iPod for Windows (again)

beckett writes "Yahoo is reporting that TrentSoft has released EphPod, software that allows Windows users to use all the features of the iPod. I'm suprised that it took a third party to provide support." Also note the previous story on the XPlay, a similar software package.

Comments

Why are you surprised?

[interactive_civilian]

"I'm suprised that it took a third party to provide support."

If I am not mistaken, Apple is primarily a computer hardware company, right? Which means that they want to sell their own computers, right? Which means that if other cool products they release work only with their computers by default, then their computers just might look a little more attractive to the potential computer buyer, right?

Now, of course, I am not saying that an iPod is going to make the standard typical PC using geek/nerd/gamer/etc want to rush out and buy a Mac, but combine it w/ MacOS X, competitively priced notebooks (not to mention sexy), and some of the other nice details that come w/ owning a Mac (iMovie, Office on *nix, etc), and some people just might be swayed to buy one.

So, why do you think Apple should cause one of their "hot products" to be supported by default on a competitor's hardware? If a PC user wants to use this hardware, then they can do the extra work required to get it to work w/ their hardware...or they can get a Mac.

IMHO, it is not Apple's problem.

Re:Why are you surprised?

[OpenMind(tm)]

competitively priced notebooks (not to mention sexy)

Brrr... I'm sorry, but I think that Apple, with its "sexy" machines is a major threat to human life on this planet. Apple wants us to redirect all our sexual energy into playing with computers, thus trimming the population growth rate, and making us weak. That way, we will be vulnerable when their teal-plastic-bubble robots move in to take control of the planet.

Sure, it would be a benevolent dictatorship, with easy-to-use interfaces and open standards, but consider the horror when a person's largest muscle is his right index finger, from clicking that one button thousands of times a minute.

Seriously, though, this is not a new tactic from Apple. The lack of a version of Final Cut Pro for Intel platforms has seriously annoyed me for a while. I can see this as a viable way to push their hardware, but I'm not sure they end up making more money by doing so. Limiting one of the best video editing packages to ~10% of the possible market is missing a big oppurtunity.

When it comes down to it, I think Apple's software is what distinguishes it. The interesting form factors they put through are neat, but could be done as well with Intel hardware. Really Apple hardware doesn't do anything Intel hardware can't, except run MacOS. They would sell much more hardware, I think, if it was x86 based. But then they'd have nothing to push their operating system.

So in the end, I have to wonder, is Apple using its software to push the hardware, or its hardware to push the OS platform.

Third party.

[saintlupus]

I'm suprised that it took a third party to provide support.

Yeah, that's weird. You'd certainly expect Apple to be eager to give people one less reason to buy their computers and OS.

[/sarcasm]

--saint

Re:Meaning of ":ephpod?"

[EvilAlien]

It comes from fPod, i.e., f'Pod, i.e., what you say when you can't use the f'ing iPod on your Windows box.

Re:Apple?

[Jucius Maximus]

"Is Apple simply not on the ball with this?"

Apple is far more on the ball than you might think. In fact I think they are being incredibly smart.

Apple has happily released an amazingly good personal mp3 player with official support for Mac only. They knew all along that because this player was so good, SOMEONE would eventually develop PC interface software for it. And when that someone did it, millions of PC users would buy an iPod but since they are not using an officially supported configuration, Apple does not have to provide any support to them but still gets to profit from their purchace of the device.

Pretty good deal, huh? Would any developers like to comment about the percentage of profit lost on a product when someone calls for tech support?

Shameless plug

[SlashDread]

Ephpod rocks my world.

Have you ever wished Apples design for the OS and the Apps would trickle down to "other" osses?

I have.

Well Ephpod just did it. Its software is beautifull, and simple to use, as is the marvelous iPod.

It installed in 5 minutes, windows2k has build in IEEE 1394 (firewire) support, so plug in your el-cheapo Firewire PCI card, reboot, install Eph and bobsyourunlce.

Some feats on the iPod:
- Best formfactor for HD mp3 players, it actually fits in a breast pocket.
- Stores 10GIG
- Transfers at firewire blazing speed

The only drawback is the godawful high price

I take no care in comments that apple _should_ release for other OSses, their apps, their hardware their choice.

A different "stink" is the lack of Macdrive support for other OSses. Whereas Apps and special hardware are their own deal, the lack of support for mac disk formats is another. In the best interest of Apple buyers, and people sharing data with them, it is _needed_ to buy third party stuff like MacOpener for windows from dataviz.
Now THATS reason number one for oldschool MacFreaks to eventually switch;their customers run windows, and are tired of converting files and disks. This is the stupidist thing from Apple since quicktime.

When are we getting linux mp3 players that are cheap and dont suck?

Gr Richard

Apple should not release Windows software

[fermion]

This is actually a brilliant tactic on Apples part. It was almost certain that someone would come out with link software. By letting someone else do this, Apple reduces its customer service nightmare.

I mean think about it. Apple released a tightly integrated device that works quite automagically. Most things in iTunes, even when connected with USB or Firewire, happen automagically, or require only single button drag and drop use. Even though Windows has almost this level of simplicity, Windows is also controlled by Microsoft. Microsoft actively tries to screw every other vendow(and honestly, to some extents, so does Apple), which means no one knows if the software is going to work with the next patch.

By releasing a minimal, yet compelling version, and allowing other to expand it, Apple is harnessing the third party market in a perfectly reasonable way. I feel it made the same decision when it did not build in windows networking, another moving target, into MacOS 9. Thursby Software had an inexpensive working method, and handled all problems with Windows, including clueless users that do not wish to pay software.

Now some would say that Apple should be nice and create a better value for Windows users. Of course, Apple does not exist to make Windows more valuable, does it.

To predict the critics, Internet stuff is a bit different. Products like realplayer promote the brand. It is also safer because it does not deal with the low level system and hardware layer that Microsoft likes to mess with on a regular basis. Again, so does Apple.

My take on Apple's hardware/software

[BMonger]

First off.... For the past 10 years or so I've been Windows/Intel-type bound. But now I own the flat-panel iMac and you'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers many times over before I'll let you take it away. I love the OS and the machine looks neat to boot.

One thing that I find rather annoying is when people complain that Apple products don't work with their PC's such as there being no Windows iPod software and Apple using non-standard connections for things like their flat screens.

First, the iPod. If Apple released software for the iPod to connect to the PC then they'd have to support it. The people in their building are Mac coders and know Mac stuff inside and out. Do they know Windows? I dunno. But probably not all that well. It costs to support an additional operating system. With the internet being as it is they probably could have released the iPod with no software and software would have arisen to use it on the Mac and the PC. Of course that would've been dumb so why not support your own platform. Let the other guys worry about their platform or let somebody else do it for free. They may lose some money because nobody will buy their non-existent $19.95 program that let's you use the iPod on the PC but Joe Schmoe just made it for them and they're selling $400-$500 iPods like hotcakes.

Now this is a little off-topic but I've seen a few people complain about it in this newspost. People are ill at Apple because the flat screens that Apple sells for it's hardware won't plug into most PC's without a dongle or something. Well so what? My TV doesn't plug into my iMac without a dongle and a little piece of hardware. My old PC monitor won't work with my iMac either unless I put Bob's string of dongles between my iMac and the monitor. My toaster won't plug into my iMac either and probably never will (although I'm sure somebody will do it soon so they can link me to it to irk me!). Apple sells hardware and makes software for Apple computers. It's their deal. That's what they do. If Radio Shack Bob want's to back some special inbetween hardware to let people use apple hardware with pc hardware then let 'em at it. If that programmer wants to create the software interface to use the hardware on the PC then yippee for them. Don't rag on Apple because their toast fits in their toaster and nobody elses without some modifications.

Yeah... it was probably a bad rant. I'm sure I'll be shown the errors of my ways in less than 30 minutes or my money back...

Re:Correction: MacOS X is UNIX not *nix

[Jordy]

Once upon a time, AT&T was UNIX®. They shifted the trademark inside the company to a dozen different subsidiaries (Unix Support Group, Unix System Laboratories, etc.) AT&T then sold UNIX® to Novell who donated it to X/Open. X/Open then became The Open Group.

Simply following the Single UNIX® Specification doesn't not entitle you to use the UNIX® trademark, you must be certified or have been granted a license to use the trademark from one of the AT&T companies.

As it stands, Darwin doesn't follow the Single UNIX® Specification. It is missing a number of commands in the specifcation (fuser, gencat, hash, etc.), several missing API calls (poll, pthread_rw*, etc.) and even some headers (utmpx.h, wchar.h, strops.h, etc.)