Just to point out to whoever meantioned the N Gage support AAC. Even if it does, the N Gage is a failed product when you look at its competition, which is Nintendo. Now, you get Nintendo to tout the AAC format and you have something.
About the Ngage, yes it may be a failed product, but Nokia has great AAC support throughout their entire Series 60 line of phones. Unfortunately they won't play iTMS songs. I don't see a problem for Apple licensing Fair Play to companies that are not competing with the iPod. I don't think anyone is going to buy a $300 phone and $200 worth of SD cards because they are too cheap to buy an iPod
So shall we all start speculating about 4G iPods coming out in either May or June? Seeing as how the hPod looks exactly like the current iPod i'm guessing that Apple will want to distinguish its own iPod somewhat and will want that diferentiation to be obvious. Plus, if Apple has a new model out with some cool new must-have features, then it can let HP sell its player for less.
I mean, come on people, there are only TWO DIFFERENCES:
The color
and the hp logo on the back
So, just because something has color, it is bad? We should cast it out, just because it is a little different, but it is THE SAME ON THE INSIDE. Let's take a lesson from the past, and open our minds!
I found it odd that in the video she stated that Apple came to them because Apple knows how great HP is at innovation. And they're so good at making complicated things simple. What exactly is innovative about re-branding the best selling MP3 player on the market? Or putting a iTunes icon on your desktop? I believe that she may be completely insane.
I found it odd that in the video she stated that Apple came to them because Apple knows how great HP is at innovation. And they're so good at making complicated things simple. What exactly is innovative about re-branding the best selling MP3 player on the market? Or putting a iTunes icon on your desktop? I believe that she may be completely insane.
She's not insane, she's just got a background in marketing.
I found it odd that in the video she stated that Apple came to them because Apple knows how great HP is at innovation. And they're so good at making complicated things simple. What exactly is innovative about re-branding the best selling MP3 player on the market? Or putting a iTunes icon on your desktop? I believe that she may be completely insane.
Or she is desperate to make people think that HP has been on top of the digital music thing and was just waiting for the market to settle
Then again we know that in the mainstream computer market "innovation" means re-branding or flat out stealing other people ideas and technologies. Dell, I'm looking at you
People, don't bite the hand that feeds you. She is a very smart CEO. She has turned the company around. They are still No. 2 (or No. 1) depending on a particular quarter. Apple should do as well.
WMA is half the size at the same bitrate... but I don't think the quality is the same...even if that is what they advertise...
AAC is the same size at the same bitrate... with the quality being noticeably better...
hell even the idea of bitrate is inflated with WMA...
128WMA is smaller then 128 AAC and 128 MP3 (which are the same)
but I doubt the Quality of 128 WMA>128MP3, if so only marginally...
128AAC on the other-hand is bigger then WMA, but better sounding then both WMA and MP3 at the same bitrate...
Sorry to make a big off-topic post, but this is so wrong I had to say something:
An audio file that is quoted as being 128 Kbps means that, on average (some formats are Variable Bit Rate), for every 1 second of audio, that audio is represented by 128 kilo bits = 128 x 1024 = 131,072 bits. This is true whatever the format, be it ogg, mp3, aac, WMA or anything else.
This doesn't mean that there won't be file size differences between formats for a given song, as there are overheads such as headers, tags and framing. The size differences are small: I encoded James Brown's "Get On The Good Foot" album, which is 70 mins long, in 128 Kbps mp3, aac, WMA 9 without DRM and WMA 9 with DRM. The total size of the album for each format was:
mp3: 64.4 MB
AAC: 65.2 MB
WMA 9, no DRM: 65.1 MB
WMA 9, DRM: 65.1 MB
I think what got you confused was Microsoft's claim that WMA 9 gives the same performance as mp3 at half the bit rate; therefore approx. half the file size for the same quality. This claim is highly debatable.
As far as quality goes, I don't think there's much debate that WMA and AAC using bit-rate "x" both sound better than mp3 at the same bit-rate.
However, there is debate as to whether WMA sounds better than AAC (or visa versa) at a given bit-rate. There are some people who have tried to do blind tests, but I couldn't find any (when I did a quick search) that had a decent scientific approach to the test.
I hope that this has cleared a few things up.
P.S. just in case anyone's wondering, I used a 500 MHz Titanium with 768 MB PC100 RAM, 10.2.6 and iTunes 4.2 to encode on the Mac; it took 9 mins 40 seconds (AAC).
I used a 1.4 GHz AMD Athlon machine with 384 MB PC2100 DDR RAM, Windows 2000 and Media Player 9 to encode on the PC; it took 10 mins 48 seconds (WMA, no DRM).
Nearly everything else in this story makes it sound like HP took a look at the last quarter's stats and decided to fold up its tent and get on the iPod/iTMS bandwagon, and then she somehow manages to make it seem like it was Apple that came to them wanting to do the deal.
I concede that HP have done a fair amount of innovation over the decades, but the idea of Apple being impressed with HP's record of innovation in the consumer marketplace seems like a woman desperately trying to make lemonade out of lemons to me.
Still think it's a great deal though, and think the finished units will look a lot better than the spray-painted half-assed unit she holds up in the video.
Pardon my edit, but I thought I'd just continue this message;
If HP really have 110,000 outlets to pump this through, it's highly conceivable that HP could move 3 million units annually. Assuming Apple are giving HP some room to make $25 a unit, HP could make $75 million annually as a guarantee.
This compares quite favourably with how much HP would have paid to develop and, more importantly, market its own player and store, both of which could have landed up being loss-leaders.
$75 million guaranteed as opposed to $25-$50 million burnt seems like a smart move from HP, and Apple do quite nicely out of it as well.
Like one of those cute Russian dolls, the first thing that looks like a Trojan Horse is the iPod; but then you realise that it might be iTMS; however you dig a little deeper and you begin to think it might be QuickTime and then - ultimately - it might be the fact that - through iTunes - Apple is getting WebCore or whatever its called onto Windows.
That's just the intangible benefit; but at 3 million units a year and 15% gross, Apple may well generate around $900M in revenue for iPod and over $135M in profit. If half of these 3 million units generate 5 iTMS downloads a month, that's 90 million downloads/annum.
Over three years, Apple could download some 540 million tracks to HP's customers, generating a minimum of $27M in profit to go with $405M in profit from iPod sales.
Seems like a deal to me! Sneak your software onto your arch-rival's OS, shift even more of your hot product thus increasing economies of scale and reducing unit costs, earn a shed load of cash. Oh, and stick a knife into the opposing music formats at the same time. It's like the gift that keeps on giving!
Is it possible that HP could license WMA for playback on its iPods, while Apple continues to leave WMA alone?
Obviously, Microsoft wouldn't want to do this, but given the antitrust settlement, it may not be possible or legally desirable for MS to pick and choose who it can license technology to. (I know that the settlement included some restrictions requiring MS to have uniform licensing fees and access for Windows -- I guess the question is how broadly the uniform licensing applies).
I ask because there needs to be some way to "switch" the existing WMA user base.
Perhaps HP can write a batch WMA-AAC conversion utility - probably just for ripped, non-DRM files.
Is it possible that HP could license WMA for playback on its iPods, while Apple continues to leave WMA alone?
<snip>
(edited for grammer)
Curiously, Thurrott is claiming (on his CES column on .NET) that he has inside info that HP is working with Apple to get their "superior" WMA working on iPod.
Ignoring the fact that the guy is obviously on crack, this makes no sense to me: 70% of the market seems to have bought into iTMS/AAC; supporting WMA merely legitimises the format and its DRM model.
Also, if Thurrott is so smart, where was his advance info on this?
HP?s digital music player is expected to become available this summer and be competitively priced to other digital music players currently available.
What does that mean exactly? I figured that Apple would have had an agreement with HP to not undercut Apple's price. I know that Apple deems themselves "competitively priced" with all of their products, and that's been argued for and against. I'm wondering if it's possible for a price war to brew, a'la the clone situation of years past. This would perhaps hurt Apple, but maybe then it would reach a price point at which I'd buy one to replace my aging Nomad Jukebox. I'm guessing there's an agreement, but the wording is a bit ambiguous.
I think it's a good deal for Apple though. More for the software technology that'll now be bundled on HP's computers. I can really see how it could be a preemptive strike against Microsoft.
I still do not understand the existence of the miniPod and it's absurd pricing.
I still do not understand the existence of the miniPod and it's absurd pricing.
It's early adopter pricing based on the fact that its small and sexy, as well as the fact that the 4GB microdrive can only come from one place (Hitachi) and is as new as anything.
Expect something different when Tosh's 0.85" units start shipping in 2GB and 4GB form by the end of year; 2GB at $179, 4GB at $229 is my bet.
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist
It's early adopter pricing based on the fact that its small and sexy, as well as the fact that the 4GB microdrive can only come from one place (Hitachi) and is as new as anything.
Expect something different when Tosh's 0.85" units start shipping in 2GB and 4GB form by the end of year; 2GB at $179, 4GB at $229 is my bet.
Or it could be a great bargain compared to what $200 gets you from Rio, Creative, or iRiver.
How many HPods can HPaq really sell? If Apple is already selling as many iPods as they can make can HPaq double that? Triple it? What if HPaq starts selling significantly more HPods than Apple is selling iPods? Would Steve put his ego aside?
What if HPaq starts selling significantly more HPods than Apple is selling iPods? Would Steve put his ego aside?
Simple, Apple will be selling 4th generation iPods while HP will still be selling 3rd generation units. it won't matter if HP is outselling them...Hell, the damned thing is an iPod, painted blue with an HP logo on the back.
Or it could be a great bargain compared to what $200 gets you from Rio, Creative, or iRiver.
How many HPods can HPaq really sell? If Apple is already selling as many iPods as they can make can HPaq double that? Triple it? What if HPaq starts selling significantly more HPods than Apple is selling iPods? Would Steve put his ego aside?
Take 110,000 outlets, assume they sell 0.5 units on average each week, 55,000 units, multiply by 13 = 715,000 units a quarter.
I bet the deal is predicated on about half that, but with HP's global reach and marketing and the iPod's general hotness, I reckon the higher figure is a goer.
I don't get your rolling eyes, but I'm not sure I care what $200 gets you from Rio et al: iPod supports iTMS and by inference AAC. It's the totality/quality of the solution that lets Apple get away with charging a premium, rather than forcing it to look over its shoulder at the other players. The deal with HP - whilst it doesn't include iPodmini - merely reinforces this fact and creates momentum behind AAC.
I don't get all of this hostility to the pricing of iPodmini: if Apple have already proved you can move a more expensive unit to the detriment of cheaper competitors with iPod, what makes people think the same isn't true with the baby brother. Personally, if Apple can kill of its competition whilst charging more for its product, I'm all for it as it's a welcome exception to the rule that cheapness normally wins over quality, which curiously we normally complain about with relation to Windows.
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist
I don't get all of this hostility to the pricing of iPodmini: if Apple have already proved you can move a more expensive unit to the detriment of cheaper competitors with iPod, what makes people think the same isn't true with the baby brother. Personally, if Apple can kill of its competition whilst charging more for its product, I'm all for it as it's a welcome exception to the rule that cheapness normally wins over quality, which curiously we normally complain about with relation to Windows.
I'm really confused, help me out here.
I misunderstood you comment about why Apple ended up on their price for the iPod mini. It was kind of a knee jerk reaction. I agree that the iPod proved that people are willing to pay more for quality, hence the 7% market share spilt up amongst all other HDD players. I also agree that the iPod mini will be another example of it. My bad.
Comments
About the Ngage, yes it may be a failed product, but Nokia has great AAC support throughout their entire Series 60 line of phones. Unfortunately they won't play iTMS songs. I don't see a problem for Apple licensing Fair Play to companies that are not competing with the iPod. I don't think anyone is going to buy a $300 phone and $200 worth of SD cards because they are too cheap to buy an iPod
I mean, come on people, there are only TWO DIFFERENCES:
The color
and the hp logo on the back
So, just because something has color, it is bad? We should cast it out, just because it is a little different, but it is THE SAME ON THE INSIDE. Let's take a lesson from the past, and open our minds!
Originally posted by Nebagakid
The HP Digital Music Player is in "hp blue"
I mean, come on people, there are only TWO DIFFERENCES:
The color
and the hp logo on the back
So that's the back
Originally posted by InactionMan
I found it odd that in the video she stated that Apple came to them because Apple knows how great HP is at innovation. And they're so good at making complicated things simple. What exactly is innovative about re-branding the best selling MP3 player on the market? Or putting a iTunes icon on your desktop? I believe that she may be completely insane.
She's not insane, she's just got a background in marketing.
Originally posted by InactionMan
I found it odd that in the video she stated that Apple came to them because Apple knows how great HP is at innovation. And they're so good at making complicated things simple. What exactly is innovative about re-branding the best selling MP3 player on the market? Or putting a iTunes icon on your desktop? I believe that she may be completely insane.
Or she is desperate to make people think that HP has been on top of the digital music thing and was just waiting for the market to settle
Then again we know that in the mainstream computer market "innovation" means re-branding or flat out stealing other people ideas and technologies. Dell, I'm looking at you
Originally posted by Paul
WMA is half the size at the same bitrate... but I don't think the quality is the same...even if that is what they advertise...
AAC is the same size at the same bitrate... with the quality being noticeably better...
hell even the idea of bitrate is inflated with WMA...
128WMA is smaller then 128 AAC and 128 MP3 (which are the same)
but I doubt the Quality of 128 WMA>128MP3, if so only marginally...
128AAC on the other-hand is bigger then WMA, but better sounding then both WMA and MP3 at the same bitrate...
Sorry to make a big off-topic post, but this is so wrong I had to say something:
An audio file that is quoted as being 128 Kbps means that, on average (some formats are Variable Bit Rate), for every 1 second of audio, that audio is represented by 128 kilo bits = 128 x 1024 = 131,072 bits. This is true whatever the format, be it ogg, mp3, aac, WMA or anything else.
This doesn't mean that there won't be file size differences between formats for a given song, as there are overheads such as headers, tags and framing. The size differences are small: I encoded James Brown's "Get On The Good Foot" album, which is 70 mins long, in 128 Kbps mp3, aac, WMA 9 without DRM and WMA 9 with DRM. The total size of the album for each format was:
mp3: 64.4 MB
AAC: 65.2 MB
WMA 9, no DRM: 65.1 MB
WMA 9, DRM: 65.1 MB
I think what got you confused was Microsoft's claim that WMA 9 gives the same performance as mp3 at half the bit rate; therefore approx. half the file size for the same quality. This claim is highly debatable.
As far as quality goes, I don't think there's much debate that WMA and AAC using bit-rate "x" both sound better than mp3 at the same bit-rate.
However, there is debate as to whether WMA sounds better than AAC (or visa versa) at a given bit-rate. There are some people who have tried to do blind tests, but I couldn't find any (when I did a quick search) that had a decent scientific approach to the test.
I hope that this has cleared a few things up.
P.S. just in case anyone's wondering, I used a 500 MHz Titanium with 768 MB PC100 RAM, 10.2.6 and iTunes 4.2 to encode on the Mac; it took 9 mins 40 seconds (AAC).
I used a 1.4 GHz AMD Athlon machine with 384 MB PC2100 DDR RAM, Windows 2000 and Media Player 9 to encode on the PC; it took 10 mins 48 seconds (WMA, no DRM).
Nearly everything else in this story makes it sound like HP took a look at the last quarter's stats and decided to fold up its tent and get on the iPod/iTMS bandwagon, and then she somehow manages to make it seem like it was Apple that came to them wanting to do the deal.
I concede that HP have done a fair amount of innovation over the decades, but the idea of Apple being impressed with HP's record of innovation in the consumer marketplace seems like a woman desperately trying to make lemonade out of lemons to me.
Still think it's a great deal though, and think the finished units will look a lot better than the spray-painted half-assed unit she holds up in the video.
Pardon my edit, but I thought I'd just continue this message;
If HP really have 110,000 outlets to pump this through, it's highly conceivable that HP could move 3 million units annually. Assuming Apple are giving HP some room to make $25 a unit, HP could make $75 million annually as a guarantee.
This compares quite favourably with how much HP would have paid to develop and, more importantly, market its own player and store, both of which could have landed up being loss-leaders.
$75 million guaranteed as opposed to $25-$50 million burnt seems like a smart move from HP, and Apple do quite nicely out of it as well.
Like one of those cute Russian dolls, the first thing that looks like a Trojan Horse is the iPod; but then you realise that it might be iTMS; however you dig a little deeper and you begin to think it might be QuickTime and then - ultimately - it might be the fact that - through iTunes - Apple is getting WebCore or whatever its called onto Windows.
That's just the intangible benefit; but at 3 million units a year and 15% gross, Apple may well generate around $900M in revenue for iPod and over $135M in profit. If half of these 3 million units generate 5 iTMS downloads a month, that's 90 million downloads/annum.
Over three years, Apple could download some 540 million tracks to HP's customers, generating a minimum of $27M in profit to go with $405M in profit from iPod sales.
Seems like a deal to me! Sneak your software onto your arch-rival's OS, shift even more of your hot product thus increasing economies of scale and reducing unit costs, earn a shed load of cash. Oh, and stick a knife into the opposing music formats at the same time. It's like the gift that keeps on giving!
Obviously, Microsoft wouldn't want to do this, but given the antitrust settlement, it may not be possible or legally desirable for MS to pick and choose who it can license technology to. (I know that the settlement included some restrictions requiring MS to have uniform licensing fees and access for Windows -- I guess the question is how broadly the uniform licensing applies).
I ask because there needs to be some way to "switch" the existing WMA user base.
Perhaps HP can write a batch WMA-AAC conversion utility - probably just for ripped, non-DRM files.
(edited for grammer)
Originally posted by mpls244
Is it possible that HP could license WMA for playback on its iPods, while Apple continues to leave WMA alone?
<snip>
(edited for grammer)
Curiously, Thurrott is claiming (on his CES column on .NET) that he has inside info that HP is working with Apple to get their "superior" WMA working on iPod.
Ignoring the fact that the guy is obviously on crack, this makes no sense to me: 70% of the market seems to have bought into iTMS/AAC; supporting WMA merely legitimises the format and its DRM model.
Also, if Thurrott is so smart, where was his advance info on this?
HP?s digital music player is expected to become available this summer and be competitively priced to other digital music players currently available.
What does that mean exactly? I figured that Apple would have had an agreement with HP to not undercut Apple's price. I know that Apple deems themselves "competitively priced" with all of their products, and that's been argued for and against. I'm wondering if it's possible for a price war to brew, a'la the clone situation of years past. This would perhaps hurt Apple, but maybe then it would reach a price point at which I'd buy one to replace my aging Nomad Jukebox. I'm guessing there's an agreement, but the wording is a bit ambiguous.
I think it's a good deal for Apple though. More for the software technology that'll now be bundled on HP's computers. I can really see how it could be a preemptive strike against Microsoft.
I still do not understand the existence of the miniPod and it's absurd pricing.
Originally posted by zos
<snip>
I still do not understand the existence of the miniPod and it's absurd pricing.
It's early adopter pricing based on the fact that its small and sexy, as well as the fact that the 4GB microdrive can only come from one place (Hitachi) and is as new as anything.
Expect something different when Tosh's 0.85" units start shipping in 2GB and 4GB form by the end of year; 2GB at $179, 4GB at $229 is my bet.
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist
It's early adopter pricing based on the fact that its small and sexy, as well as the fact that the 4GB microdrive can only come from one place (Hitachi) and is as new as anything.
Expect something different when Tosh's 0.85" units start shipping in 2GB and 4GB form by the end of year; 2GB at $179, 4GB at $229 is my bet.
Or it could be a great bargain compared to what $200 gets you from Rio, Creative, or iRiver.
How many HPods can HPaq really sell? If Apple is already selling as many iPods as they can make can HPaq double that? Triple it? What if HPaq starts selling significantly more HPods than Apple is selling iPods? Would Steve put his ego aside?
Originally posted by HOM
What if HPaq starts selling significantly more HPods than Apple is selling iPods? Would Steve put his ego aside?
Simple, Apple will be selling 4th generation iPods while HP will still be selling 3rd generation units. it won't matter if HP is outselling them...Hell, the damned thing is an iPod, painted blue with an HP logo on the back.
Originally posted by HOM
Or it could be a great bargain compared to what $200 gets you from Rio, Creative, or iRiver.
How many HPods can HPaq really sell? If Apple is already selling as many iPods as they can make can HPaq double that? Triple it? What if HPaq starts selling significantly more HPods than Apple is selling iPods? Would Steve put his ego aside?
Take 110,000 outlets, assume they sell 0.5 units on average each week, 55,000 units, multiply by 13 = 715,000 units a quarter.
I bet the deal is predicated on about half that, but with HP's global reach and marketing and the iPod's general hotness, I reckon the higher figure is a goer.
I don't get your rolling eyes, but I'm not sure I care what $200 gets you from Rio et al: iPod supports iTMS and by inference AAC. It's the totality/quality of the solution that lets Apple get away with charging a premium, rather than forcing it to look over its shoulder at the other players. The deal with HP - whilst it doesn't include iPodmini - merely reinforces this fact and creates momentum behind AAC.
I don't get all of this hostility to the pricing of iPodmini: if Apple have already proved you can move a more expensive unit to the detriment of cheaper competitors with iPod, what makes people think the same isn't true with the baby brother. Personally, if Apple can kill of its competition whilst charging more for its product, I'm all for it as it's a welcome exception to the rule that cheapness normally wins over quality, which curiously we normally complain about with relation to Windows.
I'm really confused, help me out here.
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist
I don't get all of this hostility to the pricing of iPodmini: if Apple have already proved you can move a more expensive unit to the detriment of cheaper competitors with iPod, what makes people think the same isn't true with the baby brother. Personally, if Apple can kill of its competition whilst charging more for its product, I'm all for it as it's a welcome exception to the rule that cheapness normally wins over quality, which curiously we normally complain about with relation to Windows.
I'm really confused, help me out here.
I misunderstood you comment about why Apple ended up on their price for the iPod mini. It was kind of a knee jerk reaction. I agree that the iPod proved that people are willing to pay more for quality, hence the 7% market share spilt up amongst all other HDD players. I also agree that the iPod mini will be another example of it. My bad.