Slashdot Mirror
HP Working With Apple To Add WMA Support To iPod
iPod Afficianado writes to a short piece at Connected Home magazine in which Paul Thurrott "is quoted as saying that HP's blockbuster deal with Apple will have one
exciting side effect. The company will be working with Apple to add support for
Microsoft's superior Windows Media Audio (WMA) format to the iPod by mid-year."
Superior??? WHAT??? WMA??? Oh god! Leave it to Paul.
WMA is supported on more devices and players than Apple's AAC (w/DRM) and the iPod. BUT WMA support is IRRELEVANT if the Digital Restrictions Management that infests Microsoft products doesn't allow me to play it anywhere else anyway. I once had a free offer to download WMA files from some music service and found that once the files were copied to any other computer, they were useless anyway. Copying to a player which did play WMAs was fruitless as well. So the DRM (remember it's Digital RESTRICTIONS Management) is the overriding limiting factor, and not whether WMA is supported or not. All the other online music services are music RENTAL right? If so, I won't participate regardless of the format. Microsoft's argument is irrelevant until the WMA-supporting music services offer more lenient restrictions. I don't want my music to stop after I stop paying $19/month, I don't wanna have to worry if I bought the correct license to burn to CD for every single track I buy!
Did he really have to call Windows Media "superior"?
Yikes! Prepare for flamage!
Fellowship 9/11
Superior? That's a new one.
"...superior Windows Media Audio (WMA) format" ? Superior to *what*, did you say? .wav?
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
Microsoft's superior Windows Media Audio
first of all - superior to what?
secondly: I've had it with the codec wars. Let's let the big music/hardware/software companies keep duking it out and pissing away their resources fighting over mp3/aac/wma. Personally I'm re-ripping all my CDs once and for all to FLAC. If a better lossless codec comes along later, all I have to do is batch process them all and save some space. No worries about finding a new original to avoid lossy reencoding.
As far as my ears can tell, there is no appreciable difference between ANY of the lossy codecs about 192kbps. But they all seem to come with DRM these days, and that's just anacceptable.
Microsoft's superior Windows Media Audio
Will it also run on Microsoft's superior operating system so it can benefit from superior crashes and viruses?
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
I can see a lot of people complaining about "superior" in the article. Rest assured he meant it to mean larger, as in bloated. We're all agreed to Ogg Vorbis is awesome and M$ sucks, so let's just get back to discussing what a waste of time this is and how much Apple should be opening the code bade to allow for Ogg playback.
The iPod's processor isn't fast enough to play Ogg. It can't even play MP3's in floating point mode without the external decoder chip. Anyone have info on how they implemented AAC?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Actually, this would be my only reason to buy an iPod, just like it was my only reason to buy a RioVolt a few years back.
I'm not sure, but it looks like the article says WMA is superior.
Correct me if I misread it, though. Nobody in the comments seems to have anything to say on it.
- foad
I'd like to see this WMA news confirmed by a few more sources - until then I'll definatly be taking this with a grain of salt. If true however, I guess the only thing I could say is I sure hope Jobs knows what's he's doing. If he goes and supports WMA, it wouldn't be too unreasonable to think the RIAA would want the iTMS to switch to the more restrictive WMA DRM, rather than the AAC I currently favor. If the iPod is going to support WMA, it would have to support the more-restrictive DRM as well.
From a pure "bottom-line" viewpoint, it would mean a big boost to iPod sales, as those people who's entire library is WMA, or even people who use "other" online music services can now enjoy the beauty that is iPod. While not a bad thing, it's still diluting the iPod brand IMHO.
I think I'd rather see the iPod stay AAC only.
I, for one, welcome our newly superior WMA overlords.
I don't think this is far fetched: WMA on iPods. If there's WMA on iPods, then there's WMA in iTunes. If there's WMA in iTunes, then there's WMA in QuickTime.
Maybe HP will go off on their own branch... but maybe not... just a thought.
-Aaron
My name is Aaron Landry, and I approve this message.
Okay. Yes. I realize the guy said that WMA is suprerior. Now, I do have to say that I have recently been playing around with WMA files a bit.
1.) 64-bit WMAs do have a little less quality than 128-bit encodings of MP3's. However, because 64 is half the encoding of 128, this is only to be expected. However, unless you're specifically listening to it, you may never notice it.
2.) The WMAs are smaller in file size (even at the same bit encoding). This is nice. Especially if you plan to put the songs on some sort of MP3 player with limited memory.
3.) Yeah. The DRM thing sucks. I totally agree. This is why I chose not to go with WMAs in the end. (I was considiring converting my MP3s over.)
WMAs are not all bad. In fact, they do even have good qualities. But, the DRM overrides any benefit that they may have.
Yes, I'm sure I will get plenty of replies stating that Vorbis support doesn't matter. Well, sucks for Apple: they're not getting my $400 because they don't support Ogg Vorbis, the format in which my 1,200 CD's/14,000 tracks are all encoded in. But these are the choices one must make, and they've made the calculation that they can do without Vorbis users' money. Time will tell whether this is a good calculation or not.
[ home ]
...Sony also announced today that it's newest CD player will support the superior 8-track and Vinyl formats. In addition, plans are underway to scrap the existing DVD line of products for the ultra-lo definition VHS format.
So does that mean iTunes will support WMA? I doubt it. Does it mean the iPod or iTunes will be able to play the particular flavor of DRM used in online music stores using WMA? I rather doubt that too. So what exactly does this get anyone?
And who would want to use WMA in iTunes or on your iPod, unless you were at least going to be able to play a competitor music store's goods.
And why on earth would Apple agree to opening up the iTunes/iPod combo to someone elses store?
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
who, as near as I can tell, is some sort of sentient appendage growing on Bill Gates' ass. He has a whole site devoted to his particular brand of hyperactive boosterism.
They promote an alternative to WMA in the AAC format, and it seems that incorporating WMA support into the iPod would only hurt iTunes Music Store, since many of its competitors sell WMA files.
I wonder if WMA will be available only on HP's version of the iPod, and if so, will HP's device support the Macintosh?
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
You're 5... 4... 3... 2... Late...
FP was ages ago.
I heard of this new audio codec called Ogg Vorbis. Is there any more information about it? I'm suprised no one has mentioned it in this thread yet.
I thought laying flamebait in the article summaries died with the end of the "but they ruin it all by having a one button mouse" type posts. Anyway, I'm too tired to make a logical argument against it (and many others have done already) so I'll just fall back on an oldie but a goodie from Usenet. Come along kids... it'll be a trip down memory lane.
Drum roll, please...
The company will be working with Apple to add support for Microsoft's superior Windows Media Audio
You misspelled "crappy."
Ba-dum bum!
(Raucous laughter)
Thank you. Thank you. Thanks so much. I'm here 'til Thursday.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Someone at Apple is planning on iTunes someday supporting ogg playback. They've even got an iTunes-ogg icon all ready for when the day arrives. Go digging around in the iTunes package (at least on OS X) and look in Contents/Resources. They've got a bunch of icons there that they use for mp3, aac, wav, etc files there. Included are icons for wma and ogg. Why would they bother creating ogg and wma icons for iTunes if they didn't plan to eventually use them?
"Belief means not wanting to know what is true." [Nietzche, The Anti-Christ, 1889]
In my opinion, Thurrott does nothing to hide his bias against all that is not Microsoft-made. He makes Slashdotters and Mac users look moderate. So view his article with the necessary skepticism of Microsoft propaganda. But hey, we're all entitled to our opinions - I just wish Paul's magazine was entitled "Connected Home Opinion" instead. Perhaps he should go to work for the mainstream media. Whether WMA is superior to AAC or not, it wasn't appropriate wording.
As far as the addition of WMA to the iPod - understand that Apple has a vested interest in selling iPods, not supporting AAC vs. WMA. With all that talk from a few months back about how iTunes makes Apple no money - those interested in Apple's success should be pleased that the iPod can enjoy a wider audience of music stores. As for myself, I agree that having a DRM-Free file format in the iPod other than MP3 is a win for all.
Why isn't OGG there? What costs would be involved in it's development?
Paul, please stop writing technical articles and stick to editorials.
Bill
ogg vorbis is not (or rather need not) be DRM free. the ogg container format can certainly accomodate it, it's just that no one has actually implemented a DRM scheme for ogg. that's a common misconception - ogg is a container format - you can put video, audio, whatever in it (altho the original designers only wanted ogg to hold xvid video and vorbis audio, that's changed), any codec. the container format itself is extensible, and DRM can be built into it.
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
Secondly, another DRM silliness to fiddle with? No thanks. I'm about to stop buying anything produced by Big Music and Big Film.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Real is supporting AAC now (as of very recently--they use it in basically the same way they used Atrac3 in the past), but considering that a lot of Slashdotters don't seem to like Real, so this doesn't really say that much about AAC not being locked in.
first of all - superior to what?
1. A kick in the head.
2. Finding your girlfriend in bed with those twins that ride tiny motorcycles and hold the guiness record for the world's fattest men.
3. Poop.
4. Cleaning all the bathrooms in Grand Central Station, but only if all you had was a toothbrush.
5. Contracting one of those tiny fish parasites that swims up your stream of urine if you're peeing into the Amazon and lays eggs in your joystick.
6. Working in sales.
the list goes on...
As for your other part, AAC isn't strictly DRM. It's mp4, with the ability to slap DRM on it when it's made. A normal AAC extension is ".m4a," and a DRM one is ".m4p." I'm guessing they stand for "Mp4 Aac" and "Mp4 Protected."
I just ripped nearly all my CD's to 192 AAC. The general consensus seems to be that the sound quality is indistinguishable from the CD, and damned if I can tell a difference.
c-hack.com |
Rip to FLAC.
Then use this to encode to the codec of the week on the fly.
Yeah it takes more space, but gigs are cheaper than time (my time at least).
I would imagine that only the HP model would support WMA. After all, if Apple really wanted to put that feature into the ipod it would have already. It's not like the engineers at Apple aren't capable of it. After all the kick-ass work they have done on that device, adding WMA would be a walk in the park I would think.
As a side note, I wonder if the decoder on the ipod is in software or on an ASIC (for lower power). If on an ASIC then the WMA decoder would be as well. Maybe that's why HP is involved, fronting the money for a new ASIC that supports both.
In any case, I would almost bet money the Apple version of the ipod is AAC excusively.
That PR page at Apple's site we saw posted on Slashdot a couple days ago had Steve Jobs touting about how great this was since it would mean more customers for the iTunes store. Wouldn't WMA support hurt that? Maybe Apple will give in and have an option on their site: either download the AAC or WMA. Hmmmmm.
How is this really all that unusual? What if Apple released a WinCE version of Quicktime player that let you play Quicktime videos on an HP iPaq? But that iPaq can also play WMV files, so is this smart or stupid of Apple?
I would say smart, because now they have another platform for their content. So isn't the same true for audio? Isn't of looking at it as "Apple is letting WMA infiltrate their iPod!" why isn't it "Apple has expanded AAC to another major portable brand."? You don't think HP has the resources to design their own player? If they had, it would almost assuredly be using Microsoft blessed DRM hobby kit known as WMA. But then HP would need to make decent player software, and find a partner to provide content...by partnering with Apple, they are piggybacking on the success of the existing iTunes client and store. Meanwhile Apple now is selling a player every time someone buys an iPod or the HP version and now has a new customer for iTMS either way.
Apple gets a larger audience used to AAC and iTMS which will someday make a profit, no doubt about it. Maybe right now its a loss-leader to sell iPods, but what do you think will happen next year when music companies post their quarterly reports showing the profits from this major new (and free) income stream? What happens when Apple goes back to renew the contract and says "you know this free money pouring in? Well, you're going to settle for $.30 or we start giving priority placement to indie labels" Not to mention, with the release of GarageBand, Apple is about one puzzle piece away from becoming a completely end-to-end music enterprise, starting with a dude running GarageBand and ending with a thousand people clicking "Buy It Now" on iTMS.
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
platform lock-in?
Nero encodes to AAC, Real encodes to AAC and plays it, and there are a number of flash players I have read about over the last few weeks that are supporting AAC.
AAC is a NEW MPEG standard and it will take time to get the penetration that WMA and MP3 have, but eventually, it will be everywhere.
but I guess open to you means that LAME will encode it?
well LAME is illegal anyway since you have to technically pay for an MP3 licenses to encoded in that format......
have fun with your Ogg files and your 5 pound portable music player....I mean laptop.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
And I thought goatse was disgusting...
Ah... the facts...
.NET Magazine. He writes a weekly editorial for Windows & .NET Magazine UPDATE (http://www.win2000mag.net/email) and writes a daily Windows news and information newsletter called WinInfo Daily UPDATE (http://www.wininformant.com).
m ?AuthorID=879
Paul Thurrott is the news editor for Windows &
from http://www.connectedhomemag.com/Articles/Index.cf
Funny you should say that. Take a look around Paul Thurrott's web sites. There's little doubt in my mind that he's funded from the Microsoft PR coffers. Did I say PR? I meant FUD.
HP's blockbuster deal with Apple will have one exciting side effect. The company will be working with Apple to add support for Microsoft's superior Windows Media Audio
/. poll: What format do you keep the majority of your music in?
I'm not sure how "exciting" this is to the average slashdotter. It doesn't mean jack to me, considering all my music is in either MP3 or OGG.
I think that would make a good
- MP3
- WMA
- AAC
- OGG
- CowboyNeal just sings to me
Thoughts?
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
No no no, you guys are taking the word "Superior" out of context. This is understandable, since he has a few typos. He didn't mean "Superior Quality". Far from it.
He clearly meant "Superior" as in:
"Superior Officer", you know... the guy at boot camp who tells you to clean his boots with your tounge or he'll kick your ass.
"Mother Superior", the lady who wacks your knuckles with her yardstick and put's soap in your mouth for speaking out of turn.
"Superior", as in "above being affected or influenced; indifferent or immune" BY THE LAW.
They just think they're SOOOOOO superior...
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Consider this: who's seriously supporting AAC right now besides Apple?
Umm, HP, Pepsi, a bunch of record companies, a million iPod owners, and 70% of the online music buyers?
PLATFORM LOCK-IN.
You can get it for Mac and Windows. Sorry, no Linux, OS/2, BeOS or Amiga support, but there's always something you give up when you decide to buck the trend.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It's technically a bit offtopic, but apparently MS was taken by surprise by the HP/Apple announcement, and wasn't able to put together a good spin quickly enough. The snip below is from a NY Times article:
Thursday the company appeared unprepared for the Apple-Hewlett agreement, which clearly stung Microsoft executives. They said the agreement would limit choice and harm consumers.
"Windows is about choice, you can mix and match all of this stuff," said David Fester, general manager of Microsoft's Windows digital media division. "We believe you should have the same choice when it comes to music services."
Priceless... :)
* * *
It is a dada story -- it has no moral.
Paul Thurrott has a history of bias against Apple and very unreliable rumor mongering.
Windows Media Anything sucks. They are the worst set of codecs ever. The only reason any consumer uses 'em is because 1) the app is installed on the computer to begin with and 2) all the content is delivered in that format. The only reason content makers use 'em is because 1) the app is installed on every computer to begin with and 2) because of that wonderful DRM M$ shoves down our throats.
Superior number of artifacts even at the highest "quality" setting, superior amount of information lost, superior amount of annoyance to a listener with any amount of hearing, superior at convincing people to stick with CDs, etc. etc. etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, doesn't MS make a lot of money by licensing the WMA technology to other companies (DVD players, Dell [for the jukebox], etc)?
So, if this were to be true, every sale of an iPod would generate revenue for MS.
Somehow I don't think that apple would really let this happen -- at least not to Apple branded models.
-CPM
---You're all I need, When the water runs deep, You're all I need, Now I cry my soul to sleep -- Collective Soul, Needs
base3s-Computer:~ passerm$ ls -1a /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/Resources. n .lprojr oja cp.icnsT unes-cd.icns. icns- itms.icnsu nes-mp3.icnsT unes-ogg.icns <-------
i Tunes-snd.icnsn sn esHelper.appr oj
.
.
Dutch.lproj
English.lproj
French.lproj
Germa
Italian.lproj
Japanese.lproj
Spanish.lp
da.lproj
fi.lproj
iTunes-aac.icns
iTunes-a
iTunes-aiff.icns
iTunes-audible.icns
i
iTunes-database.icns
iTunes-device
iTunes-eq.icns
iTunes-generic.icns
iTunes
iTunes-movie.icns
iTunes-mp2.icns
iT
iTunes-mpg.icns
iTunes-nvf.icns
i
iTunes-playlist.icns
iTunes-sd2.icns
iTunes-visual.icns
iTunes-wav.ic
iTunes-wma.icns
iTunes.icns
iTunes.rsrc
iTu
ko.lproj
no.lproj
pt.lproj
sv.lp
zh_CN.lproj
zh_TW.lproj
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Who wants to bet that over 90% of the replies blather about "Superior?!"?
Get a grip. WMA has been proven time and again to be one of the best codecs in both overall sound and in efficiency (sound per bitrate). This is a simple fact.
Now, next issue - DRM. It's here to stay and I don't have a problem as long as the restrictions are reasonable. If they're not - it's an easy solution. Don't use the service.
Finally, Ogg Vorbis. OK - we get it, it's a good codec. Big freaking deal. It's _never_ going to storm the market. It's not even that much better than WMA - most people would be extremely sensitive to hear any difference.
Oh - and WMA keeps improving. I'd take a $200 bet that in 2 years the latest WMA codecs will sound as good or better than Ogg Vorbis. And then why would anyone use OV?
You're basically marginalizing yourself if you use anything other than MP3, WMA, or AAC.
"hyperactive boosterism"...yea, i hate those kinds of websites...
I use uncompressed WAV, you insensitive clod!
Go to Apple's website and watch the 1984 Commercial in the "20 Years of Macintosh" section. You can see an iPod on the hip of the woman throwing the hammer. I recommend watching the highest resolution and checking each frame. You'll see it.
.deviatefromtheabsolute.
Hah. Gee, what a shock. Paul Thurrott whores himself out to Microsoft again. I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED I say. He's only done it a few times before... not so surprising that he should do it yet again. He's just a pro-MS troll who happens to get paid for it.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
He has a whole site
And I thought goatse was disgusting...
Yeah, but wouldn't Goatse be a "hole" site?
Some highlights:
Lost amid all the hubbub of CES was the start of Macworld Conference & Expo, which opened Tuesday with an unexciting Steve Jobs keynote.
Apple might have to face music of another kind in a class-action lawsuit that will likely be filed this month against the company in California.
Microsoft, the industry's 800-pound gorilla, has just launched an advertising campaign aimed directly at Linux's OSS solution.
Positive MS articles, negative Apple/Linux articles.
I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
How about portability as a relative merit? I can do mp3 on Linux just as easily as on Windows. Last I tried it (OK, a year ago), WMA could only be done on Windows (natively I mean - no plugins or emulators allowed)
C|N>K
Has this "reporter" ever done one minute of research? 2 points alone kill his article.
1. Jobs stated in the last conference call (look it up at apple.com), there is no need to work with #2 when they are #1. This was in response to weather or not the iPod would support WMA.
2. Why would Apple allow HP to rebrand their player and gut their online store? Where is the profit? I know the argument of more iPod sales, but if that was all Apple really was after then why bother with the store in the first place? They could have spent that time and money making sure the iPod worked with every format known to man.
TANSTAAFL
It's irresponsible to put this on the front page as if this were news, or even a rumor. If you read the article, you can see that the suggestion that Apple might support WMA in their iPods is merely wild speculation.
Admittedly, the article is poorly written. It's not easy to tell that the first paragraph is based on fact (HP really is licensing the iPod from Apple) and the second paragraph is based on fantasy (Paul Thurrott is really hoping WMA crushes all other codecs.) That probably reflects that Thurrott himself has trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. Nevertheless, critical readers should be able to make that distinction.
Note that I didn't say I was surprised this ended up on the front page of Slashdot. I'm only saying it's irresponsible.
All that I read into it is that the iPod will be able to play WMA's as it can do MP3's and MP4's (AAC) as it does now. The capability to play AAC's was added to my iPod by a simple ROM update (2nd generation 20 gig).
What's more interesting is that iTunes would have to be tweaked to to be able to know about them to be able to synch them. And if it knows about them, it should be able to play them; I can't see having the ability to organize without the ability to play them. And if it can play them, who needs Windows Media player?
What doesn't make sense is what do they need HP for? You think Apple's going to hand over their ROM code or source code to iTunes to HP? Yeah, right. I'm sure there are still plenty of people who remember how one of their PC partners ended up sticking Apple's QuickTime code into Video for Windows....
And what does HP get out of those? Companies who pee into MS' sandbox usually end up having licensing problems, or price changes on their Windows and Office licenses.
OK, here's a great scientific comparison of AAC, WMA, and MP3, and its all very easy to understand: http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20020712/2u4u -04.html
The results: AAC wins. MP3 loses only because it dampens throughout the frequency range. WMA comes in 2nd, but it chops at a much lower frequency than either AAC or MP3. Looks like it gets 2nd place only because its freely available to 95% of the computer users (M$ supporters). Not convincing if you ask me. When asked if he was concerned that Apple only has less than 5% of the market share, Steve Jobs responds by saying that its a larger share than BMW and Mercedes combined have in the auto industry. I love it!
I use Amadeus II for my music editing.
I can't believe I can listen to the files in I-tunes, thanks slashdotters. I know one good thing that came out of this "news" article.
And to add to the confusion, check out the screenshots for the Service Pack 2 preview.
Note the title bars -- "Virtual PC". He's running it on a Mac!
So WTF -- is he a Windows zealot or closet Mac user!?
mp3 was designed for speech compression. ogg vorbis, WMA, and AAC are second-generation, designed for music, and have better compression with less noticable loss as compared to mp3.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I don't understand why a format is bashed for allowing DRM. It makes it a more flexible format. It helps open the door to content providers that would otherwise be scared off by online content.
But WMA != DRM. It simply supports it.
I have over 3GB of legal, non-DRM WMA files on my computer. The fact that WMA supports DRM does not effect my use at all.
I've thought about that before too, and it sounds nice, but it's not going to happen. There is still a little problem of a different copany called Apple, but this one is a record label. To quote FoxNews:
So far Apple has gotten away with iTMS, but I don't thing that becoming a record label (which is basically what you are suggesting), indi or not, would fly any farther than you can toss a yellow submarine.
SCO.com uses Linux
So, Apple can either let iTunes die in a decade or so
Or... You can get iTunes shipped on almost every computer on the planet and sublicence iPods, to keep the growth up. Then why would you die in 100 years, much less 10?
iTunes really could be the next eBay (which dispite issues has no other close competitor).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Before more of you go off on a flamewar against poor old Paul - who is a paragon of virtue, by the way - I have taken the time to paste the definition of 'superior' here, and I have highlighted in italics the particular usage that I believe was intended, for the WMP format.
Once you all read this I'm sure it will all make sense.
superior
\Su*pe"ri*or\, a. [L., compar. of superus being above, fr. super above, over: cf. F. sup['e]rieur. See Super-, and cf. Supreme.] 1. More elevated in place or position; higher; upper; as, the superior limb of the sun; the superior part of an image.
2. Higher in rank or office; more exalted in dignity; as, a superior officer; a superior degree of nobility.
3. Higher or greater in excellence; surpassing others in the greatness, or value of any quality; greater in quality or degree; as, a man of superior merit; or of superior bravery.
4. Beyond the power or influence of; too great or firm to be subdued or affected by; -- with to.
5. More comprehensive; as a term in classification; as, a genus is superior to a species.
6. (Bot.) (a) Above the ovary; -- said of parts of the flower which, although normally below the ovary, adhere to it, and so appear to originate from its upper part; also of an ovary when the other floral organs are plainly below it in position, and free from it. (b) Belonging to the part of an axillary flower which is toward the main stem; posterior. (c) Pointing toward the apex of the fruit; ascending; -- said of the radicle.
See? Very clear - the WMP format is an ovary attached to the AAC format, or something, and is just kind of generally flower-like.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
An interesting use for *.ogg is as music for computer games. You can't really use *.mp3 because of the $50k royalty charge, so games like Warlords IV come bundled with music in *.ogg format.:)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Actually, I think that's Virtual PC running on a Win XP machine.
Vonal Declosion
The author can be reached pretty easily.
You mean my Rio Karma? You're off a bit on the weight, though; it's 5.5 ounces, i.e. 0.1 ounces less than an iPod with the same disk capacity. That and its list price is about $50 less. Oh, and it can connect via Ethernet, has standard RCA jacks in its docking station so it's connected to my stereo system whenever it's recharging, and has a Java-based connection software so it can talk to any operating system with Java support.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
why would you limit your future platform to play those music files?
15 years from now, if ANY of today's music file formats are still supported, odds are it will be mp3.
mp3 is so universal and easy. play it on mac os 9, os x, linux, freebsd, windows, dos, handhelds of all sorts, hardware players like my pioneer headunit, sony walkmans, game consoles.
hey. you want to limit your options...you go right ahead.
keep convincing yourself you made the right choice.
Hey, his home page claims an *entire blog* devoted to non-Microsoft technologies. Intrigued, I cruised over there and was treated to gems like these:
How far behind is Mac gaming?
I had to laugh out loud when I saw MacWorld's hilarious "2003 Game Hall of Fame," which reads like a list of PC games past. Which games made the list, you ask? Well, you'll have to think back a bit, because most of them debuted on the PC one to three years before they hit the Mac. Here are the PC release dates for the mainstream games that made the list (even the bizarro choice, Noiz2sa ["most difficult-to-pronounce" game, duh] was out on the PC first, though I couldn't find a release date):
Zoo Tycoon - Released on the PC October 2001
Unreal Tournament 2003 - Released on the PC September 2002
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2003 - Released on the PC July 2002
Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast - Released on the PC March 2002
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Desert Siege - Released on the PC March 2002
Dungeon Siege - Released on the PC April 2002
Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne - Released on the PC July 2003 (the sole simultaneous release)
The Operative: No One Lives Forever - Released on the PC November 2000
On the PC, we're playing newer versions of these games now (I actually have both Tiger Woods 2004 and Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy, for example). But the funniest part of this roundup, of course, is the section titled 'Best Place to Get Classic Games." Clearly, that would be the Mac. But serious game players have know this for some time, so it's not a huge surprise. I just think it's interesting to see it so clearly demonstrated.
posted 1/4/2004 10:55:32 PM
and
More egregiously, Apple still locks its customers into their proprietary music store and crappy AAC format.
(I wondered about this -- isn't WMA proprietary, and AAC open-speced as part of MPEG 4, or am I confused?)
May we never see th
Most excellent!!!
and when will the superior new WMA version come out on Windows?
This is a critical listening test I did for the various formats and bit rates.
You don't HAVE to include DRM in the files you encode. It is an option that can be turned on or off in Windows Media Player.
Even without DRM WMA (like most or all Microsoft formats) is still evil.
Imagine that you'd like to switch to another platform, Mac or a GNU/Linux desktop.
On GNU/Linux you're pretty much out of luck. You can probably make mplayer play the files but who wants to have a video player playing their music files? I'm also betting that you can't do it with even Mplayer on non-x86 because it's probably relying on some Windows dlls for the playback.
I don't know that much about MacOS (X or otherwise) support for WMA but I'm guessing that it's playable *for the moment* as there's supposed to be a Windows Media Player version for OS X. But in addition to the fact that WMP is an awful choice of a player, there's no telling when MS will discontinue that player and then you again end up with unplayable files.
Sticking with mp3 or preferably ogg ensures you'll never be left in a situation where those 3GB are useless because you have nothing to play them with. And seriously, what are the advantages? Against the mp3s I guess it probably could sound better at the same bitrate but AFAIK Vorbis fares very well against the MPEG4-based codecs.
Yeah, it's cool that they are making their own version of the ipod with help from Apple.
Yeah, it's neat that they hope to add WMA support.
However, I will not buy any of their crap, since they have taken the viewpoint that every single music afficianado out there is a thief, declaring war on the "Sharing Culture" at the recent CES.
I mean, their CEO filled her keynote speech at CES Carly with media piracy rhetoric, saying that consumers are undermining the economy and the morals of this nation by exchanging music.
You want to buy from a company that thinks of all of you as thieves for ripping music, or *gasp* downloading a bunch of 1's and 0's that when put electronically, become music, go ahead. Just don't say you weren't warned.
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
As for why DRM is bad in the first place, it boils down to a very fundamental debate over property rights and the rights of corporations versus the rights of individuals. Yes, DRM does make new products available, but you have to be remember what you're giving up in exchange, which is ownership and therefore control of the product. The value you place in that exchange is probably related to where you fall on the spectrum between sheparded bourgeoise and intellectual revolutionary pinko. Remember, though, that MS wants their DRM technology to extend through every level of the computer, which is much further reaching than Apple's media-oriented DRM. MS-DRM iniative even bears the newspeak name "Trusted Computing."
------- Was it just a coincidence I got moderator points the first time I logged on to
Dude - I feel for 'ya. NOT! I would never, ever, willfully waste my time encoding audio into a Microsoft PROPRIETARY audio format. I'm sorry, but doing so is just retarded. If you must degrade audio by running it through a lossy compression algorithm, the least you can do is use a high quality *standard* format such as MPEG. (Layer 2, Layer 3, AAC, whatever variety you choose.)
WMA is not just proprietary, its not even very good!*** I can *always* hear high frequency artifacts in WMA at 128k despite dubious "better than MP3 at lower bitrate" claims by Microsoft. In my opinion, the WMA artifacts are actually worse than MP3. (And MP3 at 128k is pretty bad.)
If you must use lossy compressed audio, good options for you are: use MP3 at a relatively high bitrate. (192k is probably good enough for most people. I can hear artifacts on some limited material at 192k so, if you are a super critical listener, it might be worth it to go 256k.) Alternately, consider a high quality MPEG AAC encoder at 128k or 160k. I have listened to 128k AAC and have yet to find obvious artifacts.
Now if your cool you will give up lossy technology all together and go with FLAC. FLAC rocks! And you dont need to worry about compression artifacts because, well, its lossless!
*** note: apparently with the latest and greatest WMA9 PRO (read, probably not what you used to encode your music library) the sound quality is quite a bit better. That's great and all but there are no players out there that can decode WMA9 PRO - other than a PC. And even if there were, it is still proprietary/evil and you should refuse to use it!
Of course you could always just buy a Creative Labs Zen (NX/Xtra), which already supports both mp3 and wma. Also the 30gig NX is about $120 cheaper than the 20gig iPod. Other features include USB 2.0 support, THX audio and replaceable batteries. Now why would anyone buy an iPod?
...at any comparable bitrate. I've listened to them side-by-side using studio quality DAC and hi-fi headphones (Grados and Sennheiser HD-580). WMA blew Ogg Vorbis away in terms of quality. I'm too lazy to compare WMA and AAC, but I wouldn't be surprised if WMA blows AAC away, too.
Thank you for making me marginally on-topic; here's a quote from Thuggott's WinSuperSite, about the task-centered approach being touted for Longhorn. Again, this is mostly off-topic, but pause for a second and consider the almost inevitable consequences:What a great idea: "Daddy, what happenned to this man's bottom? In the pictures, next to the girl showing her hoo-haa, Daddy!"
(Incidently, this mis-feature isn't even unique to Microsoft: I'm typing this on a Sharp Zaurus, which also dynamically searches for documents. It becomes clear what a bad idea this is when you mount a remote 32GB partition, and the OS blithely decides that needs to be searched too, every time you want to open a document.And don't even think about multiple files with the same name in different directories, when "task centric" means "forget distracting canonical names".)
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
with AAC. Dolby has quite a bit of clout in the audio industry, and I think more people (who are perhaps less knowledgeable than the Slashdot crowd regarding audio file formats) would take AAC more seriously. Perhaps if the iPod has a Dolby logo in reference to AAC or something. I am sure a lot of shoppers would go, "Hey! This AAC thing is Dolby technology! Cool!".
I am sure some people look at AAC, and see that iPod is by Apple and think, "AAC... Must stand for Apple audio something... Must be proprietary, maybe I should go with this WMA standard... It's supported by so many players, it must be more open!".
-B
Portable music players are in their infancy. There are over a billion PC's out there, yet merely a paltry few million music players have been sold.
We've got many millions of new customers coming into the market which will drive new music players, new music formats, new music distribution systems, etc.
So far all we've seen is the early adopters playing around with iTunes. By no means has iTunes "crossed the chasm". Once mainstream people really understand DRM music and how it is "resolutionally challenged" crippleware that sells for full price, there are likely going to be big changes in the online music world.
By "crippleware" I mean that you, the buyer, cannot do what you want to do with it. That is why people are using funny workarounds like snagging the temp files from Toast so they can get the unencrypted versions of their songs.
The rate of broadband adoption is slowing in the US. And for the most part, all affordable broadband is very low bandwidth compared to the rest of the world. So at least in the USA as disc-based music gets better and better (DVD-Audio, SACD), the value delivered by the disc will continue to improve vs. what is delivered via the wire.
Finally, at least vs iTunes, actual CD's seem like they are cheaper and easier. You get full songs, no DRM, any/all formats, and to top it off... you get a readymade CD, already printed cover art, already printed track listings, and a jewelbox. All for just about the same price as iTunes, especially if you buy used CD's or Universal's new more affordable CDs.
All in all, it is too early in the portable music player market to worry about the small moves that are being made today. WMA will never be popular in Asia, so it will never be a world standard. There is nothing to fear there. The RIAA-friendly abd special-interest friendly USA and EU are a different matter, though, where Microsoft can use their mu$cle to drive adoption of their format.
I'm a professionnal sound technician and AV technician, I have been a teacher and technical supervisor in a sound design school, i am a consultant for musicians and project studios. I have to my credit over 5 complete studios which I conceived and built.
Means, I have a very good hearing, my ears are quite sharp, I pick audibly what most people don't seem to hear. If I measure said waveform what i hear is there, so I do not "hear things".
Why all of this intro, to be sure you do not sonfound me with the type of geek with no ears that tell you a soundblaster is the best sound card and that WMA sounds better than AAC.
Professionnaly I can, without any doubt tell you that WMA is one of the worst audio codec. Remember I am not a raver kid fiddling with Reason thinking that I gosh darn know a lot about audio. I know a lot about audio and have the background to attest it.
I will then repeat what I just said: WMA is one of the worst codec for audio. Audio encoded in such a format displays serious phase cancellation across the spectrum, the bass are rumbling and quiet passages present some serious quantization artifacts and a awfull lot of granulation noise, plus the file, if properly measured, won't play back at the same speed all the time, the difference is subtle (most of the time being under a sec. but it can reach 2-3 sec.) but measurable, I do not kow if the slow down is due to heavy computation but I have never seen that kind of artifact in another codec.
WMA is NOT a good codec and it DOESN'T sound better than AAC and ATRAC sounds better than those two previous ones, Squeezer sounds better than the above 3.
Frankly, I'm at the point where I consider anything by him to be an attempt at astroturfing, nothing more.
Seriously. Take a look at what the guy's done. He runs not one, but two of the major Windows "enthusiast" sites. Design elements on these two sites are so obviously taken from Microsoft that it's a miracle they haven't sued him... unless he is already on their payroll.
I'd say it's time we stopped taking him seriously, were it not for one thing: he's Microsoft's most successful marketing tool ever, in that he's actually managed to garner some measure of respect. That makes him dangerous enough to watch, even if his arguments can be easily exposed for the marketing bunk that they are.
If you think OGG is so good, why not use ac3, it gives you 5.1 as well, and your AMP plays it /decoders it directly, no PC decoding. So its as close as digital as you can get to the speakers.
remember 5.1
I say ac3 wins.
Whether its 64kbps or 384bps, we dont care, disk space is cheap.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Why in the hell would Apple need HP to put WMA in the iPod? All the would have to do is license it from Microsoft. Therrott is just trying to do whatever it takes to keep the number of hits up on his site so he can continue to get the press passes to Microsoft happenings.
The guy's site is so one-sided and pro-Microsoft, anti-Apple, and anti-Linux that he makes Fox News look "fair and balanced".
Well, it may be weird to you people not in Japan right now, but as someone currently living outside Tokyo, where *every* car I've been in or seen in showrooms has an MD Player and a DVD navigation system, it seems kind of natural to me.
The only reason I *don't* use Vorbis is because of the lack of player support (and the fact that, on the Mac, I've had too many issues with the Vorbis quicktime plugin that allows iTunes to play the files). Slashdot is about choice, right? If people choose WMA, that's *their* choice. I like AAC at 160; that's *my* choice. If you want to use Oggs, you should be able to excercise that choice and shouldn't be hampered by the wants of the majority.
That said, if you choose a non-standard format (and yes, OGG is non-standard, unless you're one of the, what is it, 2% of total computer users running Linux as a desktop OS?) you're essentially giving up a lot of the freedoms you'd enjoy if you went with the standard. It's a double-edged sword.
Also, while Apple might add WMA support to iPods (thus enabling Windows users who don't know better about ripping CD's to transfer their music collections), Apple will sell more iPods. Period. However, I'm pessimistic that such support will be seen on any but the HP iPod-a-likes. I'm still waiting for someone to reverse-engineer the firmware and add unofficial OGG support...
- Cloud
I agree, this rumor isn't true (IMO). Right now there are two significant (protected) formats for commercial music publishers -- WMA and AAC with Fairplay. Since the iPod is the market leading MP3 player (55% of MP3 player sales by dollars) and iTunes Music Store is the market leading digital download sales channel (80% of all downloads sold), Apple's in a great position, so publishers will support both formats.
If Apple added support for WMA to the iPod, it would allow music stores and publishers to ignore AAC and publish only WMA and cover all MP3 players. This would ultimately lead to AAC, and then iTMS and the iPod, being marginalized.
IMO, as long as Apple is a significant player they'll be supported, because the labels would rather do business with Apple than Microsoft, and because they prefer industry standards such as AAC over proprietary formats (that they don't control) like WMA. The last thing Apple would do is something that would promote the adoption of WMA...
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
..to go into a codec discussion fit as I get from the posts here, so I'll add in an interessting tidbit: /.er.
There are countless slashdotters here discussing WMV, Ogg, MP3, analog records, tape, magnetic wire and whatnot and which is superiour or not, I'm not gonna be the next fool to state that I have enough expertise in the field to give a judgement over audio quality. Only a few things:
1) The german CT - afaict on of the best computer magazines in the world - tested all formats a few years ago and - being a good IT magazine - they didn't have a winner but actually recomended Ogg amongst others. They also had a listening test marathon with sound engineers, editors and world class muscians attending. Sorry, but I actually trust the CT more than I trust any
2) I have exactly one (1!) CD in my collection where the manufacturers put additional audiotracks in a 'PC' codec onto it so one wouldn't have to go through the encoding hassle. And they used ogg.
Why would they do that? Easy: Costs them exactly zilch to do it. And this is the reason I don't believe those who say Ogg is dead. It's like that Computer expert saying Linux will never be mainstream because there's no company behind it. As if that's the reason why people select other products.
Free (beer, speech, etc.) and open will allways have the edge by being just that: free and open. Ogg won't go away anytime soon and could very well become standard once all non-computer based audio thingies leave the mainstream.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
At the end of a story on the HP-Apple deal, the WSJ reports 'Apple executives say their company has no plans to relent' on the subject of WMA. It also quotes Jobs as saying, in regard to Apples strong position in the player/download market, "I think that favors the largest player, which is us by a mile."
Apple has no incentive to support WMA and every reason not to. If the iPod can play WMA, it becomes the defacto standard and AAC is dead.
Haha!!
No. Far from it.
Claims to be about 30% better than MP3 at 128k. That's nowhere near lossless (and the algorithm does not intend to be either).
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON