Re: [OT] iTunes
Re: [OT] iTunes
- Subject: Re: [OT] iTunes
- From: Phi Sanders <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:13:56 -0500
On 1/10/01, JollyRoger {email@hidden} said the following :
>
on 1/10/2001 7:04 PM, Phi Sanders at email@hidden wrote:
>
>
>> you [can't] beat the great interface and the price
>
>
>
> Exactly!
>
>
Ummm...the interface is nothing to get excited about. It's brushed metal,
>
not a revolutionary improvement in usability.
Brushed metal is what it LOOKS like, interface is how it works, and that
(for me) is better than the way Sound Jam worked...
>
> I was using SoundJam (the free super-annoying nag version) for my mild
>
> MP3 playback needs...
>
>
>
> <I mostly d/l MP3s for CDs I already _own_ rather than RIP them myself>
>
>
I'm just the opposite. I buy CDs just so I can rip them myself to add to my
>
mp3 collection.
I may just do that now that iTunes is here, I've got a few hundred CDs and now
(apparently - haven't tried it...) a high-quality ripper. Then again, they're
right here and it takes so little time to pop one in the CD player...
What could get me more excited about building my own vast MP3 library would be
the ability to use iTunes remotely to play a library from my home Mac!
If OS X could come with the ability to serve iTunes libraries to remote
iTunes clients (password protected, select the song you want, no copying files
to multiple computers, trigger a playlist)... killer app!
>
> I've already made more playlists in 2 days with iTunes than I made with 2
>
> months playing with SoundJam...
>
>
I'm not sure I understand the logic here. Exactly how did SoundJam prevent
>
you from doing that?
A: super-annoying nag every time you open the free version!
No nag in iTunes, hence it gets used more. Again, I have "mild" needs for MP3
playback, and am NOT going to pay for it.
B: see "interface"
~Phi