6 ms·

When our ears evolve to support such formats.

shmerl 11y ago
You don't need FLAC for listening. It's needed for storing master copies and encoding to other codecs when you need to. Same feature that audio CDs always offered, and which was gutted by services which only provide some lossy codec as an option.
- izzydata 11y ago
  Isn't google play music a streaming service though? It really doesn't seem like the place for that.
  - shmerl 11y ago
    What stops them from offering an option to get files as well? I always prefer to have my music backed up and available on my devices without relying on any cloud services. I view streaming as a convenience, and not as an approach that requires one to forgo having a DRM-free backup.
    - untog 11y ago
      What stops them from offering an option to get files as well? Well, they don't want you to be able to permanently download the files. If you cancel your subscription you'll lose whatever you have downloaded. Offering you a file you can easily convert into a different format would break that pretty comprehensively.
      - shmerl 11y ago
        > Well, they don't want you to be able to permanently download the files. And why is that exactly? > Well, they don't want you to be able to permanently download the files. Not sure what they gain by it. I prefer to buy and keep what I bought. Not really interested in renting digital goods. That's why I'm not using Google Play and similar stores for music. Bandcamp offers DRM-free music in FLAC for example, and there once you buy it - you keep it.
        untog 11y ago
        And why is that exactly? Because it is a streaming service, not a download service. I prefer to buy and keep what I bought. Not really interested in renting digital goods. Then don't use a streaming service.
        shmerl 11y ago
        > Because it is a streaming service, not a download service. Why can't they offer both? For instance Bandcamp does. You can stream music if you don't want to download it, but you can as well back up your DRM-free copy which I always do. I only pay for music when such option is available. > Then don't use a streaming service. I see no correlation between streaming (convenience) and forbidding one to download what is streamed (DRM). I'm OK with first, but I'm not OK with second.
        untog 11y ago
        I see no correlation between streaming (convenience) and forbidding one to download what is streamed (DRM). But streaming isn't convenience, it's the business model. At no point do you buy any albums, you merely rent them while you listen to them. Otherwise you could subscribe for one month and download every single piece of music you can within 30 days, then cancel. That's pretty obviously not how the system is designed to be used.
        shmerl 11y ago
        > But streaming isn't convenience For me it's convenience. > At no point do you buy any albums, you merely rent them while you listen to them. I don't really understand the concept of renting for digital goods. Since they can be duplicated practically at no cost, there is no practical reason to "take and return" approach (i.e. rent). Keeping your digital copy does not reduce any value for the service. > Otherwise you could subscribe for one month and download every single piece of music you can within 30 days, then cancel That can easily be prevented by saying that you can't exceed certain limit of downloads for such service if you only pay per month, and not for each copy. But again, I see no reason why they can't offer an option to pay per copy and let you keep one.

You don't need FLAC for listening. It's needed for storing master copies and encoding to other codecs when you need to. Same feature that audio CDs always offered, and which was gutted by services which only provide some lossy codec as an option.

izzydata 11y ago
Isn't google play music a streaming service though? It really doesn't seem like the place for that.
- shmerl 11y ago
  What stops them from offering an option to get files as well? I always prefer to have my music backed up and available on my devices without relying on any cloud services. I view streaming as a convenience, and not as an approach that requires one to forgo having a DRM-free backup.
  - untog 11y ago
    What stops them from offering an option to get files as well? Well, they don't want you to be able to permanently download the files. If you cancel your subscription you'll lose whatever you have downloaded. Offering you a file you can easily convert into a different format would break that pretty comprehensively.
    - shmerl 11y ago
      > Well, they don't want you to be able to permanently download the files. And why is that exactly? > Well, they don't want you to be able to permanently download the files. Not sure what they gain by it. I prefer to buy and keep what I bought. Not really interested in renting digital goods. That's why I'm not using Google Play and similar stores for music. Bandcamp offers DRM-free music in FLAC for example, and there once you buy it - you keep it.
      - untog 11y ago
        And why is that exactly? Because it is a streaming service, not a download service. I prefer to buy and keep what I bought. Not really interested in renting digital goods. Then don't use a streaming service.
        shmerl 11y ago
        > Because it is a streaming service, not a download service. Why can't they offer both? For instance Bandcamp does. You can stream music if you don't want to download it, but you can as well back up your DRM-free copy which I always do. I only pay for music when such option is available. > Then don't use a streaming service. I see no correlation between streaming (convenience) and forbidding one to download what is streamed (DRM). I'm OK with first, but I'm not OK with second.
        untog 11y ago
        I see no correlation between streaming (convenience) and forbidding one to download what is streamed (DRM). But streaming isn't convenience, it's the business model. At no point do you buy any albums, you merely rent them while you listen to them. Otherwise you could subscribe for one month and download every single piece of music you can within 30 days, then cancel. That's pretty obviously not how the system is designed to be used.
        shmerl 11y ago
        > But streaming isn't convenience For me it's convenience. > At no point do you buy any albums, you merely rent them while you listen to them. I don't really understand the concept of renting for digital goods. Since they can be duplicated practically at no cost, there is no practical reason to "take and return" approach (i.e. rent). Keeping your digital copy does not reduce any value for the service. > Otherwise you could subscribe for one month and download every single piece of music you can within 30 days, then cancel That can easily be prevented by saying that you can't exceed certain limit of downloads for such service if you only pay per month, and not for each copy. But again, I see no reason why they can't offer an option to pay per copy and let you keep one.