I predict remastered Beatles ALBUMS are going to be huge! I have no plans to buy DRMed/128kbps downloads though.
Smart move by the Beatles not to do an iTunes exclusive, hats off to them if that's true.
Paying a royalty on iTunes Store and the iPod to remove any restrictions on what Apple, Inc. can do in the music and entertainment business would be a smart move for both parties, "cha ching!" The royalty would be for rights to the name "Apple" and has absolutely no relation to the Zune/Universal tax.
Surely you're not quoting Wikipedia as the authority on this matter!? ...and I'm not calling you Shirley!
Come on, you can't just dismiss everything that's on wikipedia simply because it's from wikipedia. A lot of times they are valid sources, you have to take it on a case by case basis.
Come on, you can't just dismiss everything that's on wikipedia simply because it's from wikipedia. A lot of times they are valid sources, you have to take it on a case by case basis.
Let's just say this: If I were a college professor I wouldn't allow students to use ANYTHING from Wikipedia as a valid source on a paper or project.
Let's just say this: If I were a college professor I wouldn't allow students to use ANYTHING from Wikipedia as a valid source on a paper or project.
True. It provides mostly personal opinions of subject matter, often without peer review or fact checking. I'd balance it against other more reliable sources available.
The good news is that these cd's will finally be remastered after all these years. Most everything else with a few exceptions is already remastered including the solo works of John, Paul, Ringo and George. It'll be expensive to replace the entire colleciton plus Past Masters Vol. 1 and 2 but it'll be well worth it. Then I will bestow my original collection onto someone who will appreciate it.
My entire collection of about 1400 cd's is on an external hard drive at 192 kbps aac vbr. I ripped them all using iTunes and I own a PC for the time being. I've talked two friends into buying a Mac though. I seem very satisfied with this level of quality. And I would feel jipped to pay .99 cents each for 128 kbps aac files like the ones that iTunes sells. And coincidentally, most of the other music services use 160 kbps wma files, which is about the same level of quality. I know on one hand they're trying to make the files small enough to be manageable but the problem could be solved if you could simply have a choice of a few different size options. Ie. apple lossless, 192, etc.
Because of this reason I'd rather purchase the cd, even used to have a hard copy that I can rip from to the jukebox program. On the bright side I love the iTunes software and can't wait for the next major upgrade!! I'd like to see matches on more of those cd covers.
Comments
I predict remastered Beatles ALBUMS are going to be huge! I have no plans to buy DRMed/128kbps downloads though.
Smart move by the Beatles not to do an iTunes exclusive, hats off to them if that's true.
Paying a royalty on iTunes Store and the iPod to remove any restrictions on what Apple, Inc. can do in the music and entertainment business would be a smart move for both parties, "cha ching!" The royalty would be for rights to the name "Apple" and has absolutely no relation to the Zune/Universal tax.
Come on, you can't just dismiss everything that's on wikipedia simply because it's from wikipedia. A lot of times they are valid sources, you have to take it on a case by case basis.
Come on, you can't just dismiss everything that's on wikipedia simply because it's from wikipedia. A lot of times they are valid sources, you have to take it on a case by case basis.
Let's just say this: If I were a college professor I wouldn't allow students to use ANYTHING from Wikipedia as a valid source on a paper or project.
Let's just say this: If I were a college professor I wouldn't allow students to use ANYTHING from Wikipedia as a valid source on a paper or project.
True. It provides mostly personal opinions of subject matter, often without peer review or fact checking. I'd balance it against other more reliable sources available.
My entire collection of about 1400 cd's is on an external hard drive at 192 kbps aac vbr. I ripped them all using iTunes and I own a PC for the time being. I've talked two friends into buying a Mac though. I seem very satisfied with this level of quality. And I would feel jipped to pay .99 cents each for 128 kbps aac files like the ones that iTunes sells. And coincidentally, most of the other music services use 160 kbps wma files, which is about the same level of quality. I know on one hand they're trying to make the files small enough to be manageable but the problem could be solved if you could simply have a choice of a few different size options. Ie. apple lossless, 192, etc.
Because of this reason I'd rather purchase the cd, even used to have a hard copy that I can rip from to the jukebox program. On the bright side I love the iTunes software and can't wait for the next major upgrade!! I'd like to see matches on more of those cd covers.