Topic: ALAC Now Open Source

[OFOTD]

Some formats offer features that I'd never use (ridiculously high sample rate format, but depth or number of channels, for instance)

scroll down to "Technical Details of Lossless Audio Compression Formats"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_audio_codecs#Technical_details

From the wikipedia page only, the difference seems negligible between ALAC and FLAC with the primary difference of the wikipedia link being FLAC's ability to handle 8bit audio as well as a higher sample rate.    Looking further into the two formats the power consumption comment from an earlier post is just rubbish.  Additionally FLAC outperforms ALAC both in encoding and decoding speeds.  FLAC also provides error handling of which ALAC appears to not have.   FLAC supports a wider range of tags while ALAC appears locked into QT tags.   FLAC has embedded MD5 hashes for integrity checking and supports embedded cue sheets.  ALAC does not.

The greater question is why?   Why push a product that technically is redundant.  What motivation does a company have to use and require a redundant proprietary codec?   You guessed it, the almighty $$$     If you want ALAC files you have to get them through iTunes.   Sony did the same with ATRAC.  Want an ATRAC minidisc?  Sony is getting a cut.  And history shows that ATRAC was not in any way a superior or friendly codec.   How soon before we have GLAC from Google?

Imagine how much easier the path to high quality audio for the masses would be if we were able to cut out alot of of the redundant codecs?   ALAC, OGG, WMAL, APE.   Those formats should have gone the way of SHN and just all but disappear.  Look at what the pseudo-standarization of mp3 did.   It allowed at the time a codec with many distribution similarities to FLAC today to become a household term.   When the iPod came out they supported multiple formats.  With the advent of the iTunes Store now you can only get AAC.  Fuck me.  Luckily they still allow you to import mp3's.  Now to listen to the music I pay for I have to buy a second copy in a different format if I want to take it anywhere else because only the iPod plays AAC files.   I fail to see where the betterment for the consumer lies there.

Then again with ALAC I realize what the truth is.  Apple needs to dominate the revenue stream and ALAC allows that to happen, same with Microsoft and WMAL.   In the end we all lose out because these are all just containers of the same ones and zeros but someone letting the consumer listen to the music they paid for only on devices the the manufacturer deems appropiate again just sucks. 

[Fried Chicken Boy]

The other alternative I have discovered is the FLAC player app: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/flac-player/id390532592?mt=8.

It's nice that it works but I find it ridiculous that you have to pay to be able to play a music file using a free and open-source music codec on any media player.

[scb]

What motivation does a company have to use and require a redundant proprietary codec?   You guessed it, the almighty $$$     If you want ALAC files you have to get them through iTunes.

Huh? I would think the first motivation to use their own codec was simply "we don't want to rely on anyone else for codec support or updates."  As far as I know, Apple has never sold anything in Apple Lossless format.

Also, AAC is an ISO standard.  It's not just an iTunes or Quicktime thing.  Maybe if flac was an ISO standard, they'd have supported that a long time ago.  Same goes with ogg, etc. 

[OFOTD]

Thinking that they are using AAC because its a standard is a bit shortsighted.  Same with WMA.  Both are DRM-able containers.  I fail to see a reason for either of those codecs other that for the DRM attached to them.   

Look I am not trying to turn this into a brand war.   I could give two shits if ALAC was from Apple, Microsoft or Starbucks.  In the end it is a redundant lossless container that is used to force the format on customers of certain products with no real reason other than $$$.   While Apple may not currently sell ALAC files doesn't mean they won't and doesn't mean that that format and the way Apple uses it is consumer friendly.  Because its not.     

[hi and lo]

Well.. we all know the greatest thing about standards is that there are so many of them! 

[scb]

Thinking that they are using AAC because its a standard is a bit shortsighted.  Same with WMA.  Both are DRM-able containers.  I fail to see a reason for either of those codecs other that for the DRM attached to them.   

AAC sounds better than mp3

Look I am not trying to turn this into a brand war.   I could give two shits if ALAC was from Apple, Microsoft or Starbucks.  In the end it is a redundant lossless container that is used to force the format on customers of certain products with no real reason other than $$$.   While Apple may not currently sell ALAC files doesn't mean they won't and doesn't mean that that format and the way Apple uses it is consumer friendly.  Because its not.     

Again, if there was a standardized lossless format, maybe Apple would have used that.  Again, they haven't made a dime off of Apple Lossless.  It's not just a format they've added as an option in their players to lock consumers in.  iTunes has been using it to stream music (now called airplay) to Apple TVs and Airport Express units for years.  They probably used it because they wanted to control their own non-standard format instead of relying on someone else for another non-standard format.  You might think that choice is dumb, but I think that's all there is to it. I'm not sure why that makes it about money. 

[hi and lo]

Thinking that they are using AAC because its a standard is a bit shortsighted.  Same with WMA.  Both are DRM-able containers.  I fail to see a reason for either of those codecs other that for the DRM attached to them.   

AAC sounds better than mp3

Look I am not trying to turn this into a brand war.   I could give two shits if ALAC was from Apple, Microsoft or Starbucks.  In the end it is a redundant lossless container that is used to force the format on customers of certain products with no real reason other than $$$.   While Apple may not currently sell ALAC files doesn't mean they won't and doesn't mean that that format and the way Apple uses it is consumer friendly.  Because its not.     

Again, if there was a standardized lossless format, maybe Apple would have used that.  Again, they haven't made a dime off of Apple Lossless.  It's not just a format they've added as an option in their players to lock consumers in.  iTunes has been using it to stream music (now called airplay) to Apple TVs and Airport Express units for years.  They probably used it because they wanted to control their own non-standard format instead of relying on someone else for another non-standard format.  You might think that choice is dumb, but I think that's all there is to it. I'm not sure why that makes it about money.

I don't disagree with you about stability reasons for Apple to use ALAC for their products over FLAC, but when they've refused to support an extremely stable and popular format it makes one question their motives. It could have been easy to support FLAC years ago (and remains as easy today), yet they still refuse. FLAC is not some flash in the pan codec and supporting it would bring minimal, if any, risk and probably a very low development cost.

[scb]

I don't disagree with you about stability reasons for Apple to use ALAC for their products over FLAC, but when they've refused to support an extremely stable and popular format it makes one question their motives. It could have been easy to support FLAC years ago (and remains as easy today), yet they still refuse. FLAC is not some flash in the pan codec and supporting it would bring minimal, if any, risk and probably a very low development cost.

I don't disagree that they could have supported flac very easily and that there's no real reason not to.  But it is pretty consistent with Apple's format decisions over the years.  No native ogg, divx, wma, flac, real player, etc.  They support standardized formats or they create their own.  So while I may not like it, I don't really expect them to do anything else since that's what they've been doing for years.

[rastasean]

I don't disagree with you about stability reasons for Apple to use ALAC for their products over FLAC, but when they've refused to support an extremely stable and popular format it makes one question their motives. It could have been easy to support FLAC years ago (and remains as easy today), yet they still refuse. FLAC is not some flash in the pan codec and supporting it would bring minimal, if any, risk and probably a very low development cost.

I don't disagree that they could have supported flac very easily and that there's no real reason not to.  But it is pretty consistent with Apple's format decisions over the years.  No native ogg, divx, wma, flac, real player, etc.  They support standardized formats or they create their own.  So while I may not like it, I don't really expect them to do anything else since that's what they've been doing for years.

Consistent not to support a codec that is open source and easy to use? Hell it is possible if apple supported FLAC,  we could have a new version and FLAC lovers would be pleased. Standards would not change the way apple handles FLAC. Perhaps one reason they made this (alac) open source was to see if fewer people would jailbreak their phone and use this silly format. Open source generally means different developers will work on the project and make it better and/or support in ways not possible before. Does anybody foresee developers doing that over this new change by making this open source or will the use of flac continue to rise? Will bands now also release ALAC recordings alongside FLAC?

[scb]

Consistent not to support a codec that is open source and easy to use?

Actually, yes.  That's the way they've been doing it. 

[hi and lo]

Well... it is Apple. It's not like they've ever been a company to adhere to industry standards. God knows it would kill them to have just used mini usb rather than their ridiculous ipod connector.

[rastasean]

Well... it is Apple. It's not like they've ever been a company to adhere to industry standards. God knows it would kill them to have just used mini usb rather than their ridiculous ipod connector.

oh, yeah speaking of proprietary... whytf do the laptops not use a standard DVI video input on their laptops? IF there were no third party making these connections, this would be called vendor lock in, but instead we can call it apple ripping off the customer by providing an official apple $30 display port adapter and not telling the customer about the $6 alternative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Display_Connector
The Apple Display Connector (ADC) is a proprietary modification of the DVI connector that combines analog and digital video signals, USB, and power all in one cable. Apple used ADC for its LCD-based Apple Cinema Displays and their final CRT displays, before deciding to use standard DVI connectors on later models.
First implemented in the July 2000 Power Mac G4 and G4 Cube, ADC disappeared from displays in June 2004 when Apple introduced the aluminum-clad 20", 23", and 30" Apple Cinema Displays, which feature separate DVI, USB and FireWire connectors, and their own power supplies. The ADC was still standard on the Power Mac G5 until April 2005, when new models meant the only remaining Apple product with an ADC interface was the single processor Power Mac G5 introduced in October 2004. This single processor Power Mac G5 was discontinued soon after in June 2005.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface
The Digital Visual Interface (DVI) is a video interface standard covering the transmission of video between a source device (such as a personal computer) and a display device.

emphasis mine.

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB570Z/A?fnode=MTY1NDA5OQ

[Todd R]

Why push a product that technically is redundant. 

Yep, having choice in America is stupid.  Thats it, from now on there shall be no car companies but Ford.  In the grand scheme of things all other companies are technically redundant, no need for them. 

Sorry, but i dont want to rockbox my ipod, and last i knew they had no rockbox for my model anyway. and I don't have an iphone.  But i do want to stream music to my playback system using Airplay to an Apple Airport express, and control my music remotely using an ipad.  All this is done seemlessly with itunes, which doesn't support flac, at least not that I'm aware of for the application above.

So ALAC is a product available to me, and I'd like to use it.  You can feel free to use Flac, and if therenis no more room in your worldview to share music using any other codec than Flac, then I'll probably just stop sharing music.  No skin off my back, I've got a taping rig.

I will never understand why the powers that be always want to make it more difficult for tapers to share music.  Personally though, I've has about enough.  I'm going to share it on my terms in a way that suits how i want to organize my life, or not at all.

[scb]

oh, yeah speaking of proprietary... whytf do the laptops not use a standard DVI video input on their laptops? IF there were no third party making these connections, this would be called vendor lock in, but instead we can call it apple ripping off the customer by providing an official apple $30 display port adapter and not telling the customer about the $6 alternative.

Displayport is a standard, supporting audio as well as video, designed to replace DVI and VGA.

Alos, I'm sure Dell offers video adapters.  Do they tell their customers that Monoprice will almost always have much cheaper prices? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Display_Connector
The Apple Display Connector (ADC) is a proprietary modification of the DVI connector that combines analog and digital video signals...

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface
The Digital Visual Interface (DVI) is a video interface standard covering the transmission of video between a source device (such as a personal computer) and a display device.

emphasis mine.

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB570Z/A?fnode=MTY1NDA5OQ

When you copied and pasted from wikipedia, you failed to include the whole sentence about adc:

The Apple Display Connector (ADC) is a proprietary modification of the DVI connector that combines analog and digital video signals, USB, and power all in one cable

That answers your question.  They didn't just use a proprietary modification of the cable for video.  The combined video, power and usb into 1 cable.  It never caught on and was a pain in the ass, but there was some reason for it other than "hey, lets design a connector to piss people off"

 

[rastasean]

Corrected. ^^

So if Apple can make something useful they are problem solvers even if their solution is proprietary.

This discussion,  with the help of primarily me, has turned into a defense of apple for scb and that was not the purpose of this thread. Apple will do what they want and this thread won't change their mind with the way they design their products.

Continue on...