iTunes Match music streaming removed from Apple's iOS 5 beta 7
With this week's release of iOS 5 beta 7, Apple has completely removed the ability to temporarily cache iTunes Match songs via iCloud, forcing beta testers to instead download songs and save them on their iOS device.
Released to developers on Wednesday, the latest beta of iOS 5 contains tweaks to the iTunes Match service and iCloud. Previously, users could tap on a song they own through the iTunes Match service and it would begin playing instantly, with the file downloading and being saved in a temporary cache that would eventually be cleared.
But starting with this week's release of beta 7, anytime playback is initiated from iCloud, the song is downloaded and saved as a file in the local music library. The changes in iOS 5 were first noted by Insanely Great Mac.
Apple first opened up a trial of its $24.99-per-year iTunes Match service to developers on Monday. After a strong immediate response, Apple closed iTunes Match for new signups for the time being.
Testers immediately discovered that the service allowed for songs to be instantly downloaded and played, without permanently storing the song on the device. This was initially referred to as a streaming service, though in a public comment, Apple officially preferred to use a different definition.
"Apple's system, as it's currently constructed, still requires users to keep stuff on their machine in order to play it," the company said to All Things D in a statement.
Initially, many felt the difference between "true" streaming and Apple's offering was a matter of semantics, as iTunes Match and iOS 5 still allowed users to play their music without having the song stored on the device. Instead, tracks were downloaded and kept in a temporary cache that would eventually clear.
But now, selecting a song to play will download it to an iPhone or iPad, and keep the file saved locally as part of a user's music library. Users may still choose to delete the song after listening to it, and can once again download it from iTunes as part of their iTunes Match subscription.
Unlike competing Internet-based music services, which require users to upload their personal collection, iTunes Match will scan a user's library of songs, including those ripped from their own CDs, and match the files up with the library of 18 million songs available through the iTunes Music Store. The paid service is scheduled to launch this fall.
Released to developers on Wednesday, the latest beta of iOS 5 contains tweaks to the iTunes Match service and iCloud. Previously, users could tap on a song they own through the iTunes Match service and it would begin playing instantly, with the file downloading and being saved in a temporary cache that would eventually be cleared.
But starting with this week's release of beta 7, anytime playback is initiated from iCloud, the song is downloaded and saved as a file in the local music library. The changes in iOS 5 were first noted by Insanely Great Mac.
Apple first opened up a trial of its $24.99-per-year iTunes Match service to developers on Monday. After a strong immediate response, Apple closed iTunes Match for new signups for the time being.
Testers immediately discovered that the service allowed for songs to be instantly downloaded and played, without permanently storing the song on the device. This was initially referred to as a streaming service, though in a public comment, Apple officially preferred to use a different definition.
"Apple's system, as it's currently constructed, still requires users to keep stuff on their machine in order to play it," the company said to All Things D in a statement.
Initially, many felt the difference between "true" streaming and Apple's offering was a matter of semantics, as iTunes Match and iOS 5 still allowed users to play their music without having the song stored on the device. Instead, tracks were downloaded and kept in a temporary cache that would eventually clear.
But now, selecting a song to play will download it to an iPhone or iPad, and keep the file saved locally as part of a user's music library. Users may still choose to delete the song after listening to it, and can once again download it from iTunes as part of their iTunes Match subscription.
Unlike competing Internet-based music services, which require users to upload their personal collection, iTunes Match will scan a user's library of songs, including those ripped from their own CDs, and match the files up with the library of 18 million songs available through the iTunes Music Store. The paid service is scheduled to launch this fall.
Comments
iTunes Match should have multiple plans:
$25 a year for what it does now.... I don't know why they removed the steaming capability.
$10 a month for what it does now PLUS what spotify does.
Since I rarely listen to a song in its entirety, that would slow down my switching tracks quickly.
Wait, what?
The RIAA raised a stink behind closed doors and Apple caved.
It's bleedingly evident that Apple doesn't cave to these fools.
Since I rarely listen to a song in its entirety, that would slow down my switching tracks quickly. The RIAA raised a stink behind closed doors and Apple caved.
That is probably true, apple is now in bed with them and has to play somewhat nice, these other service have yet to deal with the legal issue. The only thing going their way is the recent case where the courts held they you do not have to have two different license to hold content on your HDD or Cloud as end user. The music industry tried arguing that cloud storage required the cloud owner to have a license to allow consumers to back up their music to the cloud service.
They haven't backtracked on anything, it was always a download service. Don't get disappointed because blogs stated otherwise due to analysis of the state of unfinished implementation in beta (whilst breaking NDA's).
Exactly. The only people who have seen this functionality as it changes are developers who are supposed to be abiding by non-disclosure agreements. I guess the motto is "For $99/year you too can be a corporate spy."
Knowing that Apple doesn't necessarily preview all the functionality to developers, at least not until the last possible minute.
Aside from obvious price advantages of iTunes Match, it seems like the subscription services like Spotify and MOG will offer far better value. I'm a fan of just about everything Apple, but have not launched my iPod app on the iPhone since I downloaded MOG. Spotify is even cooler in the sense that it integrates my iTunes collection to some extent. Wireless syncing is there as well. Doesn't it feel like Apple is a few steps behind here, for once?
I agree. Mog has reduced my use of the iPod app quite a bit. I don't understand the advantage of having your music "everywhere" if I still have to download it to each device. Can you download whole playlists at once? It's no fun to recreate playlists, certainly not on the fly.
Meanwhile, Mog's streaming seems to buffer a LOT lately. More than when it it's mobile app first launched. Maybe Apple sees the inevitability of the wireless carriers not being able to support so many folks streaming music?
The buffering on Mog has gotten so bad I'm considering subscribing to Spotify and dropping the Mog subscription for a few months to see if it streams any better.
I love SoundCloud, but it's mobile app buffers so much it's unusable for me.
Maybe it's my lousy AT&T connection?
I'll have to watch Jobs talk up iTunes Match again. I know people say they never stated streaming, but I don't understand why one would pay $25/year for what appears to simply be cloud storage. And if it's not for streaming, then why limit it to just music? I'd rather keep my music local but have videos in iTunes Match that I could re-downloa to my iDevice as needed due to the way I engage in these different types of media.
Agreed though the real benifit of it is for the upgraded quality of tracks that were either ripped at a lower bit rate or obtained by legally murky methods
Agreed though the real benifit of it is for the upgraded quality of tracks that were either ripped at a lower bit rate or obtained by legally murky methods
I can see that as a side-effect benefit for those with a bunch of illegal tracks but obviously that's not the reason Apple created the service and why the music industry agreed to it. If they did then Apple really does have powerful negotiation voo-doo.
I'll have to watch Jobs talk up iTunes Match again. I know people say they never stated streaming, but I don't understand why one would pay $25/year for what appears to simply be cloud storage. And if it's not for streaming, then why limit it to just music? I'd rather keep my music local but have videos in iTunes Match that I could re-downloa to my iDevice as needed due to the way I engage in these different types of media.
I don't see why its so hard to understand.
1. Up to 25,000 songs matched with iTunes-quality files. That means all those assorted mp3's that everyone has, traded up for an iTunes copy.
2. All of your other iTunes music (personal recordings, unknown music, etc.) Also up on iCloud.
3. All of that music, available via your Music App, with one touch. That means no more music syncing, no more thinking about what to take with you at all. Its just there, given an internet connection. Downloads quick.
For $25 a year its the single greatest value Apple has ever offered anyone.
Let's say you don't have a computer but do have an iPhone and an iPad and you have some songs on each but no overlap, I wonder if iTunes Match can scan multiple devices and therefore account for all of your music regardless of where you have it stored.
Bottom line is, even though you don't need a computer to activate or update your iOS 5 device, it is still a lot more practical to own a master computer to store your music library.
I don't see why its so hard to understand.
1. Up to 25,000 songs matched with iTunes-quality files. That means all those assorted mp3's that everyone has, traded up for an iTunes copy.
2. All of your other iTunes music (personal recordings, unknown music, etc.) Also up on iCloud.
3. All of that music, available via your Music App, with one touch. That means no more music syncing, no more thinking about what to take with you at all. Its just there, given an internet connection. Downloads quick.
For $25 a year its the single greatest value Apple has ever offered anyone.
I get all that, but why wouldn't I want to take my music with me? As I expressed I already take all my music with me and capacity will just continue to double every 2-3 years while song file size will trend upward much, much slower. It's video that is large and can't be stored on my mobile devices at all times.
And what happens after the first year when people that ripped or illegally copied music at less than 256kbps have re-downloaded better copies? Is Apple going to see a drop in interest in the service? Is Apple releasing an iPod Nano with 3G+GPS that will be able to make use of low capacity storage? Will users want to download a song one track at a time and without preserving any current playlist or meta-data they may have set up?
If you are using it as a backup, why not have your Mac backed up with Time Machine so that everything is saved? Why only your music to "the cloud" and why the circuitous, slow and limited system that is an internet based backup solution that only backs up your music?
I'll have to watch Jobs talk up iTunes Match again. I know people say they never stated streaming, but I don't understand why one would pay $25/year for what appears to simply be cloud storage. And if it's not for streaming, then why limit it to just music? I'd rather keep my music local but have videos in iTunes Match that I could re-downloa to my iDevice as needed due to the way I engage in these different types of media.
I would pay $25 a year for the simplicity to re-download my music at anytime. Sometimes my iPhone is pretty full with pics, movies, games, and other apps. The music has to sacrifice sometimes. I can't wait till movies and tv shows do the same. Besides, not having to worry anymore about keeping backups off all the gigs of music I have on my computer.....That's priceless to me. Hopefully everything else everyone is wanting will come down the road. If we support it by paying for it and letting Apple know what else we want, the labels may give in if enough money is thrown their way...Who knows??
As long as it plays seamlessly, as soon as you press it, isn't the difference still just a semantic one? My only question would be, what happens when you finish playing song 2 in an undownloaded multi-song album -- does it immediately move on to song 3 and download/stream that too? Or do you have to explicitly select each song you want downloaded?
To begin with I think it's weird how everyone is up in arms about this "streaming" vs. "downloading" service. It's all the same for me except one is held onto by my iPhone (which is nice if I want to listen to it again in the near future without adding to my data plan) and the other is discarded. Hmm. The beginning process is the same, only what happens to the file afterward is different. I just like having the access to ALL of my music and having it "cached" in my library with the option to remove the file later (if I need more space for app x or album y) is perfect for me.
As for downloading, if you are playing an undownloaded multi-song album, iCloud will not download the other (non-playing) tracks until that specific track plays UNLESS you've selected the option to download all of the tracks in the album to your device while listening to it or before you begin listening.