[Semi-Serious] iTunes...

I will admit, the only two things that turned me off from iTunes initially were the bs DRM they put in the music files and the fact that the songs could only be played on an iPod.

From what I understand, the DRM has finally been removed, probably much to the teeth-grinding from record execs. Does anyone know if ALL the songs on iTunes have had the DRM removed, or do some tracks still have it?

Also, don't itunes songs come with some proprietary format extension that makes it hard to play them on other players, or are there some players that integrate with iTunes seamlessly?

Both the iPod and Zune are prohibitively expensive for me personally, especially when you start talking about battery replacement. If I have to send my item off, or purchase some "kit" just to replace the battery, count me out.

Are there any other services out there that compare with the sheer selection of iTunes? I've been looking at Napster and Amazon, rated number #2 and #3 respectively.

Napster has the largest selection, followed by iTunes followed by Amazon (of your chosen three).

There are also 'fringe' sites like audiojelly.com, 7digital, payplay.fm. I usually just search for songs across several sites, buy the cheapest.

Are you sure? I heard iTunes had like 10 million songs, while Napster only has 7 million.

Napster has a new thing now where you can download 5 free mp3s per month, plus listen to every song they have, for $5 per month. I'll probably end up using a combination of Napster and Amazon.

Even though iTunes doesn't have DRM anymore, it is clear that Apple will try everything they can to make sure you are married to their own devices.

I heard the opposite.

You could take the AACs and convert them. Yes, the whole iJail bit is annoying, but this should work out for you if you're alright with a bit of effort per song.

If you like just listening, you should also consider shoutcast.com, pandora.com, last.fm.

This entire thread is most of the reasons why I don't use Apple products and I'll especially never own an iPod or iPhone

Pay for songs ... *chuckles*

In all serious though, you could just rip the DRM off. Apple says I can burn using a cd burner. Now if I burn using a virtual CD burner technically I am not committing fraud, and if I am I could just burn to a real cd and back into itunes.

Personally, I use Rhapsody - I don't know how well it stacks up to the others, but I find iTunes is, and always has been whenever I've tried it, a pretty crappy and annoying interface.

I've used Rhapsody for at least 5 years. Had a couple of hiccups on the way, but works when I want it: two clicks and I'm listening to Retro-Surf...

The compatible media player list is quite extensive.

"From what I understand, the DRM has finally been removed, probably much to the teeth-grinding from record execs. Does anyone know if ALL the songs on iTunes have had the DRM removed, or do some tracks still have it?"

Like 95% have it removed unless anything has changed in that past couple months.

"Also, don't itunes songs come with some proprietary format extension that makes it hard to play them on other players, or are there some players that integrate with iTunes seamlessly?"

No. AAC is a standard and not proprietary.

"This entire thread is most of the reasons why I don't use Apple products and I'll especially never own an iPod or iPhone "

You won't own an Apple product because the iTunes store has removed DRM and uses a standard codec? What?

Are you deliberately being obtuse? I'm looking at this thread and I understand the context of what they're saying... comprehension skills, yadda yadda yadda.

ogg > acc > mp3

Hardly anything commercial supports ogg though, so acc is the next best thing.

really? is that true because i assumed mp3 was the best, i just dont know why, should i convert my mp3 to acc?

You guys are fools!


It's aac, not acc :D


*smug mode*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Are you deliberately being obtuse? I'm looking at this thread and I understand the context of what they're saying... comprehension skills, yadda yadda yadda.

---

I understand the context very well thank you. And who is this 'they' you mention. The only response I can even remotely see that would make you post that is my response to one person. And his post was that he won't use Apple products because of what was being said in the thread. Now tell me dear sir, what was mentioned in the the thread that would make him say that? And then please tell me where I am wrong.

woooooo burn!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cander

I understand the context very well thank you. And who is this 'they' you mention. The only response I can even remotely see that would make you post that is my response to one person. And his post was that he won't use Apple products because of what was being said in the thread. Now tell me dear sir, what was mentioned in the the thread that would make him say that? And then please tell me where I am wrong.

---

<catfight>reearrr</catfight>

Ah, so you are. Please carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeanMc

woooooo burn!

---

Only first degree. And btw I do the same thing on Apple product forums when someone says something blatently incorrect about a Microsoft product. You should see some of my flame attacks on MacDailyNews.com...before they delete them that is. :rolleyes: I think they ip banned my home.

Alright, alright, let me illustrate. With words.

Observe this little 'exchange' here.

Quote:

---

OtherGuy: "This entire thread is most of the reasons why I don't use Apple products and I'll especially never own an iPod or iPhone "

Cander: You won't own an Apple product because the iTunes store has removed DRM and uses a standard codec? What?

---

If you'll go up and observe the thread preceding that statement by our esteemed friend "OtherGuy" you will see that the reasons that you have attributed to his opinion are reasons which you've based entirely on the conclusions from your own post - a "standard codec" was not discussed earlier, it is something that you have pointed out. By the same technique of attribution, I could say that his reason for not wanting an iPod is "Both the iPod and Zune are prohibitively expensive for Blakk Majik" and I could take this further and say that "OtherGuy" has very strong feelings about the welfare of Blakk Majik. This, my iRate feline friend, is known as mincing words and being deliberately obtuse, which I am currently resorting to in order to make this point, which I hope will not be ignored (or perhaps it will, only posts will tell)

However, that is not the context. The context is a common complaint. There is a common assumption that music files from the iTunes store get you 'married' to their devices. I have been gifted with the ability of contextual comprehension and so have you. By deliberately choosing to take a sentence out of context, you become what is known as a 'lawyer'. You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer, would you? Wait, what, you're a lawyer!?

See? I can do it too.

And there you go. I hope this has been helpful to you. While I understand that you may have strong feelings and brand loyalty and claim to be equally "just" when you're on the other side, it does not become people of our stature and intelligence to fall to such depths in order to score a personal point for the man. We're developers after all, we're smarter than this.

woot look at me defusing situations, I should get a special hat!

ok i take it back..... just seen mendhaks post.

You can still get a special hat for that. Except it'll be a jacket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

Alright, alright, let me illustrate. With words.

Observe this little 'exchange' here.



If you'll go up and observe the thread preceding that statement by our esteemed friend "OtherGuy" you will see that the reasons that you have attributed to his opinion are reasons which you've based entirely on the conclusions from your own post - a "standard codec" was not discussed earlier, it is something that you have pointed out. By the same technique of attribution, I could say that his reason for not wanting an iPod is "Both the iPod and Zune are prohibitively expensive for Blakk Majik" and I could take this further and say that "OtherGuy" has very strong feelings about the welfare of Blakk Majik. This, my iRate feline friend, is known as mincing words and being deliberately obtuse, which I am currently resorting to in order to make this point, which I hope will not be ignored (or perhaps it will, only posts will tell)

However, that is not the context. The context is a common complaint. There is a common assumption that music files from the iTunes store get you 'married' to their devices. I have been gifted with the ability of contextual comprehension and so have you. By deliberately choosing to take a sentence out of context, you become what is known as a 'lawyer'. You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer, would you? Wait, what, you're a lawyer!?

See? I can do it too.

---

It appears that even as you quote the offending post, you have missed the context.

Quote:

---

This entire thread is most of the reasons why I don't use Apple products and I'll especially never own an iPod or iPhone

---

Entire thread. That is the key phrase. What are the most discussed issues being discussed in the thread? DRM and being tied to the iPod. Since there is no other mention beyond the first about pricing issues, that point becomes moot with the context of the rest of the thread. No one else is discussing price. So what does that leave us with that relates to the iPod/iPhone? 2 out of 3 issues. Now which 2 did I decide to address because they were the ones that were wrong and no one else was properly addressing it?

If anything the only issue with my post was its rather rude use of sarcasm to make my point. Which I always do. I still maintain that my response is the the proper context.

Quote:

---

And there you go. I hope this has been helpful to you. While I understand that you may have strong feelings and brand loyalty and claim to be equally "just" when you're on the other side, it does not become people of our stature and intelligence to fall to such depths in order to score a personal point for the man. We're developers after all, we're smarter than this

---

It is actually necessary. When you have people who will pick and choose arbitrary or incorrect reasons to say they won't use product A over product B and confront them about it, the common response or thinking from those people is 'Well he is just a fanboy of product B so ignore him.'. Heck look at your own words I just quoted and see how dangerously close you come to that exact thinking. Brand loyalty? Claim to be equally just? This has nothing to do with brand loyalty. This is about technology loyalty. What really doesn't become people of our positions is to thumb our noses at anything outside a narrow scope of technology and to not bother with any actual research of the issue beyond what others in the same technology bubble will tell you. Especially when the same arguments can be made for either side. Even the link to the Mactard site in your signature, as facetious as it is, still highlights the problem that people are stuck in this bubble of incorrect thinking about Apple products and its users and sites like that keep people in said bubble. Funny as it may be and accurate for some type of people, it only fuels posts like the one we are discussing.

is it a white jacklet??

I guess I should just explain what I said previously. By "this entire thread" I mean literally the title "[Semi-Serious] iTunes...", specifically "iTunes" which is why I'll never own an iPod. But if I were to use iTunes then I've got QuickTime and whatever the hell bonjour is (I don't think that proram even does anything) and of course quicktime wants safari to be installed too. So all of this means I'll never use iTunes and thus I'll never use Apple's software.

If Apple wasnt so intent on forcing their users to install all of their software instead of just one or the other I would be more open minded about their company.

Oh and Apple's proprietary mp3 codec is annoying, but it's an annoyance that can be circumvented.

I like how I'm referred to as "OtherGuy" I somehow feel 'othered' now :)

Edit: oh and Cander, mendhak you both got it wrong, but Cander you were further off by quite a bit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cander

It appears that even as you quote the offending post, you have missed the context.

---

Oh, I'm sorry.

music is still an area where if you like the album.. buy the CD.. then you can mux it to whatever format suits your devices, pc, or whatever...

If you just want a single from an album, I personally go with the MP3 route, as it is just more compatible.. I generally go for 320k quality in MP3s...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuggaloBrotha

I guess I should just explain what I said previously. By "this entire thread" I mean literally the title "[Semi-Serious] iTunes...", specifically "iTunes" which is why I'll never own an iPod. But if I were to use iTunes then I've got QuickTime and whatever the hell bonjour is (I don't think that proram even does anything) and of course quicktime wants safari to be installed too. So all of this means I'll never use iTunes and thus I'll never use Apple's software.

If Apple wasnt so intent on forcing their users to install all of their software instead of just one or the other I would be more open minded about their company.

Oh and Apple's proprietary mp3 codec is annoying, but it's an annoyance that can be circumvented.

I like how I'm referred to as "OtherGuy" I somehow feel 'othered' now :)

Edit: oh and Cander, mendhak you both got it wrong, but Cander you were further off by quite a bit

---

I will conceide the argument then if that is the case. But still I should mention some factual problems with your points.

Apple does not have a proprietary MP3 codec. The use the standard ACC or AAC whatever, I always get it mixed up. Sony uses the codec. AFAIK even the Zune uses it. I know my XBOX 360 handles the codec just fine.

As far as as installing all their software. Quicktime does not require Safari. The Apple updater recommends Safari which I agree is annoying. But it is not required. And as far as the others go it really is no different than what Microsoft does. It just isn't as noticable when so much of their software is tied together and already on your machine when you install Windows. See if you were on a Mac you wouldn't notice it because all of it comes pre-installed like Windows does. You just don't see it when viewing from the other side of the fence.

As a proponent of conclusion-jumping and blurting out sensationalist exclamations, I have been most amused by this litany of misunderstandings, context confusion and bloody-mindedness.

As for iTunes, I have no real opinion, other than the PC software is probably the single obstacle to me using it. It simply does not work well enough. The very idea that one should be forced to download 70MB of third-rate software simply to act as a downloader is, to me, offensive.

I have an iPod Nano (one of the later ones that don't catch fire). As a gadget it is excellent, the sound quality is nothing to write home about, unsurprisingly given the limitations of the hardware (size, weight etc).

Getting tracks from the internet isn't rocket science, but the software manages to explode on the launchpad anyway. Also the "auto-update" thingy has never worked, not once. It fails to install quicktime properly (why it needs that is something hidden from me).

iTunes, it seems, cannot to obtain album information for CD's I'm burning myself. It's not as if "Black Sabbath's Greatest Hits" is a particularly exotic album...

The really depressing thing is that iTunes is still probably the best of a fairly dreadful selection of internet based music collections.

Apart from that, iTunes is great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wossname

As a proponent of conclusion-jumping and blurting out sensationalist exclamations, I have been most amused by this litany of misunderstandings, context confusion and bloody-mindedness.

As for iTunes, I have no real opinion, other than the PC software is probably the single obstacle to me using it. It simply does not work well enough. The very idea that one should be forced to download 70MB of third-rate software simply to act as a downloader is, to me, offensive.

I have an iPod Nano (one of the later ones that don't catch fire). As a gadget it is excellent, the sound quality is nothing to write home about, unsurprisingly given the limitations of the hardware (size, weight etc).

Getting tracks from the internet isn't rocket science, but the software manages to explode on the launchpad anyway. Also the "auto-update" thingy has never worked, not once. It fails to install quicktime properly (why it needs that is something hidden from me).

iTunes, it seems, cannot to obtain album information for CD's I'm burning myself. It's not as if "Black Sabbath's Greatest Hits" is a particularly exotic album...

The really depressing thing is that iTunes is still probably the best of a fairly dreadful selection of internet based music collections.

Apart from that, iTunes is great.

---

Just to keep this going as I know you love it, iTunes sucks. The Windows version anyway. It always seems to run like a pig and have lots of issues. The Mac version seems to run like a champ. Not that surprising really. Office for the Mac sucks equally as bad, but on Windows it runs great.

It's almost as if each respective company has some vested interest in discrediting the other company's products.

Almost...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wossname

It's almost as if each respective company has some vested interest in discrediting the other company's products.

Almost...

---

No way! Apple and MS are BFF!

Thats just not true and you know it look at mono for linux and how much support Microsoft offers them its practiclly no different than its windows counterpart.

augh I feel sick after all that sarcasam......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cander

No way! Apple and MS are BFF!

---

It does explain their almost synchronised business ethics.

Good point.

...must...keep...dying...thread...going...aannnnggghhhhh!...

Never fear wossy I am here to offer bumpage!

Good man!

Just as an update.

I went to WorstBuy and picked up one of these:
http://www.amazon.com/SanDisk-Sansa-.../dp/B0015L0T68

It's only 4GB, but I doubt there's even 4gb of music in existence that I really like. I also have a 4gb microsd card, so I'm sure I won't run out of space for music anytime soon. And if so, there's already 16gb microsd cards, with 32gb due out soon. Very clean and simple UI and compact.

I also decided to against Apple and iJail, and am currently enjoying the Napster To Go service. I buy my favorite songs on MP3, but "rent" tracks that I'll just listen to once in awhile.

The device I bought works perfectly with Napster, and Napster's interface is pretty easy to use.

All in all, I am satisfied with both the player and service I have chosen. I've been searching for some rather obscure tracks, and have been able to find all of them. Most of the popular (regardless of time period) tracks and new tracks are 256k, but some of the more obscure mp3's I've found have been 128k at best, which is still fine with me.

The only thing I don't like, and this applies to all music services, is the variable pricing crap. Most songs on Napster are .99, but if you want something that's REAL popular, you're paying 1.29. Luckily, there has only been one song so far that I've had to pay that much for.


However, it still feels just plain weird actually BUYING music from Napster. My how things have changed in the last decade.