PDA

View Full Version : iTunes 5?




MacRumors
Oct 9, 2003, 02:18 PM
An unverified but unusually detailed submission claims that iTunes 5 will be introduced on October 16th, and will be both Mac and PC compatible. New features are said to include WMA support, music store "listener loans", new encoding options and an all new interface.

New iPod accessories are said to include a recording device, a new dock to transfer and view movies and photos on a television and a bluetooth dock/headphone pair.

Meanwhile, a different report claims that beyond the recording device, there will be an adapter to provide SD and CF card interface to transfer photos to the iPod... possibly validating some information in the above report.



wuntrikpony
Oct 9, 2003, 02:19 PM
They better not change the interface too much, i LOOOOOOVE iTunes the way it is.

nagromme
Oct 9, 2003, 02:21 PM
Hope those headphones work with PowerBooks!

IF any of those rumors are true, they'd make a nice event all together with the Windows iTMS next Thu.

WMA support? I hope Apple doesn't support MS in that way. And I hope the iTunes UI is refined at most, not scrapped altogether.

It always did seem likely to me that iTunes for Windows would be a NEW version, not the same old, and that therefore a new Mac one would come alongside it.

timdorr
Oct 9, 2003, 02:22 PM
A bluetooth dock is out of the question. Bluetooth is too slow, they might as well add USB1.0, in that case :S

The movie transfer and playback capability seems fishy too. Someone would have already come across somethign like this, and the iPod just isn't powerful enough to decrypt a full MPEG stream.

The iTunes 5 stuff also sounds way too out there, and doesn't coincide with what people inside Apple are telling me. I say this one will be disproven a bit ;)

nagromme
Oct 9, 2003, 02:26 PM
A BT "dock" could be JUST for the wireless headphones, and maybe other functions (synching iCal and ratings? updating a couple new songs slowly while you work, if you want that option)... it need not be the main music-transfer method.

The bandwidth of BT apparently exceeds that needed for digital audio listeneing.

.a
Oct 9, 2003, 02:27 PM
...that would be awesome!

i am still one of those without an ipod. i'm in the market for one.
.a

SiliconAddict
Oct 9, 2003, 02:27 PM
I think I speak for most what I say SWEET [BEEEEP]

arn
Oct 9, 2003, 02:28 PM
yep.... take it with a grain of salt.

arn

bitfactory
Oct 9, 2003, 02:29 PM
Windows Media? hahahaha - that blows the credibility of this report... i find it hard to believe they would do that - especially if the iPod doesn't support it (and hopefully never will). dream on.

oliverlubin
Oct 9, 2003, 02:31 PM
um wow. if all of it were true ... wow. loaned downloads though, what's that, a limited lifetime download for cheaper or an alternative to the current "preview"?

Stella
Oct 9, 2003, 02:31 PM
WMA support

Please, No.

Makosuke
Oct 9, 2003, 02:31 PM
Huh... there's a lot of interesting-sounding features in there, but I'd be pretty skeptical of the whole thing.

The Movie stuff, although cool, isn't anything Apple has talked about doing, or implied they're going to do, or anything that's been rumored, and I'm not even sure how much people would really care. That'd also sort of dilute the hugeness of announcing a PC-compatible iTMS.

I'd also question WMA... if it supported DMA features, it'd give them a shot at the business of other online stores, but I think Apple would much rather just make the sales from their own store. If it were just "ripped" WMA, maybe, but again I sort of wonder since isn't the whole point of releasing iTMS for the PC to get people thinking Apple Tech?

Then again, if they want to dominate the PC audio player space, the thing will need to handle some sort of WMA, even if the iPod can't.

I'd question any major interface changes even more (though a refresh is quite possible), since they just went through all the trouble of making the FINDER look a lot like iTunes. Could happen, but I doubt there'll be any major shake-up in the look.

bluedalmatian
Oct 9, 2003, 02:32 PM
And I hope the iTunes UI is refined at most, not scrapped altogether.


I don't think they'd scrap it. Look at how they keep explicitly drawing analogies between the new Finder and XCode and iTunes.

Clearly Apple holds the iTunes interface concept very hightl.

SiliconAddict
Oct 9, 2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by nagromme


WMA support? I hope Apple doesn't support MS in that way.



nagromme, you and every Mac user that is holding a grudge against MS better get over it in a hurry. 95% market share means that to beat MS at their own game Apple needs to be compatable. iTMS and the iPod are not Macs and Mac OS. These products are OS independent going after the general consumer. They dang well better be as compatible as possible with everything if Apple wants to take on MS, MusicMatch, Napster, etc, etc, etc. If this does come true and you feel betrayed you better get over it because as Apple becomes more consumer device oriented this is going to become the norm. Obviously they are going to continue to push OSX...I mean for god sake it IS Apple and that is their baby.

SiliconAddict
Oct 9, 2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by timdorr

The movie transfer and playback capability seems fishy too. Someone would have already come across somethign like this, and the iPod just isn't powerful enough to decrypt a full MPEG stream.



True, However it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibilities that a sleve of some sor would do most of the CPU/GPU intensive processing. I've seen such things for the Compaq\HP Pocket PC. In this case the iPod would be treated as a simple storage device.

tny
Oct 9, 2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
nagromme, you and every Mac user that is holding a grudge against MS better get over it in a hurry. 95% market share means that to beat MS at their own game Apple needs to be compatable. iTMS and the iPod are not Macs and Mac OS. These products are OS independent going after the general consumer. They dang well be as compatible as possible with everything if Apple wants to take on MS, MusicMatch, Napster, etc, etc, etc. If this does come true and you feel betrayed you better get over it because as Apple becomes more consumer device oriented this is going to become the norm. Obviously they are going to continue to push OSX...I mean for god sake it IS Apple and that is their baby.

Funny, most of the software on my Windows machine is compatible with MP3. So is my Mac, iTunes, and iPod (though of course the iPod is formatted HFS+ and so isn't usable directly with the Windows machine). WMA isn't a standard format - it's MS trying to force its own solution down everyone's throat.

arn
Oct 9, 2003, 02:46 PM
new info added to main story.

arn

frozenstar
Oct 9, 2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by timdorr
A bluetooth dock is out of the question. Bluetooth is too slow, they might as well add USB1.0, in that case :S

The theoretical peak data rate of Bluetooth v1.1 is 1 mbps. The real-world sustained data rate is about 150-200 kbps. Clearly, that's more than enough to stream a 128 kbps AAC file. If necessary, iTunes can even re-encode higher bandwidth files on the fly.

bitfactory
Oct 9, 2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
nagromme, you and every Mac user that is holding a grudge against MS better get over it in a hurry. 95% market share means that to beat MS at their own game Apple needs to be compatable.

this isn't about a grudge, its about quality. and WM doesn't have 95% market share.

the logical extension of this is that the iTMS would offer WM files... NOT GOING TO HAPPEN... file that next to "OSX on Intel chips!"

SilentPanda
Oct 9, 2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by frozenstar
The theoretical peak data rate of Bluetooth v1.1 is 1 mbps. The real-world sustained data rate is about 150-200 kbps. Clearly, that's more than enough to stream a 128 kbps AAC file. If necessary, iTunes can even re-encode higher bandwidth files on the fly.

I believe what the parent poster meant was that using Bluetooth to update your iPod was too slow. Using bluetooth to go to a headset should be fine though. With a ghostbuster battery pack to keep the headphones charged up... :)

frozenstar
Oct 9, 2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Stella
WMA support

Please, No.

Perhaps they should strip Windows support out of Jaguar too. Does that make any sense?

SilentPanda
Oct 9, 2003, 02:56 PM
It might be possible that iTunes would support playing WMA files... I haven't used a PC at home for quite a while but doesn't MusicMatch and Windows Media Player by default encode CD's into WMA format? If so then your typical home user would have all of their music in WMA format. Thus supporting the playing of WMA files would be greatly needed to allow the seamless integration. Or at least they would reencode your WMA files on import to iTunes and maybe not let you play WMA files or make new WMA files... I suppose I really don't care either way... but it is a consideration for the reasoning that might be behind that.

macr1jxb
Oct 9, 2003, 03:02 PM
Most this stuff seems pretty unlikely, but I'd like to make a couple points:

WMA Support.
iTunes for Mac already supports ripped WMA (at least non-rights managed) correct? Supporting, at least, playback of WMA in iTunes for Windows is actually pretty simple(even rights managed), because the Windows Media technology is actually a shared resource other applications can take advantage of. So what may end up happening is iTunes has its own software for playing and ripping MP3/MP4 and then farms out the backend to Window Media for WMA support (never exposing a user to the horrible Window Media Player)

WMA support on iPod is a whole different matter though.

Blue Tooth Accessories
I think this is somewhat unlikely, but not for a lot of the reasons others have pointed out. If they are using it only for headphone output it seems that they would get a good enough performance that a lot of people would like the idea of being able to, say, keep their iPod in their bag and just wear the headphones.

The issues that I think makes this unlikely is with how you'd configure or set it up. There'd have to be some interface to configure the bluetooth, and that would require an update to the iPod software. Also I haven't heard about any Blue Tooth audio configuration in Panther (like we saw found out about the wireless keyboard and mouse support a while back), and it seems unlikely to me that Apple would release a Blue Tooth headphone for iPod that would not work on the Mac as well.

New Dock
I connect my iPod to my home stereo all the time, and I know I'm not alone. The oft rumored stereo-dock/remote control seems like a great idea that would probably sell well. But the idea of using this to playback movies or pictures on your home theater is doubtful. That would require a new version of iPhoto to export the photos, or a new version of iSync, which was just updated yesterday (with no hint of such functionality)

It also breaks from the Digital Hub model. In the digital hub model we've seen so far everything centers around the Mac, and from there connects specific tools for specific tailored functions (digital cameras, cell phones, iPod). Using iPod for photo or movies seems overly complicated, because it's not suited for that. If Apple wanted to connect the home stereo to the Digitial Hub, I'd expect a new device (like the Tivo Series 2) or something akin to a home media server. In the end adding those features would just complicate the iPod too much in my mind, and take away from the mac, which handles those functions better.

Ok, that's my thoughts on the matter.

NavyIntel007
Oct 9, 2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by SilentPanda
I believe what the parent poster meant was that using Bluetooth to update your iPod was too slow. Using bluetooth to go to a headset should be fine though. With a ghostbuster battery pack to keep the headphones charged up... :)

Bluetooth does not have the bandwidth to support stereo sound.

That's why all the bluetooth headsets have only one earphone not two.

ennerseed
Oct 9, 2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by tny
Funny, most of the software on my Windows machine is compatible with MP3. So is my Mac, iTunes, and iPod (though of course the iPod is formatted HFS+ and so isn't usable directly with the Windows machine). WMA isn't a standard format - it's MS trying to force its own solution down everyone's throat.

Snap Snap, thank you!

1macker1
Oct 9, 2003, 03:22 PM
I finally get to listen to my 10 wma files in itunes, about darn time. And no there is not itunes or ipod support for wma right now.

illumin8
Oct 9, 2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Bluetooth does not have the bandwidth to support stereo sound.

That's why all the bluetooth headsets have only one earphone not two.
I think you're wrong. Sony has an MP3 player out now with Bluetooth headphones.

frozenstar
Oct 9, 2003, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Bluetooth does not have the bandwidth to support stereo sound.

That's why all the bluetooth headsets have only one earphone not two.

Sorry, but that's just not true.

The reason MOST bluetooth headsets have only one earphone is because they are specifically designed for hands-free functionality with mobile phones.

TylerL
Oct 9, 2003, 03:57 PM
Bluetooth's theoretical peak throughput is 721kbps. (http://www.rf-solutions.com/about_standards.htm#short)
An uncompressed CD quality audio file is 1150kbps.

So...to fit a decent quality stream, you have to drop a track and go mono. (Decoding MP3/AAC/WMA/OGG/whatever on the headphones is crazy.)

...also, keep in mind that that's THEORETICAL max speed. If you go more than 5 feet away from the transmitter, you'll probably get skips in the music, or worse.

pjmurphy77
Oct 9, 2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Bluetooth does not have the bandwidth to support stereo sound.

That's why all the bluetooth headsets have only one earphone not two.

check your facts..

here is a pair from openbrain:

http://www.openbrain.co.kr/e_site/e_products/e_products03.htm

moosecat
Oct 9, 2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by pjmurphy77
check your facts..

here is a pair from openbrain:

http://www.openbrain.co.kr/e_site/e_products/e_products03.htm

Looks to me like those phones store the music in Flash memory internally -- they don't stream it over Bluetooth. (Thus, you upload your music to the phones.)

pjmurphy77
Oct 9, 2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by pjmurphy77
check your facts..

here is a pair from openbrain:

http://www.openbrain.co.kr/e_site/e_products/e_products03.htm

if you read the brochure (PDF) it clearly states that if the headphones are on a conencted-state with the PC, you can listen wirelessly. or, if you are out of range, they act as a stand-alone music player (hence the flash memory)..

speechgod
Oct 9, 2003, 04:12 PM
I would not discount the possibility that iTunes Music Store for Windows users may be using WMA. Maybe that RIAA doesn't want AAC going around the PC world, since it may be easier to break?

I'd say there's a good 40% chance that iTMS Windows will be WMA. Don't be surprised if it happens.

jholzner
Oct 9, 2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by speechgod
I would not discount the possibility that iTunes Music Store for Windows users may be using WMA. Maybe that RIAA doesn't want AAC going around the PC world, since it may be easier to break?

I'd say there's a good 40% chance that iTMS Windows will be WMA. Don't be surprised if it happens.

I can't believe Apple would ever do this. They're commitment is to open standards and opensource...wma is neither. I could see them having iTunes be able to play wma so pc users can transfer their music collections to iTunes though....that makes sense.

Lancetx
Oct 9, 2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by speechgod
I would not discount the possibility that iTunes Music Store for Windows users may be using WMA. Maybe that RIAA doesn't want AAC going around the PC world, since it may be easier to break?

I'd say there's a good 40% chance that iTMS Windows will be WMA. Don't be surprised if it happens.

I would be shocked, stunned and disappointed if this was the case. I guess we'll all find out in one week, but I would put the odds at closer to 10% than 40% of this being the case.

SiliconAddict
Oct 9, 2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by tny
Funny, most of the software on my Windows machine is compatible with MP3. So is my Mac, iTunes, and iPod (though of course the iPod is formatted HFS+ and so isn't usable directly with the Windows machine). WMA isn't a standard format - it's MS trying to force its own solution down everyone's throat.

Funny how most MP3 players, other then iPod, play WMA. How more then a few DVD players play WMA, How some CD/MP3 players play WMA, how even some car CD decks/changes play WMA. WMA may not be a standard in the pure sense of the word but they are doing a good job at emulating it. The fact of the matter is there are a whole heck of a lot of devices that play WMA. Name me one device other then the Mac and iPod that play AAC? We aren't talking about MP3 because last I heard, other then MP3PRO, there is no way to place DRM on an MP3 and DRM is the ONLY way you are going to get the RIAA to open to online sales. This is really simple. If Apple wants to win the Windows platform they need to support WMA.

PS - Please note that I don’t have a single Weapon of Mass Assimilation located on my computer. (Or my fav Windows Monopoly Advancer.) Go to www.pocketpcthoughts.com and search for jonathan1 and WMA. Since 2001 I’ve rallied against WMA and ANY type of DRM. Esp anything coming from MS. But I’ve learned a simple lesson in that time. You can’t and won’t beat Microsoft in direct completion. It’s not going to happen. If Apple wants to win the online music game they have to eat their pride and support WMA. That doesn’t mean they can’t promote the use of ACC at every turn but it does mean that to get the market share in the online music game they are going to have to buddy up to MS for a while. At least close enough to them to pick their pockets of switchers and iTunes\iTMS converts.

SiliconAddict
Oct 9, 2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by speechgod
I would not discount the possibility that iTunes Music Store for Windows users may be using WMA. Maybe that RIAA doesn't want AAC going around the PC world, since it may be easier to break?

I'd say there's a good 40% chance that iTMS Windows will be WMA. Don't be surprised if it happens.


Doubtful for several reasons. The biggest being that Apple would have to store not one but two copies of the song.
-One for WMA, one for AAC talk about overkill on disk space.
-Second. I doubt apple would go too far in supporting WMA. I have to imagine it takes time to encode, what are they at now?, 300,000 songs. That is a lot of time and manpower and costs involved for supporting MS.
-Third. Let em wait for their music. Make things a bit difficult for the Windows folks by requiring them to convert their music. No free ride for using WMA. If you are going to use it you get to sit there like a trained dog.

The easies and best solution would be to have Apple license the WMA 9 codec and have iTunes for Windows do on the fly recoding of the song. Heck while it’s recoding the song you could have a little banner that says: Hate to wait for your music? Then try Apple's superior, open source, AAC format. Or something along those lines.

1macker1
Oct 9, 2003, 04:55 PM
Just because ACC is the superior format, doesn't mean it's the more widely supported format. If i was a window user, i would stick with the format that more mp3 players support.

stingerman
Oct 9, 2003, 04:56 PM
Supporting WMA is different than supporting WMA with MSFT DRM. Quicktime can decode and encode many different codecs. Apple should support WMA, just not WMA DRM. Why? Many PC users already RIP their legally owned CD's using WMA. So support it on both PC's and MACs. Just don't support MSFT DRM. Most WM players do not support WMA with DRM. The DRM takes too much processing power.

From what I know, Apple doubled the processing power of the 3rd generation iPods though the additional power is still going unused. Speculation is that the additional power would support movie decoding in the future. This makes sense. An iPod is a much better deal than a Media Edition PC if it can also record and play Movies. How cool would that be!

And too boot,having an iPod record your photo's on the road, you can take 1000's of photos! How awesome is that!

rainman::|:|
Oct 9, 2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
nagromme, you and every Mac user that is holding a grudge against MS better get over it in a hurry. 95% market share means that to beat MS at their own game Apple needs to be compatable. iTMS and the iPod are not Macs and Mac OS. These products are OS independent going after the general consumer. They dang well better be as compatible as possible with everything if Apple wants to take on MS, MusicMatch, Napster, etc, etc, etc. If this does come true and you feel betrayed you better get over it because as Apple becomes more consumer device oriented this is going to become the norm. Obviously they are going to continue to push OSX...I mean for god sake it IS Apple and that is their baby.

If Apple opened the iPod up to WMA, they would be providing a lot of competition for their own iTunes Music Store. As it stands now, the WMA-only stores don't work on iPods, so iPod owners will go to an MP3 or AAC source-- and i think the store is secondary to the player. The iPod is a huge hit, by NOT adding WMA support, they're doing a good job of keeping people with the iTMS...

I think your arguement is more "everyone should play nice" than "this makes business sense". And MS is the king of not playing nice. You think if it were reversed, MS would be supporting AAC? I think not. They've tried very hard to keep compatability to a minimum.

Bottom line: adding WMA support would cut into Apple's profits in the iTMS. NOT adding it would perhaps make a few people buy other players... but it wouldn't be nearly the loss that Apple would suffer if they abandoned the iTMS.

pnw

TheFish
Oct 9, 2003, 05:58 PM
if your going to make itunes for windows it should support WMA files. im not really a fan of this but im sure windows users have a lot more WMAs then us mac users.

Makosuke
Oct 9, 2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
If Apple opened the iPod up to WMA, they would be providing a lot of competition for their own iTunes Music Store. As it stands now, the WMA-only stores don't work on iPods, so iPod owners will go to an MP3 or AAC source-- and i think the store is secondary to the player. The iPod is a huge hit, by NOT adding WMA support, they're doing a good job of keeping people with the iTMS... This is exactly the way I see it, and why I'd be really surprised if Apple added WMA support to the iPod. I could believe it if they added non-DRM WMA, but I just don't see Apple buying into MS DRM whether it's a good idea or not.

The most likely thing, though, seems like adding non-DRM WMA support to iTunes (on Win, anyway), but not to the iPod.

We'll see, though.

Thanatoast
Oct 9, 2003, 06:01 PM
Okay, I in no way think any of this will happen, but as long as we're throwing out lists of ipod possibilities, imagine this.

I present to you...the PowerPod!

With new camera attachment! Take stills and video with up to 40 gigs of storage space! Never be stuck looking for SD cards in a 7-11 in Cleveland again! (Hey, if cell phones can take pictures and video, why not powerpods?) Just plug in the adapter to the dock connector, the screen automatically flips, and you get b/w previews. (We went for decades w/o previews at all, so this isn't totally unthinkable. Well, maybe.)

And combined with Panther's new Home on powerpod feature, all your media is already with you, all of the time! Music, video, pics, all on demand!*

*adapters for video/audio presentation sold separately. Apple is not responsible for artistic talent and/or taste of owner.

Obviously this will not happen, but it *would* be cool, IMO. Plus, we reduce gadgetry by a factor of 2. Now I know some of us like to walk around with holsters for 87 different gadgets, but I really wouldn't mind having an mp3 player that doubles as a digital cam, dv cam, and hey, why not a dvr while we're at it? Plug in the inputs, set to record, and you're off. Can input/output go through the same channel? (not at the same time, obviously, but when set to play at one instance and record at another)

Oh well, just a dream.:)

joeyboy76
Oct 9, 2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by bitfactory
Windows Media? hahahaha - that blows the credibility of this report... i find it hard to believe they would do that - especially if the iPod doesn't support it (and hopefully never will). dream on.

hopefully, if iTunes would really support WMA, it is only to have built in conversion to WAV, AIFF, MP3 or AAC!!! :D

SeaFox
Oct 9, 2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by frozenstar
The theoretical peak data rate of Bluetooth v1.1 is 1 mbps. The real-world sustained data rate is about 150-200 kbps. Clearly, that's more than enough to stream a 128 kbps AAC file. If necessary, iTunes can even re-encode higher bandwidth files on the fly.

That's streaming files. Not the actual audio you get when you decompress the files to listen to them. Unless the headset has an decoder built into it (and that would really add to the size and decrease the battery life of said headset) I don't see the bluetooth headset being correct.

jettredmont
Oct 9, 2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by speechgod
Maybe that RIAA doesn't want AAC going around the PC world, since it may be easier to break?


You think so?

Oddly enough, WMA's DMA has already been broken. FairPlay has not.

Hmmm ...

Harry K.
Oct 9, 2003, 06:10 PM
I would definately purchase the microphone and the MovieDock, but nothing more than that. Those are some pretty sweet ideas!

Thanatoast
Oct 9, 2003, 06:10 PM
sorry for double post. :o

On the serious side, Dark iTMS *should* support WMA for compatibility and continuance of existence issues. It's not like Apple has to sell WMA on Dark iTMS or encode to it. In fact, it could be an opportunity to push AAC.

User: why does this file sound so crappy? oh, it's wma. I should re-encode all my music to AAC so it sounds good like the stuff I bought off iTMS. [/pure conjecture] (i really don't know how good wma sounds, does anyone here know?)

BT earbuds would kickass. I need new ones, so they'd definitely have one pair sold. :)

beg_ne
Oct 9, 2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast

(i really don't know how good wma sounds, does anyone here know?)



Well for me when i listen to WMA's words like, "tin-can" and "complete utter s***" come to mind.

Infact i refuse to have any M$ software or M$ related files on my G5. I don't want to soil it with their half-assed software and lame pseudo-standard formats.

I hope we never see WMA supported in any of apples software, doing so only hurts them in the long run. Supporting M$ "standards" only strengthens them, it sends the wrong signal to content developers, that it's OK to use M$ instead of a real cross platform standard format, and before you know it they'll try to force more users to use windows because WM11 requires "advanced" technology in their newest lame attempt to copy Apple's OS.

slowtreme
Oct 9, 2003, 06:38 PM
I wish I could find a source, but I think WMA was submitted as an open standard.

Low bitrate WMA files sound a hell of a lot better to me than other low bitrate files, I'd take a 56kps WMA file over the same size MP3 or AAC anyday. Above that it's a lot different. WMP9 defaults to ripping at 56k WMA files. If you want the Windows market at the lowest common denominator (aka non-savvy users) they need to be able to play the music they already have.

I'm not buying the "AAC is superior" line either, not over MP3 anyway. Let iTMS deliver it's content in AAC, but iTunesWindows should play WMA files on the fly, or it won't fly at all.

SiliconAddict
Oct 9, 2003, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by beg_ne
Well for me when i listen to WMA's words like, "tin-can" and "complete utter s***" come to mind.

Infact i refuse to have any M$ software or M$ related files on my G5. I don't want to soil it with their half-assed software and lame pseudo-standard formats.


Nice to know someone is open minded. NOT. :rolleyes:
OK first off have you ever heard the WMA 9 codec? If not you don't have a clue what you are talking about. MS did a massive overhaul to the Windows Media Codecs. Everything from video to audio. 9 blows 8 and older out of the water. Secondly as I and others have pointed out there is a hell of a lot of hardware that supports WMA. Show me ANYTHING other then the iPod that supports ACC. If Apple is trying to push the format they aren't doing that good of a job.

hvfsl
Oct 9, 2003, 06:53 PM
There is nothing wrong with iTunes playing WMA files, not supporting WMA is like AppleWorks not being able to read Word docs, it is just plain silly.

I hope there is WMA support, iTunes should be the only music player I need to use on PC or Mac, when I install iTunes on my PC, I dont want to have to boot up W Media PLayer 9, just to play WMA files.

M$ does this all the time anyway, they make there products compatible with everyone else. Then when they have enough people using M$ products, they make them incompatible so the people not using M$ products have to switch to M$ to remain compactible with the everyone else.

Apple should try and do this with iTunes, let iTunes read all audio formats, then when everyone is using iTunes, make sure iTunes can only encode in AAC, instead of WMA, MP3, etc.

imbriumink
Oct 9, 2003, 07:12 PM
Being a recent switcher, I think that this argument is definitely not about sound quality. WMA9 codec is a very good codec and so is Microsoft's video codec. My concern is the way MS is using their vast resources and giving away their technology for nearly nothing in order to establish WMA as the standard. As for AAC, it's nice but nobody except Mac users or people who follow both mac and PC have any clue what it is. I personally don't have any WMA files, but agree that the iPod should support it for the sake of selling even more to windows users. It's only business. Besides, it's just a simple firmware upgrade for the iPod.

And as for open standards, i think it would be wise for the iPod to be able to take music from other music services no matter how inferior they may be in someone's opinion. Give the people the option and let them choose the superior one for themselves. And sell iPods while you're at it for inflated prices just because you can and nothing comes close!

Stella
Oct 9, 2003, 07:25 PM
Trouble is WMA is propritirty

More, Its a Microsoft standard.

That is *bad*.

MS, once WMA is taken as the 'Standard', will screw us over, big time.

We will wish MS had not dominated media formats.

Everything MS bring out, screws us consumers over, and providers over.

MS will ensure that WMA is tied to the windows platform. MS will withdraw support for WMA for all currently supported platforms except MS.

Why don't you people realise that??

Just look at Explorer - that is dominate. They have now withdrawen Explorer for all platforms except their own.

Supporting WMA == Bad for the future.

Supporting WMA is short term gain, nothing else.





Originally posted by imbriumink
Being a recent switcher, I think that this argument is definitely not about sound quality. WMA9 codec is a very good codec and so is Microsoft's video codec. My concern is the way MS is using their vast resources and giving away their technology for nearly nothing in order to establish WMA as the standard. As for AAC, it's nice but nobody except Mac users or people who follow both mac and PC have any clue what it is. I personally don't have any WMA files, but agree that the iPod should support it for the sake of selling even more to windows users. It's only business. Besides, it's just a simple firmware upgrade for the iPod.

And as for open standards, i think it would be wise for the iPod to be able to take music from other music services no matter how inferior they may be in someone's opinion. Give the people the option and let them choose the superior one for themselves. And sell iPods while you're at it for inflated prices just because you can and nothing comes close!

imbriumink
Oct 9, 2003, 07:33 PM
I realize that is the strategy of MS. But making your product incompatible with what the consumer currently has is not a good strategy either. If I was a Windows user, which i was a week ago, and they told me that I had to reencode all my music just to use iTunes, I wouldn't even use it in the first place.

Just curious, are there any AAC encoders besides quicktime and itunes?

mmccaul
Oct 9, 2003, 08:04 PM
-The fact of the matter is there are a whole heck of a lot of devices that play WMA. Name me one device other then the Mac and iPod that play AAC?

------------

Ok :)
http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,8764,5820,00.html
Granted it is the only one I have ever seen, but it is a device that plays AAC. (not to mention it is the ungliest looking phone I have ever seen but...)

Stella
Oct 9, 2003, 08:05 PM
The point is MP4 is industrial standard.

WMA is not.

WMA will **** consumes over in a few years time.

MP4 will not.

WMA == *short term* gain.

MP4 is for long term.

Except that is how companies do not work.

Short sightedness.


Originally posted by imbriumink
I realize that is the strategy of MS. But making your product incompatible with what the consumer currently has is not a good strategy either. If I was a Windows user, which i was a week ago, and they told me that I had to reencode all my music just to use iTunes, I wouldn't even use it in the first place.

Just curious, are there any AAC encoders besides quicktime and itunes?

Stella
Oct 9, 2003, 08:09 PM
Fine, you buy WMA devices.

Fine you help support WMA.

When MS get a strangle hold of media format and they drop support for Macs - DO'NT COME CRYING TO THESE FORUMS.

Sorry, but that is reality. History has shown us this time and time again. Anything for MS to gain a strangle hold on a technology, they will do.




Originally posted by mmccaul
-The fact of the matter is there are a whole heck of a lot of devices that play WMA. Name me one device other then the Mac and iPod that play AAC?

------------

Ok :)
http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,8764,5820,00.html
Granted it is the only one I have ever seen, but it is a device that plays AAC. (not to mention it is the ungliest looking phone I have ever seen but...)

lmalave
Oct 9, 2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by pjmurphy77
if you read the brochure (PDF) it clearly states that if the headphones are on a conencted-state with the PC, you can listen wirelessly. or, if you are out of range, they act as a stand-alone music player (hence the flash memory)..

Wow!!!!!! I've been waiting for Bluetooth headphones. I wonder when this product will hit the market and what the cost will be.

boobers
Oct 9, 2003, 08:36 PM
the ipod is definetely fast enough to decode divx and mpeg2 bitrates. I just tested it on my new 20GB ipod.
But is it possible to make a "movie dock" that would allow recording in mpeg4? Something that took the encoding away from the pods processor and just dumps the file on the pod for playback.
Sorta like what the Dazzle DV bridge does but with encoding of some sort to minimize storage.

Or similar to this thing...

http://www.archos.com/products/av300_series.html?sid=j22oy2y2b2ooskybco33o3

but without the screen of course.

beg_ne
Oct 9, 2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Nice to know someone is open minded. NOT. :rolleyes:
OK first off have you ever heard the WMA 9 codec? If not you don't have a clue what you are talking about. MS did a massive overhaul to the Windows Media Codecs. Everything from video to audio. 9 blows 8 and older out of the water. Secondly as I and others have pointed out there is a hell of a lot of hardware that supports WMA. Show me ANYTHING other then the iPod that supports ACC. If Apple is trying to push the format they aren't doing that good of a job.

It's possible i could be a little closed mined on the subject, then again you could be a little naive. Yes I have heard WMA9 and while its better than previous versions it would certainly be the last thing i ever encoded anything in. For many reasons, including quality.

Apple, et. all associated with the AAC format need to do more to get it accepted, they need to talk to the people making the hardware and get them to accept AAC. Having Apple officially support WMA will only hurt all of us (except MS) in the future when they close off their format.

Microsoft is an abusive monopoly and WMA/WMV is only their latest tool to spread their monopoly into more and more areas. Just don't be surprised when they leave you out in the cold after you help them take over the media space.

dongmin
Oct 9, 2003, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by lmalave
Wow!!!!!! I've been waiting for Bluetooth headphones. I wonder when this product will hit the market and what the cost will be.

What is the advantage of having bluetooth headphones, vs. the more common 2.4 Ghz wireless headphones? Unless the bluetooth is built into the iPod somehow (so that you can use the wireless headphone anywhere), I don't see much need to have a bluetooth dock.

The existing interface is pretty darn good but it could use some refinements: first of all, I'd like to be able to collapse all the songs of an album into just one entry in my library. Or you should have the option to see all the songs individually or collapsed into albums. It'd make for scrolling through my library easy.
Also, it'd be nice to have nested playlists, meaning I can group playlists into different folder.

As for watching movies on your TV off your iPod, I don't see much use for it. Yeah it's nice to be able to load up some home movies and take it to your grandpa's and watch the movie. But then it'd require your grandpa to also have this dock. If this was just a simple TV-out cable, instead of a dock, I could see some use for it.

The most useful potential add-ons, to me, would be a compact flash/SD reader attachment and a microphone attachment. And they seem relatively easy to implement.

j33pd0g
Oct 9, 2003, 09:02 PM
My guess is if iTunes supports WMA it'll be on the windows side. iTunes for windows will include MP3's, WMA's, and of course the AAC format. That way the peecee'r will be able to listen to all their previous audio files.

What the heck are "listener loans"?

Nicky G
Oct 9, 2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by mmccaul
-The fact of the matter is there are a whole heck of a lot of devices that play WMA. Name me one device other then the Mac and iPod that play AAC?

------------

Ok :)
http://www.nokia.com/nokia/0,8764,5820,00.html
Granted it is the only one I have ever seen, but it is a device that plays AAC. (not to mention it is the ungliest looking phone I have ever seen but...)

Maybe you need to Google "mp3 player aac" -- to my mind, it looks like a large number of devices play (and record) aac files. Go figure...

sebaz
Oct 9, 2003, 09:13 PM
will itunes 5 if released next week come already in panther, or you think panther will ship with the current version?

WM.
Oct 9, 2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by pjmurphy77
if you read the brochure (PDF) it clearly states that if the headphones are on a conencted-state with the PC, you can listen wirelessly. or, if you are out of range, they act as a stand-alone music player (hence the flash memory)..
OK, so it's the MP3-player equivalent of those headphones with a radio built in (which I didn't previously think was possible). But it seems to me that they require some fancy drivers to make it work, meaning that the iPod would need to implement them in its firmware--which I doubt will happen.

Please note that those are NOT standard Bluetooth headphones in any way. If the iPod supports any Bluetooth headphones it won't be those ones (and again, that product is basically solid-state MP3 player + headphones + Bluetooth transceiver).

In conclusion: not relevant to the discussion here.

WM

WM.
Oct 9, 2003, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by stingerman
Most WM players do not support WMA with DRM.
Completely true: my initials are WM, I'm a playa, and I don't support WMA with DRM.

:D I sure have fun with these Windows Media threads! :D

WM

P.S. Wow, Safari's (i.e. Cocoa's) built-in spell check recognizes "playa" as a word...I guess Apple really is gaining in popularity in the hip-hop community... ;)

Actually, a quick check of the American Heritage reveals that a playa has something to do with geology and deserts, though that kind of playa is pronounced very differently from the version I intended.

Fukui
Oct 9, 2003, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by macr1jxb
Supporting, at least, playback of WMA in iTunes for Windows is actually pretty simple(even rights managed), because the Windows Media technology is actually a shared resource other applications can take advantage of. So what may end up happening is iTunes has its own software for playing and ripping MP3/MP4 and then farms out the backend to Window Media for WMA support (never exposing a user to the horrible Window Media Player)
Exactly what they would do, and its neccesary in the PC world. Without WMA unfortunately, iTunes can't replace the other players because they all support WMA too.

WM.
Oct 9, 2003, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by boobers
the ipod is definetely fast enough to decode divx and mpeg2 bitrates. I just tested it on my new 20GB ipod.
WTF???? You mean you got video to display on the screen somehow?

I don't think so...

WM

stingerman
Oct 9, 2003, 10:14 PM
Both AAC and WMA come with and without DRM. Many MP3 players play AAC and WMA but not with DRM. iPod is the only one that currently plays AAC with Fairplay DRM. I know of only Creative that produces a WMA DRM compatible device. (Don't forget that their are now multiple DRM's for WMA and they are not interchangeable.)

It is clear to me that Apple will play WMA but not with any DRM. Apple will bring over AAC with fairplay DRM to Windows. Quicktime will be the vehicle to support the codecs on each platform. Third party venors can easily add new codecs to Quicktime as well. So, if MSFT wanted to develop a codec for Quicktime, it would easily plug in.

dho
Oct 9, 2003, 10:16 PM
Too bad 7b85 doesn't include a test run of itunes 5

Fukui
Oct 9, 2003, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Show me ANYTHING other then the iPod that supports ACC. If Apple is trying to push the format they aren't doing that good of a job
Cell Phones, upcomming set-top boxes and some new music players, and sony clie I believe. Not as prevelant as WMA for sure, but its starting....

Thanatoast
Oct 9, 2003, 10:44 PM
Okay, I think some people are resisting wma out of spite.

In order for there to *be* the possibility of long-term gains, Apple must support wma. Otherwise they will be pushed out of the market. Not supporting wma would be cutting of their nose to spite their face.

Yes, we all know MS will play dirty, we've just gotta play smarter. How to do this? Hellifino. But denying reality won't help.

Originally posted by WM.
I guess Apple really is gaining in popularity in the hip-hop community...

Actually, a quick check of the American Heritage reveals that a playa has something to do with geology and deserts
I guess apple is really gaining popularity in the earth science/arid ecosystems crowd, eh? ;)

bipto
Oct 9, 2003, 10:55 PM
Just a couple of thoughts...

1. Apple's priority (at least when it comes to music) is to move iPods. The iTMS was developed to do just that at a time when there was nothing else out there like it.

2. Not supporting WMA means not allowing your customers to buy their music from Napster, BuyMusic, MusicMatch, Real, and eventually AOL, Amazon, Dell, etc., etc. If I'm a Windows user and I can get an MP3 player from Dell for $100-200 less then Apple's and I get access to all the music stores on the internet except iTMS, then what has Apple gained? Nothing.

3. Allowing the iPod to play WMA does not mean Apple is ditching AAC. Support for WMA does does not mean iTMS will sell WMA. It just means iPod owners can get a song from Napster or iTMS or wherever.

4. Apple can continue to market the advantages of AAC over WMA while at the same time supporting WMA. Support for the rival format while demonstrating the superiority of your own cannot hurt you, especially when your format is unique in the marketplace.

Bottom line, support for WMA on the iPod lowers the resistance to buy one and Apple wants to sell iPods. I would be stunned (and very discouraged) if the next version of iTunes and the iPod firmware did not support WMA.

illumin8
Oct 10, 2003, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Name me one device other then the Mac and iPod that play AAC?
How about every DVD player ever made? Just kidding, but you should know that AAC is made by Dolby labs and is the de-facto standard audio container that will be used in MPEG-4. MPEG-4 is widely anticipated to be the High-Def DVD standard and will soon be available on a number of devices. It would be trivial to playback AAC encoded .m4a or .m4p files, since they are simply MPEG-4 audio without any video streams in the container.

AAC is a far superior format to both WMA and MP3. There is no way that Apple would embrace an MS format when they could just as easily make iTunes for Windows capable of playing back the same AAC files that Mac users get.

Anyone that seriously suggests Apple will make two separate stores, one for Windows and one for Mac, with two separate formats, is smoking some serious crack.

illumin8
Oct 10, 2003, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by 1macker1
Just because ACC is the superior format, doesn't mean it's the more widely supported format. If i was a window user, i would stick with the format that more mp3 players support.
What, like MP3? I will never voluntarily use WMA. Not only does it sound like crap, it's full of DRM as well. MP3 is open, and works fine on every player there is.

Apple will use AAC on the Windows iTMS.

deejemon
Oct 10, 2003, 01:16 AM
*

donely
Oct 10, 2003, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Bluetooth does not have the bandwidth to support stereo sound.

That's why all the bluetooth headsets have only one earphone not two.

No, that's because of battery requirements

iamtiger
Oct 10, 2003, 02:52 AM
There will be no WMA for all you hopefuls. Why go to an inferior standard WMA just to satisfy Bill Gates craving to control the format for computer audio. And why would Apple make WMA just to satisfy all those drooling hordes of people who want our beloved itunes on their windows computers. Listen, Apple decided to use AAC for a reason, its far superior and the best sounding. If windows users want the best player around "itunes", then they better convert to OUR format the AAC . Its better stronger and faster kind of like the bionic man, obviously the best encoder ever made. Apple will make AAC the standard codec to be used until at least the 22century hehe. There will be no kissing up to our competitors so they can use our itunes and buy music from another online site. They will buy AAC only, and they will buy an ipod too. Time to throw away all those other wma mp3 players and get on board to the worlds best audio player the IPOD!!!

F/reW/re
Oct 10, 2003, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by bitfactory
this isn't about a grudge, its about quality. and WM doesn't have 95% market share.

the logical extension of this is that the iTMS would offer WM files... NOT GOING TO HAPPEN... file that next to "OSX on Intel chips!"
IT's not about quality, it's about FREEDOM! Let the user choose whats best for themself!

iTunes should be able to play wma, but not encode them.

displaced
Oct 10, 2003, 06:11 AM
Not sure how valuable this argument is, but I can't help dipping my oar in.. :)

It's in WinTunes' best interests to support as many filetypes as possible. iTunes isn't just about the Store. Being a drop-in replacement to any existing media manager for Windows will greatly help with getting it accepted by users.

Remember also, that Apple has to do absolutely zero work to support Windows Media files on Windows (DRM or otherwise). Just as QuckTime can simply be dropped into any application, the Windows Media control can be harnessed by iTunes for WMA playback.

In fact, all that's really needed to be done is to create an AAC codec to hook in to the WM system. Put the codec into the system, and handle the autorisation stuff for the file in WiniTunes itself, and you're done.

Now - the thorny question of the hardware. Should the iPod support WMA?

Who knows :)

bipto
Oct 10, 2003, 07:12 AM
iTunes for Windows is likely to be Apple's best hope of pushing the adoption of AAC
I don't think Apple is as interested in the adoption of AAC as it is in selling iPods.

Why go to an inferior standard WMA just to satisfy Bill Gates craving to control the format for computer audio.
It's not about moving iTunes to WMA, it's about allowing iTunes and iPod owners to play the files. No doubt Apple will continue to use AAC. No reason not to support both (in fact, lots of reasons to support both).

iTunes should be able to play wma, but not encode them
Hmm. Yeah, that sounds about right. The important part would be the playback. Windows users could always use thier Media Player to encode...

As I see it, WMA support is about fielding competitive products, not some some audio format holy war. It's about selling lots of high margin iPods. Apple should do whatever accomplishes that goal.

1macker1
Oct 10, 2003, 07:33 AM
MS users just dont know what they are missing. I requested a song to be added, and it was added within a week.:) I didnt expect them to add it. GREAT JOB APPLE:)

september29th
Oct 10, 2003, 07:56 AM
Wouldn't record labels be a little hesitant about iTunes for windows being anything but AAC? This format is the reason that labels signed on to the project.

.mCr.

OutThere
Oct 10, 2003, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by bitfactory
Windows Media? hahahaha - that blows the credibility of this report... i find it hard to believe they would do that - especially if the iPod doesn't support it (and hopefully never will). dream on.


Obviously you have never seen the package contents of iTunes 4:

asphalt-proof
Oct 10, 2003, 08:02 AM
I don't profess to channel "steve" but I doubt that Wintunes would support WMA simply because its not an open standard. They might provided some sort of simple to use converter that would enable existing WMA files to be transfered to AAC. On the other hand, competing against Microsoft is very tricky. SOme companies have died by promoting a different standard and others have died by using Microsoft's standard. Microsoft is so huge that they can afford to take a loss or give something away for free in order to become the defaulted product in the catagory. If APple tries to go head-to-head with them in a standards battle they could get roundly trounced and 5 years form now we will all be reading articles about a great mp3 player that died because it only played a little used file format. (I know that its use us growing but...) On the other hand, if Apple does support WMA, we could all be reading articles in 5 years that talk about how much better Mmp4 was but was never adequately supported and died on the vine because it became irrelevant.

BUT... What if there was some very cool feature that the iTunes for Windows has that is a musthave... ease of use
, may not be the ticket. (windows users are used to things being slightly hard to use). 100 free tunes with the purchase of an iPod... very good start.
What are some other features that could make AAC very attractive. (DRM doesn't really count because iTunes has a very watered down DRM feature set.)

Djehuti
Oct 10, 2003, 08:10 AM
I noticed in the screenshots of Expose on the Panther info that two of the windows they show are iTunes windows. (Note the F10 mode where it exposes the windows in one app.)

I saw that and tried to find a way to display multiple windows in iTunes 4. Couldn't find it. Did a Google. No go.

Perhaps this is one of the new UI features in iTunes 5.

(I have no opinion on WMA; I want Ogg Vorbis. I have the Ogg Quicktime Components so at least I can convert in iTunes for export to the iPod in AAC, but it would be nice to natively play Oggs on the iPod.)

Stella
Oct 10, 2003, 08:33 AM
Don't get excited.

You can do that in iTunes 4.. have multiple windows open.

I would tell you how you do it, but I've forgotten at this moment in time! :-D

Originally posted by Djehuti
I noticed in the screenshots of Expose on the Panther info that two of the windows they show are iTunes windows. (Note the F10 mode where it exposes the windows in one app.)

I saw that and tried to find a way to display multiple windows in iTunes 4. Couldn't find it. Did a Google. No go.

Perhaps this is one of the new UI features in iTunes 5.

(I have no opinion on WMA; I want Ogg Vorbis. I have the Ogg Quicktime Components so at least I can convert in iTunes for export to the iPod in AAC, but it would be nice to natively play Oggs on the iPod.)

F/reW/re
Oct 10, 2003, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Djehuti
I noticed in the screenshots of Expose on the Panther info that two of the windows they show are iTunes windows. (Note the F10 mode where it exposes the windows in one app.)

I noticed that too. I just thought it had something to do with the possibility to have the MusicStore link in the Source-panel or not. And if you dont have it there and choose MusicStore from a meny, the music store would open in a new window.

I can't find this feature in iTunes4 so I guess it's something new and cool :D

dth21
Oct 10, 2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by F/reW/re
I noticed that too. I just thought it had something to do with the possibility to have the MusicStore link in the Source-panel or not. And if you dont have it there and choose MusicStore from a meny, the music store would open in a new window.

I can't find this feature in iTunes4 so I guess it's something new and cool :D

Don't get too excited. Just double-click on a playlist in iTunes 4 and tada... multiple windows.

F/reW/re
Oct 10, 2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by dth21
Don't get too excited. Just double-click on a playlist in iTunes 4 and tada... multiple windows.
:( jepp, double click on the "playlist" icon and a new window reveals.

boobers
Oct 10, 2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by WM.
WTF???? You mean you got video to display on the screen somehow?

I don't think so...

WM

No, the disk spins fast enough to watch it on any old monitor.
So it is capable of playback.
i don't know if the pod's processor is fast enough to capture and compress mpeg4 though.
The mediadock sounds like a good idea to me.
i'd buy one.

LinuxGigolo
Oct 10, 2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by paulwhannel

Bottom line: adding WMA support would cut into Apple's profits in the iTMS. NOT adding it would perhaps make a few people buy other players... but it wouldn't be nearly the loss that Apple would suffer if they abandoned the iTMS.

pnw

Apple IS NOT really trying to make money off of the iTMS. Apple makes money by selling iPods. The store runs at a defecit (which will get larger once Windows users are added to it -- imagine how much Apple will be spending in bandwidth costs for all of those Windows users 'previewing' songs.) Adding compatibility for a format that most mp3 players support (i.e., WMA) to the iPod will only broaden its potential buying audience and increase sales of the iPod which will make Apple money. It will also allow users to purchase music from Napster, Buymusic, Musicmatch, etc and play it on their iPod. This is not a problem because the bottom line is Apple will sell more iPods!

chickengrease16
Oct 10, 2003, 11:19 AM
WMA
i think itunes will just support playing back WMA files. why on earth would they want to allow ripping CDs to WMA, when they have the pretty-darn-decent AAC? and itunes music store in WMA is out of the question. i cant believe some of you actually thought they would do that. especially considering that the ipod doesnt support WMA.
The Interface
i seriously hope it doesnt suck as hard as quicktime STILL does for windows. man, its so ugly. the menus, everything. it looks half done. so i hope they find a way to make a nice brushed metal interface on windows. also, i hope they have the cool visualization still. it wouldnt be too hard because it's openGL, but i could be wrong.
Price
i also seriously hope that they dont decide to charge for itunes or have gay little popup windows when you start it saying "Upgrade to iTunes Pro" like quicktime. hopefully the music store will cover the cost of allowing itunes for windows to be free.
iPod Video
might be neat, but think about it. unless if they make an ipod with a color screen so you can view it directly on it, it does little good to most users. anyone with an ibook or powerbook knows how easy it is to hook it up to a TV anyways, and you can do a lot more with a laptop hooked up to a tv than an ipod. i just dont see it happening, unless it gets a color screen. and the camera attachment, also unless if they get a color screen. i would like to see the user interface on a color screen, though. an aqua interface would look better than the newton-esque interface on the current ipods :-)
Bluetooth
bluetooth is given way too much credit. its slow, the range sucks, and its only good for syncing phones/pdas (but even then just barely) and keyboards/mice. a bluetooth dock, like others have said, is pretty much out of the picture, and would be close-to-utterly useless, not to mention slow. firewire is so fast, and only takes one small cable. come on people, you're getting way too lazy.
and bluetooth headphones. any of you out there wanting bluetooth headphones own an ipod? the headphones are great. small, good sound, and lightweight. not a problem at all. not to mention, they're tethered to your ipod! realize that bluetooth headphones aren't going to be the tiny little buds you're used to. they're gonna be a bit larger. plus, they'd have to wrap around your ear so they dont fall out easily. and they'd have to have a battery, which would be a royal PITA. i own an ipod, and i would never want/need/use wireless headphones. the range sucks, you'd probably lose them at one point or another, and you're shooting unneccesary waves through your body. cant be good.

bertagert
Oct 10, 2003, 11:53 AM
Look, this is real simple.

1. Apple will not support WMA DRM in either the ipod or itunes anytime soon. For those of you that think windows people won't be able to play these songs on the ipods. The windows poeple DON'T listen to wma files anyway. How do I know...because they have mp3's playing on the ipod. Some of you think windows users have hords of wma files laying around. I just checked with 5 friends (all windows users) and not a one has ever ripped into wma nor do they even have a song downloaded in wma. There all mp3's. Heck, regular joes don't even know what AAC or WMA is. They know MP3. That's why I think Apple should have listed this new format as MP4 (I don't know if they could have legally or not). People would have assumed it was the next step of MP3.

2. If Apple did support wma drm, why would they have bothered putting up a store and ripping all their music into AAC? Apple has made a stance against wma. If Microsoft wins this file format for distributing and the playing of music, we as consumers are screwed. Why in the world would you want one company telling you how and when you can play your music? Apple is trying to fight this.

3. As for most mp3 players supporting wma drm. This is not true. Most do not support it. They suport wma, but not wma with drm. there is a big difference between the two. Wait till people find out about this compatibilty problem. The ipod is the market leader and will be for some time. No need to support a few songs from services that will go under (Rhapsody, Buy Music, Dell to begin with).

Why music match, buy music, dell, napster, etc. have chosen wma support is beyond me. I think it all has to do with the AAC liscense. If so, the MPEG people need to reconsider they're pricing and do it quick.

Ahhhhh......

However, I think Apple has won this race already. They have the total package. Open music player, open music store, buy music, transfer to ipod seamlessly, or rip to CD. No other company can offer this. I think in a year or two it may happen for either Napster or Music Match but all the rest will die a quick death.

my 2 cents

oskich
Oct 10, 2003, 11:57 AM
Bluetooth support for iPod is a good idea...

Imagine a wireless LCD-remote control showing the current playing song :rolleyes:

bertagert
Oct 10, 2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by oskich
Bluetooth support for iPod is a good idea...

Imagine a wireless LCD-remote control showing the current playing song :rolleyes:
Go one step further and have a remote that looks like the ipod (but thin) that lets you do all the smae functions as the ipod, all from the lazy boy. I wanted someone to make this when I got my new 15 gig. The bluetooth would be in the dock and the remote and would only have to tansfer the song info, not the whole file, to the remote. Bluetooth could easily handly that.

I bet within the year it's available through either Apple or a third party.

illumin8
Oct 10, 2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by LinuxGigolo
Apple IS NOT really trying to make money off of the iTMS. Apple makes money by selling iPods. The store runs at a defecit (which will get larger once Windows users are added to it -- imagine how much Apple will be spending in bandwidth costs for all of those Windows users 'previewing' songs.) Adding compatibility for a format that most mp3 players support (i.e., WMA) to the iPod will only broaden its potential buying audience and increase sales of the iPod which will make Apple money. It will also allow users to purchase music from Napster, Buymusic, Musicmatch, etc and play it on their iPod. This is not a problem because the bottom line is Apple will sell more iPods!
Where did you hear this ************? Apple is already profitable with the iTMS. They're not raking in money, but they are profitable.

Djehuti
Oct 10, 2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by dth21
Don't get too excited. Just double-click on a playlist in iTunes 4 and tada... multiple windows.

Hmm. I SWEAR I tried that. I guess I double-clicked the playlist name instead of the icon, because sure enough, double-clicking the playlist icon opens it in a new window. And indeed that is what appears to be happening in the Expose screenshot.

illumin8
Oct 10, 2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by chickengrease16
any of you out there wanting bluetooth headphones own an ipod?
I own a 30GB iPod and I would love to have Bluetooth headphones. It would be great for exercising not to have to worry about getting tangled up in a cord. I could also have the iPod sitting in my bag somewhere and still be able to hear what's going on. I think they should add one more thing: A Bluetooth remote control for it as well. This would be awesome and would really make the iPod the perfect peripheral. Especially if the remote had an LCD display and a scroll wheel on it... but then again, it would be almost as bulky as the iPod itself so that wouldn't be so good.

bipto
Oct 10, 2003, 01:19 PM
2. If Apple did support wma drm, why would they have bothered putting up a store and ripping all their music into AAC?
OK, once again, allowing iTunes and the iPod to play WMA does not mean Apple is ditching AAC. The two are not attached.

Apple has made a stance against wma. If Microsoft wins this file format for distributing and the playing of music, we as consumers are screwed. Why in the world would you want one company telling you how and when you can play your music? Apple is trying to fight this.
What? Apple is indeed telling me when and how to play my music. Everything I buy from iTMS has DRM built in (three Macs, burn limit of playlists, etc.). Apple is not fighting DRM. They are trying to sell a more reasonable set of DRM restrictions. iTMS (and all the other music stores, for that matter) whould not exist without DRM. iTMS exists to sell iPods. Therefore, the iPod's continued success and growth is tied to some kind of DRM.

SiliconAddict
Oct 10, 2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Stella
The point is MP4 is industrial standard.

WMA is not.

WMA will **** consumes over in a few years time.

MP4 will not.

WMA == *short term* gain.

MP4 is for long term.

Except that is how companies do not work.

Short sightedness.

I don't think anyone is denying that MS will most likely screw everyone over in the long run. I mean it is MS after all. That's their "thing". But they have gained such a foothold in the device market that not supporting them would be as bad AS supporting them. As I had mentioned before Apple could be a bit tricky with iTunes for Windows and do most of the conversion on the app itself instead of supporting WMA on the iPod. So say you have 3GB of WMA. iTunes could convert them over to AAC for the user as an option or do on the fly conversion. There are a number of ways of nudging users over to AAC. Apple needs to act like Microsoft in this regard. Support WMA but do it in a way that benefits Apple and AAC not Microsoft and WMA.

chickengrease16
Oct 10, 2003, 01:45 PM
a remote? that would make this:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3104/newremote.html

become more and more of a reality! no no no! :-)

pjmurphy77
Oct 10, 2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by oskich
Bluetooth support for iPod is a good idea...

Imagine a wireless LCD-remote control showing the current playing song :rolleyes:

Sony Ericsson recently launched this - Bluetooth, backlit screen with caller-id and other info, wireless headphone

I think a similar form factor would be great (stereo headphones needed though)
HBH-200 specifications

The HBH-200 Bluetooth™ Headset is a unique handsfree with display and phone calling functions. On incoming calls, the display shows who’s calling. You can hear the ring tone in the earpiece. The HBH-200 clips onto your clothing and can also be hung on a lanyard.

The headset supports the Bluetooth™ Headset & Handsfree profiles, and works with all Sony Ericsson Bluetooth™ phones as well as most other Bluetooth™ phones on the market.

bertagert
Oct 10, 2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by bipto
OK, once again, allowing iTunes and the iPod to play WMA does not mean Apple is ditching AAC. The two are not attached.
No they are not, but allowing it would make it so you could buy from one of the other stores (which isn't a bad thing when looking at competition) but it will slowly erode the need for AAC. Not having AAC means WMA wins and becomes the standard.


What? Apple is indeed telling me when and how to play my music. Everything I buy from iTMS has DRM built in (three Macs, burn limit of playlists, etc.). Apple is not fighting DRM. They are trying to sell a more reasonable set of DRM restrictions. iTMS (and all the other music stores, for that matter) whould not exist without DRM. iTMS exists to sell iPods. Therefore, the iPod's continued success and growth is tied to some kind of DRM.
Yes Apple's AAC does have restrictions. However, AAC is not owned by one company where WMA is. Lets say all devices only played WMA files. Miscrosoft could implement the same restrictiions it does now. But, knowing Microsoft, they will do something completely different. Something you would not like.

Look at it another way. If WMA is the standard. Guess who gets to charge for WMA use? Microsoft. If it's a monopoly, guess how much your music files will up in cost? You see, you don't want Microsoft to have control over the file formats. It's a really, really bad thing. This is what you guys are not looking at.

Stop looking a few days down the road, look ten years down the road and you'll be able to see the big picture. If MS wins this, the big picture won't look to good.

ClimbingTheLog
Oct 10, 2003, 03:03 PM
The iPod uses a PortalPlayer PP5002 'CPU' (dual-ARM package) which natively supports playback of WMA, including Microsoft DRM. Apple would be stupid to not support it - the work is already done and potential customers already own content in this format. Of course, wInTunes isn't going to encode to WMA, but it has to allow use of WMA.

Also interesting is that the PortalPlayer supports realtime encoding of MP3 and ACELP.NET. Of course you have to get the audio in somehow, but that's why they use a Wolfson Microelectronics WM8731L which has a nice A/D converter. I'm sure Apple isn't going to support the .NET encoder, but MP3 recording is ready to go, just waiting for a firewire microphone interface. Like, say, an iSight (raise your hand if you just said, "ohh..., that's why the iSight doesn't do DV").

The PortalPlayer is also programmable. They have a v.92 softmodem for the PP, so an MPEG-4 video decoder isn't entirely out of the question.

This post brought to you by a screwdriver and Google.

WM.
Oct 10, 2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by boobers
No, the disk spins fast enough to watch it on any old monitor.
So it is capable of playback.
i don't know if the pod's processor is fast enough to capture and compress mpeg4 though.
That's the whole point. Of course the disk is plenty fast enough to get some kind of video off it. The question is whether or not the PortalPlayer processor can actually decode video (for display on the built-in screen). And somehow, I doubt that it can, even if it is programmable.

WM

bipto
Oct 10, 2003, 04:41 PM
[Stop looking a few days down the road, look ten years down the road and you'll be able to see the big picture. If MS wins this, the big picture won't look to good.
I'm not saying that WMA isn't a Bad Thing. I'm just trying to look at it from the standpoint of what's best for Apple and their iPod. If they choose not to support WMA then I believe the iPod's marketshare would eventually wither away. Every other music service is using a music format that the iPod currently does not support. It's like puting out a CD player that only plays once kind of CD available from only one source. I know I wouldn't buy that...

If outstanding industrial design and an elegant user interface were enough to counteract an entire industry arrayed against you, then the Mac would have a 95% marketshare and Microsoft would still be run out of a strip mall.

Finally, here's something that may make the entire argument moot. Buried deep within Napster's Terms (http://www.napster.com/terms.html) is this little tidbit:

If you are using the version of the Service that is accessible from Microsoft Corporation's Windows Media Player 9 Series, you will only be able to burn or transfer Purchased Tracks using the Windows Media Player.
If this is true (and not something that can be worked around by Apple), then whether or not the iPod supports WMA is besides the point.

ClimbingTheLog
Oct 10, 2003, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by WM.
That's the whole point. Of course the disk is plenty fast enough to get some kind of video off it. The question is whether or not the PortalPlayer processor can actually decode video (for display on the built-in screen). And somehow, I doubt that it can, even if it is programmable.
WM

You're forgetting that there are already cell phones on the market with a single, slower CPU than the iPod (2 at that) that can decode MPEG4 video.

Here's ARM's page on the topic:
http://www.arm.com/armtech.nsf/html/Video_Comp?OpenDocument&style=IP_Solutions

They quote 11MHz necessary for MPEG4 video decode. They don't mention if that applies to the ARM or the StrongARM, but the StrongARM is no more than twice as fast as the ARM per clock, call it 4x if you want, it's still only half of one of the iPod's CPU's.

Phil Of Mac
Oct 10, 2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by frozenstar
The theoretical peak data rate of Bluetooth v1.1 is 1 mbps. The real-world sustained data rate is about 150-200 kbps. Clearly, that's more than enough to stream a 128 kbps AAC file. If necessary, iTunes can even re-encode higher bandwidth files on the fly.

That would involve the headphones being able to decode AAC, in which case, the main question is "what the hell" because the iPod is supposed to be your AAC decoder.

No, Bluetooth headphones wouldn't work. Get over it.

WM.
Oct 10, 2003, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by ClimbingTheLog
You're forgetting that there are already cell phones on the market with a single, slower CPU than the iPod (2 at that) that can decode MPEG4 video.

Here's ARM's page on the topic:
http://www.arm.com/armtech.nsf/html/Video_Comp?OpenDocument&style=IP_Solutions

They quote 11MHz necessary for MPEG4 video decode. They don't mention if that applies to the ARM or the StrongARM, but the StrongARM is no more than twice as fast as the ARM per clock, call it 4x if you want, it's still only half of one of the iPod's CPU's.
Whoops, caught me with my pants down! :)

The stuff at that link is quite a ways over my head, but nonetheless I really appreciate the info. Somehow I still don't think we'll see VoiP (Video on iPod, not to be confused with VoIP--Voice over IP) anytime soon. At least, not with the existing hardware.

I probably shouldn't've tossed in that bit at the end about the processor; my main point to boobers was that the hard drive was irrelevant to the discussion.

Thanks again
WM

P.S. Phil is right about Bluetooth 'phones.

ebow
Oct 11, 2003, 12:06 AM
I know everyone's enthralled with the prospect that support for WMA (very likely playback only) means giving in to M$ or abandoning AAC (get real), but...

What do people think of the "listener loans"? To me they sound like a setup where you can download a short-lived music file that expires after some amount of time, say 1 week. Of course, the economics of that don't make much sense: why would you pay $0.33 (or any other amount) for a short-lived file when you only have to pay $0.99 for a permanent file... So I'm probably way off, but I haven't read any other thoughts on the matter.

solid
Oct 11, 2003, 08:40 AM
Here you go:

http://hardwarecentral.dealtime.com/xPP-MP3_and_Digital_Media_Players~KW-AAC~kworg-AAC~linkin_id-3012706~DMT-5~VK

crainial77
Oct 11, 2003, 09:43 AM
ok, i own a PeeCee. but i have NO WMA files. they don't have anything that mp3 or aac, or mp3pro don't have (bad english oh well). wma would take profits away, and besides, only goons would use wma on a regular basis.













go ahead, just try to find a wma song for (ahem) download on kazaa...

Booga
Oct 11, 2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Lancetx
I would be shocked, stunned and disappointed if this was the case. I guess we'll all find out in one week, but I would put the odds at closer to 10% than 40% of this being the case.

What, do people WANT iTunes, and eventually the iPod to fail? Of course it should play WMA, and soon! Don't use the feature if you don't want, but Apple is in the business of selling stuff, not of playing ideological games. IMHO, it should support every file format they can get their hands on, from RealPlayer to WMA to whatever. Let other people sort out who wins the audio format wars, and let Apple make a little cash for once without all the self-righteousness, please.

trusso
Oct 11, 2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Stella
WMA support

Please, No.

I don't see how WMA support would hurt Apple. If many Windows users have WMA music files, it would be stupid for Apple not to support it with iTunes for Windows.

iDave
Oct 11, 2003, 10:35 PM
My prediction: iTunes 5 (or whatever) for Windows and the iPod will play WMA files. iTunes will not encode to WMA, nor will Apple sell WMA files at the iTMS. So, if you're a wintel user and you choose to use iTunes as your sole music player, you can play your old music files but any new music you buy via iTunes will be AAC. Simple enough.

iTunes is so good, and superior to web based music buying that AAC will do very well as long as Apple can get wintel people to use the software. If they use it they'll like it and WMA will become a thing of the past (hopefully).

One more point: if you have an iPod, obviously iTunes will be the software of choice, further influencing the adoption of AAC, whether you encode from CDs or buy music online.

LegionCSUF
Oct 11, 2003, 11:37 PM
iTunes support of WMA DOES NOT MEAN iTunes Music Store support of WMA!

Geez, is that so impossibly hard to understand?

Any decent music app needs to support PLAYBACK of as many in-use formats as possible. Not only are we talking music ripped to WMA format, but streaming radio in WM formats as well.

Do you want to force the music listener that wants to listen to something in WMA format to have to use a different app? That's a good way to get someone to dump iTunes and use something else. Not smart, especially in iTunes's foray into the world of Windows.

ryaxnb
Oct 12, 2003, 12:38 AM
Can use please stop your WMA blab?!? It's not the only thing in iTunes 5 and iTMS 2.

iDave
Oct 12, 2003, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by ryaxnb
Can use please stop your WMA blab?!? It's not the only thing in iTunes 5 and iTMS 2.
Perhaps you'd like to say something about the other things then?

TheFish
Oct 12, 2003, 02:00 AM
i think they should encorperate a seperate section where you could organize any video files you have.

LegionCSUF
Oct 12, 2003, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by TheFish
i think they should encorperate a seperate section where you could organize any video files you have.

Got a big porn stash there, do ya?

OwlBoy
Oct 12, 2003, 02:28 PM
About the phones having smaller prossesors and being able to play back mpeg4...

Thats not the qquality I would want to show on my TV.......

We need 640x480 with a good sized bitrate to actually have it be watchable imho.

-Owl

boobers
Oct 12, 2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by WM.

I probably shouldn't've tossed in that bit at the end about the processor; my main point to boobers was that the hard drive was irrelevant to the discussion.
I was referring to a media dock not the ipod as it currently is.
i don't want to watch anything on a 1.5" screen anyways. But to be able to record it and take it to do a presentation or watch something at a friends house..portable Tivo!
So the HD spins fast enough and the CPU can play them but is it fast enough to capture and compress Mpg4?

Phil Of Mac
Oct 12, 2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by LegionCSUF
Got a big porn stash there, do ya?

Introducing...iPr0n

ogravdal
Oct 13, 2003, 05:14 PM
I don't see the point in not supporting WMA in iTunes. If iTunes could play all kinds of audio files it could easily become the only player that you would use. Even in the windows world.

And then, in case you want to buy some music, why would you use any effort to buy the music from any other stores than the one that is accessible from within the program?

In my opinion WMA support is both necessary and important. I even think it can increase the usage of both AAC and iTunes Music Store. WMA support the implementation of AAC.

I don't think the rumoured bluetooth headset will offer wireless connection between the headphones and the iPod. Instead I think (and hope) it will make the iPod an addition to a mobile phone. Imagine listening to your favourite music when you get an incoming call. The music stops playing and you press a button on the iPod to enter the conversation instead. Thanks to a built-in microphone it will be possible to turn the whole iPod into a headset. Thanks to the scroll-wheel it would also be possible to dial using the iPod and the address book is already there

Another possibility would be to store the pictures taken by a camera-phone on the iPod, via Bluetooth of course.

A while ago I had a MP3 player for my Ericsson t68 phone and I used it a lot until I got my iPod. It would be great if the iPod offered more functionality when used together with a phone! I don't want to carry my iPod in one hand and my phone in the other anymore.

Phil Of Mac
Oct 13, 2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by ogravdal
I don't want to carry my iPod in one hand and my phone in the other anymore.

That's why I clip one to my belt and put the other in my pocket.

ogravdal
Oct 13, 2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
That's why I clip one to my belt and put the other in my pocket.

True, I do the same. But it would be nice if I didn't have to fiddle around whenever I get a phone-call.

I wouldn't have to pause the music, I wouldn't have to take out the ear-phones and I wouldn't have to take the phone out of my pocket.

ClimbingTheLog
Oct 14, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by frozenstar
The theoretical peak data rate of Bluetooth v1.1 is 1 mbps. The real-world sustained data rate is about 150-200 kbps. Clearly, that's more than enough to stream a 128 kbps AAC file. If necessary, iTunes can even re-encode higher bandwidth files on the fly.

You forget the point of saying a music file is 128 kbps. It's the compression rate. You take a 1500 kbps raw audio stream (16-bit 44.1KHz stereo) and crunch it with maths so it becomes 128 kpbs on disk. When you play it the decoder converts it back to 1500 kbps output and you can't hear that much difference.

The problem for Bluetooth is that you have to send the 1500 kpbs stream from the iPod to the headphones. Otherwise you have to build a costly decoder/CPU into the headphones and that will suck battery.

Cell phones are fine since the audio coming out of a cell phone is about 64 kbps uncompressed (8KHz 8bit mono), and nobody cares about CD-quality-sounding cell phones.

Now, maybe you could do a simple joint-stereo/RLE or LZ lossless encoding and get a 2:1 compression ratio to make a low-powered iPod bluetooth headphone work, but then you're stuck with a non-standard Apple-only headphone.

zync
Oct 15, 2003, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by SilentPanda
It might be possible that iTunes would support playing WMA files... I haven't used a PC at home for quite a while but doesn't MusicMatch and Windows Media Player by default encode CD's into WMA format? If so then your typical home user would have all of their music in WMA format. Thus supporting the playing of WMA files would be greatly needed to allow the seamless integration. Or at least they would reencode your WMA files on import to iTunes and maybe not let you play WMA files or make new WMA files... I suppose I really don't care either way... but it is a consideration for the reasoning that might be behind that.

Windows Media Player might but MusicMatch does not....at least by default....MM might if you tell it to though I don't think it can....