Slashdot Mirror
iPod May Not Have The Horsepower For Ogg [updated]
An anonymous reader writes "Gizmodo has an interview with a Rio engineer who speculates that current iPods may not have enough CPU power and/or memory to decode Ogg. He concludes that the Minis might be able to do it, and the next generation iPods will certainly be able to. Of course, just because Apple can doesn't mean it will." Update: 06/06 04:44 GMT by T : csm writes with this rebuttal: "According to Monty from Xiph.org (author of the Tremor codec and OGG itself), it should very well be possible to run Ogg on older generation iPods."
Developer time and support time, mainly.
The more important question: What do they have to gain?
An engineer for a company in direct competition with Apple rips on Apple's hardware. Oh, he's speculating on it.
"Engineer Hugo Fiennes took a break from his day job as a hardware and firmware designer at Rio Audio (maker of the iPod competitor Karma player, among other things)"
That's news?
What's next, someone at Microsoft doesn't like Aqua? Ford engineer says Corvette "not as good as new Mustang"? Fiat engineers doesn't care for Ford Focus?
...a standard that doesn't have a lot of real-world support? I mean, if you go onto one of the p2p systems, you find that everything is still pretty much mp3. So there is some incentive there for Apple to provide mp3 support. Why would they want to promote an alternative standard that they aren't selling, though?
Seems to me that Apple wouldn't benefit much from ogg or flac support. So why bother - besides, the article makes it clear that the processor in the older ipods probably won't even support the decoding of ogg due to cpu limitations.
Barking up the wrong tree here, sadly. Ogg has to get some critical mass before Apple would even consider it.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Adding OGG support would be more than enough to convince me to buy an iPod. I can't really see the downside except for increased strain on the system memory, if what the article claims is true.
On
Apple may offend certain groups, such as Linux Users, by not supporting the Ogg Vorbis system, however the majority of computer users will never even consider using this codec. I submit this for consideration: What Operating system has the largest desktop user market share? Windows, obviously, Apple does not need to support Vorbis because Windows users, in general, have no need for this.
Well, true, but nobody ever says "MPEG Layer 3 Audio Only File" instead of just calling it "MP3". The tradition of having a three-letter file type extention usually sticks, and since Vorbis files are .ogg files, "Ogg" is the word that sticks.
This article indicates precisely why OGG Vorbis probably isn't a good idea on your ipod or mp3 player... namely, you get 25% LESS battery life. In a non portable, that's fine, but for a portable player with limited battery life... why in the world would anyone choose to get 75% performance with a negligable increase in sound quality (from headphones)?
Yeah, but so are my FLAC files, and my Speex files, I've also got some video (theora) files that are named with .ogg.
I've also got some of each that don't have any file suffixes beginning with dot
Credibility in AAC, mostly.
Y'know, the "better than mp3" codec Apple's trying to push?
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Exactly. Mod parent up. Etc.
Why would Apple want to support the Ogg Vorbis format? Call me cynical, and I've said this before, but what's in it for Apple?
Apple support MP3 because it's vital to their business model to get people with MP3 collections on board. Apple supports their own DRM-encumbered format so that they can sell you tunes via iTunes that you can't then share for free.
What's in it for Apple to support a new format that has no DRM? DRM where they want you to go. MP3 is just the bait.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Seriously, who cares about Vorbis outside the faction of *nix users with +1 Amulets of OSS Awe?
Apple's primary market are the throngs of not-quite-but-almost-technologically-literate end users out there who see gadgets as tools, not lifestyles. Does this afforementioned throng care about Vorbis? No. Should Apple therefore care about Vorbis? No.
Get the fuck over it, already.
Or 'seriously, 99% of people don't care',
or 'it's still compressed you fools, so what if it supposedly sounds 1% better',
or 'Rio thinks using ogg will make them cooler than Apple'.
I feel a bit better now. Seriously now though, portable devices are mainly designed to be portable and easy to use. Musical fidelity, albeit important, is really not going to shine through with the crappy little in-ear headphones that people will invariably choose to use. The fidelity is irrelevant and this claim by the Rio chap is more of a drawback of Ogg Vorbis than the iPod in my eyes.
Developer time and support time, mainly.
The more important question: What do they have to gain?
this pretty much sums it up from Apple's perspective, but let me expound upon this -- Vorbis is dead for noncommercial use.
Don't get me wrong, I think Vorbis is an admirable project for a variety of technical and nontechnical reasons. I released music* exclusively in Ogg Vorbis for a while. But most people who are using digital music services are encountering it at the level of iTunes or another similar media player, often bundled with hardware or software. iTunes and others have paid Fraunhofer for the rights to use mp3, so people aren't ever confronted with the copyright issues surrounding mp3 when using iTunes or a similar player. As I recall there are freeware mp3 implementations not related to Fraunhofer as well. Further, when explaining Vorbis to an end user it is often compared to MP3.. (it's like mp3 but better) Vorbis is simply not as compatible as MP3 or WAV, though, so content providers are simply not as likely to provide content in this format natively. I really don't have time to encode, tag, test, upload, link 3 seperate copies of every song I want to release (MP3, OggVorbis, OggFLAC), so I choose MP3 and OggFLAC -- the most compatible 'fast' download and most capable 'broadband' formats, respectively (IMO). If you want Vorbis, you can encode them yourselves from the FLAC. But because of these compatibility and content issues, combined with the 'playing catch-up' position Vorbis has in the compressed codec field and the end-user transparency of the mp3 copyright issue, I just really think Vorbis is dead for noncommercial use. I could be wrong, but it might be a better use of resources for people to just accept this and move on to other projects or unadopted standards... ;-)
I do think Vorbis will continue to live on in commercial uses where the licensing really becomes an advantage, like using it to compress videogame soundtracks, or as a backend library in various types of computer software, or whatever. I do think it's possible that Apple could open up the iPod to accept 3rd party codecs, and that such a move could be beneficial if the implementation managed to keep end user support issues from becoming overwhelming. I don't know how long it will take Apple and the rest of the digital media industry to realize they can't forcibly and totally control the media fileformat playing field, and that some of the industry moves are hurting consumers (and thus the adoption and sales of these technologies!), but time will tell..
Somewhat off topic, but anyone wanna bet Apple's 'lossless' codec is just their DRM wrapped around FLAC? And yet it was a 30MB+ download!...
* Music server will be back online soon! New album in development! Visit my forums, music games video technology politics science recipes, etc.! Blah blah blah blah blah!
My new forum RSS feed!
I mean really, Apple, what do you have to lose?
probably been said before. But if the current iPod doesn't have enough oomph, then it can be argued that playing an ogg file probably consumes more power. How much more to decode? I don't rightly know. This may be a trivial arguement, but what if playing ogg files shaves an hour of battery lifetime. Then, you have people bitching about the battery life sucking.
just a thought. I'm sure there are better ones.
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
The codec is independent of the DRM, and the files generated by Apple's lossless encoder are AAC lossless files with no DRM. Thank you for demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Please send a me $1000 dollar check.
Yeah, you know me!
... they're happy with the sound quality. MP3 is huge 'cause it was first and it was free. ACC is huge because it's tied to iTunes and iTunes is the first pay-per-use DRM system. Unless OGG can offer something new, it'll have a hard time gaining support.
I think OGG's major hurdle is that it's trying to solve a problem that most people aren't aware exists. Storage is cheap, and getting cheaper. For the vast majority of listeners