Re: [linux-audio-dev] ogg vs mp3 fame discussion

On Saturday 23 July 2005 17:13, Paul Davis wrote:
> there are lots of reasons to. first of all: what is the source of
> material in OV format? does any major legal or illegal download system
> provide OV format for any sizeable chunk of popular music? second, every
> supported format implies more work within the company. maybe not much
> more, but with these companies rushing to get new systems out with
> insufficient staff (the usual story), adding a new format requires a lot
> of justification.

you are once again claiming that the reason why ogg is not popular is that ogg
is not popular.

> i just know that whenever i post OV URL's for windows users, they say they
> need mp3 files. which may or may not be true in and of itself, but its still
> a major issue that they believe that.

its all lazy bastards. most of them say they require mp3's because they have
no other chance of listening to them on their mp3 players. in these days many
people seem to prefer listening to all kind of stuff in their cars.

i bought a rio karma (awful firmware) so i didnt have a problem with that
(until its hd crashed grrr).

i usually offer only ogg files on my website, with following comment above
each music download page:

"In case that you wonder about the file format I'm using, Ogg Vorbis
(http://www.vorbis.com/faq.psp): Ogg Vorbis works just as Mp3 does, but
offers better quality for the same bandwidth. Here is a good listening test
comparison (http://www.rjamorim.com/test/) of Ogg Vorbis and Mp3. Winamp 5
(http://www.winamp.com/player/free.php) is an excellent media player that
also plays Ogg Vorbis files and webstreams."

additionally, for important releases, i offer 128kbit mp3's, just to piss
people off.

> > and which distros are you talking about?
>
> redhat since about RH9, continuing on to Fedora. i am not sure about
> debian, i think they have different reasons but the effect may not be
> the same.

i try to memorize that. arch did not have a problem, neither did kubuntu or
gentoo.

>
> > > 95% of the userbase doesn't even know it exists,
>
> because USA Today, Deutsche SudZeitung and Al Jazeera talk about "mp3" a
> lot, but OV hardly at all?

you are once again claiming that the reason why ogg is not popular is that ogg
is not popular.

> GB's and GB's of material in MP3 format? download services that use MP3?
> h/w devices that use MP3? a media culture that uses "mp3" like it uses
> "hoover", "fridge" and "xerox"? i'd say it had all the makings of a
> highly successful (if unintentional) barrier to entry. and as windows
> has shown clearly, "good enough" is "good enough".

i agree.

> > the problem is the name. it does not at all suggest that ogg vorbis is
> > the new mp3. it's as simple as that. no marketing, no world domination.
>
> the last sentence i might agree with. but that doesn't equate to an
> issue with the name. OV has been very poorly marketed by the standards
> of any other technology over the last 10 years. whose fault that is, i
> don't know. but i do know that if you can sell products with the names
> of some of the current crop of cars, shaving foam, perfume, qvaguely-
> dairy-related spreads, and ice cream, "Ogg/Vorbis" is not an inherent
> obstacle.

i am an artist and also quite good with reasonable marketing. i have serious
trouble making up cool phrases for ogg/vorbis. i'd rather want to use
something else instead.

you cant hype a name that does not sound good. it just doesnt work out. for a
successful campaign, you have to start from the name. it needs rhythm and
color.

e.g. "firefox" is currently being very very successful, while "mozilla" isn't.
i think one of the major reasons why firefox catched on is that the name
sounds a lot better and that it came with a cute logo.

simply by finding a good name, you can already save a lot of energy that you'd
waste with hyping and marketing.

i'll try to contact the vorbis people. maybe they can try a spin off :)

-- 
-- leonard "paniq" ritter
-- http://www.paniq.org
-- http://www.mjoo.org