3 ms·

Maybe I was reading it all too quickly but they never seem to outline the format they'll actually use for the lossless songs. Anyone happen to know? Edit: Seem

Maybe I was reading it all too quickly but they never seem to outline the format they'll actually use for the lossless songs. Anyone happen to know? Edit: Seems they are using their own format ALAC, sad but not surprising

imeron 5y ago
It's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless
Willamin 5y ago
> Apple uses ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec)
ripdog 5y ago
>Apple Music will also make its catalog of more than 75 million songs available in Lossless Audio. Apple uses ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) to preserve every single bit of the original audio file.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hundchenkatze 5y ago
From the article: > Apple Music will also make its catalog of more than 75 million songs available in Lossless Audio. Apple uses ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) to preserve every single bit of the original audio file. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless
treesknees 5y ago
>Apple uses ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) to preserve every single bit of the original audio file
kall 5y ago
It‘s ALAC, but more interestingly with optional ridiculously high sample rate of 196 kHz. I‘m not sure if the setting for that is up to the listener or up to the publisher.
bidirectional 5y ago
Why is it sad? It's a streaming service, I'm not sure why format would matter.
- capableweb 5y ago
  Apple now optimize their hardware for playback of ALAC. If they went with FLAC, they would probably optimize their hardware for FLAC instead, meaning others could also take advantage of their optimizations. But that's exactly why they went with their own format, so they can claim it's more battery efficient or something, compared to others who use open standards but the hardware is not optimized for it.
websites420 5y ago
It’s sad that Apple is using an open source codec for their streaming service? Why?
- capableweb 5y ago
  No, it's not sad that Apple is using an open source codec, it's sad that Apple specifically created ALAC instead of just using FLAC that already exists. Instead of building hardware that can efficiently play FLAC, they created their own format in order to promote harder lock in to their walled garden. Fine, probably makes business-sense, but as someone who was brought up with the mindset of an open internet and web, it's sad to see Apple continue to fight against open standards. Friendly reminder of the site guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Specifically, I never said I'm sad that Apple is using an open source codec. I specifically said I'm sad that they are using ALAC instead of the already existing open standards.
  - websites420 5y ago
    >Instead of building hardware that can efficiently play FLAC, they created their own format in order to promote harder lock in to their walled garden. I don't follow how ALAC promotes a harder lock into their walled garden. If you have a file in ALAC (not a streaming instance, an actual file), it can be converted losslessly to FLAC. Moreover, ALAC has been open source for almost 10 years. Android plays it fine, as does linux. iPhones have supported FLAC natively since 2017. There's apps that play back FLAC files in the App Store. So, overall, I don't see what's sad about it. Apple Music is a subscription service that's streaming DRM protected music. Whether it's FLAC or ALAC doesn't make a difference to the user.
    - capableweb 5y ago
      Let's say you have two file formats. One is a open standard, the other one is not (but has it's specifications published, that's something at least). Both formats have the same purpose and basically works the same way. One has been around for almost 20 years, the other for around 9 years (but specification not open until 2 years after release). Instead of going for the one with the open standard, that does the same thing, Apple prefers to invent their own format, that they can change at their own whim and that they now can optimize their hardware for, so they get an advantage no one else can use. You don't see anything bad in this? Are you really arguing against open standards? I thought we went through this with the internet and the web already, and open standards is something people generally prefer. It just ends up better for everyone, instead of companies inventing their own formats time and time again, especially when a format that suits their needs already exists...

imeron 5y ago

It's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless

Willamin 5y ago

> Apple uses ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec)

ripdog 5y ago

>Apple Music will also make its catalog of more than 75 million songs available in Lossless Audio. Apple uses ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) to preserve every single bit of the original audio file.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hundchenkatze 5y ago

From the article: > Apple Music will also make its catalog of more than 75 million songs available in Lossless Audio. Apple uses ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) to preserve every single bit of the original audio file. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless

treesknees 5y ago

>Apple uses ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) to preserve every single bit of the original audio file

kall 5y ago

It‘s ALAC, but more interestingly with optional ridiculously high sample rate of 196 kHz. I‘m not sure if the setting for that is up to the listener or up to the publisher.

bidirectional 5y ago

Why is it sad? It's a streaming service, I'm not sure why format would matter.

capableweb 5y ago
Apple now optimize their hardware for playback of ALAC. If they went with FLAC, they would probably optimize their hardware for FLAC instead, meaning others could also take advantage of their optimizations. But that's exactly why they went with their own format, so they can claim it's more battery efficient or something, compared to others who use open standards but the hardware is not optimized for it.

websites420 5y ago

It’s sad that Apple is using an open source codec for their streaming service? Why?

capableweb 5y ago
No, it's not sad that Apple is using an open source codec, it's sad that Apple specifically created ALAC instead of just using FLAC that already exists. Instead of building hardware that can efficiently play FLAC, they created their own format in order to promote harder lock in to their walled garden. Fine, probably makes business-sense, but as someone who was brought up with the mindset of an open internet and web, it's sad to see Apple continue to fight against open standards. Friendly reminder of the site guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Specifically, I never said I'm sad that Apple is using an open source codec. I specifically said I'm sad that they are using ALAC instead of the already existing open standards.
- websites420 5y ago
  >Instead of building hardware that can efficiently play FLAC, they created their own format in order to promote harder lock in to their walled garden. I don't follow how ALAC promotes a harder lock into their walled garden. If you have a file in ALAC (not a streaming instance, an actual file), it can be converted losslessly to FLAC. Moreover, ALAC has been open source for almost 10 years. Android plays it fine, as does linux. iPhones have supported FLAC natively since 2017. There's apps that play back FLAC files in the App Store. So, overall, I don't see what's sad about it. Apple Music is a subscription service that's streaming DRM protected music. Whether it's FLAC or ALAC doesn't make a difference to the user.
  - capableweb 5y ago
    Let's say you have two file formats. One is a open standard, the other one is not (but has it's specifications published, that's something at least). Both formats have the same purpose and basically works the same way. One has been around for almost 20 years, the other for around 9 years (but specification not open until 2 years after release). Instead of going for the one with the open standard, that does the same thing, Apple prefers to invent their own format, that they can change at their own whim and that they now can optimize their hardware for, so they get an advantage no one else can use. You don't see anything bad in this? Are you really arguing against open standards? I thought we went through this with the internet and the web already, and open standards is something people generally prefer. It just ends up better for everyone, instead of companies inventing their own formats time and time again, especially when a format that suits their needs already exists...