Because it's pointlessly incompatible. You can do the exact same thing purely in the application, leaving the file format the same. Why do you hate interoperability?

▲

ethersteeds 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The same could be said of a word document, vs a text file with markdown.

The same could also be said of an .mkv file, vs a directory with an .avi, subtitle files for each language, and suggested fonts.

Or a macOS application bundle, vs an installer program that decompresses a binary and numerous resources across the file system and sets values in a system registry describing their locations.

It's not wrong, but it misses the value that can be found in a container format. Sure, I could make a digital mixtape by dropping audio files in a folder with a .m3u playlist etc. But being able to package audio with album art and metadata in a single open file format actually strikes me as incredibly useful.

I'd love to see this take off.

	▲	geocar 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The same could also be said of an .mkv file, vs a directory with an .avi, subtitle files for each language, and suggested fonts. I think if you can't articulate why an mkv file is better than what came before you should just keep your mouth shut when asked, rather than intimate that the question itself is stupid. > But being able to package audio with album art and metadata in a single open file format actually strikes me as incredibly useful. You have that ability and have had it for a long long time. See, there's an existing open format called RIFF that WAVE is based on. Adobe extended it to include metadata. Microsoft extended it to support MP4 audio. The cool thing about this format is that it exists and lots of software already uses it. > I'd love to see this take off. Why?

▲

quasarj 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What makes it not interoperable?