are you saying that ipods dont load mp3s ????
or is it that all commerical download sites dont use mp3 but various controlled formats
jesus how stupid are these people - tie you to their hardware
or go to kazaa and use the hardware you want
now im not saying that the second option is the right one - but plenty of other people will - i thought itunes was going to legitimise downloading - not provide help to the p2p systems
EDIT i just looked - it does play mp3s
it also plays apple lossless - can you down these from itunes ??
Beware iTunes!
-
suburban grilla suburban grilla https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=31256
- KVRian
- 636 posts since 29 Jun, 2004 from dogbed
[quote="S_A_P"
Honestly- I would *maybe* purchase a uncompressed wav format of music from an online vendor, but paying for something that has been encoded in a format like Mp3 is ludicrous to me. Really it just proves that most people who listen to music dont really give a shit about it. The would rather have a hard drive full of what people say is the "latest and greatest" new shite than taking the time to research and find some music you really like...[/quote]
well said.
Honestly- I would *maybe* purchase a uncompressed wav format of music from an online vendor, but paying for something that has been encoded in a format like Mp3 is ludicrous to me. Really it just proves that most people who listen to music dont really give a shit about it. The would rather have a hard drive full of what people say is the "latest and greatest" new shite than taking the time to research and find some music you really like...[/quote]
well said.
-
- KVRian
- 711 posts since 16 Mar, 2002 from Mostly in planes and hotels. Terra Firma: Seattle, WA
All the legal downloads use some form of DRM, which is tied to a player type. iTunes is tied to the iPod, Sony is tied to the walkman, RealPlayer to the Samsung Player (I think) and so on. All play MP3s, but the downloads are in a protected format, e.g secure AAC, Secure WMA and so on.ericj23 wrote:are you saying that ipods dont load mp3s ????
or is it that all commerical download sites dont use mp3 but various controlled formats
jesus how stupid are these people - tie you to their hardware
or go to kazaa and use the hardware you want
now im not saying that the second option is the right one - but plenty of other people will - i thought itunes was going to legitimise downloading - not provide help to the p2p systems
EDIT i just looked - it does play mp3s
it also plays apple lossless - can you down these from itunes ??
-
- KVRAF
- 2107 posts since 12 May, 2003 from gone
iPods load standard mp3s (in any format - VBR, CBR, any bitrate, whatever), AAC and WAV files just fine
they read info from ID3v2 tags, and if they don't find one, they look for an ID3v1 tag
and you can use any one of a number of freeware apps to copy music files back to your PC (or Mac) from your iPod, you just cannot do it in iTunes
and if you purchase 'secure' music files from the iTunes store, while using a 'registered' iPod, those files will only play on your iPod, but I cannot understand why you would want to
they also have up to 60gb hard-disks and 15hour batteries that will easily give you 17hours if you know the special trick
i don't know of any other portable music player that even comes remotely close...and normally I despise apple, but the iPod is one amazing piece of kit.
anyone who is dissing the wheel and interface has so obviously never even held one in their hand. instant love
they read info from ID3v2 tags, and if they don't find one, they look for an ID3v1 tag
and you can use any one of a number of freeware apps to copy music files back to your PC (or Mac) from your iPod, you just cannot do it in iTunes
and if you purchase 'secure' music files from the iTunes store, while using a 'registered' iPod, those files will only play on your iPod, but I cannot understand why you would want to
they also have up to 60gb hard-disks and 15hour batteries that will easily give you 17hours if you know the special trick
i don't know of any other portable music player that even comes remotely close...and normally I despise apple, but the iPod is one amazing piece of kit.
anyone who is dissing the wheel and interface has so obviously never even held one in their hand. instant love
-
- KVRist
- 268 posts since 28 Apr, 2003
there's a fairly easy workaroundto decrypt the purchased iTunes AAC files and convert them to whatever format you choose.....in case anyone hadn't mentioned it yet.
-
- KVRAF
- 2107 posts since 12 May, 2003 from gone
there ya have it
hard to beat human ingenuity
hard to beat human ingenuity
-
- KVRer
- 21 posts since 9 Jun, 2003
I don't know much about iTunes, but I bought a device similar to the iPod called the Rio Karma for my girlfriend at Christmas. The reason I bought it was that it plays Ogg Vorbis format. I am gradually copying all our music collection over to Ogg V on my second hard drive (for personal use only!). For those of you worried about sound quality, I've got to say that the quality of Ogg is great, much better than the equivalent file size mp3 (whats more it is an open source codec). The Karma is an excellent device and she finds it great to be able to carry around so much music at any time. Another thing for better sound quality, I got her a pair of Shure E2c headphones. These are like 'in-ear' monitors so a bit unusual, but they have the advantage of blocking out noise such as the screech of the Underground or traffic - maybe a bit dangerous for crossing the road tho'
-
- KVRian
- 1238 posts since 12 Mar, 2002 from Kentucky
It does not bother me since I now have an iPod. I thought iPods were expensive until I went through three Rio players. I'll never buy anything from them again. The iTunes software is great and I use it on my work computer. I try to avoid buing songs from any of the online companies because 128 is not acceptable quality.
All I need to be happy is one more VSTi.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2336 posts since 13 Oct, 2002 from Terra Firma
I just think it's amazing to read some of the posts here defending Apple's marketing strategy.
It's like those people have become corporate robots who just mouth the propaganda that these multinational companies spout out:
1. Copy protection of music is acceptable!
2. Music should be locked into specific hardware!
1. There is no evidence that musicians are losing money due to the sharing of music. This practice has been occuring since the invention of home taping. Home taping did not kill music. The big five multinational music companies are raking in massive profits. Their business model is wrong because the multinationals rip off the musician and the consumer. Not because of music sharing. There is no evidence that copy protection stops people sharing music. Copy protection has been proven to detrimentally affect the quality of the music.
2. Music has never been locked into specific hardware until pay for downloads went online. This practice is used to sell specific hardware and to prevent competitive practice. It is also meant to lock consumers into a brand which is creating a monopoly that is anti-competitive. Microsoft tried to do this with their OS and browser. This was judged illegal under US law.
People who support Apples right to do this are supporting illegal and monopolistic business practices that MS was prosecuted for by the US government. They are also supporting the right of companies to form monopolies and control access to music and to control the distribution of music.
People who support these business practice's are supporting the development of further exploitative and controlling monopolies very much like the huge multi-nationals that have traditionaly ripped off musicians and consumers. These monopolies will reduce the range and quality of music available to us. They will further homogenise music and restrict access to innovative and interesting music in order to make profit by pushing the manufactured dross they have control over.
If anyone thinks this is meant to benefit musicians who come to KVR then I despair. It is supporting the death of musical independence and innovation. I think people who agree with and support the business practices of Apple and the like should put down their musical instruments and put on a suit so they can join the company in further exploitation of musicians.
Exploitation of musicians may have been going on for a long time but that doesn't make it right and it certainly doesn't justify the further development of monopolies and the increasing levels of control they are placing on musicians and music lovers (described as 'consumers' by greedy corporations.)
If anyone is offended by my remarks then please understand that Apple is using a marketing strategy in which profit is placed before music. I think music and musicians should be the most important part of the equation - not lining the pockets of share holders. I find that offensive. It's certainly not what enthuses me to listen to and make music.
It's like those people have become corporate robots who just mouth the propaganda that these multinational companies spout out:
1. Copy protection of music is acceptable!
2. Music should be locked into specific hardware!
1. There is no evidence that musicians are losing money due to the sharing of music. This practice has been occuring since the invention of home taping. Home taping did not kill music. The big five multinational music companies are raking in massive profits. Their business model is wrong because the multinationals rip off the musician and the consumer. Not because of music sharing. There is no evidence that copy protection stops people sharing music. Copy protection has been proven to detrimentally affect the quality of the music.
2. Music has never been locked into specific hardware until pay for downloads went online. This practice is used to sell specific hardware and to prevent competitive practice. It is also meant to lock consumers into a brand which is creating a monopoly that is anti-competitive. Microsoft tried to do this with their OS and browser. This was judged illegal under US law.
People who support Apples right to do this are supporting illegal and monopolistic business practices that MS was prosecuted for by the US government. They are also supporting the right of companies to form monopolies and control access to music and to control the distribution of music.
People who support these business practice's are supporting the development of further exploitative and controlling monopolies very much like the huge multi-nationals that have traditionaly ripped off musicians and consumers. These monopolies will reduce the range and quality of music available to us. They will further homogenise music and restrict access to innovative and interesting music in order to make profit by pushing the manufactured dross they have control over.
If anyone thinks this is meant to benefit musicians who come to KVR then I despair. It is supporting the death of musical independence and innovation. I think people who agree with and support the business practices of Apple and the like should put down their musical instruments and put on a suit so they can join the company in further exploitation of musicians.
Exploitation of musicians may have been going on for a long time but that doesn't make it right and it certainly doesn't justify the further development of monopolies and the increasing levels of control they are placing on musicians and music lovers (described as 'consumers' by greedy corporations.)
If anyone is offended by my remarks then please understand that Apple is using a marketing strategy in which profit is placed before music. I think music and musicians should be the most important part of the equation - not lining the pockets of share holders. I find that offensive. It's certainly not what enthuses me to listen to and make music.
-
- KVRAF
- 2107 posts since 12 May, 2003 from gone
wow munchkin, talk about spreading false information
did you actually read any of the posts from people who like iPod?
YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROTECT YOUR MP3s TO USE AN IPOD
you have the option, just like with any other mp3 player, when you buy downloadable music
but this ISN'T apple here
seen Microsoft's 'Play Anywhere' campaign for secure media?
seen sony's portable players that only play sony's proprietary format?
yes, Apple's store sells secure media. it's the only way the labels would let them sell it online
but if they were forcing DRM down your throats (like MS is trying to do), their iPod would NOT play any raw, license free mp3. but it does, just fine. and always will.
normally, i'm pretty much 100% against apple, but you picked the wrong fight with the mp3 thing. Apple has done more to promote the use of STANDARD, NON PROTECTED mp3 files, of anyone in the world ever.
if you don't like their store, don't use it. I don't like it, i don't use it. The other music stores (and the physical ones in your neighbourhood as well) f**k the artists just as bad. It's the LABELS, the entire cartel structure of the recording industy, hardly Apple for god's sake. Oh but what a shiny target they make eh?
Apple's mp3 player hardware is the world's best, and it's completely open, unlike most of the competition. seems like you are trying too hard to find an excuse to engage in some name calling and anti-corporate FUD in my opinion, smarten up
(what operating system does your computer use anyway, you "corporate robot people" you?)
you need to get your facts straight before you mouth off on this one mate
did you actually read any of the posts from people who like iPod?
YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROTECT YOUR MP3s TO USE AN IPOD
you have the option, just like with any other mp3 player, when you buy downloadable music
but this ISN'T apple here
seen Microsoft's 'Play Anywhere' campaign for secure media?
seen sony's portable players that only play sony's proprietary format?
yes, Apple's store sells secure media. it's the only way the labels would let them sell it online
but if they were forcing DRM down your throats (like MS is trying to do), their iPod would NOT play any raw, license free mp3. but it does, just fine. and always will.
normally, i'm pretty much 100% against apple, but you picked the wrong fight with the mp3 thing. Apple has done more to promote the use of STANDARD, NON PROTECTED mp3 files, of anyone in the world ever.
if you don't like their store, don't use it. I don't like it, i don't use it. The other music stores (and the physical ones in your neighbourhood as well) f**k the artists just as bad. It's the LABELS, the entire cartel structure of the recording industy, hardly Apple for god's sake. Oh but what a shiny target they make eh?
Apple's mp3 player hardware is the world's best, and it's completely open, unlike most of the competition. seems like you are trying too hard to find an excuse to engage in some name calling and anti-corporate FUD in my opinion, smarten up
(what operating system does your computer use anyway, you "corporate robot people" you?)
you need to get your facts straight before you mouth off on this one mate
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2336 posts since 13 Oct, 2002 from Terra Firma
In order to straighten out your 'facts' Muff, two things:
1. I did not exclude from criticism other companies who follow Apples monopolistic strategy.
2. iTunes prevents music that it sells from being played on other hardware by using copy protection.
Fortunately someone has decided to challenge Apple over this issue. I think that's commendable and very brave. I would love to see the same thing happen to MS.
Every other player plays mp3's so the iPod is not alone in this. The iPod did not pioneer mp3. There were mp3 players before iPod came into existance. Apple did not pioneer this format. The fact that Sony has had to support this format demonstrates that Apple had no other choice if it was to be successful. It was good business practice to support mp3 rather than altruistic behaviour on the part of Steve Jobs or Sony.
Apple does have a choice whether or not to encode music with copy protection specifically for the iPod. This decision has been taken by Apple. None of the big 5 could've enforced such a specific form of copy protection. If that were the case then why have Sony been allowed to incorporate the mp3 format? For that matter why does the iPod allow the mp3 format if the big 5 are able to dictate copy protection so specifically for Apples hardware? Apple is responsible for this marketing strategy and trying to excuse this by blaming the record companies:
1. I did not exclude from criticism other companies who follow Apples monopolistic strategy.
2. iTunes prevents music that it sells from being played on other hardware by using copy protection.
Fortunately someone has decided to challenge Apple over this issue. I think that's commendable and very brave. I would love to see the same thing happen to MS.
Every other player plays mp3's so the iPod is not alone in this. The iPod did not pioneer mp3. There were mp3 players before iPod came into existance. Apple did not pioneer this format. The fact that Sony has had to support this format demonstrates that Apple had no other choice if it was to be successful. It was good business practice to support mp3 rather than altruistic behaviour on the part of Steve Jobs or Sony.
Apple does have a choice whether or not to encode music with copy protection specifically for the iPod. This decision has been taken by Apple. None of the big 5 could've enforced such a specific form of copy protection. If that were the case then why have Sony been allowed to incorporate the mp3 format? For that matter why does the iPod allow the mp3 format if the big 5 are able to dictate copy protection so specifically for Apples hardware? Apple is responsible for this marketing strategy and trying to excuse this by blaming the record companies:
Excusing more exploitation...Muff Wiggler wrote:yes, Apple's store sells secure media. it's the only way the labels would let them sell it online
...because musicians have been exploited in the past. And then presenting total misinformation based on unfounded opinion...Muff Wiggler wrote:The other music stores (and the physical ones in your neighbourhood as well) f**k the artists just as bad. It's the LABELS, the entire cartel structure of the recording industy, hardly Apple for god's sake. Oh but what a shiny target they make eh?
...does not validate any of the points you make. It suggests that you need to get your facts straight by reading about why this lawsuit has been brought against Apple in the first place.Muff Wiggler wrote:Apple has done more to promote the use of STANDARD, NON PROTECTED mp3 files, of anyone in the world ever.
-
- KVRAF
- 2107 posts since 12 May, 2003 from gone
nope. look at sony's. it won't play mp3's. It's not the first, and won't be the last.munchkin wrote:Every other player plays mp3's so the iPod is not alone in this.
well no shit, I say thanks LAME, Fruenhofer IIS, Winamp. Apple made it portable with reasonable storage size for most people's full collections. No one else ever has.The iPod did not pioneer mp3. There were mp3 players before iPod came into existance. Apple did not pioneer this format.
lol, skipping record time. ok, yet again, sony DOESN'T support mp3. Look at their players. Nice try, except that, uh, well actually it wasn't, sorry.The fact that Sony has had to support this format demonstrates that Apple had no other choice if it was to be successful.
uh... not sure what you are saying. yes, it would have been bad to release a portable music player that only supports MODs I guess...It was good business practice to support mp3 rather than altruistic behaviour on the part of Steve Jobs or Sony.
You are confusing the store with the hardware. The store had no choice, the hardware gives you full choice, like I said, AVOID THE f**king STORE unless you really need some major label shit like U2 and really don't want it to come on a plastic disc. This wasn't Apple trying to force shit down your throat. It's them wanting to sell you U2 and Christina Aguilera, and the labels screaming 'only with DRM'. Yes there are unprotected stores on the web, but you can only get minor labels and small releases from them. This is fine by me, as I don't want U2 anyway. And if I wanted to pick this fight, I'd go to the Artists who are signed to these big labels and the labels themselves, not their resellers who have no choice and only want to make a buck. Apple didn't invent DRM, didn't push for it, didn't create these deals that f**k the artists. they want you to listen to popular songs on useful hardware easily. Period. They have to play the label's game. Your anger is mis-placed and you are making some fundamental errors of judgement here.Apple does have a choice whether or not to encode music with copy protection specifically for the iPod. This decision has been taken by Apple.
again, uh dude, check your facts. Sony players don't play mp3s.None of the big 5 could've enforced such a specific form of copy protection. If that were the case then why have Sony been allowed to incorporate the mp3 format?
sorry, whatever point this is trying to make is lost on me. Apple allows the mp3 format because they want iPod users to be able to play ANY music they have, bought or stolen, DRM'ed or not. Wise up man... the store (acting as redistribution for the label's products) has no choice. the hardware has full choice.For that matter why does the iPod allow the mp3 format if the big 5 are able to dictate copy protection so specifically for Apples hardware?
yeah it's Apple's fault. In fact, I bet they were taking money from the artists long before they built their first computer. Their computer business is just a cover for the fact that they control the RIAA, yeah, that's it. Sure. Before Apple and iTunes, the labels were a fair and loving safe heaven for the rights of recording artists. Whee.Apple is responsible for this marketing strategy and trying to excuse this by blaming the record companies
yes, EXACTLY, see I knew somehow you were paying attention. Now to that second statement... that was supposed to be directed at yourself, right?...because musicians have been exploited in the past. And then presenting total misinformation based on unfounded opinion...
Those voices are supposed to stay in your head mate, not go out to the rest of us.
Yes I know all about it. Buddy signed up for the iTunes store (for iPods) and is pissed off that he can't play his DRM'ed tunes elsewhere. You know what? I'm pissed off that I can't get a porsche engine into my Volkswagen, but it's no surprise. I'm hardly gonna sue anyone who makes an engine that won't fit into my car....does not validate any of the points you make. It suggests that you need to get your facts straight by reading about why this lawsuit has been brought against Apple in the first place.
OK, I know this is all quite difficult and upsetting for you, Apple using moronic shills like me to make your fancy labels look bad, so i'll point out that this is the important part, so please read slowly and carefully:
iTunes Store - the place to go if you want to purchase legal U2 mp3s for your iPod.
Force DRM off of there? You won't be able to get U2 mp3s anymore then - unless you steal them, or buy the plastic platter in the store.
Then we are all winners, again, 'whee', right?
Why won't you be able to get them without DRM?
Not because of Apple, because of the deal U2 and their LABEL have. Period. Show me an online store selling non-DRM'ed U2 songs. You can't. Does Apple control those stores too?
Or could it be that the labels actually dictate who sells their property, how, and for how much? I know, tough one to absorb, that.
It's the LABELS, and it always has been. Take it up with them. Oh yeah, and stop confusing Apple's major-label music reselling business for iPod users with the capabilities of the iPod hardware itself.
Now if iPod only played music that came from the iTunes store, or had DRM, or didn't come from a competing online store, your argument would hold a lot of water. But it doesn't, so it won't.
See ya
-
- KVRAF
- 2107 posts since 12 May, 2003 from gone
it's kinda like being mad at the guy who runs the corner store, because all the f**king food for sale is full of poison and chemicals
a pissy young anarchist with his shit together will know to go to the source... you cut off one of the hydra's heads - well he just grows another, doesn't he?
a pissy young anarchist with his shit together will know to go to the source... you cut off one of the hydra's heads - well he just grows another, doesn't he?
-
- KVRAF
- 12235 posts since 18 Aug, 2003
The iRivers are pretty nice, play MP3, WAV, OGG, WMV and have a line-in for recording to either MP3 or WAV. Same price roughly as the iPod (a little cheaper actually, and physically sturdier to boot).Muff Wiggler wrote:Apple's mp3 player hardware is the world's best, and it's completely open, unlike most of the competition.
I picked one up instead of a minidisc for doing field recording, but has worked great as MP3 device, too. Have to admit I'm not in love with the iPod's construction. Not awful, just not in love with it. I take no contention with the rest of your points, just thought I'd mention these. The new iRivers even have colour screens for picture viewing, but they may have gotten rid of the record to WAV function (which would suck IMO).
Regarding the anti-competitive, still would like to know how this situation differs from console-specific video games ('Awww hell nawww' doesn't count. Near as I can tell the contention isn't over the special place music has in society, rather illegal corporate activity).
Cheers,
Steve
-
neverwhere2012 neverwhere2012 https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=23348
- KVRist
- 420 posts since 30 Apr, 2004 from grand rapids, michigan
DAMN! i'm calling my lawyer first thing in the morning, microsoft is gonna let me play xbox games on my PS2 or they're f**king dead! and if i can't get zelda on my xbox... f**k man... the whole world is going to hell...shamann wrote:Regarding the anti-competitive, still would like to know how this situation differs from console-specific video games
