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...."
Is Apple or Microsoft forcing HP to do this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not too long ago, they were threatening Dell of not giving them Windows licenses if IE wasn't the only browser in new computers... here's a
I also wonder if Apple restricted HP from supporting WMA? Yes, Apple does these kind of things [chaosmint.com] too!
Eh, a war of monopolies! They've just found common grounds to fight on...
Unfortunate (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple has the right to do this... (Score:5, Interesting)
If HP wants to demand WMA support, and Apple doesn't want to budge, HP can spend the R&D dollars to build its own portable music player.
This isn't a Bad Thing. This is a company acting in what it feels are its best interests.
WMA/AAC (Score:3, Interesting)
Makes sense for Apple (Score:2, Interesting)
Thurott == idiot? (Score:5, Interesting)
"When I asked an HP representative how the company would solve the incompatibility problems, he told me, incorrectly, that the Protected AAC files users download do, in fact, work on HP's products and that converting them is a simple task if they don't."
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but by HP's products, doesn't he mean HPs PCs running a version of Windows? And if so, where does such a user get Protected AAC files? Right, iTunes for Windows. Now, isn't iTunes (win or mac) ALL ABOUT AAC? What part of the HP representative's comment is incorrect?
HP machines run windows. iTunes is available for windows (and will be on all HP machines soon). iTunes Music store is the biggest (only?) provider of Protected AAC files. Sounds pretty simple to me...
Re:Unfortunate (Score:2, Interesting)
WMA == lock in (Score:5, Interesting)
Once again we see the Microsoft monopoly extending it's grasp. They create WMA and then they set it up so that the built in CD-ripping in Windows will default to using WMA. Most people end up ripping in that format, not knowing any better. Then that becomes the standard for these files.
If that's the standard, then Microsoft can choose to enforce it however they want. They can alter licensing, build in whatever DRM restrictions they want, and since it's the standard everybody has to play ball.
Re:WMA == lock in (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, let's say Microsoft is licensing WMA support to all the mp3 player creators for about 20 cents a unit. Then IBM decides they're going to start supporting Linux. Suddenly Microsoft decides they're licensing it to everyone for 20 cents a unit EXCEPT IBM, who has to pay a billion dollars for each player sold. They can do this, and they have shown in the past-- with OEM pricing on Windows-- that they are more than willing to do this exact sort of thing..
AAC, meanwhile, is equal for everybody.
Of course the FairPlay DRM is a totally different matter, but I've yet to be able to figure out if Apple is unwilling to license that to others or if just no one's asked.
Re:No Reason for WMA in iPod (Score:4, Interesting)
If you have
Its as simple as that. Any 'modern' music player shouldn't *ACTUALLY* be limited by the codec. A real music player would have -extensible- codec capabilities...
What's needed is someone with the balls and cash to put Linux in a smallpocket format, open the source to -everything- and stand back while everyone and their brother ports their codecs to it... its not that hard.
Re:but what about... (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember around 1994 when folks were saying things like:
"Linux 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."
There was reason, and there is reason now. The point is with ogg you can freely install encoders and players on whatever you want without paying anyone anything, and you can redistribute as part of your own product etc. just as you can with linux.
The same is not true of mp3 (without treading dangerous ground legally), just as it is not true of windows.
Re:No Reason for WMA in iPod (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple definitely is ballsy lately, let's hope it doesn't morph into overconfidence and miscalculation. But for now I say "Go Apple!"
Re:Silly (Score:5, Interesting)
It used to be we only had to change formats every 10-20 years or so - LPs, casettes, 8 tracks, CDs, etc. Now with new digital media, we may find ourselves having to change formats every 6 months! Somethings got to give. Reminds me of a Simpsons quote, Bart saying something to the effect of "mp3's my ass! When I was a kid all we had were CDs, and those were plenty good enough"
Re:Unfortunate (Score:1, Interesting)
1. iTunes (70%)
2. WMA Stores (30%)
HP wants to work with #1 and not #2
Re:but what about... (Score:3, Interesting)
I can copy my mp3s to any mp3 player and they will play.
I can give a cd of mp3s to my mother and she can easily play them on her computer without having to futz around.
I have no need to distribute a product and I would say the same thing for the vast majority of people.
What I can't do is fluff up my ego by telling strangers I use a sexy standard to encode my music. I guess I can live with that.
who cares? they're both proprietary formats (Score:3, Interesting)
What's wrong with mp3's/oggs? The premise on which iTunes is based (that here is a method that allows you to download legally) is wrong; in fact, lots of musicians are putting mp3's out there for free. Look at dmusic.com [dmusic.com], IUMA [iuma.com], irate radio [sourceforge.net] and netlabels [archive.org]. Some of the stuff is eclectic, experimental, not mass market, but it's not that far off.
I stopped listening to commercial music 6 months ago (although I still donate to artists with tipjar links). For "open content" listeners like me, all this talk of proprietary locked content only encourages musicians to put their content in locked formats. That is bad for everyone.
Share the Music day [sharethemusicday.com]; sharethemusic weblog [imaginaryplanet.net]
Re:Less support for WMA the better (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a Microsoft thing so I don't like it.
was explaining the concept of a CD MP3 player to someone I know and when he showed me his digital music collection, it was all in WMA
And this is a problem because? Your friend obviously ripped his CD collection himself. Are you angry because he used WMP to do it or because he didn't just download one of the 13 million free rippers capable of writing MP3 instead? Are you pissed because he's stupid? Nothing forces you to use WMA or WMP for that matter - the fact that it ships with Windows is besides the point. CDex runs just fine on Windows, as far as I can tell. If anything it's lack of information, yes? And this gets your panties all in a bunch?
MP3 is the standard, nothing else should be supported, if only for clarity and simplicity reasons!
You are so right. We should also all use JPEG, because that's the One True Graphics Format. Or was it PNG? Or TGA? Or GIF? Hmmmmm.
See, here's the thing: WMA is a choice. If you're not smart enough to figure out that you can rip your music to something else then that's just too bad. People that push things like OGG champion choice - is this a case of "yes well, but that's not the choice we like"?
If anything else is ever supported, it should be OGG because OGG is essentially open source MP3
No, because that would cause confusion. You just said that.
I won't even go into the benchmarks that have proven WMA is better than MP3 at lower bitrates for most audio uses, or the fact that it's a far better streaming format than MP3. That would be besides the point. I don't like WMA or otherwise use it, but just to give you an example: if I had a player with a smallish 5 or 6GB drive that supported WMA I'd probably encode my collection to it at lower bitrates to fit more songs into the thing, and still get pretty much the same audio quality. That's called choice. Look it up.
Good... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, only if we can get Apple to relize that making OS X for x86 machines would be profitable...maybe HP would be selling OS X on there machines....what a wonderful world that would be..
Re:Unfortunate (Score:4, Interesting)
That's exactly what HP has done. They've actually expanded support and given users an additional choice. You can use what came with Windows to handle all the WMA stuff (songs, online stores, portable music players) just like all the other PC makers, or you can also choose to use iTunes and the iTMS and an iPod -the industry leaders at present.
I really don't understand how HP adding iTunes and selling a rebranded iPod can possibly be said to limit choices.
WMA support in iPod firmware? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's DejaVu all over again (Score:3, Interesting)
For me this view seems to be far from the current reality.
I predict that people will not move from free and DRMless p2p to the iTMS or any other comparable offer. Some may, but not nearly the majority. What's more, buying real music CDs will still be the preferred method of obtaining music in the foreseeable future and people will continue to rip their tracks themselves to the format that they find the most convenient.
The codec wars will be fought on p2p where LAME-encoded MP3 is still the standard but other formats are increasinly appearing and you can bet that WMA or even AAC aren't the fastest increasing.
Secondly, they will be fought in the encoder software area where only Ogg Vorbis is free even in the beer sense. From what I've seen, a large number of both players and rippers already support vorbis. Here Microsoft has a small chance of ending up on top because WMA ripping has been made easy in XP but I suspect most people will still know better.
The third area where it'll be fought are small, independent artists and labels such as kahvi [kahvi.org]. Many of them have already moved to Vorbis.
I think nothing will seriously threaten mp3s for a while but of the possible challengers I feel Vorbis has a very good chance of prevailing over the others.
Re:WMA support in iPod firmware? (Score:1, Interesting)
We never could squeeze all the encode and decode codecs onto a single image so you had to compile different images with what you wanted, but since the iPod is only using the decodeing codec there should be enough space to include WMA and OOG.
Re:Why *doesn't* Apple include Ogg on their iPod (Score:2, Interesting)
The owners of those patents haven't sued anyone over Ogg support yet, because no device with Ogg support is being made by a company with any significant ammount of money.
But you can bet your ass that if Apple supported Ogg on the iPod, they'd not only have to fight a lawsuit for patent infringement, but they might also lose their license for mp3 technologies used elsewhere (iTunes encoding, etc...)
Right or wrong, supporting Ogg just isn't worth the potential risk to Apple.
Re:Apple has the right to do this... (Score:3, Interesting)