Apple Launches iTunes Match with Release of iTunes 10.5.1 [Updated]

[milo]

I like the idea of bringing up a selection of songs that it can match to. Of course I can see the record labels saying that that is essentially letting you choose a song other than the one you presumably "own."

Worst case the user could get a different version of the same song (explicit/clean/live/etc). And even if someone did that, would it be a big deal to the record company? It wouldn't give a choice of any song, just ones with close enough waveforms.

Apple needs to either improve their matching significantly or allow users to "help". If using metadata for assistance turns out to be the best way to get the job done, they'd be fools not to use it. And if they don't make significant improvements from how it works now, it's just not going to make it (see MobileMe, which did make improvements but never recovered from the initial terrible bad press).

Heck, I finally was able to get Match working on a second Mac, and it does show my full library. But it's not letting me download anything, not matches or uploads, not even purchases. Looks like either Match or the store (or at least part of it) may be down right now, I'll have to see if it fixes itself soon or if it's something broken I'll have to troubleshoot.

 

[Tinmania]

Worst case the user could get a different version of the same song (explicit/clean/live/etc). And even if someone did that, would it be a big deal to the record company? It wouldn't give a choice of any song, just ones with close enough waveforms.

Apple needs to either improve their matching significantly or allow users to "help". If using metadata for assistance turns out to be the best way to get the job done, they'd be fools not to use it. And if they don't make significant improvements from how it works now, it's just not going to make it (see MobileMe, which did make improvements but never recovered from the initial terrible bad press

I really don't see much outcry about iTunes Match compared to the launch of Mini Me.... err, Mobile Me. Most of the reviews seem positive. Indeed they often rate iTunes Match as being the best cloud music service--though usually not be much.

San Jose Mercury News: "iTunes Match wins cloud music war by wisp"
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_19432396

Walt Mossberg: "In all, I like iTunes Match, and can recommend it to digital music lovers who want all their tunes on all their devices. It’s another nice feature of iCloud, priced reasonably."
http://allthingsd.com/20111130/apple-itunes-match-review/

So what bad press are you seeing about iTunes Match that is akin to Mobile Me? I just don't see it.


As for metadata, again, I think using our own is not going to happen. Heck they don't need to--some people already think it is using it and are not going to be convinced otherwise lol.

But seriously, I think allowing a forced upload is the easiest solution. I am not even sure they would need any limitation as I can't see many people wanting to upload most tracks compared to the much-faster matched tracks. And uploaded tracks would still be down sampled if they were lossless or a high bitrate--so no benefit in that area. So that seems like an easy fix. Along with improvements to the matching algorithms of course.



Michael

 

[milo]

Sorry, I was talking about word of mouth more than press although there have been a number of articles talking about the limitations and spelling out convoluted workarounds. And in general I think Match is mostly getting ignored, there's not more talk about the problems because there's not much talk about it, period.

They don't need to necessarily use metadata, but they need to do something to fix wrong matches. Personally I'd love to see both - improve the matches (whether that's by using metadata or some other method) AND allow users to override wrong matches with a manual upload (which hopefully would send a message back to Apple so they could use it to try and improve their matching software). Honestly, I don't know that their matching software may ever get accurate enough to tell the difference between clean and explicit versions from examining the waveform.

 

[malnar]

Do you think wave analysis has to "listen" to each song, in real time, to completion, in order to function? Well that is not the case: It's just a few seconds in most cases. So assuming a 20,000 song library, with zero purchased through iTunes store and none ineligible, that would only take approx. 14-16 hours to match.

I also gave an easy to test scenario that proves it is using wave analysis. Never mind the fact that by your logic I could copy one song 20,000 times, change the metadata of all the copies to different songs, and have an instant library thanks to iTunes Match.

If it's using audio fingerprinting, then tell me why it matched two live albums that are slightly different, from the same recording, but off by about 5 seconds? This is a different situation than the one I posed before, by the way. In this case, I have a version of this album that was burned immediately following the show and bought by fans, and then later sold by the band through their record label. The version sold by the by the band has the songs cut in different places, and so audio finger printing in every single place should prove useless to iTunes because nothing would match, not even remotely. And yet it matched some songs to the version being sold on iTunes, which means that I have a ridiculous mess of a live album to listen to, where some songs suddenly backtrack 5 seconds or so seemingly at random. There's no way the audio finger print could be intelligent enough to seek out a specific part of the song no matter where it is. It's just going to sample "segment xx-yy" and compare it to its database.

Regardless of how it's handled, the issue is IT DOESN'T WORK, at least not well enough to not give us a back up to fix the problems that arise. What's most infuriating about this is that Apple has to have known that this was going to happen when Match went live and felt no need to do anything about it, nor warn people that it might happen. How many people might have wiped out their collections trusting that Apple did right by them with this? They're going to have to fix this soon or I'm going to have to duck out and demand my money back (despite it being far past the 14 days, I'm going to do my damnedest to get it back if it can't work for me.)

 

[Tinmania]

Sorry, I was talking about word of mouth more than press although there have been a number of articles talking about the limitations and spelling out convoluted workarounds. And in general I think Match is mostly getting ignored, there's not more talk about the problems because there's not much talk about it, period.

Then comparatively speaking there was none for mobile me. No one cared about that

Mobile Me sucked for just about everyone. iTunes Match is not nearly as problematic--nor as crucial to everyday life. A missing song is not going to ruin your day. But missing an important email or meeting can.

They don't need to necessarily use metadata, but they need to do something to fix wrong matches. Personally I'd love to see both - improve the matches (whether that's by using metadata or some other method) AND allow users to override wrong matches with a manual upload (which hopefully would send a message back to Apple so they could use it to try and improve their matching software). Honestly, I don't know that their matching software may ever get accurate enough to tell the difference between clean and explicit versions from examining the waveform.

I would like that too--and I am sure they are working on enhancements. I certainly am not against using metadata btw--it would make things much easier. I only point out how it is now, and a possible reason why that is.



Michael

----------

If it's using audio fingerprinting, then tell me why it matched two live albums that are slightly different, from the same recording, but off by about 5 seconds?

In less time than it took to write your reply you could have tested it yourself. I also explained exactly why what you described could happen. Regardless, I am done debating this with you. If you want to continue to believe it is using metadata go right ahead.



Michael

 

[milo]

Then comparatively speaking there was none for mobile me. No one cared about that

Mobile Me sucked for just about everyone. iTunes Match is not nearly as problematic--nor as crucial to everyday life. A missing song is not going to ruin your day. But missing an important email or meeting can.

I'm not talking about it ruining anyone's day, I'm talking about if the service doesn't work well, it won't be a success. And they're certainly not off to a good start - at this point I think anyone thinking about getting match should consider the possibility that after all that uploading and getting things working, it might not even be around in a year or two (aside from all the problems it has).

If it's using audio fingerprinting, then tell me why it matched two live albums that are slightly different, from the same recording, but off by about 5 seconds?

Maybe their database includes both versions.

 

[Tinmania]

I'm not talking about it ruining anyone's day, I'm talking about if the service doesn't work well, it won't be a success. And they're certainly not off to a good start - at this point I think anyone thinking about getting match should consider the possibility that after all that uploading and getting things working, it might not even be around in a year or two (aside from all the problems it has).

I would venture that it will be around in a year or two--probably much longer. There is a lot invested in it.

As I stated the reviews are almost all positive, and I agree with them. Sure a few hiccups are to be expected with a new service. But, again, we are not talking about a life-and-death service here. I'd be much more concerned if the personal information syncing part of iCloud was error prone.

If a few songs out of over twenty thousand are incorrect versions, I just don't think it is going to be a huge issue. In my everyday usage for the last four months, three of which while it was in beta, it has performed well. Out of the four people I know who now subscribe due to my input, they all are happy too.

I also have used Google's music service since it went to beta and while it is free I felt it was more like an add-in than the seamless experience I get with iTunes Match. Amazon's feels even worse.

I think iTunes Match has done more right than it has done wrong. I like that it downloads songs to my iPhone as I play them, so I don't need to use data whenever I want to listen to my most listened to music. I like that on my mb air it can stream them instead. I like that I didn't have to upload my entire music collection. I like that my iTunes libraries are now in sync amongst multiple macs and iOS devices. I like that my lower bitrate and DRM'd songs have been upgraded to better quality and DRM-free (that alone was worth the $25).



Michael

 

[milo]

That's just one problem, there are many - some problems are here and there but other functionality is flat out broken for all users. It wouldn't surprise me if there are people out there who are lucky enough to not be using the things that are broken, but for the people that were using those features (particularly on iOS devices) the loss of functionality can be reason to not use the service.

Before the service launched many people talked about getting it for a year just to upgrade files. Now that it has launched with this many problems I suspect there are quite a few people who were planning on subscribing going forward but will just use it for the 256 upgrade but not use it with iOS devices (unless there are big fixes soon).