Reason I was wondering was that I had read that once you turn on Match on an iOS device you can no longer sync that device with a computer. Yes, you can sync it over the air, including playlists, etc, but I do like to "drag and drop" manually. Since I have two iPods that should work with it, maybe I'll just try it all on one of them before I take the plunge on all machines.
No problem. It does make sense that features such as drag-and-drop would be disabled, though you should still be able to sync for non-music features and content. An alternative approach to music management might allow you to enjoy iTunes Match. For example, use playlists, or use Genius. Playlists might be great as it gives you a central point from which you can selectively download larger quantities of content directly to a device.
It is my understanding is that iTunes Match does not, in fact, match *any* iTunes purchases.
? It just pulls iTunes purchases normally, I thought. Like if you've purchased it from iTunes, it doesn't count against your upload number, isn't uploaded (obviously), and is playable in the same fashion as anything else.
If it's from a CD or other source and in iTunes, it's matched and a 256k version is made playable.
If it's from a CD or other source and not in iTunes, it's uploaded as is and made playable.
Where am I wrong? I'm probably wrong somewhere in there.
Are previously 128-Kbps iTunes purchases upgraded to 256-Kbps DRM-Free? Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
? It just pulls iTunes purchases normally, I thought. Like if you've purchased it from iTunes, it doesn't count against your upload number, isn't uploaded (obviously), and is playable in the same fashion as anything else.
If it's from a CD or other source and in iTunes, it's matched and a 256k version is made playable.
If it's from a CD or other source and not in iTunes, it's uploaded as is and made playable.
Where am I wrong? I'm probably wrong somewhere in there.
I don't think you are wrong. He's asking about the old style 128kbps DRMd iTunes purchases though. I have not seen anything either way as to whether they would get upgraded. On the one hand why wouldn't they? On the other hand it's kinda shitty for the users Apple made pay to upgrade to the higher bitrate non-DRMd versions.
Is it safe to say that for tracks where iTunes currently does not find artwork for, they will not be matched with this service?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KazKam
This is a question I have as well, because iTunes does a horrible job at finding cover art if you have even one iota of meta-data it doesn't recognize.
If it does the same job matching to iCloud/Match as it does for cover art, it's a fail. If it does a better job than cover art matching, why don't they make cover art matching work???
Quote:
Originally Posted by KazKam
If iTunes Match does as good/bad of a job as it has in the past for cover art, it is a "fail", in my opinion, because it is extremely inefficient.
I have the same question as Manny and KazKam. I have some esoteric stuff in my iTunes library, mostly from lesser-known European bands, although all are ripped from CDs that I physically own. All of the stuff that I ripped from CD reliably pulled accurate metadata from CDDB or Gracenote. So I'm not worried about the metadata. But I guess if it's not available on the US iTunes Store, accurate metadata won't do me any good.
What I'm also curious to find out is whether Apple is using technology comparable to DropBox, which apparently bit-matches users' files to reduce the number of data storage used on its servers, even without the benefit of MP3 metadata. In other words, it would be insanely cool -- or "magical," to use Steve's favorite word -- if iTunes match could somehow substitute somebody's higher-quality rip of my same CDs for my own lower bit-rate rips. iTunes already relies on CDDB or Gracenote (can't remember which it is these days) when ripping CDs. So it would make sense if Apple used those same (IME reliable) references for iTunes Match.
Bottom line: I really would like to get a sense for how well the matching will work before embarking on potentially uploading a large part of my music collection over a slow (asymmetric) DSL connection.
With the way Apple has dropped support for iWeb, and changed the way iWork auto saves a million versions with no "save as" option. Not to mention distorting Final cut pro, address book and iCal, I no longer trust them. I will not pay a yearly fee, give them all my music so in five years they change their mind i find myself having to choose loosing my music or buy the full download or whatever they change.
Oh, no! It's a different name! Must be completely different!
Quote:
I will not pay a yearly fee, give them all my music so in five years they change their mind i find myself having to choose loosing my music or buy the full download or whatever they change.
But some of the regression of features in the move from MobileMe to iCloud reminds me of Apple's screw-ups with some of the earlier versions of dot.Mac. The fact that iCloud doesn't offer functionality comparable to Apple's own iDisk, or DropBox -- which Apple tried and failed to buy -- is patently embarrassing. I'm on the same page as jawporta at this stage.
This is coming from a fanboy who's been loyal to Apple for two decades, and has bought a dozen Macs and even more i-devices over the years. I've never hesitated to pay Apple's high prices, because the products have generally been worth the money. But I sure as heck am worried about the reliability of iTunes Match.
And it's not a question of price at all. $25 a year is surprisingly low. In fact, it's so low that I have to wonder whether Apple doubted that its iTunes Match service would be worth any more than that. I'd gladly pay $100 for a bomb-proof matching service. But right now, I'm afraid it's going to be a so-so service that will be worth a try as an impulse buy for the low price, but may not fully live up to its promise. Meh.
And Apple's website has a plethora of information about the products they make.
Seems silly that you'd ask that when
1. It's on the website.
and
2. It's in the story around which this thread is based.
Seriously... Apple insider- this isn't some member or somebody belittling another forum member, this is a moderator! I beg you- please don't let this kind of attitude "moderate" the forum! Was it a stupid question- maybe- But his response is ridiculous and condescending- in fact, 80% of his posts are. I can't believe it... I really can't.
Neither of your sources specifically address his question. Nowhere does it say if iTunes Match is able to match DRMd files. It is my understanding is that iTunes Match does not, in fact, match *any* iTunes purchases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodstains
I don't think you are wrong. He's asking about the old style 128kbps DRMd iTunes purchases though. I have not seen anything either way as to whether they would get upgraded. On the one hand why wouldn't they? On the other hand it's kinda shitty for the users Apple made pay to upgrade to the higher bitrate non-DRMd versions.
I don't think you are wrong. He's asking about the old style 128kbps DRMd iTunes purchases though. I have not seen anything either way as to whether they would get upgraded. On the one hand why wouldn't they? On the other hand it's kinda shitty for the users Apple made pay to upgrade to the higher bitrate non-DRMd versions.
I had an old album that was 128k DRM'd from iTunes. Just deleted it from my library and redownloaded it fom iCloud as a 256k DRM free version.
Seriously... Apple insider- this isn't some member or somebody belittling another forum member, this is a moderator! I beg you- please don't let this kind of attitude "moderate" the forum! Was it a stupid question- maybe- But his response is ridiculous and condescending- in fact, 80% of his posts are. I can't believe it... I really can't.
Exactly how was he belittling, how was his response ridiculous, and in what way was it condescending?
The article answered the question. Apple's website answered the question. I think you have a beef with Tallest Skil which makes me think you are a previously banned poster.
I do see bloodstains's point but Apple does say "ALL THE MUSIC" without any disclaimer that will exclude iTunes Store music that was previously 128Kbps and DRMed. From that we can deduce that Apple has struck deals to include that music as well (probably a very small segment of their total user base and pointless to keep nearly double the number of songs on file) and if not, would very easily end up in a class action lawsuit that I think Apple will unquestionably lose.
Seriously... Apple insider- this isn't some member or somebody belittling another forum member, this is a moderator! I beg you- please don't let this kind of attitude "moderate" the forum! Was it a stupid question- maybe- But his response is ridiculous and condescending- in fact, 80% of his posts are. I can't believe it... I really can't.
Exactly how was he belittling, how was his response ridiculous, and in what way was it condescending?
The article answered the question. Apple's website answered the question. I think you have a beef with Tallest Skil which makes me think you are a previously banned poster.
How by having a beef with tallest skil would that make me previously banned? He just became a moderator.
Secondly- he's rude. Period. I dislike bullies/know it alls on the Internet. I know that's what you get, but he is extreme. His posts are always condescending. If you make a post, he takes it line by like with snarky remarks like "nope" "sorry, wrong", etc. Hes rude, plain and simple. It irks me. I'll just put him on ignore- problem solved.
How by having a beef with tallest skil would that make me previously banned? He just became a moderator.
Secondly- he's rude. Period. I dislike bullies/know it alls on the Internet. I know that's what you get, but he is extreme. His posts are always condescending. If you make a post, he takes it line by like with snarky remarks like "nope" "sorry, wrong", etc. Hes rude, plain and simple. It irks me. I'll just put him on ignore- problem solved.
I think that your instant beef with a very vanilla post of his and you being new to the forum makes me think you are were previously banned regular.
It has nothing to do with him now being a moderator, nor does him being a moderator mean that he should curtail his postings to only response in sage, cryptic, fortune cookie-esque comments that that make you think his comment was profound should it ever be understood. He was made a moderator as the poster he has been over the past year and I see nothing outside of abusing his additional controls as a vBulletin moderator that will make him lose them.
He can be abrasive — but can't we all — and I too dislike any post starting with abrupt "Wrong!", "No!", or what have you without a solid argument, but he broke no forum rules, unless you want to claim that "silly" is a personal attack. Once again, this is what makes me think you had a previous beef with him in a form iteration. I could be wrong, it does happen from time to tim.
?curtail his postings to only response in sage, cryptic, fortune cookie-esque comments?
I did consider trying that out, though.
I suppose a direct image link (and quote) to the sources in my previous comment minus the extra commentary would have been better warranted. I'll try to take care to do just that from now on in this situation unless the offense (which here is "not bothering to read") is particularly egregious.
You might want to mention that this is a USA only situation at the moment. At least that would be the polite thing to do.
on the one hand, i couldn't agree more, and on the other hand, i never get snippy at the New York Times (a notable news publication based in the North Eastern United States) for not reporting on news in LA (a common abbreviation for Los Angeles, a large city in the south western continental United States).
I guess I don't see the appeal of this service. I always have my phone with me and it has all my music. I can play in my car, at work or with headphones. What is the point of paying to have it on all my devices?
Not seeing a lot of value here. Nor much profit for Apple.
I guess I don't see the appeal of this service. I always have my phone with me and it has all my music. I can play in my car, at work or with headphones. What is the point of paying to have it on all my devices?
Not seeing a lot of value here. Nor much profit for Apple.
Well, here's a hint. Not everybody in the whole world has the same small music library you do. Not everybody in the world wants to use up a lot of space on their phones with music. I know it's a stretch.
Comments
Reason I was wondering was that I had read that once you turn on Match on an iOS device you can no longer sync that device with a computer. Yes, you can sync it over the air, including playlists, etc, but I do like to "drag and drop" manually. Since I have two iPods that should work with it, maybe I'll just try it all on one of them before I take the plunge on all machines.
No problem. It does make sense that features such as drag-and-drop would be disabled, though you should still be able to sync for non-music features and content. An alternative approach to music management might allow you to enjoy iTunes Match. For example, use playlists, or use Genius. Playlists might be great as it gives you a central point from which you can selectively download larger quantities of content directly to a device.
It is my understanding is that iTunes Match does not, in fact, match *any* iTunes purchases.
? It just pulls iTunes purchases normally, I thought. Like if you've purchased it from iTunes, it doesn't count against your upload number, isn't uploaded (obviously), and is playable in the same fashion as anything else.
If it's from a CD or other source and in iTunes, it's matched and a 256k version is made playable.
If it's from a CD or other source and not in iTunes, it's uploaded as is and made playable.
Where am I wrong? I'm probably wrong somewhere in there.
Are previously 128-Kbps iTunes purchases upgraded to 256-Kbps DRM-Free? Thanks.
? It just pulls iTunes purchases normally, I thought. Like if you've purchased it from iTunes, it doesn't count against your upload number, isn't uploaded (obviously), and is playable in the same fashion as anything else.
If it's from a CD or other source and in iTunes, it's matched and a 256k version is made playable.
If it's from a CD or other source and not in iTunes, it's uploaded as is and made playable.
Where am I wrong? I'm probably wrong somewhere in there.
I don't think you are wrong. He's asking about the old style 128kbps DRMd iTunes purchases though. I have not seen anything either way as to whether they would get upgraded. On the one hand why wouldn't they? On the other hand it's kinda shitty for the users Apple made pay to upgrade to the higher bitrate non-DRMd versions.
Is it safe to say that for tracks where iTunes currently does not find artwork for, they will not be matched with this service?
This is a question I have as well, because iTunes does a horrible job at finding cover art if you have even one iota of meta-data it doesn't recognize.
If it does the same job matching to iCloud/Match as it does for cover art, it's a fail. If it does a better job than cover art matching, why don't they make cover art matching work???
If iTunes Match does as good/bad of a job as it has in the past for cover art, it is a "fail", in my opinion, because it is extremely inefficient.
I have the same question as Manny and KazKam. I have some esoteric stuff in my iTunes library, mostly from lesser-known European bands, although all are ripped from CDs that I physically own. All of the stuff that I ripped from CD reliably pulled accurate metadata from CDDB or Gracenote. So I'm not worried about the metadata. But I guess if it's not available on the US iTunes Store, accurate metadata won't do me any good.
What I'm also curious to find out is whether Apple is using technology comparable to DropBox, which apparently bit-matches users' files to reduce the number of data storage used on its servers, even without the benefit of MP3 metadata. In other words, it would be insanely cool -- or "magical," to use Steve's favorite word -- if iTunes match could somehow substitute somebody's higher-quality rip of my same CDs for my own lower bit-rate rips. iTunes already relies on CDDB or Gracenote (can't remember which it is these days) when ripping CDs. So it would make sense if Apple used those same (IME reliable) references for iTunes Match.
Bottom line: I really would like to get a sense for how well the matching will work before embarking on potentially uploading a large part of my music collection over a slow (asymmetric) DSL connection.
…iWork… …"save as" option…
Oh, no! It's a different name! Must be completely different!
I will not pay a yearly fee, give them all my music so in five years they change their mind i find myself having to choose loosing my music or buy the full download or whatever they change.
Of course not, TS!
But some of the regression of features in the move from MobileMe to iCloud reminds me of Apple's screw-ups with some of the earlier versions of dot.Mac. The fact that iCloud doesn't offer functionality comparable to Apple's own iDisk, or DropBox -- which Apple tried and failed to buy -- is patently embarrassing. I'm on the same page as jawporta at this stage.
This is coming from a fanboy who's been loyal to Apple for two decades, and has bought a dozen Macs and even more i-devices over the years. I've never hesitated to pay Apple's high prices, because the products have generally been worth the money. But I sure as heck am worried about the reliability of iTunes Match.
And it's not a question of price at all. $25 a year is surprisingly low. In fact, it's so low that I have to wonder whether Apple doubted that its iTunes Match service would be worth any more than that. I'd gladly pay $100 for a bomb-proof matching service. But right now, I'm afraid it's going to be a so-so service that will be worth a try as an impulse buy for the low price, but may not fully live up to its promise. Meh.
...so in five years they change their mind i find myself having to choose loosing my music...
People REALLY need to take the time to read how this works.
Oh, no! It's a different name! Must be completely different!
It is different (and not implemented particularly well).
And Apple's website has a plethora of information about the products they make.
Seems silly that you'd ask that when
1. It's on the website.
and
2. It's in the story around which this thread is based.
Seriously... Apple insider- this isn't some member or somebody belittling another forum member, this is a moderator! I beg you- please don't let this kind of attitude "moderate" the forum! Was it a stupid question- maybe- But his response is ridiculous and condescending- in fact, 80% of his posts are. I can't believe it... I really can't.
Neither of your sources specifically address his question. Nowhere does it say if iTunes Match is able to match DRMd files. It is my understanding is that iTunes Match does not, in fact, match *any* iTunes purchases.
I don't think you are wrong. He's asking about the old style 128kbps DRMd iTunes purchases though. I have not seen anything either way as to whether they would get upgraded. On the one hand why wouldn't they? On the other hand it's kinda shitty for the users Apple made pay to upgrade to the higher bitrate non-DRMd versions.
Not an issue...
1 Burn drm'd tracks to a cd
2 rip cd
I don't think you are wrong. He's asking about the old style 128kbps DRMd iTunes purchases though. I have not seen anything either way as to whether they would get upgraded. On the one hand why wouldn't they? On the other hand it's kinda shitty for the users Apple made pay to upgrade to the higher bitrate non-DRMd versions.
I had an old album that was 128k DRM'd from iTunes. Just deleted it from my library and redownloaded it fom iCloud as a 256k DRM free version.
Seriously... Apple insider- this isn't some member or somebody belittling another forum member, this is a moderator! I beg you- please don't let this kind of attitude "moderate" the forum! Was it a stupid question- maybe- But his response is ridiculous and condescending- in fact, 80% of his posts are. I can't believe it... I really can't.
Exactly how was he belittling, how was his response ridiculous, and in what way was it condescending?
The article answered the question. Apple's website answered the question. I think you have a beef with Tallest Skil which makes me think you are a previously banned poster.
I do see bloodstains's point but Apple does say "ALL THE MUSIC" without any disclaimer that will exclude iTunes Store music that was previously 128Kbps and DRMed. From that we can deduce that Apple has struck deals to include that music as well (probably a very small segment of their total user base and pointless to keep nearly double the number of songs on file) and if not, would very easily end up in a class action lawsuit that I think Apple will unquestionably lose.
Seriously... Apple insider- this isn't some member or somebody belittling another forum member, this is a moderator! I beg you- please don't let this kind of attitude "moderate" the forum! Was it a stupid question- maybe- But his response is ridiculous and condescending- in fact, 80% of his posts are. I can't believe it... I really can't.
Don't faint.... for heaven's sake.
And, get a grip while you're at it.
Exactly how was he belittling, how was his response ridiculous, and in what way was it condescending?
The article answered the question. Apple's website answered the question. I think you have a beef with Tallest Skil which makes me think you are a previously banned poster.
How by having a beef with tallest skil would that make me previously banned? He just became a moderator.
Secondly- he's rude. Period. I dislike bullies/know it alls on the Internet. I know that's what you get, but he is extreme. His posts are always condescending. If you make a post, he takes it line by like with snarky remarks like "nope" "sorry, wrong", etc. Hes rude, plain and simple. It irks me. I'll just put him on ignore- problem solved.
How by having a beef with tallest skil would that make me previously banned? He just became a moderator.
Secondly- he's rude. Period. I dislike bullies/know it alls on the Internet. I know that's what you get, but he is extreme. His posts are always condescending. If you make a post, he takes it line by like with snarky remarks like "nope" "sorry, wrong", etc. Hes rude, plain and simple. It irks me. I'll just put him on ignore- problem solved.
I think that your instant beef with a very vanilla post of his and you being new to the forum makes me think you are were previously banned regular.
It has nothing to do with him now being a moderator, nor does him being a moderator mean that he should curtail his postings to only response in sage, cryptic, fortune cookie-esque comments that that make you think his comment was profound should it ever be understood. He was made a moderator as the poster he has been over the past year and I see nothing outside of abusing his additional controls as a vBulletin moderator that will make him lose them.
He can be abrasive — but can't we all — and I too dislike any post starting with abrupt "Wrong!", "No!", or what have you without a solid argument, but he broke no forum rules, unless you want to claim that "silly" is a personal attack. Once again, this is what makes me think you had a previous beef with him in a form iteration. I could be wrong, it does happen from time to tim.
?curtail his postings to only response in sage, cryptic, fortune cookie-esque comments?
I did consider trying that out, though.
I suppose a direct image link (and quote) to the sources in my previous comment minus the extra commentary would have been better warranted. I'll try to take care to do just that from now on in this situation unless the offense (which here is "not bothering to read") is particularly egregious.
More people in the world than just USA.
You might want to mention that this is a USA only situation at the moment. At least that would be the polite thing to do.
on the one hand, i couldn't agree more, and on the other hand, i never get snippy at the New York Times (a notable news publication based in the North Eastern United States) for not reporting on news in LA (a common abbreviation for Los Angeles, a large city in the south western continental United States).
Not seeing a lot of value here. Nor much profit for Apple.
I guess I don't see the appeal of this service. I always have my phone with me and it has all my music. I can play in my car, at work or with headphones. What is the point of paying to have it on all my devices?
Not seeing a lot of value here. Nor much profit for Apple.
Well, here's a hint. Not everybody in the whole world has the same small music library you do. Not everybody in the world wants to use up a lot of space on their phones with music. I know it's a stretch.