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.
...What if it launches and is very sucessful? They could start to port more software over, or instead even port OS-X to x86!
I guess this means Apple will be porting Music Store along with it?
...
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
That's just a regional accent. As in, "Defeat of dee cat went over defense before detail."
Can anyone actually post the URL to the job board? I did a search on that jobs.apple.com with 1949938 and it was not found. http://search.apple.com/s97is.vts?Action=FilterSea rch&ResultTemplate=webx3.hts&ServerKey=Primary&fil ter=nullflt.hts&collname=apple&SearchPage=http%3A% 2F%2Fsearch.apple.com%2F&queryText=1949938&SEARCH. x=22&SEARCH.y=17
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.
That would certainly be my "Ted/Neo" style reaction to being hired at Apple. Or to even having a job after being without one for a long time.
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.
Give away iTunes for Windows and make money off the songs...
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
AOL could be the 'Trojan Horse' Apple needs to ferret their way in.
I hate Grammar Nazi's
MusicMatch does suck, but there are a couple of other apps that make life a little easier.
EphPod, free IRC
XPlay, not free.
Enjoy.
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.
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.
Web Objects Application
My other sig is extremely clever...
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.
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.
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.
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
What I'm wondering is why the music store is locked out to anyone except OS X users with iTunes 4.
I can see why they want to make it seem "exclusive," but it's obvious that this is a web based app that could have been implemented on all platforms...
Even if they wanted to make it so only Mac users could actually buy stuff, they should have at least let everyone else browse. What next, you can only use the Apple Store if you already have a Mac? This is bad marketing, folks.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Indeed, some of those K5 posts are shockingly bad. Here's one random weblog talking about just how bad some of the things on that thread are.
"Uncharacteristic silliness" compared to how K5's userbase usually acts is an understatement. It's almost like reading Slashdot with the threshold set at 0...
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?
Apple Computer is looking for a Senior Software Engineer to design and build one of our newest Consumer Applications, iTunes for Windows.
Must be possess strong skills in the areas of application design, solid API design principles, user interface engineering, and have a strong understanding of customer and workflow issues. Experience with Windows logo certification preferred. Candidate should have a history of successful large volume consumer product shipment.
A B.S. or better in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science is preferred. Required skills include C, C++, UI, MFC, Win32, COM, DirectX, Installshield and application engineering. Exposure to networking and device drivers a plus. Minimum of 10 years of directly related experience.
They're probably looking for a veteran Win32 bug-hunter.
I hate Grammar Nazi's
Besides, Safari for Windows wouldn't create a revene stream. iTunes for Windows, with the Music Store, does create a revenue stream. Remember, these companies do exist to make money after all...
Anyway, as nice a browser as Safari may be (I've been using it as my default browser since the first build with tabs emerged), it's hardly a killer app - it was a required app to bring a truly decent browser to OS X. Safari for Windows will not ever happen. If you're really that impressed by Safari, download WebCore or KHTML and build a browser around it. A quick Google search for "khtml" finds a KHTML Win32 port on SourceForge, so get going...
What crack investigational skills you have there, kids.
To heck with Windows support - how about making it work with Linux!? Otherwise CmdrTaco will repeatedly bitch about the lack of Linux support in every Apple post.
Actually, I heard that, contrary to the rumors of Apple porting OS X to the X86 platform, they have secretly been porting Windows to PowerPC architechture. They've been doing it via old-fashioned reverse engineering methods. Why would they do this, you may ask?
It's simple; they knew they were going to have to port some of their apps to Windows eventually, and this way, they can do it without actually buying a single Windows license!
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.
I sure hope this will run on Linux somehow. I'd even pay for a Crossover program to do it.
.. dare I think it .. no it's too much .. but .. a native Linux version???
Or even
Holy shit.
I want iTunes SO BAD on my Linux desktop that I do my work on day in and day out.
I have all my MP3s shared between all my computers with NFS, and only iTunes is even close to being useable (XMMS? I laugh at your crappy playlist interface and illegible microscopic fonts). Plus now with the AAC codecs....iTunes is pulling away from the competition on Linux.
Not to mention only iTunes seems to correctly read the special ID3v2 tags it uses, which makes playing music with XMMS an exercise in directory navigation.
Please Apple, tell me what to suck and for how long, I'll do it if it means iTunes on Linux!
I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer. Since I have become an Apple owner, I have been exposed to a whole new world of gay friends. It is really a pleasure to meet and compute with other homos such as myself. I plan on using my new Apple computer as a way to entice and recruit young schoolboys into the homosexual lifestyle; it would be so helpful if you could produce more software which would appeal to young boys. Thanks in advance.
with much gayness,
Father Randy "Pudge" O'Day, S.J.
I, sir, am shocked - SHOCKED - that your entire post came and went without a single mention of Ogg or Vorbis.
Do you actually call yourself a true Linux User? I laugh at this assertion!
What sound does a crowing jewel make? Is it like a ruby screeching caw-caw-caw? Bizarre! Does a crown jewel make the same sounds? Very creative.
: )
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!
Thanks for your letter. Being Catholic myself, I know exactly what you're talking about! It has always been our plan here at Apple Computer Inc to revolutionize personal computing with our high-quality and highly gay products.
I'm happy to answer your letter by letting you know that YES we will be releasing an entire hLife ("homo-life") software line. You'll be able to recognize it in stores by the small stylized logo depicting a large cock entering a tight anus with an Apple logo on it. ("Suddenly it all comes together" indeed!).
Anyway, I hope you and other members of our community will join us on our mission, and purchase the exciting new hLife boxed set. Only the boxed set comes with translucent cock rings!
Sincerely,
Harry Rodman
Vice-president
Homosexual Liaison Services
Apple Computer, Inc.
Wrong. Apple's margins are generally over 30%. So on a $1,500 iMac, Apple makes about $450, while on a $300 iPod Apple makes about $90. That's why Apple has been profitable or posting tiny, tiny losses for the last 20 quarters or something.
yup. Also the fact that all iPods are now cross-platform(no more separate mac-pc versions), stores like Best Buy who didn't like the fact that Apple made them carry both versions will be happy. A Windows iTunes does not threaten to hurt the Mac platform in any way, I don't think anybody is switching to Mac just for a music player app no matter how good it is. Apple has the potential to become the sales volume leader in digital music players in addition to already being the revenue leader. The iPod may be Apple's cash cow for the next few years if they play their cards right.
it makes the same noise as the "Preview before you submit" button. Of course ive never heard it but.........
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!
Obviously. Hey, is that Jonathan "ive"? You must be close friends.
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?
I think the best way for Apple to get Rendevous networking in the PC world is to start with iTunes 4. Just yesterday I was looking for a Rendevous plugin for winamp, didn't find one, but when iTunes comes out for the PC, I'll probably switch. (my work pc is a windows box, my home box runs OSX). It's all about leveraging their software to get their more lucrative divisions more business (Music store, hardware, etc.)
That's surely not a terribly difficult program to write.
Apple doing it costs them *very* little, and increases the market for their iPods.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Apparently owners of current (old) iPods will not be getting a firmware upgrade that enables the new features like On-The-Fly playlists, notes, games, etc. Here is one source, a moderator for the Apple discussion forums. Firmware update 1.3 does include AAC support so you will be able to use the iTunes store but not the dead-easy-to-implement On-The-Fly play queues that EVERY OTHER MP3 PLAYER HAS. I am outraged by this decision and won't be supporting the iTunes music store.
Apple is giving a big f*ck-you to the people that made the iPod a success.
Random is the New Order.
I'm sorry.. the what?
the Windows GUI guidelines
The what?!?
the Windows GUI guidelines
I can hear and understand the words, but I can find no meaning in them.
Joking aside, if you're looking for interface consistency then you are using the wrong OS. Windows is many things, but consistent is definitely not one of them. I mean, Microsoft's own media player looks absolutely crazy-like. Same with WinAmp, same with nearly every media player.
Yes I know about the classic skins. Besides, interface consistency is kind of a weak argument in this instance. I could understand that for something that needed you to do more than poke 'Play' and maybe adjust the volume.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
No, I'm still right. I can read Apple's financial reports on Yahoo too, but you need to think about that number for a second. Apple sells a lot of products other than imacs and ipods. The profit margins on all of these products varies widely. Obviously, the profit on software will be much higher, meaning the the profit margin on [at least some of] the hardware will be lower than that. I would like to qualify it by saying they were probably refering to the 15 Gb or 30 Gb iPods. A 30 gig iPod costs FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS, can' you honestly tell me that it costs ($500 * .7) = $350 to manufacture the 30 gig iPod when they're selling the 10 gig one for $299? I'd be willing to bet it costs less to manufacture any of them than the cost of the cheapest iPod. Which means they're making possibly $250 to $300 gross profit off the sale of one of the higher end iPods. And I don't believe they make $450 profit off an iMac, due to strong price competition in that market. I stand by my original statement.
The iPod is a cash cow for Apple. They've managed to capture 25% of the Mp3 player market (that has to be based on sales figures, not # of players sold), and that's with most PCs not even having a firewire port on them. Now that they're adding USB 2.0 support, AND the ease of integrating with a windows version of iTunes, how can they lose? It's a lot easier to convince someone to spend $400 on an iPod (probalby even easier to convince 3 people) than one person to switch from a PC to a Mac and shell out $1500 on a new iMac. .....end rant :) Have a nice day.
Seriously, I want a few clear intelligent voices with multi-platform and real-world experience - you know who you are - to contribute some sanity that unfortunate K5 thread. No flaming required if you don't feel like it.
It's the internet, people. IF we don't cross threads once in awhile then stupidity just keeps spinning around and around and around.... Don't let the 'net become like a clothes dryer.
-- thinkyhead software and media
I am sure this is part of the deal with the record labels. It is almost like a beta test of the system before opening it up to the masses. They get to see that the system works, and that if some of the anti-piracy measures are cicumvented, then it is only the small percentage of people on Macs that can exploit it until it is fixed.
So I think.
When I buy a piece of hardware, I expect it to work and to do the same thing forever. I don't expect new features to be added for free. When you bought your iPod, you knew it didn't have on-the-go playlists, yet you were satisfied enough to buy it. Yet now you're unhappy; I don't get it.
I have an old iPod as well, so I'm not completely talking out of my ass.
...t's obvious that this is a web based app that could have been implemented on all platforms...
.m4p files.
I'm guessing other platforms don't support
... that thinks this is a fake? How can it be proven that this is real? I don't even think that email address they provided is exists anymore (I tried emailing it and it was returned).
Apple is usually a lot better about keeping announcements this big under wraps.
The source code to Apple's Rendezvous implementation is already available for download. It includes implementations for Windows, Mac OS X, Mac OS 9 (yes, they're different stacks) and Posix.
I've only tried the Windows implementation (I'm only interested in Windows and Mac OS X, and I think it's a safe bet that Mac OS X works). It seemed to work perfectly.
Isn't that feeling of being pissed at Apple just part of being a Mac fan? I remember that feeling very well: 1) Buying a Plus two weeks befor the Clasic came out. 2) Buying a Powerbook 140 only to have it fixed 4 times before it become "discontinued" 3) Bying a LaserWriter NTR for $2,500 back in'91, cuz it was the cheapest way to print postscript - reliably. 4) Bying a PowerPC 6100 (pizza box) only to watch my dad's Perfoma our perform it 6 months later. I had to switch to a PC if for no other reason than to transfer my hostilities to a more worthy villan. So help me God, I'm desperately wanting to by an ipod - bring on the heartache...
Yes, but this feature has mainly been implemented because users of the old model iPods sent tons of feedback requesting it. This means WE have been working as testers (call it what you want), and now they implement this feature without "giving back" to the people who sent feedback.
I think the new iPods are attractive enough (expanded capacity, dock, USB 2.0, smaller, lighter, new design, etc) to sell "by themselves", without Apple needing to try to lure the first-time users into buying new models by NOT including new software features on the old models.
I mean, nobody in its right mind will shelf its 5, 10 or 20 GB iPod and buy one of the 10 (299$), 15(399$) or 30 (499$) GB models just to get on-the-fly playlists, text syncing and 2 crappy games?! Do you pay 299 bucks just to add a playlist feature to an iPod you already have? No, right?
So, it would have been a nice extra for the existing user base (marketing-wise, "unexpected" extras are the BEST way to keep loyal users; they just did so with the PowerMac G4 Power supply exchange program, which nobody expected them to do.), and it wouldn't have undercut new iPod sales by a single unit.
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
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.
Apple's development of iTunes requires money. The money comes from sales of $129 OS upgrades and kajillion-dollar hardware. We pay for it indirectly.
Regarding the Mac Toolbox in QT: yes, it's still there. Sadly it's the nasty old pre-Carbon toolbox though. All Pascal strings and FOUR_CHAR_CODEs. *shudder* I have to make clear: I am big fan of QuickTime. In fact, I develop QuickTime applications as my job, and love it. There are just quite a few annoyances. Little things like Quicktime for Java being so old that it no longer works since the JVM was updated in OS X.
why cant they port their only decent piece of software over MAC OS X?
I hate crapple and all their junk except for Mac OS X which would be a superb way to bring Unix/Linux/BSD to the consumer desktop
it will never be an XP beater because microsoft is getting better i just love the control....
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
You get what you pay for at least when your buying Apples.
Apple hardware is generally better than typically Windows hardware and it is comparably priced.
People won't be selling their Macs anytime so they can switch Windows just because iTunes and the new store works there.
However, porting iTunes and the store to Windows opens up a huge market for the store.
I think the "Time-Warner" portion of AOL is the section that is most interested in this...
The Warner music group is definitely one of the big five...they have a portion of the pie available via the iTunes music service...now...no matter how fast Apple gain market share...Apple will not have any where near the market share that the big five want (to peddle their music to)...but with the Windows version of iTunes...the consumer world is theirs again...Apple will get a cut...the big five have a far larger market and every oneâ"with the possible exception of Microsoftâ"is happy...
If they buy tunes, its free, else its $19.99. - Doug
You're confusing the need of record companies to make volume sales with the need of a reseller. I'm sure the record companies will need Apple to sell millions of songs before they start seeing much profit out of it (especially if it steals CD sales). But Apple is a music retailer - they're akting a cut on every song they sell. They don't invest in musicians who never make it big, they don't pay stars for their lavish lifestyles. The only investment they have to recoup is the cost of setting up the store and once that's done (since the running costs will be low), every penny they make will be pure profit. Basically the Apple music store is like Amazon -- but without all the expensive infrastructure (like book warehouses, inventory control). Web sales tied to web delivery really is the holy grail of online profitability.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
Please, Apple realizes they aren't going to get everyone to switch, so why not make money off of the win people who don't.
They probably hope many will use iTunes for Win and the Music store, wonder why they never had anything that good from Microsoft, and be tempted to look into switching for the other great (by that time) iApps, upcoming services, and cool new hardware.
I have a G4 and an iPod, as well as several ix86-based Windows and Linux boxes. I love my iPod and my mac. However, I have never understood the big deal about iTunes. It's slow and the interface is too large. I guess it is a matter of personal preference, but I find Winamp to be more intuitive. I often hear people make iTunes out to be a killer app, but I've just never seen it this way. Can someone enlighten me as to what makes it so great?
Why is most of the existing artwork (or lack there of) "Not Modifiable" in iTunes 4?
I'd like to add artwork to my mp3s, but it doesnt seem possible for most of them. Has anyone noticed this? Does anyone no why?
Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cou
No, you got the last bit of the sentence wrong. It should have read "at least Apple's dying..."
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
That was very nice of you, Doctor Goebbels. We all got to the page immediately. Thanks a bunch.
I really think that apple music store is a great argument for switching to mac. If apple had started a massive campaign to inform people about the music store, I think that would have increased the hardware sales dramaticly