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)
They didn't want to limit their customers' choices.
Jeez, whatever happened to WMA being superior?
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 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
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.
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'm so tired of the Linux operating system. It's like a god damned virus. Just the other day I was explaining the concept of a USB webcam to someone I know and when he showed me his PC, it was running Linux. Now of course it's easily converted, but that's one extra thing I'll have to show him how to do. Windows is the standard, nothing else should be supported, if only for clarity and simplicity reasons!
Understand this: Monopolies suck. Monocultures suck.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
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...
Easily converted? The last thing your friend needs to do is convert from one lossy format to another. If anything, that will convince him that WMA was superior all along.
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
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
I have personally witnessed Apple replacing lost downloads due to a hardware failure (hd crash). They do keep records.
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.
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
Crap. WMA may have DRM junk but at the same bitrate it sounds better than MP3. Numerous tests in addition to many people's ears (mine included) have proven this. When it comes to sound formats, sound quality is an important distinguishing characteristic in my book. Which is not to say I'm a great fan of WMA, I prefer Vorbis which sounds pretty similar to WMA, or even AAC (though the DRM'd version is just Apple's take on WMA). But MP3's ONLY advantage is that it's the lowest common denominator.
Still, it worked for GIF I guess.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
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
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"
How is the key DRM when DRM has nothing to do with the example we're discussing? There's no DRM on WMA files produced from your own CDs. Try reading the posts instead of just injecting your knee-jerk reaction based on one or two keywords.
The guy we're disucssing, the windows user who ripped all his CDs to WMA, just has a pile of files which sound better than they would have had he chosen MP3.
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.
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?
I use my iPod with Linux, and have for over a year. In fact, it has never been used with any other operating system, and I have never used iTunes or Musicmatch (or whatever the windows thing is called) so I can't really compare.
Linux firewire support is experimental in 2.4, so getting it working requires your basic linux skills, but I haven't had any real problems. Most firewire cards and MBs use a standard driver, so it is just to compile the modules (and firewire harddisk support) and run. I have never gotten automatic hotplug support working here, but scanning the scsi bus manually isn't that big a deal (and others apparently have). With kernels before 2.4.20 I had a recurring hard lockup while transfering, which was annoying, but that is gone now. And I don't think the drivers are completely optimal so the transfers are slower then advertised (but still many times faster than USB).
I don't know if it is better with the new iPods that support USB2.0, since I have an old firewire only model. And I haven't tried the 2.6 kernel which is supposed to have better firewire support.
The best software for adding and removing music that I have found is gtkpod. It is a nice, easy to use, GUI program that allows you to select music, construct playlists, etc. The page also contains information for getting all the other stuff working.
I am happy with my iPod on Linux.
I am only using MP3 files, though I understand that gtkpod has some support AAC files as well:
.m4p files .m4a
NEW FEATURE: import of AAC files (.m4a) supported, provided the
mp4v2 library from the mpeg4ip project
(mpeg4ip.sourceforge.net) is available during the compilation of
gtkpod. Writing tags to AAC files is also supported.
can also be imported, but they are not played by the iPod.
files work fine.
BTW, never mind what I said about not getting hotplug to work, I just checked it now and got it working fine using the instructions in the gtkpod README file.
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 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.