Announcement

**Q Classic** · October 19, 2003, 22:27

well, let's settle on two things we can agree one: ogg is an open standard, wma is a proprietary standard.

aac's status differs depending on how strict your definition of open standard is.

**Asher** · October 19, 2003, 22:40

There's no point in calling AAC an open standard when someone:

**Drake Tungsten** · October 19, 2003, 23:22

well, let's settle on two things we can agree one: ogg is an open standard, wma is a proprietary standard.

aac's status differs depending on how strict your definition of open standard is.

Sounds reasonable to me.

See, isn't it nice debating with reasonable people who are willing to find common ground with you?

**Asher** · October 19, 2003, 23:33

It sounds reasonable because it's a copout.

How can you call it an open standard when someone dictates when you can use it and forces you to pay to do so?

I seemed to have missed the logic behind that.

**monkspider** · October 19, 2003, 23:35

I just installed itunes, it is a breath of fresh air after being used to WMA bloatware.

**Asher** · October 19, 2003, 23:39

Don't confuse WMA with WMP, it's like confusing MPEG with QuickTime.

And iTunes is bloatier than WMP, amazingly. People said it couldn't be done, but...

**Imran Siddiqui** · October 20, 2003, 00:14

Anyway, those interested in WMA files:

The NEW Napster

Napster: Music From Every Angle

https://www.napster.com

Alongside 110+ million songs, Napster is home to hundreds of thousands of official music videos. Whether you’re streaming on demand or listening offline, enjoy all content ad-free.

Basically the same billing format as itunes: $0.99 per track, $9.95 per album.

Should be interesting.

**Drake Tungsten** · October 20, 2003, 00:51

How can you call it an open standard when someone dictates when you can use it and forces you to pay to do so?

To the best of my knowledge, anyone can license the AAC format if they so desire. It's source code is also available, which makes it "open" according to some definitions.

It isn't "free" like Ogg, but that isn't a requirement to be "open" according to some definitions.

**Imran Siddiqui** · October 20, 2003, 00:54

Those are really DUMB definitions, Drake

.

'Open' should mean anyone can use it, not anyone can license it (that doesn't sound very 'open' to me).

**Asher** · October 20, 2003, 00:55

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
To the best of my knowledge, anyone can license the AAC format if they so desire.

No -- licenses are granted at the will of the company that holds them. In order for other device makers to play iTunes files, they need to acquire a pricey AAC license (probably not an issue), but then they also need to acquire a license for Fairplay, which no one but Apple has managed to do (how odd is that! This means only Apple products can play iTunes file! How odd is that! Oh, wait, that's what Apple wanted all along. Coincidence?)

It's source code is also available, which makes it "open" according to some definitions.

Eh? What source code? It's a standard, not a program.

It isn't "free" like Ogg, but that isn't a requirement to be "open" according to some definitions.

If AAC is "open", so is WMA.

The fact is neither of them are open, and both of them are proprietary.

**Drake Tungsten** · October 20, 2003, 00:57

Those are really DUMB definitions, Drake

I didn't make them up.

I actually prefer that definition, though. Allows for more nuance than simply lumping everything into "proprietary" and "open".

'Open' should mean anyone can use it, not anyone can license it (that doesn't sound very 'open' to me).

Anyone can use it, just not for free. See the logic?

**Asher** · October 20, 2003, 01:01

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Anyone can use it, just not for free. See the logic?

No, because I have no idea why you think anyone can use it?

Where does it say that Dolby and Apple have to license out the standards they developed? I must have missed that part, strange that it's critical to your entire argument.

Perhaps you are just not to be trusted, what with your incessant fibbing.

**Asher** · October 20, 2003, 01:03

And I'd also like someone to explain to me why AAC is "open" and WMA is "proprietary" when they have identical characteristics...

**Drake Tungsten** · October 20, 2003, 01:07

Where does it say that Dolby and Apple have to license out the standards they developed?

Apple doesn't control AAC. I figured a tech geek like yourself would know that.

Come to think of it, you probably do know that, but thought you could slip another bull**** argument past everyone. No dice, fibber.

**Asher** · October 20, 2003, 01:08

Who said Apple controlled AAC?

Dolby controls AAC (hence Dolby), Apple controls Fairplay (and don't give me that 'some other company developed it' crap -- Apple farmed it out, which is standard fair)

It's kinda funny how your "arguments" keep slipping lower and lower. Not only do you avoid all of the pertinent questions people ask you which are fundamental to your position, you resort to either having an elementary-school level of reading comprehension or you intentionally fib to misrepresent my cases, then call me a fibber.

Come to think of it, this really reminds me of elementary school behavior.

Agathon plugs his ears and chants "lalala I can't hear you", Mr Nice Guy should be pretty obvious, and you constantly misrepresent cases, ignore important parts, then call people "fibbers".

If I didn't know better, I'd say Macs are perhaps time machines for people's personalities.

Announcement

iTunes for Windows is out

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment