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...."
iWas looking forward to it.
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)
They didn't want to limit their customers' choices.
HP appears to be more interested in iTunes than the iPod. They could radically expand their reach if they supported WMA and the various online music stores that are popping up.
Jeez, whatever happened to WMA being superior?
I think there is a significant enough crowd that cares about formats, that would make it worthwhile...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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...(!)
The iPod supports MP3, which is 99.999 percent of the files that people actually *use*.
From just a few slashdot articles ago:
MS unhappy with HP. Either HP is really sticking it to MS, or MS is sticking it to HP. Either way, it isn't surprising.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
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
In all honesty I don't really care whether its AAC or WMA. I prefer mp3s for a couple of reasons:
Anyone can play them on their PC
People's old mp3 players are happy with them
192kbits gives me all the quality I can hear
Yes I know that the patents are annoying but that's not come to bite me yet. I shall see. Also I know that I won't find an online store selling mp3s, but I still only buy CDs since, they're not all that much more expensive, you get the album artwork and they look nice on a shelf (I still have them on a computer, since it makes searching faster).
Btw. has everyone seen the mini iPod on Apple's website yet? I wonder what the UK price will be and also when Apple makes it officially compatible with Linux.
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
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
Paul Thurrott is and always has been most interested in Paul Thurrott and how the world relates to Paul Thurrott. He used to have a great website, until it got buried behind how much Paul Thurrott loves Paul Thurrott and how much you love Paul Thurrott, too.
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 have purchased over 300 individual songs, used the "burn" utility to make my back-up copy*, then ripped the back-up cd straight to my Creative Nomad Jukebox Zen NX with the Media Source s/w from Creative. I rip in 198/mp3 format. There is absolutely no discernable difference in quality when playing the mp3's either through headphones on the Zen or using iRock Beamit 400 FM modulator to my car or stereo. Sure, you can buy the whole cd, but I've got 300 individual songs that I WANT without the album cuts I don't but have paid for. Another tip for making back-ups in m4p format...if you dual-boot to Linux, make a tar archive of your iTunes directory (and burn that to cd also).
*You must make a back-up copy because Apple will not replace any files you lose. So you aren't *wasting* a CD and you can play it in the car.
Microsoft claims that HP bundling the iTunes program will be bad for competition.
In other news, pot calls kettle black. Film at 11.
ogg? that's all I care (in addition to mp3)
Seriously, I wish iPod would add Ogg Vorbis support, so that every discussion of digital music on Slashdot would not degenerate into a "What about Ogg?" circle jerk.
There are players that support Ogg Vorbis, if that is all you care about (see above). Please buy one and stop bothering us.
Why precisely would I, or anybody, but the HP model over the IPod? Is it cheaper? Because it is waaaaay uglier than the IPod. If it's cheaper, then isn't this likely to hurt Apple? I mean, I'd give up aesthetics for say $50 off the price tag.
I was originally thinking that HP would have the ipod features, but in a different style case. This thing looks like an IPod that's been severely bruised.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
AAC has one distinct disadvantage against WMA - royalties associated with its use going to various organizations. With WMA, Microsoft either has unlimited rights or owns everything in the format, so it can distribute encoders/players with no per-unit fee. However, if Apple wanted to undermine MS by distributing free (beer) software to encode AAC (aka Quicktime Pro for free)... they would be stuck with a per-unit charge. That's why we need Vorbis so much.
Having said that, I predict more embarrasing blunders from M$ execs on this issue (which is a non-issue really).
Why should Apple support WMA at all? Microsoft is their enemy, so why support one of their closed formats? If you want to add further value to your player just support ogg vorbis and FLAC! But don't pump cash into Microsofts pockets 'cause they will know how to use it against you.
-virgo cluster
We could have chosen another format, but that would have created more confusion for our customers.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Ogg is all fine and good, but hardly anyone knows about it, even fewer people use it, and there really isn't any good reason for these facts to change.
I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.
From the article:
"Most customers don't care about the format they're downloading."
I think he meant to say:
"Most customers don't care about the wma format, they're not worth downloading."
Silly HP.
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 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
this supports ogg vorbis. And mp3. But i don't think it does AAC
Remember: If you buy anything from spammers, you have a small penis.
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
"Thurrott's singing a different tune lately, anyway...."
You'd think he could sing it in a more web friendly format, anyway. Instead of using the HTML paragraph <P> tag, he uses single line break <BR> tags to separate his paragraphs. Makes for one big unfriendly block of text.
I guess the important point to him isn't that you necessarily read, or enjoy reading, his article. Maybe he just wants to innundate you with text so that he appears really authoritative. I don't know.
If MS wants WMA on the iPod badly enough (big if), I wonder if they could write an app that allows users to add the codec to the player? And if so, would it be a violation of the DMCA? Some kinda reverse engineering violation.
Paid opinions make me nauseous. Who can take this guy seriously? He's just a monkey with a microphone.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
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.
And according to Mr. Thurrot: And, for what it's worth, I own two iPods and have downloaded more than 200 songs from the iTunes Music Store...
So your way of championing consumer choice is to recommend WMA and invest your time/money in Apple's product and 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
... what hurts the industry more is lame-duck journo's trying to make waves with controversy and tabloid tactics in a field which has no truck with these sorts of tactics, usually ...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I don't want drm enbedded wmf. That yould limit me to one os and player.
Da Blog
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.
If so, what are your experiences? What apps do you use? Do you need to use a mac or windows iPod or does it matter?
Been thinking of getting one, but, would only be using it with my Linux boxes...and early research didn't show many tools, and seemed to indicate problems or limitations (you couldn't download mp3's from your iPod back to computer, or if you stored them as data..you couldn't listen to them?)
Would greatly appreciate someone with experience giving some info and/or links...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This makes perfect sense. Supporting more than just Apple's format means more competition from other online music stores. I don't know how much money Apple will make off each unit sold from HP but I would bet that Job's has his eyes on the longer term money maker with this deal...the iTunes store.
"Ogg is all fine and good, but hardly anyone knows about it, even fewer people use it, and there really isn't any good reason for these facts to change."
Remember around 1994 when folks were saying things like:
"Linux is all fine and good, but hardly anyone knows about it, even fewer people use it, and there really isn't any good reason for these facts to change."
There was reason, and there is reason now. The point is with ogg you can freely install encoders and players on whatever you want without paying anyone anything, and you can redistribute as part of your own product etc. just as you can with linux.
The same is not true of mp3 (without treading dangerous ground legally), just as it is not true of windows.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
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 is no CODEC that is America's God-given right."
3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
I will bitch an moan all day for open, non-patented solutions. Unless I can't play my illegaly downloaded music. That stuff comes in a format which is patented, but you better support it.
Hell, personal convictions be damned, just give me everything for free.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
You could almost make the same point except that AAC and WMA are very different beasts.
Quoting apple's site:
"AAC was developed by the MPEG group that includes Dolby, Fraunhofer (FhG), AT&T, Sony, and Nokia"
So Apple does not control the development of AAC, that consortium does. The only thing proprietary in Apple's AAC format is the DRM stuff. If you rip your own files, by default they'll be AAC without DRM, and I can play that music anywhere I have an AAC supporting player. I can play AAC files with XMMS if I want to, just not the DRM encoded Itunes files.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I recently posted reviews of Napster 2.0 and the iTunes Music Store over at Breakdown Industries. Those are two of the biggest sources of WMA and AAC files, respectively, and the availability of portable players factored into the reviews.
BTW, the site itself is dedicated to promoting the independent music scene, so other factors included cross-platform compatability (i.e., non-Windows) and the selection of independent labels and artists. Not sure if it will hold up to a Slashdotting, but it's worth finding out.
"The iPod accounts for a third of the market for digital players, according to Apple." I guess the iPod isn't as iPopular as iThought...
Paul responded to a poster on his site by stating that the Apple/HP deal was "contraversial at best"... This was my response:
The only place that the HP deal was "controversial" is on this site and in Redmond. Most of the media reports I have read praise HP's savvy for hitching itself to a rising star like the iPod.
As far as licensing "Protected AAC," if Microsoft wants to make a deal with Apple to include Quicktime in all its Windows iterations, I'm sure Apple would be amenable. Then any Windows program would have the hooks available to play protected content without downloading a thing, including iTunes.
After the anti-trust decisions, there is nothing to stop HP from loading any software they want on their systems, most likely including the "Media Center" type PC's. This would allow more choice, not less.
You keep harping on incompatibilities- it seems to me that adding a supported format is more like a burner supporting + and - DVD formats- you are *enhancing* compatibility. Like the DVD format wars neither P-AAC or WMA is going away anytime soon- that being the case isn't it in the best interest of the consumer and HP to give the consumer a choice? Its not like HP is going to stop selling its WMA devices, it will be selling a *single* device with P-AAC support and letting the consumer choose? Where exactly is the downside?
The reason you sound like a MS shill is that there is no discernable downside to anyone except Microsoft. They lose their united front and it makes Apple appear like a standard setter that compete with the behemoth. It is a radical perception change in the industry for Apple. Its huge for them and a huge perceptual threat to Microsoft.
Microsoft has spent so much time building a perception of dominance and invulnerability specifically so that it could bully others into accepting de facto standards in which it controlled critical intellectual property. But the house of cards is built on that perception alone. Now Apple has smashed that perception to smithereens- and Bill won't be able to put humptey dumptey back together again.
Please respond to these kind of specific points rather than only responding to the trolls and flamebait and complaining about them.
I can copy my mp3s to any mp3 player and they will play.
I can give a cd of mp3s to my mother and she can easily play them on her computer without having to futz around.
I have no need to distribute a product and I would say the same thing for the vast majority of people.
What I can't do is fluff up my ego by telling strangers I use a sexy standard to encode my music. I guess I can live with that.
I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.
Popular Windows editor Mr.Paul thurrott is marrying none other than Miss.Laura Didio. Mr. Thurrott, who was running excited all around the Redmond campus, was quoted as saying: "Well, it all started when we had this conversation last week. I was saying my usual stuff like 'I like Windows, I hate Linux and Mac etc.' to which she kept on saying 'me too!' Finally, I told her that I was full of shit and I still smelled like dead bunnies. And to my surprise, she said 'me too!!!'. From that moment on, we knew we were made for each other(tm)..."
getSexySig();
Maybe I'm a fanatic about these things but...
What's wrong with mp3's/oggs? The premise on which iTunes is based (that here is a method that allows you to download legally) is wrong; in fact, lots of musicians are putting mp3's out there for free. Look at dmusic.com , IUMA, irate radio and netlabels . Some of the stuff is eclectic, experimental, not mass market, but it's not that far off.
I stopped listening to commercial music 6 months ago (although I still donate to artists with tipjar links). For "open content" listeners like me, all this talk of proprietary locked content only encourages musicians to put their content in locked formats. That is bad for everyone.
Share the Music day ; sharethemusic weblog
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
according to some of the articles it says that Apple will be making the HP iPods with the blue/grey case, not licensing the technology out. It will effectively be the Apple iPod with a HP wrap. It's the same guts as the Apple model (even the Apple symbol on startup), and will work with the same accessories as the Apple one because it's the same form factor.
Points to HP for bucking the trend and using standards instead of the Microsoft assigned format.
I am glad that HP isn't going to support WMA format. I am glad that Apple isn't even really considering it. There are so many mp3 players out there and a few online music stores, but HP did it right, and licensed the iPod technology from Apple, and is going to use the iTMS. Plus, I am sure that Carly heard how bad WMA format is. I tried it once, and really, I couldn't believe how horrible it was compared to MP3 at 128, and even at 96!
Now, only if we can get Apple to relize that making OS X for x86 machines would be profitable...maybe HP would be selling OS X on there machines....what a wonderful world that would be..
eh, this sucks, I am going back to bed....
At a given bit-rate, every compressed/encoded song will be roughly the same size.
Now, what you're doing is encoding it at a lower bit-rate (probably an ear-numbing 64kb), and saying "Hell, *I* don't hear a difference its fine".
If you're happy at 64kb, congratulations...you have tin ears and that's a good thing because you'll fit four times as many songs on your player as a discerning person.
But WMA can't compress *better*. Its a physical impossibility.
Look all around you, Paul. How much of your computing world has Apple changed? A damn site more than you're crediting them with, that's for sure.....
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?
my subject may be confusing... i meant:
Apple is manufacturing the devices, not twisting arms
I saw a previous slashdot item that mentioned an online retailer that sells MP3 songs by monthly subscription, or by bandwidth ($5 for 500 MB).
http://www.allofmp3.com
There is more info here:
http://www.museekster.com/allofmp3info.htm
Jason
Well shit. I guess that sound you hear is everyone *not* rushing out to cancel their iPod orders.
Seriously, WMA support on my iPod is about as useful as being able to put cornflakes in my toaster. Who gives a shit?
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
I've probably been trolled, but any proof of this? How the hell can a music format, which contains no executable code, contain a trojan? Unless it's exploiting a major bug in the player, the only trojan I can possibly see it having is having the wrong content (someone farting in to a microphone or something? I have no idea.) Or maybe stupid browsers decide to only show you .ogg instead of .ogg.vbs or something stupid like that, but that's not a problem of the format, right?
But yea, I'll give the trolling AC benefit of the doubt: prove me wrong.
and it's sexier....(the ipod that is)...and more pricier.
As opposed to number of people who knew or know about AAC? I didn't think so... yet that didn't prevent Apple from incorporating it into their product. Next point.
If you're going to be so anti-microsoft (not that I'm pro-MS, or M$, or whatever you guys are wanking over nowadays), the least you could do is not be so generic about it.
From a recent Wired article:
Over the years, one company has stuck by Apple through thick and thin.
While plenty of other companies, friend and foe alike, abandoned the Mac platform, one firm's support never wavered.
And when other companies failed to make products compatible with Macs, this software maker frequently made sure it shipped cross-platform products.
In fact, without the backing of this firm, Apple likely would have died. Who is Apple's guardian angel? It's the firm that Mac users most love to hate, the bogeyman of the Mac universe, the one company whose products some Mac fans refuse to use on principle: Microsoft.
Though many Mac users might be loathe to admit it, Microsoft has solidly supported the Mac from the get-go.
"A lot of developers quit the Mac platform, but Microsoft wasn't among them," said a former Apple marketing manager who worked at the company through the mid- and late 1990s and asked to remain anonymous.
"During the dark days they kept developing Office, and that was way important," the source added. "That was the true test of loyalty. Others weren't so loyal." The source said Office is so important to the Mac, without it the platform would have withered away.
"To have a mainstream platform, you've got to have Office," he said."
It's worth pointing out that Apple does not manufacture the iPod (it's contracted out to a efficient manufacturer). So there might be some economies of scale in increasing volumes... but not a lot. However, the HP deal does open up a new distribution channel (cheap PC stores/Staples/discounters) for the iPod. But if any of these firms sell the identical device for less than Apple then Apple loses the ability to drive all those buyers to the Apple stores. I can't image that the HP channel discounters are going to agree to sell at MSRP -- I think it's illegal for the manufacturer to set prices, which may lead to the interesting situation of iPods being sold for less if you don't buy them from Apple. Other than color, there needs to be something the distinguishes the Apple iPods from the HP ones (e.g., size, capacity, controls).
Other than some serious ego-stoking, I don't see what's in this for either Apple (undercutting their high-margins) or HP ("our product development is so bad, we had to go license something from Apple"). The only benefit of the deal is that the products can be call HiPPod (for hip pods or hippopotamus).
Back before the "new" HP, the HP products were innovative and well made-- now they're pretty much junk. It's rare that I consider buying HP gear--especially for higher priced networking or business products.
It's sad what has happened to a once great company (in 5 or 10 years, they'll be mentioned along with Digital, Honeywell and Prime).
If it played FLAC it would be the perfect player... or if the Rio Karma had an FM tuner... so close to my perfect player, still it doesn't exist.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
WMA is about choice.
As long as you dont choose to play wma file on a Linux or OSX box, you can do whatever you want.
Masters of slime. all of them.
AAC is owned by Dolby...
I'm not sure if that's exactly correct. According to Apple, AAC was developed by the MPEG group, of which Dolby is a member, but appears to be a large organization with hundreds of members.
I don't profess to follow all the inner workings of the MPEG group, or how the AAC licensing works, but this page has some details. Those licensing fees are collected by Via Licensing (an independent subsidiary of Dolby), but that doesn't mean the IP is owned by Dolby....
But I'm just researching by random Google searches... someone else might have better (as in knowledgable) info than me.
--Mid
I like how when the choice is "something not by Micro$oft" that user doesn't understand they are limiting themselves (to a choice that doesn't have a Micro$oft answer).
Isn't buying and iPod a choice?
Really, if you don't like ACC and really like WMA then don't buy an iPod. But if you like a MP3 player that has a brilliant user interface, great music store association and ability to play ACC and MPEG-Layer3 files then get an iPod.
Sh*t or get off the pot.
In PERFECT condition, with 4 speaker, with a calm environnement, AAC and WMA are equal to each other and superior to MP3. But with a walkman, a medium/cheap headphone (like msot people have) and normal city sound environement the quality is so that all format are equal in real condition (noise!). So frankly, I'll let you all go to AAC and WMA, and like someboday said (www.penny-arcade.com) I will keep a wad of cash and a nice mp3 player, and let you use Itune or whatever WMA/AAC player with a far lighter on the money side...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Go into the street. Talk to the younger people for one. Ask them : do you want WMA, AAC, or Mp3. Chance are they know what MP3 is, buit not the 2 other. Oh, they might have heard of Itune, but hey, it is too expensive for anybody with income like student (25 and lower year old).
So yes maybe WMA+AAC have a 100% legal market of (made up number) 20 million people world wide, but MP3 has the illegal market in 95% of the country of the world and a market share of 50 times more people.
What people wants is cheap music which they want to copy and use wherever they want. So to take your anology (which is correct, betamax mostly lost due to not matching customer wishes) then who will win ? WMA ? AAC ? Or simply MP3 because the difference of quality and usability in comparison to the two other is enorm ??
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
In Thurrott's latest article (referenced above) he claims the iPod mini "won't be available for months". I just checked the Apple online store and the estimated shipping date is Feb. 16. Months? Not quite.
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 will say no more
Bob
Hey Paul, thanks for being such a dumbass. It gives us at slashdot something to ridicule on a regular basis.
Oh, and whoever's running the website needs to learn how to make it more readable.
So if you buy an iPod and use it only with music from the net, copied from you old gramophones, bootleg tapes, whatever. They don't give a damn. They made their money.
Notice that the iPod does play mp3s perfectly fine.
Your anology to vcr's is not bad like those the money is made on the hardware. Not on the tapes. That is an other industry's worry. You will notice that Betamax is still around as it is the baby brother off professional video equipment. But sony will still sell you a betamax vcr. Oh and no need for betamax vs betamax. There was something called V2000 as well. Never heard of it? Damn I feel old.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If the HP iPod does not support WMA then what is the difference between an Apple iPod and the HP version? Is there a difference or is it just a rebadge.
Which is exactly the reason to support as many formats as possible. Most people buying a new computer with XP are going to rip their CDs using Windows Media Player, thus getting WMAs. It's sad, but true.
Politas
From 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.
I don't get it. Are they adding support for WMA, or for a superior format?
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
No matter what you or any other Ogg Fanatic says, Ogg probably violates the patents on psycho-acustic modeling that created the mp3 standard.
The owners of those patents haven't sued anyone over Ogg support yet, because no device with Ogg support is being made by a company with any significant ammount of money.
But you can bet your ass that if Apple supported Ogg on the iPod, they'd not only have to fight a lawsuit for patent infringement, but they might also lose their license for mp3 technologies used elsewhere (iTunes encoding, etc...)
Right or wrong, supporting Ogg just isn't worth the potential risk to Apple.
He is an idiot and a tool. Big difference.
Er - none of Paul's comments in the Short Take's article were his wishful thinking - merely him reporting on what he's got from his sources.
If his sources are wrong, then thats hardly something to use to bash Paul Thurrot's credibility with.
The short takes article isn't there to provide quadruple-verified hardcore news anyway.
Format is not the issue. AAC is no more proprietary than WMA. One can argue that it is less so since reverse engineering would not be required to produce an independent codec from scratch that does not use Apple QuickTime. The M4A format that wraps the AAC encoder is not that complicated. No more so than WAV.
AAC has the advantage of being a true standard supported by ISO. It is part of MPEG-4. What is WMA?
Quite frankly, the only thing preventing a free AAC codec for Linux/BSD/whatever is the patent license. MP3 actually has the same problem, but people have skirted the issue.
The DEC research lab of old is dead.
Dead but not forgotten. The alpha sitting at my feet still keeps me warm on cold winter nights.
As for Carly... Jesus man, I haven't had my coffee yet. It's too goddamn early to deal with shit like that.
"We could have chosen another format, but that would have created more confusion for our customers."
so now choice == confusion? I'm so confused.
Well, it's nice to see that Apple, who's been out-engineering and out-innovating MS for twenty years, finally has their bloody attention.
Twenty years ago, with very little attention paid to what and how things were getting engineered -as there was very little choice compared to today (ok, 2 vs. 3 OSs, maybe a half dozen media formats vs zero) formats. It was all internal politics, with fewer IP issues at hand.
At MWSF Steve praised and promoted Office 2004, and he understands that MS the OS company is a joke, whereas MS the app foundry is closer to acceptable and aside from some lessons in style and simplicity, is worth competing with.
I'm glad there is a chance for apple to tell MS to drop dead in this arena. It's healthy. MS needs to, like every company, fear the abilities and position of a competitor, with little recourse other than to pound the table and head back to the drawing board.
May the best apps | formats | package win.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Comparing an XP service pack to a major upgrade in Mac OS X is like comparing a reeking old kayak to a massive luxury liner.
Apple delievers a solid product and constantly upgrades and patches their versions. Nothing forces you to upgrade. Your OS will still get security patches even if you don't upgrade. It's not a mandatory path. It's just a very desirable one.
Meanwhile, XP's update path is mandatory. If you want the security, you need to keep up. It's not just security either, it's lots of bugfixes that XP should not have had in the first place. This very seldom happens with Mac OS X. It consistently happens with Windows.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
The only difference is who defines "standard" - Dolby defined AAC "standard", Fraunhofer (or whatever their name) defined MP3, and Xiph foundation defined OGG Vorbis standard.
They all have their specifications published and those are called "standards." Move on troll somewhere else now. Don't even know why I replied but whatever...
Have a nice day, Paul! Buahahaha, he's the most AMUSING Microsoft fanboy I've ever seen... even better that the PH(not my)B I've met. He's what you wish all MS campers were like...
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Even idiots can tell a DRMed file from a non-DRMed one when they try to send it to their friends using their favorite chat-app, and it won't work. In fact, they can probably also tell when they try to burn a CD with their CD-burning app (fairly easy to use these days) and it can't recognize the file format. Most people can't tell one engine in a car from another, but if some cars were made so they could never be loaned or sold, you'd better believe the owners (even the stupid ones) would know it, and would be VERY pissed. Even windows users are beginning to expect a higher standard from their computers; they can tell the difference between a file from Kazaa (which can be traded and copied about freely) and a file from the "new" napster (which can't).
not as widespread as MP3, but I think moreso than AAC, and way more than Ogg (so far). At CES, there was a booth showing off lots of WMA-playing portables, like the Rio Nitrus etc. I think every one played MP3 as well, some probably also played AAC. I wish that one played Ogg, too, it's a great shape and now up to 4 GB ;) (They did not have the Karma at the same booth, I did not notice any ogg-capable players there, but this display I guess was meant to be representative, rather than comprehensive, so that's not necessarily a conspiracy :) )
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
We should all just ignore him. Maybe then he'll go away.
Carly and Bill are in the midst of spat.
...um... tablets to the world when Bill specifically wanted her to at the great unveiling or tablet PCs. As per the gossip, the HP staff was banished from the after-show party. ...meeow...
Not too long ago, elReg had a story about how Carly snubbed Bill by not showing off her
cheers- raga
On the issue of choice for consumers, what's to stop another company from building an online music store that uses AAC+Fairplay? Wouldn't those files play on an iPod? Wouldn't that be a great way for a new player in this space to access the 30% market share of iPods? Same for the player: If you pay Dolby for AAC and Veridisc for Fairplay, couldn't you build a player that played AAC+Fairplay files, be they from iTMS or another store that uses the same format? Wouldn't that be a great way to hook into the 70% marketshare for legal downloads? Apple would have every reason not to stand in the way of more AAC+Fairplay vendors, and it could trust that iTMS (70% market share) and iPod (already beating lower-cost players) would still compete very well on usability.
The fact that Apple is the only one that currently uses AAC+Fairplay doesn't mean it's a proprietary lock-in like WMA, unless Dolby and Veridisc have licensed their codec and DRM exclusively, which wouldn't make sense for either company.
It just depends on what standard the market coalesces around. Right now, the market is tending to coalesce around AAC+Fairplay via iTMS, because Apple has provided the hands-down best user experience at the purchase and player level. And that pisses of Microsoft and glorified Windows resellers like Dell because they have this grand strategy of interconnected, interdependent formats that promote lock-in. All it means for them is monopoly: it benefits me not one bit if my music files use the same uber-codec as my video, so why not shouldn't I have the CHOICE to use an audio codec other than WMA?
Wow, another me-too product from a company that used to invent. It seems that Carly's HP is not an innovation based company that she would like all to believe. These new "consumer electronics" products are all based on other companies' previous products....not one is a new, innovative product.
"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."
Carly, call me crazy, but I think Apple already did that with iTunes for windows. You are a little late to the party.
As I have said many times before. HP is no longer run by engineers, it is run my MBAs and marketing groups. They see someone else's good idea and try to copy it. HP Invent? I don't think so.
-ted
Yea, Apple never supports standards. Things like Rendezvous (hey, I believe someone wrote Linux stuff for that!), *MPEG4* (which they've spent mucho time helping develop), thiings like using LDAP instead of a cooked up proprietary authentication scheme, etc.
Apple always seems willing to base their stuff on standards, and they usually help develop them, working with other people (everybody working on MPEG). With iTunes, they're deciding to use AAC; with DRM, yes, but how else will they be able to do it? Plus, that support of AAC is giving it the attention it deserves as the succesor of MP3 - and guess what? They couldve used *insert secret format here* and made that popular, but they didn't.
So yes, Apple does act in their own best interests, like all companies. But they seem to realize that often-times, their interests are in open standards, unlike, say MS. You choose.
----------
(define (.sig) (cons 'my (list 'other 'car 'is 'a 'cdr)))
http://4horsemen.net
I mean, is this the same HP that basically no one was talking about a month ago? This is not Dell or Gateway. Right? So how is HP gonna bring the industry to its knees by licensing a music player. Heaven for bid! I mean, has the industry been waiting for HP to release a player because only HP had the magic fiddly bits? Of course not. Does every maker look to HP to figure out what to load on their machines? Uh, no. Not a chance.
No one gives a shit what HP does. Except maybe those who'd like to use them to make a stink that makes Microsoft look like the good guys. And this tool is no exception.
If this is such a big scary problem, make a better player and take away Apple's market share. Otherwise, STFU.
- I am made of meat.
Most of these posts illustrate the mindset of the anti-MS crowd perfectly.
Just for a second, imagine the situation was reversed.
- MS makes and sells the most popular music hardware device.
- This device only works w/ non-DRMed mp3s and WMDRMed music files.
- You can only get the latter from MS-Tunes online store.
- MS refuses to license the WMDRMed format to other competing online music stores.
- MS refuses to support any other competing DRMed format on their music player, because they have 70% market share for online DRMed music and they want to keep their stranglehold in this market while increasing their market share in their 30% music device as well as establish WMA as the codec of choice.
You gotta look past prior perceptions here and call a spade a spade. The past transgressions of MS was about software ( 1 and 0's ) competing w/ software and the "evils" of integrating a browser w/ an OS. The situation is reversed and Apple finds itself acting no better....and I'd even argue worse as Apple has always tried to hold onto both the hardware and software market...foolish, imho.
That being said, I believe in a free market economy and Apple is certainly free to make this decision...I just don't believe it to be the right decision for them or the consumer. If past is any indicator....one company, one music player, one codec, one online store is not what is best for the consumer and will not win out in the long run.
Let's say this was the case. And let's also say this player and jukebox also play wav and aif and the WMA DRM actually didn't suck.
You're right, WE THE PEOPLE would bitch about it, you bet. Just as - if I may point out - a lot of people bitch about Apple's Fairplay DRM. But I give you that, we'd probably bitch just because it was MS.
But here's the cincher: could you imagine Apple representatives bitch about it the way MS reps do?
That's what makes a lot of people angry. Or at least sarcastic.
Now, about the poor customer: if the past is any indicator, the simplest and most practical solution - as perceived by the majority - will win out in the long run. At the moment it looks like - oops - that'll be the iPod with its non-intrusive DRM (as perceived by the majority), its quality and ease of use in every aspect. That is: the shop, the jukebox, the iPod as a hardware thingy and its software, they all have major sex appeal with everybody, not just geeks and nerds.
It might change, as quality and ease of use isn't everything, but as long as Apple keeps the iPod and the music reasonably priced (as perceived by the majority) they should be fine.
After all, it is about choice and the iTMS store has about the best choice of music. The WMA stores sell the same music, but less of it. And that, that, that is what's it's about here. The iPod is a MUSIC PLAYER. It'll play ALL your CD's, everything you digitize AND ALL the songs you buy in the biggest and most practical shop around. That's the choice that appeals to me - and most people, not which stupid codec is used.
Cheers, and excuse the shouting, didn't feel like html before coffee.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
AAC was developed by the MPEG group, of which Dolby is a member, but appears to be a large organization with hundreds of members.
;)
According to this site AAC was largely developed by the same group as MP3 (Fraunhofer Institute) in colaboration with various companies (AT&T, Sony, Dolby). You can find more info on AAC here. You can also contact them if you want a licence.
Goes to whichever open-source team can develop a codec optimized *for re-encoding*. The trick, as always, is to know enough about the source format's mechanisms of encoding, and problems, to only assume significant information in the areas of the stream where the codec performs well, and not spend as much time trying to model and integrate what is, in fact, noise created by the compression process. Someone do that to OGG, and watch the world flock to it. Because we need something for all of this commercial DRM'd music to be downcoded to so that we can remove the DRM for our own fair use - if for nothing else, then for backup purposes - with, ideally, no loss of quality from the original encoding form through a careful understanding, on the codec's part, of which parts of the audio stream have the significant bits.
-- A mind is a terrible thing.
Yeah, they are. That is why it is called the bitrate. Think about it.
I realize what you are saying, is that some codecs can sound better at a lower bitrate than others; I find, in reality, everyone encodes at between 128-256 kbps now matter what codec. So files are the same size.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.