FLAC is honestly one of the happier OSS success stories.

That would definitely be better, but the fact is that they can't (reasonably) re-write all of the previous iDevice firmwares to support FLAC, so open sourcing ALAC benefits all of the users with those devices. If open source codecs is the route Apple is going down, then perhaps they will ad support for FLAC to new versions of iOS, but for everyone not using those versions, this would still help. Throwing weight behind FLAC is good, just throwing weight behind FLAC is slightly less good. All that said, using lossless codecs on an iPod, like you said, is a bit overkill.

What I think would really be nice is if Apple would open source the music database on the iPod -- not being able to load an iPod from Linux/not iTunes (easily) is much more of an issue for me than support for a lossless codec.

Other theories included better PPC support, and better designed to be decoded in low power hardware like the Airport Express.

To be honest some combination of NIH syndrome and residual squeamishness about using open source code seems far more likely.

Paul Graham (the creator of this site) commented on the App Store himself, and his words were not entirely of ignorant praise like yours are:

http://www.paulgraham.com/apple.html

The scarce thing is really your favorite band making a kickass song, investigative journalism instead of astroturfing and GRRM writing the next ASOIAF novel in less than five years.

Although this is besides the point, it is pretty easy to envision a moneyless post-scarcity society where such songs, novels, reports, and other forms of content are delivered to everyone free of charge:

http://adciv.org/

These "clubs" sell a high margin membership, and you get to buy low-margin toilet paper 50 rolls at a time.

Likewise, Apple sells digital media, which is a relatively low-margin business. But by doing so, they get you to buy high-margin hardware and services.

Two things strike me as astonishing. The first is that anyone remains unconvinced that vinyl has any redeeming technical aspects whatsoever, other than the touchy-feely emotional stuff, and self-deception.

The second is that the music you referenced is so unashamedly digital, that the notion of purchasing it on a vinyl record is like buying a copy of Angry Birds printed on tree bark.

A 256 kbps AAC file (as sold by iTunes) is so very nearly transparent, only a small fraction of 1 percent of people would be able to identify the vanishingly minute differences. The difference is so small, it would be comprehensively outweighed by meaningful factors such as your choice of speakers, the shape of your room, and the presence of any ambient noise.

Whereas vinyl has crackle (unless you're playing a pristine copy in a dust-free environment), clicks, pops, rumble, wow distortion, and intentionally limited dynamic and tonal range. Fidelity progressively reduces as you move to the inner grooves, and high frequencies are literally scratched away as the stylus scrapes past -- every time you play a vinyl, it will sound poorer than the last. You can mitigate some of these problems, but generally at great effort or expense.

Of course, to make that music useful, you'll need to rip it back into your computer. You'd have to be mentally ill to believe that a [Lossless > AAC-256 > Lossless] conversion is more detrimental than [Lossless > equalisation > analogue mastering > lathe cutting > vinyl stamping > stylus scraping > pre-amplification > ADC > Lossless].

You tend to not be able to use formats because hardly anyone used them in the past. MP3 is too popular for that to happen. (As is JPEG, PDF and probably AAC.)

(Also, given the less-than-subtle music you linked to, I doubt that it really matters.)

You take the 256kbps high quality AAC, and you time stretch and repitch it by a few percent (to match it up with the track you're mixing it into) and probably fiddle the equalizer a bit, to "drop the bass" :)

If you do that a few times, you're losing information, even on a lossless digital medium.

If you use even high quality audiocodecs in between, it will sound like crap. And not the kind of super subtle near-impossible to hear difference between lossless and 256kbps AAC crap, but actual crap. I know this from experience myself as well. The sound becomes really flat, hard to describe, but you notice it when you're playing one right next to another track that hasn't been through such a process. It's like you want to turn it up louder but it's already loud enough. Hard to describe, but it's a real problem if you're playing these mixes on high quality speakers in a club--suddenly the sound is not as crisp anymore, and the crowd notices it too.

If you want to make the analogy with JPEG, imagine re-encoding at 95% quality, but with a few percent scaling and a few degrees rotation in between, before saving again as 95% quality JPEG.

You do that twice, with a quality high res digital photograph, and you're going to wind up with a photo that looks pretty much like the original ... until you make a high res print of it (or zoom in on the screen). Edges that were crisp at first have gone fuzzy, and at places you can spot the typical blocking and ringing JPEG artefacts.

You'd probably get away with it, most of the time, too. But not always, and if you're a digital graphics professional, this is your craft, and the mark of a good craftsman is that they put in the work for the little details that you don't really notice, until they're not there, and how you tell you're holding a piece of quality work.

I do not need to google it, becauase i can hear it myself. Like i say, not subtle. I haven't got vinyls/rips of everything, but i can assure you it is not uncommon. Must i provide examples?

Destructive 'loudening' of music is not useful with vinyl music (IE. compressing the waveform 'up' does not make for a louder output, as what happens with the digital loudness wars-- thus is 'pointless'), because there is no 'reference point' (that is, you can't have a waveform offset, because the needle is already moving wherever to meet the waveform), you can only increase/decrease the dynamic range. Because of a greater difference in amplitude, it is easier to cut a record with a larger dynamic range.

I gotta say, I disagree with the guy below me being downvoted, because when I read this "troll" was the first thing that sprang to my mind as well.

I don't disagree with you on the matter that you can't tell the difference between quality lossy and lossless recordings, btw. As long as they're the end-product and not being used for further processing.

Which is one of the rare scenarios in which is actually does make sense to prefer a vinyl copy over a high quality lossy compressed file, if you can't find the lossless digital version.

No you won't be able to hear the difference in the version you bought, but it will make a difference if you intend to work with the data and transform it into something else, because then it is possible that sounds that were thrown away by the lossy codec because no human "golden ear" could hear them, contexts shift and they come into hearing ranges again. But the data is lost, so there's something missing instead.

With a digital lossless copy, or with vinyl, you know you're also getting the inaudible bits, even if you can't hear them.

And if you're just going to listen to the track, sure, get the quality lossy codec.

But if you're doing remixes, you're going to want the inaudible bits too, because you don't know if you'll need them or not.

Lossy compression is for end products, not half products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS)#Milestones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AppleAppStoreStatistics.pn...

And just because PG said something doesn't dispute the overwhelming success of the app store and the itunes store. There were just as allegedly "legendary" and allegedly "influential" (seriously, what influence and importance does PG really have outside of the smug cloud of valley startups? None to zero) people who said there will be a maximum of 5 to 6 computers around the world and the internet is completely useless. So, again, this does not an argument or a point make. The numbers prove it wrong. Just because someone says it has no relevance. Useless ad verecundiam right here.

If anything, Apple was incredibly smart about how and where they put the shackles on so most customers will happily accept the platform as it is. Ultimately, most people just care about the fact that it works and Apple continues to deliver on that front.

And how is Apple dominating my computer? I have no clue what you mean.

And at last Apple's goal is to deliver easily usable, reliable and sexy hardware and software and they are forerunners in quite a few markets they created on their own. See, that marketing-babble works even for Microsoft and Oracle too.

Google's goal is to get as much diverse data from you as possible and legal. Stop cutting a multi-billion dollar multi-national mega-corp all that slack all the time - especially considering how much flak they were and are getting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google

And on top of that they were pretty much the only search engine for the web for a long time, so much so that "google" has become synonymous with internet for the average user. At least now there is a bit of competition from wolfram and microsoft and DDG is trying real hard. But google is clearly dominating this market and also the online ads business. Apple can only dream of coming close to this amount of market penetration.

> No I haven't because I made it clear that first and foremost I want _personal control_ over my own computer. I don't see why you don't understand this principle.

Because control of your computer includes control over your data. And you were saying you can allegedly NOT use any proprietary systems because of your work but then it is ok to use completely proprietary services way out of your control? Well look at that, actually it is just your own personal preferences which makes more sense since if you were really legally required, you couldn't use google or any other cloud services.

> Getting the tyrants at Apple

Again, you are mis-using words. Tyranny means they are alone and have all the control and are enforcing it brutally... this is complete, utter bullshit. There are lots of alternatives and on top of that, all this DRM and control for the music was a requirement from the RIAA. They did not understand this new way of selling music online and wanted as much control as possible. And since Apple made that compromise, they were the first ones to provide a legal and usable way of selling music online. And by doing this, they have shown how successful this way of distributing is thus finally they were allowed to drop the DRM. Do you really think Apple cares about controlling whether you distribute your music to 2 or 5 end systems? Then you are even more naive than I have thought.

> It is pretty convenient for them to use (steal?) source code from BSD

Waaaaaait a minute, back up. Drop the fundamentalist brain-wash bullshit-talk. BSD has always been released under the BSD license and there are many, many, MANY implementations and re-uses of their code, both open and closed, private, educational and commercial and not a single one has been "stolen".

It is perfectly legal and encouraged to use the code any way you want and why should Apple go with other sources that ultimately force them to do things hardly any company does with profitable products? Anyone who ever contributed to BSD licensed software is aware of this and it has worked perfectly fine for decades. Nothing was stolen here. It is perfectly alright for a company to choose whichever software and license agreement they see fit. And there is hardly any commercial software released under the "viral" FSF licenses. And Apple has released a lot of components from their OS, again under a BSD style license. Nothing to see here.

> it won't be "good enough" until they adopt a business model that is not based upon dominating other people's computers.

See, here is the point: that is your borderline-religious opinion. Nobody really cares about this. if you don't like their product because it is not as open as you like then don't buy it. And if you don't like the price on a Lexus or Ferrari then don't buy one. Nothing to see here.

You have clearly made up your mind and are not interested in a discussion. You much rather poo-fling the one or two (out-dated) bits you can get a hold of. And it has got nothing to do with how the overwhelming majority of successful software and hardware companies work. Some are very open, some are completely closed. Luckily there are a lot of alternatives for everything. But your zealot-hatred for Apple is just hilarious considering how 5 to 10 years ago hardly ANYONE knew Apple let alone used any of their products and back in those dark ages there was nothing but Microsoft for the average end user. Apple has come a long way on their own and they have single-handedly created markets that did NOT exist before - like legally buying music and tv shows online. Like the iPad and like the iPhone. Yes there were those ridiculous windows ce "smartphones" before but Apple created the market for the modern smartphone and the oh-so-beloved "apps". And google was all too happy to follow, seeing the opportunity for more data and ads.

Any data I feed my mac, I can always export and take with me to any other platform... there is absolutely no DRM on my Mac keeping me from doing whatever I want.

Your demeanor is really cute and very much like the blind fanboys in the huge Linux vs. Windows flamewars back in the day... the 90s called, they want their zealots back.

And I dare you, you show me a single contribution you have ever made to Linux? Or free software? You show me a single instance where you actually looked at all that free software kernel code and helped make sure there wasn't anything fishy going on. Or are you just talking big about free software without ever having contributed hm?

This is pointless here since you make your own product choice and your own personal preferences to be something like a categorical imperative that you want to force on everyone despite the normative power of the factual.

Yes, the distortions and noise added by even the most pristine vinyl reproduction aren't subtle.

Over 25 years ago, in the mid 1980s, Apple introduced the Macintosh and Microsoft introduced Windows. Taken together, Apple/Microsoft came to dominate the entire computing industry and they have largely maintained that status up to the present day.

Well they may have switched around in cycles between one another, to the point that it may have seemed that "there was nothing but M$ for most computer users" taken together they still had complete control. The phrase "if you don't like it, don't use it" didn't make any sense, because there were simply were no free alternatives for people to turn to.

Selecting between Apple/M$ is not a worthwhile choice, since they both use exactly the same bad practices. They both profit off of closed and restrictive platforms, and they are both against software freedom.

It is only in the last three years that people begun to be granted some freedom from the tyrannies of Apple and Microsoft. This started in 2004, when Ubuntu was released, and then it continued when in 2008 Android was released. In the last three years these two systems have matured to the point that now finally users have the choice of living free of Apple/M$.

The transition to these free alternatives was partially fueled by the need to save money admist our financial crisis, but that alone hasn't really displaced the dominance of these entrenched tyrannies because as you personally mentioned, Linux may still only be 3% of all web client operating systems. This is why it is necessary to have people like me who continue to fight against Apple and Microsoft and develop free alternatives.

Google has been one of our greatest allies in this battle. Google is a major proponent of open platforms, because Google needs platforms like the web that are open to searching. Google has further assisted our cause through their active development of Chromium and Android. Furthermore, Google provides many unmatched intelligent services such as search, machine translation, and intelligent prediction to everyone free of charge, not unlike a public service.

> google does not provide any public infrastructure

The fire department doesn't provide any public infrastructure either. It provides a public service. This is not unlike how our good friends at Google provide public services such as search and machine translation.

> I could set up my own search engine with a few bucks investment just like Larry and Sergey did plus nowadays storage is even cheaper.

Sure you could, and nobody would hear about it unless you further invested millions of dollars into it to acquire resources.

> So if you really hate big corps then you should shit on M$

I hate M$ just about as much as Apple, however, I tend to think of them together because taken as a group they inflicted untold evils on the computing industry for nearly 25 years.

> If anything you should be thankful that at least there is a LITTLE bit of competition for M$ but you are probably much too ignorant, stuck up and also too young to remember the dark ages when there was nothing but M$ for most computer users.

What makes you think that we are not still amidst such a dark age? Microsoft and Apple together still dominate most general purpose computers. As I explained above, I am not at all thankful of Apple's attempts to compete with Microsoft because they offer nothing I consider to be better.

> If anything you should be thankful that at least there is a LITTLE bit of competition for M$ but you are probably much too ignorant, stuck up and also too young to remember the dark ages when there was nothing but M$ for most computer users.

Actually, as of Q3 2011, Apple is the largest publicly traded company in the world by market capitalization, and the largest technology company in the world by revenue and profit. Apple simply is not a "little fish" anymore. In fact, Apple/Microsoft have tyrannically controlled the computing industry for nearly 25 years.

> Not comparatively little fish like Apple.

What do you mean by "little fish"? Apple is a huge company and arguably the main opponent of computing freedom in the world today.

> Neither apple nor microsoft forces people to use anything.

As I explained above, Apple/Microsoft have controlled the computing industry for nearly 25 years. Computers have become an unavoidable part of life in developed countries, so people basically are forced to deal with them one way or another. Free alternatives have only recently begun to emerge, but they are still not widely available.

> So it doesn't matter what PG or whoever says, apple's success has proven them all wrong and I can only say I am thankful for the bit of competition and a few neat gadgets that apple delivered.

Thankfully, I don't take success in capitalism into account in my comparasions. I could care less about how successful Apple has been in capitalist societies, I want free, secure, and intelligent technologies. Apple and Microsoft aren't even beginning to work towards that goal and at least Google is.

Google is mainly an intelligent services company. Their main intelligent service is search, and other services such as machine translation and intelligent prediction are also provided. [1][2]

Besides services, Google actively develops many open platforms, such as Chromium and Android. Many of their attempts to build simple applications have failed. [3]

> You can use them but of course you don't have to. Same with apple. Don't like it, don't use it.

People aren't fully aware of the fact that Apple/Microsoft exert control over their devices with operating systems such as Windows 7 and iOS. In the free software movement we are trying to get people to realize this through campaigns against these systems. [4] [5]

If you try to get everyone like me to shut up whenever whenever we criticize Apple/Microsoft then people won't be able to make educated choices.

> And other people like their macs, iphones, ipads. You think you are smarter than other people to show them what they like is wrong?

You clearly don't know me at all, so please stop personally attacking me. I certainly don't think I am "better then other people."

I want to educate people about the corrupt activities of Apple/Microsoft and develop better alternatives based upon Linux and web technologies. Google has been an essential ally in this effort.

> Apple software overall is generally considered very intuitive.

I don't know how you qualify "very intuitive", however, it is counter-intuitive to base a system on applications like iTunes rather then tasks. See away with applications by Aza Raskins and the anti-mac interface by Jakob Nielson. [6] [7]

> nor are you stuck for choices and alternatives.

You are wrong about this. There simply is not an abundance of free choices out there for people. Apple/Microsoft have totally dominated the computer industry since it started during the PC revolution nearly 25 years ago. Even now that free Linux alternatives like Ubuntu and Android have emerged, they still aren't widely available.

> You are in absolutely NO position to tell any software or hardware company how to do business as long as what they are doing is legal.

One thing our legal system still provides us with is freedom of speech. So I am still free to educate everyone about the harm that the tyrannies of Apple/Microsoft have inflicted upon the computing industry over the last ~25 years. On the other hand, apparently you think I should just buy my products and suck it up, rather then talking about this.

[1] http://translate.google.com/

[2] http://code.google.com/apis/predict/

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products#Discont...

[4] http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/iphone

[5] http://en.windows7sins.org/

[6] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6856727143023456694

[7] http://www.useit.com/papers/anti-mac.html

Google FTW. I rest my case.