No WMA for HP iPod 484
finelinebob writes "In spite of Paul Thurrott's wishful thinking, Wired is reporting that HP will not support the WMA format in its version of the iPod. From the article, according to HP spokesperson Muffi Ghadial, "'We're not going to be supporting WMA for now ... We picked the service that was the most popular (Apple's iTunes Music Store). We could have chosen another format, but that would have created more confusion for our customers.' He added, 'Most customers don't care about the format they're downloading.'" Thurrott's singing a different tune lately, anyway...."
Would they consider ogg vorbis and or flac? (Score:1, Insightful)
I think there is a significant enough crowd that cares about formats, that would make it worthwhile...
Paul Thurrott (Score:5, Insightful)
who gives a shit what he thinks? not me, probably not you. obviously not apple and hp. big whoop
Nice for Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Silly (Score:2, Insightful)
Kinda Dupe (Score:2, Insightful)
MS unhappy with HP [slashdot.org]. Either HP is really sticking it to MS, or MS is sticking it to HP. Either way, it isn't surprising.
AAC vs WMA (Score:5, Insightful)
Less support for WMA the better (Score:3, Insightful)
Easily confused (Score:5, Insightful)
We could have chosen another format, but that would have created more confusion for our customers.
So I guess that proves that Apple's customers are confused easily
Well do I really care? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone can play them on their PC
People's old mp3 players are happy with them
192kbits gives me all the quality I can hear
Yes I know that the patents are annoying but that's not come to bite me yet. I shall see. Also I know that I won't find an online store selling mp3s, but I still only buy CDs since, they're not all that much more expensive, you get the album artwork and they look nice on a shelf (I still have them on a computer, since it makes searching faster).
Btw. has everyone seen the mini iPod on Apple's website yet? I wonder what the UK price will be and also when Apple makes it officially compatible with Linux.
No Reason for WMA in iPod (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, Apple enjoys a 70% market dominance in the online music sales market - and they have significant brand name and mindshare, which isn't going anywhere soon. Walk up to a standard non-geek person:
Question: What MP3 player works with the Apple Music store? (I know it's called the iTunes store, but who actually says that?)
Answer: iPod.
Question: What MP3 player works with Napster?
Answer: Ummmm....
A geek might know the answer, but most people do not.
So, based on that, Apple's move to have HP license the AAC+Freeplay system is a good move - it encourages the use of the protected AAC files, and Apple gets a cut of that licensing technology, whether through direct iPod sales, or through the purchase of "iPod compatible" devices.
Apple has a 5% market share because they didn't license their operating system - which is fine with them, they make money off of hardware. But licensing "iPod compatible" devices is a way to make money off of every MP3 player sold eventually. If you want to use the iTunes Music Store, and you sell MP3 players, you can either compete against the "de facto standard", or play with it.
If Apple added WMA support, perhaps that would in the short term increase iPod sales since it would work with all the music stores - but in the long term, that's bad for Apple, because then anybody who wanted to switch MP3 players would just pick any WMA compatible device.
Apple can't break into that desktop market at this time - but if they play the cards right, they could become, as Steve Jobs said, the "Microsoft of the online music world". Once that happens, maybe they'll sell more desktops, maybe not - but it would be interesting to see how much money Apple would make from "iPod compatible" devices as opposed to just computer sales alone.
If that became the case, then other online music stores would have to support the AAC+Freeplay "de facto standard" - which means that for every song sold online, Apple would get a cut for the licensing.
So what makes more money: WMA in iPod for short term sales, or take a gamble at getting the whole damned pie?
Eh - just my thoughts. I could be wrong.
Re:Would they consider ogg vorbis and or flac? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rio Karma plays Vorbis and FLAC, so if you want those formats, support that player (and quit whining about iPod).
Formats Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
What does the format people download have to do with the formats their version of ipod supports? We already know what format they will be downloading if they are using itunes music store. The question is if the ipod can support formats not downloaded from the store. I think people would care if they downloaded a wma file that wouldn't run in their ipod.
Re:But... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:AAC vs WMA (Score:4, Insightful)
because Microsoft is using its monopolistic hold on the desktop operating system sector to push it's other less superior products?
Re:Unfortunate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:but what about... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ogg is all fine and good, but hardly anyone knows about it, even fewer people use it, and there really isn't any good reason for these facts to change.
Re:Less support for WMA the better (Score:5, Insightful)
Understand this: Monopolies suck. Monocultures suck.
Re:Less support for WMA the better (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disappointed (Score:5, Insightful)
Carly Fiorina is smart in the business sense; that is, she is the kind of unbelievable bastard CEO who votes herself a $150,000,000 bonus then lays 6,000 people off to "cut costs". In technological matters she is a fool.
The DEC research lab of old is dead. Don't expect too much.
Re:Is Apple or Microsoft forcing HP to do this? (Score:4, Insightful)
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Seriously, how do you figure apple as a monopoly on anything?
MS adding WMA to iPod a violation of DMCA? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's DejaVu all over again (Score:4, Insightful)
Between all the alliances and industry player alignments/supports, MP3 has the best: the pirate industry support -- hundreds of thousands (millions?) of entrepreneurial individuals working out of basements, garages, or simply leaving their machines turned on serving files. I go to a street corner in Brazil and I can find CDs burned with hundreds of songs in MP3. Same thing in all of the "developing world" -- Malaysia, Russia, Paraguay, China. Paying a dollar a song is a luxury that *will* make WMA/AAC (and all DRM) look like Betamax, or Sony's MD.
DRM songs will try to fit in a niche: wealthy countries or individuals which are willing to pay for songs because they "just-want-to", or because of a very slight edge of "coolness" or exclusivity. This niche, though important for the potential margin, will always be smaller than the MP3 choice (or Ogg, in an unlikely scenario). MP3s will survive like cockroaches, and is IMNSHO the only assured bet for a format that will be still be around ten years from now. Trying to "migrate up" MP3 users with cool gadgets like Ipod may be profitable, but will never close the door that MP3/Napster/Kazaa/CD burners opened.
I think that is fine.
Re:AAC vs WMA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hurting the industry ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would Microsoft care about any of this? (Score:3, Insightful)
If that is the case, then why would Microsoft be concerned with the selling of music? I guess it's a silly question because Microsoft wants to certainly not lose out in the digital lifestyle arena, but what does Microsoft offer that would suffer from this? Media Player comes with every Windows PC, which makes up, when I last checked, about 95% percent of the market.
HP wants to make money selling hardware, like Dell and Gateway, so they should pick what will sell the most hardware. Is HP supposed to do the research and development for Microsoft? And what the hey, they might woo in more people from the Apple camp.
Re:Easily confused (Score:4, Insightful)
This is blatant BS. Most customer's would prefer non-DRMed MP3s, but due to one specific industry cartel [riaa.com] there won't be any supply to meet that demand (except P2P).
some things do not change (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Less support for WMA the better (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy we're disucssing, the windows user who ripped all his CDs to WMA, just has a pile of files which sound better than they would have had he chosen MP3.
Re:iTunes Rocks! (Score:3, Insightful)
However, since your iRock FM modulator is limited with a low pass filter at 12 kHz, and I like hearing cymbals in my rock, I'll stick with the line input straight into my stereo.
-T
Re:Apple has the right to do this... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. System Bundles - Buy your HP PC, HP Monitor, HP Printer, and now, your HP Portable Music Player, all at once for a discount.
2. Even if they aren't allowed to undersell Apple, they reach different markets, so they're pushing the device at consumers Apple can't reach. Selling the iPod allows HP to get to market NOW, without R&D expense.
3. Tons of favorable press, by aligning with one of the industry's percieved "Good Guys". Imagine what Slashdot would look like it the headlines were: "HP Announces New Music Player, and Launch Support for the Bill Gates Music Store". You think the Ogg trolls are out in full force now...
4. Use your imagination! I don't have all day to sit here making lists.
Anyway, I don't think we'll see HP-branded Macs anytime soon. It would be nice to see someone create a desktop Mac at a, say, $500 price point that I could bring my own 19" monitor to. I guess Apple is content to see that business go to eBay, though.
Re:No Reason for WMA in iPod (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes but... (Score:4, Insightful)
As it now stands, WMA is not de facto. People became used to MP3's being the standard for digital music before WMA came into this scene. Whether it remains that way or not going forward remains to be seen. If all players support it and the majority of people are ripping wma files, then it's quite possible. At that point, then Microsoft controls the world of digital music.
Re:Easily confused (Score:5, Insightful)
That's cute. How many customers knows what DRM even means? Although trying our best to avoid seeing it, the world is actually made up of non-geeks. We're the exception to the norm, not them. They are "most customers", not us.
If people actually knew exactly what DRM meant, and if they actually had a choice, then surely they'd choose files without DRM. But MP3 or WMA? They don't give a damn. They just want to listen to the music. 95% of them use Windows, 95% of them can listen to either.
It's just like most people actually do not care exactly what kind of a motor is in the car they're driving - they just want it to look nice on the outside, accelerate fast and sound cool (and, if they're Volvo-owners, to be safe to drive in). And that's just the way it must be.
After all, if people were informed enough, more people would use Mac (because unlike Windows, Mac OS X is actually pretty easy to use, and doesn't break down on you). People don't know. They just expect computers to require rebooting, reinstalling drivers and calling tech-support, because "that's how computers are". In the same way they just expect not to be able to do just about anything with files bought online, apart from somewhere close to the things that Apple lets them do.
Re:Paul Thurrott (Score:4, Insightful)
Reading his article where he parrots everything that Microsoft feeds him, I don't think he is biased because you would need an opinion and some traces of personality (both missing in this case) to be biased.
He's just an extension of MSFT-marketing.
Re:Apple has the right to do this... (Score:3, Insightful)
If, and that's a big IF Apple is the reason for no WMA support on HP's iPod-like device. That's a really shitty thing to do.
You're answering the wrong question. Sure Apple has the right to set whatever terms they like in their licensing, but the more important question is "Is it right" for them to restrict people like this?
This isn't a Bad Thing. This is a company acting in what it feels are its best interests.
And please tell me, what the fuck was it when Microsoft was threatening to pull OEMs licensing for including Netscape on their machines?
A company, any company, acting in its best interests can do some very slimy things. And IF Apple is the force behind this, I'd say that it's very slimy indeed.
All of these format wars are just going to result in MP3 continuing to be the De Facto standard for digital audio players.
Especially since the return of Steve Jobs, Apple has been a really slimy company with some really cool technology. Ask the people from Umax, Power Computing, Daystar, or Supermac who worked on the Clones how they feel about Apple "acting in its best interests."
LK
Re:You are misinformed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:actually Apple is MAKING them (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh come on. As the parent (or grandfather) says, this is a war of two monopolies. Neither one is using standards. I can't play iTunes files on my computer even though I have half a dozen players that will play, rip, and burn AAC files, because of Apple's DRM. I can't play them on my portable player either. DRM may be considered a necessary evil for these companies but it also means that all of these formats are proprietary. Stick DRM on a Vorbis or MP3 file and that renders it proprietary as well.
HP said they "chose the most popular format", not that they "chose a standard", because they didn't choose a standard. They just chose one proprietary format over another. (Of course, the iPod also plays MP3's - but this is technically a proprietary format as well, albeit a pretty universal one. The point, though, is that you can't buy songs off Wal-Mart or Napster or whatever and play them on the HP iPod, just like Napster player owners can't buy songs off iTunes and play them.)
I think it's important to point out in discussions like this, because they still get turned into David (Apple) vs. Goliath (MS) arguments more often than not. The fact is in terms of music it's at best two Goliaths. Neither of these companies believes in standards, except the ones they set themselves and then expect the rest of the world to follow whether the world likes it or not.
Me, I'm sticking with buying and ripping my own CD's until someone gives me a real standard format for download. Which will never happen, because the music industry won't allow it. I guess I'm stuck with my own private digital revolution.
For Apple, That's the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
And for Apple, that's the "bingo". The first time someone goes to buymusic.com and buys a WMA file and tries to play it on their iPod, they say "Oh - damn, this sucks!"
Guess where they're going to go next time they buy music online [apple.com]?
Either way, Apple wins. You buy the iPod, you use their file format. You use the free iTunes, you download a song - now you need an iPod or "iPod compatible" player.
That is what Apple - and Microsoft - is shooting for: that you support their format, or you feel pain.
Re:Would they consider ogg vorbis and or flac? (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. How many people are there who will ONLY buy an iPod once it supports OGG? Very few, I imagine. AAC sounds just as good, and is also a cross platform, industry standard file format with freeware encoders and decoders. In fact, the only people who need OGG on an iPod would be people who had massive libraries already converted to OGG. Are there enough people with OGG libraries who don't already have a portable music device and would prefer to get an iPod to cover the cost of producing an OGG plugin for itunes (both PC and Mac), an OGG plugin for the iPod, and cover support of both?
Absolutely not. Ogg is a hacker's format, and hackers do not buy the iPod because "it is too expensive." Apple's not stupid.
Flac, on the other hand, I could see, because I'm sure lots of show traders would love an iPod. But at the same time, Flac is hardly the only solution. A lot of people use Shorten, and other formats, which are incompatible with each other. Maybe when the lossless sector settles down a bit, you'll see one of these guys on the iPod. But at the same time...you have your CDs for lossless sound, guy. Transcode your Flacs into AAC -- that's what i do with my Bitchin' Tenacious D shows -- and play those on the iPod, which is (in fact) a lossy audio format player.
Re:Apple has the right to do this... (Score:4, Insightful)
And how "restricted" are the people really. It seems to me that both companies are pimping their own "standard" but a majority of devices out there support Microsofts standard PLUS mp3 or Apples standard PLUS mp3. Granted mp3 isn't a truly "open" standard either but it's at least non-aligned in this particular feud.
So what's so restrictive. I'd feel more inclined to think it was restrictive if the iPod only played ACC.
The clone manufacturers had a sweetheart deal that let them eat away Apple sales while in no way pushing the platform to greater market share.
It was lousy Apple management that allowed that deal to happen (a bad idea, the time for licensing clones was long past) but it was Jobs who said basically "This isn't helping, it's hurting" and pulled the plug. Call the guy slime for keeping the company alive if you like. I don't see it though.
Re:actually Apple is MAKING them (Score:5, Insightful)
i think you are talking about ITMS files, and not the standards-compliant AAC files one can choose to rip your files into with iTunes. You see, I think it's important in discussions like this to be specific.