Slashdot Mirror
Apple is Porting iTunes to Windows
An anonymous reader writes "It seems that Apple is indeed porting its new iTunes software to Windows as evidenced by a posting on its job board (No. 1949938) This has interesting implications for Apple trying to sell more expensive hardware when the same apps are available on cheaper Wintel hardware. Is this inevitable? Will this have any effect on P2P networks?" Sure enough, I go there and it says, " Looking for a Senior Software Engineer to desing (sic) and build Apple's newest Consumer Application, iTunes for Windows." Heh.
After all, there are plenty of free and nearly-free music players for Windows, how could they make money by charging for it?
Clear, Dark Skies
I cannot imagine Apple giving away their crowing jewel of consumer software so that some PC user who has never given them a dime can use it with the RealJukebox - But If the new digital music store takes off on the mac side than maybe Apple would use a Windows iTunes (and/or AOL version) as a content portal/revenue stream. This would also be a great way to get Quicktime back into the media race. Porting osx to wintel == suicide, porting iTunes just might work.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
Hopefully they'll let existing iPod for Windows users use it as well - MusicMatch Jukebox (the software they bundle with the Windows versions) is a buggy, bloated, slow, unstable, unintuitive and unfunctional piece of crap. And EphPod keeps corrupting itself.
This space intentionally left blank.
I wouldn't be surprised. In fact, I would be surprised if they didn't, considering it appears that Music Store is pretty much a web interface.
In addition, consider that they want to promote their Music Store as far and wide as possible, and that means Windows. It might even be a contractual obligation they had to commit to, in order to get sign on from the big 5 labels and some of the various individual artists they managed to get on board.
_lpp
Yup, that is just the app I needed ported to Windows to cause me to switch. Oh, wait, there's still iDVD, iPhoto, Safari, Aqua, etc, etc. (rolls eyes)
Come on, its *one* freakin app, and the point is to drive sales of the iPod and their online music store.
If this will allow for the same level of syncing between iPods on Windows as there is on Macs, this would be great. I think that's one of the best features of the iPod on Mac. It really becomes an extension of your computer musci collection, not just another copy of your collection.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
I don't care if they port iTunes, but if they do port all iApps then I still wouldn't care. Since I can run them much better with Mac OS X. But I doubt that they would all be free like they are for Mac, since the iApps is a way of selling Macs.
I fought the corporate America, and the corporate America bought the law.
This has interesting implications for Apple trying to sell more expensive hardware when the same apps are available on cheaper Wintel hardware. Is this inevitable?
It's one app, man. And the motive, as has been said
elsewhere here, is to push the music store. That's
it, that's all. The only implications are how much
money Apple's gonna make selling 99 cent songs to
'doze users. That and possibly an answer to why it
was so hard for other online music vendors to make
a Mac client.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
If I look at the dreadful port of the Quicktime Player for Windows, I really fear what they might do to iTunes...
Of course how much it will resemble the Mac version would be debatable.
I'm guessing it would look awfully similar to QuickTime for Windows.
I'm not so much surprised by this announcement as I am surprised that it's taken Apple this long just to get around to hiring someone to start porting iTunes to Windows. MusicMatch must've been doing a pretty good job for them in the interim.
I believe that the sole reason for porting iTunes is so that they can get the iTunes Music Store for Windows users.
The whole point of the iTunes Music Store is that Apple has control of the whole process: You buy the music from Apple with iTunes, load it up to your iPod or burn it to a CD using iTunes. That's what makes it special from the numerous websites selling music downloads.
Apple already has iPod for Windows, but it ships with a 3rd party jukebox software. iTunes for Windows is the missing piece which will enable Apple to create a similar music purchasing experience for Windows users as it has for Mac users.
That's only my opinion, but I can't think of any other reason for Apple to create a free piece of software for Windows.
AOL could be the 'Trojan Horse' Apple needs to ferret their way in.
I hate Grammar Nazi's
This has interesting implications for Apple trying to sell more expensive hardware when the same apps are available on cheaper Wintel hardware.
I don't know anyone who bought their Mac just for iTunes or Mail. They all bought a Mac for the overall user experience of the apps and OS X. It's great that WinXP will get iTunes. It still won't have Safari, iDVD, iPhoto, Mail, Terminal, Fire, etc.... And it definitely won't have the BSD layer of OS X.
There are still fundamental differences between OS X and WinXP that will attract people to OS X. One or two ports of favorite apps won't change that.
I read somewhere [reputable] that Apple makes almost as much profit off of an iPod as an iMac. When you think about it, it makes sense. Thanks to all the $599 P.O.S. machines Dell keeps putting out, the lower end desktop market has rather thin profit margins. On the other hand, the cheapest iPod is 300 @#$@#$ dollars (but god do I want one ;)). So, if they can port iTunes to Windows and instead of requiring people to change their entire way of life and buying a mac, all they have to do is buy an iPod, then they've made almost as much money PLUS revenues from the music store, which selection aside (give it some time), is one of the easiest things in the world to use. They can't lose.
QuickTime is a truly remarkable system that has never been fully appreciated I feel. The scope and breadth - and elegance - of the QuickTime architecture is absolutely stunning. It can literally do anything (I used to joke that the cure for cancer was in QT if you knew the right keyboard shortcut.) I've seen people juggle dozens of disparate codecs, publish automated PDF spreadsheets, and control remote cameras and robots w/QT. (Okay, I like QT.)
Now, QT on Windows I've always regarded as a sort of Apple Secret Weapon. The original QT-Win port actually contained a really significant chunk of the Mac Toolbox API out of necessity. Don't know if that's still true. What my friends were discussing all that time ago was whether or not Apple could use this installed base of what amounts to a mini-OS against Microsoft, if the media wars every truly got nasty.
Think about it - you hook everyone on something like, say, movie trailers, get everyone to install it.
Now you roll out iTunes, which everyone loves, which relies on QT for many functions, not the least of which your new DRM (FairPlay - good name) for the Music Store you just launched. Hmm.
Nothing really insightful here but QuickTime could pose some major problems for Windows hegemony in media dominance. It's already captured the format for the MPEG4 spec (MS just howled bloody murder over that). It's been around since the dawn of time. iTunes for Windows is just the head of the spear. Apple has been playing defence for a long time but this is really significant, especially of consumers really glom onto Apple's method of DRM. Palladium, anyone? (I know its not the same, but do you think any typical users know that?)
Once upon a time, MS asked Apple to cede the authoring market for digital media in return for keeping playback. That's so fucking funny to me now, it hurts. Helloooo, iMovie. Slightly OT: Two things Apple should do that would be incredibly simple and restore massive goodwill towards QuickTime; ditch the nag-dialogs for non-pro users entirely, and port to Linux. The port alone, while earning them no money, would be very strategic.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Okay, am I the only person who's wondering why Apple is posting this job ad at all? I would have believed that iTunes for Windows would have been started months ago...
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
As a Mac user it is still frustrating to not be able to visit or use certain site
That will inevitably change as more and more web designers and developers realize that it is not about MS compatibility but about standards. Make your pages XHML compliant and you will not have to worry about Mac or Windows, IE or Safari.
Fourtune reported Apple makes as much ecomonic profit on an iPod as an iMac. If this is true, then selling a million 'Pods gets Apple the same cash as a million iMacs. (Future profits be dammed)
If there are a 10 million Windoz users that will never switch, but will buy an iPod -- Why not sell it to them?
They're probably looking for a veteran Win32 bug-hunter.
I hate Grammar Nazi's
I can't think of any other reason for Apple to create a free piece of software for Windows
I wonder if it would be free. The Quicktime player is, but the functionality from QT vs. iTunes is miles apart (IMO). It wouldn't surprise me if iTunes comes as a $29 or so piece of software for Windows users.
If it's been mentioned somewhere that iTunes for Windows will be free, then I'll stand corrected.
Actually, trolltard, all we gleaned from Jobs' statement was that there would be Apple Music Store functionality coming to Windoze later this year.
This could have been in the form of a MusicMatch plugin for all we knew. Now it's CONFIRMED that there is a version of iTunes for Windoze in the works.
Why do people feel compelled to throw feces before thinking? Fuggin' Homo Sapiens have just recently descended from the rainforest canopy, that's why. Still got some vestigial psychological elements that natural selection hasn't quite ironed out yet I guess...
And yes, they will use Webcore.
Uh. Hold on there, Cochise. Don't just assume that Apple is going to do a line-for-line port of iTunes. Doing that would require porting the Carbon foundation libraries and whole shitload of other stuff. No way would Apple do that.
Instead, expect them to write iTunes for Windows pretty much from the ground up, using QuickTime for playback and encoding and maybe some non-Mac-specific code for handling things like smart playlists and iPod syncage and whatnot.
I read in the Forbes article that Apple makes about $0.33 for each song that's sold. It makes perfect sense for them to get as many people to buy songs using their service, using their software, as possible, without having to split the proceeds with MusicMatch or some other company.
Toon toon! Black and white army!
Apple also know that free-as-in-beer software is a cheap quick way to get people onboard. It comes down to the argument used by a lot of software piracy advocates;
When you copy software you're not stealing because nothing is taken. All you're doing is using it unlicensed.
Similarly with iTunes - Apple have put development time into the app, and with every copy downloaded they're increasing the value of their machines. Apple lose nothing from the download, but only gain in a higher user satisfaction - and now with a windows version, have the potential to increase the value of their Music Store ten times over.
Add a few more free apps, and you have quite a lot of the value of a mac. iDVD, iCal, iTunes, Safari, Mail, iPhoto, iMovie etc. All free-as-in-beer, and to common old users like myself part of the reason I get a lot out of my mac.
I seem to remember there being the cocoa framework being able to run on the windows platform. Wouldn't reviving this be the quickest way to get a windows port?
Perhaps it is. I've re-installed Windows something like 5 times on this machine. First 2000, and I had no problems. Then, xp Pro and it started doing some of the strangest things.
Really, I didn't notice the skipping until recently. Perhaps it was some Windows update that I installed? I haven't done anything else system related since I installed xp, so I wonder what it could be.
Anyway, my point was that I've had some really bad experiences with my Athlon. Windows doesn't 'just work' the way that it should. I've got processing power and RAM to spare and it doesn't allocate it such that my MP3s don't skip. Meanwhile, my friend's iBook with one third the processor speed (I know, I know, unfair compairison) and half the RAM running at less than one quarter the speed doesn't have any problems whatsoever.
Deafness isn't the issue. The problem is that he's not blind, or he might actually get conned into believing that MS follows their own guidelines.
Check out the MS CD player on Win2k sometime. Or the MS media player.
Here are a couple of simple ones for you...
What does CTRL-F do? If you said 'Find' you're obviously not using Outlook....in Outlook it does 'Forward'.
So, how does one do a Find in Outlook? Well, that depends on what you think 'Find' means. Could be F3. Then again, it could be F4. Depends....
What a wonderful use of those consistent guidelines. But then again, MS does say "Most first-class applications for the Microsoft Windows operating system share a familiar and consistent user interface."
Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the
I think this may have been overlooked so far. A lot of people I know (e.g, me) have a Mac at home and a PC at work. So I can't share my iTunes collection from my home Mac with my PC at work. However, if they make iTunes for PCs, then I will be able! Plus, browse for tunes when on a non-Mac, and buy them too. I think iTunes for Windows is a big plus for those of use with one foot in the Mac world, and the other foot in the PC world.