4 ms·

As mentioned above, ALAC is an open source format, which has all benefits as other open source format e.g. FLAC.

by yingbo 5y ago

Forbo 5y ago
> all benefits as other open source format e.g. FLAC. Except adoption. FLAC is much more widely supported, so why opt for ALAC?
- jolux 5y ago
  Because iTunes doesn't support FLAC.
- yingbo 5y ago
  ALAC is open source and you can feel free to contribute to it or "adopt"/use it.Apple has been using ALAC for a long time on difference devices and platform. Moreover, according to Wikipedia, "compared to some other formats, it is not as difficult to decode, making it practical for a limited-power device, such as older iOS devices". "Adoption" is not a reason, from my point of view, ask a company/app abandon an open sourced format to use another one.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  That seems to imply that there should only ever be one format for any particular application.
lozf 5y ago
Apple created ALAC as a closed source project after FLAC had already been released as Open Source. They subsequently changed ALACs license to Open Source -- presumably to take advantage of further development from the community.
whyoh 5y ago
>ALAC is an open source format, which has all benefits as other open source format e.g. FLAC. Technically, it's still not as good. For instance, FLAC includes a checksum of the audio data, whereas ALAC doesn't. FLAC also compresses a bit better (=smaller file sizes) and decodes a bit faster (=lower CPU/battery usage).
eikenberry 5y ago
The main benefit of lossless is the ability to convert to other formats, including other lossless formats that might have better longevity. So as long as you can convert it to FLAC once downloaded it is doing its job.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Yes exactly. And likewise with trying to avoid DRM via some sort of loopback device that is now lossless too. I can't information theoretically argue for this. But I can algebraically argue lossless conversion rather than storage is great, and this seems great for the war against bad IP legal regimes. Too bad they are probably only doing this because they feel that with streaming's dominance, the IP regime is not at risk.

As mentioned above, ALAC is an open source format, which has all benefits as other open source format e.g. FLAC.

by yingbo 5y ago

As mentioned above, ALAC is an open source format, which has all benefits as other open source format e.g. FLAC.

> all benefits as other open source format e.g. FLAC. Except adoption. FLAC is much more widely supported, so why opt for ALAC?

jolux 5y ago
Because iTunes doesn't support FLAC.
yingbo 5y ago
ALAC is open source and you can feel free to contribute to it or "adopt"/use it.Apple has been using ALAC for a long time on difference devices and platform. Moreover, according to Wikipedia, "compared to some other formats, it is not as difficult to decode, making it practical for a limited-power device, such as older iOS devices". "Adoption" is not a reason, from my point of view, ask a company/app abandon an open sourced format to use another one.
tshaddox 5y ago
That seems to imply that there should only ever be one format for any particular application.

lozf 5y ago

Apple created ALAC as a closed source project after FLAC had already been released as Open Source. They subsequently changed ALACs license to Open Source -- presumably to take advantage of further development from the community.

whyoh 5y ago

>ALAC is an open source format, which has all benefits as other open source format e.g. FLAC. Technically, it's still not as good. For instance, FLAC includes a checksum of the audio data, whereas ALAC doesn't. FLAC also compresses a bit better (=smaller file sizes) and decodes a bit faster (=lower CPU/battery usage).

eikenberry 5y ago

The main benefit of lossless is the ability to convert to other formats, including other lossless formats that might have better longevity. So as long as you can convert it to FLAC once downloaded it is doing its job.

Ericson2314 5y ago
Yes exactly. And likewise with trying to avoid DRM via some sort of loopback device that is now lossless too. I can't information theoretically argue for this. But I can algebraically argue lossless conversion rather than storage is great, and this seems great for the war against bad IP legal regimes. Too bad they are probably only doing this because they feel that with streaming's dominance, the IP regime is not at risk.