Use Thursby Software's DAVE or ADmitMac to avoid creating dot-underscore files. Thursby properly writes streams to NTFS volumes, and puts all resource forks in resource.frk folders on FAT volumes.
>At the $1.29USD price, it is likely cheaper to just order the CD...
No. Whole albums cost the same, and are DRM-free 256Kbps AAC (if they're from EMI). AND, in a previous announcment Apple will credit you your $.99 (or £.79) per track that you bought singly from that album, so buying singles doesn't discourage album purchases (any label).
I just hope that the credit extends to $1.29 per DRM-free single purchased, or will we lose $.30 per single purchased when purchasing the album?
>Of course, people who know nothing of FairPlay or only have an iPod and a short-sighted view such as, "I'll I will ever buy is an iPod" will go ahead and buy the FairPlay'ed music in much greater quantity than the non-DRM'ed tunes, prompting the recording industry to say, "Gee, DRM presence doesn't really change sales."
Apple (and EMI) put two advantages together, DRM-free and double the bitrate, so it will be hard to quantify which one causes each sale. The only way the new offering doesn't catch on is if consumers are completely unaware of it or are confused by the new choice and go with the one they know. Or possibly dialup users (they do still exist) valuing small size over quality and freedom.
Personally, I think the new DRM-free double quality offering will be a grand slam and the beginning of a huge change in the industry.
>until non-DRM'ed music is selling for the same price as DRM lock-in crap is today (or less, of course), I'll consider this trend of DRM-dropping as closer to defeat than victory.
Now that the two can compete, it shouldn't even be a contest. DRM costs more to produce (an added expense) for the seller, and offers less value to the consumer. At the same price and quality it is no contest, for informed consumers. The only reason the two can coexist at all, is that the DRM-free product is different in multiple ways, not all positive. The customer gets twice the quality and complete freedom at a cost of an extra 30 cents and double the time to download and double the disk space to store. It may be a slam dunk for most of us, but $.30 may be too much for some, who perhaps can't tell the audio difference (or don't think it is worth _that_ much) and haven't been inconvenienced by Apple's mild DRM. (Space and time are being overcome by technology, so I leave those reasons aside as marginal and getting more so.)
You can currently prevent updates, but you risk increasingly degraded performance as you encounter songs with the new FairPlay DRM scheme, or try to navigate the updated iTunes store.
You've noticed the increased likelihood of a break if there are more people in on the secrets. But what you're missing is the increased difficulty of fixing the broken scheme if there are multiple vendors. Currently, only Apple writes iPod firmware and periodically updates it. They periodically update the iTunes jukebox software, and periodically update the iTunes store. This is how Apple fixes things so the content cabal doesn't make them shut down.
Imagine Apple's predicament if you purchase a FairPlay Rio, buy songs from Napster.com/fairplay, and maintain your songbase with SoundJam-with-FairPlay? They are responsible for 'fixing' a recently broken FairPlay scheme, but have no control over the pieces you use. The cabal notices that Apple hasn't fixed the situation in the time allowed by contract They pull the plug on them.
Have you ever been held responsible for something you had no power to fix? It sucks!
Slashdot Mirror
Use Thursby Software's DAVE or ADmitMac to avoid creating dot-underscore files. Thursby properly writes streams to NTFS volumes, and puts all resource forks in resource.frk folders on FAT volumes.
Disclaimer: I work for Thursby.
>At the $1.29USD price, it is likely cheaper to just order the CD...
No. Whole albums cost the same, and are DRM-free 256Kbps AAC (if they're from EMI). AND, in a previous announcment Apple will credit you your $.99 (or £.79) per track that you bought singly from that album, so buying singles doesn't discourage album purchases (any label).
I just hope that the credit extends to $1.29 per DRM-free single purchased, or will we lose $.30 per single purchased when purchasing the album?
>Of course, people who know nothing of FairPlay or only have an iPod and a short-sighted view such as, "I'll I will ever buy is an iPod" will go ahead and buy the FairPlay'ed music in much greater quantity than the non-DRM'ed tunes, prompting the recording industry to say, "Gee, DRM presence doesn't really change sales."
Apple (and EMI) put two advantages together, DRM-free and double the bitrate, so it will be hard to quantify which one causes each sale. The only way the new offering doesn't catch on is if consumers are completely unaware of it or are confused by the new choice and go with the one they know. Or possibly dialup users (they do still exist) valuing small size over quality and freedom.
Personally, I think the new DRM-free double quality offering will be a grand slam and the beginning of a huge change in the industry.
>until non-DRM'ed music is selling for the same price as DRM lock-in crap is today (or less, of course), I'll consider this trend of DRM-dropping as closer to defeat than victory.
Now that the two can compete, it shouldn't even be a contest. DRM costs more to produce (an added expense) for the seller, and offers less value to the consumer. At the same price and quality it is no contest, for informed consumers. The only reason the two can coexist at all, is that the DRM-free product is different in multiple ways, not all positive. The customer gets twice the quality and complete freedom at a cost of an extra 30 cents and double the time to download and double the disk space to store. It may be a slam dunk for most of us, but $.30 may be too much for some, who perhaps can't tell the audio difference (or don't think it is worth _that_ much) and haven't been inconvenienced by Apple's mild DRM. (Space and time are being overcome by technology, so I leave those reasons aside as marginal and getting more so.)
You can currently prevent updates, but you risk increasingly degraded performance as you encounter songs with the new FairPlay DRM scheme, or try to navigate the updated iTunes store.
You've noticed the increased likelihood of a break if there are more people in on the secrets. But what you're missing is the increased difficulty of fixing the broken scheme if there are multiple vendors. Currently, only Apple writes iPod firmware and periodically updates it. They periodically update the iTunes jukebox software, and periodically update the iTunes store. This is how Apple fixes things so the content cabal doesn't make them shut down.
Imagine Apple's predicament if you purchase a FairPlay Rio, buy songs from Napster.com/fairplay, and maintain your songbase with SoundJam-with-FairPlay? They are responsible for 'fixing' a recently broken FairPlay scheme, but have no control over the pieces you use. The cabal notices that Apple hasn't fixed the situation in the time allowed by contract They pull the plug on them.
Have you ever been held responsible for something you had no power to fix? It sucks!