Talk:ITunes/Archive 1

message: I moved some stuff over from iTune, specifically, the Music Store stuff. Maybe this should have its own page, or just be destroyed. If someone has strong feelings, they should probably feel free.  -- Evercat
:I removed the stuff about feature length films and clarified some references to the iTunes Music Store.  The feature film thing just seemed to be Music Store specific and adds nothing new to the functionality of the iTunes player.  66.194.52.249 19:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note about content move

message: I removed the following, because it is too much detail for an encyclopedia, and in a short time will be nothing more than a minor blip in the otherwise smooth rollout of the iTunes for Windows app. For those to whom this info is interesting, they can easily find the same info and a lot more on the tech support pages at Apple.com, they won't be looking for it here.GRAHAMUK 04:14, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Note about removing non-notable content

message: ITunes 5.0
I moved the Motorola ROKR to new features added to 4.9 since the minumum requirements for the phone are 4.9, I also am unsure about Album Reviews. I believe it is just an added features of the iTunes music store and not of the client itself.  I don't have 4.9 any more on this system, but I think I still have it installed on my system at work.  Can anyone check and see if this is the case or not?  If it does show the Album reviews then it might need to be either removed or maybe add a date line for new features added to the iTunes music store. --Quazywabbit 05:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for clarification features

message: I removed the bit about the iPod Download plugin.  The nonsense in the online media about it was blown out of all proportion.  The guy who wrote it signed a license agreement with Apple, decided to break the agreement, so they went after him.  Blocked his plugin, told hosts to stop hosting his plugin etc.
The people who all said that Apple was trying to stop people pulling songs off their iPods were all blatantly wrong.  This was about the guy breaking the agreement, nothing else.  If it was about pulling songs off of iPods, why is Apple not going after their own employees who write software that does the same.    AlistairMcMillan 18:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, you can copy tracks off your iPod simply by using the terminal command line - the directory structure for the songs is not encrypted or even especially hidden. There are numerous shareware programs that take advantage of this. Graham 22:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPod Download Plugin Scandal!!!!!!!!!! 

message: It seems to me that the line "iTunes is largely based on SoundJam MP, a popular commercial MP3 application distributed by the Macintosh software company Casady & Greene." is inaccurate now. I'm not suggesting that it be removed entirely, but it should be moved to the history section or reworded a bit.
:Agreed - the code base must have moved on a fair bit since then. Graham 05:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Largely based" 

message: Should it be added to the article that it's impossible to sort by filename in iTunes? --Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason] 12:14, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
:This hasn't yet struck me as a limitation, but I also have no strong objection to your listing this if you fee the need.
:Atlant 13:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - and some early adopters of the new-fangled horseless carriages complained that they didn't come with whip holders or grain storage bags. :)  The point is that filenames are almost completely irrelevant for a collection of songs. In fact it is an accident of implementation that the songs happen to be stored one per file - i.e. that the per-song files exist at all. The songs might have been all stored in one big database blob. - Hayne 15:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  impossible to sort by filename 

message: Apple purchased the rights to the SoundJam MP software and hired the three programmers who created SoundJam. Didn't they already work for Apple? --Sdfisher 19:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple's Hiring 

message: iTunes is an audio player, written by Apple Computer, for playing and organizing digital music files, and purchasing digital music files protected or encumbered by FairPlay digital rights management. I understand the need for impartiality, but "protected or encumbered" just sounds stupid. It's poor style. I don't think Wikipedia should let neutrality trump good writing. There should be a way of phrasing it so that "protected or encumbered" can be snipped. --anon 13:56, 1 April 2005
:What would you suggest?  The fact that Apple calls their DRM "FairPlay" seems to have eliminated any possibility of NPOV I think?  Neutrality should always trump style, but I agree there is room for improvement here (style should get creative to adhere to neutrality).  We could perhaps split it into two sentences, first one could use "protected", the second one could describe the issue of DRM in some detail.  This article needs more info (synopsis) about the issue of DRM but I am lazy. zen master    T  22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  taking sides 

message: I've found out that it is a GDI call for alpha blending that is required for iTunes.
* Windows 3.1: Doesn't run at all, not even with Win32s.
* Windows NT4: Nope, doesn't work on Windows NT4 at all. Windows NT4's GDI doesn't have the alpha blending call, so it refuses to run (same reason it doesn't run on 256 color mode in Win2K/XP (alpha blending is not available under 256 colors or less)). And I always thought it didn't work on Windows 9x because it was built for NT-based Windows OS's...
* Windows 9x: Tries to start up, but gives a general protection fault in GDI.EXE.
* Windows Me: Turns out it actually DOES work on Windows Me. Windows Me's GDI has the call for alpha blending, unlike Win9x, Win3.1, or WinNT4.
* Windows 2000: Worked under 16-bit, 24-bit, or 32-bit color depths, but gave a "This program requires 16-bit color or better" message under VGA or 256-color modes.
* Windows XP: See Windows 2000.
* Windows Server 2003: I tried it on Windows Server 2003 and it works okay, although there is some bugs.
--KelisFan2K5 23:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  iTunes tested on multiple Windows versions 

message: I think the article should contain both adjectives, current version has neither, I think both adjectives should be included because then it conveys there are two possible ways of thinking about the issue, whereas the current sentence conveys the POV that Apple's DRM "plays fair".  I will add more info (a synopsis) on the DRM controversy (relating to iTunes/Play Fair) to this article later. zen master    T  23:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  protected and encumbered 

message: Are there future plans for iTunes to recommend songs based on your current ratings?  Monkeyman 16:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendations 

message: The article does not mention pricing. Tracks are 99c, but how much are whole albums, if they have a standard price at all? --Tom Edwards 09:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pricing 

message: I moved the Motorola ROKR to new features added to 4.9 since the minumum requirements for the phone are 4.9, I also am unsure about Album Reviews. I believe it is just an added features of the iTunes music store and not of the client itself.  I don't have 4.9 any more on this system, but I think I still have it installed on my system at work.  Can anyone check and see if this is the case or not?  If it does show the Album reviews then it might need to be either removed or maybe add a date line for new features added to the iTunes music store --Quazywabbit 05:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was horribly worded. An option was added to the Info window (Options tab) for individual tracks labeled “Skip when shuffling”. —Frungi
"Album reviews" — this was removed from the new features list for iTunes 5. Apple hired more album reviewers for iTunes Music Store, which can be accessed via older versions of iTunes and it is not a feature of iTunes 5. Album reviews has existed in iTMS prior to the release of iTunes 5. —Tokek 04:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITunes 5.0 

message: Discussion is ongoing at this page.  TheJabberwock 22:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential external link 

message: The following lines were removed:
* "iTunes does not support aacPlus Internet radio streams as of version 5.0."
* "iTunes radio does not support aacPlus, Windows Media, or RealAudio."
**Listing codecs that are supported is more succinct than listing what codecs are not supported (HE-AAC, APE, SHN, RA, etc.). What is supported is already mentioned in the article, making the removed two lines redundant.—Tokek 08:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one’s responded to this in a couple weeks, I’ve added a mention of HE-AAC. (It supports AAC, but not HE-AAC. If it supported Windows Media but not lossless WMA, would that be worth mentioning?) —Frungi 18:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed lines 

message: The changelog takes up an enormous amount of space for something that isn't much more than an infodump. Move it to ITunes/changelog? --Tom Edwards 15:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the page to iTunes version history -- Chuq 08:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changelog on seperate page? 

message: The Windows version of iTunes can automatically convert unprotected WMA files to other audio formats, but it does not support direct playback or encoding of WMA format. 
Why doesn't either Mac or Windows version play WMA?  Why doesn't the Mac version transcode WMA?  Will either the Windows or Macintosh version of iTunes transcode WMA files for synching to an iPod?  Windows Media Player will optionally transcode songs from one format when syncing to a player, ie, I store all my music as WMA-Lossless because I have lots of computer storage but when syncing to a portable I want 128k WMA.  WMP does this, does iTunes? SchmuckyTheCat 19:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the place to ask support questions or direct complaints, try Apple.  DamienG 23:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: (The following is pure speculation on my part.)The Mac version probably doesn’t transcode WMA because it’s a proprietary Microsoft format, and iTunes and QuickTime (the playback technology) are both made by Apple. WMA support is part of the Windows OS, so iTunes simply accesses that and encodes it to AAC. The Mac OS has no such support, so iTunes has no way to decode WMA on Mac. There are other Mac programs that decode WMA files, try Apple’s OS X downloads page or other download sites.As for your other questions: iTunes (for Windows) transcodes WMA files instead of playing them, so obviously they wouldn’t be WMA on an iPod. As far as I know, there’s no way to have iTunes automatically transcode everything on syncing. —68.235.158.57 00:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I just tested the transcoding of WMA on the Mac version of iTunes 6.0.1, and it was unable to perform the conversion.  The statement is still true.  --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 05:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WMA

message: Through an updated version of Quicktime users can create their own videos for the iPod, including digitized versions of programs recorded on their VCR if they wish to take the time and effort and save the cost.
What does this mean? —Frungi 18:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think it means that users who have QuickTime Pro rather than the basic freeware QuickTime can convert their videos to the required formats so they play on an iPod (iPod accepts MP4, H264 and something else), it cannot play WMV, AVI or MOV (original quicktime format). Videos cannot be converted in iTunes. I don't think mentioning VCR is relevant, it's very time consuming and costly to convert analog video from a VCR to digital on a computer. — Wackymacs 07:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VCR to iPod? 

message: Someone edited the page to reflect an iTunes version 6.0.1.3, and after some research I discovered this version didn't excist in English. I found the version available on the iTunes Japan site, but that would be a different language and available for edit on that Wikipedia site. iTunes version 6.0.1 is the current version avialable in the United States.
:Click on "Help|About" in iTunes 6.0.1 (at least in Windows) and you'll see that the full version number is indeed 6.0.1.3.  raekwon 02:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Says 6.0.1 (3) here on a Mac in the UK. AlistairMcMillan 06:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  iTunes Version 

message: Apple calls the files "Protected AAC" , calling them something else because someone doesn't like DRM is introducing that editor's POV. AlistairMcMillan 11:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The files are copy protected—you can't copy them.  Leaving it just as AAC implies you can treat them the same way as an MP3 file.  I fail to see how this industry and consumer term is POV. Barefootguru 18:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Also agreed. I can't see how calling it what Apple calls it is POV. Especially when that term accurately describes the fact that the format is protected from normal copying and gets the point across simply. Copy protected is a longstanding very common word. - Taxman Talk 20:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We should additionally use a word that signifies another way of looking at the DRM issue, namely "encumbered" (or mention the issue/controversy in more detail). Also, there is no "Protected ACC" article, the format is officially known as "ACC". If you support quoting from Apple marketing feel free to make it a direct quotation plus citation. zen master T 20:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the format is called AAC (Advanced Audio Codec).  Second of all, that's what the format is called when it doesn't have a DRM wrapper around it.  As said above, simply calling it AAC and linking it to the AAC article implies that the files purchased from iTMS are true AAC files, which they are not — they are AAC files with a FairPlay wrapper, which is pretty important to note.  The FairPlay article (to which the Protected AAC link directs you), pretty clearly delineates what that wrapper does — it's a very good article.  --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 20:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Using the word "encumbered" would be introducing POV.  As Taxman and Bbatsell have already said AAC files with a FairPlay wrapper are referred to as "Protected AAC" files.  Everyone refers to these files as "Protected AAC" files.  Just for a laugh, try a Google search "protected AAC" returns about "190,000" results.  "encumbered AAC" returns drum roll 47. AlistairMcMillan 20:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "Protected AAC" article so at the very least we should call it whatever the article we are wikilinking to is called. The format is AAC, I simply wikilinked to the AAC article, what is wrong with that? I would be ok with using "PlayFair DRM" or PlayFair. Though separately, it's rather Orwellian that apple gets away with calling DRM as somehow being "fair" and the masses mindlessly accept it, at the very least it obfuscates the details of the DRM controversy which is a good thing for record companies and apple but bad for consumers. zen master T 21:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Protected" isn't obfuscating a thing, it makes it quite clear to anyone that understands anything about the issues that it is a form of copy protection, which in the case of a digital file format means it is DRM. Very quickly from following those links one can get to the controversy over DRM, but this particular instance in this article is not the place for that POV or that controversy. - Taxman Talk 21:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "protected AAC" article... "AAC DRM" could work? My position is that "protected" there is not only wrong given the non direct wikilinking, it also would require a caveat of some sort or more detail. zen master T 21:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zen-master, what it comes down to is that you're the one pushing an agenda here. Orwellian or not, that's the term that is used. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Haikupoet 00:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are right why isn't there a "protected AAC" article then? If pristine neutrality is an agenda then yes I am pushing an agenda, but I mostly digress for now. What is wrong with using "AAC DRM" or even just "PlayFair" as that is where the wikilink goes to? zen master T 00:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: AAC.  Repeat after me:  A A C.  A A C.  Advanced Audio Codec.  That's 2 'A's followed by 1 'C'.  A A C. Barefootguru 07:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, fixed, thx. zen master T 08:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected AAC