It makes sense for the iPhone OS to be renamed iOS since it isn't just for an iPhone anymore, but moving that to the desktop arena sounds silly. Ok, I'm going to plug my iPod into my iMac running the iOS so I can synch it to my iTunes.
OS X sounds and looks better in print. Using iOS would cause confusion too. Just look at Microsoft with their Windows Phone 7 fiasco. Laughable.
This is Apple. Why isn't it aOS? That makes more sense. This "i" crap started with the "Internet" but it's gotten old and Apple doesn't own every "i" moniker anyway. It's also improper grammar to use lower case at the start of a name or word so I don't see what's so great about it. It just sounds like Apple (or rather Steve) cannot come up with real memorable names anymore and so this is a way to just name everything without even trying. I mean what's next? The iCar? The iLunch? The iCommode? The iPad.... Oops!
Maybe Microsoft could call their product mOS in the future instead of a confusing name like "Windows 7" which sounds pretty vague. I mean all modern operating systems use "windows". OK, it STILL sounds better than 'iOS'. Maybe it should be "iWindows" eh?
Of course if they do go with iOS for everything, it won't be iOS, it'll be iOS X. That "X" makes it all better, of course. It only sounds
half as lame with an X on the end. Of course they cannot go to OS 11 as "XI" just doesn't sound right as a name compared to having a big "X" on the end. They'll have to go with "iOS Y" instead which would be better termed "WHY iOS" (good question?) or maybe just YiOS for short. Is your computer's YiOS infected? Maybe it's got an iVirus! Or iWare on it? Maybe you just need to get Apple's new iCleaner and that will fix it? Or maybe it's all just in your iImagination? It's pretty clear it'll be iAlright.
First of all, it's not compressed MP3 anymore. It's AAC (Apple Lossless).
AAC is NOT "Apple Lossless" ! They are two different things entirely. AAC is really "MP4" (AAC refers to the type of compression it uses). It's still "compressed" (i.e. compressed MP4) and Apple has NEVER sold "lossless" music on its web site. "Apple Lossless" is an option inside iTunes to convert your uncompressed audio (e.g. CDs) into a format that has SOME compression (albeit LOSSLESS compression) but retains 100% of the music information (you could burn an identical CD from it and basically have your CD back if got lost/stolen/destroyed).
I like CD's better too. You get much better sound quality and a cheaper price, besides having the actual disc which you can carry everywhere.
If you are only interested in one song, then I can understand buying it in iTunes, but otherwise I fail to see what the advantages of paying more for less quality are.
It can be a little more complicated than that. Technically, an MP3 or MP4 can have higher bit-rate and sampling frequencies than a CD, which is pretty much stuck at 16-bit/44.1k forever. One can debate whether a high-bit rate compressed song can "sound" better (being based on 24/96) than an uncompressed song that's been converted to 16/44.1. In reality, few songs would have any usable information (due to compression and the lack of fidelity on both the human ear and most speakers), but just the same I make AAC/256 versions of my own songs that I write with Logic 9.1 from the 24/96 master, not from a 16/44.1 WAV conversion.
In any case, the human ear is incapable of telling the different from 256kbit AAC and uncompressed audio so unless it's going to be compressed AGAIN, it doesn't really matter that much. I maintain a Lossless archive of my CD collection, but the actual database I use is all AAC 256kbit since iTunes doesn't have an easy way to maintain two versions internally without showing both (I'd want it to normally use the lossless for home play and the compressed stuff for mobile, but other than that lower 128kbit on-the-fly compression, which still takes time, there is not way to automatically maintain a hybrid database without displaying both.
In any case, the hard part is finding a place to buy a CD from. Places like Best Buy have only minimal selection these days (often cannot find a certain album by a certain artist as they don't stock them or only stock one copy or whatever) so you end up having to mail order them which means a WAIT while you could just download it right now. It's often cheaper to download as well (other than release sales, CDs are usually $16-20 these days for newer albums not on sale while digital version are often $10-12. That's actually sad in a way because that's what CDs USED to cost at some stores in the '90s and that's when it cost a lot more to make CDs. Production costs went down and they jacked up the prices anyway. LPs used to be more like $8. It's human nature to want MORE money for less product. Greed is inevitable.
Once CDs are gone completely expect to see individual songs cost $2-3 with a discount for the entire album to "encourage" you to spend more money on music you don't really want. You'll notice that MOST songs on iTunes are now $1.29, not $0.99 anymore. I don't see *ANY* $0.69 songs what-so-ever on there. That was just a BS LIE by Apple to try and convince you that they took steps to keep overall prices in balance and that older songs would cost 69 cents while new ones might be $1.29, but in reality *NO* songs cost 69 cents (old or not) and many OLD songs now cost $1.29 too! Expect it to go up again in the future. The music industry is constantly fighting for higher prices to make up for their lack of new material that interests anyone. They scream sales are down and yet they consider that many people simply do not like rap and hip-hop (or pop laced with it) and that leaves them very few choices if they like "rock" music since the music industry basically doesn't support it anymore. That forced some people I know to start listening to country music instead (that irks me nearly as bad) and leaves people that liked '50s-90's rock in the dark. But no, the problem must be piracy, not a lack of material people actually care about! The movie industry isn't much different. What's new at the box office? Oh boy. Sequels and re-makes! Ho-hum. People must be downloading movies off the Internet instead of going to the movie theater. I mean when a movie like "Avatar" (snore) is the number one movie of all time (due to visual effects?), it's pretty much over, IMO. Mankind (at least those in power to produce/release) is pretty much out of original material. In only 100 years. I can only imagine 1000 years from now....hey look, it's the A-Team Sequel of a Sequel of a Sequel to an old '80s sitcom!
