I friggin hate iTunes

bwg

why does it constantly lose where my files are?

why does it randomly move my perfectly well tagged files to the 'Unknown Artist' folder? If i add them back to the library, it understands them just fine?!!

why is it not smart enough to realize that i'm re-adding files already in my iTunes folder and not create copies of them?

ARRRGH.

i feel better now.

Andy

bigwebguy wrote:

why does it constantly lose where my files are?



ARRRGH.

i feel better now.

iTunes on My Macs works just fine n Dandy

DavidTO

Andy wrote:

iTunes on My Macs works just fine n Dandy

Me, too!

DanielB

bigwebguy wrote:

why does it constantly lose where my files are?

why does it randomly move my perfectly well tagged files to the 'Unknown Artist' folder? If i add them back to the library, it understands them just fine?!!

why is it not smart enough to realize that i'm re-adding files already in my iTunes folder and not create copies of them?

ARRRGH.

i feel better now.

i just keep all of my stuff in my LimeWire folders and don't even bother with Itunes stuff.... i figure if its meant for a Mac and made by macs, it must be sabataged for PC's

Khaos

I hate itunes and all other music services because they only offer lossy compression music for sale.

Apple has a lossless compression, but will it sell its itunes in that format?NO!:bash Microsoft offers a lossless wma compression. Does anyone sell that format for music? NO!:splat Good forbid if someone actually sold the open source lossless flac format.

If I'm going to buy music, I want to be able to convert it too it's full format if I want. I don't care if I don't have the ears to hear it, I've always paid for uncompressed, so if I buy compressed, I want be able to uncompress it.

I own a Creative Zen instead of an Ipod. Same quality of sound and a lot cheaper at 40GB than the comparable ipod. The interface is not as nice, but it isn't so bad that it warrants paying an extra $160 for the ipod. Also. the battery is removable, meaning I can buy extras.

My wife wanted to get a flash based player for when she works out. Ipod shuffle has no screen and the Nano model's battery may last 18 months if you're lucky. She landed up getting the Sandisk player for cheaper that allows use with a normal AAA.

Apple is like Sony. Heavy into proprietary to try to soak up all your money and very expensive. Some times you get what you pay for, other times you're getting ripped off.

DavidTO

DanielB wrote:

i just keep all of my stuff in my LimeWire folders and don't even bother with Itunes stuff.... i figure if its meant for a Mac and made by macs, it must be sabataged for PC's

Limewire is stealing.

DanielB

DavidTO wrote:

Limewire is stealing.

but its only against the law if you burn it into CD's and sell it

DavidTO

DanielB wrote:

but its only against the law if you burn it into CD's and sell it

No. It's illegal. Period. And corrosive to the soul.

DanielB

DavidTO wrote:

No. It's illegal.

seriously? didn't know that. dad said it was only illegal if its burnt and sold

DavidTO

DanielB wrote:

seriously? didn't know that. dad said it was only illegal if its burnt and sold

From riaa.com:

Online piracy is the unauthorized uploading of a copyrighted sound recording and making it available to the public, or downloading a sound recording from an Internet site, even if the recording isn't resold. Online piracy may now also include certain uses of "streaming" technologies from the Internet.

DanielB

DavidTO wrote:

From riaa.com:

Online piracy is the unauthorized uploading of a copyrighted sound recording and making it available to the public, or downloading a sound recording from an Internet site, even if the recording isn't resold. Online piracy may now also include certain uses of "streaming" technologies from the Internet.

whoopsies:uhoh

StevenV

just 'cause the riaa says something doesn't make it true, and their wording is inflamitory at the least. the easy test though is the same as you'd apply for someone using one of your images - was permission to copy given either explicitly or by way of monetary exchange? if not, it's theft.

wxwax

They've sued enough people to make their point: file sharing is illegal.

4labs

I love i-tunes but just a headsup to everyone... BACKUP your files. I fried my harddrive and even tho I had my reciepts for the hundreds of dollars of music I had purchased I was hosed. I have to tell you it was really annoying to get a message "You have already purchased this song are you sure you want to purchase it again" everytime I redownloaded a song.

StevenV

wxwax wrote:

They've sued enough people to make their point: file sharing is illegal.

they've made their point, but their point isn't completely accurate.

file sharing is not illegal.

sharing of a copyrighted work without permission is illegal.

DavidTO

4labs wrote:

I love i-tunes but just a headsup to everyone... BACKUP your files. I fried my harddrive and even tho I had my reciepts for the hundreds of dollars of music I had purchased I was hosed. I have to tell you it was really annoying to get a message "You have already purchased this song are you sure you want to purchase it again" everytime I redownloaded a song.

I have a friend who had an IT person reformat their drive without backing up. It took a call to Apple, but they put all of her purchased music back in her download cue.

wxwax

StevenV wrote:

they've made their point, but their point isn't completely accurate.

file sharing is not illegal.

sharing of a copyrighted work without permission is illegal.

Did that need to be said?

cabbey

wxwax wrote:

Did that need to be said?

There is an amazingly large number of people who don't get the difference, so yeah, quite often it does need to be pointed out that file sharing is in itself, not illegal. It only becomes illeagal when you don't have the rights to share the content.

Netgarden

cabbey wrote:

There is an amazingly large number of people who don't get the difference, so yeah, quite often it does need to be pointed out that file sharing is in itself, not illegal. It only becomes illeagal when you don't have the rights to share the content.

My BIL suggested Itunes because my winmx didn\'t work anymore, and I, at this point did not mind paying a little for a favorite song, having tons of others from my old Napster and winmx.

I have to say, for the general purpose of buying tunes, Itunes is great for the average consumer.

But when it took ALL of my tunes, changed their format, file, etc I about spit a brick! I knew it offered to do that and had chosen to not associate it with my older music. It did it anyway. I was so darn pi$$ed! Now I can't send them via email, because of the legality and file name change. MediaPlayer and Real Player have also joined the bandwago. Although I figured out a way to mail some of them via yahoo mail and my folders.
Boy, I get real ticked when Windows or any other downloaded program starts making decisions for me. Drives me nuts, so I always read the agreement. Sometimes to no avail.

I live with Itunes, but not because I like it pulling that crud on us! I believe they let you email a song 3 times and then thats it. So annoying. I need to get back in there and change some things again. Its so time consuming!

DavidTO

Netgarden wrote:

But when it took ALL of my tunes, changed their format, file, etc I about spit a brick! I knew it offered to do that and had chosen to not associate it with my older music. It did it anyway. I was so darn pi$$ed!

Not to excuse the program, but it is totally possible to not have iTunes do that, and you must have had a preference set wrong for the result you wanted.

luke_church

bigwebguy wrote:

why does it constantly lose where my files are?

ITunes gave me the impression that it was shoddily written junkware

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=20526

You'll feel better once it's taken a merry trip off your computer.

Luke

luke_church

Khaos wrote:

I hate itunes and all other music services because they only offer lossy compression music for sale.

This argument is problematic. There is, by definition, no such thing as a lossless digital format.

Once the loss caused by the compression algorithm is below human perception, then why worry?

CDs are lossy, DVD-Audio is lossy. Your ears are lossy.

Welcome to the stinking horrible analog world :

(My mind is feeling like a quantization artefact today...)

Luke

DavidTO

I've got to say that I love iTunes. The only complaints I've heard are from PC users, so maybe it's not as well written for PCs. I love that I can drag a song to an email and the link is sent that opens the song in iTunes. Sharing, the store, it's all very intuitive and powerful. Fantastic.

iTunes for Mac is an app that Apple got right. Very right.

luke_church

DavidTO wrote:

iTunes for Mac is an app that Apole got right. Very right.

Fair enough :

DanielB

DavidTO wrote:

I've got to say that I love iTunes. The only complaints I've heard are from PC users, so maybe it's not as well written for PCs.

thats what i'm thinkin...

mine works just about as well as my desk is conservation friendly.

Shay Stephens

Hmm, is there anything apple you don't love? You are a living promo ad for apple, you know that right?

DavidTO wrote:

I've got to say that I love iTunes.

DavidTO

Shay Stephens wrote:

Hmm, is there anything apple you don't love? You are a living promo ad for apple, you know that right?

Yeah, there are things I don't love. And even some of them are made by or written by Apple.

I don't like iPhoto, and I've said so many times. So there.

Well, actually, I've said that it's useless for RAW, even though it's advertised as supporting RAW, which it does, technically. But as for Jobs' statement that it's the best RAW converter out there (he made that statement when the RAW support was introduced, long before Aperture), he was full of hooey then and now about iPhoto being useful for RAW.

iPhoto is fine for jpeg shooters who want the most basic, basic program that's relatively easy to use. But I don't love it, that's for sure.

And lastly, Shay, yeah, I bit.

4labs

DavidTO wrote:

I have a friend who had an IT person reformat their drive without backing up. It took a call to Apple, but they put all of her purchased music back in her download cue.

Not only did I call Apple but they charged me 50 bucks or so for the service call just to tell me sorry . I would use another service but I rely on itunes too much and hate change..

DavidTO

4labs wrote:

Not only did I call Apple but they charged me 50 bucks or so for the service call just to tell me sorry . I would use another service but I rely on itunes too much and hate change..

That's ridiculous and unacceptable. I would complain vociferously, deny the charge on the credit card, etc. Seriously, they have no right to charge you $50 for that. The $50 charge is for help with trouble shooting problems. That wasn't trouble shooting, that was merely a clarification of the service. On top of which we already know that they will reinstate your purchased music, as my friend did in the last couple of months.

Khaos

luke_church wrote:

This argument is problematic. There is, by definition, no such thing as a lossless digital format.

Once the loss caused by the compression algorithm is below human perception, then why worry?

CDs are lossy, DVD-Audio is lossy. Your ears are lossy.

Welcome to the stinking horrible analog world :

(My mind is feeling like a quantization artefact today...)

Luke

It's more about paying money for quality earbuds by Shure and headphones by Sennheiser and having Klipsch speakers, that I don't want the crappy 128 bit rate. Sure Apple's AAC sounds better than MP3 at that rate, but it's still crap.

I tried the Variable Bit Rate, it still isn't as good as the full 320 bit rate.

I use APE for my compression on my PC. All CDs I purchase get ripped to this format. I can also "rip" backwards. This means the compression method, by a complex algorithm, eliminates redundant bits going to the left and right channels and uses a single bit. It does however keep track of this and all the bits can be put back.

Lossy, eliminates all the bits we supposedly can't hear. Since they are eliminated, they can't be put back.

What's for sale out there now is crap in audio quality.


I got screwed paying for the same music twice when I replaced all my albums with CDs. Now I feel I'll be getting screwed buying crappy bit rate compressed music and later on something better arrives.

I belive that's the huge issue with the music industry and movie industry. We think we're buying content and they think we're only buying a delivery system.

Hollywood is licking their chops for High Definition. Now they will be selling the same movies people bought on normal DVD but in HD. Same movie, just a higher resolution.

I will not pay for the same music again if the SACD or audio DVD becomes the norm, and I will not repurchase the same movies I own when they get released in high def. It's no different than you getting charged to convert your bought music on CD to MP3 to listen to in a portable player. The argument for higher quality can't be made, because you can argue they are charging you for convenience for the portablity of the mp3.

I will be perusing the underbelly of the filesharing world when all this happens.

I won't take anything I don't already own in another format, but I will replace what I have now. To me that's fair. It's no different than you getting charged to convert your bought music on CD to MP3 to listen to in a portable player.

It will be interesting how this plays out in the courts. The timelines between new technologies were long enough for most consumers not to care. Now everything is coming out so quickly, there will be a backlash. The sad thing is our goverenment is forcing the HD issue, so who do you think the courts will side with?

bwg

whoa, this thread got a head of it's own....


i still friggin hate iTunes.