On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 13:01, Ian Forrester <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/is-the-world-ready-for-the-successor-of-the-mp3/ > > This is meant to make music piricay less tempting, so they say.
Yes, cut off your remaining source of revenue for people who don't buy the stuff by making it harder for them to get up-to-date gig listings and such. > I just can't understand why someone hasn't made a decent XML format to > describe related items to a local or even remote tune/media. Yes I've looked > at itunesLP and came away feeling a bit dirty > (http://ituneslp.net/tutorials/). iTunes LP is really just a variant of iTunes Extras, whose aim was to bring DVD-like content to iTunes movies - LP was a convenient re-purposing of it... The answer is probably 'what's the point?' -- the number of people who need to support it in order for it to be in any way successful is staggering, which is what's likely to kill MusicDNA. I'm not really sure why they're calling it "the successor the MP3". AFAICT, it's a bit of metadata tacked onto an otherwise normal MP3, not dissimilar to an ID3 tag. Last I looked, AAC was the successor to MP3 :) M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
