PDA

View Full Version : 30% of iPhone Users Leaning Toward Using iTunes Match




MacRumors
Jun 21, 2011, 12:34 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/21/30-of-iphone-users-leaning-toward-using-itunes-match/)


RBC Capital Markets analyst Mike Abramsky today published a report sharing the results of a new survey of iPhone users, unsurprisingly revealing that 76% of surveyed users are planning to take advantage of Apple's free iCloud services. More significantly, the survey offers the first look at the popularity of iTunes Match, with 30% of respondents indicating that they are somewhat likely or very likely to utilize the $24.99/year service.

Extrapolating the survey results across Apple's iOS ecosystem, RBC notes that Apple could see 150 million users on its free iCloud services with 60 million of those also participating in iTunes Match, a figure that would see Apple pulling in an extra $1.5 billion per year in gross revenues. With Apple reportedly keeping 30% of iTunes Match revenue with the rest being passed on to music labels and publishers, Apple would see about $450 million in revenues from the program.

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


Those figures are likely on the optimistic side, however, as only 10% of surveyed iPhone users registered as "very likely" to sign up for iTunes Match, with the other 20% pegging their interest at a lower "somewhat likely" level. Approximately 15% offered no opinion on whether or not they would use the service.

The survey also finds that 73% of surveyed users are somewhat likely or very likely to use Apple's new iMessage service in iOS 5. Together, iCloud and iMessage are seen to "enhance loyalty and stickiness" for Apple's customers, potentially encouraging iPod touch users to stick with the iOS platform rather than defecting to Android or another platform when it comes time to purchase a smartphone.

RBC's data appears to come from a subset of approximately 450 iPhone users within a larger survey containing nearly 1,500 respondents.

Article Link: 30% of iPhone Users Leaning Toward Using iTunes Match (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/21/30-of-iphone-users-leaning-toward-using-itunes-match/)



wordoflife
Jun 21, 2011, 12:42 PM
Count me in the 70% who does not plan to use it.

Small White Car
Jun 21, 2011, 12:43 PM
Huh. Well I guess Apple knows what they're doing.

I would never consider this service myself unless Apple goes back to selling iPhones with just 8 GB. But short of that I'll continue to load what I need on the phone.

But I guess someone's gonna buy it or they wouldn't have made it.

badtzwang
Jun 21, 2011, 12:43 PM
I think its a little bit too early for anyone to make a definitive decision as to whether or not they will sign up for the iTunes Match service.

The $24.99/year service does look appealing to me, but the details surrounding the terms of service are still very scarce. I think a lot of the people who voted "Unlikely" either don't know much about iTunes Match or want to wait to see the details.

LastLine
Jun 21, 2011, 12:44 PM
Y'know there's something I haven't clicked on this iTunes match yet.

If I have a catalogue of, say, 1000 mp3's that I ripped myself, pay the $25 for a year of match, what happens next?

I presume I download the matched songs, now do we know if these are DRM protected (to prevent me potentially pirating thousands of albums over a year, matching them all and getting my music illegally, but cheap) or do they come DRM free so once I've used match they're mine to keep?

I'm intrigued and haven't noticed a lot of solid info on this of yet.

godknows
Jun 21, 2011, 12:46 PM
What does it mean for a survey to offer 3 options and interpret 2 of them as "likely"?

"Bias" is the word here I guess

wordoflife
Jun 21, 2011, 12:47 PM
I think its a little bit too early for anyone to make a definitive decision as to whether or not they will sign up for the iTunes Match service.

The $24.99/year service does look appealing to me, but the details surrounding the terms of service are still very scarce. I think a lot of the people who voted "Unlikely" either don't know much about iTunes Match or want to wait to see the details.

This is how I look at it. I have a 32GB phone on which I can store my music, so there's really no need for me to buy this iTunes Match thing. Plus, that's just going to eat up a bunch of bandwidth, which really doesn't help on these new data plans. Not sure about what you are saying, but I can already make my decision at this point. This service is useless to me.

oracle_ab
Jun 21, 2011, 12:47 PM
Y'know there's something I haven't clicked on this iTunes match yet.

If I have a catalogue of, say, 1000 mp3's that I ripped myself, pay the $25 for a year of match, what happens next?

I presume I download the matched songs, now do we know if these are DRM protected (to prevent me potentially pirating thousands of albums over a year, matching them all and getting my music illegally, but cheap) or do they come DRM free so once I've used match they're mine to keep?

I'm intrigued and haven't noticed a lot of solid info on this of yet.

I believe Jobs said it was (256kbps) DRM-free in the Keynote.

Mad Mac Maniac
Jun 21, 2011, 12:48 PM
Huh. Well I guess Apple knows what they're doing.

I would never consider this service myself unless Apple goes back to selling iPhones with just 8 GB. But short of that I'll continue to load what I need on the phone.

But I guess someone's gonna buy it or they wouldn't have made it.

I don't understand your comment. Match isn't a streaming service. I consider it more of a syncing/download anywhere service. (i.e. You burn a song from a CD or download from Amazon, Match would automatically download them to all your devices)

Small White Car
Jun 21, 2011, 12:48 PM
I presume I download the matched songs, now do we know if these are DRM protected (to prevent me potentially pirating thousands of albums over a year, matching them all and getting my music illegally, but cheap) or do they come DRM free so once I've used match they're mine to keep?



I don't think we 100% know for sure, but no other music on iTunes has DRM now. I find it unlikely they'd bring it back after all the trouble they went to to get rid of it.

I don't understand your comment. Match isn't a streaming service. I consider it more of a syncing/download anywhere service. (i.e. You burn a song from a CD or download from Amazon, Match would automatically download them to all your devices)

But the idea is that you can download a song away from home that you have on your Mac but never put on your phone. While not technically "streaming" it still effectively fills the same role. In other words, if you paid for this you'd use it instead of a streaming service.

I'm just saying I'd much rather continue to work the way I do now rather than pay for this. With a large memory drive in my phone I doubt I'll have any trouble doing that.

That was my only point.

d0minick
Jun 21, 2011, 12:50 PM
Not for me.

Unless they came out with a "iPhone Air" or a streaming service. I just enjoy keeping my stuff in certain folders with certain names on certain devices.

But if it's for you go for it! 25$ is nothing.

NoNothing
Jun 21, 2011, 12:53 PM
With over 400 of my old CDs ripped to MP4s, I think this would be a nice service. For music I really like, I still buy the CD because the sound quality is simply better. Being able to rip it once and have it available on all my devices is worth $25/year.

NeroAZ
Jun 21, 2011, 12:53 PM
I may do it the first year if they are non DRM files that wont disappear if I don't renew the following year. even if they are not could downloadable after a year.

it would also be good if it will let me download dongs i've already purchased in itunes in 256k, since I have songs that were never eligible to upgrade or or no longer available to buy, yet I can could download them still and they come as protected 128k still. (i've tried)

so still lots of questions on this match service.

BruiserB
Jun 21, 2011, 12:54 PM
With iTunes match, do you actually get the replacement song files downloaded to your computer, or do you just get the matches "in the cloud?"

In other words, could I subscribe to iTunes match for one year and get all of my ripped songs from iTunes and then drop it a year later and continue to have my songs matched in the cloud since I now have "official" iTunes files on my computer?

smithrh
Jun 21, 2011, 12:54 PM
I'm in 100%, but not on Day 1, I want to see how this all works first.

I have a LOT of pre-iTunesMS content.

Small White Car
Jun 21, 2011, 12:55 PM
In other words, could I subscribe to iTunes match for one year and get all of my ripped songs from iTunes and then drop it a year later and continue to have my songs matched in the cloud since I now have "official" iTunes files on my computer?

That's my understanding of it, yes.

roland.g
Jun 21, 2011, 12:56 PM
Dumb.

From what I can understand, this doesn't give you live access to your playlists etc. It is just the ability to download (not stream) songs to your device that you suddenly want to hear but didn't sync. Sure it maybe fast downloading that begins quickly and seems like streaming, but it doesn't allow you to access playlists and cache/buffer songs, so you download on a per song or per album basis to update your device to your listening needs. Personally I would sync what I want, and if I don't have it I'll sync it later. Maybe I would take advantage of the ability to download a song I've purchased from iTunes, but I don't see any point in paying $25 to have access to all my non-purchased content (my legacy ripped CD collection) just to get to it when I don't have it.

With iTunes match, do you actually get the replacement song files downloaded to your computer, or do you just get the matches "in the cloud?"

In other words, could I subscribe to iTunes match for one year and get all of my ripped songs from iTunes and then drop it a year later and continue to have my songs matched in the cloud since I now have "official" iTunes files on my computer?

Only if those songs are in the iTS library. If you have rare CDs, or like many of us, Official or otherwise unofficial Bootlegs of Live Concerts either from CD or back from the Napster days, the match service would allow you access to this supposedly, but it would count towards the 20k limit and would never be replaced by Official iTS tracks at 256 kbps.

kenliles
Jun 21, 2011, 01:00 PM
at 2 bucks a month; I'm in day 1. It's worth the $25 bucks just to see how it works and how much I'd use it and have my library completely backed up etc...
just a no brainer for me - probably spent the cost of it just thinking about it!!

ken

tripjack
Jun 21, 2011, 01:00 PM
30% seems like an extremely high number.

Like WAY too high.

I think 10% is about the best they could hope for.

But I guess time will tell.

roland.g
Jun 21, 2011, 01:01 PM
With over 400 of my old CDs ripped to MP4s, I think this would be a nice service. For music I really like, I still buy the CD because the sound quality is simply better. Being able to rip it once and have it available on all my devices is worth $25/year.

I have 500-600 ripped CDs available on all my devices. It is called syncing. Rotate and reuse.

kiljoy616
Jun 21, 2011, 01:01 PM
You can add me to the Very Likely people. :)

Reach9
Jun 21, 2011, 01:02 PM
Good to know that i'm apart of the 54%

badtzwang
Jun 21, 2011, 01:03 PM
This is how I look at it. I have a 32GB phone on which I can store my music, so there's really no need for me to buy this iTunes Match thing. Plus, that's just going to eat up a bunch of bandwidth, which really doesn't help on these new data plans. Not sure about what you are saying, but I can already make my decision at this point. This service is useless to me.

I think you're kind of illustrating my point ... since when was iTunes Match a streaming service? Not sure if that was covered in detail during the keynote.

I think with the $24.99/year, you are basically paying for convenience rather than unlimited storage. If I download an album on my computer, I'll be able to access that album with my phone without any uploading. That, and you basically get the 256kbps version of the song, which alone I would gladly pay $25 for.

Badbaw
Jun 21, 2011, 01:03 PM
So if you buy all of your music from iTunes, this service is pretty much superfluous, right?

Munnichs
Jun 21, 2011, 01:04 PM
its usa only right?

Mak47
Jun 21, 2011, 01:04 PM
We already know it's DRM free. Jobs said that in the Keynote. If it works like the current "iTunes in the cloud" works, then yes, you'll be able to command another machine to simply download the songs.

If you really wanted to, you could then copy them to an external drive (just to be safe), delete them from your original machine, unsubscribe and then copy the newly downloaded songs to the original machine.

If you're planning on staying subscribed then I'd imagine that's work you wouldn't need to worry about doing.

My thinking is we haven't seen everything with iTunes Match/iCloud yet. It doesn't make sense for it to not be a streaming service. I think the final incarnation of it will be similar to iTunes home sharing in the interface. You will be able to see and play your iCloud Library on any connected device, and choose to import whatever you like from it.

The streaming factor hasn't been clarified as of yet. It hasn't been denied either though. I'd imagine it will be presented as another benefit with new iOS devices are launched.

reactions
Jun 21, 2011, 01:05 PM
Count me in the 70% who does not plan to use it.

30% seems like an extremely high number.

Like WAY too high.

I think 10% is about the best they could hope for.

But I guess time will tell.


I call BS

Where did they conduct this survey at an apple store drinking Koolaid?

johneaston
Jun 21, 2011, 01:05 PM
What did the remaining 16% say? [EDIT: Just noticed in the article it says 15% offered no opinion whatsoever].

Personally I won't use it - I don't see the point thank you.

NebulaClash
Jun 21, 2011, 01:06 PM
Since nobody (other than Apple execs) knows for sure how iTunes Match will work in its entirety with all questions answered, I'm amazed they even got that many to say they are "very likely" to sign up. We're all waiting to see how it works.

That's the problem with surveys: what a person says they are going to do does not always match what they actually do.

paulsalter
Jun 21, 2011, 01:07 PM
I am almost certain this is a feature I will never use/need

I have more than enough music on my iDevice now to last me for ages, all synced from my Mac based upon playlists

Dont see the appeal of paying for music again, when I have already bought the CD, not that impatient that I cant wait until I am at home to sync new music if needed

emvath
Jun 21, 2011, 01:08 PM
but it would count towards the 20k limit and would never be replaced by Official iTS tracks at 256 kbps.

But wouldn't you be able to match your crappy bitrate mp3, download the 256 aac to your idevice, and then use idump or any of the thousand other "ipod to computer" transfer programs to put that 256 onto your harddrive (essentially replacing your old file with the new offical iTS track)?

I'm sure Apple (or more specifically the labels) don't want this to happen, I just don't see what is going to stop anyone from doing it unless it is DRM.

Jognt
Jun 21, 2011, 01:08 PM
The survey also finds that 73% of surveyed users are somewhat likely or very likely to use Apple's new iMessage service in iOS 5.

Since iMessage is not a seperate application like WhatsApp or Ping. It completely replaces the Messages app and, when you send a message to someone the OS checks to see if the other person also has iMessage. If so, it is sent in much the same way as a WhatsApp message. If that person does not have iMessage, it is sent as a normal text message.

So I don't think it's a question of wether or not they'll use it. I think the majority of the users won't know the difference, except for the fact that they can see typing status and stuff in the SMS app. They'll use it without knowing it most of the time, is my guess.

kiljoy616
Jun 21, 2011, 01:08 PM
at 2 bucks a month; I'm in day 1. It's worth the $25 bucks just to see how it works and how much I'd use it and have my library completely backed up etc...
just a no brainer for me - probably spent the cost of it just thinking about it!!

ken

Considering I can deducted as business expense I am all over it. Plus I spend more than that on Starbuck.:p

tigress666
Jun 21, 2011, 01:08 PM
You know, I keep all my songs on my iphone/ipod. Even if it was a streaming service (which it's not, it's an over the air, automatic synching service), I'd still pay for this as it is cheap enough for the convenience. I barely ever connect my iphone to my computer unless I want to synch a song I just got between the two or if I want to backup my phone (or get a purchase over the computer). This means I'd not have to synch at all.

Sure, that's pretty lazy. But the price tag to add in never having to connect to my computer even for songs I ripped off a CD instead of bought through itunes is worth the cheap price they ask (if you break it down it's 2 - 3 dollars a month).

Now, I'm not definite cause I still want to see a few things. One is will this automatically synch a song I rip onto itunes like icloud will automatically synch my other stuff or do I still have to tell it to send it to the cloud? That might make me decide no.

Also I'd like to see if they really just let you download the matched songs and keep them or how they handle that? Like does it overwrite what I already have? And if they make it so you have to have Match to access it, that could be bad (if you decide the service isn't worth it all the sudden you can't play the songs you had before cause they are overwritten with DRM'ed ones). <- Now, I suspect this is a way out there scenario but I would like to see how Match is handled.

kiljoy616
Jun 21, 2011, 01:10 PM
its usa only right?

For now, but I can't see this not happening in other countries in time. Its all about how the music companies view this and you know how anal retentive they can be.:rolleyes:

wordoflife
Jun 21, 2011, 01:12 PM
I think you're kind of illustrating my point ... since when was iTunes Match a streaming service?

If I download an album on my computer, I'll be able to access that album with my phone without any uploading.

And that's not essentially "streaming" ?:confused:

BJMRamage
Jun 21, 2011, 01:13 PM
With iTunes match, do you actually get the replacement song files downloaded to your computer, or do you just get the matches "in the cloud?"

In other words, could I subscribe to iTunes match for one year and get all of my ripped songs from iTunes and then drop it a year later and continue to have my songs matched in the cloud since I now have "official" iTunes files on my computer?


I think I saw Terms somewhere from Apple on this saying works to match them to any iOS device. and thus when connected to a computer it would see you already have that version and not sync. I would LOVE your idea to be teh case. but then iTunes match would work for a year for most and have all these songs now a part of your iTunes and thus Cloud catalog. and APple no longer gets that $25 a year income.
Though that makes me wonder about various Macs in teh household sharing an account...do they suddenly get these iTunes Matched songs available to them to download too.

I would also REALLY like to have playlists available to me. I made a playlist for an upcoming party and would love to Cloud-sync it to listen to it on my iPhone at work. I have yet to sync my iPhone to Computer since making teh playlist as it takes 10 minutes of my time to wait, wait, wait to sync.

I like the idea but will hold out and see what happens. My wife and I have lots of CDs that were ripped into iTunes.

FrizzleFryBen
Jun 21, 2011, 01:19 PM
I'll totally use the paid service. DRM?.?.?.so what. I still have MY ripped songs on MY mac and backed up. I'll be able to listen to MY music on all my iOS devices without creating playlists and syncing via USB... I love it. As long as it works as described.

pyn
Jun 21, 2011, 01:21 PM
Since iMessage is not a seperate application like WhatsApp or Ping. It completely replaces the Messages app and, when you send a message to someone the OS checks to see if the other person also has iMessage. If so, it is sent in much the same way as a WhatsApp message. If that person does not have iMessage, it is sent as a normal text message.

So I don't think it's a question of wether or not they'll use it. I think the majority of the users won't know the difference, except for the fact that they can see typing status and stuff in the SMS app. They'll use it without knowing it most of the time, is my guess.

I agree, the question is faulty. An apt question would be "Will you disable iMessages?" because you can't CHOOSE whether or not to send an iMessage. If the other end is an iOS5 user, the conversation will be automatically use iMessages and not SMS. It's not a choice made by the user.

Also, to those questioning the high number of people saying they would use iTunes Match: You have to consider that normal people (NOT tech-savy geeks obsessed with the latest cloud technologies) just see it as a simple, cheap, and magical way to get their media across all their devices.

maclaptop
Jun 21, 2011, 01:25 PM
The word "free" in AppleSpeak means $$$$$$$$$$

"We'll be happy to sell you more storage space".

Anyone who plans to use the iCloud service extensively, will look back at the $99 that Apple charged for MobileMe as one heck of a bargain.

With several unanswered questions that are purposely being held back till the last minute, the goal is to CONvince the Mac Faithful, that iCloud is indeed free.

Jobs is a brilliant man who already has the pricing ready to be published. But we will never see it in advance. They've got too much CONvincing to do.

It never ceases to amaze me how dumb Apple thinks it's customers are. Yet, sadly a portion of them are.

Here's a link to an interesting article on iCloud

http://www.macworld.com/article/160380/2011/06/icloud_what_you_need_to_know.html

HiCountryNerd
Jun 21, 2011, 01:30 PM
I only see this helping me if I were traveling without my computer and my ipod/ipad/iphone broke and had to be replaced at the Apple store. :(

samcraig
Jun 21, 2011, 01:30 PM
Adoption rate will be "notable" in year 1. 24.99 is a low threshold to try a service for a YEAR. The question is - how many will continue after year 1.

I think 30% is WAY too high of an estimate. I'm sure Apple would love that - just like they'd love to claim PING is popular.

OptyCT
Jun 21, 2011, 01:30 PM
For $25/year, I think iTunes Match is a bargain. What are you getting? Access to your entire iTunes library (at 256 Kbps) any time you want it on any of your devices (Mac, PC, iPad, iPhone, & iPod Touch). Personally, I'd rather fill up my iOS devices with apps & videos rather than music. So, it'll be nice to have the ability to access my music "on demand".

I think some of the previous posters are a little confused by iTunes Match. Your music library isn't being stored in the cloud, but is rather being scanned and matched against the iTunes library of 18 million songs. When you call it up on your device and decide to download it, you're not downloading "your" song. You are downloading the iTunes equivalent of "your" song that already resides on the iTunes store servers. If you have songs outside of those 18 million that cannot be matched, only then will iTunes upload "your" song to the cloud.

It'll be interesting to see how this service handles live performances. I can see iTunes Match confusing "Evenflow - Pearl Jam - Live in Tokyo, 1998" with "Evenflow - Pearl Jam - Ten". It remains to be seen how much control/input the end user will have in this process. Will we be able to say, "that match is wrong, please upload this version"?

badtzwang
Jun 21, 2011, 01:34 PM
And that's not essentially "streaming" ?:confused:

Thanks for chopping up my words ...

I can't definitively say that iTunes Match is not streaming ... but from what I understand, I don't think you need an internet connection in order to access your music, which is what streaming is essentially. I would be very surprised if this was the case, since I'd like to listen to my music regardless of where I am.

samcraig
Jun 21, 2011, 01:37 PM
For $25/year, I think iTunes Match is a bargain. What are you getting? Access to your entire iTunes library (at 256 Kbps) any time you want it on any of your devices (Mac, PC, iPad, iPhone, & iPod Touch). Personally, I'd rather fill up my iOS devices with apps & videos rather than music. So, it'll be nice to have the ability to access my music "on demand".

I think some of the previous posters are a little confused by iTunes Match.

I think you have a little confusion too. 24.99 doesn't mean your entire itunes library is in the iCloud. Granted - many people have less than say, 25,000 songs. But if you have a HUGE collection of music - you'll exceed the 5gig allowance (remember that itunes purchased music does not go towards that 5 gig allotment). That being said - 24.99 has little to nothing to do with actual storage. Two different things altogether.

iCloud - 5 gigs (plus syncing of photos, contacts, purchased music, etc) is free
24.99 is for the MATCH service only.

Razeus
Jun 21, 2011, 01:37 PM
They need to give more info on who it will work. They say it's not a streaming service, but I don't see how they will give me 256k quality with my 128k file otherwise. Unless they will let me download the 256k file to my device, which I don't see happening.

Also, can't we get a web interface for using at work or a computer where I'm not at home to access my full library? Google and Amazon have this. So why not iTunes Match? Keeping everything locked on iDevices doesn't seem like a good strategy.

BJMRamage
Jun 21, 2011, 01:40 PM
And that's not essentially "streaming" ?:confused:

Streaming is if you are listening to a song downloading as it plays and go through a tunnel, you lost the song. Downloading is a similar concept as it can play while buffering but you could in theory download a few songs at a starbucks wifi near teh train station and then take the train through teh tunnel and still listen to those new songs. with streaming you don't get the same service.

OptyCT
Jun 21, 2011, 01:41 PM
I think you're kind of illustrating my point ... since when was iTunes Match a streaming service? Not sure if that was covered in detail during the keynote.

I think with the $24.99/year, you are basically paying for convenience rather than unlimited storage. If I download an album on my computer, I'll be able to access that album with my phone without any uploading. That, and you basically get the 256kbps version of the song, which alone I would gladly pay $25 for.

That's not how it works. You can rip a CD into iTunes on your computer. Then, with iTunes Match, that album is scanned automatically and matched in the cloud as part of your library. At that point, you then have the option to download that album onto any other device that shares the same iTunes account (another Mac or PC, iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, etc.). If your device is set to automatically download new content, then the ripped album will show up automatically.

randallking
Jun 21, 2011, 01:41 PM
It'll be interesting to see how this service handles live performances. I can see iTunes Match confusing "Evenflow - Pearl Jam - Live in Tokyo, 1998" with "Evenflow - Pearl Jam - Ten". It remains to be seen how much control/input the end user will have in this process. Will we be able to say, "that match is wrong, please upload this version"?

Excellent point. I'm especially curious about the option to override the match if it's wrong.

I'm assuming it will use some sort of audio recognition technology much like the SoundHound or Shazam apps from the App Store so that it can tell the difference between performances, but I don't trust it 100%. That technology is much like voice recognition software and automatic transcription software...not fully baked yet.

BJMRamage
Jun 21, 2011, 01:43 PM
They need to give more info on who it will work. They say it's not a streaming service, but I don't see how they will give me 256k quality with my 128k file otherwise. Unless they will let me download the 256k file to my device, which I don't see happening.

Also, can't we get a web interface for using at work or a computer where I'm not at home to access my full library? Google and Amazon have this. So why not iTunes Match? Keeping everything locked on iDevices doesn't seem like a good strategy.



first part is yes that is the idea. download a 256k track to your device.

second part is smart for Apple. it helps them sell devices. if you could download via web, then you could use Android. Google/Amazon have this as they want customers. Apple does this for expanded use of iOS devices....and money from that.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 21, 2011, 01:47 PM
I will use it under one condition: that my edited tags are included. I spend time making sure music added to my library has the correct date, etc. I hate buying an artists collection from a decade gone by with the date on all the songs being the original CD release of last year for instance. I also add group identifiers and/or comments for smart lists. Holiday music may be jazz but be in the "Yule" group.

I'll hate it if I download to another device from icloud and find that all my work is replaced.

LastLine
Jun 21, 2011, 01:50 PM
I don't think we 100% know for sure, but no other music on iTunes has DRM now. I find it unlikely they'd bring it back after all the trouble they went to to get rid of it.




Yeah that was my thought, but as an essentially subscription based service...I dunno - seems odd. Greaet though it that's the case!

Razeus
Jun 21, 2011, 01:51 PM
first part is yes that is the idea. download a 256k track to your device.

second part is smart for Apple. it helps them sell devices. if you could download via web, then you could use Android. Google/Amazon have this as they want customers. Apple does this for expanded use of iOS devices....and money from that.

Well if they are letting me download the 256k file, how does one manage the space on the device or hard drive?

Basically they're are saying, "Ok, you have these songs on your hard drive. We've scanned them and put them in the cloud. Oh, you want to listen to that song but forgot to put it on your iPhone? No problem, here you go."

What if my iPhone space is maxed?:confused:

ten-oak-druid
Jun 21, 2011, 01:57 PM
Well if they are letting me download the 256k file, how does one manage the space on the device or hard drive?

Basically they're are saying, "Ok, you have these songs on your hard drive. We've scanned them and put them in the cloud. Oh, you want to listen to that song but forgot to put it on your iPhone? No problem, here you go."

What if my iPhone space is maxed?:confused:

You can delete current songs you don't listen to. They will be on the cloud for later download if you wish.

That is what the icloud is all about: overcoming the slow pace of SSD development for low price and high capacity. It is really in place for iOS devices and the Air primarily.

For my part, I like that any song purchased can be downloaded again if lost. Also if I purchase a song on the computer I can download to the iOS device if I am out and haven't synced yet.

bmturney
Jun 21, 2011, 02:01 PM
I think this is very tough to gauge right now and would put VERY little weight behind this survey... for one, you gauging responses from a very limited base... I can tell you that a very large portion of iPhone users do not even really understand what iTunes Match really is at this point. I can tell you my wife, kids, mom, mother-in-law, sisters, sisters-in-laws, brothers-in-law... all heavy iPhone, iPad users... but none of them could tell you what iTunes Match is right now, and only a couple of them would probably be able to tell you that they have heard of the iCloud service...

The vast majority of iPhone/iPad users are not geek-heads that hang on every announcement out of the valley... they are just very happy patrons... because as Steve says... "It just works..." When these services start coming online in mass... and there is even more buzz about it... and even more people are using it and talking about it... I think you will see these numbers go even higher... as long as "it just works..."

milo
Jun 21, 2011, 02:04 PM
Y'know there's something I haven't clicked on this iTunes match yet.

If I have a catalogue of, say, 1000 mp3's that I ripped myself, pay the $25 for a year of match, what happens next?

I presume I download the matched songs, now do we know if these are DRM protected (to prevent me potentially pirating thousands of albums over a year, matching them all and getting my music illegally, but cheap) or do they come DRM free so once I've used match they're mine to keep?

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

DRM free.

OptyCT
Jun 21, 2011, 02:06 PM
I think you have a little confusion too. 24.99 doesn't mean your entire itunes library is in the iCloud. Granted - many people have less than say, 25,000 songs. But if you have a HUGE collection of music - you'll exceed the 5gig allowance (remember that itunes purchased music does not go towards that 5 gig allotment). That being said - 24.99 has little to nothing to do with actual storage. Two different things altogether.

iCloud - 5 gigs (plus syncing of photos, contacts, purchased music, etc) is free
24.99 is for the MATCH service only.

It's interesting that you took some creative license to cut my quote where you did, because the next line said "Your music library isn't being stored in the cloud, but is rather being scanned and matched against the iTunes library of 18 million songs." Your music that is "matched" in iTunes doesn't go against the iCloud storage limits. Mainly, because your music is not being uploaded and stored in the iCloud. Let's say, as an example, that I have "Tighten Up" by the Black Keys in my iTunes library on my computer. I then pay $24.99/year and sign up for the iTunes Match service. My iTunes library is then scanned and matched (not uploaded), "Tighten Up" included. This "match" basically gives me access to Apple's 256 Kbps version of "Tighten Up" on their server. The only way any song in my library would go against the iCloud storage limit is if it wasn't available in iTunes' 18 million song library.

Razeus
Jun 21, 2011, 02:07 PM
You can delete current songs you don't listen to. They will be on the cloud for later download if you wish.

That is what the icloud is all about: overcoming the slow pace of SSD development for low price and high capacity. It is really in place for iOS devices and the Air primarily.

For my part, I like that any song purchased can be downloaded again if lost. Also if I purchase a song on the computer I can download to the iOS device if I am out and haven't synced yet.

I hear ya. Can't wait to try it out. I'm still going to use Google Music as well so I have a desktop option. I'm loving their beta. The interface is so elegant and clean.

Razeus
Jun 21, 2011, 02:09 PM
It's interesting that you took some creative license to cut my quote where you did, because the next line said "Your music library isn't being stored in the cloud, but is rather being scanned and matched against the iTunes library of 18 million songs." Your music that is "matched" in iTunes doesn't go against the iCloud storage limits. Mainly, because your music is not being uploaded and stored in the iCloud. Let's say, as an example, that I have "Tighten Up" by the Black Keys in my iTunes library on my computer. I then pay $24.99/year and sign up for the iTunes Match service. My iTunes library is then scanned and matched (not uploaded), "Tighten Up" included. This "match" basically gives me access to Apple's 256 Kbps version of "Tighten Up" on their server. The only way any song in my library would go against the iCloud storage limit is if it wasn't available in iTunes' 18 million song library.

You'll still need to download "Tighten Up" to the iDevice you want to listen to.

jonnysods
Jun 21, 2011, 02:14 PM
I'm one of them!

OptyCT
Jun 21, 2011, 02:16 PM
You'll still need to download "Tighten Up" to the iDevice you want to listen to.

Correct.

theLimit
Jun 21, 2011, 02:20 PM
Day one for me. My library is well over 300GB of mainly CDs ripped to ALAC. Only about 10,000 of those songs are available on iTS, but it's worth the price to me to not have to keep a separate lossy library for the iPhones and iPods in the house.

milo
Jun 21, 2011, 02:26 PM
My specific questions, reposted from the tail end of a previous thread that had died out...

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.

Karnivore
Jun 21, 2011, 02:29 PM
A more appropriate headline should be "Over half of iPhone Users Will Not Be Using iTunes Match".

Aren't statistics versatile?

Deflorator
Jun 21, 2011, 02:33 PM
Cool, but there are countries in EU with no music\movies buyable in iTunes store, so...

NebulaClash
Jun 21, 2011, 02:33 PM
A more appropriate headline should be "Over half of iPhone Users Will Not Be Using iTunes Match".

Aren't statistics versatile?

Not quite that versatile. The actually thing you could say if you wanted to reverse it would be: "Over half of iPhone Users State They Will Not Be Using iTunes Match."

What they say in a survey is not what they will be doing, say, a year from now once they see what iTunes Match does (or does not do).

milo
Jun 21, 2011, 02:38 PM
From what I can understand, this doesn't give you live access to your playlists etc.

Do we know either way? Seems like it wouldn't be that hard for Apple to store all playlists whether the files are on the device or not - whether they will in the initial release remains to be seen (and I'm not getting my hopes up), but is there any evidence either way?

I have 500-600 ripped CDs available on all my devices. It is called syncing. Rotate and reuse.

But that doesn't let you sync away from home.

I think you have a little confusion too. 24.99 doesn't mean your entire itunes library is in the iCloud. Granted - many people have less than say, 25,000 songs. But if you have a HUGE collection of music - you'll exceed the 5gig allowance (remember that itunes purchased music does not go towards that 5 gig allotment).

Just to be clear, if you're subscribing to Match, any songs matched don't count against the 5 gig limit, it's only songs that can't be matched because they aren't available in the store. With 18 million songs there, most people aren't going to use up that space with unmatched music.

What if my iPhone space is maxed?:confused:

Delete songs you no longer need on there. Plus, with a service like this there's less need to put so much on there in the first place.

samcraig
Jun 21, 2011, 02:38 PM
Not quite that versatile. The actually thing you could say if you wanted to reverse it would be: "Over half of iPhone Users State They Will Not Be Using iTunes Match."

What they say in a survey is not what they will be doing, say, a year from now once they see what iTunes Match does (or does not do).

Exactly my point earlier (and how often do we agree, NebulaClash? ;) ) First year adoption rate is important. But more so is year 2 retention.

NebulaClash
Jun 21, 2011, 02:56 PM
how often do we agree, NebulaClash? ;)

Not often, but it's nice when it happens. Cheers.

wordoflife
Jun 21, 2011, 03:05 PM
Thanks for chopping up my words ...

I can't definitively say that iTunes Match is not streaming ... but from what I understand, I don't think you need an internet connection in order to access your music, which is what streaming is essentially. I would be very surprised if this was the case, since I'd like to listen to my music regardless of where I am.

Streaming is if you are listening to a song downloading as it plays and go through a tunnel, you lost the song. Downloading is a similar concept as it can play while buffering but you could in theory download a few songs at a starbucks wifi near teh train station and then take the train through teh tunnel and still listen to those new songs. with streaming you don't get the same service.

Well my point is, if I have to use my data connection to download or stream my music, it's kind of pointless to me considering the data rates these days. Based on that alone, i can safely make my decision as to whether or not I need this service. I see how it can be useful for others though.

newagemac
Jun 21, 2011, 03:06 PM
Between my wife and I we have a bunch of DRM laden songs as well as CDs that were ripped to 128kbps. We also have a bunch of 256 kbps mp3 rather than the higher quality 256kbps AAC files available with iTunes Match. We are definitely going to do the iTunes match for one year and get all of it converted to non DRM 256kbps AAC goodness.

Since in the keynote they specifically pointed out that it was DRM free, we should be able to drop the service after the first year once we download the new files. If they do eventually add more services to it, we may keep it.

liquidsuns
Jun 21, 2011, 03:07 PM
The value I see in this is for people that don't want a pc or laptop anymore. I'm not fully aware of how it works exactly, but I think there are two possible ways; you pay $25 dollars and all your ripped songs are now iTunes songs. You can download them on any iOS device, delete them, and download them again and again. And these songs are like this forever. If you get more ripped songs the next year, you have to pay again to get them as iTunes songs. The second way would be that you have to keep paying $25 dollars a year to keep your ripped songs as iTunes songs. If you don't pay and you delete them from your iOS device and don't have a PC anymore, then they are just gone and you can't redownload them.

So obviously this service, which ever way it works, is for people that don't want a PC at all anymore and want all their songs that they ripped back when they had a PC to be on the iTunes "cloud" so they can delete and download as necessary.

I'm probably going to use this service because, come iOS 5, I am getting rid of my iMac and never owning a traditional PC again.

m828s
Jun 21, 2011, 03:10 PM
Would I LIKE to use iMatch? Absolutely.

Am I GOING to use iMatch? Definitely not, given my current data plan.

FX4568
Jun 21, 2011, 03:18 PM
Idk about iTunes match
For me I have less than 5.00GB of Music, and thus, I would rather use iCloud and just upload everything (contacts, music, photos and other stuff) without using iTunes match.

I still dont understand fully, but if its a good service I know people will pay $25 a year. I mean... its $2 a month. thats probably less than the change you loose weekly.

liquidsuns
Jun 21, 2011, 03:19 PM
Would I LIKE to use iMatch? Absolutely.

Am I GOING to use iMatch? Definitely not, given my current data plan.

By saying this, I don't think you understand what iMatch is for. It's not streaming. If you have an iOS device and purchase a song on iTunes, then delete it (which you can do iOS 5) and can then go to the Purchased tab, see that song listed there and redownload it. Or if you have two iOS device and buy a song on one, you can go to the Purchased tab on the other device, see it there and download it. This feature is already available, though you can't delete from the device itself. But you can get a feel for how it will work.

What iMatch does is take all your ripped songs and give them this same functionality. Treating the ripped songs as though you had bought them from iTunes and allowing you to download and delete from iOS devices (and PCs) as often as you like.

Mostly, this is for people that don't want a PC anymore and need to have their ripped songs treated as iTunes songs, so they can have this functionality.

BC2009
Jun 21, 2011, 03:30 PM
With iTunes match, do you actually get the replacement song files downloaded to your computer, or do you just get the matches "in the cloud?"

In other words, could I subscribe to iTunes match for one year and get all of my ripped songs from iTunes and then drop it a year later and continue to have my songs matched in the cloud since I now have "official" iTunes files on my computer?

I *believe* that Apple is going to give you the actual file to store locally. However, whereas a normal iTunes purchase would be available via iCloud sync to all devices, the iTunes-matched music that you never actually purchased through iTunes would only be available if you have your current $25 per year subscription. Apple does have a record of every song you actually purchased from them through iTunes.

So the scenario would go like this....

1) Rip 100 CDs

2) Get iTunes Match and get iTunes digital files for everything ripped

3) Use iCloud to effortlessly move music between your devices whether bought on iTunes or matched by iTunes

4) iTunes Match subscription expires

5) All your iTunes Match music that has not been purchased can no longer be synced over iCloud, but you still have all the digital files so that you can sync them manually

Your alternative is to buy the music directly on iTunes to avoid the recurring fees. Basically, Apple is selling you the synching service and giving the music industry a cut. The music industry likes it because it creates a recurring revenue model for them on music they previously got nothing for, and if you don't like the recurring revenue, but like the iCloud service then maybe you will repurchase (or first-time purchase) the music that you ripped.

I imagine many folks actually purchased CDs as opposed to downloading bootlegged copies. But iTunes Match will treat those the same way.

gnasher729
Jun 21, 2011, 03:37 PM
So if you buy all of your music from iTunes, this service is pretty much superfluous, right?

Yes. Apple offers a service; that service is free for all music that you bought from the iTunes store, it costs $25 a year for all music that is on your computer that Apple manages to match with a song on the iTunes store (up to 25,000 songs), plus up to 5 GB of songs that Apple cannot match up.

But wouldn't you be able to match your crappy bitrate mp3, download the 256 aac to your idevice, and then use idump or any of the thousand other "ipod to computer" transfer programs to put that 256 onto your harddrive (essentially replacing your old file with the new offical iTS track)?

Your Macintosh is just a device. No need to download to your iPod first. You can download the 256 KBit songs directly to your Mac.

ericinboston
Jun 21, 2011, 03:55 PM
What does it mean for a survey to offer 3 options and interpret 2 of them as "likely"?

"Bias" is the word here I guess

Exactly. 10% are definite and an additional 20% are a "somewhat" (aka maybe)...best to be conservative and say 20% TOTAL rather than 30% since part of a "somewhat" is a "no thanks". :)


Even at best, 30% is a pretty bad report card.

I think the Match feature is somewhat attractive...but there are a lot of questions regarding later on down the road if you actually own and/or can download the "matched" song and other questions. I'd also gather that unless you've been collecting mp3s since 1996, a very very high percentage of your mp3s are at 192k or higher. Not sure how much better quality you're going to get going from 192k to 256k or even 320k. Nice to have, yes...but never noticeable with earbuds/headphones or listening in a car or playing on your boombox or outputting the headphone jack to your stereo. If it was 100% quality (WAV or non-Apple-proprietary-lossless), I would be all ears. No pun intended.

NoNothing
Jun 21, 2011, 03:59 PM
I have 500-600 ripped CDs available on all my devices. It is called syncing. Rotate and reuse.

$25/month? Not a chance. $100/year? Not a chance. $25/year? Heck yea.

Razeus
Jun 21, 2011, 04:05 PM
I guess I'm not seeing how anyone would want this. I can understand if a song pops up into my head and know I don't have it on my device and I want to listen to it, sure. But I can't imagine people downloading gigs of music constantly just to listen to stuff. Pandora fills that niche. I guess I need to see what they'll do with my playlists. For example, if I didn't sync my "80's Music" or "70's Soul" playlist and felt mood for the music at any given time, this is a real benefit. Just downloading random music a song at a time is not much of a benefit except for the rare occasions.

LastLine
Jun 21, 2011, 04:05 PM
Image (http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/06/stevejobswwdc2011liveblogkeynote1092.jpg)

DRM free.

Yep fair play :) Roll on UK roll out.

BJMRamage
Jun 21, 2011, 04:14 PM
I *believe* that Apple is going to give you the actual file to store locally. However, whereas a normal iTunes purchase would be available via iCloud sync to all devices, the iTunes-matched music that you never actually purchased through iTunes would only be available if you have your current $25 per year subscription. Apple does have a record of every song you actually purchased from them through iTunes.



I'm afraid of this. I just downloaded a FREE DMB Caravan Sampler and was waiting for it to show on my iPhone so i didn't have to sync. I am guessing since it was FREE it will not honor that free sync. That stinks but that makes sense for Apple to not just have people do this once and then have the ability to have all the songs "in the cloud" for free for years.

Also of note to people saying it will use their 3G data...go to a Starbucks/McDonald/DD/any place that has free WiFi and use that to download the songs "free" of charges.

garty
Jun 21, 2011, 04:46 PM
I think you have a little confusion too. 24.99 doesn't mean your entire itunes library is in the iCloud. Granted - many people have less than say, 25,000 songs. But if you have a HUGE collection of music - you'll exceed the 5gig allowance (remember that itunes purchased music does not go towards that 5 gig allotment). That being said - 24.99 has little to nothing to do with actual storage. Two different things altogether.

iCloud - 5 gigs (plus syncing of photos, contacts, purchased music, etc) is free
24.99 is for the MATCH service only.

Only files that iTunes can't match and therefore are uploaded will count against your 5 gb limit

nibus
Jun 21, 2011, 05:01 PM
It'll be interesting to see how this service handles live performances. I can see iTunes Match confusing "Evenflow - Pearl Jam - Live in Tokyo, 1998" with "Evenflow - Pearl Jam - Ten". It remains to be seen how much control/input the end user will have in this process. Will we be able to say, "that match is wrong, please upload this version"?

This is what will make it or break it for me. I wish we had more details on the song matching process, ie how close the lengths and qualities have to be for the song to be a match. I would imagine Live content would rely heavily on metadata as well as waveform recognition. Hopefully we will have the option to cancel a match or force re-recognize certain songs.

I will use it under one condition: that my edited tags are included. I spend time making sure music added to my library has the correct date, etc. I hate buying an artists collection from a decade gone by with the date on all the songs being the original CD release of last year for instance. I also add group identifiers and/or comments for smart lists. Holiday music may be jazz but be in the "Yule" group.

I'll hate it if I download to another device from icloud and find that all my work is replaced.

I highly doubt it will extract metadata from your collection and replace the iTunes counterpart. However, I'm sure there are utilities out there that would do this.

Obi-Wan Kubrick
Jun 21, 2011, 05:11 PM
If one were to only sync 4 or 5 star rated songs to their iOS device then you would be able to push the iTunes purchased songs through iCloud and save $25 a year.

HE15MAN
Jun 21, 2011, 05:20 PM
Does this give you physical download copies of iTunes versions of your library, or do they give you cloud versions and you never get an actual copy?

firewater101
Jun 21, 2011, 05:22 PM
I'm usually not a tinfoil hat kinda guy, but won't iTunes match give Apple some major leverage when it comes to identifying pirated music? It seems to me that by comparing the MD5 hashes of all files given to Match that it will be easy for Apple to identify exactly who has downloaded how many copies of which songs, which are then tied directly to your iTunes account forever. Is it that much of a stretch to think Apple may one day turn this data over to the RIAA? I haven't read the EULA or anything, but am I far out there in recommending people point match at their downloaded files at their own risk? The media seems to think this is amnesty for pirates, but it's not like Apple has specifically said that this service's purpose is to legitimize pirated files. Now, I know that even if that was an intended purpose, they wouldn't actually come out and say that. However, the service is marketed as an efficiency thing for your personally ripped tracks for which you legally own the CD, so that you don't have to upload them and use space. What do you think, am I just paranoid? Not that I would EVER download music illegally, I just know some people ;)

firewater101
Jun 21, 2011, 05:35 PM
My thinking is we haven't seen everything with iTunes Match/iCloud yet. It doesn't make sense for it to not be a streaming service. I think the final incarnation of it will be similar to iTunes home sharing in the interface. You will be able to see and play your iCloud Library on any connected device, and choose to import whatever you like from it.


I think people get too hung up on "streaming". After all, what's the difference between songs sync'ing to your device over the air and streaming? To me the only difference is that you don't have to download it again if you want to play it again. If you have sufficient local storage, this is better than streaming because once it sync's, you can have it offline. I would imagine that if you stop paying for Match, then those songs will just no longer be available to sync from iCloud (where it doesn't count against your storage limit), it wont delete your already downloaded files. The difference between a Match track and one actually purchased from iTunes is that the one from iTunes will be available to sync from iCloud forever.

tonjik
Jun 21, 2011, 05:51 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; cs-cz) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

its usa only right?

For now, but I can't see this not happening in other countries in time. Its all about how the music companies view this and you know how anal retentive they can be.:rolleyes:

So then the extrapolation in the study does not make sense.

There are many countries where iOS devices are sold, but you cannot buy any song via iTunes, which sucks (Apple does not have contracts with labels worldwide).

nibus
Jun 21, 2011, 05:55 PM
I'm usually not a tinfoil hat kinda guy, but won't iTunes match give Apple some major leverage when it comes to identifying pirated music? It seems to me that by comparing the MD5 hashes of all files given to Match that it will be easy for Apple to identify exactly who has downloaded how many copies of which songs, which are then tied directly to your iTunes account forever. Is it that much of a stretch to think Apple may one day turn this data over to the RIAA? I haven't read the EULA or anything, but am I far out there in recommending people point match at their downloaded files at their own risk? The media seems to think this is amnesty for pirates, but it's not like Apple has specifically said that this service's purpose is to legitimize pirated files. Now, I know that even if that was an intended purpose, they wouldn't actually come out and say that. However, the service is marketed as an efficiency thing for your personally ripped tracks for which you legally own the CD, so that you don't have to upload them and use space. What do you think, am I just paranoid? Not that I would EVER download music illegally, I just know some people ;)

The only files they could consistently recognize would be scene releases that hadn't been tampered with in any way - for example, if you edited the tags in anyway, changed album art, padded 0's for track numbers etc the hash would be completely different. And just because someone obtains a file through p2p doesn't mean it's illegal for them to keep it, providing that they already own the file on CD.

seamer
Jun 21, 2011, 06:17 PM
When did Match move from unlimited to 25,000 track limit? The track limit was mentioned as a poke at Google for implementing that limit themselves just days earlier.

IMPOSSIBLEMAN
Jun 21, 2011, 06:23 PM
10 - 20 % is what i anticipate

Carouser
Jun 21, 2011, 06:28 PM
In other words, could I subscribe to iTunes match for one year and get all of my ripped songs from iTunes and then drop it a year later and continue to have my songs matched in the cloud since I now have "official" iTunes files on my computer?

No. You didn't buy those ripped songs from iTunes, they are not 'iTunes-purchased' songs and thus if you cease your Match subscription then they will not be in iCloud for you. Only iTunes-purchased songs are free through iCloud.

I know it has been answered, but the same question comes up a lot.

I'm not fully aware of how it works exactly, but I think there are two possible ways; you pay $25 dollars and all your ripped songs are now iTunes songs. You can download them on any iOS device, delete them, and download them again and again. And these songs are like this forever. If you get more ripped songs the next year, you have to pay again to get them as iTunes songs.

What? No. All your ripped songs are in iCloud available to you for as long as you pay for iTunes Match. When you stop paying for Match, you can't get your ripped songs through iCloud. That's exactly what you are paying the $25 for!

The second way would be that you have to keep paying $25 dollars a year to keep your ripped songs as iTunes songs. If you don't pay and you delete them from your iOS device and don't have a PC anymore, then they are just gone and you can't redownload them.

Yes. This is how it works. There is no ambiguity about this.

If this were the 1970s, iTunes Match would be like paying a butler $25 a year to bring you the records you own, wherever you are. If you stop paying for the butler, you can't get your records delivered to you. Similarly, if you destroy your records or never owned the songs to begin with, paying a butler to deliver things won't magically bring records you don't own to you.

***

I don't see why iCloud and iTunes Match causes so much confusion. iCloud is basically a giant database of the iTunes music you bought. If you paid for a song from iTunes, you can get it from any WiFi network onto any of your Apple devices indefinitely. iTunes Match does the same thing at $25/year for music you haven't bought from iTunes.

People are actively making this more complicated than it is.

FroMann
Jun 21, 2011, 06:39 PM
I still prefer to just sync my music through iTunes, I'll take my fresh 320Kbps MP3s from CD rips over AAC anyway.

SandynJosh
Jun 21, 2011, 07:32 PM
I think its a little bit too early for anyone to make a definitive decision as to whether or not they will sign up for the iTunes Match service.

The $24.99/year service does look appealing to me, but the details surrounding the terms of service are still very scarce. I think a lot of the people who voted "Unlikely" either don't know much about iTunes Match or want to wait to see the details.

I'm totally with you on this. I think I know a lot more about iTunes Match than people that didn't see the whole WWDC announcement, and read the follow up threads on this board...but if I hadn't done all that, I'd have voted "unlikely" as well.

Once Apple starts advertising what iTunes Match is, and what it will cost, and how it will benefit the subscriber...THEN a survey will make a lot more sense.

About the only take-away I got from this survey is that 10% of those surveyed said, "Apple, yeah, whatever, I'm for it."

Another 20% said, "Apple? Must be kool, I might do it. lol!!!!! <3"

The final 70% fell into the "Whatcha talkin' 'bout, boy?? Git off my porch!"

AaronEdwards
Jun 21, 2011, 07:42 PM
Exactly. 10% are definite and an additional 20% are a "somewhat" (aka maybe)...best to be conservative and say 20% TOTAL rather than 30% since part of a "somewhat" is a "no thanks". :)


Even at best, 30% is a pretty bad report card.

The size of the sample asked is just 450, so an interval for "likely" that would contain the true value in the entire population 95% of the time would be 10 +/- 2.77 and for "somewhat likely" it would be 20 +/- 3.7.

(And this is if the people asked where randomly selected.)

Also, not only the use of "somewhat" is troublesome, but also "likely".
They should have used better words and asked more iPhone users.

AaronEdwards
Jun 21, 2011, 07:57 PM
The only files they could consistently recognize would be scene releases that hadn't been tampered with in any way - for example, if you edited the tags in anyway, changed album art, padded 0's for track numbers etc the hash would be completely different. And just because someone obtains a file through p2p doesn't mean it's illegal for them to keep it, providing that they already own the file on CD.

1. They only need to ignore the tags when creating the checksums, and what you suggest would be in vain. Furthermore, they can also just make a checksum of part of the file, which means that you would have to edit a lot more than just the tags. And most won't, they will not even change the tags. But this won't be a problem unless you have illegal files.

2. I'm pretty certain that just because you own the CD, you are still not allowed to download a copy of it. But since you argue it, any law or ruling that would support that it's ok?

We have yet to hear anything from Apple about iTunes Match that would address illegally obtained files. I doubt that the speculation will be true, since I doubt that the four giant record companies would make such deal.

blybug
Jun 21, 2011, 08:31 PM
No. You didn't buy those ripped songs from iTunes, they are not 'iTunes-purchased' songs and thus if you cease your Match subscription then they will not be in iCloud for you. Only iTunes-purchased songs are free through iCloud.

I don't see why iCloud and iTunes Match causes so much confusion. iCloud is basically a giant database of the iTunes music you bought. If you paid for a song from iTunes, you can get it from any WiFi network onto any of your Apple devices indefinitely. iTunes Match does the same thing at $25/year for music you haven't bought from iTunes.

People are actively making this more complicated than it is.
Because they think they are going to "own" all these iTunes Plus 256kbps AAC files the same as if they paid $1.29 for each of them individually. The listening experience will be very similar and virtually indistinguishable as long as you are "on network" and continue to pay the annual fee. I was the lone voice of reason on this thread last week trying to explain this against a swarm of people who think they're going to download a bunch of music for keeps.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1171764

blybug
Jun 21, 2011, 08:37 PM
Image (http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/06/stevejobswwdc2011liveblogkeynote1092.jpg)

DRM free.

Still find it interesting that while the slide says "DRM-free," Jobs never said those words in the keynote and they do not appear anywhere on Apple's current webpage describing iTunes Match. Just that the matched tracks "play back" and you can "listen" at full quality 256kbps.

The 18 million songs Apple is making playable from the cloud are indeed "DRM-free" but that does not mean you get to keep them.

m828s
Jun 21, 2011, 10:06 PM
By saying this, I don't think you understand what iMatch is for. It's not streaming. If you have an iOS device and purchase a song on iTunes, then delete it (which you can do iOS 5) and can then go to the Purchased tab, see that song listed there and redownload it. Or if you have two iOS device and buy a song on one, you can go to the Purchased tab on the other device, see it there and download it. This feature is already available, though you can't delete from the device itself. But you can get a feel for how it will work.

What iMatch does is take all your ripped songs and give them this same functionality. Treating the ripped songs as though you had bought them from iTunes and allowing you to download and delete from iOS devices (and PCs) as often as you like.

Mostly, this is for people that don't want a PC anymore and need to have their ripped songs treated as iTunes songs, so they can have this functionality.

Your assumption would be incorrect. I have 80 gigs worth of music and a data plan which provides me a tiny fraction of that per month. If I choose to listen over a cellular network (e.g., at work), I'll burn through that 200MB in a hurry. I enjoy lots of variety, and will often shuffle my songs and listen randomly until I happen upon an album I'm in the mood for, and then I'll choose to listen to the album. That's a heckuva lot of data transfer in a short amount of time. Easily 60 MBs an hour... assuming no song repeats.

Distinction between streaming and downloading is meaningless to someone like me who will have long periods of his day away from wifi. Sure, I could spend time each night re-downloading a new set of songs into my iPhone, but you sure do lose some spontaneity there. What if I want to listen to the latest Bon Iver or Arcade Fire or Kanye albums? If I'm lucky, I might have a song or two from the album downloaded from the night before. But at work, I'd have to stream/download over 3Gs, and with 200 MB a month that just isn't going to work.

slffl
Jun 21, 2011, 10:32 PM
Hell ya I'm using it!

theneweyes
Jun 22, 2011, 01:11 AM
I think these numbers are going to grow as users realize what this really means.

AppleScruff1
Jun 22, 2011, 01:26 AM
With iTunes match, do you actually get the replacement song files downloaded to your computer, or do you just get the matches "in the cloud?"

In other words, could I subscribe to iTunes match for one year and get all of my ripped songs from iTunes and then drop it a year later and continue to have my songs matched in the cloud since I now have "official" iTunes files on my computer?

I hope that this is the way it works.

gnasher729
Jun 22, 2011, 01:31 AM
We have yet to hear anything from Apple about iTunes Match that would address illegally obtained files. I doubt that the speculation will be true, since I doubt that the four giant record companies would make such deal.

Over the last ten years, the record companies have concentrated on sales lost to piracy (which according to them exceed the total income of the western world), while Apple has concentrated on making money by giving people what they want. And Apple has proven to be an awful lot more successful.

iTunes Match makes money. If the recording industry only wanted iTunes Match for people who don't have a single pirated song then they would get very little income from this.


I'm usually not a tinfoil hat kinda guy, but won't iTunes match give Apple some major leverage when it comes to identifying pirated music? It seems to me that by comparing the MD5 hashes of all files given to Match that it will be easy for Apple to identify exactly who has downloaded how many copies of which songs, which are then tied directly to your iTunes account forever. Is it that much of a stretch to think Apple may one day turn this data over to the RIAA?

Yeah, instead of making billions selling hardware to happy customers, Apple could make millions by selling out its customers to the RIAA. Makes total sense. I couldn't think of an easier way to destroy the company. And Google will pick up a cheap data centre, hardly ever used.

chaosbunny
Jun 22, 2011, 03:00 AM
Since I don't use iTunes to buy my music but prefer to get CDs I will not be using this feature. Why should I pay twice? And "the cloud" sucks anyway.

JaySoul
Jun 22, 2011, 08:15 AM
I definitely want it.

Carouser
Jun 22, 2011, 08:25 AM
I hope that this is the way it works.

It's already been explained that this isn't how it works. iCloud is for iTunes-purchased music. That's it. The music in iTunes Match doesn't magically become iTunes-purchased music.

firewater101
Jun 22, 2011, 10:15 AM
Yeah, instead of making billions selling hardware to happy customers, Apple could make millions by selling out its customers to the RIAA. Makes total sense. I couldn't think of an easier way to destroy the company. And Google will pick up a cheap data centre, hardly ever used.

Point taken, but I would actually be more concerned of some possible court ruling some day in the future ordering Apple to turn over the data. I don't think that is out of the realm of possibility, but thanks for the sarcasm.

AaronEdwards
Jun 23, 2011, 06:32 AM
Over the last ten years, the record companies have concentrated on sales lost to piracy (which according to them exceed the total income of the western world), while Apple has concentrated on making money by giving people what they want. And Apple has proven to be an awful lot more successful.

iTunes Match makes money. If the recording industry only wanted iTunes Match for people who don't have a single pirated song then they would get very little income from this.

iTunes Match makes money? $25 - Apple's 30%? What kind of money is that? That's nothing. That's the money they would get from selling 25 $0.99 songs.


Yeah, instead of making billions selling hardware to happy customers, Apple could make millions by selling out its customers to the RIAA. Makes total sense. I couldn't think of an easier way to destroy the company. And Google will pick up a cheap data centre, hardly ever used.

In what universe is not allowing customers to match pirated songs, and maybe reporting them to the RIAA, selling them out?

AppleScruff1
Jun 24, 2011, 10:57 AM
It's already been explained that this isn't how it works. iCloud is for iTunes-purchased music. That's it. The music in iTunes Match doesn't magically become iTunes-purchased music.

So what happens to the matched tunes, can you download them to your computer or are they in iCloud and you stream them to your devices?

blybug
Jun 24, 2011, 11:53 AM
So what happens to the matched tunes, can you download them to your computer or are they in iCloud and you stream them to your devices?

I doubt Apple will use the word "streaming"...they will come up with some buzzword (:apple:MagicSync™) and will undoubtedly make the process very seamless. Upcoming songs in the iCloud may be cached while the current song is playing, downloaded and stored on the device in some hidden area so they can be "replayed" that same session, etc. As long as you have a reasonably constant or even intermittent network connection of some kind, iTunes Match will figure out a way to make it seem like that 256kbps AAC file is at your fingertips on your device and is "yours." It may seem the same, but it won't actually be the same as a song you purchased for $1.29. When you stop paying your annual fee, access to these files stops and they will not be left sitting on your devices for you to keep.

I have likened this to Pandora, but with your personal iTunes database as the playlist and Apple's 18 million songs to draw from. I expect your iTunes playlists will be synced to the cloud the same way they are synced to an iPod, and be presented identically on all registered devices. Press play and songs will play/download/stream/whatever from Apple's cloud library, your 5GB of iCloud space, or from the local device depending on whether you have a copy there or not.

People signing up for iTunes Match will need to understand that it is a cloud service and all its functionality will not be available if they're not on network...just like Netflix, Pandora, Amazon Cloud Player, browsing Safari, checking email, facebook, etc. This is essentially doing for iTunes what dotMac and MobileMe have done for calendaring. I've been so used to my family's calendars syncing across computers and devices that I forget when helping some of my newly converted Mac friends that their iPhones don't sync with iCal unless they connect by USB. I'm so used to this "just working" for me over-the-air that a few times when I have been off network for an extended period I couldn't figure out why certain events weren't visible on all devices. The "master copy" of the calendar remains synced in the cloud, the devices just "display" the events so you can "see" them locally. iTunes Match will be the same...the "master copy" of the playlist will remain synced in the cloud, the devices just "play back" the songs so you can "listen" to them locally. Note the careful wording at the bottom of Apple's webpage about this: http://www.apple.com/icloud/features/

I've little doubt Apple will surprise us with some extraordinary under-the-hood protocols that often provide a very satisfactory experience that mimics having up to 25,000 matched songs on your 16GB iPhone. But it's a cloud service. Whether you believe these songs will be "downloaded" or "streamed" (I think it's semantics and the truth lies somewhere inbetween = :apple:MagicSync™), there will necessarily be times when you receive a message:

"This song cannot be played because you are not connected to the Internet."

AppleScruff1
Jun 24, 2011, 12:02 PM
What you have posted makes the most sense. I just couldn't believe that you could swap 25,000 pirated songs for upgraded legitimate copies and download and keep them permanently for $25. So you are saying that there will only be access to these matched songs when you are connected to the internet? There will be no way to actually save them to keep permanently? Again, this makes the most sense. I didn't think that Apple was going to create a haven to make pirated music legit.

Thanks for the info.