I don't 'get' iTunes match

What I don't get is the price. First I had to have bought the music (from Apple or someone else) and now I have to pay again ($24.95 per year) in order to make it all available over iCloud.  I think I will stick with my new favorite, Spotify.

I am sure I don't fully understand the details, but it seems to me that the essential benefit that the new iTunes provide is that I can access my whole music collection (as far as it is 'legal') from any device attached to iCloud. Anything else?

Well, I think the very idea of 'owning' a music collection is antiquated. I mean it's evidently inefficient that millions of people have a copy of the same bits that form "Let It Be" on each of their computers.

iCloud solves this, in one way. I have to buy the 'Let it Be' bits, persuade iCloud of that fact, and iCloud will let me access their copy of the same bits, from any device that I connect to iCloud. Ok.

Spotify (and other services like Rhapsody) solve this differently. They buy the bits and let me rent them for a tiny amount of money, $9.95 per month. Depending on how much new music I listen to this is more or less expensive than the combination of buying the song and paying iCloud to host it.

But the advantage is that the music I don't listen to anymore doesn't keep taking up room on my computer. And new music that becomes available is immediately available to be under the same subscription fee.

Here's an article on ZDNet Asia, "iTunes Match: A solution for a problem that Apple helped create" , that is I agree with.

Posted on November 15, 2011 .