Slashdot Mirror


MP3 Winners and Losers for 2003

An anonymous reader writes "Richard Menta over at MP3newswire.net just posted his annual winners and losers list in digital music for last year. The big winner is Apple for dominating MP3 portable player sales and the dramatic success of its iTunes service. Napster savior Roxio and the small independent record labels also made the winners list. The losers list include SonicBlue and MP3.com. Interestingly, Ogg Vorbis made the losers list, not because of the codec per se, but because iTunes has both catapulted the AAC format to number two and stimulated Microsoft to pour more of its efforts ($$$) into WMA and the iTunes clones, leaving little room left for the open source alternative. The 2001 and 2002 winners list are worth a look too and each have links to that year's losers list."

408 comments

  1. MP3.com.co by MattRog · · Score: 1

    What ever happened to MP3.com -- the company?

    --

    Thanks,
    --
    Matt
    1. Re:MP3.com.co by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative
      It was bought by CNet. There was a minor bit of excitement as Michael Robertson, MP3.com's founder and current big-cheese at Lindows.com, noted CNet's plans were to close the entire thing down and maybe start something afresh using the domain name (essentially, they bought the domain name for a godawful amount of cash) and felt they should at least pass on MP3.com's music archive to someone else to store.

      MP3.com declined, as far as we're aware the music archive that was at that site is now dead, and so is the site itself.

      There's a bit about it here if you're interested.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:MP3.com.co by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they were bought out by some other company a couple months ago, and dropped the mp3.com archives.

    3. Re:MP3.com.co by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Er Vivendi, sorry. CNet bought the domain name from Vivendi. Vivendi owned MP3.com itself. And Slashdot doesn't like me trying to correct a mistake I see straight away, so I need to wait a few minutes and in the mean time have little to do. So here's a joke:

      A married man was having an affair with his secretary. One day, their passions overcame them and they took off for her house, where they made passionate love all afternoon. Exhausted from the wild sex, they fell asleep, awakening around 8:00pm.

      As the man threw on his clothes, he told the woman to take his shoes outside and rub them through the grass and dirt. Mystified, she nonetheless complied. He slipped into his shoes and drove home. "Where have you been?" demanded his wife when he entered the house. "Darling, I can't lie to you. I've been having an affair with my secretary and we've been having sex all afternoon. I fell asleep and didn't wake up until eight o'clock." The wife glanced down at his shoes and said, "You lying bastard! You've been playing golf!".

      No, I didn't think it was that funny either. Someone emailed me it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:MP3.com.co by Rkane · · Score: 2, Informative

      FuckedCompany.com has a nice little blurp on it, as well as the letter sent out to users. See the current mp3.com homepage for a cheezy rendition of mp3.com's future.

    5. Re:MP3.com.co by DeathBunnyRanger · · Score: 1

      MP3.com is the underwriting technology that runs napster.com (I helped build the servers at the shop) it is hush hush.

    6. Re:MP3.com.co by combonator · · Score: 0

      DO NOT click link above, it's goatse.cx anus.

    7. Re:MP3.com.co by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't Napster that thing ripped off that guy in the Italian Job?

    8. Re:MP3.com.co by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      not even slightly funny.

  2. Re:Sorry, but anyone paying $300+ for a music play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    oddly enough so are people who sit at a web board and wait to make posts on new subject matter.

  3. True to a point... by tempest303 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One thing to keep in mind, though, is that one of the original arguments against Vorbis adoption was "But all the MP3 hardware out there uses a dedicated MP3 decoder chip, so they can't just 'upgrade the firmware' to support Vorbis", along with countless other arguments that deal with the fact that in any given project, 1 codec is easier to deal with than many.

    Well, because we now have MP3, AAC, and WMA, all becoming popular, that means that instead of hardcoded support for 1 format, any company that's serious about making music software or hardware is probably going to want to support a plugin style architecture, which means that supporting a 4th, 5th, 6th, etc, format becomes much easier, so things like FLAC and Vorbis have one more barrier to entry removed from their paths.

    1. Re:True to a point... by Lshmael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but if no online music stores are using Ogg Vorbis, it is unlikely that consumer demand will increase. As a result, most of the music player companies will not have the impetus to make a Vorbis plugin, hindering it in the "Codec Wars."

    2. Re:True to a point... by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if no online music stores are using Ogg Vorbis...

      This has nothing to do with the popularity of mp3. mp3, like everything else, is more popular simply because it is more popular. It came out 1st, has hardware decoders, and people know what you mean when you say mp3 (a free/cheap music format for my computer, hardware player, etc). People just dont know or care if ogg is better. Also, mp3's were around for _years_ before there were online stores for them.

    3. Re:True to a point... by AstroDrabb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. That is why there are many players that support OGG Vorbis now. Neuros, Rio, IRiver and a buch of others. I personally do not want to be locked into a proprietary format like wma or Apple's AAC. And I would never buy an iPod that limitis what I can do with music I buy. I personally don't understand the Apple Fan Boy mentality. On one hand they cheer Open Source and screem how Apple is now BSD on the inside. Though they over look all of the proprietary Apple formats that are attempts to lock comsumers into Apple. Quicktime, Apple's AAC, their restrictive iPod and iTunes, and just about every product they put out. I personally am sick of companies trying to control what I can do with a product I purchase to further their profits. I will stick to buying a CD and legally ripping it to OGG and playing it on a portable player like the Neuros that supports it. Read this quickly, because soon Apple Fan Boys will be along and wet their pants and mod this as a troll.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    4. Re:True to a point... by elykyllek · · Score: 2, Informative

      While they may not have RIAA label music on their sites both
      Magnatune
      and
      Audio Lunchbox
      Provide drm-free ogg vorbis files for purchase.

    5. Re:True to a point... by Talez · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't agree. The problem, from my perspective, is that Vorbis was the answer to a question that nobody asked. They released the codec and the general public went "so?".

      IMHO, the only reason why AAC and WMA are gaining in popularity is that there are end-to-end solutions out there promoting these formats. Once people realise the superiority of these next-gen formats over MP3, they will probably start migrating over in droves.

      Although, this is going to cause some nasty format wars. iTunes can't play WMA easily and WMP can't play AAC easily meaning that you're going to be locked in to your player unless you're using something like Winamp.

      At any rate, its my opinion that Vorbis is going to hell in a handbasket quickly. Nobody (bar FOSS supporters) out there in the real world gives a shit whether "it's free" or "it's royalty free" because they already have a perfectly good defacto standard and the other newer standards out there are perfectly positioned to replace them.

    6. Re:True to a point... by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Yes, but if no online music stores are using Ogg Vorbis..
      Most (a vast majority of) music sales are CD audio (*). Then the user uses whatever the heck codec he wants to, to compress it. Demand is for whatever people want to use, not for the formats that the music is sold in.

      Any particular codec could be 0% of sales and still have high demand for players. Remember: a few years ago, no music was sold in MP3 format (and even today, very little is sold in that format), but there was (and still is) a huge demand for MP3 players.

      Whatever codec that most people use to encode CDs, is the "must have" format for players. Right now, that is MP3. Some day, it could be Vorbis (though I don't see a trend in that direction). But one thing's for sure: it will never, ever be DRM-wrapped AAC or WMA. Those are guaranteed dead ends.

      (*) IMHO, this is likely to remain the case for a very long time. It requires an above-average amount of foolish short-sightedness for a person to be willing to buy in a lossy format, unless the precision is extremely high (making the files nearly as large as using lossless compressors). It has to be possible to transcode to tomorrow's formats w/out adding significant artifacts, otherwise the format is "unsafe" in the future-proofing sense. Thus, the only serious competition that CDs face, is from codecs like FLAC.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    7. Re:True to a point... by Daleks · · Score: 1

      Though they over look all of the proprietary Apple formats that are attempts to lock comsumers into Apple. Quicktime, Apple's AAC, their restrictive iPod and iTunes, and just about every product they put out.

      Quicktime is just a means of sequencing frames. It is not a format let alone a proprietary one. I don't see why people continue to think it is one. AAC wasn't developed by Apple. Read their own webpage no it. Also, note there is a difference between AAC and an Apple DRM'ed AAC. The iPod plays AIFF's, MP3's, AAC's, and DRM'ed AAC's. No one is forcing you to encode your music in AAC or limit your selection of music to DRM AAC's from iTMS. Also, iTunes plays Ogg Vorbis files via a plugin. If you're really miffed that the iPod doesn't currently play Ogg files, then simply don't buy it. Why bother going on a tirade against Apple?

    8. Re:True to a point... by .com+b4+.storm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Though they over look all of the proprietary Apple formats that are attempts to lock comsumers into Apple. Quicktime, Apple's AAC, their restrictive iPod and iTunes, and just about every product they put out

      Well to be fair, Quicktime and AAC are not proprietary formats. Quicktime is rather open, it's the individual codecs that may or may not be free/Free (such as Sorenson). You can stick pretty much any ol' video or audio stream in a Quicktime file that you like. AAC also is not proprietary to Apple, it is standardized by a number of key industry players. Whether or not that is much better is, of course, up for debate.

      As for the iPod and iTunes, I'm not sure what you mean by 'restrictive'. The iPod lets you do pretty much anything you want, except you can't copy music back to a computer from it. It's a shame such a restriction is necessary to keep the RIAA somewhat happy, but it's not really a significant one IMO. And as for iTunes, what are these 'restrictions' that so upset you? I can play pretty much any music file or CD I wish, rip it, burn it, buy music, play it on any 3 computers I wish, burn it too, and so forth. Yes, I can barely breathe for all the restrictions in iTunes!

      --
      "Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
      -- Ryan Stiles
    9. Re:True to a point... by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1

      I meant Sorensen. That is proprietary Apple.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    10. Re:True to a point... by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1

      I think not being able to copy music back from an iPod is a pretty nasty restriction. And a restriction that suggests that Apple assumes their custoemrs are theives. I don't see how or Why Apple would do it to "Keep the RIAA" happy. Pretty much every other player out there lets you copy songs to it and FROM it and be able to play those songs that are on it with out making a distinction between songs that are playable and not copyable and songs that are copyable and not playable. For ITunes, I personally don't care for the DRM. It doesn't do anything to stop a pirate from buying a song, burning it to a CD and ripping it to share on the net. It again suggests to me the Apple assumes that their customers are theives that will try to steal at any opportunity. I also don't want to have to use MS Windows or Mac OS X to use ITunes. What is wrong with the idea of just having a music service that lets the user use ANY OS and pick from a few different download formats? You know, a service from some copany that did not assume that their customers are theives.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    11. Re:True to a point... by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The Neuros is huge, the iPod is small. You can use MP3's on both the iPod and the Neuros. Perhaps 1,000 people have significantly large enough Vorbis music collections to warrant an Ogg compatible player.

      iPod wins.

      Now as to why Apple users cheer the Open Source community its simple. With Apple we get the best of both worlds. The openess of free software with the polish of proprietary excellence. No wonder a lot of Linux/BSD folks have shelled out for iBooks and Powerbooks when they could have saved money and bought Dell Inspiron's and slapped Debian on them.

      At the end of the day you want something that just works

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    12. Re:True to a point... by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      How many customers are going to be using an OS other than Windows or Mac OS X? The folly of open source developers is that they think the number of people using their software is great enough to support commercial support.

      It isn't.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    13. Re:True to a point... by .com+b4+.storm · · Score: 1

      For ITunes, I personally don't care for the DRM. It doesn't do anything to stop a pirate

      It also doesn't keep me from enjoying my music in any way. Thus I, personally, don't care about it. I get to buy the songs I want for 99 cents a pop, picking and choosing as I go. Sounds like a winner to me.

      I don't see how or Why Apple would do it to "Keep the RIAA" happy.

      So they can distribute their music?

      It again suggests to me the Apple assumes that their customers are theives

      It suggests to me that Apple had to make some concessions to the RIAA in order to make their music available for 99 cents a track. It also suggests to me that Apple believes its customer base will not mind the rather minor restrictions placed on the purchased music. For me, and many, many others, that assumption would seem to be accurate.

      What is wrong with the idea of just having a music service that lets the user use ANY OS and pick from a few different download formats? You know, a service from some copany that did not assume that their customers are theives.

      "What is wrong" is that that company will get the right to distribute the music most people want around the same time as you see icicles forming in Hell. Sure, services like EMusic offer unrestricted MP3s, but they also don't carry a ton of major labels. That's their niche, and it works for them. But Apple wanted the big boys of music, and so some concessions had to be made. They're not unreasonable ones to me.

      --
      "Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
      -- Ryan Stiles
    14. Re:True to a point... by TSNV · · Score: 0

      "Begun, the codec war has." ..Sorry.

      --
      If there is hope, it lies in the prowles.
    15. Re:True to a point... by Daleks · · Score: 2, Informative
      As for the iPod and iTunes, I'm not sure what you mean by 'restrictive'. The iPod lets you do pretty much anything you want, except you can't copy music back to a computer from it.

      Yes you can.
      bob@foo /Volumes/bob's iPod/iPod_Control/Music$ ls
      F00 F01 F02 F03 F04 F05 F06 F07 F08 F09 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19
      All of the music files are contained within those directories. Copy away. It even works for DRM AAC's.
    16. Re:True to a point... by AstroDrabb · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Perhaps 1,000 people have significantly large enough Vorbis music collections to warrant an Ogg compatible player.
      Do you have the link to where you got those stats? I guess all these device makers supported OGG for only 1,000 people. How many portable devices support Apple's DRM'ed AAC format again? Just incase I am not happy with an iPod, it is good to know I have choice in the market place. We all know how much Apple supports consumer choice.
      The openess of free software
      Yes because Sorensen is so open, Apple's DRM'ed AAC is so open or OS X is so open...
      with the polish of proprietary excellence.
      Do you work for Apple? That is the biggest piece of marketing BS I have ever heard. Proprietary != excellence. As a developer I have worked with and deployed tons of proprietary software, some costing in excess of 25 Million that were not "polished proprietary excellence". IMO, OS X is not "polished proprietary excellence" either.
      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    17. Re:True to a point... by gkuz · · Score: 0
      (*) IMHO, this is likely to remain the case for a very long time. It requires an above-average amount of foolish short-sightedness for a person to be willing to buy in a lossy format

      I think foolish short-sightedness is in abundant supply, as is ignorance of what real music sounds like. After all, you can transcode the hyper-produced Britney-etc "pop" among all the lossy formats you want and not subtract anything meaningful from it. How much fidelity does the average portable-music-player user need anyway? They're listening to it through the world's crappiest transducers ($3 earphones) in a high-ambient-noise environment (jogging, walking down the street, riding the subway).

    18. Re:True to a point... by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1

      Hmm, well Linux does have MILLIONS of server deployments out there. Linux does have support of large companies like Oracle, SAP, People Soft, Network Associates, IBM, and many many more. But your right. No one uses Linux. The BILLIONS in sales in 2003 for Linux were just an imagination. The fact is, is that there are far more Linux OS deployments in the world then Mac OS X, RIGHT NOW, when you count Linux server deployments. Mac OS might have that 3% of the desktop market, though give Linux two more years and it will pass Mac OS X to become number two on desktop world wide when you add up all those corporate roll outs. Heck, China is doing a deal with Sun to deploy 1,000,000 Linux desktops in 2004.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    19. Re:True to a point... by davechen · · Score: 1

      Wanna copy music off you iPod. Here's how I'd do it.

      cp -r /Volumes/Dave Chen's iPod/iPod_Control/Music/* ~/Music

      If that's too complicated for ya, you can find apps that'll do it too.

    20. Re:True to a point... by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1
      It suggests to me that Apple had to make some concessions to the RIAA in order to make their music available for 99 cents a track.

      Yes, but please ask yourself: why does the RIAA demand these DRM concessions? As grandparent said, the iTunes DRM does nothing to stop mass copyright infringement or even casual trading with friends.

      It also doesn't keep me from enjoying my music in any way. Thus I, personally, don't care about it.

      That's rather myopic. The RIAA sees iTunes as a way to build both infrastructure for and public acceptance of DRM. It's working, because many people like you accept the instant gratification of iTunes but never question the necessity of DRM. After DRM becomes the status quo, do you really trust the industry (which is currently attempting to exempt itself from antitrust laws) not to increase prices and remove rights?

    21. Re:True to a point... by plastik55 · · Score: 1

      And what does that have to do with music?

      --

      I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!

    22. Re:True to a point... by FLEB · · Score: 1

      ...and what percentage of these deployments are just chugging along in server rooms, without so much as a pair of speakers plugged in?

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    23. Re:True to a point... by bjarvis354 · · Score: 1
      I guess IBM is a bunch of fools then...


      current IBM stock price: 91.55 Market Cap: 157.50 Billion


      or maybe they think there might be some money in commercial support of linux? Apple seems to be profiteering from BSD's open source code in the short term. But that does not change the fact that OS X users are not programmers. And the future belongs to people who can make computers work for them how they want. Have fun fighting back the night! Your going to need it.

    24. Re:True to a point... by FLEB · · Score: 1

      > ...meaning that you're going to be locked in to your player unless you're using something like Winamp.

      Who isn't?

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    25. Re:True to a point... by westlake · · Score: 1

      Linux on the server. Linux on a locked-down corporate desktop. Linux in China. All successes of a kind. But none of them relevant to the marketing of music over the Internet in North America.
      iTunes is an admission that to make a success of a music player you have to reach users at home---and home users run Windows to the exclusion of everything else.

    26. Re:True to a point... by dvdeug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It requires an above-average amount of foolish short-sightedness for a person to be willing to buy in a lossy format,

      There's no such thing as a non-lossy digital encoding of analog data. You have to start throwing away data that comes below a certain threshold. CDs are just a lossy format which isn't well tuned to what humans actually hear, so there's a lot of room to throw away data.

      In any case, people bought seriously lossy formats for the first 90 years of music, and they still buy a lossy format for video. (Not only does DVDs use MPEG4 and sample at a resolution way below film, it stores data at interlaced TV rates instead of what was actually filmed.)

    27. Re:True to a point... by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      Proprietary != excellence, I'll grant you that.

      But OS X is polished, and is leagues better than XP. Sorry. That's my opinion from having two XP boxes, a Slackware box and an OS X box.

      You're confusing "commercial" with "proprietary", it seems. They're not always the same. WMA is proprietary and commercial. AAC is commercial but not proprietary.

      Just a thought. ...and before you reply...no, I am not an Apple marketing rep either.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    28. Re:True to a point... by smithmc · · Score: 1

      It requires an above-average amount of foolish short-sightedness for a person to be willing to buy in a lossy format

      Most people don't even know what a "lossy format" is, never mind which ones are better than others, or their relative advantages or disadvantages relative to non- or lossless compression. They will buy what they are sold, for better or for worse.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    29. Re:True to a point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might be as simple as the name not being catchy enough. Vorbis isn't a good trademark name. I dont't know why. I'm not an advertiser or a linguist. There's something subtle about it that turns people cold. Doesn't matter if it pees perfume and shits gold. It's called "Vorbis." Look closer, and it's called "Ogg Vorbis." I can't put my finger on why, but American prejudices are going to file that one away. It's not going to get adopted unless someone puts the stigma of the name behind it, disassociates it totally, and comes up with something catchy. Or sexy. Or something. But not "Vorbis."

    30. Re:True to a point... by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      If I were to get a laptop, it would be an Apple. That's not because of OS X, it's because the hardware is just as good, if not better than a similarly priced x86 laptop.

    31. Re:True to a point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is licensed by Apple. And for good reason: it is a damn good video codec. All those movie trailers on Apple.com look outstanding.

    32. Re:True to a point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Yes, but if no online music stores are using
      >> Ogg Vorbis..

      If we could provide them as MP3s, we would. Labels are unwilling to allow us to provide songs in a non-DRM format. At least there are workarounds to convrt them...

      - napster guy

    33. Re:True to a point... by oscast · · Score: 1

      Apple doesn't own sorenson... Sorenson does. Apple just licenses the codec

    34. Re:True to a point... by stuartkahler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You seem to have a definition of 'lossy' that is heavily biased against digital formats, and uninformed. Any analog copy loses signal quality from the original sampling. Film doesn't count individual photons, and audio recordings always drop fidelity above a certain frequency. I've yet to see someone make an atom by atom copy of film, audio tape, or grooved record, thus losing information present in the original. Anyone who has ever been to an unamplified concert knows that there is no recording that will sound as good as hearing the instruments live. No photo will ever capture the color and detail of seeing the object live (extreme examples of optical manipulation notwithstanding). Any time there is a conversion, there will be loss.

      The term 'lossy', in regard to information storage, refers to any format that intentionally discards existing data in a particular manner in order to fit into the medium more easily. Non-lossy digital formats would include tiff (I think), rle and bmp (both picture formats), or shn and wav (audio formats). You can convert between non-lossy formats, and get back identical data each time. Just because something is digital doesn't mean it's 'lossy'. Jpg, mpg and mp3 are all lossy because the codecs intentionally fudge data in order to make it fit into a smaller data file. When they're doing a good job, you lose less information than you would when making an analog copy. CDs aren't 'lossy'. They simply have a dynamic range and sampling rate that is narrower than the best analog recording mediums. In the analog world, you can do a lot worse than CD audio.

      By your argument, VHS or Betamax would be a better quality than the digital projector systems that George Lucas and others are trying to get theaters to adopt. Or that a 6 megapixel camera is worse image quality than an SLR with bargain basement film and crappy lens.

    35. Re:True to a point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of all that IBM iron running Linux... how many of those machines are IBM supporting as a home user's desktop?

      Oh, right.

      Not a single one.

    36. Re:True to a point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As a developer I have worked with and deployed tons of proprietary software, some costing in excess of 25 Million that were not "polished proprietary excellence".
      I call bluff, just because there are so many liars on Slashdot.
    37. Re:True to a point... by bjarvis354 · · Score: 1

      We were talking about commercial support structures right? Anyways, if you need to pay a company for home desktop software support it isn't suprising to see you as an AC here. I mena give me a break you are paying someone to fix you home machine?

      Do yourself a favor and go back to Gateway...

    38. Re:True to a point... by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      for the first 90 years of music

      Excuse me? Music has been around, in various forms, since the dawn of human civilization. Music recordings, on the other hand, have only been around for about a century - I'm guessing that's what you were referring to.

    39. Re:True to a point... by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1

      I do agree that Apple OS X is leagues better than MS Windows XP, or MS Windows Anything. If Apple would lower their price point to be competitive with other hardware, they could slap MS silly. Or, if Apple would port OS X to x86, their price could compete very well with anything from anything from MS Windows. I personally believe in Open Source and stick with Linux. However, if I had to choose between MS Windows anything and OS X, I'd pick OS X in a heart beat.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    40. Re:True to a point... by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      You seem to have a definition of 'lossy' that is heavily biased against digital formats

      I said that people had been using lossy formats for 90 years; I think it fairly obvious that I include analog in my definition of lossy. That makes most of your argument strawman.

      You can convert between non-lossy formats, and get back identical data each time.

      Only if you have one true model of the data space. You can't convert between YUV and RGB colorspaces and get identical data, but both are generally considered lossless. Likewise, if you renormalized your view of the sound space to make MP3s the one true sound model, WAVs would just be another odd lossy sound model.

    41. Re:True to a point... by Merusdraconis · · Score: 1

      I think /. covered this at one point - home users use Windows because Windows programming is all about 'Unka Joe can use a compooter' and Linux programming is more about making sure that programmers can use your stuff effectively. I mean, would you rather use emacs or Ultra-Edit for your programming jobs? (Answer's emacs, kids.) But is a GUI easier or harder to use than a command-line?

    42. Re:True to a point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This must be some new meaning of "restrictive" of which I have until now been unaware.

    43. Re:True to a point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you really trust the industry (which is currently attempting to exempt itself from antitrust laws) not to increase prices and remove rights?

      Yes, because the only reason the iTunes music store works is because of low prices and loose DRM. Take those away, and you no longer have the music store.
      Much like how you trust car manufacturers to keep putting in engines that don't require quarters to operate.

    44. Re:True to a point... by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1
      There are many engine manufacturers, but there is only one RIAA. And the RIAA is in a position of complete power - they can deliver ultimatums. Just as they can say "no pointless DRM scheme, no 99 cent downloads," they can remove any other right. Where else can resellers and consumers go for mainstream legal music?

      It won't be immediate, because the first goal is to make DRM commonplace. Then, barring some unforseen competition, fair use rights can be destroyed.

    45. Re:True to a point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude you got issues

      Stop bitching about "Fan boy" get a life.

      Apple Wah wah wah, Quicktime wah wah wah. iPod boo ho ho ho. iTunes, bitch bitch.

      Get over it.

    46. Re:True to a point... by stuartkahler · · Score: 1

      Actually, MP3s are a compressed form of WAVs. When you play back MP3s, they are decompressed to WAVs for the output device. So converting an MP3 to a WAV and playing back the WAV results in an identical waveform to what the MP3 puts out. WAV is also the format used to store audio on the CD in the first place. The only thing CDs add is time stamp info, ECC and coding for the laser to track it's position around the CD.

      Your argument about RGB vs. YUV is faulty. They both sample the original data in technically different ways. Your same argument could be made about 44 vs 48 khz digital recording. You can't convert between them without interpolating and thus losing data. That doesn't make them lossy on their own.

      It now sounds like you're trying to say that any method of storing information is 'lossy'. What's an audio or video format that isn't lossy to you?

      BTW, I believe you are alone including analog formats in your definition of 'lossy'. If you're going to go re-defining the english language, you should be more clear.
      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lossy

    47. Re:True to a point... by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      BTW, I believe you are alone including analog formats in your definition of 'lossy'.

      so analog formats aren't lossy, how could your statement that

      You seem to have a definition of 'lossy' that is heavily biased against digital formats

      be true?

      In any case, Foldoc's definition is biased towards
      digital techniques, as algorithms imply computers.
      Note also that it never talks about lossy or lossless formats, it talks about lossy and lossless compression techniques, a whole different matter. As a "compression" technique on most audio formats inside the computer, wavs are lossless (though not if you have multichannel audio, which WAV compresses by deleting or merging channels).


      It now sounds like you're trying to say that any method of storing information is 'lossy'. What's an audio or video format that isn't lossy to you?


      There is none, unless your information is fundamentally digital, like text, to begin with.

      Are DVDs lossy? If they "actually reduce[] the amount of information in the data", then so do stereo (or mono) CDs, because they compress multiple audio streams into two (or one).

    48. Re:True to a point... by stuartkahler · · Score: 1

      You're splitting the hair pretty thin in order to redefine the english language in the image you want.

      I could split the hair just as much and call this text you're reading lossy. It discards the sound of my voice as I read it aloud in order to fit into a small group of bytes. Your font and text size could be different than what I'm typing in. Just because CDs are typically mixed from many audio streams (that may include positional data, or higher fidelity) doesn't mean that the final two-channel product lost something. The final stream is simply the finished composition.

      DVDs are lossy because MPG changes the picture and audio intentionally, to reduce the number of bits used. It tends to smooth out color gradients, or copy similar picture data from prior frames or other sections of the same image, rather than precisely encode from scratch. The audio doesn't include frequencies in the 1hz or 100khz range, or 360 degree photon sampling of light waves from radio up to gamma waves, but that doesn't make it lossy. There are video compression techniques that aren't lossy, but the data storage requirements are insane. It's like if I say I paid $30k for a car, rather than $29999.99. I changed the number to make it easier to say (lossy compression). If I convert the actual price into Euros, it may come out as E28546.32416, and I have to tuncate it to E28546.32 because you can't have a portion of a Euro smaller than E0.01. That doesn't make Euros lossy, just a different currency format. I could still express that amount lossily (makin up words now, woot!) as E28.5k. The difference is only preceptible to you when looking at the original data.

      Anyway, under your viewpoint, there are no lossless formats, so everything is lossy. You should stop discussing lossy vs. lossless formats until you have a better understanding of what lossy and lossless compression formats actually are. Scan a picture and save it as a GIF or BMP (lossless), and then as a series of JPGs (lossy) at increasing levels of compression (all in the same resolution and colorspace). This should illustrate what 'lossy' is very clearly.

    49. Re:True to a point... by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      You're splitting the hair pretty thin in order to redefine the english language in the image you want.

      You chose the definition.

      I could split the hair just as much and call this text you're reading lossy.

      As a transcription of your voice, it is. But you didn't try to transcribe your voice; you wrote it as proper English text, which is composed of discrete entities (characters). Likewise, I'm not seeing it in the font and size you might recommend, but there's no evidence that you tried to include that; even if it is part of a master copy, there is a level that's just text that is lossless.

      Just because CDs are typically mixed from many audio streams (that may include positional data, or higher fidelity) doesn't mean that the final two-channel product lost something. The final stream is simply the finished composition.

      How can you take a higher fidelity audio stream and turn it into a lower fidelity stream and say you haven't lost anything? On one hand, there are soundtracks that are designed to have many channels that are lost in conversion to CD; on the other, you can designate a JPG the finished composition; I've seen newsgroups send around md5sums for JPGs to make sure everyone was getting the same high-quality originals. How are those JPGs not finished compositions?

      That doesn't make Euros lossy, just a different currency format.

      If you are buying and selling in Euros, then they aren't lossy. If you post your prices in Euros and buy and sell in dollars, then Euros are lossy.

      MPG changes the picture and audio intentionally, to reduce the number of bits used

      A camera changes the picture intentionally, to reduce the number of bits (or in an analog camera, the amount of data), by compressing the spectrum into red, green and blue, or some other set of hues, usually three in color.

      Scan a picture and save it as a GIF or BMP (lossless), and then as a series of JPGs (lossy) at increasing levels of compression

      I've done that. I've also saved a picture as a B&W PNG and as a greyscale JPGs and found that the "lossy" format better preserved the image.

      In fact, as a general rule, if I scan a color picture, it will look better saved as a JPG then as a GIF, which only supports 256 colors.

      Yes, there's a difference between "lossy" and "lossless" compression formats as compression formats. But that doesn't mean that a file saved in a "lossless" format will be higher quality then a file saved in a "lossy" format. Just because a compression format is "lossless" doesn't mean that it's not low quality and that stuff converted into it won't be degraded.

    50. Re:True to a point... by stuartkahler · · Score: 1

      Oops, I meant BMP or TGA, rather than GIF. You can convert between BMP, TGA or PNG (and other lossless formats), and not lose a single pixel of detail. Once you move to JPG, you drop detail. GIFs are lossless for B&W pics, or hand drawn images that use less than 256 colors. By today's standard, they are useless for full color images, since computers don't display in 8 bit anymore. Ten years ago, GIFs could almost be considered lossless because the displays couldn't handle a higher bitdepth anyway, so you were just reducing the color depth to save processing time later.

      BTW, by your definition of 'lossy', this text is a lossy approximation of my thoughts before I even touch the keyboard. Name a video or audio format that you consider lossless, or quit trolling.

    51. Re:True to a point... by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      You can convert between BMP, TGA or PNG (and other lossless formats), and not lose a single pixel of detail.

      Provided you start with 24 bit color. If you start with color that is 16-bit per channel, TGA loses information.

      by your definition of 'lossy', this text is a lossy approximation of my thoughts before I even touch the keyboard.

      As a representation of thoughts, text is indeed a lossy format. However, text is not usually thought of in those terms.

      Name a video or audio format that you consider lossless

      There is no such format. According to Heisenberg, there can be no such format. There are only successively better approximations.

  4. Re:ITMS is the true winner by Kenja · · Score: 2, Funny

    See to me, dealing with Quicktime for Windows or any Apple software on Windows is more of a PITA then going to the mall and buying a CD.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  5. Re:Sorry, but anyone paying $300+ for a music play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, it's a good thing you're above all that

  6. big losers by Savatte · · Score: 5, Funny

    In my opinion, anyone who downloaded Creed was a loser, not just for this year.

    1. Re:big losers by FearUncertaintyDoubt · · Score: 1
      Now wait just a second there, pal! I downloaded Creed, and I sure ain't...oh, wait, you're right.

      Never mind.

  7. NAPSTER? by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't know how they can be considered a winner. Quite frankly, the only think they have going for them is their logo. Everybody and his uncle is setting up a store to sell WMA downloads, and Steve Jobs has stated that profits are almost non-existant.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:NAPSTER? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except that it is another thing to drive iPod sales

    2. Re:NAPSTER? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that this is the point. Selling iPods is Steve Jobs' angle and the other mp3 providers are going to have to find their own angle if they want to make money somehow. Good luck.

  8. Re:Michael is a horrible editor who should be fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Relax man, he's just a slashdot editor and shouldn't affect your life. It's not like we're talking about anyone with any clout, you know.

  9. Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Krapangor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    DRM is coming.
    Yes, we'll all start to whine and complain but there is no way to stop it.
    Without DRM to whole business chain of the entertainment industry is fucked. So they'll enforce it.

    With this background fact, you won't wonder that OGG was turned down. The encryption shemes will make sure that the song only play on certificated players. However a player which supports formats which can be used to illegal copies will never get such a certification. So the manufacturers will avoid these formats at all cost.

    When you watch this development the original movitivation of the OGG development team seems to very naive and economically clueless. While there might be some niche applications for OGG, it will be useless for the downtrodden masses. Basically the development of OGG has merely an academic value.

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
    1. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Clinoti · · Score: 1
      Good point, I was thinking that despite the leetist hatred of Microsoft the strenghing of their format, by their own and through another complete vendor is a nice (yes I said it) business move. Market driving forces > *.

      But I completely see where you are coming from, the DRM ability and movement just got a huge push.

      However (you had to see that coming) the old closed vs. open argument in relation to consumer abilty to utilze goods under anymaeans that they see fit I.E. non proprietary locking is going to come full circle as people hopefully will question the validity of DRM when an mp3 they got from a friend wont play on their new ipod system.

      --

      Let's keep in mind that patents are in place to keep lawyers employed and keep them litigating. -CatGrep

    2. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by shario · · Score: 1

      Besides, the name is just plain weird. You don't want to recommend anyone a product whose name you have to explain every time :)

    3. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 4, Funny
      DRM is coming

      DRM can be used with Ogg. Oops. There goes your whole argument.

    4. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by McDutchie · · Score: 1
      With this background fact, you won't wonder that OGG was turned down. The encryption shemes will make sure that the song only play on certificated players. However a player which supports formats which can be used to illegal copies will never get such a certification.

      Formats like MP3, you mean?

    5. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by dotwaffle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      OGG is not an academic project. It really is very efficient and very nice sounding, far better than WMA or MP3. I admit, I have not tried AAC. And DRM may be coming, but it sure as hell isn't going to stay. Look at Region Coding... It's being phased out as people realise that it is in fact a way for companies to weasle money out of people when they could in fact buy the same product, from the same manufacturer and artist, several months earlier in the case of the UK, and at a lesser cost. Needless to say, DRM will be a bad idea, as it restricts not only where the user may use the data, but when, and also from which agent they purchase it - they will HAVE to get an authorised version from the publisher of the music, and have to get permission to copy it to a CD, or their iPOD or the tape for their antiquated car stereo (yeah, I still have a tape deck). I will go out of my way to buy a higher quality CD rather than a rubbish quality MP3 off the internet. 128Kbps MP3's really are awful if you have spent more than a fiver on your speakers. 192Kbps OGG (equiv to at least 256Kbit MP3, or maybe more) preserves almost everything, and until companies get real and start providing lossless music downloads, I'm sticking to buying CD's. Sure, I may still download music, but as I think the radio is awful quality, and the adverts are sheer annoying waffle, I feel good knowing that by downloading (I admit, pirating) these tracks, I am exposing myself to their music, and consequently may purchase more.

      Take four star mary, I got interested in them back in 2000. I listened to one of their tracks that came on a compilation album. I liked it, so I downloaded a track or two more. Still, I liked it, but wasn't happy with the quality. Knowing they are a small time band, I went out and bought an album. I now own both the albums, and some merchandise, and have seen them live. I'm sure this rings true with other too. Downloading one or two tracks doesn't harm the artist or the industry, downloading an entire album when you like their music and could have afforded buying the CD DOES. It's down to the guilt of the involved party on whether they should contribute or not.

      It's all about what people deserve, and if the recording (and indeed, movie) industry want to force us to pay through the nose for it all, they're going to have egg all over their collective faces when users start looking for alternatives. iMusic only works because it's cheaper than buying CD's, and doesn't force you to commit to one format - Microsofts way would more than likely commit to WMA.

      To go back to my original point, with the right word of mouth techniques, OGG could go far. Really far, especially as it can't be stifled like WMA. You know what I mean, and you know it makes sense. It's not bad business, it's good business. Trust your customer, and they're more likely to make a return visit!

    6. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      proud owner of a troll card: look at his posts from the past

    7. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Without DRM [the] whole business chain of the entertainment industry is fucked."

      So let's see, the entertainment industry (making literature, music, and drama for profit) has existed for several thousand years without DRM. Now the world is finally experimenting with DRM because the entertainment industry can't survive two weeks without it.

      Get off it already. People have been duplicating books since there were pens. They've been duplicating audio recordings since audio cassettes. They've been taping movies since VCRs. Media piracy pre-dates the RIAA.

      Here's the REAL facts. Most people don't pirate, even when it's easy. Even fewer people will pirate if there's trivial technical difficulty. There are already laws against pirating media that can be applied quite well even without any DRM in place. And it is impossible to design a DRM system that "protects media" AND ensures all of the fair use rights of consumers. We're being asked to choose between protecting media that ALREADY HAS LEGAL PROTECTION for an industry that's DONE JUST FINE WITHOUT IT and the rights we've had to our media all our lifetimes. We can't have both. I certainly know which one I choose.

    8. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is "ogg" any weirder than "emm-pee-three"?

    9. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by poopie · · Score: 1

      the only reason that Windows Media Player supports mp3 and that all of the "portable MP3 players" support mp3 is becuase it's already all over the place. *NOBODY* could sell an MP3 player that doesn't support mp3s.

      It's already out there and too prevalent.

      But... the businesses have no interest in distributing mp3s, they want proprietarty, drm-laden formats that guarantee profit.

      So, for most sheep-like consumers, ogg has no importance.

      For opensource and free software, OGG is golden.

    10. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by frohike · · Score: 1

      While there might be some niche applications for OGG, it will be useless for the downtrodden masses. Basically the development of OGG has merely an academic value.

      Some niche applications? From this and the responses to it, it seems like most people vastly underestimate the amount of applications that use embedded compressed audio (for example, video game soundtracks). Every one of these people/companies stands to benefit from OGG because it's as good as anything else out now quality-wise, but is totally free. We use it in our game projects, it's fantastic. The end-user neither sees nor knows what format the audio is in, unless you expose it for some reason. Less royalties on sound playback means a cheaper end-user price or more features or polish developed into the product for the same price.

      That said, it doesn't seem to be catching on too much for people just encoding songs for themselves, but it's even done pretty well there all things considered.

    11. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you can get OGG files on demand for a lot of songs at allofmp3.com. Speaking of which, I'm surprised there hasn't been any discussion of that site on slashdot. Your paying for music licensed out of Russia (not pirated stuff, but legal in Russia), but it seems unclear if it is truly illegal to use it from the US via importation of it (downloading).

    12. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Please, can we get this into our heads. Ogg is not just a replacement for MP3.

      It can be used for any purpose, repeat, any purpose that involves playing back audio.

      This includes but is not limited to, games (including several commercial titles), educational software and interactive kiosks.

      It is royalty free, unlike virtually all the other potential formats. ADPCM introduces noise, WAV is no good unless you have unlimited storage, which is doubtful for an embedded system.

      Barring patent or DRM concerns, Ogg will continue to be a boon for such areas. And if the US does go for mandatory DRM in the manner that has been suggested a year or so ago, there will be much bigger casualties than just Ogg. Think .wav, .bmp, .xbm or even .txt..

    13. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "While there might be some niche applications for OGG, it will be useless for the downtrodden masses. Basically the development of OGG has merely an academic value."

      I ripped my entire cd collection to ogg files, and it's great. I don't know the "downtrodden masses" you refer to, but it's very sad that it's useless for them for some reason. Perhaps their computers were trodden on also?

    14. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "DRM can be used with Ogg. Oops. There goes your whole argument."

      "Can be" is a lot different than "is available for"

    15. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Funksaw · · Score: 1

      Well, first off, I disagree that without DRM, the entertainment industry is fucked. I would imagine that they'd be more fucked WITH DRM. But that's just me.

      Secondly, if the entertainment industry IS going to insist on DRM, why do you have to go along with it? If you don't want DRM, you could always - big surprize - not buy DRMed products.

      -- Funksaw

    16. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Salsaman · · Score: 1
      DRM is coming.

      Not to my network.

    17. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by pen · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard anything about Region Coding being phased out. Do you have any links? This would be a very welcome development.

    18. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by gerardrj · · Score: 1

      So you don't use passwords or encryption on your network?
      Where abouts are you again?

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    19. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      I believe Unreal Tournament 2003 used OGG sound files, as well as Unreal 2: The Awakening. I know there are a few more, but they are smaller projects mainly.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    20. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      I think he meant other people's DRM that they are trying to force on him with respect to media files.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    21. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      It may not be being phased out, but pretty much every DVD player in the UK is advertised as "multi-region" these days.

    22. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      The Unreal engine only supports Ogg these days, Epic won't support MP3, AAC or WMA because of the licensing.

    23. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by kableh · · Score: 1

      And the masses will do what the rest of us have been doing for years. They'll become criminals like the rest of us, telling their friends to write around the edge of their CD. The horror!

    24. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by dotwaffle · · Score: 1

      To the best of my knowledge, the RIAA seriously considered removing Region Coding, something to do with either legal advisement or public pressure. If I find the article I read, I'll post it.

    25. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by dotwaffle · · Score: 1

      Such a shame that most will play lower quality/higher frame rate NTSC. NTSC really does suck. I jest ye not, I put an NTSC DVD and a PAL DVD in two machines and roughly synced them, and even on a 24" TV, sitting at a normal distance, I could tell the quality difference. Just imagine what the TV signal difference will be. No wonder when I watch Baseball on five, they're always advocating "HDTV" because their pictures are awful! We don't need it, obviously, being British ;) We had it the right way round from the start...

    26. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      PAL isn't great either these days, especially when you can see the compression artifacts on digital TV. Sometimes I wish I weren't so techy, then they wouldn't bug me and I probably wouldn't notice them.

    27. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by dotwaffle · · Score: 1

      Sorry, run that by me again... PAL isn't that great... because you can see compression artifacts on digital TV? Right... So with higher resolution, you're going to get LESS compression artifacts??? The time I see a 1024x768 JPEG of size x compared to a JPEG of size 640x480 of same size x, and the 1024 looks BETTER... Is the day that someone's been cheating...

      And yes, i agree, being a techie spoils not just the quality of the movie, but the movie itself... Oooh! I know this... This is UNIX!!! [cue flashy amazing graphics and whizzy sounds] (Jurassic Park)

    28. Re:Not surprising that OGG was turn down. by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying PAL itself is not that great, and when you add in compression artifacts due to the bitrate digital TV is encoded at, the quality is even worse. One would hope that HDTV signals have a better encoding method or higher bitrate, but we shall see.

  10. And the winner is ... by asadchev · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ... Madonna,
    for her hit mp3 "What the fuck do you think you are doing?"

    1. Re:And the winner is ... by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      After seeing her latest antics with Britney Spears, I'd have to ask Madonna the same question.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    2. Re:And the winner is ... by asadchev · · Score: 1
      Hey, at least it was not Justin Timberlake and Eminem doing it nasty.

      Ewww!!!

  11. Re:Michael is a horrible editor who should be fire by DeltaSigma · · Score: 1

    I'm captivated by your campaign. If you tell us what you intend to do to get Ogg Vorbis to all the poor youths in america, I just might vote for you in 2004...

  12. Re:Sorry - WMA has won. by Kenja · · Score: 1
    "About the only reason to use MP3 anymore is if you're married to Linux/MacOS."

    Or if your MP3 player is just that, a MP3 player. That having been said I use WMA on my portable player.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  13. Re:i can't concentrate today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That post, my friend, is called "over-share."

  14. a surprising runner-up!! by coronaride · · Score: 3, Funny

    The best portable music device is the metal plate in my head! Too bad I only get the Fiesta music station... :(

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, go into business for themselves.
  15. Once again, Apple fucks the OSS community. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    First it was Quicktime and now this. Yet another closed media format that Apple pushes for Windows and OS X and noone else. Thanks again Apple!


    For all the inevitable Mac Zealots who will now hurl insults and invective at me for questioning the one great company, here is an undeniable fact that you cannot deny: Mac users can use any and all open source software but FreeBSD and Linux users cannot use any desktop software produced by Apple.

    1. Re:Once again, Apple fucks the OSS community. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] here is an undeniable fact that you cannot deny: Mac users can use any and all open source software but FreeBSD and Linux users cannot use any desktop software produced by Apple.

      Oh?

      -----

      Michael: Is your ego bigger than The Cause?

    2. Re:Once again, Apple fucks the OSS community. by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      I'm definately a Mac Zealot, but I agree that you have a point. There isn't a version of QuickTime or iTunes for Linux and Open Source folk can't even build something compatible since these are closed source, proprietary, etc.

      On the other hand, isn't there other proprietary software in the world that isn't out for Linux? How is this different?

      There are some pieces of software for Windows that just isn't available for Mac (for example, MS Project). Those are the breaks. Boo-fucking-hoo.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    3. Re:Once again, Apple fucks the OSS community. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that Apple is doing a lot of taking and not much giving.

    4. Re:Once again, Apple fucks the OSS community. by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Bull-fucking-shit!!

      They do a lot of giving back to the Open Source community. I read nothing in the GPL that says you have to make some completely unrelated product open source if you participate in some GPL'ed project.

      Fuck you. Apple's one of the few companies that really gets Open Source. Would you rather deal with Microsoft who spreads FUD about OSS?

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    5. Re:Once again, Apple fucks the OSS community. by FunkyChild · · Score: 2, Informative

      There isn't a version of QuickTime or iTunes for Linux and Open Source folk can't even build something compatible since these are closed source, proprietary, etc.

      Yes, it's such a shame that nobody can build an open source, interoperable quicktime library. Damn Apple and their closed, proprietary formats. *rolls eyes*

    6. Re:Once again, Apple fucks the OSS community. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical mac zealot response "bull fucking shit" indeed. Apple only "supports" the open source community in a bunch of second-hand projects. There is not a single, large scale open source project that Apple is a primary contributor to. Companies like IBM, HP, and even Sun back things like Eclipse, Apache, and Linux. What does Apple back? Konqueror, a 2nd choice oss browser. Darwin, yet another open source BSD fork. Woo hoo. Not a single one of Apple's open source efforts has had any significant user base outside of Apple. Bull fucking shit indeed.

    7. Re:Once again, Apple fucks the OSS community. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nice try, but you are sarcastically talking out of your ass. Here's a quote from the site you linked: "Be aware of one thing: Quicktime for Linux won't read any of the movies you download from the internet. Quicktime is a wrapper for many different kinds of compression formats. What you knew as "Quicktime 4", "Quicktime 5", "Quicktime 6", are really different distributions of compression formats. The codecs we support are mainly uncompressed."


      And the second link you provided was again NOT for the proprietary compressed codecs (you know, the actual part needed for BSD and Linux users to "officially" be able to watch all those Apple-exclusive movie trailers), it is for the Quicktime framework.

    8. Re:Once again, Apple fucks the OSS community. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are exactly correct, there is plenty of software that is Windows only just like there is plenty of Apple software that is Mac and Windows only. As I said, this is simply one more example of how Apple basically flips the finger to the open source community, just like Microsoft does. The two companies are extremely similar in terms of their competitive ethics, they will do whatever it takes to win, even if that means screwing over the people who helped them get there.

  16. A Missing Loser? by illuminata · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How come there was no mention of Emusic on the loser list? They switched to a much more restrictive user agreement and had a mass exodus of their subscribers.

    --


    Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
    1. Re:A Missing Loser? by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      It's too bad to. Emusic was a *great* service.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    2. Re:A Missing Loser? by illuminata · · Score: 1

      No kidding, they made the announcement the first month that I subscribed. I had to make a huge rush to get what I wanted, and I couldn't even hit the unofficial 2,000 song limit.

      Speaking of the limit, I was mad enough about that. It wouldn't have been bad if they would have just been more forthcoming about it rather than let people find out with a surprise email. That and they could have fixed their Linux client.

      --


      Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
    3. Re:A Missing Loser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding,
      I was a subscriber for almost a year and really used it as they wanted it to be used not as a leecher but as a fair user user who got a bunch of albums every month.

      As soon as they announced their shift in pricing
      (almost a 600% increase and no unlimited download/fair use base anymore), I left as well.
      Do they even have a single customer left? I really cant imagine it. I also doubt that they make more money than before.

  17. Re:ITMS is the true winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah i get my music instantly too, its called kazaa.

  18. Re:ITMS is the true winner by Kenja · · Score: 1

    Yup, tried it. Slow, requires QuickTime. Uninstalled it after 15 min.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  19. 2003 called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wants all of its '* of 2003' stories back.

    1. Re:2003 called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your mom called. She wants my 12-inch cock back. Tell her not to worry though. Once she can find $50, I'll ket her suck me off again.

    2. Re:2003 called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your dad called. He, too, wants your 12 inch cock back - in his ass where it belongs.

  20. Sorry - YOU have lost. by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For choosing WMA, for endorsing WMV.

    Why?

    Because Microsoft isn't a team player. There is no real technical benefit to WMA or WMV: All the 'next gen' codecs are better (ogg, wma, aac) than mp3, so the only real advantage to WMA is secondary.

    Do you trust Microsoft? I don't. By using WMA, you give them more power and more clout, and like any big organization with the power to dictate international and national standards... I don't trust them. Unless of course you *like* paying taxes. Instead of money, though, Microsoft collects in marketshare and power.

    Anyway, I hope you like living in a Microsoft future... I'm trying to avoid that, myself.

    1. Re:Sorry - YOU have lost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is no real technical benefit to WMA or WMV: All the 'next gen' codecs are better (ogg, wma, aac) than mp3"

      /scratches head
      Did you make a typo or am I just not comprehending?

    2. Re:Sorry - YOU have lost. by UserGoogol · · Score: 1

      The post was a little awkwardly written, but there were no typoes. Here's a "translation."

      <blockquote>There's no real benefit to WMA. Yes, it's better than MP3, but all of the
      "next generation" codecs are.</blockquote>

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
  21. Define "little room" by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because on my box I've got vorbis files, but there seems to be a distinct lack of ACC and WMA files.

    Ah, I get it. You mean little room left in the commercial, RIAA endorsed online music store field.

    What has that got to do with an open source solution? Is there "no room" for Linux because of all the money Apple and MS are pouring into their operating systems?

    Open Source means will continue to serve very well for Open Source ends.

    KFG

    1. Re:Define "little room" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly.
      i still buy cds, but i always rip an .ogg copy to my hard drive to listen to. i like the sound of ogg best, so that what i use.

    2. Re:Define "little room" by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      If you mark your hard drive with a green felt marker it'll sound even better!

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    3. Re:Define "little room" by kfg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Buy a used CD. $5 bucks from locally owned store. You don't contribute to the artist that way I'm afraid, but you don't contribute to the RIAA either who would likely skim the artist's share anyway.

      You've contributed to the local economy and supported the contiued viability of the used CD market.

      Now you have a CD, a piece of property with attached rights that's worth. . . $5. You've reduced your liquidity but maintained net worth. You have acquired the music for free.

      Rip it to whatever format you like and put them on whatever devices you like. All legal like so long as you don't trade them or the original CD. If you only listen to rips store the CD safely as a backup source.

      Now, if you download 1000 ACC songs you've spent $1000 bucks and have a license. Not property. If things go badly for you in the future and you spend a year or two laid off you can sit around hungry and listen to your music.

      $70 gets you the same number of songs on used CDs. If things go bad for you in the future you've got an extra $930 in the bank and property which can be liquified fairly quickly to get another $50 bucks if you want.

      Whether or not you erase your rips is left to your own sense of ethics, so maybe you're sitting around still listening to your music too.

      If you don't mind old vinyl you can do even better. It's about 50 songs for a buck if you shop garage sales.

      KFG

    4. Re:Define "little room" by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 1

      What does any of that stuff you mentioned have to do with .ogg specifically?

    5. Re:Define "little room" by kfg · · Score: 1

      Specifically because this is the way you purchase all the RIAA legal (although resented) .ogg files you want.

      At the moment I'm listening to Miles Davis, Sketches of Spain. In this case I inherited it. Got a few hundred legal .ogg files for free.

      One of the possible benefits in dealing with an open standard physical medium and an open source rip format.

      KFG

    6. Re:Define "little room" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Open Source means will continue to serve very well for Open Source ends."

      Open source is not an end. It is only a means. It is a means for a user to accomplish what he wants to do. Even Linus refuses to cripple Linux to stop it's use with palladium type hardware. If the goal is to support legal music distribution, OSS coders would be naive to assume any major music publisher will be interested in their software without DRM hooks. OGG doesn't do anyone much good without DRM if the cd truly does become a thing of the past.

    7. Re:Define "little room" by Reverberant · · Score: 1

      Now, if you download 1000 ACC songs you've spent $1000 bucks and have a license. [...]

      $70 gets you the same number of songs on used CDs.

      Yes, that's all well and good if you're interested in buying complete albums (in fact I have no problem shelling out $10-12 USD for new CD's). Where iTMS and its ilk excel is at buying individual songs.

      Sorry, but paying even $5 for a bunch of songs I don't want (and possibly a used CD in questionable condition) just in case I have major money problems down the road doesn't make a lot of sense. I'd rather pay $1 for the song that I do want and put the other $4 in the bank.

    8. Re:Define "little room" by Fancia · · Score: 1

      That depends on the LPs; a couple of fairly rare ones I bought recently cost me 10$ USD each.

      --

      Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
    9. Re:Define "little room" by dickiedoodles · · Score: 1

      Your maths is flawed I'm afraid, taking your assumption that a used CD is about $5 and say you get 10 songs on a CD that works out at 50 cents a song so $1000 of ACC songs world work out at about $500 which is considerably more then $70 although the resale value of the CDs obviously increases with the amount spent on them.

      Also while online music stores are by no means perfect (or even better) used CDs have their problems.

      1) You end up paying for a whole load of songs you don't like or get duplicate versions (If I had a million dollars is on 5 barenaked ladies albums)

      2) You can only get a used CD when someone has sold it which limits you considerably especially when it comes to new albums, true classics and rare stuff. This is only going to get worse as less people buy CDs in favour of downloads.

      I guess the fact that you have the physical property is the flipside, one thing I've never understood with DRM is what are you supposed to do when you need to format a hard drive.

      --
      In Soviet Russia Slashdot cliches use you
    10. Re:Define "little room" by kfg · · Score: 1

      Since piano rolls, wax cylinders, vinyl disks and tape aren't quite dead yet I think it's little early to start predicting the demise of the CD when a godzillion of them are sitting unsold on shelves this very moment and factories are engaged in making a godzillion more, all based on this years geek fad.

      KFG

    11. Re:Define "little room" by pla · · Score: 1

      CD that works out at 50 cents a song so $1000 of ACC songs world work out at about $500

      You misunderstood his point.

      Since you "license" rather than "buy" AAC's from iTMS, they have effectively no inherent resale value. Some folks have mentioned that you could theoretically transfer your entire iTMS account to someone, but as the only test case (so far) of the idea of "first sale" of iTMS purchases showed, any possible resale would necessarily occur solely at Apple's discretion. They might charge a fee to make the transfer, they might outright say no. They might not say anything at all. And the seller and potential buyer would effectively have no recourse whatsoever.

      So, while $50 in crappy CDs leaves you with something you could theoretically resell for $50, the same $50 (I won't even touch the issue of singles-vs-full-albums) in DRM'd AACs leaves you with potentially nothing more than the music itself.

    12. Re:Define "little room" by kfg · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I screwed up. That should be more like $370. Pure braino. I'm afraid I average more than 10 songs per CD though. Unless we're talking jazz or classical, in which case it might be one hour long "song."

      Your milage may vary.

      KFG

    13. Re:Define "little room" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's some really wonky math you have there...

      Buy a used CD. $5 bucks from locally owned store... Now, if you download 1000 ACC songs you've spent $1000 bucks and have a license... $70 gets you the same number of songs on used CDs.

      So at $5/CD, $70 nets you 14 CDs. In order to meet your 1000-song quota, each CD must hold 71 songs. See many of those in the stores?

    14. Re:Define "little room" by SailfishMac · · Score: 0

      Sure and how much is your time worth looking for these cds?

      Then most cd's have a few good songs and the rest are filler

      Really the cd clubs are the best route if you intending to buy a lot at once and know what you want, because they give you something like 15 free to join and buy 1 get 2-4 free deals pay only $3.58 s&h per cd, sign up your "p.o. box friend" for another round. If you concentrate on the "best of" you will get more songs per cd on top of that.

      Of course big top acts like the Rolling Stones don't provide any discount, but you still earn music points.

      After you do your main shopping you turn to iTunes to fill in the blanks at 99 a song.

  22. Re:Sorry - WMA has won. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A friend of mine got a computer with Windows Me and proceeded to use Windows Media Player to rip all his CDs into WMA format. Only later did he find out that he couldn't convert them back to wav files, burn them to an audio CD, or play them on his other computer.

    Yeah, WMA is the future. barf.

  23. Re:Sorry - WMA has won. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MP3 is also a nice format for distributing music to 5% more people than the guy using WMA.

  24. Re:Sorry - WMA has won. by P-Nuts · · Score: 2, Insightful
    About the only reason to use MP3 anymore is if you're married to Linux/MacOS.

    Huh? If you're married to Linux, you probably go the whole open-source, patent-free hog and go with OGG. And if you're married to MacOS you probably like iTMS and AAC.

  25. Re:Sorry, but anyone paying $300+ for a music play by Jippy_ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wait.. You mean you can't afford $300.00 of disposable income to throw giddily at an MP3 player or other unnecessary item?

    Right, and I'M the loser.

  26. mp3.com by nnnneedles · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I once visited mp3.com when they we're still going strong. They had something like 400 employees and very luxurious buildings with graffitti on the walls and everything.

    They were having a talent show there, and I expected to see some of the thousand of bands they had signed up performing. Unfortunately, it was the employees themselves who were the talent. With the bosses performing their own poems and so on.

    I feel sorry for the guys working there, as you could smell the money being burnt everywhere you went, and they probably had no idea they were already dead.

    This was almost 3 years ago, and back then they had already been working for six months on the next generation music-selling tech that they are currently advertising on their site.

    The point to all this is: Don't employ 400 people unless you are generating huge amounts of cash.

    --
    Will code a sig generator for food
    1. Re:mp3.com by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      luxurious buildings with graffitti on the walls and everything.

      Wow that does sound like a cut above!

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    2. Re:mp3.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point to all this is: Don't employ 400 people unless you are generating huge amounts of cash.

      Gamespy, are you listening?!

    3. Re:mp3.com by Monkelectric · · Score: 1
      yes! Exactly! Many years ago I made an mp3.com artist account to *reserve the name of my band* on their site (I was still in the process of building my studio let alone having any songs to upload).

      Every 6 months they mailed me a nice MP3.com laptop type bag! I ended up with *3* of them and gave them all away (sure wish I had one now though).

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  27. Re:ITMS is the true winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Now when I want a pieve of music, I have it, instantly.
    You get a crappy aac version of it, yay!

    You can download the piece of music off of kazzaa(napster, etc.) instantly too, people have been doing it for years now. then you can go out and buy the cd, without the compression.

  28. Don't feed the trolls! by JoeLinux · · Score: 4, Funny

    Great, just when we get the trolls content here, ANOTHER website stirs them up.

    Ok, just so it's put down, please select your Ogg/Vorbis argument from the following menu:

    1) Ogg/Vorbis is supported by (obscure mp3 player). Why should I get that (*drool*) new, affordable iPod?
    2) Ogg/Vorbis can work in a DRM-based business model! Here is how: Step 1: Get five candles and a live goat.
    3) Ogg/Vorbis is the best. Me and my four friends will not buy anything that won't support that. I'm sure Apple will be shaking in their boots from this ultimatum delivered from my parent's basement.
    4) Hey! Why don't I just convert the mp3 collection to Ogg/Vorbis?
    (Followed by: "Idiot: those are both lossy mediums."

    Ok, I'm done.

    Joe

    In God we trust. Everyone else keep your hands where I can see 'em.

    1. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you see these things pop up EVERY time on slashdot would probably indicate (to a SMART person anyway) there there is a significant pro-OGG community out there. Just as Apple has always gotten along as a second-place company, I think OGG will continue to get along as the third (or fourth, fifth, whatever) format. It's greatest weakness (no DRM) is also its greatest strength, even if Apple's super-fashionable hardware of the day doesn't support it.

    2. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by kfg · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I got my post in before yours.

      KFG

    3. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why should I get that (*drool*) new, affordable iPod?
      There are affordable iPods?
    4. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by JoeLinux · · Score: 1

      I tend to think that it's the same 10 people (exageration) that post, offering up the wonders and beauty of Ogg. I am a firm believer that the free market will shake out what is best.

      MS tried to fight that trend. Linux is starting to bitchslap them. Long live Linux. It will be a beautiful day when the argument isn't whether or not to install Windows or Linux, but rather, which version of Linux.

      Joe

      Never enter into a gun fight with a handgun that does not begin with ".4"

    5. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

      Step 1: Get five candles and a live goat.
      Step 2: ...
      Step 3: Profit!

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    6. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      And on that same beautiful day will be eating sausages from flying pigs while we play Duke Nukem Forever on our Indrema consoles.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    7. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not me, I'll be playing Team Fortress 2!

    8. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      iRiver and Rio are hardly obscure.

    9. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by AstroDrabb · · Score: 4, Informative
      1) Ogg/Vorbis is supported by (obscure mp3 player). Why should I get that (*drool*) new, affordable iPod?
      Yeah, your comment makes sense if you consider, all of these "obsure"

      Neuros Digital Audio Computer
      Rio Karma
      iRiver iHP-100, iHP-115, iHP-120, iGP-100, iFP-3xxt, iFP-5xxt
      Kenwood's Music Keg
      And a bunch of others.
      IMO, the Neuros is much better then the iPod. Is cheaper and the battery replacement is from $0 - $12 depending on if it is in warranty or not, which is much cheaper then Apple's $50 or so.
      2) Ogg/Vorbis can work in a DRM-based business model! Here is how: Step 1: Get five candles and a live goat.
      Umm, Ogg/Vorbis is an Open Source codec released under a BSD style license. You can wrap it in any proprietary DRM you want and save tons of money from not having to a) write your own codec or b) pay royalties to use someone elses.
      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    10. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is cheaper and the battery replacement is from $0 - $12 depending on if it is in warranty or not, which is much cheaper then Apple's $50 or so.
      $50? I thought it was $99. Unless I'm mistaken the only way to get a replacement iPod battery for less than that is to buy a third-party one and install it yourself.
    11. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by Speed+Racer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It will be a beautiful day when the argument isn't whether or not to install Windows or Linux, but rather, which version of Linux.

      I would disagree with you for practical and philosophical reasons.

      From a practical standpoint, Linux doesn't support ACPI very well, especially on laptops. Windows XP has elevated power management to a very useful place and will remain on my laptop, however grudgingly, until ACPI is truly supported under Linux.

      From a philosophical standpoint, I don't want Windows to go away for the same reason that I don't want Linux or Apple to go away. Competition is good. Choice is good. Once the Windows hegemony is broken there's no real harm to Microsoft staying around competing in the marketplace based on merit not might. In fact, I believe that would be the healthiest situation we could hope for. Imagine the richest company in the world dedicating their R&D budget to actually creating the best OS possible in order to compete with Linux, Apple or any other OS out there.

      --
      Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
    12. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by be-fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IMO, the Neuros is much better then the iPod. Is cheaper and the battery replacement is from $0 - $12 depending on if it is in warranty or not, which is much cheaper then Apple's $50 or so.
      ---------
      It's also very large. My iPod slips discretely into my pocket, while the Nomad Zen (which is smaller than the Neuros by a good bit) makes an uncomfortable bulge. The Rio Karma is similarly unpocketable, because it is wider and thicker than the iPod. And I refuse to wear cargo pants!

      As for price, the iPod is well worth it. When I bougt my iPod, the only other choice was really the Nomad Zen, and it was $50 less for 5 more GB. Not really a big enough savings to outweigh the build-quality and size of the iPod in my opinion. And even if you have to replace your battery every 18 months (the vast majority of people don't have to do so, however) that's a cost of about $33 a year. Hardly a burdensome expense for a several-hundred-dollar device.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    13. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dunno, I kinda think the Neuros is better than an iPod in the sense that a Chevy Cavalier is better than a Volvo S60.

      In that if you can't afford the build, design, usability, and style, then saving some money is probably worth it. You can get more features at less price!

    14. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by Unknown+Lamer · · Score: 1

      The Karma is way smaller than an iPod, my brother got once two weeks ago. It certainly is pocketable. Unless you are a girl wearing super-tight pants or a long haired 80s metal head with a pair of faded blue jeans that are one size too small. If you are either then you can either put the thing in your purse or beat up leather jacket.

      And I can fit my Neuros in my pant pocket fine. People can see it when I sit down but while I'm walking it isn't noticeable and is quite easy for me to yank out a bit and mess with the controls (if I put it in upside down). And I'm not so Wigga wearing a pair of pants six sizes too big around my ankles. I'm that ordinary slashdot reading potted plant (point if you get my reference) that wears size 38 jeans--just the right size. I don't really even need a belt anymore but I wear it anyway because I haven't gone a day without wearing one since I was ten...(hell, it's even been the same belt).

      --

      HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
    15. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by catscan2000 · · Score: 1

      As an iPod owner, I'm actually very impressed with the description and capabilities of the Neuros player! Unfortunately, it looks like it's probably a bit larger in physical dimensions and, as it's killer to me, the connector is advertised as USB 1.1 only :-(! Anything below Firewire 400 for synchronizing music is unacceptable to me, now that I'm spoiled with my iPod's 2-to-4 song/second transfer speed ;-).

      But with USB 2.0 and perhaps Mac/iTunes compatibility, there may be a very interesting future for Neuros :-)!

      Let the competition begin :-).

    16. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations. You're fucking fat.

    17. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by be-fan · · Score: 1

      The Karma is only shorter than the iPod. Its wider and thicker. Its also got a larger overall volume. Thickness and width are a lot more important in pocketability than height. Pockets are generally pretty deep, but they have limited width and length.

      My iPod is svelte enough to not be noticible even in my size 32 khakis. The Neuros would not be.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    18. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by Digital11 · · Score: 1

      I'm betting the USB 2.0 backpack will be out within 2 months. After that they start working on size. The great thing is, with a Neuros you're not buying an entirely new player when you upgrade. The backpack system is a great idea.

      --
      I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    19. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by Unknown+Lamer · · Score: 1

      I never claimed the Neuros was nearly as pocketable as an iPod. Those things are HUGE. But the Karma fits in shorter pockets than an iPod can, which is important if you have a wallet, change, a few pens, and one of those stylish wallet chains in your pocket like all the cool kids have. Which is to say you aren't a member of the target market for the Karma I guess.

      --

      HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
    20. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love it! The iPod is more money, has less storage and costs more for battery replacement but the iPod "build quality" makes it a better buy (the size issue is incorrect, I've compared them and they are about the same size). Those are some mighty fine Apple colored glasses you must be wearing.

    21. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by be-fan · · Score: 1

      The Zen and the iPod are the same size? What are you smoking?

      The iPod is 6.1 x 1.6 x 10.4 (cm) and 158g
      The Zen is 7.6 x 2.5 x 11.2 (cm) and 268g

      That's a volume of 101.54cm^2 vs 212.8cm^2. That's twice as large, and nearly twice as heavy!

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    22. Re:Don't feed the trolls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DE .50 Action Express would disagree with your signature.

  29. Poppycock! We need a standard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until there is a STANDARD format for digital music, I will not buy from any online music stores.

    The great thing about CDs is you can put it in any player and it plays (until recent "Protection" shit). If I buy my CD at HMV, it plays on my JVC Stereo, my Sony Discman, my Mac, my Windows box, my Linux box, etc. It shouldn't matter where I buy it from.

    Now, if I buy through iTunes, I get tied to iTunes and iPod for playing. Yes, I can burn it to CD and re-rip, but what's the point, then?

    They need to standardize digital music files so shopping at any online store will allow it to be played on any player.

    -----

    Fuck you, Michael

  30. Microsoft reports on your music! by SailfishMac · · Score: 0

    WMA(9) is a nightmare, you cant convert it to decent MP3 to listen on your flash portable MP3 players either, you lose the tags too. . iTunes you just burn a audioble cd and rip into MP3 at high bit rate and your done, making a backup in the process. . Microsoft reports on your music listening habits and your library. Only fools rush into WMA(9). . See my music hit list 2400+ hits from 230+ artists or my entire Library . http://homepage.mac.com/hogfish

    1. Re:Microsoft reports on your music! by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      in the same right, AAC is the same way. You can burn WMA's to CD as well, but that doesn't make the quality of the file you got any better. Lots of flash portables and some HD based players also play WMA files, no need to convert them in the first place. But I guess if you're on a Mac then you get locked into one brand that works.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    2. Re:Microsoft reports on your music! by SailfishMac · · Score: 0

      WMA is a proprority format so your locked even worst, ACC is not and the "Fairplay" DRM is sold by a third company for anyone to adopt. Actually to be free, MP3 is the way to go, and iTunes/iTMS makes the transition easy as WMA makes it darn near impossible. When the online music bubble bursts, I'll have my music in iTMS and if by chance it dies, I can convert to MP3 very easily. Try that with WMA, lol.

    3. Re:Microsoft reports on your music! by Mattwolf7 · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that MP3 isn't a free codex, someone owns it and profits when MP3 devices are created. So what happens if Fraunhofer Gesellschaft or some of the other groups decide to enforce their patents on the MPEG-2 format? You might also end up locked with MP3. Try something open source and then you will truly be free.

    4. Re:Microsoft reports on your music! by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      Um, as I said before that's easy. You can also burn WMA to CD, just as with AAC. If you have a valid license, some programs will also directly convert the WMA to MP3. But as with AAC, this is lossy in the worst way.

      You say WMA is a proprietary format, yet more players play WMA, both hardware and software, than AAC.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    5. Re:Microsoft reports on your music! by SailfishMac · · Score: 0

      Can you burn WMA w/DRM to audible cd (free of DRM) and then rip it as MP3 (free of DRM and keep the quality) right in the same app like iTunes?

      That I'd like to see.

      "You say WMA is a proprietary format, yet more players play WMA, both hardware and software, than AAC."

      It's because M$ threatens to yank their WMA license if they adopt any other formats, that's a no brainer.

      Just because everyone rushes to jump off a high cliff doesn't mean you should.

      One can live without M$, just a lot of people are scared no to.

    6. Re:Microsoft reports on your music! by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      You can burn a CD of DRM'd WMA's as long as you have a license for the music. I said that in my previous post.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    7. Re:Microsoft reports on your music! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      free of DRM and keep the quality

      You don't keep the quality with iTunes. You lose quality when you convert from AAC->*->mp3, no matter what conversion chain you follow to go that route. The only advantage with iTunes is that it's possible to copy the file around at all, and that's only an advantage over WMA, and it's limited even then.

  31. Re:ITMS is the true winner by fastidious+edward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article:

    The big winner is Apple for dominating MP3 portable player sales and the dramatic success of its iTunes service.

    The dramatic success is Apple using its iTunes service to promote its iPod. iTunes has made a miniscule amount, purely a leader for the iPod. The iPod was here before iTunes, iTunes was envisaged as a way to make iPods more successful. iTunes was as much as a breakthrough on the music distribution scene as MP3 players were on the musical device scene were, but iPod deserves the praise, if iTunes weren't here another would have filled the gap, iPod and other MP3 players created the inertia and it is them that should get the praise.

    --

    karma karma karma karma karma chameleon, you come and go, you come and go.
  32. disagree by real_smiff · · Score: 4, Informative

    MP3 was won.. long before WMA appeared. It offers transparency on all but a few special samples at around 200kbps, and with storage getting cheaper, slightly more efficient codecs (Ogg Vorbis, for example) don't offer enough of an advantage for most people to move. I won't touch WMA with a long barge pole.. just because you made the (mistake IMHO) of going over completely to it, doesn't mean anyone else has to. Go read some very informative discussion at Hydrogenaudio.org for specific technical reasons not to use WMA.. other than being from Microsoft etc. Of course, there is a danger that many people will use WMA just because MS make it easy for them to get into it... but why that's a reason to advocate WMA, i can't imagine. It's unlikely MP3 support will be dropped in hardware any time soon I think... i'd be more worried about your sound quality and portability of those WMA files.

    --

    This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

    1. Re:disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mp3 will lose ultimately. mp3 files are either generated from cds or traded online. Everyone keeps saying that cds are a losing business model, so there goes source 1. As for source 2, cracking down on illegal file sharing will lead to less mp3s and more aac and wma. end of story.

    2. Re:disagree by ProtonMotiveForce · · Score: 1

      You are surely mistaken. .mp3 does decently if you crank the bitrate way up. Then, so does WMA.

      So..

      @64kbps-96kpbs - WMA is far superior
      At 120kbps and above, WMA is slightly better and will have slightly better sound.

      So, umm, where's MP3's benefit again, now that everything supports WMA?

    3. Re:disagree by ProtonMotiveForce · · Score: 1

      Ogg is efficient?! Umm, no - it's memory and CPU demanding, that's why no hardware vendors (or very few, anyway) support it.

      Second, I've read plenty about it - WMA is the superior format for my use, and for that of most people.

      * Sounds better than MP3 at a similar bitrate. You worry about your own sound quality - WMA has been demonstrated to have superior quality at a given bitrate over and over.
      * Hence, smaller than MP3
      * My portable supports it (Ogg? Right...)

      In the "minus" category, let's see:
      * Conspiracy theorists convinced Microsoft (I'm sorry, Micro$oft) will come steal my music.
      * I'm not nerd chic
      *.. Uh, that's about it.

    4. Re:disagree by real_smiff · · Score: 1

      hehe, well i can just turn that around and say, why should you use WMA? I'd say it still sounds awful at those really low bitrates... it depends on what you're listening to and what kind of awful you like. Just because a codec does well at low bitrates doesn't necessarily mean it's also better at higher ones. My final point, because this is turning into typical useless argument: don't forget to double blind test and/or pick whichever you like! :)

      --

      This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

    5. Re:disagree by Basehart · · Score: 1

      where's MP3's benefit again, now that everything supports WMA?

      Everything apart from the lowly iPod, of course!

  33. Ogg? by kupo+zero · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't really think Ogg Vorbis is a loser this year, in fact I think otherwise. It got tremendous exposure from being the main audio format in RH, and a lot of open source big wigs are pushing for it. It at least caught my attention, all my CD rips are now in Ogg Vorbis format.

    1. Re:Ogg? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that puts in the minority. I think most people were just irritated that the new RH couldn't play their MP3s anymore, did a Google search, downloaded the RPM and got on with their life.

    2. Re:Ogg? by kupo+zero · · Score: 1

      Good point actually. However, I'm sure it won people with limited hard drive space, because of its great file size, compared to mp3.

    3. Re:Ogg? by petabyte · · Score: 1

      Mine are as well. I re-encoded all of my VBR mp3 files as oggs -q 6 when I heard the difference between the formats. I'm very happy with my vorbis and no longer have any mp3s.

  34. I know who loses... by vudufixit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The consumer - we get sued, screwed, and DRM'd out of our right to enjoy the music we purchase the way we want to.

    1. Re:I know who loses... by TheWart · · Score: 2

      Maybe I am naive, but I have yet to get screwed by Apple's DRM policy. In fact, I don't really notice the DRM there at all in iTunes, with its liberal streaming/burning capabilities.

    2. Re:I know who loses... by samdaone · · Score: 1

      I agree the consumer is the biggest loser. Especially when we are not allowed to "backup" the media that we have paid for, for rightful archival purposes just in case the orignial media is destroyed.

      --

      Make me your friend. All my friends get +1 modifier and I need friends :)

    3. Re:I know who loses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      The consumer only gets screwed if they don't know how to Just Say No, and instead, they buy DRMed media.

      If you know of a consumer who hasn't learned how to Just Say No yet, give their name to your local drug dealer and you may receive a finder's fee.

  35. Re:Sorry - WMA has won. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Only later did he find out that he couldn't convert them back to wav files, burn them to an audio CD, or play them on his other computer."
    • Maybe your friend should learn how to use basic audio conversion software.

  36. Re:ITMS is the true winner by timeOday · · Score: 3, Informative
    I just wanted to say that the iTunes Music Store has reinvented how I view music.

    Now when I want a piece of music, I have it, instantly. And with my iPod, I can listen to it wherever I go, with no worries!

    That description also fits Napster ca 1998 perfectly!

    Of course the player back then would have been a Rio for sure. In fact if you remember, Diamond pioneered the idea not only by releasing the product, but by fending off an RIAA lawsuit that challenged the legitimacy of such products! (Of course the iPod is DRM'd so maybe it doesn't really owe to this legacy).

  37. Re:I love Apple's DRM by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Just keep one thing into perspective. DRM protects music from YOU. The music industry doesn't want to risk their property to be ummm...say.....shared!

    If you ask me, I would rather pay a flat monthly fee and get unlimited MP3 downloads. That would keep me from having to leach off of P2P networks where the source and quality of the files are dubious at best.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  38. IRiver by Gyan · · Score: 4, Informative

    The iHp-120 is a winner too and it plays Ogg.

    1. Re:IRiver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've already ordered one. Can't wait to have it, a Linux compatible portable 20Gb disk and Ogg player in one!

      iRiver also have plans to add Ogg support via software update to many of their players.

      Ogg it's starting to get known...
    2. Re:iRiver by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the iRiver is pretty svelte too. But it just came out recently, so I hadn't noted it. Its still about 1/6 of an inch thicker, which is noticable. Still, it seems pretty pocketable.

      As for the looks, "badass" doesn't really do it for me. The iPod is beautiful because it is so clean and simple. Elegant is the appropriate word.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  39. ogg has a special place in my heart by bryerton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a game developer, using ogg vorbis as a royalty free, open source audio decoder rocks. I can use it on the two platforms I care about (mac and pc) for free. Booyah.

    1. Re:ogg has a special place in my heart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use AAC because its royalty free and plays through QuickTime on both PC and Mac.

      D'oh!

    2. Re:ogg has a special place in my heart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AAC isn't royalty free

    3. Re:ogg has a special place in my heart by Basje · · Score: 1

      Microsoft must have realised this too, as Halo, one of their bestselling games seems to use vorbis.

      Ah, well...

      --
      the pun is mightier than the sword
    4. Re:ogg has a special place in my heart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's a subtle difference for an idiot, but Microsoft did not develop Halo, they published it. The technology of a game published, and did not develop does not really say much about Microsoft.

  40. arg - beaten to it again by real_smiff · · Score: 1

    again in the time it took me to compose that, 1000 other /.ers ripped the guy to pieces. sigh. :) Time to take typing lessons?

    --

    This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

  41. Re:I love Apple's DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >but they can be freely burned to CD, after whcih there's no protection anymore

    except that their useless. (can only listen to them on a cd player, useless for reripping)

  42. Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most portable mp3 players are made to do integer mat h really fast, but not floating point. When portable mp3 players started to become popular, the Ogg Vorbis codec was still only running under floating point math. At some point they released an integer decoder called tremor, but by that time the ipod had already come out and everyone had a cheap little mp3 player

    I personally like Vorbis, and use it for my own CD's, but I doubt it will ever be a common format. None of the music stores are selling ogg, and I doubt any will in the near future

  43. Re:ITMS is the true winner by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    Most people have no problem with it. Time for a newer PC perhaps.

  44. Re:Michael is a horrible editor who should be fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Micheal, please login nexttime.

  45. OGG VORBIS by molafson · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just as every cassette left in a car for a fortnight is destined to turn into a 'Best Of Queen' album, every discussion of digital music on Slashdot must eventually become a polemic re: Ogg Vorbis.

  46. Wrong again, fucktard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is MPEG-4 AAC, an open, licensable standard, a "closed media format"????

    1. Re:Wrong again, fucktard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Because it's protected by patents and requires licensing/royalties.

      That makes an Open Source decoder or encoder all but impossible.

    2. Re:Wrong again, fucktard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Open source this, open source that...

      Just save up some money and buy a Mac, you damn dirty kernel-recompiling hippies!

    3. Re:Wrong again, fucktard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather not have Apple fucking me in the ass every chance they get, thank you very much.

  47. Re:Sorry - WMA has won. by Zigg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    About the only reason to use MP3 anymore is if you're married to Linux/MacOS.

    No, the only reason to use WMA is if you're married to Windows. You won't get much use out of it outside that little circle...

  48. Re:Sorry, but anyone paying $300+ for a music play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I mean I didn't fall for the hype and pay grossly inflated prices when my RCA Lyra costs half as much and holds more songs than I'll ever need.

    But if you're happy with your purchase, all the more power to you. And when you see IPod billboards everywhere you look, you'll understand where your extra $150 went.

  49. Re:ITMS is the true winner by TheCleo · · Score: 0

    Same for me. Now I browse for music as I'm having my morning coffee and then listen to mixes of my new music and existing music during the day on my iPod. Buying and setting up playlists is actually an enjoyable experience thanks to Apple.

  50. FP45 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  51. ipoding on the cheap by gr8gatzby · · Score: 0

    today i bought a new in box 10gb ipod for $10.74 at the local goodwill. even the shrinkwrap was untouched. w00t to goodwill!

    --
    Hard work often pays off in time, but laziness always pays off right now.
    1. Re:ipoding on the cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this is a true story, you owe some anonymous, thieving crackhead somewhere a debt of thanks.

    2. Re:ipoding on the cheap by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      The folks who work at Goodwill around here are quite savvy, and know what stuff is worth. They're as savvy as any pawn shop owner I've ever seen. They know what electronics are worth having, which ones are crap, and even which crap is collectible. They know what books, music, and magazines are cool and need to be priced individually, and which are dogs, not getting shelf space.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  52. Oh come off it :P by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm being facetious but it's true!

    Any and all Linux users can use the full suite of Apple software under Mac OS X; all you need is a Mac. Sure, that forces you to run OS X, but at least you can run OS X under Linux through MacOnLinux.

    And the BSD folk will have to settle for OS X itself, which is a flavor of BSD...

    The desktop software produced by Apple isn't free, as in beer, or free, as in liberty, but free as in concession: You give and they give, and both win.

    Or you can run Windows under VMWare...

    Apple's goal is not OS equality (which is why they don't offer their software on all OSes, as that requires tremendous QA resources) or OS alternatives... they only care about making money, and making happy customers. That's it.

    If you want to be an Apple customer, you need Apple product. That means hardware+software, or Windows+iTunes. They aren't a charity, any more than you are.

    1. Re:Oh come off it :P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not for free (either form)

  53. Re:ITMS is the true winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    exactly.

    but, of course, apple is the only company that invents, or innovates :)

  54. Re:ITMS is the true winner by MoneyT · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, somehow I doubt Kazza has a dedicated server to give me my music as fast as my computer and the internet will let me, a guarantee of the quality of the file I'm getting or is a legal way for me to own the music. Likewise when i get the file off Kazza I have to hope that the person who ripped it has the intelligence to point and click (because a lot of people apparently don't). And of course, I also have to hope the file is properly labled, as apparently there are people out there that think Pat Benatar is Miriah Carey. And out of curiosity, what prevents me from buying the CD without the compression after I buy it from iTunes? Though why would I do that. If I wanted the music uncompressed, I would have bought it in the first place, and then if I wanted a portable version, I would have ripped it myself.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  55. Congrats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yesterday, I bought a urine-soaked mattress for $4.29. Goodwill rules!

  56. Re:Sorry - WMA has won. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    > I recently started ripping everything in either lossless WMA (archives) or 160 WMA (for portable player)

    so, just because YOU used it to rip your music, it has won?

    there are many open source lossless compression schemes (FLAC, ape, etc.) that not only compress better, they also work on multiple platforms

    also, at pretty much any bitrate, vorbis wipes the floor with wma.

    the chance of wma being used for the next generation video is slim compared to others.

  57. Reripping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    except that their useless. (can only listen to them on a cd player, useless for reripping)

    Ok, how are they useless for reripping? I've re-ripped an iTMS song - worked great. Just had to fill in the song data manually. This is useless how? It's nowhere near as useless as the fact that I can't use iTMS from Canada - a friend from the U.S. was up, so he bought the song, burned it, and then I ripped it. Just to try it out - worked fine. Not simple, but far from useless.

  58. Proposition for a portable device by Mr+Smidge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But all the MP3 hardware out there uses a dedicated MP3 decoder chip

    I have an idea. How much sense would it make for a company to make a Vorbis-only (or perhaps Vorbis/FLAC-only) hardware player? Before you all scream, here is my line of thinking of why it might be a good idea:
    * Primarily, no expensive license issues.
    * Vorbis-decoding can be done using only integers (FLAC too?), which must save some hardware costs.
    * It popularises the Vorbis/FLAC formats.

    And for the burning issue of "what 99% of the population with music in other formats?". I would propose that the software frontend to this be able to transparently transcode your music from any format (using any software plugin available) to Vorbis (or FLAC if you don't want to lose quality), before copying to the device.

    Benefits to consumer:
    * Supports pretty much any format of music they might have.
    * Would be very cheap to buy.

    I don't think the loss of quality in transcoding will be so important, because after all this is just a portable device, not a portable studio. The only inconvience I could see to a consumer would be a slightly longer delay as audio is transcoded and copied, but at a suitable quality level, I don't think it could make that much of a difference. Of course, there wouldn't be any such extra delay if you were copying a Vorbis or FLAC file to begin with.

    Saving on the hardware costs like that, and using software to handle all the numerous different audio formats sounds like a good idea to me, and so the manufacturer could probably sell it for a lot less than other players. And of course, we all know that Joe Average quite commonly picks the cheapest electronic device that does what they want, rather than worrying about its technical specs.

    Any comments?

    1. Re:Proposition for a portable device by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's simply not a scalable solution, not with current hardware. Take a 10GB MP3 collection, that's around 6-7 days of solid playtime. Now, a 2GHz P4 or XP-2000+ is pretty standard fare, and that would take around 1-2 DAYS to transcode the files.

      As much as I like and use Ogg, an Ogg-only player isn't feasible in the current market. I personally like iRiver's method, when there's limited room in the firmware, give the user choice. With the iFP-300 and 500 series players, they give you a choice between MP3+Ogg and MP3+WMA firmwares.

    2. Re:Proposition for a portable device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail to see how transcoding from MP3s avoids the MP3 licensing issue. The patents still apply and you still need a license to use them. How exactly are you saving any money over an MP3 hardware player?

    3. Re:Proposition for a portable device by pc486 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that a Vorbis only player would be great, but we would need better reasons to do that.

      Primarily, no expensive license issues.

      If you have software that transcodes from MP3/WMA/Whatever, you'll need a license to decode these anyways so the expensive license issues are still there.

      Vorbis-decoding can be done using only integers (FLAC too?), which must save some hardware costs.

      Again, while Vorbis and FLAC can be decoded with intergers only, so can MP3 (http://www.mars.org/home/rob/proj/mpeg/).

      So it wounldn't be much cheeper (because licensing costs still exsist) to make a Vorbis only player compared to a MP3+WMA+AAC+whatever player. In fact, it probably would be more expensive to make a Vorbis player because there are not many off-the-shelf parts or ready-made software out there, which ends up with higher development costs.

      Maybe a better solution would be to have the open source/hardware community come up with an open Vorbis player with economy on the mind. Then you can pitch that all the R&D has been done for them so that that company X simply has to build and package the device, kinda like Linux distrobutions are today.

    4. Re:Proposition for a portable device by Xyde · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That's the most stupid idea I've ever heard.

      The MP3/AAC licensing costs are miniscule compared to the cost of the rest of the components. It's probably in the range of 50c - $1 per device, or less.The cost of the RAM/HD is 100x any licensing costs.

      The file transfers would be disgustingly slow because of the overhead required to transcode every file to the machine. And it would need proprietary software to put music on it (to do the transcoding) which is one of the few complaints people have about the iPod.

      Vorbis is nice, but it is inferior, sound quality wise to WMA Pro, AAC, and MusePack, and it's never going to be popular (in a marketshare sense). I know it hurts to hear it, but it's true.

    5. Re:Proposition for a portable device by damiam · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Primarily, no expensive license issues.

      I don't remember the numbers, but MP3 licensing costs are insignificant. It's like less than a dollar per decoder.

      Vorbis-decoding can be done using only integers (FLAC too?), which must save some hardware costs.

      MP3 decoding can also be done with only integers. Cheap players already do this, so doesn't save you anything.

      So you'd be offering a player with no real advantages except a miniscule price decrease, and some major disadvantages (transcoding). As much as I love Vorbis, that wouldn't work.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    6. Re:Proposition for a portable device by Spoing · · Score: 1
      1. * Primarily, no expensive license issues.

      Keep in mind that expensive (for a manufacturer) is not the same for individuals. The per-unit cost for a hardware MP3 decoder of commercial software is seventy five cents (USD) .

      Personally, I'd be fine with an OGG + FLAC only portable player though a buck isn't going to make or break my decision on what player to get. I won't consider one that does not support OGG and (as a bonus) FLAC, though, as these are the important codecs for me.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    7. Re:Proposition for a portable device by Mr+Smidge · · Score: 1

      The file transfers would be disgustingly slow because of the overhead required to transcode every file

      Bare in mind this can be done in parallel with the actual copying (via USB/Firewire, whatever) to improve things a bit, and with an average 4mb song, it might take ~30 seconds to encode to vorbis on my machine (Athlon 2400). That doesn't sound like a *huge* overhead.

      And it would need proprietary software to put music on it

      Well, there's open source software that can decode mp3, and apparently AAC is open too.. Does the LAME project pay per-download license fees?

    8. Re:Proposition for a portable device by Digital11 · · Score: 1

      With the iFP-300 and 500 series players, they give you a choice between MP3+Ogg and MP3+WMA firmwares.

      Or you could just get a Neuros and have all ove the above + great support + a very open* company + scalable hardware. It has its flaws, but its getting better with every firmware release, not to mention they just opened sourced their syncing software and plan to open their firmware at some point as well.

      *Not open-source (yet), just very open about their business and plans. The CEO of the company and his wife regularly post on the forums. Heck, I've even gotten email responses from them. Try getting that level of commitment from any of the other big name mp3 players.

      --
      I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    9. Re:Proposition for a portable device by Aliencow · · Score: 1

      I was just trying to buy a 20gig Neuros but NO they can't ship outside of USA...yeah Canada is so far and complicated. Well I guess I just saved some monies.

    10. Re:Proposition for a portable device by JoeBorn · · Score: 1

      mp3 decoding is $.50/device. Encoding is $2.50 is licensing fees alone, not to mention that you need significant horsepower to encode at a high bitrate in mp3, that's why many smaller players only record to .wav Encoding to mp3 is probably at least a $20 addition to cost once the product gets to retail, that's where the real savings would be if that one could get solved.

      --
      If you're going through hell, keep going -Winston Churchill
    11. Re:Proposition for a portable device by damiam · · Score: 1
      it might take ~30 seconds to encode to vorbis on my machine (Athlon 2400). That doesn't sound like a *huge* overhead.

      An iPod with FireWire can transmit 1-2 songs a second. No current proccessor can keep up with that.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  59. Plagiarizing from the Onion makes baby Jesus cry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure you just "forgot" to mention that that's where your post came from, right?

  60. Whereas you aren't even competing. by czardonic · · Score: 1

    There isn't a shred to your argument that does not boil down to anti Microsoft ad-hominem -- though you did manage to agree that MP3 is inferior.

    You don't trust Microsoft. Therefore WMA/WMV must not be the superior format. Is this the spirit of the non-Microsoft future?

    --
    Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
    1. Re:Whereas you aren't even competing. by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      Would you care to provide links to any studies that have shown WMA to be better than Ogg?

    2. Re:Whereas you aren't even competing. by ProtonMotiveForce · · Score: 1

      Umm, how many portable players support Ogg?

      Oh, that's right, VERY FEW. It's a crap codec with no purpose - requires too much memory and CPU.

      If you want really high quality on a 'fat' machine, use lossless WMA/FLAC/Monkey/whatever.

      If you want smallish files with good quality, use MP3/WMA/AAC.

      So, umm, what is the point of Ogg again? In the real, multi-dimensional world where there are multiple criteria to "better", WMA is _better_ than Ogg.

      Goes back to the old saw about betamax/VHS. VHS was _BETTER_, but people still perpetuate the old myth. For one thing, who the hell wants to change cassettes in thbe middle of a movie like you would have to have done with Betamax. It was also more expensive.

    3. Re:Whereas you aren't even competing. by Uncle+Gropey · · Score: 1

      A codec that has comperable sound and compression to .wma but lacking the nefarious DRM gayness of .wma is a superior codec because it's owners cannot dictate to you how you will use it. What's so hard to see about that?

    4. Re:Whereas you aren't even competing. by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      How so? I use Linux and Mac systems, and I don't funnel any money into the Microsoft at all. I don't see what your issue with my statement is at all. I honesty believe our online ecosystem would be healthier and stronger if Microsoft didn't dominate the way it does. I don't mean for them to die; I just don't think they need to thrive as much as they currently do.

    5. Re:Whereas you aren't even competing. by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      iRiver support Ogg, so much so their new iHP players come with a big label on the box about it. iRiver are very well regarded in the portable media player field. Then there's the Neuros, and an excert from an e-mail I got from Frontier Labs says "The firmware will be ready within this year" (With regards to Ogg support, sent in September).

      So, I can have Ogg support in everything from HD-based players to small solid-state players. There's no good reason for me to use MP3, my player supports Ogg, which are definitely better quality. There's no reason for me to use AAC, not even my desktop machine's media player can play them. There's no reason for me to use WMA, Ogg is arguably at least as good and my iRiver plays them. I'm also not going to tie myself to an Ms solution when I'm primarily a Linux user.

      The iPod-Linux folk have had Oggs playing on the iPod and there's still plenty of room on the iPod's firmware for it.

      I find it interesting you listed the VHS/Betamax war as a parallel, since the format with the most liberal licensing won...

  61. Re:i can't concentrate today by fastidious+edward · · Score: 1

    Pop off to the toilets, get yourself excited, make sure no one else is with hearing distance (i.e. all cubes are empty and floorspace is blank) and let one off.

    No one will know, if you return to the office pink cheeked and cheery they'll just think you got that stubborn post-christmas constupated faeces out.

    --

    What do I care, it's karma-burn Friday!

    --

    karma karma karma karma karma chameleon, you come and go, you come and go.
  62. WMA isn't so bad for portable devices by gotpaint32 · · Score: 1

    Yes its DRM crap, blah blah blah, helping Microsofts evil empire, but in the end WMA is useful for certain purposes. For starters WMA is really small (sizewize) for a relatively small perceivable difference in quality (as compared to mp3 or vorbis). Many people, such as myself who has yet convinced themselves of the need of a $300 metrosexual harddrive on steroids still rely on limited flash memory to hold our muzak. Personally I have about 10 albums in WMA fit onto a 256 SD card to play on my pocketpc (far more useful than an ipod) True the WMA codec distorts certain frequencies (making equalizers useless) and is by definition, a lossy format but for all normal listening purposes (non of those wankers who say an LP sounds better than a CD) its perfectly usable, the percieved differences in sound quality are quite acceptable. Whats more is ease of ripping CD's in windows media player; I make sure to rip in 256 mp3 as well, but for portables where every kb counts, wma just makes sense.

    --
    Nuclear war would really set back cable. - Ted Turner
  63. Re:ITMS is the true winner by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just wanted to say that Napster and Gnutella have reinvented how I view music.

    Now when I want a piece of music, I have it, and with my computer, my laptop, my MP3 player, my computer at work, and all my friend's and coworker's computers, I can listen to it wherever I go, with no worries!

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  64. Re:Michael is a horrible editor who should be fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I was on slashnet the other day... CmdrTaco mentioned they would probably have to "let go" an editor soon due to financial problems at VA Linux.


    I'm betting Timothy or Michael.

  65. Re:I have an iPod - In My Mind by soft_guy · · Score: 1

    The Onion called.

    They'd like you to stop posting their articles on Slashdot.

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  66. Re:Sorry, but anyone paying $300+ for a music play by Jippy_ · · Score: 1

    I actually owned an RCA Lyra two years ago but was disappointed with it. I wanted Corvette, not Volvo, hence the iPod.

    And honestly... You think half my money went for those posters? They're four colors and a silhouette! Sixty-eight cents, max!

  67. Consumer's don't "demand" codecs by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most don't have a clue what codec they're using (Windows doesn't display file extentions by default). You'll see Ogg more as it starts costing more to license the mp3 and AAC then it does to make hardware fast enough to play Oggs.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Consumer's don't "demand" codecs by Spoing · · Score: 1
      1. Most don't have a clue what codec they're using (Windows doesn't display file extentions by default).

      Most don't buy digital players either. (But I do...)

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    2. Re:Consumer's don't "demand" codecs by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      > Most don't have a clue what codec they're using (Windows doesn't display file extentions by default)

      --Windoze is *retarded* that way, and that's one of the 1st settings I change.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    3. Re:Consumer's don't "demand" codecs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mom must be awful proud of you.

  68. Die, Vivendi Die by fm6 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Another victim of the vivendi meltdown. Slashdotter are already familiar with another one.

    Elsewhere in this discussion somebody said they wanted to just pay a monthly rate for unlimited downloads. Vivendi is why that's a mistake. People sign up for cable TV mainly because they can get lots of shows that aren't available over the air. These shows used to be spread out over a lot of independent cable channels, but these channels got bought up by various conglomerates, of which Vivendi was probably the biggest. When Vivendi ran short of cash, they started cutting back on their programming. That's why the SciFi channel shows so many reruns of Tales From the Crypt. Of course, viewers didn't get any money back because Vivendi was spending less money to entertain them -- they were locked in.

    If cable TV programming allowed you to just pay for what you want to watch, people could vote with their feet and it would be harder to screw them. But when it's an all-or-nothing service, you take what they give you.

    Same with flat-rate online music services, like EMusic. Except there's even less competition in that marketplace, so the overall quality is especially low.

    1. Re:Die, Vivendi Die by flink · · Score: 2, Informative

      If cable TV programming allowed you to just pay for what you want to watch, people could vote with their feet and it would be harder to screw them. But when it's an all-or-nothing service, you take what they give you.

      Isn't that what "video on demmand" or whatever they call it in your area is supposed to do? Right now the selection is still kinda crappy, but even so, I find myself flipping to Comcast's on demand instead of wading through 300 channels of nothing.

    2. Re:Die, Vivendi Die by a.deity · · Score: 1

      Still, for On Demand, a subscription to most of those 300 channels is required. Add to that that you can't get On Demand programming on a channel you don't subscribe to, and it seems like more of an extra than a service.

      --
      Option-Shift-K.
    3. Re:Die, Vivendi Die by whatch+durrin · · Score: 1
      How can you buy an "On Demand" show if you don't already pay for basic cable? Answer: you can't.

      On Demand may be a nice convenience, but it's not a value-added service. For me, it's just a way to avoid going to the video store, as movie rental rates are about the same. Of course On Demand doesn't have nearly the selection of the video store - yet.

      --
      ***
      Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
  69. the *real* winner by alizard · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The RIAA record labels, at the expense of most of the rest of us.

    Apple chose to buy into the RIAA distribution model when setting up iTunes, and as a resul, is only breaking even on selling music and making its money back on selling iPods.

    Instead of buying Universal and being able to bundle a few dozen albums with each iPod free and sell tracks for .25 each at a profit and use their ownership of content as a tool with which to club the rest of the content industry when negotiating per-download proces, they chose to pay bridge toll to the entire record industry and by willingness to pay all of their net income after expenses to the RIAA, reinforced the RIAA's business model and boosted the net cap of each RIAA company.

    If they'd managed to leverage their content ownership into much lower download prices, they'd be selling all the downloadable tracks from other companies at a profit, and other computer companies would be using this to beat down prices when they bought their own major labels.

    The RIAA labels are very definite winners because their net caps went up. Their attempt to prevent independent competitors from using the Net for promotion via P2P and Internet Radio is a lot less important in the short term.

    Instead of spending some of the money they had in the bank, Apple turned digital downloads into a game nobody is going to be able to profit at legally.

    Apple belongs on the winners list... at #8. They could and should have been #1, the major consumer electronics players would be on the winners' list, the general public would be on the winners' list, and the suits at all the major labels could have been on the top of the lus3rz list.

    Will Apple stay a winner? How long can they sustain the iPod at the current inflated margins? If they can't subsidize iTunes because of shrinking margins, iPod turns from a win to a money-loser.

    All it takes are some good competitive products, and Apple hardly has a monopoly on good or even visionary consumer products designers.

    If Apple has to cut iPod prices to commodity levels to keep selling them, there go their margins and their ability to keep iTunes alive at a break-even or money-losing basis, more product sales mean more money-losing downloads and more red ink.

    If this happens, and I think this inevitable, their short-sightedness will have cost them not only money, but a chance to turn the downloadable music market into a benefit for everybody not an RIAA label executive.

    Apple could have made the consumer electronic industry a hell of a lot stronger and boosted their bottom line at the same time.

    Instead, there's a pretty good chance that iPod + iTunes in a couple of years will make Steve Jobs look like a dickhead, not a hero.

    1. Re:the *real* winner by gwbuhl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's unlikely that the iPod will maintain large marketshare for MP3 players. It costs too much, but then Apple is a harware company that sells premium products. The iPods will likely maintain their postion as preminum product. So even if thier market share falls to 3% of the MP3 player markets, Apple know how to deal with that

      What they did is they created a market for their hardware, which pretty much makes them a winner. Sure they won't maintain marketshare, but in the meantime make money while the money making is good.

    2. Re:the *real* winner by Reverberant · · Score: 1

      Instead of buying Universal and being able to bundle a few dozen albums [...]

      Instead of spending some of the money they had in the bank, Apple turned digital downloads into a game nobody is going to be able to profit at legally.

      Instead of spending some of their money? How about all of their money? They only had $4-5 billion in the bank at the time, and Vivendi was asking $6-7 billion for the music division. Assuming Steve was able to talk them down to $3-4 billion, that would leave Apple with little to no money left over in a bad economy.

      The scenario you describe would be cool, but do you think Apple could realistically have pulled it off? And even if Apple did seriously pursue this, how long before MS simply bought all of the other labels using their $50 billion war chest and screwed us all?

    3. Re:the *real* winner by alizard · · Score: 1
      Instead of spending some of their money? How about all of their money? They only had $4-5 billion in the bank at the time, and Vivendi was asking $6-7 billion for the music division. Assuming Steve was able to talk them down to $3-4 billion, that would leave Apple with little to no money left over in a bad economy.

      Last number I heard was an asking price of $4B, and given the amount of financial trouble they were (and are) in due to mismanagement, a cash on the barrelhead offer might have worked at as little as $1-2B and golden parachutes for the suits. Or $4B. . . but in stock instead of cash.

      MS also is hardly the only possible buyer, Dell and HP(Compaq) are also obvious possibilities.

    4. Re:the *real* winner by ex-songwriter · · Score: 1

      I believe Apple is prohibited from going into the music business by an agreement they reached with Apple Records. Correct me if I am wrong. Also, I don't think $1 per song is a high price. An LP that sold for $4.99 in 1965, adjusted for inflation, would cost over $25 today. Back then, a typical LP had only 10 songs. That would be $2.50 per track. And I don't think income (again, adjusted for inflation) is substantially lower today. It's strange to me that people are willing to pay $1 for a can of sugar water that will turn into waste in a matter of hours, but rail against paying a buck for a song that may provide them with more lasting enjoyment. I guess I just value music more than some people.

    5. Re:the *real* winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The RIAA is a front for the record labels and...
      The record labels are a front for the artists.

      If the artists are innocent and lacking of free will then is it destiny or are they simply parrots.

      While destiny will answer herself, what phrase will you make Poly sing to bring righteousness to the perch bound.

    6. Re:the *real* winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple is already being sued by Apple Records for what they feel is breach of the contract under which Apple Computing agreed not to go into the music industry. If they'd bought a record company they'd be in clear breach of contract and would now be well on their way to being deep-sixed.

  70. Re:i can't concentrate today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm tempted to do that but i'm afraid i'm too excited to keep quiet. i'd probably groan loudly as i came because of all the pent-up frustration. i mean, you've seen Jennifer Connelly's breasts! how can you have a quiet yank when you're thinking about them? there's just no way. no, i just know i'd be moaning like crazy, probably cum like a firehose all over the toilet seat (who's going to clean up the mess?), and then end up sobbing like a little girl afterwards because it felt so goddamn good. i'll just have to wait until i get home.

  71. Re:I love Apple's DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Apple got the DRM right:

    Sure, if all you care about is the iPod and iTunes. Good luck playing those compressed files on any non-apple product.

    You have to manually go through the process of burning all your music to CDs and then ripping it back if you want to listen to it on something else. I'd consider that VERY restrictive DRM.

    Also by the way this is only partly to do with AAC. Anyone can license AAC (for $$$, certainly more than Apple pays but that's not the point). It doesn't matter what they're compressed with or who may or may not support the codec. The files are encrypted and that's why only Apple's products can decode them.

    Would you buy CDs that only play on Philips CD players? Of course not. People will see the light as more competing audio products enter the fold, and ITMS will die because people won't want to be limited to using the files (or burning CDs) on Apple's equipment only.

  72. Ogg Vorbis lost the day they chose the name by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To be honest, it is one of the stupidest names I have ever heard. I'd feel embarassed about telling someone about my "Ogg Vorbis" collection.

    1. Re:Ogg Vorbis lost the day they chose the name by be-fan · · Score: 1

      The codec is called just "Vorbis." Its hosted at vorbis.com and referred to that way in the release notes. Personally, I think Vorbis sounds pretty cool and audio-y.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:Ogg Vorbis lost the day they chose the name by pc486 · · Score: 1

      "Check out my Advanced Audio Coding collection!"

      I think the stupid names award hasn't only touched Ogg Vorbis's hands :). Stick to acronyms, they sound cooler (OGM vs MP3 vs AAC).

    3. Re:Ogg Vorbis lost the day they chose the name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The developers were just having a bit of fun, both names are Terry Pratchett references.

    4. Re:Ogg Vorbis lost the day they chose the name by Nucleon500 · · Score: 1

      And what name would you, in your infinite wisdom, suggest?

    5. Re:Ogg Vorbis lost the day they chose the name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pussy.

    6. Re:Ogg Vorbis lost the day they chose the name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah 'cause saying "ehm-pee-three" sounds so natural compared to saying "vohr-biz".

      Or maybe it is just what people are used to hearing.

  73. Codec wars have _started_? by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    They've been raging since god knows when. Maybe in a consumer's mind, post-Napster, yeah, they're suddenly noticing the flamewars.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  74. Ogg Vorbis a loser? by Asterax · · Score: 2, Informative

    As I recall, someone developed a plugin for Ogg Vorbis support in iTunes. Seemingly, the introduction of AAC should of done nothing to detour the popularity of .ogg. Of course WMA is a different story.

    1. Re:Ogg Vorbis a loser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Seemingly, the introduction of AAC should of done nothing to detour the popularity of .ogg."

      Here's the thing: I'm an iTunes user. It is a cool app, easy to use, I can rip a bunch of CDs pretty quickly when I set my CD preference to "Import Songs and Eject" so I can just feed a CD, it autolooks up the metadata, rips, kicks the CD, repeat. Neat stuff. I use AAC to rip, which has no DRM on its own -- DRM only comes into play when you buy songs through iTunes, not when you rip your own.

      While iTunes can play Ogg Vorbis, it can't rip them. I could go find a Vorbis ripper for the Mac, but I'm lazy and uninformed on how to do this.

      The other part of the equation is my iPod. It plays all the AAC files I ripped, but it won't play Vorbis, so even if I find away to rip Vorbis, set up iTunes to play Vorbis, I'm still screwed on the portable end of things.

      AAC sounds better to me than MP3, and the files were smaller, so I switched to ripping in AAC.

    2. Re:Ogg Vorbis a loser? by sjonke · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately that plugin does not allow iTunes to encode in ogg vorbis format and further the plugin does not handle ogg vorbis tags well. Ogg is a 2nd class citizen in iTunes even with the plugin.

      --
      --- What?
  75. Re:ITMS is the true winner by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 1

    I prefer K++, the auto search more checkbox (infinitely searches more) feature is wonderful. Plus, its a great way to get free porn too!

    --
    Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
  76. Re:ITMS is the true winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's time to stop putting up with shitty software that requires five times the CPU and disk space that it should. It's a freaking media player and downloader. A P90 should suffice.

  77. I ain't buyin by WildBeast · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why would I buy it for? I don't think it's worth buying an expensive MP3 player in order to listen to crappy songs. One way or another, I refuse to encourage the RIAA.

    1. Re:I ain't buyin by Chicane-UK · · Score: 1

      Crappy songs?

      Its what you make of it pal.. its not like they preload MP3 players like the iPod with Britney Spears & Justin Timberlake records or something!

      Unless of course you are just confirming that your own taste in music is 'crappy' ;)

      And I don't see how its encouraging the RIAA to be quite honest..

      --
      "Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
  78. Re:I have an iPod - In My Mind by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dear Slashdot Anonymous Coward,

    You owe us for 7500+ song playback licenses. Also, cease and desist the use of your mind.

    Thanks,

    The RIAA legal team

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  79. Re:i can't concentrate today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'd probably groan loudly as i came because of all the pent-up frustration>/i>

    Have you considered medetation?

  80. you forgot the free argument. by twitter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Not a bad sum up. You noticed that ogg has hardware support. You notice that ogg can be abused by greedy publishers like the inferior formats. You noticed that ogg is superior and you noticed that it's not easy to convert from one compressed format to another. All of that is good, but it's not what convinced me.

    The fact that ogg is free is what convinced me to encode my music that way. I don't have to pay for an encoder. I don't have to compile LAME. I don't have to worry about DRM screwing me out of my music in a way that media changes can only dream of. All I have to do is have a free OS on my device of choice and my music will not just sound better and take up less space, it will be mine on any media as long as I continue to transfer it with other free software. When MP3 and WMA change because the RIAA wants to sell it's music again and Microsoft has to force sales of their newly patched OS, OGG will be OGG. When there's no Windoze driver for your RIO, USB thingy, my Open Zaurus will still rock. Free is like that.

    Your sig, In God we trust. Everyone else keep your hands where I can see 'em., has two levels of irony. First, WMA and MP3 are non free, closed and hidden. Second, I interpret it as the bandit's famous "Get your hands up!". You violate the first meaning and advocate the second. While obsensibly professing trust and openness you are deeply dishonest.

    JoeLinus, I hope you waste loads of money and months of your life on WMA.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  81. MODS ON CRACK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was *NOT* a troll. If you disagree with something, reply don't moderate down. Saying something pro-MS or anti-Linux does NOT constitute trolling. Do not use your modpoints to suppress views you disagree with.

  82. Re:ITMS is the true winner by BasilBrush · · Score: 0, Troll

    A P90 eh? No wonder iTunes isn't working for you. But then what is working for you these days?

  83. Looks like MP3 is the biggest loser of all by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    The 2001 list is titled "MP3 2001 in Review: The Winners" and the 2002 list is titled "The MP3 Winners of 2002". But the 2003 list's title doesn't contain a reference to MP3 at all.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Looks like MP3 is the biggest loser of all by real_smiff · · Score: 1

      I think they're just trying to include all digital media formats... 'music on computers' used to be synonymous with MP3, and now thanks to a major store like Apple using AAC for example, technically they're not. Really though in the minds of most people they still are ;) So I would hardly call the MP3 format a loser this year. I bet there were more MP3 files made and copied in 2003 than ever before...

      --

      This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

  84. Re:ITMS is the true winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude I think you made your point in the first sentence, and then you spent sentence after sentence rewording the same statement.

    Bitch. You make my balls burn with rage.

  85. Re:Sorry - WMA has won. by mcwop · · Score: 1

    Yes, I am sure my Black Flag mp3's will sound much better in WMA format. Henry Rollins' scream will be so much more crisp, and the whine of Gregg Gin's guitar will be so much more distinct.

    --

    "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

  86. Are they both Communists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I vote to dump the communist.

  87. Re:ITMS is the true winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >But then what is working for you these days?

    Winamp, MS office, you know, the usual.

    Wait... is iTunes bigger than MS Office? YIKES!

    Of course, then again, we all know how shitty the Quicktime interface is...

    (Yes, I know that's for QT 4.0. I've carefully checked it over. The review is still 75% correct. So... it's 25% less bad than before. Wow. Big deal.)

  88. Re:ITMS is the true winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    errr.... if you thin the point was "From the article" you may like to re-read further.

  89. Napster savior? by Octagon+Most · · Score: 1

    "Napster savior Roxio"??? Huh? How is Roxio the savior of Napster? Because they bought the Napster name for (according to the article which I did read) "a song"? Nice save there. As a former user of the original Napster service (a moment of silence, please....), I am not impressed.

  90. Re:ITMS is the true winner by be-fan · · Score: 2, Informative

    The iPod is not DRM'ed for MP3s. And for AACs, I don't think its DRM'ed either, but rather, the DRM is in iTunes.

    The iPod is just a firewire harddrive that plays whatever files it find in its iTunesDB. I don't really see how they could even do any DRM with that setup.

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  91. Re:ITMS is the true winner by damiam · · Score: 1
    Yes, but with iTunes you're guarenteed respectable sound quality, good tagging, fast and reliable downloads, and legality. Napster had none of those things.

    And no, the iPod is not DRM'd, it will work fine with any MP3 or AIFF files you have. If it plays DRM'd files too, that's a bonus.

    --
    It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  92. Easiest to circumvent if need be by SailfishMac · · Score: 0

    Everybody knows by now to burn a audible c.d. and rip it into high bit rate MP3 to strip the DRM, you just can't do this with WMA(9). The DRM isn't meant to stop the knowledgeable user, just the ignorant casual users and kids who can't buy their music.

    Other WMA based services have taken a cheaper route by providing the stricter DRM and subscriptions which report on one's entire music library as a marketing tool.

    This is just a awful way to treat ones customers.

    "Longhorn; because our customers are like cattle, they take whatever we feed them"

  93. in gpl style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so offer to write a gpl codec for them to includ in future firmware updates. or code it for some token amount of money. (bragging rights maybe) gpl it.

    wait.
    wait.
    profit!

  94. 2400+ hits from 230+ artists by SailfishMac · · Score: 0

    yep still peddling my music hit list, it's a free download, so take it while I'm generous.

    http://homepage.mac.com/hogfish

    save you lots of money and time hunting and pecking via iTunes.

    1. Re:2400+ hits from 230+ artists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your taste in contemporary music is shameful, but the classic stuff [ 1985 or so] you listen to is alright. still, i must ask what's the point of this list?

  95. NO! by Stevyn · · Score: 3, Funny

    No! Not wma! You're forever locked in! Any day now you'll get an error message saying your entire collection is lost. Or the horrid lossy compresion will degenerate to static noise. All I can say is hurry up and switch to Ogg Vorbis. Even if you have to buy another portable music player, it's worth not losing sleep over your music collection as I used to do before Ogg saved my life. And while you're at it, get rid of that windows crap and download linux.

    Remember: choice, freedom, open source.

    And if you disagree with me, you're contributing to the capitalist pigs profiting from something that should be given away for free that could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. I am an ogg user, and this is my manifesto.

  96. DRM is committing suicide at the city gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    DRM is coming.
    Yes, we'll all start to whine and complain but there is no way to stop it.

    Stopping it is easy. Nancy Reagan told you how to do it: Just Say No.

    I never smoked crack, and I didn't buy DVDs before CSS got opened up. I've never had to deal with DRM, ever since the last copy-protected game banged my 1541 disk drive's read/write head. Just Say No really works; it is an absolutely foolproof and inpenetrable strategy. Adherants of the strategy sometimes find that they're aren't part of a larger market, but there's always enough of us that someone has to be a total moron, to not want our money. And if there's one thing I still count on, it's greed.

    Since DRM is incompatable with maximizing profits, it won't last. The software industry learned this in the 1980s. As confirmation of what they learned: the software industry is bigger now, than it was in the early 1980s when it tried DRM.

    Without DRM to whole business chain of the entertainment industry is fucked.

    With DRM, they're fucked even harder and faster. Speaking of which: the porn industry isn't using DRM. That tells you the future, right there.

  97. Re:ITMS is the true winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make me your friend; my fans get +1 comment scores.

    What do I get if I name you a karma-whoring plagiarist?

  98. The best name is one attached to a hit by tuffy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    And nothing says "lossy audio" quite like:

    "Motion Picture Experts Group Audio Layer 3"

    It just rolls right off the tongue...

    --

    Ita erat quando hic adveni.

  99. Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 3, Informative
    Many unsigned and independent artists provide free downloads of their music as a way to publicize themselves. I list many places to find them in my article Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads.

    For example, iRATE Radio is a free (as in speech) downloader that fetches MP3s from websites that provide free, legal downloads. It uses collaborative filtering to learn your tastes and select songs based on the ratings of other users who like the same kind of music you do. iRATE's database of MP3 URLs has 46,000 tracks registered.

    My article has a Creative Commons license. I urge you to copy and distribute it. In addition, I'm looking for help in translating it to languages other than english. The first such translation, to Romanian, was performed by an incredibly helpful fellow named Ciprian Mihet: Legaturi catre Zeci de Mii de Download-uri Legale de Muzica.

    The article also discusses what you can do to make peer-to-peer filesharing of music legal. That's a realistic possibility, considering that more Americans share files with p2p apps than voted for George Bush in the last election.

    That's why I want to get every US p2p user to read my article before the upcoming US elections, in November of this year. I want copyright reform - meaning much more than just the repeal of the DMCA - to be a central issue in the upcoming election.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads by ex-songwriter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a non-performing songwriter, I am against what you propose. It may or may not benefit recording artists (I believe it wouldn't), but for songwriters, whose only means of income is the sale of media (CDs, MP3s, etc.) and licensing fees, what you propose would be extremely harmful. And I, for one, have no problem with paying $1 for an MP3 of Elvis Presley singing Heartbreak Hotel, even though he and its writer, Mae Boren Axton, are dead. If I like the work, a dollar is a very small sum to part with. Also, nothing is standing in the way of any independent artists releasing their own music (copyright-free if they want to), and posting it to be shared by anyone via P2P as you suggest. In short, copyright can be avoided by those to whom it matters and should have the choice: the creators. If you don't like that content is copyrighted, I urge you to protest. But a great place to start would be by boycotting consumption. Don't buy, download, watch, listen to, or read copyrighted content. That would be a meaningful protest.

  100. Re:ITMS is the true winner by BasilBrush · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    As if the AC wasn't enough of a clue. You're a Microsoft fanboy! LOL. iTunes bigger then MS Office my ass. What a baffoon you are.

  101. Re:Sorry - WMA has won. by ProtonMotiveForce · · Score: 1

    Yeah, nimwits are endemic - not really WMA's fault.

    I can extract .WAV files that compare perfectly to the original .WAV file using lossess WMA.

  102. the real mp3.com lesson. by twitter · · Score: 1
    The point to all this is: Don't employ 400 people unless you are generating huge amounts of cash.

    That's nice. I thought that MP3.com was put out of business by a big fat lawsuit brought on by big fat music publishers who did not like the mymp3.com service. They said it was republishing, then took every cent MP3.com ever owned and then some. Silly me, now I know it was because they put people to work. What was I ever thinking?

    The only way to legitmately make money with music is to sue 12 year olds and steal whole pension plans when anyone tries to - gasp - share a song they enjoy. The fundamental tasks of a publisher, selecting the best material, marketing and distributing it, has nothing to do with the RIAA.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  103. Re:Sorry - WMA has won. by ProtonMotiveForce · · Score: 1

    Ogg is shit - ask any hardware vendor what their plans are with Ogg and 9/10 times they'll tell you "None". It's too inefficient and requires too much memory/CPU.

    Ogg is very very pointless. It's _great_ if you have lots of hard disk space, memory, and CPU. But in that case, you might as well use a lossless codec.

    And it doesn't 'wipe the floor' with anything. In all these comparisons, the difference is usually small. The exception being low-bitrate MP3 sucks compared to newer codecs.

  104. SqueezeBox anyone? by krray · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not one mention of the SliMP3 player. Almost a shame. (it's my favorite toy add-on with iTunes :)

    1. Re:SqueezeBox anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mama's got a squeezebox. Daddy never sleeps at night.

  105. Are you a cultural consumer? by ArcRiley · · Score: 1
    I agree with Lshmael, consumer demand for Ogg is unlikely to increase.

    I doubt we'll ever see even a small percentage of "chart topping" music encoded in Ogg Vorbis, either for sale or traded on P2P networks. Most cultural consumers are unlikely to even see an file with a .ogg extension. The goal isn't to change this, either.

    Ogg Vorbis isn't marketed for the consumer market. It's marketed for those who create music because it's the nature of humans as social creatures to create and share art entertainment and information. Free culture, the creative and intellectual commons, where copyright and patent are seen as inhibitors to our advancement as a culture and species.

    For those people who Ogg Vorbis serves, there is no competition. For the media to be free the medium must also be free, and Ogg is the best patent free audio codec available.

    Ogg isn't part of the "codec wars". It's part of a far greater battle, with stakes much higher than the order of bits that music gets distributed with.

  106. Emusic - R.I.P. by orionware · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My prediction for one of the big Loser for 2004 will be Emusic.com

    What a fantastic service that has been completely gutted and destroyed. Thousands of folks PAYING for their music will now go back to p2p and the newsgroups.

    Shame.

    --


    Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
  107. good points - mod up by real_smiff · · Score: 1

    In the long term, mp3 will fade against better codecs, probably aac/mp4 and their successors, i agree. However, i wanted to say that mp3 is still a great choice for many people making music collections on their computers and portable devices, you shouldn't feel pressured to rush to the latest codec (especially if you're going to transcode from mp3s!). Really, Fraunhoffer (sp.?) did a remarkable job of designing the mp3 spec ten years (that's a long time in computing terms!) ago. Let's not forget the great work done by the LAME team, whose encoder has pushed the limit for size/quality and without which MP3 would be looking (er.. sounding) far more dated. As for AudioCDs as a source for uncompressed music - I think CDs will still be available in 10 or 20 years, older people especially will still want to go into shops and buy a disc... i hope uncompressed or losslessly compressed music is always available, although i could see why the music industry would love to stop it.. but this is a whole area of speculation in itself :)

    --

    This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

  108. Open source bigwigs? by ProtonMotiveForce · · Score: 1

    Good one, buddy.

    On a similar note, I heard politicians are considering courting the all important homeless vote. Ahahaha.

  109. A Vorbis-only device that already exists by ArcRiley · · Score: 1

    I believe this was already covered by /., but a company called FineArch has developed a Vorbis-only decoder. Check out their English Site, and prehaps email them for more information.

  110. DVD Sales? by kwshaw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Excuse me, but how does DVD sales going up correlate with "winning" because of mp3s? Isn't it true that every year more and more people own DVD players, in the home, on their computer. So lets see, "Oh, DVD is a winner cause the sales went up. MP3 is the cause of that!" What kind of conclusion is that? If more people own DVD players compared to last year, naturally DVD sales are going to go up as well.

  111. DRM with Ogg by ArcRiley · · Score: 2, Informative
    DRM is being used with Ogg. You must have missed this slashdot article back in April (no it wasn't an April Fools joke).

    What's more, it's Free Software, dual licensed under the GPL or their "binary only" license. If you pay for it, part of it will even go to the EFF and Xiph foundations. Check out the OggS project page.

  112. what i mean by 'efficiency' by real_smiff · · Score: 1

    i wasn't very clear.. i used 'more efficient' to mean only 'better quality at same size' or 'same quality at lower size'.. OGG is more efficent in both these ways. And at very low bitrates, WMA will sound better than MP3 sure, but personally i never want to listen to music with noticeable artifacts and find LAME preset standard an excellent compromise between size and quality.. if you are still basing your comparison (vs WMA) on older MP3 encoders like Xing or even FhG, please try a recent LAME build, not e.g. some 128kbps MP3 downloaded from a P2P network. This is also a disadvantage of MP3, that there is a huge variation in quality depending on the encoding method.

    --

    This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

  113. The true victor is Apple's marketing dept. by rtilghman · · Score: 2, Interesting


    The iPod is, at least technically, inferior to other products on the market (iRiver, Karma, etc.).

    iTunes is, at least technically, inferior to other products on the market.

    The two products together are, at least technically, inferior to other options on the market in that they are exclusive to one another (dual package, proprietary crap, etc.).

    The two are, as of right now, far more popular than any other combinations on the market. Why? Because Apple's marketing team has made the iPod the must have product on the market, given it a unique identity that is pushed EXTREMELY well, and bundled in iTunes as a "revolutionary" break through against the RIAA.

    A tribute to the sheer success of the iPod is its popularity here on Slashdot. Slashdotters are open source DIY fiddlers enamored with all things freee and hackable. The iPod is, fcrom both a hardware and software perspective, TOTALLY closed. iTunes is essentially the music version of Microsoft's use of IE, employing a proprietary format created SOLELY to lock in users on their device.

    And yet the Slashdot community has, despite all this, professed its love for the iPod in the face of all other more "Slashdot" friendly products (open source codec supporters, etc.).

    Here's to you for manipulating even the technologically advanced Apple!

    -rt

    1. Re:The true victor is Apple's marketing dept. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      Personally i like my panasonic MP3 CD player, it's bigger and uses batteries faster (I use Ni-MH) but i can hold 700MB of MP3's at a time and can carry more MP3 CD's if i want more music.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  114. $20 movie DVDs vs. $16 soundtrack CDs by baboin · · Score: 1

    The fellow makes a point in his Winners list that some CD sales might have gone down since DVDs are now taking up so much space in record stores. What he didn't mention is that you can get a DVD of a movie for $20 while just the soundtrack on DVD costs you $16. The movie industry wins my $20.

    1. Re:$20 movie DVDs vs. $16 soundtrack CDs by baboin · · Score: 1

      Gee, I should preview before submitting - that last line should read "while just the soundtrack on CD costs you $16"...

  115. Re:I love Apple's DRM by Salsaman · · Score: 1

    There is no such thing as *right* DRM. And where are the open source AAC players/encoders ?

  116. Re:Sorry, but anyone paying $300+ for a music play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're comparing a shitty made american car (Corvette -- just look at that plastic interior!) to a Volvo, a car with at least a little bit of class?

    Please.

    p.s. I'm an american made car owner. 'Cause it's less expensive. But they are vastly cheaper.

  117. Ipod is great, but will they profit? by programmingart · · Score: 1

    Interesting article I recently read about how Apple innovates great products, however, never seems to capitalize finacially from thier innovations. http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/78/jobs.html

  118. The Digital Media Winners of 2003 by real_smiff · · Score: 1

    Of course it doesn't. The articles are actually titled "The Digital Media Winners(/Losers) of 2003" not "MP3 winners". So Slashdot narrows the discussion and confuses people like you. Arg! :/ I think this (how DVD sales are doing great, despite rampant online "movie piracy") could have been a more interesting discussion than the MP3 vs. WMA wars going on below...

    --

    This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

  119. iRiver by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    The iRiver is only 3 mm wider than the iPod, and 1 gram heavier. The cuff on my pants is wider than 3mm, and if you can tell the difference between 1 gram then you're a better man than I. Plus it supports OGG as well as MP3 and WMA, has a remote, has an FM tuner, has real time hardware MP3 encoding off the tuner, and has optical input and output, plus it just plain looks badass, as opposed to the kiddy looking iPod.

  120. Re:I love Apple's DRM by TheDanish · · Score: 1

    I'll buy all my songs from iTMS when I can play the downloaded files directly, without having to waste a CD and have either a huge FLAC file or another lossy version, in foobar2000, without needing so much as Quicktime installed. Or whichever music store does it first.

    I realize that being able to buy music in such novel ways as an online music store should be applauded, but until I can listen to it the way I want, I'm not going for it. And since that's, to say the least, very unlikely to happen, as there's IP to protect, I guess I'm out a new fad.

    --
    Danish != nationality
  121. Re:Sorry, but anyone paying $300+ for a music play by Jippy_ · · Score: 1

    Wow, nice. Good job on trying to deflect the original conversation. Alas, it didn't work. However, I can't really make a decent reply because you didn't really say anything relevant to the conversation...

    Oh.. well, except this:

    'Cause it's less expensive. But they are vastly cheaper.

    Wow. So, they're less expensive, but they're vastly cheaper too?

    Amazing. I've got a hard drive that's 40 gigs. It's pretty big, but it's also large. Oh, and it's not small.

  122. I like my ipod but can not use itunes by treat · · Score: 1

    I like my ipod, but I can't use the itunes music store. I apparantly can't even browse what music they have available. I'd like to be able to get any song on demand. (Though a dollar per song seems a little steep, as I don't get a full quality copy. It's not even as good as ``lame --preset extreme'').

    They have a Windows version and a OS X version. But no Linux version. I can't possibly see why they would need to force me to run proprietary software just to pay a dollar to download a file. Plenty of other services let you log in and pay to download something. It's trivial. Therefore, they went through extra effort to force the software to only run on two platforms.

    Whatever their motive, this does not seem like a friendly act. Instead, it seems like an act of hostility.

  123. Re:ITMS is the true winner by Methuseus · · Score: 1

    Or, some people just hate the feel of Apple products. I know I do. They feel like they're giving me even less control of what I'm doing than MS does. And at least I can play games on Windows, right?

    --
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
  124. little known fact... by mantera · · Score: 1


    the "artists" actually make much less money from music downloads, practically a zero cost product, than they make from CDs... thanks to the RIAA...

  125. Re:ITMS is the true winner by czion3 · · Score: 1

    IMHO iTunes is not noteworth without the soon to be released iPod Jr. Although sales are good now, internet music sales will eventually stabilize. For any form of new media to be successful in becoming the major format for music it has to be as easily obtained in stores or on the internet like cd's. The new format mush also have affordable portable players for the masses(The original iPod is NOT for the masses). Supply for home stereo players are not as important as they were for cd's because the PC has become the most commonly used stereos in the house.

  126. margins? by Doktor+Memory · · Score: 1

    Will Apple stay a winner? How long can they sustain the iPod at the current inflated margins?

    An question based on an incorrect premise, and a really silly misconception to labor under now 2+ years after the ipod was introduced.

    Multiple web sites have now disassembled iPods and examined their parts manifest. You can check them yourself: between the bleeding-edge Toshiba 1.8" hard drives and the moldable li-ion batteries, the retail cost of an ipod is has generally been accounted at 10-20% less than the retail cost of its component parts.

    Apple's margins on the iPod are probably no better than 10% at the very best.

    --

    News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

  127. This Sound Like M$ Horseshit by Beavis! · · Score: 1

    Ogg Vorbis, the loser? I think not. Anyone who thinks that Ogg Vorbis is a pointless codec obviously has no concern for quality audio and disk usage efficiency. I've been using Ogg Vorbis for the past few years and I have to say I will never go back to MP3. I don't care if there is support for MP3 in every player in the land, just give me a good Ogg Vorbis player, and I will continue to use it until something better comes along. (And no... MP3-Pro is NOT better, it's a pale imitation of Ogg Vorbis)

    Just to make a point to all my friend and relatives, I had a Vorbis listening party this past Summer at my home. I told everyone to bring their favorite CDs and that I would rip their favorite track from the disc using MP3 and Vorbis. I did so at 64, 128, 256 and 384 k bitrates. We had a wonderful time conducting blind listening comparisons using both the AKG and Sennheiser cans as well as my Tannoy studio monitors, Yamaha stereo speakers and the Bose 901 series loudspeakers. (Each set in a room seasoned with the best in acoustics) Under such discriminating environments, Vorbis beat MP3 hadns down every time. Some people couldn't even tell the diffrerence between the 64k Vorbis and the 256k MP3. ONly going to prove my point that Ogg Vorbis is FAR superior to any other codec.

    After we had dinner (a fine French meal with wine if you must know), it was time for more listening tests. Initially the crowd was a little resistant, but by the time we'd listened to the wonderfully executed "Get Ur Freak On" by Missy Elliot for a fifth time, the crowd agreed that Ogg Vorbis was the winner hands down.

    It was a wonderful day and a great victory for Ogg Vorbis as I told everyone present that now that they were aware of the quality the Vorbis provides, they should show all of their friends and family. I provided them all with archive DLTs of the test set (music that they all brought with them) so that they could give it to their IT guys at work and have them load it up on the their Linux or Unix servers and share with their colleagues. They all promised that they would talk to their IT guys.

    So, this article has no idea what it's going on about because it isn't aware of the change that is taking the nation by storm with regard to Ogg Vorbis. I urge all of you to show your family and friends the right way to archive digital audio media and advise them to abandon MP3 and proprietary codecs. If you don't then it will be on your own hands...

    --
    I try to be fu
    1. Re:This Sound Like M$ Horseshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Just to make a point to all my friend and relatives, I had a Vorbis listening party this past Summer at my home. I told everyone to bring their favorite CDs and that I would rip their favorite track from the disc using MP3 and Vorbis. I did so at 64, 128, 256 and 384 k bitrates. We had a wonderful time conducting blind listening comparisons using both the AKG and Sennheiser cans as well as my Tannoy studio monitors, Yamaha stereo speakers and the Bose 901 series loudspeakers.

      No, see, the expressions on their faces weren't indicative of them having a "wonderful time." That was them trying to somehow get out of their restraints, hoping the Scary Man who abducted them for his "listening party" wouldn't break out the power tools.

      And I thought Kaczynski wasn't playing with a full deck.

    2. Re:This Sound Like M$ Horseshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep.

      I can definitely tell the difference between Ogg and MP3 on the shitty fold-up headphones I bring to work. You know, the shitty fold-up ones that are the best I can afford because I tried to convince someone to use Ogg in a real product?

      Slashdot assclowns. No one cares.

  128. Re:ITMS is the true winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well they didn't actually invent anything. And your not realy getting the music terrificly cheaper.

    Heres what I do.

    I have couple hundred CDs, like most guys end up gathering after 10 years or so of random collecting.

    I am a linux user.

    I take ripperX, a front end for cdparanioa, a CDDA client and a front end for a ogg vorbis (also Lame Mp3, Flac, and a couple others) encoder wrapped up in one GUI program.

    I rip my CD's, encode them, then stick them into a ~/Music file.

    Then I use Zinf. I tell it to scan the folder.

    It automaticly orginizes a "My Music" that' is a lot like the "explorer tree" from Window's Explorer. The files are orginized by Artist, Album, and then track number. With little +'s or -'s to expand and compact the amount of info showed.

    I can select individual tracks, or Albums or the entire music collection and put the in a playlist, were I can random it, orginize it by Song name, Album/Track, or Genre.

    My own little private iTunes factory. I currently have over 500 different song titles at my disposal with more everyday. (been doing this since a couple days ago)

    I am thinking about hooking up with the BMG music catalog or some such thing to get more CD's cheaper and cheaper.

    I plan to stream them out into the internet for my own pleasure and my friends to listen to.

    OGG VORBIS ROCKS. CDPARANOIA ROCKS. ZINF ROCKS. LINUX ROCKS. And debian makes all this shit easy.

    Now I have a entire new way to listen to music. This stuff is wonderfull.

  129. MPEG-4? by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    DVDs use MPEG-4? Where have I been all this time?! And they don't make progressive-scan DVDs? Holy crap! What's all this shit I have here?

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  130. DVD lossiness by waaka! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    True, DVD is lossy, but at least get the facts straight: DVD uses MPEG-2, not MPEG-4, and its resolution does make sense in the overall scheme of things, since it matches that of its usual destination, a TV. Also, DVDs can encode movies using progressively-scanned frames and simply mark the video stream to be telecined into the interlaced output that most TVs need.

    1. Re:DVD lossiness by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      Okay, so I really botched a few facts there.

      its resolution does make sense in the overall scheme of things, since it matches that of its usual destination, a TV.

      That could easily be said of MP3s, though; most people play their music through car stereos and basic computer speakers, not anything that would make the difference between MP3s and CD quality stand out. I'm not sure most people could tell the difference with the best quality system.

      DVDs can encode movies using progressively-scanned frames

      Having watched DVDs on my computer, which drops frames rather heavily, I can pick out which DVDs in my collection are progressively-scanned, now that you point it out. So why is so much stuff interlaced? Do they really throw out the film for TV shows and TV movies and keep only the interlaced stuff?

    2. Re:DVD lossiness by iantri · · Score: 1
      ..because a lot of TV is edited digitally/on NTSC tape.

      Ever notice that the credits roll smoothly (i.e. 29.97fps interlaced) in most TV shows?

      Additionally, any CG done might be 29.97fps (Babylon 5).

      That's why these shows remain in interlaced format on DVD.

  131. In fairness to Ogg... by waaka! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...the spread of the bars on the graph represents the uncertainty of the results, so (even according to those who performed the test and discussed it on HydrogenAudio) it's only fair to declare that one codec is conclusively worse than another when its entire spread lies below another codec's spread. Therefore, the only thing that's for sure is that MP3 is worse than the others. I don't know which samples favor which codecs, but a different set of test samples could have yielded slightly different orderings of the non-MP3 codecs.

    That being said, market share is far more of an issue than sound quality.

  132. retail cost? by alizard · · Score: 1
    Go to Toshiba with an order for 100K HDs in hand with cash to back it up and the promise of regular orders and they will give you prices far under what the retailers pay.

    What you say is true, but not especially relevant. Their margins are probably closer to 30-50%. The only company that could sustain 10% margins on hardware and sell music to fill it up as a loss leader is Microsoft.

    1. Re:retail cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to Toshiba with an order for 100K HDs in hand with cash to back it up and the promise of regular orders and they will give you prices far under what the retailers pay.

      So what? Is any consumer going to do that? No.

      What you say is true, but not especially relevant.

      How is the high cost of components not relevant?

      The only company that could sustain 10% margins on hardware and sell music to fill it up as a loss leader is Microsoft.

      Wal-Mart.

    2. Re:retail cost? by Doktor+Memory · · Score: 1

      Go to Toshiba with an order for 100K HDs in hand with cash to back it up and the promise of regular orders and they will give you prices far under what the retailers pay.

      Duh.

      My point wasn't that Apple wasn't making a marginal profit: my point is that their margins are not in any way "inflated". The iPod contains substantial value-add in terms of integration and software, yet they are selling it for very little more than the aggregate retail cost of the parts alone. That's called "reasonable."

      --

      News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

  133. Hold on... by zoeblade · · Score: 1

    Ogg Vorbis loses an mp3 competition? But it's trying to replace the mp3 format (or at least co-exist with it). It's not a piece of software or hardware that uses the mp3 format.

    For some reason, this kinda reminds me of when RMS got a Linus Torvalds award, or something similar. :)

  134. Several rebuttals.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A few comments on the winners:

    >3. Archos
    >Continues to own the MPEG 4 video portable
    >business with the release of the excellent
    >Archos AV320.

    Everything I've read/seen/used leads me to believe that the device has an an awful UI. Featurewise it is excellent, but that doesn't necessarily make it an excellent product. Plus, it's %$@% expensive, even for what it is.

    >A peek at the future where services like Napster
    >and iTunes may soon sell digital files of
    >individual TV episodes for $0.50 each

    Right, except that iTunes will use some sort of apple-specific (a la ACC) format that won't work on Archos' players, and since you've just told us that iTunes is going to kill everyting in it's path, what's the point?

    >7. Roxio
    >A healthy promotional campaign along with the
    >name recognition has propelled the new service
    >to a clear number two to iTunes in the downloads-
    >for-sale game.

    In what universe is it reasonable to even begin to figure out a number two in this space? It's in its infancy right now, and the landscape three or six months from now probably won't look much like the landscape today. That's even assuming that we ignore the fact that *all* of these services currently lose tremendous amounts of money for their owners, and many will probably soon cease to exist. Napster's new portable player has zero traction right now, and they're still looking down the barrel of the iTunes-AAC-proprietary go-to-hell gun.

    A few comments on the losers:

    >3. WMA Format
    >Even though its use was way behind that of the
    >MP3 format, Microsoft's WMA was still a clear
    >number 2 - until iTunes came along. Within the
    >first few weeks WMA went from place to show,
    >supplanted as Apple sold millions of tunes in
    >their proprietary version of the competing AAC
    >format.
    (...)
    >The codec wars have started.
    No they haven't. There is no codec war. There is an Apple vs. Everything Else , or an AAC vs. Everything Else war. Continued dominance of the iPod is the *only* leverage that Apple has for AAC. I've noticed that absolutely nowhere in this list have any of the new worthy iPod competitors even been mentioned (except briefly in passing) and the author simply assumes the continued massive dominance of iPod, backed up by very little evidence. Also, he completely ignores the flash-based player segment of the market, which is the gigantic monster moneymaker - not HD players.
    Don't get me wrong - iPod will still dominate the HD space for a while, but not much longer. There are too many cheaper, better alternatives out there already. Has it not occured to the author that Apple is making the classic Apple mistakes with the iPod?

    >6. Ogg Vorbis
    >Before iTunes there was only one major digital
    >music format - MP3. WMA was a very distant
    >second and Ogg Vorbis looked to parlay its open
    >source origins into a wide open market and
    >become a heavily utilized commercial and non-
    >commercial codec

    ACC, ACC, ACC! The idea of Ogg Vorbis DRM is almost an oxymoron, and therefore ogg's suitability as a medium for online music sales was always considered to be zero for anybody who had even the faintest idea what they were talking about. Ogg Vorbis is currently a niche codec, but it fills its niche nicely (and will be even better if it can become less of a CPU hog and therefore more suitable to portable devices.)

    I'd also like to point out that this guy rambles, as have many others, about the horrible "licensing fees" for mp3 and wma, with respect to portable players. I don't even know where to begin with that statement, other than to say that it's a well-crafted bit of FUD (yeah, go ahead, flame away)
    The truth of the matter is that these licenses barely impact the bottom line on devices costing as much as HD players. They are more of an issue with flash-based players, but this author aparently is not aware

  135. Are you a heavy pot smoker? by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

    'Cause, like, The Dude here is suckin' down 'nother Caucasian and wonderin' what yer trip is Man. I mean WOW. That's some heavy shit there bro'. I wuz jus bowlin' with, like, Walter and Donny and they were like, well Donny didn't say much, but Walter went in on how he didn't see his buddies die in 'Nam just to be stuck with the Windows Media Player format, but I was like maybe ogg is cool just 'cause, y'know?

    1. Re:Are you a heavy pot smoker? by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Hey, it's HIS United States of Whatever.
      :b

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    2. Re:Are you a heavy pot smoker? by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I hear ya bro'. I mean, like, fuck it. Ya know? If he can't call me The Dude then that's his trip Man. All I want is my rug back and some libogg.so and why bother with the rest? The Dude will carry on. Fuck it.

  136. Al least one Ogg Vorbis store is here. by sorlov · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All Of mp3 - it's a store that offer music at $0.01/megabyte. They offer mp3,wma,ogg vorbis,mpc and acc formats. Some tracks are mp3 only, but they offer "online encoding" that lets you select format and bitrate (ogg vorbis up to 320kbit/sec!). If you use "online encoding" you pay $0.01/megabyte. There is also flat rate subscription $15/month/1000tracks but it doesn't cover "online encoding". They are a Russian shop but the site has English interface as well. I believe they were able to negotiate such low prices because of poor sales of RIAA music in Russia. RIAA just don't care about Russia (yet?)

    1. Re:Al least one Ogg Vorbis store is here. by sydb · · Score: 1

      Do you use them? Or are you involved ("sorlov" sounds a bit russian to me)?

      They are offering Aphex Twin "Richard D James Album" for download, for free, and as that album is released on Warp Records (an independent label in the UK) I don't think the RIAA would be able to agree to giving it away on their behalf.

      I mean, they look interesting but my trust level would have to be increased before I signed up.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    2. Re:Al least one Ogg Vorbis store is here. by muzthe42nd · · Score: 1

      I've used them in the past, but only to download the albums that they offer for free. Not owning a credit card, I wouldn't be able to say if they're trustworthy enough to give them those details, but for downloading free albums, they're lovely.

      --
      Pfft - Sorry, what?
    3. Re:Al least one Ogg Vorbis store is here. by sorlov · · Score: 1

      Yes, I use them. I'm not involved with them, but I live in Russia and saw their ads on a Russian site.

      You're right, legal side of their business is unclear. They refer to Russian Multimedia and Internet Society lincense. Quote from ROMS site: "ROMS is authorized by the Russian law on copyright and related rights as well as by its members and other copyright managers, including foreign, to issue user licenses on behalf of all Russian and foreign rightsholders."

      I have seen ROMS label on inexpensive CDs and video cassets with Western music and films in Russia but right after the label there was always a writing: "To be distributed only in Russia". So I'm not sure how they distribute digital music on Internet. The price difference is also suspiciously big: average song price in AllOfmp3 is $0.01*5-10Mb=$0.05-$0.10. Whereas average ROMS labeled video cassete is $6. Compare it to Western prices. BTW, DVDs are still $20 in Russia.

      Anyway I buy music there occasionally. I bought a lot of Jethro Tull music (UK band, I'm a fan of them) in that store a year ago. On the saved money :) I bought $120 worth of J-Tull stuff (t-shirts, posters), I heard artists get much more money on merchandise.

    4. Re:Al least one Ogg Vorbis store is here. by sorlov · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I understand what you mean "trust level": are you worried if your money will reach artists' pockets or your money will reach robbers' pockets? If the first see my first post, if the second I don't know for sure. I can only say they exists for two years and they also use secure methods of payments which I use (money.yandex.ru - unfortunately it's a Russian only system). I checked their site a minute ago, they also accept paypal payments, but I'm not sure how secure it is. In Russia we also have visa ec@rd, limited balance 6 month card for online payments, maybe your bank offers something like that.

  137. Most do actually by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    CDs are digital you know, and the nicer ones play mp3s ( but not ogg :( ).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Most do actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1. CDs are digital you know, and the nicer ones play mp3s ( but not ogg :( ).

      *blink*

      Gee...really? This technology confuses me greatly, I'm glad you could clear that up for me, bye!

      No no...bye! You stay right there... backs away slowly

  138. Re:I love Apple's DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can consider at restrictive DRM.

    But I don't know of any less restrictive DRM on DRMed products. And the record industry ain't exactly eager to allow non-DRMed online music. And DRM sucks.

    So I'll continue to buy CDs and shrug at people who use the ITMS. And then I'll rip my CDs and stick the MP3s on my iPod, because the iPod is a nice piece of hardware.

  139. WMA? I must be out of the loop. by OzJimbob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm just a bit suprised to hear people actually have entire music collections in WMA format. A search of my Windows partition (no point looking for them in Linux) has discovered... three, all of which appear to be the "sample" files that come with Windows XP! I can't remember ever even seeing them on any legal indie music sites like BeSonic, or in peoples collections in any filesharing programs. I don't think I've ever listened to a WMA net radio station - all the good stuff seems to be on streaming mp3 and ogg. Where, in all honesty, are you people getting them from? I guess I'm out of the loop.

    --
    -"I still believe in revolution; I just don't capitalize it anymore." - srini!
  140. reason for breaking even by Razzak · · Score: 1

    isn't the record companies, although that *is* a large part of it. They could actually make quite a profit IMO if they can eliminate people buying only one or two MP3's and getting hit hard with the transaction costs.

    If you see a lot more people buying iTunes Gift Cards and entire albums at once, you'll see the iTunes store making money.

  141. At least compare similar products! by MightyYar · · Score: 1
    IMO, the Neuros is much better then the iPod. Is cheaper and the battery replacement is from $0 - $12 depending on if it is in warranty or not, which is much cheaper then Apple's $50 or so.

    I guess you are equating "bigger" with "better"...

    Ipod 20GB: One piece, 4.1 by 2.4 by 0.62 inches, 5.6 ounces.

    Neuros 20GB: Two-piece (separate hard drive), 5.3" x 3.1" x 1.3", 9.4 oz.

    So, yeah, it's a neat thing, but it's even bigger than the iPod - which itself is on the edge of what I consider too big. The Neuros is thicker than many laptops, and it's two pieces!

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1. Re:At least compare similar products! by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      Where did you see it as two pieces? I think you are confusing the bundle package which is a smaller 128MB player AND the 20GB HD model. The 20GB player is one piece for $199. You can purchase it with the 128MB player if you want for a savings.

      The Neuros does have a feature to let you upgrade it by removing the backpack and getting more storage down the road. You can't do that with the iPod.
      The Neuros design includes a removable backpack to give you ultimate memory and storage flexibility and freedom to easily stay plugged in to product upgrades. As new technology is released, you will be able to upgrade your Neuros by switching out the backpack.
      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    2. Re:At least compare similar products! by MightyYar · · Score: 1
      The backpack is the 2nd piece that I was referring to. The only difference between the 128MB player and the one that comes with the 20GB model seems to be memory. You can upgrade a 128MB player to 20GB by sliding into the backpack, but you can't take the 20GB control unit and "downgrade" it to 128MB because 64MB of memory is soldered in (presumably to make the 20GB unit cheaper).

      At least, that's what I gather from the website. I've never seen one in person.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  142. Neuros is crap by 5n3ak3rp1mp · · Score: 1

    The interface looks nice and iPod-y, it has the neat FM radio stuff, but ::gasp:: it is still stuck in USB 1.1 land!! WTF? And I note on their site that a recent letter from the CEO says that the USB 2 version is delayed again.

    Screw that, it's either FireWire or USB2 IMHO. USB1 in a modern digital media player is a huge achilles' heel these days. Yuck!!!!!

  143. Re:ITMS is the true winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    +1 Insightful

  144. Re:Sorry, but anyone paying $300+ for a music play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not the affordability of the ipod.

    Would you pay 50 bucks for a cheeseburger from McDonalds, I mean Apple? Yes, you would.

    Just because the ipod is slick and has an pointlessly large hard drive doesn't mean its better.

    Of course you got to spend more money to think that your mp3s sound better.

  145. Re:Sorry, but anyone paying $300+ for a music play by Jippy_ · · Score: 1

    Of course you got to spend more money to think that your mp3s sound better.

    My MP3's sound the same on an iPod, Winamp, RCA Lyra, or any MP3 player. I don't understand what you're trying to say here... That an iPod makes MP3's sound better?

    That certainly was a dumb statement. Thank goodness you made that as an AC.

    Fortunately, one part of your post made a little sense. You said that even though the iPod is slick and has a pointlessly large hard drive, it doesn't necessarily mean it's better than anything else. You're right. It doesn't make it better. What makes it better than an RCA Lyra for ME is the fact that I filled up my iPod with music and carry all that music with me wherever I go. I can not do this with the RCA Lyra I used to own. I could only take a fraction of songs with me, always having to swap them when I wanted to listen to different things.

    So, I don't see how it's pointlessly large when I was able to fully utilize it. That's like saying "I don't see why anyone would pay for a GForce 4" to someone who just bought Doom 3.

  146. Re:ITMS is the true winner by slim · · Score: 1

    Most people have no problem with it. Time for a newer PC perhaps.

    iTunes for Windows is sluggish on my 1.8 GHz Thinkpad T30.

    Once it's in the foreground it works tolerably, but switching between it and other applications takes an unacceptably long time (this is the hallmark of a memory hog).

    Given that a P200 can decode MP3s without breaking a sweat, and that Windows users have to learn a whole new UI just in order to use iTunes (*) I'd argue that iTunes for Windows is not "Gravy".

    (*) I know, Winamp also has a non-standard UI, but at least it's fast. I would rather it used standard Windows widgets...

  147. a couple of t-shirts for you by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    I have one that simply says "Creed Sucks" in big letters on the front. I have had many nice comments about it, such as "Nice shirt!" and "where did you get that shirt?" I have yet to run into a single person who dislikes it.

    But there's one thats even better - it says "Even Jesus hates Creed"

  148. Re:I love Apple's DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not DRM, that's a format issue.

  149. It is encouraging... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... to see some people hating freedom so much.

    That means people that care about freedom must be doing something right.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  150. Yeah, MP3 and WMA are great names. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    We shall name the format OV then, that will make it equally good sounding.

    Thanks for the above par suggestion.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  151. Re:MP3.com -- Garageband.com by zeemster · · Score: 1

    Given the shut-down of MP3.com, one of the other big winners for 2003 has got to be Garageband.com, which has bumped up to become #1. Garageband.com now claims to be the web's largest community of independent musicians and the largest LEGAL source of free MP3 music (according to their press release -- assuming they are telling the truth).