Talk:ITunes

How the main article should be written

Some suggestions on how to maintain and update this article. This may be redundant with Wikipedia writing guidelines, but I see this happening often. Examples are from text that have been removed or modified. --69.212.108.244 00:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The suggestions:

• For clarity, each section should describe the most current version of iTunes first. It shouldn't start off stating how iTunes used to work (e.g. "The EULA limits the downloaded music files to use on three computer devices.") only later to follow in the proceeding tagged-on paragraph with how it works now ("In iTunes version 4.5, the DRM was changed to allow five computers"). A description of how it used to work is less important and more confusing to the reader than how it works now.
• Omit notes on obscure third-party issues. (e.g.: The original release (4.1) had "incompatibilies with older CD Burning Software"--specifically with a Windows service called DirectCD pre-loaded on some computers...) because the article should be about iTunes, not third-party software. Wikipedia isn't a bug-reporting board either.

I don't agree with this. An article in wikipedia is not like millions of page you can find on the web. Because the article is like a manual, there is no need to highlight how iTunes works right now or how to use it. It is also important to make notes about many incompatibilities or glitches as records. Many tools like PlayFair, for instance, may be moot today but they have historical importance. -- Taku 23:58, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

---

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

How come this page in on ITunes instead of iTunes? Should it be moved? ¬ Dori 19:13, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

WP automatically capitalises the first letter of a page's title. Mostly this is OK, for iTunes, iPod, et al, it's not so great. GRAHAMUK 06:00, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that might be the case. I tried moving it, but it wouldn't let me. Perhaps it's time for a list of articles whose first letter should be lowercase and isn't. Maybe admins or developers could manually move them somehow. ¬ Dori 12:56, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:List of pages with capital first letters that should be lowercase for this list, as well as discussion about this. -- Mattworld 22:53, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What about moving it to Apple iTunes? ugen64 23:49, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Hehe, I see someone made a redirect there. ugen64 17:37, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

---

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)

The original release (4.1) had "incompatibilies with older CD Burning Software"--specifically with a Windows service called DirectCD pre-loaded on some computers. The service intialized long before Windows loads (see service) and the conflict between iTunes's service called GearSecurity, and DirectCD caused Windows to be unable to load. Some computers couldn't boot into safe mode until Gearsecurity was removed. (Other methods also work or don't work depending on individual computer settings. Other software may also have been incompatible, it is difficult to know the full story at the present time.) Apple would acknowledge the error to the press, and on its discussion board--but never on the main promotional pages,(www.itunes.com). Instead Apple requested feedback using the iTunes discussion board, and posting the notice of a new patched version (a new revision number, 4.1.1 instead of 4.1) in a sticky on this same discussion board.

---

I removed the following paragraphs, because there were a duplicate of the version history:

Version 4 (released on April 28, 2003), introduced the ability to browse and buy songs available on the iTunes Music Store, and to share unprotected music via a network.

On October 16, 2003 Apple released a version of iTunes for the Windows platform.

The last version compatible with Mac OS 9 is 2.0.4, which does not support the Music Store.

I removed the following paragraph, because it is not largely irrelevant (4.6 is already out a while now)

The initial release caused some problems for some users, which were rapidly addressed by the version 4.1.1, released less than a week later.

I also remove the whole section about iTunes Digital Rights Management which is now basically a duplicate of the largely expanded FairPlay entry.

In iTunes Apple included technically-sound DRM (Digital Rights Management) capabilities, dubbed FairPlay. The popular standard MP3 has no DRM, so Apple opted for AAC (Advanced Audio Coding). The EULA limits the downloaded music files to use on three computer devices. The devices are limited to Apple and Windows products; Unix, GNU/Linux and other operating systems are not supported. Jon Lech Johansen, creator of DeCSS, published code to allow alternative operating systems to use the DRM music under the premiss of Fair use on January 5, 2004.

In early April 2004, an anonymous programmer posted another tool called PlayFair on SourceForge under the GPL. PlayFair removed the FairPlay DRM without re-encoding the audio file. The project and software were pulled from SourceForge after the host received a cease and desist order from Apple. The project was immediately moved to Sarovar.org, an open source project host based in India. While hosted on Sarovar.org, the program received a basic graphical interface and other improvements. On April 16, 2004, the project was removed from Sarovar.org due to a legal notice from Apple, but then reappeared under the name Hymn, which is an acronym for "hear your music anywhere".

In iTunes version 4.5, the DRM was changed to allow five computers to be authorized to play songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store with the same account -- two more than the initial iTunes Music Store DRM.

Niels Leenheer

---

Why is the title of this article Apple iTunes? This doesn't seem to conform to the convention used for all other Apple software (iPhoto, iMovie, Mac OS X) and hardware (iBook, iPod). I saw ugen64's suggestion to move it above but that seems to predate the "technical limitations" template. In any case, I'll move it back, because I can't imagine there would be any strong objections. --Miles 01:42, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

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)

iPod Download Plugin Scandal!!!!!!!!!!

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. [1] [2] AlistairMcMillan 18:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

"Largely based"

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)

impossible to sort by filename

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)

It strikes me as very unusual, almost every other audio player has this option. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:50, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Apple's Hiring

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)

taking sides

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)

iTunes tested on multiple Windows versions

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)

protected and encumbered

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)

CBR/VBR

In the encoder test, *ALL* encoders were tested at VBR, not CBR. If the encoder 'would have performed better' at CBR, that shows that it is poorly designed, and proves the statement that Apple neglect it. As anyone who has actually compared even CBR encoders from LAME and iTunes, I can tell that iTunes is still performing sonic buggery on them. At VBR it gets worse.

As I said above, it was a test of encoders on *the same standards* - 128kbps, VBR. Hence, the statement that 'they might have been better at CBR' is about as valid as 'Apple should have used BeOS, not NeXTSTEP'. Subjective, and out of place.

I'm removing the entry again.

Kiand 18:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all this paragraph speculates that Apple's been concentrating on AAC instead of MP3. It then goes on to say the MP3 Encoder fails subjective listening tests and links to an article that compares a specific and uncommon usage (VBR) to subjective listening tests. Please clarify how this deserves a mention in an encyclopedia under a section that describes what file formats iTunes supports? DamienG 19:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Because it shows that formats are not supported equally well, and that Apple would seriously prefer you to use their format, leading to Vendor lock-in of sorts. I think it deserves to be left there, anyway. Kiand 19:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AAC is not Apple's format, it is Dolby's and iTunes does come with a free MP3 encoder. The same can not be said of Windows/Media Player. Again you are presenting speculation as fact with your remark above. DamienG 19:11, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Its a format that most other companys MP3/general portable media players don't support, and Apple create iTunes to further the sales of the iPod. That sounds like lockin to me - people import music, go to get player, find themselves having to buy an iPod... Kiand 19:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only actual evidence presented is the quality of Apple's MP3 encoder in VBR mode is below par. Speculating they are concentrating on AAC without any evidence of how iTunes AAC encoding compares to other AAC encoders or even to their own MP3 encoder is not NPOV. For your information my car stereo supports AAC as well as MP3 and WMA. DamienG 19:21, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see what other users have to say on this. I'm guessing you may be a Mac user, whereas I hate the company (despite them having nearly €10,000 of my money at this stage...)....

I see no problem with quoting tests that, within the boundaries of what can be done with something as subjective as a listening test, show that their 'free' VBR encoder is far worse than an actually free one which, oddly enough, runs on their system also... Kiand 19:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have a Mac as well as three PC systems so I'm fairly neutral. I personally use LAME to encode my MP3's on Windows because it's so much quicker. I'd rather remove the whole paragraph but I'm just going to clean up ambiguity. See what you think. DamienG 19:28, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Your edit of 20:29 server time is fine by me. Kiand 19:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Linux compatibility

Aight kids. Don't make me stop this car. Discuss the Linux compatibility issue here before any further reverts. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:38, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Does the contributor feel that he should go round and mark every Windows/Mac only app in Wikipedia and mark it as not compatible with Linuxs? Is this supposed to be an encylopedia or a dictionary of things not supported on Linux. Sounds to me like a misguided attempt at expressing dissatisfaction with grafitti.

Maybe lets go mark some Linux only apps as not being compatible with Windows. DamienG 22:02, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hrm, Ximian Evolution, Beagle, Eric3... anyone got any more? Kiand 22:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

iTunes comes with hardware, the iPod. In many countries it may be illegal for someone that owns an iPod to use (or reverse engineer) the iTunes compatible software on the operating system of their choice. The article perhaps should have a larger synopsis of the overall DRM controversy, and the recent "DVD john" "hack", apple's response, and subsequent "hack". What do people think? zen master T 22:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I see DamienG and Kiand's point, this information is available at Comparison of media players, so it is already "encyclopedic", right? As there has already been a lawsuit regarding FairPlay on Linux, I think that the article should definitely mention something about the lack of Linux support; major news sources covered the pyMusique story [3]. Zen-master's wording may have been a little pointed, but it seems like the article would be just advertising if it didn't point out the common criticisms. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:22, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Zen, could you please be specific about the iTunes-illegality issues you are mentioning (with links if possible). I really don't understand what you are getting at. You think it is illegal to reverse-engineer the iPod, or iTunes? If you are talking about the issues with the DRM'd music from the iTunes Music Store you'll find the issue is covered there. AlistairMcMillan 14:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we need a synopsis of coverage in this article as well. The recent hacks and Apple's response should indicate there is an issue. The software in question is technically not a part of the music store. zen master T 14:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about mentioning compatibility issues from the point made by zen? Merely saying the product is not compatible with Linux looks all but irrelevant to the ordinary readers. -- Taku 23:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Taku, the changes you made sounded exactly like RIAA propaganda, I cleaned it up. If you disagree let's discuss. I believe "DVD john" has created a "hack" or "workaround" for apple's most recent attempt at locking out unsupported third party compatibility software. zen master T 23:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK- so is everyone comfortable with the changes as they are? I think that Zen-master's comments were more about how iTunes music store was not compatible with Linux, not so much the software itself. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:30, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

The changes are good, perhaps it could use a more direct mention that the "hacks" are for third party compatibility. zen master T 17:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still don't see why we need to note that iTunes is not compatible with Linux in the second paragraph. Is it so important to know for readers before any detail about iTunes? Isn't the mention in compatibity section enough? -- Taku 16:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

That second paragraph is listing the OSes it is notably compatible with, makes sense to also list the most notable OS it is not officially compatible with. zen master T 17:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(My bad, I meant a third para not second). Anyway, I agree to list OSes which iTunes are compatible with, but Linux is not compatible with iTunes. As were said above, saying iTunes is incompatible with Linux would appear irrelevant to readers. I know your point about legal issues surrounding iTunes, but that is covered in the article already. You don't think we should note in, say, iWork article that it is incompatible with Windows. This is not about whether Linux is notable or not. The simple fact is that Linux is not officially supported. -- Taku 17:44, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

ITunes

I still disagree with the Linux not officially supported sentence removal but there are many that disagree with me so it's on my backburner now. I will head back to the talk page but there isn't much debate going on, some edits and talk page comments to the article seemed like 100% RIAA propaganda to me. Perhaps the entire OS compatibility paragraph should be moved out of the intro to somewhere down below, in which case the Linux not officially supported sentence can be added back? I think we should add more information to the iTunes article(s) about how Apple is "fence sitting" on the issue of DRM between the RIAA and various software freedom/creative commons movements. What do you think? zen master T 20:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have moved this from my (Taku's) talk page. (I'll post the comment here. I've got to eat a dinner.) -- Taku 21:08, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Have you finished dinner? ;-) Still interested in debate? zen master T 01:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know I know :) Actually I've thinking of this for a while. I think the problem how to put this issue in the article not whether or not to remove the sentence in question. The bottom line is whether iTunes's compatibility with Linux is important to note or not, the current of the way of saying (i.e., iTunes is not officially compatible with Linux.) looks irrelevant. I am against the move of the paragraph, as it is quite natural to tell on what platforms this product runs. Anyway, I certainly agree to articulate why many people, including me, think iTunes does not run on a free operating system is a problem. In this way, the discussion should appear more connected with other parts of the article. (Well, this is not quite a debate is it?) -- Taku 05:01, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

If we are listing the notable OSes it's compatible with it makes sense to list the notable OS it's not officially supported on. If people don't want Linux in the intro why don't we move the Compatibility paragraph farther down in the article? zen master T 18:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I dunno. It's not a common thing to list what OSs a piece of software isn't compatible with. However, I did elaborate on how the fact that iTMS is coupled tightly with iTunes causes the service to be limited in accessibility to the OSs that are supported by iTunes, so that seems somewhat significant in that section, but as a general rule for software, I don't think it's a great idea. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:45, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Recommendations

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

As of November 19, 2005, there is a "Just For You (beta)" feature, which recomends music based on previous purchases.

Pricing

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)

No, albums vary in price, depending on the content and publisher. Joemc72 19:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Still, most (by which I mean a good 75% of all) albums, unless they have special features, such as an extra video track or a double disc, are priced at 9.99 USD Hudgie

DRM model

The article doesn't mention which DRM model iTunes uses, either. I think it's that you can play your songs on five computers at any one time? --Tom Edwards 09:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That's true, but there's more to the FairPlay model than just that. See the article, and if it isn't already Wikilink here, you know what to do: be bold!

Atlant 11:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

OGG support

In the section of formats, in particular the lack of ogg support in the latest iTunes: "Apple is working on fixing this problem." -- could someone cite the source for this? -- Tarquin 11:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't sound to me like Apple are working on it. [4] Really doesn't sound like Apple are working on it. [5] AlistairMcMillan 14:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That was added by 24.128.48.91 who seems to be an open source advocate. [6] My guess is he/she doesn't have a source. I say pull it. AlistairMcMillan 14:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Has this been pulled yet? If not, do it; if so, you might as well delete this talk article. HereToHelp 20:13, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I _think_ ogg may be broken under windows too. This presumably is an issue for the qt plugin people, not apple. Secretlondon 18:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[7] - ogg doesn't work under quicktime 7 - either MacOS or Windows. The ogg component project seems dormant. As it used to work I think it still needs to be in the article. Secretlondon 19:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Tips on how to convert OGG to MP3 (or AAC etc) would probably be useful there (I had some OGG to convert and I ended up using WinAmp's diskwriter plugin to do it... big phaff, had to reenter all the ID3 details) Cdyson37 00:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

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 05:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"Ability to skip over songs in shuffle mode (helpful for iTrip stations)" — couldn't the user just click on either of the buttons next to the play button to accomplish this prior to iTunes 5? —Tokek 04:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Picture Updating

You guys fixed the pictures from 4.9 to 5 really quickly . The only issue I have is that the one under Brushed Metal is still 4.something. Plus, the new iTunes uses a different version of the brushed metal theme, should we make a note of that? I have a section on the talk page for that topic, too. HereToHelp 20:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Potential external link

A reference was recently removed to [(check the page history for the link) this page] because it was not deemed worthy. It was also suggested that the article's own references be substituted. It is obvious that the remover did not review the content of the article in suggesting this, as such a substitution would be complete nonsense. However, if the previously referenced article is not a proper reference because it is not a peer-reviewed journal or a textbook, then why not have it as an external link? The article has very valuable information that is not available anywhere else. Uriah923 16:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You should also inform people that this is just one out of a SEO campaign by the ON people to get links to that site from Wikipedia. (Just as we don't need the above link since it can be seen in the diff where it was removed) The same thing was done with multiple Wikipedia articles until people cried foul, and the consensus was that ON articles do not make the type of quality references Wikipedia needs. That said, if a consensus forms here (with a reasonable minimum of 5-6 people involved) that the article is valuable enough to justify an external link despite the linkspam implications, I certainly wouldn't stand in the way. However I don't think the link is very valuable since the article refers to a pretty small point in the whole scheme of iTunes, and isn't terribly well done (6 one sencond songs don't reflect a realistic playlist). - Taxman ^Talk 17:37, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'll take that as a 'no' vote. However, your contention that "6 one second songs don't reflect a realistic playlist" shows that you didn't even read the article and that you aren't familiar with the subject being addressed. If you investigate it further, you will see that the number of or length of the songs involved have nothing to do with what was studied. Uriah923 19:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The following content was also removed by Taxman with the same allegation of spam: "More information concerning this feature and the algorithm used is available [(check the page history for the link) here]." Again, I assert that the allegations are empty and that the content should be replaced. Uriah923 20:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Remove the ON linkspam and ban links to them for a year. Zora 21:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Because you say so... That's a good reason. How about looking at the article and actually making a coherent comment instead of jumping around pronouncing sentences without looking at the case at hand. Uriah923 21:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Because it's consensus... You're the only one pushing for the inclusion of the link. There are plenty of blogs that post observations about iTunes, we're not going to link them all. Give it up, there are plenty of other places to spam for SEO. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:54, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Would someone like to show me where this commonly mentioned 'consensus' was reached that the specific link mentioned above (which is NOT a reference) should not be included in the iTunes article? Uriah923 22:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a rough estimate based upon the fact that you're the only one pushing for the inclusion of the link and the three other contributors don't think it belongs in the article. Don't worry kid, there are plenty of other ways to advertise your site. Think Mary Tyler Moore: "You're gonna make it after all!" --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 00:14, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

So OmniNerd is so evil that the link is even edited out of Uriah923 comments on the Talk page?!

[OK, just skimmed the ON background, so my biting opening paragraph is no longer relevant Barefootguru 01:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)]

I don't know what else they've been up to (but have a reasonable idea from these comments), but if one of them has spent the time investigating and writing up how the random function works, I fail to see the justification for not linking to the article.

We could do with more weighty arguments and less jumping to conclusions and bias. As Uriah923 says, the 1 second songs were part of the test (Taxman); and the page is hardly a 'blog posting observations about iTunes' (DropDeadGorgias).

I don't see how ON is different from say, Ars Technica, which reviews OS X and is linked from those pages.

Campaign or not, I found the article a good technical read, and I vote the link stays.

BTW, I also think DropDeadGorgias should wait longer than 8 hours and 4 people's responses before deciding a consensus has been reached.

Barefootguru 00:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ars Technica is a well-established tech review site. OmniNerd seems little more than a blog. Still, if more people think the link will stay, I'll defer judgement, it just seemed that up until this point only one person was pushing for its inclusion. We do get a lot of SEO spam here, so we're wary of adding links in general, particularly on popular blog-topics such as iTunes. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 01:14, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[Whoa, I didn't even know about Uriah's history of adding ON links. Given that I'd say that this is definitely SEO, and ON links should be removed on sight. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 01:57, September 13, 2005 (UTC)]

Oh yes, it's very clear it's SEO if you follow the issue more closely. Barefootguru, if you'd be so kind as to review Uriah's contributions a little more carefully, you'll see he is pretty much on a full out effort to keep as many links to ON as possible. He's tried to spread this conversation out over a number of talk pages and adds as many links as he can each time. If we let people game our site like that we'll be inundated with even more SEO. - Taxman ^Talk 02:03, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

I still think the article has merit, however I have little experience with SEO. If the link needs to be removed (well, stay removed) as part of an effort to stop a flood, I'm OK with that.

Taxman/Dmcdevit: is it appropriate for you to put 'SEO' in the edit summary instead of 'spam'? It would have prevented me from reverting the removal, and may help me and others in the future. To me, a spam link is a direct link to an advertising page, whereas this is more subtle.

Barefootguru 04:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Man, you guys are frustrating (except for Barefootguru, who seems to be the only one not on a crazy anti-OmniNerd rampage). How about we start this discussion over? I won't put in any links (I didn't know links on Talk pages had any SEO implications) and I will discontinue discussions on all other pages to avoid accusations of "divide and conquer." We can all take a deep breath and then take a thorough OBJECTIVE look at this one particular case. Uriah923 14:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

<further, repeated attempt at a vote removed>. Look, it's clear we have consensus against adding the link. We're not starting the conversation over repeatedly in new spots until you catch enough people asleap that you get your way. There was a page set up to discuss the issue, and you're trying to sidestep that again. If anymore discussion needs to happen, it should happen there. - Taxman ^Talk 15:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not allowed to ask the Wikipedia community if an external link would be appropriate? That's suprising. Are you afraid of what the answer might be? I don't blame you, since the only third party who has come in and looked at things objectively didn't share your anti-OmniNerd sentiments. I'm also suprised that you continue to state there was some sort of consensus that OmniNerd articles are never worthy of being linked to - all I see in the conversation you cited is a discussion of using them as references.

I'm replacing the discussion as there is no coherent reason to remove it. Uriah923 16:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You've already had your discussion. Look above. Myself, Zora, and DropDeadGorgias have clearly said no. Barefootguru thinks the link is fine but is ok having it out based on SEO concerns. Three clear opposes and only you wanting it in is very far from a consensus to have the link. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean you get to keep repeating it. The linked page discussed both the use as references and as external links but focused on the former. - Taxman ^Talk 17:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I've had my discussion? That's almost humorous. The above discussion is so disjointed and scattered that it would serve everyone well to show what is actually being discussed and where people stand. If you are so confident that the decision has been made against me, then you have nothing to worry about when people weigh in with their brief arguments and votes.

On a more basic note, why do you have the right to go around erasing my posts on Talk pages just because you think the question is redundant? Uriah923 18:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So basically the consensus is against you but you want to repeat it to try again. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I've removed it because it is blatantly obvious that is what you are doing, and you are just wasting people's time. How many people need to tell you, there is place for this discussion, have it there. But you'd rather spread the conversation out to try to sneak a link through. Lets not forget to mention you are an administrator at ON so your reasons for wanting the link are obvious. When your linkspam was removed from Wikipedia articles, your site's traffic ranking fell through the floor[8] because the only reason the ranking was there was due to the linkspam you spread all over Wikipedia. Yet you keep trying to get your links in, just like you placed another one here. And I didn't erase your post, just the redundant vote. Fine, waste more people's time, but you should reallize by now, you're not helping your case. - Taxman ^Talk 19:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You keep giving me opportunities to embarrass you by showing you don't know what you're talking about. The links to OmniNerd articles on Wikipedia were added slowly over a period of more than a month. They in no way contributed to the surge you noticed on Alexa.com. On the contrary, the very OmniNerd article we are discussing (about iTunes) was posted on Slashdot and, consequently, OmniNerd experienced a huge surge of activity and, about a week later, the drop that you noticed. Uriah923 19:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding links to your site. AlistairMcMillan 20:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

That's odd. You mention a link, and yet when I hovered my mouse cursor over the text you removed and clicked, nothing happened. Uriah923 21:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

And please stop saying it was posted on Slashdot. That means nothing. Bill or Steve or Linus could, excuse the vulgarity, take a curiously shaped poop and there is a good chance the news will be posted on Slashdot. It means nothing to get a link posted on Slashdot. AlistairMcMillan 20:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It very effectively explained the surge shown on Alexa.com - which meant enough to Taxman that he tried to attribute to it to Wikipedia links.

On a separate note, if you don't think the article is of high quality and not worth an external link, why not insert a short argument in the objective discussion instead of furthering the ramblings in this section? Uriah923 21:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Objective discussion

Concerning a link to link removed to avoid SEO see page history in an external link section:

Merits: The article was posted on Slashdot, is currently linked to by hundreds of sites and is in the process of being published. It is well written and contains valuable and interesting content not found in the Wikipedia article. The site is not commercial and contains no advertisements.

Faults: The person who started this discussion and wants the link added is suspected of having SEO motivations.

---

Support

1. If the content is of proper quality, the motivations don't matter. Uriah923 14:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Undecided

1. I cannot make an objective decision here without being presented the facts - What is the URL in question? How can we be expected to provide feedback without being asked a real question?
   --Lucanos 23:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

   It was removed once it became clear the goal was to get links into as many Wikipedia articles as possible. It was removed from this talk page in order to avoid supporting an SEO and linkspam campaign, but you can see it in this diff if you would like to review it. Also please read the above section and here for the consensus so far. - Taxman ^Talk 23:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

   Thanks Taxman, I read Uriah923's talk page, so I can understand a bit of the situation now. Thanks for your help.
   --Lucanos 00:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Opposition

Removed lines

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)
    • Not sure I agree with removing them. All three are notable formats for streaming audio on the Internet, so it's good to mention that iTunes doesn't support them. The other cases are a little different -- you mention two lossless formats for example, but the only really significant one (which you didn't mention) is FLAC. You're right that stating every negative case is pointless, but some things are significant enough that they represent major functional lacunae (not failings per se mind you -- there's no reason for iTunes to support Real or WMA). Haikupoet 03:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I have noticed that you've originally added them [9]. Saying one format is significant over another sounds like POV. —Tokek 07:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Why not just say something like, “No other formats are supported”? Also, significance is provable. For example, if 2% of the computer-savvy population knows about and uses a certain format, and the format has gotten no media coverage, it isn’t significant. NPOV. —Frungi 06:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that writing lists of every format which is not supported is a waste of time and enegry, however, if a change to the list of supported formats arises from a change to the software (Version A supported it, Version B does not), then I believe that it is significant and worth noting here.
    --Lucanos 23:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • On second thought, aacPlus/HE-AAC is an AAC format, and the article says iTunes supports AAC… maybe that distinction should be made. —Frungi 00:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Changelog on seperate page?

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)

I've moved the page to iTunes version history -- Chuq 08:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

WMA

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)

This isn't the place to ask support questions or direct complaints, try Apple. DamienG 23:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

(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)

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.

Took out that Windows version due to the Mac version can do this as well. Michael

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)

Imperfections

I've added a section on iTune's imperfections. I suppose it will cause loyalists to "cry foul." However, the section contains fascinating information, given Apple's stated mission of elegantly blending form and function. I'm not a slanderer. I'm a mac user; I use iTunes for my music; I do all my personal computing on an ibook. The two (GLARING) imperfections in iTunes fascinate me. Apple has tied my hands, with regards to the two forced-features. I stand by my wiki contribution as relevant and valuable. To that other person who's talking about a lack of sort-by-filename: feel free to add to the "Imperfections" section.

The section as added was unencyclopedic, regardless of its merits. Please feel free to add these to your blog. However it got deleted by another user even before I could do it... I think I can see the reason for not allowing a column to be dragged all the way to the left - the leftmost column contains the checkboxes for enabling a track - they need to stay where they are. Ideally the checkboxes would "stick" to the left even if the rest of the column changed but knowing Cocoa and HIView this isn't possible in the current framework design (checkboxes are an attribute of the table column object), so Apple have done the next best thing and stopped you from replacing this column. If the checkboxes moved with the column (which WOULD be possible) their usability would be even more compromised. However, sorting by artist is still trivially easy, you just can't make that the leftmost column. Not really a biggy, IMO. The click target of the play position indicator is small - but not that small. I don't have accessibility issues so I don't find it a problem personally. Once clicked you can drag the mouse anywhere and the indicator stays attached. If you do have accessibility issues then turning on the global magnified view solves this one, which is what it's for. I don't think the indicator is any smaller than many similar devices in other apps, so while you have a (minor) point it's not unique to iTunes. Regareding sorting by filename - that's not what iTunes is for. iTunes is a player and SONG management application. If you want to manage the files use a file management application, such as the Finder. I think one of the issues that people feel is wrong with iTunes is that it takes control of the files - well, yes, that's what it's for. Better to let iTunes handle all that and simply treat it as a collection of songs, not files. People who think about files are geeks. iTunes is designed for users. Graham 04:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

i appreciate your relatively well-thought-out response, but you've missed the point completely. iTunes is for USERS. therefore, a user should be able to move the ARTIST column into a leftward position. there's absolutely no excuse for this. i'm not talking about moving the artist column into the column that shows the speaker-symbol for currently-playing songs, although that should also be allowed too. if a user wants to "comprimise" that feature, obviously it should be their choice. you're justifying a forced-behavior with another problem: the checkbox system. there's no reason why a user shouldn't be able to "opt out" of the checkbox system; afterall, it's a completely superfluous GUI element if a user intends to keep all songs active; it should allow disabling. you don't seem to have any conception of human interface, even though, as you say, iTunes is for USERS, which i agree with. it shouldn't be up to you or Apple Computer to decide which simple interface features users must be forbidden from "comprimising." we read from left to right, and it's logical to have ARTIST to the left of the song-listing, because artist is a higher, shared category that unites groups of songs; furthermore, even if it WASN'T LOGICAL, there's no excuse for the lack of customizability. how would you feel if Finder didn't allow you to put FILENAME in a leftward position? or, if your automobile didn't allow you to adjust your seat to a 75 degree angle? if these facts were true, they would have encyclopedic value, because they would be characteristic quirks that practically defined the item in question, in a peripheral way.

sure, you can sort by artist, but if a user prefers to do that, obviously they're still hindered because they can't move that column into a more logical, leftward position.

you're also wrong about "sorting by filename." first, i originally was talking about sorting SONGS by ARTIST, within a file-scheme where tunes are named in the following format "(artist) - (song title)." being able to sort by "filename" would accomplish the same thing as moving Artist to a more leftward position.

you're also wrong about what you said about the mistake of being able to move the checkbox column to the right, with Artist on the left. "If the checkboxes moved with the column (which WOULD be possible) their usability would be even more compromised. However, sorting by artist is still trivially easy, you just can't make that the leftmost column. Not really a biggy, IMO." so, you are saying that you don't see a UI-flexibility problem with a user being forced to keep the Artist column in a rightward position, even if they use it as their primary conceptual means for organizing their music, BUT you admit that moving checkboxes to the right would "comprimise" their usability. that's exactly my point: a user who wants to sort by Artist obviously would be helped (at his/her discretion) by having that column on the LEFT, which is logical, in a left-to-right visual system. you have some kind of cognitive dissonance whereby you understand the mechanics of the problem i'm describing, but you aren't willing to concede it.

you're also wrong about the size of the slider button. it's a mysterious internal contradiction. there isn't a SINGLE widget throughout the entire mac os operating system that is so small (completely unjustifiably small). notice the sizes of the quit/minimize/resize buttons, the VOLUME control slider, scroll arrows, etc. it's a fact, and it's a strange one. (and less importantly, no other application i've ever used on any platform had such a small slider button, with the exception of xmss, which is rectangular but practically 2 pixels flat, last time i checked.) it's like an automobile that mysteriously has a dime-sized crank for rolling down the window. the only reason why people don't consider the slider button a famous, characteristic feature is that people have grown accustomed to unreasonable, impractical GUI implementations; and sometimes, like you, they'll even argue about why a user should be forced to behave in a certain way, even at a level of GUI where there isn't a single possible justification for it from a programming or engineering perspective. Mac OS lets you resize system icons to an unprecedented degree; yet, the itunes slider button is tiny. and to belabor the point even further: iTunes 5 or 6 (i forget which) implemented a slick-looking, graded color-scheme to the GUI space that holds the slider, playing title, and apple logo. but this "feature" has absolutely no function, and it was implemented in completely neglect of features that would actually help and empower a sector of users.

you're also wrong about the difference between file management and song management. you are simply dismissing the problem (which to me isn't so much a problem as a CHARACTERISTIC of iTunes worth mentioning in an encyclopedia) by dismissing concerned parties as "geeks" who are not "users". obviously, geeks are users. if the iTunes creators actually wanted to make iTunes an effective "song management" system as opposed to "file management", then they would implement a formulaic conversion mechanism with which you can delineate meaningful chunks of SONG information from the filename. (for example file names on the hard disk in the format "X - Y" would be interpretted as "Artist - Song Title" by iTunes, if the user chooses, with options to account for other filename conventions). you're wrong in yet another way, specifically that songs ARE files: most users have to obtain or rip their own song files, so you're just dodging the issue by declaring that "thinking about files is for GEEKS; users don't do that." anyone who has a collection of music, organized in whatever way they choose, who switches to iTunes will be hugely hindered because iTunes forces you to use properly configured ID3 tags, and secondly forces all filename information into the "Song Title" column. it would be trivial to allow users to set iTunes to ignore ID3 information and only use filename information, at their own discretion.

you're also wrong, or at least misguided about the "blog" comment. "Contribution XYZ is more appropriate for a blog" doesn't constitute an argument for wiki inclusion/exclusion. you could say the same thing about any single passage in any wiki, anywhere. it's meaningless. especially considering the inclusion of the tidbit/nugget "any song exported from garageband is added to the user's itunes music library" there's absolutely no real, substantial reason why the two characteristics of iTunes that i just described shouldn't be included in the wiki. you are deluded if you think one feature/characteristic is justified but the other isn't. the wiki isn't supposed to be a commercial that ignores the characteristic imperfections, but a detailed informational listing about the definitive CHARACTERISTICS of iTunes.

the person who deleted the addition was wrong in principle. maybe i didn't spell out the details in the best way possible, but it's obvious that they/you would erase these details because you think they are "negative", rather than passive objective facts, and you have a knee-jerk response that they are therefore unjustified for inclusion. 128.119.232.87 01:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

VCR to iPod?

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)

• 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)

iTunes Version

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)

Says 6.0.1 (3) here on a Mac in the UK. AlistairMcMillan 06:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The '3' is simply an internal build number - multiple builds of 6.0.1 will never be released, so the 3 is superfluous in my opinion. Any change after public release will result in an increase of the minor version (6.0.1). --bbatsell | give me a ring 06:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected AAC

Apple calls the files "Protected AAC" [10], calling them something else because someone doesn't like DRM is introducing that editor's POV. AlistairMcMillan 11:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ok, fixed, thx. zen master T 08:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)