I guess I don't see any problem with iTunes and the iPod having preferred formats. There are converters out there.

iPods can use:

AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Music Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3 and 4), Apple Lossless, WAV, AIFF.

For images, it can use:

JPEG, BMP, GIF, TIFF, PSD (Mac only) and PNG formats

A video iPod can use:

H.264 video: up to 768 Kbps, 320 x 240, 30 frames per sec., Baseline Profile up to Level 1.3 with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats

MPEG-4 video: up to 2.5 mbps, 480 x 480, 30 frames per sec., Simple Profile with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats

So the problem is basically Apple wants to not have to engineer their product to read every format out there. Saves money, time and keeps the cost down.

You want maybe to force them to use Microsoft's proprietary .wmv/etc formats? IIRC, Apple's Aac format is open to anyone who wants to use it and follow the guidelines.

It just seems that it all sounds like complaining to DVD makers that they don't play .45 records or your VHS and betamax tapes. (To be fair, maybe I should say Laser discs, etc.) Yes you can put these things onto DVD, but you have to convert it to a signal the device can understand.

Hmm Daniel, you would appear to have a point. Are these maximum resolutions it accepts these formats at the same as what it plays its own file at? Or do non-native formats play at lower quality?

In response to G's post, I do hope Gus does not "step off" though, and explains himself further. I'd like to understand how we can do without distributors. Seems an obviously neccesary function. Seems to me that it is even one of the three major categories economics studies (production, consumption, and distribution). OK in the abstract a distribution function does not have to include human distributors - but I have trouble imagining that in practice with todays technology.

As an aside.

No, someone right out of the gate cannot make a Firefly. But itunes could allow other tv like productions.

People could make good sitcoms. Such a beast is possible.

The SW fan community have been making excellent shorts with decent special effects for the last few years. Their major limitation at the moment seems to be acting.

So will it happen tomorrow. No. But it will happen. Probably will start from autuers from Hwood that got disgusted that their latest concept didn't survive studio focus groups and just do it.

The SW fan community have been making excellent shorts with decent special effects for the last few years. Their major limitation at the moment seems to be acting.

As an aside: I was in one, several years ago.

Find your small-label friend, using terms particular to the content.

The hell? Songs and albums are tagged with genre, if you don't know the title or the performer. I can write reviews. The software tracks and presents what people who bought a given track also bought, so I can explore that way. I can set up an artist alert or "tell a friend." I can see what else is on an iMix that also contains a given track or features that artist.

How is your "find the studio and buy directly from them" going to allow for that sort of cross pollination and learning from complete strangers?

Hmm Daniel, you would appear to have a point. Are these maximum resolutions it accepts these formats at the same as what it plays its own file at? Or do non-native formats play at lower quality?

Actually, the files distibuted though iTMS are significantly lower quality than you can make by ripping your own cds/dvds, or even get though less legal distribution channels. But these files are not protected with DRM - I just have to send 'em though the internets to whoever, and they immediately have full access.

Basically, Apple's monopoly is on the protected files the iPod can play. The iPod can only handle one type of DRM - Protected AAC with Fairplay - and only Apple knows distribute content that uses that.

I'm not sure whether France's goal is to force Apple to let others use that technology - so that Microsoft can sell protected music to iPod users - or to force Apple to open the technology to all, so that the "protection" part goes away. If the first, I believe that that's not their place - neither the iPod nor the iTMS are monopolies at this point, they're just significantly more popular than their competitors. There could be some argument there, however. If the second, the only result would be the music companies pulling out of the store, pretty much destroying it, so of course Apple won't do it.

In other news, I like Firefly.

Wiki on AAC:

In April, 2003, Apple Computer brought mainstream attention to AAC by announcing that its iTunes and iPod products would support songs in MPEG-4 AAC format (via a firmware update for older iPods), and that customers could download popular songs in a protected version of the format via the iTunes Music Store. AAC has now become so associated with Apple hardware and software that people commonly and mistakenly believe that AAC expands to "Apple Audio Codec." >Optionally, a digital rights management scheme (named FairPlay) can be employed in tandem.

Wiki on Fairplay: [link]

The Conseil (sic) ruled against the notion that FairPlay was an "essential facility" for three distinct reasons: 1) Playing purchased music on portable players was a small part of the market; 2) CD Burning provides an adequate work-around to get purchased music from other vendors onto an iPod; and 3) There is sufficient availability of portable players that support Microsoft's WMA DRM as a viable alternative and choice for consumers.

According to MacRumors.com, there's a company called Navio that has reversed-engineered Apple's DRM, and some movie studios are signing up to use it as an alternative to the iTMS.

So we were discussing recent sci-fi after lunch, and one of my co-workers said, "You know what was really good? It had...a bunch of no-names; at least to me, they were no-names. Ser... Sere..."

We had been discussing television shows, so that's where my mind was, but then another co-worker answered, "Serenity!"

"Yes," she said. "That was really good."

The other co-worker told her to check out the TV series, and she said she didn't even know it was a TV series.

"Wow!" I said. "I've never met anyone like you! Someone who just stumbled across the movie and thought it was awesome without even knowing about the series."

They do exist! I thought it was very cool. Another one of my co-workers also remembered having seen it, and she hadn't known it was a TV series either.

(Random note: the first co-worker also really liked that one series about the living ship ("Farscape!" I said), although she thought the later episodes were much better than the middle episodes, which, huh.)

My aunt saw the movie without knowing about the series, because she recognized Joss' name from Buffy and Angel. Then, of course, she loved it and went back to the TV series.