I am not sure what is more disingenuous: assuming that server software which got to production 3 years ago was written with 16 bit values, or comparing THAT to a cross-industry problem related to software written across lots of platforms, OSes and languages, during 30 years – or more.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Aiming to Increase Music Library Matching Limit to 100,000 Tracks 'Before the End of the Year'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am not sure what is more disingenuous: assuming that server software which got to production 3 years ago was written with 16 bit values, or comparing THAT to a cross-industry problem related to software written across lots of platforms, OSes and languages, during 30 years – or more.
Almost everyone I know has over 25k tracks.
Also, consider that memory and storage space were severely constrained until, what, the late 80s? Early 90s even?
Any system more than 10 years old at Y2K was probably running on a machine where those two extra bytes were legitimately needed somewhere else for essential functionality, and there were definitely a lot of machine that old.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apple's services are confusing me.
I pay for Apple Music... does this mean I get the Match service included? or at an additional cost to the monthly sub price?
I pay for Apple Music... does this mean I get the Match service included? or at an additional cost to the monthly sub price?
I'm not sure why you want to argue about something you know very little about.
Apple says it'll take a while, I write reasoning why it 'could' take a while, going from experience. I was simply responding to someone saying that it was brain-dead easy. I just pointed out the 'could be hard' position to someone who said it 'should be easy'.
Now you want this drawn out fight about something you know very little about. Agree that it 'could be hard' and say that it 'could be easy' as well. It could be either, neither of us know. There is no reason to call names though.
I don't think so. In the case of Spotify - and Apple Music - there are certainly licensing issues. But this is dealing with music that I already own (CDs etc). Apple is just storing it in a different place - not sharing it with anyone else.
That said - you may well be right. For record companies are mind-bogglingly stupid when it comes to license terms.
Remember Apple doesn't know you own the music. You could have illegally downloaded a lot of the tracks in your iTunes library. If one or more of those tracks in your library is matched and is a bad quality rip, Apple automatically updates it to iTunes purchased quality for no additional cost. I'd say the limit is almost certainly a licensing restriction imposed by the labels - to stop the biggest pirates from legitimising huge libraries of stolen content.
I'm guessing the labels will also want a bigger slice of the pie if they do agree to allow Apple to offer its customers 100k tracks. Money and difficult negotiations would be good reasons for the hold up getting the library limit increase done.
Hate to tell you, Apple stores the same information and for the music matching, they have to, otherwise it would never work. But even with the other services (such as Maps, Voice Search, etc.), at least Google gives you access to see and modify all of your history, including being able to delete it. Apple still records these things (no I don't trust them saying they don't), but you have no way to verify what they have recorded. And no, I don't really believe Google permanently deletes what you ask them to, but you at least get the opportunity to know what they have.
Any that are available, they have matched 100% correctly (I do have some that are simply not available through any online store and those don't ever match of course) and I have some pretty obscure music that they match correctly 100% of the time.
Hmmm... Amazon sez they provide "high quality 256kbps MP3s". Not excited yet. Apple Match cleans my songs from words they dislike. Google doesn't seem to actually do matching, they just upload to the cloud (or am I missing something?). It's like with toothpaste. You can get a whitening one. You can get one for sensitive gums. You can get a strengthening one. But you can't get one that does all three.
No they shouldn't, many of us long ago ran into the 25k song limit. With no possible way to increase it. 99 cents a month for 50 gb is hardly anything at all.
It's still an issue for many of us, you're not the only user of the service
Whether you're upgrading your operating system or your iTunes library it is always a good idea to back up first. No upgrade process in the history of mankind has been 100% successful 100% of the time, but people seems to like to forget that and just complain anyway when something goes wrong.
Take some responsibility for your actions.
25000 songs, 50000 songs, 100000s songs, whatever...
I'd settle for improved matching. I frequently have two, three, or even four songs per album that simply won't match, including 256k MP3s from Amazon and 320k rips direct from CD. I find it really maddening.
I'd settle for improved matching. I frequently have two, three, or even four songs per album that simply won't match, including 256k MP3s from Amazon and 320k rips direct from CD. I find it really maddening.
Apple is gaining (and maintaining) a serious reputation for producing bad software and especially services. And they seem to be completely uninterested in stopping doing so. Over the last 5 years or so they release non-hardware products which utterly fail to do what they say on the tin. So much so that many users get fed-up and jump ship to the competition, where/if available, or just give-up trying to fix issues, as you feel like you need a masters degree in computer science to do so.
When is this gonna stop. Who knows. But one thing's for sure, they need to kick the arses of their software engineering teams, as they seem to be getting paid continually for bad half-working utter crap. And it's us users who have to run the gauntlet of these failures.
Ever phoned Applecare for help; they hardly ever know what they're talking about, and keep having to pass you on to second line support almost every time, who then promptly tell you it's YOUR problem or YOUR the only one who has the problem, despite you pointing out the gazillion forum threads with other users having the same issues. Useless, is the word.
Settings:
- Apple Music: OFF.
- iTunes Match: OFF.
- iTunes in the Cloud: OFF.
...all because they DO NOT WORK PROPERLY.
When is this gonna stop. Who knows. But one thing's for sure, they need to kick the arses of their software engineering teams, as they seem to be getting paid continually for bad half-working utter crap. And it's us users who have to run the gauntlet of these failures.
Ever phoned Applecare for help; they hardly ever know what they're talking about, and keep having to pass you on to second line support almost every time, who then promptly tell you it's YOUR problem or YOUR the only one who has the problem, despite you pointing out the gazillion forum threads with other users having the same issues. Useless, is the word.
Settings:
- Apple Music: OFF.
- iTunes Match: OFF.
- iTunes in the Cloud: OFF.
...all because they DO NOT WORK PROPERLY.
I agree with the various nuanced arguments for >25,000 songs. In my case, I like collecting/digitizing obscure and local artist material that will never see the light of day in the iTunes store and/or Apple Music.
I am also an overly meticulous song tagger and playlist creator. I am still dreaming of the day when my library's entire metadata can be truly seamlessly accessible on all my devices. Exactly no difference in functionality between iTunes and iOS and AppleTV (ratings, groupings, album art, etc.). For my test <25,000 song library, I'm happy that rating and loving tracks transfers between iTunes on both Mac platforms and the PC version.
As far as iOS Tunes, I'm not as much impressed. I'm really glad it preserves playlists. However, it just allows the opportunity to 'love' and 'unlove' tracks, but indications of that setting are not visible until you drill down to the full-screen track view. Also, no ratings are provided in addition to 'hearts'. This, to me, shouldn't take up too much space, especially on the full track view.
I'm a compulsive rater/song evaluator. I use ratings to choose which tracks I would rather listen to frequently, occasionally, rarely, or not at all. This helps me weed my track count to at least under 100K. So, I think iOS Tunes and AppleTV needs to provide the same desktop iTunes functionality rather than a subset, especially in the area of rating songs and moving tracks to playlists. Seamlessness all around is my mantra.
At any rate, here's to 100K song support before Thanksgiving. I can then have another thing for which to be thankful...
Thanks Erik for the reveal.
However, I believe this is another indicator of a sketchy user interface. Why not show the ratings all the time in the song detail screen? So what if the album art gets reduced by a few pixels. One of the keys to a successful user interface is the reduction of steps.
Now that I know the non-obvious method of accessing ratings, my main beef remains no indication of loving/not loving in the list views and just in the song detail screen. If you are going to bother to love a song, why not see it in a list view, to compare and potentialy influence your song selection?
Best.
I could almost live with the 25K limit if only iTunes would allow me to directly specific which songs go to iCloud and which do not. I want the control over what music in my collection will stream by virtue of Match.
Maybe I'm out of line here. Does anybody know how to do this? I basically want to have explicit, manual control over the nebulous iCloud Status column within iTunes.
Maybe I'm out of line here. Does anybody know how to do this? I basically want to have explicit, manual control over the nebulous iCloud Status column within iTunes.
Can folks with libraries over the 25K limit please check and see if Match (either iTunes Match or Apple Music matching) is still throwing up errors? Got a tip suggesting the limit might have been raised.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Not for me at this moment.
I have 47.452 tracks in my library and iCloud Music Library will not load my library.
I have many thousands of songs released only on vinyl on small labels, often in small batch releases, many for DJ's, pre 2000.
Are you telling they got that? I wouldn't find these things even if I was looking all over the internet for them from private buyers. So, like I said, they're not matching my stuff; there is a crapload of things that never made it into any system.
I've been collecting music since the 1970s.
I would love to help as I'm on the limit with just over 25,000 tracks in this library (including purchases) but when I clicked on iTunes Match I'm getting this message, even though I'm already using iTunes Match on this computer.
It's currently working well so I'm not going to tempt fate by clicking Add This Computer.
He said they're matching the tracks that they have available for sale in their mp3 store. Which is a huge improvement over apple, which fails to match wildly popular tracks that they have for sale. Only matching 12 out of 14 tracks on a Beatles album is just dismal.