Apple, AAC and Universal

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by TyleRomeo
unfortunately this is where people will have to buy new devices, if you have a MP3 car deck, then its not going to play a format that was released after the hardware, the only examples are devices where you actually do get software updates to the device (iPod) and a few other media players but everyone else buying MP3 anything right now, is a waste of time.

Tyler

Let's hop Apple doesn't expect everyone who might use their service to do this and they offer MP3 (at least for a year or two). Unless AAC will cleanly convert to MP3 on your computer? I wonder what aproach Apple will take to the issue of legacy technology..

😀 ...I just called MP3 "Legacy"...kinda gives me the giggles...😛

 

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by comrade
.MP3's are actually MPEG-2 Layer 3 (the audio layer). I'm kinda confused about the MPEG-4 thing though. I thought MPEG-4 supported MPEG-2 AAC audio encoding so it is just basically a new form of encoding an .mp3. Regardless, MPEG-4 is really neat because it supports encoding and synthesized sound. And for video you get great quality for little size.

MP3 encoding actually goes like this.
First there was MPEG-1, it needed an audio format. There were 3 layers proposed, Layers 1 & 2 never caught on, but Layer 3 lived on as the popular MP3 format we know today.

The MPEG-1 Layer 3 format could only encode audio in 32, 44.1, and 48khz (maybe 24 also, my memory is fuzzy here). Thus when the MPEG-2 standard was created, they expanded Layer 3 to also allow for 11Khz, 16Khz, 22Khz, and 24Khz (unless it was previously available 🙂). There were also other things done to the format at this time, but most are unimportant to mainstream usage.

When the DVD consortium went to choose a format, they choose MPEG-2 video and AC3 audio (over Layer 3 audio) due to it's better support of more than 2 channel audio and better compression

In relation to MPEG-2, AAC was officially known as MPEG-2 NBC audio, where NBC stood for Non-Backwards Compatible. That is, an AAC player cannot automatically play Layer-3 audio (but a Layer-3 player could play Layer-2 & Layer-1 audio). They are a completely different encoding format.

 

[bitfactory]

Originally posted by Awimoway
The idea that Apple would wish to buy a company much larger than itself just for its work on AAC is ludicrous. No way it's that important.

it IS important... CRITICALLY important.. though they aren't attempting to invest in or buy Universal because of THEIR work on AAC.

let's put it this way... Apple wants to get in with the labels ASAP with their DRM (ACC) before Microsoft does... just image what could happen if it was the other way around, then we'd have to deal with Microsoft's DRM and WMP digital rights management.. we'd be screwed... oh Christ... i need to take an Advil.

 

[davy the bunny]

I thought that I remembered someone saying something about DRM being built into what I've heard called "mpeg4". So do I need to worry about this with AAC or not? Looks like no, so far. . .

 

[Qball]

Originally posted by TyleRomeo
unfortunately this is where people will have to buy new devices, if you have a MP3 car deck, then its not going to play a format that was released after the hardware, the only examples are devices where you actually do get software updates to the device (iPod) and a few other media players but everyone else buying MP3 anything right now, is a waste of time.

Tyler

Should the service provide you a choice to download MP3 or AAC?

 

[BaghdadBob]

Re: Re: Apple, AAC and Universal

Originally posted by Frobozz
I can't stand the prose of the NMR report. The writer needs to get less fancy and more to the point. I love funny writing, but when I need to decipher one abstract metaphor after another it becomes tiresome... expecially in an information article.

I agree. Why is it that people who think they are clever also think they are smart? Oh well, without this article we wouldn't have yet another aspect of this service to parse at length for the next ten days 😀

 

[Awimoway]

1. AAC is very important. No argument there. But I can't imagine Apple wants to pay $6 billion just get Universal's contribution to the technology.

2. Getting into the music industry, reinventing it in the digital age before Microsoft gets in there and mucks it up is also a very good idea.

What I am taking issue with is the notion that acquiring Universal's AAC technology is THE driving motivation for such an expensive and probably risky investment. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

You don't see Apple trying to buy Toshiba just to get their superdrives or IBM just to get their processor technology but these are good examples (better ones, in fact) because it illustrates the illogic of buying a company larger than yourself to acquire a single technology.

What I'm saying is that either this AAC work that Universal has done is either really ground breaking or this is just icing on the cake--Apple's main motivation is surely to put its vision of consumer-friendly DRM into implementation and profit off the results.

 

[The Reaper]

maybe steve jobs will divert SOME funds from apple to 'restructure' Universal records, naming himself CEO. that is EXACTLY what he did when he purchased Pixar in the 80's. Steve Jobs isn't just the CEO of apple: he IS apple. everything that apple does centres around HIS visions. so, if steve is CEO of universal, then universal is (effectively) a part of apple (at least it will serve whatever part of Apple's strategy that he wants). the advantage of this is that it is far cheaper than actually buying the company.

in any case, i think this is more about Steve. from what i have seen, he has a very big ego (as he should), and has some significant desire for power/control over the things he likes. so he has his own computer company because he likes computers. he has his own movie company because he likes movies. he (used to) have 'his own' clothing company (GAP) because he likes clothes. and now, he wants a music company. of course, this latest conquest will also play into Apple's strategic goals, but i think it is ultimately about Steve.

on a side note, i do think that Pixar will eventually play a greater part in apple if apple eventually decides to include movies in its strategy (the download service, not digital hub). Steve Jobs is getting s***ty with Disney because they screwed them over with the Toy story movies. currently, Pixar makes the movies and disney distributes/promotes them. this may soon change.

All of Steve Jobs current (and future) companies will, i think, have to be considered together when he shows us his master plan for them. i have a feeling that he has had a master plan for some time, probably since he was first ousted from apple in 1984, and the pieces are only now beginning to fall into place. apple is a large and important part of this, but it isn't the entire picture.

 

[BaghdadBob]

Steve Jobs, the Messiah

Steve Jobs is overrated.

He is a visionary, true. But he is as responsible for holding Apple back as he is for continuing their innovations.

Bottom line, before I go off on a tangent, is that in any proper corporate model, no CEO would have as much power as he does, but if they did, "he" would be a businessman, not an artist.

Visionaries are necessary for innovation, but they need to be in check by business when you're running an international multi-billion dollar company (not to mention one of the most important technology corporations in the world).

That is why I find the above scenario to be implausible. Besides, he would have to personally own a controlling majority of their shares to "annoint" himself CEO, otherwise he would be subject to a vote. Someone can correct me where I'm wrong on the technicalities, but my basic premise is that he would not have the power at UMG that he does at Apple.

Personally I don't know why he has the power at Apple that he does. Once again, before I get my **** jumped, he is a great visionary, but he's surrounded by talent and he needs to be in check.

 

[The Reaper]

Bottom line, before I go off on a tangent, is that in any proper corporate model, no CEO would have as much power as he does, but if they did, "he" would be a businessman, not an artist.

in any 'proper' corporate model, apple would have died years ago. it was only with steve jobs return that the board room squabbling, useless research divisions and power struggles ended. anyway, apple isn't about the corporate - it IS about art.

That is why I find the above scenario to be implausible. Besides, he would have to personally own a controlling majority of their shares to "annoint" himself CEO, otherwise he would be subject to a vote. Someone can correct me where I'm wrong on the technicalities, but my basic premise is that he would not have the power at UMG that he does at Apple.

as i said, he would divert funds from apple (call it an 'investment') and use it to purchase shares. the part about becoming a CEO doesn't really need shares, the shares are simply to secure his control of the company. in any case, apple is 'the apple of his eye', his most personal interest. he really IS the only person that i can see as being a good CEO of apple, and he can only do it by having FULL control. however, that is only with apple. look at Pixar and you will see a totally different story: steve has taken more of a back seat to directing the company, only stepping in when change is needed. i think this latter analogy is how he would run Universal music. in the beginning, there will be a flurry of activity as he transforms the company, but then all will quieten down and he will leave it be, only interferring for apple strategies etc.

Personally I don't know why he has the power at Apple that he does. Once again, before I get my **** jumped, he is a great visionary, but he's surrounded by talent and he needs to be in check.

well, he has the power because he
a) practically created the company
b) has the respect/awe/fear of his employees
c) saved it from a quiet, humiliating death, and has chosen what seems to be the right direction for apple
d) has the unnerving ability to convince people whatever he wants them to believe (including telling board members that he needs more control to make apple work)
in any case, when you say talent, i mostly think of Jonathon Ive, head of apple design team (designed imac, cube, ipod, imac 2, practically everything nice about the 'new' (post 1998) apple). or the software team. or the marketing team. steve gives significant power to these type of groups, letting them do what they do best. steve simply provides a unified direction for all of these units to work together.
apple is a unique case: very few companies could survive in the current way that apple is managed, but apple does quite well out of it. steve jobs is smart enough to know this, and this is why he doesn't control pixar etc with an iron fist. and i think the same will apply to universal.

 

[BaghdadBob]

Right, well it's the iron fist bit that I have a problem with. Look, I have no quarrel with the fact that he has taken the company in a good direction, but there are times when someone should tell him "Hey Steve, you're letting your ego get the best of you agian. You can't do business that way..." But he does have the fear of his employees. Regardless, CEO is supposed to be a position in which you are yourself replacable.

Apple DOES thrive on innovation. They were at a point when he jumped back on board when they had lost sight of that as a priority. But you just plain can't give carte blanche (sp?) to an artist if he's in control of a company. Sometimes they are going to do things that are just plain stupid (see: new reseller contracts...the stipulation is not only retarded, it is also totally unenforcable). He drives them in the right direction (mostly), but sometimes he makes bad business decisions that he could have made in a different way without affecting the craftsmanship of the Apple vision, only the actual business side of it.

And on top of that I have to say thay Steve Jobs vision of Steve Jobs the Mogul is not one to gamble Apple's future on. It's all well and good to have alot of creative energy which goes in more directions than you can practically handle (I'm a Gemini, and I live this every day) but Apple's important contribution to the world has been their operating systems, plain and simple. I, personally, would rather see the proliferation of Macs back into a significant chunk of the market share than to say "well, gee, we may not have Microsoft's market share, but we own 2% of all major digital content like Microsoft did before they bought everything we couldn't to prevent us from being significant in yet another market. And now we have 1.5% of all computers."

The "Digital Hub" concept isn't going to get Apple very far, period. It's a great part of the OS, no doubt, but how many people consider control of their TiVo box from their desktop a major purchasing decision? Ooh!!! I can burn CDs with this computer? That makes it worth the extra $2000 any day! It's a tough selling point on its own.

"Gee, Riggins, if we ordered 3,000 Dells we could save the company 3,000,000 dollars over those Power Macs you've recommended."

"But sir, I have an article here that says that over five years we will save that 3,000,000 in maintenance, and they burn great DVDs! Besides, we can have Toy Story streamed as a screen saver courtesy of Steve Jobs as appreciation for buying a Mac!"

Anyway, I'm just getting stupid, pardon me, I'm going to shut up now.


What thread was this again? Where am I, and why do I have these bunny ears on my head? I was rambling again wasn't I....not again......

 

[The Reaper]

The "Digital Hub" concept isn't going to get Apple very far, period. It's a great part of the OS, no doubt, but how many people consider control of their TiVo box from their desktop a major purchasing decision? Ooh!!! I can burn CDs with this computer? That makes it worth the extra $2000 any day! It's a tough selling point on its own.

in general, this is true. i mean, now every computer company/technology company is doing their own version of the whole digital hub thing (although apple still comes up as the best in this category). however, apple is about more than that, the OS in general is apple's best asset, as you've said. more importantly, apple's productivity software and tight integration has created entire start to finish solutions that work on a level not seen on most platforms. and, yes, the time saved by using a mac DOES add up to the figures you presented.

As for steve and his 'artistic' direction, as i've said before, this is not a problem for apple - whatever he's doing now, it's working. just a note about the whole reseller thing - this was NOT purely decided by steve, it was decided by apple legal. although i am sure that steve is interested in taking more of those profits away from the middleman, into apple. this increases efficiency and gives apple the flexibility to lower its prices. the resellers need to go. period. apple stores will replace them. the only exceptions are the big players like Best Buy and Dell, but these issues have just been worked out, so everything's ok now.

with the whole Universal thing, apple has simply recognised that MS palladium technology needs to be killed before it is released, and at the same time provide a new revenue stream.
aside from all of the standard bad aspects of palladium that i'm sure you've heard, remember that if MS has their way, they could just say "no palladium compatability for you, Apple." say goodbye to the ability to use your mac for any multimedia, like playing music or DVDs, since MS will have a monopoly on the technology that lets you play DRM files. and all music WILL be DRM at that stage. so apple saw this threat, and they acted upon it.