What is Digg?108 Comments
- SteveMax, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35RTFA. The decision is not to make iTunes work with other OSs, but to make music bought on iTunes playable on players by other companies, like Creative.
- robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29They've been saying this for years and apple hasn't budged. What do they have, 85% marketshare? It's not likely they'll change their policies anytime soon.
- HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24@vandread
The problem isn't anything to do with Linux. If anything, most people on Digg are FOSS advocates. The problem is that people make inane/irrelevant comments (like this one) and stick the word Linux in. The article has nothing to do with porting iTunes to Linux. - RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19FTA: "In many instances, companies simply determine that it's best to lock in customers. Apple Computer adopted that tack when it intentionally made its iTunes Music Store incompatible with music players sold by rivals.
That decision likely helped cement Apple's dominance in the commercial music download business. And with its typical sense of design, Apple's iTunes service is cleaner and easier to use than anything on the market."
The decision had NOTHING to do with the dominance of the music download industry... and had everything to do with maintaining the dominance of the iPod.
This article is poorly thought out, and badly written. - EndrWiggin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Why don't my XBox games work with my PS2???
- Stecchino, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"Apple will be pressed to bring down the walls it has erected."
Pressed by their competition, not the customers. - LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8skellener... you speak as if it is Apple's decision to just flip a switch and turn off DRM entirely today. Apple is not the one to hate and blame if you don't like DRM, because it is not their choice.
DRM was one of the terms of the condition of Apple's contract with the record labels. It was the only way they could have access to the amount of music they have on the store today. If they started selling the same music with no DRM, the music labels would pull the plug on Apple, and then there would be NO downloadable music... period. - EndrWiggin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9At least 75% of consumers don't notice the quality difference or even the DRM. Apple has one of the least restrictive DRMs on the market today.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I think this article is a fairly obvious conclusion.. In a battle for more marketshare, Apple clearly wants to persuade, allure, whatever the consumer to buy Apple products. By making their own hardware interoperate best with other Apple gear, they have created an easy consumer-crossover. I have a hard time believing Apple has no clue that the iPod can't sustain this way forever. They'll have to open up; by that time they're hoping to have the next big marketing sensation. That's good business... even if it's slightly idealized.
- Waterrat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8 It would be the greatest thing since sliced bread,but the day Apple does this is the day Microsoft makes it's
OS open source. - Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Because the hardware is vastly different, REQUIRING different programming techniques to address the strengths/weaknesses of the consoles.
Do artists need to make different versions of songs for different music players? - jholdaway, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@8bit_Hero , on behalf of us apple fanboys we apologize for the apple flameboys. There are more of us who are fans of microsoft and linux than you think.
As for the interoperability the mass market is (unfortunately) not clamoring for such features. And Apple has no benifits by doing so, Infact the only reason to open the iPod is to give business to other music stores.
Interoperability of iTunes however WILL show up as soon as the iPod has reached saturation. Then it makes sense to allow people with creative DAPs, generic DAPs etc. to buy iTunes music. - robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6FTA: "Case in point: the big goof not to embrace interoperability from the very start. All the public-relations palaver in the world can't disguise what everyone who uses computers and software already knows--erecting unnecessary technology barriers has benefited only a handful of companies."
Agreed, this guy apparently didn't read what he wrote in the second paragraph when he included apple in this article since we all know iPod+itunes has REALLY turned out badly for apple. - Cooperjones, on 10/12/2007, -22/+26The writer of this article doesn't know what he's talking about.
COMPANIES MUST MAKE MONEY TO STAY IN BUSINESS.
ANY COMPANY MUST MAKE A PROFIT TO STAY IN BUSINESS
There is nothing "illegal" or "immoral" about making a profit on your good product.
France and the EU are nutso old time socialists who don't understand the free marketplace and don't know how to make good products that people want to buy. You have to remember, in the old Soviet era, it was actually illegal to make a capitalistic profit. It was also INSANE and TOTALITARIAN in its thinking. That's what Apple is up against in this so called legal threat in France. Apple's lawyers should be able to clean the EU's clock if they just stress the philosophic superiority of providing good product in a free marketplace. Apple needs to remember that there were no Nuremberg type trials for most of the old KGB Stasi secret police that are now in the ranks of the EU and they are still fighting this Soviet era Leninist mindthink. Apple's lawyers should just pass out copies of George Orwell's ANIMAL FARM and 1984 to their EU/French opponents. - EndrWiggin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Look up sarcasm in your local dictionary. The point was that, DRMs exist in all forms. You can't get away from it. The idea that you can't play iTunes music on any other DMP besides an iPod is as stupid as saying you can't play PS2 games on an XBox. You guys are complicating a simple argument.
Another example is the fact that I would LOVE to be able to use subscription music services with my iPod, but since I'm a Mac user and I have an iPod, I can't. The service restricts me from doing so. Sounds like we have a double standard here. - skellener, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I love Apple products, but DRM has to go! Epsecially for these tiny little files they sell. I mean, CDs are much better quality and don't have DRM. Why worry about small, low quality files (yes MP3 and AAC are low quality in comparison to full CD quality) when full quality files have no DRM? Yes, DRM must go!
- mscf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ever checked out emusic.com? No DRM and completely legal. It is the only way I download music.
- memebag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Apple makes diddly from iTunes. The profit comes from iPods. Apple has zero incentive to open iTunes to other digital music players. They have the razor blade model reversed because of the huge chunks record labels and credit cards are taking out of that $.99/song fee.
- MCHampster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This guy lost a lot of credibility for me in the very beginning of his article. When he complains about Google not working with other IM systems, I almost spit out my drink. Google uses the open Jabber/XMPP protocols for their IM service. This allows you to both choose your client to use with their system (you don't have to use the Google Talk Client, but any client that supports XMPP like GAIM), but it also allows their IM system connect with other XMPP systems. In fact, they've already opened their system to allow this. Of course, all of the other IM providers use a proprietary and closed system so they don't.
You can find more information about Google's open communications approach here: http://www.google.com/talk/developer.html - terminalpariah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@CopperJones: Why is it that conservatives will do everything to promote a competitive market, then fight tooth-and-nail to defend monopolies and their anti-competitive practices?
The iPod is an excellent product and Apple deserves the insane amount of money they've made off of it. But if a competitor comes up with a superior player, they have to convince iPod owners to give up all of their iTunes Music Store purchases. That's anti-competitive vendor lock-in. Good for monopolies, bad for consumers.
So, how does encouraging competition relate to Leninism, exactly? - skellener, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5CDs have no DRM yet many people still buy them (like me).
- CAJason80, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This sorta' harkens back to same issues Apple had when they first introduced their PC line. You can almost see the same sort of fight gearing up in the portable media world.
Interoperability is something that is going to have to be solved. I don't buy into the argument that DRM inherently will prevent interoperability - I think it's merely the implementation of DRM in its current state that's limiting some of these facets.
Technology has, does, and most likely always will, find a way. - celopes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4While I agree that it would be nice for iTunes to be interoperable, I think you can hardly apply the "the big goof not to embrace interoperability from the very start" to anything related to the iPod or Apple's music business.
They have the lion's share of the market for MP3 players and on line music sales. Hardly a goof.
Granted, licensing AAC would be a good way to let other players be compatible with iTunes and get some more cash out of it. - ph30nix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3if you pay someone enough...i'm sure they'll build it for you.
I don't agree that the iPod is the best mp3 (or AAC for technical terms) player, nor do i fully agree that iTunes is the best music media player. But, when I bought my iPod, i made the purchase with the understanding that I'd be using iTunes and if i wanted to buy music, ITMS. That's the way it is...and I can deal with that. If i don't want to, then i'll get something else. The point is, you buy and iPod for all of its features, in this case, ITMS is a feature of the iPod... and if this is article is the story the writer wants to tell...maybe he should just buy the iPod so he can get the music he wants...or go sign up for napster. All in all, i'd rather pay for DRM'd iTunes music (That i could burn to CDS if i wanted) than RENT napster's DRM files - Onechrisn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3True to some extent. iPod and iTunes keep each other safe in a tight back to back tag-team. iTunes' songs only work on iPod, so you buy an iPod; now having an iPod, using iTunes is the easiest and best way to buy songs.
But the author is right; interoperability is a better deal for us (and maybe even Apple). If it's true that "Apple's iTunes service is cleaner and easier to use than anything on the market" (and I think it is) then they should open it up to the users of all MP3 players, their sales would go way up as many new people could download stuff. I've never been to a shoe store that wouldn't let me buy stuff if I didn't already own Nikes. - EndrWiggin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4To skellener:
Because the record companies would back out almost immediately. - LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Agreed. Customers are not really concerned about interoperability. It is inherently Apple's competitors who make the most ruckus about it... hardly does it make a popular movement to overthrow Apple like this guy implies is going to happen.
Even in the case of France, the law was concieved not at the needs of the consumer, but because Apple's competitors lobbied French lawmakers to enact the law. - babble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Can we please stop calling Apple a monopoly? Can we please stop citing eMusic as a panacea?
1. eMusic's DRM-free MP3 files *play on the iPod.*
2. They also play on a zillion other players.
3. There's also no - none, zero, zilch, nada - major label content on eMusic.
Consequently (use your brains here, kids. It'll make your heads hurt, but think for a minute before spewing more silly and poorly argued points):
1. DRM lock in *is* real, but it's not the earth-shaking, world-ending proposition that tech industry "pundits" want you to think it is.
2. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on digital music sales. The mere existence of eMusic (and DJdownload.com, and Beatport.com and on and on) who are all selling plain vanilla MP3 files - which will play on an iPod, just like they'll play on dozens of other DAP's - means that Apple doesn't have a monopoly position. Monopolies prevent any realistic competition in their given market. A successful product with a large market share doesn't make somethin a monopoly. It just makes it successful.
3. You can whinge and complain about that successful product all you want, but it's pointless, because ... say it with me ... there are lots and lots of alternatives. If you dislike Apple's business model, buy something else. That's possible because ... say it with me ... Apple doesn't monopolize this market. - dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"I heartily disagree. Even for those who would like to put their iTMS purchases on other players, from Day 1 the iTunes Music Store was for people to buy music to play on their comptuer and on their iPods, that's it. They shouldn't HAVE to let people put the songs on any old device. If they do, then maybe that would attract new customers, maybe."
I wasn't making a point to force Apple to the courts, I was just remarking on how this seems similar to Microsoft's situation a few years back. IE was king and Microsoft was trying to make sure only IE would be the browser of choice. Now it seems as if Apple is trying to make iTunes the music application of choice. Both programs were/are effective and popular and punishing the companies for doing too well just didn't/doesn't seem right. - Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You misunderstand the thrust of DRM. It's not there to protect the music, it's there to lock in the average user. Don't listen to the PR, listen to what's actually going on.
I doubt different companies will agree on interoperative DRM, unless the RIAA forces them to. - flickr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Don't mod-down EndrWiggin just because his opinion is different from the one you hold, he makes some very good points.
- skellener, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Read again LaughingMan11 - I love Apple products. I never said I hated Apple I hate DRM. I never said it was Apple's choice. Doesn't change the way I feel. Get rid of it!
- iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ MechaFenris
Just because you couldn't extract IE from the OS, didn't prevent you from installing another browser, or another media player for instance. For the iTUNES analogy though, you can't just play your aac file on any other device becuase of Apple's monopoly on the itunes store/ipod. Apple should have learned from the Mac that they can't keep it closed AND have a high percentage of penetration into the world wide market for long. - redbeard36, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Completely pointless article with almost nothing to back up it's premise. Apple's doing just fine. Thes EU threats are never going to go anywhere.
- maxplanar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Not one record company would have signed up to Apple/iTunes UNLESS THEY HAD STRONG DRM.
If there's no DRM, no one will pay anything for media. That's the reason why the record companies dipped their toe in Apple's download solution - they had a good DRM plan. - ptrcd003, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Anyone else keep seeing stupid comments made by dirtyfratboy? This is like the 10th time I've seen his comments this week, and for some straaange reason, they're all dugg down.
- splurb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I see this argument a lot and I think what a lot of writers seem to miss is that ITMS is run as a break-even/loss leader service to sell more iPods. Why should Apple subsidize other companies MP3 players?
Also, iTunes as a program and a service are capable or running on Mac and Windows, so no exclusivity there and iPods are capable of playing mp3 as well aac, so no exclusivity there. The only issue is when you force a link between the products. While there is a link between the products, both have there uses without each other.
I've owned 3 iPods, my current 60GB is full or music, I've only bought about $20 worth of music from iTunes. I do subscribe to eMusic and I still buy Cd's. So I don't buy this guys argument, Apple hasn't locked me out of anything. They have locked out other mp3 players but only because it would ultimately cost them money.
I think the real solution would be for Apple to license access to ITMS to the other players, which would help Apple pay for it and allow it to develop new features more rapidly. This isn't what the free (as in lunch) crowd wants to hear, but it is a store, it has to operate at a profit to remain open. Currently the profit is really from selling iPods, if this is decreased, the profit will have to come from somewhere else or the store closes. - BillyK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This has always been Apple's way. They make killer apps that only work with their hardware. In the 90s it was DTP. Then it was AV production. Now it's becoming consumer apps. Why isn't anyone upset over the fact that ONLY MAC OWNERS can use .Mac? It's the same thing.
Anyone can use .Mac, OSX or Garageband if you buy a Mac. just like anyone can use iTMS if they buy an iPod.
How is this unfair in any way? There's more online music options for Dell DJ owners. it's not Apple's fault the all suck. - abagchee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Is this guy Charles Cooper for real? Which MBA course teaches that "customers are first"? Its blatantly obvious that he has never even stepped in the shadow of a MBA school, much less a reputed one. The entire concept of business administration is to put the company first but making the customer believe otherwise. That's the secret of making money. As I see it as an MBA myself, Apple has all the right in the world to keep the system proprietary since they were the ones who built the model, created the DRM, sold RIAA and the music labels on the viability of the model, and presented a product before the consumer that's easy and fun to use.
Last time I checked this is not communism that every other company in the world will get to share the fruits of Apple's success. Apple took the corporate risk and that's only who should get the rewards. Remember that Microsoft did not go crying to Apple in the early 80s to make them offer Windows on Apple machines. They succeeded on their own merits and models. If someone has a better player then let them bring it to market and success will automatically follow. - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Once again, the most obvious solution to this problem is the one that is the most unlikely to ever happen. The RIAA needs to accept that no matter what they do, no matter how much they lock things down or sue innocent people, their music will ALWAYS be available for free on the internet. Thinking you can stop this is like thinking that you can turn off gravity. Some very smart people might have theories about it, but it is not going to happen. Once they accept this fact, DRM will become completely unnecessary it all its forms. When a person pays money for something, they should be allowed to do what they want with it. If they do something illegal with it, they should be punished, but the product should not be restricted to make impossible to do anything illegal with it. A car is a useful product, but it can also be used to drive faster than the speed limit, which is illegal. Would you buy a car that was locked down to be physically incapable of driving faster than the speed limit? Probably not. Sure, there will be the few people who never drive faster than the speed limit anyways who would buy it and be really confused that everyone else is complaining about it, but most people will realize that this is ridiculous. The digital music industry needs REAL competition, and a completely open, DRM free file format that will play on any device would do that.
I don't want to hear this "If you don't like itunes DRM then don't buy it I like it so you should too" crap either. I don't buy it, and I never will. Apple has made a cult of their products, creating a bunch of angry zealots who have no response to criticism other than anger and a false sense of superiority. I am not saying Apple is a bad company, or that they make bad products, or that the people who buy it are idiots. I am saying that DRM is one of the worst things ever to happen to music and it needs to be done away with. Apple just happens to be the largest provider of DRM infected files so they get most of the criticism. I am equally opposed to Microsoft DRM or whatever other kinds they have. Unfortunately I don't see any easy way to get rid of this problem any time in the near future, as it would require the complete destruction, or at least major reorganization of the RIAA. - tomzer1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A couple points these Apple iTunes DRM monopoly guys tend to forget that Apple was the first to successfully negotiate with multiple record companies for online digital sales, and that Apple had to appease the cavemen at the record companies and RIAA by featuring a strong DRM system in their files in order to win their trust and their contracts. Not to mention the price points Apple wanted.
Regardless of Apple own interoperability fence ideas, the record companies don't want service interoperability because it allows them to negotiate more royalty contracts with more services individually, rather than having one blanket policy. Thus maintaining the flexibility to increase prices with each new negotiation. Fortunately Apple seems to be following what the market will bear with .99 per song rather than the $2-3 the record companies would now like to have at iTunes.
Now it's ironic that the DRM record companies demanded from Apple is now allowing Apple to force low music prices on the record companies thanks to the iPod's success. - d38as3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Demand from whom?!?
I'm sorry, but to me government special interests do not constitute demanding consumers.
I'm tired of hearing about this *****-pile already, give it a rest or go back to cassette's.
No one ever said you HAVE to buy from itunes, so go to crapster or whatever the hell all the whiny bitchy people use. Next PS3 (sony) will be suing because 360Live doesn't support their hardware.
YOU LOST, and in all likelihood YOU SUCK, so get over it! - mecole21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I ran into a situation where I have a RCA Lyra and one of my family members got me an itunes gift card for my birthday. I was frustrated at first because I couldnt put the music on my mp3 player. I figured out though, if you burn ur ACC files onto a cd using iTunes and then open the CD with Windows Media player and extract them as either a WMA or MP3 you get around the DRM. It worked in my situation because it was just 20 bucks worth of songs, it may not work (because of the amount of time it will take) if you have hundreds or thousands of them though.
- spoier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Stupid story - buried.
The iPod drives demand for iTunes, not the other way around.
At least Apple sells you the song and you OWN it even if it does have DRM, not like these stupid rental/subscription services. - BillyK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can't believe "journalists" are still shining about this. As usual, the insulated print media is two years behind.
Apple's reasons for creating the iPod/iTMS system the way they did are pretty obvious,a nd have been explained to death over the last several years. I don't know if this author is really dumb or just playing dumb. Either way, the end result is...dumb.
FWIW, as an owner of four Macs and four iPods, I'm not particualrly happy that many of Apple's decisions favor closed, proprietary systems, but I think Sony, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Real, Creative, Dell, etc. would have eaten their lunch by now if they had done things differently. Considering the ruthless and powerful competitors Apple has single handedly tackled, what else could they do? - EndrWiggin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ Phyltre
Exactly my point. PS2 games are made for PS2, X Box games are made for X Box. iTunes is made for iPod, Rhapsody and the other guys are made for other players. If you want to listen to the latest songs on your Creative player? Go to Napster or Rhapsody or whatever. Want to listen to the latest songs on your iPod? Go to iTunes. Want to listen to music on both? Buy the CD and rip an MP3, simple as that. You can't tell Apple to open iTunes up to play nice with your player unless you're going to tell everyone else to open up their music services to my iPod. It's a double standard, just going after the big guy. - CecilTheNinja, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You do realize that the iTunes DRM can be easily removed by burning the songs to a CD, then ripping said songs to DRM-less MP3s?
Because, that would, you know...invalididate your point.
For the record, I'm sure that if there were enough demand, Apple would port iTunes to Linux. The problem is not simply market share, but simply the fact that most Linux users are far too computer-savvy to be considered customers for Apple's store. After all, who needs to pay $1.00 per (lossy-encoded) song when you can find a loss-less torrent of an entire artist's works in a matter of hours? Or, better yet, go to a store and buy used CD's. It's legal, loss-less, and damn cheap.
Apple's store isn't actually selling music, they're marketing convenience. Now, Joe McIcantworkcomputers can download songs from teh internetz without the inconvenience of learning how to use P2P networks or Torrents (or, for the matter, legal concerns). He probably doesn't know or care what lossy encoding is, and DRM doesn't really matter when he'll probably only load the songs on his iPod to show his friends how much he loves Bono and the complete works of U2.
In short, the store caters to simpletons, simpletons with cash.
Linux users aren't usually simpletons, hence, they aren't apple's target market.
So, If you really want to use iTunes, make a windows partition like other Linux users. Stop whining simply because your market sector is too small and too intelligent to be considered a market. - MechaFenris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Phyltre:
I think the concept of "exclusives" in the VG world are what he likens the iTunes store to be... It's part of the marketing. You can buy any player you like to play video games, but if you want to play Halo... you have to get an Xbox. You can buy any player to play your mp3 library, but you have to buy an iPod if you want iTunes store music (which is really not that great of an analogy, since 90% of the music is available for download elsewhere from competing stores and the actual CD itself...). If you want to play Super Mario anything, you have to buy a Nintendo console. It's that sort of exclusivity that seems to be a problem only in the arena of the iTunes store. The customers haven't clamored for any interoperability.... the only ones bitching are the competition. Seems to me this is more a case of sour grapes than an actual problem plaguing consumers. :)
The fallacy here is that no one claims Halo exclusivity to the Xbox is abuse of market power or brand recognition (or Metal Gear Solid or Gran Turismo is Sony's PS2 market abuse), but in the same breath they claim the iPod/iTunes store tie-in somehow is inherently wrong and needs to be 'fixed'. I think the Windows/Napster or Windows/Rhapsody should also be included. (yes, you can stream on a Mac, but that's it) If they want barriers removed, let's not just focus on who's on top. Let's open all of them up to interoperability. It'll never work.... The RIAA has too much invested in treating its customers like criminals.
So, from that perspective, I think the argument seems less circular. :) - showgun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is lame.
The reason why. The author offers no proof, or any attempt to offer evidence that supports his claim, "All the public-relations palaver in the world can't disguise what everyone who uses computers and software already knows--erecting unnecessary technology barriers has benefited only a handful of companies. "
- A handful of Very Successful companies.
And who says that compatibility barriers aren't good for the customer? If its a mainstream product most customers don't care unless it works. - cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@RyeBrye "The decision had NOTHING to do with the dominance of the music download industry... and had everything to do with maintaining the dominance of the iPod. "
True, but even you are leaving the wrong impression. The "decision" had nothing to do with "dominating" the online music industry, an everything to do with striking a deal the recording companies would accept for selling music online. Remember, Audible.com sold audio online, and had HORRIBLY degraded formats and funky requirements to playback in a way that people couldn't freely share the files with friends. This was NOTHING NEW.
I'm a bit stunned. This article is written by Charles Cooper, apparently Executive Editor at CNET. CLEARLY he should know that the "tact" Apple took was AT THE BEGINNING, and didn't have anything to do with "locking in" customers. I've heard before that Job's specifically lobbied for NO drm, and in compromise, has tried to ochestrate the MOST freedom of use than any other digital music platform.
The problem with being "interoperable" is not about simply saying "yes", its about weakening the effectiveness of your method by introducing more points of weakness... for peope to CRACK. Apple's existing obligations aren't served by simple saying "okedoke" and letting people strip DRM off like a banana peel. Ignore this salient fact, and you're just whining without direction.
You hear me Charles Cooper? CNET clearly has an agenda. I can't say its a benevolent one either. "Best for the consumer" type of thing. Many people have said that having Apple simply convert to Microsoft isn't really an improvement. However, I'd bet that doesn't matter. On the Microsoft platform... aren't there UNLIMITED downloads? So, if people use the existing technology to read Apple's itunes index... then you can create a download list comprised of all the music someone had on iTunes.
Duh... interoperability. Where's the problem? Now... just try and go BACK to iTunes from Napster... -
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is