PDA

View Full Version : WMA Support for iPod: When?




clayj
Feb 10, 2005, 01:01 AM
Hey Apple,

I've got over 4700 songs ripped in WMA format (most 128kbps, some 192kbps) from CDs that I've bought over the past 20 years. I'd like to buy an iPod, but I have this thing about not wanting to convert my tracks into any other formats... when, oh when, will you add WMA support to iTunes and iPod? I'll buy an iPod if you do. :)

Sincerely,
Clay (a Visitor, but not a Switcher)



Wes
Feb 10, 2005, 01:24 AM
I've got over 4700 songs ripped in WMA format (most 128kbps, some 192kbps) from CDs that I've bought over the past 20 years. I'd like to buy an iPod, but I have this thing about not wanting to convert my tracks into any other formats... when, oh when, will you add WMA support to iTunes and iPod? I'll buy an iPod if you do. :)

Sincerely,
Clay (a Visitor, but not a Switcher)

The chip apple uses has WMA support but they are not going to turn it on ever I think. It's subpar compared to say AAC.

ravenvii
Feb 10, 2005, 01:54 AM
Probably never... WMA does stand for Windows Media Audio :)

iindigo
Feb 10, 2005, 05:31 AM
Probably never... WMA does stand for Windows Media Audio :)

Haha yeah, plus the fact WMA sucks really bad, even compared to Mp3s...

Blue Velvet
Feb 10, 2005, 05:39 AM
If you don't want to convert your files -- which is understandable, going from one lossy format to another then you better start the big re-rip if you want an iPod...

...or buy another mp3 player that will support WMA :D

Sun Baked
Feb 10, 2005, 05:39 AM
If Apple turned it on, they'd have to pay Microsoft for every iPod they sell.

Heck, this is MS -- Apple would also have to pay them for every copy of iTunes that's downloaded.

Remember, many of the codecs that Apple has dropped from Quicktime -- was because the companies got greedy and went from a nominal amount to serious money.

Which is why they are either only available under Pro, or as a seperate and expensive download.

devman
Feb 10, 2005, 05:40 AM
gee I know one should never say never but this is about as close as it comes I think. Highly unlikely to get wma support. When you dominate you don't make it easy for competitors. MS is an endless case study of this...

brap
Feb 10, 2005, 05:44 AM
...but I have this thing about not wanting to convert my tracks into any other formats...That's rather unfortunate, then, isn't it!

BornAgainMac
Feb 10, 2005, 06:19 AM
I wonder when WMA as an audio format will die? 2008? 2012? It probably will eventually be improved with a newer codec to improve it's quality. So that means all the CDs will have to be re-ripped.

Is the marketshare of paid WMA music under 2% yet.

Bear
Feb 10, 2005, 08:17 AM
Hey Apple,

I've got over 4700 songs ripped in WMA format (most 128kbps, some 192kbps) from CDs that I've bought over the past 20 years. I'd like to buy an iPod, but I have this thing about not wanting to convert my tracks into any other formats... when, oh when, will you add WMA support to iTunes and iPod? I'll buy an iPod if you do. :)

Sincerely,
Clay (a Visitor, but not a Switcher)If you ike subpar sound...

Anyway, 4700 tracks is roughly 350-400 albums. Going back to re-encode the albums into a better sound format shouldn't be that bad. As you sit and do other things on the computer feed the CDs in. It could be done a month at the most. It could probably be done in under 10 days without breaking a sweat.

ClarkeB
Feb 11, 2005, 02:57 PM
The question is better phrased: WMA Support for iPod: Why?

clayj
Feb 11, 2005, 03:02 PM
The question is better phrased: WMA Support for iPod: Why?Why NOT, I would say. How about, because it will increase the potential user base even further, especially for people like me who already have thousands of WMA tracks? How about, because the iTunes software is already aware of WMA (it converts WMA to AAC) and any discussion of having to pay money to Microsoft therefore doesn't make any sense? How about, because it's the right thing to do?

I've already spent a considerable amount of time ripping my CDs into WMAs, and I don't want to have to do it again... at the same time, I don't want my music being converted from one lossy format (WMA) to another (AAC). If the iPod's chips can support WMA, then they should.

Apple can do what they like, but I'm not buying an iPod until I can play my WMAs on it, sans conversion.

jeremy.king
Feb 11, 2005, 03:20 PM
...any discussion of having to pay money to Microsoft therefore doesn't make any sense?
Perhaps you should review the licensing requirements. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/consumerdevices.aspx

I've already spent a considerable amount of time ripping my CDs into WMAs

This was your first mistake.

but I'm not buying an iPod until I can play my WMAs on it, sans conversion.

Enjoy your Creative :rolleyes:

dotdotdot
Feb 11, 2005, 03:24 PM
Has anyone ever listened on Microsofts website the "difference" between mp3 and wma? mp3 sounds ok... but wma sounds great! why? they used a different song!!

tykles
Feb 11, 2005, 03:27 PM
This was your first mistake.

Enjoy your Creative :rolleyes:

LOL :D

I think keeping WMA off of the iPod is what they refer to in the industry as "quality control".

clayj
Feb 11, 2005, 04:29 PM
Enjoy your Creative :rolleyes:I don't own a music player. If I did, think I'd be asking this question? (If I did, it'd be one of those Creative Windows Media machines that also plays TV and movies... something iPod doesn't do.)

dejo
Feb 11, 2005, 04:31 PM
Hey Apple,

I've got over 4700 songs ripped in WMA format (most 128kbps, some 192kbps) from CDs that I've bought over the past 20 years. I'd like to buy an iPod, but I have this thing about not wanting to convert my tracks into any other formats... when, oh when, will you add WMA support to iTunes and iPod? I'll buy an iPod if you do. :)

Sincerely,
Clay (a Visitor, but not a Switcher)

Did you send this feeback to Apple also?

Blue Velvet
Feb 11, 2005, 04:39 PM
I don't own a music player. If I did, think I'd be asking this question? (If I did, it'd be one of those Creative Windows Media machines that also plays TV and movies... something iPod doesn't do.)

So why ask about iPods & WMA if you have no intention of buying one? :confused:

No flames, just curious...

Mechcozmo
Feb 11, 2005, 04:41 PM
I think keeping WMA off of the iPod is what they refer to in the industry as "quality control".

Hehe... so WMA is 'good' but AAC is 'lossy'?
Who is winning the marketshare wars now?

WMA='lossy'
AAC= 'Good'

:D

(AAC is actually very good, IMO, and if you want better quality but smaller files try either upping your encoding bitrate OR try Apple LossLess)

devman
Feb 11, 2005, 05:19 PM
Why NOT, I would say. How about, because it will increase the potential user base even further, especially for people like me who already have thousands of WMA tracks?

They already dominate. In that position you force people to your format. You force them by not supporting the other. You don't do anything to legitimize the competitive format.

What's ironic about this is it is straight from the MS playbook.

Apple can do what they like, but I'm not buying an iPod until I can play my WMAs on it, sans conversion.

Correct, they can do what they like. You can also do what you like which is to not buy an iPod.

(p.s. and off-topic, wonderful collection you have)

Brize
Feb 11, 2005, 05:44 PM
Clay: I can understand your frustration, but WMA is a proprietary format. Had Microsoft adopted a standard encoder, this probably wouldn't be an issue. As such, your frustration with Apple is perhaps misplaced.

As others have mentioned, WMA offers poor sound quality when compared to mp3 or mp4 (AAC), so perhaps this is a blessing in disguise. Regardless of which player you end up purchasing, it would be a good idea to invest some time in re-ripping your CDs to a better, universal format, such as mp3.

Finally, what's the difference between Apple locking out WMA and other manufacturers locking out AAC? Those of us who use AAC are in the same position as you: our choice of portable music players is limited because we've chosen to use a format that doesn't enjoy universal support.

daveL
Feb 11, 2005, 06:00 PM
When hell freezes over.

Bear
Feb 11, 2005, 06:25 PM
When hell freezes over.Didn't that happen when Apple announced iTunes for Windows? :D

Articles about it here (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=7110) and here (http://www.silicon.com/silicon/hardware/storage/0,39024649,10006445,00.htm).

Rod Rod
Feb 11, 2005, 08:14 PM
Hey Apple,

I've got over 4700 songs ripped in WMA format (most 128kbps, some 192kbps) from CDs that I've bought over the past 20 years. I'd like to buy an iPod, but I have this thing about not wanting to convert my tracks into any other formats... when, oh when, will you add WMA support to iTunes and iPod? I'll buy an iPod if you do. :)

Sincerely,
Clay (a Visitor, but not a Switcher)

Hi Clay, here's an idea:

1. In iTunes convert all 4700 songs into AAC.
2. Organize everything (artist, album, track name) if it doesn't organize itself.
3. In the coming year, re-rip one or two albums a day. Use the CDDB to speed everything along. Add album art for a nice finishing touch.

I see your point about re-ripping everything. However, with a gradual approach it'll be manageable.

What makes the whole endeavor worthwhile is how great iTunes and iPod are together.

By the way, you're not a visitor, you're an adder. :)

Sun Baked
Feb 11, 2005, 08:16 PM
Hehe... so WMA is 'good' but AAC is 'lossy'?
Who is winning the marketshare wars now?

WMA='lossy'
AAC= 'Good'

:D

(AAC is actually very good, IMO, and if you want better quality but smaller files try either upping your encoding bitrate OR try Apple LossLess)Don't you mean?

WMA='Lousy'
AAC= 'Good'

aafuss1
Feb 11, 2005, 10:42 PM
Well, didn't SJ say in last June , that unless WMA reaches 50% of the market, then Apple would add .wma support.

isaacc7
Feb 12, 2005, 08:02 AM
Why are there so few players supporting aac? It seems as though all players that aren't ipods support WMA, but I don't know of any that support AAC. I was excited because our store started carrying the Lexar music players, but no AAC support, so I'm not buying one...

Isaac

daveL
Feb 12, 2005, 12:38 PM
Why are there so few players supporting aac? It seems as though all players that aren't ipods support WMA, but I don't know of any that support AAC. I was excited because our store started carrying the Lexar music players, but no AAC support, so I'm not buying one...

Isaac
There's at least one (I Googled it):

http://www.nokianokia.com/NokiaMP.html

Not much capacity, though. I imagine there are more.

watcher2001
Mar 9, 2005, 02:21 PM
There is a lot of discussion about WMA but what about Ogg Vorbis. I think that if we are going to ask for support for one format we may as well cover them all. BTW, there was a comment about raising the bit rate.. This is not always the best answer. I have found variable bit rate to be best yet.

wrldwzrd89
Mar 9, 2005, 03:14 PM
There is a lot of discussion about WMA but what about Ogg Vorbis. I think that if we are going to ask for support for one format we may as well cover them all. BTW, there was a comment about raising the bit rate.. This is not always the best answer. I have found variable bit rate to be best yet.
AAC doesn't support VBR the same way MP3 does.

While we're at it, why not add some other codecs too?
FLAC
Monkeys Audio
"The Module Zoo" (669, AMS, AMF, DSM, FAR, GDM, IMF, MOD, MDL, MTM, MXM, OKT, PLM, PSM, PTM, S3M, STM, UNI, XM, etc.)
etc.

Rod Rod
Mar 9, 2005, 08:38 PM
There is a lot of discussion about WMA but what about Ogg Vorbis. I think that if we are going to ask for support for one format we may as well cover them all. BTW, there was a comment about raising the bit rate.. This is not always the best answer. I have found variable bit rate to be best yet.

Ogg Vorbis and WMA support-in-iPod requests = red flag for trolling.

dubbz
Mar 10, 2005, 11:06 AM
AAC doesn't support VBR the same way MP3 does.

That's just an iTunes limitation. Encoders like Nero and FAAC support VBR.

watcher2001
Mar 11, 2005, 02:47 AM
Ogg Vorbis and WMA support-in-iPod requests = red flag for trolling.

Would one care to explain exactly WTF you would call me a troll? I will admit that I am new to the forum but I am far from a troll. If you did not note the sarcasm in first post then you may need to skip the boards for a while.