No, I understand (seriously?) how it is supposed to work. However, I do NOT plan on using this since I have no need to do so. Why would I want to have even more space taken up on my hard drive? My explanation was to someone who thought he could replace lower bit rate music with higher by changing his preferences in iTunes.
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 Releases iTunes 10.5.1 Beta 3 for More iTunes Match Testing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, I understand (seriously?) how it is supposed to work. However, I do NOT plan on using this since I have no need to do so. Why would I want to have even more space taken up on my hard drive? My explanation was to someone who thought he could replace lower bit rate music with higher by changing his preferences in iTunes.
I think you are trying to find ways to make this seem worse than it is when the fact remains it is better than what we have now.
For one thing, you can carry the exact same subset of your iTunes library around on your iOS device as you do now: it will always be there. That can easily be done while on Wifi. If you carry a subset of your iTunes music now you are doing so via syncing selected playlists. It is very simple with Match to download all the tracks in those same playlists to the iOS device.
So so how is having both the ability to carry the exact same music around that you do now, plus the ability to access your entire iTunes library on-demand if you want to, a bad thing?
For years on my iPhone I was carrying around more music than I usually listened to, just to "be safe." Over a gigabyte of music that I never, or rarely, listened to (yet often did not have a song I got the urge to listen). On my iPad and macbook air I barely had anything stored locally. With Match I now have complete access to my entire iTunes library on any device--even my ATV. Plus my iTunes library appears the same across all devices: changes made on one are instantly reflected everywhere else.
If you don't need any of that, or have music in higher quality format than 256kbps, you don't have to use it and everything can remain as it is. But for $25 a year for me it seems worth ti.
Heck I feel I have already gotten my money's worth just from the older DRM'd iTunes music that has been upgraded to DRM-less plus format.
Michael
----------
I don't think the up-converting originally came up just for the sake of seeing at a higher nitrate. I believe it was about Match ignoring low bitrate tracks.
The fact is iTunes match will not even attempt to match anything with a bitrate of less than 96kbps.
I had a few thousand 64kbps tracks that I was just about to trash as the quality "was" so poor. These were legally recorded via internet streaming from a service that was out a decade ago or so--but only at 64kbps. iTunes match would not touch these tracks because of their bitrate.
But I up-converted them all and Match did in fact match more than 90% of them. I deleted the crappy originals and have downloaded the 256kbps versions, which of course sound MUCH better.
So there is a valid reason to up-convert that has nothing to do with thinking you are getting a higher quality song.
Michael
Yes I really do not like this behavior as the only option is to download the track. I don't want to do that on my air though I suppose it is just as easy to delete too.
Still, I would prefer it more intelligently buffer. Or at least have some kind of "increase buffer if needed to not skip tracks" preference toggle. But to blindly skip track after track seems like a poor design in my opinion. I would rather wait a little longer for the buffer to fill up adequately.
Michael
Then don't download the songs. Double-click on them and stream them. If you have a slow connection this may result in stuttering but for most home connections this will work fine.
Last edited:
Sure, I agree Apple won't voluntarily hand over the information.
But I think there's a hole in your logic. What if RIAA sues Apple for the information?
Apple won't have much choice in the matter. It's not about Apple will want to do it. The question is what happens if it is ordered by the court to reveal the information?
There is no hole in his logic if you bother to read the whole posting (and the various other ones answering this exact point).
So I suppose you feel confident enough about this, despite not having read the actual terms of Apple's agreement with the record companies, to handle the legal fees of everyone here who reads and acts on your advice? (when the RIAA comes calling).
----------
Show me the language in the actual agreement.
Without that, we're left to hope and pray that Apple's legal team never makes mistakes. (I think anyone who noticed Apple's failure to respond before the deadline to the iPhone/Android lawsuit in Germany knows that isn't the case).
On top of that, did you ever stop to consider that the reason Apple was able to come to an agreement with the labels for its cloud service (When Google and others could not), is that it agreed to collect this data? (Speculation on my part, granted. But you have to wonder why Apple has a deal and Google doesn't).
Again, anyone who makes a decision to use this service based on an assumption of what may or may not be in the contract is being reckless. I don't have any pirated music. But those of you who do, just remember, you're making a bet against your house and all your other financial assets that Apple's lawyers addressed this issue to your benefit.
It might be a small risk. But when you look at the potential outcome, you might be better off waiting for more information about this issue.
What would ease my mind is for Apple to come out and assure the public that it is not keeping any information gathered from the scan of your library (other than meta data you've entered yourself.). If digital watermarks and other information found in your library are stored by Apple, then to what end do they plan to keep it.
The best way to stop a Court Order to release the information is to never store it at all. But if it is storing Digital watermark and similiar information, you'd be wise to ask why.
Last edited:
Love this, and is why I will use Match. I went from 11 GB of music on my iPhone to 4 playlists containing about 2gb of music. I love the extra space!
My point is that it wasn't a hole in his logic. You may not agree with the point, but he didn't miss it.
As for the agreement. I don't ever expect to see the actual agreement, and I certainly have a lot more faith in Apples legal team than I do in any unknown poster sitting at home typing away on MacRumors.
I'm like you, my collection is legal anyway, so it's a moot point for me. I suspect that makes us a rarity amongst the people who will be using iTunes Match, especially given that the chief attraction for many people is the "cleaning" of their dodgy tracks. There is no way that Apple won't have gone into this in very fine detail.
Exactly. What was the first thing on all our minds when Match was announced? I can drag up the thread, but lets be honest. We saw it as a music laundering service for pirates. Period. Yes, there are other benefits to others, but lets call a spade a spade. Pirates were a big part of this service. To say Apple didn't think of it and is opening up millions of users to lawsuits is silly.
Now I'm confused... up until this thread I was under the impression that if iTunes could "match" my song, it did NOT count against my 25k limit...
but now it seems like people are saying only songs I actually purchased thru itunes are exempt from the 25k limit??
so even if iTunes CAN match it, it will count against my limit if I did not purchase it thru itunes? This is a problem because my music library just tipped over 28k songs... most of which i obviously did not buy thru itunes...
crap
but now it seems like people are saying only songs I actually purchased thru itunes are exempt from the 25k limit??
so even if iTunes CAN match it, it will count against my limit if I did not purchase it thru itunes? This is a problem because my music library just tipped over 28k songs... most of which i obviously did not buy thru itunes...
crap
Yes, that is correct.
And, even worse, at the moment you don't even have the option of excluding some tracks. It just won't let you use the service. Your only option would be to remove the excess tracks from iTunes altogether.
I very much hope that in the near future they introduce a way of excluding tracks, or tiered subs for bigger libraries.
Well, the 25k limit has been common knowledge since the announcement and it has been mentioned over and over again in these discussion threads. At this point assuming Apple doesn't make changes any time soon, your option is to make your library smaller. Mine was over and I'm not happy about it but I think I was able to get it under the limit pretty easily.
iTunes match is not for everybody.
Personally using this service brings me teh following.
Personally using this service brings me teh following.
- Synergy between all my devices and itunes music structure.
- Ability to stop having a computer on all the time to stream my music to my apple tv or my devices.
- Carry my entire music collection without actually taking any type of storage locally. (it takes storage after I start downloading the music I plan on listening to)
- Wirelessly sync my itunes from ANYWHERE!!! 3G OR WIFI.
- Because IOS recognises itunes match as being local any app that uses itunes music is able to pull
my entire music as if it were locally stored. I have been using nike+ with ITM.On my ipad I have ejay and I can play any song through the app.
i knew the 25k limit has been mentioned since the beginning, i just failed to connect that they meant "itunes purchased" tracks. that was my mistake i guess.
i also assumed if i went over i could just pick which albums to "exclude" so i could stay under the 25k. I'm not going to remove over 3,000 songs from my itunes just so i can use "match". itunes is what i use exclusively to listen to all my music on a daily basis.
disappointing i'm ineligible to use the service at all just because i've been collecting music my whole life and have a huge collection.
i also assumed if i went over i could just pick which albums to "exclude" so i could stay under the 25k. I'm not going to remove over 3,000 songs from my itunes just so i can use "match". itunes is what i use exclusively to listen to all my music on a daily basis.
disappointing i'm ineligible to use the service at all just because i've been collecting music my whole life and have a huge collection.
Yes all the music you stole and will steal in the future will legally converted.
No need to sugar coat. Just say it.
You have to download the to play them.
Double clicking downloads them and the start playing immediately, just like steaming but they are downloaded.
No you do not. That is only on iOS devices. When using iTunes on a computer you have to explicitly choose if you want to download. Just playing a song streams it but does NOT download it.
Since the person specifically mentioned "hard drive" it is safe to assume they meant computer not iOS device.
Wrong. See above.
Michael
Hah.
Streaming is not downloading, walking is not moving and talking is not making noise.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
On iOS devices the files are always downloaded.
On computers the user can choose to download the file or stream the file without leaving a downloaded copy on the machine.
Obviously any streaming downloads the data (and doesn't keep a copy local), but we have to use some terms to differentiate the two.
Well, that wasn't really a new version of the Apple TV software (it was just an automatic, rolling update to its web services). In any case, the "update" your refer to happened BEFORE the release of the Beta 3 iTunes so that doesn't explain why Apple recommended that iTunes Match be turned OFF on the Apple TV.
Thus, I'm thinking that it was either a typo/mistake on Apple's part OR there will be a new version of the Apple TV software released soon that will have fixes for iTunes Match (that could mean that the current version MAY have problems on the Apple TV).