Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

HP: No WMA for iPod

Originally posted by Cless
Have you submitted feedback? 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
Click to expand...

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

Originally posted by xtekdiver
Maybe Apple should support WMA when Microsoft supports AAC!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Re: WMA R.I.P.

Originally posted by Regalbegal
M$ can't support it because Apple won't license it to anyone.
Click to expand...

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
 
Re: Re: Re: Missing the Point?

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...
Click to expand...

I was just curious....what kind of file savings to you get with lossless compression?
 
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...
 
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)...
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the Point?

Originally posted by iggyb
I was just curious....what kind of file savings to you get with lossless compression?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the Point?

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.
Click to expand...

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...?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the Point?

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...?
Click to expand...

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 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.
 
Stained labels

Does the fact that Sony doesn´t market their HD player under the Sony name mean that they´re afraid it´s going to flop, thus avoiding any stains on their own label and reputation if so proves to be the case?
 
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.
 
Originally posted by boros
Lossless for archiving...
Click to expand...

<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.... :eek:
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back