On Sep 20, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Scot Hacker wrote: > > On Sep 20, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Charles Dyer wrote: > >> Interesting. Personally I think that 25,000 tracks is a quite generous >> allowance, and based on the number of tracks I've seen many users have, a >> limit which will accommodate the vast majority of users. > > Definitely true, but when I conducted a blog poll on this question when > Amazon launched their service a while ago, 12% of the admittedly small number > of respondents said they had more than 100,000 tracks. So there's definitely > a userbase of lifelong music collectors out there who have built up larger > collections over time (and no, you don't need to resort to piracy to get to > these numbers at all). > > http://birdhouse.org/blog/2011/03/31/how-big-is-your-mp3-collection/ > >> Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you consider to be a non-lame >> number? 50k? 100k? 250k? A million? Perhaps if you advance sufficient >> reasons, and forward them to Apple, they may regret their lameness and bow >> to your superior opinion. > > Wow, where is that coming from? I wasn't being "superior" in the least. Just > saying there are a heck of a lot of people out there who will be excluded > from using the service, and that's really unfortunate (it's lame because it > seems arbitrarily low (to me)).
Probably not a fixed-for-all-time limit. I think it might just be a case of Apple getting in over their head. They're not Google; they may have underestimated the staggering number of petabytes per day of data throughput that their iCloud will be called upon to deliver. So they probably decided to start off limited, to gauge the dynamics of it all, and then maybe scale things up later when they're assured of a 'good user experience'... which would be a break with the past for some of their not-so-stellar rollouts. My 2 cents, anyway... _______________________________________________ MacOSX-talk mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
