MP3 recording in Media 8.0
John
(WXP) since the program will NOT let me select any other
format but WMA in the "copy settings". The selection drop
down is grayed out. Now I love MS products - I do - but
this is unnaceptable. My Apex 660 plays MP3 format ONLY.
ONLY! Does anyone have a fix for this? Am I missing
something?
Thanks for the help!!!!!
Sean Alexander (MS)
"John" <jpu...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:21b801c1b124$fc4b0b00$9ae62ecf@tkmsftngxa02...
Eric
Mp3 is a cross-platform format, and therefore not in Microsoft's
best interest. To make more profit they decided only to support
creation of a format that only runs under windows : WMA.
If you want to create mp3 you will have to spend another $9.95 on
a mp3 creation pack (after you already spend $99-$299 for XP
+$49.95 for XP plus). Several companies offer them, but no matter
what company you go to, this is a Microsoft world, and there's no
competition. They all costs as much and they all appear to do the
same thing.
I'm using the mp3 creator that came with my SoundBlaster Audigy
card, but you can also use the Radium codec. This of course is a
*free* add-on to a Microsoft product (and therefore illegal) but
it does work with Media Player.
Eric
zachd [ms]
"Eric" <ElCa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3C693B20...@hotmail.com...
> It won't work
> Mp3 is a cross-platform format, and therefore not in Microsoft's
> best interest. To make more profit they decided only to support
> creation of a format that only runs under windows : WMA.
Shoot! I'll have to tell my iMac running the Windows Media Player for Mac
to stop working! And d*mn that Windows Media Player for Solaris! And tell
Blaupunkt and Pioneer and and and to not have car CD players that support
WMA discs! ;)
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/players.asp
, for starters...
> If you want to create mp3 you will have to spend another $9.95 on
> a mp3 creation pack (after you already spend $99-$299 for XP
> +$49.95 for XP plus). Several companies offer them, but no matter
> what company you go to, this is a Microsoft world, and there's no
> competition. They all costs as much and they all appear to do the
> same thing.
Actually, MP3 is a FhG/Thompson world - go read up on MP3 patenting here -
http://www.mp3-tech.org/patents.html
and as such FhG/Thompson require payments for their software. Microsoft
simply isn't "in the building" here.
> I'm using the mp3 creator that came with my SoundBlaster Audigy
> card, but you can also use the Radium codec. This of course is a
> *free* add-on to a Microsoft product (and therefore illegal) but
> it does work with Media Player.
Actually, no, Radium is illegal because it's a stolen FhG Pro encoder. It's
legal status has nothing to do with Microsoft and everything to do with the
fact that it's pirated software, whose legal/rightful vendor is FhG.
Hopefully this simple exchange helped point out to you that you're
mistakenly disliking Microsoft for a situation that they have no control
over or real influence in. I would suggest that if you don't like the
FhG/Thompson patent situation (or the fact that "Radium" is warez) that you
take it up with FhG/Thompson, who may be able to do something about it that
MS simply can't...
--
(speaking for myself and doing this in my free time)
See http://www.nwlink.com/~zachd/pss/pss.html for some generally helpful WMP
info.
Eric
> to stop working! And d*mn that Windows Media Player for Solaris! And tell
> Blaupunkt and Pioneer and and and to not have car CD players that support
> WMA discs! ;)
:)
*WINDOWS* media player for Solaris. Now that's a funny misnomer!
But truth of the matter is that support for mp3 is much more
widespread and cross-portable than support for the Windows Media
Player. Also, what's the percentage of Apple owned by Microsoft
again? :)
> Actually, MP3 is a FhG/Thompson world - go read up on MP3 patenting here -
> http://www.mp3-tech.org/patents.html
> and as such FhG/Thompson require payments for their software. Microsoft
> simply isn't "in the building" here.
then why does Microsoft care to include zipper and burning
software and a firewall (many of it licensed from other firms
such as Roxio) into XP, but not mp3 support. I think many people
would've been preferred MP3 support over WMA support, even when
WMA reportedly results in smaller files. The mere fact that
nearly anyone and anything can play mp3s is a *BIG* plus for
mp3's. (for instance my DVD player plays several mpeg formats,
but not WMA)
> Actually, no, Radium is illegal because it's a stolen FhG Pro encoder. It's
> legal status has nothing to do with Microsoft and everything to do with the
> fact that it's pirated software, whose legal/rightful vendor is FhG.
>
> Hopefully this simple exchange helped point out to you that you're
> mistakenly disliking Microsoft for a situation that they have no control
> over or real influence in.
>I would suggest that if you don't like the
> FhG/Thompson patent situation (or the fact that "Radium" is warez) that you
> take it up with FhG/Thompson, who may be able to do something about it that
> MS simply can't...
>
Well...i think that we both have to agree that if MS *wanted* to
include mp3 encoding support in either XP or in the plus package
it could've easily been done (see licensing of Roxio software,
see price of the MP3 creation packs sold seperately). However,
especially the MP3 to WMA converter that's in the Plus Pack shows
that MS doesn't *want* mp3 support :)
--
Eric
zachd [ms]
> But truth of the matter is that support for mp3 is much more
> widespread and cross-portable than support for the Windows Media
> Player.
True, and eight-tracks were once much more prevalent than cassette tapes.
Doesn't mean that either eight-tracks nor cassette tapes are the end-all be
all, just that each can be a viable option in their own right.
> > Actually, MP3 is a FhG/Thompson world - go read up on MP3 patenting
here -
> > http://www.mp3-tech.org/patents.html
> > and as such FhG/Thompson require payments for their software. Microsoft
> > simply isn't "in the building" here.
> then why does Microsoft care to include zipper and burning
> software and a firewall (many of it licensed from other firms
> such as Roxio) into XP, but not mp3 support. I think many people
> would've been preferred MP3 support over WMA support, even when
> WMA reportedly results in smaller files. The mere fact that
> nearly anyone and anything can play mp3s is a *BIG* plus for
> mp3's. (for instance my DVD player plays several mpeg formats,
> but not WMA)
Re: DVD Player- Yet. There's been recent announcements about WMA/WMV
support in DVDs coming your way.
I don't do nor really care about licensing. I imagine that Roxio wanted to
work more with us - since we don't really compete - than FhG would want to.
MP3 and Windows Media Audio are competing in the same neck of the woods.
If you go further and look into MP3 licensing, you'll note that MS can spend
a substantial chunk of change to please a subset of the user population who
wants older redundant technology, or spend it in some other way to round out
product holes - such as zipper, burner, or firewall. Other vendors offer
MP3 encoding and WMP already offers WMA encoding, so the incentive to spend
$$$ is therefore pretty marginal given that MS would have to pay for an
encoder for everyone, not just those of us who want it. The return on
investment just isn't really there...
I realize it's a Religious Argument to some and maybe I'm not getting
through, but trust me- this kind of decision is everything about
practicality and nothing about Big Evil Microsoft. We have to make sound
business decisions at the end of the day, regardless of how painful things
are. If it had been Free to ship an MP3 encoder, it would have happened.
It's not, and that's not really arguable, and where it is, the legal hawks
at MS aren't going to let *us* be the target case.
This is kinda off-topic for a WMP newsgroup, though. I'd suggest reading up
on MP3/MPEG licensing and if you find it interesting go start up a
discussion on slashdot.org or similar where you'll find many more
knowledgable opinions on the matter.
-Zach
Eric
three non MS messages
:)
> True, and eight-tracks were once much more prevalent than
cassette tapes.
> Doesn't mean that either eight-tracks nor cassette tapes are
the end-all be
> all, just that each can be a viable option in their own right.
of course, but it's an easy argument to make. Sure, moderna cars
have airbags, but does that mean that non-airbag cars should not
be supported anymore. As we both agreed: mp3 still has a much
larger market share than wma. This is true when it comes to
number of files available AND hardware supporting the file
format. So it's strange not to support mp3 end
> Re: DVD Player- Yet. There's been recent announcements about
WMA/WMV
> support in DVDs coming your way.
i can't hardly wait!
;)
> If you go further and look into MP3 licensing, you'll note
that MS can spend
> a substantial chunk of change to please a subset of the user
population who
> wants older redundant technology, or spend it in some other
way to round out
> product holes - such as zipper, burner, or firewall. Other
vendors offer
> MP3 encoding and WMP already offers WMA encoding, so the
incentive to spend
> $$$ is therefore pretty marginal given that MS would have to
pay for an
> encoder for everyone, not just those of us who want it. The
return on
> investment just isn't really there...
i don't know if that's true. It's an unfounded argument. The mp3
encoding packs are all 9.95. Of course the companies make some
profit on it. Take that off the price. The, there's might be all
sorts of taxes and extra cost (such as bandwidht for sales,
webserver etc). Take that off the price. Then, if MS comes in and
says we want a 15million copy license, i'm sure they would be
able to get a minor discount. Take that of the price.
Then keep in mind that MS for Win98 (or was it SE or so) dubbed
if it would go on sale for $99, $149 or $199. So there's
definitely some air in the MS pricing of Windows. All in all
licensing for mp3 would not be a major factor in the retail price
of Windows XP.
And why not include in the plus pack then? we all know it's
bloody expensive and doesn't offer anything at all warranting its
price tag. For that money, MS could've included REAL support for
mp3. Nope, for that money you'll only get something that drags
you farther away from your mp3s
And probably you should even REVERSE the argument. It's not on
how much money it costs MS, but how much money it will generate.
Windows XP is touted as Multimedia rich. However, the biggest
multimedia hit is not included. If you ask someone computer users
about MP3 they probably know it, if you ask them about WMA, they
still shrug. So mp3 support is not a costly thing, it's a sales
pitch!
But instead of going with the de facto standard, they're trying
to push their own standard and convert people (and files) to wma.
As you say it's a businnes decision. If Microsoft feels they can
make more money on the platform-specific WMA file then Microsoft
does not hesitate to ship an mp3-impaired Operating System to its
buyers, just to make an extra buck.
Eric
> I realize it's a Religious Argument to some and maybe I'm not
getting
> through, but trust me- this kind of decision is everything about
> practicality and nothing about Big Evil Microsoft. We have to
make sound
> business decisions at the end of the day, regardless of how
painful things
> are. If it had been Free to ship an MP3 encoder, it would
have happened.
> It's not, and that's not really arguable, and where it is, the
legal hawks
> at MS aren't going to let *us* be the target case.
zachd [ms] wrote:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
>
> Re: MP3 recording in Media 8.0
> From:
>
> "zachd [ms]" <zac...@hotmail.com>
> Date:
>
> Tue, 12 Feb 2002 14:53:08 -0800
>
> Newsgroups:
>
> microsoft.public.windowsmedia.player
Eric
As you suggested, i read up on mpeg licensing. According to
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-835740.html
the costs for including mpeg 4 technology is a whopping 25cents
"per product, such as decoders and encoders". In addition there's
a cap. This is for Apple (smaller licensee) and for MPEG4 (newer
technology). I assume the costs for mp3 licensing would therefore
be even smaller.
So yes, now that i've read up, i understand that 25dollarcents on
a $299 operating system + $49.95 plus pack would be TOO expensive
for Microsoft to use as a sales pitch and extra feature in their
products. I understand they rather include wma instead.
Also tis nice to know that the $9.95 mp3 creation packs only
include approx 25dollarcents for licensing the mpeg technology.
Eric
zachd [ms]
This is one of the reasons I don't tend to get involved in these kinds of
issues - the prejudices of those who ask these kinds of questions tend to
interfere with objective analysis. You have a particular desire, and this
is influencing your thinking. Let it go and look at it again.
"For the consumer" argument: Fails. Consumer may understand "MP3", will
rarely understand "decode" v. "encode" MS has a license to the 56kbps FhG
encoder and could have shipped that "encode" easily enough, but the PHBs at
news orgs figured MS was being evil and lambasted them for that (reference
summer 'MS is anti-MP3!!!1!" news coverage). MS is going to be damned for
going half-way, so it has to go whole-hog, and whole-hog is not cheap.
"MS would get a price break...": No. The pricing is due in large part due
to patents, and last I checked offering preferential "breaks" for patent
usage invalidates the patent, which FhG/Thompson simply would not be willing
to go. Again, go talk to them if you care. Work out some sweet deal that
the PHBs here couldn't and maybe you'll make something happen.
"MS would get a price break..." rebuttal two: Heh. The FhG encoder is
unkeyed (witness the Radium hack), so it shipping with Windows in general
would pretty much permanently destroy the market for the FhG encoder on
Windows. If I'm a PhB FhG/Thompson, I would want to charge MS *more* (which
again TMK isn't possible) due to this. A killer deal that destroys your
market leaves you looking for work afterwards...
"MPEG4 costs $.25 per license!!!!1!" You're referring to the *proposed*
licensing on MPEG4, which also carries with it some sort of "content
creation fee", which means you could have an MPEG4 encoder for $.25
(maaaaybe) but then you have to pay to use it. MPEG Layer III (MP3)
licensing is done seperately, and is in ten million dollar range at last
check.
Your advocacy of MPEG Layer III encoding ignores the basic premise that any
corporation is going to spend money where it's most effective, which is the
crucial element that fails almost any proposal anyone can make on this
issue. The money can be spent elsewhere for different things. DVD
playback, for example, would get many times the usage of MPEG Layer III
encoding. Not everyone has a CD drive, not everyone rips CDs, not everyone
rips to MP3, ... you're talking subset of the user population, vs
"fundamental" technology such as DVD playback, CD-Text licensing, etc etc
etc - lots and lots of good stuff to spend money on.
While this is a business, Microsoft tries to do right. We really really do.
If you don't see that, I'm really sorry.
Eric
> This is one of the reasons I don't tend to get involved in these kinds of
> issues - the prejudices of those who ask these kinds of questions tend to
> interfere with objective analysis. You have a particular desire, and this
> is influencing your thinking. Let it go and look at it again.
my name doesn't feature the name of a company behind it.
So who would be prejudiced here? :)
> "For the consumer" argument: Fails. Consumer may understand "MP3", will
> rarely understand "decode" v. "encode"
that's not the argument. The consumer also can't tell TCP/IP from
IPX. All he cares about is that he can surf the web. Same thing
with mp3. He doesn't need to know if things are called "encode"
or "decode". He wants to know if he can rip a cd or not. He knows
his DVD player can read mp3 format but not other formats.
> MS has a license to the 56kbps FhG
> encoder and could have shipped that "encode" easily enough, but the PHBs at
> news orgs figured MS was being evil and lambasted them for that (reference
> summer 'MS is anti-MP3!!!1!" news coverage). MS is going to be damned for
> going half-way, so it has to go whole-hog, and whole-hog is not cheap.
If the point your trying to make here is that MS had a choice
between no encoder or a 56kb encoder and the choice was made to
ship without then i agree that that was a good choice.
On the other hand, one can aske why MS gets a license for 56k
And why not something they can user for other purposes as well.
> "MS would get a price break...": No. The pricing is due in large part due
> to patents, and last I checked offering preferential "breaks" for patent
> usage invalidates the patent, which FhG/Thompson simply would not be willing
> to go.
Last time i checked the USA got a good deal on anti-anthrax
agents, w/o breaking a patent :)
> Again, go talk to them if you care. Work out some sweet deal that
> the PHBs here couldn't and maybe you'll make something happen.
of course that's a non-argument.
> "MS would get a price break..." rebuttal two: Heh. The FhG encoder is
> unkeyed (witness the Radium hack), so it shipping with Windows in general
> would pretty much permanently destroy the market for the FhG encoder on
> Windows.
if MS pays for it, i don't see how it destroys the market.
Instead you all of a sudden sell a whole lot more.
> "MPEG4 costs $.25 per license!!!!1!" You're referring to the *proposed*
> licensing on MPEG4, which also carries with it some sort of "content
> creation fee", which means you could have an MPEG4 encoder for $.25
> (maaaaybe) but then you have to pay to use it. MPEG Layer III (MP3)
> licensing is done seperately, and is in ten million dollar range at last
> check.
And XP sold 15 million copies, so that would be less than a
dollar per copy. On a 199-299 price tag, not much. Considering
the previously mentioned gray area in which MS decides on its
pricing not too much.
Again, your focus is too much on the expenses. You ignored this
point previously, and you seem to do it again. If it's all about
expenses then why does MS do research at all? In fact, why do
they make products at all? It costs money to make cd's and
manuals etc.
But OK, let's follow your argument, and assume that MS spends
money on mp3 licensing for its customers. According to your logic
this will not pay off for Microsoft. So the people offering mp3
creation packs are actually dumb, cause they're not making a
profit? MS would not sell more XP copies if it offered mp3 support?
Probably the argument is that MS might sell more copies of XP,
but would not make more profit. I guess that might be the catch.
If support for wma comes true (like you mentioned you already
spotted some hardware that supports wma) then MS is on the
Fraunhofer side, and then MS is the one that's charging money for
licenses (in the order of 10million perhaps? ;) ) and therefore
XP does not offer mp3 support, not because it may not increase MS
profits, but MS needs to get a market share for wma and then
they can make MUCH more profit.
Like you said in your previous mail : at the end of the day it's
about making money for Microsoft.
(and not about offering the best OS for their customers)
It's not a religious argument, it's not an argument about
expenses, it's a *strategic* argument to maximize the MS revenue
:)
>
> Your advocacy of MPEG Layer III encoding ignores the basic premise that any
> corporation is going to spend money where it's most effective,
see above. "most effective" -> read "maximizes MS revenue" and
not "include useful features"
> which is the
> crucial element that fails almost any proposal anyone can make on this
> issue. The money can be spent elsewhere for different things. DVD
> playback, for example, would get many times the usage of MPEG Layer III
> encoding. Not everyone has a CD drive, not everyone rips CDs,
> ot everyone rips to MP3, ... you're talking subset of the user
population, vs
> "fundamental" technology such as DVD playback, CD-Text licensing, etc etc
> etc - lots and lots of good stuff to spend money on.
sure, not everyone needs a firewall, not everyone needs a zipper,
definitely not everyone needs a moviemaker, still these are all
included in XP. Again i could say that it's a strategic decision
NOT to include mp3 :)
Eric
zachd [ms]
> my name doesn't feature the name of a company behind it.
> So who would be prejudiced here? :)
I do that for the sake of honesty. On the other hand, I get the occassional
XMas card from FhG, at one time had source code contributions within the FhG
codebase, grew up vehemently anti-Microsoft... if anything, the years of my
postings available on deja.com should demonstrate that I try to always have
an open mind, and speak as much as I'm able to within the legal limits.
While I have been involved in legal workings of Microsoft at times, you'll
note that the stuff I'm involved with tends to be perhaps historically
uncharacteristic for Microsoft -
http://www.cmcnyls.edu/Bulletins/MSDMSRNA.HTM
, for example. But good guys are running the ship these days, so I think
you're going to see continued progress/good faith responses like this.
> > "MS would get a price break..." rebuttal two: Heh. The FhG encoder is
> > unkeyed (witness the Radium hack), so it shipping with Windows in
general
> > would pretty much permanently destroy the market for the FhG encoder on
> > Windows.
> if MS pays for it, i don't see how it destroys the market.
> Instead you all of a sudden sell a whole lot more.
Once, and then the game is pretty much over. Vs the multiple fees FhG
acquires if you have multiple MP3 rippers on your box. Everyone knows how
to use ACM/VFW encoding - but the other MP3 encoders shipped are almost
always viable just for that product, which means there's many unique little
revenue streams from the encoder. If you consolidate on ACM/VFW encoding,
then you've got one reservoir of funds and none of the little streams
anymore. In theory, everybody licensing FhG should just use ACM and save
themselves a buck by consolidating their purchases.
So this link keeps not working for me, which is why I didn't include it
previously, but:
http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/swenc.html
is the links to the various royalty rates. It looks like there's a fixed
cost of $2.50 to $5 per shipped encoder unit. It's down for me again so I
can't look further into it, but you seem to care so there you are.
> But OK, let's follow your argument, and assume that MS spends
> money on mp3 licensing for its customers. According to your logic
> this will not pay off for Microsoft. So the people offering mp3
> creation packs are actually dumb, cause they're not making a
> profit? MS would not sell more XP copies if it offered mp3 support?
The packs are sold to a tailored market. They make per-sale revenue, vs.
the 'intangible' minor benefit that might be achieved if MS spent $2.50 - $5
per every copy of Windows XP shipped. For every one additional copy of XP
shipped, that has to be justified against it's impact upon every other copy
of XP shipped.
> Probably the argument is that MS might sell more copies of XP,
> but would not make more profit. I guess that might be the catch.
Correct - you'd seem to be generally talking a further loss.
> > Your advocacy of MPEG Layer III encoding ignores the basic premise that
any
> > corporation is going to spend money where it's most effective,
> see above. "most effective" -> read "maximizes MS revenue" and
> not "include useful features"
Naw, you're not arguing that MP3 is better than WMA, just that it's Brand
Name, and that further somehow MP3 Encoding is Brand Name.
> sure, not everyone needs a firewall, not everyone needs a zipper,
> definitely not everyone needs a moviemaker, still these are all
> included in XP. Again i could say that it's a strategic decision
> NOT to include mp3 :)
None of these named technologies are redundant - they all fill their own
holes within the Windows XP world. MP3 ripping is redundant with WMA
ripping and is largely a backwards compatibility issue, vs the 'forwards'
compatibility of other compelling technologies such as the licensing of CD
Text or DVD decoders, both of which fill holes and both of which IIRC cost
$$$. It's not that MS is ever hesitant to spend the money, it's that the
money has to be spent really really really really wisely, and that's just
not the case here. Your demand for an Mp3 encoder does not justify MS
having to tax every other user.
Stucco Homes
doesn't want things to be cross-platform compatible, explain Mac Office.
Explain WMP for the Mac and Solaris. Explain why AVIs play on Unix and the
Mac.
Here's what I think is going on: Microsoft doesn't want to pay Fraunhofer
for licensing the full MP3 codec in every box of XP, because not everyone
who buys XP wants it. Believe it or not, some people buy XP and *don't* use
multimedia at all! So, if you want MP3 compatibility, you get to spring the
extra $30 or so to get it yourself. If you don't want/need MP3, use WMA and
Microsoft gets to leverage their dev costs back into their own pockets
instead of FhG's. By doing this, IMHO they are not saying MP3 is bad or
evil or whatever, just that they can do it better (for the sake of argument)
themselves and make a profit on it for themselves. Sounds like a good sound
American business model to me. God bless America!
--
"Men bleed every single day." - Charles Bukowski, 1920-1993
"Eric" <ElCa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3C693B20...@hotmail.com...