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 455227
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by Neolander on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

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.

But why would someone do that ? MP3 has proven to be good enough as a de facto standard, so why would someone spend time to implement another patented format, paying another license fee or restricting himself from exporting his product in the US in order to do that ? Wouldn't we be better off waiting for the MP3 patents to expire ?

Is the quality increase so that, say, you can get the same quality as MP3 CBR 128KBps (above which most people don't hear the difference) in twice less space ?

Edited 2010-12-31 07:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 31st Dec 2010 07:25 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

But why would someone do that ? MP3 has proven to be good enough as a de facto standard, so why would someone spend time to implement another patented format, paying another license fee or restricting himself from exporting his product in the US in order to do that ? Is the quality increase so that, say, you can get the same quality as MP3 CBR 192KB (above which most people don't hear the difference) in twice less space?


Because I have 200GB of music and I don't feel inclined to re-encode all my music again simply to 'stick it to the man'.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by Neolander on Fri 31st Dec 2010 11:24 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Because I have 200GB of music and I don't feel inclined to re-encode all my music again simply to 'stick it to the man'.

Alright, but is there a sufficient number of people in this situation for it being worth implementing AAC on the manufacturer's side ?

I mean, Vorbis costs them only development time and it's already too much. As you said yourself, AAC costs even more development time, and as a bonus caveat you've got to pay for it.

If I'm not misunderstood, most people who own lots of AAC files are iTunes Store users, meaning the part of iPod customers which would be the hardest to convince of switching to another media player.

Edited 2010-12-31 11:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2