I have a collection of roughly 1500 CDs of which I have ripped 900. I am going to rip the remaining 600 and then I will have about 27000 songs. So I guess I am the "who on earth"
Your CD'S have on average 18 songs each?
Seems very unlikely unless your collection is all compilation records with songs on average 4 min or less.
The average non compilation store bought CD has about 13 tracks and are 74 min max.
More recent artists have even less than that, for example St-Vincent has 11-12 on all her 5 albums.
If you prefer something more rock, Spoon has 11 tracks on average on their 8 albums
The Beatles early records had 14 tracks, 12 on Let it Be and as little as 8 on side 1 of Abbey road.
Away from pop, you get even less tracks.
My own CD's run around the average 13 tracks, with some jazz singles compilation disks running to 18.
Easy. I don't own 50,000 songs and even if I did, it would be too many to ever listen to in a lifetime. Not only that, maybe 4,000 in my relatively paltry but valuable to me collection of about 7,500 are truly worth listening to. You're better off with the streaming service of your choice. Google, overkill again and again.
If it's a shared collection between users, OK, I might see that.
Google is showing signs of desperation, on another topic I mistakenly start google maps on my phone, I should have known! , and you know what I was greet with a , "a fricking Ad" I closed it in disgust, screw you Google and your really crappy services
You're full of crap. They aren't ads in Google Maps in iOS or Android for that matter.
Easy. I don't own 50,000 songs and even if I did, it would be too many to ever listen to in a lifetime. Not only that, maybe 4,000 in my relatively paltry but valuable to me collection of about 7,500 are truly worth listening to. You're better off with the streaming service of your choice. Google, overkill again and again.
If it's a shared collection between users, OK, I might see that.
Got to love the "I don't need it so why does anyone else?" style response. If you listened to music just 2 hours a day, you could easily listen to 50,000 tracks in about 3.5 years. I don't know about you but I plan on living more than 3.5 years. Streaming services are great as long as you have Internet connection, but when you don't (like on an airplane) having the ability to download songs ahead of time is kind of essential.
But then again I doubt you'd have a negative word to say if Apple had announced that iTunes Match was increasing to 50,000 tracks.
I collect a lot of concerts. But while I stick to only one band's shows, I can imagine there are lots of other people who collect a lot of bands. Those people would run into songs greater than 25k.
I just did a very rough, arbitrary calculation:
25k songs with an average of 6 mins per song would work out to 2500 hours of music.
If we assume 2 hours of listening time per day, then it would take 1250 days to listen to all that music. That would work out to about 3.42 years.
A music buff would easily cover that much music .
As with all storage, more songs on iTunes Match would only be better.
I am a long way away from hitting the 25k limit, but I can see a lot of people finding it inadequate.
Seems very unlikely unless your collection is all compilation records with songs on average 4 min or less.
The average non compilation store bought CD has about 13 tracks and are 74 min max.
More recent artists have even less than that, for example St-Vincent has 11-12 on all her 5 albums.
If you prefer something more rock, Spoon has 11 tracks on average on their 8 albums
The Beatles early records had 14 tracks, 12 on Let it Be and as little as 8 on side 1 of Abbey road.
Away from pop, you get even less tracks.
My own CD's run around the average 13 tracks, with some jazz singles compilation disks running to 18.
ITunes and Google Play music count double CDs as a single album. A least 70 % of my CDs are classical music, so my collection statistics will be quite different. Madame Butterfly from Puccini has 46 tracks, but counts as a single album.
I wonder how the Apple iTunes database works. I presume Apple have one copy of the music file (perhaps several reflecting a few different bit rates?) and then pointers to everyone who has bought the rights to listen to it ('own' it)? If this is the case, I don't understand the need for any limit. The real storage issue in, terms of cost, is the music files themselves, and there's only one-ish copy of each song...um, right?
I wonder how the Apple iTunes database works. I presume Apple have one copy of the music file (perhaps several reflecting a few different bit rates?) and then pointers to everyone who has bought the rights to listen to it ('own' it)? If this is the case, I don't understand the need for any limit. The real storage issue in, terms of cost, is the music files themselves, and there's only one-ish copy of each song...um, right?
That is a good point, there is no actual storage space used as such, it's just pointers. That is unless iTunes does't have a particular track, such as something you make on Garage Band then it really uploads it. I wouldn't mind if the limit was on those uploaded tracks, that way Apple could almost make the virtual tracks they point to unlimited. Of course there maybe licensing agreements to deal with.
I'm guessing that there will be some overhaul of Apple's music offerings coming soon, in particular doing something more with Beats Radio (and hopefully the Swell podcast "radio" app they purchased a while back). So perhaps iTunes Match will be tweaked during that effort.
Based on your post history I'm sure you would prefer they didn't do so, correct? Anymore it's just a fact of life. You ARE being tracked and datamined no matter is you use iOS, MAC, Android or Windows.
Based on your post history I'm sure you would prefer they didn't do so, correct? Anymore it's just a fact of life. You ARE being tracked and datamined no matter is you use iOS, MAC, Android or Windows.
Based on your posting history i am shocked at the lack of irrelevant links in your reply. Please provide evidence that Apple monetize me directly from my iTunes Match account. I can understand they need to track use of songs anonymously so as to pay royalties perhaps but that hardly would fit with your characterization of a Google like use of my information for self profit.
I know I'm an outlier, but I've been collecting music since the 80s and have well over 25k tracks. As an outlier, I'd be happy to pay more, but sure wish Apple offered an upgraded tier.
I'll be tempted to try google play with this. Not Amazon, though. They're evil.
I don't know. I think this is getting crazy. Call me a "light" user... after 10 years of iTunes, I still only have only 3,000 songs in my library, well below the iTunes Match limit that I'm paying for. That said, iTunes Match has given me plenty of grief... (a) songs disappearing because they are no longer available from iTunes as a purchase, (b) constantly having to sign in again in the iTunes app, (c) streaming not working at all for days from my mobile devices. While I do appreciate the convenience of it, it has not been without its problems for me, unfortunately. That said, I'll live with it since I tend to stream radio stations more than listen to my own library anyway. Now if Apple would only get their act together and give us iTunes Radio in Canada, I would be delighted!
I’ll let you in on a little secret, if you don't know it already.
iTunes is linked with Safari, so if you clear out your history and webdata in Safari, you will have to log into your account in iTunes again, even if you are logged in already. I believe this dates back years, and some tech guru here could probably explain it, but it seems archaic and suboptimal. iTunes probably needs a complete re-write from the ground up.
I know I'm an outlier, but I've been collecting music since the 80s and have well over 25k tracks. As an outlier, I'd be happy to pay more, but sure wish Apple offered an upgraded tier.
I'll be tempted to try google play with this. Not Amazon, though. They're evil.
Amazon is not evil, that's Google! I might not use any Amazon digital product offerings but I live from day to day waiting for the Amazon boxes brought by Fedex.
I agree Apple need to up the numbers, as I said earlier, even if they cap data that is uploaded or charge more at least. The content that is 'matched' and doesn't upload could be increased one would have thought with little impact on Apple's bottom line (which I do care about).
Comments
I have a collection of roughly 1500 CDs of which I have ripped 900. I am going to rip the remaining 600 and then I will have about 27000 songs. So I guess I am the "who on earth"
Your CD'S have on average 18 songs each?
Seems very unlikely unless your collection is all compilation records with songs on average 4 min or less.
The average non compilation store bought CD has about 13 tracks and are 74 min max.
More recent artists have even less than that, for example St-Vincent has 11-12 on all her 5 albums.
If you prefer something more rock, Spoon has 11 tracks on average on their 8 albums
The Beatles early records had 14 tracks, 12 on Let it Be and as little as 8 on side 1 of Abbey road.
Away from pop, you get even less tracks.
My own CD's run around the average 13 tracks, with some jazz singles compilation disks running to 18.
That is nuts. How can you refuse?
Easy. I don't own 50,000 songs and even if I did, it would be too many to ever listen to in a lifetime. Not only that, maybe 4,000 in my relatively paltry but valuable to me collection of about 7,500 are truly worth listening to. You're better off with the streaming service of your choice. Google, overkill again and again.
If it's a shared collection between users, OK, I might see that.
You're full of crap. They aren't ads in Google Maps in iOS or Android for that matter.
Got to love the "I don't need it so why does anyone else?" style response. If you listened to music just 2 hours a day, you could easily listen to 50,000 tracks in about 3.5 years. I don't know about you but I plan on living more than 3.5 years. Streaming services are great as long as you have Internet connection, but when you don't (like on an airplane) having the ability to download songs ahead of time is kind of essential.
But then again I doubt you'd have a negative word to say if Apple had announced that iTunes Match was increasing to 50,000 tracks.
Look, just become the 51st State and be done with all these delays on Apple products and services.
They'll have to be the 52nd State. England already has dibs on being the 51st State!!
I collect a lot of concerts. But while I stick to only one band's shows, I can imagine there are lots of other people who collect a lot of bands. Those people would run into songs greater than 25k.
I just did a very rough, arbitrary calculation:
25k songs with an average of 6 mins per song would work out to 2500 hours of music.
If we assume 2 hours of listening time per day, then it would take 1250 days to listen to all that music. That would work out to about 3.42 years.
A music buff would easily cover that much music .
As with all storage, more songs on iTunes Match would only be better.
I am a long way away from hitting the 25k limit, but I can see a lot of people finding it inadequate.
Your CD'S have on average 18 songs each?
Seems very unlikely unless your collection is all compilation records with songs on average 4 min or less.
The average non compilation store bought CD has about 13 tracks and are 74 min max.
More recent artists have even less than that, for example St-Vincent has 11-12 on all her 5 albums.
If you prefer something more rock, Spoon has 11 tracks on average on their 8 albums
The Beatles early records had 14 tracks, 12 on Let it Be and as little as 8 on side 1 of Abbey road.
Away from pop, you get even less tracks.
My own CD's run around the average 13 tracks, with some jazz singles compilation disks running to 18.
ITunes and Google Play music count double CDs as a single album. A least 70 % of my CDs are classical music, so my collection statistics will be quite different. Madame Butterfly from Puccini has 46 tracks, but counts as a single album.
I wonder how the Apple iTunes database works. I presume Apple have one copy of the music file (perhaps several reflecting a few different bit rates?) and then pointers to everyone who has bought the rights to listen to it ('own' it)? If this is the case, I don't understand the need for any limit. The real storage issue in, terms of cost, is the music files themselves, and there's only one-ish copy of each song...um, right?
LOL, true, and I note you said 'England'.
That is a good point, there is no actual storage space used as such, it's just pointers. That is unless iTunes does't have a particular track, such as something you make on Garage Band then it really uploads it. I wouldn't mind if the limit was on those uploaded tracks, that way Apple could almost make the virtual tracks they point to unlimited. Of course there maybe licensing agreements to deal with.
I'm guessing that there will be some overhaul of Apple's music offerings coming soon, in particular doing something more with Beats Radio (and hopefully the Swell podcast "radio" app they purchased a while back). So perhaps iTunes Match will be tweaked during that effort.
You forgot the /s tag.
Based on your posting history i am shocked at the lack of irrelevant links in your reply. Please provide evidence that Apple monetize me directly from my iTunes Match account. I can understand they need to track use of songs anonymously so as to pay royalties perhaps but that hardly would fit with your characterization of a Google like use of my information for self profit.
I'll be tempted to try google play with this. Not Amazon, though. They're evil.
I’ll let you in on a little secret, if you don't know it already.
iTunes is linked with Safari, so if you clear out your history and webdata in Safari, you will have to log into your account in iTunes again, even if you are logged in already. I believe this dates back years, and some tech guru here could probably explain it, but it seems archaic and suboptimal. iTunes probably needs a complete re-write from the ground up.
Amazon is not evil, that's Google! I might not use any Amazon digital product offerings but I live from day to day waiting for the Amazon boxes brought by Fedex.
I agree Apple need to up the numbers, as I said earlier, even if they cap data that is uploaded or charge more at least. The content that is 'matched' and doesn't upload could be increased one would have thought with little impact on Apple's bottom line (which I do care about).