Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: If WMA is so bad . . . (Read 31294 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #25 –
Quote
3.  people must be buying this crap, ever seen itms sales numbers?  just becuase the quality sucks and you can't do much with the music doesn't mean people are not going to buy it (people around here might not however)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254440"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Precisely. HA is an exception (thankfully), you just need to look at some polls. If this forum was representative of the general population, most people would be using MPC and noone would be using the online music stores.

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #26 –
Quote
Quote
3.  people must be buying this crap, ever seen itms sales numbers?  just becuase the quality sucks and you can't do much with the music doesn't mean people are not going to buy it (people around here might not however)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254440"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Precisely. HA is an exception (thankfully), you just need to look at some polls. If this forum was representative of the general population, most people would be using MPC and noone would be using the online music stores.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254447"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's right while we are talking about quality. If we are talking about usability, all the "average" users I know who had try an online service have been very disappointed because they was unable to use it easily...
Moreover, different functionalities need an internet connection in order to get the permission.
Finally, each time you use a DRMed content, it's notified to server. This last point should make it illegal.
It's right while we are talking about quality. If we are talking about usability, all the "average" users I know who had try an online service have been very disappointed because they was unable to use it easily...
Moreover, different functionalities need an internet connection in order to get the permission.
Finally, each time you use a DRMed content, it's notified to server. This last point should make it illegal.

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #27 –
Quote
1.  it's not "easy to break"  you can't break it, there are no known breaks.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href="http://home.wanadoo.nl/lc.staak/freeme.htm]http://home.wanadoo.nl/lc.staak/freeme.htm[/url]

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #28 –
That's v2, you are on v10 now.  anything you purchase can not be cracked using these methods, thus your statements don't apply.

license servers are owned by third parties, not MS.  just fyi on that point. (I guess, unless its msn music)

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #29 –
Quote
That's v2, you are on v10 now.  anything you purchase can not be cracked using these methods, thus your statements don't apply.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254513"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The point is, WMA isn't so interesting to crack right now. If the WMA stores ever reach a bigger market share (last time I checked, iTMS had more than 80% if the online digital music market), then some guy like Jon will probably release a stream decrypter. Microsoft lawyers will hunt down this tool, but by then it will have already spread to p2p and russian/chinese warez sites.

Also, there's always the all-too-easy option of capturing the played back WMA streams with Total Recorder.

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #30 –
Quote
Quote
That's v2, you are on v10 now.  anything you purchase can not be cracked using these methods, thus your statements don't apply.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254513"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The point is, WMA isn't so interesting to crack right now. If the WMA stores ever reach a bigger market share (last time I checked, iTMS had more than 80% if the online digital music market), then some guy like Jon will probably release a stream decrypter. Microsoft lawyers will hunt down this tool, but by then it will have already spread to p2p and russian/chinese warez sites.

Also, there's always the all-too-easy option of capturing the played back WMA streams with Total Recorder.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254516"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thx rjamorim, I would answer exactly the same. The point is if you have a lot of DRMed wma , then you will have a crack spread all around (ironically, it should increase the demand for wma cos this crack should make wma more friendly).
In the meantime, you can burn a cd or use totalrecorder...

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #31 –
Quote
license servers are owned by third parties, not MS.  just fyi on that point. (I guess, unless its msn music)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254513"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thx but I already knew it.

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #32 –
Quote
1.  Burning to a CD and ripping gets around it (and there is supposedly software to strip the DRM from these files, not like that is recommended by me as it would be highly illegal)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254443"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


...or not. Depending on where you live. Luckily, different countries have different laws regarding this.

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #33 –
But not all DRM'ed WMA's have CD-burning permissions attached.

Really, the only solution is the real-time one. ("Anything that you can listen to, you can record.")

TotalRecorder is a program that has long been used to record streaming radio and there is no reason that it shouldn't work for recording from protected WMA's, but keep in mind that it is ILLEGAL so I cannot and shall not advise you to actually do it.

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #34 –
Quote
Quote
I think the question here is to know which one is smaller for the same quality level.
If we looking for transparency, the quality level should be transparency.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253079"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


WMA doesn't reach transparency, ever.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253730"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]




Even WMA Lossless?  Is there something wrong with it?
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #35 –
No.  WMA lossless is lossless and thus beyond transparent, exactly the same in fact.
gentoo ~amd64 + layman | ncmpcpp/mpd | wavpack + vorbis + lame

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #36 –
Quote
Quote
WMA doesn't reach transparency, ever.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253730"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This is a very bold statement. And, as expected in these kinds of statements, flawed.

Remember it might never reach transparency to you on the music you listen to. But you don't have the only type of hearing in the world, and people can have different musical tastes compared to yours.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=253858"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Agreed. These statements that 64kbps WMA is "crap", sounds "terrible", etc., are misleading. Millions of people throughout the world listen to music compressed at 64 kbps WMA, and are completely satisfied by it.

It all really depends on the ears (and mind) of the beholder. So the original poster should try encoding at different bit rates, with different encoders, and see what works for him. IN fact, with a small flash player, he might wish to first try 64 kbps WMA, then if he doesn't like the sound, try a higher bit rate, etc.

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #37 –
Quote
If WMA is so bad, but MP3 players (Flash based 128 MB to 512 MB) only accept MP3 format and WMA, and WMA is half the size of MP3 . . .

. . . What is one to do?    Any Suggestions? 

In addition:  l am fairly new to all this (10 days ago started learning and ripping),
and I recently stumbled upon (through this forum, thank you) Vorbis Ogg at less than half the size of a LAME 3.90.3 VBR 192 MP3 format with (reportedly) better quality (at q 3 setting). 

BUT very few Flash-based MP3 players support the Ogg Vorbis format! 

Any suggestions?    Ideas?   Comments?  

I am considering one of three MP3 players: 

RIO CALI 256 (w sd/mmc card expandable to 512).
Creative labs MuVo TX FM 256 
iRiver iFp-790T 256 

In light that 2 of these only accept MP3 or WMA, and WMA is "crappy",
what would be the best choice of settings for MP3?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=252805"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Now I just see that the original post  is from November. If the OP is still deciding on a flash player, I would suggest he not look for 256 or 512 MB, as one can now get 1 GB flash players for prices similar to what 256 MB flash players went for some months agao.

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #38 –
Quote
Quote
EXAMPLE: One will say playing time is 8 hours of WMA and 4 hours of MP3 at 128 kbs rate.

This is marketing from Microsoft, as simple as that.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=252858"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Not only from Microsoft, but from MP3 player manufacturers as well. For instance, I was very annoyed by some recent ads for the Creative Zen Micro player (competitor to Ipod Mini) that said "2½ times as many songs as the Ipod Mini!" Very deceptive advertising. (I don't know if they are still using that in their ads. Many complaints about it on the Creative Nomad newsgroup.)

The facts: Zen Micro looks like a good MP3 player, no comment on that. (I haven't tried one or an Ipod Mini.) Has some nice features, including PIM that syncs to Outlook. And it  has 5GB storage, compared to 4GB on Ipod Mini. (Yes, I know Ipod Mini has just now came out with larger sizes, I think 5 and 6GB. But at the time, it was only 4.) So Creative could honestly advertise: "5/4 times the capacity of the Ipod Mini!", or "25% more storage space as the Ipod Mini!"

But instead they advertised it as "2½ times as many songs as the Ipod Mini!" Where did they get that absurd mathematics, that makes 5/4 = 5/2? The Creative representative on the newsgroup defended it by saying that a "song" on the Zen Micro was 64 kbps WMA, and that would be equivalent to 128 kbps AAC on the Ipod Mini! So again the 2/1 space argument, added to the real difference of 5 vs 4GB, to come up with 2½/1.

That's even more absurd than when that claim is made weith WMA/Mp3, as I believe that AAC at 64kbps may have scored better in listening tests than WMA at 64kbps.

And what is meant by a "song"? I guess they could also figure their player with 2 minute "songs", and the competitor's with 4 minute "songs", to say that their product holds "twice as many songs". If they also figure the competitor's product with a bit rate twice as large, they could advertise "4 times as many songs!"

Really, the whole practice of advertising "number of songs" is deceptive. Just the actual storage space in MB or GB, that's all that should be said about storage space.

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #39 –
Quote
The facts: Zen Micro looks like a good MP3 player, no comment on that. (I haven't tried one or an Ipod Mini.) Has some nice features, including PIM that syncs to Outlook. And it  has 5GB storage, compared to 4GB on Ipod Mini. (Yes, I know Ipod Mini has just now came out with larger sizes, I think 5 and 6GB. But at the time, it was only 4.) So Creative could honestly advertise: "5/4 times the capacity of the Ipod Mini!", or "25% more storage space as the Ipod Mini!"

But instead they advertised it as "2½ times as many songs as the Ipod Mini!" Where did they get that absurd mathematics, that makes 5/4 = 5/2? The Creative representative on the newsgroup defended it by saying that a "song" on the Zen Micro was 64 kbps WMA, and that would be equivalent to 128 kbps AAC on the Ipod Mini! So again the 2/1 space argument, added to the real difference of 5 vs 4GB, to come up with 2½/1.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277335"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

there's nothing wrong with their math skills. They use the same song length estimation as apple does. They claim that they can fit 2500 songs on a 5GB device at 64kbps. That's the same like saying that 1000 songs fit on a 4GB device @ 128kbps...maybe you should check your math skills

2500 songs @ 64kbps = 1250 songs @ 128kbps = 250 songs / GB = 1000 songs / 4GB.
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #40 –
Quote
Now I just see that the original post  is from November. If the OP is still deciding on a flash player, I would suggest he not look for 256 or 512 MB, as one can now get 1 GB flash players for prices similar to what 256 MB flash players went for some months agao.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Exactly.  I also have to recommend this player, which I scored for $185 (1GB):  [a href="http://www.jetaudio.com/products/iaudio/5/]http://www.jetaudio.com/products/iaudio/5/[/url]

It supports ogg at low bitrates, and I will be taking full advantage of that at -q0 because portability is more important to me than pristine sound quality.

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #41 –
Quote
What is very sad is that all the majors have decided to distribute their music online with wma (except apple solely which can use aac). And the quality chosen is  128 .
I talked intensively for my job with head of new media of EMI and Universal, but they didn't want to hear about anything else than wma. It's a pity...   rather than stop the piracy; it just makes their online distribution less attractive and therefore it makes piracy more attractive.
One can’t fight stupidity  .
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=254097"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Which format do you propose they use? (Obviously they wish to use DRM to prevent piracy. They are not going to sell unprotected files online, which people will upload where others can download them for free. Would you really expect that?)

As far as I know there are only two choices for DRM music files--WMA and AAC. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) There is no such thing as DRM MP3.

Why do most choose WMA over AAC? I have no idea. I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with cost? Does a fee for every DRM-WMA song sold go to Microsoft, and a similar fee for every DRM-AAC song go to Apple? (Just guessing, I don't really know how that works.) If so, and the Microsoft fee is lower than the Apple fee, if makes perfectly good sense for them to use the cheaper one. Not "sad", just normal business practice, go for the best price.

Although many more devices use WMA than AAC, I think the Ipod is still by far the best-selling portable digital audio player (great marketing!), so there are a lot of people with AAC devices. Also, Ipod isn't the only device that plays AAC. I believe some Nokia phones play AAC and not WMA. Also, I think there are a couple of Panasonic MP3 players in the AAC camp.

I personally have never bought music from one of those online services. I'd prefer to buy the CDs, and rip them how I wish to play on portable players, and not have the DRM restrictions. But it's not surprising that these online music services use DRM. Microsoft didn't make them do that, it's a basic protection of copyrighted material, quite understandable.

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #42 –
Quote
there's nothing wrong with their math skills. They use the same song length estimation as apple does. They claim that they can fit 2500 songs on a 5GB device at 64kbps. That's the same like saying that 1000 songs fit on a 4GB device @ 128kbps...maybe you should check your math skills

2500 songs @ 64kbps = 1250 songs @ 128kbps = 250 songs / GB = 1000 songs / 4GB.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277388"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Oh, aren't you brilliant!  Everyone is so impressed, at what you can do with a calculator! You must be a genius! 

Of course, a 4 GB drive with songs all encoded at 64 kbps will hold twice as many "songs" (provided the song length is the same) as if they are encoded at 128kbps. If the drive with 64kbps songs is 5 GB as opposed to 4 on the other, that makes it 2½ times. Yes, obvious calculations.

You really didn't get my point??  That it's completely deceptive to advertise that your product holds more "songs" than the other company's product, by figuring the other company's bitrate twice as large as you figure your own. You could just as easily say your product holds more "songs" by defining "song" length for your product at 2 minutes per song, and defining the competitor's product at 4 minutes per "song". Then you could say "my product holds twice as many songs", but it is completely deceptive, same thing with this bitrate BS, figuring the other company's product with a higher bit rate.

As I wrote before, the only real way that capacity of MP3 players is determined is in MB and GB, not in "songs"!

Do you get it now? I won't bother to explain it again.

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #43 –
Quote from: moi,Feb 26 2005, 01:48 AM





Now I just see that the original post  is from November. If the OP is still deciding on a flash player, I would suggest he not look for 256 or 512 MB, as one can now get 1 GB flash players for prices similar to what 256 MB flash players went for some months agao.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277215"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

One thing I forgot to mention.

One of the MP3 players the OP mentioned was 256MB. but with a SD card slot. Unfortunately there aren't many flash players with SD card slots, but there are a few available. In that case, a player with an SD card slot, not a bad idea at all to buy in a lower capacity like 128 or 256MB. Those lower capacity players are probably really cheap right now. One can buy a 1 GB SD card for about $70 these days, and with that card you will have a player with more than one GB capacity. (If you're into swapping cards in and out, you could consider it limitless.) Any size player with an SD card slot is a good idea.

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #44 –
Quote
Quote
What is very sad is that all the majors have decided to distribute their music online with wma (except apple solely which can use aac). And the quality chosen is  128 .
I talked intensively for my job with head of new media of EMI and Universal, but they didn't want to hear about anything else than wma. It's a pity...   rather than stop the piracy; it just makes their online distribution less attractive and therefore it makes piracy more attractive.
One can’t fight stupidity  .
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Which format do you propose they use? (Obviously they wish to use DRM to prevent piracy. They are not going to sell unprotected files online, which people will upload where others can download them for free. Would you really expect that?)

I suggested mp3, wav and dts. But our distribution scheme is different and doesn't need protected format. Moreover I think that DRM is really a bad idea.
You can see here how we can distribute music without any DRM and without the fear of piracy:

[a href="http://www.audiogame.net/soldout/index.php?ooo=ha2]Soldout -  I don't want to have sex with you[/url]
Airlock - Shape of light
Prodigy - Memphois bell

Quote
As far as I know there are only two choices for DRM music files--WMA and AAC. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) There is no such thing as DRM MP3.

IIRC, a DRMed mp3 has been developped. Anyway the bigger advantage of mp3 is compatibility and you'd lose it with DRMed mp3.

Quote
Why do most choose WMA over AAC? I have no idea. I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with cost? Does a fee for every DRM-WMA song sold go to Microsoft, and a similar fee for every DRM-AAC song go to Apple? (Just guessing, I don't really know how that works.) If so, and the Microsoft fee is lower than the Apple fee, if makes perfectly good sense for them to use the cheaper one. Not "sad", just normal business practice, go for the best price.

I don't knwow if it's an apple choice or a major choice. I think that the majors was impressed by Microsoft and their market share and they need to choose ONE format.


Quote
Although many more devices use WMA than AAC, I think the Ipod is still by far the best-selling portable digital audio player (great marketing!), so there are a lot of people with AAC devices. Also, Ipod isn't the only device that plays AAC. I believe some Nokia phones play AAC and not WMA. Also, I think there are a couple of Panasonic MP3 players in the AAC camp.

I personally have never bought music from one of those online services. I'd prefer to buy the CDs, and rip them how I wish to play on portable players, and not have the DRM restrictions. But it's not surprising that these online music services use DRM. Microsoft didn't make them do that, it's a basic protection of copyrighted material, quite understandable.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277460"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Understanable but so wrong. Why people would pay for something they can get for free without DRM restrictions.

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #45 –
Quote
I don't knwow if it's an apple choice or a major choice. I think that the majors was impressed by Microsoft and their market share and they need to choose ONE format.

[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277561"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I don't think the choice has anything to do with market share.  AFAIK Itunes style DRM on AAC is available only from Itune and plays only on Ipod (and Itunes).  Other venders and player brands need not apply.

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #46 –
Quote
Which format do you propose they use? (Obviously they wish to use DRM to prevent piracy. They are not going to sell unprotected files online, which people will upload where others can download them for free. Would you really expect that?)


The logistics of DRM seem like a very weak thing to me, with the only real result being to piss off legitimate customers, for the most part. To break the theoretical concept of DRM preventing piracy, only a single unprotected version of a file needs to be uploaded to a P2P system. If it is a desired track, it will propagate and multiply as needed, thus a single unprotected file corrupts the entire concept of DRM preventing illegal distribution on P2P systems. The DRM can ultimately be removed by anyone with basic computer use ability, if just by a stream recorder, to decode and record the stream, then recode it to a compressed format for distribution.

So what does DRM really do? Stop an occasional person from e-mailing a file to a friend to share? Good for the music company -- they just prevented the healthy sharing of art, which has been a critical thing for the culture in the past existing history of the world. Will DRM piss off many legitimate users when they figure out that they bought a music copy that must only be played on devices 'authorized' by the seller and has a limited useful time life? I think so.

The music companies already sell 'unprotected' music: CDs. They still somehow manage record sales numbers last year -- numbers that I don't even think are deserved from a personal standpoint(horrid recording quality being typical, along with so many cookie-cutter artists with no considerable talent). In addition to record sales, even the main artist royalty organization reported record royalty incomes. But, I would not be concerned with their profits. It's not a real consideration when it's observed from a ' user rights' standpoint. If they existing model did not work, it is the responsibility of the businesses to find new, viable system instead of relying on the removal of basic citizen rights(see below) and seeking of citizen right removing laws(see below) to mantane their outdated business model.

Quote
But it's not surprising that these online music services use DRM. Microsoft didn't make them do that, it's a basic protection of copyrighted material, quite understandable.


I strongly disagree that DRM is a 'basic protection of copyrighted material' when this is applied to any product that you are supposedly 'purchasing'. It is not a 'basic protection'. It goes far beyond what has ever been considered a basic protection in the past. Actually, in the U.S.A., DRM in combination with the the DMCA, is a way to circumvent established rights of the citizen to use their copy of a copyrighted work in any way that they see fit for personal use. Also, DRM as used for music files creates a non-stabile item. It's continued operation depends solely on the company who sold it to mantane the service, and to help you over time as you change over a certain number of computers, etc.. You will eventually have to reauthorize the licenses. Good luck in 6 or 7 years down the road from your original purchase! DRM even managed to remove on of the most basic of rights: right to sell a product.

It's a near unbelievable injustice that has occurred today: the seemed acceptance and sympathy of the general public and government to the horrible greedy corporations, allowing these corporations to control you. I am all for capitalism, so don't misinterpret. But the abolishment of your basic rights, as seen in these cases, is unacceptable by measure of reason!

-Chris

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #47 –
Quote
.....
-Chris
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277595"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  This is what I'm trying to say to the industry.
Next time you should come with me...

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #48 –
Quote
Quote
The facts: Zen Micro looks like a good MP3 player, no comment on that. (I haven't tried one or an Ipod Mini.) Has some nice features, including PIM that syncs to Outlook. And it  has 5GB storage, compared to 4GB on Ipod Mini. (Yes, I know Ipod Mini has just now came out with larger sizes, I think 5 and 6GB. But at the time, it was only 4.) So Creative could honestly advertise: "5/4 times the capacity of the Ipod Mini!", or "25% more storage space as the Ipod Mini!"

But instead they advertised it as "2½ times as many songs as the Ipod Mini!" Where did they get that absurd mathematics, that makes 5/4 = 5/2? The Creative representative on the newsgroup defended it by saying that a "song" on the Zen Micro was 64 kbps WMA, and that would be equivalent to 128 kbps AAC on the Ipod Mini! So again the 2/1 space argument, added to the real difference of 5 vs 4GB, to come up with 2½/1.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277335"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

there's nothing wrong with their math skills. They use the same song length estimation as apple does. They claim that they can fit 2500 songs on a 5GB device at 64kbps. That's the same like saying that 1000 songs fit on a 4GB device @ 128kbps...maybe you should check your math skills

2500 songs @ 64kbps = 1250 songs @ 128kbps = 250 songs / GB = 1000 songs / 4GB.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277388"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



It is indeed deceptive marketing when they compare 64kbps wma to 128kbps AAC like that. Sony did the same thing, but they compared it with 48kbps ATRAC 3

Just out of curiosity, how old are you jojo?

If WMA is so bad . . .

Reply #49 –
Quote from: DonP,Feb 27 2005, 08:32 AM




I don't think the choice has anything to do with market share.  AFAIK Itunes style DRM on AAC is available only from Itune and plays only on Ipod (and Itunes).  Other venders and player brands need not apply.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=277590"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

So then, that's Apple's choice, to not let their DRM version be used by anyone else, while Microsoft makes theirs available to all. It's clear why WMA-DRM is used by all online services other than Itunes then. There is no other choice. It isn't due to the "evil" Microsoft forcing their format on everyone, but due to the fact that no one else offers a choice for DRM.

(I know some here will write that they shouldn't use DRM at all, but that's not likely to happen. These services do use DRM, and will, and if WMA is the only choice for services other than Itunes, that is what they will use.)

I think Apple's insularity has often hurt them. For instance, I think that for many years Apple's Mac OS was superior to Windows. (Not sure if that's true now. Referring to earlier versions of Windows. I certainly think Windows 3.1 was inferior to the Mac OS of the time.) Yet, many more people had Wintel computers than Macs. Why? Because Apple did not allow clones, the only computers that could run the Mac OS were those made by Apple, and they were much more expensive than PCs. If they had ported the Mac OS so that it could run on a PC, and got PC manufacturers to ship PCs with Mac OS, they might have overtaken Microsoft as the primary OS developer in the world, and the current computer world would be far different, with Apple being a far larger player than Microsoft. Similarly, if they had allowed Mac clones (which they allowed for a little while some years ago, then stopped), they might have sold less hardware, as people bought the cheaper clones, but far more software, if the Mac clones became widespread, really cutting into the PC market.

Similarly with this not allowing online music services other than their Itunes to use their DRM-AAC. An Ipod user who wishes to purchase music from an online service (although I wouldn't use such a service, prefer to buy CDs, apparently many people do use them) has no choice of services other than Itunes. Someone with an MP3 player that plays DRM-WMA has the choice of several services. I think Ipod is by far the largest selling digital audio player (great marketing, stress on style, etc.), but I would guess that, among people who purchase music from online services, some chose a different brand of player, in order to have more choice of online services to purchase from, thereby hurting Ipod sales.