or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple issues third beta of iTunes 10.5.1 for testing iTunes Match
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple issues third beta of iTunes 10.5.1 for testing iTunes Match

post #1 of 57
Thread Starter 
After erasing developers' iTunes Match accounts, Apple has supplied its developers with a new beta of iTunes 10.5.1 to test the new $24.99-per-year service.

The third beta of iTunes 10.5.1 is now available to members of Apple's developer program. The company said it includes "a number of important stability and performance improvements for iTunes Match."

All who are testing the iTunes Match service, which also remains in beta, must update to the latest iTunes 10.5.1 beta in order to continue using the subscription service. The last beta was supplied earlier this month, and brought iTunes Match testing to the Apple TV.

The first beta of iTunes 10.5.1 was supplied to developers in October, soon after the public release of iTunes 10.5. Apple originally promised that iTunes Match would become publicly available by the end of October, but that deadline came and went without comment from the company.

As Apple continues to attempt to work out kinks with iTunes Match, the company once again erased accounts Saturday morning. Developers were notified on Friday that their iTunes Match beta libraries would be erased as Apple continues to prepare for the forthcoming launch of the service.

When it is eventually publicly available, iTunes Match will support music collections of up to 25,000 songs for $24.99 per year. The service will scan users' personal music libraries, including songs obtained from ripped CDs or other locations, and match them up with tracks sold on the iTunes Store.

iTunes Match subscribers will be able to re-download any of their matched songs on other enabled devices, including iPhones and iPads. Those downloads will be 256Kbps AAC files, even if the original user-owned files are of lower quality.
post #2 of 57
I'm thinking will go live this week.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #3 of 57
I need iTunes Match more than anything and at $25 per year it is a steal. This is not US-only is it?

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #4 of 57
Because that still doesn't work with Leopard, a 4-year old, native OS.

But it works with XP... a ten-year old, non-native OS.

Very disrespectful of their Mac customers.

Especially since Snow Leopard broke so many drivers, and Lion loses the ability to run PPC executables... they basically ensured that it would be very unwise to upgrade to Snow Leopard or Lion for users with heavy investments in older software and drivers, then locked them out of compatibility with their IOS devices.

Someone at Apple needs a wake-up call.
post #5 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

I need iTunes Match more than anything and at $25 per year it is a steal. This is not US-only is it?

I seem to recall it is just US, to start with at any rate. All to do with licensing agreements i think. No doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #6 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by fyngyrz View Post

Because that still doesn't work with Leopard, a 4-year old, native OS.

But it works with XP... a ten-year old, non-native OS.

Very disrespectful of their Mac customers.

Especially since Snow Leopard broke so many drivers, and Lion loses the ability to run PPC executables... they basically ensured that it would be very unwise to upgrade to Snow Leopard or Lion for users with heavy investments in older software and drivers, then locked them out of compatibility with their IOS devices.

Someone at Apple needs a wake-up call.

If you buy a copy of Snowleopard Server it runs in VMWare in Lion very well. You can ignore all the dedicated server apps and won't know it from regular SL. An expensive work around to be sure but worth being aware of. I haven't tried Leopard Server yet, I suspect VMWare won't allow that to install.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #7 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by fyngyrz View Post

Because that still doesn't work with Leopard, a 4-year old, native OS.

But it works with XP... a ten-year old, non-native OS.

Very disrespectful of their Mac customers.

Especially since Snow Leopard broke so many drivers, and Lion loses the ability to run PPC executables... they basically ensured that it would be very unwise to upgrade to Snow Leopard or Lion for users with heavy investments in older software and drivers, then locked them out of compatibility with their IOS devices.

Someone at Apple needs a wake-up call.

I don't use Leopard anymore, but I agree with you.
post #8 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by fyngyrz View Post


Someone at Apple needs a wake-up call.

It will be slow in coming. It is rarely effective to point these sorts of things out when a company is making huge profits.
post #9 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by fyngyrz View Post

Because that still doesn't work with Leopard, a 4-year old, native OS.

But it works with XP... a ten-year old, non-native OS.

Very disrespectful of their Mac customers.

Especially since Snow Leopard broke so many drivers, and Lion loses the ability to run PPC executables... they basically ensured that it would be very unwise to upgrade to Snow Leopard or Lion for users with heavy investments in older software and drivers, then locked them out of compatibility with their IOS devices.

Someone at Apple needs a wake-up call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

It will be slow in coming. It is rarely effective to point these sorts of things out when a company is making huge profits.

On one thread people complain that Apple is "forcing" users to upgrade and then on this one we get complaints that is "forcing" users to stay on old setups. You can't please all of the people some of the time; forget about all of the time.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #10 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by fyngyrz View Post

Because that still doesn't work with Leopard, a 4-year old, native OS.

But it works with XP... a ten-year old, non-native OS.

Probably works in Windows 95 too. Windows is pretty much the same. They just give it a new name and make it look a little more like OS X with each new release.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #11 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

I need iTunes Match more than anything and at $25 per year it is a steal. This is not US-only is it?

Yes. US only.
The record/movie companies are crazy. They don't want to make money.

For example: Movies was introduced in iTunes a couple of weeks ago here in Sweden.

Same with Siri: it only works good in English and is useless outside US/France/Germany.
post #12 of 57
$25 each and every year. I might consider paying it once, but not every year. I've already paid good money for Audio-CDs which I've ripped to iTunes. I'm not going to continually pay again every single year. This $25 yearly fee is for those folks that stole their music. Honest purchasers of CD's are being punished. I think I'll just avoid iTunes Match.

Sorry for whining.
post #13 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

$25 each and every year. I might consider paying it once, but not every year. I've already paid good money for Audio-CDs which I've ripped to iTunes. I'm not going to continually pay again every single year. This $25 yearly fee is for those folks that stole their music. Honest purchasers of CD's are being punished. I think I'll just avoid iTunes Match.

Sorry for whining.

Oh, no; you're not. You're exactly making the point that Apple, for legal and PR reasons, doesn't explicitly make.

It truly is insane for people who've bought their own music, either through iTunes or ripped from CDs, to pay yearly to listen to it. This is also why I simply laughed at Microsoft's Zune plans. What were they, $15 a MONTH for an all-you-can-hear buffet of music you don't actually own, and if you stop paying monthly you lost access to it?

It's crazy. But iTunes Match is great… for pirates. As long as they're not audiophile-pirates (), they get higher-quality files and listening access anywhere and the studios get a cut. It's a win-winslightlyless.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #14 of 57
Probably would have considered the Match when it was promised in October and would have wanted to be the first one on my block. Now, think I will wait a while after it is eventually made available and see if this is another Mobile Me or something that is really worth paying an annual subscription for.

After all the fan fare in October and the contunuing concerns being leaked by Beta Beta Beta testers it is starting to raise lots of questions about the value of this product. Perhaps Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta will produce more favorable reviews.
post #15 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

$25 each and every year. I might consider paying it once, but not every year. I've already paid good money for Audio-CDs which I've ripped to iTunes. I'm not going to continually pay again every single year. This $25 yearly fee is for those folks that stole their music. Honest purchasers of CD's are being punished. I think I'll just avoid iTunes Match.

Sorry for whining.

Less than 50c a week to clear up much needed space on my 16GB iPhone 4.

Seems well worth it.

I can reinstall some of the Apps I had to delete.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #16 of 57
Seriously you can't expect every Apple service to be the ideal solution to your needs.

You frame the service as a feature for people that have stolen their music. In part I believe that is a mistake. Rather I see it as a way for Apple to get a little income out of what would otherwise be a drain. Just because a feature is free does not mean it is cost free, somebody has to pick up the bill.

In any event it is best to wait and see exactly what is being offered anyways. It is like the people that get wrapped up in pre-release device speculation and then get disappointed with what is actually released. Base your opinions on what is real and simply enjoy the speculation for what it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

$25 each and every year. I might consider paying it once, but not every year. I've already paid good money for Audio-CDs which I've ripped to iTunes. I'm not going to continually pay again every single year. This $25 yearly fee is for those folks that stole their music. Honest purchasers of CD's are being punished. I think I'll just avoid iTunes Match.

Sorry for whining.
post #17 of 57
It won't matter in the grand scheme of things if iTunes Match is a few weeks late....as long as it works. If they had launched on Halloween with a bunch of bugs, then we'd all be screaming and rightfully so. It's always better to be late than wrong.
post #18 of 57
Apple seems to be testing this so much they don't want any issues with a paid service that can backfire on them if there comes any major issues.
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #19 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by fyngyrz View Post

Because that still doesn't work with Leopard, a 4-year old, native OS.

But it works with XP... a ten-year old, non-native OS.

Very disrespectful of their Mac customers.

Especially since Snow Leopard broke so many drivers, and Lion loses the ability to run PPC executables... they basically ensured that it would be very unwise to upgrade to Snow Leopard or Lion for users with heavy investments in older software and drivers, then locked them out of compatibility with their IOS devices.

Someone at Apple needs a wake-up call.

Nope. You need to decide if you want to run legacy software, or upgrade your software and hardware every five years or so. If u want the latest technologies, u need to get the latest technology. It really is that simple.
post #20 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

Nope. You need to decide if you want to run legacy software, or upgrade your software and hardware every five years or so. If u want the latest technologies, u need to get the latest technology. It really is that simple.

Unless "u" "r" a Windows user, in which case we'll indulge "u".....
post #21 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by fyngyrz View Post

Because that still doesn't work with Leopard, a 4-year old, native OS.

But it works with XP... a ten-year old, non-native OS.

Very disrespectful of their Mac customers.

Especially since Snow Leopard broke so many drivers, and Lion loses the ability to run PPC executables... they basically ensured that it would be very unwise to upgrade to Snow Leopard or Lion for users with heavy investments in older software and drivers, then locked them out of compatibility with their IOS devices.

Someone at Apple needs a wake-up call.

Easy. Just keep using your StarTac.
post #22 of 57
Surprising that "management" was so out of touch with the product that they would publicly state it would be released in October. maybe it is vaporware.
post #23 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Unless "u" "r" a Windows user, in which case we'll indulge "u".....

Utter rubbish. It's simple accident (laziness, lack of innovation) that the Microsoft codebase has barely changed in over ten years. Not a business decision by apple. You want modern tech, get modern tech. Otherwise, stick with outdated hardware and software and deal with being left behind.
post #24 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by TallistDah View Post

Surprising that "management" was so out of touch with the product that they would publicly state it would be released in October. maybe it is vaporware.

When was a launch date announced for imatch?
post #25 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Unless "u" "r" a Windows user, in which case we'll indulge "u".....

Like the enterprise buyers who can still buy systems with XP installed.

There are more XP systems than Macs, there are more Macs than there are Macs running Leopard.

It's a numbers game and you lose.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #26 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

$25 each and every year. I might consider paying it once, but not every year. I've already paid good money for Audio-CDs which I've ripped to iTunes. I'm not going to continually pay again every single year. This $25 yearly fee is for those folks that stole their music. Honest purchasers of CD's are being punished. I think I'll just avoid iTunes Match.

Sorry for whining.

Yeah. $2.08 a month is just crazy expensive. I could be using that money to buy 2 songs.

Oh, sh*t. Not if they're $1.29 each.
post #27 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

$25 each and every year. I might consider paying it once, but not every year. I've already paid good money for Audio-CDs which I've ripped to iTunes. I'm not going to continually pay again every single year. This $25 yearly fee is for those folks that stole their music. Honest purchasers of CD's are being punished. I think I'll just avoid iTunes Match.

Sorry for whining.

$25 a year to have access to my entire music collection, on multiple devices, anywhere I go with a touch?

Bargain. I can't wait.
post #28 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post

$25 a year to have access to my entire music collection, on multiple devices, anywhere I go with cellular data or Wi-Fi?

Important fix.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #29 of 57
iCloud and iTunes Match combined are much cheaper than what I was paying for MobileMe. It's a no-brainer for me.

I'm loving iTunes Match. Pandora has taken a backseat...
post #30 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

Utter rubbish. It's simple accident (laziness, lack of innovation) that the Microsoft codebase has barely changed in over ten years. Not a business decision by apple. You want modern tech, get modern tech. Otherwise, stick with outdated hardware and software and deal with being left behind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Like the enterprise buyers who can still buy systems with XP installed.

There are more XP systems than Macs, there are more Macs than there are Macs running Leopard.

It's a numbers game and you lose.

Of course it is a numbers game! Duh. And, given unquestioning people like you both, Apple has no trouble casting aside its older loyal customers, thereby exacerbating this numbers game!

Gotta love it.

(Oh, before you reply, read my original post).
post #31 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


It truly is insane for people who've bought their own music, either through iTunes or ripped from CDs, to pay yearly to listen to it. This is also why I simply laughed at Microsoft's Zune plans. What were they, $15 a MONTH for an all-you-can-hear buffet of music you don't actually own, and if you stop paying monthly you lost access to it?

.

Your not paying for the music, you're paying for the service of being able to listen to any of your music on any device, at any time without sacrificing the limited storage space of your mobile devices. It's not "insane" it's 'convenience'.

You're not being forced to pay for it. It's an option. If you don't pay the yearly service fee, you don't lose your music, you lose the ability to play it on any device (without syncing it ahead of time.) Completely different that the Zune subscription model.
post #32 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by solsun View Post

Your not paying for the music, you're paying for the service of being able to listen to any of your music on any device, at any time without sacrificing the limited storage space of your mobile devices. It's not "insane" it's 'convenience'.

You're not being forced to pay for it. It's an option. If you don't pay the yearly service fee, you don't lose your music, you lose the ability to play it on any device (without syncing it ahead of time.) Completely different that the Zune subscription model.

You're right; thanks for pointing out the discrepancies.

Still, I find it silly to pay for something I already own, regardless of what I'm saving to do it.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #33 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You're right; thanks for pointing out the discrepancies.

Still, I find it silly to pay for something I already own, regardless of what I'm saving to do it.

I think it's crazy too... that is until a few days ago after I purchased my first iPhone, 64GB version. I want to store a large music collection, photos, etc on the phone. Now I'm thinking about how often people upgrade their phones and I might have taken the more expensive route. It's $200 more than the base 16gb model -- that's 8 years of music match! And, I'm sure I'll upgrade before then.
post #34 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You're right; thanks for pointing out the discrepancies.

Still, I find it silly to pay for something I already own, regardless of what I'm saving to do it.

I own a telephone. My wife owns a telephone. We pay for the service that connects the two. Oh, and that's only when we have a cellular connection available.

You own your music. You own your iPhone. You pay for the service that connects the two.
post #35 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post

$25 a year to have access to my entire music collection, on multiple devices, anywhere I go with a touch?

Bargain. I can't wait.

^This^

And who cares if it's only when I have a wireless data connection. I have a wireless data connection 99% of the time. And for the rest, I can keep a small selection of music on my devices at all times.

I can't wait to give Apple my $25 a year for this privilege.
post #36 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

When was a launch date announced for imatch?

The original launch date was announced by management publicly on October 4th 2011 at which time they said it would be launched in October 2011.

Guess their calendar was broken.

Why would management put themselves in that position unless they were sure it would happen?
post #37 of 57
Management announced today that Thanksgiving will be celebrated in November. It is currently in its third round of Beta testing. Beta testers have been asked to log off so that management can erase their calendars in preparation for the immanent announcement of the final date.
post #38 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

$25 each and every year. I might consider paying it once, but not every year. I've already paid good money for Audio-CDs which I've ripped to iTunes. I'm not going to continually pay again every single year. This $25 yearly fee is for those folks that stole their music. Honest purchasers of CD's are being punished. I think I'll just avoid iTunes Match.

Sorry for whining.

I thought I heard that the resulting files are going to be DRM-free? So couldn't you just buy iTunes Match for the first year, and then not renew it the next year? You'd still have the DRM-free files downloaded onto your computer, wouldn't you?
post #39 of 57
Can you actually play music FROM Match/Cloud or do you have to download the file to your device first? I'm assuming it's like photo streaming where you can view (listen to) the file as well as choose to download it it to your device. So Photo Streaming = Match for music? Viewing an image file is a lot different than streaming/listening to a music file so I wonder if it will be skippy/glitchy.
post #40 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Of course it is a numbers game! Duh. And, given unquestioning people like you both, Apple has no trouble casting aside its older loyal customers, thereby exacerbating this numbers game!

Gotta love it.

(Oh, before you reply, read my original post).

I read your original post.

I repeat.

If you want the latest tech, get the latest tech. Otherwise, get left behind. That's the nature of electronics.

Just because the windows codebase hasn't moved on and just happens to support features back over more versions that Mac OS is not some business decision on Apple's part. If you haven't upgraded, then you don't get new features on your mac. Standard principle for business growth - economics 101, with no reason to upgrade, people stop buying. Company dies.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple issues third beta of iTunes 10.5.1 for testing iTunes Match