citpeks

About

Username
citpeks
Joined
Visits
334
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,007
Badges
1
Posts
271

Reactions

502Like17Dislike85Informative

  • AirPods Max won't support Apple Music lossless over Lightning, HomePod also left out

    citpekscitpeks
    citpeks said:
    dysamoria said:
    I’m surprised Lightning doesn’t carry digital audio. I wonder why I thought it did.
    It does.  The Lightning to 3.5mm dongle is actually a DAC (and a good one, as well as one of the cheapest things Apple sells(!)), so it's receiving digital output from the port.  The constraint is either in the maximum bitrate it, or the APP's DAC supports.

    Either Apple is being disingenuous with its statements, or there is some sloppy reporting occurring.  Maybe both.
    When used with the Lightening to 3.5mm adapter, Apple gave a little more detailed explanation to The Verge

    "So the natural question becomes... well, what are you hearing in that scenario? Apple tells The Verge that when you play a 24-bit / 48 kHz Apple Music lossless track from an iPhone into the AirPods Max using both the cable and Lightning dongle, the audio is converted to analog and then re-digitized to 24-bit / 48 kHz. That re-digitization step is the reason that Apple can’t say you’re hearing pure lossless audio; it’s not an identical match to the source."

    "Is it still going to sound very good? Almost certainly. The AirPods Max sound exceptional — even with AAC over Bluetooth, and plugging in can make the experience richer. But if you’re a stickler for the technical details, this is why the AirPods Max can’t pull off lossless audio in the truest sense. It also leaves Apple in an awkward spot where other high-end headphones that do support digital audio when hard wired — over USB-C, for example — could deliver the full lossless audio that the AirPods Max can’t."


    That helps clarify things.

    The takeway is that the constraint lies with the APM's wired connection, which appears to only support analog input, at least for the time being, forcing the additional conversion cycle.

    However, that does not affect, nor support the contention that "the Lightning port is limited to analog output sources and isn't natively compatible with digital audio formats."

    That is objectively false, and supported by the fact that the 3.5mm dongle has a DAC, and is not simply an analog adapter connecting the relevant Lightning pins to the standard 3.5mm TRRS connector.
    gregoriusm

  • AirPods Max won't support Apple Music lossless over Lightning, HomePod also left out

    citpekscitpeks
    dysamoria said:
    I’m surprised Lightning doesn’t carry digital audio. I wonder why I thought it did.
    It does.  The Lightning to 3.5mm dongle is actually a DAC (and a good one, as well as one of the cheapest things Apple sells(!)), so it's receiving digital output from the port.  The constraint is either in the maximum bitrate it, or the APP's DAC supports.

    Either Apple is being disingenuous with its statements, or there is some sloppy reporting occurring.  Maybe both.
    cgWerksgregoriusmdysamoriabyronldoozydozencaladanian

  • Zuckerberg changes tune, says Apple's iOS 14 privacy feature might benefit Facebook

    citpekscitpeks
    It's funny how much attention this feature has attracted, when the ability to deny IDFA tracking has been part of iOS for a while, on a blanket level.

    What iOS 14.5 will bring are active prompts to have the user decide to opt in/out, for each app on a granular level.

    It's not going to make a lot of difference to anyone who has already been paying attention to their privacy settings.
    cornchipwatto_cobra

  • Apple Store suppliers suffering through longer payment terms, consignment model

    citpekscitpeks
    For suppliers, product placement in Apple's stores surely has some value, in terms of exposure to the desirable demographics who frequent them and a tacit endorsement as solutions that Apple offers, either solely, or alongside Apple's own products.

    Since Apple doesn't appear to directly charge slotting, listing or placement fees, it can exploit the desirability of those benefits in other ways, such as through the terms it demands from suppliers.

    While debates can, and are, being had about the market power Apple holds via its app stores, and whether that falls outside legal bounds, no such argument can be made in this case.  Apple's stores are not the exclusive outlet for related product accessories, for either third party suppliers or even Apple's own first party accessories.  It may benefit suppliers to utilize Apple's stores as a distribution channel, but they are far from the only option, and Apple is not obligated to those who do not agree to its terms.

    As with the brouhaha over recent news of Apple's rental agreements, many responses betray an ignorance of the machinations behind business negotiations, and a failure to recognize that business markets differ from consumer markets.

    Ever wonder why one can't order a Pepsi at a McDonalds, or why Coke's products are no longer an option at Costco's food courts, but Pepsi's are?  The same Costco that at one point stopped carrying Apple's products altogether?  Surely that was illegal, no?

    Or why one must stretch to the top or the bottom of the shelf to reach Brand Y and Z, while Brand X can be easily grabbed at eye level?  Or why there is a bunch of Lays chips at the end of the aisle, and not another brand?  Those situations are not due to coincidence, or chance.

    Many other examples of how the retail market operates abound, and none of them are "trouble" for the retailers who practice them.
    gregoriusmtommikelewatto_cobra

  • Amazon says users don't own content bought on Prime Video

    citpekscitpeks
    larryjw said:
    rchg said:
    mknelson said:
    There isn't anything unusual here - that's the same licensing terms as on CDs, DVDs, Computer Games, pretty much every digital media…

    *still handy to remind people - there will be newbs here.
    Except that, say, the music label does not enter your home and take the CD away just because the artist changed the label/publisher.

    Its quite different from CDs, DVDs, books. When you buy one of these you own the fixed medium on which the content is written. You can sell it, give it away, destroy it, but you do OWN the medium. 

    That is far different from today's "ownership" -- the content is fixed temporarily and ephemeral. You make copies, for example, when your systems are backed-up but mostly it is very little different from a limited rental. 

    Quite right.  CDs, DVDs, and books are covered by the First-sale Doctrine, which allow you, as the owner, to do as you please with the material, as long as the copyright holder's rights are not violated.  Note that a key trait of the law is that ownership is established.

    It is a narrow law, and copyright owners have tried to convince the courts to erode it, and they have been successful in some respects, but physical media offers a big advantage.
    shamino