MP3 Format Still Gathering Momentum 417
PoliTech sends us over to Billboard.com for a detailed article about the coming tipping point in the music business in favor of MP3. The two biggest drivers pushing Warner and Sony BMG toward MP3 are an upcoming massive Amazon-Pepsi download giveaway and a positive move by the usually maligned Wal-Mart (according to sources): "...Wal-Mart [alerted] Warner Music Group and Sony BMG that it will pull their music files in the Windows Media Audio format from walmart.com some time between mid-December and mid-January, if the labels haven't yet provided the music in MP3 format."
Still won't pay for music (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MP3 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No big surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MP3 (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's not. OpenOffice is freely downloadable, and does everything almost anyone needs in an office suite. MS Office may be preferred by some (mostly due to brand loyalty most likely), but it definitely doesn't do anything extra that makes it worth $500 more than OO.
BTW, I'm assuming you mean "superior" in a general sense, where all features (including price) are taken into consideration. A Ferrari is a superior car to a Civic only if you have an unlimited budget, for instance. If your income is $40k, a Ferrari is not a superior choice.
How Ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple has their own proprietary format called AAC; iTunes Music Store downloads are in AAC format, some of them DRMed but some not. In the battle for the hearts and minds of music fans, Microsoft will never support AAC, and Apple will never support WMA. So MP3 is left as the common denominator.
(AAC isn't as proprietary as WMA in that the file format is publicly documented, but it is patent-encumbered so that Free Software implementations such as faad and faac are illegal in countries like the US that recognize software patents. Unlike MP3, there is no free license for decoders, one has to pay for a patent license for them.)
I can imagine that Walmart.com's tech support has gotten pretty sick of fielding complaints that their downloads don't work on iPods...
Re:Really wish that they would support Ogg and oth (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Really wish that they would support Ogg and oth (Score:5, Insightful)
So I get the desire for Ogg, but to get to a market where format is not an issue, the music companies have to mandate MP3.
Re:Funny how (Score:3, Insightful)
I love ogg, and I hope it becomes the eventual de facto standard... but if someone chooses mp3 over wma/aac, well, I'm not going to spit on them.
ogg > mp3 > aac >= wma
In other words, the world (and moral values included therein) does not exist in a binary state. Things are not simply Good or Evil. Thanks for your troll though.
Bill
Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
So, you are saying that we can start including WMA codec in all of linux's everywhere without any issues from any countries legal entities? And I as a developer of a commercial radio/TV/Stereo running linux will have absolutely NO issue getting a license from MS for a reasonable Price? What do you mean no. But you said that I was spouting falsehoods. Or are you STILL not grasping at how much MS controls on this issue?
Keep in mind that those who control MP3 have no issues with licensing on commercial Linux/BSD. But MS has other ideas in mind. This really is about freedom. And yes, my post stated that I prefer Ogg, but I will settle for MP3 for the reasons that I just stated. Hopefully, you will re-consider your statements
Re:So 1999 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funny how (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really wish that they would support Ogg and oth (Score:4, Insightful)
Proof please? I've never seen this substantiated. Also, how do you quantify "better audio quality" numerically?
Tipping Point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't there have to be something else to be tipping away from first?
I mean since 1996 MP3 has been it. Period. Where was nothing before it.
All compressed audio formats that came before either sounded like crap or were some secret sauce, that was closed source close specs, that you had to pay $50,000+ for and had to program windows library's to use.
Yes AAC came out in 1997 and it's actually better then MP3 in almost all measures, but there still isn't any decent application to use it.
Re:Just make players that work. (Score:2, Insightful)
That is just not true. There are costs:
6) Nope (Score:2, Insightful)
Repetition does not engender truth.
Re:MP3 (Score:5, Insightful)
MP3 has several things on it's side that have been successful for other products in historical situations:
1. all things being equal, the sexier sounding name wins. And "empeethree" has a simplistic, yet technical sound to it. Whereas AAC and WMA can be thrown right out the window. Ogg has some appeal, but nowhere near the sexiness of mp3.
2. Recognition.. whenever a brand has become synonymous with the whole technology they have had the advantage of immediate recognition, this is a major marketing advantage (free publicity anyone?). A lot of who use WMA will still talk about their "MP3 songs".
3. Now.. as to being "inferior" technically. You need only to look at things like DC and AC, VHS and Betamax or Amiga and PC (oh boy, am I gonna get it for that last one) to see that the technically superior solution is not always the one that ends up on top.
However, while the wide proliferation of MP3 *SEEMS* to guarantee it's future based on similar historical events, there is always one historical factor that could change it all: A new technology that offers a decisive advantage over MP3 and manages to capture a fanatical core fanbase. Such pieces of technology have many times overtaken rivals with near total market dominance (does anyone remember Atari, 3Dfx, or Altavista?).
But until something earthshattering comes forth, I see cool runnings for the old, venerable, MP3.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Really wish that they would support Ogg and oth (Score:4, Insightful)
Codecs aren't necessarily like languages. I don't bother learning Esperanto because there's no one I can talk to with it; I'd probably have better success learning Klingon. However, a music codec is just a way for me to store music on my computer and portable music player. Why should I care about compatibility? I don't download my music from online music stores (because I refuse to purchase lossy-compressed music in a codec not of my choosing), I don't pirate my music (because I like having the original CDs), and I don't share my music with my friends (none of my friends like my music anyway). So it's just as easy for me to rip my CDs to Ogg as MP3; I just had to make sure I got a portable player which supports Ogg, which I did.
Similarly, I'm also one of the rare people who uses a Dvorak keyboard. I really don't care if every other keyboard out there is QWERTY; I prefer Dvorak. Of course, I can type on either (just like I can still play MP3s on my portable player or my computer), so I don't have problems interoperating, but people who try to use my computer at home usually find themselves totally unable to type. Their problem, not mine.
Re:Rockbox. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Rockbox. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MP3 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Really wish that they would support Ogg and oth (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but .wav/PCM is better than either of them...FLAC if you need compressed.
I'm worried that all of this is leading to a time where you can only find the inferior lossy formats of music!?!?
I'd still rather get a CD, and rip it to lossless for home audio, and then to lossy for portables or the car...two of the worst listening environments there are.....
Doesn't anybody appreciate fidelity any longer?
It isn't like bandwidth is that big of a roadblock any longer...why not offer selections in a lossless format online if you must purchase online?
Wal-Mart (Score:3, Insightful)
You say this as if Wal-Mart was somehow being charitable or virtuous instead of plotting to drown puppies. Wal-Mart just does what its management thinks will be profitable without much regard to ethics one way or another. Plainly, Wal-Mart management thinks they'll make more money with MP3 than WMA. That's all. If they thought they could somehow make money from drowning puppies, they'd do that, too, and if anyone objected, some PR drone would be sent out with a press release declaring that drowned puppies is what Wal-Mart customers really want, and what's more, it's good for America.
Although it may seem so at times, giant corporations like Wal-Mart and Microsoft really aren't out to do harm. It just happens that doing harm to a largely captive audience is often a lot more profitable than charging a fair price for quality goods and services and treating employees well. It's just Adam Smith's invisible hand grabbing you by the short hairs.