Apple Wiping iTunes Match Libraries Again on Thursday, October 27th

[swingerofbirch]

Sometimes Apple eschews older technological standards to make new products better. With online services, Apple abandons old services and has yet to make a really solid offering besides the iTunes Store. At a more microscopic level, Apple is doing the same thing within the iCloud beta by resetting data constantly. They are not good at legacy. I still have accounts I opened in the late 90s with Tripod and Freeservers that are still dutifully hosting sites I made back then. I understand Apple's insistence on clearing the old to make room for the new, but how often has the new been better when it comes to online services? MobileMe was a clusterfudge when it came out. iCloud is causing me even more headaches in that I can't use it with Snow Leopard which means I can't sync with an iOS 5 device (feel free to tell me otherwise but I have tried confirming with both an Apple Genius and AppleCare advisor whether or not iOS 5 works with MobileMe; one said absolutely not, one said it might work but probably wouldn't for long). For fun I thought of all the Apple online services I could think of and looked up how long each has lasted. If you know of more Apple online services let me know. I have used all of these except for AppleLink Personal Edition.

How long do you think iCloud will last?



AppleLink Personal Edition: May 1988 - October 1989 (the product became AOL)
eWorld: June 1994- March 1996
iTools: January 2000- July 2002
.Mac: July 2002- July 2008
iTunes Store: 2003-Present
MobileMe: July 2008- February 2011 (no new subscriptions)
iWork.com beta: June 2009-Present (still in beta, not updated)
iCloud: October 2011- Present

For comparison:
Tripod (free web-site hosting): 1995-Present
Hotmail: July 1996-Present
Yahoo! Mail: October 1997 - Present
Gmail: April 2004-Present

 

[seamer]

Actually, detecting duplicate playlists would be rather simple.

Have you ever written code using an "IF" statement?




And you don't know about the software that I wrote that you use every day, nor about the patents that I have been granted, or how to design maintainable software. (Hint: if you intend to support upgrading the released software - consider supporting upgrades of the alpha software. By the time it reaches beta, you'll have it working.)

You may write software, but I do QA for a living. If you guys wrote flawlessly from the start, I wouldn't have a job. So thanks.

I'm not surprised Match is being wiped several times. We often have our backends reset when we migrate from Alpha->Beta->Live, and we're not even a large outfit.

 

[AtomicEdge]

I just hope that the Apple Lawyers are getting closer to sorting out deals in the UK. I am exactly the kind of person this service is aimed at.

For a couple of years I had a home server with a static IP address with a file share on containing all my music so I could have access to my library from home. This solution is a hell of a lot more sleek, and for, I assume £20 a year, it's a steal!

 

[Sinequanon83]

I hope for all Itunes Match users' sake that Apple is fixing this screwed-up system so that non-destructive upgrades are supported.

It's "amateur hour" to have to wipe the database for an upgrade.

This isn't even tolerable for the beta - non-destructive upgrades should have been designed in from day one.

I'm assuming destructive updates are useful for their matching algorithm. If I have a service that relies heavily on how my service evaluates them when they sign up, and I start the beta on Monday and change it on Friday, it might be useful to reset the entire service so that I can get the M-F people to resubmit, helping give me a larger data pool, than rely on the people I get after Friday.

It's sort of the same reason you give the exact same beta testers a new version of a product rather than consider those beta testers exhausted and move on to new people. You make a valid point, but for a consumer-level product. There's nothing precluding non-destructive updates after the beta period. Destructive updates during beta testing are the norm, and were very clearly announced.

 

[riverfreak]

Ha, you make me laugh! The "if" statement? Really?

It is not that simple, not only would you have to create playlist objects but check the data in that playlist object to make sure it is the same, and within that data (songs) there is more that you have to compare to make sure it is the same object. And when you are comparing lets say 30 songs per playlist, with 20 playlists, and 1,000 duplicates you are creating > 600,000 "if" statements for a single user. (You obviously wouldn't use an if statement) And that is just going by lets say a track name. If you have to compare 2 tracks in order to see if it is the same song you would have to compare at least 5 more things. (Title, artist, time, composer, release date, other) and that would make > 3,000,000 comparisons.
This is just some stupid example I made up.

Good try.

Each playlist would be composed of a list of unique IDs for each song. You could simply compare an MD5 sum of a serialized playlist to distinguish them.

 

[RTW]

Hi, please bear with me as I am not a developer and not familiar with the way iTunes Match works, but the more I think about this, the more I don't understand it.

People keep making the assumption that iTunes Match *upgrades* your library; some have even gone as far as saying they should never have paid for iTunes Plus upgrades, etc. now that it is going to be free.

But here's what I don't understand: isn't the whole point of iTunes Match to copy your library *file* to the Cloud so that you can access it on your other devices, and where possible, link to the files already stored on Apple's servers?

In other words, aren't the matched files basically placeholders for the original files that you've got stored on another machine somewhere? They don't *replace* your original files...? They don't sync back to your original library...? Why would they need to, when the original files are there?

In essence, it sounds to me like, yes, we have access to upgrades of some of our files but that the use of those upgraded files is basically restricted for download/play on devices where our main library is not stored. How am I wrong?

Finally, shouldn't iTunes 10.5.1 and iOS 5 have incorporated a DELETE feature so that we can remove songs to make room for other songs pulled from the Cloud? I have a bad feeling about this.

Also, I just want to say that 25,000 songs is NOT the "entire library" for all of us, not even close. I am a music fan who has been buying music religiously my whole life. I got an iPod in 2002, started buying tracks from iTunes in 2003, digitized my entire 5000 CD collection over the course of the decade, own 10,000 tracks from the iTunes store, upgraded all of my purchased tracks to iTunes Plus as soon as humanly possible. I now have a library of 50,000 tracks. What I am being told is that I am instantly disqualified from the iTunes Match service because I've been *too* supportive of iTunes and too into music. There's no way I can prune my library down by half to make myself eligible. This is making me feel kind of bitter and left out in the cold. Even if 80% of my collection were available on iTunes already, leaving 10,000 tracks to upload, that's well under 25K and yet this doesn't matter, because it's as simple as iTunes Match taking a look at my total library size and just saying, "Sorry, not supported." Does anyone have any words of encouragement about this?

Thanks. -- RTW

 

[kavika411]

The announcement of iTunes Match was very welcomed by me. It solves so many issues I have - from space issues, to backup, to transfer, etc. I have been very, very excited about. And I am astounded by (what I consider to be) the very low, more-than-reasonable annual cost.

That said, I'm increasingly concerned that this is a tiger that Apple is grabbing by the tail. I'd just assume they fail to release it in October (even though they said they would) so that it has as strong/stable a rollout as possible when it eventually releases.

 

[richard4339]

In other words, aren't the matched files basically placeholders for the original files that you've got stored on another machine somewhere? They don't *replace* your original files...? They don't sync back to your original library...? Why would they need to, when the original files are there?

You can re-download a cloud copy onto a machine that already has a copy, hence the upgrade.

 

[simplynutty]

Yes.

But say you lose all your music and didn't have it backed up. If you continued paying for iTunes Match every year you could go to iTunes and redownload all of your lost music. You wouldn't be able to do that if you stopped paying for it annually.

Really? My gut tells me that's not true but I have nothing to back it up. Despite using my developer account to test the beta I haven't explored the fine details of iTunes Match. It seems like once your account expires the higher quality files cached on your devices will no longer be valid. The goal of iTunes Match is to focus on playing music not worrying about where it's stored and if it's streamed or cached. However, I don't doubt that someone could find the files and crack whatever protection might be used.

What do you think?

 

[exhibit.b]

Really? My gut tells me that's not true but I have nothing to back it up. Despite using my developer account to test the beta I haven't explored the fine details of iTunes Match. It seems like once your account expires the higher quality files cached on your devices will no longer be valid. The goal of iTunes Match is to focus on playing music not worrying about where it's stored and if it's streamed or cached. However, I don't doubt that someone could find the files and crack whatever protection might be used.

What do you think?

There is no drm on the files downloaded using iTunes match.

 

[CubusX]

Not sure this was covered...

Let's say a user has a number of CDs ripped to their Mac/PC that are at 128. The CDs are not available in iTunes, like AC/DC for example (unless this has changed recently). When they are loaded to iCloud they will be at 256?

So many users have asked about converting files from 128 to 256 (that are ripped from a CD at 128). Changing an original 128 file to 256 (off the original 128 rip) through iTunes achieves nothing, the sound does not improve if you're converting the compressed 128 file to a larger file. The quality I would think goes down slightly if you using a compressed 128 file and making it a 256 file. Right?

 

[Tinmania]

i'm not sure about that.

One of the betas was streaming, though this is not how the product is described, and there is no clear evidence that the final product will stream.

You might not be sure but I am.

In the current shipping version of iOS the Music streams as soon as you start playing a track that is not local on the device. But once done that track remains on the device.

More importantly, right at the end of any playlist you view there is a "Download All" option.

So doubt if you will but I am using it right now with a factory iPhone 4S.



Michael

 

[KeithJenner]

Let's say a user has a number of CDs ripped to their Mac/PC that are at 128. The CDs are not available in iTunes, like AC/DC for example (unless this has changed recently). When they are loaded to iCloud they will be at 256?

So many users have asked about converting files from 128 to 256 (that are ripped from a CD at 128). Changing an original 128 file to 256 (off the original 128 rip) through iTunes achieves nothing, the sound does not improve if you're converting the compressed 128 file to a larger file. The quality I would think goes down slightly if you using a compressed 128 file and making it a 256 file. Right?

Uploaded files stay at the bitrate of the file you have on your computer. It basically just makes a copy of your file.

----------

Also, I just want to say that 25,000 songs is NOT the "entire library" for all of us, not even close. I am a music fan who has been buying music religiously my whole life. I got an iPod in 2002, started buying tracks from iTunes in 2003, digitized my entire 5000 CD collection over the course of the decade, own 10,000 tracks from the iTunes store, upgraded all of my purchased tracks to iTunes Plus as soon as humanly possible. I now have a library of 50,000 tracks. What I am being told is that I am instantly disqualified from the iTunes Match service because I've been *too* supportive of iTunes and too into music. There's no way I can prune my library down by half to make myself eligible. This is making me feel kind of bitter and left out in the cold. Even if 80% of my collection were available on iTunes already, leaving 10,000 tracks to upload, that's well under 25K and yet this doesn't matter, because it's as simple as iTunes Match taking a look at my total library size and just saying, "Sorry, not supported." Does anyone have any words of encouragement about this?

Thanks. -- RTW

Some encouragement I think.

Firstly, I haven't heard anything to say that you can't make use of the service if your library is more than 25,000 tracks, just that only 25,000 tracks are matched. I have no idea how it selects which 25,000 tracks and that's one of the things I'm looking forward to getting clarity on. I may be wrong on that though.

More decisively better for you is that tracks purchased from iTunes are apparently not included in the 25,000 tracks, so you would be able to have considerably more than the limit.

Personally, I am going through my library now (I'm in the UK so I probably have a few months to get this sorted). I'm identifying the main 25,000 tracks that I would want included. Hopefully I will be able to just flag those I want matched, but if it doesn't work out like that I will transfer the excess to a different computer so they can still be accessed via home sharing.

Basically, the 25,000 limit is an inconvenience but there will be some ways round it. I'm far more concerned with metadata issues and it potentially matching the wrong version of songs.

 

[milo]

So what does happen with libraries bigger than 25k? Does it match the first 25k songs? Or does it just refuse to match anything? Best case would be giving the user the option to exclude material but it sounds like they never added that feature.

When you download songs using itunes match, your metadata will stay the same as what you have in your library. at least thats how it has been throughout the beta.

But lyrics aren't included with that metadata, right?

And now someone else says that Matched songs don't have the same metadata, which runs contrary to what testers have been saying so far. Could someone clarify, is metadata preserved even with downloads of matched material to the computer and mobile devices?

This isn't even tolerable for the beta - non-destructive upgrades should have been designed in from day one.

Way to totally miss the point. If they improve the matching algorithms, how are they supposed to test those updates without having testers match their libraries again?

In other words, aren't the matched files basically placeholders for the original files that you've got stored on another machine somewhere? They don't *replace* your original files...? They don't sync back to your original library...? Why would they need to, when the original files are there?

That's pretty much it. The upgrading part is that if you delete those original files on your computer (especially in the case of lower bitrate files), then you have the option to download the 256 files. It doesn't upgrade automatically but the option is there for users.

Finally, shouldn't iTunes 10.5.1 and iOS 5 have incorporated a DELETE feature so that we can remove songs to make room for other songs pulled from the Cloud?

They both have that feature (iTunes has for years, new in iOS 5).

 

[simplynutty]

There is no drm on the files downloaded using iTunes match.

Interesting. So paying for music match could be a wacky way to upgrade all of your tracks? I have no intention of doing that but I'm sure that would interest some people.

On another note, does anyone have info on smart playlists? I tried music match on my dev iPad during the beta period but have not enabled it on my phone because smart playlists didn't work as I expected. Specifically, they don't respect the "limit to # of songs" setting. I read somewhere that match playlists are relative to the device and aren't really the same as local iTunes playlists.

 

[milo]

Has anyone confirmed whether it matches based on the actual audio files or just metadata (and maybe length)? Does it match songs named improperly to the metadata or the actual song?

Let's say a user has a number of CDs ripped to their Mac/PC that are at 128. The CDs are not available in iTunes, like AC/DC for example (unless this has changed recently). When they are loaded to iCloud they will be at 256?

Any files not matched are uploaded (and then back down) at whatever bitrate they are originally. Match doesn't do any converting, it either matches and provides a 256 version or uploads whatever format the user has.

So many users have asked about converting files from 128 to 256 (that are ripped from a CD at 128).

No converting. It's merely replacing 128 with an entirely different file that was 256 in the first place.

 

[Tinmania]

There is no drm on the files downloaded using iTunes match.

Not DRM per se but your Apple ID is embedded in the file.



Michael

----------

Has anyone confirmed whether it matches based on the actual audio files or just metadata (and maybe length)? Does it match songs named improperly to the metadata or the actual song?

Well supposedly, beyond the low hanging fruit of metadata, it uses the same wave pattern tech that is in the iTunes Tuneup add-on.

However, I have run the trial version of Tuneup against tracks that were not recognized by iTunes match yet Tuneup did recognize them.

So while I do think it is using, indeed has to use to be successful and cut down on upload time, wave pattern recognition I think it needs some tweaking.



Michael

 

[Tinmania]

Does the iTunes Match sub fee come straight out of your payment method

It's been a while since I signed up but I believe so. I know I was not asked for any separate payment info.



Michael

 

[diamond.g]

Does the iTunes Match sub fee come straight out of your payment method

Yes

 

[LoganT]

Not DRM per se but your Apple ID is embedded in the file.

Right. Just like the iTunes Plus songs containing your Apple ID. I can send you a song I downloaded on iTunes, it will contain my Apple ID in the metadata, but you'll still be able to play it without any hassle.

 

[KeithJenner]

Actually, doing a little more research, it seems that it doesn't allow libraries larger than 25,000 songs to participate. There doesn't seem to currently be any way of selecting tracks to match.

How it calculates the number of songs is still unclear. For example, I have a couple of thousand music videos from live DVDs in my library. I have assumed that it would automatically exclude them but it isn't clear.

I would hope that a way of selecting tracks to match, or to be able to pay extra for higher levels will be introduced. People with very large libraries are probably more likely to want to use the service.

 

[Tonewheel]

Yep. Someone wrote an article on some news site calling it "amnesty for pirates".

And you know what? It's about time. Steve certainly didn't care about music piracy. It's nice to see the power of the Internet has exerted enough influence to make the music industry tighten their belts and learn to live with only a few billion each year in profit.

You (unknowingly) are refer to the music industry suits. The artists are another issue that clearly you could care less about.

 

[milo]

Actually, doing a little more research, it seems that it doesn't allow libraries larger than 25,000 songs to participate.

What happens in that case? An error message saying it won't work at all with that many songs?

 

[Starhawk]

Have the libraries on iCloud been erased yet? I'm trying to get an idea of when iTunes Match will be released

 

[iKIKO]

if i dont have a credit card can i pay the fee with an itunes card?