"MP3 death watch" article on CNN.com

haaz writes "CNN.com has a heavily anti-MP3 editorial called MP3 Death Watch. Death watch, huh? What is it with the media? Do they need something to be on a death watch now that Apple's back on its feet? "

Comments

MiniDisc prices are lower than that

[D-Fly]

More like $3 for Minidiscs. Thats the MOST I ever pay.

This article is NOT anti-mp3.

[FallLine]

This article is not anti-mp3 by any stretch of the imagination. He is analytically evaluating the commercial possibilities of mp3. I have been an #mp3 op on irc (undernet) for 3 or 4 years now, and I must agree with most of what he said. The Diamond Rio is not for the main stream and mp3.com is not going to make the big bucks. Mp3s will only thrive in certain niche groups. eg: college students and technically literate individuals who have convienient access to illegal mp3 copies, nerds, anti-establishment types, people who want to sample small bands, etc. I'd say the compressed internet distribution method will live on, even if mp3 dies. Like he points out, mp3 is just a means to an end. I don't imagine marginally superior encoding technologies supplanting the existing fringe mp3 user base.

However, mp3s as it stands now it simply can not supplant audio CDs. It needs broad commercial support. It will only make it big if one can go to a certain web site and download(or purchase) just about everything they want. There is nothing technically wrong with the mp3 format, or the current mp3 playback devices. The problem is the distribution method. There is no central place where the uninitiated can go and find what they want, when they want it. While the recording industry will never be able to effectively stamp out the fringe mp3 crowd, as long as it keeps up the pressure, it can make mp3s undesirable for the average user. Thus I would not bet the farm on mp3.com.

I can easily see some alternative format coming into the commercial market like gang busters. While the recording industry is not omnipotent, I think it would be foolish to under estimate their power. Given the fact that mp3s will not take the industry any time soon, it is just a matter of time before something else slips in. The recording industry knows that it needs to find a way to slip its foot in the Internet door. I don't believe it would be too hard for them to do so. With a minimal investment, they could collaborate and setup ONE central online music site on the internet. Put everything they have into that format, and make it readily available. They would probably also have to give the market confidence that they plan on sticking with it. And they'd probably have to make the media cheaper than CDs to encourage growth. But I could see it happening. All they'd need is to find some niche consumer market, and hardware manufacturers would jump in. Hell, with Sony and what not a member of RIAA they'd probably have a model developed before the site is even up.

MP3 "death" -- lack of consumer electronics

[crow]

I think the media defines death of MP3 as the lack of support from any major consumer electronics companies. These companies may manage to institute some alternate RIAA-friendly format for consumer electronics, but they won't stop people from using MP3 in computers or devices from small companies.

Did you actually read the article?

[atomly]

I wouldn't really describe this article as being "heavily anti-MP3." He kind of don't worry about the format, worry about the functionality and the freedom associated with it. He even made fun of the RIAA and their pathetic attempts to abolish the Rio and MP3. He simply says that sound quality almost as good as sound quality that was good ten years ago isn't good enough.
Admittedly, though, he does miss the mark on a few things. Like MP3s don't sound any worse than CDs if encoded properly. And MiniDiscs actually sound better than CDs (don't believe me? Buy one or check out www.minidisc.org)...
And the VCR point was excellent. Stupid RIAA has no vision... And the one thing that bothers me the most about the RIAA is their excuse that they're just looking out "for the artists." As an artist I fully embrace MP3s as a chance to be heard (www.mp3.com/atomly).
Anyway, music isn't something you should pay for anywway :) Intellectual property is wrong.

Read, think, post -- in that order only, please

[alkali]

(Apologies to Fran Lebowitz.)

What this article says (quite plainly, I think) is that while the concept of a compressed, readily exchangable digital audio format -- of which MP3 is one embodiment -- is clearly here to stay, notwithstanding the best efforts of the RIAA, kiss this particular embodiment of the concept goodbye the minute a better mousetrap comes along.

Ask yourself: If a new MP3-ish format came along with better sound quality, better compression rates, or -- last but certainly not least -- a public domain algorithm, wouldn't you switch in a heartbeat? If not, why not?

That having been said, here are some real questions to ask the author:

• What is the reasonable probability, from a technical standpoint, that some replacement format might come along anytime soon? Is it even feasible?
   
• Even if it's likely that there will be a new format, what is the reasonable probability that the new format will be public domain, or that the licensing terms for the format will be as favorable as MP3?
   
• Isn't your concern about overinvesting in in MP3-specific hardware, etc., exaggerated, as most MP3 playback devices will be readily reprogrammable by one method or another?

I'd be very interested to hear someone with some knowledge of audio compression theory, audio hardware, etc., speak to these issues. (I'm sure there are other issues I haven't thought of.) The less said about how CNN is trying to crush MP3, however, the better, because that's clearly not the point of the article.