Microsoft: iTunes Store too limited for Windows users
Posted by malebolgia on 17 October 2003 - 22:39 · 142 comments & 5392 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by koppit on 17 Oct 2003 - 22:53
- HA for all of his talk about choices, there sure isn't many apart from windows..
-
(9 replies)
#2 Posted by Justin Hancock on 17 Oct 2003 - 22:57
- I'd like to see Microsoft or any other company come up with a Windows solution which includes the best-selling MP3 player, a top-notch jukebox, and a music store, all in one package.
-
#2.1 Posted by alexander777 on 18 Oct 2003 - 03:16
QUOTE (#2.0) 'd like to see Microsoft or any other company come up with a Windows solution which includes the best-selling MP3 player, a top-notch jukebox, and a music store, all in one package.
anyone who reads my posts on here knows I hate microsoft with a passion, however dont think for one second if Itunes is a sucessful that microsoft wont make a better one and snag the entire market from apple they are famous for that.-
#2.3 Posted by Trade Wind on 18 Oct 2003 - 07:37
- Yeah, Windows has Napster 2.0, MusicMatch Download service, and BuyMusic.com now.
There was some buzz about Dell & MTV getting into the music downloading service too for Windows.
Dave Fester is playing it coy since that was PR for the Napster 2.0 pre-release party...but it is well known that Microsoft, as reported a few times by the Los Angeles Times, is well on their way developing their "Microsoft Music" service. -
#2.4 Posted by Tews on 18 Oct 2003 - 11:22
- If MS snags the market as you say, it will be because they will have developed a better method for delivering mp3's that doesn't cut out 90% of the users that download music. Market is driven by supply and demand... If Apple cant or wont meet the demand with increased supply, then they deserve to lose what market share that they have.. thats the way it works
-
#2.5 Posted by tRr on 18 Oct 2003 - 18:43
- No, they will snag it, if they integrate it into there Monopoly OS and then push it in-front of your face every 5 min eliminating all of the market. People won't care (rightly) as long as there is something there that's good enough for them. Even if its crap, its crap that is right in front of them.
I think one of the rules of having a monopoly is that you can't use the monopoly for an advantage in another market. This leaves tough decisions really, because you could argue that its helping computer users, and obviously there is points against that too. I'm not one of these guys that thinks Microsoft should stop innovating either (or at least to start trying
) but having a monopoly comes with some restrictions. I just wish more was determined during the lawsuit and then maybe this conversation wouldn't be needed... -
#2.6 Posted by Justin Hancock on 19 Oct 2003 - 06:22
- You guys must have missed the part where I mentioned a "complete package" ala the most popular MP3 player, an online music store, and a great jukebox; all tightly integrated.
I don't see Microsoft releasing an MP3 player in the near future that would achieve the milestones the iPod has. -
#2.7 Posted by xStainDx on 19 Oct 2003 - 14:36
- and I told you its Napster 2.0
The player is called the Samsung Napster.
The Store is Napster 2.0; the Jukebox is Napster 2.0
The Samgsung Napster MP3 Player is tightly integrated with the Napster 2.0 Software.
if you want the most popular then iTunes with its great jukebox and integration with the iPod.
Its already here, I'm sure what else you're looking for. -
#2.8 Posted by Wickedkitten on 19 Oct 2003 - 15:57
- that has nothing to do with microsoft though, thats between samsung and napster
QUOTE Though Samsung has long been active in the portable digital music player market, the Napster unit's built-in software is lacking. Play lists, for instance, must be generated on the computer. I could find no way to create them on the player.
Also, there was no easy way to play the entire library without first creating a play list on the computer and then transferring it to the player.
As its Napster name suggests, the player supposedly works best with Napster 2.0 music software, which will be available to the public on Oct. 29. I found the prerelease version to be somewhat buggy, especially when transferring songs via the high-speed Universal Serial Bus 2.0 cable.
I tried loading nearly 1,700 songs of varying lengths in the MP3 and Windows Media Audio formats. With USB 2.0, songs transferred very quickly. But when I switched my computer screen to a view that showed transfer status, the program froze after several hundred songs. The problem occurred repeatedly.
The Samsung device also works with Microsoft's Windows Media Player, which is more reliable. (I suspect Napster will have many of the bugs worked out before it is publicly launched.)
Beyond music, the Samsung-Napster player can be used to store regular data files.
-
(6 replies)
#3 Posted by jagedEdge on 17 Oct 2003 - 22:58
- Apple made the iTMS for the the hottest selling MP3 player, the iPod. And "a choice in music services"? Give me a break. I've found every song that I ever wanted on the music store. I'm definitely not complaining. Also, iTunes is not just a Music Store, it's a fully-featured jukebox too. Best jukebox I've ever used, and I'm basing this off of WMP, Winamp 2, 3, and 5, Foobar2000, MusicMatch, and Audion.
Oh, now I see why this guy is giving Apple hell. He's a Microsoft Windows Media fan. Figures.
-
#3.1 Posted by noir on 18 Oct 2003 - 11:17
- What do you expect him to say? That this was the best thing since sliced bread? He works for Microsoft FFS ofcourse he doesn't go say that Apple have a superior service. Take it for what it is, commercial for a similiar WMA based service.
-
#3.2 Posted by abrien on 18 Oct 2003 - 17:43
- I beg to differ. The first song I even looked for on ITMS was not there, so I uninstalled it pretty fast. There's more music out there than just Britney Spears and Beyonce.
-
#3.3 Posted by tRr on 18 Oct 2003 - 19:05
- So if a record store didn't have a CD you were looking for you'd never go back?
So far all of the music stores have had much more music then any store I've ever been in, and it will just get better since they don't have to worry about shelf space. -
#3.4 Posted by Suddenly_Dead on 19 Oct 2003 - 02:23
- I'm not going to uninstall itunes just because it doesn't have my music. Heck, I'm in Canada so it wont let me buy any. However, iTunes sounds really good. I listened to this one stream on iTunes, then Winamp and iTunes came on top. And it has burning, ripping (to AAC even) and sharing of music on a LAN.
Then again, Winamp 5 takes alot less memory, so that's all I use when playing games and such, or playing any media iTunes doesn't do (video, etc). -
#3.5 Posted by Miran on 19 Oct 2003 - 18:09
- You sure they were both at the same bitrate? Because I can't tell the difference b/w streaming in winamp and iTunes...
-
#3.6 Posted by abrien on 20 Oct 2003 - 15:44
- I uninstalled iTunes because I was under the impression that the selection would be more than any stores I can walk into. Not so. If I'm looking for example for Ennio Morricone music, which is a composer who wrote music for thousands of films (spaghetti westerns, The Mission, Lolita, Malena, etc), iTunes has 3 albums from him only!!! I can easily find 30 or so albums from Morricone in any music store I walk into in Montreal. So if they have this mediocre selection for one of the most famous movie composers out there, I won't even bother thinking of iTunes to find more obscure ones.
-
(3 replies)
#4 Posted by Stryder68 on 17 Oct 2003 - 23:07
- It sure beats the choices people had a year ago.
Sorry, but I am still in boycott of the RIAA and the companies and artist that the RIAA represent. I refuse to help fund such an orginization. Although I am glad to see some small steps being taken as far as music distribution being taken out of the 1950s and into the 21st century. -
#4.1 Posted by hoodedone on 18 Oct 2003 - 02:56
- You *do* realize that using iTunes is in no way a method for taking a stand against the RIAA? The label gets about 80 cents of the 99 you pay for a song. Apple and the artist split the rest (with Apple getting more) Not exactly what I'd call progress.
-
#4.2 Posted by Stryder68 on 18 Oct 2003 - 03:36
- I don't use Itunes to purchase music. Sorry, maybe I did not make my self clear on that point. When I said I refused to help support the RIAA, that included not using Itunes or any other download service using RIAA companies. What little music I buy anymore comes from Indy Labels, directly from bands or from various second hand resources like yard sales, pawn shops and second hand CD stores.
As far as the progress goes, I clearly stated that I was talking about the distribution of the music. Not the distribution of funds. -
#4.3 Posted by StrangeTikiGod on 18 Oct 2003 - 05:08
- If you want to make sure artists get a fair cut, you might check out Magnatunes.com. You choose what price to pay, and the artist gets 50% of that. No major names, but there's some pretty cool stuff there. I particularly recommend Williamson's stuff, in the Rock section. Sort of Ambient Synth Rock, and it's pretty sweet.
Oh, and in a vain attempt to be relevant, it's the first playlist I made in iTunes, which I like a great deal.
-
(6 replies)
#5 Posted by Endoscient on 17 Oct 2003 - 23:08
- that made no sense. basically bashing apple for using AAC, and not supporting WMA on iPod / iTunes. ugh.... silly apple for not using microsoft standards LOL
-
#5.1 Posted by nullie on 18 Oct 2003 - 00:42
QUOTE silly apple for not using microsoft standards
Windows Media will soon be an open standard just like MPEG/AAC.-
#5.3 Posted by xRKx on 18 Oct 2003 - 03:28
- Whereas AAC is already an ISO standard audio format. (And, IMHO, nicer.)
-
#5.5 Posted by CheeseCow on 18 Oct 2003 - 19:08
- Nullie, you don't know what an open standard is, do you?
Are you saying Microsoft cannot make changes to WMA without making them public?
-
#6 Posted by timdorr on 17 Oct 2003 - 23:13
- Ok, so apparently MS is saying I'm at a disadvantage because iTunes doesn't support the 20 MP3 players I own and doesn't allow me to play music outside of the application I prefer to play music in... Right, I see how it is...
-
(6 replies)
#7 Posted by foonacha on 17 Oct 2003 - 23:22
- It is true though that Apple could have opened up the facility to transfer to various MP3 players a bit more though...not too bothered about it`s abilities to play WMA format - I exclusively burn in MP3Pro format these days - just would have been nice to be able to use it to transfer files to & from my Jukebox3 - anything`s better than the software that creative ships with that!
-
#7.1 Posted by ~~NeYo~~ on 17 Oct 2003 - 23:30
- Why would they want to do that? ... If they adopted that attitude, We'd be seeing Mac OS X for x86 systems ...
-
#7.2 Posted by Sushubh on 17 Oct 2003 - 23:52
- actually since i cant afford a Mac, I would love that if apple someday decided to make Mac OS X.xx for PCs
-
#7.3 Posted by roadwarrior on 18 Oct 2003 - 00:23
- I keep seeing people say "since I can't afford a Mac". Have you ever bothered to look on eBay? I just picked up a NICE G3 PowerBook (2000 model) for $472. It runs OS X just fine (running a pre-release of Panther right now!). I've seen G4 desktops go for around $500 too.
-
#7.4 Posted by Sushubh on 18 Oct 2003 - 16:49
- i don't believe eBay has a presence in India and Mac's here cost a bit more than they do in the US. So for me, they are still a distant possibilty.
PCs on the other hand, well my neighborhood market guys can make me a brand new PC in that amount of money! and I am not talking abt software yet! 
Unlucky Us... -
#7.5 Posted by roadwarrior on 18 Oct 2003 - 20:04
- Last time I checked, you could buy something on eBay from pretty much any country that had internet access, so long as the seller was willing to ship it to you.
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by radixvir on 17 Oct 2003 - 23:25
- can you import mp3s into itunes? maybe thats what hes saying
-
#9 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 17 Oct 2003 - 23:26
- That's funny.
-
(5 replies)
#10 Posted by Fonze on 17 Oct 2003 - 23:34
- itunes uses AAC files for DRM, almost every other online music store uses WMA with DRM. by not supporting atleast the ability to play these files, Apple has limited their market.
i still don't see why people have such orgasms about the Ipod. my first mp3 player was the Nomad Jukebox, the first generation of HD based mp3 players. Then apple came out with their HD player, the IPod and alot of people loved it. why? i really don't know why. it offered the same stuff that a nomad jukebox offered except it was smaller, looked cooler and costed more.
I downloaded iTunes to see what all the hype was about and i wasn't impressed. the only feature it offers that i haven't seen on other mp3 players is the ability to share music over a network. I'm willing to give apple that, that is a cool feature. but it is definitely not worth switching media players for it, especially since it doesn't play wma files, which i have alot of. -
#10.1 Posted by ~~NeYo~~ on 17 Oct 2003 - 23:41
- well, i can't say i've used ANOTHER Mp3 player ... but i've not a person who couldn't use an iPod, the UI and the way things work is a MAJOR thing in it, for me ... everyone who ever used mine, "sussed" it within 30 secs!
-
#10.2 Posted by Emon on 18 Oct 2003 - 00:41
- with a Nomad Jukebox you can stream you music alot better way than iTunes.
here ya go ..check this out .. http://www.perlogic.net/jbhttp/
Nomad is the best HD based jukebox out there. iPod is for those who has money to spend in useless stuff. -
#10.3 Posted by timdorr on 18 Oct 2003 - 01:37
- Having used both the Nomad and the iPod, I still find the iPod to be a more solid feeling design with a more usable interface. It's more than just the bullet note features on the thing, it's the whole package together.
-
#10.4 Posted by cyclingplatypus on 18 Oct 2003 - 05:11
- You need to check out the Creative Zen Nx or the Zen Xtra...they are both very sweet and the audio quality is actually better than the iPod.
I'm using iTunes w/ XP and maybe it's the novelty but I actually like it better than winamp and WMP. -
#10.5 Posted by Miran on 19 Oct 2003 - 18:17
- In terms of sharing music over the network... I don't see what is wrong with sharing your music folder..? Also in the music datase/library plugin for winamp that I use, you can add network shares as a database (and it recognizes it as so).. It will tell you when it is online, etc...
-
(2 replies)
#11 Posted by Spectre on 17 Oct 2003 - 23:43
- sure, a microsoft guy criticizing apple is an outrage, but when apple claims that itunes for windows is the "best windows application ever written", hardly anybody notices . now THAT is an arrogant statement that one should be upset about. it's like the switch campaign plus one.
-
#11.1 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 17 Oct 2003 - 23:52
- Insult++
-
(3 replies)
#12 Posted by oo420oo on 18 Oct 2003 - 00:02
- The Ipod is the finest mp3 player in the universe. It holds more songs (4500+) and is so easy to use and transferring music from your pc to the Ipod is very fast (true usb 2.0 support). You can also hook the Ipod up to your stereo or whatever. Now they're not cheap, but if you own one, you are stylin!
-
#12.1 Posted by JaggedFlame on 18 Oct 2003 - 03:51
- That's your opinion. I have a Nomad Jukebox, and it holds just as many songs, is just as easy to use, and is just as fast at transferring songs with USB 2.0. I can also hook it up to my stereo. Big deal.
-
#12.2 Posted by thornz0 on 18 Oct 2003 - 06:30
- i love my nomad zen. Usb or firewire and 20gb of space, i think thats 7500 mp3's, and its an older version
-
#12.3 Posted by JaggedFlame on 19 Oct 2003 - 02:40
- I have the 30 GB NX version. It's great, and EAX really does wonders.
-
(4 replies)
#13 Posted by isus on 18 Oct 2003 - 00:17
- haha. this is the reason i don't like windows or pc's in general. the people behind them are such idiots.
i especially liked the whole "When I'm paying for music, I want to know that I have choices today and in the future." yea, let's see the lack of choices when you have an ipod and itms, that use the same format. plus the ipod can run mp3's and a few others. the store has something like 400,000 songs nowadays. it can be used by both windows and osx people.
where is the lack of choice in this? -
#13.1 Posted by Proneax on 18 Oct 2003 - 15:58
QUOTE haha. this is the reason i don't like windows or pc's in general. the people behind them are such idiots.
Do you know what a broad generalization is? Ironically, many people beleive that Macs are for the 'computer illiterate'. I don't think this is true, and you have no reason to think PC users are idiots either.
Personally, I think iTunes is great as a music store. However the fact that the iPod is the only supported device does present a 'lack of choice.' Also, while there are a lot of songs on the music store, there are MANY MANY more that are not. I see this changing in the future as the store gains more support and users and more record companies sign up with apple.-
#13.2 Posted by isus on 19 Oct 2003 - 15:04
- i'm not saying that pc users are idiots.
but it's true, a lot are. -
#13.3 Posted by Jon on 19 Oct 2003 - 16:58
- Err actually yes you did just say pc users are idiots.
And that is a HUGE generalisation, you must be VERY special to believe it.
Where as the statement "most mac users are either elitist idiots, or women who wanted a pretty looking PC" can be largly proven just by reading neowins mac forums.
-
(2 replies)
#14 Posted by Ghostdraconi on 18 Oct 2003 - 00:27
- That's one of the main reasons I will not purchase music from the iTunes store or purchase an iPod. Don't get me wrong both the iPod and the iTunes store/player are great products but they essentially keep you locked into Apple products (they're also missing some features tha I need).
Mr. Fester is right (even while being obviously self-serving). I've seen lots of players out there supporting wma while I only know of the iPod playing AAC. I'd rather not be stuck only shopping at one online music store, after all everybody loves choice don't they
-
#14.1 Posted by Danrarbc641 on 18 Oct 2003 - 00:57
- Sony is coming out with AAC players and more will follow.
The problem is as far as I know the iTMS files can't be transfered to a portable player correctly with anything other than iTunes, and there is only one type of player iTunes supports.
-
(1 reply)
#15 Posted by PureEdit on 18 Oct 2003 - 00:32
- ROFL, using windows stops you from having choices
WMA SUCKS, I am really happy that apple does not support WMA yet
Last edited by 17832 on 18 Oct 2003 - 00:44 -
#15.1 Posted by Danrarbc641 on 18 Oct 2003 - 00:53
QUOTE WMA SUCKS, I am really happy that apple does not support WMA yet
Yeah, more choice in formats in terrible.
Kinda like Nintendo fanboys when a game is canceled. "It sucks anyway, they're doing us a favor"
-
#16 Posted by georgi55 on 18 Oct 2003 - 01:01
- For once I agree!
-
(12 replies)
#17 Posted by eSouL on 18 Oct 2003 - 01:07
- is microsoft's music store opened yet?
-
#17.3 Posted by Chooky on 18 Oct 2003 - 01:25
- Exactly - WMA can be lossless. I'm waiting for a music store with lossless music. 128 on AAC or WMA or anything does not cut it on a decent stereo system.
-
#17.4 Posted by frod on 18 Oct 2003 - 01:25
- uhh no. unless wma changed since the last time i checked it out
wma is based on mp3 so before anything else is done, frequencies below 20hz and above 22khz are cut off.
lossless would mean a file size of about 50% of the original wav file. current lossless codecs that i know of are flac, optimfrog, and monkey.
wma, mp3, aac, ogg, mp3pro, vqf, mp2, mpc ......... all lossy. -
#17.5 Posted by jasondefaoite on 18 Oct 2003 - 01:28
- yes there is ... and the file sizes are H-U-G-E
about 50% of the wav file is correct. In terms of copying that to a portable player, forget it. -
#17.7 Posted by 123_kid on 18 Oct 2003 - 01:45
- WMA isn't based on MP3...they both use modified discrete cosine transform and sub-bands but WMA adds on a noise system to make it sound better at low bitrates and other stuff that were shortcomings found in MP3. I read this from HA a while back so I might be wrong but I'm positive WMA is different from MP3.
-
#17.8 Posted by frod on 18 Oct 2003 - 01:54
QUOTE they both use modified discrete cosine transform and sub-bands but WMA adds on a noise system to make it sound better at low bitrates
based on doesn't mean identical. the fact they both use this would only strengthen my thought that wma was based on mp3.
they took mp3 and made it "better", labeled it as wma, and now they have their own wonderful format.
^ hope you see the sarcasm.-
#17.9 Posted by PureEdit on 18 Oct 2003 - 03:43
- There will probably never be a music store with lossless audio, recording audio with Microphones is lossy from hearing it in person
-
#17.10 Posted by Zombie9920 on 18 Oct 2003 - 04:36
- Some people are so mis-informed. WMA 9 Pro is capable of being encoded in up to 24-bit/96khz. WMA 9 Pro also supports encoding in true 5.1 Multi-Channel positional audio. AAC is another true multichannel audio format.
MP3 on the other hand is 2 channel stereo. MP3 is limited to 16-bit/44khz. Sure, you can play MP3's on multi-channel setups but the format itself isn't multi-channel. When you play a MP3 on multi-channel setups your hardware is mirroring the front left and front right channels to the rear L/R channels and it combines the Front L/R channel mirror for the mono center channel. Sure, it sounds alot better than it does on 2 speaker stereo but there are no variations on your other channels.
Audio in WMA 9 Pro or AAC can have variations like say...drums can be heard on the rear left channel, the lead guitar can be heard on the front left channel, the bass guitar can be heard on the front right channel, the synthesizer can be heard on the rear right channel the vocals can be heard on the center channel. Or, another example. You are listening to a song recorded from a concert. Lets say the vocalist is walking around the stage while he/she is signing. With multi channel audio the voice loudness can shift from channel to channel to correspond where he/she is standing at the moment the lyrics are being sung. Those are just a couple of examples. Of course there are alot more possibilities than that. Anyone who knows what positional audio is capable of already knows what it does. ;P
AAC and WMA 9 Pro are definatley worthy formats. I think Ogg Vorbis is Multi-Channel capable as well. I know it supports encoding in 24-bit.
FYI - AAC is not an Apple format. It is the standard audio layer of MPEG-4. -
#17.11 Posted by Danrarbc641 on 18 Oct 2003 - 05:02
- Another tidbit on WMA 9 Pro. It was built from the ground up, which is why it's not backwards compatable with the older players while vanilla WMA 9 is.
-
#17.12 Posted by frod on 18 Oct 2003 - 09:38
- my bad then, last time i checked out the specs of wma was like wma6 or something. i was never really worth of my time in my opinion.
for lossy i started using musepack. unfortunately it's not very supported even though it's probably the best lossy codec out there in terms of quality per file size.
pure aac has been around for quite some time and was developed by dolby to my knowledge. although apple added stuff to it to for the whole itms stuff.
we need to get rid of this lossy business and start working more on lossless codecs
-
(3 replies)
#18 Posted by frod on 18 Oct 2003 - 01:23
- i'll never buy a song from an online music store, but this is kind of ridiculous.
this is often a major "advantage" that windows users tout. "we have more software/choices/whatever"
i don't know why i'd want a choice between 20 ftp clients when one works or 20 music stores when i can get everything i want from 1.
sure 2 or 3 choices, i dig it. so you don't want to use the itms? cool, don't download itunes. it was made specifically to be used for the itms and to replace musicmatch for ipod functionality on the windows side. obviously the people who are going to use it the most have an ipod or dig the itms.
god forbid a company release software that only works with their stuff. i'm sorry wmp doesn't play aac yet (winamp 5 does, heh). i'm sorry that you think it's okay for music stores to support a pretty much microsoft-only format in their music stores but it's wrong for apple to support only their music store.
/me sighs. -
#18.1 Posted by Devlin on 20 Oct 2003 - 05:27
- Got way aheah of yourself their bubba. the problem is that the Great iTunes gets all the hooplah then gets release on windows and it can't even read a damm wma file??? well how are you suppose to get people to convert to iTunes and the AAC format if it can't even read the stuff on the computer.
I will say that iTunes has some positives, you don't gotta buy it and it looks great
it flows wonderfully on the screen when changing from library to online radion and the browse feature is awsome. my only problem is no WMA. -
#18.2 Posted by frod on 20 Oct 2003 - 06:30
- hmm, maybe you're getting ahead of yourself... what hooplah? there was "soon the itunes music store will be available to windows users". i don't think there was anything else. especially not regarding anything in terms of format support.
i don't think the majority of people use wma anyways. i don't know a single person that encodes into wma or will ever. i personally have never kept a wma file. my friends have never kept a wma file and they are all windows users. it just doesn't make sense to me why people here are making such a big deal about no wma support. but oh well.
in fact, i bet you could take a survey and most people on the street wouldn't even know what a wma file is, but if you mentioned mp3 they would understand. these are the people major companies advertise to.
-
#19 Posted by Endoscient on 18 Oct 2003 - 02:04
- wut he is saying is annoying bc just that the future is with WMA and if you don't have WMA you are insane and you product is going the crash, burn and die a horrible death.
-
#20 Posted by thornz0 on 18 Oct 2003 - 02:26
- you know the part about wma ready portable devices is true though, its a serious pain to get files bought with itunes onto my nomad zen
-
#21 Posted by divertom15 on 18 Oct 2003 - 02:41
- even as a pure windows user im afraid to say this guy is dumb Apple really has something going for them with iTunes, and the iPod
-
(1 reply)
#22 Posted by hoodedone on 18 Oct 2003 - 02:57
- Meh. I'm more annoyed with how the port is an *awful* Windows program, not the best one ever. It's a fine Mac program, but just like Quicktime, is quite hackish on Windows.
-
(1 reply)
#23 Posted by Hills420 on 18 Oct 2003 - 03:26
- MS fool.... I'm sure he'd say WMP is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
-
#23.1 Posted by Devlin on 20 Oct 2003 - 05:31
- I will agree that WMP as a program sucks bigtime, The Library feature suck ass you put in an album say Jay-Z then it loves to sent all your songs all over the artist search with links to the song under 6 differnt artist names I hate that so much and the search feature sucks as well. I got MMJB and it rocks
-
#24 Posted by aristotle-dude on 18 Oct 2003 - 04:20
- It's really good for a first release version of the port.
iTunes works with other mp3 players for mp3. I hate it when people spread fud.
-
(1 reply)
#25 Posted by coats on 18 Oct 2003 - 04:43
- So lets get this straight, can you upload your mp3's to any other mp3 device other than the ipod using itunes/an itunes plug in?
do not know that you can, or any plug ins for microsoft. specifically rio mp3 players. k.
-
(1 reply)
#26 Posted by XPMagic on 18 Oct 2003 - 05:02
- Just a tip for people with Ogg files:
iTunes doesn't support Ogg out-of-the-box, but it's really easy to add support for it, since iTunes uses Quicktime anyway. Just go to http://qtcomponents.sourceforge.net and download the Win32-oggvorbis.zip file. Then unzip the qtx file from the archive into C:WINDOWSsystem32QuickTime, and you have OGG support in iTunes.
-
"Unless Apple decides to make radical changes to their service model, a Windows-based version of iTunes will still remain a closed system, where iPod owners cannot access content from other services," said Fester. "Additionally, users of iTunes are limited to music from Apple's Music Store ... this is a drawback for Windows users, who expect choice in music services, choice in devices, and choice in music from a wide-variety of music services to burn to a CD or put on a portable device. Lastly, if you use Apple's music store along with iTunes, you don't have the ability of using the over 40 different Windows Media-compatible portable music devices. When I'm paying for music, I want to know that I have choices today and in the future."
Support Languages:
Brazilian Portuguese
Chinese Simplified
Chinese Traditional
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hungarian
Italian
Japanese
Norwegian
Polish
Spanish
Swedish
Ukrainian