The Active Network
ActiveWin Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | Career Portal | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 614  
 

Recommended Links:

robe dentelle

Now, you can buy real Instagram followers.

AWBridal Highly Recommend Wedding & Bridesmaid Dress Online Store

light tower

buy arabic Twitter follower

buy spotify real followers

A great website to buy Facebook followers from is BRSM. They have a great track record!

the Binary Option Robot

Get Windows Tablet & Phones at DHgate.com

neowin.net

Amazon.com

  *  

  Microsoft asks nicely, “Apple, will you open the iPod?”
Time: 10:22 EST/15:22 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Byron Hinson

Microsoft, about to release their online digital music store (in typical late-to-the-game form), has apparently asked Apple to open up the iPod to songs purchased from their store. Yeah, they were rejected, just like a certain other company in Washington State was; looks like not even all their stock in Apple could get them to loosen their stranglehold on the iPod. Not that they really have to or anything, so are you really surprised? Could this mean that Microsoft is going to ask that certain someone for advice on how to manage proper iPod support?

Write Comment
Return to News

  Displaying Comments 1 through 5 of 5
  The time now is 2:56:19 AM ET.
Any comment problems or spammers? E-mail us
Spammers: Your posts will be deleted - do not waste your time!
#1 By 9156 (192.55.140.2) at 8/27/2004 11:47:15 AM
Same old story....
1. Company X makes cool new product.

2. Microsoft asks Company X to open standards and in doing so Microsoft will make Company X's product more valuble, Company X declins.

3. Microsoft makes its own product and allows many other companys to make compatable software.

4. Microsoft takes Company X's market share with new MS branded product then Company X sues Microsoft.

#2 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 8/27/2004 4:30:36 PM
"MP3 is considered by many to be more open because it is not controlled by Microsoft and not Thomson and the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft - and that is just anti-Microsoft bigotry."

No, that's common sense. Individual companies retain patent rights and receive a portion of the licensing, while the format is controlled by a consortium of over 300 industry professionals. Licensing is not restricted and is not controlled by patent right holders. The spec is openly available to all who wish to license.

Microsoft is one company that controls every aspect of its format.

How is that "as" open? How is that Microsoft bigotry?

#3 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 8/27/2004 7:59:17 PM
Parkker, your last 3 posts are completely irrelevent or simply wrong.

#14 ""Licensing is not restricted and is not controlled by patent right holders"

Wrong as usual."

No, not wrong. Your quote simply states that individual companies retain patent rights and receive licensing royalties. However, Fraunhofer canNOT say: "Microsoft cannot license mpeg-4" for example. As I said, "Licensing is not restricted and is not controlled by the patent holders." Duh.

#15 ""I have my own/third party mp3 software. Do I need a license?"

Halcyon already addressed this.

#16 "MP3 is NOT and never has been an open standard."

Open does not mean not proprietary.

"like Microsoft's WMA and WMV. "

Open DEFINITELY does NOT mean popular.

You have yet to address in any way how WMA is open... and certainly haven't gotten to the point where you've addressed it being "as" open as mpeg.


This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, August 27, 2004 at 19:59.

#4 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 8/27/2004 11:41:26 PM
"Name them."

DivX is the msot obvious independent implementation of mp3, though it departs from the spec now. Apple, Fraunhofer, Sorenson, Avid, numerous independent developers have developed their own mpeg codecs. You are aware of that, right? They aren't just using the same code... These developers are taking the specifications for mpeg and developing their own code. Hence, the differences in efficiency and quality of the MANY mpeg codecs available.

"A truly open standard allows you to write your own software without buying a license or paying royalties."

Dumbass, that is free software. Open software means that the code and specifications needed to independently develop your own software and/or formats are available to anyone who chooses to do so.

I won't repeat for the fifth time that open does not mean free; hence, patents and/or license fees has nothing to do with "open."

"The cellular phone makers are not going to cough up $500 million to add MP3 capability to a billion phones."

You are not seriously claiming that mp3 licenses are onerous, are you? I don't know a single audio device that has NOT licensed mp3. Do you? Please point out one audio playback device that has licensed any other format but not mp3, please. There is a reason it is the most popular audio format despite becoming antique 2 years ago...


This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, August 27, 2004 at 23:44.

#5 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 8/29/2004 2:08:43 AM
I have a BETTER solution.

How about an INDUSTRY STANDARD system of DRM and format that ANY manufacturer and ANY music service can use that is not owned by ANY company ?

Right now, we have store after store, format after format, DRM after DRM, and it's BAD for consumers, period.

No one has really addressed what would happen if one of these 'services' were to go under, such as iTunes.

Are people expected to see their hard-earned money they spent on downloaded music just 'vaporize' with an "Oh, well. sorry about that from the company" ?

We're headed down the wrong road with this whole mess...

TL

Write Comment
Return to News
  Displaying Comments 1 through 5 of 5
  The time now is 2:56:19 AM ET.
Any comment problems or spammers? E-mail us
Spammers: Your posts will be deleted - do not waste your time!
Please Enter Your User name and password:

Sign Up For A User Name

 

  *  
  *   *
 
replica watches