Live data from Hacker News

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

alac.macosforge.org

151–160 of 182 posts

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

#151
post #147
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 les…

> 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.

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...

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

#152
post #145
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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

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

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eve…

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.

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

#154
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.

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. :(

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

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#156
post #39

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 ReplayGa…

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.

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

#157
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

It wasn't originally developed for direct consumer use at all — it's debut was in the protocol used by Airport Express streaming.

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

#158
post #146
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

> 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/

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

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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…

> 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.

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

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Becau…

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 happ…

> 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.

Post reply on HN