"...if you use Apple's music store along with iTunes, you don't have the ability of using the over 40 different Windows Media-compatible portable music devices...."
Is any of this true? Or is he just referring to WMA files not being able to be played on an iPod?
If so, in some respects, he's right then. But there's MP3 which is probably still the most popular format.
True, but there's nothing stopping anyone else from supporting AAC audio, is there? It's supposed to be more or less the replacement for MP3 as far as the creators of that format are concerned. Are there any licensing fees involved with AAC? I know it's a "standard" in the sense that it's non-proprietary, but does the Apple iTMS with its Fairplay DRM make those AAC files proprietary?
If these possible roadblocks are really in the clear and there's demand, there's good reason to think that other players will add support for protected (and unprotected) AAC just as much as WMA, which is what MS is inferring to be a more "open"/standard DRM system.
FairPlay might hit it big. Apple could end up controlling media. In general. It's made on Macs, sold through Apple, and played on iPods.
But there is a catch.
Remember that little company Netscape that threatened M$? They swatted Netscape down so fast it is still bleeding. You know how QT mysteriously doesn't work well on Windows? I have a feeling iTunes will stop working with the next Service Pack. And the DoJ of course will applaud Microsoft and the government will buy more M$ software than ever. But there's a slight chance Apple can cling on, sort of the like the Red Sox almost did. If they make it they will make it big! It's a high stakes all for nothing end game for the music business and Apple is currently winning! This is almost as exciting as the unfolding SCO (now questionably funded by M$! The plot thickens!) vs. Linux war or various other stories. I need some popcorn, news these days reads like a good reality show...
"...if you use Apple's music store along with iTunes, you don't have the ability of using the over 40 different Windows Media-compatible portable music devices...."
Is any of this true?
let's see. i buy a song from iTMS via iTunes for Windows. i play it on iTunes on my Windows machine. I can also burn it to CD and play it in my car stereo or CD player.
seems okay to me. i mean, no one said you HAD to have an ipod to listen to music you buy. okay, maybe he might have a point with the digital media player, but i am pretty sure that the above two examples is a pretty easy way to still use the music you buy, at least until either a.) you get an ipod or b.) 3rd party manufacturers get around to supporting aac via firmware updates or brand new devices.
Just out of interest do PC iPods even support AAC yet? Seems kind of stupid if Apple has opened the iTMS for Windows but not given the ability for Windows users with iPods the ability to play them.
Just out of interest do PC iPods even support AAC yet? Seems kind of stupid if Apple has opened the iTMS for Windows but not given the ability for Windows users with iPods the ability to play them.
um... there's no such thing as a "PC iPod" anymore...
True, but there's nothing stopping anyone else from supporting AAC audio, is there? It's supposed to be more or less the replacement for MP3 as far as the creators of that format are concerned. Are there any licensing fees involved with AAC? I know it's a "standard" in the sense that it's non-proprietary, but does the Apple iTMS with its Fairplay DRM make those AAC files proprietary?
If these possible roadblocks are really in the clear and there's demand, there's good reason to think that other players will add support for protected (and unprotected) AAC just as much as WMA, which is what MS is inferring to be a more "open"/standard DRM system.
The AAC codec is encapsulated in an MPEG-4 file container. $0.25 for each encoder capped at $1M. $0.25 for each decoder capped at $1M.
It's kind of sad how much clout Microsoft has that it can just throw out its own format and everybody will lap it up. AAC on the other hand isn't more prominent because MP3 is so entrenched.
MPEG-4 was designed from the onset with the capacity to support various implementations of DRM.
AAC is a far superior format to WMA and Mp3. I think that support for portable devices will be seen in the very near future. Although the only device you need is the iPod.
Yeah, a lot of people don't own iPods... and as far as I know, the iPod is the only portable music player that plays AAC audio.
That's what I thought too. A quick Google search proved me wrong though, there's a Panasonic player that will play AAC, though I'm not sure it would play stuff from iTMS.
The whole ?choice? thing makes me giggle a bit because it mirrors the whole ?yeah, but look at all the software available for the PC!? argument many like to trot out when dinging the Mac.
Yes, there is indeed a lot more software AVAILABLE for the PC. I will not argue that.
What I will say is that I think there is probably a TON of low-rent, schlocky, ?would hate to be seen using it? C-grade horseshit to cull through too.
Maybe, just maybe, there are simply fewer - but higher quality - titles available for the Mac? I tend to think so.
In any case, honestly: how many word processor apps do you REALLY need? Do I really need to wade through and choose the best digital photo or music management app when I know that the best one comes free on my Mac already?
Do I REALLY need to go with some third-rate Crap-In-A-Box? photo or digital video editing app that costs $49 at Staples?
No.
Hearing this talk about ?choice? roughly translates into ?we?re getting clobbered...or we?re about to be and I can?t do a damn thing about it except nitpick some obscure detail that no one else is worrying about?.
Hearing this talk about ?choice? roughly translates into ?we?re getting clobbered...or we?re about to be and I can?t do a damn thing about it except nitpick some obscure detail that no one else is worrying about?.
Well, of course, this argtument isn't even that: It's using a definition of "choice" that only includes options that rely on MS technology.
Comments
Is any of this true? Or is he just referring to WMA files not being able to be played on an iPod?
If so, in some respects, he's right then. But there's MP3 which is probably still the most popular format.
Of course, that might just change now.
If these possible roadblocks are really in the clear and there's demand, there's good reason to think that other players will add support for protected (and unprotected) AAC just as much as WMA, which is what MS is inferring to be a more "open"/standard DRM system.
But there is a catch.
Remember that little company Netscape that threatened M$? They swatted Netscape down so fast it is still bleeding. You know how QT mysteriously doesn't work well on Windows? I have a feeling iTunes will stop working with the next Service Pack. And the DoJ of course will applaud Microsoft and the government will buy more M$ software than ever. But there's a slight chance Apple can cling on, sort of the like the Red Sox almost did. If they make it they will make it big! It's a high stakes all for nothing end game for the music business and Apple is currently winning! This is almost as exciting as the unfolding SCO (now questionably funded by M$! The plot thickens!) vs. Linux war or various other stories. I need some popcorn, news these days reads like a good reality show...
Originally posted by satchmo
"...if you use Apple's music store along with iTunes, you don't have the ability of using the over 40 different Windows Media-compatible portable music devices...."
Is any of this true?
let's see. i buy a song from iTMS via iTunes for Windows. i play it on iTunes on my Windows machine. I can also burn it to CD and play it in my car stereo or CD player.
seems okay to me. i mean, no one said you HAD to have an ipod to listen to music you buy. okay, maybe he might have a point with the digital media player, but i am pretty sure that the above two examples is a pretty easy way to still use the music you buy, at least until either a.) you get an ipod or b.) 3rd party manufacturers get around to supporting aac via firmware updates or brand new devices.
am i missing something?
Originally posted by Telomar
Just out of interest do PC iPods even support AAC yet? Seems kind of stupid if Apple has opened the iTMS for Windows but not given the ability for Windows users with iPods the ability to play them.
um... there's no such thing as a "PC iPod" anymore...
Originally posted by BuonRotto
True, but there's nothing stopping anyone else from supporting AAC audio, is there? It's supposed to be more or less the replacement for MP3 as far as the creators of that format are concerned. Are there any licensing fees involved with AAC? I know it's a "standard" in the sense that it's non-proprietary, but does the Apple iTMS with its Fairplay DRM make those AAC files proprietary?
If these possible roadblocks are really in the clear and there's demand, there's good reason to think that other players will add support for protected (and unprotected) AAC just as much as WMA, which is what MS is inferring to be a more "open"/standard DRM system.
The AAC codec is encapsulated in an MPEG-4 file container. $0.25 for each encoder capped at $1M. $0.25 for each decoder capped at $1M.
It's kind of sad how much clout Microsoft has that it can just throw out its own format and everybody will lap it up. AAC on the other hand isn't more prominent because MP3 is so entrenched.
MPEG-4 was designed from the onset with the capacity to support various implementations of DRM.
Originally posted by pesi
um... there's no such thing as a "PC iPod" anymore...
No, but there were. When iTMS arrived, I could update my scrollwheel iPod to play AAC files (v. 1.3)
Telomar: Updating 2G iPods/Win can be found here:
http://www.apple.com/ipod/download/i...eupdate13.html
AAC and iTMS is in the update for Win--not Mac only as it says on the page.
Originally posted by LoCash
Yeah, a lot of people don't own iPods... and as far as I know, the iPod is the only portable music player that plays AAC audio.
No, I believe Sony makes portable music players that only support the AAC format. I don't know of others however.
Originally posted by LoCash
Yeah, a lot of people don't own iPods... and as far as I know, the iPod is the only portable music player that plays AAC audio.
That's what I thought too. A quick Google search proved me wrong though, there's a Panasonic player that will play AAC, though I'm not sure it would play stuff from iTMS.
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-jEVEd9y...sp?I=133SVSD85
Originally posted by Defiant
You must mean the format ATRAC. This is what Sony uses a lot.
You're right. Sorry about that. I shouldn't try to pull things off the top of my head.
Originally posted by Eugene
The AAC codec is encapsulated in an MPEG-4 file container. $0.25 for each encoder capped at $1M. $0.25 for each decoder capped at $1M.
What does this mean in English?
Yes, there is indeed a lot more software AVAILABLE for the PC. I will not argue that.
What I will say is that I think there is probably a TON of low-rent, schlocky, ?would hate to be seen using it? C-grade horseshit to cull through too.
Maybe, just maybe, there are simply fewer - but higher quality - titles available for the Mac? I tend to think so.
In any case, honestly: how many word processor apps do you REALLY need? Do I really need to wade through and choose the best digital photo or music management app when I know that the best one comes free on my Mac already?
Do I REALLY need to go with some third-rate Crap-In-A-Box? photo or digital video editing app that costs $49 at Staples?
No.
Hearing this talk about ?choice? roughly translates into ?we?re getting clobbered...or we?re about to be and I can?t do a damn thing about it except nitpick some obscure detail that no one else is worrying about?.
Originally posted by pscates
Hearing this talk about ?choice? roughly translates into ?we?re getting clobbered...or we?re about to be and I can?t do a damn thing about it except nitpick some obscure detail that no one else is worrying about?.
Well, of course, this argtument isn't even that: It's using a definition of "choice" that only includes options that rely on MS technology.
That's a pretty funny definition of "choice."