Slashdot Mirror


The State of Digital Music in 2006

wh0pper writes "Designtechnica has an excellent article on the state of digital music in 2006. Digital music accounted for only six percent of total music sales in 2005. Yet even that is a massive increase over the year before, a whopping 194 percent, which is fiscally valuable as the sales of CDs continue to decrease (although even with digital sales, the record labels experienced another downturn in 2005). While the young, usually the first to adopt and adapt to new technology, have been downloading and swapping music for quite some time, there's been a ripple effect into the older, warier area of the population, one that will only increase. Thank--or blame--Apple and its iPod, or any of the many other makes selling like hotcakes in the stores.

127 comments

  1. Quality over Quantity by skynetos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I prefer CD's only as I want quality and freedom. I like to have the right to rip them to FLAC and put them on my iAudio X5. DRM and compressed downloaded music just does not make sense. Quality over Quantity I always say.

    1. Re:Quality over Quantity by revscat · · Score: 1, Informative

      To be fair you can rip using a lossless codec using iTunes, and the DRM it and the iTMS imposes allows you to copy the song to up to 5 different machines. This has been enough for my needs.

    2. Re:Quality over Quantity by MikeXpop · · Score: 5, Informative

      You need an original CD to rip into Apple Lossless. And if you rip anything from an original CD, there's no DRM whatsoever.

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    3. Re:Quality over Quantity by O_at_TT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quality over Quantity...

      While Baby-Boomers are now part of this market it is still dominated by younger people who apparently don't care so much about quality. It seems the way people listen to music is changing parallel to the way the music is being distributed. People can now carry so much music in their pocket that they listen to music while doing anything and everything. Music is in essence background music for their lives. For that reason "quantity" is king for these people and "quality" is very secondary. Gone are the days where "listening to music" meant putting an album on in your living room and sitting through the whole thing while doing little other than enjoying the music.

      So for that reason I think your point of view is unfortunately a minority, and a shrinking one.

      -Oliver / TreasureTunes.com

    4. Re:Quality over Quantity by ClamIAm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is Apple's lossless format patent- and royalty-free? I didn't think so.

    5. Re:Quality over Quantity by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      It's been enough for your media so far. But what happens a few computers and iPods down the road? If you reinstall your OS is that another "machine" down the drain? If you have a different OS installed on another partition of your hard drive and want to play the files from there, does that count as "another machine"? If you wanted to play the files under, say, BeOS and found that there was no player available, would it be possible for you or anyone else to write one? For that matter, I've never even heard of a player for GNU/Linux capable of playing iTMS files, and it's a pretty common operating system these days.

      I think you've been had. "Enough for your needs" now can easily become a headache when you are faced with the artificial restrictions of DRM.

    6. Re:Quality over Quantity by billcopc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Young people don't care about quality because they haven't experienced it in the first place. Twelve years ago when I was ripping MP3's in DOS at 112kbps, I couldn't hear the quality loss because I had lame speakers (with overzealous EQ) and lame headphones on a $99 discman. Everything sounded like shit to me and that's all I had ever known, so it was ok.

      Then I started making good money and bought myself a really sick stereo, and I started having aural orgasms at the staggering detail I discovered in my music collection. I also heard the dreaded ringing and swishing artifacts of crappy MP3 encoders, and started flaming anyone on Napster who used Xing Encoder ;) Now I have an even sicker car stereo with funky noise shaping and filtering, but I can still tell when a track is poorly encoded.. my ears can tell the sound ran out of breath, but most people who ride with me think I'm just a crazy old music nerd and complain that I should get more bass :P

      The fact is simply that different people have different ears. The Ipod has above-average sound quality and seems to put in some amount of effort to reduce compression artifacts, for most people this is as good as it gets. For the rest of us audio freaks, there are alternatives.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    7. Re:Quality over Quantity by revscat · · Score: 1

      ? If you reinstall your OS is that another "machine" down the drain?

      I would burn them first, then rip them in whatever format I choose.

      If you have a different OS installed on another partition of your hard drive and want to play the files from there, does that count as "another machine"?

      If I did that then it would certainly be an annoyance. I don't.

      For that matter, I've never even heard of a player for GNU/Linux capable of playing iTMS files, and it's a pretty common operating system these days.

      Then obviously Linux users will not use iTMS. However, I am not a Linux user. If I were, I am sure I would have chosen differently.

      I think you've been had. "Enough for your needs" now can easily become a headache when you are faced with the artificial restrictions of DRM.

      It's certainly possible. It hasn't affected me to date, however, and the market has apparently expressed its approval. It could also be that there is a sweet spot between OGG and heavy DRM such as WMV that keeps both end consumers and producers happy.
    8. Re:Quality over Quantity by BeerCat · · Score: 1

      most people who ride with me think I'm just a crazy old music nerd and complain that I should get more bass

      So, the fish diet improves your hearing, then?

      I'll get me coat...

      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
  2. And no OGG support by ericdano · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    And they did all this without OGG support. AAC all the way!

    Since most all the "other" services are subscription, I would think that Apple's iTunes store is the source for this increase.

    --
    It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
    I moderate therefore I rule!
    --
    1. Re:And no OGG support by Firehed · · Score: 3, Interesting
      What do you expect? OGG is barely popular even among geeks, let alone in the mainstream. I'm sure that if you asked 95% of iTMS users, they'd be sure they're downloading MP3s. After all, the iPod isn't advertised as an AAC player, is it? They don't care what extension the file is provided it's not distorted (not to be confused with lossy - often times, you won't notice anything missing with lower bitrate versions unless you've heard the original) and it plays on their player. While I'd love to have all of my music in FLAC, few players support it (and more importantly, not mine) and the files are huge with a generally negligably boost in audio quality, and I'm not yet willing to drop a decent chunk of change to get better headphones. Plus the fact that I no longer buy CDs (partly due to availability, partly due to price and mostly because I refuse to give money to my oppressors) means that any lossless codec isn't an option for me. I don't feel *as* guilty buying from iTMS as somewhat more of the money goes to the artist, but if it were up to me (which it half-is), I'd pirate a flac version and then paypal the artist five bucks if I liked it. It's a lot more than they'd get per album regardless.

      Smart artists would do something like an oscommerce store (or whatever) where you can buy a flac/mp3 download for, say, 40 or 25 cents, two downloads allowed in case your hard drive dies and you're in the 99% of the world that sucks at backups. Cheaper for us, more profit for them, world+dog-riaa is happy.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    2. Re:And no OGG support by Doppler00 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about this for awhile and the reason why OGG is not supported on most MP3/DRM audio players is actually pretty obvious. The MP3/AAC decoder in the iPod is a specially designed chip, optomized for those two codects. I believe it's an ASIC component designed for just those codecs. Now, to play OGG you would need to develop a similar ASIC just for that purpose, and no hardware manufacture is going to want to shell out the cost for that when they can buy an off the shelf MP3/WMA decoder. So, any player that does support OGG probably does so through a general purpose DSP or CPU, with the disadvantage being... surprise... shorter battery life.

      Actually, I still use OGG on my PC for what little music I have, don't own an MP3 player, and don't really care. I'm not much into music anyway, just listen to whatever is on shoutcast.

      I think ythe RIAA will be happier once music is more of a service. You'll be charged $30/month for unlimited downloads, maybe $2-$3 a song for new releases, of course you will no longer be able to buy the CD because it's too easy to pirate. Just wait and see, it will happen.

  3. April 1 == no fun by Psykechan · · Score: 1

    This is the Apple story for their 30th anniversary? Kind of a letdown if you ask me. No real press release... no fake press release... just some boring story that no one will read.

    Oh well, at least there is still some OMG PONIES!!

  4. So... by rollonet · · Score: 0

    Does it support OGG?

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but I'd bet you a pony it supports OMG.

  5. It's been a long way coming by teutonic_leech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only thing that surprises me is how long this industry fought teeth and nails against this. Even now, they are only embracing the online distribution of digital media because they are forced to. Steve Jobs kicked open the online music market and he did the same again with online distribution of videos and now full features. It always takes a visionary with capabilities to take that first step - a smaller company would have been squashed early on. In some ways it's discouraging for small entrepreneurs like me because it paints a picture: don't you think I wasn't dreaming about an iTunes like music store a long time ago? Well, along with power and influence Steve also brought along the iPod, which was another puzzle needed to that piece. He basically had to put all the pieces together, singlehandedly (is that a word?). That's his genius and his vision and that's why he's cleaning up right now. Had I gone to Sony with a software just like iTunes on my laptop 5 years ago they would have just laughed at it. It sometimes takes a lot more than vision and talent to realize a business opportunity, some are tougher to crack than others.
    The same can be said about the video distribution business - without Jobs and iTunes we'd still be in the dark ages - just look at the ridiculous blunder of Sony and the PSP - talking about not being able to see the forest before the trees! And in the case of Sony - they even had a content library they could have thrown into the equation. Well, I guess those higher rank managers must get paid those multi-million for their smashing good looks - can't be the types of decision they make or their vision...

    1. Re:It's been a long way coming by fredistheking · · Score: 1

      OMG Steve Jobs is sO cUtE!!!

    2. Re:It's been a long way coming by 2008 · · Score: 1

      singlehandedly (is that a word?)

      Yep, it's right. It also gives me an image of Steve Jobs doing a crossword with one hand behind his back, the big show-off...

      --
      I quit!
  6. When did CDs become analog? by caenorhabditas · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always thought that CDs were digital. Now I hear that digital music only accounts for six percent of music sales? I knew LPs were making a bit of a comeback, but I didn't know it was that big. Everyone must be really enjoying that "warmer" sound.

    1. Re:When did CDs become analog? by Wolfbone · · Score: 2

      It's pretty astounding that not only was TFA author ignorant of the most basic fact about his/her subject but the glaring error was missed again and again before it got here.

    2. Re:When did CDs become analog? by Copy,+Paste,+Repeat · · Score: 2

      What's astounding is your expectation that either Slashdot submitters or Slashdot editors care enough to notice, much less fix, these glaring errors.

    3. Re:When did CDs become analog? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait, the salesman at Definitive Audio told me that I needed to buy dampening rings to put on my CDs to "clean up the waveform". If CDs were digital, for example with 16 bit samples at 44.1kHz with 6 bits of Reed-Solomon error correction for every 8 bits of data and some interleaving to mitigate scratches, then a sales rep at a High End retailer would have been talking nonsense!

    4. Re:When did CDs become analog? by Megane · · Score: 1
      Now I hear that digital music only accounts for six percent of music sales? I knew LPs were making a bit of a comeback, but I didn't know it was that big.

      Nope, it's not LP, it's tape. So crank up your 8-track and boogie on down to the dance floor.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    5. Re:When did CDs become analog? by marshall_j · · Score: 1

      come on people. mod funny not informative!

    6. Re:When did CDs become analog? by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      The CD is a digital format. It always hss been.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    7. Re:When did CDs become analog? by Geno+Z+Heinlein · · Score: 1

      come on people. mod funny not informative!

      That's probably the "Insightfully Funny" or "Imformatively Funny" mod. You don't get karma for +1 Funny, so generous moderators give the +1 Informative or +1 Insightful mod instead.

      Feel free to mod +1 Hint, hint! for this post.

  7. MP3 Blogs and Netlabels by dilvie · · Score: 2, Informative

    This story isn't complete without mentioning MP3 blogs and netlabels. Millions of songs were downloaded last week from the tens of thousands of MP3 blogs and netlabels dishing out free music from mostly non-commercial websites. A quick look at a few of the best ones will reveal that a lot of the music being served up is top quality.

    Enjoy some free music.
    1. Re:MP3 Blogs and Netlabels by massysett · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the story was rather disappointing in that it didn't realize the potential that Internet distribution has to remake the music landscape. Most artists already don't make money on recording deals, but record labels supply necessary distribution and promotion. That allows artists to make money by going on tour and drawing audiences. Now with the Internet, it's possible to cut out the middlemen altogether. The Net might destroy record labels in the same way it ruined Computer Shopper and the way it's hurting dead-tree newspapers now. But the article just talks about P2P from the same tired RIAA "piracy" perspective while failing to realize its potential.

    2. Re:MP3 Blogs and Netlabels by dilvie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly my point. It's really a whole different ball-game now. I've been playing ball with a bunch of indie labels and artists, and we're achieving some pretty stunning distribution numbers. Some of the top features on my MP3 blog have been downloaded over 60,000 times each. My own music had a quarter-million downloads last month -- and this is for electronic music, where 10,000 record sales is considered a hit.

      My friends in Taxi Doll are just an indie group going it alone (as of this writing), and they've managed to got their music into films staring J-Lo and Harrison Ford. They're taking advantage of digital distribution and free downloads to help them get the word out, and they've got plans to expand the strategy in the future.

      Why are people still talking about the music industry like it's 1997? Whole genres have broken off from the major outlets, and started hacking it alone. There are tons of indies on sites like Beatport and CD Baby selling digital downloads and CDs with no DRM. Imagine that -- music producers giving people what they want, rather than force feeding them crippled songs.

      There's a huge undercurrent in the music industry right now, and the storm is brewing. The old industry is a sinking ship. Some of us have been saying it for years, but the day of reckoning is coming quickly, now.

    3. Re:MP3 Blogs and Netlabels by ClamIAm · · Score: 1

      And talking about the online music underground isn't complete without mentioning the much older scene of chiptune artists (and the demoscene in general).

    4. Re:MP3 Blogs and Netlabels by dilvie · · Score: 1

      Chip tunes and demo music are a curious tangent, rather than the elephant standing in the room, as was the case with my comment. I'm as big a fan of chip as the next guy, but it's really a bit irrelevant to the current discussion, isn't it?

    5. Re:MP3 Blogs and Netlabels by grahammm · · Score: 1

      It is interesting that one of the songs which is tipped for the number 1 slot in this weeks UK singles chart is only available for download. This shows that internet distribution is already changing the music landscape.

    6. Re:MP3 Blogs and Netlabels by patio11 · · Score: 1

      Distribution numbers, like hit counts, are meaningless. Sooner or later, the secret to making money is to convince someone that the product you are selling has value. The .{2}AA and company have that side of the equation nailed down pretty well. Some of the new distribution models (the iTunes/iPod conglomerate comes to mind) do, too. Has the indie music movement figured out a way to monetize their popularity yet? Because "old industry" isn't going to be a sinking ship if its got the exclusive source of profits in audio entertainment.

    7. Re:MP3 Blogs and Netlabels by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      Sweet link to beatport. I didn't know about them. CD Baby does *not* sell digital downloads, however (unless I'm just not seeing something on their site), but sells tons of CDs for bands. I have a friend that works there in the warehouse. :) They *do* have some sort of deal with iTunes Music Store, IIRC.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    8. Re:MP3 Blogs and Netlabels by ClamIAm · · Score: 1

      So the genesis of the elephant is irrelevant?

      Damn, that even rhymes.

  8. CDs are a form of "digital music" by 5plicer · · Score: 1

    just thought I'd pass that along...

    --
    The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
    1. Re:CDs are a form of "digital music" by 5plicer · · Score: 1

      Ack! caenorhabditas beat me to it! Damn my slow typing!

      --
      The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
  9. LOL !!1~11!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell happenned to the ponies?

  10. Does this mean it's over by scwizard · · Score: 1

    /me does a little dance.

    Finally, now my brain can begin recovering...
    *whew*

    --
    ~= scwizard =~
    1. Re:Does this mean it's over by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

      Thank god.

  11. For all you DRM neysayers by 7Prime · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Remember that 30 years ago, we had vinyl and cassette tapes. Vinyl was easily rippable, although "ripping" one meant something a little different back then. Cassette tapes sounded like total crap. If you think about it, even *with* DRM, we've come a long way in quality and ease of copying. And don't worry about compression for the moment, this is just a passing phase while non-lossy algorythms become more streamlined and connection speeds get faster. DRM is a neccessary evil, unfortunately, because no record company, in their right mind, would agree to selling media without it. Thankfully, there are many quick, and fairly painless ways of getting past Apple's DRM if you're really worried about it (I'm amazed that record companies agreed to FairPlay, it's so easy to bypass).

    --
    Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
    1. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by toby34a · · Score: 0

      The problem with DRM is the compatibility issues between players. most MP3 players will only play the certain files for those certain players- and because of that, it sucks if you're stuck with a wrong one. If people open their DRM schemes to allow playing on other devices, people will then share music again. We're only 6-7 years removed from the Napster area- however, in 10-15 years, we most likely won't even think about sharing music- it'll all be in the past.

    2. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by mboverload · · Score: 0, Troll

      Until the music industry releases something OTHER than a crap 128kps file that sounds like my neighbors 12 year old daughter made it with her own MP3 encoder she made in middle school C++ class, I'll be copying my music from CD and the internet.

      The music industry hates consumers. DRM, "copy protection" virus/malware, etc.

    3. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 0

      "Non-lossy" is not the problem. The extremely limited sample rate of the published standards is not soluble without actually changing the standard, even if compression improves or disk space increases and we have no limit there.

      The old LP's recorded quite a bit of both high frequency and low frequency information that digitization invariably throws out due to the pitifully low sample rates. No amount of digital processng or massaging can recover information that is entirely in between the actual sampling moments, without the sound being so long and periodic that its remnants are eventually picked up in the beats with the sampling rate, and the anti-aliasing filters normally wipe that right out.

    4. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by Hao+Wu · · Score: 2, Informative
      Cassette tapes sounded like total crap.

      Cassettes sound a LOT better if you only use one side. (Of course albums were almost never sold that way.)

      I have to admit, iTunes has temporarily killed my appreciation of music. Making playlists is a tedious task of sorting and searching for songs I like -- which means having to listen to songs I DON'T like in order to weed them out.

      I have played all of my favorite albums to death... I don't enjoy any of them anymore.

      It's much like a drug or any addiction - once you get all you want from it, then you become numb to it, and you barely enjoy it, and then it's just DULL.

      The only way music excites me now is by hearing those songs on the radio, where it's comforting to know that I am not the only loser who loves a certain tune...

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    5. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by Eythian · · Score: 1
      DRM is a neccessary evil, unfortunately, because no record company, in their right mind, would agree to selling media without it.

      Not true. I get a lot of good music from there, completely DRM free. Sure, there's none of the big labels, but that doesn't affect the quality at all. Just the names you recognise.

      (Oh, and a plug for my program for Linux users: eMusic/J)

    6. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm amazed that record companies agreed to FairPlay, it's so easy to bypass

      With due respect, the most difficult part is making the consumers accept FairPlay. Once this is done, it's relatively simple to close things down. New version of iTunes, new limits on sharing, tada, you've just been ripped off. Change computer in the next 10 years, tada, you've just been ripped off. New wireless MusicBus protocol, for streaming music from your digital library to anywhere in the world; music needs to be purchased from iTunes to be streamable, tada, ... you get the tune.

      The possibilites for ripping off consumers are endless. The music industry is "getting it" more than you think, they just can't get themselves to wait.

    7. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      DRM is not a necessary evil, and all record companies are currently selling media without it (CDs). In fact, DRM is probably the reason online music sales are as low as they are, because currently the best legal way to get music on your computer is buying and ripping CDs. Current online music services with DRM do provide instant gratification, but they offer the customer far less value.

    8. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by DRM_is_Stupid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... no record company, in their right mind, would agree to selling media without it.

      Only until recently, all record companies sold digital, lossless, DRM-free music. All CDs that I buy are DRM-free, not because I have been avoiding DRM CDs (although I would), I just haven't encountered them from the artists that I am interested in. I doubt that the CD DRMs are hard to crack (just disable autorun?), but with their warnings stickers, that it may break my CD player, my CD drive, or my PC, and that nobody will refund me the CD or the damaged hardware if that happened, makes me not want to buy it at all even if I didn't mind the copy restrictions. So yeah, 100% of the CDs that I buy come from record companies that didn't add DRM.

    9. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Interesting
      DRM is a neccessary evil, unfortunately, because no record company, in their right mind, would agree to selling media without it.

      No, record companies are an unnecessary evil and will eventually die the way of all dinosaurs. DRM is one of the consequences of their death-throes, and will subside and vanish once the beast is dead.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    10. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by dilvie · · Score: 1

      There are thousands of indie labels flourishing in online marketplaces like CD Baby and Beatport, selling digital music without DRM. A lot of the bigger labels are just trying desparately to preserve the status quo long enough for them to get their bearings and remain competitive. I don't think it's working.

    11. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by pNutz · · Score: 2

      Not true at all

      320bps VBR MP3s:

      http://www.audiolunchbox.com/
      http://www.magnatune.com/
      http://www.bleep.com/, who sells FLACs as well.

      There are more.

      --
      Death and danger are my various breads and various butters.
    12. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by bsytko · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed that record companies agreed to FairPlay, it's so easy to bypass. What do you mean, we all PlayFair here ...

    13. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by discstickers · · Score: 1

      In fact, DRM is probably the reason online music sales are as low as they are

      Not it's not. Very few people know what DRM is, let alone it's implications.

      --
      I have a shitty sig!
    14. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by jensen404 · · Score: 1

      My sister and dad know what DRM is, now that iTunes suddenly started to give an error message when they try to burn a CD with music they bought from the iTunes music store. If the files weren't DRMed, I could simply show them how to use another program to burn the CDs.

    15. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by Mr+Jazzizle · · Score: 1

      If a Meteor is going to come down and kill the Record Companies...shouldnt we be a little worried too?

    16. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by znode · · Score: 2, Interesting
      320bps VBR MP3s:
      What, exactly, are 320bps VBR MP3s?

      For one, most lossy audio work around the 160-250kbps ballpark.

      For two, the highest VBR preset in LAME, -V0 (--preset extreme before 3.97), has a target bitrate of just 240kbps. I don't see how you can get a 320kbps VBR mp3. Indeed, 320kbps was formerly known as the CBR --preset insane (now simply -b 320 in 3.97), and it is the highest bitrate defined in the mp3 standard[1] -- hardly something you can be variable about.

      [1] Yes, in LAME you can force it up to 384kbps with --freeformat, but that's hardly recommended usage as the encoder does next to nothing at such high bitrates.
    17. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool. Can I buy Kanye West's latest album on there?

    18. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      shouldnt we be a little worried too?

      You should be all right. Just make sure you're not standing next to them anytime in the late Cretaceous era.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    19. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by salmacis2 · · Score: 1

      No record company in their right mind would agree to selling media without DRM? So why are the record companies quite happy to sell me little silver media disks, which not only contain no DRM, are in uncompressed WAV format? Yes, I know that the record companies are trying to introduce DRM onto CDs, but I note that unprotected CDs haven't been withdrawn from sale in the meantime. The argument that record companies will never sell downloads without RM is bollocks. They just need more persuasion.

    20. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong? Why? It's because, unlike you, Microsoft/IBM/Intel/AMD/Sun Microsystems (bascially the members of the Trusted Computing Group) all know what DRM really is.

      DRM is control over what piece of code you can run to access certain data. Ensuring that you can only access data "X" using code "Y" -- and to get permission to access data "X", any software developer will have to ask them and submit their code for inspection. Remember that... DRM is about code control. This level of control is the wet dream of Microsoft (virtually eliminate piracy, *and* completely lock you into their applications by preventing any reverse engineering), Apple, IBM... hell, even Red Hat wants in on it. Remember too, that Apple is now selling Intel-based Macs with the hardware needed to do exactly what I've described above: hardware enforced DRM.

      If you think DRM is about the music/film business, and that it will die with them, then you are bloody fool who doesn't understand what it is. It's about time you learned.

    21. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by pNutz · · Score: 1

      The variable bit rate goes up to 320kbps is what that means (variable 0-320kbps), not the avg bit rate. Most tracks have average bit rate of about 200kbps at emusic and bleep, so it seems from observation. It was an easy way of saying high quality MP3s without writing out the flags they all use. But thank you for sharing your LAME aptitude.

      --
      Death and danger are my various breads and various butters.
    22. Re:For all you DRM neysayers by chawly · · Score: 1

      No, but Mae West's latest is available.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  12. Why use ITunes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find that "A Better CD Encoder" works just fine for me and does everything under the sun. Not to mention it is a Linux command line application. http://lly.org/~rcw/abcde/page/

    Just insert CD, execute abcde, and it rips and tags right to a directory.

    Easy as pie.

    Why does anyone need anymore than that?

    1. Re:Why use ITunes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because iTunes lets you skip step 2 (execute program). Insert CD, it rips and tags automatically, it ejects. You Apple-haters are masochists is what you are.

    2. Re:Why use ITunes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now how does it rip the cd without the program being started? :-P.

      Wow those Apple products either:
      A. waste resources and sit idle in the beackground, acting on things I never asked it to.
      or
      B: Read your mind.

      Ha ha ha. I rather it read my mind than waste my resources, slow my machines down, and eat up 78 megs of memory :-P

    3. Re:Why use ITunes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I rather it read my mind than waste my resources, slow my machines down, and eat up 78 megs of memory :-P
      Right now iTunes 6.0.2 is consuming 227 meg of memory on my Athlon64 WinXP 1024 meg PC. On one of the MAC G5 systems at school iTunes 6.0.4 consumes less than 32 meg according to the output from command line program 'top'.

      Apple doesn't know how to write windows software! Either that or they don't know how to code for x86 properly! They haven't won me over as a fan, that's for damn sure. Don't even get me started on the Windows version of Quicktime codecs..........

    4. Re:Why use ITunes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong, again, but rather than correct you, since you'd probably then find another, even more stupendous manner in which to be wrong, I'll just point out that you're a mealy-mouthed little brat with the brainpower of a red-state dogflea, approximately, under your command, and that based on your comments it's a safe assumption that you'd do well to drop your aversion to soap and water before you find yourself devoured alive by the cockroaches which are presently kept at bay from the Dorito crumbs and dried semen residue lodged in the crevices of your flesh more by the heat generated by your AMD box compiling Gentoo than by the overpowering septic stench emanating therefrom. You fucking moron.

      Hey mods: April fools!

    5. Re:Why use ITunes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      typical mac user.

    6. Re:Why use ITunes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical Lunix dunderhead.

    7. Re:Why use ITunes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical Windows Fanboi

    8. Re:Why use ITunes? by rdoger6424 · · Score: 1

      Typical BSD Zealot

      --
      "Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
    9. Re:Why use ITunes? by The+Famous+Druid · · Score: 1

      Typical Amiga fanatic.

      --
      Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
    10. Re:Why use ITunes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't talk such rot.

    11. Re:Why use ITunes? by rdoger6424 · · Score: 1

      Typical Commodore 64 Junkie.

      --
      "Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
  13. AAC is a standard, dates back to 1997 by green+pizza · · Score: 2, Informative

    Both a MPEG and ISO/IEC standard...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

    1. Re:AAC is a standard, dates back to 1997 by ClamIAm · · Score: 1

      AAC, MP3, and nearly every aspect of every MPEG standard is patented. Because of this, you cannot (legally) create software or hardware that conforms to these standards without paying royalties. Even worse, paying royalties to MPEG patent holders implicitly supports software patents.

    2. Re:AAC is a standard, dates back to 1997 by jubei · · Score: 1

      Patented since 1997, you say? Only 11 more years until it is truly free and open then!

  14. Open source AAC tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can get opensource AAC tools here:
    http://www.audiocoding.com/

  15. I don't know waht to believe! OH GOD! by pegwole · · Score: 0

    Since today is April Fool's day, I don't know what to believe on Slashdot, but i'll tell you what i refuse to believe, anything involving China buying Google, a My Little Pony game, the RIAA aproving ANYHTHING, or that even Duke Nukem Forever finally came out.

    --
    Penguins: good mascot, better burger.
  16. The current sate of the digital music industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, the accessibility advantages of web-based solutions for digital music over traditional media sources has not ameliorated the need for more modern, more dynamic consumer-based solutions. Until the music industry follows the impetus of established consumer music patterns in the marketing of digital music, such efforts are doomed to mediocracy.

    1. Re:The current sate of the digital music industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ITimes *does* follow a successful marketing model!

  17. Whew... by FourStarGeneral · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Thank God (or the higher power of your choice), the Ponies have left. Now, I need to visit my optometrist about that ocular replacement procedure...

    --
    Resistance... is futile.
    1. Re:Whew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thank God (or the higher power of your choice), the Ponies have left.

      none.

      Now, I need to visit my optometrist about that ocular replacement procedure...

      Why do you religious types have to hate so much? I miss the ponies and feel cold inside now that they have left...

    2. Re:Whew... by chawly · · Score: 1

      Is this an American thing ? I read /. on the 31st. the 1st and the 2nd - saw no ponies and saw nothing in pink.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  18. Cost over Quality by DRM_is_Stupid · · Score: 1

    For me it's cost over quality. Buying one song at $0.99 USD makes more economic sense than buying the $17.00 CD. However, sometimes the real CD sold at online stores can be cheaper than what iTunes downloads offer. And for me, my ears don't care about quality loss from burn & rip transcoding, but make sure to tag it as such. Sometimes I care about quality, and for those I buy the real CD. Online downloads complement my CD purchases, not replace it.

    1. Re:Cost over Quality by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I usually don't feel like supporting an artist unless I feel that the album is worth buying. I don't think it's worth supporting an artist who can only produce 1 good song. Also, most the the CD's i've bought recently have been $15. You can often find old stuff for even cheapter, $10. I find that the quality and freedom are well worth the extra cash.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Cost over Quality by DRM_is_Stupid · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's worth supporting an artist who can only produce 1 good song.

      Well, I even give money to homeless people sometimes, even though he hasn't made a single hit. If a penny or two goes to the artists for my song purchase, it can't be such a bad thing. She/he's got more talent than me.

      Also, most the the CD's i've bought recently have been $15. You can often find old stuff for even cheapter, $10. I find that the quality and freedom are well worth the extra cash

      Used CDs can be cheap, but I hate scratches more than quality loss that comes from transcoding. $15.00 per CD is a good deal, but such good deals aren't always common in every country. I found a double CD album being sold for $25 on iTMS, $13 on Amazon.com. And guess what, I chose the album from Amazon.com.

  19. Apple is one step in the right direction. by twitter · · Score: 3, Interesting
    My mom is a good example of where things are going. I showed her my cheap Ilo player from Walmart ($50 baby) and an Ari Hest Concert from archive.org and suddenly "digital music" made sense to her. If she was not hoplessly hooked on Windoze, I'd set her up with Amarok and the usb-device script and that would be that. That's not the case, so I recommended an Ipod. Even she knows that music+windoze= crashed computer, so the free software may come later to her old laptop which still runs WinME! If she can get it, anyone can.

    The RIAA is over. Apple makes it easy for people to spend their money on music but the RIAA way is not the future. Sales are only a small piece of the picture. More and more, reputations are not going to be built on radio play but on web play. Bands that understand this are going to be here tomorrow and the rest are going to look like slaves to greedy pigs. Portable music devices can hold more songs than the average radio station can afford to broadcast. To the user, it's all killer and no annoying adverts. The "Industry" is fighting back with satellite radio and FM crap flooding but it's not good enough. Players like Apple are going to help transition the industry to it's less centralized and less parasitic future. The free market forces and free software will move in and make life better for everyone, especially the artists.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Apple is one step in the right direction. by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1
      music+windoze= crashed computer
      Uh, what? I know plenty of people who use iPod/iTunes (and others who use iPod/WinAMP) on Windows with no difficulties. Could you please explain that comment?
      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    2. Re:Apple is one step in the right direction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Apple is one step in the right direction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Even she knows that music+windoze= crashed computer

      Really? And does she know you're spreading FUD? I can't believe someone would use a reference to their mother to make a stupid, offtopic jab at "windoze". How low can you go...

  20. CDs are physical, downloads are digital by macslut · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This keeps coming up. Note that the writers aren't calling CDs analog, but rather comparing the physical media of CDs to (digital) downloads which are delivered absent of a physical media.

    1. Re:CDs are physical, downloads are digital by zoeblade · · Score: 1

      This keeps coming up. Note that the writers aren't calling CDs analog, but rather comparing the physical media of CDs to (digital) downloads which are delivered absent of a physical media.

      So because CDs contain digital data that haven't freed themselves from the shackles of a tangible medium, they don't have the right to be called digital? It's surely going to confuse the public into thinking that CDs are analogue if the press constantly refers to them in terms of being opposed to digital media. Why not just call downloaded music "downloads" instead of "digital"? That way, you can refer to them as something which the rival format isn't.

    2. Re:CDs are physical, downloads are digital by mikeydb · · Score: 1

      No, there still has to be some physical media somewhere, from the server at the digital music shop to the hard disk drive/flash memory device in your computer/ mp3 player, the only difference is, you're not buying the physical media you need to store the music on since you already own it, or are borrowing it from a family member or friend.

      Just another question, what happens when you have a large collection of DRM restricted music files on a shared PC, but changes in your family situation mean the computer with the hard disk drive containing your files will be moving away with a family member (think divorce, or offspring finally moving out to their own homes)? I guess the answer would be the same as if your hard disk drive fails and all data stored on it becomes unrecoverable, which is more likely, or even more likely a need to format the hard disk drive and reinstall windows when some dodgy DRM software renders your computer unuseable, which makes the digital music download seem like a poor investment to me.

      So far I have CD's that are 15 years old and still play fine, but my last hard disk drive lasted four years, and in that four years I've had to format the hard disk drive at least three times due to some problem or another that couldn't be rectified easily.

  21. The tipping point is near by tentimestwenty · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a record store owner and the webmaster for RecordStoreReview.com I have a pretty good read on where things are going. This gradual decline in physical sales is about to reach the tipping point where the distribution model crumbles and downloads increase exponentially. It might not happen in 2006 but 2007 is very likely. At the store level, there just isn't sustainable profit from physical sales.

  22. Works better? by neoshroom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A couple more might join the fray, but the lines have essentially already been drawn, with everyone gunning for iTunes to take chunks out of its share. That could well happen; the ongoing supremacy of Steve Jobs's baby is far from guaranteed. Once someone else figures out a model that works better for the consumer, actually listening to and providing what customers really want, all bets will be off. And, sure as eggs is eggs, it'll happen.

    I don't buy that. What the consumers want is 95% of what Apple is already delivering. Consumers prefer ala carte music tracks to forced albums or subscription models by far. Consumers want ease of use and they want simplicity. They want an all-in-one solution. The only way you can beat Apple now is on price or on freedom (no DRM portability-type freedom). Apple probably has enough clout to beat most competitors on price and the RIAA simply isn't going to agree to any less restrictive DRM or DRM free solutions.

    Its too bad "all bets will be off." Apple keeping their dominance is a bet I'd gladly take.

    --
    Elephant Essays - Custom Ivy-league papers at community college prices.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
  23. HAHAHAHA ROFL (funniest april fools joke yet) by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is the funniest April fools joke yet. State of digital music. Ipds. ROFL. How do they come up with this stuff?

    I mean look at the "news story" -- just a bunch of fluff sayng absolutely nothing new (or nothing that hasnt been repeated a thousand times on slashdot), nothing of any technical or scientific interest and designed merely to get a bunch of Apple fanboys to feel good about themselves to get Apple some good publicity and to get designtechnica (whatever the fcuk that is) some extra hits.

    As if that would ever be put on Slashdot. I mean only stuff that matters gets shown here. But it makes for a funny joke. HAHAHAHA

  24. and to be fairer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...I can purchase a dead tree book, and read it in 1,000 chairs if I choose, and save it, or lend it, or sell it, I can rip the pages out and retape them back together legally, I can refer to it, translate it into klingon for funzies if I want to,etc, and 1,000 years from now no one will have to deal with it being in a closed format or be in a form that you need some museum-level technology to even access..

      I don't see the booksellers demanding that a book can only be read by 5 people, then that's it, no one else can read it, and you can't move the book to another location after the 5th place it has been, or whatever. In short, very few restrictions, just a bare minimum, even though those are being pushed with too long of copyright provisions, IMO.

    And this Apple digital middleman skimmer DRM is allegedly the *better* example of DRM. The *better*.

    Screw it, today's digital content middlemen pushers/skimmers/conmen are *obnoxious* in what they have done, hijacking advanced human technology and putting restrictions on it by distorting the legal process and subjugating human social expansion for their own narrow minded purposes that only profit them, and not many other people. THEY want every single tiny advantage that modern technology can bring, but they don't want YOU to have exactly the same advantage. That's the real issue here, the big picture. They seek to have a fuedalistic control over advanced technology, just like in ye olden days when it was illegal to teach anyone to read outside the clergy or a few "royal" jerks.

          We are at a serious crossroads right now, we as humans can REALLY expand, or we can severely limit knowledge and culture by controlling it, merely by legislating access to technology to the rich priveleged few, at the expense - economic and social- of the vast many.

  25. Nothing to complain about by tfcdesign · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple foots all the bill while one measly digital file is duplicated over and over. iTMS is pure profit for the music industry.

    F*ck the RIAA! Buy used CDS!

  26. Myths about digital audio limitations by hankwang · · Score: 1
    No amount of digital processng or massaging can recover information that is entirely in between the actual sampling moments, without the sound being so long and periodic that its remnants are eventually picked up in the beats with the sampling rate, and No amount of digital processng or massaging can recover information that is entirely in between the actual sampling moments, without the sound being so long and periodic that its remnants are eventually picked up in the beats with the sampling rate, and the anti-aliasing filters normally wipe that right out.the anti-aliasing filters normally wipe that right out.

    That's not the real problem. As long as the signal before DA conversion did not contain any frequency components above 22.05 kHz (the Nyqvist frequency for CD audio), it is perfectly possible to fully recover that information. For more realistic DSPs of the kind used in audio DACs, the cut-off has to be a bit below the Nyqvist frequency, i.e. 20 kHz.

    The problem is that any noise above the Nyqvist frequency before the AD conversion will cause aliasing into the audible domain. That's why it's a good thing to do sampling during recording at 96 or 192 kHz. Then you can use a very steep digital lowpass filter before downsampling to 44.1 kHz.

    The statement about the high-frequency response of LPs may or may not be true. However, the microphones used in those recordings most certainly did not have any significant frequency response above 20 kHz, so there wasn't any high-frequency information to record other than electronic noise.

    1. Re:Myths about digital audio limitations by 5plicer · · Score: 1

      uhhh... don't you mean Nyquist?

      --
      The bits on the bus go on and off... on and off... on and off...
    2. Re:Myths about digital audio limitations by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'd like to use that "incorrect" score on your post. The error is early, where you said "as long as the signal does not contain any frequency components above 22.05 kHz". Of courese there is information above that sample rate! It's not critical for speech, but for music the sound extends well above that frequency. While such frequencies are nominally "ultrasonic", they're well within the auditory perception of some people and they do affect the shape of auditory waveforms that reach the ear, and especially of timing information among crisp sounds, like high frequency percussion instruments and the character of especially rich sounds like violins.

      The microphones had poor reception at higher frequencies, but the signal is still there to some extent. And let's face it: the microphones being used for modern digital recording are usually a poor substitute for the old microphones used for high-quality LP recordings, just as cheap and ubiquitous digital cameras are not yet a substitute for a good quality old camera, due to the undersampling of the visual field.

      I don't begrudge the world preservable digital music, or cheap music players. And certainly CD quality surpasses that of cheap LP's, or of worn out ones that the kids have played with and worn scratches in it. But for the high quality LP's, it really makes a noticeable difference.

    3. Re:Myths about digital audio limitations by hankwang · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I was referring to your remark about 'reconstructing the signal from the beating', where you appeared to be suggesting that that is impossible. My apologies for misunderstanding you.

      Re microphones: see the specs for the Neumann U87 (a classical high-end microhone) on the manufacturer's website:

      Where do you get the idea that in the old days, microphones could handle high frequencies much better than now?

      Apart from the technology, from psychoacoustic research it is known that frequencies above 16-18 kHz contribute extremely little to the listening experience, i.e., music with the range 18-22 kHz filtered out is for most people indistinguishable in double-blind tests from music with that range included. (Although it depends on whether the sound card is resampling the signal from 44 to 48 kHz, producing aliasing along the way) At least that is the picture I get from reading on hydrogenaudio.org.

    4. Re:Myths about digital audio limitations by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      But a microphone with a limited frequency range can often capture interesting waveform phenomonea, although attenuated, at well above that frequency. And the temporal data of precisely when which sound started and ended and changed amplitude is still intact, at a much higher temporal resolution than the frequency of the microphone itself. Digitization destroys much of that information, and creates fascinating uncertainties in the temporal information related to the sampling interval. That is actually noticeable to a good ear.

  27. Come out from MP3 myth and hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is surprising to note digital music is only six percent of total music sales in 2005. So digital music is just starting and its a good time to come out of the hype see what professionals use.

    Everybody now days use mp3. Is that the only music format available? No. There are other music formats available which are far more superior to mp3 but not widely known yet.

    Ogg is similar to mp3, but its a completely open and free format. That is, if you want to create audio (eg. Music, podcasts, etc) create in Ogg. You are not breaking the law. The mp3 is a patented technology.

    If you are an audiophile, its shame to play mp3 in your HiFi. Consider FLAC. The FLAC is the ultimate audio format, its loose less, high definition and again completely open and free format. There are FLAC players in the market like iAUDIO X5.

    I have evaluated the Tomahawk Desktop, its Linux based multimedia OS, you can use it to convert your CDs to either Ogg or FLAC. Its amazing, its just drag and drop! To transfer to your Ogg or FLAC player, its again just drag and drop!

    Another advantage of Linux is you can play without getting hit by viruses and worms.

  28. Gay, Ponies? by Devistater · · Score: 1

    Why did you people tag this as Gay, Ponies? Is Apple now full of gay ponies? I mean I dont like apple much either, but I wouldn't go that far.

    1. Re:Gay, Ponies? by Zentac · · Score: 0

      What? you have something against Gay Ponies?

  29. MOD KARMA WHORE DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fake essay cheating sig scam = banned

  30. Error by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The music on CD's IS digital, moron. So comparing "digital music" to "CD's" is just silly. What I suspect you really meant was 'Internet-downloadable digital music' and presumably only that purchased from a RIAA-approved source in a proprietary format including an offensive and obnoxious DRM system (as opposed to that shared between individuals via whatever mechanism), as compared to 'purchasable digital music delivered on physical read-only optical media, including both "order [online or by phone] and wait for it to be shipped", and "walk into the store and pay for it at the register" (sometimes including the offensive DRM, sometimes in a standards compliant format)'

  31. Re:MOD KARMA WHORE UP ;-) by neoshroom · · Score: 1

    Wow...calm down there fella. I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but its the first time I've posted my sig and I feel justified in doing so.

    First it isn't fake. Its a real site, real US writers write real papers. Second, there are plenty of legimate uses for such a service besides cheating. Its basically the same as P2P, you can use it responsibly or irresponsibly.

    Myself, I just like writing.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
  32. Cool...I can get rid of my phonograph by threedognit3 · · Score: 1

    Let's see...analog equals vinyl.

    digital equals plastic

    Okay...and I win what?

  33. Nice subject change! by KH2002 · · Score: 1

    Dude, nice subject change!

    1. Re:Nice subject change! by ClamIAm · · Score: 1
      Quoth the OP:

      I prefer CD's only as I want quality and freedom. I like to have the right to rip them to FLAC and put them on my iAudio X5. DRM and compressed downloaded music just does not make sense. Quality over Quantity I always say.

      It's true that he didn't say anything about patents, but it's rather obvious when you look at the language used.

  34. Not so fast, I hope. by twitter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This gradual decline in physical sales is about to reach the tipping point where the distribution model crumbles and downloads increase exponentially. ... At the store level, there just isn't sustainable profit from physical sales.

    I'm not sure the death of physical media is that close and I hope local stores never go away. Pressed CDs are a better backup than the dye based things I can burn. Cheaper physical media might change that opinion, but I will still enjoy the artifact.

    Here's a store to add to your site that I hope people will visit.

    Here's something you can visit now.

    Getting rid of centralized broadcasting and the RIAA means getting more of the above in one form or another. Excellence deserves recognition and reward. Denying those rewards is the RIAA's crime.

    I hope that small and regional music stores flourish. Without the RIAA shoveling s^H hits, a local store can still be a good way to match people to good music. Suggestion schemes can only go so far. Sometimes you need to step into something completely different. Regional music stores can also have a web presence, as noted above, and they can be an important part of local club scenes.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  35. Yeah, most people think Windoze sucks like that. by twitter · · Score: 1
    I know plenty of people who use iPod/iTunes (and others who use iPod/WinAMP) on Windows with no difficulties. Could you please explain that comment?

    Sure, it's not my opinion. Her perception comes from watching other people's computers fry when they play with music. I did not dig into her about it, the way people like you might, but I can imagine those computers fried due to a combination of RIAA vigilanti attacks on P2P networks and WMP performance. Whatever, it's a common view that has nothing to do with iTunes. All she knew about Ipod is that other women at the gym spent lots of time programming playlists on them. I don't know anyone who likes WMP.

    Non free programs have a tendency to suck and things on Windoze that Bill Gates wants to own have a tendency to break. You can never tell when Steve is going to take some feature away, or when Bill's "security update" will break it all. For all of that, Ipod is what I recommended to her as long as she's stuck in M$.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  36. Wow, my biggest fan. by twitter · · Score: 1
    Someone reads all of my posts and has put them into his favorites, how flattering. I'm in awe of the time and dedication devoted to little old me. It must be love.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Wow, my biggest fan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time, be more careful, fucktard. I don't know if I need to point this out to you (I guess I do, judging from the level of intelligence you display), but you have way too much excrement piled up behind you to be going around telling people to "stop trolling". It takes ten seconds to save a bookmark, and a few minutes to post your bullshit for everyone to read.

  37. Re:MOD KARMA WHORE UP ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Second, there are plenty of legimate uses for such a service..."

    Cool. Name five...

  38. pretentious audiophile geeks by psymastr · · Score: 1

    Every time the topic of digital music comes up on /. there's a bunch of hypocritical audiophile geeks who go on and on and on about how mp3 is "low quality" and we should all use flac or 320 VBR.

    What the hell? How many of you guys have sat through a blind test to see if there's any difference whatsoever? Why should people fill their hard drives and their portable drives with useless junk that is flac or mp3 320 kbps? Enough already.

    --
    Improve at backgammon rapidly through addictive quickfire position quizzes: www.bgtrain.com
  39. Genius? No. by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

    People had been clamoring for online music distribution for years, now have been calling for online video distribution for years, etc. Jobs just acknowledged the obvious. That doesn't make him a genius, it just makes him the only non-idiot in an industry dominated by idiots.

    --
    This space available.
  40. Dude that's a scam! by bogie · · Score: 1

    Those rings are for suckers. The only thing that truly keeps bit loss at bay is a green magic marker. The Green marker when used on the edge of the cd keeps the red laser from bouncing off the disc and thus you get to enjoy the full 16-bits.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  41. A MASSIVE increase! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Digital music accounted for only six percent of total music sales in 2005. Yet even that is a massive increase over the year before, a whopping 194 percent
    So digital music accounted for -188% of total music sales in 2004?
  42. Re:Yeah, most people think Windoze sucks like that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    willy, does mommy know you're using her to spread FUD on the internet? Perhaps an email to J so she can pass it to her would help end this travesty?

  43. Damn it, why did you have to post AC? by DietPepsiAddict · · Score: 1

    I would've modded your ass into such a higher plane, they would've needed HUBBLE to track you...