Subject: Re: AW: [linux-audio-user] ogg player for Windows?
From: Tim Orford (tim_AT_orford.org)
Date: Fri Oct 10 2003 - 16:45:06 EEST
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 09:58:14AM +0100, Daniel James wrote:
> Sure - what we do is provide .ogg as standard and .mp3 as the inferior
> alternative, legacy format. That begs the question 'what's better
> about Ogg?' to which the answer is 'faster download and less storage
> space for you, less bandwidth used for me'. Saving bandwith will be
> appreciated by people hosting music sites.
>
> I figure arguments about sound quality are lost on people who listen
> to music on iPods or those little plastic speakers that you get free
> with the computer. The same would go for discussion on patents for
> people who use Windows; they are not really interested. But faster
> downloads due to smaller file size - everyone can appreciate that.
i kind of agree, but filesize is not a unique advantage of ogg.
The marketing guy will come along and say 'use wma then'.
There are reputedly marginally better codecs than ogg (aac?),
but ogg has one single unique advantage: Freedom. I'm not
convinced that promoting it on any other grounds will be successful
in the long term.
"The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow
the enemy's will to be imposed on him."
Sun Tzu. 400BC.
cheers :-)
-- Tim Orford
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Oct 10 2003 - 17:42:00 EEST