I think they should support WMA. The more the iPod can do the better. Making things even easier for PC users who have WMAs and don't want to reimport all their CDs is a way to get their foot in the door of Apple. If they fall in love with iTunes and the iPod and don't have to make sacrifices, they'll have a much better opinion of Apple. If MS support WMA then WMA is going to be around for the long haul. Just because Apple ignores it is not going to make it go away.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
More on iPod and WMA
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: Re: WMA = Better Audio Quality
To put it very simply, I think the original poster is saying that WMP offers a lossless codec that can be compressed while iTunes does not. Perhaps Apple should consider a high-end audio market and another codec in iTunes. I'm not saying that WMA is the answer but I would argue that they need something. The choices now are uncompressed or lossy, and there is another market segment believe it or not, albeit a small one.
To put it very simply, I think the original poster is saying that WMP offers a lossless codec that can be compressed while iTunes does not. Perhaps Apple should consider a high-end audio market and another codec in iTunes. I'm not saying that WMA is the answer but I would argue that they need something. The choices now are uncompressed or lossy, and there is another market segment believe it or not, albeit a small one.
Re: Re: WMA = Better Audio Quality
People, stop making stupid car/product analogy that doesn't make any sense! It is so insulting that my head hurts.
People, stop making stupid car/product analogy that doesn't make any sense! It is so insulting that my head hurts.
WMA on Ipod....
.....it all depends whether you want Apple to turn into Dell Computer or not.
Repeat after me: Apple is *not* a hardware company!! Apple is a software company!!
They are the *ONLY* computer company that is giving the buyer a *value add* to the hardware that a user buys.
If they support WMA or any of the other BS that our monopolist friends pitch, they will kill Quicktime and all the other cool software tools that just don't quite meet the MS approved list.....
.....it all depends whether you want Apple to turn into Dell Computer or not.
Repeat after me: Apple is *not* a hardware company!! Apple is a software company!!
They are the *ONLY* computer company that is giving the buyer a *value add* to the hardware that a user buys.
If they support WMA or any of the other BS that our monopolist friends pitch, they will kill Quicktime and all the other cool software tools that just don't quite meet the MS approved list.....
I think that if we are going to start comparing audio quality then I am afraid all digital formats loose out to the good old LP.
This whole lossless argument sounds like FUD to me. Clearly if lossless is what you are after you can just buy a CD from any store. The point of the digital music revolution - and it is a revolution we are talking about here - is that it is about kids using compressed audio on portable devices.
You will have noticed that despite its recent addition to the iTMS for example, classical music is not very well represented. Nor is it big on kazzaa.
People with expensive stereos do not buy their music online.
The online segment is for kids with iPods.
This whole lossless argument sounds like FUD to me. Clearly if lossless is what you are after you can just buy a CD from any store. The point of the digital music revolution - and it is a revolution we are talking about here - is that it is about kids using compressed audio on portable devices.
You will have noticed that despite its recent addition to the iTMS for example, classical music is not very well represented. Nor is it big on kazzaa.
People with expensive stereos do not buy their music online.
The online segment is for kids with iPods.
WMA R.I.P.
The only reason I hear from anybody for the iPod to support WMA (including Paul Turdott... 🙂 ) is so that existing WMA encoded files can be played back which "might" increase sales of the iPod. This wouldn't help the suckers who have bought DRM'ed WMA files from WalMart, MusicMatch, etc. To allow that to happen, Apple would have to licence WMA AND Microsofts DRM and add that capability to the iPod and iTunes. Hello? Why the heck would Apple even consider licensing a competing DRM when it's own format has been chosen by 70% of DRMed music files? It's not as though ANY of those stores cares one iota about Mac users (since none sell music that can be played on a Mac). Who will mourn the passing of those stores other than Microsoft?
There must be billions of WMA files out there. But people who legally own the CD can simply re-encode to AAC if they want to play their music on an iPod, using iTunes. That is, unless they don't own the music.... So, if Apple enabled WMA decoding on the iPod, one effect would be to encourage playback of illegally downloaded files. Hmmm....
Adding WMA and associated DRM to the iPod would knife the baby and Apple along with it.
The only reason I hear from anybody for the iPod to support WMA (including Paul Turdott... 🙂 ) is so that existing WMA encoded files can be played back which "might" increase sales of the iPod. This wouldn't help the suckers who have bought DRM'ed WMA files from WalMart, MusicMatch, etc. To allow that to happen, Apple would have to licence WMA AND Microsofts DRM and add that capability to the iPod and iTunes. Hello? Why the heck would Apple even consider licensing a competing DRM when it's own format has been chosen by 70% of DRMed music files? It's not as though ANY of those stores cares one iota about Mac users (since none sell music that can be played on a Mac). Who will mourn the passing of those stores other than Microsoft?
There must be billions of WMA files out there. But people who legally own the CD can simply re-encode to AAC if they want to play their music on an iPod, using iTunes. That is, unless they don't own the music.... So, if Apple enabled WMA decoding on the iPod, one effect would be to encourage playback of illegally downloaded files. Hmmm....
Adding WMA and associated DRM to the iPod would knife the baby and Apple along with it.
Re: WMA on Ipod....
While many would say you are dead wrong, that Apple is a hardware company, I will not. Instead, I'll say that Apple is a systems company that offers hardware AND proprietary software. Anyone who says differently is dead wrong.
The reason that many consider them a hardware company is that hardware drives all profit at Apple. The cost of reaserch and development on their software far outweighs the revenue they pull in. I would not be surprised to see that most of their software departments are losing money. Until recenly, all of the iApps were free so certainly hardware is where the bread is buttered.
All that said, it's just impossible to label Apple a software company because they make hardware whereas Microsoft, Adobe, et al, do not.
While many would say you are dead wrong, that Apple is a hardware company, I will not. Instead, I'll say that Apple is a systems company that offers hardware AND proprietary software. Anyone who says differently is dead wrong.
The reason that many consider them a hardware company is that hardware drives all profit at Apple. The cost of reaserch and development on their software far outweighs the revenue they pull in. I would not be surprised to see that most of their software departments are losing money. Until recenly, all of the iApps were free so certainly hardware is where the bread is buttered.
All that said, it's just impossible to label Apple a software company because they make hardware whereas Microsoft, Adobe, et al, do not.
I haven't read all of the posts, so forgive me if this is redundant, but WMA Lossless is a completely different codec than WMA compressed. AAC is a codec that is comparable to WMA compressed. It cannot reasonably be compared to lossless formats.
All this is, of course, irrelevant since:
a) A lot of portable players that support WMA compressed do not support WMA lossless, and the same would likely be true of the iPod, even if they were to add WMA support, so WMA lossless is not a factor in the portable market.
b) Music stores that use WMA do not use lossless compression, so WMA lossless is not a factor in the music store market.
c) Lossless compression formats that are comparable to WMA lossless are available both on the Mac and on Windows, so WMA lossless is not a factor in the computer software market.
Where is WMA lossless actually relevant?
All this is, of course, irrelevant since:
a) A lot of portable players that support WMA compressed do not support WMA lossless, and the same would likely be true of the iPod, even if they were to add WMA support, so WMA lossless is not a factor in the portable market.
b) Music stores that use WMA do not use lossless compression, so WMA lossless is not a factor in the music store market.
c) Lossless compression formats that are comparable to WMA lossless are available both on the Mac and on Windows, so WMA lossless is not a factor in the computer software market.
Where is WMA lossless actually relevant?
whodatrr
macrumors 6502a
Ahhh.... so you haven't yet discovered all of the lossless audio online... Tons of it! I agree, however, that a clean LP is still the best format. SACD comes close. CDs are actually quite good, when played from a good CD player. The problem with CDs is that the early players blew.
Regarding your iPod kiddie comments, I certainly am not one. I do, however, enjoy the convenience that the format affords me over LPs, CDs, etc. with a proper outboard DAC, lossless audio approches CDs in quality. Once the Levinson, Krell, etc. guys get into the act and produce great DACs targeted at this format, I think the quality won't be an issue. Assuming, of course, you're not using a lossy format like AAC.
shamino
macrumors 68040
Re: Re: More on iPod and WMA
Not really. If I rip my CD to WMA, on a Windows box, without any DRM, I can't play that file on a platform that hasn't paid Microsoft a license fee.
This is in direct contrast to AAC which, although must be licensed from Dolby/MPEG, does not have to be licensed from Apple.
In this respect, AAC is much more like MP3 (which nobody seems to have a problem with) than WMA is.
Not really. If I rip my CD to WMA, on a Windows box, without any DRM, I can't play that file on a platform that hasn't paid Microsoft a license fee.
This is in direct contrast to AAC which, although must be licensed from Dolby/MPEG, does not have to be licensed from Apple.
In this respect, AAC is much more like MP3 (which nobody seems to have a problem with) than WMA is.
Re: Re: Hello
Yes, but the MOST USED music service (iTMS) uses AAC. And things are only getting started there too.
Everyone often points out that the "Microsoft camp" isn't sitting still. Which carries the implication that Apple is. The HP deal (for starters) indicates that they are not.
This next year ill be mighty interesting. If Apple plays its cards right, WMA could be a footnote in digital music history. So far, they are playing their cards right.
BTW...make no mistake...Apple undoubtedly HAS a WMA codec developed already. Its release is all that is in question.
Yes, but the MOST USED music service (iTMS) uses AAC. And things are only getting started there too.
Everyone often points out that the "Microsoft camp" isn't sitting still. Which carries the implication that Apple is. The HP deal (for starters) indicates that they are not.
This next year ill be mighty interesting. If Apple plays its cards right, WMA could be a footnote in digital music history. So far, they are playing their cards right.
BTW...make no mistake...Apple undoubtedly HAS a WMA codec developed already. Its release is all that is in question.
whodatrr
macrumors 6502a
a) portable players aren't the only concern... what about the home stereo?
b) Until they do, I'm not paying them any money...
c) WMA with lossless support is available for the Mac in the form of WMP. Yes, I hate it, but it supports WMA lossless.
So, WMA is actually relevent..
1. as an archive format (archive = how you save those files you went through great pains to rip... I did it with 1,200 CDs and a damned sure wasn't going to rip them in something that sounded like garbage). Remember, you can also make low-res copies foryour portable devices in MP3 or whatever format you like, using thrid-party tools.
2. WMA is the default format for Windows Media and there are quite a few of those players floating around.
shamino
macrumors 68040
On a Mac, yes. On Windows, no. Since Windows (at least 2000 and XP) includes the WMA codecs as a part of the operating system's multimedia APIs, any Windows program can use this format without any additional license fees.
One interesting question would be if Microsoft installs a similar API on MacOS when Windows Media Player is installed. If they do (as much as I'd object), it would allow Apple to provide this support for free (as long as you install WMP on your own.) But I don't think that will ever happen.
I guess I just disagree that the digital music revolution is just about kids. IMO, Apple wants it to be about *everyone*, isn't that the point of revolutionizing the way people buy and play music, that it has broad appeal.
Unfortunately, like everything with broad appeal, there are segments left out, like high end audio. Yes I know I can rip to a .wav file but codec technology is improving and I'd like to see Apple improve with it.
The growth segment is certainly kids and some sort of market saturation will have to occur before there are any changes to the status quo for iTunes. AAC is certainly here to stay, and so is the money making machine that is the iPod. I can always hope for something better, I wouldn't expect anything less from Apple.
fatfish
macrumors 6502
Re: Re: Re: WMA = Better Audio Quality
Once again I will point out that your comparison does not make sense. WMA is a bunch of codecs supported by WMP. AAC is a codec.
You should either compare WMP against iTunes or WMA lossless against AAC, you are mixing the two and making a case to suit your own arguement.
WMP and iTunes are capable of the same quality-(WAV). WMA lossless vs AAC is not a reasonable comparison (sort of like comparing a BMW to a mercedes but limiting the mercedes to a 1.6 ltr engine).
Yes, I take your point that the best codec compatible with WMP is better than the best codec compatible with iTunes, but both can play uncompressed files and the quality will be equal. I can understand why you use WMA lossless, but I can't agree with comparing it with AAC - that's nonsense.
On another point, whilst lossless compression should result in equal quality to uncompressed audio, the reason it often doesn't is because of limitations of your processor. So if you feel your WMA lossless does not sound quite as "dynamic", may I suggest Shorten X as you are a mac user, compression/decompression rates are better than WMA losless and will likely put less demand on your processor, producing higher quality playback.
In short, I understand your choice of codec, but to compare it to AAC is not fair, I also feel there are better lossless codecs for the PC/mac than WMA lossless. WMP is good (v9 only - the rest are pretty poor) but falls short of the best by a few %.
Once again I will point out that your comparison does not make sense. WMA is a bunch of codecs supported by WMP. AAC is a codec.
You should either compare WMP against iTunes or WMA lossless against AAC, you are mixing the two and making a case to suit your own arguement.
WMP and iTunes are capable of the same quality-(WAV). WMA lossless vs AAC is not a reasonable comparison (sort of like comparing a BMW to a mercedes but limiting the mercedes to a 1.6 ltr engine).
Yes, I take your point that the best codec compatible with WMP is better than the best codec compatible with iTunes, but both can play uncompressed files and the quality will be equal. I can understand why you use WMA lossless, but I can't agree with comparing it with AAC - that's nonsense.
On another point, whilst lossless compression should result in equal quality to uncompressed audio, the reason it often doesn't is because of limitations of your processor. So if you feel your WMA lossless does not sound quite as "dynamic", may I suggest Shorten X as you are a mac user, compression/decompression rates are better than WMA losless and will likely put less demand on your processor, producing higher quality playback.
In short, I understand your choice of codec, but to compare it to AAC is not fair, I also feel there are better lossless codecs for the PC/mac than WMA lossless. WMP is good (v9 only - the rest are pretty poor) but falls short of the best by a few %.
whodatrr
macrumors 6502a
... and wouldn't it have been great, if Apple had come out with the lossless flavor before MS. I suspect that Apple's hands were tied for a few reasons:
1. The major growth segment that you pointed out, iPod kids, isn't that concerned with quality.
2. It would've adversely impacted their xx,000 songs on one player messages.
3. It would've tripled the bandwidth and storage costs for the iTunes store.
WMP doesn't include an API, but an adamant programmer can access Microsoft's built-in browser plugin via WebKit. It's a monumental waste of memory to do it that way, though.
WMA (Although not "protected" WMA) can also be used in a program without having WMP installed via a command-line build of the open source MPlayer.
Greenstork. I think you are taking my comments too literally. Obviously iTMS is not just for kids - but you have to admit that most of the market is for under 30's. That is why the iPod minis look like sweets.
whodatrr
macrumors 6502a
Re: Re: Re: Re: WMA = Better Audio Quality
OK, Not sure how this got convoluted in all of the threads, but....
1. WMA 9 losless is a better ARCHIVE Codec than AAC because it is lossless...
2. WMA 9 also supports lossy compression... If we're saying that this is a seperate CODEC than the lossy WMA 9, then we should, perhaps, consider treating the AAC CODECs as a family of CODEC. Regardless, we are splitting haris here... LOSSLESS = BETTER ARCHIVE. WMA INCLUDES LOSSLESS. AAC DOES NOT. AAC INFERIOR FOR ARCHIVE. AAC INFERIOR FOR ME.
The fact of the matter is that the WMA 9 lossless CODEC, an evil proprietary MS CoDEC, saves all of my audio data while copressing the files to 30-50% of thier original file size. The evil MS player does this with a very intuitive interface... it's dead-simple.
having said that, it is proprietary... I'd rather it be open and from Apple. 🙁 Now that they're not going to support WMA, they'd better introduce a lossless format soon.
OK, Not sure how this got convoluted in all of the threads, but....
1. WMA 9 losless is a better ARCHIVE Codec than AAC because it is lossless...
2. WMA 9 also supports lossy compression... If we're saying that this is a seperate CODEC than the lossy WMA 9, then we should, perhaps, consider treating the AAC CODECs as a family of CODEC. Regardless, we are splitting haris here... LOSSLESS = BETTER ARCHIVE. WMA INCLUDES LOSSLESS. AAC DOES NOT. AAC INFERIOR FOR ARCHIVE. AAC INFERIOR FOR ME.
The fact of the matter is that the WMA 9 lossless CODEC, an evil proprietary MS CoDEC, saves all of my audio data while copressing the files to 30-50% of thier original file size. The evil MS player does this with a very intuitive interface... it's dead-simple.
having said that, it is proprietary... I'd rather it be open and from Apple. 🙁 Now that they're not going to support WMA, they'd better introduce a lossless format soon.
Arn's post....
So, in other words, the WMA on iPod rumors were simply wishful thinking by Paul Thurrott. I didn't think his credibility needed any further erosion....
Apple isn't stupid.
So, in other words, the WMA on iPod rumors were simply wishful thinking by Paul Thurrott. I didn't think his credibility needed any further erosion....
Apple isn't stupid.
shamino
macrumors 68040
Wow. This guy's one hell of a liar.
And for availability, they're available now. They won't be sold outside of the US until April, but that's a far cry from his blanket statement that they "won't be available for months."
Contrary to what the MS-advocates would have you think, WMA doesn't come for free. If you aren't running your player on Windows, you have to pay to license the format.
It might be an interesting rumor if it wasn't being told to us by the editor of a Microsoft propaganda journal. More likely that he just made up this source.
First off, the iPod minis cost the same as other 4G music players - like the newly announced 4G Rio Nitrus.
And for availability, they're available now. They won't be sold outside of the US until April, but that's a far cry from his blanket statement that they "won't be available for months."
Also not true. Any program that uses the QuickTime libraries can play Apple's protected AAC files. And QuickTime is a free download for Windows users.
Somehow, I doubt Real's decision is to allow people to convert ther downloads into a non-DRM file format. I think the RIAA would have them executed if that was the reason.
Unless they license QuickTime for use in these products. Just like they would have to pay Microsoft for a license to bundle WMA support into such a device.
Contrary to what the MS-advocates would have you think, WMA doesn't come for free. If you aren't running your player on Windows, you have to pay to license the format.
Ah yes. The anonymous contact. The one person in the world making this claim, when executives from both Apple and HP are explicitly saying otherwise.
It might be an interesting rumor if it wasn't being told to us by the editor of a Microsoft propaganda journal. More likely that he just made up this source.
I guess he's never spoken with salesdroids before. You can't ever ask a technical question of people on the floor of a convention. They're all marketing people, not engineers.
...and if you choose something other than Microsoft's preference, you are contributing to the demise of the entire consumer electronics industry.
I can't believe he wrote this. The entire computer industry has been destroyed because one PC vendor has decided that Microsoft's solution isn't the best one available. Oh the horror. Oh the humanity! We should all throw ourselves out of our office windows now. How will the industry ever survive if we don't all exercise our freedom to do what Microsoft tells us to do.