Considering the browser-based UI for the store (back/forwards buttons etc.) I would be highly disappointed if iTunes didn't at least share some code with WebKit.
It doesn't. If it did, there would have to be separate WebKit frameworks within the iTunes bundle since you're not allowed to include them in the code.
I can see them adding WMA playback in iTunes, but limit ripping to wav, mp3, aac.
And the Music Store surely will be aac.
Wouldnt it be good to include WMA playback so that Windows users will have one less headache in migrating to iTunes?
I totally agree with this post. There is NO CHANCE IN HELL that Apple will go with WMA for iTMS/Windows. Why would they bother when AAC will work just fine and isn't a Microsoft-proprietary technology? (Not to mention that they would be duplicating their current efforts: two types of DRM, two types of file formats, etc.). If Apple were going to user WMA for the iTMS, I'm sure they would have done it from the beginning.
Apple will be adding WMA playback to iTunes for Windows to make it easier for Windows users to migrate. iTunes truly has utility only when you can use it for ALL of your music. If Apple were to say, "Hey, here's this great new media player and music store, but you can't use it with the Windows Media Audio you've been ripping for the past year (because Windows Media for XP doesn't come with an MP3 encoder)," the public response would probably be, "No, thanks. What about this Music Match thing?"
I'm in agreement with those who are saying AAC files are what iTMS will sell to Windows users, and that Windows iTunes will probably support WMA playback for the files you already have. Maybe even WMA encoding will be possible... although that seems less likely unless WMA encoding can be done through a built-in Windows API call, rather than requiring code that Apple would have to license from Microsoft.
The tricky part of having Windows iTunes support WMA playback is that probably mean that iTunes would have to enforce WMA licensing restrictions, including song-by-song limitations on transfers to players and CD burning.
Adding WMA support is good but WMA quality is a joke. It's below Mp3 and that is pretty bad. MP4 AAC is the best format out there for mass consumption. All these ogg nuts on Linux don't understand that no one knows what Ogg is and nothing plays it. MP4 is the best and I hope the rest of the industry gets off their ass and catches up to Apple with MP4, and while they're at it, maybe FireWire 2 and gigabit Ethernet as well.
My vote is that WMA playback support is added, but there is no change to the iTMS using AAC and no WMA encoding. Like another poster said, Apple wants you using iTunes for all of you music. Remember, its just another format. iTunes and the iPod already handle MP3, AIFF, and AAC, so why not one more?
No iPod should not add WMA support. People need to start standing up against M$. it's fine in iTunes but not iPods. Just convert. WMA audio is vastly inferior anyway. AAC is the man!
Although it would be great to totally snub M$ and WMA, if Apple didn't offer support for WMA playback in iTunes and iPods they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. There's a huge potential market out there of Windows users who have large WMA libraries, and if they weren't given the facility to play their existing music, they'll just look at other solutions. I think the best way to go is:
iTMS - AAC
iTunes - AAC or MP3 for ripping new stuff, AAC / MP3 / WMA playback for existing music
iPod - AAC, MP3 and WMA playback
As for converting WMA's, if the format is inherently worse than AAC, converting them isn't going to help with the sound quality .
No iPod should not add WMA support. People need to start standing up against M$. it's fine in iTunes but not iPods. Just convert. WMA audio is vastly inferior anyway. AAC is the man!
Converting between lossy audio formats produces even more loss. A WMA file converted to AAC will sound worse than the original WMA file, and worse than an AAC file that was created from an uncompressed source.
In addition, if the WMA files in question were protected files, there'd be legal issues in providing software that converted those files into another format that did not support the same DRM restrictions.
As for sound quality, in this listening test, AAC was ranked only slightly ahead of WMA. (I wish I knew whose AAC was being used, because in another listening test, Quicktime's AAC came out on top. If this isn't Quicktime AAC here, maybe WMA is looking better against AAC than it otherwise might.)
My main reason for preferring AAC over WMA is that AAC is an open standard, as opposed WMA, which is yet another attempt by Microsoft to try to grab market lock-in on one of their proprietary formats.
i think by convert he may have meant switch. but anyway, another thing that would be wrong about apple having wma on the windows ITMS would be angry consumers trying to figure out why they can buy music on their mac at home, but they cant listen to it at their pc at the office cuz that version of itunes wont do aac.
Question: Since WMA is a proprietary Windows format, would Apple have to pay Microsoft licensing fees in order to have iTunes and the iPod play WMA files? Or are any licensing fees only for encoding to WMA, but not for playback?
"iTMS is a way not a way to make money...no, it's a way to sell more iPods"
-jobs
iPod doesn't support WMA, granted that's changeable with a firmware update, it makes no sense for windows iTMS to do WMA, WMA is a cruddy format, AND apple is trying to push AAC as the next big digital medium, so they wouldn't back out on that now.
As for sound quality, in this listening test, AAC was ranked only slightly ahead of WMA. (I wish I knew whose AAC was being used, because in another listening test, Quicktime's AAC came out on top. If this isn't Quicktime AAC here, maybe WMA is looking better against AAC than it otherwise might.)
* Apple QuickTime 6.3 MP4 encoder 128kbps high quality
* LAME MP3 Encoder 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128
* Musepack 1.14 --quality 4 --xlevel
* Ogg Vorbis post-1.0 CVS -q 4.25
* Windows Media Audio v9 PRO bitrate-managed 2-pass VBR 128kbps
Note that WMA Pro is an entirely different beast from normal WMA and has zero hardware support at the moment. Also the other test you mention is probably the AAC at 128kbps test also listed on http://audio.ciara.us/test/ which is what was used to choose one of the AAC codecs to put up against the other contenders.
So the store for Windows is AAC, as most of you predicted, but there doesn't appear to be WMA support for either iPod or iTunes. Now I'm wondering if Apple feels they have enough clout to just refuse to support it in order to support Quicktime/AAC, or if it's just taking a while to integrate it.
So the store for Windows is AAC, as most of you predicted, but there doesn't appear to be WMA support for either iPod or iTunes. Now I'm wondering if Apple feels they have enough clout to just refuse to support it in order to support Quicktime/AAC, or if it's just taking a while to integrate it.
Besides the fact that Apple may or may not want to support WMA for various reasons, it could be that Apple needs to obtain a license from Microsoft to sell software that can play WMA. Apple might not want to pay that price, or Microsoft might not be willing to offer a license to Apple at any price.
Besides the fact that Apple may or may not want to support WMA for various reasons, it could be that Apple needs to obtain a license from Microsoft to sell software that can play WMA. Apple might not want to pay that price, or Microsoft might not be willing to offer a license to Apple at any price.
I'll admit that lack of WMA support in iTunes for Windoze did surprise me. As I stated above, I truly believed that Apple would provide this functionality simply to make it easier to Windows users to migrate to iTunes. From the outside looking in, it almost seems arrogant of Apple not to support a major format on the PC platform, but since we all know that Steve doesn't have an arrogant bone in his body.... ;-)
Also, why would Microsoft NOT want to provide a license that would further expand the use of the WMA audio format?
I don't have anything in WMA, nor do I have the desire to find something, but iTunes can play anything that QT can... it just can't export to some formats.
Of course, I could be mistaken about WMA, but I would think that the capability is there.
Comments
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Considering the browser-based UI for the store (back/forwards buttons etc.) I would be highly disappointed if iTunes didn't at least share some code with WebKit.
It doesn't. If it did, there would have to be separate WebKit frameworks within the iTunes bundle since you're not allowed to include them in the code.
Originally posted by snahabed
I can see them adding WMA playback in iTunes, but limit ripping to wav, mp3, aac.
And the Music Store surely will be aac.
Wouldnt it be good to include WMA playback so that Windows users will have one less headache in migrating to iTunes?
I totally agree with this post. There is NO CHANCE IN HELL that Apple will go with WMA for iTMS/Windows. Why would they bother when AAC will work just fine and isn't a Microsoft-proprietary technology? (Not to mention that they would be duplicating their current efforts: two types of DRM, two types of file formats, etc.). If Apple were going to user WMA for the iTMS, I'm sure they would have done it from the beginning.
Apple will be adding WMA playback to iTunes for Windows to make it easier for Windows users to migrate. iTunes truly has utility only when you can use it for ALL of your music. If Apple were to say, "Hey, here's this great new media player and music store, but you can't use it with the Windows Media Audio you've been ripping for the past year (because Windows Media for XP doesn't come with an MP3 encoder)," the public response would probably be, "No, thanks. What about this Music Match thing?"
The tricky part of having Windows iTunes support WMA playback is that probably mean that iTunes would have to enforce WMA licensing restrictions, including song-by-song limitations on transfers to players and CD burning.
iTMS - AAC
iTunes - AAC or MP3 for ripping new stuff, AAC / MP3 / WMA playback for existing music
iPod - AAC, MP3 and WMA playback
As for converting WMA's, if the format is inherently worse than AAC, converting them isn't going to help with the sound quality
Dave.
Originally posted by Aquatic
No iPod should not add WMA support. People need to start standing up against M$. it's fine in iTunes but not iPods. Just convert. WMA audio is vastly inferior anyway. AAC is the man!
Converting between lossy audio formats produces even more loss. A WMA file converted to AAC will sound worse than the original WMA file, and worse than an AAC file that was created from an uncompressed source.
In addition, if the WMA files in question were protected files, there'd be legal issues in providing software that converted those files into another format that did not support the same DRM restrictions.
As for sound quality, in this listening test, AAC was ranked only slightly ahead of WMA. (I wish I knew whose AAC was being used, because in another listening test, Quicktime's AAC came out on top. If this isn't Quicktime AAC here, maybe WMA is looking better against AAC than it otherwise might.)
My main reason for preferring AAC over WMA is that AAC is an open standard, as opposed WMA, which is yet another attempt by Microsoft to try to grab market lock-in on one of their proprietary formats.
-jobs
iPod doesn't support WMA, granted that's changeable with a firmware update, it makes no sense for windows iTMS to do WMA, WMA is a cruddy format, AND apple is trying to push AAC as the next big digital medium, so they wouldn't back out on that now.
Originally posted by shetline
As for sound quality, in this listening test, AAC was ranked only slightly ahead of WMA. (I wish I knew whose AAC was being used, because in another listening test, Quicktime's AAC came out on top. If this isn't Quicktime AAC here, maybe WMA is looking better against AAC than it otherwise might.)
The first link on that page takes you to http://audio.ciara.us/test/128extens...sentation.html which reveals the details of which codec were used:
* Apple QuickTime 6.3 MP4 encoder 128kbps high quality
* LAME MP3 Encoder 3.90.3 --alt-preset 128
* Musepack 1.14 --quality 4 --xlevel
* Ogg Vorbis post-1.0 CVS -q 4.25
* Windows Media Audio v9 PRO bitrate-managed 2-pass VBR 128kbps
Note that WMA Pro is an entirely different beast from normal WMA and has zero hardware support at the moment. Also the other test you mention is probably the AAC at 128kbps test also listed on http://audio.ciara.us/test/ which is what was used to choose one of the AAC codecs to put up against the other contenders.
Originally posted by BRussell
So the store for Windows is AAC, as most of you predicted, but there doesn't appear to be WMA support for either iPod or iTunes. Now I'm wondering if Apple feels they have enough clout to just refuse to support it in order to support Quicktime/AAC, or if it's just taking a while to integrate it.
Besides the fact that Apple may or may not want to support WMA for various reasons, it could be that Apple needs to obtain a license from Microsoft to sell software that can play WMA. Apple might not want to pay that price, or Microsoft might not be willing to offer a license to Apple at any price.
Originally posted by shetline
Besides the fact that Apple may or may not want to support WMA for various reasons, it could be that Apple needs to obtain a license from Microsoft to sell software that can play WMA. Apple might not want to pay that price, or Microsoft might not be willing to offer a license to Apple at any price.
I'll admit that lack of WMA support in iTunes for Windoze did surprise me. As I stated above, I truly believed that Apple would provide this functionality simply to make it easier to Windows users to migrate to iTunes. From the outside looking in, it almost seems arrogant of Apple not to support a major format on the PC platform, but since we all know that Steve doesn't have an arrogant bone in his body.... ;-)
Also, why would Microsoft NOT want to provide a license that would further expand the use of the WMA audio format?
I don't have anything in WMA, nor do I have the desire to find something, but iTunes can play anything that QT can... it just can't export to some formats.
Of course, I could be mistaken about WMA, but I would think that the capability is there.
Originally posted by highfalutintodd
Also, why would Microsoft NOT want to provide a license that would further expand the use of the WMA audio format?
Simple.
Microsoft does not want you using iTunes. If WMA support is in iTunes, that's just another reason to use it.
It will be interesting to see when and how WMA does make it into iTunes, if ever.