Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Dismisses Apple's iTunes for Windows
fewnorms writes "Microsoft's general manager for the Windows Digital Media division, Dave Fester, yesterday dismissed the new iTunes for Windows version, saying it was too limited for the average Windows users. Choice quote: "[Apple's music store] ... is a drawback for Windows users, who expect choice in music services, choice in devices, and choice in music from a wide-variety of music services to burn to a CD or put on a portable device." Of course Apple doesn't feel to worried about this, simply stating their products will (and have) lived up to the hype." The points made are all valid- but contradictory to standard Apple product design where simplicity always takes priority over flexibility. Besides, iPod is growing market share, and iTunes will be the best choice for windows users who own it.
Can't disagree with the first point, but the second? Not really. There's at least one other jukebox app that has a substantially better feature set than iTunes and is just as easy to use. I tried iTunes for a day and got frustrated with its limitations. Other than purchasing the occasional track from the iTunes Store, I can't see myself firing it up again. (And no, I'm not one of those people who had stability problems; it worked just fine for me.)
Microsoft preaching about giving users a choice. That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
http://www.ephpod.com/
So, you could say that Microsoft has a Fester over iTunes.
>>if you use Apple's music store along with iTunes, you
>> don't have the ability of using the over 40 different
>>Windows Media-compatible portable music devices.
Oh, shoot. I mean, that's really a big problem for me. I like to use my Rio on Monday, and Samsung mp3 player on alternate Wednesdays, and the Nomad for Friday afternoon... What am I going to do if I can only use my iPod? Horrors!
I don't want to just use an Ipod. Apple here is the one trying to LOCK-IN products and not Microsoft.
Choice to Microsoft is letting you pick from any of THEIR products. They do not use that word as we do.
Um, yeah, this coming from the company that's offering exactly *how* many music downloads?
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
..MS's path to more "choice" will include more baseline restrictions and DRM.
If Apple can keep things a little simpler, and a little more limited, and offer the flexibility that they do (burning audio copies to CD, etc), as much as we geeks might complain, it's probably easier for the average consumer to grasp.
Sure, I'd love to see a mainstream offering with a huge library selling DRM-less MP3s, but that doesn't seem likely to happen, and it's certainly not going to come from Microsoft.
The way iTunes and the iTMS locks you in to Apple software and Apple hardware (I know, big shock there). Essentially all of the other services allow you to use the music with multiple players and multiple media players on the PC.
WMA is far more flexible and portable, open, closed, or otherwise. Unless Apple adds WMA to the iPod and iTMS, they're not going to grow very much on the PC.
Dave Fester, yesterday dismissed the new iTunes for Windows version, saying it was too limited for the average Windows users.
Oh, because WMA doesn't have any built in limitations? eall....
~Knautilus
a Windows-based version of iTunes will still remain a closed system
The vendor of arguably the biggest closed system ever preaching that others ought not close their systems.
"Lastly, if you use Apple's music store along with iTunes, you don't have the ability of using the over 40 different Windows Media-compatible portable music devices." Sure you do. using apple's iTunes does not automatically bar you from using other devices. People use Windows media because their player supports it, not the other way around.
10 Bits= $.25
100 Bits= $.50
110 Bits= $.75
1000 Bits= 1 byte
When will I finally have a good user interface to play music under linux? iTunes definitely has the best user interface I've seen in any player.
-Leo
...who expect choice in music services, choice in devices, and choice in music from a wide-variety of music services to burn to a CD or put on a portable device.
A wide variety of devices do not support WMA, mp3 being the most popular format. Who wants a DRM-enabled format anyway?
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
that music blips and skips A LOT when running on iTunes whenever you do ANYTHING else, even if it's just like opening Explorer or moving windows? When I tried it on my machine, it was very noticable, especially compared to Winamp 3, which hardly blips at all for me. My machine's no slouch, either - it's a P3 1.1 GHz with 512 MB RAM running XP Pro. I had like 3-4 programs open along with iTunes: a FTP client, Visual Studio .NET, and Mozilla, I think.
I was just wondering if anybody else had similar problems. I mean, the interface is great, but if I can't code in VS while listening to music, then it's not very worth it to me.
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
Windows users like choice? Then why do most of them use Internet Explorer, Outlook Express and, well, Windows? They generally take what they are fed, right? Microsoft doesn't yet have a solution of their own for legal music downloading as far as I know. So they need some aggressive rhetoric. I was under the impression that the iTunes music store had one of the largest catalogues out there. Does the general user want to use a plethora of services to locate the right song? I don't think so, but I don't work for Microsoft's media division.
Hank! White!
From my point of view it is the usual MS garbage of disparaging any other system where they don't have a competative alternative in place. It's completely phony, and I hope people refuse to buy into it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Well, I'm still waiting for the day that I can drag an album or an artist to a playlist in Windows Media Player.
ROFL! Talk about naked FUD. Choice, choice, choice. Yeah, that's the Microsoft Way, isn't it? NOT. What hypocrisy!
It's not even accurate. You CAN burn iTunes Store music to a CD. Rip it again to MP3, put it on any device you want. Oh wait, iPods are just about the best device you can use, so I'm just guessing that if you have an iPod you don't have too many other devices you care to have. For that matter, no matter what device you have, you probably don't have too many others. Why would you? Use what works and done with it.
Choice in music? Well, the biggest choice is probably Kazaa, but that's beside the point. We're talking about the pay sites, and iTMS has 400,00 and growing. Not much of a problem, and becoming less so as time goes on.
Apple just signed with Pepsi and AOL to do cross-marketing. That's some big partners to get the word out. But the word is out already. I see so many iPods in use it's amazing. In short, Apple did something right and Microsoft is running scared about it. With only the Mac market so far, Apple captured, what, 30% of paid downloads. Now the other 90% can use their service, so watch out Microsoft.
That's why we have GNU.
Software company criticizes competitor!
Why is this even news?
What a great looking piece of software! Much nicer than iTunes.
I downloaded iTunes the day it was released, and it seems to me that it has serious restrictions on the length of filenames it can import. For instance:
"Allman Brothers Band - Brothers and Sisters - 01-Wasted Words.mp3" will not work, but
"Allman Brothers Band - Brothers and Sisters - 01-Wasted Wor.mp3" will.
Why is this?
So that means I, as a Mac user, have been molded by Apple into accepting that I'm not going to have different choices?
Maybe its just because I'm studying CS, but you'd think the design philosophy of having a smaller, more specialized application for music, and a smaller more specialized app for video would make sense. God I'd hate it if I opened up either iTunes or Quicktime and had to wait even 5 seconds for it to load a 5 meg file....
That and Windows Media Player's visuals are...well...crap.
Blake
Invest money in making better products: Expensive.
Badmouthing competitors hoping nobody will use them: Free.
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
It seems clear that the music companies will not let music be made available on-line without DRM, so it will always be a necessary evil. Although there are more players available, the Windows Media format locks your music onto the Windows platform just as the iTunes Music Store locks your music into an Apple format. It would be nice if somebody could come up with true cross-platform DRM. I don't mind paying for music, but I don't want to be locked out of playing my music in Linux, for example. In my opinion, it would be nice if an Open Source DRM implementation would take hold.
let's proclaim how "advanced" most Windows users are that iTMS is limiting. Now are these the same folks who "forget" to update their systems and routinely click on hot_babe_of_the_month.jpg.vbs?
Yes, iTunes limits you to an iPod. Yes, iTunes Music Store limits you to... uh... iTunes Music Store (I'm confused by where they think any service has a "choice of services"... and nothing stops people from using other services that also use iTMS).
But they're missing one thing... Apple isn't making money on iTMS, nor will it ever make a significant amount of money on it. It's simply trying to get it to pay for itself, and boost iPod sales. They have no reason to try to support other players, because it's the iPods they make money on - not iTMS.
I encouraged my father to install this on his Win XP laptop. Found out a few hours later that it managed to completely hang his system on boot, trying to set up his "drivers and devices" after he restarted after installing iTunes.
He had to hit F8 during boot, choose last-known-good configuration- and then he was able to get back into his system. iTunes launched, but complained it couldn't access his burner and such. It uninstalled cleanly and completely, near as he can tell, but he's flat-out refused to try again until "version 1.1" is out and "they've done a little better job at QA".
I agree- poor effort on Apple's part to do QA, as usual(just look at the 10.2.8 update that broke half a dozen things). It's a 3-month-old Sony VAIO, not some Joe Shmoe special with some no-name burner etc.
Please help metamoderate.
Windows media == closed format supported completely over windows and partially on the Mac and *nix. AAC == open format (Mp4) supported completely over all major platforms. DRM rules -- unlimited CD burning over the iTunes music store, three separate computers able to play downloaded tracks, unlimited iPod transfers. I truly don't understand the criticism coming from MS over the iTMS and iTunes music software. Apple has never claimed it's the end-all software jukebox -- but, as others have pointed out, it's very simple and straighforward. Much like iMovie compared to FCP or CakeWalk to ProTools, iTunes is a simple way to manage a library of music and transfer it to a number of different formats. You can easily convert CD's burnt from Mp4 (AAC) tracks over to mp3 by merely ripping the burnt CD. That allows folks to still use Mp3-CD's with their entire collection and to share them with whomever they'd like. All that I feel coming out of Redmond right now is Hot Air....especially after hearing Longhorn ain't arrivin' until '06. Long time to wait, so I'm sure there will be lots of potshots directed at Apple in the meantime.
I'm not popular enough to be different.
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
What typical Microsoft FUD!
That is a complete and boldfaced lie! You are absolutly NOT limited to music that you purchase from the ITMS if you use iTunes. I installed iTunes for windows the day it came out and today I have about 1.6 gig of music in my library. Guess how many of those songs are from the iTunes music store? Two. TWO! I have spent $1.98 on the ITMS and yet I have had no problem listening to all of the same music files that I had before. What that guy said was a complete lie.
About the portable devices: It is true that iTunes favors AAC encoding which is only on a limited amount of portable devices, but guess what? iTunes gives you the full ability to rip/encode with MP3! I promise you that there are more MP3 enabled devices out there than there are WMA devices, so the way I see it, iTunes has farther reach than Media Player does.He also called iTunes restrictive. Excuse me? Compared to what?! Has he even bothered to look at the WMA alternatives that his own department is putting out?
*sigh*
Ok, I'm done now.
Sigs are out of style, so I'm not going to use one...oh wait..
I downloaded iTunes yesterday. Within 5 minutes I had imported my music library, set up all the options I wanted, and I was listening to music. It has a very pleasant interface and includes all the features I want -- nothing more, nothing less.
Who wants crazy flexibility when you don't even use half of the extra options and they just clutter up the user experience? I'm ditching the other jukeboxes I've been suffering with all year and sticking with iTunes. It may even influence me to buy an iPod -- if it works as seamlessly and easily as iTunes, sign me up.
I'm tired of frittering away so much time trying to overcome the learning curves of PC software and trying to get programs to work and play together. I'm not into computers because I'm in love with jerking around in advanced options settings all day long, I'm into computers because of what they can do for me. My job already pays me to spend 10 hrs a day getting computers to work, I don't want to spend the rest of my free time doing the same thing.
Mac stuff works, first time, every time, it does what you expect it to do. I think that just might be worth paying for. I think I'm going to start saving my pennies for a nice little PowerBook.
There's no scripting required for smart playlists, just pick what you want from a couple lists. It's all pointy clicky.
I've got a mroe beefy system than yours, but itunes runs fine. Quite good for a 1.0 release.
Photos.
Funny how they still sell so many CD-burners and blank media though, isn't it?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"Unless Microsoft decides to make radical changes to their service model, a Windows-based version of Media Player will still remain a closed system, where users of any other operating systems cannot access content", said an anonymous computer user.
"Additionally, users of Windows Media Player are limited to using operating systems from Microsoft... this is a drawback for computer users, who expect choice in operating systems, choice in devices, and choice in what they want to do tomorrow, even it's burning music they've legally bought to a CD or put it on a portable OGG/MP3 player.
Lastly, if you use Windows along with a DRM-based system, you won't have the ability of using the several different free operating systems. When I'm getting software for free or a modest fee, I want to know that I have choices today and in the future.
be sure to check out your QT settings in the control panel. If the audio out is set to DirectSound, you will probably experience muddy audio clarity. Change it to waveOut and the clarity should be just as good as it is in Winamp.
Additionally, users of iTunes are limited to music from Apple's Music Store
... this is a drawback for Windows users, who expect choice in music services, choice in devices, and choice in music from a wide-variety of music services to burn to a CD or put on a portable device.
untrue
Most of this guy's comments seem to be based aroundthe fallacy that iTunes can only listen to music from the iTunes Music Store. No, it can listen to absolutely anything you, or your programs, or your perl scripts choose to import into iTunes. The only conditions is it doesn't support RealAudio or WMA. Oh, but that's what this is really all about, isn't it?
But I'm pretty sure at some point in the future, Microsoft will fully believe that Windows users expect exactly one choice for this same thing, and that choice is Microsoft.
Lastly, if you use Apple's music store along with iTunes, you don't have the ability of using the over 40 different Windows Media-compatible portable music devices.
So in other words it doesn't support Microsoft's phony "standard" because MS won't license its codecs for Quicktime. If this were something that windows users cared about, this would mean that windows users could not use anything except windows media player. Odd sort of "choice", that. Funny, because the "it's only happy with the iPod as an mp3 player" argument is the most valid problem with iTunes. But MS can't point that out becuase that would be admitting people like mp3 better than wma.
This talk about Choice might mean something except that 1) it is Microsoft promoting this, and they've hardly ever been champions of consumer choice 2) iTunes gives you every option that you want as long as it is a standard media format being used. They are basically saying "iTunes doesn't give you the choice to use any service that locks you in to Windows Media Player". Well, duh.
This last quote requires no explication:
What I think is great about most of the new services available on Windows is that being built on Windows Media enables such amazing choice. For example, consumers can download music from a wide variety of music services, bring it into their media library in Windows Media Player, create playlists, and burn CDs with music aggregated from many different services. You can even transfer any or all of the music to a wide variety of portable devices. That is what Windows users love -- being able to shop around and pick and choose the products and services that work best for them.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
This entire thing is one huge advertisement for Windows Media. He says nothing except "consumers love Windows Media, therefore use Windows Media" and then lists a bunch of bizarre advantages that Windows Media doesn't have, all related to interconnectedness, funny considering no codec out there is as restricted, locked in, and limitedly-supported as WMV except for RealAudio.
(Oh, and don't give me the "iTunes limits choice because it doesn't support ogg" bullshit. If you want ogg support in iTunes, go to apple's developer documentation and find the docs for how to write a Quicktime plug-in. There's an entire plug-in architecture for Quicktime that allows you to add support for codecs, such as Ogg, that apple did not. We on the mac side already have one such plugin, and we can play oggs in iTunes. So "go read the documentation and write your own". That's the Open Source Way anyway, isn't it?)
No, I don't like the idea of integrating the music store with the music player, but I guess 1 choice is better than 0. Personally I'm not an ITunes customer because of DRM, but I don't expect Microsoft to offer anything more free... think about it, if MS did offer a music service, it just would HAVE to look exactly like iTunes - tied to other company products.
... is a 20MB download, has a 35MB memory footprint, doesn't support FLAC, Ogg or MPC (hence doesn't play most of my music collection), doesn't seem to support ReplayGain, has a huge slow GUI, and doesn't seem to have a plugin system that would allow me or others to fix any of these things.
So why should I use it instead of foobar2000, or even WinAMP?
If you want/use an iPod and/or have no need for a pocket MP3 player, when iTunes is probably a perfect choice. Otherwise, you can use MusicMatch or some other player/store/upload combo.
When Microsoft opens their music store in a few months be prepared to lock-in to The MS Way. Don't expect any form of standards or even support for all devices. Don't believe me? Look at the past for some insight to the future.
Again, iTunes is great if you have or want an iPod... or if you don't want any sort of music player at all. Now if you're using some other mp3 player, then you pretty much have no business even looking at iTunes.
MS wants you to have choice until they are in a position of dominance. Then, they want to be your only choice.
Soon, Linux won't even run on hardware. It will be Apple or Microsoft, literally.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There are dozens of music players for Windows, Linux, and MacOS, some of them with tie-ins to on-line stores. While it's fairly well written and easy to use, iTunes is just one of them. If it didn't come from Apple, nobody would think it worth mentioning.
But where is the Linux version!?!
Are you trying to be funny, or do you mean that? You were running Visual studio and you're surprized that another app had a performance issue? Sheesh. Besides that I run VS .NET too, and I've not had that problem. I've got a 1.0 ghz Athalon with 512 mb ram.
It's been running flawlessly for me; in fact, I use it to get heavy metal Internet radio streams while playing Unreal Tournament---all with absolutly no lag, no slowdowns, no glitches, nor any errata whatsoever.
This might be slightly off-topic, but does anyone know what the quality of iTune's encoded mp3's are compared to CDex or EAC?
With every digital music outlet offering 99 cents a song with a plethora of licensing schemes, what CHOICE is there really?
I haven't had a single skip with iTunes since I started using it two days ago on my 1.4 GHz P4 (which in theory is a bit slower than your 1.1 GHz P3).
I have heard skipping complaints, though, mostly from friends with older hardware, but there was one dude with a shiny new Athlon XP 2800+ that was getting some skips.
My guess is there's some driver conflict somewhere, because the skips don't seem to occur with all hardware or with just "slow" hardware. (And it runs fine on a 266 MHz G3 in Mac OS X).
kinda increase the number of services available to Windows users by one?
KFG
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
M$ dismisses iTunes
SCO dismisses the GPL
Sun dismisses Linux
Apple dismisses x86
I'm sorry, you're dismissed....
how long until
...is well all know Apple is going to do it right, as opposed to the other services?
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
This discussion is years old and can be judged for the first time by Windows users, Mac users have known this for a long time.
It goes as follows: "Intel PCs with (or without) Windows gives you choice" (sort of.) You can choose between 10 different MP3 players, 15 word processors, 20 spreadsheets and so on. However, none of them seem to work really well and they all have their share of problems you need to work around.
Mac users don't have much choice, or so they are being told. But Mac users are usually given only one choice, the highest quality. The rest is weeded out by the Mac ecosystem. People don't buy it.
This time it's also visible for Windows users. Microsoft claims 40 different devices that will play Windows Media. However, none of these devices is an iPod and they don't even come close to the overall quality and easy of use of the iPod.
One could argue iTunes is not the best Windows MP3 player, well, remember this really is a 1.0 release on Windows. It will be improved and even for an 1.0 product, it's quite better than the 6 releases of the Windows Media Player before Microsoft got it sort of right.
I really doubt Microsoft will offer any more choices (probably less, especially when it comes to DRM issues) or flexibility when they open up their MSN music store in a few months.
Additional Microsoft spokespersons were quoted as saying, "Up is down; black is white; and we invented the personal computer."
AC reporting live from the Ministry of Love.
Apple makes no money on the iTMS; iTunes and the iTunes Music Store exist solely to sell iPods, or entice people to buy Macs.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
The note about iPod's market share is a good one, and I think the most interesting part of all this. Microsoft might try their own foray into the embedded music device market, but I doubt it; the iPod has huge amounts of name recognition already. Also, if they did try to move in that direction, Microsoft politics would dictate that the CE people be given charge of the firmware (a task that CE is a bit heavy for), leading to the need for an expensive and energy-hungry processor, leading to low battery life, and a heavy battery to compensate. By no means definitive, but I'm guessing that would be the result of Microsoft making a Pod.NET.
This gives Microsoft an interesting, and (to it) unfamiliar alternative: To reverse-engineer or license the iPod interface, and write apps to talk to it in DRM-speak. Apple, of course, wouldn't dare give MS access under any but the most restrictive terms possible, and MS would have to be careful about skirting the DMCA when reverse-engineering. An interesting role reversal.
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
After watching the presentation Apple gave on the release of the new iTunes features I have to say that everything else doesn't even seem to be coming close to Apple's position of sheer domination.
iTunes is a nice start, but to have it for both platforms AND the best mp3 player on earth AND have every AOL user on the planet instantly be abel to use the ITMS (it uses the credit card from the AOl account) AND have Pepsi do a huge push during the Superbowl to give away 100 million songs (and at the same time having literally millions of people install iTunes in short order) AND having a means for parents scared of lawsuits to provide music for kids (allowance) AND to have thousands of audiobooks and other great content like NPR shows...
Apple has set a goal of 100 million songs downloaded in the first year of iTunes (starting in April). But frankly I think they have set their sights way too low. I think 200 million by next April is not out of the question, and probably really low.
One other benefit that Apple has, is that the musicians themselves are generally rooting for the store. I don't know how much of an effect that will have, if any... but a groundswell of artists demanding to be on ITMS cannot hurt.
I have to say, if I were trying to start up another music store right now I would be quivering - even if I were Microsoft, and none of them are! I have to wonder how long it will be before Microsoft sees the whole industry slipping from them and offers a music store directly screwing over all the partners based on WMP.
I don't understand why Dell is trying to do it's own server and doesn't just cut a deal to install iTunes on all Dell desktops. There's a plan for Gateway - are you listening?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just a Q that someone might have the A to.. When you rip CDs into iTunes AAC, are they DRM'd to the ripping machine or are they open ala ripped MP3s?
I still rip MP3 (128k VBR) but I'm interested in saving a bit of space...
YMMV, because Rhapsody is more geared toward the cube-bound (or SoHo denizens like me). It isn't pointed toward MP3, but streaming playback.
However, since you can burn an awful lot of the music to CD, and then RIP the CDs, even that's a moot point.
For me, the large selection and ease of use of Rhapsody beat something like iTunes all to hell.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
"The iTunes Music Store is not available in your country yet."
This sucks!
I think I'll stay with Kazaa/Gnutella/etc.
Unless Apple decides to make radical changes to their service model, a Windows-based version of iTunes will still remain a closed system,
Closed system? What, closed like Office file formats? Like middleware portions of the OS? Like network communications? Like the MSN Messanger service? Like pretty much everything Microsoft has ever done?
Where iPod owners cannot access content from other services
Wrong. If said other services allow users to burn CDs or download MP3s then yes, they can. If said other services won't allow users to do either...well, why the hell would anyone want to use them? Basically the only thing iTunes can't work with is DRM-locked WMA files that prohibit burning, and even then you could just use the audio out-in trick to rerecord them to MP3.
Additionally, users of iTunes are limited to music from Apple's Music Store
Limited? Like songs from every major label limited? Like a kazillion independant lables limited? Like a few thousand audio books limited? Like 13 million sales limited? Yeah, iTMS is really the downside to this equation.
this is a drawback for Windows users, who expect choice in music services, choice in devices, and choice in music from a wide-variety of music services
Choice in music services, like that they all use WMA. Choice in devices, like that they all play WMA. And choice in music, like that it's available in WMA.
to burn to a CD or put on a portable device
Which was pretty much unheard of before Apple negotiated a major play for user rights. Before iTMS you were lucky to even "check out" a song to a portable player, burning or keeping it there was practically unheard of from the major label services.
Lastly, if you use Apple's music store along with iTunes, you don't have the ability of using the over 40 different Windows Media-compatible portable music devices
That's like saying if I redeem my Pepsi points I can't get any of the Coke products out there. It's simple, iTunes is for the iPod. If you own some other portable device then they are probably going to want you to use their included software. Why? Because WM is bare-bones basic player function only and customers are not satisfied trying to manage their music through crappy Windows Media Player. So using iTunes with an iPod is no different than using MusicMatch or whatever come with a Rio etc.
I'm no Apple fanboy but this guy rivals the Iraqi Information Minister.
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
The death of the MP3 is upon us.
Microsoft's main complaint is that AAC is a closed format, which is only useful with iTunes, the iPod, Apple's Music Store, and QuickTime, and throwing the stone that the Windows Media Player format is compatible with 40 devices and several download sites... but let's face it, WMA is a closed system to. The WMA system has a few more choices, but not an unlimited number.
What I really see is a future where you're about to lock yourself into the music network you pick today. If you buy your music by AAC, then you're stuck in the Apple products universe, if you buy your music by WMA you'll get stuck in the Windows Media products universe. If you want to stay with MP3s, you'll either have to buy CDs or risk the P2P cops finding you...
Yeah, there are you options. How would you like to pay today?
I was pretty excited to try iTunes for windows. I thought finally the record industry is getting it. Then I downloaded and tried it. I was going to get the new Outkast (Speakerboxxx/The Love Below). However it costs $19.95! Ummm, did I miss something here? No inventory, no shipping, just bandwidth fees and it costs $5 more than it would for me to go down to Best Buy and get it? Bittorrent here I come.
Our users expect flexibility, therefore we will make sure nothing we make talks to ipod or itunes.
Itunes is too limited for our users who are so complex they only want M$.WMA.
Poop on all the closed source DRM gimped up garbage. Zaurus cost $200, plays mp3 and ogg and takes non DRM'd compact flash. Get Open Zaurus and you can mount up a nice ext2 filesystem for all your long filenames, archiving and all that. Get a $100 wifi card and the thing can talk to any music server you would like to set up. Now that is total flexibility, why would anyone settle for less?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The way iTunes and the iTMS locks you in to Apple software and Apple hardware (I know, big shock there).
Nice sentence. Anyway... iTunes will let you burn your music to CD-ROM. You can then re-rip this (with iTunes no less) to unprotected AAC or MP3.
Besides, iTunes is a free application intended for iPod users. You don't see me bitching that Kodak's digital camera software won't work on my Canon Elph.
My Mac friends told me to download iTunes for the PC. I leap at the chance to badmouth Apple products any chance I can, so I went ahead and downloaded it. I wasn't interested in the store side of things, I just wanted to see how the player stood up against Winamp.
Let me say that over the years, I have tried dozens of MP3 players, only to keep coming back to Winamp. And yes, I'm one of the few that admits to liking version 3 more than 2.x.
Anyways, I've been searching for a long time for an app that will create a good, reliable, playable index of all my songs. I remember when Freeamp came out, its big claim to fame was the ability to build an index of songs according to their ID3 tags. Unfortunately, the app would ALWAYS crash while indexing. I went back to Winamp.
Eventually, the app I found that came the closest to doing what I wanted was MusicMatch jukebox. The problem came in its sorting - it would sort by album/artist/whatever, but I wanted an app that would sub-sort the songs in the order they appeared on the album.
For the record, I have about 300 albums' worth of songs. Each album has its own folder, and the songs are numbered in the order they appear on the album. I'm a big stickler for listening to songs in the order they were intended to be heard.
So I download iTunes. No, I don't want it to be my default audio player. You gotta earn that trust. No, I DO NOT want Quicktime to be the default video player! Why the hell are you asking me this? I tell it to index all my music, and not to copy the songs into the My Music folder (this is just plain dangerous for people that don't know how to organize their local files. I see lots of disks filling up due to copies of their songs living in multiple folders).
I fire it up, and nothing. Go into prefs, tell it where the songs live, and RE-TELL it not to associate Quicktime with my movie files (sigh).
This time it indexes all my songs. Pretty slick, if HUGE, interface. Still doesn't sub-organize songs by order on their album. But wait! Edit - Options - view track number! Huzzah!
Since my MP3 ripper of choice automatically puts the track number into my ID3 tags, suddenly I can see what order the songs are in! And it automatically sub-sorts by track number! This is huge!
The longest I used an MP3 player other than Winamp was probably the 2-day stint I did with Sonique back in 99 or so. But iTunes just might break that record. I'm very happy with it thus far. The only complaint I have is that it doesn't appear to have a 'compact' mode, where I can shrink the player to a reasonable size. Instead I have this huge monstrocity of an app on my desktop. But if it's the price I pay for a reliable, indexing MP3 player, so be it.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
You're an idiot.
The high point of this story is going to be that the sales suck on the Windows side and the reason is obvious --that's where Kazaa worked.
How long did you have to have broadband and Kazaa to get everything you wanted? I mean how much music do you really need? A stack of a hundred CD-Rs is 60Gigs. Let's say the average broadband Kazaa user was burning a CD or two a day in the height of things last year. Even if you only were using it for six months you could easily have two hundred gigs and if you've had broadband for years and were using Kazaa from early on, you've got to have more like a half a terrabyte of crap. I bet many dedicated Kazaa packrats have over a terrabyte of stuff on optical media. And I bet many of them don't even know what they have and probably think that's quite amusing.
That's the environment iTunes is entering.
I wish it didn't install quicktime.
It installs QuickTime because iTunes is written to require QuickTime. I don't know, but I suspect part of this is because QuickTime for Windows contains a partial implementation of the Carbon APIs, and iTunes for Mac is a Carbon app, so relying on QuickTime would make porting much easier.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
"Best Windows App Ever" proclaims their front page...could they be a bit more egotistical?
The program doesn't seem to use multithreading, so when I plug in my iPod the whole thing freezes completely for about 2-3 minutes (no message loop reads, so the window white's out if you alt-tab). I've gotten really screwed up visual artifacts in it where it was obvious they're custom drawing their own interface, though not very well (they drew 2 different playlists on top of each other, really screwed up). Oh and the thing crashes a lot. Great Windows app indeed! Best ever!
Has anyone else noticed that part of the press pass article on the MS webpage:u res/2003/o ct03/10-15musicservices.asp
u res/2003/ Oct03/1015MusicServices-quotes.asp)
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/feat
is lifted word for word from the San Jose article quote also listed on the MS website under related quotes?
(http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/feat
Press pass article:
"...Additionally, users of iTunes are limited to music from Apple's Music Store. As I mentioned earlier, this is a drawback for Windows users, who expect choice in music services, choice in devices, and choice in music from a wide-variety of music services to burn to a CD or put on a portable device. Lastly, if you use Apple's music store along with iTunes, you don't have the ability of using the over 40 different Windows Media-compatible portable music devices. When I'm paying for music, I want to know that I have choices today and in the future."
Quote of the San Jose article:
"Additionally, users of iTunes are limited to music from Apple's Music Store. As I mentioned earlier, this is a drawback for Windows users, who expect choice in music services, choice in devices, and choice in music from a wide variety of music services to burn to a CD or put on a portable device. Lastly, if you use Apple's music store along with iTunes, you don't have the ability of using the over 40 different Windows Media-compatible portable music devices. When I'm paying for music, I want to know that I have choices today and in the future."
John Paczkowski
San Jose Mercury News
Friday, October 17, 2003
Read the entire article.
I personally find this personally disturbing b/c someone is plagiarizing someone else here, and MS the company big on copyright infringement might be the real bad guy here.
>> saying it was too limited for the average Windows users.
What do you expect when you only have 1 mouse button to work with?
Oh, and that wasn't an interview - it was a fabricated PR piece made to look like an interview. There was no interviewer asking the hardball questions, or calling the interviewee on his lies. Pure fabrication presented like an unbiased piece of journalism. MS hasn't sunk this low since, well I was going to say since the time they fabricated that "switcher add", but really they sink this low almost every day.
Kelly McNeill wrote:
This is PURE FUD. These music stores can just as readily sell AACs as they can sell "CLOSED" WMP files. AAC is the open standard... WM is not. More FUD. iTunes can play AAC files, AIFF files, MP3 files, MP4 files, and Wav files. Hence the reason why it was given to them. As if this is different anywhere else? Is it Apple's fault that several other companies chose to use an inferior, more closed music standard? All of which have less music and less features... Tell me... why would I want to use these services? Then don't use close file formats like WM. So then you agree... iTunes Music store will win the hearts and minds of consumers This is Bull. its not the largest. iTunes Music store has the same if not more. For a hefty subscription price. Who wants that? iTunes has that. iTunes has this too iTunes has this to. Same with iTunes. All of which has existed on iTunes for quite some time. Which is available for iTunes too... AND on OS X. iTunes... on Windows or OS X. Faster starts = Lie, Better Quality Music = Lie, and iTunes has support for all those devices... including the most popular and best of them... iPodThe iTunes Music Store does not lock you in to apple software. You can play iTunes Music Store-purchased tracks in any application that supports QuickTime playback so long as you are still on an authorized computer.
WMA is far more flexible and portable, open, closed, or otherwise.
More flexible and portable than mp3? How is WMA "portable", last I checked it worked on 1) Windows 2) Macintosh, but very very poorly. If you're talking about AAC, no, you can play AAC on all platforms too, it's just at the moment you can only get through Apple's iTMS DRM in Windows and Macintosh. This hopefully will change..
Unless Apple adds WMA to the iPod and iTMS, they're not going to grow very much on the PC.
Funny, NO ONE that I know, including any of the PC users I know, uses WMA for *anything*. They all use mp3.
Micro$oft and choice in same statement.
1 Error, 0 Warnings
-- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
I'll bet $1 that the next SP from Microsoft breaks iTunes for Windows. Flame bait? Not with their history...
"[Apple's music store] ... is a drawback for Windows users, who expect choice in music services, choice in devices, and choice in music from a wide-variety of music services to burn to a CD or put on a portable device."
Translation: when someone introduces a new product or service, it actually takes away from the number of products and services you get to choose from.
Also, I should mention: Today is not opposite day.
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
The only AAC that has DRM is the stuff you purchase, you own ripped music has no restrictions.
I just bought and downloaded my first two songs. Each one is a poke in the eye to mr Gates. I'm running Windows XP and I hate every thing it stands for. Revenge comes in 99 cents purchases. And now with a growing collection of songs... I'm just going to have to go out and buy and Ipod. And Itunes is running just fine on my Wincrap...
In order to notice that, I'd have to have a copy of Exploder on my desk. If I had one of those, I might also notice full screen popup adverts, bandwith draining trojans and blue screens of death. I got tired of Windblows a few years ago and have not had any of those problems since.
So, no, since then I have not had problems with my GUI, especially with something as hardware modest as sound files. Ogg rocks. DRM and M$ blow.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm betting that if you have 3GB of ram, you are not running a plainly configured PC...
Some of the ideas in Dave Fester's comments reflect the idea that since you are running iTunes you couldn't also be running some other music player/manager doing something else. The idea that running one program precludes running another.
This I think comes from the history of Windows and it's users. I entered this game via workstations (Apollo/HP/Sun...). Those boxes came with a screen so big (in the day) that there was no way you would waste it on just one program. While Windows grew from the PC where economy ruled and smaller screens and single tasking were what you could afford. So one program would own the screen and running one program would stop you from using another. From this MDI mindset it's easy to see where he is comming from. I amazed today by how many 20" monitors I see with just one Text editor window or one IE window up.
As it is iTunes adds another dimension (and a very nice one) to Window and it doesn't cost MS a dime.
I tried iTunes, searched for the legendary old
Canadian industrial band Skinny Puppy and came up
with rockers Motley Crue, uninstalled it.
You cant fight in here, its a war room!
Unless Apple decides to make radical changes to their service model RESISTANCE IS FUTILE, a Windows-based version of iTunes will still remain a closed TO US system, where DAMNABLE iPod owners cannot access content from OUR other FLAGGING services," said Fester. "Additionally, users of THE INTERLOPER iTunes are limited to music from Apple's DAMNABLE Music Store ... this is a drawback for Windows PROFITS users, who expect NO choice in music services, choice in devices, and NO choice in music from a MILLIMETER- wide-variety of music services to burn to a CD or put on a portable device AND DEFINITELY NOT ON AN IPOD. Lastly, if you use Apple's DAMNABLE music store along with THE INTERLOPER iTunes, you don't have the ability of PAYING FOR using the over 40 different Windows Media-compatible portable music devices. When I'm paying for music, BY WHICH OF COURSE I MEAN RENTING MY MUSIC IN A KIND OF MUTANT PSEUDO-LICENSE SITUATION, I want to know that I have choices MADE FOR ME today and in the future." END OF TRANSMISSION.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Apple simply does the best job at making a product that does it's intended function the best of any computer product out in the market. iTunes does music jukeboxing, CD ripping/burning, and a largly acceptable from of DRM correctly, smartly, and almost without fail. In every reproach. Apple listens to their customers and actively innovates for them, Apple market share is a happy byproduct of the process.
Let's see somebody say the same thing about Microsoft thruthfully. Do that, and I'll happy to sell you this plot o' land...
-FlynnMP3
Insert witty saying here
Because none of those other programs let you purchase music from a catalog of 400,000 songs with a single click, for only $0.99, start listening to them instantly, get the cover art too, and burn the song to a CD whenever you want?
:)
No, but you can purchase the songs in iTunes and listen to them in the other, more-convenient-for-your-needs program all you want..
...film at 11.
What did you expect, frankly ? That Microsoft would welcome Apple's incursion on their turf ? They have been pushing DRM'd WMA and Windows Media Player 9 for some time, and then Apple comes and wreaks their plans with mildly-DRM'd AAC files and iTunes.
No wonder they're worried. That's a loss of control over their customers' habits, one less entry point to leverage their own DRM on PCs, plus it brings Apple in plain view of a LOT of people who wouldn't even know Macs existed otherwise.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Maybe, just maybe, the proliferation of iTunes on both platforms will drive Windows Media Player out of relevance to the music listener. Sure, iTMS music is not MP3, but Apple isn't really trying to talk anybody into using their format for anything other than downloaded, paid music. So maybe people will start using iTunes and stop encoding music in that god-awful WMV format.. (by god-awful I mean Microsoft controlled, screwing with everyone's ability to listen to it, use it on an iPod, etc, not the actual quality, which is good)..
I used to like Windows Media Player. I'm the only person I know who used it over Winamp. I was also the first (and still the only) person I know who gave MSN Music Club a chance.
It sucked. It really, really sucked. I had trouble downloading (on 512k ADSL), the download client is riddled with spelling errors and inconsistent UI formatting, the audio quality was amazingly fuzzy compared to the Oggs I had around, and I was charged twice for one track (unless I'm misunderstanding their pricing model).
I checked the Music Club help page, and it said I could arrange a refund. I followed their instructions, and a couple of weeks later, I got a snobby little reply telling me they downloaded the file and it sounded good to them, so no refund.
When I downloaded iTunes, I didn't know I wouldn't be able to buy music yet (being in the UK), but I still have the client installed. Why? It looks sexy, I love the music filtering, and the tag editing Just Works, unlike WMP which corrupted everything it wrote to. If I have time next weekend, I'm going to take a closer look at AAC too.
Sorry Microsoft, but I'm sticking with iTunes for now.
Hooray for choice!
and many Windoze users are going to wake up from a long dream.
Seriously, I remember (vaguely) when I used to use CD's and play them in a CD player, but it seems like it was a LONG time ago (2-3 years).
I also remember when I first starting using mp3s on a computer. I was behind the curve because we had a nice stereo system and because it was easy to find the CD's so it kind of slipped in to our regular way of listening to music. Sooner or later I realized I used the computer more and the CD player less.
Our house is completely wired with 4 computers using iTunes - all decked out with excellent speakers and there is one iPod in the group.
We typically share most of the music off of one of the desktops with a large hard drive. My laptop could not hold the 60 gigs of music that is on tap all of the time.
Windoze users will find in iTunes a state of the art application with parity on both platforms. I think once they have seen the elegance and hassle free way to listen to music, many will realize that the entire platform is very much like iTunes and if they were tempted to buy a Mac before, the temptation will be greater post iTunes for Windoze.
This is a GREAT thing for Apple and I expect it could actually help market share in the future. They are poised to be THE music vendor on the net. Their current offerings in the iPod and iTunes are the best integration offering out there and they are, no doubt, scheming up the next great thing in music.
It is interesting to reflect on how disappointed everyone was when the iPod was announced (it is just an mp3 player !) but it has proved to be a hugely important device, even leaving Sony in the dust, as the previous company that ruled portable music. Clearly Steve Jobs saw the impact LONG before anyone else did.
As for the article, Microsoft should be installing iTunes on all their machines inside the Redmond campus so they begin to understand what the competition is doing. They are "in the weeds" as we like to say in the food business because iTunes makes it so easy to use, share and listen to music. Start the FUD now because the product they eventually ship will pale in comparision.
If you use Windoze, download iTunes and give it a try. I think you will like it.
A very satisfied iTunes user.
Brian
I'm a big fan of iTunes and my iPod. Something about having all my CDs, internet radio, and all the music of other people with iTunes in my dorm is just attractive to me. I'm hoping Windows users will adopt iTunes, being able to listen to their shared libraries would be nice.
I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.
I'm *definitely* gonna try it. In all of my time sitting in front of a box, I have yet to figure out Windows Media Player. Just getting shit to play is too damn complicated. A playlist? Forget about it. Winamp 2.8 is the only thing I use, but I like the idea of buying music too (stuff that I can't find on Kazaa Lite K++)
The only skipping problems I had were when I updated track info while playing.
That said, there are a lot of functionality things that I sort of wish I could customize by myself, but know I never will because of Apple's lack of plug-in support.
Other than that, it's alright. I haven't used the streaming function on my LAN yet, but I'm sure I will once eMusic goes on a diet.
in favor of the creator's increasingly popular planet/population rescue initiative (formerly unknown as the oil for babies program), which coincides perfectly (we do not use that word lightly) with the onset of the gnu millennium? of course it would.
secure? why this stuff is unbreakable, & works on several (more than 3) dimensions.
the daze of the phonIE payper liesense corepirate nazi stock markup fraud execrable is WANing into coolapps/the abyss, at the speed of right. not much secure IT to be had with those fauxking foulcurrs.
the pateNTdead eyecon0meter kode has been used extensibly, in helping to eXPose many of the ?pr? ?firm? hypenosys fallicIEs surrounding the efforts of the felonious billyonerrors softwar gangsters' to mask their greed/fear/ego based misdeeds, & ongoing frauduleNT behaviours.
still much to be done. see you there.
consult with/trust in yOUR creator regarding decisions of the heart/mind/wallet. that's the spirit, moving you.
for each of the creator's innocents harmed, there is a badtoll that must/will be repaid by you/US, as the aforementioned perpetraitors of the life0cide against the planet/population, will not be available to make reparations.
get ready to see the light. there's no going back, & no where to hide. you won't need any phonIE payper liesense BugWear(tm) devise to join.
Last time I looked, my truck's 9-year-old CD player didn't support DRM. I thought Microsoft was pushing various DRM schemes...? And here we have them saying that consumers expect DRM-free music...
Advice: on VPS providers
"[Apple's music store] ... is a drawback for Windows users, who expect choice in music services, choice in devices, and choice in music from a wide-variety of music services to burn to a CD or put on a portable device."
"64K is all the memory you'll ever need"
"Developers, Developers, Developers!"
Sound waves should be free!
I downloaded iTunes yesterday [...] Mac stuff works, first time, every time, it does what you expect it to do. I think that just might be worth paying for. I think I'm going to start saving my pennies for a nice little PowerBook.
So that is why microsoft is balsting itunes! They don't want other people to see this for themselves.
You can't take the sky from me...
hee hee check out the stains on his shirt, lower right side Dave Fester @ Microsoft
The Ogg Quicktime component allready has a windows version up on sourceforge, no need to port it.
Go get it:
http://qtcomponents.sourceforge.net/
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
microsoft is smelling the fear. in charateristic fashion, this would be the first salvo in a series designed to dissuade some Windows users, who by and large do not understand very much about computing in general and who usually tend to believe the usual incompatability rumors. these same poor souls are the hapless victims of all the microsoft failures to provide security, and alas have grown used to inconvience as a way of life. iTunes may be the first truly positive computing experience for many of them.
This article is ridiculous. Who cares what ANY company's PR group says about a competitor's product? It's always going to be the same: OUR COMPETITOR SUCKS. This article is just trolling for "M$ is stoopid" posts. The story is iTunes, not what any other company says about 'em.
all it does is just work right. microsoft software/philosophy has become enamored with features pver functionality. i'd much prefer software that does the things i need it to do, and does it very well, over something that does 7000 things i don't need.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
This is weak FUD even by MS standards, isn't it? They must be shit-scared of iTMS and the threat it poses to their plans to make Windows Media (with all its accompanying DRM) the de facto standard for, well, everything if they're going on the attack like this.
You must think in Russian.
Thank you, Microsoft for standing up to my right to choose. Now fuck off.
I already have choices, and I choose iTunes, the iTunes Music Store, and the iPod. I've looked at other options, and with rare exceptions, they all suck. Some of them (like Buy.com's music downloads), sucked really fucking hard. If Microsoft (or anybody else) wants me to choose anything else, they should try creating something that doesn't suck, instead of telling me that I'm being "locked-in" when I choose to use iTunes.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Apple should have had iTunes for Windows started and out 6 months before now, minimum. I like WiniTunes, now I wish it had been here before Dell started putting effort into portable music with their iPod (weak sister) imitation, and Rio's got a couple decent hard-drive based players now too. Apple would have this market more sewn up if they had been here first on PC too.
They are sore that somehow Apple suckered them into building IE for Mac, giving them 150 million dollars in 1997, making Office Mac not suck and getting Bill Gates to appear on video at MacWorld Boston '97 to shore up investor confidence while Steve took back Apple.
Through all of that, MS really didn't gain anything and MS's Anti-company survived.
I bet Steve Ballmer and a bunch of other suits are still wondering what the hell happened.
I recently bought myself a Creative Nomad, preferring the cost over anything wonderous iPod could give me. My fiancee has an iPod herself and has been downloading music from the iTunes Music Store for a few months now. When it came out on Windows, I couldn't wait to try it out, but the only problem was - how do I get this stuff onto my Nomad?
At the end of the day, it's pretty simply, though a little tedious. Download the music from iTunes, burn it onto a CD, rip it with Windows Media Player, and then do a manual search for the album name, since Media Player can't automatically find them. Nothing new here, but the ease with which I can do this just makes me angry. Surely, the RIAA and Apple must know it's this easy?
I don't use P2P to get my music, I'm more than happy to pay for it. However, Apple just hasn't go it right. If I lose the music downloaded on my computer (which my fiancee did at one point) I don't have the right to download it again. I pay 99c to purchase the right of use on my box and a few others. What should happen is that the RIAA keeps a store for all time that I have a right to play this music. If I authorize my car stereo, I can play it there. If I authorize my refrigerator (in the not-too-distant future), then I can play it there. But no, they proceed from the assumption that I'm a criminal, and make my life difficult in doing so. It's like being frisked at the Target every time I buy a song. So I simply go around their mechanisms to play the music I paid for in the way that I want to hear it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that all of this is enough to turn one into a "criminal" who uses P2P. The irony here is absolutely dripping.
Its rather interesting to see the issue of choice brought up in this context. While the point is a good one, it misses the mark for a couple of reasons.
First, Apple is the current "innovator" in this market.
All jukebox hardware devices are compared to Apple's iPod. The iPod is clearly the leader in the market and defines the scale by which all others are measured. Apple leads the market with an outstanding combination of features, user interface, and overall design - from the iPods compact size to its pleasing, slick look.
The same same is true of the iTunes Music Store. Apple was the first to deliver a service that offered a decent selection, at an acceptable price, with acceptable DRM restrictions. With this service, one is able to not only get a quality download, but retain some degree of ownership; more if you're willing to jump through the very clear loopholes created by the service. Which isn't to say Apple's service got all all right - more on that later.
Apple does have its competitors - and there are clearly products coming out that are designed to directly compete with the iPod and iTunes Music Store. But if Windows users want to take advantage of the leading products, iTunes is the gateway. In this context, choice is not the issue.
But what if choice is important? Users will need to avoid DRM restrictions. And they'll want to use standard formats like MP3 and (now growing in popularity) Ogg Vorbis that can be played on a wide variety of software and hardware.
The iPod is still an option in this case... if your choice of format is MP3. But you'll have to look elsewhere if you prefer Ogg Vorbis. Some of the iPod competitors offer that choice - a distinction that may cost Apple some sales.
When it comes to music service, neither Apple's offering nor any service featuring Microsoft's technology offers the end user real choice. There are some small label services that manage to deliver a fairly nice catalog of music from non-RIAA affiliated sources. But then, the selection is indeed limited if the end user expects to find their old favorites.
If consumers want true freedom and choice, they will have to continue using the current collection of illegal music swapping systems. And that has been the problem all along. When it comes to the business of music, choice has never been a consideration. It still isn't. The irony of the situation is that this mind set has created an increasing market for "pirated" data - a market industry trade groups become more and more vocal about and have taken more and more drastic actions to curb. What this does to consumer mindshare is fodder for other discussions.
Microsoft is correct to point out choice. But they're wrong in how it applies to the situation at hand.
I am a die hard mac user. I love itunes and my ipod. But, it does seem from a certain perspective that apple is falling into their same old song and dance routine despite all the hype that it generates about innovation.
Face it, Apple is a HARDWARE company. It always has been, maybe it always will be. By allowing only iPods to take full advantage of iTunes Apple is again trying to force the sale of hardware, while the service seems almost incidental to the whole concept.
This is not to say that the whole shebang isn't worth it. Like Apple always does by controlling the hardware, software, and now service, it has put to market a product that is superior to every single other legal music concept out there, period. You really can't argue about that.
But it is true. There is no real choice. It is simply Apple saying what is best for you and if you want it you have to take it their way or take the highway.
So the Microsoft guy IS right. What apple is doing is not new. It is a tried and true formula. It may not have always worked perfectly in the past but Apple is still here because of that basic formula. Ask coke about changing formulas, but what a deal with pepsi.
When I'm paying for music, I want to know that I have choices today and in the future.
I don't know how old Dave Fester is, but I think he must be younger than me. My wonderful history of "choices" in music media has scattered thousands of 78's, 8-tracks, LP's and cassettes around landfills and flea markets in the United States.
Luckily, no mini-discs mixed in there. Haven't gotten rid of my CD's yet. But my point is this: if anyone thinks that Apple or Microsoft has come up with a permanent, non-supersedable solution to music distribution, they're wrong.
Things are going to change and digitalization of music is not going to eliminate that change, but perhaps only increase the rate of change. Therefore, rather than worrying about choices and being locked out of things, why not choose a convenient, affordable and elegant solution. For me, it is the iPod and iTunes in almost every regard except for a dearth of artists I am interested in.
But guess what? Most mainstream music stores don't carry the artists I am interested in, either. So I am willing to wait for iTunes to expand its catalog. If that doesn't happen, I'll just have to keep buying CD's on Amazon and other sites until there is a better solution or new medium.
I have a P3 1.2 with a GeForce Ti4200, 512MB PC133, and a fast hard drive. Scrolling in the iTunes store gives me about 3 frames per second. I can play games like GTA3, SimCity 4, and Halo at 30+ FPS, but browsing a glorified web page is too much for my PC to handle?
iTunes, is simple and works. Not some monster like MusicMatch Jukebox. --dan
The out of memory error is related to a firewall or some types of proxy servers. There has been a continuous stream of messages like yours on the Apple discussion web site.
Are you running Norton firewall? Is it set up to act as a proxy server?
Lets see, Airport [wireless + modem] iPod, apple cinema displays...all work with PCs too...but work even better with a mac. When apple REALLY figures this out [and they're starting to!] MS will finally have to pay the piper for abusing their market!
Downloaded it the other day, now sitting here trying to get work done on a saturday installed it, told it not to be my default player and I was off.
::P
Gotta say, they know how to design an interface. Most impressive, imported my MP3's and easily set the equalizer for each group.
Decided to give the store a try. Got one track, downloaded incredibly fast. The quality of the 128kbps AAC is quite good.
I'll still buy my CD's used and rip to MP3, but heck iTunes is working great for me. Kudos to Apple for this software, free, quick, easy to use, and very very well designed.
Now, do I get an iPod for Xmas? Hmmmm
-- taking over the world, we are.
Works effectively for the majority of things they comment on.
I'm suprised I haven't seen a comment about this yet: no native ogg support in win32 iTunes. Not a big problem, I just downloaded the ogg quicktime codec, and iTunes picks up on them now. They take a lot longer to add to the library (seconds) and that's on a 3200+, but it's a small price to pay. Also, they dont get shared, but you can burn them with the iTunes burner (which is fricking awesome).
they're gonna try and make money somewhere. the iPod's a great piece of equipment.
i agree that it would be nice to be able to use other devices with iTunes, but they're limiting the use of iTunes, not limiting the use of the Nomad, Rio, etc.
it's a free app supporting a piece of hardware.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
mod parent up
can someone explain to me why it's packaged with OS X? it made me sick to my stomach when i saw it.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
As for being "the greatest Windows app ever..." I don't quite see it. I had problems installing it on a Dell laptop running W2K SP4. The installer conflicted with the Synaptics track pad, and I had to kill the Synaptics extensions to get Quicktime to install. I also got a BSOD when I ejected a CDR after writing a data file using Adaptec DirectCD. Hadn't seen one of those in ages. I haven't exercised the CDRW further yet, so I don't know whether that was just coincidence. I don't much believe in coincidence, though.
Otherwise, iTunes is pretty enough but the only thing new it does for me is let me see what the Apple store has for sale. I listen to classical music only, and Apple's selection is tiny and not at all cheap. Since I don't have an iPod, I will probably just keep using WinAmp for now, but will keep an eye on how the prices and selection of the store develop.
Microsoft made one true statement, iTunes wont convert downloaded music to windows media or mp3s. My car only plays mp3s, so I have to burn to cd, or re-rip the cd to mp3s. Not as "one clickity" as I would like it.
;)
Also, the techno area on iTunes is lacking, and scanning very large directories can crash or take hours.
Other than that, iTunes rocks. Very nice player, little more cpu than winamp, but still not as much as the IDE channel on a x86 box.
I really think iTunes is the entry level on which other services can try to beat. Offer the ability to download or easily convert to other formats, offer more indie/techno/dj/garage band music, have discounted music, and even offer free downloads on non-copyrightable music.
They can even tie in other merchandise in, and get people to buy DVD's, clothes, posters, etc. They have not scratched the service on what a service "Can" offer, just an entry level music buying service.
It can only get better, cheaper with more options. Go Apple.
can someone explain to me why it's packaged with OS X? it made me sick to my stomach when i saw it.
Originally it was the best browser available on OSX. (Other browsers had to be run in Classic.) Since Mozilla was ported to OSX, and especially since the release of Safari, that situation has changed. I still keep IE around because you will find that on some buggy websites, you can only fill out forms successfully in IE. Sad, but true.
He claims that Apple is limiting users too much, in part by not offering compatibility with many portable music players - "...if you use Apple's music store along with ITunes, you don't have the ability of using the over 40 different Windows Media-compatible portable music devices." To him I say, "Who fucking cares?" The iPod is BY FAR the most popular digital music player, providing the best balance of capacity, price, and quality of design. Apple doesn't give a shit about Windows Media compatibility because they don't have to.
a l/119
Just as Microsoft is in a position to ignore long standing problems with their W3C recommendation implementations because they control what is by far the most widely used browser, Apple can ignore compatibility with Windows Media Audio and the devices that support playback of that format because of the dominant position of the iPod in the market in which it competes.
Apparently, it is perfectly fine for Microsoft to ignore compatibility when they dominate a market, but it is a heinous crime when someone else does it.
Among his other claims are that "With Windows Media 9 Series, you get faster starts, better quality music, and support for the most devices." Faster starts? You are downloading the songs, not streaming them every time you want to listen to them. Better quality is a very subjective thing. AAC at 128Kbps sounds damn good to me, but my ears are far from perfect due to 12 years of drumming. I've already addressed the "most devices" argument, but I'll say it again - who the fuck cares about "most" devices? The iPod is THE device.
-Membranophonist
http://www.polywogg.com/journ
I just downloaded the iTunes software, and I find it easier to use then the winAMP and windows media player that restricts the users on what media format they can use. I used iTunes before on a make and I was happy with it. Now with a PC with XP I find my choices limited, until iTunes came around, Thank you Apple for opening the digital gates to cheap music. Take that Microsoft......!!!!!
Microsoft Dismisses Apple's iTunes for Windows
:) ... *g*
Well did you expect them to congratulate Apple, and give them a pat on the back for a job well done?
Hell really would have froze over
iTunes music store supports all kind of devices - stereos, car players, mini-CD players - through unlimited CD burning. I can safely say there are more than 40 brands. Besides it does have MP3 ripping for your own CDs, unlike some media players we all know.
:-). Or that you can use nice Quicktime APIs to decompress "protected" tracks to AIFF. But I guess only intended/supported features count.
I could also say that you can re-rip CD-RWs to MP3s, using iTunes itself
Problem is where Apple competes. Apple makes OSes and standard system software. If they went software only, they would be like microsoft. And tell me, can you name any OS vendors that are turning a heavy profit other than M$?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
...as The (evil) Architect put it...
Is there any good way to emulate a CD burner in windows? I mean, could I point iTunes at an emulated burner, have it "burn" an audio cd to my hard drive, and then rip that back to mp3? I just don't want to waste so many cds...
All I see here are knee jerk anti-MS responses from people who likely do nor even run Windows, much less WMP9. I personally don't keep large collections of music on my computer fora number of reasons but I happen to know about WMP9 and the services it does offer. While not complete, Microsoft is working wth other companies to integrate their digital music offerings into WMP9 so users will have one media player with access to as many digital audio and video online stores as sign up with Microsoft to offer their service through WMP9. Currently Napetsr 2.0, MusicNow and CinemaNow offer their services through the Premium Services tab of WMP9 but as more and more users begin to purchase music and video online more stores will likely be made available.
This is the choice MS is talking about that is lacking in Apple's iTunes. Apple has the media player, file format, music store and library control software all wrapped into one application with no in for third parties. In fact, when a third party developed a way to turn iTunes into a distributed jukebox Apple had them shut down and developed their own way to do this within iTunes.
Sorry, but you're mistaken. Protected files can't be converted this way. All non-DRM files files can be, of course.
BTW, the "convert selection to" command changes depending on which encoder is selected in the Importing preference panel--MP3, WAV, AAC, or AIFF. e.g, if you have WAV selected, the menu command reads "Convert selection to WAV".
Can someone explain what exactly is so great about iTunes, as compared to, say, Winamp 2? Other than integrated music store and CD-rip/burn functions I can't think of anything (but I've only used iTunes for about 5 minutes in my life, before it crashed the MacOS). I'm really curious, but I think WinAmp has everything you might need in its default installation, pretty much everything possible in plugins (i.e. does iTunes have remote control support?) and it also have much better visualisation options for those who like to watch their music.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
One thing that frustrates me (pisses me off rather) is that iTMS is only avaiable in the USA.
Has anyone heard any rumors (I couldn't find any info) on when they will be international or a list of countries they'll be available in?
Anyway, try an iPod (the new ones in 10, 20 and 40 GB capacity). It's a bit expensive but I guarantee you you won't regret it! I bought a 20GB version and haven't looked back! (No I'm not a mac user)
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
iTunes is definately a step forward for the average user. You know, the sort who still thinks Bose speakers are decent. The iPod, however, as recently posted, is one of the nicest portable jukeboxes out there from an audiophile standpoint. Even if you don't chuck those mac-buds and get a nice pair of grado's, chances are you will be able to appreciate the difference between uncompressed wav's (which the iPod can play!) over 128kBps AAC files. (what iTunes sells)
Unfortunately, that's all iTunes sells. Sure, those files are just fine for playing on the bus or in a noisy crowd, but under ideal listening circumstances they fall short of what the iPod is capable of delivering. And for what kind of savings over a CD? If it's a crappy CD full of filler you might save a bit by buying only the good tracks on iTunes. However, if it's a good CD with 15+ good tracks you won't save a cent.
Apple, however, knows who it's target demographic is. From the iTunes website:
"If you've ever been frustrated by Compact Disc packaging -- rip-stop shrink-wrap, that nasty top cap of seriously adhesive plastic -- welcome to the age of digital music. No broken fingernails, no tape sticking on your fingers. Just good clean music, delivered straight to iTunes."
Yes, if you are the sort who frequently frustrated by plastic wrap you too can benefit from iTunes! Personally, I'd be a bit insulted by the assumption that I don't know how to use a utility blade, but millions of happy iTune users can't be wrong!
Finally, just a caveat emptor about the iPod... It is a sexiliy designed and well supported device that delivers excellent sound quality. Unfortunatly, it's not very durable. The hold button is it's achilles heal. Sneeze on it wrong and it'll stop working. Then you'll have to send it in to apple for servicing if you don't want to pop the cover yourself. Do that after your warranty is up and it'll cost $400! (apple's standard non-warranty service charge) The ear-buds aren't exactly high-quality either. They don't sound too bad, but their build quality is so pathetic that apple will send you another pair, no questions asked, if you tell them the wire casing has separated from the wire. (a very common occurence) They won't even ask you to send them the old pair. Thirdly, the carrying case which apple includes with the 20GB and 30GB models has a spiffy little apple logo that will scratch the heck out of any iPod unwittingly inserted into the case. What the hell were those macheads smoking? Bottom line, get decent headphones and a good third-party vendor's carrying case that provides ample protection for the iPod's hold button. Strongly consider paying the extra for extended warranty service because it will be cheaper to buy a new iPod if you have to get service after the 1-year standard warranty is up!
I've never understood what all the fuss was about. Rhapsody offers a killer online music service with unlimited streaming for a flat ten bucks a month, plus cd burns at the same price as iTunes. If you want an mp3, burn it to cd and rip it for personal use. Why isn't everyone using Rhapsody?
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
Windows is too limited for computer users.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
"iTunes doesn't do our Windows Media format, so it's no good."
Personally, I'm going to be looking for devices that don't have WMA on them because I don't like the format.
Funny, "Fester" is the name of my pug.
I store my enire music collection in WMA Lossless. (Hard drives are cheap.) I got an iPod a few weeks ago, and the day before iTunes was released (coincidentally,) I wrote a little program to batch convert all those files to MP3 and send them to the iPod. I'm thinking about switching to AAC, once I figure out how it works.
I assume iTunes gets along well with my iPod, and I'd be happy to switch (and maybe even try out the music store), but iTunes will not import WMA files at all. You'd think that Apple would want to make things easy for converts, but apparently they have such a bad case of NIH syndrome that they won't even make the one or two API calls that would be necessary to read a stream from any Windows Media file. (Of course, iTunes doesn't actually tell me it can't read those files, it just silently ignores my attempts. That's not politics, though, just embarassingly poor design.)
Maybe I'll try the next version, but for now, the iTunes store has lost a potential customer.
MSK
... i mean if you're not "First to Market" then you have to condude that "it will be the best experience that ultimately wins over consumers". Ahh last i checked Apple has both beaten MS to the market with iTunes AND offers a better user experience with its Aqua look-n-feel. MS will do best trying to stick to its old tactics of subvertion and faulty software.
why was modded flamebait?
Great job to the idiot modded me down.
Both companies are locking in but i am flamebait.
There is a well-known limitation to QuickTime that makes it impossible to open files which names are longer than 64 characters.
I think the defect has been there for a long time.
iTunes uses QuickTime for handling audio files.
If apple ported OSX and its other software to the PC microsoft would be screwed. I don't understand why apple trys to make money off hardware.
I know you're trolling, but I'll go for it anyway.
I have many, MANY issues with Apple. Which is precisely why I haven't bought any of their hardware in over 6 years, but it isn't just about making money. It's also about control.
Right now, Apple only has to support one hardware platform. Since they can control the hardware, they can spend less time diagnosing hardware incompatibilities and spend more time adding features.
Apple has lost the war for the desktop. They can still continue to make money in their niche.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
No fucking wonder, you were running Visual Studio
TURN OFF THE BLOATED COMPILER.
Thought I should mention taht itunes works awesomely on my system (dell 600M - P4M 1.6gh, 1gb ram) except when playing audio CDs. During quiet parts (ie at the end and beginning of tracks) it makes a popping noise. I've tested it on a number of different CDs. Tested out forcing digital and analog audio. no difference. turned off crossfading. no difference. I'm going back to winamp till this gets fixed.
One thing that is not emphasized in all of this is the American music industry's "acceptance" of Apple's scheme for DRM. When iTMS opened up, it was Mac only with a major reason being Apple's small base of users. This was a test case and it was pointed out that this was not necessarily a permanent agreement between Apple and the biggies in the music industry.
With iTMS and iTunes for the much bigger base of Windows users (albeit without Win9X), it would seem to me that this experiment is working. The music industry has given the green light to this type of music distribution and this type of DRM.
Microsoft does not like this. They can duplicate what Apple did but I would have to surmise that Apple has applied for patents. Microsoft could come up another more restrictive scheme (consumers won't like this) or a less restrictive scheme (music industry probably won't like this). Or they would have to devise (hah, innovate!) a scheme different than Apple, but one that satisfies both the consumer and music industry.
Nonetheless, Apple's model for music DRM sets a certain baseline for the legal distribution of music via the internet.
Shudder. I'm almost afraid to speculate about MS integrating their own MStunes.NET into Longhorn. It is of course a vital part of any OS, just like a web browser and email client.
And yet when it comes to limiting the Xbox online capability to only allowing games licensed to the subscription-based Xbox Live closed system, that's totally in the consumer's best interests because of 'security' and 'ease of use'.
Preferences > Homepage > Customize stories on homepage > Authors > Zonk > Uncheck
Apple users tend to confine themselves to the standard (and usally good) Apple offerings and iTunes is a good 'media hub' product. However, most PC users tend to accumulate their own bespoke set of programs for tasks as they have a far larger choice of software out there. For example I use CDeX to rip and encode my CDs, Winamp2 to play them on my PC and Ephpod to transfer them to my iPod.
I should, as a windows using iPod owner be the target for Apple's Windows iTunes release, but for a number of reasons I'm not happy with it.
e.g. If I copy a new set of MP3s into my 'music' directory Ephpod automatically detects this and puts it on my iPod. With iTunes if I haven't ripped the CD through it then I have to reselect my music folder everytime for iTunes to rescan it and find the 10 out of 5000 new tracks.
Whilst I applaud the efforts of Apple, they have to realise on the x86 platfrom their 'hub' prodcuts must be best of breed in the majority of tasks, or they simply won't be used at all. Windows users are curious, rather than hostile towards the Apple platform (the reverse being true for Apple users towards windows) - We will install the Apple software, but if you want to sway us the next piece is going to have to be better than the freeware we can already get.
Making up totally unrealistic scenarios to demonstrate a supposed limitation in iTunes is a classic strawman fallacy.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
no wait, i administrate an internet cafe with 10 computers, plus a few other businesses, which is about 4000 dollars SRP, right there.
plus my other clients. plus me.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
If you remove the "hip" factor then the iPod is overpriced compared to the competition. There are quite a few portable music players out there that also act as data storage for significantly less money. Why would I want to limit my self to Apple's music store and player?
Note to self.. don't leave comments screen open for an hour while you run to the store and then expect the rest of /. not to have answered a basic question.
*kicks self in balls*
If you read the article, you'll see that all the arguments boil down to one thing. It doesn't support Microsoft's proprietary audio format.
Doesn't Microsoft control who's allowed to use WMA encoding?
Clear, Dark Skies
As for their catalog, it's kind of hard to judge since they claim they have the artists but won't let me see which albums and tracks they have.
Clear, Dark Skies
is to access the iTunes store. Otherwise, it's not really different from winamp.
Clear, Dark Skies
I tried iTunes for Windows and I think it's the best music player/organizer on Windows. It goes hand in hand with my iPod too. I really like the small set of _useful_ choices it offers.
If Apple ported Safari to Windows, I think many users would welcome it as well.
Regards, Tommy
Apple likes integration...
Wouldn't be be silly if instead of iTunes we had:
iRip
iMix
iBurn
iStore
iPodSync
iTunes does it all in one place so everything is in one application. You don't have to go tunneling though filesystems to find what you want.
...s a drawback for Windows users, who expect choice ...
Since when do Windoze users have choice???
Microsoft is just grasping at staws to find legitimate complaints to make about iTunes. Their only arguments are so weak, it just illustrates why Windows users need to take a good look at iTunes!
.WMA proprietary format?
Flexibility in downloading music from a number of providers? Well, for starters - iTunes doesn't prevent any other music download applications from running on your PC. It also happily plays anything in MP3 format that you get elsewhere. All I can assume here is that Microsoft is just miffed that iTunes doesn't work with the
I'd MUCH rather deal with custom playlists in iTunes than in Windows Media Player - so my "choices" are certainly broader with iTunes in that respect, right now.
As someone who uses both a Mac and a PC on a LAN at home, I find having iTunes cross-compatible with both platforms adds even more "flexibility" I didn't have before.
Lastly, iTunes may not work with any player except the iPod, but the iPod is by far the BEST player out there. If you use something else, you're using an inferior product anyway - and again, you'll still be able to use whatever software came with it. iTunes can just be used along-side as an alternate player/music organizer.
I think too many of you are looking at Fester's comments as "iTunes doesn't give you enough choices..."
The angle I got from it is that Fester/Microsoft is upset that it isn't open. Microsoft want's access to the iTunes service, that is what Microsoft considers open.
In Microsoft press speak, open products can use other people's services. Windows Media Player can use iTunes services, iTunes can use WMP services, etc.
Of course we all know the way Microsoft works is quite the opposite. They just want iTunes to be open until Microsoft can deploy their own music service, at which time they'd boot iTunes and take over. ala Windows Messenger vs. AOL.
I reaaly like iTunes on my iMac. THe only problem I really see with iTunes on Windows is that every box I have installed it on has totally freaked out. Games no longer work, apps don't load, registry variables start failing to load. After un-installing iTunes, the box starts working again. Maybe next version. :-(
Hell already froze over when iTunes for windows was released. It can't freeze over again due to Microsoft cheerful acceptance of competitor's product for windows -- give it time to thaw. :)
Hyperom.com
With iTunes if I haven't ripped the CD through it then I have to reselect my music folder everytime for iTunes to rescan it and find the 10 out of 5000 new tracks.
Or, you could just check the box for the "Copy files to the iTunes music folder when adding to library" option in the Advanced preferences, and simply drag and drop the MP3 files you want to add into the iTunes window. They will be added to the library and copied into your designated iTunes music folder.
See, the problem with you Windows users is you're too used to having to do things ass-backwards to accomplish what you want. When you try to use Apple stuff with that mindset, you get frustrated because you assume what you're trying to do can't possibly be done so easily.
~Philly
This just makes me mad.
Since I use Microsoft products almost soley, it is in my best interest for them to remain at the top of the computer chain.
But statements like this + their clumsy actions regarding linux and their own products security make me wonder just how many days are left for them.
I don't think Linux will be the next widely used OS, but apple has a chance.
iTunes is a wonderful product. I don't feel hampered at all.
I wish they'd stop spinning and come out with a good product of their own.
Clif
clifgriffin > blog
I feel for you as music is very important to me... one thing I was wondering, if turning up music really loud enables you to a hear it a bit perhaps those video-game aimed "rumbler" style devices would let you enjoy music a little more? Here I'm thinking of the things that go on the back of the chair or the like. they usually take any sound input. You'd of course only really get much out of things that had a lot of base...
At least you have sight and can still enjoy the myriad world of visual art. Music is nice though to give a backdrop to things, which is not so true of art since you generaly have to focus on it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Could partially be for carbon apis (dunno), but itunes does use quicktime for the audio codecs--aac, aiff, mp3, wav. another post has a link to the ogg codec on sourceforge.
I suppose someone with knowledge of WMA and realaudio could make quicktime components for those formats too.
I was able to buy the new BNL CD already, the CD is not even out until next week sometime. What kind of stuff were you looking for? They signed up 200 independent labels but it will probably take some time for the content to filter in.
And, they have a decent selection of audiobooks.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The only choice Microsoft users get is the choise between a virus or a worm.
Yesterday, my luddite PC laptop owning buddy and I were discussing his new digital camera. He was angry because the software to use the thing was so damn complex (Sony camera and software) that it was almost impossible to use. So I showed him how to uninstall the software and just copy the stuff over in windows explorer.
He made comments about how stupid so many of those programmes were.
And that is such a good point, it should be tattooed onto every product designer's forehead: KISS, keep it simple. No one likes playing with hundres of settings or getting confused with software that some dickshit company designed as an afterthought to their product. This is why people like Apple products.
If it wants iTMS to have wider acceptance. I am not ready to plunge at least $300 for iPod, at least not for start. And I would feel better with a device without moving parts. And with a device that is smaller. Also I cant imagine many parents spending $300 for a music player for kids.
Also compatibility with existing devices (like Nomads, Archos players) would help a lot. If somebody has a device like that he will not buy another one just to use iTunes.
I know it is possible to burn CD and rip it back into mp3 but its a hassle.
Wish I could mod you up.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
[Apple's music store] ... is a drawback for Windows users, who expect choice in music services, choice in devices, and choice in music from a wide-variety of music services to burn to a CD or put on a portable device.
Paraphrase that: "Consumers want the opposite of Microsoft."
Whatever it is I'm complaining about, I'm sure the Republicans did it. This is
with iTune Music Store? Because "The iPod makes money. The iTunes Music Store doesn't". Deal with it.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Apple Music (the music company for the Beatles) had a big lawsuit against Apple Computer about ITunes. It looked like Apple Music had an open & shut case. Has the case been settled yet?
A media player plays MP3s. Several other formats. Some formats, granted, are restictive in terms of freedom.
Others are not. Say, MP3s.
By not "opening up" to WMA, Apple is playing the same game Microsoft tried to play with Quicktime, back when they noticed that media was going to matter.
WMA is a fringe format. AAC is, too. They both are fighting a marketing war. Apple seems to be winning. This is interesting, because Apple is using slightly less restrictive crap than Microfost is. That appears to piss off a lot of people. I don't think that Apple's take is all that great, but it is amusing that people get sooo pissed off. One can hear the MBAs slapping biners shut and going back for another class in frustration.
"Open up?" Yes, and would you like me to swallow, too? Come on. No pun intended.
I forget what 8 was for.
I've been listening to tunes all day with Mozilla browser and mail, a VMWare Linux session, and two AS400 Client Access sessions going. No problems with iTunes at all.
I can see why Microsoft wouldn't like iTunes. Apple currently is selling 70% of all legally downloaded music and the iPod is outselling all other portable players combined.
With their plans to rule the data center ruined by Linux, they really want to own online music.
Okay, so maybe not incorporating WMA compatiblity is a drawback, but lets look at this from the POV of Apple.
The iPod is hands down the most popular MP3/AAC player going. It's got appeal, it's got market-share, and it works great with any compatible-Mac. Plug and play and away you go.
In the meantime, Windows users have been subjected the the horrible interface, restrictions, and just plain non-usability of MusicMatch. Trust me, I know first hand what a pain it is to get MM running with an iPod.
I see iTunes for Windows as primarily being an easier and more user-friendly solution for Windows iPod owners. The Music Store itself is an added perk. If non-iPod users pick up iTunes and play with it, like it, buy music and iPods, the better it is for Apple.
In the end, neither company is providing music in the most-common format, MP3, because of DRM-requirements. Whether you use WMA or AAC, every player out there supports MP3, so if you are ripping your own songs, why the heck aren't you using MP3 (which is the only format I use on my PC).
Microsoft saying that Apple is restricting choice by only having music in AAC format in the store, which only works with the iPod at the moment, is like the pot calling the kettle black. At least in iTunes, I can rip my own CD's in MP3 format. Try to do that with Windows Media Player.
Finally, at least Windows Users can play AAC-coded files on their machines using QT. Try to play a WM9 DRM file on your Mac.
The key at this point is to get the record companies on board with the concept that legal-downloads can pay and will work. iTunes for Windows, along with Napster 2.0 and others will hopefully do this. Once the see this can work, then we can start working on "one format to rule them all".
Dr. Wu
"Yes, There's Gas In The Car"
Since when has music dominated our lives so freely and when, exactly, did this music uprising happen? Granted, I'm older, however I do remember the days where if you liked the music you purchased the 8 tracks / LP and moved on (am I showing my age?). If not, you taped it off the radio and the world still turned. Since when did P Diddy, Puff Daddy and Brittany Spears make SO much difference in the copyright arena? Metallica, please.....stop! I'm not ignorant enough to believe that the artists themselves cause all this havoc, but they DO sign with the execs that cause it. PEOPLE.....IT'S ONLY MUSIC....it is NOT the end all to society! The apocalypse will NOT occur tomorrow if of all of a sudden there were no music! I say let the RIAA play their game to it's futile end; the less attention they get (with underlying support for indies) will kill them in the long run. I still want to reiterate though, "IT'S ONLY MUSIC!!!!!!!!!!!" It should not be so pervasive in our everyday lives.
[SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
The biggest problem for me is lack of coverage. I downloaded iTunes and discivered that it is yet another service that seems to be USA only. Oh joy.
Apparently, AOL has a music page, a very popular music page - you can go there and check out news about musicians, hear early releases, and find out lots of things. I think they said 13 million visitors a month. Part of the deal is that for every song and artist on this site there is now going to be an iTunes link which will pop the user right into iTunes at the page for that artist and/or song. I think there was one button to click to activate your AOL account to be iTunes enabled.
Now what was not clear from the video is the distribution angle you were wondering about. I got the sense that they might well start shipping iTunes on CD's with AOL, and perhaps upgrade the existing users much like a plugin experience. For sure you need iTunes, it will not play in any kind of AOL specific jukebox or the like.
You have a very good point about this being a trojan vector for Quicktime, which should see a lot more installs from this (though I think it's still pretty widespread).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's not even worth arguing which one is better, because all of these new music services are unacceptable for several reasons:
1. they all largely support RIAA music
2. each has its own stupid DRM scheme, even if a weak one, that is a hastle for consumers
3. they are platform limited and not Open Source (after all, you can't have DRM otherwise)
4. most importantly: they still do not give musicians a fair deal! ie.) at most 10% of sales.
The characteristics of a good online music service would be:
1.) Only non-RIAA affiliated or independent artists
2.) No DRM whatsoever, besides charging your account for the initial access
3.) Option to download in a lossless compressed format (like FLAC)
4.) Contract with all artists that the music published via this service shall enter a non-restrictive Creative Commons license in at most 5 years (or after a sales target is reached) or else go public domain.
5.) A free-downloads section for artists who realize it makes more sense to use recordings as a marketing tool for their live performances. This should be bittorrent-based to alleviate some bandwidth needs.
6.) All clients are open source and based on standard, open protocols.
7.) Artists directly receive at least 75% of the sales and are allowed to set their own per-track or per-album prices.
That would be a service I would love to use. Let us not accept anything less!
I had not really considered the angle of Apple and Dell really being competitors, though of course I knew that already - it just seemed like such a good idea for the end user I was blinded to the business reality. I guess for the same reasons Gateway will not be picking up itunes anytiime either, you are right about iTunes being like the siren that draws the masses to the solid shores of Apple computing (to twist an analogy a bit!).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Reminds me of Henry Ford... "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black."
I remember when iTunes first came out, I thought "this is was Napster *should* have been". And since name recognition is ultra-important in marketing, the already household name "napster" (2.0) is the only thing that can kill iTunes on Windows.
Hind-sight conclusion: Apple should have bought "napster" when it was down and that's what "iTunes for Windows" should have been called.
SLL
The ipod manager software seemed to cause a lot of problems for me with itunes... they were conflicting or something. I removed it and reinstalled itunes and all is well now.
It sure would be nice to play Windows Media content in iTunes. Perhaps Apple can work something out (ya...right. huh?)
...they are open. Unlike Windows Media.
But, hey, we'll probably see more devices that support AAC / MPEG4 within the next few months. Apple doesn't own these standards
Right now, Apple's MPEG 4 / AAC files play in an unlimited amount of iPods, and iTunes has the ability to sync up to other non-ipod devices. I don't see why other portable players couldn't play ITMS store music with a firmware update. I'm sure Apple would help 3rd party developers.
Windows Media need to burn in the pits of proprietary hell.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Wow. I can't imagine the way you organize your closet. Do you have a little smartlist to get dressed from?
What a bunch of JERKS (once again.....). I have iTunes, three iPods and a Griffin Tech transmitter. All my Bose Wave radios are hardwired for the iPods....what else would I need? Gates and his little Weenies can dowenload this.....
that picture of the guy is so tempting, i couldn't resist:
Fester as Smeagol
"...who expect choice in music services, choice in devices, choice in music from a wide-variety of music services to burn to a CD or put on a portable device, and choice in software... ... oh, wait."
Like hell the MS offering will let you burn to a CD either anyway.
I think you mean "Of course Apple doesn't feel too worried about this..."
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
I dont feel bogged down by it, and I figured its features out in about a minute and a half. I especially like how well it incorporates crossfading.
I'd just ignore Microsoft on this issue. As the competition to Apple, its their job to badmouth anything they produce.
I'm sure Apple is about as guilty as them in making preposterous slams against MS.
...cash flow is lower here, and nobody's going to investigate here.
i try the linux thing. i can't switch most people over. i couldn't charge the internet cafe enough to justify the work it would have taken to set them up with a userfriendly system.
over the past 2 years, i've found userfriendly to mean much more friendly than i ever imagined.
i agree. i just don't agree under the circumstances. mexico city has a square where they sell pirated software.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
...put your money where your mouth is. You claim to have all the ideas on how to do it right, so hustle up some startup cash and let us know when your download service is going live, mmmkay?
I just subscribed to iTunes. For 99 cents a track, I get incredible quality. I can burn the same playlist to CD 10 times. No restriction on the number of playlists a song can be in, so I can effectively burn an infinite number of times. I can burn to Mp3 CD. If I buy a complete album, I get it for less than the per-track cost.
Plenty of choices. If being able to create Mp3s and audio cds isn't enough flexibility, I don't know what is.
people around here can't make the money to justify the cost of just the OS. as an internet cafe buying OEM software because there was no other option available, according to the support at MS with whom i spoke,
windows xp home and office xp small business (because that's all we could get) for 10 computers:
$3200.00
hmmm.... so they can charge 3 dollars an hour?
Please stop stalking me, bro.
...in every market segment EXCEPT word processing, spreadsheets, multimedia presentations, Internet surfing, and of course, the OS (!) -- how convenient for Redmond!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Mine however is a simple setup, I recommend checking out some serious Media Center distributed setups...
Da Blog
Da Blog
"Sorry, the iTunes Music Store is currently only for people who have GOOD taste in music."
I hadn't even heard that iTunes was supporting Windows until you complained about it. I just downloaded it!
Thank you Microsoft!
Actually, as an artist, I am in the process of signing up on the Apple Store. I get 91% of everything sold on the Apple store. This is an ubelievable return. 91%?? I would not be surprised if we start seeing established artists jump the corporate ship and just go through the music store. They could make an astounding amount of money keeping 91% of everything sold. To place my album in a store locally, the distribution fee is from 20% - 55%. I only keep 45 - 80% of the money. Through the iTunes music store, my digital distributor gets 9%. I don't know what fraction of that 9% stays with Apple, but it is 9% to them. I don't want people to have free use of my music. I like the way Apple has it hammered out. You can burn as many CDs of playlists as you want, as long as you change it once every ten times. And I would be utterly surprised if you could hear the difference between a 128 bit AAC file and an uncompressed file. You would be almost like Superman. You can't ever get everything you want, unless you steal it. Because this is my hard work put into this music, I don't want it stolen from me. The problem with thievery is you gain no appreciation for the work it takes ot create and produce this music. I had to pay several thousands of dollars to finish my album, and you expect me to just hand it out? Dumb. I like the Apple Music store. You have set your own limitations by your ignorance and closed mindedness. This is a great service to musicians, a great product for fans, and a great way for me to make a living. If I can only get people to buy my music, which is the real battle now that Apple has driven one hard road for me.
Go to the Quicktime developer pages. There's already quite a few QT/iTunes plugins for the mac around, only a matter of time for the PC... If you're a programmer, I'd say go for it, the more the merrier.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Check to see if his lips are moving.
This goes double for politicians.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
iTunes for Windows requires Quicktime 6.4 to be installed for it to work (or 6.3 for the Mac version).
Why?
Because all the decoding of the AAC files - both DRM'd and non-DRM'd - is completed through the QuickTime libraries (NOTE: this is also a way to get iTunes to play ogg/vorbis encoded tracks). ANY application that makes the appropriate calls to the QuickTime API can decode and play tracks ripped by iTunes into AAC and tracks downloaded from the iTMS (assuming the computer is authorized to play them).
So, in theory, it's possible to get WinAMP to play files downloaded from the store if you don't want to use iTunes as your player software. Toast for Mac already can burn tracks ripped by iTunes and/or downloaded from the iTMS onto an audio CD.
The only problem is audio device support, but Apple likes it's iPod sales and Hell already froze over, so we probably won't be seeing WMA support on the iPod or iTMS compatibility on 3rd party devices ever - or at least not until iPod sales start slipping in a major way.
Where in Mexico are you located? Mexico City? I am thinking of spending some time in Mexico (6 months to a year? maybe longer if I like it) and I am curious about the infrastructure in different areas. One of my choices is San Luis Potosi. Is broadband cheap and easily available there?
arkayerm(please-don't-spam-me-at)earthlink.net
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Er ... then select "Manually manage songs and playlists" from within iTunes.
I mean, I hate to tell you to RTFM, but ... well, just look at the fscking preferences, okay? Apple-haters, jeez.
Took me a while to work that out too.
One of the settings for every song is whether it's part of a "compilation" or not. Turn this on and that song goes into the "Compilations" folder instead, under a subdirectory with the album name. So any of those soundtracks you have, or various artists, or anything with different artist names for the same album, select them all, right click and go to Song Info, and then flip the Compilations flag to YES. It'll flip it for all those songs and they move to the Compilations folder as appropriate. A little unintuitive, I feel. Could be better. iTunes could be smart about it and flip that bit for any album with more than one artist associated with it. But hey, it's not hard to select all those albums and then flip the bit en masse.
But I still haven't allowed iTunes to organize my files as they live on drives that aren't always powered up, at the moment.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
- for the average suave Windows user - said the company who gives said users MS Paint for bitmap creation and Notepad as the default text editor. Both unlimited.
Overly Critical Guy proves his idiocy to the masses of Slashdot. Can you say "washed out"?
First of all, this "information" is misleading. IRQ sharing is NORMAL. It does NOT mean you have conflicts among your devices. IRQ sharing is a feature of ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) computers, and it is a capability of all modern computers that have an ACPI-compatible BIOS and devices. Sharing IRQs is intentional, and all hardware that is ACPI-compatible is required to support a shared IRQ environment. This does not involve a significant performance penalty: shared interrupts are still "triaged" in a first-come, first-served basis and handled according to their priority. The "share" is resolved by having the driver query its device to see if it was the one requesting the IRQ. As long as the driver was written properly, this works out just fine. For reference, see this Anandtech FAQ.
Some computers have something called an I/O APIC (Advanced Programmable Interrupt Controller), traditionally only present on multi-CPU systems, that allows Win2k and WinXP to assign IRQ's above 15 to each device on the system, essentially giving every device its own "virtual" IRQ. If your computer has one of these, you probably won't see IRQ sharing, but there is no guarantee of that. For example, I type this on a brand new Compaq Evo that has an I/O Apic, and my ATI Radeon 7000 is sharing IRQ 18 with one of the USB Host Controllers. But like I said, they know how to work together, so it's all good, and I have no problems. The easiest way to tell if you have an I/O APIC is to go to Device Manager and expand the "computer" entry: if it says "ACPI Uniprocessor PC" rather than "Advanced Configuration and Power Interface PC", then you have an I/O APIC. All multi-processor computers have an I/O APIC because the I/O subsystem has to figure out a way to distribute interrupts between the multiple processors.
If you follow some people's advice, they will tell you to ditch ACPI mode all together and go back to "Standard PC" mode where each device MUST have its own IRQ or things don't work properly. This is not a good idea. Some systems have too many devices to assign a separate IRQ to each device, and this is part of the reason why IRQ sharing was part of the ACPI requirements. Not only that, but ripping out the HAL that sits underneath Windows NT is a tricky operation to perform correctly without screwing up your system.
Instead, you should check to see if your computer has any BIOS Updates, and if your hardware devices (especially any PCI cards) have new drivers. These are generally the main reasons that IRQ sharing might be causing problems, if that indeed is the real culprit.
Dave Fester is just crying sour grapes as Microsoft has lost the "killer app" (Music). To see the real truth watch key Artists, Apple developers and Steve Jobs running on Windows, something he said he wouldn't do til "Hell Freezes over". Note music use in multiple formats on multiple devices (PC, Mac, iPod) even allowing interrupting on one device and picking up on another device. Microsoft has no clue how to accomplish this flrxibility, say nothing of market such capabilities to users at 99 cents/tune. Microsoft has lost the music battle, so they'd best to look for another "killer app", hopefully something other than the "supercomputer killer app" which VT/Apple's Big Mac also won.
I see everyone talking how great the ipod is, how great it looks, how good it sounds and that it even does your bed for you in morning . And well, i'm not going to deny that is probably the best portable audio player around. To me the main problem is the price. Here in England the cheapest ipod is selling at 250 pounds. Last week i bought a Sony
Minidisc playerwith MDLP(allowing up to 4x80mins on a single md) and NetMD(transfering mp3s to the md) for just 100 pounds. If had the money i would have definitely have bought the ipod but for many ppl it's simply too expensive.
Asserting that "Windows users expect choice" is like saying that Koalas expect choice in their diet.
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
Right, I deal with this situation using P2P technology...
I would look at this not as a monopoly of force but a monopoly of choice. Be designing a superior solution for digital music (and other media like photos, etc.) Apple has offered consumers with a great product.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
As some other people have remarked: the money doesn't go to RIAA, but to record labels.
This means artists can get a great deal here if they get a good record label contract or start their own. Since publishing music is already a hassle, starting your own label or finding a good one isn't much more effort.
And doing your own label - or choosing your preferred label doesn't have to impair distribution (of traditional media). It requires a bit of negociating, but then again everything does.
IMO iTMS is a great incentive for a lot of musicians who don't need the extra marketing and OOMPF only the big 5 can provide.
And if they do it right, they can end up with as much as 91% of the price for themselves...
Show me another distribution deal this sweet and we're talking instead of farting around...
I think, therefore I am...I think.
No one who codes, let alone comes up with complex playlists like yours, throws relaxing dinner parties.
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
I never thought I'd see so many Windows users defend an Apple product.
Anyway, if you want to gripe about missing options or whatever shortcomings in iTunes for Windows, go to the Apple iTunes feedback page.
I know, hard to believe, but they actually tend to listen to their users...
I think, therefore I am...I think.
This must be MS's response when some other company has snuck up on them as defined a standard. In this case, the "standard" is the iPod and the iTunes Music Store. Whether MS likes it or not, that's the standard (or yardstick) by which other music download devices and services will be measured. The only way MS can handle this kind of thing is fudmongering. Instead of trying to a) compete or b) comply with the standard, they have to attempt to tear it down. What's new?! It get tiresome after a while to watch the biggest company in the technology landscape perpetually play Big Bully against any innovation or new ideas. Criminy, I'm glad they don't get any of my money!
Maybe if they would sink some energy and resources into improving their pathetic WMA format, they might stand a fighting chance in a respectable manner. Instead, they choose to behave like children on a playground, calling names and pushing and shoving. This Dave Fester fellow (appropriate name, IMO) ought to be ashamed of himself for being the mouthpiece for this kind of childish attitude.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Let's see, he runs the Windows Digital Media division, and his name is Dave Fester. Fester. Hmmm. Sounds like he should get promoted immediately to being in charge of all of their software business.
Funny, I don't know what I want to listen to ever. That's why God made the random function. Just copy 256MB of random oggs to your compact flash and play them in random order. I like alphabetical and size orders. What more can you ask for?
OK, I'd ask for longer battery life, but a 12V to 5V converter for the car is going to solve that problem for me. I have not put the thing to the test yet, because I'm too poor to have bought anything more than 64MB of compact flash, but I know battery life lasts more than the hour or so of music 64 gives. Four AA nicads should hold out for another hour and a half. Two and a half hours is longer than most of my bike rides.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Choice is only necessary when one is not enough. It may sound great when you have several thosand of choice, but eventually you end up to use one or two.
Is iTunes the best? Maybe. Most of the people complain it's not fast enough and they don't like everything get organize so much. (They like Winamp. True it's very fast when compare current version of iTunes for win, and as i know many people never care about the id3 tag, they all get their own way to organize their mp3)
But it's about get used to.
Actually that actually sound like you never clean up your room and devleop your own way to find your stuff. And suddenly some body (Your mom, maybe) give you a way and get everything organized. You don't believe it's a better way, but it's defintely better once you get clean up.
And why should that matter? PCM is PCM. They'd likely have different latency, but I can't imagine what would cause different frequency response in playback.
My video compression blog
EXACTLY! Just because we do IT support (looks like I'll never leave support with the rest of IT going to India) does not mean we like to WASTE OUR LIFE playing with POORLY DESIGNED software like MICROSOFTS.
Linux has impressed me with its progress on the desktop in the last 2 years, but its a pain in the ass just like windows...In fact, I think its good enough now to replace windows if it gets more 3rd party support. But I do not want to read man pages or try to decipher preferences/options/metaphors/acronyms that even I have to sometimes work at understanding.
I STILL JUST WANT big PLAY/STOP/SKIP buttons on my keyboard!....Well, I now just use the iPod, but thats 30 cm away...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Of course it is limiting to Windows users.....it works the first time and the don't have to mess with it to get it working, which to some windows users is the Holy Grail. Actually, Microsoft should not complain, they now have something good to copy to make a music store and jukebox the right way....but knowing MS they will still screw it up. Speaking of clueless windows bozos check this guy out at USAToday. His facts are sooo bad he deserves the Jayson Blair award for reporting excellence! http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20031016006/tscript .htm
Why is Microsoft playa hatin'? Don't hate the playa hate the game.
But yet, the iPod is the device Apple WILL LET YOU use with iTunes, where Microsoft WMA format is available and used on over 300 portable devices that automatically interface with WindowsXP. Strange how Microsoft is strangling the market by letting all these companies use WMA formats for free. Geesh.
I am sensing a major leap here. Yes there are 300 devices that support WMA - but how many support protected WMA? I didn't think it was that many (I thought that was much of the problem with other services). Even more devices support mp3, which is equivalent when unprotected but more widespread.
ITMS "WILL LET YOU" use anything you want. It makes it much more convenient to use an iPod, but you can burn a CD and do a rip to produce an MP3 file which will go more places than WMA. You could either buy a WMA that will go in a few places, or buy music from ITMS that will go wherever you like. it makes this process harder than using an iPod, but easier than "freeing" music in protected WMA file (or at least some files, as I know some services allow a burn - sometimes).
I'm not sure what is so special about the iRiver iHP - it looks just like every other player to me. From the looks of it I'd say I'd prefer an iPod, and it seems people actually buying the things are sending the same message. But half the iPod is in the fantastic software and integration, which I'm pretty sure the iHP is lacking in. Also, I just love a device that claims most people would like to rip songs at 64k to advertise huge playback times with a small capacity (10 GB one I saw did this anyway).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Makes sense to me!
Best Buy can have you arrested
If you want to know a good program to download music go with music match version 8.1. $.99 a track!!! good selection.
You're kidding right. How about that subscription fee! Ooops, forgot to mention that, didn't we?! What a troll.
Man why's everyone so worried about choice?
There's at least 10 Linux distros, several BSD distros, numerous MP3 players, 10 different laptop producers on the PC side...numerous OSes out there..
and why? because NONE of them provide in unison what the consumers need, or rather, what human beings need.
They need the power of a unix OS, with the simplicity of a functional UI, with a consitant workflow. So you can take your Linux and shuv it as far up your open source ass as you can manage to fit it in.. because Linux, even at v2.60 doesn't live up to any of it's own hype. In a nutshell, it's just a free version of windows with real stability, real open sourceness, and real people who love it. Linux rocks, but not for the average user.
NOT YET.
is this off topic? No. Because the point is, choice does not always equal better, useful, advanced, technology. Winamp still uses filenames for most of it's sorting, most peecee Windows users (even Linux) categorize their music manually, with directories. While iTunes, the user is never once concerned about the inherent file structure. The user is dealing with album names, authors, composers and song names.
The user is dealing with the media... the software is trnalsating that to the appropriate directory structures. When Linux mongers learn this, then we'll see some super impressive tools written.
Until then.. it's all just a kludge upon kludge of super shitty interoperability.
A long time ago, computers couldn't talk to each other, so cisco came up with the solution.
now we have codecs that don't work on all platform (ahem, intel's video codecs anyone?)
where's the solution to this? Let alone to "choice for consumers".
More Microsoft fudd. RIP.
Windows users not hostile toward the Mac? Has Hell frozen over? ;)
If you must spout more FUD, please stay on Windows. iTunes is freeware, and it does its job simply and effectively, and not many pieces of Windows software can make that claim.
Apple doesn't need to "sway" people like you. You seem to have your mind made up already and only live to nitpick about things you don't understand.
here, try this: go to your iTunes prefs and choose the other option of how you want to use your iPod. (btw, why would you use anything else for ripping, unless you're ripping to WMA?) You can tell it to auto-sync with your library so that you don't need to re-specify your music folder.
If you really must use a different piece of software to rip the CD, just drag that album's folder into your iTunes library window or any playlist window. It will automatically be added, and sorted as necessary.
Please.. no more FUD from the MS camp.. please?
Who isn't convinced? EA? I'm sure they were convinced ($$$$$$$) by their bedfellows at SCEA not to go Live. Rockstar puts out Live-enabled games. Activision and Sega publish Live-enabled games. THQ even has published Live-enabled games.
As for the reasons to keep it closed. The obvious and big #1 is no cheats. There are none. None. I know that is tough to swallow for PS2 and PC gamers, but its true.
#2 Consistent experience. Everyone is on broadband cause they have to be. Its nice, no HPB's to worry about as I run up the mp_beach in RtCW.
#3 Consistent features. Also adding to the overall experience is the things a Live game must have. The voice communication is amazing. Any online stat tracking is standardized as well as matchmaking.
#4...well I could go on, but I have a feeling you are a slashbot and your mind is very closed to new experiences. If you ever want to have a good one, I recommend XBOX Live.
Now as for SCEA and Nintendo...
Nintendo online, that was funny.
And Sony, it would be correct to say they weren't that way, but they are now. Check out a new SCEA online game. You will see something called a DNAS login. This feature basically adds all of what you hate about Live (first party control and limits) but none of the features I listed above. You get the worst of both worlds!
For gaming the PC is still the wild west. And thats ok, I just like the big city. Wait, didn't the wild west die out?
i uninstalled it within an hour. On the same day however, i installed and i kept was the beta release of Winamp version 5 which is posted on betanews.com; yes heard that right, they skipped 4 and went straight to 5, and it's amazing!
So, what if I want to listen to something even a little bit away from mainstream? I installed itunes, and searched for Aphex Twin, Sasha, and John Digweed. Nothing on all three...So I deleted it. I can't even imagine trying to find something even more eclectic. $10 says they have everything Brittany Spears has ever recorded though...
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
Microsoft has no place to talk about choice! That's 100% bs. When are you ever really given a choice with ms products? MS just doesn't want iTunes for windows because they know that they'll loose money.
Why do I care so little about whether PC users like itunes? They think they need more choices because you have to have 8 pieces of software on a PC to get the same job done that itunes does by itself. WACKY! Of course Microsoft doesn't like itunes. They don't understand any piece of software that puts power into the users hands and that doesn't launch a slew of "wizards" to help you understand the messy software.
My karma is getting better everyday.
is an oxymoron.
I tried PsyTel encoded aac's in iTunes - rejected.
t num=934 00
I tried Faac (Nero) encoded aac's in iTunes - rejected.
I tried iTunes encoded aac's in (UNauthorized) iTunes - rejected.
Thought - ?
Than found this gem on Apple web site:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?ar
Problem: Music Does Not Play
Answer: You might be trying to play an AAC file that was not created using iTunes or downloaded from the iTunes Music Store.
in the end: iTunes DOES limit your choice
By the way:
;) is a Much better aac solution than iTunes.
For windows, Winamp3 + faac based aac decoder (much better than Apple's , plus open sourced
(start your happy AAC life here http://faac.sourceforge.net/)
Winamp can be a streaming server as well, so screw Randezvou alltogether.
This Apple fad reminds me of Ford's saying "You can get Model T in any color you want... as long as it's black."
I only have about 4000 songs in my library, and it seems to stutter every time I switch to the app. It also takes long to start up.
I don't seem to have any of these problems on my iBook.
(But then again, the music is on a different machine across a 100Mb/s network...)
Other than that, I'm pretty happy with it... it's the first player since Zinf (with the Aqua skin) that I find easy to use with a clean design.
One thing about Apple products... they may look feature-poor, but strangely enough they always seem to have the features where and when you actually need them.
You know, iTunes supports more than just the iPod, like the Rio. I'm sorry if I burst your 'idiot bubble', but thats just how I am when it comes to frothing morons.
iTunes is far from 'too limited.' that statement from Microsoft is nothing but pure corporate lying-to-convince-unaware-users-that-our-product-i s-the-best. iTunes is MUCH more functional than Windows Media Player (or any player for that matter). have you ever tried to burn a CD from mp3s or WMAs using WMediaPlayer? the result is a CD that sounds like shit unless you have the volume set extremely low. thats right: very poor quality audio. much lower quality than ANY other burner that burns mp3 files. iTunes, for example, does a much better job. this, my friend, is undisputable. thanks, Apple, for giving us such a powerful program from $nothing!
I installed iTunes today. I own an iPod. Somehow Apple have made the iPod upload functions worse (less intuitive or more limited, or possibly both) than Musicmatch -- something users of alternatives to Musicmatch may find hard to believe. I'll probably uninstall it some time this week.
Yeah, you can read real well, Mr. idiot bubble.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Then comes Marriage (OSX i386)
Then comes more the Mac to i386 Software barrage.
"..and the walls...come tumbling down..." - John Couger singing to Bill Gates and his army of clones in AAC format.
Apple has great education bundles. I bought my wife an iBook 900/CD-RW w/ WiFi and a three year warranty for $1099 and they threw in a $200 iPod rebate. List on the 10 gig 'Pod was $269, so it ended up costing me $69. I could have also tacked on a free HP printer, but I get sick of throwing out broken inkjets.
Apple was also remarkably prompt with the rebate. It arrived two weeks after I posted the form.
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
Many of us who bother diving into discussions here on Slashdot get paid to keep proper metadata... It's a reflex even. Why would anyone complain about keeping their precious music lib organized? Especially thoes who insist on an OS that insists on complete control over data.
All this dismissal FUD directed at iTunes and Apple kinda reminds me of the way microsoft used to dismiss linux and the whole open-source community. How long before we see some interesting internal memos being leaked, outlining microsoft's "plan of action" against iTunes to preserve the windows media hegemony.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Mind, I still won't trust Windoze for anything more "mission critical" than a round of Quake. But now it's good for organizing music, too.
Interesting points. If I saw a local band for the first time, and liked them, I would definitely buy their music on apple's music store.
I imagine that a couple of dozen people doing so after a gig would change the economics of being a musician. At least I hope so.
gee my wimpy iBook handles tunes fine.....
In other words, AAC support in QuickTime is part of their support for the MPEG-4 standard. An MPEG-4 audio file encoded using AAC should work, regardless of who encoded it. But older MPEG-2 AAC files won't. (Does this have anything to do with the steep licensing fees for MPEG-2?)
Sony dumped many of their NT partners after 9-11.
Not to slam you, but I'm going to have to slam your comment.
1.) What? You want who? Nah, they're too popular and well-known.
2.) Yes, this music distro condones illegal file sharing.
3.) FLAC? What's that? Uh, yeah.... you can play that with any player you want.
4.) You're an artist? Quick, get your lawyer! (What would this mean for the customers?)
5.) Because BitTorrents on websites just don't work.
6.) Especially the part that encrypts/decrypts your credit card information. See also: packet sniffer.
7.) 99 cents a track? Come on! We just pick random numbers!
You're welcome to create such a service (even a mock up), but I doubt it would receive rave reviews.
Well, maybe your apple friends tell you PCs can't have more than 640K of RAM, but I hate to inform you that you can have up to 4GB on most current motherboards, and up to 8GB on most new Athlon motherboards
well said mate
blackmerlin
Pop CD in WindowsXP machine (not mine, I would never submit to a convicted monopolist for my computing needs).
Try to rip tracks of perfectly legal CD to disk.
Try to find way of *chosing* mp3 format in place of the default WMA, MS owned, format.
Realize *there is not choice of format* by default.
Find out in the net that you need a third party plugin for this.
Install another application to achieve what you want.
Thank MS for the choice they have given you by completely ignoring the most widespread format to store music in digital format.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
i really dont understand what everyone's problem with metadata stuff is in the first place. (i'm not talking to the parent poster here...) if you're using illegally downloaded songs, you deserve to have to go through and fix the metadata. most of my music is legal, and when you import it from CD, or if you imported it with atleast a semi-decent program, it reads the metadata for you from the ID3 tags and fixes it itself. its REALLY not that big of a deal. unless, of course, you're a leech to society and steal music online and have a database of thousands of badly-formatted ID3 MP3 files... BTW, parent, what OS are you talking about? MacOS or Windows? i can see your argument either way i guess
ROTFLMAO!
Over 2500 for two stories. This iTunes for Windows is at least generating a buzz... ;) Can't hurt Apple. Heck, they even mentioned iTunes on the morning news today.
looking thought the posts i have found allot of them that say itunes dosent work or it works really slowly. i think that this is analogous to the posts of os x transfering files slowly between computers as compared to win 2 k. given that ive installed 20 versions of itunes and all of them worked flawlessly i think that MS or someone is using lies to dissuade people from using itunes. if you are reading this. the people who are saying that itunes dosent work for them are either incompetent morons who cannot operate a computer, or they are plants by people who dont like itunes or dont want it to succede
Oh, and don't give me the "iTunes limits choice because it doesn't support ogg" bullshit. If you want ogg support in iTunes, go to apple's developer documentation and find the docs for how to write a Quicktime plug-in. There's an entire plug-in architecture for Quicktime that allows you to add support for codecs, such as Ogg, that apple did not
It turns out that enabling OGG support is quite simple. Just go download this and you'll have ogg playback in iTunes.
- Vincit qui patitur.
my source (addmittedly biased) comes from the Apple presentation where they claimed 35% mraket shaore of sales in digital music devices, and being the leading device in that space. Somewhat weak I know, I cannot find others either at the moment. Also, perhaps the leading device on a per-dollar basis? I admit that they could have twisted that so that number-wise there is another device that's on top. However, I have to say that logcally I can believe these numbers as no other mp3 device has been as widley popular and so the other onces all kind of split up the market into small chunks. And Apple has good presence at major chains like Best Buy and Target, so you can well imaging they would have leading sales volume.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I have to say that the rise of audiobooks really excites me, I love to read and never thought I would get into them but I really like them for long road trips (especially if I can find a book wither historical or fictional detail on where I am headed, like Tony Hillerman books while wandering around New Mexico). I have only used tape version until now, but I am glad I'll be able to transfer them onto my iPod... I only have a 5GB though, very soon I think it may be time to upgrade!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I have a 5GB and really need to upgrade, but it's hard to justify getting even the lowest end model at the moment, especially when the one I have works... (but does not have the special dock interface required for new items like the photo storage device).
I wonder what other deivce might be more widespread? I don't think I know of any other devices that are in as many stores.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just threw this together a few minutes ago.
Ah yes, RTF. The format that MS created, and then extended every time they felt like it needed something, without telling anyone.
You can save an Excel document in RTF, but you can't open it in any other program in the world. And try opening one of today's Word files in an RTF interpreter made two years ago. Lousy, non-formatted, and occasionally crash-inducing.
Yes, Microsoft created RTF... you can tell.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
However, Apple does the same thing, and they're singing their praises and claiming the Windows users are just whiners.
You people disappoint me so. This attitude won't bridge the gap between Windows users and Unix users. I'm a primary Windows user, simply because 70% of home-use computing time is spent gaming. So sensibly since I game most of the time, my primary machine is a Windows machine. I have no need (or money) to own a Mac as well. Religious wars aside, it'd be nice to be able to download directly to mp3 and have my Windows music players play my music without need for conversion or hassle. To not do so is certainly Apple's perogative, but imo it's just as frustrating as the crap Microsoft pulls in ensuring no Unix applications will be compatible with their software.
Interesting to note... ClarisWorks *did* have a Windows version. Even in this world.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
n/s
"Form should follow function...unless it's just plain ugly."
Actually, as an artist, I am in the process of signing up on the Apple Store. I get 91% of everything sold on the Apple store. This is an ubelievable return. 91%??
That's because you're independent. However, the bulk of the music sold on iTunes is RIAA crap and the *typical* musician only gets about 10% in that case. So yes, iTunes is good in the sense that it proves that online distribution is possible. But it is bad because it still supports RIAA labels.
I don't want people to have free use of my music. I like the way Apple has it hammered out. You can burn as many CDs of playlists as you want, as long as you change it once every ten times.
Then I don't want your music. The whole DRM thing is bad for consumers, bad for personal freedom, and ultimately bad for you. And by the way, it's so easily circumvented anyhow.
And I would be utterly surprised if you could hear the difference between a 128 bit AAC file and an uncompressed file. You would be almost like Superman.
I can hear the difference. It's quite obvious in some tracks. Maybe you've been playing with your amp too high.
You can't ever get everything you want, unless you steal it. Because this is my hard work put into this music, I don't want it stolen from me. The problem with thievery is you gain no appreciation for the work it takes ot create and produce this music. I had to pay several thousands of dollars to finish my album, and you expect me to just hand it out? Dumb.
You have the same clueless line of reasoning as the idiots at the RIAA. First of all, someone who copies your work against your will is not stealing from you. They may not be able to afford it, they may be sampling it, or they may not feel it is worth what you are charging. Furthermore, it's not theft to begin with. Information cannot be stolen and until you get over that nonsense, you'll only be frustrated by the impossibility of stopping the inevitable. That couple thousand you spent on producing your album is nothing. If you do live performances, which you should if you're going to survive, that is extremely cheap advertising. If your music is really that good, make it known by taking advantage of every means of free distribution. Otherwise, you have no chance to compete with the advertising of the big guys and without advertising, how are you going to make the big bucks on live performances?
I like the Apple Music store. You have set your own limitations by your ignorance and closed mindedness.
You have set your own limitations by your silly ignorance that heavy control is the only way to make money on producing information.
This is a great service to musicians, a great product for fans, and a great way for me to make a living. If I can only get people to buy my music, which is the real battle now that Apple has driven one hard road for me.
I would never buy your music on iTunes. #1. Because it only works on Mac and Windows. #2. Because I cannot get a full quality copy. As previously stated, AAC is not acceptable to me.
funny microsoft should be talking about choice... i mean, really, it's a choice to use it... it's a choice not to use it... i'm indifferent as to it... i use "..." a lot... windows xp is bloated...and so on and so forth...
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
When I see a new local band I like, I usually pick up their CD after the show for $5-10, get a couple of free stickers, and get a chance to tell them they rock. But that's just me.
jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
aren't you funny... did you think up that clever joke all by yourself?
Stop wasting time with your pathetic replies.
Not to slam you, but I'm going to have to slam your comment.
Not to slam you, but I'm going to have to point out how every single thing you said was either misinformed, closed-minded, or entirely missing my point.
1.) What? You want who? Nah, they're too popular and well-known.
Did I ever say popularity was bad? No. I said that RIAA-label music should be boycotted. Musicians don't need the RIAA labels to become popular anymore and it is in their best interest to avoid them.
2.) Yes, this music distro condones illegal file sharing.
So you're saying that a lack of consumer-unfriendly DRM "condones illegal filesharing"? That doesn't make the slightest amount of sense. So do ordinary CD's (which lack DRM) "condone illegal filesharing"? Or how about FM radio? And FYI, attempts at DRM have *never* worked, nor will they ever. By your line of reasoning, crow bars should be outlawed because crooks can use them to open locked doors. Never mind the fact that I just need one to tear down an old shed in my backyard.
3.) FLAC? What's that? Uh, yeah.... you can play that with any player you want.
Apple iTMS-encrypted AAC? What is that? Uh, yeah.... you have to install new software to play that too. And portability? Sorry, you can ONLY play them back on your overpriced iPod unless you first burn a CD, then re-rip, then make MP3's. How convenient! FYI, FLAC is a patent-free, lossless audio codec that is available for all platforms.
4.) You're an artist? Quick, get your lawyer! (What would this mean for the customers?)
This comment doesn't even seem to have a point. Yes, it is fully possible to contract that your copyright shall expire early. There's nothing wrong with that. What would it mean for customers? Simple: the music they buy can be legally re-distributed after 5 years. (a very reasonable time to compensate an artist)
5.) Because BitTorrents on websites just don't work.
I guess that's why Bittorrent is becoming so popular lately and why even major video game companies are using it to distribute demos and patches.
6.) Especially the part that encrypts/decrypts your credit card information. See also: packet sniffer.
Most e-commerce is conducted using at least some Open Source software. You very much DO want the crypto code to be open if you are concerned about security. By your statement it is clear that you do not understand how public-key encryption works. Secrets are not stored in the software itself. I suggest you do some reading.
7.) 99 cents a track? Come on! We just pick random numbers!
Again, this comment makes no point. Yes, musicians should be able to set their own prices and not be forced into a pre-determined per-track rate. What is the problem with that?
Hoo boy. Here we go.
:)
1) Nevertheless, some artists are with the RIAA. Many of these are popular. To not include them in a service's offering is simply not a good business decision.
2) To the RIAA, yes.
3) Is the compression ratio as good as MP3/AAC? Does it support DRM? You're not going to get a legal music service that distributes files without DRM. What's the point?
4) Your original comment was just too much legalese for me to parse.
5) Yes, but you still put the BitTorrent file on a website! If you want publicity and to allow free downloads, you don't need a music distro system for it.
6) Well, it obviously depends on how you do the encrypting. But no, public key encryption is not my area of expertise. I know how it works in theory, though. Doesn't it involve a decent amount of processor overhead? Don't people complain that iTunes uses too much CPU as it is? I don't know how exactly that's encrypted, though.
7) It may be good for the musicians, but it woulldn't be good for the distro site. With few exceptions (album-only tracks), every track is 99 cents on iTMS. This makes the prices for every track appealing, not just some of them.
It's posts like this that make me wonder if there are a lot of extremist holdouts out there who insist on laserdiscs instead of DVDs.
Remember when vinyl and audiocassette were the only options? People would make mix tapes and multi-generational analog copies and just deal with the crappy audio quality. (High Speed Dubbing wasn't exactly kind to audio quality either.) CDs came along, and of course they're better, but now that MP3s have become popular, there's this audiophile backlash (see parent) that is based on the idea that somehow MP3s are unacceptable unless they are gotten for free. I'm not sure I believe that there are people out there who rip all their CDs to WAV or SHN format and listen to that. I suspect that this is a straw man - "if I pay I must have full CD quality!"... even though day to day listening happens at a lower quality. Why bother? Is it Just In Case you need to re-encode? My own testing with an AAC file that I bought from the iTunes Music Store suggests that burning to Audio CD and then ripping back to 128Kbps MP3 results in no audible degradation. Conventional wisdom says that the results should be - terrible, just awful, dreadful, oh no!! - but I actually tried it and that's a bunch of speculative bullshit. It sounds fine. Not crystalline fantastic perfect, not orgasmically massaging my eardrums... but the AAC file didn't sound like that to begin with. (It did sound really good, though.) It sounds just as good burned and ripped back to MP3 as the AAC did. I didn't buy tons and tons of songs, so there may be exceptions, but generally, it was fine - not the drastic reduction in quality we've been led to believe would result from 2 stages of lossy compression.
As an analogy, I ask those of you who are reading this and who are indignant at the thought of ever paying for a slightly reduced quality digital work... do you own any DVDs? Or do you insist on laserdisc exclusively? I can tell you right now, DVDs have DRM and I can certainly see the compression artifacts, and the menus and mandatory FBI warnings are lame. And yet, geeks buy DVDs like crazy. Can you say "double standard"? Oh, wait, there's the alternative: download murky screeners with plain old stereo sound, which are far lower quality than DVDs.. but don't pay for them.
Are we seeing the point yet, folks? On one extreme we have high quality expensive media. On the other extreme we have crappy media that people share (mostly illegally) for free. But any time that someone comes along and tries to put something in the middle, folks scream that there can only be two choices, and that any compromise is totally unacceptable. ("What we need is to force Best Buy to carry 70mm film cannisters! Consumers have the right to see the film in its maximum quality rendering!!!")
Guess what: people buy DVDs anyway. You are probably one of those people. Deal with the compromise because the RIAA is never going to just put WAVs online for free, so you'll have to compromise on DRM or price or quality, or some combination of all three... or you can take your toys and go home, and the rest of the world will buy lower quality DRMd media at a lower cost. The only remaining question is, which compromise will be acceptable (not ideal) for all parties?
Your music can't be too good if you can't hear the difference between 128 AAC and uncompressed PCM at 44.1 hz 16 bit. It's night and day. especially in instruments like piano and acoustic guitar, cymbals etc.
Sheesh. Two posts today with "to" where "too" should be. You gotta shortage of "o" keys on your keyboard? Maybe you're saving your "o"s to send someone a big hug?
Many of us that read this hear slashdotty thing are computer programmer types. Forget a ";" or typo a variable name and *poof* the program she no go. ACCURACY COUNTS!!!
- Jasen.
Let's see... How about the open paper describing the complete QuickTime file format? Or the documentation for creating your own codecs and components? Or the documentation for the Quartz Window Manager, including how to send it raw PDF and details of the level of PDF supported by current versions? Or the documentation for how to hook into the window manager and remote control it?
Sure, they haven't released source code for everything. But that's not the same as the system being closed. Apple generally does an excellent job of documenting their systems and making them easily extensible. You don't even need to sign an NDA or register to get the documentation.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
1) Nevertheless, some artists are with the RIAA. Many of these are popular. To not include them in a service's offering is simply not a good business decision.
It depends on what the purpose is. A "good business decision" is not always a good ethical decision -- and there is plenty reason the RIAA needs boycotted out of existance. Regardless, the RIAA bands already have their voice. This is all about alternatives. (and encouraging former RIAA bands to jump ship of course!)
2) To the RIAA, yes.
Which is fine. If they don't want to play by ethical rules, they can be left out.
3) Is the compression ratio as good as MP3/AAC? Does it support DRM? You're not going to get a legal music service that distributes files without DRM. What's the point?
FLAC is a lossless codec and has roughly an average 2:1 compression ratio. MP3/AAC achieve their high compression ratios by dropping data (and therefore sacrificing quality). I personally can hear the difference and there are many others who can as well. Yes, you do need quality stereo equipment often times, but there are plenty of people who don't feel like listening on their tinny PC speakers. Additionally, using AAC and then having to recompress to MP3 to use on your portable player greatly increases the risk of compression artifacts showing up that would NOT have been present if you had ripped a CD or if you had a lossless source like FLAC. Something like FLAC need not be the default format for an online music service, but it *should* be available for those who want the same quality as a CD.
DRM has nothing to do with codecs. You can wrap DRM around any codec. But no, you do not need DRM to succeed with a legal music service unless you limit yourself to the likes of the RIAA idiots. DRM absolutely never works -- it is only the braindead business executives who don't understand technology that keep insisting upon it. And DRM is *always* a hastle for consumers. To say that "oh well, I guess we'll have to put it up it" is a really defeatist attitude when there is so much potential for change.
5) Yes, but you still put the BitTorrent file on a website! If you want publicity and to allow free downloads, you don't need a music distro system for it.
This is true. But a music service can also be a good publicity tool in itself. Eventually, other services for musicians like tour scheduling, etc. may be possible.
6) Well, it obviously depends on how you do the encrypting. But no, public key encryption is not my area of expertise. I know how it works in theory, though. Doesn't it involve a decent amount of processor overhead? Don't people complain that iTunes uses too much CPU as it is? I don't know how exactly that's encrypted, though.
Encryption overhead is negligible on modern CPU's and has nothing to do with why iTunes is slow. That would be mostly the AAC codec, incidentally! But of course, if you want to eliminate that overhead and allow customers to use alternative media players that are faster and better, you have to get rid of the DRM crap.
7) It may be good for the musicians, but it woulldn't be good for the distro site. With few exceptions (album-only tracks), every track is 99 cents on iTMS. This makes the prices for every track appealing, not just some of them.
$.99 could still be a top limit, but a new musician's work may not demand that high of a price. More room for competition is always good.
I suspect that this is a straw man - "if I pay I must have full CD quality!"... even though day to day listening happens at a lower quality. Why bother? Is it Just In Case you need to re-encode?
Some of us have good ears and have spent a lot of money (or time) on building high quality sound systems. The difference between a 128kbps AAC or MP3 compared to an original CD is as drastic as the difference between a tape and CD on a good system. (less so for AAC, but it is still readily noticeable). So no, I will not buy low quality copies of music and neither will a lot of people. And if the RIAA folks stop selling CD's and only do crappy online compressed copies, guess what? They'll be even more reason to boycott them!
I can tell you right now, DVDs have DRM and I can certainly see the compression artifacts, and the menus and mandatory FBI warnings are lame. And yet, geeks buy DVDs like crazy. Can you say "double standard"?
You're right.. geeks that buy DVD's are very much hypocrites. You can't complain about corrupt laws and then turn around and fund the people who buy those laws to further lock in their monopolies.
Are we seeing the point yet, folks? On one extreme we have high quality expensive media. On the other extreme we have crappy media that people share (mostly illegally) for free. But any time that someone comes along and tries to put something in the middle, folks scream that there can only be two choices, and that any compromise is totally unacceptable.
You really don't have a point here because there has been no "middle compromise" offered yet. The new music services are almost as overpriced as CDs, the artists are still largely getting screwed (if they're with RIAA labels), and now the quality is lower too. What I suggested in my original post is a true compromise: pay musicians directly for a limited time, no DRM, full quality available, flexible pricing. People turned to P2P for two reasons: 1.) Because they realized both they and the artists were getting the shaft. 2.) Simply because nobody but the ultra-rich can afford to obtain 'legal' copies of all the music out there since our retarded copyright terms are now almost indefinite. Hello!? Building the public domain was the original *reason* for copyright! 14 years was a *good* length!
Guess what: people buy DVDs anyway. You are probably one of those people.
Nope. I wait for the $1.50 DVD rentals. Watching any movie more than about twice is a waste of life. Incidentally, DVD's effective no longer have DRM as even much popular commercial software circumvents it.
Deal with the compromise because the RIAA is never going to just put WAVs online for free, so you'll have to compromise on DRM or price or quality, or some combination of all three.
Or I can boycott the RIAA altogether and directly support independent artists, of which there are increasingly number and quality. Incidentally, it should not be forgotten that many musicians have made millions via touring and don't even need to sell the music itself.
The rest of the world will buy lower quality DRMd media at a lower cost.
Only people with your defeatist attitude.
The only remaining question is, which compromise will be acceptable (not ideal) for all parties?
What I originally suggested would be acceptable to all parties but the RIAA. Forget them, if they don't want to participate in an ethical new industry.
1) That the RIAA should cease to exist is not really something for an online music service to decide. By exclusively using non-RIAA artists, that would significantly limit said service's offerings.
...what happened to 4? You're not going to explain a creative commons license or how it benefits the artist?
2) DRM is not somehow unethical. The people who don't follow copyright law are unethical. In this sense, the RIAA is ethical to the extreme. Forcing a lack of DRM still implicitly condones piracy. The number of people who will buy something they can get for free "because it's the right thing to do" is a very small percentage of the total poplation. You can't really expect to make a lot of money selling what's available for free.
3) 2:1 isn't as good as 10:1. I generally rip at VBR, highest quality. The result is perfectly acceptable, if not perfect. As for AAC, what I've bought so far amount to oldies (where the source is bad enough), and a techno album that sounded just fine. If you're only compressing at 2:1, you might as well just keep the CD's handy and save yourself the trouble of what is it, 5MB/min for CD-quality at 2:1?
3b) Yes, I can say that I haven't found the DRM in iTMS files restrictive in the least. I can play them on both of my comptuers, and I can put them on my iPod. I can use them how I want for my personal use, as allowed by law..
4)
5) Well, if you want to have a "freebies" section, I suppose there's little harm in that. If the service wants to spend storage and bandwidth on it, which I can't see a music service wanting to do.
6) Actually, I think I remember hearing that AAC uses less CPU than MP3. Also, iTunes supports more than just the iPod as a portable player. It should be up to the player manufacturer to include protected-AAC support. Apple's cooperation is probably needed, but Apple should help with that. (Whether they will or not is outside the scope of this thread, I'd say.)
7) Well, the tracks could stay at 99 cents. You can always mess with album price, but lower than that per track seems almost cheapish.
Uh chill out dude, just meant that 3GB is not typical of any desktop machine (most people stop at 1 GB). I happen to have more as well, but I do a fair amount of 3D graphics, but most people who have gobs of ram are typically doing something unique, and therefore have atypical configurations not tested by the manufacturer of the software.
2) DRM is not somehow unethical. The people who don't follow copyright law are unethical. In this sense, the RIAA is ethical to the extreme. Forcing a lack of DRM still implicitly condones piracy. The number of people who will buy something they can get for free "because it's the right thing to do" is a very small percentage of the total poplation. You can't really expect to make a lot of money selling what's available for free.
Man, you just do NOT get the point do you? Either that or you are extremely brainwashed and close-minded.
Read my lips: DRM does *not* work. I never has and never will. It's a pipe dream. It's technologically impossible. Every single DRM scheme *ever* invented has been cracked. Why? Because DRM is the equivalent of protecting your house by locking the door and leaving the key under the doormat. It is security through obscurity.
And yes, DRM is by its very nature unethical. The only way it can be even attempted to be implemented in the first place is monopoly power over a given media -- monopoly power that prevents competitors from producing compatible players legally. That is part of why laws like the DMCA are so bad. It is morally wrong to outlaw certain speech/ideas because that speech could be used to commit a crime, just as it would be wrong to outlaw crowbars because they can be used to break into houses.
Furthermore, you make the thoughless assumption that people who ignore copyright laws are always being unethical. Guess what? Copyright laws are man-made and entirely relative. They are not a universal moral code. They are a very modern social invention intended to promote certain intellectual production ONLY when it is beneficial to society. That's it, nothing more! Publically shared information is not personal property and it cannot be stolen. It is mere greed and stupidity that have resulted in the corruption of relevant laws to the point where people have begun to ignore them altogether. (read: the vast majority of the US population with access to technology) That said, copyright can be good, but ONLY if it serves its intended purpose. That intended purpose, as established by the forefathers of the US, was to increase the amount of freely available information in the public domain by offering a *limited* time of exclusive rights. That compromise effectively no longer exists.
Another point you entirely miss is the fact that selling information isn't even a requirement for making a living off of it. This manufacturing era assumption is being utterly destroyed by modern technology and communication. Case in point: Open Source software will annihilate the proprietary industry within the next 10-15 years at its current rate of growth and adoption. Those involved make their money off of programming labor and consultancy, not imaginary "selling" of information. Similarly, most musicians today don't even make a significant profit from album sales compared to their live performances.
3b) Yes, I can say that I haven't found the DRM in iTMS files restrictive in the least. I can play them on both of my comptuers, and I can put them on my iPod.
Guess what? A growing number of us don't use Macs or Windows machines. And many of us can't afford a rip-off iPod compared to a $50 CD-MP3 unit. Neither do we feel like jumping through hoops to burn a CD from iTunes and then re-rip and re-encode to MP3. That is just plain retarded and it doesn't even stop people from then putting stuff on P2P networks.
Sorry, but you have thoroughly lost this argument on every point.
"I made this. You can have this, but don't give it to anyone else."
"You're unethical. If you give this to me, I can do whatever I want with it."
Who's right?
DRM is not inherently unethical. Especially using your argument, that it's "man-made" and therefore somehow outside the realm of ethics.
Almost _all_ security (outside of computer source code) is through obscurity. People can't use my credit card number because they don't know it. They can't enter my house without setting off an alarm, unless they know the passcode. Public key cryptography works because no one else knows the private key. (There's a reason it's called a private key, BTW.) Oftentimes, obscurity is a very good method of security.
As for not using Mac or Windows, well, there's a reason most of the open source stuff still isn't considered "consumer-grade" on the desktop. There's a lot of software that simply isn't there. Granted, there's also a lot that is. But is there even one online music site that supports Linux?
If you can't afford an iPod, you can still buy CD's, rip them, and put the resulting MP3s on a CD MP3 unit. (What happened to FLAC, anyway?) No one's forcing you to use AAC if you don't want to.
If you don't want to burn and re-rip, just burn. Play the resulting audio CD wherever you want.
If I've lost this argument on every point, what happened to the other five?
"I made this. You can have this, but don't give it to anyone else."
"You're unethical. If you give this to me, I can do whatever I want with it."
Who's right?
Since there's no natural moral law governing information, the second is generally more right with the exception of a workable social compromise agreed on by both parties. (In that case, it is dishonesty, not theft, to break the agreement) In the absence or termination of a workable compromise, the creator has no right to claim what can or cannot be done with their ideas because there is no true ownership in the first place. What do you think happens when a copyright or patent expires? The inventor/creator can complain until they're blue in the face that they don't want people to copy their work. But they have moral no leg to stand on because their work was never really owned in the sense of "this is my yard and you can't walk on it."
DRM is not inherently unethical. Especially using your argument, that it's "man-made" and therefore somehow outside the realm of ethics.
I never said that what is man-made is outside the realm of ethics. I said that man-made laws are relative and not necessarily defining what is truly ethical or not in every situation. (ie. there are always exceptions, laws that make the ethical illegal and the unethical legal..) DRM is inherently unethical because it cannot work for its intended purpose and it only serves to hastle legitimate consumers. It can also be easily abused to force unnatural conditions on how information is used and trump basic human rights that must ultimately supercede any laws or social contracts. This is sometimes known as downstream licensing -- control of how the information is used past the first sale. Suppose I were to sell you a book and tell you that you could only read it between 2am and 4am, could not tell anybody else what the book was about, could not quote anything from the book, and you have to forget everything you've read once you're finished with it. Would that be reasonable? Would you be ethically in the wrong to not cede to my wishes? Certainly not. DRM follows is the same principle. It is both unreasonable and unenforcable.
Oftentimes, obscurity is a very good method of security.
You again miss the point in regards to DRM. DRM gives you the key, hides it in plain view, and says "it's illegal if you find it or tell others where it is." That is NOT security; it's a farse.
But is there even one online music site that supports Linux?
Plenty: all the ones that don't require goofy proprietary clients. MP3.com and emusic.com come to mind, though I am more likely to buy the CD of an independent artist that I want to patronize.
No one's forcing you to use AAC if you don't want to.
If something like Apple's store succeeded on a grand scale, people *would* be forced into certain formats. That's why it is important that these services fail miserably -- so that nobody can monopolize their own proprietary media standard.
If I've lost this argument on every point, what happened to the other five?
They were only tangentally related to the core argument and I didn't feel like wasting the time.
With your book example, you could say that, but I doubt anyone would buy it. Any argument against DRM or current media is more or less nullified by the counter-argument that a non-DRM version is almost always available (in CD form).
DRM does sort of exist in book form; you're not allowed to photocopy it. Of course, people "break" the DRM by doing it anyway. (This is DRM in a very loose sense; it's not forced by technology.)
If something like Apple's store succeeded on a grand scale, people *would* be forced into certain formats. That's why it is important that these services fail miserably -- so that nobody can monopolize their own proprietary media standard.
That's the thing, though. If Apple's store and others succeed, it means that the patrons have chosen and accepted the store's format.
With your book example, you could say that, but I doubt anyone would buy it. Any argument against DRM or current media is more or less nullified by the counter-argument that a non-DRM version is almost always available (in CD form).
Suppose it was a really good book. Many people would probably buy it and just ignore the stupid restrictions because there is absolutely no moral reason why they should be followed.
Any argument *for* DRM is more or less nullified by the existance of non-DRM versions. Unless you ONLY release DRM material, the non-DRM version will be shared without authorization. And any DRM will always be cracked, so there's no difference anyways. Again, it's a pipe dream.
DRM does sort of exist in book form; you're not allowed to photocopy it. Of course, people "break" the DRM by doing it anyway. (This is DRM in a very loose sense; it's not forced by technology.)
Actually, there are many cases (Fair Use doctrine) where the law says you can photocopy parts of a book regardless of the author's stated wishes (again, proof that it is not truly property). But in the case of DRM, that fair use is trumped by technological restrictions. Unconstitutional laws like the DMCA make it illegal to remove those restrictions even for otherwise Fair Use cases. And, once again, people ignore the bad laws. There are dozens of commercial programs that defeat copy protection schemes so that customers can do things like backup their DVD's, print pages of their eBooks, etc.
That's the thing, though. If Apple's store and others succeed, it means that the patrons have chosen and accepted the store's format.
One of the most common failures in economics is the assumption that the market is educated and rational. But fortunately, this can often be solved through consumer activism. Look what happened to Circuit City's DRM-laden Divx format.