PDA

View Full Version : HP: No WMA for iPod


MacRumors
Jan 13, 2004, 03:21 PM
A recent article (http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,61897,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1) from Wired confirms that the iPod will not be going the way of the Microsoft Windows Media Audio (WMA) format. An earlier Page 2 rumor (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/01/20040112010452.shtml) detailed a report by a questionable source that HP is working with Apple to bring the WMA format to the iPod. Showing this to be false, HP's digital entertainment product marketing manager, Muffi Ghadiali, told Wired that they will not be supporting the WMA format for now:

"We picked the service that was the most popular (Apple's iTunes Music Store)," said Ghadiali. "We could have chosen another format, but that would have created more confusion for our customers."

This confirms the earlier report (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/01/20040112145522.shtml) we received, from a rather relabile source, that there are currently no plans to bring WMA support to the iPod.

In a related note, a recent statement from Microsoft (http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=574), regarding the Apple/HP iPod partnership, indicates a difference in opinion between HP and Microsoft as to just what constitutes customer confusion.

pbreit
Jan 13, 2004, 03:22 PM
Probably more accurate to say "there are no current plans".

Poff
Jan 13, 2004, 03:31 PM
Hurrah! :-)
I think thatīs a good move on Appleīs behalf. Keep them to iTMS and off other music stores - therefore exposed to the Apple-brand more often.

the_dalex
Jan 13, 2004, 03:32 PM
Interesting move... I still think that adding WMA support (or, not subtracting it) would be a good business move, but an equally interesting question is, why doesn't Microsoft's media player support downloads from the most popular music store?

Microsoft is saying that it is a bad move to go with the Apple solution, even go as far as to throw in the word "incompatible" just to scare of customers. But, if the iPod is compatible with the computer it was purchased with, and the music store and software it is bundled with, how is it incompatible? Because it doesn't work with other products that the customer DIDN'T purchase? Huh?

Microsoft is abusing the term choice in a horrible way. That, or they think that customers are used to the Wintel cycle of "buy product, realize it sucks, throw away, repeat" when in actuality they will buy the HP, buy the HP iPod, and be happy. The choice was made, Microsoft, now stop bitching that they chose someone else.

fdavila
Jan 13, 2004, 03:42 PM
If Apple wants a larger share of the "MP3" player market then they should put WMA on iPods.

Steve claims he makes no money from selling music; therefore, he must make money from selling iPods. WMA would sell a lot of iPods.

Follwing Steve's logic, Apple could get close to 100% of the MP3 player market just by adding WMA.

mainstreetmark
Jan 13, 2004, 03:45 PM
I don't want them to support WMA. If they did, that'd give WMA the vast majority, and AAC would die. AAC is a better format (like you all don't know), but here's some empirical data.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/20020712/2u4u-06.html

Why should iPod help WMA become more universally accepted?

Sayhey
Jan 13, 2004, 03:48 PM
This is very good news. The key for Apple to maintain their lead in this market is to win others to AAC. Apple can innovate and win in a marketplace that is not skewed by Microsoft's monopoly forcing others to adopt WMA. I hope Apple follows the HP-Apple iPod deals with other PC makers. This has the side benefit of helping to get Quicktime on more and more desktops. Maybe we will see the use of Quicktime on more websites and a break with the crappy WMA only trend.

0 and A ai
Jan 13, 2004, 03:53 PM
Wonder what the fudge thurott is gonna say about this. All i know is I'll wait till someone posts it on the forum and not give him hits on his page.

xtekdiver
Jan 13, 2004, 03:55 PM
Maybe Apple should support WMA when Microsoft supports AAC! Why should Apple cave when they have all the cards? Apple is doing the right thing by refusing to support WMA. It's actually a little ironic if you think about it: Apple uses an open source codec but is being accused of using proprietary tactics by not supporting a proprietary standard.

And one more observation should be made. The more you download the more of an investment you are making. I know I don't want half of my digital music in one codec and the other half in another; I want only one. So, now that I have an investment in Apple iTunes and AAC I don't want to use anything else. Once Apple has you then it is doubtful that you will go anywhere else. So, if Apple keeps their quality high and innovation interesting, they will not loose the market share they have now regardless of how many new music stores come online. Let the WMAs of the world duke it out for their 25% of the pie. Microsoft couldn't do digital media right if thier company's life depended on it.

So, my question is why don't the other digital juke box makers support AAC? Let them get left behind by refusing to support open standards. With HP on board it is a very real possibility that AAC will start gaining more acceptance.

nagromme
Jan 13, 2004, 03:59 PM
Uncle Fester says HP-Apple = LESS choice??

All these HP PC's will surely come with Windows Media Player etc. as part of Windows, just as always. They'll ALSO now have iTunes. And HP buyers, like everyone else, will be free to choose ANY music players, and online store(s) that they wish. They need not select an HP iPod, and need not use iTunes at all.

So... compared to when HP pre-installed WMP alone without adding iTunes... this new plan represents a LOSS of choice?

Poor Microsoft is less and less able to dupe people with that kind of logic these days :)

And those who think Apple should add WMA in order to sell more iPods should remember:

1. One of the best things about Apple's offerings is that all the pieces work together as an unparalleled system.

2. iPod is already the best selling player, without WMA.

3. Short term gains from the (few) people who have already bought WMAs would be offset by long term losses when Microsoft-controlled music is promoted. (Damage the iTunes Store and in the long run Apple damages iPod sales too.)

4. WMA owners can rip from CD-R to AAC if they need to--but most people are buying music from Apple anyway.

5. Microsoft is whining because they KNOW Apple has made good choices.

mhouse
Jan 13, 2004, 04:01 PM
I respectufully submit that those of you calling for Apple to support WMA with the iPod are missing the point.

In a digital music realm dominated by WMA (and, thus, MS), only MS' handpicked hardware flunkies will survive and only MS itself will thrive. (Just like now...Dell, Gateway, ets. scratch out an existence selling tons of machines for pennies of profit while MS swallows profits by the handful with Office and Windows).

You can be sure that if WMA wins this battle, there will be no more "2 million unit years" for the iPod.

Fortunately, Apple seems to know this also.

xtekdiver
Jan 13, 2004, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by nagromme
Uncle Fester says HP-Apple = LESS choice??

All these HP PC's will surely come with Windows Media Player etc. as part of Windows, just as always. They'll ALSO now have iTunes. And HP buyers, like everyone else, will be free to choose ANY music players, and online store(s) that they wish. They need not select an HP iPod, and need not use iTunes at all.

So... compared to when HP pre-installed WMP alone without adding iTunes... this new plan represents a LOSS of choice?

Poor Microsoft is less and less able to dupe people with that kind of logic these days :)

An interesting question will be which media player will lauch mp3 files by default? My guess is it will be iTunes. Yup, poor Microsoft.

just a thought
Jan 13, 2004, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by xtekdiver
It's actually a little ironic if you think about it: Apple uses an open source codec but is being accused of using proprietary tactics by not supporting a proprietary standard.

Now, that's not ENTIRELY true. AAC is an open standard, but FairPlay ISN'T open. It's proprietary. Since ITMS serves up AAC wrapped inside FairPlay DRM, it's serving up a proprietary solution. Now, unless I'm mistaken, Apple isn't licensing FairPlay, but Microsoft does liscence WMA, which in fact makes WMA the more open format.

Now don't get me wrong, I think WMA sounds awful, and I have bought songs through iTMS and own an iPod and all is well and good in the world, but it irks me when people talk about AAC being open when they're really talking about AAC/FairPlay which is closed.

x86isslow
Jan 13, 2004, 04:17 PM
as a user stuck using windows, i worry when i hear that both wmp and itunes are bundled oem.

on my computer, i have to watch a war between quicktime, wmp and real for the rights to play files, and since each program wants to play them, my computer suffers from chronic system hangups.:(

formatc
Jan 13, 2004, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by just a thought
which in fact makes WMA the more open format.

I wouldn't use the word open with either, especially WMA.

But technically, AAC is the more open of the two, because it is a product of the MPEG working group. It is the DRM which is proprietary.

It is really stupid to argue.

All I know is I click "buy song" and it's on my computer. Plug in the iPod, and the song is in my pocket.

If I want to share it, I'll burn you a CD. Simple as that.

And guess who makes a patent royalty of every blank CD? Sony.

Now that's something to talk about.

Waluigi
Jan 13, 2004, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by mhouse
In a digital music realm dominated by WMA

This is totally flase. The vast majority of digital music is currently encoded in the MP3 format. Anyone who knows what they are doing doesn't encode their music in WMA. AAC also makes up for over 70% of the legal downloaded music. Microsoft is trying to dominate the digital music industry with their WMA format, but have thus far failed. Apple's smart move here is just killing off WMA faster.

--Waluigi

Edit: I can't read....you are right, I retract the above reaction to your post (which I took out of context by mistake), and if the mods would delete this post, that would be most welcome.

mhouse
Jan 13, 2004, 04:40 PM
"trying to dominate the digital music industry with their WMA format, but have thus far failed. Apple's smart move here is just killing off WMA faster"

I'm sorry. I thought it was fairly clear that I was positing a theoretical future where WMA was dominant.

I agree with what you are saying. It was, in fact, one of the main points of my post.

Dippo
Jan 13, 2004, 04:46 PM
Supporting WMA keeps looking like a bad idea the more I think about it.

Microsoft wants everyone to use WMA so that they have to use Windows and other Microsoft products to play their music. Thus the monopoly is continued.

joeconvert
Jan 13, 2004, 04:49 PM
Hmmm. I agree with not supporting WMA, but don't lump the PC producers into one category. Dell turns more profit in a quarter than Apple has in the last 10 years.


Originally posted by mhouse
I respectufully submit that those of you calling for Apple to support WMA with the iPod are missing the point.

In a digital music realm dominated by WMA (and, thus, MS), only MS' handpicked hardware flunkies will survive and only MS itself will thrive. (Just like now...Dell, Gateway, ets. scratch out an existence selling tons of machines for pennies of profit while MS swallows profits by the handful with Office and Windows).

You can be sure that if WMA wins this battle, there will be no more "2 million unit years" for the iPod.

Fortunately, Apple seems to know this also.

animemaster
Jan 13, 2004, 04:49 PM
From my person experience with Apple, this whole..confusion thing they're coming up with is b#$% s%^&.

Dell and Microsoft are just a bit ticked off and jealous, that the number 2 PC company has partned with Apple, and...that they're not going to be using windows media format.

HP has recently considered itself the Apple of the PC world. This is no different. And, drawing from my own experience with Apple, more people were interested in quicktime, AAC, and mp3 than the windows media format. Apple has proven that there is no confusion, and will be no confusion. If confusion was to come forth, it would be the doing of Microsoft and Dell.

-animemaster

boros
Jan 13, 2004, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Waluigi
Anyone who knows what they are doing doesn't encode their music in WMA.

--Waluigi

Ummm.... I won't reserrect this thread, please refer to the lengthy discussion in the last post about HP/WMA/iPod... however, WMA doesn't always sound like crap and "knowledgeable" people sometimes rip in WMA. The problem with AAC today is there there is no lossless compression for audio. So, with AAC, you will always lose a audio data. With WMA 9 lossless, on the other hand, you retain all of that data. When I took the time to rip my 1,200 CDs, I did so in a lossless format.... I did this because I was somewhat "knowledgeable." Now, there are excellent slternatives to WMA lossless (APE, FLAC, etc.). Unfortunately, none are as easy to use, manipulate, and as portable as WMA.

While I agree that a 192 AAC counds better than a 192 WMA, Lossless or uncompressed audio files will always sound better than lossy compressed ones. Again, you can refer to yesterday's post and thread on this topic...

1macker1
Jan 13, 2004, 04:56 PM
Why would you have to use windows to play WMA files. Versiontracker offers players for WMA files that's not MS owned.
Originally posted by Dippo
Supporting WMA keeps looking like a bad idea the more I think about it.

Microsoft wants everyone to use WMA so that they have to use Windows and other Microsoft products to play their music. Thus the monopoly is continued.

killmoms
Jan 13, 2004, 05:02 PM
And you can kindly refer to my post yesterday, most likely in the same thread, which emphasized the need for you to shut the hell up about WMA lossless, because there's no reason to use a closed, proprietary codec controlled by a massive corporation. APE and FLAC are FREE, OPEN-SOURCE lossless compression codecs as you already seem to know. As for them not being as flexible or easy-to-use, sorry, I can't swallow that. There are plenty of quality FLAC and APE plugins for popular Windows players like Winamp. Most portable WMA players don't support WMA9 lossless, as it's basically a different codec with the same name. If you're technologically "smart" enough to rip in lossless, taking the extra step to support a non-closed lossless codec shouldn't be too difficult. Otherwise, you're just another in a sea of whiners.

Send feedback (http://www.apple.com/feedback/itunes.html) to Apple and let them know you want support for encoding and decoding FLAC and/or APE within iTunes, and OGG if you feel so moved. It wouldn't be hard, it'd take maybe 5 minutes of your time, and if enough people suggest it they might actually do it! Think: no cost to them, and audiophiles will be happy. I sent in my two cents yesterday, but alone they mean nothing! Volume, people!

--Cless

Dahl
Jan 13, 2004, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by fdavila
If Apple wants a larger share of the "MP3" player market then they should put WMA on iPods.
Apple is trying to win something that in the end will benefit the user. OK, so they might look like they are forcing it a bit, but if the user end up with a better solution in the end, isn't it worth fighting for.
It looks like beta vs. VHS all over again, maybe this time quality will win ?

boros
Jan 13, 2004, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Cless
And you can kindly refer to my post yesterday, most likely in the same thread, which emphasized the need for you to shut the hell up about WMA lossless, because there's no reason to use a closed, proprietary codec controlled by a massive corporation. APE and FLAC are FREE, OPEN-SOURCE lossless compression codecs.

Send feedback to Apple and let them know you want support for encoding and decoding FLAC and/or APE within iTunes, and OGG if you feel so moved. It wouldn't be hard, it'd take maybe 5 minutes of your time, and if enough people suggest it they might actually do it! Think: no cost to them, and audiophiles will be happy. I sent in my two cents yesterday, but alone they mean nothing! Volume, people!

--Cless

Excellent point! I have done so and will again... FLAC or APE on iTunes would be amazing! For now, my archive format is different because WMP actually does a pretty good job of ripping CDs. For CDs with nicks and scratches... actually for any CD, assuming you have the time... EAC is the best ripping tool out there. EAC supports APE and FLAC.

Were iTunes to support FLAC, APE or some new lossless AAC, however, my life would be complete ;) This is, BTW, why I'm screaming about this... Apple should add support!

Think, however, about the implications...
1. Some people may want the choice to buy higher-resolution music.
2. For those people, Apple would have to quadroople storage for iTMS... actually 5-6x, assuming they're keeping copies of the lower res formats. This additional storage will be costly (dirves, arrays, backup, remote replication, Disatser Recovery, storage mgt software, storage manager types, etc.).
3. Apple probably doesn't want to call attention to the fact that people are getting second-rate audio files... especially since the existing AACs sound great on iPods and most stereos.
4. The RAAC can differentiate their CDs - especially the new SACDs and DVD-audios - from inferior losy AACs.

IMOHO, it is for reasons like this that we won't see lossless compresson in iTunes any time soon.

CrackedButter
Jan 13, 2004, 05:15 PM
Would it not be better for itunes to have the ability to convert wma into aac or mp3 rather than not support it at all?

bindlerotor
Jan 13, 2004, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by boros
Ummm.... I won't reserrect this thread, please refer to the lengthy discussion in the last post about HP/WMA/iPod... however, WMA doesn't always sound like crap and "knowledgeable" people sometimes rip in WMA. The problem with AAC today is there there is no lossless compression for audio. ...

But, just like in the previous thread, the lossy vs lossless issue is irrelevant. The issue here is whether or not Apple should support WMA ***on the iPod***. Nobody is going to sell downloadable songs in a lossless format and nobody is going to put them on a portable player. At least, not given the current state of those respective technologies (ie bandwith & storage).

Your point about the lack of support for lossless compression is valid with respect to iTunes, but is off-topic in this or any other "WMA on iPod" thread.

killmoms
Jan 13, 2004, 05:27 PM
Think, however, about the implications...
1. Some people may want the choice to buy higher-resolution music.
2. For those people, Apple would have to quadroople storage for iTMS... actually 5-6x, assuming they're keeping copies of the lower res formats. This additional storage will be costly (dirves, arrays, backup, remote replication, Disatser Recovery, storage mgt software, storage manager types, etc.).
3. Apple probably doesn't want to call attention to the fact that people are getting second-rate audio files... especially since the existing AACs sound great on iPods and most stereos.
4. The RAAC can differentiate their CDs - especially the new SACDs and DVD-audios - from inferior losy AACs
Sorry to be rude, but this logic doesn't make sense. As you've pointed out, AACs that are on the iTunes music store do sound great on iPods and most stereos. The FEW people (and I emphasize few because, despite their vocal presence in certain areas, they really are a TINY proportion of the music-buying public) who take such pride in impeccable audio quality probably aren't buying from the iTMS anyway. They're willing to spend the few extra bucks to get a tangible good (a CD, with liner notes, cover art, etc.) that they can enjoy on high-end equipment. I'd say, of the tiny percentage who already value high-end audio, a similarly tiny percentage of them have interest in getting "high-res" audio off the Internet.

128kbps AAC is "good enough," the practically trademarked term for all "consumer-level" products and services. There will always be a few who appreciate the high-end, and usually are willing and able to pay for it. However, as is often the case, entire markets cannot and do not bend to the whims of those who demand high-end. If they demand it, they'll pay for it. It's cheap (nay, free) for Apple to implement the codecs to make this segment happy. However it won't undercut their ability to sell AAC to the "average Joe." I don't think it's reasonable to assume it would.

--Cless

EDIT: Phrasing, formatting.

winmacguy
Jan 13, 2004, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by nagromme
Uncle Fester says HP-Apple = LESS choice??

All these HP PC's will surely come with Windows Media Player etc. as part of Windows, just as always. They'll ALSO now have iTunes. And HP buyers, like everyone else, will be free to choose ANY music players, and online store(s) that they wish. They need not select an HP iPod, and need not use iTunes at all.

So... compared to when HP pre-installed WMP alone without adding iTunes... this new plan represents a LOSS of choice?

Poor Microsoft is less and less able to dupe people with that kind of logic these days :)

And those who think Apple should add WMA in order to sell more iPods should remember:

1. One of the best things about Apple's offerings is that all the pieces work together as an unparalleled system.

2. iPod is already the best selling player, without WMA.

3. Short term gains from the (few) people who have already bought WMAs would be offset by long term losses when Microsoft-controlled music is promoted. (Damage the iTunes Store and in the long run Apple damages iPod sales too.)

4. WMA owners can rip from CD-R to AAC if they need to--but most people are buying music from Apple anyway.

5. Microsoft is whining because they KNOW Apple has made good choices.

I am not sure and maybe I am assuming something here but I thought that the whole idea of the deal was that HP PCs and Laptops were going to ship with iTunes /iTMS installed in place of Windows Media Player, that being that they get iTunes and Quick Time other wise why all the fuss from Microsoft about iTunes not taking the .wma format

If the PCs came with both media players then the deal wiould be ineffective

hvfsl
Jan 13, 2004, 05:28 PM
I dont care about WMA (dont have any music in that format), I want ogg support.

killmoms
Jan 13, 2004, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
I dont care about WMA (dont have any music in that format), I want ogg support. Have you submitted feedback (http://www.apple.com/feedback/itunes.html)? If so, excellent. Get all your friends who want OGG format to do the same. If not, stop complaining on a forum and help DO something about it. And you should STILL get all your friends who want OGG format supported natively to send feedback as well. If there's demand, I can't see Apple denying the ability. Especially since OGG is free.

EDIT: I'm assuming, of course, that you mean the ability to ENCODE to OGG and/or store and play OGG on the iPod, since there's already a free QuickTime component to play the format which works in iTunes (obviously). I can see OGG being a longer shot, since as a lossy compression scheme similar in nature to AAC, an endorsement by Apple might be construed as an incomplete backing of AAC. Have there been any independent tests comparing AAC and OGG at the same bitrates?

--Cless

ionas
Jan 13, 2004, 06:06 PM
that would be a half year dominance of the monopoly ACC on iTMS.

after that i can imagen that apple and ms sign a deal that MS builds in ACC and Quicktime support with the propertary DRM that apple build in into their Windows Media product series and Apple builds in WMA and WMV support into iTMS and Quicktime (or both leave out the video stuff optionally)

this way wma and acc would coexist and HP would not need to fight with MS all the time.

but for now i dont see a reason iTMS, apple or hp should support WMA.

the ppl can listen to the songs, can buy and download them on windows using a stable player.

there is just NO need for WMA and there is in addition no use for apple.

only hp might be just a bit happier cause they would not be in the situation BETWEEN apple and MS.

but well - hp just chose - in one market segment - who is the better one.

lets hope it stays that way



even though i fear any apple monopoly - because i take SJ sireous when he flirts with BG... somehow they are totally different and somehow they are very similar - those two boys.

apple is a capitalistic company that wants profit and nothing else...

so fear their monopolies - they got a much better STARTING position than MS ever had because they sell hardware AND software bundled.

if they get 20 or 30% i hope they are forced to allow LICENSES for clones (not that just anyone can build and sell apple, but some other retailers)

but for now - apple is small - AND GREAT.

l8er
ionas

warcraftmaster
Jan 13, 2004, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Cless
Have you submitted feedback (http://www.apple.com/feedback/itunes.html)? If so, excellent. Get all your friends who want OGG format to do the same. If not, stop complaining on a forum and help DO something about it. And you should STILL get all your friends who want OGG format supported natively to send feedback as well. If there's demand, I can't see Apple denying the ability. Especially since OGG is free.

EDIT: I'm assuming, of course, that you mean the ability to ENCODE to OGG and/or store and play OGG on the iPod, since there's already a free QuickTime component to play the format which works in iTunes (obviously). I can see OGG being a longer shot, since as a lossy compression scheme similar in nature to AAC, an endorsement by Apple might be construed as an incomplete backing of AAC. Have there been any independent tests comparing AAC and OGG at the same bitrates?

--Cless




what the h*ll is ogg. sound like cra* to me any ways.
i wish they had this in canada

rikers_mailbox
Jan 13, 2004, 06:20 PM
ugh. . . all this audio codec format blah blah blah arguing is giving me a headache. A bunch of techies like us could weigh pros and cons of the AAC vs. WMA battle 'till our head explode. But face it, the average Joe PC user drone doesn't care what format their player uses. They just want it easy to use and sound good (enough). Hmm, that sounds strangely like the iPod/iTMS mantra, could it by why iTMS is winning? AAC is dominating the market right now, what's the point in changing? Average Joe is gonna be happy with his iPod, and tell his buddy Bob that it's awesome, so Bob will buy one too. If, at some point in the future, the monopolistic monster that is Microsoft out muscles AAC, then I'm sure the iPod can adapt in order to save it's popularity. The HP deal gives AAC another kick in the rump towards being the defacto download standard. Formats are formats are formats, throw in a driver and it plays. (don't get all technical on me and say, while pushing up your glasses by the middle, that its more complicated than adding a driver. I know that, let Apple handle the details.) Maybe Michael Dell should think about adding AAC support to the Dell DJ. If he does, then let him, Jobs can licence out the iTMS to him and actually make some money off it.

oh, and iTune converting WMA to AAC would be tough with DRM. So that's not really an option either.

Ok, enough ranting. . . except what I want to know is when will someone (ahem, Apple) put a 4GB microdrive into a digi-camera. (mmmm, auto-sync with iPhoto.) If the iPod mini kills flash MP3 players . . then let flash cameras die with them. Flash is dead.

killmoms
Jan 13, 2004, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by warcraftmaster
what the h*ll is ogg. sound like cra* to me any ways.
i wish they had this in canada

...What?

Don't post if you:

1) Don't know what the heck you're talking about, and/or...

2) Refuse to make sense.

Please clarify your post so we can respond intelligently. For now, all I can come up with is "What on earth are you talking about here?" The only thing that I can glean here is that you don't know what OGG is. To answer that question, it's a lossy audio compression codec (full name is Ogg Vorbis) that is free, open-source and offers higher quality than MP3 at the same bitrates.

--Cless

Photorun
Jan 13, 2004, 06:31 PM
Man, what IS the big deal on this issue. WMA sucks up a joint, it's M$ crappola with their typical "we're the standard" strong arm rhetoric that people eat up like flies to s*** (which is is, and people who choose their stuff mere flies), they're not going to use it on iPod, horray, enough, move on, next!

DTphonehome
Jan 13, 2004, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by x86isslow
as a user stuck using windows, i worry when i hear that both wmp and itunes are bundled oem.

on my computer, i have to watch a war between quicktime, wmp and real for the rights to play files, and since each program wants to play them, my computer suffers from chronic system hangups.:(

I remember those days. :) SO glad I switched! Free yourself, brother! Hangups shall plague you no more! (Well, at least in your computer. I can't comment on your personal life.)

--DT

mhouse
Jan 13, 2004, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by joeconvert
Hmmm. I agree with not supporting WMA, but don't lump the PC producers into one category. Dell turns more profit in a quarter than Apple has in the last 10 years.

Gotcha. I realize some PC manus make good dough. My bigger point was that they make this money entirely at Microsoft's discretion. Regardless of how much money Dell makes, the fact remains that they make it by being completely submissive to Microsoft (and Intel to a lesser degree).

Really, in practical terms, Dell and other pc Manus are little more (very little more) than the hardware arms of Microsoft.

I think, back to the WMA vs. AAC point, that it would be incredibly healthy for a somewhat larger part of the computer industry to exist outside of Microsoft's utter dominance.

This is also a reason that the HP/Apple deal is so significant. It represents a major manu. refusing to tow Redmond's line for once. And, from early comments, MS doesn't much like it. Look for Microsoft to try to punish HP in some way for this.

ITR 81
Jan 13, 2004, 07:57 PM
Kill the WMA format.

I figure Compaq will eventually fall into this Apple deal as well since they are now owned by HP.

Then maybe we'll see IBM jumping on board as well later on down the road.

Then maybe a Japanese brand like Toshiba or NEC.

nagromme
Jan 13, 2004, 09:32 PM
Compaq is already part of the deal.

All consumer HPs and Compaqs.

iMan
Jan 14, 2004, 12:56 AM
Almost everybody in the discussions about WMA vs AAC (and some other formats) seems to assume that one format will eventually win the "war".
I am not so sure. Microsoft (of all) put in the point of people having choices. I don't think that is what MS wants people to have -but sounds nice noe :) However - the one thing to ignite the online music revolution was the freedom of the mp3 format - anyone could use it, free to copy and share etc. No format that uses DRM will ever take hold of the market (unless there is an effective crack to it). Also, as seen here, people are already starting to get their preferences - and they reach from more flexibility to ease of use to higher quality - in addition the mere emotional aspect.
I think we will see a lot of formats prevailing, and more coming, and that the players we use competes in being the better to use.
Well that is what I hope anyway.
So iTunes getting support for more formats (be it OGG or WMA or whatever) I think only would put this ahead of the pack - even more...

splashman
Jan 14, 2004, 02:04 AM
When MS feels the need to whine publicly about Apple's dominance, I get warm fuzzies all over.

Wahoo.

WestCoast
Jan 14, 2004, 04:04 AM
Well, as Bob Marley said, "No WMA, no cry!"

rdowns
Jan 14, 2004, 05:13 AM
Business Week online has a story about the HP-Apple deal and states that Apple can not rebrand the iPod for any other company. First I heard of this.

iMan
Jan 14, 2004, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by rdowns
Business Week online has a story about the HP-Apple deal and states that Apple can not rebrand the iPod for any other company. First I heard of this.

It was stated as a multiyear exclusive deal between Apple & HP.

Unlike somebody else here I don't want to see iPods all over the place anyway... destroys the brand and part of the pleasure of owning one.

kettle
Jan 14, 2004, 05:54 AM
This site seems to have clear opinions on the HP/Apple deal.

H Bomb (http://daringfireball.net)

Well written and presented site for angles on apple news.

iMan
Jan 14, 2004, 06:22 AM
Very good, insightful and fun article!! :D

MattG
Jan 14, 2004, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by 0 and A ai
Wonder what the fudge thurott is gonna say about this. All i know is I'll wait till someone posts it on the forum and not give him hits on his page. Interesting...

I had never heard of this guy, so I looked up his name on Google. Went to his website, and found this:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/ces04.asp

Exclusive: HP Working to Get WMA on iPod
HP's blockbuster deal with Apple will have one exciting side effect, I discovered today. The company will be working with Apple to add support for Microsoft's superior Windows Media Audio (WMA) format to the iPod by mid-year. You heard it here first.

Probably a bunch of nonsense, but interesting to see it anyway.

totally_fly
Jan 14, 2004, 07:51 AM
Daringfireball.net has an interesting take on the HP-Apple deal.

The H-Bomb (http://daringfireball.net/2004/01/the_hbomb)


edit: urg sry Kettle, i didn't notice that you posted the exact same thing :p i'll leave it here anyways

Purple Worm
Jan 14, 2004, 08:25 AM
MattG, fudge Thurott is a complete twat, don't believe a word he says. He's just pro Microsoft (how sad can you get) and writes stuff which is blatently untrue. I'm not exagerating.

P.S. Don't even bother going to his sites so that he gets one more to his 'vistitors count'.

hvfsl
Jan 14, 2004, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Cless
Have you submitted feedback (http://www.apple.com/feedback/itunes.html)? If so, excellent. Get all your friends who want OGG format to do the same. If not, stop complaining on a forum and help DO something about it. And you should STILL get all your friends who want OGG format supported natively to send feedback as well. If there's demand, I can't see Apple denying the ability. Especially since OGG is free.

EDIT: I'm assuming, of course, that you mean the ability to ENCODE to OGG and/or store and play OGG on the iPod, since there's already a free QuickTime component to play the format which works in iTunes (obviously). I can see OGG being a longer shot, since as a lossy compression scheme similar in nature to AAC, an endorsement by Apple might be construed as an incomplete backing of AAC. Have there been any independent tests comparing AAC and OGG at the same bitrates?

--Cless

Thanks I did not know about the feedback thing, I will get into it now. And yes, I mean ogg support for the iPod.

Regalbegal
Jan 14, 2004, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by xtekdiver
Maybe Apple should support WMA when Microsoft supports AAC!

as much as I agree AAC is a better format. M$ can't support it because Apple won't license it to anyone.

The AAC RealNetworks is using isn't the same type of AAC apple is using as well.

The point is the ball is completely in Apple's court. If they want to make AAC widespread they can, they are just waiting for the right time i'd assume.

iMan
Jan 14, 2004, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Regalbegal
M$ can't support it because Apple won't license it to anyone.


I suppose that would be the DRM part of it (?) I thought AAC really was an open standard in the first place (and licensed from Dolby).

One other aspect: The record industry (and movie industry) has a say in it all as well... I see none is going to sell online music in any open format in the near future - which means we are stuck with DRMs. Today Apple has the lead - partly maybe because their DRM is a lot more flexible than most others. What I fear is that one company is going to dominate the music platform entirely (I don't trust a company not to exploit such a position). What I would want is playing my legally purchased music from any online-store or preferred format on any player of my choosing. Unfortunately (because also of DRM) I don't see this happening any time soon... :(

The real bad thing IMO about WMA is that MS owns and controls it all, and if it becomes a "standard" MS will also control and profit from all online media (including video and broadcasting). I really don't like the smell of that... Let's rather have the choices that MS now is all about :D

el gringo
Jan 14, 2004, 09:46 AM
well - it's priced right! ;) and it's packed with HD-space :D

iPod mini-killer (http://www.us.aiwa.com/default.asp?page=news&action=view&record=5)

edit: suggested retail 327 USD...

more on macworld uk:

MacWorld UK (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=7674)

iggyb
Jan 14, 2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by boros
Ummm.... I won't reserrect this thread, please refer to the lengthy discussion in the last post about HP/WMA/iPod... however, WMA doesn't always sound like crap and "knowledgeable" people sometimes rip in WMA. The problem with AAC today is there there is no lossless compression for audio. So, with AAC, you will always lose a audio data. With WMA 9 lossless, on the other hand, you retain all of that data. When I took the time to rip my 1,200 CDs, I did so in a lossless format.... I did this because I was somewhat "knowledgeable." Now, there are excellent slternatives to WMA lossless (APE, FLAC, etc.). Unfortunately, none are as easy to use, manipulate, and as portable as WMA.

While I agree that a 192 AAC counds better than a 192 WMA, Lossless or uncompressed audio files will always sound better than lossy compressed ones. Again, you can refer to yesterday's post and thread on this topic...

I was just curious....what kind of file savings to you get with lossless compression?

the_dalex
Jan 14, 2004, 10:03 AM
Hmmm, so the article says this iPod-mini killer will cost more, has half the space, and is about twice the size.

Wow, that's a real threat...

el gringo
Jan 14, 2004, 10:10 AM
yes - isn't it ;)

and - no support for Mac - BUT - WMA! Wow - I've got to buy one :p

Purple Worm
Jan 14, 2004, 10:27 AM
Wow the spec is so good...about half as good as a iPod mini and it can support WMA wowee!!! It makes the iPod mini look so overpriced (hint sarcasm)...

hvfsl
Jan 14, 2004, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by iggyb
I was just curious....what kind of file savings to you get with lossless compression?

The most you can get is 2:1 compression (the song will take up half the space when compressed). But it depends on the complexity of the song. If you get rid of the stuff that the human ear cant hear, then compress the song loselessly, you will get even better compression though.

Purple Worm
Jan 14, 2004, 10:52 AM
2:1 compression for lossless, are you sure cos thats diabolical!

iMan
Jan 14, 2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by hvfsl
The most you can get is 2:1 compression (the song will take up half the space when compressed). But it depends on the complexity of the song. If you get rid of the stuff that the human ear cant hear, then compress the song loselessly, you will get even better compression though.

Correct me if I am wrong, but would not compressing - and decompressing (as in playing) - these then take some heat on the processor?
Does this go for WMA only, or are there other possibilities out there...?

hvfsl
Jan 14, 2004, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by iMan
Correct me if I am wrong, but would not compressing - and decompressing (as in playing) - these then take some heat on the processor?
Does this go for WMA only, or are there other possibilities out there...?

If I understand what you are saying correctly, it requires more proccessing power to play compressed files, than ones that are not compressed, because the cpu has to do extra work in decompressing the file.

the_dalex
Jan 14, 2004, 12:02 PM
The processor savings are counteracted by the fact that you are transferring data from your hard drive at 5 times the rate, if you are using 2:1 compression. The hard drive is by far a larger battery drain than the processor.

When it comes to portable audio, most people are not willing to trade battery life and storage for an incremental increase in quality that they can't even discern, especially with headphones. High-end audiophiles who like to talk about how they spent $1000 on a tube amp will just have to realize that the portable audio market is not going to cater to them. The technology is designed and optimized for 10:1 compressed files.

Belly-laughs
Jan 14, 2004, 12:03 PM
Does the fact that Sony doesnīt market their HD player under the Sony name mean that theyīre afraid itīs going to flop, thus avoiding any stains on their own label and reputation if so proves to be the case?

the_dalex
Jan 14, 2004, 12:40 PM
Maybe Sony didn't want it to conflict with the PSP line they're introducing?

boros
Jan 14, 2004, 12:58 PM
Lossless for archiving...

Re. compression trates My lossless files tend to be 50% or better compression. The processor hit tends to be in the 3-7% range for playback. Actually, APE is a bit better than WMA lossless in both compression rate and processor hit.

avus
Jan 14, 2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by boros
Lossless for archiving...

<sigh> you DO like to make the same argument over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.... :o

boros
Jan 14, 2004, 01:20 PM
Here's on of many links out there with some good data...

http://www.ntu.edu.sg/home5/pg03053527/Tips/LosslessAudioCodecs_WMA_vs_APE.htm

elgruga
Jan 14, 2004, 01:26 PM
Its not about AAC or WMA. Its about Apple wanting to control a section of the market and build from it.
They all want to do that.
No exceptions.

MP3 files are obviously the most popular out there.
Can WMA files be converted in some way to MP3, and thus on to a windows users iPod or Hipod?

Are there any Windows users with an iPod who can tell us what they do with their tunes, on a day-to-day basis?
If I had 20 gigs of MP3 files on my Dell box (heaven forbid), and I bought an iPod, dont all those files just work on the iPod?

I havent read all the forum - but what I did read seems to be about AAC v. WMA.

I dont believe thats the point.

gothamac
Jan 14, 2004, 01:36 PM
One only needs to look at the reaction of MS and Dell to see that Apple not supporting WMA is a good thing for Apple.

elgruga
Jan 14, 2004, 01:39 PM
Oh, slightly off-topic, but maybe not....

I live in Canada where it is LEGAL to download copyright files.
We pay a premium on cd's tapes and iPods!


check out this story in Macworld:

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=7670


Its funny how this issue isnt really settled yet, and that other countries than the US have vastly different ideas.

Its possible that this means no ITMS for Canada. Oh well. I guess if we can legally download, then we dont need it, right?

iMan
Jan 14, 2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by elgruga
I live in Canada where it is LEGAL to download copyright files.
We pay a premium on cd's tapes and

It is not a bad way to go actually - at least it is a lot easier to control the flow of hardware than "software" (incl. mp3 etc.).
Still, it might of course prevent ITMS and such. Myself though - I guess I would prefer sometimes to pay a price for the ease and quality (though someone questions this here) for the service ITMS offers...
Another advantage from this strategy would be that none would be able to control the market... they will be left with offering good players and easy to use download sites :D

winmacguy
Jan 14, 2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by fdavila
If Apple wants a larger share of the "MP3" player market then they should put WMA on iPods.

Steve claims he makes no money from selling music; therefore, he must make money from selling iPods. WMA would sell a lot of iPods.

Follwing Steve's logic, Apple could get close to 100% of the MP3 player market just by adding WMA.

If incorportating wma on iPods is such a good idea how come Microsft doesnt incorporate or encourage Netscape into their desktop as a web browser since Microsoft is all about giving its customers a "choice" of which application they prefer to use?

winmacguy
Jan 14, 2004, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by elgruga
Its not about AAC or WMA. Its about Apple wanting to control a section of the market and build from it.
They all want to do that.
No exceptions.

MP3 files are obviously the most popular out there.
Can WMA files be converted in some way to MP3, and thus on to a windows users iPod or Hipod?

Are there any Windows users with an iPod who can tell us what they do with their tunes, on a day-to-day basis?
If I had 20 gigs of MP3 files on my Dell box (heaven forbid), and I bought an iPod, dont all those files just work on the iPod?

I havent read all the forum - but what I did read seems to be about AAC v. WMA.

I dont believe thats the point.

to get a wma file onto your iPod,
>export the wma file to CD as an MP3 file
>burn that you CD then import the tracks into iTunes from your CD and export them to your iPod

only files from iTunes work on an iPod

greenstork
Jan 14, 2004, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by the_dalex
The processor savings are counteracted by the fact that you are transferring data from your hard drive at 5 times the rate, if you are using 2:1 compression. The hard drive is by far a larger battery drain than the processor.

When it comes to portable audio, most people are not willing to trade battery life and storage for an incremental increase in quality that they can't even discern, especially with headphones. High-end audiophiles who like to talk about how they spent $1000 on a tube amp will just have to realize that the portable audio market is not going to cater to them. The technology is designed and optimized for 10:1 compressed files.

Which further reinforces the fact that the whole discussion about lossless codecs isn't about storing your music on an iPod. It's about archiving and home audio.