[gsnedders]

Yeah, the audio case is arguably far more interesting (enough major companies have shipped Vorbis and Speex that it is likely anyone holding a patent would've sued someone by now). One may speculate that by the time the iTunes Music Store launched (2003) they felt locked in to the set of codecs the iPod (launched 2001) supported natively (the CPU in it is weak, and while it is powerful enough for a modern, highly optimised Vorbis implementation, these didn't yet exist, and one must question running the CPU at almost total utilisation for heat/battery reasons…).

[shmerl]

Well, what happened in the past doesn't really explain why they still refuse to support them today. I really hope mandatory status of Opus in WebRTC will push it into QuickTime framework and it will mean implicit support by Apple everywhere.

[eridius]

They refuse to support them today because there's no benefit in doing so. Supporting codecs they're not supporting today takes both non-trivial engineering resources, but may expose them to patent risk depending on the codec in question. And pretty much by definition, the people who use these codecs aren't Apple customers anyway.

You seem to be arguing with the assumption that Apple could support these codecs effectively for free, and have deliberately chosen not to do out of malice. That's quite absurd.

[shmerl]

> They refuse to support them today because there's no benefit in doing so

That's nonsense. Clear benefit is supporting codecs which their users can encounter without forcing them to reencode to anything else. For instance, you buy some music in FLAC and can use it, rather than reencoding it first. I.e. interoperability and treating users well, rather than being jerks.

Clearly for Apple "benefit" means screwing users and degrading interoperability.

> Supporting codecs they're not supporting today takes both non-trivial engineering resources, but may expose them to patent risk depending on the codec in question

False pretenses to hide real intentions - retaining lock in and reducing interoperability, which were always Apple's notable goals. Specifcially about patent risks - they are already using a bunch of codecs like AAC, so obviously they aren't concerned about risks when using them. So they can't claim they are more scared with other codecs especially if they are explicitly patent free.

[eridius]

> Clear benefit is supporting codecs which their users can encounter without forcing them to reencode to anything else.

That assumes their users actually ever encounter such music. I fully expect that significantly less than 1% of Apple customers ever encounter FLAC music, and those that do, do so infrequently and with other options made available as well. Personally, every time I've seen FLAC as an option, it's been one of a set of options (typically including MP3 and AAC, and often even including ALAC).

> Clearly for Apple "benefit" means screwing users and degrading interoperability.

Bullshit. Nobody is being screwed here. Anyone who gets FLAC music is choosing to do so, and it's pretty trivial to reencode. And there is absolutely no interoperability issue here. FLAC is not a codec chosen for portability reasons; very few people have any reason to be using lossless audio to begin with.

> False pretenses to hide real intentions - retaining lock in and reducing interoperability, which were always Apple's notable goals

Bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. Apple was at the forefront of pushing to remove DRM on music, and you're trying to accuse them of lock-in? Either you're horribly deluded, or you have your own anti-Apple agenda that you're trying to push here. Either way, you're pulling this argument from thin air and it is entirely incorrect.

[shmerl]

> That assumes their users actually ever encounter such music.

Not "their users", any users. FLAC is the only lossless format that's being actively used commercially (and not commercially) by various services and stores. So, their users encounter it as well when they deal with lossless audio.

> Anyone who gets FLAC music is choosing to do so

Yep, since it's the only practical lossless format offered as above. And Apple chose not to support it to screw their users.

> and it's pretty trivial to reencode.

Yep, it's not hard to reencode. Supporting it isn't hard either - all decent players do it (like VLC and etc.). Apple's one isn't decent though, it's crippled by design, with excuse that "it's easy to reencode". User friendliness just shines there.

[eridius]

A cynic would point out that anyone who is purchasing FLAC music is, by definition, not purchasing from the iTunes Store, so there is very little business reason to facilitate this behavior.

A more practical person would say that nearly everyone who does purchase from an alternative store doesn't want FLAC anyway (or at least, shouldn't want it, though it would not surprise me to see a lot of people who opt for FLAC do so because they think it's a good thing when they really get no benefit from doing so). Very few people ever need to reencode their music these days. Back when MP3 was new and newer encoders kept coming out that got better results, it made more sense, but these days high bit-rate MP3 or medium bit-rate AAC is more than sufficient for effectively all personal uses. Given that, users who purchase from alternative stores would be best served by picking a lossy format that is compatible with their software/hardware (e.g. for Apple users that's AAC if it's provided, or MP3 if not).

For those vanishingly small number of people who have an actual use for FLAC and who wish to play their music on Apple products, it's not very difficult to transcode it to a format that is supported by Apple products. They should be transcoding it for personal usage anyway, because there's no need to be carrying around unnecessarily large files on mobile devices or on laptops. Keep the FLAC somewhere safe if you think you'll actually need it again, and transcode to a more appropriate format. Or better yet, just download the appropriate format to begin with (most independent stores I've seen that offer multiple formats let you download in all the formats you want to instead of forcing you to pick).

> Yep, since it's the only practical lossless format offered as above. And Apple chose not to support it to screw their users.

You do realize that your repeated assertions that Apple is intentionally choosing not to support FLAC out of some personified desire to screw their users is ridiculous, right? I don't know why you keep claiming this. Even if you want to personify Apple instead of treating them like a company that makes decisions that are in the best interests of the company, it's absurd to claim Apple is trying to screw its users.

But beyond that, you keep claiming FLAC is "the only practical lossless format". And yet by your own argument it's impractical, since it's not supported on the hardware/software combination you want.