Comments on: Sony opts for open audio format
By switching audio file formats, Sony seems to be acknowledging Apple's dominance in digital music, say analysts.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Police to put drunk drivers' names on Twitter
December 26, 2009 2:17 PM PST
- Kindle is most gifted Amazon item, ever
December 26, 2009 11:19 AM PST
- Microsoft, Intel to cede tablet market to Apple?
December 26, 2009 10:04 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
True "Apple Compatibility" would be if they managed to support Apple's FairPlay DRM to support playback of iTunes purchased music. That's what I expected given the headline on the story. Either via a license, or reverse engineering like Real's Rhapsody service.
Calling AAC support Apple compatibility is misleading. By that measure, Windows Media Player has Apple Compatibility too. There's a plugin for TiVo Desktop that plays AAC files via the TiVo - that would count too. Neither handles FairPlay though.
True "Apple Compatibility" would be if they managed to support Apple's FairPlay DRM to support playback of iTunes purchased music. That's what I expected given the headline on the story. Either via a license, or reverse engineering like Real's Rhapsody service.
Calling AAC support Apple compatibility is misleading. By that measure, Windows Media Player has Apple Compatibility too. There's a plugin for TiVo Desktop that plays AAC files via the TiVo - that would count too. Neither handles FairPlay though.
iTunes music store. Therefore, you cannot play songs bought from
the iTMS on a "Bean".
This is the worst article by far from c|net as far as research of facts
is concerned.
Sony was one of the co-developers of the AAC file format. This
article is so wrong, I am not sure what else to add... Unbelievable.
iTunes music store. Therefore, you cannot play songs bought from
the iTMS on a "Bean".
This is the worst article by far from c|net as far as research of facts
is concerned.
Sony was one of the co-developers of the AAC file format. This
article is so wrong, I am not sure what else to add... Unbelievable.
Note that Sony said nothing of this "Apple compatibility." That angle exists in the minds of the analyst (and analysts != people who know about tech) and the News.com reporter. It's just another universal format.
Note that Sony said nothing of this "Apple compatibility." That angle exists in the minds of the analyst (and analysts != people who know about tech) and the News.com reporter. It's just another universal format.
"Calls to Sony were not returned Wednesday."
.. and even that seems to have some grammer issues.
So much for the U.S. public school education.
"Calls to Sony were not returned Wednesday."
.. and even that seems to have some grammer issues.
So much for the U.S. public school education.
Like everyone has said, AAC was created by Sony and several other companies who were also involved in MP3, like Fruenhoffer(sp). Apple merely licensed AAC from Advanced Audio Coding so they could add their proprietary DRM. Sony is just doing what Apple did. I don't see News.com commenting on the fact that other electronics companies like Kenwood, who also support AAC, as bowing to Apple.
AAC will eventually replace MP3 because it's more efficient at lower bitrates. Apple has definitely helped it become popular, though, with the iTMS/ Ok...rant switch, off.
Like everyone has said, AAC was created by Sony and several other companies who were also involved in MP3, like Fruenhoffer(sp). Apple merely licensed AAC from Advanced Audio Coding so they could add their proprietary DRM. Sony is just doing what Apple did. I don't see News.com commenting on the fact that other electronics companies like Kenwood, who also support AAC, as bowing to Apple.
AAC will eventually replace MP3 because it's more efficient at lower bitrates. Apple has definitely helped it become popular, though, with the iTMS/ Ok...rant switch, off.
is the crux of the issue here.
No one cares if you can play Apple's music format or not, what they care about is whether the music or movies they download from the company that monopolises this content can be played on the device they've chosen.
This is why Apple are not, and never have been, any more morally correct than Microsoft or any other demonised corporate.
Microsoft are demonised because through deceptive practices they've gained a monopolising market share for their OS and web browser.
Having gained the necessary market share, they used this position to either price their competitors into bankruptcy, use proprietory formats and code to make competitive software either incompatible with their own market leading products or just consumed their competitors whole.
Apple, having gained a monopolising market share through a great product, extremely clever marketing campaigns went on to marginalise their competitors by first securing the exclusive rights to 90% of the content worth having, then via proprietory drm make sure no one else could hope to offer a competing product.
Sure they at least offer a decent product, but I would argue that their treatment of their own customers is no less shoddy than that of Microsoft's treatment of Windows users.
Obviously they've learnt a trick or two from the recording industry they've managed to align themselves with, such filing lawsuits against their own customers for having the gall to give out information Apple don't want released. Not intellectual property, but news about interllectual property.
They charge full operating system prices for operating system upgrades.
They sell hugely overpriced mp3 players with batteries that don't last 3 years, then charge them a price to replace those batteries that would be better suited for the mp3 player itself.
If they find any business trying to make a buck selling say a competing battery or allow a competing mp3 player to play content bought from iTunes, they sue that company into submission.
Their tactics are worthy of nothing but contempt, and this hero worshipping of a guy that invented a two colour computer with a non-multitasking OS is laughable.
Microsoft may have stolen their ideas from Apple, but Apple subsumed theirs from Commodore and Atari, only to produce an inferior product.
Commodore produced the only true multitasking computer with above 8-bit colour graphics, stereo sound and multimedia capable devices. They invented Desktop Video, 2D and 3D animation capable home computers and their developers invented the products that made most of the special effects corporates who they are today.
Atari produced the best music producing system on the market, the only home computer that was midi-compatible out of the box, and their developers produced the software that led to almost every innovation used by composers and independant musicians today.
So while people seem to view Apple as this independant, innovative producer of media capable computers, the reality is they were outclassed and outdone until slick marketing and technically illiterate media campaigns drove Commodore and Atari to the wall.
A monopoly is fine as long as they don't interfere between their competitors and their customers. That's where MS likes to play loose and why they have been hit with billions in lawsuits...which their customers get to pay for.
As far as the DRM issue, there would be no iTunes or iPod if Apple didn't put it in there. Blame the unethical music labels for that one.
There are plenty of options out there for music players, just none with the iPod's popularity. There is also plenty of music to play on them. If people hate DRM, (as I do) they should stick to MP3 format from ripping CDs or from Indy music sites.
BTW, I agree the Amiga was a great computer for
it's time. I owned several of them. Too bad Commodore was so incompetent at selling them.
I'm also not deluded into thinking Apple is warm and cuddly, while only Microsoft plays dirty. Capitalism affects all for-profit corporations the same way - some companies are just better at it than others.
The greedy bast*rds than ran Commodore just retired to the Bahamas and let a great system become obsolete.
off base. The fact that 90% of the market prefers your product
does NOT make you a monopoly. No one is forcing people to
buy iPods. You are in error when you claim that Apple has
"exclusive rights to 90% of the content worth having." Almost
everything available through iTunes is available elsewhere, either
as WMA-based media or through subscription services.
And while I agree, as an OSX user, that Apple has terrible
upgrade policies, there is a reason that Apple has never been
charged with monopolistic practices.
The Amiga was also NOT the first multitasking computer. OS-9
was a micro computer-based multitaskiing OS before the Amiga
512 came out. Certainly mainframes and minis, with hardware
superior to what you mentioned, predate it too. And while I was
a proud Atari ST user, neither commodore nor Atari were "driven
to the wall" by the media. Both companies were brought down,
first by the incompetence of the Tramiel family, and later by
becoming too complacent after being bought by larger
companies that had no commitment to their user base.
is the crux of the issue here.
No one cares if you can play Apple's music format or not, what they care about is whether the music or movies they download from the company that monopolises this content can be played on the device they've chosen.
This is why Apple are not, and never have been, any more morally correct than Microsoft or any other demonised corporate.
Microsoft are demonised because through deceptive practices they've gained a monopolising market share for their OS and web browser.
Having gained the necessary market share, they used this position to either price their competitors into bankruptcy, use proprietory formats and code to make competitive software either incompatible with their own market leading products or just consumed their competitors whole.
Apple, having gained a monopolising market share through a great product, extremely clever marketing campaigns went on to marginalise their competitors by first securing the exclusive rights to 90% of the content worth having, then via proprietory drm make sure no one else could hope to offer a competing product.
Sure they at least offer a decent product, but I would argue that their treatment of their own customers is no less shoddy than that of Microsoft's treatment of Windows users.
Obviously they've learnt a trick or two from the recording industry they've managed to align themselves with, such filing lawsuits against their own customers for having the gall to give out information Apple don't want released. Not intellectual property, but news about interllectual property.
They charge full operating system prices for operating system upgrades.
They sell hugely overpriced mp3 players with batteries that don't last 3 years, then charge them a price to replace those batteries that would be better suited for the mp3 player itself.
If they find any business trying to make a buck selling say a competing battery or allow a competing mp3 player to play content bought from iTunes, they sue that company into submission.
Their tactics are worthy of nothing but contempt, and this hero worshipping of a guy that invented a two colour computer with a non-multitasking OS is laughable.
Microsoft may have stolen their ideas from Apple, but Apple subsumed theirs from Commodore and Atari, only to produce an inferior product.
Commodore produced the only true multitasking computer with above 8-bit colour graphics, stereo sound and multimedia capable devices. They invented Desktop Video, 2D and 3D animation capable home computers and their developers invented the products that made most of the special effects corporates who they are today.
Atari produced the best music producing system on the market, the only home computer that was midi-compatible out of the box, and their developers produced the software that led to almost every innovation used by composers and independant musicians today.
So while people seem to view Apple as this independant, innovative producer of media capable computers, the reality is they were outclassed and outdone until slick marketing and technically illiterate media campaigns drove Commodore and Atari to the wall.
A monopoly is fine as long as they don't interfere between their competitors and their customers. That's where MS likes to play loose and why they have been hit with billions in lawsuits...which their customers get to pay for.
As far as the DRM issue, there would be no iTunes or iPod if Apple didn't put it in there. Blame the unethical music labels for that one.
There are plenty of options out there for music players, just none with the iPod's popularity. There is also plenty of music to play on them. If people hate DRM, (as I do) they should stick to MP3 format from ripping CDs or from Indy music sites.
BTW, I agree the Amiga was a great computer for
it's time. I owned several of them. Too bad Commodore was so incompetent at selling them.
I'm also not deluded into thinking Apple is warm and cuddly, while only Microsoft plays dirty. Capitalism affects all for-profit corporations the same way - some companies are just better at it than others.
The greedy bast*rds than ran Commodore just retired to the Bahamas and let a great system become obsolete.
off base. The fact that 90% of the market prefers your product
does NOT make you a monopoly. No one is forcing people to
buy iPods. You are in error when you claim that Apple has
"exclusive rights to 90% of the content worth having." Almost
everything available through iTunes is available elsewhere, either
as WMA-based media or through subscription services.
And while I agree, as an OSX user, that Apple has terrible
upgrade policies, there is a reason that Apple has never been
charged with monopolistic practices.
The Amiga was also NOT the first multitasking computer. OS-9
was a micro computer-based multitaskiing OS before the Amiga
512 came out. Certainly mainframes and minis, with hardware
superior to what you mentioned, predate it too. And while I was
a proud Atari ST user, neither commodore nor Atari were "driven
to the wall" by the media. Both companies were brought down,
first by the incompetence of the Tramiel family, and later by
becoming too complacent after being bought by larger
companies that had no commitment to their user base.
from Dolby Labs.
In other words, SONY has returned to using Dolby technology.
It would still seem to be significant though because it means that
SONY are moving away from trying to push their proprietary ATRAC
format, which is probably a good thing.
This is directly from Apples website. http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/aac/
Apple's 'innovation' was slapping DRM on it and selling it too you, not the creation of the format. THANKS SONY!
from Dolby Labs.
In other words, SONY has returned to using Dolby technology.
It would still seem to be significant though because it means that
SONY are moving away from trying to push their proprietary ATRAC
format, which is probably a good thing.
This is directly from Apples website. http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/aac/
Apple's 'innovation' was slapping DRM on it and selling it too you, not the creation of the format. THANKS SONY!
Sony has realized that having no marketshare, AND a proprietary format, they might as well gnaw off their own foot before getting into the race... and have pulled their head just a little ways out of their collective butts.
Just how long Sony figures they can rest on their laurels for having invented the CD is beyond me. They need to stop copying the MS business model of proprietary systems and start making quality products (that does NOT mean rootkits!).
almost equally factually incorrect. Case in point, Sony had little to
do with the invention of the CD, contributing only the CIRC error-
correction.
Sony has realized that having no marketshare, AND a proprietary format, they might as well gnaw off their own foot before getting into the race... and have pulled their head just a little ways out of their collective butts.
Just how long Sony figures they can rest on their laurels for having invented the CD is beyond me. They need to stop copying the MS business model of proprietary systems and start making quality products (that does NOT mean rootkits!).
almost equally factually incorrect. Case in point, Sony had little to
do with the invention of the CD, contributing only the CIRC error-
correction.
We expect CNET to have the truth,,,let's get with it!
We expect CNET to have the truth,,,let's get with it!
;)
- KFC Acknowledge's McDonald's dominance
- by dysonl May 11, 2006 9:51 AM PDT
- by offering burgers on its menu.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- No Special Sauce
- by KsprayDad May 12, 2006 9:26 PM PDT
- These burgers at Kentucky Fried Chicken (I'm old school) don't have McDonalds' Special Sauce though (Fairplay DRM)
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (72 Comments);)