Little and Big Music Disagree On 'iTunes Match'

[Michael Scrip]

$150 million is what the records companies get for 20 days of iTunes Store sales. It's peanuts.

So... if the record companies get $225,000,000 a month from iTunes... wouldn't it be a good idea to go along with whatever Apple wants?

Apple believes iTunes Match will be a great easy-to-use service for their customers... and will result in more purchases in the long run.

Isn't iTunes the largest music retailer in the world? If I were a record label... I'd listen to Apple. People aren't gonna go back to CDs anytime soon...

 

[chris975d]

Or, I would contend, CAREFULLY word it and set up the system so that the experience will be virtually indistinguishable from the traditional iTunes experience of "downloading" and "owning" the song, but in fact it is "listening" to the iTunes Store version of the file which "plays back" at 256kbps quality as if it were your own. Apple is tiptoeing around something here...remains to be seen what...

Overall, this sounds much more like something the record companies would actually agree to.

But again, you seem to underestimate how much importance Apple places on the end to end user experience. Apple isn't going to want their customers (or let their customers, for that matter) worrying or having to think about when/where they can listen to "their" full music catalog (iPod touch users here primarily). Plus, as many of the articles I linked to earlier have stated, Apple has the carriers to contend with on a streaming service. Hell, it's the carriers' fault (probably primarily AT&T's) that FaceTime can't be used over wifi, all due to bandwidth concerns. Imagine the scenario if...let's say only 50% of iPhone users are now suddenly streaming most/all of their music over a cellular connection. It would cripple the carriers' networks. Do you realize how many people use their iPhone as their primary music device? Streaming just doesn't seem feasible. And again, why is Apple just now adding the ability to delete music on iDevices themselves if they are going all "to the cloud"? If every song is going to be kept in the cloud, why would managing local music files even be an issue? In an all cloud based scenario, local storage isn't an issue at all (other than a little room for "buffering"), as it's not stored on device anyway. So why the sudden need to be able to delete songs from the device itself?

 

[Michael Scrip]

Or, I would contend, CAREFULLY word it and set up the system so that the experience will be virtually indistinguishable from the traditional iTunes experience of "downloading" and "owning" the song, but in fact it is "listening" to the iTunes Store version of the file which "plays back" at 256kbps quality as if it were your own. Apple is tiptoeing around something here...remains to be seen what...

Overall, this sounds much more like something the record companies would actually agree to.

You know... Apple does have a patent on partial downloading... which could describe what you're saying. But I'm still not convinced of that yet.

As of right now... there are 3 types of music that will be in iCloud:

1. Purchased music
2. Matched music
3. Uploaded music

The whole service falls apart if I can only download 1 and 3... leaving my Matched songs for "streaming" or whatever. That doesn't seems like the kind of experience Apple would give to its customers.

That's not very "Apple-like"

No... I think iCloud will be download-only for the foreseeable future. It's so much easier to be able to download everything... than download half and "stream" half.

 

[AaronEdwards]

Speculating is always fun, but has there actually been anything official confirming these things:

1. Apple will not scan your music for pirated songs
2. Apple will not report pirated songs to RIAA
3. Apple will allow pirated songs to be matched and replaced with iTunes Store songs

I can't remember seeing anything offical, just a lot of speculating about what iTunes Match would mean for pirated songs and people arguing that Apple would never look for pirated songs.

 

[blybug]

You know... Apple does have a patent on partial downloading... which could describe what you're saying. But I'm still not convinced of that yet.

As of right now... there are 3 types of music that will be in iCloud:

1. Purchased music
2. Matched music
3. Uploaded music

The whole service falls apart if I can only download 1 and 3... leaving my Matched songs for "streaming" or whatever. That doesn't seems like the kind of experience Apple would give to its customers.

That's not very "Apple-like"

No... I think iCloud will be download-only for the foreseeable future. It's so much easier to be able to download everything... than download half and "stream" half.

But this is precisely where Apple shines...making the whole thing seamless in a way that you can't imagine until you see it. Look how the AirPlay icon shows up whether it senses a nearby Bluetooth speaker, AppleTV or even if it's plugged into a docking station. I don't need to understand the "protocol," I just need to know if I click that icon I can redirect my iPhone's output to these other devices through AirPlay.

Face it, unless you have always-on internet, there's got to be a way to indicate that some songs are simply not available right now from the cloud whether it's download or stream. When you're in network, the cloud icon for that song has a little blue "down arrow" for purchased content and/or a little blue triangle for "playing" matched content. When you're off network, the cloud has a red dot or "X" inside, indicating no network...no cloud.

Matched content may be partially downloaded, simultaneously streamed, cached onboard until it's pushed off by other content...I'm sure it will all be very magical and seamless to the end user. As long as there's a network, you can access your cloud songs one way or another. Certainly downloading purchased content is exactly as we are used to, and already behaves as expected in the iCloud beta. How "matched" content behaves remains to be seen. Like the AirPlay icon, it will appear "the same" to the user, but what is actually happening with that file, where it goes, where/if it can be copied...may not truly be exactly the same. Even within iTunes on your computer where you by definition do have all your music, when connected to the internet iTunes may preferentially play the iTunes store version rather than your 112kbps MP3, but that does not mean the actual file is "on" your computer. Remember Jobs said the computer is being demoted to just another device. Cloud is where the action is now.

This is the first step towards complete cloud solution. People need to get used to the idea that it doesn't matter if the file is on your device or not, as long as it "plays back" and you can "listen" to it. This is difficult after almost a decade of the iTunes ownership model and Jobs' public disdain for subscription music. Someday there will likely be a dirt cheap iPod Cloud Shuffle that is nothing more than a wifi/3G chip in a plastic sheath that accesses all your cloud music.

 

[steadysignal]

Arrogant pricks. Not all non-iTunes music is stolen. I've got over 500 CD's full of music that I have ripped myself. I own them. Screw you record labels.

it is how they make their money. through FUD and customer hate.

 

[benthewraith]

It really sounds too good to be true... that you can have Apple scan your "less-than-legal" music downloads and let you have fresh clean copies of those songs sent to your iDevices.

On the other hand... you're paying for that service... and I bet a big portion of that fee is given to the record labels.

The record labels currently get ZERO dollars if you just sync those illegal songs with a USB cable... so maybe this is their way of trying to get something...

Someone floated the possibility of the RIAA checking checksums. Initially I thought that might have been an effective way, but as most pirated music are cd rips, a large volume of the checksums would have legitimate counterparts in the wild.

This isn't an amnesty deal per se as users can still be sued for illegally downloading the music, but it is a means of backing up that music with iTunes and converting to legit files.

 

[AaronEdwards]

So... if the record companies get $225,000,000 a month from iTunes... wouldn't it be a good idea to go along with whatever Apple wants?

Apple believes iTunes Match will be a great easy-to-use service for their customers... and will result in more purchases in the long run.

Isn't iTunes the largest music retailer in the world? If I were a record label... I'd listen to Apple. People aren't gonna go back to CDs anytime soon...

The record companies can sell their music elsewhere. They probably wouldn't make as much money, but were would Apple get their $95,000,000 a month if the four giants decided to withdraw their music from the iTunes Store?

I believe we know far from everything about the deal made for iTunes Match.

 

[AaronEdwards]

Someone floated the possibility of the RIAA checking checksums. Initially I thought that might have been an effective way, but as most pirated music are cd rips, a large volume of the checksums would have legitimate counterparts in the wild.

This isn't an amnesty deal per se as users can still be sued for illegally downloading the music, but it is a means of backing up that music with iTunes and converting to legit files.

Due to the programs and settings used when ripping and converting the files to mp3, I doubt that there would be a lot identical checksums among legal copies. Add to that things like tags.
Checking for illegal copies is easy, you may not get every illegal file, but just the knowledge of it being done would make most people weary of trying to match pirated files.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Face it, unless you have always-on internet, there's got to be a way to indicate that some songs are simply not available right now from the cloud whether it's download or stream. When you're in network, the cloud icon for that song has a little blue "down arrow" for purchased content and/or a little blue triangle for "playing" matched content. When you're off network, the cloud has a red dot or "X" inside, indicating no network...no cloud.

That's exactly what Apple does NOT want to happen. It's messy if "some" of your songs can be downloaded for offline listening... and your "other" songs need a constant data connection for a yet to be announced streaming service.

With your method... only your purchased songs can be downloaded to be listened to on the subway... and the rest of your songs cannot.

That separation is the exact opposite of Apple's "easy to use" philosophy.

I get your point about AirPlay... if you're near an AirPlay compatible device... the icon shows up. That's actually pretty obvious...

But... it will be very confusing if half your songs can be downloaded... and the other half cannot.

People need to get used to the idea that it doesn't matter if the file is on your device or not, as long as it "plays back" and you can "listen" to it.

It DOES matter if you can't "play back" a certain song because you don't have a 3G or wireless connection. That's a pretty big hole in usability. (plus there's no hint of a streaming service anyway)

That's why I think ALL your music... purchased, matched and uploaded... will be able to be downloaded to all your devices.

And Apple has already said that... "Matched music will get the same benefits as music purchased from iTunes"

If purchased music can be downloaded... the rest will too. That's what the above sentence means.

At this point... Apple has said more about downloading all your music than it has even hinted at a streaming option...

Maybe they aren't using the word "download" because of its negative connotation or pressure from the record companies... but they sure as hell aren't talking about "streaming" half your songs either.

 

[CWallace]

How can iTunes Match be a streaming service when Apple states it will work with devices that cannot stream at all (iPod Classic, iPod Nano, iPod Shuffle) or can only stream in certain situations (connected to a WiFi or cellular network)?

It has to be a download service that updates your local iTunes library so you can then sync those "improved" songs to your devices.

 

[winston1236]

sm

they would rather get a little than nothing, i'm sure that the 25 dollar fee is split based on the portion that each label owns

 

[luci216]

It's also good to keep in mind that 500,000 bitTorrent users were just sued and LimeWire is down. Piracy is slowly being rolled back.. Besides, as others have mentioned, Apple should keep its honest users in mind, not those that have stolen music off the web.

 

[davidgrimm]

This is BS. This assumes that every song not acquired from iTunes was stolen. I got most of mine from CDs that I purchased and still own. So don't give me this "all the songs you've stolen" BS. I hate being assumed guilty of something just because many people did it.

 

[MacinDoc]

I would be willing to pay for this service, if for no other reason, because it will convert my old DRM'd iTunes library to a higher quality, DRM-free one. Thank goodness I didn't spend the money to convert it all to iTunes Plus!

 

[baryon]

Thanks for the replies everyone!

 

[jowie]

The quality of compression is by far the more important thing to consider when determining the quality of a digital audio file. And you can rip your CD's just as well, or better than Apple does.

Apple tend to screw up the naming / ID3 tags anyway. Most stuff I buy from iTunes I end up renaming.

 

[thedarkhorse]

This article is dumb, it assumes tons of music pirates will be subscribing to itunes match. I don't see the heavy pirate folks paying a yearly fee to do anything with their tunes. It will be used by those with large ripped CD collections, as they have a real investment and are obviously willing to pay for their music. Piraters like things free, so they will take the extra time time transfer themselves.

 

[blybug]

So maybe the Apple gods are trying to tell me something...

Yesterday I dropped my smart-covered iPad on concrete and shattered the screen . Took it to the Apple Store hoping to have the glass repaired/replaced.

Apple Genius: We don't really offer glass replacement, all we can do is replace the whole iPad.
Me: So, that's basically like, buying a new iPad.
Apple Genius: No, not necessarily. Let me see what we can do.
<<Disappears into back for almost 30 minutes>>
Apple Genius: Let me tell you what we can do. Normally it would be $300 to provide you with a replacement iPad. But I see your an extremely valued Apple customer, and you've never had any physical damage to any of your products before. So this one time, we're going to take care of that for you.
Me: <<incredulous>> Excuse me?
Apple Genius: We're going to replace your iPad. For free.
​

There you have it. Something for nothing. So perhaps Apple is gearing up to give virtually limitless numbers of AAC files for only $24.95. I'm still not completely convinced this is how it will really work, but clearly a trust and appreciation for the customer is built into the company's DNA.

 

[AaronEdwards]

So maybe the Apple gods are trying to tell me something...

Yesterday I dropped my smart-covered iPad on concrete and shattered the screen . Took it to the Apple Store hoping to have the glass repaired/replaced.

Apple Genius: We don't really offer glass replacement, all we can do is replace the whole iPad.
Me: So, that's basically like, buying a new iPad.
Apple Genius: No, not necessarily. Let me see what we can do.
<<Disappears into back for almost 30 minutes>>
Apple Genius: Let me tell you what we can do. Normally it would be $300 to provide you with a replacement iPad. But I see your an extremely valued Apple customer, and you've never had any physical damage to any of your products before. So this one time, we're going to take care of that for you.
Me: <<incredulous>> Excuse me?
Apple Genius: We're going to replace your iPad. For free.
​

There you have it. Something for nothing. So perhaps Apple is gearing up to give virtually limitless numbers of AAC files for only $24.95. I'm still not completely convinced this is how it will really work, but clearly a trust and appreciation for the customer is built into the company's DNA.

ImageImage

Your old iPad is most likely having it's screen replaced and then being resold as refurbished.

BTW, this isn't just built into Apple's DNA, but also in the pricing of its products. And if you pay a lot extra, you shouldn't just get a better experience, but also things like this.

 

[morespce54]

It's also good to keep in mind that 500,000 bitTorrent users were just sued and LimeWire is down. Piracy is slowly being rolled back.. Besides, as others have mentioned, Apple should keep its honest users in mind, not those that have stolen music off the web.

Great. Thanks for the clarification.
I was wandering what will happen with piracy...

 

[mrnagrom]

little hint guys.. THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BUY THE SONG IN THE FIRST PLACE.. you aren't losing money, you're gaining listener base and willing advertisers.


so let it go.

 

[bpaluzzi]

This is making sure more people have access to more music and is a great idea. Which means more people will hear the quality music. Live shows, the main financial source for artists, will not suffer, and will probably improve.

How about you let the artists make that decision, not you? Many artists are already hip to the value of "free". If they choose not to go in that direction, then no amount of your justification changes the fact that you're stealing from them.

i saw an interview of a singer (can't recall who so i won't say who it was) and that singer was asked about the cd "piracy"... the answer was something like this.

"i really don't mind if one person buys an album and copies it to his friends. it's more people to come to my live shows."

Many artists feel this way. Many don't. It's not up to you to decide.

Here in Belgium, and most likely in quite a bit of EU countries, there're these laws concerning something called "Home Copies".

Bottom line: Downloading is perfectly legal, it's the uploading and the making available of copyrighted material, without permission, that is illegal. So site's like Mediafire, Rapidshare or Megaupload can host illegal content, but downloading this content is perfectly legal ^^ . This also means that illegal downloaded songs don't exist here.

That's not how home copying works, at all.

 

[blybug]

THERE IS NO STREAMING. Only downloading.

Again, no streaming. You keep all the files that you have downloaded, and stop getting access to iCloud backup of your songs until you pay $25 again. The files don't have DRM. They are 100% identical to the tracks you get from iTunes.

You're wrong. It's a "download" service. No streaming. At all. None.

If you're right, I'll pay for your first year of iTunes Match. There is no streaming.

You can gift it to me through the iTMS

 

[TMar]

Can you point me to a place on apple.com or a point in the keynote that confirms this precise functionality? I've pointed out how carefully they've parsed their words on the iTunes Match description. It does not include what you are saying at all, but does not exclude what I am suggesting.



Excellent! I offer you the same!

Guess neither of you win that argument, by the way nerco and I told ya so?