Macworld Forums

Macworld Forums: iTunes Match shouldn't shun those with big libraries - Macworld Forums

Jump to content

  • (5 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

iTunes Match shouldn't shun those with big libraries

#15 User is offline   EmilyPearson 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 19-June 11

  Posted 18 November 2011 - 07:43 AM

LOL, "However, a quick glance on Amazon.com shows that the iPod classic is, today, the number four best-selling device among Apple's music players there."

Last place out of four possible then?
0

#16 User is offline   kirkmc 

  • Member
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 29-March 04

Posted 18 November 2011 - 07:47 AM

View Postlymond, on 18 November 2011 - 07:38 AM, said:

View Postalexdedalus, on 18 November 2011 - 07:22 AM, said:


So the bottom line is pretty simple, no one have the time to listen to that much music....and if your collection is this huge I can bet pretty safely that you don't know even a quarter of the titles of your library and that probably half of the tracks haven't been listened even once.



Actually, I know Kirk, and, believe me, he does know all the titles in his library, and has listened to all of them. His breadth of musical knowledge and interests astonishes me.


<blush>

Actually, a lot of my music covers two areas: classical music (I review classical CDs, and have a lot of big box sets), and Grateful Dead concerts.

There's a lot of music I've only listened to once, especially music I've gotten for review. I can certainly cull some of it, but when I review CDs, I like to compare them to other versions that I have, so I'd rather keep them in my library.

As for the Dead concerts, they get a lot of rotations...
Macworld Senior Contributor - Macworld's iTunes Guy - Editor of Mac OS X Hints
Read my blog Kirkville, writings about more than just Macs. Twitter: @mcelhearn
My latest book: Take Control of iTunes 10: The FAQ
0

#17 User is offline   DougAdams 

  • Member
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 217
  • Joined: 24-February 03

Posted 18 November 2011 - 07:48 AM

View Postalexdedalus, on 18 November 2011 - 07:22 AM, said:

I call BS on this because people with those kind of huge libraries aren't even listening to a fraction of it ; they're just hoarders and should consult instead of complain in IMO.

You're right! Why am I wasting so much time listening to all this stuff! God, I could be trolling Macworld forums making ridiculous assumptions about other peoples' listening habits instead. Thank you for showing me the light.
the doug part of dougscripts.com
1

#18 User is offline   kirkmc 

  • Member
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 29-March 04

Posted 18 November 2011 - 07:49 AM

View PostEmilyPearson, on 18 November 2011 - 07:43 AM, said:

LOL, "However, a quick glance on Amazon.com shows that the iPod classic is, today, the number four best-selling device among Apple's music players there."

Last place out of four possible then?


No, remember, there are multiple versions of the iPod touch, nano, etc. The classic comes in ahead of any nano model. Right now it's the 5th Apple device in the list, after 4 different models of the iPod touch. The shuffle and nano come next.
Macworld Senior Contributor - Macworld's iTunes Guy - Editor of Mac OS X Hints
Read my blog Kirkville, writings about more than just Macs. Twitter: @mcelhearn
My latest book: Take Control of iTunes 10: The FAQ
0

#19 User is offline   kirkmc 

  • Member
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 800
  • Joined: 29-March 04

Posted 18 November 2011 - 07:51 AM

View Postsmundich, on 18 November 2011 - 05:42 AM, said:

Personally I always supposed that that limit was imposed by the recording industry rather than Apple. The fact that it states songs not purchased on iTunes reinforces that theory for me. Because if it was a question of space, then it would probably say 25,000 songs not in the iTunes Store Database. I think it's rather logical to think that the recording industry demanded that limit in negociations. They probably believe that most people who have more than 25,000 songs must have gotten them illegally and I'd actually agree with them for once (though those people might have also bought more songs than the average user, thus actually helping the music industry. There has actually been in interesting study showing that people who pirate a lot of films and music actually also buy more of it then people who don't "steal" it). Anyway, would be curious to know if the author actually has a reason to believe this limit is imposed by apple and not the music industry who was, it seems, very hesitant to accept this deal at all.


I don't know who imposes it. For all I know, Apple might have done so because of the processing time necessary for tracks to be matched.

But the point is that you simply cannot - without creating a second library - say that I wan't _these_ 25K tracks in the cloud, and don't care about the rest.

View PostUNHsmitty, on 18 November 2011 - 05:45 AM, said:

In my mind, the solution is rather simple. Apple should allow users to match more than 25,000 songs but just charge an extra $5 for each additional 5,000 songs. More revenue for the company, more happy users.


You're missing the point. I don't want to match more than 25,000 songs. I want to be able to match 25,000 of the songs in my library, and choose which ones.
Macworld Senior Contributor - Macworld's iTunes Guy - Editor of Mac OS X Hints
Read my blog Kirkville, writings about more than just Macs. Twitter: @mcelhearn
My latest book: Take Control of iTunes 10: The FAQ
0

#20 User is offline   mc4o1993 

  • Member
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 13-September 08

Posted 18 November 2011 - 07:51 AM

View Postalexdedalus, on 18 November 2011 - 07:22 AM, said:

I call BS on this because people with those kind of huge libraries aren't even listening to a fraction of it ; they're just hoarders and should consult instead of complain in IMO.



it's not about listening to tracks from1-65000 in order. it's about what you might want to listen to at a given moment. if that 25k limit only covers artists A-M, what happens when you want to listen to an artists N-Z?
0

#21 User is online   bjbj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 20-January 09

  Posted 18 November 2011 - 07:55 AM

I'm not sure how much the restriction is coming from the music industry and how much is coming from Apple. After all, Apple isn't going to do anything without the music industry giving them the go ahead. Perhaps they are the ones that believe 25,000 tracks is the point at which the service is being abused. I know that streaming services charge $10 a month, but they will scan your drive and match your collection to be accessed online, and I'm pretty sure they don't limit the size of your collection.
0

#22 User is offline   EmilyPearson 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 19-June 11

Posted 18 November 2011 - 08:04 AM

View Postkirkmc, on 18 November 2011 - 07:49 AM, said:

View PostEmilyPearson, on 18 November 2011 - 07:43 AM, said:

LOL, "However, a quick glance on Amazon.com shows that the iPod classic is, today, the number four best-selling device among Apple's music players there."

Last place out of four possible then?


No, remember, there are multiple versions of the iPod touch, nano, etc. The classic comes in ahead of any nano model. Right now it's the 5th Apple device in the list, after 4 different models of the iPod touch. The shuffle and nano come next.

Ah, okay, it wasn't clear that different memory capacity constituted a separate category.
0

#23 User is offline   hagen 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 15-March 05

Posted 18 November 2011 - 08:04 AM

i think the capability/interface to manage your upload/manage choice will come. they can't (and never have) delivered 150% functionality in any first release.
0

#24 User is offline   AppleZilla 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 178
  • Joined: 08-April 05

  Posted 18 November 2011 - 08:18 AM

It's clear to me that they will either up the number or charge more for more 'songs.'

Still a beta. Things will change. But don't expect a change overnight.
0

#25 User is offline   pln 

  • Member
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 150
  • Joined: 03-February 06

  Posted 18 November 2011 - 08:40 AM

As a software engineer myself (not working for Apple) I can pretty much guarantee that this is on their list of features to implement, but when you're trying to get software out with finite resources you have to release with some features missing. I can see the reasoning behind this - there are probably two tasks, allow users to choose what to upload and allow large libraries. The 25,000 limit was probably chosen to reduce load on their servers.

They probably considered that the number users with large libraries was too small to make this a high priority. Putting resources on this rather than more important basic features would have been a mistake.

It sucks if you're one of those with more than 25,000 tracks, but the restriction will probably be relaxed in a few months.
0

#26 User is offline   Christopher451 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 18-November 11

  Posted 18 November 2011 - 08:44 AM

Thank you. This limit has infuriated me. I don't need my thousands of old radio shows to be on the cloud, and I don't insist on uploading the many thousands of songs that iTunes can't match, and I'm not even saying that they should have to match more than 25,000 of my legally obtained library, but let me choose which 25.000 songs (a tiny portion of my collection) I want to put on the cloud. Apple, you really f***ed up this time.
0

#27 User is offline   Christopher451 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: New Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 18-November 11

Posted 18 November 2011 - 08:47 AM

View PostBriannaWu, on 18 November 2011 - 06:44 AM, said:

How much free stuff do you want for $25? I thought I'd go over, but once I started importing, I could I didn't even use 1/3 of my space. I have probably 400 CDs - I think 1000 CDs is quite reasonable.

Something that frustrates me about the Apple community is everyone always thinks their edge case should be a priority for Apple. I do 3D work, and I'd love a MacPro update - but I realize and accept their priorities are elsewhere.


If you are paying $25 for it, IT ISN"T FREE!
0

#28 User is offline   Galloway 

  • Member
  • Group: Macworld Insiders
  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: 01-August 07

Posted 18 November 2011 - 08:50 AM

View Postalexdedalus, on 18 November 2011 - 07:22 AM, said:

I call BS on this because people with those kind of huge libraries aren't even listening to a fraction of it ; they're just hoarders and should consult instead of complain IMO.


Let me just add to the people who are calling BS on your rant. You start with "Let's say you have time to listen 2 full hours of music each day..." Bzzzzt, wrong. I listen to music constantly. At work. In the car. At home. As I'm going to sleep. I'd venture the people with large libraries listen to their music a lot more than someone like you who'd clearly rather troll than listen to your tiny library. My average would be 12-14 hours per day. Let me even shorten that, since I'm often listening to Pandora or Live365.com, learning about new music to enjoy and buy. So say 8 hours to my iTunes library. Now you're 60 day turnover for listening to an entire 25000 track library is down to 15 days. And that sounds about right, I push through much of my library every couple of weeks or so.

I AM a music lover. I'd guess you are not.
3

Share this topic:


  • (5 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users