Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: The futReply-To:
Re: The futReply-To:
From: Neon John <johngd_at_bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:14:15 -0500
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 02:29:02 +0100, Björn Stenberg <bjorn_at_haxx.se> wrote:
>Neon John wrote:
>> Does M$ really charge a royalty for WMA in freeware products? Even in M$
>> LunacyThink (TM) it's hard to imagine them limiting the distribution of the
>> WMA format within the freeware world.
>I don't know. I have hard time seeing them handing over their source code and saying "have fun, do whatever you want".
I didn't say anything about source code, though handing out an example library
would be reasonable. I'm talking about an intellectual property, specifically
patent license to decode the format. Spreading the format around as much as
possible should be an integral part of their plans to rule the world.
>> I personally can't see wasting time on an inferior format like Ogg. Bitrate
>> for bitrate, imnsho,it sound like crap even compared to MP3.
>That's the first time I've ever heard anyone say that. I have quite the opposite impression myself, and it seems I am not alone:
My ears are all I really need. But for other's opinions that are unbiased,
look at PC magazine's double blind listening board results, published sometime
in the last year. They convened 3 separate boards and did the double blind
test on mp3, ogg, ra and wma. I don't recall all the results but ogg was
overwhelmingly in last place on all three boards, and by a huge margin.
Ogg is a political statement and not a viable format, IMHO. I support the
political position but I don't have time to participate in such activities.
All I care about is what sounds good and is available. About 99.999999% of
the music and audio books come in mp3 or wma format and the wma frequency is
currently low enough that I can take time to convert to mp3.
--- John De Armond johngdDONTYOUDARE_at_bellsouth.net http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/johngd/ Cleveland, Occupied TNReceived on 2003-12-20