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
mrsebastian
macrumors 6502a
nagromme
macrumors G5
HP says no WMA
From MacBytes.com:
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,61897,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
From MacBytes.com:
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,61897,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
shamino
macrumors 68040
Re: Re: Re: WMA on Ipod....
Can you think of a single computer maker in the past 20 years that has made more than a small percentage of their major components?
Not IBM. Not SGI. Not Sun. Certainly none of the PC manufacturers.
The computer industry, by its very nature, is decentralized. All of the components you consider major are commodity parts that are generally manufactured by companies specializing in those parts.
For the PC market, the innovation shows up in the assembly. Some companies do a lot of work to make sure that all of the components are compatible with each other. Some do a lot of research in developing an effective airflow/cooling solution. Industrial design for cases and peripherals is not insignificant either. To deny all this work is to deny that there is any difference between a Sony W-series desktop and a generic system that is entirely off-the-shelf.
For the non-PC market, you also have the innovation that comes with motherboard design. (I realize that some PC makers still design their own motherboards, but most do not.) Choosing the processors and chipsets and designing the boards that make it all work together. Plus all the factors that come in to play in the PC market.
Your claim that Apple isn't a hardware company because they don't build their own hard drives and CPU chips is just silly. By that definition, no computer maker in existance qualifies as a hardware company.
You could use this argument for just about every computer company.
Can you think of a single computer maker in the past 20 years that has made more than a small percentage of their major components?
Not IBM. Not SGI. Not Sun. Certainly none of the PC manufacturers.
The computer industry, by its very nature, is decentralized. All of the components you consider major are commodity parts that are generally manufactured by companies specializing in those parts.
For the PC market, the innovation shows up in the assembly. Some companies do a lot of work to make sure that all of the components are compatible with each other. Some do a lot of research in developing an effective airflow/cooling solution. Industrial design for cases and peripherals is not insignificant either. To deny all this work is to deny that there is any difference between a Sony W-series desktop and a generic system that is entirely off-the-shelf.
For the non-PC market, you also have the innovation that comes with motherboard design. (I realize that some PC makers still design their own motherboards, but most do not.) Choosing the processors and chipsets and designing the boards that make it all work together. Plus all the factors that come in to play in the PC market.
Your claim that Apple isn't a hardware company because they don't build their own hard drives and CPU chips is just silly. By that definition, no computer maker in existance qualifies as a hardware company.
Re: Re: Re: Re: WMA on Ipod....
There is a question of degree here. What percentage of the hardware it sells does Apple make ? And how does it compare to IBM ? What level of investment does Apple have in manufacturing plants, and hardware versus software engineers ? I don't know, but we might be in for a surprise. Maybe even me, their stake may be higher than I acknowledge.
I never said Apple was not a hardware company. It sells hardware. What I said was that it hardly develops hardware. Apart from the case and the mobo. I am just trying to extricate the reasons Apple is so intent on keeping WMA out of the iPod.
The question about the development is quite crucial for a company which is so intricately linked with innovation. As hard as it may be for Apple on their own to come up with a better CPU / GPU / RAM architecture - you name it, anything that will actually compell anyone to buy a Mac over a PC - what Apple can do is innovate and develop software. This is their unique contribution. That is where Jobs genius and his vision show. I'm not saying Rubinstein isn't pushing for higher memory I/O bandwidth, or making sure Airport actually works. As I said in my previous post, Apple is more than a software company. It is a question of degree, and I think many people are under the impression Apple can do more on the hardware side than they actually can.
YMMV,
S.
There is a question of degree here. What percentage of the hardware it sells does Apple make ? And how does it compare to IBM ? What level of investment does Apple have in manufacturing plants, and hardware versus software engineers ? I don't know, but we might be in for a surprise. Maybe even me, their stake may be higher than I acknowledge.
I never said Apple was not a hardware company. It sells hardware. What I said was that it hardly develops hardware. Apart from the case and the mobo. I am just trying to extricate the reasons Apple is so intent on keeping WMA out of the iPod.
The question about the development is quite crucial for a company which is so intricately linked with innovation. As hard as it may be for Apple on their own to come up with a better CPU / GPU / RAM architecture - you name it, anything that will actually compell anyone to buy a Mac over a PC - what Apple can do is innovate and develop software. This is their unique contribution. That is where Jobs genius and his vision show. I'm not saying Rubinstein isn't pushing for higher memory I/O bandwidth, or making sure Airport actually works. As I said in my previous post, Apple is more than a software company. It is a question of degree, and I think many people are under the impression Apple can do more on the hardware side than they actually can.
YMMV,
S.
Just supposing
Just supposing that Apple decides in the future to support WMA on the iPod. Technically speaking, would that be possible through a simple firmware update or they would need to release a new iPod ?
Just supposing that Apple decides in the future to support WMA on the iPod. Technically speaking, would that be possible through a simple firmware update or they would need to release a new iPod ?
My opinion of this, which will not take in to account any of the other posts, is Apple is shooting its self in the foot by demanding iTunes to use an iPod. By not supporting WMA, Apple is pushing microsoft away from the music market until they, or some one else, supply a cheap mp3/wma/a whole lot more player.
How to kill the iPod? Make a 'swiss army player' that is smaller and sleeker.
BTW, anyone know about the touch screen iPod rumor?
How to kill the iPod? Make a 'swiss army player' that is smaller and sleeker.
BTW, anyone know about the touch screen iPod rumor?
I thought that Apple was all for supporting multiple standards.
If Apple doesn't support WMA and doesn't work with the MSN music store coming later this year, they are going to lose market share, maybe precipitously.
There is much talk here about how Apple has the majority of the market share and can set the standards. You need to realize that this is a market in its infancy. Apple has a big slice of the pie, but it's a tiny pie. The pie is about to get a LOT bigger, and that'll be due to entries from Microsoft, Wal-Mart and lots of other companies.
Do you have any idea how many people have MSN as their default Internet Explorer home page?
I run a commercial Web site. According to our stats, as of yesterday, 95.7% of our traffic came from various versions of Windows.
If Apple doesn't support WMA and doesn't work with the MSN music store coming later this year, they are going to lose market share, maybe precipitously.
There is much talk here about how Apple has the majority of the market share and can set the standards. You need to realize that this is a market in its infancy. Apple has a big slice of the pie, but it's a tiny pie. The pie is about to get a LOT bigger, and that'll be due to entries from Microsoft, Wal-Mart and lots of other companies.
Do you have any idea how many people have MSN as their default Internet Explorer home page?
I run a commercial Web site. According to our stats, as of yesterday, 95.7% of our traffic came from various versions of Windows.
shamino
macrumors 68040
Your statement has an implicit assumption that MSN's foray into downloadable music will inevitably be a success. This is far from certain.
With the exception of Windows and office, MS's products have not been market-killing successes. MSN has repeatedly failed to take the ISP business from AOL. The XBox has not killed the PlayStation. And a huge number of WMA-only music download sites is not killing ITMS.
The attitude of "conform to Microsoft or die" only makes sense in those areas where Microsoft is dominant. In the music business, they are not. By conforming to Microsoft's spec (which is far more proprietary than their own), Apple gains close to nothing, and they give their competition a tremedous advantage.
Again, you are assuming that everything Microsoft does will always become the market dominating standard. It just doesn't work that way.
So? Most of them aren't paying any money to MSN. Most of them view that page from their AOL and Earthlink accounts.
Owning the most popular operating system doesn't guarantee that you will end up owning everything else.
What do your web stats say about the ISP's your traffic comes from? How much of that is MSN?
True, but WMA is a dying file. One thing I need to note though, music threaters are starting to use microsoft compression formats for video and 90k projectors hooked up to a single PC. One DVD disk equals a full length movie on a full sized movie screen with no signs of pixels when it is compressed by a microsoft team. Sucks dont it? What next? Mini WMA files?
I am against the idea of iPod working with WMA, or anything to do with walmart, but no matter what, it is something that would ensure the iPod surviving. I am torn, because if the iPod works only with iTMS and iTunes, more people will dl iTunes and see how apple is better. But without WMA file compatability, iPods could become a no one player.
I guesse the pie idea is a good one, but look at it this way. It will force people to choose iPod or Walmart. MP3 and AAC or WMA.
One thing I am sure of though, GET iTMS TO DENMARK BASTARDS!
I am against the idea of iPod working with WMA, or anything to do with walmart, but no matter what, it is something that would ensure the iPod surviving. I am torn, because if the iPod works only with iTMS and iTunes, more people will dl iTunes and see how apple is better. But without WMA file compatability, iPods could become a no one player.
I guesse the pie idea is a good one, but look at it this way. It will force people to choose iPod or Walmart. MP3 and AAC or WMA.
One thing I am sure of though, GET iTMS TO DENMARK BASTARDS!
Isn't this the reason for the HP deal, to create more links on the desktops of PC users?
While you are correct that most web browsers are PCs, I think that anyone who downloads digital songs and transfers them onto an external device has to be a fairly technical user. I always use my Mother as a sample - could she do this? NO!
So just saying that everyone has a Win Internet Explorer browser is quite different than maintaining that MS will create a user-freindly, seamless experience.
While I'm pretty ambivalent about whether or not WMA should be supported on the iPod, just because Apple refuses to support it doesn't translate into failure for Apple.
Spot the BS - Part III
Rebuttal - One
Paul, no disrespect - but you still haven't made a case as to where there are incompatibilities, let alone whether they are widespread or not! There is a difference between something that is incompatible and simply not supporting something.
Incompatible is where an instance of 802.11g that is shipped before the standard is ratified doesn't work with a device shipped post-ratification. What I think you've got you Calvins in a knot over is the fact that iTunes, iTMS and iPod don't support WMA and appear to not have support on the roadmap.
Maybe we'd find you easier to believe if you were a little finer on the detail as opposed to coming up with more general scaremongering.
Rebuttal - Two
There you go using that incompatible word again - see my section above - and trying to create some vision of widespread interoperability problems.
Let's be clear here - if you have an application that accesses the QuickTime libraries and it has been programmed correctly, it will support MP4 AAC in both Protected and standard form.
Once again, you are spreading FUD either knowingly to serve a known agenda - which is what many in the Apple community suspect - or unknowingly to serve someone else's agenda - which simply makes you appear too lazy to do wider research corroborated by multiple sources.
All you have to do to rebut these accusations is come up with some valid objections that cannot be dispelled easily. Assuming your integrity is important to you in any way.
Rebuttal - Three
I'm not disputing that HP makes many products, but the question is how many of them are relevant to the question.
So let's dispel scanners, DDS drives and printers for a start. Actually, what we're talking about is devices where you would use audio.
HP has chosen to present its customers with a self-contained music ecosystem using iPod, iTunes, iTMS and QuickTime. That takes care of all of the major consumer desktop and laptops, both of which exclude the any form of Tablet PC.
This merely leaves the iPaq: here you have a point, although given that iTunes doesn't enforce the DRM on many handheld devices - such as Nokia phones - the question actually appears to be "Does Microsoft's version of choice extend to supporting MPEG-4 AAC, given that it is a member of the MPEG Industry Forum?".
Of course, if Microsoft's Media Player for PocketPC doesn't adhere to standards adequately maybe that's an issue you should address to Microsoft.
Rebuttal - Four
Wow, Paul, that's a little strong - that sounds like you are accusing the officers of a major corporation of lying! I'd take that to the SEC, or the Better Business Bureau if you have one scintilla of evidence to back up that claim.
But the problem is you don't have that evidence: People buy hardware and formats to match the content they want to use, not the other way round - and so far, the content they want to use is MP3 - when self-encoding - and MPEG4 AAC - when purchasing from the outside world.
You cannot argue with this point: WMA music stores share much of their content with iTMS, and yet - despite the financial arguments and the alleged diversity in the Windows market - the customer (the most important element in the equation) has voted with their wallets to use iTMS in fully 70% of instance.
The dramatic bias of the marketplace towards iTMS and Protected AAC should have convinced any reasonable marketing and product development function that WMA simply is not popular in the marketplace and yet, for reasons passing understanding, Microsoft persists in flogging a dead horse by convincing OEM customers to produce products that the end consumer does not want.
This is the Betamax/VHS war all over again, except - for once - MS gets to play Sony to Apple's JVC. Apple has the content, the format and the hardware that people want - MS merely has content, a coherent format with a byzantine set of digital rights, and poorly designed hardware that does not meet the aspirations of the end customer from a price/performance perspective.
WMA is a discredited format and the much-vaunted 'choice' has failed to engage the consumer, therefore these questions should be aimed at MS:
"Why do you persist in trying to control every aspect of the digital world with monolithic, closed products based around an overpriced, insecure operating system?"
"Why has Microsoft - which has membership of MPEG Industry Forum - failed to contribute anything of value back to the forum?"
From my point of view, Microsoft's behaviour is at best equivocal and, at worst, parasitic. When combined with numerous allegations made against MS in the past (Stac, Sendo, and numerous others), it is hard not to derive an abusive pattern of behaviour and thus favour the latter conclusion.
Rebuttal - Five
Unmitigated nonsense and hyperbole. Where is this widespread usage of WMA?
Not in the legal downloads market, where - since the inception of Windows support -Apple's iTMS is now serving three times as many tracks daily than when it was solely a Macintosh service.
As previously stated, iTMS has 70% of the market so a simple extrapolation would imply that around 45% of the market are Windows users who prefer MPEG4 AAC and 25% of the markets are Macintosh users who - because WMA stores choose not to make themselves available to that community.
Therefore, in the legal downloads space, Windows users choose by a 66%/33% split to use AAC and that number seems destined to grow.
Which brings us to the illegal downloads market. Now please tell me that your case is not built on the illegal trading of copyrighted material, although - given MS's history of 'co-opting' (I'm being polite) other companies' technologies - it would be ironic if WMA was the file trader's format of choice.
I'm not even going to dignify this element of the market with any respect for their future needs. They are thieves who need to pick a format and need to start paying for their entertainment. So, if they're the customers you're talking about, save your breath.
So all that remains is the home encoding market: now there will be those whose aural capabilities demand that they use WMA Lossless as an archival format, but I would imagine that they're in a small minority to those who use MP3 as a multi-purpose format for archival and portable use.
And to close:
Now, your slip is showing!
Again you use the "incompatible" word, and now Apple is just a portable digital-audio hardware vendor, where I'm sure you meant to write: "creator and promoter of the industry-defining and market-leading iTunes Music Store, which completed the development of the first truly integrated digital music solution"
By the way, have I mentioned that iTMS has 70% of the downloads market and iPod has 50% of the player by value and 30% by units.
If HP ship another 375,000 units a quarter and Apple ship - let's say 200,000 iPod mini units, the iPod and its variants will have 50% of the market by volume and dominate the market by value.
That's de facto market dominance by anyone's definition!
At that point, maybe MS and their OEMs should reconsider their strategy!
Rebuttal - One
Paul, no disrespect - but you still haven't made a case as to where there are incompatibilities, let alone whether they are widespread or not! There is a difference between something that is incompatible and simply not supporting something.
Incompatible is where an instance of 802.11g that is shipped before the standard is ratified doesn't work with a device shipped post-ratification. What I think you've got you Calvins in a knot over is the fact that iTunes, iTMS and iPod don't support WMA and appear to not have support on the roadmap.
Maybe we'd find you easier to believe if you were a little finer on the detail as opposed to coming up with more general scaremongering.
Rebuttal - Two
There you go using that incompatible word again - see my section above - and trying to create some vision of widespread interoperability problems.
Let's be clear here - if you have an application that accesses the QuickTime libraries and it has been programmed correctly, it will support MP4 AAC in both Protected and standard form.
Once again, you are spreading FUD either knowingly to serve a known agenda - which is what many in the Apple community suspect - or unknowingly to serve someone else's agenda - which simply makes you appear too lazy to do wider research corroborated by multiple sources.
All you have to do to rebut these accusations is come up with some valid objections that cannot be dispelled easily. Assuming your integrity is important to you in any way.
Rebuttal - Three
I'm not disputing that HP makes many products, but the question is how many of them are relevant to the question.
So let's dispel scanners, DDS drives and printers for a start. Actually, what we're talking about is devices where you would use audio.
HP has chosen to present its customers with a self-contained music ecosystem using iPod, iTunes, iTMS and QuickTime. That takes care of all of the major consumer desktop and laptops, both of which exclude the any form of Tablet PC.
This merely leaves the iPaq: here you have a point, although given that iTunes doesn't enforce the DRM on many handheld devices - such as Nokia phones - the question actually appears to be "Does Microsoft's version of choice extend to supporting MPEG-4 AAC, given that it is a member of the MPEG Industry Forum?".
Of course, if Microsoft's Media Player for PocketPC doesn't adhere to standards adequately maybe that's an issue you should address to Microsoft.
Rebuttal - Four
Wow, Paul, that's a little strong - that sounds like you are accusing the officers of a major corporation of lying! I'd take that to the SEC, or the Better Business Bureau if you have one scintilla of evidence to back up that claim.
But the problem is you don't have that evidence: People buy hardware and formats to match the content they want to use, not the other way round - and so far, the content they want to use is MP3 - when self-encoding - and MPEG4 AAC - when purchasing from the outside world.
You cannot argue with this point: WMA music stores share much of their content with iTMS, and yet - despite the financial arguments and the alleged diversity in the Windows market - the customer (the most important element in the equation) has voted with their wallets to use iTMS in fully 70% of instance.
The dramatic bias of the marketplace towards iTMS and Protected AAC should have convinced any reasonable marketing and product development function that WMA simply is not popular in the marketplace and yet, for reasons passing understanding, Microsoft persists in flogging a dead horse by convincing OEM customers to produce products that the end consumer does not want.
This is the Betamax/VHS war all over again, except - for once - MS gets to play Sony to Apple's JVC. Apple has the content, the format and the hardware that people want - MS merely has content, a coherent format with a byzantine set of digital rights, and poorly designed hardware that does not meet the aspirations of the end customer from a price/performance perspective.
WMA is a discredited format and the much-vaunted 'choice' has failed to engage the consumer, therefore these questions should be aimed at MS:
"Why do you persist in trying to control every aspect of the digital world with monolithic, closed products based around an overpriced, insecure operating system?"
"Why has Microsoft - which has membership of MPEG Industry Forum - failed to contribute anything of value back to the forum?"
From my point of view, Microsoft's behaviour is at best equivocal and, at worst, parasitic. When combined with numerous allegations made against MS in the past (Stac, Sendo, and numerous others), it is hard not to derive an abusive pattern of behaviour and thus favour the latter conclusion.
Rebuttal - Five
Unmitigated nonsense and hyperbole. Where is this widespread usage of WMA?
Not in the legal downloads market, where - since the inception of Windows support -Apple's iTMS is now serving three times as many tracks daily than when it was solely a Macintosh service.
As previously stated, iTMS has 70% of the market so a simple extrapolation would imply that around 45% of the market are Windows users who prefer MPEG4 AAC and 25% of the markets are Macintosh users who - because WMA stores choose not to make themselves available to that community.
Therefore, in the legal downloads space, Windows users choose by a 66%/33% split to use AAC and that number seems destined to grow.
Which brings us to the illegal downloads market. Now please tell me that your case is not built on the illegal trading of copyrighted material, although - given MS's history of 'co-opting' (I'm being polite) other companies' technologies - it would be ironic if WMA was the file trader's format of choice.
I'm not even going to dignify this element of the market with any respect for their future needs. They are thieves who need to pick a format and need to start paying for their entertainment. So, if they're the customers you're talking about, save your breath.
So all that remains is the home encoding market: now there will be those whose aural capabilities demand that they use WMA Lossless as an archival format, but I would imagine that they're in a small minority to those who use MP3 as a multi-purpose format for archival and portable use.
And to close:
Now, your slip is showing!
Again you use the "incompatible" word, and now Apple is just a portable digital-audio hardware vendor, where I'm sure you meant to write: "creator and promoter of the industry-defining and market-leading iTunes Music Store, which completed the development of the first truly integrated digital music solution"
By the way, have I mentioned that iTMS has 70% of the downloads market and iPod has 50% of the player by value and 30% by units.
If HP ship another 375,000 units a quarter and Apple ship - let's say 200,000 iPod mini units, the iPod and its variants will have 50% of the market by volume and dominate the market by value.
That's de facto market dominance by anyone's definition!
At that point, maybe MS and their OEMs should reconsider their strategy!
I make no claims that failure or success is assured or impossible regardless of this level of choice.
However, WMA is a major player, probably second-biggest song format after mp3, in terms of the numbers of files floating around and being used on a daily basis around the country.
I know one person who owns an iPod and I know a couple of people who would be more likely to buy one if it supported WMA, since that is what their computers create, by default, when they put in a CD and click the button to "copy songs to hard drive".
Which are people more likely to do? Switch computers and operating systems so they can use a nicer music store interface? Or opt to buy a different mp3 device because it works better with their existing music libraries?
In one year, Apple's market share will be under 20 percent, if they are not aggressive in this area. Maybe they're okay with that. They are profitable with a small computer market share, so maybe they are willing to have a small but high-end iPod market. However, they COULD take moves that would potentially let them continue to dominate upscale mp3 player hardware sales for years to come.
However, WMA is a major player, probably second-biggest song format after mp3, in terms of the numbers of files floating around and being used on a daily basis around the country.
I know one person who owns an iPod and I know a couple of people who would be more likely to buy one if it supported WMA, since that is what their computers create, by default, when they put in a CD and click the button to "copy songs to hard drive".
Which are people more likely to do? Switch computers and operating systems so they can use a nicer music store interface? Or opt to buy a different mp3 device because it works better with their existing music libraries?
In one year, Apple's market share will be under 20 percent, if they are not aggressive in this area. Maybe they're okay with that. They are profitable with a small computer market share, so maybe they are willing to have a small but high-end iPod market. However, they COULD take moves that would potentially let them continue to dominate upscale mp3 player hardware sales for years to come.
maradong
macrumors 65816
Macbidouille claims that HP has said that they are not working on WMA support for te ipod, and are not asking for wma support on the ipod.
HP seems to take apple s way in the music codec and music store market.
That s probably the best sollution for apple as well, as introducing wma support for the ipod would be contra-productiv.
gd n8
HP seems to take apple s way in the music codec and music store market.
That s probably the best sollution for apple as well, as introducing wma support for the ipod would be contra-productiv.
gd n8
The point is, if they adopt WMA, they are handing substantial control over to MS. That means, they are no longer in control ! MS is. That is what this format war is all about. There is only one way Apple can keep on top of this game, and that is to get AAC into the hands of as many people, as fast as possible.
It's a tight-rope walk, for sure. People need to buy the iPod - and some may want wma on it. At the same time, if AAC finds enough distribution without support for wma, then those that want wma will have to accomodate Apple. It's a matter of who is able to grow faster. Think Pepsi, think HP. Think iPod mini. There is probably more down the line. It's about keeping wma out, while getting as many people on board as possible. If the iPod supports wma, MS has Apple just where they want them. Then there is no stopping wma's growth. It's over then.
shamino
macrumors 68040
Not in terms of what people are purchasing. I have no idea what's floating around the illegal file sharing networks.
And if these people download the free iTunes, then their computers will create AAC files, by default, when they put in a CD and click the button to "copy songs to hard drive."
You aren't describing anything unique to Microsoft.
Or maybe do nothing more than download a free media player that isn't made by Microsoft.
They said the same thing about AOL when they introduced MSN. They said the same things about Sony and Nintendo when they introduced the XBox.
Come back and show me this post a year from now. Until then, it's nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of Microsoft's marketing department and a belief in Microsoft's mythical ability to take over everything it touches on your part.
These aren't great examples:
- Microsoft has met its sales goals for the Xbox. No one realistically thought the Xbox would outsell the PlayStation 2 in the foreseeable future. Xbox 2 vs. PlayStation 3 may be a more interesting battle, since by that point, the Sony legacy advantages will be eroded. However, this is an expensive hardware purchase that does not depend on any sort of compatibility with your computer system. Windows doesn't work any better with the Xbox than with the PS2, since it doesn't even try to work with either.
- I don't know if MSN was expected to overtake AOL; I doubt it, but maybe. However, this again is only partly related to the OS. They both run fine on the OS.
People could download iTunes, but there's no compelling reason to do that until AFTER you buy an iPod. BEFORE you buy an iPod, the path of least resistance is to make .wma files. Lots of people, including me, have substantial .wma file collections that we have made from our own legally purchased CDs. I personally would have bought an iPod last year if it did .wma. At this point, I like iTunes enough that I am probably willing to buy an iPod anyway, but .wma support would make it an easy decision for me. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
As for the MSN people - they will see a link to "buy legal WMA music files online right now", and they will think "wow, I never thought about that before." Presto, 60% market share for Microsoft. Granted, this will be a relatively low-end, computer-illiterate group that might not be fertile ground for iPod sales anyway. But to ignore it is very risky. Combined with more computer-savvy people who happen to have .wma files accumulated, the prospects of this turning into a major issue are, in my opinion, high.
AAC this
WMA that
Why not jut stick with MP3 which totally usable by everyone, whichever machine they are using without anyone getting their knickers in a twist whos format is goign to win.
Microsoft/Apple/WMA/AAC instead of each other trying to play hardball with each other should have just with everyone else got together and improved MP3 (and yes I know, AAC is supposidly MP4) its sad that everything has to come down to control, whether its Microsoft or Apple, the only losers are us
WMA that
Why not jut stick with MP3 which totally usable by everyone, whichever machine they are using without anyone getting their knickers in a twist whos format is goign to win.
Microsoft/Apple/WMA/AAC instead of each other trying to play hardball with each other should have just with everyone else got together and improved MP3 (and yes I know, AAC is supposidly MP4) its sad that everything has to come down to control, whether its Microsoft or Apple, the only losers are us
It would have been nice if everyone had stuck with .mp3, from a consumer perspective, but it's not viable in terms of legal music downloads, due to the lack of copyright protection.
Maybe, although I think .wma came out before .aac (not sure about that). .wma definitely came out before the iPod. This might help with marketing clout, although it wouldn't matter for the legacy music library issues.
I can understand Apple wanting to use a format that a rival does not control. However, what I don't understand is why they can't use their format by default, but then also support other formats. The money's in the hardware, or maybe the music and lyrics - not the codecs.
I can understand Apple wanting to use a format that a rival does not control. However, what I don't understand is why they can't use their format by default, but then also support other formats. The money's in the hardware, or maybe the music and lyrics - not the codecs.
shamino
macrumors 68040
Nevertheless, Microsoft and its advocates were claiming that the XBox would render everybody else obsolete and out of business.
Again, it was expected (according to MS and its fans) to supplant everybody else. The argument was "why would anybody use another service when this one comes preloaded into Windows?"
Of course, in the case of HP (remember them? This thread was supposed to be about them?), iTunes will be preloaded. So their customers will be generating AAC files along the path of least resistance.
Let us not also forget your statement that prompted me to mention the iTunes download:
I don't know about you, but I consider downloading iTunes to be a lot easier and a lot less problematic than switching computers and operating systems.
And I still think that this is wishful thinking. Microsoft has been putting instant sign-up-for-MSN icons on the Windows desktop for years and it hasn't made them even close to a market dominator.
The fact is, aside from Windows and Office, the only products that Microsoft has dominated the marketplace with are the ones they gave away for free (like Internet Explorer).
Quick note - the thread is about iPods and WMA. Check the thread title. The HP version is the most visible part of that discussion, perhaps.
As for your other points -
Microsoft probably said of the Xbox the same thing anyone says when they introduce a new product, that it's better than the competition. (Which in this case is true, in all measurable ways.) However, Microsoft didn't have any advantage over Sony in selling Xboxes; their Windows near-monopoly makes no difference in that market.
As for MSN - perhaps you don't often use Windows computers, or maybe you do, I dunno. However, Windows typically contains several icons that link to ISPs. This includes AOL and MSN. The monopoly can't be exerted for this, due to potential legal issues.
This is different in that there are (at least so far) no legal issues relating to .wma. The monopoly leads to substantial use of .wma; basically, if you have Windows and you do not have an iPod, there is no reason NOT to use .wma.
Again, I'm not saying Apple should drop .aac and switch to .wma. I am saying that Apple should use .aac by default, but also support other major formats, primarily including .mp3 and .wma. It makes sense for users and it makes sense for Apple.
shamino
macrumors 68040
The reason is simple.
Microsoft has a very long history of using "embrace and extend" to take over a market and kick out competitors.
That's how they got rid of Netscape. They shipped their own browser that supported all of Netscape's features (including plugin support). Then they released their own competing tech (Active X and non-standard extensions to HTML and JavaScript). Then they modified their FrontPage package to generate web sites that would deliberately break Netscape (by producing broken HTML that IE would be able to parse anyway.) Then they deleted the Netscape-compatibility features (and did it as a part of a security update, so customers really couldn't choose to refuse it.) Then they began the ad campaigns claiming that Netscape is incompatible with popular web pages.
They did the same thing with Java, but Sun screamed bloody murder and filed suit. Which is why MS is now trying to convince everybody to use ".NET" - it's MS's attempt to take the applet business away from Sun, now that they can't ship proprietary versions of Java.
And now they're doing it with WMA. Their goal is to convince everybody in the world to use WMA. Then they'll take other actions to prevent people from using other formats. They may decide to withhold WMA licenses from vendors that choose to support competing formats. This action may take other forms, but it will happen. But they can't do this until after WMA is firmly entrenched as a universal standard - otherwise their customers will reject them.
If Apple chooses to use WMA, then Microsoft will see their standard in use on just about every computer and media player there is. And when the standard is entrenched enough (so that people will be unable/unwilling to re-purchase/re-rip their collections), they will start taking aggressive actions against their competitors - using the WMA license as their weapon. And Apple will have no choice but to abandon AAC, ITMS, and all the good stuff that goes with them. And companies like HP that don't buckle under may also be punished, using the Windows/Office licensing terms as a weapon.
(You may want to note that Microsoft has done this many times before. When Win95 came out, IBM was refused a license until the day before its release, because IBM was bundling Lotus SmartSuite and not MS Office. And when they finally did get the Win95 license, they were charged 50% more per copy than other PC vendors.)
Apple knows all about Microsoft's business tactics. If Apple starts supporting WMA, then it will be the beginning of the end of Apple's entire digital music business. While this might be a valid thing to do out of desparation, it is not something you do when you are holding the largest share of the market.