Re: Developing replacement for AT

By that statement though, you are forcing the consumer (or potential
consumer) into doing things the way you dictate.  I don't use FLAC for one
reason, my players of choice do not, and cannot support it at this point.
So why would I want to re-rip my collection to flac, just to use this new
product?

WMA is popular, whether people want to admit it, or not.  If $$$ is an
issue, then I understand.  Any other reason is just Anti-MS BS.

Danny Rego


----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Richards" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: [AT] Developing replacement for AT


> Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>
>>> I know it's not "cool" to embrace anything from Microsoft, but
>>> lossless WMA makes sense to a lot of audiophiles -
>> There are reasons why it's not cool. Embracing Microsoft stuff typically
>> involves paying Microsoft more than you like or else doing a hell or a
>> lot of work - or both.
>
> One of the design priorities is to have OGG and FLAC support, something
> that was always missing from the AT. FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec -
> see http://flac.sourceforge.net/ IIRC) would eliminate the need for WMA
> lossless.
>
> We want to avoid proprietary formats where possible. While technically
> MP3 is proprietary due to various patents, it's so widespread that this
> isn't an issue, and there are many open-source players available.
>
> --
>  Glenn Richards                                     Tel: (01453) 845735
>  Squirrel Solutions                 http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/
>
>  IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation
>
>