PDA

View Full Version : Little and Big Music Disagree On 'iTunes Match'




MacRumors
Jun 16, 2011, 08:38 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/16/little-and-big-music-disagree-on-itunes-match/)


iTunes Match was Steve Jobs' "One More Thing (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/06/itunes-in-the-cloud-with-itunes-match-24-99year-matches-ripped-tunes-offers-them-in-the-cloud/) at WWDC this year. It allows users to get the same backup and "download anywhere" benefits from legitimate iTunes purchases as well as any other music they might have, regardless of where it was acquired. Or, as All Things Digital's Peter Kafka put it (https://twitter.com/#!/pkafka/status/78133392725647362):
Apple will take the songs you've stolen, and turn them into legit files, with big music's blessing.Big music might have agreed to Apple's pirate amnesty scheme, but little music may not fall in line quite so quietly.

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

(http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/match.jpg)
Rob Sevier, owner of Chicago-based Numero Group -- a tiny record label that specializes in old Soul music -- thinks iTunes Match is a raw deal (http://numerogroup.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/opting-out/). In a chat with Ars Technica's Chris Foresman, Sevier explained the effect of piracy (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/06/why-itunes-match-has-indie-soul-label-singing-the-blues.ars) on a small record label like Numero.
[M]any of Numero's releases sell in the range of about 10,000 copies total, including physical and digital formats. Yet, the label has found copies of tracks from its albums on sharing sites such as MediaFire or RapidShare with download counts that far exceed sales numbers.

"People will rip your album and upload them, and you can see how many people are downloading it," Sevier explained. "And in some cases people are downloading our stuff like 80,000 times or more. We have seen, on average, anything from 10 to 20 times more downloads than legitimate sales."

"There's no way that we're not going to see matching that exceeds what we're selling legitimately," Sevier said.This is nothing new. Six years ago, the Supreme Court ruled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.) that Grokster and StreamCast "induced users to violate copyrights and chose not to take the simple steps available to prevent it." The Economist, writing about the case (http://www.economist.com/node/4135268) in 2005, noted "the challenge for content providers is to use new technology to create value for customers, and to make those who use content illegally feel bad about it."

If, as Sevier claims, Match is bad for the artist and the record company, then it must be good for the consumer. Sevier, for one, thinks so:
[iTunes Match is] brilliant. I will definitely use the free version since I'll be able to access all of the stuff I've bought from iTunes and not have to permanently store it all on my computer.But clearly some of the big record execs like it too. Labels hope iTunes Match will supply them with three important things (http://www.fastcompany.com/1758202/music-executives-itunes-match-is-an-important-stepping-stone-toward-our-collective-subscript): Some amount of revenue for pirated music is better than nothing; labels will get more feedback about the types of music that consumers are listening to; and, they hope, iTunes Match will get customers into the habit of paying for music again -- at least in a subscription form.

Article Link: Little and Big Music Disagree On 'iTunes Match' (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/16/little-and-big-music-disagree-on-itunes-match/)



trainwrecka
Jun 16, 2011, 08:45 PM
Remember a lot of us were alive during the transition from CDs to iTunes. That means a lot of us have thousands of songs purchased legally imported into iTunes. It also means people are covered if they bought them from an alternative service like Amazon. People are going to steal regardless. This is a big plus for the honest folk out there.

Hirth
Jun 16, 2011, 08:46 PM
The argument is trotted out again that "pirated downloads were X times higher than legitimate sales", with the implication being that if there were no piracy, then our sales would have been X (or some significant fraction thereof) times higher. There is no rational way to estimate this. If there were no piracy, sales might have been X times higher; sales might not have been any higher at all. There is no way to tell. There is no way to perform the experiment to find out, either. Also what about people who have NO pirated music on their computers. Should they be punished (by having to buy a fresh digital copy of music they already own) because of some people who do not respect copyright?

Michael Scrip
Jun 16, 2011, 08:50 PM
Apple will take the songs you've stolen, and turn them into legit files, with big music's blessing.

It really sounds too good to be true... that you can have Apple scan your "less-than-legal" music downloads and let you have fresh clean copies of those songs sent to your iDevices.

On the other hand... you're paying for that service... and I bet a big portion of that fee is given to the record labels.

The record labels currently get ZERO dollars if you just sync those illegal songs with a USB cable... so maybe this is their way of trying to get something...

adambadamh
Jun 16, 2011, 08:52 PM
Though I thought Steve said that you got DRM free tracks after you used Match. That doesn't really bode well for people sticking around to keep subscribing. It seems to me that you can clean up your library then pack up shop.

MacPro23
Jun 16, 2011, 09:01 PM
Though I thought Steve said that you got DRM free tracks after you used Match. That doesn't really bode well for people sticking around to keep subscribing. It seems to me that you can clean up your library then pack up shop.

But the legit purpose of iTunes Match is have a backup of all your music in the cloud, and if you don't renew your service you will no longer have access.

SvP
Jun 16, 2011, 09:02 PM
iTunes won't make any files legal; if you don't have an original copy or legitimate download, you don't have a legal file.

Thru itunes you will have a better version of an illegally obtained file, simply.

This has 0 effect on sales!

Music/movie industry needs to het their act together and make things GLOBAL, easy, and not too expensive.

AmpSkillz
Jun 16, 2011, 09:07 PM
"People will rip your album and upload them, and you can see how many people are downloading it," Sevier explained. "And in some cases people are downloading our stuff like 80,000 times or more. We have seen, on average, anything from 10 to 20 times more downloads than legitimate sales."

"There's no way that we're not going to see matching that exceeds what we're selling legitimately"

so.... people download free stuff more than stuff you have to pay for

this Rob Sevier guy is a freaking genius

just because people are willing to download something for free does not mean they would have paid for it

its kind of like apps in the app store, I try free crap all the time but that does not mean I would have paid for it if they decided to charge for it

when it comes to paid apps i am fairly selective

Sardonick007
Jun 16, 2011, 09:14 PM
Arrogant pricks. Not all non-iTunes music is stolen. I've got over 500 CD's full of music that I have ripped myself. I own them. Screw you record labels.

blybug
Jun 16, 2011, 09:15 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I was under the impression that iTunes Match would only stream the high quality non-iTunes files it matched in your library. Kind of like Pandora but with your own music database. I'd be very surprised if you get to actually download and keep a local copy...and pretty sure Steve never explicitly said this.

In fact, the streaming model would get Apple $24.99/yr and also subtly entice users to gradually replace their non-iTunes content with purchased versions. Think about it.

acslater017
Jun 16, 2011, 09:16 PM
iTunes won't make any files legal; if you don't have an original copy or legitimate download, you don't have a legal file.

Thru itunes you will have a better version of an illegally obtained file, simply.

This has 0 effect on sales!



I sympathize with small record labels. But iTunes, of all forces in the tech world, has been a net benefit to the music industry. iTunes brought legit digital music to the mainstream.

People will pirate media or they won't. The fact that they can sync their files via iCloud does not provide an incentive or method to enable piracy.

DougFNJ
Jun 16, 2011, 09:19 PM
Great logic......treat me like the criminal I'm not, while the real criminals continue to do what they do regardless of what I do legitimately.

I hate judgmental corporate jackasses that hold me down to the same standards as common criminals.

acslater017
Jun 16, 2011, 09:20 PM
Arrogant pricks. Not all non-iTunes music is stolen. I've got over 500 CD's full of music that I have ripped myself. I own them. Screw you record labels.

I do agree that iTunes is not really the problem here for small music labels. However, I think it's more a case of them being the victims of a crime and lashing out at the wrong target more than them being "arrogant pricks" :rolleyes:. I don't know any businessperson who likes to watch 10x or 20x copies of their product go out for free.

bettaboy123
Jun 16, 2011, 09:21 PM
My only problem is that I converted all of my music to 320kbps MP3 files, so my quality will suffer. I don't know that I wanna do this whole iTunes Match thing just because of the quality issue. Does anyone know if there is a way that I can keep the quality of my music and still reap the benefits of iTunes Match? :confused:

Michael Scrip
Jun 16, 2011, 09:23 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I was under the impression that iTunes Match would only stream the high quality non-iTunes files it matched in your library. Kind of like Pandora but with your own music database. I'd be very surprised if you get to actually download and keep a local copy...and pretty sure Steve never explicitly said this.


There is no streaming with iCloud and iTunes Match... it's purely a syncing solution.

Yes... you will be able to download... the whole point is to make sure all your iDevices have the same stuff on them... locally.

Surreal
Jun 16, 2011, 09:23 PM
This is an unfortunate situation. There is no great way to verify the origin of the file. Digital media is difficult. That is all.

mconk
Jun 16, 2011, 09:26 PM
I posted this comment om the Labels website, but also wanted to post here to get some feedback from you guys to see how their decision makes ANY sense at all...

Explain how this makes ANY sense at all? Anyone who had obtained music from your label, illegally (maybe they bought a cd from one of your artists, and decided to download a copy rather than rip their cd for the simple ease of use) is presented with an opportunity to PURCHASE the song, while syncing to iCloud...you guys provide absolutely zero logic as to why you've opted out of this program, and clearly do not understand the concept behind this program. Until this day I've never heard of you, and probably never will again. Nice job riding the short media blitz...you will continue to lose money to digital downloads, when you could have gained back some of your losses with this program.

Santabean2000
Jun 16, 2011, 09:30 PM
The music industry (and esp the movie industry) have to accept that the days of charging exorbitant amounts of money for their products are OVER!

Technology giveth and now taketh away, (esp for the blood-sucking middle men, and not the creative folk). Get over it. Losers.

fluffylion
Jun 16, 2011, 09:31 PM
In the end, this is likely just an oversight on Apples project planning, and is likely to be rectified quickly before release.

Funny pirates do spend crazy amount of money to pirate stuff. Many spend much more on internet usage per month to have a higher quota to download stuff. So many make copies of the box covers, CD covers and print them out to make it look like an original product for themselves.

Then again, people with that mentality dont really do much in their life. So I guess their boring existence is their penalty

skellener
Jun 16, 2011, 09:32 PM
Not sure who iTunes for iCloud is really for. Pirates won't pay even the $24.99. They're PIRATES!!! People with legit files don't need it either. They have their songs already. It also doesn't stream any tracks. So who is going to use this service? :confused:

blybug
Jun 16, 2011, 09:33 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I was under the impression that iTunes Match would only stream the high quality non-iTunes files it matched in your library. Kind of like Pandora but with your own music database. I'd be very surprised if you get to actually download and keep a local copy...and pretty sure Steve never explicitly said this.


There is no streaming with iCloud and iTunes Match... it's purely a syncing solution.

Yes... you will be able to download... the whole point is to make sure all your iDevices have the same stuff on them... locally.

Hmmmm...I wouldn't be so sure about that. The keynote did not imply that to me, and look how carefully the description here has been worded:

http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/

Apple will make it seamless, but there's 3 kinds of songs:

(1) Purchased on iTunes with local copy on your device, and if not, available to download. No dent in your 5GB iCloud. This is already working. Very nice.

(2) Obtained elsewhere but iTunes Matched. Can stream from the iCloud as long as you pay your subscription. No dent in your 5GB storage. It's Pandora with your database playing Apple's copy of the track. This is why this entire article and thread is a non-issue.

(3) No match for your song. Uploads your file to iCloud, counts against your 5GB, available to download to any device.

Elijahg
Jun 16, 2011, 09:43 PM
There is a simple fact most record labels don't seem to realise. Yes the label may be seeing thousands of illegal downloads on filesharing sites, but not all of those people would have purchased the song if it wasn't available for free.

If a song's available at no cost, whether it's legal or not, many people will download it to have a quick listen. If they had to pay for the song, they just wouldn't bother listening to it at all. No lost sale for the label, as there was never any intention of buying it anyway. I've downloaded songs from the iTunes 12 Days of Christmas promo, but I'd have absolutely no intention of buying them if they weren't free.

MrSmith
Jun 16, 2011, 09:49 PM
(2) Obtained elsewhere but iTunes Matched. Can stream from the iCloud as long as you pay your subscription. No dent in your 5GB storage. It's Pandora with your database playing Apple's copy of the track. This is why this entire article and thread is a non-issue.

(3) No match for your song. Uploads your file to iCloud, counts against your 5GB, available to download to any device.

Presumably (3) will happen by default if I don't want to pay. I mean, unless I'm an audiophile, the better option if I want to sync my tracks on multiple machines is for my tracks to not be iTunes matched. I'd rather use up my free 5GB than pay...

Mad Mac Maniac
Jun 16, 2011, 09:50 PM
anyone think that iTunes match opens Apple up to the future possibility of a "zune pass" type subscription?

Would you pay $15 a month to have access to ALL 18 million songs in iTunes? Download as many as you want and they are automatically synced through iCloud. Of course there would have to be a way to tag the songs so that when you end your subscription they go away. I could see that being hacked pretty easily though...

sohelpme
Jun 16, 2011, 09:52 PM
... Labels hope iTunes Match will supply them with three important things (http://www.fastcompany.com/1758202/music-executives-itunes-match-is-an-important-stepping-stone-toward-our-collective-subscript): Some amount of revenue for pirated music is better than nothing; labels will get more feedback about the types of music that consumers are listening to; and, they hope, iTunes Match will get customers into the habit of paying for music again -- at least in a subscription form.


The big labels love iTunes Match because it gets them a whack of cash that they can fritter away on coke and whores. Approximately 0% of that money will go to performers or songwriters.

rockosmodurnlif
Jun 16, 2011, 09:56 PM
Arrogant pricks. Not all non-iTunes music is stolen. I've got over 500 CD's full of music that I have ripped myself. I own them. Screw you record labels.
If you've ripped the CDs obviously nothing in this topic is directed towards you.

On a side note, I don't think high download counts of free music don't correlate to implied sales.

topmounter
Jun 16, 2011, 09:57 PM
That's what I don't understand about iTunes Match... what keeps someone from continuing to "pirate" music and register (i.e. "legitimatize") pirated songs via iTunes Match?

Is Apple going to work with the RIAA to identify pirated music and support the investigation? I could totally see the RIAA planting songs on the torrents with their own unique watermarks and then Apple giving them a call when these watermarked songs show up in iTunes Match, along with the user's name, address, etc.

If they don't, then $24.95 / year definitely doesn't sound like enough money to keep all the labels happy.

hlfway2anywhere
Jun 16, 2011, 10:05 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)



Hmmmm...I wouldn't be so sure about that. The keynote did not imply that to me, and look how carefully the description here has been worded:

http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/

Apple will make it seamless, but there's 3 kinds of songs:

(1) Purchased on iTunes with local copy on your device, and if not, available to download. No dent in your 5GB iCloud. This is already working. Very nice.

(2) Obtained elsewhere but iTunes Matched. Can stream from the iCloud as long as you pay your subscription. No dent in your 5GB storage. It's Pandora with your database playing Apple's copy of the track. This is why this entire article and thread is a non-issue.

(3) No match for your song. Uploads your file to iCloud, counts against your 5GB, available to download to any device.

Did you just make all of that up? Because I don't see anything that backs up what you're saying. The fine print says that what can't be matched will upload. Up to 25,000 songs. It doesn't say anything about the 5GB storage being affected by iTunes in the cloud.

Jobs also said that you would get all of the benefits of purchased music from matched content. That seems to imply re-downloading, not streaming.

blybug
Jun 16, 2011, 10:07 PM
If iTunes Match actually allows you to DOWNLOAD a 256kbps AAC rather than STREAMING, then...


Won't this open up a whole new era of pirating, with the neoNapsters of the world sharing/stealing crappy small 16kbps files for iTunes to upgrade? A bunch of friends cobble together the $24.99 and they all receive unlimted downloads of the high quality versions of all their songs? I say no, because the files will not be downloaded, only streamed.

What happens to someone who downloads all the upgraded versions, then stops their iTunes Match subscription? Do the files explode? Is Apple going back to a DRM scheme with some sort of lockdown for cancelled subscriptions? I say no, because they will not be downloaded, only streamed. Stop subscription, stop streaming access.

Why does Apple continue to ask me for $0.30 to upgrade all the old 128kbps DRM'd AACs I purchased years back? Wouldn't they just discontinue that program right now if they were about to let me download them all for free anyhow? I say no, because they will not be downloaded, only streamed.
Carefully read the description of iTunes Match here (http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/).
"18 million songs for matching. iCloud scans and matches your music with the 18 million songs in iTunes. So chances are your music is already in iCloud."Implies to me your matched music will be played from the iCloud, just like the 90-second previews in the iTunes store, but the whole song. Imagine the current iCloud icon next to your song in a playlist with a little play button instead of the little download arrow.
"And all the music iTunes matches plays back at 256-Kbps iTunes Plus quality — even if your original copy was of lower quality." Plays back. Not downloads. Plays back.

Mark my words, iTunes Match is a streaming/syncing service. The writing is on the wall folks.

koruki
Jun 16, 2011, 10:09 PM
How about they just pull their content from iTunes and see if that boost their CD sales? How simple is the logic $0 vs a little $?

ryanwarsaw
Jun 16, 2011, 10:10 PM
Steve needs to up his "one more thing" game.

blybug
Jun 16, 2011, 10:16 PM
Did you just make all of that up? Because I don't see anything that backs up what you're saying. The fine print says that what can't be matched will upload. Up to 25,000 songs. It doesn't say anything about the 5GB storage being affected by iTunes in the cloud.

Jobs also said that you would get all of the benefits of purchased music from matched content. That seems to imply re-downloading, not streaming.

Very little detail has been released about how iTunes Match will work. But what has been stated backs up what I am saying just as well as or better than the assumption that these songs will be downloaded.

The 25,000 song limit is the most that iTunes Match with scan from any one iTunes Library. They are not going to allow the upload of 25,000 songs without charging you for more than the baseline "free" 5GB.

The reason unmatched songs will have to be uploaded is that there is not a copy already in the iTunes Store to stream to you. This will undoubtedly count against your 5GB iCloud. It's precisely why Jobs dug at Amazon and Google because they require you to upload ALL your songs to play from their clouds. Apple only requires you upload what doesn't match, because they will stream you the rest for $24.99/yr.

This is why Apple has a deal with the labels and the others don't. They will pay the labels a few pennies every time a song is streamed. Amazon and Google are just storage lockers. The table at the bottom of

http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/

is very clever as well, implying the annual price for 20,000 songs is $24.99. What that means is 20,000 songs that are already on Apple's servers. No way you are going to be able to store 20,000 unmatched songs for "free" in your 5GB of iCloud. That's the problem with the Amazon/Google model, you'll pay for storage ($???) to have access to your music in their clouds.

TMar
Jun 16, 2011, 10:19 PM
Most the people that stole your music where never going to buy it. Depending on how Apple licensed match, music labels will be recouping revenue that they never would have had anyway.

TMar
Jun 16, 2011, 10:21 PM
The reason unmatched songs will have to be uploaded is that there is not a copy already in the iTunes Store to stream to you. This will undoubtedly count against your 5GB iCloud. It's precisely why Jobs dug at Amazon and Google because they require you to upload ALL your songs to play from their clouds. Apple only requires you upload what doesn't match, because they will stream you the rest for $24.99/yr.



I'll have to go back and look but i think they said they would upload unmatched music free, still I think they'll have a cap on that.


If iTunes Match actually allows you to DOWNLOAD a 256kbps AAC rather than STREAMING, then...


Won't this open up a whole new era of pirating, with the neoNapsters of the world sharing/stealing crappy small 16kbps files for iTunes to upgrade? A bunch of friends cobble together the $24.99 and they all receive unlimted downloads of the high quality versions of all their songs? I say no, because the files will not be downloaded, only streamed.

What happens to someone who downloads all the upgraded versions, then stops their iTunes Match subscription? Do the files explode? Is Apple going back to a DRM scheme with some sort of lockdown for cancelled subscriptions? I say no, because they will not be downloaded, only streamed. Stop subscription, stop streaming access.

Why does Apple continue to ask me for $0.30 to upgrade all the old 128kbps DRM'd AACs I purchased years back? Wouldn't they just discontinue that program right now if they were about to let me download them all for free anyhow? I say no, because they will not be downloaded, only streamed.
Carefully read the description of iTunes Match here (http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/).
"18 million songs for matching. iCloud scans and matches your music with the 18 million songs in iTunes. So chances are your music is already in iCloud."Implies to me your matched music will be played from the iCloud, just like the 90-second previews in the iTunes store, but the whole song. Imagine the current iCloud icon next to your song in a playlist with a little play button instead of the little download arrow.
"And all the music iTunes matches plays back at 256-Kbps iTunes Plus quality — even if your original copy was of lower quality." Plays back. Not downloads. Plays back.

Mark my words, iTunes Match is a streaming/syncing service. The writing is on the wall folks.

It don't think it will be streaming. Music from the itunes ios app already shows past purchases as being icloud but they are downloaded.

But yes, this will be a service to launder "dirty" music.

maclaptop
Jun 16, 2011, 10:26 PM
Steve needs to up his "one more thing" game.

He has got to have his hands full making so many sweeping changes good or bad.

blybug
Jun 16, 2011, 10:30 PM
I'll have to go back and look but i think they said they would upload unmatched music free, still I think they'll have a cap on that.

I love Apple and Jobs and drink the Kool-Aid heavily.

He sold the iTunes Match masterfully with plenty of sleight of hand. Talked at length about all the stuff that doesn't count against your 5GB (Mail, Calendar, purchased iTunes, etc).

Segued into the iTunes Match and takes dig at Amazon cloud player for requiring upload of your entire library from scratch, while iTunes Match would virtually instantaneously match the song and give you access! Then while everyone is in an iTunes orgasmic frenzy, he slips it in that the only thing you have to upload to iCloud is your unmatched music. WE LOVE YOU STEVE!!!

He never said this part was unlimited or free storage.

Lots of people heard what they wanted to hear and are making a lot of assumptions as gospel that were never explicitly stated. There is no current business model I know of that can sustain free storage of up to 25,000 songs and unlimited free downloads of unsecured items that otherwise cost $1.29 to purchase.

The only way this works, makes money, and pleases the record industry is that iTunes Match streams you the 256kbps version of your song sitting in the iTunes Store. If it's not in the store, you will pay to keep a version in the iCloud with your 5GB or with extra $$$. Why is this so hard to believe?

blybug
Jun 16, 2011, 10:33 PM
I don't think it will be streaming. Music from the itunes ios app already shows past purchases as being icloud but they are downloaded.

But yes, this will be a service to launder "dirty" music.

Past (iTunes) purchases will be and are already re-downloadable with iCloud beta.

iTunes Match is a different service to be launched in September that will behave differently for those who pay for it. Will show your matched songs in the iCloud and let you play them back from the iCloud. Apple will undoubtedly make this seamless so that a playlist can go from a local song on your iPod to a cloud song with out a hiccup...

Mad Mac Maniac
Jun 16, 2011, 10:40 PM
The only way this works, makes money, and pleases the record industry is that iTunes Match streams you the 256kbps version of your song sitting in the iTunes Store. If it's not in the store, you will pay to keep a version in the iCloud with your 5GB or with extra $$$. Why is this so hard to believe?

You are thinking into it too much. there is NO streaming music. none. zilch. itunes in the cloud is in no way a streaming service. Apple doesn't lose money by allowing you to redownload music you already bought. They have always done that for apps, not it just applies to music.

and the unmatched songs that are uploaded to iCloud can just be downloaded to any device you want. no streaming. I'm not sure if it was identified if that counts against your 5gb. I'm thinking it doesn't... but it might

Kaibelf
Jun 16, 2011, 10:40 PM
Perhaps if they made music that was good enough to actually sell to large amounts of people, this wouldn't be an issue to them.

CWallace
Jun 16, 2011, 10:40 PM
Plays back. Not downloads. Plays back.

Mark my words, iTunes Match is a streaming/syncing service. The writing is on the wall folks.

But if it's just steaming, then it's useless for people who don't have an iPhone or iPod Touch because you can't stream to a Nano or a Classic or a Shuffle.

And you can only stream to an iPhone or an iPod Touch when you're connected to a WiFi network or a cellular network.

And if you're connected to a cellular network, you're eating into your monthly bandwidth allotment to stream.

So what real benefit is it to people? Better to just manually sync the actual data to your device like we do now.

pirateyarrr
Jun 16, 2011, 10:40 PM
Lemme get this straight. The example of a record company that is being hurt by Match is... Numero Group? A bunch of guys that make money off re-releasing dead artists' material?

Sorry, no sale. I don't care if file sharing is cutting into your profit margins. And I definitely don't care that a useful, long-overdue service from Apple is maybe going to cut into them even more. Like a previous poster said, if you don't like it, pull your crap off the iTunes Store.

The automotive assembly line killed the buggy-whip manufacturing business. Guess what, that's what happens. Adapt or die. There's no right or wrong about it; it's JUST THE WAY IT IS.

michaelcyee
Jun 16, 2011, 10:41 PM
That's what I don't understand about iTunes Match... what keeps someone from continuing to "pirate" music and register (i.e. "legitimatize") pirated songs via iTunes Match?

Is Apple going to work with the RIAA to identify pirated music and support the investigation? I could totally see the RIAA planting songs on the torrents with their own unique watermarks and then Apple giving them a call when these watermarked songs show up in iTunes Match, along with the user's name, address, etc.

If they don't, then $24.95 / year definitely doesn't sound like enough money to keep all the labels happy.

That wouldn't even begin to encompass the some 10 years we've had with P2P like Napster and Limewire and then the torrents. Nor does it cover private torrent trackers. Plus, if they're going to mess around like that, it's much more economical to just put in white noise or just ruin it in general to frustrate the pirates rather than try to catch them if/when they try to use iTunes Match (how many pirates do you think would sign up for that service?).

jlgolson
Jun 16, 2011, 10:41 PM
Apple will make it seamless, but there's 3 kinds of songs:

(1) Purchased on iTunes with local copy on your device, and if not, available to download. No dent in your 5GB iCloud. This is already working. Very nice.Correct!

(2) Obtained elsewhere but iTunes Matched. Can stream from the iCloud as long as you pay your subscription. No dent in your 5GB storage. It's Pandora with your database playing Apple's copy of the track. This is why this entire article and thread is a non-issue.INCORRECT! iTunes Match gives you the EXACT SAME benefits as (1) but for music obtained elsewhere. Whether you got it from Amazon, ripped a CD or pirated it, it gives you a 256Kbps AAC copy from iTunes (if that's better than the copy you have) AND lets you download to all your devices, exactly the same as if you purchased it from iTunes. There is NO streaming. No dent in your 5GB storage, because it's just giving you access to iTunes tracks for free.

(3) No match for your song. Uploads your file to iCloud, counts against your 5GB, available to download to any device.Correct.

What keeps someone from continuing to "pirate" music and register (i.e. "legitimatize") pirated songs via iTunes Match?Absolutely nothing.
Is Apple going to work with the RIAA to identify pirated music and support the investigation? I could totally see the RIAA planting songs on the torrents with their own unique watermarks and then Apple giving them a call when these watermarked songs show up in iTunes Match, along with the user's name, address, etc.This will never happen.

If iTunes Match actually allows you to DOWNLOAD a 256kbps AAC rather than STREAMING, then...

Won't this open up a whole new era of pirating, with the neoNapsters of the world sharing/stealing crappy small 16kbps files for iTunes to upgrade? A bunch of friends cobble together the $24.99 and they all receive unlimted downloads of the high quality versions of all their songs? I say no, because the files will not be downloaded, only streamed.Yes, it will! A bunch of friends won't "cobble together" anything. It's $25 bucks and it only works on a certain number of devices. $25 is not a lot of money. THERE IS NO STREAMING. Only downloading.

What happens to someone who downloads all the upgraded versions, then stops their iTunes Match subscription? Do the files explode? Is Apple going back to a DRM scheme with some sort of lockdown for cancelled subscriptions? I say no, because they will not be downloaded, only streamed. Stop subscription, stop streaming access.Again, no streaming. You keep all the files that you have downloaded, and stop getting access to iCloud backup of your songs until you pay $25 again. The files don't have DRM. They are 100% identical to the tracks you get from iTunes.

Why does Apple continue to ask me for $0.30 to upgrade all the old 128kbps DRM'd AACs I purchased years back? Wouldn't they just discontinue that program right now if they were about to let me download them all for free anyhow? I say no, because they will not be downloaded, only streamed.Good question. It seems pretty silly. Gotta be an oversight.

Implies to me your matched music will be played from the iCloud, just like the 90-second previews in the iTunes store, but the whole song. Imagine the current iCloud icon next to your song in a playlist with a little play button instead of the little download arrow.
"And all the music iTunes matches plays back at 256-Kbps iTunes Plus quality — even if your original copy was of lower quality." Plays back. Not downloads. Plays back.You're wrong. It's a "download" service. No streaming. At all. None.

Mark my words, iTunes Match is a streaming/syncing service. The writing is on the wall folks.[/B]If you're right, I'll pay for your first year of iTunes Match. There is no streaming.

All iTunes Match does is add your existing music to iCloud, and treats it the same as any music you have purchased from iTunes.

blybug
Jun 16, 2011, 10:47 PM
iTunes Match gives you the EXACT SAME benefits as (1) but for music obtained elsewhere. Whether you got it from Amazon, ripped a CD or pirated it, it gives you a 256Kbps AAC copy from iTunes (if that's better than the copy you have) AND lets you download to all your devices, exactly the same as if you purchased it from iTunes.

Can you point me to a place on apple.com or a point in the keynote that confirms this precise functionality? I've pointed out how carefully they've parsed their words on the iTunes Match description. It does not include what you are saying at all, but does not exclude what I am suggesting.

You're wrong. It's a "download" service. No streaming. At all. None.

If you're right, I'll pay for your first year of iTunes Match. There is no streaming.

All iTunes Match does is add your existing music to iCloud, and treats it the same as any music you have purchased from iTunes.

Excellent! I offer you the same!

ARF900
Jun 16, 2011, 10:49 PM
I really still cant believe match even exists. How steve convinced the record companies to go for it I have no idea.

hlfway2anywhere
Jun 16, 2011, 10:52 PM
Can you point me to a place on apple.com or a point in the keynote that confirms this precise functionality? I've pointed out how carefully they've parsed their words on the iTunes Match description. It does not include what you are saying at all, but does not exclude what I am suggesting.



Excellent! I offer you the same!

I'm not watching the keynote again just to appease you. Jobs said it. Watch it yourself. Stop making crap up.

Justinf79
Jun 16, 2011, 10:54 PM
So if iCloud won't let you stream songs and requires you to download them instead to each device, what the hell is the point? I can just connect my ipod or whatever to the computer and sync up any music. It's essentially worthless with out streaming, IMO.

Google Music is looking like the better deal for me.

TMar
Jun 16, 2011, 10:56 PM
Lots of people heard what they wanted to hear and are making a lot of assumptions as gospel that were never explicitly stated. There is no current business model I know of that can sustain free storage of up to 25,000 songs and unlimited free downloads of unsecured items that otherwise cost $1.29 to purchase.

The only way this works, makes money, and pleases the record industry is that iTunes Match streams you the 256kbps version of your song sitting in the iTunes Store. If it's not in the store, you will pay to keep a version in the iCloud with your 5GB or with extra $$$. Why is this so hard to believe?

Isn't this exactly what you are doing? Like I said in an earlier post this is the only way for the labels to make recoup the loss of stolen music. Download or streaming (even though I doubt it will be streaming). If match never came around then the labels would recoup $0 for pirated music, with match (even download match) they will at least recoup some of that money.

Mak47
Jun 16, 2011, 10:57 PM
Numero is an interesting label. They do some really, really cool stuff--and it's mostly focused on audiophile vinyl. They dig up old, obscure releases and give them new life, which is awesome in my opinion.

That said, I think this guys numbers are a bit off. Many of the records they release are old, obscure recordings that haven't been available commercially for many years. Of course they're going to be all over file sharing networks--it was the only way to get them!

He's also missing the point of iTunes match, and maybe doesn't understand how it pays him. I own an independent record label myself, and while I won't go into exact details, I will say that this is a great deal for us.

All labels and artists, big and small suffer from music piracy. People who are going to steal music are going to do it no matter what. They still usually put it on their iPods or iPhones though. Now, with this service, people will start paying something for the music they acquired illegally. I see it as free money. It's not a huge amount, but something's better than nothing.

The other side of it is that I'll be getting paid twice in many situations. If a customer buys a CD from an artist at their show and then uploads it to iTunes Match--My label gets paid a second time. If they buy it from Amazon, then upload it to iTunes--My label gets paid again. If they bought it from iTunes on an old account, then transferred it to a new account and upload it--once again, we're paid a second time. Like I said, it's kind of like free money. This service didn't exist two weeks ago, and now it does.

Anyone who owns a label of any size, or is an independent artist who doesn't understand that this benefits them simply isn't paying attention.

hlfway2anywhere
Jun 16, 2011, 10:58 PM
So if iCloud won't let you stream songs and requires you to download them instead to each device, what the hell is the point? I can just connect my ipod or whatever to the computer and sync up any music. It's essentially worthless with out streaming, IMO.

Google Music is looking like the better deal for me.

The point is wireless setup and re-downloading. My iPhone has about 1/8 ofnmy library. It would be awesome if I could go grab a song off my iTunes in the cloud and download it to my phone if I decide I want it. Or if I buy a new device, or want my library on multiple computers. That's a lot of manual work if you want to do it today.

TMar
Jun 16, 2011, 10:58 PM
So if iCloud won't let you stream songs and requires you to download them instead to each device, what the hell is the point? I can just connect my ipod or whatever to the computer and sync up any music. It's essentially worthless with out streaming, IMO.

Google Music is looking like the better deal for me.

So if you're away home away from your computer being able to re-download the song to your device via the cloud isn't as easy as streaming it?

AppleScruff1
Jun 16, 2011, 11:01 PM
Remember a lot of us were alive during the transition from CDs to iTunes. That means a lot of us have thousands of songs purchased legally imported into iTunes. It also means people are covered if they bought them from an alternative service like Amazon. People are going to steal regardless. This is a big plus for the honest folk out there.

Some were alive during the transition from vinyl to 8 track tapes, and 8 track to cassette, and cassette to cd, and cd to digital. Not to mention mini disk, DAT-digital audio tape for you yung uns, SACD and quadrophonic tapes. Oh, and I almost forgot reel to reel.

smoking monkey
Jun 16, 2011, 11:03 PM
This seems to be the line of thinking of record companies. Personally I think they are deluding themselves if they believe this.

As rockosmodurnlif noted in his earlier post -- I agree!

Justinf79
Jun 16, 2011, 11:04 PM
So if you're away home away from your computer being able to re-download the song to your device via the cloud isn't as easy as streaming it?

It's not if your device is already full and you can't download anything more on to it. Plus having to download means that Android and other devices won't be able to use iCloud. (I use a N1).

eye
Jun 16, 2011, 11:10 PM
This seems like a good way for record companies to get SOME money from what they've lost from piracy. Otherwise, they get none.

I'm cool if everyone steals from them. I don't listen to Lady GaGa and I don't care if her and her entire label go under. Many of the artists I listen to have been proactive in getting their music to fans and making money in creative ways. If you don't adapt, you die. Darwin taught me that.

Mak47
Jun 16, 2011, 11:20 PM
That's what I don't understand about iTunes Match... what keeps someone from continuing to "pirate" music and register (i.e. "legitimatize") pirated songs via iTunes Match?

Is Apple going to work with the RIAA to identify pirated music and support the investigation? I could totally see the RIAA planting songs on the torrents with their own unique watermarks and then Apple giving them a call when these watermarked songs show up in iTunes Match, along with the user's name, address, etc.

If they don't, then $24.95 / year definitely doesn't sound like enough money to keep all the labels happy.

That's the beauty of this. There is NOTHING that keeps people from pirating music. Apple's goal, and Jobs has stated as much, is to provide a service that is so user friendly, and of such high quality that it presents a better value than pirating music. This service does just that.

On your second point, you are correct. $24.95 isn't very much money to spread around, but it's still more money than we would have made before. In truth, the vast majority of people who steal music wouldn't have paid for it in the first place. If I can get a tiny piece of 20 million illegal downloads vs. a bigger piece of 1,000 legal ones--I'll take the tiny piece.

The other side of this is that it sets a precedent for what labels should expect to be paid from competing companies with similar services. Google and Amazon for example don't have a right to copy your music and play it on an internet stream. They can let you store it all day long, but when they create the stream, besides the songs, they're using titles, names and artwork that are copyright protected material. For songs you buy from them, where they're licensed to do this, that's fine. For anything else it's simply not.

Eventually, these companies will have to pay up and the precedent that Apple has helped set will determine the amount that they will pay.

pmz
Jun 16, 2011, 11:26 PM
iTunes Match will be quite useful to me, a measly $25 a year, for upgrading the few thousand tracks I have in random bit rate from random mp3 sources over many, many years. Music that would cost me thousands more to upgrade to 256 AAC quality.

But will also be utterly useless for every CD I have ever ripped, since all of that music is stored in Apple Lossless. I have no interest in 256k versions of my lossless music.

osx11
Jun 16, 2011, 11:27 PM
My only problem is that I converted all of my music to 320kbps MP3 files, so my quality will suffer. I don't know that I wanna do this whole iTunes Match thing just because of the quality issue. Does anyone know if there is a way that I can keep the quality of my music and still reap the benefits of iTunes Match? :confused:

The whole point of iTunes Match is that Apple does NOT have to store YOUR file. So the answer to your question is: No!

MattInOz
Jun 16, 2011, 11:37 PM
Can you point me to a place on apple.com or a point in the keynote that confirms this precise functionality? I've pointed out how carefully they've parsed their words on the iTunes Match description. It does not include what you are saying at all, but does not exclude what I am suggesting.



Excellent! I offer you the same!

I re-call in the keynote but also covered elsewhere. To grab the tracks you have in the iCloud you go to the iTunes Store App and ask for them to be downloaded to play them you have then switch apps to the new Music app on the dock (old iTunes App) just like it was any other music file you added during the cable syncing era.

So i think you should write that man a cheque. It isn't a streaming service. Streaming would be useless for wifi iPads or iPod Touches.

Michael Scrip
Jun 16, 2011, 11:38 PM
So if iCloud won't let you stream songs and requires you to download them instead to each device, what the hell is the point? I can just connect my ipod or whatever to the computer and sync up any music. It's essentially worthless with out streaming, IMO.

Google Music is looking like the better deal for me.

iCloud is a syncing service... not a streaming service.

Old way: Computer --> USB cable --> iDevice

New way: iCloud --> Wireless --> iDevice

How do your songs get into the iCloud? Your existing iTunes purchases are already there.

Then, iTunes Match will scan your computer to see what songs you have... and will make new AAC versions of them available in the cloud.

Finally, you can upload anything to the cloud that iTunes doesn't already have.

That's iCloud in a nutshell.

In the end... all your music will be on a server for you to download to your devices... syncing your devices to the cloud instead of a computer.

You're right... it isn't a streaming service. So it's different that what Amazon and Google offers.

Plus you can still use your USB cable...

nibus
Jun 16, 2011, 11:53 PM
Won't this open up a whole new era of pirating, with the neoNapsters of the world sharing/stealing crappy small 16kbps files for iTunes to upgrade? A bunch of friends cobble together the $24.99 and they all receive unlimted downloads of the high quality versions of all their songs? I say no, because the files will not be downloaded, only streamed.


I imagine a 16kbps file would not meet the requirements for an iTunes match. In fact, I doubt Apple will allow matches for anything below 64kbps, and possibly even 128. Even if they would allow it, it's doubtful that their song recognition software would work on a bitrate as low as 16kbps. Of course this is all speculation, there are absolutely no details as to how the recognition will work, what files it will work on, the sources, the bitrate, and the quality.

Could you record a song on the radio with your portable device, with radio chatter over the beginning and end, and still have it recognized? Who knows at this point, it will all depend on how strict the waveform recognition software is.

But I speculate that:

1) The song in question would be required to have a length within a few seconds of the iTunes equivilent
2) The bitrate would have to have an "acceptable" listening quality. No one wants to listen to a 16kbps mp3
3) The file in question would be required to contain basic metadata tags with artist, album, and track information.

tonyshucraft
Jun 16, 2011, 11:59 PM
If it were an artist raising concern over this, I might care more but they've been getting screwed by the labels since before iTunes and the labels have little interest in the well being the the artists, most of which make a lot less than people think, and some are probably in debt, even ones whom have major labels.

Some artists have benefited from people being able download songs off of bitttorrent. I think, what the labels will really hate is when it comes to be that quality recording is affordable enough that there is no need for a label, and other tools are there to replace them.

cloroxbleach4
Jun 17, 2011, 12:09 AM
If you download stolen music, you're going to keep downloading stolen music. I don't think this will have much effect.

dosboy
Jun 17, 2011, 12:16 AM
iCloud is a syncing service... not a streaming service.

Old way: Computer --> USB cable --> iDevice

New way: iCloud --> Wireless --> iDevice

How do your songs get into the iCloud? Your existing iTunes purchases are already there.

Then, iTunes Match will scan your computer to see what songs you have... and will make new AAC versions of them available in the cloud.

Finally, you can upload anything to the cloud that iTunes doesn't already have.

That's iCloud in a nutshell.

In the end... all your music will be on a server for you to download to your devices... syncing your devices to the cloud instead of a computer.

You're right... it isn't a streaming service. So it's different that what Amazon and Google offers.

Plus you can still use your USB cable...

Michael said it perfectly!

umbilical
Jun 17, 2011, 12:19 AM
hey apple! let me know when you sell LOSSLESS files! I dont care mp3 and stream lossy stuff :mad:

TMar
Jun 17, 2011, 12:34 AM
It's not if your device is already full and you can't download anything more on to it. Plus having to download means that Android and other devices won't be able to use iCloud. (I use a N1).

Don't keep your device full? If your device is already full of music sounds like you have plenty to listen to. PC free, let's hope Apple doesn't forget to give us a way to completely manage out music so we can delete them from out devices as well.

So apple should cater to other devices? If you want to be able to fully use an Apple service you should expect to use an Apple device. If you're on android, Google has an answer for you in their own service.

the vj
Jun 17, 2011, 12:34 AM
1. 90% of my music are from CDs I already have

2. If Apple charges a fee for a service it is just that.

3. Record labels can still chasing people who have been downloading illegally and do what ever they want, Apple has nothing to do with it.

blybug
Jun 17, 2011, 12:35 AM
Below is a transcript of the WWDC Keynote where Jobs describes iTunes Match. I see how the wording about "same benefits as music purchased from iTunes" could be interpreted as download of the 256kbps AAC file, but nowhere in Jobs' description or on the Apple webpage describing iTunes Match is the word "download" ever used. It's always "upgrading" and "playing." If they meant "You get to download and keep a 256kbps AAC copy" then why don't they just say that anywhere? There's some salesmanship verging on misleading going on here. I think the "benefits" referred to are the zero-storage and the availability the iCloud offers...not the re-download of a file.

I'm reading that as these songs are available in your master cloud library to be played on any device, seamlessly, just as if they were "on" the device. Your $24.99 goes towards paying Apple and the record companies a few pennies each time a song is streamed, just like traditional radio royalties or the fees Pandora pays and subsidizes through ads or premium service. That price is much more in line with that sort of model that unlimited downloads of actual upgraded AAC files they have no way to verify you actually "own."

Apple is trying to sell the idea that it doesn't matter where the file is stored as long as you have access to it. And for those saying it can't be streaming because that's useless for iPod nanos or WiFi devices...the requirements listed are an iDevice and iOS5...even a download service is useless without an internet connection. This is the beginning of the cloud era. No internet, you don't get to play with Apple or any other like service. It's a library in the cloud, this is a new way of thinking we are being introduced to, and thinking we will get to (or need to) download everything is the old way.

Jobs' intro of this service is agonizingly nonspecific about the points that are being argued here, and I think he was very deliberate and careful about the words he used. The big difference Jobs touts between iTunes Match and Amazon as cloud-based music services is that you don't have to spend lots of time and money to upload all your music. But he is comparing them as cloud music services. Both will play your music from the cloud. It's just a difference of how it gets there and whose copy of the file is playing.

Nothing in life comes for free. The tradeoff for this ease of use has got to be that Apple's method doesn't allow you to download your matched non-iTunes purchased content of ripped CDs or whatever, but only play it from the cloud. It's not some "storage locker" for your files like Amazon, it is the entire iTunes Store library, and you are signing out their copy. The cloud is now the main storage repository, and there are some songs there you have bought, some unmatched that you have uploaded, and some matched that you are permitted to stream. This follows the "web song" paradigm of the old Lala service Apple took over.

It's entirely possible that I am wrong about this, but until I see it explicitly written or hear it come straight from Jobs' mouth that $24.99 per year allows us to download unlimited copies of unprotected 256kbps to any device any time I have to believe the Match songs will stream from the iTunes store. I'm not "making crap up," I think this is a reasonable and realistic interpretation of how this works. It may be an industry leading model, but it can't be that many miles ahead of Google and Amazon in terms of cost without some subtle tradeoff.

I am curious...what method do you all propose will remove access to these songs once a user cancels their subscription? How could Apple delete all these upgraded copies that were downloaded over the course of a year?

TRANSCRIPT
Now there's one more thing…a small thing…it pertains to itunes in the cloud.

As you recall iTunes in the cloud is just for the music you purchased from the iTunes store. Now at 15 billion songs, that's a lot of songs out there, that's a lot of songs purchased from the iTunes music store. But you may have some that you ripped yourself. And there's three ways you can deal with that.

You can sync your new devices over wifi or cable and you only have to sync them once to get that music on them and then you can rely on iCloud to take care of getting all your new purchases off iTunes onto that device

or

If it's just a few songs you love that you don't want to leave behind, you can buy those songs that you'll miss on iTunes…we're going to offer a third way

Which is called iTunes Match.

What is iTunes Match?

Well, iTunes Match uses the fact that we've got 18 million songs now in the iTunes Music Store. And the chances are awfully good that we've got the songs in our store that you've ripped. So we wrote software to scan those CDs (the non-iTunes music) and match it up with those songs we have in the store. And so, we give that music the same benefits as music purchased from iTunes and it takes just minutes (not weeks)…if you have to upload your whole library to some locker in the sky, that literally takes weeks. This takes minutes because we're scanning and matching your library so we don't need to upload that large part of your library. And those few songs that remain, we'll upload them. But with 18 million songs, we're most likely to have what you've got.

In addition, iTunes Match will upgrade those songs to match the 256kbps AAC and iTunes Match costs just $24.99 a year. So if you've got a bunch of music that you didn't buy from iTunes, you can get all the benefits of the cloud service and more in terms of upgrading your music for $24.99 a year.

Now if you look and compare that to some competitors, let's just look at Apple and Amazon and Google, you kind of get surprised because again, the library in the cloud, we scan and match, the other guys you gotta upload your whole music library. Again it's gonna take weeks. Music apps on your Mac and PC, your stuck with a web app instead of iTunes. Upgrade to 256kbps, the other guys aren't upgrading you at all. The annual price for 5000 songs $24.99, Amazon charges you $50 for the storage and Google hasn't announced their pricing yet. Even at 20,000 songs we charge one flat price, Amazon's up to $200 for the storage, and Google hasn't announced their prices yet.

So most of our customers won't need this because they've bought a lot of their music on iTunes but for those that do it's uh, an industry leading offer, let's put it that way. So that's iTunes Match, and it goes along with free iTunes in the cloud, and that's what it is.

Santabean2000
Jun 17, 2011, 12:38 AM
If it were an artist raising concern over this, I might care more but they've been getting screwed by the labels since before iTunes and the labels have little interest in the well being the the artists, most of which make a lot less than people think, and some are probably in debt, even ones whom have major labels.

Some artists have benefited from people being able download songs off of bitttorrent. I think, what the labels will really hate is when it comes to be that quality recording is affordable enough that there is no need for a label, and other tools are there to replace them.

Exactly. It's the labels and middlemen who are most at risk here. Poor them.

TMar
Jun 17, 2011, 12:52 AM
Below is a transcript of the WWDC Keynote where Jobs describes iTunes Match. I see how the wording about "same benefits as music purchased from iTunes" could be interpreted as download of the 256kbps AAC file, but nowhere in Jobs' description or on the Apple webpage describing iTunes Match is the word "download" ever used. It's always "upgrading" and "playing." If they meant "You get to download a 256kbps AAC copy" then why don't they just say that anywhere? There's some salesmanship verging on misleading going on here.

I'm reading that as these songs are available in your master cloud library to be played on any device, seamlessly, just as if they were "on" the device. Your $24.99 goes towards paying Apple and the record companies a few pennies each time a song is streamed, just like traditional radio royalties or the fees Pandora pays and subsidizes through ads or premium service. That price is much more in line with that sort of model that unlimited downloads of actual upgraded AAC files they have no way to verify you actually "own."

Apple is trying to sell the idea that it doesn't matter where the file is stored as long as you have access to it. And for those saying it can't be streaming because that's useless for iPod nanos or WiFi devices...the requirements listed are an iDevice and iOS5...even a download service is useless without an internet connection. This is the beginning of the cloud era. No internet, you don't get to play with Apple or any other like service.

Jobs' intro of this service is agonizingly nonspecific about the points that are being argued here, and I think he was very deliberate and careful about the words he used. The big difference Jobs touts between iTunes Match and Amazon as cloud-based music services is that you don't have to spend lots of time and money to upload all your music. But he is comparing them as cloud music services. Both will play your music from the cloud. It's just a difference of how it gets there and whose copy of the file is playing.

Nothing in life comes for free. The tradeoff for this ease of use has got to be that Apple's method doesn't allow you to download your matched non-iTunes purchased content of ripped CDs or whatever, but only play it from the cloud. It's not some "storage locker" for your files like Amazon, it is the entire iTunes Store library, and you are signing out their copy. The cloud is now the main storage repository, and there are some songs there you have bought, some unmatched that you have uploaded, and some matched that you are permitted to stream. This follows the "web song" paradigm of the old Lala service Apple took over.

It's entirely possible that I am wrong about this, but until I see it explicitly written or hear it come straight from Jobs' mouth that $24.99 per year allows us to download unlimited copies of unprotected 256kbps to any device any time I have to believe the Match songs will stream from the iTunes store. I'm not "making crap up," I think this is a reasonable and realistic interpretation of how this works. It may be an industry leading model, but it can't be that many miles ahead of Google and Amazon in terms of cost without some subtle tradeoff.

I am curious...what method do you all propose will remove access to these songs once a user cancels their subscription? How could Apple delete all these upgraded copies that were downloaded over the course of a year?



And no where does it say streaming. This would take a huge upgrade to the itunes store backend and I do not see it happening. The way I see it it will scan your library, all the music it matches will show the same way purchased music already shows up now (as in THIS) (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1171651). The framework for this is already in iOS 5. Now when you quite paying the $25 a year then these matched songs are removed from your available purchases so you can no longer download them on the go.

And to that, Apple is all about battery life and streaming has a very negative impact on that. Much more so then just downloading and playing. Also streaming 256kbps AAC isn't practical.

chaosbunny
Jun 17, 2011, 12:59 AM
I buy my music as CDs and rip them, I like to have the physical thing. No pirating going on here. I certainly won't be using iTunes match, as I see no benefit in paying again to give the labels "more feedback about the types of music that consumers are listening to". It's not that hard to plug my iPhone into my computer, I'm doing it anyway to load its battery.

blybug
Jun 17, 2011, 12:59 AM
And no where does it say streaming. This would take a huge upgrade to the itunes store backend and I do not see it happening. The way I see it it will scan your library, all the music it matches will show the same way purchased music already shows up now (as in THIS) (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1171651). The framework for this is already in iOS 5. Now when you quite paying the $25 a year then these matched songs are removed from your available purchases so you can no longer download them on the go.

iTunes Store already streams 90 second previews in the iTunes app and on iOS. No upgrade to the backend needed to stream the whole song in the Music app if it matches the song in your library. Nothing a massive server farm couldn't handle :)

I guess we'll see. Download of the AACs sounds too good to be true, and the fact that they have explicitly avoided stating it exactly that way makes me skeptical. Also the fact that it's a cloud service and clearly Apple's model including it's current leading hardware offerings are moving in this direction.

TMar
Jun 17, 2011, 01:07 AM
iTunes Store already streams 90 second previews in the iTunes app and on iOS. No upgrade to the backend needed to stream the whole song in the Music app if it matches the song in your library. Nothing a massive server farm couldn't handle :)

I guess we'll see. Download of the AACs sounds too good to be true, and the fact that they have explicitly avoided stating it exactly that way makes me skeptical. Also the fact that it's a cloud service and clearly Apple's model including it's current leading hardware offerings are moving in this direction.

Look at itune purchased tab right now, download from cloud. Everything icould has not been "it all stored on the cloud", it's been "it's sent to the cloud then sent to all devices". Photos, apps everything sent to each device, not stored on the cloud for all device to use.

Michael Scrip
Jun 17, 2011, 01:10 AM
...but nowhere in Jobs' description or on the Apple webpage describing iTunes Match is the word "download" ever used. It's always "upgrading" and "playing." If they meant "You get to download a 256kbps AAC copy" then why don't they just say that anywhere? There's some salesmanship verging on misleading going on here.

Steve Jobs nor the Apple website talked about streaming either... they didn't even use the word "streaming" at WWDC.

If this was a steaming service... where your songs live in the cloud and are streamed in real-time to your devices.... surely they would mention 3G and other wireless technologies.

But they didn't... because iCloud is definitely not streaming.

I just went back and watched the keynote... and Steve said any song you purchased on your iPhone could be downloaded to your iPad or any other iDevice at no additional charge. Basically... any song you own in the cloud can be pushed (downloaded) to your other devices. Steve used the word push a few times.

Then we got the "one more thing..."

iTunes Match is what you use to have your other music be a part of iCloud... where you can download those other songs to all your iDevices.

That's the "same benefits as music purchased from iTunes" part of the keynote. But, iTunes Match comes at a cost of $25 a year to make your other song be a part of iCloud.


So basically... your existing iTunes purchases can be pushed (downloaded) to your iDevices for free...

And you can pay $25 a year to have your other music be pushed down to your devices.

ipedro
Jun 17, 2011, 01:20 AM
I'm in the camp that thinks that iTunes Match is an absolutely brilliant idea. A lot of people decide to keep ripping tracks since most of their library is ripped stuff. If you all of a sudden have a perfectly clean library, you're going to be motivated to keep it that way by buying all your new music and/or continue paying the annual iTunes Match subscription.

I'd just like to see music drop back below the psychological barrier of 99¢ I find myself thinking a lot more before I buy now with tracks @ $1.29

Ultimately, artists make very little money from record sales anyway. Their income comes from live performances and merchandise. iTunes needs to push independent artists without a label who submit their music themselves. Ping is a good direction if only it improves its mainstream adoption.

skellener
Jun 17, 2011, 01:20 AM
There is no streaming in iCloud, there is no streaming in iCloud, there is no streaming in iCloud...keep repeating it until it "syncs" in. ;)

Michael Scrip
Jun 17, 2011, 01:27 AM
iTunes Store already streams 90 second previews in the iTunes app and on iOS. No upgrade to the backend needed to stream the whole song in the Music app if it matches the song in your library. Nothing a massive server farm couldn't handle :)


While Apple's data centers can probably out-muscle any streaming company's servers... Apple didn't want to build a streaming service.

zztype
Jun 17, 2011, 01:35 AM
I resent the insinuations that all the music in my iTunes not purchased from Apple or even Amazon must be stolen.

I have a couple thousand CDs stored in my home, a testament to my longtime love affair with music. All those albums have been ripped into MP3; then AAC. I also have a few albums of music which were ripped from the PHONOGRAPH RECORDS which are still stored in my closet, records which never made it onto CD. This doesn't even speak of the hundreds of CASSETTES I have thrown out, which replaced the records and 8-TRACK and REEL-TO-REEL copies my my favorite albums, which were eventually replaced with CDs as media changed over the decades.

All told, I have purchased many of my favorite albums several times on different media, and I am tired of it. I finally have all my favorite music stored in a portable, transportable medium. If the record companies change format, again, I am ready for them this time. That is what they are complaining about. they can't change the format any more and make me buy my music all over again. Sorry to disappoint, guys. Time to think of a new way of making money, because I'm not going to pay you again for the same thing I paid you for several times, already.

Any music I purchase going forward will probably be digital, and it will be NEW MUSIC, not stuff that I have already bought. Unfortunately, they're not producing that much new music that I feel the need to buy any more. That's not my fault. Find out what your market wants, then supply it and I will buy it; you will make money. Otherwise, fail.

Really, get a clue, big music business.

blybug
Jun 17, 2011, 01:46 AM
Look at itune purchased tab right now, download from cloud. Everything icould has not been "it all stored on the cloud", it's been "it's sent to the cloud then sent to all devices". Photos, apps everything sent to each device, not stored on the cloud for all device to use.

That's because presently everything being pushed/shared right now is owned or purchased by you. Clicking the option to have songs or apps I purchased on one device or computer automatically and effortlessly duplicated to other devices is terrifically convenient, but I predict that's not precisely what iTunes Match is going to do for your non-purchased content.

Steve Jobs nor the Apple website talked about streaming either... they didn't even use the word "streaming" at WWDC.

If this was a steaming service... where your songs live in the cloud and are streamed in real-time to your devices.... surely they would mention 3G and other wireless technologies.

But they didn't... because iCloud is definitely not streaming.
No...they didn't because Jobs didn't want to be greeted with stunned silence or indifferent one-hand clapping. Jobs famously stated in the past that people want to "own their music." Using words like "own" and "download" and "keep" would have been very clear and positive had they been used. The fact that they were not is very telling, and the beginning of the subtle backpedalling on that position.

"Streaming" and "subscription" carry negative connotations, especially in the history of Apple, Jobs, and their music model. Jobs has openly mocked subscription services in the past. That Jobs used subtle variations like "upgrading" and the Apple website says "plays" shows me they are trying to ease us into this new paradigm without using any "S" words.

I just went back and watched the keynote... and Steve said any song you purchased on your iPhone could be downloaded to your iPad or any other iDevice at no additional charge. Basically... any song you own in the cloud can be pushed (downloaded) to your other devices. Steve used the word push a few times.

Then we got the "one more thing..."

iTunes Match is what you use to have your other music be a part of iCloud... where you can download those other songs to all your iDevices.

That's the "same benefits as music purchased from iTunes" part of the keynote. But, iTunes Match comes at a cost of $25 a year to make your other song be a part of iCloud.


So basically... your existing iTunes purchases can be pushed (downloaded) to your iDevices for free...

And you can pay $25 a year to have your other music be pushed down to your devices.
Listen, nobody would like this to be true more than me. But it just doesn't make sense. Consider:


17,472 songs (94GB) are in my iTunes library.
4,246 are iTunes Store purchases. (1,964 of them are 128kbps DRM versions Apple will upgrade for me right now for the low low price of $526.14)
1,215 (7.5GB) of them are mash-ups downloaded from various websites and will not iTunes match
12,011 are ripped from CDs most at 128kbps (and a few purchased from Amazon or other places) we'll assume are part of Apple's 18 million songs

Do you genuinely believe that for $24.99 Apple is going to allow me to download and keep 12,011 256kbps AACs of my non-iTunes content ($15,494) over and over as many times as I want, upgrade my older iTunes songs ($526.14) and store my 7.5GB of non-matched content on the iCloud at no additional charge? I'd have to be a subscriber for 641 years for them to break even.

They will let me re-download and copy those 4,246 iTunes songs as many times as I like, stream the iTunes Store copy of the 12,011 ripped CD tracks, and charge me a premium beyond the free 5GB to store my 7.5GB of unmatched content, which I can also freely download as much as I like back and forth to any device. Pretty good bet when I stream a Matched track that there will be a big fat green "BUY" button right next to it.

MattInOz
Jun 17, 2011, 01:49 AM
I am curious...what method do you all propose will remove access to these songs once a user cancels their subscription? How could Apple delete all these upgraded copies that were downloaded over the course of a year?



Why would Apple need to delete my files?

Apple currently assumes I'm innocent. That I value my music and have valid licenses for it the music I have on my system and truly cut the cord that needs to move to the cloud. Like Apple has from Day one of tackling the music industry, which is why they have the following they do.

If this is a streaming system then they have changed to assuming "Guilt" and I will stop patronizing their stores. This is why streaming systems fail, who wants to pay a company for a product if it's clear they don't trust you. If they don't trust you why trust them.

fluffylion
Jun 17, 2011, 01:53 AM
I resent the insinuations that all the music in my iTunes not purchased from Apple or even Amazon must be stolen.

I have a couple thousand CDs stored in my home, a testament to my longtime love affair with music. All those albums have been ripped into MP3; then AAC. I also have a few albums of music which were ripped from the PHONOGRAPH RECORDS which are still stored in my closet, records which never made it onto CD. This doesn't even speak of the hundreds of CASSETTES I have thrown out, which replaced the records and 8-TRACK and REEL-TO-REEL copies my my favorite albums, which were eventually replaced with CDs as media changed over the decades.

All told, I have purchased many of my favorite albums several times on different media, and I am tired of it. I finally have all my favorite music stored in a portable, transportable medium. If the record companies change format, again, I am ready for them this time. That is what they are complaining about. they can't change the format any more and make me buy my music all over again. Sorry to disappoint, guys. Time to think of a new way of making money, because I'm not going to pay you again for the same thing I paid you for several times, already.

Any music I purchase going forward will probably be digital, and it will be NEW MUSIC, not stuff that I have already bought. Unfortunately, they're not producing that much new music that I feel the need to buy any more. That's not my fault. Find out what your market wants, then supply it and I will buy it; you will make money. Otherwise, fail.

Really, get a clue, big music business.

what you wrote doesn't have any relevance to the article

SMGreenfield
Jun 17, 2011, 01:59 AM
I have THOUSANDS of CDs. I've only transferred a fraction of them to iTunes. What I wish I could do is insert the original CD, have Apple "match" register the fact that I have the CD in my possession, then give me access to the songs on that CD. Then I wouldn't have to spend MONTHS importing CDs into iTunes.

TMar
Jun 17, 2011, 01:59 AM
From apple's site

What is itune's in the cloud?
With iCloud, the music you purchase in iTunes appears automatically on all your devices. You can also download your past iTunes purchases. Where you want, when you want.

That is 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.

You keep getting hung up on the 'plays' part but what else is it going to do once downloaded? It plays! Apple would have, without second thought, said stream if that's what they meant.

Michael Scrip
Jun 17, 2011, 02:01 AM
Do you genuinely believe that for $24.99 Apple is going to allow me to download and keep 12,011 256kbps AACs of my non-iTunes content ($15,494) over and over as many times as I want, upgrade my older iTunes songs ($526.14) and store my 7.5GB of non-matched content on the iCloud at no additional charge?

No. They will let me re-download and copy those 4,246 iTunes songs as many times as I like, stream the iTunes Store copy of the 12,011 ripped CD tracks, and charge me a premium beyond the free 5GB to store my 7.5GB of unmatched content, which I can also freely download as much as I like back and forth to any device. Pretty good bet when I stream a Matched track that there will be a big fat green "BUY" button right next to it.

iTunes in the Cloud
With iCloud, the music you purchase in iTunes appears automatically on all your devices. You can also download your past iTunes purchases. Where you want, when you want.

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. (Limit 25,000 songs)

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.

That's from their website. It looks like you will be able to store up to 25,000 songs on their servers for $25

It says "listen to anytime, on any device"... but it never mentions streaming at all. That would be kind of a biggie, right?

If "all the benefits of iTunes in the Cloud" includes downloading to any device... then that sounds like you can download all of your "other" music to all your devices as well.

Marx55
Jun 17, 2011, 02:02 AM
Want to stop piracy? It is dead easy! Overnight!

Just sell any CD, DVD or Blu-ray downloaded via P2P from the authors for one dollar.

And since they are not selling any physical thing which needs to be manufactured, stored, distributed and retailed, it is all profit for them.

Because they are selling something that does not exist. Because they can replicate what they sell at virtually zero cost to the infinite.

That easy! That is the fair price. Not the 10-50 dollars they are now asking for!!!

And copyright must be cancelled no less than 20 years after publication, like patents (not never, like now). And do not forget that the audio and video industry have been selling, re-selling and re-reselling the same to the same people for years (remember the VHS - DVD - Blu-ray - iTunes; cassette - CD - iTunes). That is an abuse. Now, time to compensate or else Internet is here for that!

TMar
Jun 17, 2011, 02:04 AM
That's from their website. It looks like you will be able to store up to 25,000 songs on their servers.

You're right... it does say "listen to anytime, on any device"... but it never mentions streaming.

Kind of a big thing to leave out.. no?

Well you don't store music there. There's only one copy of every song on the server. Match music will act as and give you access to the itunes copy of that song.

mavis
Jun 17, 2011, 02:05 AM
How about they just pull their content from iTunes and see if that boost their CD sales? How simple is the logic: $0 vs a little $?

Well said.

Michael Scrip
Jun 17, 2011, 02:14 AM
Well you don't store music there. There's only one copy of every song on the server. Match music will act as and give you access to the itunes copy of that song.

Yes... but you can upload music that iTunes doesn't have...

Here's the footnote from the Apple site:

*Limit 25,000 songs. iTunes purchases do not count against limit.

It sounds like you can have up to 25,000 additional songs in your account... not counting your purchases.

TMar
Jun 17, 2011, 02:19 AM
Yes... but you can upload music that iTunes doesn't have...

Here's the footnote from the Apple site:

*Limit 25,000 songs. iTunes purchases do not count against limit.

It sounds like you can have up to 25,000 additional songs in your account... not counting your purchases.

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

2.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.

That's not upload limit, that's the limit of matched music. You uploaded music counts against your 5GB of storage.

blybug
Jun 17, 2011, 02:19 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)



That's from their website. It looks like you will be able to store up to 25,000 songs on their servers.

You're right... it does say "listen to anytime, on any device"... but it never mentions streaming.

Kind of a big thing to leave out.. no?

Well you don't store music there. There's only one copy of every song on the server. Match music will act as and give you access to the itunes copy of that song.

And Apple may never call it "streaming"...it will be some magical background downloading process that seamlessly plays your matched tracks on your iDevice with no buffering or hiccups. I'm sure it will be slick. But I am certain you will not see that m4p file on your computer until you purchase it for $1.29.

A year later Jobs will come on stage and say "iTunes Match has been a great success. Our customers love having access to high quality 256kbps versions of their favorite ripped CDs playing from the iTunes store seamlessly on all their devices. But we said to ourselves "Why limit this to just the content you already have in iTunes? Why not open up the whole 18 million song iTunes store library? So starting in September, iTunes Max will be available for $24.99 per month. Play any song, anywhere, on any device, any time. Just don't call it a subscription."

TMar
Jun 17, 2011, 02:26 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)



And Apple may never call it "streaming"...it will be some magical background downloading process that seamlessly plays your matched tracks on your iDevice with no buffering or hiccups. I'm sure it will be slick. But I am certain you will not see that m4p file on your computer until you purchase it for $1.29.

A year later Jobs will come on stage and say "iTunes Match has been a great success. Our customers love having access to high quality 256kbps versions of their favorite ripped CDs playing from the iTunes store seamlessly on all their devices. But we said to ourselves "Why limit this to just the content you already have in iTunes? Why not open up the whole 18 million song iTunes store library? So starting in September, iTunes Max will be available for $24.99 per month. Play any song, anywhere, on any device, any time. Just don't call it a subscription."

I'm sure one of us will nerco this when it comes out and we know more, until then we can both see it differently.

Lennholm
Jun 17, 2011, 02:37 AM
I have THOUSANDS of CDs. I've only transferred a fraction of them to iTunes. What I wish I could do is insert the original CD, have Apple "match" register the fact that I have the CD in my possession, then give me access to the songs on that CD. Then I wouldn't have to spend MONTHS importing CDs into iTunes.

That would be awesome, I hope Apple have thought of that. You could argue that it would allow you to just borrow a friends CD and get duplicate access to the music but it's not really different from ripping the CD, as you have always been able to do, and then have the matching done.

rikscha
Jun 17, 2011, 02:42 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I don't really get it, so it's better making no money and people simply keep using their pirated music or it is a way of getting at least some money of the ones who didn't intend to buy the music in the first place.

iAshley
Jun 17, 2011, 02:45 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

And I'll bet people discover music they later pay for as a result.

tdream
Jun 17, 2011, 02:47 AM
iTunes won't make any files legal; if you don't have an original copy or legitimate download, you don't have a legal file.

Thru itunes you will have a better version of an illegally obtained file, simply.

This has 0 effect on sales!

Music/movie industry needs to het their act together and make things GLOBAL, easy, and not too expensive.

Wrong. It will make the music legal. You can have 10,000 ripped songs downloaded from the internet and with a one time payment of $25 it all becomes legal. Now you have the same rights as someone who paid $10,000 for all those songs on itunes.

gnasher729
Jun 17, 2011, 03:13 AM
Wrong. It will make the music legal. You can have 10,000 ripped songs downloaded from the internet and with a one time payment of $25 it all becomes legal. Now you have the same rights as someone who paid $10,000 for all those songs on itunes.

The songs do not become legal. What happens is that any evidence of illegality is destroyed. But in many cases there is no evidence of illegality anyway; if I put a CD into my Mac and rip it into iTunes, nobody can possibly know if the CD is one that I bought, or one that I borrowed from a friend, or one that I stole from a shop.

But let's say that the music in my library falls into various categories: Purchased from iTunes, ripped from my own CDs/LPs, bought elsewhere (Amazon etc. ), legal free downloads, and others (that would include illegal downloads). Apple would detect the first category. Apple could allow me to mark which category something belongs to. Then they could allow upgrades which _do_ change the legal status, for a small payment that goes to a label. Upgrade one would upgrade everything that I say is legal, for < 10 cents per song; my legallly owned stuff would then be treated as if it was purchased from iTunes. Upgrade two would upgrade anything, for say half the price of an original purchase. Wherever it comes from, it is now legally owned. So anyone with illegal downloads could turn them legal, at a cost.

This record company guy said they have albums with 10,000 legal and 80,000 illegal copies. If half of those 80,000 illegal copies used iTunes to legalize them, at half the usual price, the record company would triple its income.

bmk
Jun 17, 2011, 03:17 AM
You keep getting hung up on the 'plays' part but what else is it going to do once downloaded? It plays! Apple would have, without second thought, said stream if that's what they meant.

Why can't you accept what is written as plainly as plain can be. 'Play back' is a synonym for 'streaming'. It is not a synonym for 'download'. I can't believe how many people are hoping against hope that this is a download service. This is a streaming service as a few people have rightly pointed out.

Michael Scrip
Jun 17, 2011, 03:20 AM
And Apple may never call it "streaming"...it will be some magical background downloading process that seamlessly plays your matched tracks on your iDevice with no buffering or hiccups. I'm sure it will be slick. But I am certain you will not see that m4p file on your computer until you purchase it for $1.29.



The main benefit of iCloud is to have your purchased music downloaded to every device. That's what iCloud also does for documents, apps, books, etc.

They said iTunes Match will have the "same benefits as music purchased from iTunes"... so downloading would be one of those benefits.

If you can't download your matched songs to your devices... then what are the other benefits of iTunes Match? Downloading is the most important one!

To me... the "same benefits" means just that... the same. Anything you can do with purchased songs... you can do with your matched songs too. But it will cost you $25 for those matched songs.

Plus... you can upload your own songs. Again... if you can't download them to your devices... what's the point of uploading them?

And if it is some sort of magical streaming method... why even mention DRM-free? You can't save streaming files anyway...

Even if you could "rip" the streams.... these are songs you already have on your computer in the first place. There's not much to gain there.

http://asia.cnet.com/i/r/2011/crave/hp/62209090/iTunesMatch_500x375.jpg

jowie
Jun 17, 2011, 03:28 AM
[iTunes Match is] brilliant. I will definitely use the free version since I'll be able to access all of the stuff I've bought from iTunes and not have to permanently store it all on my computer.
I desperately didn't want to be a pedant, but I couldn't help myself.

There is no free version of iTunes Match. iTunes in the Cloud is the free service allowing you to get access to all your iTunes Store music. iTunes Match is the paid-for service that allows you to "backup" your music into the Cloud.

Sorry...

TMar
Jun 17, 2011, 03:30 AM
Why can't you accept what is written as plainly as plain can be. 'Play back' is a synonym for 'streaming'. It is not a synonym for 'download'. I can't believe how many people are hoping against hope that this is a download service. This is a streaming service as a few people have rightly pointed out.

Since when is play back a synonym for streaming? Once you download an audio/video file what do you normally do with it? I do accept what is plainly written...


What is itune's in the cloud?
With iCloud, the music you purchase in iTunes appears automatically on all your devices. You can also download your past iTunes purchases. Where you want, when you want.

That is 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.

ichaz05
Jun 17, 2011, 03:52 AM
People will torrent music regardless! I know its not right but at least Apple have found a way of making some money out of it! not sure how much of that will get back to the artist/label but before Apple announced Music Match Labels/Artist where making nothing out of Torrent music!

baryon
Jun 17, 2011, 03:59 AM
I don't understand why iTunes Match isn't free, and why it is a YEARLY charge. I mean all it does is automatically legally purchase what you have pirated, from iTunes. That should be a ONE OFF fee, as you buy a song once on iTunes and then own it forever.

Say I have 3 songs that I pirated, then iTunes Match should say "Hey, we have these 3 songs on iTunes. Do you want to buy them? That would cost $2." And boom, from then on, I don't need iTunes match ever again, as I now don't have pirated music anymore. So why a yearly fee? Is that for people who constantly pirate music? But then what's the point of that, if you're going to buy them anyway later?

Or is the iTunes Match yearly fee small enough to compensate for the cost of all the pirated music, were someone to pay for it? Maybe this way people can just pirate music, and pay much less for it as it's a fixed fee, regardless of the quantity? But isn't that promoting piracy then?

Someone please explain!

mw360
Jun 17, 2011, 04:20 AM
That's what I don't understand about iTunes Match... what keeps someone from continuing to "pirate" music and register (i.e. "legitimatize") pirated songs via iTunes Match?

Is Apple going to work with the RIAA to identify pirated music and support the investigation? I could totally see the RIAA planting songs on the torrents with their own unique watermarks and then Apple giving them a call when these watermarked songs show up in iTunes Match, along with the user's name, address, etc.

If they don't, then $24.95 / year definitely doesn't sound like enough money to keep all the labels happy.

Apple's all about making it easy for people to buy, not hunting down pirates. This is how they're going to monetise piracy. Once you upload a pirated track on match they'll...
Allow you to promote it on Ping, advertising it as if you'd bought it to your friends and followers.
Give your friends and followers a quick option to buy that track.
(Suddenly Ping seems a really clever idea!)
Present to you more of that artist's music with quick options to buy it.
Present similar music with quick options to buy.


For people who actually have money, they may find it easier just making an impulse buy, than quitting itunes to start googling, torrenting, importing & matching. I wouldn't be surprised if the matching process wasn't a tiny bit niggly for small batches, just to make it a little easier to go the legit route.

nibus
Jun 17, 2011, 04:21 AM
And if it is some sort of magical streaming method... why even mention DRM-free? You can't save streaming files anyway...

Even if you could "rip" the streams.... these are songs you already have on your computer in the first place. There's not much to gain there.

http://asia.cnet.com/i/r/2011/crave/hp/62209090/iTunesMatch_500x375.jpg

Exactly, this is the proof that it is NOT a streaming service, but a download service with unrestricted, DRM-free playback. It's right there in the keynote. I don't understand how people still think it's based off streaming...

Bernard SG
Jun 17, 2011, 04:24 AM
I don't understand why iTunes Match isn't free, and why it is a YEARLY charge. I mean all it does is automatically legally purchase what you have pirated, from iTunes. That should be a ONE OFF fee, as you buy a song once on iTunes and then own it forever.

Say I have 3 songs that I pirated, then iTunes Match should say "Hey, we have these 3 songs on iTunes. Do you want to buy them? That would cost $2." And boom, from then on, I don't need iTunes match ever again, as I now don't have pirated music anymore. So why a yearly fee? Is that for people who constantly pirate music? But then what's the point of that, if you're going to buy them anyway later?

Or is the iTunes Match yearly fee small enough to compensate for the cost of all the pirated music, were someone to pay for it? Maybe this way people can just pirate music, and pay much less for it as it's a fixed fee, regardless of the quantity? But isn't that promoting piracy then?

Someone please explain!

Because you pirate some moar every year :D :p .

mw360
Jun 17, 2011, 04:37 AM
I don't understand why iTunes Match isn't free, and why it is a YEARLY charge. I mean all it does is automatically legally purchase what you have pirated, from iTunes. That should be a ONE OFF fee, as you buy a song once on iTunes and then own it forever.

Say I have 3 songs that I pirated, then iTunes Match should say "Hey, we have these 3 songs on iTunes. Do you want to buy them? That would cost $2." And boom, from then on, I don't need iTunes match ever again, as I now don't have pirated music anymore. So why a yearly fee? Is that for people who constantly pirate music? But then what's the point of that, if you're going to buy them anyway later?

Or is the iTunes Match yearly fee small enough to compensate for the cost of all the pirated music, were someone to pay for it? Maybe this way people can just pirate music, and pay much less for it as it's a fixed fee, regardless of the quantity? But isn't that promoting piracy then?

Someone please explain!

They don't charge a one off fee, because they don't want you to think of it as 'buying' your pirated tracks. 1, because you're a pirate ;) and you don't like buying stuff because it's immoral or something or 2, because you're not a pirate, you already own the track on CD so 'why the hell am I paying again!'

You pay yearly not for the tracks - because you could quit and still keep the files - but for the modest storage, data processing and bandwidth that you will likely use over the year. But Apple likely gives most of the money to the record companies to keep them happy.

Its not free, because legitimising stolen tracks for free devalues the product too severely. A figure of $25 puts people in mind of thinking music's worth a few bucks, which doesn't do any harm. A token fee also deters those people who just refuse to pay for anything, since they're no use to anybody.

It's very cheap because once you're in the system, Apple thinks you'll buy, or promote others to buy, much more music.

Themaeds
Jun 17, 2011, 04:42 AM
This seems like a good way for record companies to get SOME money from what they've lost from piracy. Otherwise, they get none.

I'm cool if everyone steals from them. I don't listen to Lady GaGa and I don't care if her and her entire label go under. Many of the artists I listen to have been proactive in getting their music to fans and making money in creative ways. If you don't adapt, you die. Darwin taught me that.


Exactly!!! In the long run people will see that piracy actually helped music as a whole. Recording and producing music has never been easier and cheaper, so the record companies are just middle men who arent really even needed anymore. Few people know how little artists actually make off the sale of a cd when they are with a major lable. Its somewhere in the range of 8-10 cents per album. Bands like Pearl Jam and Radiohead have eliminated the need of a label and just released the music directly through Itunes and Amazon.

kallisti
Jun 17, 2011, 05:03 AM
iCloud is a syncing service... not a streaming service.

Old way: Computer --> USB cable --> iDevice

New way: iCloud --> Wireless --> iDevice

How do your songs get into the iCloud? Your existing iTunes purchases are already there.

Then, iTunes Match will scan your computer to see what songs you have... and will make new AAC versions of them available in the cloud.

Finally, you can upload anything to the cloud that iTunes doesn't already have.

That's iCloud in a nutshell.

In the end... all your music will be on a server for you to download to your devices... syncing your devices to the cloud instead of a computer.

You're right... it isn't a streaming service. So it's different that what Amazon and Google offers.

Plus you can still use your USB cable...

If you are correct, then I don't understand the point of the service at all. My iPod classic can't sync to the cloud. My iPhone is pretty much full (and that is with songs downgraded to 128 AAC) so downloading new songs on the go will never happen. My computer already has my music on it, so the cloud doesn't really help me there. The only way I would use this is if it can stream my music to my portable devices. If it can't do that, then Apple won't get my money.

satkin2
Jun 17, 2011, 05:15 AM
I don't understand why iTunes Match isn't free, and why it is a YEARLY charge. I mean all it does is automatically legally purchase what you have pirated, from iTunes. That should be a ONE OFF fee, as you buy a song once on iTunes and then own it forever.

Say I have 3 songs that I pirated, then iTunes Match should say "Hey, we have these 3 songs on iTunes. Do you want to buy them? That would cost $2." And boom, from then on, I don't need iTunes match ever again, as I now don't have pirated music anymore. So why a yearly fee? Is that for people who constantly pirate music? But then what's the point of that, if you're going to buy them anyway later?

Or is the iTunes Match yearly fee small enough to compensate for the cost of all the pirated music, were someone to pay for it? Maybe this way people can just pirate music, and pay much less for it as it's a fixed fee, regardless of the quantity? But isn't that promoting piracy then?

Someone please explain!


The reason I think it is annual is because, when you first set up iTunes Match, it will match everything and you upload the rest, a one off like you described, but in the subsequent year you're likely to purchase or aquire some more music from somewhere other than iTunes.

It's at this point that by having already signed up to iTunes Match that you sync your new music to the cloud too.

It's quite clever of Apple though, this way would encourage you to purchase through iTunes instead.

At the moment I've got the majority of my library from non iTunes methods. The iTunes Match will be great to get them onto the cloud for me to download (or stream whichever side of the argument you're on). At this point its great value for money for me.

If this stays there after the year, then the only reason to remain paying $25 per year is to upload new purchases from outside of iTunes.

Lets say I buy 6 cds a year that cost me $10, for the ability to upload these to the cloud I have a further outlay of $25 - Total $85. However, if I pay the dearer iTunes price for the six albums, say $12 each, I don't have to pay for iTunes Match too, but they're in the cloud for me at just $72. Thus making me think that it's better to buy through iTunes as it's cheaper for me in the long run.

ratzzo
Jun 17, 2011, 05:20 AM
I don't understand why iTunes Match isn't free, and why it is a YEARLY charge. I mean all it does is automatically legally purchase what you have pirated, from iTunes. That should be a ONE OFF fee, as you buy a song once on iTunes and then own it forever.

Say I have 3 songs that I pirated, then iTunes Match should say "Hey, we have these 3 songs on iTunes. Do you want to buy them? That would cost $2." And boom, from then on, I don't need iTunes match ever again, as I now don't have pirated music anymore. So why a yearly fee? Is that for people who constantly pirate music? But then what's the point of that, if you're going to buy them anyway later?

Or is the iTunes Match yearly fee small enough to compensate for the cost of all the pirated music, were someone to pay for it? Maybe this way people can just pirate music, and pay much less for it as it's a fixed fee, regardless of the quantity? But isn't that promoting piracy then?

Someone please explain!

If you pirated those 3 songs in the first place, why would you buy them now at $2 (which seems very expensive for a track nowadays anyway, given how amazon offers them for .69).

This is obviously the biggest concern regarding iTunes Match. Everyone knew this would just make pirated versions legit and of higher quality, I doubt the music companies with which Apple has signed contracts did not know this would happen.

Also, I'm not too informed on the usefulness of this service-- it means that you can potentially download all the music you have on X to Y through iCloud. But after the year passes, can you just download that track from the iTunes store as if you had purchased it from there?

mw360
Jun 17, 2011, 05:20 AM
Stupid post deleted, sorry.

Michael Scrip
Jun 17, 2011, 05:36 AM
If you are correct, then I don't understand the point of the service at all. My iPod classic can't sync to the cloud. My iPhone is pretty much full (and that is with songs downgraded to 128 AAC) so downloading new songs on the go will never happen. My computer already has my music on it, so the cloud doesn't really help me there. The only way I would use this is if it can stream my music to my portable devices. If it can't do that, then Apple won't get my money.

Yeah. The iPod Classic won't work because it doesn't run iOS. :)

I'm wondering if once all your music is in the cloud... if there is a way to remove songs from your iPhone and replace them with new songs from the cloud. That's the only way this download-only service would make sense.

You're right... people probably have more music than even a 32GB iPhone can hold.

But it's always been a balancing act. If you've got 70GB of music and only a 16GB iPhone.... you were stuck. You could only put so much music on your iPhone. Before... you had to un-sync tracks in iTunes over USB.

With iCloud, I'm hoping you can replace songs wirelessly. Hey... it's better than nothing.

I'm with you... iCloud doesn't really help you if you have more music that your device can hold at any given time.

But I just don't think Apple spent all that time at WWDC talking about iCloud music... and announced a price for it... if they secretly had a streaming service in the works too.

Who knows... maybe the Fall iPhone event will introduce iCloud Streaming. But I think that's unlikely...

Apple likes local storage... they want all your stuff synced on your devices. One benefit is you don't need a data connection to play your music.

Google and Amazon will let you put every bit of music in the cloud... but you gotta use data to hear them.

It's definitely 2 different ways to think about it...

Chundles
Jun 17, 2011, 05:37 AM
I don't get this line of thinking at all. There seem to be four options:

1. Person buys Artist X's CD, rips it. Company NOT in iTunes Match gets that amount of money. Ripped songs uploaded to iCloud.

2. Person buys Artist X's CD, rips it. Company IN iTunes Match gets that money PLUS whatever Apple are paying them. Ripped songs matched in iCloud.

3. Person torrents Artist X's CD. Company NOT in iTunes Match gets NO money. Ripped songs uploaded to iCloud.

4. Person torrents Artist X's CD. Company IN iTunes Match gets their cut of the money Apple pays them. Ripped songs matched in iCloud.

The result of ALL options are the person has their songs available in iCloud. By opting OUT of iTunes Match, Artist X's record company ONLY makes money from the CD. If people torrent the file they get NOTHING.

Surely making SOME money from the pirates is better than making NO money from the pirates?

spacemanspifff
Jun 17, 2011, 05:46 AM
I don't fully understand how this iTunes Match thing is actually going to work and as many people here have already stated, Apple seems to be trying to misdirect us with their PR puff explanation of the iTunes in the cloud system, but maybe they aren't! The only thing they haven't told us is, what happens if you stop paying the annual fee?

The way I see it from reading the iCloud page on Apples website is that what they are going to provide is storage/backup online, definitely not a streaming service. Which kinda makes sense.

So if you have a large library of songs which you didn't buy from Apple and which wont all fit on your mobile device, then you can Match/Upload [up to 25,000] songs to iCloud and then you'd be able to download them again later from any device to which you have your iTunes account linked. I am also assuming that iOS 5 will allow you to delete songs from your device, which you can't do at the moment. Perhaps some dev will tell us if this is possible in the preview release currently in testing? Update: I've just seen that you will be able to delete songs from an iOS5 device.

So going back to what they haven't told us, I would guess that if you later decide to not pay the annual fee, then you'd find that you would no longer have access to the Matched/Uploaded songs stored in the iCloud and the failsafe backup side of iTunes in the iCloud would also be removed! However, you'd still have access to the songs you have previously downloaded from it and you'd still have access to the original songs on your local drive which you were matching/uploading from.

mw360
Jun 17, 2011, 06:03 AM
So going back to what they haven't told us, I would guess that if you later decide to not pay the annual fee, then you'd find that you would no longer have access to the Matched/Uploaded songs stored in the iCloud and the failsafe backup side of iTunes in the iCloud would also be removed! However, you'd still have access to the songs you have previously downloaded from it and you'd still have access to the original songs on your local drive which you were matching/uploading from.

Sounds extremely likely.

caspersoong
Jun 17, 2011, 06:05 AM
They seem to forget that most of the piracy done is in Asia...

ratzzo
Jun 17, 2011, 06:07 AM
They seem to forget that most of the piracy done is in Asia...

I'm sure if the rest of the world had access to 61mbit connections they too would pirate more content... I think we're just handicapped by our speeds :rolleyes:

Popeye206
Jun 17, 2011, 06:16 AM
Personally... this is sounding like a great service for consumers and the labels. At least they will get some revenue off of pirated and older tracks from CDs.

I don't understand why some here have such a negative attitude about the entertainment industry. You like the music... what's wrong with paying for it? You know, middle men and back office people and the artist all need to get paid. It's part of business. Just because you don't want to pay does not mean you should not pay.

For those that think everything should be free, I hope someday you work for a company that see's it's products ripped off until you get laid off because they can't afford to pay you anymore. Making revenue and profit is what being in business is all about.

macsmurf
Jun 17, 2011, 06:27 AM
It honestly sounds like a complex version of Spotify with less features. It's cheaper, though.

With Spotify on my iPod touch I can stream or download music from their entire library regardless of whether I own the music or not. Simple to understand and more importantly: I doesn't suck.

I don't see many people using this iTunes Match. It seems more like a stepping stone towards a subscription based service similar to Spotify.

spazzcat
Jun 17, 2011, 06:28 AM
Not sure who iTunes for iCloud is really for. Pirates won't pay even the $24.99. They're PIRATES!!! People with legit files don't need it either. They have their songs already. It also doesn't stream any tracks. So who is going to use this service? :confused:

Lets say you spend serveral days ripping your CDs and week later your hard drive dies. And you didn't back up let, now with iCloud, you can just download all the soungs you just ripped and don't have to rerip them....

greytmom
Jun 17, 2011, 06:31 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

It's obnoxious to assume that all songs not purchased from iTunes were stolen. The only non-iTunes songs I have are those I downloaded from Amazon and those I loaded from my own CDs... all purchased by me.

JAT
Jun 17, 2011, 06:34 AM
iTunes Match will be quite useful to me, a measly $25 a year, for upgrading the few thousand tracks I have in random bit rate from random mp3 sources over many, many years. Music that would cost me thousands more to upgrade to 256 AAC quality.

But will also be utterly useless for every CD I have ever ripped, since all of that music is stored in Apple Lossless. I have no interest in 256k versions of my lossless music.
See now, I do. I also have the bulk of my collection in Apple Lossless, but I don't need that on my phone, I'd rather have more songs fit. The 128k auto-reduce mode sounds like crap, actually altering songs, so I don't use it. I'm considering making a 2nd copy in 256k for mobile use. Match sounds like it will do this for me, saving me space on my server.

JAT
Jun 17, 2011, 06:35 AM
I resent the insinuations that all the music in my iTunes not purchased from Apple or even Amazon must be stolen.


....
You need to get over it. Every word printed on the internet is not directed personally at you.

bmh16
Jun 17, 2011, 06:56 AM
I am an avid music listener and this would never have happened if it wasn't for illegal downloading. I go onto buy the stuff i think is great, and in many cases now going to see live shows by such artists. Without illegal downloading i would not had the money to buy all of this, and also what is the point of buying something and then realising you don't like it. You are supporting something you don't like in this case. Without illegal downloading my music taste would be so much more sparse, not bothering to go to many/any live shows, and would probably be highly linked to the the awful mainstream where music is seen as business now where nearly it all is highly generic and made to an awfully low level.

I feel very strongly on this, and the majority who illegally download would not have bought this anyway. If the music is good enough it will spread and more people will ultimately buy it as it spreads by word of mouth or over the internet. Those who think it is only "moral" to actually buy music and not illegally download music need to pause and rethink what the word "moral" means to them, and not what they are fed by the state. What i have done is ultimately caused a lot of higher quality bands to get more revenue from myself. Plus just by playing this music in my flat, many of my friends have asked what it is and have become fans themselves. It's logical that illegal downloading is not that bad for the artists, but just the record companies. And let's be honest the big record companies deserve it, for the disgustingly low quality stuff they push for the charts. The artists get as many people going to their live shows and this is where they make their money. Artists make very little money from CD sales anyway. Oh, and by the way the music i purchase is always CD form and not iTunes or Amazon downloads. I see no value in downloading from them. What difference is it to illegally downloading for the file except for the quality suffering a bit?

This is making sure more people have access to more music and is a great idea. Which means more people will hear the quality music. Live shows, the main financial source for artists, will not suffer, and will probably improve.

That's all for now. :)

paulsalter
Jun 17, 2011, 06:57 AM
Lets say you spend serveral days ripping your CDs and week later your hard drive dies. And you didn't back up let, now with iCloud, you can just download all the soungs you just ripped and don't have to rerip them....

several days re ripping would be quicker than downloading for many out of town/city people

and it woudnt affect broadband service by going over the fair use policy

downloading lots of data is great for people on unlimited and fast broadband, but many people dont have this luxury

BlindMellon
Jun 17, 2011, 07:02 AM
I wonder how this will affect songs I've ripped from vinyl. I have hundreds of songs pulled from vinyl that are of questionable quality, but are tagged correctly. I wonder what Apple will do with these?

2992
Jun 17, 2011, 07:07 AM
I have all my music in ALAC (ripped from purchased CDs), and I don't expect iCloud to hold it in this format. I also don't expect iTunes/iCloud to match all my music. Why? Because my music is already on my computer and I can always sync it via cable to my player.
I do have some very few albums in mp3/aac format, and having iTunes matching in a relatively high(er) quality compressed format is good and I like it, and I can eventually use this functionality, but honestly, I'll not pay yearly subscription for that. Those mp3/aacs I can also sync them for free via cable to all my players.

Piggie
Jun 17, 2011, 07:18 AM
This is going to be interesting.

I may be wrong, but I can imagine when this starts we'll be seeing many people posting that iTunes Match refuses to identify many songs correctly.

samcraig
Jun 17, 2011, 07:19 AM
One of the big selling points to the recording industry (not saying it's enough alone or that it's fully warranted) is that Apple will be able to provide the labels with unprecedented metrics/demographics.

Right now - the labels can only chart sales based on who buys music legitimately through iTunes, Amazon, etc. I'm not sure what demographic data they get now - nor how that might change with Match. But what will happen is that if Match is popular - they will have a much clearer picture since people will be uploading (and authorizing Apple) to analyze their music library.

Not only can they see that you bought their song - but they could, in theory, have metrics on your entire library - what your musical preferences lean towards, whether you buy full albums or individual tracks, etc.

Again - I don't think this is the sole reason they might have gone for it - but it's playing a significant role.

dalexa
Jun 17, 2011, 07:22 AM
I don't know any businessperson who likes to watch 10x or 20x copies of their product go out for free.

by businessperson you mean the labels owners right?

i saw an interview of a singer (can't recall who so i won't say who it was) and that singer was asked about the cd "piracy"... the answer was something like this.

"i really don't mind if one person buys an album and copies it to his friends. it's more people to come to my live shows."

the issue is that... record labels mind about cd's/mp3 sales, many of the artists don't because they get their bucks in live shows.

edit: for the one who gave a negative to my comment... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCkX0KcNwrI
like her there are many

I wonder how this will affect songs I've ripped from vinyl. I have hundreds of songs pulled from vinyl that are of questionable quality, but are tagged correctly. I wonder what Apple will do with these?

i do too and better yet... will there be an option to avoid those being matched? because i really like the quality of them.

realmike15
Jun 17, 2011, 07:24 AM
I disagree that the purpose of iTunes Match is to let people make their stolen music legit. It's a side effect to the design, the real purpose is to let people transform their CD collection into iTunes purchases. Those of us who grew up before the year 2000 tend to have large CD collections laying around, and this new system gives them incentive to rip that music to iTunes. I still buy CDs if it's a great album, examples of this for me would be:

Bon Iver - For Emma, Forever Ago
Radiohead - In Rainbows
Tom Waits - Alice
Grizzly Bear - Veckatimest
The National - Boxer
Beach House - Teen Dream
Fleet Foxes - Fleet Foxes
Andrew Bird - Armchair Apocrypha
Arcade Fire - Funeral
M. Ward - Post War
The Walkmen - Bows + Arrows
LCD Sound System - This Is Happening

... and the list goes on. The point is that my collection is about 400 strong, and all those albums are worth the price I paid for them.

The problem is with the industry, not the market. If you make a great album, then people can justify a $10-$15 price tag. But when artists or record labels are arrogant enough to assume that every album they release is worth $10-$15... there's your problem. What other market works this way? Imagine if all cars were priced the same, from the Toyota Corolla to the Lexus LS... would you still buy that Corolla? If labels would price the value of an album based on the quality/popularity of the music, not only would it drive artists to create better albums, but it would probably convince other people to explore less expensive newer/lesser-known artists. And if the customer buys something from an unknown that they're not happy with, they only wasted $3 instead of $10.

The problem isn't with Customers or Apple, this problems lays solely on the shoulders of the music industry and I couldn't be happier that musicians are starting to record and distribute their own music instead of going through major record labels. :p

Tiger8
Jun 17, 2011, 07:33 AM
That's what worries me, this becoming all of a sudden an IRS-like audit of 'Where did you get this from?'. What if, for example, you ripped music from CDs that you bought years ago (and no you don't have the receipts anymore) and you lost them while moving? Are you supposed to delete them?

What if there is music that you ripped from your CDs that you left in a box in your parents attic in another state? Another country?

peletrane
Jun 17, 2011, 07:39 AM
I have 37000 (37k) songs from my CDs I personally ripped into ITunes many years ago--at the then going bit rate of 128kb AAC.

Still to be determined is how many tunes that 25 bucks a year will cover, and how one can change over to the 256kb AAC version. will it be automatic OR will you have to manually delete each album and download it again?

also, what happens to the personal metadata?

mrblack927
Jun 17, 2011, 07:40 AM
Listen, nobody would like this to be true more than me. But it just doesn't make sense. Consider:


17,472 songs (94GB) are in my iTunes library.
4,246 are iTunes Store purchases. (1,964 of them are 128kbps DRM versions Apple will upgrade for me right now for the low low price of $526.14)
1,215 (7.5GB) of them are mash-ups downloaded from various websites and will not iTunes match
12,011 are ripped from CDs most at 128kbps (and a few purchased from Amazon or other places) we'll assume are part of Apple's 18 million songs

Do you genuinely believe that for $24.99 Apple is going to allow me to download and keep 12,011 256kbps AACs of my non-iTunes content ($15,494) over and over as many times as I want, upgrade my older iTunes songs ($526.14) and store my 7.5GB of non-matched content on the iCloud at no additional charge?

Yes. Because $24.99 is more than $0.

I'd have to be a subscriber for 641 years for them to break even.

Ah, but that's faulty logic. That would only apply if you were intending on paying for your music either way, which isn't the case. You obviously don't plan on paying for what you already have (or you would have done it already) so Apple figures they can offer you this service and get $25 out of you instead of nothing at all. It's a net gain for them (and the record industry).

THAT is why iTunes Match is the way it is. It's 2011. Anyone with the knowledge and motive to pirate music has already done it and has the content for free anyway. This is a way to monetize tracks that were already stolen. They don't care if some people use it once to download "legal" copies and then never come back. The vast majority of people will keep their Match subscriptions and those who don't will have at least paid once.

samcraig
Jun 17, 2011, 07:47 AM
Yes. Because $24.99 is more than $0.





I agree something is better than nothing. But that something COULD be pretty small. Yeah - but it also depends on what their contracts are. How many labels are there? How much from the 24.99 is being distributed - and how?

IE - Say I have 20,000 songs that get matched. That's a pretty small amount per song. Does Apple have "match" agreements with every music label in their library - or will match only work for labels who have been onboarded? I ask because if any label that has a track on iTunes can be matched - then it's possible for my 20,000 songs to be spread out amongst hundreds of labels. Even if it was just 20 labels - that's less than $1 I'm sure per label.

There's a lot of unknowns on how the whole Match business model is (for the consumer at this point). I am sure after it's "live" - there were be reports/analysts who will weigh in on what's going on behind the scenes as much as they can speculate/learn.

jonnysods
Jun 17, 2011, 07:49 AM
I feel sorry for the small labels too, I guess this is a big picture move as the article describes.

drumthumb
Jun 17, 2011, 07:49 AM
hello...mr sevier? yes hi. it's me, the year 2011. Hello! yes, we live in a digital age. if your company cannot survive, perhaps you need to think about another career. thousands of small recording companies have been swallowed by the advent of the compact disc. you're not alone. you can make art for the sake of art - it is not too late to learn a new skill - perhaps you can pay your bills like the rest of the true artists by temping at Kinkos, perhaps? Again, welcome the the year 2011, enjoy your stay.

(I hope you caught my sarcasm, i'm laying it on pretty thick)

AaronEdwards
Jun 17, 2011, 08:07 AM
It really sounds too good to be true... that you can have Apple scan your "less-than-legal" music downloads and let you have fresh clean copies of those songs sent to your iDevices.

On the other hand... you're paying for that service... and I bet a big portion of that fee is given to the record labels.

The record labels currently get ZERO dollars if you just sync those illegal songs with a USB cable... so maybe this is their way of trying to get something...

Big portion? And of what? Let say Apple would take their usual 30% for storage, bandwidth, etc. And that the record companies would take 40%. That would leave $7.50. Let's say the user have 1000 illegal songs matched. That would mean that the artists would be paid 0.75 cents per song and year. And this is for 1000 songs, I bet most pirating people would be matching a lot more songs.

tgmthegreenman
Jun 17, 2011, 08:09 AM
this debate should be "louder", its very true
as a small label we can never stop people from downloading non-legal.
but those who buy buy for example because they want the "comfort" of a "legalized" music file.
if i give all "other" files the complete comfort of legalizing - thats not okay, cause
its one more big! reason not to buy and download illegal instead!
Apple doesnt care because they dont create music! They make money with subscriptions and ipods
What we'll hear is: you still have the option to withdraw your content from itunes. This way well lose money too. But if we stay in itunes, thats means we officially support this policy...and we cant do that! Only companies can do it that make money also from publising, concerts etc...but not a label
its something very very different if some russian rapidshare site offers your tunes for free or if the label itself does it!!!! in the first case you might catch a virus or get tracked downloading. its illegal and its stealing and the feeling remains. in the second case....there is no more reason to pay!!!
So either way, for a small label this means losing money in my opinion.

ironjaw
Jun 17, 2011, 08:13 AM
Originally Posted by topmounter
What keeps someone from continuing to "pirate" music and register (i.e. "legitimatize") pirated songs via iTunes Match?

Absolutely nothing.

Come on everybody!! The difference is that the "pirate" is for the first time paying Apple $25.

1. You cannot stop someone from pirating music.
2. Music labels aren't profiting jack **** from pirate music = 0$
3. Apple is providing the music labels with a convincing argument of a monthly subscription based income - iTunes Match
4. If there are at least 500 million itunes accounts holders with credit cards or even a billion users - that's a potential of 500 million x $25 income to Apple and subsequent Music labels.
5. How many honest users out there want a clean iTunes library?
6. Legitimizing your library is psychologically satisfying.
7. Downloading pirated music is dead! (probably not in 3rd world)

Nobody wants to mess with torrents, rapidshare etc. unless your über geek and represent 1% of the population. Most home users and families these days and even teenagers are finding it easier to buy from iTunes or buying the CD or browing it from a "friend" to rip into iTunes.

99.9% of my library is legit - incl. songs that I have purchased from iTunes and around have that are ripped from my own purchased CD's. Itunes songs are far better quality then what you will be able to rip home from CD as they come from the MASTER copy.

AaronEdwards
Jun 17, 2011, 08:17 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)



And Apple may never call it "streaming"...it will be some magical background downloading process that seamlessly plays your matched tracks on your iDevice with no buffering or hiccups. I'm sure it will be slick. But I am certain you will not see that m4p file on your computer until you purchase it for $1.29.

A year later Jobs will come on stage and say "iTunes Match has been a great success. Our customers love having access to high quality 256kbps versions of their favorite ripped CDs playing from the iTunes store seamlessly on all their devices. But we said to ourselves "Why limit this to just the content you already have in iTunes? Why not open up the whole 18 million song iTunes store library? So starting in September, iTunes Max will be available for $24.99 per month. Play any song, anywhere, on any device, any time. Just don't call it a subscription."

1. Why would Apple, making billions from selling songs in the iTunes store, start with a streaming service? They would lose billions on it.

2. If they did, it would not be $24.99/month, considering that the competition is likely to offer the same service for $10-15/month.

chris975d
Jun 17, 2011, 08:19 AM
Steve Jobs nor the Apple website talked about streaming either... they didn't even use the word "streaming" at WWDC.

If this was a steaming service... where your songs live in the cloud and are streamed in real-time to your devices.... surely they would mention 3G and other wireless technologies.

But they didn't... because iCloud is definitely not streaming.

I just went back and watched the keynote... and Steve said any song you purchased on your iPhone could be downloaded to your iPad or any other iDevice at no additional charge. Basically... any song you own in the cloud can be pushed (downloaded) to your other devices. Steve used the word push a few times.

Then we got the "one more thing..."

iTunes Match is what you use to have your other music be a part of iCloud... where you can download those other songs to all your iDevices.

That's the "same benefits as music purchased from iTunes" part of the keynote. But, iTunes Match comes at a cost of $25 a year to make your other song be a part of iCloud.


So basically... your existing iTunes purchases can be pushed (downloaded) to your iDevices for free...

And you can pay $25 a year to have your other music be pushed down to your devices.

This is exactly what I was going to say. If uploaded music (stuff that Apple doesn't already have on iTunes) gets "same benefits as music purchased from iTunes", then that means it can be re-downloaded to each device as needed, just like the purchases from iTunes can. That seems like the most logical explanation, at least.

shorn
Jun 17, 2011, 08:19 AM
OK this is my take on the whole music (and somewhat movie) industry and its inability to tackle piracy effectively.

Things have changed. We now live in a digital age where people want o own their media digitally. I know theres always people that like the physical item, and they can still be catered for, but the explosion of the ipod and itunes shows that people are happy with digital music.

I cannot see how an album can cost the same to buy digitally as what it does to buy a physical CD. Your buying 1's a 0's when you buy a digital album. The pricing for such is plain wrong.

My suggestion...

All albums priced at 99p (or equivalent) in the iTunes music store.

People would not think twice about 99p for an album download. You like the look of it and you'd get it. No looking for it on torrents etc, trying to get it downloaded, not knowing the quality it will be as you don't know the source, possibly getting fake files, then tagging it getting artwork, renaming tracks etc. You would ditch all that if it came up for sale at 99p.

Take the numbers in this topic for example. They sell 10k albums now, say at an average of £7.99 an album. That equates to £79,900. But 80k get pirated. If those 80k were converted to a 99p download, then your looking at 90K album purchases at 99p meaning a total of £89,100. More money.
I know this is very crude, and that even at 99p some people will still pirate it for free, but you will surely pick up many more sales from people that will then happily take a punt on the album. With the greater numbers of sales, would come the greater number of tickets sold for live gigs, merchandise etc etc.

Thats why the app store has been such a huge success. Apps are cheap. Take Angry birds. Many hours of enjoyment for the buyer, some hard work gone into development and producing it, and its paid off. Millions of people own it, not just because its good. But because its cheap, I would hazard a guess that it would not have been half as successful had they charged £7.99 from the start, rather than 59p.

Apply the same theory to the movie industry with digital downloads of movies for 99p. Its hard to feel sorry for the poor old pirated movie industry when the top actors get paid $20M + for a couple of months work.

Record and movie industries need to wake up and try something different., rather than trying to mend a broken, old and outdated model.

AaronEdwards
Jun 17, 2011, 08:21 AM
That's what I don't understand about iTunes Match... what keeps someone from continuing to "pirate" music and register (i.e. "legitimatize") pirated songs via iTunes Match?

Is Apple going to work with the RIAA to identify pirated music and support the investigation? I could totally see the RIAA planting songs on the torrents with their own unique watermarks and then Apple giving them a call when these watermarked songs show up in iTunes Match, along with the user's name, address, etc.

If they don't, then $24.95 / year definitely doesn't sound like enough money to keep all the labels happy.

I pretty certain RIAA is able to identify all scene releases of music, and a lot of other illegally shared music.

One thing is certain, we are a long way from Napster, who if I recall it correctly, promised that they would be able to identify and remove 97% of all illegal music in their sharing network, but that wasn't enough.

Apple can, and the record companies should have insisted on it, identify a lot of illegally downloaded music that user would want to match.

pagansoul
Jun 17, 2011, 08:25 AM
I have about 250GB of music in iTunes. Only about 400 tracks are off iTunes. About 1,000 tracks off Amazon and another 1,000 from emusic and the rest are ripped off my CDs. I rip in AAC VBR 360. I think of iCoud as insurance, like having an off-site locker for my music, photos, records incase something happens to my home machine and that is what the $25 is for. Since I'm going to need more than 5GB of space on their servers I assume I will be paying more than the $25 for the additional space I will need. I currently have a backup 2TB external HD for all my music/TV/Movies but if something happened to my house like fire it would be just as vulnerable. Off-site storage is the way to go.

blybug
Jun 17, 2011, 08:25 AM
Here's how this is going to work <<bookmarks post for future told-ya-so-ing>> ;)

Imagine a brand new user of iTunes with a brand new Mac and a brand new empty iPod Touch. He hears about this iTunes Match which puts "all his music on all his devices all the time." Sounds good.

He wants some Beatles music. He gets an Apple ID on his computer and buys "Abbey Road" from the iTunes Store. He is asked if he wants purchased items to automatically download to his other registered devices. He says yes. Then he rips his "Magical Mystery Tour" CD at 128kpbs AAC and enters all the metadata. Finally he goes out to the internet and torrents "Let It Be" and "Beatles Bootlegs" at varying MP3 bitrates, and cleans up their metadata.

He now has a Beatles playlist with 30 songs and 4 albums in it in iTunes. He signs up for iTunes Match and is charged $24.95 for the year. iTunes Match scans his library, in all likelihood using a combination of the iTunes Library.xml file and metadata from the songs, and a few moments later throws him a dialog

iTunes Match was not able to match 10 songs in your library. Do you want to upload them to your 5GB iCloud account?
<<clicks Yes - these would be the Beatles Bootleg collection - everything else matched>>

Now he turns on his iPod Touch with iOS5 - no need to plug into the computer, it's PC free :). He logs into the Music app with his Apple ID and BOOM magic...there is already a Beatles playlist there with 30 songs and 4 albums in it. He puts it in shuffle mode and presses play. Here's what happens....


iPod comes to a song from Abbey Road (purchased iTunes content): Since he said he wanted to automatically download purchased content to his other devices, these songs files are in fact stored locally and taking up flash drive space on his iPod, assuming enough time has passed for them to have downloaded (this happens presently with the iTunes in the Cloud beta).
iPod comes to a song from the Beatles Bootlegs (unmatched content): Since he chose to upload these songs to the iCloud, they will also download to his device and the song files are there, taking up flash drive space on his iPod, stored locally.
iPod comes to a song from the Magical Mystery Tour or Let It Be: iPod plays/streams/downloads (whatever you want to call it) the full iTunes Store version of the song in 256kbps AAC glory, indistinguishable from the above 2 scenarios, indistinguishable from the 90-second previews currently offered by the iTunes Store. In all likelihood will have a BUY button visible in the playlist and maybe even on the Now Playing screen. Once the song is finished playing there is no stored file taking up flash drive space on the iPod locally. The song has played, one way or another, directly from the iTunes Store.

When this hypothetical fellow goes back to his computer, he sees the same 30 songs and 4 albums in his iTunes playlist with play counts updated and so on. If he digs around in his ~/Music/iTunes/iTunes Media/Music folder, he will find subfolders for the 4 albums, Abbey Road with his purchased AACs, Magical Mystery Tour with his ripped 128kbps AACs, along with Let It Be and Beatles Bootlegs with all the various MP3s. He will NOT suddenly be the proud owner of full 256kpbs AAC iTunes Store versions of Magical Mystery Tour and Let It Be.

This will all be seamless with no discernible buffering or hiccups, and feel exactly like all the music is on the iPod. Over the years he keeps paying his $24,95/yr and increases his iTunes Library up to the max of 25,000 matched songs, another 25,000 songs he purchased from iTunes, and another 1000 unmatched stored on his 5GB of iCloud. He now has iTunes and an iPod Touch with 51,000 songs "on it" although the reality is that none of those songs have to take up any flash drive space, they are all on "the cloud" one way or another and available on all devices all the time (as long as he has an internet connection). If he drops his iTunes Match account, all his music is still on his computer, and purchased songs can be re-downloaded and pushed all around device to device (exactly like now) wireless or with USB. But he loses the seamlessliy integrated cloud access to the matched songs and the unmatched uploaded songs. That's what the $24.95 is paying for.

If you know how LaLa worked, or understand how Spotify or Pandora work, or even some of the currently available iOS apps that stream your iTunes Library from your always-on computer using your home internet connection, you should see that this is Apple's typically elegant entry in this same sort of service. Nobody, including Apple, is giving away unlimited 256kbps AAC files for keeps just because you took the time to rip or torrent a song at some point in your life. They are marketing it as YOUR music on all YOUR devices wherever YOU are. But really it's Pandora using your iTunes Library.xml for the playlists and Apple's copies of the songs. The "same benefit" given to matched songs or unmatched but uploaded songs is that they appear in the cloud and can be played anywhere anytime (that you have an internet connection).

AaronEdwards
Jun 17, 2011, 08:26 AM
The music industry (and esp the movie industry) have to accept that the days of charging exorbitant amounts of money for their products are OVER!

Technology giveth and now taketh away, (esp for the blood-sucking middle men, and not the creative folk). Get over it. Losers.

Great to see a poster in an Apple forum complaining about being charged exorbitant amounts of money for a product.

It's not about what Apple makes selling iPhones? Sorry...

raymondthimmes
Jun 17, 2011, 08:27 AM
It's the only way I could justify spending the $25 or so a year on the service... I think they know that. That's why they're looking the other way.

That being said, I've got a closet literally full of about 400 cd's.

Not to mention about 150 vinyls I've collected.

iTunes Vinyl Match anyone?

RicoRich196
Jun 17, 2011, 08:28 AM
Without enough time to read through everyone's post right now, I have this to say. Perhaps "Big Music" has accepted the fact that they cannot combat piracy. And instead of making $0 they will take a small percentage that Apple will give them from the $24.99 a year annual fee. Some money is better than no money.

shorn
Jun 17, 2011, 08:31 AM
Great to see a poster in an Apple forum complaining about being charged exorbitant amounts of money for a product.

It's not about what Apple makes selling iPhones? Sorry...

Not sure what your point is. I have no problem with what Apple charges for their products. I buy them all anyway. I get my moneys worth and I get value for that. It may cost £500 for an iPhone, but I use it to its full potential, and by the end of my use of it, it sells on to someone else without a great deal of loss. I feel its worth its value.

However I do feel that the pricing of music and movies is wrong.

(Sorry thought you were quoting my post, but its still kinda relevant :) )

chris975d
Jun 17, 2011, 08:34 AM
Here's how this is going to work <<bookmarks post for future told-ya-so-ing>> ;)

Imagine a brand new user of iTunes with a brand new Mac and a brand new empty iPod Touch. He hears about this iTunes Match which puts "all his music on all his devices all the time." Sounds good.

He wants some Beatles music. He gets an Apple ID on his computer and buys "Abbey Road" from the iTunes Store. He is asked if he wants purchased items to automatically download to his other registered devices. He says yes. Then he rips his "Magical Mystery Tour" CD at 128kpbs AAC and enters all the metadata. Finally he goes out to the internet and torrents "Let It Be" and "Beatles Bootlegs" at varying MP3 bitrates, and cleans up their metadata.

He now has a Beatles playlist with 30 songs and 4 albums in it in iTunes. He signs up for iTunes Match and is charged $24.95 for the year. iTunes Match scans his library, in all likelihood using a combination of the iTunes Library.xml file and metadata from the songs, and a few moments later throws him a dialog

iTunes Match was not able to match 10 songs in your library. Do you want to upload them to your 5GB iCloud account?
<<clicks Yes - these would be the Beatles Bootleg collection - everything else matched>>

Now he turns on his iPod Touch with iOS5 - no need to plug into the computer, it's PC free :). He logs into the Music app with his Apple ID and BOOM magic...there is already a Beatles playlist there with 30 songs and 4 albums in it. He puts it in shuffle mode and presses play. Here's what happens....


iPod comes to a song from Abbey Road (purchased iTunes content): Since he said he wanted to automatically download purchased content to his other devices, these songs files are in fact stored locally and taking up flash drive space on his iPod, assuming enough time has passed for them to have downloaded (this happens presently with the iTunes in the Cloud beta).
iPod comes to a song from the Beatles Bootlegs (unmatched content): Since he chose to upload these songs to the iCloud, they will also download to his device and the song files are there, taking up flash drive space on his iPod, stored locally.
iPod comes to a song from the Magical Mystery Tour or Let It Be: iPod plays/streams/downloads (whatever you want to call it) the full iTunes Store version of the song in 256kbps AAC glory, indistinguishable from the above 2 scenarios, indistinguishable from the 90-second previews currently offered by the iTunes Store. In all likelihood will have a BUY button visible in the playlist and maybe even on the Now Playing screen. Once the song is finished playing there is no stored file taking up flash drive space on the iPod locally. The song has played, one way or another, directly from the iTunes Store.

When this hypothetical fellow goes back to his computer, he sees the same 30 songs and 4 albums in his iTunes playlist with play counts updated and so on. If he digs around in his ~/Music/iTunes/iTunes Media/Music folder, he will find subfolders for the 4 albums, Abbey Road with his purchased AACs, Magical Mystery Tour with his ripped 128kbps AACs, along with Let It Be and Beatles Bootlegs with all the various MP3s. He will NOT suddenly be the proud owner of full 256kpbs AAC iTunes Store versions of Magical Mystery Tour and Let It Be.

This will all be seamless with no discernible buffering or hiccups, and feel exactly like all the music is on the iPod. Over the years he keeps paying his $24,95/yr and increases his iTunes Library up to the max of 25,000 matched songs, another 25,000 songs he purchased from iTunes, and another 1000 unmatched stored on his 5GB of iCloud. He now has iTunes and an iPod Touch with 51,000 songs "on it" although the reality is that none of those songs have to take up any flash drive space, they are all on "the cloud" one way or another and available on all devices all the time (as long as he has an internet connection). If he drops his iTunes Match account, all his music is still on his computer, and purchased songs can be re-downloaded and pushed all around device to device (exactly like now) wireless or with USB. But he loses the seamlessliy integrated cloud access to the matched songs and the unmatched uploaded songs. That's what the $24.95 is paying for.

If you know how LaLa worked, or understand how Spotify or Pandora work, or even some of the currently available iOS apps that stream your iTunes Library from your always-on computer using your home internet connection, you should see that this is Apple's typically elegant entry in this same sort of service. They are marketing it as YOUR music on all YOUR devices wherever YOU are. But really it's Pandora using your iTunes Library.xml for the playlists and Apple's copies of the songs. The "same benefit" given to matched songs or unmatched but uploaded songs is that they appear in the cloud and can be played anywhere anytime (that you have an internet connection).

Is your scenario taking into consideration the bandwidth caps that are becoming commonplace with wireless carriers though? Or the fact that iPod touches aren't always in range of wifi? If the scenario you spelled out above (and the example) is true, then that person with "51,000 songs" loses access to most, if not all of those the minute he goes out for a jog with his touch if this is a streaming only service. Or, if he's reached his monthly bandwidth cap on his iPhone, he can't stream anymore of "his" music without paying ridiculous overage fees for the rest of the month. Apple seems like this is the type of thing they don't want their customers worrying about, and I doubt they'd implement it this way and have the customer "hate" the service (and ultimately Apple) because of it.

tdream
Jun 17, 2011, 08:34 AM
They do become legal because apple scans your illegally sourced song, knows what song it is and uses their version of that song at high quality. So it appears in your itunes as a legal version of the song, not your ripped or downloaded version. The history of whether you paid 99c or it was part of the music match service, does not matter. It's legal and it's yours. So yeah $10,000 worth of music CAN be purchased legally for $25.

Technically record labels were never going to get anything from the pirates but this way they get something.

The songs do not become legal. What happens is that any evidence of illegality is destroyed. But in many cases there is no evidence of illegality anyway; if I put a CD into my Mac and rip it into iTunes, nobody can possibly know if the CD is one that I bought, or one that I borrowed from a friend, or one that I stole from a shop.

But let's say that the music in my library falls into various categories: Purchased from iTunes, ripped from my own CDs/LPs, bought elsewhere (Amazon etc. ), legal free downloads, and others (that would include illegal downloads). Apple would detect the first category. Apple could allow me to mark which category something belongs to. Then they could allow upgrades which _do_ change the legal status, for a small payment that goes to a label. Upgrade one would upgrade everything that I say is legal, for < 10 cents per song; my legallly owned stuff would then be treated as if it was purchased from iTunes. Upgrade two would upgrade anything, for say half the price of an original purchase. Wherever it comes from, it is now legally owned. So anyone with illegal downloads could turn them legal, at a cost.

This record company guy said they have albums with 10,000 legal and 80,000 illegal copies. If half of those 80,000 illegal copies used iTunes to legalize them, at half the usual price, the record company would triple its income.

Necross
Jun 17, 2011, 08:38 AM
Apple will take the songs you've stolen, and turn them into legit files, with big music's blessing.

What about ... "Apple will take the songs you've copied off of the 400+ CDs you own, and turn them into legit files"

I can honestly say I've never, ever downloaded a single song illegally, but I have over 40 gigs worth of MP3s all from albums I own that are still sitting there on my shelf. Why shouldn't I be allowed to stream them to my own work mac or ipod? I paid for em.

blybug
Jun 17, 2011, 08:45 AM
Is your scenario taking into consideration the bandwidth caps that are becoming commonplace with wireless carriers though? Or the fact that iPod touches aren't always in range of wifi? If the scenario you spelled out above (and the example) is true, then that person with "51,000 songs" loses access to most, if not all of those the minute he goes out for a jog with his touch if this is a streaming only service. Or, if he's reached his monthly bandwidth cap on his iPhone, he can't stream anymore of "his" music without paying ridiculous overage fees for the rest of the month. Apple seems like this is the type of thing they don't want their customers worrying about, and I doubt they'd implement it this way and have the customer "hate" the service (and ultimately Apple) because of it.

People seem to like Netflix and it has similar issues. People understand Pandora stops working when they're out of WiFi range on their Touch. This is a different kind of service and like anything else, it will have its limitations. They way people on this thread are talking it's a panacea of perfection and unlimited upgrades on all songs for "free" (well, $24.95/yr).

If people are not happy with what it does for them, they are free not to use it. But as music libraries grow and fast outpace the local storage space of portable devices, this is one way to have "everything everywhere." But obviously assumes you have an internet connection and are aware of your bandwidth limitations. Downloading every song as a local copy on every device every time you want to play it hogs bandwidth too...

It's a cloud service...by it's very name it depends on the cloud being available.

ericinboston
Jun 17, 2011, 08:46 AM
Not that it makes it right...but I would argue that there is a high percentage of pirated music that rarely gets played.

For example, there are consumers out there that copy/pirate all sorts of songs and never play them again...but keep them for a rainy day. I think a lot of the pirated music is stuff people pirated to PREVIEW in the first place.

Besides, just because you downloaded/pirated it (as they claim X times more than sales), DOES NOT MEAN the consumer kept the music.

I tend to believe that most people who truly want to own a particular album/song will buy it legitimately. In the pre-MP3 days it was about owning the physical medium, the liner notes, the pictures, and whatever else may come with the "album"...it was something to treasure and hold onto as part of your history...much like a book.

Lastly, I also believe that songs/albums that are no longer available should be free from any copyright disputes. If the Labels are going to no longer sell the Madonna cd single from 1991, then I should be able to COPY that cd single from a friend/stranger. There is no money being lost since the Labels no longer sell it.

chris975d
Jun 17, 2011, 09:02 AM
People seem to like Netflix and it has similar issues. People understand Pandora stops working when they're out of WiFi range on their Touch. This is a different kind of service and like anything else, it will have its limitations. They way people on this thread are talking it's a panacea of perfection and unlimited upgrades on all songs for "free" (well, $24.95/yr).

If people are not happy with what it does for them, they are free not to use it. But as music libraries grow and fast outpace the local storage space of portable devices, this is one way to have "everything everywhere." But obviously assumes you have an internet connection and are aware of your bandwidth limitations. Downloading every song as a local copy on every device every time you want to play it hogs bandwidth too...

It's a cloud service...by it's very name it depends on the cloud being available.

Yes, but those are standalone apps, and people know that they need an internet connection to use them. You're talking about integrating things "seamlessly" into iTunes itself. That's where the potential confusion would come into place. On a library as big as the one you gave in your example (51,000 songs), all appearing to be the same in iTunes, I can guarantee you that customers will forget which ones they actually "own", and which ones they are allowed to "just stream". Way too much confusion here for the people with iPod touches to try and remember which music they have access to when they are away from wifi versus when they have a connection. Especially if, as you stated in your scenario, all the "streaming" music files will "feel exactly like all the music is on the iPod". And again, as a few posters have said now, if this was streaming only, it's automatically useless to all the Shuffle, Nano, Classic owners out there. That's a lot of iPods for Apple to cut out, especially when they are saying these uploaded songs get the "same benefits as music purchased from iTunes". Your scenario presents too many potential confusion points for the customer, when Apple is known for making things so simple a toddler can use them.

iScott428
Jun 17, 2011, 09:07 AM
In a business sence the small record lables really are making a terrible plea to withdrawl their music. One its some money or none, for music that has been pirated or not maybe! Two your music is gonna get uploaded regardless even if you do not want to be a part of the match service. So again some money or none.

Have better artists that actually can make money running a concert series, because we all know that you dont make that much on albums sales anyway. Artists just need those ego's blown up with multi Platnum albums sales numbers, so that they can sleep well at night on their mink bed spreads.

jazzmsngr
Jun 17, 2011, 09:09 AM
First off, I can't stand the, "If you have a large music library, 99% of it stolen" argument. Its lame and lazy, and a way to justify labels who rip off musicians anyway.

With that said, Numero Group is A GREAT LABEL....I am a huge vinyl addict and I have bought a ton of their re-releases, especially the Twinight 45s and I also have bought almost all of their compilations. You know how I found about Numero Group???? P2P FILE SHARING (5 years ago)!! You know how many records and how much money i have spent on them? Hundreds of dollars (and counting) and you know how much I would have spent, if I didnt download a couple of those albums illegally?? 0!!!! Thats, right, NOTHING! because I never would have heard of THEM! Now they have an issue because I can now move these songs freely between my devices? even though I am PAYING for the right to do so??? I'm sorry but, if you have an issue here, you need to seriously look at how A LOT of people find out about your music....THE INTERNET!

blackpond
Jun 17, 2011, 09:24 AM
The argument is trotted out again that "pirated downloads were X times higher than legitimate sales", with the implication being that if there were no piracy, then our sales would have been X (or some significant fraction thereof) times higher. There is no rational way to estimate this. If there were no piracy, sales might have been X times higher; sales might not have been any higher at all. There is no way to tell. There is no way to perform the experiment to find out, either. Also what about people who have NO pirated music on their computers. Should they be punished (by having to buy a fresh digital copy of music they already own) because of some people who do not respect copyright?

Great points. It's also possible that sales are higher due to free promotion (piracy).

blybug
Jun 17, 2011, 09:25 AM
Yes, but those are standalone apps, and people know that they need an internet connection to use them. You're talking about integrating things "seamlessly" into iTunes itself. That's where the potential confusion would come into place. On a library as big as the one you gave in your example (51,000 songs), all appearing to be the same in iTunes, I can guarantee you that customers will forget which ones they actually "own", and which ones they are allowed to "just stream". Way too much confusion here for the people with iPod touches to try and remember which music they have access to when they are away from wifi versus when they have a connection. Especially if, as you stated in your scenario, all the "streaming" music files will "feel exactly like all the music is on the iPod". And again, as a few posters have said now, if this was streaming only, it's automatically useless to all the Shuffle, Nano, Classic owners out there. That's a lot of iPods for Apple to cut out, especially when they are saying these uploaded songs get the "same benefits as music purchased from iTunes". Your scenario presents too many potential confusion points for the customer, when Apple is known for making things so simple a toddler can use them.

People will understand that a paid cloud service needs cloud access to work. How is it different from Documents in the iCloud or email or calendar syncing? All the features don't work away from a connection. The system requirements on Apple's page require an iOS device so yeah, shuffles, classics, nanos are excluded.

Likely there will be little cloud icons next to these songs and they will be skipped if there's no cloud. People currently understand a song is not available if they haven't synced it via USB to their iPod, they'll come to understand a cloud song is not available with no internet. In order to truly have "everything everywhere" you either need a device with an infinite hard drive, or cloud storage with internet always on. In 2011 neither exists so iTunes Match is an option that moves us where the puck is going, ubiquitous cloud storage, rather than the old world paradigm of more local GB.

Downloading all these songs for keeps continues to fill up the local GB and chews up bandwidth. Streaming only does the latter. People are already streaming Pandora in their cars and all day at work, this is just Appledora with "your own" list of music.

milo
Jun 17, 2011, 09:25 AM
Though I thought Steve said that you got DRM free tracks after you used Match. That doesn't really bode well for people sticking around to keep subscribing. It seems to me that you can clean up your library then pack up shop.

True, but at a price that low I suspect many people will be happy to stick with it to add future additions to their library, legal or not. At less than fifty cents a week it will likely be a no brainer for many.

Not sure who iTunes for iCloud is really for. Pirates won't pay even the $24.99. They're PIRATES!!! People with legit files don't need it either. They have their songs already. It also doesn't stream any tracks. So who is going to use this service?

I'll likely use it. It's mobile syncing of your entire library, it's nice to not have to have a huge library taking up all the space on a mobile device yet be able to get any song at any time. I suspect it will do quite well.



(2) Obtained elsewhere but iTunes Matched. Can stream from the iCloud as long as you pay your subscription.

Where did you get "stream"? It's not mentioned at all on the page you linked. And why would Jobs specifically mention "DRM free" if it was streams only?


But if it's just steaming, then it's useless for people who don't have an iPhone or iPod Touch because you can't stream to a Nano or a Classic or a Shuffle.

I agree with you that it's syncing, not streaming. But for people with a classic or shuffle the service isn't going to be useful either way since those are always going to be synced from your computer at home. For iOS users, the benefit is being able to sync on the road.

fluffylion
Jun 17, 2011, 09:26 AM
Not that it makes it right...but I would argue that there is a high percentage of pirated music that rarely gets played.

For example, there are consumers out there that copy/pirate all sorts of songs and never play them again...but keep them for a rainy day. I think a lot of the pirated music is stuff people pirated to PREVIEW in the first place.

Besides, just because you downloaded/pirated it (as they claim X times more than sales), DOES NOT MEAN the consumer kept the music.

I tend to believe that most people who truly want to own a particular album/song will buy it legitimately. In the pre-MP3 days it was about owning the physical medium, the liner notes, the pictures, and whatever else may come with the "album"...it was something to treasure and hold onto as part of your history...much like a book.

Lastly, I also believe that songs/albums that are no longer available should be free from any copyright disputes. If the Labels are going to no longer sell the Madonna cd single from 1991, then I should be able to COPY that cd single from a friend/stranger. There is no money being lost since the Labels no longer sell it.

In one way you are correct. There are many people like that, it becomes an addiction type syndrome.

They download it for the sake of downloading it. It is the same with games, I have met many people that had hundreds of PS1 games, Dreamcast games etc. Many of the stuff in their their library of crap, they didn't even play.

Same with music, and especially pornography addicts. They will downloads gigs of the stuff, but continue to browse the web for more, never really looking at what they collected. They have severe mental problem which they can't admit to, and I consider most to lack social ability or having an actual relationship. It becomes routine for them, which they feel comfortable doing, and try to justify it because it is all they do in life.

It is really sad what the internet has done to many people, they live in a weird fantasy world, making lies and thinking it is all real.

blybug
Jun 17, 2011, 09:34 AM
Where did you get "stream"? It's not mentioned at all on the page you linked. And why would Jobs specifically mention "DRM free" if it was streams only?
The page does not specifically mention "download" either, the verbiage is the carefully chosen "plays back." To me this is clear marketing-speak double talk as Apple and Jobs backpedal on their previous disdain for subscription streaming services.

Jobs did not specifically mention "DRM free" when discussing iTunes Match. I posted a transcript earlier in this thread.

chris975d
Jun 17, 2011, 09:39 AM
People will understand that a paid cloud service needs cloud access to work. How is it different from Documents in the iCloud or email or calendar syncing? All the features don't work away from a connection. The system requirements on Apple's page require an iOS device so yeah, shuffles, classics, nanos are excluded.

Likely there will be little cloud icons next to these songs and they will be skipped if there's no cloud. People currently understand a song is not available if they haven't synced it via USB to their iPod, they'll come to understand a cloud song is not available with no internet. In order to truly have "everything everywhere" you either need a device with an infinite hard drive, or cloud storage with internet always on. In 2011 neither exists so iTunes Match is an option that moves us where the puck is going, ubiquitous cloud storage, rather than the old world paradigm of more local GB.

Downloading all these songs for keeps continues to fill up the local GB and chews up bandwidth. Streaming only does the latter.

The page does not specifically mention "download" either, the verbiage is the carefully chosen "plays back." To me this is clear marketing-speak double talk as Apple and Jobs backpedal on their previous disdain for subscription streaming services.

Jobs did not specifically mention "DRM free" when discussing iTunes Match. I posted a transcript earlier in this thread.

I also still don't get where you get the idea of "streaming" from. Most, if not all articles written about iTunes match since the announcement state that it's not streaming, and many of these writers were present at WWDC. Such as the links below:

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/07/wheres-the-itunes-streaming-it-would-have-crushed-the-carriers/
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/editorial-engadget-on-icloud-and-itunes-match/
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/26854/

These are just a few sites/editorials talking about why it's not a streaming service. I guess they all could be wrong, but that's an awful lot of people "in the know" saying that it's not a streaming service.

Added: Also, if it's not meant for you to be able to download songs from iTunes in the Cloud, as opposed to streaming it, why is Apple putting in place the ability to manage individual songs on in iOS just now? A new feature in iOS 5 is that in the iPod (Music) app, I can left swipe on an individual song title and "Delete" it. If Apple is moving to "everything in the cloud"/less dependency on local storage, why is this a feature in the OS supporting your model?

edwurtle
Jun 17, 2011, 09:44 AM
If iTunes Match actually allows you to DOWNLOAD a 256kbps AAC rather than STREAMING, then...


Won't this open up a whole new era of pirating, with the neoNapsters of the world sharing/stealing crappy small 16kbps files for iTunes to upgrade? A bunch of friends cobble together the $24.99 and they all receive unlimted downloads of the high quality versions of all their songs? I say no, because the files will not be downloaded, only streamed.

What happens to someone who downloads all the upgraded versions, then stops their iTunes Match subscription? Do the files explode? Is Apple going back to a DRM scheme with some sort of lockdown for cancelled subscriptions? I say no, because they will not be downloaded, only streamed. Stop subscription, stop streaming access.

Why does Apple continue to ask me for $0.30 to upgrade all the old 128kbps DRM'd AACs I purchased years back? Wouldn't they just discontinue that program right now if they were about to let me download them all for free anyhow? I say no, because they will not be downloaded, only streamed.
Carefully read the description of iTunes Match here (http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/).
"18 million songs for matching. iCloud scans and matches your music with the 18 million songs in iTunes. So chances are your music is already in iCloud."Implies to me your matched music will be played from the iCloud, just like the 90-second previews in the iTunes store, but the whole song. Imagine the current iCloud icon next to your song in a playlist with a little play button instead of the little download arrow.
"And all the music iTunes matches plays back at 256-Kbps iTunes Plus quality — even if your original copy was of lower quality." Plays back. Not downloads. Plays back.

Mark my words, iTunes Match is a streaming/syncing service. The writing is on the wall folks.

Your devilish plan won't work as you expect on non-jailbroke iDevices. The matched content will only be downloadable into your iDevices. When the songs are "matched" from your mac/pc library the iTune Versions won't be downloaded back into your mac/pc, they will only be downloaded into your iDevice. Once they are in your iDevice they will be walled off and controlled (in other words you won't be able to move the songs back into your mac/pc).

Unless you and your friends are all sharing the same itunes account, then your plan fails.

milo
Jun 17, 2011, 09:46 AM
So if iCloud won't let you stream songs and requires you to download them instead to each device, what the hell is the point? I can just connect my ipod or whatever to the computer and sync up any music.

So if your full library is too big to fit on your device, how do you access the rest of it when you're away from home. I can see not being interested in it, but is it really that hard to understand?

It's not if your device is already full and you can't download anything more on to it. Plus having to download means that Android and other devices won't be able to use iCloud. (I use a N1).

If your device can download on the road there's less need for it to be full in the first place. And of course they're not going to support android - if it were a streaming service, you think THEN it would support android?

I see how the wording about "same benefits as music purchased from iTunes" could be interpreted as download of the 256kbps AAC file

A song purchased from iTunes can be synced to a nano. Or burned to CD. How would a streamed song have those same benefits? Or are you saying that Jobs was flat out lying?

Not to mention that every last bit of coverage described Match as syncing, not streaming. You think that if they all got it wrong, Apple would just let the public misconception stand instead of making a public statement to correct it?

We get it, you're convinced it's streaming (and the basis for your assumption is nothing more than it seeming too good to be true). The rest of us are convinced you're wrong. At this point it seems like you're just beating a dead horse.

blybug
Jun 17, 2011, 09:49 AM
Your devilish plan won't work as you expect on non-jailbroke iDevices. The matched content will only be downloadable into your iDevices. When the songs are "matched" from your mac/pc library the iTune Versions won't be downloaded back into your mac/pc, they will only be downloaded into your iDevice. Once they are in your iDevice they will be walled off and controlled (in other words you won't be able to move the songs back into your mac/pc).

Unless you and your friends are all sharing the same itunes account, then your plan fails.
Not sure what you think my devilish plan is (I was pointing out why iTunes Match couldn't possibly be replacing ripped/stolen content with legit versions), but you're one of the first people here to agree with what I am saying about how this will work. The iTunes Match songs will "play" on your iDevice, either by streaming or download (starting to think there's no real difference) but you will NOT be given a 256kbps AAC file to keep forever and copy infinitely to your computer.

edwurtle
Jun 17, 2011, 10:00 AM
Not sure what you think my devilish plan is (I was pointing out why iTunes Match couldn't possibly be replacing ripped/stolen content with legit versions), but you're one of the first people here to agree with what I am saying about how this will work. The iTunes Match songs will "play" on your iDevice, either by streaming or download (starting to think there's no real difference) but you will NOT be given a 256kbps AAC file to keep and copy to your computer.

I do agree that it won't be easy to share the "matched versions" with others, however I do not agree that it will be streaming. The main difference between streaming and downloading: once a song is downloaded then it can be played over and over without the need to be "re-downloaded". Also you can download a bulk of songs all at once and listen to them at a much later time.

This is all speculation, the details will come later. I'm personally more concerned about how easy/hard it will be to manage sync settings when my iPhone can't possibly store my entire library. I don't want to have to manually remove song/add song over and over. I hope I can manage all these sync settings directly on the iPhone without any need to connect to macbook.

blybug
Jun 17, 2011, 10:02 AM
So if your full library is too big to fit on your device, how do you access the rest of it when you're away from home. I can see not being interested in it, but is it really that hard to understand?



If your device can download on the road there's less need for it to be full in the first place. And of course they're not going to support android - if it were a streaming service, you think THEN it would support android?



A song purchased from iTunes can be synced to a nano. Or burned to CD. How would a streamed song have those same benefits? Or are you saying that Jobs was flat out lying?

Not to mention that every last bit of coverage described Match as syncing, not streaming. You think that if they all got it wrong, Apple would just let the public misconception stand instead of making a public statement to correct it?

We get it, you're convinced it's streaming (and the basis for your assumption is nothing more than it seeming too good to be true). The rest of us are convinced you're wrong. At this point it seems like you're just beating a dead horse.
Jobs wasn't lying, he was using carefully parsed language and referring to the "benefits" songs have within the context of iCloud services.

Some of the above comments demonstrate exactly how a streamishing service dovetails with the type of syncing we've been used to up to this point. You can still do a local USB (or soon wifi sync) at your house, and ideally should. But would it really be advantageous, as you suggest, to leave to house with your device half full then "download" the rest on the road? Still need internet to get that song, what's the advantage over streaming then? And when you have filled your device by downloading your library from the road, you could still keep playing more songs if they are just streaming. The experience is the same as far as the song "playing" but you DO NOT get to keep and own a legit copy of the song unless you buy it the traditional $1.29 way.

Lots of those post-WWDC reviews are responsible for the spreading of misinformation. Watch the keynote or read the transcript I posted earlier. Jobs never said you get to download a DRM free copy for keeps, but rather that iTunes Match cross-checks iTunes 18 million songs and plays the ones in your library that match at full 256kbps quality.

blybug
Jun 17, 2011, 10:09 AM
They do become legal because apple scans your illegally sourced song, knows what song it is and uses their version of that song at high quality. So it appears in your itunes as a legal version of the song, not your ripped or downloaded version. The history of whether you paid 99c or it was part of the music match service, does not matter. It's legal and it's yours.

So yeah $10,000 worth of music CAN be purchased legally for $25
I would love this to be true, but the very fact that people believe this makes me wonder what world you are living in where rainbows and unicorns fly out of Steve Jobs' rear.

Guess we'll see in September.

milo
Jun 17, 2011, 10:12 AM
Why can't you accept what is written as plainly as plain can be. 'Play back' is a synonym for 'streaming'. It is not a synonym for 'download'. I can't believe how many people are hoping against hope that this is a download service. This is a streaming service as a few people have rightly pointed out.

But that contradicts what was said in the keynote. Specifically no DRM and "same benefits as music purchased from iTunes". How would a streamed file that I can't put on my nano have the same benefits?

It's really pretty simple - apple never said it is streaming, yet a few people still insist it's streaming. You really think they would make an announcement that would completely hide the way the service works.

Besides that, if it was going to be streaming, why wouldn't they provide the option of streaming NOW with the current iCloud feature in itunes for purchased music? They specifically said that Match handles purchases and matched songs the same way.

I am also assuming that iOS 5 will allow you to delete songs from your device, which you can't do at the moment. Perhaps some dev will tell us if this is possible in the preview release currently in testing? Update: I've just seen that you will be able to delete songs from an iOS5 device.

In the case of songs downloaded from the cloud, you can already delete them from an iOS device. The feature appeared along with the new beta cloud features.

chris975d
Jun 17, 2011, 10:26 AM
In the case of songs downloaded from the cloud, you can already delete them from an iOS device. The feature appeared along with the new beta cloud features.

Yep. It's a new feature to be able to delete any song on an iOS device in iOS 5 (I just posted a screenshot in another thread). To me, this shows me that Apple is going to allow you to pick and choose what you need on your device (due to possible storage constraints) at will, and download (not stream) and delete at will from what you have available in the iTunes "locker", if you will. If it was full streaming, there'd be zero reason to make this a new feature, as local storage limits wouldn't be an issue anyway when it comes to music.

morespce54
Jun 17, 2011, 10:28 AM
...

...
...
Why does Apple continue to ask me for $0.30 to upgrade all the old 128kbps DRM'd AACs I purchased years back? Wouldn't they just discontinue that program right now if they were about to let me download them all for free anyhow? I say no, because they will not be downloaded, only streamed.

...

Don't forget that the iCloud/sync/re-download option for music is only available in the US... for now

milo
Jun 17, 2011, 10:30 AM
Jobs did not specifically mention "DRM free" when discussing iTunes Match. I posted a transcript earlier in this thread.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/06/stevejobswwdc2011liveblogkeynote1092.jpg

"Matched songs upgraded to 256 kbps AAC DRM-free"

Jobs wasn't lying, he was using carefully parsed language and referring to the "benefits" songs have within the context of iCloud services.

Sorry, that just doesn't fly. He specifically said "Same benefits as music purchased from iTunes". Purchased music can be loaded to a nano or burned to CD. Or even loaded to a device and played where network connection isn't available. If it's a streaming service and those aren't possible, that statement isn't "carefully parsed", it's flat out false. So you're saying Jobs made intentionally false statements as part of the introduction?

And again, why say "drm free" for a streamed song or a file that has limitations? Limitations that would seem an awful lot like DRM.

Some of the above comments demonstrate exactly how a streamishing service dovetails with the type of syncing we've been used to up to this point. You can still do a local USB (or soon wifi sync) at your house, and ideally should. But would it really be advantageous, as you suggest, to leave to house with your device half full then "download" the rest on the road?

Most advantageous would be to leave with your device full then delete material you've heard and replace it with fresh stuff on the road. Hopefully apple will include some smart functionality that allows syncing playlists and not having to manually manage individual songs.

Still need internet to get that song, what's the advantage over streaming then?

You can get the songs and then continue to play them even when a network connection is not available.

And when you have filled your device by downloading your library from the road, you could still keep playing more songs if they are just streaming.

As above, just delete the material you no longer want on there.

The experience is the same as far as the song "playing" but you DO NOT get to keep and own a legit copy of the song unless you buy it the traditional $1.29 way.

Which has no basis in any evidence, just your personal theory with no facts to back it up. If that were the case, how am I able to load that song to a nano or burn it to CD?

Watch the keynote

Oh, you mean the one where Jobs doesn't say "Matched songs upgraded to 256 kbps AAC DRM-free"?

morespce54
Jun 17, 2011, 10:41 AM
I just hope they'll do a better job matching songs than they do matching the album artwork. Geez, right now, this function is such a hit and miss...

No, really, it is.
Plus, I don't want to end up with an "unmatched" album just because they added "The" in front of Greatest Hits (instead of just plain old Greatest Hits):rolleyes:

kingtj
Jun 17, 2011, 10:50 AM
Same here... I support the small labels and what they've tried to do. But at the same time, I think they're focusing anger on the wrong people if they're upset at Apple and the iTunes/iCloud model.

If you're not willing to pay the price of a particular music album in the first place, then you're not willing to pay for it. If however, you did like it at least enough to allocate a little disk space for a pirated copy on your computer? At least with this new proposal from Apple, they *might* stand to make a little bit of revenue from you if you coughed up the $25 per year for the streaming feature that indexed that pirated album as part of your collection.

It sounds like these guys want to "have it all", and think they have a stronger business case for the "all or nothing" attitude, simply because they don't do nearly as much volume of music sales as a major label. Well, sorry -- but the world just doesn't work that way. As long as the technology has existed to duplicate music for personal use, people have elected to make copies of some of it, vs. paying for a legal copy produced by the record label. By the same token though? Sometimes those same people who made the illegal copies wound up becoming big fans of the artists and spent a lot more money on concert tickets to see them live, later on. Other times, they made a point to buy their future albums after discovering they liked them from the "pirated" copies of their earlier work. IMHO, this stuff is basically all a "wash" in the end -- and they'd be best to concentrate on producing quality music for people and let the marketplace do what it does.

I sympathize with small record labels. But iTunes, of all forces in the tech world, has been a net benefit to the music industry. iTunes brought legit digital music to the mainstream.

People will pirate media or they won't. The fact that they can sync their files via iCloud does not provide an incentive or method to enable piracy.

milo
Jun 17, 2011, 10:55 AM
Don't forget that the iCloud/sync/re-download option for music is only available in the US... for now

Correct, plus iTunes match isn't even released yet. And they may still continue to ask for the thirty cents from people who aren't paying the annual $25, it's another incentive for people to subscribe.

To get off the silly streaming vs. download topic...

I'm very curious about more of the functionality specifics. Will cloud copies of a user's song grab the star ratings from the library? Update play counts over the cloud? What about customized metadata? Any lyrics that have been added to the files? Syncing and removing files based on playlists as well as live updating to smart playlists?

I know the files themselves will be the same for everyone but it seems like things like stars, play count, and even metadata are tiny compared to the audio and it seems like it should be possible to keep those synced as well, especially in a system that also does cloud syncing of documents and other info. I'm not getting my hopes up for the first version, but I hope apple is thinking about these sorts of things and has them on their to-do list.

Also, how will the local upgrade to files work? I assume it will add the new files instead of replacing them? Will there be an option to easily remove the old ones once the new ones are there and it's confirmed they are working OK? Options to upgrade the whole library or specific parts easily, including things like only upgrading files that are below a given bitrate? An easy way to swap in the new files to playlists, and handling play count and star ratings? Tags - doing it over the cloud is more ambitious but it seems like it shouldn't be a big deal to copy over customized tags (including things like lyrics) on the main library.

And with the 25k limit, will users who have more than that have the ability to choose which are included and which not (including the ability to easily remove songs uploaded to that 5 gigs)? I have lots of custom stuff that frankly I don't WANT uploaded and would never need to get from the cloud.

I think the idea has great potential and for me it's almost worth doing just for the opportunity to upgrade old files, mobile or no mobile. But hopefully apple will really nail the functionality of the service, for me that's what will make the difference between using it or not.


I just hope they'll do a better job matching songs than they do matching the album artwork. Geez, right now, this function is such a hit and miss...

No, really, it is.
Plus, I don't want to end up with an "unmatched" album just because they added "The" in front of Greatest Hits (instead of just plain old Greatest Hits):rolleyes:

Amen to that. My "automatic" album covers are a mess more often than not. They're going to need a vast improvement in recognizing albums and songs or Match is going to get crushed by users having tons of problems with it.

cmendill
Jun 17, 2011, 11:17 AM
Itunes songs are far better quality then what you will be able to rip home from CD as they come from the MASTER copy.

WHAT???

Your CD's come from the MASTER copy too. They are digitally identical.

My 1's and 0's sound better than your 1's and 0's.

The quality of compression is by far the more important thing to consider when determining the quality of a digital audio file. And you can rip your CD's just as well, or better than Apple does.

Obi-Wan Kubrick
Jun 17, 2011, 11:31 AM
I still buy CD's that are sale at Target all the time. They are $8 or $10 then I jsut rip them to iTunes. I can always have the original CD and re-import it any any quality I want. I buy very few songs from iTunes.

ChrisA
Jun 17, 2011, 12:33 PM
"People will rip your album and upload them, and you can see how many people are downloading it," Sevier explained. "And in some cases people are downloading our stuff like 80,000 times or more. We have seen, on average, anything from 10 to 20 times more downloads than legitimate sales."

What this should tell anyone with a business degree: There is great demand for your product but it is priced wrong.

Draw a graph of price vs. unit sales. We know two points on the graph. At "list price" ($16??) we know the units sales is 10,000 units. At $0.00 (free except for the effort to download it) the unit sales is 80,000.

One might assume that at price between $16 and $0 there would be unit sales between 10K and 80K. The million dollar question is this: How many would you sell if the list price was $4 or $6 or $12. Look at two options:

1) List price of $4, 50,000 units sold is $200,000 in sales
2) List price $16, 10,000 units sold is $160,000 in sales.

If the above right and he really would make more money by lowering the price then he's priced the product wrong.

I'm pretty sure the only way to save to CD industry is to get prices in line with what there customers can pay. I'd say CDs for under $10 would actually bring in more money in total.

jettredmont
Jun 17, 2011, 12:40 PM
I'm not Numero's audience, but it seems to me from a perusal of their website (httP://www.numerogroup.com) that they have some major reasons people tend to pirate more often than pay for their music:

1. They really aren't specializing in music. They are specializing in physical stuff to accompany music (which so far as I can see is all available or was once available elsewhere). And, that physical stuff is mega-expensive. You look at their album lists and see the MP3 "album" available for $10 and the "real thing" selling for $30 and you wonder just what you would be getting with that MP3 album. And then you start thinking about how really, that's not what Numero is about, and that you could get those same tracks elsewhere, and maybe you just should.

2. The web site is "protected" by Flash. If you search for any of the artists or albums I see there on Google, you generally don't get Numero's site, and Numero's site doesn't scream "This is the legitimate site for this music" once you do hit it, tenth in the list or worse. A rather big part of that is that all the site's navigation is "protected" by an opaque Flash app.

3. There are no links over to "legitimate" music sellers. I'm sure Numero is legitimate, but most people are a bit reticent to put their credit card info into some label's site to download a few tracks. They'd seem much larger sales volume, I would bet, if they had visible links over to iTunes and Amazon like most larger labels do.

Between the three of these, I would definitely expect the label to not make a huge number of digital sales. I wouldn't expect them to make a huge number of physical sales either, but "volume" isn't their business there. Comparing the small number of MP3 sales they make (I'm surprised they get in the tens of thousands, personally) to the demand for the music, when their whole business is built on talking people into wanting more than just a digital download, doesn't seem to make sense.

So, it's too bad they won't be available on iTunes Match. I'm sure folks would love to have their Syl Johnson discography in the cloud. But it doesn't sound like a really good match to begin with.

ChrisA
Jun 17, 2011, 12:46 PM
Itunes songs are far better quality then what you will be able to rip home from CD as they come from the MASTER copy.

I agree with most of what you said, but the above is 100% not-true purely on technical grounds.

Rips from CDs can be MUCH better quality then what is sold on iTunes for two reasons.

1) iTunes does NOT sell faithful copies of the "master". So you entire premise is wrong. iTunes only offers intensionally compressed 256Kb/second versions of the files. These have been processed any only sound "close" to the same tracks that are on the CD. Maybe close enough that many casual listeners can't notice the difference but still you never get the true "CD Quality" from iTunes.

2) There is no generational loss in digital copies, a tenth copy of a copy of a copy is as good as the original (unless something is broken or some one made a technical error) OK maybe I should say "An Nth generational copy can be as good as the master." Certainly a file ripped from CD is identical (bit per bit) to the "master" copy used to make the CD.

AaronEdwards
Jun 17, 2011, 12:50 PM
What this should tell anyone with a business degree: There is great demand for your product but it is priced wrong.

Draw a graph of price vs. unit sales. We know two points on the graph. At "list price" ($16??) we know the units sales is 10,000 units. At $0.00 (free except for the effort to download it) the unit sales is 80,000.

One might assume that at price between $16 and $0 there would be unit sales between 10K and 80K. The million dollar question is this: How many would you sell if the list price was $4 or $6 or $12. Look at two options:

1) List price of $4, 50,000 units sold is $200,000 in sales
2) List price $16, 10,000 units sold is $160,000 in sales.

If the above right and he really would make more money by lowering the price then he's priced the product wrong.

I'm pretty sure the only way to save to CD industry is to get prices in line with what there customers can pay. I'd say CDs for under $10 would actually bring in more money in total.

I'm sorry. But this major faulty thinking. You would need to know a lot more points to graph it in any way correctly. And in reality you don't even have one point. The company has for some records only sold 10,000 copies, but you don't know the price. Nor can you just add 80,000 and $0 as another point, since there are obvious differences in distribution, accessibility, and legality among other things.

blybug
Jun 17, 2011, 12:58 PM
"Matched songs upgraded to 256 kbps AAC DRM-free"
OK I'll be a real pedant for a moment and admit that I didn't see that slide when typing out the transcript, I was only listening and Jobs never said "AAC DRM-free." But you're right, it's on the slide. However, the 18 million 256kbps AAC files sitting on Apple's cloud are indeed DRM free. There is still no clear statement that a copy of this file will be delivered to you to do with as you please, but it will be "played back."

Why didn't Jobs say exactly these words: "We know a lot of our customers have been wanting to upgrade copies of songs they had ripped from CDs in lower bitrate MP3 when digital music first began, or even some old 128kbps iTunes content with DRM, Napster, Rhapsody, Amazon MP3 whatever. But this gets expensive, and especially annoying when you've already bought that music, you just haven't had the time to re-rip or the 30 cents or buck twenty-nine per song to make the move. Well, with iTunes Match we're doing it for you."

Then show a slide with $0.30 price tag for upgrade to iTunes Plus - obliterated in a puff of smoke transition. Then show $0.99 and $1.29 price tags for buying new copies - obliterated. Sparkly transition entrance of $24.95 per month price tag..."We're going to give you the full iTunes Plus 256kbps AAC file that we have for every single song in your entire iTunes library that you didn't originally buy from us. To keep. To download and re-download. Forever. Every. Single. Song. For only $24.95 per year."

Sorry, that just doesn't fly. He specifically said "Same benefits as music purchased from iTunes". Purchased music can be loaded to a nano or burned to CD. Or even loaded to a device and played where network connection isn't available. If it's a streaming service and those aren't possible, that statement isn't "carefully parsed", it's flat out false. So you're saying Jobs made intentionally false statements as part of the introduction?

He may indeed have to clarify exactly what he meant by some of his intro stuff, and if you read the description on Apple's web page carefully it actually is less comprehensive and inclusive, and more vague about how this all works than the Jobs was in the keynote. I think they'll claim the "benefits" are the same in the iCloud context, not necessarily in the "old fashioned" iTunes/burning/non-iOS gadgets context. The rollout and information provided as the time comes closer is going to have to be very carefully orchestrated. This says it all to me right here:
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.
"Your music is probably already in iCloud" and it "plays back at 256-Kbps iTunes Plus quality." Again, why not scream from the trees on this promotional website that Apple is about to give ridiculously cheap amnesty to every file trader and CD burner with unlimited downloads of songs that are otherwise $1.29 apiece, if that's what is going to happen? And if it only takes "minutes" to match my songs, clearly iTunes Match is not going to "listen" to them like SoundHound/Midomi. It's going to use my iTunes Library xml file and the available metadata. So what is to keep anybody from creating blank MP3s full of static of the correct length and tag them as any song they want to get it from iTunes?

And again, why say "drm free" for a streamed song or a file that has limitations? Limitations that would seem an awful lot like DRM.

Most advantageous would be to leave with your device full then delete material you've heard and replace it with fresh stuff on the road. Hopefully apple will include some smart functionality that allows syncing playlists and not having to manually manage individual songs.

You can get the songs and then continue to play them even when a network connection is not available.
I guess I may end up regretting insisting on the word "streaming," especially since it's unlikely that Apple will ever call it that. So the matched song "downloads" to your iPhone if a copy is not already stored locally. Does it start playing before it's done downloading, or do you wait for it to download? Is that streaming or downloading? Six and a half dozen of the other. Does it stay on your iPhone or disappear when it's done playing and have to be downloaded again? You're probably right it will stay there so you can play it again later off network until you delete it.

The spirit of what I have been trying to say, however, is that whatever the Apple-elegant method of magical revolutionary iCloud "play back" on an untethered iDevice, that file will not become yours and will not sync or download back to your mothership computer unless it is iTunes purchased content. Songs that are only "matched" are played one way or another via Apple's master copy, and will remain walled off inside the file-systemless iDevice, not become your property back in iTunes on the computer. I am sure Apple will place a prominent BUY button on all such songs to encourage the continued steady flow of $1.29 in their tiller.

Which has no basis in any evidence, just your personal theory with no facts to back it up. If that were the case, how am I able to load that song to a nano or burn it to CD?
I think my interpretation of the information/evidence that has been given at the keynote and on Apple's web page is more reasonable and more realistic than believing that Apple is about to hand over more than $15,000 worth of digital song files to me for $25 simply because they happen to already be in my iTunes from unknown sources (much as I would love that). If that's really what they are going to do, why aren't they explicitly advertising that all over creation? The fact that they are remaining low key and using terms like "plays back" is good evidence that they are rolling out a subscription service that streams/downloads songs from the cloud, but they are sugar coating it and avoiding using those words just yet.

This is the cloud era. iPod nanos and shuffles are not included. Apple famously moves forward and leaves legacy technology behind. Burning to CDs and USB syncing to click-wheel iPods is all very 1990s and 2000s. This implementation is a 2011 version of what will be ubiquitous in 2020. Your iPod Touch becomes a pocketable battery-powered AppleTV with your playlists in the iCloud as its source material.

http://www.bly.cc/images/itunesmatch.png

Listen at 256 Kbps. Play back matched songs at iTunes Plus quality. Even if your original copy was of lower quality.

Replace your lower quality ripped CD or Amazon MP3 or Napster-obtained copy with the official iTunes Store 256kbps AAC file.

Jerome Morrow
Jun 17, 2011, 01:19 PM
If someone stole the music what difference does it make what are iTunes Match specifications.

the8thark
Jun 17, 2011, 01:38 PM
I see it like this.

There is only 2 ways to try and get music pirating to stop or slow down.
1. Go heavy handed and sue as many people/companies as you can. To shut down the ways people can pirate music.
2. Make the ways to legally get music so extremely easy that moat people will be like "should I spend hours looking for the track I want or spend 1 minute getting it legally". The time is money idea.

And 2 things we know. Method 1 has proven not to work in the past. People sill pirate today. And Apple is trying for method 2.

And people think $25 is not much. But it's more then the $0 you got from the pirates. And the Little Music people complain about this. Well if their music was easier to get a hold of, people would not pirate it. We all know of that one track or CD you just can not get legally anymore. Out of print and never pops up on ebay and not on itunes. So pirating that is not so bad in many people's eyes. Simply cause there is no way to legally get it. If Little Music made some of their music easier to legally acquire I think more people would.

Little Music just need to move into the 21st century and make their catalogues easy to legally acquire and there'd be no issue.

AaronEdwards
Jun 17, 2011, 02:23 PM
I see it like this.

There is only 2 ways to try and get music pirating to stop or slow down.
1. Go heavy handed and sue as many people/companies as you can. To shut down the ways people can pirate music.
2. Make the ways to legally get music so extremely easy that moat people will be like "should I spend hours looking for the track I want or spend 1 minute getting it legally". The time is money idea.

And 2 things we know. Method 1 has proven not to work in the past. People sill pirate today. And Apple is trying for method 2.

And people think $25 is not much. But it's more then the $0 you got from the pirates. And the Little Music people complain about this. Well if their music was easier to get a hold of, people would not pirate it. We all know of that one track or CD you just can not get legally anymore. Out of print and never pops up on ebay and not on itunes. So pirating that is not so bad in many people's eyes. Simply cause there is no way to legally get it. If Little Music made some of their music easier to legally acquire I think more people would.

Little Music just need to move into the 21st century and make their catalogues easy to legally acquire and there'd be no issue.

$25 is what a record company gets for selling like 4 cds... Sure, 25 is more than 0, but it's a lot closer to 0 than what the record company (and the artist) would get for actually selling the music.

Actually, the best attempt at the second option today is to offer a streaming service. It's easier and faster than both illegal downloading and buying, and you don't have to decide whether to buy a certain record or not, it's all already there for you.

Apple should do that, but since they make billions from selling songs, I doubt they will in the foreseeable future.

SpinThis!
Jun 17, 2011, 02:24 PM
Putting aside the piracy issue for a moment, a lot of Rob Sevier's complaint comes from the murky copyright agreements in effect regarding replication. If iTunes Match is only paying a fraction of what it could cost in potential replication fees, the label could very well end up losing money.

From the ARS article:
At issue is the byzantine network of music publishers, which are given what's called a mechanical reproduction royalty any time a song or record is duplicated. Any time a record label sells a CD or LP, the label has to distribute 9.1¢ to the music publishing companies, which then redistribute the money (after taking their cut) to songwriters.

There's no law or ruling from the RAB that says that making copies available via cloud services doesn't make record labels culpable for replication royalties. "Right now the only thing that is binding that says this isn't 'replication' is Apple's word," Sevier explained. "We're saying we're not sure that just because Apple says that making this available on ten computers is OK that it's not actually making copies."

Many indie artists in genres such as pop, folk, and rock write, record, and publish their own songs. In the case of soul music, though, artists often performed songs written by one or more other songwriters. So for a 10-track album, Numero may be beholden to 10 or more publishing companies for mechanical royalties.

Just because the label is opting out now doesn't mean they're opting out forever. If and when the waters become clearer, they'll likely opt back in when there's no risk and you know exactly what your liability is.

It's really getting tiring seeing all these knee-jerk reactions from folks who don't read the whole story.

Sjhonny
Jun 17, 2011, 02:41 PM
Here in Belgium, and most likely in quite a bit of EU countries, there're these laws concerning something called "Home Copies".

Bottom line: Downloading is perfectly legal, it's the uploading and the making available of copyrighted material, without permission, that is illegal. So site's like Mediafire, Rapidshare or Megaupload can host illegal content, but downloading this content is perfectly legal ^^ . This also means that illegal downloaded songs don't exist here.

milo
Jun 17, 2011, 02:47 PM
There is still no clear statement that a copy of this file will be delivered to you to do with as you please, but it will be "played back."

If "Matched songs upgraded to 256 kbps AAC DRM-free" and "Same benefits as music purchased from iTunes" aren't a clear statement that you'll get a copy of the file with which you can do what you please, then I don't know what is.

And I still don't see how your streaming scenario reconciles with either of those two quotes - you're still saying that those statements are false.

They didn't specifically talk about the 30 cent upgrade going away because it would piss off all those who paid it when people are now going to get it for free (and yeah, those people are and will continue to be pissed).

I think they'll claim the "benefits" are the same in the iCloud context, not necessarily in the "old fashioned" iTunes/burning/non-iOS gadgets context.

Seems unlikely since they made the statement "Same benefits as music purchased from iTunes". And even in the cloud context, music purchased from iTunes is downloaded, not streamed. If they went out of their way to say that Match music behaves the same as purchased music, then wouldn't the new cloud beta for purchased music be streamed as well instead of having two different methods?

"Your music is probably already in iCloud" and it "plays back at 256-Kbps iTunes Plus quality."

And these both make perfect sense in the case of downloads, neither is any more applicable to streaming.

So what is to keep anybody from creating blank MP3s full of static of the correct length and tag them as any song they want to get it from iTunes?

I suspect nothing. But doing that probably isn't any more work than just pirating the songs in the first place.

I guess I may end up regretting insisting on the word "streaming," especially since it's unlikely that Apple will ever call it that. So the matched song "downloads" to your iPhone if a copy is not already stored locally. Does it start playing before it's done downloading, or do you wait for it to download? Is that streaming or downloading? Six and a half dozen of the other. Does it stay on your iPhone or disappear when it's done playing and have to be downloaded again? You're probably right it will stay there so you can play it again later off network until you delete it.

You'll probably end up regretting calling it streaming because it will turn out to be downloads just like the ones we have already.

that file will not become yours and will not sync or download back to your mothership computer unless it is iTunes purchased content.

Which has nothing to support it but your own speculation and is contradicted by the available info from Apple.

Songs that are only "matched" are played one way or another via Apple's master copy, and will remain walled off inside the file-systemless iDevice, not become your property back in iTunes on the computer. I am sure Apple will place a prominent BUY button on all such songs to encourage the continued steady flow of $1.29 in their tiller.

"Walled off"? Downloading a file but then having strict limitations about what device it's on sounds exactly like DRM. And the whole point of Match is that it gives the benefit of the doubt that users are legal. That's people who have already paid to buy a song, why would they even try to get someone to buy again when the whole point is that it's a service for songs you've already bought?

I think my interpretation of the information/evidence that has been given at the keynote and on Apple's web page is more reasonable and more realistic...

Yeah, we get it, you think you're right and everyone else is wrong. No need to keep repeating that endlessly. But your interpretation is in complete contradiction with what Apple has said.

Apple says "Same benefits as music purchased from iTunes". You say much fewer benefits, basically calling that statement a lie.

Apple says "Matched songs upgraded to 256 kbps AAC DRM-free". You say song files not upgraded and if there are downloads they will have highly restrictive DRM. Again, you're saying their statement was a lie.

Is it possible Apple and Jobs were lying? Sure, anything is possible but claiming that you know better and that Apple must be making false statements just because it doesn't SEEM right to you is ridiculous.

This is the cloud era. iPod nanos and shuffles are not included.

So again, you're saying "Same benefits as music purchased from iTunes" is a lie. Sorry, but if you're going to keep claiming that the things they said at a major product introduction were false it's going to take more evidence than that.


Listen at 256 Kbps. Play back matched songs at iTunes Plus quality. Even if your original copy was of lower quality.

Replace your lower quality ripped CD or Amazon MP3 or Napster-obtained copy with the official iTunes Store 256kbps AAC file.

You don't listen or play back with a download? And they also use the term "upgrade". How would streaming be an upgrade?

Sjhonny
Jun 17, 2011, 02:56 PM
Apple should do that, but since they make billions from selling songs, I doubt they will in the foreseeable future.

They definitely don't. They sold 15 Billion total, over a period of 8 years. There's no significant growth anymore (except the Beatles sales recently, which resulted in a short bump I think), so let's say they sold in 2010 around 3 Billion songs. That's a revenue of 3 Billion USD Tops (not accounting album sale reductions or voucher agreements with other companies). And I doubt they'll keep more then 30% of that themselves, that's without hosting cost's, iTunes development costs, PR, costumers support, taxes, etc. .

I think there breaking even and enjoying (very) healthy profit margins on the i-devices (invers strategy of Sony and MS with there PS3 and Xbox)

Michael Scrip
Jun 17, 2011, 03:00 PM
I think my interpretation of the information/evidence that has been given at the keynote and on Apple's web page is more reasonable and more realistic than believing that Apple is about to hand over more than $15,000 worth of digital song files to me for $25 simply because they happen to already be in my iTunes from unknown sources (much as I would love that). If that's really what they are going to do, why aren't they explicitly advertising that all over creation? The fact that they are remaining low key and using terms like "plays back" is good evidence that they are rolling out a subscription service that streams/downloads songs from the cloud, but they are sugar coating it and avoiding using those words just yet.

Even if iCloud didn't exist... you already have $15,000 worth of music on your computer.

With or without Apple.... you already have those songs in your possession. And if you pay $25 a year... Apple will give you another copy of those songs to sync wirelessly. (remember... Apple isn't giving you free music... they are giving you duplicates of the songs you already have)

If you don't pay... you can continue syncing your $15,000 worth of music with a USB cable like you always have. It doesn't affect Apple in the least.

Apple has always let you rip the CDs you already own... completely skirting the iTunes Store. They clearly didn't have a problem with that either.

You're right... Apple is using words like "play back"... and they don't specifically use the words "streaming" or "downloading"

But... they were very clear by saying "Matched music has the same benefits as purchased music... for $25"

That's the biggest piece of the puzzle. What other benefits are there... if being able to download is the most important part?

Plus... you can upload anything that iTunes can't match. What good is uploading if you can't download your own songs again?

I think the biggest question here is... do you think a real pirate is gonna give Apple any money to legitimize their songs? No... they're gonna keep doing what they always have. They're not gonna bother with this...

This service is for Apple customers... to make it easy to manage their music on multiple devices wirelessly... some iTunes purchases and a handful of CDs.

So let's be honest... you're an edge case. 90% of Apple's customers do not have 94GB of music. :)

Loge
Jun 17, 2011, 03:08 PM
This is the cloud era. iPod nanos and shuffles are not included. Apple famously moves forward and leaves legacy technology behind..

Legacy technology? Nanos and shuffles were updated last September and will almost certainly be updated again this September. There will have to be a way for these Match files to be played on those devices.

And I don't think there will be a "Buy" button either. This service is for stuff you bought already (just not from Apple). If you really want to buy the songs again you can already do that without paying the $25.

hfg
Jun 17, 2011, 03:21 PM
So if you're away home away from your computer being able to re-download the song to your device via the cloud isn't as easy as streaming it?

If I want to change the content of my iPod while away from my computer, I can simply pop into a WiFi coffee shop and fairly quickly download several days worth of listening while I drink my coffee. They I can leave and enjoy the music for a few days before I have to do that again.

If it were streaming only, I would have to stay in the coffee shop while I listened to the music in real time ... and my system doesn't need that much coffee!:eek:

blybug
Jun 17, 2011, 03:26 PM
You don't listen or play back with a download?

No. This has been called "purchasing a song" since the iTunes store opened.

Milo, you make a lot of good points. I'm still not convinced but I guess we'll all know soon enough.

You did a credible job of addressing or refuting my arguments point by point, but chose to skip this one:

Why didn't Jobs say exactly these words: "We know a lot of our customers have been wanting to upgrade copies of songs they had ripped from CDs in lower bitrate MP3 when digital music first began, or even some old 128kbps iTunes content with DRM, Napster, Rhapsody, Amazon MP3 whatever. But this gets expensive, and especially annoying when you've already bought that music, you just haven't had the time to re-rip or the 30 cents or buck twenty-nine per song to make the move. Well, with iTunes Match we're doing it for you."

Then show a slide with $0.30 price tag for upgrade to iTunes Plus - obliterated in a puff of smoke transition. Then show $0.99 and $1.29 price tags for buying new copies - obliterated. Sparkly transition entrance of $24.95 per month price tag..."We're going to give you the full iTunes Plus 256kbps AAC file that we have for every single song in your entire iTunes library that you didn't originally buy from us. To keep. To download and re-download. Forever. Every. Single. Song. For only $24.95 per year."

If it's so crystal clear that this is Apple's intent, then why wasn't it presented this way, and why does the website not explain it this way? Why all the boardroom doublespeak about "benefits of purchased music" and "listen and play back matches at iTunes Plus quality"?

If the service truly is a virtually free upgrade to iTunes Plus for all the CD ripping (and amnesty for all the music stealing) of the past decade, this should be revolutionary front page news that Apple trots out to vanquish Amazon and Google's second-rate offerings once and for all.

Michael Scrip
Jun 17, 2011, 03:46 PM
If it's so crystal clear that this is Apple's intent, then why wasn't it presented this way, and why does the website not explain it this way? Why all the boardroom doublespeak about "benefits of purchased music" and "listen and play back matches at iTunes Plus quality"?

If the service truly is a virtually free upgrade to iTunes Plus for all the CD ripping (and amnesty for all the music stealing) of the past decade, this should be revolutionary front page news that Apple trots out to vanquish Amazon and Google's second-rate offerings once and for all.

Apple probably doesn't want to come out and say "bring all your Limewire music to us to legalize it"

Remember... Apple just wrote the record companies a $150 million check to be able to do this in the first place.

I'm sure the record companies have their own set of requests... like careful wording.

You're right... this would be front-page news if this was advertised as legal music laundering.

While I, and many other people here, believe that this is what Apple is doing... Apple still has to play by the record companies' rules.

I just don't think Apple would have spent all that time at WWDC talking in detail about iTunes Match... and announced a price for it... if they secretly had streaming plan in the works.

I mean... iTunes Match isn't coming out for another 3 months... surely they could have whipped up some kind of presentation for a streaming service... if that's what they were doing...

chris975d
Jun 17, 2011, 03:53 PM
Apple probably doesn't want to come out and say "bring all your Limewire music to us to legalize it"

Remember... Apple just wrote the record companies a $150 million check to be able to do this in the first place.

I'm sure the record companies have their own set of requests... like careful wording.

You're right... this would be front-page news if this was advertised as legal music laundering.

While I, and many other people here, believe that this is what Apple is doing... Apple still has to play by the record companies' rules.

I just don't think Apple would have spent all that time at WWDC talking in detail about iTunes Match... and announced a price for it... if they secretly had streaming plan in the works.

I mean... iTunes Match isn't coming out for another 3 months... surely they could have whipped up some kind of presentation for a streaming service... if that's what they were doing...

I think this is a pretty reasonable assumption. Why on earth would the record companies agree to this deal if Apple was going to approach the advertising that way? As you state, I'm sure that Apple had to agree to many things to get this deal passed, and one of those would be to CAREFULLY word it so that, even though it is a service that can launder pirated music, it doesn't sound that way in advertising.

AaronEdwards
Jun 17, 2011, 04:00 PM
They definitely don't. They sold 15 Billion total, over a period of 8 years. There's no significant growth anymore (except the Beatles sales recently, which resulted in a short bump I think), so let's say they sold in 2010 around 3 Billion songs. That's a revenue of 3 Billion USD Tops (not accounting album sale reductions or voucher agreements with other companies). And I doubt they'll keep more then 30% of that themselves, that's without hosting cost's, iTunes development costs, PR, costumers support, taxes, etc. .

I think there breaking even and enjoying (very) healthy profit margins on the i-devices (invers strategy of Sony and MS with there PS3 and Xbox)

From Wikipedia and the latest WWDC I get these numbers

250 million songs sold: January 24, 2005
850 million songs sold: January 10, 2006 (1.7 million songs/day)
2 billion songs sold: January 10, 2007 (3.2 million songs/day +84%)
4 billion songs sold: January 15, 2008 (5.4 million songs/day +72%)
6 billion songs sold: January 6, 2009 (5.6 million songs/day +4%)
10 billion songs sold: February 24, 2010 (9.7 million songs/day +72%)
15 billion songs sold: June 7, 2011 (10.7 million songs/day +11%)


I think you're grossly overestimating the cost Apple has for providing this. They are doing far, far better than just breaking even. They are making a huge profit on this.

AaronEdwards
Jun 17, 2011, 04:03 PM
Apple probably doesn't want to come out and say "bring all your Limewire music to us to legalize it"

Remember... Apple just wrote the record companies a $150 million check to be able to do this in the first place.

$150 million is what the records companies get for 20 days of iTunes Store sales. It's peanuts.

blybug
Jun 17, 2011, 04:37 PM
I think this is a pretty reasonable assumption. Why on earth would the record companies agree to this deal if Apple was going to approach the advertising that way? As you state, I'm sure that Apple had to agree to many things to get this deal passed, and one of those would be to CAREFULLY word it so that, even though it is a service that can launder pirated music, it doesn't sound that way in advertising.
Or, I would contend, CAREFULLY word it and set up the system so that the experience will be virtually indistinguishable from the traditional iTunes experience of "downloading" and "owning" the song, but in fact it is "listening" to the iTunes Store version of the file which "plays back" at 256kbps quality as if it were your own. Apple is tiptoeing around something here...remains to be seen what...

Overall, this sounds much more like something the record companies would actually agree to.

Michael Scrip
Jun 17, 2011, 04:52 PM
$150 million is what the records companies get for 20 days of iTunes Store sales. It's peanuts.

So... if the record companies get $225,000,000 a month from iTunes... wouldn't it be a good idea to go along with whatever Apple wants?

Apple believes iTunes Match will be a great easy-to-use service for their customers... and will result in more purchases in the long run.

Isn't iTunes the largest music retailer in the world? If I were a record label... I'd listen to Apple. People aren't gonna go back to CDs anytime soon...

chris975d
Jun 17, 2011, 04:56 PM
Or, I would contend, CAREFULLY word it and set up the system so that the experience will be virtually indistinguishable from the traditional iTunes experience of "downloading" and "owning" the song, but in fact it is "listening" to the iTunes Store version of the file which "plays back" at 256kbps quality as if it were your own. Apple is tiptoeing around something here...remains to be seen what...

Overall, this sounds much more like something the record companies would actually agree to.

But again, you seem to underestimate how much importance Apple places on the end to end user experience. Apple isn't going to want their customers (or let their customers, for that matter) worrying or having to think about when/where they can listen to "their" full music catalog (iPod touch users here primarily). Plus, as many of the articles I linked to earlier have stated, Apple has the carriers to contend with on a streaming service. Hell, it's the carriers' fault (probably primarily AT&T's) that FaceTime can't be used over wifi, all due to bandwidth concerns. Imagine the scenario if...let's say only 50% of iPhone users are now suddenly streaming most/all of their music over a cellular connection. It would cripple the carriers' networks. Do you realize how many people use their iPhone as their primary music device? Streaming just doesn't seem feasible. And again, why is Apple just now adding the ability to delete music on iDevices themselves if they are going all "to the cloud"? If every song is going to be kept in the cloud, why would managing local music files even be an issue? In an all cloud based scenario, local storage isn't an issue at all (other than a little room for "buffering"), as it's not stored on device anyway. So why the sudden need to be able to delete songs from the device itself?

Michael Scrip
Jun 17, 2011, 05:02 PM
Or, I would contend, CAREFULLY word it and set up the system so that the experience will be virtually indistinguishable from the traditional iTunes experience of "downloading" and "owning" the song, but in fact it is "listening" to the iTunes Store version of the file which "plays back" at 256kbps quality as if it were your own. Apple is tiptoeing around something here...remains to be seen what...

Overall, this sounds much more like something the record companies would actually agree to.

You know... Apple does have a patent on partial downloading... which could describe what you're saying. But I'm still not convinced of that yet.

As of right now... there are 3 types of music that will be in iCloud:

1. Purchased music
2. Matched music
3. Uploaded music

The whole service falls apart if I can only download 1 and 3... leaving my Matched songs for "streaming" or whatever. That doesn't seems like the kind of experience Apple would give to its customers.

That's not very "Apple-like"

No... I think iCloud will be download-only for the foreseeable future. It's so much easier to be able to download everything... than download half and "stream" half.

AaronEdwards
Jun 17, 2011, 05:39 PM
Speculating is always fun, but has there actually been anything official confirming these things:

1. Apple will not scan your music for pirated songs
2. Apple will not report pirated songs to RIAA
3. Apple will allow pirated songs to be matched and replaced with iTunes Store songs

I can't remember seeing anything offical, just a lot of speculating about what iTunes Match would mean for pirated songs and people arguing that Apple would never look for pirated songs.

blybug
Jun 17, 2011, 05:41 PM
You know... Apple does have a patent on partial downloading... which could describe what you're saying. But I'm still not convinced of that yet.

As of right now... there are 3 types of music that will be in iCloud:

1. Purchased music
2. Matched music
3. Uploaded music

The whole service falls apart if I can only download 1 and 3... leaving my Matched songs for "streaming" or whatever. That doesn't seems like the kind of experience Apple would give to its customers.

That's not very "Apple-like"

No... I think iCloud will be download-only for the foreseeable future. It's so much easier to be able to download everything... than download half and "stream" half.
But this is precisely where Apple shines...making the whole thing seamless in a way that you can't imagine until you see it. Look how the AirPlay icon shows up whether it senses a nearby Bluetooth speaker, AppleTV or even if it's plugged into a docking station. I don't need to understand the "protocol," I just need to know if I click that icon I can redirect my iPhone's output to these other devices through AirPlay.

Face it, unless you have always-on internet, there's got to be a way to indicate that some songs are simply not available right now from the cloud whether it's download or stream. When you're in network, the cloud icon for that song has a little blue "down arrow" for purchased content and/or a little blue triangle for "playing" matched content. When you're off network, the cloud has a red dot or "X" inside, indicating no network...no cloud.

Matched content may be partially downloaded, simultaneously streamed, cached onboard until it's pushed off by other content...I'm sure it will all be very magical and seamless to the end user. As long as there's a network, you can access your cloud songs one way or another. Certainly downloading purchased content is exactly as we are used to, and already behaves as expected in the iCloud beta. How "matched" content behaves remains to be seen. Like the AirPlay icon, it will appear "the same" to the user, but what is actually happening with that file, where it goes, where/if it can be copied...may not truly be exactly the same. Even within iTunes on your computer where you by definition do have all your music, when connected to the internet iTunes may preferentially play the iTunes store version rather than your 112kbps MP3, but that does not mean the actual file is "on" your computer. Remember Jobs said the computer is being demoted to just another device. Cloud is where the action is now.

This is the first step towards complete cloud solution. People need to get used to the idea that it doesn't matter if the file is on your device or not, as long as it "plays back" and you can "listen" to it. This is difficult after almost a decade of the iTunes ownership model and Jobs' public disdain for subscription music. Someday there will likely be a dirt cheap iPod Cloud Shuffle that is nothing more than a wifi/3G chip in a plastic sheath that accesses all your cloud music.

steadysignal
Jun 17, 2011, 05:41 PM
Arrogant pricks. Not all non-iTunes music is stolen. I've got over 500 CD's full of music that I have ripped myself. I own them. Screw you record labels.

it is how they make their money. through FUD and customer hate.

benthewraith
Jun 17, 2011, 05:48 PM
It really sounds too good to be true... that you can have Apple scan your "less-than-legal" music downloads and let you have fresh clean copies of those songs sent to your iDevices.

On the other hand... you're paying for that service... and I bet a big portion of that fee is given to the record labels.

The record labels currently get ZERO dollars if you just sync those illegal songs with a USB cable... so maybe this is their way of trying to get something...

Someone floated the possibility of the RIAA checking checksums. Initially I thought that might have been an effective way, but as most pirated music are cd rips, a large volume of the checksums would have legitimate counterparts in the wild.

This isn't an amnesty deal per se as users can still be sued for illegally downloading the music, but it is a means of backing up that music with iTunes and converting to legit files.

AaronEdwards
Jun 17, 2011, 05:50 PM
So... if the record companies get $225,000,000 a month from iTunes... wouldn't it be a good idea to go along with whatever Apple wants?

Apple believes iTunes Match will be a great easy-to-use service for their customers... and will result in more purchases in the long run.

Isn't iTunes the largest music retailer in the world? If I were a record label... I'd listen to Apple. People aren't gonna go back to CDs anytime soon...

The record companies can sell their music elsewhere. They probably wouldn't make as much money, but were would Apple get their $95,000,000 a month if the four giants decided to withdraw their music from the iTunes Store?

I believe we know far from everything about the deal made for iTunes Match.

AaronEdwards
Jun 17, 2011, 05:59 PM
Someone floated the possibility of the RIAA checking checksums. Initially I thought that might have been an effective way, but as most pirated music are cd rips, a large volume of the checksums would have legitimate counterparts in the wild.

This isn't an amnesty deal per se as users can still be sued for illegally downloading the music, but it is a means of backing up that music with iTunes and converting to legit files.

Due to the programs and settings used when ripping and converting the files to mp3, I doubt that there would be a lot identical checksums among legal copies. Add to that things like tags.
Checking for illegal copies is easy, you may not get every illegal file, but just the knowledge of it being done would make most people weary of trying to match pirated files.

Michael Scrip
Jun 17, 2011, 06:52 PM
Face it, unless you have always-on internet, there's got to be a way to indicate that some songs are simply not available right now from the cloud whether it's download or stream. When you're in network, the cloud icon for that song has a little blue "down arrow" for purchased content and/or a little blue triangle for "playing" matched content. When you're off network, the cloud has a red dot or "X" inside, indicating no network...no cloud.



That's exactly what Apple does NOT want to happen. It's messy if "some" of your songs can be downloaded for offline listening... and your "other" songs need a constant data connection for a yet to be announced streaming service.

With your method... only your purchased songs can be downloaded to be listened to on the subway... and the rest of your songs cannot.

That separation is the exact opposite of Apple's "easy to use" philosophy.

I get your point about AirPlay... if you're near an AirPlay compatible device... the icon shows up. That's actually pretty obvious...

But... it will be very confusing if half your songs can be downloaded... and the other half cannot.



People need to get used to the idea that it doesn't matter if the file is on your device or not, as long as it "plays back" and you can "listen" to it.

It DOES matter if you can't "play back" a certain song because you don't have a 3G or wireless connection. That's a pretty big hole in usability. (plus there's no hint of a streaming service anyway)

That's why I think ALL your music... purchased, matched and uploaded... will be able to be downloaded to all your devices.

And Apple has already said that... "Matched music will get the same benefits as music purchased from iTunes"

If purchased music can be downloaded... the rest will too. That's what the above sentence means.

At this point... Apple has said more about downloading all your music than it has even hinted at a streaming option...

Maybe they aren't using the word "download" because of its negative connotation or pressure from the record companies... but they sure as hell aren't talking about "streaming" half your songs either.

CWallace
Jun 17, 2011, 08:26 PM
How can iTunes Match be a streaming service when Apple states it will work with devices that cannot stream at all (iPod Classic, iPod Nano, iPod Shuffle) or can only stream in certain situations (connected to a WiFi or cellular network)?

It has to be a download service that updates your local iTunes library so you can then sync those "improved" songs to your devices.

winston1236
Jun 17, 2011, 08:39 PM
they would rather get a little than nothing, i'm sure that the 25 dollar fee is split based on the portion that each label owns

luci216
Jun 17, 2011, 09:42 PM
It's also good to keep in mind that 500,000 bitTorrent users were just sued and LimeWire is down. Piracy is slowly being rolled back.. Besides, as others have mentioned, Apple should keep its honest users in mind, not those that have stolen music off the web.

davidgrimm
Jun 17, 2011, 10:26 PM
This is BS. This assumes that every song not acquired from iTunes was stolen. I got most of mine from CDs that I purchased and still own. So don't give me this "all the songs you've stolen" BS. I hate being assumed guilty of something just because many people did it.

MacinDoc
Jun 18, 2011, 01:55 AM
I would be willing to pay for this service, if for no other reason, because it will convert my old DRM'd iTunes library to a higher quality, DRM-free one. Thank goodness I didn't spend the money to convert it all to iTunes Plus!

baryon
Jun 18, 2011, 03:40 AM
Thanks for the replies everyone!

jowie
Jun 18, 2011, 03:40 AM
The quality of compression is by far the more important thing to consider when determining the quality of a digital audio file. And you can rip your CD's just as well, or better than Apple does.
Apple tend to screw up the naming / ID3 tags anyway. Most stuff I buy from iTunes I end up renaming.

thedarkhorse
Jun 18, 2011, 12:16 PM
This article is dumb, it assumes tons of music pirates will be subscribing to itunes match. I don't see the heavy pirate folks paying a yearly fee to do anything with their tunes. It will be used by those with large ripped CD collections, as they have a real investment and are obviously willing to pay for their music. Piraters like things free, so they will take the extra time time transfer themselves.

blybug
Jun 19, 2011, 10:37 AM
So maybe the Apple gods are trying to tell me something...

Yesterday I dropped my smart-covered iPad on concrete and shattered the screen :mad:. Took it to the Apple Store hoping to have the glass repaired/replaced.
Apple Genius: We don't really offer glass replacement, all we can do is replace the whole iPad.
Me: So, that's basically like, buying a new iPad.
Apple Genius: No, not necessarily. Let me see what we can do.
<<Disappears into back for almost 30 minutes>>
Apple Genius: Let me tell you what we can do. Normally it would be $300 to provide you with a replacement iPad. But I see your an extremely valued Apple customer, and you've never had any physical damage to any of your products before. So this one time, we're going to take care of that for you.
Me: <<incredulous>> Excuse me? :confused:
Apple Genius: We're going to replace your iPad. For free.

There you have it. Something for nothing. So perhaps Apple is gearing up to give virtually limitless numbers of AAC files for only $24.95. I'm still not completely convinced this is how it will really work, but clearly a trust and appreciation for the customer is built into the company's DNA.

http://www.bly.cc/images/ipadshattered.pnghttp://www.bly.cc/images/applereceipt.png

AaronEdwards
Jun 19, 2011, 03:49 PM
So maybe the Apple gods are trying to tell me something...

Yesterday I dropped my smart-covered iPad on concrete and shattered the screen :mad:. Took it to the Apple Store hoping to have the glass repaired/replaced.
Apple Genius: We don't really offer glass replacement, all we can do is replace the whole iPad.
Me: So, that's basically like, buying a new iPad.
Apple Genius: No, not necessarily. Let me see what we can do.
<<Disappears into back for almost 30 minutes>>
Apple Genius: Let me tell you what we can do. Normally it would be $300 to provide you with a replacement iPad. But I see your an extremely valued Apple customer, and you've never had any physical damage to any of your products before. So this one time, we're going to take care of that for you.
Me: <<incredulous>> Excuse me? :confused:
Apple Genius: We're going to replace your iPad. For free.

There you have it. Something for nothing. So perhaps Apple is gearing up to give virtually limitless numbers of AAC files for only $24.95. I'm still not completely convinced this is how it will really work, but clearly a trust and appreciation for the customer is built into the company's DNA.

Image (http://www.bly.cc/images/ipadshattered.png)Image (http://www.bly.cc/images/applereceipt.png)

Your old iPad is most likely having it's screen replaced and then being resold as refurbished.

BTW, this isn't just built into Apple's DNA, but also in the pricing of its products. And if you pay a lot extra, you shouldn't just get a better experience, but also things like this.

morespce54
Jun 21, 2011, 08:35 AM
It's also good to keep in mind that 500,000 bitTorrent users were just sued and LimeWire is down. Piracy is slowly being rolled back.. Besides, as others have mentioned, Apple should keep its honest users in mind, not those that have stolen music off the web.

Great. Thanks for the clarification. ;)
I was wandering what will happen with piracy... :p

mrnagrom
Jun 21, 2011, 08:38 AM
little hint guys.. THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BUY THE SONG IN THE FIRST PLACE.. you aren't losing money, you're gaining listener base and willing advertisers.


so let it go.

bpaluzzi
Jun 21, 2011, 09:13 AM
This is making sure more people have access to more music and is a great idea. Which means more people will hear the quality music. Live shows, the main financial source for artists, will not suffer, and will probably improve.


How about you let the artists make that decision, not you? Many artists are already hip to the value of "free". If they choose not to go in that direction, then no amount of your justification changes the fact that you're stealing from them.

i saw an interview of a singer (can't recall who so i won't say who it was) and that singer was asked about the cd "piracy"... the answer was something like this.

"i really don't mind if one person buys an album and copies it to his friends. it's more people to come to my live shows."


Many artists feel this way. Many don't. It's not up to you to decide.


Here in Belgium, and most likely in quite a bit of EU countries, there're these laws concerning something called "Home Copies".

Bottom line: Downloading is perfectly legal, it's the uploading and the making available of copyrighted material, without permission, that is illegal. So site's like Mediafire, Rapidshare or Megaupload can host illegal content, but downloading this content is perfectly legal ^^ . This also means that illegal downloaded songs don't exist here.

That's not how home copying works, at all.

blybug
Aug 29, 2011, 10:56 PM
THERE IS NO STREAMING. Only downloading.

Again, no streaming. You keep all the files that you have downloaded, and stop getting access to iCloud backup of your songs until you pay $25 again. The files don't have DRM. They are 100% identical to the tracks you get from iTunes.

You're wrong. It's a "download" service. No streaming. At all. None.

If you're right, I'll pay for your first year of iTunes Match. There is no streaming.


You can gift it to me through the iTMS :D

TMar
Aug 30, 2011, 12:17 PM
Can you point me to a place on apple.com or a point in the keynote that confirms this precise functionality? I've pointed out how carefully they've parsed their words on the iTunes Match description. It does not include what you are saying at all, but does not exclude what I am suggesting.



Excellent! I offer you the same!

Guess neither of you win that argument, by the way nerco and I told ya so? (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1220999)

blybug
Nov 23, 2011, 10:23 AM
iTunes Matched 9861 of my songs, recognized 4348 as purchased, and is in the final stages of uploading the remaining ~3500. Working seamlessly with iPhone and :apple:TV even before the process has completed.

Have been able to download, replace, and clearly will be able to keep the 256kbps copies of the Matched tracks. The link to the >$500 offer upgrade to iTunes Plus is no longer available as these tracks are also being offered now at the higher bitrate as "Purchased." All the low quality CD rips from ages ago I'd never have the time to re-rip truly do get the upgrade. Best $24.99 ever spent.

Something for (virtually) nothing. I am in shock and admit I turned out to be wrong...though there is a little bit of "streaming" going on under the hood ;).

jlgolson, where are you? I owe you a year of iTunes Match!