Linked by robojerk on Thu 30th Dec 2010 00:09 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless I have often wondered why there wasn't a flood of Android portable media players - now the WSJ Reports: "With the move, Samsung will round out a series of Galaxy-named gadgets that matches product for product with Apple Inc.'s line of iPods, iPad and iPhone. Samsung will have the Galaxy Player, Galaxy Tab and Galaxy smartphone. All use a variation of Google Inc.'s Android operating system and work with apps developed for it."
Thread beginning with comment 455219
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree, though if they're wishing to clone the iPod they must not work properly with alternative operating systems other than that of their manufacturer ;)


I don't want the iPod to be cloned, I want a better player - something Apples competitors seem to be inept at doing.

Open standard, you say ?
Like everything coming from MPEG, AAC is a patented format. Implementing AAC requires a license fee.
http://www.vialicensing.com/licensing/aac-fees.aspx
This is why media players vendors won't support it : unlike MP3 and WMA, it's not even a de facto standard, so it's not worth the cost.

Now, if only they could support Vorbis, which is a *true* open standard...


Open standard does not automatically lead to royalty and patent free.

That's logical. Apple manufactures large amounts of iPods, so they can pay less. Newcomers don't have this chance.

This is why, in my opinion, trying to clone the iPod without introducing some major innovation is pointless. But some keep trying...


Why the heck should I there for buy an inferior product at a higher price simply to 'stick it to the man'?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Neolander on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Open standard does not automatically lead to royalty and patent free.

Then how is it open ? In that the spec is publicly known ? Everyone knows how MP3 works, too...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:20 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Then how is it open ? In that the spec is publicly known ? Everyone knows how MP3 works, too...


AAC specification is full provided and open. FAAC/FAAD are open source implementations, they lack the attention required but it most certainly can be implemented. h264 is an open standard which again is being implemented without too many problems. Sure AAC is a pain in the backside to implement, yes it is more complex but there is nothing stopping someone with enough time and man power to actually implement a high quality AAC encoder to the same quality that exists in the MP3 world in the case of LAME.

Edited 2010-12-31 07:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2