This made me laugh: "Reason two: Lacking information -- meaning Microsoft doesn't control Mac OS X -- to do the job right."

Cry me a river, Microsoft!

What about developers building apps on Win32? They are sometimes "lacking information", and they certainly don't control the OS - but Microsoft expects them to manage.

Seems it's a whole different story when the shoe is on the other foot.

Anyone using a MAC didn’t lose much. Microsoft media player just sucks on the mac. It works great on windows. Fortunately there are other players that will play files on the mac. Apple will probably update quicktime soon to resolve this problem or by downloading the plugin mention in the article.

Two must have player for the MAC os are:

http://mplayerosx.sourceforge.net/
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-macosx.html

Microsoft Confirms: Mac Dead

There, fixed the headline for you. ;-)

Thanks.

@ghjklp3: Don't post crap like that here you idiot!

What was the purpose of this post? are you advocating the use of illegal software?

i dont like wmp! not do i like quicktime! i dont have nither in my box, yet it still plays everything.....

k-lite mega pack and itunes:)

probably the only reason i stay with xp.

its like linux, you can change it however you want, (with some help from nLite).

I have Microsoft Windows XP x64 Edition and am unable to use WMP on several web sites because Microsoft released an updated version of their DRM system, but only in x86 format. So a lot of media is now encoded with the new DRM format, but my media player can't be updated.

This will sound childish of me for saying this, but Microsoft is being a huge punk for removing WM support for the Mac. I don't really care about them pulling the plug on IE for Mac (who really uses that anymore?) but not updating and supporting a file format that is one of the most commonly used formats on the internet is really messed up.

And who says you need control of the OS in order to maintain the program? All the OS X developers use X Code to write their programs and don't have to be in control of the OS.

I think if they really put effort into the program it could've been as big as the windows version for use of music and video content. Apple did it with itunes. Did they hold back on the windows version compared to the mac version? No, they offered full support in managing music, download songs and have an easy to use interface like the mac version. Just because they didn't have control of windows they still offered a windows compatable version that is equal to the mac version.

But iPod windows users may not use itunes and prefer using a winamp plug in or something similar to manage their iPod. You know what? That's cool. Why because they have a choice to use either the program that came with the iPod or a third party program that suits them better.

Sorry, now I'm rambling on and on. You get the point. In my book, this article takes MS down a peg.

That's a lot of b****ing for someone who doesn't sound like he's ever:
a) used Mac Windows Media Player
b) used Microsoft DRM-enabled sites like Rhapsody or MSN Music
c) written a MacOS X application before that deals with security, encryption and/or Ring 1 level permissions under Codewarrior

And what the heck were you trying to point out with this horrific argument:
"Did [Apple] hold back on a windows version compared to a mac version [of iTunes]? No, the offered full support in managing music..."
Oh like THAT didn't have to do with the fact that Mac's got 4% OS marketshare while Windows has 89%? Do the math, genius.

Funny how all your arguments for "building a product for a 3rd party company" could be just as easily directed to having a 3rd party like Flip4Mac write a DRM-enabled player for Macintosh instead of Microsoft doing it for a platform they barely support to begin with.

'Cause hey - if it's so easy, and it's such a lucrative money making business to be in, why not leave that for some other company to do, right? After all, you're probably the same guy that's always whining about how Microsoft "the evil monopoly" never leave any other company a slice of the pie.

Childish indeed.

Ok, "genius", I don't know how your 4%/89% marketshare info came into play but we're not talking about OS marketshare. We're talking about software for an OS. Yes, I am I mac user and yes I have used Mac WMP. I have been a long time Windows consumer user who started my switch 5 years ago and still use both OSs. I don't use Rhapsody or MSN Music because I prefer to use iTunes for my iPod and purchase music from the Music Store. My choice, right?

If you read the article above it talks about media support for a different operating system. How does that tie into my iTunes argument? It's that Apple is not cutting back on support for windows and preventing PC users from purchasing Apple DRM-enabled songs. So why not have MS write a good DRM-enabled player for Mac OS where Mac users can have more choices on purchasing Digial Music? What's wrong with arguing about that.

I'm not a Microsoft hater. I just prefer to keep my PC on the side of the desk for remote access while I use a more powerful, user friendly OS.

I'm glad that you're at the very least willing to admit you really have no experience with any other DRM solution outside of iTunes.

This is about "whether it makes good financial sense" to spend the money necessary to reach out to 4% of the population. Are you seriously telling me that you can't figure out how writing a software product that's to be given away FOR FREE for 4% of the personal computer market MIGHT not be in the best interests of a business that makes software for profit? Never mind that the software product involves DRM, a technology that roots itself at a notoriously low level to prevent individuals from casually bypassing it?

Let's be honest: This has EVERYTHING to do with Macintosh's minimal marketshare. Combine that with the difficulty of remaining competitive on a OS platform that is owned by the same company ALSO producing the leading DRM solution for it (aka iTunes/AAC) and it should be crystal how this wouldn't be in any software developer's best interest. You don't try to sell fresh fruit at a Farmer's Market held on your competition's farm.

I write UNIX & Linux software (I've even churned out a MP3/OGG player in my time) and I do it for my livelyhood for corporate customers - because it pays well - not because I've got some religion about the OS I use. Hell - I'd write for AS/400's if paid better. For the record, you should know that while it may not be true in the US, Linux has a MUCH larger overall marketshare worldwide than MacOS. And while I don't expect Apple to write a iTunes client NOR any sort of DRM enabled technology for Linux, I wouldn't expect Microsoft to do the same for their Windows Media junk for Linux or MacOS.

I mean from any company's standpoint, (except for Apple) who CARES if Mac users have "more choices"? This isn't some kind of charity business: Software's written for profit. If it doesn't make money, it doesn't make money. I think you vastly underestimate how hard it is and how much resources it takes to code a media player - especially one with DRM support, localization, pluggable architecture, and multi-platform support. I can't name one Mac user I know that has even INSTALLED the Windows Media Player for Mac. I know my G4 is certainly Windows Media Player free.

This is a VERY simple economic decision. The fact that you think this has something to do with "providing choice to Mac users" shows the fallacy in your thinking.

Did you ever stop and think that maybe the WMP isn't as well accepted by Apple users? Maybe Apple has reported that they just don't need it. Maybe they have certain ties to the OS for purposes of licensing or updates.. and maybe Apple is making Microsoft change their code. The idea for unified code is just that, so it works across all platforms the same way.

Maybe MS doesn't want to support 2 different methods for WM. you are obviously just a user, and don't understand the intricasies of how programming is performed, so before you go accusing MS of the wrong reasons why they SHOULD'T drop support, maybe you shoul look into the reaons why they DID!. They probably had a very good reason.

Your very sentence, even says IE who really uses it anymore, well, same question can be posed for WM, maybe Apple users prefer quick time.. how about that?

Ok, I can agree that perhaps WMP isn't widely accepted in the Apple community. Granted, it's only a player and that's it. But the code thing I'm still thinking on. WMP 9 was written with PowerPC binaries and could be used on Mactel computer with Rosetta. The only thing left for them was to write a universal binary to work on both systems. Now i'm not a programer but that is that I learned from Apple.

I don't think I am accusing MS for the wrong reasons when they are written right there: "Reason one: Resources allotment. The division's focus has been Windows Vista and Windows Media Player 11. Reason two: Lacking information -- meaning Microsoft doesn't control Mac OS X -- to do the job right." They have a new system coming out in, what, 2007 with a new media player on the way. How are they lacking information when they can pick up a developers kit or perhaps just xcode and have everything they need (again, I'm not a programer, I just read a lot of information on this stuff). I just get a feeling that they want to embed the player more within the OS but they don't know how to do that. I don't think the two reasons they gave us are very good reasons, in my opinion.

Compare how iTunes arranges the songs from sountracks or any album with multiple artists to WMP (on Windows systems). WMP handles these albums a whole lot more elegantly because WMP has two levels of artist IDs in its tag system.

I agree with Microsoft dropping development of WMP on Mac because Mac users already have iTunes for playing and management. The Mac version of WMP was just embarrasing.

I use WMP10 and have been using it since it came out. I used WMP9 before that, etc, etc. Years ago I tried players such as sonique and winamp, however, in truth. These all suck compared to WMP10, in my opinion.

[BTW: Thanks to RIJP for mentioning that website (www.screenthemes.com). Just took a look at it, and it looks a lot better than webshots. Ever since you could only download 5 desktops a day without paying, i have been disappointed with webshots. But now, i found my new desktop program!]

At least Webshots lets you download some wallpaper images for free each day. Screenthemes doesn't let you download any wallpapers for free.

"Reason two: Lacking information -- meaning Microsoft doesn't control Mac OS X -- to do the job right"

To write a media player it is necessary to control the OS?

I wonder who will break the bad news to the boys and girls writing Winamp, Zoom, Foobar, RealPlayer... whom have managed without such luxuries for years :-/

And doesn't that also hint at WMP being somehow integrated with the OS? where have we heard that before?

Maybe that's just the microsoft wy and they don't know how to write programs that aren't tightly coupled to the OS. Which could mean that windows will never be secure ever

I think that Microsoft may be alluding to the protected AAC files purchased from iTunes. For any media management software to be successful on the Mac platform, they have to support these files.

Since Apple has not licensed FairPlay to *anyone*, Apple has ensured that nobody can compete with them on level ground. Of course, Microsoft could implement Quicktime's control into WMP in order to give the illusion that WMP can play protected AAC files natively, but what a horrible thought that is in itself – a player within a player!

Protected AAC files generally can only be played back using iTunes or Quicktime. WMA-DRM, on the other hand, is available to third party developers to implement into their software so that users may have a choice of players that they can use.

Microsoft is not known for being competition friendly, but you have to wonder the same thing about Apple.

Hey, is it just me or is there an underlying tone to this statement that MS itself is quilty of? Joe Wilcox said, "Reason two: Lacking information -- meaning Microsoft doesn't control Mac OS X -- to do the job right. Of course, when there's incentive, Microsoft developers can move mountains. Clearly, the will wasn't there, and I can't fault Microsoft for that."

sounds like they want some info that MAC is not going to give.:)

..

"I thought Mac's didn't crash"
...
...

Yeah, so much for Apple Mythology !

Anyhow: Once the iPod-fad blip is over, Apple won't have much left except an on-line music store.

Microsoft has kept Apple on life support all the pre-iPod years by porting Office to the Mac, and got nothing but villified for it by the MacIntosh Taliban !
...

The Computer Rodent

...

42 million units sold is not a fad. I think we can put that argument to rest now. We could very well be approaching Sony Walkman like sales within the next 1-2 years, if the company continues to sell 30+ million iPods every year.

They don't, they are like cats, they just refuse to do it until they are ready!

I don't know. I would still argue that it is a fad. That would also be like saying the Walkman wasn't a fad at the time that it did well also.

I would say a certain brand of mp3 players [insert iPod here] that sells well would be considered a fad. But MP3 players itself would not be called a fad. But the iPod, I would say yes.

"which led to browser crashes and lockups when using Apple's built-in media player"

I thought Mac's didn't crash.

Ok, it was a joke. You can flame me now.

i second ur joke..

my experience on an ex fiances ibook few years back was gross!

but now with intel/mac trying to pull a "wintel" on ms..hehe this is fun to watch :-)

I managed to freeze a mac accidentally(programs would not start) within 5 minutes of when I first tried OSX. Unfreezing it was as simple as right-clicking an icon and exitting some OS thingy.

Still prefer my windows box though.

About time. If I were Microsoft, I wouldn't build any software for Apple; it's simply a waste of time and money.

Brilliant reasoning, it's a shame more people don't think like you. Maybe everyone should quite making software for Windows because a few people hate it.

Except that you're wrong. Making Office for mac is hardly a "waste of money", or I doubt they would be doing it.

Now...Internet Explorer - THAT is a waste of money.

He, he...

Well, Microsoft is probably going to keep making Office for Mac for some time. I mean, OS X is basicly a *nix, so as long as they keep the code base going they can allways jump to support the rest of the *nix market in a short time if needed.

So does this mean Apple users can't watch streaming wmv?

No: http://fileforum.betanew..._QuickTime/1136998652/1

Wow, I bet the Apple users are all upset over this one.

Windows users don't even use WMP, we use Winamp, J. river, sonique, and some other better 3rd party apps..

You only use WMP until you can download something else...

Don't know what planet you are on but the overwhelming majority of Windows users use WMP.

iTunes and Real Player dominate the middle ground and I can only imagine what a tiny percentage use Winamp and even less for the other players you mention.

Depends on who you ask. The average user won't bother switching to another program since WMP does the job. Most advanced users (people who spend a lot of time on the computer) use 3rd party players for their advantages. I, for one, use WinAmp, because it offers better visualizations (just my opinion on this) and can play a much wider range of media files than WMP can play.

Realist is literally being a realist, while rijp has apparently never seen an "average" user's PC. You can quickly recognize an average user's PC by looking for WinZip on the Start Menu. The average user will also have desktop shortcuts for Real Player, desktop shortcuts for 2-3 versions of Adobe/Acrobat Reader (at least 1 of which will be broken but the user won't even know what you're talking about when you mention it), and yellow icons of either a smiley face or a running person everywhere (courtesy of Yahoo Messenger or AIM). The IE Favorites menu will be a single flat list, with some of the names being 100+ characters long (because the average user doesn't understand how to override the page title when adding a Favorite). Don't even get me started about Webshots...

Having worked in a PC repair shop for some years I can say that everything stated above is absolutely true. Along with countless toolbars, all those cute little spyware programs like the purple monkey thing, viruses, etc. Then there is the inside of the computer itself, every fan and heat sink clogged full of charred, blackened dust and cat hair...

Some of what you said was funny, however true, but funny. I was thinking that maybe myself and MAYBE on other person should host a small site offering to conver the crappy WMP versions to MP3 or MPG (maybe even MOV) for a small fee for several files. Yeah, steal my idea if you want, but at least I know someone used it.

Damn it, Banquo it's DOG hair! LOL I am just having fun. I do however see more dog hair than cat, but that is just where I live not the norm.

P.S> I like cats more than the smelly dogs. LOL

No offence, but i know very little people that use Vissies. My top client's daughter use to, but that is about it. (She was 16)Most people I know just listen to the music and they aren't even near the computer. I am not saying that what I see is the majority of people, just what I know.

rijp, you used to make a lot of sense... what's happened to you, did you hit your head?

I happen to use WMP10 all the time, and I actually like it. I know a lot of people who agree.

Let's not forget all the P2P apps and games that their kids install too!

If what you says is true, Microsoft will not be hit by anti-trust suits at EU and South Korea. Microsoft controls nearly half of the media players software market despite being a relatively late-comer.

Grease and steel-wool all over and inside the case? :P

Potatoe chips and two dozen burnt elastics inside and all over the mobo?

Yeah...those were the most memorable.

Actually, I use WMP - WMP 6.4. It loads quite a bit faster than any of the newer players, but it lacks support for DRM and other new features.

I use it all the time and the only one on my system. It works great for me and have no reason to try something else, and I have.

Man, you hit the nail on the head! Very true, very true.

Webshots, screensavers, old quicken shortcuts(never used), shortcuts to AOL....

Right you are! Toolbars!!!! Exactly, how many do people even need? What a waste of pixels and memory! IMO

reverse psychology.. my friend.

I see that everyone supports Microsoft, interesting. I paint MS in a somewhat questionably way, and now everyone comes to their support, yet in other forums, people jump on the bandwagon to go against them, marvelous, simply marvelous.

I love WMP myself, but I do use Winamp. Its amazing how I can sway a vote with a simple phrase, and people realize that they in fact DO like MS products.. I think its rather fascinating. I love Psychology.

I see more PC's in a day then you can count. I see people installing and asking questions about what other media player to load, so I am going off of user votes in the real world. Maybe online users are different than those in a corporation, but I have worked for Coke and several other large companies, they don't like Windows Media player.. So I do have a historical support here. And we dont' use Real Player either, that sucks, by an overwhelming majority. Acrobat reader.. yes.

IM's are a majority, but IE..not so much, Firefox..or have we forgotten about that 46 million download procomlamation by Firefox? What was that just made up? IE may be used by this group, but I suspect a great majority use Firefox, I have both, I prefer Maxthon, but that's another story.

Webshots sucks, use screenthemes.com. What else you got? So far you seem very average to me, I use more beta products than you probably open your browser..

You may have worked in a repair shop, but how much did you actually try to educate the user? I bet none. All you cared is that you were making $7.00 an hour, and as long as you were paid, who cares. I bet you think that by educating a user, you will somehow lose your grip on working on their computer, and they won't need you anymore. Well that ideology is way wrong. I explain and tell the user how NOT to keep old shortcuts and that they can get rid of software. I do it via emails and workshops..

So maybe YOUR users don't understand how to get things working, but people I come in contact with, I work WITH them, not FOR them. There is a major difference, buddy.

Cats are stupid. Don't give me this BS about they are "independent", they are stupid... and slow, maybe even retarded. Cats are paranoid demon herders.

That also isn't true, people know they have a choice, they are afraid to ASK about their choices, that too is an indication of comfort level with the person they deal with. Evidently, people have no problem coming to me and asking if there is something better, and I tell them. They switch, and they love it.. Its all about what THEY like, I even encourage them experiment (oh the horror!).

If they break something, no sweat.. They know how to backup and burn a CD!

I don't know what you people are doing, but I have very few problems, sometimes I may have to repeat myself, repeat myself, repeat myself over and over and over.. but hey, they get the point eventually.

Damn, you're sure you weren't repairing vacuum cleaners??

I'm not sure - how many vacuum cleaners have motherboards, cases, harddrives, but not wheels?

Edit: Why would someone suck up greasy steel-wool with a vacuum cleaner? I mean...there's disposable garbage bags right?