that wasn't paid for and which the distribution wasn't authorized by the content owner as well as copying a friend's CD.

bushido
Jun 6, 2011, 04:02 PM
already working with my US account, nothing on my german account as expected :mad:

i wonder if i can pay those 25 $ with a giftcard as i'm not an american citizen (which apple doesnt know) and would get a friend of mine to buy me a US giftcard ^^ if i need a credit card, then i'm screwed i guess :(

lavarae
Jun 6, 2011, 04:05 PM
How in the world would Apple know if your mp3 of Borderline by Madonna is "pirated"?

For that matter, how would Apple know if 3min of silence called Borderline by Madonna isn't what it claims to be. Could you sneak in such sound files and get a real match?

tatonka
Jun 6, 2011, 04:05 PM
already working with my US account, nothing on my german account as expected :mad:

i wonder if i can pay those 25 $ with a giftcard as i'm not an american citizen (which apple doesnt know) and would get a friend of mine to buy me a US giftcard ^^ if i need a credit card, then i'm screwed i guess :(

you can also get your friend to buy you a pre paid visa card in that case. Works like a regular one (is indistinguishable for the vendor I believe) ..
edit
Actually .. I am not sure that helps in this case as Apple is checking the Adress I think

T

Cougarcat
Jun 6, 2011, 04:07 PM
I think this is a good first step. Streaming will come in time. Personally, I don't really care about streaming, as my devices all have more than enough space for my tunes.

ericinboston
Jun 6, 2011, 04:08 PM
For that matter, how would Apple know if 3min of silence called Borderline by Madonna isn't what it claims to be. Could you sneak in such sound files and get a real match?

If the iCloud/iTunes software was poorly written and didn't check for dead space. I'm sure there's some kind of basic algorithm for title/artist/length/file size as well as what the song sounds like (ever use Shazam? check it out if not)

tatonka
Jun 6, 2011, 04:08 PM
For that matter, how would Apple know if 3min of silence called Borderline by Madonna isn't what it claims to be. Could you sneak in such sound files and get a real match?

maybe something along the lines of shazam to detect the music? Should at least be enough to exclude empty songs.

T.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 6, 2011, 04:09 PM
Boy are you going to be surprised when Google Music goes out of beta.

you really have not follow Google for very long. Go look up how long stuff stays in beta at Google then get back to me. If it comes out of beta in the next 5 years I will be shocked. Gmail for example was in beta for over 5 years. It was in 2009 when it dropped that tag and Gmail had been around since 2003-2004 and pretty mucn anyone could have it since 2004.

osx11
Jun 6, 2011, 04:10 PM
Can't wait for iTunes Match approved File sharing sites to pop up. :rolleyes:

Blu-Ray
Jun 6, 2011, 04:10 PM
First person to accurately explain how the matching service works wins a prize of immeasurable value. ;)

imahawki
Jun 6, 2011, 04:11 PM
First person to accurately to explain how the matching works wins a prize of immeasurable value. ;)
LOL, yeah, a lot of speculation going on and a lot of people saying things that are explicitly in conflict with what was said in the keynote.

idd
Jun 6, 2011, 04:12 PM
Or if you're data is capped etc. There are a LOT of unanswered questions about this service. I can see people wanting streaming but frankly streaming does me NO good. My iPad is wi-fi only and its only a matter of time before ALL cellular data plans are capped. I'm not eating up my entire cap listening to music.

Also, no one gets AT&T service in my suite in the office here so if it were ONLY streaming they would now have no songs on their iPod/iPhone?

I exclusively stream all of my music through Rhapsody. It has it's flaws but being able to "add" dozens of albums for $10/mo can't be beat IMO.

I have over 1000 songs in my library that I set to shuffle and listen to at home, on the way to and from work, and at work. I absolutely love it.

However, I also have a ton of music in iTunes that can't be found on Rhapsody like mashups, nerdcore, remixes, etc.

I was really hoping that I could dump Rhapsody, upload all of my one-offs to the cloud, and abuse iTunes like I do with Rhapsody now.

Looks like I'll have to stick with what I've got...

tigres
Jun 6, 2011, 04:12 PM
* Raises Hand :D

People, sorry for the ignorance here but:

if I have idevices that are 16gb, or 32 GB and and iTunes lib. at 750GB, how does this help me?

Better yet, do we with large library's need this?:confused:

Thanks all.

marksman
Jun 6, 2011, 04:14 PM
I think Ericinboston is worried that he would have to do an excessive amount of uploading.

KInd of like if you use the Amazon or google options, which some people here are weirdly claiming are a better deal... People Be Crazy.

lavarae
Jun 6, 2011, 04:16 PM
If the iCloud/iTunes software was poorly written and didn't check for dead space. I'm sure there's some kind of basic algorithm for title/artist/length/file size as well as what the song sounds like (ever use Shazam? check it out if not)

No, will do though.

I was thinking it would be like Genius playlist, it's just analyse your library, isn't that what he said.

AaronEdwards
Jun 6, 2011, 04:17 PM
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.

jmw1480
Jun 6, 2011, 04:19 PM
This is absolutely WORTHLESS!

I though I was going to be able to STREAM my music and photos so that they don't take so much space on my iPad/iPhone



I agree. I was hoping that this would give my 16gb iPhone more access to my 1TB desktop and all its music than just the ability to re-download it there. A great initial concept and step towards integration, but hopefully there's a streaming cloud service in the future.

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 04:19 PM
* Raises Hand :D

People, sorry for the ignorance here but:

if I have idevices that are 16gb, or 32 GB and and iTunes lib. at 750GB, how does this help me?

Better yet, do we with large library's need this?:confused:

Thanks all.

Exactly. Which is why I keep asking about the streaming. I'd fill my 32GB iphone with what I want most and stream the rest. If I don't have internet connection then I can still listen to what I have on the phone itself.

I was really hoping for a solution where I could just stream from my home machine. Basically, my own cloud. Similar to the StreamToMe app but integrated with the native ipod app.

bushido
Jun 6, 2011, 04:22 PM
something that came to my mind. let's say there's a new song of "Pitbull" on iTunes but u dont actually have the song. What stops u from tagging a completely different Pitbull song as the one and u get it for free? ^^

redfirebird08
Jun 6, 2011, 04:23 PM
anyone else messing with icloud on iPhone. I just unjailbroke for the heck of it and I see all these app updates and notice that the cloud is next to all of them. It also looked at purchases on iTunes and just threw on Rolling Stones Exile I had purchased last year. Friggin sweet!:D


Are you able to stream it or did you have to download it to your iPhone before playing it?

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 04:23 PM
something that came to my mind. let's say there's a new song of "Pitbull" on iTunes but u dont actually have the song. What stops u from tagging a completely different Pitbull song as the one and u get it for free? ^^

That won't work. I can almost guarantee apple won't simply be checking your tags to verify the song. I'm guessing there will be some spectral analysis of some sort to make sure it matches up.

marksman
Jun 6, 2011, 04:24 PM
How long before someone figures out how to create 25,000 random files with the proper metadata to trick iTunes into providing up to 10 devices with 256 kbps AAC DRM-free tracks?

Not how they match songs. It is not just based on metadata.



I don't really see this as all that great of deal. I mean for a little more money you can subscribe to Napster and get 6 MILLION songs and you don't have to match anything. I guess if the only music you like is the stuff you already got then it is alright.

I GUESS $96 is a little more than $25.

milo
Jun 6, 2011, 04:27 PM
What about cases where you have more than 25k files? Would they charge you more or will you have the option to choose which ones are included in the cloud? I'm sure I'm over the limit but I have many that are only for reference that I wouldn't even want in the cloud. Along those same lines, are there ways to exclude files or playlists from sync/upload whether you're under the limit or not?

I definitely hope the match service works better than the one for album covers, that one works horribly for me.

It does NOT download music so you don't need the storage. Read it closer

Are you sure about that? The info makes it sound like it pushes the file to your machine, which would be a download. Doesn't sound like streaming at all, more like syncing over a network (including wireless).

Was anyone able to download the 10.3 beta yet and try it out? There's a huge difference between downloading authorized files on the fly and streaming and losing those copies if you cancel the service.

jprocha
Jun 6, 2011, 04:28 PM
1. If I sign up and it matches my ripped music, does it then let me download the matched version from iCloud to keep forever?

2. What happens when I stop paying for this service? Do I keep the downloaded music from iCloud or does it revert to my old copies of music?

Thanks!

AaronEdwards
Jun 6, 2011, 04:28 PM
Not how they match songs. It is not just based on metadata.





I GUESS $96 is a little more than $25.

Getting 6 million or 13 million songs is a bit expensive and hard for that matter. Unless you're a pirate.

Cagle
Jun 6, 2011, 04:29 PM
Piracy Laundry.... right there.

http://i.imgur.com/2XTAo.png

bushido
Jun 6, 2011, 04:31 PM
Was anyone able to download the 10.3 beta yet and try it out? There's a huge difference between downloading authorized files on the fly and streaming and losing those copies if you cancel the service.

u can test it on your iPhone already, it let me redownload all the songs i had ever downloaded on iTunes for free

Sparced
Jun 6, 2011, 04:31 PM
25,000 songs is not enough.

http://i.imgur.com/eyuIo.png

$49 unlimited maybe added in the future for the rest of us. :(

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 6, 2011, 04:32 PM
The thing is both Google and Amazon are using a loop hole that the record company can not do anything about. It is all the users own song uploaded to the respective cloud. Biggest given proof of this is the fact that there has not been any law suit filed against either one of them.

Patience. The big awards from copyright infringement lawsuits come from giving the infringers time to really rack up the numbers. For example, this Lodsys patent infringement move didn't come as soon as in app updates was announced or in the very first perceived infringement because there would hardly be any money to win from that. Instead, they stand by, let lots of players (potentially) infringe then bring the case.

Vs. Amazon & Google, the potential for infringe volume will be huge and thus the lawsuit settlement numbers can also be huge. Just stand by. The lawsuits will probably arrive in a year or two... when the potential prize is juicy enough to make multiple rounds of lawyer wars (and fees therein) still offer the potential for a net payoff.

The Norman
Jun 6, 2011, 04:34 PM
ALAC on my home server. AAC in iCloud for everywhere else. This still hasn't weaned me off CDs, though. When Apple starts selling Apple Lossless, CD's will finally die.

essinger
Jun 6, 2011, 04:35 PM
I GUESS $96 is a little more than $25.

In terms of cost per song it is about 240 times cheaper. I'm just saying at $25 you are already paying over a quarter of the cost and getting no new music whatsoever. For 4 times the cost you get better than 1000 times the music.

Eric S.
Jun 6, 2011, 04:36 PM
I'll stick with keeping my music on my own computer and syncing it myself, thank you very much.

I hope newer versions of iTunes will at least allow users to continue to do that. If not, I guess I freeze my iTunes version right where it is.

Blu-Ray
Jun 6, 2011, 04:36 PM
1. If I sign up and it matches my ripped music, does it then let me download the matched version from iCloud to keep forever?

2. What happens when I stop paying for this service? Do I keep the downloaded music from iCloud or does it revert to my old copies of music?

Thanks!
1) You HAVE TO download it and it is DRM-free, so I assume the logical answer is "YES".
2) You will be cancelling the matching service but already have a copy of the DRM-free file, so the logical answer is "YES, you get to keep the "upgraded version".

Disclaimer: I'm just answering based on how it sounds like it will work...

maroontiger2k9
Jun 6, 2011, 04:37 PM
i wonder how "iTunes Match" will manage scenarios where albums are partially recognized... but i think this is a sweet deal to be able to upload ANY and EVERY piece of music that you have as long as you dont exceed the storage capacity

milo
Jun 6, 2011, 04:38 PM
u can test it on your iPhone already, it let me redownload all the songs i had ever downloaded on iTunes for free

And they are downloaded to the phone, not streamed, correct?

Seems like people are mistakenly thinking it is streaming based on the rumors and not paying attention to what was actually announced.

AaronEdwards
Jun 6, 2011, 04:38 PM
Aren't iOS users more willing to pay than Android users?

This thread is filled with iOS users jubilant that they now think they can covert their illegally downloaded files.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 6, 2011, 04:41 PM
As long as Google doesn't store a "proxy" version of your songs, there is nothing the record companies can do about it.

I don't think so. If Google servers are hosting pirated media- even with some kind of "terms of service" that tries to distance it from user choices of what may be stored there, it is still potentially something the media owners could litigate via some interpretation of facilitating the use and/or distribution of pirated media.

Right now, if you upload a pirated copy of some movie or song and upload it to Google servers, you're a pirate in the eyes of the law. However, Google is like your ship where your loot is stored and used. The media owners can sue you but there won't be that much money in that. However, suing Google for all such copyright violations is probably going to add up to a big settlement dollar target.

This is why I was so sure that the Time Capsule rumor was going to be a piece of some kind of hybrid iCloud. The piece in NC would only work for legally verifiable iTunes store purchases while the home (TC) piece could store the rest of your media. Then, Apple servers are not potentially hosting pirated content for some users of iCloud. This would position their services as literally "arms length" from questionable media while Amazon & Googles digital locker approach would be much less defendable. I'm still pretty surprised that the TC piece wasn't a part of what was talked about today given just this single issue.

AaronEdwards
Jun 6, 2011, 04:41 PM
25,000 songs is not enough.

Image (http://i.imgur.com/eyuIo.png)

$49 unlimited maybe added in the future for the rest of us. :(

The number of people who got 25,000 digital songs stored that are either bought digitally or ripped, that's a rather small number.

To get up to 25,000 songs, generally, but not in all cases, there's piracy involved.

jprocha
Jun 6, 2011, 04:41 PM
1) You HAVE TO download it and it is DRM-free, so I assume the logical answer is "YES".
2) You will be cancelling the matching service but already have a copy of the DRM-free file, so the logical answer is "YES, you get to keep the "upgraded version".

Disclaimer: I'm just answering based on how it sounds like it will work...

Thanks! I'll probably wait for other people to try it first. I don't see a point in paying for it yearly because I purchase all my new music through iTunes. I just need this for my old stuff from CDs and Amazon.

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 04:42 PM
Aren't iOS users more willing to pay than Android users?

This thread is filled with iOS users jubilant that they now think they can covert their illegally downloaded files.

The problem is that most people who torrent music get files that are 256 kbps or better anyway so why bother converting?

bobob
Jun 6, 2011, 04:42 PM
I hope though that it will allow streaming for songs that either aren't synced yet, or that you simply can't fit, as my computer has way more music than even a high-end iPad could hold, so what would happen then? I'd hope I could set aside 10gb for music on my iPad, and iTunes would only locally store the ones I listen to most, and stream any others that don't fit, or something like that anyway.

This is a question that I would also like to hear the answer to.

jmw1480
Jun 6, 2011, 04:43 PM
And they are downloaded to the phone, not streamed, correct?

Seems like people are mistakenly thinking it is streaming based on the rumors and not paying attention to what was actually announced.

Question #2: SJ made a point to mention that it took minutes, not hours, to "upload" your library with iTunes Match, since it was esentially LOOKING at your library and not physically taking your files to the cloud (unless they aren't one of the 18 million Apple already owns).

HOWEVER, if you then have to physically DOWNLOAD those files - in the old-fasioned sense - won't that take a loooog time??

Especially over 3G... 25K songs? WHEW!

Cybbe
Jun 6, 2011, 04:45 PM
This is the definition of piracy. Are you messing with us? How do YOU define pirated? Pirated music is music distributed in violation of copyright laws. That includes downloaded music that wasn't paid for and which the distribution wasn't authorized by the content owner as well as copying a friend's CD.

Maybe in your jurisdiction. Out in the free world, we aren't slaves to the whims of corporate giants, and sharing cultural information among friends is legal. Anything else would be utterly disgusting and take us back to the dark ages.

Oh. I forgot. ..you wouldn't download a car..

codymac
Jun 6, 2011, 04:46 PM
I exclusively stream all of my music through Rhapsody. It has it's flaws but being able to "add" dozens of albums for $10/mo can't be beat IMO.

I have over 1000 songs in my library that I set to shuffle and listen to at home, on the way to and from work, and at work. I absolutely love it.

However, I also have a ton of music in iTunes that can't be found on Rhapsody like mashups, nerdcore, remixes, etc.

I was really hoping that I could dump Rhapsody, upload all of my one-offs to the cloud, and abuse iTunes like I do with Rhapsody now.

Looks like I'll have to stick with what I've got...

Me too... Fortunately, pulptunes works a treat for just this situation.

Streamed my library at a friend's dinner party last week.
:D

circusbass
Jun 6, 2011, 04:53 PM
So this isn't more than one big hd in the sky? If it doesn't stream then whats the point? Audiogalaxy FTW! That streams all my music from my computer free.

Eric S.
Jun 6, 2011, 04:53 PM
I'm very, very curious about what will be used for the matching logic....

I anticipate numerous glitches, if their track record on supplying album cover art for lesser known albums is any guide.

iTunes match has nothing to do with your MobileMe subscription. This is a new feature/product that they are offering. Your MobileMe subscription is being replaced by iCloud and Apple did not address how that will be transitioned or what will happen to iDisk and the e-mail addresses.

Actually they did: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4597

Essentially MobileMe lives until June 30 of next year, then it goes away completely and one is forced to sign up for iCloud (or not).

MacAddict1978
Jun 6, 2011, 04:54 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.


Google isn't upgrading 20K worth of songs either... it would cost you $25 in bandwith overage charges from your ISP to upload the 20K songs, and months of your life.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 6, 2011, 04:55 PM
1) You HAVE TO download it and it is DRM-free, so I assume the logical answer is "YES".
2) You will be cancelling the matching service but already have a copy of the DRM-free file, so the logical answer is "YES, you get to keep the "upgraded version".

Disclaimer: I'm just answering based on how it sounds like it will work...

I can't imagine that THIS can be right regardless of how it sounds. I can't imagine the pirates basically legitimizing their entire libraries (potentially thousands or tens of thousands of songs) for as little as a one-time fee of $24.99.

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.

sectime
Jun 6, 2011, 04:56 PM
Getting 6 million or 13 million songs is a bit expensive and hard for that matter. Unless you're a pirate.
The magic is ripping them all to one CD:o

MacAddict1978
Jun 6, 2011, 05:01 PM
thats really strange; everyone can now share ripped files and can legalize it afterwards ... fell a bit stupid to bought all songs over the years via iTunes ...

Yeah, don't think the idea to legitimize piracy, but reward those who actually purchased physical CD's. You can make it legitimize priated music, but you need to physically change ALL the meta-data in the info pane for the track to match the legit album just as you would need to do to have iTunes fetch the artwork. If you have an illegal 10,000 songs chances are the formatting is wrong in at least half of them. One wrong character nixes it being found.

I had legit things I ripped that I had to rename to make iTunes give me the artwork for. God bless anyone that will spend that time sorting through the meta data.

Sdevante
Jun 6, 2011, 05:02 PM
I tried it out on my iPad and all it does is let you download it to your iDevice. It does not let you stream, at least for previously purchased items. I am confident iTunes Match just does the same thing for your non-iTunes library.

MacAddict1978
Jun 6, 2011, 05:02 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?

It might do that. The fee is only for non-iTunes purchased music. So iTunes will scan your library anyway, and I'm sure they'd probably tell you some statistic to encourage you to pay the fee.

likemyorbs
Jun 6, 2011, 05:05 PM
I don't get it. What's the big difference with this and wireless syncing?

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 05:08 PM
I don't get it. What's the big difference with this and wireless syncing?

Wireless syncing is pretty much how it is now but you do it over your home network instead of over a USB cable. You're still syncing with your computer, not the cloud.

iCloud allows you to sync content via the cloud to all your devices no matter where you're at. It also pushes your synced content to other devices so it updates automatically without you needing to do anything.

cualexander
Jun 6, 2011, 05:08 PM
I'm pretty happy with Audiogalaxy right now. It scans my whole itunes library and offers it up to streaming to any device I have the Audiogalaxy app on, and it's free. It doesn't do protected songs, but that's a small percentage of my overall library. So my own cloud for free vs Apple giving me a cloud for $25/year... hmmm. I already have 5mbps upstream so I have all my videos, photos, songs, etc in my personal cloud as is. I also have 50mbps downstream so I remotely download stuff, it imports into my library and its in my cloud a few minutes later. Granted, I'm paying for all the bandwidth, but the system works pretty well as is. Audiogalaxy and Plex are all that's needed. And actually Plex will do music too, but I don't have it imported into there.

likemyorbs
Jun 6, 2011, 05:10 PM
Wireless syncing is pretty much how it is now but you do it over your home network instead of over a USB cable. You're still syncing with your computer, not the cloud.

iCloud allows you to sync content via the cloud to all your devices no matter where you're at. It also pushes your synced content to other devices so it updates automatically without you needing to do anything.

But if i download most of my music on my computer, would this make any sense for me to buy since i can quickly sync it anyway?

Blu-Ray
Jun 6, 2011, 05:12 PM
I can't imagine that THIS can be right regardless of how it sounds. I can't imagine the pirates basically legitimizing their entire libraries (potentially thousands or tens of thousands of songs) for as little as a one-time fee of $24.99.

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.LINK (http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/)(you are downloading the DRM-free music files):
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. Since there are more than 18 million songs in the iTunes Store, most of your music is probably already in iCloud. All you have to upload is what iTunes can’t match. Which is much faster than starting from scratch. And all the music iTunes matches plays back at 256-Kbps iTunes Plus quality — even if your original copy was of lower quality.

UNLESS of course, this ("plays back at 256-Kbps iTunes Plus quality") means "streaming".

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 05:13 PM
But if i download most of my music on my computer, would this make any sense for me to buy since i can quickly sync it anyway?

If you download all your music on your computer and immediately sync to your phone then it doesn't make much sense to buy the service.

tbrinkma
Jun 6, 2011, 05:15 PM
And they are downloaded to the phone, not streamed, correct?

Seems like people are mistakenly thinking it is streaming based on the rumors and not paying attention to what was actually announced.

Yep. There's just as many people who seem to think that streaming somehow involves something other than downloading the data to the device you want to use to use/view/listen.

Here's a hint for those people. Progressive download (the ability to start viewing/listening to the video/audio before it's completely downloaded) beats true streaming in nearly every way shape and form. If you're actually *streaming* data, you only have local access to whatever is currently in the buffer at the moment. You want to rewind past the beginning of the buffer? You'll have to re-download that data into the buffer.

There's *one* feature that streaming offers that downloading doesn't. The ability to jump into the stream in the middle without downloading what came before that point first. That's nice when you're jumping onto "internet radio", or watching a live video stream, but it's almost certainly not the normal use-case for playing something from your own music library.

idd
Jun 6, 2011, 05:16 PM
I tried it out on my iPad and all it does is let you download it to your iDevice. It does not let you stream, at least for previously purchased items. I am confident iTunes Match just does the same thing for your non-iTunes library.

In iTunes on my iPhone 4, it does let you stream 90 seconds of the song if you click on an artist, and then the album, and then the track name. You can only stream one song at a time and if you click on any thing else the streaming stops. Exactly how it works in iTunes on the computer.

There is no option in the iPod app to listen to music that's not already stored on the phone.

So it seems that you open iTunes, download your music from the cloud, then listen to it from the iPod app. No streaming. :(

Ducky21
Jun 6, 2011, 05:17 PM
256 kbps? meh.

i keep v0 files for a reason

gnasher729
Jun 6, 2011, 05:17 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?

If you spent maybe $40,000 on CDs, you can probably afford 3 x $24.99 per year.
(Someone else found: Limit 25,000 songs that are not purchased on iTMS).

So, if I understand this correctly, it will cost me $25/yr to store the matching songs from my ripped CD's on the cloud?

They are not actually stored. Apple has about 18 million songs, so if you have 10,000 songs that are matched, all that is stored is "BigDukeSix owns songs #4,567, #12,389, #15,000,000" and so on. For $25/yr you get unlimited downloads of all these songs in 256 KBit AAC quality to all your devices.

I already have 5mbps upstream so I have all my videos, photos, songs, etc in my personal cloud as is. I also have 50mbps downstream so I remotely download stuff, it imports into my library and its in my cloud a few minutes later.

When I read your post, I thought of the "Lion" thread where people are pulling their hair how it is impossible for them to download the 4 GB "Lion" installer...


It might do that. The fee is only for non-iTunes purchased music. So iTunes will scan your library anyway, and I'm sure they'd probably tell you some statistic to encourage you to pay the fee.

Excellent idea. And I _really_ want to know how many of my old LPs the scanner recognizes.


To get up to 25,000 songs, generally, but not in all cases, there's piracy involved.

Shortly after the iTunes Store was opened, when 10 million songs sold was huge news, Steve Jobs said on stage that someone had bought over 36,000 songs on the store. Must have taken days just to click on the "Buy this song" button!

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 6, 2011, 05:18 PM
LINK (http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/)(you are downloading the DRM-free music files):

Here's exactly what it says about non-iTunes-purchased content on Apple's site...

iTunes Match
If you want all the benefits of iTunes in the Cloud for music you haven’t purchased from iTunes, iTunes Match is the perfect solution. It lets you store your entire collection, including music you’ve ripped from CDs or purchased somewhere other than iTunes. For just $24.99 a year.2

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. Since there are more than 18 million songs in the iTunes Store, most of your music is probably already in iCloud. All you have to upload is what iTunes can’t match. Which is much faster than starting from scratch. And all the music iTunes matches plays back at 256-Kbps iTunes Plus quality — even if your original copy was of lower quality.

Note, you have to look elsewhere on that page to see info about downloading DRM-free files back to our devices, but that might be info solely in the context of iTunes-purchased songs. I still think it's a stream-only option for iTunes Match media. I think we're reaching to believe that the pirates are going to legitimize their entire collections for as little as a one-time fee of $24.99. The only counter to my belief that I read in the above is the "for you to listen to anytime, on any device" benefit which would not be possible in a stream-only situation if you had no Internet access. However, I believe Apple described the iDevices as the "whole Internet in your pocket" when, in fact, all the many pieces of the Internet that are coded with Flash are not included.

Someone needs to find a definitive statement from Apple that says iTunes Match content is going to be able to be downloaded and thus permanently stored in our local iTunes libraries. The referenced link above doesn't do it (IMO).

Eric S.
Jun 6, 2011, 05:20 PM
If you download all your music on your computer and immediately sync to your phone then it doesn't make much sense to buy the service.

That's the way I see it. The question is, will future versions of iTunes continue to allow users to do manual syncing or will they force everything to go through iCloud? I can see that happening eventually if not right off.

redfirebird08
Jun 6, 2011, 05:20 PM
Yep. There's just as many people who seem to think that streaming somehow involves something other than downloading the data to the device you want to use to use/view/listen.

Here's a hint for those people. Progressive download (the ability to start viewing/listening to the video/audio before it's completely downloaded) beats true streaming in nearly every way shape and form. If you're actually *streaming* data, you only have local access to whatever is currently in the buffer at the moment. You want to rewind past the beginning of the buffer? You'll have to re-download that data into the buffer.

There's *one* feature that streaming offers that downloading doesn't. The ability to jump into the stream in the middle without downloading what came before that point first. That's nice when you're jumping onto "internet radio", or watching a live video stream, but it's almost certainly not the normal use-case for playing something from your own music library.


Streaming also allows access to more music on a storage device that can't actually handle that much data, such as a 64 gig iPod when you have 80 gigs of music. Just an example. The idea of paying $25 per year to back up 25,000 songs in your library sounds cool, except for the privacy issue. Beyond that, downloading an entire file to the device isn't any different than sticking it on the device through USB. It still leaves you dealing with flash memory devices that can only hold so much data.

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 05:23 PM
Here's exactly what it says about non-iTunes-purchased content on Apple's site...

iTunes Match
If you want all the benefits of iTunes in the Cloud for music you havenít purchased from iTunes, iTunes Match is the perfect solution. It lets you store your entire collection, including music youíve ripped from CDs or purchased somewhere other than iTunes. For just $24.99 a year.2

Hereís 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. Since there are more than 18 million songs in the iTunes Store, most of your music is probably already in iCloud. All you have to upload is what iTunes canít match. Which is much faster than starting from scratch. And all the music iTunes matches plays back at 256-Kbps iTunes Plus quality ó even if your original copy was of lower quality.

Note, you have to look elsewhere on that page to see info about downloading DRM-free files back to our devices, but that might be info solely in the context of iTunes-purchased songs. I still think it's a stream-only option for iTunes Match media. I think we're reaching to believe that the pirates are going to legitimize their entire collections for as little as a one-time fee of $24.99.

It doesn't legitimize anything. Once someone has pirated a song the file itself is just as legitimate as a song from itunes. You can't go back and trace whether a song is pirated. The 320kbps MP3 someone gets off a torrent site is just as legitimate as the 256 AAC file you get from iTunes in terms of validity. The only thing that isn't legitimate is the means by which you got it. Simply trading one file for another doesn't change the fact that the original file wasn't obtained legally.

What I'm saying is that once someone has a song in their possession there's no way to tell anyway so why would someone go through the trouble to 'legitimize' their collection?

Blu-Ray
Jun 6, 2011, 05:24 PM
Here's exactly what it says about non-iTunes-purchased content on Apple's site...

iTunes Match
If you want all the benefits of iTunes in the Cloud for music you havenít purchased from iTunes, iTunes Match is the perfect solution. It lets you store your entire collection, including music youíve ripped from CDs or purchased somewhere other than iTunes. For just $24.99 a year.2

Hereís 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. Since there are more than 18 million songs in the iTunes Store, most of your music is probably already in iCloud. All you have to upload is what iTunes canít match. Which is much faster than starting from scratch. And all the music iTunes matches plays back at 256-Kbps iTunes Plus quality ó even if your original copy was of lower quality.

Note, you have to look elsewhere on that page to see info about downloading DRM-free files back to our devices, but that might be info solely in the context of iTunes-purchased songs. I still think it's a stream-only option for iTunes Match media. I think we're reaching to believe that the pirates are going to legitimize their entire collections for as little as a one-time fee of $24.99. The only counter to my belief that I read in the above is the "for you to listen to anytime, on any device" which would not be possible in a stream-only situation if you had no Internet access. However, I believe Apple described the iDevices as the "whole Internet in your pocket" when, in fact, all the many pieces of the Internet that are coded with Flash are not included.

Someone needs to find a definitive statement from Apple that says iTunes Match content is going to be able to be downloaded and thus permanently stored in our local iTunes libraries. The referenced link above doesn't do it (IMO).True, but this part: listen to anytime, on any deviceWhat if I don't have cellular or wifi access? I can't listen to that music.

JAT
Jun 6, 2011, 05:27 PM
US only? Apple doesn't seem to care much about other countries if they don't even mention such relevant facts in their keynote.
This is the answer in the next quote. Music rights are different in every country.
God only knows how Apple managed to persuade record labels to do this.


Also knowing Google the beta will be years long. Just like Gmail was in "beta" for years.
"was"??


In terms of cost per song it is about 240 times cheaper. I'm just saying at $25 you are already paying over a quarter of the cost and getting no new music whatsoever. For 4 times the cost you get better than 1000 times the music.
You don't "get" more music from a larger library, you get better choice. You can't monetize choice by simply dividing by the total. If every song was 3.5 minutes long, you can listen to 150,000 songs per year, if you don't sleep or work or anything else to interfere with the listening. (you can sleep every Feb 29th, I ignored those in my calc) So, assuming you don't sleep or work, it would take you 40 years to get the benefit you claim. If you do sleep and work, 120 years. Or, you could just worry about the music you'll actually have time to listen to instead of mythical stuff.

I anticipate numerous glitches, if their track record on supplying album cover art for lesser known albums is any guide.

Or well known albums.

lilo777
Jun 6, 2011, 05:30 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

So Lala for 25 bucks a year? I am ok with that.

As I understand, it's Lala without streaming (i.e. not Lala at all).

hpman247
Jun 6, 2011, 05:31 PM
This is the way it is said to work. Whether it changes or not, who knows. Right now it seems too good to be true IMO. Well minus the streaming capabilities, which would be nice, but to be honest, I really do not need. My library is 125GB and it fits on my iPod Classic just fine.

Anyways, as stated it does not stream. Music in your library is scanned (much like scanning for Genius,maybe), and the metadata that it matches is then released to the cloud whereby it DOES NOT upload the scanned and matched media, but uses the data collected to allow access to those songs on the cloud. Itís much like renting a movie on iTunes; once it is paid for, you are allowed to watch it. In this scenario, once you have paid for iTunes Match and scanned your library, those matched songs will then be available to you on the cloud much like the movie you rented is made available to you.
Any songs that are not matched will be uploaded. I am sure you have a choice as to whether said to upload said song(s) or not. Many people are asking questions about the most basic of processes. Iím sure Apple is not going to leave out such core functionalities. What then would be the point in the service?

The question remains, what happens to all of your shared, downloaded, and pirated music? I donít believe it matters. At least not from what we have heard thus far. It seems that anything in our library that can be matched will be available on the cloud. Iíll get back to thisÖ

It also seems that once our yearly subscription is up we would lose the ability to download those songs from the cloud. Thus, we would have to purchase it again a year from now to maintain access. That does not however take away from the fact that we could sign up, legitimize all of our music, download the now legal copies in iTunes Plus quality, and a year from now not renew. The music that is downloaded from the cloud is DRM free, therefore once it is on a device it is yours forever.

To the cloud. Itís my understanding that in iOS5, the cloud will just work. Itís supposed to be simple. All of our matched and uploaded iTunes music will be there available to download on any of our devices --iPads, iPods, Macbooks, PCs, etc. Everything is just there. Thatís what cloud computing is. If for instance, we download the new Lady Gaga song on our PC or Macbook, by the time the download has completed on that device it is ready on our iPad or iPod, assuming we purchased it from the iTunes store. If we purchased or downloaded illegally from another venue, I assume that iTunes will have to be Ďscannedí for new music, but will then be available on iCloud.

Content is not necessarily physically downloaded to the device, but it is ready to be downloaded at the click of a button should you so choose to do so. Again, this is my understanding. You can however choose to have it automatically downloaded. It seems that both options will be available. http://images.apple.com/icloud/features/images/itunes_download_automatic.jpg

Finally, this is the one thing that I do not understand. Say a new Bruno Mars song is played on American Idol. It becomes all the rage. Many people will download it on iTunes, but what about those of us with iTunes Match service. For us, we could go download a version off of Mediafire or some other file sharing service, torrent, etc, have iTunes scan our library, it finds the song, then the song is available for us to download in iTunes Plus quality on the cloud. So technically we are getting the song for nearly nothing, that many others are paying $1.29 for.

How can they stop the general public from doing this? Will people realize they can do this? Or does it even matter? Would those people who are going to buy it, buy it anyway, and those that are going to pirate, pirate anyway? Is this the conclusion that Apple come to, and $omehow got the record companies on board with this? That is my main question concerning this service, because what we know of it thus far leads me to believe that it can be abused quite easily, but at the end of the day the record companies are getting some money now, for those of us that will sign up (and I think many will) where in the past they were getting nothing,

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 6, 2011, 05:32 PM
It doesn't legitimize anything. Once someone has pirated a song the file itself is just as legitimate as a song from itunes. You can't go back and trace whether a song is pirated. The 320kbps MP3 someone gets off a torrent site is just as legitimate as the 256 AAC file you get from iTunes in terms of validity. The only thing that isn't legitimate is the means by which you got it. Simply trading one file for another doesn't change the fact that the original file wasn't obtained legally.

What I'm saying is that once someone has a song in their possession there's no way to tell anyway so why would someone go through the trouble to 'legitimize' their collection?

If the music industry lawyers decide to sue someone for music piracy, you prove you own your entire collection by pulling out the CDs and/or showing receipts for purchased music and/or freebie music from other sources. Yes, that's "guilty until proven innocent" type stuff, but when has that stopped those with the money from going after the pirates that probably don't have the money to mount much of a defense.

Now, if this works as implied- that a person can pay $24.99 and get a DRM-free copy of all the songs not attached to the stack of CDs in our households- that ONE receipt becomes a receipt for EVERY matched song. Even if someone was unsure about some of their music collection (do I still have all these CDs, is some of this music from a roommate(s) who has long since moved out, etc), ONE $24.99 transaction would potentially act like an "amnesty" transaction for up to all the music you own before the date of the transaction.

I still believe it's going to turn out to be "stream only". I don't think the music industry would grant amnesty for only $24.99.

bulldoze
Jun 6, 2011, 05:34 PM
This announcement was a big disappointment to me: I wanted Apple to announce a better service than Spotify but it appears to be vastly inferior.

I love Spotify but it has holes in its catalogue that Apple does not, I pay Spotify £10 a month for its service and I will keep on subscribing.

Spotify: All I can eat for £10 a month and can hold 2000 song playlists for offline access.

Surely this is the future? why are Apple holding off competing with this?

essinger
Jun 6, 2011, 05:35 PM
You don't "get" more music from a larger library, you get better choice. You can't monetize choice by simply dividing by the total. If every song was 3.5 minutes long, you can listen to 150,000 songs per year, if you don't sleep or work or anything else to interfere with the listening. (you can sleep every Feb 29th, I ignored those in my calc) So, assuming you don't sleep or work, it would take you 40 years to get the benefit you claim. If you do sleep and work, 120 years. Or, you could just worry about the music you'll actually have time to listen to instead of mythical stuff.

Where did I say I wasn't talking about choice? I said it pretty simply: $25 for no new music vs. $96 for, as you point out, enough new music that you never, ever, have to listen to the same song twice.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 6, 2011, 05:35 PM
True, but this part: What if I don't have cellular or wifi access? I can't listen to that music.

Yes, I think you won't be able to listen to that music or maybe it will be in some specially protected space (but not in a permanent form where you can add it to your local libraries) where you can for some period of time but it will be lost if you don't reconnect to the iCloud soon.

AaronEdwards
Jun 6, 2011, 05:38 PM
It doesn't legitimize anything. Once someone has pirated a song the file itself is just as legitimate as a song from itunes. You can't go back and trace whether a song is pirated. The 320kbps MP3 someone gets off a torrent site is just as legitimate as the 256 AAC file you get from iTunes in terms of validity. The only thing that isn't legitimate is the means by which you got it. Simply trading one file for another doesn't change the fact that the original file wasn't obtained legally.

What I'm saying is that once someone has a song in their possession there's no way to tell anyway so why would someone go through the trouble to 'legitimize' their collection?

If you download a scene release of an mp3 album, then yes, the songs can definitely be identified. If you copy a song that your friend has ripped from his CD, then most likely no.

redfirebird08
Jun 6, 2011, 05:38 PM
If the music industry lawyers decide to sue someone for music piracy, you prove you own your entire collection by pulling out the CDs and/or showing receipts for purchased music and/or freebie music from other sources. Yes, that's "guilty until proven innocent" type stuff, but when has that stopped those with the money from going after the pirates that probably don't have the money to mount much of a defense.

Now, if this works as implied- that a person can pay $24.99 and get a DRM-free copy of all the songs not attached to the stack of CDs in our households- that ONE receipt becomes a receipt for EVERY matched song. Even if someone was unsure about some of their music collection (do I still have all these CDs, is some of this music from a roommate(s) who has long since moved out, etc), ONE $24.99 transaction would potentially act like an "amnesty" transaction for up to all the music you own before the date of the transaction.

I still believe it's going to turn out to be "stream only". I don't think the music industry would grant amnesty for only $24.99.


Which is probably why they haven't made the service active yet. It's supposedly coming in the fall. They are probably still trying to figure out the exact details on it.

AaronEdwards
Jun 6, 2011, 05:40 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.

NightFox
Jun 6, 2011, 05:40 PM
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.

So what's changed for the record companies? You've already pirated the 20,000 tracks. What's putting them through iTunes Match suddenly going to change? The record companies don't suddenly "lose" another 20,000 tracks. Sure, you've now got access to a 256K AAC version of a pirated song as well as the original 320K MP3 you pirated. So what?

And as for this now "legitimising" piracy as other people have suggested, with the ease by which music can already be illegally downloaded over the Internet, it's more a matter of conscience and morals than any actual prevention, and that doesn't change with this.

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 05:41 PM
If the music industry lawyers decide to sue someone for music piracy, you prove you own your entire collection by pulling out the CDs and/or showing receipts for purchased music and/or freebie music from other sources. Yes, that's "guilty until proven innocent" type stuff, but when has that stopped those with the money from going after the pirates that probably don't have the money to mount much of a defense.

Now, if this works as implied- that a person can pay $24.99 and get a DRM-free copy of all the songs not attached to the stack of CDs in our households- that ONE receipt becomes a receipt for EVERY matched song. Even if someone was unsure about some of their music collection (do I still have all these CDs, is some of this music from a roommate(s) who has long since moved out, etc), ONE $24.99 transaction would potentially act like an "amnesty" transaction for up to all the music you own before the date of the transaction.

I still believe it's going to turn out to be "stream only". I don't think the music industry would grant amnesty for only $24.99.

How would that be amnesty? People who get caught pirating music get caught in the act of actually downloading it. The RIAA gets your IP address and they sue you. Telling them you paid $25 to have your pirated song converted by Apple doesn't prove your innocence at all.

The way you explain makes it sound like they scan your computer for songs they think you pirated and then make you explain how you got it. In reality, they're watching you as you download the file. By your reasoning you could just as easily delete the song rather than have apple convert it for you and you'd be in the clear as well. That is not the case.

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 05:43 PM
so what's changed for the record companies? You've already pirated the 20,000 tracks. What's putting them through itunes match suddenly going to change? The record companies don't suddenly "lose" another 20,000 tracks. Sure, you've now got access to a 256k aac version of a pirated song as well as the original 320k mp3 you pirated. So what?

And as for this now "legitimising" piracy as other people have suggested, with the ease by which music can already be illegally downloaded over the internet, it's more a matter of conscience and morals than any actual prevention, and that doesn't change with this.

exactly

Eric S.
Jun 6, 2011, 05:44 PM
Any songs that are not matched will be uploaded. I am sure you have a choice as to whether said to upload said song(s) or not.

I wonder if "uploaded" songs remain your private data? Or does Apple get to add all of them to the general library, available for matching with other subscribers? If so, it would appear to be a cheap (free) way for Apple to increase its own database.

jns2001
Jun 6, 2011, 05:47 PM
Has anyone able to download itunes 10.3?

AaronEdwards
Jun 6, 2011, 05:48 PM
So what's changed for the record companies? You've already pirated the 20,000 tracks. What's putting them through iTunes Match suddenly going to change? The record companies don't suddenly "lose" another 20,000 tracks. Sure, you've now got access to a 256K AAC version of a pirated song as well as the original 320K MP3 you pirated. So what?

And as for this now "legitimising" piracy as other people have suggested, with the ease by which music can already be illegally downloaded over the Internet, it's more a matter of conscience and morals than any actual prevention, and that doesn't change with this.

Just because nothing has changed doesn't mean that the record companies would agree to allow this. Why would they? What do they get from it?

A lot of pirated songs aren't 320K, so in a lot of cases Apple would upgrade, not downgrade, the quality of the song.

Apple mainstreams, simple as that. (If this actually is true, which I seriously doubt.)

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 6, 2011, 05:48 PM
So what's changed for the record companies? You've already pirated the 20,000 tracks. What's putting them through iTunes Match suddenly going to change? The record companies don't suddenly "lose" another 20,000 tracks. Sure, you've now got access to a 256K AAC version of a pirated song as well as the original 320K MP3 you pirated. So what?

What changes is that pirate goes from worrying about any potential personal risk to having no personal risk. When Limewire went down, every potential user of that service could have become a target of legal actions... and still could. If this is as you assume, pay $24.99 and replace anything you are not 100% sure about and it wouldn't matter if this 20K song pirate was first on a hypothetical Limewire list. One receipt would completely defend them of their crimes.

Amnesty is the concept here. If you're view is right, Apple has apparently convinced the music industry to sell Amnesty for their small shares of $25/yr. Or, this might be viewed as a favorite song (everything in each person's library) subscription service priced at only $25/yr. I just don't see the music industry buying into either. I can grasp your take on it, but I just don't believe your take is correct.

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 05:49 PM
Just because nothing has changed doesn't mean that the record companies would agree to allow this. Why would they? What do they get from it?

A lot of pirated songs aren't 320K, so in a lot of cases Apple would upgrade, not downgrade, the quality of the song.

Apple mainstreams, simple as that. (If this actually is true, which I seriously doubt.)

They would get $25 a year from pirates rather than $0.

gnasher729
Jun 6, 2011, 05:51 PM
For that matter, how would Apple know if 3min of silence called Borderline by Madonna isn't what it claims to be. Could you sneak in such sound files and get a real match?

I can't say how Apple is doing it, but I can tell you how I would have done it.

There are three problems that the matching software has to solve: 1. Take a song from your hard drive and find whether it matches any of 18 million songs on the store, without missing any songs. 2. Take a song from your hard drive and find whether it matches one specific song on the store, without being tricked into a false match. 3. Do it quick.

I would first go by artist/song title to find a likely match. So if you have a song "Madonna/Borderline" and there is a song "Madonna/Borderline" on the store, I try to take a fingerprint of the music on your drive and compare it with a pre-calculated fingerprint of the song on the store. 3 minutes silence won't match the song. On the other hand, for some people this could match 80 or 90 percent of their songs. This method would be very quick, because Apple only needs a fingerprint good enough to match one song against one song.

Everything that isn't matched that way, a better fingerprint is needed to look up the song in the 18 million song database, which would take a bit longer. That would work by taking the actual music and nothing else.


Amnesty is the concept here. If you're view is right, Apple has apparently convinced the music industry to sell Amnesty for their small shares of $25/yr. Or, this might be viewed as a favorite song (everything in each person's library) subscription service priced at only $25/yr. I just don't see the music industry buying into either. I can grasp your take on it, but I just don't believe your take is correct.

Take Apple's own software. They don't care how much is pirated, they care how much money they make. They do nothing to punish honest people (unlike for example DVDs that don't let me skip their stupid anti-piracy rubbish), and they give dishonest people a chance to give Apple _some_money (you can buy _one_ copy and install on multiple computers; unlike Windows where you have to pirate _all_ copies if you don't want to buy one for each computer). That's maximizing profit. I suppose they convinced the music industry to do the same. That way, the pirate pays $25/yr instead of $0/yr. Which is $25 pure profit.

rWally
Jun 6, 2011, 05:52 PM
What changes is that pirate goes from worrying about any potential personal risk to having no personal risk. When Limewire went down, every potential user of that service could have become a target of legal actions... and still could. If this is as you assume, pay $24.99 and replace anything you are not 100% sure about and it wouldn't matter if this 20K song pirate was first on a hypothetical Limewire list. One receipt would completely defend them of their crimes.

Amnesty is the concept here. If you're view is right, Apple has apparently convinced the music industry to sell Amnesty for their small shares of $25/yr. Or, this might be viewed as a favorite song (everything in each person's library) subscription service priced at only $25/yr. I just don't see the music industry buying into either. I can grasp your take on it, but I just don't believe your take is correct.

I still don't understand how you think $25 would amount to a receipt for thousands of songs? That receipt just says that apple swapped out files for you.

hpman247
Jun 6, 2011, 05:54 PM
I wonder if "uploaded" songs remain your private data? Or does Apple get to add all of them to the general library, available for matching with other subscribers? If so, it would appear to be a cheap (free) way for Apple to increase its own database.

I would think so. I can't imagine them not being private data.

As for everything else I stated, it's all based on what we know so far. Everything else that people are repeating here is mere speculation. I too think that this service as it has been described to us is too good to be true. Legalizing our entire music collections for $25...but who knows. Maybe it's a turn of the tide. As of right now, that's exactly what it sounds like though.

Bertmg
Jun 6, 2011, 05:56 PM
They would get $25 a year from pirates rather than $0.

... or, they are getting $25.00/year for music you already legally purchase but not from iTunes?. What about when you stop paying the fee? I hope they don't make it to be deleted from your iTunes library.

If they are legitimizing pirated music, ok. But if they are re-profiting (of curse I don't know if this is a real word :D) not cool!!!

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 6, 2011, 05:56 PM
How would that be amnesty? People who get caught pirating music get caught in the act of actually downloading it. The RIAA gets your IP address and they sue you. Telling them you paid $25 to have your pirated song converted by Apple doesn't prove your innocence at all.

The way you explain makes it sound like they scan your computer for songs they think you pirated and then make you explain how you got it. In reality, they're watching you as you download the file. By your reasoning you could just as easily delete the song rather than have apple convert it for you and you'd be in the clear as well. That is not the case.

That's not what I'm saying at all. They don't watch you download it on the fly. There's not enough of "them" to monitor all Internet traffic to effectively catch that; else online piracy would have been stomped out long ago. What they do is just assume piracy and use any justification for targeting individuals or a group. Then, those served mount a defense. The easy defense is pulling out the CDs and receipts for all of your music. Do that and the case is over. However, if you can't do that, there's some room there for the case to persist. It's the persistence of the case that racks up the bill for the defendant. Even if you win, you lose in all the legal bills to cover your defense.

Yes, that's "guilty until proven innocent" which is wrong- even illegal in and of itself. But that hasn't stopped them from not necessarily winning cases by reaching an ultimate decision, but instead wiping out the targets from having to pay for drawn out defenses.

Blu-Ray
Jun 6, 2011, 05:56 PM
This is crazy - almost everything I've read around the web related to iCloud and iTunes says that it will be "streaming". example Yahoo article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_technews/20110606/tc_yblog_technews/with-no-new-iphone-apple-rocks-music-industry-with-icloud). Hopefully Apple will clarify soon so we can put this to rest. iCloud, in many ways, is an update to Apple's MobileMe service, but with no price tag and a major new cloud music-streaming service for iTunes users. For music, iCloud is fundamentally different from its rivals because of the way it operates. Apple will offer consumers a digital music locker to upload songs that they purchase from iTunes. These songs are then streamed back to multiple devices using an Internet connection. In addition, Apple will offer iTunes Match for $24.99 a year which will allow users to stream music from the cloud that they may not have purchased directly from the iTunes store itself.

hpman247
Jun 6, 2011, 05:57 PM
I still don't understand how you think $25 would amount to a receipt for thousands of songs? That receipt just says that apple swapped out files for you.

I think he is trying to propose this concept on a legal front. In other words how these actions would be seen by our legal system here in the states. And for that I am not your man to be making comments hahah

redfirebird08
Jun 6, 2011, 05:58 PM
I would think so. I can't imagine them not being private data.

As for everything else I stated, it's all based on what we know so far. Everything else that people are repeating here is mere speculation. I too think that this service as it has been described to us is too good to be true. Legalizing our entire music collections for $25...but who knows. Maybe it's a turn of the tide. As of right now, that's exactly what it sounds like though.


Which is why they're waiting until the fall to get it figured out. I think in the end they will release it as a streaming service. Then someone won't be able to pay $25 one time and download a ton of good quality DRM-free AAC files for stuff that they pirated in the first place. They'll be forced to either pay the $25 per year if they want to use the Cloud streaming service for their library, or simply stick with old fashioned transferring of pirated files to the iPod/iPhone/iPad.

AaronEdwards
Jun 6, 2011, 05:59 PM
They would get $25 a year from pirates rather than $0.

I doubt that they are getting $25/year, nor that they would settle for just $25/year.

For example. $25 for 20,000 songs would be 0.125 cents per song.

Compare that to what Apple charges for them in the iTunes Store.

essinger
Jun 6, 2011, 05:59 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.

I really don't think this is the way Apple presented this to the record companies. Rather Apple sold them on a subscription service where people pay money for access to music they were already "stealing" for free. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the artists are paid their share of the fee based on number of song plays just like every other subscription service. It is a significant slice of their usual charge for such services for a rather paltry slice of their catalog. It is just a rather novel way of determining what that access catalog will be.

SirHaakon
Jun 6, 2011, 05:59 PM
True, but this part: What if I don't have cellular or wifi access? I can't listen to that music.
It's not a streaming service - you don't use cellular data or wifi at all.

djrobsd
Jun 6, 2011, 06:00 PM
I can't say how Apple is doing it, but I can tell you how I would have done it.

There are three problems that the matching software has to solve: 1. Take a song from your hard drive and find whether it matches any of 18 million songs on the store, without missing any songs. 2. Take a song from your hard drive and find whether it matches one specific song on the store, without being tricked into a false match. 3. Do it quick.

I would first go by artist/song title to find a likely match. So if you have a song "Madonna/Borderline" and there is a song "Madonna/Borderline" on the store, I try to take a fingerprint of the music on your drive and compare it with a pre-calculated fingerprint of the song on the store. 3 minutes silence won't match the song. On the other hand, for some people this could match 80 or 90 percent of their songs. This method would be very quick, because Apple only needs a fingerprint good enough to match one song against one song.

Everything that isn't matched that way, a better fingerprint is needed to look up the song in the 18 million song database, which would take a bit longer. That would work by taking the actual music and nothing else.

They are probably using the same fingerprint service the record labels use today to identify pirated copies of songs on file sharing services and sue you..

On the other hand, if they are using the same identifier that they use today to get album artwork, it will be interesting... I noticed that if it can't get the album art (happened a LOT for my Glee tracks that I bought on Napster and imported into iTunes), then I have to go into the song and edit the properties and make sure the artist, song, and album title match EXACTLY how they have it listed in the iTunes store...

Whatever the case, this is going to be really REALLY interesting..

imahawki
Jun 6, 2011, 06:00 PM
Why does iTunes say download 10.3 beta but takes you to download 10.2.2?

PCClone
Jun 6, 2011, 06:00 PM
I wonder if the upgrade is one-time or if it's only available as long as you're paying $24.99 a month.

In other words, if I pay $24.99, does it simply replace all my non-iTunes song files with higher quality files? If so, people could just pay once to upgrade thousands of songs and then cancel. The benefit of continuing to pay would be that you could upgrade any new songs you add to your library.

per year, not month.

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 6, 2011, 06:02 PM
I still don't understand how you think $25 would amount to a receipt for thousands of songs? That receipt just says that apple swapped out files for you.

Because paying for something that you take ownership of in a legal transaction is considered a legal sale. For the $25 you are paying Apple (who then pays the music industry) you are getting to download a bunch of iTunes songs (if this is as others believe). It is an endorsed "sale" of "upgraded" music for $25.

I think there's still some room for the music industry to ask to see the original sourced (legally obtained) media. But if Apple collects the $25 and then gives the music industry their cut, they were then paid something for what the $25 purchased.

Certainly I'm not a legal expert on this topic. I think we need some genuine lawyers to chime in to get an expert take to the question.

Frankly, I'm still shocked about the Time Capsule rumor not showing up today. That's how I thought Apple would cover the legal risk issue: all of the non-iTunes-purchased content streaming from your (optional) own local piece of iCloud and the rest streaming from the NC iCloud. Without that, I think the legal questions make this pretty messy or Apple really worked an incredible deal with the music industry if iTunes Match will actually involve downloading permanent (local) replacements for files. The more I think about it now, the more confident I am that when the facts come out, iTunes match must be about streaming all non-iTunes-purchased content. We'll all see soon enough.

AaronEdwards
Jun 6, 2011, 06:04 PM
I really don't think this is the way Apple presented this to the record companies. Rather Apple sold them on a subscription service where people pay money for access to music they were already "stealing" for free. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the artists are paid their share of the fee based on number of song plays just like every other subscription service. It is a significant slice of their usual charge for such services for a rather paltry slice of their catalog. It is just a rather novel way of determining what that access catalog will be.

From what money are the artists being paid ? The $25/year? That's nothing. And there's nothing yet indicating that any of that money is actually being transfered to any record companies, it's more likely paying for Apple's expenses.

Eric S.
Jun 6, 2011, 06:06 PM
What about when you stop paying the fee? I hope they don't make it to be deleted from your iTunes library.

If you stop paying the fee you stop getting the matching service. If it's a real download then your devices would still contain whatever you downloaded to that point but new devices would only get iTunes-purchased music. If it's a streaming service on the other hand (and that point seems to be in dispute), you would lose all your non-iTunes-purchased music on all devices.

gnasher729
Jun 6, 2011, 06:18 PM
Music you didn't pay for? :confused:

I have lots of music that I didn't pay for which isn't pirated. Lots of audiobooks that I didn't pay for which isn't pirated. Lots of software that I didn't pay for which isn't pirated.

essinger
Jun 6, 2011, 06:18 PM
From what money are the artists being paid ? The $25/year? That's nothing. And there's nothing yet indicating that any of that money is actually being transfered to any record companies, it's more likely paying for Apple's expenses.

It might seem like nothing, but when you consider these same record companies are selling access to almost their entire catalogs for $50 and $96/year, it's actually a pretty good deal for them.

twoodcc
Jun 6, 2011, 06:23 PM
this will make a lot of people very happy.

Mak47
Jun 6, 2011, 06:23 PM
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

We don't actually know that's the case. Right now if you use iTunes existing home sharing setup on an iOS device, it simply creates the library in your "iPod" application. Nothing is stored on the device itself aside from some minimal caching.

I have a 16GB iPad 2 and stream from my 80GB iTunes library quite frequently. I don't see why this wouldn't work the same way, simply adding a library to your device with the option to download from the cloud. The Keynote wasn't specific on this, but it would make no sense to go to some web interface when Apple's already got the formula put together.

Blu-Ray
Jun 6, 2011, 06:26 PM
It seems that the more tech-savvy media has the same message - this is not a streaming service. The biggest value of the matching service sounds like:


1) easy syncing of all music (purchased and non-purchased) to all devices
2) upgrading non-iTunes purchased lower quality music to 256kbps (if it is in the iTunes database)

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 6, 2011, 06:27 PM
I have lots of music that I didn't pay for which isn't pirated. Lots of audiobooks that I didn't pay for which isn't pirated. Lots of software that I didn't pay for which isn't pirated.

How did you get all that without paying for it?

imahawki
Jun 6, 2011, 06:31 PM
How did you get all that without paying for it?
Would love to know too. I'd love a bunch of free, legal media but I'm not holding my breath that the answer doesn't = piracy.

andrea25
Jun 6, 2011, 06:31 PM
Let's say I have 500 mb of purchased songs and 20 gb of non-purchased song.
If I pay $25/yr, then Apple upgrade my songs to 256 kbps AAC version.
What does it mean? I have to re-download the entire 20 gb of my library? And what about the original non-purchased songs? They got replaced? Or I'll end up having on my hdd 2 copies of the same songs (so 20+20=40gb).

I don't think so. Well this has to be a streaming service (or something like that).

OllyW
Jun 6, 2011, 06:33 PM
I don't like the sound of this...

Don't get too excited though - iTunes Match will be US only, with Apple giving no indication when or even if it would be available in the UK. :(

http://www.macworld.co.uk/digitallifestyle/news/index.cfm?newsid=3284311&pagtype=allchandate

jowie
Jun 6, 2011, 06:33 PM
Upload time varies depending on amounts uploaded.

Unmatched content will not be upgraded.
I wonder how it will handle my huge collection of Apple Lossless vinyl rips ;)

Hope it comes to the UK at a similar price :(

AaronEdwards
Jun 6, 2011, 06:35 PM
It might seem like nothing, but when you consider these same record companies are selling access to almost their entire catalogs for $50 and $96/year, it's actually a pretty good deal for them.

The difference being that if you pay for a streaming service, when you stop paying you can't listen anymore and you don't get to keep any music.

With Apple, you pay $25, and then you can convert your illegally downloaded music to files that are, to my knowledge, indistinguishable from what others have bought from the iTunes Store. Then after a year you can stop paying and keep the songs.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 6, 2011, 06:36 PM
I'm happy with the 5,000 songs in my pocket. That's enough for me.


The difference being that if you pay for a streaming service, when you stop paying you can't listen anymore and you don't get to keep any music.

With Apple, you pay $25, and then you can convert your illegally downloaded music to files that are, to my knowledge, indistinguishable from what others have bought from the iTunes Store. Then after a year you can stop paying and keep the songs.

True but really the people who spend a lot of time looking for pirated music are too cheap to spend $25.

irish15eagle
Jun 6, 2011, 06:37 PM
When the rumors first started about iCloud, I was really excited. I had just been given an AppleTV as a gift, and my first iPhone will be soon to follow.
Moving forward, the rumored iCloud seemed to be the perfect idea: I could get a small hd on the iphone and just use cloud technology to stream my media, the same way i do on my AppleTV. Not only this, but I would no longer have to leave my laptop on, open, and in iTunes to use my library on my AppleTV.
Perfect, right? Wrong. I'm hoping I don't understand apple because, to me, they seem to have taken a step back. Instead of moving to the cloud where I could more easily integrate my media while reducing the memory space that it takes up, Apple is now pushing technology that pushes EXTRA downloads of files on local memory in the name of faster, automatic syncing.
To top this off, with iTunes Match basically required to use the service for most people (let's be honest, a lot of music on iTunes accounts isn't from iTunes store), it's also unclear as to what happens to the original "matched" files. To me, it sounds like they get replaced, which further complicates the file storage issues. If I would want to move away from the current file systems, why would I use iCloud when I can more easily, more cheaply, and more effectively setup my own network drive and then *gasp*, just plug in my iPod to sync?
I hope I'm wrong, but this just seems like a huge disappointment.

AaronEdwards
Jun 6, 2011, 06:38 PM
How did you get all that without paying for it?

Free audiobooks? LibriVox (http://librivox.org/).
Free software? There's lots of it.

ZhenWan
Jun 6, 2011, 06:39 PM
Does iCloud allow non-itunes purchased songs which are stored in itunes?

lilo777
Jun 6, 2011, 06:40 PM
The difference being that if you pay for a streaming service, when you stop paying you can't listen anymore and you don't get to keep any music.

With Apple, you pay $25, and then you can convert your illegally downloaded music to files that are, to my knowledge, indistinguishable from what others have bought from the iTunes Store. Then after a year you can stop paying and keep the songs.

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.

Mak47
Jun 6, 2011, 06:41 PM
For that matter, how would Apple know if 3min of silence called Borderline by Madonna isn't what it claims to be. Could you sneak in such sound files and get a real match?

It's going to scan the audio data. That's how apps like Shazam work. It's technology that's several years old at this point and will be far more accurate than reading metadata. Even a lot of purchased CD's (especially from independent artists) don't have metadata embedded in the files. A lot of that music is available on iTunes though, it'll have to scan the audio.

I recall reading something about a patent for scanning the first few seconds of audio files for some kind of streaming service, my guess is that's the automated scanning process Apple is using on the backend.

iRobby
Jun 6, 2011, 06:42 PM
So here's what I'm wondering about iTunes Match...

I have a ton of music that was legally purchased through iTunes back before the iTunes Plus format was available.

Suppose they will match that with iTunes Plus versions? (I sure hope so!)

Steve said all songs matched to the 256kbps which is iTunes plus