iLounge

1

Hmmmm, Hummers, iPods…. 

Posted by Caleb on January 13, 2004 at 6:55 PM (PST)

2

Hmmm… next time, try linking to the first page in the article, and not the last?

Posted by monkedsel on January 13, 2004 at 7:02 PM (PST)

3

nothing lasts forever however, if Apple can continue to innovate then they will stay ahead of the competition

Posted by noogabooga on January 13, 2004 at 7:25 PM (PST)

4

I’m getting tired of all this lame “AAC is proprietary to Apple” nonsense.  it’s not proprietary.  It’s an open standard, like MP3.  Apple does not own AAC, it’s a licensee.  Just because Apple is the first to not follow the WMA lemmings doesn’t make AAC proprietary.

Posted by Proprietary Pete on January 13, 2004 at 7:38 PM (PST)

5

AAC is not open.  You are not welcome to modify or distribute it.  AAC is proprietary.  It is owned by someone (VIA/MPEG/Dolby/whatever).  If you make the world’s best music ripper/player and it encodes/decodes AAC, you are not allow to distribute it without playing $$$.

AAC is the same as WMA (not open and owned by MS), RA (not open and owned by Real), and MP3 (not open and owned by FH) in that they are all closed and proprietary.

As for AAC is the “standard”?  BS.  Consumers say what is the standard, not a company.  SOny thinks Betamax is a standard.  Microsoft think WMA is a standard.  I don’t give a damn.  I decide what is a standrd - not a corporation.

So, get your facts right - AAC is as closed and as proprietary because any other codecs out there (execpt for the open sourced, royalty free ones like Ogg vorbis, FLAC, OpenAAC, etc).

How many of you would rally around AAC if Apple did not support AAC? 

Posted by Ken on January 13, 2004 at 8:36 PM (PST)

6

“AAC is as closed and as proprietary because any other codecs”

Oops, meant to write “AAC is as closed and as proprietary as any other codecs..”

Oh yeah, believe it or not, I am a Mac user too and I use AAC.  I just don’t believe it in FUD whether it comes from MS or Apple or Linux nuts.

Posted by Ken on January 13, 2004 at 8:37 PM (PST)

7

AAC is not proprietary to Apple is what I was implying.  Yes, it is owned by a licensor, and it must be licensed.  The codec is not owned by Apple.  So to imply that AAC is a format owned, controlled, and exclusive to Apple, and not about “choice,” is pure FUD by Microsoft.  AAC is the evolutionary replacement to MP3.

Frankly, i’ll rally around any format that isn’t owned and controlled by Microsoft.  You Ken?  You use whatever you want.

Posted by Proprietary Pete on January 14, 2004 at 3:17 AM (PST)

8

What’s all the panties-in-a-knot stuff about? The iPod still plays mp3s does it not? You’d think AAC is the ONLY thing iPods play. Have people lost sight of that?

Posted by Joe Average on January 14, 2004 at 5:16 AM (PST)

9

I know that my iPod will play MP3s but I really like AAC.  I import all of my cds over to 192 kbps AAC files, where I used to use 192 kbps MP3s.  I think that most people are just excited that there is another option on their iPod and want to try it out.  Then again I’m sure that it’s coming up a lot because the iTunes music store uses AAC files.  Just my two cents, not that its even worth that probably

Posted by Judd on January 14, 2004 at 7:13 AM (PST)

10

http://www6.tomshardware.com/consumer/20020712/2u4u-06.html

something I found on another forum, comparing the three formats, AAC, MP3, and WMA.

Posted by Starboard on January 14, 2004 at 7:28 AM (PST)

11

Hey Proprietary Pete:

I noticed in your follow up statement, you totally left out the “open standard” part.  Still think AAC is still open?  So it is not proprietary to Apple, it is still proprietary to someone.

Also, are you also saying that had MS adopted AAC and Apple went with a MPEG-4 based codec that is like WMA (except for the name of course), you would then rally around WMA and trash AAC?

How telling.

Ken

Posted by Ken on January 14, 2004 at 7:56 AM (PST)

12

AAC is not proprietary. It has been approved by international standards bodies. It does require licensing, but the terms are set, and the license is just to pay royalties to patent holders. It isn’t at all like Microsoft licensing its proprietary WMA technology. MS does that on its own terms, and isn’t under any obligation to license it at all.

Posted by wolfpacker on January 14, 2004 at 11:47 AM (PST)

13

too bad ipod does not have support ogg or flac..I think both Flac(no kidding it’s lossless) and ogg sound way better than aac.

Posted by Halvie on January 14, 2004 at 3:54 PM (PST)

14

All you geeks care about is formats, consumers care about the music, and where to obtain it. Full stop!

No “but this is better”, or “proprietary”, “open-source” or any other techno-bubble you like to wrap yourself with to make you sound intelligent - Consumers want 1 format, not a format war - and that is what the article is hinting.

get a grip people, it’s the musak that matters, it’s [B]entertainment[/B] after all.

Posted by voodoo on January 14, 2004 at 10:52 PM (PST)

15

sorry if I would like my musak to sound better

Posted by Halvie on January 15, 2004 at 8:04 PM (PST)

16

No offense intended, but this comment thread has gotten off the topic of the posted article.  Rather than discussing codecs and their “proprietary” (or not) nature, I find it much more interesting that Apple & HP have entered into an agreement to sell HP branded iPods, and for HP (& Compaq, too?) PCs to ship with iTunes for Windows preinstalled, with an icon on the desktop.  This is news, is it not?!?! 

Has Apple ever sold hardware branded with a PC makers brand name?  I can’t recall them ever doing that, so this is big news.  Plus, it will most likely further increase the iPod’d (and iTMS’s) dominance in the marketplace.

Comments? 

Tom

Posted by tntracy on January 16, 2004 at 9:33 AM (PST)