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.
I've been wanting iTunes for Windows for sometime now, but at the same time not wanting it, because it's a good program that makes the mac platform special. I think it will be good for both music and ipod sales, but will it have Rendezvous built in? That would greatly increase music sharing on my campus, and since it would work only within the lan it wouldn't count against upload/download restrictions.
I still don't think apple will move much more to X86, and esp. they will not be using X86 CPU's anytime soon.
Right now windows support is via a thrid party software. If Apple releases iTunes for windows they would have more control on the feature set and user interface issues.
.mac subscription on windows users.
Of course how much it will resemble the Mac version would be debatable.
Also this would also mean Windows users would get access to the music catalog for purchase. Wonder if they would force
This wont require iPods, but it will sell them and more Apple hardware in the long run. The best way ive found to show off how great the mac platform is is to show people iTunes, and then tell them that almost all Apple apps are that clean and intuitive (almost =iCal). Right now its not about the 'next killer app' thats being brewed in some R&D lab, the killer app is right here - an iPod + iTunes is a reason to buy a computer. For Apple that means making big margins (read: iPod) on a commercial for their other "digital hub" services.
And to think that when I bought my first mac in '99 Apple was the worst plaform for digital media, thank god for Steve Jobs. Oh wait, he is god, my bad.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
iTunes will surely be bundled with the iPods. But they can still make money by distributing it freely with the iTunes Music Store. Songs ($.99) and albums ($9.99). iTunes is now more than a simple player, but a mechanism to buy music as well.
Or more specifically, low-level, annoyance DRM versus heavy-handed, we-own-your-machine DRM. If the consumer has a choice between Apple-style music management and the music-rental style Microsoft and the RIAA want, which one do you think they'll choose?
Yeah, I know, "the one that's pre-installed". We may still be globally screwed, but at least Apple's trying...
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
They don't charge for iTunes on Mac, or for MusicMaker on Windows. What makes you think they're going to charge for iTunes on Windows?
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.
If it is, will they port webcore too or will they rely on internet explorer for HTML rendering??
John Carmack fan, browsing at +5 since 1999.
As long as we're on the subject, take a moment to set these morons straight about the realities of marketing, business partnerships, "coalition building," and the absurdity of platform-bashing. I'd keep flaming away there myself but I'm too flabbergasted by the uncharacteristic silliness I'm seeing on Kuro5hin in the wake of what appears to me as a promising turn of events. A healthy dose of SlashDotting is what those wannabes need right about now.
-- thinkyhead software and media
in this article
it's how their going to get the store on windows- I think it will give people a taste of apple and want one- that's what their betting on, so I'm also willing to bet it won't be a half-assed port.
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
While Apple has not commited to porting Safari to the Windows platorm, I think it would have a major positive impact on Apple.
Many web sites are still being designed for Intenet Explorer for Windows only. If you aren't using the most popular platform, your not admitted. Microsoft has been winning the browser battles but not the war. The OSS community and Apple have clearly shown that that can innovate in this space. However only Apple has the marketing muscle to try and battle IE.
IE for Windows accounts for 90-95% of the hits for most of the web sites that I am involved with. For some developers those #s justify developing for a single platform. If Apple can get 100% of Mac users to adopt Safari we may see a 1% shift. However if Apple can get 25% of IE for Windows users to switch to Safari for Windows, the playing field will quickly level.
As a Mac user it is still frustrating to not be able to visit or use certain site and not have plugins available for non IE browsers. Apple can help their long term position by leveling the internet playing field and thus making migration to a non Windows platform that much smoother.
Choice is good.
I just spent $2000 for a 12" Powerbook. It isn't because I thought the Powerbook was cute, or because I needed a DVD burner, but because Apple has the best software and I wanted to have the best laptop in my price range to run it on (it was still waay out of what I should have paid, but I paid).
I didn't shell out all this money just so Steve Jobs could use it to port the apps I gulped down the price for over to Windows.
I can see their point, trying to increase revenue stream, but why not make the iTunes Music Store on-line via any browser and require Quicktime--which, as far as I remember, has always been multi-platform?instead of converting the crowning jewel of their OS apps to their biggest competitor?
Everyone uses the comparison of Apple and BMW (Apple, people say, has more share of the computer market). I don't necessarily like this difference, because people don't develop software for cars (which is the disadvantage of having only 3% of the market, less development). But, let me use it: iTunes to Windows is like BMW giving away their engine to Ford, it gives people who want a great car but are uneasy about the $ an excuse to buy the Ford. Likewise, iTunes on Windows gives people an excuse not to switch.
I'd guess that as-is iTunes 4 would not draw many users over from Windows, but it has the potential to. But it seems that if Apple had wanted to make money they would have put the store at www.allOSbuymusic.com, instead of built-into a proprietary software product.
On the other hand, the un-heralded feature of iTunes 4 is that it allows you (sometimes) to share over a network, if millions of Windows users started doing this, we could get a pretty good P2P file-trading network going.
The other reason, just as with the iPods, is to give all the innovations to Mac (OS X) users first. (The reason should be obvious.) If you meant OS 9 as opposed to OS X, Jobs has said a long time ago that OS 9 is dead.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
and organize the ACC songs they download themselves. Make the store work well with a browser and the bundled iPod Windows app., flash Apple adverts. telling windows users how much more fun this is on the Mac side and go from there. Build QT intimately into the whole thing.
I agree very much with this poster!
No, it's not bad marketing. It's brilliant marketing. I'm sure Apple hopes that the Music Store will be independently profitable, but I can guarantee you it's going to take a SHITLOAD of 99 downloads to reach that point. For now, the Music Store will drive iPod sales and, to a lesser extent, Mac sales. That's good marketing, not bad marketing.
Now, let's talk about the assertion that the Music Store is a "web based app."
Yesterday I bought "Birdhouse in your Soul" by They Might Be Giants. I clicked Music Store. I typed "Birdhouse in your Soul" in the search box and hit enter. I clicked "Buy Song." I typed my password and hit enter. I clicked "Buy" to confirm. I went and got a drink of water. When I came back, the song was sitting in my "Purchased Music" playlist and it was on my iPod, because I had it plugged in and I had auto-sync turned on.
Total cost to me: 99. (I already had the Mac, the Internet access, and the iPod.) Total time required, not counting the trip to the kitchen: about thirty seconds.
Try doing THAT with a cross-platform "web based app." It just ain't gonna happen.
[Motherboard T] + [CPU U] + [Video Card V] + [Audio Card W] + [RAM X] + [HDD Y] + [Power Supply Z]
(where variables T --> Z are a wide array of possibilities)
You no longer have a series of machines that 'just work' - instead you have "that other OS thingie that flakes-out almost as much as Windows - and has the window buttons on the wrong side - but sure looks and acts nice!"
To release OS X for non-vertically-integrated x86/AMD64 would be to evaporate the Mac platform's strongest selling point.
I hate Grammar Nazi's
Write to Apple. Bitch about Linux support (Quicktime / iTunes) 24/7. Eventually they might listen.
I've sent LOTS of feedback to Apple. About OS X. About the iPod. About iTunes. You'd be surprised how much features I requested have made their way to ulterior versions. No kidding. I asked for DVD backup on iTunes. It's there. I asked for a "queue" playlist on the iPod. It's there (but only on the new version: bastards!). I mentioned scores of bugs in OS X (started way before the beta); most of them are fixed. I've sent lots of suggestions to Safari. My comments / suggestions alone did nothing, mind you: but added to thousands of similar requests, the feature finally makes its way.
Now, I realize that platform strategies have few to do with bug reports and user suggestions, but Apple has made great efforts towards the Open Source community (Darwin / Rendezvous, which is open sourced / Safari / X11 for OS X / etc...) They're trying to tie professional UNIXes and OS X together: same app catalog, same standards. If Linux users put enough pressure on Apple (through feedback), they might just listen to it and realise that there is a demand from this platform. It's worth trying, anyway.
But then everybody would bitch about how Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is not open-sourced, and how the tracks are not open sourced.
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
*****
how about making it work with Linux!?
Write to Apple. Bitch about Linux support (Quicktime / iTunes) 24/7. Eventually they might listen.
I've sent LOTS of feedback to Apple. About OS X. About the iPod. About iTunes. You'd be surprised how much features I requested have made their way to ulterior versions. No kidding. I asked for DVD backup on iTunes. It's there. I asked for a "queue" playlist on the iPod. It's there (but only on the new version: bastards!). I mentioned scores of bugs in OS X (started way before the beta); most of them are fixed. I've sent lots of suggestions to Safari. My comments / suggestions alone did nothing, mind you: but added to thousands of similar requests, the feature finally makes its way.
Now, I realize that platform strategies have few to do with bug reports and user suggestions, but Apple has made great efforts towards the Open Source community (Darwin / Rendezvous, which is open sourced / Safari / X11 for OS X / etc...) They're trying to tie professional UNIXes and OS X together: same app catalog, same standards. If Linux users put enough pressure on Apple (through feedback), they might just listen to it and realise that there are opportunities to fight back Microsoft.
But then everybody would bitch about how Fairplay (Apple's DRM) is not open-sourced, and how the tracks are not open sourced.
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
Apple is usually a lot better about keeping announcements this big under wraps.
Oh? So Steve Jobs announcing in front of the whole press that the iTunes Music Store will be available to Windows "by the end of the year" (actual quote, with big flashy Windows logo displayed behind him) is the best way to keep the announcement [...] under wraps?
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
Consumer applications does not necessarily mean an application that you have to pay for. QuickTime, iMovie, iDVD, and iTunes are all free -- if you want Pro (prosumer) functionality from QuickTime, you have to pay. If you want your iApps in a neato box, then you pay for iLife.
So now that we got that out of the way...
There's no good reason why Apple would charge for a Windows version of iTunes, but I can think of a couple of really good reasons not to:
1. Sell more iPods. The USB option and a Windows version of iTunes eliminate any other reason (besides the usual "Apple's too expensive") for Windows users not buying one.
2. Get more people to use their Music service.
If you really want to be speculative, the interesting thing is that it's the first consumer app since Steve's return that is being ported to Windows. There's also a .mac disk mounting utility for XP. What's next?
iPhoto would probably be a good next choice, as it would further leverage the .mac service for Windows users, etc. and would be a great opportunity for Steve to stick it to Bill.
I can just picture Jobs announcing iPhoto for Windows at MWSF 2004. Then at MWSF 2005, he can announce that .mac has more paid Windows subscribers then .net
Or not.
- learn to swim.
Just after Apple bought NeXT, I played with their "yellow box" development tools on a windows machine. This was basically a port of the ObjC runtimes and several of the basic NeXT frameworks that now make up the core of the Cocoa APIs. They had versions of TextEdit and Stickies that ran on my Windows NT workstation as part of the developer tools. (Talk about creepy.)
Anyway, my point is, Apple has been thinking for a long time about the day when they would need one of their apps to run on a Microsoft operating system.
"There is no night so forlorn, no mood so bleak, that it cannot be infused with pleasure by tender meat..." - R.W. Apple
finally a great mp3 player for windows....music match is decent, but the playlists are confusing, Windows media player is bloated, winamp is dated... Windows users have seen nothing like itunes before! This is far more interesting than Quicktime for Windows. Finally windows users will get a little taste of what its like to have a mac. (Assuming the port is good).
Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cou