__/ [ Peter Köhlmann ] on Saturday 18 March 2006 17:58 \__
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> In article <dvh0qe$2gnv$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> It's rather obvious, but according to The Register, as much as 25% more
>>> energy (battery life) gets devoured:
>> The conclusion doesn't follow from the experiment. The files that
>> drained the battery faster were (1) protected with DRM, (2) recorded at
>> a different bitrate, and (3) encoded in a different format (WMA instead
>> of MP3).
>> It is impossible with that experimental setup to draw any conclusions
>> whatsoever about whether or not DRM affects battery life.
> Oh, but it is.
> If you need a different format to enable DRM, and that format needs more
> computational power, DRM directly affects battery life. Because without it
> you simply would not use such a codec
I agree. This also makes one wonder about Windows Media Audio, which some MP3
players support nowadays, at an embedded level. Why even let a new format
emerge when a perfectly-legit and standardised/commonly-used one exists
already? Same situation with video codecs. It's a lockin attempt.
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
2:55am up 10 days 19:32, 9 users, load average: 0.16, 0.85, 0.94
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms