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)
Jeez, whatever happened to WMA being superior?
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).
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.
wow...
;-)
anybody actually read the first article?
talk about being superfanboy!
some quotes:
- "Microsoft's superior Windows Media Audio format " (ehm... yeah)
- "Portable Media Center Devices Will Blow You Away" (wha? no it won't!)
- "Predictable Open-Source Advocates Decry Microsoft Anti-Linux Ads" (this on't a bit like those old beatles records... play it backwards, and you get the *real* hidden message!)
and this one is the best of the lot:
- "Jobs's Disappointing Macworld Keynote Address Makes Even Gates Look Good"
(okay, so maybe Jobs is boring, he always is, but making Gates LOOK GOOD? Paul? ya smokin' crack?)
well,
h357
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.
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.
Yeah, it could be done as a firmware update, if Apple needed it. iPod is based around the PortalPlayer PP5002 controller chip, and WMA is one of the codecs that PP's reference firmware already supports. There are other questions, of course, like which iPod models would have enough available memory to make use of yet another codec and so on.