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."
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.
The Free desktop that Just Works
In my opinion, anyone who downloaded Creed was a loser, not just for this year.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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.
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.
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.
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.
GPL Deconstructed
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
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.
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.
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.
The consumer - we get sued, screwed, and DRM'd out of our right to enjoy the music we purchase the way we want to.
The iHp-120 is a winner too and it plays Ogg.
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.
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.
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?
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
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/
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.
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.
Tech Public Policy stuff