6 ms·

ALAC is a free codec since 2011.

shmerl 10y ago
Since they made it themselves, they overlooked their usual negativity. But of course, they can't support FLAC (which was released in 2001) because NIH and because Apple.
- sjwright 10y ago
  Of course what? I don't get what you're trying to imply. Are you suggesting that inventing redundant incompatible codecs for the sake of it is de rigueur for Apple? Because I can't think of another example. As far as I can tell, the opposite is overwhelmingly true. Apple has invented a handful of codecs and container formats in its time (I can think of MOV, ProRes, Pixlet and a few ancient/esoteric Quicktime codecs) but they all served a distinct purpose not sufficiently catered for by their contemporaries. I'm willing to believe Apple when they say there was an engineering reason why they created ALAC. Perhaps an optimised implementation (not the reference implementation) may have offered some performance/battery life advantage on certain hardware. We don't know. And it doesn't matter much.
  - LeoPanthera 10y ago
    I don't have a handy source, but Apple claimed that they made ALAC because FLAC couldn't be decoded on an iPod in a power efficient way.
  - shmerl 10y ago
    > And it doesn't matter much. Yes, it doesn't because whatever reason they had then, they can't use it not to support FLAC today. Today it's clearly their arrogant NIH attitude.
    - sjwright 10y ago
      > clearly their arrogant NIH attitude Sure. (Except the opposite is almost always true.)
      - shmerl 10y ago
        I thought Apple are notorious for NIH, and looking down at interoperability in general. I surely didn't notice that the opposite is almost always true.
        sjwright 10y ago
        Can you cite any examples of where Apple has eschewed standards or interoperability without a good technical reason? I suspect anything you list will be either: • No interoperable standards were available at the time; • Distinctly better than / more capable than contemporary interoperable standards; • Maintaining a legacy decision made for one of the above reasons.
        shmerl 10y ago
        Practically everywhere. From USB in hardware to touch events, WebRTC and MSE in the browser. Anyway, no interoperable standards were available at the time doesn't excuse them not adding these standards when they become available. Maintaining a legacy decision made for one of the above reasons is exactly NIH and attempt to sabotage interoperability.
        sjwright 10y ago
        USB? You're not even being serious.
beedogs 10y ago
There really isn't much on iTunes in lossless, though. At least, there never seems to be when I want to buy something.
- shmerl 10y ago
  Yeah, I'm not using iTunes though. There is really no reason whatsoever not to provide lossless in digital form, especially since CDs did that for a long time in physical medium. Bandcamp always provides FLAC. That's where I buy music mostly.

Since they made it themselves, they overlooked their usual negativity. But of course, they can't support FLAC (which was released in 2001) because NIH and because Apple.

sjwright 10y ago
Of course what? I don't get what you're trying to imply. Are you suggesting that inventing redundant incompatible codecs for the sake of it is de rigueur for Apple? Because I can't think of another example. As far as I can tell, the opposite is overwhelmingly true. Apple has invented a handful of codecs and container formats in its time (I can think of MOV, ProRes, Pixlet and a few ancient/esoteric Quicktime codecs) but they all served a distinct purpose not sufficiently catered for by their contemporaries. I'm willing to believe Apple when they say there was an engineering reason why they created ALAC. Perhaps an optimised implementation (not the reference implementation) may have offered some performance/battery life advantage on certain hardware. We don't know. And it doesn't matter much.
- LeoPanthera 10y ago
  I don't have a handy source, but Apple claimed that they made ALAC because FLAC couldn't be decoded on an iPod in a power efficient way.
- shmerl 10y ago
  > And it doesn't matter much. Yes, it doesn't because whatever reason they had then, they can't use it not to support FLAC today. Today it's clearly their arrogant NIH attitude.
  - sjwright 10y ago
    > clearly their arrogant NIH attitude Sure. (Except the opposite is almost always true.)
    - shmerl 10y ago
      I thought Apple are notorious for NIH, and looking down at interoperability in general. I surely didn't notice that the opposite is almost always true.
      - sjwright 10y ago
        Can you cite any examples of where Apple has eschewed standards or interoperability without a good technical reason? I suspect anything you list will be either: • No interoperable standards were available at the time; • Distinctly better than / more capable than contemporary interoperable standards; • Maintaining a legacy decision made for one of the above reasons.
        shmerl 10y ago
        Practically everywhere. From USB in hardware to touch events, WebRTC and MSE in the browser. Anyway, no interoperable standards were available at the time doesn't excuse them not adding these standards when they become available. Maintaining a legacy decision made for one of the above reasons is exactly NIH and attempt to sabotage interoperability.
        sjwright 10y ago
        USB? You're not even being serious.

beedogs 10y ago

There really isn't much on iTunes in lossless, though. At least, there never seems to be when I want to buy something.

shmerl 10y ago
Yeah, I'm not using iTunes though. There is really no reason whatsoever not to provide lossless in digital form, especially since CDs did that for a long time in physical medium. Bandcamp always provides FLAC. That's where I buy music mostly.