[cel4145]

Quote:

Why do they necessarily have to support FLAC? Apple already supports a lossless format.

 
That's only half an answer though. Apple wants people to use their format. For example, they could easily support flac in iTunes, but choose not to. 

 

[Dyaems]

like sony with their atrac format. however, the F series supports flac now and the Z will support it as well at the end of the year.

 

[chewy4]

ALAC probably has the worst compatibility issues with everything else due to them just making open source less than a year ago.
 
Them refusing to support FLAC is really the only reason I avoided getting an ipod. I'm sure there have been others in the same boat. I think it would benefit them to support it.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

 
That's only half an answer though. Apple wants people to use their format. For example, they could easily support flac in iTunes, but choose not to. 

 
Well, it's their product. I guess they can choose to support their own lossless format if they want. And no one's forcing anyone to buy Apple products.
 
se

 

[tedman633]

well i think we can all at least agree here that there is really no reason apple should not support flac in addition to mp3. i mean come on i really had to download an app for that ability. its not a big deal but the principle of the thing.

 

[chewy4]

well i think we can all at least agree here that there is really no reason apple should not support flac in addition to mp3. i mean come on i really had to download an app for that ability. its not a big deal but the principle of the thing.

I believe their reasoning is to lock people into their products. It would be quite inconvenient to switch over if you have a library full of files that only work on an ipod.

 

[cel4145]

Quote:

 
Well, it's their product. I guess they can choose to support their own lossless format if they want. And no one's forcing anyone to buy Apple products.
 

 
That's true. But it's kind of disgusting that the main reason for it is probably branding. They want people to use a file format called "Apple Lossless." 

 

[streetdragon]

its like an island over at apple. using an android or PC alongside an i device or Mac would be largely inconvenient 

 as a result i would never set foot on that island

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

well i think we can all at least agree here that there is really no reason apple should not support flac in addition to mp3. i mean come on i really had to download an app for that ability. its not a big deal but the principle of the thing.

 
I'm sure they have their reasons.
 
se

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

 
That's true. But it's kind of disgusting that the main reason for it is probably branding. They want people to use a file format called "Apple Lossless." 

 
Since when is that anything new for Apple?
 
Also, Apple Lossless is now open source and can be freely implemented used by others.
 
se

 

[fubar3]

Quote:

Hi everyone i just made the switch from mp3 to flac a few days ago and by god even with my ****ty onboard soundcard it still sounds 3x better then mp3. My question is why on earth would the standard still be mp3?

I assume "standard" refers to "common distribution format". I have a variety of MP3, WAV, and FLAC. I was disappointed to pay for higher resolution or lossless format of download only to find the quality was lower than that of applying "streamripper" to Shoutcast streams.  It seems that the quality of the original recording is more important than the distribution format.

 

[CreativeCthulhu]

I rip exclusively in V0 after a ton of Foobar A/B testing and I simply cannot discern a difference between the two.

 

[RUMAY408]

I suspect there is more at play here than the Head Fi communities ability to distinguish one audio track at 24/96 vs. 256 bit or 128 bit off a MP3 player.  I think we are a group of individuals who can perceive audio differences greater than the population at large. My theory is more case driven than research driven. Lots of people I know can listen to the same audio track in 128 and can't hear any difference from the same CD track at better quality. I grew up with vinyl and I resisted buying a CD until my car had a CD player in it.  The CD sounded better than the FM radio in my car.  I knew that CD did not, and still does not, sound better than vinyl.  Call it a convenience factor but I ended up buying CD's because a lot of vinyl just went away.  MP3's are just the next compression step down to optimize volume of sales to a public that for the most part can't distinguish one audio sound bit from another.  When the music industry suspects that the general population is lusting after more audio quality maybe the MP3's go away, but I suspect we will continue to stay in the minority.

 

[streetdragon]

basically its convenience vs quality
like.... a 3 course extravagant FLAC dinner vs instant mp3 noodle and a fried egg,
and an audiophile with experience is like gordon ramsay while the normal people are... normal people 
both are edible, but gordon does not approve of the mp3 noodle

 

[RUMAY408]

I agree convenience is huge I use my non-modified IPod for that reason alone.  I try to keep 256 or 320 if I can as non-modified IPod's can't handle much more than that.  However, I still think that there is a big chunk of the population that can't hear any change in audio playback resolution.  I have friends that think I'm insane when I say I can tell the difference between 128 from 256 bits.