Reader Comments

Shouldn't that be [CES 2004]? :)

With the recent Microsoft/Israel showdown, it begs the question, what about the rest of us?

Paul, why do you keep calling WMA superior without any backup whatsoever? If you mean more prevalent by some measure, you should just say that. In what sense is WMA technically superior? Please explain. Also, I don't know how you can say WMA kicked butt at CES. No matter how you look at it, the HP/Apple deal is a setback for WMA. Sure, HP may say they are going to try to talk Apple into allowing WMA to play on the iPod, but all those downloads from iTMS will still be AAC. At best, iTunes and iPod will play WMA, which will just make it easier for people that have large WMA collections to switch to iTunes and start buying AAC downloads and ripping AAC tracks from CDs. Also, Sony and Real announced new stores and DRM systems other than MS's. All of a sudden, the picture has really changed. It's not Apple versus the World (WMA). It's Apple/HP AAC versus Real AAC versus Sony (Atrac) versus a bunch of WMA download stores that are a minority of the market (30 percent of the market between them). Perception matters and the perception is: there's a bunch of formats and Apple AAC is the leading one. And WMA is one of many other ones

As for the iPod mini being overpriced, isn't that exactly what they said about the iPod? And didn't Apple sell 730,000 iPods in a single quarter (increasing the user base by almost 50 percent in a single quarter), despite being higher priced than other players? The best one can say, if you're objective, is that the price might be too high, but we'll have to see. iLife '04 is shipping 6 days from now Paul. So it's a cheap shot to complain it's not shipping. Especially when all those Windows Media portable devices you wax about won't be out for months and months. How about equal treatment Paul, or is that a foreign concept to to you.

The Register is a decent web site. I guess Thoughtnot is just miffed because the Reg does not shill for his favorite company, Microsoft.

I find your description of WMA as "superior" to be very subejctive. Please consider chaning the word to, for example, "alternate" or "competing media format". I, along with a lot of other users, find it hard to trust a site that claims that a format is "superior" with no further evidence. Also, what audio codec is the best, is a choice the user really should take (based on personel taste), and as such, it seems very unproffesional to characterize WMA as "superior". Thanks. Qoute: HP's blockbuster deal with Apple will have one exciting side effect, I discovered today. The company will be working with Apple to add support for Microsoft's superior Windows Media Audio (WMA) format to the iPod by mid-year. You heard it here first.

I was wondering about this comment "Microsoft's superior Windows Media Audio (WMA)" in the article about the HP iPod. Are you talking about the fact that the latest WMA is superior than the old WMA or are you saying the WMA is somewhat superior than MP3 or MP4 witch are both supported by the iPod ? I think it's a good idea to support WMA on the iPod, at least the expert wont be able to say that you HAVE to buy a Mac to use an iPod like that guy (http://news.com.com/1601-2-5137703.html?tag=bb.pl.5137703) about the RCA Lyra Jukebox.

I don't think it is a forgone conclusion that the Register is incorrect. If you'll remember a couple years ago Microsoft had a compelling product called 'Ultimate TV'. It occupied a significant portion of Gates' keynote address; the convention center even had a mega-sized UTV banner hanging above the entryway. Microsoft scuttled the project a few months after the show. The code was rolled into MCE, which is unfortunate because the UTV was arguably better than Tivo and significantly more cost efficient than the modern Media Center PC. Unfortunately (for those of us with UTV) the Media Center PC is a very significant step backward. It isn't capable of native DirecTV tuning (it recompresses the signal from an external set-top-box), has only one tuner, takes up a lot of space, and costs more than I want to spend... Cost flow isn't an issue -- rather the device's coolness factor is nowhere near the price. Add native dual-tuner high-def DirecTV capability and it will be worthwhile, otherwise HD DirecTivo (still cheaper than MCE!) in March/April will be far more exciting for the serious home theater buff.

"Microsoft's superior Windows Media Audio (WMA) format"???? I'm sorry, but leading indusrty analysis of media formats show that AAC (the format that Apple has adopted for use with their iPod and iTunes Music Store) demonstrates much better audio quality. For devices like the iPod, where having the best sound experience is paramount, WMA is far from superior.

"Microsoft's superior Windows Media Audio (WMA) format"???? I'm sorry, but leading indusrty analysis of media formats show that AAC (the format that Apple has adopted for use with their iPod and iTunes Music Store) demonstrates much better audio quality. For devices like the iPod, where having the best sound experience is paramount, WMA is far from superior.

RE: Microsoft: WMA Is Kicking Butt Just a note that Apple's Quicktime is also the defacto standard on almost all Digital Cameras and every 3G Cell Phone from Nokia and Sony-Erivcson. The 3G standard is actually Quicktime based and called 3GPP. Both Apple and Real provide quicktime based 3G codecs to the 3G phone market. As far as DRM, while WMA may have more devices by manufacturer, Apple actually has sold significantly more Fairplay DRM content and of course as you well know, Apple makes the number 1 DRM based device. Who knows what the future holds but right now, Apple is the one to catch.

It's interesting that you write how WMA "works on 500 different devices", and that "the installed base of portable media players that support Microsoft's Digital Rights Management (DRM) platform now numbers more than 4 million--more than twice the number of iPods, which use a competing DRM scheme", yet you fail to point out that the iPod controls over 30% of the entire mp3 player market, and with the HP version of the iPod and Real's decision to use AAC in their new music service, that number will likely increase. AS to WMA's superiority over AAC; as a person who deals with sound for a living, I can say that WMA is clearly NOT superior to AAC in terms of sound quality, nor DRM useage. Many independent tests confirm this fact.

In the news post entitled "HP working to get WMA on iPod," you call Microsoft's WMA format "superior." I personally would like to know what this is based on, if not only Microsoft's ad campaign. It is commonly believed among audio encoding circles that AAC offers far superior capabilities at nearly all bitrates, and succumbs to fewer problem samples.

Paul Can't comment on your claim of the "superior MS WMA format" (I love people that claim superior products and don't back it up with facts, figures or truly independent testing results - if that's even possible these days), but I can tell you that Steve Jobs was in an unusual position this year. If you didn't realize, January 24th is the 20th Anniversary of the Mac, so I'm certain that announcements that would have traditionally been made at MacWorld have been held for a later date. I guess we'll all see on the 24th...

Apple has the number 1 mp3 player ( 30% market share, 55% revenue), and the number 1 online music service (over 70% market share). They occupy the number 1, 3 and 5 spots among the top ten in units sold. All this, without WMA support. PLEASE explain to me what Apple's incentive (or HP's, for that matter) would be to support WMA now? They already have the de facto standard with AAC, it sounds better, and is more secure, as many independent tests have concluded. I think your article is wishful thinking at best.

Regarding your thoughts on HP, the iPod and WMA, what compelling reason would Apple have to license WMA? Apple already owns the lion's share of portable music player sales and legal music downloads using their "superior" AAC format (developed by Dolby and adopted by MPEG.) The HP deal will only further entrench Apple/iPod/AAC as the defacto standard for digital music just as Microsoft has done with office productivity software. You may want to look up the definition of irreverent. It does not mean "biased and unsubstantiated" as you seem to be using it here. Wanting it to be so does not make it so, and that certainly doesn't pass for journalism. Someone should get you an iPod for Christmas (or appropriate Holiday.) Regards.

...long-awaited concurrency feature (...) is mysteriously absent in the current SP2 beta release.... It's already included! Check it out on SP2 beta 1: 1. Go to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE / System / CurrentControlSet / Control / Terminal Server / Licensing Core 2. Add new DWORD EnableConcurrentSessions 3. Set its value to 1 4. Abracadabra :)

WMA and iPod! I don't think that it will happen. Why would Apple make the iTunes Music Store and iPod use a to restrictive, non standardized, and lower quality of use media format that competes with ACC and Freeplay that they are pushing? I don't think that Steve Jobs just to wanted help out the MS music store get a market killing start do you? It just doesn't make sense. What happened did your uncle Fester come to you in your dreams last night and give you this little gem. Also Paul could it be that the Open-Source advocates just don't like Microsoft's FUD that you seem to love to quote and push. Maybe they could say to you. Come on Paul we get it, you love Microsoft so much that you are blinded by the FUD! I know the site is a Windows site, but please give readers a break from the party line once and a while. Microsoft's Anti-Linux Ads are FUD and you know it. Microsoft just like anyone else (HP, IBM, Dell, Apple) that pays for a reports that favor them and will not publish reports that don't. There are lies and then there are damn lies. I hate to tell you this but not everything that comes from Microsoft is truthful. Just look at the half truths and lies in their well known court cases over the last few years. Not that it has hurt them much but they did lose those cases you know.

While Apple may be bringing Windows Media Audio (WMA) format to the iPod, WMA is certainly not a "superior" format by any means! It makes strategic sense, but audiophiles will certainly not be switching to WMA...

I agree the HP announcement was stunning, but seeing WMA on the iPod seems unlikely - there is no reason to use it other than it is available on other stores. Anyone can license MPEG 2-AAC and Real is offering it. MPEG 2-AAC is an ISO standard by the way ... Microsoft's codec isn't. Editor's note: Protected AAC isn't either. --Paul

Hi, Mr Paul Thurrott. Sad to say, but you take zealotry to a whole new level.

I think you are totally off base when you say HP will be adding WMA support to the iPod. If Apple wanted to do that, they don't need help - their engineers are savvy enough to implement it if they chose to license the codec and DRM. If anything, the HP/Apple deal is to break HPs dependance on Windows Media, and allow them to create products that revolve around both Windows Media AND QuickTime. HP wants to create home media appliances that can talk to Macs and PCs, and maybe even create a compelling software suite similar to Apple's iLife, maybe even one that revolves around QuickTime instead of WM. they would be ecstatic to not have to pay MSFT for every move they make. Again, if Apple wanted the iPod or iTunes to play Windows Media files, they would have by now... However, I cannot for the life of me understand why iTunes, since version 2.0 on the Mac, has had embedded iTunes icons for WMA (and in the latest version, even ogg files). Go figure. Eytan

"The company will be working with Apple to add support for Microsoft's superior Windows Media Audio (WMA)". So please explain in which way WMA is supperiour. Supperior to old WMA formats (being now DRM protected and thus reducing customers ability). In another article you claimed that Microsofts vision of seemless computing will bring freedom and choice. Of course you failed to explain what choice. The choice to choose from Microsoft and ... Microsoft? So why is WMA supperior? Supperior for bringing more cash to Mr. Gates? People like you Paul would love to live in a dictatorship. No need to think, just do (and buy) what Mr. Big Billy the Great is telling you to do (and buy).. Really, how does it feel to to be an MS marketing drone, Paul?

You, sir, are an idiot. GarageBand (no space) targets the number of active musicians in the US today, which is 50% of the population according to recent surveys. You do not give a date for when it is shipping, less than a week, and it provides a lot of bang for the buck! Saying that the proprietary WMA format is superior to the AAC (or MPEG-4 Audio) format is just plain wrong. There is no reason for Apple to allow HP to let WMA files on the iPod, foremost because the iTunes Music Store would then have a greater amount of competition for being almost the only online music store that allows one to get music for their iPod. Editor's note: 50 percent of the population are musicians? :) --Paul You need to learn how to report unbiasedly.

WMA is "superior" to AAC? In what way? Certainly not in sound quality, nor in streaming speed. Could you please justify that statement, or issue a correction, if you cannot.

I don't know where you heard this but you've got your head up your ass if you think that WMA format will be added to the iPod by mid-year. Stating thet WMA is superior to AAC proves you are way off base! AAC will be adopted by Windows sooner. Remember you heard that here first!

Windows blows and so do you. Editor's note: So does your "name" and email address, tough guy. --Paul

Looks like concurrent sessions may be included in the XP SP 2 beta, they just aren't enabled. http://bink.nu/DesktopModules/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=855

What do you mean? "HP's blockbuster deal with Apple will have one exciting side effect, I discovered today. The company will be working with Apple to add support for Microsoft's superior Windows Media Audio (WMA) format to the iPod by mid-year. You heard it here first". Why do people always think of the iPod as and MP3 player? While WMA is better than MP3, the AAC format supported on 3G iPods is superior to WMA. It would be nice for wider compatability's sake, but you need to learn more about AAC on the iPod! AWS

Did i read correctly? Did you say that WMA is superior to AAC? Based on what? I'm not in the mood to hear your DRM argument again, that's not part of AAC! Regardless, why would I (or anyone else) care if the only online music store using Fairplay is the best one? I don't recall Microsoft giving an alternative to WMA's DRM scheme either. You left out quite a few of Steve Jobs' announcements in his MacWorld keynote. Specifically the G5 XServes, Serial-ATA XServe RAID, 15GB iPod, iMovie 4, iDVD 4, iPhoto 4, Final Cut Express 2. You don't seem to understand that the people complaining about the keynote ARE the crazed Apple fans, they complain about everything! Personally, I agree that the iPod mini is overpriced, but so are the other iPods! Last time I heard, they're selling better than everything else. So, does that make it good news? Last, I don't see how GarageBand is targeting "the smallest possible market" ...or a small market at all. I personally know a dozen musicians, and each one (including the Windows users) can't wait to get their hands on it. I don't think you understand how many people out there know how to play an instrument, but don't have the time or money to use professional software. You seriously underestimate the market. It's funny... I recall hearing the same thing from people like you when iMovie was first announced!

Paul writes: "HP will ship an HP-branded iPod portable music player that will feature a unique blue color, the company told me." LOL...you make that sound like an exclusive scoop ("the company told ME"), but you can see Carly introducing the HP-branded blue iPod here: http://news.com.com/1601-2-5138506.html Editor's note: Dah. Scoop? I was at CES. They told me this. I reported on it. Geesh. --Paul

"Predictable Open-Source Advocates Decry Microsoft Anti-Linux Ads Microsoft's recent ad campaign that pits Linux against Windows has engendered an unintentionally hilarious but predictable reaction from the open-source community, with various Linux advocates crying foul over what they call Microsoft's misleading analysis. The biggest problem seems to be that Microsoft commissioned some of the reports the ads cite, but the company has been upfront about that situation and claims that such funding is a common industry practice. Watching the open-source guys fall all over each other trying to be the first to disprove the Microsoft claims about Linux is what I find really funny. We get it, guys; you don't like Microsoft." Paul, the problem most intelligent Linux people have with the Microsoft 'Get the Facts' site is that the data is out of date (windows 2000 vs. RH 7.x), inapplicable (linux on the mainframe vs. Windows)or was performed using slanted methods/baselines (Oracle database server on Linux vs. MS SQL Server on Windows). Of course MS is going to fund research studies, most companies do. And of course MS is only to publish those results favorable to them. Several ignorant people have chosen to complain that MS funded the reports, but they are the ignorant few. Most open source advocates that I've spoken to (I'm more middle of the road myself) attack the site base don the merits I've listed above.

It is interesting to see so many people talk about how your comments of WMA (and it's DRM) being superior are nonsense. After looking at most of the technical testing that has been done on WMA and AAC, the pretty graphs seem to show little difference between the two formats - certainly nothing that would be detectable to the human ear - trained or not. Both formats are very good, and certainly far superior to the ageing MP3 format. In terms of which format is going to be favoured by audiophiles, well, which one supports 5.1, and even 7.1 surround sound? WMA9 So far the Apple DRM scheme has allready been cracked, with no signs of a reasonable way of resolving the problem - whilst Microsoft's DRM has been designed to be updatable in the face of such trouble. In terms of which formats are superior - I would say that WMA, AAC and OGG are all up there as great quality codecs - and any audiophile or audio company would find it pretty hard to go wrong with any of them. Which audio 'system' you use depends on what you want to do. For the distribution of streaming media, Windows Media and OGG are both good choices. For the legitimate distribution of music online, WMA provides the best option because it provides excellent quality for the consumer, and an attractive DRM package for the copyright holder. For Video distribution, WMA is a great way to go at low qualities, and for higher qualities, QuickTime and WMV are excellent formats (although WMV is newer and better). mark.lomas@lcbroadband.co.uk Editor's note: The voice of reason. You're right. --Paul

Interesting article on WMA. You brag that Microsofts DRM software is found on over 4 million devices, more than twice the number of iPods sold. Interesting that it takes all manufacturers of portable media players to produce numbers more than twice the number of music only player produced by a single manufacturer. Interesting that this music player is primarly designed for a computing platform with less than 3% of the market. Editor's note: I'm not bragging, I'm reporting what Microsoft said about WMA devices. The iPod has been sold on both Windows and the Mac since its second generation, so it targets 99 percent of the market. --Paul

burp!

Paul, take the tinted glasses off! - Its impossible to state "WMA is superior" as though it were a fact. There is very little to choose between the formats, and it depends on the type of music being compressed. This research might proove interesting (the end results show that WMA Pro, Ogg Vorbis and AAC are pretty much identical): http://audio.ciara.us/test/128extension/results.html

>>And speaking of streaming video, Microsoft announced at CES that its WMA format is now supported on more than 500 devices... >>...the installed base of portable media players that support Microsoft's Digital Rights Management (DRM) platform now numbers more than 4 million--more than twice the number of iPods, which use a competing DRM scheme. And therein lies the difference between the Windows-world and the Mac-world: support a myriad of devices of (generally) mediocre quality or support a single or few devices of (generally) high quality. I'll leave it up to you which matters most. Editor's note: Choice matters most. Yes, we will have mediocre and excellent. But we will have more than one choice, at various pricepoints. --Paul

I heard what where first? Hmmmmnnnnn....

Hewlett-Packard: No WMA for IPod  Liar Liar Pants on Fire! Editor's note: Spare me. The headline should be: Hewlett-Packard: No WMA for iPod "for now". --Paul

Hewlett-Packard: No WMA for iPod http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,61897,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 Editor's note: Hewlett-Packard: No WMA for iPod "for now" --Paul

WMA iPod? Yeah I read it first here. True? Pure lies according to HP. http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,61897,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 Editor's note: What? That quote says to me that they are working on it but won't have it available in the short term. The words "for now" didn't seem a bit hedging to you? --Paul

HP announces: No WNA for iPod http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,61897,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 Remember, you heard it there first... Editor's note: Actually, HP didn't "announce" anything. An HP executive said they didn't have plans for that "for now." It's not hard to read the article, just try to read more than what you want to read. --Paul

This just in, from Wired and the other major news services: HP's iPod will *not* support WMA. Apple and HP continue to tell Microsoft to "get bent." Guess that shows how reliable Paul's "analysis" is. Editor's note: Or how reliable your's is. You conveniently left out the quote which doesn't say they will not support it, but that they are not supporting it "for now." --Paul

The WMA-story is a lie. As usually with Mr Thurdott. From Wired: [...] A spokesman for HP denied any such plans. "We're not going to be supporting WMA for now," said Muffi Ghadiali, product marketing manager for HP's digital entertainment products group. Editor's note: For now, he said. For now. Huh. Sounds like an implicit agreement that they are, in fact, working on it, doesn't it? --Paul

With anywhere from 4 to 40 gigs available in portable music players these days, why not do as I do and just use uncompressed .aiff's and swap music at the end/start of your day? Oh wait...I guess you gotta OWN the CD's to accomplish that...

> Jobs's Disappointing Macworld Keynote Address Makes Even Gates Look Good Wow... I never thought it was possible to compose a sentence with Gates and Good, but there you have it. Gates has yet to sound like anything other than a whispy-throated geek with new technology for those needing more job security, while Jobs, as you admit, typically kills at these events. Maybe we can settle for "Jobs' worst is till better than Gates' best"?

I just have to scratch my head and wonder how anyone with a brain could possibly take anything you say seriously. 95% of your anti-Apple nonsense is pure BS, and all the predictions I have seen post in the last few weeks have proved to be WRONG! Your credibility is less than ZERO. Only the most confused and ignorant Windows user would agree with anything you spew on this pathetic excuse for an industry news site.

Do you actually believe Apple would need help "getting WMA to work on the iPod"? It's probably already been completely by Apple two years ago. But they have decided not to support it because that would be letting Microsoft define yet another industry standard...it really sux when Microsoft standards become industry standards, then the iPod comes along and MS complains about lack of choice for the customer. If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black - i dont know what is.

RE: Predictable Open-Source Advocates Decry Microsoft Anti-Linux Ads The problem many open-source advocates have, isn't that MS is trying to market their products, but that they do everything in their power to maintain a monopoly. Look at the BeOS case, Halloween papers, Mac FUD, death of netscape, attempted murder of Java, and countless others. These new fangled campaigns against iTunes are no different either. Last time I checked AAC was a standard and WMA is not but the regular Joe Sixpack won't know and believe any lie MS get published. MS is a so-so OS (Even you have to admit the end of the 95 family was humilating, was Windows ME some sort of overpriced insiders' joke? ), but their are other viable solutions that are as good or better than MS in many situations. Also, I found the concurrent sessions article humerous since *nix machines have had this forever, and what good is this on Windows? It doesn't come with an SSH daemon and you can't switch and open another instance of in a different user name, so why would XP users need this?

I have just discovered this clown. How much a year does MicroSoft pay him for this drivel?

Mandrake Linux for example. It fully installs without rebooting except at the very end of installation. It is far more intuitive than Windows and supports the latest controllers and it costs virtually nothing. The desktops and software are as easy to follow as windows plus it mounts Windows partitions. It can be used to repair windows when you have both installed. Seems that a lot of fanatics want to knock Linux and I assume they are probably paid by Bill Gates to do so.

Apple chose AAC because of its superior characteristics. Your claim of WMA "superiority" in the early part of this newsleter is really just a convolution of your later observation of the widespread adoption of WMA. HP won't be developing WMA for iPod for any reason other than the need to include the largest number of sheep in the pen. It will be useful for one thing though: to directly compare WMA to AAC, other things equal. That should be interesting.

God bless HP for not giving into Microsoft, and chosing something other than WMA. We all suffer enough from Microsoft's stifling of technology, and it's good to see a big company like HP not bow to Bill's not-so-gentle nudging.