Posts in stories

On Amazon, Ecosystems, And “iPad Killers”

Earlier today Amazon announced a completely revamped Kindle family, which includes the standard $79 Kindle, the $99 Kindle touch, and the much-anticipated $199 Kindle Fire tablet. Ad-supported options and hands-on coverage aside, I’d like to quickly touch upon a common mistake in today’s tech headlines – that the Kindle Fire will “kill” the iPad.

First off, Amazon gets it: they know an ecosystem has to scale to different devices and operating systems, so they diversified their approach to ebook reading and media consumption with three different sets of Kindle (Keyboard/$79 Kindle, Touch, Fire) all tied to a single defining feature: your Amazon.com account.

In discussing Microsoft’s approach to the concept of ecosystem when compared to Apple’s, I wrote:

In Apple’s vision, separate operating systems can live inside the same ecosystem. The single defining aspect of this vision is the Apple ID, which on iOS devices, Macs, PCs, and web browsers gives you access to:

- Songs, Movies, TV Shows, Books, Podcasts;

- Apps;

- The Apple Online Store;

- Your iOS device’s location (still free with MobileMe);

- Email, Calendar, Contact and data sync with MobileMe;

- Your desktop operating system (with Lion’s Apple ID support).

Compare this to Amazon, which is doing the following:

  • Amazon Prime: faster shipping times and Instant Video;
  • Amazon MP3;
  • Amazon Kindle;
  • Amazon Appstore;
  • Amazon Web Services.

Amazon is building an ecosystem, and all you need to access these services is a single Amazon.com account, possibly connected to a credit card. Like Apple, it may be difficult to keep everything in one account, but it’s not like the average consumer needs all the functionalities of Web Services anyway. Furthermore, Amazon controls its platforms with the web infrastructure they’ve created, and the newly announced Silk browser is the perfect example of how Amazon should also be able to somehow control and optimize web traffic operated by its devices.

There’s more. Amazon gets it because they’re offering a limited choice of devices to use with their ecosystem. Many often cite Apple’s product line-up as an example of simplicity and “just one model” philosophy, but if you think about it, there are multiple ways to get started with iOS:

  • iPhone (two colors, different storage options, carrier variations);
  • iPod touch (different storage options);
  • iPad (two colors, different storage options, carrier variations).

and the Mac (all with multiple configuration options available):

  • MacBook Air;
  • MacBook Pro;
  • iMac;
  • Mac mini;
  • Mac Pro.

Amazon may kill off some members of the Kindle family soon (DX perhaps?), but here’s what they offer today to access the Amazon.com ecosystem:

  • Kindle;
  • Kindle Keyboard;
  • Kindle DX;
  • Kindle Touch;
  • Kindle Fire.

The similarities in the underlying concepts of “ecosystem” and “uniqueness” between Apple and Amazon are clear, but there are some key difference that many people don’t seem to properly consider when referring to the latest Kindle Fire as an “iPad killer”. Assuming that by “killer” they actually imagine a scenario where people will stop buying iPads altogether and start seeing the Fire as the only option, Amazon would still need Apple’s retail power at an international level. These people that write “iPad killer” seem to forget that the iPad is available in 64 countries today. Amazon’s Kindle Fire will ship November 15th in the US. So let’s put the “killer” argument behind us once and for all.

Amazon is about to launch a product that may end up being a feasible alternative to the iPad for some people, a product shares several similarities with Apple’s approach to the digital ecosystem. I have no doubt Amazon will sell millions of these new Kindles, and I think the Fire in particular will prove popular with families, readers, movie watchers, gamers – average consumers that may prefer a cheaper device integrated with the Amazon.com account they already have and use daily.

It’s hard to form a complete thought on Amazon’s new strategy because they’re just getting started. The unification process of Amazon’s ecosystem and diversification of unique devices begins today, and the Kindle Fire will ship in less than two months. It’s hard to imagine whether Amazon’s long-term plan is “trying to be like Apple” with international releases, rich App Store, deals with music labels, partnerships with carriers, and so forth. It’s also worth considering that Amazon isn’t completely independent from others yet, as the Kindle Fire runs on a modified version of Android 2.x with possible legal implications in patent fees. And more importantly, it doesn’t even make sense to “judge” the Kindle Fire right now as a winner or PlayBook when we even haven’t tried one. But two months from now, right ahead of the holiday season, let’s picture the following situation: assuming an average consumer interested in reading, listening to music, playing games, watching movies and browsing the web has $500 to spend, will he pick an iPad or a Kindle Fire? And is there a reason to pick both?

That’s where ecosystems prove their strengths.


Instagram Hits 10 Million Users in 355 Days - A Brief Retrospective

The Instagram developers have announced their photo-sharing service has now 10 million registered users:

Last October, we launched Instagram live in the App Store. Today, less than one year later, we’re happy to announce that the Instagram community now consists of over 10 million registered users.

The first version of Instagram, which I reviewed here, was released on October 6th, 2010, exactly 355 days ago. Last week, Instagram released a major 2.0 upgrade, which includes live filters, and updated UI, and several optimizations to the code. Here’s a quick look back at Instagram’s history in the past 12 months:

- October 6th, 2010: Instagram released on the App Store.

- December 7th, 2010: Instagram gets inline viewer on Twitter.com.

- December 21st, 2010: Instagram reaches 1 million registered users.

- January 27th, 2011: Instagram 1.1 is out with hashtag support and some optimizations.

- January 28th, 2011: Twitterrific, a popular third-party Twitter client for the Mac and iOS, adds native Instagram support for photo URLs.

- February 8th, 2011: Instagram announces its official API.

- February 26th, 2011: The first results of Instagram’s API are in.

- March 10th, 2011: Flipboard, Apple’s iPad app of the year, adds native Instagram integration.

- March 11th, 2011: Instagram 1.5 brings new effects and News Feed.

- April 2nd, 2011: Here comes the first Instagram client for Mac based on the API.

- April 15th, 2011: Instagram 1.6 focuses on performances.

- May 16th, 2011: Instagram 1.7 gets a new profile view.

- May 23rd, 2011: Instagram announces 4.25 million users.

- May 26th, 2011: Instagram 1.8 improves the comment section.

- August 3rd, 2011: 150 million photos have been uploaded to Instagram.

- September 20th, 2011: Instagram 2.0 released.

- September 26th, 2o11: Instagram hits 10 million users.

From the timeline above, I had to exclude several of the minor updates Instagram released, or amazing third-party apps that plug into the service to extend its capabilities (not to mention celebrities and brands). And as with last year’s original release, Instagram is still an iPhone-only app.

Has there ever been an iPhone app with such terrific third-party and user support in just 355 days?


My Must-Have Mac Apps, 2011 Edition

One year after my “Must Have 25 Mac Apps” article, I believe it’s time to revisit that list of software I said I would install every time on a new Mac.

A lot of things have changed since September 2010. For one, Mac apps can now be distributed through the Mac App Store, which has proven to be a feasible and reliable platform for developers to showcase their apps to OS X users. The Mac App Store comes built into Snow Leopard since version 10.6.6, and over the past months we’ve taken a look at different numbers and stats showing how Apple’s youngest storefront is set to fundamentally revolutionize app distribution on desktop computers. But the Mac App Store’s release leads to another change happened in the last 12 months, and that’s Lion.

Originally previewed at the “Back to the Mac” event in October 2010, Lion was publicly released in late July after a round of betas that started becoming available to Mac developers since February. Lion has enabled Apple to bring new features to the Mac App Store such as delta updates for apps and in-app purchases, not to mention the fact that all new Macs sold since July 20 have Lion pre-installed, and thus the Mac App Store. At a developer level, Lion is allowing Objective-C coders and OS X designers to come up with new solutions that take advantage of Apple’s latest technologies such as natural scrolling, push notifications, popover controls, full-screen mode, and Versions. Lion has spawned a new breed of Mac software that it’s just starting to leave a sign in the average consumers’ minds, who are increasingly demanding and looking forward to applications that have been properly enhanced for Lion.

And last, there are new Macs in Apple’s line-up. Since September 2010, Apple has updated all its Mac models (except the Mac Pro) and discontinued the white MacBook, the most obvious victim of Apple’s new crown jewel – the MacBook Air. New Macs come with trackpads specifically geared towards Lion’ multi-touch support, and the new Sandy Bridge CPUs by Intel make the process of booting a Mac, and even switching between applications faster than ever.

In a way, the “September 2011” Apple is both identical and different from the company we were covering last year. But title changes and cloud strategies aside – how does the new Mac ecosystem affect the apps I listed on this site a year ago? Read more


Keep it Memorable, Stupid!

Image credit: Done by Emily Carlin on Flickr

KIMS, unlike KISS (Keep it simple, Stupid!), is removing the notion that we have to toss out our complicated, but memorable systems in favor of simple workflows. I think throwing away what works is the wrong way to go about changing your workflow or lifestyle for the better.

In looking for a simpler way to do something you’ll be presented with tools, pitched ideas, and told that your quality of life will be better if you take this system you have now and simplify it. I think the big problem is that people tend to confuse the words simple and minimalism. To say I should simplify my workflow is to say I should throw out my system because it’s inefficient. That might be true if I was to compare how productive I am to how productive you are. However, our jobs are likely different and even if they were the same, it’s like comparing how well I run to a guy who’s been running in marathons for the last twenty years. You can only accurately measure and reference yourself!

Where I make my case is that you shouldn’t toss a memorable system for the sake of minimalism. Text files for example are extremely minimal, but not many people want to go commando and start setting up areas of focus in Dropbox, when tags and journals in Evernote are much easier to manage for lots of people. You’re told you should do this thing because you’ll ultimately be more productive or you’ll remove a point of stress and clutter in your life, but I have a feeling that the transition and “attempt” (because you’ll never really stick with this minimal system) is going to be a point of stress itself.

Read more


An Ecosystem’s Uniqueness and Similarities

Over the past 24 hours I’ve seen a lot of words thrown around about Windows 8, ecosystems, operating systems, and what should Apple do in regards to Microsoft’s all-in-one attempt to deny the post-PC era altogether by unifying PCs and post-PC devices in a single OS.

There’s some great commentary about this already out there. What I’d like to briefly touch upon is this: does Microsoft’s approach with Windows 8 confirm a somewhat popular argument – that Apple is ultimately breaking, not unifying, the experience with the distinction between iOS and OS X?

It’s easy to look at the issue from such a perspective. If Windows 8 runs on all devices – let’s pass on Windows Phone 7 for smartphones – then that’s most definitely a real ecosystem, not Apple’s. As iOS and OS X are two different operating systems (different distribution methods, installers, frameworks, GUIs, native apps, names) running on at least three different form factors (the phone, tablet, and laptop), Apple’s “lock-in” strategy comes out defeated in the confrontation against Windows 8.

I don’t want to argue on which OS is “better” (a definition that doesn’t even make sense, right now) or which one will sell more copies; rather, I believe there are a few key areas that several early commenters of the Windows 8 Developer Preview failed to highlight.

In Apple’s vision, separate operating systems can live inside the same ecosystem. The single defining aspect of this vision is the Apple ID, which on iOS devices, Macs, PCs, and web browsers gives you access to:

- Songs, Movies, TV Shows, Books, Podcasts;

- Apps;

- The Apple Online Store;

- Your iOS device’s location (still free with MobileMe);

- Email, Calendar, Contact and data sync with MobileMe;

- Your desktop operating system (with Lion’s Apple ID support).

For as much as it’s difficult to keep this all together with a single Apple ID, that’s what it does. Soon, Apple will introduce iCloud to overhaul MobileMe’s syncing capabilities and turn them into seamless pushing of documents, data, and media across devices.

In fact, you may remember Steve Jobs demoted the Mac to just a device back at WWDC. Why? Because the Mac isn’t more “important” than an iPhone or iPad anymore. The ecosystem (and iCloud is a big part of that) is what matters now. Yet this vision doesn’t imply multiple OSes mean separate ecosystems: iCloud is one, and it works on iOS, OS X, Windows PCs, and the web.

Sign of Apple’s appreciation of a single ecosystem can be found in the iWork suite, the Apple Online Store, and even Ping.

In this context, Apple’s strategy isn’t too dissimilar from Microsoft’s. After all, Redmond has got its own set of web platforms, too, and Windows 8 will feature an App Store and other kinds of tablet/PC integration. But there is a key difference that some people, when comparing Windows 8 to “Apple”, surprisingly omit: based on what we’ve seen (that is, the first, incomplete, buggy Developer Preview), Apple’s ecosystem strategy is nothing like Microsoft’s.

Apple wants to build a single ecosystem by keeping its OSes separate. They want to do so because they believe the similarities that keep the ecosystem together are equally important as the uniqueness of each operating system – its strengths and virtues and hardware features.

Today I asked on Twitter: Would Apple fans applaud an iPad that runs both iOS and OS X? By far, the response was “no”. The reason’s simple: iOS was built with multi-touch in mind, whereas touching a Mac’s screen is still awkward (and doesn’t work). In its very own nature, OS X works with clicks and drags, not taps and swipes. Lion epitomizes Apple’s intention to enable some kind of deeper touch interaction with Macs sometime in the future, but the fact still holds true: you can’t touch OS X. iOS and Lion look similar in order to carefully transition the users from a platform to another in the ecosystem stream, but they’re unique and true to their own interfaces, interaction schemes, and destination hardware.

You will be able, however, to touch Windows 8 on a tablet. Or to scroll Windows’ Metro with a mouse wheel on a desktop PC. And here’s where I believe Apple and Microsoft, ultimately, diverge: Apple is creating an ecosystem that works with multiple OSes, provided these OSes run on the devices they belong to. For Microsoft, on the other hand, Windows itself is the ecosystem, and that has to be integrated on every device. There is a subtle difference between ecosystems and OS uniqueness, and you’ll be the judge of which strategy will win over the other two years from now.

There are several ways to build an ecosystem. I don’t know if I’ll like Microsoft’s one, but I’m sure there will be both subtle and key differences to consider when comparing it to Apple’s future strategy.


Apple: A Step Ahead, and Three To The Side

Here’s a thought: Apple isn’t ahead of its competitors only in terms of hardware design, software, and product marketing. When Apple takes a step ahead, it also takes three more to the side – and that’s what’s helping them shape the industry today.

We often refer to Apple as a company “ahead of the competition” with products like the iPhone, iPad, OS X and iTunes. I believe what’s driving the single “step ahead” isn’t the (successful) combination of products and customer satisfaction – it’s the company itself, its culture, the image they want to show to the world. The “step ahead” is Apple’s DNA.

But consider the three steps to the side that help Apple differentiate itself from the competition, and roll out products and services that people are actually willing to pay for. These three steps are taken in regards of hardware, software, and the overall message the interplay of both has to deliver.

Hardware: iPhone, iPad, iPod, Mac. These products have an attractive design, and they’re the result of Apple’s deals to secure components before anyone else at a lower price, for the long-term. That’s why it took months for competitors to figure out multi-touch after the first iPhone, and why Ultrabooks still can’t match the MacBook Air.

Software: iOS, OS X, iTunes, iCloud. Software is the soul to Apple’s products, it is the reason why Apple hardware “just works”.

Message: Apple wants to make the best products in the world. Products they can sell for a profit, and make people happy with at the same time. Through the right combination of prices, attractive design, and marketing, the “interplay of hardware and software” is what defines Apple’s message.

Apple strives to innovate, but wants to do so by being unique with its own hardware, software, and message. Competitors often try to take their risks with either hardware, software, or the message, but they can’t do all three at the same time.

This is where competitors and Apple stand:

You can also think of “Innovation” as “Liberal Arts” and “Time” as “Technology”. When Apple takes a major leap forward, it does so because it’s in their DNA to innovate and sit at the intersection of Technology and Liberal Arts; alongside the single breakthrough in terms of innovation, they take three equally disruptive steps to the side to stand out from their competitors thanks to the great efforts they’ve gone through to advance in technology.

Technology evolves with time. Apple’s three steps allow them to have a considerable time advantage – this is the reason why many phones today still can’t match the original iPhone from 2007.

Four years ago, Steve Jobs said:

iPhone is a revolutionary and magical product that is literally five years ahead of any other mobile phone.

But is still ahead just because Apple kept iterating on the original idea?

Technology isn’t a 100 meters sprint race. Companies that want to be successful can’t keep running the same race, more of the same following more of the same. Just take a look at RIM. Apple knows that technology alone is not enough. And thus evolving with time alone (upgrading the same product with new hardware) won’t matter much if risks aren’t taken other directions as well.

Apple reinvented itself as it was moving ahead. Steve Jobs, announcing the iPad in January 2010:

Everybody uses a laptop and a smartphone. And a question has arisen lately: is there room for a third category of device in the middle? Something that’s between a laptop and a smartphone. And of course we’ve pondered this question for years as well. The bar’s pretty high. In order to really create a new category of devices, those devices are going to have to be far better at doing some key tasks. Better than a laptop. Better than a smartphone. Now, some people have thought…that’s a netbook. The problem is, netbooks aren’t better at anything. They’re slow, they have low quality displays and they run clunky old PC software. So, they’re not better than a laptop at anything. They’re just cheaper. They’re just cheap laptops. We don’t think they’re a new category of device.

Progress, ultimately, is adaptation. This started with the iPhone in 2007, and ends with iCloud in 2011. When iOS 5 and iCloud come out this Fall, there will be a brand new vision – and therefore, kind of adaptation – moving forward. A company that constantly adapts to an ever-changing market generates desires for the new, whilst simplicity and usability lead to customer satisfaction. At a higher level, it is the interplay of progress and simplicity that keeps Apple growing.

Technology and liberal arts aren’t mutually exclusive.


My Two Weeks with Keyboard Maestro

I’ve been intrigued by Keyboard Maestro since I first heard about it on Daring Fireball years ago, but never installed and tried the app because of a somewhat widely shared notion that it’s “too difficult to use”. Recent Keyboard Maestro coverage on Brooks Review, ShawnBlanc.net and MacDrifter took my curiosity to a whole new level, so thanks to the Productive Macs bundle, I pulled the trigger and got a copy of Keyboard Maestro, which was later upgraded to version 5.0 for free with the same license.

There’s no easy way to describe Keyboard Maestro, but I’ll try: Keyboard Maestro is a trusted and powerful assistant for your Mac. When you don’t know how to do something, or how to make an existing menu or functionality faster and easier to use, you can turn to Keyboard Maestro and start building your own way out of options third-party developers or Apple didn’t think about.

Keyboard Maestro empowers you to take existing apps, menus, keyboard shortcuts – anything your Mac can perform – and mix them together to achieve something that fits better your workflow.

Keyboard Maestro isn’t strictly about tweaking. The app’s real power lies in how it puts the focus on discovering and building what’s better for you, and sticking with it. It’s no toy, but it’s fun to use once you get the (easy) hang of it.

Writing a review of Keyboard Maestro it’s like asking someone to “write a review of Apple”. The subject is so broad, the offer so variegate and ever-changing, it makes almost no sense to go into every single feature and over-analyze it with no context. Rather, I’d prefer to provide a more empirical look at this app in that I’ll share some of the tricks and functionalities I’ve come to learn and use in the past weeks.

A simple way to understand Keyboard Maestro is this: you tell the app to do something for you automatically, in the background, whenever you want, and all you have to do to start such sequence is a trigger. The trigger can be a keyboard shortcut, something you typed, a system event – you choose the trigger and there’s plenty of options to look at when deciding which action should initiate a process. Read more


The “Apple TV Set”


Jean-Louis Gassée notes how the “Apple television” that’s been long rumored among Apple fans and the tech press will have to face two problems: architecture and implementation.

As many imagined, the device would look something like this:

Imagine a true plug-and-play experience. One set with only two wires: power and the cable TV coax. Turn it on, assert your Apple ID credentials and you’re in business.

But then it would come down to getting cable channels into the set:

Large carriers, such as Comcast, are known as Multiple System Operators, MSOs, with an emphasis on the “M”. They’re a patchwork of acquired systems that have never needed to be compatible. This would either restrict the TV set to a small number of carriers, or make the product more complicated and prone to more bugs — and more field tech visits.

And on top of that, Apple would have to solve the problem of easily troubleshooting a 50-inch screen, or simply figure out a way to get people to upgrade to newer models of “Apple TV set” every couple of years:

We’re willing to upgrade our laptops, smartphones, and tablets every year or two because Moore’s Law keeps improving the CPU and other electronics at the rapid rate that made the computer industry’s fortunes. An integrated Apple TV set wouldn’t benefit from better electronics as naturally as an iPhone does…unless, of course, the tiny iOS computer is implemented as an easily accessible plug-in module.

I’d argue that the television market is so variegate, and potentially lucrative, that there’s more to figure out and correctly implement than U.S. cable providers and MSOs. Looking at Apple now, it’s hard to see a company willing to disrupt a market with a brand new, premium device…available exclusively in the United States. Even the Apple TV, “not part of the stool” and still considered a hobby, was released in the United States and Europe last year. Then look at the iPhone. It took almost four years to get there, but as it turns out the majority of profits now come from regions outside Americas (and iPhone is “key driver” of Apple’s revenue in Greater China – more context here and here).

The problem with the Apple TV set isn’t an “American cable company” (you name it) – it’s the television market as a whole. If we take in account the segments and population that can afford an HDTV nowadays – assuming it falls somewhere in between the $500 - $3000 range – it’s easy to see how Apple will have to make a product that ultimately just works with any television content provider in the United States, Europe, and Asia. Why would they ignore those markets?

There are greater issues to solve and differences to consider in the international TV market. Just a few examples: Italy still switching from analog to digital TV, satellite’s popularity in many areas of Europe, or some ISPs’ offerings with Internet/ TV packages. Supposedly, Apple will have to come up with a solution to work around these, in several countries. Italy may not be Apple’s finest source of revenue, but Europe/Japan/Asia-Pacific combined made for $14.94 billions of revenue in Q3 2011. I’m just assuming some of these Apple customers would also be interested in a TV set from Apple.

We don’t know what Apple has in mind, we can speculate on the company’s margins for such a device – we can only imagine that there is a market to disrupt because the current television sets are too difficult to configure and troubleshoot, with different user experiences and fragmented interfaces, store fronts, or even remotes.

I believe the question isn’t what will the TV set from Apple look like, as we can make a pretty accurate guess about that. Rather, I’d speculate on how many markets Apple is willing to enter at once, and its timing.


Apple’s Bold Move: iTunes Match and Streaming

With the launch of the first iTunes Match beta for developers last night, Apple unveiled the last piece of the iCloud puzzle that was originally previewed at the WWDC in June, when Steve Jobs announced that iTunes Match would be available this Fall at $24.99 per year for 25,000 songs, allowing customers to download songs stored in their iCloud accounts. Because iTunes Match scans a user’s iTunes library before uploading files, songs compatible with Apple’s iTunes Store catalogue are automatically upgraded to 256 Kbps (even if the original copy was of lower quality) and “matched” with the copy on the server, whilst the ones not found on Apple’s servers are manually uploaded to iCloud. This happens for two reasons: first, Apple cut deals with several music labels and publishers to enable this “scan & match” technology that compares songs on a computer versus the higher quality copy on the servers, and doesn’t upload the original file; second, Apple wanted to eliminate the need of having to wait days for large uploads to finish – something that has affected “cloud locker” services from Google, Amazon, and many others.

The iTunes Match that was announced back in June, however, and promoted on Apple’s website up until today, made no specific mention of “streaming” songs matched/uploaded to iCloud; the way Apple originally explained it, Match was a clever way to fill an iCloud account with songs and albums to later download on iOS devices or a Mac. For as much as the technology behind it seemed intriguing, many were disappointed to find out that Apple couldn’t find a way around streaming songs without having to download the full copy first. Other services like Rdio and Spotify allow users to stream songs they don’t own by hitting “play” and waiting a few seconds for the stream to start (depending on the Internet connection’s speed). iTunes Match is actually a service for songs users own and decide to store in iCloud at $24.99 per year, so many assumed streaming required a different kind of licensing deal that Apple couldn’t make in time for WWDC.

Last night, as developers started subscribing to the first beta of iTunes Match, it turned out that, even in this first version, Apple is allowing for both downloading and streaming of songs, both on the Mac and iOS devices. The interface makes it easy to match and listen: once a music collection is built in iCloud (e.g. iTunes has scanned, matched, and uploaded songs to your account), music will be available on the Mac in iTunes’ Music tab, and on iOS 5 in the new Music app. Once iTunes Match is enabled on iOS it replaces the local music library, and you can tell the difference by a small iCloud icon next to each song.

Whereas Apple’s announcement at WWDC implied users would have to push a button to download songs, and build a music library off a master collection in the cloud, this first beta actually delivers more: users can still hit the button and download songs locally, but they can also tap on songs and start streaming them without a download.

The process is detailed in two videos posted by Insanely Great Mac. Streaming can occur both on the desktop and iOS, and it doesn’t look any different from a local iTunes library except for the aforementioned iCloud library. With this first beta, Apple isn’t accepting iTunes LPs and Extras, some file types aren’t supported and, for testing purposes, Apple will periodically delete developers’ iCloud music libraries to increase iTunes’ performances and reliability.

Streaming is a big deal for Apple, and not just because it increases iTunes’ functionalities to avoid manual downloads and waiting times. With iTunes Match streaming, Apple could directly compete with services like Spotify (recently landed in the U.S.) and Rdio, which let users stream songs over WiFi and 3G and even cache them for offline access. However, as of this beta, Apple’s iTunes Match comes with a unique spin on streaming: it doesn’t need downloads, and it’s based on music libraries made from songs users own. With the combination of local copies (the library), scan & match, iCloud, downloads and streaming, Apple could build a music service like no other in that it’s a combination of “owning your music”, and paying a yearly fee to get online access to it. Spotify is often criticized for being a streaming service that doesn’t let you “own” your library; most recently, the company added the possibility of importing local files and playing them in Spotify, but it’s not the same of being able to take local files and mirror them to the cloud. Reports citing streaming with “iTunes in the cloud” from May are now starting to make more sense, and let’s not forget Apple has patented a technology to make streaming effortless and faster by syncing small bits of data locally.

Still, many questions are left unanswered with this week’s iTunes Match beta. Was iTunes Match supposed to get only song downloads, with the current streaming implementation being just a glitch? Or are we in for a streaming surprise come Apple’s next keynote? Moreover, will Apple further tweak iTunes and iOS 5 to put the focus on streaming, allowing for advanced iCloud-based playlist creation? And how will music labels react to the news that iTunes Match is capable of streaming, too? Perhaps this is already part of Apple’s grand iCloud plan, and music labels knew all along that iTunes Match would stream songs, as Businessweek suggested in May. Or, streaming came unexpected to them as it did to everyone else in this first beta. But more importantly, will iTunes Match be available outside the U.S. once iOS 5 and iCloud are publicly released? Early signs pointed to “no”, with sources claiming the UK wouldn’t see iTunes Match until 2012. Currently, iTunes Match is a developer-only beta (closed at the moment with more openings “over the next days”) that requires a U.S. credit card (not just regular iTunes credit – e.g. promo codes and gift cards) for automatic billing. It’s unclear whether or not Apple will open the final version of iTunes Match to any kind of U.S. iTunes account, or if they’ll keep it exclusive for U.S. iTunes customers with a credit card on file.

As usual with betas, things can change before the final release. There’s a fragmented market out there, and Apple has a chance to disrupt it with iCloud and iOS 5. As it stands now, iTunes Match looks like Apple’s boldest move in the online music space since 2003.

Update: AllThingsD now weighs in writing that, according to an Apple spokesperson, iTunes Match still isn’t streaming. What looks like a stream is actually a simultaneous listen and download, although Apple isn’t providing additional details on the technology behind iTunes Match. AllThingsD speculates that Apple may be using some sort of caching mechanism for when users don’t “download” songs from iCloud, though that’s just an “educated guess”. From the videos posted this morning, indeed it looked like an iPhone was capable of streaming songs off iCloud.

AllThingsD also reports that Apple has the licensing rights to streaming, but they’re not implementing it due to a design choice – Apple apparently doesn’t believe mobile networks are advanced enough to allow for streaming of large music libraries. Check out the full report here.

Read more