I applaud the move to DRM-free music (especially in light of some of the recent closings of some music services--e.g., MSN Music), but I'm not so thrilled about the move--backwards, in my opinion--to MP3 format. The bit rate required to get decent sound out of MP3 is far too high compared with more modern formats, especially when it comes to classical music. I'd love to see the industry move to WMA or AAC (at decent bit rates--I think ~200 kbps VBR would be sufficient), but I really doubt that's going to happen. Better still, it would be great to download lossless copies to your PC, then sync them to your portable device transcoded to a compact, high-quality file. Until then, digital distribution of music will be a very disappointing move for music lovers that care deeply about sound quality. Instead of moving from CDs to even higher-quality formats (SACD, etc.), we're taking a huge step backwards.

i guess they negleted zune from the article because zune it's not available in europe.

why is it taking so long?

I did not know that! (that aac files played on the zune). Blogged it. Thanks Brandon.

www.informationweek.com/.../nbc_claims_late

No problem David!

I find this article a little misleading. aac is not more "proprietary" than mp3, it is just a newer and better format, ISO/IEC standard, with lower royalties and almost as common as mp3.

As you said, even the zune plays aac, and practically any player today will too.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Advanced_Audio_

name, I disagree about my blog post being misleading. When you talk to a consumer about a .aac file they don't know what you're talking about. When you say mp3 everyone knows pretty much what a mp3 is these days.

The concept of "DRM-free mp3's" makes more sense to the average consumer. If I were to go around talking "DRM-free aac's" consumers would be like WTF is a aac?

To me aac is a less-known-by-name format (not arguing about the specifics of the format itself) that Apple pushes with their stuff that is watermarked even when you download DRM-free music from the iTunes Music Store.

When Zune offers DRM-free mp3's that are not watermarked - to me that is a better experience for the user and the fact its in mp3 format makes what they are offering more widely "understandable" to the consumer.

I'm sorry but there is no way you can convince me that the average consumer knows what a aac file is versus mp3.

Hi Brandon,

I am not trying to convince you that average customers will ever know what "aac" is. They won't.

But consumers don't know what that "mp3" thingy is either, they think its just other word for "music". I have seen ads in magazines offering "mp5" and seen friends wanting to get them because "they are 2 versions newer than mp3".

And I can assure you all of my non technical friends don't know that mp3 refers to the mp3 files. "Ipod=MP3 player" (or just ipod=mp3) for them. And even if the ipod plays aac, they still see it as an "mp3 player"

But it is just a name. Following this line of reasoning, everything that has a weird name should never be used as customers will not know it. Does any average customer know what mpeg2 is? Should we not use it in DVDs because customers don't know they are buying mpeg2 files? What about wav files? Do you think it is a good idea to stop selling music cds because there is no way an average consumer knows what a wav file is? What is microsoft doing then pushing "wma" files??

I don't see any issue with people don't knowing what "aac" is, they just buy a "drm free song from itunes" and play it in their zune (or wherever they want). As you said, no problem. (and btw, WTF is drm? Is people not buying drm free songs because they don't know what drm is?)

New file formats have a place when they offer better quality, and I think Apple is right pushing for them (even when the real reason Apple pushes for aac is that it is cheaper to license than mp3).

And by the way, apple is *not* the only one pushing for aac, (see ps3 for example) and apple is not the creator of the format. This is not similar to wma, that is a file format *developed* by Microsoft. The "w" in wma stands for "windows", but neither "a" in aac stands for apple.

Do you think Microsoft should push for people using xls instead of the "proprietary" xlsx (*) because everybody knows what an xls file is and nobody really knows what xlsx is? How do you advance this way?

But well, we will have to agree to disagree here. I agree with many of your posts, but I won't with this.

(*) with xlsx being a "proprietary" format the same way aac is, and xls being a "free" format the same way mp3 is. hint: they are not.

Personally, I really like my Zune a LOT! I never did get an iPod, specifically because they were laced with Apple and I heard bad stories about music incompatibility. I have nearly always stuck with Microsoft stuff because I know it will work, and work nicely with my equipment. Prior to owning the Zune I did not have a digital music player, but had all my music on my computer in the WMA format. When Zune came along, I knew it was time to finally take the plunge. It’s exceptional, especially the latest software upgrade that incorporates editing functions.