Why on Earth would Apple think that U2 would have any relevant experience whatsoever in designing a new audio format?
That's work for audio engineers and technologists. Not old rock bands.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
Well, Neil Young did it, and, based on his singing, I assume he's tone deaf, so who knows what U2 could accomplish? " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
This is so 1999. We have larger hard drives and faster computers now. There's no excuse to still support overcompressed low quality music today.
That doesn't take portables into account. They don't yet enjoy the speed and capacious storage computers have.
There isn't enough storage space on my iPhone hold all 25,000 of the songs I must have with me at all times unless they are mashed to 1/10th of the original files size.
Also, and seriously, you know what it's like waiting to load even just a few GB of content onto an iPhone or iPad. The NAND in these things is SO slow that it takes FOREVER to reload them. That's genuinely one reason I might still prefer a decent-sounding but size-compressed music format. Besides, the sound quality on those things is so... let's call it "adequate," that the benefits of a higher quality format would be hard to appreciate.
With that said, Apple may become irrelevant as newer companies transform technology. Not too long ago, you could keep up with technological changes, but these days it is overwhelming. There is going to be tremendous disruption in business due to the tons of technological discoveries. It would not be a surprise to see Apple impacted like IBM and Microsoft.
For me, I don't watch the keynotes anymore. I see Tim Cook becoming too self-reflective of Apple and the company becoming staid. Jobs was always about tremendous disruption and very iconoclastic.
Apple is losing its iconoclastic view. It is changing as it gets older and bigger. Just my feeling about the company as I've used their products since the Apple II.
go back and watch the Jobs keynotes and launches -- he talks about the year's numbers, too, just like Cook. where do you think Cook got it?
apple is not DOOOMED, nor does this indicate it is.
From the story at Time.com: "As Bono and Edge bantered affectionately at a celebratory lunch straight after the Apple launch, the band’s old friend and former producer Jimmy Iovine..."
NO. Like it or not, Bono is the last great rock star, and that still carries weight in a lot of corners. I'm sure the Apple people like the cache of hanging out with someone cool.
Actually, it's more like the other way around. It's all these entertainment figures who like the cachet of hanging out with someone as cool as the Apple top brass. Come on, Apple is probably more widely known than any music act, except maybe the Beatles.
But ALAC doesn't have a sample rate high enough to capture light waves! It's not "hifi" if it doesn't exceed the threshold of human perception by at least a factor of two.
Now, having said that, cue the chorus of audiophiles who've never even read the Nyquist theorem, much less acquired a working understanding of it, claiming that higher sample rates improve the audible portion of signal.
Amen. Let's hope Apple doesn't buy into the Neil Young's high sample rate/extended bit depth bull$#!+.
Eliminating abusive mastering practices (and abusive mixing practices that corner mastering engineers into dealing with crap mixes) would solve 99% of anything that anyone can complain about regarding 16 bit/44k as a delivery format.
Well, Neil Young did it, and, based on his singing, I assume he's tone deaf, so who knows what U2 could accomplish?
He he, funny how Neil Young gets away with a waifish vocal style that normally is acceptable only from a Claudine Longet or an Astrud Gilberto who sing in the proper waif's register.
Why on Earth would Apple think that U2 would have any relevant experience whatsoever in designing a new audio format?
That's work for audio engineers and technologists. Not old rock bands.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
I was wondering about that also. The only thing i can think of is the use of their sound engineers or perhaps their "ears" to detect subtleties in the finished product.
There is a combative history between the English and Irish.
To be fair there is a combative history between the English and everyone else in the world.
Here's the list of all the countries the British haven't invaded and/or fought.
Andorra
Belarus
Bolivia
Burundi
Central African Republic
Chad
Congo, Republic of
Guatemala
Ivory Coast
Kyrgyzstan
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Mali
Marshall Islands
Monaco
Mongolia
Paraguay
Sao Tome and Principe
Sweden
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Vatican City
Obviously the rest of the world was asking for it.
So still a long way for the wayward colony in the new world to match.
I wonder if it's the standard bigotry toward the Irish.
Europe as a whole doesn't care much for people who come across as phoney. Bono's always wearing sunglasses, even indoors and he's 54 but dresses like he wants to hang out with teenage girls. Rich Hall explains the difference in acting phoney comparing America to Britain:
[VIDEO]
Bono always comes across like he's trying to be a character instead of being genuine. There's not much tolerance for religion in Europe these days either:
[VIDEO]
Then there's the charity side where he gives hardly any of the money to the causes:
Lastly there's the music, which isn't to everyone's taste. Judging by the download rate on the free album, not that many like them any more. According to Bono, 38m people listened to it:
but that's even worse if the downloads are down around 2 million. There was a comment on Engadget suggesting that's their plan for the new DRM music format - make all the music sound like U2 so nobody wants it.
Comments
Why on Earth would Apple think that U2 would have any relevant experience whatsoever in designing a new audio format?
That's work for audio engineers and technologists. Not old rock bands.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
Well, Neil Young did it, and, based on his singing, I assume he's tone deaf, so who knows what U2 could accomplish?
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
This is so 1999. We have larger hard drives and faster computers now. There's no excuse to still support overcompressed low quality music today.
That doesn't take portables into account. They don't yet enjoy the speed and capacious storage computers have.
There isn't enough storage space on my iPhone hold all 25,000 of the songs I must have with me at all times unless they are mashed to 1/10th of the original files size.
Also, and seriously, you know what it's like waiting to load even just a few GB of content onto an iPhone or iPad. The NAND in these things is SO slow that it takes FOREVER to reload them. That's genuinely one reason I might still prefer a decent-sounding but size-compressed music format. Besides, the sound quality on those things is so... let's call it "adequate," that the benefits of a higher quality format would be hard to appreciate.
With that said, Apple may become irrelevant as newer companies transform technology. Not too long ago, you could keep up with technological changes, but these days it is overwhelming. There is going to be tremendous disruption in business due to the tons of technological discoveries. It would not be a surprise to see Apple impacted like IBM and Microsoft.
For me, I don't watch the keynotes anymore. I see Tim Cook becoming too self-reflective of Apple and the company becoming staid. Jobs was always about tremendous disruption and very iconoclastic.
Apple is losing its iconoclastic view. It is changing as it gets older and bigger. Just my feeling about the company as I've used their products since the Apple II.
go back and watch the Jobs keynotes and launches -- he talks about the year's numbers, too, just like Cook. where do you think Cook got it?
apple is not DOOOMED, nor does this indicate it is.
From the story at Time.com: "As Bono and Edge bantered affectionately at a celebratory lunch straight after the Apple launch, the band’s old friend and former producer Jimmy Iovine..."
Now it makes sense.
Actually, it's more like the other way around. It's all these entertainment figures who like the cachet of hanging out with someone as cool as the Apple top brass. Come on, Apple is probably more widely known than any music act, except maybe the Beatles.
But ALAC doesn't have a sample rate high enough to capture light waves! It's not "hifi" if it doesn't exceed the threshold of human perception by at least a factor of two.
Now, having said that, cue the chorus of audiophiles who've never even read the Nyquist theorem, much less acquired a working understanding of it, claiming that higher sample rates improve the audible portion of signal.
Amen. Let's hope Apple doesn't buy into the Neil Young's high sample rate/extended bit depth bull$#!+.
Eliminating abusive mastering practices (and abusive mixing practices that corner mastering engineers into dealing with crap mixes) would solve 99% of anything that anyone can complain about regarding 16 bit/44k as a delivery format.
He he, funny how Neil Young gets away with a waifish vocal style that normally is acceptable only from a Claudine Longet or an Astrud Gilberto who sing in the proper waif's register.
Why on Earth would Apple think that U2 would have any relevant experience whatsoever in designing a new audio format?
That's work for audio engineers and technologists. Not old rock bands.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
I was wondering about that also. The only thing i can think of is the use of their sound engineers or perhaps their "ears" to detect subtleties in the finished product.
Annie Lennox. Sting. Do the rest yourself.
And in what way have those two artist duplicated or exceeded what U2 has done?
They've written better music.
The "audio format" will be about streaming concerts online, and stuff like that.
Maybe a U2 branded concert social network, similar to the Dre branded Beats headphones.
If there is one thing no one can deny, U2 is one of the greatest concert bands, with some of the greatest stadium shows.
That's got nothing to do with music.
They've also written worse. "Better" is subjective. Sales figures are not.
They've also written worse. "Better" is subjective. Sales figures are not.
The attitude to U2 in Britain tends to be....more hostile than the rest of the world. I can't say why.
Stings a lively lad from Yorkshire though.
Irrational jealousy?
I wonder if it's the standard bigotry toward the Irish.
There is a combative history between the English and Irish.
Andorra
Belarus
Bolivia
Burundi
Central African Republic
Chad
Congo, Republic of
Guatemala
Ivory Coast
Kyrgyzstan
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Mali
Marshall Islands
Monaco
Mongolia
Paraguay
Sao Tome and Principe
Sweden
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Vatican City
Obviously the rest of the world was asking for it.
So still a long way for the wayward colony in the new world to match.
Europe as a whole doesn't care much for people who come across as phoney. Bono's always wearing sunglasses, even indoors and he's 54 but dresses like he wants to hang out with teenage girls. Rich Hall explains the difference in acting phoney comparing America to Britain:
[VIDEO]
Bono always comes across like he's trying to be a character instead of being genuine. There's not much tolerance for religion in Europe these days either:
[VIDEO]
Then there's the charity side where he gives hardly any of the money to the causes:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314543/Bonos-ONE-foundation-giving-tiny-percentage-funds-charity.html
Then there's the hypocrisy of tax avoidance while condemning other people's tax avoidance:
http://www.ibtimes.com/bono-600m-net-worth-musician-whose-u2-band-poster-child-tax-avoidance-slams-big-oil-tax-avoidance
Lastly there's the music, which isn't to everyone's taste. Judging by the download rate on the free album, not that many like them any more. According to Bono, 38m people listened to it:
http://www.nme.com/news/u2/79854
but that's even worse if the downloads are down around 2 million. There was a comment on Engadget suggesting that's their plan for the new DRM music format - make all the music sound like U2 so nobody wants it.