Apple and audio means poor quality in my mind. Add to it proprietary connectors which means I have to (initially) select from the lower half of the shelf quality-wise and I am already gone, why on earth would I want to pay extra for less.
So why on earth am I replying? Can't help but voicing a few facts obviously
I do not agree that 16bit/44.1KHz is good enough. It does not even cover the entire spectrum of the ear.... It is close though, so if they raise that from 44.1 to 48KHz it would finally be adequate.
I am a lossless-audio-phreak though, and voice the same opinions as those on the video-side welcoming overkill for our eyes' abilities, the more the merrier, but on the audio side of course.
Naturally and as a consequence, if I have a choice, 24bit/96KHz or better is always chosen and I have never ever bought any MP3 download as the CD format is below par as it is, it survives by compensating technologies like oversampling.
It is easy to believe some of the absolute rubbish out there like the recent falsehood that came from xiph.org, no less!
In reality, the subject is very advanced including quantification of the sampling-signal, thus introducing infinite resolution to the analogue signal, but this is still not solved.
Until it is, there simply is no truth as to what 'ought to be good enough', meaning every so called technical report is down to opinions. Now, I do not hold anything against opinions as long as they are presented as such. However when they present opinions as fact, they manage to annoy me more than a little.
It s way out of scope here of course... I may be starting a discussion thread later on to bring up the full scenario if anyone is interested.