Apple Stole My Music • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple Stole My Music

#341

Post by Karunamon » Thu, May 05, 2016, 5:01 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #294

Karunamon wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did something change? Because the iTunes internal organization for music at least is quite easy to understand. From the library folder: Music/Artist/Album/Track# Title.ext If your files aren't tagged correctly (which is distressingly common), then the auto organization will make a pig's breakfast of your library. A common example: "Artist" and "Album Artist" are two different ID3 fields - if you have an album with an…

"If your files aren't tagged correctly (which is distressingly common), then the auto organization will make a pig's breakfast of your library." Pray tell, how should my WAV/PCM files be "tagged" ? What's the format for that ? Exactly.

You just described the reason for the existence of ID3. But, if you insist on using files that don't have a metadata standard, the only way to organize them is in the database of the library application. Which generally won't be portable to other applications.

Re: Apple Stole My Music

#342

Post by guyzero » Thu, May 05, 2016, 5:03 PM UTC

lanterk wrote: post #289

april1stislame wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's high quality... That's some deceiving wording right there. High quality are the originals, those are at the maximum optimized.

Not really, the quality is fine enough. And the other option (that takes up space) is called "Original Quality".

But the difference, if you read the docs, is that everything below 16 megapixels is the same for high quality and original quality. The only photos that ever get downsampled are ones above 16 megapixels.

Re: Apple Stole My Music

#343

Post by rsync » Thu, May 05, 2016, 5:05 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #340

rsync wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A complaint I've heard before is that this works fine for most modern music, but the Artist/Album/Track layout doesn't apply to a lot of classical collections." More importantly, and more generally: what if my music organization format predates OSX/iOS/iTunes and I am not interested in altering it for todays fad ? This is not apple-specific, either - many devices and services (audi MMI, Sonos, etc.) assume certain n…

"Today's fad" has been the iTunes standard since the application existed. Also, take your pick. If the files aren't organized to a consistent standard, that means a database has to be stored somewhere with that info so the app can do its job. In iTunes' case, that's an XML file.

"Also, take your pick. If the files aren't organized to a consistent standard"

Actually, that's not true - one alternative to an organizational structure or a database is to actually name the files verbosely, which is what I decided on in 1996 when I ripped my first CD:

Artist Name - Album Name - ## - Track Name - time.wav

For instance:

Ferry, Bryan - Taxi - 03 - Answer Me - 2m46s.wav

This file can now be dropped into place anywhere without losing information, requires no DB and gives you full "metadata" for wav files that don't actually contain metadata.

Re: Apple Stole My Music

#344

Post by rsync » Thu, May 05, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #341

rsync wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If your files aren't tagged correctly (which is distressingly common), then the auto organization will make a pig's breakfast of your library." Pray tell, how should my WAV/PCM files be "tagged" ? What's the format for that ? Exactly.

You just described the reason for the existence of ID3. But, if you insist on using files that don't have a metadata standard, the only way to organize them is in the database of the library application. Which generally won't be portable to other applications.

"But, if you insist on using files that don't have a metadata standard, the only way to organize them is in the database of the library application."

Again, I disagree - see my response further up the thread for how to get around this problem with verbose naming:

Ferry, Bryan - Taxi - 03 - Answer Me - 2m46s.wav

Re: Apple Stole My Music

#345

Post by pavedwalden » Thu, May 05, 2016, 5:09 PM UTC

clapinton wrote: post #285

funkyy wrote: post #75

I am surprised at people trying to rationale Apples wrongdoing by pointing at Google and bringing some crazy examples. There is no rationale in this - this is outright breaking your privacy and ownership rights. No terms and conditions can be above law. It doesn't matter what others do - Apple is doing those crazy things here and there trying to test the ground which indicates they are not pro privacy and pro user, b…

Remember the U2 fiasco, when Apple decided to break into your computer and push their new album through iTunes? It seems like whenever Apple decides to take control of your files, shit happens. Back in the day, I tried to use iTunes for a while when I bought my iPod. One of the first things that it asked me was to take control of my music, as it would reorganize it by itself. I agreed, but tested it first with a smal…

While the U2 fiasco was a bad move, I don't think that "break into your computer" is a fair characterization of what they did. They added it to your available downloads and, depending on your sync settings, it was downloaded to devices. I'm not a huge fan of having my media managed by the companies I buy hardware from, but when I found a user's manual document on my Kindle I didn't consider it 'getting hacked' by them.

Re: Apple Stole My Music

#346

Post by clapinton » Thu, May 05, 2016, 5:13 PM UTC

VonGuard wrote: post #288

clapinton wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember the U2 fiasco, when Apple decided to break into your computer and push their new album through iTunes? It seems like whenever Apple decides to take control of your files, shit happens. Back in the day, I tried to use iTunes for a while when I bought my iPod. One of the first things that it asked me was to take control of my music, as it would reorganize it by itself. I agreed, but tested it first with a smal…

Apple fundamentally does not understand software. A shame, as the software, really, was their original special sauce with the Mac 128k and beyond. Today, however, the company really doesn't understand how to make, maintain, or market software. It sees software as a way to spread their control of their hardware further into your life. It's going to be the death of Apple, mark my words.

I worked with a Google engineer once and he offered me advice as I was considering buying a new phone, namely the HTC One: "Phone manufacturers know how to make hardware. Google knows how to make software. When you marry the two with both knowing their place in the world, things work out. When one tries to make what the other does, you get crappy stuff on top of your system. Stick to vanilla Android, man."

Having said that, I see Apple more as a hardware manufacturer than as a software one. You don't hear Jony Ive and his seductive British accent passionately talking about iOS or OSX as many times as he does about new hardware. It doesn't see software in the same way it sees hardware.

Still, I can't complain about Apple offering free OSX upgrades, including major ones, for quite some time now and also managing to maintain backward compatibility for a rather large span of devices (my early 2011 MBP still flows nicely with OSX El Cap).

Re: Apple Stole My Music

#347

Post by acomjean » Thu, May 05, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

osi wrote: post #100

Terretta wrote: post #36

Apple iTunes Match (and Apple Music) subscriber, with 23,000 hand ripped songs, only about 18,000 able to exact match by Apple, 5,000 are less common versions. Also have enabled iCloud Music Library. Note these are three different services, and iCloud Music Library has been the most likely culprit for monkeying with your music, not Apple Music. The combo of all three has deleted or auto-replaced exactly zero of my cu…

Fellow iTunes Match subscriber - been using it since the release with zero problems.

Me too. I really like iTunes match and it seems to work well. For those that are unfamiliar, it makes all your music on your main machine available from the cloud for a small yearly payment (25$?). It does this by matching your music to its own library and uploading the stuff it doesn't have.

One of the strange things is I have 2 mp3 rips from CD with skips. When I play over the internet with iTunes match the files still skip. These are common songs, so whatever they are doing to determine if that song is in their library is working (I guess).

My only complaint is sometimes it breaks up my albums if it decides that songs are by different artists. (Bob Marley, vs Bob Marley and the Wailers)

Re: Apple Stole My Music

#348

Post by scholia » Thu, May 05, 2016, 5:21 PM UTC

te_platt wrote: post #319

mrep wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^ 100% agree, it is literally the worst UX design ever! I'm currently using the 3 month free trial and every time I use it i have to tell myself "it's free money, just 1 more month until I switch back to spotify". For example, the playlists I create on my laptop don't sync whatsoever with my phone. I spent a little time trying to research how to sync them and just said screw it. On what planet does a user not want th…

Did you ever use Lotus Notes? I agree that iTunes is poorly designed but you can't just toss out "worst UX design ever!" without old Lotus Notes users taking exception.

True. Lotus Notes on a Mac in particular ;-)

Re: Apple Stole My Music

#349

Post by dwighttk » Thu, May 05, 2016, 5:22 PM UTC

This is awful and I'm glad I stayed away from the 3 month trial because I would hate for this to happen to me.

Also: I know of a few people who would love for this to happen because it would open up a lot of space in their hard drive which is almost completely full. "I subscribed to Apple Music and freed up 100 GB! Sweet!"

That being said there should definitely be a way to avoid this and I would personally prefer it to be opt-in than opt-out.

Re: Apple Stole My Music

#350

Post by clapinton » Thu, May 05, 2016, 5:24 PM UTC

pavedwalden wrote: post #345

clapinton wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember the U2 fiasco, when Apple decided to break into your computer and push their new album through iTunes? It seems like whenever Apple decides to take control of your files, shit happens. Back in the day, I tried to use iTunes for a while when I bought my iPod. One of the first things that it asked me was to take control of my music, as it would reorganize it by itself. I agreed, but tested it first with a smal…

While the U2 fiasco was a bad move, I don't think that "break into your computer" is a fair characterization of what they did. They added it to your available downloads and, depending on your sync settings, it was downloaded to devices. I'm not a huge fan of having my media managed by the companies I buy hardware from, but when I found a user's manual document on my Kindle I didn't consider it 'getting hacked' by the…

Fair enough. "break into your computer" does sound like getting hacked by them, which wasn't technically true, at least from what I know. Thanks for pointing that out.