iPod May Not Have The Horsepower For Ogg [updated]

An anonymous reader writes "Gizmodo has an interview with a Rio engineer who speculates that current iPods may not have enough CPU power and/or memory to decode Ogg. He concludes that the Minis might be able to do it, and the next generation iPods will certainly be able to. Of course, just because Apple can doesn't mean it will." Update: 06/06 04:44 GMT by T : csm writes with this rebuttal: "According to Monty from Xiph.org (author of the Tremor codec and OGG itself), it should very well be possible to run Ogg on older generation iPods."

What is the downside of adding OGG support?

[Crazy_MYKL]

I mean really, Apple, what do you have to lose?

Re:What is the downside of adding OGG support?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean really, Apple, what do you have to lose?

Developer time and support time, mainly.

The more important question: What do they have to gain?

Huh?

[Wyatt Earp]

An engineer for a company in direct competition with Apple rips on Apple's hardware. Oh, he's speculating on it.

"Engineer Hugo Fiennes took a break from his day job as a hardware and firmware designer at Rio Audio (maker of the iPod competitor Karma player, among other things)"

That's news?

What's next, someone at Microsoft doesn't like Aqua? Ford engineer says Corvette "not as good as new Mustang"? Fiat engineers doesn't care for Ford Focus?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

My Opinion

[luigi22_]

Adding OGG support would be more than enough to convince me to buy an iPod. I can't really see the downside except for increased strain on the system memory, if what the article claims is true.

Vorbis Support not Widely Needed

[caffeinefiend]

Apple may offend certain groups, such as Linux Users, by not supporting the Ogg Vorbis system, however the majority of computer users will never even consider using this codec. I submit this for consideration: What Operating system has the largest desktop user market share? Windows, obviously, Apple does not need to support Vorbis because Windows users, in general, have no need for this.

Re:The name is wrong

[LostCluster]

Well, true, but nobody ever says "MPEG Layer 3 Audio Only File" instead of just calling it "MP3". The tradition of having a three-letter file type extention usually sticks, and since Vorbis files are .ogg files, "Ogg" is the word that sticks.

Why OGG?

[Anonymous Coward]

This article indicates precisely why OGG Vorbis probably isn't a good idea on your ipod or mp3 player... namely, you get 25% LESS battery life. In a non portable, that's fine, but for a portable player with limited battery life... why in the world would anyone choose to get 75% performance with a negligable increase in sound quality (from headphones)?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's so biased, why would he say the Minis could, and that gen4 definitely should?

Re:The name is wrong

[Bloater]

Yeah, but so are my FLAC files, and my Speex files, I've also got some video (theora) files that are named with .ogg.

I've also got some of each that don't have any file suffixes beginning with dot

Re:Vorbis Support not Widely Needed

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

By your logic, Apple does not need to support itself because Windows users, in general, have no need for it.

Why don't you try running a successful large company and get a feel for not being a producer, not a consumer?

Re:What is the downside of adding OGG support?

[MikeXpop]

Credibility in AAC, mostly.

Y'know, the "better than mp3" codec Apple's trying to push?

Re:Huh?

[MarcQuadra]

Yeah, this guy seems full of shit, the iPod can ENCODE MP3 in realtime if it has to, it's got a nice beefy ARM CPU, I'm sure it can play Vorbis files if it had a codec.

And as for memory, the thing has 32MB last I heard, it usually buffers the next two or three entire tracks, so it's got plenty for decoding Vorbis formats.

Re:Exactly why would Apple add in...

[LostCluster]

It'd be very interesting if iTunes and the iPod were to suddenly support the WMA format... because aside from Apple's iTune's Music Store and RealNetwork's offerings, every other major downloadable music store is using WMA for DRM.

If the iPod were suddenly to support WMA files, wouldn't that mean that iPod owners would be able to comparison shop all of the music stores for the best price on any given track? BuyMusic.com and WalMart.com have already staked their claims at selling for less than 99 cents on the most popular tracks.

Re:Huh?

[TheRealMindChild]

If this were true, which is more likely:

A) Manufacturer of the hardware will reveal its inabilities
B) Competitor of hardware manufacturer will point it out

Right... that's what I thought.

iPod vs. Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

The Rio Karma convinced me to buy one of it's offspring once I found out they supported Ogg. I pre-ordered the Rio Karma about 1 year ago. Now I have 14 of the 20max gigs full with Oggs. That and an account at allofmp3.com gets me tons of music. I also love the way Rio Karma has built in ethernet connectivity. High end features (hey Rio is OWNED by Denon) like Sennheiser headphones and the audio output built in on the cradle made me jump at the chance to own one.

I have read about the mini iPod having the earbud connector get loose and cause distortion. Also I have heard about the iPod's battery going broke. I don't need overpriced Apple hardware, especially when it doesn't support Ogg. There is an open source jihad going on and the bearded hippies now have a way to get ogg vorbis in a portable fashion. I am proud to be a bearded hippie. Not to mention Ogg Vorbis beats all codecs in listening tests. Why buy an iPod when all it is is a overpriced POS. So STFU and RTFM and get a Rio Karma.

What's in it for Apple?

[StrawberryFrog]

Exactly. Mod parent up. Etc.

Why would Apple want to support the Ogg Vorbis format? Call me cynical, and I've said this before, but what's in it for Apple?

Apple support MP3 because it's vital to their business model to get people with MP3 collections on board. Apple supports their own DRM-encumbered format so that they can sell you tunes via iTunes that you can't then share for free.

What's in it for Apple to support a new format that has no DRM? DRM where they want you to go. MP3 is just the bait.

Re:Why OGG?

[mcgroarty]

why in the world would anyone choose to get 75% performance with a negligable increase in sound quality (from headphones)?

It's not really a linear scale from worse to better. Setting aside the dogmatic choices a lot of the free software people make, the compression artifacts and failures of the MPEG layer 3 and vorbis CODECs is fairly different.

Even at higher bitrates, mp3 (or its encoders) tend to have a lot of difficulty producing tuned white noise, especially in harmony with better-formed sounds. A breathy voice or a flute can be murder to reproduce. There's also a kind of "glistening" that happens when it tries to represent overtones near the high end of the encoding frequency.

On the other hand, vorbis seems to more often fail with balances of the frequency range, making some components of sounds louder and others softer than the original, especially with the earlier encoders. Sometimes this merely gives you a too-tuned and prounounced bass range while bands in higher frequencies become too soft. At other times, more complex instruments can lose their character altogether. Steel guitar strings lose the harsher-defined overtones and sound more like nylon, for example.

Personal preference determines which kind of loss people will choose. Some even pick specific formats to best represent specific styles of music.

*Why?*

[adun]

Seriously, who cares about Vorbis outside the faction of *nix users with +1 Amulets of OSS Awe?

Apple's primary market are the throngs of not-quite-but-almost-technologically-literate end users out there who see gadgets as tools, not lifestyles. Does this afforementioned throng care about Vorbis? No. Should Apple therefore care about Vorbis? No.

Get the fuck over it, already.

Re:Vorbis

[gb506]

when I see Ogg Vorbis I think: vagina, egg, orb, salmonella, disgusting, muck.

That the name Ogg and/or Vorbis is being used to refer to ANYTHING is proof positive that the open source crowd should stick to what it knows (making things work) and stay as far away from marketing (making people want it) as possible.

Think about it. You're never going to see a marketing campaign with this tag line: iPod - new and improved with exciting Ogg Vorbis support!

Sheesh.

Re:title should read:

[fr0dicus]

Yeah, or 'trade storage space for battery life? No thanks!'

Or 'seriously, 99% of people don't care',

or 'it's still compressed you fools, so what if it supposedly sounds 1% better',

or 'Rio thinks using ogg will make them cooler than Apple'.

I feel a bit better now. Seriously now though, portable devices are mainly designed to be portable and easy to use. Musical fidelity, albeit important, is really not going to shine through with the crappy little in-ear headphones that people will invariably choose to use. The fidelity is irrelevant and this claim by the Rio chap is more of a drawback of Ogg Vorbis than the iPod in my eyes.

Re:Huh?

[tedu]

not sure about you, but i like my music playing back at realtime, not 80% realtime. linux can decode vorbis sure, but i don't count that as playing.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's news? What's next, someone at Microsoft doesn't like Aqua?

Actually, since Microsoft can't seem to (badly) copy the OS X GUI fast enough, someone there who *didn't* like Aqua would indeed be news.

Re:iPod vs. Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the Karma having a shitty user interface and typically only lasting about 90 days before dying completely, it isn't a bad device for about 25% less than an iPod. But I think I'd rather spend the extra 25% and get something with a significantly better design -- not to mention that it will last more than three months and be supported by the company that made it.

Re:The name is wrong

[jbeall]

Because in the case of .avi files, there are many different encapsulated formats. Raw DV? DivX? Something else? But if you see a .ogg file, you can pretty much bet it is Vorbis. .ogg has a (virtually) 1-to-1 correspondence to Vorbis.

RTFA, though you probably won't understand it

[alizard]

I don't have a horse in this race. Speaking as a neutral, his arguments about ogg being too big to run out of solid-state cache made perfect sense to me.

The specs for the microcontroller chips discussed in the article are available at the vendor sites for download.

So unless you're just another ignorant Apple fanboy, refute the guy's arguments. Or write a new version of ogg that can be made to work with the iPod.

If you can do either. Otherwise, stop whining.

Re:*Why?*

[FrostedWheat]

Seriously, who cares about Vorbis outside the faction of *nix users with +1 Amulets of OSS Awe?

The same was said about MP3. Who cares about MP3, few computers can decode it in real time anyway...

I don't understand why everytime there is an article about Ogg here loads of people rush to write about how pointless it is and there's no point using it.

Get over it!!!

It's a great format! There's no question about that. People who use it would love to see it better supported. It makes sense! So where's the harm in that? Why should you spend your time saying that's it wrong for people to want a great technology supported in there iPod or whatever player they have.

Re:Huh?

[tkokesh]

If this weren't true, which is more likely:

A) Manufacturer of the hardware will spread FUD about functionality that it does not have
B) Competitor of hardware manufacturer will spread FUD about that functionality

Right... that's what I thought.

So, wait...

[Snowspinner]

Why is Ogg Vorbis format so good if it requires such extensive resources to play? Particularly when the most popular digital audio player doesn't support it?

This, to me, is evidence of the problems with Ogg Vorbis, not of problems with the iPod...

Ogg support should be implemented

[deviun]

I would just like to point out that 128kbps mp3's are unlistenable on my iRiver IHP-120 + MD33s's due to the annoyance of MP3 artifacts. However, OGG's are good to 96kbps. Itunes AAC is simply out of the question. Paying more for instant lossy encodes? I'm sorry, thats just moronic. and I'm not one of those guys that "just wants one song from an album" because I only give artists money when they have the ability to produce an entirely good album.

Re:What is the downside of adding OGG support?

[williwilli]

-I mean really, Apple, what do you have to lose?

Developer time and support time, mainly.

The more important question: What do they have to gain?

this pretty much sums it up from Apple's perspective, but let me expound upon this -- Vorbis is dead for noncommercial use.

Don't get me wrong, I think Vorbis is an admirable project for a variety of technical and nontechnical reasons. I released music* exclusively in Ogg Vorbis for a while. But most people who are using digital music services are encountering it at the level of iTunes or another similar media player, often bundled with hardware or software. iTunes and others have paid Fraunhofer for the rights to use mp3, so people aren't ever confronted with the copyright issues surrounding mp3 when using iTunes or a similar player. As I recall there are freeware mp3 implementations not related to Fraunhofer as well. Further, when explaining Vorbis to an end user it is often compared to MP3.. (it's like mp3 but better) Vorbis is simply not as compatible as MP3 or WAV, though, so content providers are simply not as likely to provide content in this format natively. I really don't have time to encode, tag, test, upload, link 3 seperate copies of every song I want to release (MP3, OggVorbis, OggFLAC), so I choose MP3 and OggFLAC -- the most compatible 'fast' download and most capable 'broadband' formats, respectively (IMO). If you want Vorbis, you can encode them yourselves from the FLAC. But because of these compatibility and content issues, combined with the 'playing catch-up' position Vorbis has in the compressed codec field and the end-user transparency of the mp3 copyright issue, I just really think Vorbis is dead for noncommercial use. I could be wrong, but it might be a better use of resources for people to just accept this and move on to other projects or unadopted standards... ;-)

I do think Vorbis will continue to live on in commercial uses where the licensing really becomes an advantage, like using it to compress videogame soundtracks, or as a backend library in various types of computer software, or whatever. I do think it's possible that Apple could open up the iPod to accept 3rd party codecs, and that such a move could be beneficial if the implementation managed to keep end user support issues from becoming overwhelming. I don't know how long it will take Apple and the rest of the digital media industry to realize they can't forcibly and totally control the media fileformat playing field, and that some of the industry moves are hurting consumers (and thus the adoption and sales of these technologies!), but time will tell..

Somewhat off topic, but anyone wanna bet Apple's 'lossless' codec is just their DRM wrapped around FLAC? And yet it was a 30MB+ download!...

* Music server will be back online soon! New album in development! Visit my forums, music games video technology politics science recipes, etc.! Blah blah blah blah blah! [sejus.com]

My new forum RSS feed! [sejus.com]

Re:What is the downside of adding OGG support?

[rattler14]

I mean really, Apple, what do you have to lose?

probably been said before. But if the current iPod doesn't have enough oomph, then it can be argued that playing an ogg file probably consumes more power. How much more to decode? I don't rightly know. This may be a trivial arguement, but what if playing ogg files shaves an hour of battery lifetime. Then, you have people bitching about the battery life sucking.

just a thought. I'm sure there are better ones.

Re:Can't Linux on iPod Do This?

[Llywelyn]

You bet they could manage?

They are engineers, not miracle workers. There are finite limits to the technology here. Even assuming that it is doable, would they make enough profit by adding it to offset the development and support costs involved?

Tried it at home:

[gfolkert]

Here is my collection of all personally ripped and encoded music I have:

[greg@duke:~]$ find /music -name "*.mp3" -print | wc -l
0
[greg@duke:~]$ find /music -name "*.m4a" -print | wc -l
0
[greg@duke:~]$ find /music -name "*.m4p" -print | wc -l
0
[greg@duke:~]$ find /music -name "*.aac" -print | wc -l
0
[greg@duke:~]$ find /music -name "*.wma" -print | wc -l
0
[greg@duke:~]$ find /music -name "*.ogg" -print | wc -l
18046

Gee I wonder why I could careless if Apple even tries. Best part is I started as am MP3 phreak.

I don't share these at all. Because big olde RIAA/MPAA might just come a knocking. I only use them for my personal use.

Re:What is the downside of adding OGG support?

[Durandal64]

Somewhat off topic, but anyone wanna bet Apple's 'lossless' codec is just their DRM wrapped around FLAC? And yet it was a 30MB+ download!...

I'll bet you $1000 that it's not.

The codec is independent of the DRM, and the files generated by Apple's lossless encoder are AAC lossless files with no DRM. Thank you for demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Please send a me $1000 dollar check.

Re:What is the downside of adding OGG support?

[mrchaotica]

I bet they actually do want them. Why else would they go to the trouble of open-sourcing the kernel and such?

You down with OGG?

[telstar]

Yeah, you know me!

I think OGG's major hurdle is that it's trying to solve a problem that most people aren't aware exists. Storage is cheap, and getting cheaper. For the vast majority of listeners ... they're happy with the sound quality. MP3 is huge 'cause it was first and it was free. ACC is huge because it's tied to iTunes and iTunes is the first pay-per-use DRM system. Unless OGG can offer something new, it'll have a hard time gaining support.

Re:Software freedom matters.

[jbn-o]

If I do that I am still a subordinate to Apple's format and their non-free software. I'd rather spend my money on a machine that runs on free software and directly supports the formats that let me keep my freedom.

Re:What is the downside of adding OGG support?

[Anonymous Coward]

You only encode in a format you know companies dont like to support. Very intelligent move on your part. Enjoy having to look hard for an mp3 player with ogg

That's actually irrelevant. What companies like is driven by their customers. If enough people started using and demanding ogg vorbis support, they'd change their story.

The important thing is that very few people are actually demanding it. So if you like it, demand it. Convince others to. Don't compromise or it'll never happen.

Re:The name is wrong

[Bloater]

what has the user's personal choice of filename got to do with usability? If you name the file "foo.ogg" it's your choice, if you name it "this_is_an_ogg_container_holding_a_vorbis_audio_s tream_named_foo", that is, similarly, your choice. The Operating System can work out what it is easily and quickly from the contents, or extended attributes can indicate the MIME type.