So no streaming? I don't know how much use I'd have for a $25/yr to back my files up in a lower quality than I have them on my HDD. All any tech blog has been talking about, given what Amazon and Google have done recently, is Apple debuting it's own cloud locker, streaming service.
I was ready to say **** Amazon and Google because this was going to murder the other services as it concerns ease of use. I don't like iTunes on Windows but if I could simply drop the files in my iTunes, sync them up, and stream, it's game over. No streaming is kind of a dealbreaker. I can still use the other services on my iPhone (I think) but it's not very intuitive at all.
Can you even delete songs FROM your iPhone or iPod on the fly? There's no listening to different tunes on the go if this isn't the case.
And why can't we stream songs from iTunes to our other devices in our homes via Wi-Fi?
Yes, it appears that if you have pirated copies that are relatively clean and complete then you'll be able to match and download new AAC versions from iTunes. However, I'm pretty sure it won't just match via metadata (title, artist, album, song length, etc.), it will likely scan the songs looking for a match to the actual content of the song. How close it will need to match is anyone's guess, I'd suspect that they would scan a random segment of the song, look at the length of the song (and maybe scan a very short section at the beginning and end), and then look at some of the metadata.
Apple will compute the checksum and let me tell you they will know which songs are pirated. They probably wont do anything about it but they will know. I woulnt be suprised if the labels gave Apple there huge database of pirated songs data just to know how many pirated song are going to be match. Thats pretty damn good stats for them.
And entering metadata that doesnt match the song wont work.
Apple hasn't mentioned anything about deleting songs from iOS devices. From what I've tried on the iPad, I haven't seen any way as of yet.
Yeah, and if that's the case (as of now) I'm nowhere near as excited about iTunes in the cloud as I was before this conference. I feel like streaming is sort of a must. I won't be getting rid of my iPhone for anything (unless a phone running the Windows Phone OS w/ the super sexy Metro UI is created with hardware as nice as the iPhone 4), but trying to use Google Music and/or Amazon on an iPhone is not a very slick experience.
Quote:
As for your second question, you can stream to an Apple TV or home speakers (via Airport Express) from iTunes on your computer.
Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of streaming from iTunes to your iPhone or iPod via Wi-Fi. Maybe it isn't a necessity but it's odd that it hasn't been implemented yet.
Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of streaming from iTunes to your iPhone or iPod via Wi-Fi. Maybe it isn't a necessity but it's odd that it hasn't been implemented yet.
For some reason (probably issues with the music industry) Apple is not delving into music streaming. Frankly, I don't find streaming that helpful anyway. What I really want is the music iCloud support announced today for movies and TV shows. That way, I wouldn't ever have to worry about backing up any of those large files. I'd just re-download when I wanted to re-watch. Hopefully that's in the works.
Apple will compute the checksum and let me tell you they will know which songs are pirated.
Except that will not tell you if a song is pirated. All you can tell is the song was ripped, but you cannot tell if the user ripped it from the CD themselves or if someone else did it and put it on the internet.
Has anyone seen it confirmed anywhere that Apple will actually replace the existing (non-iTunes 128k) tracks in your iTunes library with 256k AAC versions?
(It seems clear that the versions that download from iCloud to other devices will be 256k AAC... but I'm interested in my main iTunes library itself)
If so, given that replacing 128k tracks with 256k tracks will likely approximately double the space required for an individual's iTunes library, I wonder how this will work. I have iTunes library saved on a separate partition that is not 2 times the size of my current iTunes library...
Also, replacing all the 128k tracks in my library with 256k tracks would mean about a 60GB download. That's a ton of downloading...
I hope this is a good matching program but I don't have high hopes, iTunes can't even match album art for most of my cd ripped music, even extremely popular songs and artists, such as most of the AC/DC songs. More than likely it won't be able to match very many at all.
AC/DC aren't available on ANY digital download site, like iTunes. For some reason they are yet to go there sadly. In terms of match. I have had the same issues, and have found that the CD's have to be called exactly the right thing for iTunes to match it. e.g not having (UK Version) after the name.
Effective June 6, 2011, if you had an active MobileMe account, your service has been automatically extended through June 30, 2012, at no additional charge
You look at it the wrong way. How about pay $25 a year and keep pirating music forever? They can't force you to buy on iTunes only after matching, can they? The only limitation, as far as I can see, is 25,000 songs.
The 25,000 song limit only applies to unmatched songs. All this stuff is still hella confusing. Basically it is a $25 a year all-you-can-download mega-orgy-buffet. That's what the pirates (read: the average user) will see it as.
Apple played this to the T. Apple gets to continue to charge you for local storage (ie. flash memory), charge you for cloud storage, allow wireless syncing, and got the music industry to extend the olive branch to all pirates. The "sacrifice" is no streaming, which again, allows Apple to charge you for local storage, enabled the deals with the music industry, etc.
Edit: iTunes 10.3 not showing up on my Mac or PC through Software Update.
What incentive is it for me to buy anymore itunes songs? Say for example I want 25 songs from iTunes - that would cost me roughly $25. OR... I could just pirate 1000 songs and only pay $25/year instead of $1000 for all those songs.
$25/year x 40 years would be the same as if I bought 1,000 songs off iTunes.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong - but why would I buy anymore music????
It appears that my 128Kbps protected iTunes songs are NOT being updated to iTunes Plus, at least not when using the current iCloud download method. This seems rather odd and if the same holds true for the iTunes Match service it will mean that everyone who legally purchased DRM'd songs from iTunes will end up having to pay more to upgrade their songs to iTunes Plus than someone who may have just pirated their music and then updated with the iTunes Match service. If that proves to be true it will be a rather nasty postscript to the DRM legacy of iTunes.
What incentive is it for me to buy anymore itunes songs? Say for example I want 25 songs from iTunes - that would cost me roughly $25. OR... I could just pirate 1000 songs and only pay $25/year instead of $1000 for all those songs.
$25/year x 40 years would be the same as if I bought 1,000 songs off iTunes.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong - but why would I buy anymore music????
You're right. This is where the music industry is at. They'd rather all the pirates pay $25 per year than $0 per year.
But once you're using the service, if there's songs you want, some people would rather just buy the song rather than have to search through torrents, filesharing sites, etc. then scan and match etc.
So you have the carrot of $25 all-you-can-eat, with the UPSELL of actually purchasing individual songs on top of that because you don't want to have to torrent, fileshare, scan-and-match, re-download 256kbps AAC, etc.
Ethically in recent times I have had more and more trouble pirating stuff. Nowadays I don't torrent movies, I might as well just wait for the HD version anyway on satellite TV which has a built-in recording functionality. It's not on-demand but it's high, unlimited bandwidth because it comes from the dish. If it is a movie I really need to see, especially uncensored, then it's the iTunes Store HD rentals. I can hook up my iPad2 to the HDTV via HDMI.
As for music, mainly I listen to DJ Mixes. I have pirated songs in the past but honestly nothing really in the past few months. Having seen friends struggle to even release a single dance track even though it's really good and "club-worthy".... makes me think twice about pirating dance/trance music, particularly.
Can't wait for iTunes Match to be able to dump everything to the cloud... Although, what is considered a "song"? Many songs even as on iTunes has single tracks that are an hour long, eg. DJ mixes.
There is definitely the temptation to rationalise things as, hey, okay, I'll pay $25 a year and that gives ME the RIGHT to pirate as many songs as I ever wanted. But as attractive as this initially sounds, that's not exactly what the $25 a year is meant to do.... legally, ethically, whatever. It's not for me to judge, I'll have to think about it as well for a while.
It appears that my 128Kbps protected iTunes songs are NOT being updated to iTunes Plus, at least not when using the current iCloud download method. This seems rather odd and if the same holds true for the iTunes Match service it will mean that everyone who legally purchased DRM'd songs from iTunes will end up having to pay more to upgrade their songs to iTunes Plus than someone who may have just pirated their music and then updated with the iTunes Match service. If that proves to be true it will be a rather nasty postscript to the DRM legacy of iTunes.
Huh? iTunes Match hasn't started yet. AFAIK (my iTunes 10.3 is still downloading) iTunes 10.3 gives you an option to download anything you've already purchased. Apple didn't say this previous purchases would give you 256kbps DRM-free, that only happens when iTunes Match comes along, and that's only when you actually PAY the $29/year.
The 25,000 song limit only applies to unmatched songs. All this stuff is still hella confusing. Basically it is a $25 a year all-you-can-download mega-orgy-buffet. That's what the pirates (read: the average user) will see it as.
Apple played this to the T. Apple gets to continue to charge you for local storage (ie. flash memory), charge you for cloud storage, allow wireless syncing, and got the music industry to extend the olive branch to all pirates. The "sacrifice" is no streaming, which again, allows Apple to charge you for local storage, enabled the deals with the music industry, etc.
.
here is what I think.
1) If they can download they can stream.
2) They couldnt get streaming first from the Labels at a decent price - the idea is to get the pirates - most people have some piracy - to upload their stuff for $25. Apple has an installed base of 200M, which will be 500M to 1B within a few years. With a 50% uptake that is a lot of money. From £2.5B to $12B in a few years.
3) Apple then adds premium services - i.e. more money for streaming, recommendations, sharing with friends to people already on the service. An extra $15 a year. Take is now $20B.
That saves the labels.
The technical challenge here is not that amazing - Apple might well be worse than spotifiy but it has massive reach. iCloud is going to be integral to the iOS, and about 50% of poeple will use the premium version I think. Adding streaming then gets you a percentage of the 50% who use premium iCloud. They think - "may as well stream for an extra tenner."
Its important to see if this works first, of course, as streaming may affect sales. Apple needs to work out the advantages to owning a collection, rather than just streaming it at will. It could be something as simple as a restriction on the number of plays per month of a given track when streaming ( rather than when owned on the cloud). Even at a high number - say 10-20 - that makes people feel they dont own the track, so they buy is at $1.99. It can be played as many times as needed.
2) They couldnt get streaming first from the Labels at a decent price - the idea is to get the pirates - most people have some piracy - to upload their stuff for $25. Apple has an installed base of 200M, which will be 500M to 1B within a few years. With a 50% uptake that is a lot of money. From £2.5B to $12B in a few years.
3) Apple then adds premium services - i.e. more money for streaming, recommendations, sharing with friends to people already on the service. An extra $15 a year. Take is now $20B.
That saves the labels.
The technical challenge here is not that amazing - Apple might well be worse than spotifiy - but iCloud is going to be integral to the iOS, and about 50% of poeple will use the premium version I think. Adding streaming then gets you that group. They go - may as well stream for an extra tenner.
Good idea. Apple always rolls things out in stages.
It's not like it looks bad or anything, it actually seems quite functional. I just think Apple had a chance to hit the ball out of the park on this one, but instead they have chosen to go for a safe single.
Who says it was legal to download that CD? You because somebody offers you to stream media files you provided, does not indemnify you from any prior misdemeanours. If you steel a physical good and then send it via a legit courrier to somebody eles, does this make the recipient the legal owner of that good?
My neighbor also was on the subject of piracy. What if someone wanted an album, and did the following: Say there were ten songs on an album. In theory, one could take a music editing program and create 10 files with the same names and lengths as the album Apple has for sale. Could the metadata then be changed to make the cloud think that person really has those songs?
Comments
I ripped my cd's back years before iTunes ever came out...
Unless they actually scan the audio file I don't have confidence that iTunes Match will work very well at all.
Why not? Is it really that hard to get title/artist/album text info right?
I was ready to say **** Amazon and Google because this was going to murder the other services as it concerns ease of use. I don't like iTunes on Windows but if I could simply drop the files in my iTunes, sync them up, and stream, it's game over. No streaming is kind of a dealbreaker. I can still use the other services on my iPhone (I think) but it's not very intuitive at all.
Can you even delete songs FROM your iPhone or iPod on the fly? There's no listening to different tunes on the go if this isn't the case.
And why can't we stream songs from iTunes to our other devices in our homes via Wi-Fi?
Can you even delete songs FROM your iPhone or iPod on the fly? There's no listening to different tunes on the go if this isn't the case.
And why can't we stream songs from iTunes to our other devices in our homes via Wi-Fi?
Apple hasn't mentioned anything about deleting songs from iOS devices. From what I've tried on the iPad, I haven't seen any way as of yet.
As for your second question, you can stream to an Apple TV or home speakers (via Airport Express) from iTunes on your computer.
Yes, it appears that if you have pirated copies that are relatively clean and complete then you'll be able to match and download new AAC versions from iTunes. However, I'm pretty sure it won't just match via metadata (title, artist, album, song length, etc.), it will likely scan the songs looking for a match to the actual content of the song. How close it will need to match is anyone's guess, I'd suspect that they would scan a random segment of the song, look at the length of the song (and maybe scan a very short section at the beginning and end), and then look at some of the metadata.
Apple will compute the checksum and let me tell you they will know which songs are pirated. They probably wont do anything about it but they will know. I woulnt be suprised if the labels gave Apple there huge database of pirated songs data just to know how many pirated song are going to be match. Thats pretty damn good stats for them.
And entering metadata that doesnt match the song wont work.
Apple hasn't mentioned anything about deleting songs from iOS devices. From what I've tried on the iPad, I haven't seen any way as of yet.
Yeah, and if that's the case (as of now) I'm nowhere near as excited about iTunes in the cloud as I was before this conference. I feel like streaming is sort of a must. I won't be getting rid of my iPhone for anything (unless a phone running the Windows Phone OS w/ the super sexy Metro UI is created with hardware as nice as the iPhone 4), but trying to use Google Music and/or Amazon on an iPhone is not a very slick experience.
As for your second question, you can stream to an Apple TV or home speakers (via Airport Express) from iTunes on your computer.
Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of streaming from iTunes to your iPhone or iPod via Wi-Fi. Maybe it isn't a necessity but it's odd that it hasn't been implemented yet.
Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of streaming from iTunes to your iPhone or iPod via Wi-Fi. Maybe it isn't a necessity but it's odd that it hasn't been implemented yet.
For some reason (probably issues with the music industry) Apple is not delving into music streaming. Frankly, I don't find streaming that helpful anyway. What I really want is the music iCloud support announced today for movies and TV shows. That way, I wouldn't ever have to worry about backing up any of those large files. I'd just re-download when I wanted to re-watch. Hopefully that's in the works.
Apple will compute the checksum and let me tell you they will know which songs are pirated.
Except that will not tell you if a song is pirated. All you can tell is the song was ripped, but you cannot tell if the user ripped it from the CD themselves or if someone else did it and put it on the internet.
Apple will compute the checksum and let me tell you they will know which songs are pirated.
Impossible to determine.
(It seems clear that the versions that download from iCloud to other devices will be 256k AAC... but I'm interested in my main iTunes library itself)
If so, given that replacing 128k tracks with 256k tracks will likely approximately double the space required for an individual's iTunes library, I wonder how this will work. I have iTunes library saved on a separate partition that is not 2 times the size of my current iTunes library...
Also, replacing all the 128k tracks in my library with 256k tracks would mean about a 60GB download. That's a ton of downloading...
I hope this is a good matching program but I don't have high hopes, iTunes can't even match album art for most of my cd ripped music, even extremely popular songs and artists, such as most of the AC/DC songs. More than likely it won't be able to match very many at all.
AC/DC aren't available on ANY digital download site, like iTunes. For some reason they are yet to go there sadly. In terms of match. I have had the same issues, and have found that the CD's have to be called exactly the right thing for iTunes to match it. e.g not having (UK Version) after the name.
Apple Support Note here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4597
Effective June 6, 2011, if you had an active MobileMe account, your service has been automatically extended through June 30, 2012, at no additional charge
You look at it the wrong way. How about pay $25 a year and keep pirating music forever?
The 25,000 song limit only applies to unmatched songs. All this stuff is still hella confusing. Basically it is a $25 a year all-you-can-download mega-orgy-buffet. That's what the pirates (read: the average user) will see it as.
Apple played this to the T. Apple gets to continue to charge you for local storage (ie. flash memory), charge you for cloud storage, allow wireless syncing, and got the music industry to extend the olive branch to all pirates. The "sacrifice" is no streaming, which again, allows Apple to charge you for local storage, enabled the deals with the music industry, etc.
Edit: iTunes 10.3 not showing up on my Mac or PC through Software Update.
$25/year x 40 years would be the same as if I bought 1,000 songs off iTunes.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong - but why would I buy anymore music????
What incentive is it for me to buy anymore itunes songs? Say for example I want 25 songs from iTunes - that would cost me roughly $25. OR... I could just pirate 1000 songs and only pay $25/year instead of $1000 for all those songs.
$25/year x 40 years would be the same as if I bought 1,000 songs off iTunes.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong - but why would I buy anymore music????
You're right. This is where the music industry is at. They'd rather all the pirates pay $25 per year than $0 per year.
But once you're using the service, if there's songs you want, some people would rather just buy the song rather than have to search through torrents, filesharing sites, etc. then scan and match etc.
So you have the carrot of $25 all-you-can-eat, with the UPSELL of actually purchasing individual songs on top of that because you don't want to have to torrent, fileshare, scan-and-match, re-download 256kbps AAC, etc.
Ethically in recent times I have had more and more trouble pirating stuff. Nowadays I don't torrent movies, I might as well just wait for the HD version anyway on satellite TV which has a built-in recording functionality. It's not on-demand but it's high, unlimited bandwidth because it comes from the dish. If it is a movie I really need to see, especially uncensored, then it's the iTunes Store HD rentals. I can hook up my iPad2 to the HDTV via HDMI.
As for music, mainly I listen to DJ Mixes. I have pirated songs in the past but honestly nothing really in the past few months. Having seen friends struggle to even release a single dance track even though it's really good and "club-worthy".... makes me think twice about pirating dance/trance music, particularly.
Can't wait for iTunes Match to be able to dump everything to the cloud... Although, what is considered a "song"? Many songs even as on iTunes has single tracks that are an hour long, eg. DJ mixes.
There is definitely the temptation to rationalise things as, hey, okay, I'll pay $25 a year and that gives ME the RIGHT to pirate as many songs as I ever wanted. But as attractive as this initially sounds, that's not exactly what the $25 a year is meant to do.... legally, ethically, whatever. It's not for me to judge, I'll have to think about it as well for a while.
It appears that my 128Kbps protected iTunes songs are NOT being updated to iTunes Plus, at least not when using the current iCloud download method. This seems rather odd and if the same holds true for the iTunes Match service it will mean that everyone who legally purchased DRM'd songs from iTunes will end up having to pay more to upgrade their songs to iTunes Plus than someone who may have just pirated their music and then updated with the iTunes Match service. If that proves to be true it will be a rather nasty postscript to the DRM legacy of iTunes.
Huh? iTunes Match hasn't started yet. AFAIK (my iTunes 10.3 is still downloading) iTunes 10.3 gives you an option to download anything you've already purchased. Apple didn't say this previous purchases would give you 256kbps DRM-free, that only happens when iTunes Match comes along, and that's only when you actually PAY the $29/year.
The 25,000 song limit only applies to unmatched songs. All this stuff is still hella confusing. Basically it is a $25 a year all-you-can-download mega-orgy-buffet. That's what the pirates (read: the average user) will see it as.
Apple played this to the T. Apple gets to continue to charge you for local storage (ie. flash memory), charge you for cloud storage, allow wireless syncing, and got the music industry to extend the olive branch to all pirates. The "sacrifice" is no streaming, which again, allows Apple to charge you for local storage, enabled the deals with the music industry, etc.
.
here is what I think.
1) If they can download they can stream.
2) They couldnt get streaming first from the Labels at a decent price - the idea is to get the pirates - most people have some piracy - to upload their stuff for $25. Apple has an installed base of 200M, which will be 500M to 1B within a few years. With a 50% uptake that is a lot of money. From £2.5B to $12B in a few years.
3) Apple then adds premium services - i.e. more money for streaming, recommendations, sharing with friends to people already on the service. An extra $15 a year. Take is now $20B.
That saves the labels.
The technical challenge here is not that amazing - Apple might well be worse than spotifiy but it has massive reach. iCloud is going to be integral to the iOS, and about 50% of poeple will use the premium version I think. Adding streaming then gets you a percentage of the 50% who use premium iCloud. They think - "may as well stream for an extra tenner."
Its important to see if this works first, of course, as streaming may affect sales. Apple needs to work out the advantages to owning a collection, rather than just streaming it at will. It could be something as simple as a restriction on the number of plays per month of a given track when streaming ( rather than when owned on the cloud). Even at a high number - say 10-20 - that makes people feel they dont own the track, so they buy is at $1.99. It can be played as many times as needed.
here is what I think.
1) If they can download they can stream.
2) They couldnt get streaming first from the Labels at a decent price - the idea is to get the pirates - most people have some piracy - to upload their stuff for $25. Apple has an installed base of 200M, which will be 500M to 1B within a few years. With a 50% uptake that is a lot of money. From £2.5B to $12B in a few years.
3) Apple then adds premium services - i.e. more money for streaming, recommendations, sharing with friends to people already on the service. An extra $15 a year. Take is now $20B.
That saves the labels.
The technical challenge here is not that amazing - Apple might well be worse than spotifiy - but iCloud is going to be integral to the iOS, and about 50% of poeple will use the premium version I think. Adding streaming then gets you that group. They go - may as well stream for an extra tenner.
Good idea. Apple always rolls things out in stages.
It's not like it looks bad or anything, it actually seems quite functional. I just think Apple had a chance to hit the ball out of the park on this one, but instead they have chosen to go for a safe single.
Who says it was legal to download that CD? You because somebody offers you to stream media files you provided, does not indemnify you from any prior misdemeanours. If you steel a physical good and then send it via a legit courrier to somebody eles, does this make the recipient the legal owner of that good?
My neighbor also was on the subject of piracy. What if someone wanted an album, and did the following: Say there were ten songs on an album. In theory, one could take a music editing program and create 10 files with the same names and lengths as the album Apple has for sale. Could the metadata then be changed to make the cloud think that person really has those songs?