WMA might take over, many people prefer wma already. Options

[music_man_mpc]

Microsoft should make WMA desirable by making it the best choice, not the only choice.

The mass market couldn't care less whether its the best choice or the worst, so long as it will play the way they expect it will.

[moi]

OGG is the only hope for consumers who want to be free from restrictions when ripping their music- and it has to be pushed..

Otherwise we will all be stuck with wma pro ,,,

Just my opinion ... By the way I hate wma simply because of the DRm thing....I'm sure everyone does. And it is ON by default in WMP contrary to what many Microsoft zealots say.

This is nonsense. I have ripped CDs with both MP3 and WMA, and had no restrictions from it. What "restrictions" are there from ripping a CD with WMA or MP3? Why is OGG the "only hope for consumers who want to be free from restrictions when ripping their music"? That's a nonsensical statement.

If you "hate DRM", then don't buy music from the online services. I don't-- I prefer to buy CDs, and rip them for portable use. I don't know what you mean by DRM being "On by Default" in Windows Media Player. If you are playing back a DRM song, of course DRM is on, but playing back a non-DRM song has nothing to do with DRM. Or, if you mean that if you rip a CD with WMP, it adds DRM to the songs, I don't see how that could be the case. (I don't rip or play back with WMP myself , but AFAIK DRM only exists in songs purchased from online services.)

(By the way, the reason that the online services use DRM is not that the "evil Microsoft" has forced it on them. The recording industry insists on DRM for these download services. There are only two current choices for DRM--AAC (only from Itunes store, as Apple does not allow others to use their proprietary AAC-DRM), and WMA-DRM, which is available to all.)

[moi]

Microsoft should make WMA desirable by making it the best choice, not the only choice.

How is WMA "the only choice"?

As one can read about on this forum, there are many choices for compressing music.

For buying from online download services, there are two choices--AAC and WMA. That is because the recording industry demands DRM for such services, and those are the only two formats that support DRM.

The largest, most popular online music download service, Itunes, uses AAC. All the others use WMA. Not due to any evil maneuvering by Microsoft, but due to the fact that Apple will not allow any other service but their Itunes to use their proprietary AAC-DRM, while Microsoft allows everyone to use the WMA-DRM.

If you don't want to have DRM, of course you have the choice of not using these services, and instead buying the CDs you want (as I do). Then you have the music completely uncompressed, and you can compress it as you wish yourself (with a multitude of choices) to use on portable devices, etc.

So--I don't see how Microsoft has "made WMA the only choice"?

[moi]

I know more people who are curious about ogg than they are about wmp. The more M$ tries to shove it down peoples throats the more they rebel. See how many people are buying wmp files compared to acc.
I know a couple of people who loaded up on napster and were keen on it for a while until they realized a heavy increase in listenr fatigue listening to 128 wma.

Could you please explain how anyone has "shoved a music compression format down your throat"?

[moi]

I feel guilty ! My new smartphone is running Windows Mobile Smartphone Edition 2003, and can only play MP3 and WMA. As i dont have a bigger storage card than the original 32 MB coming with the phone right now, i converted my favourite songs to WMA 64 kbps to at least have some music with me ....

Why should you feel guilty?

Does the music ripped at WMA 64kbps sound "terrible" to you, as some would claim?

[Cerbie]

OGG is the only hope for consumers who want to be free from restrictions when ripping their music- and it has to be pushed..

Otherwise we will all be stuck with wma pro ,,,

Just my opinion ... By the way I hate wma simply because of the DRm thing....I'm sure everyone does. And it is ON by default in WMP contrary to what many Microsoft zealots say.

This is nonsense. I have ripped CDs with both MP3 and WMA, and had no restrictions from it. What "restrictions" are there from ripping a CD with WMA or MP3? Why is OGG the "only hope for consumers who want to be free from restrictions when ripping their music"? That's a nonsensical statement.

If you "hate DRM", then don't buy music from the online services. I don't-- I prefer to buy CDs, and rip them for portable use. I don't know what you mean by DRM being "On by Default" in Windows Media Player. If you are playing back a DRM song, of course DRM is on, but playing back a non-DRM song has nothing to do with DRM. Or, if you mean that if you rip a CD with WMP, it adds DRM to the songs, I don't see how that could be the case. (I don't rip or play back with WMP myself , but AFAIK DRM only exists in songs purchased from online services.)

(By the way, the reason that the online services use DRM is not that the "evil Microsoft" has forced it on them. The recording industry insists on DRM for these download services. There are only two current choices for DRM--AAC (only from Itunes store, as Apple does not allow others to use their proprietary AAC-DRM), and WMA-DRM, which is available to all.)

Also, if you don't like DRM, you RETURN factory-damaged CDs, and don't use compressed formats that even SUPPORT restrictions on your use. CDDA, FLAC, MP3, MPC (IIRC), and Ogg anything easily fit the bill, offering portability, good transparency for hardware players (in the case of MP3 & Ogg), and public ontrol.
Then you buy from non-RIAA labels when possible, and ignore DRM-enabled online music stores.

[kwanbis]

It works like this.

MS blundles WMA with Windows.
90% of desktops use Windows.
90% of the Windows users use watever comes with Windows.
81% of the market ends up using WMA.
Hardware player makers get incentive (money) from MS to implement WMA, and as 81%+ of the market already uses it, is a non brainer.
=
WMA being the only option

[moi]

It works like this.

MS blundles WMA with Windows.
90% of desktops use Windows.
90% of the Windows users use watever comes with Windows.
81% of the market ends up using WMA.
Hardware player makers get incentive (money) from MS to implement WMA, and as 81%+ of the market already uses it, is a non brainer.
=
WMA being the only option

Partially true-- (certainly for other apps such as browsers, although now Firefox is getting a foothold).

However--through clever marketing, the Ipod is by far the most popular portable digital music player, and the Itunes store is the only one that will work with Ipod. Therefore, I would guess that more people use AAC than WMA, as Itunes is the most successful online service. All the other services use WMA, but Itunes is much bigger than any of them. So I doubt the figure above about 81% WMA. Where did you get that statistic? Regardess of 90% of desktops running WIndows, the largest seller of portable music deviceds is Apple, and people who have an Ipod and wish to buy from an online service, buy from Itunes.

For people who do their own ripping, I would guess that MP3 is still the most used format.

Why do all the other services (besides Itunes) use WMA? The recording industry insists on DRM. THere are only two forms of DRM available--WMA and AAC. Apple will not allow any services other than Itunes to use its proprietary AAC-DRM. Microsoft allows anyone to use WMA-DRM.

[kwanbis]

However--through clever marketing, the Ipod is by far the most popular portable digital music player, and the Itunes store is the only one that will work with Ipod. Therefore, I would guess that more people use AAC than WMA, as Itunes is the most successful online service. All the other services use WMA, but Itunes is much bigger than any of them. So I doubt the figure above about 81% WMA. Where did you get that statistic? Regardess of 90% of desktops running WIndows, the largest seller of portable music deviceds is Apple, and people who have an Ipod and wish to buy from an online service, buy from Itunes.

it was an example on HOW COULD HAPPEN, thanks god it hasn't, and it won't.

[Woodinville]

wma is a dirty format in many aspects....also it resides inside the asf container which allows scripts to be embedded and run!? from inside a simple audio file, what a piss off.

An interesting statement, indeed. You are asserting that the .wma files on my computer are using asf formatting inside them? Would you mind checking on this particular issue and reporting back to us?

Also never forget what the W in wma stands for... all of the people I know that use wma do not know what wma is and what an mp3 is...

You wouldn't mind showing us your population sample, your statistics, and your evidence that you've exhausted everyone you "know" in this regard, would you?

So unless you work at m$soft stay away from wma and in general from DRM 

Why? Could you offer some verifiable, testable, confirmable evidence?

[Busemann]

Also never forget what the W in wma stands for... all of the people I know that use wma do not know what wma is and what an mp3 is...

You wouldn't mind showing us your population sample, your statistics, and your evidence that you've exhausted everyone you "know" in this regard, would you?

Considering WMA is proprietary, not as good quality as mp3 and enjoys only limited software/hardware support, I can very well see why acquainted people shy away. That WMA Pro doesn't play on WMA players surely pisses off some of the closest followers as well. Since Microsoft made mp3 the default in WMP, I think wma's user-base will shrink quite heavily (let's get real here, the majority of wma users have been those who just pop in their cd's and press "import").

Neither the "plays-for-sure" wma music stores or DAP's do very well either, it seems..

This post has been edited by Busemann: Mar 28 2005, 19:20

[Latexxx]

An interesting statement, indeed. You are asserting that the .wma files on my computer are using asf formatting inside them? Would you mind checking on this particular issue and reporting back to us?

.wma files are asf indeed.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...mat/robust.aspx

.WMA for files that include audio compressed with the Windows Media Audio codec, or
.WMV for files that include both audio and video compressed with Windows Media Audio and Windows Media Video codecs.
Content compressed with other codecs should be stored in file and use the .ASF extension.

--

By using separate extensions, users can install multiple players on their system some which may play only audio, and associate with the .WMA extension, and different players that play both audio and video, and associate with the .WMV extension.

[Woodinville]

The important thing here is that MONOPOLYS are bad for all but themselves, whoever the monopoly is .... ..., AT&T, ..., any MONOPOLY is bad for consumers ... THIS

Well, without Bell Labs (in the AT&T days) you wouldn't have MP3, AAC, PAC, muLaw, most of the CELP coding, electret microphones, speakerphones, or transistors.

Do you really want to go there?

P.S. This is abysmally off topic. I think that the OT works to prejudice the original subject in the thread. This thread should be split into the audio issues (in a coding forum) and this silly complaining about success (which should be deep 6'ed)
.

[Woodinville]

Considering WMA is proprietary, not as good quality as mp3 and enjoys only limited software/hardware support, I can very well see why acquainted people shy away. That WMA Pro doesn't play on WMA players surely pisses off some of the closest followers as well. Since Microsoft made mp3 the default in WMP, I think wma's user-base will shrink quite heavily (let's get real here, the majority of wma users have been those who just pop in their cd's and press "import").

Neither the "plays-for-sure" wma music stores or DAP's do very well either, it seems..

In other words, you have no testable, verifiable evidence, only hearsay and a heartfelt desire.

Would you like to offer evidence regarding current WMA (10) vs. MP3?

[Woodinville]

.WMA for files that include audio compressed with the Windows Media Audio codec, or
.WMV for files that include both audio and video compressed with Windows Media Audio and Windows Media Video codecs.
Content compressed with other codecs should be stored in file and use the .ASF extension.

--

By using separate extensions, users can install multiple players on their system some which may play only audio, and associate with the .WMA extension, and different players that play both audio and video, and associate with the .WMV extension.

In other words, you can put WMA inside of an ASF file. Do you mean to claim that this means that WMA is ASF?

Is everything else you can put inside an ASF file also 'ASF'?

Are you confusing the stream with the container, perchance?

[Latexxx]

No. I'm afraid that you are considering the container and codec. ASF holds video, audio etc. And Windows Media Player and Windows Media Encoder do always put wma in asf.
Wma isn't asf but .wma is asf.