[linux-audio-dev] please help: enumerating library requirements

[Leonard "paniq" Ritter]

On Saturday 23 July 2005 14:05, Paul Davis wrote:
> > if fraunhofer restricts the widespread use of its codec, mp3 will die.
> > ogg vorbis is the better alternative, and the only reason why it hasnt
> > defeated mp3 is the awkward name.
>
> are you blind? 

no, but please dont refrain from insulting me. it makes you appear younger.

> the only reason it hasn't defeated mp3 is that the 
> overwhelming majority of all compressed music format music players do
> not support it. 

although there isnt any reason not to. there is a free fixed point player 
engine for embedded devices. there are no licence fees to pay. the engine can 
be implemented with a minimum of effort. ogg sounds a lot better than mp3 
(perceptional, not statistical).

so what do you think? why do they not support it? because the customers dont 
want it? and why do they not want it? hmmmmm lets think shallow ... maybe its 
because of the awkward name? and because "mp3" looks cool and freaky?

> do you have any idea how hard it is for a windows user 
> to play even an ogg file? 

liar. winamp does it, and winamp is way older than any other player. microsoft 
omits ogg from their media player for exactly the only reason, that there 
would be no need for wmv then. i have no idea why they are trying to punch 
their inferior square codec through the customers round hole.

do your homework.

> its like a bizarre inverse of the situation on 
> some linux distros, where you can play oggs but not mp3's out of the
> box, and fixing it means tracking down an obscure repository and
> figuring out which of the many mp3-related packages you need. ugh, not
> ogg.

i'm trying to abandon mp3 as much as possible. popularity is not an argument.

and which distros are you talking about?

>
> there is almost no support for an alternative psycho-acoustic
> compression scheme within the commercial world. 

a lot of commercial games are using ogg, for apparent technical reasons.

> companies don't want ogg, 

why? 

> 95% of the userbase doesn't even know it exists,

why? come on, there must be a superficial reason.

> and when told  about it, my guess is that most of them wouldn't care to dig 
further.

why? let's think shallow...

>
> the business phrase "barriers to entry" springs to mind here. like most
> walls, it may eventually fade, but the one that mp3 has set up is a well
> constructed, many-feet-of-reinforced-concrete-thick affair.

mp3 hasn't set up a wall. it was the first audio compression codec with a 
quality that outweighted anything prior available. its still living off this 
fame. there has not been a real reason to switch to anything else because it 
was and still is "good enough". ogg vorbis is, in terms of quality, only 
"marginally" better. 

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.

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