ATRAC vs the world
Thought I would share this exchange since Sony’s 20GB HDD player has been in the news lately. First, my original email:
AC3: Windows, Mac, Linux — Free!
AAC: Windows, Mac, Linux — Free!
WMA: Windows, Mac, some Linux — Free!
ATRAC: Windows… but with Sony product…
The point about needing a Sony product is changing — you can download Connect — but only if you’re using US XP (either that, or it’s using IP blocking).
Try this: do a Google search for “download MediaPlayer”, “download iTunes”, and “download SonicStage”. Compare the rankings. Upsetting.
Then my response to the reply I received (original reply comments inlined)
“Accessible” might have been more appropriate.My point was that given a wee bit of effort, an average programmer can build a simple encoder/decoder utilizing any of MP3, AAC, or AC3, and in the case of WMA, content, without any due unnecessary concern, especially for DRM.
I realized after writing all this that my background is from software and I’m guessing that you’re thinking from the hardware angle. While I mostly agree that Sony will (at least, should, since it knows nothing about software development) be generating revenue from the hardware side, it is naive in thinking it can ignore the software angle.
> 1. MP3: Windows, Mac, Linux — Free!
> * decoder license, $2.50/device
> ** service $500K for first million users
FgH turned a blind eye long enough for mp3 to flourish before unleashing the hounds. Most people won’t hand over cash for something new w/o trying it out. mp3 introduced the average Jane to audio compression. Now that a viable market and demand has been established, FgH stepped up action to recoup the benefits.
> 2. AC3: Windows, Mac, Linux — Free!
> * Can’t remember, but this is in the $2.00/device range
> ** Meaningless in digital downloads. Liquid Audio supported it, but no
> one else would. Also an annual license for the software decoder.
I agree – AC3 is meaningless in the download market. But its presence in the home-theatre market is bar-none. My point in mentioning this codec was that because the specification is freely available (as “a/52″), free software-based DVD players are also available.
> 3. AAC: Windows, Mac, Linux — Free!
> * decoder $0.45/channel
> ** at least 6 flavors, all of which require a specific hardware decoder.
> all optimizations are lost when you cross decoders resulting in lower
> sound quality and audio artifacts. this causes customer complaint calls
> to the device manufacturers.
> *** trying to get annual software decoder licenses from the service
> provider
Again, since the specification is available for download, free decoder libraries are also available for integration in products (software or hardware) on all major OS platforms. While it’s true there are numerous profiles, there is an obvious dominant one which is only gaining steam. I would be interested in seeing hard numbers of actual customer complaints b/c of profile incompatibilities. How does it compare with the number of tech support calls to Sony b/c of the frustrating OpenMG checkin/checkout system?
> 4. WMA: Windows, Mac, some Linux — Free!
> * currently free on the device, planning to charge between$0.50-1.50/device
> ** servers are expensive for service providers ($100K for 200K users)
> *** planning to charge annual fee to distributors for decoder
all I have to say is, Microsoft provides an application that is freely available for download. Users can choose among all possible features and combinations the codec can handle (lossy to lossless, mono to 7.1, 8/8 to 24/96) to play with. The fact MS may charge later isn’t much of an argument; if the content producer determines WMA is suitable for their needs, and if there is demand for the producer’s content, then licensing the codec won’t be a problem. The cost will just be handed down to the customer, which they will be willing to pay because they want the content.
> 5. ATRAC: Windows… but with Sony product…
> * free on the hardware
> ** trying to charge transaction cost to distributors
I’m not sure we’re on the same wavelength here – ATRAC licensing is free on the hardware? It may be a cheaper option that the others, but last I heard it was still a few cents. Actually getting a license is a other issue.
However, I will stick to my point that all codecs except ATRAC are usable on more than just Windows (well, unless you come over to my desk; I can show you ATRAC decoding on OSX :)
> Formats are somewhat meaningless. It’s what you do with it that counts.
> Sony can’t stay focussed on proprietary formats. If you look at what’s
> being proposed for video it’s open standards using MP4, AVC, AAC, yada,
> yada, yada. What this will do to music remains to be seen. It would be
> expensive to support both AAC and Atrac in devices that support both
> video and audio.
Another appeal for codecs will be the content that comes in that form. The “what you do with it” is not just about what hardware you provide, but what is available to play on it. If Sony owned every audio content available to man, then maybe its current business practice would be viable; although Sony did try something close to it by introducing albums on MD, egad what a flop! This is precisely why mp3 was such a huge hit over ATRAC, even when ATRAC had a few years’ start; Jane Doe could take her old stash of music and make her collection w/o paying a dime. To use ATRAC, she would have had to *buy* an MD player. Users can *finally* get to experience ATRAC *without* paying a dime first, now that Connect/SonicStage is downloadable (albeit only for US users). We’ve entered a consumer world of expecting to be able to try things out before paying anything – clothing, cars, music, movies (via trailers).
You’re preaching to the choir here on the proprietary format issue. Just looking at Sony’s history comparing its own formats to those it developed with other companies and the picture couldn’t be clearer. When will upper management learn?
What pisses me off most is the marketing tactic. 13,000 songs on the latest 20GB HDD player? It’s such a cheap shot at Apple, it makes me sick. Every engineer in my department – the group that built ATRAC, mind you – agrees that nobody in their right mind would compress at the required 48Kbps to reach that limit. Apple decided to release a statement essentially claiming unfair comparisons, which in some ways is unfortunate since some view it as admitted concern. But they called Sony on it, and what does our spokesman rebut with? Better battery life, which is irrefutable so why didn’t they start with that to begin with? Why even bother opening the can of worms on track count when we can fight with what annoys iPod users most – its short batter life. Saying the new 20GB NW1 can hold 13,000 songs is like saying my SUV can get 50mpg – technically possible, but essentially pointless (50mpg — sure, if I started at the top of a mountain and coasted downhill).
Am I being overly pessimistic about this? There is nothing more frustrating than developing a product and having marketing fuck up with repugnant tactics that in the long run will only create annoyed customers.
That’s enough for now. The fact that upper management is not sending a clear message when ATRAC is such a hot topic both inside and outside Sony worries me.
July 16th, 2004 at 3:05 am
good points all. so what would the hd walkman’s number have come in at had sony chosen an atrac bitrate comparable to 128k mp3? is there any science around comparing the two codecs?
April 21st, 2005 at 12:14 pm
These are all good points and to create something just to have the marketing folks screw up enough that no one wants it is really frustrating. I, like you use a Mac and what pisses me off so much is that we, who use macs, are used to propritary formats but Sony chose to ignore all of the Apple users worldwide. I purchased one of the early 505’s but wont touch another MD player because Sony will not choose to support the Mac. After all the core of the code is C
July 12th, 2005 at 12:21 am
I currently own the nw-hd5 (the walkman you are talking about) and the device itself is very good. I chose the device because it seems like the “ipod is like an asshole, everyone has one.” I wanted to be “different” like a mac owner :) I mean, Everywhere I turn I see one… its kind of the same in regards to mac vs. pc users (mac users are in the minority). I will not go into the issue that the device, nw-hd5, does not support support mac use, I mean face it, mac just isnt popular in world wide use and sony wouldnt gain that much more market use by adding support (cuz most mac users are anal about only using apple products). I do not see why people complain about codecs so much, its not even a big deal – I mean if you really cared about the quality you would stick to listening to audio cd’s and you know (at least we assume) that as long as you “BUY” music from an online service like itunes or sony’s connect it will be of good quality OR the encoder’s from the application (even if u just use itunes to encode) will be fine. The only VALID complaint I will agree with against sont is the software used to transfer music files to the device is very very bad yet still effective, which all that matters because i use the device (nw-hd5) 95% of the time i listen to music. I think if you were to truely measure the nw-hd5 vs. the ipod (not givning into the gimmicks like “color screen”, photos, an “touch pad”), thinking which is the best device for playing music and which offers the best “performance” -”performance” being the keyword…. I would have to say the sony nw-hd5 comes on top.
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
M@Blog – by Matthew Romaine » ATRAC vs the world great article thank you.