Poll: Should Apple incorporate Windows Media Audio support into the iPod? [Archive]

applefan

Oct 1, 2003, 01:48 AM

based on all i've read on this forum, Apple would do better to sell more iPods. i believe Apple will sell more iPods if they support WMA because Apple will appear to be more compatible, so there will be less arguments against an iPod purchase.

Though iPod buyers may experiment with other download services, they will eventually gravitate to and stick with the ITMS for windows because it is better and it will be included with the iPod. This will actually make AAC more familiar to windows users because they're buying more iPods.

Additionally, many on this forum have said that AAC is superior to WMA, so if the iPod supports both, then people can make a fair and easy comparison between the formats. This could also bring positive exposure to AAC.

So, supporting WMA is good for AAC.

ph_555_shag

Oct 1, 2003, 01:57 AM

why not??
apple admited that te reason for iTunes on windows was to sell more iPods...if it sells the high margin iPods i see no problem

shadowfax

Oct 1, 2003, 02:04 AM

really, even in windows world, how many people who are remotely serious about their music collections actually use wmv? i don't think it's worth paying any kind of royalty for to get on the iPod.

MoparShaha

Oct 1, 2003, 02:06 AM

If they incorporated WMA, it would just be fuel to the fire for Microsoft. Microsoft has to be blocked at every turn, someone has to oppose them. If they go unchallenged, as they largely have, they will continue to dominate everyone and everything. I think the #1 selling MP3 should not incorporate Microsoft technology. That in itself is a bold statement, and might make people think twice.

mac15

Oct 1, 2003, 02:17 AM

I brang this up in previous discussion. But if it were certified and accepted as an industry standard then maybe yes

nagromme

Oct 1, 2003, 03:33 AM

But the way MS wants to make an industry "standard" leaves MS in control--different from how Apple submits standards.

Besides, right now iPods must shop at iTunes--which is good for Apple.

usersince86

Oct 1, 2003, 03:36 AM

One of Apple's "new" concepts is compatability. More compatability = more sales.

I think I read something about WMP becoming open source. I truly think Apple should use the open source "standard" of WMP in the future as an ADDITIONAL (i.e. not the MAIN) supported media within OS X.

It's not unlike ".pdf" files... which Apple is doing better than Adobe.

Microsoft is not always the enemy. If it is, dump your version of office (and never use it again, even if files aren't compatible in another "office" program...)

I've used Macs since 1986, and will continue to do so. Not a windoze™ fan in any respect. But I'm not scared of competition and/or compatability. Apple continues to be way ahead of the game, and those who want the best buy Apple. Period.

Genie

Oct 1, 2003, 03:36 AM

I hate to see encryption in music, but they may have to play along.

isgoed

Oct 1, 2003, 05:05 AM

why no? just because you're a windowshater?

More is better. More compatibility is better. If you say that apple should not incorporate 3rd party standards because it is better from a competitive point, than apple is no better than microsoft. And it would probably sell even more ipods. Especially with all thos ipod clones hangin' arround that will support wmf9.

iHack

Oct 1, 2003, 05:18 AM

WMA is out there. Even if it used by a relatively small percentage of the windows user base, it will mean that a lot of content will be WMA. And a free choice to the user is good. Why shouldn't you be able to play it on your iPod? Because AAC is better?
Following this line of thought: doesn't that mean that the iPod should enforce a threshold for low bitrate MP3's too? Just because the quality is unacceptable to the 'music quality police'? What's next, banning Milli Vanilli and Modern talking because their music is crap?

Although it generally is crappy software, windows is acceptable to some 95% of computer users. Windows dominates the market. Get used to it.

M.

gojira

Oct 1, 2003, 05:59 AM

Apple has stated that they want to sell iPods, adding WMA support will enable them to sell more of them and perhaps by extension, more Macintoshes. Isn't this the bottom line?

Apple cannot afford to ignore WMA format. Perhaps when the Windows version of iTunes and the iTunes Store are out, the landscape will change, but WMA cannot be ignored, no matter how much one hates Microsoft, their shoddy products and their evil ways

Personally, I wouldn't want a device that doesn't support whatever format I want to use. It doesn't mean you'd be forced to use WMA, either. It just makes the iPod more flexible.

I DO take audio seriously and I don't take ANY form of compressed audio seriously (more than standard audio CD). These days, I think of DVD audio and the new SDCD formats...

... not which compressed audio format sucks less!

bennetsaysargh

Oct 1, 2003, 06:18 AM

ok. some people that are serious about iPods and iTMS might have some WMAs, especially when it comes out for windows. i think it should be out into it, but then it would have to be in mac and windows versions of iTunes. also, AAC is a standard, but not a commonly used one. yes it is the way of the future, but they need to start putting other formats in, like .ogg, and realaudio.

ssamani

Oct 1, 2003, 06:23 AM

Having watched all the "me too" entrants into the digital music distribution since the iTMS launch, the latest from Music Match threatens to remove most of Apple's Unique Selling Points (USP) that will get people to use it. The key ones that have now vanished were ease of use, no subscription fee and liberal fair use rights. The competition has now got all of these.

As Apple is not going to make much money from selling songs and it is clear that the whole thing is about selling iPods, then having a USP is key.

AAC is not a USP, cos it restricts choice. A Windows buyer can choose from a raft of online music stores with similar ease of use, fair use and costs. But they cannot listen to it on an iPod and they cannot listen to iTMS tunes on any other MP3 player.

iTMS will potentially be a victim of its own success, dragging competitors to go for the Windows market hell for leather.

If the business model is to sell iPods and consumers want choice (and they will as not all songs will be available on all online stores), then the iPod has to cover DRM WMA, and DRM MP4 AAC.

They cannot rely on the iPod's style as the USP to get people to use iTMS exclusively and really they shouldn't care about where people buy the music, they should just try to sell as many iPods as possible. With WMA and MP4A support, weight, battery life, USB 2.0 support, compatibility with all online stores the iPod has plenty of USP's. Without WMA, it restricts choice and that can be the proprietary killer that hurt for Apple in the 90's.

That all being said, they have to be careful not to undermine Quicktime and MPEG 4 for other uses, especially video. However given that the H.263 codec used in DivX is MPEG 4 based and everyone agrees that's the way forward for Internet based, DVD quality video, they should be OK.

Sanj

fixyourthinking

Oct 1, 2003, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by applefan
based on all i've read on this forum, Apple would do better to sell more iPods. i believe Apple will sell more iPods if they support WMA because Apple will appear to be more compatible, so there will be less arguments against an iPod purchase.

Additionally, many on this forum have said that AAC is superior to WMA, so if the iPod supports both, then people can make a fair and easy comparison between the formats. This could also bring positive exposure to AAC.

So, supporting WMA is good for AAC.

See this journal entry (http://slashdot.org/~adzoox/journal/39420) for an interesting sales penetration of the iPod.

As for choosing quality formats, actually, I'm glad Apple has already done it for me. They did a quality job making a quality experience. I don't want newbies, novices, and "against the grainers" messing up a pleasure experience for me. That's kind of like saying we should allow lights on in movie theaters - then see which moviegoers like it, which don't.;)

IMHO, the best way to bring exposure to AAC is to have companies like Philips expose WMA like they did in a press release the other day ... "a closed format with inferior quality" - a lot of audio enthusiasts saw that and will see that as that was one of the top Reuters headlines and will be posted in MANY Audiophile mags in the next couple of weeks. The iPod was pictured on my newspapers front page yesterday referring to quality online downloads vs the new offerings of MusicMatch or Dell.

dstorey

Oct 1, 2003, 07:22 AM

It's a hard one really. Without WMA, apple stand to win on both counts or lose on both counts. If people keep on buying iPod cause its the best then they will only have one option (at present), and thats to buy from iTunes. Once people have a player that only plays songs from that service, then they are stuck with it, and will continue to buy from there or rip thier own (and remember more people own iPod so a high number of people iTunes is the only option right now). If they intro WMA then they can buy from anywhere, but will also have songs that can play on any device, thus when in the market for their next iPod, their catalogue of music will also plasy on the creative player, and may buy that instead for eg.

Then you have to look at why people are using WMA? It'd probably cause MS are offereing cheaper licencing fee's than MPEG. This is very short sighted by the music services, cause MS are not doing this to be nice, i suspect. What to MS have to gain from this? same as they had from making IE free. It kills the other non-MS options in the market place, and creates ANOTHER monopoly for MS. I think it would be a very bad choice for Apple to allow this to happen, especially when they want to compeat with windows media, with Quicktime. Think, if instead of buying CD's with an open stardard, all the music you HAVE to buy to work in cd players, music playing devices etc are encoded in WMA with MS's choice of digital rights. Can anyone say palladium? MS controlling the muisc industry (and movie industry to follow?) is not even worth thinking about. With a name like Windows media as well, it will put it in peoples mind...'this must only work on windows right?' What wil mS do if this pans out and everythnig from cd's you buy in the shops to downloaded songs are in WMA? Increase the licencing fee? possible. Embrace and extend the standard, to make it only work on windows, using longhorn and palladium? again very likely. MS have already proved they can't be trusted, and people like Philips are gladly realising this. And by the way, WMA is not open source. As far as I know they have applied for the video version to be a standard, but this is different from OS...aslso normal standards are controlled by many parties like AAC...but WM will be if its a standard, only controlled by one company....one company controlling an industry standard is a very scary proposition, especially with their privacy and DRM record.

rant over

mkaake

Oct 1, 2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Mudbug
I'm disappointed there was no "hell no" button to click. Oh well :D ;)

before i even saw the options (just saw the name of the poll in macbytes) that was my exact response...

matt

T'hain Esh Kelch

Oct 1, 2003, 07:49 AM

Well... I voted for no opinion...

After all, the more formats the better.. And once its in there, you dont have to mess with it! :)
But personally, I dont think that many users will use it.. It sucks...

Stella

Oct 1, 2003, 08:08 AM

No, No, No

apple shouldn't be supporting propriortiy (spelling) MS standards.

evil evil evil

!

stingerman

Oct 1, 2003, 08:15 AM

Supporting WMA will mean a quick death for the iPod. Apple is the leader, others should support the open standard AAC/MP4. They can always license fairplay for DRM.

Using WMA is tantamount to handing the market over to MSFT

tomf87

Oct 1, 2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Nermal
No. They shouldn't give in to the enemy etc.

Plus, as idkew said, it's better to support open standards rather than proprietary formats.

Then why is there iPod for Windows? By adding this format free of charge through software updates, the product becomes more versatile, and this can only increase sales.

1adonis1

Oct 1, 2003, 09:20 AM

I think apple should be FORCED to supports MS standard. It's an MP3 player and it should support all standards. That Dell DJ thingy magig is gonna sell like hot cakes due to no WMA support for the IPOD.

scem0

Oct 1, 2003, 09:28 AM

Yes...

More people might switch if they know they can get all their songs they ripped onto their comptuers using WMP onto their iPod.

And also just for versatility.... The iPod is a PC <---> Mac Device - It should have the capability to play Windows Media. If It is such a bad, evil standard the nobody will use it, and it will die out.

scem0

sedarby

Oct 1, 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by 1adonis1
I think apple should be FORCED to supports MS standard. It's an MP3 player and it should support all standards. That Dell DJ thingy magig is gonna sell like hot cakes due to no WMA support for the IPOD.

Why should anyone be FORCED to support one companies proprietary format? I guess the next thing is to force Apple to be able to run Windows XP.

Be gone, thy troll back to the depths you crawled out from!

Corrected

1adonis1

Oct 1, 2003, 09:41 AM

they already support XP, what u talking about Clyde.
Originally posted by sedarby
Why should anyone be FORCED to support one companies proprietary format? I guess the next thing is to force Apple to be able to run Windows XP.

Be gone, thy troll from the depths you crawled out from!

sedarby

Oct 1, 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by 1adonis1
they already support XP, what u talking about Clyde.

No, Apple doesn't. You can run XP using Virtual PC not an Apple product.

1adonis1

Oct 1, 2003, 10:02 AM

So apple should use only Apple software and formats, that's just crazy. All this is doing is selling more PC software and products. If MS stops it's apple support, people cry foul (no virtual pc for the G5's), but when apple don't support the windows community, it's ok. I just see it as a double standard.
Originally posted by sedarby
No, Apple doesn't. You can run XP using Virtual PC not an Apple product.

and Virtual PC is a way supporting XP, who said it has to be apple software.

ewinemiller

Oct 1, 2003, 10:24 AM

I had an old CD that the Mac just wouldn't read. Puked it out every time I put it in the drive. Took it over to my PC and it ripped fine. If the iPod and iTunes accepted WMA, I would have copied it over and that would have been it. I ended up having to burn it to a CD and then have the Mac rip that CD.

I can play my AAC stuff in Windows Media Player (with a 3rd party codec), I would really like to play my WMA stuff on my iPod and in iTunes.

1adonis1

Oct 1, 2003, 10:34 AM

All my friends are PC'ers, and we swap music, so in essence i would have to buy 2 mp3 players, and vice versa. :(

redAPPLE

Oct 1, 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by iHack
What's next, banning Milli Vanilli and Modern talking because their music is crap?

M.

hey, there is a good idea :D

wrldwzrd89

Oct 1, 2003, 10:50 AM

Should have read the comments before I voted! I voted 'Yes', but now I wish I had voted 'No'!

I agree that Microsoft's proprietary formats must not be allowed to dominate the market, but on the other hand, might adding WMA compatibility help Apple sell iPods?

iPC

Oct 1, 2003, 11:39 AM

The real question is;

Should Apple support the other major music providers by including WMA functionality with the iPod?

Apple sold a Windows version of the iPod, why not support Windows file formats? Or other open file formats for that matter (.ogg).

mp3 / ogg / aac / wma players will be coming soon, of that I am sure. Apple can do what they usually do*, or they can react now.

* Enter a new market, watch it explode, enjoy great initial success, and then watch everyone else keep moving forward as Apple sits on their hands.

Chealion

Oct 1, 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Mudbug
I'm disappointed there was no "hell no" button to click. Oh well :D ;)

Whoa, that was my exact thought. :eek:

WMA sucks really badly, I prefer Mp3 over WMA any day.

1adonis1

Oct 1, 2003, 11:54 AM

Yeah i would hate for apple to sit back and watch other companies, esp. DELL, make all the money off an idea they made popular. And by not supporting WMA's, that's what's going to happen.
Originally posted by iPC
The real question is;

Should Apple support the other major music providers by including WMA functionality with the iPod?

Apple sold a Windows version of the iPod, why not support Windows file formats? Or other open file formats for that matter (.ogg).

mp3 / ogg / aac / wma players will be coming soon, of that I am sure. Apple can do what they usually do*, or they can react now.

* Enter a new market, watch it explode, enjoy great initial success, and then watch everyone else keep moving forward as Apple sits on their hands.

LinuxGigolo

Oct 1, 2003, 11:54 AM

Apple has everything to gain by doing this and not too much to lose. More formats = more compatibility = greater sales. The music store isn't going to make money. Period. So why not sell the digital music player that allows users who buy music from buymusic (heh heh heh) or musicmatch or iTMS to play it? People buy iPod because of its design and quality, not because of the iTMS (or because it supports AAC). Why force users to go to other manufacturers just because they need a music player that can handle WMAs when it won't hurt Apple one single bit to support the format? I'm certainly not suggesting converting all of the AAC music on the iTMS to WMA because that would just be crazy and result in a lower quality music buying experience (and it would be conceding to Microsoft's proprietary dominance), but it's certainly reasonable to add another optional format of playback to an already spectacular music device. Do we really want another situation like Apple not supporting USB 2 until 2 years after it came out and everybody defending it with 'but we have FW.. and FW is faster cause USB 2 is in burst speeds!'? No. Add as many formats as the iPod can handle and rake in the sales.

SiliconAddict

Oct 1, 2003, 12:17 PM

Its simple. If they don't support WMA they don't get the windows platform. I don’t need to go into detail since this has been discussed to death in at least 2 other threads.

gopher

Oct 1, 2003, 12:23 PM

Definitely. What's more Apple should strongarm Microsoft into supporting all old codecs from Windows Mediaplayer that were supported in Mac OS 9, in X. As it stands, they aren't, and it is painfully clear in this knowledgebase article:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=30904

edenwaith

Oct 1, 2003, 12:29 PM

Now if the question had been "Should Apple incorporate Windows Media Player support into Quicktime", I would say yes! On a rare occasion I use WMP, but it is extremely sluggish, often locks up even if the window is moved, and can only play one movie at a time. Compare that to Quicktime which can run multiple movies at the same time and doesn't lock up on itself because other things are happening. Not to say that it isn't an intensive process, but it seems to do a better job than WMP.

As for a WM audio format, why bother? Personally, I don't care, nor even recognize it much. MP3, OGG, and AAC seem to be more popular from what I've seen so far.

bobbyp80521

Oct 1, 2003, 12:55 PM

more support the better. No reason not to allow me to play my 15 wmp tracks that i got from a friend. Music is music...

jayscheuerle

Oct 1, 2003, 01:34 PM

The iPod should be the Quicktime of Audio players, being able to play every type of file thrown at it.

It would be great for the iPod.

It would be a move of concession in regards to the iTMS.

If you're going to better one by sacrificing the other, sacrifice the iTMS. Apple makes more money through their iPods.

evolu

Oct 1, 2003, 02:26 PM

YES - they should support WMA.

The reality is that PC zombies out there still think mac & PCs are not compatible.

Leave it to the most successful crossover Apple product to support that myth by not supporting WMA.

iPods supporting WMA will be a gateway into introducing the PC world to apple's versatility.

Most people out there are not audiofiles. They want compatibility and convenience. If any substantial portion of their music collection is WMA - the iPod is no longer convenient.

That being said - I'm a guy who's replaced more than 150G of MP3s w/AAC. But I'm not like everybody.

iPC

Oct 1, 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by evolu
I'm a guy who's replaced more than 150G of MP3s w/AAC. But I'm not like everybody.
What possessed you to do that? All that work just to save some hdd space?

Awimoway

Oct 1, 2003, 03:14 PM

No.

You give the Windows world an inch and they take a mile. Pretty soon, music companies will be insisting that everything is released in WM formats, and then Microsuck will control another market with its closed platform.

It's not paranoia, it's experience.

evolu

Oct 1, 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by iPC
What possessed you to do that? All that work just to save some hdd space?

Audio quality - I work in music and I am basically obsessed. I also had to update my catalogue - there was a ton I had no interest in.

Doctor Q

Oct 1, 2003, 03:29 PM

I voted for

Yes

but I what I meant by that was

Yes, but the iPod should have a special warning that blinks once a second when you are playing WMA files, saying "Warning! You are using a substandard proprietary music format. Go to http://www.apple.com/music/store/ to upgrade your music service!"

iHack

Oct 1, 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by evolu
Audio quality - I work in music and I am basically obsessed. I also had to update my catalogue - there was a ton I had no interest in.

I sure hope you ripped those songs anew. Independent of how good a lossy compression standard is (mp3, mp4/AAC, WMA, ogg, etc) compression still causes quality loss. So if you converted the MP3's to AAC, you actually made audio quality worse. Only logical of course. You can't expect an algorithm to be able to know the audio data previously lost in compression.
Open and save a jpeg a few times and see what I mean...

M.

bennetsaysargh

Oct 1, 2003, 06:09 PM

yet again, i think that they should put support for everything. if they do decide to support WMA, it would have to be the same time iTunes is released for windows. keep in mind that it's not just the store coming to windows, its the whole application. then they would release and update for macs too to accept the format.

rainman::|:|

Oct 1, 2003, 08:21 PM

apple has no problem selling iPods, it's the dominating music player... and so, i think they should take a page from MS and use their exclusive hardware to keep a technology (if you can call wm a technology lol) from establishing a foothold. all really is fair when you're dealing with microsoft.

:)
pnw

wdlove

Oct 1, 2003, 08:32 PM

I want to see Apple have compatability, so they will attract more Windows users to the iPod. Want them to be able to see Apple Quality!

evolu

Oct 1, 2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by iHack
I sure hope you ripped those songs anew.
M.

All new rips - but thanks for looking out :)

I just set iTunes to automatically rip and eject any cd I put in. I'm in front of the computer constantly - so i put them in and it spits them out. On a mdd dualie @ 18x i'm not complaining.

evil

Oct 1, 2003, 09:53 PM

there is no way in hell apple shoud do that!

for apple fans there is aac and for the windows fans or the lazy there is mp3.

wmv is seriously worthless and is just giving in to the microsoft monopoly.
that would be disappointing.

thats like shipping out a mac with windows on it.

rjrufo

Oct 1, 2003, 10:15 PM

After reading the article that Arn posted, I feel that they should include WMA. As a former Microsucks Winblows user, I can see why it would be important to include it. 95% of the world seems to use Windblows, and if Apple wants to sell more iPods, having the ability to play WMA encoded music will help. I don't like WMA, but who cares what I like, I'm only a 5% minority, like most Mac users. (At least I am now. :D )

Go for the bigger market, and we in the minority may someday become the majority.

mproud

Oct 1, 2003, 10:28 PM

No - at least, not yet.

Firstly, AIFF exists, which I believe is closer to the original recording of a CD - if not perfect. (Please do correct me on this.)

Secondly, and actually more importantly, by refusing wma for now, people will not be able to use MusicMatch/Dell/etc. services. Although it maybe be just a little unfair, this is good because PC users will see they need to get iTMS.

Apple has the hardware and once they get iTMS and people start using it, then maybe they can nonchalantly introduce wma support.

If Apple had never had the iTMS and never planned on going into that part of the industry (which would be ashame), you can bet your socks that they would have included wma support by now for sure.

zim

Oct 1, 2003, 10:55 PM

no. never. iPod should support standard fromats, nothing more.

killmoms

Oct 1, 2003, 11:46 PM

WMA maybe, but I'd lean towards probably not.

OGG? DEFINITELY! NOW! I would really like to be able to play all my Ogg Vorbis files from my PC on my iPod, but as it is, I'm missing out on a whole album of lovely lovely Ayumi Hamasaki action. Okay, yeah, it's just one album, but it's the principle of the thing!

--Cless

iEric

Oct 1, 2003, 11:59 PM

with WMA support, i think even more PC users would purcahse an ipod. Any extras just make the iPod better - not like its bad or anything.

mproud

Oct 2, 2003, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Cless
WMA maybe, but I'd lean towards probably not.

OGG? DEFINITELY! NOW! I would really like to be able to play all my Ogg Vorbis files from my PC on my iPod, but as it is, I'm missing out on a whole album of lovely lovely Ayumi Hamasaki action. Okay, yeah, it's just one album, but it's the principle of the thing!Convert convert convert!

No one says you can't convert your Ogg. Yes, it kinda sucks and doesn't solve the problem, but you know what? At least you can listen to it.

And if you're an audio freak and don't want any loss of quality through the conversion (if this is possible), change it to an AIFF. Yes, it'll take up more space, and yes, the real AIFF probably would have been better, but at least you'll be listening to Ayumi Hamasaki :)

Genie

Oct 2, 2003, 01:57 AM

Converting to Aiff won't gain you any fidelity...

I wish Windows wasn't so popular.

mproud

Oct 2, 2003, 02:53 AM

Of course not, but you don't lose anything than if you converted to mp3 or AAC.

Genie

Oct 2, 2003, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by mproud
Of course not, but you don't lose anything than if you converted to mp3 or AAC.

Very true...

shadowfax

Oct 2, 2003, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by mproud
Of course not, but you don't lose anything than if you converted to mp3 or AAC. yes you do. you lose a lot, really. i mean, you'r compressing a compression. converting mp3s to AACs results in dramatically lower quality than converting the original CD audio to AAC, even if you ripped it at like 320 Kb/sec.

redAPPLE

Oct 2, 2003, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by 1adonis1
All my friends are PC'ers, and we swap music, so in essence i would have to buy 2 mp3 players, and vice versa. :(

swapping music is wrong. don't you understand that?

i am sure Apple would gladly sell you 2 iPods ;)

Nermal

Oct 2, 2003, 07:18 AM

I thought all the Windows users just used MP3 anyway, and nobody actually bothers with WMA. Or maybe I've been using Macs too long and I'm out of touch with the Windows world.

killmoms

Oct 2, 2003, 08:30 AM

The MP3 codec that comes with Windows and used in Windows Media Player is crippled; it only does 56kbps max. To do anything better you need another application. Yes, it's just another Microsoft strongarm tactic. At least, that's how it was the last time I checked, but I never fire up WMP for anything but the few times I want to watch a WMV stream off the Internet.

--Cless

iPC

Oct 2, 2003, 10:24 AM

Will Apple ever understand the concept of a evolving market?

If the iPod can't play WMA files, and 1/2 of the major music services online start offering WMA files (similar to AAC in that file size is smaller than mp3, and all new windows machines can play them straight out of the box), then iPod market share will plummet (sound familiar?).

Standing around the SJRDF (Steve Jobs reality distortion field) spouting "AAC is superior, all you Windows people are dumb" will get us the same results it always has. Jack sh)t.

Genie

Oct 2, 2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by redAPPLE
swapping music is wrong. don't you understand that?

i am sure Apple would gladly sell you 2 iPods ;)

Can't speak for any other artists, but I don't mind if you swap my music.

redAPPLE

Oct 2, 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Genie
Can't speak for any other artists, but I don't mind if you swap my music.

would you want them being swapped in aac or in what's that windows music file called? wma? that right?

rjrufo

Oct 2, 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Genie
Can't speak for any other artists, but I don't mind if you swap my music.

Genie, I think that redAPPLE was referring to artists that sell their music through RIAA. I've listened to your music on your site ( http://geniesongs.com/personal.html ) and found it to be very beautiful music, but you seem to give away your work, while many others don't.

Swapping music that someone earns their living from takes away their livelihood. I'm not sure how you earn your money, and it isn't any of my business, but for the artists who earn theirs from the music they produce, every swapped song hurts their wallet.

Genie

Oct 2, 2003, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by redAPPLE
would you want them being swapped in aac or in what's that windows music file called? wma? that right?

GENIE REPLIES:
WMA is not interesting to me at all. It seems based around drm.
I don't think aac is very compelling right now. Maybe if it becomes more ubiquitous.

I just provide my songs in mp3 format 128kbs. I put a little blurb at the front and end to remind you to visit my site and be nice to me. Examples here:

http://www.geniesongs.com/products/closeups/geniesongs.html

Genie

Oct 2, 2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by rjrufo
Genie, I think that redAPPLE was referring to artists that sell their music through RIAA. I've listened to your music on your site ( http://geniesongs.com/personal.html ) and found it to be very beautiful music, but you seem to give away your work, while many others don't.

Swapping music that someone earns their living from takes away their livelihood. I'm not sure how you earn your money, and it isn't any of my business, but for the artists who earn theirs from the music they produce, every swapped song hurts their wallet.

Yes, royalties from CD sales are how I and my friends earn our livings, but it's only between 30 cents and $1 per CD. Most of the costs are in promotion, manufacturing, and distribution, and retailing. I wish everyone would buy a CD, or my DVD, or make a donation for the free MP3's. But it's on the honor system.
The business is broken, and I'm just waiting for it all to get sorted out.

1adonis1

Oct 2, 2003, 06:01 PM

I have both WMA's and ACC's songs, and i cant hear the difference between the two.

bennetsaysargh

Oct 2, 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by 1adonis1
I have both WMA's and ACC's songs, and i cant hear the difference between the two.

now that is a true fan of music. most people don't care if it's a low quality unless if it sounds echo-y. i personally would never copy AIFFs onto anything except for editing and mixing, which i don't do a lot of anymore. but i hear no difference between mp3 aac and aiff.

i can however complain about the qquality of RealAudio. it's max is like 64kbps.