[Brooko]

Quote:

ALAC is not open.  Apple could at any time start charging to encode ALAC or go after people writing ALAC encoders like Microsoft did with WMV.
 

Reality is that if they did this, it would be business suicide.  How many who use ALAC would simply drop using their products?  It may not be open - but IMO I can't see them ever charging for it.
 

 

[ert]

Quote:

Reality is that if they did this, it would be business suicide.  How many who use ALAC would simply drop using their products?  It may not be open - but IMO I can't see them ever charging for it.
 

 
I agree that it's unlikely.  However given the availability of non-commercial software that does the same thing with a more attractive license, I personally prefer the open software.

 
 

 

[Brooko]

 
I agree that it's unlikely.  However given the availability of non-commercial software that does the same thing with a more attractive license, I personally prefer the open software.

 
 

Yes - agree. I need to try foobar with my Touch to see if I can load my music with full functionality. If it works - I'd definitely change. At least I can run foobar nicely under Linux.

 

[H3ndrix]

Have to pay for it.

 

[calipilot227]

The biggest problem with iTunes is that Apple just keeps adding features to it without even attempting to make it run more efficiently. In its early versions, it was okay (not great), but it's just gone downhill from there. Unfortunately, it's the only option for those of us with iPhones or non-rockboxed iPods.

(Apologies if I said something similar to this earlier in the thread. I have a feeling I might have )

 

[JamesHuntington]

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, or maybe it's just the file size??? I have an older sony laptop that was top of the line in 2005 that works pretty nice most of the time. I am using itunes and noticed that my cpu usage is pretty high. Especially just scrolling at normal speed on a web site while listening to itunes, the music skips a little with each scroll. Pretty annoying. So I'm using itunes, an external hard drive and apple lossless. All my updates are good, like this latest one a few days back that really changed the look and everything. So I even tried foobar2000 today and the cpu usage actually went up quite a bit. I'm almost ready to go back to CDs, but I got a fancy WFS uDAC hooked up and wired how I like it. I also have a new laptop coming in the mail, but I don't want more of this. My main question is; am I using more cpu just because of the lossless or if having an external hard drive is the problem?? Now that I have 77gb of lossless converted, I'm wondering if another encoder would do me better with the foobar too? Though it's running smooth now and I don't mind Itunes or the SQ, I really don't want to do a lot of manual naming of files if I try another ripping program. 

 

[RobbenTrower]

I have a fast pc from 2009, and itunes is always loading songs very slowly. Sometimes a delay of 5-10 seconds from hitting play before it actually plays. It cannot handle large libraries. Mine is about 500 gigs. Trying to scrub a song forwards or backwards is also delayed. I Have not even updated itunes since 2009. I got so fed up I finally found Jriver and no more delays!

 

[CognitiveBiased]

Considering that ALAC is now open-source and that ITunes now actually offers WASAPI output, does it really still suck that much? I mean with the automatic file organizing (automatically adding new files to media folder) and with the sleek aesthetic, I don't see many downsides anymore....Maybe I'd like a better EQ and ABX but that's about it.
 
Oh and about the bloating, in my experience, it actually uses about 4-5% CPU and 211 MB of RAM while playing 24bit/192kHz lossless files (0.5-1% CPU and 88MB RAM with lossless 16bit/44.1kHz) , while Foobar actually uses more CPU (5-6%) but markedly less RAM (17 MB) with 24/192 (1-1.5% CPU and 21 (!?) MB lossless 16/44.1) . However, RAM is never an issue as I always got alot of it unused (I never go past 2.5 GB/4.0GB). I mean it's not sitting on my MoBo just so it can look pretty, why not use some of it ( and 88-200 MB isn't even a significant amount)? And that's on an old 2009 laptop with average specs. I can't imagine how it could drag down performance on many of you guys systems with massive memory and processing firepower... 
 
Quote:

I have a fast pc from 2009, and itunes is always loading songs very slowly. Sometimes a delay of 5-10 seconds from hitting play before it actually plays. It cannot handle large libraries. Mine is about 500 gigs. Trying to scrub a song forwards or backwards is also delayed. I Have not even updated itunes since 2009. I got so fed up I finally found Jriver and no more delays!

 
Have you ever considered the fact that 4 year-old outdated software may be the cause for your slowdowns? Just some food for tought.

 

[funnyguy123]

The main reason I use iTunes is for the organizing feature which I'm surprised no other player has. When I tried using Foobar all my music was in one large folder and it was a huge mess. I don't have any problems with file compatibility because all my music are .mp3 and I don't have a problem with not being able to customize because my player spends most of its time minimized anyways.

 

[sterling1]

I like iTunes: the store, the media player, the library, and the radio. It's convenient, easy to operate, and sounds awesome. It's brought about a revolution in the  way the world purchases and enjoys media..

 

[drake1612]

One of my favourite genres is Anime ost, but itune store has none. One more fatal problem, itune can't read flac.