Winamp Purchased By Radionomy 188
Major Blud writes "TechCrunch is reporting that Radionomy has purchased both Winamp and Shoutcast from AOL for $5-10 million and a 12% stake in the company. Radionomy CEO Alexandre Saboundjian said, 'We want to rebuild the story for Winamp. We think the future can be great because the strategy is not just desktop but mobile and cars and so much more.'"
Here's hoping... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's hoping they start by PROPERLY supporting FLAC, including 24/192 media.
The plugins currently available flat out do not work. And I hate using VLC for music.
Re:Here's hoping... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have no problem with VLC for music, but Winamp has been a favorite for years.
Yeah, its old and funky, and that's exactly why I like it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have no problem with VLC for music
Does VLC play MOD, S3M, XM, IT, or other tracked formats? Does VLC play NSF, SGC, GBS, VGM, SPC, PSF, USF, PSF2, GSF, 2SF, or any other video game console-oriented formats? All of the above have Winamp input plug-ins.
Re:Here's hoping... (Score:4, Insightful)
You might notice he said "I have no problem". That does not mean it works for everyone else. all of your listed formats are rather obsure, and most people would have no need for a player supporting them. Why do people always have to put down what works for someone else just because it does not support what they want?
Value of a plug-in architecture (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Different users have different needs. If one person wants obscure format A, and another person wants obscure format B, and a third person wants obscure format C, then the most efficient way to handle the different needs is to make a player with an input plug-in architecture. Or are you claiming that "most people would have no need for a player supporting" any obscure format?
True, but I'd hardly call FLAC obscure.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, one of the nice things about VLC is the lack of plugins. At least I've never had to hunt them down. I'm not sure some of the older avi codecs can even be installed (if you can even find them) on modern Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Or are you claiming that "most people would have no need for a player supporting" any obscure format?
Yes. That's kind of what the word "obscure" means.
It's about lock-in (Score:2)
I too use VLC to watch video, but I use Winamp when playing or converting obscure audio formats. Until this purchase, it appeared that the capability to do the latter was about to disappear. So as of the article, I admit that my complaint is no longer quite as much of a complaint.
Anyway, if someone is about to lock himself into a particular tool, then he should choose a tool with room to grow. For example, if someone wants to play one obscure codec, he's likely to want to play other obscure codecs, which
Re: (Score:2)
What you should have done is start your own thread
Starting a new thread means that few will even see it, especially with the changes to how "Get More Comments" works in mobile and beta.
the lock-in happens at the choice of format(s). [...] so as long as you stick to common (open) file formats, the tool is irrelevant as you can simply pick a new player.
Take chiptunes for example. It's not uncommon for an album to take 30 KiB in one format (which is publicly documented and unpatented, so anyone can write a player for any open platform) and 30 MiB in a more common format (render to wav and compress to m4a or ogg). In this case, the more common format requires much more storage space to store and much more Internet bandwidth
Re: (Score:2)
I never disagreed with you on any of your technical points, what I took offense to was that you brought up a completely useless point in your reply to icebike. VLC works for him, that was all he said, you then asked him about the support of of formats he dont have any need for (or if he does, they are already covered). What you should have done is start your own thread with your complaints/gripes about players.
Ah, AC. Welcome. I see you've finally met Tepples.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one thing that confuses me greatly about the whole affair. I haven't updated winamp in ages. Why would I? It has no access to internet, and I have all plug-ins I need and they all work.
About the only problem is updates for future operating systems, and it would indeed suck if MS released an actually functional desktop windows after 7 that somehow broken winamp functionality and it would get fixed.
But as it stands, for foreseeable future there's little need to ever update winamp. My help>about in
Re: (Score:2)
Your formats are in the minority - and almost nobody (compared to the number of computer users) needs to play them, those who do will likely also be able to find dedicated players - or players with plug-in support for the formats)
I haven't been able to find an easy way to get dedicated players to cooperate with the playlist containing items in multiple formats. And until this announcement, the availability of "players with plug-in support for the formats" was in jeopardy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But it feels so, so wrong to listen to mod / xm / it files without a FastTracker or at least openCubicPlayer -like interface to visualize the individual channels :P
Even nectarine [scenemusic.net] streams their demoscene music in aac/mp3/ogg format :P
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with VLC for music
Does VLC play MOD, S3M, XM, IT, or other tracked formats? Does VLC play NSF, SGC, GBS, VGM, SPC, PSF, USF, PSF2, GSF, 2SF, or any other video game console-oriented formats? All of the above have Winamp input plug-ins.
You do know you can convert those formats to ones that VLC supports although why you would want a video player to play music is beyond me. A good search engine is your friend here :)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know you can convert those formats to ones that VLC supports
At an often severe cost in file size, I've found. And doing so often requires using Winamp anyway in disk writer mode, as the reference player is a Winamp input plug-in.
Re: (Score:2)
For a reason I can't fathom VLC actually can play a fair amount of old video game music files. Surprised me when I learned about it. https://wiki.videolan.org/Gme/ [videolan.org] But yea, it doesn't cover all the file types you listed.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that the complete works of Purple Motion are available in other formats [valtone.com], right? If you have that, you don't need S3M support.
(What's a Skaven?)
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to rate VLC on which obscure music tracks it can support, you should include .MIDI in the list. You have to download a soundfont to play those files, which is no different than downloading a plugin to play the other tracker formats.
VLC plays the tracker formats, but not Midi. This may have changed since 2.0.8 with some FAQ claiming that nobody listens to tracker formats anymore.
Still, using a video player to listen to music is using a sle
Re: (Score:2)
Still, using a video player to listen to music is using a sledgehammer to swat a fly.
Until we want to double-click on our music from everyone else's machine: funny that Windows Media Player and iTunes, the clunky video players for Windows and MacOS, do just that for everyone by default. The exceptions are geeks, and fancy OEMs who love bundling other [rather clunky] video players.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you consider VLC a video player? The VLC website calls it a media player. Granted, the company is named VideoLAN, but still.
Playlists differ (Score:2)
if someone is using a certain video player for their videos and it also plays their sound files - why not use that?
Because audio and video use cases have different playlist expectations.
Video is more often a foreground application, requiring the viewer's primary attention, compared to audio that's more often used as background noise. And audio and video typically have different durations. In my experience, audio is more often stored with one file per track, while video is more often stored with one file per "album", with cue marks between scenes. People are more likely to put a collection of songs from several albums
Re: (Score:2)
Yes [videolan.org].
Some of them [videolan.org] but maybe more of your list as well.
Heck, it also plays MIDI on Linux and other systems with glib.
The basic thing is - if there's an open-source codec, VLC plays it without requiring any plugins.
Re: (Score:2)
PotPlayer for video, foobar2000 for audio.
Both sound like typical windows software.
Anything else is just silly.
You should widen your horizon a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
I liked Winamp because it looped audio (when playing a single track on repeat, of course, and if the file was made to loop in the first place) quite nicely (even certain mp3s, I think...this was back in my old ytmnd days so I may just be lying entirely; I know WAVs looped like a charm). Neither VLC nor Windows Media Player really bother to try to loop.* Also for playing around with the various visualizers (AVS, Milkdrop and such).
Granted, I actually got into the player pretty late, and some prefer the old
Re:Here's hoping... (Score:4, Interesting)
I have no problem with VLC for music, but Winamp has been a favorite for years.
Yeah, its old and funky, and that's exactly why I like it.
Same here... Actually Winamp is my favourite player for Android and probably the only Android app I've plopped somewhat serious money for (including the lyric and album-art download plugin)
Though if you like VLC for music, check out http://www.clementine-player.org/ [clementine-player.org] , which is cross platform, still uses VLC code for the backend, and adds a pretty nice frontend interface with crossfading between tracks and streams. My only complaint is that the interface doesn't shrink down to as small as Winamp / Audacious can.
Re:Here's hoping... (Score:5, Insightful)
> the interface doesn't shrink down to as small as Winamp / Audacious can
And this is most of the reason why I use winamp on all my machines, and have for over 15 years. Winamp in shrunk mode, with the shrunk playlist attached to it, always sits in the top left corner of my screen. All the important controls are visible, time left to end of song, and the playlist gives the title if I skip forward (or forget what that song is called). From there it's only a couple clicks for >99% of my needs.
Need me? Wrist twitch sends mouse top left corner - click - press C to pause ($5 keyboards, no fancy buttons) - "how can I help?" (probably reliably under 2 seconds from disruption to mute, by now)
All that convenience and it doesn't even cover a third of the top icon row. I don't need to shrink other windows to fit my full-featured player.
Can you name another player that small? (I'm assuming single-key shortcuts are common.)
the other main reason to keep winamp is that I have my own filing system and too many players want "libraries". Winamp just plays the files wherever they are, and doesn't make catalogs or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
AIMP.
Can do everything WinAmp can, but better.
Re: (Score:2)
Which one?
http://www.aimp2.us/ [aimp2.us]
or
http://aimp.ru/ [aimp.ru]
??
When I find more than one program dangling off the same name, I become suspicious of all. :(
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with VLC and most other media players is that it doesn't support bit perfect output. In WinAMP (with a plugin) and Foobar you can get out the exact bitstream from the original file, not re-sampled or mixed or scaled or equalized or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, in most cases, the output will be re-sampled, mixed, scaled and equalized.
Windows has a built-in mixer, and WIndows 7 the audio subsystem does a whole pile of mixing and sample rate conversion to deal with audio routing and other things. And soundcar
Re: (Score:2)
My whole point was that WinAMP and Foobar allow you to bypass the Windows audio mixing. On XP it is via ASIO or Kernel Streaming, on Windows 7 it is via WASAPI. This means that your sound card receives the exact same bitstream as is contained in the source file.
This can be confirmed with a WAV file that contains a valid DTS stream. If there is any mixing it will be corrupt, if not a receiver will accept and play it. I have confirmed that what comes out of my sound card's digital interface is bit for bit the
Re: (Score:2)
Even with Winamp for Android I needed a private Shoutcast server just to connect to my music library over wifi. One giant con is you can't see or alter the playlist from the phone. Cannot even pause or skip a song without walking down the hall.
From my laptop with any playlist capable audio player, this SMB network share integration is elementary and expected, so why does nothing on Android support SMB music play? oh, right, it's not sexy, profitable and interceptable like cloud services.
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto. I love it plugins, addons, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The plugin plays 16/44.1 FLAC just fine, but it chokes on 24/192.
Re: (Score:2)
24/192 for home system is... why would it even exist?
Hell, 24/96 output support is already a massive overkill for anything that is in a tower simply due to the fact that you'd need to start isolating your dedicated sound card from the rest of the tower to avoid interference not to mention having four to five digit costing speakers to get to hear it. And you are playing 24/192?
Re: (Score:3)
Luddite.
Try a good audio card and good headphones or a *real* stereo.
If you can't hear the difference, it's because you're deaf or have never listened to live music to know how snares, cymbals, triangles, and brass should sound.
Re: (Score:2)
I have 500€ speaker set and a high quality sound card. In fact I always had one since I bought my first machine because I can hear the difference between motherboard-based codecs and discreet sound card very clearly.
I have 24/96 output enabled on sound card and speakers accept and show incoming 24/96 input. There is no meaningful difference between that and windows default outputs. I cannot hear the difference.
So I'm going to go with "see a psychiatrist, you are hallucinating" as an answer to your "lud
Re: (Score:2)
Don't try to reason with audiophiles.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean don't try to reason with the deaf who think playing 16/44.1 audio through a 24/192 chain is going to sound any better. Without 24/192 media, you're not going to hear shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, the fact that you can't hear a difference doesn't mean other people can't.
Fortunately for the world, you are not the one who gets to decide what is "reasonable" for others.
Re: (Score:2)
*LMAO*
You have 500 euro speakers, and you think they're "high quality"? I betcha it's a surround set to boot, which means you've actually got 2 x 250 euro pairs.
You can't even get entry level home stereo speakers for less than about $2000/pair. Anything less than that, and the tweeters have shit for response.
But you go ahead and stroke yourself that you've got a "quality" audio system.
*LOLOLOLOLOLOL*
Thanks for the laugh. I needed one. :P
It always blows me away that people automatically assum
Re: (Score:2)
They are good quality, and they are sanely priced. They don't offer solid gold plated connectors or snake oil excreting control panels though, which is clearly what you are looking for.
Different kicks for different people.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, 24/96 output support is already a massive overkill for anything that is in a tower simply due to the fact that you'd need to start isolating your dedicated sound card from the rest of the tower to avoid interference not to mention having four to five digit costing speakers to get to hear it.
Or instead of trying to isolate your sound card, you could just use a digital output, thus using the higher-quality DACs on your receiver.
Re: (Score:2)
Not going to help much. Lion's share of interference is inside the box. Not on the cables. Going digital on cable connection will help, but it will do nothing to mitigate the signal interference that hits inside the tower.
Re: (Score:2)
24/192 for home system is... why would it even exist?
HDMI or optical audio. My previous monitor (a cheap 2008 Element 720P 1440x900 HDTV from Wal-Mart) supported 192khz audio over HDMI. Was wondering why music played via my PS3 sounded so much better than music from the PC...until I checked the settings, knocking up the output to 192KHz made everything sound good.
Sad to say but my current monitor. (1080p 1920x1080 HDTV) supports only 48 and 44.1 KHz and doesn't sound near as good.
Re: (Score:2)
This is me laughing at your monitor speakers "sounding better because of 192khz audio". The small tinny crap that comes with monitors being able to produce better sound under those conditions is right up there with healing effect of snake oil.
Re: (Score:2)
Well it was a 19" HDTV as I said, so not as small or tinny as "monitor" speakers. How else do you explain MP3 files sounding better when played on the PS3, compared to the PC...until I upped the PC's output to 192KHz.
Besides, what if one had a nice surround sound system with quality connected, then you would want the highest KHz your setup would support. So, yes there is a use case for 192KHz audio.
Re: (Score:2)
Placebo effect. Tiny speakers embedded in modern TVs are simply incapable of quality you suggest they are capable of due to size limitations.
Unless something in your setup is faulty/set in a wrong way which is somehow fixed by switching to 192kHz output, both should sound pretty much the same on the TV speakers.
You could argue that you can hear the difference on expensive Hi-Fi speakers. That is possible if you have trained ears and proper setup. But not embedded TV ones.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it just doesnt have enough harmonic waveletude or cool-toned intangible warbles, so he deemed it inferior.
Back on topic, the only thing to hope for is that they don't fuck up a perfect product
Re: (Score:2)
Winamp supports FLAC out of the box, and has for about 6 years now. Perhaps you have an outdated version.
Re: (Score:2)
This [winamp.com] FLAC plugin works for me with Winamp 5.24 (admittedly an old release), though I can't vouch for 24/192 files.
Re: (Score:2)
The plugins work for 16/44.1 media, but not 24/192.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about the Llama (Score:5, Funny)
There's nothing that makes winamp great or unique (Score:5, Insightful)
I hang out with the old nullsoft guys in IRC. General consensus for most of them is "We've moved on" The other concensus is, "There are so many good media players these days"
There was a time when Winamp mattered. There was no decent media players (in some regards, it was a new concept) Winamp brought skinning, plugins, visualizations and a whole slew of things that most folks never even knew they wanted or needed.
Funny that they mention Songbird today. One Nullsofter went there after the AOL buyout. He's now at google.
As far as Frankel, he started working on a DAW called Reaper. It's a swiss army knife for audio.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's funny that you mention those. In a way, we've come full circle. I get the feeling that most people don't really care about whether or not they can skin their music player anymore (the more out of the way it is, the better.. it's something for the background, not to show off to friends), nevermind vis
Codec pack == input plug-ins (Score:5, Insightful)
Plugins are similarly dying a slow death. Think of video players.. how many have plugins to support some manner of format? Most of them either read them out of the box (think VLC) or rely on a 'codec pack' (with FFDShow or LAV) being installed
What do you think the "codec pack" is? As I understand it, a codec pack is just a curated set of input plug-ins.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that it's 'plugins' that anything can use, rather than your specific choice of media player.
E.g. instead of having one h.264 plugin for winamp, one for VLC, one for MPC, one for iTunes or whatever, you just have something that the system (some media playing framework or other facility in the OS) handles and thus any media player can poke at.. and not even care that it's h.264.
You can still call it a plugin for the OS, if you'd like, but that's quite different from winamp's idea of its own
VFW limits (Score:2)
The difference is that it's 'plugins' that anything can use, rather than your specific choice of media player.
True, Video for Windows codecs and DirectShow codecs work in a wider variety of media players and editors. But I know VFW applications such as VirtualDub can't use DirectShow codecs. And I'm told VFW itself has limits that make it less than ideal for certain codecs and containers, which is why you don't see a lot of, say, MOD players using the VFW architecture. I guess Nullsoft might have developed its own input plug-in architecture to work around VFW's limits, and I have since learned about other players t
Re: (Score:2)
"There was a time when Winamp mattered. There was no decent media players (in some regards, it was a new concept) Winamp brought skinning, plugins, visualizations and a whole slew of things that most folks never even knew they wanted or needed."
That's not quite true. Amiga and Atari at least had media players that worked quite well, and supported plugins etc, before WinAMP even existed. What made WinAMP hit its stride was the fact that Win95 came out, sound cards had become standard on PC's, and MP3 hit the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I loved that player, too. In fact, you sparked a moment of nostalgia. If you have one as well, download here: http://www.glop.org/sonique/ [glop.org]
It still works, even on Windows 8 x64. Now I will say that it doesn't work WELL...and by that, I mean that you have to run the installer in compatibility mode for Win95, and batch-adding songs into a playlist is an excercise in patience. Also, the default visualization plug-ins don't look so hot on modern displays since they don't scale much past 640x480 I don't think...b
Re: (Score:2)
I used Sonique briefly when it first came out. This was in the ICQ chat service days too IIRC.
I switched back to winamp fairly quickly usually. I didn't stop using winamp until i got a mac & ipod.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read carefully, what I wrote was not that WinAMP was the first. But the first to catch attention.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, which niche would Winamp try to fill? How could they differentiate themselves? The interface? Cataloging? Container support? Codec support? Streaming support? Subtitle support? Time shifting? Post processing? Song recognition? Speed? Size? Cross-platform support?
Even more lamely ad-ridden with ride-along crapware in the installer than it was when AOL owned it?
Just guessing.
'moved on' (Score:2)
well I would want to 'move on' too if I had done what these guys did back when they did it...same goes for the guy who made napster Shawn Fanning.
remember when releasing software like this could get you sued for millions?
Re: (Score:2)
Winamp brought skinning, plugins, visualizations and a whole slew of things that most folks never even knew they wanted or needed.
Well exactly. They didn't want them and they didn't need them.
Skinning is a novelty of zero use. No, I do not need to rearrange the UI of my application every month so I can't find anything. No, having my music application look like a tie-in with the latest Batman movie is not a plus.
Plugins are of more use. But really, just provide me with the stuff I need in the application and I won't need these and won't have to spend ages getting them to work together.
Visualisations are fun at first, but I am not a
Re: (Score:2)
I've been using REAPER for about 5 years now, professionally. It's cheap, works great, and there's no DRM beyond a registration code. I'd argue it's much more than a Swiss Army Knife, it's easily about 85% of ProTools is for my uses, and I can fake the other 15% without a sweat.
Anyone know anything about Radionomy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone know anything about Radionomy? I still use win-amp at work, despite the bloat. I like the small 'strip' interface I can put up at the top of my window and I really haven't found a replacement, so I'd like to know if I can expect things to get better.. or worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I like the small 'strip' interface I can put up at the top of my window and I really haven't found a replacement
you can do that with QMMP [ylsoftware.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if xmms is still around but that's another one that can give you the winamp look.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but XMMS can actually use Winamp skins.
I'm still using version 5 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, what? I just looked and they come with an equalizer. To me, that sounds like engineering fail - that sounds like they've slapped a band-aid on something that shouldn't have gone to market. Bizarre. I guess that phrase I heard a while back is true if their speakers need their own equalizer - "No high, no lows... it's Bose"
Lies, I bought it last year. (Score:3, Interesting)
http://mp3blaster.sourceforge.net/
Re:Lies, I bought it last year. (Score:4, Funny)
Whoa, Brama bought the Llama?
Winamp is still the best player around! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think iTunes has all of those things you want nowadays, actually. At least for me on my Mac. It seems to kinda suck on other platforms because it has to drag a whole lot of the Quicktime infrastructure it relies on for playing music along with it, and becomes kind of big and unwieldy.
I get system notifications of playing tracks if I want 'em.
It's got plugins. I don't know how extensive they are, mostly I just have a handful of visualizers, and I think I've got a couple music format plugins somewhere in th
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget,
-global hotkey support
-small form factor
-visualization plugins
-crossfading plugins
-instanced playback to multiple soundcards
-built in web server control
-winamp lite installer filesize is 4134 kb and currently consumes 32mb of ram on my system
-lcd display plugins
-LIRC plugin
-streamripper plugins
-flawless manual and automated operation, virtually crash free
And those are just the features I have used in the past week! for free!
Nothing comes close. Winamp IS audio on windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Not free, not even particularly cheap, but the best one I've encountered; JRiver Media Center. If you want to take digital media on your PC seriously.
http://www.jriver.com/ [jriver.com]
fascinating! (Score:2)
fascinating news... I had no idea AOL was still in business. I worked at spinner.com (which streamed music and was not a blog) when AOL bought us and Winamp... I left almost immediately, somewhat as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
I know the guy that wrote SpinAmp during the late 1990s, which saved off MP3 files from spinner.com as they played. He wrote Winamp plugins for several services (the media file is on the computer at some point, just need to find the metadata files that say where it is and exactly what it is). His biggest achievement was an app that could save off Pandora sets. Doesn't work anymore but it was sweet back in the day.
And I still use Winamp.
eh Ill just keep the installer (Score:2)
I use winamp for two things, mod music and shoutcast
mod music cause open MPT is a decent editor, but I sometimes just want a player, shoutcast cause their web player is junk and crashes all the time
both cause I like the graphic EQ
waste of money (Score:2)
It all comes around again on the big wheel (Score:2)
Having been very close to WinAmp and the AmpDev team in general in its infancy (circa 1996-1999) it's good to see that someone else is taking an interest. When AOL/Time Warner bought it for $100 Million in 1999 we all knew the direction it was going: large, corporate, and stupid. Let's face it, AOL bought WinAmp for the community that came with it. It should be no surprise that they did nothing memorable with it. And I can't fault Justin for taking the money and running.
I remember well the Stupid Factor
Transcoding makes audio files much bigger (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That sort of hurts if you have a big collection of files in sequenced formats, such as NSF, MIDI, or MOD.
Who will write the plugins for all those exotic formats anyway? There might not exist a reasonable business case to support that kind of niche formats.
Storage is cheap, just convert everything to MP3, that's my practical recommendation.
Mark-up on the players with more GB (Score:2)
Storage is cheap
Only if your listening device has a USB mass storage port or microSD card slot. Many don't. Instead, several manufacturers of mobile listening devices, such as dedicated digital audio players and smartphones, sell one model with tiny storage at cost and put an excessive mark-up on the models with more storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because they figured if there is a chance of them selling the brand/company and they were really serious about it, they would rather not shoot themselves in the foot by killing Winamp before a potential deal goes through.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about all the people who bought the HTC one just for the speakers?
My friend bought one and it sounds surprisingly good for a phone, better than the average computer speakers and far better than any laptop speakers
Re: (Score:2)
The android version is crap. Having tried it on multiple phones it always has the same bug.
If there is music playing through the headphones and I unplug them, the music pauses (like it should). The problem is that it will randomly unpause itself hours later and start playing through the speakers, even if it's just sitting on the table untouched.
Re: (Score:2)
The story is their current line of business of basically just buying out blogs and operating them is panning out.
I thought their current line of business was taking monthly fees from gullible old people who still think that AOL is "the internet" and that they need to pay them in addition to their cable or DSL bill.