More than you ever wanted to know about audio formats
Thought I'd lay out some fundamental facts about a few audio formats - some comments show some common misperceptions.
- Mp3 – the jpeg of digital music. Supported by everyone, everywhere. Mediocre compression efficiency, but utterly dominant in personal libraries because users can simply rip to a higher bitrate. Licensable by anyone for a low fee. Universal compatibility is mp3’s key feature.
- AAC – designed for MPEG, by MPEG. Largely associated with Apple at this point, AAC was designed by a licensing body, complete with patent pool, etc.. Licensable by anyone for a (relatively pricey) fee from MPEG-LA. High compression efficiency. Compatibility is more limited, but the iPod brings AAC support to 10s of millions of iPods (and PCs). iPod ubiquity is driving improved compatibility over time.
- WMA – Microsoft’s audio format. Adopted by most mp3 player skus (but not by most mp3 player units, thanks to the iPod..). Freely licensable for a low fee. Also associated with WMDRM, which is supported by playsforsure devices. High compression efficiency, good compatibility story, but not as good as mp3’s.
- Ogg, FLAC, etc… - Open source codecs. Generally good compression efficiency, but very low support from services and devices. To use these is to enter untested legal waters, but they’re very interesting, and nobody is asking for money for them...yet.
82 Comments:
"Compatibility is fine – as long as you buy Apple products."
Or Nokia N-Series, Palm OS-based device, Sony Walkman, Sony PSP, Sony Playstation, ZUNE... did I mention Freakin' ZUNE!!, Sansa e200R, most music phones from manufacturers such as Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, BenQ-Siemens and Philips... or... you know, Apple products.
Gotta agree with the previous poster. David, when you post statements like "Compatibility is fine – as long as you buy Apple products" you come across as biased as this is plainly not an accurate assessment.
Even Microsoft's own ZUNE supports aac.
But nice try on spinning this in Microsoft's favor. Steve Jobs and EMI just killed wma.
Uh, I think you guys are interpreting that statement a bit wrong. Most dedicated portable music players don't play AAC. That's a fact. Maybe David can 'officially' flesh out what meant.
Side comment: I guess none of you have experienced the incompatibility of AAC content generated outside of iTunes/iPod, huh? Heck, tagging isn't even standard.
I believe that AAC is only superior to MP3 at lower bitrates. At 256k/s I think it's very hard to tell AAC and MP3 apart.
Given that you would think that Apple would take this opportunity to switch to MP3. It may be they have negotiated some one off fee with the MPEG-LA or it may just be a format play to continue to gently steer users towards the ipod.
Uh, no, I'm not misinterpreting him. After all his OWN product almost represents 9% of the hard disk market!
And I have created AACs with numerous software packages and have played them on numerous devices and have never had an issue. But unlike David I know what my devices are compatible with...
marc, your statement is entirely contingent on the quality of the encoder. The encoder the studios are using to produce iTS masters is superior to the one in iTunes (cost savings). And even this low-end codec in iTunes continues to improve. Your statements are based on old tests, using the best LAME mp3 encoder and the earliest, most generic iTunes aac encoder.
Yes, aac is supported on some other devices (you forgot HDDVD and blueray). But the only way to really ensure your files will work well is to buy apple. For example, they use their own proprietary tagging standard that isn't documented or licensable. For the files to work, you must go reverse-engineer and build your device, and then apple can change it anytime.
But I'll concede my flip comment was too black and white.
@marc sutton
I tend to agree - above some bitrate codecs are all "good enough". With extreme codec engineer golden ears, I've seen users distinguish codecs from the originals at 256kbps but fail at 320kbps.
For most users, 256 or even 192 mp3 are indistinguishable from the original source.
"But the only way to really ensure your files will work well is to buy apple."
Baloney! Are you suggesting that your own devices support for AAC may be incompatible with an unprotected AAC. That's simple absurd.
"For example, they use their own proprietary tagging standard that isn't documented or licensable."
Which only contains their rating and their own tags not supported by ID3. All ID3 tags will be compatible. And all content will always play on any device with AAC support.
"For the files to work, you must go reverse-engineer and build your device, and then apple can change it anytime."
No, the file WILL work. You may lose a couple of tags. That's it.
id3 is not part of the official aac spec. Unless your device uses this apple extension, you'll lose tags like artist and album.
In fact, can you tell me these unsupported tags?
I can only think of the compilation tag. Otherwise, everything is id3 2.3.
Yes, iTunes handles lyrics and artwork and ratings separately, but this has nothing to do with an AAC-capable device having compatibility issues with an iTS-purchased AAC.
"id3 is not part of the official aac spec. Unless your device uses this apple extension, you'll lose tags like artist and album. "
id3 is an Apple extension? Funny that.
No, id3 is not a part of the spec. It's not officially anything. However, 99.9% of devices do support id3. I have not seen a single device that does not view id3 tags associated with aac files.
In fact, guess what? I've moved aac's that I ripped to YOUR ZUNE! And, again, guess what? The tags were FINE!
Sad seeing this FUD campaign. Fun, but sad.
Someone said, "No, the file WILL work. You may lose a couple of tags. That's it."
Losing tags is actually a huge issue for me. Considering all my devices use tags to navigate and sort data losing a couple of tags turns into a nightmare. It also becomes a big issue if you lose tags on over 10,000 songs.
Also, while there may be a lot of devices that support AAC there are still quite a few that don't. When you live in a vendor neutral household like I do even coming across a single device that doesn't support AAC turns into a big pain in the arse.
I've used various formats in the many years I've been listening to digital music: mp3, mp3 pro, ogg, flac, aac, wma, monkey audio, etc. and I've always come back to 256kb VBR mp3 files. To quote Apple, they "just work". I never have to worry about a device not supporting it. Everything from my Zune to a cheap Creative Muvo flash-player to my wife's cell phone to my car stereo (where you can burn data MP3s onto a disc) to my Sonos system, etc. They all just work.
Personally I think the debate between WMA and AAC is rather moot as the real king is still MP3. The numbers of audiophiles and codec fanboys is greatly overshadowed by the basic consumer that's still ripping everything into MP3.
shawn, title, artist, composer, album, year, bpm, genre, comment, grouping will all be accessible as these are ID3 v2.3 standards. Do you use some other tags to sort by? Can you name any mainstream music device that actually sorts/displays/uses any other tags besides these (if they even support all of these)?
"supporting" id3 isn't a meaningful statement. You support id3 on specific formats. Everything supports id3 tags on mp3 files. Not everything supports them on AAC.
Zune supports apple's aac extensions due to specific work beyond the AAC spec to make it work. Ditto Sonos & others. But a device that says it supports AAC won't necessarily support itunes AAC metadata.
David, tell me one single device that supports AAC but does not support iTunes id3 v2.3 tags. One. Please. I have used iTunes ripped AACs on Nokia and Samsung phones, a Zune, a PSP... apparently Sonos supports them as well.
(It's not as if any of these manufacturers/developers are not thinking that they want to support id3 along with AAC... That's all that needs to be done.)
Until you can actually cite a single device that has this alleged problem, I think it's pretty reckless of you to claim so.
Actually, I can only find evidence that itunes aac tags are proprietary.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t21952.html
A workaround to make itunes aac file tags work on cellphones: http://www.mobymemory.com/content/HOWTO-Convert-your-iTunes-M4A-files-to-AAC-WITH-TAGS-for-playback-on-Nokia-mobiles-like-Nokia-6630-2014.html
another thread about this:
http://forums.ipodlounge.com/showthread.php?t=192641
1. This isn't demonstrating that a device is incompatible. This is demonstrating that a person trying to do his own tags didn't know how to do it. THREE YEARS AGO!
2. Okay, a 2 year old non N-Series Nokia phone that only has the problem because it foolishly uses v1 instead of v2.3... I din't know there were still devices using version 1 of id3. That was interesting. Of course, a phone from 2 years ago that may have received updates via the OS is not much evidence.
3. This is not evidence at all. It's an uninformed developer claiming they want to try to support Apple's tags. The resulting comments support my statement that it's unlikely anyone would encounter a problem: "Then the popularity of the iPod grew so much that almost everyone adopted a iPod/iTunes compatible ID system for AAC files. I think Nero, Winamp, and Real all use a iPod compatible ID structure."
I'll accept that a 2 year old once could not accept Apple's tags. But that's your best evidence and may no longer be true.
Will you accept that your own, market leading device with less than 9% of the HDD market has no problem with the fundamental tags that Apple uses because Apple standardized on an offshoot of the id3v2.3 more than 5 years ago?
We're masters of misinformation here. Apple's .M4A files don't use ID3 tagging, as is popular in MP3. There are various 'atoms' used by Apple in .M4A... Here are some of them:
@ART = Artist Name
@name = Song Title
@alb = Album Name
aART = Album Artist
trkn = Track Number
@gen = Genre
If it's worth engineering, it's worth reverse engineering? It was a pain in the arse when I first had to dig in.
grommet, I'm just saying they used the relative conventions of id3v2.3 to set their standard, and they have been the same for five years.
I am asking for and still waiting to hear about any currently, updated music playing device that supports AAC but does not support Apple's tags. Or any software that rights tags to AAC differently than iTunes. It's a rather basic request. Rather than using theoretical evidence or lame posts from 4 years ago. It should be easy if it's such a huge concern, so widespread. There are so few devices that support AAC, we could probably even test them one by one. (We essentially have tested a few, and thus far all current devices/software works FINE.)
David, is so concerned about producing FUD he would have us believe that the Zune cannot play an Apple-generated AAC. That is nonsense.
And then there are the lossless formats.
Apple Lossless: Apple-developed (?), only plays on Apple devices and Apple software, not license-able (?), not documented.
WMA Lossless: Microsoft-developed, plays on most Windows devices (including Windows Mobile and PMC, but not Zune for crazily inexplicable reasons) but nothing else, license-able (expensive?), reasonably documented.
FLAC: Open-source, plays on a few portable devices and a number of streaming devices, free.
Why didn't you mention where people have to go to license MP3?
You buy them from Thompson and then get sued.
http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+hit+with+1.5+billion+patent+verdict/2100-1030_3-6161480.html?tag=nefd.top
My point is you can't make it sound like MP3 is somehow more open than AAC. It's not. And Microsoft has vested interest in seeing AAC fail (so companies have to license WMA as the only other alternative).
Not that mp3 is more "open" (nobody defines that clearly anyway) just that it's more universal than anything else.
My original point on this thread was that mp3 was more universal than aac. Name me a digital audio product PERIOD that doesn't support mp3.
I agree many non apple products support aac - I have a sonos and a roku that do. But a GREAT many products in this category don't support AAC and do support mp3. Creative, Sandisk, etc...
This post has been removed by the author.
It's only more "universal" because it's freakin 12-14 years old. In this same vein, RCA Adapters are more universal than HDMI adapters. Does that make RCA Adapters better? No, it just means they've been around for much longer and have been able to completely and utterly saturate the market (in the US, at least).
Also, MP3 was designed for MPEG In fact, MP3 is actually known as MPEG-1 Layer 3. AAC is MPEG-4 Part 3. Hey, look at that. They both have "3" and "MPEG-" in their name. How odd.
I only point this out because your very brief summary in the original post somehow makes it seem like AAC is some bastard child. When it is an official standard licensed by an official licensing body (of which also licenses a Microsoft codec, VC-1).
I never claimed that you have to license apple aac extensions. Au contrair, you can't - they're not documented, supported, or licensable.
@Rosyna - you're right on all counts re licensing. I didn't mean to imply licensed by mpeg is bad - they're all just standards. it's actually good to be mpeg licensed in that there's some protection from patent lawsuits as a result.
BTW, I'd agree AAC is technically better than mp3. No doubt about it.
The issue comes with compatibility. I personally rip to 256kbps mp3 because it offers both high quality and universal compatibility - best of both worlds. The price I pay is file size (I could rip to wma or aac at 192kbps and get the same quality)but HDDs are cheap.
And my point was that you are FUDing. You cannot name one device that is incompatible with Apple's AAC tagging system.
"Au contrair, you can't - they're not documented, supported, or licensable."
I'm sorry for misunderstanding you, but you have created this nebulous, undefined cloud.
For example, this not documented and supported. You have already pointed to several forums were apparent newbs understand the documenting of it. And everyone that supports AAC seems to support Apple's tags.
So you don't have to license something that newbie posters could document 5 years ago and which is supported by anyone supporting AAC. Correct? If not, please show me someone with incompatible AAC tags in a present implementation.
Nag, nag, nag. Let's get past the aac tag point (which wasn't even in the origial post and is off topic imo) by saying that I can't point to an example today. Please, let the silliness end.
The original point this rathole came from was a claim that aac is less universally supported than mp3. Feel free to disagree, but please let's not get sidetracked with further nitpicking.
Eh. FUD or no FUD, AAC's going to get alot more popular with the EMI move...
Really though, what's the barrier to using FLAC or OGG? Is it really a licensing problem? Is it that their licenses haven't been clearly tested in court and that there's a liability there?
I have no issue with your one point. I do have issue with your raising erroneous FUD. No that even you are willing to dismiss your FUD, we are left with one issue. A classic issue.
Go with the least common denominator or progress to support more advanced features/formats.
That's a fine issue that I'm willing to debate.
My argument is that a small market (dedicated music players) has stalled due its dependency on Microsoft for paid content and mp3 for historical content (Napster, etc... WMP not progressing to encode in AAC, mp3's successor).
However, the segment of the market which is stalled and stunted is tiny (15-25% of the market). One company represents 75-85% of that market which makes a format essentially ubiquitous.
The broader market for music playback encompasses other markets. Those major categories being consoles and handheld games, car stereos, audio networking devices, HD and other home media components, and media phones. In every single one of these markets, AAC and Apple's tags are supported by 85% if not 95% of all the devices in current generation devices. Outside of dedicated music devices you cannot claim a lack of broad support.
To return to the segment of the music playback market that is portable music players: 75% is represented by one company. 10% (ha, ha, ha... sorry, 2%) is represented by another company which also provides the necessary support. Of the remaining 15-25% divided by hundreds of companies, one of the largest (Sony) has released all new products with AAC support, the second largest (Samsung) has introduced one player with AAC support to compliment one of the largest distributors (Real) who has moved to adopt AAC. The lack of AAC is primarily in companies like Creative and Toshiba.
PCs and other manufacturers began to abandon PS/2 for USB finally before wider adoption than that.
Let's address software. All of the major file creation and organization applications support AAC out of the Box (iTunes, Rhapsody, SonicStage, WinAmp, MPlayer, LAME) except one. The lone holdout is WMP which can be upgraded to support it.
That's my attempt to address the support issue which will probably quickly change throughout this year (as other devices increase marketshare, others follow Apple's lead, and as mp3 lawsuits proliferate).
Now let's look at the technological reasons to move forward:
-More sample frequencies (from 8 kHz to 96 kHz) than MP3 (16 kHz to 48 kHz)
-Up to 48 channels (MP3 supports up to two channels in MPEG-1 mode and up to 5.1 channels in MPEG-2 mode)
-Higher coding efficiency for stationary signals (blocksize: 576 → 1024 samples)
-Higher coding efficiency for transient signals (blocksize: 192 → 128 samples)
-Much better handling of frequencies above 16 kHz
-More flexible joint stereo (separate for every scale band)
-Adds additional modules (tools) to increase compression efficiency: TNS, Backwards Prediction, PNS etc... These modules can be combined to constitute different encoding profiles.
Additionally, AAC has all the benefits/qualities of mp3 (open consortium, patent pool with liability protections, standardization of tech with open implentations, etc...) while lacking some deficiencies: potential less patent issues by using newer technology, and no fees for streaming and distributing.
Agree AAC will get more popular with this - though only slightly given that service content is a tiny % of the total.
My understanding (IANAL) is that using any compression technology that isn't cleanly licensed carries more risk than one that is.
I should recuse myself from further discussion of this topic.
@stillanonymous.
Good dissertation, largely technically correct. The key question is how many of those things matter to music fans, and how much they matter.
The one other topic you skipped is licensing fees. AAC is relatively pricey compared to mp3 in most cases.
The key lever now is that IF apple is successful at getting their users to buy clear aac content, device manufacturers will have a compelling reason to pay to support it. Right now most of the p4s partners were resisting licensing because it was (a) expensive and (b) didn't get access to itms content anyway. That changes now.
"Agree AAC will get more popular with this - though only slightly given that service content is a tiny % of the total."
By "service content" are you referring to the % of content that is paid content from EMI? If so, true: around 15-20% of paid content, and paid content represents say 5% of all content.
Likewise, the % of the market which is currently incompatible is about the same tiny percentage (15%). This 15% cannot produce profit and/or market growth.
It seems that this market incompatibility (not-supporting AAC) will be erased more quickly than not since it gives that 15% at least some form of access to 85% of the market (both devices and services-- even if it is 15% of 5% of 85%... that's substantial profit growth on their 15% / many companies).
"The one other topic you skipped is licensing fees. AAC is relatively pricey compared to mp3 in most cases. "
The only company I hear making this argument is the single wealthiest software developer in the universe.
"The key lever now is that IF apple is successful at getting their users to buy clear aac content, device manufacturers will have a compelling reason to pay to support it."
Apple is virtually the ONLY company successfully selling ANY content, protected or not. I see little reason to pose this as an "if".
"Right now most of the p4s partners were resisting licensing because it was (a) expensive and (b) didn't get access to itms content anyway. That changes now."
I think the true primary reason for resisting it is lack of support from Microsoft. Tagentially, they are all unsuccessful in every way, not producing any growth -- but they have greater potential for and market commitment to higher margins in subscriptions than downloads and they have no capacity to produce compelling DRM on their own without Microsoft's support.
Also, since the p4s market is 15% of the market and none of the purveyors produces a profit from p4s (Real profits on subscription streams (primarily sports content) as well as software), I would say their choices are largely irrelevant.
They either move to support Apple's ubiquitous standards or lose more marketshare to Apple and Zune (which does support Apple's ubiquitous standards even if you are unwilling to firmly say so).
Oh I wanted to address this too:
"The key question is how many of those things matter to music fans, and how much they matter."
Actually this issue has been kept out of the hands of the consumers. I think the previous post makes it clear that AAC support will quickly follow and become universal, likely within this year. Because of how it matters now to the producers.
Then the benefits or lacks will be apparent to the consumer. Sometimes they are kept entirely out of the equation until the providers can make the shift. (This happens a lot with computers: consumers desired USB, LCDs, wifi, etc... but largely their desire became irrelevant when it became prudent for the builders to essentially provide it without considering consumer benefit.)
"designed for MPEG, by MPEG."
Uh, so is MP3. AAC is just MP4. These silly attempts to tie AAC in with Apple are ridiculous. AAC is just as proprietary as MP3 is.
MP3 is clearly more universally compatible with devices. There are things out there that have no business including music players (like GPS devices, in my opinion), but they are compatible with MP3s. At one point you could find MP3 players in cereal boxes -- and I highly doubt they played AAC files.
Does this matter to a technophile? Not really. But even as an iPod user, I stand behind David's comment that MP3 is the most universally *usable* format.
When I rip CDs, I take the effort to change my iTunes settings and rip them into MP3s. I have no doubt whatsoever that MP3 will be supported ten years from now, regardless of the device I use.
FYI, iTunes defaults to ripping CDs in AAC format. And since most consumers don't bother with changing preferences, that means a lot of iPod users have AAC files (not MP3) that they've ripped form their own CDs.
@bj - yep, users rip into aac with itunes, some intentionally, some accidentally. That's why we included support for aac and the itunes extensions.
This post has been removed by the author.
@stillanonyomous:
Do you have nothing better to do than camp out on David's blog? If you're so passionate about what you write, why don't you go write it on your own blog?
Your comments are longer than David's original post!
A couple of things:
1. It is a bit ironic(!) for someone working for Microsoft to complain about "open standards". Uh, yah, and I'd like to remind you that .doc, .xls, etc are not open and that's FAR more important than this little tiff about AAC vs. MP3.
2. AAC does better compression than MP3. Apple has been taken to task for the "low quality" of the 128 kbit AAC encoding, when that is roughly equivalent to 192K MP3.
3. Apple compromised on this issue, raising the singles price to $1.29 to get DRM-free content. Reasonable, I think, and sound business by EMI and Apple. I suspect Apple also wanted AAC to give them just a slight edge in the player market and to drive the market towards the encoder they prefer. No huge inconvenience for anyone, and a slight playing field tilt for Apple. Again, for Microsoft, of all outfits, to complain about this is sort of laughable.
4. I realize that when I say "Microsoft" that the company is not monolithic, but David, seen from the outside, you represent a company with hideous business practices and the complaints about AAC seem petty (and wrong) from that viewpoint.
first, not really saying bad things about "open" or aac. I can't see that in the above. I can't really speak for office, but note that office now uses an "open" (again, whatever that means) xml format. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML. I'm sure there will be lots of contention over whether it's "open enough" or if it meets the magical "open" bar. Whatever, not my fight.
Second, with respect to the evil that is Microsoft, I can only say "MoooohooohooohoooHAW!"
You said Nag, nag, nag. Let's get past the aac tag point (which wasn't even in the origial post and is off topic imo) by saying that I can't point to an example today. Please, let the silliness end.
Okay, no problem. Just update your post to remove the claim that "Compatibility is fine – as long as you buy Apple products," and the problem goes away completely. You could make it "...as long as you buy Apple products, or Microsoft products, or Sony products, or Sansa products, or..."
P.S. Sony put out some players a while back that didn't support MP3, which seems to have been missed in the comments.
Today on Wired:
"In EMI-ITunes Deal, the Big Loser May Be Microsoft"
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/
2007/04/emihardware_0403
The author believes that more device vendors will move to support aac as a standard format as a result of the EMI/Apple deal.
In addition to being wrong about AAC support, you're completely wrong about Ogg/FLAC codecs.
They are in the public domain. You can make as much money off Ogg as people are willing to give you, just like you can bake bread without paying royalties to the owner of a bread patent (see http://www.vorbis.com/faq/#_flic).
There is nothing "untested" about the legal waters of the public domain. You're thinking of open licenses like the GPL. Even then, just because something is not locked down with a 200-page EULA doesn't mean the rules governing its usage are ambiguous.
I believe that with iTunes, you can convert aac to mp3 files. So if you do happen to find a device that does not support aac, you should be able to convert over to mp3 pretty easily.
@BJ Nemeth
I'm not sure it is fair to say that mp3 will be supported in 10 years, it seems more likely to me that it will be aac, as aac is the new standard, it weill eventually replace mp3 the older standard. The same thing has happened before with USB as an example.
Amidst all the AAC hub-bub, you folks are missing the funniest bit about David's post:
"WMA – Microsoft’s audio format. Adopted by most mp3 player skus (but not by most mp3 player units, thanks to the iPod..). Freely licensable for a low fee. Also associated with WMDRM, which is supported by playsforsure devices. High compression efficiency, good compatibility story, but not as good as mp3’s."
Uhm... David... I think you have a tenuous understanding of the word "free". If something requires a fee, it isn't free... get it?
@dan. I agree, ogg says ogg vorbis is free. Problem is, there may be patent owners who disagree and come after you later for building product on it. Like, say, oh I don't know, Lucent? But then again, nothing completely insulates you from that problem, not even mp3 ;)
But I've said enough.
@macrae - I can't imagine mp3 playback will die, given the vast amount of mp3 content out there and the fact you lose quality in converting. usb 2.0 had the advantage of being backwards compatible, so it worked with all the old devices, and you didn't need a usb1 card to keep them working.
Everyone should keep in mind that converting "lossy" formats like aac, wma, and mp3 results in loss of quality each time you convert. Over generations (e.g, start in mp3, go to wma, then aac) the accumulated quality losses can get very bad.
@patty smith:
saw the wired article; have to largely agree with Elliot's points. Not sure I really care from a Zune POV given that we already support AAC. This latest announcement is just icing on the cake given that many consumers have already ripped to AAC, and especially that many podcasts already use AAC.
@Philip.
Yes, those awesomely successful ATRAC Sony devices.
Mods made to the post.
Speaking of Sony's unpopular portable devices (and "SoundStage"): The current ones that support AAC don't support Apple's 'officially undocumented' .M4A tagging method. My phone doesn't either.
Anyway, Apple's tagging method will eventually become a de facto standard if it isn't already... simply due to volume.
OK, so the complaint is why doesn't Apple use a more widely used format. Well you have to ask yourself this. If MS went down the non DRM route with the Zune, would it use MP3 or WMA? I'd be willing to bet that it would go with WMA. Why? Because it wants that format to prevail. Why are companies fighting over HD-DVD and Blu Ray when they could just use DVD, because those companies want HD-DVD or Blu Ray to win.
Pilky nailed it:
If MS went down the non DRM route with the Zune, would it use MP3 or WMA? I'd be willing to bet that it would go with WMA. Why? Because it wants that format to prevail.
Makes Microsoft seem like a bit of a hypocrite.
This is truly said. Just admit you were mistaken and move on. FUDing may get you page hits, but it won't make you credible; eating crow promptly (when that's what is called for) will.
Actually, Johnnie, it looks like he made the correction (to remove undue flipness, one might say) and moved on. I think it's time for you to move on. The "we must pile on to rub your face in your error over and over and over" mindset that a few Apple fans seem to have is the only real drawback to the platform.
(As for "spinning in Microsoft's favor," well, Mr. Caulton *is* on the Zune team, yes? Rooting for your own team should be okay. From what I've seen of the Zune it's a fine player -- just not enough to beat the iPod.)
Thanks, Mr. Caulton. Your post is very reasonable now, if unsatisfying to the nitpickers. Bravo!
There's still a fair amount of FUD in the post even after the edits.
What you've missed David is that Apple run a music store that sells billions of songs.
MP3 carries a royalty fee for distributing content of 2% of each song sold - ie. about 2c if you're Apple.
AAC doesn't carry a royalty fee for distribution of content.
I imagine that saves Apple millions of dollars a year in royalties alone.
Furthermore, MPEG-4 AAC licensing terms are up to $0.50 per channel - ie $1 per iPod. Fees for PC-based software are capped at $250,000 annually for encoders and $20,000 for decoders.
ie. Apple is paying no more than $270,000 a year.
By contrast Windows Media Licencing may be cheaper per device at between $0.10 and $0.35 but the cap is between $400,000 and $1,400,000 depending on which level of Windows Media you employ, plus it's not a level playing field as Microsoft imposes greater royalties on non-Windows software implementations than on those running on Windows.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/licensing/final.aspx
So, it's far from black and white as to which is cheaper. If you're a small guy shipping Windows only devices and don't run a store then WMA is probably quite attractive, especially considering the dire nature of AAC support in Windows. If you're wanting to work cross platform, run a successful store and not be beholden to one software company for your format, then AAC has significant advantages. MP3 is an expensive format for a successful store, great if you want to ship players with cereal boxes though.
David, I just wanted to mention something before everyone goes crazy again.
Let's imagine I was some startup company wanting to get into the music player business. I've got some VC meetings lined up with very rich business people. These people are also insanely paranoid about lawsuits. I need to assure them that I'll choose the compressed audio format for my music player that is the least likely to cause any litigation to be filed against me.
Let's go over the choices looking at only that specific criteria.
MP3. Two companies (the developer) currently license it to others (mp3licensing.com). Currently in a huge amount of litigation. Microsoft was hit with a 1.5 billion fine (pending appeals) by Lucent for patent infringement. There's no way I could convince the suits to go with that.
AAC. Many companies have licensed their patent pool to MPEG LA to sub-license all associated patents to others. If a new essential patent is discovered, the MPEG LA negotiates terms for the new patent license. There is no increase in royalty rates to the sublicensee for the term of their agreement. The MPEG LA has many patent examiners on board in many countries (Germany, US, Korea, Japan, to name a few).
WMA. One company (the developer) licenses it to others. The license terms are discriminatory. There's no way to determine offhand how many patents may be covered by WMA. And if a new patent is discovered, third parties might be held liable (much like the MP3 thing currently happening).
Vorbis. The developers of Ogg Vorbis have done a patent search and assure that Vorbis infringes on no patent. In the early days of Ogg Vorbis, if the developers found even a slightly conflicting patent, they would rework Vorbis to not infringe. However, even with the patent search there is no way to scan every single patent in existence using lawyers for one project. There may be new patents that are granted or come to light that Vorbis infringes upon (just like MP3, AAC, WMA, and everything else in technology). Since Vorbis is not licensed to entities, the entities themselves would be sued directly if a Vorbis was found to infringe on a patent.
If I wanted to take the safe route from only those choices that results in the least chance for me to get sued, the choice is clearly AAC.
mp3 absolutely, positively does not impose a content distribution fee. selling mp3 files would not include a fee for the codec.
That's not what Thomson say at...
http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/
2% for MP3, 3% for MP3Pro.
Whoah, learn something everyday. That distribution tax is lame.
Most dedicated portable music players don't play AAC.
Most dedicated portable music players are iPods.
They ALL play AAC.
What's a "Zune"?
Why not amend the article to show the percentage licensing fees that apply to MP3 and don't apply to AAC? It's a big cost factor.
not on devices, though.
another thing to remember on devices is that I'm assuming a device MUST support mp3. So it's not "which is more pricey", it's "does aac add enough value to double my codec costs". For Zune, the answer was yes. For manydevice skus don't (it's been rightly pointed out that most ipods - and thus most devices - do).
in any case, this really doesn't matter, and is perhaps helpful. Apple just switched to an apple proprietary format - fairplay - to an open format - aac. Everybody wins.
Lettuce,
This place sure is word-game land. It's fairly obvious when the earlier poster said "most portable players don't play AAC," that they meant specific SKUs of devices and not sales volume.
Yes, we all know iPod owns the portable market and can play AAC... so yes, most players owned by people (since they are iPods) can play AAC.
"So it's not "which is more pricey", it's "does aac add enough value to double my codec costs"."
That's complete nonsense. By that logic, everything but mp3 is pricey. wma is pricey (wma is only usable by 15% of the market and adds $.10).
And let's be realistic: don't use absurd terms like DOUBLE codec cost. How about you say: increase the total cost of the product by .1%?
Hell, the only way you DOUBLE your expenses is if you have, say, a $48 device that sells for $50 and you never sell more than 100,000 per quarter. In which case, 4% profits decrease to 2%.
And no music player has such dynamics to it.
And this: "For Zune, the answer was yes. For manydevice skus don't (it's been rightly pointed out that most ipods - and thus most devices - do)."
Wah? You guys have the worst financial dynamics imaginable of any device manufacturer. (The product dynamics itself, not your cash hoard: new to game, one model, rebranded model of another manufacturer, no significant component contracts, etc...) Your claim that it's so financial burdensome is absurd.
I love how it's right for you, it's right for Apple, it's right for Sony, it's right for all cellphones, it's right for home media/audio components, it's right for car stereos, it's right for home networking gear, but somehow it's financially unfeasible and burdensome for 10% of a 40-60 million device a year market.
Ha, ha, ha!
Why do you try to demonstrate your foolishness-- you didn't know you had to pay to distribute mp3?
How can you claim that doesn't affect this issue? You said everyone would take EMI up, but with mp3... which will cost all of those stores MILLIONS?
Spend MILLIONS or support 85+% of the market? Hmm, that distribution fee is irrelevant.
"in any case, this really doesn't matter, and is perhaps helpful."
Ha, ha, ha! I can see the sweat... You've been FUDing since the announcement, but you don't care, it doesn't matter... in fact, in fact, it is helpful... YEAH, that's the ticket!
"Apple just switched to an apple proprietary format - fairplay - to an open format - aac. Everybody wins."
No, everyone does not win. WMA loses. That's been our point, and you more or less have conceded that 3 or 4 times in the conversation.
You seem to have confused me with someone with a huge vested interest in wma "winning" in ala carte downloads.
Think about msft priorities. Windows wins (more compatible content). Zune Wins. (ditto). xbox wins. Windows mobile wins. The customer certainly wins.
Oh boo hoo.
In pretty much any hardware category, adding pennies to the bill of materials matters. keep in mind most of the folks in this category have negative margin, so it's digging a deeper hole.
Assuming you have margins, on the other hand, if it helps you sell more volume, it becomes interesting. Thus, you pay for mp3 (without it you have 0 volume). further codecs have to show value. That's my only point. AAC may hit the bar.
Phones have aac for a completely unrelated reason: OMA compliance, ringtones, etc. There there is definite huge value.
fwiw, I think you're really trying to paint yourself and me into a corner. I'm saying it's complicated and hard there are lots of interesting business issues here and it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I don't think we really disagree that much. there's not really a need to pick fights.
You're sound like (but surely can't believe) you think aac is everywhere and in everything and perfectly valuable to everyone and will wipe mp3 and wma off the map. It's not a religion, it's a codec standard. and it's a sideshow in the overall business that isn't even very important, unless you're emotionally attached to aac and apple.
"You seem to have confused me with someone with a huge vested interest in wma "winning" in ala carte downloads.
Think about msft priorities."
You seem to have me confused with someone who cares about your views rather than Microsoft's. You seem to think I think your personal views represent those of your company. You seem to think that I'm naive even to think that your bland "I don't care, I'm happy, everyone benefits" actually has anything to do with Microsoft.
I am SOLELY thinking of Microsoft's priorities.
"Windows wins (more compatible content)."
Huh? I thought it was less compatible. I thought it was a bad decision to go with AAC. The only way to be compatible is with mp3.
"Zune Wins. (ditto)."
Huh? I thought it was less compatible. I thought it was a bad decision to go with AAC. The only way to be compatible is with mp3.
"xbox wins."
Huh? I thought it was less compatible. I thought it was a bad decision to go with AAC. The only way to be compatible is with mp3.
"Windows mobile wins."
Huh? I thought it was less compatible. I thought it was a bad decision to go with AAC. The only way to be compatible is with mp3.
"The customer certainly wins."
Huh? I thought it was less compatible. I thought it was a bad decision to go with AAC. The only way to be compatible is with mp3.
Oh, that's right, you are FUDing. Everybody wins, but wma. Which is why it's really bad. But no, no, it's really good. It's just not the right decision. But Microsoft and David Caulton love it. Really. It's still bad and no one else would ever make that decision. But everyone wins. Really? Don't you believe me? Can't I have it both ways? Please, Please.
"keep in mind most of the folks in this category have negative margin, so it's digging a deeper hole."
You and Creative (for several quarters) are the only company I know to have negative margins.
Apple, Samsung, Toshiba, Sony, iRiver all make money. WHo the hell loses money on a music player?
"fwiw, I think you're really trying to paint yourself and me into a corner."
I know what corner I'm in, and you've painted yourself into your own corner. If you stopped FUDing, maybe, you'd be better off.
"I'm saying it's complicated and hard there are lots of interesting business issues here and it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I don't think we really disagree that much. there's not really a need to pick fights."
No, you've said several blanket statements which were incorrect and overly-simplified. Some have been corrected, some errors remain. You wouldn't have a fight if you started from an educated position and/or corrected the incorrect FUD you have posted.
"You're sound like (but surely can't believe) you think aac is everywhere and in everything and perfectly valuable to everyone and will wipe mp3 and wma off the map."
I think my view is perfectly clear: it's in 85% of music players, 99.9% of music cellphones, 95% of car stereos, 80% of handheld and console games, 95% of audio networking gear, 85% of home media components, 100% of HD components.
You haven't disagreed with that. However, you have tried to portray it as a niche, minority, expensive codec. Which is absurd.
Yes, I do think it ultimately eliminates mp3. mp3 has had close to TWENTY YEARS. AAC is mp3's SUCCESSOR. That's a long life. It may have as much as a half-decade to a decade left. However, yes, I think we are finally at the point where we can firmly speak of a transition that should have began 5 years ago.
I could care less how much life Microsoft can stretch out of wma. It is the niche, proprietary product.
"It's not a religion, it's a codec standard. and it's a sideshow in the overall business that isn't even very important, unless you're emotionally attached to aac and apple."
I support Apple. But more so I support mpeg, having a consortium of the best technology and to agree to the best standard, to have open licensing. I am anti-Microsoft jumpoing into a game where they have no expertise just because they want it.
I think you are the one being naive to suggest that formats are a sideshow to the issue, to the market. (If so, then you and Microsoft would have no problem with everyone dumping wma? Why do the geeks complain about the lack of OGG, FLAC, divX, Xvid, etc... support? Why do the softies complain about the lack of wma support in Mac/iPod? Etc...)
If you don't care, why have you attacked aac (I'm sure you'll claim you haven't, but when have you ever had 5 different posts with as many comments from yourself? Ever?)?
Post a Comment
<< Home