Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Unhappy With HP's iTunes Decision
rbrandis writes "The general manager of Microsoft's Windows digital media division David Fester has suggested that iTunes' emerging dominance would be bad for consumers, because it would limit them to the iPod, as opposed to limiting them to Microsoft based products. In a moment of what must have been an attempt at ironic humor he said, 'Windows is about choice - you can mix and match software and music player stuff. We believe you should have the same choice when it comes to music services.'"
and i choose to not use your "enabling" products
vodka, straight up, thank you!
I think what he really meant is that is would be bad for Microsoft.
Microsoft not happy that people take advantage of their own non-Microsoft monopolies!
Why don't they sue Apple ? Hell, iTunes is bundled with OS X! Because they'll bundle a music store with media player soon enough... and try to kill iTunes completely.
ROFL! Talk about naked FUD. Choice, choice, choice. Yeah, that's the Microsoft Way, isn't it? NOT. What hypocrisy!
If HP/Apple can get iPods to chat with HP Windows boxen, can we get them to talk to Linux as well? Has this already been done?
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
Apple's iTunes just works... it's that simple.
will work for Karma
As bad as people may hate Microsoft or Media Player, it does support multiple players and platforms - not just the iPod. A list is available at http://windowsmedia.com/9series/Personalization/Co olDevices.asp.
I am ever so grateful that once again Microsoft is looking after my best interests. We can all sleep well.
Dell says this:
"According to the New York Times, Dell also suggests HP is making a mistake. A Dell spokesman said: "We expect competition and it's good for customers. Over time, however, customers will want industry standard choices.''"
I am no English expert, but it sure sounds like they are tryin to say that WMA should be the only game in town, and are at the same time trying to play it off that they 'want' competition.
It has always been questionable as to whether they would get DRM to work in the first place. Now along comes HP, trying to make what are essentially incompatible DRM systems work together, and still protect content. The closest analogy I can think of is trying to have make a marriage work with two spouses at the same time.
Anybody who has installed any kind of media player on Windows knows what I'm talking about... it's almost impossible to assign specific file types to Window's Media Player, QuickTime, RealPlayer, Winamp, etc., without all of these applications trying to steal the right to handle these file types out from one another. Now the same thing is going to happen, but with DRM in the mix?
It's going to be a zoo. Nobody is going to stand still for this, especially when people start losing the right to access content they've already payed for.
And just wait till this shit starts happening to everybody's porn collection. People will be running amok in the streets.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Wait.. what? I would fill up the gas in my car if my sister wasn't a lesbian.
Actually makes it sound pretty reasonable if you just imagine that it's Uncle Fester saying it.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Windows is about choice...
Theres a catch 22 here, you have to use windows to have... ummmmm..... m$ make your choice for you.
What?
iTunes doesn't require you to have an iPod. It works fine on your computer. And it's the only solution that allows you to take the files you buy from it, unprotect them, and turn them into whatever format you want.
I know, you'll call me an Apple apologist. Whatever. I guess I could call you a Microsoft apologist and it would make as much sense.
-- Bill "Houdini" Weiss
The choice in music services are there and will continue to be, and I'm sure there are a good number of folks who want to use their pre-existing mp3 players (or not buy an i-pod when they do decide to get a portable player) who won't be subscribing to i-tunes. I just think this is a case of Microsoft using a valid point (choice is good) to illustrate nothing (choice exists).
Crap Microsoft, Crap indeed. You are now lying through your... well, backside. MS = Choice my arse.
Microsoft is ALL about cornering you into using MS products...
PRIME example is their damn Movie Maker 2... quite nice program to use (I haven't used iMovie, so I can't compare), but then try and save... "Hmmm, I'd like to save to an open format that pretty much anyone can play... VCD or SVCD, or perhaps just plain MPEG would be nice." "Hmmm, I seem to ONLY be able to save to MS formats unless I have a few gig free to save out to a straight DV dump and then use someone else's program to convert to a more user friendly format, so really I'm forcing anyone who wants to watch movies I've made to have an MS compatible player"
"Hmmm, MS can blow me, and blow me hard"
As long as those devices support WMA. Pot calling the kettle black.
...considering that HPs decision to add WMA support to the iPod means that the iPod will *be* a Microsoft-enabled device.
Yes, it is an old example, and yes, it is simplistic-- but it is still very relevant: Betamax vs. VHS.
Sony had a superior quality format for videotape (betamax), but wouldn't share with anyone. Meanwhile, Panasonic, Philips, and others all got together and agreed on VHS format. Competition brought lower priced machines, and eventually VHS killed betamax for home use.
Microsoft is half-right: it is about choice-- but it must ALL be available for choice: the hardware, the OS, the apps, the data format. Only true, open standards under a GPL, LGPL, or other similar "free to evolve independent of any single vendor"-type license will work in the long run.
davejenkins.com |
Its great that users have even more of a choice with HP getting involved with iPod - heck, it may even push the price down. And the alternative is to use a Dell player and MS s/ware? Pfff ... that's not a choice.
The point on interoperability is so true: Apple started to bridge the divide - in online music at least - with iPod/iTunes for Windows. Now HP are going to help bridge this further (and make $$'s from it of course).
So just how many brownie points did Dell earn with the "we love the MS monopoly"?
I also like my iPod. Microsoft should be grateful HP will work with Apple to add WMA support to the iPod. No major digital music service will offer MP3 or other open source format music for the simple reason they lack digital rights management. To force the industry's hand, people would have to boycott iTunes, Musicmatch, Real Networks, Walmart, etc.
Then a strange alien "virus" kills the survivors.
Except it will mutate into a harmless strain just before the hero dies! I generally like Crichton, but God I hate that book.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Is there anything preventing other companies from making an mp3 player that would play iTMS files? I realize that other companies can make players that play the AAC format, but is Apple preventing them from accessing the DRM?
This is the same 'No American has a God given right to a job' Carly that said that EVERY HP product coming out after Q2 2004 will have DRM built in. Hell, she even wants to make recording like a VCR on your HP impossible unless the copyright holder agrees.
She is no ones friend save for herself and her fellow exec. She thinks nothing of the employers/users/shareholder of HP.
but can't all these players play mp3's? I've got an iPod and other than the slowness of using iTunes I've had no problem putting MP3's on it. Isn't that a free choice that I have, or are they trying to push people into using WMA or AAC only, in portable music players? And (as the article suggests) if they are working on playing wma on iPods, is there even a problem here?
I'm sorry.
I was under the mistaken impression that iTunes only worked with iPods as far as mobility went... Live'n'learn I s'pose.
AppleTurns site translated it this way:
Check it out, this was the best a company spokesperson could muster to undercut the announcement: "Windows is all about choice... we believe you should have the same choice when it comes to music services." Translation: "Use any service you want as long as it sells Windows Media, buy any player out there as long as it plays Windows Media-- but for heaven's sake, don't buy one of those wretched iPod thingies or we'll be completely boned with our whole plan to monopolize digital media commerce and then we might actually have to start innovating for our paychecks for a change." Or, to put it a little more succinctly, "you can have any color you want, as long as it's black."
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
The bottom line is that the iPod and iTunes provides a better user experience.
I had a 5gb 1st Gen iPod, and I now have a Dell DJ (Dell gave me the credit, Apple wouldn't).
I prefer the iPod.
The DJ works ok, but the user experience isn't as good.
There's no way to stop a playing song. Only pause it.
Syncing music is not intutitive.
Navigating through the tracks on the DJ takes FOREVER.
It's just not as well thought out as iTunes and the iPod are.
I'm thinking of selling my Dell DJ on eBay, and buying an iPod or an iPod mini.
Windows is about choice - you can mix and match software and music player stuff. We believe you should have the same choice when it comes to music services.
Do not laugh at our choice. Microsoft is all many choices. We have so much choice it is silly. You must not listen to the apple! We will crush the infidels with all the choice that we are having!
Sincerely, Microsoft Information Minister
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Windows is not about choice - it is about having developers and service providers further entrench the Windows hegonomy, with little to no effort on the part of MS.
HP made a choice, as the market seems to be doing as well.
Let's see how well Microsoft lives with this.
Oh, and to all of you who say "Watch how high the price of Windows goes for HP", Microsoft won't dare do anything of the sort. Having both IBM and HP actively looking to kill Windows is not something Microsoft shareholders would appreciate.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Then why does it do everything possible to destroy it? Lotus 1-2-3 for Dos, WordPerfect (countless times), DR-DOS, OS/2, OpenDoc, Go/pen computing, Netscape, Java - and those are only the examples I can think of off the top of my head.
In fact, there has never been a more monopolistic, closed technology advocate than Microsoft. If someone comes up with something original, or something that's superior to anything Microsoft can engineer, then they'll be driven into the ground by the full force of the Microsoft machine.
I use Microsoft products (eg, Windows 2000, Office) and I also use non-Microsoft products that compete directly with the company's offerings (eg, Opera, Winamp). I'm not pro- or anti-Microsoft. What I am is pro-choice. And, frankly, that's one thing Microsoft can accurately never claim to be.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
If you can't beat 'em, FUD 'em.
Remember, kiddies, that Microsoft is never about competing. Otherwise, they'd still be working on IE for Mac OS X, instead of complaining that another browser beat them.
Take your toys and go home, I say. We don't want you here.
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
Also,
Slavery is Freedom
and
War is Peace
If I remember my Orwell right.
Thats one reason why I dont have an Ipod now is the lack of WMA support. My Creative MP3 player will play pretty much anything I tell it too.. Including microsofts limited wma files.
Once apple gains a foot hold more or less it will be better for the consumer
If I had a choice of 10 crappy products or one good product on the market I'd take the 1 good product
You can have any color as long as it is black!
- Henry Ford
The best planning can be done after the project completes.
Isn't that Big Brother doublespeak, an obvious oxymoron"?
This is truly the most double-faced marketing spin ever to come out of Redmond, and that's saying a lot. I think it's a sign of desperation!
Not compeletely. You can only listen to iTunes Music Store protected AAC files on iPods, Windows computers and Macintosh computers.
iTunes itself allows you to create unprotected MP3 and unprotected AAC from your own music collection and do whatever you want with them.
I do not believe Microsoft's Windows Media Player for the Mac allows listening to protected WMA files, so in that regard the WMA format is more locked in than AAC (currently).
Also if you look at Buy.com's music store you'll see that instead of Apple's flat and mild DRM policy (same policy all songs), music company's can restrict you to how often you can copy music to your player and how many times you can play a song and if you can burn it to CD (the ability to do this may be in AAC files, i'm not sure, but it has not been enabled)
so no, currently the itunes is not as restrictive as Windows Media Player, but the protected AAC's can only be played on iPod players (if Apple gains a large enough share of the online music world -- say 90%, there may be an anti-trust law suit against them for not allowing the songs to be played on non-Apple devices)
Kevin
There're two basic methods of Innovation at work here, Apple's brand and Microsoft's. Microsoft wants to leverage the choice of software tools made by third-party developers (that they haven't driven under by co-opting technology from) to promote a "choice" among applications on the Windows platform.
Apple wants to provide the "choice" of a Non-Windows platform and non-Microsoft technology. And Apple, for all their ills as far as co-opting technology in ways distressingly similar to Microsoft, has never been known to utterly decimate the competition or actively belittle or disparage them. What Apple does when they add new features to the OS is to simply set the bar higher for 3rd party developers.
Apple bothers me in some things, but when it comes right down to it, I don't see Apple trying dirty tricks in the background to drive anyone away from creating music services for the Mac platform. Microsoft would just -love- to push vendors into a MS Music Store lock in.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
Why would we make up stories about corporate stupidity. Honestly, many of them are so contradictory and say such stupid things that they make themselves look far dumber than we ever could.
I particularly like the Microsoft=Choice part... which is only true to the extent that it is "Choose, but only from the selection we give you."
All your choice are belong to us!
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can only listen to iTunes content on an iPod.
.DOC of the media world.
You can play DRM-encoded AAC iTunes content on iPods, other iTunes equipped Macs and PCs, burn the content to CD, and stream your AAC library to other Macs/PCs on the local network.
However, it doesn't matter. You could turn your argument on it's head and state that you can only listen to DRM-WMA content on DRM-WMA devices (and exactly how many WMA devices currently support DRM-locked WMA files?), whereas you can listen to DRM-encoded AAC files on any iPod/HP Music Player/Mini iPod or iTunes equipped Mac or PC.
Both would still pale in comparison to the number of devices that can support MP3s. Microsoft is pissed because the choices that HP is offering doesn't include their brand of proprietary lock, weakening the chances that WMA will become the new
HP believes that it is better positioned than any other company to bridge the gap between Apple and Windows. Fiorina told the Times: "The next big thing isn't the next gizmo or killer app or hot box. Customers want all this to work together and they want a seamless approach. We're very much going to make sure that the Microsoft and Apple worlds work together. That's part of the power we bring to this thing."
This is probably the only remotely interesting initiative HP has embarked on since Carly took over.
Let's hope it's more successful than most of them have been.
I hate to point out the obvious, but I use iTunes and I do not have an iPod and I'm sitting in my living room enjoying beautiful music off my stereo that I got from iTunes. All I have to do is burn a disk. La dee dah. One of the biggest misconceptions is that one needs an iPod to use iTunes. Tain't so.
Isn't burning all of my music to CD and then ripping it really annoying? I think so.
AAC isn't a proprietary Apple technology, and there are other AAC players available.
This is why the press has to learn not to ever interview MS employees. Their answers are completely retarded 90% of the time, no matter how high up the ladder they are.
Didn't they ask Bill Gates what was the future of PCs in the mid 90s and he failed to mention the internet. iPod might be overrated, but Microsoft is really really overrated.
I don't think MS is b*tching because it has anything to do with choice or their own music service as that will surely just be another thing for them to waste money in as have all their other projects that provide no real profit...
No I think this is MS looking ahead to DRM and their next OS platform...will it still be adopted as the RIAA hopes if there are other more "standard" systems out there not under their control? Suddenly people will realize they don't need to buy an entire new OS/platform to be DRM compliant...they are worried iTunes will become a standard...something that will prevent them from force feeding us their own standard in their next OS.
As you can see in this document, iTunes supports quite a lot of different third-party players, including Nomads, Rios, and others.
What these other players do NOT support is AAC-DRM files like those sold by the iTMS. I'm sure Apple would be happy to license their DRM scheme to a third-party mp3 player if they wanted to do so and the price were right. Money talks.
- Vincit qui patitur.
"If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college."
Just a small corretion. iTunes does not convert the music you have during the synch. Everything is left in the original format. If you have AIFF/WAV files, your little iPod will fill up fast.
Microsoft said they were about choice! Now the linux zealots can all flame them on slashdot and go to sleep happy. The apple users can chime in their love for ipods and itunes. The windows fanboys can chime in how wma is surperior and that it will take over and crush apple and linux. Once the rubble has settled the 1862 ogg users can tout a new media format world order and reign for the next 1000 years. Good times a commin'!
If microsoft did this once a month, IT productivity would go up 10%.
Wow! MS is complaining about lack of choice. That caught me off guard.
Its my belief that MS feels it can no longer expand on its computer and software business. It is now trying to buy out and/or control large amounts of digital media e.g. an ISP, MSNBC, XP Media Edition, Media Player, X-Box, Hotmail and so on. In other words, MS is only complaining because iTunes' success is going to hamper - to some extent - its ability to dominate the digital music format.
Some of these business units, admitedly have not experienced great success. But, what happens if MS decides XP ME which is hooked up to your television only works with their music service, you can only use their media player and you can't setup a regular POP3 account and instead have to use Hotmail (== advertisements)? I think this will inhibit competiton!
Cripes, when did this happen? I'm out of it for a little bit, and Microsoft becomes a spamming outfit! Naked FUD, Enlarge your CHOICE, end-user license SECRETS, listen to music FROM YOUR HOME...
Has anyone made a joke about siphoning the gas to her?
True story.
OK, Let's see if I can clear this up for you.
iTunes can handle several different audio codecs. Most of my files are MP3s, but some are AIFFs and some are AAC. That being said, I can sync and listen to ALL my MP3s and AIFF files on ANY player that can understand them. You don't need an iPod to listen to MP3s from iTunes - almost any MP3 player will do.
iTunes Music Store on the other hand only provides AAC encoded content. You must have a device capable of playing AAC files to play this content - or, you can make a playlist, hit "burn" (you don't even need a CD - there is software that can make a "virtual" CD") and you now have all your purchased content in 128 Bit MP3 format. Yes, one extra step, but easy to do and it's then DRM-Free. I do this so that I can play my purchased music on my MP3-enabled CD player in the car or in my office at work. So the long and short of it is, iTunes content isn't only AAC DRM'd Files.
Hope that clears it up. Don't listen to the FUD put out by those who seem to feel threatened by it. iTunes is an excellent player/organizer in it's own right and doesn't need an iPod to work.
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
a) Dropping AAC and go WMA only on iPods or
b) Support as many formats as possible, and let the "huge number of devices" start supporting AAC instead. Guess which one Microsoft favors?
Microsoft should be glad for this decision. The iPod was in a position to make AAC the only commercial format on the scene, with their combined iTMS/iPod power. Instead, I assume that Microsoft will now start getting royalties on every iPod sold.
Personally, I think Apple fumbled the ball on both the mini-iPod and this. They should have made it cheaper to catch the mass market, and kept it MP3/AAC only to keep competing WMA shops out.
I think Apple simply isn't ready to change that much. With these moves, they're aiming up to be a niche player in a Microsoft (WMA) market yet again. They should have gone for broke and taken the market. Then they could be licencing other players to play iTMSs protected files, not the other way around.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Although I'm having trouble figuring out whether they'll work with the iTunes DRM. Anyone know? Clearly, if they don't now, newer models will (since there's lots of software that is compatible with the iTunes DRM, so it would just be a matter of time).
Microsoft gives you the choice of applications you can install on your computer : Winamp, Sonique, iTunes, WMP, in that case.
The fact that, pragmatically, you are not given the choice of your OS when you buy a x86-based computer because Windows is pre-installed on 99% of them, doesn't mean that Joe feels his freedom of choice impaired. Basically for him freedom of choice is not, because he doesn't know what an OS is. What this MS guy told was not for us, it was for Joe...
Every pro-linux site should link to an educational site that teach you, in no good-bad manner, what an OS is, and why it is important to know that.
jdif
Let's overcome our weakness.
"We are going to produce a patch that should be up within a week," said Microsoft's David Fester, group product manager for Internet Explorer. "We'll put up that patch as quick as we can."
Internet Explorer Bug Makes a Return Visit
In 1998 he was the management flunky most directly responsible for all those MSIE bugs.
"On the one hand, they say they're pursuing standards, but they're implementing and pushing proprietary technology with their development community," Microsoft product manager David Fester said. "Microsoft has pledged 100 percent standards support for some time. The truth is in the pudding and the products."
Pot, Kettle Black (netscape, microsoft , standards, name-calling)
Wednesday's Windows Media announcements are specific to XP, said David Fester, general manager of Microsoft's Windows Digital Media division. "These are companies that are doing things specifically around XP," he said. "As you know, our Windows Media effort is broader than just XP."
Windows Media announced for MAC/Linux/Solaris (not)
"This is unprecedented, but we realized we need to work together [with Netscape] for the common good. We decided we should not propose separate standards for privacy software." David Fester, Microsoft, June 97
More Outright Lies from David Fester
Tell me again why I want to listen to *anything* this man has to say.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Apple and HP aren't forcing anyone to buy an iPod, or use the iTunes music store. Yes those things are interdependent, but if you don't like that, show them by buying a different mp3 player, and using whatever software and online music service you want.
Oh yeah, but Apple prevents you from doing that by abusing their overwhelming monopoly in order to get you to do what they want.
No, wait, that's MS...
Except in this case Apple is forcing users to use their superior mp3 player to interface with their superior online music store. And if you don't agree with that appraisal, fine, but then why do you care? Just use something else. If there was any real competition to the Apple/iTMS combination nobody would be whining about this.
iTunes will upload and download songs from many MP3 players, including these.
The only limitation is that you cannot play AAC protected (iTunes music store) files on these third-party players. But a quick capture/rip (or just use Audio Hijack to capture the stream to MP3) takes care of that limitation.
'Windows is about choice - you can mix and match software and music player stuff. We believe you should have the same choice when it comes to music services.'
The fact that HP chooses to clone the iPod, or include a music player designed for a certain format doesn't limit anyones choice. These HP boxes are still windows machines, and will support all of the MS 'standards'.
As I see it; this doesn't harm consumers, and only angers MS because HP is not promoting the windows format.
~ You may speak freely, If you have enough cash ~
Does this mean that Microsoft is now beleaguered?
Microsoft wants everyone to use their WMA technology, obviously developed by Microsoft.
Apple wants us to use AAC, developed by Dolby.
Last time I looked my stereo, TV, DVD player, Car Stereo, etc etc etc all carry the Dolby logo, not the Microsoft logo.
It's a simple choice.
This is 1984, all over again. Only this time, the roles are reversed.
This is affirmed by the fact that the 1984 ad that was played during MWSF had an iPod digitally grafted on to the woman throwing the hammer.
Apple is now the dominant manufacturer of portable music playback devices and has assumed the role of IBM. The licensing of the iPod and iTMS is a move straight out of the IBM playbook 20 years ago.
Microsoft shipped Internet Explorer 4.0 with Windows 98. Consumers had a choice then on whether or not to use IE... but they used IE.
Now iTunes is shipping with Windows on HP machines. Consumers have a choice on whether or not to use iTunes.
Sounds like the same "choice" as before--so what could Microsoft possibly be worried about? What reason do they have to worry?
You get three guesses, and the first two don't count.
The coolest voice ever.
The quote originated on Connected Home Magazine. The news editor is Paul Thurott. Paul also runs www.winsupersite.com and www.winnetmag.com/windowspaulthurrott/ as well as a few other MS Fanatic sites.
...Paul is also the author of WinInfo Daily UPDATE, the Windows Informant, a daily news and information newsletter for Windows users, and the News Editor for Windows & .NET Magazine, where he writes a weekly editorial for the popular Windows & .NET Magazine UPDATE newsletter and a monthly news column called Need to Know for the print magazine. Paul is also the News Editor for Connected Home Magazine, ...
From one of the sites...
So we know it's biased already - no need to re-state to obvious.
Three months ago I saw this parody article, and now it's come true. Some the quotes in it are now downright prescient:
Under Anti-Trust Pressure, Apple Releases iTunes for Windows
SCO are still a bunch of litigious bastards!
iTunes only supports the iPod?
I don't think so
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I seem to me that any program that takes over your computer when used, and opens up browsers and pop-up windows should be called a virus.
It's not a bug - it's a feature!
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
This compatibilty only relates to using MP3's that you rip yourself,from itunes on different devices . The OP was saying that if you want to use the AAC files from the Itunes Music Store you have to use an ipod, unless you use one of the previously mentioned methods for copying to cd and then re-ripping to MP3
So why can't portable music players be able to play more than one form of digital music? Is it so impossible to have a player that can play both WMA and AAC? Why? Is it possible for companies to make a player that not only can play multiple audio formats but also have the ability to add a codec so you can play additional ones? That's something I'd like to see... by a player... and play any format...
Younger!?! Please don't tell us that you are old and still this stupid.
It never occured to me to associate pdf files with Michael Jackson.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
In this case, Microsoft is right. Of all the DRM'ed music formats, Apple's verison of AAC offers the least choice to the consumer.
Apple is only one of many companies *using* AAC. Apple did not invent it. Apple did not invent it. Apple did not invent it.
n dard.html
"AAC was developed by the MPEG group that includes Dolby, Fraunhofer (FhG), AT&T, Sony, and Nokia"
http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/aac/
"MPEG-4 AAC has been specified as the high-quality general audio coder for 3G wireless terminals. Apple Computer has incorporated MPEG-4 AAC into QuickTime 6 and iTunes 4, as well as the latest version of its award-winning iPod portable music player. The Digital Radio Mondiale system (the next-generation digital replacement for radio broadcasting under 30 MHZ) builds on the audio coding of MPEG-4 AAC."
http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/sta
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
The correct abbreviation for pedophile coming from someone who's pimping his own porn gathering software. Now I've seen it all.
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
makes no sense
MSSpeak - We give you CHOICE in the PDA market
Real World - We charge all vendors equally and make all our money off of the applications you have to buy to interact with these devices. MS Office, Exchange, and we make it next to impossible for someone to convert Lotus Notes into your Windoows CE, er Pocket Windows, er Pocket Windows 2002, er 2003, er hey you need a new PDA every year from our 'choice'
While my Palm 3.0 OS still works and I can still load what's latest and greatest on it.
MSSPeak - iTunes is a closed format, they don't offer choice.
Apple makes a player. It uses FairPlay's DRM. Apple doesn't own fairplay, and there is nothing stopping anyone from releasing players and/or portables to support this. Though people haven't, except one major one... HP.
However here's another handy dandy pocket windows media os that you ahve to buy all new items for in six months or so that should do everything but support AAC from Apple, but that's OK we have WMA and it even has a true lossless CODEC for you audiophiles - Apple Doesn't! Their software is lossless! BTW our Pocket Media OS will let you play a widescreen movie on a 2" LCD and you'll like it because we said so. Apple is insane saying that no one wants that because we make it and you buy it because we said it's there!
Whatever. Granted other than AAC that iTunes using being a bit to tight on the compression for my taste *I* like it and I've bought a few hundred songs. Would I care if it died tomorrow and some other vendor came out with a killer app? Heck no, but then again iTMS is the only one in the 10s of millions of songs sold. If 5% of the computer population can do that....
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
a) wtf? iTunes doesn't require an iPod, I shop iTunes on occasion don't have an iPod, and I burn CDS. b) How does the HP deal reduce consumer choice, XP has Media Player built in, there's no removing it. So now if you buy an HP you get both. I see no reduction in choice there.
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
Well, given that I haven't heard any stories about Apple telling people they wont licence or give them the nessesary information to add the DRM decoding capabilities to their AAC capable players, that seems to be a fault on the part of the player manufacturers doesn't it?
Come on, if HP can do it, so can Sony, and Rio and all the others.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Otherwise Microsoft is right... Oh wait you can just Burn a CD in iTunes and rip the CD into mp3 right in iTunes. Nevermind cary on nothing to see here.
Microsoft wants to create a platform that is used by every man, woman and child, from the day they are born, in every facet of their life.
By platform I don't just mean Windows desktop PC's... the XBox is one small step for Microsoft, one giant leap for world domination. Consider that Bill Gates' house is one of the most technology-driven pieces of real estate in the world. Imagine if 10 years from now, it was like that everywhere; running all MS software.
Choices MS wants to give you:
What wallpaper do you want?
Will you use XP Home at Home, or be a rebel and use XP Pro?
Will you buy a Dell, Compaq or HP computer to run Windows on?
Which charity would you like to see Bill Gates donate to this year?
The Microsoft Way isn't about eliminating choices; it's about controlling all available choices.
Now I do think that they are unfairly trying to force people to use IE and Windows Media Player, but that doesn't mean you can't install and use something else.
Microsoft has never written software that forces a customer to use specific hardware.
Ah, quite the contrary. Microsoft forces specific hardware manufacturers to only use Microsoft software.
If Microsoft could get WMA to catch on bigtime, here's what would happen:
The licensing cost for WMA technology would become so high that it would only be affordable when purchased at "OEM volume." Part of the discount would include requiremnents that players supporing WMA can't support other competing codecs like AAC or Real or (dare I say it... I dare!) Ogg Vorbis.
In other words, we would be limited to Microsoft-based file formats, Limited compatibility with non-Windows OS, DRM, and so on. You're trying to tell me that the bright side is that we could get a player from any number of manufacturers, and I'm telling you you're wearing glasses so rosy this Apple Lisa looks like a strawberry iMac.
This, my anonymous coward, is Microsoft's business strategy. It is called "embrace and extend."
They've "embraced" the mp3 player and are now trying to "extend" their Windows monopoly to include that piece of the hardware market. For this nut to turn, the demand for their entry at the pony show, the WMA format, has to be a hell of a lot stronger than it is now.
I will not speculate on how Microsoft might pull that off, however if anyone from Microsoft is listening I'm willing to demonstrate for a mere six figures.
Easy - Apple doesn't own the copyright to the music and the record companies won't let Apple sell the music unless some form of rights management is in place. If they were allowed to do so, I'm sure they would have preferred to sell raw AAC files without any rights management.
I think its cool that Apple managed to get the record companies to agree on a system as liberal as iTMS. You can burn an *unlimited* number of *unprotected audio CDs* with the only restriction that a particular *playlist* can be burned a maximum of 10 times. (Not a big deal, just make a new playlist with the same songs or, for that matter, just make a copy of the *unprotected audio CD* you already burned 10 copies of!)
You can authorize 3 computers to play the protected files directly and you can backup the protected files to any type of media you like. You can play the protected files on as many iPods as you want, etc...
1. Mac OS X
2. Mac OS Classic
End of Line.
Everyone isnt using windows for everything! How terrible!
This is all about MS history biting them in the ass. Their previous records of ass fucking every possible partner has gotten into the heads of people. You cant trust MS and thus you team up with ABM.
HTTP/1.1 400
I really have to agree that m00nun1t has a point. Be honest with yourselves and think about how we would we be reacting if the situations were swapped. We would be accusing Microsoft of embracing and extending the AAC file format with their fairplay DRM. We would attack them of vendor lock-in by bundling iTunes on all version of their OS, and not licencing the DRM to other companies. We would attack them for their anti-competitive vertical integration, and plans to dominate the market. And we would be weakly praising Apple for at least being a little more cooperative with their proprietary file format.
Second, about the openness of file formats I would rank them from best to worst as such:
ogg = completely open standard
mp3, m4a = open standards, but patent encumbered
wma = proprietary, but widely licenced
m4p = proprietary, no 3rd party licences (yet)
Now I can can convert between any of these formats but I will loose quality in doing so. In order to listen to the music in the quality that I purchased it I have to stick with players that can play that file format. Apple's m4p provides the least amount of options for that case, and is the least open.
I do recognise that they had to have DRM to appease the Record Labels. But I don't know that they would get rid of the DRM if they could. Remember, Apple is subsidizing iTMS off the sales of their iPods and dropping the DRM would open the market up for competition. Then you have a bunch of people buying music off iTMS (which costs Apple money) and playing them on less expensive third party AAC-players. Knowing Apple, they will resist clones for as long as possible.
I promise you if the tables were turned we would not be giving Microsoft the credit that we are giving Apple, and if you look at history, Jobs really is no more commited to open standards than Gates. I like the work Apple does, but I am very reluctant to invest my money into a music collection where my continued listening is entirely dependant on a single company - that's the whole point of an open standard after all. Especially when higher quality, more open alternatives exist at comparable prices.
It's a bad idea -- not because it somehow promotes an Apple monopoloy, but because no one wants WMA playback on thier ipod.
WTF are you talking about? The OS doesn't support devices or software. Hardware vendors produce drivers; that is why Microsoft is able to (legitimately) claim that 70% of all MS-Windows failures are due to bad drivers. It is the hardware vendors that produce the drivers to the OS, not the other way 'round.
Same with software. Software is targetted *toward* an OS; the operating system is (hardly) never written towards an application.
Microsoft has made a company from destroying competition, yet (ironically) a lot of software is targetted toward the MS-Windows operating system.
This is due mostly to Microsoft's early control of the hardware distribution chain. By controlling the software that was installed when there was very little choice, they have managed to lock out other software from being included today. Since that control translated to 90% desktop market share, other software companies felt they were safe targetting the MS-Windows platform.
Apple does not have a history of driving other software companies out of business by bundling their own software with their OS; Microsoft does have that reputation. So your comments are extremely ironic, and display a certain ignorance of history.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
In this case it serves another bussiness strategy. Windows Computers are commodities, and among brands with a rep for quality the only distinguishing feature is low price. Dell or HP: buy the cheaper. The only way to beat this game is the way apple does it: differentiate yourself. If you buy dell then you are buying WMA. if you are buying HP you are buying into AAC. One presumes that the computer will come with software that makes it work slightly better with its native player.
Finally it looks like AAC is about to win. Nokia, panasonic, amybe even RealPlayer are all going to support AAC.
so HPs move is good for HP. They get room to develop their own. they are in the market early with no R&D costs and differnetiate themselves from dell.
consumers of course benefit too. HP and others will eventually be making players to compete with ipods. That will bring down prices.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Microsoft is saying this AFTER HP and apple have decided to add WMA support to the iPods;
my two cents; if microsoft comes out with a better product, with all the features they promise - they have nothing to worry about - BUT HOW CAN they whine about a product just because it is good and it is not theirs?
|/________
|\A|ALYS|
It also integrates with the Sony Clie and many other Palms with the help of MarkSpace's Missing Sync product.
I thought the Slashdot populace was feeling warmer and fuzzier than usual. One man's sorrow is another man's joy, indeed.
But Maaa! Everyone else has a
MS: Where would you be without me? (gollum gollum). I saved us. It was me. We monopolized because of me!
HP: Not anymore.
MS: What did you say?
HP: Apple looks after us now. We don't need you.
MS: What?
HP: Leave now and never come back.
MS: No!
HP: Leave now and never come back!
MS: Arrrgh!
HP: LEAVE NOW AND NEVER COME BACK!
[HP is panting and looking around and realises MS is gone.]
HP: We told him to go away! And away he goes Preciousss. Gone, gone, gone, HP is free!
You can't have'em all Microsoft! Apple took the risk and launched the iTunes service before you did and now that it became somewhat successful you're all pissed that it weren't MS, right?
Microsoft is never more dangerous than when they are losing to a competitor and everyone knows it. Look what they did to Netscape, fer chrissakes. Netscape went from 85% market share, to a stripped carcass in the dumpster behind AOL HQ. Took a while, but it happened.
I'm just wondering when Microsoft will adapt that tactic to fight off the iPod, and start giving away WMA-based digital music players... boxed with copies of Windows, perhaps? Or available for ordering on their site, for just the cost of shipping. Prolly get away with it, too, if the fucking Republicans stay in power.
Not that MS wouldn't repeat the same party line, but I coulda sworn I saw a very similar if not identical quote when iTunes for Windows came out a few months back. It just jumped out at me (then and now) for the sheer absurdity of MS arguing FOR choice....
Here's the deal though - all of those (including the iPod) will play MP3. If you're talking protected WMA files how many of those players will work? Now consider that some of the purchased WMA fiiles will not let you play the song on ANY portable device.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
To play this back, you need to convert it back to raw bits again. Now, you can capture those bits (Audio Hijack does this), and save the file, but it will be huge. (You encoded using MP3 etc becuase you wanted to save space).
If you reencode this with any lossy CODEC, including the 'original', you will lose some more information. Probably enough that you will notice that the quality has degraded.
So, the DRM in AAC stops you making unlimited copies of the original file. (Well, you can copy them, but they will only play on a limited number of machines---keyed to the embedded DRM info.) You can of course burn the tracks to CD---which copies the raw bitstream. You can make an unlimited number of copies of this (though iTunes won't let you make more than 10 copoies of a playlist, but that is mere inconvenience). You can also re-encode using another DRM free CODEC, but if that CODEC is lossy, the quality will be degraded. Probably noticeably.
Note again though: any time you reencode between lossy CODECs, you will lose some quality. This has nothing to do with DRM.
In conclusion, you are right. A copy is going to be lossy, except if you burn to CD (which is easy).
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
The two protected formats under contention ( AAC and WMA ) are each trying to go a different way.
WMA is all around a myriad of different choices for PRODUCERS of music to say what kind of DRM they would like protecting the file. No burning to CD's or listeing to in leap years? Got the bug to just drop a licence for anyone with an email address containing numbers? That's fine, because the user is licenceing the file.
AAC under Apple is around letting USERS have the choice of what happens with thier music - any protected AAC file has the same level of protection, whcih is marginal and does not hamper most peoples use of music. Furthermore the protection is arranged in such a way that the USER owns the music.
Players are supporting one philospohy or the other basically... probably closer to the truth though is that everyone assumed WMA would be the dominant format (because Microsoft never looses, right?) and decided forking over licencing money was a nessicary cost of building a player. Right now we are in the ramp-up phase where companies are swimming over to Apple's boat, they just haven't got there yet.
Probably in the next year we'll see some dual players from people who licence AAC but have already paid the Microsoft toll.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Microsoft is not about choice at all. You mention that you can get all kinds of devices from different vendors that all work with Windows, and you are correct in this.
What that has done is drive the cost of hardware down for all of us, which is good. So, that seems to support your notion of choice right? Microsoft is good for us right?
Well, I have two problems with this:
- All of those little devices work the same way. Compute using Windows or not at all. You may think you have choice, but remember Microsoft calls the shots on all of those. They write the OS, they provide the API for developers to work with. They establish the limits.
These things all work together to make sure you compute the way Microsoft wants you to compute. Keeping this in mind, ask yourself this question and think long and hard about the answer:
"What incentive does Microsoft have to act in your best interests given the control they have over the industry?"
My answer: None at all really. They have been convicted of illegal activity, our current administration is friendly to that and the pressure from Wall Street forces them to continue doing what they have been doing because it is good for the shareholders.
- The other problem involves these other device and software makers. Sometimes one of them really hits the nail on the head. People start buying and life is good for a while. What happens when Microsoft sees that success? They get greedy and introduce their own version, or litigate, or flat out purchase it for their own.
Once they have done this, they bastardize the tech and make sure it is nothing more than added leverage for you to continue spending in the Microsoft direction.
Take a look at web conference software. They recently purchased Placeware. Now it is called "Microsoft Office System Web Conferencing" or something along those lines. Called to renew contract the other day. Got told the services we were using were no longer offered. That same package would cost more, unless we chose to purchase their new services package with Outlook and Office intergration...
The result? A bit more money plus additional hassles to use and otherwise fine service, unless I accept their intergration as part of the deal?
Choice? Sure, theirs.
Blogging because I can...
If you want to play an aac file an 'mp3 player' (term used genericly) that isn't an ipod - this is what you do:
In fact -- you can use these same steps to convert any format that iTunes reads into an mp3 or your non ipod mp3 player. Anyhow, the only problem is when the DRM battle has escalated to the point where there are no longer mp3 players on the market, then you will have to make a choice between camps.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Don't count Sony out. They will launched their own online music store in the spring and will be using their own codec ATRAC. Might not mean anything to the US markets but if you ride the train in Japan you see everyone with MD players.
Sorry pal, the most notable engineering effort by Compaq was marketing.
Compaq essentially was a marketing organization and box assembler, which made too much money and bought a couple of enterprise computer companies (in hopes to get a foothold into their customer base).
Digital Equipment (or DEC as we preferred to refer to it) on the other hand was an engineering company (which was later part of its downfall) and the technologies you are referring too where hatched at DEC.
Notable engineering efforts where (leaving away very ancient history) the Alpha AXP chip (which introduced 64bit processing 10 years before Intel could even come up with a workable prototype and Itanium "steels" a lot from alpha), or clustering, which worked seemlessly and transparently in 1988 (probably before that), while other "clustering" technologies, most notably under HP/UX, seem to be a bunch of hacked together scripts, which provide a never ending nightmare (specifically after major migrations). I could continue with some of the best compilers and a development environment, which would still put a lot of modern stuff to shame.
Compaq had no fucking clue what they where getting and they where even more clueless in the realm of enterprise customers relying on rock solid, mission critical iron. Uptimes for such customers (for example the Amsterdam coppers) is measured in thousands of days and they tend to take a dim view on the infamous CTRL-ALT-DELETE "error correction" procedure.
I absolutely agree with your statement regarding miss Fiorino, though.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Loss is the problem. I'm happy enough with my iPod - it's great to be able to walk around with practically my entire music collection on shuffle mode, hook it up to the hi-fi, etc. etc. But I'm in the UK, so I'm not using iTMS - DRM isn't affecting me. I guess a workaround for the lossy reencoding would be to use, say, Audio Hijack to capture a bitcopy of the AAC, reecode the result with FLAC, and invest in a Rio Karma, which will play FLAC files. You should end up with a direct copy of the AAC, minus the DRM. This is all a great workout for my shift keys, by the way... The downside is that the FLAC file won't play on an iPod, and you'll probably end up with a convoluted, ad-hoc music management system. The iTunes/iPod combo works fine for me right now - and by the time it doesn't, who knows what alternatives will have appeared?
Well, quite - I use iTunes on my Mac in conjunction with Aeroplayer on my Palm Tungsten T2 - sure my 512MB SD card doesn't have iPod rivalling capacity, but I only walk 2 miles to work so it's not like I've got time to listen to THAT much stuff anyway. I use iTunes the old fashioned way - non-DRM, high bit rate, MP3 style.
And I like it!
That was classic intercourse!
Apple calls their MP3 player the iPod.
Microsoft calls their MP3 player the much snappier "Mobile Entertainment Device".
'nuff said.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Apple sells a "complete solution". Hardware, OS software, multmedia apps. When you buy one, you know exactly what you're getting. And they don't have much market share.
When you buy a dell, or any other PC (other then from penguin computing or whatever) You get Microsoft crap and you don't have a choice about it. In fact, from a VAR/OEM point of view Microsoft was the only place you could buy a consumer OS. Apple made OS's, but you couldn't buy them. There was Linux, but no one was really selling it back then. That's what the anti-trust thing was about. Microsoft abusing their position as the only company selling a consumer OS to computer makers not end consumers.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
...to this statement in the article:
"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."
As an iPod user I am now furious that Apple has been oppressing me with an inferior audio format for so long. Dude, I shoulda' got a Dell.
It seems simple to me. If you like ITMS and iTunes or the iPod, Apple and HP will have those available to you. If you don't like them... Don't buy them. Vote with your dollars. Microsoft is mad because Apple finally figured out how to let everyone know they beat Microsoft to the punch. Whether you like Apple or not, it's about freakin' time they started getting some press with the products they release. I happen to like the service and the gear, so I can only try to reassure you that it's worth the money, and I have yet to have their DRM get in the way of anything I want to do. It sounds to me like Microsoft is feeling the burn from people exploring choices other than them. In that statement, I mean to include not only Apple products, but also OSS. I thought they were all about innovation driving market share?
Someday a real rain is gonna come...
Betamax WAS ONLY superior in visual quality...
The original Betamax was only ~60-90 (I forget) minutes of recorded programming. While they had a lead, the need to fight it out in court cut down their lead in the marketplace, and they lost first mover advantage. The second mover, VHS, provided 2 hours of recorded programming. Coincidentally, 2 hours was the average/max running of movies and movies on TV at the time.
Before the concept of time shifting TV became reality with the time-based recorder (if you have to be home to record the show, there isn't MUCH of an advantage to time shifting), VCRs were used to record movies.
That meant that the VHS was a BETTER VCR because it could actually record the movie.
By the time the extended Betamax came out that could record two movies, VHS had the upperhand in the market, and got economies of scale (which combined with the competition) lowered prices. VHS then got the ability to record up to 6 hours at crappy quality, but given the expense of the tapes, was likely popular (all our old tapes at home had to be trashed, because they were recorded at that quality that degraded to nothing... but I can't guess at actual use in the marketplace from my parents behavior).
In addition, the dirty little secret of VHS was that because it was open, all the porn was in VHS. We now see porn as an easily available vice, but at the time, you choices were go to a seedy theater or VHS. The novelty of being able to watch porn at home likely pushed VHS a bit, even if nobody talked about it. This was in an era before 3 (or even 1/2) adult channels on cable + PPV, Internet porn, etc), and if adults wanted to watch dirty movies in the privacy of their own home, VHS was the only game in town.
However, the REAL reason for VHS's early dominance was the 2 hour recording limit.
While modern TV displays are high quality (especially 1080i/720p HDTV-ready sets), the TVs at the time were MUCH lower quality. The visual difference between VHS and Betamax when actually viewed on a television isn't the night-and-day difference that people make it out to be when using it as an arguement for worse is better.
Facts on the urban legend surrounding Betamax, including Sony's alledged refusal to license betamax.
Alex
>QT is MacOS's audio/video API. You can drag the
/System/Library/Frameworks/Quicktime.framework . Also, Mplayer OS X and Microsoft Windows Media Player works just fine on all Mac OS X boxs without using any Quicktime libraries at all.
>QT player to the trash just fine, but deleting QT would
>be a bit like deleting DirectShow.
Sorry, you're free to delete Quicktime.framework if you see fit. It is located at
How the comment is modded as "score: 3, informative" is beyond me.
This was so Good, I am going out and buying some Pepsi, and the iTunes giveaway hasn't event started.
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein
I'm so sick of MS being such a crybaby. Looks guys, face reality, there are some very good competitors out there who would like to make some money in a market that you don't dominate, yet. So, cry a bit, try to buy something you can rush to market, lock it in to Windows so your user base DOESNT have a choice and the others will come up with something new and the whole merry go round can start all over again. Get over it.
Over the past year I've switched from one format to the other, always investigating claims that one codec was better than the next. I did my own comparison tests between MP3,OGG,WMA and later AAC. The one that impressed me the most from a quality perspective was aac, while I desired the "openness" of ogg. Yes, I realise AAC is not an Apple proprietary format (though their DRM encoded files are). I wanted very much to like OGG, and gave it every opportunity to impress me. To my ears however it just sounded "flat" (regardless of bitrate) and I couldn't convince myself otherwise, no matter how I tried.
When iTunes for Windows was released I immediately started encoding to AAC. I loved it. AAC at 160kbps sounded fantastic with a lot of detail and range. It had that "full" sound that I thought was lacking in OGG. What I didn't like was the lack of encoding settings iTunes provided. Not a big deal really - as it did sound very good. But it hit me that (at the time) if I wanted to play AAC outside of iTunes, I'd need a plugin for Winamp (no longer req'd). What if I wanted to play these files off my dvd player or other multi-format device? I'm sure AAC is here to stay, but I wanted to be able to play my music on devices other than just my PC. For portabiltiy I have an external USB 2 hard disk.
I then thought it best to give MP3 another chance. I searched and eventually found www.jthz.com/mp3/ Using this site as a resource, I managed to encode high quality VBR MP3s which use slightly less space than comperably encoded AACs and sound every bit as good. It's a shame how MP3 has received some hard knocks lately as everyone rushes to the latest codec of the month. I'm convinced that the only reason these other codecs exist (aside from OGG) is not for quality reasons whatsoever. They're here because they allow better DRM - that's it! Now if people would spend the time and learn to encode their MP3s properly rather than accepting the defaults (typically 128kbps) of whatever all-in-one app they happen to be using, perhaps these "superior" formats wouldn't be getting as much positive press.
www.brownsauce.org
I am not an antitrust lawyer but it seems to me that Microsoft is setting the foundation for impending litigation if it finds itself unable to innovate itself through Apple and it's music store.
"As most here incredibly well versed in, manufacturers are forbidden by law to compel their customers to purchase an unwanted product as a prerequisite to buying another product. (read operating systems forced upon buyers) This illegal practice is known as "tying."
"Findlaw.com defines tying as "an arrangement or agreement in which a seller will sell a product to a buyer only if the buyer will also buy another product."
Findlaw.com further discusses tying:
"Sellers with more than one product may seek to tie the sale of one (which the customer presumably desires) with that of another (which it presumably does not want). Such tie-ins are governed not only by the general language of the Sherman Act, but the more particular provisions of Section 3 of the Clayton Act, which prohibits such arrangements if the likely result is substantially to lessen competition. Tie-ins are per se unlawful if the seller possesses sufficient market power in the tying product, and coerces the buyer to take the tied product as a condition to obtaining the desired product.
(Walt Pennington - desktoplinux.com)
It seems a logical step to say that Microsoft will argue that Apple is tying the sale of it's music (which microsoft will argue is the desired product) with that of its music player (which, Redmond will - perhaps tongue in cheek in front of consumers who LOVE their iPods - say is the unwanted product.)
I think it is an interesting possible move, if one that may be bad for the industry. I think that people should be able to use the players they want for the music they OWN - imagine only being able to use a sony compact disc player for sony signed artists - but the pay to download music infrastructure just isn't ready at this point in time for fracturization. Apple isn't making any money on the music, just the players. Until money can viably be made, pay to download music services will be close to a precipice that can only be avoided by at first solidifying and standardizing the content and the distribution method.
I've read through this thread and have some overall responses and see some common misperceptions. First, Fester's comments are not about AAC or the iTunes app - they were about the Store, iPod, and iTunes in combination. Second, Fester is right that music purchased from iTunesMS can only be played in an iPod and iTunes because apple wraps AAC up in a proprietary and unlicensable DRM. Once you wrap a 'standard' codec up in such DRM, it's no longer a standard from the all-important interperability standpoint. third, WMA and WMDRM are freely licensable to ANY music store, device vendor, or software developer to use as they see fit on ANY platform. That's why both are supported in multiple vendor devices (Creative Labs, Rio, etc...), software tools (Adobe, Real, Musicmatch, Winamp), and music stores (Napster, Musicmatch, BestBuy). You may be opposed to WMA for other reasons, but it currently comes closest to replicating the world users currently enjoy, where CDs from any store can be played in CD players from any vendor.