Open Letter to Apple

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi MahlerFreak - That is certainly one cynical and somewhat old school way to look at it. I'm more willing to follow the Google model. Almost nothing Google does contributes to direct revenue. By offering all the great things Google offers people have almost dismissed other companies that attempt to compete. If iTunes supported FLAC the chances are high it would have an even bigger market share. It is always a good thing to have more people using a product that allows simple access to your store. As another example, here in Minneapolis we have a skyway system that connects many downtown buildings. Macys invested a lot of money to connect it's building to the skyway with no direct benefit. Yet, tons of people must walk through its store to get to another skyway connected building.

 

Supporting FLAC would be a piece of cake for Apple. The chances that typical iTunes Store buyers would even notice a difference are very slim. If people even know what FLAC is they are already well versed enough to understand the whole situation. Supporting FLAC would bring in more money for Apple in the long run.

 

 

Please excuse the typing errors, I'm using my iPhone :~)

 

[markr]

... so I'm obviously biased. But I think a crack in the wall of Apple wanting to rule out enabling FLAC support in iTunes recently appeared when they decided to negotiate with recording companies and then removed DRM from their iTunes offerings. That wasn't easy for them to do. I'm hopeful.

 

- markr

 

[Tog]

 

The argument that somehow by giving users more choice Windows is a better basis for music playback is about as convincing as a Dick Van Dyke "lawndorn" accent. Yes, you have more choice more opportunities to tweak and a wider range of often broken bits of software on Windoze but that is largely the result of the incredibly mediocre standard of the underlying operating system. You have a huge base of developers producing stuff to compensate for the main system software's lack of brio (or much else) for that matter.

 

Yes itunes is imperfect - but it is free for goodness sake.

 

It may not fill everyone with joy but itunes is sufficiently good to discourage most competition. It seems ironic that the very fact Itunes is so good means that few people have a desperate desire for anything else at present. Of course things change and it is entirely possible that Itunes 9 may have all that you desire.

 

Flac is a bit of a red herring - after all the wonderfiul Max will convert to aiff effortlessly - cue or no cue.

 

As for being an Apple fan ...well I am a fan of things that work well and have sufficent software experience to appreciate Darwin or Ubuntu Linux over Microsoft's broken software.

 

Yours, no chip on this shoulder, tog

 

[DavidL]

Several times I have suggested via their product support pages that Apple should apply to audio the product range strategy they currently use for photography (iPhoto > Aperture) and Video (iMovie > Final Cut) i.e. simple (relatively) cheap software for the 'mass' market plus refined, more comprehensive and more expensive software for hi-end / professional use. Apple already cover the audio composing & editing aspects with simple and advanced software, but only has iTunes for playback.

 

I'd guess that there would be sufficient demand for a reasonably-priced (

[MahlerFreak]

Hi Chris,

 

Well, my view might be "cynical and somewhat old school", but it is supported by both my personal experience and by the known facts. I am a former CTO of a large software company, and I've had significant high-level dealings with pretty much all of the large technology players like Microsoft, Google, and Apple. I would say that Apple was, in general, the most closed and insular of the partners I dealt with, both from a business and a technical standpoint. But I don't necessarily consider that a knock on Apple. Apple's differentiation in the market comes from the simplicity and seamless interoperability of their products, which is very difficult to achieve if you don't control most of the major elements of the solution (just ask Microsoft, or use Windows . Not for nothing does Steve Jobs have a (deserved) reputation as a serious control freak.

 

I don't necessarily agree that Apple would make more revenue by supporting FLAC, but it isn't my opinion or yours that counts. If Apple saw broad interoperability with other competitive elements in the media ecosystem as being in their enlightened self-interest, I think we'd already have seen some very different outcomes from what we're seeing now. The limited format support is just one issue. Obviously, there is no direct support from iTunes for competing music stores or services (Amazon? Last.fm?). And Apple's recent decision to encrypt the synchronization interface to the latest iPods and iPhones, and then to pursue legal action against folks who were trying to reverse-engineer the interface to keep other software products compatible with Apple hardware, can hardly be seen as a move in the direction of openness.

 

But to the point of my previous post: why not simply start with a product which is already further along in the direction you want to go?

 

 

 

 

[bottlerocket]

Personally I pretty much stopped buying ITunes downloads once I hooked up a music server to my system. I wanted red book CD quality or better so that counts out the Itunes store. So there is $$ lost from me. Maybe Apple could compromise and offer 16/44.1 in album only form. I would think the music industry would love that and it would steer those downloaders away from IPODs and to a higher quality music server.

 

If I was the product manager for Itunes, and I had the huge market base they had, I'd be looking to be keeping all options open. Why not? Why not keep those who want CD quality and higher on board? Why let competitors like Musicgiants get a foothold? Why produce Apple labeled crap IPOD docks when they can sell MACs instead. I think Apple knows most of their user base are using IPODs, and they are failing to see that the upgrade in terms of a music player from the IPOD is the Apple TV, the Mac Mini, the Macbook or the Mac Pro. The effect of the IPOD and the Iphone on MAC sales had been very significant and this just another sales up-convert for them.

- Apple Fan and shareholder

 

 

[markr]

.... iPods play 16/44.1 WAV or AIFF files. Probably 80% of the music on my iPod at any one time is 16/44.1. It sounds great. Further, buying an iPod is what convinced me to buy a Mac - and then buy another.

 

- markr

 

[Tog]

Nothing wrong with the sound from an ipod with a good set of phones and a whole subculture of tweakers ready to add custom parts if you really need to hear every nuance - well unless you can carry round your £30 000 power cleansed, jitter reduced super rig with you on holiday

 

Lying on the balcony of my villa, ipod in my paws looking at the sea...seems OK to me.

 

 

Try not to be too obsessed by bit rates - the main problem with most music is the recording itself.

 

Yours, without audio snobbery, tog

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

To me there are two priorities in using iTunes...

 

1. Good sound quality

2. Ease of use

 

While I accept the there are solutions that can provide better audio quality, the sound quality provided by iTunes is more than acceptible and (in my experience) equals or beats most transports into same DAC.

 

Yes I can improve on it, but only at the expense of either money (Amarra) or ease of use for me and the others who use it (FooBar) or in many cases both (DAW solutions).

 

Anyway there are features I'd like and could get with other software even, but only at the expense of what I consider a pretty good, ergodynamic and transparent to use UI.

 

Also I've found before Apple have added features I've wanted - like the iPhone remote. So they have been pretty on the ball.

 

Eloise

 

[markr]

Tog, did I leave off saying that I also have some fine sounding MP3's and AAC's along with movies and TV shows that use compressed audio on that same iPod? Sorry - my oversight.

 

Too old to be snobbish -

 

markr

 

[Tog]

markr - twas not my intention to infer snobbery on your part at all - but I think there is a little bit out there.

 

Amarra may be fab - but it would be wasted on my furry ears ...to me itunes, good dac ..loads of music + ipod = happiness

 

 

yours, tog

 

[markr]

I chime in with you and Eloise. There is nothing wrong with the sound of iTunes (or iPod). At least on a Mac. I have used all sorts of different playback solutions, including Pro level stuff (Logic, Cubase, etc) and really do not find the sound of iTunes lacking much, if anything. Features and compatibility could be improved though & that is really what this thread is (supposed to be) about, no?

 

Back to listening....

- markr

 

 

 

 

[TimbrePitch]

I am in complete agreement. I am very thrilled with Apple.

 

It always amazes me how "audiophiles" focus on being unhappy because they want something more. More, more, more.

 

I choose quality over quantity. I want simplicity over complexity I don't want or need multiple hardware and software solutions. I don't want to argue and stress about formats. I just want to "Listen To Music".

 

Apple has done more to help me "Listen To Music" than any other company. While I hope for features in the future, I am more than happy to watch what happens and support Apple as this new way of "Listening To Music" evolves.

 

I have now posted on this site several times over the last few days. Do I need a support group or intervention?

 

Hope you are all well....

 

[markr]

(I did say "WELCOME" in an earlier post, right?).

 

BINGO! (Don't forget to include the bear!)

 

Take a look at the amount of posts I've made here.... The meetings are on Wednesday nights at Christ's Church of the internet, PM me & I'll send you the link.

 

"Hi! My name is Mark. ... and ... I'm an 'audiophile'....."

 

y'all come!

 

tongue-in-cheekly yours.....

-markr

 

[Tog]

Eloise et markr..... an outbreak of sanity ...forsooth....

 

yours, with gratitude, tog

 

[MahlerFreak]

"I just want to listen to music" - TimbrePitch

 

It's funny, I agree with that sentiment completely, which is why I don't use iTunes. I tried to put together what we now call a "music server" based on iTunes about 3 years ago. My music collection is large (nearly 2K albums worth now) and eclectic (more than half classical, but lots of jazz, blues, and rock/pop too). The more music I got ripped into iTunes, the more it became an incoherent mess that made it almost impossible to find anything. I went through lots of trouble trying to use the tools that were there to help organize things, but in the end I decided I just wanted to listen to music, and went back to listening to CDs directly, for which I already had an organizational system.

 

After trying many other different products off and on in the meantime, I finally settled on dbPowerAmp for ripping, and J River Media Center for library management. These tools in combination allow me to accomplish all of the important tasks to me - ripping, tagging, organizing, navigating, searching - with far less time and effort than it takes in iTunes. And these are tiny companies, with very limited resources compared to Apple.

 

In my previous life, I spent lots of time on the subject of software "ease of use". One of the things we learned very early on is that this breaks down into two broad elements: 1. "learnability", the ease with which functionality is assimilated, and the "stickiness" of that assimilation next time you use it, and 2. "usability", relating to the time, effort, and repeatability involved in accomplishing specific tasks. By those criteria, I found iTunes very learnable, but not very usable - for my specific requirements, of course. I find most of the other library managers (hello, Foobar) neither very learnable nor very usable. dbPoweramp is idiosyncratic in its interface, but quite usable. J River is not as quite as simple to learn as iTunes out of the box, and it obviously takes longer to learn all of the functionality because there is so much more there. The point is, it all depends on what your personal tastes and requirements are. Thank goodness not everybody was satisfied with iTunes, or I wouldn't have a music server, and that would be a shame, because my music server does indeed now let me enjoy music more.

 

BTW, in the final analysis, all of these products are pretty dated in their navigation paradigms, and in look and feel. For some examples of what that means, look at Sooloos:

 

http://uk.cinenow.com/videos/2052-sooloos-distributed-by-meridian-ise-2009

 

or for some of the same flavor, a new one-person effort called Muso:

 

http://klarita.net/muso.html

 

 

 

 

[markr]

I think Muso is the first thing I've seen that makes me want to have Windows set up as an alternate OS on my Mac. Now if only one of the VM apps would support Firewire for my dac......

 

Sooloos is very very cool, not to mention way more than I'd be willing to spend for this sort of thing. Chris covered it here over a year ago.

 

I have yet to take a look at Songbird as you've recommended earlier on this thread, but it is definitely on the list. Do you know if it uses a SQL type db for library management?

 

- markr

 

[Audio_ELF]

Self confessed audiophile now reformed and a music lover.

 

I used to sit listening to parts of CDs listening to my hardware; now I live with the best system I can afford and listen to music. One of my favourite things is to put iTunes on iTunes DJ and skip as I feel like, and often after half a dozen tracks something from an album I've forgotten plays be I stop the random playlist and listen through a forgotten gem.

 

Viva iTunes - though as I said I know it's not perfect it's the beat tool I have for doing this.

 

Eloise

 

[markr]

Music lover. I feel no need for racking up more or different equipment. I'm kind of where you are: spent less than $10,000 for gear. Most of that with an eye towards performance and recording and not so much playback, though this setup does *sound* great too. In reality, I don't think that I ever was an audiophile. I've known a couple and that situation is as sad as alcoholism to tell you the truth. I do feel the need for a good meeting every now and then though! More for keeping me from buying excessive amounts of music though: while I type, a FLAC download of Tchaikovsky's 6th is dowloading from DG.

 

- markr

 

[MahlerFreak]

@markr,

 

Yes, Sooloos is very cool, and preposterously expensive for what it is, which is nicely packaged but ordinary hardware, well-executed software, and an AMG metadata license. BTW, by far the most important part of that equation: the AMG metadata license.

 

I like Muso quite a bit too - it's my current interface to my desktop Squeezebox-based headphone system - but for me it is definitely lacking in classical-friendly features, and doesn't have enough extensibility in general. It is quite similar to something I have been building for myself as a web server/client interface.

 

I don't know what Songbird uses as the back-end DB, but for the moment it doesn't matter since the front end exposes only the conventional Artist/Album/Song style of navigation. It does have some nice linkages to online resources, which is also one of the best features of Muso - that stuff actually expands the music experience a lot more than you might think. And there are a bunch of folks building interesting plug-ins for Songbird.

 

 

 

 

[markr]

AMG has come a long way since the 'Gopher' days.

 

You ought to go to Berkley next month for the symposium. It isn't too far fetched to think that you might get some great ideas and make some contacts to help you finish the server. Hell, I'm not working on much of anything and I'm trying to budget the trip in.....

 

I think lots of people miss out by not simultaneously surfing the web for data on the very same artist's recording that they are listening to at the time. You are right. It really does expand the experience. I recommend that everyone do this manually while listening. Though it would be nice to just click links and go to relevant information instead of typing into search engines. That is definitely a next 'thing' that I want to see.

 

- markr

 

[MahlerFreak]

I'm strongly considering going - it's mostly a question of finalizing Summer scheduling for my family. I have lots of friends in the Bay area from my old job, so that's another attraction.

 

[TimbrePitch]

You guys are going to be dangerous for me. I did not know there were people like me. I love music, but allows my "HiFi" side to take over sometimes.

 

I have lived and worked with a lot of HiFi. I just got burned out years ago. I then discovered the DIY world, Altmann and Junji Kimura's work at 47 Labs, and I have enjoyed diving into my Apple Mac system. It's a much more enjoyable way to listen and discuss music.

 

I have also become a fan of "Online Radio" sites. Last.fm and Blip.fm have been my "poison" recently. The quality is poor (extremely poor in some cases), but it's a lot of fun to engage with people about music. We sometimes play with themes and music association games.

 

Does anyone else have Last.fm or Blip.fm profiles?

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - Sooloos has some cool upgrades coming out shortly. I believe it will work with an off-the-shelf NAS device. This would be pretty cool in my opinion. As a side note: We invited Sooloos to sit on the Symposium panel to talk about the Sooloos interface and how it enables people to really enjoy their music and access it many different ways. The Symposium is not about hardware components, rather knowledge and enabling people to use technology to improve their music listening experience. One thing is for sure, those of us putting the event together will not allow a sales pitch from anybody speaking at the Symposium.

 

Songbird - I believe it has the greatest potential of any playback software. If we could only get the whole Firefox crowd to use it and develop as many plug-ins for Songbird as there are for firefox.

 

[markr]

.. Yep. I finally plunged in and I LIKE IT! I shouldn't have waited so long.