Reader Comments

Paull Writes "a bigger issue centers on how HP is going to make its many products compatible with the closed and proprietary Protected AAC format Apple uses." Good God, Paul. WMA is "closed and proprietary", too. And anyone can license Protected AAC (In fact, with the huge market share of the iPod/ iTunes Music store combination, the superior quality of AAC and the momentum that the little tiny company from Cupertino now has, more companies should. HP was smart enough to get on board the fast-moving train that's headed to the right destination.) iYeah, I think the iPod should support the closed and proprietary WMA format, but come on....your intellectual dishonesty is sad to witness. Editor's note: HP already licenses WMA. For them, it's open and available at no additional cost. The Apple deal was controversial at best. --Paul

A couple of inaccuracies in Thurrott's article. First, Media Center PC users (and indeed anyone running Windows 2000 or XP) can still donwload and install iTunes which will allow them to play AAC files. Nothing is stopping the "millions of people using HP products now and in the future" from installing iTunes, and given the success of the format and Real's decision to support AAC (and Real 10 will be able to play Apple-DRMed AACs), you can rest assured that other third parties will be bringing AAC compatibility to products like iPAQs and set top boxes. Despite your assertions to the contrary, the real loser in this cases is Microsoft which stands to lose millions of dollars in revenue from licensing WMA to music stores.

With the iPod quickly becoming THE Mp3 player, HP's probably making a good move by latching on to its success. The WMA format has some plusses, but really, it doesn't matter which format gets out there. Best thing Apple could do now, is license THEIR version of AAC copy protection (mind you, it's not the AAC format which is incompatible between Real and iTunes, it's the copy protection scheme) to more stores. Or, better yet, eliminate DRM entirely. Sure, the RIAA says that's impossible, but the customers never asked to have their music hobbled, and every form of DRM for music stores has already been broken (it's called a digital line out on your SoundBlaster card). May as well give up the pretense and release the music free of constraints in a novel, and widely supported format, called MP3.

I am Microsoft user, through and through, but I must admit, I love the IPOD. Isn't it feasible for microsoft, real, etc, to add support for the protected aac content that apple uses. Better yet, can't microsoft add support for the ipod in windows media player? Editor's note: No, because Apple would have to license Protected AAC to them, and they won't. Microsoft's WMA format, meanwhile, is cheaply licensed, thus it's inclusion on so many devices. --Paul

oh yeah, wma support. such an "open" format. You are a wintel idiot Editor's note: Maybe you're right. It might be better for us all to switch to the proprietary Protected AAC format (note: Not a standard) that Apple uses and licenses to no other companies, rather than WMA, which is licensed for use on over 500 devices. I guess I am an idiot, my bad. --Paul

"Windows is about choice," *LOL* Yes, as long as the software comes from Redmond. What's your problem, Paul? Do you fear that people start to recognize that there is software beyond Microsoft? That you can use file formats other than the ones dictated by Microsoft. Your formula "PC industry = Windows" is far too simple and your opinion is hypocritical at best. If you fear for consumers: 91% already lost. The pay roughly 85% too much for every system and office suite coming from Redmond due to the MS monopoly (paying for all other non-profitable things like XBox coming from MS). The Microsoft monopoly has to fall for the benefit of customers. Only if consumer electronic devices start using open standards and people don't have to pay a Microsoft tax on every consumer electronic device you can claim freedom and choice. Luckily, the downfall of MS already started ...

Or perhaps HP is tired of having Microsoft suck the profit margins out of every device they make throught their draconian licensing and control. WMA is proprietary and controlled by one company: Microsoft. That company's goal is to keep people locked into Windows. Apple's store supports both MacOS and Windows. That's more than you can say for any of the WMA music stores regarding giving consumers "choice". The PC industry is not about choice after all, it's about the illusion of choice. All roads and "choices" lead to Microsoft. Hardly a choice at all. Never mind that Apple's software is SUPERIOR to anything else on Windows for managing your music. For once, there is a chance that the best solution might win. More power to HP for making a "choice" and not being railroaded into the Microsoft Windows-only format.

You claim to not care which codecs win, but the superlative adjectives you apply to WMA and any other Microsoft-backed format and pejorative adjectives describing other formats belay such a claim. You wear your bias on your sleeve, yet laughably try to pretend that you don't. It's a discredit to your journalistic integrity. Funny that 70% of the customers for online music purchases don't seem to share your concerns that AAC is somehow a "closed" standard. In fact, AAC files purchased from Apple are available for use in a wide variety of software programs — because they're tied not to iTunes, but to the QuickTime media framework. Any program that can playback QuickTime content can playback AAC files purchased and authorized on that computer. That's how Real is able to utilize M4P files from iTunes in its software.

Once again Paul Thurrott has succeeded in creating a public outlet for lies and propaganda. How about using the real truth for a change? Editor's note: Please be specific. --Paul

Paul your a smart person and we know this. But please give credit where credit is due. Apple is comming around and instead of knocking it into the ground with your negative comments, let Apple shine as long as their in the spotlight. You certainly do when Microsoft releases some new technology. Now when we stop plaing favorites and focus on quality reporting we may get a clear outlook into the future.

iTunes does come with an AAC to MP3 conversion tool, but it isn't discoverable. For beginning users, this tool will mean squat to them. But for advanced users (who probably build their own computers instead of buying the Pavilion anyway) will find this tool sometime. Maybe when HP brands it, they'll ask that songs downloaded be converted to WMA or MP3. :-| Dunno. It'd make it a heck of a lot easier on the end user. Can't wait to see how this turns out. :-)

I can't figure out if Paul hates Apple so much out of (1) ignorance, (2) a previous bad experience with Apple product that has forever biased him, or (3) he's on Microsoft's payroll. Either way, it's a shame that not only does he have an unreasonable (and often inaccurate, like his recent iTunes "statistics") bias against Apple, but worse yet, www.winnetmag.com is giving him the forum to blast his views out to readers that may not realize that he's feeding the a biased load of crap. Case in point: "Apple really does have a chance to change the world, the one thing it had always promised but never really delivered." Paul has apparently been living in a cave for the last 10-15 years. FireWire. Legal online music downloads. Graphical GUI. Digital video editing. Digital audio recording and editing. Standard networking. Wireless networking. Mouse. Flat-screen displays. These are just a few of the many innovations that Apple has been the FIRST to bring to a consumer-oriented computer (I know most of them are correct, one or two might not be). It's a common joke among Mac users that if you want to know what Windows will look like in 5 years, take a look at the current Mac OS. Sure, Apple may have a much smaller market share, but even if you say "Apple changed the world by proxy" (meaning that Apple innovated and WIntel has copied them), Apple has still changed the world, even if you insist on saying it was indirect. The simple fact that they get as much press as they do, despite their small market share is a clear indication that have changed, and are continuing to change the world. Honestly, I really couldn't care less that Paul hates Apple so much...his loss, in my opinion. However, when he's allowed to blast out blatantly false information (based on his biased opinions) in a mass-market publication, it's also unprofessional and irresponsible journalism on his part, as well as that of the magazine, and its editors.

Gee, on further reflection, it seems to me that there's a simple answer to all of this. Microsoft should support Protected AAC as part of Windows Media Player (in addition to the closed and proprietary WMA format). Why should the onus be on Apple to change? After all, in this arena, THEY, not Microsoft, are the 500 pound gorilla. Let the convicted monopolist gobble up a serving of crow for once. It might do them good. Editor's note: I'd love to see that happen. But that won't help iPod users choose between the numerous WMA online music stores on the Web, or help people with WMA libraries play their music on their iPods. --Paul

Has the author visited planet earth recently?

Paul, do you really expect people to believe you don't care which codec wins? You say, unambiguously, that continued success of the AAC format will lead to increased incompatibilities for consumers. The only way to get rid of the incompatibility is for someone to give up its format, Apple or MS. OK, now you don't expect Microsoft to give up on WMA, do you? So you are asking Apple to give up its format, then. If Apple supports WMA on the iPod now, then WMA will take over, and AAC will die. For this reason, I don't think Apple will support WMA on the iPod now, although anything is possible (as this HP/Apple deal shows). Later, as AAC is more established, Apple conceivably could add WMA support. Jobs stated in the analyst meeting a while back that apple was "flexible" but saw no reason to change its approach right now. As for consumers being hurt by the AAC format, well, let's boil this down. Nobody is buying Media Center PCs. Nobody. I know you believe that all this MS stuff previewed at CES will take off, and maybe it will, but this is all speculation and the future. Maybe it will fail. If it does, I doubt consumers will see any problem with the fact that protected AAC won't play on these MS devices nobody bought. In any event, the bottom line is you can move your music around the house by carrying your iPod with you. You can plug it into any stereo you want. For most people, this is simpler to understand than streaming things over Media Center Extenders that cost hundreds extra. You can also share music over a local network easily with iTunes. The other day I was telling a windows-using iPod owner about this, and he said, why do I need to do this, I just take the iPod with me. MS's solution of Media Center PCs, extenders, etc., is more costly and cumberson, for the music application (video might be different). The iPod, iTunes and iTMS work the best for the application at hand (music) and all you need to do is cough up 249 for an iPod.

OMG! Learn how to format an article for the web !

I say "screw MS and go with AAC" they both suck, they both have DRM

Paul writes: "Contrary to the opinions of some Apple fanatics, I don't care which media coder-decoders (codecs) or platforms win in the market." Is this why he refers to AAC as "crappy" (not in this particular article) and WMA as "superior?" (Again, not here). Listening tests generally reveal AAC to be superior to WMA at identical bitrates. It has nothing to do with Apple fanatics.

So, HP made a business decision to offer its PC consumers easy access to the best and most seamless online music store and jukebox. Unprotecting those AAC downloads is a trivial pursuit for anyone with an IQ approaching half of the Mendoza line. It's not Apple that is working against MPEG standards. It's the proprietary, predatory monopolist outfit you genuflect toward. How do you know that the future of digital devices won't sway away from the proprietary and closed WMA codec? If I own a PC, I have choice..Apple has offered me additional choice..that's good! Editor's note: Apple's Protected AAC is not a standard, and unlike WMA is only licensed to one company. --Paul

Paul writes: I'd love to see that happen. But that won't help iPod users choose between the numerous WMA online music stores on the Web, or help people with WMA libraries play their music on their iPods. --Paul Paul, it doesn't matter. 'the numerous WMA online music stores' command 30% of the market. The rest is iTunes Music Store. While Apple is constantly dismissed because of it's low marketshare, suddenly this argument is dismissed? The iTMS is very relevant, Buymusic.com, walmartmusic.com are not. They are crap and people are voting with their dollars. Editor's note: Well, you're forgetting something. We're in the very early days of what is an emerging market. One might have argued that Apple controlled 70 percent of GUIs in the mid-1980's, but that quickly fell as the Atari ST, Amiga, and finally Windows 3.x caught on. It's not enough to pioneer a market, you need to sustain it. Apple's making the right moves, for what it's worth. --Paul

Now that RealPlayer 10 supports just about every format, I decided to try it out to see what codec actually sounded the best. I just used a standard 64kbps across the board and encoded from CD (as clean as I could get). I used iTunes(AAC), Nero(AAC), RealPlayer(RA), and Windows Media Encoder(WMA). It amazes me that there are so many proprietary implementations of what is supposed to be an open standard. Apple, Nero, and Real are all using different variations on the same standard. If that doesn't scream proprietary than nothing does. Anyway, the Nero version sounded the worst, with iTunes as second worst. Windows Media and Real Audio were too close for me to tell so they both tie for first. Do the music downloads from Real's store work in iTunes? Nope. Can Nero play iTunes encoded audio? Nope. I'd say Apple is the proprietary one here. WMA works on everything except iTunes. Seriously, if iPod adds support for WMA, Apple only stands to gain. I say this because everything else out there plays it EXCEPT iPod, Apple isn't really making that much money from their own music store anyway, and it's not like they're sacrificing a whole lot abandoning a format that they haven't even spent r&d dollars on. So WMA's a winner all around. Honestly, Microsoft comes out with something genuinely good and it scares people. I say let Apple milk a successful format and sell even more iPods!

I've noticed that Paul puts some pressure on word "standard" and uses it against Apple. How about 'de facto standard' then? Editor's note: You could make a case for either Protected AAC or WMA being a "de facto standard" for DRM-enabled digital music, certainly. --Paul

WMA - talking about closed formats... at least MP3 is a standard.

While it's true that there are several portable audio players available that can play WMA and only two that can play Apple's protected AAC (iPod and iPod mini), it's not true that WMA is more open than Apple's AAC on the desktop. Look at Winamp 5, e.g., one of the most popular music players on Windows. It can play Apple's AAC with a plugin, but it cannot play WMAs from ANY of the other Music Stores. On the Macintosh, every application can open and edit/convert protected AAC files (legally). You can e.g. use Roxio Toast 5, which was released long before the iTunes Music Store and its DRM were introduced, to burn standard audio CDs from your protected AACs. Unfortunately, Apple has restricted the use of its AAC files much more on Windows. You cannot edit/convert them at all (legally). That's why I wouldn't buy music from the iTMS on Windows as long as I can also get the unprotected CDs. However, every application can at least play these AACs back without the developer having to pay Apple. The WMA from Napster, Buymusic, Musicmatch etc. have the same limitations (you cannot edit/convert them), AND developers canNOT create players without having to pay Microsoft!! That's why there's no way to play back protected WMA files in Winamp. That's why I think that Apple's DRM is much better on the desktop and Microsoft's DRM has the advantage of having more compatible portable players - you can't say that one is better than the other or generally allows for more "choice".

Feh, iTunes like it or not is the new standard. Why not require Microsoft to work with Apple to support Apple's AAC in Windows. Problem solved. Since Windows is about choice, Microsoft should work in adopting the DRM used in 70% of music downloads today (Apple protected AAC). Editor's note: I love iTunes, actually, and purhcased over 200 songs from that service in 2003. But Microsoft can't support AAC unless Apple licenses it, and so far they haven't. --Paul

Paul writes: "Maybe you're right. It might be better for us all to switch to the proprietary Protected AAC format (note: Not a standard) that Apple uses and licenses to no other companies, rather than WMA, which is licensed for use on over 500 devices. I guess I am an idiot, my bad." Paul, your rhetoric of "WMA is good cuz it's in 500 devices" worked well when you only had a handful of hits from links coming from your other websites. However, Now that you have an audience (although limited as it's sure to drop back to pre-slashdot hit levels), you can't fool people who actually use their heads. So Paul, I've got this dirt here. It's everywhere, therefore, dirt must be awesome. Diamonds however, are not everywhere, therefore, diamonds are bad. Dirt is the industry standard. Dirt is what people should want. Anybody want to license this dirt? You don't??! Why not?! EVERYONE wants dirt!!!! Well, you keep your dirt, Paully. I've got my diamonds. Editor's note: Certainly, diamonds are rarer than dirt. --Paul

I think the move for HP has been diminishing thier reputation as leading edge company. In my opinion I hate the Apple iPODS configuration for transferring music. It has firewire why add another thrid party program to move music to the iPOD? Why not make it as a mass storage music player? I do like the control for the iPODs.

I think your column is a HOOT!!! I like the humor interspersed throughout the site, especially the humor written into the Apple articles. I also like the "Really Band Album Covers", parts 1 and 2. Keep up the good work, I always enjoy a good chuckle in an otherwise drab news day! Brian Maher

Microsoft promotes choice, as long as it is done on a Windows platform.

Have you no clue? Or are you so brainwashed by the M$ Kool-Aid that you must bash anything Apple. iTunes MS is the #1 Music store out there, probably outselling all the other Music stores combined. The iPod is the #1 MP3 player, the one that everyone instantly recognises and aspires to. Why would you want to support your competition when you are already #1. That's like GM posting instructions on swapping a Ford engine into a Suburban. Please, MS is going to loose the digital arena. And then they will continue their loosing streak right to the back seat. The industry is ripe for another change, like how we went from NetWare to Windows, WOrd PErfect to Word, etc...

I agree that having conflicting standards hurts consumers. But wouldn't a possible solution be for Window Media Audio to adopt the AAC format? Editor's note: It would be possible, but only for pure AAC, and what's the incentive? No one uses that format. But even pure AAC is expensive, much more expensive than WMA. And Apple's Protected AAC is not licensable at all, so the point is moot. You get DRM for free when you license WMA, letting the content creators and/or music stores set the terms (and not Microsoft). WMA-based music stores can (and some do) have identical licensing as what Apple offers, just using a format that is more broadly compatible. --Paul

So basically Thurrott is saying that he is smarter than 'the millions of people who use HP's products now and will use them in the future'. He owns two iPods and have downloaded more than 200 songs from the iTunes Music Store, but HP's customers are expected to be confused when their turn.

1. Apple has changed the world - they just did not capitalize on it the way they should: They gave us the GUI (with help Palo Alto), the PDA, the digital Camera (with help from Kodak) They are the driving force behind windows as Redmond plays catch up 2. MP4 (AAC) is opend and available for all. Apple is just the first to standardize on it. DRM will always be problematic, as it is impossible to be open and secure. 3. It is Microsoft that is holding back convergance. As they try to build "standards" that are proprietary, and pervert standards to lock people into Windows (Look at their internet stratagy). The best thing that could happen is for Apple to take some markets and provide inovation. Not that Apple should avoid open solutions, if I have to buy from a single source, I would rather it be the source that provides inovation. AAC - is just as accessable as WMA but is not proprietary ... not to mention supporting higher quality in less space.

Bah. Forget the WMA! Micro$oft has already lost the war long time ago. Winning horse here is AAC. Even a child can see that. Nokia sold last year alone over 180 000 000 mobile telephones. Nokia is the absolutely biggest mobile phone manufacturer in the world. Nokia and telephone companies sold over €1 100 000 000 worth of music to these phones. (over $1 400 000 000). That is HUGE market and it is increasing rabidly. Nokia will never, I repeat Nokia will NEVER use WMA! Nokia will never, I repeat NEVER pay money to Micro$oft so that they could use WMA. They dont need WMA and Micro$oft. Nokia dont want to let the Micro$oft to rule what they can or can't do. Nokia uses AAC, I repeat Nokia USES AAC and they are really happy about it. Apple, Real and now HP uses AAC. Real has to support AAC if it want's to be inside Nokia phones. Micro$oft is the only one that is hurting the industry by monopolizing codes and truying to bully others. Somebody should write AAC for Dummies really, really soon so that everybody gets the facts right.

How is AAC 'closed' standard? ITMS' tracks are using apple's DRM, sure just as real noetworks' AACs, how about playing Dell's DRM wrapped wmas on Nopster's player? Stop spreading FUD, So far ITMS has 70 % of the market, maybe Microsoft for once should do something right and support AAC in their strategy? After all Windows is about choice right? There's so much inaccurate data, it's not even funny. Realnetwork's AACs are better quality? Did you auditioned them or is it just an assumption? Doesn't Realnetwork use different encoder than Apple? may this be a reason? ...like i said go get a clue.... For once we have a choice.

I don't know what gave the author the idea that the WMA format is an open protocol. I agree that the AAC version the apple uses is proprietary in the fact that it includes DRM in the specs, but WMA, designed by Microsoft, controlled by Microsoft, and only runs on other devices approved and allowed by Microsoft, is also a proprietary and closed format. This article, like all Microsoft only devotees, just shows the same blinders that Apple only devotees have. WMA is NOT a standard, just as AAC is not a standard. MP3 is the only true standard at this point and it won't win in the long run because it doesn't limit consumer's fair use rights with DRM the way both protected AAC and WMA can.

"Windows is about Choice." Yes, choose WMA and the DRM associated with it. HP chose not to go with WMA only; they chose to really offer their customers more choices by having iTunes AND the Windows Media Player installed on their computers. If Windows is really about choice, the Windows Media Player should be able to paly AAC formatted music, as well as all the other music formats available.

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Please listen to the other comment made by HP CEO Carly Fiorina. "We explored a range of alternatives to deliver a great digital music experience and concluded Apple's iPod music player and iTunes music service were the best by far. By partnering with Apple, we have the opportunity to add value by integrating the world's best digital music offering into HP’s larger digital entertainment system strategy." The industry needs to be driven by the quality of the product, not by "industry standards" (translated Microsoft) mediocrity. The idea that " Windows is about choice " is totally ludicrous. Microsoft and Windows have done almost irreparable harm to the computer industry by way of their "industry standard". The success of Windows was based on corporate bean counters that put cheap PCs on the desktops to save money. The entertainment and digital media market is a consumer market. I may be forced to use a Microsoft solution by my employer, but the music I listen to, the movies I watch, and the equipment I use to avail myself of them are based on MY choice. Imagine if films of the Sundance variety or Alternative music was branded as " harmful to the industry". Contrary to your opinion, there are solutions out there that are superior to Microsoft. You need to pull your head out of the sand and have the courage to admit that " Microsoft everywhere " is not the utopia you dream of. Of course it's always easier to go with the herd than to make real decisions. Excellence, not mediocrity. Best Regards, Al Pierce

It's unfortunate that you do not understand monopoly. Microsoft's format is owned entirely by Microsoft, DRM and Encoding. AAC proper, the codec, is backed by an industry consortium and standardized by MPEG, then used unmodified by Apple and Real. The DRM is called FairPlay and is owned by a third party company. Apple has no monopoly and DOES NOT CONTROL THE DRM IN iTUNES. Microsoft DOES control the DRM in WMA. Anyone can implement AAC for a small fee, but Microsoft must Approve those who wish to use the closed and undocumented WMA. THIS IS MICROSOFT FUD

Why on earth would Apple want to do anything but possibly import *.wma files into iTunes? Nobodies going to make enough on downloaded music to have a profitable music store. The only way to make a profit is to drive sales of an mp3 player. Only a complete idiot would create a situation where somebody elses mp3 player worked with their music store. Second; just because it comes from Microsoft doesn't make it better. In my experience AAC is the superior format - all you have to do to tell the difference between AAC and WMA is to encode a piece of music, say a classical piece where sound quality is really obvious, from a cd to each codec at the same bitrate and then play it back over a really good sound system or good headphones. There's a huge difference in AAC's favor. WMA seems to remove the high end of the audio frequencies to help compression. In many cases it sounds like the music was played underwater. Unless your a teenager who's music choices sound like some version of a 2,000 car pileup on the freeway AAC is the way to go. No kidding.

Paul's points in this article are: 1) HP is making a mistake by teaming up with Apple to build HPiPods. "...island of incompatibility..." 2) Apple's iPod/iTMS solution lacks broad industry support. "...sells songs only in the more limited Protected AAC format..." 3) He goes on to make the absurd suggestion that other HP audio/video playing products won't support iTMS related content. If iTMS currently (and in the future) ships on Windows platforms, then it will work on any platform HP sells based on Windows technologies. "...HP, which makes a variety of digital-media products, including Media Center PCs, iPAQs, and media set-top boxes--none of which are compatible with the Protected AAC format that HP will be supporting through the iTunes Music Store or with HP-branded iPods..." So, this brings us to apparent point number 4: 4) HP should have gone with Microsoft, because Microsoft has been critizied for being a monopolist, so why buck the trend and go with the winning team. "...lock-in for which Microsoft is often (and, in the case of digital media, unfairly) criticized." Unfairly critizied for being a convicted monopolist? This article is dripping with bias, the remaining "evidence" for why HP made a bad decision consists of the author's inability to get full business plans from HP and Apple. In summation, the line of reasoning: A) Microsoft is a monopolist and has the broadest industry support because of it. B) HP should place its financial eggs with Microsoft because of this fact. C) Red herring and confuse the issue by pointing out non-problems (AAC not supported on the Windows platform (absurd), Apple is an "island of incompatibility" and therefore, unsuitable for this application). D) HP is dumb.

Buddy, you need a reality check. You say apple licenses the "protected proprietary" AAC codec they use to no one, and yet your response is surrounded by posts saying the winamp, aol, and realnetworks ALL play AAC content. the biggest PC MP3 player out there, winamp, wont play WMA because why..? Im sure if it were free they would do it, how high can the price be that they don't want to do it? Keep in mind all peripheral manufacturers that use the FAT filesystem now have to pay a royalty for it, simply because MS said "wow, theres more money to be made". Apple has the marketshare, apple has the best device(s), and most importantly, the fame. It has set the example of what a music store should be like, how easy an experience it should be. In your article, you stated the magic word... "convergence". Have you any idea what this really is? Convergence slowly sneaks up on people. How many people own a bona-fide stereo compared to 10 years ago? computerss are now jukeboxes. "convergence" is sparked by people deciding, "wow, thats a lot better, I'll do things that way". Your article talks about audio convergence, and ITS ALREADY DONE.

If Windows is all about choice, then why do they limit mp3 ripping capabilities to 56k in their Windows Media Player, but allow you to rip in wma format at any rate? Please someone explain the choice. In iTunes you can rip in aac or mp3 at any rate you like, that is a choice. Also, why doesn't Windows Media give you the choice of using a superior and standards based codec such as aac which was developed by dolby instead of microsoft's proprietary format wma? Please explain the choice.

"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." When are you going to get the facts straight? The HP rep here is completely correct. Protected AAC files can be played with iTunes. Once in iTunes, they can be burned to CDs or virtual CDs as unprotected AIFFs or MP3s. How many times must you be told that before you stop making this mistake? With someone supposedly so knowledgeable about technical issues, one can only assume you do so intentionally. If you have any journalistic integrity, you could at least admit to your bias.

You're a moron. If you can't see that Apple has led the way in convergence between computers and consumer electronics then you're blinded by Microsoft marketing department. Apple is using an open standard (AAC) and a third party DRM system (FairPlay) that ANY digital music device could support. Don't blame Apple for choosing to go a direction different than the blind Microsoft serfs. If Microsoft is all about choice, why do they want everyone to do it THEIR way? Apple continues to innovate and make products that "just work" together. I can plug in my digital camera, my digital camcorder, my iPod, hard drives... all kinds of things and the computer just works. I don't have to mess with setting it up... it just works right out of the box. Your article reeks of MS bias and worse... ignorance.

I think Paul Thurrott is a clown - actually inferring that a deal between Apple and HP will inhibit consumer choice, when the Microsoft trash he espouses is all about locking the consumer into a Windows Media world. Quicktime is an open format, iTunes will work with .wav, .aiff, .mp3, .m4a (AAC unprotected), .m4p (AAC protected), .ogg, and any other form of audio that Quicktime supports. The iPod will play AAC (both formats), .mp3, .aiff, .wav and Audible files. Where is the incompatability with popular formats? WMA is an unbelievably closed format, Microsoft Movie Maker will only let you compress to WMV files, and in general, everything Paul spews is a joke. Read any of the smart geek sites and it's 100% agreed-on.

If you don't care what codecs win, then why the whining about proprietary ACC? I don't see WMA on MacOS, Linux or Unix. Talk about propritary! Somewhere, somehow, someone will have to come up with a tool to convert DRM files of various flavors to other flavors so consumers don't get locked in to a player or platform.

Choice? To be perfectly honest, when it comes to music, I was under the impression (silly me) that the "choice" was which music to buy (eg, artist, genre, album). Apparently I should be more concerned with the format (MP3, AAC, WMA). Forest for the trees guys... the average Joe couldn't care less about the format... price and convenience will rule. Arguing about the encoding format is geek-speak. Editor's note: You wouldn't buy an 8-track cassette today would you? Why? Even if it had the music you wanted? The reason is the 8-track won't play in your car, your home stereo, or your portable device. That's the problem with AAC, in a sense: It's incompatible with virtually everything. This is a big issue for consumers. --Paul

After reading the comments left by other readers there is one thing missing from this debate -- the music companies. It's not a secret that Apple's "Fair Play" DRM has the least restrictions of all of the online music stores. It is very possible that in order to have fewer restrictions on the music files that Apple had to make certain concessions regarding the licensing of the DRM in the AAC format. I don't know this for fact but I think that it is entirely possible. To clear up another matter about open/closed formats, I'd like to add this: AAC is part of the MPEG4 spec. This is an open standard. AAC encoding is availble to one and all. Go license it from the MPEG4 consortium. What is proprietary is the DRM that wraps the AAC content. Again, I bet Apple will license this as long as it is within the terms set by the contracts with the music companies. Apple does not see a reason to license WMA at this time. The iPod has upgradable firmware. WMA support can be enabled in the future -- if necessary. Right now it's not needed. Paul, Apple has changed the world. Apple has ushered in many new ideas and technologies that have changed the way we use computers and interact with information. Without Apple we'd have no GUI, no desktop publishing, no laser printers, no PDAs, no digital media. These technological leaps were all made possible because Apple was around. Would they have happened without Apple? Probably, but I think we'd still be waiting.

This article is outrageous. All you do is bash HP for joining Apple and then all of a sudden you come up with that you own two Ipods and have downloaded over 200 songs from Itunes. What is that, just made up, that is what I believe. This whole article your saying that WMA is the way to go. How do you know??? Do you know because Microsoft told you so?? Come on here, maybe HP is really trying to get the both to come together or they really know which one is best. In all seriousness, if Apple was Microsoft and Microsoft was Apple you would be saying the same thing because it is what you are use to. If Apple was in control and HP joined with Microsoft this article would be exactly the same just with the names and formats reversed. Who really knows which is better, nobody. But just because one is bigger doesn't mean its better. Communist was bigger at one time than Democracy, but it didn't make it better. Please, think before you write something like this. It just shows me your journalism can't hide the fact that you use Microsoft for everything. By the way, I don't own one Apple product, but I still wouldn't bash another unless I really knew. Editor's note: That's great advice, but then I follow it already. I own two Macs (a 500 MHz iBook and 1 GHz 17-inch iMac), two iPods (5 GB and 30 GB), and even an iSight camera. I have renewed my .Mac subscription (which I originally ordered literally the day it was made available). Anything else Apple-related I should know more about? --Paul

Format compatibility is not such a problem. AAC files are already very widely supported. Most mp3 players already play them. The iPod is only a firmware update away from being able to play OGG, WMA, what have you. The problem is the DRM scheme. I don't think there should be any DRM of any kind anywhere. But Apple uses DRM called Fairplay, and anyone can license the technology from Fairplay that wants to play ITMS files. What should happen is the same kind of standardization that has happened with MPEG video. One file format, many codecs, with a standard way to wrap the file in DRM. Where's my OGG support, anyway? Editor's note: Format compatibility isn't a huge problem? Seriously? Tell that to Joe Bob when he doesnt' understand why his Protected AAC file won't play on his set-top box. You and I get how to make this work because we're technical, normal people don't. Those are the customers I'm worried about: You know, most people. --Paul

Looks like Paul made a mistake (gasp!); http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,61897,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 "Apple has a chance to change the world (something that Apple has always promised but never really accomplished)" Paul, do you use a mouse on that GUI-driven PC of yours? Is it USB? I understand FireWire is an excellent technology, any thoughts on that? It's interesting, I'm not too fond of Microsoft at the moment (licensing issue), but I don't start all of my documents with a snipe, or two, at them. Personally I'd call that bad journalism. Matt Editor's note: None of Apple's innovations became widespread until they appeared on high-volume platforms. That's exactly what I'm referring to. Apple pioneered the PC GUI; Microsoft legitimized it. I use a mouse, but on Windows, like most people. --Paul

I don't understand the problem with playing WMAs on an iPod. Just convert them to MP3 and bingo, you can play them. Sure there's an extra step, but so what? I don't mind that step to be able to use the best designed player on the market - the iPod. Hard to believe that's coming from, seeing as how I'm a Windows fan!

I find it interesting that you, Paul, offer NO sources in your article. In the future, I would recomend providing links to the majority of your sources. It would really increase your INCREADIBLY shaky reputation as a reliable and honest reporter.

I have to disagree with Paul's pro-MS stand. Apple's iTunes software is a real star, shining even on the not-so-great PC/ Windows platform. The iPod platform is vastly superior to any media players out there. It's a great move on HP side, I wish them good luck, and hope to see all disbelivers biting dust in a year or two ;)

First of all, no WMA for the iPod. That was a rumor or a lie. It aint happening. Here's proof: http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,61897,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 Now let me say why this is very good: Microsoft is controlling too damn much of the world. M$ controls the world's operating system, office suite, and internet browser. They don't control but have a lot of leverage in the video game market (Xbox), they're making Windows Automotive now (OS for cars), they have hardware (MS routers, MS mice, keyboards, and those pointless SPOT devices). Now they want to stick their noses into the enterntainment industry with the annoucements of their new devices for TVs and Media Centers this week. And what's worse is they want to overtake the media formats with WMA and WMV with the hopes that WMV will become the standard for high-def DVDs. I pray that doesnt happen. Now I'm not gonna get into the quality (or lack of in some cases) of MS's products. It doesnt matter anymore. The biggest problem with MS is that they just control WAY TOO MUCH, regardless of whether the products are good or not. I dont support not just MS, but ANY company who dominates the world so much. Bill Gates was able to get filthy rich because of the collapse of Bell Corporation, which controlled way too much 20 years ago or so. The same future awaits Microsoft. And I just hope it happens sooner rather than later. It's not a question of if, but when. Editor's note: It's not a rumor or a lie. The Wired quote notably says "... for now." --Paul

I don't understand why protected AAC is a problem; it is cross platform (iTunes is Windows and Macintosh based), its supported by the #1 music store, and #1 MP3 player. Its standards based, so that anyone, including Microsoft can include support if they wish. By contrast, WMA is only supported on a single platform, is proprietary, and undocumented, and frankly, I'm not sure what advantage it has other than being supported native by WMP. If anything, it would make more sense for Microsoft to transition its users away from the proprietary WMA format because it brings no value to customers, and serves to lock them into a Microsoft solution which may not be the best thing for consumers. But to argue that chosing an open platform instead of a proprietary platform is "set[ing] back the convergence of PC's and consumer electronics" is silly. Its a setback Microsoft's plans to dominate in that arena, but as I don't get paid by Microsoft, I don't see the problem with that. Oh yes, I am a Windows user, I just think that WMA is a poor format choice; AAC makes a lot more sense from the consumer standpoint.

I love how this article tries to make it sound like Microsoft has done nothing wrong and big bad Apple is coming in to rain on their parade. How rediculous. So, HP is wrong for using Apple's proprietary AAC format instead of using Microsoft's proprietary WMA format? Give me a break...

you are funny.

Surely it's just as hard to add WMA support to a device as AAC support? The codecs themselves aren't difficult, and the Digital Rights Managment is just a case of licensing. If Apple wants to become a music standard, surely they'll give licenses for Fairplay DRM decryption? I haven't seen any ddata either way yet, but Apple repeatedly calls AAC a 'open' and 'standards-based' codec, as opposed to the Microsoft-owned WMA. I'd say, with the market as it is now, quite a few portable/home digital devices will be adding full Fairplay AAC support soon. So it really comes down to WMA vs AAC as a codec.

The formatting for this article needs to be fixed. You need blank lines in between every paragraph. I did not bother to read it due to the fact that it looks like a giant block of text with almost no formatting.

The only place that the HP deal was "controversial" is on this site and in Redmond. Most of the media reports I have read praise HP's savvy for hitching itself to a rising star like the iPod. As far as liscening "Proctected AAC," if Microsoft wants to make a deal with Apple to include Quicktime in all its Windows iterations, I'm sure Apple would be ameniable. Then any Windows program would have the hooks available to play protected content without downloading a thing, including iTunes. After the anti-trust decisions, there is nothing to stop HP from loading any software they want on their systems, most likely including the "Media Center" type PC's. This would allow more choice, not less. You keep harping on incompatibilities- it seems to me that adding a supported format is more like a burner supporting + and - DVD formats- you are *enhancing* compatibility. Like the DVD format wars neither P-AAC or WMA is going away anytime soon- that being the case isn't it in the best interest of the consumer and HP to give the consumer a choice? Its not like HP is going to stop selling its WMA devices, it will be selling a *single* device with P-AAC support and letting the consumer choose? Where exactly is the downside? The reason you sound like a MS shill is that there is no discernable downside to anyone except Microsoft. They lose their united front and it makes Apple appear like a standard setter that compete with the behemoth. It is a radical perception change in the industry for Apple. Its huge for them and a huge perceptual threat to Microsoft. Microsoft has spent so much time building a perception of dominance and invulnerability specifically so that it could bully others into accepting de facto standards in which it controlled critical intellectual property. But the house of cards is built on that perception alone. Now Apple has smashed that perception to smithereens- and Bill won't be able to put humptey dumptey back together again. Please respond to these kind of specific points rather than only responding to the trolls and flamebait and complaining about them.

"Again, choice is what we expect in the PC industry, and it seems like HP has given up this choice for a chance to grab cheap headlines and go with a single, incompatible, portable digital audio hardware vendor" How do you consider anything in the PC industry as choice when you're stuck in the world of a Windows 'only' culture? It's smoke and mirrors my friend and anything tied to Microsoft is not about choice, just the contrary! Ford's old motto; You can pick any color you want, as long as it's black. Microsoft's new motto: You can pick any music format you want, as long as it's WMA.

Actually, Paul, you are wrong about what you call Apple's "Protected AAC" being a closed standard. First, MPEG-4 AAC has DRM support built into the spec. Implementers of the container have a choice over which DRM system they use however. Apple chose to use Veridisc's DRM system called Fairplay. Fairplay can be licensed by any company to be used in their product. That means ANY company can license Fairplay and the AAC format and create a product compatible with iTunes Music Store files. Get your facts straight. Editor's note: MPEG-4 does not have any form of DRM "built into the spec" for audio, sorry. So companies that wish to support AAC must make their own. Thus, Apple made Fairplay and Real made its own DRM. Microsoft's DRM platform is closer to Real's in the sense that it's a true extensible, renewable platform, while Apple's is limited to their single-use model (one music store, run by Apple). Please feel free to get your facts straight. --Paul

Consumers have made a choice: in favor of Apple's AAC instead of WMA. The setback comes from Real, Microsoft, and others, in not choosing Apple's tech, and paying appropriate licensing fees.

WMA is an inferior, proprietary format. AAC is part of the MPEG-4 standard. I don't know if Apple has, but they need to release their DRM format of the AAC so that anyone can use DRM'd AAC files from any vendor. That will make the file format wide open for the industry. However, I don't think people really care about the format of the music they download. Opening the DRM portion of the format will allow them to use multiple stores for purchasing, increasing the amount of music available for their use. But it's not like the ITMS is an inferior store. It's browsing, sampling, purchasing and selection size are pretty much leading the pack by a sizable margin. Not to say there isn't room for improvment (open the DRM!), there is. One can always strive to be better.

LOL. Jeez. You are missing many points, I figure intentionally. Any legal music download system will have some measure of DRM in the downloaded files, whether they are acc or wmv or anything else. Otherwise the labels will not allow people to sell the music online. Other sources are almost certainly going to be unprotected mp3, which play everywhere and on everything, so that doesn't really matter. A cd ripped to mp3s will play on an ipod, on itunes, on WMP, on a Rio, etc... Back to the online purchased, protected files: Protected files are going to come in 3 main flavors: MS protected wmv files Apple protected ACC files Real protected ACC files Now. These protected files will only play on software players by each company. I.e. I can't play DRM'ed wmv in Itunes and I can't play DRM'ed ACC files in WMP. The same is true for the portables. They will all play unprotected mp3s, but only a very limited number of them support any of the DRM'ed (and hence legally downloadable) files. Of those players, ONE has a HUGE market share relative to the others. The iPod. So, any way you go, you are stuck with who ever supports the particular DRM format you are buying legally, it's just that with Apple you actually have a large (and growing) base of people who own players which support their format. They are no better or worse than MS's protected formats, they just have far more players/potential buyers. HP's choice makes sense for HP and for their customers.

Personally, I don't understand why people want the iPod to support WMA...anyone with the sense to buy the best music player isn't gonna want to buy their music from any store that isn't the best as well, and that's the iTMS...this is how Apple works. They don't support everything because not everything is good enough to live up to the expectations of their customers. It doesn't make sense to say that people with an iPod should be able to choose to buy worse sounding music from a worse music store...the iPod is not intended to be for those people who can live with mediocrity. Those people can buy a cheaper player that plays WMA and supports all the other music stores.

Which is it? "... the standards-based Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) format." "... the closed and proprietary Protected AAC format ..." Last I checked, anyone could license AAC as it's part of the mpeg-4 standard. As a reference: http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/standard.html. You can't have it both ways; pick one please. Apple doesn't support WMA (truly proprietary), but Microsoft -- which can license AAC -- has chosen to try and lock everyone into its format.

Wow, for someone who claims not to care which codecs or platforms win the day, you sure seem to be following the Microsoft party line pretty closely. Dave Fester claims Windows is all about choice. Apparently, it's all about choice if you choose is WMA ("you can have it in any color, as long as it's black"). HP's decision throws an alternative into the mix, and what shakes out could very well end up being better for consumers. If HP has really screwed up as you seem to think, well, dude, go buy a Dell and live in WMA paradise; after all, HP does not have a lock on the PC market. Or delete iTunes and install the whatever media software floats your boat. If HP integrates Apple's technology into a good PC experience --- something we can't rule out --- they've added more choice to the Windows platform. Surely that would make you and Dave "pro-choice" Fester happy? If nothing else, HP has clearly sent a signal to Redmond that they need to compete for HP's business. I wonder if Microsoft can remember how THAT's done, aside from spreading FUD or bundling products into their OS?

Resistance is futile. You and your iPod will be assimilated. Microsoft collective's proprietary WMA format will rule the digital age.

AAC is not closed and proprietary, unless you define closed as "public standard" and open as "controlled by a single corporation." Do your homework.

"You could make a case for either Protected AAC or WMA being a "de facto standard" for DRM-enabled digital music, certainly. --Paul" Well, actually, no. Since iTMS makes up 70% of the legal download market and the iPod is the #1 portable music player in the industry, then I would say Protected AAC is already the "de facto" standard in terms of sheer market share numbers. And complaining about Protected AAC being Apple-only and not a standard is beside the point. WMA is not a standard. Period. I don't care if five *billion* players support it and it owns 100% of the market. If it's created, engineered, and licensed by Microsoft, then it's not a standard. A *standard* is a well-documented technology created by a consortium of companies, organizations, and individual entities who all have a say in the direction of the standard. XML is a standard. OpenGL is a standard. MPEG2 is a standard, as is MPEG4/AAC. Protected AAC is not a standard, by this definition -- but WMA is *certainly* no better. Judging from your reader comments, nobody really agrees with you. Judging from industry buzz and the market share numbers, consumers don't really agree with you. But that's OK. Consumers don't really agree with me and a host of others when we say that it's insane to give 95%+ of the computer market to Microsoft. So keep on railing against the Apple music monopoly, Paul. If nothing else, it makes for quite...interesting...reading. Jared White

So you can use either AAC, MP3, WAV, or AIFF with iTunes and th iPod (as well as many, many other MP3 players that work with iTunes) on Mac OS, Windows, and even Linux; or, you can use ONLY WMF on ONLY Windows. You're also one click away from the Burn button on iTunes that will allow you to play your CD on pretty much any CD-player. What's wrong with Apple going with an open industry standard, AAC-MPEG4, versus a propriatary format such as Windows Media? This isn't trivial. Microsoft is whining because one of the largest PC manufacturers is teaming up with the most popular PC manufacturer, and neither of them is paying Microsoft a single penny. A 2-year-old could run Microsoft and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in their attitude.

I agree with one of the reader's comment below. Please reformat your article and reprint for all PC, Mac, and *nix users. I gave up reading your article after losing where next lines start for the third time. Thanks.

Perhaps WMP should support the protected AAC formats - afterall, Apple doesn't control them and it would be very easy to implement (being a programmer myself). Then there would be no lockin FUD. Considering a single hacker could prototype support for AAC and others (in a day or two), I ask the reader to the real question: "Considering the negliable cost, why doesn't Microsoft support AAC and other formats?". Keep it rolling Paul, it IS a HOOT!!!

Paul Thurrot needs to get his head screwed on correctly. He says : ""Windows is about choice, you can mix and match software and music player stuff. We believe you should have the same choice when it comes to music services." This is a false statement. He claims that, because the dominant OS in the market has a proprietary codec, this gives you a choice. Yes, it may give you a choice in which chunk of plastic you carry around to listen to music on, but with WMA Digital Rights Management, it explicitly RESTRICTS your choice of where, when, and how you can play your music, not to mention archive it or use it on a different, non-Microsoft platform. While there is a WMA player for OS X (I'm unsure about Linux), it is a *very* simple and basic player, and in actual use, has little practical application beyond playing one file. It is not a jukebox player/recorder/burner like iTunes and the numerous other jukebox packages out on the market. So not only does using WMA restrict your platform choice, but it also has stronger *built-in* restrictions. He also states that: Indeed, this **choice** characterizes the PC market. Whether the choice is Musicmatch Downloads, Napster 2.0, the Wal-Mart Music Store, or virtually every other online music store, each service uses the same WMA format for the songs users download, and all the songs are compatible with the same range of software and devices--including, incidentally, all the devices, portables, and Media Centers PCs that HP makes. Not only are these online music stores smaller than Apple's, but they are also less established, and have a MUCH smaller marketshare. Unless there is exponential growth in these services, the WMA-download market will be much smaller than AAC. Apple already has 3 of the top 5 selling MP3 players with their iPod (approx 30% market share of mp3 players, iirc). Combined with the 70% marketshare of iTMS (again, iirc), this means that 70% of the music-downloading market has not only chosen Apple's store, but they've also chosen Apple's portable audio player as well. All of this points to the fact that Apple is set up to be successful in establishing a *LESS* restrictive DRM service. They have set a standard for DRM, usability, and style for two reasons: they were the first to get their solution to market and they provide the most attractive option for legal downloads of music for consumers. Why *wouldn't* it be a good idea for one of the top computer manufacturers to partner with the market leader in usability and *choice* of numbers of uses for their digitally downloaded files. The reason there is not wider support for AAC is not that it is an inferior format or that it is proprietary (AAC is an file format open), it is because Microsoft is pushing it's own DRM file format on other companies. In this case, Apple is the innovating player in the market and Napster 2.0/Wallmart/MusicMatch/etc. with their WMA DRM are merely copying the business model that Apple pioneered. Why should HP settle for a lower-tier vendor when it can choose to partner with the market leader that consumers prefer? Paul Thurlott harps on Apple for being an "incompatible ... hardware vendor", and HP for partnering with them, but as every digital media file Apple sells is playable on at least 30% of the portable digital-audio hardware this can hardly be seen as an "incompatibility". Especially since Apple has made their music software, hardware, and digital media files available to both the Mac and PC markets. Mr. Thurlott should look beyond his devotion to Microsoft and their draconian WMA file standards and look at the *real* choice that Apple's iTMS provides. It provides consumers with a choice in hardware platforms, digital-audio hardware, operating systems, digital-audio file formats, and digital-audio software. In addition, Apple provides a superior MP3 player to use their digital-audio products with *AND* superiour options to *choose* which computer to play music from. Can you copy DRMed WMA files from one computer to another, authorize the computer over the internet, and have the SAME file availible on up to three different computers (Mac OR Windows)? No. Can you burn DRMed WMA files any number of times? No. (with the caveat that many other services charge extra for burning capabilities) The only real *choice* that WMA digital-audio providers offer is amongst lower quality MP3 products and cookie-cutter copies of Apple's business model, all the while restricting the consumer's operating system, computer hardware, back-up, copying, and playback choices EXTENSIVELY. Welcome to a capitalist free-market. Choice is good. Apple seems to provide a better legal music downloading alternative to its WMA clones, from file formats to platforms. This is not a setback of "the convergence of PCs and consumer electronics [for] an untold number of years," because with Apple's superior set of software, the convergence of computers and consumer electronics is already here. (and by the way, the people who have money to afford iPods have that much more money to buy music at the iTMS, only increasing Apple's marketshare further).

You sir are an idiot.

Windows is not about choice, it's about vendor lock-in. Is it likely that I'll be able to play WMA legally under Linux without some kind of no-doubt-DMCA-prohibited reverse-engineering? In my humble opinion, I'll aver that I have 'choice' when the iPod and other portable media players support the open and non-DRM Ogg Vorbis format and I'm entirely free to rip all my lawfully purchased CDs to this format using my choice of OS and encoder. For the record, I have an iPod which is currently full of tracks ripped by me from CDs I own. Am I breaking any laws? Have I injured anyone?

As if any of this MATTERS! THE WORLD IS GOING TO END IN 30 DAYS YOU FOOL! HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!! Editor's note: LOL. --Paul

"Windows is about choice," Microsoft General Manager of Windows Digital Media Division Dave Fester said during the recent 2004 International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, Nevada. "You can mix and match software and music player stuff. We believe you should have the same choice when it comes to music services." As long as the choice is not concerning your choice of browser, office components, operating system. Windows provides you with a certain degree of choice, however without releasing the API, Windows also constricts programmers choice. Windows has never been about choice, only about dominating a market through force. Some very poor software backed by an excellent buisness plan.

If Apple and HP are so bad ('setting back the convergence'; nicely messianic language here), then won't users just turn to the other options and buy their portable music players/music elsewhere? After all, you're talking about all this choice that MS and WMA, etc. offers, and if Apple/HP are offering as bad a deal as you claim, won't consumers just go elsewhere? Sounds to me like you're just annoyed that you can't have the superior products they offer a la carte. Well it's their perogative to sell them in the way they choose, and it's yours is to criticize, but this doom and gloom prophesizing makes me wonder if your real worry is that there is no competition, and that consumers will decide that Apple/iPod/iTMS/HP is the best option, and choose that. If not, and you think consumers will exercise their choice to choose WMA, then what's the fuss?

Yea Wendy, Dido. Paul is misinformed and has his head up Microsoft's nether regions. "...Apple and HP have just set back the convergence of PCs and consumer electronics an untold number of years." Ummm hasn't this convergence already happened? Isn't Apple one of the prime movers of this convergence? Hey Paul, get back in your time machine and join us all in the year 2004.

"... But that won't help iPod users choose between the numerous WMA online music stores on the Web, or help people with WMA libraries play their music on their iPods. --Paul" Paul, you speak as if all iPod owners (both wintel and apples) think WMA is the better codec. Why would people who already own an iPod choose a format of roughly the same quality over AAC? Why would people with an iPod want to use a online music store of lesser quality than the iTMS? Is it only music bought from online stores that work on iPods etc.? Last thing, does the iPod support MP3? Paul, the iPod is great. If you dont like the formats the iPod sports, buy another player!

With all due respect, it is absolutely insane to buy Microsoft's argument that Apple's technologies are bad because it is incompatible with the windows world. The "windows world" they are referring to is WMA, a Microsoft format that is only dominant because of Microsoft's rampant anti-trust violations. It is extremely disingenious to suggest that Apple's technology is bad because it is not compatible with Microsoft's.

Your lack of history knowledge astonishes me. "Apple has a chance to change the world (something that Apple has always promised but never really accomplished)..." Apple has certainly changed the world in the past. They had the first commercially successful GUI for a computer, which certainly has changed the world in BIG ways. They have also kept the computer market on its toes by mass-pushing things like standard USB & Firewire, DVD-R and Gigabit ethernet. That's not to mention the iLife apps, which bring things like digital video editing and DVD creation to the "little people." I'm not saying that Microsoft hasn't changed the world, I don't want to get into a pissing contest. But to say that they haven't changed the world is simply ignorant.

Yeah, good job setting the paragraph font-size to x-small. That's real easy on the eyes, I promise.

Your number one concern is not consumers but rather yourself and your huge kickback cheques you get from Microsoft.

Sorry but in this case Apple is NOT the one using proprietary technology. They are NOT as you claim, "an island of incompatibility." They are using a widely accepted standard. The acronym AAC does NOT contain the word Apple. It stands for Advanced Audio Codec. It does not belong to Apple. The acronym WMA does contain the word Windows and reflect Microsoft's attempts to enfold the audio world with the same anti-trust violating strategy that they applied to the computing world. Luckily, I don't think that, as Johnny come latelies to the game, Microsoft has the marketing clout or even the acumen to eradicate choice as they did in the PC world, or much of anything past the business desktop. This is not about PCs which are a small market compared to the general audio market. And the choice referred to by Microsoft has become synonymous with under-handed coercion, back-room dealing and arm twisting of the general public's suppliers. William H. Gates took his fortune directly from your pockets by not giving you a choice. If you had had a choice, you would never pay so much money to Microsoft. That is why he doesn't try presenting a bill to the end consumer. Consumers don't buy Microsoft products. They were simply left without a choice as manufacturers were coerced into buying Microsoft products. And Microsoft has repeatedly been caught in "flagrate delicto." Nobody in their right minds would opt for a virus prone, worm prone and Trojean horse prone, shoddy operating system or email client. How would you like to be ministered to by an over-priced doctor who has repeatedly been found guilty of over chaging your HMP and of assorted malpractice? How would you like to have no choice about it because he has quietly aborted every new doctor in a back-room abortion clinic.

Well, after sorting through your various outrageous comments like "Apple and HP have just set back the convergence of PCs and consumer electronics an untold number of years", it's clear you lack real insight. Not only do you display a lack of technical understanding, you clearly lack a basic understaning of economic principles. Quite simply, let the market decide. Clearly, people care not for the best solution technically. Otherwise, Windows wouldn't be so pervasive. With respect to your comments about WMA and protected AAC licensing, both companies are operating differently. That's all. Microsoft uses its position to dump cheap licensing of WMA, while Apple uses it's early market leadership to try and lock out the competition. Based on what I've read here, you'd be best suited to a "Windows tip of the day" column. You seem to be incapable of ofering any unique insight into the matter.

Sorry bub, but AAC is a subset of the latest revision of MPEG. Think of it as next-gen MP3. Nothing proprietary about the codec. The DRM wrapper is proprietary, but the same can be said about WMA (WMA is not an "open" codec, however). Personally, I won't buy either one. DRM tainted, compressed audio at almost the same price as a CD hold no appeal.

Any Windows machine with QuickTime and that has been registered with iTunes Music Store can play any iTMS song, since QT unencodes the tune in the background. Users can also take an iTMS album, burn to CD, and re-encode into whatever they want it to be. The "issue" that some may have is dropping WMA files into iTunes to place on the iPod...the iPod will not play them. However, any mp3 file will do just fine. The iPod and iTunes have full windows compatibility.

Paul said: > choice is what we expect in the PC industry And if it were true, Microsoft would put playback of AAC music files into Media Player/Center. We have choices, but more and more that choice is to use software from non-Microsoft sources. Why you think this "set[s] back the convergence of PCs and consumer electronics an untold number of years" is beyond me.

The DRM'd AAC that Apple uses is far simpler to deal with than the DRM'd WMA that MS uses. at the iTMS ALL the songs have the SAME DRM. now go look at other on-line "Music Stores", different songs have different "terms" or licensing agreements, what a pain in the arse! its no mystery why HP chose iTunes and the iPod.

"...giving Apple the type of corporate lock-in for which Microsoft is often (and, in the case of digital media, unfairly) criticized." Unfairly criticized? Is that "unfairness" due only to the fact that Microsoft does not YET have a lock on the DRM-audio format? Boo hoo! for poor Microsoft. I shed a tear for their lack of monopoly in music delivery. You should really stop smoking crack at work. It affects your rational thought processes.

I think you are missing the point. Apple's AAC is what people want. It's less strict than WMA, and if you have an iPod or use Apple's iTunes software, than where is the compatiblity issue? I use both a Mac and a PC, and iTunes works excellent on both. And, song bought off the iTunes store I have more choices with than WMA. Plus, iTunes Store has way more music. So, I don't see your point.

WOW! I thought I was looking at another Universe there for a moment. Microsoft championing Openness... comeon, what a joke! MS is just whining because they're (at the moment) on the ropes with regards to the iPod.

This is silly. This article makes it sound like WMA is the de-facto standard for digital music. It's not even close. MP3 use dwarfs everything; the other formats aren't even a blip on the radar. The WMA vs. AAC debate is all about what second-tier DRM (digital rights management) scheme will be used for buying music - will it be Microsoft's DRM or Apple's? Since Apple has 70% of the legal market for downloading digital music, and the vastly larger illegal market is almost exclusively MP3, the article's implication that WMA is what "most people have" just doesn't add up. WMA use lags AAC by a long ways - and both are so far behind MP3 that they don't even show up in MP3's rear-view mirror.

I'm interested in knowing how much Microsoft pay you to run this site. How much did it take to buy you?

"Windows is about choice" This is the funniest thing I've read in a *long* time. Choice, like the ability to play WMA on any platform? Sure...

<> Umm, how about this entire article. Is that specific enough?

"... iPods have sold phenomenally well, and with 30 million paid iTunes Music Store downloads, one could even argue that the Protected AAC format is on a roll by default. But the PC market is many times larger than that figure..." Comparing Apples and Oranges (i.e., downloads vs. installed PC's) aren't you? Sorta desparate to make some points. Too bad you'll never post this.

You have this bizarre concept that Apple and HP are "furthering compatability problems" when it is actually Microsoft's insistence on the non-standard WMA format that is causing all the problems in this area. If MS used real standards (like AAC) then this would be a non-issue and the customers would truly have choice. It is, as usual, Microsoft's monopolistic "we know what's best for you so do it our way - or else" attitude that is, as usual, screwing the customer. HP has made an excellent choice. They are licensing superior quality hardware that uses superior quality, standards based, media formats. Sounds like one hell of a win for both HP and HP customers.

I actually agree with most of the arguments made in the article, and am sorry that a lot of anti-Microsoft people will just dismiss it. Myself, I hope AAC wins because as a mac user I don't have good WMA support. Compatibility isn't a big deal for me, I just play all my music in iTunes. Even though there is a Microsoft "tax" on what it controls, it still ends up cheaper than Apple products. Editor's note: Here's the irony. I use MP3 format and an iPod too, so the compatibility stuff isn't a huge issue for me personally. I've purchased over 200 songs from the iTunes Music Store. What I'm writing here is about the wider world, the normal users, the people who wont understand why their purchased AAC songs won't work on their Media Center PCs, their iPAQs, their set-top boxes, or whatever HP products they may own. MP3 would work. WMA would work. AAC no workie. But hey, I'm an Apple hater for mentioning it. --Paul

Funny, I've never used WMA myself. MP3 already works great and is portable across many different platforms. I'm hard pressed to find any Windows users who actually use WMA for anything. Rather than just asserting that WMA is "widely used" in the Wintel world, how about backing that assertion up with some hard numbers and citing your sources?

You neglect to mention a few parts of the AAC format that are significantly different from WMA. It's very easy for CDs of purchased songs on both Apple Macintosh computers AND Windows machines.....unlike WMA. Secondly, WMA is not part of the firmware in the iPod, anywhere. You cannot play a protected WMA file on anything other than a Windows PC with the proper version installed....meanwhile Apple has the nerve to support its own OS and take a format that, sans DRM, also works on *gasp* the fastest-growing OS in the world at this point in time....LINUX. Oh, and btw, you've been /.'ed

You neglect to mention a few parts of the AAC format that are significantly different from WMA. It's very easy for CDs of purchased songs on both Apple Macintosh computers AND Windows machines.....unlike WMA. Secondly, WMA is not part of the firmware in the iPod, anywhere. You cannot play a protected WMA file on anything other than a Windows PC with the proper version installed....meanwhile Apple has the nerve to support its own OS and take a format that, sans DRM, also works on *gasp* the fastest-growing OS in the world at this point in time....LINUX. Oh, and btw, you've been /.'ed

I happen to use non-windows Operating systems including Linux, FreeBSD and Mac OS X. Personally, I happen to disagree with the idea that drm'd wma files are better than AAC. The reason for this is because wma is not an open standard and for most people, the only way to use them is to buy a ia32/Win32 machine. On the other hand, it is now possible to use drm'd music in the open AAC format with all of the above platforms. And since it isn't proprietary like wma, anybody who really wants to can make a player. I do agreee that a large number of devices already support wma, but that doesn't make it any more of an "open" standard--it simply means that these companies have licensing agreements with microsoft. Additionally, the iTunes software permits the end user to make as many cds as he (or she) wishes. Often, this is not possible with the other music stores, or if it is, it usually only allows the music to be burned a very limited number of times. The iPod is still capable of playing standard mp3s. Your claim that "Apple and HP have just set back the convergence of PCs and consumer electronics an untold number of years" is practically a laughable one. If consumers value using closed proprietary formats, such as wma, then so be it. Nothing prevents them from purchasing devices that do. Perhaps consumers really are too stupid to realize that the music that they purchase in the wma formats will not work on the iPod, but hey--drm is all about taking rights away from the consumer to move it onto different devices, right?

maybe a few linebreaks, paragraphs and a bigger font, otherwise its just a big block of text that nobody is going to read

"Apple has a chance to change the world (something that Apple has always promised but never really accomplished)" Um yeah. How much is your stipend from MS? Did you sleep through the Apple ][, the Macintosh GUI (avialable to consumers), plug and play, WYSIWYG, etc, etc, etc. Ever seen a firewire camcorder?

In the end consumers don't care about formats - they just want it to work reasonably well - as well as their mates' gear, which doesn't really. Why else would they tolerate generations of bug-ridden and security-porous versions of Windows as if it's the only game in the town? Why is every trojan horse attack now somehow the victim's fault for failing to install every last virus protection/security patch/firewall update that Microsoft issues? And what do lawyers care about? Rights protection - the business equivalent of the world's current obsession with "security". So Apple comes up with a variation on open standards that offers copy protection and Windows users scream "proprietary"? After Microsoft's "extensions" to open standards like HTML that, until Safari, meant the only browser that would work on most sites was IE, because they were built only for IE! The mere existence of legal online music is due to the legal necessity, at the expense of technical convenience, of some form of rights protection. Apple was first to stitch a deal together that didn't reek of Napster, and is reaping the rewards. Geeks who want their music downloads to remain unencumbered in open formats are dreaming - or intent on flouting copyright. People who just want to buy and listen to their favorite, current tracks won't have a problem with Apple, HP, or Protected AAC (which, bit for bit, sounds better than VBR MP3) - they'll be listening to their music, on their iPods, or using iTunes on their PCs. Is that SO much worse than MS's attempts to make Windows Media, and its player, the de facto world standard?

Paul: Your strong bias against Apple is plain in this article. You're welcome to your bias, but it's disappointing to see how it keeps you from clear, honest reporting. With millions of iPods sold and 30 million paid songs, the AAC format is hardly "on a roll by default." When a company creates a simple, powerful tool to consumers that empowers them to listen to music where and how they want to, this is known as SUCCESS. And contrary to your comments, Apple hasn't promised to change the world. But they do offer computing solutions to change your life. And for this user who has given-up a Windows-Only bias and found incredible power and flexibility in the Apple world, they've done just that.

Perhaps I am poorly informed, but considering that I own both an iPod and a Windows CE device, I do not believe that I am. Your prime contention that this decision will hurt the industry because of Apple's use of the AAC file format, whereas Microsoft's 'Open' Windows Media Format is a better solution? Based upon my own experience, the WMA format is no more 'Open' than AAC. I would further contend that the Digital Rights Management that is embedded into the WMA format is far more invasive and disconcerting to the consumer than AAC is. But then, that is the core of the problem is it not? Digital Rights Management, because otherwise this whole discussion is irrelevant, as the truly 'Open' standards, MP3 (Mpeg1 layer 3 audio) as patented by Fraunhauffer, or the Open Source 'OGG' formats would be at the core of all these devices. Considering that today, both client side player technologies, iTunes or Windows Media Player support MP3, as do RealPlayer and the myriad of other programs, it would seem that the real complaint is with the 'Online Stores' that support these clients. This is where Microsoft's claims should be falling on deaf ears, because Windows Media Format is no more 'Open' than Apple's AAC. If a partner is willing to pay the royalties and license the Digital Rights Management, and support a given online store's media format, they are just as welcome at Apple's door as they are at Microsoft's. I think this HP deal is clear evidence that Apple is commited to making the iPod and the iTunes music store more accessible, and the iPod available in other forms through other vendors. In summary, I submit that iTunes is in fact more open than the Windows Media, and the upcoming Microsoft efforts to sell music. The problem that Microsoft has with it is not that it's not Open, but that Microsoft does not control it. Considering that the dubius claim of WMA being a superior format has not made it a default standard, and has not eroded the use of MP3 or OGG, nor is it in fact outperforming the AAC format in usage, this sounds more like a case of defending ones turf through the creation of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Should you wish to discuss this further, I would happily do so, you have but to email me.

"Windows is about choice" ... as long as Microsoft agrees with you "choice."

Hi, AAC is really MPEG-4, and iPod can play Nero AAC files. So Apple is the one using standard technology, but a proprietary copy protection (like WMA and Real). Apple has the best right-to-copy policy. iTunes can burn CDs and MP3 CDs. So converting to MP3 is simple. What we have right now is probably not setting the convergence back a few years, but probably speeding it up. Not many making those embeeded boxes are using Windows, where WMA belongs. Kiss Technology who is a tech leader uses Linux, and they are not alone. No - an independent format would be best, but the existing solution is better than WMA which is Windows only. Apple can likely be convinced to deliver code that runs on other platforms.

no mention of winamp 5... also plays .aac files.... :)

your an absolute IDIOT.

Pretty interesting! So if a company doesn't follow Microsoft/Windows standards, it's suddenly a HUGE issue. LOL... too funny.

Ummm, WMA is a fringe codec not used by many people (just search Kazaa!), definately not widespread. MP3 is the current universal standard (not just popular), meaning the iPOD is a very compatable player in the Windows world. Real player 10 AAC IS compatable with songs downloaded from the iTunes store according to the company. Anyway, you can burn the AAC to to CD in MP3 and play on any audio device that supports MP3, witch is ALL of them. Should be be many AAC compatable devices soon as iTunes popularity grows, HP is just one of the first mainstream PC vendors to offer it, Dell just blew it! "Windows is about choice," AS LONG AS EVERYTHING IS COMPATABLE WITH MICROSOFTS GROWING PROPRIETARY AUDIO/VIDEO FORMATS! Ha. I could say some on-line music stores (Wal-Mart, Napster, Musicmatch) offer songs only in a limited quality, proprieary WMA format which is not widely used and is incompatable with the most poular hrad-drive based portable audio player, the iPOD. Do you realize you (apparently speaking for Microsoft) are saying: it's ok to standardize on Microsoft technology but not Apple's, which bases it's format, AAC, on an open standard! The DRM (Digital Rights Management) used by the on-line stores is necessary to allow the stores to sell music! HP just deemed the Apple offering superior to the WMA (and Wimdows Media Player) solution. The iPOD works seamlessly with iTunes, Mac or Windows, and is the best offering out there right now for portable and/or PC based digital audio(seen the Napster, Creative or Dell players, yikes...).

Apple hasn't changed the world? I assume this article was written using WordPerfect for DOS 6.2 then. And almost every format that attempts to use some kind of digital rights technology has some kind of problem as far as the tech media is concerned. Apple's AAC is no less a standard than Microsoft's WMA.

I think your a misinformed fool, the AAC files can be EASILY changed into a MP3 or a audio disk.

first off, it pains me to read all the "Mac vs PC" chest beating from the other posters here. I use what I use, you use what you use. We should all be demanding common standards. Since we don't have a common standard (somebody create an open DRM for MP3 or Ogg), I'll use what my favorite toys need to use. I like my iPod, ergo I use AAC. It makes no difference to me if WMA is licensed to 500 other vendors, I'm not buying their stuff. You want to sell to me, better make it compatible to my iPod. As you point out, the industry is very young, so why wouldn't HP go with the best selling and very successful tools? Microsoft is a 500 pound gorilla, but not in this space, and they have shown time and time again that they can be slow to the plate and not always on the mark. I am mystified that Apple hasn't licensed the DRM for AAC (AAC is an open standard, right?). But thats their business...But if they want to continue to be a player, they better start licensing soon, before the iPod loses its cachet...

Good job Paul. Keep saying that Apple sucks. When Microsoft goes out of business one day, you will lose your job too.

"HP will make its many products compatible with the closed and proprietary Protected AAC format Apple uses" So wait wait wait... now Apple has to make it's products compatible with the closed and proprietary Protected WMA format Microsoft uses? I think call that "turnabout is fairplay." I would hardly call WMA open and free. It's just as proprietary as AAC, which, in turn can be licensed by anyone (witness Real)... try doing THAT with WMA! "HP was requiring Apple to add WMA support to the iPod, a feature that's natively enabled in the iPod's firmware but that Apple disables before the units ship to customers" Stop that! How do you know that? If you're going to make a (false?) claim like that, CITE A SOURCE.

how is wma "open" and aac not? Now, if you were to say that ogg vorbis is an open standard then you would be right. wma is owned by microsoft, and apple owns their aac version. Just because everyone else licenses wma does not make it "open". It just goes to show how much monopoly Microsoft has, if anything they license out is deemed "open", and anything their competitor licenses out is deemed "not open". -Tai

Dude, you don't know your ass from your elbow on these articles. MP3 is the GOLD STANDARD for music audio. I don't know a single person here in our office of HUNDREDS of people that uses WMA for audio files at ALL. Legal downloads? If anyone here even bothers with it, I guarantee it won't be in WMA format for more than 1 minute after it's on the HD. iPod? I think 5 or 6 people here have them. They play MP3's. That's what people care about. WMA? AAC? There are plenty of tools running around to convert them to MP3. I think you need to lay off the crack.

Paul, I think your ignoring a very important distinction between iTunes (and apple's AAC) and various places WMA stores, and that is the differences in DRM. The iTMS allows users to do much more with their music and is consistent with right allowed throughout the store. With the WMA stores right vary from song to song and are (in general) much more restrictive than the iTMS. I believe consumers really to pay attention to this and prefer Apple's way of doing things. -ryan

For the eleventy-thousandth time: There is nothing "proprietary" about iTunes songs. The AAC format was developed by a consortium, none of whose members are Apple. Apple licensed it from them just like anyone else can. Fairplay, the DRM technology Apple uses, is owned by Veridisc and was licensed to Apple as well.

I'm interested in how you first state that AAC is "standards-based", then continue to argue that Apple has a corporate lock in for digital media. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something but it sounds like anyone is free to make an AAC player and they don't even have to pay Apple royalties. In this case HP will pay license fees for the iPod and iTunes, but not for a codec. In fact, doesn't Sony use AAC ause you didn't state all the facts and your arguments contradicted ones you did state. My interpretation of Apples decision to use AAC is simply that they used an available standard instead of reinventing the wheel, what's wrong with this, if only more companies used it?

The only overlap are the folks having WMA, Real AAC and/or Apple AAC files together on the same computer. Really, how many users are there with the above situation ? Who's relentlessly pushing digitally music out the door besides Apple ? Most of the other players are just taking the "Build it and they will come" mentality. Also, you should forget about the one single format for digital music pipedream in the short term. MS, Sony and Apple are not going to allow it to happen... until 2 of them give up. Instead technology can fill the gap to make things seamless. Let's say the objective is to provide a seamless experiences to users... Case 1. No hardware MP3 players. As long as the file extensions allow Windows to select the right player automatically to play the songs, I don't think they'd care. Anyway, RealPlayer 10 has solved this issue. Case 2. User has iPod For illegally downloaded music, users will convert them to MP3. However users cannot download protected WMA files (30% legal share) into iPod. As long as Apple does its branding well, average consumers will be aware of the incompatible WMA files. So they'd avoid it. The issue will resolve itself by: (i) Apple pulling away from its competitors via HP, Pepsi, AOL and even more official and unofficial partnerships like RealNetwork (so that 30% figure will decrease); or (ii) Microsoft or subsidiaries should embrace and extend Apple's encoded AAC since it's the minority guy here (If Real can do it, why not MS ?). What's so valuable about WMA other than MS has thrown a lot of money into it (I don't personally care). Case 3. User has WMA player Illegally downloaded users can still listen to MP3 ? free iTune music cannot be listened on these hardware players. Big deal. Purchased iTune music (70% legal share) cannot be listened on said players. This is an opportunity, I'm sure someone open source guy can make it happen based on Jon's released code. Again no issue soon. MS doesn't have to do a thing. So it seems that to prevent hurting the consumer, MS should adopt support for AAC instead of Apple adopting WMA. It's the one who rope in partners to invest in WMA and failed to market it properly anyway. Once the AAC support is done all of MS's partners can also increase their utility from 30% to 100%. Sounds fair to me ;^) What do you think ?

Can you tell us when Apple will add WMA-support to the iPod since it seems like this is a hoax? By hoax I mean respectible news agencies have reported the exact opposite.

HP should support WMA with their iPod. Believe it or not, most audio content on PCs are MP3 and WMA. (Yes, WMA probably because Media Player supports WMA ripping without a cost... and it's very fast and easy.) This isn't even taking into account protected content. Apple can only gain customers. I know numerous folks that would need to convert their content into MP3 or AAC if they wanted to use an iPod. This is just lame... lossy to lossy conversion SUCKS.

The "protected AAC format" has already been cracked by the infamous DVD Jon of decss fame, HP are extremely powerful and apple are desperate to not be viewed as an outsider anymore. What make you think that HP wont make it possible for thier users to convert these files to MP3 or WMA for playback on Win MCE boxes?

Wow, I didn't know you guys were a MS PR outfit...Shame. Where is the honesty holnestly? -ron

I choose to listen to Microsoft WMA music on my Linux box. Thank you for the choice, Microsoft!!!!!

First of all Paul, congratulations on an impressive demonstration of how far, wide and fast FUD can be spread in the internet age. From just a few lines on web sites owned or controlled by you and over a period of just a few days you managed to convince a lot of people of something that I believe you knew to be patently untrue, i.e. that HP was adding WMA support to its iPods. Indeed you may have been "told" something along these lines from an HP janitor or cafeteria worker last week, but in today's column you even admitted that the HP personnel you spoke to a CES didn't have their stories straight. I don't think you are an idiot -- in fact I believe you knew perfectly well the chance of WMA support in iTunes was zero -- so I guess that just makes you a tool. The response from Redmond so far has been absolutely laughable. Fester's up in arms over choice. But why is choice in hardware good and choice in download services good, but choice in formats or operating systems bad? Last I checked I couldn't play any DRM'd WMA files on any of my Macs, leaving me out in the cold with respect to all those terrific new download services and groovy new portable devices. Thank god I've got an iPod and iTMS! Nope it seems to me that Microsoft, in their frenzy to protect consumer choice, neglected one little thing -- that maybe their OEMs like HP wanted some choice too! Oh, and one more thing, stop spreading the lie that Apple refuses to license FairPlay. They have been on record since the opening of iTMS for Windows as welcoming opportunities to work with other companies wanting to help advance what has become -- like it or not -- the new standard.

"...and potential music sales to all PC users is an order of magnitude larger than anything Apple could handle by itself. " Why? Has there been any proof that Apple's music sales do not scale well to a really large market? Apple is selling songs right now to the entire PC market, and I have not heard of any problems with it.

The issue is the restrictions that are being forced on us, the consumers and users of digital content, by the media companies. Every portable played supports MP3 format and if the record companies wanted to be consumer friendly they would allow commercial MP3s to be sold. Then all the stores and players would interoperate. Forcing the content into a limited protected content is what is limiting choice. Microsoft saying that a MS only solution is a choice is false. Any solution that ties one to a single vendor eliminates choice, whether that vendor is Apple or Microsoft.

Brian's right, this is worth a chuckle. Only a man whose own picture appears in front of a giant "Windows" banner could with a straight face claim that it's Apple, with its MPEG-4-based AAC format, that has a "closed and proprietary" approach as compared to Microsoft's WMA. Only such a man could claim that the format used by the nascent Napster 2.0, Wal-Mart music store -- all of which add up to less than a third of the market -- somehow represent a smarter choice than a multi-platform solution for the world's best-selling music player and the world's best-selling music store. Convenient, too, that he claims he doesn't care which codec wins in the market -- but then devotes an entire column to badmouthing the entry of the one viable alternative.

derrr, sorry this article is kinda rediculous. since hp pc's will ship with the itunes music store installed, it seems like the hp pc's won't have much of a problem at all playing apples protected aac files. incidentally, you need itunes to even get the protected aac files, so i don't really see a problem in any way. seeing as the ipod has the majority marketshare, and the itms was available first, the mediocre music downloading services from other companies are the one's causing the incompatabilities. you point out that wma is widespread in the pc world, but given the ipod's marketshare and the fact that it doesn't support wma, that seems to be a misinformed observation. really there are too many variables, and more fundamental problems with this aticle than can be discussed here. incidentally, i own a dell, and have never owned an apple computer, and likely never will.

What a load of crock. Windows is about choice? Then why can't I take my WMA encoded song to another computer, or different OS? And heaven forbid you have to rebuild your machine cause the OS has gotten flakey, poor performance what not. Then your songs you have legally purchased won't work cause your license won't match your machine specs.

Hey Paul, thanks for being such a dumbass. It gives us at slashdot something to ridicule on a regular basis. Oh, and whoever's running the website needs to learn how to make it more readable.

What has Microsoft in a tizzy is not the desire to bring "choice" to users. Redmond quakes because, for the first time, Microsoft has failed to use its operating system monopoly to force a major manufacturer to exclude a competitor's product in favor of its own. It fears an opening of the floodgates. This is Netscape vs IE in a brand new arena. Microsoft simply wants to use its market power to muscle in on another company's innovation. In this case, HP found Apple's solution more elegant. Let's hope this trend continues, because every time Microsoft wins a war over "standards" the result is mediocrity for the masses. Paul, you are just a propaganda tool for the monopolist.

I'm bothered by the assumption that Microsoft sets the standards in this world. Sometimes (I might say often) Microsoft introduces standards that falter at the beginning -- and may even be technically inferior -- but the assumption is that they'll become dominant eventually because they are, after all, from Microsoft. With this assumption everyone jumps on board to support Microsoft's standards (nobody wants to back a loser, even a technically superior loser), and then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm speaking in general terms because this isn't just about music, I've seen the same thing happen with WWW standards, with programming languages, with APIs (such as Direct3D). What bothers me even more is the assumption, from some quarters, is that this state of affairs is good. If other companies, like Apple, would just quit trying to rock the boat with their competing standards and simply accept whatever Microsoft comes up with -- well then, everything would be so much easier wouldn't it? No incompatibilities, no confusion for the consumer, everything runs smoothly. Competition is disruption, chaos. There are problems with this vision. A lot of companies want a piece of Microsoft's pie. They ask themselves, "Microsoft has never been shy about trying to challenge a standard they didn't invent, so why should we back down from challenging theirs?" A lot of other people don't feel comfortable with Microsoft being the unquestioned czar of the computer industry, making decisions for us. Plus, there's a tendency for innovation to sort of dry up after Microsoft gets a lock on any particular standard -- notice how long it's been since Internet Explorer saw major new features. So, I think competition is something we need, even if we pay the price once in a while with format confusion. With regard to HP hooking up with Apple. . . . The ultimate key difference seems to be that Microsoft licenses out WMA so that other companies can build WMA players, but Apple doesn't license their version of protected AAC in the same way. The assumtion is that Apple never will -- but has anybody asked them? AAC and Fairplay don't even belong to Apple if I recall rightly, so does Apple even have the means to block other companies from using it?

Quote from article: "...Apple has a chance to change the world (something that Apple has always promised but never really accomplished)" No more floppy disk drives widespread adoption of USB Firewire Digital Video editing An innovative compromise to the problem of illegal music-sharing and expensive music CDs the Longhorn interface These and many other 'world-changing' innovations brought to you by a computer company that, while not without its own problems, is certainly more a company of innovation, standards, and choice than is Microsoft.

It's me again. I read through the list... you know, every now and then, some company will manage to succeed in dictating the direction for the entire industry. Why can't we just accept this possibility and move forward ? If Apple sits on its laurels based on its protected AAC, I'm pretty sure someone will come around and beat it at its game. Apple seems to keep encoded AAC specification secret perhaps from the pirates and Microsoft from further fragmenting it with "embrace and extend" strategy ? May be some third party like Creative is in the process of negotiating with Apple to produce AAC devices ? I think it's unfair to say that Apple intentionally held back protected AAC licensing. No one on this website knows what happens daily in Apple anyway.

Um, sorry to burst the bubble, but the iPod IS the standard portable digital audio player, and iTMS IS the standard for online music distribution. The others' market shares aren't even CLOSE. So you can call WMA the 'standard' all you want ... the numbers don't lie, and Apple is ahead of the curve. Keep in mind, 1 million free songs coming from Pepsi - that's going to drive a LOT of people to buy iPods, either from Apple or HP, further entrenching the AAC (which is an open, standards based codec) format as the de facto standard. That's just the way it is.

Paul, I think you are missing the point. If iPods continue fly off the shelves as they have been these past few months then Apple's AAC/Fairplay will become the defacto standard and NOT WMA. Just because Microsoft control 95% of all desktops does not mean they become the defacto standard for everything they produce on their platform (Windows). HP is right. Customers just want to download a song, play it on their PC and on their iPod in a seemless way. There are plenty of other music providers out there who have been around for several months and they are not successful. If the download-play on portable player-share with others PCs was as easy and comfortable for consumers as the iPod-iTunes then Apple's solution would fall by the way-side. You are also overhyping the issue of WMA. The interface to the iPod is iTunes. If the consumer buys an HP music player (iHPod), he/she will use iTunes for buying new songs. If his/her existing songs are WMA then iTunes will probably import them (convert) seemlessly so the consumer will never even know the songs were not compatible. The only issue will be the DRM-infected WMAs from other music stores. I'm willing to place a small wager that other music stores will offer AAC/Fairplay encoded songs in due course - when the iPod, iHPod (and other licensees) place the iPod/iTMS in the 90%+ marketshare bracket. Apple have already stated that they don't make any money from iTMS and it's just a vehicle to drive iPods. Therefore it is reasonable to assume Apple will license Fairplay when other music stores start asking for it. The AAC is already an industry standard and open. WMA is NOT an industry standard; it's a monopoly standard and propriatory. I'm fed up of Microsoft apologists who assume that anything not Microsoft is propriatory and going as far as continually mis-communicating this to consumers.

At the risk of sounding like an Apple apologist (or fanatic if you like....): 1. AAC format is available for licensing (as is WMA). The DRM is certainly proprietary - this is inevitable and clearly nothing Apple will ever be able to impact. There is no difference here either - the WMA DRM is proprietary. 2. What is different from the Windows' choice picture you have already painted? Once iTunes is installed, there is no incompatability. In addition to this iTunes also offers the ability to burn mp3 playlists to CD (certainly on my Mac it does...I'm not about to install it on Windows, pay for music just to test it....I buy all my music on good old CDs thank you very much!) There is only one semi-valid point to your entire article - it is an inconvenience to the user to have to install another piece of software onto Windows...but being the 'de-facto standard' due to numbers shipped is hardly a strong counter arguement.......you would argue against someone trying to advance and protect their market position? Steve

This is a funny article. I don't understand why you are so scared of ipods and itunes? have you ever used them before? It's the best service out there. ACC is much better and supiorer then WMA. You should really give it a try.

What in the world is wrong with having one digital standard that is not dominated by Microsoft. If having one company dominate and entire segment of a market (say, oh, maybe...operating systems) is okay some of the time, then why not this time? I submit it would be better to have Apple dominate with digital music realm than having the same company (MS) dominate both the OS and digital music. The thrust of the argument seems to be, "well the rest of the world uses Windows and WMA so we should just make it simple and use it also." Obviously, by that logic, all software companies should go ahead and shut their doors since any MS software will, by default, control the "rest of the world" since MS control 95% of the desktop OS market. We should support non-Microsoft standards of any kind if we want a healthy technology environment.

The comments you make are rather shocking. You claim that: "Apple has a chance to change the world (something that Apple has always promised but never really accomplished" This is absolutely ridiculous. The Mouse, GUI, wireless networking, Firewire, DVD burning, and even the WINDOWS KEY were all pioneered by Apple. Apple has the most successfull online movie trailer website with Quicktime. Now we have the iTunes music store which is changing the way the world distributes music. How can you say Apple has not changed the world ? As other users have said: "you've been living under a rock for the last 20 years." You also talk as if WMA is some "Great", OPEN standard. It is not, it is a proprietary Microsoft standard. Your entire article was biased towards Microsoft and it seems it's sole purpose was to bash Apple, HP's decision, and propagate false information to users that may not know better. HP is not stupid and would not release a product unless they had a solution to make it compatible with their other products. I suggest you WAIT a couple months and see just how their new iPod products interact with the rest of their product line. Perhaps you might be surprised.

Seems like much ado about nothing It's not exactly difficult for any of these guys to add another codec to their media software or playback devices... isn't that one of the obvious benefits of being digital? This is all about BIG companies trying to establish market share and acting in their best interest. It seems like you're just regurgitating Microsoft's latest press release the same way Mac heads go around spouting the gospel according to Steve Jobs. Maybe next time you'll do some research and come up with a real story. Have a nice day

Such sour grapes! When no companies were dealing with DRM for music distribution, Apple did. Apple even pays the artists a large share of the profits (directly). Something neither Sony or M$ will every do. I'm glad to see Apple get their due. They've dealt fairly with customers and clients for years. Making great software and hardware. But time after time the American 'I got to have it cheap, regardless if it works' attitude has bite Apple in the ass. For once M$ is having their backside gnawed at. Go IPOD and HP Q-Pod.

Apple won't license the protected AAC format for the same reason Microsoft won't release the DOC or XLS formats. They are the leaders in their given markets and thus they don't have to appease everyone else. They have effectively set the standard everyone else must live with. So why shouldn't HP side with Apple for music? They can leverage Apple's market/mind-share, they can tap the most popular online music store, and best of all they differentiate themselves from all the cookie-cutter WMA-based players out there.

Choice in the PC-world? Eh, I have been a longtime PC user, but Microsoft never offered us a choice. Outlook Exp gets stuffed down the throat, including the media player and the bad WMA standard. If Microsoft is this frightened about iPod it must be good, so I go out now, to buy one. Thanks for this insane collumn. Don't forget to take your pills now.

Seems to me that since the iTunes Music Store controls 70% of the legal music download buisness and that it has sold 30 million songs that maybe people aren't too worried about its format. The AAC codec is in fact an open source codec unlike WMA so if any company wishes to support it they may. I think HP is making a smart move. Why stick with WMA when 70% of online music sales occur in AAC? With the popularity of iTunes, I sincerely doubt that WMA will ever dominate this buisness. Whether or not you like the system that Apple has set up it is still the most popular and widely used which must say something. Maybe Apple has in fact gotten it right and people are liking what they get. Maybe instead of criticizing them, other companies should look at their own plans and services.

YUO R TEH GHEY!! LOL!!!

FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD

Seriously now, how much does Microsoft pay you?

Wow, the last time I smelt something this bad was when I was in a barn where a bull had been disembowled. Feces everywhere... Microsoft != choice. You can choose which middle man, not the technology. I choose AAC, and the iPod.

This past summer I bought an off brand DVD player that also plays CD's and MP3's on CDRs. The same week I bought it, I bought a dual layer SACD from a local indie artist. My DVD player doesn't support SACD but the disk also has the regular redbook format on it. It wouldn't play on the DVD player. Fortunately, I was able to copy redbook compatible tracks on my computer and burn a CD that works on the DVD player. Recently, my friend brought over his copy of Let it Be Naked. It wouldn't play on my DVD player, nor could I play it on my Linux based computer. Another CD that I won't be buying. Most of these new online music services don't seem to work with Linux. They usually require Windows and sometimes Mac, so I can't use them. Even if I could download from these services, no open source audio player on Linux can play the copy protected files. Nobody is supplying music in the open source Ogg Vorbis format. The music industry seems to be fragmenting into a mess of incompatible formats. They seem to be actively trying to deny consumers the freedom to choose the type of OS, audio format or audio equipment that we wish to use. They are actively making obsolete the systems we own. If we buy new equipment, how long before they make that obsolete? A month? A year? F#&%-em.

"a bigger concern centers on how HP will make its many products compatible with the closed and proprietary Protected AAC format Apple uses" How in any way does this not describe the wma format as well? Really, tell me. WMA is farther away from the mp4 standard than aac format is. At least with the itunes store all the music has a consistent user licence-which is not true with the other stores. Different songs have individual use rights. You sit there and act concerned for the common user yet your saying they should just bow to the alter of wma because of windows monopoly. I suggest you actually get over the fact that apple is kicking your underwriters ass right now.

HP's iPod moves might hurt Windows stab at making WMA the defacto media standard, but that's about all. I'm sure Microsoft will survive without controlling this part of our daily computing experience. If you don't want an iPod, then don't buy one.

The suggestion that WMA is somehow standard in the consumer music industry, is simply laughable. iTunes (Protected AAC) holds 70% of the legal download market. The fact that bunches of different stores use the same Microsoft Propriatary format (WMA) with 30% of the market combined is not significant. If anything, Protected AAC is the market standard DRM. Yes, DRM technologies are all islands -- that's the fault of the recording industry, not Apple.

"Windows is about choice" Bwaaaahahahahaha, OH I wet um.

"Windows is about choice" Bwaaaahahahahaha, OH I wet um.

Coming from an advocate of the company that has a track record of 'embracing and extending' otherwise open standards in a way that makes them MS proprietary I find this somewhat ludacris. But then I am sure this is just one example of anothher MS strategy, 'Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt'. I replaced my PC with a Mac this year and have never looked back.

There is no more reason for Apple to adopt WMA than there is for Microsoft to use Apple's DRM on the surface of it but since the entertainment industry is clearly behind Apple on this one, why cannot MS and all the other manufacturers do the RIFGHT thing and go with the CHOSEN system?. Hello?? Then we would have a unified industry standard that would in some part show that Microsoft does NOT have to have EVERY single segment of all computing theirs and theirs only. It ahs been hinted at that Apple isn't cooperative about letting others use its DRM but I have not seen that come from Apple and I suspect it is Wintellers' FUD. Mate, I know you want to have it both ways- MS and MS- but for the love of Creation, why does it only have to be MS? You make no bloody sense and in fact look like an ignorant bigot in the pockets of MS especially when you decry the superior OS: which is not MSes. They own the Swiss Cheese of OSes.. what are you NOT seeing???

So if they wanted to license the best and most popular portable digital music player on the market, and it doesn't support WMA, then what should they have done? Well, it seems like, for right now, they just decided to back Apple's format since thats what the best and most popular device/store uses. Seems like a pretty simple decision to me. Tony

When you think about it, people can play their protected AAC content where they wan't. On their PC with iTunes/Real 10. On their ipod, and their normal CD players after burning to a CD. What is the advantage of those other 500 WMA devices? Not much since the best/most popular mp3 player is the ipod, and as long as that is true, that is the device that matters.

Paul, Have you even used iTunes? It is so far and away the best audio-player out there, and it makes ripping, burning, managing playlists so easy, that I can't imagine how you think an iPod with iTunes is limiting. About 6 of us have installed iTunes on our Windows 2000/XP boxes at work. Most of us are power users or higher in the Windows world. Our collective jaws dropped at how easy it was to share music in the office. Click a checkbox, type in the name of your server and you're done. And it's not just in the office. Some of us have switched to iTunes at home too. As for myself, I was determined not to give Microsoft any more of my money for OS upgrades. But that was before iTunes came along, so now I have XP, and MS should thank Apple for procuring it more upgrade customers. As for the AAC format, you speak about WMA as though it was created by a charity to help the struggling masses, while denegrating Apple's format which IS based on open-source code. (As is Mac OS X.) HP is very clever to partner with Apple in producing a branded iPod and I believe it will be a HUGE success. And here's why - I told a gadget-loving relative of mine, who loves music, that he should get an iPod. His answer, "What's an iPod?" HP is poised to show him, and about 25 million other people, just what that is.

I'm a windows iPod user and pretty embarrased at Paul's lack of understanding of why it is that the iPod and iTunes music store are #1. AAC is obviously better, iTunes is obviously better than what's out there. Is there really nothing else going on in the tech world that you have to spew such obvious crap? Come on, the headline is disgusting! Everytime someone picks up WMA as a file format to use do you think it's going to hurt the industry?

"I'd love to see that happen. But that won't help iPod users choose between the numerous WMA online music stores on the Web, or help people with WMA libraries play their music on their iPods. --Paul " Sure, MS wants consumers to have choice, which we do. We can CHOOSE to feed the MS coffers and buy a WMA portable, or we can CHOOSE not to. I'd say by buying an iPod, users have already made their choice. Unfortunately for MS, it isn't WMA.

What does MS pay you? To have that closed of a mind isn't possible unless you're on a payroll.. turfer. You're really trying hard, and it sounds like you're fighting a losing battle, try to have a bit of an open mind, no?

Ok, many online music stores use the proprietary codec WMA (don't forget it, WMA _is_ proprietary, opposed to AAC which is free to rights and its source code can be used by anyone). But why would the AAC codec from Apple be a bad choice ? Isn't the music store selling 70% of all music bought online ? Isn't it way more than half of all music sold online ? Apple proposed its DRM codec, so did Microsoft. It isn't Apple's fault if many mp3 players only support Microsoft's codec and not Apple's. I think people are not used to hear about Apple as a kind of "winner", I hope this is going to change. Of course Apple has made many mistakes, but I think people don't forgive Apple as easily as they would for other companies.

If iPods and iTunes are selling so well, why are you describing them as if they are a niche market? AAC files play just fine on my Windows PC and iPod, so who cares about whether or not it's WMA or AAC? I would prefer MP3 or OGG, but since those formats don't support digital security, I can see why we'll never get them. And since every player can play MP3s just fine, I just let WMA fall by the wayside...or burn them to CD then back to MP3. Plus, you talk about WMA like it's the holy grail of digital music, but what about for all the Macintosh and Linux users out there? Microsoft has never released a music player for either platform. Are we just supposed to drop the computer systems we're used to and use Windows because it's "better?" Talk about locking you into a monopoly. If there were no Apple Computing, where would Microsoft get the drive to improve, or any of its ideas for that matter?

Wanted to comment on the word 'choice' that people and companies are throwing around. When they say, "You can mix and match software and music player stuff. We believe you should have the same choice when it comes to music services.", the underlying implication is that choice is only available in the interface/player aesthetics for which a standardized format is played/manipulated, and not the format itself. Apple and HP both know and rightly so, that the format for legally purchased digital music is far from being standardized, and as such the use of the word choice with respect to how a format is played back in different players is irrelevant and misleading.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

What is 'interesting' is all this noise about someone finally standing up to MS. No one seems to know how to react sense no one ever does. MS continues to follow Apple a few years behind in digital and video media only to claim they are setting the 'standard' when they do come out with something.The landscape of OS dominance is a changin and to have to follow everything MS says is pretty backward. Especially when it comes to the creativity,elegance, and vision of Apple.

I don't get what the problem is. Apple makes it's money selling hardware. To encourage sales of that hardware, they put together a complete hardware/software solution. We can base that solution on a PC running Windows, or a Mac. If you don't buy an iPod, there's no issue. On the other hand, Microsoft makes it's money selling software. To encourage sales of WMA, Windows Media products, and Windows in general, they licensed the WMA format to just about any hardware maker that wants it. They put together a (not quite complete) hardware/software solution. If you don't run Windows, or don't care about WMA files in particular, there's no issue. Your gripe seems about "missing a chance at convergence" really seems to boil down to "missing a chance to standardize on Windows" in yet another arena, much like the office suite battles of the past. Why blow smoke about "choice"? If an iPod owner decides to buy an iRiver next time, they can rip their AAC files to MP3 and load up. Look... HP, Apple, and Microsoft are all just looking to make a buck. Each makes products compatible with other platforms when they need to be, but only then. Don't make Microsoft out to be the paragon of free choice, when you know that not to be the case.

Gheesh Paul, show some unbiased reporting, will you? Keep your obvious Pro-MS feelings hidden...just once!

You are such a microsoft tool - just as bad as a blind apple follower or unix evangalist - next time you speak of compatability and open markets don't back a convicted monopolist.

> "Windows is about choice," Microsoft General Manager of Windows Digital > Media Division Dave Fester said Yeaaahhhh. Ummmkkaaaayyy. The only way Windows is about choice is if you choose Windows! Your article is basically saying that a monoculture in the audio player world is bad because it locks out other formats. Doesn't that sound like what Microsoft has done all along? Integrating Internet Explorer into Windows? Designing a new version of Office that makes "XML" files that aren't compatible with any other program that can read standard XML? Requiring OEM PCs to be sold with Windows whether it is actually installed or not? Microsoft doesn't care about what choices the consumer has. They care if their format is the one that is adopted. They're loosing for once, so they're whining. Wonderful irony.

First off, could you please please put some white space between paragraphs? It would make things so much easier to read. :) `"Windows is about choice," Microsoft General Manager... "You can mix and match software and music player stuff. We believe you should have the same choice when it comes to music services." Indeed, this choice characterizes the PC market. Whether the choice is Musicmatch Downloads, Napster 2.0, the Wal-Mart Music Store, or virtually every other online music store, each service uses the same WMA format for the songs users download.` In other words, any choice as long as it's Microsoft and WMA. My discman and car CD player only play MP3s (due mainly to when they were purchased), but hark!, later models will play mp3, wma, aac, and ogg! Imagine that, I get to choose my format, but since it's choice for me, and not choice for Microsoft, they say that it's limiting options. Go figure.

MOOF!!!

At the end of the day HP have given the consumer what they want, a simple easy and efficient device to take their music with them. no mucking around no IRQ conflicts, no registry editing... it works all Apple and HP have done is to give the consumer the what could be called 'Best Practice' way of selling hardware, thus, open box plug in put cd in install software (it even autostarts hows that for choice ) couple of mins later iTunes is installed, then it looks for your MP3's and then, oh thats it. the thing that the author seems to miss is the fact that at this point computing is moving away from may I say geekdom and passing its batton to the masses therefore the maxim 'KISS'(keep it simple stupid) has to be adhered to. Perhaps instead of talking about AAC and its perceived quality and standards adherence you concentrated on the average joe, who truth be told could'nt give a tinkers cuss about editing or somehow using their music in some as to yet undefined manner. this is a typical case on Microsofts part and to a lesser extent the author of ' Not made here therefore its no good ' good luck with the column.. Chris

I am sure you would like to believe that Apple and HP using the AAC format amounts to setting back the industry "an untold number of years." But in reality Apple is the company that leads the digital-media arena. Everyone else follows. For example: 1. The Apple PDA's in the mid-late 90's were a spark for the late 90's and todays PDA/Pocket PC/PC Phone craze. 2. The digital camera that Apple came out with in the mid-late 90's that was affordable for the average person. Those have taken off too. 3. Firewire technology to allow video-editing on a personal computer. Now that DVD burning technology and hard drive storage space have caught up the home-movie/digital-video camera era is in full swing. 4. The iPod. Enough said. The truth is the WMA format has been setting back the digital music industry for years. There is no need for Apple to support WMA into the iPod line for 2 reasons: 1: The WMA codec is inferior in sound quality to WAV, AIFF, AAC, & MP3. And yes, there are lots of people who do care about sound quality when it comes to digital music. It is the most important aspect when giving up carrying around the cd collection. 2: This would cause Apple to have to purchase licensing rights to the WMA codec in order to support it in the iPod line. Why would Apple want to pay M$ every time they sell an iPod? And why would Apple want to encourage more people to get trapped in the WMA codec world that M$ has suckered them into believing will win out? The role of Apple is not to make sure every Tom, Dick, and Sally can watch their AVI files from the computer on the TV or listen to their WMA files from the computer on the stereo. Maybe HP recognizes that Apple tends to have a leg up when it comes to the digital-media world. Perhaps this will help the AAC format to grow and eventually take the place of MP3 when everyone realizes that AAC gives you higher quality music with smaller file sizes than MP3. Apple paves the way and everyone else follows. Someone has to innovate because it will never be M$.

I don't know what to say, the print in incredibly tiny. Why in the world would you post something with such small print! If I read more than the first line I'd go cross eyed. My browser is not set for print to be small, so it's not my settings, please change this.

Really don't get your whole "incompatibility" slant on this article. AAC, MP, AIFF and WAV are all supported by the Ipod on PC or MAC. You may face issues if you transfer DRM encrypted songs from the Ipod to another machine, but then, thats the whole point. I'm not sure you could accurately call this a "compatibility" issue. Actually I am sure. You can't. Not sure of what planet you live where "WMA is in widespread use" but I do accept that Apple needs to add support for this. And they will. As for your silly little jibe about not changing the world, how about, The mouse, The GUI and err, oh yeah the very feature you are writing about, the Itunes Music store. Has anyone else done these things sucessfully before Apple? And no Im not an Apple user.

"Apple and HP have just set back the convergence of PCs and consumer electronics an untold number of years". Wrong, Bill Gates has set us back by urging us to use the "WMA" format for Audio. This is great if you own a Windows box but not everybody owns a windows box. The marketplace will determine the format. Right now the marketplace is squarely in Apple's backyard.

Your article is just a huge troll. How much is Microsoft paying you? Your opinion is worthless. Mike Freeman, Ohio.

Let us compare Apple to Apple no pun intended. You cannot call the AAC Apple is using "Closed and Proprietary" without affixing the same title to WMA. Both formats offer a protected version with DRM added. You alluded to to WMA be supported by many different manufacturers but things change when you see how they support WMA/DRM. Most...yes MOST current WMA devices cannot play the protected WMA files from say napster. How you missed that was a glaring oversight on your part. With that in mind it would seem that "both" AAC/DRM and WMA/DRM are in the same boat. Furthermore with AAC/DRM has liberal Fair Use rights for burning Red Book Audio CDs there would really not be much of a loss if you had to convert your purchased AAC audio into WMA. Sure it's an extra step but the possiblility is there. To be honest the truth is a lot closer to the Music Industry should have had a unified standard for digital music. The standard should have offered topnotch tagging and embedded album covers. They dropped the ball when they let competing formats duke it out. The consumer loses in this scenario. Sony is coming out with an online store using their ATRAC format. That's now 3 formats vying for the consumer dollar. This issue could have been avoided.

I think you need to get some new sources. Why would HP want to include WMA if the iTMS is bundled with its computers? Why should any customer support WMA, a CLOSED format that is controlled entirely by one company? Nothing is wrong with competition.

You seem to keep forgetting the fact that the iPod plays mp3 files, which makes it compatible with far, far more than any WMA player ever will be. Let's see you buy music from, say the Wal-Mart Music Store or Napster 2.0 and play the songs you bought on every machine you own, on an iPod, and so forth. No go. You can, of course, buy an album from iTunes, burn an MP3 CDR of the album, and then play it on a home player, put the mp3s on other machines, and generally have fair-use access to the music. "Windows is about choice" -- that's the funniest quote I've read in weeks! Yes, Apple's AAC is unfortunate. Could they have used WMA instead? Perhaps. But really, one locked, proprietary format is much like another one. Since I use iTunes on a Windows box, convert to mp3, and then play the music on a cheap MP3 player and on a Linux box, it doesn't matter much to me -- the *choice* (a real one) is mine. Unlike any WMA-based online music store.

Regarding "Editor's note: No, because Apple would have to license Protected AAC to them, and they won't. ...." Come on Paul get your facts together. Apple does license Quicktime, that's all you need to support 'protected AAC' in Windows and Macintosh applications. But obviously MS has no intentions to include Quicktime with Windows. Quicktime supports open standards and competes against WMA as well as other MS controlled 'standards'. If Windows is about choice... Why can't I choose to develop in Java? Why can't I choose the application that opens .doc files? Why is AOL not included? The list is endless, I know it, you know it, everybody knows it. Windows is about choice as long as MS doesn't offer a competitive product. Apple isn't any better, theese are companies. They do what's best for them. That's why Apple bashing is as much fun as MS bashing. To make it even more fun you should get your facts together, the MS marketing pamphlets just don't cut it.

wma is a closed and proprietary Protected format too only works with Windows and the stores that sell wma only works with windows

Well, your insider close to HP was wrong. HP will not be using WMA with their version of the iPod. As far as whether MS should license Protected AAC from Apple, why should they? MS would have to pay Apple, and MS would rather everyone pay them to use WMA. The real question is whether the other online stores should use Protected AAC. But it would be expensive to license both WMA and Protected AAC, so they would have to make a major revamping of their business model to drop WMA. I think it is more likely for new stores to crop up that adopt Protected AAC from the get go, sort of like what Real is doing. Are you sure that Apple is not licensing their format to new players? Is their any reason to believe that MS is trying to license Apple's format? So your response to the licensing question misses the boat. There may yet be the choice to use Protected AAC from licensees and not just Apple and HP, just not from MS and some of the current players. But we'll see.

WOW! How can you say that this is about choice? As you wrote, "Indeed, this choice characterizes the PC market. Whether the choice is Musicmatch Downloads, Napster 2.0, the Wal-Mart Music Store, or virtually every other online music store, each service uses the same WMA format for the songs...." How is that choice? I don't want to use WMA. I want ogg, or mp3 or whatever...that is choice. The WMA stores offer no more choice than iTunes. Flismy argument, Paul.

Boy, wher have YOU been lately? I use Mac OS X and Windows XP and have no compatibility issues whatsoever (iTunes included). I use Windows for animation and the Mac for everything else. Going from the Mac to Windows is like going from a Porsche (OS X) to a Chevy Cavalier (XP). I think HP folks are righteous for admitting the typical Windows copy of another Mac technological advance will yield another inferior product (like Windows). If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. The iPod is without peer. I am sure cheap, shoddy copies will come out, take over the market, and make lots of money for an imitator (just like Windows). Then again, most people do not even know what they are missing with mass produced cheap Windows clones; for them, it is "good enough".

You are complete idiot. I am not a MAC user, but did you even bother checking whether there are any "open, standards based" DRM implementations out there ? Everyone has a proprietary DRM format, including Apple and MS. Without DRM the music industry will simply not allow online song sales. HP is merely trying to piggyback on Apple's success.

Paul, You're a Tool. I didn't read the whole article because it's laced with Microsoft Propoganda. It's funny as hell that you say that AAC is more propriatery then WMA, and that Users are Locked into the iTunes Music Store. Welp, let's see, iTunes runs on a Mac and PC, what other music store is Cross Platform? NONE!!! Hell, Windows Media Player Runs on Both! "Apple has a chance to change the world (something that Apple has always promised but never really accomplished)" Look at the screen as you read this and ask your self how much of it was insired, brought about and made popular my Apple! The Whole GUI! IT used to gawk at Mac's because it was a point and click environment. IT used to think because of the GUI, Macs were somehow less powerfull then the Command Line Interface of the day. It kills me that writers like you are allowed to retain their positions without knowing the concept or responsible journalism. I'm not going to check back at this board so any response to this post will fall on my deaf ear. -Kevin

Sounds like a win win to me. HP's got some guts and I applaud them. No offense to Microsoft but WMA will lead to less consumer choice in my (and many expert's), opinion. AAC is a non proprietary industry standard. What is proprietary is Apples DRM. Hopefully the industry can standardize on the DRM portion of AAC. Microsoft's WMA is completely proprietary, not just the DRM put the format as well. I prefer and open industry AAC even with a proprietary DRM to a completely closed proprietary WMA.

AAC is not an Apple Propiatery codec, it's an open standard in which is licenced by the MPEG standards board. Apple uses a DRM called Fairplay. Fairplay is used to help curb illegal sharing of legally bought music. I'm sure you know all this, but I really can't trust that at this point in time. Paul, go back to school and do some frig'n homework. It's bad journalism like your's that makes people think a good product is bad. Here's a web site for you to start at: http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/standard.html -Kevin

Hi, MP3 is the standard. That's what poeple know and love. WMA, Real Audio and Quicktime aren't. They all want to be and each of them are in certian areas but I don't know anyone with a large collection of any of these files because they are all lock in formats. If I take a CD of WMA files to a friends place they won't always work because they might have an older version of Media player same for the other formats. Now we have the same companies trying to make their format the DRM standard the same way they were trying to make their format the streaming stadard. The whole point of DRM is so that you can't move music to your PDA or your Media Centers PCs only where your told you can move it. As for HP going with one audio format over another big deal. DRM is all about limiting choices. Microsoft has always been about choices as long as you are working with microsoft technology or licensing it (try playing a WMA cd in a DVD player and then talk to me about compatability). AAC will be playable by most media players by the end of the year because it's just another codec. The only player that might not would be Windows Media player but that won't be because of technology if they don't do it.

Once again you have proven your bias towards all things Microsoft, simply by omitting the facts. AAC is a superior audio format (In actual sound quality) over Mp3 AND Wma. Simply put, HP has chosen to go with the winning team and here you are crying foul. If WMA is such a great format, how come you dont see files traded in it? How come it is rarely mentioned anywhere at all? Maybe because the only people who actually care about it are MS and their lackeys. If you are so into Wma, how come you own TWO Ipods? How come you do not own a Mp3 player that supports Wma? Funny how on all the client's computers I have had to track down files on I have never once found a Wma file, but always Mp3. Personally I love Microsoft. If it werent for their bug-ridden products and their lackeys who push them, with more security holes than the moon has craters-I wouldnt be making the money I make in my business as a tech. Oh, and I do not own a Mac. Since there isnt much of a demand for Mac techs (Hardware/OS) in my market I havent felt the need. So dont get the idea that I am some kind of fanatical Apple supporter, even though they DO make a superior product. You sir, have NO credibility.

You are an idiot. Not only did Apple not create the DRM for AAC (its called FairPlay), but protected aac files from iTunes will play in RealPlayer. AAC from RealPlayer and iTunes (non-protected) plays with each other. Do something called research. It makes you a little more credible. iTunes DRM working in RealPlayer was noted by Real at launch.

" natively enabled in the iPod's firmware but that Apple disables before the units ship to customers" nice investigative reporting there bud. lets pay our embedded engineers to support a codec, and then disable... before it ships.

Sounds like shameless shilling to me...

It could be my imagination, but I get the feeling there's just a hint of bias towards Microsoft. Apple has an extremely successful and well thought out product and online music store, and because Microsoft is now the underdog suddenly we should feel sorry for them? I think not. If Microsoft was in Apple's position it's pretty much guaranteed they'd be acting far worse than Apple would. Let's get some reality checks happening here.

Actually I think closed formats like WMA could hurt the industry. The AAC (an MPEG Audio format) and MP3 formats used on the iPod are both open standards available to anyone to license, and the WMA format is more controlled and in the interest of only one company. It would stifle competition and lend more control to Microsoft's monopoly. So how exactly is only using open formats bad for the industry?

Paul, Why do you insist on saying that "Apples Protected AAC is a proprietary format in which Apple refuses to lisence to any other company"? I have Windows Media Player on my Mac and I can NOT listen to any of the Files downloaded from any other DL'd site such as Walmart or Napster. Whose chosing to be Closed and Locking people out? MICRO$OFT, as usual. -Kevin

AAC is an open standard. AAC is not "closed". The Fair Play DRM Apples uses is a closed system and Apple, or rather the Mudic Industry, requires DRM for the music purchased from the iTMS. Now, has Microsoft or DeLL announced any plan to support AAC and the Apple Fair Play DRM? DeLL just came out with a new music player? They used to sell iPods... surely their new player will support AAC with and without DRM that their users purchased? Seems to me that if using Microsoft products was about having choices, that the PC industry would jump at the possibilty to let their users play their iTMS puchased songs using the Window Media Player. Windows is all about choice? Do not say this to people who have tried to listen to their WMA files and Microsoft closed video codec under Linux. Even though they might be using the same files, the same machine, the same desk, in the same room as when running their MS OS... it appears that Microsoft does not really think users should have too many choices after all. I know, it would "confuse" the users. Yeah, right. Users are dumb. Good think we have a friend called Microsoft to help us spend our money. FUD.

This article is biased it makes my teeth hurt. And by the way, I use all sides of the computing world (MS, Apple, Linux). Ultimately everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I sure wish I could get back the 45 seconds of my life I invested so carelessly in reading this yellow journalism. The biggest concern I have is that this notion may be given validity by the casual reader...

Translation: It's A-OK to be locked into Microsoft products, but it's 'bad for the industry' to be 'locked in' to other companies' products. Funny how Paul's tune changed as soon as his previous article, in which he praised Microsoft's 'superior' WMA format possibly being supported, was found to be completely unfactual. He praised HP for supporting WMA, now he balks because his beloved Gates won't get yet another thing to lock consumers into. Too bad, Paul. I'm sure Bill will have something else for you to be locked into fairly shortly. Longhorn is only 2 years away, supposedly.

"more than anything Apple could handle" Apple can handle a hell of a lot more than you might think. Who was a pioneer in using Akamai's distributed network distribution? WMA is a closed standard controlled by Microsoft. Get a clue!!!

I still don't get what is bad about this deal. You download a song, you play it on your computer, you download it to the iPod, you play it on your iPod, you burn a CD, you play it on anything. As I see it, HP is jumping on the bandwagon of the current industry leader in music downloads. As far as I can tell your biggest beef is that Bill Gates is not the guy driving the bandwagon. You seem to harken back to the early days of automobile manufacturing marketing and to modify it just a bit, "You can buy any color of software so long as it is Microsoft". People continued to drive black cars until they got tired of them. There is room in the market for diversity. And there will be a move in the market to standardize and consolidate. So long as we can yield to market forces instead of the 400 Pound Monopoly.

With so much bias and ignorance, you are truly the greatest Windows idiot on the Web! * MS is a convicted monopolist, not the industry. * AAC is an open industry standard supported by iTunes / Real 10 / WinAmp, WMA an MS proprietary technology. Why can't MS play nice for once and adopt AAC rather than reinvent the wheel? * There is currently no standard for DRM, hence no compatibly among Apple / MS / Real. * AAC with FairPlay works on both Windows and Mac, while protected WMA only on Windows. * iPod is the best digital jukebox with over 30% market share among all MP3 players including $50 flash players. Currently, all top 3 best sellers for jukeboxes on Amazon are iPod models, and the newly introduced iPod Mini could easily push everything else out of the top 5 spots. By not supporting AAC and iPod, MS is guilty of making road blocks for consumers, not Apple. * iTunes and iTMS are the best music player and online music store for both Mac and Windows. * Apple has practically created online music business with 70% market share, and sold over 30 M songs. Has Napster / MusicMatch / BuyMusic /Walmart / Dell managed 1 M songs yet? If Windows is about choice, then MS should support the majority platform, namely iPod / iTunes / iTMS / AAC, not force the industry to conform to its inferior and proprietary format.

OK, now please do a comparison of the online music stores, the variety and extent of the DRM schemes used, other niceties like eg is the music content "adapted" for offensive content, ease of use, and also... when all's said and done, do you actually own the music or as in some shops do they retain the right to render your songs useless. You claim to own two iPods. Please share your thoughts on the iTMS, the iTunes/iPod/iTMS integration versus the other packages (Dell, Wallmart, Napster, ...) and their players-if they have them. In a lot of consumer goods we accept the trade-off ease of use versus flexibility. If the iPod wants to be a real consumer toy - which it is in a remarkable way - then I don't give a flying f... what format they use. If you want your music to remain in the geek domain (btw I proudly consider myself a geek) then rant along, but as long as you don't look at the apple proposition as a whole and look at it from a consumer stand point instead of a pc nerd, your predictions and worries don't really matter as you're not speaking for the vast majority of the public anyway.

You are missing one VERY IMPORTANT loophole in your discussion regarding supporting WMA files on an iPod... How is allowing iPods to play WMA files going to help users who have protected WMA files if the iTunes media player going to reject them in the first instance due to iTunes not authorising the WMA files acquired from other sources? Windows users are going to have to convert them to MP3 (which means stripping the digital rights protection from the WMA files) anyway before iTunes and the iPod can use them.

I have read your (editor's) responses to submitted comments and found a fatal flaw in the editor's logic and reasoning: *** AAC is a proprietary format: It is not. It is an ISO standard. Please review the standards documentation at , and purchasable documentation at . More information is also available at: <> <> The MPEG-4 AAC standard incorporates MPEG-2 AAC, forming the basis of the MPEG-4 audio compression technology for data rates above 32 kbps per channel. Additional tools increase the effectiveness of MPEG-2 AAC at lower bit rates, and add scalability or error resilience characteristics. These additional tools extend AAC into its MPEG-4 incarnation (ISO/IEC 14496-3, Subpart 4). A copy of the MPEG-2 AAC standard can be purchased from the ISO online store <> (search for "13818-7"). A copy of the MPEG-4 Audio standard can be purchased from the ISO online store <> (search for "14496-3"). *** Apple's Protected AAC is not a standard, and unlike WMA is only licensed to one company. This is not true. It is licensed by members of the MPEG consortium responsible for making AAC happen, including Apple, Dolby, Fraunhofer (FhG), AT&T, Sony, and Nokia. Others are welcome to join the consortium or license the technology by contacting Dolby Laboratories. All other comments I'll accept, albeir with some skepticism due to your obvious opinion on the matter! But please, don't lie and use as an excuse that AAC is not a standard.

WMA limits choice. AAC is a standard. You are a Windows/MS stooge.

Stupidity I can understand. Cynicism I can ignore. Sheer venality I expect from corrupt societies, (I notice that Bush complains of corruption in the other Americas?) Duh? . (Corruption is Florida, the new definition of Bushwhacked). I have experienced some of the worst and most corrupt societies. And I have never lied, and seldom taken advantage, of what they offered me. I tell the truth, as I see it, about my experiences. But surely, honourable journalists like you can't be bought, Or bribed? To tell something other than ... what their paymasters want them to say? To the HP iPod story, in which you flaunt your ... your what? ... certainly not dispassionate thinking, you parrot dirty windows. You, sir, lie accused as being about as decent as an Inquisitor (mail back and I'll tell you about the Inqisition). Your religion is Microsoft. Your God Bill Gates. He has, in you, the kind of bitter, sackclothed emissary who accompanies all proselitizations (look the word up too). You'd have worked well with in Mexico, with Pizzaro, though he'd have hated you. This article can only have been written by one who is either as impassionate and inhuman as an early Spanish Inquisitor. Or it has been produced by a bigoted idiot. Your thinking has no basis in the reality outside your infatuation/paymaster. You decide. Because you are a puppet. Because, mostly, the rest of us have already laughed at you. Derision, simply, is the great deflator. Consider yourself derided and your work worth a fart.

Paul, I run a business, so does Microsoft, HP and Apple. One thing you learn quickly in business - give customers what they want or get out of business. As it is said in the saying made famous by Lee Iaccoca, "Lead, Follow or Get Out of the way". And customers love the iPod (myself included). I don't give a damn if the iPod "hurts industry" (namely Microsoft) - it is an excellent product. Microsoft (and you) claim that it limits choice. It doesn't. Don't want to use an iPod? Don't - buy somebody else's product. Don't want to use iTMS? Don't - use some other music service. If you like either of them, you will get the best experience by using them both together. And if a better product comes along, then Apple will need to deal with it and match it or they will lose market share the way they did with the Mac. The problem that Microsoft and all the other companies who lose out from the HP / Apple deal have with this deal is that they believe the iPod and iTMS are two seperate products - they aren't in Apple's mind. Until competitors come up with an equally compelling co-branded solution, all they're doing is crying foul because they're losing out to Apple. At least now, Microsoft knows what it is like to be on the other side of the fence.

Windows is about choice? Hmm, you can choose Windows, or Windows or Windows. You can choose Microsoft DRM from WalMart, or Microsoft DRM from BuyMusic, or Microsoft DRM from one of the other online stores. If you want choice, you buy anything BUT Microsoft. Microsoft WMA is NOT A STANDARD. It's a proprietary format on a proprietary operating system. It is absolutely no different from Apple's DRM'd AAC. No better, no worse. But Apple accounts for 70% of all online music sales, NOT Microsoft. So it seems that AAC is the standard for downloadable music, NOT WMA. Maybe some of the other online stores should endeavor to offer the more popular format. I'm sure Apple would not mind licensing the technology, since their real goal is to sell iPods, not music.

You take a very interesting view on things. I have one question that I do not understand. Why should there be a standard at all? I see this debate as being similar to car parts. What if someone made all automobile manufacturers use the exact same parts and manufactured the exact same car with different paint, where would we be now? Different file formats will be good. It will let us choose with our dollars. Granted, we might end up in a VHS/Beta situation where the best format might not win, but are we in a terrible world because we ended up with the inferior VHS? No. Will selecting the Apple AAC format ruin digital music? No. Respectively submitted, Mike

And I quote: >Editor's note: HP already licenses WMA. For them, it's open and available at no additional cost. The Apple deal was controversial at best. --Paul Hmmm...sounds familiar. Let's re-write this: Intel already licenses RDRAM. For them, it's open and available at no additional cost. Switching to SDRAM was controversial at best. No, it was intelligent because RDRAM was the worse choice. WMA is not better than AAC as many posters have already pointed out, and so why stick with it? I have WMA, AAC and MP3 files on my computer. The only reason I have WMA files is because I cannot convert them to another format (or have yet to figure out how to do so). This does not encourage me to continue to use MS-brand DRM. iTunes, on the other hand, has this feature built-in and readily available, despite what another poster said (claims it is "hidden" and thus difficult to find).

Yup, pretty funny! It's great to see that Windows-boosters have a good platform here, but it might be good to make the strong MS bias more clear. Perhaps when Mr. Thurrott writes that Microsoft is unfairly criticised for lock-ins in the case of digital media, he is unaware that some DRM-protected WMAs may not play on non-Windows platforms (such as the Mac), wheras iTunes store AACs will play under iTunes on any platform? Or, when he writes that Apple has never really accomplished changing the world - has he used a mouse today, or a GUI, or multimedia? My guess is that he has...

I think Paul Thurrott is great too! I love blinkered microsoft ideologue's never letting facts and technology realities getting in the way of Microsoft PR spiels (sorry, I mean, stories)! Editor's note: Please be specific. --Paul

I cannot believe there is no responce to this wacky article. Or the censors are protecting there money maker. Microsoft is worry that customers are not have a choice? The number one crusher of options on the Windows platform is Microsoft. Bravo to Apple, maybe they can finally profit from their creativity instead of "others" borrowing it and making off with the loot.

"Editor's note: HP already licenses WMA. For them, it's open and available at no additional cost. The Apple deal was controversial at best. --Paul" Let's see, if you can pay Microsoft for it, it's "open" but if you get it from Apple it's "closed" and proprietary." I've read your columns and the various posts accusing you of working for Micro$oft, and must conclude that if you look like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, you're a duck. IMHO, you are a M$ shill posing as a journalist and any organization which hires you as a journalist is either incompetent or unethical.

Well, see, AAC is a "standard," (MPEG-4 Audio) and the protected AAC is not, but neither is WMA. So, really, protected AAC is more "standard" than protected WMA, but in reality neither are because there is no "standard" for protected media with MPEG-4. Yet, where is the evidence for the superiority of either format? Editor's note, Well, see, Apple doesn't use AAC, see, they use a proprietary format called, get this, Protected AAC. If there's no standard for protected MPEG-4, guess what? It's out of luck in this world. --Paul

You appear to have a very narrow minded approch to this topic. Firstly I question you on DRM; if it is as easy as you say to convert a Real Network AAC to MP3, then what is the point of putting it into a protected format in the first place? What that says is that either a) you also don't know what you are talking about; or b) Real Network are using a useless protection on their files and should just ship in MP3 On the note about Real using higher quality AACs anyway, I see your point about converting to MP3 but Apple's point is that you should not be converting the music to another format since the only real use for that is to steal music and 128Kb AAC (unlike 128Kb MP3) is considered to be CD quality so encoding any higher is just wasting space. As for backing Microsoft in the whole idea of having options, you firstly have to laugh with me that the company that locks people in the most is now trying to make out that they are about choice. Really, what they are saying is "we want you to choose what you use as long as you use our file format". Conflict of interest here... I think so. To further work on the choice topic, the "problem" with Apple is that they lead the market. I think you need to look a little further ahead before commenting. While most people are still working with yesterdays technologies, Apple has moved to the next, non-proprietary, standard which is MPEG4 and, from it, AAC. As present, I have to agree that that "Fair Play" protection is only available through Apple and iTunes but I think it is a mere progression that the PC industry will catch up and start working with Apple isn't of olding on to aging technologies. It think it is EXCEPTIONALLY important, though, to remember that Microsoft is only LOOKING like they have the upper hand here. If you correctly break down the market you will see (using US figures since they are all I know) that Apple owns 30% of the market which makes them market leader. Now, it is important to break this down further because you could very well say "that leaves 70% of choice and WMA" however this is not totally true. To delve a bit deeper you will see that the market that the iPod attacks only represents 37% of the market. Therefore, Apple owns over 80% of their market which means that they are not, in fact, going against the industry but, instead, making the industry. I believe the iPod Mini will further show this to be true, especially as more people adapt the AAC standard.

harhar, burn micro$oft

Your an idiot!

apple is going to hurt the industry by using "standards-based Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) format?" gee, just because apple is 3 years ahead of the pc curve, doesn't mean that they are going to hurt the industry. don't forget, wma is proprietary: it doesn't matter how many machines it's on, proprietary is just that and will LIMIT any future growth. i think that this is a great step forward and i just think that pc/windows biased people are uneasy with apple blatantly influencing the market. don't forget, apple influences the pc market by using/creating new innovative ways of computing such as: first desktop, first ever pda, first use of 5 1/4 inch floppy, 3 1/2 inch floppy, mouse, trackball, trackpad, usb, 802.11, firewire, etc. pc people don't realize that they are riding on the after wave of apple's innovations. this time, apple is not going to wait for the pc industry to ride the after wave and instead is going full throttle. good job apple!

Do you realize that the entire technology reporting and media industry thinks your an idiot? You were wrong about the WMA "rumor" and your wrong here. You need to put down your Microsoft Pom-poms and get real. Try some objective analysis for once and someone may care what you say, instead of laughing at you.

I have a question that reguards the windows media files that you say are widely used and compatible. I have a friend that uses a PC and he has found he wants to convert all of his music to AAC because it is more compressed with the same audio quality. All of his MP3s converted wonderfully but his windows media files that you say are "compatible" are actually very far from being compatible in the true sense of the word. WMAs are only playable on Windows software and there is currently no easy way to convert these files to another format. In fact, Microsoft software disallows the ability to do so. Also, you complain about the incompatibility of AAC files in windows. It is a Content Standard that should be adopted by all systems to promote compatibility, yet Microsoft has shown no intention of including this format in any of their software. Please research more thoroughly before you attack any company's plans or actions.

Why are you such an anti-Apple bigot? ALL of you articles are anti-Apple regardless of subject. Yeesh.

"Apple has a chance to change the world (something that Apple has always promised but never really accomplished)...." Hmmm. so a GUI, a mouse, a CD drive, color screen, movies (Quicktime) and various other improvements/innovations are not accomplishments or innovations at all and have not changed the world... but aparently poorly copying said inovations and blocking various compeditors is innovation. I like way you think. We should do lunch after I get rid of my crappy iBook with Mac OS 10.3 on it...

Paul, Let me say that your article is, well, interesting. What exactly is your point? That HP may harm some of its customers by providing them with the CHOICE to purchase the best MP3 player in the world? Please. They don't have to buy an HP iPod. They don't have to ever open iTunes. They can go and install MusicMatch or Media Player 9 or Real or whatever. They still have CHOICES. Microsoft says Windows is all about choice. Yeah, tell that to Lotus and WordPerfect. Why are Word and Excel files proprietary? Doesn't Microsoft want to ensure that everyone can open the letter I'm typing? You at least did mention that AAC is not a proprietary format. Every other article on the web calls AAC an Apple developed proprietary file format. Guess what? That's WMA. It is 100% proprietary--written by Microsoft and only support by third party developers and device manufactures because until now they did not have a CHOICE. And you want to talk about DRM...isn't there DRM in WMA files? HP should be congratulated for CHOOSING to sell the best digital music package (iPod and iTunes) on the planet. This is the best decision for HP customers. Nothing comes close to the integration and quality provided by Apple. You must know this because (for what it's worth) you own two iPods...Aren't you worried about your CHOICE coming back to bite you? Or are you just that much smarter than HP customers? Thanks, Brian

What are the specific incompatibilities Paul's referring to? iTunes and thus the protected AAC format have been available on the Windows platform for a few months now. AAC is incompatible with many WMA oriented devices marketed by Samsung and others, true, but HP has chosen not to go that route and instead rebadge the most popular MP3 player by far on the market. Set top boxes? They're not exactly flying off shelves, so I don't see that as much of a threat. iPaqs? The whole idea behind iPods is to do away with the PDA as a music storage device, simply b/c they're not that good at it. Microsoft's own CTO has admitted as much. While I appreciate Paul's enthusiasm for the WMA format, it is ironic that while Microsoft is about "choice," AAC is the format that's actually standards based. I'm not an HP fan b/c of their RIAA courting, but the iPod deal seems to be simply a sound business decision; the iPod has been a runaway success. WMA has not. AAC will, contrary to the assertions here, run on every PC HP makes. I can't fault them for jumping on a pretty bandwagon, and Paul's desire to do so smacks of bitterness.

"...giving Apple the type of corporate lock-in for which Microsoft is often (and, in the case of digital media, unfairly) criticized." So its OK when Microsoft does it, but not when apple does. Such blind zealotism is disgusting from somebody who claims to be a professional. Really, a totally useless article.

I don't understand this article. Your statements of fact are completely wrong. I develope software using Quicktime. Your characterization of AAC only playing with Itunes and Ipod is completely wrong. Any application which is Quicktime enabled can use AAC. Quicktime is a huge library of encoder, decoders where many kinds of media can be played and viewed. Some of the encoders are proprietary and some are not. I believe you think your readers are either technically labotomized, or believe anything you write. This is all a question of choice, not better or worse, just perhaps revolt that Microsoft has coming. Now if the overwhelming embracing of Itunes, Quicktime, and the Ipod is a backlash against Microsoft from sick and tired consumers who are not willing to accept the status quo, I have a piece of advice for you when writing about "competing technologies". First, your article should be well noted as editorial work. Its okay to write editorials. But what you write is FUD as if you were an authority on the topic. I have viewed you writings and it clearly demonstrates your feelings, not facts. With that in mind and your probable concern of a growing continued readership, I wonder if it is in your best interest to work against the grain of what people want. I read somewhere a funny but telling quip. The toes you step on today may be connected to the ass you kiss tomorrow. This article is plain bad judgement and a really poor follow up with your botched "heard it here first".

i realize this is a windows based opinion, but you leave out some important facts; 1. choices...you are using windows so you obviously dont care about choice, criticising HP for going this way is like criticising them for selling pc's running windows 2. AAC files are higher quality than WMA (at the same bit rate) so an equal quality AAC ile would be much smaller 3. the iTunes store has 70% of all legal music downloads, making it the standard (i konw god forbid apple be the standard) 4. the ipod is the most popular mp3 player in the world making it the standard. 5. the article says that apple has tried but never accomplished in changing the world, yeah that graphical user interface never caught on! every MacOS is a look into the future of windows, the onl real difference is that it never works as well on windows. that being said, this is the first

what good would enabling WMA support do for apple? as a microsoft lover you should realize that the bottom line is important apple has the# 1player and store...it's about time the good guys had a monoploy

Content in Apple AAC P can easily be used (legally) within other programs like iPhoto, iMovie etc on the Mac. You can buy a song from ITMS and include it in your movie and publish on the web, CD or DVD. I suspect that the Apple DRM mechanism is working through QuickTime and it could be used in the same way on a PC, like what Real 10 is doing. Lets see if other PC software companies understand this. QuickTime is excellent for handling all kinds of video, audio and other media tracks, allowes tons of codecs, conversions, re-compression, cut and paste etc, and not just a playing format like WMA/VMW or Real.

I like paragraph tags.

Paul I wish you would revise the frame of your thinking with regard to the iTunes Music Store and Protected AAC. You keep stating that the format is incompatible, but it's not. The iTMS works with Macintosh and Windows, and AAC is an international recording format created under the Motion Pictures Experts Group, the organization that developed MPEG-1 Layer 3 or Mp3. Furthermore, the iPod is the only Mp3 player that currently works with Linux, Windows and the Macintosh. So what exactly is the incompatability here? Oh right, it's not blessed by Microsoft. Also, reports today indicate that HP will not require that Apple begin allowing WMA on the iPod. You're track record is not exactly perfect is it?

You sir, are a Microsoft shill. I find you repulsive. Your worse than a Republican.

"the PC market is many times larger than that figure, and potential music sales to all PC users is an order of magnitude larger than anything Apple could handle by itself."?????? Apple already handles 70% of the entire market's (Mac AND PC) paid downloads. How much does Thurrott get paid to be such a blatant shill? Editor's note: Honest to God. They have 70 percent of a market that's small. That market will grow. Will they have 70 percent of that larger market? Time will tell. --Paul

Yes, lack of WMA support SUCKS!! and no I don't want to convert my huge library to AAC. Is there a feedback mechanism for HP to let me know how I feel?

At first, I had a hard time wading through the piece you posted. But after a while, I realized, hey this article is highly laughable and enjoyed the chuckles. I did want to clue you in about one thing though. The younger generation of this nation isn't in your (or anyone else's) pocket just yet. These kids are music hounds and they have already served notice that they intend to move to a different beat (i.e. one that may not include the Windows monopoly, now approaching middle age). Instead, one that responds to their needs, pays big dividends in quality, ease of use, style, and plain all-around fun. My funny bone thanks you for such punch lines as "the type of corporate lock-in for which Microsoft is often (and, in the case of digital media, unfairly) criticized" and your quote of another quote "Windows is about choice". You had me on the floor with those. But the biggest yuk of all, has to be the close you gave. "I hope HP's choice isn't one that comes back to bite the company's millions of customers--my number-one concern". Yeah, right Mt. Thurrott, we believe you.

looks like u backtracked ur own statement on http://www.winnetmag.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/41423/windowspaulthurrott_41423.html saying that hp will be making wma work on iPod's. you really should get a job. Editor's note: I was told what I was told. Furthermore, HP's "denial" was coated in a nice "for now" subtext I find interesting. --Paul

Or maybe Windows should skip the dying WMA format and embrace the AAC technology.

Ha-ha,ha-ham ha-ha! Do you think that PC users are that dumb? All thejukebox makers have to do is add AAC and license Fairplay for their software....problem solved and consumer choice will prevail. Just watch how quickly this happens. Those that don't will fall by the wayside and be out of the game. Real Networks will be followed by MusicMatch within 30 days (Pepsi, then McDonald's free download promotions are just too important to ignore). Apple is so far conceptually ahead in this market by June you will see the first casualities (Those that don't get aboard with open standard AAC).

"Windows is about choice, you can mix and match all of this stuff," David Fester, general manager of Microsoft's Windows digital media division, told the New York Times. "We believe you should have the same choice when it comes to music services." What is really being saud there is: "Use any service you want as long as it sells Windows Media, buy any player out there as long as it plays Windows Media -- but for heaven's sake, don't buy one of those wretched iPod thingies or we'll be completely boned with our whole plan to monopolize digital media commerce and then we might actually have to start innovating for our paychecks for a change." If incompatability means not including WMA support more power to Apple for breaking up the inferior proprietary 'standard' that microsoft is attempting to forcefeed down our throats--no thanks--WMA is a terrible format

how is having choice one format Get a clue.

WMA is a poor format by any metric, and I personally have a grand total of ZERO files encoded in that format; furthermore, I know of absolutely nobody who prefers WMA to MP3 (or AAC, though to be fair most haven't even heard of AAC until they get a CD from me - and the MP4 files play fine using WinAmp anyways) and I know of a couple who rued ripping their music to that shoddy format after a hard disk upgrade + reinstall of Windows. WMA sounds terrible compared with HE-AAC at anything below 96k, and worse than AAC at anything over 96k. It's just not good enough, even if that atrocious Wal-Mart 'music store' licenses WMA and people eventually pay good money for that sort of crap. Case in point: most people will never pay for crippled entertainment, and neither will I. This whole 'issue' is a non-starter for the vast majority, who will continue to use MP3 (the de-facto standard) and AAC (via the market leader for crippled music, iTunes). Editor's note: So, you have no WMA files, but you have a very strong opinion about them. Sadly, this is typical. --Paul

Yeah it's all about choice, isn't it? You're allowed to choose from MS WMA and .. MS WMA, according to MS. "Windows is all about choice, as long as whatever you choose is what we want you to choose!" Why is it so bad that another contendor hits the DRM format high street? Why does it have to be WMA all the way? Perhaps HP should make it clearer what they're selling, perhaps people will be disappointed when it can't play WMA, but perhaps this will accelerate AAC's market share just to show Microsoft that they can't boss everyone around all the time. I prefer plain old non-drm mp3s myself that I encode from my own CDs. Editor's note: Actually, so do I. But when it comes to purchased music, you can't do anything with a Protected AAC file except copy it to one device (an iPod, which is expensive) or burn it to CD and re-encode it back to the PC, which is time intensive manual labor (and hey, have fun typing in all that meta-data). --Paul

It's quite hypocritical to Microsoft to criticize The HP deal with Apple, while at the same time talk about "choice". 70% of online music buyers (likely to grow next month) CHOOSE iTunes. 30% of MP3 player buyers (including yourself) CHOOSE the iPod. HP CHOSE to partner with Apple. The market has spoken. Are you saying that it's alright for customers to have choice, as long as the choice is Microsoft? That is, at best, fatally flawed logic. BTW, Apple is not the only company to make AAC compatible players. Take a good look at the cell phone industry. Nokia (who co-created the AAC format), is supporting AAC in their next generation cell phone devices, as well as Sanyo, Panasonic, Philips, and others. Editor's note: For the upteenth time. We're talking about Protected AAC, not AAC. --Paul

your number one concern is HP customers? or.... this is rich......you don't care which Codec wins in the market? are you really that out of touch with your own feelings that you have to lie to your self to keep from blowing a gasket? your number one concern is to keep your head from exploding it appears.... you don't even realize what you just wrote.... if you think you don't care if WMA is wiped out or not..... this one might push you over the edge..... Game Cube just outsold XBOX in both the US and Japanese market by over 20% for the month of November.... and December looks like it will be even worse for MSFT...... MSFT is losing another market, and Billions of dollars..... is Xbox the "open and compatible format" that makes our computers "converge"????? which problems did you forget to mention when MSFT created yet another closed format, only to lose another market? Ipod is the number one Music player, and MSFT doesn't stand a chance of every doing anything but losing this market.... again.... iTunes is the number one Music store for the PC MARKET not just the mac market you dolt...., and MSFT doesn't have a prayer of ever catching it..... 30 million downloads IS the market, when that number goes up, that IS the market.... the PC MARKET...... Open Source is Wiping MSFT off the map in Web servers Announcing recently that Apache servers grew another 40%... while you guessed it, MSFT LOST another market..... what convergence to Microsoft proprietary format does the bode about the future? Europe is in the process of completely wiping off every computer any copy of any windows software for their governments... and businesses have been trying to out do the governments in how fast they are dropping windows........ China is looking to do the same thing..... the rest of Asia is just laughing at Microsoft..... portable Video players is as big a joke as MSFT's last year attempt at "smart watches", the ugliest things since king Kong pooed on 5th street near Broadway....... what is MSFT's market share of Wrist watches? a negative .000001% now? hehehe.... should we sync our proprietary watches to the Video player, oh wait, MSFT forgot about "convergence" there.... whats up with that? Dell is advertising Linux servers.... because they were tired of being left out of the market...... you know MSFT has lost the game when Dell gives up the Windoze ghost..... where is the "convergence" between Dell Linux and .net????? MSFT hasn't created anything that anybody wants since, well.... since longer than people can remember..... let alone was able to "converge" any of it.... when nobody wants what MSFT is peddling..... mainly because their employees are about as bright as you've been shown to be..... hey, nice call on the WMA for the ipod.... is that like a record now of how many times you've been proven wrong in a single year? which is a hard feat in itself........ jon.

----- Editor's note: No, because Apple would have to license Protected AAC to them, and they won't. Microsoft's WMA format, meanwhile, is cheaply licensed, thus it's inclusion on so many devices. --Paul ----- You are so full of misinformation, that you can't see past your nose.... It is Microsoft that refuses to license AAC, not Apple refusing to license it to them. Apple freely licenses it to HP, why? because they asked. why don't you get off your low horse, and find out why Microsoft doesn't do the same thing as HP??? if HP licensed it, why do you keep saying that Apple is the only one that uses AAC? are you refusing to admit what is happening in the world?

Yes, the HP/Apple deal could adversely effect the industry--if you believe the industry and Microsoft are synonomous. AAC is a independent standard representing patents from 4 or 5 different companies and licensed by Dolby. The "Protected" part, is the Apple DRM piece, and was essential in order to convince record companies to get on board with ITunesMS. iPOD and iTMS offer a complete and very usable solution to legal online music or 2 million customers would not have purchased iPod. Further, audio quality on AAC is fine and superior to WMA IMO. (And I am a musician with extensive recording experience. And it is no big trick to create an uprotected MP3 file if you so wish. In conclusion, I hope you are at least getting paid to distribute this misleading propaganda, and not just ignorant.

Funny. Very funny. The only worrying thing is that readers may not spot the bulge in your cheek caused by your tongue's presence therein. "Windows is about choice" - surely even Marx couldn't have come up with better. Are Apple pushing proprietary technology on customers? Yes - they make no bones about it. That's what they've always done. Microsoft are undoubtedly miffed 'cos hp dared to wander from the Redmond stable; from - gasp! - Microsoft's proprietary technology. Because hp dared to offer consumers what they seem to actually want. Isn't _that_ choice? "Windows is about choice". Stop, you're killing me...

I think you might want to send this piece to Leno for the Tonight Show.

Do not forget that encoded music is not meant to be swapped. Furthermore, I fail to see why AAC is less a choice than Microsoft's offering. It examplifies the very thing we all saw coming: that Microsoft can singlehandedly dictate any format used. The fact that they now scream that Apple are limiting your choice as a consumer is ridiculous and twisting the truth. And iPod is all about choice: it plays AAC, MP3, wav and AIFF. How that for choice and compatibility. Editor's note: That's not choice. It's you being forced to use an iPod because it's the only device that works with Protected AAC files. --Paul

First of all, you should reduce even more the font size, increase text width and suppress all those remaining spaces, it would be much easier to read. Have you ever heard about design guide lines ? Do you know w3c and accessibility recommandations ? I guess your a basic Windows user so you don't even know what it is. I said basic, but you seem to have used so much windows that your brain has been completely washed. You are likely to think that Windows and WMA are open standards. Hey wake up man, this is proprietary just as the Protected AAC ! If you want open formats, take a look at Ogg. Editor's note: So I totally agree with you. --Paul "Windows is about choice," but you want to enforce WMA as the only format. If that's your definition of choice, well why not, but that's not mine and many others'. Today, we have the choice between WMA, ACC, RealMedia and Ogg. HP at least gives us the choice between WMA and AAC with their products which is not the case of the others M$ addicted. I'm sorry, but this time the de facto standard in terms of market share isn't owned by Microsoft. So Microsoft and the others will have to learn to take that standard like we all did for years with .doc and all that kind of crap. And there is a simple solution to your problem : ask M$ to integrate Apple's AAC into Windows Media.

This really is a marketing battle between which protected digital music format you want to deal with--WMA or AAC in their 'protected' incarnations. Setting aside arguments about which one provides 'superior' reproduction (something of a chimera, since whoever's doing the encoding sets critical encoding parameters anyway), the fact is that Apple is the market leader in portable digital music players, and *far and away* the market leader in legal commercial music downloads. They are attempting to leverage their market position by getting other companies to back their approach rather than Microsoft's. Realistically, the only format that offers consumers complete choice is the one record companies don't like, i.e., unprotected MP3. That's the only thing guaranteed to play on *all* portable music players and *all* personal computers. I can play Apple's AAC files on Windows, but I can't play protected WMA files on the Mac. John Gruber quoted an anecdote Tim O'Reilly told, in which O'Reilly's mother said Bill Gates struck her as the kind of man who comes to dinner and says, "Thank you, I think I'll have all the mashed potatoes." And PCs have become a commodity market; there's very little way for Windows PCs to stand out from one another, and while this may have its virtues, it's not a feature of the market beloved by PC manufacturers. Digital media is a new market. If you're moving into it like HP is, the better partner for you may well be the small one with tremendous buzz value who's clearly standing out from the pack--even if the rest of the pack may well all be WMA licensees--rather than the big one with a long track record of taking all the mashed potatoes.

Is it April Fool's day already? Editor's note: Clearly it is. HP just signed a bizarre deal with Apple. :) --Paul

ACC was developed by Dolby Labs, Sony, and Fraunhofer IIS and is not an Apple only proprietary. In fact, it is licensed by Via Licensing; DOLBY. Did you actually look into ACC before you wrote this article or did you just presume? Excellent piece of journalism. This is the first article I have read by you, but I am sure to read more. For more info on ACC, Dolby, VIA Licensing, etc.. go to http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/standard.html ACC is open to ANYONE that wants it, if you want to buy it, you can; $15,000. WMA is strictly controlled by Microsoft, and all licensing has to be approved. Apple has agreements with AOL, and now HP. If you want seemless use of products you can't go wrong with this set up. Every HP will ship with a link to the music store and the iTunes program pre-installed. All the consumer will need to do is plug in their iPod and play. How do you get more seemless? Editor's note: Again, we're not talking about vanilla AAC here, we're talking about Apple's proprietary Protected AAC, which is not a standard. You get more "seamless" by making the files you get from iTunes work with every other application, computer, device, portable, and service that HP makes. It's not enough for it just to work on Apple's lock-in products. --Paul

Well, your article has a bug: there IS an AAC player for Windows called iTunes. It works very well. Besides, iPaq and set-top boxes may not support the iTunes' AAC today, but I think this is temporary. My intention is the 640k limit hurted the industry as well. Every new way hurts other ways.

I would just like to point out that AAC is compatable across the board (AAC was introduced as part of MPEG2 and is now part of MPEG4!!!). Win/Mac/linux and just about any modern OS. WMA on the other hand? Just Win. DL an AAC and re-encode it to mp3. Problem solved. No lock in as you've put it. Radio stations around the world are using it, your dvd's use it (MPEG2) etc. MP4 will eventually replace MP3 (It's beginning already). The audio industry has already begun utilizing AAC. It's only logical that consumer products would follow. Quicker downloads because of smaller files, more songs on your player because of smaller size all with better audio quality etc. I see no problems here. A quick link on AAC at Dolby's Via Licensing site http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/standard.html and another at Fraunhofer Institue http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/amm/techinf/aac/index.html or from Apple's site http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/aac/. AAC is a step "away" from being locked into any proprietary marketing schemes much in the same way MP3 usage is today. Which is a good thing. Never mind the FUD that other companies are spreading and just take a breath of fresh air and look at the facts. =) Thanks... Editor's note: Yep. Too bad we're talking about Protected AAC, a proprietary and non-licensed technology owned and created by Apple, not "AAC," which is an open standard. --Paul

Paul Thurrott, what a clown you are. You're anti-Mac bullsh#t is is getting old... you should rename your site to :WinDisInformant because that's all you doing, spreading lies and disinformation and blowing Microshaft's horn. I bet your turn and bow toward Redmont every night... Praise Bill Gates! Editor's note: First, thanks for being polite enough to use your real name and email address. Second, please provide an example of a "lie." I take that charge quite seriously. --Paul

Let me get this straight, you want compatibility in the PC world, so you get angry when more companies join in on a format... doesn't that uh, bring compatibility genius? Editor's note: LOL. HP has hundreds, maybe thousands, of products that work with WMA right now. They have 0 that work with Protected AAC. It's going to take a lot of work to do what they could have done previously for free. That's my concern. It's a pretty obvious problem. --Paul

Your sources close to HP were not close enough, I guess. HP have announced that they are not yet looking at supporting WMA (a microsoft proprietory format) on their ipods. I'll refrain from using the same inuendo and other negative reporting methods you have chosen for this article, and stick to a couple of facts instead. Editor's note: Perhaps. Or perhaps the quote should be read more carefully. "We're not going to be supporting WMA for now," said Muffi Ghadiali, product marketing manager for HP's digital entertainment products group. "For now." I reported that HP would be working to get WMA on the iPod, and that could still be happening. A bigger issue, however, is the notion that I somehow made this up: As you note, this information did come from a source at HP. --Paul

I own an iPod as well as an iBook. Actually I would like Ogg Vorbis to become the default audio format. But my second choice would be AAC. I don't like the fact that WMA is owned by one company especially one as notorious as Microsoft. I feel Microsoft should support AAC and drop their WMA and its DRM. The question that comes into play is who owns Fairplay, the DRM used in the iTMS. On the Apple sites, the consensus is that Apple actually licenses it. Here's my take: If Apple does own fairplay, they should license the technology. Yes, marketshare for the iPod will drop in the long run due to cheaper imitations. Fairplay will become the defacto standard for DRM. Apple will make a ton of money on licensing. So its either make money off of 33% of the market now and have that number drop over the years, or make money off of 100% of the market in licensing. If Apple does own fairplay and refuses to license it, they are stupid and hard-headed. And the iPod and iTMS are destined to have the marketshare of Apple's computers. Even if Apple does own fairplay and refuses to license it, Microsoft's DRM is not the answer. I cannot trust anything that Microsoft does. They have one goal: To lock you in. This is why I still support Ogg Vorbis more than any other format. It's open, patent-free, no fees to license it, and runs on all platforms. Editor's note: Yes, Apple should license fairplay. --Paul

"A contact close to HP told me point blank that HP was requiring Apple to add WMA support to the iPod..." Well, this isn't fair because it's a refute on your previous assumptions (and was printed a day after this piece), but that's not true according to Wired News: http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,61897,00.html "...[WMA support is] a feature that's natively enabled in the iPod's firmware but that Apple disables before the units ship to customers." That makes no sense. Do you know what "firmware" is? A device's firmware is like the OS for that device, ie it's a program that controls the hardware. So for WMA to be supported "natively" means Apple *programmed* it that way. Now why in hell would Apple purposely build into the iPod's firmware WMA support, only to disable it when it ships? Editor's note: "We're not going to be supporting WMA for now," is the quote. For now. In other words, they're not saying "this isn't happening." --Paul

It appears you know nothing about iTunes, used with the iPod. iTunes easily converts AAC to MP3 files and frankly, to other formats as well. All you are doing is blowing smoke because, maybe, you don't like Apple? You come across looking like Bagdad Bob... silly... and wrong, or at least, ill-informed. Editor's note: iTunes does *not* convert Protected AAC to any format. You can, however, burn your own CD and then rip it back to MP3 format, or whatever, as you can with WMA on Windows. --Paul

It's hypocritical to say that Apple and HP are limiting choice, when Microsoft had to be legally compelled to let companies like HP install programs like iTunes on their machines. As for setting the industry back years, the mind boggles at where we could be today if not for Microsoft's past anticompetitive behaviour. And as for Apple not fulfilling its promise to change the world: it changes the world everytime it releases a new and innovative product and the rest of the industry follows suit (the sudden interest in download services and music players is just the latest example). Methinks you've been on Microsoft's brand of Kool-Aid.

I think in the end, consumers care about using their music they way they want to. To make this into a codec war is missing the boat. Consumers care about the player first, the ability to purchase new online music second and codecs/DRM last. Apple has a SOLUTION that encompasses all three. Almost everyone else doesn't - including Microsoft. HP made a smart move to partner with Apple. Here are my reasons why Apple will continue to be successful: 1. Player - iPod is cool. Not everyone can design cool. iPod is a fashion statement (like a cell phone) and that matters to consumers. It has a large storage capacity and excellent connectivity. (You should check out automotive message boards - everyone is trying to figure out the coolest way to connect their iPod to their car stereo.) The iPod dock makes it easy to take from the living room, to the office and in the car. Since using iTunes Music Store isn't a requirement for the player, the player still has to be good enough to manage your existing collection. iTunes is just as good as MusicMatch in this area and integrates with the iPod seamlessly making transferring files and playlists a no-brainer. 2. The music store - it's simple to use and well integrated with the software and the player. Given the continued support of the music industry there's no reason to believe there won't continue to be an enormous selection at iTMS. Most people feel 99 cents is a fair price and it's not worth the hassle of going to walmartmusic.com just to save a five cents a song, getting it to the right format and transferring it with some other app that is brain-dead to yoru player. I'll pay for the seamless integration and since iTMS has about a 70% share, most other consumers agree. 3. Codecs - while choice is good, Apple provides a solution that WORKS and provides what the music industry feels is reasonable protection. Outside of the savvy technology enthusiasts, most customers don't care about codecs - the sound quality is reasonably similar between WMA, MP3 and AAC and the DRM in AAC is "behind the scenes". What keeps consumers coming back is they can buy the music they want, get it to their iPod easily and take it wherever they want to go. Apple has the SOLUTION that others don't. If someone else can offer up a WMA solution, then that would be intersting. HP obviously thought it wasn't worth the trouble and are smart to partner with Apple.

I think in the end, consumers care about using their music they way they want to. To make this into a codec war is missing the boat. Consumers care about the player first, the ability to purchase new online music second and codecs/DRM last. Apple has a SOLUTION that encompasses all three. Almost everyone else doesn't - including Microsoft. HP made a smart move to partner with Apple. Here are my reasons why Apple will continue to be successful: 1. Player - iPod is cool. Not everyone can design cool. iPod is a fashion statement (like a cell phone) and that matters to consumers. It has a large storage capacity and excellent connectivity. (You should check out automotive message boards - everyone is trying to figure out the coolest way to connect their iPod to their car stereo.) The iPod dock makes it easy to take from the living room, to the office and in the car. Since using iTunes Music Store isn't a requirement for the player, the player still has to be good enough to manage your existing collection. iTunes is just as good as MusicMatch in this area and integrates with the iPod seamlessly making transferring files and playlists a no-brainer. 2. The music store - it's simple to use and well integrated with the software and the player. Given the continued support of the music industry there's no reason to believe there won't continue to be an enormous selection at iTMS. Most people feel 99 cents is a fair price and it's not worth the hassle of going to walmartmusic.com just to save a five cents a song, getting it to the right format and transferring it with some other app that is brain-dead to yoru player. I'll pay for the seamless integration and since iTMS has about a 70% share, most other consumers agree. 3. Codecs - while choice is good, Apple provides a solution that WORKS and provides what the music industry feels is reasonable protection. Outside of the savvy technology enthusiasts, most customers don't care about codecs - the sound quality is reasonably similar between WMA, MP3 and AAC and the DRM in AAC is "behind the scenes". What keeps consumers coming back is they can buy the music they want, get it to their iPod easily and take it wherever they want to go. Apple has the SOLUTION that others don't. If someone else can offer up a WMA solution, then that would be intersting. HP obviously thought it wasn't worth the trouble and are smart to partner with Apple.

The new iPod minis will be available in February. That's not "months" as you state. It's 1 month. One. Editor's note: From Apple.com: "Available to order in the US now. Available worldwide in April." That's months. --Paul

"Windows is about choice"... they choose for you the applications you need such as Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, MSN Messenger, ... 99% of them are uninstallable. They even reserve more than 20% of your Internet bandwidth for Windows services internal use. Windows was never inteded for freedom nor providing networking services; Windows is a great platform for games - when playing there's no critical stuff so it's okay if it crashes as long as you don't mind loosing your unsaved game. n0dez

"Editor's note: From Apple.com: "Available to order in the US now. Available worldwide in April." That's months. --Paul" Paul, it ships in the U.S. on Feb. 16, and outside the U.S. in April. You quote very selectively. Not a big credibility builder. I'm entertained by the argument that WMA is about freedom to choose ... WMA! You're free to use any device you like, as long as you put a quarter in Microsoft's bucket! We're free to use a "standard" owned and controlled by a single corporation! Huzzah! You appear to be posing an imaginary problem, in any event: If WMA is so badly desired by consumers, they will make purchasing decisions accordingly. (Remember, you wanted them to have a choice, so surely you support consumers' ability to choose between WMA and AAC, right?) As you note, the PC market is so much larger; it's a wonder why a Windows advocate would be worrying about Apple or AAC so much. Especially since you note, offhandedly, that WMA is "superior" and that the products offered by Apple are "expensive" and "smaller." Given that, this should be no problem for Microsoft or its customers, right?

Now, I agree and then disagree. I support Apple's use of ACC, as it is an open standard. I am tired of Microsoft using thier huge market share to push people into "industry standards". At the same time I feel that Apple should license their DRM to other people and I think that will happen one day, but just not now. Why? Because if you have not noticed, there is a war going on: Who is going to be the THE legal music download service. Apple is doing the best right now, but there is napster, walmart, buy.com, and now MTV, Real and Microsoft. So Apple has learned from Microsoft to sharpen their teeth and not back down. The have spent tons of cash and put a great deal of effort into this (and it shows... look at thier numbers) so why at this point, the begining of the war, would they hand the keys to their castle over to Microsoft. I am not saying that this is very nice, it is just business and a style of business Microsoft has wrote the book on. So will Apple ever license thier DRM? Yes, but only when the dust settles.

I have little understanding to your criticism. Not only is your arguement one sided, it is absolutely ridiculous. So what you are telling us is that is okay for the WMA format to be the standard format but not AAC? Even though people so far have proven through current on-line sales that they prefer the iTunes Music Store? It is not about format of music. It is about the ease of use in which to purchase and operate this music. My case is a perfect example. I originally purchased an iRiver approximately 5 months or so ago. I PURCHASED music from an online music store in a WMA DRM protected format. What happened next? I became extremely frustrated to learn my purchased music would not play on the device. So I took the device back and had the sales representative at the local Best Buy pick a player that would play the music back. She handed me a Samsung Yepp player. GREAT, I thought. Well when I brought it home, not only was it an adventure to learn how to get the music over to the player (after installing USB device Drivers and reading the complete instruction manual), I learned that it did play WMA files but NOT DRM WMA files. I was getting rather annoyed with the whole online music experience. If the Sales person selling you these devices doesn't even know what devices play WMA files properly?? In a last effort I asked around and did some research. I broke down and bought an iPod. It was a little more expensive, and lacked the FM tuner that I was hoping for. To be honest though, it was SO simple. The iTunes software installed withot a glitch, and it REALLY made life simple for purchasing music. I have recently learned that the WMA music I originally purchased does not work on any other computer than the one I bought. What a complete waste of money that was. The iTunes Music I have recently purchased can be moved to up to 3 machines at any given time. I can burn the song onto however many CD's I want, aswell I can EASILY put it on the iPod (or however many iPods). This is so convenient. How would anyone figure that WMA would be less confusing to the average customer. What I think your story should ACTUALLY be about is that microsoft is again holding and forcing its monopoly and not conforming to the industry standard AAC format. They as well as PC vendors should be the ones conforming to this format and the Fair Play DRM. Is not AAC the industry audio codec format used for DVD's? Why are we confusing this whole experience by introducing WMA? Especially when the majority of portable music devices being sold do not support this format anyways. THIS IS WHAT IS CONFUSING THE MARKET. It baffles me as how you can hold an arguement to HP choosing a player and software package that actually makes it EASY for people to record, listen, and export music to a device that makes it simple for people. Sure the iPod cost me a little more money, but I have a device now that works and holds a considerable amount more than most of the other device out there. The biggest thing is that it is now easy for me to purchase and listen to music. This is a what is most important.

I like this line... "RealNetworks is offering higher-quality AAC files than the iTunes Music Store offers because most customers will likely want to convert the RealNetworks' AAC files to the more compatible MP3 format for the short term." Do I have a special version of iTunes because I am able to convert any and all formats that can be read by Quicktime to the "more compatible MP3 format" on my Windows PC (which dual-boots to Linux). Funniest line goes to Microsoft General Manager of Windows Digital Media Division Dave Fester who said "Windows is about choice"

- You are obviously a Microsoft evangelist, and that’s okay with me, because there is plenty to like about Microsoft products; however, your article is far-fetched at best. Here is your argument: “Apple's technology offerings are an island of incompatibility in an otherwise widely compatible PC world” You never prove your point. The iPod player uses .mp3 and .aac formats. Yes, the iTunes store uses .aac only. There are plenty of places to get .mp3 files if you want them, and the iTunes software allows for conversion to .mp3. You mixed iTunes store and iPod hardware issues together, and you consequently look confused. Your largest offense, however, is allowing this statement to go unchallenged: "Windows is about choice," Microsoft General Manager of Windows Digital Media Division Dave Fester said during the recent 2004 International Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, Nevada.” The last time I checked, a Federal Court convicted Microsoft of abusing their monopoly in the marketplace.

It's clear to me which 'industry' you reffer to in the title.

Paul do you even read this stuff? You say that you want choice as long as it is WMA? How does that make sense? So it is okay for MS to flood the market with their proprietary formats but when Apple does it it somehow weakens choice??? Give me a break, it is Microsoft that is saturating the market with their inferior WMA, I for one hope that Apple breaks the MS strategy. Why can't companies, like HP, license protected AAC from Apple? How will this hurt the consumer?

The expression of pro-Windows and anti-Mac platform sentiment is all well and good, but supporting a writer who consistently spouts misinformation only destroys the credibility of the website.

"But the Apple iTunes Music Store sells songs only in the more limited Protected AAC format, which is compatible only with iTunes" This is somewhat true, but it is by the choice of the vendors. The DRM in the files downloaded fromthe iTunes Music store is available to ANY vendor who wishes to use it and is willing to pay the License. [editor's note: Not true. Apple will not license Fairplay to anyone at this time. --Paul] HP has chosen to partner with the the market leader in online music sales as well as portable music player sales. The codecs and drm used in these products are standards based and available to all who wish to use them. As for the iPod being incompatible, let's see it will play proteced AAC files, unprotected AAC files, MP3 files, AIFF files, and WAV files. Yea that seems pretty incompatible. Maybe the definition of the word incompatible will help us understand your statements. From Merriam-Webster Online: Main Entry: in·com·pat·i·ble Pronunciation: "in-k&m-'pa-t&-b&l Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Medieval Latin; Middle French, from Medieval Latin incompatibilis, from Latin in-+ Medieval Latin compatibilis compatible Date: 15th century 1 : incapable of being held by one person at one time -- used of offices that make conflicting demands on the holder Well, while I suppose that it would be possible for more than one person to hold an iPod at the same time that is very unlikely. 2 : not compatible: as a : incapable of association or harmonious coexistence Let's see I can use my iPod on a Windows based PC or a Mac, with MP3, AAC, AIFF, WAV. Nope that doesn't seem to be the reason. b : unsuitable for use together because of undesirable chemical or physiological effects I don't remember reading anywhere any warning to the effect that if you attached an iPod to X or Y machine that it would cause some caustic chemical reaction, or that it would cause you to have seizures. c : incapable of blending into a stable homogeneous mixture Works with Windows, works with Mac and doesn't cause either system to crash, so that isn't it either. Maybe if we take the other route and look at the word compatible, we'll find the reason the iPod doesn't quite fit in. Again from Merriam-Webster Online: Main Entry: com·pat·i·ble Pronunciation: k&m-'pa-t&-b&l Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin compatibilis, literally, sympathetic, from Late Latin compati Date: 15th century 1 : capable of existing together in harmony Works on Windows and Mac, no problems here. 2 : capable of cross-fertilizing freely or uniting vegetatively Doesn't really apply in this topic but if you want to get technical I guess we don't fit this bill. 3 : capable of forming a homogeneous mixture that neither separates nor is altered by chemical interaction Don't see a problem with this one. 4 : capable of being used in transfusion or grafting without immunological reaction (as agglutination or tissue rejection) See number 2 above. 5 : designed to work with another device or system without modification; especially : being a computer designed to operate in the same manner and use the same software as another computer Fits this one to a T. Works on multiple operating systems and uses the same software on both. Seems to me that the iPod is one of the most compatible music players on the market, and as such, in my opinion, HP has made a very good choice.

The author seems to be writing from the point of view that the current state of digital audio formats would be clear and settled if not for the involvement of Apple. The truth of the matter is that audio formats are evolving at a maddening pace, and neither vendors or consumers have setteled on a standard. The current market would benefit if all vendors and consumers would agree on a format and would switch to it immediately, but that is not how our marketplace works. Aliances, economics and consumer demand will all come into play, and eventually there will be a standard. It may not be the best choice available, just as VHS surplanted the higher quality BetaMax VCR Tape standard. In the end, standardization is what will benefit the consumer most. The alliances noted in the article work toward standarzing on the formats that are most popular. How is that bad?

HP choose to support the most used portable music player (iPod), and the most popular download service (iTunes). This is a great boon to their customers. Instead of forcing their customers to use some unproven technology and 2nd rate music shopping experience(s) they are providing value to their customers by giving them instant access to best in class services. I say unproven because how many successful music download services are there out there using WMA? At my count there are none, at least none that are willing to publicly announce their sales on any regular basis. I say 2nd rate because well, I have tried buymusic.som and walmart's music services and I think saying 2nd rate is being generous, 4th or 5th rate would be more apropos. buymusic.com has different terms for its songs, so you have to read the fine print on any song you are interested in to see what you are allowed to do with it, and walmart (same as in it's brink and mortar) sells only the edited (clean) versions of popular albums (so much for choice). Now I fully expect that somewhere along the line someone will come up with decent shopping experience that is built on the WMA platform, but until that happens how can you say it's a bad thing that hurts choice that HP chose to align with apple? You want them to choose WMA with the hope that at some point in the future the situation will get better? When apple launched itunes to the just mac market, many pundits said, well if apple can make that much from just the mac market just imagine what the first person to get a windows version going will do. Well we have now seen at least 3 versions of download services aimed squarely at windows based on MS technology and none of them have come anywhere close to iTunes success. Perhaps Mr Thurrott you should try to analyze why these services have failed, instead of worrying why HP is supporting the most successful music service available.

People are not forced to buy this player. If they want to use a WMA player they can. Apple isnt putting a gun to anyones head. I don't understand how the ipod can hurt the industry. Plus why is microsoft so worried about choice when they really want us to use only WMA.

Well, this article is disingenuous at best. First off, "higher quality" music files simply means larger, to the average person's ear. (I defy anybody to hear the difference between 128 kps and 190 kps.) Larger means that you can fit less on your device. As well, I doubt the average consumer wants to take the time to use an addiitional program to convert their RA files into MP3. But if they were going to go to that extra step, why not just import those MP3s into iTunes and then play those MP3s in their iPod? Hmmm. It IS about choice, after all, so why not choose the product and the program with the best interface?

First of all, HP does not have to make anything compatible with Protected AAC--they licensed iTunes and the iPod. That's all they need to utilize those files. They don't need to change anything. New machines will come with iTunes, and it will play them. People who have older HP devices who want to take advantage of an HP iPod will need to download the free iTunes application. There's nothing to complain or argue about here. Saying that HP is hurting current customers is not only untrue, but it's absolutely pointless. Second, there's a reason files you buy from the iTunes Music Store are in a protected AAC format--they're subject to the licensing deal Apple made with record companies when starting the music store. It's not because Apple decided randomly to create a proprietary format. To appease companies and the RIAA, Apple had to come up with a way to protect music files that were legally purchased from the music store so that they could not be redistributed. When Apple looked for the best way to do this, they based their protection on an open, arguably superior format. Saying that because HP already licenses WMA means they should adopt a Microsoft-based music store or a different digital device is ignorant. Saying that because Microsoft makes WMA licensing cheap and therefore it’s better to go that way is disgusting. Quoting someone who says Windows is about choice defines you, Paul. You said that “Apple and HP have just set back the convergence of PCs and consumer electronics an untold number of years,” which is almost literally exactly the opposite of the truth.

Paul, Your main concern is that there is now some real competition to WMA? And, you think that this is hurting the industry? Windows is about freedom of Choice? Okay, #1 Microsoft makes, sells the OS, then competes in the application arena which is based on the OS it develops. That advantage has allowed MS to become the number 1 in Word processing, Spread Sheet, Database, Email, and Web Browsing. Well, not just number 1, but basically, there is no freedom of choice in these areas anymore. There are now battles being fought in Instant Messaging and now Music Playing (with DRM). Why do you think that AOL is sending it's customers to the Apple Store? Why do you think that HP made a deal with Apple for iTunes? Because both are well aware of Microsoft's predatary behavior. Once it has the market for Music Players sewn up, MS can open it's own music store and make it the default one for Windows. Thus, it can then start suffocating the napters and the music.com and anyone else who happens to have made the mistake of jumping on the "freedom of choice" bandwagon. Freedom of Choice will only come when Microsoft realizes that WMA will not be accepted as "the industry standard". The industry standard will not be Apple's either. Obviously, but by making it a strong choice now, it will have bargaining power when it comes time for the industry to create a true "industry standard".

Who pays this guy? Microsoft? Microsoft is not about choice. It is about Microsoft and Microsoft profits. When a company like HP signs a deal with someone else Microsoft starts yelling openness and standards. Well first of all, a monopoly does not dictate the world of "open standards." And Microsoft's WMA is not an open standard like the MPEG-4 AAC is an open standard. If Mr. Thurrott would get his mind out of Redmond and think something beyond PCs for once in his life he would see that competition is a good thing. Microsoft needs competition in order to keep the anti-trust lawsuits from their door, but with columnists like Mr. Thurrott Windows users think that anything coming from Apple is evil and should be subdued. WAKE UP and enjoy competition because everyone benefits!

<> 1) You state a qualitative opinion: "comparably weak". 2) Your time table is incorrect: "won't be available for months". (Feb. 16 is months away?) This is shoddy journalism. Who is your editor? Editor's note: April is months away. I get that it (ahem) supposedly will be available in February in the US only, but the rest of the world (i.e. over 50 percent of Apple's market) must wait until April. --Paul

Paul, you quote MS's Dave Fester as saing, "Windows is about choice...You can mix and match software and music player stuff. We believe you should have the same choice when it comes to music services." So, let me get this straight - Windows users should have a choice, as long as all the choices use Windows Media Player format. If the choice uses a format other than WMA, then it's not really a choice. I thought the term 'choice' meant being able to choose between several 'choices'. Having only one format isn't really much of a 'choice'... it's like saying you can pick product A, A or A - ... but hey, look at the choices you have to choose from! Point is, it's the same old Microsoft "As long as everyone uses our (insert product or format here), everything will work together. If you dare use anything or anyone else’s - well, you're screwed - and by the way, we're going to so you for not using our (insert product or format here)." You also state, “… a bigger concern centers on how HP will make its many products compatible with the closed and proprietary Protected AAC format Apple uses.” Paul, I hate to brake it to you – WMA is just as proprietary as Apple’s AAC, in fact more so. AAC itself is a completely open standard, part of MP4 (which M$ doesn’t support, because, um… well, because they don’t own it). Apple wraps the AAC file in their ‘Fair Play’ DRM, which is a proprietary format – just like WMA. I’m not saying that Apple’s solution isn’t proprietary, (well, the DRM portion, not the actual AAC audio file), just that you’re misleading your readers by saying that Apple’s AAC is proprietary, but WMA isn’t. Which, of course is total B.S. since Microsoft owns WMA, and the format isn’t based on any open standards (unlike AAC, which is based on the open MP4 standard). If you want to use WMA, you have to buy it from M$ - which would fit the definition of a proprietary format.

"Even HP executives are downplaying, if not outrightly misrepresenting, the seriousness of this problem..." Mr. Thurrott, is it remotely possible that these execs know something you don't? Your article makes it sounds as though WMA is open source. If we allow only one company to dictate our technology choices, soon we won't have a choice.

Opinion: HP's iPod Moves Could Hurt [MSFT's Control of] the Industry - I sag under the weight of only being able to play WAV AIFF MP3 MP3VBR AAC AACFP and Audible files! - My lumpen face stings at the insult of being forced to run iTunes on Win2K or better - My twisted arm breaks at 99 cents per song - My shaved head blisters in the unforgiving sun of good industrial design - My shackled feet shuffle across the broken glass of a limited 30% market share - My torso shreds scaling the razor wire of 250 dollar hardware - I pancake at the barrier to entry of MSFT disapproval...

Looks like the author gets paid by M$ !!! Try being more objective next time, then maybe I come back and read an article ever again !!!

i'm just glad good ol' Seteve Jobs won't let those crappy WMA files on his superior hardware another thing, you keep criticising people for saying that AAC is a standard because apple used their DMR on top of the AAC, the point is that the ipod plays both, even the non propriatary (i know its misspelled) ones, the only thing it doesnt play are WMA last thing what needs to be done to play these files on an HP(or any pc) other than a quick download (http://www.apple.com/itunes/) you can thank me later for the link

WMA is what is restricting and sucks AAC is open source, and as for sound quality is years better than WMA why the big concern? I don't want windows controlling what I listen too. Its good to have choice, I like this because in the windows world we live its all about " you can have whatever color you want as long as its black.."

I'm sure the HP/Apple deal hurt Microsoft and they're worried. But after viewing the Portable Media Centers, I think they're a lot less worried than they would be otherwise. I own a 1G and 3G iPod. But I want the Samsung PMC bad. Right now in fact. The MCE UI is great and I think PMCs will render the HP/Apple deal moot in a short period of time. No wonder Microsoft took their time responding to the iPod/iTMS early success.

You repeatedly and correctly note that the Protected AAC format is "closed and proprietary." And you quietly note that AAC is an open and nonproprietary format. But of course no one has yet asked to license FairPlay (the system that makes those AAC files "protected" and loosely limits how you can use them). But while you repeatedly identify the WMA format as "widespread," you fail to note that not merely the WMA protection scheme but the entire WMA format is "closed and proprietary." Talk about spin. Editor's note: Not true. Companies have asked Apple to license Fairplay, and Apple has said no. Publicly, at the WWDC 2003, an Apple rep told a crowd, when asked, that the company was not licensing it, at least not yet. --Paul You also incorrectly say that Media Center PCs are incompatible with Protected AAC: There is no reason that they cannot run iTunes and be among the computers that share and play an iTunes playlist. While iPaqs and Media Set Top boxes may take a software upgrade to be able to run and share Protected AACs (an upgrade that is not yet available, since the Apple-HP agreement was inked just a few days ago), the problem is not technically insurmountable. Have you ever thought of opening your own FUD shop?

How is Microsoft about choice? They want you to buy and use Windows operating systems primarily, you don't see any Linux support for any of their products do you? WMA is a Microsoft proprietary solution, Windows Media Audio (WMA) without the codecs your audio player can't play it. Obviously AAC is Apple's proprietary solution. As long as both formats are possible to play with different players, such as MusicMatch I think this is not an issue. With the music industry up in arms about digit rights management, I'd rather see more adoption of the Apple format, Microsoft has a very bad reputation for security on their platform and sadly are a prime target for hackers who will break the WMA codec so everyone again can share their music on P2P networks. wlessard_ca

Someone may have already made these points, but I feel they bear repeating: The DRM scheme in iTMS AAC files can be circumvented. Just as the DRM schemes associated with WMA, Ogg Vorbis, and many other compression formats can be bypassed: burn 'em to an audio CD and rip 'em back down as MP3s. DRM is now gone! The only problem arises when a format's decoding is not supported by some other software or the CD burning software directly. Formats like that have arisen, but they've had a plethora of complications with use and compatibility. Complications which Mr. Thurrott claims iTunes and iPod will have. Hence, those sorts of formats have never make it very far with consumers. Also, what "widespread" incompatibilites is the author talking about? Mr. Thurrott names three downloadable music stores (besides iTMS) and a few HP devices. This does not strike me as "widespread." Plus, MP3s still work on all those devices and all those players, as far as I'm aware. This is why MP3 is still the go-to convention for compressed audio in the consumer market. The only unavoidable compatibility problems will come from any package (hardware or software) which lacks MP3 support. I'd also like to challenge Mr. Thurrott to provide evidence of iPod's "natively enabled" support of WMA which "Apple disables before the units ship to customers." Why would such support be included? Why would Apple bother to license WMA from MS? And if that old, US$150M, "share our techology" deal is still in effect between MS and Apple, why would Apple bother disabling it out the door? Regardless, that firmware space could be better used by other features. In the end, Mr. Thurrott, this article strikes me as party-line prose from a Microsoft apologist. Certainly, the IT market -- when IT pros have their druthers -- is about choice, and Microsoft has a ridiculously large share of that market. But that large share is a stranglehold which chokes off choice by the very nature of its unilateral control. Microsoft wouldn't be the megacorporation it is today if any of its products were about choice. Do not confuse control with representation, Mr. Thurrott. Microsoft controls the market; it does not represent it.

Hey Paul, it's over - give up! Apple and AAC (incl. fairplay) have already won. You and the other MS supporters just don't realize it yet! Real player 10 can play back tunes from the iTunes store (if you want to use it), Alpine has introduced 'iPod ready' car stereos, HP has jumped aboard, Winamp has jumped aboard. All this just in the last few weeks! Apple has the No.1 music store and No.1 portable player (actually 3 of the top 5 selling players!). Wait and see the second quarter sales results for 2004 (Apple sold 733,000 iPod's in the last quarter, that's 3 months Paul). Oh, and all this before the Pepsi/iTunes promotion and the introduction of the HP player and the iPod mini!!!! Watch over the next year as several consumer electronics manufactureres release new products with AAC support, it's gonna be a flood, they have no choice. The iPod, AAC and iTunes are just getting started in what is soon supposed to become a 15+ billion dollar market. Note to Microsoft, Dell, Creative, Musicmatch, Napster, Wal-mart (LOL), Samsung and the other player manufacturers, better start making some deals with Apple soon to support AAC (and fairplay if they let you in)!

Everything PCwindows is available to you with HP and now reach into ipod and iTunes music store... What the problem?!!!

Are you people smoking crack or do you merely have your head up your crack? The iPod, iTunes, and iTunes Music store is an island of incompatibility? No, let us try this again. Microsoft has a media standard that Hollywood and the recording industry want nothing to do with. It was the iPod and Steve Jobs that opened to music industry's doors. Bill Gates and Microsoft could never have done it - Apple did. HP has done the right thing. It rejected an inferior technology from Microsoft and embraced a superior technology from Apple. Apple has had this superior technology for two years. Microsoft just announced an idea this month. So much for a superior company with vision. The iPod is amazing. iTunes is amazing. It worked on my PC better than anything I've ever used. Better than anything I've ever seen. What really worries Microsoft and its toadies like this Thurrott character is the fear the Apple will get its foot in the Wintel door and soon have it wide open. And they are right to fear. I now begin to realize what the Mac heads mean by "it just works". My next computer may well be a MAC

regardless of anything else you and your article suck

Paul, I don't think you are "lying" about what someone told you about WMA support on the iPod (maybe they were just wrong?). However, I was wondering, did the person say protected WMA? Because I can see WMA support, but not protected WMA support. Just a question. Editor's note: A few reasons, but I'll have an article about this available soon. I need to preface this with something that should be obvious: Both AAC and WMA (and Protected AAC and Protected WMA) are great formats. From a pure listending standpoint, using 128 Kbps DRM-protected versions of the same songs, the differences are almost non-existent, depending on the song. But here are a many reasons why WMA is better than AAC, and it's not just about online music stores. - Sound quality. 128 Kbps AAC files can sound tinnier or flatter than 128 Kbps WMA files. Again, depending on the song. And your ears. And your equipment. - Hardware compatibility. Protected AAC files can only play on Apple's expensive iPod, while WMA files are compatible with over 500 portable devices, in various price ranges; DRM-encoded WMA files are compatible with over 60 portable devices, and more are coming all the time. - Software compatibility. Protected AAC files can only play in Apple's iTunes (and, on the PC only, in RealPlayer 10), while WMA files are compatible with hundreds of software products, including numerous metadata tag applications, and so on. - Licensing. Apple doesn't license Protected AAC to third parties, but Microsoft licenses its Windows Media technology for free or very cheaply (50 percent the cost of MPEG-LA's MPEG-4 codecs, on which Protected AAC is based, for example). Licensing for the "standards"-based AAC is extremely expensive, while licensing for WMA on Windows-based devices and PCs (including those based on Windows CE and XP Embedded) is ... ta da ... free. That's why we get so many software and hardware choices that are WMA-compatible. Margins are thin on devices as it is, and there's no benefit to Rio, Creative, or whoever to add AAC support at all. But there's more. With Apple's lock-in solution, there is no 10-foot UI for AAC so you can listen to purchased music in your den using a remote control. You can even purchase music from Napster and MusicMatch this way, using a PC and WMA. It's all there with WMA, many times over, from many different companies, at many different price points. There is no option to swap out the sound card on most Macs and go with a 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound system, and then purchase music in that format, as you can with WMA, listening to unique multichannel records. I've done that on the PC. And don't speak of AAC's supposed multichannel support: Apple, like all other AAC software suppliers, does not offer this ability. There is no Apple AAC lossless mode so you can listen to uncompressed music if you're an audiophile, or a special low Kbps voice mode perfect for AM voice transmissions such as that provided by news and educational providers such as NPR. We get that with WMA. It's free. And so on. The list goes on and on. --Paul

Paul, I'm sorry, but I have to say this. The vast majority of your responses are to the people with idiotic comments and insults. What really does that achieve? You'd be better off just deleting those comments. To the extent you engage anything people are saying, it's just to point out that Fairplay is proprietary. OK, we got it. Fairplay is proprietary. You don't need to correct that error in every response you get that makes it. Now how about responding to some of the hard points, instead of taking all the softballs (idiotic comments and obvious errors). Editor's note: As a matter of conscience and responsibility, I don't feel it would be right to delete feedback, unless of course it was mostly expletive-laden. But I'm not trying to avoid any "hard points." What am I not responding to? --Paul

Paul, you said "Microsoft representatives I spoke to politely called HP's decision to go with Apple's technology "interesting," although the loser in this situation isn't Microsoft, it's the millions of people who use HP's products now and will use them in the future." Uh... why are interviewing Microsoft about a move made by HP and Apple? Of course they are not going to like the move. And as far as incompatability goes, I can't play WMA files on linux. Nor can I play them on iTunes. (Same goes with AAC on linux.) "Windows is about choice,"???, Ya, sure, as long as you choose Microsoft! If you go with something else, Microsoft leaves you hanging. So please, no more B.S. about Microsoft and choice.

The inability to play AAC of some Windows originated Music Player is just as limiting as when it would only play WMA. Now would Microsoft's Media Player also play AAC encoded files, they would be serious about choice. However it doesn't, as it does not support MP3 encoding out of the box, nor AIFF and a whole bunch of other formats. It is about THEIR standards and owning them. I fail to see how iPod is limiting peoples choice by using Dolby Digital's AAC format and offering the best online Music Store as well. What makes me sick is Microsoft's comment that they care for choice for consumers. What a load of bull. With iPod, your choice could be NOT to buy one. And miss out on a great experience.

Paul, I honestly don't know if HP's move could hurt the industry or not, and I guess nobody knows for sure, not even the analysts. But that aside, I think the reader comments on this page would be much less negative if your article were more objective. It assumes the WMA format to be the ideal-world scenario and concentrates on the possible disadvantages of Protected AAC, rather than taking a step back to look at the bigger picture. In the process, you take some subjective swings at Apple in general, which seem inappropriate and irrelevant to the subject. Your replies to these comments also seem a bit defensive and limited, using mainly two basic facts (i.e., AAC is not the same as Protected AAC, and HP said there's no WMA support "for now"), not responding to the more basic concerns people have with this article. I realise it says "Opinion:" before the article's title, but I don't think that should mean compromising objectiveness and openness. Regards Amar

Opinion: Paul Thurrott is Microsoft's best lapdog! Paul, why don't you write a few articles about FACTS and not opinions about how almost every other move that Microsoft makes or has made hurts the industry? Oh, and please try to tell me that nothing M$ does hurts the industry. I really need a good laugh.

You know what? Your wife uses an iMac and an iPod, so for just one moment stop being Bill's lapdog and ask her how many stores "do it" for her. I challenge you to name more than 1 big online music store that caters for Apple users. Choice is good, but your definition of it is *********** (imagine twenty seconds of beeeeeeep). Cheers Editor's note: I use an iMac and an iPod (and iBook), my wife uses a PC notebook and desktop; in her car she uses MP3 CDs which I made ... ta da .. on the Mac. --Paul

"- Submitted On: January 15, 2004 You know what? Your wife uses an iMac and an iPod, so for just one moment stop being Bill's lapdog and ask her how many stores "do it" for her. I challenge you to name more than 1 big online music store that caters for Apple users. Choice is good, but your definition of it is *********** (imagine twenty seconds of beeeeeeep). Cheers Editor's note: I use an iMac and an iPod (and iBook), my wife uses a PC notebook and desktop; in her car she uses MP3 CDs which I made ... ta da .. on the Mac. --Paul" OK Paul, So you use macs, then you could answer the question instead of your wife: What do you think about the choice mac users have online? Name more than one big online music store open to Mac users. And while we're at it, name one MP3 player that can play all WMDRM formats. And while we're still at it, what do you think about Sony's move to release its first MP3 player just for Windows? Oh, and why not: what do you think about the nice abundance of choice of DRM's available in those Windows only shops? From "5 computers/10 CD's" to "You don't own the songs, we can take them away any moment". Sod this notion of "choice" you're talking about, I choose convenience, quality and a general lack of pain in the nether regions. What bugs me is why would you do so yourself privately while publicly flogging everything not MS. Editor's note: Mac users don't have much choice, this is true, especially in online music stores. Given that the Mac maker makes what is arguably the best music store as it is, and that the Mac doesn't support Secure Audio Path, which is required for WMA DRM, and that the Mac market is so small, it's unlikely that anyone will even try to compete. Your argument about the different WMA licensing terms is outdated, however: Most WMA shops have identical or very similar DRM licensing terms to iTunes. And there is only ONE form of WMA DRM: If a player supports WMA DRM, it supports "all" WMA DRM. There is only one. --Paul

Suggestion for a future article: Go compare the offerings from several on-line music stores. Take a look at the differences between what you get with iTMS protected AAC files and other store's protected WMA files. Which would you rather deal with? One protected format that has the SAME licensing/DRM agreement applied to ALL the songs? or a protected format that has MANY different licensing/DRM agreements applied to all the songs? YOUR CHOICE. YOU CHOOSE. Let us know which is the better CHOICE. Editor's note: That's an interesting theoretical discussion. But most WMA-based music sites have the same licensing/DRM agreement for all songs, just like iTunes. The difference is those songs can be used in so many more networked devices, software application and utilties, portable devices, and the like, without needing to convert them and manually figure out the metadata. Yeah, it's called choice. --Paul

It looks like Carly has more smarts than you want to credit her for. The fact is iPod has 70% of the market. If you wanted HP to create yet another standard in hopes of stealing some of that, your stupidity outweighs your predjudice toward the PC. Linux is succeeding because Windows sucks. So few people are ready to buy into Longhorn that Bill had to promise to support Windows '95 for another 6 years. Duh, you obviously don't understand customers, or at least not as well as Carly does. Editor's note: In 1984, Apple had 100 percent of the worldwide GUI PC market. Today its 1.88 percent, so things change. The digital audio market is still in its very early stages, and it won't grow through vendor lock-in, it will grow through interoperability, the point of this very article. And as off topic as this is, Linux is succeeding because it answers a certain problem (a need for a low-cost UNIX version in an age of commodity PC hardware) not because Windows sucks. Your comments about Longhorn are equally silly: It's not shipping for at least two years and already the groundswell of interest is amazing. --Paul

WMA is as propiety as Protected AAC. You and HP should focus on getting Microsoft and Apple to BOTH support AAC without stupid DRM controls. Instead you give the convicted monpoly-abuser Microsoft a free ride. Hell they may get convicted again in court for their tatics with WMA and Windows Media Player. Editor's note: Yes, as I've said, WMA is as proprietary as Protected AAC. So what? The difference is that all those PCs, Media Center PCs, set-top boxes, CD and DVD players, portable devices, and everything else you can think of is already WMA compatible. And many are compatible with DRM-enabled WMA, which is the crux of this issue. Pushing Protected AAC (or even just AAC) to all those devices will likely be impossible or cost-ineffective, which is much of my point. --Paul

Paul, I try to avoid insulting people in life because it usually doesn't get you anywhere but I have to say this: You, my Microsoft entrenched friend, are an idiot. MS is a company KNOWN to dick with established standards. Why in the name of all things holy would anyone want to get locked into a MS “standard” and I use the term standard VERY loosely. The only thing proprietary about AAC is the DRM wrapper. Everything else about it, something you are well aware of, is an industry standard. Frankly I’ve never touched Weapons of Mass Assimilation files (WMA) since day one because I and anyone with half a brain know where this is leading. So in conclusion Paul. Grow a brainstem, get a backbone, and think beyond your little Microsoftie world. Editor's note: You are taking the word "pedantic" to new heights. If the "only" part of Protected AAC that is proprietary is the DRM "part," then the whole thing is proprietary. It's quite possible (and even common) to build proprietary technology on open standards. This is one such example, though I'd argue that the "open" nature of AAC itself is completely bogus. It's an expensive codec to license, especially compared to WMA. It offers no technical advantages, either. --Paul

It is hard to tell if it has been pointed out below, but I did search the comments on FairPlay and found no one mentions that it wasn't developed by Apple but VeriDisc. http://64.244.235.240/explained_works.asp Apple merely bootstrapped FairPlay ontop of AAC (open) - there is nothing to stop any other company from doing the same. (ex. Real) Editor's note: Apple says it's theirs. There is still a huge debate about its actual lineage. --Paul

This article depresses me. Overlooking the blatant and laughable arguments about how apple represent the opposite of choice by offering alternatives to windows, two points have to be made: 1) Any user who uses iTMS to purchase music in the AAC format can also convert those AAC using - you guessed it - iTunes. Explain to me what user uses the iTunes Music Store without also using iTunes? Exactly which users are left out, excluded in the 'corporate lock-in for which Microsoft is often (and, in the case of digital media, unfairly) criticized.'? [Btw, I'm glad to see Microsoft has done everything to make WMA available to the world, especially in making sure the format is absolutely incompatible with just about every codec and player except for microsofts own] 2) "...HP's customers are rightly asking some hard questions about the decision because, as Microsoft is pointing out, Apple's technology offerings are an island of incompatibility in an otherwise widely compatible PC world." What in the world do you mean by this? iTunes and the iPod is 100% compatible with Windows and PCs. In fact, the iPod, as well as HP's iPod move, are all part of a large-scale integration of different platforms. They all lead towards the same point: products that function regardless of standards. As even unix and linux platforms can use the iPop today, about the only platform I can think of which is possibly exluded is Spectravideo, and not too many cares about that universe of technology. We are content to perch on our small island of incompability - we macintosh, unix, linux and windows users. And, lastly, what is your definition of changing the world? I can agree to that in the epistemological sense, Apple has done little to alter our planet. But I hardly think they ever offered to do so. But in other areas, economy, technology and commerce, apple and their innovations have made a world of difference. Even Bill Gates can agree to that, and has done so, on many occasions.

In response to Mr. Paul Thurrott's addendum to Mr Cliff Stevens' Jan. 14 post: Mr. Thurrott has once again fallen into a small fallacy. He continuously compares the "Protected AAC" format with the vague specification of "WMA." The DRM wrapper included with the iTMS AAC files is NOT a core part of the AAC standard. It's a protective measure that Apple has opted to include. There are many sites (Musicmatch Jukebox's, for one) which include a proprietary DRM on their WMA files. This -- like the protected AACs -- prevents the WMAs from being played on anything but proprietary software and/or hardware. Yet Mr. Thurrott keeps mentioning WMA in such a general way in implies that it's the most open format in the world! If a site chooses to include a proprietary DMA with their songs -- regardless of the file's format -- it will be just as restrictive as the Apple DRM on their iTMS AAC files. Of course open, unprotected WMA files will work on all those things! It's because Microsoft is everywhere and those audio companies know it. If a format is already included with an operating system, why not use it? But if another format becomes widely consumer adopted, those manufacturers will begin supporting it. NB: I realize that WMA has a built-in, "Microsoft standardized" DRM, but since "everyone" supports it, it's hardly a DRM anymore. Also, Mr. Thurrott speak of all these features included with WMA files as if integration was an undeniably good thing. This attitude seems to be ubiquitous for anyone working as closely with Microsoft as Mr. Thurrott does. As far as I've seen, the "do everything and anything with one standard" method has never really panned out. Centralization of functionality strips features; it doesn't make more of them. Even Microsoft had to abandon the once-lauded Works for a segregated-but-integrated office suite. It simply couldn't do enough as a single application. Of course, now Microsoft can charge an arm and a leg for the five "bundled" programs of Microsoft Office, but I digress. Microsoft -- along with many other IT companies -- needs to realize that sometimes the consumer IS smart enough to use more than one software package or one device. Sure, having an all-in-one remote is convenient, but even then the remote is only replacing OTHER REMOTES. One device for one function. It's not a Ron Popeil-like uberdevice which can shave your face, make toast, cook a 15 lb. turkey, milk the cat, and still change the channel while you watch through the stainproof glass. There are many standards for one reason: each has its own specialty. If all you want is crisp stereo for a jog, you don't need 7.1 channels with optical signal modulation. The WMA format can do all Mr. Thurrott says it can do for only two reasons: 1) Some other third-pary organization or company first came out with the specifications and algorithms for the channels, signal processing, compression, noise reduction, etc. Microsoft just slapped them into the standard with "We know best" unilateralism and a shrug. 2) WMA is an open-codec format, much like the bastardized AVI. It can include almost ANY type of encoding, compression, bitrate, channel amount, frequency, etc., as long as the correct codec from -- again -- the third-party developer is installed. I'd also like to briefly tread on the "No Mac soundcards" issue. Macs have supported industry-standard PCI slots since 1998 (perhaps earlier, I'm unsure). If Creative or Santa Cruz or any other company would bother to write OS X drivers for those sound cards, it would be a non-issue. It seems to me that Mr. Thurrott is comparing a child's piggybank to an ATM. Sure, the ATM is big, shiny, and has a color interface with lots of buttons to push (those buttons all run on a proprietary interface, though... remember that.) Sure, the ATM can do just about anything the manufacturer wants it to do: recieve deposits, make withdrawals, enact transfers, tell you the time and weather, purchase vending services, speak, dance, etc. And sure, ATMs are incredibly secure with lots of user-intimidating functionality to prevent thievery along with a bank through which you must gain permission to use. But what if you just want a nice, small, quick place to keep a little rainy day money? In that situation, piggybank's the way to go, every time. Of course, if you're not interested in the security provided by a piggybank, a mustard jar atop a refrigerator is just as viable an option. I've gone on longer than I intended, but I feel my point is made. WMA and AAC are both audio compression formats. WMA is a bloated, proprietary, Microsoft construct while AAC is an open, conventional, third-party standard. WMA is a loud, intimidating, and debatably supported ATM while AAC is the jar on the frige. For the job AAC has, it does it very, very well. Apple's DRM wrapper is simply a lid on the jar. Editor's note: MusicMatch uses Microsoft DRM. WMA is a more complete platform *because* it includes a total DRM solution. Apple's solution is implementation specific, and limited. But it's still DRM. Apple doesn't "use" AAC, they use Protected AAC, which is a proprietary version of AAC with DRM added. WMA can optionally include DRM, so arguably WMA from any online music store is also, simply, "a lid on the jar." It's exactly the same thing when you're comparing iTunes to, say, MusicMatch, with one difference: Any WMA-based music store can have their own licensing terms, if needed. That's the benefit of a complete platform. --Paul

I've respected Mr.THURROTT'S VIEWS ON MANY ISSUES BUT RESPECTFULLY WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS AN APPALLING/FOX (fnc)LIKE ASSAULT ON HP FOR UNKNOWABLE REASONS.PLEASE WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER O'REILLY OR HANNITY (WHO'S LOOKING OUT FOR YOU"....BY WRITING BOOKS WHICH ENRICH ONLY THE AUTHOR) IN CYBERWORLD.

Editor's note: MusicMatch uses Microsoft DRM. WMA is a more complete platform *because* it includes a total DRM solution. I have two quick questions. 1. Would Musicmatch, or anyone for that matter, be able to wrap WMA in it's own DRM without consulting Microsoft or is the total DRM solution included controlled by MS? 2. If they (Musicmatch) could provide thier own DRM (something like Real did with AAC for it's store), would it make it's protected WMA files incompatible with the current players that support WMA? You seem to have deep knowledge of the MS WMA codec, so maybe you could answer this. Thanks in advance. Editor's note: Sure, it's possible. But the point of the platform approach is compatibility. It wouldn't benefit MusicMatch (or any other company) to make an incompatible WMA version. It kind of makes the whole Real AAC/RA 10 thing seem so bizarre. You have to think they went to Apple about making that compatible and got shot down. But then they did it anyway. Is there a better example of a Microsoft-hating company anywhere? This is pure conjecture, of course. But why would Real isolate itself from everyone? It really is odd. --Paul

Paul, OK , I give you credit for answering more responses, but I didn't see a response to my question about whether your contact said the iPod would support protected WMA. Could you clarify that? Also, you stated: "Yes, as I've said, WMA is as proprietary as Protected AAC. So what? The difference is that all those PCs, Media Center PCs, set-top boxes, CD and DVD players, portable devices, and everything else you can think of is already WMA compatible. And many are compatible with DRM-enabled WMA, which is the crux of this issue. Pushing Protected AAC (or even just AAC) to all those devices will likely be impossible or cost-ineffective, which is much of my point." Here's the thing. Nobody has bought Media Center PCs. And nobody will - why? They can't take a digital cable or satellite signal directly and tune it and record it, like a DirecTV Tivo. The cable and sat companies don't want to give the keys to MS. What set top boxes are you even talking about that support protected WMA or windows video - is any cable or satelitte TV company using these set top boxes? Not to my knowledge. CD players and DVD players - who cares about them playing protected WMA on those? Nobody. Why would I buy protected downloads and then burn a CD to play them in a CD or DVD player? It's easier just to take your portable player to the living room and plug it into your stereo. Same with a car stereo - take your portable player and plug it in. CDs are history as the price of these players drops. MS has this vision of all home entertainment being digital and interoperating. It's a nice vision - except it's to be realized in a way in which they hold the keys and probably will end up making all the money. Can you see why cable companies, content companies, consumer electronics companies, etc. might think this is bad for them? And why some consumers might think this is a bad idea too? You want to know how to achieve interoperability? - common standards not controlled by any one company. Such a standard does exist for unprotected audio, but MS refuses to use it. Right now that doesn't exist for DRM, but it could evolve. For example, Apple's deal with the record companies is very short term. There's nothing stopping the record companies and movie companies from forcing a common standard on everyone (for DRM, media streaming protocols, whatever else we need), including MS and Apple. They should also tell MS to shove their one-company unprotected audio format where the sun don't shine. Editor's note: Yeah, I'll answer that (protected WMA on iPod). The truth is we never thought to ask. In today's world, you don't release WMA support on a device without adding the DRM bit as well, it just doesn't happen. So it honestly never occured to us. You get DRM for free with WMA. Regarding MCE, I guess that's your opinion. New Media Center PCs are selling at 4x the speed of previous versions, and numerous OEMs have jumped on board for the new version, including Dell and Sony. I suspect MCE is selling better than you think. I don't feel you're correct that the "MS vision" requires only MS to make money. Microsoft makes money on Windows licenses, so yes, that benefits them. But the Windows Media licensing cost in that case is negligible, compared to AAC, or nothing, depending on the device or what it's doing. Again, give Microsoft some credit here: They are indeed fostering a total platform. Regarding open standards, I think if you looked into the companies behind AAC/MPEG-4, and who they are, and what they're trying to do, it turns out most of them are every bit as controlling as Microsoft in their own industry, and they have no desire to let anyone else in. AAC and MPEG-4 are basically standards in name only. I think a better measure in this case is what technology wins out. That's what a free market is all about. --Paul

Paul, There is only one thing that will incite full grown adults in the computer industry into acting like kids on a playground - "my technology is better than your technology! Neener neener!" ... Come on people, it's just a technology. Whether you like PC's, Mac's, Unix or whatever - in the end we're all looking to use technology to help make our lives better. So just keep on using the technology that does that for you - for me that's Windows *and* the Mac, it's for the time being iTMS sometimes and the Walmart music store for others. It really doesn't matter which is "better", it merely matters which one empowers my life - which one enables me to enjoy technology more. So, please, lets all just go buy some music! :-)

Fact: Paul Thurrott doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. The only think that is consistent in the inane columns that this self-styled tech expert writes is his reliance on opinion that he asserts are facts and his Microsoft=good, Apple=bad belief system, despite the fact that they both play the same game. If there was any justice in the world, Mr. Thurrott would find him self unemployed with the rest of the dot-bombers whose value was irrationally lifted by the internet bubble. Editor's note: Please be specific. Where have I been inaccurate? Seriously. --Paul

Paul Thurrott is nothing but a shill for the Microsoft Monopoly Club. Apple AAC files are easily burned to audio CD or converted to the "popular MP3" format which are readable on any computer in the world. And the comment about Microsoft being about choice is the biggest joke I've read this month. Apple users have many problems with windows media files being incompatible with Microsoft's own Media Player for Macintosh. Because of this fact, only windows users can access the Walmart online music store. The only compatibility problems that exist are in the Microsoft-Windows arena. Editor's note: This is exactly the kind of argument I'm talking about. WMA files are easily burned to CD too, so what? How do you get all the meta data (artist name, song title, track number, year, etc.) for all those songs you're burning to CD? You can't: You have to enter it all manually yourself. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Yeah, you can do it, but it's hard, and not seamless. All of HP's devices already support WMA. This would have been a non-issue with WMA. I didn't say "Microsoft is about choice," but it's amazing how many of you took it that way. The Windows platform is about choice. It's the choices we get just for using Windows. Choice of hardware. Choice of software. Choice of devices. And so on. Apple's choice is iTunes and iPod, nothing more. That's the problem. So will HP somehow get Protected AAC backported to every single PC and device it's made in recent years and somehow alert its customers how to get those upgrades. Gosh, I hope so. But again, that wouldn't have been an issue with WMA. Because all of those devices already support WMA. There's no additional fee, no additional work, nothing to do. No conversion to CD, and re-ripping. None of that baloney you think is so easy. Maybe Mac people just don't get the PC platform. --Paul

From the New York Times on January 17: "Separately, on Thursday, Microsoft agreed to make changes in its Windows XP operating system so that it no longer forces consumers searching for music online to use Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser. Government antitrust lawyers decided that the link violated the 2002 consent decree." Without antitrust action by the government, which has been feeble at best, Microsoft would do everything in its power to *reduce* choice for consumers of music. Microsoft is not about choice. It is about use of operating system dominance to force out competition whenever possible.

I love the line that Windows is about choice... Choice with the limits of Windows. The only music store that works with another OS is the iTunes Music Store. The wma format only plays in Windows, which is real lock-in. If 70% of legal music downloads are in the Apple proprietary and protected AAC format, then why should HP worry about the smaller portion of legal downloads anymore than Microsoft worries about the even smaller portion of users of non Windows OS? Those people can buy a Dell Mp3 player or whatever, HP still gets most of the customers of legal music downloads (illegal music downloads are mostly in Mp3, it seems). If it becomes a (small) problem, it would be easier for HP to create a software utility to transform wma into AAC files than to make iPod a wma player (something that goes against Apple interest, though Apple has made silly mistakes like that in the past), this will be hard with DRM protected files, but that is just life in a DRMed world... (at least the AAC tunes can be burned into a CD and retransformed into Mp3, albeit with a lot of work). For Apple the best move would be to permit selected players to play the protected AAC format, that would finish of the wma format forcing the smaller music stores to pay a fee to Apple to use it. At the end Apple will make a small amount on every player and a big amount on its own iPod, which they will have to work to keep it as the best player around (not an easy task going forward).

Yea, this guy is a stooge.

Isn't WMA closed too? Apple or Microsoft you still have someone controlling the format.

Wow, this is really an opinon page, dude Apple has always broken milestones and beaten most other companies to higher technology. 64 bit processing for home computers Apple came out with first. Apple made the Newton, a portable which was way before any windows laptop. Their only "weakness" is that they don't have the windows name attached to it. Apple is doing amazingly well for a company who owns 5% of the market share and they should be commended for excelling where microsoft has not, ex everywhere. Everything windows does is a rip off of some other company's ideas. Example, Windows XP; looks just like OS X for some reason. I wonder why? If anyone is going to make a sarcastic statement about an apple computer you should use one first. I have an iBook and I built 3 computers of my own running Windows. The iBook is far more valuable then the other Windows Machines because of reliablity, ease of use, and most commonly it doesnt have a blue screen of death. Live, Learn, and get Something other than windows. Mac OS or Linux are the ways to go. Stop support of Windows and see how crupt free our socity can be.

From what I've heard, the copy protection scheme used by the iTunes Music Store is something Apple licensed from a third party. So others could conceivably license it as well, implement support for it along with the MPEG-standard AAC format, and interoperate with the iTunes Music Store and the iPod. I suspect they probably will given the large market share the iPod and the iTunes Music Store have.

How pathetic. MP4 is already a "standard" to most of the world (except for Microsoft of course). If it isn't *my* standard then it's no good. That's all Microsoft is really saying: "We determine what a standard is." It so happens that the MP3 "standard" was around and popular a good many years before you and Microsoft decided in your infinite wisdom to trash it. The iPod (shocked amazement!) can play MP3 files. Why exactly should pathetic WMA be a "standard" other than to add to dominance of yet another tech area by Microsoft? You talk the talk of Microsoft out of one side of its mouth while it talks to users, but the other side is that a copy protection mechanism is the "talk" directed at the music and movie industries. Choice is about...um...choice. Music file sharing continues to grow by all accounts. 99.99% of those files are MP3. You'd prefer to lock people into WMA by converting all their MP3s to WMA? What about MP4 which is the newest industry "Standard," with is a "Standard" as opposed to a "standard," something created by Microsoft? Complacency is a hog trough Microsoft offers all who wish to wallow in it and works to the benefit of the farmer, not the hog.

Hmmmm intresting. WMA Stands for (and correct me on this) Windows Media Audio. 2 Points regarding this. 1. Apple Use Open standards - MP3 and AAC. Dont see the Apple word in either of those acronyms. 2. WMA isnt a open standard so why should they stoop the micro$oft level. It should be micro$soft taking on the standards not apple. If there was another platform which had its own (rubbish) audio file system would apple have to integrate that? The real point which this article should be making is "why are apple using a protected aac format and selling songs at a low (Lower than Real anyway) quality?" If windows had been using open standards from day 0 then there wouldnt be this problem, but they continually dont. Microsoft are only getting there nickers in a twist because another company are doing exactly what they have been doing for the whole of there business.. oh, and doing well at it too.

>>With HP at its side, Apple has a chance to change the world (something that Apple has always promised but never really accomplished)--if the companies can find a way to offer users more choice.<< you argue a catch-22. when apple is changing the world (of portable audio) you say that it shouldn't do that and think hp is wrong to join apple. yet, as you admit, even you own an ipod and download via apple. so are you mad at yourself for joining a revolution, a revolution that requires you leaving the confines of microsoft city? welcome to the frontier! and, by the way, i don't (yet) own an ipod but am a long time mac user.

What I think is great about all of this is that for once in the computer industry (at least for now) the superior product is leading the market. iTunes has 70% of the market because it is the best and HP knows that and now with HP it will probably increase even more. And has everyone forgotten what a CD player is? CD players still make up the vast majority of players that people use to play music on and iTunes is the easiest way to burn your music to a CD. iTunes thus supports the vast majority of portable (and non protable) players in use.

Okay, maybe I am a little too simple minded, but it seems to me that what Paul is trying to say is that people like having choice. iTMS does not sell every song ever recorded. There are going to be situations where you need to go to another Music provider to aquire a specific song you want. Sure you can dump a Protected AAC or WMA file to a lower quality and larger MP3, but why would you want to? To me, until there is a standard DRM, this will never be resolved, and it is the less computer-saavy user that will suffer by not understanding how to standardize the files to MP3. Oh, and Paul, could you put in a spell checker, some of these people like crap.

Thurrott, Puh-leez. Could you reach any further up Sir Gates serial port? Ok, that's not fair... It's obvious this bit of astro turf came from MS's crack team of FUD generators and you had nothing to do with it. To the torture with you!!

Seems to me that Paul Thurott needs to brush up on his industry knowledge. If users don't want to use iTunes, they can delete it by dragging it into the recycle bin. Their machines will be able to play WMA regardless of whether iTunes is on the machine or not because Microsoft ties WMA into their operating system... Hence, they can use WMA-based music services regardless of whether iTunes in on their machine. HP are the ones giving consumers the choice between iTunes and all the WMA players. Microsoft wants consumers to have the "choice" between different services only as long as these services use WMA.

Microsoft is about choice as long as everyone chooses them! Fairplay/AAC can be argued to be the "industry standard" today with Microsoft and Company being the ones causing the problem. So before you DAM Apple and HP, could you site any source you have that Apple has been unwilling to license FairPlay or that they even have the ability to deny this license. The fact that everyone follows Microsoft today means that whatever Microsoft backs the industry will follow regardless of weather or not it is the best technology. This is what is most damaging to the industry. I will change my point of view if you can show that Apple both can and is actively denying licenses to fairplay. Until then, FairPlay and WMA are simply two competing standards with FairPlay in the lead today in the number of songs sold and in close competition for the number of devices that can play the format. All WMA has going for it is that it is backed by Microsoft. Correct me if I'm wrong!

Regarding the "contact close to HP"; I suspect he does not exist. Never heard such bullocks for a long time. Pure speculation from a wannabe obviously. How many times has Thurrot been right? Editor's note: Sorry, but I even had a witness. I've never made up news, ever. --Paul

With HP at its side, Apple has a chance to change the world (something that Apple has always promised but never really accomplished)--if the companies can find a way to offer users more choice. ======================= Brilliant writing.

"Here's a clue for you all. The walrus was Paul..." Yeah, you know, that's from a song. Not a WMA file or an AAC-file, just a song. And here's a clue for you Paul. WMA supports 500 devices, so what if it supports 500 000 devices. I couldn't care less. Me personally, I care about what record companies support which standard, which artists and songs I can find at what music store and finally if the music is good or if just blows. Right now record companies and artists are running like crazy to iTMS. Why? Because quality seeks quality and of course there's always that little detail about copyright and the fact that they don't enjoy being sc**ed over. Every time I use a Windows machine, it's at mind blowing trip into piracy land, music, software and movies. 95% of the market and everyone has at least a 1000% more than they payed for. Why should Apple and the record companies adjust to your needs, demand that the hardware manufacturers support AAC instead. But maybe you think that every album should be released on 8-track just because someone owns one. I'm not even gonna tell you to get your facts straight, man, just get your head around the subject properly. You really, really, should get out more.

Paul, your article (again) sounds as if you are on Microsoft's payroll. Instead of giving you a factual account of how bias and wrong you are. Here is a simple solution. Instead of jealously portending Apple doom if they don't support the "inferior" WMA. Why not try to persuade Microsoft to support AAC. This way both WMA and AAC will work for all PC user. There you have it a simple solution. Editor's note: Not true. Microsoft can't just support "AAC". They have to support "Protected AAC," which Apple refuses to license. Given that MS will license WMA to Apple, and the iPod natively supports WMA, but Apple turns it off, it's clear that Apple should support WMA. The Windows market is much bigger than the Mac market, with WMA being distributed on far more systems than AAC, so the licensing needs to happen in that direction. --Paul

Real 10 Sounds better than Itunes I think you need to get your ears checked. Real yes encodes at 192, however apple is using a dolby aac, which places more information into less space hence allowing for better web quality sound with low complexity aac. 128 bitrate dolby aac from 24 bit audio is going to sound way better than real's helix based 192 aac from 16 bit audio.

Ok, I am too a mac user fan hardcore but I'm not to geek enough or as good economics analyst as to dare saying what audioformat is best for the industry or consumers (in fact, since I live in Mexico I'm quite unfamiliar with the whole "music download phenomenom") but as far as I can see; leading differences between Apple and its closest competitors, downloaded songs in iTMS (96,268,011 as last check), iPods sold in the world, Paul confession about his 200 songs purchased (more than I expect to buy if some download service is active in my country soon), the big ACC-sided replies this article has showed (pain of hell to read these, each line in a paragraph contains more than 60 words!!! using either Safari or IE, fix this!!!), vs the 2% WMA-sided coments posted (I did love the one by some "Bill Gates" on January 13), I get one conslusion: consumers (or people wich is finally what really matters) are making their choice. And if this choice somehow put the industry some time back (wich I doubt it), it will mean that the leader in the bussiness of this industry will be affected badly but not the industry itself. Consumers will have what they want by their choices; and if exist any strong incopatibility issue downloading ACC (current choice), it will be easier (or fairer at least) to produce some compatibility alternatives (like the option "burn audio disc") than FORCE to change all media choosed. Sorry by my english, I know it kinda sucks.

it's hard to see straight when the rage incited by your life long enemy's success is blinding you. dont worry, i understand that any little amount of success Apple achieves is infuriating, and it's hard to write a logical article when you're pumped full of adrenaline. you're poorly-written yellow-journalism opinion-piece is excused. i forgive you.

THERE NEEDS TO BE SUPPORT for the protected and unprotected .WMA file format or the iPod is really useless

Apple needs to start supporting all WMA format and interface the iPod with music "renters" such as Napster. This is an untapped market for Apple. I rent movies from Blockbuster or Hollywood, why isn't Apple smart enought to realize this is an additional revenue stream they can offer through iTunes?

rather than ******** FFS just work out how to unprotect those files, I've just installed Itunes for the 6th time downloaded a tune and paid for it and can't use it because this is the sicth instance of me installing I Tunes. What a crock of **** this deauthorization is

Paul, you seem to up against a million sour geeks here. im both a mac and pc user so i don't get exaggeratingly affected by any of these. these are probably die hard apple head who would kill (or at least think they actually can) over a negative apple comment. anyway, keep your head up paul. its a nice conversational piece :-)

poor paul. i checked through the first and last few comments _pages_, trying very hard to find a comment in support of your article. sigh... there MUST be one in there, but unfortunate i dun have all day to sieve thru all of them - next line is for your to add your editor's note: