Slashdot Mirror
No WMA for HP iPod
finelinebob writes "In spite of Paul Thurrott's wishful thinking, Wired is reporting that HP will not support the WMA format in its version of the iPod. From the article, according to HP spokesperson Muffi Ghadial, "'We're not going to be supporting WMA for now ... We picked the service that was the most popular (Apple's iTunes Music Store). We could have chosen another format, but that would have created more confusion for our customers.' He added, 'Most customers don't care about the format they're downloading.'" Thurrott's singing a different tune lately, anyway...."
is also *ONE* very biased person
who gives a shit what he thinks? not me, probably not you. obviously not apple and hp. big whoop
vodka, straight up, thank you!
I guess that either Apple doesn't actually wants wma on iPod themselves (for business/tech reasons) or, they've been forced to by a certain company which have expressed their dislike of the plan. Either way, there isn't all that much music in wma format anyway online, except other than the iTMS rivals stores...(!)
I am not meaning to sound redundant, but isn't AAC an actual standard while WMA is propietary to XP? Why is WMA more popular by Windows users if AAC can do the same drm wise and in a majority of cases sounds better?
I'm so tired of the WMA format. It's like a god damned virus. Just the other day I was explaining the concept of a CD MP3 player to someone I know and when he showed me his digital music collection, it was all in WMA. Now of course it's easily converted, but that's one extra thing I'll have to show him how to do. MP3 is the standard, nothing else should be supported, if only for clarity and simplicity reasons! If anything else is ever supported, it should be OGG because OGG is essentially open source MP3.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
I'm glad they aren't including wma. The more you ignore it, the more it'll die. Ogg support would be nice, but I guess that won't happen.
:)
We could have chosen another format, but that would have created more confusion for our customers.
So I guess that proves that Apple's customers are confused easily
I never saw the logic in the iPod having WMA support. Maybe in the future if the market changes, but not now.
Right now, Apple enjoys a 70% market dominance in the online music sales market - and they have significant brand name and mindshare, which isn't going anywhere soon. Walk up to a standard non-geek person:
Question: What MP3 player works with the Apple Music store? (I know it's called the iTunes store, but who actually says that?)
Answer: iPod.
Question: What MP3 player works with Napster?
Answer: Ummmm....
A geek might know the answer, but most people do not.
So, based on that, Apple's move to have HP license the AAC+Freeplay system is a good move - it encourages the use of the protected AAC files, and Apple gets a cut of that licensing technology, whether through direct iPod sales, or through the purchase of "iPod compatible" devices.
Apple has a 5% market share because they didn't license their operating system - which is fine with them, they make money off of hardware. But licensing "iPod compatible" devices is a way to make money off of every MP3 player sold eventually. If you want to use the iTunes Music Store, and you sell MP3 players, you can either compete against the "de facto standard", or play with it.
If Apple added WMA support, perhaps that would in the short term increase iPod sales since it would work with all the music stores - but in the long term, that's bad for Apple, because then anybody who wanted to switch MP3 players would just pick any WMA compatible device.
Apple can't break into that desktop market at this time - but if they play the cards right, they could become, as Steve Jobs said, the "Microsoft of the online music world". Once that happens, maybe they'll sell more desktops, maybe not - but it would be interesting to see how much money Apple would make from "iPod compatible" devices as opposed to just computer sales alone.
If that became the case, then other online music stores would have to support the AAC+Freeplay "de facto standard" - which means that for every song sold online, Apple would get a cut for the licensing.
So what makes more money: WMA in iPod for short term sales, or take a gamble at getting the whole damned pie?
Eh - just my thoughts. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
The answer to this question, time and time again that it is posed on Slashdot, is a resounding "No." It makes no sense economically for Apple to support those formats, despite whatever you hardcore Ogg Vorbis fans believe, despite that you've encoded your 1200 cds to Vorbis, etc. etc.
Rio Karma plays Vorbis and FLAC, so if you want those formats, support that player (and quit whining about iPod).
We could have chosen another format, but that would have created more confusion for our customers.' He added, 'Most customers don't care about the format they're downloading.
What does the format people download have to do with the formats their version of ipod supports? We already know what format they will be downloading if they are using itunes music store. The question is if the ipod can support formats not downloaded from the store. I think people would care if they downloaded a wma file that wouldn't run in their ipod.
I had such high hopes that Florina and the DEC research lab would be smarter than this.
Carly Fiorina is smart in the business sense; that is, she is the kind of unbelievable bastard CEO who votes herself a $150,000,000 bonus then lays 6,000 people off to "cut costs". In technological matters she is a fool.
The DEC research lab of old is dead. Don't expect too much.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
Eh, a war of monopolies! They've just found common grounds to fight on...
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Seriously, how do you figure apple as a monopoly on anything?
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
Between all the alliances and industry player alignments/supports, MP3 has the best: the pirate industry support -- hundreds of thousands (millions?) of entrepreneurial individuals working out of basements, garages, or simply leaving their machines turned on serving files. I go to a street corner in Brazil and I can find CDs burned with hundreds of songs in MP3. Same thing in all of the "developing world" -- Malaysia, Russia, Paraguay, China. Paying a dollar a song is a luxury that *will* make WMA/AAC (and all DRM) look like Betamax, or Sony's MD.
DRM songs will try to fit in a niche: wealthy countries or individuals which are willing to pay for songs because they "just-want-to", or because of a very slight edge of "coolness" or exclusivity. This niche, though important for the potential margin, will always be smaller than the MP3 choice (or Ogg, in an unlikely scenario). MP3s will survive like cockroaches, and is IMNSHO the only assured bet for a format that will be still be around ten years from now. Trying to "migrate up" MP3 users with cool gadgets like Ipod may be profitable, but will never close the door that MP3/Napster/Kazaa/CD burners opened.
I think that is fine.
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
Beta lost because SONY refused to allow pornography to be released on Beta when they first released the format (I think they changed this later). :)
Karma: Excellent (fuck, even in the future moderation doesn't work!)
I keep hearing about how Apple doesn't make that much money off of the music, but instead from iPod sales. I feel that Apple intends to make more money in the future by selling music from independent labels, but at the moment it seems they make very little from the sole sale of music.
If that is the case, then why would Microsoft be concerned with the selling of music? I guess it's a silly question because Microsoft wants to certainly not lose out in the digital lifestyle arena, but what does Microsoft offer that would suffer from this? Media Player comes with every Windows PC, which makes up, when I last checked, about 95% percent of the market.
HP wants to make money selling hardware, like Dell and Gateway, so they should pick what will sell the most hardware. Is HP supposed to do the research and development for Microsoft? And what the hey, they might woo in more people from the Apple camp.
Once again, you can see Microsoft using the weight of the monopoly to insure that the consumer has a choice...as long as the choice is Microsoft. Imagine being able to play WMA, MP3, and AAC all on the same player! Imagine being able to boot into BeOS OR Windows...oh, wait. Sorry. I'm awake now.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
There are tons of reasons to license the iPod and iTunes:
1. System Bundles - Buy your HP PC, HP Monitor, HP Printer, and now, your HP Portable Music Player, all at once for a discount.
2. Even if they aren't allowed to undersell Apple, they reach different markets, so they're pushing the device at consumers Apple can't reach. Selling the iPod allows HP to get to market NOW, without R&D expense.
3. Tons of favorable press, by aligning with one of the industry's percieved "Good Guys". Imagine what Slashdot would look like it the headlines were: "HP Announces New Music Player, and Launch Support for the Bill Gates Music Store". You think the Ogg trolls are out in full force now...
4. Use your imagination! I don't have all day to sit here making lists.
Anyway, I don't think we'll see HP-branded Macs anytime soon. It would be nice to see someone create a desktop Mac at a, say, $500 price point that I could bring my own 19" monitor to. I guess Apple is content to see that business go to eBay, though.
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
They are normal WMA files by default. Which is to say, yes you can play them on anything capable of playing WMA, but then that's a standard Microsoft controls. This means that Apple and HP would ultimately be beholden to Microsoft if they support WMA. If WMA becomes the de facto standard then Apple and HP would have no choice but to support it and that woudld give Microsoft control over them.
As it now stands, WMA is not de facto. People became used to MP3's being the standard for digital music before WMA came into this scene. Whether it remains that way or not going forward remains to be seen. If all players support it and the majority of people are ripping wma files, then it's quite possible. At that point, then Microsoft controls the world of digital music.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
And for Apple, that's the "bingo". The first time someone goes to buymusic.com and buys a WMA file and tries to play it on their iPod, they say "Oh - damn, this sucks!"
Guess where they're going to go next time they buy music online?
Either way, Apple wins. You buy the iPod, you use their file format. You use the free iTunes, you download a song - now you need an iPod or "iPod compatible" player.
That is what Apple - and Microsoft - is shooting for: that you support their format, or you feel pain.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I don't know, I can't think of a company more due for the wrong end of the shitty stick than Microsoft.
And how "restricted" are the people really. It seems to me that both companies are pimping their own "standard" but a majority of devices out there support Microsofts standard PLUS mp3 or Apples standard PLUS mp3. Granted mp3 isn't a truly "open" standard either but it's at least non-aligned in this particular feud.
So what's so restrictive. I'd feel more inclined to think it was restrictive if the iPod only played ACC.
The clone manufacturers had a sweetheart deal that let them eat away Apple sales while in no way pushing the platform to greater market share.
It was lousy Apple management that allowed that deal to happen (a bad idea, the time for licensing clones was long past) but it was Jobs who said basically "This isn't helping, it's hurting" and pulled the plug. Call the guy slime for keeping the company alive if you like. I don't see it though.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
"I can't play iTunes files on my computer even though I have half a dozen players that will play, rip, and burn AAC files, because of Apple's DRM."
i think you are talking about ITMS files, and not the standards-compliant AAC files one can choose to rip your files into with iTunes. You see, I think it's important in discussions like this to be specific.