PDA

View Full Version : Apple Activated iTunes Match on AppleTV But Why?




entensekaos
Nov 3, 2011, 03:59 AM
http://i51.tinypic.com/282ls13.jpg

Now if we can only get the service to work on iTunes.



ldaustin
Nov 3, 2011, 09:03 AM
I read elsewhere it was done in conjunction with a new iTunes beta. This looks like a way for playing your music on an Apple TV without having iTunes running on a home computer.

Pheo
Nov 3, 2011, 09:07 AM
I read elsewhere it was done in conjunction with a new iTunes beta. This looks like a way for playing your music on an Apple TV without having iTunes running on a home computer.

That'd be good! Annoying having to have the pc on!

HobeSoundDarryl
Nov 3, 2011, 09:14 AM
Yes, in the new model instead of burning some electricity with (what is likely) a(n energy-efficient) computer turned on in the house, we get to burn internet bandwidth instead, downloading what we want to play from the distant iCloud. If it gets some legs (mass adoption), let's see how long until tiered (bandwidth) pricing starts rising and tiers start getting tighter (just like the cell phone plans moving from "unlimited" to tiers & throttling, etc).

I still think the answer is the rumored local iCloud- a time-capsule like device that stores all of your own content in one (local) place that may interact with the distant iCloud as needed. This would be the Apple-created iTunes storage device... one place where all iTunes media is stored that is accessible from all of the computers & iDevices in the house.

THE answer is not to store everything at a distant iCloud... unless you are Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc who are frothing at the opportunity to increase revenue-per-subscriber... or you just don't care about the cost of accessing content you own such that you'll happily trade cash for convenience.

soco
Nov 3, 2011, 09:15 AM
I don't really understand your question.

Why not? It's music, streaming from the cloud, to a device in your living room... Is that... bad? :confused:

dnelms
Nov 3, 2011, 09:53 AM
I don't really understand your question.

Why not? It's music, streaming from the cloud, to a device in your living room... Is that... bad? :confused:

It is if you happen to have an ISP with bandwidth caps for the month. I'd much rather pay for the small amount of electricity that it costs to keep my PC going (even though it stays on all the time anyway). I do not have a problem with the offer of the service, but I'll stick to just streaming from my local copies.

Caliber26
Nov 3, 2011, 10:20 AM
I don't really understand your question.

Why not? It's music, streaming from the cloud, to a device in your living room... Is that... bad? :confused:

I don't know... to me, it seems a little redundant. I think it's safe to assume that if you own an AppleTV it is very likely you own an iPhone, iPod Touch, and/or an iPad. Why not just AirPlay the song from your device to AppleTV? Why stream it from iCloud instead?

clarkie604
Nov 3, 2011, 10:44 AM
Yes, in the new model instead of burning some electricity with (what is likely) a(n energy-efficient) computer turned on in the house, we get to burn internet bandwidth instead, downloading what we want to play from the distant iCloud. If it gets some legs (mass adoption), let's see how long until tiered (bandwidth) pricing starts rising and tiers start getting tighter (just like the cell phone plans moving from "unlimited" to tiers & throttling, etc).

I still think the answer is the rumored local iCloud- a time-capsule like device that stores all of your own content in one (local) place that may interact with the distant iCloud as needed. This would be the Apple-created iTunes storage device... one place where all iTunes media is stored that is accessible from all of the computers & iDevices in the house.

THE answer is not to store everything at a distant iCloud... unless you are Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc who are frothing at the opportunity to increase revenue-per-subscriber... or you just don't care about the cost of accessing content you own such that you'll happily trade cash for convenience.

Ever hear of Pandora? -- we already all have music streaming over the internet and the bandwidth usage is too low to care about. The cost for iTunes Match is likely more significant by far than the cost for bandwidth. Regardless, I often rationally trade cash for concenience, and I'm very happy to do so.

HobeSoundDarryl
Nov 3, 2011, 10:45 AM
I don't know... to me, it seems a little redundant. I think it's safe to assume that if you own an AppleTV it is very likely you own an iPhone, iPod Touch, and/or an iPad. Why not just AirPlay the song from your device to AppleTV? Why stream it from iCloud instead?

Why not add the computer to that list as well? Why stream it from iCloud when you can keep it all "in house" from a computer to the :apple:TV?

The perception by some of wanting to stream everything from iCloud is going to be a costly game in the end. But it will sure make the broadband gatekeepers happy when they get to charge everyone more money to access their own media. It may not be that way for everyone right now, but just look to the cell phone data tiers model to see the future. Aren’t the 3G/4G gatekeepers of that bandwidth pretty much the same gatekeepers of your home wired connection? It's just a matter of time before they start pinching the tiers and upping the charges "for heavy users" (such as people downloading their own media from a distant cloud).

Big storage hard drives are so cheap. Build your own (local) cloud that will work even when your broadband connection goes down. Exclude the middlemen from your own equation.

soco
Nov 3, 2011, 10:47 AM
I don't know... to me, it seems a little redundant. I think it's safe to assume that if you own an AppleTV it is very likely you own an iPhone, iPod Touch, and/or an iPad. Why not just AirPlay the song from your device to AppleTV? Why stream it from iCloud instead?

Isn't the entire point of iCloud to be redundant? Their goal is all Apple devices able to work with iCloud, anywhere.

Sure, they'd love for anyone who owns an AppleTV to also own every other iDevice, but that's not always the case.

clarkie604
Nov 3, 2011, 10:57 AM
I don't know... to me, it seems a little redundant. I think it's safe to assume that if you own an AppleTV it is very likely you own an iPhone, iPod Touch, and/or an iPad. Why not just AirPlay the song from your device to AppleTV? Why stream it from iCloud instead?

I agree that I'll rarely use iTunes Match on my AppleTV because I don't listen to music on it that much anyway and I have iTunes running all the time to serve up movies and TV shows.

This is cool, though, for proof of concept. What I want to be able to do is stream my iTunes music library to my iPhone from the cloud - which is essentially what it looks like iTunes Match does on the AppleTV. It looks like the iTunes Match implimentation on the iPhone will require room to save tracks on the phone. My problem is I don't have any more room on my phone so I want to just stream the music. Hopefully the streaming function will make it to iPhone. We'll see.

The other thing that would be great would be iTunes Match for videos. I can't tell you how many times my 3-year-old twins have woken me up at 5:30. I go to turn on Little Einstiens and find that iTunes is off on the computer downstairs. So frustrating. Would be nice to switch over to iTunes Match and push play. I can see how this is a pretty tall order considering the file sizes involved - but a guy can dream.

KeithJenner
Nov 3, 2011, 10:59 AM
Yes, in the new model instead of burning some electricity with (what is likely) a(n energy-efficient) computer turned on in the house, we get to burn internet bandwidth instead, downloading what we want to play from the distant iCloud. If it gets some legs (mass adoption), let's see how long until tiered (bandwidth) pricing starts rising and tiers start getting tighter (just like the cell phone plans moving from "unlimited" to tiers & throttling, etc).

Are bandwidth limits really a huge problem in the States?

Here in the UK, I'm have unlimited broadband (albeit quite slow). My previous provider capped it at 100gb per month (after which they just throttled a bit).

Using iTunes match, based on 256kbps files, by my reckoning if you played music for 5 hours a day every day, which I would imagine is more than the vast majority of people do, then you would use up around 25gb in a month.

I can see video streaming being a bandwidth hog, and iTunes match could catch some people out on 3G, but I'm surprised if it is a problem for home broadband.

HobeSoundDarryl
Nov 3, 2011, 12:28 PM
No, I'm just seeing the future. It is probably safe to say that most Americans felt they had "unlimited" internet up to a few years ago. Now pockets of us have been informed about caps on our "unlimited" internet (often big caps like yours, but caps nevertheless). Similarly, some endure throttling due to "heavy use" and some are dealing with tiers and/or threats of tiers (tiered pricing) now or "coming soon".

What I see is that the same names (AT&T, Verizon, etc) are behind both the wireless (bandwidth) and wired games. Most of the wireless plans have transitioned from "unlimited" to "limited" with tiers. In that part of things, the tiers are relatively tight when one thinks about streaming- say- a movie or three. The future I see is that these same players and others (Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner, etc) will bring that mentality to the wired side sooner than later with justifications of "increasingly heavy demand" (because some of us want to "stream everything") and because many of us can't really do anything about it (many people have less than 3- some less than 2- choices for broadband). Lastly, many of these latter players are also in the TV subscription business and have no interest in giving that money away to someone like Apple when Apple's replacement solution will have to flow through pipes owned by Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner, etc.

For these reasons and others, it's pretty easy to look ahead and see tightening tiers and higher pricing coming from a (wired) bandwidth provider near you (and me). Rapid adoption of storing all our stuff in the various clouds will just accelerate the timetable.

Uofmtiger
Nov 7, 2011, 08:21 PM
We will cross that bridge when we get there. I have been streaming Netflix, Xm radio, Pandora, Internet radio, and Rhapsody (now MOG) for years and nothing has changed. That doesn't mean it won't, but I would have been missing out if I had been sitting it out because of fear.

I know that some people want to stream their libraries with their computer off, so this will make those people happy. I don't think I will be using this feature with my Apple TVs. I want lossless quality and I keep a mini on all the time anyway. It will be nice to have for the iPhone away from home, though.

EmpyreanUK
Nov 8, 2011, 08:25 AM
As is the case for others, this would be pretty useless for me, as my iMac is always on standby with iTunes running, which works perfectly for me: access to all of my music, videos and podcasts whenever I want them, whilst burning a negligible amount of juice.

What I often think gets forgotten on these forums, though, is that we are not representative of Apple's customer base. Most of us are enthusiasts, and actually enjoy setting up and using these integrated solutions. I suspect that many other people wouldn't like the idea of having a PC running 24 hours a day, and for them iTunes Match on an Apple TV is a fine method of having access to all of their music. Indeed, we should remember that Apple is ostensibly trying to advance beyond the 'PC as media hub' paradigm: they want people to be able to use iOS devices (including the ATV2) without necessarily having to have a full-blown computer.

I think that something like this would work exceedingly well for somebody like my father. Whereas I like to have my lossless music library served from a 'hub' computer, he does not own a computer. Nor does he have any interest whatsoever in bitrates. For him, having his music collection served to him from the cloud would suit his needs quite smoothly. He would not know, nor have any interest in, where it came from; what would be of importance was that is was there, it was easy to navigate and maintain, and that he would not need to get out of his seat to change a CD!

liquidsuns
Nov 8, 2011, 05:42 PM
we should remember that Apple is ostensibly trying to advance beyond the 'PC as media hub' paradigm: they want people to be able to use iOS devices (including the ATV2) without necessarily having to have a full-blown computer.


That's why it's on ATV 2. They don't even want you to have to have any other iOS device. That seems to be the new idea; all devices fully connected with each other yet not dependent. If it isn't available at the start, I'm sure the you'll be able to buy songs on ATV 2 soon, too. It will play out just like tv shows do. I'm sure they'd love to let you stream purchased movies as well, but that's not just up to them.