But I WANT Itunes metadata for matched songs!

I'm right there with you Bryce. I almost always have to correct metadata manually because even using most software that is suppose to do it automatically fails. I also bought iTunes Match specifically to get iTunes Metadata. I'll keep my fingers crossed and reply on this post again if I find anything first.

brycefromwesterville wrote:

I want ITunes metadata and artwork.

That is not a feature of iTunes Match. You can submit your feedback to Apple at this link: <http://www.apple.com/feedback/itunesapp.html>.

While I can understand why you'd like to have that feature, I imagine a lot of people who have, as you pointed out, put a lot of time into their own metadate would scream if it were erased. You'd be better off getting Tagalicious or Tuneup, as that's what theyr'e best at.

Thank you for your reply, I went and left feedback.

I guess I would just like to have the option there. That way people who like there metadata can keep it and others like myself can get iTunes metadata. I didn't like Tuneup, and unfortunately Pollux is dead for the time being. I don't think I've tried Tagalicious, but I guess it's worth a try. Thanks for the info.

I certainly wouldn't hold out for an iTunes Match update to correct metadata. It may happen, but I'd guess if it does then it will be a long time.

The fact that many people miss is that the ability to update music to the iTunes file is just an incidental benefit of the service. The service itself is actually there to allow streaming of music to various devices, and they use the matching method to try to cut down on storage (I assume) and upload times.

I know that for a lot of people the ability to upgrade music is actually the reason why they subscribed, but that doesn't mean that it is what the service is actually for.

Given the quite large number of problems that Match curently has with doing what it is actually for, I would be surprised if Apple were to divert any resources at the moment to adding features which it isn't actually for. Maybe one day, but not now.

Of course I could be wrong, Apple have surprised us in the past. I'd still encourage people to leave feedback on this, but make sure you ask for it as an option rather than an automatic feature.

KeithJenner wrote:

The fact that many people miss is that the ability to update music to the iTunes file is just an incidental benefit of the service. The service itself is actually there to allow streaming of music to various devices, and they use the matching method to try to cut down on storage (I assume) and upload times.

I know that for a lot of people the ability to upgrade music is actually the reason why they subscribed, but that doesn't mean that it is what the service is actually for.

This.

@Michael and Jim, I would actually disagree with you on this. The Matching process is actually a key feature to iTM, imo. It's what clearly separates itself from other Cloud services like Amazon or Google and thus a major selling point - so much so that it was described in detail to the general public even while it was in beta. Heck, it's even in the name of the product -- "Match".

I believe that Amazon's cloud services actually have an iOS client now (not 100% sure though) and they have no limit on music uploads and are $20 a year. It's a clear winner imo, assuming you take Match out of the picture. So I think Apple really needs to contunue tweaking the Matching process as best they can.

But the problem is that they have no control over what content is actually in their user's collections. If it was all iTunes purchases, then at least it would be within their ecosystem and something they could better control. But iTM is, in many ways, like Microsoft or Android in that their userbase has data from different areas that is literally impossible to test completely. CD rips, eMusic, Amazon, Google Music MP3's, WMA imports (which the Windows version of iTunes supports if it's not DRM), and of course music that was acquired via more nefarious means. This opens up issues similar to iTunes for Windows itself, given that there are so many different scenarios to deal with.

I just hope that they are taking some of our suggestions seriously and are working on it. Imo, if they don't fix some of the more major issues, then they risk losing a lot of subscribers after the first year.

I presume that you meant me rather than Jim in your response.

If so, I would agree completely that the match process is a key feature of this service. That wasn't my point.

The reason why Match is a key feature is that it means that peoples libraries can be put into the cloud far quicker than if it all had to be uploaded. By the time I am finished it will have taken over two weeks of uploading to get my library in the cloud, and that is with a matching rate of nearly 85%. It therefore follows that if it wasn't for the match process then it would take around 3 months to upload it all.

However, the ability to replace your files with the iTunes store versions is just an incidental benefit of the matching process.

I'm not claiming that it didn't occur to Apple that people would sign up and use it for this purpose, but they haven't marketed it as such, and I see little incentive for them to improve the process too much now. I am also sure that they are expecting a significant number of people who have signed up for this reason to let their subs lapse next year.

When you think about it, I suspect that if Apple had gone to the record industry to try to get them to sign up for a service based on the upgrading of tracks (i.e. that being what it is actually for) then they wouldn't have got a deal done for such a low cost per user. That is another reason why I don't think we will see much movement on things that make it easier for people to do the upgrade process, such as more user input on the matching process or less accurate matching to increase the success rate.

Sorry my bad on the mixup (I blame lack of coffee and am now rectifying that situation).

If Apple didn't realize this benefit, then they weren't reading their own press because it was heavily advertised in the local trade mags and blogs over the summer. I think they did, as it's mentioned on the main page as a benefit (granted, it's fairly far down but it's there). As to how many people are really upset on the matching % I don't know - it sounds like a lot on this board, but we could only represent a small fraction of their entire userbase.

I think what will be telling is what happens next fall - will those early adopters pay for another year, or will they go elsewhere with their Matched tracks? You've thought the same thing - I haven't decided myself, tbh. Right now the service is great for my purposes but once most of my songs are Matched, then the matching process itself is no longer a real benefit anymore. At that point, a Cloud service like Amazon might be a better fit for me. But then again a lot could change in the next 10 months.

I agree. "match" to me was first and foremost, a means to reduce uploads. I do think it's an eye of the beholder thing though. I worked in advertising and marketing in a pervious century and I always tried to put as many of the good points of a product into an ad as I could. Some of them would appeal to certain customers, some to others, and invariably, what was important to one person tended to be pushed to the background for another.

If you saw Apple's statements that matched songs would be available for download and might well be better than the copies you have, and you looked at your library and said, "gee, I've got thousands and thousands of songs that aren't very good copies, so I can use this as a way to upgrade thousands and thousands of songs, all for $24.99 . . .." I wouldn't be surprised that aspect of the service would be pretty tantalizing.

I don't want to belabor this, but if you were to pay on a per song basis to get good AAC, non DRM versions of the songs that HAVE matched, how much would you pay? I imagine upwards of $24.99. You could probably add at least one, maybe two zeros to the number.

I'm not saying Apple could have done a better job out of the gate and we all know the service could stand some improvement. I'm just saying it's a pretty good deal for $24.99 even in its current state and that anyone who doesn't think so ought to do the calculation I suggested above.

@Jim (for real this time) - completely agree with you there. I crunched the numbers in my situation and I came out with nine albums as the "it's worth getting" threshold. I used $3 per album assuming that I found very cheap used CD's to replace my older music files, so 9 albums would be over the $25 fee. And I passed that threshold by the second day I had the service. 🙂 Even if none of my other files match from this point on, the first year has already paid for itself and then some.

But the problem again is that it's not sustainable if the majority of users only use it to Match tracks and not use it for actual online storage and mobile use. I don't know how many users this applies to, but if I were Apple I would look at things like how many people turned off auto-renewals and maybe do some surveys soon to gauge how many people will be dropping the service after the first year.

I'm sure that Apple realised the benefit, and I think you're right that they have hinted at it a bit. However, if you look at the reference on the match page it just says that matched songs can be played back at 256kbps. There is no mention of being able to replace your files with these songs, although it doesn't take a genius to work it out.

As I say, it has a benefit to Apple, and I imagine a good number of users have subscribed for Match because of it.

Of those people, I imagine many have no use for the actual service at all and will let their subscription lapse. You are absolutely correct though that Apple have to ensure that as many people as possible have a good experience as possible with it so they have an incentive to renew.

Whether that is succeeding or not is very difficult to tell at the moment. From reading these pages you may suspect not, but this is obviously a place where people with problems come.

For what it's worth, I subscribed in order to get my songs in the cloud. I have a few hundred that are at lower quality than 256 and I will probably replace them at some point. I re-ripped some CD's at 256kbps recently fully in the knowledge that match was coming, as it is quicker, especially as I won't replace any tracks without checking they are the correct version first.

As for me on this subject, since all of us are chiming in. I'm waiting on Michael to give us his thoughts any minute. I purchased match for the sole benefit of having my entire, trimmed down to meet the limit, library available to me on my iphones. I have not deleted and downloaded one album. That was not even in the equation of why I bought this product. I got tired of constantly have to sync to get new stuff on my phone or take stuff off. Its awesome to be able to really go wireless. It was apple's big push it seemed this year to get people unconnected from the computer. I can now get music, pictures(via photostream), contacts and calender(via icloud) and all my updates without having to run to a computer everyday or week. The sole purpose I am using match for is to be able to access all of my music. I really don't see the benefit of trying to upgrade all my music. I didn't pirate a lot of stuff and my music is already in highbit rates since I ripped the biggest majority of it. But none the less I'm very happy with apple and itunes match and I'm currently helping two other friends get signed up and uploaded so they can enjoy this too.

But that's my two cents. Thanks for ya'lls. I love reading why people are using it.

carltonfrombedford wrote:

As for me on this subject, since all of us are chiming in. I'm waiting on Michael to give us his thoughts any minute.

Just for that I'm not gonna chime in. Hmph. 😉

Seriously, though, I agree with Jim that upgrading the tracks is not the primary purpose of iTunes Match. It is a very nice side benefit for many people, but the primary purpose is to give me access to all of my music on any iDevice from pretty much anywhere. And I really wish I could take advantage of the service but for now, until Smart Playlists with item limits and certain date criteria are fixed on iOS devices it's just not that useful for me.