> ogg format comes with less political bs than any of the other major file > formats and if a user can't figure out how to listen to one that's just > too bad. If you've only got blue chips and the slot machines want red > chips you either don't play or you go and get red chips right? this is a classic marketing mistake (not that we're in the game of marketing on this list) - experience I've had is, unless you're Michael Jackson or Eminem, if they've got blue chips and you only take red chips, they go home, you starve, next time, you come accepting blue, you eat. as a person, I love .ogg - as a business man, it's not even worth my time. I'll probably share songs with people i meet in this community using .ogg - on the website, it'll be mp3s (or both - both is always a good thing) > I wouldn't buy an mp3 anyway and wouldn't sell any music that wasn't at > least cd quality, so providing mp3's is not a high priority for me. yep. me too. another experience of mine is, mp3s don't sell. it's like selling dub tapes. dub tapes are what the consumer makes off of your high quality CD and passes around. they ain't gonna pay for 'em. when they're ready to buy, they'll buy a CD. mp3s are for promotion, period. which is it that's crumbling now, emusic.com? starting to raise their fees and stop allowing unlimited downloads. every site on the internet that paid musicians through charging for downloads has implemented charging musicians for the service. napster is reopening on a charge basis. see how long that shit lasts. eh. 2cents. anybody wanna buy a CD? www.nquit.com ;)
