Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)(alac.macosforge.org)
alac.macosforge.org
Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)
http://alac.macosforge.org/
179 comments
does this mean that FLAC will soon be irrelevant ?
Today a lot of high-fidelity audio players support FLAC as the default lossless format. This kinda meant that that iPods and these players lived in different universes as far as lossless is concerned.
If the release of this codec means that h/w manufacturers are able to incorporate this codec into their silicon (I'm not sure if the open source license extends to hardware), then effectively there is no real reason to use or support FLAC anymore (minor differences in quality nonwithstanding).
Anybody know which codec is more power efficient ?
Today a lot of high-fidelity audio players support FLAC as the default lossless format. This kinda meant that that iPods and these players lived in different universes as far as lossless is concerned.
If the release of this codec means that h/w manufacturers are able to incorporate this codec into their silicon (I'm not sure if the open source license extends to hardware), then effectively there is no real reason to use or support FLAC anymore (minor differences in quality nonwithstanding).
Anybody know which codec is more power efficient ?
Irrelevant is a strong word, and I very much doubt it. The only reason for making this open source was for devices to be able to support this more. However FLAC has been open source for quite a while - consequently most device makers willing to make the effort to support loss-less audio codec already did so with FLAC. Support for ALAC will mostly come for these devices. Conversely, I see no reason for any device to support ALAC and not FLAC.
According to Wikipedia, FLAC is more efficient in encoding/decoding speeds - with same compression ratio. This translates to it being more power efficient.
Lastly this news will matter to only a few audiophiles who are also Apple geeks.
Making something open source is a welcome gesture, but I hope Apple will do this for other items which will have better reaching consequences.
According to Wikipedia, FLAC is more efficient in encoding/decoding speeds - with same compression ratio. This translates to it being more power efficient.
Lastly this news will matter to only a few audiophiles who are also Apple geeks.
Making something open source is a welcome gesture, but I hope Apple will do this for other items which will have better reaching consequences.
Conversely, I see no reason for any device to support ALAC and not FLAC.
Isnt this implemented in silicon (or atleast implemented as some DSP-specific library) ? AFAIK that costs money.
Today, if you wanted a lossless player, that player had to have FLAC - which was taken from a commercial vendor like Tensilica [1]. But now that ALAC is an alternative, why would I even try to spend more money and also add FLAC ?
Plus, it is reasonably trivial to convert all FLAC to ALAC [2]
[1] http://www.tensilica.com/products/audio/audio-codecs/flac.ht... or http://www.tensilica.com/products/audio/audio-codecs.htm (no ALAC)
[2] http://www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc.htm
Isnt this implemented in silicon (or atleast implemented as some DSP-specific library) ? AFAIK that costs money.
Today, if you wanted a lossless player, that player had to have FLAC - which was taken from a commercial vendor like Tensilica [1]. But now that ALAC is an alternative, why would I even try to spend more money and also add FLAC ?
Plus, it is reasonably trivial to convert all FLAC to ALAC [2]
[1] http://www.tensilica.com/products/audio/audio-codecs/flac.ht... or http://www.tensilica.com/products/audio/audio-codecs.htm (no ALAC)
[2] http://www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc.htm
Open source, sure. But patent free?
Comment here indicates no:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3166268
If AAC costs $1/device to implement, who exactly cares that the code is "opened"?
Comment here indicates no:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3166268
If AAC costs $1/device to implement, who exactly cares that the code is "opened"?
Two mistakes here:
(1) Apple Lossless, not AAC. Apple is not open-sourcing their AAC decoder, which is part of QuickTime.
(2) The Apache license grants a royalty-free patent license.
(1) Apple Lossless, not AAC. Apple is not open-sourcing their AAC decoder, which is part of QuickTime.
(2) The Apache license grants a royalty-free patent license.
What's the point of this over flac?
It allows you to play lossless audio on the combined 400 million(1) iPods and iOS devices out there.
(1)http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/04/apple-lawsuit-reve...
(1)http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/04/apple-lawsuit-reve...
Well, FLAC already can be played in the millions of Android phones out there. I don't see the point in having two different formats, it will just make worse for the consumer who want to change from one platform to another. I bought a lot of FLAC music and it is a shame that I can only listen it on my Android phone and not on my iPod.
Been hunting around, but does anyone know the first ipod to support it?
I'm not familiar with the current state of FLAC but as of a few years ago ALAC offered better meta-data in the MP4 container. Part of the reason I abandoned FLAC years ago was constant problems with meta-data. I would often end up corrupt files post-tagging or the player would simply not show meta-data I had meticulously added to my bootleg collection. I got the sense at the time that there was a lack of agreement on how meta-data was supposed to work in FLAC files.
Note to uriel: your last few posts are all [dead] for some reason.
uriel 2 hours ago | link [dead]
Afaik FLAC this days uses an ogg container, which is where
the metadata goes, so support should be as good as for Ogg
Vorbis.
In practical terms, I have a huge collection of FLAC, and
never had trouble with metadata, sounds like a bug in
whatever player you were using.The Ogg container is optional, and I can't say I've seen it used much, if ever - I gather its main use was for streaming. FLAC has its own metadata as part of the spec: http://flac.sourceforge.net/format.html#metadata_block
Afaik FLAC this days uses an ogg container, which is where the metadata goes, so support should be as good as for Ogg Vorbis.
In practical terms, I have a huge collection of FLAC, and never had trouble with metadata, sounds like a bug in whatever player you were using.
In practical terms, I have a huge collection of FLAC, and never had trouble with metadata, sounds like a bug in whatever player you were using.
It plays on iPods and other iOS devices. Other than that, not much -- FLAC's compression ratio is a bit better on average, and more non-Apple devices support it.
The release of this code isn't really all that exciting, as there's already a free reverse-engineered implementation in libav. (It might not support all the modes described in this source release, though.)
The release of this code isn't really all that exciting, as there's already a free reverse-engineered implementation in libav. (It might not support all the modes described in this source release, though.)
he means ffmpeg
ffmpeg renamed themselves to libav
No they didn't. FFmpeg still exists. It is still active with plenty of contributions.
What does that show? The people who forked it decided to change the name of their fork.
iTunes does not support FLAC.
Dedicated playback hardware on iOS devices.
consumer products that actually support it?
I have had something like this for 3 years:
http://www.logitech.com/en-au/speakers-audio/wireless-music-...
http://www.logitech.com/en-au/speakers-audio/wireless-music-...
Android market has had at least one FLAC player for at least 2 years now
FLAC has been supported by Rockbox http://www.rockbox.org/ since 2005.. I remember using it in my iriver H300, iPods were supported as well
well yeah, decoders exist. Rockbox doesn't qualify as a "consumer product" in the sense I was using the term. IE, walk into my local electronics store and pick up a device and take it to the till. Good point (to the other poster) about the squeezebox though, quite correct.
In addition to iOS playback as mentioned by other posters, ALAC is also used when streaming AirPlay audio. I would have killed for this code a few years ago.
iDevices don't support FLAC, IIRC.
For those unfamiliar with the site, MacOSForge is an official Apple site which hosts repositories for code included in OS X (see http://www.opensource.apple.com/ and the sidebar)
The announcement with timestamp for today is on the homepage: http://www.macosforge.org/
The announcement with timestamp for today is on the homepage: http://www.macosforge.org/
I don't know why Apple has gotten THAT much flak for allegedly being totally closed and locking you down worse than Microsoft did back in the dark ages etc. Yes, they have certain core products which are their own and they don't open them up and the locking down of their iPhones, well, it could be a blessing and a curse. I will only say that from the perspective of a regular customer, the quality control done on apps is probably not such a bad thing but yes, for app developers it probably just sucks. And the music you buy online on iTunes now comes pretty much without any DRM in high quality AAC.
But they are not ONLY "evil" because at the same time, Apple did contribute to open standards and there is a lot of Open Source available. It is, however, still a business so for me, it seems they are playing it smart and do "open" where it also benefits them and their customers and do "closed/locked down" where it is critical for their own success or in accordance with their product philosophy or the reality distortion field.
But they are not ONLY "evil" because at the same time, Apple did contribute to open standards and there is a lot of Open Source available. It is, however, still a business so for me, it seems they are playing it smart and do "open" where it also benefits them and their customers and do "closed/locked down" where it is critical for their own success or in accordance with their product philosophy or the reality distortion field.
The problem is that Apple's business model is based upon selling artificially scarce content (music, applications, etc) over closed and restrictive platforms. A couple of open products isn't going to change their fundamental business model.
The argument that "Apple is just a business" doesn't hold weight for me either because there are clearly superior business models out their like Google's which is based upon free software (linux) and intelligent cloud services (search).
The argument that "Apple is just a business" doesn't hold weight for me either because there are clearly superior business models out their like Google's which is based upon free software (linux) and intelligent cloud services (search).
No, look at the quarter results of Apple. Their revenue is selling hardware stuff. Digital content is relatively a small amount. I also find "artificially scarce" a very biased description. The App Store has an unbelievable positive impact on the developer ecosystem. And if books/gamecartridges/printed newspaper are replaced by digital stuff we shouldn't deride payment for that. Look at ebooks or Amazon kindle. These are good things. The scarce thing is really your favorite band making a kickass song, investigative journalism instead of astroturfing and GRRM writing the next ASOIAF novel in less than five years.
About Googles "superior business model": Ultimately it is just advertising. The product which is sold is you. I don't want to sound polemic, I have tons of respect for Google. But this is a strong realization most never make. Because of that I avoid to being to dependent on their services (maybe I will move my email from gmail to icloud).
EDIT:
Oh, never mind. I just read your other reply to kawahe. You clearly are enlightened and are not bound by the chains of tyranny. I am out of this discussion.
About Googles "superior business model": Ultimately it is just advertising. The product which is sold is you. I don't want to sound polemic, I have tons of respect for Google. But this is a strong realization most never make. Because of that I avoid to being to dependent on their services (maybe I will move my email from gmail to icloud).
EDIT:
Oh, never mind. I just read your other reply to kawahe. You clearly are enlightened and are not bound by the chains of tyranny. I am out of this discussion.
The App Store has an unbelievable positive impact on the developer ecosystem.
Paul Graham (the creator of this site) commented on the App Store himself, and his words were not entirely of ignorant praise like yours are:
http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html
The scarce thing is really your favorite band making a kickass song, investigative journalism instead of astroturfing and GRRM writing the next ASOIAF novel in less than five years.
Although this is besides the point, it is pretty easy to envision a moneyless post-scarcity society where such songs, novels, reports, and other forms of content are delivered to everyone free of charge:
http://adciv.org/
Paul Graham (the creator of this site) commented on the App Store himself, and his words were not entirely of ignorant praise like yours are:
http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html
The scarce thing is really your favorite band making a kickass song, investigative journalism instead of astroturfing and GRRM writing the next ASOIAF novel in less than five years.
Although this is besides the point, it is pretty easy to envision a moneyless post-scarcity society where such songs, novels, reports, and other forms of content are delivered to everyone free of charge:
http://adciv.org/
> Paul Graham (the creator of this site) commented on the App Store himself, and his words were not entirely of ignorant praise like yours are
And you will find just as many people who love the app store oh and 18,000,000,000+ downloads and counting should nicely prove those 2 year old prophecies wrong.
And you will find just as many people who love the app store oh and 18,000,000,000+ downloads and counting should nicely prove those 2 year old prophecies wrong.
The fact is Apple's reputation has been permanently tarnished in the face of developers, including PG. Even today, Apple uses very restrictive license agreements in the appstore. Here is a full explanation of their licensing restrictions from 2010, feel free to provide more up to date information:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-progr...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-progr...
Resorting to ad verecundiam doesn't prove or disprove your point either way. It's just an opinion.
Before you blame me for argument for authority, notice that rolfd's post is already ridiculously exaggerated because he said "it has an unbelievable positive impact."
hahaha I don't know which developers you are talking about, just look at the numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS)#Milestones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AppleAppStoreStatistics.pn...
And just because PG said something doesn't dispute the overwhelming success of the app store and the itunes store. There were just as allegedly "legendary" and allegedly "influential" (seriously, what influence and importance does PG really have outside of the smug cloud of valley startups? None to zero) people who said there will be a maximum of 5 to 6 computers around the world and the internet is completely useless. So, again, this does not an argument or a point make. The numbers prove it wrong. Just because someone says it has no relevance. Useless ad verecundiam right here.
If anything, Apple was incredibly smart about how and where they put the shackles on so most customers will happily accept the platform as it is. Ultimately, most people just care about the fact that it works and Apple continues to deliver on that front.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS)#Milestones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AppleAppStoreStatistics.pn...
And just because PG said something doesn't dispute the overwhelming success of the app store and the itunes store. There were just as allegedly "legendary" and allegedly "influential" (seriously, what influence and importance does PG really have outside of the smug cloud of valley startups? None to zero) people who said there will be a maximum of 5 to 6 computers around the world and the internet is completely useless. So, again, this does not an argument or a point make. The numbers prove it wrong. Just because someone says it has no relevance. Useless ad verecundiam right here.
If anything, Apple was incredibly smart about how and where they put the shackles on so most customers will happily accept the platform as it is. Ultimately, most people just care about the fact that it works and Apple continues to deliver on that front.
First of all, where are the applications in Google search? You just type in what you want, and the system uses AI to provide you with an answer. The fact that you can do that without having to think about millions of arbitrary applications is largely why it is so great. The fact is that people don't have an intuitive understanding of applications like "iTunes" they just have ideas of tasks like "listen to music." So I think the very idea of applications is flawed to begin with, and all applications will be made obsolete by a smart AI services, namely Google search.
Then there is the issue of over pricing these applications, when they could be free, which means that lots of people that are poor cannot acquire them.
But that isn't enough, behind the scenes, Apple has been screwing over developers with shackling licenses that I linked to above, and I don't care if they have been "incredibly smart" about how they have been screwing us over, they have still been doing it.
Then there is the issue of over pricing these applications, when they could be free, which means that lots of people that are poor cannot acquire them.
But that isn't enough, behind the scenes, Apple has been screwing over developers with shackling licenses that I linked to above, and I don't care if they have been "incredibly smart" about how they have been screwing us over, they have still been doing it.
Google is way more than just google-search and has been for a long, long time. Those are the google applications I am talking about; all the different ways google gets data from you through allegedly free services. And they track you as best as they can and you cannot change that. You can use them but of course you don't have to. Same with apple. Don't like it, don't use it.
And yea, I get it, you like google search, alright... no ned to repeat it all the time. There are better search engines out there. And other people like their macs, iphones, ipads. You think you are smarter than other people to show them what they like is wrong? Preposterous.
iTunes works just fine and it is free. Apple software overall is generally considered very intuitive and I know a lot of total computer beginners who can use OS X and especially the ipad just fine. This is an absolutely ridiculous statement.
> about how they have been screwing us over
Do you have a single app in the iTunes app store? No? Then what are you complaining about? Or do you see yourself as some sort of vigilante and defender of all those "helpless" devs?
Do you really think devs who built iOS apps need _YOU_ of all people to "help" them understand how the appstore works? Do you really think they are not as smart as you and have nooooo idea what they got themselves into? This is outrageous.
You can develop for droid, win 7 or webos or plain old java programs for pre-smartphone mobiles or chrome apps or just some regular software. The possibilities are almost unlimited. If you don't like how apple conducts business and distributes software through the appstore, just don't develop any iOS apps and don't buy any. You won't miss out...
Again, in your own little black-and-white world you are making up Apple to be some sort of super-evil that is practically mind-controlling you and raping you for your money and freedom when they neither have a monopoly in any of the markets they are in nor are you stuck for choices and alternatives. End of story. You have absolutely no grounds for your ridiculous and completely empty claims. It all comes down to: don't like it then dont use it. That's it.
You are in absolutely NO position to tell any software or hardware company how to do business as long as what they are doing is legal. If you don't like what they are doing, don't buy their products and make your own alternatives or buy shit from their competitors.
And yea, I get it, you like google search, alright... no ned to repeat it all the time. There are better search engines out there. And other people like their macs, iphones, ipads. You think you are smarter than other people to show them what they like is wrong? Preposterous.
iTunes works just fine and it is free. Apple software overall is generally considered very intuitive and I know a lot of total computer beginners who can use OS X and especially the ipad just fine. This is an absolutely ridiculous statement.
> about how they have been screwing us over
Do you have a single app in the iTunes app store? No? Then what are you complaining about? Or do you see yourself as some sort of vigilante and defender of all those "helpless" devs?
Do you really think devs who built iOS apps need _YOU_ of all people to "help" them understand how the appstore works? Do you really think they are not as smart as you and have nooooo idea what they got themselves into? This is outrageous.
You can develop for droid, win 7 or webos or plain old java programs for pre-smartphone mobiles or chrome apps or just some regular software. The possibilities are almost unlimited. If you don't like how apple conducts business and distributes software through the appstore, just don't develop any iOS apps and don't buy any. You won't miss out...
Again, in your own little black-and-white world you are making up Apple to be some sort of super-evil that is practically mind-controlling you and raping you for your money and freedom when they neither have a monopoly in any of the markets they are in nor are you stuck for choices and alternatives. End of story. You have absolutely no grounds for your ridiculous and completely empty claims. It all comes down to: don't like it then dont use it. That's it.
You are in absolutely NO position to tell any software or hardware company how to do business as long as what they are doing is legal. If you don't like what they are doing, don't buy their products and make your own alternatives or buy shit from their competitors.
> Google is way more than just google-search and has been for a long, long time.
Google is mainly an intelligent services company. Their main intelligent service is search, and other services such as machine translation and intelligent prediction are also provided. [1][2]
Besides services, Google actively develops many open platforms, such as Chromium and Android. Many of their attempts to build simple applications have failed. [3]
> You can use them but of course you don't have to. Same with apple. Don't like it, don't use it.
People aren't fully aware of the fact that Apple/Microsoft exert control over their devices with operating systems such as Windows 7 and iOS. In the free software movement we are trying to get people to realize this through campaigns against these systems. [4] [5]
If you try to get everyone like me to shut up whenever whenever we criticize Apple/Microsoft then people won't be able to make educated choices.
> And other people like their macs, iphones, ipads. You think you are smarter than other people to show them what they like is wrong?
You clearly don't know me at all, so please stop personally attacking me. I certainly don't think I am "better then other people."
I want to educate people about the corrupt activities of Apple/Microsoft and develop better alternatives based upon Linux and web technologies. Google has been an essential ally in this effort.
> Apple software overall is generally considered very intuitive.
I don't know how you qualify "very intuitive", however, it is counter-intuitive to base a system on applications like iTunes rather then tasks. See away with applications by Aza Raskins and the anti-mac interface by Jakob Nielson. [6] [7]
> nor are you stuck for choices and alternatives.
You are wrong about this. There simply is not an abundance of free choices out there for people. Apple/Microsoft have totally dominated the computer industry since it started during the PC revolution nearly 25 years ago. Even now that free Linux alternatives like Ubuntu and Android have emerged, they still aren't widely available.
> You are in absolutely NO position to tell any software or hardware company how to do business as long as what they are doing is legal.
One thing our legal system still provides us with is freedom of speech. So I am still free to educate everyone about the harm that the tyrannies of Apple/Microsoft have inflicted upon the computing industry over the last ~25 years. On the other hand, apparently you think I should just buy my products and suck it up, rather then talking about this.
[1] http://translate.google.com/
[2] http://code.google.com/apis/predict/
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products#Discont...
[4] http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/iphone
[5] http://en.windows7sins.org/
[6] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6856727143023456694
[7] http://www.useit.com/papers/anti-mac.html
Google is mainly an intelligent services company. Their main intelligent service is search, and other services such as machine translation and intelligent prediction are also provided. [1][2]
Besides services, Google actively develops many open platforms, such as Chromium and Android. Many of their attempts to build simple applications have failed. [3]
> You can use them but of course you don't have to. Same with apple. Don't like it, don't use it.
People aren't fully aware of the fact that Apple/Microsoft exert control over their devices with operating systems such as Windows 7 and iOS. In the free software movement we are trying to get people to realize this through campaigns against these systems. [4] [5]
If you try to get everyone like me to shut up whenever whenever we criticize Apple/Microsoft then people won't be able to make educated choices.
> And other people like their macs, iphones, ipads. You think you are smarter than other people to show them what they like is wrong?
You clearly don't know me at all, so please stop personally attacking me. I certainly don't think I am "better then other people."
I want to educate people about the corrupt activities of Apple/Microsoft and develop better alternatives based upon Linux and web technologies. Google has been an essential ally in this effort.
> Apple software overall is generally considered very intuitive.
I don't know how you qualify "very intuitive", however, it is counter-intuitive to base a system on applications like iTunes rather then tasks. See away with applications by Aza Raskins and the anti-mac interface by Jakob Nielson. [6] [7]
> nor are you stuck for choices and alternatives.
You are wrong about this. There simply is not an abundance of free choices out there for people. Apple/Microsoft have totally dominated the computer industry since it started during the PC revolution nearly 25 years ago. Even now that free Linux alternatives like Ubuntu and Android have emerged, they still aren't widely available.
> You are in absolutely NO position to tell any software or hardware company how to do business as long as what they are doing is legal.
One thing our legal system still provides us with is freedom of speech. So I am still free to educate everyone about the harm that the tyrannies of Apple/Microsoft have inflicted upon the computing industry over the last ~25 years. On the other hand, apparently you think I should just buy my products and suck it up, rather then talking about this.
[1] http://translate.google.com/
[2] http://code.google.com/apis/predict/
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products#Discont...
[4] http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/iphone
[5] http://en.windows7sins.org/
[6] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6856727143023456694
[7] http://www.useit.com/papers/anti-mac.html
For the hundredth time:
Google is mainly an advertising company! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#Advertising
That's where their money is coming from. Advertising is at least as evil a concept as DRM if not worse. And it is the fuel of capitalism, which you claim to also hate despite sucking up to google and buying nice capitalist products. This makes you a hypocrite.
Real actual FSF and OS are projects like e.g. GNU/Linux and BSD. Google is nothing but a company and they use some of that available software and they also release a few little bits of their own software where it FITS their own business plan and marketing or where they get free code developed for them because the software is not directly running their core advertising business. Sun did the same thing. That's it. Nothing humanitarian or altruistic or world-freedom-good about it. It is smart business, not charity.
I am not trying to shut you up, I was hoping to get you even an inch off your radical, fundamentalist view and see a bit of positive that apple has brought in my opinion but this discussion is completely futile and I feel exactly like talking to one of those indoctrinated creationists denying evolution. You argue and act like a borderline-religious fanatic and in your arguments you actively twist reality to suit your fundamentalist goals and google-religious world view.
There is absolutely no objective justification to see google as "our saviors" and apple as "all evil hell", it is nothing but your personal preference - yet you would not flinch an eye if you could give all power to google and destroy apple and M$ right now since google's allegedly "natural" monopoly is totally acceptable for you, yet apple's 10% market share isn't. This fact alone makes you a fanboy, a fanatic and a zealot - and a wannabe tyrant.
Actual good has been done by the communities around GNU/Linux and BSD etc. Google is just a company and they are in it for the money. You just prefer their products and you make this personal preference up to be something everyone should like.
In addition you laugh at a person's (actually tragic) death. This makes you a terrible human being and just an asshole.
I don't need to know you and I don't WANT to know you, your actions make it clear: you think you are in a position to know it better than everyone who happily switched to a mac and this means you obviously think you are smarter than everyone else because they made "the wrong choice" according to your google-fundamentalism. You are unable to accept that people will simply buy what they like and what works for them and when there is something better (better for THEIR needs, not yours) they will use that thing.
> In the free software movement we
You are not part of no free software movement, you do not contribute anything - you are a google fanboy and a fanatic zealot.
You do not educate people, you are trying to indoctrinate with twisted facts that fit your own bill and you think you are fighting for some higher cause and your great enemies need to be abolished. This makes you a fundamentalist and zealot, not a benevolent teacher. You do not spread anything positive, you are fueled by hatred, nothing good comes of this. You don't even contribute to what you claim to believe in.
Free software and open source would be much better off without people like you. You give actual hackers who actually contribute time and code to real free software a bad name.
Free software and open source would be in a much better position if all those zealots like you who are talking big words would instead shut up and code better software to rival existing system. You have done nothing like that so you will have to accept Apple and M$ until some people spend THEIR time to make something better. Because all YOU do is talk.
This leads nowhere, your hatred and fundamentalism sits too deep for an actual discussion. You only see things in extremes, only black and white. You can not see other people's sides and you cannot accept their choices which, together with laughing about someone who died, suggests strong lack of empathy.
All together, I assume you are between 14 or 22 - exactly the age where little kids like to think they know the whole world and actually know and have seen and done nothing.
I am done talking to you and I regret HN doesn't offer a killfile.
Google is mainly an advertising company! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#Advertising
That's where their money is coming from. Advertising is at least as evil a concept as DRM if not worse. And it is the fuel of capitalism, which you claim to also hate despite sucking up to google and buying nice capitalist products. This makes you a hypocrite.
Real actual FSF and OS are projects like e.g. GNU/Linux and BSD. Google is nothing but a company and they use some of that available software and they also release a few little bits of their own software where it FITS their own business plan and marketing or where they get free code developed for them because the software is not directly running their core advertising business. Sun did the same thing. That's it. Nothing humanitarian or altruistic or world-freedom-good about it. It is smart business, not charity.
I am not trying to shut you up, I was hoping to get you even an inch off your radical, fundamentalist view and see a bit of positive that apple has brought in my opinion but this discussion is completely futile and I feel exactly like talking to one of those indoctrinated creationists denying evolution. You argue and act like a borderline-religious fanatic and in your arguments you actively twist reality to suit your fundamentalist goals and google-religious world view.
There is absolutely no objective justification to see google as "our saviors" and apple as "all evil hell", it is nothing but your personal preference - yet you would not flinch an eye if you could give all power to google and destroy apple and M$ right now since google's allegedly "natural" monopoly is totally acceptable for you, yet apple's 10% market share isn't. This fact alone makes you a fanboy, a fanatic and a zealot - and a wannabe tyrant.
Actual good has been done by the communities around GNU/Linux and BSD etc. Google is just a company and they are in it for the money. You just prefer their products and you make this personal preference up to be something everyone should like.
In addition you laugh at a person's (actually tragic) death. This makes you a terrible human being and just an asshole.
I don't need to know you and I don't WANT to know you, your actions make it clear: you think you are in a position to know it better than everyone who happily switched to a mac and this means you obviously think you are smarter than everyone else because they made "the wrong choice" according to your google-fundamentalism. You are unable to accept that people will simply buy what they like and what works for them and when there is something better (better for THEIR needs, not yours) they will use that thing.
> In the free software movement we
You are not part of no free software movement, you do not contribute anything - you are a google fanboy and a fanatic zealot.
You do not educate people, you are trying to indoctrinate with twisted facts that fit your own bill and you think you are fighting for some higher cause and your great enemies need to be abolished. This makes you a fundamentalist and zealot, not a benevolent teacher. You do not spread anything positive, you are fueled by hatred, nothing good comes of this. You don't even contribute to what you claim to believe in.
Free software and open source would be much better off without people like you. You give actual hackers who actually contribute time and code to real free software a bad name.
Free software and open source would be in a much better position if all those zealots like you who are talking big words would instead shut up and code better software to rival existing system. You have done nothing like that so you will have to accept Apple and M$ until some people spend THEIR time to make something better. Because all YOU do is talk.
This leads nowhere, your hatred and fundamentalism sits too deep for an actual discussion. You only see things in extremes, only black and white. You can not see other people's sides and you cannot accept their choices which, together with laughing about someone who died, suggests strong lack of empathy.
All together, I assume you are between 14 or 22 - exactly the age where little kids like to think they know the whole world and actually know and have seen and done nothing.
I am done talking to you and I regret HN doesn't offer a killfile.
I think of Apple as akin to a warehouse club like Costco or Sam's.
These "clubs" sell a high margin membership, and you get to buy low-margin toilet paper 50 rolls at a time.
Likewise, Apple sells digital media, which is a relatively low-margin business. But by doing so, they get you to buy high-margin hardware and services.
These "clubs" sell a high margin membership, and you get to buy low-margin toilet paper 50 rolls at a time.
Likewise, Apple sells digital media, which is a relatively low-margin business. But by doing so, they get you to buy high-margin hardware and services.
I'm tired of the term "artificial scarcity". First, do you understand what scarcity means? The supply of content is unlimited. Putting a price on content is not creating "scarcity". Consumers make content purchasing decisions based on the scarcity of their own resources. Second, what is non-artificial scarcity? All scarcity is artificial.
I think the term is being used to note that the price is artificially high - supply is virtually limitless once the first copy of the song is created, so the price should approach zero.
What term would prefer? Corrupt pricing?
I still have quite a few other options to buy my music online or just buy music the old fashioned way; same goes for shows and movies. I do not see anything "scarce" here at all. And I can play music in pretty much all popular formats I got from elsewhere on iTunes and iPod just fine. And now the music from the iTunes store is not DRM locked-down anymore either.
And you are comparing apples and oranges with Google here. Apple is selling hardware and now all sorts of media and software along with it. Google has a completely different business model. And what benefit do I as a customer directly gain from google using Linux as a foundation? As long as their servers work, I am pretty much unaffected by the platform. Apple is using BSD as a foundation in OS X, so? And there are open source components available. Does google give me the source code for their web search or gmail or ads or all their other core products?
What makes google a "clearly superior business model"? Just because Linux is "cool"? Last time I checked, Apple is doing pretty well and has been consistently so over the last years so I doubt their business model needs to be replaced.
I am glad Apple is getting more popular because finally there is some real actual competition in the consumer sector. And for each of their products, there are just as excellent alternatives available so I am not being forced or locked down on anything. I can take my contacts, pictures, videos and music with me, it is pretty much all available or exportable in(to) standardized formats.
And you are comparing apples and oranges with Google here. Apple is selling hardware and now all sorts of media and software along with it. Google has a completely different business model. And what benefit do I as a customer directly gain from google using Linux as a foundation? As long as their servers work, I am pretty much unaffected by the platform. Apple is using BSD as a foundation in OS X, so? And there are open source components available. Does google give me the source code for their web search or gmail or ads or all their other core products?
What makes google a "clearly superior business model"? Just because Linux is "cool"? Last time I checked, Apple is doing pretty well and has been consistently so over the last years so I doubt their business model needs to be replaced.
I am glad Apple is getting more popular because finally there is some real actual competition in the consumer sector. And for each of their products, there are just as excellent alternatives available so I am not being forced or locked down on anything. I can take my contacts, pictures, videos and music with me, it is pretty much all available or exportable in(to) standardized formats.
Does google give me the source code for their web search or gmail or ads or all their other core products?
No, but Google also doesn't attempt to install their search service on your computer. I don't install proprietary software on any of my computers, because of security. If the software I install isn't open then it could do anything without out my knowledge, including restrict me through DRM.
Just because Linux is "cool"?
Linux is not "cool." To anyone who has used the Lisp machines, all modern operating systems look the basically the same. They are all crappy UNIX derivatives.
The difference is Linux is open, which is necessary prerequisite for security, which is precisely why most foreign governments use it, they don't want to open up their vital computer systems to sabotage.
Apple is selling hardware and now all sorts of media and software along with it. Google has a completely different business model.
If Apple just sold physical hardware that would be fine. But that just isn't the case. The reality is that proprietary software is a fundamental part of Apple's business model, which is precisely why Google's business model is superior.
The proprietary software that Apple sells not only is a security threat, the malicious features they have are well known:
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple
I still have quite a few other options to buy my music online or just buy music the old fashioned way; same goes for shows and movies.
The Apple tyranny has a long history of suppressing iTune alternatives like PyMusique:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-03/22/content_2728356...
No, but Google also doesn't attempt to install their search service on your computer. I don't install proprietary software on any of my computers, because of security. If the software I install isn't open then it could do anything without out my knowledge, including restrict me through DRM.
Just because Linux is "cool"?
Linux is not "cool." To anyone who has used the Lisp machines, all modern operating systems look the basically the same. They are all crappy UNIX derivatives.
The difference is Linux is open, which is necessary prerequisite for security, which is precisely why most foreign governments use it, they don't want to open up their vital computer systems to sabotage.
Apple is selling hardware and now all sorts of media and software along with it. Google has a completely different business model.
If Apple just sold physical hardware that would be fine. But that just isn't the case. The reality is that proprietary software is a fundamental part of Apple's business model, which is precisely why Google's business model is superior.
The proprietary software that Apple sells not only is a security threat, the malicious features they have are well known:
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple
I still have quite a few other options to buy my music online or just buy music the old fashioned way; same goes for shows and movies.
The Apple tyranny has a long history of suppressing iTune alternatives like PyMusique:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-03/22/content_2728356...
> No, but Google also doesn't attempt to install their search service on your computer
But for using any of their services they are infamous for tracking you everywhere they can, scanning your emails and for analyzing ALL data they can get on you and they are one of the companies that are very high up on the radar of privacy advocates all over the world. It is absolutely ridiculous that you are making Google up to be some sort of shining example of doing good and doing the right thing(tm) given all their history so far. Given all Apple and Google is doing, they are just the same. They are companies trying to make money.
If you don't like proprietary software and/or are not allowed to use it at work then just don't use Apple or Microsoft or others that fit that description. Case closed. But that doesn't counter the fact that Apple has both open and proprietary components and products. Just like Google has lots of proprietary stuff. Just like the overwhelming majority of software and software+hardware companies providing all that wonderfully defective still highly overpriced serious business software we laugh about every day.
And when you are using any of Google's services that you like so much, you ARE using proprietary software that is not even running on your own system and you have absolutely NO idea and NO control over where your data will end up at and just because the servers are running on Linux does not help that fact in the slightest. Or why is OS X's BSD core not good enough for you then just the same? In both cases these are proprietary components and services running on free or open source platforms.
> which is precisely why most foreign governments use it
Yea, I am from Europe, we had a whole bunch of "Open Source now!" movements and those stories sure were popular in newspapers and I have been to the very gov authorities and magistrates doing those projects. Yes it was a good move but let me tell you, you are faaaaar from having replaced the usual evil in the majority of their systems. Plus a hell of a lot of their gov IT is still either proprietary and/or in-house developments and totally closed source. Just because they are using Linux on a few servers as OS or have a few Linux desktops doesn't change anything there.
And if this is your whole point, then WHY are you using google services? If security and control over what happens was really so paramount to you, you should not even remotely use any google products or any "cloud" or other online services.
Therefore I don't see your point.
> The reality is that proprietary software is a fundamental part of Apple's business model, which is precisely why Google's business model is superior.
No. Google's core products and services are just as proprietary and closed source and you have absolutely no control over what happens with all your data that you feed google directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly; see their end user agreements. This is a non-argument you keep coming back to. I have said it at least three times now: just because their proprietary systems are running on a GNU/Linux system doesn't give you the same benefits you see in using Linux.
And you still haven't clarified what is "superior" for you. From a customer's point? From YOUR own personal point? Or from commercial success which is the actual ONLY goal of a business model?
> The Apple tyranny has a long history of suppressing iTune alternatives like PyMusique
This is again completely irrelevant as the music is DRM free now. And still I have all those countless other options of buying music available to me... so it is even more irrelevant that they don't let someone else develop (reverse engineer and violate license agreements) an interface that exploited(!!) their iTunes store and provided you with something you should not have been allowed to have back in 2005. I see this as much less Apple's fault and much more the fault of the RIAA and MPAA who did not want to let go of all their control and were very suspicious of this new way of distributing their music.
But this is the past. Music has been DRM free for quite some time on iTunes now. What is your point? Whether you like it or not, Apple were the first ones to actually provide a viable and legal solution for customers to comfortably buy music online. Most end users very obviously don't care that they have to use iTunes for that. And the ones who do have a multitude of alternatives available.
You have just decided to hate apple and hey more power to you but your "points" or "arguments" are just empty shells and poo-flinging at apple and you are actually contradicting yourself if you want control and open source and then you use google's services but shit on apple.
But for using any of their services they are infamous for tracking you everywhere they can, scanning your emails and for analyzing ALL data they can get on you and they are one of the companies that are very high up on the radar of privacy advocates all over the world. It is absolutely ridiculous that you are making Google up to be some sort of shining example of doing good and doing the right thing(tm) given all their history so far. Given all Apple and Google is doing, they are just the same. They are companies trying to make money.
If you don't like proprietary software and/or are not allowed to use it at work then just don't use Apple or Microsoft or others that fit that description. Case closed. But that doesn't counter the fact that Apple has both open and proprietary components and products. Just like Google has lots of proprietary stuff. Just like the overwhelming majority of software and software+hardware companies providing all that wonderfully defective still highly overpriced serious business software we laugh about every day.
And when you are using any of Google's services that you like so much, you ARE using proprietary software that is not even running on your own system and you have absolutely NO idea and NO control over where your data will end up at and just because the servers are running on Linux does not help that fact in the slightest. Or why is OS X's BSD core not good enough for you then just the same? In both cases these are proprietary components and services running on free or open source platforms.
> which is precisely why most foreign governments use it
Yea, I am from Europe, we had a whole bunch of "Open Source now!" movements and those stories sure were popular in newspapers and I have been to the very gov authorities and magistrates doing those projects. Yes it was a good move but let me tell you, you are faaaaar from having replaced the usual evil in the majority of their systems. Plus a hell of a lot of their gov IT is still either proprietary and/or in-house developments and totally closed source. Just because they are using Linux on a few servers as OS or have a few Linux desktops doesn't change anything there.
And if this is your whole point, then WHY are you using google services? If security and control over what happens was really so paramount to you, you should not even remotely use any google products or any "cloud" or other online services.
Therefore I don't see your point.
> The reality is that proprietary software is a fundamental part of Apple's business model, which is precisely why Google's business model is superior.
No. Google's core products and services are just as proprietary and closed source and you have absolutely no control over what happens with all your data that you feed google directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly; see their end user agreements. This is a non-argument you keep coming back to. I have said it at least three times now: just because their proprietary systems are running on a GNU/Linux system doesn't give you the same benefits you see in using Linux.
And you still haven't clarified what is "superior" for you. From a customer's point? From YOUR own personal point? Or from commercial success which is the actual ONLY goal of a business model?
> The Apple tyranny has a long history of suppressing iTune alternatives like PyMusique
This is again completely irrelevant as the music is DRM free now. And still I have all those countless other options of buying music available to me... so it is even more irrelevant that they don't let someone else develop (reverse engineer and violate license agreements) an interface that exploited(!!) their iTunes store and provided you with something you should not have been allowed to have back in 2005. I see this as much less Apple's fault and much more the fault of the RIAA and MPAA who did not want to let go of all their control and were very suspicious of this new way of distributing their music.
But this is the past. Music has been DRM free for quite some time on iTunes now. What is your point? Whether you like it or not, Apple were the first ones to actually provide a viable and legal solution for customers to comfortably buy music online. Most end users very obviously don't care that they have to use iTunes for that. And the ones who do have a multitude of alternatives available.
You have just decided to hate apple and hey more power to you but your "points" or "arguments" are just empty shells and poo-flinging at apple and you are actually contradicting yourself if you want control and open source and then you use google's services but shit on apple.
Google up to be some sort of shining example of doing good and doing the right thing(tm) given all their history so far. Given all Apple and Google is doing, they are just the same. They are companies trying to make money.
To be honest, there are things I dislike about all corporations, but at least Google's main goal is deliver intelligent services like search and machine translation rather then dominate my computer with DRM, which fits into their "do no evil" motto. You can't expect them to be completely perfect in a capitalist society, though.
You have just decided to hate apple and hey more power to you but your "points" or "arguments" are just empty shells and poo-flinging at apple and you are actually contradicting yourself if you want control and open source and then you use google's services but shit on apple.
No I haven't because I made it clear that first and foremost I want _personal control_ over my own computer. I don't see why you don't understand this principle.
You should also understand that gaining complete access to all external information and services, including those provided by Google, is a much more long-term goal, and it would require some sort of post-capitalist economic system.
But this is the past. Music has been DRM free for quite some time on iTunes now.
Getting the tyrants at Apple to get rid of their oppressive restrictions in iTunes was a good first victory, but they still profit heavily from proprietary software and DRM. Defective by design commented on this here:
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/itunes-drm-free
Or why is OS X's BSD core not good enough for you then just the same?
It is pretty convenient for them to use (steal?) source code from BSD, because that lets them make modifications without releasing them!
Although there use of some open source products and their elimination of DRM from iTunes are good things, it won't be "good enough" until they adopt a business model that is not based upon dominating other people's computers.
To be honest, there are things I dislike about all corporations, but at least Google's main goal is deliver intelligent services like search and machine translation rather then dominate my computer with DRM, which fits into their "do no evil" motto. You can't expect them to be completely perfect in a capitalist society, though.
You have just decided to hate apple and hey more power to you but your "points" or "arguments" are just empty shells and poo-flinging at apple and you are actually contradicting yourself if you want control and open source and then you use google's services but shit on apple.
No I haven't because I made it clear that first and foremost I want _personal control_ over my own computer. I don't see why you don't understand this principle.
You should also understand that gaining complete access to all external information and services, including those provided by Google, is a much more long-term goal, and it would require some sort of post-capitalist economic system.
But this is the past. Music has been DRM free for quite some time on iTunes now.
Getting the tyrants at Apple to get rid of their oppressive restrictions in iTunes was a good first victory, but they still profit heavily from proprietary software and DRM. Defective by design commented on this here:
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/itunes-drm-free
Or why is OS X's BSD core not good enough for you then just the same?
It is pretty convenient for them to use (steal?) source code from BSD, because that lets them make modifications without releasing them!
Although there use of some open source products and their elimination of DRM from iTunes are good things, it won't be "good enough" until they adopt a business model that is not based upon dominating other people's computers.
You are a pretty big fool, believing Apple is to blame for pricing in the iTunes Store. The content providers set the prices, not Apple. They just distribute and take a small share.
And how is Apple dominating my computer? I have no clue what you mean.
And how is Apple dominating my computer? I have no clue what you mean.
You are a pretty big fool, believing Apple is to blame for pricing in the iTunes Store. The content providers set the prices, not Apple.
I didn't say Apple personally set the prices, I just stated that Apple's business model is dependent upon blockbuster hits. Google's business model, on the other hand, is dependent upon advertisements.
And how is Apple dominating my computer? I have no clue what you mean.
I am not sure of your particular case, however, Apple is a prominent user of DRM which they use to restrict and control millions of people's computers:
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple
I didn't say Apple personally set the prices, I just stated that Apple's business model is dependent upon blockbuster hits. Google's business model, on the other hand, is dependent upon advertisements.
And how is Apple dominating my computer? I have no clue what you mean.
I am not sure of your particular case, however, Apple is a prominent user of DRM which they use to restrict and control millions of people's computers:
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple
Now I see what you mean, but I wouldn't say your source is reliable. I can see where your opinion comes from, but you should consider more sources.
Most of those points are either incorrect or don't take into account what the goal of all companies on this planet is. Making money.
Ideology is good for yourself but won't feed you or buy you a house. A middle ground is the way to go.
And Apples middle ground is quality products with proprietary software. You can't control the quality of your products, when opening it up to the competition (Palm Pre).
As some said before Google does this too. You won't get their search engine code, nor will Apple give you iOS.
Most of those points are either incorrect or don't take into account what the goal of all companies on this planet is. Making money.
Ideology is good for yourself but won't feed you or buy you a house. A middle ground is the way to go.
And Apples middle ground is quality products with proprietary software. You can't control the quality of your products, when opening it up to the competition (Palm Pre).
As some said before Google does this too. You won't get their search engine code, nor will Apple give you iOS.
Apple won't give me iOS, yet Google will give me more then enough of Android.
Google FTW. I rest my case.
Google FTW. I rest my case.
> Google will give me
Yet google will not give you any code to their actual core services.
> Google FTW. I rest my case.
Yea, this is what this whole "discussion" has been about... go figure, you were right from the beginning until now!!! Congratulations, you haven't learned a thing. You are either mentally 14 years old or just a troll. GTFO.
Yet google will not give you any code to their actual core services.
> Google FTW. I rest my case.
Yea, this is what this whole "discussion" has been about... go figure, you were right from the beginning until now!!! Congratulations, you haven't learned a thing. You are either mentally 14 years old or just a troll. GTFO.
> but at least Google's main goal is deliver intelligent services like search and machine translation
And at last Apple's goal is to deliver easily usable, reliable and sexy hardware and software and they are forerunners in quite a few markets they created on their own. See, that marketing-babble works even for Microsoft and Oracle too.
Google's goal is to get as much diverse data from you as possible and legal. Stop cutting a multi-billion dollar multi-national mega-corp all that slack all the time - especially considering how much flak they were and are getting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google
And on top of that they were pretty much the only search engine for the web for a long time, so much so that "google" has become synonymous with internet for the average user. At least now there is a bit of competition from wolfram and microsoft and DDG is trying real hard. But google is clearly dominating this market and also the online ads business. Apple can only dream of coming close to this amount of market penetration.
> No I haven't because I made it clear that first and foremost I want _personal control_ over my own computer. I don't see why you don't understand this principle.
Because control of your computer includes control over your data. And you were saying you can allegedly NOT use any proprietary systems because of your work but then it is ok to use completely proprietary services way out of your control? Well look at that, actually it is just your own personal preferences which makes more sense since if you were really legally required, you couldn't use google or any other cloud services.
> Getting the tyrants at Apple
Again, you are mis-using words. Tyranny means they are alone and have all the control and are enforcing it brutally... this is complete, utter bullshit. There are lots of alternatives and on top of that, all this DRM and control for the music was a requirement from the RIAA. They did not understand this new way of selling music online and wanted as much control as possible. And since Apple made that compromise, they were the first ones to provide a legal and usable way of selling music online. And by doing this, they have shown how successful this way of distributing is thus finally they were allowed to drop the DRM. Do you really think Apple cares about controlling whether you distribute your music to 2 or 5 end systems? Then you are even more naive than I have thought.
> It is pretty convenient for them to use (steal?) source code from BSD
Waaaaaait a minute, back up. Drop the fundamentalist brain-wash bullshit-talk. BSD has always been released under the BSD license and there are many, many, MANY implementations and re-uses of their code, both open and closed, private, educational and commercial and not a single one has been "stolen".
It is perfectly legal and encouraged to use the code any way you want and why should Apple go with other sources that ultimately force them to do things hardly any company does with profitable products? Anyone who ever contributed to BSD licensed software is aware of this and it has worked perfectly fine for decades. Nothing was stolen here. It is perfectly alright for a company to choose whichever software and license agreement they see fit. And there is hardly any commercial software released under the "viral" FSF licenses. And Apple has released a lot of components from their OS, again under a BSD style license. Nothing to see here.
> it won't be "good enough" until they adopt a business model that is not based upon dominating other people's computers.
See, here is the point: that is your borderline-religious opinion. Nobody really cares about this. if you don't like their product because it is not as open as you like then don't buy it. And if you don't like the price on a Lexus or Ferrari then don't buy one. Nothing to see here.
You have clearly made up your mind and are not interested in a discussion. You much rather poo-fling the one or two (out-dated) bits you can get a hold of. And it has got nothing to do with how the overwhelming majority of successful software and hardware companies work. Some are very open, some are completely closed. Luckily there are a lot of alternatives for everything. But your zealot-hatred for Apple is just hilarious considering how 5 to 10 years ago hardly ANYONE knew Apple let alone used any of their products and back in those dark ages there was nothing but Microsoft for the average end user. Apple has come a long way on their own and they have single-handedly created markets that did NOT exist before - like legally buying music and tv shows online. Like the iPad and like the iPhone. Yes there were those ridiculous windows ce "smartphones" before but Apple created the market for the modern smartphone and the oh-so-beloved "apps". And google was all too happy to follow, seeing the opportunity for more data and ads.
Any data I feed my mac, I can always export and take with me to any other platform... there is absolutely no DRM on my Mac keeping me from doing whatever I want.
Your demeanor is really cute and very much like the blind fanboys in the huge Linux vs. Windows flamewars back in the day... the 90s called, they want their zealots back.
And I dare you, you show me a single contribution you have ever made to Linux? Or free software? You show me a single instance where you actually looked at all that free software kernel code and helped make sure there wasn't anything fishy going on. Or are you just talking big about free software without ever having contributed hm?
This is pointless here since you make your own product choice and your own personal preferences to be something like a categorical imperative that you want to force on everyone despite the normative power of the factual.
And at last Apple's goal is to deliver easily usable, reliable and sexy hardware and software and they are forerunners in quite a few markets they created on their own. See, that marketing-babble works even for Microsoft and Oracle too.
Google's goal is to get as much diverse data from you as possible and legal. Stop cutting a multi-billion dollar multi-national mega-corp all that slack all the time - especially considering how much flak they were and are getting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google
And on top of that they were pretty much the only search engine for the web for a long time, so much so that "google" has become synonymous with internet for the average user. At least now there is a bit of competition from wolfram and microsoft and DDG is trying real hard. But google is clearly dominating this market and also the online ads business. Apple can only dream of coming close to this amount of market penetration.
> No I haven't because I made it clear that first and foremost I want _personal control_ over my own computer. I don't see why you don't understand this principle.
Because control of your computer includes control over your data. And you were saying you can allegedly NOT use any proprietary systems because of your work but then it is ok to use completely proprietary services way out of your control? Well look at that, actually it is just your own personal preferences which makes more sense since if you were really legally required, you couldn't use google or any other cloud services.
> Getting the tyrants at Apple
Again, you are mis-using words. Tyranny means they are alone and have all the control and are enforcing it brutally... this is complete, utter bullshit. There are lots of alternatives and on top of that, all this DRM and control for the music was a requirement from the RIAA. They did not understand this new way of selling music online and wanted as much control as possible. And since Apple made that compromise, they were the first ones to provide a legal and usable way of selling music online. And by doing this, they have shown how successful this way of distributing is thus finally they were allowed to drop the DRM. Do you really think Apple cares about controlling whether you distribute your music to 2 or 5 end systems? Then you are even more naive than I have thought.
> It is pretty convenient for them to use (steal?) source code from BSD
Waaaaaait a minute, back up. Drop the fundamentalist brain-wash bullshit-talk. BSD has always been released under the BSD license and there are many, many, MANY implementations and re-uses of their code, both open and closed, private, educational and commercial and not a single one has been "stolen".
It is perfectly legal and encouraged to use the code any way you want and why should Apple go with other sources that ultimately force them to do things hardly any company does with profitable products? Anyone who ever contributed to BSD licensed software is aware of this and it has worked perfectly fine for decades. Nothing was stolen here. It is perfectly alright for a company to choose whichever software and license agreement they see fit. And there is hardly any commercial software released under the "viral" FSF licenses. And Apple has released a lot of components from their OS, again under a BSD style license. Nothing to see here.
> it won't be "good enough" until they adopt a business model that is not based upon dominating other people's computers.
See, here is the point: that is your borderline-religious opinion. Nobody really cares about this. if you don't like their product because it is not as open as you like then don't buy it. And if you don't like the price on a Lexus or Ferrari then don't buy one. Nothing to see here.
You have clearly made up your mind and are not interested in a discussion. You much rather poo-fling the one or two (out-dated) bits you can get a hold of. And it has got nothing to do with how the overwhelming majority of successful software and hardware companies work. Some are very open, some are completely closed. Luckily there are a lot of alternatives for everything. But your zealot-hatred for Apple is just hilarious considering how 5 to 10 years ago hardly ANYONE knew Apple let alone used any of their products and back in those dark ages there was nothing but Microsoft for the average end user. Apple has come a long way on their own and they have single-handedly created markets that did NOT exist before - like legally buying music and tv shows online. Like the iPad and like the iPhone. Yes there were those ridiculous windows ce "smartphones" before but Apple created the market for the modern smartphone and the oh-so-beloved "apps". And google was all too happy to follow, seeing the opportunity for more data and ads.
Any data I feed my mac, I can always export and take with me to any other platform... there is absolutely no DRM on my Mac keeping me from doing whatever I want.
Your demeanor is really cute and very much like the blind fanboys in the huge Linux vs. Windows flamewars back in the day... the 90s called, they want their zealots back.
And I dare you, you show me a single contribution you have ever made to Linux? Or free software? You show me a single instance where you actually looked at all that free software kernel code and helped make sure there wasn't anything fishy going on. Or are you just talking big about free software without ever having contributed hm?
This is pointless here since you make your own product choice and your own personal preferences to be something like a categorical imperative that you want to force on everyone despite the normative power of the factual.
> And on top of that they were pretty much the only search engine for the web for a long time, so much so that "google" has become synonymous with internet for the average user.
There are a variety of industries which can be classified as natural monopolies [1], examples of this include public utilities like water services, electricity, and telecommunications. It is too expensive for a competitor to arise in these industries, so it is most efficient to have a central distributor. I believe that utility computing is another example of this, which justifies Google's status. You also mentioned "all the flak they are getting," could you provide specifics?
> Because control of your computer includes control over your data.
I have complete control over my data, because I use entirely open systems based upon Linux, and in order to communicate my data over the internet I host my own personal server. At the same time, I am glad to have access to intelligent services provided by google, such as search and machine translation. These are helpful services, they don't hinder me in anyway.
On the other hand, if I choose to use Apple software, such as their iOS, I am entirely dependent upon Apple's every whim, and I am providing Apple with the opportunity to delete any of personal data. Similarily, if I host all of my personal data on external servers out of my control, like the ones controlled by Facebook, I will be just as disempowered. On the other hand, accepting assistance from intelligent services such as Google search is not a cause of any problems.
> And at last Apple's goal is to deliver easily usable, reliable and sexy hardware and software
Sure they create "sexy" products, but they present their sexy exterior to hide that they are doing evil things like restricting users with DRM. It would be totally ridiculous to have a motto like "do no evil."
> Again, you are mis-using words. Tyranny means they are alone and have all the control and are enforcing it brutally...
Apple does exert significant control over its subject computers through DRM [2], restrictive licensing [3], etc. I wouldn't necessarily say they enforce these restrictions "brutally." My use of the term tyranny to describe to describe Apple is partially inspired by the article On the Still-Undefeated Tyranny of Apple [4].
> There are lots of alternatives and on top of that
Could you show me what alternatives you are referring to? Are any of them free software? Do you think iTunes is acceptable just because there are some "alternatives" that are accepted well others, such as PyMusique, are unfairly shut down?
> And by doing this, they have shown how successful this way of distributing is thus finally they were allowed to drop the DRM.
Apple still uses DRM extensively today [2], even after they opened up their music player.
> Nothing was stolen here.
Which is why, if you look back I put a question mark after the term steal. I recognize that it is questionable what you might even qualify as stealing. The fact is Apple has a long history of taking other innovations from external sources (Xerox PARC, BSD, etc) and then being the ones to successfully market them. The real talent Apple has is for marketing and profiteering, not innovating.
> you make your own product choice and your own personal preferences to be something like a categorical imperative that you want to force on everyone despite the normative power of the factual.
Hang on there, I just a poor man, I can't force my ideas on anyone. The only thing I am advocating for here is to provide people with the freedom from being forced into things by big corporations like Apple and Microsoft.
You can get freedom from corporate forces by using free software operating systems, using Linux distributions such as Ubuntu or Android distributions such as Replicant.
> And I dare you, you show me a single contribution you have ever made to Linux? Or free software?
Yes, I have contributed to free software projects (e.g JSAN) but not as much as I would like to unfortunately, but I am still young, so I think still have time to do more. Check out my accounts on launchpad, github, etc.
https://launchpad.net/~jhuni-x
> See, here is the point: that is your borderline-religious opinion. Nobody really cares about this.
Plenty of people care about these, especially people and governments outside the U.S that don't want to be dependent upon American companies. [5] [6]
> there is absolutely no DRM on my Mac keeping me from doing whatever I want.
You blame me of being a "fandroid" for my support of Google's AI projects. Yet you a clearly a huge fan of Apple yourself considering that you claimed that their products are "sexy" and that they contain "absolutely no DRM." Now who is the one being ignorant?
[1] http://moneyterms.co.uk/natural-monopoly/
[2] http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple
[3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-progr...
[4] http://www.loper-os.org/?p=316
[5] http://news.cnet.com/2009-11397_3-6245409.html
[6] http://www.redflag-linux.com/en/
There are a variety of industries which can be classified as natural monopolies [1], examples of this include public utilities like water services, electricity, and telecommunications. It is too expensive for a competitor to arise in these industries, so it is most efficient to have a central distributor. I believe that utility computing is another example of this, which justifies Google's status. You also mentioned "all the flak they are getting," could you provide specifics?
> Because control of your computer includes control over your data.
I have complete control over my data, because I use entirely open systems based upon Linux, and in order to communicate my data over the internet I host my own personal server. At the same time, I am glad to have access to intelligent services provided by google, such as search and machine translation. These are helpful services, they don't hinder me in anyway.
On the other hand, if I choose to use Apple software, such as their iOS, I am entirely dependent upon Apple's every whim, and I am providing Apple with the opportunity to delete any of personal data. Similarily, if I host all of my personal data on external servers out of my control, like the ones controlled by Facebook, I will be just as disempowered. On the other hand, accepting assistance from intelligent services such as Google search is not a cause of any problems.
> And at last Apple's goal is to deliver easily usable, reliable and sexy hardware and software
Sure they create "sexy" products, but they present their sexy exterior to hide that they are doing evil things like restricting users with DRM. It would be totally ridiculous to have a motto like "do no evil."
> Again, you are mis-using words. Tyranny means they are alone and have all the control and are enforcing it brutally...
Apple does exert significant control over its subject computers through DRM [2], restrictive licensing [3], etc. I wouldn't necessarily say they enforce these restrictions "brutally." My use of the term tyranny to describe to describe Apple is partially inspired by the article On the Still-Undefeated Tyranny of Apple [4].
> There are lots of alternatives and on top of that
Could you show me what alternatives you are referring to? Are any of them free software? Do you think iTunes is acceptable just because there are some "alternatives" that are accepted well others, such as PyMusique, are unfairly shut down?
> And by doing this, they have shown how successful this way of distributing is thus finally they were allowed to drop the DRM.
Apple still uses DRM extensively today [2], even after they opened up their music player.
> Nothing was stolen here.
Which is why, if you look back I put a question mark after the term steal. I recognize that it is questionable what you might even qualify as stealing. The fact is Apple has a long history of taking other innovations from external sources (Xerox PARC, BSD, etc) and then being the ones to successfully market them. The real talent Apple has is for marketing and profiteering, not innovating.
> you make your own product choice and your own personal preferences to be something like a categorical imperative that you want to force on everyone despite the normative power of the factual.
Hang on there, I just a poor man, I can't force my ideas on anyone. The only thing I am advocating for here is to provide people with the freedom from being forced into things by big corporations like Apple and Microsoft.
You can get freedom from corporate forces by using free software operating systems, using Linux distributions such as Ubuntu or Android distributions such as Replicant.
> And I dare you, you show me a single contribution you have ever made to Linux? Or free software?
Yes, I have contributed to free software projects (e.g JSAN) but not as much as I would like to unfortunately, but I am still young, so I think still have time to do more. Check out my accounts on launchpad, github, etc.
https://launchpad.net/~jhuni-x
> See, here is the point: that is your borderline-religious opinion. Nobody really cares about this.
Plenty of people care about these, especially people and governments outside the U.S that don't want to be dependent upon American companies. [5] [6]
> there is absolutely no DRM on my Mac keeping me from doing whatever I want.
You blame me of being a "fandroid" for my support of Google's AI projects. Yet you a clearly a huge fan of Apple yourself considering that you claimed that their products are "sexy" and that they contain "absolutely no DRM." Now who is the one being ignorant?
[1] http://moneyterms.co.uk/natural-monopoly/
[2] http://www.defectivebydesign.org/apple
[3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-progr...
[4] http://www.loper-os.org/?p=316
[5] http://news.cnet.com/2009-11397_3-6245409.html
[6] http://www.redflag-linux.com/en/
> natural monopoly
You are constantly making completely false claims and you are wrongly using words and terms. Utility computing and grid computing has got nothing to do with google's search engine.
Internet search is in absolutely no way even remotely a "natural monopoly". I could set up my own search engine with a few bucks investment just like Larry and Sergey did plus nowadays storage is even cheaper.
> so it is most efficient to have a central distributor
So in case of Google it is a "good" monopoly because it will save costs???? Are you out of your mind? I don't pay for a google search like I pay for my kWh and google does not provide any public infrastructure. They feed off the internet and feed off on my data and make money that way. They are a company, not a utility.
> You also mentioned "all the flak they are getting," could you provide specifics?
Well for starters, look at all the "Apple=Nazi" bullshit and blind hatred this guy wrote: http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=jhuni
> DRM
There is no DRM on my iMac or in my iTunes songs. I can export my photos, videos, contacts, my emails, my documents and everything else I have on my PCs and take it with me at any point. I am in control of everything that is going on on my PC here and I can also install lots of other OSs if I want that.
> evil things like restricting users with DRM
Well, you really must be smarter than everyone else because with a good 100 million iPhones sold, you would think MOST customers would have quickly dumped them as soon as they hit all those horrible road blocks you are seeing... but no, iphones keep selling and a lot of people enjoy using them. So they must have gotten something right for just that target audience.
You need to learn to accept that obviously apple does not care about some bean-foil deflector beanie defender of all developers who sees them as the worst kind of Naziscum. So needless to say, they won't be making any products for you whether you like it or not. There is nothing more to this discussion than that.
> Could you show me what alternatives you are referring to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_online_music_stor...
You need to plug the RIAA with your DRM hatred because they are (were) making those terms.
> PyMusique
Someone illegally reverse engineered a tool to hack around the RIAA-dictated DRM protection and you are wondering that apple plugged (had to plug) that hole? Go hate on the RIAA for that you. There is absolutely no justification that any company is required to open their services up to any third-party clients if they do not want it or as in this case aren't able to allow it. Do not bring this irrelevant argument up again. Ever.
> Apple still uses DRM extensively today
I have no drm on my imac or macbook pro.
> with the freedom from being forced into things by big corporations like Apple and Microsoft.
You are wrong. You are completely, utterly wrong. Neither apple nor microsoft forces people to use anything. If you don't like it, don't use it. You don't get it huh? You must really think you are so much smarter than everyone around you because you obviously believe you are in a position to question all those millions worldwide who decided to buy an apple product.
Back before apple could sell a single home-PC, there was pretty much only x86 and microsoft for pretty much all PCs. To this day GNU/Linux has obviously utterly failed to make it to the average user's desktop at large so people were stuck with Windows. At least apple could grab a few of those percents and bring a little bit of competition to that huge market. Look at the numbers:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Operating...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Smartphon...
Apple is looking at 10% share (less than 20% for mobiles), the rest is pretty much exclusively M$... Linux is at less than 3% total where they always were. This is no tyranny, this is not forcing nobody to use apple. You make it look like they own 99% of everything. Completely ridiculous and wrong.
If anything you should be thankful that at least there is a LITTLE bit of competition for M$ but you are probably much too ignorant, stuck up and also too young to remember the dark ages when there was nothing but M$ for most computer users.
> You blame me of being a "fandroid"
I blame you for mindlessly repeating retarded, false propaganda and for not seeing things for what they are. Apple has small market shares in everything they do. And I blame you for continuously thinking you know better than all those people who consciously decided to switch to Apple products and find that they like it.
> Yet you a clearly a huge fan of Apple
I am pretty much fluent on all windows, unix, linux and mac system as well as more exotic ones like Be. I really do not care much what I am using as long as it works reliably and comfortably enough. I have seen M$ go from horrible DOS to WinDOS to Vista and 7 and I have seen Atari and Commodore and I have seen Linux and BSD go from flipping every single kernel switch before compiling it myself to dragonfly and ubuntu and whatnot... and I have seen apple from their first little black and white interface to their very first "sexy" products to their switch to Intel and I have seen the iPod help them rise in popularity, then the popular macs and finally the iPhone and iPad. Trust me, I been around the block and I belong to no single camp. I "hate" companies like Microsoft, SAP and Oracle - real actual major players and true monopolists that make atrociously bad software. Not comparatively little fish like Apple.
Back in the day apple used to be so far ahead of x86 PCs it was ridiculous. Now they are Intels just the same. I am no apple fanboy, I like some of their stuff and they have made my life easier. But the one thing where I give Apple real credit is that they were the only ones to successfully bring actual competition to the PC market, even at just 10%. They were the only ones to date to give M$ a run for their money and make M$ finally look retarded, old and horrible. And they have CREATED the modern smartphone and tablet market, things that did not exist before. Finally all those average PC users have a real choice available and there is at least SOME competition which can only benefit all of us. So if you really hate big corps then you should shit on M$ and on google and thank the wolfram alphas and DDGs and also Apple in this world because they were the only ones who could stand up against a real monopoly.
And you know why Linux on the desktop failed to deliver this much needed competition? Because open source and free software is sadly full of ADHD attention whores and people who think they know it oh-so-much-better than the users and they will go to great length shitting on anyone who is just a little bit more successful than they are - which is exactly how I see you. All that choice and possibilities are great for us geeks, so is OS and FSF, but the average user doesn't care about gnome vs kde vs xfce and they don't care about compiling kernels or being able to browse the code. (Even you haven't!!!) They actually have a life that is NOT the computer and they just want to send an email and talk to their family at home, send them pictures and read something interesting online... and that is what apple has obviously delivered, otherwise they wouldn't have the success they currently have.
So it doesn't matter what PG or whoever says, apple's success has proven them all wrong and I can only say I am thankful for the bit of competition and a few neat gadgets that apple delivered.
You are just a troll.
You are constantly making completely false claims and you are wrongly using words and terms. Utility computing and grid computing has got nothing to do with google's search engine.
Internet search is in absolutely no way even remotely a "natural monopoly". I could set up my own search engine with a few bucks investment just like Larry and Sergey did plus nowadays storage is even cheaper.
> so it is most efficient to have a central distributor
So in case of Google it is a "good" monopoly because it will save costs???? Are you out of your mind? I don't pay for a google search like I pay for my kWh and google does not provide any public infrastructure. They feed off the internet and feed off on my data and make money that way. They are a company, not a utility.
> You also mentioned "all the flak they are getting," could you provide specifics?
Well for starters, look at all the "Apple=Nazi" bullshit and blind hatred this guy wrote: http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=jhuni
> DRM
There is no DRM on my iMac or in my iTunes songs. I can export my photos, videos, contacts, my emails, my documents and everything else I have on my PCs and take it with me at any point. I am in control of everything that is going on on my PC here and I can also install lots of other OSs if I want that.
> evil things like restricting users with DRM
Well, you really must be smarter than everyone else because with a good 100 million iPhones sold, you would think MOST customers would have quickly dumped them as soon as they hit all those horrible road blocks you are seeing... but no, iphones keep selling and a lot of people enjoy using them. So they must have gotten something right for just that target audience.
You need to learn to accept that obviously apple does not care about some bean-foil deflector beanie defender of all developers who sees them as the worst kind of Naziscum. So needless to say, they won't be making any products for you whether you like it or not. There is nothing more to this discussion than that.
> Could you show me what alternatives you are referring to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_online_music_stor...
You need to plug the RIAA with your DRM hatred because they are (were) making those terms.
> PyMusique
Someone illegally reverse engineered a tool to hack around the RIAA-dictated DRM protection and you are wondering that apple plugged (had to plug) that hole? Go hate on the RIAA for that you. There is absolutely no justification that any company is required to open their services up to any third-party clients if they do not want it or as in this case aren't able to allow it. Do not bring this irrelevant argument up again. Ever.
> Apple still uses DRM extensively today
I have no drm on my imac or macbook pro.
> with the freedom from being forced into things by big corporations like Apple and Microsoft.
You are wrong. You are completely, utterly wrong. Neither apple nor microsoft forces people to use anything. If you don't like it, don't use it. You don't get it huh? You must really think you are so much smarter than everyone around you because you obviously believe you are in a position to question all those millions worldwide who decided to buy an apple product.
Back before apple could sell a single home-PC, there was pretty much only x86 and microsoft for pretty much all PCs. To this day GNU/Linux has obviously utterly failed to make it to the average user's desktop at large so people were stuck with Windows. At least apple could grab a few of those percents and bring a little bit of competition to that huge market. Look at the numbers:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Operating...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Smartphon...
Apple is looking at 10% share (less than 20% for mobiles), the rest is pretty much exclusively M$... Linux is at less than 3% total where they always were. This is no tyranny, this is not forcing nobody to use apple. You make it look like they own 99% of everything. Completely ridiculous and wrong.
If anything you should be thankful that at least there is a LITTLE bit of competition for M$ but you are probably much too ignorant, stuck up and also too young to remember the dark ages when there was nothing but M$ for most computer users.
> You blame me of being a "fandroid"
I blame you for mindlessly repeating retarded, false propaganda and for not seeing things for what they are. Apple has small market shares in everything they do. And I blame you for continuously thinking you know better than all those people who consciously decided to switch to Apple products and find that they like it.
> Yet you a clearly a huge fan of Apple
I am pretty much fluent on all windows, unix, linux and mac system as well as more exotic ones like Be. I really do not care much what I am using as long as it works reliably and comfortably enough. I have seen M$ go from horrible DOS to WinDOS to Vista and 7 and I have seen Atari and Commodore and I have seen Linux and BSD go from flipping every single kernel switch before compiling it myself to dragonfly and ubuntu and whatnot... and I have seen apple from their first little black and white interface to their very first "sexy" products to their switch to Intel and I have seen the iPod help them rise in popularity, then the popular macs and finally the iPhone and iPad. Trust me, I been around the block and I belong to no single camp. I "hate" companies like Microsoft, SAP and Oracle - real actual major players and true monopolists that make atrociously bad software. Not comparatively little fish like Apple.
Back in the day apple used to be so far ahead of x86 PCs it was ridiculous. Now they are Intels just the same. I am no apple fanboy, I like some of their stuff and they have made my life easier. But the one thing where I give Apple real credit is that they were the only ones to successfully bring actual competition to the PC market, even at just 10%. They were the only ones to date to give M$ a run for their money and make M$ finally look retarded, old and horrible. And they have CREATED the modern smartphone and tablet market, things that did not exist before. Finally all those average PC users have a real choice available and there is at least SOME competition which can only benefit all of us. So if you really hate big corps then you should shit on M$ and on google and thank the wolfram alphas and DDGs and also Apple in this world because they were the only ones who could stand up against a real monopoly.
And you know why Linux on the desktop failed to deliver this much needed competition? Because open source and free software is sadly full of ADHD attention whores and people who think they know it oh-so-much-better than the users and they will go to great length shitting on anyone who is just a little bit more successful than they are - which is exactly how I see you. All that choice and possibilities are great for us geeks, so is OS and FSF, but the average user doesn't care about gnome vs kde vs xfce and they don't care about compiling kernels or being able to browse the code. (Even you haven't!!!) They actually have a life that is NOT the computer and they just want to send an email and talk to their family at home, send them pictures and read something interesting online... and that is what apple has obviously delivered, otherwise they wouldn't have the success they currently have.
So it doesn't matter what PG or whoever says, apple's success has proven them all wrong and I can only say I am thankful for the bit of competition and a few neat gadgets that apple delivered.
You are just a troll.
Dear kahawe,
Over 25 years ago, in the mid 1980s, Apple introduced the Macintosh and Microsoft introduced Windows. Taken together, Apple/Microsoft came to dominate the entire computing industry and they have largely maintained that status up to the present day.
Well they may have switched around in cycles between one another, to the point that it may have seemed that "there was nothing but M$ for most computer users" taken together they still had complete control. The phrase "if you don't like it, don't use it" didn't make any sense, because there were simply were no free alternatives for people to turn to.
Selecting between Apple/M$ is not a worthwhile choice, since they both use exactly the same bad practices. They both profit off of closed and restrictive platforms, and they are both against software freedom.
It is only in the last three years that people begun to be granted some freedom from the tyrannies of Apple and Microsoft. This started in 2004, when Ubuntu was released, and then it continued when in 2008 Android was released. In the last three years these two systems have matured to the point that now finally users have the choice of living free of Apple/M$.
The transition to these free alternatives was partially fueled by the need to save money admist our financial crisis, but that alone hasn't really displaced the dominance of these entrenched tyrannies because as you personally mentioned, Linux may still only be 3% of all web client operating systems. This is why it is necessary to have people like me who continue to fight against Apple and Microsoft and develop free alternatives.
Google has been one of our greatest allies in this battle. Google is a major proponent of open platforms, because Google needs platforms like the web that are open to searching. Google has further assisted our cause through their active development of Chromium and Android. Furthermore, Google provides many unmatched intelligent services such as search, machine translation, and intelligent prediction to everyone free of charge, not unlike a public service.
> google does not provide any public infrastructure
The fire department doesn't provide any public infrastructure either. It provides a public service. This is not unlike how our good friends at Google provide public services such as search and machine translation.
> I could set up my own search engine with a few bucks investment just like Larry and Sergey did plus nowadays storage is even cheaper.
Sure you could, and nobody would hear about it unless you further invested millions of dollars into it to acquire resources.
> So if you really hate big corps then you should shit on M$
I hate M$ just about as much as Apple, however, I tend to think of them together because taken as a group they inflicted untold evils on the computing industry for nearly 25 years.
> If anything you should be thankful that at least there is a LITTLE bit of competition for M$ but you are probably much too ignorant, stuck up and also too young to remember the dark ages when there was nothing but M$ for most computer users.
What makes you think that we are not still amidst such a dark age? Microsoft and Apple together still dominate most general purpose computers. As I explained above, I am not at all thankful of Apple's attempts to compete with Microsoft because they offer nothing I consider to be better.
> If anything you should be thankful that at least there is a LITTLE bit of competition for M$ but you are probably much too ignorant, stuck up and also too young to remember the dark ages when there was nothing but M$ for most computer users.
Actually, as of Q3 2011, Apple is the largest publicly traded company in the world by market capitalization, and the largest technology company in the world by revenue and profit. Apple simply is not a "little fish" anymore. In fact, Apple/Microsoft have tyrannically controlled the computing industry for nearly 25 years.
> Not comparatively little fish like Apple.
What do you mean by "little fish"? Apple is a huge company and arguably the main opponent of computing freedom in the world today.
> Neither apple nor microsoft forces people to use anything.
As I explained above, Apple/Microsoft have controlled the computing industry for nearly 25 years. Computers have become an unavoidable part of life in developed countries, so people basically are forced to deal with them one way or another. Free alternatives have only recently begun to emerge, but they are still not widely available.
> So it doesn't matter what PG or whoever says, apple's success has proven them all wrong and I can only say I am thankful for the bit of competition and a few neat gadgets that apple delivered.
Thankfully, I don't take success in capitalism into account in my comparasions. I could care less about how successful Apple has been in capitalist societies, I want free, secure, and intelligent technologies. Apple and Microsoft aren't even beginning to work towards that goal and at least Google is.
Over 25 years ago, in the mid 1980s, Apple introduced the Macintosh and Microsoft introduced Windows. Taken together, Apple/Microsoft came to dominate the entire computing industry and they have largely maintained that status up to the present day.
Well they may have switched around in cycles between one another, to the point that it may have seemed that "there was nothing but M$ for most computer users" taken together they still had complete control. The phrase "if you don't like it, don't use it" didn't make any sense, because there were simply were no free alternatives for people to turn to.
Selecting between Apple/M$ is not a worthwhile choice, since they both use exactly the same bad practices. They both profit off of closed and restrictive platforms, and they are both against software freedom.
It is only in the last three years that people begun to be granted some freedom from the tyrannies of Apple and Microsoft. This started in 2004, when Ubuntu was released, and then it continued when in 2008 Android was released. In the last three years these two systems have matured to the point that now finally users have the choice of living free of Apple/M$.
The transition to these free alternatives was partially fueled by the need to save money admist our financial crisis, but that alone hasn't really displaced the dominance of these entrenched tyrannies because as you personally mentioned, Linux may still only be 3% of all web client operating systems. This is why it is necessary to have people like me who continue to fight against Apple and Microsoft and develop free alternatives.
Google has been one of our greatest allies in this battle. Google is a major proponent of open platforms, because Google needs platforms like the web that are open to searching. Google has further assisted our cause through their active development of Chromium and Android. Furthermore, Google provides many unmatched intelligent services such as search, machine translation, and intelligent prediction to everyone free of charge, not unlike a public service.
> google does not provide any public infrastructure
The fire department doesn't provide any public infrastructure either. It provides a public service. This is not unlike how our good friends at Google provide public services such as search and machine translation.
> I could set up my own search engine with a few bucks investment just like Larry and Sergey did plus nowadays storage is even cheaper.
Sure you could, and nobody would hear about it unless you further invested millions of dollars into it to acquire resources.
> So if you really hate big corps then you should shit on M$
I hate M$ just about as much as Apple, however, I tend to think of them together because taken as a group they inflicted untold evils on the computing industry for nearly 25 years.
> If anything you should be thankful that at least there is a LITTLE bit of competition for M$ but you are probably much too ignorant, stuck up and also too young to remember the dark ages when there was nothing but M$ for most computer users.
What makes you think that we are not still amidst such a dark age? Microsoft and Apple together still dominate most general purpose computers. As I explained above, I am not at all thankful of Apple's attempts to compete with Microsoft because they offer nothing I consider to be better.
> If anything you should be thankful that at least there is a LITTLE bit of competition for M$ but you are probably much too ignorant, stuck up and also too young to remember the dark ages when there was nothing but M$ for most computer users.
Actually, as of Q3 2011, Apple is the largest publicly traded company in the world by market capitalization, and the largest technology company in the world by revenue and profit. Apple simply is not a "little fish" anymore. In fact, Apple/Microsoft have tyrannically controlled the computing industry for nearly 25 years.
> Not comparatively little fish like Apple.
What do you mean by "little fish"? Apple is a huge company and arguably the main opponent of computing freedom in the world today.
> Neither apple nor microsoft forces people to use anything.
As I explained above, Apple/Microsoft have controlled the computing industry for nearly 25 years. Computers have become an unavoidable part of life in developed countries, so people basically are forced to deal with them one way or another. Free alternatives have only recently begun to emerge, but they are still not widely available.
> So it doesn't matter what PG or whoever says, apple's success has proven them all wrong and I can only say I am thankful for the bit of competition and a few neat gadgets that apple delivered.
Thankfully, I don't take success in capitalism into account in my comparasions. I could care less about how successful Apple has been in capitalist societies, I want free, secure, and intelligent technologies. Apple and Microsoft aren't even beginning to work towards that goal and at least Google is.
This is fantastic. Apple uses AAC partly because of the patent royalty (http://mp3licensing.com/) which they have to pay on every iPad/pod/etc sold, as well as because it is just a better format.
MP3 is a total racket held by Thompson Technicolor, on top of being a pretty crap format.
Hopefully this is a portends Apple offering lossless through ITMS on top of the 1080p rights they are hunting down right now.
MP3 is a total racket held by Thompson Technicolor, on top of being a pretty crap format.
Hopefully this is a portends Apple offering lossless through ITMS on top of the 1080p rights they are hunting down right now.
This is fantastic. Apple did AAC because of the patent royalty (http://mp3licensing.com/) which they have to pay on every iPad/pod/etc sold
Since when did Apple "do AAC"? AAC is a standardized format that makes up part of MPEG-4, contributed to by dozens of companies and organizations. The patent licensing is handled by Via Licensing, not Apple. AAC has patent licensing fees too; over a dollar per device (albeit with a very low cap, IIRC).
, as well as because it is just a better format.
MPEG-4 AAC was the successor to MPEG-1 Layer 3 (MP3), by the same organization, so this is no surprise.
ALAC was -- for many years -- a proprietary FLAC-alike. There was no real reason to use it except for compatibility with Apple devices, as the two use nearly identical compression methods and the incompatibility is purely gratuitous.
Since when did Apple "do AAC"? AAC is a standardized format that makes up part of MPEG-4, contributed to by dozens of companies and organizations. The patent licensing is handled by Via Licensing, not Apple. AAC has patent licensing fees too; over a dollar per device (albeit with a very low cap, IIRC).
, as well as because it is just a better format.
MPEG-4 AAC was the successor to MPEG-1 Layer 3 (MP3), by the same organization, so this is no surprise.
ALAC was -- for many years -- a proprietary FLAC-alike. There was no real reason to use it except for compatibility with Apple devices, as the two use nearly identical compression methods and the incompatibility is purely gratuitous.
Sorry: USE aac.
AAC has no patent for streaming or distribution. When we did direct-to-consumer digital sales this is why I used this rather than Mp3, and ALAC for lossless over FLAC because of the support issue.
AAC does have a patent fee for codec usage (i.e., devices).
AAC has no patent for streaming or distribution. When we did direct-to-consumer digital sales this is why I used this rather than Mp3, and ALAC for lossless over FLAC because of the support issue.
AAC does have a patent fee for codec usage (i.e., devices).
Nitpick: AAC (right now) has no patent fee for streaming or distribution. What's to stop them from levying such a fee in the future?
MP3 was great for its time. It’s not a crap format, there are merely better formats available today. They weren’t when MP3 came to the market. (Specifically AAC was developed as a successor to MP3.)
I’m also not sure whether this tells you anything. Apple started selling AAC encoded music at a time when no† music player could play it. Many mistakenly thought that AAC was some sort of proprietary Apple codec and it might as well have been.
Today more people than ever have an iOS device or an iPod. There is no need at all for Apple to play nice and make sure that others can also use the ALAC. Why should they?
Also: What’s the incentive for offering lossless music? No one† can tell the difference. Do you really think Apple will start catering to audiophiles? Because of the switch to flash memory space is limited, Apple’s current devices are not a good match for lossless music.
—
† Don’t be pedantic.
I’m also not sure whether this tells you anything. Apple started selling AAC encoded music at a time when no† music player could play it. Many mistakenly thought that AAC was some sort of proprietary Apple codec and it might as well have been.
Today more people than ever have an iOS device or an iPod. There is no need at all for Apple to play nice and make sure that others can also use the ALAC. Why should they?
Also: What’s the incentive for offering lossless music? No one† can tell the difference. Do you really think Apple will start catering to audiophiles? Because of the switch to flash memory space is limited, Apple’s current devices are not a good match for lossless music.
—
† Don’t be pedantic.
Lossless music - there is an audience for it, and it creates the ability to stratify prices, which the labels/rights-holders/distributors like. See the vinyl boom, hdtracks.com, http://www.becausesoundmatters.com/, etc.
So will Apple cater to audiophiles? No. Will they cater to margins? For damned sure they will if it serves them and those they entice to sign over content. Why would they switch to 1080P otherwise?
Also: given device sizes it would be nice to have raw uncompressed/lossless and I could downsample at will to suit specific devices/systems.
So will Apple cater to audiophiles? No. Will they cater to margins? For damned sure they will if it serves them and those they entice to sign over content. Why would they switch to 1080P otherwise?
Also: given device sizes it would be nice to have raw uncompressed/lossless and I could downsample at will to suit specific devices/systems.
I only buy lossless music. I usually end up buying WAV/AIFF/FLAC direct from the artist, from their record label, or from Beatport. Once in a while, if I can't find something, I'll buy it on CD. Earlier today, I actually bought vinyl because I couldn't find a lossless digital version of this track anywhere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwsUfEvmKwI
Lossy formats are useless to me since I can't remix them without it sounding like crap. I also feel I'm getting ripped-off when they charge near CD price for lossy tracks.
Also, 20 years from now I'm going to want to convert my music to whatever fancy lossy codec has supplanted MP3 and AAC. By archiving in an open lossless format like FLAC (or now ALAC), I can do this without introducing artifacts.
Lossy formats are useless to me since I can't remix them without it sounding like crap. I also feel I'm getting ripped-off when they charge near CD price for lossy tracks.
Also, 20 years from now I'm going to want to convert my music to whatever fancy lossy codec has supplanted MP3 and AAC. By archiving in an open lossless format like FLAC (or now ALAC), I can do this without introducing artifacts.
> Earlier today, I actually bought vinyl because I couldn't find a lossless digital version of this track anywhere
Two things strike me as astonishing. The first is that anyone remains unconvinced that vinyl has any redeeming technical aspects whatsoever, other than the touchy-feely emotional stuff, and self-deception.
The second is that the music you referenced is so unashamedly digital, that the notion of purchasing it on a vinyl record is like buying a copy of Angry Birds printed on tree bark.
A 256 kbps AAC file (as sold by iTunes) is so very nearly transparent, only a small fraction of 1 percent of people would be able to identify the vanishingly minute differences. The difference is so small, it would be comprehensively outweighed by meaningful factors such as your choice of speakers, the shape of your room, and the presence of any ambient noise.
Whereas vinyl has crackle (unless you're playing a pristine copy in a dust-free environment), clicks, pops, rumble, wow distortion, and intentionally limited dynamic and tonal range. Fidelity progressively reduces as you move to the inner grooves, and high frequencies are literally scratched away as the stylus scrapes past -- every time you play a vinyl, it will sound poorer than the last. You can mitigate some of these problems, but generally at great effort or expense.
Of course, to make that music useful, you'll need to rip it back into your computer. You'd have to be mentally ill to believe that a [Lossless > AAC-256 > Lossless] conversion is more detrimental than [Lossless > equalisation > analogue mastering > lathe cutting > vinyl stamping > stylus scraping > pre-amplification > ADC > Lossless].
Two things strike me as astonishing. The first is that anyone remains unconvinced that vinyl has any redeeming technical aspects whatsoever, other than the touchy-feely emotional stuff, and self-deception.
The second is that the music you referenced is so unashamedly digital, that the notion of purchasing it on a vinyl record is like buying a copy of Angry Birds printed on tree bark.
A 256 kbps AAC file (as sold by iTunes) is so very nearly transparent, only a small fraction of 1 percent of people would be able to identify the vanishingly minute differences. The difference is so small, it would be comprehensively outweighed by meaningful factors such as your choice of speakers, the shape of your room, and the presence of any ambient noise.
Whereas vinyl has crackle (unless you're playing a pristine copy in a dust-free environment), clicks, pops, rumble, wow distortion, and intentionally limited dynamic and tonal range. Fidelity progressively reduces as you move to the inner grooves, and high frequencies are literally scratched away as the stylus scrapes past -- every time you play a vinyl, it will sound poorer than the last. You can mitigate some of these problems, but generally at great effort or expense.
Of course, to make that music useful, you'll need to rip it back into your computer. You'd have to be mentally ill to believe that a [Lossless > AAC-256 > Lossless] conversion is more detrimental than [Lossless > equalisation > analogue mastering > lathe cutting > vinyl stamping > stylus scraping > pre-amplification > ADC > Lossless].
one thing lossy formats do really bad at: speeding it up and down. (because they remove 'unhearable' sound artifacts -- that become hearable at different speeds)
big slowdowns also sound 'ugly' with lossless formats (a 44kHz sampled track at half the speed is only 22kHz).
but who plays a track at halfspeed..? :)
i dont want to make a case for vinyl -- sjwright has given a nice overview of arguments against it, that i can all underline.
but there is one thing that a physical soundwave, pressed in a disc of vinyl, never needs to do: anti-aliassing. but since the tracks usually get delivered digitally to the vinyl-press; it is the vinyl press that does the anti-aliassing for you :)
big slowdowns also sound 'ugly' with lossless formats (a 44kHz sampled track at half the speed is only 22kHz).
but who plays a track at halfspeed..? :)
i dont want to make a case for vinyl -- sjwright has given a nice overview of arguments against it, that i can all underline.
but there is one thing that a physical soundwave, pressed in a disc of vinyl, never needs to do: anti-aliassing. but since the tracks usually get delivered digitally to the vinyl-press; it is the vinyl press that does the anti-aliassing for you :)
There's nothing the vinyl pressing process can do to a digital sound source that can't be modelled in a purely digital environment.
> Digital music is technically superior to bumps on a plastic disc
What you completely failed to realise, is that technical superiority is not the only factor as to how music sounds.
CD mastering these days is almost invariably awful. The real advantage to vinyl (which comes partly because it is a niche format, and partly because of how it is made) is that it has better mastering. This is not subtle on anything better than PC speakers.
What you completely failed to realise, is that technical superiority is not the only factor as to how music sounds.
CD mastering these days is almost invariably awful. The real advantage to vinyl (which comes partly because it is a niche format, and partly because of how it is made) is that it has better mastering. This is not subtle on anything better than PC speakers.
> What you completely failed to realise
...is that you're going to invent quotes? Nice.
> [Vinyl] has better mastering
A common myth -- google it. For music produced in the past decade, it's exceptionally rare for a vinyl mastering to be superior to the 16/44.1 digital release. Of course there's always exceptions to prove the rule, but the rule is definitely not as you assert.
> partly because of how it is made
Because of how it is made, a vinyl release is often the same master as the CD but with an additional pass through a multi-band limiter. This unquestionably degrades the quality of the vinyl master, and is done to stop the cutting head coils from literally burning up.
...is that you're going to invent quotes? Nice.
> [Vinyl] has better mastering
A common myth -- google it. For music produced in the past decade, it's exceptionally rare for a vinyl mastering to be superior to the 16/44.1 digital release. Of course there's always exceptions to prove the rule, but the rule is definitely not as you assert.
> partly because of how it is made
Because of how it is made, a vinyl release is often the same master as the CD but with an additional pass through a multi-band limiter. This unquestionably degrades the quality of the vinyl master, and is done to stop the cutting head coils from literally burning up.
I paraphrased. It was done for brevity. Did i misrepresent the intent of your post?
I do not need to google it, becauase i can hear it myself. Like i say, not subtle. I haven't got vinyls/rips of everything, but i can assure you it is not uncommon. Must i provide examples?
Destructive 'loudening' of music is not useful with vinyl music (IE. compressing the waveform 'up' does not make for a louder output, as what happens with the digital loudness wars-- thus is 'pointless'), because there is no 'reference point' (that is, you can't have a waveform offset, because the needle is already moving wherever to meet the waveform), you can only increase/decrease the dynamic range. Because of a greater difference in amplitude, it is easier to cut a record with a larger dynamic range.
I do not need to google it, becauase i can hear it myself. Like i say, not subtle. I haven't got vinyls/rips of everything, but i can assure you it is not uncommon. Must i provide examples?
Destructive 'loudening' of music is not useful with vinyl music (IE. compressing the waveform 'up' does not make for a louder output, as what happens with the digital loudness wars-- thus is 'pointless'), because there is no 'reference point' (that is, you can't have a waveform offset, because the needle is already moving wherever to meet the waveform), you can only increase/decrease the dynamic range. Because of a greater difference in amplitude, it is easier to cut a record with a larger dynamic range.
> I do not need to google it, becauase i can hear it myself
Try doing an ABX comparison of whatever it is you think you can hear, and then talk to me.
> Must i provide examples?
Prove it to yourself first with a representative sampling of vinyl records and a blind waveform analysis.
> Destructive 'loudening' of music is not useful with vinyl music
That's true in theory. It's also true that destructive loudening of music is not useful with digital music, but they still do it. In reality, most vinyl masters are the same mastering plus an additional pass through a multi-band limiter. This is not a guess, by the way.
Try doing an ABX comparison of whatever it is you think you can hear, and then talk to me.
> Must i provide examples?
Prove it to yourself first with a representative sampling of vinyl records and a blind waveform analysis.
> Destructive 'loudening' of music is not useful with vinyl music
That's true in theory. It's also true that destructive loudening of music is not useful with digital music, but they still do it. In reality, most vinyl masters are the same mastering plus an additional pass through a multi-band limiter. This is not a guess, by the way.
You are stubborn as a mule.
I have done ABX. Like i said 1000 times, it wasn't subtle. I don't need 'a representative sample', i wasn't arguing 'all' or 'most', but 'not uncommon'.
I have done ABX. Like i said 1000 times, it wasn't subtle. I don't need 'a representative sample', i wasn't arguing 'all' or 'most', but 'not uncommon'.
> Like i said 1000 times, it wasn't subtle.
Yes, the distortions and noise added by even the most pristine vinyl reproduction aren't subtle.
Yes, the distortions and noise added by even the most pristine vinyl reproduction aren't subtle.
I'm fairly certain that devices in twenty or fifty years will still be able to play MP3. It's too pervasive and supporting it is too easy for it to disappear just like that. It might not be supported in hardware (like it is today in many devices to save battery life) but there will be plenty of software.
You tend to not be able to use formats because hardly anyone used them in the past. MP3 is too popular for that to happen. (As is JPEG, PDF and probably AAC.)
You tend to not be able to use formats because hardly anyone used them in the past. MP3 is too popular for that to happen. (As is JPEG, PDF and probably AAC.)
The other factor is that the patents that serve as a disadvantage for MP3 will be expiring sometime around 2015-2018.
Do you really think you could hear the difference between 256kbps AAC and Lossless? Even if your hearing is way above average, most audio players and earphones aren't that good.
(Also, given the less-than-subtle music you linked to, I doubt that it really matters.)
(Also, given the less-than-subtle music you linked to, I doubt that it really matters.)
No, I can't; and I wasn't claiming that I can. However, as I stated, if I use an MP3 or AAC in a remix, then compress my remix using a lossy codec like AAC or MP3, the result will sound like crap. It's similar to working with JPEGs in Photoshop (rather than RAW), then trying to re-compress to JPEG: you usually get artifacts.
I've been playing classic violin since the age of 3, and I'm very sensitive to details. Just because you don't find a particular genre of music "subtle" doesn't it's not susceptible to the compression artifacts I'm talking about.
I've been playing classic violin since the age of 3, and I'm very sensitive to details. Just because you don't find a particular genre of music "subtle" doesn't it's not susceptible to the compression artifacts I'm talking about.
> if I use an MP3 or AAC in a remix, then compress my remix using a lossy codec like AAC or MP3, the result will sound like crap
Or far more likely, it won't sound like crap.
> trying to re-compress to JPEG: you usually get artifacts.
This argument is akin to suggesting that a very very very minimally JPEG compressed screenshot of a website is inferior to plonking a film camera in front of your LCD and exposing a frame. After all, big analogue artefacts don't matter nearly as much.
The reality is, AAC at 256kbps is such a light touch that it could probably survive four or five rounds of offset re-encoding before the artefacts would compound meaningfully.
Or far more likely, it won't sound like crap.
> trying to re-compress to JPEG: you usually get artifacts.
This argument is akin to suggesting that a very very very minimally JPEG compressed screenshot of a website is inferior to plonking a film camera in front of your LCD and exposing a frame. After all, big analogue artefacts don't matter nearly as much.
The reality is, AAC at 256kbps is such a light touch that it could probably survive four or five rounds of offset re-encoding before the artefacts would compound meaningfully.
Again, you forget he's also remixing. That changes the whole game. You may be right if re-encoding was all he does, but it isn't.
You take the 256kbps high quality AAC, and you time stretch and repitch it by a few percent (to match it up with the track you're mixing it into) and probably fiddle the equalizer a bit, to "drop the bass" :)
If you do that a few times, you're losing information, even on a lossless digital medium.
If you use even high quality audiocodecs in between, it will sound like crap. And not the kind of super subtle near-impossible to hear difference between lossless and 256kbps AAC crap, but actual crap. I know this from experience myself as well. The sound becomes really flat, hard to describe, but you notice it when you're playing one right next to another track that hasn't been through such a process. It's like you want to turn it up louder but it's already loud enough. Hard to describe, but it's a real problem if you're playing these mixes on high quality speakers in a club--suddenly the sound is not as crisp anymore, and the crowd notices it too.
If you want to make the analogy with JPEG, imagine re-encoding at 95% quality, but with a few percent scaling and a few degrees rotation in between, before saving again as 95% quality JPEG.
You do that twice, with a quality high res digital photograph, and you're going to wind up with a photo that looks pretty much like the original ... until you make a high res print of it (or zoom in on the screen). Edges that were crisp at first have gone fuzzy, and at places you can spot the typical blocking and ringing JPEG artefacts.
You'd probably get away with it, most of the time, too. But not always, and if you're a digital graphics professional, this is your craft, and the mark of a good craftsman is that they put in the work for the little details that you don't really notice, until they're not there, and how you tell you're holding a piece of quality work.
You take the 256kbps high quality AAC, and you time stretch and repitch it by a few percent (to match it up with the track you're mixing it into) and probably fiddle the equalizer a bit, to "drop the bass" :)
If you do that a few times, you're losing information, even on a lossless digital medium.
If you use even high quality audiocodecs in between, it will sound like crap. And not the kind of super subtle near-impossible to hear difference between lossless and 256kbps AAC crap, but actual crap. I know this from experience myself as well. The sound becomes really flat, hard to describe, but you notice it when you're playing one right next to another track that hasn't been through such a process. It's like you want to turn it up louder but it's already loud enough. Hard to describe, but it's a real problem if you're playing these mixes on high quality speakers in a club--suddenly the sound is not as crisp anymore, and the crowd notices it too.
If you want to make the analogy with JPEG, imagine re-encoding at 95% quality, but with a few percent scaling and a few degrees rotation in between, before saving again as 95% quality JPEG.
You do that twice, with a quality high res digital photograph, and you're going to wind up with a photo that looks pretty much like the original ... until you make a high res print of it (or zoom in on the screen). Edges that were crisp at first have gone fuzzy, and at places you can spot the typical blocking and ringing JPEG artefacts.
You'd probably get away with it, most of the time, too. But not always, and if you're a digital graphics professional, this is your craft, and the mark of a good craftsman is that they put in the work for the little details that you don't really notice, until they're not there, and how you tell you're holding a piece of quality work.
Codecs like AAC apply psychoacoustic rules that were only correct for the overall piece being encoded, not samples taken from it. If a song has two overlapping sounds and the human ear physically can't hear both, a lossy codec looks for that and conserves space by completely omitting the sound that was masked, leaving you with no way to recover it if your postprocessing takes away the sound that had been masking it. A lossless codec preserves the sounds you might be able to hear after sampling or remixing, though of course it takes more space to do that.
My guess is that a lot of the psychoacoustic models used by lossy codecs aren't tuned for electronic music. The resonant distortion on the bassline of the linked track, for example, might sound different in the original. I have one song in which I can tell a difference for sure: Who Said by Planet Funk, about 1:30 in, has a rising modulated treble sound that sounds awful in 320kbit MP3 compared to the original.
Psychoacoustic models are very good, but MP3 has unavoidable coding weaknesses. Use a modern audio codec and you won't have this problem nearly as much.
I can.
It depends on how well you know the album, what the music is.
Try Paper Tiger by Beck off of Sea Change... strings and bass at the same time is challenging to lossy compression.
Try Page One by Charlatans off of Between 10th and 11th... same problem.
I don't use an iPod for that reason. I have an external sound card and use Fidelia on my Mac for that reason. I own good headphones for that reason.
When you listen to music you think you know and your heart skips a beat as you hear something new and it moves you... why compromise ever again?
Isn't this the superlative experience that Apple used to deliver? The ability to make you experience something that moves you. Music really can, but when you compress you deaden it, you kill the sound stage, some of the noise is lost.
Listen to a compressed Double Dutch by Malcolm McLaren the skips sound like a synth, listen to the lossless on a capable system and you can hear the distinctiveness of every rotation and hit of the rope on the floor. The latter puts you there, you picture it more.
Sound is even more important than vision. We are all rushing to 1080p and hopefully better, but sound is what fires the imagination more. Film directors have long known this, music producers have long known this... sound is the thing to get right, and when it's right, you fall in love every time you hear the music.
If you're buying any music equipment, find a good retailer and do a blind test of the equipment. I would be very surprised if most consumers would pick compressed audio and poor equipment... more likely they will settle for the point at which they no longer perceive a noticeable difference, but that point is after you've discovered lossless.
The main reason compression is accepted is that on crappy computer speakers, when listening on headphones whilst you have high background noise (commuting)... you could not hear the difference. Everywhere else, the difference is almost black and white, chalk and cheese.
It depends on how well you know the album, what the music is.
Try Paper Tiger by Beck off of Sea Change... strings and bass at the same time is challenging to lossy compression.
Try Page One by Charlatans off of Between 10th and 11th... same problem.
I don't use an iPod for that reason. I have an external sound card and use Fidelia on my Mac for that reason. I own good headphones for that reason.
When you listen to music you think you know and your heart skips a beat as you hear something new and it moves you... why compromise ever again?
Isn't this the superlative experience that Apple used to deliver? The ability to make you experience something that moves you. Music really can, but when you compress you deaden it, you kill the sound stage, some of the noise is lost.
Listen to a compressed Double Dutch by Malcolm McLaren the skips sound like a synth, listen to the lossless on a capable system and you can hear the distinctiveness of every rotation and hit of the rope on the floor. The latter puts you there, you picture it more.
Sound is even more important than vision. We are all rushing to 1080p and hopefully better, but sound is what fires the imagination more. Film directors have long known this, music producers have long known this... sound is the thing to get right, and when it's right, you fall in love every time you hear the music.
If you're buying any music equipment, find a good retailer and do a blind test of the equipment. I would be very surprised if most consumers would pick compressed audio and poor equipment... more likely they will settle for the point at which they no longer perceive a noticeable difference, but that point is after you've discovered lossless.
The main reason compression is accepted is that on crappy computer speakers, when listening on headphones whilst you have high background noise (commuting)... you could not hear the difference. Everywhere else, the difference is almost black and white, chalk and cheese.
Try doing a double-blind ABX test and then you can discuss your ability to do what has flummoxed all but the most insanely acute 'golden ears'.
I can... easily. And it matters to me. My hearing is average, and I have HD280Pro Seinheisers which are pretty standard headphones. Maybe it has something to do with the music genre that I like - techno, trance, dubstep, elecronic, etc. This stuff is delicately mastered in the studio and I can tell when the sound isn't reconstructed well upon playback.
I'd love to do a blind hearing test if you can set one up - but you have to do it with a song that I enjoy. I suppose I could even set one up myself as a study. It would be pretty interesting.
I'd love to do a blind hearing test if you can set one up - but you have to do it with a song that I enjoy. I suppose I could even set one up myself as a study. It would be pretty interesting.
> This stuff is delicately mastered in the studio
And football is the sport of delicately manoeuvring your opponent onto the grass.
And heroin is a drug that delicately shifts your brain chemistry.
And a chainsaw delicately tickles tree trunks.
And football is the sport of delicately manoeuvring your opponent onto the grass.
And heroin is a drug that delicately shifts your brain chemistry.
And a chainsaw delicately tickles tree trunks.
Ok so you don't like electronic dance/club music. We get it.
I gotta say, I disagree with the guy below me being downvoted, because when I read this "troll" was the first thing that sprang to my mind as well.
I don't disagree with you on the matter that you can't tell the difference between quality lossy and lossless recordings, btw. As long as they're the end-product and not being used for further processing.
Which is one of the rare scenarios in which is actually does make sense to prefer a vinyl copy over a high quality lossy compressed file, if you can't find the lossless digital version.
No you won't be able to hear the difference in the version you bought, but it will make a difference if you intend to work with the data and transform it into something else, because then it is possible that sounds that were thrown away by the lossy codec because no human "golden ear" could hear them, contexts shift and they come into hearing ranges again. But the data is lost, so there's something missing instead.
With a digital lossless copy, or with vinyl, you know you're also getting the inaudible bits, even if you can't hear them.
And if you're just going to listen to the track, sure, get the quality lossy codec.
But if you're doing remixes, you're going to want the inaudible bits too, because you don't know if you'll need them or not.
Lossy compression is for end products, not half products.
I gotta say, I disagree with the guy below me being downvoted, because when I read this "troll" was the first thing that sprang to my mind as well.
I don't disagree with you on the matter that you can't tell the difference between quality lossy and lossless recordings, btw. As long as they're the end-product and not being used for further processing.
Which is one of the rare scenarios in which is actually does make sense to prefer a vinyl copy over a high quality lossy compressed file, if you can't find the lossless digital version.
No you won't be able to hear the difference in the version you bought, but it will make a difference if you intend to work with the data and transform it into something else, because then it is possible that sounds that were thrown away by the lossy codec because no human "golden ear" could hear them, contexts shift and they come into hearing ranges again. But the data is lost, so there's something missing instead.
With a digital lossless copy, or with vinyl, you know you're also getting the inaudible bits, even if you can't hear them.
And if you're just going to listen to the track, sure, get the quality lossy codec.
But if you're doing remixes, you're going to want the inaudible bits too, because you don't know if you'll need them or not.
Lossy compression is for end products, not half products.
"Ok so you don't like electronic dance/club music. We get it."
I think what he meant was that the act of mastering popular music often isn't exactly a subtle process. During mastering they try to make the music as loud as possible, reducing dynamic range in the process.
"With the advent of the Compact Disc (CD), music is encoded to a digital format with a clearly defined maximum peak amplitude. Once the maximum amplitude of a CD is reached, loudness can be increased still further through signal processing techniques such as dynamic range compression and equalization. Engineers can apply an increasingly high ratio of compression to a recording until it more frequently peaks at the maximum amplitude. Extreme uses of dynamic range compression can introduce clipping and other audible distortion. Modern albums that use such extreme dynamic range compression therefore sacrifice sound quality to loudness. The competitive escalation of loudness has led music fans and members of the musical press to refer to the affected albums as "victims of the loudness war"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
I think what he meant was that the act of mastering popular music often isn't exactly a subtle process. During mastering they try to make the music as loud as possible, reducing dynamic range in the process.
"With the advent of the Compact Disc (CD), music is encoded to a digital format with a clearly defined maximum peak amplitude. Once the maximum amplitude of a CD is reached, loudness can be increased still further through signal processing techniques such as dynamic range compression and equalization. Engineers can apply an increasingly high ratio of compression to a recording until it more frequently peaks at the maximum amplitude. Extreme uses of dynamic range compression can introduce clipping and other audible distortion. Modern albums that use such extreme dynamic range compression therefore sacrifice sound quality to loudness. The competitive escalation of loudness has led music fans and members of the musical press to refer to the affected albums as "victims of the loudness war"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
> Ok so you don't like electronic dance/club music
On the contrary, I really love it.
I also love the cognitive dissonance which suggests that even a slight loss of fidelity in the 'inaudible bits' is far worse than a distinct loss of fidelity that occurs with an astonishingly imprecise trip through a multitude of lossy analogue processes.
Or that the addition of audible hiss, wow and surface noise doesn't matter.
You seem to suggest that algorithms like MP3 and AAC work primarily by throwing out the inaudible bits. A bit of that does happen, but most of the compression occurs by removing redundant data. After all, over 50% of the data can be removed before even a single bit has to change -- you can remove a shitload more if you're willing for it to be a very very very very very very close approximation instead. Psychoacoustic modelling is used to ensure that priority is given to sound that matters more over sound that matters less.
On the contrary, I really love it.
I also love the cognitive dissonance which suggests that even a slight loss of fidelity in the 'inaudible bits' is far worse than a distinct loss of fidelity that occurs with an astonishingly imprecise trip through a multitude of lossy analogue processes.
Or that the addition of audible hiss, wow and surface noise doesn't matter.
You seem to suggest that algorithms like MP3 and AAC work primarily by throwing out the inaudible bits. A bit of that does happen, but most of the compression occurs by removing redundant data. After all, over 50% of the data can be removed before even a single bit has to change -- you can remove a shitload more if you're willing for it to be a very very very very very very close approximation instead. Psychoacoustic modelling is used to ensure that priority is given to sound that matters more over sound that matters less.
In 2011, it doesn't matter much any more, audio is not very big. In 1996, I guess it made sense. For the few cents of extra space you get the peace of mind of perfect copies, the ability duplicate, remix, and reencode ad infinitum.
Notice you won't see the visual effects industry using JPG's to build their shots ... no, they use very high resolution 4k ~48-bit color depth files, that are then combined and then scaled down in resolution/color to theater/blu-ray output. This maintains the highest quality throughout.
You could also think of it the same way as free software (although not the perfect metaphor). Software may pick up compatibility bugs over the years. You'll want the community to have the ability to make fixes or risk losing it.
All these are examples of "keeping your options open," which people value. Now that the cost is not prohibitive and only getting lower there's not much reason not to.
Notice you won't see the visual effects industry using JPG's to build their shots ... no, they use very high resolution 4k ~48-bit color depth files, that are then combined and then scaled down in resolution/color to theater/blu-ray output. This maintains the highest quality throughout.
You could also think of it the same way as free software (although not the perfect metaphor). Software may pick up compatibility bugs over the years. You'll want the community to have the ability to make fixes or risk losing it.
All these are examples of "keeping your options open," which people value. Now that the cost is not prohibitive and only getting lower there's not much reason not to.
Do you really think you could hear the difference between 256kbps AAC and Lossless?
All the people who claim to be audiophiles and think that thousand dollar wooden knobs make their music sound more rich certainly do.
All the people who claim to be audiophiles and think that thousand dollar wooden knobs make their music sound more rich certainly do.
Sure it might happen, but it would also confuse consumers. That’s a huge negative point to me. I also don’t see the connection to this.
>Lossless music - there is an audience for it, and it creates the ability to stratify prices, which the labels/rights-holders/distributors like.
Yeah, this kind of thinking is pervasive in the music industry which is why I make sure they never get any of my money. You're always paying for the licensing, not the delivery method (so they don't need to replace your CD at cost), unless they can make a buck by making you pay for that, in which case you are no longer paying for the license, but rather the delivery method.
As such I don't even know what the fuck I'd be paying for if I bought a song on iTunes or whatever else.
Yeah, this kind of thinking is pervasive in the music industry which is why I make sure they never get any of my money. You're always paying for the licensing, not the delivery method (so they don't need to replace your CD at cost), unless they can make a buck by making you pay for that, in which case you are no longer paying for the license, but rather the delivery method.
As such I don't even know what the fuck I'd be paying for if I bought a song on iTunes or whatever else.
ALAC is used in AirPlay streaming (it was first announced along with the AirPort Express in mid 2004). This might be a plan to make AirPlay audio streaming more ubiquitous.
The nice thing about ALAC with AirPlay is it does not transcode to a compressed format for streaming.
> Why should they?
Because others already have FLAC?
Isn't it similar to the kid offering to share his bicycle, to his neighbor, with the hope of friendship, knowing fully well that it will do no real benefit since his neighbor already has an equally good machine?
Because others already have FLAC?
Isn't it similar to the kid offering to share his bicycle, to his neighbor, with the hope of friendship, knowing fully well that it will do no real benefit since his neighbor already has an equally good machine?
"Apple started selling AAC encoded music at a time when no† music player could play it"
Not that it mattered at the time as they were DRMed anyway.
Not that it mattered at the time as they were DRMed anyway.
This is incorrect. In the past, Apple has tended to prefer patented formats, because they are the holders of many of these patents and so increasing their use benefits them. If Apple had preferred patent-free formats at the time of the iPod, they would have chosen Vorbis, which has an open royalty-free encoder that is superior to QuickTime's rather poor AAC encoder.
Since the Apache license grants a patent license, this development regarding Apple Lossless would seem to be a reversal of their previous stances. I'm glad to see it.
Edit: That said, I agree with Dark Shikari that it would have been better had Apple Lossless never existed and if they had just used FLAC instead.
Since the Apache license grants a patent license, this development regarding Apple Lossless would seem to be a reversal of their previous stances. I'm glad to see it.
Edit: That said, I agree with Dark Shikari that it would have been better had Apple Lossless never existed and if they had just used FLAC instead.
QuickTime has a poor AAC encoder? I don't think you'll find anyone credible who seriously believes that.
I think it used to be just okay, now I believe it's one of the best.
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/igorc/aac-96-a/resu...
Maybe he was getting confused with Quicktime's rubbish H.264 encoder (or the low quality of the open source AAC encoder)?
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/igorc/aac-96-a/resu...
Maybe he was getting confused with Quicktime's rubbish H.264 encoder (or the low quality of the open source AAC encoder)?
Yeah, I was confused with the H.264 encoder (and the MP3 encoder). My mistake.
> If Apple had preferred patent-free formats at the time of the iPod, they would have chosen Vorbis, which has an open royalty-free encoder
That would have been a good trick, given that the very first release of Vorbis was only a year before the iPod hit the market.
That would have been a good trick, given that the very first release of Vorbis was only a year before the iPod hit the market.
This article is about ALAC (a lossless codec developed by Apple), not AAC (a lossy codec developed by the ISO and used by Apple).
There's no mention of a patent grant. Does anybody know the state of ALAC with regards to patents?
I believe the apache 2.0 license [1] includes a grant.
3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and
conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants
to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section)
patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell,
import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license
applies only to those patent claims licensable by such
Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their
Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their
Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s)
was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against
any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a
lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution
incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or
contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses
granted to You under this License for that Work shall
terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
Someone came up with a reverse engineered decoder 6+ years ago:
http://craz.net/programs/itunes/alac.html
Nice to have an encoder now too.
http://craz.net/programs/itunes/alac.html
Nice to have an encoder now too.
I worked on this with craz, taking directly "decompiled" code into a useful form. This was by far one of the most interesting things I've ever done -- if you want to get into reversing or increase your skills, do a codec! I built a stupid simple reference encoder in Python right after, but never managed to really get it right; wonder if I still have all the old code around.
ffmpeg has had both encode and decode support for alac for some time.
This is amazing. Since running Mugasha for the past few years, encoding in AAC has been a huge hassle. Lib faac has terrible encoding quality compared to good ones like Nero and Apple.
I hope Google adds (hardware) support for this to Android - it would add another option for patent un-encumbered audio formats, outside of Vorbis.
FLAC has been around longer and is also part of the Xiph.org project along with Vorbis. If Google wanted to add a lossless codec, they certainly could have before now.
(Disclaimer: I am associated with Xiph.org.)
(Disclaimer: I am associated with Xiph.org.)
It looks like it's been done, as of Honeycomb for tablets and Ice Cream Sandwich for phones: https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=1461
It may or may not be done. Samsung products tend to support codecs that vanilla Android does not support. As of 2.3.7 (latest published source), it is not in the source tree.
The link I posted is for a Google issue that was marked as Released. Hopefully we'll see it in there when the ICS source code is released.
Would be great if android implemented encoding to that format now. Its a pain to try to get the same audio formats from both Android and iOS devices because both platforms encode to completely different formats.
I've got all my CDs ripped in ALAC so that I can use the iTunes option to have the tracks automatically transcoded to smaller, lossy AAC when putting them on iDevices.
I welcome this open sourcing because it makes my 'archival' format slightly less oddball.
I welcome this open sourcing because it makes my 'archival' format slightly less oddball.
ffmpeg already can transcode from alac to flac, I rip with itunes and transcode to flac for my Sansa Clip.
FINALLY!!! But what does this mean for the future of FLAC?
The Xiph.org project has always maintained that if there are royalty free audio codecs available for everyone, then we've won. We never cared that they were ours, but no one else seemed to be building them.
It's a little silly that Apple rolled their own when a perfectly good option was available, but the world still wins.
I hope they try and get it standardized. That would make it even better.
It's a little silly that Apple rolled their own when a perfectly good option was available, but the world still wins.
I hope they try and get it standardized. That would make it even better.
Nothing much? People with lossless collections in FLAC are likely to continue building them in FLAC. And if they switch over to AAC, then there is no loss. With free lossless audio codecs, everyone wins.
ALAC ≠ AAC
ALAC : AAC : : FLAC : MP3
ALAC : AAC : : FLAC : MP3
Your point that ALAC != AAC is true and all but a better comparison would probably be
ALAC : AAC :: FLAC : Ogg Vorbis
ALAC : AAC :: FLAC : Ogg Vorbis
Agreed.
Anyone know the URL for the repo? It looks like they're using Subversion, but I don't see any svn:// links anywhere.
I see a trac browser for SVN, but i see no SVN link. Any idea what that may be or what an easy way to determine it is?
Is there an advantage to this for someone who owns no Apple products and has no iTunes account?
EDIT: Looking at http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_compa... it looks like the only clear advantage ALAC has is iTunes/iDevice support. FLAC has faster encoding/decoding speeds, and it's unknown if ALAC has error handling (which FLAC has). FLAC also supports RIFF chunks, has pipe support and is ReplayGain compatible, and has some support for embedded CUE sheets.
EDIT: Looking at http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_compa... it looks like the only clear advantage ALAC has is iTunes/iDevice support. FLAC has faster encoding/decoding speeds, and it's unknown if ALAC has error handling (which FLAC has). FLAC also supports RIFF chunks, has pipe support and is ReplayGain compatible, and has some support for embedded CUE sheets.
And yet the most major popular MP3 player on the market can't play FLAC, which will probably mean it will remain as obscure as it is now (i.e., mostly used among audiophiles).
Not really. Flac is lossles, and based on what the grandparent said a better format.
So, store your music in flac and convert as needed.
So, store your music in flac and convert as needed.
That's what I do. The point of lossless is to have a stable archive that can be converted into the convenient format and bitrate of the day. It's great that Apple is finally open-sourcing their codec but it would have been far better if they'd just thrown their weight behind FLAC in the first place and avoided this completely gratuitous and consumer-unfriendly fragmentation.
> would have been far better if they'd just thrown their weight behind FLAC
That would definitely be better, but the fact is that they can't (reasonably) re-write all of the previous iDevice firmwares to support FLAC, so open sourcing ALAC benefits all of the users with those devices. If open source codecs is the route Apple is going down, then perhaps they will ad support for FLAC to new versions of iOS, but for everyone not using those versions, this would still help. Throwing weight behind FLAC is good, just throwing weight behind FLAC is slightly less good. All that said, using lossless codecs on an iPod, like you said, is a bit overkill.
What I think would really be nice is if Apple would open source the music database on the iPod -- not being able to load an iPod from Linux/not iTunes (easily) is much more of an issue for me than support for a lossless codec.
That would definitely be better, but the fact is that they can't (reasonably) re-write all of the previous iDevice firmwares to support FLAC, so open sourcing ALAC benefits all of the users with those devices. If open source codecs is the route Apple is going down, then perhaps they will ad support for FLAC to new versions of iOS, but for everyone not using those versions, this would still help. Throwing weight behind FLAC is good, just throwing weight behind FLAC is slightly less good. All that said, using lossless codecs on an iPod, like you said, is a bit overkill.
What I think would really be nice is if Apple would open source the music database on the iPod -- not being able to load an iPod from Linux/not iTunes (easily) is much more of an issue for me than support for a lossless codec.
What I meant was that it would have been much better if they'd originally thrown their weight behind FLAC instead of developing ALAC in the first place. We're stuck with it now. I think it's very unlikely they'll ever add support for FLAC in iTunes or iOS now.
It wasn't originally developed for direct consumer use at all — it's debut was in the protocol used by Airport Express streaming.
It's not that obscure. You can buy Metallica and Beatles tracks in FLAC.
I googled for FLAC combined with a couple of different artists I listen to. Every single hit on the first page was a bittorrent site. I added "-torrent" and got a bunch of non-bittorrent file-sharing sites. :(
Most, if not all of the tracks on bandcamp.com are sold with a FLAC option.
FLAC is the defacto lossless standard everywhere but iTunes. Boomkat, Bleep etc sell FLAC files. It also works in music software like Traktor, Ableton Live and Renoise.
FLAC is honestly one of the happier OSS success stories.
FLAC is honestly one of the happier OSS success stories.
I read a comparison months (if not years) ago where one voluntarily flicked random bits and erased portions of files in FLAC and ALAC files, and the result was that ALAC was way, way more resilient than FLAC.
> it's unknown if ALAC has error handling
Shouldn't take us long to find out now.
Shouldn't take us long to find out now.
When I was comparing them years ago I found that a lot of FLAC implementations had a lot of trouble with seeking properly, skipping to the wrong spot and then reporting a third spot as the current timecode.
Then you have the metadata problem — ALAC is in a normal mp4 container so everything's uniform and well-used, with FLAC you're stuck with the ogg container or its proprietary system. That wouldn't be so bad, except that almost nobody puts metadata in their FLAC files, instead preferring to bundle along separate text files with a description of the tracks and info about the rip. I think they do it so that the whole file's hash stays constant.
Then you have the metadata problem — ALAC is in a normal mp4 container so everything's uniform and well-used, with FLAC you're stuck with the ogg container or its proprietary system. That wouldn't be so bad, except that almost nobody puts metadata in their FLAC files, instead preferring to bundle along separate text files with a description of the tracks and info about the rip. I think they do it so that the whole file's hash stays constant.
I haven't found that to be the case at all. All the FLAC files I've purchased have proper FLAC tags, often including cover art. I've never had problems with FLAC seeking at all.
Better still, FLAC provides excellent command-line tools for encoding, decoding and tagging so I can script batch operations easily. I'm not aware of anything similar for ALAC. Maybe with the codec in the open these tools will emerge?
Better still, FLAC provides excellent command-line tools for encoding, decoding and tagging so I can script batch operations easily. I'm not aware of anything similar for ALAC. Maybe with the codec in the open these tools will emerge?
Unfortunately I'm getting more and more biased against Apple these days, but then why they didn't use FLAC from the beginning? The FLAC format was stable from 2001 and Apple introduced ALAC in 2004, was it just as a way to be able to use DRM?
Apple needed DRM at the beginning to get label deals. Now they don't.
DRM was never a consideration for ALAC since Apple never sold tracks in ALAC. My understanding was that Apple developed ALAC instread of using FLAC because they were concerned about possible patent problems with FLAC.
I heard the same theory about patents but after they reversed engineered it, the creator of FLAC pointed out it was effectively a superset of his codec, so any patent affecting FLAC would impact ALAC too, they'd only increased their exposure to patents.
Other theories included better PPC support, and better designed to be decoded in low power hardware like the Airport Express.
To be honest some combination of NIH syndrome and residual squeamishness about using open source code seems far more likely.
Other theories included better PPC support, and better designed to be decoded in low power hardware like the Airport Express.
To be honest some combination of NIH syndrome and residual squeamishness about using open source code seems far more likely.
I do not understand how ALAC can be both:
- effectively a superset of FLAC
- better designed to be decoded in low power hardware
Can you explain?
- effectively a superset of FLAC
- better designed to be decoded in low power hardware
Can you explain?
As far as I know, is FLAC de- and encoding more battery consuming than using ALAC. So ALAC is the mobile format to go.
The FLAC repository havent been updated for two years.. Shouldn't it be called dead?
What is the newest mp3 "format feature" you're using?
From which git repository do you clone your encoding software?
Have you used WAV files recently? I haven't read about major progress on that front either.
From which git repository do you clone your encoding software?
Have you used WAV files recently? I haven't read about major progress on that front either.
What I don't get is why don't places like iTunes and Amazon offer Lossless options for downloading? I mean, here they are bragging about 720p, 1080p, high definition video which is gigantic in size, approaching or exceeding gigabytes for a typical 2 hour movie. Yet, we can't spare the extra space or bandwidth for a higher quality audio file which is still a fraction of the size? I don't get it.
Apple tend to shun "completeness" for simplicity to the average user.
I.e.
1. Extra complexity without a significant consumer demand.
2. Licensing issues with the studios, should these be priced higher for example.
Check out www.murfie.com
They do downloads and offer ALAC and FLAC
They do downloads and offer ALAC and FLAC
That video isn't lossless either. The mostly-indistinguishable-from-lossless point has already been reached for downloadable audio, whereas video is still creeping up on it.
Yes,I know this, but the size of the video files are much greater than the music files. I hear people complaining about the sizes of lossless music files, but not about 1080p video files. In fact, I have read comments from people complaining about only having 720p available from iTunes because of their 1080p televisions. However, these files are measured better in terms of gigabytes instead of megabytes. In other words, lossless music files shouldn't be problem, especially so with the cost of storage and bandwidth available. They are not that large when you compare them to even compressed video files (that are 720p or even 1080p).
Not even remotely. H.264 is wondrous, but it can't compete with even ProRes. If we all had gigabit pipes, Apple would be selling/renting the latter over the former, believe you me.
EDIT: Of course, at comparable bitrates, H.264 would likely be superior to ProRes (75-250Mb/s), but the computational complexity involved in decoding even intra-frame only H.264 versus a mezzanine format like ProRes would certainly point towards sending the latter rather than the former down the pipe, ceteris paribus.
EDIT: Of course, at comparable bitrates, H.264 would likely be superior to ProRes (75-250Mb/s), but the computational complexity involved in decoding even intra-frame only H.264 versus a mezzanine format like ProRes would certainly point towards sending the latter rather than the former down the pipe, ceteris paribus.
Boomkat.com is an excellent source for lossless music. They offer almost everything as FLAC, which unfortunately I have to convert to ALAC in order to make it available in iTunes/on my iPhone.
Quobuz.com on the other hand offers ALAC, WAV and FLAC. Basic french language skills will enable you to buy music there.
There have been rumors for the past few months that Apple will do just that. This release might be consistent with that; it will undoubtedly expand the audience, less because of the source availability, and more because of the Apache license patent grant.
Awesome! Now embedded devices like my car will be able to play more than just MP3's!
I just tried building libalac.a on Linux using GCC 4.6.1 and it worked! There were quite a few warnings though.
To eliminate the warnings, edit /trunk/codec/makefile and add -Wno-multichar to CFLAGS.
To eliminate the warnings, edit /trunk/codec/makefile and add -Wno-multichar to CFLAGS.
A successor to MP3.
We know there are better formats than MP3 today but getting mass adoption is difficult. Open source ALAC will give birth to new 3rd party supporting players, not to mention apple products already supports it & we have higher chances of mass adoption.
We know there are better formats than MP3 today but getting mass adoption is difficult. Open source ALAC will give birth to new 3rd party supporting players, not to mention apple products already supports it & we have higher chances of mass adoption.
No, AAC was a successor to MP3, about a decade ago. This is a lossless format, so not really suitable for the same roles.
It doesn't make sense to use ALAC on mobile players. It's lossless so the file size is huge — you can't tell the difference between an ALAC file and whatever is sold in the iTunes store on a mobile device. Especially when the storage space is so little.
If you put this together with the rumours of an AppleTV there could be something very special here, especially if they are pre-emtively paving the way for open-source, 3rd party developers.