Apple customers just seem to be the most defensive. As i've said on many occasions before I own several Apple products and as I've repeatedly said, the issues I have with ALAC are the same I have with others such as WMAL. You only get upset when the Apple component is talked about and only focus on it. Can't help you with that hang up.
I think you're only getting worked up about it because of the Apple component.
Apple is trying to force the format to people that own an Apple device free and clear. It's like Panasonic telling you that you can only watch NBC on their TV's because that's what Panasonic says is the best.
I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that 99.9% of ipod/iPhone owners have never heard of Apple Lossless, so I really don't know how that means Apple is forcing the format on people. Also, the format has been around for over 7 years. Why are you getting so worked up about it now?
No offense Scott but get real man and just own up to your Apple brand loyalty. Nothing wrong with it, Apple depends on it and it works for you but to deny that you and others have it then you're just fooling yourself or you think the rest of us are idiots. It's like when anything negative is said about Apple you take it personally like someone is taking a direct shot at you or your family. Like its a personal attack aimed squarely against you individually. It's not. It's a personal attack on one product of hundreds that they produce. That's all.
Again, tell me where there's blind Apple brand loyalty here, especially from me. The only things I've said in this thread are that I think Apple had reasons for making the Apple Lossless format that weren't just about making money, that I don't think it's the end of the world if there's another lossless format, and that
I don't even use the Apple Lossless format. Others in this thread have simply said that they don't think it's the end of the world that Apple Lossless exists. That's not blind loyalty. You're the only one really getting worked up over all of this
I have no doubt that folks ask for those other formats for support, guidance and help. I certainly have no doubts and much appreciation for your generous contributions over the last nine years. With that experience you should know that each one of the above codec's you listed is a technically superior codec to ALAC. That's just the truth. There is no question or doubt about that.
Well, if you want to get into it, I don't think it is the truth. Of course, in going into details here, you'll just call me an Apple fanboy, but I'm used to it. But I don't think Monkey's audio can support 96khz or above, and doesn't support more than 2 channels.
Also, since you're claiming only the technically superior FLAC should be used by all, you should note that technically TTA and Wavpack have better specs than FLAC since they support higher sample rates, bit depths and numbers of channels. So if you want to claim Apple Lossless is pointless because it's inferior, then technically you're preferred format (and mine) is also pointless and inferior.
Where things differ here is that
1. FLAC is the predominant lossless codec right now. Not the only lossless codec but the most widespread.
So what? Saying FLAC is the predominant lossless codec is like saying SACD was more popular than DVD-Audio. Most people have never heard of FLAC. I fail to see the harm in other formats existing that these same people also haven't heard of.
2. Apple is the leader in portable audio players sales right now in the US. More iPod's than Zune's, Nomad's, etc. So they have real power in pushing (or forcing depending on your outlook) formats. In this case with iOS they are pushing/forcing a redundant and comparatively inferior codec on its customers. Once again how is that good for the consumer?
It sounds like you might actually be ok with Apple not supporting FLAC if they also didn't support Apple Lossless. Am I correct? If that's the case, would you get this worked up if Apple still didn't support FLAC but decided to support Wavpack or Monkey's audio? Or would you just think "that's dumb" and move on?
Again, knowing Apple's history, they probably wrote their own codec for the same reason they do most things for themselves: they like to rely on as few 3rd parties as possible. When they started streaming music to Airport Express units, they had the option of streaming uncompressed data (pointless), lossy data (sounds worse) or lossless data. This was 2003/2004, when FLAC was still pretty new itself and unknown to pretty much everyone but people like us. Apple could have chosen FLAC or some other non-standard 3rd party format or they could have made their own and made sure it played nice with what they wanted to do. So they made their own codec for iTunes to stream to the airport express units and included it with Quicktime 6.5.1 in April of 2004. That means Apple Lossless has been around for over 7.5 years with most people having no idea it even exists. If Apple is pushing the format as hard as you say they are, they're doing a pretty horrible job at it.
3. If you were to take out the Apple development connection to ALAC entirely. Pretend IBM made it up for the sake of the discussion. Then compare it to the other offerings you support with your software and tell me why anyone would choose it? Because it plays on an IBM music player is a fair answer but wouldn't you just wonder why they just don't make it easy for the consumer and support what is the generally used and accepted lossless format in addition to it being free?
Whether IBM made it, Dell made it, Microsoft made it or you made it, I really wouldn't feel any differently than I do now. I would see it as another lossless format. That's it. I really wouldn't care any more or any less than I already do about Apple Lossless.
4. I find it silly that folks around here who are educated about audio and codecs would be more apt to defend these types of redundant codecs than they would be to say 'my audio player manufacturer is missing it here'. If Microsoft made it so that you could only use WMAL on a Windows machine/device there would be crosses burning and antitrust suits being filed. Apple in this case is given a pass. It's accepted because Apple said so. That does not make sense.
But Apple hasn't said you can't use FLAC on a Macintosh or an iOS device. They just don't have native support for it. Does Windows have native flac support? Do windows phones and zunes play flac out of the box? No.
Microsoft in thie case is given a pass. It's accepted because Microsoft said so. That does not make sense.5. The argument that you don't have to use it is just hollow. If you use the most popular portable audio player or the third most popular smart phone and want to listen to lossless files you have to use ALAC. Why should I be restricted on a device I own because a manufacturer is for lack of a better phrase being heavy handed?
If you want to use FLAC there are 3rd party solutions. This isn't any different from Windows Phone. You (and I) may not like this answer, but Apple isn't the only one giving this answer.
I would love to continue to debate the merits of audio codecs as I obviously have an interest and a bit of knowledge on them but if you can't be neutral based on facts and continue to feel like its a personal attack on you or your preferred technology company then discussion isn't what you want.
I never said anything was a personal attack. The only person doing any kinds of personal attacks here (once again) is you. I simply am not offended by a 7.5+ year audio codec becoming open-source and you're not going to convince me that I should be.