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...."
I wonder if Microsoft is threatened HP to restrict the Windows and Office licenses if they made a player that could play WMA and ACC.
/. article around that subject .
Well, I hope that's no surprise to anyone. Although M$ does make good products (and I don't mean to start a whole debate here) they have a tendency to use their monopoly to force products.
Not too long ago, they were threatening Dell of not giving them Windows licenses if IE wasn't the only browser in new computers... here's a
I also wonder if Apple restricted HP from supporting WMA? Yes, Apple does these kind of things too!
Eh, a war of monopolies! They've just found common grounds to fight on...
It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well. - Rene Descartes (1637)
It's HP licensing Apple's technology and manufacturing capability, not the other way around. Apple has the right to support whatever file formats it wants (and can pay license fees for, if appropriate). It also has the right to determine what formats WON'T be played on its devices.
If HP wants to demand WMA support, and Apple doesn't want to budge, HP can spend the R&D dollars to build its own portable music player.
This isn't a Bad Thing. This is a company acting in what it feels are its best interests.
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
AAC has one distinct disadvantage against WMA - royalties associated with its use going to various organizations. With WMA, Microsoft either has unlimited rights or owns everything in the format, so it can distribute encoders/players with no per-unit fee. However, if Apple wanted to undermine MS by distributing free (beer) software to encode AAC (aka Quicktime Pro for free)... they would be stuck with a per-unit charge. That's why we need Vorbis so much.
Quoth Thurott:
"When I asked an HP representative how the company would solve the incompatibility problems, he told me, incorrectly, that the Protected AAC files users download do, in fact, work on HP's products and that converting them is a simple task if they don't."
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but by HP's products, doesn't he mean HPs PCs running a version of Windows? And if so, where does such a user get Protected AAC files? Right, iTunes for Windows. Now, isn't iTunes (win or mac) ALL ABOUT AAC? What part of the HP representative's comment is incorrect?
HP machines run windows. iTunes is available for windows (and will be on all HP machines soon). iTunes Music store is the biggest (only?) provider of Protected AAC files. Sounds pretty simple to me...
I can't figure out why Apple would ever want to support WMA. If they support WMA, then it's just one more reason for people to buy Microsoft over Apple, or anything else.
Once again we see the Microsoft monopoly extending it's grasp. They create WMA and then they set it up so that the built in CD-ripping in Windows will default to using WMA. Most people end up ripping in that format, not knowing any better. Then that becomes the standard for these files.
If that's the standard, then Microsoft can choose to enforce it however they want. They can alter licensing, build in whatever DRM restrictions they want, and since it's the standard everybody has to play ball.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Because the per-unit fee is determined by the terms of MPEG licensing, Apple cannot apply discriminatory licensing with AAC. MS, however, can. This is a huge disadvantage to WMA from the perspective of everyone except Microsoft itself.
For example, let's say Microsoft is licensing WMA support to all the mp3 player creators for about 20 cents a unit. Then IBM decides they're going to start supporting Linux. Suddenly Microsoft decides they're licensing it to everyone for 20 cents a unit EXCEPT IBM, who has to pay a billion dollars for each player sold. They can do this, and they have shown in the past-- with OEM pricing on Windows-- that they are more than willing to do this exact sort of thing..
AAC, meanwhile, is equal for everybody.
Of course the FairPlay DRM is a totally different matter, but I've yet to be able to figure out if Apple is unwilling to license that to others or if just no one's asked.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Dude, the logic is easy.
.WMA files floating around your disk, you want to play them.
If you have
Its as simple as that. Any 'modern' music player shouldn't *ACTUALLY* be limited by the codec. A real music player would have -extensible- codec capabilities...
What's needed is someone with the balls and cash to put Linux in a smallpocket format, open the source to -everything- and stand back while everyone and their brother ports their codecs to it... its not that hard.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
You know, this could be a watershed event, where Apple really flexes their marketshare muscle in the music arena and starts calling their own shots, just like MS has been able to do ad nauseum as a result of their dominance in the PC arena.
Apple definitely is ballsy lately, let's hope it doesn't morph into overconfidence and miscalculation. But for now I say "Go Apple!"
It used to be we only had to change formats every 10-20 years or so - LPs, casettes, 8 tracks, CDs, etc. Now with new digital media, we may find ourselves having to change formats every 6 months! Somethings got to give. Reminds me of a Simpsons quote, Bart saying something to the effect of "mp3's my ass! When I was a kid all we had were CDs, and those were plenty good enough"
It's a Microsoft thing so I don't like it.
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
And this is a problem because? Your friend obviously ripped his CD collection himself. Are you angry because he used WMP to do it or because he didn't just download one of the 13 million free rippers capable of writing MP3 instead? Are you pissed because he's stupid? Nothing forces you to use WMA or WMP for that matter - the fact that it ships with Windows is besides the point. CDex runs just fine on Windows, as far as I can tell. If anything it's lack of information, yes? And this gets your panties all in a bunch?
MP3 is the standard, nothing else should be supported, if only for clarity and simplicity reasons!
You are so right. We should also all use JPEG, because that's the One True Graphics Format. Or was it PNG? Or TGA? Or GIF? Hmmmmm.
See, here's the thing: WMA is a choice. If you're not smart enough to figure out that you can rip your music to something else then that's just too bad. People that push things like OGG champion choice - is this a case of "yes well, but that's not the choice we like"?
If anything else is ever supported, it should be OGG because OGG is essentially open source MP3
No, because that would cause confusion. You just said that.
I won't even go into the benchmarks that have proven WMA is better than MP3 at lower bitrates for most audio uses, or the fact that it's a far better streaming format than MP3. That would be besides the point. I don't like WMA or otherwise use it, but just to give you an example: if I had a player with a smallish 5 or 6GB drive that supported WMA I'd probably encode my collection to it at lower bitrates to fit more songs into the thing, and still get pretty much the same audio quality. That's called choice. Look it up.
They could radically expand their reach if they supported WMA and the various online music stores that are popping up.
That's exactly what HP has done. They've actually expanded support and given users an additional choice. You can use what came with Windows to handle all the WMA stuff (songs, online stores, portable music players) just like all the other PC makers, or you can also choose to use iTunes and the iTMS and an iPod -the industry leaders at present.
I really don't understand how HP adding iTunes and selling a rebranded iPod can possibly be said to limit choices.
In Thurrott's latest article(mentioned above) he claims that WMA is "a feature that's natively enabled in the iPod's firmware but that Apple disables before the units ship to customers". I've never heard of this before. Is there any truth to this claim?