 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
iPod users' broadside at Windows Media | |
|
||
| Time: 11:14 EST/16:14 GMT | News Source: Macworld UK | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Apple's success in transforming its iPod into the market-leading music player appears to have undermined some CD protection technologies based on Microsoft software. Last month Velvet Revolver album 'Contraband' hit number one in the US charts - despite the fact it used copy protection and wouldn't play on an iPod. Cnet reports that the two companies behind the most-used copy protection technologies are "scrambling to create new versions of their technologies that are compatible with Apple's popular digital music player". And their efforts could "ultimately be a setback to recent Microsoft strides into the music business". |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 12 of 12 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 2960 (156.80.64.137) at Wednesday, July 14, 2004 12:30:32 PM |
| Wash, Rinse, Repeat ? |
| #2 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at Wednesday, July 14, 2004 03:38:50 PM |
|
Did anyone notice that Apple's recent press release bragged of "100 million itune DOWNLOADS". Notice that is "downloads", not "downloads SOLD". BIG difference there.
Didn't some press get out a few months ago that said Apple's 100 million song giveaway with Pepsi, resulted in only 6 million songs actually being given away? Pathetic. They can't even give it away. |
| #3 By 11888 (64.230.11.168) at Wednesday, July 14, 2004 04:53:59 PM |
|
Fug it. This post was edited by MrRoper on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 at 16:54. |
| #4 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at Wednesday, July 14, 2004 05:32:54 PM |
|
mooresa, can you name another US digital music store that can even claim 6 million total downloads?
Yeah, pathetic. |
| #5 By 3653 (68.54.230.116) at Wednesday, July 14, 2004 07:30:09 PM |
|
sodacracker - "can you name another US digital music store that can even claim 6 million total downloads?"
Let me try jerk... with 30 whole seconds of research... http://www.rhapsody.com/about.jsp?sect=press&subsect=release&page=rhap11millstreams070103 Hmmm, thats 11 million (thats slightly more than 6 million) total downloads and in a SINGLE MONTH. Its called a "eat all you want" subscription. Next time, do your own research. And stop wasting our time with your ignorance. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 at 19:31. |
| #6 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at Wednesday, July 14, 2004 08:15:21 PM |
| Subscriptions are not downloads, mooresa. Did Rhapsody get 11 million dollars for those downloads? Uhh, no. Come on, man, you know the difference between downloads and subscriptions. |
| #7 By 3653 (68.54.230.116) at Wednesday, July 14, 2004 09:21:42 PM |
|
read your challenge homey...
"can you name another US digital music store that can even claim 6 million total downloads?" I did. In fact, I named one with 11 million DOWNLOADS, not subscriptions. Are you tired of trying to confuse and ready to chalk this one up to your general ignorance and total lack of objectivity with technology? This post was edited by mooresa56 on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 at 21:22. |
| #8 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at Thursday, July 15, 2004 09:56:36 AM |
|
#8 - just another middle aged geek still living in the basement of his parent's house - stealing songs off the 'net - pathetic.
You are a thief. 'nuf said. |
| #9 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at Thursday, July 15, 2004 02:52:56 PM |
|
"Are you tired of trying to confuse and ready to chalk this one up to your general ignorance and total lack of objectivity with technology?"
Not at all... I was very specifically refering to purchased downloads whether or not you were aware of it... After all, you are the one whinign about free or non-revenue-deriving downloads... With Rhapsody, we have no idea if they made 1 million or 10 thousand on 12 million downloads via subscription. Isn't that the point? You are claiming that despite Apple's #s they may not have the corresponding revenue... Well, then... since Rhapsody has an entirely different model, who cares about their download numbers... the only thing relevent for them is subscriber numbers. And by the way, my point still holds, man. You claim Apple is pathetic for claiming 100 million when (maybe) it shoudl be 94 million. Yeah, that's pathetic in comparison to the fact that every other store combined may not have reached that sum... Not to mention that nearly all of them are afraid to release numbers. How many has Napster sold? WalMart? Buy Music? Coke? Sony? We don't know do we... I bet it's much, much, much less than 94 million nevermind 100 million. So isn't that pathetic? |
| #10 By 3653 (68.54.230.116) at Thursday, July 15, 2004 06:35:50 PM |
|
you're still confusing things jerk. Its not a matter of 100M versus 94M. Its a "100 million giveaway" that nets a total of 6 million ACTUAL songs given away. And those 6 million still went toward their "lofty" goal. That was my original comment. Scroll up and check. The rest of the argument you've already lost, so there's no point in me rubbing your nose in it further.
themajikrapht - point taken. And the only thing worse than winning a race of the disabled, is to win it against sodajerk. But seriously, you are a thief. Me too, but its so much fun to pay attention to you instead of myself. Ask techlarry, he also swears by this method. |
| #11 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at Thursday, July 15, 2004 07:31:44 PM |
|
I could care less what you think your point is. One point you made was: it is pathetic that Apple was only able to give away 6 million tracks. My question is: how pathetic is that really when every other service is completely afraid to state firm figures for their stores, and most of them aren't even close to having sold what you are claiming they gave away. (And Pepsi bought them them by the way. And Apple had nothing to do with the promotion, it was completely in Pepsi's hands.)
|
| #12 By 3653 (68.54.230.116) at Friday, July 16, 2004 12:42:30 AM |
|
re: the pepsi giveaway - pepsi only paid for the 6M, and then not at $1 a piece.
jerk - "most of them aren't even close to having sold what you are claiming they gave away" Check my link... it clearly shows 11Million in a month. And each person that downloaded a song... PAID for the right to do so. moron |
