Should I use iTunes Match? - gdgt

Close

x

RP

Question about

Apple Mac OS X Lion

Add tags:

ryan September 10, 2011

Should I use iTunes Match?

I'm debating whether to join the iTunes Match beta -- which is another way of saying I'm debating whether I want to use iTunes Match at all.

Besides the fact that I've taken to playing all music chiefly through Rdio (and, to a lesser extent, Spotify), I'm seeing increasingly little value in having access to a file library of my music in the cloud or otherwise.

What do you think? Beta bugginess aside, is iTunes Match worth it so far?

answer this question

top answers

ryan's pick

NotHotWater 8 months ago

It would have been worth it before Apple fixed the streaming bug. I was totally debating it too until I read a bunch of reports that said it did indeed allow you to remove all the songs from your device and stream them - I bought it immediately. Once Apple closed that little loophole, I kind of lost hope/use for it. It's probably worth it if you have a developer account because you get 15 months for the price of 12, but other than that, I don't see too much of a point in it.

I don't have a huge collection of songs that I've pirated or ripped from CDs (mostly because my the time I was old enough to start enjoying music beyond Barney, iTunes was getting started) because I tend to actually buy a lot of my music through iTunes. As such, iTunes Match is only good for the 100 songs I have ripped, and that just doesn't seem worth $25 to me.

If you've put a lot of time into Spotify and Rdio and use it daily for most of your music listening, then there really is no point in iTunes match because it's not like you're keeping a hard copy of the songs from those services for Apple to upload.

If you have a large volume of songs ripped from CDs or downloaded elsewhere, it might be worth it for the first year just to get access to Apple's (probably) higher quality versions. If most of your music is already digital, it's probably not worth it.

mark as good answer

9 people like this answer

chaoticpinoy89 2011-09-11 00:10:02

I'm not 100% sure of this. Even though "streaming" is not allowed, the way i understand it is that it downloads it and then plays it, pretty much instantaneously. Which means it does "stream".

NotHotWater 2011-09-11 16:38:21

But it stays on your phone, so you're just downloading it then playing it. Streaming requires a copy to not be on your phone, think Google Music or Spotify - true streaming.

jdz 2011-09-11 18:58:28

If there is a song that you want to listen to it would be better to have a copy of it stored on your phone. Then you don't have to worry about awesome things like connection issues or datacaps.

christophorus 2011-09-12 04:26:45

It's a different type of streaming. You can listen to the file as it downloads, unless I'm mistaken. Rather than leave it as a cache on your phone it's saved as if it were the proper file. Makes perfect sense to me.

Caputo023 2011-09-17 00:44:11

I assume that you'll only have access to higher quality versions of the music you've uploaded while you have an active subscription to iTunes Match. Once your subscription lapses or expires, the content is no longer available for play on your iDevice or PC.

ryan's pick

beau 8 months ago

Owning music, which seems to be the model that this service revolves around, seems rather antiquated to me now. I can't see springing for iTunes Match.

mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

community pick

eight 8 months ago

There are two scenarios that I think make iTunes match 'worth it'.

The first is if you have more than just a one computer. I have a computer at work and a computer at home (plus my phone). iTunes match will allow me to keep my songs in both places and when I add music to one, I can listen to it on the other. If I only used one computer I wouldn't need it.

The second is if you buy your music elsewhere. I purchase my music on eMusic (most of it) so I can purchase there for less than on iTunes and then match it back with iTunes match and it will still be in sync with my computers (and it seems like I will get the AAC version instead of slightly lower quality MP3, so bonus for audiophiles).

The Rdio / Spotify thing makes it rough, because they both have desktop clients that can keep everything in order no matter where you are, and their mobile apps are mostly competent .... well, Rdio's is anyway. The Spotify one is abysmal. My problem with those is that I keep finding gaps in their collections, and (in Rdio's case) I don't want to rebuild my playlists, and then have to rebuild them incomplete.

I personally like iTunes/iPod and I think they are more functional than Rdio or Spotify. Couple that with the fact that I use multiple computers and it makes a strong case for iTunes match .

mark as good answer

9 people like this answer

NotHotWater 2011-09-11 16:40:50

The first two scenarios you mentioned can be covered by (free) Google Music. You download the Music Manager on your main computer and every time you add a song to iTunes it uploads it to Google Music and you can access it anywhere. The only thing you don't get is the increased bitrate, which I've heard isn't detectable by human ears, but I'm not totally sure.

Dawagner1 2011-09-11 17:53:19

Two issues, I think. First your have to be constantly connected. Second, how does google music work with something like an mp3 player? Now you have to manage your devices separately. A hassle for most. The bit rate is also a significant issue. 256 sounds hell of a lot better than say 128, even to us old guys.

jdz 2011-09-11 18:55:44

One of the major pluses that iTunes Match offers is the fact that you will never have to upload the majority of your music - only the tracks that the service does not cover. With Google Music you would have to upload all of your music. For people who have a small collection (assuming your internet connection is not an issue) that is not a big deal, but for someone who has a large collection that is a big deal.
Google Music is still best suited for people that have Android devices. Their web app they just debuted for iOS devices just doesn't cut it and until they offer a native app it will be good for only streaming on a desktop/laptop with a WiFi or broadband connection.
As Dawagner1 mentioned having to manage your music across two or more apps/services is an incredible pain in the ass. It's just not worth it. Even if you stick with one of those services none of them offer the same level of management that you get with iTunes. Also, there is definitely a clear difference between 128 kbps and 256 kbps tracks. It is after that it becomes more of a difference for audiophiles as opposed to casual listeners.
When it comes to mobile devices streaming is problematic in regards to cell service both in performance and data usage (this is a non-issue when WiFi is available). If we lived in a world where cell networks were perfect and they were not imposing datacaps streaming would be awesome. Unfortunately we don't. Fortunately services like Spotify/Rdio/Mog/Slacker allow you to download songs for local playback on your mobile devices so you do not have to rely on cell service to play music. iTunes Match basically allows you to do the same thing; the only difference is that it's your personal music collection versus their catalogs (which may or may not contain all the music you like). Google Music currently does not allow you to download your music to an iOS device at all.

sort by

votes
date

21 more answers

thenns 2011-09-10 22:39:40

i wouldn't if i were you. I like google music better, and now they have a web app for ios.

mark as good answer

2 people like this answer

asilentecho 2011-09-10 23:15:18

That web app is embarrassingly bad, though. I'm not saying Google Music isn't a good deal, it's just that the web app is in terrible shape right now.

jdz 2011-09-11 00:35:25

If Google (or Amazon for that matter) would release actual native iOS apps (or at least try) with offline storage then it would be a good option. In that instance iTunes Match could compliment Google Music, but it would really depend on the state of your personal music collection and that would be the deciding factor of whether or not iTunes Match itself would be worth it.

If you even think for a second that you might have some use for it $25 is not too much to ask and you could get in on the extended period for participating in the beta. I plan on trying it out myself, but I am going to wait for the final product to launch.

brianllamar 2011-09-12 22:45:42

I wonder if Google has not already submitted for an iOS app but is being stopped or denied by Apple, similar to what we saw with Google Voice a year ago.

The more I read the replies I equate itunes match to the Carbonite for Music, or Music Insurance, interesting.

thenns 2011-09-12 23:43:05

that's probably what's going on. freaking apple. If google wanted to they could screw over ios users and pull all their apps from the app store, which would hurt apple.

hunthenning 2011-09-10 21:43:09

I'm doing it because I have a much of low-quality music because like an idiot I ripped my music in 128kps AAC a while ago and for $25 I'm willing do save myself a lot of time. Plus, I'm crossing my fingers that I can listen to this music from my AppleTV one day.

mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

gank41 2011-09-10 22:28:59

If it wasn't for the limit of songs, yes. Totally worth it. But, I have almost 68,000 Tracks (389.11 GB), so I'm waiting for what people's experiences are with libraries my size +....

mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

asilentecho 2011-09-10 23:16:26

Definitely seems worth it just for the first match to get any higher-quality tracks. Beyond that, you'd just have to see if you like it enough to use it for more than one year.

mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

| add reply

frankspin 2011-09-11 12:40:18

I think it largely depends on how much music you own versus how much you use a streaming service. My music collection is rather large and having to manage that on a device would be a headache to me so something like iTunes Match would be really nice. Where it doesn't match up against a streaming service like Rdio or Spotify is the ability to check out a lot of albums without actually purchasing them. While that is nice Rdio & Spotify can be annoying for managing a music collection. Even though you have playlists they're not very easy to sort through.

With all that said I think anyone who leaves a computer running 24x7 should really considering hosting their own streaming service. jRiver & Subsonic both offer home streaming service that you control yourself on your own pc unlike Audiogalaxy which connects via Audiogalaxy service. The downside of this though is drive space.

mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

| add reply

antiduplicity 2011-09-12 00:21:36

You should use it once it is released. It will cost you $25 to get the latest, highest quality version of all your music. Do it once and download everything. Then, don't renew. It is worth it to get high quality copies of all my 20,000 songs. I use spotify and mog, but there are songs they do not have (The eagles, for example) so I mix my favorite real tracks and pandora, spotify and mog...also, I do not always have interent. I travelled up to Oregon for a funeral, and in the car, I listed to my real tracks because the 3g was spotty at best and both spotify and mog skip when I changed cell towers, which was every minute.

mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

| add reply

brianllamar 2011-09-12 19:08:58

Why bother when there is Google Music is you really want to stream your own playlist. I use in combination with spotify and am very satified. itunes Match just smells like ping to me, My opinino is that Apple spent too much time trying to do things the correct way by tickling the Music company - now its irrelevant.

mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

Rubik 2011-11-12 11:06:57

I'm not entirely sure, but doesn't rdio already do this? Shy of the DRM'd stuff that was on my hard drive, they scanned my library and added it to my "virtual" collection. Unless there was some reason I cared about the specific rip quality of what I'd recorded, seems like they've already done what I used iTunes match for?

mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

| add reply

ldweiner 2011-11-20 16:13:14

I use Spotify heavily and still opted to pay the 25 bucks for iTunes match so I could have best of both worlds. More than likely I will still use Spotify more, but for stuff that isn't on Spotify, that I own and I want it anytime anywhere I will be covered...

mark as good answer

1 person likes this answer

| add reply

the 2011-09-10 21:28:08

I say go for itunes match. If you use itunes at all in your daily life, this feature should make everything cleaner, nicer and easier. Yes, you've got Rdio and Spotify, but if you stop those at any time in the future, you're out of luck. I haven't tried the beta or anything, but I'm definitely getting it when it has a real launch. My iPhone will always be able to let me bring my songs back up for the rest of my life.

mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

| add reply

arras 2011-09-10 21:38:24

Aside from the beta issues (increased battery drain on devices), I've found iTunes Match pretty useful.
Like you, I've been drawn more to online music services (Spotify, et al) but the one thing that's missing for me is "my music" so Match fills that gap nicely.

The greatest downside that I've experience with iTunes Match so far is that if any of your music is mis-tagged, it won't get matched so I've had some songs show up under unknown. Kind of annoying.
I would fix it, but iTunes Match somehow locked my library so I can't edit it. :/

If having your tunes, like if you have songs you can't find on Rdio or Spotify or if you've got works you've made yourself in your iTunes library iTunes Match is a good bet.
If your library is pretty well represented elsewhere, I'd hold off

mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

| add reply

michaelbuzby 2011-09-10 22:54:44

yes it will make your library consistant w/in itunes, feel, album art etc...

mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

| add reply

Dawagner1 2011-09-10 22:59:45

It has been working fine for me. It upgraded about 2/3's of my music. Not bad for a beta. There is a lot to be said having your music available on multiple devices when you can't get a connection. I can't always be connected, so those services don't work well for me and don't proved me much value. If I could always be connected, it might be a different story. There are more than enough Internet radio stations available to help discover new music. No point, though, to paying to use iTunes Match if you are already paying for other services and not get use out of it.

mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

jerresand 2011-09-10 23:20:42

I think it is about behavior and use case. I am now all into using Spotify, updating playlists on my Macbook and then deciding what should be available offline on my different devices. Even if I have 400 CDs ripped in iTunes I do not care I do not use iTumes. I use Spotify. If you are an iTunes user and use iPods and the iPod app on the iPhone then it probably makes sense. Otherwise you should just admit that you are not part of the 90/90 rule from Apple :-) What 90 percent of the mainstream users do 90% of the time.

mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

| add reply

gomer43 2011-09-10 23:40:55

For you, Ryan, it's probably not worth it.

For me, I like it so far, even though I'm disappointed the "streaming loophole" was closed (although I'm hopeful they'll make it work again once they placate the record companies).

Now, I use Slacker for a lot of on-demand music (for my tastes, Slacker KILLS Spotify), but I still buy a lot of music from both iTunes and eMusic, and while my collection is small compared to most (only about 35 GB), it's nice to not have to fill up my iPhone with stuff I think I might want to listen to. Syncing is a pain, figuring out what 10 GB or so I might want is annoying, etc. Even though I can't "stream", iOS 5 seems to make it easy to quickly kill all the music that was downloaded, say, during a couple of hours of shuffle of my whole library, so even though I can't really stream, it isn't a lot of effort to have the same effect.

So, like I said, for you - you're clearly a big Rdio/Spotify fan - it's probably not worth it, but for me, it totally is.

mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

| add reply

falleninsea 2011-09-10 23:44:39

i would say yes. since I'm sure you or some one on your team will do a write up on it why not get the extra couple months for bering on the beta?

mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

| add reply

tmhwtt 2011-09-11 12:23:06

Na, not worth it. Put the unique stuff you own on Google music and use services for the rest.

mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

| add reply

roberto 2011-09-12 21:50:46

I say skip it, Ryan. I'm finding owning music less and less relevant.

mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

| add reply

nesscar 2011-09-20 17:40:43

Personally, I'm sticking with Spotify and Google Music. No reason for a 3rd service.

mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

| add reply

willdau 2011-10-15 11:07:20

If you are really into the iCloud thing than yes, otherwise unless you really want to give $24.99 a year to apple then most likely no!

mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

izahavi 2011-11-14 15:36:04

I dont think its worth it if you cant stream your library to your device. I would rather use Google Music and RDIO where I can hear anything I want. Apple really disappointed me with this.

mark as good answer

0 people like this answer

| add reply

follow this question

Related questions

44 users following this question:

This question has been viewed 700 times.
Last activity 2011-11-20 16:13:14.

Tips for giving the best answers

Sometimes it's just little details that separates a great and not so great answer! Here are a few simple tips to keep in mind:

1: Be complete and thorough. Don't skimp on the details!
2: Try not to answer with a question. Because that's not really an answer, right?
3: A little research goes a long way. Back up your claims and assumptions!
4: Try to be patient, tech questions can be complicated.
5: You are awesome for both reading this and answering questions.

It looks like you have JavaScript turned off, so gdgt may not work. You should enable JavaScript to fully experience gdgt.