Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media (Apple) Businesses Media Upgrades Apple

Apple Releases Major iTunes Update 910

Posted by pudge
from the more-sharing-less-burning-plus-some-wacky-stuff dept.
shunnicutt writes "Apple has released iTunes 4.5 (and iPod software 2.2 and QuickTime 6.5.1) and relaxed some iTunes Music Store restrictions: now tracks you purchased can be authorized to play on up to five other computers, instead of three. However, they reduced the number of times you can burn a playlist to an audio CD from ten to seven. Another new feature is iMix, which allows you to publish playlists on iTMS, including comments on each track. The iTMS also offers a weekly free single for download." crazney adds "This release also changes their network sharing protocol in a way that breaks the open source iTunes sharing applications that have been released (based on my work on iTunes 4.2's DRM)." kefoo writes "Among the new features is Apple Lossless Encoding, which claims to compress losslessly to half the size of uncompressed CD quality audio." Hm, and I was about to re-rip all my CDs at 320 kbps MP3 ... Update: 04/28 14:56 GMT by P : I just tested, and I can listen to previously de-DRM'd AAC files from playfair, but I cannot use either playfair or FairTunes any longer. The former "Couldn't get DRM key for user," and the latter produces a blank file.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Releases Major iTunes Update

Comments Filter:
  • by MoneyT (548795) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @10:42AM (#8996155) Journal
    Token gesture to the RIAA to apease their fears of the pirates.
  • by Pirogoeth (662083) * <mailbox AT ikrug DOT com> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @10:45AM (#8996180) Homepage Journal
    Well, I suppose there might be the honest folks who see $0.99 per song as a value as well...
  • by Pirogoeth (662083) * <mailbox AT ikrug DOT com> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @10:49AM (#8996235) Homepage Journal
    Do you normally keep iTunes expanded while listening to music? I agree that it takes up a lot of screen space, but the only time I keep it expanded is when I'm developing a playlist or importing songs. Once I get it playing, it gets shrunk down or hidden.

    Granted, I have a 17" screen, so I don't know what it looks like on a twelve incher, but I've never had any complaints about the interface layout.
  • by goober (120298) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @10:50AM (#8996254)

    hmm, isn't that pretty bad actually? can't you get that kind of compression(get 40mb wav into 20mb file) with just zip&others on pretty easily anyways, fucking _ten_years_ago_.

    Try playing a .zip file on your iPod...

  • Hm, and I was about to re-rip all my CDs at 320 kbps MP3 ...

    You either have very few CDs or way too much time on your hands.

    I was considering making higher bit rate versions of my library but would only hire my brother to do it for me (over 200 albums).
  • by womby (30405) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @10:57AM (#8996334)
    does winamp have a store?
    from what I can work out, and you can correct me if I am wrong. the DRM is only available on music store purchased tracks, and no matter how hard you try it cannot be enabled on personal tracks

    don't buy music from itunes music store = all the great features of winamp (minus some of the not so great) + better mp3 archive management.
  • by Aqua OS X (458522) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @10:58AM (#8996349)
    Agreed, The ITMS is lacking a number of big artist. However, it's getting better. I stopped bitching when Apple placed nearly every single NinjaTune and MoWax artist on the store.

    More artist will come. Apple now allows certain albums to be sold in their entirety (some artist didn't want their albums picked apart), and Apple now allows users to print cover art (some artist hated the lack of album packaging).

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:01AM (#8996371)
    Winamp has plenty of stores. The price is all the music you can download for a 1/10,000 chance of being named as the defendant in a lawsuit.
  • by hpavc (129350) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:05AM (#8996416)
    its pretty neat, except for multi-display people. wish you could turn off its effects certain displays.
  • Lossless (Score:3, Insightful)

    by simpl3x (238301) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:05AM (#8996417)
    I'm a bit of an audiophile, and lossless is pretty much key. Or, at least a minor loss is acceptable. With about 2000 cd's, there's no way I'm going to start purchasing online music, without the ability to retrieve lost files. But, I would very much like to encode my collection, and basically use it as backup, or more likely proof in my court case against the RIAA when they storm my house with the FBI questioning where I got all that music...

    And, as you mention, pretty much everything I listen to is unavailable. Now where are those terabyte drives?
  • Is this FLAC? No. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by p940e (539763) <.play. .at. .slowchildren.com.> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:07AM (#8996449)
    I when I saw "Apple Lossless encoding" a part of me got really excited thinking that they had finally decided to start supporting FLAC [sourceforge.net] files, but just given it their own name.

    That doesn't seem to be the case. These files are given the file extension '.m4a'. Attempting to decode them with the CLI flac program only produces errors.

    It's a shame too, because FLAC is really starting to pick up as the lossless format of choice for internet distribution. In certain cirlces at least. If Apple had decided to throw their weight behind, it could have really taken off.
  • by scovetta (632629) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:08AM (#8996457) Homepage
    I'll join when they get In Flames and Nightwish.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:08AM (#8996459)
    After about a week of Expose, however, I decided that it was terribly better than the Pager solution and decided to never go back...

    That's interesting, because I don't think they are exclusive. I happily use them both. It's great to be able to share multiple desktops to different types of activities. These activities may again need multiple windows, where Expose comes to play.
  • by amichalo (132545) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:10AM (#8996482)
    If you look at the bottom of iTunes before you rip a CD, you will see the size of the raw music. This would be helpful info to provide in your test.

    Also, I would think the Genre of music would make a difference, just like compressing an image of snow versus an image of a gumball machine.
  • by jludwig (691215) * on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:11AM (#8996498) Homepage
    Sorry if it seems Troll-like, but this bother me a little.... This is great until the number of allowed burns drops to 0, and extra computers cost $10 monthly. The troubling point here is that they changed the rules, your opinion is right now they did it for the better (and I would agree), but its very possible for this to work the other way in the future (lets say after they get an established userbase). Despite this DRM looking not so bad (at this point in time), it just shows you they have the power over what you can do with this music. They can probably force upgrades by breaking compatability.

    This whole iTMS rests on Apple's reputation of being Good People (tm) (which they usually are) but they are a for-profit company, and money always wins in the long run not being nice. Some pressure from the RIAA and maybe this deal takes a turn for the worse?

  • by eclectro (227083) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:15AM (#8996533)
    Until they remove DRM. Don't let them control what you can do with your files

    Unenlightened moderators or those that are crack dependent may mod you down.

    I think the point needs to be made that as good as all the itunes seems to be, everybody is forgetting one critical fact;

    You can not resale the music that you have purchased like with a regular LP, tape, or CD. Apple has purposefully left out first sale rights as it would erode the artificial value of the music. Even if there was a mechanism to erase all your copies and resale your itunes to someone else, Apple would not allow it, as this would put downward price pressure on the music Apple sells.

    The music industry has controlled the price of CDs through illegal collusion, and probably are still managing to do so. Itunes is a natural extension of artificially controlling the price of music.

    If normal economic forces were allowed to take over, there are quite a few industry executives that would no longer be able to afford their drug habit.
  • by Abjifyicious (696433) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:21AM (#8996576)
    On an unrelated note, I wonder if iTMS is going to start offering lossless files. That would be cool.

    Yeah, that would be cool, but I'd be very surprised if they did that. The problem is that you could easily strip the DRM by burning it to a CD and re-ripping it, and unlike DRM'd lossy files, there would be no loss in quality from the transfer.

    Well, not that I think that would be a problem, but I'll bet Apple would.

  • by rjstanford (69735) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:25AM (#8996630) Homepage Journal
    You're missing one very real business point here. The iTMS exists to get people to use iTunes, and to get people to buy AAC files. iTunes and AAC files exist to get people to buy iPods. Selling iPods is where Apple makes its money in the music arena.

    MPC/FLAC/SHN/APE/etc. support. If applications like Foobar, Winamp, and QCD can pull it off, why can't iTunes, with it's beefy 19.5 MB download, play simple file formats like these that've been around for years? Wouldn't it work in their favor to allow their users more choice, to let their users listen to their music in whatever format they've chosen to encode them in?

    Because listening to something in iTunes that you couldn't then sync to your iPod would defeat the purpose, which is to provide the complete iPod experience and sell more iPods.

    Support for competing MP3 portables. I think I read somewhere that iTunes may support another mp3 player besides the iPod, but that really isn't enough. Once again, I think it'd be beneficial the popularity of the program if they supported other players. Have they released an SDK for their community to toy with? The Foobar and Nullsoft teams did this, and they got great results.

    Right... but iTunes is free, and if they're not selling iPods it doesn't make any sense to go after that market. Even if they made a little money on the iTMS, those tracks wouldn't play on the competitive players so again you're missing out on the integration, which is iTMS' strength.

    Don't get me wrong - some of your points, like that about Speed and Gapless Playback, make a lot of sense. But you have to look at this from a business perspective when you ask, "Why doesn't Apple..."
  • by Niles_Stonne (105949) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:27AM (#8996644) Homepage
    Good for Apple.

    The whole reason they can get so many of the labels they do is that they protect their rights. I know it sucks for the little guy who wants to give music to all of their friends, but I find their version of DRM within acceptable limits, unlike most other DRM systems.

  • by slughead (592713) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:50AM (#8996928) Homepage Journal
    I hope to god this is redundant.. I'd be really scared if I was the only one who noticed.

    This is exactly what the anti-DRM nazis were talking about.. they CHANGED the licensing agreement and nobody cares.

    Do you realize what this means? They could simply one day revoke all but 1 of your machine licenses, put all your m4p's into one big encrypted image, and turn your genitals into scrambled eggs and there's nothing you can do about it because YOU agreed to it by buying DRM.

    Sure, THIS time it's not a big deal, in fact most people will be happy with this new way of doing things.. but doesn't it bother you that they can take as well as give?

    Seven burns down from Ten on tracks you already own.
    Think about that..

    And no, I'm not a stinkin pirate or anything like that. Just think if the implications
  • by PunkPig (738544) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:51AM (#8996944)
    Oh Radiohead. Artists that are so true to their art.

    I wonder why they release singles and videos?

  • Damnit, Steve! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by teamhasnoi (554944) <.teamhasnoi. .at. .yahoo.com.> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:52AM (#8996957) Homepage Journal
    Why can't iTunes share songs over the net? Tie it 5 MAC addresses or something, but at least let me listen to my songs sitting on my Mac at home while at work. No, I don't want to fill up my powerbook with AACs and mp3s. I could then play my tunes at a pals house or coffee shop or elsewhere.

    It seems that Apple could do the same thing that they're doing with DRM, and authorize 5 computers to share via IP. (on different subnets) - I have no interest in P2Ping music with all the leaches out there, but the ability to share my Library over the net with a few others would be quite welcome. (iTunes 4.0.1?) It seems like iTunes is one program that really shows the limitations that the RIAA puts on Apple. Of course, I could get an iRaise, and go buy an iPod, but i'Ve got enough iCrap to carry around.

  • Simple Concept (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shadowcabbit (466253) <`cx' `at' `thefurryone.net'> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:53AM (#8996969) Journal
    The more times an iTMS-available artist shows up on user-submitted playlists, the more sales for that artist are generated.

    The more times an iTMS-unavailable artist shows up on user-submitted playlists, the more pressure Apple has to try to sign that artist.

    I like where this is going.
  • by NatasRevol (731260) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:54AM (#8996973) Journal
    Then you're not trying very hard. In iTunes:

    Create new smart playlist, match contition Play Count, pick >,=,, pick a number.

    Not to hard
  • by dthree (458263) <chaoslite@h[ ]ail.com ['otm' in gap]> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @11:58AM (#8997013) Homepage
    Hehe, I love this. He busts on party shuffle as superfluous but then bitches that iTunes doesn't have the EXACT features that party shuffle provides. Classic.
  • by KnarfO (320113) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:04PM (#8997084) Homepage
    Agreed. After getting a $10 gift cert for Christmas, I still have close to an $8 credit because I haven't found anything I want to download beyond the 2 songs I grabbed in Dec...

  • by makapuf (412290) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:15PM (#8997209)
    albums that were composed as albums and not as a buch of songs. Which in the spirits of some artists, is a reality, and not plain bundling of songs.

    Try to listen to Pynk floyd's 'The Wall' in random mode for example.
  • by shlong (121504) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:18PM (#8997239) Homepage
    One must remember that artists can choose not to distribute their music this way. Notables are easy to recall - Dave Matthews Band, Metallica, Radiohead, The Beatles, etc.

    Many artists have no say in how their music is distributed. Take the Beatles for example. A certain accused child molester in California has 50% say in how their recordings are distributed, while the surviving band members slowly grind their teeth and wait for him to go bankrupt.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:20PM (#8997260)
    Bullshit.

    Apple has the tough job of managing all those feature requests and distilling them down to the key features - to make the apps good without unnecessary complexity.

    As for the DRM. Noone likes putting limits on their flexibility. I'm now being penalized for all the jackasses pirating music. But, I wouldn't use a system if the DRM was intrusive. For my needs, and apparently a lot of other users, iTunes works well. On my home LAN, the music sharing works great. When I'm not at home, the iPod carries my whole music collection with me. Beyond that, my needs are pretty limited.

    My complaints about DRM aren't with the companies trying to play fair, like Apple. It's with the music labels, who are lobbying and making it seem like this is a threat to our national security. And, their lapdogs in congress and state legislatures proposing laws to clamp down on this.

    BTW - there is no 'i' in joyed.
  • by Aaden42 (198257) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:23PM (#8997288) Homepage
    There *IS* a way to make iTMS purchases play on Tivo and any other player you might have -- it's called PlayFair (or any of the other DRM stripping apps).

    Without DRM, there would be no technological reason that all of your iTunes tracks couldn't be played on Tivo, et al.

    DRM reduces your rights to use works you have paid money for, and you get nothing in return.

    U.S. Copyright law says you have an absolute fair use right to format-convert in order to play content on your own equipment. DRM says otherwise. One of them's gotta go.
  • by Mr Guy (547690) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:24PM (#8997297) Journal
    Well sorta, but also largely wrong.

    You're right about the DRM agreement changing, but only sorta. They EXPANDED what you could do, DRM wise.

    They agreed to let you play on 3 computers, that's what I agreed to when I signed up and bought many many songs. Now they said I can use 5 computers, I'm happy.

    The second change isn't to the DRM. I can still burn a song to a CD as many times as I'd like, as I agreed to. What they don't let me do, through software, is burn the same PLAYLIST more than 7 times. In other words, I can't make the exact same CD more than 7 times. Change a single song or (I believe) even reorder the songs and you can burn them another 7 times. It's not a DRM change, it's a tool change.
  • by System.out.println() (755533) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:28PM (#8997339) Journal
    Actually, you could probably do that now - burn it to a CD and rip it into the 'lossless' format. Although you would still have the "original lossiness", you wouldn't lose anything during the re-ripping process. Whether or not they offer lossless tracks on the store really doesn't affect that.
  • by amichalo (132545) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:30PM (#8997367)
    The music I purchased before under the 10 burn/3 computer DRM could remain under that DRM. All I have to do is NOT AGREE TO THE NEW DRM. This would keep me from buying new music with this user ID, as I have to agree to the DRM, but would not effect the old music.

    So Apple is faced with an issue. They couldn't just cut something out, without giving people a reason to agree to it. I nthis case, to continue shopping at the store and gain the ability to use 2 extra computers, I have to give up 3 identical CD burns. Big deal. Th emost I have ever burned is 2.

    I see your point, but I think that reasonable business desires will keep DRM in check because otherwise, people wouldn't buy it at all.
  • by SomeOtherGuy (179082) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:33PM (#8997394) Journal
    So it averages 21 songs per Ipod sold. May be a low number if Ipods only played songs downloaded from Itunes....But fortunatlly they also play good old fashioned MP3's ripped from an existing CD collection.

    But leave it to the Apple freaks to wonder why people are not paying iTunes for songs they have already purchased on CD.

  • Not exactly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by daveschroeder (516195) * on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:33PM (#8997397)
    While you're right that the agreement can be changed, this isn't more restrictive in any way, it's less.

    Seven burns down from Ten on tracks you already own. Think about that.

    Actually, this is wrong. First, you can burn non-DRMed songs as many times as you want. Second, you also have unlimited burns of protected songs...BUT, you can only burn the *same playlist* 7 times. You can make a new playlist - with the songs in the exact same order - and burn another 7 times. As many times as you want. This restriction is simply to make it impractical to make 1000 copies of some new album you downloaded from iTunes with a CD recorder tower. You can still burn the music that you bought an unlimited number of times (which, incidentally, strips it of all DRM as well).
  • Tethered access? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ceswiedler (165311) * <chris@swiedler.org> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:33PM (#8997404)
    When is Apple going to allow unlimited playing of iTMS songs (while connected through broadband) for a flat fee? That's what keeps me on Rhapsody [listen.com]. For a flat fee I can play just about anything through my computer. The drawbacks are that you can't play downloaded songs through its interface, and it's Windows-only. I would love to use iTunes but I've become addicted to infinite choice of music.
  • Re:Apple lossless (Score:3, Insightful)

    by System.out.println() (755533) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:35PM (#8997417) Journal
    Why not download iTunes and rip a CD into Apple Lossless yourself?
  • by System.out.println() (755533) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:40PM (#8997471) Journal
    Well, that wouldn't sell very many iPods.

    They don't make much money at the store, only on the iPods that come with it.
  • Re:Lossless (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ratamacue (593855) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:44PM (#8997519)
    Technically, lossless has nothing do with quality either, at least not directly speaking. What lossless means is this:

    If you take a file containing raw audio (WAV for example), compress with lossless compression, and then decompress back to WAV, the resulting file is bit-for-bit identical to the original.
  • by TokyoJimu (21045) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @12:57PM (#8997710) Homepage
    Remember there were some studios (including Disney) that originally refused to release any product on DVD.

    That was a similarly short-sighted decision.
  • No, that's wrong (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EvilStein (414640) <spam AT pbp DOT net> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @01:24PM (#8998039) Homepage
    Of course iTunes 4.5 will play the file that you de-DRM'd previously.

    But playfair/FairTunes do *NOT* work now. I just tried to de-DRM a file I bought from iTMS, and guess what? Now it errors out, telling me that this computer isn't authorized to play the file. I can still play the file in iTunes, but I can't de-DRM it with FairTunes.

    So no, it doesn't still work.
  • Re:By the numbers (Score:2, Insightful)

    by amichalo (132545) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @01:27PM (#8998059)
    ... iTunes days are numbered. It is just a matter of time before DRM'd $0.99 tunes are dead in the water.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't allofmp3.com selling songs under the same license that allows a radio station to play a song? They are misusing the license and I would imagine that "it is just a matter of time" before allofmp3.com is shut down.

    So they have no licensing fees to pay the RIAA, how much are they making on a 4MB download? could they scale to be the #1 music distributor to the world? I think a resounding ** NOT **.

    The bottom line is Allofmp3.com is breaking the law by improperly using the license. If push came to shove, the licenses would be changed. Allofmp3.com is irrevelent now and will continue to be.
  • by prockcore (543967) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @01:29PM (#8998081)
    Multiple downloads could present a somewhat large financial issue for apple... like when a person with 10,000 songs downloaded wipes their harddrive and then suddenly wants to just redownload them again.

    Anyone who's spent $10k at iTMS deserves to be able to download load them again.

    Apple happily lets everyone and their grandmother download all those huge movie trailers for free, I think they can spare some bandwidth for the guy who just gave them $10,000.
  • by MrMastadon (588607) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @01:38PM (#8998208)
    You're completely, utterly missing the point. The fact is they changed the DRM for songs you ARLEADY own. Whether it is a good or bad change is not the issue.
  • Re:Apple lossless (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jagasian (129329) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @01:53PM (#8998418)
    FLAC is great! I rip all of my store bought CDs to FLAC. Sure the file sizes are larger than lossy formats, but if you are going to pay for the music, shouldn't it be stored in a high quality format?
  • by Binky The Oracle (567747) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:10PM (#8998672)

    The logic is fairly easy to understand: Apple's leadership position in the downloadable music market hinges entirely on its ability to get the labels to license the tracks for download. If Apple doesn't go way out of their way to keep DRM irritatingly hard to work around, the labels yank the music and head over to Redmond which is more than happy to screw the consumer.

    Apple is walking a fine line here... Without the tracks, it has nothing to sell. Without fairly liberal license terms, people just head back to the latest peer-to-peer client and nobody makes money.

    So the logic in breaking backwards compatibility is that if there's no penalty to keeping a 4.2 or 4.0 version running, people will still be able to use Fairplay or stream to non-lan IP addresses while enjoying all of the benefits of the new 4.5 version.

    What's going to end up happening is that everyone will maintain a full library of iTunes versions (like I do) and use the version that's most appropriate for their needs. Want to listen to your home library at work or on the road? Fire up 4.0 before you leave. Want to get rid of the DRM on your tracks? Run 4.2 and FairPlay, then switch back to 4.5 and enjoy the new features.

    I'm sure these older versions will break with a system upgrade down the road, but by then, there might be an even cooler jukebox out there.

    To me, the larger question is how long it's going to take the media industry to schedule a rectal craniotomy and figure out how to deal with the 21st century instead of hanging out in the 1990s.

  • by ryanr (30917) * <ryan@thievco.com> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:16PM (#8998757) Homepage Journal
    Before expenses.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:31PM (#8998951)
    The battery life of an iPod is dependent on the size of the audio files that it is playing back (higher encoding rates means more data must be moved from hard drive to memory cache). Isn't the lossless codec going to kill battery performance dramatically?
  • by MoneyT (548795) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:56PM (#8999295) Journal
    Thankfuly for the rest of us, slippery slope is a logical falicy. Beyond that, there are plenty of things to stop that, namely loss of revenue. Beyond that, there are plenty of ways to get arround the DRM if it comes to that. And plenty of legal ways to boot.
  • by tyrione (134248) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:20PM (#9000347) Homepage
    I wonder if this application inflation is part of some nefarious Jobsian plot to make us buy those gigantic cinema displays...

    No. It's more of a "Let's hope we make the interface spacing easiest on the eyes without overloading the per square inch of screen real estate so not as to alienate individuals who find such crammed UI's as complex and intimidating.

    These are just guesses but ones that have persisted since NeXTSTEP.

  • by big_dog (67336) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @05:03PM (#9000923)
    I cannot believe that is does not allow sorting by the exclamation column (at least on windows). My biggest problem is when I have to remove the underlying files and rebuild the database. It would be nice to sort by all the missing songs and then delete a large chunk of them at once. Or add an option to rebuild the database for you.

    Does sorting work on OS X for anyone?
  • by billcopc (196330) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @06:55PM (#9002211) Homepage
    What ever happened to FLAC, Monkey Audio, and all the other lossless audio compression formats ? Why couldn't apple use one of those rather than reinvent the wheel yet again ?

    They are acting more and more like Microsoft.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @07:43PM (#9002609)
    If you want Nightwish, just go and buy their discs. [nightwish.com] Nightwish deserves better than some crappy 128 kbit/s AACs are. And you don't need individual songs, because not a single song on their albums suck...

    Those who do not know the band, go there [nightwish.com] to listen some samples (as 192 kbit MP3).

"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen

Working...