Apple has released iTunes 7.4.1 which adds support for the new iPod nano (third generation), iPod classic, and iPod touch, plus create customer ringtones exclusively for iPhone.
iTunes 7.4.1 is available via Software Update and also as standalone installers.
More info and download links:
• iTunes 7.4.1 for Mac (38.3MB)
• iTunes 7.4.1 for Windows (49.1MB)
Apple and Intel have struck a preliminary agreement under which Intel will manufacture some of the chips that power Apple devices…
Apple is tightening its education pricing program with a new verification process that officially rolls out in the United States today…
In Nasdaq trading today, shares of Apple Inc. rose to hit a new all-time closing high. Apple’s all-time intraday high was also set today…
Apple TV announced that the new three-part docuseries, “The Dynasty: UConn Huskies,” featuring the legendary University of Connecticut…
In a move that underscores the growing friction between Silicon Valley and governments worldwide, Apple and Meta have formally…
oops. by “@Brau” I meant “@Tommy Boy.”
ARGH! I guess I didn’t mean @Tommy Boy at all, because he wasn’t even talking to me–he was talking to the @phillip guy. Wow, I’m out of it today.
Macdailynews is a day late and a dollar short. Everyone knows about the update and what it disables.
Unless I am missing something the new 7.4.1 hack does not work. I tried the trick with the previous version and it worked. Maybe I didn’t do something. Anyway, it seems like a lot of trouble to get a free ringtone. .99 doesn’t seem bad to me since everyone else charges a lot more. But, people want to make ringtones out of music they have imported (from CDs they own) too.
People. We’re talking 99 cents. You don’t EVER own the song. Pay the !*%&#($ 99 cents and support the artists that write, perform, and produce the music that you love. After all, that is how they make a living. Why go to such lengths to screw them?
What do YOU do for a living? What if we all demanded the product of your hard work FOR FREE? Because somehow it’s our “right” to not pay for what we consume.
Sheesh.
I have to agree with TommyBoy, talk about nitpicking. It’s $.99 cents, you’ll bitch about that, but have no problem dropping $4.00 on a coffee, or if you don’t drink coffee $1.25 on sugar water or just plain old water, that you can get straight from the tap. Get over it people
Ringtones are annoying.
Whats the point having 20 to 40000 songs and using a bloody ring tone. Why cant we use the corus or riff of our fave track.
Sorry I meant 8 to 16gigs worth of songs whatever that amounts to. I was thinking of the 160gig iPod. mmmm sweeeet.
Hey asshat “TommyBoy” impersonator, get your own handle. If you wanna be my sidekick then go for “Richard Hayden”.
Anybody with sound editing software can make a ringtone out of just about any sound file on their computer, so the 99 cents should really be seen as being for the ability to accomplish the same thing completely within iTunes.
The free-iPhone-ringtones trick is now much snappier! …oh wait!!
Sep 09, 07 – 10:14 pm
Comment from: TommyBoy:
Whichever TommyBoy you are, I agree with that comment. You never actually own the song – and it is only 99¢. And in a previous posting some asshat calling himself originalrecipes suggests to just pay the $15 for iToner! WTF. For that you could get 15 ringtones – AND pay the artist their percentage too. Just how many friggin’ ringtones do you want or need? And how much are you willing to pay, to not pay 99¢?
Pay the 0.99 and stop being a mean, cheap b*stard
“Just how many friggin’ ringtones do you want or need?”
The real irony is that the whiners who want to load an iPhone with hundreds of free ringtones never actually get phone calls.
They have to fake a call to <strike>annoy</strike> impress the stranger on the bus.
No, they do actually get phone calls. Its just that it’s from there mom telling them, “just because one kid spent 500hrs of his life hacking the iPhone and received a car for it, doesn’t mean you’ll get anything for hacking it to get free ring tones. Now come to the table and eat your chicken pot-pie with the rest of us before it gets cold!”
“Chicken pot. Chicken pot. Chicken pot pie . . .”
– David Cross as Slow Donnie on “Just Shoot Me”.
Doesn’t the new Zune 2 do ringtones without paying extra?
Re: Zune 2
Watching paint dry would probably be more interesting than discussing what a MS vaporware product will do expecially since so few care about or bought the original.
There are a handful over at zunescene.com but so many of them seem to really want an iPod instead. It’s a sad time to be a Zune Squirter.
I’d be a horrible businessman, because I would’ve NEVER believed that anyone would be lame enough to actually PAY for a ringtone.
The corporate meeting would go something like this.
Underling Manager: “Hey! What if we sell ringtones to our customers?!? Imagine the incredible amount of revenue we could generate by selling the same songs to our customers that they just bought, twice!”
Me, The Big Boss: Are you crazy, no one would be stupid enough to buy the same song twice just to use it for a crappy little ringtone. Plus it’s an insult to our customers! They’ll all revolt!! Your fired!”
Hmm, I guess I’m the one that should be fired, because people are indeed stupid enough to buy the same song twice…. And I’m guessing that these ringtone buyers must be the same people who respond to spam email, which is the reason why spam won’t go away either.
Wow! I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that for the fact that that we don’t have to pay extra for the privilege of of playing our purchased and downloaded movies on our iPods, and then pay extra again, for playing them on our iPhones, and then pay even more extra for the privilege of streaming them to our AppleTVs…
Gosh, we are soooo lucky, to be able to use the media we purchased however we want personally. Well,… except for ringtones. But that’s different… they’re, uh.. they’re, umm.. well they’re ringtones! It’s completely different! Can’t you see the difference! Sheesh. Your stupid!
To the giver-uppers who whine to the whiners, “You pay $4.00 for a cup of coffee, just suck it up and pay the extra .99¢ for the ringtone, quit whining.”
I wonder how you’d all feel if after you’d purchased a $4.00 coffee and as your starting to walk out to your car with it, the clerk stops you and says, “Whoa, whoa, buddy. you can’t take that outside. The $4.00 you paid is only for drinking the coffee INSIDE only, if you want to take it OUTSIDE, there’s an extra $1.00 charge.”
Would you be upset or even question why? Or, who knows, maybe you’d just roll over and pay the extra $1.00, no questions asked… Maybe being scammed only bothers certain people, and doesn’t affect other people.
“They’ll all revolt!! Your fired!”
“Sheesh. Your stupid!”
My fired and my stupid both disagree with your ranting since you’re not making sense.
“I wonder how you’d all feel if after you’d purchased a $4.00 coffee and as your starting to walk out to your car with it, the clerk stops you and says, “Whoa, whoa, buddy. you can’t take that outside. The $4.00 you paid is only for drinking the coffee INSIDE only, if you want to take it OUTSIDE, there’s an extra $1.00 charge.”
Because that only happens in bad Ben Stiller movies?
Since I knew ahead of time that there was a charge to take it outside, I wouldn’t buy coffee there. Or was there a more tricky, foreboding question embedded in your clever analogy?
@NoSquirtForYou:
You didn’t know ahead of time that there was a rule about drinking the coffee inside. You bought a shitload of coffee ‘cuz you knew you’d be there all day and you had heard there would be an outdoor coffee patio opening at some point during the day. When they opened the patio, it turned out that you had to buy an additional “outdoor drinking” pass (in addition to the coffee) in order to take it out there. For each cup you want to bring out. And if you decide you want to come back inside and put cream in your coffee, you have to buy a new ticket.
People who bought music pre-iPhone are annoyed that they can’t make ringtones out of them, and people who bought their music somewhere else entirely (on CD) are annoyed that they can’t make ringtones out of them. This is a strictly for-profit maneuver by Apple that flies in the face of the accepted standard (purchasing ringtones costs $, making your own does NOT)
Simple, really.
yeah, I’m keeping the extra “L” just for consistency (sorry for the misspelling though).
The notion that if I play a song and others can hear it suddenly makes that a public broadcast is ridiculous. Am I only supposed to listen to music that I purchase in the woods near a solitary falling tree? It’s still covered by betamax and by every other precedent for fair use out there that allows you to listen to your music however you want. Back-ups are reproductions that are allowed and shifting context is allowed too, as the whole DVD john thing showed.
@tommy boy. Yeah, if artists were getting their money from their releases, it would be a shame to stiff them the .99 on their ringtones (because I’m entirely sure that artists make their songs thinking that they’ll make great ringtones and that they want their customers [not fans] to have to pay twice for the privilege of listening – yeah, I’m sure that’s the case </irony>), but the music industry doesn’t work that way. Most artists make money on their concerts, not on their releases. The labels make the money on the releases, not the artists.
So yeah, I don’t care about ripping off a company that has decided to treat their customers like criminals even if they’re within their fair use limits. I am a musician, so it’s not like I’m all for ripping off artists, but it’s the labels that are guilty of that, not fans that are downloading songs (even for independent labels). Tracks are an enticement to get people out to shows as it presently stands, from the artist perspective. Labels are the ones that really care about tracks, and personally, that’s a middleman that I’d be happy to get rid of.
To stand up for double-paying for tracks is like suggesting that iTunes should also add advertisements to tv shows – now that you’ve paid for the content, you also have to sit through the ads that you were trying to avoid. It’s a money grab that is profit-centered not content-centered or customer-centered. And no EULA will stop a person from having a legal backing for fair use of the content that they have purchased. The EULA doesn’t trump fair-use, and accordingly my agreeing to the EULA doesn’t supersede my rights to fairly use the content I purchased.
I agreed to the EULA with consideration for my already existing rights, meaning that I am ignoring the EULA.
If it said that by signing the EULA I was dropping my constitutional rights of free-speech, I’d also feel confident in signing the EULA as well, since I know that the constitution supersedes it. This is the same, as there’s a Supreme Court precedent that trumps the EULA. To sign it is not lying, but it’s protesting the concept.