30% of iPhone Users Leaning Toward Using iTunes Match

[Mak47]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[tigress666]

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]

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.

 

[wordoflife]

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" ?

 

[BJMRamage]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

And that's not essentially "streaming" ?

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]

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]

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]

And that's not essentially "streaming" ?

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]

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]

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]

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.