On a side note, I just hope this will encourage Apple to make the iPod a more open platform. Then again the only thing making it a closed platform is the DRM issues: music is sold by various online stores with DRM and none are compatible.
The article says by Christmas, but which Christmas. We know what Microsoft are like for being over optimistic about release dates.
It doesn't matter which Christmas. The growing leaks, almost certainly Microsoft mandated, are about creating FUD so that people are put off buying products from a competitor. It doesn't actually matter how long it takes for MS to come out with actual product.
I don't think that will work against Apple but if I was Sony, Creative etc, I'd be somewhat anxious.
One major difference between the failed Sony ecosystem and Microsoft is the already existing OS ecosystem called Windows. And, I should add, one much bigger and more far-reaching than the one Apple had when they introduced the iPod.
Exactly. MS can leverage their OS dominance in a way that others, including Apple, can't. Expect whatever service/iTunes like program for this device to be either pre-installed on every PC and/or built into Windows Media Player. Whether or not this would/will work as an advantage in the marketplace is hard to say, but if history is any indication...
Exactly. MS can leverage their OS dominance in a way that others, including Apple, can't. Expect whatever service/iTunes like program for this device to be either pre-installed on every PC and/or built into Windows Media Player. Whether or not this would/will work as an advantage in the marketplace is hard to say, but if history is any indication...
What if MS decides to take a loss on each song it sells in order to gain market share? They've done this before.
What if MS decides to take a loss on each song it sells in order to gain market share? They've done this before.
What they're rumoured to be doing is scanning an installed iTunes for purchased songs and offering free copies from their store of all the songs you've purchased in the iTunes store.
If true, that makes it a no cost cross grade to the MS player from iPod.
What they're rumoured to be doing is scanning an installed iTunes for purchased songs and offering free copies from their store of all the songs you've purchased in the iTunes store.
If true, that makes it a no cost cross grade to the MS player from iPod.
yah right, like that'll ever happen.
And besides I have around 1000 songs from iTunes, it'd take forever to download all that again! And for what, Windows Media Audio? yuck.
Edit: Oh yah, MS's store will likely be much smaller than iTunes, making it impossible to do as well.
After reading the press release, I predict this will fail like so many other iPod killers before--but for possibly a different reason that most people here think. Apple was innovative with the initial iPod, and those innovations are what made it huge. But it wasn't innovative "features," it was innovative design and UI.
Once you have used the iPods interface, it seems obviously the right way to do things. But pre-iPod mp3 players were horrendous. Apple also realized that something you carry with you needs a sense of style. iPods looked cool. They were easy to use. They were simple devices that were easy to understand.
But competitors always seem to overlook those issues and try and compete on features. "Look, we do better calendars, and you can use radio and more formats." But that really just confuses the typical user who wants to listen to music or watch videos.
Microsoft's press release seems to focus on features, lots of them--with lots of possibility for confusion and endless setup options. Now maybe they have some brilliant interface that will make this all simple. Maybe the hardware will be beautiful to behold. But I don't see it happening. Microsoft still thinks like an IT department or a hard-core gamer would.
And, being Microsoft, it will probably treat the user as untrustworthy. It will be designed primarily for Microsoft's benefit, and the RIAA's benefit, and maintain the feeling that the user is only grudgingly allowed to be using the product. At least that is the feeling Window's Media Player always gives me.
That said, I'm a big believer in competition, and believe Apple probably hasn't been standing still. So this may lead to cooler things quicker than if nobody was trying to compete.
What if MS decides to take a loss on each song it sells in order to gain market share? They've done this before.
Yes. X-Box an example.
BTW, with Microsoft's idea of "innovation", their product will be called the mPod, have exactly the same interface and look exactly like the iPod. Here's MS's packaging for this product:
I am very interested to see the potential price point Microsoft would have for its "iPod Rival".
Apple can't compete on price in the PC world. If Microsoft releases a player with similar specifications to the iPod line at a $50-100 dollar difference (depending on the iPod clone) and offers a free trade-up WMA songs for the iTunes equivalent it would make a very tempting offer for the millions of current iPod users who don't want to move from Windows to the Mac OS.
I can also imagine the Dell/Gateway/Micron/HP/etc. offering heavily discounted Microsoft iPods with purchase of a computer or even free songs with purchase of a PC.
This has the potential to be very bad for Apple and the iPod.
WMA has been judged to be one of the best sounding codecs available. AAC comes in as a consistent second, due to the fact that Apple refuses to use variable rate encoding for AAC.
Don't let your prejudices get in the way.
I am seeing a lot of blind faith here, in this thread.
WMA has been judged to be one of the best sounding codecs available. AAC comes in as a consistent second, due to the fact that Apple refuses to use variable rate encoding for AAC.
Don't let your prejudices get in the way.
I am seeing a lot of blind faith here, in this thread.
I honestly know nothing about the codec of WMA. What disgusts me about it is that it requires WMP to use. And seeing as how that's not even an option for Mac users anymore...
I honestly know nothing about the codec of WMA. What disgusts me about it is that it requires WMP to use. And seeing as how that's not even an option for Mac users anymore...
That's what I said. Your prejudice is getting in the way. Apple's AAC requires the iPod. That isn't any better.
That's what I said. Your prejudice is getting in the way. Apple's AAC requires the iPod. That isn't any better.
Um, I think it is. As you have pointed out in other threads, most people can't hear the difference so the overall experience of the system is more important.
That IS kinda dumb how they don't use variable. Also dumb how they STILL don't have HE-AAC. Took them forever just to get AAC. They still don't have a mic or radio, two things that should have been on the iPod DAY ONE. I bet a league of people would LOVE to record radio on to it. RIAA or whatever would bitch, but fuck 'em, they'd have to suck it up, iTMS is going to be bigger than they are eventually. They can't tell Apple what to do any more. And also, Apple should release 320 kbps (variable) AAC of most songs. Perhaps for twice the price. That would be what I'd get for most of my music. In fact I think that would make me buy songs...for once.
I really think we ought to be more nervous. Competition? That's not what Microsoft does. Competition is a gentlemanly game between two or more parties that play by the rules. Microsoft steps on things until they are squished in between its toes. Sometimes it loses, sometimes it doesn't. Ask Nintendo or Sony about that. They have so much cash they could give these things away for free for years. For free. Would they? I don't know.
Predictably, stock lost a few bucks. I bet and hope it will hit the 40s tomorrow/next week.
WMA has been judged to be one of the best sounding codecs available. AAC comes in as a consistent second, due to the fact that Apple refuses to use variable rate encoding for AAC.
Apple has used VBR AAC back as far as iTunes 5.
I don't pay attention to the codec bakeoffs but your post is the first time I've heard anyone say WMA is better than AAC, particularly at bitrates that matter.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Apple's AAC requires the iPod.
No it doesn't. I've 5000+ AAC files and I don't have an iPod.
They still don't have a mic or radio, two things that should have been on the iPod DAY ONE. I bet a league of people would LOVE to record radio on to it.
The sold 50+ million iPods without these features.
Isn't the simplicity what the iPod is all about? Look at Creative, they always talk about features, features and features, but they don't sell.
That's what I said. Your prejudice is getting in the way. Apple's AAC requires the iPod. That isn't any better.
I don't think everyone's prejudice is in the way. I offered fairly solid reasons why I thought Apple would maintain the lead. Could Microsoft overcome them? Sure, but I don't see anything in their past that convinces me they will.
And in the end it's not AAC vs. Windows Media codecs. It's Apple's approach to DRM vs. Microsoft's approach to DRM that will spell the format victor. So far, Windows Media DRM has been too difficult and restrictive to gain over Apple.
Comments
On a side note, I just hope this will encourage Apple to make the iPod a more open platform. Then again the only thing making it a closed platform is the DRM issues: music is sold by various online stores with DRM and none are compatible.
Originally posted by matracer
The article says by Christmas, but which Christmas. We know what Microsoft are like for being over optimistic about release dates.
It doesn't matter which Christmas. The growing leaks, almost certainly Microsoft mandated, are about creating FUD so that people are put off buying products from a competitor. It doesn't actually matter how long it takes for MS to come out with actual product.
I don't think that will work against Apple but if I was Sony, Creative etc, I'd be somewhat anxious.
Originally posted by Token
One major difference between the failed Sony ecosystem and Microsoft is the already existing OS ecosystem called Windows. And, I should add, one much bigger and more far-reaching than the one Apple had when they introduced the iPod.
Exactly. MS can leverage their OS dominance in a way that others, including Apple, can't. Expect whatever service/iTunes like program for this device to be either pre-installed on every PC and/or built into Windows Media Player. Whether or not this would/will work as an advantage in the marketplace is hard to say, but if history is any indication...
Originally posted by Neruda
Exactly. MS can leverage their OS dominance in a way that others, including Apple, can't. Expect whatever service/iTunes like program for this device to be either pre-installed on every PC and/or built into Windows Media Player. Whether or not this would/will work as an advantage in the marketplace is hard to say, but if history is any indication...
What if MS decides to take a loss on each song it sells in order to gain market share? They've done this before.
Originally posted by backtomac
What if MS decides to take a loss on each song it sells in order to gain market share? They've done this before.
What they're rumoured to be doing is scanning an installed iTunes for purchased songs and offering free copies from their store of all the songs you've purchased in the iTunes store.
If true, that makes it a no cost cross grade to the MS player from iPod.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
What they're rumoured to be doing is scanning an installed iTunes for purchased songs and offering free copies from their store of all the songs you've purchased in the iTunes store.
If true, that makes it a no cost cross grade to the MS player from iPod.
yah right, like that'll ever happen.
And besides I have around 1000 songs from iTunes, it'd take forever to download all that again! And for what, Windows Media Audio? yuck.
Edit: Oh yah, MS's store will likely be much smaller than iTunes, making it impossible to do as well.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
yah right, like that'll ever happen.
And besides I have around 1000 songs from iTunes, it'd take forever to download all that again! And for what, Windows Media Audio? yuck.
Well, that's the rumour.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/06/m...yer-working-o/
Once you have used the iPods interface, it seems obviously the right way to do things. But pre-iPod mp3 players were horrendous. Apple also realized that something you carry with you needs a sense of style. iPods looked cool. They were easy to use. They were simple devices that were easy to understand.
But competitors always seem to overlook those issues and try and compete on features. "Look, we do better calendars, and you can use radio and more formats." But that really just confuses the typical user who wants to listen to music or watch videos.
Microsoft's press release seems to focus on features, lots of them--with lots of possibility for confusion and endless setup options. Now maybe they have some brilliant interface that will make this all simple. Maybe the hardware will be beautiful to behold. But I don't see it happening. Microsoft still thinks like an IT department or a hard-core gamer would.
And, being Microsoft, it will probably treat the user as untrustworthy. It will be designed primarily for Microsoft's benefit, and the RIAA's benefit, and maintain the feeling that the user is only grudgingly allowed to be using the product. At least that is the feeling Window's Media Player always gives me.
That said, I'm a big believer in competition, and believe Apple probably hasn't been standing still. So this may lead to cooler things quicker than if nobody was trying to compete.
Originally posted by backtomac
What if MS decides to take a loss on each song it sells in order to gain market share? They've done this before.
Yes. X-Box an example.
BTW, with Microsoft's idea of "innovation", their product will be called the mPod, have exactly the same interface and look exactly like the iPod. Here's MS's packaging for this product:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pXL5...crosoft%20ipod
Originally posted by JTBLQ
MS Laser Wifi wPod Pro 2007 Media Center Edition.
Or it could be called:
Microsoft Ultra Mobile Portable Wireless Muisc Player Pro 2007 Media Center Edition
and:
iPod + iTunes = Microsoft Wireless Music Player Pro + Urge
Originally posted by Neruda
Here's MS's packaging for this product:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pXL5...crosoft%20ipod
Apple can't compete on price in the PC world. If Microsoft releases a player with similar specifications to the iPod line at a $50-100 dollar difference (depending on the iPod clone) and offers a free trade-up WMA songs for the iTunes equivalent it would make a very tempting offer for the millions of current iPod users who don't want to move from Windows to the Mac OS.
I can also imagine the Dell/Gateway/Micron/HP/etc. offering heavily discounted Microsoft iPods with purchase of a computer or even free songs with purchase of a PC.
This has the potential to be very bad for Apple and the iPod.
Just my two cents.
Dave
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
And for what, Windows Media Audio? yuck.
WMA has been judged to be one of the best sounding codecs available. AAC comes in as a consistent second, due to the fact that Apple refuses to use variable rate encoding for AAC.
Don't let your prejudices get in the way.
I am seeing a lot of blind faith here, in this thread.
Originally posted by melgross
WMA has been judged to be one of the best sounding codecs available. AAC comes in as a consistent second, due to the fact that Apple refuses to use variable rate encoding for AAC.
Don't let your prejudices get in the way.
I am seeing a lot of blind faith here, in this thread.
I honestly know nothing about the codec of WMA. What disgusts me about it is that it requires WMP to use. And seeing as how that's not even an option for Mac users anymore...
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
I honestly know nothing about the codec of WMA. What disgusts me about it is that it requires WMP to use. And seeing as how that's not even an option for Mac users anymore...
That's what I said. Your prejudice is getting in the way. Apple's AAC requires the iPod. That isn't any better.
Originally posted by melgross
That's what I said. Your prejudice is getting in the way. Apple's AAC requires the iPod. That isn't any better.
Um, I think it is. As you have pointed out in other threads, most people can't hear the difference so the overall experience of the system is more important.
I really think we ought to be more nervous. Competition? That's not what Microsoft does. Competition is a gentlemanly game between two or more parties that play by the rules. Microsoft steps on things until they are squished in between its toes. Sometimes it loses, sometimes it doesn't. Ask Nintendo or Sony about that. They have so much cash they could give these things away for free for years. For free. Would they? I don't know.
Predictably, stock lost a few bucks. I bet and hope it will hit the 40s tomorrow/next week.
Originally posted by melgross
WMA has been judged to be one of the best sounding codecs available. AAC comes in as a consistent second, due to the fact that Apple refuses to use variable rate encoding for AAC.
Apple has used VBR AAC back as far as iTunes 5.
I don't pay attention to the codec bakeoffs but your post is the first time I've heard anyone say WMA is better than AAC, particularly at bitrates that matter.
Originally posted by melgross
Apple's AAC requires the iPod.
No it doesn't. I've 5000+ AAC files and I don't have an iPod.
Originally posted by Aquatic
They still don't have a mic or radio, two things that should have been on the iPod DAY ONE. I bet a league of people would LOVE to record radio on to it.
The sold 50+ million iPods without these features.
Isn't the simplicity what the iPod is all about? Look at Creative, they always talk about features, features and features, but they don't sell.
Originally posted by melgross
That's what I said. Your prejudice is getting in the way. Apple's AAC requires the iPod. That isn't any better.
I don't think everyone's prejudice is in the way. I offered fairly solid reasons why I thought Apple would maintain the lead. Could Microsoft overcome them? Sure, but I don't see anything in their past that convinces me they will.
And in the end it's not AAC vs. Windows Media codecs. It's Apple's approach to DRM vs. Microsoft's approach to DRM that will spell the format victor. So far, Windows Media DRM has been too difficult and restrictive to gain over Apple.