Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > iCloud will allow streaming music

iCloud will allow streaming music
Thread Tools
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2011, 01:30 PM
 
Woot!

What wasn't clear before is the fact that music can be either streamed or downloaded locally to any of your computers or devices. While the video only shows the service on a Mac, we've confirmed it works the same way on iOS devices. So, essentially, you will have instant access to your entire music library from all of your Macs, iPhones, iPads, or iPod touches for only $25/year.
'iTunes Match' Allows Both Streaming and Downloading of Music - Mac Rumors

-t
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2011, 02:08 PM
 
There must have been some licensing hang-ups when they announced it. It was such a weird presentation, because it was almost like they were talking about streaming the whole time, but they never said you could actually do it.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2011, 05:31 PM
 
UPDATE: An Apple spokesperson told All Things Digital on Tuesday that what appears to be iCloud streaming—described in the original article below—is in fact a " simultaneous listen and download." Sadly, it appears that iTunes Match is still limited to downloads only.

UPDATE 2: Despite Apple's semantically pedantic explanation that iTunes Match does not "stream" songs but instead "plays as it downloads," further investigation suggests that is not actually the case. Songs that are played by clicking on the title are effectively cached in full on iOS devices, then deleted automatically when navigating away from the song. These songs are not added to the library as they are when clicking the iCloud "download" icon.

Arguing semantics in this way seems likely to confuse the average customer if they believe the file has been downloaded when it has not. This functionality may change before the service is officially launched, however, so we will continue to investigate the matter.
Apple explains: iTunes Match beta "streaming" isn't streaming at all

For some strange and unknown reason it appears that Apple is trying to make a distinction without a difference. This functionality will allow a user to play a song they've purchased on demand and not permanently occupy storage space on their iOS device. "Simultaneous listen and download" vs. "streaming"? Whatever.

OAW

PS: Perhaps Apple is concerned that the term "streaming" is too associated with not actually owning your music? That's the only reason I can think of to be this pedantic about what the feature is called.
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 30, 2011 at 05:39 PM. )
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2011, 05:35 PM
 
Maybe they aren't allowed to "stream", but are allowed to download, play and delete. Stupid, but possible.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2011, 05:35 PM
 
I blame lawyers.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2011, 05:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Maybe they aren't allowed to "stream", but are allowed to download, play and delete. Stupid, but possible.
There is that.

OAW
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2011, 05:42 PM
 
I'm interested in iTunes match, but only if I can build smart playlists that are fed from the cloud. If I have to go and click on every album or song I want to hear, it's going to be worthless to me.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2011, 05:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Maybe they aren't allowed to "stream", but are allowed to download, play and delete. Stupid, but possible.
Exactly.

Their deal hinges on it NOT being "broadcast", which requires per-play royalties.

This is buffered download.

Seems arbitrary and stupid, but this statement is purely for legal reasons.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2011, 06:17 PM
 
Can you imagine how much cooler iOS devices could be if it were not for stupid record labels? And how the AppleTV would have virtually no competition if it weren't for stupid networks?

OAW
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2011, 06:21 PM
 
Wait, iCloud wasn't all about streaming in the first place?
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2011, 06:23 PM
 
Ah, gotta love lawyers.

I'm glad Apple found a creative way around it.

-t
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2011, 06:23 PM
 
No, iCloud is all about wireless syncing and access anywhere.

There's "Photostream", which is kind of that.
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2011, 06:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by imitchellg5 View Post
Wait, iCloud wasn't all about streaming in the first place?
No, streaming was never mentioned during the WWDC presentation.

And it's still not about streaming, so we're told

-t
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 30, 2011, 06:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Can you imagine how much cooler iOS devices could be if it were not for stupid record labels?
No, how?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2011, 06:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
No, how?
Because then consumers could pay for the music they want and consume it when they want, how they want, on whatever iOS device they want without Apple having to deal with their byzantine licensing restrictions in order to deliver that user experience. You do recall the whole DRM debacle right? International customers won't get iTunes Match on Day 1 because stupid record labels refuse to get their sh*t together and implement a worldwide licensing regime. Consequently, Apple customers outside the US will have to wait for the company to negotiate separate licensing agreements with umpteen different entities for the same freaking song around the globe. And the fundamental issue that is still at play. Instead of simply adapting their business model to the digital age ... stupid record labels are still trying to maintain the old business model by creating artificial scarcity through licensing restrictions. Instead of accepting that consumers expect to pay for a song once and then thereafter they are free to consume it how they please .... stupid record labels are trying to force consumers to pay for songs multiple times. Do you really think the labels aren't getting a cut of that $25/year fee for iTunes Match? So how much cooler would an iOS device be if that service were available for free? Or a nominal amount to compensate Apple for the extra bandwidth usage for multiple downloads of previously purchased songs?

OAW
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2011, 06:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Because then consumers could pay for the music they want and consume it when they want, how they want, on whatever iOS device they want without Apple having to deal with their byzantine licensing restrictions in order to deliver that user experience. You do recall the whole DRM debacle right?
Yeah, I remember PlaysForSure.

The iTunes FairPlay was never, and has never been a "debacle" at all. In fact, it was quite unrestrictive (the only limitation I regularly encounter/encountered was not being able to use DRM'ed tracks in iMovie soundtracks. That sucked. But beyond that?).

Apple managed to convince the labels that it isn't necessary to maintain a sustainable business first, by charging more for "iTunes Plus", before dropping it entirely.

I'm not sure which part of "minimally invasive strategy" constitutes a "debacle" in your world.
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
International customers won't get iTunes Match on Day 1 because stupid record labels refuse to get their sh*t together and implement a worldwide licensing regime. Consequently, Apple customers outside the US will have to wait for the company to negotiate separate licensing agreements with umpteen different entities for the same freaking song around the globe.
Yes, I agree.

However, labels entered long-term regional distribution contracts and are reluctant to kill those contracts because, at present, online sales aren't actually making any real money, and the distributors are what ensure that a label's stuff actually gets seen.

And international sales are damn near *impossible* to manage without a sizable infrastructure — one reason why iTunes is a Good Idea (they take care of that for you), but until it can actually replace physical sales, things ain't gonna change.

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And the fundamental issue that is still at play. Instead of simply adapting their business model to the digital age ... stupid record labels are still trying to maintain the old business model by creating artificial scarcity through licensing restrictions. Instead of accepting that consumers expect to pay for a song once and then thereafter they are free to consume it how they please ....
As far as I can see, that is *exactly* what they are now accepting.

But of course, they could "simply" adapt their business model to the digital age. Why don't you explain to them how, simply?

I bet you could make a killing as a consultant — not that they'd be able to pay you or anything, but…
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
stupid record labels are trying to force consumers to pay for songs multiple times. Do you really think the labels aren't getting a cut of that $25/year fee for iTunes Match? So how much cooler would an iOS device be if that service were available for free?
How much cooler would a free service be that had absolutely no music on it, because, believe it or not, it actually costs money to make that stuff?

No, that's a tangent.

Let's put it differently: The service has been available for free for decades. It's called "make your own ****ing tape if you wanna hear it in the car", and it comes with generational loss which made it acceptable for private use as "authorized duplication".

Now, you expect the Big Evil Companies to do that for you, anytime, anywhere, with no generational loss, refuse to buy a full album because you don't want to finance the hit single by buying a handful of "filler" songs, and somehow expect the record business to "simply" adapt their business model to the digital age?



Yes, they walked into it with open eyes, for the large part, but sheesh, man.
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Or a nominal amount to compensate Apple for the extra bandwidth usage for multiple downloads of previously purchased songs?
I believe that's part of what makes the service cost 25$/year, for up to 25,000 songs.

Also, maybe I'm just dense, but none of what you say in any way explains how the absence of labels would improve the situation.
( Last edited by Spheric Harlot; Aug 31, 2011 at 06:47 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 1, 2011, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I'm not sure which part of "minimally invasive strategy" constitutes a "debacle" in your world.
I totally agree that FairPlay was a "minimally invasive strategy". As long as you were content to access your music from within the Apple ecosystem. Play your iTunes store music on your home theater system with a non-Apple device? Oh well not so much. As your PlaysForSure example indicates ... it's even worse if you step outside the Apple ecosystem altogether. But bear in mind my "debacle" comment was about DRM in general ... which has been abandoned at this point because it was just that. A debacle.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Yes, I agree.

However, labels entered long-term regional distribution contracts and are reluctant to kill those contracts because, at present, online sales aren't actually making any real money, and the distributors are what ensure that a label's stuff actually gets seen.

And international sales are damn near *impossible* to manage without a sizable infrastructure — one reason why iTunes is a Good Idea (they take care of that for you), but until it can actually replace physical sales, things ain't gonna change.
Fair enough. But in the meantime .... international customers always have to wait. Which really sucks for them. Or if they don't want to do that they just resort to piracy. Which certainly doesn't benefit the labels.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
As far as I can see, that is *exactly* what they are now accepting.
That's debatable. If I as a consumer have paid for an album and downloaded it to my laptop ... then why do I have to pay for it again to access it on the go on my iOS device? This is precisely what labels are pushing for with their licensing schemes.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
But of course, they could "simply" adapt their business model to the digital age. Why don't you explain to them how, simply?
Well for starters they can dispense with that foolishness that I just mentioned. Beyond that Apple has shown them the way. They've proven that paid content can compete with free content if its A) reasonably priced, B) minimally restrictive, and C) easily accessible. I'd much rather go to the iTunes Store and pay $9.99 for an album that's high quality, properly tagged, won't leave my machine with a virus, etc. than deal with the hassle of trying to get it for free on BitTorrent. Clearly I'm not alone with that. Let me switch gears to video. Why are stupid studios forcing Netflix and Redbox to wait 28 days to rent movies? Because they are stuck on an old dying business model of trying to sell physical DVDS .... something that consumers are increasingly moving away from. If I want to rent an HD movie on my AppleTV why does it cost me $4.99 but I only get 24 hours to watch it ... whereas if I give that same $4.99 for a Blu-Ray at Blockbuster I get 3-4 days? Because of stupid studio licensing restrictions which are designed to prop up Blockbuster and the physical DVD business. The same Blockbuster that keeps going bankrupt because they no longer give consumers what they want! Why not fully embrace the digital distribution model which A) has lower distribution costs, and B) is what consumers want anyway? At a minimum don't intentionally disadvantage the digital distribution model in favor of the physical distribution model.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
How much cooler would a free service be that had absolutely no music on it, because, believe it or not, it actually costs money to make that stuff?
Who said anything about not paying for the music? I think I've been pretty explicit on that. My point is that if I as a consumer have already paid for the music ... why is the label trying to charge me again for accessing what I already paid for when I'm on the go? I compensated the label for the production cost of the music upfront with my initial purchase. And the label has no additional distribution cost for me to use iTunes Match and access my purchased music from Apple on demand. The label simply has no justification to try to reach into my pocket again. Apple does as the distributor because content delivery certainly isn't free. But the label has been paid already so why are they essentially charging Apple "re-download fees" via licensing restrictions ... that then get passed on to the consumer? It's BS ... plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
No, that's a tangent.

Let's put it differently: The service has been available for free for decades. It's called "make your own ****ing tape if you wanna hear it in the car", and it comes with generational loss which made it acceptable for private use as "authorized duplication".
You do realize that this analogy is rooted in a physical distribution model right? But let's continue ....

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Now, you expect the Big Evil Companies to do that for you, anytime, anywhere, with no generational loss, refuse to buy a full album because you don't want to finance the hit single by buying a handful of "filler" songs, and somehow expect the record business to "simply" adapt their business model to the digital age?

Exactly. Because with the digital distribution model the "authorized duplication" doesn't cost the label a freaking dime! The label isn't pressing another CD. It doesn't have to jump through any hoops or hurdles to avoid "generational loss". It's not incurring any additional costs. In fact, it's eliminating those costs. Let's keep our eye on the ball here and remember what the product actually is. When I copped the latest Joss Stone album I purchased the music .... not the CD. Not even the AAC file. CDs and AAC files ... even cassette tapes and vinyl are distribution mechanisms. And those come and go. But the problem is that these major labels are clinging to a dying business model that views the CD as the product as opposed to the music on it. That's why they implemented this practice of "filler songs" because their model was oriented around selling consumers a $15 CD! Consumers are trying to buy music ... but stupid labels are stuck on trying to sell CDs. So they organized the business around creating artificial scarcity as I said before. You couldn't get those one or two hit songs you wanted unless you bought the entire CD. It simply wasn't available otherwise. Well Napster threw a huge monkey wrench into that program and iTunes came along and allowed the labels to capitalize on the new paradigm. Which, for the record, isn't really new at all. Perhaps you aren't old enough to recall but back in the day the music business model was oriented around selling singles ... not albums. Record labels made plenty of money selling 45s. They've done it before and they can do it again.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Yes, they walked into it with open eyes, for the large part, but sheesh, man.
Indeed they did. But clinging to a dying business model because of short-term profit considerations while resisting a new business model that your customers are showing you they prefer by the way they vote with their dollars is simply not a wise long-term business strategy.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I believe that's part of what makes the service cost 25$/year, for up to 25,000 songs.
As I indicated the first time and reiterated above. But make no mistake about it ... the labels are getting a cut because Apple has to pay them for the right to offer "re-downloads" of previously purchased music.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Also, maybe I'm just dense, but none of what you say in any way explains how the absence of labels would improve the situation.
Well that's because I never said anything about the "'absence of labels". Record labels serve a legitimate purpose. And I'm in no way calling for their elimination. All I'm saying is that record labels need to stop being stupid and fully embrace digital distribution. And don't sabotage it by trying to screw over consumers and force them to pay over and over again for the same content.

Let's switch gears to video again to illustrate what I'm talking about. A consumer is paying for cable service to get access to various video content. S/he pays an expensive, recurring, monthly fee to the cable company which has already paid the networks for the content. Now the cable company offers the consumer an app that will allow them to watch the cable service they are already paying for on their iPad. And what do stupid networks like Viacom do? They sue the cable company to try to block it. Why? Because they want the consumer to keep paying for the same content over and over again. Which only serves to hinder digital distribution.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Sep 1, 2011 at 02:26 PM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2011, 04:09 AM
 
You keep making the distinction between physical and digital distribution media, but you fail to realize that you never owned the music, you were always licensing it for certain types of personal use.

And this focus on licensing, separated from the distribution channel, is EXACTLY "adapting their business model to the digital age".

The regional distribution crap is a vestige of the past and needs to die, but you cannot blame the industry for attempting to get licensing royalties for added value — especially since you're really only talking pennies for considerable advantages over the traditional media here.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2011, 06:06 AM
 
Not this again. Do you people tell plumbers how to run their industry when you don't like their prices?

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Because then consumers could pay for the music they want and consume it when they want, how they want, on whatever iOS device they want without Apple having to deal with their byzantine licensing restrictions in order to deliver that user experience.
Or maybe the consumers could grow a brain and learn how to use a dock or a cable to transfer their music from one device to another? Are people so dense or ADHD-riddled that they can't tell which 32 Gb of songs out of their 48 Gb library they might like to listen to on their half hour drive to work?

Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Do you really think the labels aren't getting a cut of that $25/year fee for iTunes Match?
I ain't. And without people like me, good luck listening to the shite that Garageband users poop out.

Personally I'm thinking we should change the industry and treat music like the artwork it is - one offs, which you punters have to bid for at auction. You're always whining that the artiste works once and cops continuous payout, so let's do it this new way. Good luck getting that latest Snoop Doggy Gaga Bieber album for less than a couple mill - see you at the auction!
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2011, 10:42 AM
 
When I can download a fix for my leaky sink on bit torrent, the plumbers can start getting scared.

The music industry is changing whether they like it or not. They need to find a way to make money in the new market and (from an outside perspective) so far they seem to suck at it.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2011, 10:47 AM
 
They want it be the 90s forever.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2011, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
You keep making the distinction between physical and digital distribution media, but you fail to realize that you never owned the music, you were always licensing it for certain types of personal use.

And this focus on licensing, separated from the distribution channel, is EXACTLY "adapting their business model to the digital age".

The regional distribution crap is a vestige of the past and needs to die, but you cannot blame the industry for attempting to get licensing royalties for added value — especially since you're really only talking pennies for considerable advantages over the traditional media here.
What you are saying here has technical merit. In the back of my mind I know this is the case .... so I'm not disagreeing with you on that level whatsoever. I'm just asking you to view the situation from the perspective of the consumer. The consumer who feels that when they've forked over their money then they've bought the album ... not licensed the album. The typical consumer who doesn't bother to read 20 pages of legalese when installing that new software package they bought and just blows past the "By clicking here you acknowledge you agree to the Terms & Conditions" thing without a second thought. The average consumer who feels that they bought the movie on DVD or iTunes download ... not licensed it. So they can do whatever the hell they want to with it for their personal use. Indeed legally the consumer is only "licensing" the content ... but in their mind that copy belongs to them once they've paid for it. And whether the content providers like it or not ... this is a fundamental reality. The same applies for physical book purchases. The consumer is technically "licensing" the book. But imagine if a publisher tried to charge the consumer for the book for home use ... and then turned around and tried to charge them again if they read the same book on the beach while on vacation? It's absurd! Legalese notwithstanding.

OAW
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2011, 03:36 PM
 
I understand where you're coming from.

But consumers can be conditioned to perceive value.

Why aren't people protesting that Amazon/iBooks won't let them download books for free onto their Kindle/iPad that they've purchased in hard copy over the past twenty years?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2011, 06:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I understand where you're coming from.

But consumers can be conditioned to perceive value.

Why aren't people protesting that Amazon/iBooks won't let them download books for free onto their Kindle/iPad that they've purchased in hard copy over the past twenty years?
Indeed you make a good point. Let's take iBooks out of it because there is no equivalent of a hard copy purchase from Apple. I think you'd agree that a store selling an e-book wouldn't honor such a thing based on a hard copy purchase of the same book at another store right? Well one could argue that if I bought a novel from Amazon on hardcopy then I should be able to get that same novel for a nominal download fee from Amazon. Good luck with that of course! I think people don't do this because even though hardcopy and e-book are distribution mechanisms ... on some level there's enough differentiation that it's perceived as a different product. Which on the surface may seem contradictory to what I said earlier. But it's really not. Ultimately the consumer is buying the words or the music or the movie. But how it's packaged matters to a certain degree. There were albums I bought on cassette that I re-purchased on CD. There were movies I had on VHS I re-purchased on DVD. I did this because of the increase in quality. Consumers didn't demand that they get previous CD purchases for free because the #1 purveyor of music downloads (i.e. Apple) was never in the CD business. I suspect Kindle customers aren't demanding free or nominal expense downloads of previous Amazon book purchases because they perceive it as a sufficiently differentiated product. Having said that, it might actually be a good promotion for Amazon to offer this as a competitive move against iBooks.

OAW
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2011, 03:34 AM
 
Like I said, perceived value can be created. But I don't really see anybody complaining about $25/year for this service. Especially since it includes space for up to 25000 songs, including material that needs to be uploaded.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2011, 05:57 AM
 
Legitimate poster?

Hmm.

Nope, not legit. And gone. Glenn
( Last edited by ghporter; Sep 6, 2011 at 06:21 AM. Reason: Referenced spammer now gone.)
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2011, 06:00 AM
 
Legitimate ?

NOT.

Definitely not. And gone. Glenn
( Last edited by ghporter; Sep 6, 2011 at 06:22 AM. Reason: More referenced spammer gone editing.)
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:08 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,