I have worked at multiple companies that vilified open source anything, while building their entire businesses on Linux, Java, Debian, and thousands of other "OSI Approved" software.
It's because, in my experience, the majority of businesses want to take but do not want to feel any obligation to give back or support.
Which was the entire purpose of Open Source, from conception, and the only way it is distinct from other licenses. Open Source is like Free Software, except you can use it without giving anything away.
> Open Source is like Free Software, except you can use it without giving anything away.
No, Open Source and Free Software are two names for essentially the same thing. The Free Software Foundation has a preference for licenses which go beyond its own Free Software Definition [0] and which are also "Copyleft" [1], but does not define Free Software in a way which requires that it also be Copyleft.
> No, Open Source and Free Software are two names for essentially the same thing.
This is not substantially true, which is why I assume you've added "essentially" in here. Open Source is Free Software, because anybody can take it and make it anything they want as long as they comply with the minimal license terms. Open Source can be proprietary, too, if somebody takes it, complies with the minimal license terms, and makes it proprietary.
> This is not substantially true, which is why I assume you've added "essentially" in here.
No, it is. The OSI Open Source definition and the FSF Free Software definition are framed differently but require substantially the same things, and for virtually every license on which both have expressed an opinion, they have cone to the same conclusion as to whether it meets each organization’s requirements.
Free Software does not require a license that prevents proprietary re-licensing, that is an additional separate concern beyond the Free Software definition (Copyleft); the FSF generally prefers copyleft licenses, but recognizes non-copyleft licenses as Free Software licenses.
You seem to under the mistaken impression that copyleft is a requirement to meet the Free Software definition, but that has never been the case.
To be clear, Open Source and Free Software aren't licenses. They are philosophies. FOSS licenses come in two major varieties - copyleft (like GPL) and permissive (like MIT). It's possible for either type of license to conform to both open source and free software philosophies. In fact, the vast majority of FOSS licenses - both copyleft and permissive - are endorsed by both camps (OSI and FSF). Also, both camps reject licenses for similar reasons - like for having proprietary terms (as in case of BSL).
The property of being able to keep changes to oneself is the property of permissive licenses, not opensource. Open source software under copyleft licenses cannot be modified and distributed while withholding changes. The inverse is applicable to FS under permissive license too.
The real difference between free software and open source is in how they treat the software. FS camp considers software as something that should give the users total freedom over the computing devices they own. The software shouldn't constrain or exploit the end user in any manner. This of course needs the source to be open.
OSS camp established open source because they realized the advantages of 'open' source, but didn't like the emphasis on freedom. That's more in line with corporate philosophy - take advantage of unaffiliated talent to increase code volume and quality, without making any commitment to user freedom. This is why many companies completely avoid the term free software. It's also easy to find 'open source' code that's very exploitative towards users, despite being open and using FSF-endorsed licenses.
I understand your point and in someway do agree that it is marketing and it is a way of differentiating themselves.
But inly to justify a higher price tag? Yes it is true they are premium products, but I don't think it's true that they're that much more expensive than similar items occupying the same marketing niche from other manufacturers.
And they are far more than an order of magnitude cheaper than even a low end set of hearing aids.
But all of that is despite the point.
Samsung, Sony, Bose,… The list goes on. I have bought high-end headphones from them all, some with some without noise cancellation. In ear, over the ear, wired and Bluetooth... the list goes on.
NOBODY has a headphone that accommodates my hearing loss except Apple.
And they started doing it years ago as a feature buried in the accessibility settings.
But they kept improving it to the point where it is now FDA approved.
"A plus point in a differentiation matrix…?"
This is the kind of action that buys customer loyalty for life. I hope you never get to experience the depth of hearing loss that many of us have and how utterly transformative this kind of technology not just can be, but IS.
Bose made a product ~10 years back called Hearphones which were far more capable than what Apple is doing here.
IIRC Jabra earbuds have had "hearing aid" features for years. They, unfortunately, don't help with single side deafness the way the Hearphones do.
Apple isn't doing anything groundbreaking here but they are doing it at a very competitive price. The airpod features also do not help with single side deafness. :(
The people I've talked to that have been using them say there's no setting for it and they don't hear anything like audio picked up on one side routed to the other earbud.
Yes the problem with severe hearing loss is that hearing aids simply cannot compensate for what is no longer there.
Hearing aids are actually a a lot more complicated than just boosting frequencies. At the very simplest, these days they are wide/multi band compressors that try to balance discomfort with natural hearing, generally focusing on speech intelligibility since that is by far the most important target.
If you have severe hearing loss I would strongly recommend putting yourself in the care of a professional. Costco is a great source of probably the lowest cost versus highest quality hearing aids these days... but the reason I say "professional" is because there are so many kinds of hearing loss and they all affect your perception markedly differently.
It's a lot more than just "missing some sensitivity at some frequencies".
I know what you mean. I am in India. Hearing aids are exorbitantly priced here and there is no Costco. I will definitely go for more professional ones once I can afford them, and not just buying them, but losing them too.
My experience is that they serve different purposes.
I have a very nice and expensive set of ReSound hearing aids and they're fabulous at what they do, which is focus on speech and kind of on music if I set them for that.
They're also unobtrusive and easily last 18-20 hours on a charge. I forget I'm wearing them, and nobody notices that I have them.
My AirPods I use primarily for running and listening to music because they just sound unbelievably better, and they're probably fine for a concert although I haven't done that with them. But I think for long-term use every day all day it wouldn't be that comfortable or unobtrusive.
Would love to hear the experience of somebody who's trying it, though!
I don't have hearing loss, but I wear 2 pairs of AirPods Pro 2 over the course of a 10 hour day. The reason I have 2 pairs is because 1 pair only gets 5-6 hours of battery life, and I need to swap them while they recharge in the case.
Comfort? To me, very comfortable. I just leave them in there with Active Noise Canceling on all the time.
I may be showing my age, but if you remember "Get Smart", AirPods Pro 2 are like a Cone of Silence -- except they actually work.
Looking at the web, they’re also over $4500. I think the people who will most appreciate the AirPods are the ones that can now afford to put something in their ear to help their hearing.
In my experience, the rubbery Apple ear tips in the AirPods have better sound isolation and audio quality, but foam aftermarket tips better keep the AirPods from falling out.
As a mid-50 year old who discovered two years ago that he has moderate hearing loss (50-55 dB HL), I will be forever grateful to Apple for doing this.
If anybody from the accessibility teams is reading this, please know that it is difficult for me to overstate my gratitude and my appreciation for the amount of work this must've taken.
Music sounds unbelievably better through my AirPod pros, and I didn't even know what I had lost until I heard it again.
I'm willing to bet that a lot of my middle aged compatriots don't even know how much their hearing has degraded… Get your hearing test tested, folks, while you still have it!
> I wear musician's earplugs when playing in bands.
As a musician, you possibly have custom ones, but for anyone else who’s not an audiophile, you can get decent ones that mostly preserve the sound while lowering the volume for around $15-20. A godsend for concerts.
I'm past the edit window here, but have a couple more thoughts. First, I'm just a jazz player, so my gigs can get loud, but not screaming stooopid loud. Second, I am almost always amplified on stage, meaning that the most delicate subtleties of optimal tone quality are lost anyway.
Many of the rock players are moving to in-ear monitors, which block everything but replace it with your monitor mix, received via wireless.
On the other hand, some band mates, and my kids, play classical. Their needs are a lot more critical in terms of perceiving their tone quality. A benefit of the fitted plugs is that you can get the capsules with less attenuation, which means you're still safe in something like a classical ensemble, but without losing too much.
Are they ever. I watched Alien Romulus in Imax, I'm not doing that again, it was painfully loud. I am an avid concert goer and I wear earplugs every time - Romulus without earplugs was by far the loudest thing I've been exposed to this year.
And, if you can't afford those, just get some orange foam ones - they have excellent protection, often greater than the audiophile ones, and, let's be honest, that bar or arena you're going to wasn't built with sound quality in mind.
Personally, also at the very cheap end, I like wax ones partly because you can vary the noise blocking as needed - put them in loosely or squish them in.
I guess that depends on the metal show, because I wholeheartedly disagree. But except kanonenfieber currently, I like little that is close to mainstream.
Everybody has vastly different sensitivities to sound exposure.
Even identical twins with identical sound exposures can have drastically different hearing profiles especially as they age.
I actually have always been very careful with my hearing; there is some evidence that I may have a very very mild congenital birth defect that makes me prone to hearing loss, but that's largely speculation.
My wife is actually older than me and has a spectacularly sensitive hearing - as does her mother! - and she's the drummer! (The wife, not her mother :-) I just do keys and vocals...)
That's why it's so important that everyone protect their hearing because even though it's not too loud for the people around you, it might be too loud for you - and you won't know until it's too late.
Hearing being a "logarithmic" sense and decibels make this a bit weird to me. Like losing 6 dB of hearing in a car crash is considered negligible and insignificant, but that actually means the ears lost half their sensitivity in a flash (and it's never coming back, just like teeth). Likewise your 50 dB hearing loss is considered moderate, but actually represents a 300-fold reduction in acuity.
Although I try not to think about that too hard because... well it's kind of depressing.
But it's the exact reason that hearing aids are so difficult to design.
For example if you were to naïvely try to just "add back" 50 dB of gain to a 70 dB ambient sound, that hearing aid would be trying to pump 120 dB of sound energy into your ear canal... which would actually cause damage to the surrounding cochlear bands...
But if it doesn't try to add something there, then everything sounds distorted because you have way too much sound energy from the other frequency bands, perhaps ones where you have much higher sensitivity.
Hence the multi band compression and why it's so difficult, and why hearing aid manufacturers focus on speech intelligibility above and beyond everything.
When I go to rock concerts I am the one percent, when I go to bass music shows all of a sudden half of the people are wearing ear protection. I think some scenes and genres are better about this than others.
My wife is in her 50's. Her hearing seems noticeably poor than it used to be but she is in a bit of denial about it. This will be my first purchase of Air Pods — and for my wife. A kind of stealth hearing aid....
Hearing loss is one of the very few proven and CAUSAL mechanisms behind cognitive degeneration as we age.
They even know the mechanism: the slow imperceptible year by year withdrawal from rich communication patterns with our environment.
I found that it took me a little while not to feel "old" when I discovered that I needed hearing aids.
But my oh my what a difference.
It's difficult to describe to someone what it's like and how much less cognitive energy you have to put into even simple things like discussing lunch with your wife!
Because my voice is deep and I'm soft spoken, I've always been told people could feel my voice before they heard it, and a lot of noise cancellation models have a hard time distinguishing me from environmental sound and suppress my speech.
It's weirdly isolating not being able to communicate in certain meeting software or on some phones because a computer thinks I'm the machine.
I've been wearing them for 10 years and have never had any bad comments as a result. When I first got them, work colleagues were visibly pleased for me that I had done something about a problem that was getting worse (not being able to follow quiet conversations in meetings).
The one time someone did say something slightly negative that included "oh it's that guy with the hearing aids" I came back with "yes, and thanks to them I can hear what you just said, the clue is in the name", which got a general laugh that helped a lot. But that was a one off, apart from people slightly staring sometimes when they notice them, no one seems bothered.
Not directly related to your case, but I thought I had some age-related hearing loss when listening to Spotify Premium only for a decade. I appreciate their recommendations (found me a whole bunch of new interesting bands, even new favourite ones), but didn't know how awful Spotify's quality is even in comparison to Apple's standard codec.
I didn't make the switch yet since for lossless since I don't have enough space on my phone, but am considering it, even for just showing support for the current music quality efforts over at Apple.
Spotify high quality is usually 320kbps. If not, it's because only worse qualities are recorded/available. I have sincere doubts you're able to hear a difference to lossless qualities, especially if you're listening on the go or in non-hifi setups.
I've heard this argument so many times - but personally I can trivially easily here the difference between Tidal / Apple Music and Spotify's 'high quality' setting - even on wireless headphones. Music on spotify sounds flat and drained. No idea if this has something to do with their compression technique, some kind of EQing, or a flaw in some other part of the pipeline, but I've blind tested it many times and its night and day.
Generally the problem with this type of argument is that the two sources are not volume-matched. Try out an ABX test here, of lossless vs various lossy codecs: https://abx.digitalfeed.net/
I used to be like you many years ago, thinking that high samplerates and bit depth were essential and the ultimate way of getting the best possible sound quality, but in reality 44.1khz 16bit is plenty for humans. Get over it. Whoever mixed the 192khz version essentially remastered it and put a bit of a spice over it. You can easily prove it by producing a downmixed 44khz version (use a high quality resampler) from the 192khz version and trying to blind ABX both, I doubt you will be able to spot any difference, and if you do, congratulations your sound system has some weird intermodulation issue from the high frequencies present in the high sample rate version, that is causing a listenable sound to appear (which should not be there).
I think you're missing the wood for the trees here. It makes no functional difference to the listener whether the reason spotify sounds worse is their use of lower quality masters, or some aspect of their streaming or compression. In practice their library sounds significantly, measurably worse to many people. I've also blind tested this with friends when I signed up for Tidal, and most people I tested were able to clearly hear the difference.
This. No double-blind ABX test has ever been able to discern the difference between an above-CD quality file and its downsampled CD-quality equivalent, or even a 320 kbps MP3 encoding of it.
Most people are not listening closely, nearly meditating over music. If you average over most people, this is what you will find. Look at the "outliers" in those same studies.
It seems more like you need to get over it. I have never cared about bit rates etc. I just care about how it sounds and I know that lossless sounds significantly better to me and to many others.
The amount of gaslighting when it comes to audio is always bizarre to me.
Read my post again, I'm strictly talking about the audio format and not about the codec nor compression. I would expect anyone caring enough to compare CD quality 44khz and 192khz/24bits to be using lossless or uncompressed audio, otherwise what's the point? Pretty much all lossy codecs will put a low-pass filter and trow out any sound above 16khz~20khz anyway, and some will even resample to 48khz, no matter what lol.
I can't speak to Apple Music or Tidal, but I did a test between the Spotify and CD versions of Xtal from Selected Ambient Works 85-92 by Aphex Twin and the difference would be clear to absolutely anyone - the Spotify version is very tinny.
People often trot out the "most people can't tell the difference" argument, but I wonder how many of those people have actually tried a variety of tests? My hunch is very few.
Are you sure you are not comparing a normal release to the remastered version? There are plenty of albums out there that have "improved" or remastered versions but are not labelled as such in the album title, and Selected Ambient Works 85-92 is one of those.
Xtal is a gem. I just tested both and the Apple Music version had more oomph the first time I tested for a bit. Then I went back to the beginning a second time and they sounded the same. Whether or not it's true I don't think I can trust myself to be a good tester.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Fwiw I believe Xtal was originally made from samples recorded on cassette, so there's definitely a ceiling on how dynamic it could sound.
You can't judge the quality of a digital audio file purely on its bit rate.
There are many things that (can) go into digital mastering and re-encoding that can make huge differences in actual audio quality of the final product, even with the same file format and bit rate.
I can easily hear the difference between Lossless and AAC on my two IEMs (Blessing 2 Dusk + IE600) as well as my open-back Focal Clear. And even with Bluetooth via AptX HD.
With the quality of audio improving so much in recent years I would take a guess that almost anyone can appreciate the significant difference in sound quality for < $50.
Same. There's a difference in texture, primarily in the trebles, but there's also a general muddiness and lack of separation. Everything feels like it's been smoothed over, but not in a good way, or too "crunchy". Transients don't have the right amount of bite and the stereo image doesn't feel as three-dimensional. It's harder to hear the "room". Currently using Sony IER-M9 with a Linum DualBax Zebra, which is a great cable, btw.
I feel like if I was playing Audiophile Bingo, I'd just have won.
I mean I can't claim complete 'ignorance', I have more audio toys than many (a "Schiit Stack" on my desk (DAC, mixer and amp) and a couple of "low end" headphones, Sennheiser and Hifiman planars), but by the time you are discussing cables... next thing it's whether wood volume knobs will eliminate unwanted resonances from your sound stage.
Favorite comment I heard on such things: Music lovers buy equipment to listen to their music. Audiophiles buy music to listen to their equipment.
I can too, but only because AAC has such an unnatural stereo presence that I can pick it out in a lineup of codecs with my eyes closed. If it was a direct comparison between downsampled FLAC/WAV then I'm not sure I could tell the difference.
Theoretically, if Spotify's claims are true, Ogg Vorbis at 320kbps should be indistinguishable from lossless in most listening scenarios. In practice, I found this not to be the case and there is a significant difference, even when using lossy equipment like Apple Airpods Pro.
I do not understand where the difference comes from. It could be that Spotify uses a crappy encoder. Could be that they "cheat" on bitrate. Or it could be the interplay of different compression schemes. But something is definitely off. I compared to Apple Music with lossless and Roon ARC playing my own FLAC-encoded media.
Spotify does some loudness normalization that you could disable in the settings. (Don't know anymore as don't use Spotify for years). Maybe worth checking.
But that's just an auto volume level, it doesn't actually change the sound balance or dynamics or anything like that. It just makes the average volume of the track closer to the average volume of other tracks.
It's as old now as the first Jazz concert at Carnegie hall was to it. Fred Astaire's "Nice Work if You Can Get It" was #24 on the charts that year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_in_music
Crap. I used to think being alive was better than being dead. But come to think of it, the only ones complaining are the ones who are still alive. I’m conflicted now.
reply