Slashdot Mirror
Sync Your iPod on Linux
scatboy writes "Tex9 has software for using an iPod (yes, another iPod story) on Linux. It uses a graphical drag-and-drop interface through xtunes, their version of iTunes on Linux. They are looking for beta testers of the xpod software now.
I have a dual boot box that has only gone into Windows lately to load my iPod with the betas of XPlay. I held out on making the final purchase of XPlay due to rumours of Apple coming out with their own Windows software at MacWorld New York. This is an even better reason to wait. I am very excited about a chance to measure uptime in months again!"
Given that Apple politely asked Mediafour, the makers of XPlay (the Windows "iTunes" equivalent to interface w/ iPod), to change their name from XPod to something else, I think you've got a point.
Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
This is really cool tech, a really cool program, and good for linux.
But i couldn't help but notice: did you see the little thumbnail screenshot? It appears that they are attempting to directly copy the iTunes interface, right down to the positioning of widgets and aqua+brushed_metal skin.
STUPID. Apple has made it very, very clear that they consider the skins/themes to their programs "trade dressing", and that if you sell a product with the same interface and textures as one of theirs, they WILL send lawyers after you. Notice that anyone who tries to make a theme explicitly described as "aqua lookalike" gets a letter from Apple Legal. No matter whether you believe apple has the legal right to do this, you have to at least acknowledge *they do this*, and it really isn't worth the bother of risking having to deal with apple legal. Just make something DIFFERENT, and then this won't be a problem. It's just a matter of saneness and safety.
I will agree that trying to copyright "look and feel" is bullshit, but look. Skins are images. You can copyright images. There is no reason to pretend that a skin/theme to an mp3 player is not a copyright violation just because, well, the textures may look exactly the same as they do in the interface you're knocking off, but hey, they aren't EXACTLY the same images! Um, no.
You can also copyright layouts, like in graphics & design, leading me to think that if you create a program where every button, text field, and interface widget is in exactly the same place as in iTunes, and you got hauled into court over this, you WOULD lose.
What is so hard about just HUMORING APPLE and DESIGNING YOUR OWN INTERFACES AND GUI SKINS? You just look stupid when you clumsily copy someone else's interface vertabrim. Yes, i get the idea is to be all like "look, you can do things on linux just the same as on mac!", but what it actually COMES ACROSS AS is "look, i am too uncreative or incompetent to design a user interface, so i just ripped off Apple's wholesale!"
Why bother dealing with the hassle of Windows software support issues when a version of XPlay was available within weeks? At the Apple retail stores I visited while thinking about an iPod, the staff knew of XPlay and mentioned it to people who asked about "Windows versions."
I think they had the right idea. Sell the iPods and let someone else deal with the Windows issues.
Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
Apple isn't in the business of selling an OS, or even hardware. They're in the business of selling a user experience, a digital lifestyle, and they can only do that if they control the OS and the hardware. Rhapsody for x86 or "windows compatable" iPod may increase sales, but it also breaks apart the apple experience into pieces.
It might sound like marketting bullshit, but think about it... Coca Cola doesn't sell a can of carbonated sugar water, they sell an image. If you just want a soda, you could buy RC or Shasta or Kmart Cola. In Europe, you can even buy Coca Cola designer clothes.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Apple's livihhod in hinged on the phrase, "It Just Works."
You can't make guarantees on hardware/software you can't control. Rather than producing a version (even unsupported beta) that would work for most but cause bad PR when it wasn't updated and started having issues, Apple chose to stay out of the PC market altogether.
With the availability of Windows/Linux versions of the software, people will be able to buy the iPod and use it with a PC - which offers Apple income as well as the chance that people will sit down at a Mac with their iPod someday and see how well "It Just Works."
--
If I say I'm wrong, I don't have you worry about you proving it.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
What is it with you people and uptime? Is this just another way of comparing penis size? (My uptime is longer than your uptime, etc)
Grow up! It won't kill you to reboot once in a while!
Reality has a liberal bias
Why the heck didn't Apple come out with a Windows version in the first place?
There have been several replies already, but no one has yet pointed out that Apple isn't in the business of selling iPods. They sell Macs. And your assertion that people won't buy a Mac just to get an iPod is demonstrably false. I know two people who did just that. They're really into music and they love their MP3 collections. They were in the market for new laptops anyway. One chose an iBook and the other a TiBook, both solely on the existence of iPod.
If there had been iPod software for Windows, both of those guys would have bought Windows laptops instead. Although they probably would have been as happy with them....
It's part of the whole "full user experience" thing. The iPod will not make someone buy a mac by itself, but if someone is looking at both a Dell and an iMac, the possibility of using an iPod may tip the scales.
You have to understand apple's strategy. The PC market is now a commodity; any one chunk of PC hardware is as good as any other chunk of PC hardware, and so if you charge lots of money (or even, these days, enough money to turn a profit) for a computer, people will just go with a cheaper competitor. After all, it's all just Windows anyway.
Apple sees this, and they seek to escape this by selling software that is just positioned as Better. They can't do this on hardware quality alone-- even cheap computers are fast enough for most people these days-- but they can do it just based on total better user experience. They want to make the person on the street believe that, yeah, that imac may be $500 more, but it will be an easier time, you'll be able to use more interesting programs and peripherals with it, and it will just overall be worth that extra $500.
This is their goal. Whether they succeed at this is something you can decide for yourself. However, it is definitely part of their goal to do as many little things as possible to make their platform seem Unique. The iPod, iTunes and iPhoto are really tiny, inconsequential things, but apple is betting that to the computer newbie the psychological difference will be huge.
Why the heck didn't Apple come out with a Windows version in the first place? They have arguably the best MP3 player in the industry
Because in less than a year, Apple's seen the iPod become so successful that Windows and Linux developers are creating their own solutions--some of them complete with FireWire cards--to do Apple's job *for* them.
Besides, fully half the reason the iPod is as big a hit with Mac users as it is is the integration with iTunes: create your MP3 playlists, organize your collection, and it will be automatically synchronized with your iPod when you request it. iTunes isn't just Apple's MP3 jukebox, its their "driver" software for iTunes. Creating a marketable Windows/Linux solution would require them to achieve the same level of integration with one or all of those platforms' MP3 packages. Why take the time to do that, when someone else is clearly willing to do the job for them?
Personally, and somewhat pettily, I think Windows users deserve to know how it feels to have a peripheral with no built-in support for their platform for a change. For years, Mac users have had to spend extra money to read files, access networks, sync PDAs, download digital photos, scan from scanners, and print to printers designed for the other 95% of the computing world. I'm reasonably certain there's not a single other MP3 portable on the market that sports full Mac OS synchronization. If Windows users have to wait a little while to use a gadget Apple designed that they want, then I consider that poetic justice.
Why the heck didn't Apple come out with a Windows version in the first place?
Because Apple is in the business of selling Apple computers and accessories for Apple computers, and giving people compelling reasons to buy them, like ease of use and seamless integration.
Because the iPod is expensive, and 99% of Windows users only care about cost, not quality. Anyone who paid scarcely more than $399 for their whole damn computer will not open their wallet and dump out that much for an MP3 player, even if it is the best one out there. Not to mention that Windows users would probably have the added expense of buying a FireWire card to use the iPod, since almost no PCs come with true FireWire built-in (VAIOs with i.Link don't count, either, since they don't have the larger connector that allows for power to flow across the bus and charge the iPod). Even if Apple made the iPod for Windows, the number of Windows users who would buy it would be miniscule compared to the number of Windows users btiching about the high price. Add in the costs of supporting a Windows product, and you quickly find out that supporting the Windows market is 'not economically viable'.
For every one Windows user who bitches about the iPod not being Windows-friendly, there are hundreds of Mac users who, over the years, have wanted a Windows-only gadget or two and had their pleas for Mac support ignored by the maker. Welcome to our world.
~Philly
I like to think I'm beyond all that. I thought "Coca-Cola" shirts were silly. I buy soda according to what taste I like (or whats available). But then - I'm a bit of cynic. I marvel at the economic / marketing machine spinning around me during a family trip to Disney World. I constantly have talks with my kid over the manipulation being attempted by various TV shows and advertisements on TV - especially those targeted at kids. Meanwhile, it doesn't seem like the masses notice.
Apple has an interesting strategy. Cool underlying technology, partly in thanks to a BSD core (first time I've actually started considering Apple hardware since Apple II days). And some really slick consumer-level design and marketing. It might actually pay off.
But even if the strategy doesn't pay - its a marvel to watch.