I Hate Cnet!!!!
they wrote a dumb article about how bad the ipod is... one of their complaints is that you dont have a choice for which online music store to use. um... cnet, last time i checked, my ipod plays mp3's AND aac's... so i can use whatever store i want to. oh, the words i would use if there werent filters...
Comments
Originally posted by ipodandimac
my ipod plays mp3's AND aac's... so i can use whatever store i want to.
That's just the thing:
All of the other stores are offering WMA format files.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
they wrote a dumb article about how bad the ipod is... one of their complaints is that you dont have a choice for which online music store to use. um... cnet, last time i checked, my ipod plays mp3's AND aac's... so i can use whatever store i want to. oh, the words i would use if there werent filters...
Basically an organisation staffed by people who didn't have enough competence to get work with "real" news organisations, run by people who appear to base their "editorial" policy on who gives them the most advertising dollars.
Zero integrity, zero talent, zero respect for the needs of their readers.
Your title thread reminds me of an unbelievably politically incorrect Monty Python line, which went something like "I don't like *******" to which there was a lot of laughing by John Cleese's quiz show host with the punch line: "Who does?"
Originally posted by Brad
That's just the thing:
All of the other stores are offering WMA format files.
my bad...
I thought the real funny thing was that with each shortcoming they suggested a different mp3 player to use instead of the iPod.
they couldn't suggest one do-all player, because all those players they suggested have THEIR shortcomings.
furthermore, if someone actually took the review for verbatim, and wanted all those features, they would not only be made to spend A LOT of cash, but new problems would arise with using multiple players...etc.
it was a weak article, grasping at straws, but oh well, such is the way of things when you are on top.
I hope the 4th generation address some its weaknesses though, especially battery life and lack of WMA support (Would it really ruin Apple's music utopia to supporting basic playback?)
Originally posted by kraig911
personally I don't think it would.. as apple has said before they aren't making any money on the itunes music store but on IPODS they are raking in serious doe. I bet its something WMA having to be played on a windows machine, like I bet itunes for windows could play a WMA file easily but how so on a mac? as a mac doesn't have a DRM compenent built into it by microsoft like windows does (thank god)
First, Windows Media Audio files that are ripped via Windows Media Player do not (currently) have any DRM added to them. They will play just fine in Windows Media Player Series 9 for Mac OS X, for instance. There's no technological reason why Apple couldn't add WMA (non-DRMed) playback to the iPod and iTunes. In fact, in attempting to lure WMP to iTunes/Win converts, I think that would be a good move to make.
Also, regarding built in DRM and Mac OS X, that's a bit debatable. The DRM system, FairPlay, which governs the playback of iTunes Music Store files is not built into iTunes, but into QuickTime, which is a system-level component in the OS. So it is in fact the QuickTime component of Mac OS X which actually administers your iTunes Digitial Rights Management (that's why you can play M4P files in the Finder and other iApps).
This DRM isn't as pervasive or insidious as much of what Microsoft has put in place with Windows Right Management, but it does exist.
As for WMA - who needs this anyhow? MP3 does the job fine... Or AAC too.
You can't expect people to toss out and re-rip all their songs just for the opportunity to use the iPod or iTunes.
Possibly just add the option to convert WMA to MP3?
The best path would be for Apple to add standard WMA playback (not ripping, just playback) to iTunes, as well as the iPod. There's no logical reason not to. If it gets people into iTunes, that alone ensures that they won't be purchasing or creating any more WMA files.
If I were a Windows user, and I had 600 WMA files, I wouldn't give the iPod or iTunes a second glance. Why should I? It won't play what I have. I'd just stick with WMP, MusicMatch or whatever and buy my songs from Napster.
If Apple wants these customers, it needs to lower the bar for moving to its superior alternative to as close to zero as possible. That means playing back WMA files.
Oh gooooooooood. Yeah, let's have Apple just ditch MP4 in favor of WMV while we're at it. Oooh! Oooh! And toss XML in favor of Office .doc format for everything!
Feh. Bad idea. Might help the next nine months of bottom line for selling iPods, but would kill any innovation opportunities in three or four years.
It's the same reasoning against offering a Win32 or .NET runtime capability native in the OS... if there were one, no developer on the planet would write to Apple's APIs... why, when they can write once to Win32/.NET and get both markets? Woot! Nirvana!
And then MS says "Sorry, we own that API through copyright, you can only run it *on Windows*, we're yanking the plug, too bad..." and you're dead. Go talk to the Mono folks who are now frantically trying to find out if MS is going to sue them, from offhand remarks made during the last MS dev conference...
Using MS's formats is a guaranteed way to certain doom... they own them, they own you. Game over.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Also, regarding built in DRM and Mac OS X, that's a bit debatable. The DRM system, FairPlay, which governs the playback of iTunes Music Store files is not built into iTunes, but into QuickTime, which is a system-level component in the OS. So it is in fact the QuickTime component of Mac OS X which actually administers your iTunes Digitial Rights Management (that's why you can play M4P files in the Finder and other iApps).
This DRM isn't as pervasive or insidious as much of what Microsoft has put in place with Windows Right Management, but it does exist.
I don't know the problems exactly I was just implying its probably easier to add wma WITH windows drm support to a mac is all I'm saying. I bet its especially easier to add WMA support to an Ipod than say OS X.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Which would kill AAC completely, and MS would win the format war, leaving out the open standard. (And before anyone cries that AAC isn't an open standard as defined by the GPL, you're right - there's a license fee to be paid to Dolby for it - which Apple has paid *for* you... but AAC is part of MPEG-4, which *is* an open standard, and therefore worth pushing hard over totally closed systems such as MS likes to use.)
How would being able to PLAY, not create, WMA files kill AAC?
If anything, it would expand the reach of AAC by getting users into iTunes and letting them purchase AAC files. And rip AAC files. Something that won't happen if they can't move to iTunes.
Do people really expect Windows users to just throw away their libraries of WMA files to move to iTunes? They won't. They'll go to Napster instead. And that actually will hurt the advancement of AAC.
To make AAC unignorable, Apple needs to get as many folks as possible using it. Particularly using purchased AAC files, which cannot be re-ripped as WMA, except in a very lossy manner,
Oh gooooooooood. Yeah, let's have Apple just ditch MP4 in favor of WMV while we're at it. Oooh! Oooh! And toss XML in favor of Office .doc format for everything!
Where are you getting off? No one is recommending retreating from Apple's standards, only making it easier for Windows users to move to them.
You have to have a way to deal with legacy WMA files. "Toss them out, re-rip the music" is not a way to deal with them.
Once in iTunes, folks will want to rip their music in iTunes, because AAC and iTunes are that much better. But they won't be able to rip new music in WMA. Playback only.
This is how Microsoft made WMA prevalent, by allowing the playback, but not creation, of MP3 files. They got folks using WMP, and that got them using WMA by default. The same trojan manuever could easily work for Apple, because what Apple's offering is legitimately better than WMA or WMP.
Feh. Bad idea. Might help the next nine months of bottom line for selling iPods, but would kill any innovation opportunities in three or four years.
A baseless charge.
Originally posted by kraig911
I don't know the problems exactly I was just implying its probably easier to add wma WITH windows drm support to a mac is all I'm saying. I bet its especially easier to add WMA support to an Ipod than say OS X.
WMA is just a way of encoding data, no more complicated to add than AAC, MP3 or Ogg Vorbis, if Apple were to take that route. Now, DRMed WMA is a different matter, as is DRMed AAC from Apple. It won't take MusicMatch long to add AAC playback support, but adding Apple's M4P playback support will likely never occur. That's neither good nor bad, just a bit of reality creeping in.
Originally posted by Kirkland
How would being able to PLAY, not create, WMA files kill AAC? [/b]
Keep reading. Or, heck, go back and re-read the second half of my post that you didn't respond to. I thought that was pretty clear. *shrug*
If anything, it would expand the reach of AAC by getting users into iTunes and letting them purchase AAC files. And rip AAC files. Something that won't happen if they can't move to iTunes.
You have a point on that respect, but AAC is something that other companies can provide encoders for as well - it'd be nice to see a Windows music app coding house decide to use it - but MS would bury any company that did so.
Do people really expect Windows users to just throw away their libraries of WMA files to move to iTunes? They won't. They'll go to Napster instead.
Not if they want an iPod. (And read below - they will - I know several who are seriously considering it *just* for the wee white wailer...)
And that actually will hurt the advancement of AAC.
To make AAC unignorable, Apple needs to get as many folks as possible using it. Particularly using purchased AAC files, which cannot be re-ripped as WMA, except in a very lossy manner,
Well, they're getting *there* at least - reencoding is going to be messy.
Where are you getting off?
Same place you are. Stating an opinion. Problem?
No one is recommending retreating from Apple's standards, only making it easier for Windows users to move to them.
Let me try it this way: Apple lets WMA play on iPod. iPod becomes Yet Another Windows Music Player. Sure, sales go up in a while... but what is *anyone's* motivation to rip into *anything* but WMA? Suddenly it plays on *everything*. Whoo-hoo! Alright! Let's just go WMA and call it good!
And voila. WMA is the standard.
Your ploy only works if the company doing that has a market lead (ie, monopoly doesn't hurt) to essentially force the issue. Apple does not, not even with the iPod. Not quite yet, at least. They're on the cusp, I think... not quite there, and needing a bit of a push to knock 'em over the top. iTMS is that push, I believe. I know a number of Windows users, *non* iPod users, who have fallen in love with it, and are seriously looking at purchasing an iPod now. And their WMA files? They're happy to re-rip the ones they want. Purchased WMA? Nope, don't know a single person, personally, who's purchased WMA files online. It's all been ripped from CD.
You have to have a way to deal with legacy WMA files. "Toss them out, re-rip the music" is not a way to deal with them.
Sorry, but I fail to see how that's Apple's problem if some Windows users decided to rip into WMA. They locked themselves out of the iPod market... and trust me, I know some folks who are seriously considering doing *exactly* what you state they won't... re-rip. Why not? I know many of them ripped to 128k MP3s, then 320VBR, then some to WMA... re-ripping as new codecs come down the line seems to be some peoples' pasttimes, I swear.
Once in iTunes, folks will want to rip their music in iTunes, because AAC and iTunes are that much better. But they won't be able to rip new music in WMA. Playback only.
This is how Microsoft made WMA prevalent, by allowing the playback, but not creation, of MP3 files. They got folks using WMP, and that got them using WMA by default. The same trojan manuever could easily work for Apple, because what Apple's offering is legitimately better than WMA or WMP.
I disagree. Look at who actually uses WMA... the same folks who use IE over Mozilla, WMP over QuickTime, Word over... well... it *used* to be over WordPerfect... ie, those who aren't going to use anything else but what's installed in the system. MS made darned few converts from MP3 to WMA. Those who were with MP3 tended to stick with it. WMA has gained market share almost exclusively from the newbies.
And before you state that I have no numbers to back this up... neither do you. It is, however, based on watching the *incredibly* high-volume music swappers I know, and the DJs... none of them have moved to WMA. They can't stand it. A few casual users who frankly don't care much one way or another have dipped into the WMA pool, but they're in the vast minority.
A baseless charge.
As based in fact as your assertion that moving to WMA would only help Apple... it's called speculative opinion.