4 ms·

I don't really get the complaint. The author acknowledges they are a tiny edge case and Apple has clearly been trying to get away from syncing and make the devi

I don't really get the complaint. The author acknowledges they are a tiny edge case and Apple has clearly been trying to get away from syncing and make the devices work without computers for years now. The music industry has changed and streaming is now what most people are doing with these devices. I think, in hindsight, investing a lot of time in any music delivery mechanism is wasteful. It changes much too often.

soneca 10y ago
Well, you do get the complaint. You just think it is useless to make it. I think that too. And I think the author thinks that too and being useful was not the reason he made it.
jsperson 10y ago
It's not just music though. Stream if you will/want. I think it's a good model. But that doesn't work for pictures. I know - iCloud, but it's not even as reliable as iTunes. No way am I trusting it for the only backup of videos of my kids. This may be a HN edge case, but out there in the RW, folks are taking pictures at soccer practice that they want to keep forever. It's a real PITA if you can't sync reliably.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  Have you used iCloud Photo Library? Syncs between your devices and you can have it store local copies on your Mac so you have cloud and local copies (and you can backup the local copies with your usual solution). Much safer than sync IMO because the photos are synced and backed up before you can get to a computer (useful if you're on vacation and without a computer for a couple of weeks).
  - jsperson 10y ago
    I haven't found iCloud to be entirely reliable. The total lack of feedback in sync progress and errors when something goes wrong drive me crazy. More importantly, Apple charges a lot for storage and it can't be shared so each account needs it's own storage - and enough of it to store all pictures/videos or it won't sync at all. Basically it comes down to I don't want to pay Apple four times for storage (2 phones and 2 iCloud accounts) just so that I can have my pictures fully backed up and synced.
    - LgWoodenBadger 10y ago
      They charge me $0.99/month per 50GB of extra storage. I just buy one fewer candy bars per month.
    - k-mcgrady 10y ago
      Are you talking iCloud generally or Photo Library? Sync progress for photos and videos is displayed at the bottom of your camera roll. As for storage they've reduced prices several times and it's very affordable now (I agree it started off terribly priced).
Omniusaspirer 10y ago
Music streaming at current prices thus far really hasn't proven to be that sustainable, and the available libraries are always in flux as negotiations fail. I think it's perfectly worthwhile to invest effort into lasting music delivery systems that are entirely under your control while still retaining the streaming capability that we're all so used to now.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  >> I think it's perfectly worthwhile to invest effort into lasting music delivery systems that are entirely under your control Agreed but I would argue that solution is a physical medium. You will always have the ability to play your content. With iTunes you're firstly at the mercy of iTunes developers. Personally I go with streaming (Apple Music) and I buy my favourite albums on vinyl so that if I stop paying my streaming subscription I still have music.
  - Omniusaspirer 10y ago
    Physical media is definitely a solid option if you don't mind the space and effort considerations. I opt for a middle ground by using Emby as my current solution. It allows me to physically store all my media on local drives, back it up to some free unlimited Google Drive accounts via edu addresses (fully encrypted), then can do local playback within my network or stream it out to any remote devices. It's largely open source, but there's always that worry I suppose that the devs ruin it at some point and I'll need to move to a new solution. Unfortunately there's a lot of work needed if I was to completely code my own solution, so hopefully I'll never need to.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    I buy CDs, rip to FLAC with EAC, store on external hard drive, transcode to MP3 with Foobar2000, and upload to my Android phone--or anything else except Apple products, really--with an ordinary USB cable, with no additional software required. I recently got an M-Disc capable drive, so that I can stop messing around with rotating DVD-R backups. Those things supposedly last 1000 years with no bit-rot, and 25 GB media are about $0.08/GB now. That's still 8x as expensive as tapes, but probably more than 8x as convenient for me. I want to ensure that my descendants will always have the option to play music without paying anyone anything more than I already paid for the privilege, for as long as 12cm digital disc players exist. I have never had a streaming subscription. I typically have the maximum number of songs that will fit on my device playing on random select. If I am not in the mood for a particular song, I have unlimited skips, so I use them. It ensures I at least have the opportunity to listen to everything I have ever bought/received while at my home computer, and a subset of whatever I like everywhere else. Streaming services are still useful for discovery. I use them when adding new CDs to my gift wishlist. Whenever I don't want to be in complete control of everything that I listen to, I can always flip on OTA FM radio or a free music service. That's plenty good enough to be introduced to new music and possibly new (to me) artists. But then I get that CD and continue as usual. Never will I ever give up my option to be in complete control. I think buying music on vinyl records would be ridiculously stupid for me, but fortunately for everyone, I am not in charge of what other people are allowed to like. The encoding format of pressed vinyl analog music tracks has been fixed for decades, after all, and anyone can build decoding devices unencumbered by patents now. I just prefer digital. Everyone can still hate iTunes for their own reasons.

soneca 10y ago

Well, you do get the complaint. You just think it is useless to make it. I think that too. And I think the author thinks that too and being useful was not the reason he made it.

jsperson 10y ago

It's not just music though. Stream if you will/want. I think it's a good model. But that doesn't work for pictures. I know - iCloud, but it's not even as reliable as iTunes. No way am I trusting it for the only backup of videos of my kids. This may be a HN edge case, but out there in the RW, folks are taking pictures at soccer practice that they want to keep forever. It's a real PITA if you can't sync reliably.

k-mcgrady 10y ago
Have you used iCloud Photo Library? Syncs between your devices and you can have it store local copies on your Mac so you have cloud and local copies (and you can backup the local copies with your usual solution). Much safer than sync IMO because the photos are synced and backed up before you can get to a computer (useful if you're on vacation and without a computer for a couple of weeks).
- jsperson 10y ago
  I haven't found iCloud to be entirely reliable. The total lack of feedback in sync progress and errors when something goes wrong drive me crazy. More importantly, Apple charges a lot for storage and it can't be shared so each account needs it's own storage - and enough of it to store all pictures/videos or it won't sync at all. Basically it comes down to I don't want to pay Apple four times for storage (2 phones and 2 iCloud accounts) just so that I can have my pictures fully backed up and synced.
  - LgWoodenBadger 10y ago
    They charge me $0.99/month per 50GB of extra storage. I just buy one fewer candy bars per month.
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    Are you talking iCloud generally or Photo Library? Sync progress for photos and videos is displayed at the bottom of your camera roll. As for storage they've reduced prices several times and it's very affordable now (I agree it started off terribly priced).

Omniusaspirer 10y ago

Music streaming at current prices thus far really hasn't proven to be that sustainable, and the available libraries are always in flux as negotiations fail. I think it's perfectly worthwhile to invest effort into lasting music delivery systems that are entirely under your control while still retaining the streaming capability that we're all so used to now.

k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> I think it's perfectly worthwhile to invest effort into lasting music delivery systems that are entirely under your control Agreed but I would argue that solution is a physical medium. You will always have the ability to play your content. With iTunes you're firstly at the mercy of iTunes developers. Personally I go with streaming (Apple Music) and I buy my favourite albums on vinyl so that if I stop paying my streaming subscription I still have music.
- Omniusaspirer 10y ago
  Physical media is definitely a solid option if you don't mind the space and effort considerations. I opt for a middle ground by using Emby as my current solution. It allows me to physically store all my media on local drives, back it up to some free unlimited Google Drive accounts via edu addresses (fully encrypted), then can do local playback within my network or stream it out to any remote devices. It's largely open source, but there's always that worry I suppose that the devs ruin it at some point and I'll need to move to a new solution. Unfortunately there's a lot of work needed if I was to completely code my own solution, so hopefully I'll never need to.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  I buy CDs, rip to FLAC with EAC, store on external hard drive, transcode to MP3 with Foobar2000, and upload to my Android phone--or anything else except Apple products, really--with an ordinary USB cable, with no additional software required. I recently got an M-Disc capable drive, so that I can stop messing around with rotating DVD-R backups. Those things supposedly last 1000 years with no bit-rot, and 25 GB media are about $0.08/GB now. That's still 8x as expensive as tapes, but probably more than 8x as convenient for me. I want to ensure that my descendants will always have the option to play music without paying anyone anything more than I already paid for the privilege, for as long as 12cm digital disc players exist. I have never had a streaming subscription. I typically have the maximum number of songs that will fit on my device playing on random select. If I am not in the mood for a particular song, I have unlimited skips, so I use them. It ensures I at least have the opportunity to listen to everything I have ever bought/received while at my home computer, and a subset of whatever I like everywhere else. Streaming services are still useful for discovery. I use them when adding new CDs to my gift wishlist. Whenever I don't want to be in complete control of everything that I listen to, I can always flip on OTA FM radio or a free music service. That's plenty good enough to be introduced to new music and possibly new (to me) artists. But then I get that CD and continue as usual. Never will I ever give up my option to be in complete control. I think buying music on vinyl records would be ridiculously stupid for me, but fortunately for everyone, I am not in charge of what other people are allowed to like. The encoding format of pressed vinyl analog music tracks has been fixed for decades, after all, and anyone can build decoding devices unencumbered by patents now. I just prefer digital. Everyone can still hate iTunes for their own reasons.