Live data from Hacker News

Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

alac.macosforge.org

131–140 of 182 posts

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#131
post #114
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

What term would prefer? Corrupt pricing?

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#133
post #116
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

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.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#134
post #112
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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/

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#135
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

Yeah, I was confused with the H.264 encoder (and the MP3 encoder). My mistake.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#136
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

It's not that obscure. You can buy Metallica and Beatles tracks in FLAC.

Most, if not all of the tracks on bandcamp.com are sold with a FLAC option.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#137
post #2

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...

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.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#138
post #124
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

The other factor is that the patents that serve as a disadvantage for MP3 will be expiring sometime around 2015-2018.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#139
All this talk about the world's top music player not supporting ... kind of blows my mind. I mean, after all, Steve Jobs did make the decision that the iOS platform would not allow 3rd party apps, right? ^_'

Do you'all SERIOUSLY use your iPhones with this crappy annoying built-in player that blocks you from adding any new songs if you are traveling and didn't throw your desktop in the trunk? (Let's say you just have your netbook)??? I use Capriccio. Flick of a switch and any new stuff I bought on the netbook can be ftped into the phone over the lan (or httpd). . . Mostly FLAC but occasionally some new Mp3's from emusic.com.

Re: Apple Lossless Audio Codec is now open source (Apache license)

#140
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.)

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.

Post reply on HN